FRIDAY, March 24, 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. Borden thereto.
3092
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Brandon). Mr.
Speaker I have been, upon a considerable
number of important occasions, called upon
to address the House ; and upon a good
many of these occasions, as I have risen,
I have felt confident that at least a considerable section of the House would regard
with
approval the remarks I desired to make.
But I confess that, upon the present occasion, although my old friends have been
kind enough to receive me with some applause as I rose, I do not exactly feel the
confidence of former occasions that everything I shall say will meet with their approval.
It surely must be regarded as the irony
of political fortune that the introduction
of this Bill, a Bill for the creation of the
two new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, covering territory the administration
of which has been my peculiar
charge for the last eight years, and to the
development of which I have given whatever
of capacity and energy I may have possessed
in official life, and have given it freely and I
might almost say with an affectionate solicitude for their welfare ; I say it must
be regarded as the irony of political fortune that
the introduction of this Bill should be the
occasion also of my retirement from the
office I held under the right hon. gentleman
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads the government, and the severance of my official relations
with the party with which I have
had official relations now for some fourteen
years.
It was necessary for me, Mr. Speaker,
when giving to the House a statement of
the reasons for my resignation—it being
the constitutional practice to make such a
statement—to say that the educational
clauses of this Bill had not been before me
prior to its introduction to the House. I
was careful to say in that statement, although briefly, that the same thing did not
apply to the other features of the Bill, or
did not apply to its principles, because I had
had an opportunity to give my advice to my
colleagues upon the other portions of the
Bill. Nevertheless some, as I think, rather
ill-natured, comments were addressed to the
Prime Minister in criticism of his alleged
preparation of this Bill, or allowing it to be
prepared, without consultation with or
advice from the minister who must, under
the circumstances, be supposed to have been
in the best position to give him advice.
These criticisms of which I speak are wholly
without justification in the facts of the case.
The belief that the Northwest Territories
were to be given provincial autonomy is
one that, in all the discussions which have
taken place has, been forming itself not only
in the minds of the members of the government. but in the minds of members of the
House during the last few years. There
may have been discussions in this House
as to the particular time. But the
subject has been present to our minds.
3093 MARCH 24, 1905
And for the last three years, I may say,
I have myself, upon various occasions,
given the most careful attention to the
important provisions which necessarily
would come within the purview of the Bill.
As was explained by my hon. friend the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) the
other evening, before leaving Ottawa, as I
was obliged to do about the New Year, I
took occasion to put in writing, with sufficient fullness, the views which I entertained
in regard to the important features of the
Bill. This memorandum was placed in the
possession of my colleagues so that they had
the benefit of my suggestions, as also had
the Prime Minister in the course of correspondence which he did me the honour to
have with me upon various questions which
arose during the discussions which took
place from time to time while I was absent.
I gave my advice to the best of my ability.
And I may say, so far as that is concerned,
that in the main, other than as refers to the
question of education, and although there
are some variations of detail—in the main,
1 say, and substantially, the Bill I recommended to my late colleagues is the Bill
which has been introduced. There are some
matters of detail respecting which difficulties arose, and different decisions were
arrived at in the course of the discussions
which took place with the representatives
of the Northwest Territories. These were
inevitable. But, substantially the provisions
of the Bill are in accordance with the views
I had formed in the course of my administration of that country.
So far as the question of the number of
provinces is concerned, I formed the opinion
which, I think, will be shared by almost
every person on careful investigation of the
case, that it was not desirable that this vast
territory should be formed into one province.
Certainly it was not desirable to carry out
the old idea which prevailed that there were
to be four provinces. I think the best opinion of the House will be met by the decision
which the government has reached, that the
medium course should be taken, and, that instead of one or four, we should have two
provinces. Not only is the question of area
to be considered as was shown by the Prime
Minister in his remarks in introducing the
Bill, but you must consider also the even
more important question of population. The
population of this one province, if this territory were made into one province, would
eventually have such a preponderance
as compared with the other provinces
that it could not be said to be wise
to make such an arrangement. These
provinces are composed of territories
which, almost acre for acre, is arable land
and capable of sustaining population. No
other provinces in the Dominion can be
similarly described. And to make one province of that particular territory whose capacity
for sustaining population is, on the
average, so much greater than that of any
3094
other province in the Dominion, giving it
ultimately so much greater population than
the other provinces, would certainly and
obviously be unwise. Other considerations
supported the same conclusion. The western
and eastern portions of this territory lend
themselves to different industrial conditions.
Great grazing areas exist in the west such
as are not found in the east. Mining possibilities on a large scale are to be found
in
the western part of the territory, and in the
north, towards Edmonton, we have what is
known as a mixed-farming district. Different classes of local legislation will be
needed,
and different conditions must be recognized
in the two portions of the territory. Everybody who knows the conditions of that territory
will be satisfied that the best results
will result from having two local governments and two legislatures. Each of these
legislatures and each of these administrations will have ample scope for all the
energy it may see fit to display in the development of the resources of the great
territory which is committed to its charge. And
this parliament may be satisfied, I think,
that that arrangement which is suggested
will give the surest guarantee that the
future development of these territories will
be best facilitated.
While on the question of boundaries, I
may say, having reference, for a moment, to
a statement made by Mr. Haultain in an
open letter addressed to the Prime Minister,
that I also suggested, and it was my idea,
that the dividing line between the two new
provinces should be about sixty miles further east than that which is provided for
by
the Bill. It was in the discussions which
took place with the government that the
present arrangement was arrived at. I have
not heard the reasons which have led to this
conclusion but I have no doubt that the
conclusion thus arrived at after careful consideration, will be found upon the whole
to
be that which is supported by the best reasons. This in any event is a small difference
of detail.
But there is one other point I will suggest, perhaps more for the future consideration
of the House than for present consideration, that there should be some different principle
adopted. I see no reason why
these provinces should not extend to the
northern boundary of the mainland of Canada. The experience which I have had in
the Department of the Interior has led me
irresistibly to the conclusion that just so
soon as it is possible to do so, the federal
government should divest itself of the local
administration of distant territory : and
therefore I see no reason why, in so far as the
administration of these Northwest Territories come within the scope of provincial
legislation, that their administration should
not be carried on by the local legislatures
that we are to establish. That however is
not an insuperable objection. The Territories of course still remain the property
of
3095
Canada, and if it be thought wise at a future
date they can be added to the provinces
which we are now forming.
Upon the question of the lands which
has been discussed at some length, I have
very clear and positive opinions. I regard
the question of a successful settlement
policy—and my opinion is not changed by
the fact that this policy may now require to
be carried on under somebody else's supervision—I regard the question of a successful
settlement policy in Canada as perhaps one
of the most important, if not the most important of all subjects with which we have
to deal. For the last two or three years especially, we have seen the effect of the
small
beginnings of success of the policy of
settling vacant lands of the west upon the
general prosperity of Canada, and I think
every serious minded man will admit
that under no possible circumstances
would this parliament be justified in
taking any step which would imperil
in the slightest degree the success of
the immigration policy which we have been
carrying on, and which the government
proposes to carry on in the future. That
is a thing which demands the most careful
thought and consideration at the hands of
this parliament. It was suggested by
the leader of the opposition, and has been
suggested by others who take the opposite
view, that the handing over of the public
lands of the Territories to the provincial
government would not seriously interfere
with the conduct of immigration. Well,
Mr. Speaker, I have had on my shoulders the
duty of carrying on a policy of immigration,
and of harmonizing the operations of the
lands department of the government and
of the immigration department for the last
eight years, and it taxes the efforts of the
department to the utmost, when both the
land department and the immigration
branch are in the same hands and under
the same control, to avoid the difficulties
which constantly present themselves in the
administration of this work. It would be
difficult satisfactorily to carry on that work
even if we had the land department in another branch of the same government ; it
would be embarrassing and difficult to an
extent that few men appreciate who have
not had the duty of actually carrying on this
business. But if you hand over the land
to three provincial governments—because
you would have to treat Manitoba in
the same way as you are treating the
Territories—if you hand over the land
to three separate provincial governments.
each with its own ideas of policy, each
with its own Minister of Crown Lands, and
if the federal government has to deal with
three provincial governments, every man
who knows anything about doing business
between governments must know that it
would be absolutely impossible that satisfactory results could be achieved. It is
3096
not necessary to suggest that the provincial
governments would do anything that is
wrong, it is not necessary to suggest that
they would be improvident, that they do not
know how to carry on business as well as
we do. The people of the west are just
as capable as the people in any other part
of the Dominion ; they are extremely capable, and when they achieve provincial status,
if these lands were handed over to
them, they would do precisely what people
in the other provinces would do, they
would administer these lands just as they
saw fit and in accordance with their own
ideas of policy. The result would be that
you would have three governments to deal
with, each with its own idea of policy, each
with its Minister of Crown Lands, and possibly no two of them with the same ideas
as to the policy that should be carried out
in respect to this subject. It might be, Mr.
Speaker, and probably would be, that instead of administering these lands for the
purpose of settlement they would administer them for the purpose of revenue, and
I do not know that we could blame them
very much if they did so. But if they did
that, the result would be that the settlement policy of the country would stop.
It would be quite as impossible to give
those lands to the provinces with a limitation that they should carry on a homestead
policy. A homestead policy would
have to be carried out by provincial officers.
And moreover the very day you gave these
lands to the provinces with any limitation
whatever, you would find an agitation arising to remove all limitations, and you would
have that question on the floor of the House
at every session of parliament. So, Mr.
Speaker, I am clear upon that point ; and
if there is anything I can say to the members of this House that I think should commend
itself to the judgment of both sides,
I would say that nothing could be done
which would more certainly imperil a successful settlement policy upon which the
greatness and increase in the financial
strength and resources of Canada depend,
than, under any circumstances, to allow the
public lands of the prairie provinces to
pass from the control of the Dominion government.
As to the financial provisions, Mr. Speaker, I think they are generous and liberal,
but I do not think they are too generous or
too liberal. We expect that these great
provinces will play a great part in the history of Canada, and it is creditable to
us
that on both sides there has come nothing
but approval of the liberal and generous
treatment accorded by the government to
these new provinces upon the inception of
their provincial career. Let me say, however, Mr. Speaker, not wishing to say anything
ungracious or to throw a note of discord into the discussion of this subject, that
there is one suggestion which I desire to
3097 MARCH 24, 1905
make to the right hon. gentleman who leads
the government, and it is this : I find in
this clause of the Bill relating to the compensation for lands that such compensation
is based upon an estimated acreage and
upon a price, and the price put upon that
estimated acreage is, I think, $1.50 an acre.
I have no fault to find with the amount
which has been decided upon, and which the
government proposes to give. I think it is
reasonable and liberal, I think it is generous, and 1 am quite prepared to agree
with it. But I submit that the amount
should be fixed arbitrarily, it should not be
fixed by a reference to the number of millions of acres of land, nor the price per
acre. The moment I laid my eyes upon that
clause I felt it was a mistake, and I felt
that just as soon as it was published the
representatives of the Territories would
say : You have by this clause admitted
that we are entitled to the beneficial ownership of these lands, you have admitted
that
we are the owners of these lands in fact,
beneficially at least if not in law, by the
very fact that you are basing the compensation you give us upon the acreage of the
provinces. And so within a few days after
the Bill was published and before parliament gave assent to it, our good friend Mr.
Haultain seized upon this phase of the Bill
to present an objection to the right hon.
gentleman who leads the government. He
immediately took the ground which it must
be admitted he could take with some degree of force, that by that provision we admitted,
impliedly at least, the right of the
Territories to claim that they are the beneficial owners of the land.
What would be the effect ? The effect
would be that if this passes into a statute
it becomes an irrevocable Act because it
does become an irrevocable Act as soon as
parliament passes it. The effect would be
that our friends of the Northwest Territories so soon as they desire to have
their financial arrangements re-adjusted will
claim that while we have admitted their
ownership of the land they have not admitted our valuation of this land and we will
find that the Territories as represented
on the floor of this House will raise this
question of the re-adjustment of the financial arrangements and we will have a question
raised that will cause great embarrassment to succeeding governments in the
future. I bring this point to the attention of my right hon. friend because
I believe we are making a mistake
in regard to it. It may perhaps appear to be a matter of detail at the present time
but it will not be found to be
a matter of detail in future years and
it is not too late to remedy it if, in the
judgment of the government and of the
House, the argument that I address to the
House on this subject is correct.
Another point which was raised, espec
3098
ially by Mr. Haultain, in the letter which
he addressed to my right hon. friend the
hon. leader of the government, was that
respecting legislation, on the subject of irrigation. That is a subject of vast importance
in the Northwest Territories, and I must
say that I take the responsibility of having, in all probability, induced my colleagues
to accept the view which is the effect
of the Bill that is before the House ; that
is to say, that the subject of irrigation for
the present should be retained within the
control of the federal government. The
reasons can be given in a few words and to
my mind they are absolutely conclusive.
At the present time the right to use some of
the principal streams which are of the utmost importance in connection with the irrigation
in the Northwest Territories, is a
subject of discussion between Canada and
the United States and international complications have already arisen in regard to
these
streams. Obviously, if irrigation were under the administration of two provincial
governments, it would be difficult to adjust
a question such as that. In addition to that
questions are going to arise in a comparatively short time between the residents
of the western province and the residents of
the eastern province in regard to the right
of user of the water of these streams which
flow from one into the other. It would seem
to me most desirable, until the difficulties
respecting international questions and the
difficulties respecting interprovincial questions are settled, and until the irrigation
system is further developed and a body
of law upon the subject is built up, that
the control should remain in the hands of
the federal government. When a few years
have elapsed, when the system is more
fully developed, when it becomes a matter
merely of local administration then there
seems to be no good reason why the subject
should not be relegated to the provincial governments.
As I explained a few days ago, the terms
of the educational clause of this Bill which
was introduced into the House and some
of the remarks made by my right hon.
friend the leader of the government were the
cause of my resigning from the government
as a protest against the terms of that clause
and the principles to which it was designed to give effect. I have nothing to add
to
that statement now except to say that
while my action was in no sense or nature
due to experiencing any feeling of personal
pique, yet I did feel, in addition to what I
said upon a former occasion, that the right
hon. gentleman had not been well advised
in bringing this clause to the House of
Commons and presenting it to the House
without giving me an opportunity of expressing such views as I might desire to
offer on the subject. I say I have nothing
now to add to what has been said upon
that subject and I merer desire, with the
3099
indulgence of the House, to proceed to the
discussion of the sections we have before
us—the original section and the amended
section—and to give the reasons which have
guided me in coming to the conclusion at
which I have arrived as to the support of
this Bill or otherwise. I am in a somewhat peculiar position, Mr. Speaker, finding
as I do that I agree much more
with the statements of my hon. friend
the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L.
Borden) than with the statements and arguments of my right hon. friend the leader
of
the government who is my party leader and
who was my leader in the government for
so many years. Nevertheless, the conclusion at which I arrived will probably not be
the same as that of the hon. leader of the
opposition. In the first place let me say
that I think he was wrong in his view—
and I agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in this—
that when we are about to consider legislation which will bring a certain state of
affairs into existence in the Northwest Territories, we should shut our eyes absolutely
and entirely to the examination of the actual
educational effect of the proposal before us.
It seems to me that almost everybody will
agree with my hon. friend the Minister of
Finance that the man in the street, hearing
the hon. gentleman who leads the opposition
say that he stands by the constitution, and
hearing the right hon. gentleman who leads
the government say that upon the rock of
the constitution he stands, and seeing these
two hon. gentlemen both standing on the
rock of the constitution but coming to diametrically opposite conclusions will be
likely to say : I cannot hope to understand the
law or the constitution, but I do want to
know what kind of schools they are going to
have in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, I desire to address a few words to the
House upon that which I think will interest
not only the man in the street, but some of
the men in the House upon the subject of the
nature of the schools we have in the Northwest and the kind of schools we shall have
after this Bill is passed. I am not going to
enter into questions as to the manner in
which legislation has been passed or the
remarks which have been made by legislators when it has been passed. My right
hon. friend the leader of the government, in
the remarks which he made to the House
upon two occasions, or at least upon the first
occasion, discussed at length the method
under which the educational legislation affecting the Northwest Territories was first
introduced. That discussion has been amplified by my hon. friend the Minister of
Finance in the remarks which he made the
other evening, and I shall not attempt to
add anything to what my hon. friend the
Minister of Finance has said or to what I
believe to be the accurate discussion which
we have listened to on that subject. But, I do
desire to call the attention of hon. members
3100
of the House, for the purposes of my argument, to the actual terms of the Act of
1875. The clause which is the basis of all
that has followed reads as follows :
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 whatever 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 that in such latter
case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools
shall
be liable only to assessments of such rates as
they may impose upon themselves in respect
thereof.
That was the clause in the Act of 1875. I
read it because it is important in view of
the remarks I intend to address to the
House, that its exact terms should be in
the minds of the gentlemen who are honouring me with their attention.
What followed the passage of this law ?
There was established in the Northwest
Territories a complete dual system of
schools ; a system of schools under which
the denomination regulated the text books,
and the conduct of the schools and by which
everything that appertained to the Roman
Catholic schools was directly under the control of a Roman Catholic board of education.
We had in the Northwest Territories at that
time, under that Act. to all intents and purposes what are generally known as church
schools or clerically controlled schools. That
was the system that was built up under this
Act of 1875. It went on for some time. It
was exactly the same system—I do not
know as to the efficiency, for I am not familiar with that—but in principle it was
the
same system we had in Manitoba up to the
year 1890. when it was abolished by the
Public School Act of that year. This system went on for some time in the Territories,
and then the legislature began to interfere and to curtail the privileges of the
separate schools. This curtailment proceeded from time to time until the year
1892 when what was known as the dual
system was entirely swept away and that
system which we have in the Northwest
Territories, substantially as we have it at
present, was established. I am not going to
trouble the House with any lengthy
quotations, but I desire to point out
what was conceived by the people of the
Northwest Territories connected with these
schools, to be the effect of the legislation
of 1892. The quotations which I shall
give will be found in the papers presented to the federal government when a
3101 MARCH 24, 1905
petition was presented for the disallowance
of the Act ; because, when the old privileges of minority schools were abolishd
finally by the Act of 1892, a petition was
taken by the Roman Catholic clergy to the
federal authority asking that the ordinances
of the Northwest Territories of 1892 should
be disallowed, and in support of that petition many documents were filed, from which
a few extracts will probably help to clear
our minds as to what actually took place
then and what the changes in the school
system were. The statement made by Mr.
Forget was as follows :
Until the date of the ordinance of 1892 we
had never been denied the right to administer
our schools, to regulate the programme of
studies, to choose the text books, to control the
religious instruction and to authorize the use
of the French language whenever thought convenient. These rights were exercised by
the
Catholic section of the board at education, and
strictly speaking they were sufficient to preserve to our schools their distinctive
character
of Catholic schools.
That is what was said by Mr. Forget the
present Lieutenant Governor of the Northwest Territories, and at that time one of
the members of the Catholic board of education. He continued :
Now all this has disappeared, the board of
education no longer exists nor its sections.
He refers to the Catholic and Protestant
sections of the board.
All the schools, public and separate, Catholic
and Protestant, are placed by the ordinance of
1892 under the direct control of a Protestant
superintendent of education and of a council of
public instruction.
Mr. Forget of course does not mean that
the ordinances said the superintendent
should be a Protestant, but that as a matter of fact it provided for a superintendent,
and the man who was appointed was a Protestant.
And a council of public instruction, composed
of the members of the executive committee, in
which the Catholics have not one single representative.
That, I may say is not the case now.
The ordinance very properly I think under
the circumstances now provides that a certain number of members shall be Roman
Catholics. We have another statement
made by Mgr. Taché, late Archbishop of
St. Boniface, a most distinguished and able
prelate of the Roman Catholic church. In
one of the documents addressed to the government on the subject he said :
The petitioners had this and other dangers in
view when they said :
The effect of the ordinance is to deprive the
Catholic separate schools of that character
which differentiates them from public or Protestant schools and to leave them Catholic
separate schools in name only, and such it is submitted is its obviously necessary
effect.
3102
Again on page 62 Archbishop Taché says:
In spite of all these protestations this ordinance in the dispositions which concerned
us
had and could have had but one object, that is,
the abolition of all distinct character of our
schools. Thanks to that ordinance and to the
regulations of the council of public instruction
which followed, this end has been to-day practically attained. Nothing essential now
distinguishes the Catholic schools from the Protestant schools but the designation,
now ironical, of separate schools.
Judge Rouleau, another member of the
Catholic board said (page 341) :
After mature examination of this ordinance I
have come to the conclusion that it is ultra
vires of the powers of the legislative assembly,
for, amongst others the following reasons :
1. Because it is not provided by the said ordinance that the separate schools should
be governed and controlled by the minority, but that
they are in fact controlled and governed by the
majority. In a word, we have no separate
school system such as provided by the spirit of
the law, chapter 55, section 14, of the Act of
1875.
3. Because the section 32 of the said ordinance is in contradiction of section 14
of the
Northwest Territories Act, in that it limits the
rights of the minority more than it is limited
by the said section 14. But of course the principal objection of the Catholics to
the school
ordinance is the absolute control, the choice of
text books, the school inspection and so forth
by the Protestant majority. If separate schools
exist now in name they do not exist in fact.
I have read these extracts for the purpose
of showing that when the ordinance of 1892
was passed the distinctive character of these
schools as separate schools, as denominational schools, as schools controlled by a
sectarian body for sectarian purposes, absolutely disappeared. We have here the
statement made by these gentlemen for the
purpose of bringing the matter before the
executive of Canada at that time, and in
which they set out their grievances clearly
and distinctly and in the most moderate
terms. We have it that the clerical control
of these schools was absolutely abolished.
Every one recognized that it was absolutely
abolished and in addition to that, I desire
to say—whatever we may think of the justification for the action which was taken—it
seems to me perfectly clear, that in abolishing the distinctive character of the schools,
the legislature of the Northwest Territories
did go beyond the powers that were bestowed upon it by this section of the Act of
1875. Upon that point Sir John Thompson
expressed his opinion. In making a report
on one of the ordinances passed shortly
before 1892, but somewhat similar in its
effect—not so sweeping in its effect—Sir
John Thompson in substance reported, that
this ordinance, contracts or diminishes the
rights of minorities to an extent not contemplated by the Act of 1875, and that the
Act of 1875 must nevertheless be held to remain in force notwithstanding the passage
of the ordinance.
3103
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have in the Northwest Territories at the present time, this
system of public schools which was established by the Act of 1892 and referred to
in the statements which I have read. I
have endeavoured from a careful study of
the ordinances : ordinance 29, which provides for the establishment of the schools,
ordinance 30 which provides for the method
of school assessment and ordinance 31 which
provides for the distribution of the legislative grant—having reference to the efficiency
of the schools and paying by results ;
rewarding the school which is efficient at
the expense of the school which is not efficient, and thus introducing a good and
sound principle into the education of the
Territories—I have endeavoured by a careful study of these ordinances to come to
clear and definite conclusions as to the main
characteristics of the school system which
exists there at the present time.
Now, what are the characteristics of this
school system ? My hon. friend the Minister of Customs discussed the matter with
great clearness last evening, and read from
the ordinances to give the House a definite
idea of what the condition of affairs was.
Let me give what I conceive to be an accurate resumé of the principles which are enforced
and carried out by these ordinances.
We have one normal school with uniform
normal training for all teachers, and when
I say all teachers, I mean teachers of all
schools, separate and public ; uniform
curricula and courses of study for all
schools of the same grade ; uniform text
books for all schools ; uniform qualification of teachers for all schools ; complete
and absolute control of all schools as to
their government and conduct, by the central school authority set up by the legislature
under the ordinances ; complete secularization of all schools between 9 o'clock
in the morning and 3.30 in the afternoon,
except that any school, if the trustees so
desire, may be opened with the Lord's
prayer ; distribution of the legislative grant
to all schools according to educational efficiency on principles set out in chapter
31.
Then, where there is a public school, the
minority, Protestant or Roman Catholic,
may organize a separate school ; but every
separate school is subject absolutely to all
the foregoing provisions, and is in every
sense of the term a public school. If the
Protestants are in the minority in a district, their school is called a separate school;
if the Catholics are in the minority in a district, their school is called a separate
school;
but both are public schools. They are absolutely similar save for one distinction:
where
the trustees are Protestant, there is Protestant teaching from half-past three to
four,
and where the trustees are Roman Catholic
there is Roman Catholic teaching from half-
past three to four. That is absolutely the
only distinction between these schools.
Now, we are about to form two provinces,
3104
and we have to deal with the educational
subject. My right hon. friend the Prime
Minister says it was his intention by the
legislation which he proposed, to continue
the existing system in the Northwest Territories; and I accept that statement, of
course, as expressing his intentions. My
hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon.
Chas. Fitzpatrick) the other evening accepted, as I understood, the responsibility
for drawing the clause which contained the
educational provisions, and I understood
him also to say that the intention was to
continue the existing state of affairs. Nobody would think of holding the Prime
Minister responsible for the exact drafting
of this clause, and I suppose it is not likely
that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice
drew it either. But I am bound to say,
Mr. Speaker, that when my hon. friend the
Minister of Justice employed a draftsman
to draw this clause, with instructions to
maintain only the existing state of affairs
in the Northwest Territories, the draughtsman either wholly misunderstood his instructions
or he possessed a most remarkable
faculty for covering things which were
not covered by his instructions. I
propose to devote three or four minutes to an examination of this clause
for the purpose of showing what I think it
means. I am not going to address a lengthy
legal argument to the House on this subject. When this clause was introduced by
the government of which I was then a member, I conceived it to be my duty to protest
against it, and to carry my protest to the
extent of laying down the seals of office.
I have no regret for the action I took. I
think I then understood what the clause
meant, and I think I now understand what
it means; and while it is perhaps of no
moment whatever to convince anybody who
may have any doubts on the subject, or
who may be difficult to convince as to what
this clause means, it is unquestionably my
duty, speaking to this House on this occasion. to say what I thought this clause
meant, and what I think it means now, and
why I felt called upon to make the protest
that I did. In the Bill for the purpose of
creating the territory of Saskatchewan, section 16, is the educational clause. It
consists of three subsections. It says in the
first place :
The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the
said province as if, at the date upon which
this Act comes into force, the territory comprised therein were already a province,
the expression ' the union ' in the said section being
taken to mean the said date.
Now, what does that subsection do ? It
applies to the new provinces the provisions
of section 93 of the British North America
Act, which we all know by heart :
In and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education,
3105 MARCH 24, 1905
subject and according to the following provisions :
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class
of persons have by law in the province at the union.
Inasmuch as ' the union ' is made to mean
the date of the passing of this Act, and the
word ' province ' is changed to ' territory,'
this subsection would read :
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 territory at the time
when this Act comes into effect.
What would that preserve ? First of all,
Mr. Speaker, it would preserve everything
that is set out in chapters 29, 30 and 31 of
the ordinances ; there cannot be any possible
doubt about that. In the next place, it
might preserve everything that is set out
in section 14 of the Act of 1875. It might,
and it might not. It might be held by a
court that the privileges held by law at the
union were the privileges de facto possessed
under the ordinances as they existed at the
union, and the court might refuse to go
back to the provisions of the Act of 1875.
it is evident that there was a doubt about
this, because the Bill re-enacts clause 14
of the Act of 1875, and thus it is revived,
crystallized and made absolutely certain. I
have pointed out to you what Mr. Forget,
Mr. Justice Rouleau, Archbishop Taché, Sir
John Thompson, and Mr. Haultain, thought
as to the Act of 1875. It is the fact that
under the Act of 1875, a complete dual system of clerical schools was established
in the
Northwest Territories, and it is the fact
that legal authorities, like my friend Mr.
Haultain, a quotation from whom I could
read if I saw fit, like Sir John Thompson, to
whom the matter was referred, thought that
when those privileges were curtailed and
taken away, they were taken away in defiance of the clause of the Act of 1875
which we find in substance in clause 16 of
the Bill before the House. Therefore we
should have the privileges by this Act retained as they are in chapters 29, 30 and
31,
of the ordinance of 1901 and as they are in
the Act of 1875.
Now, what more ? Here is subsection 3 :
In the appropriation of public moneys by the
legislature in aid of education, and in the distribution of any moneys paid to the
government of the said province arising from the
school fund established by the Dominion Lands
Act there shall be no discrimination between
the public schools and separate schools.
It does not stop there.
There shall be no discrimination between the
public schools and the separate schools, and
such moneys shall be applied to the support of
the public and separate schools in equitable
shares or proportion.
I have had something to do with the administration of school laws. For a number
3106
of years a good deal of my time was spent
in dealing with subjects of that kind, and I
can give to the House my opinion, which
they can take for what it is worth, but
I am fairly confident that it is an
opinion that will be justified by any court
to which it may be referred, that the effect
of that clause will be that if twenty years
from now the province of Alberta undertook to apropriate $250,000 to build and
equip a provincial university, a proportionate amount of money, proportionate to the
number of separate schools as compared
with the public schools, would have to be
set aside for the establishment of a separate
school institution. That is the opinion I
have upon that clause ; that is the opinion
I expressed to the Prime Minister at the
time I objected to the clause, and I say it
would be impossible for us to pass that
clause, to allow it to go into effect, without
putting a constitutional, irrevocable earmark
upon the public funds of the Northwest
Territories and upon the $50,000,000 worth
of public lands that are in the public school
trust. We would earmark that fund for
ever, and would compel the legislatures of
these provinces to divide that money, and
in all probability to constitute one of the
greatest endowments of sectarian education
that has ever been proposed. That is the
proposition which I understand to be concealed—partly concealed, not concealed to
me—which I understand to be expressed by
the terms of this clause.
I have been always a strong party man.
I do not think that my political friends in
past years have had any cause to complain
that I have not been willing to do my share
of the fighting, or that I have not been willing to take my share of the blame. If
men
are going to act together politically, when
one makes a mistake the rest have to take
the blame, and I have always been willing
to take my share of the blame, and have
always been willing to shoulder the load
along with the rest. But I declare, and I
am serious—if I had not been serious about
it I would still have been a member of the
government—I declare that I would join
with anybody in Canada to resist the passage of that Bill in the terms in which it
was placed before the House by my right
hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I have
nothing more to say with regard to that.
It was an unpleasant necessity for me to
speak of it, but there are occasions on which
people have to do things which constitute
a very unpleasant necessity.
We have before us now a different proposition. My hon. friend the leader of the
opposition says that he cannot see any
difference between this proposition and the
other.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The words that I
used were that I saw no difference ' in principle.'
Mr. SIFTON. ' In substance ' the hon.
gentleman said.
3107
Mr. SIFTON. The hon. gentleman said
' substance,' because I have it here, but if
he intended to say ' principle,' I will not
dispute over the word, because I think that,
although my hon. friend and I may not be
able to agree on many things, I could convince him that these clauses are very different.
What is the effect of the clause now
before us ? I like the first section for one
thing, although for another thing I do not.
I like it, in the first place, because it is
clear. I am bound to say that I think one
of the things that is important in legislation of this kind is that it shall be such
that
the people can understand it after it is passed, and shall not have to go into the
courts
and fight for years to find out what the law
is. I think everybody can understand what
this means
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
separate schools which any class of persons
have at the date of the passing of this Act,
under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the
ordinances of the Northwest Territories passed
in the year 1901.
What does that preserve? I have read
these ordinances through, and all that I
can find this section to preserve—and it is
an important thing—let us not exaggerate
or minimize, let us know exactly what we
are doing—I think that this is what we are
doing and all that we are doing. This section preserves the right of the Protestant
or Roman Catholic minority to have their
school, a separate school in name, but a
public school in fact, in a separate building
if they wish. That is the right it preserves.
It preserves, secondly, the right of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in
such
school to have religious teaching from 3.30
to 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The hon. gentleman from East Grey endeavoured to
work on our sympathies yesterday by referring to the difficulties which some Protestant
families in Quebec have, because
they have to attend what is, to all intents
and purposes, a denominational Catholic
school, and I understood the hon. gentleman
to be arguing against the proposal which is
contained in this Bill when he cited that
fact as an illustration of the evils of separate schools.
Mr. SPROULE. I wish to say to the
hon. gentleman that I never contemplated
advancing that as an argument at all, but
I gave it as an answer—
Mr. SPROULE. If I am entitled to any
respect from that side of the House, I ought
to be at least able to say what I intended.
I was giving it as an answer to the statement of the Prime Minister, who had said
that in Quebec the Protestants have nothing
to complain of. I was not advancing it as
3108
an argument with reference to the Northwest Territories.
Mr. SIFTON. If my hon. friend did not
intend his argument to apply to the conditions of the Bill it will not be necessary
for me to answer, but I may go on to say
that if anybody else had in his mind any
idea that difficulties of that kind would
arise, he may disabuse his mind of the
idea, because they cannot arise under the
system which is proposed in this Bill. In
the first place, there is no such thing as a
denominational school. Whether it is a
separate school or a public school, a Catholic separate school or a Protestant separate
school, it is a secular school from 9 a.m. to
3.30 p.m. Then if the religious teaching
which is given is contrary to the faith
of the parents of a child attending it,
there is a conscience clause that the child
does not need to remain. So that there
is absolutely no reason why any person
should be embarrassed by the practice of
the school system which is actually in effect
in the Northwest Territories under these
ordinances.
Now, something has been said–a good
deal has been said—in the press about subsection 2, and I wish to say a word about
that. The House, possibly, may well understand that I am not particularly enthusiastic
about subsection 1, which provides for the
establishment of separate schools in the
Territories, as I would not be enthusiastic
about any provision establishing separate
schools of any kind. Only, I am not addressing the House with the idea of convincing
hon. members that I am an enthusiastic
supporter of this subsection 1, for I am not.
But, if we are to have subsection 1, if we
are to have a provision which allows the
separate schools to be established, then,
surely, Mr. Speaker, we ought also to have
a provision making it certain that the
separate schools may have in them the
possibility of being efficient schools. Why,
Sir, it would be a crime against education
to crystallize in the law of the Northwest
Territories a provision that such and such
people should have the right to organize
such and such schools as public schools and
not to protect them in the right to get the
money which will make those schools efficient and enable them to advance and increase
in efficiency in accordance with the
desires of the persons in charge of them.
I hesitate to vote, I find great difficulty in
bringing myself to vote, for subsection 1.
But it seems to me obvious that subsection
1 without subsection 2 would be much more
objectionable than the whole section is as
it stands. I should think that, without
subsection 2, the proposition of the government would be much more objectionable
than it is. If I have made myself clear, it
will be seen that my observations are addressed to those who look upon subsection
2 as a very outrageous interference with
the control of public funds by the legislature of the province. It is an interference—
3109 MARCH 24, 1905
there can be no question about that. But,
as I have said, it is an interference only to
the extent of requiring that when a separate school absolutely and entirely complies
with the law and then comes before
the educational authorities and says : Having complied with the law, being, in every
sense of the word a public school, but called
a separate school only because we happen
to be less in number than the people who
organized the public school, we asked to
be paid this money in proportion to the
efficiency we can show we possess under
the educational statutes which you have
seen fit to pass—that, when that is shown,
the money necessary to the efficiency of the
schools shall be given. There is a theoretical—I imagine it would only prove to be
a theoretical—interference with the control
of the public funds to that extent; but that
is the inevitable corollary of subsection 1 ;
and I would object to subsection 1 establishing separate schools very much more if
it were not accompanied with the provision
that the schools established under subsection 1 should be entitled to receive their
share of the legislative grant.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. May I ask the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Sifton) a question ? Because, he is very familiar with these ordinances.
Subsection 2 says :
In the appropriation by the legislature or distribution by the government of the province
of
any money for the support of schools organized
and carried on in accordance with said chapter
29 or any Act passed in amendment thereof or
in substitution therefor, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any
class described in said chapter 29.
If a university such as the hon. gentleman has mentioned should be established
by an Act in amendment of or in substitution for the ordinances, what, in the hon.
gentleman's opinion, will be the effect upon
the application of public moneys ?
Mr. SIFTON. I would not think it necessary to give an opinion. Because, why in
the name of common sense the legislature
of Alberta, when establishing a university,
should establish it by an amendment of
the school ordinance, I cannot possibly conceive. And, if knowing that in taking such
a course, they were going to make themselves liable to a division of the funds, they
had so little intelligence as to take it, I do
not think this parliament can see far enough
ahead to protect them against the consequences of their lack of foresight. I can
tell my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) that
my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver)
is the kind of man they have in the district
of Alberta ; and I want to ask him if he
thinks that my hon. friend from Edmonton,
if he were in the legislative assembly of Alberta, would be likely to get into such
a
trap as that ? If the legislature of Alberta
puts itself under this section unnecessarily
and with malice aforethought they will have
3110
to take the consequence ; but they are not
obliged to put themselves under this section at all. And let me point out further
that the effect of this clause is simply to
require that, when the schools—the schools
mentioned under the ordinance, and, as a
matter of fact they are the primary schools,
what we call the public schools, and not
the grammar schools, the high schools or
collegiate institutes, for I understand that
to be the effect of the clause—when they
comply with the provisions of the law, they
get the ordinary share of the legislative
grant. The legislature may set apart money
for management, for the conduct of normal
schools, for teachers' institutes ; they may
set apart money for high schools, universities, agricultural schools—for any and every
purpose of education that they may desire;
and to these the section will not apply in
any way. The legislature will be free unless they deliberately put themselves under
this clause intentionally, as they would if
they did what my hon. friend suggests.
Now, what I have tried to do in this
discussion has been not to waste the time
of the House going over and over, and over
again what has been said by other speakers as well or better than I could say it,
but to endeavour to make clear what the
effect of the legislation now proposed to
the House will be when it is actually carried into operation. And the conclusion,
therefore, is this—that if this legislation is
carried into effect it preserves just the two
privileges which I spoke of the privilege
of the Roman Catholic or Protestant minority to have a separate school house, and
the
privilege of having religious instruction between half-past three and four o'clock
in
the afternoon. But there cannot be under
this system any control of the school by
any clerical or sectarian body. There cannot be any sectarian teaching between nine
o'clock in the morning and half-past three
in the afternoon. So that, so far as we have
objections to separate schools based upon
the idea of church control, clerical control,
or ecclesiasticism in any form, this system
of schools is certainly not open to that objection.
Now, I wish to say a word or two, if the
House will pardon me, about my own position in regard to the principle involved in
this discussion. I have a record upon this
question, as hon. members are all aware. It
is of no special importance to the House,
and I should apologize for mentioning it
were it not for the fact that some reference to it is necessary to the argument
which I intend very briefly to present. When
we, in the province of Manitoba undertook
to remove what was a separate school system, that was ' inefficient to a point of
absurdity ' we found ourselves confronted with
many and serious difficulties.
The school system which we abolished
by the Public School Act of 1890 in the
province of Manitoba, was precisely the
3111
COMMONS Â
same school system as the system that was
abolished by the ordinance of the Northwest Territories in 1892. The two were
abolished almost at the same time ; but
I am bound to say that our friends in the
Northwest Territories succeeded in getting
their reform with a good deal less difficulty
and a good deal less turmoil that did the
little province of Manitoba. If hon. gentlemen will look at the documents relating
to
the suit that took place between the province of Manitoba and the Dominion, or if
they will look at the speeches that were
made by men speaking on behalf of the province and who know the circumstances of
the case, they will find that, although I
myself and others took strong ground against
the principle of separation in education—and
my opinions upon that subject are just as
strong to-day as they were then—although
we took strong ground upon that principle,
yet the attacks we made were not so much
on that account as they were on account
of the fact that the separate school system of the province was admittedly inefficient,
and that children were being allowed
by thousands to grow up in absolute ignorance and illiteracy. That was the ground
upon which we attacked that system. We
said then : Your system is inefficient ; you
have taken the public money and you have
not applied it for the purpose of giving the
children the education they ought to have ;
and we pointed to the fact that in districts
where this clerically controlled system had
been in force, the children had grown up
in ignorance and the population was illiterate, and that fact could not be disputed.
Sir, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, speaking last night, referred to the
fact that it was said that the province of
Manitoba had been harsh in abolishing that
system. Well, Sir, I am here to say that
you cannot abolish abuses of that kind
by handling people with kid gloves. I am
here to say that if there is any act in my
public life I am proud of, it is the fact that
I was one of those who helped to abolish that
system of education in Manitoba in the
year 1890. I know perfectly well that I am
speaking upon a subject upon which there
may not be very much unanimity of opinion ; but I claim the right to have my
own opinion on this subject, and I do not
think that any man in this House, Roman
Catholic or Protestant, will think any the
less of me because I have the courage to
state what I think. Although that was the
fact, and although my hon. friend who sits
opposite, the member for North Toronto
(Mr. Foster), was one of those who tried to
restore that inefficient system and compel
us again to bring about a condition of affairs
in which the public money would be wasted
and a proper system of education would not
be given to the children, they failed in that
attempt. And why did they fail ? They failed because the right hon. gentleman who
3112
leads this government stood in their way—
that is the reason why they failed. And I
want to say that we from the province of
Manitoba who were engaged in that contest
have never forgotten that gentlemen on the
other side of the House, that my hon. friend
from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) with whom
unfortunately I do not often agree, and
many others, left their party upon that question and stood for what I believe to be
the proper principle, and I venture to think
that the gentlemen who did so will always
be remembered as having on that important
occasion done what they believed to be
right, though contrary to the interests of
their party. But my right hon. friend the
Prime Minister did not take the stand he did
because he necessarily agreed with the views
that I entertained, and that we in the province of Manitoba entertained upon that
subject. As I understand the right hon.
gentleman, he has always been an advocate
in principle of separate schools, he does
not dispute that. But he did dispute the
moral right of the gentlemen who then controlled the administration of Canada to
override the deliberate judgment of the
people of Manitoba upon a matter which
was vital to them, and which we in the province of Manitoba knew very much more
about than the gentlemen who were endeavouring to thwart us.
Now, notwithstanding the fact that our
opinions upon that subject were so strong,
notwithstanding the fact that we had gone
through a violent contest, a contest in which
the feelings of men were deeply aroused,
nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend
from Selkirk (Mr. Greenway) then the
Prime Minister of Manitoba and my leader,
and myself, at that time, prior to the year
1896, recognized the fact that it was necessary in some of these cases to compromise,
that we could not expect to have, altogether and at all times, our own opinions
carried out to the fullest possible extent.
When the government of Sir Charles Tupper
sent commissioners to the province of Manitoba for the purpose of discusssing this
question with us, the commissioners consisting of
Lord Strathcona, then Sir Donald A. Smith,
the late Mr. Dickey and Senator Desjardins—when they were sent up for the purpose
of discussing this question, I had the
honour of being appointed with one of
my colleagues, Mr. Cameron, to discuss
the question with them. We then recognized
the fact that a compromise of some kind
would probably have to be adopted in the
end, and we made certain proposals to these
gentlemen looking to a compromise with
the view of meeting the wishes of our Roman Catholic friends. We told them that,
whatever our private disposition might be,
yet by reason of the pledges we had made
to the people of the province of Manitoba
in the election we had just gone through,
we could not possibly compromise upon the
3113 MARCH 24, 1905
question of the separation of the children
in the school houses, but we offered a compromise upon other things. But the commissioners
declined our offer and came back,
and the government then undertook to
proceed with the Remedial Bill. When the
election was over and the government of
Sir Charles Tupper had been defeated, and
Mr. Laurier, now Sir Wilfrid Laurier, came
into power, he sent for the members of the
Manitoba government to which I then belonged, and asked us what our views were.
We pointed the right hon. gentleman to
the proposition we had made to the commissioners of Sir Charles Tupper, the same proposition
ipsissima verba, and we said that
was the best we could do. The right hon.
gentleman accepted that proposition, wisely,
as the result shows, because matters are
going very much more smoothly and satisfactorily in Manitoba since then. We drew
up a basis of compromise. It will be found in
the sessional papers of this House. The
terms were submitted to the leading men
of both political parties who had stood by
us in the fight in which we had been engaged. We did not desire that any principle
should be yielded without full consultation. Amongst others it was submitted to the
late Dalton McCarthy, and it
was approved by him. That compromise
was carried into legislative effect. It does
not go quite so far as the compromise upon
this question which is before the House at
the present time ; but it was a substantial compromise on the general principle
with which we had to deal. Yet at that
time there were some men who said : No
compromise ; who said : Don't give in
till you get the whole thing, you will get it
if you stand up. I did not agree with that
view. I thought that some compromise
should be made. My colleagues in the government of Manitoba thought the same
thing, and a compromise was made. But,
Mr. Speaker,—and this is an observation I
desire to commend to the attention of the
House—there were very very few people
who said, no compromise. And why was
it that so few people then opposed the compromise ? It was because the people of Canada
had been fighting about this question for five years, they were sick and tired
of the contest, and desired that there should
be a compromise of some kind so that
they might have peace. More than that,
the material progress of this country
had been stopped. My hon. friend from
Lanark (Mr. Haggart) knows perfectly well
that the Manitoba school question paralysed governmental activity for a considerable
length of time. The members of the government practically did nothing else ; they
could do nothing else but attend to the
agitation and difficulties that arose out of
this question. When a question of this
kind has to be met it has to be met in a
practical way. Complications arise, govern
3114
mental activity and administration are absolutely destroyed, it is impossible for
ministers to attend to their departmental duties
or to attend to the business of the country
as they should. Therefore, in 1896 when
this settlement was made—although it was
a settlement that hon. gentlemen opposite
had refused to accept—although it was a
settlement which led my right hon. friend
the leader of the government out of a great
difficulty and made his path smooth, yet
the settlement has never been combated or
criticised by any member of this House
from that time up to the present moment.
Mr. FOSTER. Member—former minister
—just for the information of the House just
tell us briefly what the difference was between the conditions before the compromise
and after ?
Mr. SIFTON. The principle was embodied
in the compromise that wherever there was
a certain number of Catholic children
there should be a Catholic teacher. In that
way it goes farther than the compromise
we have here. I cannot from memory give
the exact figures but in a rural district
there was a certain number of children called
for and in a town a larger number was
called for, and wherever a certain number
of Catholic children attended a school then,
for each unit of that number, a Catholic teacher was required to be employed. Further,
a provision we inserted that the children
should, where the rooms in the school
house permitted it, be divided up at half-
past three for the purpose of having religious exercises, the Catholic teacher taking
the Catholic children and the other teacher
taking the Protestant children :
(An hon. member having handed Mr. Sifton the statute in, question he read.)
In any school in towns and cities, where the
average attendance of Roman Catholic children
is forty or upwards, and in villages and rural
districts if the average attendance of such
children is twenty-five or upwards, the trustees
shall, if required by a petition of parents or
guardians of such number of Roman Catholic
children, respectively, employ at least one duly
certificated Roman Catholic teacher in such
school.
Where the school house permits it by reason of different numbers and different
rooms the children are divided, the Roman
Catholic teacher takes the Roman Catholic
children and the Protestant, or public school
teacher takes the other children, and religious exercises are conducted in that way.
As a matter of fact this compromise was a
great and substantial advantage to the
Roman Catholic people of Manitoba because
in a very great number of cases where the
Roman Catholic people live they are in
3115
groups and where you find a considerable
number of Roman Catholic children in a
school they are nearly all Roman Catholic
children. It is in such case a Roman Catholic
community, and by this Act they have the
right to have a Roman Catholic teacher and
to have Roman Catholic exercises after half-
past three ; so that in practice it gives them
a greater advantage than it would appear to
do from a casual reading of the Act. It
has been fairly satisfactory although it
does not give them the principle of: separation as is given by the Act which is before
us at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, we are face to face with the
necessity of dealing with the question of
giving these provinces a constitution and
dealing with the question of educational
legislation. I understand that my hon.
friend the leader of the opposition takes
the position, in which I concur, that we
have a right if we so desire and the legal
power to modify in detail the terms of
section 93 of the British North America
Act in such a way that the province as it
was formed would have complete autonomy
or liberty in regard to its educational legislation. If I am not correctly representing
my hon. friend he will correct me.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. That is not quite
my belief. Does my hon. friend wish me
to state what it is ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My position is that
if you apply to these provinces the terms
of the constitution as they are to-day, they
will give to these provinces the absolute
right to deal with their own educational
affairs.
Mr. SIFTON. I am sorry that my hon.
friend said that because I had thought
from the resolution which he has placed
before us that his position was the position which I stated, and to my mind it
would be a position that would be very
much stronger. My hon. friend's amendment, I find, is as follows :
Upon the establishment of a province in
the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed by Bill (No. 69), the legislature
of such
province, subject to and in accordance with the
provisions of the British North America Acts
1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full
powers of provincial self-government including
power to exclusively make laws in relation to
education.
If I understand my hon. friend aright.
and I regret his position is not as I stated
it, he says that by the application of the
British North America Act, ipsissima verba,
the effect of it would be that the provinces
would have unlimited power in regard to
education. But, my hon. friend can only
give his opinion to that effect as a lawyer.
Other lawyers do not think so. Other law
3116
yers think the direct opposite. Other lawyers think that if you put section 93 of
the
British North America Act into effect the
time when the province came in would be
regarded as the 1st of July, 1905, and that
the condition of affairs which would be preserved by the British North America Act
would be the condition of affairs as they
exist on the 1st of July, 1905. I do not
say which is correct. It is a difficult point
to decide, but surely we are not, when we
are about to legislate upon this subject, going to allow the provinces to settle this
question by a long course of litigation,
turmoil and dispute. To show how difficult
it is to have a positive opinion upon such
a point I have heard men who are considered to be good lawyers flout the idea,
or the proposition of law which my hon.
friend suggests and I have heard men who
are pretty good lawyers flout the opposite
idea. In a question of that kind we who
are lawyers all know it is absolutely impossible to tell how it will be held when
it
comes to be threshed out in the courts. To
my mind for this parilament, sitting here
in all its sovereign responsibility to give
these Territories a constitution, to deliberately go to work and, for the purpose
of
getting out of the responsibility of doing one
thing or the other, give that constitution in
such terms that they will have to have a
series of lawsuits for half a dozen years to
have the question settled would be the most
unstatesmanlike thing that we could do.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not want my
hon. friend to misunderstand me. He has
in the first place only quoted part of my
argument. He speaks of the provinces
coming in. A large part of my argument
was devoted not to the question of a province coming in but to that of a province
being created which my hon. friend has
not dealt with at all. But, apart from that
and in answer to what he has just said
my view is a very simple one. I say that
we have the right and only the right to apply the constitution as it exists at present
in respect of the distribution of legislative
power. My hon. friend seems to think that
we can go on and do something more. If
my view is correct we cannot go on and do
anything more, and if we enact from now
until this time next year it will not alter
the result, because in the end our right to
legislate must be determined in the courts.
That is a very simple proposition.
Mr. SIFTON. My hon. friends statement
does not alter my view in regard to his position. First of all, we would unquestionably
have to change section 93 of the British
North America Act before we could do it.
Mr. SIFTON. Unquestionably we would
have to feel we had that right. For my
part, so far as concerns the changing of
3117 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
MARCH 24, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
the terms of section 93 by striking out the
limitation contained in that section, I have
not the least doubt in the world of our constitutional capacity to do it under the
British North America Act of 1871. If my hon.
friend takes the trouble to look up the
opinion of so eminent a predecessor of his
own as Sir John Thompson, he will find
that Sir John Thompson expresses the same
opinion. I think there can hardly be any
doubt whatever that we can and should
exercise that power. But, Mr. Speaker,
if there were any doubt about it; if we
passed this Act in acordance with our own
judgment and our own discretion, giving
these provinces such a constitution as we in
our judgment think they ought to have by
making a change in section 93, and there
were any remote doubt about the constitutionality of that ; is it not perfectly clear
that all the Prime Minister would have to
do would be as was done in the case of the
Manitoba Act get a confirming Act from the
imperial parliament. There would not be
any difficulty about it, and if there were the
least doubt that is the course that should be
adopted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is any doubt
about our power, I say that in fact nobody
else but us can deal with it. We are here as
the only possible constitutional body to deal
with this question upon its merits. Does
any one imagine that the imperial parliament is going to discuss this question and
undertake to settle it upon its merits ?
Then, who is going to settle it upon its
merits ? The imperial parliament would
never do that, they would deal with it as
we recommended; they would say : you are
the governing body ; possibly technically
you may not have enough power given you
by the Act of 1871, but if you have not we
will give it to you ; it is your business,
settle it as you see fit. And Mr. Speaker,
that is the only way it can be settled. We
are unquestionably in the position of being
the only body that can ever deal with the
merits of this case.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying what my own opinion would
be : it would be that the province ought
to be left entirely free to deal with its own
educational affairs. But, I would not get
at it in the way that my hon. friend (Mr.
R. L. Borden) does, by saying, the constitution does that, but as there is a certain
amount of doubt about it I would strike out
the limiting clause and I would make it
so clear that there would not be any doubt
in the minds of any one.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If we undertake to
do that and do not possess the power under
the British North America Acts 1867 to 1868,
would not the courts control in the end as
they have a dozen times, as they have a
hundred times both with regard to provincial and Dominion legislation?
3118
Mr. SIFTON. What was done in the case
of Manitoba ? Was section 93 of the British
North America Act applied ipsissima verba?
If my hon. friend will look at it he
will find it was not. He will find that
in the case of the province of Manitoba a
special section was enacted by this parliament and he will find that although questions
were raised as to the competence of
this parliament to pass that Act, the doubt
was not as to the competence of this parliament to pass section 93, but as to other
sections. If he will go back further he will
find that notwithstanding that questions
were raised as to competence of this parliament, the law officers of the Crown in
Great
Britain said we were perfectly competent,
and that the Manitoba Act was within the
competency of this parliament. If this parliament had the power in the case of Manitoba
to put in a separate provision for the
purpose of placing separate schools clearly
and distinctly upon the province of Manitoba
have we not the power to change section
93 by taking out the limitation ? If we
can do one thing we can do the other; if
we can change a subsection then we can
take a subsection out. That proposition is
entirely obvious.
I said that so far as I was concerned I
thought we had the power to leave the
provinces absolutely free, and that for my
part if I had my own way that is the policy
I would pursue. But I quite recognize the
strength of the argument upon the other
side. We are face to face with two positions— I shall only detain the House for a
few minutes longer; I apologize for speaking at such length.
Mr. SIFTON. We are face to face with
two propositions. We have the principle
of the British North America Act to apply.
The leader of the government and myself
can agree that we ought to apply the principle of section 93 of the British North
America Act, but as to the particular way
in which we are to apply that principle we
do not agree. But we ought to apply the
principle, and when we come to the question : how are we to apply it, we come up
against two separate and distinct and irreconcilable propositions. From my standpoint
I say: inasmuch as the Northwest
Territories are not a constitutionally free
community; inasmuch as the ordinances
passed are ordinances passed under a special
and limited power ; therefore when they
come into the family of provinces we ought
not to apply to them the principle of observing the status quo, because the status
quo
was not brought about by their own unlimited powers. There is also the view
that is presented to us by our friends
led by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and held by many other gentlemen
here. They say—it was well stated by the
3119 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
COMMONS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Minister of Finance—they say : you constituted that territory 35 years ago ; 30
years ago you established separate schools ;
you said when you were doing it that you
intended it to be permanent ; those who
made speeches when the Bill was presented
to parliament, said we bring this Bill to
parliament because we want the people of
the Northwest Territories to know what
kind of institutions they are going to have,
and among others they are going to have
separate schools. Half a million people
have gone into the Northwest Territories
knowing what the laws were. Although
I am not absolutely convinced by the argument made by these gentlemen, yet I know
that out of that population of half a million
there are 125,000 Roman Catholics, and I
further know that many of these people
actually went to the educational department
at Regina by their authorized representatives and got copies of these school ordinances
so that they might know whether
they would be allowed to have separate
schools before they came into the Northwest Territories. Therefore, our friends say:
here is a state of affairs existing for thirty
years, carried on under your direction, creating vested rights in 125,000 people who
have
gone there upon the strength of your guarantee. And so, with some degree of plausibility
they argue : you are far more bound
to maintain that state of affairs than if it
had been created by the province, because
you are responsible for it yourselves. Here
we have two separate and irreconcilable
propositions. If I talked for ever I do not
think I would convince the gentlemen who
do not think as I do upon this subject. I
do not think I could convince them that we
should leave the legislature of the Northwest
absolutely free in this matter—although I
am for my part convinced after the history
of the question in the province of Manitoba,
and from the knowledge I have of what
public men in the Territories think on this
whole question from beginning to end—I am
firmly convinced that it would be better for
the Roman Catholic people of the Northwest Territories if the legislature were left
absolutely free. But, I shall never convince
the gentlemen who do not think so ; I shall
never get them to think as I do on the question, because if I talked for a hundred
years
their views would be just the same as they
are to-day. Â
I am very much inclined to think, Mr.
Speaker, that they will not be able to convince me. I do not think they would be able
to convince me that it would not be better
that the legislature of the Northwest Territories should be free. Now, what are we
going to do ? We are face to face with an absolutely irreconcilable state of affairs.
My
hon. friend the Minister of Finance put it
very well the other evening. He said :
What are you going to do ? what are you
going to decide ? The King's government
must be carried on ; the business of the
3120
country must be carried on ; and there is
only one of two ways in which this question
can be decided. The Protestant people of
Canada can say to the Roman Catholic people : You cannot convince us, we cannot
convince you, but there are more of us than
there are of you, and we are going to vote
you down. I put aside a proposition of that
kind. There is no man in this government
who would contemplate attempting to carry
out a proposition of that kind if he had the
power. Least of all would my hon. friend
who leads the opposition desire to see a proposition of that kind carried out, no
matter
what his views on the merits of the question might be. Then, what are you going to
do ? What is the position of affairs going
to be ? You cannot make a political religious issue of these questions either for
the
members of this House or for the inhabitants of the Dominion of Canada ; and even
if you did—as my hon. friend the Minister
of Finance very well said : if those who
thought in this House as I do combined
with me and if the result of their efforts
were to drive the right hon. gentleman (the
Prime Minister) from office on this question, all that my hon. friend the Minister
of Finance said the other night, and
much more, would be true. No greater political misfortune could happen to hon. gentlemen
opposite than that they should be
called upon to take office under such circumstances. Suppose it happened. Every man
who knows the political history of Canada
knows that we might fight about this question year in and year out for years, the
political and financial progress of the country might be paralyzed, the business of
the
country would be blocked by the condition
of affairs, and after it was all done, we
should be simply where we had started, and
the people would have to come together on
this question and compromise their differences.
What I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, is that I have very strong views
on
this question. I have not concealed those
views from the members of the House.
There is a certain distance that I am prepared to go in the way of compromise ; I
have so expressed myself to my right hon.
friend the Prime Minister. To the extent
which is embodied in the proposition before
this House I am willing to go. I am willing
to go that far because I believe that the
essential principles of a first-class, thoroughly
national school system are not impaired, and
the taint of what I call ecclesiasticism in
schools, and which in my judgment always
produces inefficiency, will not be found in
the school system of the Northwest under
this legislation, unless the people of the
Northwest choose to have it, in which case
it is their business and not ours. I may
say, Mr. Speaker, that I have found a very
great deal of difficulty in deciding upon my
course on this question. When I saw the
3121 Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 24, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Bills that had been introduced, I at once
came to the conclusion that 1 could not decide upon my course while remaining a member
of the government, in the enjoyment of
office and the emoluments of office. I came
to the conclusion that, whatever anybody
else might do, my course was perfectly
clear: I should, when this question came up,
be in a position to speak with a freedom with
which a member of the government could
not speak, and I should be called upon to
decide to what extent and how far I would
be prepared to compromise opinions which
I had publicly expressed, and opinions which
I still hold in order not to destroy the government of the country. That question
which comes to every man in public life
sooner or later, comes to-day to a good many
men in this House of Commons. The question is how far a man is justified in compromising
his opinion for the purpose of
preventing a political crisis. That is a
question which nearly every man in this
House has had to decide before ; but perhaps no person has had to decide it under
quite as remarkable circumstances as the
present. For myself, as to the political
effect upon myself, I care not for that. I
have relieved myself, I think, of the imputation that the course I have taken has
been
influenced by considerations of office or the
considerations of my party remaining in
office ; and therefore I have to say, having
given the subject the best consideration that
1 am capable of giving it, and having given
it that consideration not only from the standpoint of the position of affairs in this
parliament but from the standpoint of the position
of affairs in the Northwest Territories in
time to come, that I can, though not with
very much enthusiasm, and with some degree of reluctance, give my support to the
Bill.
Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).
Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that
when the mountain would not go to Mahomet, Mahomet went to the mountain and
that saying has been illustrated, I will not
say in a very pleasing way, this afternooon.
I was very much puzzled, while my hon.
friend (Mr. Sifton) was speaking, to know
just what line I should be compelled to take
in what appeared to be a triangular duel.
I was afraid to appear even to assent to the
opinions of my hon. friend, lest I too might
be treated with the same contemptuous indifference that the government according to
his own account, had given to him ; and
I was afraid to appear to differ from him,
for I did not know how long it would be
before I would find that he and I were in
perfect accord. I thought, when the hon.
gentleman opened his remarks, that he
would perhaps shed a bright light on the
subject under discussion, which would enable us to understand how and why this
country is being plunged into the excitement
which prevails, and why the right hon. gen
3122
tleman who brought down this Bill brought
it down so hastily, so inadvisedly, and apparently with so little preparation. When
the hon. gentleman who has just taken his
seat gave his reasons a short time ago for
leaving the government, he told us that he
had discussed various things with the Prime
Minister. He told us to-day that he had
not discussed the educational question ; and
yet, when he spoke the other day, he was
careful to explain that he had not neglected
the educational question, but that, to quote
his own words :
When it was determined that during this session of parliament legislation should be
introduced creating new provinces out of a portion
of the Northwest Territories, I felt called upon,
in view of the history of the educational question in Canada, to give very serious
consideration to the position which I should take with
regard to the legislative power to be conferred
upon the provinces in regard to the subject of
education.
And so, Sir, although the Minister of the
Interior, as he was then, was spending his
recess in giving calm and I suppose judicial consideration to this important question
of education, and although meeting
his leader from time to time and discussing
the minor features of the Bill, he never
thought it worth his while to discuss with
his leader, nor did his leader waste his time
in discussing with him, this important question of education.
And so, Sir. it is that we find that, although conference followed conference, nothing
was said at these conferences on the
subject of education, but the Minister of the
Interior retiring to the privacy of his own
chamber, then apparently gave himself solely and exclusively to rapturous contemplation
of this interesting subject of education. Perhaps the reason that the hon. gentleman
did not before suggest education to
his colleagues was because he had received
so little respect and consideration from them
in the matters he had consulted with them
about, that he did not think it worth his
while even to mention this subject. He
has told us that although he had made
suggestions, being Minister of the Interior
and best cognizant of the needs of the Northwest, he could not even persuade his colleagues
where they should draw the line
between the two territories, perhaps as
trifling a proposition as could be considered.
They would not even accept his suggestion
on such a trifling matter as that, but put the
boundary some sixty miles west from where
he thought it should be. He thought, too,
that the provinces should extend to the
north, and no doubt did his best to persuade his colleagues that they should extend
to the north, but although he knew
the situation ten times as well as his ex-
colleagues he was not consulted, he was not
made a member of this important subcommittee, and all his suggestions on these
points were treated with contemptuous indifference. Then on the important question
3123
COMMONS
of the financial arrangements and the land
question, which are so closely connected as
to form one subject, we find that although the hon. gentleman had strong views
—and I may say that I think his views are
far more correct than those of the government—although he presented his case as
ably, as eloquently and as persuasively as
he has this afternoon spoken to the House,
still, on that point too, the government refused to listen, and so the land and fiscal
questions are complicated by the introduction of a principle which, as pointed out
by
the minister this afternoon, shows that the
government, by admitting to the provinces
that we should pay for the land, have admitted that the provinces have a right to
the land. Again I say that, although he
was right in his representations, the government treated them with contemptuous
indifference. Then, after making these protestations and after being badly treated,
treated with indifference in this way, could
one imagine that there was no irony concealed in his remarks when he said in this
House that there was no pique when he resigned after this Bill was brought down
two days before his arrival? We have
heard many details of the hon. gentleman's
exploits in the west; many rumours have
drifted down to us during the past ten
years, but I venture to say that not one of
them will be received with less credulity
by the country than the statement he
made this afternoon as to the causes
of his resignation. Just think for a
moment the position that he put his
colleagues in. Had the ex-minister come
out flatly, and bravely said: ' I resign
because I refuse to occupy a seat in a cabinet with men who do not understand business,'
then we would have understood and
the country would have understood. But
when we see the pitiable spectacle of ministers bringing down such a Bill, standing
up
and advocating it in spite of such tremendous objections to it as those which the
ex-
minister pointed out, and the existence of
which they admitted by changing the Bill,
what are we to think of the capacity of a
cabinet that would plunge the country into
all the excitement and turmoil of the past
few weeks on a measure to which they have
given so little attention as they have given
to this ?
The hon. gentleman to-day touched on
many subjects. There is one subject on
which I did not intend to speak, but I shall
refer to it in consequence of the remarks
of the hon. the ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton), coupled with what was said a
night or two ago by the Prime Minister and
also by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) last night. When the premier was
speaking the other day he pointed out, with
regard to the agitation which convulsed
this country in 1896, that the Conservative
party had undoubtedly misunderstood their
position, that at that time Manitoba stood
in the same position as Nova Scotia or New
Brunswick. and that the Conservative party,
3124
in endeavouring to pass the Remedial Bill
dealing with Manitoba which stood on the
same footing as Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, had entirely misconceived the
position. The right hon. gentleman pointed
out that the Privy Council held that there
were no separate schools in Manitoba, prior
to the union, and therefore no rights of
Catholics in that province. Therefore, the
right hon. gentleman objected to the exercise in this House of the powers of remedial
legislation. I refer to this, because his colleague last night repeated the same statement.
and I tell the right hon. gentleman,
and I tell this House, I tell the Protestant
minority in Quebec and the Roman Catholic
minority in Ontario, I tell the minorities in
every province in this Dominion, that the
remedial clause of section 93 of the British
North America Act has been practically
blotted from the statute by the right hon.
gentleman and those who supported him at
that time. The Prime Minister, the other
evening. gave a very interesting and very
accurate account of the circumstances under
which the educational clauses of the British
North America Act were framed. I entirely
agree with every word he uttered on that
point, but let me add one or two words to
what he said. It is perfectly true that when
confederation was about to be formed it
was agreed between the politicians of Upper
and Lower Canada that two Bills should be
introduced to this House. one giving educational privileges to the Catholic minority
in
Upper Canada, the other giving educational
privileges to the Protestant minority in
Lower Canada. These Bills were introduced
but for reasons which we need not now discuss. they were uot passed, and those Bills.
not having been passed. and confederation
being about to be effected. the whole scheme
would have fallen through. because the
Protestants of the province of Quebec refused to enter confederation until their
educational rights were secured. Then Sir
George Etienne Cartier and Sir Hector Langevin. speaking for the Roman Catholics.
of Quebec, said : If the Protestants of Quebec will consent to going into confederation without this legislation. we pledge our
honour that at the first session of the local
legislature of the province of Quebec. after
confederation has been formed. we will see
that the rights you would have secured by
the Bill of last session. had it passed. are
conferred on you by a statute of the local
legislature. Sir Alexander Gait replied:
I am perfectly satisfied to take the word of
you gentlemen and believe that you will
adhere to it. but times are fleeting. lives are
uncertain and a day may come when others
will control the legislation of Quebec. and
in that case what the local legislature
gave it can take away. and the minority
may be deprived of the privileges granted
to them. Then it was that Galt. as the
right hon. gentleman said. drew with his
own hand his famous clause. that if
after confederation any right given to
3125 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 24, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
a minority by a legislature after confederation was taken away, the minority
had a right of appeal to Ottawa in order
to secure their just rights. On those terms,
Sir, the Protestants of Quebec and the Roman Catholics of Ontario came into confederation.
My hon. friend (Mr. Sifton)
seems to be oblivious of the terms on which
Manitoba came into confederation. It came
in under very peculiar circumstances. The
people of Manitoba treated with the people
of the Dominion and made a compact. The
Protestants and Roman Catholics in Manitoba alike wished to have a provision for
separate schools. We all know the history
of these things ; we know that it was uncertain whether the Roman Catholics or
the Protestants would be in the majority in
Manitoba, and it being wholly uncertain
whether there would be an invasion of Roman Catholics from Quebec that would
make Manitoba a Catholic province, or an
invasion of Protestants from England and
Ontario which would make it a Protestant
province, the Roman Catholics and Protestants combined in asking the legislature to
make such provisions that the minority would
have separate schools. And so it was that
the Act was passed, an Act not worth very
much on its face, but being a compact between the people of Manitoba and this Dominion,
the Act passed by this House was
validated by the imperial parliament, and
therefore it is a good law to-day. What is
the position of the people of Manitoba ?
They came in under an express bargain
which provided for separate schools. They
have, under section 93, the express right of
appeal to this parliament at Ottawa in case
they should be deprived of any right after
they had come into confederation.
Well, Sir, when they came into confederation they were, as everybody supposed,
given their separate schools. My hon.
friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) this afternoon attacked gentlemen on this side, because,
he said, we wished to restore these
inefficient schools. But he must remember
that one of the conditions we insisted on
was that the old inefficiency should be done
away with ; and Roman Catholics were willing to agree that the schools should be
made efficient. All that we on this side
wished to do was, as loyal Canadians to
stand by our word and keep the honour of
Canada unsullied.
The appeal came to Ottawa. As the
Prime Minister said, the highest court in
the realm, the Privy Council decided that
it was intended to give separate schools to
Manitoba, and that this legislation was
strong enough to give them had it been
properly based. But, as a matter of fact,
owing to the circumstance that the schools
were not there under the law or in practice
before Manitoba enterd confederation, they
had failed, and they were not entitled under the law, to the separate schools. The
3126
Roman Catholics, having appealed to the
courts, like good subjects bowed to the decision, but they came to us for a law to
remedy their grievance. And the reason
why I say the right hon. gentleman has
wiped that clause out of the statute-book
and deprived minorities throughout the Dominion of the protection they had, is that
no one can conceive of any circumstances
under which any province could come to
Ottawa with a stronger case than that
with which Manitoba came here.' Every
one knew that separate schools were meant
to be given, that the attempt was made to
then give it, and that it was believed that
that attempt was effective. Every one knew
that Manitoba itself understood that the
separate schools were established. And,
under these circumstances, the strongest
that could arise, the minority in Manitoba
came asking us not to coerce the province,
but to give the minority the rights which,
it was intended to give them. And when
the government of the day, though anxious
to live up to the spirit of confederation and
protect minorities , they were prevented from
doing so by the right hon. Prime Minister
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier). If the local legislature of Quebec should repeal every law
that has been made to assist the Protestant
minority since confederation—and many of
them have been passed—if the provincial
legislature of Ontario should repeal the laws
under which the separate schools of that
province have been maintained, they have
the legal power to do it. It is beyond
question that to-day every single privilege
in regard to their schools that the Protestants of Quebec and the Catholics of Ontario
enjoy, they owe to generosity and
forbearance of the majority. All the provisions for the protection of separate
schools under the constitution are practically worthless because they are unworkable.
Therefore, I say the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should speak
with some reticence on the educational
question in view of the lamentable experience of the minorities of this Dominion
solely through the attitude taken by the
right hon. gentleman himself. I would not
have dealt with this subject of Manitoba,
had it not been referred to by the Prime
Minister in presenting the Bill, and last
evening by the Minister of Customs (Mr.
Paterson) and this afternoon by the ex-
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) their
utterances on the subject making it necessary to say a few words to show in what
way they have misconceived the position
of the Conservative party at that time. If
the right hon. gentleman has misconceived
the attitude of his opponents at the time
when he came into power we may excuse
him if he has forgotten some things which
he might well have remembered when he
brought this Bill down for the consideration
3127 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â COMMONS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
of the House. In introducing the Bill on
the 21st of February, the right hon. Prime
Minister used the following words :—
A great deal has been done in fact, more has
been done than we have to do to-day. We have to take the last step but it is easy
and comparatively unimportant in view of and in comparison with what was already been
accomplished. The metal has been in the crucible and all we have to do now, is to
put the stamp of Canadian nationality upon it.
The right hon. gentleman's colleague
Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) spoke a
couple of nights ago. He had seen this
Bill, not before it was introduced but before he spoke. But between the Prime Minister's
speech and his own, apparently, he
had heard something from the country that his leader had not anticipated, so that
when he spoke—he is a most careful speaker— he said :
We have to-day before us perhaps the most
important measures that have ever engaged
the attention of the parliament of Canada.
Now, Sir, it is not, to put it mildly, a little disappointing to hon. gentlemen on
this side, when called upon to discuss a measure which is evoking such a feeling as
this Bill is, that the right hon. Prime Minister in introducing it should tell us
that it is a matter of such little importance that it is hardly worth while wasting
time over it; —while, a few days later, the Minister of Finance—who might have been
justified in using the language of his leader, and saying the Bill was of no moment,
because his leader thought the Bill of so little importance as to be not worth while
submitting to the consideration of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the
Interior, the two experts whose opinion would be required—frankly admits that it is
the most important measure that we have had in many a day. I go further than the hon.
gentleman and say , in all sincerity , that not only is it the most important measure
before parliament to-day, but I believe that it is the most important measure that
has ever been before this House, the most important measure—and I say it with a due
consciousness of that seriousness of my words —that will be brought before any English
speaking assembly for many a day to come. Let me explain why I say that. A great deal
has been said by some speakers in the way that I sincerely regret. I trust I shall
be able to express myself on these vexed questions without using a single word that
will be offensive to any one. I do not see why one cannot express his views conscientiously
and frankly without being offensive. And I must pay the ex- Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) the compliment of saying that there was nothing said by him this afternoon
that could be offensive to any one on either side of
3128
the House. I hope to follow the good example that the hon. gentleman has set. But,
when we are dealing with half a million square miles of territory of our Northwest,
we must not forget that time is fleeting, that history moves on, and that nowadays
great changes take place within a few years. We have often been referred to the year
1875 in this debate, the year when the law was passed for regulation of the Northwest,
when the school law was placed upon the statute-book. Who would have expected at that
time that people to-day would be spending time in discussing the school regulations
for a country in which, I understand, there were in 1875, only about 500 people. We
know that that part of the country was then regarded as part a part that would not
attain anything like the importance it has attained to-day. Within a quarter of a
century, since the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, wonderful changes have
come over that part of our country. Immigration is pouring in and developement is
rapidly progressing. Not only are the eyes of the old provinces fixed on the Northwest,
but the eyes of the empire are upon that country as the future granary of the empire.
More than that, Sir, we know that the eyes of the whole world are turned to the Northwest
as being the most attrative place for immigration for those leaving the countries
of the old world, which are not so free as ours, and wishing to find new homes. It
seems that we are approaching this subject in a parish spirit if we cannot see more
in it that a few details concerning the regulation of a few schools. The ex-Minister
of the Interior has quoted some eminent Roman Catholic prelate as saying that these
schools differed nothing from public schools except in the name. If there is so little
to distinguish them, if they are practically one and the same thing, why should the
right hon. gentleman have thrown this firebrand into the political arena ? The right
hon. gentleman discussed the Bill, with a subcommittee consisting of the Minister
of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) whose ability as a lawyer we are all proud of in this
House ; the Secretary of State and the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock). If
in discussing it with these gentlemen—which one representing the Northwest I do not
know , which one representing the adverse view on education to that held by the Prime
Minister himself I do not know—none of them was willing to discuss it from the standpoint
of the majority of the Northwest, why could not the Prime Minister have waited until
his Minister of the Interior had returned ? Why could not the right hon. gentleman
have waited till his Minister of Finance returned ? Why could he not have waited an
hour or two until Mr. Haultain could have been found ? Why could not the right hon.
gentleman have done something
3129 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 24, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â
to avoid the introduction of this unfortunate question into the political arena ?
Now, Sir, the position unfortunately is
this, that, as I said a few moments ago,
the right hon. gentleman has by his own
act practically blotted out clause 3 from section 93 of the British North America
Act,
and therefore it is that at such a time as
this we should endeavour to legislate, not
in the spirit suggested by the right hon.
gentleman the other evening, as representing individual constituencies, but legislate
as representatives of the people of Canada.
When the right hon. gentleman was speaking he pointed out that it would be impossible
to do certain things, for instance, to
extend the boundaries of Manitoba, because the representatives of the Northwest
objected to that. Now, I object for my
part to such an interpretation of our duties
as that. I submit that we shall certainly
come to grief if we cannot in the first instance, understand our own duties and responsibilities
here. We are here as representatives, not primarily of our individual constituencies
; every man sitting in this
House is the representative of all the people
of Canada, and I claim to represent the
people of the Northwest just as much as
any gentleman coming from the provinces
of Alberta and Saskatchewan. And when
the right hon. gentleman is prepared to adopt
the views of seven gentlemen from those
Territories, gentlemen elected on different
lines altogether, without regard to this question in deciding the future of that great
country which at no distant day must hold
the balance of power in this Dominion, I
can only say on that point emphatically,
that I differ from him. If we could induce
the right hon. gentleman, assisted perhaps
by the ex-Minister of the Interior—because
we would be delighted to have his assistance, though we would want to have it before
we got very far away, because he might
change his mind before we met again—if
we could possibly induce the premier to be
guided in some way by considerations of the
trifling character of the change suggested
in the schools as pointed out, though a
tremendous change as some people think,
surely something might be done to avoid
this difficulty. Something has been said
about the law of 1875 being a law under
which the people were induced to go into
the Northwest, and that they have a right
to believe that it will be maintained. Now
I would like to ask the ex-Minister of the
Interior how many of his Doukhobors or
Galicians could he name to-day who went
to the Northwest because they had read the
parliamentary debate of 1875, and were satisfied that their school rights would be
maintained ? If by any possibility any
weight were to be attached to that argument—which I do not think the hon. gentleman
himself really considered as an argument, I myself took it merely as one of his
3130
pleasantries—if there were any weight to
be attached to that argument, then at least
the same weight must be attached to the
opinion of men of the standing of the Hon.
David Mills, and Sir Louis Davies, and Sir
John Thompson, who all said that when parliament came to form the provinces it would
be perfectly free to do as it saw fit.
Now, before discussing the subject itself,
let me consider one or two remarks of the
ex-Minister of the Interior. When the hon.
gentleman was speaking of the causes that
led him to withdraw from the government,
he pointed out that the original clause as
introduced by the government had a certain
meaning, and that subsequently it was modified so that he could accept it. The hon.
gentleman pointed out that in the first instance the difference between what he wanted
and what he got was so great that he
was compelled to lay down the seals of
office, to abandon all the patronage and
emoluments of office, and to sink down to the
level of an ordinary member, and all for
conscience. But what was it the hon. gentleman had to salve his conscience for all
these
serious losses ? I think if I remember
his language correctly he said there was a
possibility that if a university were endowed, there might be a discussion as to
the rights of the respective parties as to a
share in the money. Then the hon. gentleman said that under the original clause
as introduced, all the provisions of the
Act of 1875 were also enacted. Now if the
hon. gentleman will look at the 1875 Act,
he will find there is nothing in that Act
whatever that provides machinery by which
these schools shall be carried on. The 1875
Act says in effect that Protestant and Roman Catholics, respectively, whenever in
a minority, are to be allowed to have separate schools, are to be allowed to appropriate
their own taxation to the support of their
schools, and are not to be compelled to support any other schools. That is all there
was in the Act of 1875. There was not a
word in it about giving the Roman Catholic
hierarchy charge of the schools, there was
not a word in it about this, that or the other
regulation, or ordinance, but the local authorities were to be allowed to do as they
saw fit, except that they must not interfere with the rights of minorities to have
their own separate schools, be they Protestant or Roman Catholic, and to apply their
own taxation for their maintenance. Subsequently the hon. gentleman pointed out
that certain changes were made by the local
authorities. Now would the hon. gentleman
pretend to say that anybody whose opinion was worth considering ever thought
that the local authorities which had passed
those ordinances had not the right to repeal
them ? They passed them, they existed for
a time, and they repealed them, and that
is all there was about it. And if the Act
as first introduced had gone into effect, the
3131 COMMONS
people of the Northwest would have had
just such schools as they will have to-day,
with all the rights and privileges attaching
to those schools as they are to-day. Will
the hon. gentleman say that is not the case
under the present Act ? Would he pretend
to say that under the Act now before the
House minorities in the Northwest have
not exactly the same rights and privileges
they would have had under the original
clause, except that he suggests that they
might in some occult way be put back to
the day of 1875 when the hierarchy were
controlling the schools ? Then the hon.
gentleman's reference to the university was
rather an amusing one. I am inclined to
think that if the hon. gentleman will read
the clauses carefully side by side he will
find that there is no ground whatever for the
objection he raises. Let me read the original clause as it appeared when the Bill
was
first introduced :
In the appropriation of public moneys by
the legislature in aid of education, and in the
distribution of any moneys paid to the government of the said province arising from
the
school fund established by the Dominion Lands
Act—
Any moneys appropriated by the legislature for education, or any moneys coming
arising from the sale of lands.
There shall be no discrimination between the
public schools and the separate schools, and
such moneys shall be applied to the support
of public and separate schools in equitable
shares or proportion.
That is to say, that every dollar applied
for schools is to be divided equitably between
public and separate schools. But what is
there in that clause to suggest that if the
legislature choose to endow a university,
either the majority or the minority will be
discriminated against because in 1910, perhaps, the legislature might give a sum to
endow a university ? The hon. gentleman
had to go very far afield to find such an
argument as that to justify his course. When
we come to simmer it down—if I am omitting any point I am willing to be corrected—
when we come to simmer it down he who,
for two or three weeks, has stood on the
highest pedestal in the Dominion of Canada,
worshipped as a martyr from one end of
the country to the other, whose praises could
not be drowned even by the rolling waves
of the Labrador coast, and which were wafted even to the sunny slopes of the west,
that hon. gentleman who has posed for two
or three weeks as a conscientious martyr
who would lose anything rather than principle, who was prepared to suffer anything
except a wound to his conscienne—that hon.
gentleman comes down to-day and kisses
the hand that smote him, and the only possible excuse that he can give for his ingratitude,
for his disloyalty to his chief, is
that he thought that under this second
3132
clause, if passed, there might possibly come
a day when they would endow a university,
and there might be a dispute between the
majority and the minority as to the distribution of their funds for that university.
while under the amended clause there could
be no trouble.
Surely, if ever there was a cause to which
the old adage parturiunt montes, nascitur
mus—the mountain has laboured and
brought forth a mouse—applies, it is this
one.
I think I will be justified in saying that
when a measure of the importance of this
is brought before this House the burden
rests entirely on those who proposed it, of
showing parliament that the measure of such
a character that it is our duty to pass it.
It is not part of the duty of the opposition
to show that the measure is not a proper
one. The burden surely rests on the government of the day, bringing down such an
important measure, to show that it is one
that should really be passed by this House.
The right hon. leader of the government in
introducing the Bill—and I am sorry he is
not here at the present moment—laid great
stress—page 1517 of ' Hansard '—on the fact
that we, the people of Canada, occupied a
peculiar position, because we have bought
and owned these Northwest lands. He declared that we had bought these lands, that
we owned them and that we own them now
and therefore surely the old saying should
hold good: Can a man not do as he likes with
his own ? I am sorry he is not here, but I
see the hon. Minister of Justice in his
place, and. I would like to ask the hon.
Minister of Justice, on behalf of his chief,
to tell me from whom Canada bought these
lands, when she bought them and how Canada got her title to those lands ? When the
statement is made, from which inferences
are drawn, that we own these lands, I say
that the right hon. gentleman should be prepared with some proof to substantiate that
statement. I am quite prepared to admit
that an hon. gentleman sitting behind him
having heard him make the statement
that we did own these lands might give
his support to the measure which he might
not give if he knew we did not own these
lands and that we never owned them. If
there were any doubt about the question
one would only have to look at the state
papers at the time the Hudson Bay Company ceded its rights to the Crown. A committee
was appointed, composed of Sir
George Cartier and Mr. McDougall ; they
looked thoroughly into the subject and they
made a report. Their report was to the
effect that the Hudson Bay Company had
no title whatever to these lands, that
they never did have a title and they gave an
abundance of reasons why the Hudson
Bay Company never could have had a title.
Without occupying the time of the House
by going into this simple question I might
3133 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 24, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
merely in a few words illustrate the point
by saying that at the time the Hudson's
Bay Company obtained its grant from
Charles II the grant did not profess to give
the lands in the Northwest Territories. In
the next place if the Crown did profess to
cede to the Hudson Bay Company the lands
in the Northwest Territories, Great Britain
did not own these lands at that time and
did not acquire them from France for many
years afterwards. It is certain that if Great
Britain did not own them Great Britain
could not give them and did not give them
to the Hudson Bay Company. All that
Great Britain did was to grant certain rights
to the Hudson Bay Company in regard to
fishing, trade and commerce. The Hudson
Bay Company never owned these lands in
the Northwest Territories and never professed to sell them to the Dominion of Canada.
In Vol. 11, No. 5, sessional papers, 1869,
paper 25, April 23, after giving all the reasons why the Hudson Bay Company had
never acquired any title to the Northwest
Territories, Sir George Cartier and Mr. McDougall concluded as follows :
The country which in view of these facts
must be excluded from the operation of the
charter includes all the lands fit for cultivation
and settlement in that part of British America.
Then as to Rupert's Land, which of course
is no part of the land we are now dealing
with, they say :
We are thus led to the same conclusion as in
the case of the territory claimed, but not owned
by the company, viz., that what they propose
to sell has no pecuniary or commercial value.
They are there, however, by at least a show of
right. Being there they obstruct the progress
of imperial and colonial policy and put in
jeopardy the sovereign rights of the crown over
one-third (and as some think even a larger portion) of the North American continent.
What is it worth to have this obstruction
quietly removed ? This is, perhaps the true
question, but the answer we submit, belongs
rather to Her Majesty's government which has
the power, in the case of resistance, to remove
the evil by summary process, than to those
who are little more than spectators of the
negotiation.
That report having been given the Executive Council made the following report :
Report of committee of executive council approved 22nd June, 1866, volume 1, No. 7,
1867-
1868. Sessional papers.
In the first place the committee do not admit
that the company have a legal title to that portion of the Northwestern territory
which is fit
for cultivation and settlement. This fertile
tract is a belt of land stretching along the
northern frontier of the United States to the
base of the Rocky Mountains, and Canada has
always disputed the title of the company to it.
So we have the unquestionable fact that
Canada always disputed with the Hudson
Bay Company that they had any title to
these lands, and we have the fact that the
Hudson Bay Company ceded all their rights
3134
to the Crown. But, my right hon. friend
must say if the rights are in the Crown in
regard to these lands then we have a right
to administer them. There is where we take
issue with the right hon. gentleman. We
take issue with him when he says the Dominion is supreme. The Dominion is supreme
in its sphere, but the provinces are just as
supreme within their spheres. In a province the Crown is represented by the province
just the same as in the Dominion the
Crown is represented by the Dominion. The
contention we put forward is that by virtue
of the British North America Act as soon
as the provinces come into existence the
Crown, as to the land within them, will be
represented by the provinces themselves
and that while the Dominion may have the
power to make certain laws for the peace,
order and good government of these provinces the title to the land is in the Crown
and
the Crown is represented in the provinces
by the provincial authorities. We had that
matter before the House a short time ago.
The Attorney General of British Columbia
brought action against the Attorney General
of the Dominion. We all remember that
when the Canadian Pacific Railway was
built a grant was made of an area 20 miles
on each side of the road out of the British
Columbia lands. The province of British
Columbia received $100,000 a year from the
Dominion in consideration of the grant, but
after this land was granted gold was discovered and the question arose : To whom
does this gold belong ? The Dominion
said : We have the grant of land ; it is
our gold. The province gave us the land
and now we have the land and the minerals
on it. But, the Privy Council said no, that
the province represented the Crown and
that the Crown could not part with its
minerals unless it expressly said that it
parted with its minerals ; the minerals remain in the Crown, the Crown is represented
by the province and the province is entitled
to them. In the same way we are asked to
believe that these lands belong to the Dominion. The right hon. leader of the government
says that the Dominion own these
lands, whereas we say she never bought
them, she never owned them and the province is the proper authority to administer
them.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House resumed consideration of the 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. NORTHRUP. Mr. Speaker, when
you left the chair at six o'clock, I was about
to consider the position this House is in
with regard to one particular clause of. the
Northwest Bill, that is to say, the educational clause.
Perhaps, before considering our position,
it would not be out of place to remind the
House of a matter known to all, and that
is that every civilized nation looks after
the education of its youth. There must, of
3137
MARCH 24, 1905
course, be some reason other than
individual
reasons; there must of necessity be some
public, national reason, when we find in
every land the nation, in self-defence, taking charge of this particular item of education,
and when we find every civilized nation agreeing as to the importance that is
attached to supplying its youth with the
best possible education they can receive.
I think, Sir, we may take it for granted
that the reason the state desires to control
the education of its youth is that intelligent peoples recognize that the greatest
handicap to which youth can be subjected
is the want of education. We know perfectly well in our own country that if two lads
start out in life, one handicapped by a lack
of education and the other possessed of an
education, there is no doubt who will be the
successful man and who will be the hewer
of wood and drawer of water for the other.
The same thing applies as between nations.
We all recognize that if one nation looks
after the education of its youth, while another nation neglects to do so, the nation
which neglects the education of its youth
will be the servant of the other. To-day
the nations of the world have taken upon
themselves to look after the subject of
education for the reason that I have given.
Why is it that in this country education
is, by the British North America Act, allotted to the provinces ? We have the
division of a great many powers given under
the British North America Act. To the Dominion is allotted the power to
legislate exclusively on many subjects and to the provinces is allotted the power
to
legislate exclusively on many other subjects. Is there
any reason why, in our own country, this
particular subject of education has been
allotted to the provinces ? I think there is
a well-known reason, and I am going to
point out that, although it has frequently
been said in this debate that the provinces
have not the exclusive right to legislate on
that subject as they have touching other
matters, practically they have the exclusive
right. There is a limitation to their right
to legislate upon education. They cannot
legislate as freely perhaps as they can legislate on other subjects, but their right
is exclusive. No other power has the right to
legislate, except that in certain cases an
application can be made to the Dominion,
under the remedial clause, which. as was
illustrated in the Manitoba school case, has
been practically blotted out of the statute-
book. We ask why it is that in our country
the Dominion has no jurisdiction or legislative power, except in exceptional cases,
in regard to education and that the power of
legislation is given exclusively to the provinces? We have the answer to that. We
know
that the great father of confederation, Sir
John Macdonald himself, favoured a legislative and not a federal union. His idea was
to
have a great central parliament, as they
have it in the mother country, conferring
greater powers on the county councils and,
to save expense, dispensing with the local
3138
legislatures. But he was unable to carry
out his idea of a legislative union, and the
main reason why a legislative union was not
carried out by the Dominion of Canada was
that the great province of Quebec insisted
that the control of education must be left
to the provinces. Let me quote a speech
in the parliamentary debates on the New
Brunswick School Act. Sir John Macdonald, then premier, spoke as follows:
It was known to every one that the
question
of education had threatened confederation at its
very inception, and a proposition that education
should be left to the general legislature of the
Dominion would have been enough to secure
the repudiation of confederation by the people
of Lower Canada, and it was therefore expressly provided in the Act of union that the
question should be entirely left to the different
provinces with the provision that whenever
there was a separate system in force that system should not be interfered with.
So we find that to-day what we of the
opposition are contending for, that the exclusive right of legislation touching education
shall be left to the newly
created provinces, was carried out in accordance with
the principle laid down by the province of
Quebec, which determined the question
whether or not we should have a legislative
or a federal government in this country.
We now come to these educational clauses
that we have before us. We have heard a
great deal about the rights of minorities.
and I would be very sorry to say a word
against the rights of minorities. I have in
days gone by in this House stood up for the
rights of minorities, even though I knew the
penalty I must pay was the loss
of my seat
in this House; and I have never since regretted that, because, although I lost my
seat, I had the consciousness of doing what
I believed to be right. I have no hesitation
in saying that it is incumbent on any majority, not merely to be just to the minority.
for
there is no credit to a majority any more
than to a man in being just, but I think
it is in honour incumbent on the majority
to be generous to the minority in all
matters
in which the minority take a deep interest,
and there is no matter in which they take
a deeper interest than in that of education.
Therefore, I say there is no hon. member
of this House who would have greater consideration for the feelings of the minority.
to whatever class the minority might belong, than I myself. But while paying all
possible respect to the feelings of the minority, we would be unworthy of our positions
in this House if we entirely shut our eyes
to the feelings or rights, or supposed rights,
of the majority. because, where there is a
minority, there must be a majority. It has
been said in this House, and I was very
sorry to hear the statement—a statement
with which I do not agree, made by no less
a personage than my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding)—that so grave
was this question, so violently exciting to
the country, and so bitter were the passions
that had been aroused, that if the right
3139
hon. leader of the government were turned
from power, it would be impossible for the
hon. leader of the opposition to form
an
administration, because no such administration could be formed on any other than a
Protestant basis. I do not think it was
necessary for that hon. gentleman to have
said that. I do not think, in the face of
what was said by the hon. ex-Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Sifton) this afternoon; I
do not think. in the face of what was said
by the hon. Minister of Finance himself
only a few minutes before. that he was
justified in so speaking. Let me quote to
the House what the hon. gentleman said
that evening. At considerable length he
recited the condition of afairs
in the, Northwest Territories ; he recounted the various
ordinances, or the result of these ordinances,
-minimizing as much as possible their efiect,
to show that after all there was no great
question at issue, or, as he himself said, no
principle involved in this question, and he
went on to say:
I want the House to consider seriously, I
submit the proposition again, that if it be true as
I say, and I believe I am correct beyond the
power of contradiction, that from the moment
that the school Opens in the morning up to
half-past three in the afternoon there is no
difference between a separate school and a free
national school, and if the only point of difference between them is that half hour
of
religious instruction, is there enough in it to
quarrel about, and to have public meetings and
agitation throughout the length and breadth
of this land ? I believe that the great mass of
the people to-day who are joining in petitions
and holding meetings have not had time to
understand this question. I believe that they
have an erroneous view as to what the condition in the Northwest Territories is and
as to
what the condition which we propose to perpetuate is. When they discover, as they
will,
in the light of the debate which will take place
in this House now and in the next few days,
when the people of Canada shall learn that we
have in the west to-day a system which is
practically a national school system, and that
the only point of difference between us is with
respect to that small matter of half an hour of
religious instruction, I think the great mass of
the Protestant people of Canada will say that
they regret that there has been any agitation
on the subject.
That, Sir, is the View expressed by my
hon. friend the Minister of Finance in the
presence of the right hon. leader of the government and not repudiated by him. My
hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who has had some hand in framing
this Bill, spoke in this way of the educational clause :
I wanted to make the position of the
people
'in the Northwest with respect to educational
matters so clear and simple that any man might
understand the clause when he read it. I said
that nothing should be left to doubt, uncertainty
or misconception ; and in so far as I am concerned, that clause, in the terms in which
it is
now drafted, was prepared merely for the purpose of giving to the people of the
Northwest
3140
Territories those things which they now
have
and it never was intended to go one inch beyond that.
Now, then, we have the hon. Minister of
Finance declaring that the only point in
dispute is one half hour's religious instruction in the schools of the
Northwest Territories, with the hon. Minister of Justice
declaring that in drafting the Bill he had
no intention of going one inch—and you
could hardly name a smaller distance-
farther than to perpetuate that system
which the hon. Minister of Finance himself
described. I have not had any conference
with my hon. friend the member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule), but, if that be the temper of the government, if the members of
the government were honest in stating on
the floor of this House what the real difference is, I venture to say that my
hon. friend
from East Grey will assent at once. and
every hon. member on this side of the House
will assent joyfully to such a proposition.
if the only point is whether or not instructions shall be given for one half hour.
If so,
we say by all means give the children religious instruction for half an hour by whatever
clergyman of whatever church is desired.
Now that we find this statement made, it
is only fair-speaking as I do
for the majority—it is only fair to consider that the
majority must be influenced by hearing
such statements made. But in looking
about and seeing the facts that are patent
to every one, let us recall some of these
facts. It will not be denied that the government, although appealed to again and
again from the Northwest Territories
through the proper channels, to give autonomy to the Northwest Territories refused
again and again, sometimes stating as a
reason even for not considering the question, the absence of the ex-Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton) from
Ottawa. It will
not be denied that the government suddenly
decided to give provincial autonomy to the
Northwest Territories just at the commencement of a political campaign. It will not
be denied that in the interest of fair play
and justice, if the government intended offering such an important proposition to
the
Northwest Territories the scheme itself
should have been laid before the people of
the Northwest Territories so that in pronouncing a verdict in the last election an
opportunity would have been given them
to pronounce upon that important matter.
No such opportunity was given. It will
not be denied that the government having
thus suddenly promised in the heat of an
election to give autonomy to the Northwest
Territories, when the duly accredited representatives of the Northwest Territories
came
to Ottawa, negotiations were held which extended over a considerable period of time
and which covered many subjects, but at
these negotiations the question of education was never discussed and only suggested
once. Can it be a surprise to any one
3141
MARCH 24, 1905
if some persons in the country are
inclined
to think that there must have been a reason for such treatment of the duly accredited
representatives of the Northwest in
connection with this important matter. The
Minister of Finance is the gentleman who
on the part of the government would be
held responsible for the financial terms
which however lightly they may be spoken
of in this House and however slightly they
may be discussed by members who may not
feel competent to discuss such an involved
and intricate question, are of immense importance to this country in view of the fact
that some millions of dollars a year are
to be paid out to each of these provinces.
Yet, it cannot be denied that the one minister in the government who should have
been consulted on the financial terms was
not even in the city of Ottawa when the
Bill was brought down, for it
was brought
down two days I think before the date on
which it was known the Minister of Finance
would arrive here. The Minister of Justice was the member of the government
who above all others was most intimately
acquainted with all the questions involved
in this measure, and yet it cannot be denied,
for he himself has admitted it, that although he discussed different other questions
with the government, although he had
given long and anxious consideration to
the education question, this. the most important of all the questions had never been
mentioned between him and his leader up
to the time the Bill was laid before the
House; and the Bill was hurriedly brought
down within a couple of days before the
hon. gentleman's expected return. Surely we
cannot be surprised if some people should
think that this is a suspicious circumstance.
We find, from the statements made to the
House, that this important matter was deferred to a subcommittee of the government.
I have not a word to say against the members of that sub-committee, but I would
venture to suggest that perhaps those whom
I may describe as the minority must not
be surprised if those who happen to be in
the majority think it rather strange, that
when Mr. Haultain could not be consulted
on the education clause, and when the ex-
Minister of the Interior and the Minister
of Finance could not be consulted, that a
commitee composed of the Premier, Mr.
Fitzpatrick, the Minister of
Justice; Mr.
Scott, the Secretary of State, and Sir William Mulock were the four to Whom was
referred this important question. Surely
there is something in'that to cause the people of this country to wonder if everything
is as simple and plain as has been represented by hon. gentlemen opposite. We find
on the return of the Minister of the Interior, that he promptly resigns and having
resigned he was heralded through the
country as a man who had made sacrifices
on the ground of principle. Time went on
3142
and to-day
we have had the Minister of the
Interior before the Canadian House of Commons. I stand in the judgment of all those
who heard him this evening, if a
more pitiable attempt to explain what could not be
explained was ever presented to any intelligent body. I am sorry the hon. gentleman
is not here to—night. I was at a loss
while he was speaking to know, whether
one should pity him or pity his ex-colleagues
the more. Just think of the position he
was in. The Minister of Finance says the
only difference between the parties is that
one half hour of religious education; the
Minister of Justice says he did not intend
to go one inch beyond the present conditions, but the clauses are drawn in such a
tangled net that a man of the intelligence
of the Minister of the Interior did not know
what they meant, and he believed they were
something so terrible that he had to resign
from the government. There is an end to
everything in this world, and you would
have thought that about that time there
was an end to the want of confidence the
ministers exhibited towards one another.
You would think that gentlemen of the
intelligence of the Minister of Justice, the
Minister of the Interior and the Minister of
Finance when they met together and found
they were in absolute accord as to what
they wanted; you would have thought it
would not have been very dificult for them
to have said: There is a slight misunderstanding, we will make it clear in a few
words; and then and there the Minister of
the Interior would have been contented with
the clauses and would not have resigned.
Evidently there was no such discussion. or
the discussion that was held was not what
we have been told. Evidently we have
not been told all the truth, or else there
was more all round stupidity displayed
than ever before was displayed in this or
any other country by three cabinet ministers.
Then, when the Minister of the Interior
had
resigned, and the country had sounded his
praises from one end to the other, we had
this incident. The newspapers sometimes
foresee What is to happen, and among them
the Montreal 'Witness' of to-day, a paper
published before the explanation of this
afternoon, writes :
Hon. Clifford Sifton.
It is said he will return to Cabinet and
accept
the Autonomy Bill as modified.
The Hon. Clifford Sifton, who recently
resigned as Minister of the Interior on account
of dissatisfaction with the educational clauses
in the Autonomy Bills, will, it is said, return
to the federal cabinet within the next ten days,
and continue in control of the Interior Department.
Mr. Sifton, according to a private
despatch
received in the city from Ottawa
to-day, will
make a strong speech in parliament early next
week, announcing his acceptance of the educa
3143 COMMONS
tional clauses in the Bill as explained
in their
modified form by the premier in the House the
other day.
Now Sir, that prophesy of the Montreal
' Witness' is pretty nearly correct. It is
not absolutely correct because the ex-minister (Mr. Sifton) did not wait until next
week and he most certainly did not make
a strong speech. With these two trifling
exceptions the 'Witness' article is true.
When one considers the position of the ex-
Minister of the Interior it,
reminds us of
the cartoon which was widely circulated
throughout this country some years ago at
the expense of another politician; it was
a very pretty picture with the legend at
the bottom : The cat came back.
We had the privilege of hearing the ex-
minster this afternoon and you remember
the excuse he gave. He was perfectly prepared to accept the present clauses, but he
feared the original clauses because he
thought they might be liable to introduce
some of these ordinances of an ephemeral character that had come and gone
years ago, and he also feared that
peradventure a university might be
founded in years to come in the distant Northwest, and when founded it
might lead to dissensions between majorities and minorities in that unhappy country.
One feels inclined to protest against
such an affront to the intelligence of the
members of this House, as for a gentleman
who occupies such an exalted position to
venture to come before parliament with
such an excuse as this. We cannot be very
much surprised if the majority in this country are inclined to think that the truth,
the
whole truth and nothing but the truth has
not been told them by hon. gentlemen opposite in their account of the effect of this
Bill. If further confirmation of such suspicions were necessary, one has but to look
at the arguments advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite in support of their Bill. As
I
have said, the burden rests on a government which brings down a Bill to show
good and sufficient reason to justify its
passage.
Let us look at the arguments advanced
by the leading gentlemen on the opposite
side of the House who have spoken. The
right hon. the Prime Minister spoke first,
and assuming that a gentleman of his
ability made the best argument that could
be made in favour of the Bill, let us see
what his statements were. His first justification for it was, because of the cleavage
between Roman Catholics and Protestants;
a cleavage on matters of dogma. Now,
if the statement of the hon. Minister of
Finance is true, what earthly difference
does such a cleavage make? Let the
Roman Catholic children be instructed by
their priests from half-past three to four
and the children of any Protestant denomination be instructed by their ministers from
3144
half past three to four, and where is
there
any necessity of referring to a cleavage in
dogma, and how can that affect the question? But even if it did affect it, what
is the meaning of cleavage in dogma between Roman Catholics and Protestants ?
Roman Catholics and Protestants are not all
the people of this country. The Minister
of the interior is perhaps
responsible for
other complications that may arise when
we come to consider cleavage in
doctrine;
because I believe the hon. member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) will object to some of
the settlers in the Northwest being classed
as adherents of the Protestant faith. Where
will you put the Doukhobors, the Mormons.
the members of the Greek Church ? Are
they Protestants? If the only cleavage to
be considered is a cleavage in doctrine,
between two bodies, perhaps something may
be said for separate schools; but if the
cleavage between Mormons and Protestants
is as broad as the cleavage between Protestants and Roman Catholics—and I trust
that it is broader or if the cleavage between Protestants and Doukhobors is as
broad—and I believe it is just as broad—
then why should there be separate schools
instead of national schools ? The Hon.
George Brown, whose speeches in the Senate have often been quoted in admiration,
in objecting to separate schools, pointed
out that if they were allowed, Anglicans and
Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists were
just as much entitled to them as any other
class of the community; and .hon. gentlemen opposite who are sufficiently instructed
ir. theology will bear me out when I say
that the difference between the
high church
Anglican and the Roman Catholic is much
less than the difference between the high
church Anglican and the adherent of the
denominations commonly known as Protestant.
Then the hon. gentleman said: Give the
Northwest the same rights as are given to
Quebec and Ontario. Why did the hon.
gentleman say that? In the British North
America Act there was no confederation
of Quebec and Ontario. There was a confederation of four provinces—Quebec, Ontario,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were not
given separate schools, Ontario and Quebec were not given separate schools, by the
Act of Union; and when these
provinces
are coming into a partnership in which there
are seven provinces, and only two have
separate schools, on what ground can the
hon. gentleman say that as a matter of right
and justice, these new provinces are entitled to the special privileges which the
two provinces have rather than the five provinces which lack those special privileges,
if such they be. Besides, it must be borne
in mind—and I am trying to speak with all
calmness and frankness in calling the attention of hon. gentlemen to the views of
3145 MARCH 24, 1905
the majority—that the Protestants of Quebec and the Roman Catholics of Ontario
were not given any rights at all. In consequence of a mutual exchange the Protestants
of Quebec and the Roman Catholics
of Ontario established separate schools,
and
it was agreed to give separate schools to
both. When the hon. gentleman, then,
says that we should give the Northwest
the same rights that we gave to Ontario and
Quebec, he is asking for something that is
impossible, because we did not give those
rights to Ontario and Quebec. But if we
take the hon. gentleman at his
word, and
give to the minority in the Northwest Territories the same rights that the Protestants
have in Quebec, would that satisfy hon.
gentlemen opposite ? Would that satisfy the
premier ? Would it satisfy some of our
extreme friends in the province of Quebec ?
What are those rights? What is
the condition in Quebec? The schools which we
call public schools in other provinces are
church schools there; and I say all credit
to the Roman Catholics for insisting on an
education in religion in the schools. I think
it would be better for Protestants if they
did the same; but unfortunately the divisions among them prevent that desirable
consummation. But in the province of Quebec, as a matter of fact the majority have
their schools conducted on religious lines.
There is a great difference between a Protestant going to what is practically a church
school and being trained in the doctrines of
the Catholic faith, and a Roman Catholic
child in the Northwest going to a public
school of which the worst said is that he is
not trained in his own faith. Surely there
is all the difference, to use the language of
the prayer book, between commission and
omission in the two acts. And so, when hon.
gentlemen opposite plead with us to give
to the Northwest the same rights that are
given to Quebec and Ontario, I venture to
say that, the Protestants, being in such an
immense majority in the Northwest, in
many cases it would be a practical impossibility for the Roman Catholics to have
their separate schools. They would feel
that a gross injustice was being done to a
Roman Catholic child if we set up a national
school in the Northwest in which the distinctive tenets of Protestantism were
taught.
The right hon. gentleman said, on page
1458, in introducing the Bill :
Having obtained the consent of the
minority
to this form of government, having obtained
their consent to the giving up of their valued
privileges and their position of strength are
we to tell them, now that confederation is established, that the principle upon which
they
consented to this arrangement is to be laid
aside and that we are to ride rough—shod over
them?
Now, Sir, I must confess that I am utterly unable to grasp the meaning of that
3146
language. I am not aware of any rights
that were given up, any valuable privileges
of which they were shorn, any position of
strength that was abandoned. If any compact or bargain has been made by which
the people of this country are in honour
bound to give to the Northwest separate
schools or anything else, then I will take
the same stand that I took in 1896, and say,
if the honour of this country is at stake,
let us preserve our honour. But surely it
is on hon. gentlemen opposite to show that
there was some compact by which we are
in honour bound to give some system of education to which we are opposed.
The right hon. gentleman, in introducing
the Bill, made another statement, on page
1458; and it is rather singular that he
used such an argument and others when the
real point at issue is whether or not religious education should be given
for half
an hour a day. The right hon. gentleman
said :
When I compare these two countries, when
I
compare Canada with the United States, when I
compare the status of the two nations, when I
think upon their future, when I observe the
social condition of the civil society in each of
them and wheul observe in this country of
ours a total absence of lynchings and an almost
total absence of divorces and murders. for my
part. I thank heaven that we are living in a.
country where the young children of the land
are taught Christian morals and Christian dogmas.
I was rather amused when the right hon.
gentleman said that. He was greeted with
thunderous applause by the gentlemen behind him. Those hon. gentlemen, I sometimes
think, have got into such
a habit of
applauding their leader for the eloquent
passages with which from time to time he
regales them, that they often applaud though
they fail to grasp the point. I saw some
gentlemen applauding that statement who
I thought should more properly have held
a brief for the Roman Catholics of the
United States; and I call their attention
to this statement which the right hon. gentleman has advanced as an argument why
we should pass this Bill, which is in effect
a statement that in the United States there
is no religion taught in the national schools;
that in Canada you have national schools
without religion for Protestants and separate
schools for Roman Catholics ; and that the
consequence is that under this educational
system Canada has escaped the murders,
divorces and lynchings so common in the
United States. Now, what does that mean
if logic means anything?
I will not try to put it in words because
one is so apt to be misquoted or misreported
that I am afraid somebody will be unkind
enough to say afterwards that I charged the
Catholics of the United States when it is
the right hon. the Prime Minister who has
done that, and I stand here to defend them.
3147
COMMONS
If it be true as he said, that we have
public
schools in Canada, in which no religion is
taught and separate schools where the tenets
of the Roman Catholic church are taught,
and that in the United States they have
only public schools wherein no religion is
taught; therefore the murders lynchings,
and the divorces in the United States must
be attributable to the Catholics of the United
States, according to his logic. It could not
be attributed to the Protestants because the
system of education is the same for them
in Canada as in the United States and the
only possible argument that can be advanced
is: Give us separate schools here because
the tone of morals will then be so much
higher that we will shine in comparison with
our less blessed neighbours to the south.
This logical conclusion is irresistible, yet
the hon. gentlemen opposite showed their
approval of this as one of the Prime Minister's strongest arguments. The hon. gentleman
spoke of the obligation resting on us
to maintain separate schools in the west because they were given by legislation and
pointed out that we here had given the Canadian Pacific Railway a certain exemption,
from taxation and that nobody would think
of revoking that Act passed by this parlia
ment. I thought at the time the right hon.
gentleman could hardly be speaking
seriously. Surely he must admit that there
is all the difference in the world between an
ordinance passed by a legislature that can
give one day and recall the next a solemn
bargain between a country and a railway
company whereby in consideration of certain
things done and promised by the country
the company agrees to build a railroad. In
one case there is a bargain and in the other
there is no bargain. If these were a
parallel—I do not think there is an
exact one, but if I were looking for
one—I would find it in the case of the Land
Act of the Northwest Territories, whereby
land was set aside for purposes of education
and subsequently this House deliberately
changed that to reserve the lands for the
public schools, and from that day to this
thousands and thousands of acres of land
have been held in trust for the benefit of
public schools. If any settlers went in
under any inducement what would be a
greater inducement than to come to a land
where hundreds and thousands of acres were
set aside solemnly by the Dominion parliament for the aid of public schools? And
yet the hon. gentleman does not hesitate
to break that law and that trust by this
Act ruthlessly to lay hands on the public
lands and divide the proceeds between the
public and the so-called separate schools.
The Minister of Finance gave us an assurance the other night that was certainly
very gratifying when he told us there was
no legal or binding obligation to re-enact the
law of 1875. If there is no legal or binding
obligation to re-enact that law, then we on
this side of the House cannot be blamed, I
3148
suppose, if we prefer not to enact it.
The
hon. the Minister of Finance whose intelligence we all admit, whose capacity fully
to understand the full effect and grasp of
the possibilities of the resolution before the
House quite as well as some hon. gentlemen who sit behind him, would come to the
discussion of the subject in the House with
a breezy freshness which the hon. gentlemen would lack because he did not see the
Act as soon as they and so it is fresher in
his mind; that hon. gentleman the other
night said :
We do not propose to override any Act of
any
legislature. What we propose to-day is to confirm and continue for all future time
a. measure
which the free voice of the Northwest legislature has placed upon the statute-book
of the
Territories.
The free voice of the Northwest Territories legislature compelled by this House
to have separate schools, being the best they
could do by the burdens laid on them. I
refer to the remarks of the Minister of
Finance perhaps more frequently than those
of other gentlemen because I enjoyed them
as an oratorical effort. He favoured us
with a description of the Paradise Regained
in the little province of Nova Scotia; he
described the absolute bliss that reigned
there among those religious classes which
are warring in other portions of the country
and pointed to the absolute harmony, concord and progress which prevailed there because
they had not any separate school system and in triumph, glorying as he was in
this happy state of Nova Scotia, his colleague the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr.
Emmerson), not wishing to be completely
eclipsed, called his attention to the fact that
a similarly happy condition of affairs prevails in New Brunswick where there are no
separate schools. The hon. gentleman held
this House spell-bound with an eloquence
which we can admire without attempting to
imitate, in one of the most glorious oratorical efforts ever given in this House while
he
proved that inasmuch as Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick were so perfectly happy
and free and prosperous without separate
schools, therefore we ought to impose on the
Northwest Territories separate schools. Is
ii. any wonder, Sir, when we find an Act introduced into this House under such circumstances
as those under which this Act was
introduced, to which we have called attention before, and when we find that Act supported
by such argument and eloquence as
that, is it any wonder—and I ask it in all
seriousness—that this class of people who
have been referred to as the majority sometimes wonder if there is not more in the
Act
than is stated by hon. gentlemen opposite?
If there is nothing more in the Act than the
Minister of Finance said—and far be it from
me to transgress the rules of the House or,
outside of the House, to doubt his word,
if there be nothing more than he said, viz:
the paltry half-hour for religious instruction
3149 MARCH 24, 1905
for Heaven's sake let us as two-hundred
and
fifteen intelligent men, put our heads together this night and settle this question
of
education in the Northwest Territories.
I was looking over the several ordinances
of the Northwest Territories the other day.
They are rather voluminous, I have not had
time to study them since I received them,
but while not pretending to say that there
is anything in what I am about to say to
cause any hon. gentleman to change his mind
about the true purport of this Bill, still it
is possible there are some who do not understand hon. gentlemen opposite as well as
we
do and have less confidence in them than we
have. Some people outside, in
the country,
if they should read these ordinances might
be suspicious. Clause 10 provides:
All general regulations respecting the
inspection of schools, the examination, training.
licensing, and grading of teachers, courses of
study. teachers' institutes, and text and reference books shall before being adopted
or
amended be referred to the council for its discussion and report.
A rather important clause you would think
covering almost everything touching education. Clause 11 provides :
The council shall consider such matters
as
may be referred to it as herein before provided
for by the commissioner, and may also consider
any question concerning the educational system
of the Territories as to it may seem fit, and
shall report thereon to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Still further powers. I do not wish to
misrepresent a single word, and therefore
call attention to the fact that this educational clause with these broad powers is
really
an educational adviser to the educational
commissioners of the Territories. I do not
pretend to say, and hope I shall not be
accused afterwards of misleading the House
by trying to make hon. members
believe,
that this council has power to do everything that it has power to report upon. But,
when we find a member of the government
given an advisory clause in some special
line like education, we can well believe that
he would feel bound, except for very good
reasons to the contrary, to follow the advise they gave. As the present Prime Minister
of Ontario, Mr. Whitney, said in advocating an advisory board: he said the
minister will not be bound to take their
opinion, but he should be assuming a grave
responsibility if he ventured to differ from
the educational board selected for him. So,
with regard to the educational clause of
the Northwest Territories, I do not say that
their findings are absolutely conclusive but
I do say that they are entitled to the greatest weight. and that in the practical
carrying out of education they would be found
to have tremendous weight. And how is
this clause composed ? Let me read the
section on that point :
3150
There shall be an educational council
consisting of five persons at least two of whom shall
be Roman Catholics to be appointed by the
Lieutenant Governor in Council,
who shall recommend such remuneration as the Lieutenant
Governor in Council shall decide.
Now, Sir, I make no comment; I find no
fault. Still, we find an ordinance of this
kind appointing a board of five, of whom
two at least must be-the whole
five may
be Roman Catholics. And we have been
told of the schools of that part of the coun
try that there are, as I understand, ten or
twelve separate schools and 1,000 or 1,200
public schools. for the population is overwhelmingly Protestant. Is it any wonder
that some people dislike crystallizing into
law for all time to come this provision for
a board of five members two of Whom at
least must be Roman Catholics? Without
a word derogatory to my Roman Catholic
friends or to any gentleman in the ministry,
let me assume that one of the three non-
Catholics takes no more interest in education than one of the Protestant members of
the sub-committee, Sir William Mulock,
did
in the present Bill, and where would the
rights of the Protestant majority be ? We
have a mixed population there. Give the
Roman Catholics all, and more than all,
they are justly entitled to,
because they
are a minority. But surely it the tables
were turned my Roman Catholic friends
would object to have it provided for all
time to come that two of the members of
the educational council must be members
of the opposite faith.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I would like to ask him
a question. Can these two members of the
educational council vote ?
Mr. NORTHRUP. I see nothing here to
prevent it. They all stand on the same
footing.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. But can the members of the council reach an efiective decision, or have they only
advisory powers ?
Mr. NORTHRUP. I was very careful, in
introducing the subject, to explain the
powers that they had not, so that I might
not be accused of misleading the House.
So, I think I am justified in what I said,
that, while I do not claim that this council
has the power to crystallize into law what
they wish on these subjects, yet the commissioner of education must be expected
to be guided to a large extent by the decisions of those selected for that important
trust.
Then, looking a little further—and I
merely mention this as an illustration of
something in the Act that goes a little further than the Minister of Finance thought
—I find ordinance 31 which regulates the
public aid to schools. There is no religious
point involved in this; it is simply a pract
3151
COMMONS
ical point as to securing the best education possible for your children :
To rural districts an amount to be calculated
as follows :
(a) To each district containing 6,400
acres or
less of assessable land as shown by the last
revised roll of the district, $1.20 for each day
school is kept open ; to each district containing less than 6,400, as aforesaid, one
cent more
per day for each 160 acres or fractional part
thereof less than 6,400 acres ; and to each district containing more than 6,400 acres
as aforesaid, one cent less per day for each additional
60 acres or fractional part thereof.
Mr. SCOTT. That ordinance is not embodied in the Bill.
Mr. NORTHRUP. I see that. But I
gave this merely to illustrate how the Act
must work out for a similar ordinance
must be passed. Here is the point I want
to make: Certain grants are made out of
the public treasury for these schools. Take
a rural school section, of, say, 6,400 acres.
A certain amount of money will go to that
section. Now, simply as a practical illustration of What would arise under the ordinance
Mr. SCOTT. But what purpose is-to be
served by giving such an illustration. when
there is no provision of that kind in the
Bill ?
Mr. NORTHRUP. I suppose that when
the public moneys are to be distributed under this Bill, they must be distributed
equitably among the public and separate
schools. If a certain amount of money is
to go to one section, and there is only one
school, that school will get more than it
would if another school were established in
the same section. That, I think, is self
evident. I expressly said that I gave this
as an illustration of how it would work out.
I suppose it will be admitted that, as that
country is sparsely settled, it must be rather
hard, in many sections, to maintain the
schools. If another school is started in the
neighbourhood, a heavy burden is
placed
upon both classes of the community and
the schools are less efficient than they otherwise would be. I have another reason.
I
was in the Northwest about two
years ago.
I found regions which foreigners, as for instance the Galicians, have come in and
set-
tied. Now, if the Galicians get control of
the school in one section, is it more likely
or is it less likely that Americans, let us
say, will settle there under the proposed
legislation than they would if the public
school only could be established there ? As
a practical question is it not clear that the
moment a number of foreigners settle in
one section, they will effectively exclude
3152
other people settling in that section
unless
they are prepared to accept the conditions
that would be suitable to foreigners ? Take,
for instance the Galicians, and speaking of
them with all respect. Is it unfair to say
that the children of Galicians not knowing
a word of English, would not be regarded as the most profitable fellow-
students at school for the children of a
farmer coming from the south side of the
line. Therefore I venture to say that the
idea of splitting up the schools is not calculated to improve the class of immigrants
coming into the country and that it will
practically shut out from the country a
great deal of a certain and excellent class
of immigration.
I have tried calmly and quietly to call
the
attention of the hon. gentlemen opposite to
the fact that a majority may have feelings
as well as a minority, and that it would be
well in all these matters to consider the
feelings of the majority as well as the feelings of the minority. I trust, Sir, that
since
it has been admitted on both sides of the
House that painful excitement exists in the
country, that fears have been aroused and
passions excited, that probably many long
days will be required to quell. I think I am
justified in view of these facts admitted on
both sides of the House, in appealing to the
right hon. gentleman to tell us what is
meant, and either say that the Finance Minister was wrong in his definition, or if
he
stands by what he says and calls it right,
then let us here tonight, before
we leave
this chamber, settle on terms which will be
satisfactory to every one of the majority in
Canada who would gladly see all the children of this country trained every day in
the
year, for half an hour or more, in the faith
taught them by their fathers.
Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton). If I
have the permission of the leader of the
opposition, whom I am sorry to see is
not now in his place, to venture a few remarks in regard to what is especially a
Northwest question, I would like to take up
the time of the House for a little while tonight. That gentleman has several times
referred to an occasion of two years ago
when he saw fit to bring before this
House a motion in regard to provincial autonomy, and it has seemed a grievance to
him that on that occasion he was replied to
by a humble member representing part of
the Northwest Territories instead of by a
member of the government. I do not know
what qualification the hon. leader of the opposition demands from members who address
this House, but I would think, with all
humility, that a member who has spent
the greater part of his life in the Northwest Territories, Who had some part in
the local government of the Territories
for many years, might possibly be able to
contribute something to the information of
the House on a question so closely connected
3153 MARCH 24, 1905
with the welfare of those Territories. I
observe that on this particular occasion
the leader of the opposition, in conducting the debate, if he has control of its
conduct, is apparently of the view of that
great American humorist, Mark Twain, who
declared the less he knew of the subject the
more fluently he could speak on it. I notice
that his colleagues sitting beside him, members of a government who themselves, not
so many years ago, were painfully interested
in a certain school question, have not so far
replied to the three ministers of the cabinet
who have dealt with the question in this
debate. The duty of replying to one of the
most important speeches that has been made
on this occasion has been relegated to my
hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr.
Northrup), and I think all will agree with
me that no serious light has been thrown
upon the subject, that the speech has not
done credit either to the cause or its leader,
nor has it done discredit to the ex-Minister
of the Interior or to the cause which he
champions. It seems to be the strong point
in the argument of these gentlemen that
because they do not see fit to see something,
that, therefore, it is not there. Now, there
is no one so blind as he who will not see;
and the gentleman who can see no difference
between the provisions of clause
16 as originally introduced and the provisions as they
now stand for the approval of the House, is
certainly very blind; I won't say that it is
because he does not want to see, very probably it is because he cannot see. The difference
between these two provisions, as I
understand them, is radical. I do not say
that it was intentional. We have had enough disputations in regard to constitutional
points in this House during this debate to
leave us all with the full knowledge that
there may be honest differences-of opinion
with regard to all these points. To my mind
the difference is very important. As stated
by the ex-Minister of the Interior here today—and I speak as one who knows something
of this matter, as one who has had experience in regard to school legislation, as
one of those members of the Northwest
Assembly who made the change in the
Northwest school law between what it was
before 1891 and what it is to-day—I say the
difference, as I understand it, is a difference
between clerical control of schools and national control of schools. If that is not
a
sufficient difference, then I do
not understand what we are disputing about. I think
it is a radical difference. It is what threw
this country into a turmoil in 1896 and
caused a change of government at that time.
It is the reason why those gentlemen are
sitting on that side of the House instead of
on this side.
But I wish particularly to deal at this
time rather with the financial terms of these
Bills than with the educational sections. To
revert again to the leader of the opposition
and his troubles, it seemed to be a great
3154
worry to him that two years ago several
members representing the Northwest had
the temerity to vote against his proposal for
immediate provincial autonomy to the North
west Territories. He objected very strongly
to the reasons given on that occasion. I can
only say that the reasons seemed to be sufficient to him at the time and afterwards,
because, although he alleged that the measure was immediately important at that time
it was the last reference he made to it, so
far as I can recollect, until the measure was
brought down this year. The reasons given
were sufiicient apparently to satisfy him
that the question was not pressing, was
not so immediately important. I think I
can satisfy the House that there were very
good reasons why members representing the
Northwest Territories should not be anxious
to accept the suggestion of provincial autonomy without knowing very well what the
terms of that autonomy were to be. I think
the events of this debate are suflicient to
prove that; and I think what has occurred
since the opening of this session and since
these Bills were brought down is evidence,
if evidence were needed, that western members have been fairly careful as to what
they
agreed to, and possibly have had some influence ln securing provisions which would
be to the advantage of the people of the
Northwest Territories.
In considering the question of autonomy,
we have to consider our peculiar position.
We have to consider our position as compared with the condition of other provinces.
The revenues that we might expect to receive
as compared with those of other provinces,
and consider whether our condition would
be improved or be made worse by accepting
provincial autonomy. We have great needs
to meet in that country. Here in this province of Ontario we may make a comparison.
The settled part of the province of
Ontario is perhaps 400 miles long by 100
miles wide. In that area is contained all
there is in Ontario, in the way of agriculture,
at any rate. There are the roads,
there are
the schools, there are all the expenditures
practically which the provincial government
has to provide for. In these Northwest Territories, in the province of Saskatchewan.
we will say, there is an area of 300 by 300
miles of agricultural country, over which
agricultural settlement must spread, over
which roads must be made, throughout
which schools must be provided and municipal institutions taken care of. In Alberta
we claim a distance of 800 miles in length
by no less than 200 or 300 miles in width of
agricultural country, over which settlement
will spread, throughout which roads must be
built, municipalities organized and schools
maintained. If the province of Ontario, upon
entering into confederation, found itself
with a load of some $45,000,000 of debt incurred because of the necessity for the
improvement of the conditions throughout
that comparatively small area, we might
3155
COMMONS
very well consider carefully our financial
position in undertaking to spread. civilization and improvement over these very much
vaster areas under our conditions. We
knew that we must have the means or we
cannot have the success. We must have
the means with which to build roads, to
provide schools, to take care of all these
requirements of civilization which fall to
the lot of the provinces ; and without those
means, without that money, if we cannot
go forward as provinces, we had better not
undertake the responsibility of it. We find
that in the condition in which we are at
the present time the Territories receive a
matter of nearly a million and a quarter
dollars of revenue from this Dominion, or
of subsidy, in the place of a provincial subsidy. Outside of that, there are expenditures
which, in the provinces, are borne
out of the provincial funds, but which, so
far, have come out of the Dominion treasury,
and which aggregate something like half a
million dollars. At the present time, considering the Territories as a province, we
are receiving as a subsidy from the Dominion treasury, a matter of a million and
three-quarters of money. Now,
compare that
with the subsidy received by any of the
other provinces. We find that Ontario receives a subsidy of a little less than a million
and a half, Quebec a little over a million, Nova Scotia under half a million, New
Brunswick under half a million, Manitoba
a little over halt a million, British Columbia $300,000 and Prince Edward Isfland
$200,000, the two larger of these with populations infinitely greater than that of
the
Northwest Territories. As I said, in the
Northwest Territories we are not receiving
more money than is necessary for the
development and improvement of the
country. Out of the money that we
are receiving, and which bulks so large,
comparatively as current expenditure,
has to be provided a great deal of what
would ordinarily be considered capital expenditure. Surely it was reasonable on
our part to say that, considering the subsidies given to the provinces, considering
that these subsidies are based on population
very largely, considering the needs of that
great western country in the immediate
future, considering further that our population was increasing so rapidly and
that, with the increase of population,
we could claim continually more favourable financial terms, we had everything
to gain by waiting for provincial autonomy
and nothing to lose. I will not trouble the
House to evidence that fact by comparing
the terms demanded by the Northwest government itself in 1901 and again in 1903.
Because this government did not grant to
the Northwest Territories the autonomy
that was asked for in 1901, in the space of
fourteen months they had made something
like a quarter of a million dollars a year. I
thought if we could, by waiting a matter of
fourteen months, increase our annual
3156
revenue by a quarter of a million
dollars,
we could not make money as quickly in any
other way than by waiting a few years
longer for provincial autonomy.
Mr. LALOR.
Why did you not continue
to wait a little longer ?
Mr. OLIVER. My hon. friend (Mr. Lalor)
asks me why we did not continue to wait
a little longer.
Mr. LALOR. You are making money so
fast, it is a wonder you did not wait a little
longer.
Mr. OLIVER. As far as I am concerned,
and as far as the majority of the people
in the Northwest Territories are concerned.
they are prepared to continue to wait for
provincial autonomy on those conditions.
Mr. OLIVER. As long as it pays. The
demand for provincial autonomy does not
come from the people of the Northwest.
Mr. BOYCE. Does it not come from the
government of the Territories ?
Mr. OLIVER. I believe the government
of the Territories has made certain demands
for provincial autonomy. I have shown the
House how wise these demands were by
comparing the demand of one year with the
demand of the succeeding year. I am not
responsible for what the
government of the
Northwest Territories have done. I represent a section of the people of the Northwest
Territories, and I say that the people
of the Northwest Territories have never
asked for provincial autonomy. However,
if it seems good to the parliament of Canada
and to the government of this Dominion to
organize these Territories into provinces and
to give them fair and reasonable financial
consideration, certainly we are not the people to refuse that consideration or to
refuse
those reasonable financial terms. We believe that the terms which have been offered,
and which are contained in the Autonomy
Bills, are fair and reasonable financial
terms, are such as we can
conscientiously
afford to accept, and such as will be a benefit to the people of those Territories,
and
will tend to the improvement of the country. We would be doing less than our duty
;
we would be poor friends of our Dominion,
if we willingly accepted anything short of
a liberal allowance for provincial purposes
in these Territories. As the ex-Minister of
the Interior has said, it is on the development of these Territories that the prosperity
of this whole Dominion depends. He
would be the worst friend the Dominion had,
who would prevent the progress of civilization in these provinces by stinting the
means
whereby that can be obtained. I shall not
go into a comparison with the subsidies
which are given the other provinces, except to repeat that the conditions in the
Territories are so different from those in the
other provinces—such a small population
occupying such a vast area of
agricultural
3157
MARCH 24, 1905
country, which soon must be full of
people,
and which will require large expenditure—
that the terms which have been accorded
the other provinces would not be satisfactory or suitable terms for these new provinces
of the Northwest. The conditions
are different; the terms must" be different; the terms are different, and in so far
the terms are satisfactory.
As to the ownership of the lands; it has
been urged that these lands are the property
of the province, should remain the property
ofthe province and should be administered
by the province for the benefit of the revenue of the province. It matters not to
me what the legal rights of the province
or the Dominion respectively are in that
case. The lands belong to Canada
whether administered by the
province or by
the Dominion; the settlement of these
lands
is for the benefit of all Canada. Whatever
method of administration will give us the
best results in the way of the settlement
of these lands is the policy that is best not
only for the Dominion but for the province.
As a representative of the west, I believe
the idea of using the lands of the west
as a source of provincial revenue would be
a very great detriment to these new provinces and to the country at large. I am
aware that the provinces must have re.venue, and failing any other source I would
say: Certainly we must have revenue from
the lands. But if we can get adequate
revenue from other sources than the lands,
then we certainly do not want the lands
used as a source of revenue. I can easily
understand that with a change of policy
on the part of the federal government, a
change of policy back to What it was say
twenty years ago, when it was believed to
be the proper policy to take everything that
could be taken out of the land in the way
of cash payment; then possibly it would
be better that the lands should be in the
hands of the province rather than in the
hands of the Dominion. But, so long as
we have a land policy the basic idea of
which is the land for the settler, it is certainly better for us and for the Dominion
that the lands should be administered by
the federal authorities. One hon. gentleman said, that the lands could be better
administered by the province than by the
Dominion because the people of the province were closer on the ground and the interests
of the province he'said, were just
the same as the interests of the Dominion.
I beg to differ; their interests
are not the
same. The interest of a province in the
land is in the revenue it can derive from the
sale of the lands; the interest of the Dominion in the lands is in the revenue that
it can derive from the settler who makes
that land productive. This Dominion of
Canada can make millions out of the lands
of the Northwest. and never sell an acre;
it has made millions out of these lands
3158
without selling an acre. The increase in
our customs returns, the increase in our
trade and commerce, the increase in our
manufactures is to a very large extent due
to the increase in settlement on the free
lands of the Northwest Territories. The
prosperity this Dominion is enjoying to-day
is to a very large extent due to the fact
that the lands of the Northwest Territories
have been given away and that people have
taken them. I say that the interest of the
Dominion is to secure the settlement of the
lands, and whether with a price or without
a price makes little or no difference. It
is worth the while of the Dominion to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars in promoting immigration to that country and to
spend thousands and thousands of dollars
in surveying and administering these lands,
and then to give them away. But the
province is not in that position. The province derives no revenue from the customs
duties or from the wealth which the settler
creates. Every settler who goes on land
in the Northwest Territories is a bill of
expense to the provincial
government.
That settler requires a road made, he requires a school supported, he requires the
advantages of municipal organization, and
these have to be provided for him out of
the funds of the provincial government, so
that asa matter of fact the tendency of the
provincial government is to get such
money as it can out of the land and to prevent settlement from spreading any further
than can be helped. On the other hand,
the interest of the Dominion is to get the
settlers on the land, to scatter them far and
wide so long as they are good settlers
and they get good land. That is the position as it strikes us in the Northwest, and
when we have secured a financial arrangement with the Dominion government that
gives us adequate consideration for our
lands—I mean to say, gives us an
adequate
revenue as compared with the other provinces at any rate; gives us a revenue that
instead of decreasing will increase as our
needs increase; gives us a revenue that is
proportionate not only to our population as
it will be but to the area over which that
population will spread—when we have secured an arrangement such as that, we have
secured a very satisfactory arrangement;
at least as satisfactory as we can expect
to secure.
As to the amount we get out of our lands,
a word on that point may not be out of
place. The province of British Columbia
owns all its natural resources; it has timber, it has gold mines and lead mines and
coal mines. And I find that last year the
province of British Columbia derived from
all the resources connected with the
ownership of its lands, the sum of $615,000. In
the coming year, the country which is now
the Northwest Territories Will
derive a sum
of something like $750,000, based on the
3159 COMMONS
calculation that has been made in regard
to the land. I find that the province of
Ontario with a population of two and a
quarter millions in the year 1902, derived
from its lands $1,499,000.
We find, by the arrangement that has been
made with these Northwest provinces, that
when their population reaches that of the
province of Ontario, they will be deriving
two and a quarter millions in respect of
their lands. I have given the total amounts
which the provinces referred to derive from
their lands as they are to-day. I have
deducted nothing for the expense of management, and I have not said, what is the
fact, that these provinces are drawing from
their capital account while the Territories
are taking only their annual revenue. That
the provinces, selling their lands, disposing of their natural resources, as they
do today, and using the proceeds as their annual revenue, must find that revenue decreasing
from year to year, while we, with
not a cent deducted for expense of management or for any other purpose, find our
revenue increasing from period to period
according to the increase of population,
until we reach a very fair maximum amount
and when that is reached, there will be
people settled all over these provinces, and
they will have the means of revenue from
taxation which exist in the older provinces.
Our position will be similar, and we shall
be able to carry on business as they do.
Under these circumstances the objections
which I entertained to provincial autonomy,
and which were shared by a large majority
of the people of the Territories, have been
overcome by the financial terms offered
to these provinces in the Autonomy Bill.
We are just as ready to take upon ourselves all the rights and responsibilities of
self—government as the people of any other
part of this Dominion, but we want the
means wherewith to discharge those responsibilities before we assume them. We are
not going into any blind pool—the term
seems objectionable to the leader of the opposition. We are giving our sanction to
a
definite bargain, laid down in dollars and
cents, in regard to which there can be no
equivocation or misunderstanding.
In regard to the educational clauses of
the Bill, I do not know whether I dare venture on a subject which has been so thoroughly
threshed out by so many legal gentlemen in this House already. But at the same
time the laws are not all made by the
lawyers, and they are not all administered
upon the lawyers. It is the people at large
who sufler from the laws, and it is not any
harm for one of the ordinary citizens of the
country to attempt to understand them.
Now, on this point I differ very radically
from some of my friends. I am not a supporter of separate schools because I like
the principle of separate schools. I do not
agree with everything that was said by
3160
our hon. friend the member for Jacques
Cartier (Mr. Monk) last night said so ably
and so well. I am one of those who pin
their faith unreservedly to a system of national schools, established for the purpose
of
educating the people of the country, of imparting to them knowledge in secular subjects.
I am one of those who believe that
religion can best be taught by those Whose
special training is the teaching of religion,
that geography can be better taught by
those whose special training is for the purpose of teaching geography. If I understood
the law as some of our friends understand it, I certainly would vote against
the educational provisions of this Bill. But
I do not understand the law that way, and
I am at a loss to see how they can understand it that way". We have been bombarded
here for some time with petitions in regard
to this educational question; we have
seen staring headlines in the papers ; there
have been indignation meetings held in
some parts of the country; there has been
trouble, large, long and loud, all around;
and what has it all been about? I noticed
a heading in a newspaper the other day, a
great large heading—I think it has been in
several issues of the paper. It read: 'A
Free West. a Common School, Provincial
Rights, Religious Equality.' I hear some
gentlemen laugh sarcastically. I want to
to say that I subscribe thoroughly to the
sentiments expressed in that headline. I
read further: 'Toronto Vigorously Protests Against Throttling the West.' Well,
I would like to be understood as protesting
against any attempt to throttle the west.
'Meeting emphatically protests against the
enactment of section 16 or any other pro,visions inconsistent with their constitutional
freedom in this regard.' And the mass
meeting in Massey Hall demanded that the
government, first should abandon the clauses.
second, should appeal to the country, or
third, should defer action—it must do one
or other of these three things. I read in
one of these petitions which have been sent
in :
At the last regular meeting of the Strathcona Preceptory, Royal Black Knights of Ireland,
the following motion was passed:
Moved Sir Knight J. J. Mellon, seconded Sir
Knight T. Irving, that this preceptory does utterly disapprove of the school clause
in the
present Autonomy Bill, and strongly urge that
the new provinces do have full control in all
matters pertaining to education in the said
provinces.
I find in a petition which I had the honour
to present:
We, the undersigned electors of the electoral
district of Edmonton do pray that in granting
provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories the Dominion parliament will not
by any
enactment or otherwise withhold from the newly created provinces full and unrestricted
freedom of action in all matters affecting the es
3161
MARCH 24, 1905
tablishment, maintenance and administration of
schools.
I read the following resolution of the
Winnipeg Ministerial Association :
Therefore be it resolved, that the Ministerial
Association of Winnipeg respectfully protests
against this legislation proposed, and expresses
the hope that the educational clauses referred
to as objectionable may be expunged from the
Bill, thus leaving the new provinces perfectly
free to develop their own educational policy.
I read from a newspaper :
Orange protest.—Eastern Ontario Orange
Grand Lodge pronounces on the Autonomy Bill.
An invasion of provincial rights. The provinces
must be absolutely free.
And in a part of this document it says :
We have strong reason to think that this restrictive legislation has been asked for
by a
certain organization in a province far removed
from the Northwest, an organization that has
never stopped during nearly the last thousand
years grasping for power to curtail the rights
of the people.
I read here a document which has been
directed to myself. It is from the Grand
Orange Lodge of Ontario West and says :
And so we are called upon to-day to enter
our earnest protest against the unjustifiable
action of the bishops striving to shackle the
west for all time in matters or education. We
desire to go on record, as citizens of this country, uncontrolled by the Roman Catholic
hierarchy, who have been on record for forty years,
in favour of a system of non-denominational
public schools, where every child shall secure
a good secular education at the general expense,
and where the religious belief of the pupils will
be fully respected.
This right worshipful grand lodge opposes as
dangerous to the peace, order and good government of the Dominion the adoption of
this principle in the constitution of the proposed new
provinces. We stand firmly against the endowment of denominational schools as the
worst, because the most subtle form, in which
church and state can be united. This is accomplished by the Autonomy Bill providing
that
' the public money of the provinces appropriated
by the legislature in aid of education and the
funds derived from the sale of public lands set
apart solely for public school purposes shall
hereafter be divided indiscriminately between
the public and the separate schools.'
There seems to be some objection on the
part of some of these gentlemen who have
so petitioned parliament against separate
schools. I admit that I, too, hold similar
objections, but these gentlemen do not seem
to be aware that those separate schools
have been in existence in the Northwest
Territories for 20 years to my knowledge ;
that they are in existence because of legislation passed unanimously 30 years ago
by this parliament, as the leader of the opposition said, and repeated and reiterated,
subject to repeal or amendment by this
parliament at any time during the past 30
years, and there never was a word of pro
3162
test from the Ministerial Association of
Winnipeg, from the Orange Grand Lodge
of eastern or western Ontario, from the
preceptory of the Black Knights of Ireland
in Strathcona, nor from any of those other
petitioners, during that whole 30 years during which it was in the power of this parliament
to do away with this national outrage of separate schools in the Northwest.
It is within the power of parliament to-day;
it is not too late. But there is not a man
here who will move, nor has there been a
suggestion made to this House, that separate
schools in the Northwest Territories should
be abolished, not a word. Do these gentlemen really mean what they say or do they
know what they say ? Is this a demonstration of objection to separate schools or is
it an attempt to wreck the Liberal government on a second school question ? If this
attack is honest, if it is against the separate schools and not against the French
premier, it is in order for the leader of the
opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the gentlemen behind him to introduce a Bill into
this parliament as they yet may do to abolish separate schools in the Northwest by
repealing the section of the Northwest Act.
I am against separate schools but I want
some company in my position and I do not
seem to be able to find it. It is not the
first time I have been alone in this House,
but I seem to be just as lonesome now as I
ever was, notwithstanding all these petitions on this very interesting subject. These
separate schools have been authorized in
the Northwest Territories by Act of this
parliament for 30 years at least and they
have been in actual existence in the Northwest Territories for 20 years by Act or
ordinance of the Northwest legislature. There
has been no word of protest in parliament
or out of parliament, there has been no
word of petition in the Northwest legislature, or amongst the people against that
provision.
Mr. OLIVER. I want to know first whether I would get a seconder.
Mr. OLIVER. I say then that in view
of the fact that these separate schools have
been in existence for 20 years absolutely
at the disposal of this parliament, without
a word of objection from the legislature of
the Northwest Territories or from the people
of the Northwest Territories, it is not in
order to send into this House such documents as have been sent in within the past
month ; to discuss this question as it has
been discussed in the newspapers of this
country. I say that the men who are doing
3163 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
COMMONS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
this are doing it not in the interests of Protestantism but in the interests of party
politics. If there is a wrong, let them take
proper means to remedy that wrong. It is
open to them, this is the responsible body
whereby it can be remedied. These provinces are not yet created, these territories
are still under the absolute control of this
parliament of Canada. If a wrong has been
done let us right that wrong and right it
now, and there will be no question about
separate schools in these provinces in the
future.
Mr. SPROULE. Are the thousands of
reformers who signed this petition and
have spoken on this question along the
same lines doing it in the interests of a political party ?
Mr. SPROULE. They were asked by no
person except the instinct of nature.
Mr. CONMEE. Petitions with a printed
head were sent out broadcast.
Mr. OLIVER. I think it must be evident
from the discussion in this House that many
people have been misled as to the facts of
this case.
Mr. OLIVER—or they would not have
taken the position they have.
Mr. OLIVER. Now the government, coming to this question, having to provide provincial organization
for these territories,
considering that there are separate schools
there, that there have been separate schools
there, that there has never been objection
made to these schools until this Bill was introduced, what are they to do? What
should the government do but make provision to carry on the existing conditions.
What did the Northwest Territories government do when they proposed provincial
autonomy two or three years ago ? If the
time of the organization of a province is
the time to do away with these separate
schools ; is the time to start the province
out without any such incubus upon their
organization ; then the time to do that
was when the Northwest government was
applying for provincial powers and preparing their own draft Bill on the subject.
But I find that section 2 of this draft Bill
which was prepared by the Northwest government in 1901—and these provisions
were repeated in 1903—is almost word for
word section 2 of the Autonomy Bill which
is before the House and as a matter of fact
is a reproduction of a similar section in
the Act admitting each individual province
into the Dominion. It reads :
3164
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    Â
 in the same
way and to the same extent as they apply to
the several provinces of Canada, and as if the
province of       had been one of the provinces originally united by the
said Act.
The view of the government of the Northwest Territories was that existing conditions
should be continued. And again I find, in
section 13 a parallel to the one in the Autonomy Bill and a reproduction of a similar
section in the Acts admitting the other provinces :
Except as otherwise provided for by this Act
all laws in force in the Northwest Territories
on the first day of January, 1903, . . . shall
continue as if this Act had not been passed,
subject nevertheless (except with respect to
such as are enacted by or exist under Acts of
parliament of Great Britain or of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, to be repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament or Canada or by
the legislature of the province, according to the authority of the parliament or the
legislature under
this Act.
That is to say, in the Bill proposed by the
Northwest government for the admission of
these Territories into confederation, are these
very provisions which are contained in the
Autonomy Bill. If I understood the argument of the leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden) and the hon. member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) it was that if the date
of the union was the date of the annexation
of the territories to Canada, then the British
North America Act did not apply.
Mr. OLIVER. The subsections of section
93 would not apply ?
Mr. OLIVER. I understand the leader of
the opposition to say that if, the date of
union meant the date when these provinces
are added to the union, then the restrictive
sections do apply. Now, Mr. Haultain and
his government in their Bill, make these sections apply. As a matter of fact, I think,
it is absurd—I beg pardon for using that
word if it is unparliamentary—to argue that
the time of union means the time of the annexation of the country to Canada and not
the time of the erection of the province.
Mr. OLIVER. I am sorry to differ from
that eminent and learned gentleman. Let
me read the first subsection of section 93
of the British North America Act, in which
these words occur :
3165 MARCH 24, 1905
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.
This does not say that any provincial law
may exist at the union. It does not allude
in any degree—it carefully refrains from
alluding—to the collective powers which
may be exercised by legislation. It refers
to the individual rights of any class of persons at the union, and defines the rights
of
those people when they come into the union.
That is the purpose of the Act—not the defining of anything about what they were
before they came into the union. On the
face of it it has no reference whatever to whether a province was organized before
or not. If there was a
class of persons who had rights at the
union, when they came into the union
they should continue to have those rights—
that is the whole intent and meaning of the
section ; there is no other explanation.
That is as Mr. Haultain understood it ; that
is as any man, I think, must understand it
if he reads it with due care. That being the
case, the British North America Act being
the constitution of this country, I say that,
although I am no lover of separate schools,
although I do not believe in separate schools
as so many of our people do, this government would certainly be doing very much
less than its duty if it undertook, under all
the circumstances of the case especially , to
deviate from the terms of the British North
America Act or took any other course than
loyally to carry out its provisions. In regard
to the terms of the first clause 16 and the
second clause 16, I will take the liberty of
saying that for my own part, I would rather
not have seen any clause 16 at all. I believe
that according to the British North America
Act, the separate schools of the Northwest
Territories would have exactly the same protection that they have under the provisions
of clause 16. I know that all my friends do
not agree with me in that view. I take it
that clause 16 is merely a declaration on the
part of parliament of meaning and intent ;
the provisions of clause 16 are declaratory
and not mandatory. I say that I would
prefer that there would not be any clause
16, that there should not be any declaration
of the meaning and intent of these provisions of the British North America Act.
I say that as a Protestant living in a country where the large majority are Protestants,
and as one who does not believe in
separate schools ; living where the majority
do not believe in separate schools. I take
the view that, situated as we are we are in
a sufficiently strong position to maintain our
views without any declaration as to the extent to which the British North America
Act goes. But I am bound to say that there
are other gentlemen who do not take that
view ; and I am bound to say also that they
have some fairly good reasons for the view
3166
they take. I think it is a fairly arguable
question. I presume the reason they take
the contrary view is this : That if the terms
of the British North America Act are contravened in this particular ; the remedy
lies with parliament. You come back to
this parliament for your remedy. And so
they say. If parliament in the last resort
has to declare what these provisions mean,
it is very much better to declare them at
first and avoid any question or misunderstanding in the first place.
On second thought I am somewhat inclined to take that view myself, because,
while we have a very large Protestant majority in the Dominion of Canada, and
while this House seems to be rather strongly against the idea of separate schools,
that
condition has not always prevailed. We
recall a time not so very long ago when
an occasion such as might happen in the
Northwest Territories actually did happen
in regard to the province of Manitoba, and
an appeal was made to parliament, and attempt was made to interpret the provision
of the British North America Act by parliament. And when we consider the provisions
of that Remedial Bill as proposed
to be applied to the province of Manitoba.
when we consider that such conditions
might possibly arise in the Northwest
Territories, those of us who do not like
the idea of separate schools, and particularly who do not like the idea of clerical
control of schools, may very well say that
we would rather have a declaration from
this parliament at this time as to what the
British North America Act means, than
trust to some future time when some other
government might be in power who would
be more ready to sell the rights of the
people of the west for clerical support at
the polls. We heard something to-day
spoken in tones almost of horror as to the
control which the advisory board had in the
Northwest Territories, because it had two
Catholics on it.
Mr. OLIVER. Awful to think of ! That
advisory board is simply an advisory board,
and has no other duties than to give expert
advice in regard to educational matters.
But I find that when our friends opposite
were undertaking to legislate for schools
in Manitoba, they did not stop at that.
They provided the Lieutenant Governor in
Council should constitute a separate school
board of education for Manitoba, not exceeding nine, all of whom should be Roman
Catholics. I find further that this board
of education had these powers.
It shall be the duty of the board of education
to have under its control and management the
separate schools, and to make from time to
time such regulations as may be deemed fit for
their general government and discipline and the
carrying out of the provisions of this Act ; to
arrange for the proper examination, grading
3167 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â COMMONS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
and licensing of its teachers and for the
withdrawing of licenses upon sufficient cause; to
make and enforce regulations for the establishment and operation of departments in
such of
its schools as it may deem suitable for the
preparation of candidates for the annual examination of teachers, and for matriculating
at
the University of Manitoba, and for the doing
of general literary work corresponding to the
standard required for these examinations, and
to give special aid to such schools from the
funds of its disposal not exceeding in the aggregate one-twelfth of its appropriation
; provided
that no schools shall be entitled to receive
such special aid that does not comply fully
with the regulations made by the board for
its operation.
These are the gentlemen who are objecting, who are holding up both hands in holy
horror at the idea of throttling the Northwest by continuing its present system of
separate schools. The provisions of section
15 are intended to protect us Protestants of
the Northwest against legislation of that
kind at some future date. In regard to
the distribution of public funds I find this
in section 74 :
The right to share proportionate claims, in
any grant made out of public funds for the purposes of education having been decided
to be
and being now one of the rights and privileges
of the said Roman Catholic minority of Her
Majesty's subjects in the province of Manitoba,
any sum granted by the legislature of Manitoba and appropriated for the separate schools
shall be placed to the credit of the board of
education in accounts to be opened in the books
of the treasury department and in the audit
office.
No question about that. I find further
in section 111 :
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct that a sum not exceeding one-tenth of
the
amount of the grant for educational purposes
be allowed for the maintenance of normal
school departments as hereby established.
We do not want any legislation of that
kind in the Northwest Territories, or for the
Northwest. Now I want to make myself
clear, for I believe I speak for many people
in the Northwest on this subject. We object to separate schools, not on religious
grounds at all, but merely on the grounds
of efficiency and economy. But we can see
that in the Northwest, under present conditions, separate schools conducted as they
are to-day, do not seriously affect either
efficiency or economy. Therefore we do
not seriously object to these schools as they
are to-day. But what we do object to,
what we did object to in 1891, was the feature embodied in this Remedial Bill, thoroughly
embodied in it, and that was the
principle of absolute clerical control of
schools. That is What we do not want.
that is what we would not submit to. We
had that clerical control of schools from
1884 to 1891, and as the ex-Minister of the
Interior has said to-day with regard to
Manitoba. that system was abused. It may
3168
be a good system in theory, it may be a
good system in practice, in some cases, but
we did not find it so. I was a member of
the legislature which changed the conditions
of the school law of the Northwest and
made the schools strictly national. We
have separate schools in the Northwest,
but we have not a separate school system
in the Northwest. We concede, and I am
glad to say that we willingly concede, to
our Roman Catholic fellow citizens the
right to pay their own taxes to their own
schools, to elect their own trustees, to hire
teachers of their own faith, and to give religious instruction for one-half hour each
day in their schools. I believe that is a
reasonable provision, and while I cannot
say that I approve of it, still I do approve
of it to this extent, that it satisfies the religious convictions of a large and important
part of the population, whose religious
convictions are entitled to the most careful
and fullest consideration.
So far I am prepared to go and justify myself here or anywhere else. Beyond that
point, to hand our schools, or any section of
our schools, over to the control of a body not
directly responsible to the people of the
country through their votes, I certainly do
not approve of and the people of the Northwest Territories would not approve of. We
have an efficient school system in the Northwest Territories, a very efficient school
system. It is a national school system, essentially national, and because it is national
we
approve of it. There is no occasion, there
has been no occasion and there has been no
justification in any way , shape or manner
for the attacks that have been made upon
this subject of separate schools as a matter
of party politics within the last two or three
weeks in this country.
It may be a matter of information to the
members of this House to say that while the
returns show only ten or fifteen separate
schools in the Territories, there are, I suppose, upwards of a hundred Catholic schools.
Wherever the Catholic people are in the majority, they elect their own trustees, form
their own school district, hire their own teachers and direct what form of religion
shall be
taught in the half hour allotted to religion.
These are public schools; they are not separate schools, and yet they are Catholic
schools. So, I say that in the Northwest
Territories we have the Catholics sharing in
the public school system just the same
whether they are separated from the original districts or whether they form the original
district; we have a national school system
and it is not throttling the Northwest Territories and it is not doing an injustice
or an
injury to the Northwest Territories to provide for a continuation of that system,
especially if by so doing you provide against the
possibility of such a condition as was attempted to be thrust upon the province of
Manitoba not many years ago.
In regard to the other provisions of this
3169 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 27, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Bill I do not think anything need be said.
We have received in the past at the hands
of this government very fair consideration.
We have received representation in this
House and in the upper chamber. We have
received reasonable financial consideration,
increasing as our needs increased, although
possibly not fully up to the mark of our requirements. And now, that it has seemed
good to the government of the day and to, I
think, the large majority of the people of
the country to erect these Territories into
provinces, it is certainly something of which
we may very well be proud that we enter
confederation upon such favourable terms.
We only regret that this particular subject
should have been the occasion of such a
great amount of what I may be justified in
calling malicious misrepresentation for the
purpose of making party capital. We had
hoped that our entrance into confederation
as full fledged provinces would be under
altogether auspicious circumstances. With
this exception they are altogether auspicious and perhaps when we have threshed out
this question in parliament we will all understand each other better, we will all
know where we severally stand on this important question and perhaps it will be the
last we will hear in Canada of this much vexed school question.
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House. He said: Monday being private members' day, probably
this debate will not be continued on that day, but it will be resumed on Tuesday.
At the same time I am giving notice to the House that the government intends to move
next week to take Mondays as well as other days after private Bills and questions
put by member. The calendar is pretty fully charged with others placed upon it by
different members of the House so that I think it would be well that members who intend
to move resolutions should do so on Monday next.
Mr. FOSTER. When the debate is resumed on Tuesday I suppose it will go on consecutively?
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.
This individual participated in:
