[...] presumed to be innocent until found guilty.
It seems to me they are also designed to
injure the community by baffling the aims
of the law.
This report has in large types, among
others, the following heading : ' A Visit to
the Dungeon.' The reporter says that having asked the prisoner several questions
he added :
I understand that this is a matter more
particularly within the province of the
local government, but it seems to me that
such conduct is inconsistent with our
criminal law and that the hon. Minister of
Justice should take some steps in order
to put a stop to it. It is with that end in
view that I bring this matter to his attention.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the
proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for
the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of
the
province of Alberta, and the amendment of
Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle). Mr.
Speaker, in resuming the debate upon what
I hold to be the most important piece of
legislation that has been discussed by the
Canadian parliament since confederation, I
feel deeply the responsibility resting upon
me both for the vote I shall give as a member of this House and for the opinions I
shall express to-day. In the course of the
very remarkable speech in which the Prime
Minister introduced this legislation over a
month ago, I was especially struck with
one sentence, and that sentence has remained in my memory ever since. Having reviewed
the legislation through which these
Territories had passed since their entrance
into confederation, the Prime Minister said :
' Now the time has come to put upon these
Territories the stamp of Canadian nationality.' It is under the light of that principle
that I intend to carry on this discussion.
It seems to be that, through the turmoil,
passions and prejudices that have been
aroused, in sincerity perhaps on the part of
people, but surely with no other purpose on
3253 Â Â Â
MARCH 28, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
the part of others than to snatch at popular
favour at the expense of the better judgment
of the country—I say that perhaps through
the turmoil, passions and prejudices we
have been passing through for the last
month, too many Canadian citizens and Canadian representatives have unfortunately
forgotten the important duty they have to
perform, and what will be the result of that
duty. Sir, we should not forget that those
Territories for which we are now legislating
will probably contain within half a century
or a century, one-half the population of
Canada ; therefore if we have any interest
in what is going to be the future of our
common land, we should be very careful of
all the articles of this piece of legislation,
as well as of the comments we make upon
them.
It is not my intention to discuss at any
length, or even to discuss at all, the other
features of this Bill, but this one clause so
much commented upon—I mean the school
question. However, I may say in passing
that I thoroughly agree with the position
that was taken by the government on the
land question. Starting from the same
point of view I have just stated, namely,
that we must put the stamp of Canadian
nationality on these Territories, I think it
was the duty of the federal government
to retain within their powers the right to
legislate over the granting of the lands upon
which one half of the population of Canada
will be called upon at no distant period to
live and to prosper. Although I have the
greatest confidence in the public spirit and
patriotism of the men who are now at the
head of public affairs in the Northwest
Territories, I say that before long the time
may come when they will not be powerful
enough to resist the pressure of the newcomers into that country, men that have
perhaps no interest in the unity of Canada,
who are not attached to the soil of Canada,
who have had no part in the past history
of Canada, and who, therefore, by numerical strength, may try to force some obnoxious
legislation on the government of
these Territories. I say, therefore, that for
the protection of the Northwest, for the protection of the present representatives
of the
Northwest, for the protection of the statesmanship of the men who are now at the
head of affairs there, it was good policy on
the part of the government to retain the
control and administration of the public
lands in the Northwest.
Now, coming to the question that has
occupied the field of discussion for the last
month, I may say that I intend to discuss it
from a threefold point of view : from the
constitutional point of view, from the religious point of view and from the national
point of view. In doing so I shall, as it is
my custom, express frankly and clearly
what I believe to be true, and in doing so I
hope that I shall not offend any man in this
House, because every man who is attached
to his convictions will understand that in
this free parliament of ours every true con
3254
viction should be frankly and sincerely expressed. I may say at once that if
there is a regrettable feature in all this
discussion, it is not that passions have been
aroused, it is not that prejudices have been
raised. I entirely agree with the Prime
Minister when he says that many of the
passions that are now aroused spring from
one of the noblest feelings in humanity, they
come from an exaggeration, or from a perversion, of that which constitutes the most
stable basis of a nation, namely, attachment to religious creed and attachment to
national feeling. The men who are committing a crime against this nation are
those who, having opinions of their own,
are trying to shelter themselves under a
constitutional pretense. The great argument which is being used by the opponents
of this measure is, I may say, the shibboleth of provincial rights. Now, Sir, there
is no man in this parliament who is more
attached to provincial rights than I am. I
am the descendant of a race that has claimed provincial rights for many years, and
just because I am a sincere adherent of
provincial rights, I say that if provincial
rights are going to be maintained in this
country, they cannot be maintained on any
sham basis, they can only be maintained on
a basis of equal justice to every part of
our population and every section, from the
Atlantic to the Pacific. What are provincial rights as they relate to the school
question ? I am not going into an acute
analysis of every word and every letter in
the text of the law, though I am not afraid
to take up the study of the constitutional
question with any man. But I think that
once in a while when lawyers get into a
muddle about small points of law, sometimes a cool and common sense outsider
may throw a little light upon common
truths that are too much forgotten by lawyers.
A few days ago the Prime Minister gave
to this House a short history of one clause
contained in our national constitution, that
clause relating to school matters. But to
my mind, if I may be permitted to say so,
when a motion was made in this House in
1893 by the late Minister of Public Works,
then the member for L'Islet, the Prime
Minister gave a still clearer and more complete history of the educational policy
of
Canada, he gave us the true origin of clause
93 of the British North America Act. What
was that origin ? That although for a century the Protestant minority in the province
of Quebec had been treated, not only in the
most just, but also in the most generous
manner, still that minority was averse to
joining the confederation compact unless
their privileges and rights in the province of
Quebec were made absolutely secure. Thereupon it was proposed that the same measure
of guarantee which was asked by the Protestant minority of Quebec should be given
to the Catholic minority in the province of
Ontario and the other provinces. Now, Sir,
I am bound to say that there was at that
3255 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
time something of the same feeling that
exists now, but that feeling was frank
enough not to take refuge in legal quibbles.
It was stated then, as it is now outside of
this parliament, that there should be one
rule of justice for the Catholics and another
rule of justice for Protestants ; that there
should not be one law for both the Catholics and Protestants, but that the Catholics
should have one law requiring them to respect the Protestant rights in the province
of Quebec. while in the province of Ontario
the Catholics should rely upon the generosity of the majority. Indeed, the Hon. A.
T.
Galt, then the accredited representative of
the Protestant minority in Quebec, went to
England to secure the adoption of clause
93. Now, eminent legal men in this House,
eminent jurists, have tried to make out a
case that this clause 93 in the British North
America Act should be cut in two, and that
wherever a Protestant province outside of
Ontario is concerned you should read only
the first paragraph of it, thereby giving an
absolute freedom to the majority to do whatever they like. I will not give you my
own
authority, I will not give you the authority
of any man of my creed and nationality in
opposing the proposition laid down by the
leader of the opposition and by Mr. Haultain ; I will go to the highest authority
in
this empire to prove that this argument is
but a sham pretense, because the opposition
in this parliament is afraid on the one hand
to grant justice to the minority in the west
and is afraid on the other hand to state it
frankly before the people of Quebec.
When the British North America Act was
presented to the British parliament, Lord
Carnarvon was Secretary of State for the
Colonies and was responsible for the legislation as such, and Lord Carnarvon has
given a definition of what were the
respective powers of the federal and
provincial authority. I respectfully beg the
liberty of commending that opinion of Lord
Carnarvon to the leader of the opposition
in this House. That hon. gentleman (Mr. R.
L. Borden) has charged the government with
trying to confuse the federal and the provincial powers in this Bill, and throughout
the country the press has stated that education belonged to the provinces, and that
there was no interference of the federal
parliament possible in educational matters,
unless in Ontario and Quebec. It has been
stated that the powers of the British North
America Act are divided into three classes ;
those that belong exclusively to the federal
government in clause 91 ; those that belong exclusively to the provinces in clause
92 ; and those questions on which both
the federal and provincial parliaments have
concurrent jurisdiction. A clearer definition was given in the British parliament
when the Bill was introduced there, and I
suppose we will all accept the good British
theory that if there is a division of opinion
as to the effect of a law, we must go to
3256
the real thought of the enacting legislature
in order to properly understand it. Lord
Carnarvon said in the House of Lords on
the 19th of February, 1867, when moving
the second reading of the British North
America Act :
In this Bill the division of powers has been
mainly effected by a distinct classification.
Does he say that the classification is
threefold ? No, sir.
That classification is fourfold : First, those
subjects of legislation which are attributed to
the central parliament exclusively. Secondly,
those which belong to the provincial legislature exclusively. Third, those which are
the
subject of concurrent legislation, and fourth, a
particular clause which is dealt with exceptionally.
He then enumerates the powers that belong to the provinces and the powers that belong
to the federal parliament, none of which
includes education ; and he continues :
Lastly, in the 93rd clause which contains the
exceptional provisions to which I refer, your
lordships will observe some rather complicated
arrangement in reference to education. I need
hardly say that that great question gives rise
to nearly as much earnestness and division of
opinion on that as on this side of the Atlantic.
This clause has been framed after long and
anxious controversy in which all parties have
been represented and on conditions to which all
have given their consent. The object of the
clause is to secure—
Complete autonomy to the provinces ? No,
Sir.
The object of the clause is to secure to the
religious minority of one province the same
rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority of another province
may enjoy.
The Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada,
the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, and
the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime
provinces will thus stand on a footing of entire
equality.
It is true that the origin of that clause
was a compact between the delegates from
Upper Canada and the delegates from Lower
Canada, but fortunately at that time there
were at the head of both parties in this country men who had enough sense of justice
to
understand that in laying the basis of our
confederation the result of a compact between the provinces should be crystallized
under law into a triumphant principle, and
it was that principle which was embodied
in this clause—not to furnish arguments to
legal quibblers who might come thirty years
later, but on the contrary, to lay down as
the basis of justice in this Dominion, that
a man, in whatever province of Canada he
may choose his abode, can rest assured that
justice and equality will reign and that no
matter what the majority may attempt to
do they cannot persecute the minority.
Later on an interpretation was put upon
that clause of the British North America
3257
MARCH 28, 1905
Act, or to be more correct perhaps I should
say upon the spirit of that clause, by the
Manitoba tribunal of the empire. When the
ed by the counsel representing it was ms argued by the counsel representing [?]
as it has been argued here during this debate
that the exceptions—or rather that the subsections to clause 93—applied only to the
provinces then existing, and even only to
the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It
was therefore contended that the power of
interference that the Catholics of Manitoba
were claiming from this parliament, was
inconsistent with provincial autonomy in
matters of education. What was Lord Herschel's answer to that contention in his
judgment ? I shall read it:
'Before leaving this part of the case it may be
well to notice the arguments urged by the respondent, that the construction which
their
lordships have put upon the 2nd and 3rd subsections of section 22 of the Manitoba
Act is
inconsistent with the power conferred upon
the legislature of the province to exclusively
make laws in relation to education. The
argument is fallacious. The power conferred is not absolute, but limited. It is exercisable
only 'subject and according to the
following provisions.' The subsections which
follow, therefore, whatever be their true construction, define the conditions under
which
alone provincial legislatures may legislate in
relation to education, and indicate the limitations imposed on, and the exceptions
from, their
power of exclusive legislation. Their right to
legislate is not indeed, properly speaking, exclusive, for in the case specified in
subsection
3 the parliament of Canada is authorized to
legislate on the same subject. There is, therefore, no such inconsistency as was suggested.
I am just as ready to take my legal authority on this question from Lord Herschel
and Lord Carnarvon as from Mr. Haultain
or the leader of the opposition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, education is not the
only subject upon which federal and provincial jurisdiction come in conflict once
in a while. The provinces have the exclusive right to legislate on civil matters,
but every day we are passing laws here in
relation to railways and in relation to banking and commerce which interfere with
the
provincial powers. Where are these upholders of provincial rights? A province in
this fair Dominion, some three or four years
ago, passed laws in relation to labour by
which it endeavoured to exclude a certain
class of people from their territory. The
federal government disallowed that law because it was against the interest of the
British government. Where were the apostles of provincial rights then ? If I may say
it, I was the only man to stand up in this
House and proclaim that the province of
British Columbia had a right to exclude
Asiatic labour. Those gentlemen who seem
to be so sincere when they claim that provincial rights should be the basis of our
constitution, should not do as was done in
3258
the United States when state rights were
invoked by men who wanted to retain on the
fair flag of the United States the abominable stain ot' slavery. I say to these gen-
[?]
they want to have peace and harmony in
this country; if they desire that every
citizen of Canada shall feel that Canada is
his country, then let not these gentlemen
come here and speak of provincial rights
if their object is to make provincial rights
an instrument of tyranny and injustice.
Mr. Haultain, in his letter to the Prime
Minister, has admitted frankly that section
93 applied evidently to the Northwest Territories—in fact, that the moment the Northwest
Territories became a province, that
section applied mechanically from the day
they were admitted into confederation, that
is, in the month of July, 1870. Here again
I find shelter for my dissent from the opinion of Mr. Haultain in the opinion of another
man learned in the law—I mean Lord
Watson, of the Privy Council. When the
argument in the Manitoba case was proceeding before the Privy Council, Lord
Watson interrupted Mr. Cozens Hardy, one
of the counsels in that case, and what did
he say about the very clause so frequently
discussed in this House—clause 146, which
authorizes the federal government to admit
into the union the Northwest Territories,
and to carve provinces out of them? He
said :
The Imperial legislature in the Act of 1867
left niches to be filled by other provinces. As
soon as those other provinces came in they
were within the terms of section 93, but I quite
admit, in this case, the terms upon which Manitoba came into the federation were settled
by the Dominion parliament, otherwise they
could not have exempted Manitoba from the
provisions of section 93.
We have here the opinion of Lord Watson that the federal parliament acted within its
jurisdiction when it exempted Manitoba from all the provisions of section 93,
that is, when it claimed for Manitoba the
rights under section 22 of the Manitoba Act
as opposed to section 93 of the British North
America Act which departed materially
from it. Therefore we have here the dissent of Lord Watson from the opinion laid
down by Mr. Haultain and the leader of
the opposition that we must accept section
93 without modification as applicable to
these provinces.
But, Sir, I suppose that when the Northwest Territories were admitted into confederation,
the Canadian parliament meant
what it said. I take also for granted that
when the Imperial Order in Council was
adopted, the imperial government knew
what it did. Upon what terms were those
Territories admitted? I will again read
section 146 to show the point I want to
make. That section says:
3259
COMMONS
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with
the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable
Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses
of parliament of Canada, and from the Houses
of the respective Legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince
Edward
Island and British Columbia, to admit those
colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the
union, and on address from the houses of the
parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land
and the Northwestern Territory, or either of
them, into the union, on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses
expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this
Act;
and the provisions of any Order in Council in
that behalf. shall have effect as if they had
been enacted by the parliament of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Moreover, what were the terms of the
address that was voted by the federal parliament on the 12th of December, 1867, to
admit Rupert's Land and the Northwest
Territories? I will just read the two paragraphs which are of interest:
That the welfare of a sparse and widely
scattered population of British subjects of
European origin, already inhabiting these remote and unorganized Territories would
be
materially enhanced by the formation therein
of political institutions-
—and I ask the House to weigh these
words:
—bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will
admit, to those which exist in the several provinces of this Dominion.
That we do therefore most humbly pray, that
Your Majesty will be graciously pleased, by
and with the advice of Your Most Honourable
Privy Council to unite Rupert's Land and the
Northwestern Territory with this Dominion,
and to grant to the parliament of Canada
authority to legislate for their future welfare
and good government; and we most humbly
beg to express to Your Majesty that we are
willing to assume the duties and obligations of
government and legislation as regards these
Territories.
What were the terms of the Order in
Council of the 23rd of June. 1870. in reply
to this address ?
It is hereby ordered and declared by Her
Majesty. &c. that from and after the 15th
day of July, 1870, the said Northwestern Territory shall be admitted into and become
part of
the Dominion of Canada upon terms and conditions set forth in the first hereinbefore
recited address. and that the parliament of
Canada shall from the day aforesaid have full
power and authority to legislate—
For the provisional welfare ? No, Sir;
—for the future welfare and good government
of the said Territory.
Mr. Haultain's contention is that the powers exercised under that Order in Council
were provisional, and that the moment we
pass this legislation those powers are wiped
out and the educational provisions of the
law of 1875 are abolished in the Northwest.
because. he says, you could only give pro
3260
visional powers. and the moment you create
provincial government. the new provinces
must have the same powers as the otherÂ
provinces.
Now, the history of the legislation of
1875 has been given in this debate. The
origin of that Act, which was introduced
by Mr. Mackenzie at Mr. Blake's request,
was stated in the debates of those days.
Was it enacted that separate schools should
exist in the Northwest Territories only for
the time that they should be under our
care and supervision? Was it only a provisional disposition ? No. Mr. Blake stated
that we should avoid introducing into that
new country the religious disputes that
had existed in the other provinces, because
the parliament of Canada wanted to invite Roman Catholics to settle in the
Northwest Territories as freely as ally
other class of people. Was it hinted
that the Roman Catholic who went there
to settle would have the liberty of education, as long as the provisional government
existed, but that the moment this parliament. which had given its pledge of
honour that that liberty should exist for all
time to come. formed a provincial government. that government would be free to
wipe out this privilege ? After a man had
tilled the. soil for twentynfive or thirty
years in the hope that his children would
reap the benefit of his labour and have the
same liberty that he had enjoyed, was it intended that the federal parliament should
then say to him : 'You shall have your liberty no longer' and leave him at the mercy
of the majority which has given evidence
that it would not permit him to have that
freedom ? I say that if this parliament
acted in good faith in 1875—and I do not
want to presume that Mr. Blake. Mr. Mackenzie, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Alexander
Campbell were men who did not act
in good faith towards the people who would
settle there—we are bound in honour, whatever may be the text of the law or the arguments
of quibblers—if we are not bound
by a sheet of paper. we are bound by the
honour of this parliament. and by the memory of the men who made confederation—
men like Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Blake, Sir
John Macdonald and Sir Alexander Campbell—to be true to the pledge they gave
and to prove that those statesmen were not
perjurers.
But how is it that Mr. Haultain and
the leader of the opposition, with their great
care for provincial rights, have not a word
to say against the maintenance of the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway
Company which was passed by this parliament ? Where are provincial rights in
that case ? Where is the theory of Mr.
Haultain, that everything we did before
this was provisional, and that we cannot
restrict the new provinces? Mr. Haultain. the leader of the opposition and the
3261 Â Â Â MARCH 28, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule),
are willing that we should impose on the
people of the Northwest Territories for all
time to come the incubus of that legislation. If we are going outside of our powers
in trying to maintain the Act of 1875, in the
matter of education, how is it that we are
acting within our powers in maintaining the
contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway as regards the taxation of property in
those Territories ? At different intervals,
while listening to the speech of the hon.
the leader of the opposition on the second
reading of this Bill, I was reminded of a
saying of Sir Charles Tupper. And of Sir
Charles this must be said, and I think it
will be admitted on both sides, whatever
may be our views regarding him in other
respects, that he was always frank and
outspoken. He never tried to shelter himself behind small texts of law. I well remember
a sentence he uttered once during
the debate on the Manitoba school question.
Being taunted one day with not being versed
in the law and being told that he had better
not mix himself up with those legal texts.
the old gentleman said : If to be a lawyer
means that one must confine himself to texts
of law and forget the difference between
truth and untruth, I thank Heaven I am not
a lawyer. Sir, at one part of the speech of
the leader of the opposition I was forcibly
reminded of that declaration of his predecessor. It was when turning to the Orange
section of his party—I would rather not refer
to the fact but it was patent to everybody—
he said : If the government will show me a
written contract in the case of education
such as exists in the case of the Canadian
Pacific Railway, I am ready to abide by
its maintenance. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker,
that in his study of texts and legal quibbles,
my hon. friend has forgotten one of the
basic principles of law, and that is that the
written document is not the contract. What
is really the contract is the agreement entered into between the two parties, and
the
written document is only the evidence of
that agreement. I will go further. Written
contracts were invented by legislators when
men became dishonest enough not to be
true to their pledges and in order to guard
against dishonesty. But if we are bound
by our contract with the Canadian Pacific
Railway, if the hon. the leader of the opposition and his followers are not strong
enough to oppose the Canadian Pacific Railway, are we not bound by a far greater
bond to the minority in the west, if there is
any sense of justice and honour in this
parliament ? Are we not bound by the
promise made by the highest statesmen of
this country to the fathers of families who
settled in these Territories, relying on the
word of honour of the Canadian parliament ?
Are we not bound in honour by the word
given to two millions of our fellow subjects
of His Majesty, that in those Territories,
which were bought with their money as well
3262
as the money of the majority, the rights of
the minority, the freedom of conscience of
the minority would be respected ? This is
a fact which should not be forgotten. Without going again into a deep and fine study
of the question whether those Territories
became part of the union in 1870 or whether
those new provinces are entering the union
now, there is one thing we know, and that
is that they were purchased and paid for by
the people of Canada as a whole. We know
that every dollar which has been spent on
the development of that country, we know
that the millions of dollars which have been
expended to bring foreign people into it,
were contributed by Roman Catholics as
well as Protestants. Now, Mr. Speaker, if
there is one principle upon which I think we
can safely appeal to the spirit of justice of
any English speaking majority, it is that
every man is equal before the collector of
taxes. Therefore I say that when we are
considering the rights and the law and the
constitution, this very simple fact should
not be forgotten. May I not go a little
further ? May I not make a special appeal,
not to my compatriots but to the English
speaking majority of this parliament, to
pause and consider a little what the French
Canadians have done for the opening up and
development of that country.
When the English settlers of His Majesty were still on the banks of the
Atlantic and had not crossed the Ohio and
the Missouri, French Canadian priests,
French Canadian traders and settlers had
opened up that country. I shall go further.
If there is one thing which ought to make
a Canadian proud of his country, it is the
contrast between the relations that have
existed in Canada between the white and
the red men and those relations which have
existed between these two races in the
neighbouring republic. Admitting that some
credit is due to the policy of the government,
long before governments existed, long before
any law was introduced into that country,
Catholic priests had gone there ; and if those
pioneers of Christian faith had not 200
years ago gone into that country to preach
the law of charity and Christian civilization,
we would have had repeated in Canada the
same sad lamentable story of wars between
the white and the red man which has
marked the history of the United States.
The peace of this western country of ours
has been due to the good seed of charity,
civilization and enlightenment which was
sown there years ago by the members
of that hierarchy which is now trying to
impose its will upon the tender consciences
of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and Mr. Haultain. Let me proceed
further, and point out that in 1870 there was
a rebellion in that country, and a rebellion
which has been justified by history and by
the testimony of many public men. On
what did the government of Canada then
rely to appease those people ? Did it rely on
3263
armaments and rifles ? No, it relied on
still more effective means. Were there then
any cries raised about the powerful domination of the hierarchy ? No, the Prime
Minister of that day, Sir John Macdonald,
begged Archbishop Taché, who was then in
Rome, for Heaven sake, to come back at
once to Canada and establish peace in the
Red River settlement. There is no hesitation to call in the hierarchy, when we can
benefit by its aid. As the editor of ' La
Patrie ' very happily put it the other day :
What we are denied is not our right to pay.
Oh, no, it is our right to have full freedom.
Archbishop Taché acted at once on this
appeal. He abandoned his functions at the
Ecumenical Council at Rome and came to
the Red River settlement, and on his way
stopped at Ottawa to meet Sir John Macdonald. ' Take any steps, said Sir John to
him, to appease the Indians and the half-
breeds.' Archbishop Taché however did not
want to impose any pledges on politicians
which perhaps they would not be strong
enough to keep, and all he promised the
native population was that the division of
their lands would be respected and that they
would have the free exercise of their religion and the schools they preferred for
their children. What has become of those
pledges ? The lands were divided against
the wishes of those people and a second rebellion took place—a rebellion which has
been justified by no less an authority than
Colonel Denison who will not be charged
with disloyalty and French demagogy.
What has become of the religious liberty,
of the liberty of teaching of the Catholic
population of the Northwest ? It has been
abolished in Manitoba, against all pledges,
against all words of honour ; and the author
of that legislation can gain applause in this
House by saying : ' If I have a title to the
approval and support of the people of Canada, it is because I have gone back upon
the pledges given in the name of the Queen
of England to a law-abiding and peaceful
population.' This, Mr. Speaker, is what we
have come to. And now we are called upon
to bow to this storm of feeling that has been
aroused and to allow a still greater invasion
of the rights of the people of that territory.
It is time to face the storm. The powers that have raised that storm do not deserve
that we should acknowledge their
sovereignty. The principle of provincial
rights is against them. The constitution
is against them. The law is against them.
Past pledges are against them. I will go
further and say that a religious principle
is at stake in this matter.
Under the terms of the capitulation of
Montreal, in 1760, and of the Treaty of Paris
of 1763, the free exercise of the Catholic
religion was promised to the settlers who
remained in Canada. And I say that there
is no free exercise of the Catholic religion
unless the Catholic parent has the full right
to give to his child the education he wishes
to give according to his conscientious be
3264
liefs. It is strange that there should exist
in this country a prepossession in the minds
of some people to the effect that in matters of
education Roman Catholics have nothing to
complain of if, in the public schools aided
by the government, there is no sectarian
education. As against this, let me put the
authority, not of Roman Catholics, not of
French Canadians, not of Canadian politicians, but of members of the Privy Council.
During the appeal cases on the Manitoba
school question this argument to which I
have referred was brought forward—that
there was no injustice under the laws of
Manitoba, that the Catholics were on exactly the same footing as all others with respect
to education, because education in the
public schools was perfectly non-sectarian.
What did Lord Watson say about that ?
These kind of questions were more or less
burning questions in Great Britain about the
year 1865 or 1866. and during the whole of that
period, as far as my knowledge and experience
goes, there were large classes of Protestants,
and especially Presbyterian Protestants, who
I am glad to see are recognized as Christians
in Manitoba, who were in favour of secular
education, and think that religious education
ought to be imparted in the family, or by the
church, and not in a secular school, where they
are learning the rudiments of knowledge. On
the other hand there are a great number of
Episcopalian Protestants who take a different
view ; but I have never yet met a Roman
Catholic who took that view.
And what did Lord Morris say later on ?
The point had been urged that the Catholics ought to accept these schools, and Lord
Morris said :
But what is the use of discussing other matters ? Nobody can deny that Roman Catholics
cannot avail themselves of the system.
And Lord Watson, speaking especially of
the idea of the denominational school in the
mind of the Roman Catholics, said :
I rather think that the original idea
of denominational schools is a school of
a sect of people who are desirous that their
own religion should be taught in it, and taught
in their own way—a doctrinal religion ; and
not only taught because religion is taught in
a non-sectarian school, but, in the view of those
who founded denominational schools originally,
the theory was that their views of religion and
teaching of their religion should permeate and
run through all the education given in the
school—that, whether it were rudimentary
science or anything else, there should be an
innoculation of the youthful mind with particular religious views.
And, in the judgment that was delivered
in the second case, Lord Herschell said,
speaking of the public schools system of
Manitoba :
While the Catholic inhabitants remain liable
to local assessment, for school purposes, the
proceeds of that assessment are no longer
destined to any extent for the support of Catholic schools, but afford the means of
maintaining
schools which they regard as no more suitable
for the education of Catholic children than if
3265 MARCH 28, 1905
they were distinctly Protestant in their
character. It is true that the religious
exercises prescribed for public schools are not
to be distinctively Protestant, for they are to
be 'non-sectarian,' and any parent may withdraw his child from them. There may be
many who share the view expressed in one of
the affidavits in Barrett's case, that there
should not be any conscientious objections on
the part of Roman Catholics to attend such
schools, if adequate means be provided elsewhere ot giving such moral and religious
training as may be desired. But all this is not to
the purpose. As a matter of fact the objection
of Roman Catholics to schools such as alone
receive state aid under the Act of 1890 is
conscientious and deeply rooted.
Is it not a strange fact that in England,
the centre and heart of Protestantism, where
the Catholic population is but a mere handful, where the idea of Roman Catholicism
is
generally associated in the public mind with
the Irish land question or the agitation in
favour of home rule for Ireland—is it not
strange that Protestant statesmen and lawyers should have a better understanding and
a broader view of what the rights of Roman Catholics are than in this country,
where Roman Catholics form two-fifths of
the population, and where no man can point
to an action, individual or collective, to the
discredit of Roman Catholics so far as
their loyalty, their observance of the law,
or their national spirit, is concerned ?
And this brings me to a question that
has been lightly touched upon in this
House by—I was going to say the yellow
hierarchy which has been lightly touched
upon by the hon. member for East Grey
(Mr. Sproule). And—it is just as well to
frankly admit it—this question is the very
basis of this discussion. I wish to treat
completely, if I can, the question of the influence of the hierarchy and the alleged
sinister motives animating the Roman Catholics in this House. I have referred to the
case of Archbishop Taché in 1870. That
was only one instance. Let us take our
history since the beginning ; and I may say
that when I read what is now appearing in
the Ontario newspapers, I cannot help asking myself what kind of history can be
taught in the public schools of Ontario?
Eleven years after this country had been
acquired by England by treaty, when practically the whole population of Canada was
French and Catholic, when the English-
speaking Protestant population consisted almost wholly of a few traders in the city
of
Quebec, as the House knows, some trouble
arose in certain English—speaking Protestant
communities to the south, and some regiments, entirely composed of Anglo-Saxons
and Protestants, came to besiege Quebec.
The Governor of that day was named Guy
Carleton—I do not know whether his name
is ever mentioned in the public school histories of Ontario. "When it was known that
these regiments were on their way to Quebec, Governor Carleton issued a proclamation
requiring all those who were not loyal
to the British Crown to leave the city, and
3266
calling upon those who were loyal to the
Crown to remain and defend it. Who went
out? Who staid in ? All the English Protestants leftthe city and went to the Island
of Orleans to wait for the result. The
French Canadians, who have been conquered twelve years before, remained there and
saved Canada to the British Crown. Mind
you. there were among the Anglo-Saxon
rebels men of our race and creed. There
were French regiments in the American
army. Appeals were made to us by men
of our blood, men whom the French race
had no reason to be ashamed of. Among
them was the Marquis de Lafayette. And
what was our answer to the Marquis de
Lafayette? Under the guidance of that
dominating hierarchy, we declared that we
believed in the pledge given us by the King
of England. We declared: The free practise of our religion is guaranteed to us;
and, so long as the King will not go back
on us, we will never go back on him.
Thirty-six years later there was another
little disturbance between the two great
branches of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant family. Canada was again invaded ; and remember
that in those 36 years of time, the
French Canadians had been ill-treated, their
public men had been put in gaol because
they wanted to have what ? The same right
that British citizens enjoyed in any other
part of the empire. Their bishops had been
threatened with the same treatment if
they still dared to appoint parish priests
instead of allowing Governor Craig to nominate them himself. In spite of that when
the time of danger came, what did the representative of that obnoxious hierarchy say?
He said: ' My brethren, it is true we have
been ill—treated, but I still believe that the
law of justice will be stronger with our
King than injustice ; stand by him, be
loyal, be constitutional and the time of
justice will come.' The French Canadians
fought at Chateauguay and elsewhere and
once again contributed to save Canada.
Twenty-five years later, the same ill-treatment having been carried on, some of our
people rebelled, wrongly I think, not because their case was not just, but because,
as their leader at the time, Papineau, told
them, the rule of any British citizen was
to carry on constitutional agitation but to
avoid rebellion. In any case, at the request
of an English speaking Protestant physician of the British army they rebelled in
arms. Who stood out against the rebellion ? The same obnoxious representatives
of the hierarchy who asked the French Canadians to remain peaceful.
A few years later an annexation movement was started in Canada. By whom ?
By the hierarchy ? By the Jesuits ? By
French Canadians and Catholics? No, by
the very political fathers of the hon. gentlemen opposite, because the British Crown
at last had opened its ears to the claims of
its French speaking subjects and was beginning to grant justice, and as those gen
3267
COMMONS
tlemen had been fed on injustice for years
and years they rebelled against the Crown
and pelted the governor because he had
granted a measure of justice to the French
Canadians; and immediately after that they
issued an annexation manifesto. Some
French Canadians signed it and others were
disposed to sign it. Again came the obnoxious power of the hierarchy who told
the people of Canada: 'No, be true and
loyal, the day of justice is beginning to
dawn and it will come by and by.' Later
on when Confederation was being discussed
it was not, entirely acceptable to the people
of Quebec. They had some suspicion of
the treatment they might receive at the
hands of the English speaking majority
which up to that moment had not been
such as to give them much confidence for
the future. Again the hierarchy stood up
and asked the people of Quebec to accept
the compact which had been entered into.
Has the hon. member for East Grey (Mr.
Sproule) and his colleagues of the same—
might I say hierarchy or sect? no, of the
same, group of thought, if there is any
thought in that group—have these gentlemen ever reflected on that point?
Mr. BOURASSA. They have. I think,
one group of allies in Quebec. There has
been for many years past a small anticlerical party that has been using all these
arguments against the domination of the
priests, against the power of the hierarchy,
but what has been their aim and object?
It has always been to throw down the
British flag; and the great grievance they
have against the bishops is that the bishops
prevented us from joining the United States
in 1774, again in 1812. and opposed the rebellion of 1837, supported British supremacy
in 1849 and induced us to accept confederation. When newspapers in Ontario are
filling their sheets with attacks and insults
on the hierarchy they are simply insulting
the men who, for 100 years have been the
bulwark of British government in Canada.
If there was any sincerity in these men,
who are the great apostles and preachers
ot loyalty, they should feel ashamed of the
attack they are now launching on the Catholic bishops of Canada, because when
they attack the hierarchy they attack the
party that has always stood by the British
Crown, that has always stood by law, that
has always stood by the flag that has given
us the basis of a nation in this country.
Coming back to the point where I left my
argument, it is just as well to realize the
position in which we are. When you speak
of the liberty granted to the Roman Catholic to go into a non-sectarian school there
is no such thing as liberty. He may abide
by the law if he be forced to send his child
to such a school, but his religious Iibertv is
interfered with. When. by any measure in
this House or in any provincial parliament
3263
you force a Roman Catholic to send his
children to a non-sectarian school, you are
committing an act of injustice just as direct,
just as much against the conscience of the
Roman Catholic, as if you would force the
Protestant minority in the province of Quebec to contribute to Roman Catholic denominational
schools. This is the position
urged upon and this is what was acknowledged frankly by Lord Watson, Lord Morris and
Lord Herschell. May I say that
there should be in this House a little more
of that broad British spirit of tolerance. so
that at last when we come to judge the
feelings and the convictions of our fellow-
citizens we should not trample on their
feelings and override their convictions—we
should endeavour to know the convictions
of their hearts and to learn their thoughts ?
Sir, there is no solid ground left for those
who are opposing this legislation as far as
school matters are concerned. There is
just one ground; it may be a good one for
some. but on the whole it is not a lasting
one: and that is the right of might. If the
rule is to be laid down that there is to be
one law to protect the Protestant minority
of the province of Quebec. and that the same
law shall not apply to Catholic minorities
elsewhere. so far, so good! But let men be
strong enough to stand up here and say:
'No, the Catholics of the western provinces
cannot enjoy in the west what the Protestants enjoy in Quebec, because, on the one
hand, they are Catholic and on the other
land they are Protestants.' Let a statesman be strong enough to stand up in the
House and say that, and he will strike the
root of this question of legislation. There
was only one man who came near that
point, and I acknowledge his sincerity. It
was the hon. member for Brandon the late
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton).
Mr. BOURASSA. Sir, on this ground, I
know my words are useless. I know that
I probably represent the views of very few
men in this House, but there is one thing
I would like to impress upon the minds of
my Protestant English speaking fellow members. It is that when one party gets up
and says that justice cannot be done to
the Roman Catholics in the Northwest and
another party gets up and says there must
be only a scant measure of justice because
it cannot afford to have the people accept
a full measure of justice, allow me to say
that I think the good people of Ontario are
not fairly represented in this House.
Mr. BOURASSA. I cannot believe
that if any member in this House would
go to his constituency, even the member for
East Grey (Mr. Sproule)—although I think
the great process with that hon. gentleman
would be to bring his mind to the point of
understanding the question—I do not be
3269 MARCH 28, 1905
lieve that if any hon. member in this House,
even if he represents the most Protestant
constituency, would go to his county and
say : ' Here is the treatment which is accorded to our fellow citizens in the province
of Quebec, here is the treatment which
is accorded not only under the written law
but under the law of the humane heart of
the French Canadians who even at the time
when they were persecuted by the British
Crown always gave an ample measure of
justice to the Protestant minority. Now, we
ask you to stand by us in giving the same
treatment to the Catholics of the western
provinces that the Protestants have in the
east. We ask you to remain true to the
pledges given to that effect by the greatest
statesmen of this country—I do not believe
that such language would fail to bring a fair
reply from the good people of Ontario.
Let the Liberals be true to the memory
of Mr. Blake, of Mr. Mackenzie and even
of Mr. George Brown, because when Mr.
George Brown made up his mind that this
compact should be observed, he was courageous enough to say that it should be observed
in fact and for ever. So far as hon.
gentlemen opposite are concerned, I do
not wish, on an occasion like this, to speak
from a party point of view. I may say to
the leader of the opposition, for whom, on
all other questions I have had up to this
time the greatest respect, that when I listened to him the other day, I came to the
conclusion that he was not speaking for
the Conservative party, he was not showing
himself to be the heir of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper, but he
was only voicing the opinions of a gentleman who was obliged to find an abode in
the county of Carleton in order to obtain
a seat in this House. The hon. gentleman
is broad enough—I render him that justice—
be is broad enough by birth, by nature and
by education to be fair-minded, that he had
not the courage to stand by his new flag ;
and he felt obliged to gather up a pile of
small documents and papers behind which
to shelter himself in his denial of justice.
We have frequently been told : Why
can't you trust the majority of the people
of the Northwest ? Well, Sir, here again
I must speak frankly ; and I say : No, we
cannot. Suppose we could trust the people
who are living there now ; is there a man
in this House childish enough to say that
the condition of things which exists now is
sure to exist in the Northwest fifty years
hence ? What will be the population up
there ? Who knows what feelings will
dominate the majority there ? Who knows
but that the great majority of the people
there will be settlers coming from a land
where the idea, not only of non-sectarian
schools but of Godless schools, now prevails,
and to my mind, to the great detriment of
the future of the republic ? Who can tell
what the future will be ? But confining my
3270
self entirely to a survey of past events, I
say now that we cannot trust the present
majority of the people of the Northwest
to stand for right and justice. Their record
is before us. It is my intention to make a
comparison, for the enlightenment of our
friends up there, if my words can reach
them, and for the enlightenment of my English speaking Protestant friends in the
House and out of it ; I am going to make a
comparison between the history of the
school legislation in the Northwest and the
history of the school legislation in Quebec,
and I am ready to abide by the judgment
that will be passed by any fair minded man,
if not by his vote, at least by his conscience.
The leader of the opposition made
another fine legal argument to show that
the people of the Northwest have never
legislated on that subject. I admit that from
a narrow legal point of view the people
of the Northwest did not legislate freely,
because they were bound by the Northwest
Territories Act, just as this parliament cannot legislate freely because we are bound
by the British North America Act, and just
as any parliament in this country is not free
because all the powers possessed by any
legislative body in Canada is limited by
imperial legislation. But I presume that we
can ascertain the feelings of the people
of the Northwest by considering their legislation. In 1885, ten years after the Northwest
Territories Act was passed, legislation was enacted by the legislature which,
within its scope, was just as free as this
parliament. And what did they do ? As the
ex-Minister of the Interior clearly told us the
other day, they passed a law quite in accord
with the letter and with the spirit of clause
11 of the Act of 1875. They passed a law
similar to the one we have in Quebec, a law
by which Catholics had the management
of their own schools, had the choice of
their own text books, and had the right to
have their schools inspected by men of their
own creed—but all under government
supervision. They enjoyed separate schools,
not only in name but in fact, as the member
for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) well stated the
other day. The inspectors had to be appointed by the government, but they were chosen
by the Catholic section, just as in the province of Quebec Protestant schools are
inspected by inspectors chosen by the Protestant section of the Board of Education.
The
books used in the separate schools of the
Northwest were also selected by the Catholic
section, and approved by the government.
That state of things went on for some years,
and then, in 1892, after several other ordinances had been passed, the separate school
system, as the member for Brandon stated
the other day, was wiped out. Lately.
Mr. Haultain, who is now here claiming
liberties for his people, has given utterance
to his lofty opinions on this matter, he has
3271 COMMONS
said: If I were a dictator to-morrow I
would not abolish separate schools, all I
want is freedom for my province. But Mr.
Haultain never told the country of a little
fact in his political career which I will take
the liberty of divulging to the House. When
Mr. Dalton McCarthy, in 1892 and in 1894,
brought into this House a Bill to abolish
separate schools and the French language
in the Northwest Territories, he was acting
upon an address voted in the legislature of
the Northwest Territories, moved by Mr.
Cayley and seconded by Mr. Haultain.
Therefore I think I now have the right to
say, as claiming some liberty for the minority in the Northwest, that I have no confidence
in Mr. Haultain, who now comes
here posing as our friend, but who was one
of the first men to start a movement in the
legislative assembly to abolish the separate
schools.
Mr. LEIGHTON McCARTHY. Would the
hon. gentleman allow me ? I think he is a
little inaccurate in stating that this was
legislation to abolish separate schools. The
legislation then sought was only to delegate
to the legislative assembly the right to do
as they saw fit ; and they will of course
continue the separate school system if they
so choose.
Mr. BOURASSA. I am glad my hon.
friend has interrupted me, because he affords
me an opportunity of illustrating once more
what I said a little while ago, that every
time an act of persecution is committed,
it is committed under a false pretense.
Everybody knew the views of the hon. gentleman—and whose views I certainly respect—who
was so closely connected with
the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L.
McCarthy). The motion which was made
in this House by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, and
which he developed by a very eloquent argument, was to wipe out the separate schools
and wipe out the French language on the
ground that there should be only one race
and one language in this country. It is useless to resort to legal quibbles. The purpose
of Mr. Haultain and of Mr. McCarthy was
to abolish Catholic education and the French
language ; they succeeded so far as the
language is concerned, and they succeeded
to a large extent in so far as schools are concerned, according to the testimony of
the
hon. member for Brandon.
There is one further point I would
like to draw to the attention of our friends
on this side of the House. I have listened
to the very nice words, words with which
I agree completely, spoken to us by the
Minister of Finance and the Minister of
Customs ; I entirely agree with their conciliatory sentiments. I especially coincide
with the Minister of Finance, who gave us a
good illustration and a strong re-enforcement of the argument I have tried to make,
when he painted the happy condition of
3272
things which exist in the provinces of
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island, where the majority, in order to do justice to their Catholic fellow
citizens, had to grant them separate schools
in fact. So it is not only in Quebec and
Ontario that we have separate schools. I
have visited the maritime provinces frequently, and was happy to observe the good
relations which exist between the Roman
Catholics and the Protestants there.
But, may I suggest to the Minister of
Finance, if the Roman Catholic minority had not developed the strength of
numbers that it represents to-day in those
provinces, would it be treated as it is
treated ? We know the history of Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick. I do not want
to bring up old feuds, but I am bound to
say, looking through the history of all the
provinces of Canada, that while in the province of Quebec the same ample measure
of justice was always granted to the minority, unfortunately in all the English speaking
provinces there was a time when the
passions of the majority were aroused and
successfully aroused against the Catholic
minority. In consequence, a feeling has
developed—not of distrust—but a feeling
has developed amongst us that if we want
equality and peace to reign in this country,
we must give to the representatives of the
majorities in the English speaking provinces
the right to do what Sir Oliver Mowat did.
I took an active part in two elections in
the province of Ontario ; I was but a boy
at the time, but I was proud to stand by
Sir Oliver Mowat and help in his campaign
for justice and equality. I was living on
the borders of the province of Ontario and
I crossed the river of my own free will
without being asked by anybody, without
being known by anybody, to do what I
could in support of the old statesman. What
was the argument used by Sir Oliver Mowat? He was prudent and he knew of
the power of the appeals made by such men
as the member of East Grey. When the
system of separate schools was attacked in
Ontario, Sir Oliver Mowat said. 'I shall
not discuss the relative merits of separate
schools and public schools ; I am not any
partisan of separate schools ; but separate
schools have been established in this province under law, and therefore it is useless
to agitate against the law of the land.'
What I want is that the future rulers
of the Northwest may be put in such a position that when passions are aroused and
prejudices fomented by such men as we
have in this House, by such newspapers as
we have in this country, these future rulers
of the Northwest will be in a position to
say—when passion is too strong or when
they are not strong enough to oppose it—
' What is the use ? there is a law protecting
the minority.' I do not wish to cast any
aspersion on the breadth of mind of any
3273 MARCH 28, 1905
future statesman of Canada, but it is no
harm for the peace of the country, it is no
harm for the good of our land, that should
prejudices exist between creeds and nationalities, every Canadian statesman, whether
he be weak or strong, whether he be
popular or unpopular, can always find a
shelter under the constitution of our country and be able to point out to all men
that
there is laid down in our constitution the
clear written principle that equal justice
exists for all and that Catholics as well as
Protestants have the right to live in this
country.
It may be said : But what is all this trouble about ? The minority in the west is
satisfied ; it is only the hierarchy, it is only the
Quebec crowd who are trying to impose
their will upon the Territories. Sir, that
is one of the most cynical arguments that
has been used so far. We have the testimony of the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton),
who ought to know, that when the
ordinances abolishing separate schools were
passed in the Northwest, a protest was
made. The member for Brandon—I do not
know if it was in a moment of forgetfulness, or if it was because he also has been
drawn into the dangerous abyss in which
some gentlemen opposite are having such
a fine time these days—but the member for
Brandon said the protest came from the
Roman Catholic clergy and in order to convince us, he immediately gave the opinion
of two of the most eminent laymen of the
Northwest Territories ; two fathers of
families, two representatives of the people,
one the Lieutenant Governor to-day and
the other a judge of the Supreme Court.
These were the members of the hierarchy
quoted by the hon. member from Brandon. These gentlemen came here and they
said: ' An injustice has been done us ; we
are deprived of the right of giving to our
children the education which our conscience
binds us to give ; our money is taken for
the support of schools we cannot attend.'
But, they were sent away from Ottawa ;
they were not numerous enough probably
to obtain justice. Then they went to the
provincial assembly and again they laid
their case at the foot of the Crown—as the
Crown was represented there—and again
they were found to be too weak and too
few. Because they did not rebel in arms,
because they accepted the established state
of things; a state of things which was a
breach of the compact, a state of things
which in the words of Sir John Thompson
and the words of the member for Brandon,
constituted a legal encroachment upon their
rights; because they did not rebel in arms;
because they followed the advice that has
always been given by the hierarchy to the
Catholics of this country to be peaceful ;
now they are told : ' You are satisfied ; ask
for nothing more because you can't expect
it.' To my friends who are saying to us :
3274
'Be conciliatory ; let us cut in two what remains.' I shall cite a little illustration
which may perhaps help some of them to
realize the situation. Suppose that Canada
stands in the position of a father having
two sons, big Peter and little Paul. He
gives $4 to big Peter and $2 to little Paul
and he says : " Now, boys, agree together,
work together, do the best you can with
the money I gave you.' Once they are on
the street big Peter gets after little Paul,
beats him and takes $1.50 of his two dollars. These gentlemen opposite stand up
and say : Don't tyrannize big Peter ; but
force little Paul to give Peter the 50 cents
he has left. And hon. gentlemen on this
side of the House get up and say : Be conciliatory, take those 50 cents left to Paul,
and divide it with big Peter, for after all
big Peter is a good fellow.
Mr. BOURASSA. I am not going to be
dragged into provincial limits just now.
Now, Sir, there is another subject which is
much talked of in the public press, but
which has not been treated of in this House
and I think one voice at least should be
raised in parliament to protest against it.
It is said : ' Admitting that the constitution
allows you to grant separate schools to the
Northwest, yet you should not fasten upon
these people such a bad system of education which has made of Spain, of Italy, of
France, of all Catholic countries, the scum
of the earth.' And we are told : Look at
the province of Quebec, look at the south
of Ireland, a degraded population, a low-
minded ignorant people.
I propose to deal for a few moments with
the subject of Catholic education, with what
it has done for the world. in what way it
has succeeded and why it has not always
succeeded. Here again I am tempted to
ask: What kind of history is taught in the
public schools of this country ? I know
as well as any man. and I have learned to
know in the Catholic schools where I was
educated. that there is such a thing as the
evolution of nations, that nations in our own
age as well as nations in the past. and as
well as nations to come for all time. have
and will have their periods of prosperity.
and their days of decadence.
The race from which I sprung has done
so much for the enlightenment and civilization of this world that I can, without undue
baseness. admit that the Anglo-Saxon
is now ahead among the nations. But I
may remind my English speaking friends
that three centuries before there was anything like English civilization, Catholic
Spain
had covered the world not only with physical
power, but with civilization and enlightenment—with schools of higher education and
primary education and with a knowledge of
all then available sciences that no nation
3275
COMMONS
has since surpassed ; and this is no disparagement of the English any more
than the present pre-eminence of the
Anglo-Saxon is a disparagement of the
Spanish. May I remind my English-speaking friends also that three hundred years ago,
in Venice and Genoa, those Catholic-ridden
states, the system of book-keeping, of stock
exchange, of currency, of everything which
the Anglo-Saxon is using now with such
success, was practiced to an extent which
brought to those little republics a degree
of prosperity and civilization which, considering their time and their size, has never
been surpassed. I could go on with examples like these ; I could make a history of
the world with such examples, after the
manner of a speech which was made in this
House some years ago by I think my hon.
friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr.
Sam. Hughes), who began at the creation and
ended with the end of the world. I
will content myself with stating the
truism that nations grow, develop, prosper,
and then pass into oblivion. The Greeks
have passed ; the Romans have passed ; the
Italians and Spanish have passed. Let the
Anglo-Saxon look to the Slav and the Japanese before he concludes that he possesses
the world for ever. But this is not the point.
The point is, what has Catholic education
done for Catholic countries ? If our friends
who are making so much noise about the
corruption of Catholic countries would go to
the depth of the history of those countries.
they would find that their greatest time of
material as well as moral prosperity coincided with the time when the Catholic
church, not dominated, but inspired those
countries, and when Catholic education high
or low, was given to all classes of the people.
Spain began to decay when greeders in the
colonies displaced the missionaries–when
the King of Spain lent himself to the
anti-Catholic movement which started in
France and which led to the abolition of the
Jesuit order. The same thing happened in
France. But why not go for an example to
countries which are now under Catholic
influence ? The hon. member for East Grey
(Mr. Sproule)—I do not know what text
book he got his information from, but if it
is authorized in any province, it should be
taken from the schools at once—spoke of
the national non-sectarian system of education carried on in Belgium. Now, Belgium
is one of the most prosperous countries on
earth, and there you have Catholic education
right through, from the primary school to
the university. But let me point to a Protestant nation, Germany, where thirty-three
years ago the Prussians abolished Catholic
education and expelled the Jesuits and other
religious orders from the country. What
do you see there now ? The German Emperor, observing the progress which Catholic
education has made in the empire, is turning to the Catholic hierarchy and asking
them to save his empire from the dangers
3276
of socialism. Might I refer some of our
friends also to the comments appearing daily
in the American papers and reviews, coming
not from Catholic priests or bishops or
Catholic religious orders, but from Protestants, eminent Protestants, men of science,
professors of universities and statesmen,
among a few statesmen who find their way
to political life in the United States, who
recognize that what must save the United
States from the social plague which is
going to involve all nations between the
crushing burden of capitalism and the
equally crushing burden of standing armies,
is the influence of the Catholic church on the
working classes. I am not saying this in
disparagement of any other creed ; but, in
view of the fact that during the past two
months railing attacks have been made
against the creed of two millions of the subjects of His Majesty in this country,
I feel
that I should stand up here and say that the
Catholic people and the Catholic hierarchy
will never suffer when compared with any
other creed or sect.
But, leaving aside foreign countries, and
coming to my own poor province, the province of Quebec, let us study for a moment
what has been the influence of the Catholic
church on the development of education in
that province ? It is generally contended
in all English-speaking provinces that we
are—I will not say an inferior race, because
I do not think that is accepted by a great
number of the English-speaking people ;
but it is very often contended that the system of education in the province of Quebec
is an inferior one, and that that province has
a greater number of illiterate people than
any of the other provinces. It may be that
a little insight into the history of the educational system of Quebec will throw some
light on the subject. Before the conquest,
the French government had given lavishly
what was necessary for the support of public education in New France. At the time
of
the cession there was necessarily a great
disturbance of the whole system. Five years
after the cession of Canada the Jesuit order
was suppressed by the Pope ; and, strange
to say, there was nobody at the time to raise
an argument against the English government for using a papal bull. On the day
that papal decision was registered, all the
estates belonging to the Jesuits were seized
by the British government. Those estates
had been given to the Jesuits with the legal
obligation of founding colleges and secondary and primary schools ; and before
the conquest they had established two
colleges and a great number of primary
schools—a greater proportion being given
to the people of New France than were
given in the British colonies to the south.
After the estates of the Jesuits were seized
by the British government, were the proceeds used for the education of the people
?
No. The Montreal College was destroyed,
and was replaced by the Champ de Mars.
3277 MARCH 28, 1905
The Quebec College was seized and the
pupils and professors turned out, and
soldiers put in. For thirty years after representative institutions were given to
us, we
petitioned the British government to give
us back those estates, not to return them to
the Jesuits, but to use them for the purposes
of education, and we were refused. For
twenty-seven years we were refused any
education law. In 1801 the government imposed on us a system of education under the
control of the Anglican bishop of Quebec,
through which Anglican students of theology
were sent to all the Catholic centres with the
avowed object—because at that time they
had the frankness to avow the purpose of
their operations—of turning young French
Canadians into English—speaking Protestants. Naturally our people refused to send
their children to those schools: but while the
legislative assembly was voting money for
educational purposes, the English governors
handed the proceeds over to the Protestant
schools and gave not one cent to the Catholics. That continued during 24 years until
at last the legislative assembly passed a
law which gave the Catholic church wardens the right to take a part of the revenues
of their poor parish churches and devote
it to the building and maintaining of
their own schools. And at the same time the
Protestant schools were kept up with the
moneys paid by the Catholics and appropriated by the government. That went on
until 1841, when the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada became united. It
was only then that the province of Quebec
obtained its first school law. What was
that law? It was a law which Lord Sydenham forced upon his advisers. Under it
the whole school system was put under the
municipal authorities, who were appointed
by the governor personally, and the governor was careful to appoint a majority of
English speaking Protestants to regulate
the school system of a population, nine-
tenths of which were French speaking
Catholics. It was only in 1846 that we
finally secured a system of schools satisfactory to our people. So that during 100
years we were deprived of the right of
using our own money for the education of
our own people. Is it then surprising that
there should be some people in our province to-day who can neither read or write?
While the English speaking immigrants
who did not profess the Catholic religion,
found on our shores, even in the Catholic
province of Quebec, a system of education suited to their consciences, under
which their own schools were entitled to
their proper share of the public money, and
while these people had come from the
British Isles or the United States, from
countries where there was an established
system of education which suited them, for
a hundred years the great majority of the
province of Quebec were deprived of the
opportunity of educating their children. Am
3278
I not then justified in saying that if you
will compare the results of our education,
which is only fifty years old, with those of
the education in the English speaking provinces, which practically had no beginning,
because it was simply the continuation of
the American and English systems, we
have no reason to be ashamed. As far as
higher education is concerned—and that
education with us is entirely in the hands
of our clergy—let me give, not my testimony, but that of a professor of McGill
University, Dr. Johnstone, who some years
ago made certain comments upon the difference between the attainments of the
pupils of McGill University who came from
the Catholic colleges and those who came
from the high schools. He was struck with
the fact that there was always a preponderance of points secured by those who came
from the Catholic colleges, and he said:
There was no possibility of mistaking the
superiority of the men with classical training.
I was so struck with what appeared to be a
marked difference between the two divisions
of the classes that without suspecting what I
now believe to be the true course of it, I, many
years ago, assigned separate rows of seats in
the lecture room to them, in order to make
quite sure of the fact. Year after year there
was the same invariable result.
May I also refer to the results of the examinations carried on at the Manitoba
University, where the pupils of the Jesuits
college of St. Boniface compete in the proportion of 1 to 15 or 18—three or five out
of 80 or 100 altogether ? Those pupils
of the Jesuits' college generally carry off
from thirty to thirty—five per cent of the
points and medals given. True, we are not
now discussing higher education, but primary schools. Well, if the primary school
system be so rotten as it is said to be, surely it could not send to our colleges
young
men who are so successful when they come
into competition with the students from the
other schools. But I look at the question
from another point of view. Suppose there
should be a little less book-keeping taught
in our primary schools than is taught in
the public schools. I lay it down as a basis
of social law that the right to educate the
child belongs in the first place to its parents; and, therefore, when the state takes
the place of the parent, it is bound to give
that child the same moral education which
the father would give it in his own house.
Secondly, the duty of the government is to
develop law-abiding, broad-minded citizens;
and, thirdly, to give the child school knowledge. I claim if that rule is considered
our system has given better results than
any other. We never see in the province
of Quebec or in any part of the country in
which Catholics can have any control, the
display of passion and prejudice which we
are now witnessing among those who advocate public schools as against separate
schools. We see in the outbursts to-day
3279
COMMONS
in which sectarian prejudice is appealed to,
the result of public school education, and
we are justified in saying that in the province of Quebec, under our system, we have
never produced any thing of the kind.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding)
has pointed with pride to his own province.
But there is still one province ahead
of Nova Scotia as far as the spirit of
tolerance is concerned, and that is the
province of Quebec. Do some of our friends
who make so much noise about the illiteracy and narrow mindedness of that province
under priestly control, know that Lower Canada was the first self-governing part
of the British Empire, not excluding Great
Britain and Ireland, where disabilities were
removed from the Jews? We emancipated
the Jews in the province of Quebec before
the Catholics were emancipated in England.
At the very time that we in the province
of Quebec were denied our most sacred
natural rights, every new creed that came
to that province was given complete civil
and corporate powers. Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists were granted by the Legislative
Assembly of Quebec the same powers to keep civil registers and act as corporate bodies
as were given Catholics. Do
they know that at the time when we were
denied the right of teaching our children
according to our conscience, we always put
Protestant schools on the same footing as
our own as regards the law and the constitution? I go further, as far as the working
of our system of education is concerned.
May I refer hon. members to a speech made
by the right hon. the First Minister in 1893
in which he said in substance : ' I know that
the law protects the minority in the province of Quebec, but there are many ways
in which an unwilling majority can evade
the law—and we have evidence of that in
several provinces of the Dominion. Suppose, for instance, the government of the
province of Quebec were to abolish the
Protestant section of the Council of Education. Would not that be an infamous
thing which would call for redress at the
hands of a federal government?' Well, that
was done by the government of the Northwest Territories some years ago. But if it
be infamous to abolish the supervision of
Protestant schools by Protestants, how
comes it to be perfectly proper to abolish
the supervision of Catholic schools by
Catholics? How can one thing be good in
the west and bad in the east? How can it
be just in the west and unjust in the east?
If we are to make a nation of this country,
surely every one will admit that the principle must prevail, not in word but in fact,
of equal rights and equal justice to all.
To again give the House an idea of what
kind of argument is offered to our English
speaking friends these days on this question, may I read a few lines written by a
very talented gentleman in the city of Quebec, and an Anglican minister, the Rev.
F.
G. Scott:
3280
If we are to be a house divided against itself,
if we are to set province against province and
perpetuate our racial discords, there can be
but one ultimate result, and that is the submergence of Canada by the United States
and
the grand sweeping away of all of our civil
strife by the uprooting of treaties, rights and
legal safeguards under a nation that recognizes no state religion and tolerates no
duality
of speech.
To avert that, to save Canada to Canadians,
we must establish, as I have said a broad spirit
of Canadian sentiment and that can only be
done by a system of national common schools.
The day is past when we looked to England's
interests first. Canada comes first to Canadians ; and to the west, broad, tolerant
and expansive, we look for the light and healing of the
spirit of true Canadianism that will put an end
to the inherited animosities which darken and
strangle the national life of the older Canada.
And then there is this still better :
Of course, the true inwardness of this attempt
to force upon the new provinces a school system distasteful to them, is the desire
to establish French Canadian colonies in the west,
where separate schools would enable them to
establish the French language over wide areas.
The means for doing this would be readily furnished by the religious communities expelled
from France, and it would not be many years
before there would grow up in the west a new
Quebec, with all its racial, lingual and sectarian
animosities, eating the life out of true Canadian nationalism.
There are English-speaking Protestants
from my province in this House. I wish
the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Fisher) were here. I see here my hon.
friend from Shefford (Mr. Parmelee). And
the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine
(Mr. Ames) is present. I will ask any one of
these Protestant representatives from my
province, whether present at the moment
or not, and whether Conservative or Liberal, and regardless of their opinions in
the legislation that is now before us, to state
frankly in this House Whether there is, in
their opinion, in any part of Canada, or in
any part of the world, so much toleration of
so much breadth of mind as that shown by
French Canadians towards their English-
speaking Protestant compatriots. The other
day a letter was published in the Toronto
' News ' which attracted my attention. It
was written by a gentleman in the town
of Aylmer in the neighbouring county of
Wright. This is what it said, speaking of
the schools of Quebec :
The separate school system is one of distrust, suspicion and antagonism. . . . As
it
is, the priesthood are given control and proficiency, while they teach the merest
rubbish
for history, while the teaching of the catechism
leaves no other impression possible but that
Protestants are a curse to the earth.
Now, that letter was written in the
county of Wright opposite Ottawa. That
county is two-thirds French Canadian
and four-fifths Catholic. There was a
by-election in that county three weeks
3281 MARCH 28, 1905
before that letter was written. Three candidates were in the field. The Liberal candidate
was an Irish Canadian without a
drop of French blood in his veins. The Conservative candidate was a Scotch Presbyterian
without any trace of French Canadian
blood. A third candidate came into the
field and appealed to my fellow-countrymen,
saying : ' This county is two-thirds French
Canadian ; you should not vote for an
Irishman or a Scotchman ; you should vote
for me, a French Canadian.' And what
was the result ? The French Canadian who
appealed to racial passion in that county,
notwithstanding that the voters were brought
up under this priestly education, notwithstanding that they were educated in schools
where they were ' taught that Protestants
were a curse to the earth '—this French
Canadian lost his deposit. The Irish Canadian was elected. And the Scotch Presbyterian
received the strongest Conservative
vote that had been cast in the county for
years and years. And, in the city of Hull,
Where the whole population is under ' priestly education,' where the teachers are
not
merely the ordinary parish priests, but
priests who belong to the monastic orders,
some of these ' abominable orders ' of
which the Reverend Scott is so afraid ; in
the city of Hull where the schools are wholly
in the hands of friars and nuns, and where
any man who spent his childhood there has
received no other education than that given
by these friars and nuns under the control
of the hierarchy ; in that Liberal Catholic
and French Canadian city of Hull the Scotch
Presbyterian Conservative candidate had a
majority of the votes. Sir, the province of
Quebec, where you may so frequently notice
Protestant Englishmen elected by a French-
speaking majority, is the only province
where you find such proofs of toleration
and breadth of view. And the same
has been true since confederation and long
before confederation.
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to speak
of a little experience I have had in this
relation ? It shows the working of the
school laws in my province. There is a
small country newspaper in the county of
Quebec which has declared that the result
of the separate school law in Quebec was
to drive the Protestants out of the province.
I refer to the Huntingdon ' Gleaner.' And
the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
has re-echoed that declaration. I passed most
of my life—and my happiest days, because
they were before I entered public life—
in a small village on the borders of the
Ottawa river forming one municipality of
eight hundred souls. This village was separated municipally and for school purposes
from the parish in which it was situated
and which also contained some eight hundred souls. In these two municipalities there
were three English-speaking Protestant
families. The father of one family was the
3282
head of a large lumbering firm and the
fathers of the other two families were the
other's clerks. These three families lived
in the village. They organized a separate
school under the law. Then the lumbering
company bought immense properties in the
parish. Under our ' priest-administered '
law, the Protestant ratepayers—as they
were entitled to do by law—annexed this
property to the village for school purposes,
thus depriving the Catholic ratepayers of
the parish of all the receipts of their schools
on account of that land. But there was not
a word of dispute. There came a time when
the separate school was not carried on
according to law, because, in our province
as in others, it requires a certain school
attendance to make a school under the law.
There came a time when all the taxes paid
by the Protestants went to support a school
where there were only five or six children,
which is only half or one-third of the number required under the law. One of the
Catholic ratepayers suggested : ' Why don't
we abolish the separate school and get all
that money ?' I put my foot upon the proposition at once. I said: ' My friend, if
you
think as I do and as, I believe, the people of
this parish and of this village do, you will
never ask a man, rich or poor, to contribute
a cent to the maintenance of a school system
in which he does not believe.' And the whole
population was with me. That whole
' priest-ridden population '—and they were
poor farmers—preferred to pay twice as
much as they otherwise would rather than
ask these Protestant ratepayers to contribute, as they were legally bound to do, to
the maintenance of any other than this
separate school. Show me such an example
in any of the English-speaking Protestant
provinces of this Dominion, and I will admit that the separate school system cannot
develop a national spirit.
Let me refer my hon. friends to the
example of a country, that, perhaps
above all the nations of the earth, has done
most for the development of ideas of liberty
and toleration : the little republic of Switzerland. There is in Switzerland a population
composed of three nationalities with clearly
marked differences of religion. They have
the Protestant Germans and the Catholic
French and Italians. After their common
struggle for liberty, they fought among themselves for years and for centuries—the
Germans to impose the German language and
the Protestant religion upon the others and
the French seeking to impose the French
language and the Catholic religion upon the
Germans. But the day came when they
found out that only principle under which
they could maintain their union was that
every man should be free to worship God in
his own church and to educate his children
in his own school. And upon that principle
of toleration they have carried on their
schools ; and to my mind, their national
3283
spirit is much more united, than unfortunately ours is at the present day.
Now, Sir, there is one last point I wish to
make. I contend that if we look upon
this question from the point of view of a
broad national ideal, not only should we
propose the widest measure of liberty for
the minority of the Northwest, but, even
if it were not asked for and if we were not
bound to give it, we should, in duty to Canada and to the integrity of the empire,
establish separate schools in the Northwest in
the fullest sense of the word.
I have stated, at the opening of my remarks, that nobody knows what the population
of that country will be fifty or one
hundred years hence. Do you want to
make it safely Canadian ? Do yo want to
have there a nucleus of population whose
only love, whose only care will be for this
soil of ours, who will have no other devotion but to the future and the welfare of
Canada ? Open the Northwest to the
French Canadian, emplant him there and
give him all his freedom and liberty. Make
him feel that he is at home in the west just
as much as in the east, make him feel that
he can have there the same religious liberty
that he enjoys at home, and which he gives
to his neighbour at home and you will have
there a growing tree that will stand the
storm, resist the influence of American absorption and the development of foreign
ideals, because the French Canadian is the
oldest Canadian, because the French Canadian has founded on the soil of our country the whole of his hopes. He has abandoned the
past; he has ceased to look to any
foreign country for the development of his
moral and material forces and when
you compare the past with the present,
when you think that all the French Canadians. whether living in this country under
the British flag or in the United States
under the stars and stripes, that these 3,000,000 French Canadians are all the descendants
of 60,000 peasants who were abandoned on this land by the French government 150 years
ago, who had been ruined
by the French government, robbed by
French intendants whose methods British
governors faithfully followed ; when it
will be remembered that those 60,000
peasants, unaided by any influx whatever of immigration and capital, have developed
their education, their agriculture and
their trade; that they have done all they
could for Canada whether in peace or war,
and if you consider the point at which they
started and the result they have achieved,
there is no reason why any man in this
House should be afraid of the hold the
French Canadians may obtain in the west.
Again referring to past history might I
once more appeal to my English speaking
friends in this House and say to them : Do
not trust the religious zealot. Remember
the New England Puritan who burned
witches 200 years ago. He condemned the
3284
British Government because it granted
religious liberty to the French Canadians,
but ten years later he rebelled against the
British Crown and was stopped from entering Canada only by the French Canadians.
Do not trust too much to the political jingo.
Remember 1849, when the fathers of the
Tories wrecked the parliament buildings
and rotten-egged the governor for giving
freedom to all. I simply say this and I
leave my friends with these words : Be
just to the French Canadians. That is all
1 ask. I do not ask you to be generous,
if the state of mind of your province has
not yet been brought up to the state of
mind that we have in Quebec. If you cannot afford to be generous, all I ask you is
to be just. Give us the same rule that we
have given you, do for us what we have
done for you and trust the French Canadians under the guidance of that hierarchy which
has stood for British connection in the past. The French Canadian's
heart is generous, his heart is grateful and
he will never forget what you have done.
But on the other hand—and in this I am
not uttering any threat—I regret every time
I go back to my province to find developing
that feeling that Canada is not Canada for
all Canadians. We are sometimes in Quebec
accused of being provincialists. We are
not provincialists by nature. We have
stood for the defence of the whole soil of
Canada and have contributed our share for
the benefit of the whole of Canada. But
after such examples as we have had in
New Brunswick, in Manitoba, and the
Northwest Territories, after such attempts
as were made in Ontario itself where we
were preserved only because there was a
text of law, we are bound to come to the
conclusion that Quebec is our only country
because we have no liberty elsewhere. I
do not say that we are treated as slaves ;
but we are proud enough and I contend
that we have rendered service enough to
claim at the hands of the majority of this
country not only such treatment as you
would grant to a good natured inferior being, but such treatment as I think we, as
your brethren, are entitled to receive at
your hands. If you do that, if you are just
and just without quibbling, just and just
without trying to take with one hand what
you give with the other, I say : Trust
the French Canadian in the west or in the
east. trust the French Canadian anywhere
in Canada ; he will be true to you, true to
the British Crown, if you do not expel from
his mind the belief that Canada is a free
country and that the British Crown is in
this country the protector of equal justice
and equal law.
Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel). I do not
propose to follow the very lengthy address of the hon. member for Labelle
(Mr. Bourassa). I am quite sure that the
people of the province of Quebec and of the
3285 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
MARCH 28, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
other portions of Canada are quite well
aware that the hon. gentleman has been delivering this same lecture in different parts
of Canada for several years past. While I
do not wish to make any comparisons, for I
do not think it is the duty of a member of
parliament, living in a country of this kind,
to make too many comparisons between the
different nationalities of this country, may
I be permitted after the reference that my
hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) has made to the
narrowness of the English-speaking people
of Canada to say that I come from the
province of Ontario. We had a general
election for the local legislature there a few
weeks ago and I might say to my hon.
friend that the city of Toronto sent a Roman
Catholic representative to that legislature
and that Roman Catholic has the honour of a seat in Mr. Whitney's cabinet
at this moment. And may I be permitted
to remind my hon. friends of the French
nationality that for the first time in the
history of the province of Ontario your own
town, Mr. Speaker, has been recognized by
the putting into office of the Hon. Dr.
Rheaume, Minister of Public Works in
Mr. Whitney's cabinet. And of course I
need not refer to my hon. friend from
South Toronto (Mr. Claude Macdonell), who
sits on this side of the House, as
another example of the generosity of the
English speaking people of that important
province, I was a little interested to hear my
hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) dealing with
those legal questions and I thought I would
look up the history of the hon. gentleman
to see what knowledge he had to bring to
bear in competition with that of the leader
of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I
find on examination that my hon. friend had
one special Act of parliament passed in his
own province of Quebec to permit him to
study law in that province. Then on further examination, I find another special
Act of parliament passed for the hon. gentleman to allow him to pass an examination
that he has never yet passed and he has not
to this date practised law in his own province, and yet my hon. friend will put his
opinion on these legal questions in competition with the opinion of the distinguished
leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden).
On February 21, the right hon. the Prime
Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) introduced the two Bills that are to constitute
new provinces in what is now known as the
Northwest Territories. The right hon. gentleman gave to the House a very lengthy
history of different matters in connection
with those Bills. I have here Bill (No.
69) 'An Act to establish and provide for the
government of the province of Alberta,'
Clause 12 of the Act reads:
Until the said legislature otherwise provides,
the legislative assembly shall be composed of
twenty-five members to be elected to represent
the electoral divisions defined.
3286
Clause 3 of the Bill says:
The said province shall be represented in the
Senate of Canada by four members : provided
that such representation may, after the completion of the next decennial census, be
from
time to time increased to six by the parliament
of Canada.
Clause 8 says:
Unless and until the Lieutenant Governor in
Council of the said province otherwise directs,
by proclamation under the great seal, the seat
of government of the said province shall be at
Edmonton.
Clause 20 of the Bill says:
The Dominion lands in the said province shall
continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the government of Canada for
the purposes of Canada.
Clause 24 enacts:
This Act shall come into force on the 1st day
of July, one thousand nine hundred and five.
I may be permitted briefly to refer to Bill
No. 70 to establish and provide for the government of the province of Saskatchewan.
The same number of representatives, 25,
are to be elected in that province; the same
number of senators, four, are to be appointed to the senate of Canada, with the privilege
of parliament increasing the number
to six. The capital of the province is to be
Regina; and this Act also is to come into
force on the 1st of July next. I will now
give the areas in square miles of the various
provinces :
Amount to be paid annually to each province.
| Support to government.. .. Â $ |
50,000 |
| Estimated population of
250,000 at 80 cents per
head. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
200,000 |
| Interest at 5 per cent. per
  annum on $8,107,500.. |
405,375 |
| In lieu of lands retained by
the Dominion government.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
375,000 |
| Construction of public buildings to be paid yearly for
five years only. .. .. .. . |
94,500 |
| Total.. .. .. .. .. |
$1,124,875 each. |
| For two provinces. .. .. .. .. .. |
$2,249,750 |
| This to increase from time
to time until it reaches
an annual payment of.. |
$2,207,875 each. |
| For two provinces. . . . . .. .. |
$4,415,750 |
| Prince Edward Island. . . . . . . . |
2,284 |
| Nova Scotia. . . . . . .. |
21,428 |
| New Brunswick. . . . . . |
27,985 |
| Quebec. . . . |
351,873 |
| Ontario. . . . . . |
260,862 |
| Manitoba... .. .. .. .. |
73,732 |
| British Columbia. . . . |
372,630 |
| Total. . . . . |
1,110,694 |
New Provinces.
| Alberta. . . . . . . . |
250,000 |
| Saskatchewan. . .. |
250,000 |
3287 COMMONS
I wish now to point out the financial assistance that is to be given to these two
new provinces. This, briefly, is the substance of some clauses in the Bill.
Now, Sir, when the right hon. gentleman
introduced this Bill he expressed some surprise at the references made by newspapers
and by some distinguished gentlemen in
this country. Of course the people of Canada everywhere were very much interested
in the introduction of these Bills. This
question had been up for consideration in
this parliament. Indeed, the leader of the
opposition had moved a resolution in the
session of 1903 and again in 1904 in favour
of absolute provincial autonomy being given
to these Territories, unrestricted right to
deal with every thing of a provincial character. That was the policy of the opposition
in this House in the sessions or 1903
and 1904. May I be permitted to tell the right
hon. gentleman what was the chief reason
for the adverse newspaper comment and
criticism which he has read from distinguished men in this country ? It is because
they had known the stand the right hon.
gentleman had taken in 1896 on this educational or religious question. The people
did
not distrust the right hon. gentleman, they
never thought for a moment that he would
go back on his record of 1896, and venture
to introduce into this House certain clauses
in the Autonomy Bills which would stir up
religious strife in this country. Therefore,
he had at his back the whole Canadian people; he had not only the confidence of the
Liberal party, but the confidence of a great
number of Liberal-Conservatives in this
country, many of whom voted for him in
1896 on this very question. So, Mr.
Speaker, the right hon. gentleman would
not have far to go to find a reason why
the newspapers and leading gentlemen
who had supported him in 1896 were
very much surprised to find that he had
now changed his policy in regard to provincial rights. Some hon. gentlemen who
have spoken from the other side of the
House ventured to say that those who
have criticised this Bill are not well acquainted with the question. Well, that may
be the case as to some of the criticisms, but
I do not think the right hon. gentleman or
any member of his government would say
this applies to all the criticisms that have
been offered to the educational clauses in
these Bills. I have here a protest from the
Presbyterian body. I am glad to see my
hon. friend the Minister of Customs, who
as I am informed is a distinguished member
of that denomination, in his seat. I will
read this protest from the Presbytery of
Guelph:
Another protest against the Educational Provisions of the Autonomy Bill.
A meeting of the Guelph Presbytery was held
in Melville church, Fergus, to-day. The following resolution was moved by Major Hood,
Guelph, seconded by Rev. Mr. Horne, Elora :
The Presbytery of Guelph, representing a large
3288
portion of the counties of Waterloo, Wellington
and Halton, hereby presents its strong protest
to the parliament of Canada against the educational clauses of the Provincial Autonomy
Bills
now before the House for consideration. The
presbytery regrets that any attempt is being
made to debar a free people from the exercise
of their constitutional prerogative, the right to
decide for themselves the character of their
school system. It is the conviction of the presbytery that should the proposed legislation
become law it would involve the new provinces in
perpetual racial and sectarian discord, which
would be a most serious obstacle to the future
prosperity and happiness of the people. Believing that the placing of such an Act
on the
statute book would be a misuse of the powers
of the federal government, members of the
presbytery pledge themselves to do all in their
power to oppose and prevent such proposed invasion of provincial rights, and most
respectfully urge the government and both Houses to
grant to the two new provinces complete control over their educational system.
I have here a statement by a gentleman
who stands at the head of the Presbyterian
Church in the province of Ontario, and who
spoke at a mass meeting in Toronto, in
Massey Hall, on March 20. I refer to Rev.
Dr. Milligan, moderator of the Presbyterian Church, who declares:
That, believing in a commonwealth with equal
rights for all and favours for none, and believing that a great crisis had arisen
in the
national history, demanding united and patriotic
action by every citizen, irrespective of creed or
politics.
The premier's policy in the present issue, he
continued, had come to him like a clap of
thunder from a clear sky. It was a direct controversion of the attitude taken in 1896.
Wherever one party had privileges at the expense of another there could never be peace.
Let there be no restrictions imposed on the
new west, but one common brotherhood and one
common school system. He noted that the
federal separate school legislation in regard to
Ontario and Quebec was in the nature of an
exception, and he urged the fallacy of the argument which sought to make this exceptional
case apply to all the provinces.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that statement
voices the views of all the Presbyterians
in Canada-or, to be more correct, of nearly
all the Presbyterians in Canada, who believe that the government are now invading
provincial rights in attempting to fasten
upon the new provinces a dual system of
education.
Mr. BLAIN. Who says 'no, no' ? I say
that the Presbyterian body in Canada and
the leading Presbyterians who are as well
versed as the member who calls out 'no,
no,' have sent in their protest with these
facts before me. I have the right to say
that the Presbyterian body of this country
are almost a unit in opposition to the government forcing upon the people of the west
this educational clause. Here is a protest
from the Church of England.
3289 MARCH 28, 1905
Keep hands off—Provinces must be free in
matter of education.
In a sermon preached in this city by a
distinguished gentleman, the Rev. Dr. Spencer, in Emmanuel Reformed Episcopal
Church :
He argued that the scriptures do not warrant
a state church in any form. The union of church
and state, he said, would he fraught with
trouble. National money should be used for
national purposes only and not for the promotion of any propaganda or teaching of
dogmas
of any sect.
He concludes by saying :
We should say to any church : Keep your
hands off the public treasury—and we would
say to the state : Keep your hands off the
church. Give to no denomination privileges not
common to all and to no one of them precedence
by right.
That is a protest from the Church of
England body in this country, and I would
remind the right hon. gentleman that it
represents in the main the feeling of the
Church of England people in every province
in Canada. I am therefore right in saying
that the Church of England denomination
of this country are opposed to the Autonomy Bill in so far as it takes away the
rights of the people in the western provinces
to deal with their own educational matters.
What is the opinion of the Baptist Church ?
Baptists state their position. Let new provinces determine their policy. Bill was
a surprise. A large and representative meeting of
Baptists was held last evening in the lecture
room of the Bloor Street Baptist Church, Toronto, to consider the situation arising
out of the
introduction in parliament of the Autonomy
Bills creating the new provinces. A resolution
was unanimously carried by a standing vote
protesting against the proposed legislation.
I think I shall read that resolution, because I am anxious that the Baptists
shall be put on record. I heard the
Minister of Customs say the other night
that some of the criticism was from gentlemen who did not understand the question
and were unable to give a fair and honest
opinion, but I invite the attention of the
Minister of Customs to this resolution, and
I will ask him whether it does not speak as
if those behind it understood the question
quite as well as some gentlemen on the other
side of the House and possibly as some
members of the government. The resolution reads as follows :
Whereas, the British North America Act, as
to provinces other than Ontario and Quebec,
provides that each province may exclusively
make laws in relation to education, subject to
the right of the Dominion parliament when appealed to in a specific case to enact
remedial
legislation ; and the imperial Amending Act of
1871 empowers the Dominion parliament to establish new provinces, and to define the
constitution thereof, but prohibits such parliament
from ever afterwards altering such constitution ;
3290
And whereas, the Bill establishing the new
provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan proposes to make the maintenance of a separate
school system a permanent constitutional obligation of these new provinces, thus depriving
them of their full provincial rights and fettering
their whole future educational development ;
And whereas, the introduction at any time of
such a question into federal politics is calculated to awaken ill-feeling on a subject
in regard to which the Canadian people are peculiarly sensitive ; and more especially
at this
time, since no intimation was given to the electorate prior or during the recent general
elections that it was intended in connection with
the granting of autonomy to the Territories to
impose any such fetters.
Therefore this meeting of Baptist citizens respectfully protest against the proposed
legislation, and expresses the hope that the government may so modify its Bills as
to leave the
determination of their future educational policy
to the free action of the new provinces.
I may say to the right hon. Prime Minister that Mayor Urquhart, of Toronto, the
gentleman to whom he sent a very interesting telegram last election was present at
this meeting and he stood up with the others
and endorsed this resolution in favour of
leaving educational matters to the provinces. Mr. D. E. Thomson, K.C., a distinguished
gentleman in the city of Toronto,
spoke thus in support of this resolution :
Under the powerful leadership of Hon. George
Brown the Liberal party had made a stand for
the principle of local government and provincial
rights. The Liberal party were returned to
power in 1896 on that stand. . . . To pass
the Autonomy Bills now before parliament
would be a complete reversal of the policy,
both of the Liberal leader and party. If Sir
Wilfrid Laurier be sincere in his suggestion
that the provisions of the British North America Act cover the ground, why not leave
the
question to the Act ? . . . . If Sir Wilfrid
Laurier had told his policy in advance he would
have come out of the election twenty short.
Mr. Thomson points out that if this matter had been submitted to the people in
the last election, instead of my right hon.
friend sitting on that side of the House he
would be sitting on this side in opposition.
That speaks for the Baptist people of Canada, and I leave it for the consideration
of
the Prime Minister.
There is another denomination, called the
Congregationalists, not very large, yet very
important. The Rev. Dr. Wild, a gentleman well versed in those questions, spoke
at a meeting in Toronto a few days ago
and said :
Of the thirty-two nationalities that will compose these two new provinces, most of
them
of different churches and creeds, we cannot
expect to favour any one race or creed at the
expense of the others. The state has its rights
and must look especially to the education of
its citizens. If we are to have an intelligent
population as voters this is essential. No
church, creed or race must have special legislation that will discriminate against
others. A
3291 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
state form of education is the only sure way
and just way. Â
That, I think, represents the Congregational body. Then I have the opinion of
the Methodist people of Canada. On March
15, 1905, the 'Christian Guardian,' the leading Methodist newspaper wrote:
Sooner or later the Roman Catholic church in
this country must be taught conclusively that it
does not and cannot dominate its public affairs.
It must be taught that it is only a sect among
sects, a church among churches, and that the
adherents of the smallest and weakest among
them has equal rights with its own adherents
in all political and social relations. It must be
taught that its sinister influence upon public
men and public life will no longer be tolerated,
and that it must be content with holding precisely the same relation to governments
and
laws as are held by other communions. It must
be taught that, while absolutely free and untrammelled in its spiritual functions,
it has no
status in law or in fact that differentiates it
from any other body of Christians in the wide
Dominion.
Then, I have here a resolution passed by
the Methodist ministers of the city of Toronto, a few days ago and addressed to the
right hon. leader of the government :
    METHODIST MINISTERS' PROTEST.
The Question of Education is Entirely Provincial.
The following letter has been sent to the
premier by' the Methodist ministers of Toronto :—
To the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G.,
P.C., President of the King's Privy Council,
Ottawa :
Honoured Sir,—The assembled ministers of
the Methodist church of Toronto, in their regular meeting on Monday morning, March
13,
1905, unanimously beg to advise you as follows :—
That we view with alarm the introduction into the Autonomy Bill of that clause relating
to separate schools against the wishes and
contrary to the vehement protests of the
peoples most deeply affected in the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Our position is clear and firm that the question of education is purely and entirely
a provincial matter, as defined by the British North
America Act, and should be left to the exclusive authority of the provinces to determine.
We therefore most respectfully urge the government and both Houses of parliament to
grant to the two new provinces full provincial
rights, and to each complete control of its
educational system. By so doing these new
provinces will develop a true, healthy, self-
governing citizenship, which will be an element
of strength to the Dominion.
Signed on behalf of the Methodist Ministers'
Association of Toronto
             Yours rspectfully,
            GEO. M. BROWN,
                         Chairman.
             ROBT. R. CADE.
                        Secretary.
The Rev. C. O. Johnston, a leading Methodist minister, opposed to separate schools
in
any form, says this :
3292
It was absolutely necessary in a country such
as this that the people should live together in
harmony, and to this end there should be one
wide, national school system. The public
schools of Canada were not Protestant schools
in the proper acceptance of the term, but the
system was so framed as to admit of all creeds
and classes attending without fear or favour.
For his part, as a British subject, he objected
to any form of separate schools, whether they
be Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist,
Roman Catholic or any other denomination.
I will read a sentence or two from a letter
by a gentleman who is at the very head of
the Methodist body in Canada, the Rev. Dr.
Carman, the general superintendent of the
Methodist Church ; and I do not think any
one would charge him with being an over-
ardent supporter of the Conservative party.
In a letter over his own signature, he says :
There is something astounding even in the
realm of politics that the men who gained
power in our Dominion in 1896 by resisting the
coercion of Manitoba on the school question
are now, in less than a decade, undertaking to
impose a vastly heavier and severer coercion
for all time on the new provinces, Alberta and
Saskatchewan.
       *        *        *           *
Where are the Anglicans' rights, and the
Methodists' rights and the Quakers' rights,
and the Lutherans' rights, and the agnostics'
rights, and the rights of Doukhobors and Jews ?
And if all these people claim their special
rights and get them, and go taxing their separate communities and drawing on the public
funds, where is your national school system ?
Where are your united populations, your firm
and strong Canadian commonwealth ? Plainly
the foe of our public school system in the foe
of national strength and prosperity. The legislation that weakened national schools
threatens
our liberties and fills the land with irreconcilable divisions and ceaseless strifes.
     *         *        *        *Â
Let the people of the new provinces determine their own school matters, settle their
own school policy, as is provided in the fundamental law of the Dominion. There are
in
the proposed Act of Autonomy the charter of
the new provinces, at least two iniquities, forcing separation on the people for a11
time, and
providing for it from public lands and public
funds which constitutionally belong to national
and public education. The rights of minorities
can be secured and safeguarded in the west as
they are in some of the older provinces.
                           A. CARMAN.
Toronto, March 2, 1905.
That is a letter to the Toronto 'News.'
Now, that is the feeling of the church mem;
bers of Canada. I hope my hon. friend the
Minister of Customs is not more anxious to
keep peace with his government than he is
with his church. My hon. friend will have
to take care of that himself.
Now, the Liberal party had something to
say about this. I take the following from
the Toronto ' Globe ' of March 14, 1905 :
At a meeting of the Executive Committee of
the Liberal Association of Centre Toronto held
on Saturday the following resolution was unanimously passed :—
3293
MARCH 28, 1905
That whereas the Liberal party has always
taken strong ground on the question of provincial rights ; and
Whereas all matters pertaining to education
are by the British North America Act delegated
to the provinces ;
Therefore, we, the Executive of the Liberal
Association of Centre Toronto, desire to place
ourselves on record as being of the opinion
that the government should expunge entirely
the clauses from the Autonomy Bills relating
to education, and that all matters pertaining
to education be left entirely to the new provinces.
This is a voice from the right hon. gentleman's own party in the city of Toronto.
The right hon. gentleman might issue the
writ for an election in Centre Toronto and
test the question. Then we would see
whether or not this Reform Association expresses the views of the people regardless
of
politics in that great city. I am reading
these extracts because I think they are
stronger than any statement I could make
to show why the people of this country
were aroused when the right hon. gentleman
introduced this measure. The Toronto
'Globe' of March 8, 1905, has a long article
which I will not stop to read. It is well
known throughout the country that the Toronto 'Globe' is very much opposed to the
educational clauses in the Bill, and in this
article it warns the government not to force
them through parliament. Then, I have a
heading of the Toronto 'News' of March
14, and continued from day to day: 'A
Free West, A Common School, Provincial
Rights and Religious Equality.' With that
I may give a statement from the editor of
this important and valuable independent
journal, who, I may say, is a personal friend
of the right hon. Prime Minister. Indeed.
I think he wrote his life some little time
ago.
Mr. BLAIN. A part of it, I mean. My
hon. friend says he may not get out a second
edition. The editor of the 'News,' Mr. J.
S. Willison, speaking on the school question, made this statement:
He took the ground that nowhere was education provided by separate schools as efficient
as the public schools, and many Roman Catholic
citizens and lay Catholic educationists were
gravely dissatisfied with the conditions of elementary Catholic education in this
province.
The future of Canada depended largely on the
measure of success achieved in resolving the
many nationalities which compose the population into common Canadian citizenship,
and it
was vain to argue that such a process could
be served by a school system which tended for
separation rather than union.
That is the statement of the editor of the
independent Toronto 'News,' which is doing
so much service for the people of Canada
at the present time. I have here the authority of the Huntingdon 'Gleaner,' published
in the province of Quebec. and which,
if I am correctly informed, is one of the
3294
leading English speaking journals of that
province.
Mr. BLAIN. My hon. friends say no,
but I rather think I am correct in that statement because in the earlier days, before
my right hon. friend came into the House,
it was quoted very often in the interest of
the Reform party. Dealing with the statement of the First Minister that the Protestants
in the province of Quebec have nothing to complain of, the editor writes as
follows:
How does the premier reconcile this declaration of his with the fact that the English-
speaking people outside of the island of Montreal have largely disappeared and are
continuing to disappear ? Whole townships, settled by them and which prospered under
them,
are to—day French. Protestant churches are to
he found in which no service is held and that
the spot where Protestants were buried for
three generations and more are now to be found
in the corners of farms of French Canadians.
In only one of the counties that compose the
Eastern Townships have the Protestants a majority, yet once they had absolute control.
Do
men throw up their farms and leave a province
where they have no cause of complaint ? Let
Sir Wilfrid explain this—the extraordinary
spectacle of a people abandoning the land of
their birth, to which they are bound by every
tie of affection and patriotism, to seek new
homes in the United States, for the proportion
has been trifling who have gone to our Northwest. What is it they find under an alien
flag
they could not in the province of Quebec ? We
want no rhetorical generalities, no vapouring
about justice and toleration. Here is a plain
problem—Why are the Protestant farmers of
the province of Quebec going away ? Do men
flee a province where they have no cause of
complaint ?
There is no more saddening aspect in the
condition of our province than the groups of
Protestant children to be found here and there
all over it destitute of the means of acquiring
the elements of education, and threatening us
with a coming generation of Protestant farmers
as ignorant as Russian moujiks. This is a fruit
of separate schools. If we had national schools,
instead of sectarian schools, no child in the
province would be without opportunity to learn
to read and write. Another consequence of
these sectarian schools should never be lost
sight of, and that is, where Protestant farmers
are few to have a school, they are taxed to
support Catholic schools, which, sometimes,
have as their teachers nuns and Christian
brothers. There are hundreds of Protestant
farmers who are forced either to support Catholic schools or sell out.
That is the statement of the Huntingdon
'Gleamer,' and I commend it to the consideration of my right hon. friend.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. BLAIN. Before you left the chair,
Mr. Speaker, I was giving some quotations
3295 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
from leading newspapers of Canada showing their opinion of the educational clauses
of the Autonomy Bills. As there was some
slight reference to the politics of the Huntingdon 'Gleaner,' from which I quoted,
I
thought I would produce a newspaper which
will be acknowledged to be a supporter of
the government. I turn to the Toronto
'Globe,' which is looked upon as the leading government organ of the province of
Ontario, and a very creditable journal indeed. I quote from the issue of February
28, 1905 :
  Why not leave the question to him—
Referring to Mr. Haultain, the premier of
the Northwest Territories.
—and his colleagues in the new provincial
government ? It belongs there by the terms of
the Confederation Act. If it is dealt with at
Ottawa there may develop opposition from the
provincial governments, not because they would
abolish separate schools, but because they
would resent federal dictation in matters of
provincial rights. If the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta want separate schools,
let
them have them on their own motion and in the
way provided by the constitution. If they do
not want them, any attempt at constitutional
compulsion, even if it succeeds, would awaken
antagonism which would embitter local politics
and be disastrous to the separate schools themselves. And for that proposition we
can ask
the support of Catholics and Protestants alike.
It involves the principles of provincial rights.
On that ground all classes and creeds can
stand together.
I have another opinion, which I regard as
a very valuable one, objecting to the educational clauses. This is from Mr. Haultain,
the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories. I quote from his letter addressed
to
the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier),
and bearing the date of March 11th, 1905:
I must take strong exception to the way in
which the subject of education has been treated
both in the conferences and in the Bills. I must
remind you of the fact that your proposition
was not laid before my colleague or myself
until noon of the day upon which you introduced the Bills. Up to that time the question
had not received any attention beyond a casual
reference to it on the previous Friday, and I
certainly believe that we should have an opportunity of discussing your proposals
before
twelve o'clock on the day the Bills received
their first reading. No such opportunity, however, was afforded.
He continues :
With regard to the question of education generally, you are, no doubt, aware that
the position taken by us was that the provinces should
be left to deal with the subject exclusively,
subject to the provisions of the British North
America Act, thus putting them on the same
footing in this regard as all the other provinces
in the Dominion, except Ontario and Quebec.
That I regard as a very valuable opinion
indeed. It is the opinion of the duly authorized representative of the Territories,
the
man who has the right, and whose duty it
is, to speak on behalf of the 500,000 people
3296
there. Of course, it will be a little surprising to the people of Canada to know that,
though the Prime Minister of that Territory
was sent for by this government to consult
with upon the clauses of the Autonomy
Bills, yet the educational clauses, the all-
important clauses seemingly to the people
of Canada, were not submitted to that hon.
gentleman until noon of the very day when
the Prime Minister introduced these Bills in
the House. I will not make any comment
upon that further than to ask the Canadian
people to consider what it means. Perhaps
they will be able to answer it to their own
satisfaction.
I come now to the county I have the
honour to represent, the county of Peel. I
have presented some petitions from the
county. I have here the resolution of the
Brampton Ministerial Association, held at
the residence of the Rev. W. S. McAlpine,
B.A., on the 6th of March, 1905 :
Moved by the Rev. J. G. Bowles, B.D., and
seconded by the Rev. R. N. Burns, B.A., and
carried unanimously :
That the premier of the Dominion government
has introduced a Bill by which separate schools
are to be fastened on the Territories to be organized into new provinces ;
And whereas, we do not favour separate
schools in principle and practice ;
And whereas, the matter should be left wholly
to the new provinces to decide ;
Therefore be it resolved, that we, the members of the Brampton Ministerial Association,
place ourselves on record as being unalterably
opposed to the educational clause of the Bill,
and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded
to R. Blain, M.P., the representative of the
county in the Commons.
                   W. S. McALPINE,
                              President.
                 WM. HERRIDGE,
                                Secretary.
I have, in addition to that, the names of
several leading gentlemen in my own county who have signed the petition that was
circulated and afterwards presented to the
House. Among the others, I find the following : George A. Robinson, Claude ; John
McEachrine, merchant, Englewood ; Alex.
Dick, manufacturer, Alton ; Rev. G. C.
Balfour, Inglewood ; David Graham, Inglewood, David McGregor, Inglewood ; T. H.
Graham, Inglewood ; and H. H. Shaver,
Cooksville. These are the names of
some of the leading Reformers whom I
have the honour to reprensent, who willingly signed a petition to this government
protesting against the educational clauses of
the Autonomy Bills. And I may say that,
while I have had the honour of sitting in
this House since 1900, no question has ever
arisen on which I represent so large a proportion of the electorate of my county as
I
do in protesting against the educational
clauses of this Bill.
Some very unfair criticism was offered this
afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle
3297 Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 28, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
(Mr. Bourassa) against the Orange Association of Canada. That association does not
require any defence at my hands. But when
that hon. gentleman thought it his duty to
cast reflection upon the Orange Association,
already numbering about 400,000 members,
and those not now affiliated, I thought that
some slight reference to the association,
though it may seem a littly beside the question, may be in order. I turn up the
Act to incorporate the Grand Orange Lodge
of British America, which was assented to on April 24th, 1890. Among the names
of the corporators are those of the late
Hon. N. Clarke Wallace, the late Edward
F. Clarke and other leading men. I have
looked very briefly over the clauses of this
Act of incorporation of the Grand Orange
Lodge of British America to see if any
special favours had been given to the association by this parliament. I find that
no
special favours were given—this is simply a
Bill permitting the members of the association to organize, to hold property and to
take care of their own rights, and to extend
those rights to every other loyal citizen
in Canada, whatever his creed may be.
And I have here a copy of the Orange constitution, which I will be glad to send to
my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa),
for evidently he has not looked into this
document before venturing upon the statements which he made this afternoon. This
constitution is open to every man in Canada, and from beginning to end there is no
clause in it that interferes with the rights
and privileges of any class of people in this
country. I think it does not come with a
good grace from the hon. gentleman to cast
reflection upon this important body. Other
references were made to the Orange Association a few days ago, one by the right hon.
Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I
thought I would try to learn what part the
Orange Association has taken in the agitation since this Bill was introduced on the
21st of February last. The hon. member
for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who holds the
highest position in the gift of the Orange
Association in Canada, felt it to be his duty
to sound a note of warning to the Canadian
people, and he issued this letter and sent it
to the different Orange Associations throughout the Dominion :
            Ottawa, February 16th, 1905.
   Dear Sir and Brother,—
We believe an effort is about to be made to
impose separate schools for all time on the
people of the new provinces, now being established in the Northwest Territories. It
behooves every lover of liberty, and especially
every Orangeman, to lend a helping hand, to
prevent this injustice being perpetrated on a
liberty-loving people. Being comparatively
weak and helpless they must largely depend
on others to fight their battles for them.
The effort made in 1896 to compel Manitoba to
grant separate schools nearly drove the people
of that province into rebellion, and had it not
been abandoned, would doubtless have resulted
in serious consequences. In view of this, is it
3298
not little short of criminal folly to attempt to
deprive the people of these new provinces of
the right to control their own educational
affairs as to them seems best. I would suggest
that every member of our order lend a helping
hand to prevent this outrage by writing or wiring and getting others to do so as well,
the
member for his constituency to oppose any
legislation or enactment for that purpose. If
we speak out freely and do our duty no government would dare to disobey our request.
Brethren, let us do our duty ; also get accompanying blank petitions signed by all
friendly to our
cause, giving name and occupation in every
case, and forward to me to House of Commons
post office, Ottawa, at earliest possible date.
                      T. S. SPROULE.
I shall also read the petition sent out
which is referred to in this letter :
To the Honourable the Senate and House of
   Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled :
We, the undersigned electors of the electoral
division of         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 establishment, maintenance and administration
of
schools—
That is the document sent out by the
hon. gentleman who holds a distinguished
position as head of the Orange Association, and I would like to ask any hon.
gentleman on either side of the House what
objection he could take to the statements
either in the letter or in the petition. These
petitions have been returned, signed not by
Orangemen altogether, but by hundreds
and thousands of electors of Canada not
all Liberal-Conservatives, but very many
of them Reformers who supported this government at the last election. The petitions
have been presented from both sides of the
House entering protest against the educational clauses contained in the Bill.
Leaving the educational question for a
moment, clause 20 of the Bill reads thus:
The Dominion lands in the said province
shall continue to be vested in the Crown and
administered by the government of Canada for
the purposes of Canada.
I was wondering what the hon. gentlemen representing western constituencies
would think about that clause, a clause
which says that the provincial governments
of those two territories cannot control their
lands, but that the lands shall be controlled by the parliament sitting at Ottawa.
1 therefore looked up the records of some
of these hon. gentlemen. The hon. member
for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) speaking in the
debate of October 13, 1903, on a resolution
moved in this House by the leader of the
opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) for provincial
autonomy for the Northwest Territories
made this statement at page 13892 of ' Hansard' of 1903 :
3299 COMMONS
I may say that I have had a long acquaintance with Mr Haultain, and I am quite satisfied
that he is able to protect himself ; and
from my more brief acquaintance with the
members of the present government, I believe
they are able to take their own part, and that
we can leave that matter to be settled between
them
The House will bear in mind that Mr.
Haultain had submitted a proposition for
provincial autonomy to the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, and in that
proposition he said he would ask that the
lands be retained to the provincial government and the hon. member for Alberta said
that he had entire confidence in Mr. Haultain, that he would take care of himself
and
his provinces. I was a little surprised the
other evening when the hon. gentleman addressed the House on these Bills that he
should say nothing or almost nothing about
the land. It is a well known fact that the
gentlemen who have been representing the
western constituencies in this House for several years stated in this House on more
than
one occasion that the lands should be vested
in the provincial governments. I shall read
from the remarks of Mr. Davis, an hon.
gentleman who represented Saskatchewan
in the last parliament, but who has now
gone to the Senate. At page 13896 of the
' Hansard' 1903, he made this statement :
I have taken the liberty of boiling down the
demands, and I think I can give in brief just
what Mr. Haultain asks this House to give him,
if we are prepared to give provincial autonomy.
He wants first all the public lands. The leader
of the opposition said he was prepared to support that part of the proposition. I
am glad
to see that he has approached the matter in
that spirit. We in the west would like to see
the lands given to the government of the Northwest Territories.
That was the statement of an hon. gentleman who represented a western constituency.
We have another statement from an
hon. gentleman who represented West Assiniboia in the last parliament and who is
also in this parliament (Mr. Scott). Indeed
it is said by some Ottawa newspapers, that
the hon. gentleman is about to go into the
position lately given up by the hon. member
for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and to become
Minister of the Interior in the government.
I shall read to the House what he said on
this land question, because he has been bubbling over in support of these Bills. On
October 13, 1903, at page 13926 of ' Hansard '
the hon. member said :
I wish to take occasion to thank the hon. leader
of the opposition for the expression of opinion
which he gave in favour of the view which we
in that country unanimously take, that when a
province is formed it is only fair, just and
proper that the lands, timber and mineral resources in that province should be handed
over
to the people dwelling there to be managed and
owned by them. This should be done in the
Northwest Territories.
3300
The hon gentleman is now supporting
the land clause in the Bill but I am wondering what change has come over the people
in his constituency in the west that they
would permit him to make a statement of
that kind in 1903, and now in 1905 he is
saying: Do no give us the lands, leave them
with the government in Ottawa, they can
take care of them better than we can. I
suppose if the hon. gentleman goes into the
government and goes back to his constituency for re-election, the electors will take
care
of that part of the question.
I shall refer for a moment to the debate
which took place in this House on March
20, 1896, when the Manitoba school question was up for consideration and the present
Postmaster General was dealing with
it. He made this statement at page 4189
of ' Hansard.'
There are seven provinces in this Dominion,
there is territory out of which to carve many
more. There is a minority in every province.
Shall we to-day, hastily, thoughtlessly and
without due consideration, without first exhausting every other means of settlement,
legislate as is proposed by this Bill, and place
upon our statute-book a statutory invitation
to the minority in every province now existing,
and every province that may hereafter be
carved out of our territory, to appeal to the
people's representatives in this parliament to
settle questions that might be better settled,
under the spirit of the Confederation Act, by
the provinces in which those questions arise.
We have been six years dealing with this one
issue, six long years, and we are only at the
threshold of it yet.
That was a suggestion to the leader of
the Conservative government, then in power,
to leave Manitoba alone, Manitoba could take
care of her own affairs, but now the Postmaster General says : No, we must not
leave the new Territories alone, they cannot
take care of themselves, we must take care
of part of their provincial matters here at
Ottawa. I was wondering why this great
change in the hon. the Postmaster General.
My hon. friend from Labelle made some reference to separate schools, pointing out
the
splendid educational system in the province
of Quebec, a system that, he said, turned out
first-class students, who were the pride and
admiration of the people of the province of
Quebec. I would not venture to put my opinion against that of the hon. gentleman ;
but I will quote the opinion of a gentleman who occupied a high position in his
own province, an opinion which I find quoted in the ' Hansard' of 1896, page 2768.
I
will read an extract from the report of the
Superintendent of Education for that province for the year 1895, as published in the
Montreal ' Gazette,' in the year 1895 :
The country schools are not as good as they
might be. The children leave them without
having received a sufficiently lasting impression
to make them wish to increase their knowledge.
. . Â . Â .To quote from one inspector's report,
3301 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 28, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
the slow increase in efficiency is due to the
apathy of most of the members of the school
board—too many of whom are unable to read—
to the indifference of parents, to the miserable
salaries paid to teachers, which make it difficult to obtain competent ones. . .
 . In one
district, another inspector declares, where 166
schools were in operation, 38 teachers were
without certificates, and 66 the year before.
. Â . Â Â . Most of the teachers are entirely ignorant of the first principles of
pedagogics, have
no system in their work, and content themselves by making their pupils learn their
books
by rote. . Â Â . Â Â . The pupils recite their lessons
fairly well, but without understanding their
meaning. . . Â Â . As it is declared that the
average salary to teachers is, in some districts,
$108 for ten months work, and as some must get
considerably less than this, and as these
small wages are not always promptly paid, it
is not difficult to understand what is behind the
teacher's indifference. . Â Â . Â Â . To put it briefly,
the people, in too many cases, do not appreciate their duty to their children in the
way of
education. They are content to fit them to be
hewers of wood and drawers of water for their
more fortunate or better educated fellow citizens.
I am not going to say anything about
that statement, further than that it comes
from one of the inspectors of this educational system in the province of Quebec, and
therefore I am not responsible for it. My
hon. friend can read this over at his leisure.
The right hon. gentleman who leads the
government, when speaking on these Bills
the other evening, said that we must not
copy from the United States because they
had a godless school system. Well, I will
not say much about that. I am not very
much of an imitator of the United States
myself, but I look upon them as a very
advanced nation, and a nation from whom
we might take some good lessons. I have
here a statement from an educationalist of
some standing, Prof. Goldwin Smith, of Toronto who has had experience not only in
Canada but in the United States and
England as well. What does he say about
the United States :
In the United States the public school system
serves the very special function of assimilating
the alien elements introduced by an immense
immigration.
Now this government pride themselves
on bringing out a large immigration from
the different parts of Europe ; I do not wish
to detract any credit from the right hon.
gentleman and his government for that.
These people are coming into Canada by
thousands every year, coming from every
part of Europe and settling in western Canada. Professor Goldwin Smith says that a
uniform system of education such as they
have in the United States is best suited to
assimilate these different populations ; and
if that be so for the United States, would it
not apply to Canada as well ? That might
be worth the consideration of the right hon.
3302
gentleman and his government when they
are deciding this question.
We have had some resignations from the
cabinet in the last few years. The Minister
of Public Works resigned during the last
parliament, and the Minister of Railways
and Canals left the government as well.
These gentlemen differed from their colleagues on important questions and resigned
their positions in the cabinet ; they thought
their differences were sufficient to justify
them in resigning from the government. I
have very little to say about these hon. gentlemen, they are not in the House, and
therefore I will not say much about them. I
will say, however, that the people of Canada were disappointed in that these gentlemen,
after having left the government, did
not go into the country and defend their
principles which they considered were in the
best interests of the people of this country. I
think it was their duty to go before the electors and endeavour to uphold their views.
But these hon. gentlemen did not do
that. We have had another resignation
within the past few days in the case of the
late Minister of the Interior, who left the
government upon this school question. He
just stepped outside the cabinet, some people say he is going back into it. I know
nothing about that ; if he does, some hon.
gentlemen on the other side will be very
much disappointed, I am sure. The people
of Canada expect better things from the
hon. member from Brandon (Mr. Sifton). He
had been fighting in opposition to separate
schools in his own province of Manitoba,
and he came down to Ottawa and entered
the government of the right hon. gentleman.
In the preparation of these Bills, he says
he was not consulted on the educational
clauses. Well, I have not much sympathy
with the hon. gentleman on that point. He
had been taking an active part in the preparation of the western country for provincial
autonomy. When the hon. gentleman knew that these Bills were coming
up to be considered in this House, it was
his duty, as a representative of the Northwest, to see to it that the educational
clauses
were such as would be satisfactory to the
western people, and if they were, I think
they would satisfy his own views too. But
he left them alone. He had entire confidence in the right hon. gentleman. But
the right hon. gentleman rather disappointed him, because he introduced the Bill before
the Minister of the Interior came back.
Then when he looked at the clauses he
said: I will leave the government. But
the other night he gave an exhibition of
coming back. He condemned the separate
school clauses of the Bill, he says that separate Schools were a bad thing in the
province of Manitoba, and he did not support
them very earnestly on the floor of the
House the other evening. But. he says.
rather than shake up this government any
3303
COMMONS
more, rather than that this government
should be defeated at the polls, I will set
aside my principles of a lifetime, I will
let the educational clause go as it is, and
allow this government to fasten separate
schools upon western Canada for all time
to come; I will sacrifice every principle
which has been dear to me for the last fifteen years in order to preserve the government
from defeat.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for myself, I am absolutely opposed to fastening separate schools
on these two new provinces. I believe it
would be in the best interests of the people of Canada that only one educational
system should prevail in that western country, and that that system should receive
every dollar of public money and all the
revenues from the public school lands in order to make it a perfect system. I would
open the door to every nationality, and allow every child to receive the same uniform
education. This is the policy I am here to
support. The people are not so much
interested in what we are saying upon
this question, because it is an old question and one that has been debated for
many years, but the people of Canada are
interested in how we vote. and for my part
I will vote against the government in respect to this educational clause.
Mr. BLAIN. Not only, because I am opposed to the land clauses and I believe that
the people of western Canada can take care
of their own lands better than the federal
government. I would vote to postpone
provincial autonomy for five or even ten
years rather than fasten for all time on the
new provinces a dual school system, both
systems receiving public aid and sharing
in the revenue from the public school lands.
That is my position. I would rather vote
for an increased subsidy from this government to western Canada for five or even ten
years yet to come than I would record my
vote to take away the rights of the people
of that western country to deal with their
education as they see fit. That is my policy
and I have nothing to add to and nothing
to detract from what I have said. I am in
favour of absolute provincial rights for
western Canada in all matters. The people
of that country are the sons and daughters
of the people of older Canada, living there
With the people who are coming from
foreign countries, and I am anxious that
their children shall have the best education
that can be given them. I do not believe
in dividing the school money (part of it
going to the separate school system and
part of it to the national school system.)
I do not believe they can perfect these two
educational systems in that way. If the
people of the west wish to do so then
let them be responsible for it themselves.
For my part I do not wish to take the responsibility of recording my vote to fasten
3304
this separate school system upon them. I
have, therefore, much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the leader of
the opposition which reads :
Upon the establishment of a province in the
Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed
by Bill (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.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Solicitor
General). Mr. Speaker, I have listened
with much pleasure to the able speech delivered by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr.
Blain), and if I had not been within the precincts of parliament when he was reciting
all the protests which have been sent from
the province of Ontario and elsewhere, I
would have thought that I was present at
a church meeting and not in a legislative
chamber. Listening to my hon. friend reciting the protests from the Presbyterians,
the Baptists, the Congregationalists and the
Methodists, uttered as they were in his own
sweet voice, I thought we were listening to
a preacher and not to a parliamentarian.
The thought crossed my mind, that if we in
the province of Quebec are to be accused of
being priest-ridden, my hon. friend (Mr.
Blain, well deserves the compliment of being himself ridden by some of the ministers
of the dissenting sects. Let me tell my hon.
friend further, that if there came from the
pulpits and from religious bodies in Ontario and other provinces protests against
the educational clauses of this Bill, I can
appeal to him to point to one speech, one
word, one sentence delivered by a member
of that fearful Quebec hierarchy. Not one
word, not one phrase, not one sentence of
protest was uttered in the province of Quebec for or against the educational clauses.
Mr. LEMIEUX. I will explain the origin
of those petitions. In this matter, the
Conservative party has played the same
old double game it played years ago
when it stirred up the feelings of the
austere Protestants in Ontario and the
ultramontane element in the province
of Quebec. When petitions were, so
to speak, commanded from the Orange
lodges by the member, from East Grey, at
the same time an order was given by the
Conservative organization in Montreal to
get protests from some of the counties in
Quebec. We presented these petitions to
parliament, as it was the right of the petitioners to ask us, but we said we were
not
responsible for them. My hon. friend (Mr.
Blain) stated this afternoon that the right
hon. the Prime Minister had obtained power
in 1896 by riding the Catholic horse in the
province of Quebec, and he told us that if
the Liberal party were in power to-day it
3305 MARCH 28, 1905
was due to its alliance with the Catholic
clergy in that province. Sir, the hon. gentleman ought to know better; he ought to
know that during the elections of 1896 in
the province of Quebec, every Liberal candidate was asked by his Conservative opponent
to choose between the Catholic
church and the leader of the Liberal party,
and in spite of the hurricane of protests
which came from sone presbyteries and
some pulpits the candidates of the Liberal
party in Quebec stood to their guns and
won the battle.
My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) quoted not
only the opinions of some clergymen in
Ontario and other provinces, but he also referred to the defection of the Toronto
' Globe. I, have been a reader of the
' Globe ' for many years ; every Liberal
in this country is proud of the great Liberal
organ in the province of Ontario, and I, for
one deeply regret the defection of the
' Globe ' on this question. I regret that it
forgets what the policy of George Brown did
for the Liberal party. The Toronto 'Globe'
should remember that the policy of George
Brown on certain questions, kept the Liberal
party out of office for a quarter of a century. But I must say this to the credit
of
the Toronto ' Globe': Though it fought the
government and is still fighting the government on the educational clauses of this
Bill,
it has made no wild appeals such as those
made by my hon. friend from South York
(Mr. W. F. Maclean) in his paper. The
Toronto ' Globe ' has discussed fairly the
question from its own point of view. It
has appealed to its own readers who belong
to the school of George Brown, and it has
loyally severed its connection with the government on this question. But what has
been the policy pursued by my hon. friend,
the editor of the Toronto ' World.'
Mr. LEMIEUX. What has been the policy
of Mr. Willison, of the Toronto ' News ' ?
What has been the policy of the ' Mail and
Empire ' ? Have they presented calmly to
their readers the question now before the
House, like men desirous to create an opinion, or have they not discussed it like
men
anxious to stir up passions and bad feelings?
Sir, I have known my hon. friend since 1896.
I have been a journalist myself, and I have
read his paper for many years ; I have followed his career in this House very closely;
and I say to him that he would not dare to
utter before me, eye to eye, what he has
published in his paper since the biginning
of this debate.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain)
quoted from the Huntingdon ' Gleaner,'
which he said was a leading Liberal organ
in the province of Quebec. I admit that
the editor of the Huntingdon ' Gleaner '
Mr. Robert Sellar, is an old journalist.
3306
He resides in the county of Huntingdon, a
county where the French Canadians and
Catholics form nearly a majority of the
electors, and elect Protestant members.
During the last election they elected
an Irish Protestant. Mr. Robert Sellar is
an intelligent man, an honest and pious
man ; but, Sir, he is a doctrinaire. My hon.
friend who is ready to accept the statement
of Mr. Robert Sellars, whom he does not
know ; who is ready to accept the statement of the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' which
he does not read once a year, because the
paper has but a limited circulation in the
county of Huntingdon, should, instead of
accepting blindly such statements, look
around him and ask his friend the member
for the county of Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh),
and his friend the member for the county of
Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington), and my hon.
friend who represents St. Antoine division
of Montreal (Mr. Ames), and my hon. friend
who represents Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron),
and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier
(Mr. Monk), to read the article referred to
and he will learn then whether it is true or
not that the French Canadian majority in
the province of Quebec is driving away the
English-speaking minority.
Mr. SPROULE. Might I say this to the
hon. member, that I remember distinctly
that some years ago an application was
made to the government of the day—and
two maps were brought here showing how
the country had been peopled with English-
speaking people years ago and the condition
it was in then—to lend or grant them money
enough to take them to the Northwest Territories, because they were becoming so few
that it was utterly impossible for them to
keep up their schools and churches and to
have English-speaking communities, as they
had before.
Mr. LEMIEUX. My hon. friend has not
made even a point. Does he for one moment believe that the French Canadians in
the province of Quebec are driving away
the English-speaking Protestant minority ?
Does he believe that ?
Mr. SPROULE. If the hon. member will
allow me to explain, I say I believe it—not
that they are driving them away offensively,
by any means ; but here is the system that
was represented to us : that whenever a
farm was offered for sale, or a farmer was
at all willing to sell, a French Canadian was
prepared to buy.
Mr. SPROULE. Will hon gentlemen
extend to me that courtesy which I always
extend to them ? Not that the French Canadians were desirous of getting the farms
at less than their value ; but it was said
that they were always ready to buy, and
that they had a fund at their disposal to
3307 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
COMMONS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
buy out the English-speaking farmers. They
could get money at a very low rate of interest—
Mr. BRODEUR. The hon. gentleman refers to a fund. What fund is that ?
Mr. SPROULE. That may be something
laughable, or it may be something absurd.
Mr. SPROULE. Now, the hon. gentleman
made it a point to interrupt me repeatedly
when I was up before. I simply made the
request to be allowed to explain. Then it
was said that the farm was purchased—
why ? For this reason, that as soon as the
farm got into the hands of a Roman Catholic
it was subject to the tithes which the church
could collect, and thus became a supporter
of the church ; but that so long as it was
owned by a Protestant, it was not a supporter of the church. Therefore there was
a strong inducement for the Roman Catholic
to purchase it. It was said that a fund
was raised by the church for this purpose—
not improperly at all—and that one farm
after another was taken over in that way
until the English-speaking population got to
be so few that they were unable to keep up
their schools and churches, and these were
closed ; the people had no community of interest amongst themselves because they
could not keep up their schools, their children were raised in ignorance ; and this
application was made to the government for
assistance or for a loan to enable a number
of these people to go to the Northwest Territories. That is the explanation.
Mr. LEMIEUX. Mr. Speaker, you have
there an evidence of the ignorance—the
honest ignorance, I must say—of my hon.
friend. I appeal to his neighbour, my hon.
friend from Beauharnois, to my hon. friend
from Jacques Cartier, to my hon. friend
from St. Antoine, to my hon. friend from the
county of Huntingdon, where the Huntingdon 'Gleaner' is published, and I ask them
to stamp at once such statement as arrant
nonsense. To think that the church, which
is greatly indebted in the province of Quebec, and which is even borrowing money
from English insurance companies and English banks, has a fund to buy farms from
the English-speaking people of the province
of Quebec, why ! it is simply preposterous.
Mr. SPROULE. Is that the tolerance that
is extended to a member who wishes to
say a word on behalf of Protestantism in
this country ? I treat those hon. gentlemen
3308
with respect and am entitled to expect a
like return from them. I rise to say that
the Huntingdon ' Gleaner' gives an account
of the very same thing described in the
letter I read.
Mr. LEMIEUX. My hon. friend from
Peel (Mr. Blain) quoted some of the authorities against this measure, and did not
fail
to mention the name of Mr. Haultain. I
have very much respect for the First Minister of the Northwest Territories. Mr.
Haultain is a talented young statesman
from the west. He has been in Ottawa a
few weeks, and no doubt feels compelled
to speak in accord with the Tory press,
because he is also a Tory statesman. During
the last elections he took a very prominent
and active part against this government
in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Haultain
is therefore bound to be against the government. But there is another gentleman who
accompanied Mr. Haultain on his mission
to the Ottawa government. We saw him
on the floor of this House when this Bill
was introduced. I refer to Mr. Bulyea. I
understand that Mr. Bulyea gave an expression of his opinion to the Toronto
press not long ago, and when I compare the
statements of Mr. Haultain with those of
Mr. Bulyea, I find that they differ toto
coelo. Mr. Haultain has taken this government to task on the educational clauses,
the
land clauses and on the division of the provinces, But Mr. Bulyea declares, speaking
for his province and himself, that he is perfectly satisfied with the measure as presented
by the government.
Sir, the question now before the House
and the country marks an epoch in the
history of Canada. It deserves our best
attention and all our solicitude, as it is
surrounded with immense difficulties. I
must crave the indulgence of the House
during the few remarks I will offer, remembering always that the more contentious
an issue is the more it must be approached in a spirit of conciliation and tolerance,
and I earnestly hope that not one
word, not one sentence, will fall from my
lips that will in the least offend even the
most sturdy opponent of the measure.
As to the principle of autonomy, I do not
believe that there is in the House one dissenting voice. From every part of Canada
the birth of the twin provinces has been
hailed with joy ; nay, more, with a legitimate pride.
The Northwest Territories are the creation of the Canadian commonwealth. They
are its offspring. The fathers of confederation were not satisfied with the union
of
the different British colonies scattered from
one end of the continent to the other. They
thought—and wisely so—that the immense
prairies extending from the great lakes to
the Rocky mountains should also be included in the Dominion, so as to unite, under
the
British flag, all the territories extending
from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They did
3309 Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 28, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
not hesitate to pledge the credit of the country to what was then considered a huge
amount of money—but which has since been
found to be but a trifling sum—in order to
secure for Canada that great lone land,
known only in those days from the early
pioneers, from the missionaries, from the
voyageurs and the trappers of the Hudson
Bay Company.
Sir, the more we study the history of
confederation the more we appreciate the
spirit which guided its fathers. They were
nation-builders, the men who sat at the conference of Quebec. Their vision of the
future extended much beyond the union of
the four original provinces. They foresaw
that, in the years to come, the existence of
a great Canadian nation. under the aegis of
British monarchical institutions was not
only a dream, but a striking reality ; aye,
even by the side of by far the greatest of
all modern and ancient republics.
Before I proceed any further, let me express the hope that the day is not far distant
when the last link will be added to
the chain of Canadian provinces by the
entry of Newfoundland into confederation.
More so, now that the vexed French shore
dispute has been settled between England
and France. It seems to me that nothing
stands in the way to prevent the union of
Newfoundland with the Dominion on fair
terms. The public men of both countries
would indeed be remiss to their duty if
they did not grapple and overcome the objections or the difficulties which have been
raised in the past whenever the question
was brought up for discussion.
As I said, a moment ago, the granting of
autonomy to the Northwest Territories has
been received with favour by the country
at large. Long ago, it was felt, that if
ever the tide of immigration would turn
our way it would never recede. The tide
is on us—more especially since the last five
or six years—and from all parts of the
world, immigration is pouring so to say,
towards the new promised land of western
Canada. With a population of half a million inhabitants ; with the expectation of
doubling that figure before many years have
elapsed ; having fairly passed the period of
infancy, it was but just and fair that the
Northwest Territories should be given the
full control of their local government.
I insist however on two points : 1. The
Northwest Territories have been acquired
by Canada,—they are our creation ; 2.
Whilst in the case of Canada, the constitution was framed by the imperial parliament,
in the present instance, with regard
to the Northwest Territories, their constitution is framed by the Canadian parliament.
It seems to me that at this stage
of the debate, it is well to bear in mind
those two peculiar features of the situation.
Though not eternal, constitutions are not
by any means of a transitory nature. They
are framed to be permanent—as permanent
as human institutions can possibly be. I
3310
therefore quite understand the keen and
lively interest which the two Bills now under consideration, have aroused from one
end of the country to the other. I less
understand, however, the sentiment of bitterness which, of latter days, they have
so
intensely developed.
Sir, I do not intend to discuss the several
clauses contained in the Bill. The masterly
effort of the right hon. the leader of the
House, when he introduced this measure,
has made our task an easy one indeed—I
will confine myself to the land question
and the school question.
I wish, however, before taking up those
two features of the Bill, to say a word or
two concerning the division of the Northwest Territories into two provinces. This
is
one of Mr. Haultain's grievances-but from
all appearances, it seems to be a personal
grievance. Is it because, as future premier
of one of the provinces, he will command less
influence ? That, I would not venture to
say. But be it a personal grievance or not,
the fact remains that the division of the
Northwest Territories into two provinces is
in accord with public opinion all over Canada. Sir. we are legislating for the future
whilst Mr. Haultain—if his views on this
question were adopted—would bind us to
the present only. Moreover, we live in a
confederation. Should not the history of
other confederacies be an object lesson to
us? The danger may be remote, but do
you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that
by carving two provinces out of that immense western territory, the balance of
power is more equally, more equitably distributed as among all the others ? At the
time of the first republic of France, a great
orator, Vergniaud, said of the French revolution that it resembled Saturn devouring
his own progeny. Sir, I am not a pessimist, but I fear that the very reverse would
likely happen, if we did create one huge
province extending from Manitoba to the
Rockies; in this instance the child abnormally overgrown, would soon devour his
father.
The hon. gentlemen opposite and the Conservative press throughout the Dominion,
have been very loud in their protests against
the clause of the Bill which vests in the
Dominion the property of the public lands
in the Northwest Territories. 'Why is the
west deprived of its birthright'? is the
question put by those who, by all means,
are bound to find fault with this measure.
'Why not treat the west as well as the
other provinces'? Sir, such appeals may
perhaps stir up the feelings of those who
do not know under what peculiar and exceptional circumstances the Northwest Territories
entered confederation. But surely,
they cannot and will not bias the judgment
of any of the hon. gentlemen who sit in this
House. True it is. that the British North
America Act stipulates that each province
3311 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â COMMONS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
is vested with the property of its lands.
Such has been the case with Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and British
Columbia. But one must remember
that when they entered into confederation,
each of these provinces had the property of
its lands. They were independent colonies
and they exercised a sovereign power over
their Crown lands. Nearly all their revenues have since been derived from that
source. Their right was inalienable and
they stipulated in 1867, that they would
continue to exercise it. Quite different in
the case with the Northwest Territories.
At the time of confederation, the delegates
of the provinces inserted a clause in the
British North America Act by which they
empowered the Dominion to purchase from
the Hudson Bay Company—then suzerain
of the Territories—all this vast tract of
country. The purchase was made in 1870,
and the price paid by the Dominion to the
Hudson Bay Company amounted to ÂŁ300,000. Out of that domain, was first carved
the province of Manitoba, but, with the exception of the swamp lands, all the public
lands of the new province remained the
property of Canada.
Mr. MONK. Would my hon. friend (Mr.
Lemieux) allow me to ask him a question ?
If the land in the Northwest remains vested
in the Dominion, why was it necessary in
the case of Manitoba to put a special provision in the Bill creating that province
to
reserve the lands of that province ? It
does not seem to have been necessary, according to the hon. gentleman's argument.
Mr. LEMIEUX. It was to avoid litigation. The province of Manitoba might
have said : We must be treated as the
other provinces have been treated ; the
other provinces have their public lands and
we must have our public lands. Therefore
there was a special enactment in the Act
of 1870, that Manitoba should not have its
lands but that these should remain vested
in the Dominion.
We were told the other day by the right
hon. leader of the House how Sir John
Macdonald refused the request of Manitoba
when in 1884 that province raised a claim
to the property of her public lands. The
same policy has been followed with regard
to every new state entering the American
union. It seems to me therefore that we
would not have been justified to adopt a
different policy with regard to the two new
provinces. Their territory covers in round
figures a total area of 345,000,000 acres—
one-third of which has already been reserved or sold. We must deduct from that
total area, the land grants made to railway
companies by the Conservative administrations, the Indian reserves, the timber limits,
the school lands, the Hudson bay lands, and
the homesteads already taken, which leaves
a balance of about 225,000,000 acres. Sir,
3312
I claim that this domain is the property
of the whole Dominion of Canada. Administered by Canada since 1870, it has
added not a little burden to the public exchequer. We had to pay the cost of two
rebellions and besides, we have—in order
to maintain law, peace and order—equipped
a corps of mounted police, which has patrolled the west and afforded ample protection
against the Indians and the rough
element. Again, the Dominion has spent
millions to advertise and settle the west.
We have subsidized the vast system of railways which is now netting so rapidly the
prairies from north to south, from east to
west. The Canadian Pacific Railway and
the Grand Trunk Pacific are in a sense
national highways, but who will deny that
the Northwest Territories are not the most
interested in their completion ?
All this vast expenditure has enhanced
the value of the Northwest Territories and
the Dominion has yet to draw the interest
to which any creditor is entitled on an investment. Would it be fair, Mr. Speaker,
to divest ourselves of our lands, under such
circumstances ? Would not that policy be
inopportune and unwise?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My hon. friend will
of course remember, and he will pardon me
for interrupting, that this is exactly the
argument which was made fifty or sixty
or seventy years ago in Great Britain as
a reason for not handing over to the people
of the various provinces the control of their
lands and their minerals.
Mr. LEMIEUX. Yes, it is always well
to borrow from Great Britain. Sir, I have
read some very wild statements in the
press, concerning this question of public
lands. Having myself been a journalist ;
far be it from my mind to minimize the
influence of the press—but it thus happens
that sometimes the press finds grievances
which are more imaginary than real. Some
people have that weakness ;—they are happy
—yet a grievance heretofore unsuspected
comes to them as a relief. Let me, Mr.
Speaker, answer some of the statements
made in favour of entrusting the lands to
the new provinces. First, it must be admitted that a revenue had to be provided to
run the machinery of the local government.
This is what is being done by granting a
subsidy in lieu of lands. Is this subsidy
a fair equivalent for the public lands surrendered to us ? In order to answer this
question, one must bear in mind the following facts. The lands are not sold by the
federal government, but are given away as
an inducement to the settlers. Suppose the
lands were left to the now provinces, would
they depart from the policy of free grants
to the settlers ? I assume that they would
—in all wisdom—continue the issuing of
free grants. Thus, the revenue which otherwise would accrue from the sale of these
3313
MARCH 28, 1905
lands, would amount to nothing—with perhaps the exception of very limited receipts
arising from stumpage dues or timber limits
and royalties on coal lands. Let us suppose,
Mr. Speaker, that the lands would be vested in the new provinces. What would happen
? One of two things would have to be
done—either issue free grants to the settlers
or sell the lands. In the first instance, i.e.,
issuing free grants, the provinces would
get no revenue. In the second instance, i.e.
selling the lands, true they would derive
a revenue from the sales, but at the same
time, they would fatally restrain and check
the growth of population. On the contrary,
the continuation of the free grants system
will, by increasing the population increase
also the annual payments made by the Dominion government. The actual revenue
which the Dominion government draws
from the Northwest Territories is derived
mainly from (a) homesteading fees and from
(b) royalties on coal mines—but without
worrying the House with figures, we may
take it as granted that this revenue is quite
insignificant compared to the cost of surveying, settling and administering the lands.
I say, Sir, that if these lands were in the
future ofiered for sale, instead of being
free, the Dominion government would hardly
be justified in maintaining as it does, a costly scheme of immigration at the general
expense of the country, which would chiefly
benefit the land speculators of the Northwest Territories.
I claim, Sir, that the new provinces have
received a generous, a liberal treatment
at the hands of their government. The
financial clauses of the Bill bear evidence
of our generosity. What do they receive
besides their autonomy? Each province
at the very start-off will have in addition
to the usual federal subventions, an income
in lieu of its lands of $375,000. This amount
will grow with the growth of population to
$502,500 when either of the provinces has
400,000 souls ; to $750,000 when it has 1,200,000 souls, and when it exceeds that
number,
the payment will reach $1,125,000 yearly.
In addition, interest will be paid on swamp
lauds Valued at $4,250,000 which will increase eventually to a capital amount of
$7,500,000.
Moreover, the Dominion will—and this
fact should not be overlooked—still maintain our corps of mounted police in the
Northwest Territories—a maintenance which
entails an annual cost of $300,000. Sir, I
will not begrudge the Northwest Territories
the happy circumstances under which they
assume their Political autonomy. This is
not the time—and it is not in my nature to
be envious. The prosperity, the happiness
of my neighbour rejoices me; it never
saddens me. But may I not pause for a
moment and remind the House that the
older provinces might well envy the fortune
of Alberta and Saskatchewan? They, of
3314
their own volition, acquired the great lone
land in 1870; they—patrlotically—pledged
their credit for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway; they unreservedly
launched themselves into a vast scheme of
colonization in order to settle the prairies,
Yet today, after thirty-five years of sacrifices, saddled with their own obligations,
cheerfully assess themselves again, to endow
generously their two younger associates, in
order to complete the gigantic work of confederation.
Again I say that I do not begrudge the
Northwest Territories their good fortune.
The ideal which we, as Canadians, pursue
in this North American continent is too
noble, too exalted, not to call for some
sacrifices. The game is well worthy of the
stake; the aspirations of Canada call
forth our common efforts; the task of today is not unbecoming the attainments of
to-morrow. In the language of the poet:
In the race, not in the prize.
Glory's true distinction lies.
I have now reached, Sir, the educational
clauses of the Bill—which, in the present
instances, might well be termed the crucial
clauses if one can judge by the storm—
nay, by the tornado they have raised in the
Dominion. Political agitation is always
fraught with danger even ina country where
one race alone is dominant, but, Sir, far
more dangerous is a religious agitation in
a country like Canada, where two races
and two creeds are staring at each other.
Experience has taught us how easy it is to
inflame religious passions and how difficult
to quell them. Yet, it seems as if this sad
experiment was to be renewed periodically
in this fair land of ours. As a Canadian, I
deplore the intolerant spirit which of late
has pervaded spheres, where one would expect Christian charity, broad-mindedness,
tair-play, to inhabit. After the bitterness
displayed from one end of the country
to the other on this school question, after
the abuse heaped upon one particular class
of His Majesty's loyal subjects, I fear
not to say, Sir, that unless reason and wise
counsels prevail, the future of this confederation is doomed and the cause of union
buried for ever. Well might we apply to the
present situation the prophetic word of
Thlers when the 2nd empire was on the eve
of crumbling to pieces : Il n'y a plus qu'une
seule faute Ă commettre ........
I fail to understand, Sir, why the educational clauses have roused such anger
amongst men who, by their calling in life,
should be specially guarded against any
display of temper. I quite agree with you
that there are firebrands who delight in seeing the country ablaze, but I am not referring
to the professional demagogues. I am
addressing myself to that honest yet credulous class of people, whose sleep is haunted
by nightmares, and who—once led astray—
3315
COMMONS
talk of rebellion instead of constitution. And
yet, Sir, that matter or rather this difficulty
is purely a constitutional one. It is in the
light of our constitution that the question
must be examined. To look at it from any
other point of view is to err and to quibble.
According to the British North America Act
has the minority in the Northwest Territories any rights to a system of separate
schools ? This is, in my judgment the only
question to be decided. But before I answer
it, let me, Sir, add a few missing links to
a chapter of the history of the Northwest
Territories. I do so, in no hostile spirit,
I am only refreshing the memory of some
Canadians who are too apt to forget. Sir,
in the early part of the 18th century—nay
even in the 17th century, the explorers of
the Northwest were men of my race. La
Verendrye and his sons, were the first
Europeans who climbed up the Rocky mountains. The French missionaries soon found
their way towards those distant lands to
preach the Gospel to the Indian tribes. The
fur traders, the voyageurs, the trappeurs
and coureurs des bois followed—filling the
early history of these vast domains with
their adventurous yet heroic exploits. Not
a river, not a lake, not a hill, not a valley
that was not discovered by them. One has
only to read carefully the deed of transfer
of Ruperts land to Canada in 1870, to realize
that nearly all the posts of the Hudson
Bay Company, in the far west, bear most
picturesque French names. After the conquest, when the Hudson Bay company took
full possession of that immense territory,
the French Canadian element continued to
be an important factor in the affiairs of the
west. So much so, that the Bishop of
Quebec, whose diocese included all British
North America decided to send missionaries
in those distant regions. By referring to
the archives of the Quebec Archbishopric,
one will see that in 1818, the first school in
the Northwest Territories was established
at the request of Monseigneur Plessis, Sir
John Cope Sherbrooke was then our Governor and it is under his protection that the
three missionaries sent by Monseigneur
Plessis entered the Northwest. The instructions of Governor Sherbrooke, given in writing,
are well worth reading.
I do hereby call on all His Majesty's subjects, civil and military, and do request
all
other persons whomsoever to whom these
presents shall come, not only to permit the
said missionaries to pass without hindrance
or molestation, but render them all good offices,
assistance and protection wherever they shall
find it necessary to go in the exercise of their
holy calling.
That is what Sir John Sherbrooke said
when the three first missionaries left Quebec to evangelize the Indian tribes of the
Northwest Territories. They did not go
there as marauders. The object of their
mission, as indicated by the Bishop of Quebec, can be read in a very few lines :
3316
The missionaries will make known to the
people the religious faith they enjoy in remaining under the government of His Majesty,
will
teach them by words and example the respect
and fidelity they should have for the sovereign,
will accustom them to offer to God fervent
prayers for the prosperity of His Most Gracious
Majesty, of his august family and his empire.
These are the missionaries who explored
the west, who discovered the west, so to
speak, and opened it to civilization, and who
preached the Gospel to the Indian tribes.
Sir, they belonged to a noble race ; and
when they bade farewell to their families,
to their homes and to their province, they
went knowing that some of them might not
come back to civilization, in order to fulfil a
sacred duty towards God and their King.
Now, before I refer to the legislation of
1871 and 1875, let me examine this section
93 of the British North America Act. First
of all. I would like to say that the right hon.
leader of the government has been taunted
by many hon. gentlemen opposite and by the
Conservative press throughout the country,
because, forsooth, he had given us a page
of history in explaining to the House, as
he did on the 21st February last, when he
introduced this measure, how that clause
came to be inserted in the British North
America Act. Now, it is usual, when we
have legislation of a somewhat complicated
character, as this is, to go to the root of that
legislation and to inquire under what circumstances it was enacted. There is, therefore,
nothing extraordinary in the fact that
the right hon. leader of the government
should have explained the peculiar circumstances under which that clause 93 was enacted.
In the case of the St. Catharines
Milling and Lumber Company versus the
Queen, Mr. Justice Strong, in giving his
judgment, used these words :
In construing this enactment of the British
North America Act we are not only entitled,
but bound—
Mark his word, ' bound.'
—to apply that well established rule which
requires us, in placing a meaning upon descriptive terms and definitions contained
in
statutes, to have recourse to external aids
derived from the surrounding circumstances and
the history of the subject matter dealt with,
and to construe the enactment by the light
derived from such sources, and so to put ourselves as far as possible in the position
of the
legislature whose language we have to expound. If this rule were subjected and the
language of the statute were considered without such assistance from extrinsic facts,
it is
manifest that the task of interpretation would
degenerate into mere speculation and guess
work.
This is the language of the ex-Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, the highest
court of our land, which he used a few years
ago in a very important case. In that case
Sir Oliver Mowat was defending the rights
of the province of Ontario—I think it was
the Provincial Streams case. The province
of Ontario was deeply interested in that
3317 MARCH 28, 1905
case, and was represented by that upholder
of provincial rights, Sir Oliver Mowat. He
used this language :
In various cases it has been decided, I am
not quite sure whether in this court or in other
courts, reference has been made to the resolutions upon which the British North America
Act was founded. What degree of importance
should be attached to them has not been
stated, but at all events it is reasonable for
judges to look at them, and if they do find
that they throw any light on the subject they
should avail themselves of that light.
Therefore, I say that the right hon. leader
of this government was right in going back
to the history of confederation, to the origin
of clause 93 of the British North America
Act, in order that he might the better
interpret it as the basis of the present measure. We know, from the history he gave
this House, that if clause 93 was embalmed
in the constitution of this country it was at
the request of the Protestant minority of
the province of Quebec. Now, Sir, I may
say at once that it was not necessary to
embalm that principle of religious equality
in the constitution. If we examine the
words of Sir John Rose, in the confederation debates, one may easily see that the
Protestant minority of the province of Quebec did not require the enactment of clause
93 in the British North America Act. Here
is the statement made by Sir John Rose :
Now, we the English Protestant minority of
Lower Canada, cannot forget, that whatever
right of separate education we have, was accorded to us in the most unrestricted way
before the union of the provinces, when we
were in a minority and entirely in the hands
of the French population. We cannot forget
that in no way was there any attempt to prevent us educating our children in the manner
we saw fit, and deemed best; and I would be
untrue to what is just, if I forgot to state that
the distribution of state funds for educational
purposes was made in such a way as to cause
no complaint on the part of the minority.
That was the statement made by Sir John
Rose at the time of confederation. Therefore, I say that in the light of this testimony
it was not even necessary for the minority
to exact the enactment of that clause 93.
Nevertheless, Sir A. T. Galt, in fulfilment of
the pledge given to the Protestant minority
of Lower Canada, went to London and had
that clause inserted in our constitution.
Now, the first question which presents itself
is that which has been treated this afternoon by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr.
Bourassa), namely, does this clause 93 apply
to Quebec and Ontario only, or does it apply
to all the provinces ? My hon. friend from
Labelle has cited the opinion of Lord Carnarvon. I will not weary the House by
giving the quotation again, but I will only
quote a few words. Lord Carnarvon, in
1866, used the following language :
The object of this clause is to secure to the
religious minority of one province the same
rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority of another province
may enjoy.
3318
The Roman Catholics of Upper Canada and the
Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces will thus stand on a footing of
equality.
But has the local legislature exclusive
jurisdiction in matters of education ? We
are told that the jurisdiction of the provinces is absolute in matters of education.
It is not so—on the contrary, it is limited.
It is precisely what the Lord Chancellor
said in rendering judgment on the second
appeal to the Privy Council of the Manitoba minority :
The Act imposes a limitation on the legislative powers conferred. Any enactment contravening
its provisions is beyond the competency
of the provincial legislation and consequently
null and void. In relation to the subject specified in section 92 of the British North
America
Act the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures may be said to be absolute.
But this
is not so as regards education.
Sir, not only is the jurisdiction of provincial legislature restricted in matters
of
education, but to use the language of Lord
Carnarvon :
In the event of any wrong at the hand of
local majority, the minority may appeal to the
Governor in Council and claim the application
of any remedial laws that may be necessary
from the central parliament of Canada.
Therefore, the Privy Council declared
that in all matters enumerated in section
92, the powers of the legislature are supreme and exclusive, but we have the authority
of the Privy Council—the highest
authority in the British Empire—that on
matters of education this Dominion parliament has certain authority. I can quote
not only authorities from the other side of
the Atlantic, but I can quote the authority
of Mr. Edward Blake, of the late Sir John
Thompson, and even of Mr. Dalton McCarthy, the champion of the public school
system in this country. On March 6, 1893,
Sir John Thompson, speaking in the House
of Commons, and addressing himself to the
scope of section 93, at a time when the
separate school controversy in Manitoba
was becoming acute, said :
I take it that the principle is well settled and
well agreed upon by both parties in this country, as well as by lawyers and tribunals
of
justice, that that provision, that qualification,
nullifies any Act of a provincial legislature
which conflicts with it ; and that the legislature of a province, while to a great
extent its
powers are exclusive with regard to education,
steps beyond its power and enacts a void enactment when it enacts a law which prejudicially
affects any right or privilege with respect
to denominational schools which any class of
persons had by law in any province at the time
of the union.
Sir John Thompson also quoted from Mr.
Edward Blake, who some years before had
introduced resolutions for referring a certain class of semi-political questions to
the
Supreme Court of Canada, and Mr. Blake
dealt inter alia with section 93, and said :
3319 COMMONS
Under these clauses a limited power to make
educational laws is granted to a province, provided, amongst other things, that nothing
therein contained shall prejudicially affect any right
or privilege with respect to denominational
schools which any of the provinces had by law
or, in the case of Manitoba, by practice at the
union.
Mr. Dalton McCarthy's opinion will be
found at page 73 of the official report of his
argument before the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council in the city of Winnipeg vs. Barrett. He was explaining to
their lordships the meaning of section 93,
and went on to call their attention to section 146 in these words:
 By this section 146 the Dominion was to take
in the province of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, and also
it
was assumed Rupert's Land and the Northwest
Territories would be acquired, and would be
ultimately divided into provinces, just as the
Northwestern Territories had been divided into
states. And provision was made for taking in
these various provinces, and accordingly they
were taken in, British Columbia first, if my
memory serves right, in 1871, and then Prince
Edward Island. This clause (section 93) was
made applicable to British Columbia and Prince
Edward Island, but in neither of these provinces
were there any denominational rights, nor has
it been so pretended, in respect of schools to
be protected or reserved. But the scheme was
to apply to the provinces as they came in the
general terms of the British North America
Act where there were not special circumstances
which rendered some other legislation necessary.
And now, as to the contention that section 93 applies only to the four original
provinces, or, as some contend, only to the
two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, let
me state what occurred in the province of
Prince Edward Island. That province came
into confederation in the year 1873. Although the delegates met at Charlottetown,
although they had debated the union in
Prince Edward Island, yet in 1867 that
province declared that she would not join
confederation, and she did not join at that
date. Before 1873, there had existed in
that province a system of public schools.
and side by side with it had grown
up a system of separate schools. There
were French schools in several parishes,
and in 1875 an Act was passed by
the local legislature of Prince Edward Island, abolishing the separate schools system.
An appeal was made to the Governor General in Council. On that appeal it was admitted
by the appellants, the Roman Catholic minority, and by the respondents,
the local legislature, that although Prince
Edward Island had joined confederation
only in 1873, clause 93 applied, and the late
Hon. Rodolphe Laflamme, who was then
Minister of Justice, submitted a lengthy report, in which he said that clause 93 could
not be of any avail to the minority in the
province of Prince Edward Island, because
3320
the system of separate schools had grown up
illegally by the side of the public schools
system. There was no legislation to warrant it, and therefore clause 93 could be of
no avail.
But we are told by Mr. Haultain and a
portion of the press that what may apply
to a province does not apply to a territory.
This is indeed a very fine and very subtle
distinction. Mr. Haultain's objection is
not serious. That it is only sophistry is
quite obvious. In 1871, doubts had arisen
as to the right of the federal parliament to
establish provinces out of the Territories admitted in the union. The imperial parliament
then passed a statute amending the
British North America Act in order to remove any such doubts. What does section
2 of that Act declare ? Our parliament was
authorized
To make provision for the constitution and
administration of the provinces carved out of
those regions, and for the passing of laws for
the peace, order and good government thereof.
I claim that by the clear and concise enactment I have just quoted, ample authority
was given this parliament to frame a constitution for the Territories. Mr. Haultain's
interpretation of the British North America
Act is this one : He wishes to date the entry into confederation of the two new provinces
back to July 15, 1870—because, forsooth, at that time there was no system of
separate schools established by law—such
as there is under the law of 1875 and under the ordinances 29, 30, 31. As section
93 of the British North America Act does
not mention Territories, but provinces. Mr.
Haultain concludes that it cannot benefit
the new provinces. But the hon. gentleman
cannot alter facts. Territories were admitted in the union in 1870. But in 1905 we
admit provinces—according to section 2 of
the imperial statute of 1871.
It is only this year that this Bill will be
in force; it is only on the first of July next
that the Northwest Territories will join the
union as provinces, and therefore the legislation enacted in 1875 by this parliament
granting a system of separate schools, can
be retained by the present legislation. I
could cite the ablest authorities on the American constitution, Cooley, Randolph Tucker,
Sutherland, and others, to show that
when the Territories are acquired they do
not become states, and so it is with our own
Territories. When they were purchased by
Canada they did not become full-fledged provinces. And how did these Territories come
into Canada ? We are aware that there was
some doubt expressed as to the validity of
the Act of 1870. Some people believed that
we could not carve provinces out of these
Territories, and therefore Sir John Macdonald, who was Prime Minister, applied to
the imperial authorities to have the legislation of 1870 confirmed by an imperial
statute. It is well to refer to the memoran
3321 MARCH 28, 1905
dum sent to the home government by Sir
John A. Macdonald in order that we may see
the scope of the imperial statute. Writing
to the Earl of Kimberly, he asked the imperial parliament to enact legislation in
its
next session :
1. Confirming the Act of the Canadian parliament, 33 Victoria, chapter 3, above referred
to,
as if it had been an imperial statute, and legalizing whatever may have been done
under it
according to its true interests.
2. Empowering the Dominion parliament
from time to time to establish other provinces
in the Northwestern Territory, with such local
government, legislature and constitution as it
may think proper, provided that no such local
government or legislature shall have greater
powers than those conferred on the local
governments and legislatures by the British
North America Act, 1867, and also empowering
it to grant such provinces representation in
the parliament of the Dominion.
These were the purposes, as stated by
Sir John Macdonald, for which the imperial parliament passed the Act of 1871.
With regard to this Bill, the British
North America Act of 1867 cannot alone
apply. The British North America Act of
1871 must also apply: The two must be
construed together.
Let me go one step further. Are the educational clauses of this Bill inconsistent
with the spirit of our constitution? Read
the preamble of the British North America
Act and what do you find ?
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia,
and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion
under the Crown of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution
similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.
I ask you, Sir, is there anything in the
educational clause contrary in principle to
the constitution of the United Kingdom?
Sir, if there is a redeeming feature in the
present debate for the partisans of the separate schools system, it is the fact that
in
Great Britain, in the mother country, there
is also a system whereby denominational
schools are state aided. Yes, Mr. Speaker,
in England, the country wherefrom we borrowed our parliamentary institutions; in
England, wherefrom we borrowed a constitution; in England, minorities enjoy their
full
liberty in matters of education. I, a Canadian and a Roman Catholic, am proud to
cite this example of tolerance given by our
mother country. I ask my friend from Grey
would he be in Canada less generous, less
tolerant than the average English Protestant
in England ?
Sir, I need not refer at any length to the
history of the school question in England.
But I may say at the outset that the right
hon. leader of the House is not the only
statesman who has had to face grave difficulties with regard to an Educational Bill.
Sir, the greatest of all modern British
statesmen has also had his hours of anxiety
3322
when in 1870 he attempted to legislate upon a similar question. Mr. Gladstone lost
many a warm friend, many a firm supporter, when he introduced the Educational
Bill of 1870.
For years, I might say for centuries,
there had been in England a system of national schools. But there were many sects,
many creeds in England, and it was felt
that it would be a violation of the principle
of religious liberty if the dissenters were
forced to send their children to schools,
the religious teaching of which was not in
conformity with their views. So, by the
side of national schools, grew up a system
of voluntary schools—that is to say, separate schools—where the dissenters of all
sects and denominations sent their children. The secular teaching did not differ
much from that of the national schools; but
the religious teaching given the children
was in accordance with the tenets of the
parents' faith. Catholics, Wesleyans, Quakers established all over the realm voluntary
schools. So much so, that a time came
when more children frequented the voluntary schools than the national schools. The
board schools were state aided; the voluntary schools were self-sustaining. There
were in England, as there are in this country, partisans of the neutral school. There
were also men who thought that the children had a right to a religious teaching according
to the religious belief of their parents.
Such was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone.
Such was also the opinion of Lord Salisbury. Let me quote, Mr. Speaker, the opinion
of those two great British statesmen.
As far back as 1856 Mr. Gladstone said:
We have happily found it practicable in
England to associate together in the most perfect harmony these two principles, the
principle of voluntary exertion, through which you
get heart and love and moral influence infused
into your school instruction, and the principle
of material aid from the state, by which the
skeleton and framework of your education is
provided. I am convinced that the harmony
which has hitherto been maintained between
them, even in times of doubt and difficulty, will
continue, and, if possible, increase, but if I
were driven utterly to abandon the voluntary,
or to place exclusive reliance upon it, I would
not hesitate a moment in making my choice.
In such an emergency, I would say at once,
give me the real education, the affection of the
heart, the moral influence operating upon character, the human love, that are obtained
through
the medium of the voluntary principle carried
by men whose main motive is one of Christain
philantropy rather than throw me upon a system which, whatever the intentions of its
mover may he, must sooner or later degenerate
into hard irreligion.
Lord Salisbury, on another occasion, spoke
as follows :
There is only one sound principle in religious education to which you should cling,
which you should relentlessly enforce against
all the conveniences and experiences of official
3323
COMMONS
men, and that is, that a parent, unless he has
forfeited the right by criminal act, has the
inalienable right to determine the teaching
which the child shall receive upon the holiest
and most momentous of subjects. This is a
right which no expediency can negative, which
no state necessity ought to allow you to sweep
away ; and, therefore, I ask you to give your
attention to this question of denominational
education. It is full of danger and of difficulty,
but you will meet the danger by marching
straight up to it and declaring that the prerogative of the parent, unless he be convicted
of
criminality, must not be taken away by the
state.
Sir, as I said a minute ago, the first important Bill in relation to education in
Great Britain was introduced in 1870. For
the first time parliament passed a measure
making provision for a 'sufficient, efficient
and suitable' elementary education; but
mark well, it was understood that the work
of efficient voluntary schools should not be
hampered, but that their efforts should be
supplemented. In those days there were
men like my hon. friend from Grey who
opposed denominational Schools. Here is
the answer which Mr. Gladstone gave to
their opposition:
Can it be said that the prevalence of denominationalism in those schools at the present
moment is generally felt to be a grievance ?
On the contrary, is it not the case that everybody and every section are telling us
continually that the religious difficulty directly
you came to practice becomes insignificant,
and that it is a difficulty made for parliament and for debate rather than on which
would be felt within the walls of the schools ?
Now I come to denominational, or as I shall
call them, voluntary schools and if I am told
that an overwhelming majority of voluntary
schools are denominational, I think I can draw
a lesson from that fact, which is that it shows
what a powerful agency we have to do our bidding, to perform much of our work for
us, if
only we will not obstruct it. We are as much
convinced as he is that with respect to these
voluntary schools, the duty of the state is to
make use of them for the purposes of secular
instruction which they give, but to hold itself
entirely and absolutely detached from all responsibility with regard to their religious
teaching.
This was, Sir, the opinion of Mr. Gladstone with regard to denominational
schools. But I explained a moment ago,
though the voluntary schools were tolerated—they were self-sustaining, whilst the
other schools were state aided. I shall not
refer to the school legislation which since
1870 was passed by the imperial parliament. I come immediately to the Education Act
of 1902, an Act passed by the
Balfour government.
Mr. Balfour has himself, in a few words
described what reforms were brought about
by the Bill :
Our reform, if it is to be adequate, must, in
the first place, establish one authority of
education—technical, secondary, primary—possessed of powers which may enable it to
3324
provide for the adequate training of teachers,
&c. In the second place, I conclude that this
one authority for education, being, as it is,
responsible for a heavy cost to the ratepayers,
should be the rating authority of the district.
In the 3rd place, I lay down that the voluntary
schools must be placed in a position in which
they can worthily play their necessary and inevitable part in the scheme of national
education.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the object, one
of the objects of the Bill was to include in
the national school system the voluntary
schools. The Bill became law and to-day,
Sir, you have in England, a system of denominational state-aided schools. Of course,
Mr. Speaker, this law gave rise to a great
opposition amongst a certain class of people. In England, as in Canada, the government
lost many of its friends. Mr.
Balfour and his colleagues were assailed.
They were denounced as being ' under the
unchecked sway of the priest.'
It is a clerical war, said Dr. Clifford, and
this Bill is meant to be its victorious Waterloo.
The coveted goal is the rule of the priest over
the British people. The reason of the cleric
is the motive and spirit and aim of this
movement, and this legislative measure is the
ladder constructed by the cabinet up which the
cleric is to climb.
And further :
We cannot therefore treat too seriously a
measure which is the latest of a series of
efforts of clericalism to capture young England
and carry it over to Rome.
And further :
We never dare let the clergy have their own
way; they would have destroyed us; we should
have been as Sodom and as Gomorrah.
When a bad government and bad religion
work together, the ruin of the government is
as certain as death. It is that union we have
now to face.
You have, Sir, in the few lines I have
just read, an idea of the campaign of vituperation to which the government was subjected
in England. I find in those impassionate appeals, a certain relationship
with those we have heard during last
month.
But Sir, in England as well as in Canada, the government, though assailed and
bitterly so, faced the situation with courage. I do not wish to worry the House
with any lengthy quotations. I will confine
myself to a few, emanating from men, who
occupy leading positions in the British empire. The Prime Minister, speaking at Manchester,
on January 18, 1895, said :
I altogether object to the tone which is
sometimes taken up by the controversialists upon this subject. They appear to think
that the
voluntary school is the relic of an ancient
system permitted as a matter of compromise
to remain, tolerated by parliament, submitted
to by the department, but altogether out of
harmony with the needs and requirements of a
progressive community—an instrument of edu
3325 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 28, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
cation which in process of time shall be thrown
on one side as of an antiquated pattern and
worn out by long use. I take precisely the
opposite opinion. In my views, the normal
education, the normal machinery for education
required alike by the parent and by the community, is the voluntary school. I do not
say
there ought not to be—I have no attack to
make on—a school board system. We require
to deal with these questions, one who
will look at them from a broader standpoint,
who will feel that, outside the question of
grants and the question of classes there are
other issues to be decided, other interests to
be considered, and who will feel his duty as
Education Minister as but very imperfectly
accomplished if he does not do all in his power
to foster every influence which may mould, not
merely the children committed to his care, not
merely these subjects of secular learning—
which may not advance their happiness in life
—but these larger questions, the sense of these
greater issues, necessary, as I must firmly
believe, to the well-being of every community
and most of all necessary in these days among
the rising, full-fledged forces of the new democracy. In making this profession of
my educational faith have I said anything which runs
counter to the interests of that democracy to
which I appealed just now.
Sir, if there is a man whose name has
been heralded throughout the length and
breadth of this country as that of a great
statesman ; if there is a man whose imperial policy we have been asked to adopt ;
if there is a man who, in one section of the
country at least—enjoys unlimited confidence and great popularity—this man—this
British statesman is Mr. Chamberlain. What
views does that enlightened statesman hold
on this question of education ?
In the course of this controversy, I observe a
great number of people appeal to the time-
honored principle of religious equality, well, I
entirely approve of that. I consider myself to be a devoted advocate of religious
sentiment of that kind. What do you mean
by religious equality ? How far are you prepared to go in order to secure? For instance,
do you think it consistent that churchmen,
Roman Catholics, Jews, Unitarians and a number of other minor sects should be forced
to
pay rates which provide religious instruction
which in their opinion either leaves out the
essentials which make it valuable, or in other
cases teaches doctrines in which they do not
believe. Do you think, I say, that it is religious
equality to insist upon that and at the same
time refuse to those denominations the right
of having their religious instruction for their
children to which they do attach real importance?
And further :
I ask another question. You are in favour
of religious equality. Would you be willing
to accept a system by which it has been attempted to secure that equality in some
of the
provinces in Canada, where every ratepayer is
permitted to say to what class of school his
rates should go? That is a religious equality.
And further :
And it you admit the right of these people
who built the schools for the greater part by
3326
private contributions, who have supported the
schools by really very large contributions,
amounting on the average during the past 30
years to something like one million pounds a
year—if you admit their right to have secured
to them the results for which they make their
sacrifices—that is to say, the right to give and
have given to their children the education, the
religious education, which they believe to be
essential—then there is no reason whatever
why upon every other point sensible men and
moderate men should not be able to come to
an agreement.
As I said a minute ago, Mr. Balfour met
a very strong opposition when he introduced
his Bill—even in the ranks of the Unionist
party, many friends of the government
were somewhat influenced by the wild appeals such as that I have already mentioned.
Mr. Chamberlain uttered the words
I have just quoted at a meeting of the leading Liberal Unionists held at Birmingham
on the 9th of October, 1902. At the conclusion of his speech, the stand taken by
Mr. Chamberlain in favour of denominational schools was endorsed by the whole
party.
I might quote the opinions expressed on
the same subject by Mr. Lyttleton, the present Colonial Secretary, by Sir William
R.
Anson, by Canon Maccoll, by Mr. Haldane,
M.P., and many others, but I do not wish
to worry the House.
It seems to me, Sir, that the opinions of
the leaders of public opinion in the British
empire have on such a grave issue, more
weight than that of the hon. gentleman
from East Grey (Mr. Sproule).
But, Sir, my friend from Grey (Mr.
Sproule) has triumphantly referred to France
in his address of Thursday last. Church
schools have been abolished in France, exclaimed my friend, because forsooth they
had produced illiterates, and to remedy
that state of things the government has
established a system of neutral schools.
True it is, Sir, that in France the government is seeking to suppress denominational
schools. But What has been the result ?
Does not my hon. friend read the papers ?
The government which suppressed the
schools, which exiled the religious orders,
denounced the Concordat—that government
has been also suppressed, yes suppressed
after many a tumult, many an uprising of
all liberty-lovers in France. The movement
against that act of the French government
was not started by the illiterates ; it was
organized by whom ? By members of the
Academie Francaise, by men like Francois
Coppée, Jules Lemaitre, Brunetiere—by men
of all parties, of all creeds; aye, by free
thinkers, by French Protestants like Mons.
de Pressense, one of the most eminent
French writers of the day. These men are
all united, and they have published a manifesto protesting against the policy of the
government. Let me quote a few lilies of
that manifesto :
3327 COMMONS
We can have no illusion. Efforts have been
made to strangle the liberty of education. One
is not free to think when one is not free to
propagate one's thoughts publicly, and one is
not free to think when one is not permitted to
have one's children brought up in accordance
with one's ideas, conviction and faith. To suppress the liberty of education, the
government
dares not act openly, but invokes hypocritically
a law of which the apparent and declared object was to extend the scope of the liberties
indispensable to a democracy. . . To grant
the monopoly of education to one party doctrine
and opinion is to establish a censorship over
matters of public instruction, to organize the
servitude of thought, and to prepare political
tyranny.
This is what the elite of the French litterateurs think of the school policy of the
French government. Let me tell my friend
from Grey that he is greatly mistaken if he
really believes that the denominational
schools in France have produced a race of
illiterates. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the land of
Racine, of Moliere, of Corneille, of Bossuet,
is not a land of illiterates ? Surely the
schools and the lycees which have produced
men like Victor Hugo, Lamartine, Thiers
and Guizot, were not mere hotbeds of ignorance and cretinism ! The hon. gentleman,
in
his endeavour to give the public schools a
superiority over the denominational schools,
might have spared his French Canadian
friends in the House his untimely reference to the so-called illiteracy of Frenchmen.
For my part, Sir, I am a British subject, and an admirer of the British institutions.
I may add that, politically speaking,
I am more at home in London than in Paris
—that my ideals in politics are at Westminster, not at the Palais Bourbon ; yet no
one will ever deny—I for one will never do
so—that in literature and in fine arts, France
is second to no other nation in the world.
But if France is still, at the beginning of
this twentieth century, the leading nation of
the world in the field of literature and fine
arts, she has nothing to regret of the teachings given to her sons in the old church
schools.
Reference has been made during this debate to the American settlers in the west.
We are told that we must have public
schools, because the settlers happen to
come from across the boundary line, where
a system of public schools exists. In other
words, we must ignore the spirit and the
letter of our constitution because the Americans are coming to our country. I shall
not discuss the school system as it exists
in the United States, but I have enough
pride in the institutions of my country to
believe that our system is not inferior to
theirs. I have enough patriotism to stand
by the rights of a Canadian minority, even
if it does not suit the American settlers.
And I am amazed, Sir, to see the ultra
loyalist element of Canada so subservient
to the desires, to the wishes, of the newcomers. Let them come from Dakota,
from Arkansas, Illinois, or from any other
3328
state of the union. I do not object to that ;
but, in the name of common sense and for
our own dignity, let us not trample upon
our own constitution because it happens to
please these people.
Sir, it has been suggested in the course
of this debate that the Northwest Act of
1875 provided only for a temporary state
of things. There is no such declaration in
the Act. Let me say, Sir, that the men who
enacted that law had taken part in the
battle for confederation. They knew what
had been the stumbling block of the union
and what compromise had been reached.
They, therefore, deliberately pledged the
faith, the honour of parliament, that as
long as there would be a Catholic minority
in the west it would be entitled to its
schools. Thirty years have elapsed since
1875. The separate school system has been
adopted, and to-day we are told that those
who have settled in the west with that
guarantee should do without it. The Act
of 1875 was passed under Mr. Mackenzie's
government, and it was supported by Sir
John Macdonald. It was amended in 1882
under a Conservative administration, and
the separate school system was maintained.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the British empire, if there was some sympathy for
the Uitlanders, it was because it was asserted that President Kruger had not kept
faith with them. In 1880 President Kruger
went to London, and he then invited immigration to the Transvaal, promising the immigrants
full citizenship. I have read
several books on the South African war,
and in them I found that the chief cause
of the war was the lack of faith of Kruger
in his stringent naturalization laws. Sir,
laws concerning education are also with us
fundamental laws. We enjoy religious
liberty in Canada. Religious education is
to a large degree considered essential by
Roman Catholics. Why then should we
deprive them of their right to schools ?
Mr. Speaker, we are told, those of us
who favour this measure, that we should
trust the western people. Such is the language of the 'Globe', such is the language
of the Toronto 'News.' For my part, I
would trust, and I do trust, the western
people as well as the eastern people ; but
the present issue has been made a religious
one. The protests which have been made
from the pulpit, the petitions which have
been sent to this House, all bear the mark
of religion. We have had petitions from
the Orange Order, from the Baptists, the
Presbyterians, the Methodists ; and there
is between the opponents of the separate
schools and the opponents of the public
schools such a wide breach that, if left to
the popular vote in the west, it would be
impossible to bridge the difficulty. Those
who sincerely believe in the separate school
system would soon come to grief, because
their opponents are unquestionably the
majority. Besides the opposition to the
separate schools seems to be doctrinal, and
I do not see how you could reconcile both
3329 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MARCH 28, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
systems. By the census of 1901 I find that
the several religious denominations in the
Northwest Territories stand as follows:
| Presbyterians.. .. .. Â .. Â .. |
27,800 |
|
| Methodists.. .. Â .. Â .. Â .. Â .. |
22,151 |
|
| Baptists.. .. .. .. Â .. Â .. Â .. Â .. |
5,340 |
|
| Lutherans.. .. Â .. Â .. Â .. Â .. |
12,097 |
|
|
- |
67,394 |
| Roman Catholics .. .. .. .. |
30,073 |
|
| Anglicans.. .. Â .. Â .. Â .. Â .. |
25,366 |
|
|
- |
55,439 |
|
|
15,949 |
Having those figures in hand, I find that
there is a majority against the system of
separate schools of 11,955 in comparing the
relative strength of the two factions. Under
these circumstances, and in the interest of
peace and harmony, do you not believe that
it is far better to settle the difficulty at once,
by an honourable compromise satisfactory
to all those who believe in moderation and
fair-play ?
We have been told the other day by the
hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)
that the Catholics of the United States were
paying something like fifty million dollars
per year, in order to have their separate
schools. Is it not far better to enact the
present legislation, which, although giving
the minority their right to religious teaching
of their own, brings their schools to the
standard of the public schools system in
secular matters ? If you were to refuse
them what they are getting by the ordinances, they would be left to their own private
resources ; they would be self-sustaining. How could they compete with the
state-aided public schools ? What interest
have you to starve them ? Surely the half
hour of religious instruction should not debar the Catholics from government assistance.
I ask any fair-minded Protestant if he
believes, in his heart and conscience, that
my son can be taught history, for instance,
in the same book as his son ? Is it possible
for an honest Protestant and an honest
Catholic to think alike, and to see in the
same light any of the historical events connected with say, the Reformation, Mary
Stuart, Henry VIII, Queen Mary, John Knox
or Thomas Beckett ? Are there not, on such
questions, deep differences which it is almost impossible to reconcile ?
We are told that this legislation is an
infringement on what is called provincial
rights. As a consistent Liberal, I claim
myself to be an upholder of such rights.
After the battles fought by the late Sir
Oliver Mowat and by the Hon. Edward
Blake, we on this side of the House cannot
but defend the rights of the provinces.
But, as I have already demonstrated, the
rights of the provinces are clearly defined
by section 92 of the British North America
Act. Section 93 gives also the federal parliament a jurisdiction on matters of education.
At the time of the Equal Rights movement, when parliament was asked too to dis
3330
allow the Jesuits' Estate Act, we too invoked
provincial rights, and we were answered
by the late leader of that campaign, the late
Mr. Dalton McCarthy, as follows :
The worship of what was called local autonomy, which some gentlemen have become addicted
to, is fraught, I venture to say, with
great evils to this Dominion. Our allegiance
is due to the Dominion of Canada. The separation into provinces, the right of local
self-government which we possess, is not to make us
less citizens of the Dominion, is not to make us
less anxious for the promotion and welfare of
the Dominion, and it is no argument to say
that, because a certain piece of legislation is
within the power of a local parliament, therefore the legislation is not to be disturbed.
By
the same Act of parliament by which the
power is conferred upon the local legislature,
the duty and power—because where there is
a power there is a corresponding duty—are cast
upon the Governor in Council to revise, and review, the Acts of the legislative bodies.
If you
are to say that because a law has been passed
within the legislative authority of the province,
therefore it must remain, we can easily see,
Sir, that before long these provinces, instead
of coming nearer together, will go further and
further apart. We can see that the only way
of making a united Canada, and building up a
national life and sentiment in the Dominion, is
by seeing that the laws of one province are not
offensive to the laws and institutions, and it
may be to the feelings, of another—I will go so
far as to say that they must be to some extent
taken into consideration.
I have quoted the above extract in order
to show that the principle of provincial
rights is not always adhered to by those
who are quite ready, when circumstances
arise, to invoke it. Let me, however, give
the opinion on this subject of one of the
fathers of confederation. In an address to
his constituents, October, .1864, Sir A. T.
Galt said :
It was clear that in confiding the general
subject of education to the local legislatures,
it was absolutely necessary it should be accompanied with such restrictions as would
prevent injustice in any respect from being done
to the minority.
Now this applied to Lower Canada, but it
also applied, with equal force, to Upper Canada and the other provinces, for in Lower
Canada there was a Protestant minority, and in the
other provinces a Catholic minority. The same
privileges belong of right here, as belonged to
the other right elsewhere. There could be no
greater injustice to a population than to compel them to have their children educated
in a
manner contrary to their own religious belief.
Therefore, I say, Sir, that I am within
the scope of provincial rights in asking that
this parliament should protect the minority
in the Northwest. But, there is something else than provincial rights. We, the
Liberal party, stand for provincial rights.
That was the policy of our old leader, Alexander Mackenzie; it was the policy of Sir
Oliver Mowat; it was the policy of Mr.
Edward Blake. It is still the policy of the
Liberal party. But, Sir, with provincial
3331 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â COMMONS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
rights there are other rights which are
under the care and protection of the Reform
party. These are the rights of the minority of whom Mr. Edward Blake once
said in this House that it should be given
not only a fair measure, but an abundant, an overheaping measure of justice.
Sir, I shall not refer to the hierarchy
and the Quebec ecclesiastics. I think this
question has been threshed out in the masterly speeches of both my hon. friend from
Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and of my friend
from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I do not wish
to pose as the defender of the Roman Catholic clergy in this House. As a Liberal,
I
have, during the few years that I have
been in public life felt at times the interference of the clergy in politics. I will
say nothing however in condemnation of
the clergy of my province, as they acted
within their rights as citizens, but I can say
this, that the history of the Roman Catholic
clergy in this country is its best vindication.
My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)
recalled what has taken place in 1774 and
in 1812. I will invite the hon. gentleman
who spoke the other day, the member from
East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to come to Montreal. I shall ask him to pass with me
along Notre Dame street at the seminary
of St. Sulpice. He will see there, an old
gate and an old sun dial. I will remind him
that in 1774 the American rebels despatched
to Montreal a young ecclesiastic, who later
on became Bishop of Baltimore. That young
ecclesiastic passed under that historic gate
in order to ask the old French priests, the
Sulpicians, to induce their flocks to join the
American rebels. Sir, what was the answer
given by the superior of the Sulpicians ?
There at that very gate near the old sun
dial ? Carroll, who had been despatched
here by Lafayette and Washington was
answered by the old superior that he could
not stay one hour more in the country,
that he would not be allowed to induce the
French Canadians to become rebels to His
Majesty's government. This is only one of
the chapters of the history of the Roman
Catholic clergy in my province.
I regret to have to quote in conclusion the
very caustic remarks made by a man who
resides in the city of Toronto and who bears
a name which should be a protection and
a shield against any such vituperation. I
read, Sir, the interview given the other day
to a newspaper by Mr. Sam. Blake, of
Toronto. What does he say :
Why, he asks, should the Dominion, while
awarding provincial rights of these new provinces, try to strangle them in their birth
by
insisting on the trail of the Jesuit surrounding
the vital matter of the education of their children ?
This is the language of Mr. Sam. Blake,
the brother of that great Canadian statesman, the undaunted friend of the minorities
3332
in the British Parliament as well as here in
Canada, the man who enacted the very legislation of 1875. This is the language which
Mr. Sam. Blake has used towards the province of Quebec and the Roman Catholic
clergy. Sir, I will not answer by my own
words. Let me quote in answer to Mr.
Blake the words uttered by the Archbishop
of Canterbury who visited this Dominion
last fall. Speaking in Quebec in that old
church of the Recollets, now the Anglican
cathedral of Quebec, the Primate of England
said :
But you, who know far better than I the
varied story of Quebec, are recalling to-day the
earlier memories which—in a larger than any
technical sense—gave imperishable consecration to this place, which links it back
along a
chain of quite peculiar pathos, and interests to
the work done centuries ago by members of
the fraternity of St. Francis of Assisi, and
along with them for a little while, at least, to
the devoted men who, in a very different 'society,' a society whose very name became
a
catchword for a policy of behaviour which we
condemn—did yet show to the whole world an
example of missionary enthusiasm and a steadiness of persevering faith in face of
persecution
and suffering which, while the world standeth,
will encircle with a halo of glory, the memory
of the Jesuit missionaries of 250 years ago. In
the words of the foremost historian of the colonial church—a historian of whose staunch
Protestantism none can make question—at every
season and in every place the unwearied French
missionary was seen winning his way to the
Red man's home. Sometimes lost amid the
trackless snow or forests, at other times hurried in his light canoe down some fearful
rapid, he perished and was never heard of
more. Of some, the tidings came that they had
met with death more terrible than this, tortured by every art of savage cruelty, burnt
or
scalped or starved or mutilated in every limb.
Yet none quailed or faltered. New men instantly pressed on. As we mark the steadfastness
of the faith which animated the hearts
of Goupil and Jogues, and Lalement, and Breboeuf and Daniel in their martyrdom, we
feel
that we should violate the truth did we withhold, or only with niggard and reluctant
spirit,
acknowledge the praise which is their due.
This is my answer, this is the noble answer of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Mr.
Sam. Blake. In conclusion, Sir, let me
repeat the words of the great Protestant
writer Lecky. Speaking of the Catholic
priesthood he said :
No other body of men have ever exhibited
a more single-minded unworldly zeal, refracted by no personal interests, sacrificing
to
duty the dearest of earthly objects, and confronting with undaunted heroism every
form of
hardship, of suffering, and of death.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY (Calgary). Mr.
Speaker, I do not desire to give a silent vote
on this question, nor do I intend at this
late hour to be led into a discussion of
the statements of different newspapers. It
seems to me that there are matters of greater
importance to be considered in the discussion of this Bill. There is just one matter
3333 MARCH 28, 1905 Â
to which I wish to refer in regard to the
insinuation that Mr. Haultain does not represent the views of the people of the Northwest
Territories, nor the views of the Territorial government. The hon. the Solicitor
General (Mr. Lemieux) has seen fit to state
that the letter signed by Mr. Haultain was
not assented to by his colleague, Mr. Bulyea,
and that therefore it did not represent the
views of the Territorial government. Now,
I assume that the same reason would apply
if we should say that this Bill was introduced by the right hon. First Minister without
the consent of the Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton). Let me ask the Solicitor General to point out one fact of one protest
in that letter signed by Mr. Haultain, that
is not borne out by the draft of the Bill
which he submitted to this House in December, 1901, and to which the legislative
assembly at Regina had given their approval. That was their mandate, that was
their case ; and until the hon. gentleman can point to something in that letter
which is not borne out by that draft Bill,
then I would consider that the insinuation
is not worthy of any further reply. If the
hon. gentleman is looking for some members
of the Territorial government who have been
false to their trust, he certainly cannot
point his finger to Mr. Haultain. Mr. Haultain needs no recommendation in the west,
nor does he in Ottawa. He has been dealing with the federal government, and it is
in your judgment as to how he has laboured to secure the rights of the people of the
west.
Now, Sir, I was somewhat surprised to
hear the Solicitor General revive the old
contention that the federal government had
purchased the Northwest Territories. We are
advised to-day that we were not only purchased for the general benefit of Canada,
but
also that we were discovered by a French
Canadian. I think if he will look into the
records he will find that that argument was
abandoned many years ago. In 1885 the
strongest position this government would
take was that they had a large pecuniary
interest in that country, and that is the position they did take. Let me ask the hon.
gentleman to answer a couple of questions
in regard to the purchase to which he has
referred. Let me ask him to explain to this
House when the Bill comes up for discussion of the clauses seriatim in committee,
if that money was paid as the purchase
price of these lands, why was not the deed
of surrender made to the people who paid
the money ? Again, let him explain why,
if this land was purchased for the general
benefit of the Dominion and to be held
for the benefit of the Dominion, a large part
of that land was included in the area handed over to the province of Quebec in the
year 1898 ? All we desire in this matter
is to be treated as our other fellow-citizens
are treated throughout the Dominion of
3334
Canada. Let me also say in passing that
the Solicitor General can produce no document which will show that ÂŁ300,000 were
paid as a purchase price for the land. That
money was paid to get rid of a trading
monopoly, and, as he says, it has been
a very bad investment. But I would like
to direct him to the debate of 1869, where
he will see that the increase in customs
and excise duties more than doubled the
amount of interest on this ÂŁ300,000 that was
paid for the release of the land. I would
also point out that the purchase of these
rights opened a field for the trade of
eastern manufacturers which has been worth
ten times, or a hundred times, the money
that has been paid for it. Now, he seems
to think that this administration has some
claim or title upon that land because they
have expended a certain sum of money upon
it. He says that it has cost us a couple of
rebellions, and that we have been obliged to
keep up the mounted police. Well, on the
same reason I assume that the Dominion
own part of the province of Ontario for the
cost of the battle of Queenston Heights.
Sir, I regret that this government has
seen fit to place restrictions upon the educational freedom of the new provinces.
I
do not fail to realize the importance of
that question, I do not desire to belittle it
for one moment. But I regret that this
discussion should take place at this particular time, when our boundaries are being
fixed, when our political status is being
determined, questions of the most vital importance to us that are liable to be lost
sight of in the excitement of this racial
and religious question. As representing a
western constituency, I do not relish being
ushered into confederation under such circumstances, circumstances that have been
created by this government without any
demand, without any complaint, and without any doubt expressed by the minority
in that country in the spirit of fairness
of the local government when they come to
deal with this question of education. I
speak of course subject to correction. The
right hon, the First Minister, when introducing this Bill referred to certain threatening
letters ; perhaps if these letters were
produced we would see where this agitation originated. Now, I do not intend to go
into this educational question at any length.
I have had occasion to observe that it is
likely to receive very careful nursing from
hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House.
I intend, however, to deal with it before
I take my seat.
I desire particularly at this time to direct the attention of the House to some features
in this Bill which are liable to be lost
sight of in the excitement which surrounds
the discussion of the educational question.
First of all let me refer to a statement made
by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) a few evenings ago. To my mind it
3335
goes directly to the principle of the Bill
which we are discussing. In order that I
may not misquote the hon. gentleman I will
read what he said :
I represent a section of the people of the
Northwest Territories and I say that the people
or the Northwest Territories have never asked
for provincial autonomy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know who
represents the people of the Territories the
better, the thirty-five representatives in the
local legislature at Regina or the hon. gentleman who represents Edmonton. I do
not know what he means by stating that
the people of the Northwest Territories
never asked for provincial autonomy. I
would remind him of the fact that on July
20, 1900, an address was sent to this government by the legislative assembly at Regina,
and that on December 7, 1901, a draft
Bill was prepared to which reference has
been made and the terms of which were
familiar to the thirty-five local representatives at Regina. In the year 1901, the
Board
of Trade of Edmonton, the town the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Oliver) lives in, passed a
resolution asking that the Territories be
created into two provinces. On April 2,
1902, the Eastern Assiniboia Liberal Association met at Indian Head and passed
similar resolutions. I am not quite sure,
but I have a suspicion that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) was
present at that meeting in company with
Mr. Bulyea. In 1902, there was a local
election in the Territories, and in the platform put forward by Mr. Haultain there
were these two planks :
1. Equal rights with all the other provinces
of the Dominion.
2. Control of the public domain in the west.
These are the matters that the government
of the Territories are now fighting for and these
are the matters upon which your judgment is
invited in my appeal to you for re-election in
the legislature. A similar appeal has been
made in every constituency in the country by
every candidate whose election will give support to the government at this particular
period in the history of the Territories. The
issue is plain ; it is for the people of the Territories to decide.
The election took place and the result of
that election demonstrated that Mr. Haultain and his supporters represented public
opinion in the Territories on the question
of provincial autonomy. I find that four
resolutions have subsequently been passed
by the territorial assembly demanding the
provincial status ; I find also that the very
strongest advocate of the stand taken by
Mr. Haultain, was, up to a short time ago,
the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr.
Scott). He complimented Mr. Haultain on
the stand he had taken in asking for provincial autonomy, but a short time afterwards
the hon. member (Mr. Scott) changed
his opinion, and assigned as a reason for
3336
delay that litigation was now pending as to
the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation, and he held it would
be folly for the government to put through
a Bill leaving that matter an open question.
But to-day, the hon. member (Mr. Scott) is
supporting a Bill which contains a clause
continuing that exemption for ever. I also
find that on April the 3rd, the Prince Albert Board of Trade passed a resolution declaring
that the government should grant
provincial autonomy. On March the 3rd,
there was a similar resolution from the
Calgary Board of Trade. On March 25th,
the Conservative convention at Moosejaw at
which there were over 200 delegates, some
of whom came 700 miles to attend, passed
a resolution declaring in favour of the immediate granting of full provincial autonomy
including the ownership of the public
lands, mines and minerals. I also find that
the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver),
speaking on October 13, 1903, used these
words :
I would wish to point out to the hon. members
and to the gentlemen on both sides, that it is
not we who are objecting to provincial autonomy. We are asking provincial autonomy,
but
we want it on certain terms.
In January, 1904, the Liberal convention
in nominating a candidate for Southern Alberta, passed a resolution in favour of provincial
autonomy. On September 29 last,
the right hon. the First Minister wrote to
Mr. Haultain promising that if his government were returned to power they would
immediately take into consideration the
question of granting provincial autonomy
to the Territories. I may point out that
seven of the Liberal candidates were returned to this House, and not one of these
gentlemen, so far as I know, has been instructed by his constituents to repudiate
the pledge given to the people by the Liberal leader. I say, Sir, that the resolution
I have read, asking that the mines, lands
and minerals be left to the provinces, represents the true sentiment of the people
of
the west. They have the conviction that
they are entitled to have in the local government the administration of the mines,
lands and minerals in their territory, and
without that they will not be satisfied. The
only argument which I have heard presented in support of the overturning of the
principles of the union, is that there might
be a conflict between the local and federal
authorities, and that the federal government
might not be able to carry on its immigration policy. That argument was used
by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), but he has not always thought that
way because in the province of Manitoba in
days gone by he contended for full provincial rights and he advocated handing over
the lands to his province ; later on he advocated handing over the school lands as well.
3337 MARCH 28, 1905
The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver)
seemed to fear greatly that if the control of
the public domain should be given to the provinces, the provinces would use the lands
for
revenue and would not settle the outlying
districts. Well, Sir, I am not so willing
as he is to suspect the foresight and business-like management of the local assembly.
That assembly has undertaken no function
up to date that the people of that country
would consent to have abrogated, and the
enlargements heretofore made in the powers of the local assembly have been amply
justified by the results. The hon. member
for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) also entertained
a different view of this question in days
gone by, and on the 24th of July, 1884, he
moved in the local legislature a resolution
which expressed his views at that date, and
which are not his views of to-day. He
tells us that the lands might be exploited
by the people of the west, but let me ask
him if the people of the west are not the
most interested in the proper administration
of these lands, and do they not realize that
by settling these lands they would be enhancing the value of their heritage. For
my part, Sir, I am not prepared to say that
if the immigration policy were handed over
to the local government, they would continue the present system in its entirety. I
do not know that a large expenditure out
of the immigration vote for campaign literature would be carried on ; I do not know
that the large army of officials now in the
Northwest would be continued in office,
and I do not know that the local government would hand over its lands in blocks
of 250,000 acres at one dollar an acre.
We are told now, Sir, and it is common
report throughout the country, that the
duties of the Department of the Interior
have become too onerous for one man. We
were told that the ex-minister (Mr. Sifton)
was so broken down in health that he of
all men was unable to attend the conference
with regard to the granting of autonomy to
the Territories. Is not this a very good
opportunity to relieve the Department of
the Interior of some of its work, and of
handing over to the local administration of
the Territories the control of the public lands, a right which is enjoyed by
every other province but one in this
Dominion ?
All that we have heard from the ex-Minister of the Interior is that there would be
a
conflict; but that will not satisfy the people
of the west. They want some more satisfactory reason, in view of the attitude
which the hon. gentleman assumed in days
gone by. They will not endure in silence
the withholding of their public lands. I
doubt if some of the other Liberal members,
in view of the statements which they have
made in days gone by, will get up in this
House and make the declaration that the
people of the Northwest Territories are
3338
not fit to be entrusted with the same measure of self-government that is enjoyed by
the various provinces of this Dominion. If
they do, I think we on this side of the
House will have some reason to congratulate ourselves on the manner in which they
will be received by the people of that country after such a declaration. In view of
the statements that have been made, I
think it is only fair to this House and to
the people of that country that these hon.
gentlemen should give the grounds for the
conclusions at which they have arrived.
The hon. the Solicitor General was very
pleased to exalt and extol the British constitution. He thought very much of the
British constitution in certain respects; but
if the British constitution applies in one
direction, why should it not apply in the
other ? If we are going to follow the British constitution in respect of education,
why should we depart from it in regard to
the important matter of the control of the
public domain? Are hon. gentlemen opposite, in withholding from the new provinces
the control of the public domain, following
the British colonial policy ? What was
that policy ? It is perhaps unnecessary for
me to state to the House that the original
idea of the British statesmen was to control the lands in the colonies; but when
they tried to put that idea into practice,
they had to abandon it for a better policy,
namely, that the people on the spot were
best qualified to manage their own lands,
and that was the policy they adopted. They
felt that with local representation the management of the lands would be better looked
after. Is that principle not equally applicable to-day? Here we have a territory two
thousand miles away, represented in this
House by only ten members. If those
lands are handed over to the local government, there will be fifty members looking
after their management in the interest of
the people; and if mistakes or jobbery are
liable to happen, are these not more likely
to be detected by governments representing fifty members than by a government
representing only ten ? I say that to
withhold from the provinces the management of their own lands is directly contrary,
not only to British colonial policy,
but to the spirit of confederation. When
confederation was formed, what was the
arrangement made between the various
provinces ? Was it not that each province
retained the right to administer the public
domain, while the customs and excise duties were surrendered to the Dominion ?
That was the policy carried out with regard
to Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. Then, in what spirit are these
provinces being created to-day ? I take it
that it is under section 146 of the British
North America Act, which especially provides that the admission shall be ' subject
to the provisions of this Act.' The spirit is
also in section 109, if the letter is not, un
3339
der which is handed over to the original
provinces the right to administer their public domain. If there is any doubt as to
the
policy that was adopted by the fathers of
confederation, let us see what was said.
I find in the confederation debates, at page
40, that Sir John A. Macdonald said :
It will be seen that the local legislature have
the control of all the local works; and it is a
matter of great importance, and one of the chief
advantages of the federal union and of local
legislatures, that each province will have the
power and means of developing its own resources and aiding its own progress after
its
own fashion and in its own way.
Another distinguished Canadian, also one
of the fathers of confederation, the Hon.
George Brown, referring to this matter, in
the course of his speech, said :
Each province is to have charge of its own
Crown lands, Crown timber and Crown minerals, and will be free to take such steps
for
developing them as each deems best.
Further on, the Hon. Mr. Holton, interrupting Mr. Brown, said :
Unfortunately for your argument, the lands
will be in the hands of the local governments.
Mr. Brown replied :
So much the better. My hon. friend can manage his public lands in Lower Canada as
he
likes, and we will manage ours.
At page 16 of the debates of 1869, Mr.
Edward Blake made the following statement in opposing a resolution to admit
Newfoundland into the union and to pay
Newfoundland $150,000 a year in lieu of its
lands :
He was very strongly opposed to the Dominion acquiring the Crown lands of Newfoundland,
and he has as strongly objected to Newfoundland being deprived of its Crown lands.
He commended the policy of the framers of the
constitution in leaving to each of the provinces
the control of their own public lands. This
was from the Canadian point of view. Then as
to Newfoundland the arrangement was equally
objectionable : (1) Its distance from the seat
of government (2) and its small representation
in parliament would lead to an unsatisfactory
management.
The local government would be deprived of
the control of these lands, which might by it
be rendered valuable for the future development of the colony.
The development of mineral wealth could not
be effected by raising a revenue, but by encouraging local enterprise. If the proposition
was between giving Newfoundland $150,000 a
year and taking her lands, and giving $150,000 a
year and leaving her her lands, he would willingly vote for the latter (hear, hear).
These
lands under the local management of the government would contribute much more largely
to the prosperity of Newfoundland than if they
were in the hands of the government of Canada.
And he closed with an amendment to the
resolution to this effect :
That the public lands can be managed more
efficiently, economically and satisfactorily by
3340
the provinces in which these lands are situated
than by Canada, and that there is no good reason for a departure from the principle
of the
Union Act.
That is a statement which I desire to impress upon the members of this House in
regard to the principles of the Union Act, as
Mr. Blake regarded them in 1869.
But, Mr. Speaker, if there can be any
doubt at all as to what was in the minds of
those gentlemen at that day, I will refer
to another statement which was made on
June 10 in the same debate by Mr. Alexander Mackenzie. Mr. Blake had made
his argument first, and had been twitted by
the members of the government for voting
to pay money to the Hudson Bay Company.
If there could be anything plainer or clearer
as to what was in their minds at that time,
it would be hard to find it. Mr. Mackenzie
said :
The Minister of Public Works, and the premier said they were surprised that the member
for West Durham should object to our acquiring the public lands of Newfoundland after
voting for the acquisition of lands in the Northwest Territories.
There was (a) difference between the two
cases, in the Northwest Territories there were
at present no constituted authorities as there
were in Newfoundland, and it would not be
pretended that after a government was established in the Northwest Territories we
would
administer its lands from Ottawa.
That statement to my mind is most significant because it was made in the year 1869,
the very year when the surrender was
taken from the Hudson Bay Company ; and
I am sure that the First Minister and the
Solicitor General will pardon the more obscure members from the west if we venture
to differ from them in opinion, backed as
we are by the statements of these men at
the very time the contract went through.
These were the views that prevailed at
that time ; and in the consideration of this
question we look to our fellow-citizens in
the other provinces to admit our right to be
put on an equal footing with them and be
given the administration of our own public
domain. I have shown what the arrangements were when the four original provinces
entered confederation. Let us trace what
the subsequent arrangements were in the
case of those provinces which entered later.
British Columbia, which entered in 1870,
was a colony entitled to its public lands,
and not only has it control of its lands, but
the Dominion pays it annually the sum of
$100,000 for a twenty mile strip through
the Rocky Mountains that was alienated
for railway purposes. Prince Edward Island entered in 1873, and I think at that
time her Crown lands were in such a shape
that an annual grant of $45,000 was given
her in lieu thereof. Manitoba is the one
exception. That province was not allowed
to retain its public lands, and hon. gentlemen opposite take glory in the fact that
3341 MARCH 28, 1905
the arrangement with Manitoba was made
by their predecessors. They are willing to
shield themselves behind the example of
their predecessors in some things, but see
how different were the circumstances in
Manitoba then as compared with what they
are to-day in the Territories. In Manitoba
in the year 1870, there were only 12,000 people, and it was perhaps prudent to withhold
from that mere handful of people, unaccustomed to self-government, living on
the banks of the Red river, their right to
administer their public lands, but the conditions which then existed no longer remain
nor do they exist in the new provinces about
to be established. Whereas in Manitoba
you had only 12,000 people in 1870, you have
in the Territories to-day, if we are to believe the Minister of the Interior (Mr Sifton)
a population of 500,000 people, and a population accustomed to all the responsibilities
that go with self-government. But fourteen
years later, when the same party was in
power, the government of Manitoba came
down to this parliament and asked to be
given control of its public lands and its
petition was refused. True the province of
Manitoba agreed to waive her claim to the
public lands in consideration of an annual
payment of $100,000. But it was her privilege to do that, and that does not form a
precedent to be followed in this case. Besides hon. gentlemen opposite have been
holding themselves out as nation builders
and carefully avoiding any errors into which
previous governments have fallen, as all
government must fall sometimes. But can
any man, I ask, look into the negotiations
which have taken place between Manitoba
and the federal government, and say that
the policy followed was a wise one ? Look at
the negotiations which have taken place at
frequent intervals between that province
and the administration at Ottawa, and you
will find that the result of that policy has
been continued dissatisfaction and continued
agitation for better terms. Look at what
has taken place. It is a record of almost
annual pilgrimages from Manitoba to Ottawa for better terms. In 1876 her subsidy
was increased to $90,000. In 1879 it was
increased to $105,653. Again in 1882, she
came knocking at the federal door, and her
subsidy was increased to $215,000. In 1885
she was still given further assistance. She
was given swamp lands, 150,000 acres for
a university, $100,000 a year in lieu of public lands, and a per capita grant on a
basis
of population of 150,000. But that was not
the end. In 1898 further application was
made and she was given a cash grant to
construct the government house, and in 1899
she was given better lands in exchange for
the swamp lands. These are only a few of
the begging trips of Manitoba ; and I ask :
Is it good policy, is it wise administration
to keep the provincial government at the
3342
mercy of the federal ? I submit, Sir, that to
the province of Manitoba as well as to
the new provinces should be given the right
to administer the public domain within her
borders. Speaking for my own constituency,
I believe that a majority of the people of
the Territories would be willing to take up
the case of Manitoba and make the fight
together, and I believe that at no distant
day, when we receive the representation in
this House to which we are entitled, we will
be here in such numbers as to justify us
in insisting upon equal rights with the other
provinces to administer the public domain
within our respective borders.
We have heard a great deal about representations with regard to educational matters
which were made to certain people
when they went out to that country. I have
seen pamphlets in circulation claiming protection for a certain class in matters of
education and in matters of religious teaching
on the ground that they went into that country relying on the protection of a certain
clause in the constitution. But let me ask
hon. gentlemen opposite under what promise
did the hardy pioneers go into that country?
Under what constitution did these men go
into that country and enhance the value of
those one time unoccupied lands by their
energy, thrift and enterprise? Is there any
difference in that respect between that part
of the Dominion and any other part? When
people went out to that part of the Dominion did they give up any portion of their
birthright, and is it right, when they take
up the burden of a province, that they
should start out in confederation as a province on any less advantageous terms than
any other province ?
But what is the real reason why these
public lands are being retained by this
government and withheld from the Territories ? Is it because the governments of the
Territories are not capable of giving an
honest administration ? No, Mr. Speaker,
that is not the reason. We have in that
country to-day a large population accustomed to self-government, and no one has as
yet ventured to sugest the merest suspicion
against the competency of the people in
the Territories to manage their own public
affairs in their own public interests. That
is not the reason, but the reason is that the
Ottawa administration realizes that as long
as it can retain the immense army of officials
which it has up there now, it will have
under its control a great machinery for
securing votes. That is the difficulty in the
way of giving up the lands and no matter
what party may be in power, there will
always be the danger of its making an
improper use of its machinery, because
the recent experience we have had up
there is not such as to allay our apprehensions in that regard. That this objection
is a serious one cannot be denied and
3343
COMMONS
such experience as we have recently had
in the west is hardly sufficient to relieve our
apprehension, and I assert, Sir, without fear
of contradiction, that popular sentiment in
the west emphatically condemns any attempt to use government officials for political
purposes.
I will give you the names of a few officials
who participated in the recent elections in
one riding in the last election.
1. Neil G. McCallum, Yorkton, H.I., acted as
an agent for Liberal candidate at McKenzie.
2. S. G. McKee, Yorkton, clerk, Dominion
Land Ordinance, acted as an agent.
3. John Komainitaky, clerk, interpreter, Dominion Land Ordinance, acted as an agent.
4. Carl Cenik, Winnipeg, Interior Immigration
Office, acted as an agent and canvassed for
Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
5. Mr. Wolf, Winnipeg, Immigration Office,
acted as an agent, and canvassed for the Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
6. Paul Bredt, Immigration Agent at Regina,
resigned and since promoted, addressed meetings and canvassed for Liberal candidate
in
McKenzie.
7. C. W. Speers, Central Colonization Agent,
canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
8. Mr. Halloquist, Scandinavian Interpreter,
canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
9. Thos. McNutt, acting Immigration Agent,
canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
Some of these men, homestead inspectors
and interpreters were brought all the way
from Winnipeg. I merely mention this
matter to direct the attention of the First
Minister to it. I regret that he is not in
his place. The Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), if I remember correctly, stated
that a public officer should be persona grata
to all the people. And the Prime Minister
said :
I feel as strongly now in 1903 as I did in
1896 that when a man has taken office under the
government he should take no part in politics.
I mention this to the House to ask these
hon. gentlemen, in view of the statements
I have given as to the British colonial
policy, is it sufficient reasons to withhold
from these new provinces the right to administer their public domain ?
Now, coming to the educational clause, I
desire to examine these clauses for a few
minutes. Before I proceed to discuss the
amendment of the leader of the opposition
(Mr. Borden) from its merits, I wish to
direct my attention to the speech made a
few evenings ago by the hon. member for
Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He claimed that
the clause inserted in Mr. Haultain's draft
Bill was identically the same as that of the
Bill now before the House, so far as the
educational question is concerned. And,
for fear of misquoting him, let me give his
own words as found at page 3163 of ' Hansard ' :
But I find that section 3 of this draft Bill,
which was prepared by the Northwest government in 1901—and these provisions were re
3344
peated in 1903—is almost word for word with
section 2 of the Autonomy Bill which is before
the House and as a matter of fact is a reproduction of the similar section in the
Act admitting each individual province into the Dominion. It reads:
Now, before this matter could be discussed, or even fairly understood, I presume,
it would be necessary to make sure that we
realize the difference between 'continue' and
' perpetuate.' Does the hon. member for
Edmonton propose that creating new provinces in the Northwest, we should get
along without any law at all until the legislature can meet ? Surely not. And this
section 3 simply perserves for the time being the laws in existence on the 1st of
July next. A section similar to this has
been put in every law creating a province,
simply to provide a body of laws until the
legislature can meet and pass laws to continue the laws that have been handed over
or repeal or amend them. Yet, the hon.
member for Edmonton tries to construe this
Bill as simply giving to the people of the
Northwest what they asked for in their
draft Bill. But I have already indicated
the difference—we may have asked for it
for the time being; but we do not ask to
have the present system of schools perpetuated or the power to repeal the existing
system taken away. We have a law
with regard to brands. Does the hon. member for Edmonton want to discontinue that
and have no law? We have a law with
regard to bulls. If there was a law
in the Northwest with regard to strikes, no
doubt the hon. member for Edmonton would
like to have it kept on the statute-book
until the legislature could meet and pass
such a law. He says also :
I say 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—
But I find that on reference to the Journals of the legislative assembly, for 1889,
page 65 and for 1890, page 129, that there
were certain proceedings of that assembly
of which the hon. member for Edmonton did
not inform the House. Now I find that
the Act of 1875 deals with education, and
I am going to trouble the House while I
read a few words from one section, as it
is necessary for the point I desire to make.
Section 14, the much-discussed section says:
14. The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall
pass all necessary ordinances in respect to
education but it shall therein always be provided, that a majority of the ratepayers
of
any district or portion of the Territories or
of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by
whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think
fit,
and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor ; and also that
the
minority of the ratepayers therein, whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic may esta
3345 MARCH 28, 1905
blish separate schools therein—and in such
case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools
shall
be liable only to assessments of such rates as
they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
I find that in 1889, a petition was sent to
the Dominion authorities by the local legislature at Regina, of which the hon. member
for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was then a member, praying to this effect :
That an humble address be presented to His
Excellency the Governor General in Council,
the Senate and the House of Commons, praying
for the amendment of ' The Northwest Territories Act ' by repealing that portion of
subsection 1 of section 14 after the word ' education ' in the second line.
And the hon. member for Edmonton supported that. So did the hon. member for
East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), then a member
of the assembly. Thus they prayed this
administration that everything that had to
do with education should be shut out of the
law, which would leave the province a free
hand with the matter of education. In
view of that point, I think that hardly all
the facts were stated by the hon. member
(Mr. Oliver) when he said that there was
no feeling in the Northwest with regard to
this Bill and no objection taken to it. If
the prayer of the petitions had been granted,
I think these gentlemen would have been
in nearly the same position as the amendment of the leader of the opposition would
place them in. Apparently, their opinions
have changed. But it did not stop at the
point I have indicated. In the following
session of the legislative assembly, they
repeated their prayer. And the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for
East Assiniboia supported that contention,
that education should be left entirely to the
provinces. Now, apparently, they have
changed their mind as they did with regard
to the land policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, in
proceeding to discuss these educational
clauses of these Bills, I cannot say that I
shall be able to show, but shall contend,
that the amendments presented to this
House to-day do not differ in the slightest
degree from the original Bill as brought
down. But, before I proceed to discuss
the amendment and the original Bill let
me point out the contrast between the position taken by the right hon. leader of the
government and the ex-Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr.
Sifton).
The right hon. the First Minister has said
in introducing the Bill that it was obligatory upon this government to preserve certain
rights and conditions which by reason
of good faith were inviolable, and lest I
should misquote him I shall read what he
said. These rights and conditions are inviolable because they are given under the
Act of 1875, and he says:
3346
It is open to any man to break his word, it
is open to any man to violate his engagement,
it is open to any man to trample under foot
his plighted troth. Now if it is open to any
man to do that, it is also open to parliament ;
and if it be the view that parliament is not
bound by the acts of any preceding parliament,
that parliament may violate its plighted troth,
then we have a double opportunity on this occasion to signalize ourselves.
Proceeding further in reference to the
Canadian Pacific Railway exemption:
But does anybody in this House think of removing from the Canadian Pacific Railway
the
powers and immunities which have been granted
to that company ? Does anybody in this House
think for a moment of giving to those new provinces the power to levy taxation upon
the
Canadian Pacific Railway ? No, we respect our
engagements. Then I ask if we respect our engagements in the one case, why should
we not
respect our engagements in the other case.
That is the position he took that certain
rights under the Act of 1875 were created
and were inviolable. He took the position
that these rights which were created should
be guaranteed to the minority. But the hon.
member from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has endeavoured to show that there is a vast difference
between the rights of the minorities
under the Act of 1875 and their right to-day
under local ordinances. He said that under
the Act of 1875 the minority were entitled
to and were given a complete dual system.
This is what he says on page 3239:
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.
Further down on the same page he says :
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 at present, was established.
So there is a vast difference in the views
taken by the right hon. the First Minister
and the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton).
There is a vast difference between the rights
conferred under the Act of 1875 and under
the ordinances according to the member for
Brandon. The hon. member for Brandon
has compared these rights and further says
that these rights were conferred under the
Act of 1875 and that the local ordinances
curtailing them were unconstitutional and
ultra vires. He will not consent to the preservation of the conditions which are inviolable,
but he will agree to perpetuate the
curtailed rights, although he intimated that
such an invasion was an illegal and uncon
3347
stitutional invasion of the rights conferred
under the Act of 1875. I shall cite his
exact words. At page 3241 he says :
We have it that the clerical control of these
schools was absolutely abolished. Every one
recognizes 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.
There is the opinion of the hon. member
for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), that when the
local ordinances abolished these rights they
went beyond the power given to them under
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 1802 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 or 1875, and that the
Act of 1875 must nevertheless be held to remain in force notwithstanding the passage
of
the ordinance.
Now, there is the position. The First Minister insists upon the inviolability of that
Act. The ex-Minister of the Interior finds
that under the Act the minority were entitled to a complete dual system. This was
taken away by an ordinance. If they had
the right to have them then they have the
right now in spite of any ordinances to
the contrary. I propose a little further on
to deal with that section which specifically
continues these rights of the minority in
force in that country. The position then
is this, that the Prime Minister repudiates
his speech and accepts a vioation of the
Act of 1875 and accedes to a proposition to
perpetuate a violation of the inviolable.
There is the position between the Prime
Minister and the hon member for Brandon
(Mr. Sifton).
But let us examine into these clauses for
a moment, and we shall see just who has
been making a compromise, who has been
giving away his rights or his religious opinions. I find that the objections of the
hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) are, first,
that he objects to subsection 2 of section
16, and it is on account of this clause he
says that he resigned, because he says that
in that all the evils which he has dilated
upon existed under the Act of 1875 in Manitoba. I wish to make myself clear, but I
am not going to be dragged into the discussion of the merits or demerits of a separate
school system. That is a matter of which
I know nothing, and I am simply taking the
argument and citing the cases cited by the
hon. gentlemen opposite who have had more
experience in dealing with these systems
than I have had. He says that he objects
to subsection 2 of section 16 because in that
3348
all the evils he has dilated upon exists, and
he has persuaded the First Minister to accept a proposition that in his opinion has
eliminated all the essential characteristics
of a separate school system. What does
subsection 2 of section 16 to which he makes
objection contain? It says:
That a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the said province,
or of any
less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name it is known, may establish such
schools therein as they think fit.
On that he builds up what he calls his
university argument. He takes the general
word 'education' at the beginning of that
clause and ignores the fact that this general
word is followed by a number of particular
words. The reading of it is:
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 the separate schools.
He takes the comprehensive word 'education' and tries to read into that that there
was some risk and danger of endowing a
Catholic university, ignoring altogether the
fact that the general word education is
followed afterwards by the particular words
'separate schools and public schools,' so he
creates a man of straw in this so-called
university argument and then proceeds to
demolish it. I submit that it is based upon
a fallacious construction of that clause to
which he raises his objection. Now, what
are his other objections and why did he
resign ? Now, he objects to endowing a
separate university, he objects to ear-marking the public land fund. But what does
the amendment do ? Does it not create and
endow schools from the same funds ? Does
the amendment make any distinction between these two sections? Now, let us
deal with the position as it is. How does
the amendment change the Bill, if it changes
it at all ? I desire to point out that if the
rights of the minority to separate schools
were created under the Act of 1875, and if
they were entitled under it to a complete
dual system, then I say that under the
amendment exactly the same state of affairs
will prevail. Let me read subsection 1 of
the amended section :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudically
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
ordinance of the Northwest Territories passed
in the year 1901.
Now I find that section 41 of chapter 29
of these ordinances reads as follows :
The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic,
may establish a separate school therein, and
in such case the ratepayers establishing such
3349 MARCH 28, 1905
Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school
shall be liable only to the assessments of such
rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
Now, in that section is everything that
is included in the Act of 1875, which gives
these people the right to separate schools,
and which gives them the rights the member for Brandon dilated upon a few days
ago, Therefore, I take the position that
there is not the slightest difference to-day
between the amended Bill and the Bill that
was originally presented to this House.
Now an attempt was made by the Minister
of Customs, who is not in his seat, and by
a number of other gentlemen, to show that
all the amendment gives to these local legislatures is the power to give a half hour's
religious instruction at the end of the day.
Now, Sir, there is nothing in these ordinances which pares down the rights given to
them under section 41, so far as I have been
able to find, except to designate at what
time this religious teaching shall take place.
They have attempted to make this House
believe that under this amendment it is
not possible to have a dual system of text
books, a dual system of inspection, but
that everything given under the Act of 1875
is preserved by the introduction of section
41 in chapter 29. Now, this amendment,
which they argue will preserve to the people of that country what they have got today,
simply continues the law, it does not
continue the administration. The dual system of text books, the dual inspection and
all that is a matter of administration.
Therefore, if the argument of the member
for Brandon is sound that the action of
the local legislation in paring down the
rights these people had under the Act of
1875 was ultra vires, then any Order in
Council which was passed by the commissioner of education would be equally ultra
vires.
Then the minority, under this section 41
which gives them the rights they had under
the Act of 1875, and which are preserved
to them under this amendment, would be
able to demand that these rights be enforced.
Mr. SCOTT. Does my hon. friend understand that after the 1st of July they
will not be able to do that ? That after this
legislation takes effect they will not be able
to do as he says they can do at present ?
Mr. SCOTT. Because this legislation removes any defects that may exist in the
present ordinance.
Mr. SCOTT. Does my hon. friend say
that this Act, when it passes, will not confirm chapters 29 and 30 as law ?
3350
Mr. SCOTT. Then that is the end of your
argument.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. The hon. gentleman may think so. Let him take chapters
29 and 30 and show the section to this House
where the rights under the Act of 1875 or
of section 41 are pared down by them.
Mr. SCOTT. Are not those the ordinances
which abolish the ecclesiastical schools in
the Northwest Territories ?
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. The hon. gentle-
you will see that if you cannot take rights
away by legislaton you cannot take them
away by Order in Council. If the opinion
of the hon. member for Brandon is correct,
that the local ordinances which pared down
the Act of 1875 were ultra vires, then any
Order in Council which is passed paring
down the rights which are continued to
them under section 41, would also be ultra
vires, and they would have a right to insist
upon their privileges.
Mr. SCOTT. He will not contend that
these ordinances will be ultra vires after
these Bills have passed this House.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. You will find
that this amended Act does not preserve
the administration, it simply preserves these
ordinances, and all there is in these ordinances paring down the rights given under
section 41, would be identically the same
rights they had under the Act of 1875. The
only thing that is pared down is the half
hour I have mentioned.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend is mistaken.
One of the conditions that was pared down
was the existence of dual management and
dual boards, one board managing the
Roman Catholic schools, and the other
board managing the public schools.
Mr. SCOTT. Certainly not, it is a provision of the ordinance.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. I differ from
the hon. gentleman entirely and I want
to impress upon the House the fact that
this amended Act continues these ordinances only, and it does not continue the
administration of them ; and if the Commissionser of Education passes certain
Orders in Council which contravene the
rights given under section 41, then this
Order in Council will be just as much ultra
vires and unconstitutional as the ordinances
that were passed paring down the Act of
1875.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE. How does the
hon. gentleman suppose that the administration of these new provinces would formulate
and try to pass ordinances that will be beyond the terms of the constitution ? The
hon. gentleman makes the statement that
ordinances ultra vires of the constitution
3351
COMMONS Â
will be passed. If the hon. gentleman is
making a legal argument. I would like to
know what authority he has for saying
that they will go beyond their rights in
chapters 29 and 30 ?
Mr. MONK. I do not think it is very
difficult to understand the argument of
my hon. friend (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). He
says that if the ordinances were invalid we
are validating these ordinances now, but
we are not validating the Order in Council
passed by the Commissioner of Education
in the Northwest Territories, and consequently the invalidity of the ordinances
still remains.
Mr. SCOTT. Could they not have passed
identical Orders in Council, which will be
validated under this Bill ?
Mr. MONK. That is another thing ; he
speaks of the Orders in Council that have
been passed.
Mr. DUNCAN ROSS. If the contention
of the hon. gentleman (Mr. S. M. McCarthy)
is right, surely we are leaving it to the provincial government to pass these Orders
in
Council.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. Does not the hon.
gentleman see that if anything were done
by ordinance or by Order in Council paring
down the rights under the Act of 1875, then,
if the hon. member for Brandon is correct,
it would be equally ultra vires and could
be set aside. If he cannot see that, I am
sorry for him. Under the conditions existing to-day the Commissioner of Education
can go back and establish a dual system of
inspection and a dual system of text books.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. Then if you are
protecting the rights of the minority, why
not protect the rights of the majority ; you
say that all you want is what you have today. I am assuming that all the rights
created under the Act of 1875 are preserved
in section 41 ; and that being so, what
would a stranger coming into this House
think of the picture that has been presented
to us by some gentlemen on the other side
of the House ? I repeat that I know nothing
of the separate school system, of its merits
or demerits. What I know of it has come
from hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister
of Finance, although he declared himself
opposed to separate schools, has gone on
record with the statement that he will support this Bill. I quote from ' Hansard '
:
I am firmly persuaded that the difference is
so slight that if we reach a wise decision now,
if we refrain from fanning the flame of political passion—I withdraw the word political,
I
am not discussing this from a party standpoint,
and I did not intend to use that word, and I
withdraw it—If we refrain from doing and saying anything which can fan the flame of
religious excitement in the Northwest Territories
now, my honest conviction is that the separate
schools will diminish, and the free, common,
3352
public schools will increase. I am persuaded
that the difference is so small that the mass
of the people in the Northwest Territories will
hardly find it to their advantage to keep it up
except in a few instances.
I take these words to mean nothing else
than that he is supporting this legislation
because it is going to kill the very thing
that it is intended to create. I have spent
some time of my life in the study of law,
and that class of legislation is new to me.
I do not know what name to call it, but
if it were not unparliamentary I would
suggest that it is boomerang legislation.
something that comes back, something that
has an opposite effect to that intended.
And what can we say of the position taken by the Minister of Finance. He says that
he wants separate schools abolished, but in his mind
the longest way round is evidently the shortest way home. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Sifton) claims to have a great experience
in matters of education, and, speaking of
the Act of 1875, which I contend is continued in section 41, he says :
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 clerical 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.
Further on, at page 3110, he says :
When we, in the province of Manitoba undertook to remove what was a school system,
that
I said 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 same school system as the system that was abolished by
the
ordinance of the Northwest Territories in 1892.
There you have the ex-Minister of the
Interior saying that the Act of 1875 gives
to the people of the Territories exactly the
same system that they had in Manitoba,
and which, according to him, was inefficient
to the point of absurdity. Again the ex-
Minister of the Interior says :
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 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 successfully 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
3353 MARCH 28, 1905
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.
The hon. member for Edmonton, at page
3160, places himself on record as follows :
I am one of these 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.
Now, Sir, we have the opinion of the hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) that the
systems are identical. We have his view,
the correctness of which I do not know, as
to the efficiency of the system in Manitoba.
We have also the hon. member for Lisgar
(Mr. Greenway), in his election address in
July, 1892, appealing to the people of Manitoba for a further return to office, one
of
the grounds which he strongly urges being
that his government had abolished the dual
system. I may state to the House that
the hon. gentleman has not deputed me to
state what his views are ; we have been
anxious for him to speak for himself. I
find that among those supporting him on
that occasion, were : Mr. Clifford Sifton of
Brandon; Mr. Burrows of Dauphin ; Mr.
Jackson of Selkirk, and Mr. Crawford of
Portage la Prairie, all of whom sit in this
House to-day. If these hon. gentlemen
have assigned to that system its true character, I can only take the position that
nothing but absolute freedom in this matter
of education can satisfy the people of the
west. They should be left free to legislate
in years to come and to profit by the experience of the past. If the present system
proves to be satisfactory, if it can be preserved ; if the time comes when it does
not prove satisfactory, the people of the
west desire to have reserved the right to
repeal it. I desire to point out to this
House that the people of that country have
never had an opportunity of deciding upon
that question for themselves. They differ
from a colony. They are not coming into
this confederation with a separate school
system that they have chosen for themselves ; but I believe that if this administration
had trusted the people of the west
any rights possessed by minorities there
would have been respected. I am not here
to say that that system would be abolished,
if we had the power, on the second day of
3354
July; but what I plead for on behalf of
those provinces is that they be allowed to
legislate in that matter as they see fit, in
view of the experience they have had.
In 1875, when the Act to which so much
reference has been made was passed, there
were only 500 people living there ; and the
hon. Minister of Finance, a few evenings
ago, stated that he never would be a party
to the passing of an Act to override a local
ordinance or local statute—that would be a
gross interference with provincial rights.
But to my mind there is not a very great
distinction between overriding an Act in existence to-day, and picking out of our
ordinance a certain portion and saying that
suits us, and we will adopt it so that you
cannot repeal it for all time to come. It
seems to me that the one is no greater infringement or invasion than the other. The
hon. Minister of Finance holds up as a
model of tolerance the province of Nova
Scotia, which I have no doubt is all that
he claims for it ; but it did not strike me
that the attitude he took in passing legislation which was going to kill what it was
going to create was a very tolerant attitude. I think I can say for my own constituents
that they will exercise as much
tolerance and give as much fair-play to
the minority in that country as any class
of people that can be found in Canada.
If you come with me to the foot-hills of the
Rocky Mountains, you will find there public
school boys from Eton, Harrow and Charterhouse ; Cheltenham and Clifton in city
of Calgary ; those for whom I can claim
just as much intellect and spirit of fairness
as can be found in the people of Nova
Scotia.
I have been surprised to hear the statement made by some people that many immigrants
have come into that country on
the faith of that Act of 1875, or of these
ordinances existing in the Territories at present. Well, Mr. Speaker, while I believe
that the people of that country are as good
and as law-abiding as they are anywhere
else, I am convinced that it is not the condition of the schools out there which has
attracted the young men to it. What has
attracted immigration is the land and the
great possibilities in that country, and
the settler always knows that if the educational facilities do not suit him, he is
at liberty to return home again. If you
will take the statements issued by the land
agent giving replies to the many inquiries
sent to them, you will not find in any one
of them any reference to the schools, separate or otherwise, which is most convincing
proof that the school question has nothing to do with the influx of settlers. Let
me also point out that if people are coming into that country under misrepresentations
regarding the schools, then the literature issued by the Department of the Interior
must be misleading because it states
3355
COMMONS Â
the schools out there are non- sectarian and
national. In this connection, I would also
draw attention to the fact that the great
mass of immigration to-day is from the
United States, where there are no separate
schools. Therefore, the argument that certain people have come out there by virtue
of representations regarding a system of
separate schools, is not borne out by facts.
The hon. the Minister of Finance stated
that he would be quite willing to accept the
views of seven out of the ten representatives coming from the Territories. Let me
congratulate him and the government on
their change of front, because they have not
always been ready to accept these views.
If they had, we would like to know whether the seven gentlemen from the Northwest
Territories are responsible for this
legislation, because it is generally understood that they stood out against it until
it
was amended. But if there are seven gentlemen from the Territories who say that
the people out there are satisfied with a separate school system and want that system
to be continued and are in favour of having
the right to establish any system they please
taken from them, let me tell you that that
has not always been the case, because the
hon. members from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver)
and East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) voted in
the local legislature up there to cut out
everything in the Act of 1875 after the
word ' education,' which would have the
effect of handing that matter entirely over
to the local legislature. I would also suggest that if the government desire to feel
the pulse of the people on the question, let
them open up a constituency there and
appeal to the electors.
I see that the hour is getting late and
I do not desire to trespass too much upon
the time of this House, but there are certain matters which I feel bound to bring
to its attention; and if I am transgressing
the time allotted a new member, I shall
only have to appeal to the indulgence of
the House and point to the fact that there
are none but new members on the Conservative side from the Northwest Territories.
There are certain other important features
in this Bill to which I wish to refer. There
is first the placing of the boundary line
at the fourth meridian. A few days ago
I called attention to a resolution passed at
a public meeting in the town of Medicine
Hat which pointed out the objections to this
line. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr.
Sifton) let the cat out of the bag the other
day when he said he was of the opinion
that the dividing line should be sixty miles
further east. Thus we see the disadvantage of not having in this cabinet a representative
from the west. I was accused
of having indulged in ill-natured criticism
the other day when I said that the minister
who was in charge of the Territories should
have been consulted, but I certainly did
not intend to make any ill-natured reflec
3356
tion, and shall continue to call the attention
of the government at every opportunity to
the injustice they are inflicting on the Territories in not filling the vacant portfolio.
To-day we are in this position that there
is not a man in the cabinet west of the
city of London, Ont., except one, and that
gentleman is only half in. And the result
of having no man in the cabinet charged
with the supervision of the task of dividing
that country has been that local interests
have been allowed to prevail. The boundaries have been fixed to suit particular
localities without regard to the ranching
industry or anything else. It will be found,
on examining the map published by the Department of the Interior, that only a very
small amount of the ranching country remains to-day in the eastern province, and
the danger will be that the ranching industry, which is a very important one, will
not be sufficiently represented in the local
House to have its interests properly looked
after. That industry in the eastern province will be a mere side issue. Take, for
instance, the difficulties which will probably
arise out of conflicting branding laws. That
may seem a very small matter to the man
in the east, but it is very important to the
west. The other day it was pointed out,
in the discussion of an Order in Council
passed by the Department of Agriculture,
that 411,000 cattle, were treated under that
order in an area practically abutting this
dividing line. The badge of ownership to-day
in that country is the brand, and the result
of drawing this line and so splitting up
the ranching country will be a conflict
of brands. One province may or may
not enact a branding law. One province
may declare that cattle and horses not
branded may be sold irrespective of the
owner, and you will have a conflict in that
way, whereas if the line went a little bit
further east, where the Minister of the Interior says it should go, that difficulty
would not arise and you would include
practically all the ranching country in the
western province.
Again, one province may adopt a free open
range, while the other may make restrictions. We have the same difficulty to-day
on the international boundary, although
there is the same grazing country on the
boundary as we have at the dividing line
of the two provinces, and although we have
customs officers and the mounted police who
assist in keeping matters in order. Yet difficulties have always arisen. Another difficulty
we are creating is that you will leave
such a very little portion of the irrigated
land in the eastern province that it will be
hardly worth while passing legislation
respecting it. While that difficulty may
be got over by the provisions of the
Bill under which the matters are left
with the federal administration. But, if I
understood the ex-Minister of the Interior
3357 MARCH 28, 1905
(Mr. Sifton) correctly, he stated that it was
only for the time being that this was going
to be retained, but that in time to come,
after certain international difficulties had
disappeared this jurisdiction would be handed back to the provinces. As the dividing
line runs now the area of the two provinces
will show a considerable difference. As I
figure it the area of the eastern province
will be 258,400 square miles and that of the
western province 249,600, or a difference of
8,800 square miles. So, this line must have
been crowded west for some purpose and
perhaps I may be able to point out before
I sit down what that was for. I desire
also to call attention of the advisability of
including in the new provinces the great
northern country. I pointed out that no
man in the west but would hope that their
great expectations would be realized, yet
to-day in view of what the Prime Minister
has said we cannot consider that an agricultural country. I have already shown
that the census of 1901 shows that the population of Athabaska was 242 white people,
2,395 half-breeds and 3,700 Indians, and
262 unspecified. Now, there may have been
people who have gone in there since 1901,
but there are also people who have come
out. To my mind the very best evidence
that there is not much permanent settlement in that country is seen in looking at
the map published by the Department of
the Interior only a year ago. We find that
land does not appear to have been surveyed.
There may have been preliminary surveys,
but from the map as it stands, we do not
find any township subdivisions. And a man
cannot go very far wrong in saying that
there will not be much permanent settlement where there is no assurance of title.
Settlers do not squat to-day in advance
of survey. And the conditions of the country are not such as will make the administration
cheaply handled by the provincial
government. It is not that the people of
the new provinces are desirous of shirking
the duties of administering it, but the district to the north of the provinces will
be
still under Dominion administration. It
would cost practically very little to administer this through the Dominion government.
The questions that will arise will
be mainly interprovincial. Take the
regulation and preservation of the fur
trade, for instance. Suppose that one
province establishes a certain close season for certain animals while the other
does not ; and the Dominion government
may have a different law with regard
to the same matter further north. If the
inland fisheries are handed over to the new
provinces, the same difficulty is likely to
arise in regard to these–there will be the
same conflict of jurisdiction. I have spoken
of the boundaries not having been fixed
with a view to economical and efficient administration. It seems to me that political
3358
considerations have had a great deal to do
with the making of the eastern boundary.
If we look at the map and see the dividing
line ; it will be found, if you take the
Rocky Mountains out of the western province,
the western province is practically a triangle
with the apex at the south. And, if you
look at the election returns, you will find
that the south elects two Conservatives and
the north two Liberals. Now, I submit, in
all fairness, that considerations of this kind
should not interfere when you are creating
limits to provinces for all time to come. It
seems to me that the fathers of confederation sat down in a spirit of give and take
and tried to make a compact free from political consideration ; and I think that is
an
example that might well be followed. The
result of making these boundaries for the
western province is that the further north
you go the greater the Liberal majority.
And that is the reason why the line is fixed
sixty miles west of where the hon. member
for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) thinks it ought to
be.
There is only one other question I wish
to refer to for a moment, and it is the selection of the provisional capital. The
First
Minister when he introduced the Bill stated
that this was a matter that gave them
some trouble, but they looked at the map
and selected the centre. Well, if that is the
principle that governed and they are selecting the centre, why did they not select
Athabaska Landing, for that is the centre and
it would be more convenient for the population of Athabaska to whom I referred a
few moments ago. If he wishes to consider
the convenience of the people let him take
a point half way between Edmonton and
any point on the main line of the Canadian
Pacific Railway, and he will find in the
southern portion there are constructed 980
miles of railway, and in the northern only
150 miles. I introduced the deputation
from Calgary who interviewed the members of the government and asked
them to select a non-competitive point as
the provisional capital. They suggested
the selection of Medicine Hat, Banff,
Lethbridge, Macleod, Red Deer or any
other point that would be near the
centre of trade and the centre of population, and that would meet the convenience
of the people whose business called them
to the capital and the convenience of the
members of the first legislature. But, for
some reason, I cannot say what, the government has seen fit to select the point at
the end of railway construction and away
from what I hope to be able to show when
the clause comes up in committee is the
centre of trade and the centre of population.
If it is the convenience of the people that
is being considered, I would ask the First
Minister to look at the map again and to
look at the distribution in the local House
for Alberta. In the local House there are
3359
35 representatives; 14 of these come from
Alberta and of these Alberta constituencies
only three, and but a small portion of these
three, run north of Edmonton, while 11 are
south of Edmonton. I must ask the Prime
Minister to again look at the map if the
convenience of the people is being consulted.
But, in conclusion, let me say that I desire
to congratulate the government for being
original for once, because surely if the convenience of the people had been consulted
in the choice of a site for the capital it
would have been placed at the centre of
population and trade. The government's
manner of selecting a central point is an
original one. The method adopted in this
case would not have led the people of Ontario to select Toronto instead of Whitefish
or some other point on Lake Superior, the
people of Quebec to select Quebec, the people of Manitoba to select Winnipeg, or the
people of British Columbia to select Victoria on Vancouver Island.
There is but one other question on which
I wish to touch, that is the financial terms.
I am glad in that to be able to agree with
the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver).
It seems to me that in discussing these terms
it is not fair to make comparisons with the
terms of eastern provinces. The conditions
are altogether different. In the west school
houses and roads have to be provided, matters which are done in Ontario and Quebec
by local taxation which it is practically
impossible to do in that country by reason
of the great distances. The financial terms
in comparison with those granted to the
other provinces are none too generous, and
the development of that country is proceeding at such a rate that it is impossible
for
us to sit here and calculate what its future
needs will be.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Wednesday.
This individual participated in:
