PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the
proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for
the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of
the
province of Alberta, and the amendment of
Mr. R. L. Borden, thereto.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY (North Simcoe).
Mr. Speaker, in resuming this debate I
wish to say that the tenor of my remarks
has been somewhat altered from what it
would otherwise have been owing to certain remarks which were made yesterday
and also to certain remarks that have fallen
from the lips of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the member
for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) during this
debate. It I understood the leader of the
opposition aright he stated that the late
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Dalton
McCarthy) had been 'established' in the
province of Ontario by the right hon. the
Prime Minister for the purpose of denouncing the Conservative government in their
policy of the coercion of Manitoba. Then
the hon. member for Beauharnois, from
his place in the House spoke as
follows :
Our friend Mr. Dalton McCarthy had gone on
a tour through the province of Manitoba. He
was dissatisfied because Sir John Thompson
had been chosen as Minister of Justice. He had
hopes of being offered that position, although
he might have refused it, and he went to Manitoba and inflamed the passions of the
people,
He told them that something should be done
to deliver them from the influence of the hierarchy. It was there that he commenced
his
strife against the hierarchy, and questions of
that sort will always greatly inflame public
opinion.
4087
COMMONS
I had thought that such statements as
those were things of the past and would
not be repeated. I had thought that the
action of this country in 1896 had well
answered these questions, but apparently
they live to be repeated by hon. gentlemen in this House, and just so long as I
have the honour of having a seat in the
House I shall be prepared on every occasion to refute such charges. So far as my
own position is concerned I feel that no
remarks which I make to-day will lead any
hon. gentleman to place the charge at my
door that I am seeking political preferment
from the leader of either political party,
because, Sir, I am forced to the conclusion—
and I speak most diffidently and respectfully, because I recognize tile position of
these two hon. gentlemen in the
country—but I am forced to differ from
them both in the conclusion to which I
have come. The reason why I differ from
them both is that I make bold to say that
the policy of the leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden) if carried to its ultimate
conclusion will be found to be practically
in accord with the policy of the leader of
the government. It is perhaps difficult at
present to realize that, but I hope before I
conclude to be able to demonstrate it. I
do hope, and I say it with all sincerity,
that no remarks which I make on this
occasion will have the effect of inflaming
an already too much inflamed country upon
this question which can surely be discussed
without a display of passion, and without a
raising of sectarian cries. It ought to be,
in my humble judgment, a question of
policy ; policies should be enunciated by
the two parties in this House, but apparently it is being dealt with in quite a
different way. Charges are thrown across
the House of inflaming public opinion and
raising cries of race and religion. It is
impossible to prevent that so long as hon.
gentlemen behave as they are doing and
as they have done in the past.
By reason of the remarks to which I have
referred, it becomes necessary—at least I
deem it necessary and incumbent upon me
in the discharge of my duty—to review
briefly the past history of the political
parties on this and similar questions. In
the first place we have the British North
America Act passed by the Imperial House
in 1867. Although that Act has been quoted
many times I am going to again read section
93 :—
In and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education,
subject and according to the following provision :—
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class
or persons have by law in the province at the union.
The enactment of that provision was preceded by what is alleged to be a compact
4087
4088
founded upon resolutions passed at conferences which took place at Quebec and
elsewhere. It was passed by the assent
and with the consent of all parties, of all
creeds and of all nationalities in the country
at that time. The compact has been referred to very many times in this debate.
It also was referred to very many times
during the discussion on the Manitoba
school question. In order that the hon. gentleman may see how difficult it is to
rely upon the construction of such a contract, and in order to show the elasticity
of
that compact I desire to quote the words
of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr.
Foster) when speaking as Minister of Finance in 1896 in regard to that contract and
again when speaking in 1905.
In 1896 he spoke as follows :
Arising out of long years of sectarian and
religious strife under United Canada, opinions
and convictions in reference to this matter became gradually modified, and when the
representatives of the four provinces came together
at Quebec to take up, discuss and settle articles
of confederation these convictions rapidly and
definitely revolved themselves into the determination that it should be laid down
in the
constitution of the country that whatever rights
and privileges religious minorities had in the
provinces at the time of confederation should
maintain their status quo and should not be
changed, and so the first paragraph of the educational clauses of the confederation
resolutions gave by general consent to the provinces
the power to deal with respect to education.
Saving rights and privileges which Catholic
or Protestant minorities in both Canadas
may possess as to their denominational schools
at the time when the union goes into operation.
These are the words I particularly emphasize :
The only change that took place in that
clause was this, that instead of its being
confined to both Canadas, it was brought
into to include the provinces which entered
confederation.
In other words at that time the hon.
member for North Toronto contended that
the compact applied to all the provinces.
He spoke nine years later, almost to the
day, and, describing the compact, he used
these words:
But those wise men sitting there in Quebec
city said: Here is Ontario and here is Quebec:
we have separate schools for Catholics in
Ontario and for Protestants in Quebec, and
the suggestion was made by Mr. McGee to this
effect: Yes, we will do that but we will simply
put this rider on it, save and except as to the
interests of the two Canadas. That is all
that was done at Quebec. That is all to the
very letter, and that was passed by the legislature of Upper and Lower Canada. There
were
present representatives from the maritime
provinces and also the representatives from
these two provinces of Upper and Lower
Canada. That was their compact, and that
was all of it. But that gave no right for anybody to say that because they saved by
that
compact the rights of the minorities in those
4089 APRIL 7, 1905
two provinces, when forty or fifty years later
you make provinces out of the Northwest
Territories, you are, on account of that compact, to establish separate schools for
the
minorities in those provinces.
Now, hon. gentlemen will see how elastic
a compact this is when it can be construed
in 1896 to apply to all the provinces, and
can be construed by the same hon. gentleman in 1905 to apply to only two of them.
It is quite evident that what occurred in
1867—and there is no dispute about it—
was a compromise. This compact was made
applicable, it is alleged by some, to only
two provinces, and applicable, as alleged
by others, to all the provinces. The language of the British North America Act,
I would submit, clearly applies to all
those entering the union. So, there was
no difference between the parties at that
time, nor any difference between the creeds.
In 1870, Sir John Macdonald and his government created the province of Manitoba.
There is no doubt that at that time, the
hon. gentleman sought to place upon that
province the separate school and the dual
language system. That was acquiesced
in by the Liberals. In 1875, a Liberal
administration was in power. They introduced a Bill for the better government of the
Northwest Territories, providing—not as originally brought down,
but as subsequently amended in committee
—for separate schools under what is now
clause 14 of that Act, and likewise providing
for the dual language system. I desire to
read clause 14, because I shall have to refer
to it later on:
14. The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall
pass all necessary ordinances in respect to
education; but it shall therein always be provided, that a majority of the ratepayers
of
any district or portion of the territories, or
of any less portion or subdivision thereof,
by whatever name the same is known, may
establish such schools therein as they think
fit, and make the necessary assessment and
collection of rates therefor; and also that
the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish
separate schools therein,—and in such case,
the ratepayers establishing such Protestant
or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be,
liable only to assessment of such rates as they
impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
2. The power to pass ordinances, conferred
upon the Lieutenant Governor by this section
is hereby declared to have been vested in him
from the seventh day of May, 1888.
That clause, was acquiesced in by
the Conservative party. The only objection
raised to it at all was in the Senate,
by the hon. George Brown, who warned
this country and warned this parliament
that if this legislation was enacted it
would give foundation for a claim such as
that which is now being urged. So, at this
time we have both political parties practically at agreement on this subject. In 1880,
this parliament again dealt with the North
4089
4090
west Territories in a point directing to another branch of my argument. In that year
a portion of the district of Keewatin was
added to the province of Manitoba. And
parliament added that territory to Manitoba
without any restriction ; it took away whatever rights Keewatin had and placed the
territory on the same basis as the rest of
Manitoba. So, that portion added to Manitoba in 1880 was made subject to the Manitoba
charter, and released entirely by this
parliament from any laws, rights or privileges which it had up to 1880. The point
I make is that we have on this occasion
equal freedom to deal with these new provinces, and to give them a charter such as
we deem in their best interest. In 1889
or 1890 this question was mooted in
this country. Notwithstanding the disparagaing remarks made by the hon.
member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett)
to the effect that I showed too much
pride in my ancestors and in my
family, I can only say that if I did so it is
because I cannot help it. And I am not
ashamed of it, but proud of it, and care
not who knows it. In 1889, Mr. Dalton McCarthy pointed out to this House certain
things ; he pointed out to this country certain things. He said in that year that
the
separate schools system of Manitoba was
not a wise system; he said that the dual
language system imposed upon Manitoba
was not a wise system. He said also that
the dual language and the separate school
systems of the Northwest Territories were
not wise. Hon. gentlemen who were in the
House at that time will remember the
motions made and the discussions that took
place. It was only after many defeats,
many rebuffs, that the first sign of success
on his part was seen. Sir John Thompson
agreed to the passing of a motion which relegated to the Territorial government of
the
Northwest Territories the right to deal with
the language question. It is worthy of note
that at that time Sir John Thompson made
a clear distinction between the language
question and the school question. He gave
in on the language question, but on the
school question he refused to give in, as
hon. gentlemen who were here at the time
will remember. This happened in the session of 1892. Both parties acquiesced in
that, I believe, though there may have been
some dissentient voices—I am not sure about
that. But, in the December following, Sir
John Thompson being then premier, saw
fit to read out of the Conservative party
Mr. Dalton McCarthy because that gentleman dared to give utterance to views which
hon. gentleman opposite are expressing today. There were only two questions on
which he was giving expression to opinions
not acceptable to the government of that
day, and they were the separate school question of Manitoba and the separate school
question of the Northwest Territories. As
a matter of fact, the language question had
4091
COMMONS
been settled so far as Mr. Dalton McCarthy
was concerned, having been relegated to the
Territorial goverment to deal with as they
saw fit. Mr. Dalton McCarthy did not seek
to raise the race or religious cry, but simply
said : Let us hand over this matter to the
local authorities to deal with exclusively,
and you will have peace and harmony ; you
will not have constant friction arising in this
House and in the country. However, Sir
John Thompson would not acquiesce in the
demands made to relegate either to the province of Manitoba or to the government of
the Territories the right to deal with their
educational questions. Therefore. in 1894,
a Bill was introduced in this House by
Mr. Dalton McCarthy to repeal the separate
school clauses of the Northwest Territories
Act, section 14 being the section I have quoted. Quite a long debate took place on
that
motion ; and according to my way of thinking that debate is the pivot upon which the
discussion of this question almost wholly
turns. That debate was so important, it
had so much to do with the question now
before us, that I am amazed that hon. gentlemen opposite have not devoted more
time and attention to it, because their leader
at that time made the situation clear and
plain. In that year, Sir John Thompson
speaking in answer to Mr. Dalton McCarthy, said, as will be found at page 6127
of 'Hansard' of that year :
One other important characteristic was to be
considered in regard to the Territories while
they were to remain in the Territorial condition, and that was in view of the peculiar
circumstances of the Territories, the fact that we
were inviting all races, creeds and denominations, there was to be the widest toleration
while the Territories existed.
That was the corner stone of the whole ; the
corner stone which the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) proposes to remove, on
the
ground that there can be no good reason given
for its existence. As the hon. leader of the
opposition has said to-night, no man knew
better than those who were engaged in framing
the Act of 1875, the difficulties which sectarian
disputes might create in that new country. No
one realized better the fact, that in so far as
the population was to be gathered into the
Territories from the older provinces, it was to
be gathered from different races, and from
amongst men who had strong lines of difference
as regards religious belief. While the population should be going in there, and while
the
Territories should remain under our control
at least, there was to be the broadest toleration for every belief, and for the races,
as regards worship, and as regards language, and as
regards instruction in the schools.
Then further he says :
It is just as much a matter of sound policy
now as it was in 1875, that toleration should
exist there, and that we should extend the
broadest invitation to the people of different
races and religions to come and settle there
with a perfect sense of toleration ; and it matters not how many people in the past
have
availed themselves of our invitation. The bad
4091
4092
faith this parliament would show in repealing
a provision of that kind, while the territorial
system existed at least, would be just as great
as if the population who availed themselves of
our pledge and relied on that system to-day,
were only thirteen instead of 13,000.
Then further he says :
We claim therefore that the constitutional
system which was established with regard to
schools and with regard to language in 1875
ought to be maintained for the same reasons
as those which dictated its creation, and that
this condition of affairs should last, at least,
while the affairs of the Territories are under
control of this parliament. What the constitution of the future provinces should be,
in
view of the pledges which have been referred
to, or in view of any other set of circumstances,
will be for parliament to decide when it decides
to create those provinces. I hope, therefore,
that the House will be careful to-day not to
disturb the arrangement so wisely made in
1875, and which is as useful to the Territories
now as it was then.
These are the words of Sir John Thompson, then the leader of the Conservative
party, and Attorney General of Canada.
In reply to him, Mr. McCarthy sounded a
note of warning in these words :
Then if we do not give them power to
choose, if we deny them the right to select for
themselves, then, when the day comes, as it
must before long, when some part of the Territories will ask for admission and be
entitled by their population and position to have
this clause enacted, then this parliament would
be bound to repeal the law, otherwise we
should be, as I say, riveting the system of
separate schools upon them. This point I think
a most important one.
Then the hon. member for East Grey
(Mr. Sproule), who has always been sincere
on this question, likewise sounded a note
of warning :
I agree with the assumption advanced that if
we allow usages to grow up for a length of
time, in proportion to their duration they will
be difficult to remove. They were given by the
Act of 1875 the right to establish separate
schools there. It might happen. atterwards,
when we establish a province there and give
the legislature the full autonomy of a provincial legislature, that we could not do
away with
the order of things then existing.
Then, Sir, Mr. McCarthy was not satisfied with what the hon. leader of the government
had said: he, Sir John Thompson
having made it plain, if I read his language
aright, that if he Sir John Thompson were
sitting here to-day he would be in favour of
fastening the separate school system upon
the Northwest provinces, taking the ground
that if the reasons which had prevailed in
1875 were good reasons in 1894 I do not
see how he could come to any other conclusion than that they were'good reasons
in 1905. Mr. McCarthy said that Sir John
Thompson was ambiguous in his statement
as to what would happen when the time
came for granting autonomy. Sir John
4093 APRIL 7, 1905
Thompson then made what I consider a
solemn declaration, which I charge hon.
gentlemen opposite with not living up to
on this occasion.
I appealed to the House to continue the present system while the territorial system
continued, and I declared that in my opinion the
whole subject would be open and free to parliament as to what constitution we would
give
to the provinces when the provinces were created.
Now, Sir, I only remark in passing, that
it is not a declaration. Let the constitution take its course; that is not a declaration
that the constitution applies automatically. It is a declaration to this parliament,
and to those men who were endeavouring
to get rid of that clause to prevent any
such argument being used as is now used.
Keep quiet, be still, because when the time
comes—as if has come now—you will be
free to act as you see fit. Mr. McCarthy
replied to him in these words:
I am very glad that the right hon. gentleman
has explained it in that way, and perhaps I
was wrong in my understanding or his remarks.
Of course it is an important declaration from
the First Minister. Now, the House will have
to use its own judgment on this question. What
I say is this : that it this question of separate
schools is to remain in its present position
until we grant provincial autonomy to any portion of the Northwest. it will be practically
impossible, unless there is an enormous change
in public opinion, to deny them what every
other province that has joined the confederation has been entitled to, what Manitoba
was
entitled to, and what I submit under the circumstances every province would be entitled
to.
Now, let me draw attention to the constitution
conferred upon Manitoba in that regard. I
have not got it under my hand, but it will be
found on consulting it that when we conferred
autonomy upon the province of Manitoba we
did it by reference to the British North America. Act. What we declared was, that
where
not otherwise provided for in the Act, all the
provisions of the British North America Act
should apply to the province of Manitoba, and
I think the very same words were contained
in the resolutions which were passed at the
time British Columbia and the province of
Prince Edward Island came into the union. So
that we have got that precedent before us;
that was the promise upon which we admitted
Manitoba, and looking at the character or the
legislation, I do not think there can be any
doubt that the same rule must apply when we
admit the provinces to be created out of the
Northwest Territories.
Now, Sir, what happened? There are
many hon. gentlemen sitting opposite who
were present on that occasion. The hon.
member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I
think, is the only gentleman in this House
on that side who is consistent to-day. He
said: You should not give them a chance,
or let them have an argument that they
can use for fastening separate schools on
the new provinces under the constitution.
But of course he might have justified himself
in voting with the then premier by saying:
4093
4094
When the time comes we will be free—as
the then premier said. But they were
warned that when this time did come that
would happen which is happening to-day.
Again, what happened? The vote was
taken, and 114 members to 21 maintained
that clause on the statute-book, notwithstanding the warnings which were then
given, and we are now face to face with
the position that was then foreseen. Now,
Sir, up to that point which brings us to
1894, there cannot be any cavilling, there
cannot be any quibbling over the statement
that from the standpoint of policy both
political parties were of the same mind.
There were independent men who broke
away from party lines on that question
and who chose to think for themselves as
I do. First, there was George Brown. Then
later there were my revered uncle, Dalton
McCarthy, the member for East Grey (Mr.
Sproule), Col. O'Brien, the Hon. Clarke Wallace, Clifford Sifton, Joseph Martin, John
Charlton, and several others—there are men
who have always spoken their minds freely
and from conviction. Then we come to 1895,
when the agitation began with reference to
the Manitoba schools. We then had, as you
will remember, a fight in Haldimand. The
Hon. Mr. Montague sought re-election after
the remedial order was passed; we faced
him in Haldimand and we were defeated.
We fought the question over again in Cardwell and we won. As to what took place
in Cardwell, I will have more to say, because upon that occasion a gentleman who
has grown very eloquent in this House,
spent a considerable time in that riding. A
platform, upon which Mr. Stubbs, the McCarthy candidate was elected, was formulated,
and the third plank in that platform
was as follows:
To insist in the matter of education, so far
as the subject is within the control of the parliament of Canada, that the provinces
shall
have exclusive authority, that no sectarian system shall be forced upon the provinces
by Dominion legislation, and to further insist upon the
abolition of the provision requiring the establishment of separate schools in the
Territories.
Now, Sir, upon that we fought Cardwell,
upon that we won Cardwell, and, as I say,
the hon. gentleman who was the Finance
Minister in that administration, the hon.
gentleman who now represents North Toronto, made a great many speeches, of which
I have extracts. Speaking on the 17th December, at Gamilla, he said:
He showed how separate schools had originated at desire and the protection of Protestant
minority in Quebec. This guarantee
had been incorporated in the constitution at the
time or confederation to protect the rights of
minorities of all provinces.
At Alton he said:
He thought the narrow sectarian platform or
Mr. McCarthy was not broad enough for the
intelligent electors of Cardwell. The principle
4095 COMMONS
or lack of principle of stamping out the French
language and race he ventured to say would
never be carried into effect. The McCarthy
party so far had developed into a head and a
tail—he did not know that they were going to
attain any more than at present.
Then he said:
They could not go down in a better cause
than that of an attempt to preserve the contracts between the minorities and majorities
and to maintain the sacred compact of the constitution.
He went down six months afterwards
upon that, and we will hear later how he let
go of that which he went down on. On
December 18, speaking at Caledon East, he
said :
Mr. McCarthy had said parliament was not
bound to redress the grievance. The parliament of Canada had power to refuse to remedy
the grievance, but there was a deeper question
than that. Nothing could be superior to the
parliament technically speaking, but there was
a higher power than the legislative body of
Canada—that eternal sense of justice and right
which a parliament might, but which no British
parliament ought to outrage.
Speaking at Charleston, on December 19,
he said :
After pointing out in strong terms the weakness of Mr. McCarthy, and how impossible
it
was for him to accomplish anything—he said:
'Put in Mr. Stubbs if you like, and how many
will there be ? Three. How many members
are there in parliament? Two hundred and
fifteen. It is not often the tail wags the dog,
but in this instance that tail will not be even
the tail of the dog.
Those are the speeches of the hon. gentleman. Those are the methods by which he
opposed us when we were asking Cardwell
to endorse that plank in the platform which
I have read. Then follows the meeting of
this House. I do not need to dwell upon
what occurred then when that hon. gentleman and some of his followers bolted in and
out of the government. Suffice it to know
that we have heard in another chamber the
history of that disgraceful event. We know
that Sir Mackenzie Bowell says that the hon.
member for North Toronto was the chief
of the nest of traitors, and, Sir, I think that
in so saying he rightly described him. I
do not want to use language which I might
be sorry for, but this is a certain justification for me, when I know what occurred
in
1895, and when I have had to read, as I
have read and reread, the bitter, venomous
attacks the hon. member for North Toronto
saw fit to make upon my respected uncle.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. The hon. member
for Dufferin (Mr. Barr) laughs. Let him
take that back to Dufferin. He should remember that Cardwell is a part of Dufferin
still .
Mr. BARR. Let the hon. Gentleman go to
Dufferin
4095
4096
Mr. BARR. You did not make much
progress.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. Well, we won on
two occasions; not a bad record. Then
parliament met. Sir Charles Tupper was
the Prime Minister; he formed his cabinet
and attempted to push the Coercion Bill
through, and from that time on a great
many speeches were made in the House.
The position of the hon. member for North
Toronto was well defined. That brings us
down to 1896. The government went to the
country, and the country refused to endorse
the coercion policy. In that election we
certainly were, in the province of Ontario,
denouncing the government because of its
coercion policy. The Liberals, on the other
hand, were saying: Return us to power,
and by methods of conciliation we will
settle this question. The Conservatives
made it clear that they intended, if returned,
to pass the Remedial Bill. The country returned the Liberals, and some kind of a
settlement was made which was placed on
the statute-book of Manitoba in evidence
of its being a settlement. To my amazement, I heard things yesterday that I had
never heard before or dreamed of. It appears that there are some difficulties and
disputes yet in regard to this question.
There seem to be difficulties among
the members of the church in the province
of Quebec which I never knew of until
yesterday. But I do not think that any hon.
gentleman will seriously say that the school
question has formed a controversial question
in politics from 1897 down to 1905.
On the 21st February last the Bill which
is now before the House was introduced.
It contained clause 16. It contained a clause
which did effectually fasten upon the new
provinces, in my opinion, separate schools.
The right hon. leader of the government (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) introduced it in a very eloquent speech. He justified it upon grounds
that I cannot agree with. He maintained
that the constitution required him to do it,
but nevertheless be justified it on grounds
of policy; he said he was in favour of
separate schools, that the minority were entitled to them, and it was in the best
interests of the country that this clause should
be enacted. He made that very plain. Nobody can doubt or dispute that. My hon.
friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R.
L. Borden), true to the traditions of his
party, spoke on that occasion, and I call
the attention of the House to these words,
in view of what has been said in respect to
the immoderate language which it is alleged
was heard upon that occasion. The hon.
leader of the opposition said :
The subject which the right hon. gentleman
mentioned last, on which he spoke with great
eloquence, and in a spirit of forbearance and
moderation, will undoubtedly invite discussion.
4097 APRIL 7, 1905
I do not propose to discuss it this afternoon.
There is just one thing, however. that I would
like to say about it, and that is that I understand that up to the present time there
has
been really no school question, to use the common expression, in the Northwest Territories
of
Canada; and I sincerely trust that on both
sides of the House we will not seek to make
this a political question in any sense.
From my point of view I was very much
disgusted with that declaration. I was
here prepared to oppose legislation of this
kind and I think there were several other
hon. members—perhaps not very many—
who were prepared to do the same thing.
Then the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sitton) returned and resigned saying
that he could not accept the principles of
clause 16. For one month we were delayed,
nothing was done and I think it may fairly
be said that the right hon. leader of the
government was sparring for wind. Everybody was wondering what was going to be
done by the hon. leader of the opposition.
Everybody wanted to know what the great
Conservative party was going to do upon
this question. We had to wait a month
during which time there were petitions filed
and meetings of protest held. There were
meetings of protest held which hon. gentlemen opposite did not attend. The hon.
member for Lennox (Mr. U. Wilson) rather
jeered and sneered at my daring to attend
a meeting of protest, but I will cast back
the sneer and the jeer. I ask : Where were
the hon. members from Toronto when a
meeting was held in that constituency to
protest against the passing of any such
legislation ? They were not present and
yet they are influential members of the
party and men of prominence in the country. A Compromise was effected and the
Bill was brought down for the second reading on the 22nd March. I am not able myself
to accept the compromise. I am not
able to agree with it. I am going
to oppose it. But, I do not think
that the hon. leader of: the opposition
has spoken as he ought to have spoken
upon this question. I reiterate and I repeat that when the predecessor of the leader
of a party, who also occupied the position
of the leader of the government and of
attorney general of the Dominion of Canada,
I refer to Sir John Thompson, makes a declaration that when this important juncture
arrived we shall be free to act as we see
fit, that that declaration ought to be binding
on the party of which he was the leader.
Now, Sir. what do we find ? That the leader
of the opposition does not apparently agree
with me in that opinion, nevertheless I
do put it forward as my idea of the duty
of the leader of a great party. The leader
of the opposition preferred to take a
different course. He made a very eloquent speech, his diction was of the best;
but, I cannot pronounce the same encomium
upon him when he came to announce his
4097
4098
policy. He said: The constitution applies
automatically ; let the constitution take its
course. Let me ask him if that is in consonance with the declaration which his
predecessor Sir John Thompson, made in
1894.
Mr. LENNOX. Will the hon. gentleman
mention Where the leader of the opposition
said the constitution would apply automatically ?
Mr. LENNOX. When that statement was
made in the House on a previous occasion,
I heard the leader of the opposition deny it
and the hon. gentleman who made the statement had to take it back. If the hon. gentleman
knows where that statement is contained in the speech of the leader of the
opposition, well and good, but if not he
should not make the observation.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. I have no desire
to misrepresent anybody but I have not
heard the denial of the leader of the opposition. It the leader of the opposition
did
not make the statement, then I am not able
to arrive at a conclusion as to what his
speech meant, because he did say: let the
constitution take its course.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. And he did argue
that the British North America Act applied
ipso facto to these provinces, whether you
legislate here that it should do so or not.
Mr. LENNOX. I am not able to contradict the assertion that the leader of the
opposition did argue that the British North
America Act would apply ipso facto, but I
heard the leader of the opposition declare
that he did not state that it would apply
automatically.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. I do not Wish
to get into an acrimonious controversy on
that point with my hon. friend.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. The leader of the
opposition may not have used the word
' automatically,' but will the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Lennox) not admit that if the leader of
the opposition declared the British North
America Act would apply ipso facto to
these provinces, then, it must apply automatically ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Len«
nox) is, I understand going to follow me.
and I leave that nut with him to crack. The
leader of the opposition made a four hour
speech in which he argued along the lines
that the British North America Act would
apply to these new provinces ipso facto or
in other words 'automatically' and I ask
any hon. gentleman in this House whether
it is not a fact that the leader of the opposi
4099
COMMONS
tion made no declaration of policy in the
course of his whole speech. His words
were:
I argue not for separate schools:
not against separate schools: let the constitution take its course.
Sir, as I conceive the responsibility which
rests upon the leader of the Conservative
party, owing to the declaration which Sir
John Thompson made in 1894, the leader
of the opposition in arguing thus did not
discharge his duty. And as to this argument of the leader of the opposition I differ
just as strongly with it, as I am
opposed to the contention of the Prime Minister that the constitution required him
to
pass this legislation. I quite conceive that
the declaration of the Prime Minister was
based upon, not only the legal obligation,
but upon the moral obligation as well, yet
even so I cannot agree with him. I venture respectfully to say, that the conclusion
that one must come to is, that if we
are to dispose of this question properly
and to accept our responsibilities, in the
true spirit, there should be a declaration
from both parties as to their policy on this
question. There should be a declaration as
to whether you are prepared to say: As a
matter of policy, as a matter of fairness,
as a matter of justice, these provinces
should be deprived of the exclusive right
to manage their own educational system,
or, if you are not prepared to say that or
to controvert it, then, you are not discharging the responsibilities which rest
upon you. It is very easy for the leader
of the opposition to say : Let the constitution take its course. That standard is
broad enough to cover every member of
this House. I hope there are none here
who are not prepared to abide by the law
and the constitution, but at all events the
Conservative party in this country cannot
get united under that banner, and cannot
subscribe to the device written on it. We
have heard from three or four of the gentlemen opposite that they are not prepared
to come under that standard. The hon.
member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron),
the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr.
Monk), two of the Conservative leaders
from the province of Quebec, have told
us that they are going to support the government on this issue and that they will
not subscribe to the splendid device: let
the constitution take its course. Far be it
from me to suggest that these gentlemen are
not loyal ; I would rather say, that it makes
one hesitate as to whether that device so
applied is not a sham. Is it a device that
conveys a meaning which is hidden, or is
it written so that the leader of the opposition and his friends may seek shelter under
it, and so that they may not have to
declare their policy upon this question, but
rest content with saying, in the words of
their leader:
4099
4100
I argue not for separate schools ; I argue not against separate schools.
I have great respect for the leader of
the opposition and especially have I respect
for his legal opinion.
Mr. BOYCE. I am glad the hon. gentleman has respect for the Conservative
leader.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. I am sorry
that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) thinks
himself so important as to imagine that
we are very much concerned as to whether
he is glad or not, notwithstanding the
gratuitous kindness of the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Boyce) I repeat that I have a great
respect for the legal opinions of the leader
of the opposition. But, in the whole course
of his four hours speech, I failed to find
that the leader of the opposition expressed
a legal opinion as to what would be the
effect in this case of letting the constitution take its course. After the leader
of
the opposition, we had a very eloquent
speech from an old champion and who, notwithstanding that he is an old champion,
was playing a new role. After twenty
years-in this House the member for North
Toronto (Mr. Foster) branches out upon a
new line which is diametrically opposed to
his past record. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Foster), I do not say it offensively, absolutely swallowed every principle he once
cherished upon this question. Speaking
in Toronto recently at McMaster University, he said:
Sterling integrity is the third quality that
an aspirant for political honours should carry
with him; it did not pay to be dishonest;
your sins will soon find you out; in other
words the public will get on to you.
Now, Sir, this is the language of the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) who in the
years between 1882 and 1896 supported the
Jesuits Estate Bill—a Bill which recognized
if any Bill ever did, the Papal power in this
country, and which conveyed over $1,000,000 to be disposed of under the dictation
of
the Papal ppwer. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Foster), also supported the official use of
the dual language in the Northwest Territories, and he endeavoured to coerce Manitoba
into accepting separate schools. He
also refused in 1894 to strike out this very
'clause, which is the cause of all the difficulty, and he got behind Sir John Thompson
when he said, in 1894:
The reasons for passing that separate school
legislation in 1875 are as good to-day as they
were then.
Is that a declaration of principle ? Is that
not a record that ought to bind any public
man, whether for his good or ill in public
life ?
Then, Sir, I call your attention to this
fact, that this hon. gentleman, who made
that speech yesterday, could not abide Dal
4101 APRIL 7, 1905
ton McCarthy in the ranks of the Conservative party. The hon. gentleman was the
Finance Minister under Sir John Thompson
when Dalton McCarthy was driven out of
their ranks because he dared to express
independent views with reference to the
French language in the Territories, and
separate schools in Manitoba and the Northwest. There ought to be some regard for
consistency, for what has gone before. The
hon. gentleman has talked about the consistency of other men on one side or the
other. I think he had better begin at home
to make himself consistent before he criticises anybody else in that regard. Now,
the hon. gentleman made a speech in 1896,
which was an admirable speech, and I desire to place on record some of the remarks
he then made, because they are important:
Sir, the question whether separate schools
should, or should not, be established is one
which might well have been debated in 1863
when that system was adopted for the province
of Ontario; it is one which might well have
been debated upon principle in 1867 and 1870
when these schools were being perpetuated
under the Confederation Acts. But it is not a
principle which is at stake to-day in the least
degree ; and, for my own part, I believe that
I have no right to take my preference on that
principle into consideration in the least on this
occasion, but that I am now called upon to deal
with the question of a clause of the constitution, and a case which arises out of
it. in which
that principle was settled once and for all in
regard to the minority's right by the fathers of
confederation and embodied in the constitution
itself.
That has reference to Manitoba, which
was not in the confederation at that time,
but which entered afterwards:
The third point of view, and which seems to
me to be the only practical point of view, is to
discuss it in the light of a clause in the constitution which is binding, and which,
taking all
the circumstances of this country into account,
is not only binding, but is a. wise provision of
the constitution as well... Great Britain
is a nation which has been distinguished by
the tenacity with which she held to every compact and every agreement. She has been
distinguished no less by that spirit of generous and
broad toleration with which she has treated
every religion, every class of nationality which
form the components of her great empire. Now,
Sir, these two principles of good faith and
toleration are the very principles which underlie our constitution, and especially
those
clauses of the constitution under which the
present question arises, and which have to do
with the educational rights of minorities in the
different provinces of the Dominion.
Remember, he is speaking about Manitoba, and he is applying these words to the
different provinces of the Dominion. I do
not agree with him, but I would like a little
consistency :
Above the compelling powers of the courts or
law, and above the compelling powers of superior parliaments, there is a sentiment
of
justice and fair-play which compels where there
4101
4102
is no legal instrument—which compels by the
very force of the appeal which that sentiment
carries to the heart and the conscience of a
parliament to do justice and to exercise that
unrestrained and unrestricted freedom in the
interests of a minority or of any class of
people plainly aggrieved and asking redress.
Then we had a brilliant peroration :
After six years, sir, we stand here under
circumstances such as I have detailed. What
is it, then, for this parliament to do? On the
one hand, there is a. well-founded repugnance
to interfere and do what, even though clearly
within our right to do, the province can do
more easily and far better than ourselves.
There is along with that a number of subordinate reasons arising, either from considerations
of principle or of personal concern,
or of party interest, that tend to induce some
to vote against this Bill and against remedial
legislation.
On the other hand, what is there ? There is
the genius and spirit of the constitutional
compacts of this country. There is the splendid lesson of tolreration and of compromise
which has been read to you in that constitution, and which has been evidenced in its
harmonious workings, for nearly thirty years.
There is the cry of the minority, small in the
area of those who directly suffer, but large, let
me tell you, in the area of those who sympathize with it in this country from one
end to the
other. There are the minorities in other provinces demanding of you where they shall
stand,
and how they shall be treated, if in future years
their time of trial comes, and they will have
to appeal to this same high court of parliament, and invoke this same jurisdiction.
There
is this parliament, Sir, invested, knowingly,
definitely, positively invested by the fathers
of confederation in the constitution with the
jurisdiction to maintain these rights and to
restore them if they are taken away. This
parliament is appealed to. It is watched by
Canada, it is watched by the world. On
grounds of courage, on grounds of justice, on
grounds of good faith, make your answer to
those who appeal, make your answer to Canada
which is watching you, and to the world which
will judge of your actions.
History, Sir, is making itself these eventful
days. Shall the chapter be a record of nobleness and adequacy, or a record of weakness
and inefficiency ? Shall we stamp ourselves as
petty and provincial, or shall we be recorded
to future ages as magnanimous and imperial ?
Let us plant our feet in the firm path of
constitutional compact and agreement, of good
faith, and of honest, fair dealing. Let us take
and pass on that gleaming torch of prudent
compromise under whose kindly light the
fathers of confederation marched safely through
In times far more troublous and far less advanced than ours, into an era of harmony
and
continued peace.
Let us do justice to a weak and patient minority, and thus settle for ever the question
of the sufficiency of the guarantees of confederation. Let us follow with cheerful
emulation
the shining example of our great mother
country, whose foundations were laid on the
solid granite of good faith; and whose worldwide and wondrous superstructure has been
joined together with the cement of a strong
and generous toleration.
4103
COMMONS
Let us prove ourselves now, in the thirtieth
year of our existence, as in the stress of our
natal days, a people fit for empire, and worthy
to rank amongst the best and greatest of
nations.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the words of the
hon. member for North Toronto. He was
here in 1896, after the election, and after
the government of which he had been a
member was defeated. The hon. member
for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) stated last
night that Sir Charles Tupper, the then
leader of that party, at that time in opposition, with the hon. member North Toronto
sitting at his side, declared that he
was still prepared to pass a remedial Bill,
and called on this government to pass one,
The Hon. George Eulas Foster sat at his
side and endorsed that declaration, so that
he had not then experienced a change of
heart, and, so far as that parliament was
concerned, I suppose he was bound by those
speeches. Now, what does the hon. gentleman say in 1905? Here are his words:
I regret in no single jot or tittle my act in
1896. Under similar circumstances, I would do
the same thing, but I do not at all say that I
will ever do the same thing under the circumstances that may arise after this. Why?
Because there is a power which after all is mightier than the constitution. We invoked
the
constitution in 1896. We tried to give it its
full force in a clear case and we were prevented by the leader of a great party. After
we were prevented, that leader and his party
went to the people in 1896, 1900 and 1904, and
the people declared that they did not want
remedial legislation. In the interests or the
41 per cent which has been talked about in this
House, in the interests of the province of Quebec which was specially interested, we on this
side tried to get for the minority their rights
in the only way we possibly could under the
constitution. We were prevented from doing
it by the Liberal party, and during three successive elections the Liberal party have
endorsed the policy; we want no hands laid on
any province even though it deprives the minority or that province of the rights guaranteed
it under the constitution. And I make bold to
say that as long as grass grows and water
runs, I do not feel disposed to go against that
will three times expressed of the people of this
country.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North
Toronto asked the hon. member for Ottawa
(Mr. Belcourt) to withdraw the statement
when he said that the hon. gentleman had
changed his views because it did not pay.
I am sorry that the hon. member for North
Toronto is not here, because I would like
to ask him two questions. He says that
on three successive occasions the Conservative party endeavoured to sustain remedial
legislation, that in 1896 they were defeated, that in 1900 they were defeated, and
that in 1904 they were defeated. I do not
know anything about the hon. gentleman's
election of 1900, but I will ask him to say
whether in the constituency of North Toronto in 1904 he ran on the coercion plat
4103
4104
form that he occupied in 1896. Does he
say that he asked the electors of North
Toronto to support his coercion policy of
1896 ? He dare not make such a statement.
It is a mere method which he takes to
crawl out of the principles he then enunciated. I do not know what the hon. gentleman
may hope for, but I do not think
the public will be blind to what he has
said. In one of his speeches the hon. gentleman remarked : ' You have to be honest
or the public will get on to you.' Well,
he must think that they are a pretty blind
public it they do not get on to him on this
question.
I do not believe—and I am a constituent
of the hon. gentleman, I live in North Toronto—that North Toronto will think the
better of him for what he has done. The
people of that constituency may feel that
on their altar he is prepared to sacrifice all
his past principles and all his past record,
but whether North Toronto will feel that
by that sacrifice they have been compensated for providing 'him with a haven of
rest after his wanderings in this cold, cold
political world for four years, I leave them
to say, as possibly they may have another
chance to say. Probably it has been evident from the way I have discussed this
question that there is to-day a certain
feeling of triumph in my breast for having
lived to see the hon. member for North
Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the colleagues
who were here with him prior to 1896, who
denounced Dalton McCarthy for expressing
these views, to-day standing up enunciating and supporting them. There is but
this one question left: On the language question, the views of Mr. Dalton McCarthy
have been adopted, and so have his views
on the school question in Manitoba. We
have just this one question left, and if we
do not prevail to-day we have the pleasure
of knowing that those who most loudly
denounced him are now enunciating the
same views as he enunciated. I make no
apology for speaking thus in regard to the
hon. member for North Toronto. I believe
I am justified in doing so, and I say further that so far as this speech discloses
hypocrisy and apostasy, it can do no
harm. I had expected to see the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) at the
conclusion of the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster)
rise and congratulate him and accept
him as an acquisition. He did not do it,
although he was kind enough to do that
when I pronounced myself. I did see, or
I imagined I saw, rather a smile of satisfaction flit across the face of that hon.
gentleman (Mr. Sproule). He went through it
in 1896, he was jeered at, he was sneered
at, he was almost read out of his party because he dared to enunciate these same
views, and he was silently able to look at
the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).
squirming in his endeavor to rid himself
4105 APRIL 7, 1905
from his part and I could almost imagine I heard him thump the gavel upon the desk
and tell that hon. gentleman to come to heel as he had
meekly done. Such is the situation
that is presented to this country today. I do not think that those who feel
as I do upon this question have much to hope
for when they rely upon the leaders of the
respective political parties. I say this sincerely, and I do not say it offensively:
it
seems to have been the policy of both parties ; it is therefore necessary for us in
these
days when there is so much inflammatory
matter about to fully realize and appreciate
these things. It is not fair, not right, to consider them without looking from every
point
of view. I have no hesitation in bringing
these views before the attention of the
House. I have done it because the leader
of the opposition insinuated that Mr. Dalton McCarthy was 'established,' I think he
put it, by the Prime Minister in Ontario.
I have shown that Mr. Dalton McCarthy
held these views long before 1896. I did
not require to show you, at all events, I
will not endeavour to do so, for I think
that this country is now well satisfied, that
the convictions of Mr. Dalton McCarthy
then were honest convictions, and that the
insinuations of the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) that he acted out
of pique or disappointment because he was
not made Minister of Justice, does not require refuting in Ontario, nor do I believe,
in the whole broad Dominion of Canada.
From what I have said, it seems clear that
we must approach this question with a
knowledge of what has gone before. I announced myself at the outset when I spoke
on the first possible occasion as unalterably opposed to the educational clauses in
the Bill, and I will go further and say that
I am unalterably opposed to this parliament legislating in any restrictive way in
regard to the matter of education as against
these provinces which are about to be
formed. I am prepared to go further than
that, and I think I can demonstrate that
it is necessary to put a clause in this
Bill stating that fact; otherwise you will
find that separate schools will be there
whether you will or not. This is why I argue that there must be a definite announcement
of policy. Now, Sir, many views have
been propounded in reference to this. The
Prime Minister has made it perfectly plain
that as a matter of policy and as a matter
of law, he thinks that this legislation is
justified. The leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden), I repeat again, has not said
anything about the question of policy; he
does not argue for or against separate
schools. He says : Let the constitution
take its course.
Mr. LENNOX. The hon. gentleman has
said that a great many times. I do not
know if it is significant or not—
4105
4106
Mr. LENNOX. It has been repeated a
good many times that the leader of the
opposition said ' Let the constitution take
its course.' I do not recall any such expression being used by the leader of the
opposition.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. I may have misconceived the leader of the opposition, but
I understood that to be his whole argument. He stood upon the rock of the constitution
also. The Prime Minister also
stood upon that rock, and my difliculty is
that I cannot find room on the Prime Minister's rock or the leader of the opposition's
rock, or the rock on which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) stood.
Three different constitutional views were
expressed by these three gentlemen. In
my opinion, we have plenary power to deal
with this matter as we see fit, and according
to the expediency and the justice of the
case. In this regard, I agree with the ex-
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), and
I also invoke the declaration of Sir
John Thompson in support of that view.
Attorney General and great lawyer as he
was, he pronounced his opinion to be that
at this time we would be free to do as we
thought expedient, and best. This, Sir, is
my opinion, and I am prepared to stand by
it. The power under which we are proceeding is the British North America Act
of 1871, which is commonly known as the
doubt-removing Act. That Act enacted
that
The parliament of Canada may from time to
time establish new provinces in any territories
forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any
province thereof, and may, at the time of such
establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such
province,
and for the passing of laws for the peace, order, and good government of such province,
and
for its representation in the said parliament.
There are no restricting words there. We
are told we may give them practically a
free charter in such terms and on such
conditions as we think fit. I cite also the
opinion of Mr. Dalton McCarthy, expressed,
it is true, in an off-hand way in the debate
in 1891. I wish hon. gentlemen to understand in this connection that in drawing an
Act of parliament it is generally expedient
to follow some precedent and form. As
Mr. Dalton McCarthy said, the natural precedent and form to be followed is in so far
as practicable the terms of the British North
America Act. But he went further and said
that in fairness and in justice to these new
provinces you should do for them what you
did for the others. Not only do I invoke
those whom I have cited but I invoke the
Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories.
4107 COMMONS
I invoke the Manitoba Act ; I invoke the Prince Edward Island resolution ; I invoke
the British Columbia resolution. The hon.
Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories
prepared a draft Act in 1903, clause 27 of
which reads as follows. In the clause the
name of the province is left blank, but I will
fill it up with the name 'Alberta' :
On and after the said first day of January,
1903, the provisions of the British North
America Act, 1867, except those parts thereof
which are in terms made or by reasonable
intendment may be held to be, specially applicable to or to affect only one or more
but
not the whole of the provinces under that Act
composing the Dominion, and except so far as
the same may be varied by this Act, shall be
applicable to the province of Alberta in the
same way and to the same extent as they apply
to the several provinces of Canada and as if
the province of Alberta had been one of the
provinces originally united by the said Act.
Then he adds this note :
This is the provision adopted at confederation and on which all the provinces have
since
joined the union.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the
hon. members of this House that the last
three lines of that clause do away with all
argument as to the question of 'territory'
or 'province,' and all question as to the
date of the admission to the union. If the
province of Alberta had been a province
which had been originally united with confederation in 1867, is there any hon. gentleman
in this House who will say that the
provision of section 93 of the British North
America Act would not apply ? I cannot
conceive of any answer to the argument, that
if you apply this draft clause to these provinces, you apply to them section 93 of
the
British North America Act, unless, in some
other part of the enactment, you specifically
take it away. That is my argument. I say
that if you give them that clause which, in
all fairness and justice, you must, following
the precedent of Manitoba, Prince Edward
Island and British Columbia, you do away
with any argument as to whether it was a
province or a territory, and also with any
argument about the date of admission to the
union. Is there anybody who will say that
they have not now by law these rights and
privileges ? Admit these two points, and
you admit the whole of my argument—the
conclusion seems to me to be absolutely inevitable. But what I say further is that
you have a little phrase in that clause that
does protect you, if you admit the first part
of my argument, which is that we have
plenary power, as we have, I think, under
the British North America Act of 1871, that
phrase says 'as varied by this Act' ; and
you must vary this Act if you want to get
away from section 93 of the British North
America Act of 1867. I say, and say it
without fear, without antagonism to any
hon. gentleman in this House, without any
desire to raise a sectarian cry or to foment
4107
4108
religious struggles, I honestly believe that
if you have one national school system it is
in the best interest of the country. I would
be disposed to recognize all conscientious
beliefs. But coming to this question as I do,
I cannot reach any conclusion but that it is
best that there should be one school system.
Therefore, I hold that parliament should
vary by this Act the application to these
provinces of the British North America Act.
And I am prepared to support a clause to
that effect. I regret that the leader of the
opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is not present that I might ask if he is prepared to
support, or whether he intends to propose,
or will propose, as a matter of policy, the
inclusion in this Bill a little clause to this
effect :
The province of Alberta shall, unconditionally, have the exclusive right to legislate
in regard to matters of education.
There is a straight issue of policy. The
Prime Minister has announced his policy
that he believes in separate schools
and that the minority has rights which
should be protected. The leader of
the opposition has yet to make an
announcement on that point. He declares
that he does not argue for separate schools
or against them. But I think we are entitled to an announcement by him on the
question of policy. Now, I cannot see why
there should be any inflammatory disposition on the part of any hon. gentleman in
discussing the question whether we should
have a national school system or a divided
school system. I do not want to be a bigot ;
I try not to be a bigot. I am sure that
even if you do give the power to the province, in all probability you will have some
kind of a separate school system. But what
harm would there be in leaving it to them?
If you adopt the clause I suggest you are
not legislating to take away separate
schools; you leave it beyond the shadow of
a doubt to them to do as they please about
separate schools. You make your legislation clear and you avoid litigation.
If that argument is not logical, I am far
astray. The only answer to it that I can see
is the argument of policy, the argument of
toleration and moderation that was made
in 1896. I am prepared to admit that my
hon. friends who argue in favour of this
clause as it is now amended are honest in
their conviction that it is in the best interest
of the country to try to quiet matters. But,
on the other hand, I do not think that quiet
would result from the legislation they suggest. I am one of those who think that if
you follow the course here proposed you are
more likely to stir up strife than if you do
what I suggest. I had a Scotch grandmother, though I have an Irish name, and
I can well believe that this is a case in
which, if you are to grasp the thistle, it is
best to grasp it firmly. If, in dealing with
this matter as the Prime Minister proposes,
we do not promote moderation and tolera
4109 APRIL 7, 1905
tion, then I am right and he is wrong. But
if his legislation shall create a feeling of
safety and promote a spirit or toleration
and moderation, then the right hon. gentleman and his supporters are right and I am
entirely wrong.
Now, as to whether or not we have a
right to legislate—an absolute, plenary right
—or not, let me ask one question. And now
I regret especially that the hon. leader of
the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is not
here. But I would ask my hon. friend from
South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), who is a
lawyer to give me an answer to this question when he replies. If we have not plenary
power under the British North America
Act of 1871, why were these words put in
clause six of that Act ?
It shall not be competent for the parliament
of Canada to alter the provisions of any Act
hereinafter establishing new provinces in the
Dominion.
That tells you that if you create a province you shall not alter that legislation
afterwards, you shall not repeal it, you
shall not do anything with it. If the British
North America Act applies, ipso facto, automatically, or however you choose to phrase
it, then the only thing you can do is simply
to let it apply, for everybody knows that
you cannot repeal or alter the British North
America Act. Then, what in the name of
common sense could the Imperial House
mean by legislating that you should not
amend the law after you have once created a
province, if the amending of that law is
clearly and admittedly beyond our power?
Does that appeal to the legal minds of hon.
gentlemen? It seems to me absolutely conclusive. If this is not the conclusion, then
it seems to me you can give no affect to the
words. But if you were going simply to
apply the British North America Act,
that would be absolutely worthless and of
no avail.
Now, Sir, upon this legal proposition I
do ask some consideration at the hands
of my hon. friends. If I am right, as I
think I am, I cannot endorse the view of the
leader of the government, nor can I endorse
the view of the leader of the opposition, because I think that in the event of there
being litigation over this Bill, it will be found
that if you leave clause 2 in there as it
stands—and they are certainly entitled to
something like that—if you do not vary it,
you will have a system of separate schools
imposed upon these provinces, a more effective system, in the interest of the supporters
of separate schools, than the present
clause 16. In that respect I agree with the
hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Berger on), who made the suggestion last night that
such would be the result. Now, if that is
so, I ask again for protection in that regard
for those who think as I do upon this question. It is necessary to vary this Act if
you want to get rid of the effect of clause
4109
4110
93 of the British North America Act, and
to do that you will have to insert in this
Bill some such clause as that the provinces
shall have unconditionally the exclusive
right to legislate on educational matters. If
you do not do that, then I say that the
constitution will- take its course, and the
courts will decide that clause 93 shall apply, and the difference will be what is
in
clause 16 now and what clause 93 would
give them.
Mr. BARKER. Has the hon. gentleman
read the amendment of the leader of the
opposition?
Mr. BARKER. It is simply a declaration
that we should leave them what you say
you want to give them.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. Now, Sir, I am
very much relieved, because the closest
lieutenant of the leader of the opposition
has spoken, he says that the policy of the
leader of the opposition is right along the
line I am now speaking, upon, that is, we
must pass legislation.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. Then the hon.
gentleman is quibbling, the leader of the
opposition is quibbling, they say: Let the
constitution take its course. As I read the
amendment it is simply an attempt to get
a shelter behind which to shoot. Remember, the leader of the opposition says, I
do not argue against separate schools; I do
not argue for separate schools. Let the constitution take its course. I have discussed
this with men who are high constitutional
authorities who have told me that if this
matter is to be fought out in the courts the
conclusion will in their opinion be as I
have submitted. Now, let us consider what
the leader of the opposition said. He does
not want this Bill to be read the second
time, but he wants this:
Upon the establishment of a province in the
Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed
by Bill No. 69, the legislature of such province,
subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Acts
1867
to 1886 is entitled to—
Now, that is one-half. I say that under
that half, if you do nothing more than
simply to declare this in that way, you are
riveting separate schools upon these provinces.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. I am going to
be fair. I think the hon. gentleman had a
little to do with the preparation of this
amendment. It seems to be his child, and
he is inconsistent, as other hon. gentlemen
are, on this question. I say if you go that
far you rivet on these provinces, by the constitution, a system of separate schools.
Then
I read it again :
4111 COMMONS
—Subject to and in accordance with the
British North America Acts 1867 to 1886 is
entitled to and should enjoy full powers of
provincial self government—
Now, under that I say you will rivet upon
these provinces a separate school system
such as is given by the Northwest Territories Act, section 14. Now, you have got
the last two lines, and I fancy these are the
lines that the hon. member for Beauharnois
cavils at.
—including power to exclusively make laws
in relation to education.
Now, if the hon. gentleman will supplement that by an amendment to this Bill,
then he accomplishes what I am arguing
for. I am going to support this amendment, notwithstanding the fact that I think
the first part and the last part are inconsistent. I support it with the reservation
that I am supporting the last two lines of
the amendment and not the first three, because I believe that at this juncture we
have plenary power to do what we like,
that we should not shoot from behind
hedges, that we should be prepared to say
that we believe it is in the interests of this
country either that a national school system is the best or that a separate school
system is the best. Unless you are men
enough to say that, I do not think you are
discharging the duties cast upon you as
representatives of the people and as members of this House. My position is difficult.
I realize that I am not in a position to lead
a crusade, I have neither the intellectual
power nor the financial means to undertake
that. But I am prepared to stand by my
past principles and upon my past record,
and I will vote in support of that amendment
owing to these last two lines that are in
it. I do not think it is effective, I think it
is a sham, and I think the result will be
that if the courts have to decide that they
will decide that the province must accept
a system of separate schools given by clause
14, unless you amend this Act as it stands
to-day. The clause I suggest is that the
province of Alberta shall unconditionally
have exclusive right to legislate in matters
of education. Unless you adopt such an
amendment, you do not accomplish the purpose of these last two lines. If hon. gentlemen
are going to follow it up in committee, all right; then we will have a division,
and possibly we will have a division on the
third reading. But six weeks is a long time
to wait, and we have not yet had an announcement from the hon. gentleman as to
what his policy is in this regard.
Now, I do not think it can be said that
I have argued to-day in an intolerant way.
I do not desire to be intolerant, I do not desire to be classed as a bigot, I do not
think
I am. I ask that the provinces be given
the right to establish the system of schools
it thinks to be in the best interests of its
people. But I do not argue that we are not
4111
4112
taking away separate schools. We do not
have to go so far as that, nevertheless I think
hon. gentlemen know pretty well where I
stand. I have no hesitation in expressing my
views, I do say that if you are going to legislate that they cannot do away with separate
schools, then you are imposing separate
schools upon these provinces. My belief is
that you should not have Godless schools,
and my belief is that you should not have
dogma schools. We can have schools where
prayers could be agreed upon. I would be
well satisfied to use the words of an eminent divine : That if they are taught in
these schools simply that it is better to be
chaste than licentious, better to be true
than false, better to be brave than cowardly—then we will accomplish something upon
which we can build up a nation, we will be
tending towards unity and not separation.
If we build up a homogeneous people, we will
have a much more solid foundation for this
country, and the west will flourish much
better, than if you establish such schools, and
if you have separation. I may be right or I
may be wrong, but such are my views.
Without desiring to trample upon the rights
of anybody, I have spoken out in the way
I have done. Such are my views, and they
are the views which I think should prevail
if you desire to build up a united Canada.
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Simcoe). I will not attempt to follow my hon.
and eloquent friend (Mr. L. G. McCarthy)
through all the legal arguments and difficulties which he undertook to deal with.
The
particular object that my hon. friend had in
view, I must admit, is not very clear to my
mind. He started out upon a discussion
which I imagined would lead him somewhere, but he, like some hunters, came out
just where he went in. I will do no discourtesy to my hon. friend if I decline to
accept
the invitation to discuss with him or with
the House the particular legal propositions
which he enunciated. I did venture to
call his attention to the fact that he was
not giving a fair version or interpretation
of the very able argument presented by
my hon. friend the leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden), but notwithstanding that
he still followed in the error of his ways
and persisted to the end in giving his own
interpretation of it. Well, Sir, if his interpretation of the law is not more reliable
than his interpretation of the speech of my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I
am afraid it is not such an interpretation
as wise men would care to follow. I did
notice that there was method—I will not
say in his madness—but method in his
argument to a certain extent and that was
that he should tell us once again—and I
hope this once again will be for the last time
—the history of the McCarthy family. May
1 remind my hon. friend, and so as to do no
injustice I except the vigorous living branch
of the family of that gentleman who sits on
4113 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
APRIL 7, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
this side of the House,—that he is not the
whole family and may I suggest to him that
he should apply to his own branch of the
family the same rule as that which applies
to the potatoes—the best part of it is underground.
Mr. LENNOX. No, the hon. gentleman
cannot even now see the point. Probably
the hon. gentleman has so habituated himself to thinking that the mantle of that very
able man, Dalton McCarthy, descended—
not upon his son, for he has a son in Toronto who is a very able lawyer, but upon
this nephew of his, that he cannot think
of anything else. Is he like the third Napoleon of whom it was said that
the only good thing that could be said
of him was that he was the nephew of
his uncle ? It seems to me that this possibly
applies to the hon. gentleman. There was a
part of his speech which was exceedingly
good. It was the part in which he read
long extracts from the speeches of his
uncle and from the even greater speeches
of my hon. friend from North Toronto
(Mr. Foster). The hon. gentleman told us
that he changed his speech and that he
changed it since yesterday. Does he want
us to follow him ? He may change again
to-morrow and very likely he will, but what
struck me at the time was that if he had
changed it more than he did it would have
been a better speech. I do not exactly know
what my hon. friend is aiming at. Surely
it could not be that in objecting to the
amendment of my hon. friend the leader of
the opposition he poses as a greater man—
that he has found out something that nobody
else had found out, that he is going to enlighten the country, that both parties were
wrong, the leader of the government and the
leader of the opposition, in a sense, between
the devil and the deep sea.
Mr. LENNOX. And so you were. I do
not want to elevate. my hon. friend into
the distinction by talking about. him. He
may have a chance of fame if I talk about
him for too long and I think I will leave him
to his own meditation and his own speech.
He spoke of shooting from behind hedges.
Who has been shooting, on this side
of the House from behind hedges ? He has
been a long time on that side of the House,
he sits behind a gentleman who skulks behind the lines of Torres Vedras, he has learned
something about shooting from behind
hedges and let me tell him that hon. mem
4113
4114
bers on this side of the House are generally in the habit of speaking their minds
distinctly, of speaking what they think, that
they have the courage of their convictions,
that they are not afraid of speaking out on
practical politics, but not upon these imaginary theories, which, as I say, enter
nowhere and come out nowhere. What was
the policy which my hon. friend throughout
this discussion advanced in respect to Protestantism of which he is the champion ?
To
do something to prevent the imposition of
separate schools upon the Northwest Territories ? I think that anybody who listened
to the tirade of abuse from start to finish
of my hon. friend's speech in reference
to the hon. member for North Toronto, the
hon. gentleman who represents the riding
in which he lives, would come to the conclusion that from first to last his object
was to apply names to the Conservative
party and to heap abuse upon my hon. friend
from North Toronto. I do not think that
my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) will suffer much
from the statement of the hon. member
for North Simcoe. That hon. gentleman
had a twinge of conscience when he was
talking. What was he afraid of ? He threw
up his hands and prayed to Heaven that
he might not inflame the passions of the
people of the country. Is there any danger
of his inflaming the passions of the people
of the country ? Is there any danger of
many people reading his speech or taking
cognizance of his doings ? He varies his
speeches. He need not be afraid. He will
never inflame the passions of anybody. But,
what was the object of it all ?—the evident
object was to do a party service for
the right hon. gentleman whom he has
served so faithfully during the whole period
of this parliamentary career and a more
truckling politician has never occupied a
seat in this House than the hon. gentleman
during the time he has been here. He reminded me of a gentleman, who, speaking
to another, was advancing the theory that
men are the opposite of their fathers, that
they have the opposite traits, the opposite
tendencies, peculiarities, &c., and after
having enunciated that principle he said :
You never met my father. He was
a very clever, a very brilliant and a
very fine man. And, the other replied : No,
I never met your father, but on the principle of opposites, I can imagine that your
father was all you describe. I am quite
willing to concede to the late Dalton McCarthy all reasonable credit and I imagine
that probably if the principle, of opposites,
just referred to holds good, I need say
nothing further in favour of the late Dalton
McCarthy—hon. gentlemen will be prepared
to imagine everything that is good of him,
having my hon. friend, his nephew with
us.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. L. G. McCarthy)
began his career in this House by reading
4115
COMMONS
lectures to both sides and he has followed
it up to-day by trying to impress upon us
that all wisdom is centered in him. However, we are here not to deal with his peculiar
ideas, but to consider what is in the
best interests of Canada having regard to
the proposal made by the government for
the second reading of this Bill, and the
amendment proposed by the leader of the
opposition. The amendment proposed by
my leader may have been lost sight of in
this protracted discussion, and so I shall
recall it to the attention of the House.
That all the words ater the word 'that ' to
the end of the question be left out and the
following substituted therefor:
Upon the establishment of a province in the
Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed
by Bill (No. 69), the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with
the
provisions of the British North America Acts
1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy
full powers of provincial self government,
including power to exclusively make laws in
relation to education.
Whatever may be the aspirations of the
member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy), if he is sincere in the desire announced
by the ex-Minister of the Interior
and by gentlemen of that school, he will
be able to realize all his expectations and
desires if he votes for this amendment. I
notice that the hon. gentleman (Mr. L. G.
MaCarthy) said, perhaps without suflicient
thought, that the leader of the opposition
proposed that the Bill should not have
a second reading. That is not correct. The
amendment is the enunciation of a sound
principle, it will not defeat the Bill, and it
will be followed up by proposals in committee which, if adopted, will make the
Bill what it should be. In a word, this
is a question of provincial autonomy in the
proper sense ; it is a question whether we
will carry out the well recognized principle that the various provinces should—
subject to any conditions legally existing
at the time of the union—have full authority to regulate their own school laws. The
hon. gentleman (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) deplored that the leader of the opposition
had not laid down a policy, and had not
discussed the question whether separate
schools were good or bad per se. Since
the leader of the opposition introduced this
amendment the debate has unfortunately
drifted into a channel which justifies, if
it does not necessitate, a discussion on the
abstract question of separate schools. But,
Sir, the statesmanship of the leader of the
opposition and his wisdom in not dealing
with the abstract question at that time, is
evident to every man in this House,
and in the country, who feels the
responsibility of discussing the issue
before us without inflaming unduly the
passions of the people. It would be
a matter for congratulation to us all,
if, following the example of the leader of
the opposition, and the example of gentle
4115
4116
men on this side of the House the question
as to whether separate schools were right
or wrong had been eliminated from this
debate. Even the hon. member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) following in the main
the same general course as his leader, although he was baited and badgered in order
to provoke him into an expression of an
|opinion of general hostility to separate
schools, he avoided any unnecessary discussion of that vexed question, and treated
the real question at issue with moderation
and patriotism. It is to be regretted that
gentlemen on the other side of the House did
not follow this example. The question as to
whether separate schools are good or bad
is a relative question ; if in Quebec and Ontario they are good, it is because they
are
guaranteed by the constitution of the
country and it is the duty of all
loyal men to stand by the constitution. But in these western Territories
where there is a sparse population, where
there is a difliculty in maintaining any
schools at all, I have no hesitation in saying that personally I am opposed to separate
schools. But aside from this I take
the ground that the matter should be
left entirely to the people of the west.
There should be no interference from the
people of Quebec or from the people of
Ontario either ; the people of the west
should be free to decide for themselves.
We are now face to face with the question
as to whether these new provinces shall,
on the lst of July next, attain to sturdy autonomy, or cringing dependency ; whether
they shall attain to the status of independent provinces, or become the colonies of
a
colony ; whether they shall take their place
as equal partners among the sisterhood of
provinces, or, be as bondsmen to the Dominion parliament and shackled for all time
to come. I venture to say that the good
judgment of the people of Canada to-day,
is, that whether we like separate schools
or whether we do not, the right policy
and the wise policy is to leave to these
provinces the management of their own
affairs. The ex-Minister of the Interior
has told us that the people of the west are
as capable of managing their own affairs
as are any people in the world, and we
can quite believe it. Are you going to let
this splendid people come in as equal
partners in the confederation, or are you
going to declare, that they shall be manacled and throttled at the beginning of their
career ? What subtle influence is it which
causes the government to say, that the new
provinces shall have forced upon them
onerous conditions from which the other
provinces are free? In the last few days
there has come to our knowledge certain
things which cast a new light upon this
discussion. Yesterday we had an interesting discussion upon certain matters that
had arisen in connection with the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. To
4117 APRIL 7, 1905
day we have new features affecting that
question and so affecting the question which
we are now discussing; and I will venture to
refer to the statement of the Hon. Colin
Campbell which appears in to-day's papers.
Yesterday we had a number of ministers
speaking, and the tone of their remarks
was that although you could not depend
upon the statement of the Hon. Mr. Rogers,
you could depend upon that of the Hon.
Mr. Campbell, but that he would not speak
—he had too much discretion to speak. But
he speaks, and speaks definitely to-day.
Before I refer to that, however, I might
refer to a matter that casts a light upon the
extent of the privileges to be enjoyed
by the minority in the Northwest in case
this Act goes through in the form proposed.
We have heard the statement constantly
made, and it comes more particularly from
the Minister of Finance, that as a matter
of fact, when you analyze the Acts, there
is really nothing objectionable in the kind
of schools which the government are imposing upon the people of the Northwest—
that there is only half an hour of religious
instruction after the school is dismissed, and
that the schools are only separate schools
in name, but not in fact. Let us see whether
or not that is the fact. In 1897 the leader of
the government said :
The only thing I care for is that, whereas,
under the Act, 1890, they had not the privilege
of teaching their own religion in the schools,
by the concessions which have been made,
whether they are concessions or new rights or
a restoration of old rights, they will have the
right hereafter of teaching their own religion
in the province of Manitoba.
Further on he said this :
Well, the moment I found that the people of
Manitoba were ready to make concessions
which practically restored to the Catholics the
right of teaching the French language and of
teaching their own religion in the schools, I
submitted to my fellow countrymen in the province of Quebec that it was far better
to obtain those concessions by negotiation than to
endeavour to obtain them by means of coercion.
Further on he said :
And I venture at this moment to say that
there is not a man in the province of Quebec,
there is not a. man in this country, who, looking
at the settlement unbiassed and unprejudiced,
will not come to the conclusion that it was a
happy solution of a very difficult situation indeed.
That is the statement of the premier,
and it is to the effect, that he had carried
on his negotiations in the west, and had
obtained this concession, mainly that the
minority would have the privilege of teaching their religion and the French language
in the schools. Now, that seems to be all
that the most extreme advocate of separate
schools asks. Then. turning to the statement of the Papal ablegate, I find this :
I urged my request on the ground of fairness
and justice and referring to his mission to
4117
4118
Ottawa I remarked that from the point of view
or the Manitoba government some action on
these lines would be politically expedient and
tend to facilitate the accomplishment of his object, inasmuch as Catholics in any
territory
which might be annexed to Manitoba would
naturally object to losing the right they
had to separate schools and to be subjected to
the educational conditions which existed in
Manitoba.
Now, if you go back from that to the
statement of the Prime Minister which I
have just read, namely, that by his negotiations in 1896 he had secured for the minority
of Manitoba separate schools, in the
sense of having their religion taught in the
schools and of having the enjoyment of the
French language secured to them ; what is
the result of taking these two matters together ? It is that you have religion taught
in the schools, and in addition to that, you
have some greater advantage in the west.
According to the ablegate, there is a broad
distinction between the west and Manitoba
—distinction which is in his opinion sufficient to bar the way to an extension of
territory for Manitoba on the ground
that the people in the added territory would not enjoy equal privileges
with those that they now enjoy. That
lets in a pretty important side light as to
the actual intention of this legislation. It
shows that the government are not honest
or fair, and that the statements of hon.
gentlemen opposite are not correct when
they say that this provision has been whittled down to almost nothing, and that under
it there will be only separate schools in
name but not in fact. Let me say, although
I do not propose to-day to discuss the legal
question, that it will be found, if the argument of the ex-Minister of the Interior
is correct—and certainly he above all others
should be in a position to judge of that
matter, having, as he said, special means
of studying the school question—that the
ordinances do not pare down the rights
of the minority in the west, and that the
schools provided for in 1875 will be the
class of schools that will be maintained under the Act now before the House. And
there is good reason for that, although the
Postmaster General has thrown out the
suggestion that the government will dispute the law of the Minister of the Interior
in that regard. If you turn to the Act
now before the House, you will find that it
embraces all the subsections of section 93
of the British North America Act with the
exception of subsection 1. That subsection
does not deal with separate schools, but
with denominational schools, and therefore
has no bearing in Canada, where we have
not what are properly known as denominational schools. The substituted subsection
is :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
separate schools—
4119
COMMONS
Changing from denominational schools to
separate schools.
—which any class of persons have at the
date of the passing of this Act under the terms
of chapters 29 and 30 of the Ordinances of the
Northwest Territories passed in the year 1901.
Although this is put forward as an amendment to subsection 1 it is practically a new
provision, because it provides for separate
schools and for a state of things existing
at the date of the passing of the Act,
instead of ' at the union.' It is provided,
however, that section 93 of the British
North America Act shall apply and the
first subsection of that section deals with
questions of this kind, and thus we
have introduced by the Act now before the
House substantially all of section 93 of the
British North America Act with a rider such
as I have just quoted. If it is correct,
as the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) argues that the ordinances have no
effect and that the law of 1875 is still in
force in the Territories the result will be
that by this Act and we will be imposing upon the Northwest Territories
separate schools to the most extreme type to
which they have attained at any time since
1875. The people of the Northwest Territories will have to accept this position at
the instance of the minority whether they like it
or not. We had yesterday produced in this
House a statement made by the Hon. Mr.
Rogers in reference to an interview with the
Papal ablegate. Yesterday we had also
read in the House the statement which the
Papal ablegate gave to the press. In that
statement we are told by the ablegate
that the reason for the interview with Mr.
Campbell—was that he had a previous acquaintance with Mr. Campbell. Now, no one
pretends for an instant that there was anything wrong in the Papal ablegate having
interviews with either of these gentlemen,
Mr. Rogers or Mr. Campbell, if he sees fit.
The question of significance yesterday was,
and the question to-day is whether or not the
representative of the Holy See was interfering unduly with the affairs of Canada
and was endeavouring by means of certain
propositions which he made to those representatives of Manitoba to bring about a
state of things which he desired. Hon. gentlemen of the government yesterday sought
to convey the impression that the Papal
ablegate had no ulterior design of any kind
and that it was only a private interview
which the Papal ablegate had sought because he had had a previous acquaintance
with Mr. Colin Campbell. I propose to read
what Mr. Colin Campbell says in reference
to that matter, and hon. gentlemen will recall how much credence was placed upon the
word of Mr. Colin Campbell, everybody
certified for him and everybody sneered at
Hon. Mr. Rogers. I shall now quote from
an interview which has been had with Mr.
Campbell :
4119
4120
Have you anything to say as far as Monseigneur Sbarretti is concerned ? asked your
correspondent.
' I think all essential facts have been
brought out ' answered the Attorney General.
I never met His Excellency prior to meeting
him in Ottawa, nor did I ever have any communication with him, directly or indirectly.
His Excellency is under misapprenhension in
thinking he met me before. The communication and memorandum which I received from
him I duly delivered and communicated as he
requested me to do to my colleagues. I do
not see that there is any conflict in statement made by his excellency and that of
my
colleague, Mr. Rogers.
The request of His Excellency was certainly
to be conveyed to my colleagues, and it could
not be considered in any way as private. The
letter of invitation is as follows :
Apostolic Delegation, Ottawa,
February 20, 1905.
Hon. Colin Campbell, Attorney General of
Manitoba, Russell House, Otttawa.
Honourable Sir,—I am directed by His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti, Apostolic delegate
to Canada, to write to you to say that he
would be pleased to see you before your
return to Manitoba. If you could find it convenient to come to the delegation, you
will
kindly let me know if you can come and when
you will be pleased to do so.
I am yours very truly,
ALEARD A. SINNOTT, Sec.
Now there are other aspects of the case
which require attention to-day. We have
this fact brought very painfully to our
minds that not only has the First Minister
developed lately a peculiarly tyrannical disposition, a desire for more power and
a desire to manage the affairs of this country
without seeking the constitutional advice of
his associates something for which perhaps he may not be altogether accountable,
but he has also developed a peculiar lack
of memory, an unfortunate lack of memory,
because, I can attribute some things he has
said and done to nothing else. Nobody
would question that the right hon. gentleman was perfectly honest in telling what
occurred, I would not at all events, for I
have too much respect for the fact that he
was premier of the Dominion of Canada to
say anything of that kind, but I do point
out that there have been some fatal lapses
of memory lately and many of them are
brought forcibly to light in connection with
this matter which is important in itself, involves as well the vital question of whether
we shall have a proper system of government in this country or be controlled by
outside influences, sinister and improper to
the last degree. Now turning to the beginning of the statement of Mr. Campbell I
read :
Your correspondent called upon Attorney
General Campbell to-day and asked him
whether he had any reply to make in reference to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement in
the
House.
4121 APRIL 7, 1905
Here first evidence of failing
memory :
I regret to notice that evidently Sir Wilfrid's
memory is failing him. I was in Toronto when
Laurier made his speech on the Autonomy Bills.
I do not attach any great importance to
that. I will not call that No. 1 of the evidences of failing memory. It is merely
a
casual thing and not a circumstance which
would necessarily impress itself upon the
right hon. Prime Minister's mind. But the
next is a matter that did concern the people
of Canada and is worthy of mention, and I
will proceed with that :
What about his promise to meet you in three
or four days and give you an answer?
I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me
that that is a matter that no representative
of the people could afford to forget, or, if
it were arranged, could afford to ignore.
And what did Hon. Mr. Campbell say ? He
says :
I remember that very distinctly. It was when
we were leaving and he requested that we
should remain for three or four days and he
would give us an answer. Mr. Rogers remained
in Ottawa and I went to Toronto and returned
especially for the purpose of keeping the appointment, and when the incident was fresh
in
our minds we sent the letter of February 23, in
which we repeated the promise that Sir Wilfrid
had given us February 17.
He says, in effect, that he has reason to
remember, because he went to Toronto and
returned especially to keep that appointment. And, while the thing was fresh in his
memory, not Mr. Rogers alone or himself alone, but both drafted the letter and
sent it. The letter was referred to by the
right hon. gentleman with something of a
sneer. It is not wise to sneer at the representative of a great province like Manitoba—
not a very large one geographically, but a
great one. That is not the first sneer of
the right hon. gentleman. The first was
when he told us of Mr. Haultain's position
in the matter. Then too. there was a covert
sneer at the position taken by the representative of the province, because, forsooth,
he would not, on a casual reference to the
school question, accept the school clause
proposed, and bow his knee to this great government. Mr. Campbell says he came back
and wrote this letter on the 17th. And he
goes on :
And, in further confirmation of this, I had intended returning immediately to Winnipeg
to
attend a specially important meeting that I
had arranged for before leaving, and on February 17 I wired Professor Hart, secretary
of
Manitoba College board, that I was unable to
return owing to the further interview to be held
with Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Is there any doubt about the facts now ?
Do you think this hon. gentleman could be
mistaken? If he is not mistaken it comes
to this, that the Prime Minister of this
4121
4122
Dominion has so poor a memory or is so
worried by the internal dissentions in his
own camp or by the applications and pressure from without that he actually forgot—
for he must have forgotten—that he had
promised them an answer. Yet, he was prepared, and his cabinet were prepared, and
his followers were prepared to sneer, and
did in fact, sneer, at this matter yesterday.
I think we can count that lapse of memory
number one. Then this interview goes on :
Sir Wilfrid says that I did not take much
part in the discussion of the question on February 17th.
Is that a matter on which one would expect the Prime Minister to have a bad
memory ? Well, Mr. Campbell says :
In this I think he is likewise mistaken as I
took considerable part. I framed and moved
the resolution of the legislature on which the
memorial was based and was very much interested in its consideration. When we met
Sir Wilfrid he asked who should speak first, and
I suggested Rogers. Mr. Rogers left me to
deal with the northern and eastern portion of
the claim. Sir Wilfrid intimated that it was
his intention to add all the territory lying immediately north of Manitoba now embraced
in
the Territories of Saskatchewan and Athabasca
to the new province of Saskatchewan, in accordance with his agreement with the northwest
representatives.
That is a matter about which there could
not be any doubt. Whether that was discussed or was not discussed cannot be a
subject for prolonged difference of opinion,
even if it is necessary to have an investigation to ascertain the facts. It is a crucial
point in determining whether Mr. Campbell
is correct or not. He says further :
I pointed out to him that if the Territory
lying immediately north of Manitoba, that is
at the heads of Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis, was embraced within the province
of Saskatchewan that the Dominion would be
powerless to give it to Manitoba, as no part
of provincial territory could be taken away
from a province without legislative action of
the province itself.
Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick agreed to this and
I felt that we had secured an important concession from Sir Wilfrid in this respect,
that he
would not include the territory in the new
province of Saskatchewan.
That is not a matter that the right hon.
gentleman ought to forget. And yet there
are peculiar discrepancies, unfortunately
discrepancies between two or more great
public men, the representatives of the province of Manitoba and the representatives
of the Dominion. Let me here interject that
the policy of secrecy, on which the right
hon. gentleman seems to plume himself of
late, deprives us of the opportunity to know
what goes on in relation to public affairs.
' There was no shorthand reporter present,
the communications were verbal, no record
was kept,'—this is a policy fraught with
great danger to the public ; and I venture to
4123
COMMONS
suggest that it would be much better policy
to keep a record of the proceedings. And,
if the policy of secrecy were abandoned and
a policy of communicating to the people
what goes on from time to time adopted, it
would be very much more in the public interest. This is the third error. Mr. Campbell
goes on :
ONTARIO'S CLAIMS.
Upon the discussion of the territory to be
added from the district of Keewatin both Mr.
Rogers and myself were very much astonished
when Sir Wilfrid made the suggestion of calling
in Quebec and Ontario and I asked Sir Wilfrid
if the government of Ontario had ever advanced any claim or suggested that they had
any claim on the district of Keewatin, to
which he replied that they had not.
That, I venture to say is an error too. I
have looked at the returns brought down, I
went to get them again to-day, but I understand they have gone to the printer. When
the right hon. gentleman says—and I think
the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) endeavoured the other day to substantiate
it, that there had been no application or suggestion of claim from Ontario
at that date, I venture to say that the records will prove otherwise. On page 15 of
the records before the House there is a
printed letter. That letter written on the
16th or the 6th,—if it was the 16th it shows
the failure of memory to be all the worse—
was written and, I think, signed by the
Prime Minister, to Mr. Whitney saying : I
inclose certain papers in reference to the
application of the province of Manitoba for
an extension of its boundaries. There is one
other clause that I will read, and it is significant in many respects. It is the fourth
evidence of a very decided lapse of memory.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
             NORTHWEST.
House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for the
second reading of Bill (No. 69), to establish
and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr.
R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Simcoe). Mr. Speaker, when you left the chair
at six o'clock I was directing the attention of
the House to an important statement made
by the Hon. Colin Campbell, the attorney
general of the province of Manitoba, and
I was pointing out that an unfortunate
state of things had arisen, namely, that the
memory of the right hon. leader of the government conflicted with the memory of the
two members of the cabinet of the province
of Manitoba on several important matters.
I was intending to pursue the matter a
little further and to point out some other
circumstances in the same line. But I have
probably said enough to direct the attention of the House to the fact that it
is not after all so much a question
of defective memory, as of the fact
that the government has so conducted
this business, both in the House and
out of it, that we have the spectacle to-day
of a serious conflict, not only between the
right hon. gentleman and the premier of the
Northwest Territories, but with two mem
4137 APRIL 7, 1905
bers of the cabinet of Manitoba as well. Let me call attention to the position between
the premier of the Northwest Territories and the government. It is admitted to be
a vexed question as to what school system shall prevail in the Northwest Territories,
and whether there shall be the vindications of the subversion of provincial rights.
That matter was only referred to incidentally and not discussed at all the very day
when the Bill was introduced with the original clause 16, which caused so much trouble,
and which is causing so much trouble in the House to-day in its amended form. The
right hon. Prime Minister thinks that he was perfectly justified in treating the premier
of the Northwest Territories in a way that has been often described in this House,
so much so that he cannot fail to realize that the people of the west are feeling
that they have been slighted through their representative because of the manner in
which he has been treated. Enough has probably been said about that, but new matters
arise to-day in connection with the same kind of treatment meted out to the representatives
of Manitoba. We have had a certain amount of quibbling by hon. members on the other
side of the House as to whether or not the premier did or did not promise to give
these gentlemen another interview. I do not care about that. From  the evidence I
read this afternoon, from other evidence and from the intrinsic evidence of the case,
I am convinced that the country is satisfied that there was an understanding at the
time these gentlemen parted from the premier and we know the unfortunate position
of the right hon. gentleman, putting it in the best way we can. When we go to the
records, when we go to ' Hansard ' and take the language of the right hon. gentleman
himself no more unfortunate condition, no more unfortunate position as regards the
Dominion in relation to the provinces could possibly exist than that which is recorded
at page 4110 of the unrevised ' Hansard ' in the language of the right hon. gentleman
himself. It comes to this that he left these gentlemen upon the understanding and
with the statement that he would let them know in a few days what his policy would
be, and he never let them know until he introduced his Bill into the House on the
21st February. Is that the way to treat provinces ? It is a little province, it is
true. It is said to have offended the government, but it is said to have pleased the
masses of the people in this country. The right hon. gentleman said that it should
have no extension of its boundaries. It is a discussable question, I admit, whether
the boundaries shall be extended or not, but I claim that for the provinces that they
must be treated as sovereignties even by the sovereign and federal parliament of Canada.
When the right hon. gentleman said, as he told us, that he would let them know in
a few days and when he came
4137
4138
before the House and announced his policy without letting them know he was not treating
them as the representatives of that proince deserved to be treated. This is the language
of the hon. gentleman :
What are the facts ? As stated yesterday, we received in the month of January, towards
the end of it, the request of the Manitoba government for a conference. We agreed
to that conference, and it took place on the 17th of February. There were present
a subcommittee of council and the question was discussed.
Now we come to what the premier says he did.
We told the delegates that they should have an answer at an early date. That answer
they had.
Where ?
That answer they had on the floor of this House four days later, on the 21st of February,
when I introduced the Autonomy Bills, and in the course of my explanation stated our
position with regard to the boundaries of Manitoba was clearly defined.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have this state of things that the premier of the Dominion, having
invited the representatives of Manitoba to a conference, having partially discussed
the matter with them and not having determined his policy, tells these gentlemen that
he will let them know in a few days, he determines his policy, he decides that he
will not extend the boundaries of Manitoba to the west which they have asked him to
do, and having determined that he does not think it worth while to let these gentlemen
know, does not think it worth while to send a letter to them even to announce his
decision, but allows them to get it with the body of the public through the newspapers
when announcing his policy in connection with the Bills which he was introducing on
the 21st of February.
Now, I come to the main point to which I shall direct my attention this evening and
which, will, I think, stamp it indelibly upon the minds of the people, at all events
upon the minds of the members of the House is that it is no accidental condition that
we are dealing with to-day : that the manner in which the whole Autonomy question
has been conducted and the whole line of policy pursued by the premier are the result
of a deliberate scheme, of a deliberate plan by which the Territories were to be deceived
upon this school question. We know very well with what unseemly haste, in so far as
the premier of the Northwest Territories is concerned, the right hon. gentleman introduced
the Bill, and with what unfortunate haste as regards the then absent members of his
government. There is no evidence even that the Bill, after having been prepared by
the sub-committee, was submitted to the Council before it was introduced into the
House. I take the responsibility of the statement that there was a plan
4139
COMMONS
formed to deceive the Northwest Territories into the belief that the school question
was settled and settled in the manner proclaimed from 1896 as the policy of the west
; that is a free national school. I will not depend upon assertion for that. I will
refer to the documents of the House and the testimony of a gentleman whom, I think,
the government will not be in a position to question. In 1902 in this House we were
discussing in committee the question of the grant to the Northwest Territories for
the purposes of government and the Minister of the Interior was asked to make a statement
in reference to the question of autonomy. Without referring to a great many of the
statements that were made in connection with the discussion I may say that Mr. Boyd,
then a member of this House, called the attention of the hon. gentleman to the question
of public schools in a very pointed way. He said as recorded in 'Hansard ' at page
3085.
The government might just as well admit that the delay is caused by the question of
the schools, and the question of the language, and don't think for a moment that the
people in the Northwest are not pretty well aware of that.
We have the challenge of Mr. Boyd, and I will read to you the reply of the Minister
of the Interior at that time in reference to the position in which the schools stood.
The minister said :
I think they will admit that rash haste with regard to a question of such vast importance—
a question which must be satisfactorily settled if settled at all—rash haste would
not at all be conducive to a settlement which would be satisfactory in the long run
to the people of the Territories. I would not feel that I was taking an unreasonable
position before this House if I said : that if the people of the Northwest Territories
get a reasonable and satisfactory settlement, a settlement that the people of Canada
and the people of the Territories particularly will regard as a good settlement ;
a fair and reasonable settlement promising permanency ; promising lack of agitation,
and difficulties and applications for reopening of the case in future years—if they
get such a settlement within three or four years I should feel very well satisfied
indeed, and I should feel that we have accomplished that result in a comparatively
short time.
Then Mr. Sifton points out that we have a draft Bill furnished by Mr. Haultain, the
provisions of which, he says, will require consideration and, after discussing the
financial aspect, the question of the lands and minerals, he comes to the school question,
and he says :
I know of no political game that can be played, and so far as the separate schools
are concerned, my own view is that the school question is settled so far as the Northwest
Territories is concerned. I understand that the settlement at which they have arrived—and
I am very happy to be able to express that opinion—is a satisfactory settlement, and
that the Roman Catholic people on the one hand and
4139
4140
the Protestant people on the other, feel that they have a satisfactory compromise,
and that there is no necessity for difficulty or agitation upon the question.
The leader of the opposition especially refers to the statement of the Minister of
the Interior, that the people of the Northwest had come to a satisfactory settlement
of the school question and that there would be no possibility of any trouble in reference
to that in the future, as the policy of provincial rights had been recognized, and
says (' Hansard, ' page 3113) :
I am glad to know that my hon. friend regards the school question in that country
as satisfactorily settled, and I trust it is so.
We therefore have the announcement of the Minister of the Interior that the people
of the west had settled the school question, and that to the people of the west it
would be left. We also had his statement—and in the light of after events it is rather
interesting—that it would take three or four years' of negotiation, conferences and
general consideration and one year's solid work, to determine the financial and other
questions and clauses. That announcement is in strange contrast with the way this
legislation was rushed down to the House this session after a few days' preparation,
and in the absence of the Minister of the Interior himself. I submit that this was
not accidental, but that the evidence shows that there was a desire to stifle an expression
of opinion by the people of the west, and to prevent them presenting their case before
the government of Canada. The draft Bill submitted by Mr. Haultain deals with financial
questions and general constitutional questions alone, and there was an absolute omission
from it of any reference to the school question. Did the government point out to him
that there was this omission, and did they tell him that they were going to deal with
the question themselves ? Nothing of the kind. The right hon. gentleman did everything
he possibly could to stave off public discussion, and through the Minister of the
Interior announced that it would be a matter of conference and discussion between
the two high contracting parties but when it came to the crux he stifled discussion.
When the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Haultain on the eve of last election, did he
tell Mr. Haultain that he had changed his idea with regard to the school question,
and that he intended to bring it into the arena of Dominion politics ? Not a bit of
it. On the contrary, he wrote to Mr. Haultain that he would have on the floor of parliament
a larger number of representatives from the west, and that the other questions involved
would be considered. The right hon. gentleman is very fond of boasting that he has
a mandate from the people, on this question, a question which, above all others, requires
that the voice of the elec
4141 APRIL 7, 1905
torate should be distinctly heard on it ?
In the late elections, throughout the whole
west, there was no announcement by the
government that the new provinces would
be deprived of their control of education.
When the Minister of the Interior was
asked to speak upon the question of education, he told the people, forsooth, that
the
matter could not be discussed except at a
full cabinet meeting, and yet in his absence,
and in the absence of the Minister of Finance, the question is dealt with and the
people of the west kept in the dark. The
people of the west were told that the ministers from the Northwest Territories would
have the fullest opportunity to consult the
Dominion cabinet assembled in force, but
the fact is that the representatives of the
Territories were not summoned to Ottawa
until after the departure of the Minister of
Finance and Interior had departed, and this
session of parliament was in progress.
That may have been a clever thing
for the government to do, but it is not
new. They did the same thing with regard
to the Transcontinental Railway, which was
not discussed until the House was in
session, introduced in a hurried way
into parliament, and with regard to which
the announcement was made that powerful
interests could not wait. I wonder what interests cannot wait now. The people of
Canada are asking what these interests are,
and the people are bound to find out. The
Minister of the Interior told us that this
matter would require the greatest consideration, and that for years he had pondered
anxiously over the various clauses of
the Bill, but not over the educational
clauses. Is not that proof that the
government intended the people to understand—and it may be possible that the Minister
of the Interior also understood—that
this question was settled by the people of the
west in a way satisfactory to themselves,
and that whatever rights were established
under the British North America Act would
be the rights which would govern the people of that free province, and not that the
parliament of Canada would endeavour to
gag the people of the Territories and make
them vassals of the federal power.
The ex-Minister of the Interior says that
before his departure in January last, he
made out a memorandum for his colleagues
in the cabinet, but not with reference to
the educational clause. He says that he
was favoiired with correspondence from the
right hon. gentleman who leads the government, but not in reference to the educational
clause. He says that there were
conferences in which this measure was discussed with members of the government,
but there was no discussion as to the educational clause. We come down then to
the fact that when the Bill was prepared
and submitted to the representatives of the
west for their consideration, strange to
say, every feature of the Bill was set out
4141
4142
in black and white except the educational
clause, and there was not one word about
that. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, if
this does not show, in the most conclusive
manner, that there was a deliberate intention to spring this measure and to take
advantage of the people at the last moment.
Is it not true that until the last moment the
ex-minister of the Interior and the cabinet
of which he was one of the most prominent
members, understood or pretended that the
measure was out of the arena of discussion,
that it had been settled by the representatives of the west, and that the people of
the west were to have their rights ? But,
in some way which we cannot fathom, but
which we will get at in time, some silent
pressure was brought to bear upon the First
Minister three or four days before the Bill
was introduced, and at the time when there
was a question about extending the boundaries of Manitoba, this fatally dangerous
question is revived, and the representatives
of Manitoba are told : If you want your
boundaries extended, you had better improve
your school policy. And told by whom? By
the members of the cabinet ? By the representatives of the people of Canada? No,
not by them, but by the representative of
the Holy See, who, he tells us, invited these
gentlemen to meet him. Of course, we are
bound to accept his statement, that it
was without any sinister motive, and
only casually, that he discussed the
matter, but still with the object of advancing what he believed and properly
believed, to be the interests of his church.
I am not going to ascribe motives, but it
will be for the people to say just what all
this means. I am going to call the attention of the people to what I believe it
means. I believe it means that a deliberate plan was formed in 1897 to work silently
and in the dark, and to throw the
people down on this question when
the proper hour would arrive. What
evidence have I of this? I am glad to see
the Minister of Justice in his place, and
therefore I have no hesitation in referring
to the eloquent way in which a few years
ago he referred to a matter which is pertinent to the subject I am now dealing with.
That hon. gentleman proclaimed the other
night in this House that there could be no
peace in this country until the minority had
received their rights, and in 1896-97 this
country was ringing with the same statement that there would be no peace until
the minority had their rights. But in the
interval, between 1897 and 1905, we had
almost silence on that question ; we had a
lull in the storm. Now, the people are asking what it all means and what is the impelling
cause, of the very peculiar and very
striking conduct of the First Minister in
introducing this Bill—introducing it at this
particular time, immediately after an elec, tion. and after falling to submit the
question during the election, which, according
4143 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â COMMONS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
to constitutional practice, he should have done ? Was it that he had one of those
peremptory mandates from the people which he is so fond of talking about? Why, during
the election hon. gentlemen opposite were dumb on the school question. Not only that,
but in 1901 the Minister of the Interior told this House that one of the reasons why
the question of the Northwest autonomy could not be taken up at the time was this,
that in the absence of the Minister of Finance, they could not consider it, they could
not think about it. We know what happened afterwards. The Speaker objected the other
night when an hon. member intimated that the premier was paying his political debts.
I will not say it in an offensive way ; but I will say that the indications are that
the premier renewed his promises of 1895 and 1896-renewed the promise which he made
to the hierarchy or to the supporters of separate schools in 1896 and again in 1897,
and that the new watchword then was : instead of making an agitation throughout the
country, keep quiet, work silently and make the proper preparations, and when the
time comes for giving autonomy to the west, that vast and fertile region, perhaps
the greatest agricultural field in the world, I will be true to you, and will redeem
the pledges I made to the House and the country during the debates of 1896. What reason
have I for saying that ? Well, there is a good deal of reason all along the way. In
1896, we had the various statements made by the right hon. gentleman in moving the
six months' hoist. You know the position he took as to that. The position was this
: I heard the Conservative party make certain propositions to you; they proposed to
pass a remedial law, which will be practically useless in face of the fact that there
is no means of supplementing it by a money grant in support of the schools; I will
move the six months' hoist, because I want my people to get something substantial,
and not a shadowy justice. That was the position the right hon. gentleman took at
that time; and he got in by that policy, and by vilifying the honest policy of the
Conservatives of that day-their honest desire to carry out the constitutional rights
of this country. The hon. member for North Simcoe taunted me yesterday about having
lost my deposit in 1896 in running against his uncle, the late Dalton McCarthy. I
did lose my deposit in a triangular fight, but I got the votes of the best men of
the Conservative party in that fight, and I fought for what I believed to be the constitutional
rights of the people of Canada.
I do not like separate schools but once it had become the duty of the government to
give separate schools I for one was not disposed to turn my back upon the constitutional
burden of the Dominion
4143
4144
government in that regard. I fought that
fight through and I got a good big threshin but I received the support of the best
men in North Simcoe at that time. And my hon. friend the late Dalton McCarthy what
did he get. He was a clever man but the people recognized that he was not altogether
right on that question, that at all events it was a debatable question. That being
the case and the fight coming on with a reformer in the field and Reformers said :
We can do better than vote for our candidate. Mr. McCarthy it is true lost nearly
one half of his Conservative following but he got nearly half of the Reform following
because they said that he could battle against the Conservative government better
than their own candidate possibly could. The right hon. gentleman having announced
his policy, having gone to the people and having won at the polls found that he was
unable to carry out his promise and there was a clamor in Quebec and the hierarchy
were as clamorous as any people at that time. There was a general dissatisfaction
and you will remember that certain representatives were sent to Rome. I do not mean
the Minister of Justice who subsequently represented The Forty Associates, but I mean
an earlier mission to Rome who paved the way and who represented there that although
great concessions were not being obtained they were better than what a Conservative
government would give. That mission failed, as has been pointed out in this debate,
and there was still dissatisfaction. The premier, as you will remember, went to Quebec
and the Minister of Justice went to Toronto and they both received a good hearing.
The Minister of Justice explained to the people at Toronto-
and one thing for which I give him credit is that he generally speaks out in a manly
way-that although they had not got all they were entitled to, they had got an instalment
and they would get more. The premier in Quebec explained that they had only got an
instalment and they would get more and as Mr. Russell explained in his letter it was
the beginning of justice. This brings us to the turning point, to the height of land,
because up to that time we cannot say-although I have great doubts myself-whether
the premier was honest or sincere or whether he was playing a game, but from that
time on, he was climbing down, he was beginning to work on the plan of doing things
in the dark, of deceiving people for the time being, as in getting the elections over
and introducing this Bill. Something had to be done and I have no doubt the Minister
of Justice came to the rescue and it was found necessary for home to go on a mission
to Rome. One of the greatest religious institutions the world has ever seen is the
Roman Catholic church. Whenever
I speak of that great church I want to speak
4145 APRIL 7, 1905
with the utmost respect ; I have the utmost
respect for the opinions of the other people
and I claim to be entitled to the same respect for my own opinions and for my own
religious beliefs. It is admitted by all
people that the Roman Catholic church embraces in its membership a vast multitude
of the brightest intellects, of the most cultivated men, men of great reasoning power,
great ability and of the greatest diplomacy. It is in a word one of the greatest powers
the world has ever seen. Now
if we come to the conclusion that we are
in any way coping with that power to-day,
with that church working for what it
believes to be absolutely right and its duty,
while we believe on the other hand that the
true interests of Canada are not bound up
in the aims of the Roman Catholic church,
then it becomes our duty to be on the alert
and to set mind against mind, reason
against reason—but not passion against passion. Mind against mind and reason against
reason in order to secure for Canada those
rights which we believe are in the interests
of the people as a whole. Let me refer for
a moment to the description of the church
of Rome in the language of the-Minister of
Justice, then the Solicitor General. The
Solicltor General says, referring to his trip
to Rome, at page 193 of the ' Hansard '
of 1897:
And I came back, and after I came back somebody else came. But, Sir, speaking seriously—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I went to Rome,
not on behalf of the government of the Dominion of Canada, not in the interest of
the government of the Dominion of Canada. Perhaps I
have said it too often already, and I hope my
remarks will not be considered too much of a
personal character, and that hon. gentlemen
will not believe I am continually talking about
myself, I went to Rome, as I have already
stated, as a Roman Catholic to bring a grievance that I felt I had in common with
other
Roman Catholics, before the head of my
church. I will say this, that it is to me, and I
believe to many others, a source of comfort, a
source of gratification, to feel that while we
belong to a religious body in which there are
over 240,000,000 of subjects, any one, however
humble he may be, can go to Rome, and within
two days after he reaches there, can go to the
head of the church and tell him the grievance,
and he will be listened to and heard. That is
what I did and that is what I boast of. I say
that any man who belongs to a church that can
accomplish such a thing as that has something
to boast of.
I am quite willing to concede that whether it is a matter of boast or not it is a
matter in which a devout member of that
church has reason to feel the greatest gratification, and it certaianly challenges
the admiration of people who do not belong to that
communion to see the wonderful manner in
which the affairs of that great church, which
to-day I believe has Within its fold not
240,000,000 but 300,000,000 people are administered, the marvellous skill with which
4145
4146
every detail of the system of the Roman
Catholic church is carried out.
There are few people perhaps to realize what
the Pope's influence is. Men talk about the
British empire, about Russia, Germany and
France, and imagine that he has spoken of all
the power there is on earth when he speaks of
the Queen of England or the Emperor of Russia
or the Emporer of Germany.
All that influence is nothing compared with
the influence wielded by him who presides at
the Vatican. If the House will bear with me, I
will read one or two words written by Justin
McCarthy, the historian, on this subject.
Mr. IVES. Any relation of Dalton ?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I am sure he
would be proud to claim acquaintance with and
relation to the historian because it would be
something to be proud of.
I admit that, too :
Justin McCarthy says:
The Pope is understood to have an influence
and right of intervention so far as advice goes
in every country of the world. . . Â . Â . The
Vatican is compelled to have its eyes and its
intellect and its heart fixed on every nook and
corner of the world. There is no administrative power on earth which has anything
like
the same widespread and watchful and neccessary superintendence. The network of the
Papal authority has a mesh wherever men are
living. The Vatican is in this sense the centre
of the earth.
And there is more of it. Now, I am not
questioning one word of it. I am not
referring to it in any sneering way. I think
it is a matter of great gratification to those
who belong to that communion. But I believe in the church to which I belong and I
respectfully submit that in this country of
sparse population where we must work
unitedly to advance the interests of the country, that the time has not yet come when
we
should cause a re-union of church and state.
Having determined that question at the time
of secularization of the clergy reserves, and
the subject having been discussed on many
hustings and settled, as we believed, for all
time by the wise action of that day, there
is nothing in the circumstances of the country to indicate that we should endeavour
to create a union between church and state
again. Now, what was the result of the mission ? The hon. gentleman tells us that
somebody came back. And we know who
came back. The result of the mission was
that the clamour that was about the ears
of the Prime Minister ceased, that an understanding was to come to ? Was that it ?
Or was it that he was released from his
obligation. Was it that he was told: We will
not exact a fulfilment of your promise ; we
will let you off ? I do not think so. Because the Minister of Justice, and the Prime
Minister as well, said : It is only an instalment of justice that we have given, it
is
only the beginning of justice in Manitoba.
And the Minister of Justice in this same volume that I have been quoting from, pointed
out that it was the duty of his co-religion
4147
COMMONS
ists in the west to agitate and agitate till
they should get the full measure of justice
to which they thought they were entitled.
And the Minister of Justice does not make
any bones about what that is. The Prime
Minister does not hesitate to say what that
is ? No hon. gentleman of the Roman Catholic faith who has spoken in behalf of the
government hesitates to tell us what it is;—
and it is that side by side in the schools, as
you impart secular education and you shall
impart religious education and training as
well and you shall pay for them both out
of the same fund. I do not say that they
are wrong in entertaining that opinion. But
I say it is a discussable question in this
country ; and, if it is contended that the minority have a right to discuss it, then
the
majority have a right to take part in that
discussion in a moderate and proper way,—
and I will not say a word offensive or inflammatory ; I would rather discuss the
legal aspect of the case, but I think this is
not the best time for that, and besides that
phase of it has been so well discussed by my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition ; in
committee I may have a word or two to say
on that phase of the matter. I say that, if
the minority are free to discuss this matter,
then, the majority certainly have a right to
present their views without being denounced
from day to day by the government party
as trying to raise an agitation, to inflame
the minds of the people by appealing to their
prejudices. I, for one, repel such an insinuation. I make no such appeals. But I say
distinctly that I do want to see the people
aroused to the fact that we are, probably
for the last time, dealing with a great question affecting the greater portion of
the Dominion. I want the people to realize that
this is a question which may determine the
permanency of the British institutions on this
part of the continent. I do not wish to
say anything extravagant. But look at the
condition. People are pouring in there from
the United States—it is the boast of hon.
gentlemen opposite that thousands of them
are coming in. They are people who have
not been accustomed to a system of separate
schools and who will not willingly submit
to separate schools. We have people coming in from all other quarters of the earth
as well. Many of them have been oppressed
in their own country and have had grievances not unlike to this. They have come to
what they have regarded as a free country.
They have come to a country in which, they
were told by the literature given them by
the Minister of Interior, that they would
have free national schools. These people
are living alongside the United States. And
the United States is watching every movement in Canada. They know and realize, as
fully as Canadians do, the vast possibilities
that exist in the west, and they are waiting
to see if there shall arise an opportunity to
annex that great and fertile territory to the
United States. If we crowd these people of
4147
4148
ours too far ; if we make them restless ; if
we show them that when their representatives come to Ottawa those representatives
are regarded as of no account, that they
are to be told : We will see you
again, and then not see them again,
but proceed to introduce legislation
affecting them without hearing what they
have to say about it,—if this is our treatment
of them, what may we exepect ? I do not
say it will happen, but I want you to be
careful that it does not happen—careful that
some morning, when the prosperity of Canada appears to be great, when the population
of that territory is large and growing,
these provinces west of the Great Lakes and
reaching to the foot of the mountains may
not be found contemplating throwing in
their lot with the United States between
them and whom are no geographical barriers,
no great range of mountains or other obstacle to communication, and that we may
not find out, too late, that all the power
of Great Britain cannot prevent those people becoming part and parcel of the United
States. It is a serious question ; there never
was so serious a question in the history, of
Canada, to my mind.
Now, as the question has come up, I intend to consider whether or not the Catholic
church exerts a political influence—a political and sometimes a controlling political
influence. I have prepared authorities and I
have them here. Testimony is given both
ways. An hon. gentleman on this side of
the House for whom I have the greatest
respect, both as regards his opinions and as
regards his candour, in expressing those
opinions, has pointed out that the Roman
Catholic clergy do not exert political influence. I have the testimony of the hon.
member for North Simcoe last night, but
I could not subscribe to his statement, that
the clergy would go to the extent of excommunicating people for their political opinions
or connections. I do not believe anything
of the kind. But I will refer to authorities
that will not be disputed. First, I may be
permitted to give the testimony of the Prime
Minister. The premier speaking in the debate on the motion for the six months hoist,
recorded in ' Hansard,' on page 2758, said :
I cannot forget at this moment that the policy
which I have advocated and maintained all
along has not been favourably received in all
quarters. Not many weeks ago I was told from
high quarters in the church to which I belong,
that unless I supported the School Bill which
was then being prepared by the government,
and which we have now before us, I would incur the hostility ot a great and powerful
body.
Sir, this is too grave a phase or this question
for me to pass by in silence. I have only this
to say : even though I have threats held over
me coming, as I am told, from high dignitaries
in the church to which I belong, no word of
bitterness shall ever pass my lips as against
that church.
Now, I will take the liberty, because it
involves another point as well, of referring
4149 APRIL 7, 1905
also to the remarks of the Minister of Justice, 'Hansard' of 1897, page 182-3 :
On the eve of the last general election a pastoral letter, signed by all the bishops
of the
province of Quebec, was issued and read in all
the Roman Catholic pulpits of that province,
in which pastoral letter was to be found this
paragraph :
Therefore, my dearly beloved brethren, all
Catholics shall abstain from giving their assistance or their votes to candidates
who shall not
bind themselves formally and solemnly to vote
in parliament in favour of legislation restoring
to the Catholic minority in Manitoba the school
rights guaranteed to them by the judgment of
the Privy Council.
Now I have many other authorities. The
Minister of Agriculture last night referred
to the same matter. I refer to it for the
purpose of showing that these gentlemen
have exercised influence in the past, and if
they have exercised political influence in
the past it is important to know it, because
they may exercise it in the future and they
may be at work now. The Minister of
Justice, after quoting from the pastoral,
says :
Now, those who are familiar with the conditions existing in our province, those who
know
something of the workings of the Roman Catholic church, to which I belong, those who
know
something of the influence which that church
possesses in the province of Quebec, will readily realize what that pastoral letter
meant.
And let it now, be understood that, as far as I
am concerned, I do not in the least object to
the interference of the Roman Catholic church
in elections, but I do object to their interfering
in mere party politics. I hold that there are
times when they not only have the right to interfere, but should interfere, and I
am far from
taking the position that this case was not one
in which they should interfere.
Now the hon. gentleman says further :
After saying that he expected they would
be entirely neutral in election matters.
Was such the case ? No. The result was—
and it is well known by those who invoke those
pledges to-day, and who now taunt us with having given them—that those pledges were
of no
avail, but that—openly and in such a manner
as amounted almost to intimidation-the cause
of the other side was espoused, and these
pledges were set at nought and dealt with by
the other side as though they had never been
given at all.
Now it is not necessary to refer further
to that matter. You may perhaps say that
no man of any political standing would give
those pledges, and you would say that the
deliberations of this free parliament would
not be in any way influenced by the
fact of the bishops of the church of Rome
having required those pledges from candidates seeking election. But that is not the
case. The greatest, the brightest minds on
the list of liberal candidates for election at
that time, including the Minister of Justice,
4149
4150
were of those who with a religious fervour
that does them credit (as churchmen), accepted these pledges, and signed them, and
gave their adhesion to what was required by that pastoral letter, namely,
that the desire and aspirations of the
bishops should be consulted, and that
men should pledge themselves in advance,
before they entered the House of Commons,
that they would not only vote for the restoration of the rights of the minority in
the province of Manitoba, but that they would conform - to the wishes of the prelates
to
whom they bound themselves. I am not
arguing whether that condition of things is
right or wrong—I am directing attention to
the fact that we were confronted with that
condition of things in 1896, that of the candidates who were supporters of the right
hon.
gentleman, a fulfilment of those pledges as
demanded in 1896-7, that a great clamour
existed for the fulfilment of those promises;
and that by reason of the mission of the
Minister of Justice to Rome, a gentleman
came out, and his power was substituted
for the power of the clergymen of the
Roman Catholic church as regards a matter
which affected the political interests of the
minority in this country. Now it is a
logical conclusion or is it not? If we find
that in 1896 the Roman Catholic church was
exercising a direct influence upon the people of Canada in that regard, that it had
been exerted long before 1896, is it not
prudent that we should ask ourselves to-day
whether, having regard to all the circumstances presented to us in such lurid light
within the last few days, that influence by
the hand of an eminent gentleman, His Excellency the Papal delegate, is being exerted
to-day ?
Now, some one has been referring to
the palladium of liberty, to the bulwark of liberty and so on . What is the
palladium of liberty, or the bulwark of
liberty as regards the Bill? We have the
Hon. Sir William Mulock, the Postmaster
General, and we have the court appointed
to investigate into this matter. We have
four judges to stand between the people
and any attacks that may be made upon
their liberties. When I say an attack upon
their liberties I do not mean a vicious
attack, an absolutely unjustifiable attack ; I
mean that when the advance guard of a
great body comes forward to assist what
they believe to be right in the interests of
their church, but which we do not believe to
be in the best interests of Canada, we have
as the palladium of Canadian liberty the
hon. gentleman who is sleeping in his seat
tonight and we have three more. I, as a
Protestant—and I do not think I am saying
anything offensive in saying that—rest my
case mainly with him. The others may be
prejudiced, they may be carried away with
their religious zeal, but the champion of
civil and religious liberty, the gentleman
4151
COMMONS
who stood so staunchly for provincial rights,
the hon. Postmaster General, who stood as
the valiant defender of provincial rights in
1896—surely we can depend upon him now
if he would awake out of slumber. Any way
we have four. We have the premier, who
has declared himself, and it was not necessary that he should do so, as a gentleman
who is a confirmed and staunch believer in
separate schools. We have another gentleman, the Hon. Secretary of State. Some
one has said that he is a Roman Catholic.
That does not matter at all, but we have
the hon. the Secretary of State. He is a
Roman Catholic. We have this gentleman
whose history is written in one long agitation for separate schools in this country,
a
gentleman, who, while discharging semi-
judicial duties, was issuing a pamphlet for
the guidance of the electors and the members of the House of Commons coloured
to suit the case which we are opposing. We have then the Minister of Justice (Mr.
Fitzpatrick) and in that hon. gentleman we have one who has declared himself honestly
and fairly, as to the view he
takes of this matter. It is, however, important, that, in considering the position
of this
question, in considering the attitude that the
hon. Minister of Justice is likely to take on
this matter, we should also consider the
position that he stands in in regard to his
pledge because he was one of those who did
give a pledge in 1896. This is the pledge
that the Minister gave and has more than
once admitted frankly that he gave this
pledge. He has told the House that he will
stand by the pledge and that if he is called
upon to redeem it, he will redeem it. I
submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker,
if the time has not arrived by all indications
that we see around us to-day in the city of
Ottawa, both inside and outside this House,
when the redemption of that pledge is being
asked. It reads :
Being sincerely disposed to put aside all
party spirit and all questions of men, in order
to secure the triumph of the Catholic cause in
Manitoba, I, the undersigned, promise, if elected, to conform myself to the bishops'
mandement in all points and to vote for a measure
according to the Catholics of Manitoba that
justice to which they have a right by virtue of I
the judgment of the Privy Council, provided Â
that the measure be approved of by my bishop.
If Mr. Laurier reaches power and does not set- Â
tle the question at the first session, in accordance with the terms of the mandement,
I promise either to withdraw my support or resign.
Mr. LENNOX. The hon. the Minister of
Justice. The Minister of Justice has explained the position of the matter ; he states
that he is prepared to resign whenever the time comes, whenever the crucial
period comes, when the premier denies or
refuses to accord to the west the right to
separate schools. It may be said perhaps
4151
4152
that that referred to Manitoba. It does not
refer to anything of the kind. The undertaking was otherwise. Here is one from
Dr. Godbout :
I further promise to see that the same justice
is rendered to the Catholics of the Northwest.
Whatever government is in power, if the law
which is introduced is accepted by the bishops,
I promise to support it.
So that it was to apply to the west and to
Manitoba as well, but the desire which seems
to animate the premier to-day is to hedge
around little Manitoba, circumscribe its
boundaries, not to enlarge the area of
national schools but to contract and circumscribe the area and extend the area of
separate schools the position of which in the
Territories is so much in advance of the
privileges enjoyed by the province of Manitoba, that, as His Excellency, the Papal
ablegate, points out, that unless the people
of Manitoba will agree to amend their school
law they cannot include in Manitoba those
who enjoy a higher class of religious liberty
under the aegis of the Roman Catholic
church than that which the people of Manitoba are enjoying.
I have spoken of the hon. the Postmaster General. I see he is awake. It
is for the country to consider, notwithstanding the attitude of the Postmaster
General and his well known championship
of provincial rights, whether there may be
any temptation on his part to surrender
the citadel. The matter was well timed
for that. It has been a government notorious for 'supplanters.' The extent to which
dissensions have imperilled the administration has been a disgrace to the government
and when Esau, the hon. Minister of Finance was absent it was a good time, perhaps,
to apply to the Postmaster General
and without saying anything improper to
impress upon his mind the grandeur and
nobility of having a great mind such as his
at the head of the affairs of Canada,
and to point out that, after all it might be
better that the Postmaster General should
represent the Dominion of Canada in succession to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, than his rival
the Minister of Finance who has evidently
been aspiring to the position. Well! A
vacancy was approaching, the plums were
hanging above the head of the Postmaster
General, his mouth was open and watering
for them, and Jacob—the Postmaster General figuratively speaking—was willing in
the absence of Esau to take the position,
and so he capitulated to the seductive influences that surrounded him. Was that it?
Or may it have been that the Postmaster General was actuated by a
more noble ambition. and that he was
anxious to secure the leadership of his
party so that he might put an end to the
iniquitous infringements of the independence of Parliament Act which we see occurring
day after day. Or may it have been
4153 APRIL 7, 1905
that in the hands of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, these two
great potters so to speak, the Postmaster
General was as clay and that they moulded
him to their desires. When the Bill was
introduced in the first instance $5,000,000
worth of property was set apart for public
schools was contrary to all principles of
the separation of church and state
of which the Postmaster General must
be an advocate if he wishes to represent North York—made to contribute for
all time to come to the support of the education system of the Roman Catholics of
the new provinces. The Bill with a provision having this was presented to this House
and applauded by the Postmaster General, so
that one must conclude that he was but
as clay in the hands of the skilful Minister
of Justice. The Postmaster General will
have to fight that out with the people of
his own riding it he ever faces them again;
he will have to explain to them why he
so cheerfully surrendered all his old principles. And, it he can satisfy the electors
of North York, and if the Liberal party
can satisfy the people of Canada—I do not
think they will—then possibly the Postmaster Gcneral may realize that ambition
to attain which he surrendered the rights
of the people of the new provinces which
ought to have been safe in his keeping.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr.
Foster) said yesterday that the poeple are
thinking and I repeat, Sir, that the people
of Canada are thinking. When this question was launched a few weeks ago it assumed
great importance, but since then a
further and still more important issue has
been forcibly presented, that is, that undue
influences are at work controlling and guiding the administration in a manner which
should not be possible in a free British
country. There is the fact—and the Prime
Minister has not dared to deny it—that he
has had conference after conference with
the Papal ablegate, not only as to clause
16 of the original Bill but as to the amended educational clause which was substituted
for it. This latter clause was brought
in to quiet the rebellion in the Liberal
camp, but so far as the vital principle is
concerned as to whether or not the rights
of the provinces shall be respected, there
is not one tittle of difference between
the new clause and the old. It is
time for the people of Canada to think
and they are doing their own thinking
and don't you forget it. If the gentlemen
on the government benches would leave the
sinister influences which surround them in
the city of Ottawa and go out into the
country, they would find what the prevailing state of public opinion is. They would
find that the people are clamouring against
this Bill, and Sir, the people would clamour
still more if they knew that the measure
is to be rushed through this House by the
force of numbers and numbers alone, to be
4153
4154
come at all events nominally the law of
the land. I have met in the town of Barrie
a great many Liberals—but I have not met
one who has not condemned the action of
the government. They are not saying much;
they did not say much previous to the
Ontario elections last January, but they
spoke by their ballots as they dropped
them into honest boxes, and they will do
so again. I can tell these gentlemen
opposite that they need not imagine for
one moment that they are going to
foist this measure upon the west in defiance of the constitutional rights of these
two provinces. With Manitoba alarmed,
excited, and in arms as it is against
the treatment which it has received from
the government, a crisis had been brought
about in the affairs of Canada. That crisis
is the result of the government's studied
silence, of its system of misleading the
people, of its system of working in the
dark, of its system of retiring behind the
lines of Torres Vedras before the election,
and rushing out after the election, to steal
away the rights of the people. Don't imagine that you can coerce the people of the
west. Don't imagine that you can permanently secure even the best interests of the
Roman Catholic church in this way. As
the Minister of Finance said, if you
treated the people of the west in a generous
way, if you approached them in a fair spirit,
the minority would get all the concessions they needed as is the case
in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick where
the Minister of Finance told us they have
not separate school laws, but where the
Roman Catholics enjoy vastly greater privileges than as he would have us understand
it—this legislation gives the Roman
Catholics of the west. I shall say
no more. This is an important question ; it is fraught with immense consequences for
the people of Canada; it is a
question upon which the people are thinking and it is a question which will not die.
Had this measure been introduced in
a more moderate manner and in a
constitutional way it might be that we
would hear no more of it at the next election. But, introduced as it was, in the absence
of the constitutional advisers of
the Crown, the people of the west lulled
into fancied security as they were, the
haste with which the leader of the government introduced it in the absence of the
ministers, the language, the violent language, with which the right hon. gentleman
introduced it, the statements which he
made, the events which have occurred since
involving the discussion of the influence
exercised by the Papal ablegate over the
Prime Minister of this country, the manner
in which the representatives of the West
have been treated, the manner too in which
the land question and the question of timber,
minerals, &c., have been dealt with—all these
are questions which will live in the memory
4155
COMMONS
of the people, and will not die out. I hope
they will die out some time, but I hope
they will not die out until this peril shall
have been averted, and until the people of
this country have been so aroused to place
in power a wise administration which will
give to the majority as well as to the
minority as their constitutional right, what
is in the interest of the majority and in the
interest of the minority alike, bona fide
provincial autonomy.
Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester). Mr.
Speaker, at this late hour of the evening, in
the closing hours of a long week's labour,
and at this advanced stage of this most important debate which has brought forth elo»
quence seldom heard within the walls of
this House, I would certainly not rise at all
but that the noble sentiments that have been
expressed on both sides of this House, notwithstanding occasional divergences, have
recalled some other sentiments, the sentiment
of gratitude and others, which one entertains
according to his own particular experiences
in life. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that
born under the heavens of French Quebec,
carried away in my early years to other
shores in search of brothers lost, whom I
knew merely by the history of their heroes
and martyrs, I heard my name graced with
kindly expressions of sympathy and best
wishes from the Scotch people, the English
people and the Irish people happily settled
in various districts of the extensive county
of Gloucester, which I now have the honour
to represent. I at once was struck by the
vivid expressions of sympathy and the exuberance of the cordial feelings of these
peoples, who were the first to inspire my
political ambition, who left their homes,
their fields, their fishing boats to go to the
polls to vote for me when my own kindred
people had not yet thought proper to do so.
This, Mr. Speaker, was at a time when
the echoes of the patriotic eloquence of
Joseph Howe were still vibrating through
the hills and valleys of New Brunswick and
the Metapedia, on the onward wave towards
the western provinces which were soon to
be united with the rest of Canada by ties
stronger than the iron rails and bridges of
the great national highway which Nova
Scotia's patriot had so happily dreamed of
—the more lasting the nobler ties of fraternity, equality, justice and charity. It
was
only a few years afterwards that the fathers
of confederation, representing the different
provinces of British North America, met
together. May I name some of them whose
names are still perhaps more familiar than
others to the people at large ? Sir John A.
Macdonald, Sir George E. Cartier, D'Arcy
McGee, Oliver Mowat, George Brown, Sir
Charles Tupper, Sir Leonard Tilley. Sitting at an international council, as I may
call it, these men undertook a task of great
difficulty—to lay the foundations of a new
nation—a nation formed of various races
and creeds. Mingling their patriotic breath
4155
4156
in one common aspiration they framed for
the different provinces of British North
America a constitution, an immutable
constitution which would stand for the
protection of the weak as well as for
the welfare of the strong. That new
nation, Mr. Speaker, born with the
many virtues of its many races, has made
good progress in the development of the resources which nature has lavished upon her
until Canada is certain to be one of the
great nations of the twentieth century, and,
according to the creed of my faith, the
greatest Christian nation of the world. Not
half a century has yet elapsed since those
days, and we see all the progress which
Canada has made, incomparable to that of
any other nation. The United States has had
its time of great progress, but its growth
in moral as well as material progress is not
to be compared with that of Canada during
the last eight or ten years. We have had
the advantage of bringing Prince Edward
Island into the union; we have had the advantage of bringing in British Columbia,
which, with its immense resources, in lumber, in gold, in lands, in fisheries, is
sure
to become an immense factor in the development of Canada. We have added the great
Northwest, to which the attention of the
nations of the world has lately been directed
by a progressive policy of immigration which
has never been equalled by any other nation, not even by the United States; and today
we are called upon to give to that territory all the rights and liberties and privileges
which the constitution permits us to
give, commensurate with its importance,
with the requirements of its progress, both
moral and material, and with the immense
resources which that portion of Canada contains in greater quantity than any other—
resources of land, resources of forest in
most districts, minerals of all kinds—resources which have been lying there undeveloped
for centuries, which are appealing
to human intelligence and to human activity for their development in the interest
of the Canadian people; where millions will
certainly live in the years to come, and will
work together in unity, like the people of
the older provinces; where the French, the
English, the Scotch, the Irish and the Germans will all seek to give the country the
benefit of their labours and of their intelligence in order to bring the Norhwest
Territories to the head of this great nation, which
are certainly capable of raising sufficient
wheat to supply all the breadstuffs required
by the British people in the cities of England
or Scotland. In those provinces, by the interchange of trade and commerce, not only
the true Canadian sentiment but the true
British sentiment will be kept up, for these
people will settle there, they will grow their
wheat and they will know that that wheat
will go especially to the great cities of the
British empire and as trade and commercial
relations create sentimental relations these
4157 APRIL 7, 1905
sentimental relations will be favourable to
Canada and to the British empire. We
have heard a great deal of imperalism in
this country. Not long ago noble sentiments were expressed by the hon. member
for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam.
Hughes), and certainly there is something
which appeals to the intelligence of every
Canadian in the word 'imperalism' owing
to the debt of gratitude we owe and of the
continued gratitude which we expect to
entertain for the British empire. I believe
that for many years to come, for the present
at least in my judgment, the best imperialism which we can offer to the British empire
would be for the Canadians to produce
all the wheat and all the breadstuffs which
her millions of artisans in the cities of London, Liverpool and Manchester require
and
which they have neither the means, the
time nor the land to produce, and to have
those immense quantities of wheat and
breadstuffs transported through Canadian
channels and Canadian ports to the ports
of England, Scotland and Ireland.
The prospects of those new provinces are
certainly brilliant and it became no doubt
a hard task for this government and for
the right hon. gentleman who leads the
government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to raise
the foundation upon which these two provinces will be best able to work out their
destiny and the fullest development of their
progress, moral and material. Our constitution gives the government of this country
many powers in the making of new provinces, and no doubt when a portion of
country comes and calls at the door of this
parliament asking for provincial rights,
the people of that portion of the Dominion
naturally expect all the freedom and opportunities possible under the constitution.
It becomes then the duty of the government and of the Prime Minister to allow
such rights as may be commensurate with
their future happiness and prosperity. The
government has to give them that right of
going to seek for their future prosperity
that a father gives to his child, whom he
sees going from him. While the father
gives his son a portion at his territory, he
shows still greater attention and greater
parental sentiment, when he says : My
child, I give you a certain domain, but I
shall not leave you all alone, I shall continue to help you with my credit and my
means in order to allow you to develop that
domain as rapidly as possible without encumbrance upon yourself. When this question
arose the question of land was no doubt
one that first attracted the attention of the
right hon. the premier and his government.
No doubt a certain class of people in those
Territories, at first sight, may have thought,
and thought properly in their judgmentm
that they should have a claim to the lands,
to the vast prairies, to the millions of acres
which are still unsettled, and the development of which will require millions of
4157
4158
dollars in order to be able to bring immigration sufficient for the development of
those lands, and to maintain the credit of
those provinces by keeping up a steady flow
of immigration. Let us for a moment consider the position of the people of those
provinces in reference to the possession of
those lands. The moment those lands are
transferred to them the people of these
provinces would have to meet the expenses of that immigration of which I
have spoken, they would have to continue
the immense payments for immigration
agents in the different countries, they would
have to pay the expenses of their land
agents, and we know what a risk there
is of a province under her own credit, and
with her own single resources, no matter
how wealthy that province may be, falling
into some bad policy which would be sufficient to at once arrest the tide of immigration
and divert it to some other country. If,
therefore, we compare the difference in the
monetary terms granted to the people of
these provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta,
as they are now, and as they would be if
the government had given the public lands
to the provinces, we find that if they had
the lands they would then not only have
to meet the expenses of immigration, but
they would have no compensation for the
lands. Now, when they do not get the
title to the lands, they receive compensation instead, and therefore instead of paying
large sums of money, which will continue to
be paid by this government, they will have
the benefit of the credit of the government,
of the credit of the nation, and I claim this
evening, Mr. Speaker, that if the government of Canada, if the nation of Canada
were to withdraw her credit as well as
her means from the facilities for immigration to these provinces, that might be
sufficient to divert the current of immigration again to the country to the south
of
us, and therefore expose our provinces to
the loss of innumerable immigrants. Section 19 reads thus :
Inasmuch as the public lands in the said
province are to remain the property of Canada, there shall be paid by Canada to the
said
province annually by way of compensation
therefor a sum based upon the estimated value
of such lands, namely, $37,500,000, the said
lands being assumed to be of an area of 25,000,000 acres and to be of the value of
$1.50
per acre, and upon the population of the said
province, as from time to time ascertained
by the quinquennial census thereof, such sum
to he arrived at as follows:
The population of the said province being
assumed to be at present 250,000, the sum payable until such population reaches 400,000
is to
be one per cent on such estimated value, or
$375,000.
The people of the province of Alberta or
Saskatchewan will receive annually at first
a sum of $375,000 to provide for their local
 needs, having the benefit, at the same time
4159
COMMONS
of all that the government of Canada can
do with its wealth anl its credit to send
immigrants to fill up their vacant lands.
And when the population reaches a larger
number this annual payment increases.
This alone, in my judgment, is enough to
prove to the people of the Territories that
the government has been most careful and
paternal in retaining the lands and undertaking the expenditure on immigration, and
placing more money at their disposal for
the first years—and this is most important
—to be spent in meeting provincial requirements. Then we have heard a great deal
lately about the boundaries established for
these provinces, and the government has
been taken to task for not having extended
the boundaries of Manitoba westward, thus
taking from the new provinces a portion of
their lands and a portion of their population.
I would like to ask some of the residents of
the province of Saskatchewan, especially
some of the people who live on the borders
of Manitoba, and who, as is now proposed,
will belong to the new provinces that have
no liabilities, whether it would be more in
their interest that they should remain in the
new province or should join the province of
Manitoba and share its liabilities, its financial endorsements and financial responsibilities.
I have no doubt that the
people of Saskatchewan have been
strongly and urgently representing to the
government of Canada that they should be
allowed to remain within the limits of the
new province. The new provinces are going
into the union without any debt, and they
are to receive from the government of Canada half-yearly in advance interest at the
rate of 5 per cent on the sum of $8,107,500,
or a total of $405,170 each. The people that
would be taken away from the province of
Saskatchewan and added to the province of
Manitoba would be deprived of the benefit
of that payment, and, moreover, they would
be shackled by the participation in the liabilities of Manitoba. I do not wonder that
every member from the Northwest Territories on this side of the House has been
so decided and so urgent in his expressions
of opinion on behalf of the people. It has
been my good fortune lately to visit the district of Saskatchewan and to hear the
expressions of opinion by the people, in the
trains and hotels and also in their homes,
and I have found them practically unanimous in the desire to be by themselves ;
and they want to have two provinces, or
even three provinces established. lest there
should be any risk of their being joined
to Manitoba. The people of the Northwest
Territories are a business people, and they
look at the question of provincial rights and
opportunities from a business standpoint.
It is not the course of a man of the
Northwest to neglect any possible advantage, for he knows that in these days he
must progress rapidly if he wants to progress at all. The people there understand
4159
4160
the future and know the vast possiblities
of their resources of land, forest and mines.
The virtues of all nationalities can he usefully combined to make that new country
prosperous. I will not undertake to discuss
from the legal point of view the rights of
the Crown within the province or within the
Dominion government. I am not gifted with
the legal training or knowledge required to
do so. But speaking from a common sense
point of view, I believe that every man in
the Northwest, as well as every man in the
east, will admit that the Dominion government has bought and paid for the lands
of the Northwest. And now, when the
parliament of Canada is called upon to give
provincial rights and privileges to the people of the two new provinces, it is our
duty
to give them the best we know and can
give in order to ensure their development
and future stability and prosperity. We are
legislating for the happiness and proseprity
of millions of Christian and British families
that will be there at the end of the century,
all united in a true Canadian sentiment, and,
as I have said, at the same time in a true
British sentiment, which will be to our advantage. In this country we do not look
forward to independence, and much less to
annexation ; we look for continued relations with the mother country, and relations
which will grow closer all the time. As I
said, give us prosperity, give us trade, give
us wheat, give us coal, give us gold, give
us lumber in the west, and you will have a
constantly growing sentiment of loyalty to
the British empire all the time. We may
expect to see, through a development of
navigation in Hudson bay, a revolution in
the trade and in the financial conditions of
American and European countries.
It has been said that Manitoba should have
at once an extension of territory, if not
to the west, then to the north. Mr.
Speaker, we have a valuable country, the
immense wealth of which is not yet
suspected. I suspect it, perhaps, because I
have taken an interest in it all my lifetime
and made a lengthy visit into that country.
I know that the people of my county take
a great interest in that country also. It is
my practice at home. whenever I pass by a
school house in the county of Gloucester to
go in and give a few words of encouragement to the pupils, and I always make it a
point to call their attention to the inconceivable possibilities of our extensive
territory to the Northwest, and to inspire in their
breasts an irresistible sentiment of patriotism and pride in the immense prospects
which the development of navigation to the
Hudson bay will open up to all the people
of Canada. In regard to the extension of
the boundaries of Manitoba, I think the
government of this country has acted wisely and prudently, and that the people of
the west will in future thank them for it,
because that development requires further
study. It is a question that affects not
4161 APRIL 7, 1905
only the people of Manitoba, not only the
people of Saskatchewan, where my children
are living, not only the future of Ontario,
but it is a question affecting the whole Dominion. Therefore, every province is interested
and has a right to be consulted in the
question of the extension of the boundaries
of Manitoba, inasmuch as every province
has an interest in the opening up of a Hudson Bay route. As the eloquent member
for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out last
night, the people of the province of New
Brunswick have, through their legislature,
drawn attention to the immense accretions
of territory that have been given to Ontario
and Quebec, until we in the maritime provinces are beginning to fear for our future
representation in this parliament. While
we do not wish to ask for any infringement
upon the clauses of the constitution, still
it is nothing but natural that we should
call the attention of parliament to the result
which may come about through the great
influx of population into the western provinces, inasmuch as that result may leave
us in the future unrepresented or insuffciently represented in the parliament of
Canada. Therefore, I think I am voicing
not only my own sentiments but the sentiments of my fellow-citizens of New Brunswick;
and I believe the minister of our province, the Minister of Railways and Canals,
will bear me out in this declaration that
it is only natural and right that the government of Canada, in its laudable desire
to
promote the prosperity of the people of the
west, should not take a step of such vast
importance without consulting the other
provinces, which are all equally interested
in our national development. I think, Mr.
Speaker, my view is supported by the
speech of the member for West Assiniboia
(Mr. Scott), who says that the people of
the eastern portion of Saskatchewan
would have objected to being brought
into the province of Manitoba because
they would be deprived of the immense benefit which they will receive by
remaining within the limits of Saskatchewan, and would be deprived in the very
first year of the sum of $202,687, besides
being exposed to share the debt and possibly
the responsibilities of another province,
which has made much progress, no doubt,
but which is already calling for better
terms. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I regret to
have heard this evening, and on former occasions, the statement that the non-extension
of the boundaries of Manitoba was due
to other reasons than the best interests of
the people of the Northwest as a whole,
and especially of the people of Saskatchewan.
But this question has another aspect. A
great deal has been said about the school
question. I will not attempt, Mr. Speaker,
to make an appeal to your sentiment. We
have heard very eloquent appeals in this
4161
4162
House made to sentiment. We have heard
from the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), from the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux),
from the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), not forgetting the junior
member of this House, and from my hon.
friend from Beauce (Mr. BĂ©land). These hon.
gentlemen have certainly delighted and astonished this parliament as well as their
constituents, by their eloquence and their lofty
sentiments. I have not had the honour nor
the advantage of remaining in my native
province, but I have spent thirty-three
years of my life in another province looking after the interests of a people to whom
I
always speak in the language of my
heart. If the scene of my activity has been
laid in another sphere my sentiments have
perhaps become more expanded, and the
result has been no detriment to my citizenship as a fellow-Canadian. Meanwhile I
have never forgotten the province of my
birth, and I certainly desire to pay my compliments to the orators from Quebec who
have preceded me on this question. If I
have mentioned more particularly my hon.
friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), my hon.
friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux),
and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier
(Mr. Monk), none of whom, I am sorry to
say, is here at the present time, it is because these honourable gentlemen have
been the guests of the people of my county,
who have been particularly impressed with
the eloquence and wisdom of their remarks,
and I can assure them that all the classes
of the people of the county of Gloucester,
Scotch, Irish and French, still reflect upon
what they have said, and still consider the
counsels which have been so eloquently
given them by these three honourable members. Meanwhile, as I have said, I have not
forgotten my worship to my native province,
nor have I forgotten the old-time loyalty and
devotion of my fathers in the province of
Quebec, loyalty and devotion spoken not
merely by word of mouth in the parliament of Quebec or in the public meetings
of the people, but spoken in the prayers of
our mothers every evening, loyalty and devotion spoken at the altars of the Canadian
people, in the prayer of the Catholic
priest and bishop rising to heaven for the
maintenance of the British flag in Canada,
loyalty and devotion at the call of the British people in time of danger, whether
it
was a Fenian invasion or an American invasion in days gone by, but spoken more
gloriously than ever on that memorable day,
the 26th of October, 1813, on the border of
Lake Champlain, when 300 French Canadians and 50 Scotchmen achieved the most
heroic deed of modern ages, witnessed only
by 7.000 American soldiers hastily retreating. and the heavens above rejoicing.
This question of education certainly requires the greatest wisdom on the part of
every Canadian, on the part of every mem
4163
COMMONS
ber of this House, as it has required, no
doubt, the greatest wisdom on the part of
the government and on the part of the right
hon. premier of this country. At the same
time, what is there in it ?—a question of
right and justice, a question settled long
ago by the highest tribunals in the Dominion of Canada and the British empire,
though a question of right, which may have
been doubted in the early years of confederation when we first appealed for this
right. It was doubted for a moment by
ourselves in the province of New Brunswick
in the early years of confederation because
at that time, owing to the harmonious
relations which have existed from time
immemorial in the maritime provinces between Catholic and Protestant, Scotch, Irish
and French Acadians, we were in the
enjoyment of privileges the source of which
we knew not. These privileges we had enjoyed through the generosity of the government,
but who, not being compelled to
think of the future, did not insert in the
constitution of their province the word
'separate' or 'dissentient' or 'denominational' schools and we were in a moment
surprised when we were deprived of those
rights. We appealed to the constitution.
Every hon. member of this House, every
man in Canada knows of the resolution
brought into this House in 1872 by my hon.
friend the member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr.
Costigan) who occupies a place near to me
at the present moment. My hon. friend,
who has given 38 years of usefulness to the
people of Canada, is the most highly respected and esteemed senior member of this
parliament. I might say en passant that
while the little province of New Brunswick
has given to this House its senior member
in the representative of Victoria there is
also, in the other division of this parliament, not only the senior member of the
Senate, but the senior legislator in the
world in the person of Senator Wark. I
said a moment ago that this was simply
a question of right and justice. When we
look back to the discussion in the House of
Lords at the time the provinces of
Canada were united into the confederation
we find there not only an expression of the
sentiments of the fathers of confederation
but we find there especially an example of
that greater generosity and justice which
have always been displayed in the parliament of Great Britain upon every occasion
that the proper treatment of a great question required it. We find there the declaration
that justice shall be given to the
minority, not only to the Catholic minority
but to the Protestant minority as well as
the case may be. In this country where
development is so rapid, where it is bound
to be rapid in the future and which it is
the duty of every Canadian to promote as
much as possible, who will deny that perhaps in one of the provinces where to-day
the majority is Protestant this condition
4163
4164
may not be reversed before the end of the
twentieth century and that in that province
the majority of to-day will become the
minority at the end of the century? I
say with deliberation that these things are
possible and I need not go out of my own
province to find an illustration of the truth
of what I say. It is known that in the province of New Brunswick, for different reasons
which I will not undertake to explain,
the population has increased only, you might
say, by the increased number of the Catholic people. Owing to different reasons the
young men of English parentage, perhaps
having more desire to see the greatness of
the world and to seek advantages abroad,
have gone in immense numbers to the New
England States with the result that to-day
we find more of the English sons of New
Brunswick in the States of New England
than we find in New Brunswick.
The increase in population has been going
on especially amongst the French and the
Irish people who have kept their children
at home. This, Sir, is a good lesson to the
English people that the time is past when
young Canadians require to go to a foreign
country to seek fortune, because in the great
Northwest Territories they now have a field
for their enterprise and energy. If, for the
next fifty years the conditions continue the
same in New Brunswick as they have been
for the past fifty years, then the Catholic
people will be in the majority in that province and should that come to pass, would
it not be wise and generous that we the
Catholic people being in the majority should
extend to the Protestant minority the same
generosity and the same charity that they
for years extended to us ? The words of
Lord Carnarvon in the British House of
Lords have already been quoted to this
House, but I may be allowed to quote them
again with the explanation that we in New
Brunswick have learned to draw from them
lessons of charity and lessons of justice.
Let me say that if there ever was an occasion for the display of charity and justice,
it is required just now in the discussion of
this question. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Fielding) who has inherited the eloquent
and noble sentiments of Joseph Howe, gave
us the history of the settlement of religious
differences in the maritime provinces ;
although trouble did arise in Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick it was soon allayed
through the good sense and liberality of
the people. When men of fortitude came
to govern in New Brunswick the province
was again clothed in its golden mantle of
conciliation, and harmony has prevailed
among the people ever since. To-day we
see the Acadian children and the Irish Catholic children enjoying the advantages of
a
splendid secular and religious education.
And, Sir, the Acadian people have the same
hope in the future of this country and are
actuated with the same desire to share in
its progress and prosperity as are our
4165 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â APRIL 7, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
English fellow countrymen. Our Acadian
people do not forget the memory of their ancestors, but to-day they know that the
violated bell of Grand Pré will sound for ever
throughout the world to perpetuate universal sympathy for a small people deceived
—not by the King of England, I am glad
to say, but by a military officer acting on
his own counsel. To-day in Acadia you do
not hear the lamentations of the past nor
the sobs of the Acadian women bemoaning
the deportation of their race ; no, Mr.
Speaker, you hear the air resounding with
the patriotic ejaculations of the Acadian
people who are taking their place with their
fellow countrymen of all races in this Canadian nation, working for its welfare and
prosperity. Let me quote the words of Lord
Carnarvon when he introduced the British
North America Act in the House of Lords.
He said :
In this Bill the division of powers has been
mainly effected by a distinct classification.
That classification is fourfold: First, those
subjects of legislation which are attributed to
the central parliament exclusively. Secondly,
those which belong to the provincial legislature exclusively. Third, those which are
the
subject of concurrent legislation, and fourth, a
particular clause which is dealt with exceptionally.
Lastly, in the 93rd clause which contains the
exceptional provisions to which I refer, your
lordships will observe some rather complicated
arrangement in reference to education. I need
hardly say that that great question gives rise
to nearly as much earnestness and division of
opinion on that as on this side of the Atlantic.
This clause has been framed after long and
anxious controversy in which all parties have
been represented and on conditions to which all
have given their consent. The object of the
clause is to secure to the religious minority
of one province the same rights, privileges
and protection which the religious minority of
another province may enjoy. The Roman
Catholic minority of Upper Canada, the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, and the
Roman Catholic minority of the maritime
provinces will thus stand on a footing of
entire equality.
On another occasion Lord Carnarvon in
the House of Lords made this statement :
Hence the House will perceive that it is almost impossible for any injury to be done
to the Protestant minority. The real question
at issue between the Protestant and Roman
Catholic community is the question of education, and the 93rd clause after a long
controversy in which the views of all parties have
been represented, has been framed. The object
of that clause is to govern against the possibility of the members of the minority
suffering from undue pressure by the majority.
It has been framed to place all the minorities of whatever religion on the same footing,
and that, whether the minorities are in in esse
or in posse.
I call the attention of the House to these
words ' in esse' and 'in posse ;' whether today it is a Catholic minority, or to-morrow
a Protestant minority. We have the judg
4165
4166
ment of our courts to guide us in the solution of the meaning of the British North
America Act, which seems to be so misunderstood by certain members of this
House and by certain papers in Ontario. In
the New Brunswick school case, the parliament of Canada refused to entertain the
resolution brought by the hon. member
for Victoria (Mr. Costigan) in 1872, requesting in the name of the Catholic minority
of
that province that the government of Canada should exercise their veto against the
provincial Act passed in 1871 which took
away from the Catholic minority these extensive privileges of which I have spoken.
I must acknowledge that members on both
sides of the House on that occasion expressed the greatest sympathy with the hon.
member (Mr. Costigan) and with the Catholic minority in his province. But it was
found on both sides of the House that under
the clause relating to education in the constitution, the government of Canada had
not
the power to declare the New Brunswick
law of 1871 ultra vires or not efficient.
After the refusal of the parliament of Canada to interfere on the ground of the constitution,
the Catholic minority appealed to
the highest court of the province, the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, at that
time the highest Canadian court for them,
because the Supreme Court of Canada was
not yet in existence. It may be necessary
for me to give some preliminary explanation
of the school laws of the province of New
Brunswick, so that I may be better understood when I give the quotations from the
judgment of the Supreme Court of New
Brunswick on the question. I will only
appeal to the calm facts of history which
will show that that enlightened judgment
has afforded lessons to the Catholic minority
as well as to the Protestant majority of the
province of New Brunswick, and will speak
to the intelligence and heart of every member of this House and every Canadian.
It might be of interest that I should mention at once that previous to the time of
confederation and after, and still at the
time our appeals were under the consideration of the high tribunals, the province
of
New Brunswick had two classes of educational institutions, both administered under
provincial statutes by the one board of
education, inspected by the common provincial inspector, both receiving state aid
or
government subsidies for their maintenance
and support. The general class of educational institutions was composed chiefly
of rural districts, I may say, and of the
population of the outskirts of a city, town
or village. The more particular class of
educational institutions was extended to
the population of the cities, of the towns
or large villages and to these particular
schools greater privileges had been conferred, accordingly favourable to the religious
conditions of the people for whose
children these schools were particularly in
4167
COMMONS
tended, and in which religious instruction
was, by law, given according to the tenets
of their faith. As I stated a while ago,
the former class extended to the rural districts, it more particularly carried on
the
supervision of elementary education and
was administered under an enactment of
1858 called the Parish School Act, which
was superseded in 1871 by an Act called
the Common Schools Act. It was against
this new law that the Catholics appealed
to the Supreme Court. Let me say also
that it had been the expectation of the
fathers of confederation and of the British
parliament that the first clause upon education applied to all the schools, or classes
of schools in New Brunswick, so strong, so
general, was the prevailing opinon that the
Catholic minority enjoyed denominational
schools in every respect, an opinion created
by the prevalent harmonious relations of
the people of different races and creeds in
the maritime provinces. But upon investigation by the courts it was found that the
liberties enjoyed by the Catholics of New
Brunswick were not granted by the said
Parish School Act of 1858, but had come
into existence owing to what may legally
be termed irregularities, or laxities in the
administration of the law. The decisions
of the Privy Council and of the Supreme
Court of New Brunswick maintained that
the Parish School Act, 1858, did not refer to
denominational schools, and therefore this
Act being superseded by the Public Schools
Act of 1871, no denominational rights could
be affected so long as there were none in
existence by law. These judgments were
based on the assumption that denominational privileges or rights in existence
before the union were inalienable. These
tribunals searched in the Parish School Act
of 1858 for the existence of such rights as
claimed by the Catholics which might have
been affected by the new Act of 1871, but
failed to find them.
I wish to lay stress on this point that
evidently the judges of the Supreme Court
of New Brunswick before writing their decision had come to the unanimous conviction
that the 1st section of clause 93 of
the British North America Act did apply
to any province in which a class of persons enjoyed denominational principles in
the schools. I wish to lay stress on this
point that the Supreme Court did search
the existence of any such rights, under the
common understanding that should any
such rights be found to exist, the court
was bound by the terms of the section to
see them restored.
I wish to lay stress also upon this point
that had an appeal been made at the time
against principles enjoyed by different
classes of persons in the schools of the
other classification to which I referred, the
Supreme Court expressed their readiness
jealously to protect them.
4167
4168
For an illustration of this statement I
wish to quote from the judgment of the
Supreme Court of Canada, given in February, 1873, in the case of ex parte Renaud
and others, as it is called. The judges,
after having looked into the particulars of
the case, said:
It is contended, that the rights and privileges
of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of this
province, as a class of persons, have been
prejudicially affected by the Common Schools
Act, 1871, contrary to the provisions of subsection 1 of section 93 of the British
North
America Act. We have now to determine
whether any class of persons had, by law,
in this province, any right or privilege with
respect to denominational schools at the union,
which are prejudicially affected by the Common Schools Act of 1871. This renders it
ncessary that we should, with accuracy and
precision, ascertain exactly what the state of
the law was with reference to denominational
schools, and the rights of classes of persons
in respect thereto, at the union. At that time,
what may fairly and legitimately be called
the common school system of the province,
was carried on under an Act passed in the 21st
Vic., c. 9, intituled ' An Act relating to Parish
Schools.' There were no doubt, at the same
time in existence, in addition to the schools
established under the Parish School Act,
schools of an unquestionably denominational
character, belonging to, and under the immediate government and control of particular
denominations.
And in which, there can be no doubt, it may
reasonably be inferred, the peculiar doctrines
and tenets of the denominations to which they
respectively belong were exclusively taught,
and therefore had, what may rightly be esteemed, all the characteristics of denominational
schools, pure and simple. We do not here refer to collegiate institutions, which
it has been
strongly, and with great force, urged were not
within the contemplation of the imperial parliament, or intended to be affected by
the British North America Act, 1867, but we refer to
such schools as the Wesleyan Academy, Sackville, as incorporated by the 12th Victoria,
chapter 65, amended by 19th Victoria, chapter
65, a corporation entirely distinct in law, as we
presume also, in fact, from the college which
the trustees of that academy are authorized to
found and establish under the 21st Victoria,
chapter 57, an institution entirely under the
control of the Wesleyan denomination, and in
which, or in any department thereof, or
in any religious service held upon the
said premises, it is enacted that no person shall teach, maintain, promulgate or
enforce any religious doctrine or practice contrary to what is contained in certain
notes on
the New Testament, commonly reputed to be
the notes of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., and
in the first four volumes of sermons, commonly
reputed to have been written and published by
him.
Then it goes on again :
The Varley school, . . . the Madras school,
which by its charter is to be conducted according to the system called the Madras
system,
as improved by Dr. Bell, and in use and practice in the British National Educational
Society, incorporated and established in England,
4169 APRIL 7, 1905
which National Society, established in 1811, was
incorporated in 1817, for promoting the education of the poor in the principles of
the established church throughout England and Wales ;
the schools established by such society being
purely denominational, in which the children
are to be instructed in the Holy Scriptures and
in the liturgy and catechism of the established
church, and, with respect to such instruction
the schools are to be subject to the superintendence of the parochial clergyman, and
the
masters and mistresses are to be members of
the Church of England.
They have no objection to religious education. Then the judgment goes on :
And the Baptist Academy or Seminary—the
Roman Catholic school established in the city
of St. John—the Free school in Portland, under
the Board of Commissioners of the Roman Catholic school in St. John—the Roman Catholic
school in Fredericton—the Roman Catholic
school in St. Stephen—the Roman Catholic
school in St. Andrews—all of which are recognized by name by the legislature in various
Acts, anterior to the 21st Victoria, chapter 9,
and received specific annual grants from the
public provincial funds, outside the Parish
School Act.
It is seen by this statement, Mr. Speaker,
that the Catholics of New Brunswick at that
time were enjoying certain privileges but
not under that school Act of 1871. The
judgment goes on :
In the year 1857, and subsequently thereto,
the money intended for educational purposes
has been annually granted in a lump sum, viz.,
so much to provide for certain educational purposes, not specifying any particular
school or
purpose, as had been theretofore customary.
But the estimates of the public expenditure,
which appear in public journals, show that appropriations of a similar character have
been
since annually made. Thus in the year 1867,
but before the let day of July (the day of the
union), it will be seen by the Journals of the
house of assembly, page 45, that in addition to
the amount authorized by law, the following
schools, among others, received special grants,
viz. : The Madras School ; the Wesleyan
Academy ; the Baptist Seminary ; the Roman
Catholic School, Fredericton ; the Presbyterian
School, St. Stephen ; the Roman Catholic
School, St. John ; the Varley School, St. John ;
the Roman Catholic School, Milltown; the
Roman Catholic School, St. Andrews, male and
female ; the Roman Catholic Schools, Carleton, Woodstock, Portland, and Bathurst ;
the
Presbyterian School, Chatham ; Roman Catholic School, Newcastle, and the Sackville
Academy.
Further on the judgment says :
The Parish School Act clearly contemplated
the establishment throughout the province of
public common schools for the benefit of the
inhabitants of the province generally, and it
cannot, we think, be disputed, that the governing bodies under that Act were not in
any one
respect or particular 'denominational.'
The schools established under this Act were,
then, public parish or district schools, not belonging to or under the control of
any particular denomination ; neither had any class of
4169
4170
persons, nor any one denomination—whether
Protestant or Catholic—any rights or privileges
in the government or control of the lands, that
did not belong to every other class or denomination, in fact, to every other inhabitant
of the
parish or district ; neither had any one class
of persons or denomination nor any individual,
any right or privilege to have any peculiar religious doctrines or tenets exclusively
taught,
or taught at all, in any such school.
Such was our condition then. Under the
school system which the government repealed the minority did not enjoy privileges
by law, but enjoyed them simply through
the good-will of the board of education or
the inspectors of the province owing to the
harmonious feelings which were in existence in the provinces. The judgment goes
on :
But it is contended that the 60th section declaring 'that all schools conducted under
the
provisions of this Act shall be non-sectarian,'
prejudicially affects the rights and privileges
which the Roman Catholics, as a class, had in
the parish schools at the time of the union. It
cannot be denied that to the provincial legislature is confided the exclusive right
of making
laws in relation to education ; and that they,
and they only, have the right to establish a
general system of education, applicable to the
whole province, and all classes and denominations, provided always they have due regard
to
the rights and privileges protected by section
93 of the British North America Act, 1867.
The judges of the Supreme Court of Canada had decided that wherever a class of
persons in any province or territory, a class
of persons coming into the union with privileges granted by the law of their province
or territory, granted by the law of the land
from which they came—that class of persons
must be preserved in their privileges. It is
self-evident and I believe that the opinion
I am now giving can be upheld—that even
if they are coming from a state of the
American union where they enjoyed privileges conferred by the' law on that class of
persons in that portion of territory, that
class of persons would be entitled to
claim in Canada the privileges and the
rights they had before. Therefore today, we the minority—and I speak for
the Protestant minority, as I said before, as well as for the Catholic minority—we
the minority coming in with
school privileges in reference to separate
schools or dissenting or denominational
schools enjoy the privileges accorded to these
minorities according to the British North
America Act, as so nobly and richly and
generously granted by the parliament of
Great Britain, the parliament which as I say
never grants half measures, when it grants
a measure of justice. That parliament
when, after years of consideration, it decided to grant emancipation to Ireland did
not give a half measure, but extended emancipation to the Catholics not only of Ireland
but of the whole empire, and, I might
say, of all the world. and opened her ports
4171
COMMONS
to all the Catholics of the whole universe
to the great admiration of the Catholic world.
When England granted responsible government to the people of Canada, she granted
it to the full extent with all its privileges,
with full liberty, civil, political and religious. And what to-day is the brightest
jewel
in the flag of England—that England we admire so much and speak of with such
enthusiasm ? Take from that flag the
jewel of religious liberty and what is left
in it more than in the similar emblem of any
other nation. Religious liberty has been
granted with full generosity by the British
parliament and the British people. I refer
not to men like the editors of the Toronto
' World ' and ' News.' I mean the British
people ! That great people in giving
religious liberty, did not take back
with one hand what they granted with
the other, but gave it with an open
hand, with a generous heart and with
best wishes for her subjects dispersed
over the whole universe. Mr. Speaker, I
claim that the question before us is merely
a question of justice and right—undoubtedly
right. And we know that the people in the
minority in the districts of these new provinces, whether Catholic or Protestant,
expect the same right and the same educational advantages as they possess to-day.
We
have there not only French Canadian Catholic people, but Scotch and Irish Catholics.
We have also Germans of the Catholic faith
who give good service to Canada and are
equal to any other class of our people. We
have the German Protestants, who are the
equals of any other class in this country
and who deserve to be protected in their
rights. As I have said, we need in this
country the virtues of every nation. We
need in Canada, and particularly in the
Northwest, a combination of the best people to build up that new country. To develop
its resources the valour and activity
of the Frenchman will not alone suffice.
We require also the steady, dogged perseverance of the Scotchman who can follow his
plough from sunrise to sunset, preparing
the land for a crop which, repeated on
thousands of farms, will make that vast
country in fact the granary of the British
empire. And these people coming to the
Northwest will expect a continuance of the
liberties and privileges which they find established there by law. I have spoken of
the German people. I say that the German
Protestant people are as jealous of their
religious education and their separate schools
as are the French or Irish or German
Catholics. In the few weeks that I spent
in the Northwest I devoted my time from
morning till night to making myself acquainted with the people. I have met some
of these Germans, both Protestants and
Catholics, and that at a time when
the discussion of this Bill was on the
lip of every citizen of the Northwest
4171
4172
and these German people, both Protestants and Catholics, have said to me that they
hoped that the new Bill would secure to them
the separate schools which they have today in the Northwest. As I have said, the
district in which the minority is Catholic
to-day may have a Catholic majority in the
future, or vice versa. My hon. friend from
Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) whose countenance has drawn him towards me lately,
has claimed that the educational clauses as
they appear in this Bill do not give much
to the Catholic minority of the new provinces.
I admit that if we were granted more we
would not object to it. At the same time,
I may tell my hon. friend that I am one of
those who suffered for years in the struggle
of the Catholic minority in New Brunswick
to support separate schools. For a long
time our schools were practically closed,
and we were paying, not only our own
school tax without enjoying schools at all,
but we were paying the public school tax,
the Catholic population, especially on the
north shore of New Brunswick, being among
the poorest class of the people. I may be
permitted to say to the hon. member for
Beauharnois that perhaps if he had gone
through the same experience he would better appreciate the liberty and the rights
which are granted by this very Act. It
grants to the Catholic minority in any district the right to have their separate schools
supported by public money as well as the
public schools in the same district or in
other districts. It gives them the right to
engage a Catholic teacher ; it also gives
them the right to require the teacher, during that half hour, to teach the catechism
or to give religious instruction to the Catholic children. That is not all we want,
but
we have there both the right to separate
schools and the means to support them ;
and for my part, Mr. Speaker, I value highly the fact alone that we have the means
to support a school. In the interest of my
own Catholic people I do not want to see
a school that is not efficient, and a school
cannot be efficient unless you have the
means to make it so. If you do not give
them the money to support the school, what
other privilege will be of any value to them ?
I think any one who has given some attention to public instruction and to the education
of his children will appreciate that
fact. We want first of all the means. When
the teacher has been engaged he is under a
contract, and it is his duty to give to the
children a religious education during that
half hour. He has also the duty, during
the rest of the day, of supervising the education of the Catholic children in the
classes,
and this is a point in which my hon. friend
from Beauharnois is equally interested
with myself. The influence of the teacher
is there all day long, his guardianship is
there all the time that the children are receiving education in other branches as
well
as in religion ; the child is receiving lessons
4173 APRIL 7, 1905
in geography, lessons in arithmetic, along
with his catechism and his holy scripture.
When we have the young well educated in
Christian morals and doctrine, as well as in
secular matters, we can rely on the future
of the country. When the Catholic minority come to the parliament of Canada and
ask them to favour the sacred traditions of
the Catholic people for religious instruction
to a certain extent, they ask for it in the
name of their conscience, but they ask for
it also for the benefit of Canadian society.
The more religious instruction you give to
the child the better citizen you make of
him. And we want in this country good
citizens, people who will not live in idleness ; we want the child, along with his
secular education, to receive a good moral
tuition and a good Christian tuition. As
long as we ask for that in the name of conscience, why, in the name of the British
flag, should you not give it to us ? We are
asking nothing from the Protestant majority alongside of us, we are only asking for
the right to use our own money in order to
educate our own children, so that they may
become true Canadian citizens. We know
from experience that other denominations
do not hold the same view with regard to
the necessity of religious instruction in the
schools, and we do not object to that. yet
this Bill gives to the Protestant majority
and the Protestant minority the same privilege of giving religious instruction to
their
children during the half hour. I know there
is scarcely a Christian mother in the western
provinces who does not wish her child to
receive a Christian education. I met the
Christian mother in the Northwest. She
spoke to me her love of her children and
her devotion to their welfare and happiness.
She spoke to me of her attachment
to the religious education of her children,
and her desire that they should receive a good moral education at the same
time, in order that they might grow up to be
honest and useful citizens. We must remember that civilization carries with it
some dangers which only a Christian education can counteract, and without such
Christian education the result will be disastrous, not only to the family, but to
society in Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have established in a most irrefutable manner that
the people who go into the Northwest provinces have a right to enjoy the same privileges
that they received at home. I regret
as much as does the member for Beauharnois that our Catholic people are not accorded
still greater privileges than will be
given them under this law. But the constitution allows us to grant only what we
now possess, and what we hold now we are
bound to guarantee by this Autonomy Bill.
It is not a question of political power for this
parliament, it is a question of granting school
privileges to the minority in the new provinces. In 1875, when the parliament of
4173
4174
Canada decided unanimously to give separate schools to the people of the Northwest,
the parliament had power to make them
lasting. In 1875, when the parliament of
Canada gave to 'that class of persons,' to
use the language of the judgment of the
Supreme Court of New Brunswick, rights
and privileges in regard to educational matters in the Northwest Territories, it gave
them for ever. To-day this parliament is
not confronted with a question of whether or
not it has power to do a certain thing ; it is
confronted with a simple duty to preserve
the rights established by the Act of 1875.
Parliament had the power at that time, as
Mr. Blake plainly stated. Mr. Blake's language has already been quoted in this
House, but I may be permitted to read it
again :
The task which the ministry had set for
itself was the most important it was possible
to conceive. To found primary institutions
under which we hope to see hundreds of thousands, and the more sanguine of us think,
millions of. men and families settled and flourishing, was one of the noblest undertakings
that
could be entered upon by any legislative body,
and it was no small indication of the power
and true position of this Dominion that parliament should be engaged to-day in that
important task. He agreed with the hon. member
for Kingston (Sir John A. Macdonald) that
the task was one that required time, consideration and deliberation, and they must
take care
that no false steps were made in such a work.
He did not agree with that right hon. gentleman that the government ought to repeal
his
errors. The right hon. gentleman had tried
the institutions for the Northwest Territories
which he now asked the House to frame, and
for the same reason as he had given to-day—
that it would be better for the Dominion government to keep matters in their own hands
and decide what was best for the future. He
(Mr. Blake) believed that it was essential to
our obtaining a large immigration to the
Northwest that we should tell the people
beforehand what those rights were to be in the
country in which we invited them to settle.
He regarded it as essential, under the circumstances of the country, and in view or
the deliberation during the last few days, that
a general principle should be laid down in the
Bill with respect to public instruction. He
did believe that we ought not to introduce into
that territory the heart burnings and difficulties
with which certain other portions of the Dominion and other countries had been afflicted.
It seemed to him, having regard to the fact
that, as far as we could expect at present,
the general character of that population would
be somewhat analogous to the population of
Ontario, that there should be some provision in
the constitution by which they should have
conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction
as
those possessed by the people of the province
of Ontario. The principles of local self-government and the settling of the question
of
public instruction seemed to him ought to be
the cardinal principles or the measure.
At that time it was within the power of
the Dominion parliament to grant or not to
4175
COMMONS
grant these privileges. But now, they have
been granted, the people have had them in
their possession and the people who are today looking towards the Northwest, towards
these new provinces from Germany, as well
as from Scotland, England and other countries expect to have the religious teaching
which they desire. Therefore, this is not a
mere question of power ; it is a matter of
duty for us in this parliament to see that the
minority coming to Canada shall have the
institutions which they desire and to which
they are entitled. We cannot afford to destroy the credit of Canada for the sake of
half an hour's religious teaching in the
schools of the Northwest. But, it is said that
some people are opposed to it. Well, we can
only call upon the people of difierent classes
in this Dominion of ours with all its possibilities and with all its generosity to
set an
example in speech and in action to those few
people who cannot possibly comprehend the
reason why the Catholic people, as well as
a great many Protestant people, are asking
to have this privilege granted to the minorities in the western Territories. If I
thought
there were people in this Dominion who
required any further persuason in order
to induce them to take a broad and liberal
view of this question I would perhaps recall
the words of Joseph Howe. He described
Nova Scotia as the frontage of the whole
British North American continent whose
harbours, citadel and arsenal were not made
for Nova Scotia alone but were designed by
nature for the common benefit of herself
and of her sister provinces. I would ask my
hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Fielding) to go down to Nova Scotia with
his following and there call upon the generous people of that province to break open
the gate of that arsenal where the sentiments of generosity, mutual forbearance
and Christian charity have been stored since
the days of Huntingdon, Uniacke, Young
and Johnson, to be dispersed by the breezes
and conveyed to those centres where the
Toronto ' World ' or the ' News ' may yet
have some influence.
It has been said that the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) and the hon. Minister
of Customs (Mr. Paterson) will have
to face their constituents in the future.
It has been said that great excitement
exists in the constituency of the Postmaster General, and that the same responsibility
attaches to the Minister of Customs.
For my part I would ask them to go before
their constituents and ask them what crime
they have committed in having been inspired
and guided by that spirit of religious freedom
that has spread over Ontario, Quebec and
the other provinces. I would ask them to
go and tell their constituents what they
have done. But, Mr. Speaker, similar
charges were made against the Liberal party
not very long ago. It was said that when
these same hon. gentlemen and their followers went before the people they would stay
4175
4176
at home, but they have gloriously come back
and I believe they will again gloriously
come back. It. has been said also that the
venerated, esteemed, and beloved premier
of this country will pay the penalty of his
courage in extending the religious liberty
which now prevails in other parts of Canada to the Northwest Territories. The same
threat has been made before. Still men
like Balfour and Joseph Chamberlain did
listen and bow to the word of Mr. Laurier.
These hon. gentlemen opposite may again
make threats in this House and throughout
this country. Still, Mr. Speaker, the shades
of William Ewart Gladstone, Daniel O'Connell,' Edmund Burke, and Robert Peel awake
to the name of Wilfrid Laurier, and with
a fraternal smile invite him to share with
them in history, a common glory acquired in
the work of a common cause—the emancipation and the unity of races, the harmony of
creeds, the blending of the noble sentiments
of fraternity and charity on this continent
of America, the greatest country of Christian
civilization. The generations of the future
which are coming in the immense chariot of
commercial and industrial genius to settle
along our national highways, to develop the
abundant surrounding resources, when in
contact with each other in that endless turmoil of business, as in New York, Buffalo
and other industrial centres of the United
States, will merely pause a moment in their
felicity to proclaim aloud that this irresistible activity which carries them to
and fro is the work of a Canadian whose
name was Wilfrid Laurier ; and the Christian mothers of Alberta and Saskatchewan will
bless the name of the man who
has given them true British religious freedom for the education of their children.
Mr. PETER TALBOT (Strathcona). Mr.
Speaker, I regret very much that it is considered necessary at this late hour to continue
the debate, but I believe there
are so many hon. members who will
speak on this question that it is necessary to go on. The discussion of
this Bill has already taken up considerable
time, and I suppose almost every argument
that could be used in favour of the Bill or
in favour of the amendment moved by the
leader of the opposition has already been
advanced. As a resident of the Northwest
Territories it has been very pleasing to me
to notice that almost every hon. member
who has spoken, has admitted that this Bill
is a most important one, and that on this
legislation will depend in a great measure
not only the future prosperity of the new
provinces but the prosperity of the whole
Dominion. I maintain, Sir, that anything
that tends to mar the harmony or interfere
with the prosperity or check the development of these new provinces will be injurious
to the whole of Canada.
Before dealing with the main features of
the measure I shall touch briefly on a few
4177 APRIL 7, 1905
of the minor points. The government has
been criticised in some quarters for proposing that there should be tw0 provinces
instead of only one. As a resident of these
Territories I admit that it would be very
pleasant for us to feel that we had the banner province of the Dominion, that we overshadowed
our lesser neighbours, and that
the time would come when we would wield
a tremendous influence in the affairs of the
nation. But in the business things of life
there is more to be considered than sentiment. I maintain that that immense territory
would be too much for any single provincial government to handle. We know that
when the premier of a province is forming
his cabinet he takes his ministers from different, parts of the province, but in the
case
of such an immense area as that of the
Northwest Territories this would be utterly
impossible. It is quite true that for some
years past we have had an honest and a
fairly capable government in the Northwest
Territories but settlement is increasing, the
population is getting larger, and I venture
to assert that there are portions of the
Northwest Territories that for the last two
or three years have not been quite satisfied.
I am sure that the people of the Saskatchewan district and northern Alberta would
have been better satisfied if they had had
a representative in the cabinet. Then, again,
some objection has been taken to the dividing line placing the fourth initial meridian
as the boundary between the two provinces,
but I believe that very good reasons can be
given for the selection of that line. In the
first place, it divides the Territories almost
exactly in two, making the areas of the two
provinces practically the same, and in the
second place that line will be much more convenient in describing property, &c., as
it is
the beginning of a new range. To my mind
the only objection that can be offered at all
to selecting that line, is, that it divides the
ranching country, but I maintain that no
matter where the line is drawn between
these two provinces it would interfere with
some particular interest. Even if the dividing line were placed 60 miles further
east it would still divide the ranching country. I anticipate very little trouble
from
the clashing of herd laws or the branding
regulations. The stockmen of southern Alberta and of western Assiniboia will still
have common interests, and even with the
two provinces their associations will still
continue to do the work they have been
doing.
I have been pretty severely criticised myself in some quarters, because I favoured
the selection of the city of Edmonton for
the temporary capital of the province of
Alberta. Now, Sir, I want to say that if I
considered my personal interests in this
matter I would have advocated the selection
of the town near which I reside and in which
my interest lies. But I knew that at least
75 per cent of the constituents whom I repre
4177
4178
sent were in favour of having Edmonton as
the capital and considered its claims as the
best, and I thought it my duty to advocate
what they desire rather than to look for my
own selfish interests.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to one of the
most important features at this Bill, the one
relating to the ownership of the lands. These
residents of the proposed provinces who
look on this question from a sentimental
point of view only will no doubt favour provincial ownership, but I am convinced that
the practical men who consider the future
prosperity of not only the new provinces but
of the Dominion as a whole, will be perfectly
satisfied to have the land administered by
the federal government. We in the west
believe that the present remarkable prosperity of the west is due mainly to the tide
of immigration that is flowing to that part
of the country, and we further believe that
the immigrants that are going to the west
are induced to do so chiefly by the offer of
free lands. What is the policy of the opposition with respect to immigration ? I suppose
the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake)
has given expression to that policy, and on
page 3542 of ' Hansard ' he says :
If the new provinces were possessed of their
own public lands, they would be the most interested of all in encouraging immigration
to
come within their bounds. We should have
three local governments all hard at work trying to bring in immigration, and all competing
with each other for immigration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we would have not
only three local governments competing for
immigration ; we would have no less than
six. We would have the province of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario and Quebec. What would be
the condition of things if we had six immigration departments each sending out literature
describing its own particular advantages, and each sending its agents to different
parts of the world ? It would not only be
very expensive but it would be confusing,
and you would have jealousy and quarreling
amongst them, the effect of which would
be to sever rather than to unite the different classes out of which we hope to make
a united Canada. I am proud to be a
resident of the proposed province of Alberta
and I have unbounded faith in the future
of that province, but at the same time I
think it is best for Canada as a whole and
best for Alberta, that the immigration literature should go out from the government
of Canada, that our immigration agents in
the different parts of the world should be
Canadian agents, and that the immigrants
who come to this country should be guided
by Canadian officials. I would dislike very
much to see any great change made in the
immigration policy of the government.
Those of us who lived in the west before
that policy was inaugurated know only too
well the condition of affairs at that time.
4179
COMMONS
We have seen the settlers who were there
load their few effects on prairie schooners
and drive out to the country ; we have seen
deserted homesteads by the score ; we have
seen merchants close their doors and leave
the country; we have seen settlers on the
verge of starvation; we have seen honest,
industrious men forced to appeal to the
government for assistance and we have seen
improved farms sold in that western country at from one dollar to three dollars per
acre. No sooner was the present immigration
policy adopted and the late Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton) placed in charge of
immigration affairs than a change took
place. Settlers began to flock into the
country and to afford a market for what the
earlier settlers had produced. Other markets were opened up. The merchants began
to thrive. The price of land rose quickly
from $3 to $4, from $4 to $5, from $5 to $6,
&c., in many localities as high as $30 per
acre has been paid.
I think the west is practically solid in
requesting that no change be made in the
immigration policy. I was pleased a few
days ago to hear the hon. the Postmaster
General pay a high compliment to the late
Minister of the Interior, and I want to assure that hon. gentleman that he was
only voicing the sentiments of the west
when he said the resignation of the Minister
of the Interior was little short of a national
calamity.
There is another reason why it is best
for the federal government to administer
those lands. It may not be considered a
good reason by some, but I think the experience of most of the other provinces will
give some weight to it. It is this. We
might at some future time have a careless
or extravagant government in one or both
of the new provinces. If such a thing
did happen our resources would rapidly
disappear and we might in a very few
years be compelled to appeal to extensive
direct taxation.
There is still another serious obstacle in
the way of the provinces administering the
land. Some years ago very extensive
grants of those lands were made to various
corporations, railway companies and colonization companies. Now it happens that
when those corporations selected their
lands they chose the greater portion of it
in the proposed province of Alberta. So,
if the provinces received the lands within
their own borders, they would not receive
equal shares and an injustice would be
done to the province of Alberta.
Some hon. gentlemen on the other side
of the House would like to make the public believe that all the lands in these vast
areas are agricultural lands. Such is far
from being the case. In fact only a small
portion of those lands will ever be fit for
agricultural purposes. Many millions of
acres are under water. Millions more consist of muskeg and slough, while millions
4179
4180
more are sand hills and barren. There is
no doubt there is an immense quantity of
good agricultural land in the country but
it is only a fraction of the whole.
Now, what does federal administration of
these lands mean to the provinces ? In the
first place, the provinces really get half
the land, or all the even-numbered sections.
These sections are reserved for free homesteads. Until entered for we have the use
of them. Our stock will graze on those
pastures. As soon as entered for, they
become the property of our citizens who
pay us taxes. And even with regard to the
odd-numbered sections the same reasoning
may apply because we hope that those may
soon be thrown open for settlement at a
low price. In the second place, we get
this land administered for us free of
charge. In the third place, we have an
energetic immigration policy of a national
character carried on for us without expense. In the fourth place, we get an
annual subsidy, increasing as our population increases and sufficiently large to
put us on a par fianancially with the most
favoured of the other provinces. If all the
members of the opposition would be as
frank and as candid as the hon. member
for Beauharnois, they would say with him,
that as far as the financial terms are concerned, the government has treated the
new provinces not only with fairness but
with generosity.'
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to dwell on
the other very important question involved
in this Bill. It is certainly quite true, that
the education question is a dangerous one
to deal with. This question nearly prevented coufederation. It caused the downfall
of one federal government and our
friends in the opposition fondly hope that
it will cause the downfall of another in the
not distant future. Nearly every province
in the Dominion has experienced difficulty
in dealing with this vexed question.
I will not attempt to deal with the constitutional question involved in this Bill.
I have
had no legal training and I frankly admit
my inability to grapple with a question on
which the best legal talent in Canada fail
to agree. I want to say that in 1892 I gave
this question a good deal of thought. I
read over the British North America Act
and the Northwest Territory Act of 1875.
and I came to the conclusion that whatever
privileges the minority had when we became a province these privileges would have
to be continued. That conclusion may have
been wrong, but I arrived at it notwithstanding the fact that I was then, as I am
LOW, strongly opposed to separate schools in
the usual sense of the term.
If I understand this Bill in its present
form, it provides that the minority, either
Protestant or Roman Catholic, shall continue to have the privileges they now have
under the provisions of the Northwest Territories Ordinances of 1901.
4181 APRIL 7, 1905
Now, Sir, I maintain that before we
undertake to pronounce judgment on this
Bill we should have a fair understanding
of the school system in use in the Northwest Territories under the provisions of those
ordinances. It is only natural that when the
people of Ontario hear the term 'separate
schools' they should think of the separate
schools as they exist in that province.
When the people of Manitoba hear the expression 'separate schools' they think of the
inefficient schools which they abolished in
1890. I feel sure that if the people of the
other provinces understood our school system there would not be a great deal or opposition
to the educational clause of this
Bill in its present form. I believe the people of the west are willing to give to
any
minority any privilege to which they can
show a claim, and they will give it the
more cheerfully and criticise it the less closely because in this case it not only
does not
injure, but it increases the usefulness
of our school system. Our schools are in
truth national schools. No religious sect,
no denomination, no association, no society
has anything to do directly or indirectly
with the secular education of the children
attending any of our schools. They are
completely and absolutely under the control
of the government. In all our schools the
same course of studies is followed. Practically the same text books are used. The
teachers have to pass the same examinations
and get the same training at the same normal school. All have the same holidays and
vacations, and all undergo the same rigid
inspection and the government grant is apportioned to all the same basis.
I desire to read a few short extracts from
the School Ordinance that applies in this
case. Section 4 reads as follows :
The department shall have the control and
management of all kindergarten schools, public
and separate schools, normal schools, teachers'
institutes, and the education of deaf, deaf mute
and blind persons.
Section 6 is as follows :
The commissioner with the approval of the
Lieutenant Governor in Council shall have
power :
1. To make regulations of the department—
(a) For the classification, organization, government, examination and inspection of
all
schools hereinbefore mentioned ;
(b) For the construction, furnishing and care
of school buildings and the arrangement of
school premises ;
(c) For the examination, licensing and grading of teachers and for the examination
of persons who may desire to enter professions or
who may wish certificates of having completed
courses of study in any school ;
(d) For a teachers' reading course and teachers' institutes and conventions ;
2. To authorize text and reference books for
the use of the pupils and teachers in all schools
hereinbefore mentioned as well as such maps,
globes, charts and other apparatus or equipment as may be required for giving proper
instruction in such schools ;
4181
4182
3. To prepare a list of books suitable for
school libraries and to make regulations for
the management of such libraries ;
4. To make due provision for the training of
teachers.
Then there is section 136 :
All schools shall be taught in the English
language, but it shall be permissible for the
board of any district to cause a. primary course
to he taught in the French language ;
(2) The board of any district may subject to
the regulations of the department employ one
or more competent persons to give instruction
in any language other than English in the
school of the district to all pupils whose parents or guardians have signified a willingness
that they should receive the same, but such
course of instruction shall not supersede or in
any way interfere with the instruction by the
teacher in charge of the school as required by
the regulations of the department and this ordinance ;
(3) The board shall have power to raise such
sums of money as may be necessary to pay the
salaries of such instructors and all costs,
charges and expenses of such course of instruction shall be collected by the board
by a special
rate to be imposed upon the parents or guardians of such pupils as take advantage
of the
same. C.O., c. 75, s. 109.
Section 137 is as follows :
No religious instruction except as hereinafter
provided shall be permitted in the school until
one-half hour previous to its closing in the
afternoon, after which time any such instruction permitted or desired by the board
may be
given.
(2) It shall, however, be permissible for the
board of any district to direct that the school
be opened by the recitation of the Lord's
Prayer. C.O., c. 75. s. 110.
Now, these are the sections in the North
west Territories Ordinances, 1901, that apply in this case. I am not going to enter
into a discussion on the advisability of
having religious instruction in schools, but
it is a well—known fact that many Protestants as well as Roman Catholics desire to
have some religious instruction given in
the schools. Now, to meet the wishes of
such people as these, we permit the giving
of religious instruction in the schools from
3.30 to 4 o'clock in the afternoon. In this
we treat all alike, all schools have the same
privilege. Separate schools will not be
formed unless the trustees of a public school
try to deprive the minority of their right
in this respect. Let us suppose a case.
Suppose that in a certain district a majority of the people are Roman Catholics and
Roman Catholic trustees are elected. They
will, we suppose, engage a Roman Catholic
teacher. They will request or instruct him
to give religious instruction in that school
after 3.30 o'clock. The Protestant children
of course are allowed to go home. If the
parents or trustees of these children desire
that their children should have religious instruction in that school, they will no
doubt
appeal to the trustees and ask that they
4183
COMMONS
be given a certain number of afternoons for
that purpose. If the trustees refuse, then
they will probably form a separate school.
In practice, trouble never arises; we have
no trouble in the west in that way, the
trustees always agree and they have different days for giving religious instruction
for the different denominations. The trustees have in all cases for years been able
to come to an agreement. No separate
schools, either Protestant or Roman Catholic, have been organized for the last three
or four years, and even some that we had
previous to 1901 have become disorganized.
In 1901, there were 14 Roman Catholic separate schools In the Northwest Territories;
to-day there are only 10. We in the west
were boasting that we had solved this vexed
problem. The Roman Catholic laity are
perfectly satisfied, as far as I can learn,
and there is no complaint from the Protestant majority. We are bringing together the
Protestant and Roman Catholic children for
the purpose of secular education to an extent
never before known anywhere in Canada.
Some ask the question: have you separate
schools at all? To these I would say that
as far as secular education is concerned,
we have not, and for sectarian education
we have. Now, I think that is right. It
leaves the secular education with the state
and the sectarian education, where it belongs, with the church and with the home.
If this plan which has worked so successfully in the west for years be not adopted,
what
alternative have we ? We are asked by
some to refer the matter to the courts and
to allow them to decide what is the right
of the minority. Now, it is just possible, in
my mind, that the courts may decide that
the minority are entitled to the rights
which they had by the provisions of the
Northwest Territories Act of 1875, and if
that were the case, we would have saddled
upon us a dual system of schools which
would be as unsatisfactory to the Roman
Catholic minority as it would be to the
Protestant majority. Personally, I prefer to
take no risks, especially since granting what
is asked does not interfere with the usefulness of our present school system. Then
we are asked by others to leave this question entirely with the new provinces. For
my part, I would be quite willing to do
this. I feel sure that the governments in
the provinces would be sensible enough to
continue the present system, in fact, I have
heard nearly all the members of the present legislature of the Northwest Territories
express themselves as opposed to making
any change. The premier of the Northwest
Territories quite recently said that if he
had the power to-morrow he would not
change the present system. But we all
know how at any time an agitation may be
started and how the minority might then
be deprived of the privileges which they
have. If that were the case, we would
then be confronted by a serious evil. If
4183
4184
the Roman Catholic minority were deprived
of the privileges they now have, what would
they do ? They would do Just as they have
done in hundreds of cases in the past. They
would build, equip, and patronize church
schools. These schools would have to be
supported by them and they would also be
compelled to pay their taxes to the public
or common school. They would thus be
paying double taxes, and in many
cases that would be a hardship to
them. But that is not the worst
feature of the case to my mind. The worst
feature is that since the government did not
support or assist these church schools it
would have no control over even the secular
education given in them. Now I am so
strongly in favour of the state having absolute control of the secular education of
the
children who are to become citizens of that
state that I am willing to deprive the provinces of the power of making the mistake
of totally abolishing separate schools. If
separate schools were abolished in the new
provinces by law we might have a condition
of affairs similar to that which exists in the
maritime provinces. We were told a few
evenings ago by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Fielding) the condition that exists in
those provinces. In localities where there is
a considerable number of Roman Catholics
separate schools do exist by practice if they
do not by law. There you find Roman
Catholic children in one school and Protestant children in another ; you find Roman
Catholic teachers in one school and Protestant teachers in another ; you have in effect
separate schools there by practice if not by
law. Now to my way of thinking our
system is far ahead of that. Some have
compared the action of the federal government in this case to the action of the federal
government in 1896. But I do not think the
cases are at all similar. Then the federal
government tried to force an obnoxious law
upon an unwilling people ; now the federal
government is merely asking the Northwest
to continue a system that passed its
legislature unanimously and was accepted by the people and has proved for
years to be thoroughly efficient. And,
further, it is a law which, we all
admit, the people of the Northwest Territories
would themselves adopt if it were left
to their own free choice. I have no hesitation in saying—and I say it after an experience
of twenty-five years teaching in the
public schools of Ontario and the North-
west—that we have a system of elementary
education inferior to none in Canada. And
I wish to say further that our system is
more thoroughly a national system than
even that of the United States. Our government has absolute control of the secular
education of a larger percentage 01' the
children than has the government of any
state of the American union, where they
boast of their national schools. Let me
quote an extract from a standard work.
4185 APRIL 10, 1905
'Education in the United States; its history since the earliest settlements,' by Richard
G. Boone, A.M., professor of pedagogy
in Indiana University.
The twelve Catholic provinces—Baltimore,
Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee. New
Orleans, New -York, Oregon, Philadelphia, St.
Louis, San Francisco, and Santa Fé—are subdivided into seventy-nine dioceses. The
latter
average from thirty-five to forty parishes,
each of which is supposed to have a school for
the elementary training of their children. As
a matter of fact, ninety-three per cent of them
do maintain parochial schools, in which are
educated, generally by the priesthood, rarely
by laymen (except in the teaching congregations), the 511,063 pupils. In addition
to these
are 588 academies usually for girls, and 91
colleges.
So you have the elementary education of
511.063 pupils in this comparatively small
portion of the United States being conducted
in schools over the secular education given
in which the government has no control.
Then, I have heard the annual report of the
commissioner of education of the United
States, in which some interesting facts are
given. This report says:
In 1872 the present limits of the Catholic
diocese of Boston were fixed and Boston was,
in 1875, made an archieplscopal see. These
limits are the counties of Suffolk, Middlesex,
Essex, Norfolk and Plymouth.
Now, we will hear something about the
schools in these counties :—
In 1873, there were perhaps three or four
fairly good school buildings in the thirteen
parishes then having schools; to-day 62 parishes have schools in 74 buildings (not
including basements of churches or convents), for
the most part modern and well equipped; 42
of these buildings are brick. The valuation of
school property, including all the convents,
is not far from $4,500,000.
In 1873 there were 11 schools for girls and
2 for boys. To-day, there are 65 for girls
and 61 for boys.
In 1873, there were not more than 6,000 pupils
while to-day there are at least, 38,200 pupils
according to the statistics of June, 1900. In
July, 1901, the statistics show for parochial
schools of the archdiocese of Boston, 40,273
pupils and 820 teachers.
In all New England, where in 1820, 1 Catholic school was opened, there are to-day
about
325 schools and 122,000 pupils.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that speak:
well for our system as compared with What
they have. In the Northwest Territories
to-day we have practically every child receiving his secular education under the
control of the state. I doubt if any other
country in the world can show such a good
record. The system we have in force is
giving satisfaction, and I believe it is the
only practical solution of this question. I
am supporting the Bill for that reason—
not because I am a Liberal or because it
was introduced by the right hon. Prime
Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) for whom I
4185
4186
have every admiration, but because I believe
it to be in the best interests of the west.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.55 a.m., Saturday.
This individual participated in:
