The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three
o'clock.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the
proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for
the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of
the province of Albeta and the amendment
of Mr. Borden thereto.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE (Montmagny). At
this stage of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I
shall not pretend to review the whole of
the discussion which has taken place in
this House on the Bill now before us, nor
shall I attempt to deal with all the clauses
in that Bill. I propose to confine my remarks to that part of the measure which
has created so much sensation, not only. in
this House, but in the country as well. I
refer to the clause dealing with education.
Having listened very faithfully to the debate which is taking place, I am of the
opinion that the views which have been expressed on both sides, even those most op
posite to my own, have been given in good
faith and with but one object in view, the
betterment of this country of ours.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. The view that I
take of this matter may be a very weak
one, but it is held in all sincerity and frankness; and in giving expression to it
I trust
that I shall not say anything likely to hurt
the feelings of any one. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that it would be much
easier for me to address yourself and the
House in my native tongue, but as I want
my words to be understood, especially by
those of my hon. friends who do not enjoy the advantage of understanding the
beautiful French language, I shall endeavour
to use the language of the majority. And
if my English is not of the first quality, I
ask you, Sir, and this House, for your kind
indulgence.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I must ask you further not to forget that I have been educated
in one of those very inferior schools of the
province of Quebec.
3746
If ever, Sir, there was a right well established. if ever there was a right based
on
justice and equity. it is the right of the
Catholics of the Northwest to their separate schools. That is a right which comes
to them naturally, constitutionally and politically. By virtue of natural law, it
is the
right of the parent to bring up his children
in the way he thinks best calculated to
make them good Christians and good citizens, and it is the parent who is finally
responsible for the education of his children. That is so true that a simple comparison will make itself evident. to hon.
members opposite. Suppose, for instance.
that my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr.
Sproule) or my hon. friend from South York
(Mr. W. F. Maclean) should have no children and I should have six.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I am simply putting an hypothetical case for the sake of argument, but as I apparently
was not very
well posted regarding the capacity of my
hon. friend, I shall take instead the hon.
member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr.
Sam. Hughes). Suppose these hon. gentlemen had no children and I had six, does
it not belong to me and not to them to decide how my children shall be educated ?
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I am a French
Canadian and it will be all right. Is it
because my hon. friends are in the majority
that they can impose on me, against my
conscience, their views, and dictate to me
how I shall have my children educated?
The child is not the property of the state,
but of his parents, and it is they who have
the right to decide how he shall be brought
up and to have him brought up according
to the dictates of their conscience. Hence
we have seen outside the organization of
the state, private societies or associations
such as schools. The family constitutes a
private society. at the head of which is the
parents, and for the protection of which
public society has been established. The
civil society has been instituted for the protection of natural law, not to annihilate
it:
and for the public society to deny the right
to existence of these private societies would
be to destroy its own foundation, because
both derive their source in the same principle, the sociableness of mankind.
It is on that instinct of sociableness, always mainfesting itself, that confederation
has been established. The British North America Act defines the principles on which
the different provinces have rested that
principle and their agreement to it.
The British North America Act defines the
principles upon which the different provinces
have entered into that compact and their
3747
COMMONS
agreement to it. This compact is eminently
synallagmatic, providing for mutual and
reciprocal obligations and common duties.
In the British North America Act lies the
common ground on which the different provinces formed the confederation which is
now the Dominion of Canada. But, Mr.
Speaker, that confederation was not looked
upon at first favourably by some of the provinces, fears were expressed on behalf
of
the minorities in the various provinces,
especially by the Protestant University of
Quebec, and inducements had to be held out
to the minorities in order to gain their con:sent. Let me quote to you some of the
promises that were made to the provinces, from
which you can judge what was the idea of
the fathers of confederation. Hon. D'Arcy
McGee, who I understand was one of the
fathers of confederation, speaking, I believe,
in 1864, said:
The minorities east and west have really
nothing to fear, beyond what always existed,
local irritations produced by ill-disposed individuals. The strong arm, the long arm
of the
confederate power will be extended over them
all and woe to the wretch on whom that arm
shall have to descend in anger for any violation
of federal compact.
Well, Sir, inducements and promises of
that kind were relied upon, and the various
provinces agreed to form a confederation.
They passed some resolutions and then went
to the imperial parliament and obtained
what is now termed the British North
America Act, which is the constitution of
Canada. That Act defines the powers of the
central government, and the exclusive powers
of the provinces. Among the latter is jurisdiction in the matter of education, but
a
jurisdiction which is not exclusive, but is
limited by the terms of the British North America Act itself. My hon. friend from
Lincoln
(Mr. Lancaster) the other night said that
section 91 defined the powers of the central
government and section 92 defined the exclusive powers of the provinces ; and when
he was asked by my hon. friend from St.
John and Iberville (Mr. L. P. Demers) if
jurisdiction over education was contained
in section 92. he was obliged to admit that
it was not. There is a special section of the
British North America Act, section 93, which
gives to the provinces jurisdiction in the
matter of education. but one whch is limited
by the terms of the section itself, subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4. Now we are told that
in
order to ascertain the meaning of any
statute we must go back and inquire what
was the intention of the legislators. Well,
when this Act was passed in the British
parliament, the mover, Lord Carnarvon, then
Secretary of State to the colonies, made a
statement which was quoted last night by
my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. D. D.
McKenzie) ; but I may be permitted to read
it again, because I consider it very pertinent.
Coming to section 93 the mover said :
3748
Your lordships will observe some rather complicated arrangements in reference to education.
I need hardly say that that great question gives
rise to nearly as much earnestness and division
of opinion on that as on this side of the Atlantic. This clause has been framed after
long
and anxious controversy in which all parties
have been represented and on conditions to
which all had given their consent.
There is not a word here of Quebec or
Ontario.
The Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada, the Protestant minority of Lower Canada,
and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces will thus stand on a footing
of
entire equality.
Well, Sir, on the 22nd of February of the
same year the Earl of Shaftesbury presented
a petition to the House of Lords on behalf
of the Protestants of the province of Quebec, asking that their rights be protected
under the British North America Act that
was then passing through parliament. What
was the answer of Lord Carnarvon ? Here
I will call upon my hon. friend from East
Hastings (Mr. Northrup) to make good his
promise when he said that if we could show
him some words in which we are in honour
bound to give separate schools to the Northwest. then he would be in favour of them.
I call the attention of that hon. gentleman
to these words I am about to quote, and
then ask him to keep his pledge. Lord Carnarvon, On the 22nd of February, in answering
the Earl of Shaftesbury, said:
Hence the House would perceive that it was
almost impossible for any injury to be done to
the Protestant minority. The real question at
issue between the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities was the question of education,
and the 93rd clause, after long controversy, in
which the views of all parties had been represented, had been framed. The object of
that
clause was to guard against the possibility of
the members of the minority suffering from undue pressure by the majority. It had
been to
place all these minorities, whatever religion,
on precisely the same footing, and that, whether the minorities were in esse or in
posse.
Now is not that the case of the Northwest which was then a minority in posse
and did not then form part of the confederation ? Thus the Roman Catholic minority
in Upper Canada and the Protestant minority in Lower Canada and the Roman Catholic
minority in the maritime provinces would
all be placed on a footing of precise equality, Now, Sir, the time has come when the
pledge made by Lord Carnarvon in the
House of Lords, when he was speaking of
minorities, must be kept, and when we ought
to do them the justice that was promised
in the House of Lords. The hon. member
for North Toronto (Mr. Faster) made a very
eloquent speech a portion of which I will
quote :
Now, Sir, I never was a separate school adherent, I never believed in separate schools
as
against national schools. In 1896 I stated my
3749 APRIL 4, 1905
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-Con-
servative 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.
Well, Sir, why does not the hon. member
for North Toronto still believe in the constitution ? I have always understood that
a
man who had principles and who believed in
his principles stuck to them and tried to
convince the people that they were wrong
and not be convinced by the people that he
was wrong. I think the hon. member for
North Toronto has been long enough in politics and has been long enough in this parliament
not to allow himself, when he believed
that he had the right view of the question,
and when he believed in the right of the
minority, to be convinced that he was wrong
even by a thrice expressed opinion on the
part of the people, especially so, when during the elections of 1900 and 1904, that
question was not in the least talked of. My hon.
friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) was
quite right the other day when he said that
the hon. member for North Toronto
changed his mind because he found
that his former view was not to his
political advantage and it did not pay.
These are the principles of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. They
have principles but they cannot stick to
them. They do not believe in any thing that
does not pay and is not to their political advantage. It is not the statesmen who
try
to enlighten the mob, but it is the mob that
tries to enlighten the political statesmen of
the Conservative party. We have an expression of opinion by the highest tribunal
in the British empire; we have on this
question the opinion of the judicial committee of the Privy Council which was given
in the Manitoba case. We have the opinion
of Lord Herschell, and I hope that the hon.
member for North Toronto who has been
much longer in politics than I have and who
ought to know better than I do will pay some
attention to that opinion and that he will be
convinced that the correct view of this case
is not to be found in the expression of
public opinion on such a question as this.
Lord Herschell, speaking in regard to the
question of the jurisdiction of the provinces
in the matter of education, said :
Before leaving this part of the case it may be
well to notice the arguments urged by the respondent, that the construction which
their
lordships have put upon the 2nd and 3rd subsections of section 22 of the Manitoba
Act is
inconsistent with the power conferred upon
the legislature of the province to exclusively
3750
make laws in relation to education. The
argument is fallacious. The power conferred is not absolute, but limited. It is exercisable
only 'subject and according to the following provisions.' The subsections which
follow, therefore, whatever be their true construction, define the conditions under
which
alone provincial legislatures may legislate in
relation to education, and indicate the limitations imposed on. and the exceptions
trom, their
power of exclusive legislation. Their right to
legislate is not indeed, properly speaking, exclusive, for in the case specified in
subsection
3, the parliament of Canada is authorized to
legislate on the same subject. There is, therefore, no such inconsistency as was suggested
Mr. Speaker, when the Northwest Territories entered the union they came under
the principle of the British North America
Act which is the basis of confederation and
which is the principle upon which all the
sovereign states have met to form this confederation. This was the principle and it
was so well understood that when a law
was passed relating to separate schools in
the Northwest Territories it met, in the
House of Commons, with little if any opposition. The men of that time, the Blakes,
the Mackenzies, and Sir John Macdonald understood perhaps better than our hon. friends
to-day what was the spirit of the constitution because they were closer to it. Were
there any doubt left in the minds of hon.
gentlemen about the right of the Catholics of
the Northwest Territories to their separate
schools the law of 1875 should remove it
immediately. That law, which I need not
read to the House, as has been said by my
hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), is the law of to-day. That law was
passed under the provisions of section 93
of the British North America Act. it is the
aw of today and the meaning of the British North America Act is that when separate
schools have been established they have been
established for good. Why was it that the
law of 1875 was passed ? Was it not passed
at the request of the Protestant minority in
Manitoba, under section 93 of the British
North America Act, to make clearer and
to relieve any doubt there may have been relating to the rights of the Protestant
minority of the west ? When that law was passed by parliament, the Protestant minority
as
it then existed believed that the Northwest
Territories would be a second province of
Quebec and that the French Catholics would
have a majority there. That is so clear that
you cannot find any speech against it, not
even a speech by George Brown himself, and
I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to show me
one single article in the Protestant papers
of that time against the law of 1875. What
was the attitude of the ' Globe ' then ? Can
we find a single word in the 'Globe ' of 1875
against the law which gave separate schools
to the minority of the Northwest Territories?
Nor, can we find a single word of protest in
the 'Mail.' which, I believe. is the organ of
the Conservative party to-day. Well Sir,
3751
COMMONS
when this law was passed in 1875 to protect the rights of the Protestant minority
of
the Northwest Territories it was passed
without any obstruction from the Catholic
majority of the west, and if it was passed
with the complete acquiescence of the Catholic majority of the west why should our
Protestant friends of the west to-day be any
more narrow-minded than the Catholics
were in 1875 ? Why should they not stand
to-day as we stood in 1875 ready to give to
our Protestant fellow-citizens what was
their right and what we claim to be our
right to-day, because we are now in the
minority ? I suppose, that our hon. friends
on the other side of the House will want
to know when the Northwest Territories
enter confederation, and I suppose that the
old war cry that we have heard very often
in this discussion, without, it seems to me
any reason, will be again heard that we are
making an attack upon provincial rights.
Well, Sir, my view is that the Northwest
Territories are not yet members of the confederation of Canada. We know that they
have not the rights of a province in the
matter of education, that we have absolute
and unlimited jurisdiction as far as the
Northwest Territories go, and I think I can
fairly say, Mr. Speaker, that the Northwest
Territories in the matter of education or in
any other matter have not even the colour
of a right. The question has arisen : When
do they enter the union, or when do they
become a party to the compact formed in
1867 between Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick ? Was it in 1870, or is
it to-day or will it be to-morrow ? Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Northwest Territories
says that the Northwest Territories
entered the union on the 15th July, 1870.
One might ask by virtue of what law did
the Northwest Territories become a party
to the contract which implies the possession
of all the powers which were conceded to
the other provinces by the imperial parliament in 1867, only by a fiction of international
law. But, let us for the moment
accept the argument of Mr. Haultain, let us
suppose that the Territories entered the
union in 1870 ; by the terms of the British
North America Act, separate schools having
been established in the west since by the
federal government which was the competent authority, and that law having been
ratified by the legislature of the Northwest
Territories, separate schools were established
for ever and we cannot now abolish them.
That, is not my opinion only. I would not
give my own legal opinion on such an important question, but in stating this, I give
the opinion which was expressed by Sir
Charles Hibbert Tupper in 1896. Speaking
on the Manitoba school question in 1896, he
quoted and endorsed what Hon. Mr. Mills
said in the House of Commons on March 8,
1875 :
The British North America Act favours the
Catholic population. It provides that any pro
3752
vince having separate schools before confederation should have them for all time,
and also
that any province not having them at the time
of the union, but receiving them at any future
time, shall receive them as a right which can
never be taken back.
Well, Sir, is not that the case in the
Northwest Territories to-day ? In 1896,
Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper was quoting the
Hon. D. Mills, on the Northwest Territories Act of 1875, and we know
the Hon. David Mills was a high
authority. If we take Mr. Haultain's
opinion, not even this federal parliament,
bound by its constitution and the Act of
Confederation, can abolish the schools which
were established after the so-called entrance
into the union by the Act of 1870. My hon.
friends on the other side may say that the
British North America Act refers only to
the provinces and that the word ' legislature'
in section 93 does not mean the legislature
of the Northwest Territories, but if they
take the trouble to read the Canadian Interpretation Act, they will see that ' province
' means the Territories of the Northwest and the district of Keewatin, and,
they will see that the ' legislature ' means
not only the legislature of the provinces,
but the legislature of the Northwest Territories and the Orders in Council passed
relating to Keewatin.
It is true the British North America Act
is an imperial statute, but is one worded by
Canadians, passed on Canadian resolutions.
In the province of Quebec we were at
first greatly impressed by the leader
of the opposition as being a broad-minded
man and a man above prejudices. He
came to our province and his first
words were addressed to the people in the
French language, and that incident endeared him to the heart of the French Canadian,
but, Sir, when the leader of the opposition had to show that he was really
the leader of his party, never was more applicable the saying about a French statesman
: ' Je suis le chef, il faut bien que je
les suive.' When the hon. gentleman had
to show himself as the leader of his party,
we thought, judging by his short record of
the past, we would see him occupy his position in public life with the mantle of Sir
John A. Macdonald covering his shoulders.
But we were disappointed. Was it too broad
for his shoulders ? I cannot say, but I know
that the hon. gentleman has changed the
mantle which Sir John Macdonald wore
as the leader of the Conservative party : he
has changed that broad mantle for a narrower one ; one which may not he dignified
by
the name of mantle, but which perhaps
might be better described as the short pea
jacket of the old Tories that was worn
by Sir Allan Macnab. However that may
be, we have the consolation of seeing that
the old Tory jacket is perhaps a little too
short for the hon. member for Carleton,
3753 APRIL 4, 1905
Judging by his seeming uncomfortableness
during this whole discussion. The hon.
gentleman has told us that he has not been
pressed by his followers into assuming his
present position, and we must accept his
word for it. It would appear then that
the hon. gentleman has acted a little bit
of the role of a Czar, which we have heard
so much about from the hon. member for
South York (Mr. Maclean), the leader of
the opposition has acted like the dictator
which those who read the Toronto ' World '
saw described in its columns the other day.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. Certainly, but I
take an antidote afterwards. The Canadian
House of Commons bears the same relation
to the legislature of the Northwest, as the
imperial parliament bore towards the Canadian colonies in 1867. These Territories
were acquired by the right of conquest, and
with them this parliament acquired the
power to legislate for their future welfare,
but, did the Northwest Territories really
enter the union in 1870, as is claimed by
Mr. Haultain ? Canada was not then treating with independent sovereign provinces,
as in the case of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British
Columbia. There was no compact with
these Territories, there was no synallagmatic contract, but merely the taking possession
of a portion of territory. That western country had no power to treat with us ;
the claims of the half-breeds that they had
that power were not listened to. It would be
fairer to say that since 1870 the Northwest
belonged to the union, but was not a party to
the compact entered into in 1867. The Territories in 1870 were given a provisional
constitution it is true, but it was a transitory
constitution without provincial rights andl
there was an acknowledgment of our sovereignty. It was even argued, here, that the
Northwest Territories had not the right to
send members and senators to the Dominion parliament, and I need not quote the
speech of the Hon. Mr. Mills in 1875 to that
effect. But, Sir, the surest proof that these
Territories are not a part of the union is
that they have not autonomy, and that today, without their consent, their domain
is being divided into two new provinces.
Even take the Bill as presented to this
House and you will see that the date of the
union is at the time of the passing of this
Act.
We have heard a good deal about provincial rights in this House. May I ask,
where are the provincial rights that are
wronged in this matter ? Where are the
provinces that have provincial rights ? They
do not yet exist, and even were there any provinces existing to-day their rights in
the matter of education would be limited in
3754
matters of education as are the rights of
any other province in the confederation by
the British North America Act. Canada
has now to deal with her own property, and
so we are going to create new provinces
and to give them a constitution. I say,
Sir, that it is most important that we
should give them a constitution which shall
be in accordance with the spirit of confederation, and in doing so we must not forget
that these lands of the Northwest have
been acquired, not by Protestant Canada,
but by the Canadian confederation, French
and English, Protestant and Catholic. And,
Sir, in view of the condition of certain
minds in the country and in view of the
agitation, fomeuted by certain narrow spirits
it is most expedient that in giving these
Territories autonomy there should be a clear
and precise declaration as to what is confederation and what is the spirit of the
British North America Act—not a milk and
water declaration, but a declaration, clear
and precise as the principle on which
union has been established, so that
the question may be settled for ever, so that
the government of these provinces shall be
protected, not only against agitators from
the outside, but against itself.
We have been told, Sir, many a time that
we should trust the majority. This might
be true in Quebec, but considering what has
been done in the Territories since 1875 how
can we trust the majority there ? I need not
quote the ordinances passed in 1892, or the
ordinances passed in 1901, for we have the
speech of the Minister of Finance and we
have the speech of the ex-Minister of the
Interior—a man who ought to know—in
testimony that separate schools in the Northwest exist only in name and not in fact.
The Minister of Finance has told us that
from the hour of the opening of the school,
in the morning until half past three in
the afternoon the separate schools and the
public schools in the Northwest Territories
are exactly the same. Let me quote the
opinion of Archbishop Tache on this point :
More astute than the Manitoba government,
the one of the Territories has left the Catholics their existence, but he has robbed
them
of what constitutes their special character, and
assures their liberty of action.
Now, as to what separate schools ought to
be, I shall cite the opinion of Lord Watson.
He is a highly educated man, a man learned
in the law, a man tolerant and broad mind-
ed and his opinion ought to be worth something to us at this juncture. En passant,
I
may say that I wish our hon. friends opposite would read a little more as to what
is
going on in Great Britain and a little less
as to what is going on in the United States,
it they want to form a correct view on
Canadian political or social issues. Is it not strange to see the loyalists on the
other side of the House being taught the British spirit
3755
and the British constitution by what are
called the rebel and disloyal members from
the province of Quebec, yes Sir, taught British principles by the very men who have
been arraigned in the Toronto ' World ' as
being disloyal to British institutions. I wish
that the hon. members on the other side of
the House had a little more of the British
spirit and the British training that we
French Canadians have in the province of
Quebec. If they had, Sir, you would perhaps hear a little less of their cries about
loyalty and see in them a little more of the
true spirit of loyalty. Lord Watson, speaking of the idea of denominational schools
in the minds of Roman Catholics said :
I rather think that the original idea of denominational schools is a school of a sect
of
people who are desirous that their own religion
should be taught in it, and taught in their own
way—a doctrinal religion ; and not only taught
because religion is taught in a non-sectarian
school, but, in the view of those who founded
denominational schools originally, the theory
was that their views of religion and teaching of
their religion should permeate and run through
all the education given in the school—that,
whether it were rudimentary science or anything else, there should he an innoculation
of
the youthful mind with particular religious
views.
We have seen that from the hour of opening in the morning until half-past three in
the afternoon the schools in the Northwest
are practically non-sectarian or neutral
schools. Well, Sir, with regard to neutral
schools, I will give you, not the opinion of
any narrow and illiterate French Canadian,
but the opinion of men on the other side of
the Atlantic whose reputation has extended
over the world, and men who belong to the
Protestant sects. Mr. Guizot, a Protestant,
and a historian of some note, a Frenchman,
but not a French Canadian, says :
Popular education must be given and received
in a religious atmosphere so that religious impressions and habits penetrate the child
from
every where. Religion is not an exercise or
study to which one assigns a given hour or
place. It is a law, a law which must make
itself felt constantly and everywhere and which
only at that price has a salutary action upon
soul and life. That is to say that in primary
schools religious influence must be habitually
present. If the priest is defiant or isolates
himself from the teacher, if the teacher considers himself as the independent rival,
and not
the auxiliary of the priest, the moral effect of
school is lost.
Lord Derby writes :
The secularized school is the realization of a
mad and dangerous idea.
Sir Robert Peel said that such a system
violated the right of conscience. Mr. Gladstone, whose opinion I hope will be received
with respect on the other side of the House,
said :
Any system which places religious education
in the background is a pernicious one.
3756
Is not that the system that we have had
in the Northwest since 1892, when the attempt was made to abolish the system of
separate schools ?
Now, Sir, what do we Catholics ask for ?
We have not the intention of robbing our
fellow-citizens belonging to different creeds
of the smallest piece of their school rights ;
but we claim ours loudly, as must do free
citizens, and with the calm and confident
conscience of Christians. And, Sir, if the
Catholics have a right to their schools, why
should we not give those schools effectively
to them ? The question is not as to the
merits or the demerits of separate schools ;
yet in passing I may give in a few words
some idea of the character of the separate
schools of Quebec. I shall not speak at
length of the results of the neutral schools
of the United States. I may say this, however, that we have seen in that country divorces
increasing, the race difficulty increasing, the fight between capital and labour increasing,
murders increasing, and religion diminishing. I do not want to insult gratuitously
the United States as hon. members
on the other side of the House put it ; but,
Sir, have we not a right to be proud of our
Canadian institutions when we compare
them with the institutions of any other country, especially those of the country that
is
closest to us, and in the light of the facts
which have been put before the public in
the United States themselves ? I said that
religion was decreasing in the United States,
and I can prove that, not on any Canadian
authority, but on the authority of the New
York ' Telegram,' which in 1896 said that the
number of adherents of all the churches in
the United States does not exceed twenty-
three millions, that is, one-third of the population. Well, Sir, if that is the way
the
United States have succeeded with the system of Godless schools, do you not think
that we have a right in this country to guard
our fellow-citizens against the same system
being imposed upon them ?
The hon. member for East Grey (Mr.
Sproule) said it was his own business whether he thought religious teaching in the
schools was right or wrong. I am proud
to say that I am in favour of religious instruction in schools. Very different from
the attitude of the hon. member for East
Grey was the opinion of a Methodist, Dr.
Ryerson, which was quoted at Cornwall on
August 31, 1878, by no other than Sir John
A. Macdonald, whom I hope the hon. member for East Grey will not go back upon.
This is what he said of Dr. Ryerson :
He has stated that the Separate School Bill
did not injure common schools, but had widened the basis of education.
Well, Sir, if Sir John A. Macdonald could
state that the Separate School Bill of 1875,
had widened the basis of education. I do
not think the public school has widened the
minds of our friends on the other side of the
3757 APRIL 4, 1905
House. With regard to the system of
schools in the province of Quebec, I must
say that when we look at the facts and
results of those schools, we have nothing
to be ashamed of. I think our system of
schools can compare with any other system
in the Dominion of Canada. If I remember
rightly, the system of schools in the province of Quebec took the first prize at the
World's Fair of 1893 at Chicago, and I think
it was awarded some medals at the World's
Fair in Paris in 1900 ; and I may say this,
in answer to a reverend gentleman—I think
it was Dr. Salton—who, speaking in Ottawa,
said that the morality of Quebec was lower
than that of any other province of the Dominion.
Let me give you a few statistics, showing
the proportion of convictions in each province. In British Columbia we had one conviction
to every 56 inhabitants; in the Northwest Territories one in every 77 ; in Ontario
one in 114 ; in Manitoba one in 115 ; in New
Brunswick one in 144 ; in Nova Scotia one
in 154. And in that fearfully backward province of Quebec, we have only one conviction
in every 176 inhabitants. May I then
be permitted to say that our province can
not be so very far behind in the race, judging by the statistics under this head.
Then
if we take the expenditure since 1900, we
find that the province of Quebec is, in the
matter of expenditure on public education,
far ahead of any province in the Dominion.
If my hon. friend denied that, I have the
figures right here. But I shall not weary
the House by going into them. I may say
too that the number of illiterates has decreased in the province of Quebec in a proportion
far greater than in any other province of the Dominion ; and I am sorry to
say that in that province, where we have
abolished separate schools, the province of
New Brunswick, the number of illiterates
has increased. If my hon. friends from East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) or South York (Mr. Maclean) will go to the province of Quebec,
as
we are not afraid to go to the province of
Ontario ; if they would go before the public
of that province as my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has gone before the
public of Toronto and Kingston and other
places in Ontario—if they would come to
my poor riding—they would see there schools
where the pupils are not all stupid. They
would see a few presbyteries where the
priests are not totally illiterate but men
of culture and learning, who take an interest in the education of their province.
If the
hon. member for South York would only
come to the province of Quebec, he would
see that we have there 5,000 primary schools,
600 superior primary schools, 3 normal
schools, one engineering school, 3 schools
of agriculture, also institutions for the blind,
the deaf and the dumb—I hope my hon.
friends opposite would go to one of these
institutions and be treated for the first of
these diseases. These are facts which any
3758
province would be proud to put before the
parliament of Canada. But those hon. gentlemen would sooner shut their eyes and
appeal in their newspapers to public passion than take the opportunity to obtain a
little enlightment.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I would like to
ask the hon. gentleman if I ever made any
reflection on the public schools of the province of Quebec.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I am not charging
my hon. friend with having made any such
reflections in this House, but I say that
he ought to go to the province of Quebec
and learn something about educational matters in this country of ours.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Will the hon.
gentleman let me say that I spend nearly
every summer in the province of Quebec
and have often been in those presbyteries
to which he has referred. I have met the
reverend gentlemen in charge of them, and
have found them to be such as my hon.
friend says they are, so that he is giving
me no enlightenment on that subject. He is
instead putting me in the position of having
said things which I did not say.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I do not know whether my hon. friend wishes here to escape
responsibility for the brutal cartoons published in his newspaper the Toronto 'World'
-cartoons in which the province of Quebec
is represented as an illiterate Indian and
the people of the Northwest as most intelligent, civilized, and claiming they are
white
men. What does that mean if it does not
mean that the inhabitants of the province
of Quebec are of mixed origin ? Sir, I would
be prouder to have in my veins the blood
of the noble red man than the blood of some
hon. gentlemen opposite who write in the
Toronto ' World.' I would wish that every
British colony and every province of
this Dominion were peopled by inhabitants
of as pure an origin and with as pure blood
in their veins as the French inhabitants of
the province of Quebec. I would wish that
they could trace as good a genealogy as any
inhabitant of that province is able to trace,
not only in this country but in the country
of his forefathers. The cartoons published
in the Toronto 'Globe' are bold, brutal,
stupid and as untrue as they are stupid. It
appears now that my hon. friend from South
York would lead us to infer that he does not
approve of those cartoons, but I do not know
that he has ever gone back on them.
But supposing the schools of the province
of Quebec were as bad as they are described
by hon. members opposite and by some people who write in the Ontario papers, I say
that if we have a system of schools in the
province of Quebec at all we have a right
to-day to be proud, because after the treaty
of Paris in 1763, when the last ship for
France took away from our shores the
nobility and the rich people and left be
3759 COMMONS
hind the poor peasants, ruined by war, left
with a debt from France of 20 million
francs, a whole cloud of adventurers came
to this country and continued on the ruin of
the poor settlers who were left behind. Then
contrary to the Act of capitulation and the
treaty of Paris, the Catholic institutions
were taken away from the French people.
The system of schools we had then were
taken from us. I should like to give my
hon. friend a history of the school system
in the province of Quebec if it were possible to enlighten him, because although he
tells us he has spent much time in that
province, it is quite evident that he has not
learnt much. From 1760 to 1800 the French
Canadian refused to participate in the
schools then existing, because it was against
their conscience to do so, and I consider
that their ignorance was a glorious one. In
1800 there was a school system established
for which the French Canadians were taxed;
the Royal Institution, in which the money
was given to the Protestant schools and to
them only. Again the French Canadians
refused to attend those schools, because it
was against their conscience to do so, and
they remained in their glorious ignorance.
In 1824 we had the first schools worthy of
the name, but as there was no public money
given them, they could not work very well.
In 1837 our rights were still not recognized
and the Protestant minority had still control of the public funds. In 1841 the first
move was made towards giving our people
a schools system which they could support,
and in 1846 we had our separate school system established, and our French Canadian
people could go to schools where their rights
were recognized and which they could attend without a blush of shame. Considering
that we started our school only in 1846, we
have made marvellous progress and to-day
our system is at the head of the whole confederation.
Mr. SPROULE. Is that so? I understand
the hon. gentleman to say that their school
system is at the head of the confederation
to-day, and I assume that refers to the
intelligence of the people.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. If my hon. friend
would take the trouble to look into the reports of public instruction of Quebec he
would learn many things which he will
never see in the Orange 'Sentinel.'
Mr. SPROULE. May I ask the hon. member, if I am not improperly interrupting
him-and I do not wish to do that—to explain one point ? He speaks of what he
calls the superior educational system of
Quebec. And, if I followed him closely,
this system has been in operation since
1846—that is, for two generations at least.
How is it, then, that in spite of the excellence of the system, statistics show that
while the number of those who can read
and write is, in the province of Manitoba,
72 per cent ; in Prince Edward Island, 75
3760
per cent ; in New Brunswick, 70 per cent ;
in Nova Scotia, 72 per cent ; and in Ontario, 80 per cent, Quebec has only 67 per
cent—only 67 out of every 100 people who
can read or write ? These figures do not
indicate that this system has succeeded
very well in doing away with illiteracy in
the province of Quebec.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I am very glad that
my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has asked me
that question. I will try to enlighten him
a little further. I said that our system of
schools in Quebec was started in 1846. But
it was not in full operation until 1855. And
then, as my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr.
Bourassa) has rightly put it, the people
were for a long time very cautious about
the schools. They had long been tyrannized
over, and they saw in the schools, as they
thought, an instrument to rob them of what
they held dear—their language and their institutions. Therefore, it was only slowly
and with great caution that they accepted
the work of the schools. But in 1855 the
system was at work almost as completely
as it is to-day. As to overcoming illiteracy,
we have made greater progress in Quebec
than in any other province. Let me give
the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) the figures.
In 1871, in Quebec, there were of illiterates
-people who could neither read nor write—
35 93 per cent of the population. In 1891
only 29 05 per cent of the population were
illiterate. Thus in the twenty years we
have made progress to the extent of 6 89 per
cent. In Ontario, in 1871, there were 7 90 per
cent of the people who could neither read
nor write. In 1891 this had been reduced
to 7.05 per cent, showing progress to the
extent of only 0.85 per cent. In New Brunswick, where there are no separate schools,
they had, in 1871, 14.45 per cent of illiterates, and in 1891 the proportion was 14.99
per cent, or an absolute retrogression to the
extent of .54 per cent. I do not say that
we lead confederation in the proportion of
our people who can read or write ; but I
do say that we lead in the progress that
we have made in extending the blessings of
education.
Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that we
should have in the Northwest a national
system of schools. Sir, do you call it a
national system of schools which is opposed
to the conscience of 40 per cent of the nation ? Do you call those national schools
against which 40 per cent of the nation
have fought for more than a century ? I
say that what these hon. gentlemen call
national schools are anti-national schools,
because they are forced upon 40 per cent
of the people against their will ; I say that
what you call free schools are the exact
reverse of free, because they deny the liberty of the individual and make him a slave
in the hands of the state. The hon. member
for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) told us that
in the province of Quebec a Protestant boy
was obliged to go to a Catholic school. But
3761 APRIL 4, 1905
is it not a fact that where our Protestant
brothers are in the majority in any part of
the province of Quebec they can have a
separate school of their own ? Is it not a
fact that, even though in any district they
may be in the minority, they can establish
a separate school if they have the certain
small number required by the law ? And
is it not a fact that even where the Protestants have not the legally required number,
the French Canadians are broad enough to
allow their Protestant brethren to have
schools of their own ? But is it not a fact
—and I wish the hon. member for North
Toronto were here to answer—that whereever the Catholics are in a majority in any
district in the Northwest, they have not the
right to establish a separate school, but are
obliged to go to the public schools ? The
treatment meted out to the minority in
Quebec and in the Northwest Territories
cannot be compared. Sir, it is as bad to
force the Catholic to send his child to a
school where no religion is taught as to
force him to send that child to a school
where a religion opposed to his own is
taught. That is the Catholic doctrine ; I
wish that my hon. friend would understand
it once for all. We object, not only to being
obliged to send Catholic children to Protestant schools, but to being obliged to send
them to schools where no religion is taught.
Sir, as a French Canadian who has studied
and learned something of British institutions, and who is loyal to the institutions
given this Dominion by the mother country, because he has studied them and believes
in them, I may ask my hon. friend
from North Toronto what is British liberty
if the Catholics are not allowed to have
their own schools ? Is not that political
liberty the pride of Englishmen, inclusive
and widely tolerant? Is it a selfish and
narrow liberty, in some sort Protestant
and privileged, and which is only a means
to better shackle some of the people with
the heavy chains of an intolerable despotism ? Where is the British liberty, I ask
these
hon. gentlemen, if the minority, because it
is a minority, cannot enjoy the liberties
which were promised them in the name of
the Sovereign, and which have been formally declared in the mandates of that
Sovereign ? Sir, if this House were to follow racial appeals, the appeals made to
prejudice by the hon. member for East Grey,
it would only serve to remind us that we
were the vanquished in 1759.
Mr. SPROULE. I desire at once and
flatly to contradict the hon. member (Mr. A.
Lavergne), and to repeat, what I have sald
before, that I never made an appeal to either
race or religion. I call upon the hon. member to withdraw his statement.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I expected that
denial, and now I am going to prove what
I have said. There is a newspaper called
the 'Sentinel' published in Toronto. It
claims to be the organ of the Orange Order,
3762
with which, I understand, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has something to do.
Of course, I do not wish to say anything
against the character of my hon. friend (Mr.
Sproule). In the province of Quebec, it is
true, that he has a bad reputation, I must
say ; but we who know him know that he
is a good man, and know that he would not
hurt a fly. But in my province we are
often asked : 'You know the member for
East Grey better than we do; is it not
true that the Yellow Pope has certain
Peter's pence and is obliged to earn his
money, and that is why he is so violent
against the Catholics and the Romish
Church. In this organ of the Orange Order
—the 'Yellow Hierarchy,' as my hon. friend
from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) calls it—in its
issue of March 16th, 1905, I find Brother D.
Pritchard, grand treasurer, quoted as follows :
I have always been an advocate for public
schools, believing that by the national schools
more than by any other means we may hope
to build up a united people. One school and
one language taught in the same should be the
motto of every loyal Canadian.
And he adds, the English language is to
be the one to be taught. Well, Sir, what
does that mean? Does it mean that the
French language, which is an official language in Canada as well as the English, is
to be abolished by the Orange order when
they get into power ? I can make nothing
else out of it. On February 23, 1905, the
Reverend Brother Hughes—no, not Reverend
Brother Hughes, M.P., at a banquet in
Brantford, gave the history of the Orange
movement and its fight against the Romish
church, and asked all the members to maintain their principles, even if the occasion
demanded that they fought for them. Well,
Sir, I do not say that a man has not a right
to fight for his principles, but I am not quite
sure that the hon. gentleman means a constitutional fight. I am afraid that he is
appealing to the Orange lodges to fight another battle of the Boyne. Well, here is
something more. If there is one right of a
British subject which has been claimed by
the hon. member for East Grey on many
occasions during this session, it is the right
of petition. After the province of Quebec
began to petition like British subjects for
the maintenance of separate schools in the
Northwest, the 'Orange Sentinel' of March
23, 1905, contained the following. under the
title, 'The glove is thrown down':
After saying that ' it was Quebec assuming to
dictate to the Dominion, or rather is the arbitrary and intolerant ecclesiastical
oligarchy
dominating Quebec, making a supreme effort to
tyranize the democracy and the Protestants
in Canada,' it says :
The gauntlet will be taken up, the fight will
be accepted. For our own part we are right
glad that it has been precipitated just now.
Sooner or later it had to come, and the sooner
the better for all concerned. Sooner or later
3763 COMMONS
there was bound to be a struggle—a fight to a
finish—
It goes on to ask the Protestants to unite
and destroy Rome and Quebec. Now, Sir, is
not that language an appeal to racial prejudices? Is it not an appeal to religious
prejudices ? Is it not designed to set race
against race, creed against creed ? Sir, we
saw in the paper which is the organ of the
organization of which the hon. member for
East Grey is the Grand Master, language
such as I have quoted, and am I not right
therefore in saying that the hon. gentleman,
if not in this House, at least in his paper,
has made appeals to racial and religious
prejudices.
Mr. SPROULE. I never had any interest
in the ' Orange Sentinel' to the value of one
cent, and I have no more relationship to it
except as a member of the Orange order,
than the hon. gentleman hmself. Does the
hon. gentleman think it proper and fair to
hold the member for East Grey responsible
for the sentiments of every one who writes
in the 'Orange Sentinel '? The hon. gentleman made a personal charge against me.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. He first made a
charge against me, now he has transferred
it to some one else. May I ask the hon.
member for East Grey if he, as Grand Master of all the Orange lodges of Canada, has
repudiated their organ, the 'Orange Sentinel'? Is not the 'Orange Sentinel' the
written expression of the deliberations of
the Orange lodges of the Dominion of Canada ? Is not the 'Orange Sentinel' the
organ of the Grand Master of the Orange
organization as well as the organ of private
members ? I did not know that it had been
repudiated by the Grand Master, and I want
to know if the grand master repudiates it
today.
Mr. SPROULE. May I ask the hon. gentle man if he and his friends have repudiated the course of
the Toronto 'Globe'
lately in regard to the Autonomy Bill ?
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I repudiate it entirely. My hon. friend has no right to answer one question by asking
another. I
have answered the hon. gentleman frankly
and clearly, and I ask him to answer me in
the same manner. I said I repudiated the
course of the 'Globe,' and I want the hon.
member for East Grey to say with equal
frankness if he repudiates the ' Orange Sentinel.'
Mr. SPROULE. The member for East
Grey is not attacking the 'Sentinel' for
what it said.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I cannot know whether the yellow pope speaks ex cathedra or
not. Well, Sir, not only are we the subjects of racial appeals, but we are called
upon to remember that we were vanquished
in 1759. When I was reading the history
of Canada not long ago I came across the
3764
story of a French Canadian, Du Calvet, who
was arrested in Quebec in 1781, and was imprisoned without a trial. When I was reading
his words I was reminded of the course
of the 'Orange Sentinel' in taunting the
French Canadians with having been vanquished in 1759. Here are the words of
Du Calvet, written in London in 1781 :
How sad it was to be vanquished ! If it only
cost the blood which is shed on the battle field,
the wound would be very deep, very sore, it
would bleed many years, but time could cure it.
But to be condemned to feel perpetually the
hand of the conqueror pounding on your shoulder, but to be perpetually a. slave, under
the
power of the most constitutional sovereign, of
the freest people on earth, it is too much.
Sir, that is the position in which hon.
gentleman on the other side wish to place
us today. That is the position in which
their yellow papers wish to place us to-day.
But I want to remind hon. members opposite that in this compact of confederation
we are not slaves but partners. In the compact of confederation we took our part,
and
in that compact the French Canadians are
treated as partners. We have been loyal
to British institutions and we have been
loyal to the Canadian constitution. We claim
the right to be treated as fellow-citizens. as
compatriots.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. The hon. member
for North Toronto said that when this law
was passed war would begin in the Northwest. These hon. gentlemen are always
ready to accept the opinion of the majority
when that opinion is against separate
schools, but when that opinion is in favour of
separate schools then they talk of war and
rebellion against the sovereign authority of
this parliament. I say that if separate
schools were withheld from the people of
the Northwest it would be an injustice done
against the Catholics of the Dominion, an
injustice which is not deserved by the
Catholics and French Canadians of this
Dominion.
But, Sir, what can we do then ? We can
make a constitutional fight. You never
heard the members from Quebec of the
hierarchy, or the priests of Quebec talking
of war and rebellion. You have never
heard from the pulpits of our churches the
speeches which have been made in other
churches or in lodges. We submit to the
law. We may oppose the law, we may
conduct a constitutional agitation against
it, but you never heard on our side talk of
war or rebellion because the majority was
against us. We respect the majority, but
it is strange to observe the attitude of hon.
gentlemen on the other side of the House.
When they have the majority with them they
claim that the majority has every right, but
when the majority is against them they
say that they will make war against the
3765 APRIL 4, 1905
majority. There is only one right that I
do not recognize in the majority and that
is the right to bring compulsion to bear
upon me in a matter of conscience. If
there are three or four men against me I
say they have no right to endeavour to force
me to do something which I feel that I
cannot conscientiously do. Therefore, I say
in conclusion that in view of all the facts
we should give to the minority in the Northwest Territories their rights generously,
not
the shadow of justice, not the mere form of
liberty. We are told that there are only
ten or twelve separate schools in the Northwest Territories. Well, Sir, I claim that
it" there was only one separate school in the
Northwest Territories we should just the
same render justice to: the minority in respect
to that one school. Is it that the principle of
liberty and of right is to be decided on
the ground of the strength or" those claiming it to obtain and maintain it? I say
that we should give right to those to whom
it is due and not only to those who have
the strength to maintain their rights. If
there were only one separate school in
the Northwest Territories we would be
obliged to do the minority justice the same
as if there were a hundred separate
schools. But, there is more than one and
there would be even more than there are
to—day if by the ordinances of the Northwest Territories the Catholics were not
forced to send their children to the public
schools. It the ordinances which have been
adopted in the Northwest Territories prevent Catholics from constituting separate
schools, I think it is unfair and unjust to
use that as an argument against them and
to say that there are not enough separate
schools and that therefore we should not
render them the justice to which they are
entitled. Give generously to the minority in
the Northwest the right which are due them.
Give them these rights first, because by so
doing we are carrying out the principles of
liberty. Give them these rights because we
owe some gratitude to the province of Quebec. And here, I will call the attention
of
the House to a statement which I am sure
my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
will not deny. On the 12th July, 1902, which
is a great day, Mr. Robinson who was then
the member for West Elgin, speaking to the
Orangemen in st. Thomas, Ontario, said:
We know that the French of Lower Canada
have kept this vast Dominion to the British
empire ; for if these Frenchmen had not been
faithful to this country you Orangemen listening
to me would not have room enough to stand
here together.
If this opinion could be expressed to
the Orangemen standing together, I say
this country should do justice to the minority of the Northwest Territories and
should in this way signify its great gratitude
to the hierarchy which is not the awful spec
3766
tre it has been painted in the Toronto
'World,' but which is the hierarchy which
has kept its people faithful to the British
Crown on many an occasion as my hon.
friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has
said. I wish to take the part of my hon.
friend from Labelle who has been attacked
in the Ontario papers lately and to say that
he. belongs to a family which has always
been loyal to the British Crown. When the
English Protestant minority of Quebec in
1776 did not know which way to turn,
when as we say in French, they did not
know whether to cry 'Vive la Ligue' or
'Vive Le Roi,' the great grandfather of my
hon. friend was on the side of the British
Crown and against the American rebels
and with another French Canadian, Lamothe, he carried despatches from Montreal
through the American lines to the English
general in Quebec. Another of my fellow-
countrymen, Bouchette, brought the English
governor into the besieged city of Quebec.
Ever since those days in 1760 when Canada
was ceded to the British Crown we have
kept our compact faithfully, and I maintain that we have a right to claim that
justice should be done to us as we have deserved. In finishing my speech, which I
cannot help but feel has been too lengthy, I desire to make a comparison. Not far
from
here is the great river St. Lawrence which
Separates us from the Anglo-Saxon Republic
to the south. Sweeping past the foot of
the hill upon which this building stands is
the Ottawa river which separates the French
province of Quebec from the English province of Ontario. These two rivers converge
near the city of Montreal and for a
long time their waters run together Without mixing. On the one side we have the
dark coloured waters of the Ottawa river
and on the other the silvery, bright waters
or the St. Lawrence. They float together
to a common destiny. Is not that the image
of this Dominion of ours ? We have two
nations floating together, not mixing the
one with the other; on the one side the
French race, on the other side the English
nation, on the one side the Protestant creed,
on the other side the Catholic creed. Well,
Sir, could we not model this country after
these beautiful rivers of ours ' Could we
not together float away to a common destiny
without mixing, without amalgamating the
one with the other, and if we do I predict
for this country, which is my country and
to which I am as loyal as any man, a glorious destiny and in the name of nations a.
glorious immortality.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Haliburton). Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the
young member for Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne) on the very able address which he has
given to the House. I must bear testimony
to the fact, Sir, that not only do our French
Canadian people speak their own language
3767
COMMONS
with purity, but once they become masters
of the English language they place at a
disadvantage those of us who can speak
but one language.
Mr. BOURASSA. Yes, if you want to
be on an equal footing there.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I am sure that
our young friend was educated in a national
school. If the same harmony could be
maintained in regard to the affairs of this
country as that which has been manifested
by our young friend in regard to the English
and the French languages, the people of
Canada might look forward to a great future for this Dominion. Unfortunately we
find that gentlemen who speak that language, who are of that grand race, a race
with which I claim kindred just as much
as hon. gentlemen who sit on the other
side of the House, displaying a different
spirit outside of this House. If these gentlemen would be moderate and show the same
spirit on the platforms and hustings in Quebec and up and down the side roads of that
province, and if they would confine themselves to the same tone as that in which
they address this House it would angur
well for the future of this country. One
would imagine from the remarks of the
young speaker, that we were discussing the
province of Quebec. I understand that these
Bills with which we are dealing are for the
purpose of erecting two new provinces in
the Northwest of the Dominion of Canada
and that the province of Quebec has nothing
to do with this any more than any other
province in the Dominion. No attack is
being made on the rights and liberties of
the province of Quebec ; these rights and
liberties are guaranteed by the articles of
conquest and by the Confederation Act.
The question now before the House, simmered down to a nut shell is as to the authority,
the duty, the policy of this parliament to enforce separate schools on the
Northwest Territories. The right hon. the
leader of the government told us that this
was a question of the constitution, but his
colleagues have told us that it is not a question of the constitution in any sense
whatever. One of the ministers ventured to think
that vested rights should he considered but
that plea was abandoned when it was found
that although the Roman Catholics have had
every facility for years to establish separate
schools there are only ten such separate
schools as compared with over 1,000 public
schools in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, the question simmers itself down
to
one of policy. Now, let us suppose for a
moment that it was our clear duty under the
constitution to establish separate schools,
would our best method be to proceed with
3768
a bludgeon in the shape of this Act of parliament held over the people of the Northwest
to force separate schools upon them ?
Would it not be better to omit from this
Bill altogether any provision with regard
to separate schools, and leave it to the people of the new provinces to carry out
the
constitution, for until the first meeting of
the legislative assembly of the new provinces the Act of 1875 will be continued in
force, and would remain in force unless repealed by the assembly. Sir, when the Bill
now before the House becomes law it
will force on the people of the new provinces the full enactment of the School
Act of 1875, and nothing but mischief
can result. If the Prime Minister is
right in his argument, that by the constitution we are bound to give the new provinces
separate schools, then the provinces
cannot repeal this law and it will stand for
ever on the statute-books. If the Prime
Minister has any confidence in his contention, why should he not withdraw his educational
clause altogether from the Act and
avoid all the bickering, the heart burnings,
the contentious spirit that permeates the Dominion of Canada to-day. If it is a question
of policy, and we maintain that it is, then
coercion–I think that is the proper term to
use in relation to this clause—coercion is not
in conformity with provincial rights ; it
transgresses the principle of provincial
rights at the very outset. This is not good
legislation, as I shall prove from the Prime
Minister's own lips. It interferes with the
rights of man as well as with the rights of
provinces, but over and above all this question of coercion there stands another issue.
The Prime Minister has instructed the
House on some of the principles of the
Roman Catholic religion ; he has told us that
in addition to the pure question of religion
there is the great question of dogma which
enters into the notion of those that hold that
faith. With the question of religion, with
the relationship existing between a man's
conscience and his God I have nothing to
do. I never allowed any other man to interfere in the relationship existing between
my conscience and my God, and I never insulted any man by interfering with him in
that respect. But in relation of the question
of dogma, that is the business end of the
proposition, and when any church corporation—be it Methodist, Roman Catholic,
Presbyterian or any other—just the same
as any railway corporation comes before the
people of this country for legislation, it is
the bounden duty of every man who commands his own self respect to deal with it,
not on the sentimental issue, not to bow
down before the cry that the church is behind the organization ; but to deal with
it on
the basis of what is right and what is
wrong, and considering what is in the best
interests of the Dominion of Canada and of
her entire people. On these lines I purpose
dealing with this question. Taking it as a
3769 APRIL 4, 1905
question of dogma, as one who does not want
to grow up in enmity with his Roman Catholic neighbour ; as one who does not want
to
pass through the world with the people
divided on creed lines, I maintain that when
we coerce the provinces to accept these
separate schools, we are retarding for ever
.the wheels of progress and the up-building
of the national life within these provinces.
I do not think the union of church and state
is for the best interests of humanity. The
nations of the old land have given it up,
and why this young country should adopt
the fads and practices that have been discarded in Europe is beyond my comprehension.
I am opposed to this parliament forcing on any province, against its will, a union
of church and state. By the enactment of
this law, this parliament is placing a blanket
mortgage on the two provinces of the Northwest which will remain on them to the end
of time and which can never be paid off.
I object in general terms to this legislation.
It is contrary to the spirit of a free parliament; it is contrary to the spirit of
a free
people. I am afraid that I shall not be able
to bring to bear on this great question the
deeply sanctified and the emotional Christian
spirit displayed by the Prime Minister ; nor
the stern, defiant, aggressive militant christianity of the Minister of Justice ;
nor the
humility and the contrition the holy-dread
and sackcloth-and-ashes demeanour of the
Minister of Finance ; nor the fervid sanctimoniousness and brotherly love of the Minister
of Customs; nor the speculative religion—
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I composed that
myself after observing the exhibition made
by the ministers. I may say, Sir, that I got
it in a reflective mood. and after the beautiful exhibition of christian spirit and
brotherly love displayed here one evening by the
Minister of Justice, I went home and reflected and this is the result.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Perhaps so. The
Minister of Justice on that occasion displayed on the floor of parliament all the
old
time characteristics of the Champlain street
youngster, and he displayed them to the
great edification of the people of this country. Nor, Sir, can I bring to bear on
this
question the speculative opinions of the Postmaster General, who has had such an ample
training working hand in hand with the
Protestant Protective Association organization of the province of Ontario throughout
the length and breadth of many constituencies. Nor can I bring to bear on this subject
the illogical fanticism or the sparkling
distortion of established facts displayed by
the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).
I shall endeavour to discuss these questions
3770
without any appeal to prejudice, but simply
on the basis of what are the facts, and what
is for the best interests of the people of the
Territories which are being erected into two
provinces, and for the best interests of the
people of the whole Dominion of Canada.
Now, I trust that the Prime Minister will
excuse me for bringing to his mind some of
his old speeches. In this connection, I may
say that the young gentleman from Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne) struck the Prime Minister
a very heavy blow beneath the belt
when, in referring to the hon. member for
North Toronto, he said that a man of principles always stuck to his principles, and
never wavered. While saying that, he looked
across to this side of the House, but I am
satisfied that the Prime Minister, in his heart
of hearts, felt that the reflection was upon
himself and his friends on that side of the
House, who have been 'everything by turns
and nothing long,' and who have never
known where they stood on questions of
principle. On March 3, 1896, the right hon.
Prime Minister, as reported in 'Hansard'
at page 2737-8 addressing the leader of the
government of that day said :
The hon. gentleman is aware—more than anybody else, perhaps, he ought to be aware—that
in a community with a free government, in a
free country like this, upon any question involving different conceptions of what
is right
or wrong, different standards of what is just or
unjust, it is the part of statesmanship not to
force the views of any section, but to endeavour
to bring them all to a uniform standard and a
uniform conception of what is right.
I heartily commend these words to the
Prime Minister to-day. What are the facts
in regard to this question ? The Hudson
Bay Territory was taken over by the imperial authorities and transferred by them to
the Canadian authorities. I shall not enter
into a description of those vast territories
and their latent resources, and the great
wealth that lies there to be developed. These are all well known to
all the members of this House. Those
territories were united with the Dominion
of Canada, and in that Act of union, although it was known and intended that they
were sooner or later to be erected into provinces, there was no mention of separate
schools. They were given a constitution by
the Dominion parliament, and, inasmuch as
the few people living in the territories spoke
the French language, the people of Canada
allowed them to have their own schools.
That, and that alone, was the reason why
those schools were given to those people
without any serious opposition. My hon.
friend from Montmagny is in error in saying that it was thought at that time that
those territories were going to become
French and Roman Catholic. It was understood that there would be a large French
settlement in the province of Manitoba ; but
with regard to the territories, the understanding from one end of the Dominion to
3771
COMMONS
the other,—and our friends in Quebec knew
it, and they know it to-day,—was that they
would become settled by a large English-
speaking population. That was one reason
why our French friends at that time claimed that the boundaries of Manitoba should
be enlarged, so that it, being regarded to a
large extent as a French province, would
have more room for development ; but the
expectation was that the new territories
would become English. They were given separate schools more on the ground of language
than of creed. The teachers in those
schools were principally the priests of the
various localities. There were only five or
six hundred families in all the territories.
A comparison has been drawn between the
separate schools of the province of Quebec
and those of the province of Ontario. We
are told that the English minority in the
province of Quebec were granted certain
privileges. Let me tell the hon. member
for Labelle and the hon. member for Montmagny that the concession in the province
of Quebec was not to the English minority,
but to the French Roman Catholic majority.
At the time of the conquest they were
granted the rights and liberties that had
been won under the auspices of the gentleman under whom my good friend from East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) gets the credit of serving, whose memory he reveres—William
Prince of Orange. It was William Prince
of Orange who gave to the British nation
the liberties they enjoy to-day ; and when
Quebec capitulated, the liberties which had
been guaranteed to humanity of all creeds
and all races were given to the people of
the province of Quebec, and have been religiously observed from that day to the present
time. And let me tell the hon. member
for Labelle and the hon. member for Montmagny that if any one undertakes to deprive
our French Canadian fellow countrymen in the province of Quebec, of the slightest
liberty that has been granted to them
under the British constitution, my good
friend the member for East Grey is sworn
to marshall his boys and go down to their
relief, not to their injury.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. So that my good
friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) need
not have any nightmares about the orangemen from the province of Ontario. When
Ontario and Quebec became parts of the
Dominion of Canada, each had its own
separate school system established by law.
When New Brunswick became part of the
Dominion of Canada, it had its own school
system established by the votes of its own
people. When Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island came in, each had its own
school system established by the votes of
its own people. The Northwest Territories
occupy an entirely different position. They
came into the Dominion away back in 1870.
They had no school system anterior to the
3772
union. The school system that was given
to them, as given without a vote by a
human being in those territories, and that
system has been continued ever since ; the
only difference being that when they became
organized and were represented in this parliament, their representatives had a voice
in the making of the laws which applied to
them. At the present time we are not uniting those territories to the Dominion of
Canada ; we are only transforming them into
provinces, and the people of the whole of
Canada have the making of their charter,
not the people of the territories themselves.
What we contend is that in granting them
their charter, we must apply the British
North America Act, so far as it relates to the
establishment of provinces.
That is the point of diiference we make
between the union of the Territories as
such with confederation and their entry
into it as provinces. There is no union of
the Territories, as provinces, with confederation. They came into confederation as
Territories. and their creation as provinces
is merely a development. I chanced to be
in the Northwest, during the months of December and November when the question of
the new autonomy Bills was being discussed.
As I passed along, I heard mention of mysterious trips taken by the First Minister
here and there throughout the country, but
not taken where he could consult his Finance Minister or his Minister of the Interior
or his following in the House or Mr.
Haultain and his cabinet in the Territories.
It was understood then that there was question of a clause being put into the measure
creating the new provinces, fastening upon
these provinces separate schools. Last December, when that probability was mentioned
to the followers of the right hon. gentleman
in this House, they scoffed at the idea. They
said that he who had been the champion of
provincial autonomy in 1896, who had declaimed then against the coercion of Manitoba,
who had advocated the policy of hands
off Manitoba, was not likely to consent to
anything which would fetter these new provinces and prevent them from working out
freely their own destinies along the lines he
had laid down with regard to Manitoba in
1896. In that year of 1896, I considered it
my duty to oppose the Bill of my own leader (Sir Charles Tupper) just as I opposed
the
resolution of the right hon. gentleman, and
I opposed both on the ground that I would
vote against any attempt to coerce Manitoba. On that occasion I took a unique
position and have seen no ground for changing any of the sentiments I then uttered.
I took the ground then that the province of
Manitoba should be free, that the people
there were eminently well fitted to work out
their own destiny, and should not be fettered or hampered by the federal power in
that work ; and I would have supported the
right hon. gentleman on that occasion, had
his resolution tallied with his professions in
the country. But his declaration to the
3773 APRIL 4, 1905
province of Quebec then was : Put me in
power and I will give the minority in Manitoba greater privileges than they can possibly
secure from a Tory government. I
will give them a Bill that will be of some
service ; while in the provinces of Manitoba
and Ontario, the cry of himself and his colleagues was: Hands off Manitoba; no
coercion of free men in the west ; we must
never bow to the Roman Catholic bishops
of the province of Quebec ; but must show
ourselves free men. Much as I wished to
follow my right hon. friend on that occasion, there was such great divergence between
the position he took in Quebec and
that which he took elsewhere that I was
not prepared to give him the opportunity
of coercing Manitoba and consequently
voted against his resolution as I did against
the Bill of my own leader. The stand I
then took was that if the people of that province wanted separate schools, let them
establish that system themselves ; but if they
did not, I was determined to defeat any attempt to place upon that province the burden
of separate schools against its will.
We may very well ask whence comes this
demand for this clause in the Bill. I have
pointed out that the moment those Territories become provinces, they have the Act
of 1875 on their statutes. Supposing the
educational clauses should be withdrawn entirely from this measure, the Act of 1875
will still remain. Therefore if the contention of the First Minister be right, if
the
Act of 1875 is the constitution in those Territories to-day and will be the constitution
of those provinces when created, what has
he to fear ? If on the other hand, the contention of my hon. friend the leader of
the
opposition is correct and it will be within
the powers of those provinces to abrogate
that law if they choose, why insist upon
embodying it in this Bill. The Act of the
First Minister is, I submit, irritating, illegal
and unconstitutional.
The right hon. gentleman did not consult
his Finance Minister in relation to the financial clauses nor did he consult his Minister
of the Interior with regard to the educational clause. He did not consult the men
behind him with regard to this measure. I
am told that he did not dare to call his party
together in caucus and consult them. Whom
then did he consult? Is there any truth in
the rumour that my right hon. friend had
for his adviser a gentleman who does not
owe allegiance to the Dominion and that
he takes trips to the shores of the Rideau
and there receives his inspiration ? I have
not the slightest fault to find with any
church—either the Church of Rome or the
Methodist church which is my own or any
other—for taking all it can get from weak-
backed politicians. Any church will do that.
We have seen in the province of Ontario,
Protestant churches taking sops from the
provincial government and giving in return
their support to the government. We have
3774
seen the hierarchy of Rome do the same
thing—and I make use of that word in the
same sense as hon. gentlemen in that church
use it. The churches are just the same as
electric companies and railway companies
and other corporations. They will take all
they can get and ask for more. It is not the
hierarchy of Rome but the leader of the
government and his colleagues whom the
people will hold responsible, and it is they
who will have to stand the consequences.
For my part I do not blame the churches
for taking all they can get from weak-backed
and weak-kneed politicians.
In his speech introducing the Bill now before the House, the right hon. gentleman
alluded to the separate schools in the United
States, and I must say that, as an old public school teacher, my blood boiled when
he
referred to that system in the United States
in the way he did, and incidentally condemned public schools the world over. In
the past the right hon. gentleman was more
less inclined to look to American institutions. In the old days we had him and his
followers looking to Washington until they
got turned down, and I am satisfied that
whatever may be or may have been his
views with regard to that great nation in
the past, he will not dispute one word I am
about to quote from a well known authority
regarding the value of the public schools of
that country. But before doing that, I may
take the liberty of quoting what Mr. Morley,
a friend of the right hon. gentleman, says
in the 19th Century of the great American
republic. In a recent issue of that review,
Mr. Morley says :
Of a democracy originally British, the most
astonishing and triumphant achievement so far
has been the persevering absorption and incorporation across the Atlantic of a ceaseless
torrent of heterogeneous elements from every
point of the compass into one united, stable,
industrious and pacific state with eighty millions ot population, combining the centralized
concert of a federal system with local independence, and uniting collective energy
with the
encouragement of individual freedom. How does
this stand in comparison with the Roman empire, or Romanish church, or the Bysantine
empire, or Russia, or Charles the Great, or
Napoleon ?
These are the words of Mr. Morley about
the great republic to the south of us—a republic which has taught the world how to
mould together the different elements of
various nationalities. In that country are
to be found nationalities from Europe, who
have been under the rule of parochial schools
as well as those who have not been brought
up under that system, and by means of the
welding influence of the American public
school system all these various peoples have
become consolidated into one compact
nation.
These are the people that have been
made by the public schools of the United
States. Now I will take the liberty of giving
from the addresses of some of the presidents
3775 COMMONS
of the United States certain brief quotations
to show what the chief magistrates of that
republic have thought of public schools.
I do this not to attack the religion of any
body of people, for the question of dogma
has nothing to do with religion. If any
man is interfered with in the free exercise
of his religion, that interference should not
for a moment be permitted. If in a matter
of conscience any one were to attempt to
interfere with the right hon. Prime Minister, I would be ready to resent that interference
and to put the one interfering in
his proper place. But, if the Prime Minister says : This is my dogma and you
must bow to it, and if we do bow to it, what
limit can we place upon demands of this
kind ? Why, we should see repeated over
and over the humiliating spectacle of the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who says:
we must yield because forty-one per cent
of the people demand it. And next month
they may demand something else, and so on ;
we must yield again and again upon the
plea that it is a question of dogma, until the
liberties which our ancestors suffered so
much to gain for us are taken from us at the behest of men who are more anxious to
hang on to office than they are to stand by a principle. Martin Van Buren, the eighth
president of the United States-1837- 1841-said :
The national will is the supreme law of the
republic. In no country has education been so
widely diffused. All forms of religion have
united for the first time to diffuse charity and
piety, because for the first time in the history
of nations all have been totally untrammelled and absolutely free.
And James K. Polk, eleventh president—
1845-1849—said :
No union exists between church and state,
and perfect freedom of opinion is guaranteed
to all sects and creeds. Who shall assign
limits to the achievements of free minds and
free hands under the protection of this glorious
union ? No treason to mankind since the organization of society would be equal in
atrocity
to that of him who would lift his hand to destroy it.
These are the sentiments of that president
of the United States in relation to the great public school system that, even at
that time, half a century ago had raised the downtrodden and disinherited people of
Europe who were flocking to the shores of the United States and made them what the
Almighty intended they should be, not slaves, but creatures made in the image of God
and ready to take a part in the upbuilding of a great nation.
Mr. LEMIEUX. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) believe that Salisbury and Gladstone
were wrong and these presidents of the United States right ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I am ready to discuss Salisbury and Gladstone, and Balfour
3776
and Chamberlain too. These men take conditions as they exist. But Great Britain is
developing. Besides, Britain is a more densely settled country than Canada. The circumstances
are entirely different-
Mr. LEMIEUX. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) if he thinks that England
is behind the United States ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. England is behind the United States in the matter of education, undoubtedly. England
is the mother of nations ; it is to her we owe the great federations of the world,
the application of the principle of central control in common matters with local control
in local matters. The United States is the next nation, and, in spite of great drawbacks-
Mr. LEMIEUX. England is the greatest nation in the world in spite of what the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sam. Hughes) says.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. That is an entirely different sentiment from the one which the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Lemieux) expressed in Quebec in 1896, when he stood before the French Canadians and
said : Are you going to vote for Tupper and the Tories, who spent $3,000,000 for guns,
and who are ready to send your sons to fight Britain's battles abroad ? That is what
the hon. gentleman said, and it was proven in this House.
Mr. LEMIEUX. I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) refers to, but if he speaks
of the Transvaal War-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. No I speak of what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) said-in the election campaign
of 1896. Let me recall to his mind what he said-I know it almost sounds as if he were
irresponsible at the time. The then member for Sherbrooke standing in this House,
pointing his finger at the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) said : Instead of being here
preaching loyalty you ought to be behind the prison bars for treason. This he said
to the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) in my own hearing. and in that of many members
now in this House. And what was the reason ? Because the hon. gentleman had appealed
to the prejudices of the people of Quebec saying : Will you vote for Tupper and Tories,
who spent $3,000,000 of the people's money to buy rifles and who will send your sons
to fight Britain's battles ?
Mr. LEMIEUX. My hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is wholly astray. I never held any such language.
I never met the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worth
3777 APRIL 4, 1905
ington) in that campaign. But I did meet
the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr.
Foster)—
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I refer to Mr.
McIntosh, who formerly represented Sherbrooke in this House.
Mr. LEMIEUX. I never met Mr. McIntosh
on the platform. I spoke once in the county
of Sherbrooke—
Mr. LEMIEUX. Yes, I spoke once in the
county of Sherbrooke. And if the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) then,
I think, the member for King's, New Brunswick, were here, I would ask him to corroborate
what I say. I spoke in English, but
I never used such language as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) attributes to me.
I would not dare to speak in that way in
the province of Quebec–I should be afraid
of being stoned by my fellow-countrymen
if I did so. But I am sorry to see an ultra
loyalist placing Great Britain behind the
United States. It is the first time I have
heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes)
say such a thing.
Mr. SAM HUGHES. I was not stating
what I heard myself. I said that the former
hon. member for Sherbrooke, Mr. McIntosh
had pointed his finger at the present Solicitor General and told him from his place
in
this House that, instead of being here
and preaching loyalty he should be behind
the bars of a jail for treason. These
are matters for them to settle among themselves. I will proceed with the quotations
I was giving from the presidents of the
United States on the subject of common
schools and public education. Millard Fillmore, the thirteenth president—1850-1853—
said :
Our common schools are diffusing intelligence
among the people and our industry is fast accumulating the comforts and luxuries of
life.
And Andrew Johnston the seventeenth
president—1865-1869—said :
Here more and more care is given to provide
education for every one born on our soil. Here
religion, released from political connection
with the civil government, refuses to subserve
the craft of statesmen, and becomes in its independence the spiritual life of the
people.
Here toleration is extended to every opinion,
in the quiet certainty that truth needs only a
fair field to secure the victory.
Let me commend the words of this distinguished president to the right hon. Prime
Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). These words
of the different presidents show that, step
by step, as the great republic advanced, as
it became broader, stronger and more inclusive, it was able to assimilate more of
the
disinherited masses of Europe, even in their
ignorance and filth. And there is one cause
for this regenerative power of the United
3778
States, a power that no other nation has
been able to show. That power was due
to the public school system of the United
States. Ulysses S. Grant, the eighteenth
president—1869-1877—said :
We are blessed with peace at home, with
facilities for every mortal to acquire an education ; with institutions closing to
none the
avenues to fame, or any blessing to fortune
that may be coveted ; with freedom of the pulpit, the press, and the school.
Rutherford B. Hayes, the nineteenth president—1877-1881—said :
To education more than to any other agency
we are to look as the resource for the advancement of the people in the requisite
knowledge
and appreciation of their rights and responsibilities as citizens, and I desire to
repeat the
suggestion contained in my former message in
behalf of the enactment of appropriate measures
by congress for the purpose of supplementing
with national aid the local systems of education in the several states.
The sanctity of marriage and the family relation are the corner-stone of our American
society and civilization. Religious liberty and
the separation of church and state are among
the elementary ideas of free institutions.
They develop the individuality of the citizen, and we find in the history of the United
States a struggle between the individual
man on one hand and a control by corporations on the other. Benjamin Harrison
says:
The masses of our people are better fed,
clothed and housed than their fathers were.
The facilities for popular education have been
vastly enlarged and more generally diffused.
Another testimony to the upbuilding of a
great people by the free public school, where
Roman Catholic and Protestant, Jew and
Gentile children sit side by side in the
schools, never asking the question to what
creed each belongs or what relationship
exists between each one's conscience and
his God, but all working together as Americans, or as Canadians, shoulder to shoulder
in achieving the great destiny that is
ahead of us. Wm. McKinley said :
A grave peril to the republic would be a
citizenship too ignorant to understand, or too
vicious to appreciate, the great value and beneficence of our institutions and laws,
and against
all who come here and make war upon them,
our gates must be promptly and tightly closed.
Nor must we be unmindful of the need of improvement among our citizens, but with the
zeal of our forefathers encourage the spread of
knowledge and free education.
Our hope is the public schools and in the
university.
I may say that at the time these words
were uttered a movement was going on
hostile to the public schools, such as the
movement we find now going on in the
Dominion of Canada, and it was against
this movement that President McKinley
raised a warning voice, saying to people
who came from foreign lands that they,
3779 COMMONS
must observe the institutions of the United
States of America. President Roosevelt
the other day—and he cannot be charged
with being an enemy of any church—one of
the most tolerant and broad-minded gentlemen who have ever been honoured with the
position of chief magistrate of the United
States says :
We have no room for any people who do not
act and vote simply as Americans, and as nothing else. Moreover, we have as little
use for
people who carry religious prejudices into their
politics as for those who carry prejudices of
caste or nationality. We stand unalterably in
favour of the public school system in its entirety. We believe that English, and no
other
language, is that in which all the school exercise should be conducted. We are against
any
division of the school fund and against any
appropriation of public money for sectarian
purposes. We are against any recognition whatever by the state in any shape or form
of state-
aided parochial schools. But we are equally
opposed to any discrimination against or for
a man because of his creed.
We all say 'amen' to that.
We demand that all citizens, Protestant and
Catholics, Jew and Gentile, shall have fair
treatment in every way ; that all alike shall
have their rights guaranteed them. The very
reasons that make us unqualified in our opposition to state-aided sectarian schools
make us
equally bent that in the management of our
public schools, the adherents of each creed
shall be given exact and equal justice, wholly
without regard to their religious affiliations ;
that trustees, superintendents, teachers, scholars, all alike, shall be treated without
any
reference whatsoever to the creed they profess. The immigrant must learn that we exact
full religious toleration and the complete separation of church and state. He must
revere
only our flag ; not only must it come first, but
no other flag should even come second. He
must learn to celebrate the fourth of July instead of St. Patrick's day. Those (foreigners)
who become Americanized have furnished to
our history a multitude of honourable names ;
those who did not become Americanized form
to the present day an unimportant body of no
significance in American existence. Thus it
has ever been with all people who have come
hither, of whatever stock or blood. The same
thing is true of all churches. A church which
remains foreign, in language or spirit, is
doomed.
These are the words of President Roosevelt, and I commend them to the First Minister.
I believe that in his heart of hearts
these are the sentiments of the First Minister, and at one time I believe they actuated
him, and that even now, if he allowed
his better judgment to rule him, he would
rise up and give utterance to those sentiments. Now, Sir, having given these quotations
from some Protestant authorities,
I will come to an Irishman—the Minister of
Justice will prick up his cars a little-for the
gentleman I am going to quote is editor of
the organ of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, a paper published in the city of Chicago.
He is a distinguished Roman
3780
Catholic citizen of Chicago, by the name
of Hon. John F. Finerty, a member
of Congress, I believe, or a senator, and
I commend his utterances to the Minister
of Justice, because he speaks in the interest of the country rather than in favour
of a church; I commend his sentiments to
the Minister of Justice who has been junketting around at the expense of Canada,
going to Rome and elsewhere in the interest
of a section of the people of Canada, and I
am satisfied that the tolerant and broadminded sentiments of Mr. Finerty will appeal
to that hon. gentleman. And I may
say in passing that I see our good friend
has sold his stock in the 'Soleil,' which has
been telling the people of Canada that there
will be no compromise on this school question. So we may expect that he will not
take the extreme interest in that subject
henceforward that he has in the past. Mr.
Finerty says:
In brief, then, we say to all whom it may concern : Let American institutions severely
alone,
and do not kindle the flames of a bigot hell in
this grand country by seeking after the unattainable.
These are the words of Mr. Finerty,
speaking in the city of Chicago to the people
of the United States. I will read them
again:
Mr. LEMIEUX. Does the hon. gentleman know that Mr. Finerty belongs to the
Clan-na-Gael?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I am merely saying that even an extreme man like Mr. Finerty, and a member of the
Clan-na-Gael-
I do not know whether he is, I am not a
member of the order, so I do not know; the
hon. gentleman possibly knows—and I accept
him as authority upon that point—I am
merely saying that though he may be a
member of the Clan-na-Gael, he holds these
views on this great question, and I quote
them as the views of a broad and tolerant
citizen of the Roman Catholic faith in the
United States :
In brief, then, we say to all whom it may concern : Let American institutions severely
alone, and do not kindle the flames of a bigot
hell in this grand country by seeking after the
unattainable. Always bear in mind, that the
vast majority of the American people, of all
creeds, will stand by their country, her constitution, her laws and her institutions.
Any
evasion of either by any outside force whatever
will mean war. What man, what set of men
would be fatuous enough to bring such a curse
upon this land ?
Continuing Mr. Finerty says:
We believe in the American non-sectarian
public school.
These are the words of an Irishman and
—I take the word of the Minister of Justice
-no, the prospective Minister of Justice,
the present Solicitor General—that Mr. Finerty is a member of the Clan-na-Gael:
3781 APRIL 4, 1905
We believe in the American non-sectarian
public school, and we believe in educating the
youth of all races side by side, so that they
may grow up as friends, trusting each other,
not as enemies suspicious of one another. We
believe it would be a fatal mistake to have the
American public schools run, or controlled, by
ecclesiastics of any creed. As it stands, the
Catholic, the Protestant, the Dissenter, the
Jew, and the Confucian drink at the same deep
fountain of knowledge. All have their separate
religious instruction where it properly belongs
—in the church, the temple and the Sunday
school. If the latter is not provided by any
particular church, the fault lies with the church,
not with the state, the parents or the children.
These are the views of a prominent Irish
Roman Catholic of the city of Chicago, the
editor of the organ of the Ancient Order of
Hibernians, and, as the Minister of Justice
says, a member of the Clan Na Gael Society.
When General Grant felt that he was at
death's door, when the fatal disease that
was wearing his life away had made itself
manifest, and when he knew that his hours
were numbered, he issued a mandate to the
people of the United States. I shall give it
to the right hon. First Minister:
I suggest for your earnest consideration, and
most earnestly recommend it, that a constitutional amendment be submitted to the legislatures
of the several states for ratification, making it the duty of each of the several
states to
establish and for ever maintain free public
schools adequate to the education of all the
children in the rudimentary branches within
their respective limits, irrespective of sex,
colour, birth-place or religious ; forbidding the
teaching in said schools of religious, atheistic,
or pagan tenets ; and prohibiting the granting
of any school funds or school taxes, or any
part thereof, either by legislative, municipal or
other authority, for the benefit or aid, directly
or indirectly, of any religious sect or denomination, or in aid or for the benefit
of any other
object of any nature or kind whatever.
As this will be the last annual message which
I shall have the honour of transmitting to
congress before my successor is chosen, I will
repeat or recapitulate the questions which I
deem of vital importance which may be legislated upon or settled at this session.
First,
that the states shall be required to afford the
opportunity of a good common education to
every child within their limits ; second, no
sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any
school supported in whole or in part by the
state, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax
levied upon any community ; third, declare
church and state for ever separate and distinct,
but each free within their proper spheres.
Were those sentiments to be uttered in
the Dominion of Canada, we would find
some hon. gentlemen on the other side of
the House raising the cry of intolerance
against those who gave voice to such sentiments. These are the sentiments which
have made the United States a nation that
it is to-day. The perversion of these sentiments, as it has been carried out in practice
in European countries, has kept the
people hewers of wood and drawers of
water to the aristocracies of those lands.
3782
Speaking of perversion and the cry of intolerance, I do not charge the hon. member
for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) with any
intentional perversion, but in quoting my
hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake)
last evening, I think he put a wrong construction upon his words. My hon. friend
from Qu'Appelle had said :
I intend to claim the privilege of briefly putting on record the views which I hold
with regard to this question. After nearly twenty-two
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.
Then the hon. member for Cape Breton
went on to say :
He says that he has had twenty-two years experience in the Northwest, that he has
seen
many changes and that this law which is now
on the statute-book has given satisfaction to
that country.
I do not know whether the hon. member
had read the speech of my hon. friend from
Qu'Appelle, but what my hon. friend from
Qu'Appelle referred to distinctly and clearly
was the public school system and not the
separate school system. I believe from what
I know of the hon. gentleman that he would
not wilfully misrepresent my hon. friend.
Mr. SCOTT. Has my hon. friend (Mr.
Sam. Hughes) ever heard from any quarter
of the Northwest Territories a protest
against the existing school system there ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. The people took the
school system as it was provided for them
in the Northwest Territories. They never
had an opportunity of expressing any opinion
in regard to it. The separate school system
of the Northwest Territories has been provided for them by the people of the eastern
provinces, and I can tell the hon. gentleman
that I have heard, and he has heard, and
will hear, protests against the authority and
tyranny of this parliament in attempting to
dictate to the Northwest Territories.
Mr. SCOTT. If my hon. friend will permit me, I will say that he cannot get the
hon. member for Qu'Appelle to say that
there is any protest against, or any dissatisfaction in the Territories with the
school system.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. My hon. friend
from Qu'Appelle gave utterance the other
night to his views on this question, which
I may say are very much more satisfactory
to the people of this country than the utterances of the hon. member for West Assiniboia.
The right hon. leader of the government went on to speak of crime in the Dominion
of Canada. I am not going to take
that up. Unfortunately, there is too much
crime both in Canada and in the United
States, but by a strange coincidence the
very day on which my right hon. friend
made that statement I saw on the bulletin
3783 COMMONS
board a notice of two murders in the Dominion of Canada. You can scarcely take
up a paper without seeing that in some
part of this Dominion some poor unfortunate wretch has, in a fit of passion, committed
anurder. Considering that there is
such a lack of respect for institutions, such
a lack of respect for professions and such a
lack of respect for public honour, the
mystery to me is that there is not more
crime than that which is committed in the
Dominion of Canada. Speaking of divorces,
I was a little surprised that the right hon.
First Minister should touch on that question. He knows very well that the cost
in the Dominion of Canada is a barrier to
divorces. He knows that the facility in
this country is not as great as it is in many
states of the union for divorces. He knows
that in Canada mediation very often comes
in. Friends of the persons concerned and
church dignitaries step in and prevent a
consummation of divorces; and he knows
that if there is one thing that characterizes
Canada, it is the goodness of the women of
Canada in forgiving the derelictions of duty
on the part. of'the men. I am sorry to say
that there is some cause for divorce in Canada, and that, if the good women of this
country wished it, they might have an
opportunity of securing just as many divorces as they have in the United States.
Then the right hon. First Minister read us
a lecture on unity and harmony in his own
gentlemanly way. He is always gentlemanly. He always throws down the gauntlet
and leaves his radical friends behind him to
create an agitation while he stands and
looks on with calm and placid demeanour,
regretting. of course, the excesses of his
followers, and cries intolerance against
those who oppose him. But we remember
the conduct of the right hon. gentleman
and his friends in 1885, which has been
referred to by other hon. gentlemen in this
House, when the right hon. First Minister
himself threatened that if he had been on
the banks of the Saskatchewan he would
have shouldered his musket, because of the
supposed wrongs of the half-breeds of that
country. A lot of land grabbers and land
sharks, knowing that the half-breeds had
obtained their scrip in Manitoba after the
first rebellion, knowing that these half-
breeds had gone out and settled in certain.
other spots in the remote west and were
claiming scrip again, and desiring to get
control of that scrip, they kept urging them
to raise a row and make a demand for the
issue of the scrip. The government of that
time, after consultation with the bishops
and clergy of the Roman Catholic Church.
they being the best educated men of that
country in that time, and after consultation
with the officers of the mounted police, determined, on the advice of and by the request
of these officials and clergy, to issue
no more scrip. They said: No; we will
not issue scrip again. You will sell your
scrip for a bottle of whisky, you will sell
3784
it for a dollar or two, and at the end of the
week you will be as poor as you were before; but we will give you your scrip on
condition that you settle on the land. This
was done at the request of the authorities
of the church and the (police. The only excuse they had for rebellion was that when
they did settle on the land they wanted the old river survey instead of the
mile-square survey proposed by the Dominion government ; and from that hour to this
these gentlemen have been unable to find
one cause for rebellion other than as to the.
particular form the survey should take. But
the right hon. the Prime Minister said on
that occasion that if he had been 011 the
banks of the Saskatchewan he would have
shouldered his musket and fought for the
liberties of the people.
Mr. LEMIEUX. He would not have written letters home about it.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. The Prime Minister
was reported as having said that. The hon.
member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) in his
speech referred some fifteen or twenty times
to the question of" rebellion. Let me inform
the Solicitor General that some of us who
have done a little talk of rebellion have not
been afraid and are not afraid to back up
our opinions by facing the music; we do
not simply stand away off in the province
of Quebec at a safe distance from danger
and do the talking and writing.
Mr. LEMIEUX. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sam Hughes) must have known my
brother who served Canada and the empire in South Africa, came back with his
medals, but he (lid not write any self-
glorifying letters from the battle fields.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I am glad there
are some loyal men in the family of the honourable gentleman in Quebec.
Mr. D. D. MCKENZIE. Can the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Sam Hughes) point out a
single man in the province of Quebec who
is not loyal? The hon. gentleman has
taken the responsibility of saying that he
was glad to know there were some loyal
men in Quebec; does he know any disloyal
men in Quebec?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Does my hon.
friend come from Quebec? I think he comes
from Cape Breton.
Mr. D. D. MCKENZIE. I come from Cape
Breton, and I am a Canadian, Sir, and I
hope I am broad enough to treat my fellow
Canadians everywhere with respect.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. My hon. friend
wants to know if you can tell us what is
The hon. gentleman (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) did not give us
all his brief last night, and perhaps he wants
to deal with that aspect of the case now.
Mr. D. D. MCKENZIE. I will be very
pleased at any time to deal very briefly with
the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes).
3785 APRIL 4, 1905
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. We find the First
Minister, not satisfied with these inflammatory cries in the province of Quebec, coming
to the province of Ontario and seeking
to inflame the public of that province along
other lines when he cried: 'Hands off Manitoba; down with Tupper and his Tory
friends,' and all that sort of thing. And
yet he stands up here to-day preaching unity
and harmony while at the same time he
throws into the arena of Dominion politics
the greatest fire brand that has ever for the
last thirty years been thrown before the
people of Canada. My hon. friend from
East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has been charged
with being intolerant. Why, Sir, I have
been surprised at the tolerance displayed
by that hon. gentleman in his speeches in
this House and in his speeches out of the
House. He has displayed a spirit of Christian fortitude—if I may use the term, although
I am not much of a judge in this
line—he has displayed a spirit of tolerance
which I commend to my friends on the
other side of the House.
It is not my intention, Sir, to discuss the
constitutional aspect of the question. The
leader of the opposition dealt with that
phase, and no gentleman of any standing
in law on the other side of the House or in
the country has dared to lay a finger upon
his argument. Minister after minister arose
and they practically had to admit that the
contention of the leader of the opposition
in his interpretation of the law was absolutely correct. Our good friend the Prime
Minister claimed that he stood on the rock
of the constitution, but after the leader of
the opposition got through with him it turned out that the right hon. gentleman had
landed on a mud bank. It is the leader of
the opposition who stands on the rock of
the constitution and who in doing so proclaims his adhesion to the principles of
equity and justice and fair play for all. The
leader of the opposition gives to every free
man settling in the Northwest Territories
a fee simple deed to liberty ; the leader of
the government would blanket mortgage
the charter of every settler. The leader of
the opposition reposes confidence in the people and shows his faith in his fellow
man;
the leader of the government mistrusts the
west; mistrusts the people of Canada and
he places a handicap on these new provinces
for the placing of which he has no mandate
from the electorate. The leader of the opposition regards his commission from the
freemen of Canada as a sacred trust and
grants to each of his followers full liberty
to vote as he chooses on this question; the
leader of the government refused to place
this issue before the electors at the last
election, for he ignores the people of Canada.
The leader of the government also ignores the
territorial government led by Premier Haultain, who not long since had his policy
on
this question endorsed by the people of the
west. The leader of the government ignor
3786
ed the ex-Minister of the Interior, the responsible minister from the district, for
he
consulted only the Minister of Justice and
the Postmaster General. The leader of the
government ignored the Minister of Finance
in relation to the great financial issues involved, and he hastened the Bill into
this
House so as to get the party committed to
it while the minister was on his way from a
foreign land. The leader of the government ignored even his party caucus, because
he knew he dare not consult it; he ignored
his colleagues in the cabinet, consulting
only the gentleman who had the manipulation of the affairs from the beginning; he
trampled the commission of the people of
Canada under his feet and cast to the winds
his boasted love of the English constitution,
believing that his followers would meekly
vote as he commanded.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Haliburton). Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see
that there is one good representative of the
cabinet present (Hon. Mr. Préfontaine) to
take charge, I presume, of the business before the House. Before recess I was pointing
out that the leader of the opposition
stood on the principle of equal rights and
equal laws for all, and special privileges for
none, whereas the leader of the government
took the position that it was the duty of
this parliament to coerce the new provinces
in the matter of education—in other words,
to establish in those provinces a union of
church and state. The maxim of the leader
of the opposition was: Is it right, is it just,
is it fair to those splendid people in the
west, for this parliament, representing as
it does all Canada, to seek to enforce upon
them the will of people who have nothing
whatever to do with the schools in that
country, who should have nothing to do
with them, and who are not justified under
the laws or the constitution in interfering
with them ? The leader of the government
takes for granted, as is stated in the press
and hinted at in the addresses of hon. gentlemen opposite, that the excitement over
this question will soon pass away, and that
in a few weeks all this discussion will be
forgotten. Let me tell the First Minister
that down deep in the hearts of his countrymen, those who support him as well as those
who oppose him, is the conviction that he
has made the mistake of his lifetime—that
he has destroyed the high opinion in which
he was held by a great many of the people
of this country, who had absolute faith in
his struggles for liberty in 1896 and on other
occasions in the history of this country.
The Minister of Justice in replying to the
leader of the opposition, abandoned the
ground of the constitution and the ground
of vested rights, and stood simply on the
3787
COMMONS
foundation rock that forty-one per cent of
the people of this country demanded these
schools and were going to get them. Let
me tell the Minister of Justice, in the first
place, that not forty-one per cent, and I believe not ten per cent, of the people
of this
country demand this class of schools. Similar assertions are sometimes made in the
United States by gentlemen who hope by
that means to advance their own political
ends, to the effect that a large percentage of
the Roman Catholic people of the United
States are in favour of parochial or separate
schools instead of public schools. I shall
take the liberty of quoting to the House,
not my own authority, but the authority of
one of the cleanest and best Roman Catholic
priests that has ever graced a pulpit. I refer
to the Reverend Jeremiah Crowley, of the
city of Chicago, who says :
Catholic public school opponents declare
that at least one-third of the American
people favour their position. I deny it. I am
morally certain that not five per cent of the
Catholic men of America endorse at heart the
parochial school. They may send their children to the parochial school to keep peace
in
the family and to avoid an open rupture with
the parish rector ; they may be induced to pass
resolutions of approval of the parochial school
in their lodges and conventions ; but if it ever
becomes a matter of blood not one per cent.
of them will be found outside of the ranks of
the defenders of the American public school.
If a perfectly free ballot could be cast the
Catholic men of America for the perpetuity or
suppression of the parochial school, it would
be suppressed by an astounding majority. The
plain Catholic layman knows that the public
school is vastly superior to the parochial
school in its methods, equipment and pedagogic
talent. They know, too, that the public is the
poor man's school. They know that the public
school prepares, as no other can, their children
for the keen struggle of American life and the
stern duties of American citizenship.
Bishop Spaulding. a high dignitary of the
Roman Catholic church in the United States
says :
Fifty years ago there was a great difference
of opinion amongst Catholics in this country
about the religious (parochial) school. Unfortunately the clean prelates and priests
of
'fifty years ago' were whipped into line, and
the unpatriotic and ruinous course of attacking
the public schools prevailed.
I have some expressions of opinion also
froth gentlemen occupying very good positions in the Dominion of Canada as to whether
forty per cent of the people of Canada
are in favour of separate schools. I quote
from an article in the Woodstock 'Daily Express' of Wednesday, March 8, 1905, written,
I am informed, by a Roman Catholic,
the editor of the newspaper being himself
of that faith. I may say that a contributor
to this paper had criticised the action of the
government in relation to these Autonomy
Bills and that the ' Catholic Record' of London, Ont, had attacked him. and this is
the
3788
reply of the Roman Catholic editor of the
' Express ':
What the freely expressed opinion of Roman
Catholics would be with reference to separate
schools is a matter of speculation, and our
contributor has as much right to his opinion
as the editor of the ' Catholic Record ' has to
his. The very fact that Roman Catholic ratepayers are not invited to express an opinion
preparatory to the establishment of a separate
school may be interpreted as meaning either
that their opinion is not considered of any
great value, or that the bishops are afraid to
trust an appeal to it. If our contributor was
so very far wrong in his opinion, why is it
that Roman Catholic ratepayers are not consulted about the establishment of separate
schools ? Why is it that in so many cases they
are permitted no more say in the management
of separate schools than is necessary to give
an appearance of compliance with the law?
Why is it that the bishop deems it necessary
to invoke the spiritual powers of a church to
compel support and attendance ? Why are
Roman Catholic ratepayers not allowed the use
of the ballot in the election of trustees ? Why
are the trustees, in some cases at least, not
allowed to act after they are elected ? Is it
bigotry to draw attention to these facts ? It
seems to us that the ' Catholic Record' would
be showing more respect for intelligent Roman
Catholic sentiment by dealing squarely with
the facts than by imputing motives.
Further on the 'Express' says :
The state has assumed the responsibility of
providing for the education of the people up to
a certain point. To discharge its obligations
properly the state should guarantee that the
schools should be free and open to all, Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile.
The
state does not interfere with any religious
denomination ; it leaves all free to teach what
doctrines they will and how they will ; the
denominations, on their part, should leave the
state free in the matter of secular education.
The duty of a state is to encourage the children of all creeds and races to grow up
together,
as Canadian citizens. Surely it is not bigotry
for a public journal to work for the removal
of differences, dissensions and prejudices in a
country whose destiny depends on the ability
and willingnes of all her people to live and
work together in harmony.
These Views of Roman Catholic writers
in the province of Ontario refute the utterance of the Minister of Justice made before
this House in tones of defiance, that forty-
one per cent of the people of this country
demand these schools and are going to get
them. Let me tell the Minister of Justice
that a percentage of the people of the United
States of America, away back in 1861, decided that they would have certain rights.
and they sought to enforce their will by
arms ; they sought to disrupt the union ; but
the union to-day is stronger than it ever
was. And let me tell the Minister of Justice that he cannot get forty-one per cent,
or
even a corporal's guard of the people of this
country to follow him in any racial and religious cry, or in any racial or religious
struggle in order to plant separate schools
in the Northwest of Canada.
3789 APRIL 4, 1905
Should he undertake it, the result will be
that Canada will be bound together more
closely just as the United States has been,
since the great civil war, than it ever was
before. The Minister of Justice will find
that he has not caused the slightest tremour
in the hearts or minds of the people by
threatening rebellion and the destruction of
the constitution, as he did when he said 41
per cent of our people would have their way
in this matter or there would be trouble.
The hon. the Minister of Finance slid off
the rock of the constitution and took to the
water, as my hon. friend from Jacques
Cartier (Mr. Monk) has pointed out.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Yes, he was thrown
in but clung to the cabinet, and when he
stood up in this House and made the plea
he did, he presented the most abject, pitiable
spectacle it has ever been my privilege to
witness in this parliament, and this is the
sixteenth session I have had the honour of
occupying a seat in it. Just fancy the man
who made the welkin ring from one end of
the Dominion to the other in 1896 against
any interference with the province of Manitoba, who has been quoted often in this
House as against any coercion of any province—just fancy this man, when brought
face to face with the issue of his own creation, renouncing every shred of principle
he
then stood for. Shall I quote his language ?
I really do not think it necessary, and I do
not like to see it any oftener than I can help
in the pages of ' Hansard.' But what was
the pitiable plea he made ? Oh, he said, if
we don't accept this clause the First Minister will have to resign and we will be
all
out in the cold. That was the sum and substance of his remarks. Why, the whale and
Jonah were not in it compared with the hon.
gentleman and his principles. The whale
merely swallowed Jonah, but the Finance
Minister swallowed both himself and whatever principles he ever had. He pointed out
that in Nova Scotia the Roman Catholics were
handsomely used by the Protestant majority,
but in the next breath he turned around and
said we cannot trust the people of the Northwest to do the Roman Catholic minority
in
those new provinces what is being done to
that same minority in the province of Nova
Scotia. That was the result of the hon. gentleman's logic. I might remind him of an
old expression taken from the same authority as he quoted from :
The man who sells his freedom in exchange
for broth shall make eternal servitude his fate.
Both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance practically threatened civil
war when they stated that because 41 per
cent of the people of this country wanted
to control the schools in a certain way, forsooth we must yield to them. Where would
government begin and end if such a principle were to be recognized ? It would have
3790
been a thousand times better for the Minister of Finance if he had quietly remained
on the ocean until this matter was finally
settled, and still kept to the water, rather
than have made the exhibition he did in this
House. How a minister who has sworn to
give advice to His Majesty's representatives
according to the dictates of his conscience
can remain in the cabinet after publicly
enunciating the principles he expressed here,
passes my comprehension. Had that hon.
gentleman done his duty, the First Minister
would very quickly have found a way out of
the difficulty. Had he stood to his guns
with the solid province of Nova Scotia at
his back and supported by the Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Sifton) with the solid Northwest behind him, the First Minister
would
never have dared to resign and go to the
country, but would at once have removed
the difficulty and left the people of the
Northwest free to deal with their own
schools. Had he adopted the motto taken
from his own favourite author, he would
have been by long odds the most popular
man in this country. If he had taken the
motto .
Freedom sternly said :
I shun no pang,
No strife beneath the sun,
Where human rights are staked and won.
He would have been master of the administration to-day in place of meriting the contempt
of every member of the House of
Commons. Personally I have always been
opposed to the introduction of religion into
politics and have always endeavoured to
keep the two apart. But at times religious
contentions have been forced on us, as I
shall point out later in answer to the hon.
member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). In the
province of Ontario we have had, on the
question of separate schools, an agitation,
prompted by differences, to have the improper amendments made to our school law
removed. I stood up in that fight and we
won and prevented these improper amendments being perpetuated and put into
practice in our province. I remember well
pointing out that if every adviser of Sir
Oliver Mowat were a member of the Roman
Catholic church, it did not matter so long
as he was chosen on the ground of fitness
and ability, but that no one should be chosen
for a cabinet position simply because he happened to be an Irishman or a Scotchman
or
a Frenchman or an Englishman and a member of a certain church. Let ability be the
test, I contended, and there would be no
trouble. But on all these matters, there
are demagogues who take advantage or
national and religious prejudices, men who
have no qualifications or fitness for public
office other than that they handle the
Irish vote in this locality, or the French
vote in another locality, or some other votes
somewhere else ; and these are the men who
have gained ascendency in the Liberal party
3791
COMMONS
from the days as far back as 1837. It is
this class of politicians who create these religious and racial agitations throughout
the country, hoping thereby to gain a prominence which they cannot achieve in any
other way. But it is not necessary for the men of any race or religion in Canada to
resort to that kind of thing. There are plenty of Irishmen, Scotchmen and Frenchmen
and men of every nationality who can command the respect of their fellow countrymen
without resorting to such pernicious methods. We had another exhibition of these
methods in the person of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson). On one occasion,
when speaking in the city of Brantford, that magnificent voice of his was raised
to such a pitch that just as the audience left the building, the roof fell in. Well,
the only resemblance between the Minister of Customs of to-day and the Minister of
Customs of years gone by is that sonorous voice of his. It was heard in Ontario in
1896, when he exclaimed in stentorian tones; Hands off Manitoba ; down with Tupper
and the Church of Rome ; we will never be ruled by the Bishops of Rome ; let the free
men of the west show their independence. The newspaper speeches and posters of hon.
gentlemen opposite reeked with this sort of thing.
And he stood up here saying in effect ; Pity the sorrows of a poor old man who wants
to hold on to office ; who has been for thirty-two years in the saddle—I think that
was what he said—with the First Minister, and has learned to love him. Well, these
are great constitutional reasons why two provinces of this Dominion should be tied
hand and foot for all time to come. In some of his speeches, the hon. gentleman was
wont to quote those grand old words from Junius, which the Toronto ' Globe ' years
ago adopted for its motto : ' The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate
will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.' But there was not a word of
independence from him the other night. It was only : Let me hold down my job in the
custom-house ; keep the ship together and keep her off the rocks ; I have been thirty-two
years in the saddle with the Prime Minister, and I love the dear old man ; and I am
not fit for much else. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the rule of life is that
men go down and give place to others. In politics, as in every walk of life in which
there is struggle, men disappear. But the sun rises and sets and the men are soon
forgotten. Had these hon. gentlemen stood to the constitution there would have been
no danger of the Prime Minister going out of office on this question, no danger of
the government being broken up. On the contrary, it would have been much stronger
than it is to-day. Had they done this, the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman)
would not have been afraid to face his electors ; Centre Toronto would not
3792
have gone by default ; the government
would not have been obliged to dangle jobs before the eyes of their partisans from
the Northwest Territories ; and, as I am reminded, the tomato man of the party, the
member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) could have been made Minister of Agriculture
and need not have been afraid, on this account, to face his electors. Not a constituency
in the country but would have supported the government on this subject. Men come and
go ; members of this House appear and pass. And when every man who has occupied a
place in this House shall have passed and been forgotten, the principles that are
being discussed to-day will live ; the principles—or lack of principles—that are being
fastened upon the people of the new provinces will remain to remind the future generation
of those
Patriots self-bound to the stake of office, Martyrs for their country's sake, Who
fill, themselves, the hungry jaws of fate And by their loss of manhood save the state.
Now, Sir, we all admire the open fearless dare-devil rather than the sneak ; we admire
the man who holds up a train or, flying the black flag, order the merchantman to heave
to, but we despise the man who slinks around by the back door to commit some petty
theft. Therefore, it was a refreshing thing to see the ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) stand up and to hear him boldly and brazenly admit that the whole policy
of the government was wrong, that there was no question of the constitution in it,
no question of vested rights or control by this parliament, nor could there be any
question of policy, for it was a wrong policy. He said in effect : I do not believe
in separate schools, but I want to keep the old aggregation together, and I will see
them through. I have not before me the oath of office taken by that hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sifton) as a member of parliament— he had the decency to resign his position
in the cabinet before he made the speech to which I have referred—but I would recommend
him to walk into the clerk's room and read it. And if, in the light of that oath,
he can reconcile his speech and his vote, he will prove himself able to turn a shorter
corner than I think he can.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who is now conveniently out of the House,
is credited with having written certain articles for ' La Nationaliste,' warning the
ex-Minister of the Interior of his duty to support the party, and warning him that
if he persisted in wrecking this government some very unpleasant things would be brought
before the public. It is the duty of this House to know what it is the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Bourassa) referred to. We want him to stand up in this House, to show himself
brave for once in his life, and let the public know what was meant by this threat
that brought the ex-Minister of the Interior so quickly back into line. I
3793 APRIL 4, 1905
suppose that occasion will be found, later on,
to inquire further into this matter. A friend
of mine, always a great admirer of the ex-
Minister of the Interior, dropped me a line
the other day. He says :
I am reading carefully all that is being said
and done these days at Ottawa. The situation
is simply appalling. The people are perplexed
and confounded. This is the boldest card ever
played in Canada, and I am afraid that it will
win. I am anxiously waiting Sifton's speech
in the papers to-morrow. My present notion
is, that he will go back to Laurier. If he does
my suspicion is, that the whole thing was a
fake from the beginning. He did not ' go' out,
but was 'sent ' out for the purpose of leading
the Westerners back. He recalls the artful
method resorted to by Armour of Chicago, in
leading his wild steers from the ranchesup to
the slaughter house. As they smell danger
from afar, Armour keeps a large Mexican steer,
fat and sleek, which he has trained to rush into
the bolting stubborn throng, frolic round and
play up 'big ' for a few minutes, then he takes
the lead straight for the slaughter house, when
all the others follow ; the gates close behind,
and the big brute quietly steps to one side into
a stall for a fine feed of boiled oats.
The next day. on March 25th. he wrote
again. He said :
I have just read Sifton's speech. I forgot to
tell you that the boys around Armour's call
that big steer Judas.
Now, let me quote an extract or two from
the Reverend Jeremiah Crowley, a Roman
Catholic priest of the city of Chicago. Recently the government of France, which
has been Roman Catholic from time immemorial and which had a concordat with
Rome, has abolished that concordat and has
expelled certain religious orders in that
country. The Reverend Mr. Crowley, himself a Roman Catholic priest in good standing,
against whom his most malignant
enemy has not been able to produce a single
charge as to either his moral or spiritual conduct, points out that these members
of these
religious orders come in large numbers to
the continent of America and are encouraged by the higher authorities of the church,
and that they work against the best interests of the Roman Catholic Church as
well as against the public schools of the
United States. And he closes his argument
upon that subject with these words :
I submit to the American people this question : Is it to the best interests of the
nation
that a multitude (now over a million) of its
children should receive their secular education
in schools which, for their highest supervision,
are subject to ecclesiastics whose perpetual residence is in Europe, who have never
seen the
shores of America, who are strangers to our
language, our customs and our laws, and who
attack Americanisms ?
This is a quotation from that gentleman.
I will now come to some of my Irish fellow
countrymen, citizens of the United States,
who have expressed very strong opinions on
these matters. In the United States, as
3794
well as in Canada, there is an organized
attempt to force clerical schools upon the
people. There is there what is called a
federation of church societies who are engaged in this work, openly, there is no secret
about it. I know that it is customary
for some people to speak with bated breath
and bowed head when speaking of corporations ; but a corporation is a corporation
the world over, whether in the United
States or the Dominion of Canada. As I
say, there is in the United States a union
of Roman Catholic church societies whose
openly proclaimed object is to bring this
question into the politics of the country,
and to create a great middle party if possible, and thus to force the two parties
in
the United States to come to its terms.
Now, a number of prominent Irishmen have
been consulted on this matter, Irish Roman
Catholics, and I will give quotations from
a few of them. Here is one from Mr. John
P. Kelly, a leading resident and business
man of the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin—
these quotations are all from the residents
of the city of Milwaukee: Mr. Kelly says :
A Catholic political part or a Protestant
political party or a socialist political party
has no place in this country.
Mr. John Toohey, another Irishman :
I am utterly opposed to the taking of any
steps in this country that will have a tendency
to arraign the diiferent denominations against
each other in governmental affairs. I firmly believe that the confederation of all
Catholic societies into one grand body as proposed, would
be one of the gravest mistakes that the Catholics of this country ever made. It would
be a
step backwards, one that would do the church
more harm than good. It naturally would beget counter sectarian political action.
Mr. John F. Donovan :
I can see no reason for any organization of
that kind in America. Catholics have no complaint to make as to their treatment by
legislatures or by citizens generally. On the contrary, I believe that we are receiving
all that
we can decently expect or demand.
J. H. Kopmeier :
While I know the motives and purposes of its
organizers are praiseworthy and commendable,
I am convinced that the federation movement
will stir up feeling and latent bigotry, defeat
its own purposes, and injure Catholics individually and collectively. A Catholic movement
of this nature will beget a counter movement
which will do us irretrievable injury.
C. M. Scanlon :
At the launching of the movement, Bishop
McFaul advocated that it be a factor in politics, and from that time down to its last,
meeting it has been dabbling in politics. Its conventions uttered loud protests against
phantom
wrongs and passed resolutions that have served
no other purpose than to record its blunders
and bring reproach upon the church.
These are the opinions of leading men in
reference to this organization, given on July
3795 COMMONS
2, 1904. This organization had just been
perfected, and is throwing itself into the
arena of politics. In this same work, this
Roman Catholic priest says :
I love my church, and for this reason I am
fighting these organizations in it.
This gentleman comes to the front and
boldly proclaims the object of this movement-the same movement I presume that
we find in Canada, with a similar object in
view.
The fact is that priests and prelates hope to
establish in the United States a Catholic party
modelled after the Centre party in the German
Reichstag, and to make the Catholic societies
the nucleus of such a party.
And he points out:
They think they can work it out in this way :
Set afoot a movement for a division of the
school fund. That movement to mean anything
must exert itself in securing pledges from candidates for the legislature. Neither
Republican nor Democratic candidates will give such
pledges.
I will not go into details, but I will say
that these gentlemen are openly—
There is an open, notorious and virulent hostility of priests and prelates at home
and abroad
towards the public school.
Then he goes on and shows what their
tactics are.
1. Bringing of the public school into contempt
by characterizing it as ' Godless,' ' vicious,' 'a
sink of corruption.'
Have we heard any arguments like that
in this House ? I think we have.
2. The securing for the Catholic parochial
schools the largest possible share of the public
school tax funds.
Have we heard anything of that kind
in this House ? I think we have.
3. The encouragement of other sects to start
sectarian schools and to demand public moneys
in payment for the secular education of the
children.
4. The securing of a Catholic majority on public school boards and on the teaching
staff of
the public schools in the hope of being able
thereby to lower the tone of instruction and
discipline in the public schools and thus bring
the public schools into disfavour.
5. Securing the employmnt of nuns and monks
as public school teachers.
And so on, page after page. I commend
the book to hon. gentlemen opposite. It is
written by Rev. Mr. Crowley, of Chicago,
and if our hon. friends will send for it he
3796
will be delighted to send it to them. He
says :
A hurricane of hate is brewing. I love the Catholic church, and to save her from destruction
in America I write this book.
This is from the pen of Mr. Crowley himself.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES. The hon. gentleman is in very good company. The man he
is quoting has no authority whatever to
speak for any one but himself. It is not
worth while to take much notice of what the
hon. gentleman says, but he is really making statements that have no foundation in
fact when he says that that man has authority to speak for anybody.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I am merely telling what this gentleman says, and I challenge my hon. friend, and
he may hunt
from now till the morning of the resurrection, to point out one solitary objection
to
this gentleman, either to his personal or his
ecclesiastical position, which will reflect upon
his character. Now, we are told that in
Canada this does not apply. I will read an
article from the Bobcaygeon ' Independent,'
whose editor is a Roman Catholic, and who
says :
Mr. Laurier, in forcing the separate schools
on the northwest, cannot be thoroughly aware
of what he is doing. The moment that Bill
passes a movement will be inaugurated for
the annexation of the Northwest to the States
A break-up of confederation, and annexation
means an end of French domination and a clean
sweep of separate schools.
This is from a Liberal and a Roman Catholic, the editor of the Bobcaygeon ' Independent,'
in the province of Ontario.
Mr. LEMIEUX. Is that an authority for
the hon. gentleman ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Well, he is in good
company. I am told that my hon. friend
the Solicitor General was a pro-Boer. I am
told that my hon. friend the member for
Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne) also expressed himself in very strong terms against
the action of the British government in the
South African war ; and other hon. gentlemen opposite have very strong views in
favour of the Boers—anything so long as
they can hit the British empire. Now, Sir,
I stated to-day, as one of the offences of
these gentlemen against the Dominion of
Canada, that they had destroyed all respect
for public principles in this Dominion. We
have seen them on the trade question, we
have seen them on every question, box the
compass to suit their own purpose, in various
ways they have proved themselves true opportunists, with the result that the public
3797 APRIL 4, 1905
conscience in the Dominion of Canada to-day
is at the lowest stage it has ever been in the
history of Canada.
Public sentiment is gone, honour is practically gone, and now they are endeavouring
to disrupt and smash up our public
school system and when any hon. gentleman stands up and opposes them the cry
of intolerance is raised. If a man stands by
his rights and opposes these iniquities, why
he is intolerant. These are the charges that
are made by certain hon. gentlemen on the
other side of the House from time to time.
More than that, we have seen the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) stand
up and in place of replying to the argument
advanced by my friend from North Toronto
(Mr. Foster) read a lot of rigmarole stuff,
debates in other Houses and adverse criticism of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of
Finance and we have seen that sort of
thing going on day after day in this House.
We had the hon. member from Ottawa (Mr.
Belcourt) the other night standing up adversely and unfairly criticising my hon. friend
from North Toronto and bringing in arguments that had no force or effect and no
bearing on the question before the House.
That has been the policy of these hon. gentlemen throughout. They do not meet argument
with argument or fact with fact,
but seek like ink fish to cover the trail by
improper references. This is not a question of what is right; it is simply a question
of what is expedient. Abandon your principles, look to your pocket and position no
matter who is injured. These are the maxims of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Pay no
attention to the pledges given to the people.
They are made to be broken. The maxims of the government are simply trampled
under foot. The principles for which free
men have fought in all ages are taken as
naught. Secret intrigue takes the place of
free discussion and free conference among
the members of the government and among
the members of the party. Is there a minister in his place to-night who can stand
up
and conscientiously say that he was consulted about that clause ? A great party
following the principles of constitutional
and responsible government and yet, besides a paltry little committee of the cabinet,
not one member of the government, not one
of their following in the House, not one
member of the territorial legislature and
not one of the members from the west, although only fresh from the country, is consulted
as to this clause, although it is said
that we are living under constitutional government. Why, the Czar of Russia, surrounded
by the grand dukes, would not attempt to pass that sort of legislation. It is
worse than taxation without representation
which caused the American war. Now, the
policy laid down by the First Minister, as
well as the second or amended clause, imposes the will of other portions of Canada
on the western freemen. It imposes it in
3798
defiance of the constitution of the country
and it establishes a principle of federal interference in purely provincial matters
which
has always been avoided in connection with
the government in Canada heretofore. It
establishes separate schools in the Northwest Territories and perpetuates the union
of church and state in that great country.
Now, we have heard our hon. friend from
Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) point out, in the
course of his speech, a great many things,
some of them nonsensical and many of them
very untrue and incorrect. I shall take the
opportunity of running through a few of the
choice extracts from his speech. In one
of these he makes an appeal to the English-
speaking majority in this country and says:
Consider what the French Canadians in the
past have done for the development of this
country. He makes the same mistake as
the hon. member from Montmagny (Mr.
Lavcrgne) of believing that we are dealing
with the province of Quebec, or that the
whole Dominion is the province of Quebec,
or vice versa, the province of Quebec is the
whole Dominion. Let me inform him that
the province of Quebec is only a portion of
the Dominion, and a very small portion, although a very important one. He says that:
Sir, when the English settlers of His Majesty
were still on the banks of the Atlantic and had
not crossed the Ohio and the Missouri, French
Canadian priests, French Canadian traders and
settlers had opened up that country.
Slightly exaggerated, but let me tell that
hon. gentleman that had it not been for the
schools which he is advocating to-day and
the system which he is endeavouring to perpetuate in this country the continent of
North America would largely have been
under the control of the French people today. Anterior to the date referred to by
him free Frenchmen had planted colonies in
Brazil, in the coast of Florida, Georgia and
the Carolinas, prosperous colonies of free
Frenchmen, but these colonies were blotted
'out by the connivance of the French government engineered by the same system
that he wishes to perpetuate in the Northwest Territories, and the label over the
graves of the thousands of men who were
massacred in cold blood was this: 'This is
not done as to Frenchmen, but as to Lutherans.' Had it not been for the interference
of an organization such as he is endeavouring to force on the west the whole continent
of Nonth America would have been colonized by free Frenchmen—the word
French' means free—and we would not have
had the improper struggles that are now
dividing this country. I commend these
notions to my hon. friend from Labelle.
Another point he dwelt upon was this—
I shall not take up his reference to rebellion to any great extent—but he spoke about
twenty times in reference to rebellion—the
rebellion in the Northwest Territories of
1885, the rebellion in Manitoba—and he
seemed to regret that there did not spring
3799
COMMONS
up another rebellion in 1892. Take the rebellion of 1885; as I explained this afternoon,
when the government wanted the few
settlers at the village of Batoche to take the
square mile survey in place of the long survey a rebellion broke out. This hon. gentleman
claims that rebellion was justified,
and he regrets that he did not bring on a
rebellion in Manitoba at the time the Manitoba Act was passed abolishing separate
schools there. There are occasions when
rebellions are just. I think the people of the
Northwest Territories fully appreciate their
position and that they will make it rather
warm for the right hon. First Minister and
the government of Canada in connection
with this Bill, first by a constitutional agitation, and then, if it is found out
that this
government, in spite of the constitution, are
determined to insist upon forcing this
clause upon them, I think it would be advisable for them to take the management of
their own schools for their own ends.
Further on the hon. member for Labelle
says:
When you speak of the liberty granted to the
Roman Catholic to go into a non-sectarian
school, there is no such a thing as liberty.
I have shown by expressions of opinion
from the best Roman Catholics in the United
States and Canada and from some of the
finest Roman Catholics in the province of'
Ontario, that he is not talking for the
Roman Catholic people of either Canada or
the United States, and I shall give him one
extract further from the Rev. J. O'Donovan
—another gentleman and Roman Catholic
Irishman, by the way—who takes the ground
that public schools are what the people
want. He says:
But the statement that state secular education has this effect has never been proved.
In fact when one tests it by one's own experience in the immediate circle of one's
acquaintances the assertion proves baseless. Several
of my friends were educated in non-Catholic
schools and colleges without the slightest injury to their faith.
I do not know the gentleman who writes
this article—
Mr. A. JOHNSTON. Ask the member for
Jacques Cartier and he will tell you all
about him.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I have this to say,
however, that if this gentleman were not
what he should be the public would mighty
soon know all about him. The hon. member
for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) goes on to say :
When, by any measure in this House or in
any provincial parliament you force a Roman
Catholic to send his children to a non-sectarian
school, you are committing an act of injustice
just as direct, just as much against the conscience of the Roman Catholic, as if you
would
force the Protestant minority in the province
of Quebec to contribute to Roman Catholic
denominational schools.
3800
Here we have this young gentleman discussing the question of schools ; he is a
bachelor I believe, and it is peculiar that
we find that those most ready to give an
opinion on how to manage children are generally old bachelors, aged maiden ladies,
or
persons who have no children. The member
for Labelle further says :
We ask you to stand by us and give the same
protection to the Catholics of the western province that the Protestants have in the
east.
He goes on to talk about Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper and he
praises them, but these two statesmen never
had a more bitter opponent than the member for Labelle. He calls these schools
Godless, and we have heard a great deal
about Godliness and holiness although we
do not see such an awful lot of it. I have
always observed that : Holy life is more
than rite, and spirit more than letter. You
can step into a school where the Bible is
read and prayers are recited and religious
instruction given, but when you have not
the proper spirit evidenced in the life of the
teacher you have no Godliness. Place a
school in charge of an honest-hearted, clean
young fellow or any one of the thousands
of noble young women throughout the
length and breadth of the Dominion, and
Sir, the very atmosphere of that school is
holiness, purity and Godliness. To talk
about these being Godless Schools where the
noble young women of this country are in
control is absolute nonsence. This gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) speaks of his entry into
the arena of Ontario provincial politics, and
he says :
I was but a boy at the time, but I was proud to
stand by Sir Oliver Mowat and help in his
campaign for justice and equality.
Well, let us see what this campaign of
Sir Oliver Mowat's was, for justice and
equality. The Protestants of Ontario never
attempted to prevent the Roman Catholics
perpetuating the separate schools, nor did
they ever attempt to do away with separate
schools in that province. What they did
object to was the illegal, unfair, and unequal
concessions given to the Roman Catholics of
that province, and I am very much surprised
to find that this gentleman who tells us he
was but a boy at the time, started out in
such a bad cause as to advocate the campaign of Sir Oliver Mowat. One of the
things that grated on the ears of Protestants
was, that we were classed with the negroes,
because the third section of the Act says :
Protestant and coloured separate schools, may
be established in the province of Ontario.
We were classed with the darkey. Where
we were in the minority and the negroes
were in the minority we could form separate schools, and that is one of the things
we objected to. Another thing we objected
to was this : Where a Protestant separate
school was established in the province of
3801 APRIL 4, 1905
Ontario, all that required to be done to
break that school up would be that a Protestant teacher should be engaged in the
school section adjoining. The people after
having gone to the expense of building a
school and taxing themselves to engage a
teacher, if the school section from which
they had separated themselves engaged a
Protestant teacher that instant their school
closed up and the people were put to great
loss. Section 8 of the Ontario Act says :
No Protestant separate school shall be allowed in any school section, except when
the
teacher of the public school in such section is
a Roman Catholic.
If the adjoining school section engaged a
Protestant teacher it closed up the Protestant separate school, and the people were
out the money they paid for it. We fought
against these things in Ontario and we were
right in fighting against them. We fought
against this injustice and we were called
intolerant and fanatical in the press and on
the public platform, but we stood to the
fight and although as history shows, we
were swindled out of election after election,
we taught the people of that province what
it is to be freemen. Another injustice was
this : There is a clause in the Ontario Act,
and it is a good one, which allows a Protestant tenant of Catholic property to determine
that his taxes shall go to the public
school, and the Catholic tenant of Protestant
property to determine that his taxes shall
go to the separate school. We never objected to that in principle, but when I tell
you that my own taxes for two years went
to the separate schools you will see that
there was a necessity for a change in the
law. The clause in the Act is as follows :
Every person paying rates whether as proprietor or tenant, who by himself or his agent,
on or before the first day of March in any year,
gives to the clerk of the municipality notice
in writing that he is a Roman Catholic and
supporter of a separate school, situated in the
said municipality, or in a municipality contiguous thereto, shall be exempted from
the
payment of all rates imposed for the support
of public schools.
We objected to that because the Catholic
landlord could give notice that he wanted
the taxes applied to the separate school and
for years in the province of Ontario that
was done, and although the Roman Catholic
tenant of a Protestant property could send
his taxes to the separate school the Protestant tenant of Catholic property could
not in very many cases do so. I will give
you another instance: At the village of Downeyville in the county which I have the
honour to represent, the people were living in
peace and harmony until a few monthe ago.
There were only four Protestant families in
the whole school section and some forty odd
Roman Catholic families. Thirteen or fifteen of these Roman Catholic families yielded
to the influence of the Roman Catholic
clergyman of the place and they went in for
3802
a separate school. The balance of the
Roman Catholic people objected to the establishment of the separate school, but
they were all obliged to come into line and
to-day there are four Protestant families in
that school section who cannot afford to get
a teacher of their own, and who either cannot send their children to school or have
to drive them miles to an adjoining section.
And because we objected to this sort of
thing some gentlemen stand up and brand
us as intolerant and tyrannical, and not in
favour of equal rights to all. Such a statement is absurd. Another assertion made
by
the member for Labelle was this:
I wish to be able to point out to all men that
here is laid down in our constitution the clear
written principle that equal justice exists for
all and that Catholics as well as Protestants
have the right to live in this country.
Will he point to any Protestant country
where Protestants and Catholics have not
the right to live side by side ? Will he point
to any country over which the British flag
floats where liberty is not equally given to
the Roman Catholic and Protestant subject ?
That is one of the principles for which my
hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) who sits beside me
contends. We have heard some jeering
about him lately, but he is a man who during his life has striven for that principle.
My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is head of an
order in which he as well as the humblest
in its ranks is sworn to give to his Roman
Catholic fellow-countrymen the same rights
and privileges as he claims for himself. Is
there anything tyrannical or intolerant in
that? You cannot show, in the history of
the Dominion of Canada, where any gentleman pretending to live up to the principles
[ have enunciated has refused to grant what
I have stated. I could show in the city of
Hull, in the province of Quebec, the Protestant stock of four companies—the E. B.
Eddy Company, the Ottawa and Hull Power
Company, the Gilmour and Hughson Company and the George Matthews Company—
every member of all these companies being
Protestant, pay $8,966.50 of taxes, of which
the Protestant schools of Hull receive only
$695. In the province of Ontario, were this
stock held by companies, every dollar of
taxes upon that stock would go to the
support of the Roman Catholic schools, if
the stockholders were Roman Catholics.
Mr. L. P. DEMERS. If my hon. friend
will permit me, to-day that stock may be in
the hands of Protestants, and to-morrow it
may be in the hands of Catholics ; and
where would you be if there were not a law
to distribute the taxes proportionately ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. There is a certain
date fixed by statute in the province of
Ontario on which it is determined where the
taxes shall go.
Mr. L. P. DEMERS. In this instance it
is not a partnership of persons, but a part
3803
COMMONS
nership of interests, in which anybody may
have a share in the stock. In the case of a
partnership of persons, you would take into
consideration the religion of the persons,
but not in a partnership of interests.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I am only pointing
out that in the province of Ontario, were this
stock held by people of the Roman Catholic
faith, every dollar of taxes on that stock
would go to the support of separate schools.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. And any business
can be sold just the same. In the Montreal
' Gazette' of March 25, 1905, I find that a
gentleman of the name of Alderman Deserres rose and said :
I have secured from the city comptroller, a
statement showing the following proportion
of commercial property owned in the city:
Roman Catholics .. .. .. .. .. .. ..$ 634,900
Protestants .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5,577,800
Neutral.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21,522,420
The amount which the Protestant business
houses have to pay to the 'neutral' fund
exceeds by $4,900,000 that paid by the Roman
Catholic business houses. This sum at 40
cents a hundred dollars, gives a sum of $19,600,
which divided pro rata according to population,
gives the Roman Catholic schools the sum of
$16,200, which according to the claims of my
fellow alderman should belong to the Protestant panel.
I am merely pointing out that the Protestant majority of the province of Ontario
have been unjustly charged—not that we
care anything about it—With being intolerant, I assert that the laws in Ontario are
more favourable to the Roman Catholic
minority there than the laws of Quebec are
to the Protestant minority of that province.
If my hon. friend from Labelle were to
remove from his speech all that he says
about rebellion, toleration and intolerance,
there would be a very little left of it. He
makes the mistake of supposing that the
privileges of the English-speaking people of
Quebec were granted to them. On the contrary, the concessions were granted to the
French people of that province, as England
always grants concessions to any people in
any country where she has the management
of affairs—the right to use their language
and the right to observe whatever religion
they choose to follow. These concessions
the British government granted to our
French friends in the province of Quebec,
and all honour to her for so doing. And,
should any attempt ever be made to deprive
our fellow-countrymen of the province of
Quebec of the right to use their own language or their right to worship Almighty God
according to the dictates of their own consciences, they may rest assured that my
hon. friend here (Mr. Sproule) would be one
3804
of the first to go down and resist any such
injustice to them.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I do not want to
hurt the feelings of my good friend from
Labelle. His history, of course, was absurd.
All through his address he talks as if the
people of Quebec, and they only, owned the
Northwest. The French Canadians in the
province of Quebec, toleration, intolerance—
these are the stock-in-trade arguments of
the hon. gentleman. He says :
I may remind my English-speaking friends
that three centuries before there was anything
like English civilization, Catholic Spain had
covered the world not only with physical power,
but with civilization and enlightenment—with
schools of higher education and primary
education and with a knowledge of all human
sciences that were available at that time that
no nation has since surpassed.
Let me tell the hon. gentleman that Spain
has not been in existence for more than five
hundred years. Prior to that time Spain
was made up of a lot of free republics, and
later free monarchies.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. At the close of the
fifteenth century. It was not through the
Schools of Catholic Spain that the arts and
Sciences and learning were maintained there,
but through the schools established by the
Moors in the old Iberian peninsula, before
the dark ages swept over Europe. The hon.
gentleman is entirely wrong in his history.
Another mistake made by the hon. member
for Labelle was in speaking of the United
States, where, he said :
People recognize that what must save the
United States from the social plague which is
going to involve all nations between the crushing burden of capitalism and the equally
crushing burden of standing armies, is the influence
of the Catholic Church on the working classes.
Well, if the hon. gentleman wants to belittle his Roman Catholic co-religionists,
it
is none of my funeral ; but let me tell him
that I would hesitate a long time before
I would offer to the Roman Catholic people
such an insult. In the United States there
are only 10,000,000 Roman Catholics to 70,000,000 who are not Roman Catholics, and
if
the hon. gentleman says that these 10,000,000
are going to lead the anarchical, socialistic
and revolutinary movements, he is paying
a poor compliment to the people of that
faith.
I would not dream of insulting the Roman Catholic people in any such way. Let
me tell him that what is going to save the
United States is her free public school education. given throughout the length and
breadth of that great nation, and not any
church or system of separate schools. He
says that never in the province of Quebec
3805 APRIL 4, 1905
or in any part of the country in which
Catholics have any control, do we find
the display of passion and prejudice we are
now witnessing among those who advocate
public schools against separate schools. Well,
I do not believe in quoting newspaper
against newspaper or speech against speech,
but you can take every minister of this
government and you can quote any speech
of his one year against another speech
the following year, any time within the
last fifteen years. And no papers have been
more active than papers supporting the
government in the province of Quebec—
which I presume are Roman Catholic papers
—in exciting religious and race antagonism.
You will find them excelling in charging all
sorts of intolerance against the Protestants
of Ontario, and you will find men like the
hon. member for Labelle going through that
province and appealing to the fanaticism
and prejudices of that magnificent people.
I have every faith in that people, but we
must admit that they are not as well posted
in public affairs as they should be. I
regret that we have no Chapleau in the
province of Quebec to-day to set the people
right and counteract the schemes of hon.
gentlemen opposite. I remember when the
late Sir Joseph Chapleau stood in the province of Quebec and faced the demagogues
of the Liberal party, led by the late Mr.
Mercier, who sought to inflame the public
mind of that province in connection with
the Northwest rebellion and other matters.
I regret that to-day there is not one
to take the place of that great statesman and stem the torrent of fanaticism which
is being spread throughout
that province by the demagogues of
the Liberal party. But I am confident
that the good sense of the Quebec people
will yet assert itself and that in a short
time they will realize how they have been
misled and told fairy tales in connection
with the treatment of that province by the
British people. When the people of Quebec
find out how they have been bamboozled
and humbugged by men like the hon. member for Labelle, they will place no more faith
in that type of man, but stand by principle
rather than appeals to prejudice.
When Lord Aylmer was Governor, there
was an address presented to the King which
was signed by a number of French and
English-speaking people.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. From McMullen's
History of Canada, a very good authentic
work.
To be stigmatized as a foreigner, said he,
while treading the soil of a British colony,
3806
sounds strange to the ears of an Englishman.
Those who make use of the term should be
emphatically told, that in every quarter of the
world where the British flag flies every British
subject is always at home.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Mr. John Neilson,
who was the publisher of the Quebec ' Gazette ' and the ' Nestor of Reform ' in Lower
Canada, was stigmatized by the Liberal
leaders as a foreigner because he refused
to endorse the treasonable sentiments of
Mr. Papineau and those who signed the ninety-two resolutions. This is what he said
of the ninety-two resolutions :
But they have not only usurped authority
which was not given to them, and produced all
the consequences before stated ; they have excited to sedition, rebellion and treason.
Their
92 resolutions of last winter are a long declamatory address to the passions and prejudices
of the majority of the people, whom
they formally designate and class in these
resolutions as of French origin, in contradistinction to British or foreign origin.
They
grossly insulted and falsely accuse individuals,
public authorities, and whole bodies of men,
in aid of their attempted usurpation on the
established constitution and the rights of their
constituents. They tell the people that they
have been subject to a long series of injustice and oppression under the British government.
Just like the appeal of the hon. member
for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). We have exactly
the same whine made by demagogues appealing to the people, we have had this for
nearly a century, and it is about time some
one undertook to educate the people.
Mr. L. P. DEMERS. Does the hon. gentleman contend that the people of Quebec
had then no grievance ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I contend that the
people of Lower Canada then were infinitely
better off than corresponding people in any
other part of the world.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. The people of
England at that time had not the liberty of
government they have to-day.
They tell the people that they have been
subjected to a long series of injustice and
oppression under the British government—that
allegiance and protection are correlative obligations—refer to the example of the
United
States—and finally threaten to seek a remedy
elsewhere, if their demands are not granted
by the British parliament. If there is a man
of unsophisticated mind and common honesty,
who has read or will read the 92 resolutions,
and say, before God and man, that such is not
the bent and character of these resolutions,
then I will consent that these latter allegations
against the members of the late House of
Assembly should be taken as not proven.
These were the opinions of a Liberal who
had fought shoulder to shoulder with these
3807
COMMONS
gentlemen in the province of Quebec in the
olden days. The object of these gentlemen,
Sir, in those days was agitation just as it
is the object of these demagogues to-day.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)
endeavoured to prove the other day that
the agitation in favour of independence or
the establishment of a republic was not due
to Papineau. But in the heat of debate in
1835, Mr. Papineau forgot his ordinary prudence and avowed himself a republican in
principle. He said :
The time had gone by when Europe could
give monarchies to America. On the contrary
the time is now approaching when America
will give republics to Europe.
This is the sort of stuff our good friends
in the province of Quebec have been fed
upon all these long years, and unfortunately
the plain truth, except at very brief intervals when men like Chapleau stood well
to
the front, has never been placed before
them.
Mr. LEMIEUX. In the good city of
Toronto does my hon. friend not know there
is a gentleman named Goldwin Smith who
advocates political union between Canada
and the United States?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I have never said
that we have not gentlemen in the English-
speaking provinces who profess these sentiments, but what I do say is that when men
like Goldwin Smith come to the front and
advocate such doctrines, they are answered
by gentlemen who speak and write the
English language. But when men advocating such theories go through the province of
Quebec, our friends bow before them and
wait for a reaction to set in when the people of that province will find out for themselves
the true facts of the situation. Speaking of the agitation in favour of toleration
and the rights of the people and all that
sort of thing, the historian points out on
page 44 that indignation meetings were held
in various parts of the province at which
violent resolutions were passed, and at these
meetings Mr. Papincau was the chief orator,
and was escorted by his countrymen from
one district to another.
Again the hon. member for Montmagny
(Mr. A. Lavergne) as well as the hon. member for Labelle, dilated at length on the
injustice of the Britishers after they had
conquered that country. I wish to point
out, and to prove, that the British people
used the people of the province of Quebec
exactly as they have used the people of
every country they have conquered, they
used them as liberally as the people themselves. wished to be used, and finally the
imperial government gave to the people of
Quebec liberties that they had never asked
for and did not want. This historian says :
Before the conquest Canada was a purely military colony, and subjected like France,
to a
3808
despotism of a most, exacting and imperious
character. While the custom of the Parisian
tribunals, and the edicts of the French monarch,
formed the statute law of the country, its administration was confided to a governor
and an
intendant, who, unchecked by a public press,
and having the patronage of the whole colony
completely at their disposal, usually acted upon
the caprice of the moment, and were generally
to set public opinion, such as it was, completely
at deffiance. Having thus means to provide for
the more educated, they either silenced or enlisted on their side every person of
influence.
The common people, steeped in the grossest ignorance, and oppressed by feudal exactions
submitted without a murmur, from long habit, to
the arrogant claims and pretensions of their
seigneurs and also of the public officials. The
meanest officer of the government was regarded
with the most slavish fear, and his mandate
promptly obeyed, while their superiors were
generally looked upon by the habitants as
almost beings of a higher order in creation to
themselves. By these they were treated with
the greatest severity. In the law courts, as we
have already seen, the torture was frequently
applied, while, by the military authorities, they
were compelled to serve as soldiers without
pay, and in every condition of life taught that
the one cardinal virtue was a blind and implicit
obedience to those in power.
This was the condition of this splendid
people when the British government took
hold of the province of Quebec in 1763, as
portrayed by an eminent French clergyman
at the time.
The people, ignorant, and what was worse,
contented in their ignorance, looked upon their
own laws and customs as equally admirable and
excellent, and, like the Chinese, regarded the
rest of the world. France alone excepted as
'outside barbarians.'
Then there is the testimony of clergymen
and others writing about the country. I
will quote only one of them—the Duke de
Rochefoucault :
No Canadian has just grounds of complaint
against the British government. They acknowledge they are better treated now than
ever,
but they love the French—forget them not,
long after them, hope for their arrival, and
will always love them. In their estimation a
Frenchman is a being much superior to the
native of Great Britain. The farmers are a
frugal set of people, but ignorant and lazy.
These are the words of a Frenchman, writing of these people after a visit to Canada
forty years after the British conquest. Then
an American writer of that time, the distinguished scholar Silliman, says :
It is questionable whether any conquered
country was ever better treated by its conquerors than Canada ; the people were left
in complete possession of their religion, and the revenues for its support, as well
as their property, laws, customs and manners, and even
the defence of their country is no expense to
them.
Then what becomes of the cry of these
hon. gentlemen, that the people were ground
down under the heel of the British govern
3809 APRIL 4, 1905
ment and the British aristocrats ? No country has ever been more justly treated than
was French Canada under the British government. Here is another extract that will
show the conduct of the British government:
The impolitic desire of the home government
to preserve the French element distinct from
the British, as a safeguard against future revolution, completely destroyed this prospect—
Referring to the amalgamation of the
two peoples.
—and precipitated the consequences it sought
to avoid, aside from preventing the gradual
amalgamation of the two races. For a brief
space, however, the British inhabitants were
lulled into security by the moderation of the
French Canadians.
So, it was the British government themselves who first insisted upon these people
taking an active part in the management
of their own affairs.
Mr. LEMIEUX. Has my hon. friend
(Mr. Sam. Hughes) lost sight of the little
rebellion that took place in Upper Canada ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I have not come
near the rebellion in Upper Canada yet, or
near the rebellion in Lower Canada either,
but I am gradually coming to it.
But no sooner had the French Canadian
leaders become fully aware of the nature of
the power with which they had been invested,
than they gradually excluded persons of British origin from the House, until only
some
three or four remained.
And this was under the progenitor of the
hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).
And that hon gentleman has the hardihood
to stand up in this House and preach about
the tolerance of the French Canadian people. Thank fortune that they have been
tolerant. But it does not belong to the
Liberal party or the family of Papineau to
boast of tolerance.
The French, instead of the English, now became altogether the dominant language, and
assumed the aggressive in the most decided
manner. If a person of British origin aspired
to political influence, he had to cast aside
every predilection, of birth and education,
connect himself wholly with the French Canadians, and also learn their language.
This, Sir, under the rule and management
of the progenitor of the hon. member for
Labelle. Yet that hon. gentleman will get
up and prate about the tolerance shown by
the French Canadian people. As I have
said. French Canadians are a tolerant people, but the family of Papineau has no share
or part in that tolerance.
Prior to the formation of the Papineau party,
no systematic attempt had been made to excite the prejudices of the masses against
the
natives of British origin.
Another factor against the hon. gentleman. And further on :
3810
Nor is there any ground whatever for the
supposition that the conduct of the French
Canadians during the war with the United
States arose from a feeling of loyalty to Great
Britain.
Now, I just want to make it clear that
the hon. gentleman is a pure agitator and
that he has not given this House or this
country in his addresses, from one end of it
to the other, the facts of the conduct of a
certain wing of the Liberal party of Lower
Canada towards the English-speaking people
of this country :
But, although the French Canadians were
apparently the Liberal party of Lower Canada,
owing to the manner in which they advocated
reforms in question of a purely British character, while at the same time they clung
tenaciously to almost every abuse of French origin,
the citizens of the other race were the real
reformers. The very constitution itself, the
first great measure of reform was the result
of their solicitation—
So these Britishers could not have been so
bad. They had to force these liberties upon
the French Canadian people.
—and the fact of the province having been
divided was not owing to them, as the able
protest, at the bar of the House of Commons,
of Lymburner clearly shows, but to the blind
infatuation of the imperial government. They
were foremost in all great public measures of
utility, in the building of steamboats, in commerce, in agricultural improvements,
in liberal
educational measures—
And yet, the hon. member for Labelle contended that' the British government had
kept these people in subjection and in ignorance, when the facts show that the British
government had to force educational measures upon them.
——in the social elevation of the industrial
classes, and thus kept full pace with the progressive spirit of the age. The great
majority
of the French Canadian population, on the
other hand, clung to ancient prejudices, to
ancient customs, to ancient laws. with the
unreasoning tenacity of an uneducated and non-
progressive people.
These are the words of the historian I
have quoted and they cannot be contradicted
or gainsaid. I want to point out that what the
province of Quebec has always wanted was
a free man, a man who would stand to the
front and lead that magnificent province and
that splendid people and let them know the
facts as to the splendid treatment meted out
to them by the British government in the
days gone by.
This was under the regime of Papineau,
the grandfather, I believe, of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). Speaking
of toleration, the writer says :
In order to check the settlement of the eastern townships by British immigration,
it was
persistently refused to make grants for roads
therein, for the administration of justice, for
registry offices, or even to permit of their
parliamentary representation.
3811 COMMONS
Why, I am satisfied that half of our
French Canadian fellow-countrymen before
me never knew that such tyranny had been
practised towards the English people in the
province of Quebec by the ancestor of the
hon. member for Labelle. They did not
know that it was possible that men who
now go round prating of tolerance could
have had any connection with such tyrannical acts.
While Papineau and his followers were declaiming against the tyranny of being taxed
without representation, they deliberately disfranchised for years 80,000 English-speaking
settlers in the Eastern Townships region, lying
between Salmon River and Lake Memphre
magog; and who, until 1830, had no voice whatever in making the laws by which they
were
governed or in expending the taxes which they
paid. And when parliamentary representation was at last reluctantly conceded them,
it
was so hedged about by restriction and adverse conditions as to be of little comparative
value. In some cases when English-speaking
electors could not be otherwise obstructed in
the exercise of their franchise, polling places
were established at distances ranging from
thirty to fifty miles from their settlements.
So an elector had to travel, under the benign rule of these gentlemen, from thirty
to
fifty miles in order to record his vote.
Is there a French Canadian before me who
knew that such exactions were practised
upon the British people of Quebec ? I trust
that when the hon. member for Labelle
again traverses the province of Quebec,
seeking to inflame the honest peasantry of
that province, he will be met by honest
French Canadians themselves who will tell
him that he is not taking the proper course,
who will tell him to go back home and remain there and give up his demagogueism.
Another point :
They made immigration from the British
islands—
Mark you, that is the Papineau party, the
party of toleration.
They made immigration from the British
islands a standing grievance, maintained that
they alone had the right to the soil, continued
their wretched mode of agriculture, save in the
limited area where the example and success of
good Scotch farming had led them to make some
improvements, disliked all nations but France,
and, as a safeguard against the innovations
and language of neighbouring Anglo-Saxon
people, would, were it possible, surround themselves with a Chinese wall of exclusiveness.
The conduct of the hon. member for Labelle to-day shows that he is a direct lineal
descendant of his ancestor. Now, Sir, I find
here a description of Papineau, and in many
respects it resembles the hon. member for
Labelle to-day :
It is evident that Papineau, the great master
spirit of the crisis, had never carefully gauged
the probable results. He was a brilliant orator,
but no statesman ; a clever partisan leader, but
a miserable general officer ; a braggart in the
forum, a coward in the field. He excited a
3812
storm which he neither knew how to allay nor
direct. Nor had Papineau the excuse of youth
to plead in extenuation of his folly. In 1837
he was 38 years of age, a period of life when
the intellect stands at its meridian. In height
he was of the middle size; a man of good
presence; with features of a Hebrew caste;
while his heavy dark eyebrows shaded, in a
higher arch than usual, a keen lustrous eye
of quick and penetrating glance. He appeared
to be formed by nature for the eloquent agitator, but not for the wise or prudent
legislator ;
to act upon the passions and prejudices of his
ignorant or unreflecting countrymen, not to
make them happier, wiser or better. Familiar
with French literature and all the old lore of
La Nouvelle France, he appealed to the feelings
and prejudices of his countrymen with irresistible effect, and completely carried
them
captive by the force of his oratorical and conversational powers. But while Papineau
thoroughly understood the people of his own
province he knew very little of the people
of Upper Canada; and appeared to be wholly
ignorant of the feeling of loyalty to the Queen
and constitution which then ran like a deep
undercurrent beneath their political squabbles.
There we have a description of the province of Quebec under the rule and subject
to the agitation of the great Papineau family. I trust we will never again see in
the
province of Quebec, or in the Dominion of
Canada, other agitations started by these
gentlemen. The hon. member for Labelle
has inflamed the minds of the people in the
province of Quebec, and has attempted to
justify himself by preaching the same stuff
in other provinces. He recently spoke in
the city of Toronto, and I was asked by a
gentleman who heard him if it was not
scandalous that such things could have
been allowed in the province of Quebec as
had been described by the hon. member for
Labelle ; he really believed the statements
that the member for Labelle had been making. I want the people of this country to
know what the facts were under a Liberal
agitation in the province of Quebec, and
that, in place of their having any just complaint against our English-speaking fellow-
country men, the reverse was the case under
the agitation carried on by Liberal leaders
in the province of Quebec in the old days.
I trust these days will never return.
Now, Sir, I have disposed pretty well of
the various points which it was my intention to discuss. I have endeavoured to
show that the people of Ontario are tolerant.
I have shown that the government practically admit now that they have no case
under the constitution for their school
clauses of the Autonomy Bill, that they are
simply governed by policy. I have shown
that by putting this law on the statute-
book without these educational clauses inserted the separate school law of 1875 will
remain the law in the new provinces. Then
if, as the Prime Minister asserts, the constitution gives them the right to separate
schools, that law must remain on the statute-
book ; but if the constitution does not demand that separate schools shall be per
3813 APRIL 4, 1905 3814
petuated, then it rests with the free will of
the legislatures of the Northwest either to
perpetuate the present system or to change
it. It stands to common sense that if the
law is as mild and as gentle and as inoffensive as hon. gentlemen opposite say it
is, no legislature in the new provinces is
going to step in and take away from the
people the small measure of separate schools
that is given them under that constitution.
Remove the objection and you preserve the
self-respect and honour of the people of
those great Territories ; perpetuate coercion, and you bring about a struggle in
every province of the Dominion, because
the people of the province of Quebec
are by no means a unit in favour of coercion. They have shown in 1896 that
they are not in favour of coercion,
and if you give them an opportunity. I
believe they will show again that
they are not in favour of coercion no
more than are the people of Ontario.
There is not even a suggestion of tyranny
and the freemen of Quebec will not hesitate
to record their votes against tyranny just
the same as the freemen of Ontario. I have
no further desire to discuss this matter until
it reaches the committee stage but I would
appeal, as I appealed in the earlier part of
my address, to the right hon. Prime Minister to remove this coercive clause. If his
contention is right he has all he wants in the
Bill without the coercion at all. If his contention is wrong I want to point out to
him
that the Act of 1875 will be part of the laws
of the new provinces until the legislatures
meet and change it and it must be supposed
that the Roman Catholic minority in these
Territories will have a far greater chance
of succeeding by the kindly means I have
outlined than they will by attempting coercion of that country.
Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (East Assiniboia).
Mr. Speaker, as the Bill now before the
House deals particularly with the part
of the country that I come from, and
as I represent one of the largest and
most populous districts there, I do not
feel that I would be justified in casting a silent vote on this measure. I would
therefore ask the indulgence of this House
for a short time—and it shall be a very short
time—while I give the reasons why I intend to give this Bill my full and hearty
support. I do not intend to follow the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) who has just
spoken through his long and rambling
speech. He has gone all over the United
States, he has gone all over the British Isles,
he has gone through the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba and he has dealt
with almost every subject under the sun
except those subjects which are mentioned
in the Bill which we are now discussing. I
intend to discuss the subjects which are mentioned in this Bill. During the discussion
that has taken place, so far I have noticed
3814
on the part of almost everybody who has
spoken a desire to make this a school question. I do not wish for one moment to minimize
the importance of the school clauses of
this Bill. On the contrary, I would say that
they are very important. The education of
the youth of any country is of the first importance, but this is only one of the subjects
dealt with by this Bill and there are others
of equal, and to my mind as a representative of that western country of even greater
importance. Mr. Speaker, I notice that hon.
members from other provinces, especially
from the province of Ontario, seem to take
a tremendous interest in that particular
question. I am very glad to see that hon.
members do not treat this question from a
local standpoint, but I would think that
when the people of the Northwest Territories are satisfied it ought to be pretty good
ground why the people of the other provinces should also be satisfied.
Some time ago, before this Bill was read a
second time, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) was very anxious
to have the matter discussed, and so was
the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr.
Foster), and we heard a great deal about
dissension in the government ranks from
the hon. member for North Toronto. But,
Mr. Speaker, we do not hear very
much about that now. Why ? Because
the right hon. Prime Minister of this
country (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), is coming before the country and before this
House with this Bill with practically a solid
support behind his back. We do not hear
anything about dissension now simply because when the hon. leader of the opposition
came down to the second reading of the
Bill he was not able to say that he was leading the opposition. He said that he was
leading himself and that was all he was
doing because every hon. member behind
him was going his own way. The members
from the Northwest have been criticised, and
criticised very severely, especially before the
second reading of this Bill, by the hon. member for North Toronto. We were told we
were simply a flock of sheep, that we were
dumb, that we had been muzzled, that we
had been told by the right hon. Prime Minister to get out of the House so that we
would not be called upon to say anything—
This was before the second reading of
the Bill. He apparently was fishing
for information and on that occasion
he seemed to be endeavouring to show hon.
members on the other side of the House how
better he could fish than the hon. leader
of the opposition who was sitting beside him. He criticised us very severely and
while he was calling us dumb followers I
could not help thinking that it would have
been well for him if some kind friend had
put a muzzle on him on some occasions in
the past so that he would not have been in
the position that he is in to-day of having
his old leader in the other House giving the
3815 COMMONS
correct record of some of the things that had
taken place and putting him in the very
awkward position before the people of the
country of having given an incorrect statement of the facts. On that occasion he also
told us that he had great pity for the Northwest Territories—no Minister of the Interior,
not a friend in the government and all the
members from the Northwest dumb and
muzzled. Within five minutes after making
that assertion he made the assertion that
the terms granted to the Territories by these
Bills were so good, were so liberal, were so
magnanimous that they would bring every
other province knocking at the door of the
Dominion for better terms. If the Northwest
Territories had not any member in the government and had not any friends in the government
and if the Northwest members did
not do anything to help the Territories, they
have not fared very badly according to that
hon. gentleman.
On that occasion he was very anxious that
the portfolio of the Interior should be filled
and, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that
he is not half as sorry as the members from
the Northwest Territories are that the hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) is no
longer the Minister of the Interior. Why ?
Simply because we members from the west
know better than any other class of men in
this country just what the Northwest Territories and what Canada has lost by that
hon. gentleman not being a member of the
government. I had the pleasure of going
to that western country in 1878, just in the
month that Sir John Macdonald came into
power, and I know what the conditions were.
We know what their rule was for eighteen
long years. We saw the Canadian Pacific
Railway built through that country, we saw
thousands and millions of dollars expended,
we saw thousands and thousands of workmen brought into that country and we saw
hundreds of thousands of dollars expended
per annum in bringing in immigrants. What
was the result ? The government of Sir
John Macdonald spent money with a lavish
hand in bringing in immigrants but they
passed laws and regulations of such a
nature and carried them out in such a manner that they drove the people out of the
country. That was the result of their administration for eighteen long years. But,
in 1896 a brighter day dawned for Canada
and especially for the Northwest Territories
and if ever the right hon. leader of the government did one good day's work for Canada
he did it on the day that he appointed
the Hon. Clifford Sifton as the member of
his cabinet representing the Northwest Territories. What has taken place since that
day about eight years ago ? The whole history and the whole development of that
country have undergone a change and you
would not know the west now comparing it
with what it was eight years ago.
Just to give an instance that can be readily understood by every hon. member of the
3816
House, I may say that at that time we had
four members in this House from the Northwest Territories. In 1901, when the census
was taken, we were entitled to six members, and I have no doubt that the House
of Commons here thought they were doing
a very generous act, as in fact they were,
when they gave us ten members instead of
six. But, if we had representation by population in this House the Northwest Territories
would be represented by not ten members but by fifteen. Whatever advantage
has been obtained for the Northwest in
the past has been brought about largely by
the active and energetic work of the ex-Minister of the Interior. And, Sir, I am sure
I
will meet with the approval of every member from the west when I say, that nothing
would please us better than if it could happen that the Hon. Mr. Sifton were again
to
take up his portfolio. I believe every member from the west will agree with me that
we have not another man who is in the same
class as he is, as regards ability for carrying on that work in the west and benefiting
the country generally.
Mr. TURRIFF. The hon. member for
South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) may point
over to this side of the House, but I venture to say that neither the hon. member
for
Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) nor the hon. member
for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), or any
other man from the west will for a moment
disagree with me, when I say, that there is
no other man in the Liberal party, or in
the Conservative party either, in the west,
or in any other part of Canada. who is able
to take the place of Mr. Sifton as a representative of the west—not even the hon.
member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean).
Mr. TURRIFF. I would say further, that
the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton)
is too young a man and too able a man
that Canada should lose his services. It is
our hope, we Liberals at all events, that
the country will be able to avail itself of
his services before long, and that in
the interests of the whole Dominion
of Canada we shall long retain him.
When the hon. member for North Toronto
(Mr. Foster) was recently fishing for
information, he talked about dangling
the portfolio of the Interior, and senatorships, before the members from the
Northwest in order to get their support for
this Bill. Let me tell him that there is no
member from the west who is not supporting
this Bill on its merits, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) went very far astray
when
he made the assertion to which I have referred. But, of course, he ought to know ;
he has been in the government and he has
been out of the government and he went
back into the government and he probably
3817 APRIL 4, 1905
is in a first-class position to say that cabinet positions are the price for men supporting
certain measures; but in the present
instance I can tell him that such a thing
does not exist.
In dealing with the provisions contained
in this Bill, I shall first take up the question of the division of the Territories
into
two provinces. When we had our first interview with the Prime Minister, and I was
asked whether I favoured one or two provinces, my reply was that I favoured two
provinces. But I want to say, with all due
respect to the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that even if he to-day wanted to extend
the province of Manitoba west, he could not
do it and there is nobody else in this country
who can do it. The people in the Northwest
Territories —eastern Assiniboia especially, and my constituency runs for 144
miles along the boundary of Manitoba—
would not tolerate it. Talk about agitation
there has been no agitation whatever in
the west over this school question, but if
this government or any other government
or any power on earth tried to coerce us
into the province of Manitoba, you would
see an agitation that would be remembered. The first mistake that was made in
defining the boundaries of the province of
Manitoba was made by the Conservative
government. These gentlemen opposite now
endeavour to put the blame on this government or on the leader of this government
for not extending the province of Manitoba,
but the real blame rests with the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. During
the years between 1884 and 1896 many of us
were in favour of extending Manitoba away
up west to Moosejaw, and the matter was
discussed not only among the settlers, but
among the more prominent politicians of
that territory. When a brighter day dawned
in 1890, and we thought that possibly we
would be able to have this mistake of the
Conservative government remedied, as well
as a great many other mistakes of theirs,
the matter was discussed very fully in the
west, and a year or two afterwards the
Prime Minister of Manitoba was invited to
East Assiniboia to discuss the question. A
meeting was held at Indian Head and Mr.
Itoblin advocated his case, and Mr. Haultain, one of his own political friends, took
the other side. And, because the Hon. Mr.
Roblin got the worst of the debate he lost
his temper a little bit, and with some of
those characteristics of his that we in the
west are familiar with, he undertook to
threaten the people of East Assiniboia and
the people of the Northwest as to what would
happen if we did not agree to join the province of Manitoba. He told us that if we
persisted in remaining a part of Manitoba,
then Manitoba would regulate our freight
rates and would not allow us to build railroads across that province, thus endeavouring
to coerce us into joining with Manitoba. On
that occasion, for ever was lost the chance
3818
of the eastern portion of the Northwest Territories joining the province of Manitoba,
because we would not be coerced then and
we will not be coerced now. That was, however, only a sentimental reason. We objected
to being annexed to any province
which would elect as prime minister a man
who harboured the thought, that because we
did not agree with him he would coerce us
by increasing our freight rates and preventing us from building railroads. But, if
we objected on that ground, we objected ten times
more to being annexed to a province which
would elect a premier, who having harboured such a thought had not any more sense
than to give expression to it. There is another and a far greater reason why
we object now to being annexed to the
province of Manitoba, and it is this:
We in the Northwest Territories are being
formed into new provinces, without any
debt, and we are getting a large debt allowance. The province of Manitoba had in
1898 liabilities amounting to about $7,000,000; but since that time those liabilities
have been increased to nearly $30,000,000.
The province of Manitoba has given guarantees to one railway company alone to
the extent of between $19,000,000 and $20,000,000. So that it would be absurd to
suppose that the people of the Northwest
Tl'erritories would desire to join with the
people of Manitoba, with these great liabilities resting upon them. Even during
the last session of the Manitoba legislature
guarantees amounting to some $2,000,000 or
$3,000,000 were given to the same railway
company, one of which was for terminals
in the city of Winnipeg. Did anybody ever
hear of such a thing in the Dominion of
Canada before ? You may search the legislation of any other province in the Dominion.
and you will not find such a thing
I noticed in the Bill that passed through the
legislature that there was also a guarantee
of bonds for $10,000 a mile on an old truck
seven miles long running into a gravel pit
from one of the branch lines of the same
railway. These are the ways in which the
province of Manitoba is piling up its liabilities, and this is the reason we would
not
listen to the proposition of that provmce to
enlarge its boundaries westward. So that
if' the province of Manitoba is not enlarged
towards the west, it is not the fault of the
Prime Minister of the Dominion. The members from the west are prepared to take
the responsibility of standing in the way of
that extension. A little while ago two of
the Manitoba ministers were down here,
and one of the reasons they gave why
Manitoba should have all the country north
was that it had always governed that country. That is not a proper statement of the
case. It is true, the Lieutenant-Governor
of Manitoba had jurisdiction there; but
he was paid out of the Dominion treasury
for all the expenditure in connection with
3819
COMMONS
that unorganized territory. They also claimed that the magistrates of Manitoba had
jurisdiction there. They had
equal jurisdiction. The people of the Northwest have no objection to the province
of
Manitoba being extended to the north. In
fact, they think that right and proper, and
will not stand in the way. But if the
province of Manitoba wants to get all the
territory to the north of Manitoba, Ontario
and Quebec, and if the people of Ontario
and Quebec are satisfied that their hinterland should go to Manitoba, well and good
;
there will be no objection raised by the
people of Saskatchewan. But a portion of
the old district of Saskatchewan has been
left out of the proposed province of Saskatchewan, and has'been left in the unorganized
territory, and on that territory we
have not relinquished our claim. There
are a number of settlers there who have a
right to be consulted: and we propose
when the time comes. to make a claim to
have our province extended to Hudson bay.
\Vc also want a port on Hudson bay. The
Territories have far more interest in the
Hudson bay route than the province of
Manitoba can have. If you take a point in
the centre of the wheat-growing portion of Manitoba, you will find that it
is as near to navigation on Lake Superior
as it is to Hudson bay ; but when you take
the centre of the wheat-growing portion of
the Northwest Territories, you will find
that a line drawn from there to Port Arthur
or Fort William is nearly double the length
of a line from the same point to a port on
Hudson bay. Not that I think it makes
much difference whether that port happens
to be in the province of Manitoba or in
any other province. I do not agree with
the remarks made by the premier of Manitoba on that subject at all. At the same
time, that part. of Hudson bay is nearer
to our province; and as there is an immense coast line there. there will be plenty
of room for each of the provinces—Manitoba. Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan—
to have a good sea frontage on Hudson bay.
Mr. SPROULE. If I understand the hon.
member correctly. he is showing the importance to the Northwest Territories of
having a port on Hudson bay. The Bill does
not provide for that; and yet I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the
people of the Northwest were perfectly satisfied with the Bill.
Mr. TURRIFF. What I said was that a
part of the old district of Saskatchewan
had been left out of the new province of
Saskatchewan: it has not been given to
Manitoba, but has been attached to the unorganized district of Keewatin : and, when
the time comes. which was foreshadowed
by the Prime Minister. when Quebec. Ontario. Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be
3820
consulted, we will make our claim to have
our boundary extended to the shores of
Hudson bay.
Mr. TURRIFF. For one reason, because
we are running this thing now. When my
hon. friend, after doing penance for another
ten or fifteen years, may come back to
power, he will have the pleasure of doing
things as he has done in the past.
Mr. SPROULE. Not if he has lived on
the pap of office, as the hon. gentleman has
done under the present administration.
Mr. TURRIFF. Well, I lived for five years
under a government salary, and I never
worked as hard in my life as I did during
those five years, and I never in my life
earned money better than I did then. What
is more, I gave good value for the money
that was paid me. I was paid $3,000 a
year for doing well the work that the man
appointed by the hon. gentleman's government was paid $5,000 for doing badly. I did
more work in one year than he ever did in
live. It comes with ill grace from the hon.
member to accuse me of living on government pap. I never lived on government pap.
I worked for my money. I was
offered the position and refused it; I was
offered it a second time and accepted it;
and I resigned it of my own free will. and
against the wishes of the Minister of the
Interior.
Mr. SPROULE. A man who writes his
own certificates of character is extremely
modest.
Mr. TURRIFF. The hon. member for
Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) took a fling at
the ex-Minister of the Interior because he
had not said anything about the extension of
the boundaries of Manitoba. The ex-Minister of the Interior knows better than the
hon. member for Marquette that the rights
of the province of Manitoba are absolutely
safe in the hands of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government at the present
time, and that it was not necessary
for him to have anything at all to say about
that. The otherday. when the hon. member
for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) was criticising the government for the manner in
which it divided the country into two provinces. he claimed that the line of division
should have been sixty miles further east. It
seems to me that my hon. friend is a great
deal more anxious to favour the district of
Calgary than to get a proper dividing line.
IIc said himself that the only difference in
the areas was about 8,000 square miles.
whereas if you put the dividing line sixty
miles further east the difference would be
75.000 square miles. Well. I do not think
that if you were to try for a month, you
would get a more reasonable and fair di
3821 APRIL 4, 1905
viding line than the fourth meridian. It
is a well—known line. and in that respect
more acceptable than any of the lilies between the different ranges. One of the
reasons advanced by my hon. friend was
that this dividing line would not include all
the ranching country in the western province; but, Sir, the ranching country extends
right down to the province of Manitoba. I have in my own constituency, within thirty
or forty miles of Manitoba, dozens
of men who have made their living the
last fifteen or twenty years in ranching-
men who do not grow any grain, but depend solely on the raising of cattle, and
whose cattle are let loose all summer and
branded just as they are up in southern
Alberta. So that if the hon. gentleman
wanted to make the western province wide
enough to take in all the ranches, he would
have had to bring it down to the borders of
Manitoba. In addition, let me say that,
from my knowledge of the country, gained in
the course of twenty-seven years' residence
there, during six years of which I was Commissioner of Dominion Lands, the two new
provinces are about as nearly equal as any
one could wish, not only in area. but in their
capacity for supporting population. To
prove that, all I need say is this, that the
different railway companies which had the
right to select railway lands all over that
country, have selected 13,000,000 of acres in
the proposed province of Saskatchewan and
12,000,000 in the proposed province of Alberta; and, from my own knowledge, I
know they would have selected a good deal
less in Saskatchewan and more in Alberta.
were it not for the fact that there are more
railways under construction in the new province of Saskatchewan than in its twin sister
Alberta, so that the lands in the former,
though in some respects not as good as in
the latter, are on that account more saleable.
In the two provinces. therefore, the area of
grain-growing land is about equal. In addition. we must not lose sight of the fact
that the province of Alberta has the greatest
deposit of coal of any country in the world.
I do not think that even British Columbia
has as great coal deposits as are to be found
in Alberta. Wherever you go into the Rocky
mountains, from the American boundary
right up to the Peace river pass, vast deposits of coal have been discovered. Right
in the Crow's Nest pass there are seams of
from ten to seventy feet in thickness of
bituminous coal, and for hundreds of miles
we find large deposits of coal right up to
Edmonton, the Peace river pass. so that outside the agricultural wealth of that country,
you will have in the years to come large
settlements growing up all along the Rockies
owing to the coal industries there. All
along the Rockies, especially north of the
main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway,
there are also thousands of miles of valuable
spruce and fir now beginning to be exploited, so that in a few years that country
will
3822
be able to supply all the timber required
by the settlers in the prairie country and in
the east. So that, although the proposed
province of Alberta may have from 6,000 to
8,000 miles less of area than its twin sister
Saskatchewan, the deficiency is more than
made up by its coal deposits and timber
limits. In making this comparison, I am
not taking into consideration the great
Peace river country. I do not know personally what that country may be. I have
heard reports good and bad about it ; but I
want to say this, that after an experience
of twenty-seven years, I have come to the
conclusion that there is no one part of the
Northwest, from the boundaries of Manitoba
to the Rocky mountains, which does not turn
out better than expected the more we learn
about it. I have found that to be the invariable result. In that district where I
have
lived many years, the Moose mountain country, I remember fifteen years ago the people
of Manitoba said you could not grow any
wheat, because it was too dry, yet there is
no liner wheat-growing country in the Territories to-day. Why, in the first few years
of grain-growing around Regina, there was
more wheat sown than was reaped, and yet
there is to-day no finer wheat country than
the immense plain around that city. Only
ten years ago, if I were asked myself if
wheat could be grown in southern Alberta,
I would have said no ; but what is the case
to-day ? We have thousands and thousands
of acres of the finest wheat-growing there
every year. In fact, all over the country
you will find that the more you learn about
it the better it turns out. There are vast
stretches in the new province of Alberta
which, a few years ago, were looked upon
as suitable only for ranching, but which
will be producing good crops of wheat every
year within a very short period. In that
whole country of Saskatchewan and Alberta there is not an acre, generally speaking,
which, if not adapted for wheat—growing, is not good for cattle or the grazing of
horses, so that there is practically not a
waste acre in all that country.
I should like to say a few words on the
financial question. That, I notice, is a matter which has scarcely been touched by
hon.
members opposite, but which is nevertheless of great importance to us in the Territories.
In my opinion, the government has
started us out very fairly. In fact, the hon.
member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said
that all the other provinces would be knocking at the door of the federal administration
because of the good terms we had received.
On that point I do not agree with him, because, in my judgment, we are being given
pretty much the same terms as were granted
the other provinces. Each of our new provinces is to get $50,000 for civil government.
The province of Ontario gets $80,000, Quebec
$70,000 and the lower provinces, with the
exception of Prince Edward Island, get
$50,000 each. So that I do not see any
3823 COMMONS
ground for complaint in that respect. We get a debt allowance on our population the
same as is given the other provinces, so that there is no ground of complaint there.
We get a per capita allowance of 80 cents on our population up to 800,000. There might
perhaps be some criticism of that arrangement, because the lower provinces, Manitoba
and British Columbia only get a per capita grant up to a population of 400,000, whereas
Ontario gets it based on a population of 1,400,000 and Quebec on a population a little
less. These two provinces get it on the population they had when they entered confederation.
I do not think, however, that there can be any reasonable ground for criticism because
our limit of population has been increased to 800,000 while some of the other provinces
had theirs left at 400,000. They came into confederation some thirty- seven years
ago, and it has taken all these years for them to get up to the limit of population.
Nova Scotia is the only province of the three that has passed the limit, and it is
only by a narrow margin. So that the limitation of population on which we receive
80c. per capita will be reached in our province in very much less time than thirty-
seven years; in fact, we expect that in a few years we shall have reached that population.
I, for one, have never been able to understand why this limit has been placed on any
of the provinces; I cannot see why that 80c. per capita should not be paid to each
of the provinces on their actual population. Every additional inhabitant coming into
these provinces pay, roughly speaking, $10 yearly into the revenues of the Dominion
government; and I do not know any good reason why 80c. of that should not go back
to the province for the carrying on of provincial work, and if, in the future the
other provinces shall make a demand on this government to have that per capita grant
paid on their actual population, I should think they would be within their rights,
and also that the Dominion would be perfectly justified in granting that demand. And
I am sure that the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan would take exactly the same
view in asking that the per capita grant be made on the actual population of each
province. I believe that in this matter there is not much to complain of. Now, as
to what we get in lieu of our lands —which, I suppose, is what the hon. member for
North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was referring to. I, for one, am perfectly satisfied with
the arrangement made. I think it is a better arrangement than to have handed over
the lands to the provinces. That was made clear by the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr.
Oliver), who showed with absolute clearness that the ideas of the two governments,
the provincial and the Dominion, would be absolutely different, that if the lands
were handed over to the provinces they must use them for the purpose of producing
immediate revenue, whereas by
3824
keeping the lands in the hands of the Dominion government they would be used rather
to fill up the country and not necessarily for the taking of the last dollar out of
the lands. But, if the Dominion government should decide to change their policy and
dispose of the odd sections, keeping the even sections absolutely for the poor man's
homestead, if they should decide to sell the lands for instance, as they sell their
school lands, they will eventually accumulate a fund from these lands the interest
on which will pay the subsidy they are giving to the provinces in lieu of the lands.
So, it appears to me, it is a good arrangement for the province and a good arrangement
for the Dominion. It is a particularly good arrangement for the provinces in this
respect, that the revenue is a net revenue, the provinces have no expenses in connection
with the administration of the lands, and it is a revenue that grows with the increase
of population. We only get the full revenue from the lands when we have a population
of 1,200,000 in each of these provinces. So, having it in this shape, I think
the people of the Northwest can congratulate
themselves upon having received fair and
handsome treatment at the hands of the
Dominion government, and that the Dominion government has also made a bargain
that is absolutely justifiable. I am pleased
to say that there has been very little
criticism in connection with this phase
of the matter. One thing I might point
out is that there is no danger of the
public domain, the source of revenue, being
squandered. Now, I would not for a moment allow that the people of the Northwest
Territories are not as well able to look after
their own affairs as are any other people
in the Dominion. But there is this fact
that we must all acknowledge—that in the
past the different railway companies have
managed to get bonuses and guarantees out
of practically every province in the Dominion. I cannot say how it is in Prince Edward
Island, but I know how it is in every
other province in the Dominion. Take, for
instance, the province of Manitoba. As I
said a little while ago they have gone security for between $19,000,000 and $20,000,000
for one railway company alone. That railway may be all right, but we know what
the history of railway companies has been.
There is always a chance of that liability
being called upon. We know what British
Columbia has done in giving away large
tracts of land and coal and timber bonuses
to railways. We know what the lower
provinces and Quebec and Ontario have
given in cash or guarantees. And we know
that the Northwest Territories have been
for years getting hundreds of miles of railways throughout its length and breadth
without the cost of a single dollar to the
province in any way ; and if the people of
the Territories will have the sense to stand
firm and not give any grants to the railway
3825 APRIL 4, 1905
companies they will get the railways built
just as well and just as quickly and just as
nearly where they want them as if they were
giving guarantees or cash bonuses to the
railway companies. So, these provinces are
starting out with everything in their favour,
and here I wish to say that the government
as conducted in the Northwest Territories
for many years past by Mr. Haultaln has
been in every respect a good and satisfactory government for the Northwest Territories.
And I have no doubt that whoever
may be called upon to carry on the government in the new provinces will carry it on
in the same manner; but, not owning their
own lands, they will not have the same
temptation, and they will not have these
magnates after them every day trying to
get bonuses and guarantees as would be
the case if the provinces were the owners
owners of the public lands. I notice now that hon. gentleman on the other side of
the House are very anxious to hand overthe lands to the governments of the new provinces.
But what has been the record of these hon. gentlemen? When the province of Manitoba
asked for its own lands, these gentlemen refused. If they were so anxious to conserve
the lands of the Northwest Territories for the people of these Terrirtories, why did
they give away the railroads millions and millions of acres of those lands? I do not
say so much about the land grant given to the Canadian Pacific Railway, for in those
days it was difficult to get a road built through that part of the country, because
we did not know it was well as we do now. But since then, millions of acres of land
in the Northwest have been given away as bonuses for the building of railways in
Manitoba. If hon. gentleman on the other side are so anxious as they appear to be
to conserve the lands of the Nortwest Territories for the people of those Territories,
why did they act in this manner? It comes with a bad grace from hon. gentlemen opposite
to talk of handling over the lands to the people of the Northwest when they themselves
gave away millions of acres of the choicest of our land to railway companies. We
in the Northwest Territories, in addition, must pay our share of the cash bounties
given to railways in every part of the country.
Now, I said when I started that I would
be only a short time, and I am going to try
and keep my word. I wish now to deal very
briefly with the school question. As I said
before, I think this question has been given a
great deal too much prominence. And I
want to say that I believe the reason why
we have an agitation of any kind is absolutely from the lack of knowledge on the part
of the people in the east of the class of
schools which we have in the Northwest
Territories.
I believe if every Protestant clergyman in
Canada and every newspaper editor knew
the class of schools we have to-day in the
3826
Northwest Territories, this agitation would
cease. We have heard this question discussed week in and week out, I have listened
to it hour after hour, and it has all been
about separate schools. Well, Mr. Speaker,
I am aware that among Protestants we have
been accustomed for the past fifteen or
twenty years to think of a separate school
as something very bad. But whatever the
separate schools may be in Ontario, or
may have been in the province of Manitoba,
or in the Northwest Territories in former
days, we are not dealing with that class of
schools at the present time. Let us deal
with separate schools such as they exist in
the Northwest Territories at the present
day, and I am satisfied that if their true
character were known this agitation would
drop at once. But I do not think that is
line object of a good many, it is not the object of some hon. members on the other
side of this House, their object is to keep up the agitation in order to make some
political capital out of it. As on hon. gentleman opposite said to me the other day:
You fellows came in on this question before, and we are coming in on it now. And
judging by the actions of hon. gentlemen opposite, it looks very much as it he were
right.
Mr. SPROULE. If that logic is correct,
the government is going to burst up.
Mr. TURRIFF. That is what one of the
hon. gentleman's own supporters said.
Mr. SPROULE. And the hon. gentleman
says it looks as if he were right.
Mr. TURRIFF. I said it looked as if the
hon. member for East Grey and his friends
were keeping up the agitation for that purpose—that is what I meant to say.
Mr. SPROULE. I desire to tell the hon.
gentleman that there is not one word of truth
in that. The hon. member for East Grey
stood exactly for the same principle in 1896.
and fought in company with gentlemen who
occupy the Treasury benches to—day for the
same principle. and he is standing by it
still.
Mr. TURRIFF. I know this, that the
hon. member for East Grey has gone out of
his way to agitate the people in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. TURRIFF. I know he has had printed petition forms sent out to the Northwest Territories to
be signed and sent back
to him, in opposition to separate schools.
Mr. TURRIFF. Well, he mentioned separate schools in those petitions
Mr. SPROULE. Not a word. Allow me to
correct the hon. gentleman, there is not a
word in them about separate schools.
Mr. TURRIFF. Well, that is exactly
what I object to, that the hon. gentlemen
3827
COMMONS
have not the courage to come out and say
what they mean, they are hiding behind the
rock of the constitution, so that when an election comes on they can go into the province
of Quebec and say : We voted against the
government because the government was not
going far enough, was not giving you the
separate schools you were entitled to under
the constitution ; then they can go into the
province of Ontario and say : We voted
against the government because we wanted
to leave the new provinces the power to do
what they pleased, as the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) said the other day,
so that they may wipe out the last vestige
of the rights given under the Act of 1875.
That is what I object to—these hon. gentlemen have not the courage to come out
openly and say what they mean. We, on
this side of the House, say what we propose
to do, and if we are doing wrong we can
be punished for it. But hon. gentlemen opposite don't want to take that position,
they
want to hide behind the constitution.
Mr. SPROULE. What did his leader say
about standing on the constitution ? What
was he hiding behind ?
Mr. TURRIFF. Yes, my leader said he
was standing on the constitution, the leader
of the hon. gentleman said he was standing on the constitution, while the hon. member
for Jacques Cartier said the constitution was altogether a different thing from
what his leader had described it. Mr. Haultain says the constitution means something
else ; and our friends opposite quote Mr.
Christopher Robinson's opinion which shows
a still further difference. Now, I do not
pretend to know anything about constitutional law, and the only difference between
myself and the great lawyers on the other
side of the House is that while I do not
know anything about constitutional law, I
am well aware of the fact. Now, Sir, there
has not been a single word said by hon.
gentlemen opposite about separate schools
in the Northwest since this discussion started, and I propose to say something about
them. I know what they have been for a
long time back. Over twenty years ago I
was a member of the Territorial legislature
when the first school ordinance was passed
in 1884, passed under the Northwest Territories Act of 1875. Previously to 1892 we
had a system of separate schools, the same
kind of schools they had in the province of
Manitoba. Those schools were not satisfactory,; everybody knows that ; they were
not even satisfactory to our Roman Catholic
friends and ratepayers. They were not satisfied with the class of schools given them,
and were as anxious to have them changed
as anybody else. In the year 1892 the local
legislature, under Mr. Haultain, changed the
old system, and from that year up to the
present day there has not been one word of
protest heard against the schools from
the people of the Northwest Territories,
3828
no protest has been made either to the local
legislature or to this government. If that
school system had not been satisfactory, do
you think, Mr. Speaker, there would not have
been an agitation ? Don't you think the
Northwest people would have been appealing to this House ? The people of the Northwest
are accustomed at all times to kick
vigorously when they think that things are
not right.
The people of the Northwest Territories
are accustomed to kick very vigorously to the
Northwest legislature if things are not right,
and I want to say again that since 1892,
since the present law was passed, there has
never been a word of complaint from Protestants or Catholics or from the Northwest
government in any shape or form, or any
statement that the law was not a good one.
I say that the law as it exists in the Northwest Territories to-day—and it is the
only
law that we are putting in force—is the
most satisfactory law that you can get,
because we have proof of it in the fact that
it has been in force for thirteen years without ever a complaint having been made.
What does that law give them ? As
the hon. member for Jacques Cartier
(Mr. Monk) stated the other day, if
church schools were what were given
to the Roman Catholics in the Northwest Territories by the Act of 1875, there
is only a small vestige of them left, and
for this reason : That the separate Catholic
school in the Northwest, or the public Catholic school–it does not matter much which
—is to all intents and purposes a public
school. It is exactly the same as a public
school. The teachers of the Roman Catholic
separate school must attend the same normal
school and get the same certificates exactly
as the teachers in the public schools. The
school has to be inspected before any
grant can be paid, by a public school inspector. The only difference is that in the
first and second readers the text is a little
different, but even these books have to be
authorized by the Minister of Education.
There is no church or clerical control in any
shape, form or manner over the Catholic
separate schools of the Northwest Territories to-day. They are all under the control
of the local legislature, every one of them,
and the only difference—and it is not much
or a difference either, because the public
schools have the same right if they choose
to use it—is that between half-past three
o'clock in the afternoon and four, they may
impart religious instruction. Now, I am
going to ask in this Canada of ours, in this
British colony, in this country that is supposed to take its institutions from our
mother country, from that mother country
where they are liberal and broad-minded,
if there is a Protestant amongst us who
would say that he would do away with the
right of our Roman Catholic friends in
their own schools to teach their children and
3829 APRIL 4, 1905
to give them religious instruction if they so
desire for half an hour after half past three
o'clock ? I represent a constituency, which,
while it is not the largest in area, is one
of the most populous districts in the Northwest. In my district they have 234 schools,
and I do not believe there is one per cent
of the people in that country who will object or ever did object to their Roman
Catholic fellow citizens giving half an hour's
religious instruction in their own schools
if they so desire. When this matter is explained to the people of the Northwest
Territories, when they understand that no
change is being made, that this is simply
carrying into effect and continuing the existing state of affairs that they have brought
about by the ordinances that they have
themselves passed and that they have worked under for the last thirteen years, when
they find out that this is all that is being
done, you will not be able to get up an agitation against the continuance of that
state of
affairs. I want to say here that personally
I am not in favour of separate schools.
I think it would be better if all the children went to the public schools, but these
separate schools in the Northwest Territories are so near public schools that I do
not
think it is worth while making any trouble
over it. It must be remembered that this
is not a Catholic country, that it is not a
Protestant country, but that it is a country
in which Catholics and Protestants live together and in which there are nearly as
many Catholics as Protestants, and I say
that it would be beneath the generosity, to
put it on no other ground, of the Protestant
majority, after making the school a good
school, a public school in every respect, to
turn around and say : Because we have
fifty-eight per cent of the population and you
have only forty-two per cent we will not
allow you even to impart half an hour's
religious instruction to your children after
half past three, before they go home. A
great deal of the argument that has been
addressed to the House from the other side
has been against separate schools. I do
not wish to make very much use of the arguments presented by hon. gentlemen from
this side of the House, but I think the point
made by my hon. friend from Edmonton
(Mr. Oliver) is worth emphasizing, and that
was that if there was any objection to
separate schools by hon. members on the
other side of the House, why have they
not during the last twenty years come forward and had the Northwest Territories
Act of 1875 amended ? It was open to
hon. gentlemen on the other side of the
House, but no, they had nothing at all to
say about it, they left it exactly as it was,
but now, when action is being taken in the
Northwest, they come forward with the
argument against separate schools, not the
schools that exist in the Northwest Territories, because we have no ecclesiastical
3830
or clerical schools there, but they bring forward all the arguments that can be to
separate schools in other parts of Canada, and they argue as if they applied to the
Northwest Territories, and as I said before all for the purpose of trying to get into
power in this question and for no other purpose whatever. The schools we have in the
Northwest Territories, I will venture to say, are absolutely satisfactory to 95 per
cent of the whole population, both Catholic and Protestant. As I stated the other
night when my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) was speaking, I held thirty-nine
meetings during the campaign. At every one of these meetings the question of provincial
autonomy was discussed and a number of these meetings were held in the school-houses
and at no meeting from the beginning to the end did any man, Roman Catholic or Protestant,
mention the
subject of separate schools. Why ? Because they were perfectly satisfied with the
school system that exists. Just to show the
House that many of the people there are not
aware of the fact that there are any separate schools—there are only nine Roman Catholic
separate schools in working order in the Northwest Territories today—since the question
has been up
for discussion I received a letter from
a prominent gentleman in my constituency asking me to vote against separate schools
and for the continuance of the
present satisfactory system of schools that
exists in the Northwest Territories. I may
say, further, that the only separate school
that is in working order in my constituency
out of over 200 is almost at this gentleman's
door. It is near his own town where
he lives. So, you will see that the school system we have in the northwest Territories
is
absolutely satisfactory to the people there. I
know the argument is made : Why not
trust the people of the Northwest ? Well,
I would be very glad to do that, because I
think that they would not change the system
we have. Mr. Haultain has stated that if
he were a dictator to-morrow he would not
change the system. When Mr. Haultain
prepared his draft Bill what did he do ?
Mr. Haultain proposed in that draft Bill
to give the Roman Catholic minority separate schools as they existed under the Act
of 1875 and prior to 1892. He put that down
in plain black and white in his draft Bill,
and no gentleman on the other side of the
House can contradict the assertion. After
preparing that Bill, Mr. Haultain appealed
to the country, and he was returned because the people of the Territories were
satisfied with the school system. When Mr.
Haultain passed his ordinance in 1892, he
was not at all certain, (and other members
of the legislature shared his uncertainty)
that the passage of the ordinance did not exceed his powers. However, the fact that
the law of 1892 has since remained in force
3831
COMMONS
is some evidence that it was not passed in
excess of the powers conferred on the legislature. At all events the school law of
the
Territories as it exists today is absolutely
a school law that has been given to the
people by their own representatives in their
own legislature. It has been absolutely satisfactory, and if the people of Canada,
especially the people of Ontario, knew just
exactly what that school system is, there
would be no complaint against it. I ask
the people of Ontario to leave it to the
people of the Northwest, and if the people
of the Northwest, through their local legislature and through their members in this
parliament are satisfied with the existing
conditions—and I think these conditions
are about as nearly right as you can possibly get them—then, what necessity is there
for the people of Ontario agitating the question ?
We have heard a good deal about education in the province of Quebec. I was
born and brought up and lived in that province until I reached the age of manhood.
What education I received in school I received at a public school in a small Scottish
settlement surrounded by French Canadians
and Roman Catholics for a hundred miles
east and west. To that school down there
we paid our own taxes, we paid not one
cent of taxes to any other school, and the
Roman Catholic majority left us absolutely
free to do just as we liked. I don't forget
that.
Mr. TURRIFF. Yes, the Protestant minority had full autonomy there. There was
the greatest tolerance towards us ; intolerance I never saw in any shape or form in
that province. Would it not be very small
on the part of us Protestants because we
are in the majority in the Northwest Territories, that we should not give some freedom
to the Roman Catholic minority. The
member for west Assiniboia has pointed out
that when the Act of 1875 was passed in this
parliament its intention was as much to protect Protestants as to protect Roman Catholics,
because at that date nobody knew
whether the majority in the Northwest was
going to be Protestant or going to be Roman
Catholic. And, because the Protestants now
happen to be in the majority, are we going
to deprive the Roman Catholic minority of
the protection which the federal parliament
in its wisdom gave to the minority ? Although the Act of 1875 was passed by a
Liberal government it was assented to unanimously by every member of the Conservative
party then in opposition. I am not
well versed in constitutional law, but there
is this that cannot be denied : that from
1875 to the present day the Roman Catholic
minority have had the right to have separate
schools in the Territories. I believe that their
rights were diminished by the ordinance of
3832
1892, but at all events the minority have had
the right to separate schools from 1875 to
the present time. Would it be fair or would
it be reasonable on our part ; when we have
made these schools practically public schools,
when we have eliminated all clerical and
church control, when we have made these
schools in every respect equal to the public
schools, when we know that there our
Roman Catholic children will get the same
sound education they get in the public
schools ; would it be fair, would it be generous to wipe out,—as the hon. member for
Jacques Cartier has said–the last shred of
the rights of the minority conferred upon
them in 1875 ? I claim that it would be
neither just nor fair, and in saying this I
am voicing the sentiments of my constituents
with possibly the exception of an odd man
here and there, and that only because during
the last month or so efforts have been made
to make the people believe that we are now
fastening a system of separate schools on
them. If I understand the matter aright,
what we are doing is fastening a system of
public schools on the Territories, and we are
making it clear that if the Conservatives
come into power ten or fifteen years from
now, they will not be able to do to the Territories what they tried to do to the province
of Manitoba. The hon. member for
Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) said that the
class of immigrants coming into this country
were chiefly noted for ignorance, dirt and
filth, I have had something to do with the
immigrants coming into Canada for the past
few years, and I know whereof I speak. I
presume the hon. gentleman did not refer
to the immigrants from the British Isles or
from the United States, but I can say—
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. member (Mr.
Turriff) is doing the member for Victoria an
injustice. The member for Victoria (Mr.
Sam. Hughes) referred to the immigration
coming to the United States for years and
years, and he pointed out what the system
of schools in that country had accomplished
in the fusion of the races.
Mr. TURRIFF. I would be the last man
in the House to misrepresent a member, and
especially in his absence. As I could not
hear the hon. gentleman very well from the
seat which I occupied, possibly I may have
misunderstood him, so that I shall not speak
further on that point. Now, Mr. Speaker, I
have taken up more time than I intended,
but in conclusion I wish to say that I would
ask hon. gentlemen opposite not to push this
agitation further. If hon. gentlemen opposite think that we Liberal members from the
west do not represent the sentiment of the
people of the Northwest Territories though
I claim that we do, I make this proposition
to them. The Hon. Mr. Haultain is working
in unison with them, is trying to help them
out in every way, is doing his utmost to
make this a party question in the Northwest.
Let them get Mr. Haultain to call his legis
3833 APRIL 5, 1905
lature together and test the feeling of the
people of the Northwest Territories on this
question. If he calls the legislature together, either as it stands at present, or
with
the vacant seats filled, I venture to say that
he will not have a majority when he tries
to make a party question out of this matter.
Mr. SPROULE. Could not the hon. gentlemen's friends make a better test than
that by appointing a Minister of the Interior and sending him back for re-election
?
Mr. TURRIFF. The hon. the First Minister said the other day in my hearing that
he would appoint a Minister of the Interior
within three months ; and when that time
comes, if he chooses one of the members
from the Northwest Territories and he goes
back for re-election, I promise you that,
whoever he may be, he will come back here
with a larger majority than he had on the
3rd of November last.
Mr. SPROULE. Let them hold this Bill
until that election takes place, and see what
the public sentiment is in the west.
Mr. TURRIFF. Do not be a bit alarmed
about it ; you will get plenty of it before
you are through.
Mr. SPROULE. The storm centre of
alarm is further west to-day.
Mr. TURRIFF. We heard a great deal
of talk like this in connection with the Grand
Trunk Pacific. We were told in my constituency that we were not going to be able
to save our deposit ; but what was the result ? Seven of the Liberal members on this
side of the House from the Northwest have
each an average majority of over 1,200
votes.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask
our hon. friends on the other side of the
House to drop this agitation. Come down
to common sense, and let us deal with the
Bill that is now before parliament.
Mr. SPROULE. Would it not be well
to give that advice to the Toronto ' Globe ' ?
Mr. TURRIFF. Let us get on with the
work of the country. Let us start these
new provinces without hampering them
with an agitation such as hon. gentlemen
opposite are trying to work up. Instead of
that, let us leave them to devote their time
and energies to developing the great natural
resources that Providence has blessed them
with, and in a short time you will see them
two of the greatest and most populous,
liberal and broad-minded provinces that exist in the Canadian confederacy.
Mr. FIELDING. In assenting to the motion, I should like to be permitted to make
a remark. Although we have had numerous
speeches on this question, I am advised that
there are still more numerous speeches to
follow, a very large number of members
3834
desiring to address the House. If that be
the fact, we are likely to have a protracted
debate even under the best conditions, and I
'think it will be necessary for us to work a
little harder and sit a little later. Therefore, I hope that if a motion like this
is
hereafter made at this early hour, it may
not be pressed, but we may sit a little later
and get the debate finished.
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
This individual participated in:
