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. L. P. DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara reminded us, last evening, several times in the
course of his speech that he comes from
that part of Canada surnamed the Garden
of Ontario. It was necessary that he
should do so, as his violent delivery and
forcible language might have led us to
believe that he was not a resident of that
rich and beautiful country surrounding St.
Catharines, but rather that his mind had
been impressed by the sight of Niagara's
surging waters and his ears filled with the
3451 COMMONS
uproar of the great falls. That kind of
music apparently suits his taste much better
than the sweet pastoral melodies.
The hon. member having taunted the hon.
Postmaster General for his violent reply to
the hon. member froom North Toronto (Mr.
Foster), unfortunately proceeded to follow
in his steps, and even went much farther.
During the whole evening he assailed in an
unwarrantable manner the Postmaster General, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister
of Justice, and even the hon. member
for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). Are we not justified in giving him one bit of advice :
Doctor,
cure thy own ills ?
This question, Mr. Speaker, is one of
justice. Justice is not the outcome of
human passion, but rather of reason. Of
old, it was represented under the form of a
woman whose eyes were bandaged, which
meant that she should not be influenced
by the clamour from the street. And when
I heard hon. members on the other side of
the House claim that the majority wanted
so and so, and the minority so and so ;
that petitions in support of their views were
more numerous than those in the opposite sense ; when I heard them state in
this parliament, the highest court in the
country, that it was not a question of deciding who was right and who was wrong,
but a question of deciding who had the
majority, I said to myself : Have they
forgotten that this is the twentieth century;
that the old principle 'Force above right,'-
no longer rules in this country, especially
since the establishment of the Constitution
of 1867.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr.
Foster) ventured to make some charges
against the province of Quebec ; he accused
her of not showing in practice that toleration of which she boasts so highly, and
he claimed that the Protestant population
was not free as regards education. And on
what grounds has he brought forth such a
charge ? On the fact that in our schools
the Catholic religion is taught, while the Protestant religion is taught in the school
of
the minority. Does the hon. member know
who is responsible for that system ? It
has not been forced upon the minority ;
the minority wanted it. The Protestant
minority in the province of Quebec wanted
that system to be established, they cannot
complain therefore that the majority are
not always tolerant, as claimed by the hon.
member for Toronto North.
On the other hand, the hon leader of the
opposition showed sympathy for the province of Quebec ; unfortunately that
sympathy was not at all of the practical
order. The hon. gentleman did not state
that he was not in favour of separate
schools. But he has these two objections to
make ; First. the constitution will not allow us to alter the terms of the British
North America Act ; secondly, under the
federal constitution the Catholic minority
3451
3452
has no rights in the new provinces. Such
is the stand taken by the hon. leader of the
opposition.
The hon. gentleman's contentions seems
to me indefensible. That is the true specially
as regards his first proposition, viz., that
parliament has no right to step in and alter
the terms of the British North America
Act. Indeed, the hon. gentleman who sits
at his left (Mr. Foster) was unwilling to
urge that point.
With a view to find out what rights we
enjoy, is it not necessary that we should
consult history ? 'History,' says Laurent,
'shows us the meaning and the scope of
statutory enactments.' The problem which
we have to solve has already been solved,
and solved by Sir John Macdonald himself
in 1870. But, even before his time, the problem had been solved by the great neighbouring
republic and that as early as 1820. Of
course, in order to draw correct inferences
from the history of the United States, we
should take into account the similarity of
circumstances, as also the difference between
the constitutions of both countries. The
United States, in the same way as Canada,
have territories, and these territories will
have, some day or other, to be admitted into
the union. But the difference between our
constitution and that of our neighbours on
that point is quite marked. Not only has
the federal constitution been worked out by
the people of the United States, but the constitution of each separate state is also
the
creation of the peoples of these various
states. Here, on the contrary. not only is
the federal constitution a gift of the imperial
parliament, but even the constitutions of
the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have
been granted by that same authority. In
the same way, the constitution of these new
provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan will
have been granted to them by us. Now,
Mr. Speaker, although, under these circumstances, the position of the various states
is much stronger than that of the federal
power : although the people of each state
have the right to adopt their own constitution, however, in 1820, when the state of
Missouri asked for admission into the union,
with a constitution providing that slavery
might be maintained for ever within its
territory, Congress refused to admit that
state into its union unless a contrary provision was inserted. The advocates of Missouri
objected : You are interfering with the
principle in state sovereignty ; you are interfering with the principle in virtue
of which
the people of each state are entitled to frame
their own constitution. The wise men of
the Republic answered : Above the principle
of state sovereignty there stands the still
more sacred principle of individual freedom.
Let me. Mr. Speaker. quote on this point
an extract from Storey's book on the American Constitution. volume 11. page 220 :
§(1321). At the time when the preliminary
measures were taken for the admission of the
3453 MARCH 30, 1905
State of Missouri into the union, an attempt
was made to include a restriction. prohibiting
the introduction of slavery into that State, as
a condition of the admission. On that occasion
the question was largely discussed, whether
"Congress possessed a constitutional authority
to impose such a restriction, upon the ground
that the prescribing of such condition is inconsistent with the sovereignty of the
State
to be admitted, and its equality with the other
States. The final result of the vote which
authorized the erection of that State, seems to
establish the rightful authority of Congress
to impose such a restriction, although it, was
not them applied. In the act passed for this
purpose, there is an express clause, that in
all the territory ceded by France to the United
States under the name of Louisiana, which lies
north of 36° 30' N. latitude, not included within
the limits of the State of Missouri, slavery
and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in
the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties
shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and
is hereby for ever prohibited. An objection of a
similar character was taken to the compact
between Virginia and Kentucky, upon the
ground that it was a restriction upon State
sovereignty. But the Supreme Court had no
hesitation in overruling it. considering it as
opposed by the theory of all free governments,
and especially of those which constitute the
American Republic.
The decision rendered in the case of Missouri has been at all times considered as
the policy of the United States. Nevertheless. Mr. Speaker, under the constitution
of
the United States. all that Congress has a
right to do is to admit a state into the
union. Such is not the case as regards our
constitution. The British North America
Act provides that we may frame the constitution of the provinces.
When the province of Manitoba was admitted into the Dominion, the public men
of the time realized at once that the British
North America Act. though carefully drafted
was not perfect. In fact it will suffice suiiicc to
read clause 146 to be satisfied as to its
shortcomings. It reads as follows:
ADMISSION OF OTHER COLONIES.
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 the 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 the 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 address expressed, and as the Queen thinks
fit to
approve, subject to the provisions of this Act.
That article states that. in order to admit new colonies and provinces into the
Dominion. a joint address from such provinces and the Dominion parliament will be
necessary. W'hy? Because, at the time
of the admission of such province. there is
an agreement entered into by both parties.
however. when it comes to admit the Northwest Territories into the Dominion. His Ma
3453
3454
jesty declares that an address on behalf of
the parliament of Canada will suffice. In
that case. therefore, no agreement has been
entered into between the parties, for the
making of an agreement implies two parties.
Why have we this omission in the latter
case? For this reason that when these territories were admitted into the Dominion,
they were not organized, they were without a constitution, while British Columbia
and Prince Edward Island had each a constitution and a regularly organized government.
These provinces were fully organized when they entered confederation ; but
such was not the case with the Territories.
it was therefore necessary that the Dominion parliament should acquire the right to
lay down the terms on which these territories might be admitted into the Dominion.
It was realized that section 146 was not
up to the requirements. In the year 1870,
Sir John Macdonald, perceiving this inadequacy. recommended that the home government
should help out the Dominion parliament by granting it greater powers than
had been vested in it by the constitution of
1867. The words 'terms and conditions'
might well apply to an agreement. but not
to the drafting of a constitution suitable
to unorganized Territories. Section 146
which met the case as regards provinces
having a distinct individuality, was no longer sufficient when Territories such as
those
in the Northwest were to be taken in.
Such is Sir John Macdonald's contention,
set forth in his memorandum dated December, 1870. I quote:
The address which was passed by the Parliament of Canada. contained no provisions
with
respect to the future government of the country,
the only terms and conditions contained in it
being those agreed upon between the Hudson
Bay Company and Canada as the conditions of
their surrender of their charter to Her Majesty.
Even if the terms of the address had included
a new condition for the Northwest, it must,
under the above cited section, have been subject to the provisions of the Imperial
Act of
Union.
This is what he says: Section 146 does
not invest the Dominion parliament with
the right to frame a constitution for the new
Territories. Hence the necessity of applying to parliament to obtain such right. He
goes on to say:
The general purview of the 'The British
North America Act, 1867,' seems to be confined
to the three provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick, originally forming the
Dominion.
Now. Sir John Macdonald makes the following request :
Under these circumstances, as the question
as to the constitutionality of the Act of the
Canadian parliament has been raised, and as
the doubt may cause grave disquiet in the
territories which have been or may hereafter
be added to the Dominion; and in order also
to prevent the necessity of repeated applications to the Imperial Parliament for legislation
respecting the Dominion, the undersigned has
the honour to recommend that the Earl of
3455
COMMONS
Kimberley be moved to submit to the Imperial
Parliament, at its next session a measure:
1. Confirming the Act of the Canadian Parliament, 33 Vic., cap. 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
power than those conferred on the local government and legislatures by ' The British
North
America Act, 1867,' and also empowering it to
grant such provinces representation in the
parliament of the Dominion: the Acts so
constituting such provinces to have the same
effect as it passed by the imperial parliament
at the time of the union.
It is subsequent to this that the Imperial
Act of 1871 was passed. Sir John Macdonald had not only applied for authority to
lay down the terms and conditions on whirh
the Territories might be admitted. but also
for authority to frame their constitution;
and that constitution was- to be such as the
Dominion. parliament would deem proper to
grant them, provided it did not give them
greater powers than the other provinces
enjoyed. Under these circumstances, the
imperial parliament enacted for us section
2 of the Act of 1871 :
The parliament of Canada may from time to
time establish new provinces in any of the
territories then forming part of the Dominion
of Canada, but not comprised in any province
of that Dominion; and may, at the time of
said establishment, enact provisions for the
constitution and administration of any such
province and for the passing of laws concerning the peace, order and good government
of such province and for its representation in
said parliament.
Well, that clause providing for the creation
of new provinces, enacted at the request of
Sir John Macdonnld, in the words just
quoted, and contained in the very Act which
confirms that of 1870 to restrict the powers
of Manitoba. that provision, as all will see,
is very broad in its wording. The imperial
parliament was aware of what had occurred
in the case of Manitoba. It was stated at
the same time in section 5 of the same Act.
that the Manitoba Act 'would be and was
considered as having been in force'; that
it was not void. as had been contended ; and
with a knowledge of these facts, parliament,
in the broadest terms, authorizes parliament
to establish new provinces. If the Dominion
parliament desired that we should not have
the right to restrict the powers of the new
provinces, that was evidently the time to
say so.
The hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara spoke last evening of mandator and
mandatory. I am glad he has suggested
such an example. Let us suppose that in
the ordinary course of things a proxy informed his principal that he has possibly
3455
3456
exceeded his powers and requests him to
endorse his action. Suppose also that by the
same deed the mandator authorizes his
proxy to make similar agreements; would
there be any court of justice to decide that
the proxy had exceeded his powers in acting
as formerly ?
But some object—and I regret that the
hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk),
a distinguished lawyer, professor of constitutional law, who made an eminently patriotic
speech the other evening, has thought
fit to uphold the first contention of the
hon. leader of the opposition. He claimed
that parliament had not the power to restrict provincial rights. He said "When I
consider the wording of the Act of 1871, I
am forced to the conclusion that, in accordance with the construction generally put
on
it, this clause would give parliament unrestricted powers ; however, on closer consideration,
I come to a different conclusion.
He takes up, to begin with, the words : ' To
constitute and establish.' These are not
the words used in the Act; in the French
as well as in the English copy the word
' constitution' is used. According to the
hon. member for Jacques Cartier, constitute' would mean to fix the boundaries of
the provinces and to decide on the date of
their admission into the Dominion, and also
to manage their affairs up to the date of the
coming in force of the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, such a construction is in contradiction with the meaning given to the
word 'constitution' in chapter 5 of the
British North America Act. It is seen there
that provincial constitution applies to the
executive and the legislative power. Should
there be any doubt on this point, we might
consider the other terms used in section 2.
of the Act of 1871. which enables us not
only to enact provisions for the constitution
and government of the provinces. but also
'for the passing of laws concerning peace.
order and good government'; which evidently apply to the legislative power. If we
were merely to admit these new provinces
into confederation under the provisions contained in the British North America Act
for
Ontario and Quebec, they would be without
a constitution, since they have not any as
was the case with the province which came
into confederation in 1867. New Brunswick.
Nova Scotia. British Columbia and Prince
Edward Island had their constitution just
the same as Ontario and Quebec. But in
this case it is necessary to decide on the
terms of the constitution of these new provinces, since they are without a constitution
at the time we are granting them provincial autonomy.
Other objections are made : If you are entitled. they say. to interfere with some
of'
their rights, why not with all? Has not
the Dominion parliament enacted laws concerning property in connection with railways,
nlthough that is a matter which comes
within the purview of the provinces. Why
should we have all these Dominion laws
3457
MARCH 30, 1905
relative to property ? Because they were
needed in order to ensure the successful
working of the laws enacted by the Dominion parliament. I might quote other examples.
Courts have decided in many instances that we could legislate incidentally
011 the matters enumerated in section 92
although these matters are left exclusively
to the provinces.
There is another argument, and I am glad
that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier
(Mr. Monk) has brought it up. He claims
that there should have been no inequality
between the 'arious provinces. But do we
not find in the constitution provisions made
for the protection of minorities? Does not
section 80 enact that twelve counties in the
province of Quebec are in a way set apart
for the English-speaking minority, and that
the limits of these counties shall not be
changed without the consent of the majority of the representatives of these counties?
That is a restriction on behalf of the English-speaking and Protestant minority of
the
province of Quebec. a restriction which is
not found in the case of any other province.
In the provinces other than Quebec. the
use of the French language is not official,
nevertheless we find here a provision stating that in the province of Quebec, the
English language shall be on the same footing
as the French.
The imperial parliament having made all
these various restrictions, without thinking
that they .were interfering with provincial
rights, are we not thereby justified in following the same rule as regards the protection
to the minority in the new provinces.
But that has not been sufficient to allay
the fears of some of our hon. friends on the
other side. and the member for East Grey
(Mr. Sproule) sent in haste a telegram to a
high legal authority in Toronto; he asked
the opinion of a leading lawyer. Mr. Christopher Robinson, as to the meaning of section
93 of, our constitution. Mr. Robinson
made his opinion known, and if the member
for East Grey had been a lawyer, and not a
doctor. he would have soon realized that
Mr. Robinson V'as making fun of him when
he answered that the power of parliament
was not beyond quest-ion. Now. is there
anything on earth that is beyond question,
or which a lawyer may question? Have
not books been written denyingr the existence of God : have not even some philosophers
turned out volumes expressing doubt
as to their very existence ?
Mr. Speaker, the power of parliament having thus been vindicated, the stand taken
by
the hon. leader of the opposition appears
in a new light. While he states that section 93 has no application, his colleague
from the province of Quebec asserts that it
has. Under these circumstances. the country faces a conflict of opinions, a difficulty
which should be solved by parliament in
order to avoid all trouble. So that, if the
hon. leader of the opposition is not in a po
3457
3458
sition to satisfy the House that his first
proposition is well founded, we have to
come to the conclusion that he is not desirous of seeing the question settled.
So much has been said about this section
93 that I need not quote it, every one of us
knows it by heart. However, I shall venture to say one word as to its construction.
There are two ways of interpreting a statute: liberally, and literally. If I give
it its
liberal interpretation there can be no doubt
that the first clause of section 93 applies
under the circumstances. Mr. Robinson. in
giving the aforementioned opinion claimed
that no part of section 93 applied. If that
section has no application, then it will be
contended that section 92 settles the point.
Notwithstanding my deep respect for Mr.
Robinson. 1 have no hesitation in saying
that his view of the case is evidently wrong.
The Privy Council have decided so in the
case of Brophy versus the Attorney General
of Manitoba. The Manitoba Act contains
a clause corresponding to clause 2 of the
Bill now before us, in regard to which the
Privy Council made the following comment.
page 212 L. R., 1895 :
The second section of the Manitoba Act enacts that after the prescribed day of the
British North America Act shall, 'except those
parts thereof which are in terms made or by
reasonable intendment may be held to be specially applicable to or only to affect
one or
more but not the Whole of the provinces now
composing the Dominion, and except so far
as the same may be varied by this Act, be
applicable to the province of Manitoba in the
same way and to the like extent as they apply
to the several provinces of Canada, and as if
the province of Manitoba had been one of
the provinces originally united by the said
Act.' It cannot be questioned therefore that
section 93 of the British North America. Act
(some such parts of it as are specially applicable to some only of the provinces of
which
the Dominion was in 1870 composed) is made
applicable to the province of Manitoba. except
in so far as it is varied by the Manitoba Act.
So that should section 16 of the Bill
disappear. section 93 of the British North
America Act would still be applicable, in
virtue of section 2 of the Bill, to which no
exception is taken. What the learned
lawyer. Mr. Robinson. must have meant
was that subsection 1 and 3 of section 93
were not applicable.
We should put a liberal construction on
that statute. Maxwell. in his work 'on
statutes,' lays down the following rule:
Except in some few cases where a statute
has fallen under the principle of excessively
strict construction, the language of a. statute
is generally extended to new things which
were not known and could not have been contemplated by the legislature when it was
passed. This occurs when the Act deals with
a genus, and the thing which afterwards comes
into existence is a species of it. Thus, the
provisions of Magna Charta which exempts
lords from the liability of having their carts
taken for carriage was held to extend to
3459
degrees of nobility not known when it was
made, as dukes, marquises and viscounts.
If we apply that rule of interpretation,
taking into account the fact that no provision has been made specially for the
Territories, then we reach the conclusion
that the word ' province ' is applicable also
to the Territories which we acquired in
1870. Now, that power granted by section
93 is not unlimited ; it is restricted by subsection 1 and 3. Such is the meaning
of
that section when liberally interpreted ;
and even if we should interpret it literally,
it is still open to the same construction.
'Words should here engross our attention.
Warfare is being carried on about the
words 'province,' 'legislature,' and 'date
of union.'
It is contended that the word province
does not include territory. The definition
of that word is not given in the English
statutes, but it is given in ours. The Canadian legislature has stated what is the
meaning of the word 'province.' We read in
our statute-book what should be understood
by the word 'province.' Subsection 13 of
section 7 of our interpretation Act says :
The expression 'province' includes the Northwest Territories and the district of Keewatin.
It is thus seen that the word 'territory'
is synonomous to ' province ; ' even the word
'district' is covered by its meaning, as in
the case of Keewatin, for instance. Hon.
gentlemen on the other side contend that
the schools of the Northwest cannot be considered as actual statutory enactment, that
they are mere ordinances voted by a mere
council. Let us see what is the meaning
of the word 'legislature' according; to the
Interpretation Act.
I shall read subsection 14, of that same
section 7 :
The expression 'Legislature,' 'Legislative
Council' or 'Legislative Assembly,' includes
the Lieutenant Governor in Council and also
the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest
Territories, and the Lieutenant Governor in
Council of the district of Keewatin.
Therefore, Sir, 'province,' 'territory,' legislature' and 'assembly' have the same
meaning for us inhabitants of Canada. In
fact, the definition which I have just given
is in accord with the principles laid down
by the Interpretation Act of 1889 in England, as regards the word legislature. It
is as follows : Any authority other than
the imperial government empowered to pass
laws within the British possessions. So
that, according to the imperial interpretation Act itself, the Northwest Territories
were governed by a legislature and the
laws passed by that body are the laws of
a legislature. Let us now pass on to the
word 'union.' That word may mean Canada or the Confederation. It is the latter
meaning which should be given to the word.
3459
3460
I read the following in the American and
English Encyclopaedia of Language :
'The teritories are as much a part of the
United States as are the states. The ultimate
purpose is that they shall, as soon as practicable be organized into states, which
shall take
equal place or part in the union.'
As to the term 'date of union', its meaning
for the four provinces is the first of July,
1867. For the others, it means the date
of their admission into the Dominion.
Section 109 shows this. Although that
section mentions the three provinces of
Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,
the Privy Council has decided that it applies
to all the provinces. It will not be con
tended by any one after this that the
words 'at the date of union' mean in this
case the first of July, 1867.
Mr. Speaker, in voting for the Bill which
is now submitted by the government, we
are not, as I am aware, granting very much
to the minority in the provinces of the
Northwest. We are only confirming the
present state of things. That state of
things may not be very satisfactory ; but
legislators are often obliged to take circumstances into account. To those who
may taunt him for not granting any more,
the Prime Minister may say. like Solon :
I have not given them the best laws, but
I, have given them the best laws they were
capable of standing. Mr. Speaker, since
the outset of this debate, we have had
surprise after surprise. Hon. gentlemen
on the other side are not generally very well
disposed towards the provinces, while the
Liberal party has always upheld their authority and sought to vindicate their rights.
The other day, the hon. member for South
York, (Mr. Maclean) assailed the right hon.
Prime Minister, called him a tyrant and
what not. It is not many years since I
entered this House, but I have in the meantime became acquainted with the true inwardness
of the feeling of hon. members on
the other side. as regards provincial rights.
In 1902, in the course of a debate, the hon.
member for South York spoke as follows :
I say that the interpretation of the law that
has been given by the English Privy Council
in regard to the distribution of rights as between the provinces, and the federal
power,
has been against the interest of the country
as; a whole. That I regret, I agree with the
honourable member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that some day we will have the whole
jurisdiction in this parliament and in some way
we will work it out, and in some way we will
increase the federal power and wipe out gradually the provincial power. I take issue
directly
with the honourable gentlemen who oppose
that view, I say that provincial government
and the enlargement of provincial rights has
not been in the interest of this country, and I
say that Sir John A. Macdonald was right,
and was a most far-seeing statesman if he believed in a legislative union and desired
it
carried out in this country.
Such are the feelings expressed by the hon.
3461 MARCH, 30 1905
member on behalf of provincial autonomy;
such are his tender mercies towards the
provinces.
There is also the question of vested rights. In 1875, parliament passed a law
granting a temporary constitution to the
Northwest Territories, and by that constitution parliament declared that certain
rights granted to the minority would be
for ever assured to them. The rights of the
Catholic minority were recognized by representatives of a different religious belief,
and it was Mr. Blake himself who brought
up the question. That same policy was
confirmed, in 1880, by the Conservative government of the time. It was enacted once
more that the Catholic population would
have their separate schools, and parliament
is to-day bound in honour to continue that
system. The government itself through its
oflicers has declared that the Dominion of
Canada had guaranteed that right to the
minority. I find the proof of this in a
pamphlet published by the Department of
Agriculture for the information of those
who wish to settle in the west. The following is an extract :
THE GREAT CANADIAN WEST
Information for those who wish to immigrate,
published by the Department of Agriculture,
Ottawa, 1881.
The settler, before leaving, does not only take
into account the material advantages offered
by the country wherein he wishes to make
are the political and religious institutions of
his home. He is also desirous of knowing what
the community in whose midst he is to live.
It is in order to satisfy that legitimate curiosity that we propose giving, from that
standpoint definite information as regards the position in Manitoba. The institutions
which exist
in that province will be more or less models to
be copied by the other provinces of the great
Canadian West when they come to be organized.
EDUCATION
The school system is copied on that of the
province of Quebec, that is to say that Catholics have full control and management
of their
schools, while Protestants have the same rights,
the same privileges.
Such were the assurances given to immigrants in 1881. Not only did the government
of Canada assure them of the existence of a
good law; but it pledged itself to maintain
these same rights on behalf of the minority
when these future provinces would be constitued.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate.
we have often heard about provincial rights;
but we have heard very little about other
rights of much more value, I mean individual rights. Among those privileges
which, in England, Simon de Montfort and
the other Norman barons forced King John
to grant them in that Magna Charta so dear
to the English heart, was not personal liberty the most precious of all ? And why
was that personal liberty so dear to the
English people ? It was because they, even
at that time nnde'stood the true principles
3461
3462
which have since prevailed in the government of progressive nations. However, we
still find to-day people who are prone to return to the old notions which were current
in the days of tyranny. 'I have here a letter
published in one of the city newspapers
against separate schools, under the signature
of a man of some education. In support of
his view, he quotes Aristotle. in the following words : 'The state, as regards its
citizens. plays the part of an educator, It
strives to regulate their actions. The most
despicable of states is that which lets each
one live according to his fancy... Education should be public and common '. Such,
Mr. Speaker, was the tyrannical system of
the Ancients. The Spartans, in the interest
of the commonwealth, deprived the head of a
family of his children when they were seven
years old; a kind of broth was to be the
only nourishment of all; strict regulations
were enacted on all subjects. The individual was nothing ; the commonwealth was
all. As a result, Sparata ruled over Greece,
but left a hateful name in history.
However, there appeared a man in the
world's history who changed all these conditions. He abolished slavery ; he declared
that personal liberty was a boon of greater
value than political rights. Of what use is
it to me to have a vote in parliament, if I
am not the master in my own house, the
master on my own property. if I have not
control over my children ? The father of a
family is intent in transmitting to his child
not only his name and his property, but also,
and particularly, his traditions, those beliefs
which were imparted to him on his mother's
knee. That is the most sacred inheritance.
Personal liberty has precedence over provincial rights.
How could a nation be happy if that liberty is not safeguarded '3 That principle had
.
been well grasped by the fathers of cow
federation. Anxious as they were to gua
rantee the rights of the individual, they
chose that system of federal union.
What the fathers of confederation desired.
Mr. Speaker, was it not to preserve for each
one of us. his tongue, his faith, in a word
his individuality ? These great men believed
that if Providence had allowed the representatives of the two greatest nationalities
in Europe to be partners in the ownership
of these lands. it was not for us to pretend
to be wiser. They believed that happiness
reigns in a country when the individual
rights of each citizen are safeguarded. They
believed that the Roman wisdom of the Englishman, combined with the Athenian
genius of the Frenchman would ensure to
this country not only peace and wealth. but
also lasting glory when the hour would
come for us to take a seat at the banquet of
sovereign nations.
Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).
Mr. Speaker. I have listened with pleasure
to the argument of my hon. friend (Mr.
3463
L. P. Demers) who has just taken his seat ;
and although I would be very happy to address the House in the beautiful language
in which he has done, I crave the indulgence of my colleagues if I speak the
language of the majority. In listening to
my hon. friend I have been astonished to
observe the conclusions at which he has
arrived. My hon. friend has discussed only
one phase of the measure now before the
House, which indicates, I suppose, the great
interest that is taken in the clause respecting the schools, while as a matter of
fact
there are other things to be considered. My
hon. friend commenced his remarks by casting reflections upon those who preceded
him. He endeavoured to make political
party capital of the question which is now
being debated in parliament. It is true,
it is a political question ; but we were
told, at the commencement of the discussion
of this measure, that we had to stand upon
very high ground, because it was a very
important and very dangerous question to
discuss. My hon. friend, in the beginning
of his remarks referred to the educational
system in the republic to the south of us ;
he then spoke about the Educational Act
of Manitoba ; he went on to say that this
was a question of justice ; and, after speaking on the interpretation of our constitution,
he concluded by saying that he would not
be able, by the vote which he intends to
give, to render to those who are interested
in this measure, all that he would like to
give them, but that he would do the best
he could. My hon. friend, in speaking about
the constitution, reminded me of an old
saying of an American politician, that patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels. Here
I
am afraid we have been playing a great
deal with the British North America Act.
Although my right hon. friend the leader of
the government stood upon the rock of the
constitution when he spoke on the 21st of
February, and although my hon. friend the
leader of the opposition also stands on
the rock of the constitution, to my mind that
rock is not very solid ; and since 1896, the
less we speak about the British North
America Act the better. To show how little
we can depend upon the rules which were
laid down at the time the British North America Act was passed, my hon. friend from
St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) said
a few moments ago that you would find
in that Act that in the province of Quebec
there must for ever be twelve counties represented by Protestants.
Mr. L. P. DEMERS. I beg pardon. I
did not say that. I said that so long as
the majority of those twelve counties did
not want to change the boundaries of those
counties the majority of the province could
not change them.
Mr. BERGERON. That is better. I
thought my hon. friend said the opposite, and
I was going to say that this would not
3463
3464
amount to a great deal, as the population is
changing ; and although a provision was
not made for the province of Ontario, the
French Canadians are conquering some
counties in that province without having
recourse to the British North America Act.
Now, Sir, there are other questions involved in the Bill before the House. Many
speeches have been made and many things
have been written since it was introduced
into this House, and I would have been
very glad to have heard my hon. friend
speak on some of these matters. There are
the creation of the two provinces, the delimitation of the provinces, the question
of the
lands, and the school question. It is most
extraordinary that since this Bill was
brought before parliament we have heard
very little of the other matters ; we have
heard more of the school question than of
anything else. Well, Sir, I intend to say
just a word or two on the other points.
With regard to the delimitation of the
provinces, I would prefer to leave that
to the members who are most interested.
I admit at once that I do not know enough
of the geography of those two provinces to
say whether the delimitation made by the
right hon. leader of the government is a
good one or not. I may say, however, that
I was satisfied to have the territory made
into two provinces instead of one, although
personally I would have been gratified to
see the province of Manitoba enlarged.
With regard to the lands, if we were
following the constitution to the letter, according to clause 109 of the British North
America Act, we would have to give to the
provinces the control of their public lands ;
but since we do not intend to follow the
British North America Act all through, I am
prepared to let it go by so far as the lands
are concerned, and to say that I approve of
the position taken by the government. At
first I was not in favour of that. My
view is confirmed, not so much by the
British North America Act as by the fact
that we have paid a very large sum of
money for those lands, and that we are
spending a great deal of money every year
to bring in immigrants to settle upon them,
and neglecting the vacant lands in the older
provinces—I refer especially to the province
of Quebec. But having thought the matter
over, and, I may say without any false-
modesty, influenced by some of the speeches
made in this House, I concluded that it
would be in the best interest of Canada
for this parliament to hold its hands upon
those lands in the Northwest Territories.
We expect to have in that country a very
large population ; we are inviting people
from all parts of the world to come there,
and we do not choose carefully enough the
immigration that is going on in. But we
seem to be in a hurry to have those immense
tracts of land opened up to cultivation.
We do not know what spirit will in a
3465 MARCH 30, 1905
few years hence animate those new populations which are coming into the Northwest
of Canada although we expect, by
wise laws, to make them satisfied to
live under the flag under which we are
so happy to live. Yet, I repeat, in my view
it was an act of wisdom on the part of
the government and in the best interests of
Canada to retain the public lands under
the control of this parliament.
With regard to the financial aspect of
this measure, I remember hearing my right
hon. friend say that it was natural that we
should be as generous as possible to those
new provinces. I share his view. We are
generous. My impression is that the people
of the Northwest Territories will be, from
a monetary point of view, in a better position, when enjoying their provincial autonomy,
than they were ever in before. If
the House will bear with me a moment, I
would like to put into ' Hansard ' a statement of the different amounts which will
be paid by the Dominion out of the Dominion exchequer for the administration of
these provinces for some years to come. We
are to pay each province as follows :—
| For the support of the government
and legislature.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
$ 50,000 |
| On an estimated population of 250,000 at
80 cents per head.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
200,000 |
| Interest at the rate of 5 per cent on the
sum of $8,107,500, as a set-off against
the debt of the other provinces which
we assumed when they entered confederation, or.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
405,375 |
| We are also to pay them by way of
compensation for the public lands per
year.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
375,000 |
| We also give them annually for five
years to provide for the construction
or necessary public buildings.. .. .. |
93,750 |
| That makes a total of.. .. .. .. |
$1,124,125 |
This is to become in time, when the population shall have reached 800,000 souls, $2,207,875
for each province or $4,415,750 for
the two.
I now come to the question which is
creating—and I think very unnecessary—so
much turmoil in the Dominion. I refer to
the question of the schools. It is not my
intention to dwell at any great length on
the provisions of the British North America
Act, as it seems to me everything that possibly could be said in that connection,
on
both sides of the argument, has been said
by those who preceded me. My hon. friend
from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers),
who has just discussed this question with
much ability, laid great stress upon the
word ' province ' and the word ' territory '
and even the word ' district,' in considering
whether clause 93 was applicable or not to
the new provinces about to be created. On
this same question, a very able argument
was made by my right hon. friend, and also
strong arguments were made by my hon.
3465
3466
friend the leader of the opposition and
others who followed, notably the member
for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). But there
is one principle which it seems to me has
been lost sight of, and yet which I think
should govern us in discussing this measure,
and that is that constitutions are made
for men and not men for constitutions. And
standing here as a representative of the people, I ask myself should I confine my
endeavours to discover a literal interpretation
of that clause 93 of the British North
America Act, or should I rather not look
higher and think of the future, not only
of the Northwest Territories, but of the
whole Dominion? Should I not rather regard our constitution as having been framed
for the purpose of working out the destinies
of this country in the most satisfactory
manner possible and of being interpreted
in that spirit rather than of being interpreted in that narrow spirit which would
set the letter of the law above its intention and make the future harmony and
greatness of this country subordinate to the
mere wording of a certain clause. My right
hon. friend, when he brought down the measure, made a speech which was an admirable
one from my point of view. He said
we are bringing those two provinces into
the Dominion by the means furnished us
by the British North America Act in its
clause 146. He also spoke about clause 93,
but in the Bill itself he furnished the best
argument which I think could be brought,
following the ideas which I intend to follow
during my remarks. In this connection I
want to ask my hon. friend from St. John
and Iberville (Mr. Demers), who has just
told us that the First Minister could not
do everything he wanted to do, but did as
much as he could, why he did not impress
upon my right hon. friend the desirability
of keeping the Bill intact as it was introduced. I am now speaking about clause
16. We have heard a great deal about that
clause. It was that clause which brought
about the resignation of my hon. friend
from Brandon (Mr. Sifton), and we have
heard a great many speeches about the position taken with regard to the same clause
by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Fielding) and some other ministers
whose names were not mentioned. I do
not propose to discuss why the right hon.
gentleman the First Minister did not wait for
the arrival of the member for Brandon
(Mr. Sifton) or the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Fielding) before bringing in his Bill. That
is none of my business. I take it for
granted that when the government came
down on the 21st February and put before
the House of Commons a project of law,
that measure was the result of the deliberations of the Dominion cabinet. And I
repeat that I listened with pleasure to the
speech of my right hon. friend when he in
3467
troduced that Bill. I go further. Being
convinced that the Minister of Justice (Mr.
Fitzpatrick) had had a great deal to do with
the framing of this clause 16, and recognizing in the manner in which that clause
was drafted the high qualifications which
we all know that hon. gentleman to possess,
I thought that I recognized in it a kind of
vindication of the position taken by the Liberal party in 1896 upon a similar question.
To my mind it was the only thing the right
hon. gentleman could do. and I shall say
why. In the discussion which is taking
place, I was not here one evening when
my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr.
Fitzpatrick) took some part in it and made
some remarks, which of course do not give
any idea of what he will say when he
speaks at length on the measure. But some
hon. members have said that clause 93 of
the British North America Act settles the
case. I think that is pretty well the opinion expressed by my hon. friend from St.
John and Iberville (Mr. Demers). The moment a territory becomes a province. they
argue, it comes in with whatever system
of education it enjoys at the time of the
union. Others take the opposite view and
say that clause 93 does not go so far. And
I imagine that it was in order to dispel any
doubt on that point. that the Minister of
Justice drafted this clause 16 as it appears
in the original Bill.
There is undoubtedly a law concerning
education in the Northwest Territories to-day.
They certainly have not got an educational
system by tolerance. They have it by
right. There is to-day in the Northwest
Territories a law governing education which
was enacted and granted them by the parliament of Canada in 1875. Clause 11 of
that Act of 1875. and 14 of Revised Statutes
of 1886 reads as follow: :—
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 establish seperate schools therein. and in such case the ratepayers
establishing
such Protestant or Roman Catholic schools
shall be liable only to assessment of such rates
as they impose upon themselves in respect
thereof.
The other subsection does not amount to a great deal, but I will read it also :
The power to pass ordinances, conferred upon the Lieutenant Governor by this section
is
hereby declared to have been vested in him
from the seventh day of May, one thousand
eight hundred and eighty.
There is the law. Now. I contend that
this law has never been repealed. It could
only be repealed by an Act of this parlia
3467
3468
ment. It is the law which everybody
throughout the world, going to the Northwest Territories, was supposed to know.
Everybody was supposed to kn0w that
there were separate schools in the Northwest carried on upon the same lines as
those in the province of Quebec or those
in the province of Ontario. Now, I take
section 16 of the Bill—
Mr. BRODEUR. Before my hon. friend
(Mr. Bergeron) leaves the part of the subject he is discussing, I desire, with his
permission, to ask a question. Does be contend that clause 11 gives to the minority
the same rights as were given by the British North America Act to the minority in
Ontario and Quebec ?
Mr. BERGERON. I may say that it is
not clause 11, but clause 14—
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It is clause 11 of
the original Bill, but clause 14 of the consolidation.
Mr. BERGERON. I contend that, in relation to the question before the House,
this was the law and is the law. And,
while I am prepared to rely upon my own
opinion in that matter, I would refer to
the Bill brought down by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in support of
my position. What is clause 16 of the
Bill now before us ? It is in effect a reenactment of the section of the British
North America Act. It was put in the Bill
as originally presented by the Prime Minister as a matter of precaution—in case
any person might otherwise carry the matter to the courts and plead that we had
not made it apply to those new provinces
by an Act of the parliament of Canada.
Now, section 16 says:
The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the
said province as if at the date upon which this
Act comes into force the territory comprised
therein, was already a province—
That would settle the argument of my
hon. friend from St. John and Iberville
(Mr. L. P. Demers). And then we have
added the following words, in order that
there may be no question as to the use of
'province.' 'territory,' 'district' or any
other word:
—the expression 'the union' in the said section being taken to mean the said date.
And subsection 2 is as follows :
2. Subject to the provisions of the said section 93. and in continuance of the principle
heretofore sanctioned under the Northwest Territories Act, it is enacted, that the
legislature
of the said province shall pass all necessary
laws in respect of education, and that it shall
therein always be provided (a) that a majority
of the ratepayers of any district or portion of
3469
MARCH 30, 1905
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, and make the necessary assessments and collection of rates therefor,
and (b)
that the minority of the ratepayers therein.
whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and
make the
necessary assessment and collection of rates
therefor, and (c) that in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or
Roman
Catholic separate schools shall be liable only
to assessment of such rates as they impose
upon themselves with respect thereto.
And, in case it should be asserted, as
it was in 1896 in the case of the Remedial
Bill that, because no money was provided
for the maintenance of the separate schools,
therefore it was no good, my hon. friend
(Mr. Fitzpatrick) made the following provision :
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,
and such moneys shall be applied to the support of public and separate schools in
equitable
shares or proportion.
There is the law that the right hon.
Prime Minister wanted for the new provinces in the Northwest Territories, and I
repeat—and I am not afraid to give my
opinion or to state my reasons for it—this
had my entire approval. To me, it seems
simply a case of rendering justice to whom
justice was due. To me it seemed an act
of fairness to these 125,000 people that, my
hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) said,
went into the Northwest Territories upon
the faith of that law. In effect it declared
to them: You have not been deceived by
the government of the Dominion of Canada.
It has been said in this House in the
course of this debate—I cannot remember by
whom—that it was an evidence of great
generosity on the part of the people of the
Northwest Territories that, in 1875 the
Mackenzie government then in power in
the Dominion, granted separate schools for
the Northwest. Well, Sir, I do not give
any member of this House new information
when I say that in 1875 the majority of
the inhabitants of the Northwest Territories were French Canadians and Catholics.
That being the case, it was merely an act
of justice to give them the schools they
wanted.
Now. I shall be told that there were ordinances passed after the Act of 1875. So
there were. I will take these up in their
order. In 1885 there was an ordinance
passed effecting the organization of the
school system. When I quote that ordinance it will be seen that its effect was
to establish such a system as we have in
the province of Quebec. In that province
we have a council of public instruction
3469
3470
composed one-half of Protestants and one-
half of Catholics. the Protestant managing
the affairs of their schools and the Catholics managing the affairs of their schools.
This is a system of separate schools not
merely in name, but in fact.
The Lieutenant Governor in Executive Council
may appoint and constitute a board of education for the Northwest Territories, composed
of
five members, two of whom shall be Roman
Catholics, and two shall be Protestants, and
the Lieutenant Governor, who shall be chairman.
Now, I refer to clause 6—the clauses before that have nothing to do with the subject
I am now discussing, but relate merely
to domestic affairs. Clause 6 says:
The board of education shall resolve itself
into two sections, the one consisting of the
Protestant, and the other of the Roman Catholic members thereof, and it shall be the
duty
of each section :
1. To have under its control and management the schools of its section, and to make
from time to time such regulations as may be
deemed fit for their general government and
discipline. and the carrying out of provisions
of this ordinance.
This was the ordinance of 1885. When
this was passed, the law of 1875 was still
the law. and this ordinance was merely
providing an organization for carrying that
law into effect. How long did it last?
Unfortunately, in the Northwest as in Manitoba and elsewhere the new-comers, honest
men, no doubt, and sincere in their convictions. by degrees have taken away nearly
everything that was granted to the minority under the Acts of 1875.
The ordinance of 1892 was promulgated
on December 1, 1892. There is the first
blow at what I call separate schools. The
name did not disappear: it was put in
golden letters here the other day by the
hon. member for Brandon (Mr, Sifton), but
the system of separate schools commenced
to be torn to pieces in 1892. What was
done then ?
The Lieutenant Governor by and with the
advice and consent of the legislative assembly
of the Territories enacts as follows:
The first three sections deal with expressions such as 'school districts' &c. Clause
4 reads :
There may be established, subject to the provisions of this ordinance and to the regulations
of the council of public instruction, the following classes of schools, namely:
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish you to follow
these words with the closest attention.
(a) Public schools for pupils between five and
twenty years of age. in which instruction shall
be given in the elements of an English and
commercial education.
3471
COMMONS
(b) Separate schools for pupils between five
and twenty years of age, in which instruction
shall be given in the elements of an English
and commercial education.
Why call it a separate school? Is this
not irony ? Why not have only the one
school? Was it for the sake of giving
some gentlemen an opportunity of saying
that by voting for the amendment of my
hon. friend they are keeping separate
schools in the Northwest? It has only
to be read to be understood. That was
done on the 31st of December, 1902, and
it was the law and in fact it is the law
brought down to the ordinances 29, 30 and 31
of which I shall speak later on.
I have shown what is to be taught in
those schools. Clause 36 reads:
After the establishment of a separate school
district under the provisions of this ordinance,
such public school district shall possess and exercise all rights, powers, privileges
and be
subject to the same liabilities and method of
government as is herein provided in respect of
public school districts.
The very same thing. It was called
a separate school but we found it was
a public school, and I am not surpraised that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and even
the ultra-Protestant member for Brandon,
(Mr. Sifton) have changed their minds after
their little stampede. The opinions of those
in- this House who do not believe in separate
schools, who were honest about it, I respect
just as much as I want them to respect
mine. I know as a matter of fact that there
are men who are sincerely convinced that
public schools would be better, just as I am
convinced that it is imperative that separate
schools be maintained if the views which
I hold are to be carried out, that is to say
that the children of our country are to be
brought up in the way their parents desire. To those who are voting for the
amendment of the Prime Minister, because
it is in' favour of separate schools, I would
quote this section:
83. All schools shall be taught in the English
language and instruction may be given in the
following branches, viz.: Reading, writing, orthography, arithmetic, geography, &c.
84. Any school the officers of which shall
knowingly allow such school to be taught or
conducted in violation of the provisions of this
ordinance or of the regulations of the council
of public instruction, or of the superintendent
of education, shall be liable to forfeit all rights
to participate in any of the grants provided by
this ordinance to aid the schools of the Territories. and, upon satisfactory evidence
of such
violation, such grants may be withheld.
85. No religious instruction, such as Bible
reading or reciting, or reading or reciting prayers '(except as hereinafter provided),
or asking questions or giving answers from any catechism, shall be permitted in any
school in the
Territories, from the opening of such school
at nine o'clock in the forenoon, until one-half
hour previous to the closing of such school in
3471
3472
the afternoon, after which time any such instruction, permitted or desired by the
trustees
may be given.
86. Any child attending any school shall have
the privilege of leaving the school room at the
time at which religious instruction is commenced as provided for in the preceding
section or of remaining without taking part in any
religious instruction that may be given, if the
parents or guardians so desire.
And these are called separate schools.
This is the ordinance of 1892. I may be asked : Why was not that vetoed ? I need not
tell hon. gentlemen that there was a great
deal of agitation at that time in the Territories. I need not say that Monseigneur
Taché, whose words were read the other
day by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr.
Sifton), and others, who took a great deal
of interest in the educational affairs of
that country, did everything they could to
repeal that ordinance.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Has that clause
been repeated in the ordinance, chapter
29?
Mr. BERGERON. It might please my hon.
friend if I did forget it. It may be said :
Why was there not an appeal or, Why were
not those amendments vetoed by the government at Ottawa, and the name of Sir John
Thompson has been brought into the discussion. Sir John Thompson's opinions were
well known on such subjects. I would not like
to trouble the House With a great deal of
reading, but I wish to point out first of all
that when the effect of the ordinance of
1592 was felt it was found that it was an
enactment of something which had been
decided in 1891, and that the time within
which it could have been disallowed was
past.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. What, what, what,
what? I am sure my hon. friend is mistaken.
Mr. BERGERON. I will give very good
testimony in support of what I am saying.
Mr. BRODEUR. That is not the reason
given by Sir John Thompson.
Mr. BERGERON. This comes from the
Privy Council and it is correct. There were
many reasons given. My hon. friend does
not want me to read the whole thing. I am
bringing something before the House that,
I think, Will impress itself upon the minds
of the hon. gentlemen who are listening to me.
I have here a memorandum of Monseigneur
Taché. He adds his demand to the prayer
of those who came down here to obtain re
3473 MARCH 30, 1905
dress in respect to these ordinances of 1892,
the intention of which was, as a matter of
fact, to abolish separate schools in the
Northwest Territories. If it were not so,
it was because, as has been said by the
hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) they
were not the law. The law was still in
force. The Act of 1875 was not repealed,
but for all practical purposes separate
schools no longer existed in the Northwest
Territories. These petitions which, I suppose, are still in the office of the Privy
Council or in the Department of Justice,
enumerated the complaints of those who
were suffering in the Northwest, and Monseigneur Taché adds his voice to the prayers
of the petitioners. He says :
I add my humble prayer and I ask that the
grievance which is complained of be remedied
immediately. The intention to deprive Catholics of their rights in the matter of education
and to abolish the use of the French language,
especially in the schools, is so manifest that
unless remedial measures are taken immediately an injustice will be consummated.
The Governor General in Council cannot allow
such a violation as this of the law under the
authority of which the government of the
Northwest Territories is carried on.
He must there refer to the law of 1875:
I have every confidence that the ordinances
and the regulations of which we complain will
be disallowed, and your petitioners will ever
pray.
This is signed Alexandre, Archbishop of
St. Boniface.
Mr. BERGERON. The date of the pamphlet is 1894 and the letter is dated the 4th
of January, 1894. Then, the Archbishop
goes on in his memoir to say:
I was somewhat convinced that the honourable the Privy Council could not help seeing
the dangers of those ordinances, but I thought
there was no use going any farther in attempting to assist council by pointing out
the dangers which were threatening. The honourable
the committee is right in saying that appeals
to the Governor in Council under the British
North America Act in the matter of education
from the provinces of Canada have not been
established for the Territories. Such an appeal
does not exist for the Territories.
Then he repeats the answer which was
given to him by the then Minister of Justice, or at least by the Privy Council, and
he says:
Of course, if it is the committee's desire to
grant an alternative answer to the prayer of
the petitioners, there is only one remedy which
remains. The veto is the only remedy which
can be applied in response to the prayer of
the petitioners who have submitted their case
to the goodwill of the government. The honourable the committee says that it has not
the
right to do justice to the demand. In the face
of that refusal, in one case because there is
no power and the other because there is no
3473
3474
willingness to apply that remedy, the committee does not find itself in a favourable
position.
Then the Archbishop cites the statute of
the Northwest Territories of which the petioners availed themselves as a proof that
the Roman Catholics in the Northwest Territories have a right to their separate schools,
and he says that it is to be regretted that
such a right should have been abolished by
the ordinances of 1892. I will now read
for the benefit of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice an extract from the report
of
the hon. the Privy Council, approved by His
Excellency the Governor General on February 5, 1894. I shall only read that part of
it which has to do with what I have already
read. This is in answer to those who say
to us: Why did your friends not disallow
those ordinances? Why did your friends
not render justice? Your premier was a
Roman Catholic; why did he not act? This
is the answer:
While an appeal in the sense of the provisions of the British North America Act, referring
to appeals to the Governor in Council.
on matters affecting education in the province
of Canada, is not established as regards the
Territories, the committee of the Privy Council feel confident that any suggestion
having
your Excellency's authority would be given all
proper consideration by the assembly and by
the council, and the committee consider themselves jnstified in entertaining this
confidence.
more especially as in the same enactment as
that under which the Northwest Assembly is
organized and exercised its functions (the
Northwest Territories Act, section 14) the following provision is made.
Then it recites the clause which I have
read a few moments ago. There is no question that the Privy Council made a remonstrance
against those ordinances to the
council of the Northwest Territories. There
is no question that a demand was made not
to put in force those ordinances of 1892, the
effect of which, as a matter of fact, was
to abolish separate schools in the Northwest
Territories. What was the answer ? Nothing was done.
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend (Mr.
Fitzpatrick) is right. It is a matter for reflection. Those gentlemen who were at
the
head of afliairs in the Territories listened
to all these prayers, they knew that these
petitioners were right; still they did nothing. Why? Because the majority, I imagine,
were opposed to a change. We might
as well accept the truth of the doctrine that
under a constitutional government it is
the majority that rules. That is why, I
think, it is very dangerous to put on the
statutes of Canada laws which purely and
simply will be footballs later on for the
fanatics in politics or anywhere else.
Mr. BRODEUR. Before my hon. friend
(Mr. Bergeron) leaves that subject, I understood him to say a few moments ago that
3475
3476
the ordinances of 1892 could not be disallowed because it was too late when the
petition was presented to the Dominion.
Mr. BERGERON. That was the first reason given, and the second reason that was
given in this memorandum of the Privy
Council was that they could not do it.
Mr. BRODEUR. I think that in that respect my hon. friend is entirely mistaken.
The government simply refused to disallow the ordinances. They never pretended
that they had no right to disallow the ordinances, but they simply said in the report
that my hon. friend has just read that they
did not consider it advisable to disallow
the ordinances. They never pretended for
a moment that they had not the right to
disallow them.
Mr. BERGERON. Evidently the Minister
of Inland Revenue does not understand
what I have read. I read from the complaint of the minority the first time its
representatives appeared before the Canadian Privy Council to complain of the injustice
done them. The ordinance of 1892
that they complained of was a re-enactment
of a previous ordinance passed in 1891 and
they were told that it was too late to disallow the ordinance of 1891.
Mr. BRODEUR. It was not too late to
disallow the ordinance of 1892.
Mr. BERGERON. No, but they were told
that even if the ordinance of 1892 were disallowed, yet, as the ordinance of 1891
was
still in force and it was too late to disallow
it, no good would result from the disallowance of the ordinance of 1892.
Mr. BERGERON. Because an appeal in
the sense of the provisions of the British
North America Act on matters affecting
education, was not established as regards
the Territories.
Mr. BRODEUR. It was not a question
of appeal; it was a question of disallowance.
Mr. BERGERON. The appeal and the
disallowance go together and you cannot disassociate them. At all events the result
was that the ordinance of 1892 remained in
force. But why are my hon. friends opposite plying me with all these questions and
all these objections. What is their object
in that ? I am afraid that it is politics which
prompts these interrogations, and I hope
that politics will be excluded from this discussion, I trust to be able to treat of
this
matter aside altogether from petty politics.
It is too serious a question with me to allow
political considerations to enter into it and
I am afraid that these gentlemen opposite
have the idea that later on they will be able
to say: the Conservatives were in power
3475
COMMONS
and they did not do justice to the minority.
Well, Sir, if the Conservatives did wrong
they have had their day of reckoning, and if
the Conservatives did wrong that is no
reason why a Liberal government in power
should perpetuate injustice. I have read the
reasons which were given for not disallowing the ordinance of 1892, and I would hesitate
long before I would come to the belief
that Sir John Thompson would sacrifice the
Catholic minority of the Northwest Territories. I believe he would have come to
their relief unless good and strong reasons
prevented him. Sir John Thompson was
Minister of Justice at the time, and I take
it for granted that he studied the case carefully, and I believe if he had been able
to
disallow the Act of 1892, or if its disallowance would have been of any avail to the
minority, Sir John Thompson would have
disallowed it. But the ordinance of 1891
remaining in force, and it being too late
to disallow it, no good would be accomplished by disallowing the ordinance of 1892.
What is the use of splitting hairs on a question of this kind ? I want to take a large
view of it ; I want to see what has happened ; I want to know where we find ourselves
to-day and to what cause our grievance may
be attributed. There is no doubt that since
1892 there are no separate schools in the
Northwest Territories. Whether that be
the fault of the Liberals or the fault of the
Conservatives does not amount to anything
in the present discussion; that will have to
be settled before the electorate. Our duty
here is to make laws and just laws. Perhaps it is, that because the Conservative
government may have been guilty of neglect
of duty in this particular, that when the
present Bill was introduced into the House
of Commons it contained the original clause
16, which was an intimation to me that at
least this government was doing its duty—
it did not do it long though. Let us refer
for a moment to the ordinance of 1891. The
rights and privileges of the minority in the
Northwest Territories were not taken away
abruptly; there was a gradual encroachment until we reached chapter 29 of the
ordinance of 1891, the third paragraph of
which reads as follows :
There shall be a department of the public
service of the Territories called the Department
of Education over which a member of the Executive Council appointed by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council under the seal of the Territories to discharge the functions of
the Minister of Education for the time being, shall
preside.
This was a new feature of the school law
of the Northwest Territories. It gave the
Territories a Minister of Education or a
Commissioner of Education as he is called.
It brought education into politics: it abandoned the first council of public instruction
that was formed and which was satisfactory;
it abandoned the second board of education
which was also more or less satisfactory,
3477 MARCH 30, 1905
and it brought education down to the political arena. This ordinance further says
:
The Lieutenant Governor may appoint such
officers, clerks and servants as are required for
the proper conduct of the business of the department and for the purpose of this ordinance,
all of whom shall hold office during
pleasure.
Now, here is what this Department of
Education is authorized to do :
The commissioner, with the approval of the
Lieutenant Governor in Council shall have
power to make regulations for the department.
(2) To authorize text and reference books
for use of the pupils and teachers in all schools
hereinbefore mentioned as well as such maps,
charts, and other apparatus or equipment as
may be required for giving proper instruction
in such schools. To prepare a list of books
suitable for school libraries and to make regulations for the management of such libraries.
There shall be an educational council consisting of five persons, at least two of
them
shall be Roman Catholics, to be appointed by
the Lieutenant Governor in Council, who shall
receive such remuneration as the Lieutenant
Governor in Council shall determine.
We see from this that the board of education consists of a member of the executive
council with two Catholics and two Protestants appointed by the Lieutenant Governor
in Council, but these gentlemen have not the
right to vote. I think I have given the information which my hon. friend (Mr.
Brodeur) asked for as to chapter 29 of the
ordinances, which is the law in the Territories to-day. I have read to the House
clause 16 of the original Bill as submitted
to parliament by the Prime Minister.
Clause 16 to my mind was what it should
have been, and I would have supported it,
because it was giving the minority in the
Northwest justice. or course, I am speaking for myself and expressing my own views.
I am in favour of separate schools; I believe in separate schools—not merely in
the word 'separate,' but in the tuition which
children get in separate schools. I want
religion to be taught in the schools. I want
the child to hear of God and to pray in the
school—not all the time; but I want it to
be understood that the name of God shall
he mentioned there. I have heard men
who are very sincere say: 'You are a
broad minded man; why not let all the
children go to the same school together, with
the national flag floating from the top of
the building? Of course, there would be
no prayer in the school, because it would
offend the Roman Catholics, the Methodists,
the Presbyterians or the Baptists. There
would be no religion taught. The children
would simply go there and learn what is
necessary to earn their living. They would
play together, and would grow up to respect each other.' I do not believe'in that
kind of school, and I do not believe that is
true. I remember that when I was attending college there were some Americans
3477
3478
there, and it was not very long before we
were separated. Our differences would
come out without thinking about them. and,
though we commenced by playing, we would
finish up by fighting. My hon. friends opposite know the college—it is the Jesuits'
College. They have now a separate college
for English boys. The cause of difference
between the boys was not religion only; it
may have been something else ; but, at any
rate, we fought together. As men we are
surrounded by friends who have been
brought up in different schools, and we
appreciate one another ; but that appreciation
is not developed in children. A man
appreciates another man certain qualities
for which he respects him, but a child cannot do that. I do not want to convert anybody
to my opinions, because I know that
those who have opposite opinions are as
sincere and honest in holding them as I am
in holding mine. But I am explaining my
opinions; and, holding them, when clause
16 of this Bill was brought down I hailed
it with pleasure, and I was happy at the
deliverance which my right lhon. friend
made on that occasion. It did not last,
however. Why did it not last ? My hon.
friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr.
Demers) says we are not doing what we
would like to do ; we would like to do more,
but we do what we can in a country like
this. This is not the way our forefathers
talked. This is not the way the men who
built up Canada talked. When Sir John
A. Macdonald, in 1863, voted for separate
schools in the province of Ontario, the province of Canada at that time, he was not
doing what he himself preferred, for he
was in favour of public schools; but he
did so because he thought it was the best
thing that could be done in the province
of Canada at that time, on account of the
different nationalities and creeds in Upper
and Lower Canada. We have often seen
occasions of the same kind. Shall I speak
of something nearer to us ? In 1896 we
had before parliament a question very much
like the present one. except that we were
dealing with a state of things which was
existing at that time, whilst at present we
are creating a state of things. In 1896 the
Manitoba school question was before parliament. It had been before the country since
1890. I heard the other day the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) boast of having
had a great deal to do with the Manitoba school business. I was sorry to hear
him talk like that, although he gave some
reasons, in a very clever way, which hid,
if I may use the word, the odious part of
the business. He declared that the separate
schools were not eflicient, that they were
not what they should have been, and that
money was squandered on them. I need
not tell the House that those statements
have been refuted time and time again.
There may have been some abuses, as there
are in most things. but on the whole the
3479
COMMONS
separate schools in Manitoba were good
schools and the teachers were good teachers.
In most cases, the people not having the
means to pay teachers, the parish priests
were the teachers, and we know that they
are men of education. My hon. friend from
Brandon knows that politics had a great
deal more to do with the abolition of those
schools than the question of their efliciency.
There was some railway business which
put the government into a very bad position.
and something was needed to divert public
opinion from the deeds of the ministers.
Our friend Mr. Dalton McCarthy had gone
on a tour through the province of Manitoba.
He was dissatisfied because Sir John Thompson had been chosen as Minister of Justice.
He had hopes of being offered that position,
although he might have refused it, and he
went to Manitoba and inflamed the passions
of the people. He told them that something should be done to deliver them from
the influence of the hie 'archy. It was there
that be commenced his fight against the
hierarchy, and questions of that sort will
always greatly inflame public opinion. In
a short time the hon. member for Lisgar
(Mr. Greenway), who was at the head of
the Manitoba government, and the lion.
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) deprived
the minority of that province of what they
were entitled to. We have been told that
the question in Manitoba was not the same
question that we are discussing to-day—that
in Manitoba, the provincial government had
given separate schools and that the provincial government withdrew separate schools
and the official use of the French language ;
and that was provincial rights. The minority complained. I need not give the whole
history of the case. The question came before parliament; and I may say in passing
that the Northwest ordinanCc was passed
while we were in the midst of that turmoil.
The question was before the Privy Council
and before the courts. We were taunted on
the stump everywhere- because the Conservative government had not disallowed the
Act of the legislature of Manitoba. My
right hon. friend the leader of the government was sitting on this side of the House
at that time, when the Hon. Edward Blake
moved a resolution declaring that it would
be wise for the Dominion government not
to use the right of veto in cases involving
religion or nationality, and that resolution
was looked upon as such a wise one that
Sir John A. Macdonald, sitting Where my
right hon. friend does now, rose and said:
'This is a motion which should have the
unanimous support of the House' ; and it
had. This is why that Act was not vetoed.
At that time my right hon. friend and his
friends in the province of Quebec said that
the government did not act because it
was under the heel of the Orangeinen of
the province of Ontario.
And it was said in Ontario that the government was under the heel of the hierarchy
in the province of Quebec. This lasted from
3479
3480
1890 to 1896. The constitutionality of the
Act of the Manitoba legislature abolishing
the separate schools had gone before the
Supreme Court of Canada and the Privy
Council, and the Privy Council in its first
judgment declared that the Act was intra
vires the Manitoba legislature. Again there
was an appeal to the Privy Council, and that
court declared that although the Manitoba
legislature had the right to pass a law taking
away the schools of the minority in that
province, the minority had a grievance, and
it was within the rights and the powers of
the Dominion government to come to its
rescue and remove that grievance. Then we
had the Remedial Bill submitted to the Dominion parliament, and we all know what
happened. When my right hon. friend moved
the six months hoist, we were at the end of
the session. But when the second reading
of that Bill was proposed and carried by
a majority of the House, who were the members that voted for it? Who were those
who voted to do justice to the minority of
Manitoba and to stand upon the rock of the
constitution ? It was, Mr. Speaker, the
Conservative party which took that stand.
And I say it to the honour of the Protestants
and the Orangemen of Ontario and the maritime provinces, that they voted to do justice
to the Catholic minority. I remember well
Mr. Fairbairn, an old representative of the
province of Ontario, declaring in this House.
that although he was an old Orangeman he
was going to vote in favour of the Catholic
minority because he had sworn to be a defender always of minorities, whether Catholic
or Protestant. I am reminding the House of
these facts in order that, in these days, when
we read so much in the newspapers about
the intolerance on this side of the House,
I may give my testimony on behalf of the
Conservative English Protestants of this
Dominion. In my opinion, the newspapers are in many instances doing
more harm than good and inflaming
passions and prejudices where it should
be their endeavour to allay them. I
have seen caricatures published of my
right hon. friend which did not at all meet
my approval and I have also seen caricatures
of some of my hon. friends on this side which
I think were altogether out of place. I regret
these methods. I regret this holding up of our
public men to undeserved ridicule and obloquy, because it cannot fail to have a mischievous
effect on the people. I can sympathize with my right hon. friend in his present position.
I can appreciate the difficulty
in which he found himself. when the ex-
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) came
back and took him by the throat and possibly threatened to inflame public opinion.
I
can well understand that my right hon. friend
then found himself between two fires.
On the One side was the persistent Minister
of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). who stuck,
and rightly stuck, to his clause. On the
other was the Minister of the Interior (Mr.
3481 MARCH 30, 1905
Sifton), who in all probability was going
around to members of parliament—good men.
honest men, against whom I have not a
word to say, for I have nothing to say against
men who may have different opinions from
mine—going around to members not only
from the Northwest but others. and saying
to them: You cannot accept this; this
will give clerical schools: this is putting
for ever the majority of the Northwest Territories under the shackles of the hierarchy
of Rome. Then, my right hon. friend no
doubt felt convinced that in order to have
peace he must accept the amendment now
proposed. I remember hearing him very
often say in this House that he never said
anything until he had pondered it well, but
that when he did, he stuck to what he said.
He has not done so in this instance, and I
am sorry for it. What is the proposal before us now ? Those who want public
schools are all right, public schools by
this proposal will be established in the
Territories for ever. But in what position will be those who are in favour of
separate schools, who want to go home and
say: I have supported separate schools; I
voted against the amendment of the leader
of the opposition because he said let us leave
those new provinces to construe the British
North America Act as they desire and establish what system of schools they choose.
Some of my hon. friends will say: We could
not accept that amendment of the leader of
the opposition and therefore we voted for
the amendment of the right hon. gentleman.
But what is the amendment of the right
hon. gentleman, and what is it going to give
the minority of the Northwest Territories ?
Here is the amendment :
Section 93 of the British North America Act,
1867, shall apply to the said province, with the
substitution for subsection one of said section
93, of the following subsection :
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
separate schools which any class of persons
have at the date of the passing of this Act
under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the
ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed
in the year 1901.
Where the expression 'by law' is employed
in subsection 3 of the said section 93, it shall
be held to mean the law as set out in said
chapters 29 and 30, and where the expression
' at the union' is employed in subsection 3, it
shall be held to mean the date at which this
Act comes into force.
That means that there shall be given to
the minority in the Northwest Territories
all the separate schools they want, so long
as are instituted in those provinces the
Protestant or public schools granted under
the school ordinance, chapter 29 of 1901.
What are these schools? There are the
public schools established by law by the Act
of 1875 passed by a Liberal government.
then re-enacted in 1885. obliterated in 1892
and smashed to pieces in 1901. These are
3481
3482
the schools which the minority will have in
the Territories the moment this Bill passes.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is
something higher than office. In 1896 the
Conservative party went down to its defeat
because it stood by a principle. It has been
badly rewarded.
Mr. BERGERON. But in this instance
my right hon. friend has yielded to what he
thought was a threatening majority. Well,
what kind of schools is he going to give
the minority in the Northwest Territories ?
Let me show by some hon. gentleman opposite
what they are. What did the hon. Minister
of Finance (Mr. Fielding) say? It was a
sight for the gods to see how zealous were
some of these gentlemen after they came
back to the fold. The Minister of Finance
does not think that the constitution compels
us to give a system of schools to the Northwest Territories.
For the purpose of record, just let me read
the section in the Act of 1875—section 11, chapter 49, Act 1875 :
I have already read this, but I will quote
it again so that it will appear in ' Hansard '
with the rest:
When and so soon as any system of taxation
shall be adopted in any district or portion of
the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the
council
or assembly as the case may he, shall pass all
necessary ordinances in respect to education;
but it shall therein be always provided, that a
majority of the ratepayers of any district or
portion of the Northwest Territories, or any
lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by
whatever name the same may be known may establish such schools therein as they may
think
fit, and make the necessary assessment and
collection of rates therefor; and further, that.
the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish
separate schools therein, and that, in such
latter case, the ratepayers establishing such
Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools
shall be liable only to assessments of such
rates as they may impose upon themselves in
respect thereof.
Now the Minister of Finance says he
wants to explain that. He goes on:
That is the clause in the Act of 1875. and with
the change of a few words, which in no way disturbs its substance, that is the clause
we find
to-day in the Northwest Territories Act.
The hon. gentleman makes a mistake
there. Further on he says:
Again I say I do not for a moment contend.
and I do not understand that my right hon.
friend contended, that, as a matter of constitutional right fixed by the words of
the statute,
we are obliged to re—enact that clause. I go
further. I do not hesitate to say that in my
view, at any time since 1875, it, was within the
power—I do not say the moral right—but un
3483
COMMONS
doubtedly within the power of this parliament
to repeal the Act of 1875.
What does that mean ? It indicates that
this has never been repealed. If so, what
can that mean but that it is the law of the
Northwest Territories?
Therefore, I am not claiming that there is
any binding legal obligation, but I do say that
we are obliged to look carefully into the circumstances under which that Act was passed;
and it we find that at the time it was regarded
by its friends and supporters. and parliament
generally, as an Act which was passed, not'
only for the present but the future, that cre-.
ates a moral obligation which this House may
well take into consideration.
Now, if I remember the words of the right
hon. Prime Minister with regard to section
16, his statement was that we were obliged
by the constitution to grant what is granted
under this section. But the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Fielding) says something else.
He goes on and wants to show that these
schools are Protestant schools. And he insists upon it.
Mr. LEMIEUX. Where does the Minister of Finance say that these are Protestant schools? Can the
hon. gentleman
point that out ?
Mr. BERGERON. Yes. if my hon. friend
will wait. I have a good deal of it to read
yet. One of the things mentioned in the
regulations quoted by the Minister of Finance is :
To authorize text and reference books for
the use of the pupils and teachers in all
schools hereinbefore mentioned, as well as
such maps, globes, charts and other apparatus
or equipment as may he required for giving
proper instruction in such schools.
That is, the curriculum of both public
and separate schools. Then he goes on :
What is there, Sir, in all this to which anybody can take exception? These details
constitute the essential elements of a national school
system. That system prevails to-day in the
Northwest Territories, and that system we propose to continue by the legislation which
We
have presented in this House. Well, there is
still a shadow of difference. The difference
between a minority school and a majority
school in the Northwest Territories is so exceedingly small that he who would attempt
to
make a definition of it would find himself in
difliculty.
What is a public school in the Northwest
Territories? Is it a Protestant school or
a national school? If it is a national or
Protestant, where is the diderence ? What
does my hon. friend call a sectarian or
Protestant school if not one where from the
time the child goes in at nine o'clock in the
morning until he goes out again at half-past
three in the afternoon. he hears not one
word of religion?
3483
3484
Mr. A. JOHNSTON. What does my hon.
friend (Mr. Bergeron) say? Does he designate that as a Protestant school ?
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend (Mr.
A. Johnston) ought to put that question to
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). for
it is his speech that I am reading.
Mr. A. JOHNSTON. I ask the question
in all seriousness. I am as much interested
in this matter as is the hon. member for
Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron). He has made
the statement that the Minister of Finance
said in the course of his observations that
these were Protestant schools. As I understood the hon. minister, he made no such
statement. I would like to know if the
hon. gentleman can refer me to any such
statement on the part of the Minister of
Finance.
Mr. BERGERON. We do not need to
discuss matters of that sort in connection
with the points I am making. So far as
I am concerned, schools in which there is
not a word of religion are non-sectarian, or
what I have been accustomed to hear called
Protestant schools.
Mr. FIELDING. I understand the hon.
gentleman said that I had called them Protestant schools.
Mr. BERGERON. I may have expressed
myself that way, but what I meant was
that I had inferred from what the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Fielding) said that he spoke
of these as Protestant schools.
Mr. FIELDING. I have not had the advantage of hearing this whole discussion,
but I may say that I have never used such
a statement.
Mr. BERGERON. That may be. But I
have not finished what I was saying. It
may be that the minister (Mr. Fielding) did
not use the word 'Protestant.' But I infer from the way he treated the matter that
he referred to what I have been accustomed
to hear called Protestant schools. Because
to me schools where you do not speak of
God are Protestant schools.
Mr. FIELDING. I cannot admit that a
school in which you do not speak of God
is a Protestant school. I have always believed that there was a God in the Protestant
religion as well as in the Roman
Catholic.
Mr. BERGERON. Yes, but if you do
not recognize Him, what is the use ?
Mr. FIELDING. My hon. friend (Mr.
Bergeron) forgets that under the school law
of the Northwest Territories there is provision for recognizing the existence of God.
because where the trustees so desire the
school can be opened with the use of the
Lord's Prayer.
3485 MARCH 30, 1905
Mr. BERGERON. Yes, if they wish it.
But it is left to the discretion—
Mr. BERGERON. But if my hon. friend
(Mr. Fielding) and I were boys together in
such a school, the mere fact of the Lord's
Prayer being used would not make it seem
to me anything but a non-sectarian school.
And the use of the Lord's Prayer is only
permissive.
Mr. CAMPBELL. If my hon. friend (Mr.
Bergeron) will allow me, I can tell him that
in the province of Ontario there are many
public schools that are attended entirely by
Catholic children.
Mr. BERGERON. I do not doubt it; nor
do I doubt that it is a good thing. Let me
explain, so that my hon. friends and I may
understand one another. Amongst our people in the province of Ontario—I have heard
it often in electioneering—when they speak
of the public schools they call them 'les
ecoles Protestantes.' So, as I have been
accustomed to think of it, the word 'Protestant' in that connection does not mean
the same as it means, perhaps, to the Minister of Finance or my hon. friend from
Cape Breton. I am sure they will make
allowance for my mode of expression. The
hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Johnston) does not
wish me to speak in French. I suppose ?
Mr. BERGERON. I have been quoting
the speech of the Minister of Finance. I
followed him with great care as he spoke.
And I think I am right in saying that he
sought to explain what had brought him
back to the fold; and the reason was that
these schools were. as a matter of fact, public schools.
Then there is a further provision that all
schools may be opened with the reciting of the
Lord's Prayer.
It is permissible.
Does anybody object to that ? I hope not.
. . . I want the House to consider seriously, I submit the proposition again, that
if
it be true, as I say, and I believe I am correct
beyond the power of contradiction, that from
the moment that the school opens in the morning up to halt-past three in the afternoon
there
is no difference between a separate school and
a free national school—
Mr. BERGERON. They go out and play.
My hon. friend knows very well that if he
went to one of these schools. after half-
past three, he would go out and play. he
would not attend religious instruction.
Mr. LEMIEUX. I think perhaps my hon.
friend could not recite the Lord's Prayer at
the opening of the school.
3485
3486
Mr. BERGERON. I have said it here in
the chair very often before my hon. friend
became a member of this House.
—and if the only point of difference between
them is that half hour of religious instruction,
is there enough in it to quarrel about ?
The hon. the Minister of Finance is making apologies because, forsooth, he says :
—and if the only point of difference between
them is that half hour of religious instruction,
is there enough in it to quarrel about, and to
have public meetings and agitation throughout
the length and breadth of this land?
No, not for hon. gentlemen who are in
favour of separate schools, but there is
enough in it for those who want to keep
schools from the minority in these provinces.
Referring to those who are agitating against
separate schools and who are not in favour
of doing anything at all, so far as schools
are concerned. in granting autonomy to the
provinces, the Finance Minister says:
When they discover, as they will, in the light
of the debate which will take place in this
House now and in the next few days, when the
people of Canada shall learn that we have in
the far west to-day a system which is practically a national school system, and that
the
only point of difference between us is with re-
spect to that small matter of a half hour of
religious instruction, I think the great mass of
the Protestant people of Canada will say that
they regret that there has been any agitation
on the subject.
Well, I am not talking for those who are
in favour of public schools when I call the
attention of the House to these views. I
want this speech to be translated and to go
through the province of Quebec because my
hon. friends who are from that province will
go back to the people and say: We voted
against the amendment of the hon. leader of
the opposition, we were opposed to the
amendment the object of which was to keep
the minority out of their schools ; we voted
for the party that has at its head the men
who want to render justice to the minority ;
we voted for the motion of the right hon.
leader of the government. That is why the
hon. Minister of Finance has'said that these
schools to all intents and purposes are
national, non-sectarian schools. The Minister of Finance has said something in
another place to which I wish to call the
attention of the House. I cannot find it in
'Hansard' but it is reported to me by
another hon. member :
I believe that the people of the Dominion today are not going to have their minds
engaged
with an elaborate analysis of constitutional
questions, which nine out of ten of them will
never read, and which the whole ten will fail
to understand.
Not very complimentary to the whole
crowd.
3487
I believe that the poeple of Canada, since this
unpleasant question is brought before us, will
expect us to meet it plainly and openly, and
discuss it with the hope of finding a happy
solution.
I believe there is a great deal in that. My
hon. friend was not in at the commencement
of my remarks but I said myself that I did
not care so much what the constitution did
as to provide such a solution of this matter
as would contribute to the peace of the provinces which it is now proposed to admit
to
the confederation. I might also read what
my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr.
Paterson) has said. His remarks were about
on the same line as those of my hon. friend
the Minister of Finance. He also tried to
impress the House with the idea that we
have virtually national schools in the Northwest Territories and that we have no more
separate schools in the proper sense of the
word. I need not read what he said be
cause what he said has been repeated in
some other places and it is already in ' Hansard.' My hon. friend the Minister of
Finance said one thing which I commend to
the attention of the House and of the country. He spoke about good faith. He said
that in keeping that national school system
we have to allow a half hour for religious
instruction because we have moral obligations towards the minority. That is right.
I believe that to be the case but in such a
matter as that I would go a great deal
farther than the law. In a country like
this we cannot have too much tolerance
wherever it is honourable and feasible. My
hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr.
Sifton) has said many things which I would
like to touch upon but I do not wish to
detain the House beyond six o'clock.
Mr. BERGERON. What does my hon.
friend say ? I commend this to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice.
The hon. member for Brandon quoted
Mr. Forget, the Lieutenant Governor of the
Northwest Territories, as follows :
Until the date of the ordinance of 1892 we
had never been denied the right to administer
our schools, to regulate the programme of
studies, to choose the text books, to control the
religious instruction and to authorize the use
of the French language whenever thought convenient. These rights were exercised by
the
Catholic section of the board of education, and
strictly speaking they were sufficient to preserve to our schools their distinctive
character
of Catholic schools.
I think hon. gentlemen understand that.
That is what we understand by separate
schools. It is not in the word ; it is in the
spirit if it. Later on the Lieutenant Governor states :
All the schools, public and separate, Catholic
and Protestant, are placed by the ordinance of
3487
3488
1892 under the direct control of a Protestant
superintendent of education and of a council of
public instruction.
Further :
And a council of public instruction, composed
of the members of the executive committee, in
which the Catholics have not one single representative.
Then Monseigneur Taché says :
The petitioners had this and other dangers in
view when they said :
The effect of the ordinance is to deprive the
Catholic separate schools of that character
which differentiates them from public or Protestant schools—
There it is again. He is not afraid to
mention the word,
—and to leave them Catholic separate schools
in name only, and such it is submitted is its
obviously necessary effect.
This is not said in an ungenerous spirit.
Amongst our people an English school is a
Protestant school. They understand it in
that way ; not in the improper sense of the
word at all. We do not use the word ' Protestant ' in a bad sense because there are
many good Protestants as there are good
Catholics. The Archbishop uses that word
only in that sense. Again, the Archbishop
says :
In spite of all these protestations this ordinance in the dispositions which concerned
us
had and could have but one object, that is,
the abolition of all distinct character of our
schools. Thanks to that ordinance and to the
regulations of the council of public instruction
which followed, this end has been to-day practically attained. Nothing essential now
distinguishes the Catholic schools from the Protestant schools but the designation,
now ironical, of separate schools.
Now this is Archbishop Taché who says
that and it has not been denied. On the
contrary it is brought to the attention of
the House by the hon. member for Brandon
(Mr. Sifton) to show why he supported the
amendment of the Prime Minister after resigning on account of the Bill as it was
first brought down. He wants to show
why he came back and says that he is supporting to-day by the amendment of the
Primae Minister at system of schools which
is in fact a system of national schools and
to prove it he places on ' Hansard ' the
words of a man whose utterances should
have a great deal of weight with those who
are in favour of separate schools. Archbishop Taché said:
Nothing essential now distinguishes the Catholic schools from Protestant schools but
the designation, now ironical, of separate schools.
Then Judge Rouleau speaks in the same
line. Then what does the hon. member for
Brandon say:
3489 MARCH 30, 1905
I have read these extracts for the purpose
of showing that when the ordinance of 1892
was passed the distinctive character of these
schools as separate schools, as denominational
schools, as schools controlled by a sectarian
body for sectarian purposes, absolutely disappeared.
That is in 1892.
We have it that the clerical control of these
schools was absolutely abolished.
That is what the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) says. This is the point
which he has in view, that the clerical control of these schools had been abolished
by
the ordinance of 1892. He says :
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.
In making a report on one of the ordinances
passed shortly before 1892 but somewhat similar
in its effect—not so sweeping in its effect—Sir
John Thompson in substance reported that this
ordinance, contracts or diminishes the rights
of minorities to an extent not contemplated by
the Act of 1875, and that the Act of 1875 must
nevertheless be held to remain in force notwithstanding the passage of the ordinance.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. BERGERON. Mr. Speaker, when
the House rose at six o'clock, I was reading
the words of the member for Brandon
(Mr. Sifton), his own apolgy for the extraordinary position which he assumes on the
measure now before the House. He left
the government because he could not agree
with his colleagues on clause 16 of the Bill
as originally presented, and when he spoke
here he seemed to take a great deal of
pride in the fact that the government had
amended that clause and substituted for it
the provision as to separate schools which
we are now discussing. We have had it
stated throughout the country, by the friends
of the government in some quarters, that
the government had not changed their policy
on this question, and that the amended
clause is in effect the same as clause 16, the
difference being only in the phraseology.
If we are to believe what the ex-minister
(Mr. Siften) says, and he seems to know
all about it, it is quite clear that he carried
his point against the government, against
the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice,
and the framers of clause 16, and that these
gentlemen had to take back water at the
command of their ex-minister. The hon.
gentleman (Mr. Sifton) said, ' Hansard ' page
3103 :
Let me give what I conceive to be an accurate resumé of the principles which are enforced
and carried out by these ordinances. We
have one normal school with uniform normal
3489
3490
training for all teachers, and when I say all
teachers, I mean teachers of all schools, separate and public ; uniform curricula
and courses
of study for all schools of the same grade ;
uniform text books for all schools whatever ;
uniform qualification of teachers for all schools
whatever ; complete and absolute control of all
schools as to their government and conduct, by
the central school authority set up by the
legislature under the ordinances ; complete
secularization of all schools between nine
o'clock in the morning and three-thirty in the
afternoon, except that any school, if the trustees so desire, may be opened with the
Lord's
Prayer ; distribution of the legislative grant
to all schools according to educational efficiency on principles set out in chapter
31.
Then, where there is a public school, the
minority, Protestant or Roman Catholic, may
organize a separate school ; but every separate school is subject absolutely to all
the
foregoing provisions, and is in every sense of
the term a public school. If the Protestants
are in the minority in a district, their school
is called a separate school ;—
I call the attention of hon. gentlemen
to the fact that what we in the province of
Quebec would call a Protestant school, is,
according to the member for Brandon, a
separate school when the Protestants of the
district are in the minority. The ex-minister continued :
If the Catholics are in the minority in a district, their school is called a separate
school ;
but both are public schools. They are absolutely similar save for one distinction
: where
the trustees are Protestant, there is Protestant teaching from half-past three to
four, and
where the trustees are Roman Catholic there
is Roman Catholic teaching from half-past three
to four. That is absolutely the only distinction
between these schools.
Then the hon. gentleman read the amended clause as follows :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
separate schools which any class of persons
have at the date of the passing of this Act,
under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the
ordinances of the Northwest Territories passed
in the year 1901.
Commenting on this clause, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) is speaking to the element
of our population who are opposed to
separate schools ; he is making an apology
for the amended clause, and he says :
What does that preserve ? I have read these
ordinances through, and all that I can find
this section to preserve—and it is an important
thing—let us not exaggerate or minimize, let
us know exactly what we are doing—I think
that this is what we are doing and all that we
are doing. This section preserves the right of
the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority to
have their school, a separate school in name,
but a public school in fact, in a separate building if they wish. That is the right
it preserves.
It preserves, secondly, the right of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in
such
school to have religious teaching from 3.30 to
4 o'clock in the afternoon.
3491
COMMONS
Further on he says :
But there cannot be under this system any
control of the school by any clerical or sectarian body.
The aim of the hon. gentleman is to show
that he is opposed to clerical or sectarian
teaching more than anything else. Well,
Sir, let me tell him that those who are in
favour of separate schools in the proper
sense of the word are in favour of clerical
and sectarian teaching, or otherwise those
schools would not deserve the name of
separate schools. He says :
There cannot be any sectarian teaching between nine o'clock in the morning and half-past
three in the afternoon. So that, so far as we
have objections to separate schools based upon
the idea of church control, clerical control, or
ecclesiasticism in any form, this system of
schools is certainly not open to that objection.
And yet the newspapers which are supporting the government in the province of
Quebec are boasting that the Prime Minister is preserving for ever the separate
school system which the people of the Northwest Territories had at first—not the present
system of separate schools existing there,
which does not amount to anything. The
hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) goes on to speak
of Manitoba and he boasts of what he. has
done :
When we in the province of Manitoba undertook to remove what was a school system that
I said was inefficient to the point of absurdity,
we found ourselves confronted with many and
serious difficulties.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I stated this afternoon what I believed to be the real cause
of the changing of the school law in Manitoba, and when the member for Brandon
says that the clerical school system is inefficient, I can refer him to such an excellent
authority as the right hon. the Prime Minister who will tell him that he is entirely
mistaken. If the hon. gentleman said that
the elementary schools in our province, or
in other provinces for that matter, if he
said that what we call in French les petites
ecoles are not perfect, there might be some
ground for his statement, because it is
unfortunately true that those who pay for
the maintenance of these schools do not
contribute sufficient to secure the services
of first-class teachers. However, these elementary schools are mostly attended by
very
young children and up to the present time
they have been found fairly sufficient for
their purpose. But when the member for
Brandon (Mr. Sifton) makes the sweeping
assertion that clerical schools are inefficient.
he simply does not know what he is talking about. Let him look around him in
this House and see the men on both sides,
who are the alumni of clerical schools. Let
him look at the men in this chamber who
have been taught in colleges and schools
3491
3492
conducted by priests ; let him look at the
men who have received what he calls a
clerical education, and perhaps he will revise his judgment. The hon. member for
Brandon has not to look only on this side
of the House ; let him look at the men sitting around him and beside him who have
received their education in schools controlled by the clergy, and I think he will
have to admit that they are men of education, men of high attainments, men of
whom any country might well be proud.
More than that ; the hon. member for
Brandon is unjust, because, if I am well
informed—and I have taken my information from some newspapers of repute published
in the province of Manitoba—the
Catholic university of St. Boniface today
is above competition. It is understood that
in that university, the young men in the
highest classes have nobody to compete
with, from Toronto to the Pacific coast and
they are obliged to compete amongst themselves. They have carried off prizes,
medals and every distinction. Nobody
knows this better than the hon. member
for Brandon. These young men are taught
by ecclesiastics ; they are the subjects of
clerical schools. So I say to those who
might be tempted to believe him that when
the hon. gentleman talks of the inefficiency
of clerical education, he is out of the way
altogether.
In answer to my hon. friend the Minister
of Customs (Mr. Paterson), who had declared that the proceedings of the Manitoba
government in abolishing separate schools
in that province might have been obnoxious
to somebody, the hon. member for Brandon
said : 'Well, Sir, I am here to say that
we cannot abolish abuses of that kind by
handling people with kid gloves.' No, we
all know that he did not use kid gloves.
We all know that not only was the minority
in Manitoba robbed of its system of schools,
not only was the French language abolished,
which is something appreciated by those
who speak that language, but their buildings to the amount of $14,000 were stolen
from them by the Manitoba government and
were never given back to them. So when
the hon. gentleman says that he did not
use kid gloves, he is right. I would rather
say he used a crowbar or a pince-monseigneur to steal the separate schools of Manitoba,
or what they had and their buildings.
My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) speaks very well—I have heard him
before—but he always comes to a conclusion
entirely different from his premises. Every
time I have heard him on these subjects. I
have always seen him starting against the
government and finishing by being entirely
with the government. He thought he would
make a point in his speech by criticising
my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
He even went so far as to say that he had
lost confidence in the leader of the opposi
3493 MARCH 30, 1905
tion. Well, that did not pain my hon.
friend very much, because he had never supposed that the hon. member for Labelle had
any confidence in him. The hon. member
for Labelle, if I infer rightly from the
words he uttered, is entirely opposed to the
amendment. Still, I believe, though he
did not say so in word, that he will vote
for the amendment. So it is no use for me
to discuss his speech, because, though it
was witty and well delivered, its conclusion did not follow from its premises ; consequently
there is no result to it.
My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), in
the very eloquent speech he made in the
House in answer to the hon. member for
Labelle, spoke of the generosity of those
men whom the hon. member for Labelle
was ready to asperse. My hon. friend
from Peel forgot one thing, however, when
he spoke of the generosity of Ontario, he
should more properly have spoken of the
generosity of the Conservatives of Ontario.
My hon. friend said that only lately there
was an election in the province of Ontario,
and the Prime Minister of the day had said
that if he came into power he would see
that every nationality and creed would be
represented in his government. What did
he do when called on to form an administration? He kept his word; he acted like
an honourable man and according to the
traditions of the Conservative party. Mr.
Speaker, who was the man who for the
first time, appointed to the upper House
of this parliament a French Canadian from
the province of Ontario—a man coming from
your own city, the Hon. Mr. Casgrain?
Sir John A. Macdonald, whom the Liberals
in our province have always tried to make
a scapegoat of, as a Protestant and a fanatic. Who appointed the first French Canadian
senator from the province of Prince
Edward Island, in the person of the Hon.
Mr. Arsenault. but a Conservative administration ? And when that gentleman died,
our French Canadian premier replaced him
with an English-speaking Canadian. Who
appointed Senator Poirier. another French
Canadian, from the province of New Brunswick, but a Conservative administration,
which also appointed Judge Landry ? I am
saying this to show that the Conservative
party has traditions of which it may well
be proud, and that it stands by those traditions. There may be in our party some
gentlemen who have ideas different from
the others. but the party as a whole has
a history of which it may well be proud.
We cannot say the same of the other party.
We know that if hon. gentlemen opposite
have stood upon any platform in the past,
it has been only to get into power. Their
traditions are all new ; they have never
been in use yet. In 1896, the Liberal party
prevented the Conservative party from doing an act of justice in the settlement of
the Manitoba school question. We may be
3493
3494
told that the province of Quebec has sanctioned that. It is true. There are many
considerations for that ; but it does not deprive the Conservative party of the honour
of having done its duty. I heard my hon.
friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) yesterday saying in a sarcastic way that hon.
gentlemen opposite may boast that three appeals have been made to the people since
that time, and that the people have sanctioned the position taken by my right hon.
friend. What does that prove ? It proves
only one thing—and I say it with all modesty—that they were believed more than
we were believed ; but it does not prove
that they were right. Sir, when I am speaking about traditions, I want to say this
before I resume my seat, that upon all those
dangerous questions, national or religious,
the Conservative party has always been
found in the path of duty, ready to do what
was best in the interest of the country.
They paid for it dearly sometimes ; but history is written, and when that history
is
read by those who will come later, the
young men of the day, whether they are
educated in separate schools or in public
schools, it will tell them the truth. The
Liberal party cannot continue to play
double. face with each and every one of
these questions.
Something has been said, unfortunately,
about the hierarchy ; and something has
been written in the papers against the
hierarchy. But it was defended here by
gentlemen on both sides, and I was proud
to hear gentlemen who do not belong to
that creed speaking of the hierarchy in most
eulogistic terms. Let me say that, although
we have had this measure before the House
for over a month, I have never received a
letter or word of communication of
any kind regarding it from any bishop
or priest, and I know a great many.
What does that prove ? It shows,
not that the Catholic clergy are not
interested, but that they have too much delicacy and too much sense of their own dignity
to undertake, without being requested
to do so, to advise a member of parliament
as to what course he should follow. Our
clergy have been deceived in the past, and
if my remarks have been long and tedious.
it is because I wish to put on record in
' Hansard ' what I consider necessary to
enable them to know who are those by
whom they have been deceived. We have
heard a great deal about petitions, and
we have seen a great many petitions presented in this House, but the only petition
that I have received from my constituency
is one that is signed by fourteen Methodists
—whom I know to be most respectable
men—in the city of Valleyfield. We have
been told of certain petitions which have
been sent out in the province of Quebec by
the Club Jacques Cartier at the instigation
of some members of this House. But that
statement was positively denied by my hon.
3495 COMMONS
friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).
My hon. friend stated positively that there
was not a member in this House from the
province of Quebec who had anything to
do with these petitions. I am not pretending that there would be any harm in these
petitions, people have the right to petition ;
but I am merely pointing out that if any
petitions were circulated, they were circulated by some one who took upon himself
to
do that work without having had any
authorization from any member of parliament. I have not seen any of these petitions,
but I understand that in all of them
the right hon. gentleman is asked to stand
fast by clause No. 16 of the Bill as introduced. The signers of these petitions were
afraid that he might drop that clause ; they
were afraid that he might be influenced by
the other wing of the government, and
abandon clause 16 for something else.
Well, they were not wrong, because my
right hon. friend has given up that clause
and accepted an amendment which is satisfactory to the hon. member for Brandon
(Mr. Sifton). One need not go far to show
what kind of an amendment that must be.
I call the attention of those who are in
favour of separate schools to Mr. Sifton's
approval. If the amendment before the
House is acceptable to the hon. member for
Brandon, you may judge for yourselves
how far it goes in favour of separate schools.
In 1896 there was a hierarchy in the province of Quebec just as there is to-day.
What happened then ? After the elections
were over and my right hon. friend was
returned to power with a large majority
from the province of Quebec, one of the
boasts of the Liberal politicians and the
Liberal press was that they had been able
to carry the province against the hierarchy.
If that were true, what did it mean ? It
could only mean that the hierarchy had no
influence at all. But if it had no influence,
how could we be called a priest-ridden province ? It is not true, however, that the
hierarchy had no influence, and I can tell
my right hon. friend something which he
knows quite well. The hierarchy in 1896
did not do anything. They did not do as
much as I would have liked them to do in
their own interests. So broad and nonpartisan were the mandements they published that
they were accepted by the Liberals as being in their favour. But if the
day should come when that hierarchy
would feel impelled to take a hand in the
contest, their influence would be soon felt.
My right hon. friend remembers that when
there was trouble in Manitoba, when a rebellion was threatened in that province, it
was not on its troops that the government
relied. No, the government of that day
did not send out its troops, but telegraphed
to Rome to his Lordship Bishop Taché, and
asked him to return home and establish
peace in the province of Manitoba. Bishop
Tache did so. The government of that day
must had confidence in his ability and
3495
3496
influence. Many were the promises which
were made him then, but which have never
been carried out. For this I am not blaming my right hon. friend. The responsibility
lies with other public men, but unfortunately the Liberal party had more to do with
it than anybody else.
To come back to the position taken by
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding).
We are now about to create two new provinces. We are in a sense enlarging Canada.
We are making it stronger and more important. I would advise the House not
to stand so much upon the letter of the
constitution, but to do what is best calculated to make all creeds and nationalities
in these new provinces live together in harmony. What we require in this country is
tolerance and conciliation, and we cannot
have that when we call for the sacrifice of
any principle or the destruction of any
right. Every nationality and creed in this
Dominion should be made to feel that it
has the respect and the confidence of other
nationalities and creeds, if we want Canada
to be united and ever to achieve anything.
I sincerely hope that the question now being
discussed is the last of the kind that will
ever come before parliament. I sincerely
hope that in the end we shall all join hand
in hand. I trust that every province and
every Canadian worthy of the name, and
who desires the welfare of his country, will
join hand in hand with his fellow-citizens
to work together for what we believe the
best interests of Canada, and not allow
national or religious questions to interfere
with that work.
In speaking of the position taken by my
leader, I wish to say openly that, to my
mind, he made an admirable speech upon
this question, a speech to which nobody
can take exception. We may not all share
the conclusions to which he came. but every
man on this side, and I believe on the other
side as well is convinced that the leader of
the opposition spoke in all sincerity, without any bias, and influenced solely by
a desire for the welfare of Canada. So much
is that the case, that if in that amendment
of his, ten words were struck off at the
end, I would be disposed to support it. And
in doing so I would be standing on a good
principle, namely, provincial autonomy and
provincial rights ; and in my opinion clause
93 of the British North America Act would
give the new provinces the school system
they have to-day. But as a doubt has been
expressed by the Minister of Justice, I
would have clause 16. But here is where
I think there is a difference between the
position taken by the hon. the leader of the
opposition and the right hon. the First Minister. My hon. friend the leader of the
opposition leaves the door open by his amendment to the people of the new provinces
to
give themselves separate schools. From not
one man on this side of the House have I
heard a word against the system of separate
3497 MARCH 30, 1905
schools in itself. Those who have spoken
have declared in favour of allowing the people to have whatever system of schools
they
please.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) allow me a question?
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. Was the hon. gentleman in the House when the hon. member for
East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said that the system of separate schools was a bad one ?
Mr. BERGERON. I did not hear the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) say that.
Mr. SPROULE. Does the hon. gentleman
for Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne) refer to
separate schools as they exist in the Northwest ?
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I asked my hon.
friend if he contended that the system of
separate schools in that province was a
bad one and he answered yes.
Mr. SPROULE. I said that that system,
in my judgment, was not a good one. But
I added, in connection with the schools in
the Northwest, that our fight was not against
the people giving separate schools if they
desired to do so, but against interference
with their rights to have any system they
chose.
Mr. BERGERON. I accept the word of
my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
and I would remind my hon. friend from
Montmagny that it could not be otherwise,
as the separate schools in the Northwest
are, for all practical purposes, the very
same as the public schools. Now, the amended Bill of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier), in my opinion, will prevent altogether the establishment in the Northwest
of separate schools such as I would like
to see. He perpetuates the provision of
the ordinance now existing. And the hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has declared that the schools under these ordinances
are entirely public schools. Put this
upon the statute-book and you prevent for
ever the establishment of separate schools
in the Northwest provinces. On the other
hand, the position taken by the leader of
the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) leaves it
open to the provinces to establish any system of schools they desire.
Now, I fear I have kept the House too
long. I had intended to speak much more
briefly. But hon. gentlemen will pardon
me because this is a very important question, and I hope that it will be long before
we shall be called upon to speak on any
such subject so delicate and so dangerous.
When I am called upon to address the House
again, I hope it will be on some question
upon which members of the same party can
agree. Still, though this is an unfortunate
question, a dangerous question, I wish to
3497
3498
pay this compliment to my colleagues in
this House, on both sides of the House—
that the newspapers of the country might
well take a leaf out of 'Hansard' for they
will find there that every man who has
spoken has been able to express his opinion
frankly yet in such a way as not to hurt
the feelings of any of his fellow-members.
Hoping, as I have said, that we shall not
have again such questions to deal with, but
that we may all unite for the best interests
of Canada, I am reminded of the words of
Tennyson, with which I close :
Let Whig and Tory stir their blood,—
There must be stormy weather;
But for true results of good
All parties work together.
Hon. N. A. BELCOURT (Ottawa). Mr.
Speaker, will my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) permit me to extend
to him my congratulations, and to assure him
of the pleasure which I share with other
gentlemen upon this side of the House,
because of the fact that he will give his
vote on the measure before you in support
of the government of to-day. Whatever may
be thought of the reasons which the hon.
gentleman gave as justifying that conclusion, it is a gratification to know that,
on
this occasion, he will vote with us. He
said that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr.
Bourassai had devoted most of his speech
to remarks antagonistic to the course of
the government, and still concluded by declaring that he would vote with the government.
I am afraid that the hon. member for Labelle has found a very ready
imitator in that respect, in the person of
the hon. member for Beauharnois—in fact
the hon. member (Mr. Bergeron) has gone
the hon. member for Labelle one better ;
the whole speech to which we have just
listened, has been—I say it without offence—a tirade against the government of
the day. He did not say at the end how
he would vote, but I presume he will vote
against the amendment.
Mr. BERGERON. I may have forgotten
to say that. I will not vote for the amendment.
Mr. BELCOURT. Then, what has been
said has been well said. The Canadian
national family will extend to the two
new provinces in the west their hearty
congratulations when, on the first of July
next, they take their place in the family
circle and around the family table. I hope
that by that time the note of discord which
has been heard in one part of this country
will have ceased to sound—I believe in fact
that that will be the case, and that even
if it still sounds, it will not mar the chorus
of pride and satisfaction with which all
Canada will extend a welcome to the two
new sisters in the west, with hearty good
wishes for their progress. prosperity and
happiness. In discussing this Bill I do not
3499 COMMONS
intend to take up the time of the House in
referring to those features which are not
the subject of contention. As to irrigation,
as to financial arrangements, as to the division of the territory into one or more
provinces—as to these, there seems to be but
little dispute. With your permission, I will
devote the time during which you may
indulge me, to treating with the main question in dispute, the question of education,
and incidentally, the control of the public
lands. As to the question of education,
section 16 preserves, in my opinion, what we
Roman Catholics hold as part of our religious faith—religious instruction in the
schools. I need not say that I am a believer
in that doctrine, that I am in that respect,
altogether at one with the church to which
I belong. And it is a gratification to me
to know, and I feel fortified to know, that
there are many great men, not only in this
country, but in the mother country and
elsewhere, not professing the religion to
which I am attached, who also believe in
the necessity of religious instruction in the
schools. I say that section 16 is altogether
justified under the letter and spirit of our
constitution. I say also, and I shall endeavour to demonstrate it, that, on grounds
of highest public policy, the enactment of
section 16 is altogether expedient and is
rendered absolutely necessary. We know
the rights which are preserved by section
16. If separate schools are allowed, I care
not whether they are called denominational
schools or whatever name may be given to
them. To my mind there is nothing in
the name, or very little—it is altogether in
the principle, a principle which is sanctioned, admitted, and perpetuated by section
16,
insisting on the right or privilege of the
minority to give religious instruction in the
schools of the Northwest Territories.
This privilege is recognized and in existence to-day by virtue of the statute of
1875 and by virtue of the ordinances of
1901 which have been passed pursuant to
that statute. My hon. friend the leader of
the opposition devoted a large portion of
his speech to demonstrate as a legal proposition that the statute of 1875 could at
any time have been repealed and that it
could be repealed to-day. He cited the
authority of Sir John Thompson and others
in support of that contention. I do not
think that any lawyer will dispute that.
It is quite clear and must be clear to any
lawyer that the Act of 1875 could have been
repealed and that it could be repealed now
at this very moment. But, Sir, it has not
been repealed. It is in existence to-day.
The ordinances which have been made in
pursuance of that statute are in existence
and they will be in existence on the 1st of
July when these two provinces join the confederation. The effect of section 16 is
to
preserve and perpetuate that right upon the
admission of the two new provinces. I
say, that, under the letter of sections 93
3499
3500
and 146 of the British North America Act,
that clause is not only justified, but it is
necessary. The real question with me is
to determine what is the right of the province at the moment it enters the union in
the words of section 93. The whole question with me is determined by the fact
that the right or privilege mentioned in the
section exists concurrently with the creation or birth of the province as a province.
The word 'province' in section 93 means
the province, not before. but the province
at the moment that it enters confederation
and for ever thereafter. But before it does
enter as a province it is not a province
of the union and consequently if it has
been admitted as a territory the provisions of section 93 have no application. The
provisions contained in the British North
America Act, 1867, are provisith which apply to and which regulate the relations
of
the provinces of the union which determine
the rights, privileges and obligations of the
provinces as provinces. In section 1 to section 146 of the British North America Act
are contained the provisions, stipulations
and agreements made between the original
partners to the confederation, which are applicable to the provinces of the union
and
to the provinces of the union only. Surely
it cannot be contended that the original
British North America Act, 1867, section 1
to section 146, was intended to regulate and
determine the relations of any part of British North America other than the provinces
which agrced at that time to form part of
the confederation or which later on were to
be added thereto. I repeat, Sir, that the
right to be preserved is the right concurrent with and co-existent with the creation
of the province or existing at the time
of its entering into the union. Take section
93 and what is its plain ordinary meaning?
I say, referring to the words of the section,
that the word province in the section—
—Any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of
persons have by law in the province at the union.
—means nothing else than a province coming into the confederation as a province and
not as a territory. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in order to make
good
his point, says that because the Territories
had been admitted into the confederation in
1870 section 93 has no longer its application ;
in other words, that the provisions of section 93 must be applied as to the Territories
in 1870, because, according to him, that is
the date at which they came into the union.
Well, I say that in order to come to that
conclusion my learned and hon. friend has
had to do what he charged the government
with doing in this case, he has had to interpolate into section 93 a word which is
not
to be found in section 93. He has had to
interpolate the word 'territory' into the section which is not to be found in the
section.
He has had, in fact, to substitute for the
3501 MARCH 30, 1905
word 'province,' which is in section 93, the
word 'territory,' which is not in section 93.
I think I am not doing my hon. friend an
injustice in stating that as his argument.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am not disposed
to admit that my hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt)
is exactly stating my argument. However,
my argument is before the House and when
we come to discuss this question afterwards
in committee we will have an opportunity
of interchanging opinions. But, I would like
to ask my hon. friend one question, if he
will permit me, and it is this: I would infer from what he has just said that he considers
section 2 of the Bill now under discussion as being sufficient to bring into
operation in the new provinces the provisions of section 93, and that these provisions
would perpetuate in the new provinces the
provisions of section 14 of the Act of 1875.
That is the logical deduction from what my
hon. and learned friend has just said. Am
I correct in so understanding him?
Mr. BELCOURT. If my hon. friend
will permit me as my argument develops
I will give him an answer to his question, although I am not quite sure that I
thoroughly understand his question. It
may be that it was doubtful, if, under the
original provision of the British North
America Act, 1867, we could admit the
Territories otherwise than as provinces. I am
willing to go that far on the lines of my
hon. friend's argument. It is doubtful with
me, if the Act of 1871 had not been passed,
whether we could have admitted the Territories except as full-fledged provinces to
the union. I have not the slightest doubt
that the principal reason which prompted
the Act of 1871 was the very doubt to
which I have referred. But the passing of
the Act of 1871 has, to my mind, removed
any doubt which could have existed to that
effect. What is the general scheme of the
Confederation Act ? The general scheme of
the Confederation Act, as has been pointed
out by others, was to establish a national
partnership between then fully independent
and autonomous provinces or colonies subject only to one jurisdiction. and that was
the imperial jurisdiction, whatever it may
have been and which I have no doubt varied
from one case to the other. But the idea
of the fathers of confederation was to make
an agreement—a partnership agreement I
will call it—for the purpose of determining
the conditions, the powers and the relations
of these autonomous provinces, as between
themselves and for the sake of creating a
central power and enlarging the importance
of their positions in British North America.
They came together for the purpose of determining the conditions of that partnership.
The Act of Confederation determined what the relations of these autonomous
provinces as between themselves and the
central power and what their powers, rights
3501
3502
and obligations would be. It also provided, by section 146, that later on these
portions of British North America which
at that time did not come into the confederation might do so, and I say that it was
the intention then, under the letter of the constitution, and that it was then provided
and
stipulated that if other provinces should
later on enter the confederation they should
come in under the same terms and condition,. and that the conditions which were
made applicable to the original provinces
were uniform conditions applicable not only
to the original provinces but to those which
might be added to the partnership later on.
It was not contemplated by the provisions of the British North America Act,
sections 1 to 146, that there might be admitted at that time as full-fledged provinces
any portion of British North America then
in process of formation. It was not thought
that those portions of territory in the west,
which at that time had very little population except the coureurs de bois and a few
stray settlers here and there, should be admitted as provinces ; it was not contemplated
at that time, for instance, that there
was any possibility of admitting them except as temporary portions of the confederation.
I say that the provisions contained
in the British North America Act, 1867, so
far as they concerned the original portions
of the confederation, or such provinces
which might be admitted later on, are absolutely immutable ; they are unchangeable,
at all events, so far as this parliament is concerned, although they might, it
is true, be subject to amendment by the
imperial parliament. But the Canadian parliament cannot materially alter the specific
provisions of the British North America
Act.
Mr. BELCOURT. Not at all. It has been
argued, and it has been stated repeatedly,
that the Northwest Territories, when they
came into confederation in 1870, came in
subject to all the provisions of the Act
of 1867. Such argument would have some,
foundation, as I have said, if the Act of
1871 had not been passed, but the Act of
1871, in my opinion, was passed principally in order to get over that very difficulty.
It was thought at that time, after
Manitoba and the Territories had been taken
in, in 1870, that the provisions of the British
North America Act, 1867, were insufficient
to cover the case of the Territories. There
arose a doubt at that time whether all the
provisions of the Act of 1867 were applicable to the Territories upon their admission.
There also arose another doubt as
to whether the powers of this parliament in
admitting territories as such under the provisions of section 146 had not been exhausted.
It was thought by some that we had
exercised the power given to us by section
3503
146 in admitting these Territories as territories, and that being so, it was doubted
if it was any longer open to us, if we still
had the power to admit them later on as
provinces. That. I think, was the principal
reason of the amendment of 1871. That
was the principal object of that legislation,
and I think it was also the principal effect,
of it.
Mr. LENNOX. If that contention is correct, what would be the effect now? Would
that statute that was passed then be sufficient to cover the case with which we are
now dealing ?
Mr. BELCOURT. I cannot understand the
hon. gentleman's question at all.
Mr. LENNOX. I understood the hon.
gentleman to say that it was thought that
the power of section 146 of the British
North America Act was exhausted.
Mr. LENNOX. That was supposed to be
the reason for getting another Act from the
imperial parliament. If that Act was necessary at that time, would that Act he suffi
cient for the present case, or would it be
exhausted by the exercise of it at that time?
Mr. BELCOURT. I said that the Act of
1871 was passed for the purpOse of allowing
us to admit these provinces, on the supposition that the power conferred by section
146
had been exhausted.
Mr. LENNOX. I have not recently been
looking at the section with this particular
point in view, but my recollection is that
the statute only provides for the case of
Manitoba, and would not be sufiicient to
cover the new province now about to be
admitted.
Mr. BELCOURT. It covered the case of
Manitoba in so many words, but by necessary inference it covered the case of the
Territories as well. The hon. gentleman
must remember that when this Act was
passed the Territories had been admitted
into conederation as territories; Manitoba had been admitted as a province, and
the Act of 1871 was passed, as I have said,
for the purpose of allowing us a power
which it was thought we had already exercised under 146 by admitting them as territories,
a power to admit them later on as
provinces. I say that by inference the Act
of 1871 enables us to do that to-day.
There was another reason to which the
hon. gentleman also referred, that is, the
provision for the control of lands under the
Manitoba Act. It was thought at the time
that that was possibly ultra vircs. and that
was another reason why the Act of 1871 was
passed: but one has only to look at the
preamble of the Act of 1871 to see clearly
and plainly that these were the reasons
that prompted that Act. The preamble
reads :
3503
3504
Whereas doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of the parliament of Canada
to establish provinces in territories admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted
into
the Dominion of Canada, and to provide for the
representation of such provinces in the said
parliament, and it is expedient to remove such
doubts and to vest such powers in the said parliament:
The preamble of the Act is plain, and
seems to leave no question that the object
of the Act was to remove the doubts to
which I have made reference. Under the
provisions of the Act of 1871 we have had
the power ever since it was passed to apply
to these Territories such provisions of the
British Columbia Act as we saw fit. We
have had the power to apply the original
provisions of the British North America Act
in whole or in part, in any modified manner
that we chose, and we have had the power,
as was pointed out by my hon. friend, to
repeal these provisions and, from time to
time, to substitute for them other provisions of a similar or of a different nature.
As far as the Territories are concerned, it
must be remembered that they came into
the confederation without any special provisions applicable to them, that it was left
to this parliament to determine, from time
to time, what powers we should confer upon
them. That seems to me to be absolutely
justified. As I have pointed out, as every
one knows, the Territories were then in
their early infancy. They had a very sparse
population, the whole matter was tentative ;
the jurisdiction which the Act conferred on
them must necessarily for manifestly obvious reasons be a tentative one; and,
therefore, it was provided, under section 2, that we might, from time to time,
apply to them such provisions of the British
North America Act as we should deem proper. I say that that discretionary power
vested in this parliament with reference to
the Territories was with reference to territories only, and not with reference to
provinces. I say that under the Act of 1871
this parliament has not to-day the right to
apply to any province coming into the union
any but the original provisions, from section
1 to section 146, of the Act of 1867. I say
that the Act of 1871 was made for the purpose only of the Territories, and cannot
to-day have any application, and should not
have any application whatever, when we are
taking a province into confederation.
The Act of 1871 was passed for the purpose of completing the Act of 1867; not
for the purpose of modifying it, not for the
purpose of repealing any of its provisions,
but simply in order to add to the Act of
1867 provisions which it was found had
been omitted from that Act. Its scope
was limited. to the entry, control and government of new territories. Under the
rules of construction, I submit that my
argument is quite justified, because I
think every lawyer in this House will
agree. with me that the modification of a
3505
MARCH 30, 1905
specific, clear. definite provision cannot be
modified by another provision made in
general terms to be found in the same Act
or in another Act to be read together with it.
All the provisions of the Act of 1871 are
susceptible of application and are susceptible of interpretation apart altogether
from
the provisions of the Act of 1867. What better proof of that do we require than the
course we have pursued for the last thirty-
five years during which we have administered these Territories altogether by virtue
of
the provisions of the Act of 1871. Since 1870
when these Territories came under our control, we have not governed them by virtue
of the Act of 1867 but by virtue of the Act
of 1871. Therefore, the Act of 1871 has
not in any way modified or altered the specific provisions of the Act of 1867, and
so
long as these Territories remain Territories.
this parliament of course continues to hold
absolute jurisdiction over them. The legislation in these Territories shall be just
exactly what this parliament chooses to
make it; from time to time this parliament
may repeal provisions previously enacted
or substitute for them provisions entirely
different. But when the status of the Territories is changed and they are made provinces
; when they are elevated to the dignity of provinces, then come in and are
immediately applicable the provisions
of the Act of 1867. The new provinces
are entitled to all the benefits and all the
provisions of the Act of 1867; they are entitled to all the provisions which were
applicable to and which could be claimed by
the original provinces of confederation.
Therefore it is that I say, that when these
Territories are being admitted as full-
fledged partners in the original partnership
of agreement, when they are admitted as
full—fledged provinces of the union they are
entitled to the full benefits of section 93
of the Act of 1867 and the rights or privileges referred to in subsection 1 of said
section are preserved to the new provinces.
Every one admits that we could have repealed the Act of 1875, that we could have
modified it, and that we could have replaced
it by another Act. If we had simply re
pealed the Act of 1875 the ordinances made
thereunder by the Territories would have
all been wiped out as a necessary consequence, but not having repealed the
Act of 1875 the ordinances which have
been enacted by virtue of that Act
remain, and they will be in existence
011 the first of July when these provinces come into the union. It has
been argued, and I am not prepared to dissent, that section 16 of the present Bill
constitutes a modification of the Act of 1875.
I shall not discuss whether it does or whether it does not, nor shall I say whether
the modification if any is an important or
an unimportant one. But the very moment
it is admitted that this section 16 constitutes
a modification of the provisions of the Act
3505
3506
of 1875, then there immediately arises the
necessity for the enactment of this very
section. It has been said that this section
16 of the Bill we are discussing is the result of a compromise, and that may be or
it may not be the case. I admit that it is
in some sense and in some respects a modification of the law of 1875, not a modification
of the principle of religious instruction
in the schools, which in section 16 is again
upheld, but a modification probably in the
manner in which the principle is to be applied. but the leader of the opposition has
told us that because it constitutes a modification of the provisions of the Act of
1875
we are, in enacting section 16, amending
section 93 of the British North America Act.
I do not think that is correct and I would
like to ask my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) if he will contend that we could not
to-day by a separate Bill enact the provisions of section 16.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Why certainly we
could enact any legislation with regard to
the Territories, and we could repeal it.
Mr. BELCOURT. Quite so; the jurisdiction is in this parliament and it will remain
here until these new provinces come in.
What is the difference then between enacting section 16 in this Bill or in a separate
Bill ?
Mr. BELCOURT. I think not. We have
the jurisdiction, and having the jurisdiction
what is the difference between enacting section 16 by itself or along with other provisions
?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The difference is so
extremely obvious that I would suppose it
could hardly escape the attention of my hon.
friend. In one case we are dealing with
territories, which, as my hon. friend has
just explained, are under the absolute legislative jurisdiction of this parliament
until
they are created into provinces. In the
other case we are creating them into provinces subject to the provisions of the British
North America Act as to the distribution of legislative power between the Dominion
on the one hand and the provinces
on the other. I would think that is a
pretty obvious distinction, but it may not
commend itself to my hon. friend.
Mr. BELCOURT. I fear the hon. gentleman has not appreciated my argument.
3507 COMMONS
Mr. BELCOURT. For reasons which I
am not going to discuss, it appears that
the majority of the members of this House
think that the time has arrived when the
provisions of the Act of 1875 shall be changed. Some of us think it might be changed
in a broader sense, while others think it
might be changed in a more restrictive sense.
Whatever of that there has been a compromise ; the majority in this House have
agreed that the legislation of 1875 is not the
legislation which should govern in the Territories to-day. I say then, that we have
a
perfect right under the constitution and
under the provisions of the Act of 1871 to
enact for these Territories which are still
under our jurisdiction, Territories over
which no other jurisdiction exists, I say we
have the power to crystallize by a separate
enactment or as we are now doing as part
of this measure the provisions of section 16
of this Bill, and these provisions would be
in existence when these two provinces come
into the union on the first of July next. In
other words, we have the right to determine to-day what shall be the law in reference
to education in the Northwest Territories. We have now the right and power
to repeal or modify the provisions of the
law of 1875 as to education.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Certainly. I would
like to ask my hon. friend a question just
here. We have the right to determine that;
therefore we can by an Act of this parliament withhold any power whatever in respect
of education from these Territories
while they are in a territorial condition. It
would follow therefore, if my hon. friend's
argument is correct, that we can do exactly
the same thing when we create them into
provinces and reserve to this Dominion absolute control of the educational system.
Is
that what my hon. friend means ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not think it
is, but it is the logical outcome of his argument.
Mr. BELCOURT. What I mean is this—
my argument may not commend itself to
my hon. friend, but I would like him to
understand what my argument is.
Mr. BELCOURT. My argument is, that
to-day with reference to education, and for
that matter with reference to all other subjects, the Territories are under the jurisdiction
of this parliament. We may repeal those
rights or change them at any time we wish.
I say that to-day a majority of the members of this House, representatives from all
parts of the country, have agreed that the
time has come when there must be some
modification, important or unimportant, of
the Act of 1875, and we have the right to
make that legislation until our jurisdiction
3507
3508
is exhausted. until it ceases, which will he
only on the 1st of July next. Until then we
have a right to make such legislation as
we deem proper for the Territories in reference to education. I hope I have made
myself plain.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am trying to understand my hon. friend, but will put another question and see
if I can make myself plain to him. As I understand his
argument, we have full legislative jurisdiction over the Territories. We have seen
fit to give them only a modified power
to legislate with respect to education—that
is to say, we have imposed a limitation on
their power. Because we have done that,
he says we have an absolute right to
continue that limitation when they are
created into provinces. If that is good
argument, is not this good argument,
that because we might absolutely withhold t'rom those Territories, under our
legislative power, any jurisdiction whatever in respect of education, therefore, for
exactly the same reason that my learned
friend has advanced, we can withhold from
them when we create them into provinces
any jurisdiction whatever in regard to education ? That is my hon. friend's position.
Mr. BELCOURT. I will give an answer
which may not be convincing to my hon.
friend, but may be to others. It is this.
My hon. friend did not follow me closely.
I said with reference to the special, clear,
definite, specific provisions of the British
North America Act, that it is not in our
power to modify or change them in any
way either with reference to the provinces
which came in in 1867 or with reference to
those coming later on and one of these is
the provision with reference to education contained in section 93. But I say that
under
the Act of 1871 our power of legislation
with reference to those Territories is absolutely unlimited and now at this moment
fully existent and unimpaired.
Mr. BELCOURT. That is another subject. I am not dealing with that. I say
that to-day it is within our power to enact
such legislation with reference to education
in the Territories as this parliament thinks
fit—so long as they are Territories, of
course. When they become provinces, on
the 1st of July next, our powers will have
ceased. Whatever we may decide now to
3509 MARCH 30, 1905
be the law with reference to education, in
the Territories will be the law and if that
law is in existence on the first of July next,
when the new provinces come in, will be
perpetuated by their charter by virtue of
section 93. My hon. friend the leader of
the opposition has told us that the provisions of the British North American Act
apply automatically or mechanically—I do
not remember which word he used.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I did not go quite
that far. If my hon. friend will pardon me
—I do not want to interrupt him except
when he does not state any argument correctly—I said that section 2 of this Bill
would bring into operation section 93 of
the British North America Act. so far as
it could have any application to the Territories, and therefore I did not see any
necessity or justification for section 16. That
a moment ago—whether or not he thinks
section 2 of the proposed Bill brings into
force in the new provinces the provisions
of section 93. and, if it does, whether or
not the provisions of section 93 have application, considering the conditions existing
at the time when the Territories will become provinces.
Mr. BELCOURT. It is rather immaterial
to me whether the provisions of section 93
of the British North America Act apply
automatically or mechanically, or whether
the enactment of a clause like clause 2 is
necessary to make them applicable. It is
rather unimportant to me whether that is
done by virtue of the Act itself, or whether
the duty is imposed upon this parliament
when creating provinces to say that those
provisions shall apply. But I am not prepared to say that my hon. friend is not
right. It may be that the provisions of
section 93 apply. as he says. automatically
or mechanically; and I must say that I
am inclined to believe they do. or course,
he and I disagree altogether as to the time
when in this case the application is to be
made. He goes back to the time of the
entrance of these Territories into confederation, in 1870, and in order to do that
he
has to read into section 93 the word 'Territory,' which I do not find there. I say
that
the provisions of section 93 apply at the
time of the entrance of the province as a
province.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. In order to understand my hon. friend's argument, might I
ask him one more question ? In case my
hon. friend is right in the view he has just
taken, what after all is the necessity of
section 16 ? Is it not superfluous, absolutely
superfluous ?
Mr. BELCOURT. No. I stated that
section 16 constitutes, in a measure, unimportant perhaps, but in a measure, a
modification of the law of 1875, and for
that reason there is a necessity for section
3509
3510
16 to-day. If the law of 1875 were not.
modified in any way, perhaps my hon.
friend would be right in stating that there
would be no necessity for section 16, or for
section 2 for that matter; but section 16
is in some respects a modification of the
law as it exists to-day, and that is why I say
it is necessary for this parliament to enact
it to-day, and this parliament has power to
enact it. That is my argument.
Mr. SPROULE. The man in the street
would have a hard time in getting that into
his head.
Mr. BELCOURT. Well, I may say, Mr.
Speaker, that I am hardly addressing my
argument to the member for East Grey. My
hon. friend the leader of the opposition also
argued. and he relied upon the opinion of
Mr. Christopher Robinson. that section 93
applied only to Ontario and Quebec.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will not interrupt
my hon. friend, but I would rather have
him take my argument as I stated it.
Mr. BELCOURT. I do not think it can
be seriously argued that section 93 was
framed for the purposes of Ontario and
Quebec only, and that its provisions are
to be applied only to Quebec and Ontario.
It is true that subsection 2 of section 93
covers the case of Quebec and Ontario,
that it was framed for that purpose, and
that it protects the rights of the minorities
in Quebec and Ontario only. But then I
would like to ask, if it was intended by the
general provisions of section 93 to protect
the rights of the minority, whether Catholic
or Protestant, only in Ontario and Quebec,
why enact subsection 1. which reads as
follows :
In and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education,
subject and according to the following provisions:
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools, which any class of
persons have by law in the province at the
union.
Surely this was not intended for the
province of Ontario and Quebec only manifestly this was intended for provinces other
than Quebec and Ontario. Surely this was
intended for such other provinces as came
into the confederation at that time
and such as would come in later on.
I say that the opinion expressed repeatedly in this House that by section 93 it was
intended to protect only Ontario and Quebec with reference to education has no
foundation whatever, and the merest examination of section 93, subsection 1, will
convince any one that it was intended to
protect the rights of the minority in any
part of the country which was then brought
into confederation, or which would be
brought in later on.
3511
COMMONS
Otherwise subsection 1 has no meaning.
No one in this House has endeavoured to
give to subsection 1 any other meaning. It
is not susceptible of any other interpretation or application. I say therefore,
that when subsection 1 was framed,
the fathers of confederation evidently
intended by it that whatever other provinces might come into confederation,
besides Ontario and Quebec, they should
be similarly protected, so far as education
is concerned, and the same provision applied
to them or to any other portion of the British
North America Act which might later on join the union. I have no hesitation in my
mind regarding that conclusion. I have no doubt that the conclusion to which I have
come, after considerable investigation and thought and research, is the right one.
But it is quite evident that my opinion is not shared by every one. It is quite evident
that it is not accord with many of the legal opinions which down to the present have
been expressed in this debate.
Mr. BELCOURT. I am afraid that my
hon. friend and myself differ at the crucial point. It is not surprising that this
should be the case because we are dealing
with a very intricate constitutional question. We are dealing with the interpretation
of the spirit and letter of a constitution, made nearly 40 years ago. and now
being applied to conditions and circumstances which are very complicated, and
which at that time could only have been
pictured in the mind's eye. It is not surprising therefore that the Confederation
Act
should give rise to these legal divergencies
and disputes. In fact it is rather surprising
that during the forty years which have
elapsed since that Act was enacted, there
have not arisen more difficulties and diver
gencies; and it speaks highly for the Wisdom and ability of those who framed that
Act that greater difficulties have not arisen
as to its interpretation both in the letter
and the spirit. In any deliberative body,
such as a legislature or parliament, it is
very difficult to have constitutional questions calmly considered and threshed out
as
they should be and any opinion definitely
agreed upon. But, however divergent may
be our views upon the letter of the con.
stitution, there ought to be no doubt as to
its spirit. Any one who will read and
scrutinize the various provisions of the
British North America Act in the light of
what happened before and led up to it
cannot but conclude that it was clearly the
intention of the framers of the constitution that the rights of the minority, whether
Protestant or Catholic, should be pro
tected. Whether that minority lived in the
province of Quebec or the province of Ontario or was to be found in any other por
3511
3512
tion of British North America, the dominant idea was the same ; and whether a man
lived on the banks of the St. Lawrence or the Saskatchewan or the Red river, he was
to enjoy the same rights and privileges as regards education and the exercise of his
religion. The spirit which prompted the fathers of confederation to recognize the
rights and privileges of the minority in matters of conscience surely had equal force
whether that minority lived in the east, west, south or north. Therefore it is manifest
that the fathers of confederation intended whatever may be said as to the effectiveness
of the language used, that the same principle should apply and the same rights be
respected and preserved in every portion of the Dominion. And because these differences
in constitutional views have arisen to such an extent that it is difficult to get
half a dozen men in this House to agree what the letter of the constitution means,
it has become absolutely necessary to have section 16 enacted and made part of this
Act.
I referred a moment ago to what had
preceded confederation. I referred to the
rights of the minority with reference to the
lpreservation and the recognition of liberty
of conscience and liberty of religious be
lief. I say that from the very inception of
British power in British North America
from the very day of the conquest
when the colony of Quebec capitulated to
the British—from that day on, at every
stage, on every occasion when the imperial
parliament and the Canadian authorities
were called upon to deal with the rights
and religious belief of the minority, that
religious belief always received the sanction and protection of imperial and Canadian
authority. By articles 2 and 6 of
the capitulation of Quebec, that principle
was sanctioned and recognized. By articles 27, 28, 29, 32 and 38 of the capitulation
of Montreal, it was also recognized.
By the treaty of Paris, clause 4, by the
Quehec Act, clauses 5, 7 and 8, by the
constitution of 1791 section 35, by the Union
Act of 1840, clauses 42 and 46,—by all these
Acts and on all these occasions religious
freedom and liberty of conscience were absolutely recognized and granted to every
subject. and more particularly to the Catholic
minority in this country. It is not surprising therefore that when the fathers of
confederation in 1863 met in the city of
Quebec for the purpose of framing the
conditions upon Which the then provinces
of Canada should come together and live
together as a happy family, and upon which
new provinces should be admitted in the
union—it is not surprising that on that
occasion What had been done on all
the previous occasions to which I have
referred should have been repeated, and
the same rights and privileges and liberty of conscience should have received
the sanction of those who were framing
3513 MARCH 30, 1905
the British North America Act. The Whole
principle which is crystallized in section 16
of this measure is one which is as old as
British Dominion in America and which
has been recognized on every occasion, from
the very day the colony of Quebec capitulated down to the present. Why then in
1905 should the rights of the Catholic minority, which has grown from 60,000 to two
million and over, not receive the respect
and sanction of the parliament of Canada ?
If it was just and proper, as the right hon.
the leader of the House pointed out the
other day, in 1867, that the rights of the
minority in the provinces of Quebec and
Ontario should be preserved, is it not
equally just and proper that in 1905 the
Catholic or Protestant minority in these
new provinces should also have its rights
recognized and perpetuated? Where is the
difference ? What was right and proper in
1867 is surely just and right in 1905.
Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks, I
said I would endeavour to show that according to the letter, as well as to the spirit,
of the constitution. section 16 was absolutely necessary. I also said that, for what
I
believed to be reasons of high public policy,
it was expedient and necessary that we
should enact section 16. In the divergence
of opinion expressed by my hon. friend the
leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden),
by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr.
Northrup), by Mr. Christopher Robinson,
K.C., and to-day by my hon. friend from
St. John and Iberville (Mr. L. P. Demers),
for all of whose opinions I entertain the
greatest respect, I find the strongest possible
reason for saying that considerations of high
public policy make it expedient and necessary to enact section 16, as we are now
doing. Who in this House or in this coun
try is yearning for a renewal of the agitation we had some years ago over the Manitoba
Schools Act? Who is willing to have
the passions and the prejudices of the people
aroused in the manner in which they were
aroused at that time, bringing this country
almost to the verge of civil war ? Who is
willing to have the energies and activities
of the nation paralyzed in the way they
were paralyzed at that time? I would
ask the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L.
Borden) if he would be willing to-day to
suggest that the Act of 1875, and the ordinnances enacted thereunder by the legislature
of the Northwest Territories, should be repealed ? Would my hon. friend rise in his
place in this House and suggest that we
should repeal the provisions of the Act of
1875
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What I have said
is that that is not a matter for me, but a
matter for the people of the Northwest Territories. And I have said further that I
do
3513
3514
not believe that we shall advance the posi'
tion by passing a law which we have no
power to pass. That is all.
Mr. BELCOURT. I quite believe, Mr.
Speaker, that my hon. friend (Mr. R. L.
Borden) would not to-day suggest that the
Act of 1875, and the ordinances enacted
thereunder, should be repealed ; for I know
he would not be willing to take the risk
which that would involve. My hon. friend
must realize that that is the position in
which the government was placed; and if
my hon. friend the leader of the opposition
were on the treasury benches, that is the
problem that would face him.
Mr. BELCOURT. I do, if the hon. gentle
man does not. The government had to do
one of three things—to continue the legislation of 1875 as it was, to repeal that
legislation altogether, or to modify it. The government did not choose to repeal this
legislation any more than the hon. gentleman
(Mr. R. L. Borden) would have dared to
advise the repeal of it had he been in power.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Might I suggest to
my hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) that section
15 of the Bill expressly continues the laws
in force in the Northwest Territories ? The
hon. gentleman apparently has not read
the Bill.
Mr. BELCOURT. Yes, I have read it, I
still hold the opinion that section 16 constitutes a modification of the law of 1875.
As I have said, I do not intend to discuss
the extent of that modification ; but, as was
demonstrated by the ex-Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton), it does constitute a
modification. I have no doubt on the subject, and I do not think there can be any
doubt. Obliged to do one of the three things
to which I have referred. the government.
did not dare, any more than the leader or
the opposition would have dared, to repeal
the Act of 1875. It chose to continue that
Act in a modified form, thus doing one of
the three things I have mentioned. But, in
speaking as he has spoken in this House,
the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden)
has virtually taken the position that the
law of 1875 should be repealed. He
has told us that this matter should be
left entirely to the new provinces and
that we should not interfere, and that
there is absolutely no danger to the rights
of the minority being in any way taken
away or impaired, but that we must trust
to the spirit of justice and fair-play of those
who live in these new provinces. For myself, I have confidence in the spirit of justice
and fair-play among the inhabitants of
the Northwest Territories. But how long
would that feeling exist and the spirit of
justice remain if the agitation that hon.
gentlemen opposite and their friends and
their press have caried on in this province
3515 COMMONS
were carried on in the Northwest ? How
long would the rights of the Catholics
to religious instruction in the schools of the
Northwest remain, if the views of the hon.
member from East Grey (Mr. Sproule)—
which views, I have no doubt, he entertains sincerely, were carried out ? How
long would the Catholic minority in the
Northwest have the privilege of having religious instruction in their schools ?
Mr. SPROULE. I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) that the hon. member
for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has never spoken or written one word that would be fairly
susceptible to that interpretation.
Mr. BELCOURT. Perhaps it is time to
learn now where the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Sproule) stands.
Mr. SPROULE. I stand exactly where I
have always stood. I objected to the interference with the rights of the provinces
to
deal with the subject.
Mr. BELCOURT. We are not dealing
with the question of provincial rights now,
but with the question of religious instruction in the schools.
Mr. SPROULE. But we are dealing with
a subject laid down in the British North
America Act, a subject with which it is the
birthright of every province to deal—the subject of education.
Mr. BELCOURT. My hon. friend (Mr.
Sproule), no doubt, thinks he has triumphantly aswered my question. I submit
that he has done nothing of the kind. What
I ask is whether he is in favour of religious
instruction in the schools or not ? Will he
answer ?
Mr. SPROULE. That is my own business. I wish to say that I was led to refer to the question in
the remarks I made
upon the subject, by what the Prime Minister said in introducing the Bill. In reply
to that, I referred to some matters which
otherwise I should not have introduced
into my speech at all.
Mr. SCOTT. I would like to be permitted
to put a question to my hon. friend (Mr.
Sproule). Will he deny that he wrote letters to residents of the Northwest Territories,
even before these Bills were introduced, pointing out to these gentlemen to
whom he wrote that this was the time for
them to get rid of separate schools for all
time ?
Mr. SPROULE. I deny it. There is not
a word of truth in it.
Mr. SCOTT. I would like to say that I
cheerfully accept my hon. friend's words
and to add further that I have been misinformed by a gentleman who lives in the
Northwest Territories.
Mr. BELCOURT. My hon. friend from
East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is a great adept at
3515
3516
beating about the bush and turning sharp
corners. My hon. friend is not candid—I
will not use another expression which I
might—when he refuses to state whether or
not he is in favour of religious instruction
in the schools. But we know what his
views are.
Mr. BELCOURT. He is entitled to his
views. He has consistently advocated certain views in this House and elsewhere,
and they are not favourable to religious
instruction in the schools. He has told
us that in the House. He has told us
that he is not in favour of separate
schools. What does he mean by it ? I
do not know, but I would assume that
he was not in favour of religious instruction in the schools. If the hon. gentleman
wants to be candid he will tell us that he
is not only not in favour, but he is unalterably opposed to religious instruction
in the
schools.
Mr. SPROULE. If the hon. gentleman
wants to cross question let him try his hand
on the hon. the ex-Minister of the Interior
and the hon. Minister of Finance.
Mr. BELCOURT. The hon. member for
East Grey is the witness now before
the court, but it is very difficult to
get him to give an answer. I am
sure I am not going to tackle anybody
else until I have got something from
him. I take it according to the French
maxim, qui ne dit mot consent, that
the hon. gentleman is unalterably opposed
to religious instruction. And he is not
alone. I can count them by the dozens
on the other side of the House who are opposed to religious instruction in the schools.
We have heard them say so one after the
other—yes, by the dozens on that side of
the House who are opposed to religious instruction in the schools. Well, Sir, I want
to know—
Mr. BENNETT. Give them a run of the
commandments over there.
Mr. BELCOURT. I want to know,
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen who
sit on that side of the House have
their way whether you will have very
much religious instruction in the schools of
the Northwest or if you will have that spirit
of fairplay and justice upon which we are
told we must absolutely rely ? Why, Sir
remember Manitoba. We had confidence in
the spirit of justice and fair play of the
people who inhabited Manitoba, but how
long did it take to shatter our hopes and
3517 MARCH 30, 1905
our confidences in the spirit of fair play
and justice?
Mr. BELCOURT. Well, the people of
Manitoba did it and the people of the Northwest Territories to-morrow will do it if
the
hon. gentleman can have his way.
Mr. INGRAM. I stood up in 1896 for the
rights of the minority in Manitoba when the
hon. gentleman's deskmate refused to do it.
Mr. BELCOURT. Well, Sir, we have
been told by other hon. gentlemen of what
they did in 1896 and we were told yesterday by the hon. member for North Toronto
(Mr. Foster) that what he did in 1896 he
does not propose to do again. He gave us
the reason why he did not propose to do it
again. He told us that it does not pay
politically.? That is the reason. I believe
the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr.
Ingram) will probably think also that it
does not pay and he does not propose to
do it again.
Mr. FOSTER. May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?
Mr. FOSTER. The hon. gentleman has
given an alleged reason as to why I said I
would not probably do it again. His reason is—
Mr. FOSTER. His reason was that I
would not do it again because it does not
pay. My reason was not that.
Mr. BELCOURT. I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; it is exactly the reason he
gave. He told us that in 1896 that the people did not appreciate his self-sacrifice.
That
in 1900 they did not appreciate his self-
sacrifice; that in 1904 they did not appreciate his self-sacrifice and he said that
politically it did not pay and for that reason he
was not going to do it again.
Mr. FOSTER. It is now put so baldly
that I must deny it absolutely and ask the
hon. member either to give his authority
from the 'Hansard' or to immediately withdraw it—one or the other, and I appeal to
Mr. Speaker to see that that is carried out.
Mr. BELCOURT. If the hon. gentleman
gets very threatening perhaps he will not
have it carried out. If he will appeal to my
instincts and desire me—
Mr. FOSTER. And if you wish to persist
in saying what you have you may keep it.
If you do not wish to be honest and fair and
do what an honest and fair man would do
you may keep it.
3517
3518
Mr. BELCOURT. Well, if the hon. gentleman has ended this show of inflamed
temper perhaps he will allow me to proceed. I understood the hon. gentleman to
tell the House that in 1869 he had, much
against his own inclination, much against
his own desires, supported the Remedial
Bill. He did it, he told us, when he
had no desire to do it. He did it because
he wanted to protect the rights of the minority. I understood him to say that his
course was not appreciated by the people
of this country, that in the election which
immediately followed this great act of disinterestedness on his part was not appreciated
by the people and that on the contrary they supported the opposite side. I
understood him to say that the same thing
happened in 1900 and again in 1904, that it
did not pay politically, and that as far as
he was concerned that was the end of his
sacrificing himself. If I am wrong in my
understanding of what the hon. gentleman
said I am wrong honestly. That is the impression which I gathered from his speech,
but if the hon. gentleman tells me that it
is not the language which he used I am
prepared to accept his statement. Perhaps
he will permit me to read what he did say
on that point.
Now, Sir, I never was a separate school
adherent, I never believed in separate schools
as against national schools. In 1896 I stated
my belief, as I state it now ; I knew it was not
politically to my advantage, I knew it was not
politically to the advantage of the Liberal
Conservative party ; but, Sir, without thinking
of ulterior things, I said to myself—
—there is the constitution, there is the pronouncement of the highest judicial tribunal
in
this empire, there is the minority coming with
a grievance and having the right to appeal
to the Dominion government and the Dominion
parliament, the only power that has jurisdiction to right their wrongs I said to myself
:
I believe it is right, I believe in the policy of
attempting to carry out the constitution. Let
me ask this question: If my right hon. friend,
in 1896, had thrown his forces with the forces
that made for remedial legislation, who can
doubt that we would have carried it in this
country ? No one can doubt it.
At page 3384 of 'Hansard ' the hon. gentleman went on :
And I make bold to say that as long as
grass grows and water runs, I do not feel
disposed to go against that will three times
expressed of the people of this country.
I have nothing to withdraw, I refuse to
accept the statement which the hon. gen
3519 COMMONS
tleman just now made because it was not
a candid and honest statement.
Mr. FOSTER. My point of order is
simply this, that I have been misrepresented,
whether knowingly or not.
Mr. FOSTER. I am quite competent to
state my point of order and any one who
takes exception to it may do so afterwards.
But let me state my point first. I rise to
this point that whether knowingly or unknowingly the member for Ottawa (Mr.
Belcourt) has misrepresented my position
and he has—
Mr. FOSTER—and he has misrepresented it on a very vital point.
Mr. FOSTER. He has declared that my
position was this, that I did support remedial legislation in 1896 but that I would
not support it again, and have so declared
in the House, because it did not pay politically.
Mr. FOSTER. Now I think that is as
clear a statement as I can make as to what
the hon. gentleman has just said. I stated
that that was not a proper representation
of my position, that I have stated in the
House that I was not an adherent of separate schools, but that I believed the constitution
of this country gave to a minority
one method of access for redress and that
after the decision of the courts and the
decision of the Privy Council had been
given, that road was open and I said I believed that although it was not politically
to my advantage, and it was not as I believed politically to the advantage of the
party to which I belonged—
Mr. BELCOURT. Surely that is not a
point of order ; I would like to know what
the point of order is.
3519
3520
Mr. BELCOURT. I want the hon. gentleman to state what the point of order is ?
Mr. FOSTER. The hon. member for
Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) cannot state my point
of order. It must be my right to state
my point and as he has interrupted me I
shall have to commence a little further
back than where I left off. I stated that,
although I did not believe at the time it
was my advantage politically, and I did not
believe it was to the advantage of the party
to which I belonged politically, I believed
it was constitutionally right and that I did
it because I believed it was constitutional
and that it was my duty to do it. Then I
said after that had taken place there was
a power higher than the constitution and
that power was the sovereign will of the
people ; that after the position was laid
before the people in 1896 in 1900 and in
1904 the people by their votes had endorsed the party that opposed remedial legislation
and consequently, as long as water
ran and grass grew, I did not think I would
be found in that same programme. Now
my position is as I have stated. The statement made by my hon. friend is exactly to
the reverse. Mine gives as a reason a regard for the principle of the constitution
and a regard for the will of the people. The
hon. gentleman stated that my reason was
that I would not do it again because it did
not pay.
Mr. BELCOURT. Mr. Speaker, I do not
wish to continue this acrimonious discussion. I made a statement, I gave the proof
and I leave it to the House to judge.
Mr. BELCOURT. I have nothing to
withdraw, absolutely nothing to withdraw.
Mr. FOSTER. May I ask the hon. gentleman one question ? Does he yet persist
in saying that I declared yesterday in the
House that I would not again vote for
remedial legislation because it did not pay?
Mr. BELCOURT. I did not make that
statement at all ; that was not the statement I made.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) will admit
that it is customary to accept a statement
made by a member if he has been wrongly
reported, misconstrued, or wrongly understood. The moment a member gives a personal
explanation it is customary to accept
the explanation.
Mr. BELCOURT. I accept the personal
explanation given by the hon. gentleman
3521 MARCH 30, 1905
and if it is as unsatisfactory to the other
members on this side of the House as it is
to me I am willing to let it go for what
it is worth.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not think that
is quite right ; I do not think it is quite
right for my hon. friend to take that position. There is a distinct rule laid down
in books on parliamentary procedure that
if an hon. gentleman in this House says
that his remarks were not intended to bear
a certain meaning that must be accepted
unreservedly.
Mr. BELCOURT. I have accepted the
statement the hon. gentleman has made.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My hon. friend (Mr.
Belcourt) has not accepted it in my opinion.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) states that
he understood the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) to state a certain thing.
The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster)
gives an explanation and the hon. member
for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) is willing to accept the new statement. I think the point
of order is all settled.
Mr. BELCOURT. I said I accepted the
statement of the hon. member for Toronto
(Mr. Foster).
Mr. INGRAM. Then we understand that
the member for Ottawa—
Mr. INGRAM. I am in order ; I want
to know first whether or not—
Mr. INGRAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order.
Mr. INGRAM. I can stay here all night
if my hon. friends—
3521
3522
Mr. INGRAM. I want to know through
you whether the member for Ottawa used
the words 'to pay' and whether that is in
order ?
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. I have given
my ruling. The hon. member for Ottawa
(Mr. Belcourt) may have summarized unjustly the member for Toronto, but the
member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) has declared that he accepted the statement of
the member for Toronto (Mr. Foster). I
have given my ruling.
Mr. BELCOURT. We are told that in
this matter we should rely upon the spirit
of fair-play and justice of the people in the
new territories. I was proceeding to tell
the House that we must in this matter
remember Manitoba, when I was interrupted by the member for North Toronto (Mr.
Foster). I wish to say that in my own judgment in matters of this kind we ought to
do
what good business people do in every day
dealings and transactions. Whilst people believe and take it for granted that other
people are honest and intend to be honest
until the contrary is proven, yet they make
an agreement, when they decide upon something, they reduce it to writing. Until the
day of universal fair-play and justice, until
the day of universal honesty, which I think
most will admit is not going to be in the
very near future, I think people will continue to have more confidence in and to
place more reliance upon the written agreements of other people than they will upon
their spirit of fair-play and justice. That
rule applies to nations as well as to individuals.
We have made an agreement, we have
decided what is to be done with reference
to those new provinces and it is far better
for the peace of this country, far better
for every consideration, that that agreement
should be committed to writing as it is by
enacting section 16. When we look at
what section 16 merely perpetuates it is
astounding to hear the objections that are
made to it. Section 16 simply consecrates
the principle of religious instruction in the
school, and I should like to ask: What principle is violated ; what wrong, legal,
moral,
natural, or constitutional is done ? Does the
exercise of the privilege claimed by the
minority cause injury to anybody ; does it
entail upon any one in this wide Dominion
the deprivation of any right or any privilege ; does it take anything away from
anybody ; does it hurt, hamper or injure
any one in the slightest degree ; does it do
3523
COMMONS
violence to the conscience of any one that
there should be religious instruction in the
schools. Whose conscience is violated by
the privilege that is given to the minority
to have one of their own religion come to
the school room at stated hours to give the
children religious instruction ? Mr. Speaker, to put the question is to answer it.
The
principle recognized by section 16 hurts nobody, and yet for weeks and for months
past the Conservative press, the public halls
and some of the pulpits in this great province have been filled with angry and unjust
declamations, with impassioned and violent
denunciations, with appeals to the passions and prejudices of the majority against
the minority. This House has been flooded
with petitions protesting against the so-
called tyranny involved in this legislation,
and we have heard a great deal about the
shackles and the fetters which we are about
imposing upon the poor helpless provinces
of the Northwest. The editor of one of the
most prominent newspapers in this province
had the temerity to say on the public hustings in the city of Toronto, that in this
country you must have absolute unity of
race and creed. Mr. Speaker what does
that mean? It means that the Catholics
of this country are to be absorbed or annihilated ; it means that the Catholics in
general and the French Canadians in particular
are to be wiped out. Why, Sir, we are
told that the province of Quebec must be
wiped out of confederation, all because forsooth the Catholic minority in the new
provinces want to have religious instruction in
their schools. Our Catholic clergy have
been daily assailed and insulted ; our priests
have been held up to the electorate of the
country as retrograde, grasping and tyrannical. Under the pretense of protecting provincial
rights in the new provinces ; the
rights, the religious convictions, the prejudices if you will, of two-thirds of the
Canadian people have been made the subject of harsh. unjust, unworthy and unfair
criticism and attack. The hierarchy of the
Catholic Church has been once again made
the butt of prejudice and unfounded assertion. Sir, in the face of the storm which
has raged in Ontario over this question it
is only fair that I should contrast the calm,
the moderation, the spirit of tolerance displayed by that very hierarchy which has
been so ruthlessly assailed. Has any one
heard the Catholic clergy or the minority in
the west or elsewhere say a word in this
crisis ? Has any one seen them stoop to
pick up the gauntlet thus thrown down ;
has any one heard them answer the insults
levelled against them. No, Mr. Speaker,
they have pursued a dignified course, conscious that the spirit of fair-play to be
found
in the Canadian Parliament will uphold their
just rights. I should think that. the contrast would be sufficient to bring the blush
of shame to the cheek of those who profess
3523
3524
to practise the true Christian spirit, but who
seem to have forgotten it for the moment.
And Mr. Speaker, who are those Catholic
clergy and who are the hierarchy who have
been thus maligned ? They need no defence
from me ; the history of British North
| America is their best vindication. Let me
remind its detractors that the Catholic clergy
has done as much as any other body for
civilization and christianity on this continent—there has been in Canada no truer,
no
surer, no more constant upholder of British
institutions and British power than this
very clergy—if this country has been preserved to the British Crown, it is due in
a
measure to the loyalty and bravery of the
French Canadians and in a greater measure
still to the Catholic clergy. Let me place
on record some of the utterances of Canadian Catholic bishops in defence of British
connection. In the year 1775, the year of
the American invasion, Monsigneur Briand,
the bishop of Quebec, wrote on the 22nd of
May to his flock :—
A body of revolted subjects against their legitimate sovereign, who is also our own,
has
just invaded this province, less with the hope
of being able to maintain themselves within
its limits than with the object of drawing you
into their rebellion, or at least of inducing you
not to oppose them in their pernicious undertaking. The particular kindness and gentleness
with which we have been governed on behalf of His Most Gracious Majesty King George
III., since the time when the fate of arms put
us under his dominion ; the recent favours
with which we have just been loaded by him,
in being given back the use of our laws, the
free exercise of our religion, in being made to
participate in all the privileges and advantages
of British subjects, would no doubt be enough
to impel our gratitude and to rouse our zeal in
upholding the interests of the Crown of Great
Britain. But motives still more eloquent must
speak to your hearts at the present moment.
Your oaths, your religion, impose upon you an
indispensable obligation of defending with all
your might your country and your king. Close
then your ears, dear Canadians, and heed not
the promoters of sedition who aim at your unhappiness and seek to stifle in your hearts
the
sentiments of submission to your legitimate
superiors, which education and religion have
embedded in them. Be cheerful, ready for anything that you will be directed to on
behalf
of a kind governor, who has no other aims
but your welfare and your happiness. It is
not a question of carrying war into remote provinces ; you are only asked for a. helping
hand
to drive back the enemy and check the invasion
I that threatens this province. The voice of religion and that of your own interest
are here
united, and assure us of your zealousness to
defend our frontiers and our possessions.
In 1812, similar language was used by
Monseigneur Plessis, then bishop of Quebec.
In 1813, similar language was used by Monseigneur Plessis in addressing his people.
In
1837, at a time when the French Canadians
were, not unjustly, complaining that they
were not being treated as British subjects
ought to be treated, the hierarchy of Quebec
3525 MARCH 30, 1905
told the people what their duties were under
the circumstances and counselled them not
to join in rebellion. On the 11th of December, 1837, Monseigneur Signay, the bishop
of
Quebec, wrote to the people of his diocese :
That, by legal and constitutional means, one
should endeavour to remedy grievances of
which one may think oneself entitled to complain, is a right which we do not pretend
to
deny any one, but that, in order to attain this
object, one should resort to insurrection, is
using means not only ineffectual, imprudent,
baleful for the very ones who appeal to them,
do we say, but moreover criminal in the sight
of God and of our holy religion ; under the
delusion of escaping an evil, it means throwing
oneself into an abyss of irretrievable wrongs—
and the experience of all the centuries shows
that these our words are in accordance with
the most absolute truth.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and cite several other extracts of that kind which I
have here, but I do not propose to delay
the House by doing so. I am much mistaken, Mr. Speaker, if six months hence
people in this province who have indulged
in these appeals to passion and prejudice,
will not ask themselves, after all, what all
this great to-do was about ; and I am much
mistaken if some of them at least will not,
in their own estimation, cut a very sorry
figure when they look upon the part they
played in this agitation.
But, Mr. Speaker, we were asked the
other day, who is responsible for this agitation ? The hon. member for East Grey
answered the question. Some other gentlemen on the other side of the House also
answered it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not
think that the member for East Grey is a
very profound thinker or a great orator ;
I do not think he himself would lay claim
to be either; but there is one thing for
which I am willing to give him the palm,
that is, that he is a consummate actor. For
the hon. gentleman, without a wrinkle on
his face, without a smile, in tones of apparent earnestness and conviction, told us
that
the man responsible for all these appeals to
passion and prejudice, the man responsible
for this storm, is—who ? The right hon.
gentleman who leads this House.
Mr. BELCOURT. Why, Mr. Speaker,
there is a pretty general opinion in this
House that the petitions with which it has
been flooded during the last few weeks
have all originated with the hon. gentleman himself—that he is the father, the
instigator, the propagator of these petitions
—that he is the one who has gone into the
by-ways and the back townships to get
them signed and sent here.
Mr. SPROULE. That is entirely incorrect, allow me to say. I think I am within
the mark when I say that half the petitions
3525
3536
which have come here never originated
through me or by any suggestion of mine.
Mr. BELCOURT. The hon. gentleman
has told us on several occasions that petitions which were being presented by other
members had come to him, and that he
had sent them to those members to be
presented. Why, he was the manipulator,
the whole thing, in connection with those
petitions. They were his special business,
and he gave it all the attention and the zeal
he could. We know that the hon. gentleman
has, through the press, in this House, at
meetings of the great Conservative organization of which he is the sovereign grand
master, and which he so consistently, so
constantly and so profitably steers for the
benefit of himself and the Conservative
party, appealed to the brethren to keep up
the agitation against this measure. It is
a well known fact, Sir, that this campaign
did not originate in the west, with the
people most concerned, but in the province
of Ontario. I believe that before the Bill
was introduced into the House, there was
absolutely no feeling in the Northwest
against the perpetuation of the privileges
granted to the minority. I have it from
hon. gentlemen from the west who sit opposite that they had to come to Ottawa to
learn that there was such a thing as a
school question, for they had never heard
of it up there. But, forsooth, the hon. gentleman for East Grey and his friends had
to start an agitation in the province of
Ontario among people who were more interested in the matter than the people directly
concerned. It is true, Mr. Haultain
told us some time ago that so far as he
was concerned, he had no objection to separate schools—that if he were a dictator
there, he would not think of abolishing
them. I am told that the draft clause in
the Bill which he submitted two years ago
is very much on the lines of section 16 of
this Bill. It is true, he has changed his
mind about that.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have examined
that Bill, and do not recall any such clause.
Which draft clause does the hon. gentleman refer to ?
Mr. BELCOURT. The draft clause with
reference to educational matters. I have
not got it before me. It is true, Mr. Haultain has changed his mind, as is evidenced
by the letter which he has addressed to
the Prime Minister. Is it not true, Mr.
Speaker, that this agitation has been con
fined almost exclusively to the Conservative press and to gentlemen who belong to
the Conservative party ? With the exception of a few misguided or misinformed or
3527
COMMONS
renegade Liberals, the agitation has been
carried on—
Mr. BELCOURT. I said renegade Liberals. The agitation has been carried on
almost exclusively by the Conservatives of
this province. And is it not extraordinary,
Mr. Speaker, how much religion people
who, up to a certain moment, are known
to have no religion at all, can develop on
occasion ? It is perfectly extraordinary
how much religion has been developed in
this province within the last few weeks. It
is extraordinary how much religion has
been professed by people who have constituted themselves the doughty champions
of a faith which nobody attacks, and which
certainly is in no danger.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I hope the hon.
gentleman will direct my attention to that
clause He has charged Mr. Haultain, who
is not here, with having changed his mind,
and I would like to see the clause he refers
to. There was a clause like section 2 and
one like section 15, but I do not recollect
any like section 16. I am positive as to
that. I think it would be only fair for the
hon. gentleman to indicate to us what he
means.
Mr. BELCOURT. If my hon. friend will
permit me, I have the clause before me,
and I will read it. I may be wrong as to
the effect of it, as I was speaking from
memory :
On, from and after the said first day of
January, 1903, the provisions of the British
North America Act, 1867, except those parts
thereof which are in terms made or by reasonable intendment may be held to be specially
applicable to or to affect only one or more
but not the Whole of the provinces under that
Act composing the Dominion, and except so
far as the same may be varied by this Act,
shall be applicable to the province of —
in the same way and to the same extent as
they apply to the several provinces of Canada and as if the province of — had
been one of the provinces originally united
by the said Act.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Where is the clause
equivalent to clause 16 of this Bill as to
which my hon. friend said Mr. Haultain
had changed his mind? In justice to Mr.
Haultain, who is not here, my hon. friend
should read the clause to the House or
withdraw that statement.
Mr. BELCOURT. The clause I read is
the one Mr. Haultain proposed in his draft
Bill two years ago.
3527
3528
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. That is clause 2
of this Bill. My hon. friend as I understand, said that Mr. Haultain had placed
in his draft Bill a clause the same as clause
16.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Then my hon. friend
says that clause 2 is the same as clause
16.
Mr. BELCOURT. No. What I meant,
and what I think I said, was that in 1902,
Mr. Haultain, in submitting to the government a draft of the Bill providing for autonomy,
submitted a clause which virtually
had the same effect as section 16.
Mr. D. D. MCKENZIE. I have in my
possession that draft and would be glad to
show the hon. gentleman section 13.
Mr. BELCOURT. I doubt very much if
the passions and prejudices of so many people would have been aroused to the extent
they have been by hon. gentlemen opposite
if they had not expected to derive some
party advantage from it; and when the
ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) resigned his portfolio, they concluded that
their day had come and that if they could
only keep up the agitation and make the
storm still greater, some very great material, political benefit would be the result.
They succeeded in getting their
leader Who, we believe, up to that point
Was very undecided as to the position he
should take, to adopt their views and take
the course he did.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman
is stating that of which he has no knowledge and for which there is not the slightest
foundation in fact. The statement is made
recklessly, and should not be made by an
hon. gentleman of his standing in the House,
without better foundation than he can possibly have for it. It is absolutely untrue.
Mr. BELCOURT. I am sorry to have
aroused the ire of my hon. friend in this
way. If my hon. friend says that he had
made up his mind as to the course he was
going to take on the very day this Bill was
presented, of course I accept his statement.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My hon. friend
knows that that is not the portion of his
remarks to which I was referring. He said
that I was induced by pressure to take a
course which I at first hesitated about.
Naturally I looked into the constitutional
question and made up my mind about that
at the earliest possible moment, because it
was upon that question alone that the right
hon. gentleman relied in introducing the
Bill. But when he suggests that pressure
was put upon me by any hon. gentleman on
this side to take one course or the other,
or by any one outside the House,—with the
3529 MARCH 30, 1905
exception of letters, sometimes anonymous
sometimes otherwise, which came to me
from both sides and to which I paid no
more attention than such communications
deserve—apart from these no pressure was
put upon me. It has been often stated in
the press which supports the hon. gentleman, and with which he is connected, that
pressure had been put upon me by my constituents in Carleton. That statement is
absolutely false. Not one of my constituents, I am glad to say, ever communicated
with me, verbally or otherwise, with regard
to this matter up to the time I spoke in
this House.
Mr. BELCOURT. I accept unreservedly
the statement of my hon. friend, but I had
thought-and I think every member in this
House will agree with me that it was a
very legitimate thought—that the leader of
one of the great parties in this House, in a
matter of this kind, would naturally consult with his supporters and followers and
be, to a very large extent, guided by their
opinions. If he has not consulted the wishes
of the people with whom he is associated
on that subject, if he has not consulted the
wishes of the county of Carleton which he
represents, he is entitled to make the statement he has. But I thought it was only
natural that he would consult his followers
and the constituency he represents.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My hon. friend persists in his personal allusions. I say again
that I did not think it was a question upon
which I should consult my constituents or
upon which I was bound to consult them.
At all events that is a matter for me to
judge and not the hon. gentleman. It is
really a matter with which he has no call
to interfere. I do not know that I ever
constituted him the censor of my mode of
dealing with my constituents nor have I
heard that they have ever given him any
mandate to represent them. So far as my
own friends are concerned, none of them
knew what course I was going to take on
this Bill, as far as I am aware. I announced it in caucus the day before I spoke
in this House, and I did not announce it
as a matter on which they should dictate
to me but as a matter on which I had made
up my mind, and I spoke in the House in
accordance with the position I then took.
Mr. BELCOURT. I suppose the hon.
gentleman thinks that, in a matter of this
kind, it is not proper for him to consult his
constituents or his followers in this House.
Mr. BELCOURT. I am sorry to have
brought these hon. gentlemen to their feet
so often. I had no wish to say anything
offensive, and I submit that the remarks
I made were quite within parliamentary
rules. I am surprised to find that they
should have caused so much trouble and
3529
3530
anxiety to hon. gentlemen opposite. I accept the statement of the leader of the opposition
that he did not consult anybody,
either his followers in the House or his
constituents. But there is a very shrewd
suspicion on this side that in taking the
course he did, he took the lines indicated
by the hon. gentlemen who follow him, whether he consulted them or not There is
a very shrewd suspicion that the game he
is playing to-day is that which the gentlemen who sit behind him have set for him,
that he is following the pace they set for
him, and that, not with a great deal of
relish, it is evident, but still bravely enough,
he is trying to keep ahead of the procession
which these gentlemen have organized. He
realized at the outset that in doing so he
was going to alienate a great many of his
friends in the province of Quebec. He realized that the course he was inspired to
take was going to alienate his friends in
the province, and he tried to make up for
it by paying them compliments. They
asked him for bread and he gave them a
stone. They asked him for bread, and he
gave them petrified bouquets. I wonder
if the hon. gentleman deceived himself to
the extent of believing that any one in the
province of Quebec is to be hoodwinked by
these empty and sonorous compliments. If
he did, he had a very prompt, rude and sad
awakening. Within a few hours from the
time he delivered his speech, the most accredited and influential of his lieutenants
was on his feet, and in a remarkable speech
destroyed to atoms the speech which his
leader had so laboriously prepared and so
laboriously delivered. The example set by
my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier
(Mr. Monk)—and I hope my hon. friend
will permit me to pay him the compliment of saying that he rose to a very
high ideal and made a most remarkable
speech—was followed to-day by my hon.
friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron),
who told us that he also, like his colleague
from Jacques Cartier, was going to vote
against the amendment of his leader. He
must realize to-day that the course he has
taken with or without consultation with his
followers has broken the ranks of his own
party. He must realize to-day that, whether he intended it or not, his action on
this question is a boomerang, and that
while the ranks of the opposition to-day
are divided, the ranks of the Liberal party
present an unbroken front. When the
vote is taken on this question there will be
given for the Bill the largest majority that
was ever given in this parliament on a great
question.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken much longer
than I intended to. But I think that if the
interruptions with which I have been favoured were taken out of my speech—
3531
Mr. BELCOURT. I do not think that remark is quite candid. If there was so little in my speech,
I wonder why hon. gentlemen opposite so often interrupted me and asked questions.
The hon. gentheman (Mr. R. L. Borden), only a few moments ago, got up with his face
white with rage. And yet he says there was nothing in my remarks. His earnest and
very frequent interruption was one of the greatest compliments he could pay me.
Mr. BELCOURT. Now, Mr. Speaker,
what is the lesson that stands out most
clearly in this controversy? Is it not the
lesson that in this country appeals to race
and religious prejudice, to passion, to intolerance, though they may yield some temporary
advantage, yet, in the long run, are
bound to re-act against those who resort to
them ? Is it not the lesson that in this
couintry government is possible only by
tolerance, by conciliation, by fair and honourable compromise ? To this policy the
right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
who leads this House, early in his public
career, devoted himself; to this policy he
has steadfastly adhered ; and of this policy
he is the most distinguished and successful
exponent in this country. His faithful devotion to this ideal, and his masterly application
of the principle have made him the
beloved and idolized leader of his party and
have won for him the respect and admiration of all Canadians, including, I believe,
his opponents, and have won for him no less
the respect and admiration of the whole British empire. Before I close, I would like
to
quote to the House a passage taken from
one of Burke's immortal speeches, covering,
to my mind, a most significant and pregnant
statement of the present situation in Canada:
All government, indeed every human benefit, every virtue and every prudent act is
founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniencies, we give and take ; we
remit some rights, that we may enjoy others ; and, we choose rather to be happy citizens,
than subtle disputants. As we must give away some natural liberty to enjoy civil advantages,
so we must sacrifice some civil liberties and advantages to be derived from the communion
and fellowship of a great empire. But in all dealings the thing bought must bear some
proportion to the purchase paid. None will barter away the immediate jewel of his
soul. None of us who would risk his life rather than fall under a government purely
arbitrary. But, although there are some amongst us who think our constitution wants
improvements to make it a complete system of liberty, perhaps none who are of that
opinion would think it right to aim at such improvement by disturbing his country
and risking everything that is dear to him.
Mr. Speaker, on these lines, and on these these
lines only, with these ideals and principles,
3531
3532
and with these alone, can His Majesty's
government in Canada be carried on. On these lines only can the people of different
races and different creeds who inhabit British North America continue to live at peace,
in harmony and good-will. On these lines only, and with such conduct only, can we
develop ourselves into the nation we ought to be in the time to come. On these lines
only, Mr. Speaker, can we accomplish the high destiny to which Providence has called
us.
Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle). Mr.
Speaker, it has been said on several occasions lately that this House is now dealing
with the most important question that has ever come before it. May I go a little
further and say that this is a great occasion in the history of the British colonial
empire? Britain's greatest colony is proposing to give a constitution to one of her
own colonies. And, while I do not presume that there is any analogy between the powers
which the mother country exercises in relation to her Crown colonies and the powers
exercised by the Dominion in relation to the Northwest, still there is sufficient
resemblance between the two to make it a matter of interst to observe the spirit in
which Canada deals with her colony as compared with the spirit which has been shown
by the mother country in dealing with her colonies, and with Canada herself especially.
I ask that the same spirit which has been shown by the mother country in dealing with
Canada shall be shown by Canada in dealing with her own colonies. I am afraid, Mr.
Speaker, the exhibitiion which we have seen to-night takes away a good deal of the
hope which I might have cherished. I hope we may calm down a little as this discussion
proceeds. What we are doing is being watched outside of Canada, and will have an influence
far beyond our boundaries. I desire to acknowledge in a few words the welcome which
the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) extended to the new provinces on joining
the Canadian family circle. But I would remind him that the Territories are full-grown,
and as such they feel themselves entitled to the full rights of manhood. If they are
denied these rights, the relations within the family circle will be exceedingly unsatisfactory.
I am afraid I must spend some little time in going back into the history of this question.
The matter which we have now before us was first brought prominently to the front
on May 2nd, 1900. The first step in the movement was taken in the legislative assembly
of the Northwest Territories on that day, when a memorial was addressed to the Governor
General in Council asking that this matter be dealt with. In November of that same
year a Dominion general election was held. In December, 1901, at the invitation of
the Dominion government, a conference took place between a sub-committee of the Privy
Council and the repre
3533 MARCH 30, 1905
sentatives of the Northwest Territories. After the conference a draft Bill, setting
forth
in detail the terms and conditions on which
the Territory would be willing to become
one of the provinces of the Dominion, was
submitted to the Prime Minister. In the following spring at the next session of the
legislative assembly that Bill was laid before the assembly and unanimously endorsed
by them. The only dissenting voice was in
reference to the question whether there
should be one or two provinces. In regard
to every other detail the Bill was endorsed
with unanimity. On the 21st of May, 1902,
a general election was held throughout the
Territories and the question of autonomy
was the main issue in that election. The
Bill was distributed throughout the whole
country and an appeal was made to the people by the premier and by other gentlemen
who were supporting him in that election
in these words : 'These are the matters upon which your judgment is invited. The
issue is plain: it is for the people of the
Territories to decide.'
The people of the Territories did decide
by returning Mr. Haultain to power by an
overwhelming majority. In spite of this
fact a great many excuses were made by
the Dominion government for delay in dealing with the question. Two more sessions
of the legislative assembly were held and
in each one of these sessions a resolution
demanding that this question be taken up
was passed unanimously, being voted for
by both Liberals and Conservatives. There
was no dissentient voice on either occasion,
but still the matter was not taken up by the
Dominion government. During the session
of 1904, when it was again probable that
the demand would be repeated, we suddenly
received the well known letter from the
Prime Minister in which he made his promise that if he was returned to power he
would deal with the matter at the present
session of parliament.
I have indulged in this history in order
to show that the government of the Territories had a definite and full mandate from
the people of that country as to the terms
which they should ask to be granted to the
Territories when they became full-fledged
provinces. The government of the Territories were invited, as you know, Sir, to a
series of conferences by the right hon. the
Prime Minister during the first few weeks
of the present year. The premier of the
Territories and a member of his executive
council attended the meeting. I wish to say
here that as far as my information goes,
there was no change in the conditions which
Mr. Haultain demanded from the Prime
Minister from those which he had been authorized to demand by the people and the
legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories. I believe that he departed from
them in no single particular; and I think
the protest that he addressed to the right
hon. Prime Minister after the introduction
3533
3534
of the Bill is a proof of that fact. But, what
did we find? We found that after this conference the Bill which was introduced differed
in most essential points from the request of the Northwest Territories, that it
was, in fact. in many respects absolutely
contrary to the wishes of the people. In
consequence of this difference a strong remonstrance was made by the premier of the
Territories which was couched in dignified
and determined terms. Because it was not
signed by the other member of the executive council, it was stated by the hon. Minister
of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that it was
only Mr. Haultain's individual opinion. The
hon. Minister of Finance said that if it was
the case that we were doing something
against the wishes of the people of the
Northwest the government of the Northwest
had entered no protest. I should like to ask
what warrant had he for any such statement? All we have heard is that Mr. Bulyea
expressed a different opinion to that of
Mr. Haultain in an interview which he
supposed to have given to the
'Globe' directly after the introduction
of the Bill. I am told that Mr. Bulyea denies having given that interview.
At any rate, whether it was so or not, Mr.
Bulyea is remaining in the government of
Mr. Haultain. It is inconceivable that
if he disagrees with his colleagues on such
an important matter as this, he should continue to remain member of the government.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that his actions
count for far more in this particular than
anything that he may have said in any supposed newspaper interview. It is juggling
with words to assert that when the premier
of a government protests it is only the protest of an individual. As a matter of fact,
Mr. Bulyea had just the same mandate that
Mr. Haultain had from the people of the
Northwest Territories. That mandate was
too clear for it to have been possible for him
to have taken any position other than one in
accordance with the views of his leader and
the fact remains, that he is still a member of Mr. Haultain's government. I have
also gone into this history to show that two
Dominion general elections have been held
since this matter was placed before the
Dominion government. The government
refused to act or define their policy in any
particular during the whole lifetime of one
parliament. More than that, when another
appeal to the people became imminent they
refused to define their policy before the elections. Although they had had the draft
propositions before them for three years they
were not prepared to declare themselves in
any respect. The hon ex-Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton) went into the Northwest Territories and when he was questioned
in regard to this matter he refused to commit himself except on one point which I
shall mention just now, but on all the main
points in connection with the draft Bill
he refused to commit himself. We were
2525
all told in the Northwest Territories—I
heard it myself on many platforms—that the
proper thing for us to do was to trust the
Liberal party, that with their record in the
past they would be sure to give us fair and
liberal terms. We have been told quite recently and told triumphantly that the seven
Liberal members of parliament who come
from the Northwest Territories would support the Bill in its present form. If so,
then I think it must be due to a sudden
change of opinion on the part of at least two
of those members. The two hon. members
who were in the last parliament. They
have put themselves definitely on record in
regard to this matter. I refer to the hon.
member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and to
the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr.
Scott). The hon. member for Edmonton, on
the 13th of October, 1903, said this:
I said in this House last session, and I take
the liberty of repeating it, that if the House
will give the Northwest Territories the terms
asked for in the draft Bill contained in these
papers, I will certainly support it most strongly. We will support it. These are the
terms
we want.
That statement was placed on record.
Then the hon. member for West Assiniboia
a couple of years previously had placed
himself on record as asking very similar
terms to those which were subsequently
comprised in the draft Bill which was submitted by the Northwest Territories. Therefore,
I hold, Mr. Speaker, that it these two
hon. gentlemen, at any rate, from the Northwest Territories, had any mandate from
their constituents in that country, that mandate would certainly be in the terms in
which they had placed themselves on record
in their public utterances.
I regret that after having for years
advocated the granting of provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territoriees, I am
unable to welcome the measure which has
just been introduced. It does not contain
the 'fair and just terms' for which the people
of the Territories ask and it does not give
'complete and absolute autonomy' such as we
were promised by the Prime Minister. It
creates two new provinces of an inferior
type and of a lower grade than the other
provinces of the Dominion of Canada, and I
contend that the people of the Territories
are justified in their demand to be placed on
the same level as is occupied by the other
province especially as they have a population larger at the present moment than the
populations of four of the seven existing
provinces of the Dominion. Their disapproval of the Bill which has been introduced
has been amply proved by the great number
of protests which they have made and which
have been placed before this House. I am
sorry that there are two provinces instead
of one. The assembly of the Northwest
Territories was strongly in favour of having
only one province for the whole of the Territories. They had voted on that question
and
2525
3536
had endorsed that position by a large majority. The whole country had given their
opinion on it when they voted as they did
at the general elections to which I have
referred. The late Minister of the Interior
Mr. Sifton) committed himself on only one
particular point and that was with reference to the matter of one or more provinces.
Although I was not present at the time I
am told on credible authority that both
at Regina and Indian Head he stated that
he was in favour of one province. The
Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) has given
the reasons why apparently the government
considered it would be undesirable to make
the whole of the territories into one province. He was afraid that the progress
and the prosperity of one large province
would become such that the influence of that
province upon the rest of Canada would be
too great. I regret also to see the name of
Assiniboia disappear from the map. The
most thickly settled portion of the eastern
province, has borne that name for a long
time past. The magnificent wheat producing fields of that district have made the
name famous in the great markets of the
world. Assiniboia contains the largest portion of the population of the eastern provinces,
and therefore I think when a choice
of names was being made Assiniboia should
have been retained. No matter what the
opinion may be as to whether it was a good
name to choose in the first instance, it was
sanctioned by usage, and should have been
preserved rather than the name Saskatchewan.
However, there are other and greater
questions than these involved in the Bill
and I shall leave these minor points and
proceed to deal with two or three of the
main points at issue, as shortly as I possibly can. I shall take up for a few minutes
the limitation of the powers of taxation which are being imposed on the
people of the new provinces in these Bills—
I refer of course to the question of the
exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway
from taxation. One would imagine from
what one constantly hears in this country
that the Canadian Pacific Railway had been
built in order to open up the Northwest and
that therefore the Northwest should pay
for the Canadian Pacific Railway. But was
that the case? Let us turn back for a
few moments to the Quebec resolutions.
Section 69 reads as follows:
The communications with the Northwestern
Territory, and the improvements required for
the development of the trade of the great west
with the sea-board, are regarded by this conference as subjects of the highest importance
to
the federated provinces, and shall be prosecuted
at the earliest possible period that the state of
the finances will permit.
That is to say this question of building
a railway into the west was looked upon
as a subject of the highest importance to
3537 MARCH 30, 1905
the federated provinces. It was to open up
channels for the trade of the east. That was
the first reason for the building of the
Canadian Pacific Railway. The later and
perhaps the most cogent reason was that
it was absolutely imperative. if faith was
to be kept with British Columbia, that a railway should be built across the continent.
A confract was made by the Dominion government with the Canadian Pacific Railway
and the consideration on the part of Canada
included a grant of money, a grant of land
and exemption from taxation. The Northwest Territories are today paying their
share of the interest on that money grant
so we will wipe that question away. However in addition to that which is imposed on
them in common with the rest of Canada
they are contributing a land grant not only
for that portion of the line which was built
in the Territories, but also for that portion
which was built in British Columbia and
for a part of the line which was built in
Ontario and in Manitoba. Now, Sir, that is
a great burden upon the country. The
result of it is that millions of money which
have been made in that country and which
should be kept in the country to develop its
resources are being sent out in payment for
the lands. We have claimed compensation
in the draft Bill for such lands as were
alienated by the Dominion Government for
purely Dominion purposes. Our demand in
that respect has apparently not received
consideration and all I desire at this moment is simply to mention the fact and to
enter my protest because it has not been
considered.
To turn to the third consideration for
the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The exemption from taxation is a
very unjust burden and it falls entirely on
the shoulders of the new provinces. It is
an unjust burden which was incurred for
the benefit of the whole of Canada, and
the Dominion should relieve us from it. The
Dominion parliament made the contract and
incurred the obligation. There was no provincial legislature at the time ; if there
had
been one in existence I do not suppose it
would have been possible that such a contract would have been made. A very
strong point was made in the argument which accompanied the draft Bill in
this respect. It was urged in the strongest
terms that this unjust burden should be
removed from the shoulders of the new
provinces. In the teeth of this protest we
find that it is actually proposed in this Bill
to rivet the burden on the new provinces
as part of their constitution. I can see no
possible reason for such action as that,
and I enter against it my strongest protest.
I hope that when this Bill comes to the
committee stage the government will see
fit to withdraw that particular clause.
When this exemption was being discussed
in parliament some two or three years ago,
3537
3538
and when the leader of the opposition made
a proposal that certain steps should be
taken which-would remove this burden
from the Territories and place it where it
properly belonged, the Prime Minister, at
all events by implication, gave some sort
of hope to the Territories, when he used
this language:
All this shows how absolutely essential it is
that the question should be referred to the
courts; that we should have an authoritative
decision as to the meaning of the law before
We can take any public action in the way of
giving relief to the settlers of the Northwest
Territories.
The right hon. gentleman evidently admits here that the settlers of the Northwest
had a case in asking for relief. I recall that statement to his mind, and trust
that he will give it serious consideration.
We have also a statement made by the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) on the
20th of October, 1903, when he said:
Let me say that in face of the position of this
Canadian Pacific Railway tax matter, in view
of the millions of acres of land that are involved and the millions in value of railway
property of the company that are involved, it
appears to me that the people of the Northwest
would be simply crazy at present to accept
autonomy unless driven to it as a last resort.
Such being the case, I certainly approve of delay
until all doubt about the Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption has been removed.
That was the opinion of the member for
West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) not so very
long ago, and yet we are to-day told in
triumphant tones that the seven Liberal
members from the Northwest are behind
the government in support of this Bill.
Let me deal for a moment with the question of the public domain. The Bill proposes
that the lands, mines and minerals
and timbers are to be retained by the
Dominion government and not placed under
the juriSdiction of the new provinces.
If gentlemen on the other side of the
House have their will in respect to this
Bill, that is what will occur. Well. Sir.
we claim that we have just as much
right as any other province in the Dominion of Canada to the full possession
of our lands. I was very glad to see that
the Prime Minister had dropped the old
stock argument that Canada had purchased
the Northwest Territories. and therefore
that the federal authority could deal with
these Territories just as it liked. There
were very cogent reasons for the right hon.
gentleman dropping that argument, but I
was surprised to hear the Solicitor General
revive it and in doing so he must have
been oblivious to some circumstances which
have occurred within the last few years.
In reply to the Solicitor General's statement
that the acquirement of the Northwest Territories had not been profitable to the Dom
3539
inion, I beg to tell him that the profits from
that investment have already been sufficient, and more than sufficient to pay the
entire claim of the Hudson Bay Company.
Probably the reason which has caused gentlemen opposite to drop the old argument
as to the purchase of the Territories, is the
grant within recent years of 116,550 square
miles of the same territory to the province
of Quebec. More than that, the Prime Minister now is proposing to make free gifts
of the same territory to Quebec, Ontario,
the new province of Saskatchewan, and
Manitoba, although in the case of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it
would not be a gift but simply a request
that they should administer the territory.
The old argument that this territory belongs to the whole Dominion must have been
abandoned by the present government, or
otherwise they would have no warrant for
making these free gifts to the old provinces.
The Prime Minister has appealed to the
precedent of Manitoba as a reason for withholding the public domain from the new provinces.
but he deliberately disregarded that
precedent in 1898 when he had a Bill passed
through parliament giving to the province
of Quebec a vast area, nearly one-half the
size of one of the new provinces. If there
is any doubt as to the statement I have
made, I would like to lay before the House
a few extracts from an Order in Council of
the Quebec government dated the 24th of
April, 1898, upon which the legislation
was subsequently framed. Attached to
this Order in Council is a report from Mr.
E. H. Taché, assistant Commissioner of
Crown Lands, who, after discussing the
question as to the province of Quebec making a demand for that portion of the coast
of Labador which is under the jurisdiction
of Newfoundland, goes on to say :
The claiming of that territory would result
in serious diplomatic complications which the
Dominion government certainly will not raise,
but it seems to me that a compromise might
he arrived at which will prove acceptable to
all those interested. The claims under the old
French regime, thus altered, would still include
a vast extent of territory, which in extent and
value would be a good equivalent to the territory claimed by Ontario. The claim might
be
framed in the following manner :
He then goes on to define in detail the
boundary line as it was finally adopted in
the Bill passed by this parliament, and he
says :
The definition of the limits means an
increase in area of 116,550 square miles. In my
opinion to go further, as far as the Hudson
Strait would be too grasping.
Too grasping even for the province of
Quebec in a matter of this sort ; so grasping indeed that the deal might not be put
through parliament. Now, Mr. Speaker, I
do not wish to protest in any way against
this accession of territory to the province
3539
3540
of Quebec. I think it was a perfectly correct policy ; I believe that the province
of
Quebec could administer that territory far
more satisfactorily than it could possibly
be administered from Ottawa. Some day
there may be a great rush of people into
that country for all we know, and then I am
quite certain that the provincial management will be more satisfactory to these
people than could possibly be the management of the more distant central government
at Ottawa. But, Sir, this incident
forms a precendent set by the Prime Minister himself, which surely he ought to follow
in this case of the new provinces. I am
afraid, however, that what is sauce for the
goose in this case is not considered sauce
for the gander.
Now, I would like to ask whether there
is any similarity whatever between the
conditions which prevailed in Manitoba in
the year 1870, when Manitoba became a
province of this Dominion, and the conditions of the Territories in this year 1905.
If
there is no similarity whatever in conditions, there can be no precedent. At that
time Manitoba was under the paternal government of the Hudson Bay Company. In
the debates of 1870, you will find the opinion expressed that the people of Manitoba
were scarcely fit for a provincial form of
government. A doubt was expressed as
to the 'fitness of a people just emerging
from the conditions of serfdom'—that was
one of the phrases used. They were also
referred to as an ignorant people. They
comprised in all some twelve thousand
souls, and they were at that very time in
the throes of rebellion. Is there any similarity whatever in the condition of Manitoba
at that time and the present condition of
the Northwest Territories, who have a
responsible government, a constitution,
limited certainly as to its powers, but one
which they have enjoyed for a great many
years past ; who have carried on a liberal
and progressive government, a government
which is, I think, second to none in any of
the other provinces of the Dominion, and
also with a population, as I have just
stated, larger than that of the majority of
the provinces of the Dominion.
Then, if any hon. gentleman will look
through the debates of the House of Commons for many years succeeding the formation
of the province of Manitoba, he will
find that the opinion on both sides of the
House was always in favour of the principle that the public lands in the province
should belong to the province. I have
culled a number of opinions from the great
men of that time—Mr. Mills, Sir John Macdonald, Sir Leonard Tilley, Mr. G. W. Ross,
by all of whom to a greater or less extent
that principle is recognized. The reason
given in nearly every case for withholding
the lands from the province was that it
would not pay the province to hold them—
that the administration of the lands would
3541 MARCH 30, 1905
cost more than the province would ever be
able to make out of them. That is the reason
which was given for a great many years.
But a change came over the scene in 1885,
or a little previous to that, when it was
discovered that the lands had an exceptional value. The Prime Minister, in stating
his
main reason for withholding the public
lands from the new provinces, quoted from
an Order in Council of the year 1885 ; but
he did not quote the main reasons which
were given in that Order in Council by the
Conservative administration of the day for
withholding the public lands from the province of Manitoba. He only quoted a
consideration which 'had much weight'
with the sub-committee after three or
four of the main reasons had been stated,
that consideration being that it would be
advisable in the interests of immigration
that the Dominion government should continue to hold the public lands in its own
hands. Now, to my mind that is a very
unsound argument. The Immigration Department is for the whole of Canada—for
all the provinces, and for no one more than
another. It may happen, and it does happen, that the province of Manitoba and the
Northwest Territories are the most attractive field for immigrants to-day ; but tomorrow
it may be Ontario or Quebec or
British Columbia ; we do not know. As
a matter of fact, we find that the Immigration Department is working hard in the
interest of the other provinces of the Dominion, just as hard, I imagine, as it is
for
the Northwest Territories. Here is an extract from the report of the Minister of the
Interior with reference to the immigration
into Ontario :
In order to relieve to some extent the situation in the province of Ontario, where
there
has been such a great dearth of labour, the department took steps early in the year
to direct
its agents in the old land to divert as much as
possible the farm labouring classes to that province. The result of this has been
that some
thousands of labourers who perhaps would have
gone to western Canada were induced to remain
over in Ontario, all of whom were immediately
distributed by the Ontario bureau amongst
farmers throughout the country. It has been
found almost impracticable to divert much of
the foreign population, even of the farm labouring classes, to eastern provinces,
many of these
people coming through to meet friends, and,
moreover, nearly all or the farm labourers from
the continent appear to be desirous of securing
lands for themselves first.
That shows that the Immigration Department is working for the province of
Ontario, and for the other provinces of Canad just as well as for the Northwest Territories
; and I do not think it can be said
that any very great inconvenience is caused
to that department by the fact that the
lands of the province of Ontario are in the
hands of the government of that province.
Farm labourers and small tenant farmers
3541
3542
are certainly the very best class of immigrants, and I have no objection to their
being diverted to Ontario to get their first
experience of Canada. But if the lands of
the Northwest Territories are to be retained
in the hands of the Dominion government,
simply because it wants to apply its immigration policy to the best advantage, then
it should not divert from those lands any
immigration which is coming out. ButI am
sure that is a position that would be resented by every other province of Canada.
Every immigrant who comes into this country is an asset to the whole Dominion.
I consider that the difficulties which have
been raised are entirely visionary. If the
new provinces were possesed of their own
public lands, they would be the most interested of all in encouraging immigration
to
come within their bounds. We should have
three local governments all hard at work
trying to bring in immigration, and all competing with each other for immigration.
More than that, the local government, thoroughly understanding the local conditions,
would be able to make matters so much
more comfortable for the incoming settlers
that they would produce a more contented
class of settlers; and the old saying still
holds good, that the contented settler is the
best immigration agent, and the quotation
which I have just made from the report of
the Minister of the Interior goes to prove
it. These people coming in are, a great
many of them, coming to their friends, from
whom they have heard of their great prosperity and who have encouraged them to
come to the country. I contend that the
moral if not the legal right of the new provinces to the ownership of their public
lands
has practically been conceded by the government. I do not think any doubt has been
seriously raised upon this subject. This
question, as well as the whole question of
provincial powers, was very clearly stated
by the hon. member for West Assiniboia
(Mr. Scott) some four years ago. My hon.
friend sent me a copy of his speech on that
occasion. I concurred then with him in
the position he took, and am very glad to
put on record the second time some of the
opinions which he expressed in that speech,
and which are very similar to those I hold
myself. On the 25th March, 1901, he said :
I may say that what the people will expect
and what I think they have a right to expect—
and this is really the point to which I wish to
call the attention of parliament—is that they
will be dealt with on exactly the same basis
as the originally confederated provinces dealt
with themselves, and be put in exactly the same
position as that occupied by the originally
confederated provinces. It the proper principle
is adhered to, if the principle of absolute
equality is observed, if parliament places the
new provinces upon an equitable basis, the
local government will be given a proper grant
for government, also the per capita grant,
and be given anything that may be shown to
be due as the debt allowance. And they will
3543
COMMONS
be put in the possession of the public resources,
lands, timber and minerals in the same way
as the other provinces were put in possession
of those resources. I believe that that portion
of the confederation arrangement by which the
original provinces retained control over their
public resources was looked upon by the fathers
of confederation as the keystone of the whole
scheme.
The hon. member then went on to quote
from speeches made by Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir A. T. Galt in connection
with confederation, in which they explained
the reasons for placing the public lands at
the disposal of the different provinces. My
hon. friend went on to say :
When Prince Edward Island was taken into
confederation a grant was voted her for the
very reason that she did not have any public
land.
Further on he said :
The people of the Territories contend that
the public lands of that territory are now simply held in trust by parliament until
such time
as provinces may be created in that area.
They firmly believe that their contention is
good. But even it a strict legal or moral right
cannot be established by the people of the
Territories to be given possession of their local
resources, I appeal to this House whether it
would not be unwise and impolitic to create
provinces out there on any different basis from
that on which other provinces stand. Entire
equality is the only sure guarantee of the permanency of the confederation structure.
Is it
not a fair proposition that the citizens of the
Northwest Territories should be looked upon
in all respects as equal to the citizen of any
other province of Canada. The subjects that
come under the purview of the local government affect the people more closely than
those
dealt with by this parliament, and the best way
to promote the progress of that country will
be to give as much financial ability as possible
to the local legislature to deal with their local
affairs, so that education, public works and all
local services may be dealt with efficiently and
adequately. My opinion is that by no other
means can parliament do as much at one stroke
to promote progress and the true welfare, not
of the Territories alone but of Canada as a
whole, as by placing the main portion of western Canada in a strong, efficient, capable
position as concerns its local government.
My hon. friend concluded as follows:
I trust that when the time comes, whether
it comes next year, or the succeeding year, and
I feel assured that it will come before the end
of the term of this parliament, that parliament
may deal with the question on broad principles
and endeavour to place the citizens of the
Northwest Territories in a position entirely
equal, in no way inferior to the position which
is occupied by the citizens of any other province of Canada.
I have not heard that my hon. friend has
since receded from the views be there expressed. He did not, at any rate, in the fall
of 1903, and I think we are entitled to believe that those are his opinions still
; and
3543
3544
if he has any mandate from the Northwest
Territories, it can only be to give effect to
the terms of his speech which he distributed throughout that country far and wide.
Let me now make a comparison between
the value of the lands when Manitoba entered confederation and their value to-day.
In 1883 Sir Charles Tupper read a statement
to this House, which showed that the sales
of land from 1872 to 1880 had been less
than two million acres, and that the average price received was 31 1/2 cents per acre.
Further on he declared that only 13 cents
per acre out of this sum had been paid to
date. Compare the value of the lands in
these days with their value in the Territories to-day. We find that the Canadian
Pacific Railway lands were selling in January at an average price of $4.10 per acre
and the school lands at an average of
nearly $10 per acre. We also have
the statement of the First Minister
that $3 an acre is a very moderate
rate for land in that country. Therefore, I
contend there is no comparison whatever between the conditions of Manitoba in 1870
and those of the Territories in 1901.
Coming to the question of the compensation offered to the new provinces for the loss
of their public lands, I would like to ask the
First Minister what is the basis of that calculation? Why have the government selected
25,000,000 acres out of the 175,000,000 which,
roughly speaking, will be comprised in each
of these new provinces, and why have they
placed a value of only $1.50 per acre on
these 25,000,000 acres ? Again why do they
only pay 1 per cent interest at first on those
lands, and how do they arrive at the gradual increase in the rate of interest as population
increases in that country ? I can only
suppose that they began to argue the
question backwards. I would presume that
their first thought was : How much money
is the least we can give to the people of
these provinces ? And having decided upon
the figure, they began to hunt for
some method of making it up. The
whole arrangement seems to me an extraordinary one. I could not find a word
to describe it until the Prime Minister supplied it the other day, when he used the
word 'ramshackle.' That well characterizes
the arrangements made in this Bill for compensation to the provinces for the loss
of
their public lands. It will be noticed that
compensation is only offered for one-
seventh of the whole area or one-fifth of the
whole area still undisposed of according to
a return brought down the other day. Who
will say that 113,000,000 acres out of these
138,000,000 still undisposed of in each of
these provinces are of no value whatever,
that only 25,000,000 are of any value, and
that the value of those shall be fixed at
$1.50 per acre ? Further than that, no consideration whatever is given for the mines,
minerals and timber which are being withheld from us. As to the fisheries, I do not
3545 MARCH 30, 1905
know whether they are to be withheld from
us or not.
With regard to the value of these lands,
in the latest report of the Minister of the
Interior, we have the statement of the sales
of land made by the railway and other companies from 1893 to 1904. The sales amounted
to 10,512,349 acres, and the amount of
money for which these lands were sold was
$36,992,482, or about $3.50 per acre. That
is to say, we find that as the actual result
of the 10 or 11 years' sales of the great
land companies, they obtain for a little
over 10,000,000 acres a sum nearly
equal to the whole compensation to
be paid to the people of each of the
new provinces for 138,000,000 acres. Then,
again, we have the figures given by the government of school lands sales. AsI have
said, they average about $9.90 per acre.
Also, the Prime Minister mentioned as
'a very moderate rate' $3 per acre.
He was afraid that if the land were handed over to the people of the Northwest Territories
they might begin to sell
them at something more than this very
moderate rate of $3 per acre. When he
was questioned whether the lands were
generally open for sale at these figures, we
discovered that they were only open
to a few favoured individuals and that
the general public were not able to buy
lands even at $3 per acre. I will go a
step further and take the figures given by
the Minister of the Interior a couple of
years ago in discussing the Grand Trunk
Pacific project. He then made the calculation that that one line of railway alone
was
going to open up 50,000,000 acres of land, and
that the 20,000,000 or 25,000,000 acres which
the government would have for sale would
have an accrued value of $3 per acre within
ten years after the completion of the line. Or.
take the ex-Minister of the Interior's (Mr.
Sifton's) statement made last Friday, when
he referred to the school lands trust fund
as being valued at $50,000,000. That statement he made in the course of his speech
on the educational clauses of this Bill.
Now, these school lands consist of two
sections out of every 36 sections in the
township. That is, the school lands are
about one-eighteenth part of the whole territory. About 1 3/4 sections of each township
have been set aside for the Hudson Bay
Company, so that the school lands amount
to one-seventeenth part of the area available. And, if the seventeenth part of the
whole area is estimated by the ex-Minister
of the Interior at $50,000,000, it is a simple
calculation to arrive at what he estimates
as the value of the whole public domain in
the Northwest—all you have to do is to
multiply $50,000,000 by 17. But I am not
suggesting that that is a fair valuation of
these lands. The ex-Minister of the Interior, I presume, thinks it must be. It is
an exceedingly difficult thing to find at this
time what the value of these lands will be
3545
3546
at some date in the future. But while it is a most difficult thing to arrive at any
final conclusion on this question, I submit that the calculations I
have quoted go to prove conclusively that
the compensation that is offered for the loss
of these lands is absolutely and utterly
inadequate. The Prime Minister took the
Manitoba lands as a precedent, as I have
before mentioned. But, in the case of Manitoba, the swamp lands were handed back
to that province. The Prime Minister says
there are no swamp lands in the new provinces. I would not like to make such a confident
assertion as that myself. But, if there
are none, I think the Northwest should have
some lands given them in lieu of the swamp
lands. How much better it would be to
avoid all these difficulties which confront
us in the calculation of their real value by
handing the lands over to the new provinces
just as their public lands have been placed
in the possession of the other provinces of
the Dominion. The people of the new provinces would then feel that, in this respect
at
any rate they had been fairly treated ; that
in this respect, they had been granted full
provincial rights. Or, I will make another
proposition. If this parliament considers
only 25,000,000 acres of land of that country
to be of any value, I would invite them to
select 25,000,000 acres in each province and
pay us $1.50 per acre and hand over the
remainder to the provincial authorities. The
people of the Northwest will make some use
of the land if you will give it to them.
As a matter of fact I hold that no monetary consideration is sufficient to compensate
us for the loss of our land. It is impossible to have a satisfactory administration
of these lands from a centre upwards of two
thousand miles distant. Nearly everything
has to be referred to Ottawa. It takes
nearly a week to get an answer to a letter
from one of the nearest points, Regina. The
people on the spot understand the conditions
far better than the officials of the department down here in Ottawa. The land will
be much better administered by officers responsible to the Legislative Assembly of
the
Northwest Territories. The whole administration will be under the eyes of the
people who are most deeply interested in
the lands. It is quite a different matter
when the administration is placed in the
hands of one man at Ottawa. He becomes,
in a sense a dictator, and he is responsible to
a body of men very few of whom have any
intimate knowledge of the local conditions
which prevail in the Northwest Territories.
The representatives of the other provinces
of the Dominion control and manage their
own lands. And they are the people best
qualified to control and manage those lands.
But I contend that they are not so well
qualified to control and manage the lands of
the Northwest as are the people of the
Northwest themselves. I was very much
amused by one feature of the speech made
3547
the other day by the hon. member for
Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). He tried to show
what a kind and statesmanlike thing it
would be to relieve the people of the Northwest of the burden of managing these lands.
That seemed to be the general trend of his
remarks. He suggested that the members
of the provincial legislatures might be pressed to use the lands improperly. If he
finds
that difficulty in the province of Quebec he
has the remedy of inducing his province to
hand over all their lands to the administration of the Dominion. But, we have never
found any difficulty of that kind whatever in
the Northwest Territories in the matters
with which we have had to deal up to the
present day, and I believe we shall find no
difficulty in that connection in the future.
At any rate, who is the more likely to have
improper pressure put upon them to administer these lands wrongly ? Is it the
members of the legislatures of the new provinces who are directly under the eye of
the
people most intimately concerned, or is it
not likely to be the Minister of the Interior
who is acting by himself down here at
Ottawa ?
After all, these questions, important as
they are to the people of the Northwest Territories, are overshadowed by the educational
clauses in this Bill. These clauses have been
introduced, I assert once again in spite of
what the hon. member for Ottawa said,
in such a form as to invite opposition ; and
the disparaging references made constantly
to the people of the Northwest by member
after member on the other side of the House
have not been such as to soothe the feelings
of the people under these difficult circumstances. I would like to say, in reference
to the statement made by the hon. member
for Ottawa that he had been told that no
school question existed in the Northwest
Territories up to the present time, that
that is practically the case. The school
question has been raised in this parliament
and raised on the other side of the House.
But, I consider that the same hon. gentleman misrepresents the position of this party
when he suggests that our attitude is to
favour the repeal of the present system of
education which obtains in the Northwest
Territories. The position of this party is
that this is a local and provincial question
which should be dealt with entirely by the
provinces, that this is a matter in reference
to which this parliament has no right or
power to place restrictions or limitations on
the provinces. We contend for provincial
rights in this matter. The hon. member for
Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) accuses us of misusing what he refers to as that sacred term.
With one breath he denounces us for appealing for provincial rights and then with
the
next breath he approves of the federal
authorities retaining possession of the public
lands of the Northwest Territories which we
3547
3548
believe it will be an infringement of provincial rights for the Dominion to retain
in their possession. He went on to treat
the people of the Northwest Territories as
if they were children and as if they had no
rights. I do not propose to follow him
into the religious discussion which he raised.
This evening we again had a violent racial
and religious appeal from the hon. member
for Ottawa. As I said before I have made
up my mind that I at any rate will not
follow the bad example which has been set
us by hon. gentlemen on the other side
of the House. I respect the religious convictions of others and I think they should
show the same respect for my religious
convictions. I feel they have not done it.
Nor, Sir, is it a question of the value of
separate schools as an abstract proposition.
We are not discussing that question at all.
It is a question of equal rights to the new
provinces with those which have been given
to other provinces in the Dominion to deal
with matters of education. It has been suggested that this question has been raised
on
this side of the House as a party question,
that this side of the House is responsible for
the agitation that is going on in the Northwest Territories at the present moment.
Now, Sir, it just happened that yesterday
afternoon, after the close of the sitting of
this House, I received a letter from the
largest town in my constituency which I
propose, with your permission, to read :
Indian Head, Assa., March 22, 1905.
R. S. Lake, Esq.,
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,—At the annual meeting of Indian
Head Liberal Association held here to-day, I
was instructed to send you a copy of the following resolution which was duly carried,
viz.:
We, the members of Indian Head Liberal Association, desire to enter a protest against
the
educational clauses in the Autonomy Bill, believing that such is an interference with
provincial rights. The clause as amended in the
compromise Bill now before parliament, does
not, in our opinion, contain any modification
of what we believe to be an infringement of
our rights as a province, and for this reason we
as emphatically protest against the Bill as
remodelled.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) J. M. THOMPSON,
Secretary Indian Head Liberal Association.
I would like to ask the hon. member for
Ottawa, if he were present, if he considers that my hon. friend from East Grey
(Mr. Sproule) had anything to do with that
resolution. I presume that these are the
gentlemen to whom he referred as renegades,
or are these the gentlemen of whom the
hon. Minister of Justice spoke when he said
that the right hon. Prime Minister had not
lost the respect of any persons for whose
respect he cared ?
I differ entirely from the cheerful declarations of the hon. Minister of Finance when
he stated his 'firm conviction that most
3549 MARCH 30, 1905
people in the country will not bother themselves very much about this constitutional
question' and that there are other questions greater than the constitutional question
involved in this matter. The rights
and liberties of the British people have
been too closely connected with the constitution to have it treated thus lightly.
I
also wish to offer my protest against the suggestions which have been constantly made
that the people of the Northwest Territories
will be less generous than the people of
Nova Scotia in dealing with this question.
That suggestion has been made more than
once on the other side of the House. What
my views are in respect to the separate
school question as an abstract proposition,
has in my opinion, really nothing whatever
to do with this discussion. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have
discussed this question on its merits as
have hon. gentlemen, I must admit, on
this side of the House. Although I do not
intend to follow their example I intend to
claim the privilege of briefly putting on record the views which I hold with regard
to
this question. After nearly 22 years residence in the Northwest Territories, I believe
firmly that the public school system as
at present administered is the one best
suited to the needs of the country.
Mr. LAKE. The fact that separate
schools have been so little taken advantage
of shows that except in certain centres and
thickly-populated districts there is no demand for them. Taking an average settlement
in that country, the separate school
system is nearly impracticable and places a
heavy burden on the people in the increased
taxation incidental to minority schools.
Mr. LAKE. In certain instances it would
actually prevent the formation of schools at
all. I do not Wish to be understood as favouring the exclusion of religious teaching
from
the education of the young. No education,
in my mind, can be satisfactory which does
not include the ethics of religion, but I say
that doctrine and dogma should be kept to
the church and to the home.
Mr. LAKE. And I am opposed to a purely sectarian education. That is my own
personal opinion, and I believe that I am as
well entitled to hold that opinion and state
it in the House as any other gentleman.
In the public school system of the Northwest Territories provision is made to allow
of religious teaching, as has been frequently stated in this House. But the impression
which has been conveyed by many of the
speeches that this religious teaching is
the regular rule, is an erroneous one.
It is not, as a matter of fact, the general
rule. In fact, I do not know personally of
3549
3550
one particular instance in which religious
teaching is given during that last half hour.
But it is open, under the ordinances, to any
and every denomination to teach religious
doctrine in the same school during the last
half hour in the afternoon if they desire to
do so and can obtain the consent of the
parents and the trustees. If they do not do
so it is the fault of the people themselves ;
it means that they do not wish it, and I
take the ground that they should not be
forced to have it. The separate school system in its practical working out means a
hardship in the case of any Roman Catholic who prefers a public school education
in the Northwest Territories, and I would
say again that there are many Roman Catholics in that country who do prefer a public
school education.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. Is it not a fact that
in the school districts where the Catholics
are in the majority they have not the choice,
but are obliged to go to the public schools,
because they cannot form separate schools ?
Under the ordinance, in every school district where the Catholics are in a majority
they cannot form a separate school, but
have to go to the public school ?
Mr. LAKE. That is quite true. But
they would control the teachers and, of
course, they could have religious instruction
for the last half hour of the afternoon. That
is quite the case, and the hon. gentleman has
stated what is really a very good case
in favour of our national school system
as it exists. I do not think you need go
further than Ottawa to find gentlemen of
that faith who believe in the public school
system of education as contrasted with the
separate school system.
I would like to know what the educational
clauses, as at present embodied in the Bill,
really mean. In a House where there are so
many lawyers we laymen might have expected to get a clear answer to this question
: What do these clauses really embody :
what do they really mean? But we find
that legal opinions differ in regard to this
as widely as the poles, and I am
inclined, after hearing a good many of
the speeches pro and con, to believe that
they mean just about the same thing as the
original clauses.
Now, let us trace this question up ; let
us consider the way in which the original
clauses were arrived at, and the way in
which these substituted clauses were arrived at. A subc-ommittee of the Privy Council
was appointed to deal with this question ;
it was composed of four gentlemen of the
legal profession, all men of repute—the
Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the
Secretary of State and the Postmaster General ; the three first of these were gentlemen
who belonged to the Roman Catholic faith
and were gentlemen who are avowedly in
favour of separate schools. They took the
unusual course of issuing a pamphlet and
distributing amongst the members of this
3551
House what purported to be a brief history,
from official sources, of the legislation with
respect to separate schools since 1863. At
the end of that pamphlet they went beyond
the bounds of history, and made a distinct
appeal on the subject. They said that 'it
would be a breach of faith and a
violation of the British North America Act to disturb now rights and
privileges granted thirty years ago'—a
violation of the British North America Act; and I would like, by the way, to
ask who it is that now proposes to violate
the British North America Act? But the
pamphlet did not rest at this. The rights
and privileges granted thirty years ago
were defined in another pant of this
pamphlet as 'the same system as prevailed in Ontario and Quebec.' After
issuing this pamphlet, in which this strong
appeal is made for separate schools, they
proceeded to draw up a set of clauses. To
provide for what ? According to the Prime
Minister in his speech on the introduction
of the Bill, it was to enable the minority to
establish their own schools and to share in
the public moneys as the law is to-day. A
similar statement was made a few days later
by the Minister of Justice, that they drew up
these clauses to give effect to the provisions
of the Act of 1875 and the conditions that
are now in force in the Northwest Territories. Now, we are told by the Minister
of Finance, the Minister of Customs, the
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and many
others that the ordinances now in force in
the Northwest Territories, for all practical
purposes, simply provide for a national
school system, and not for a separate school
system in its recognized sense—that is, in
the sense in which it prevails in Ontario
and Quebec.
So we have this position, that, after
issuing a pamphlet in favour of separate schools, they drew up a clause which
did not provide for separate schools as they
understood them, but simply provided for
what was in practice a national school system. These four legal gentlemen drew up
this clause which the Minister of Justice
said was drawn up designedly to be'so
clear and simple that any man might understand lt;' those were his very words. But
a
revelation came a few days later. The hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) returns
and tells us that those clear and simple
words have a deeper meaning, that they
actually do provide for the same system as
prevails in Ontario and Quebec, and in addition give, for the support of separate
schools, a share of a $50,000,000 endowment
which had been specially held in trust for
public schools.
And these four legal gentlemen apparently never saw what they were embodying in
this clause ! They believed all the time
they were simply perpetuating the law as
it exists at present. For the last three
or four weeks there have been anxious ne
3551
3552
gotiations on the other side of the House,
and they have finally agreed to lay the
blame on the poor draughtsman. These
four gentlemen then took back the clauses
they had drafted originally, and provided a substitute which in the opinion of the
member for Brandon really
does provide for the schools now in
existence and nothing more. The Prime
Minister in introducing the amended clauses
explained that the objections to the original
clauses were that they were 'too broad and
too vague, and if adopted would create confusion instead of certainty.' Remember
these were the very clauses which we were
told were to be so clear and simple that
any man could understand them. The
Prime Minister told us that the amended
clauses simply embody the law of the country which has been in force for thirteen
or
fourteen years ; but I would remind the
House that the right hon. gentleman said
the same thing in reference to the original
clauses. The Minister of Finance says that
the present clauses continue for ever the
school system which now exists, and the
Minister of Customs explained how simple
it all was, and he told us which of the different clauses of the territorial ordinances
were affected by this Bill. If the Minister
of Customs were a lawyer he would have
been a little more careful, but having had
experience of the difliculties of four of the
leading legal gentlemen of the cabinet, some
of us began to think a layman's opinion
might throw some light upon the question.
However that may be, the member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) showed us pretty
conclusively the other day that there is more
behind this matter than we have been led
to believe, and that the separate school
clause of 1875 is re-enacted in its entirety
by the present legislation, and that for all
practical purposes the substituted clauses
are just the same as the original. Is it any
wonder that parliament and the country
are extremely suspicious as to what there
is underlying all this, and that we want to
know distinctly and definitely what this
proposal really does mean ? We find the
very peculiar circumstance that the most
violent advocates of separate schools as
well as the most violent opponents of
separate schools on the other side of
the House, are, one and all of them urging
us to accept these educational clauses. We
are told by one set of these gentlemen that
they strongly approved of these clauses because they would tend to disminish the
number of separate schools and I suppose,
finally do away with them altogether. By
another set we are urged in impassioned
language to vote for the clauses and give
the Roman Catholic minority their rights ;
we are told that there is a religious
principle at stake and that no country can
be great and can endure without separate
schoole. Why all this flood of eloqu
3553 MARCH 30, 1905
ence if the Bill does not provide for separate schools as the people of Quebec
understand them ? Why is it necessary
to change the British North America
Act to curtail the liberties of a free people,
if we are only contending for a shadow ?
It seems to me to be an extraordinarily
foolish thing to invade provincial rights and
to create so much ill-feeling if it is only
for a shadow. Mr. Speaker, it is not yet
too late for the government to retrace its
steps. I trust that the Prime Minister and
his government will withdraw these objectionable educational clauses and leave this
matter in the hands of the people of the
Northwest. I can assure the right hon.
gentleman that he will make no mistake in
trusting to the generosity of the people of
the new provinces. The gentlemen on
the Treasury benches and their supporters
have been mistaken in their estimate
of the character of the people of the
Territories. I can tell them that the people
of the Northwest are a just and broadminded people ; I can tell them that the free
air of the prairies has inspired the people
with as great or a greater love for freedom
than possibly exists down here. The people
of the Territories will not be driven, and
will not be coerced. It is foolish to try to
coerce them ; trust them and they will show
a gentle and a generous spirit in those matters.
It is a most extraordinary thing that the
member for Brandon should have been
ignorant of the proposed action of the government in regard to the educational clauses
of the Bill. No man has occupied a more
prominent position than he on the question
of separate schools. It is incredible that
he did not have this matter under his close
attention and consideration or that he did
not take steps to keep the Prime Minister
well informed as to his views. However,
he appears not only to have been kept in
ignorance of the whole thing, but to have
kept himself in blissful ignorance too. The
reference of the member for North Toronto
(Mr. Foster) to the bolting of the government supporters on this question and his
comparison of it to the bolting of a flock
of sheep reminds me of the experience of an
old friend of mine who was taking his
flock to a new ground where the pasturage
was exceptionally good. The shepherd
found he had to take his sheep through a
narrow and difficult passage right in the
centre of which was a large boulder. The
sheep took alarm at the boulder and began
to bolt in every direction. The shepherd
had however a very sagacious old bell-wether
in his flock and a brilliant idea struck him.
He gave the bell-whether a kick behind and
sent him off with the rest. When the sheep
got well away he rolled the stone over so
that it did not look the same as before. The
plan answered to perfection, he soon got
the flock together again and they safely
3553
3554
negotiated this difficult place led by the old
bell-wether. But, Mr. Speaker, it was just
the same old boulder which he had simply
rolled over and changed in appearance.
It was argued th other day by the
member for Brandon that it would be
a breach of faith with the people who
come into this country expecting a
separate school system if this remedial
legislation were not passed in advance, so
to speak ; and if a law were not put on the
statute-book to retain a separate school
system in this country for all time to come.
The Minister of the Interior is responsible
for the immigration pamphlets which are
issued by his department. I have here one
of those pamphlets, and I am told there
are others, in which the system of educa«
tion which exists in the Northwest Territories is set forth as entirely different
from
what he stated it to be. Further than that,
I believe he has induced to come into this
country a very large number of settlers
from the United States, in the belief that
they were coming into a country where a
public school system existed. These are the
words of one of these pamplets : 'The
schools are non-sectarian and are national
in character.' How about the rights of
those people whom the Minister of the Interior has induced to come into this country
upon such a definite promise as that ?
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I have already occupied the time of the House at far
too great a length. I appeal to this House
to endorse the amendment which has been
moved by the leader of the opposition, and
to subscribe to the principle stated therein,
which is the very principle upon which confederation was accomplished. That resolution
sets forth that 'subject to and in
accordance with the provisions of the British
North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, the legislatures of the new provinces are entitled
to and should enjoy full powers of provincial self-government, including the power
to exclusively make laws in relation to education.' If this principle is not embodied
in the legislation now before the House,
and if the rights of the new provinces are
restricted and limited, then I wish to say,
so far as I am concerned, and I believe so
far as the Northwest is concerned, that the
question is not settled finally. We shall
take such further action, constitutional action, as we see fit ; and I am mistaken
in the
spirit of the men of the Northwest if they
do not finally secure their full rights in this
matter. The Prime Minister in his speech
has appealed to precedent in regard to education and in regard to public lands. In
each case the precedent which he has selected has been the exception to the general
rule.
He proposes to use these precedents to curtail the rights of the people of the new
provinces. In British history, Mr. Speaker, it
was not for such a purpose that precedent
was ever quoted. Let me remind the right
hon. gentleman of some lines of Tennyson,
3555
which give the true meaning of precedent,
and let me ask him to apply them to this
great and progressive Canada, with its
future to a great extent what he now
chooses to make it :
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where freedom broadens slowly down
From precedent to precedent.
Canada cannot achieve the great destiny
before her unless all her provinces are on
an equality, unless all her people have equal
rights and equal privileges. Do we appeal
in vain to the former champions of provincial rights?
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.25 a.m., Friday.
This individual participated in:
