As a matter of fact one of the reasons
given for the refusal of the United States
to recognize Canadian certificates is that
in Canada there are various certificates, and
the American authorities could not undertake to examine into the different associations
which issue them. The natural
answer was : If you will recognize Canadian national certificates, we will make our
certificates national. That is one of the
reasons why this movement has, attained
such force.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first
time.
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. T. MARTIN (North Wellington). As a new member, I
feel that I should apologize for taking up the time of the House after
the lengthy discussion we have had on this
5083
5084 Bill. The question however is so important, more especially as the
Bill before us is not only one of the very first measures that has to
be considered by myself as well as other new members, but extends our
confederation by the admission of new provinces, great in area and
rich in future possibilities, that I think I may fairly claim the indulgence
of the House while I take up its attention for a short time. I
listened last night with pleasure to the speech from another young
member of the House (Mr. Lalor), and while I congratulate him on the
excellent address he made as his maiden effort. I was very much
astonished at some of his remarks. Indeed I thought that he skated around
the question very carefully ; and I noticed in the past few days an
inclination among members opposite to sail all around the subject and
not face it as it should be faced. I would refer, in the first place, to the
speech of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) in which he
challenged the government to open up a constituency in the west and
appeal to the people to elect its Minister of the Interior. You will notice
in that speech that he almost tells us that if the government had
courage enough to place this matter before the country he would have
very little objection to the Bill afterwards ; that is, if any member from
the west was appointed Minister of the Interior and was elected by his
constituents. I am sorry he is not in his place to-day, and I am sorry
to say that that good looking young man has not been in his place since
the 25th day of this month. He seems to have already commenced to
think that it is time to go back on what he has said.
Mr. SCHAFFNER. Did I understand the hon. gentleman to
say that the hon. member for Calgary had not been in his place ?
Mr. T. MARTIN. I only said that I had not seen him and
I have not seen him here in the House. The hon. member for South. York
(Mr. W. F. Maclean) has made several speeches, one particularly, challenging
the government to appoint a Minister of the Interior and to
go to the country, to open any constituency in the west and elect a minister
there. We find that since the 25th of this month that courageous
gentleman's chair has also been vacant. I call attention to the fact
that even the shepherd of the flock, the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has
made some statements in this House that I think are worth calling the
attention of the House to. He said :
I wish to make a proposition to the Minister
of Justice which I shall ask the Minister of
Finance to convey to him as he is not in his
place. I suggest to the Minister of Justice that
if the statements of the Minister of Finance
and the ex-Mlnister of the Interior are true, he
should let the lawyers on both sides of the
House get together and frame an amendment
in accordance .with the statements of these two
gentlemen, an amendment which shall contain
5085 APRIL 28, 1905
nothing more, but which shall be put in plain
language so that the man on the street may
know what it means. Then, so far as I am concerned, there will be no opposition because
it
is a national school as both of these hon. gentlemen say, a national school with only
one
half hour's religious teaching between 3.30 and
4 o'clock in the afternoon. And I am sure the
people of the Northwest or of Ontario, or at
any other section of. the Dominion will raise no
objection to that.
Mr. T. MARTIN. Then we come to the speech of my hon.
friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) last night. He was very particular on four different
occasions to state and he wound up his speech by
stating:
When I vote in favour of the amendment of
my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden), I am not voting against separate
schools, and I want that distinctly understood.
I would say to these gentlemen that after
we have spent something like six weeks on
this question we would ask them to at once
drop the discussion and fall in with us and
make the passage of the Bill unanimous. If
they want to vote for separate schools they
can have all the opportunity they wish.
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor)
also said in his speech that the leader of the
government was a coward, that one of the
greatest acts of cowardice that had ever been
perpetrated upon this country was the apappointment of the present Minister of
the Interior because he had had a large
majority in the last election. I never
knew that it was a crime to have a
large majority in this country ; I never
knew'that a man had to sit on the back
benches all his life because he had a
large majority, and I believe that no fairer
and no wiser act could have been done under
the circumstances than the premier's action
in appointing as Minister of the Interior the
Hon. Mr. Oliver. The hon. member also
stated that he does not believe there is a
more clever man in this Dominion than Premier Haultain. I believe he is correct, I
presume he is. But I notice in an interview
with the Toronto ' News ' that Premier Haultain when interviewed at Winnipeg spoke
on
this subject. The interview appears under
the heading 'No Significance in Mr. Oliver's
Election.' Mr. Haultain believed there was
no significance, but the hon. member for
Haldimand believes there was a great deal
of significance. In Mr. Haultain's interview
he was asked it' there was any probability
of the Northwest legislature being called together to pass a resolution on the question.
Mr. Haultain replied in the negative. I believe Mr. Haultain is a clever man, but
I
say that when the hon. member for South
York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) was challenging
the Postmaster General to throw up his seat
and run an election he might have gone one
further and challenged Premier Haultain to
call his council together and see what they
5085
5086
would say on the question. I believe Premier Haultain knows to-day that he dare not
call his council together, I believe that if he
called that council together he would be defeated in an attempt to pass any resolution
or any measure that would be in any way
against the Bill that we have now before us.
I believe that there is no greater coward,
that no man has shown himself the coward
so much as Mr. Haultain. Mr. Haultaln has
written a letter to the premier, a letter
which I have in my hand, and in it you can
easily see that if it were possible that he
could make any political capital out of
calling his legislature together, he would do
so and have a resolution passed opposing
this measure. He has not been able to do so,
he has been afraid to attempt to do so.
Therefore I fall back upon what I said in
the first place that it was rather amusing
when we listened to the remarks of the
speakers last night how they all skated
around the question, how they were trying
to get some way crawl out the back door,
stating in their arguments if you can call
them arguments, as the member for Haldimand said : ' I am not voting against separate
schools; I want that distinctly understood.'
Mr. LALOR. Are you voting for separate schools?
Mr. T. MARTIN. Now you leave me alone, I will attend to
that before I get through. At the very outset I wish to take strong
objection to some statements made by that member in his speech. He said :
I want to tell them there is no mutiny on
this side.
It did not look like it.
The leader of the Conservative party told us
both in caucus and out-
I suppose that means there would have
been a mutiny if the leader had not told them
so.
The leader of the Conservatiye party told
us both in caucus and out to vote as our consciences dictated to us on this Bill,
and that is
the way we are voting on the measure.
Evidently, the leader of the opposition
had reached a point where he had to tell
his followers that there would have been
an end to his authority. We have the evidence of half a dozen hon. members on the
opposition side to prove that that is the
case. And, gentlemen. I wish to go one
step further and tell my hon. friend from
Haldimand that he is entirely wrong when
he makes this statement :
The hon. member says their consciences will
not allow them to follow him. I would like to
see the consciences of some members on the
other side of the House who are compelled to
follow the Prime Minister whether they want
to or not, the men who are whipped into line,
the men who have had the whip lashed over
their backs, and have been brought to the centre with a round turn and made to support
the
5087
COMMONS
Prime Minister notwithstanding the fact that
they know when they are doing so that the
people who sent them to this parliament are
opposed to this measure.
Now, I do not wish to make any joke of
this, but to speak earnestly about it. And
I say truthfully—and I challenge contradiction—that in no case, in caucus or out
of caucus, in this House or out of this
House, has one member of the government
or one member of this House on the government side, even asked me what I intended
to do on this question. Now, gentlemen, I
say. that openly-
Mr. TAYLOR. I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. T. Martin) thinks he is before a country audience. He should
address the Chair.
Mr. T. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, if I am out of order, I
apologize and am ready at once to conform to the rule of the House.
But if the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), the whip of the
Conservative party, had called his freshman to order last night, I
think he would have done well. It is astonishing that he, an old member of
this House could sit and listen for an hour and a half to such
nonsense, to such stuff, and yet, lose his head before I have been speaking fifteen
minutes. It seems to me that if leniency should
be shown in this House. new members should have the benefit of it. I
was quite willing that all leniency should be shown to my hon, friend from
Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) even though, he did allow himself
such latitude. Had he been before a country audience and made such a speech
as he made last night. he would have been told a dozen times that he
was very fresh.
Mr. T. MARTIN. We are both from the country, and I am
not ashamed of the country. Now, I wish to be thoroughly understood, and I wish
these words of mine to go to the country, when I say
that on no occasion have I—and I believe the same is true of every
hon. member on the government side of the House—been requested, even so much as
requested, to vote for the Bill now in
consideration.
Mr. T. MARTIN. Yes, or any other Bill. I was very sorry
also that the young member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) should attack so recklessly and
with so little conscience
that grand man the right hon. leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
The hon. member used language with reference to the Prime Minister
that no young member of this House is entitled to use. The
Prime Minister of this country has a record, and by that record he is to be
judged. He has behind him a record of twenty- three years
of publlc service, a lifetime in itself. He has a record of. never
failing tolerance. He has a record of clean
5087
5088 and able administration, such a record as we have seldom had among the
public men of Canada. Can any man charge the Prime Minister of this
Dominion with having misused in any way a penny of the public
funds? Can any man charge the Prime Minister with intolerance or with
any disregard of the rights or feelings of any section of the people? I say that it
is unbecoming of any young
member of this House, of any man of little experience either political or parliamentary,
to use such language with reference
to the right hon. leader of this House as was used by the hon. member
for Haldimand.
I was much pleased to hear the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) the other day quote
the utterances of a Presbyterian minister
and declare, as he did, that any one would
accept the statement of the gentleman whose
name he gave and whose words he quoted.
I belong to that church myself. and I am
proud of the church and of the men it has
produced. Therefore, I desire to follow the
hon. member for Peel and give the opinions
of some members of that denomination, to
show that the school system of the Northwest as it now stands is satisfactory to the
people of these new provinces and that
therefore, we are right in voting for this
Bill. This quoting of the opinion of members of one church may seem a little sectional,
but I am sure that hon. members
will bear with me when they hear the names
of those whose words I desire to give.
First I would refer to the late Rev. Dr
Robertson, and I am sure, when I mention
his name, those hon. members who belong
to the Presbyterian church—and I am glad
to say there are a large number in this
House who belong to it—and all the adherents of that church throughout the country,
will receive almost as final evidence
any utterance of Dr. Robertson with regard
to the Northwest. Dr. Robertson became a
superintendent of missions of the Presbyterian church in 1882 and continued in that
work until his death in 1902. And I believe
that I state only the simple truth when I
say that in the twenty years of his service
no man ever did more for the Northwest,
or said more for the Northwest, than this
great man whose name I have given. Those
of us who have had the honour and pleasure of receiving him at our own firesides
know that his whole conversation was of
the Northwest. And those of us who have
attended the courts of the church to which
he belonged, know that his great theme in
the courts of our church was the
building up of the Northwest and
the extending of religious ordinances
to the people of that great country.
Dr. Robertson was a broad man. Dr. Robertson was a man who could see past his
own church. I have heard him say time
and again that the was glad to see other
churches in the Northwest, he wanted other
churches to prosper, but one of his greatest
5089 APRIL 28, 1905
troubles in the Northwest was that there
was an overlapping of churches. He felt
that in many cases that overlapping was
not doing the good it ought to do. I mention these facts to remind hon. gentlemen
who did not know Dr. Robertson, but who
had perhaps heard of him, that he was a
broad-minded man, a man who could take
a broad view of all questions. From the
year 1882 to 1902, I have followed every
one of Dr. Robertson's reports presented to
our church. I have followed these reports
for twenty years, I have carefully looked
into them, I have been myself a delegate
to the assemblies of the Presbyterian
church and I know that Dr. Robertson's reports were full of information and dealt
in the most comprehensive manner with the
Northwest Territories. When I mention
the fact that in all these reports I failed
to find one single word in twenty years
against these schools in the Northwest it
should have great weight with Protestants
all over this country. If there was anything wrong with these schools in 1882,
would not a broad-minded man like Dr.
Robertson. whose life work was in the
Northwest, have mentioned it in his first
report? Would he not have mentioned it
in his second report, or would he not, in
the twenty reports that he presented to
the general assembly, have had something
to say regarding that question ? I have a
great many of these reports here. He gives
first a general sketch of the character and
resources of the country and then he goes
into the question as, it appeared at that
time, of the economic and social development of the Northwest and his firm belief
at that time was that the west was to be
one of the most important parts of our
land; it was to be one of the parts of our
land that would contain more people than
even the grand province of Ontario. He
believed the day was coming when millions would live in peace and luxury in
that country. In giving his opinion on
all these things he was always pressing
for men and money to help on the work
of the church and I am glad to say. now
that that great man is gone. that he was
broad minded enough to find no fault with
any other church in all the reports he made
to our church.
Mr. LANCASTER. May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. T.
Martin) a question? Did Dr. Robertson at any time report against the
provinces themselves dealing with the school question?
Mr. LALOR. Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. T. Martin) aware
that the Presbytery in his own county passed a resolution in condemnation of this
Bill?
5089
5090
Mr. LALOR I am informed so by gentlemen here.
Mr. T. MARTIN. Who are they? I would like to have those
gentlemen rise and make that statement.
Mr. CHISHOLM. I had a resolution sent to me and I have
a resolution here from the Presbytery of Saugeen and it stated that
the resolution was to be sent to me and also to my hon. friend from North
Wellington (Mr. Martin).
Mr. T. MARTIN. It so happens that I do not live in the
same Presbytery as my hon. friend from East Huron (Mr. Chisholm). I know that in
some Presbyteries resolutions have been passed, but
the fact that he may have received the resolution to which the hon.
gentleman refers does not prove that I did. We were told by the hon.
member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) that there was no one-
Mr. SPROULE. I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr.
T. Martin) will not deny that the Presbytery of Owen Sound, representing some 2,500
families-
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order. order.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. With the consent of the
Speaker the hon. gentleman has the right to ask him a question.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. member (Mr. T. Martin) is living
in an adjoining county to my own. As a matter of courtesy I propose to
ask him a question which I think I have a perfect right to do. I wished to ask him
if he was aware of the fact that the Presbytery
of Owen Sound, representing 2,500 families, had passed a strong
resolution in opposition to the school clause of this Bill.
Mr. T. MARTIN. I was not aware of it. I have no doubt
it is true. I have noticed in the papers that several Presbyteries have
done so, but I do not live in the Presbytery of Owen Sound. I live in
the Presbytery of Saugeen. It was stated by the hon. member for
Haldimand last night that the people of the Northwest Territories were
very much apposed to the school clause in the Bill. I have a letter here.
dated April
5091
COMMONS
28, from a gentleman in Regina and I have also
another letter dated April 18, from another gentleman living in
the Northwest Territories. I think it might be well to give quotations
from these letters just to put that hon. gentleman right in this respect. One of
these letters states:
As far as the people out here are concerned,
there is very general satisfaction with the Bill
in all particulars, and I presume we ought to
be the ones who are most directly interested
and know best about it.
The other letter says:
All here are satisfied with the school clause
1n the Autonomy Bill, even Conservatives are
finding very little fault.
These letters are from gentlemen who
have been living in the Northwest for
twenty-two years, two prominent men in
the Territories. I would also read a further extract for the benefit of the hon.
member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in regard to a matter upon which he seemed to
be a little misty last night. I refer to the
question of school books. The writer of
this letter says:
We sell the same books to both schools.
This is a long letter and I need not read
it all through as it would only be taking
up the time of the House. But, he incidentally mentions in this letter that they sell
to both parties the same school books. I
trust that that will set at rest the mind
of the hon. member for East Grey, and
that he will be able to keep his seat now
until I get through. I was very glad also
to hear from the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor). He stated—I think I
have his words here exactly—that there
was no more independent paper in Canada
than the 'Witness,' that it was a very independent paper. I have the 'Witness'
here.
Mr. LALOR. I did not make that statement. I
never mentioned the 'Witness.'
An hon. MEMBER. Oh.
Mr. LALOR. 'Hansard' shows it. Read 'Hansard.'
Mr. T. MARTIN. I think I heard every word that was
said. I think he mentioned the ' Witness ' also. However, I will take
that back. I do not want to use the hon. gentleman's words in a way that
should not be done, but I will read an extract from the 'Witness.' I know
that the people of western Ontario believe that the
5091
5092 'Witness' is as reliable a paper from a Protestant standpoint as we
have in Canada. It is an old established paper and it seems
to have run in a very independent course for many years. This paper is
dated April 25th. A clergyman writing to the paper on the school question
says this:
To the editor of the 'Witness ' :
Sir,—As a reader of the ' Witness ' from boyhood I am very much surprised at your
attitude on the Autonomy Bill. You seem to think
that too much stress is being laid on provincialism by us in Ontario.
Well, I am afraid there has been, and I
think that some of the members of the
opposition in this House, when they look
over their speeches a couple of years hence
will come to the conclusion that they have
gone too far in that direction. The letter
continues :
Yet who were they who refused to enter into
legislative union at confederation, and insisted
on a federal union ? Who were the ones who
at that time demanded provincial rights in certain matters, of which education was
one ? The
Roman Catholics of Quebec were the opponents
then of a legislative union. They were then
advocates of provincialism, but what they
claimed for themselves at that time they now
are unwilling to grant the people of the west.
No, Mr. Editor, the people of Ontario are true
to the principles of confederation. It is the
people of Quebec who have gone back on their
principles. To my mind there has been no more
audacious and treacherous act in our history
than the attempt to fasten separate schools
upon the west. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as a faithful child of the Roman Catholic church,
has determined before he retires from public life to
do all he can for his church.
We do not want a second Quebec in this Dominion. One 'solid Quebec' is sufficient.
For this reason I am extremely sorry to find
that the 'Witness' is not on the side of the
freedom and liberties of the people on this occasion.
The editor of the ' Witness replies to
that letter in an article headed 'Is it treachcry,' and he says:
That it was the Roman Catholics who opposed
a legislative union when the provinces of British North America came together, and
insisted
not only on a provincial autonomy for Quebec,
but demanded that the interests of education
should be under provincial jurisdiction ; so
that it is they, and not the people of Ontario,
who have gone back on the principles of confederation ; what they then claimed for
themselves they are now unwilling to grant to the
people of the west. Is this quite fair to them ?
They certainly did demand to control their own
educational system through the provincial government, but they did not claim to control
the
education of the minority. The minority was
to control its own educational system and has
always done so. The majority would probably
have acted rightly by the minority, even if they
had been free to ac otherwise, but at confederation the minority demanded that their
educational freedom should be guaranteed by the
national compact, and so it was. Now when
new provinces are being created the Roman
Catholics ask for the minorities there, what
5093 APRIL 28, 1905
the minority here enjoys, namely, control by
constitutional right of its own education. No
doubt the two systems are different in character. The one is sectarian and sectionalizing
and estranging ; the other is unsectarian and
uniting. The latter is without question, in our
mind, the best ; but our neighbours conscien~
tiously take a distinctly opposite view. Each
part of the community would prefer that, its
own system should be universal, but we can
scarcely imagine how the minority of this province would feel or act if the system
of the
majority was forced upon it. The Protestants
of Quebec would say that their religious liberty
was invaded and would probably rise in revolt
against such despotism. Determined to have
their own conscientious convictions respected,
they cannot but respect the convictions of their
neighbours, however much they may deplore
them.
What our correspondent asks is, that the majority in the new provinces should have
the determination of all school questions absolutely
in their hands. Our belief is that they would
use such a power in a way as liberal to the
minority as the Autonomy Act proposes. In
fact what is proposed is to extend the system
which has been brought into shape under local
legislation.
I would like the hon. member for Leeds
(Mr. Taylor) to take note of that because
he seems to be doubtful on that question.
I am sure that if his mind is clear on that
point, he will do as he promised in his
speech and vote for the Bill. He is now
not only getting the views of members on
this side of the House. but he can take his
authority from the editor of the Montreal
' Witness.'
But we cannot blame the minority for wanting
to have the minority right constitutionally
guaranteed, as that of the Protestants is in
Quebec, nor can we think that for proposing to
give them this security, a premier who is seeking only to be true and fair to all
should be
spoken of as guilty of the most audacious and
treacherous act in our history.
That statement ought to be of some value
to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) and I will read it again.
Nor can we think that for proposing to give
them this security a premier who is seeking
only to be true and fair to all should be spoken
of as guilty of the most audacious and treacher~
one act in our history.
I do earnestly hope that when we see the
very best amongst the newspapers of our
country taking up the question in this way,
the members of the opposition in this House
will become more tolerant; they will show
more respect for the minority in this country, and that they will not try to inflame
the
public mind into outbursts of passion between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I
have been one of those who lived amongst
Catholics all my life; I have Catholic
neighbours on all sides of me; by jumping
over the fence I can get into the field of a
Catholic, and I can say this, and there
are members of the opposition here who
know it is true; we have lived together
like friends, we have lived together like
5093
5094
brethren, and I ask : cannot we be allowed
to continue to live in that way? Cannot the
minority be allowed to have religious teaching in their schools as they have in Ontario,
without anybody being the worse for
it? I have lived in my township for 48
years and I cannot see Where any Protestant has lost one iota because there are
two separate schools in that township. 1
appeal to the members of the opposition in
this House to come down to fair-play. I
appeal to them to leave this intolerance
aside and to frown upon the injustice perpetrated in this paper before me which
contains the most scandalous cartoons which
ever appeared in print. Let the incidents of
the past couple of months he blotted out
for ever, and let us as members of this legislature show that we at least are possessed
of a good deal of common sense and that
we have the spirit of fair-play and of wisdom about us. Let us not endorse the unjust
warfare that the Toronto ' News' has
indulged in for some time past with its
tremendous headings : ' A free west, a Common school, provincial rights, religious
equality.' The idea conveyed by these headings
is a false one. Who can deny that there
is a free west, and who can deny that
there are not common schools in the west ?
Where is the evidence that provincial rights
are infringed upon ? Are we infringing
upon provincial rights before they have a
province? We must create a province before they can have provincial rights, and
I guarantee the members of this House
that so far as I am concerned, that after
the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan
are created on the first day of July next,
if there is any attempt to take away their
rights, I shall be the first to jump up and
defend provincial rights. But how can we
defend provincial rights until they are provinces ? The ' Witness ' continues to say
:
We should like to ask our correspondent to
put to himself one question. Let him imagine,
if he can, that the present prospect was that
of a large Roman Catholic majority in one of
these provinces, and of a large Mormon majo[r]ity in the other, and then ask himself
if, under
such an outlook, he would be-quite as sure as
he is that the constitution guarantee those
majorities the right to legislate with regard to
education just as they might like, and would be
be quite as sure as he is that they ought to
have that unlimited power. If he finds his
mind revolt against giving absolute power to
the provinces in such a case, he will be able to
see the attitude of mind of those who are demanding that some limit be placed on possible
majority despotism. Practically the system of
schools which prevails in the provinces, and
which it is proposed to perpetuate, seems to us
an excellent one.
I think these words are particularly applicable to the members of the oppos1tion.
They never have seemed to realize that fact,
and if they will not take the word of the
Prime Minister for it. if they will not take
the word of any member of the government,
5095 COMMONS
surely they will take the word of a newspaper like the Montreal 'Witness' which
as an independent paper has stood up for
Protestantism ever since it was first published. Surely we can give these gentlemen
the credit of being fairly good men ; and
surely we can claim that we are not straining our conscience when we have the pleasure
of voting for the Bill now before the
House. This paper goes on to say :
Schools are necessarily carried on and managed by the local majority. What is guaranteed
is, first, that religious teaching shall not
invade the hours of general study ; and, second,
that if any religious minority feels dissatisfied
with majority management, it shall be free to
have a school under its own management, but
that such school shall be required to come up
to the same standard of teaching and be under
the same limitations. This is of course a guarantee for Protestant minorities as well
as for
Roman Catholic ones.
I believe that is an article well worth
studying and considering.
Mr. GUNN. Will the hon. member give us the date of that
paper ?
Mr. T. MARTIN. I will give you the paper itself ; but I
would rather you would not read it while I am speaking. There is
another point I wish to refer to. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor)
made a rather mean insinuation about the interference of the
Papal ablegate. I know that that has been part of the stock-in-trade of the
opposition—to try to fix upon the premier that by some means he had
mentioned the matter to the Papal ablegate, or that the Papal ablegate
had mentioned the matter to him.
Mr. LALOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The
hon. gentleman has again misstated. I never insinuated that the
premier had an interview with the Papal ablegate. I said that the member for
Brandon (Mr. Sifton) had made insinuations from which we
inferred-
Mr. T. MARTIN. I did not say that. The hon. gentleman
should not put words in my mouth. I said that he had referred to the
Papal ablegate, and so he did ; and not only the hon. member for Haldimand,
but other members of the opposition have attempted to drag his name
into this discussion. While I believe there is no warrant for that, still, as a citizen
of the province
of Ontario, I do not suppose it would be out of place for me to call the
attention of the House to some dealings of governments with
Protestant ministers. I propose to mention to the House certain facts in
our provincial history, and in doing so I am not breaking any
confidence. I am able to state that the late Sir Oliver Mowat more
than once consulted eminent divines in my own church. I do not say that he
did not consult divines of other churches, but I am going to speak
particularly of my own church, and then perhaps people cannot find
5095
5096 so much fault with me. It is well known that the late Principal Caven,
head of Knox Theological College in Toronto, stood very near to Sir
Oliver Mowat, and was frequently consulted by him, and that on
matters pertaining to the state. It is also a matter of history, as
stated in the life of the late Principal Grant, the head of another Presbyterian
college. written by his own son, that he was invited
by Sir Oliver Mowat to take a seat in his cabinet as Minister of
Education. That was somewhere in the early eighties. There is nothing
private about that ; but the conclusion I wish to draw from it is
this. If the present premier, or any other Liberal premier, dared in the
same way to consult with any clergyman of the Catholic Church, what an
enormous uproar would be raised in this House, and also, I
am sorry to say, in some parts of the province of Ontario. We know that a
great deal of the present excitement and intolerance is
batched in the city of Toronto, and it is sent broadcast by some of our
daily papers, by means, not only of large headlines, but
also by scandalous and shameful cartoons, which the best press of our
country should be ashamed of and will be ashamed of five or ten years hence. I have
it from pretty good authority—if I
am wrong I will stand corrected—that another Presbyterian
divine. Dr. Pringle, of the Yukon, when he was in Ottawa, was consulted, or
at least conversed with, by the right hon. leader of the government
about the affairs of the Yukon ; and as the hon. leader of the
opposition yesterday left it open to me to propose some one who would make a
first-class Governor of the Yukon. I believe Dr. Pringle would be a
good man to fill that position.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much
more of the time of the House. The educational clauses in the Bill are of a very interesting
and important character, and no
doubt that is why there has been so little
discussion of the other clauses. The constitutional question I do not propose to discuss.
Like the speaker who preceded me,
the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor),
I do not belong to the legal profession, and
therefore shall leave constitutional points to
be discussed by men who are versed in legal
science. I believe, however, that laymen
are quite capable of judging from the
speeches we have had in this House who
has had the best of the argument ; and I
am sure that there is no man in this House,
who wishes to express an opinion consistent
with his own conscience and who is not tied
down by the leader of his party, who will
say that the weight of the argument on the
constitutional question has not been on the
government side. Let me also say that I
stand up for provincial rights ; and if we
want more evidence that we are doing so
than the hon. member for Centre York (Mr.
Campbell) gave us last night, then we are
pretty hard to please. I believe he proved
5097 APRIL 28, 1905
conclusively that we are on the side of provincial rights. and I shall not attempt
therefore to add anything to what he has said.
A public school system is no doubt an
agent in the promoting of unity among our
settlers, but there is another side to be considered. As I have said before, I belong
to
a church which has exerted itself to create
a religious sentiment in the west, and I
have given you from leading men in that
church evidence to show that the schools,
as they are now constituted in the west,
are satisfactory to the people belonging to
that church. For twenty years—and to
that fact we should attach a great deal of
weight—the man who took such an interest
in education in the Northwest, Dr. Robertson, never said a word against the school
system as it existed there in 1882. And if
we read through the ordinances, we cannot
but help coming to the conclusion that.
from a Protestant standpoint, these schools
are very lunch nearer a national system
than they were even at that date.
Mr. BLAIN. Wonld the hon. gentleman be good enough to
give to the House the name of any leading Presbyterian minister who
has endorse this Bill ?
Mr. D. D. MCKENZIE. Is the hon. gentleman
looking for a living Presbyterian? I am alive and I am one.
Mr. T. MARTIN. My hon. friend knows as well as I do
that he cannot get one out of ten Presbyterians who is not in favour
of the Bill. I have a number of letters in my desk from Presbyterian
ministers which, if they were not private, I would read to the House,
in support of the Bill ; and if the hon. gentleman thinks I am not stating
what is true, I shall let him read them. I have also letters from
Presbyterian ministers which I have been authorized to show
to the right hon. the First Minister, in which they state they are heartily
in sympathy with him on the school question. There is not
one Presbyterian out of ten in the province of Ontario who will not stand
up in favour of this measure. For the benefit of my hon.
friend I may also state that these letters—and I have more if I wished
to read them—are from members of the Presbyterian church—and not only
members but elders. For my part, I cannot resent any one's desire to
have his religious views taught to his children just as etiiciently as
arithmetic or geography. I am one of those who believe in having rellgion
taught in the schools, and I would say in all earnestnes
that if forty per cent of the Dominion- or forty—one per cent to be more
accurate- instead of wishing to have religion taught in the schools
were in favour of ostracising religion from our schools—if forty per cent
of the province of Ontario or of the Dominion were in that
state of mind that they wanted their children to go to Godless
schools, I would say: God help the parents ! But because forty-one per cent
of our people
5097
5098 are asking for separate schools in order that they may have their
children taught their religion in those schools—and we know that
unfortunately Protestants and Catholics cannot teach their
respective religions together—I shall not be the one to raise my voice
and hand against granting their wish. I say further, with all earnestness,
that I trust the time is coming when the Protestants will unite and
also plead for more religion to be taught in the schools. As we grow
up in years, we see the other side of life and a great deal of it ; and I
tell you gentlemen it is a very serious thing, when we are raising our
families, to know that they are not being raised in the fear of God.
If we are to have good citizens and a great country, surely we
must remember that righteousness exalteth a nation. But how
can we have righteousness, if it is not taught to our children at every
opportunity? I come from Scotland, where, in many of our schools,
there was but very little taught besides the Bible and the
Presbyterian Catechism, and I have yet to meet a Scotchman who is ashamed of
himself and his education. Where will you find men better
educated than the Scotchmen ? I come from that country, and I
feel that, as noble sons of Canada, we should imbue into our school
system a little more religion. Perhaps our boys and girls might not
have such an education as they otherwise would in some other
things, but we know that the teaching of the Bible will impart to them
a moral training which no other teaching can give. It gives them a
training such as no other book can give. Why should we, a lot of intelligent
men, spend weeks and weeks in this House discussing the
question of whether we should try to deprive forty per cent of our people
of the privilege of having religion taught in their schools if they
wish it ? I am speaking as a citizen of Canada and a member of
parliament from the province of Ontario representing a constituency which I
do not believe is equalled by half a dozen other constituencies in this Dominion.
We have not only a country of which we are
proud, we have not only land that cannot be beaten on the face of the
earth for the production of the best articles of human food, but we have
also a class of farmers in the county of Wellington who are known from
end to end of this country. It is a pleasure to visit the homes of the
farmers of Wellington county and to go about their houses and their
farms. Their farms would stand comparison with some of the best
farms in Midlothian, in Scotland ; I have the honour of representing
such a class of people, intelligent men, tolerant men, and a great
majority of them Protestants, and I am not afraid to take the stand I
have taken in this House. Or if the member for South York (Mr. W. F.
Maclean) with all his challenges wishes to come up some night or
some day I will see that the largest build
5099
COMMONS
ing in my riding is obtained for the purpose of a
meeting. I will give him all the time he wishes, and I will see that the
meeting is well advertised. I shall go there although I am
only one of the members of this House, only a country member and I
shall put my case before my people myself and he may put his case as he
likes ; he may take under his arm all these cartoons that have been in
his paper and hang them around the walls ; he may take all the inflammatory articles
that have appeared in his paper and
distribute them among the people. But I am not afraid to go up there
and lay the whole case before my people and I know what the verdict will be.
I know that nine-tenths of the people will back me up in the position
which I have taken to-day and in the vote which I intend to give.
I sympathize with the determination to
have separate schools in some form, and
since that determination exists we must
consider well the question whether it is fair
to tax minorities for public schools which
they do not use. To create such a grievance
would divide rather than unite the elements
of our population. We have been told very
often in this House that the best system
would be for the children to be brought up
together, but under our present circumstances is it not true also that we would
thus divide rather than unite the elements of population ? Of course it may be
said, I hope it will not prove true, that the
provinces could continue the privileges for
which this Bill provides. I quite understand that the provinces might do that, but
we can easily understand why minorities
should be eager that the constitutional
guarantee which only federal legislation can
give, should be established.
In conclusion, I wish to say a word in
favour of the right hon. gentleman who
leads the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
in addition to what I have already said.
Can we find evidence of one instance—I
know we hear the charges—but can we find
evidence to show that in any case the right
hon. gentleman has ever given himself away
to the church to which he belongs ? I have
already spoken of Sir Oliver Mowat even
asking a Presbyterian minister to join his
cabinet, and I would say that I believe there
are very few men who have ever sat in
parliament who have kept themselves freer
from such a course as the premier is charged
with than that right hon. gentleman has
done. Let me remind the House of the
patriotism of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) what a true patriot he has been to
this Canada of ours, what a broad-minded
far-seeing statesman, and yet we find hon.
members of this House abusing him in such
a manner as did the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) last night. I am glad that
the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has been tolerant in his remarks.
It is
a credit to him, but I am sorry he has not
5099
5100
been able to vote for the question, and to
induce his followers to be a little more tolerant in their remarks. Such inciting
and
inflammatory articles as we have seen in
their press, such inciting and inflammatory
speeches as we have heard from opposition members in this House cannot
be of benefit to this Dominion. I deplore
the use of such language in this country, I regret that we have men in Canada
who will come to parliament and raise their
voices in such an intolerant way against the
Roman Catholics of this country and in
opposition to their having the schools which
they wish to have. I would urge them to
for ever drop such a course, to be tolerant
and instead of raising these flames of religious prejudice and cries of religious
inequality, to help on the good work which our
great premier has carried on with such great
success, the unification of the people of this
Dominion.
Mr. P. ELSON (East Middlesex). Mr. Speaker, in rising
to make a few remarks on this very important question, the Autonomy Bill, I wish
to say to the House that I shall be very
brief and shall not weary the members by a long speech. Neither do I
intend to allude to any extent to the remarks which have been made by the
hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. 1 know that at
this late stage in the debate it is difficult to bring forward anything new
that would be of interest to the House, and therefore I
shall be very brief, but at the same time I shall advance a few ideas of my
own. Being as I am, a native born Canadian. there is no portion of the
face of the earth in which I feel so much interest as in that portion
which is bounded by the outward boundaries of the Dominion of Canada.
There are no people who live and move and have their being upon the face of
the globe, in whom I feel so much interest as in those persons who are
Canadians and who at least live on Canadian soil. We have in our
country a very great variety of most valuable natural resources,
which have been given us by the bountiful hand of a bountiful Giver ; and upon these
resources and with these resources, it is
altogether likely a great nation will be built up in the Dominion of Canada. Now.
Sir, it is the duty of the government of the day,
in connection with the people of the country, to develop these
resources as quickly and as reasonably as we can. Most certainly, Sir, do I
feel it to be the duty of the government to so govern the people that
contentment will rest on their minds. To so govern the people that—Mr.
Speaker, I cannot find words to convey the meaning I desire to convey
to the House unless I am permitted to use a few of those words which
you so reverently read on every occasion when you open the sitting of this
House, and when you pray. That the deliberations of the
three branches of the
5101
April 28, 1905
federal parliament shall be such and shall have
such effect that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety
shall be established amongst us for all generations.
Now, Sir, I feel that these words apply,
not only to the hon. members of the House,
and to the hon. members of the Senate of
Canada, and to His Excellency the Governor
General, but also to the masses of the
people. I hope that these words will apply
to those people who are residents or who
may hereafter become residents of that portion of the Northwest Territories which
are
about to blossom forth into two fine provinces known as Alberta and Saskatchewan.
' Peace and happiness ;' it is indeed difficult for me to explain really the meaning
of those words. And yet, happiness is
something that we are all seeking after,
that we are all trying to grasp, something
we are endeavouring to obtain as much of
as we can before we shuffle off this mortal
coil. And how can we expect to obtain this
boon ? Will it come to us of itself ? Will
it come to us spontaneously? Will it flow
upon us like a river and envelop us ? No,
Sir, it will not come that way. It will
not come except by preparation on our part,
by elfort on our part, to cultivate a social,
friendly feeling between ourselves and those
persons with whom we are brought in contact. And when ought we to begin to cultivate
this friendly feeling ? Is it When we
reach the middle years of life ? Is it when
we are on the downward incline? No, I
hold that that is not the time—though perhaps better late than never. I hold that
the right time for us to cultivate, that,
friendly, social feeling which ought to exist
between the people of our country is when
we are young, when our hearts are susceptible to good impressions. And there is
no place in my opinion better than the public
school for boys to become acquainted with
one another and to cultivate that feeling of
friendliness and sociability that it is so
desirable to have amongst neighbours and
citizens of the same country.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will pardon
me if for a moment I allude to my own
experience as a boy in the public schools,
because, Sir, sometimes the experience of
one person may be taken as a type of the
experience of thousands. When I attended the public schools as a boy, a son of
Protestant parents, I met there boys of
about my own age who were sons of Roman Catholic parents. These boys whom I
met were strictly taught in the religious
faith of their parents, the Roman Catholic
faith. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
say, I am delighted to say that I formed
an attachment for those boys and they for
me. We became very agreeable and friendly towards one another. We sat in the
same classes, we helped each other with
our lessons, we played together upon
the old school-house green with the
5101
5102
joyful hilarity which is one of the
greatest possessions of boyhood. And
I am delighted to be able to say
that that same pleasant feeling continued
between myself and the friends I made at
school. When we reached the years of manhood and dealt together in various ways,
it was always with a degree of confidence
in one another and in a friendly, social
spirit. And that feeling lasts with us up to
the present time, and I am satisfied that it
will continue so long as we live. Now,
suppose there had been a separate school in
that particular school section to which I
belonged, and in which I attended school.
Had that been the case, no doubt these
friends of mine would have attended the
separate school and I would have attended the public school. Possibly we might
never have become acquainted at all. Or,
we might have known one another simply
as living in the same school section two or
three miles apart—for I speak of rural
schools altogether—and perhaps we might
be a little acquainted. When we met each
other on the country road it would be a
cool nod of the head on the part of one
and a formal 'good morning ; ' and a cold
nod of the head on the other side and an
equally formal ' How do you do '—and that
would be all the friendliness between us.
There would not be the social feeling and
pleasantness that ought to exist between
people of the same neighbourhood. And
possibly this breaking up of interests might
have led to mutual distrust and to a feeling on the part of each that the other
was only waiting an opportunity to do him
an injury. But feelings like this should not
exist ; and therefore, I hold that the public
school is the place in which to bring the people of the rising generation together.
I believe that when boys are brought up in the
public school together they become acquainted with one another and there is a warm
friendliness and sociability such as ought to
exist between them. And so, when they
meet each other on the country road there
is a warm grasp of the hand and a ' John
how do you do ? ' And an answering hand
clasp with the warm greeting. ' Charley, I
I am glad to meet you.' I hold that the
separate school creates discord and irritation
and unfriendliness, and that it strikes a
blow at the very foundation of the public
school which has for its object the uniting
together of the rising generation. The public school seems to harmonize, to a certain
extent, the minds of the rising generation.
and rubs off the rough edges of all classes,
races and creeds. Attending the same
school, they feel that they know one
another, and they march along together,
as it were, a united body of men,
each perhaps having his own views
with regard to religion,—which is rlght
enough—but of one mind in doing the best
they can for themselves and for the building up of Canada as a great nation.
5103 COMMONS
Therefore, I hold that the public school is the right school for this country. However,
Mr.
Speaker. I believe that every school, as far
as religious instruction is concerned, should
open with the Lord's prayer. Further than
that I feel that the instruction should be
continued to secular teaching. The home,
the Sunday school and the church are the
proper places for moral and religious instruction. When children go to Sunday
school or church, their minds are more
in accord with the object that they
are trying to attain, they are more
ready to accept religious instruction
than they would be in a public or a
separate school from which they are
anxious to get away home just as fast as
they can. So I say that religious instruction should very largely be confined to the
home, the Sunday school and the church.
of course, as I said before. Opening the
school with the Lord's prayer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the right hon.
first Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) introduced this very important measure on the
21st February, he did so in a very able
speech. It was a speech that attracted the
attention of every person within hearing
distance and more than that, judging from
the vast number of petitions which have
come in from all parts of the country against
certain clauses in the Autonomy Bill, it was
a speech that attracted the attention of all
readers of newspapers in all parts of the
country. When the right hon. First Minister spoke on the land question it struck
me that perhaps it was not right that the
federal government should withhold the
land from the provinces and give them in
lieu a certain sum of money. I felt that
way, and after my hon. friend from Jacques
Cartier (Mr. Monk) had delivered his speech,
which was certainly a most able and argumentative speech on the land question, and
after he had brought forward some excellent
precedents to show that when provinces are
created out of these Territories the land
should pass within the control of those
provinces, I felt more firmly convinced that
the land ought to go to the provinces and
be placed under their particular control.
When the right hon. First Minister spoke
on the educational clauses of the Bill, I
noticed that he based his argument very
largely upon the utterances of the late Hon.
Geo. Brown. He said that Hon. Geo. Brown
had said that once separate schools were
introduced into the Territories then separate schools for the future ; once separate
schools were introduced then separate
schools for all time. Well, no doubt, the
Hon. Geo. Brown said that, but Hon. Geo.
Brown on the other hand fought very
strongly for many years against the establishment of separate schools. He did his
very best against separate schools, but when
it came down to the time of confederation
he ceased his agitation against them. Why
did he do that ? It was in order that he
5103
5104
might do his part to bring about the
great scheme of confederation. He felt
that it was his duty to cease his
agitation against separate schools for
the sake of confederation, but at the
same time his parting shot when he
ceased his agitation was that he was still
opposed to separate schools and that he
would always be opposed to separate
schools. Mr. Brown more than once said,
in presenting his arguments, that separate
schools had a tendency to separate the
people, that they created a dual system of
schools which was very expensive indeed
to the people especially in rural school sections and taking it all round—no doubt
his
arguments are quite familiar to the house-
he was entirely opposed to the separate
school system. I think when the right
hon. reader of the government placed so
much confidence in the assertion of Hon.
Geo. Brown when he said once separate
schools always separate schools. certainly
he ought to have kept in mind the assertion
of Mr. Brown when he said he was opposed
to separate schools on the ground that they
would be an injury to the country and that
they were not equal to the public school
system. Therefore, if the right hon. leader
of the government believed Hon. Geo.
Brown in both of these utterances. the only
thing he could do was to leave the matter
to the new provinces to deal with.
The late Hon. Geo. Brown also said that
if the Roman Catholics were allowed separate schools all other Protestant bodies
would have the right to separate schools,
the Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans,
Baptists and all other sects, and he argued
very strongly upon the fact that all others
would have the right to separate schools
and of course tangle up the country in a
way that would be very bad for it. That
would include a great many other sects, for
instance the Galicians, Doukhohors, Mennonites, Mormons and many others. Now,
we will just deal with the Mormons for a
moment. I will endeavour to show that
there is likely to be a very great influx of
the Mormon people into the Northwest Territories and I will then endeavour to show
that the separate school clauses in the
Autonomy Bill would be an advantage to
the Mormon people which is something that
I think ought not to be given. We take
from a very reliable paper that is published
in Ontario the following :
The report which comes from Toronto that
the Cochrane ranch in Alberta has been sold to
President Smith of the Mormon church in Utah
will not be received with surprise by Canadians
generally, but it is apt to create a feeling of
concern as to whether the embarrassing question with which the American people are
wrestling is to be transferred to the Dominion. The
Cochrane ranch comprises 66,500 acres in one
great block, and would admit the settlement
upon it of four hundred and fifteen families,
giving to each family a homestead of a hundred
and sixty acres. This would mean a population
5105 APRIL 28, 1905
of from two thousand to two thousand five hundred souls or more, settled upon some
of the
best land in western Canada and so powerfully
entrenched by reason of their numbers and possessions that they could to all intents
and purposes practice what customs they chose and
could propagate with impunity their opinions
among their neighbours. That is what a large
and compact colony of any people, distinctive
in their customs and habits, means in the Canadian Northwest, and that is what such
a
settlement of the Mormons means.
That the Mormon people are thrifty, industrious, and, from their own point of view,
moral, it would be impossible to deny. They
are intelligent, and, with the exception that
they venture on active proselytizing, they attend to their own affairs, and do not
interfere
with their neighbours. That they would quickly
make any district in which they settled, in the
west, one of the most prosperous in the Dominion, may be taken for granted. The question,
however, remains whether the people of this
country are prepared to accept the Mormons
on their own guarantee that they will abstain
from the practice of polygamy and other customs which have attracted hostility in
the
United States and which are regarded with
equal abhorrence in this country. It is a
question which demands consideration whether
the frugality, the industry and the general intelligence of the Mormons, should they
come to
this country, would in the opinion of Canadians,
counterbalance any unlawful customs to which
they are addicted or any opinions which are
not in accord with the views of the people
at large.
Now, we take up the Toronto 'Globe' of
April 3, which also alludes to something of
the same kind:
Mormons in Alberta.
Joseph Smith purchases tract of land there.
Will divide it into small farms and colonize it
with chosen people from Utah—Latter Day
Saints' movement to Illinois.
(Associated Press Despatch.)
Butte, Montana, April 2.—Joseph Smith, head
of the Mormon church, has bought 67,000 acres
of land in Alberta and proposes to establish a
colony of Mormons. The price paid was about
$400,000.
The plan is to divide the tract into small
farms to be settled upon by Mormon colonists
from Utah and elsewhere. Although the deal
has been closed, the Mormons are not expected
to take possession until late this fall or early
next year. They will raise crops this season
at their old homes.
I quote the following from a reliable
paper of long standing published in New
York :
The Mormon Revival.
The question of secular or parochial schools
is not the only religious difficulty confronting
the new provinces of the Canadian Northwest.
That region, like the United States and Mexico,
has its Mormon problem. Within the past five
years thousands of Mormons have migrated to
Alberta from the United States and Europe, and
one-third of them are said to be polygamists.
Prosecutions have been begun against a number
of these people at Raymond, with the avowed
intention of making them give up polygamy or
leave the country. The Mormon element is so
5105
5106
numerous that it is expected to control two
seats in the Alberta legislature, and the experience of Idaho shows what may be expected
when the saints once get into politics. In Utah
the church is displaying an arrogance that recalls the days of Brigham Young.
There is evidence that there is likely to
be a very large influx of Mormons into our
Canadian Northwest, and it is my purpose
to show that the separate school clauses of
the present Autonomy Bill would give them
a privilege which I feel they ought not
to have. We have no objection to the Mormon people personally, but we do object
to some features of their religious belief,
and we ought to guard against the privilege
they would have under this Bill of inculcating that religious belief in the minds
of
children in our schools. We will suppose
that there is a rural school section in the
west, in which the majority is composed
of Roman Catholics who ask for and obtain a separate school. Then there is a
Protestant minority, the greater number of
whom are of the Mormon persuasion, and
who for school purposes would come under
the head of Protestants. Suppose there
are ten families of Mormons in that school
section, one family of Anglicans, one family
of Presbyterians, one family of Methodists
and one family of Baptists ; the Mormons
will be in the majority and they will elect
as a board three trustees of their own religious belief who in turn will engage a
Mormon teacher. The school opens in the
morning at nine o'clock, let us hope with
the reading of the Lord's Prayer, and the
teaching goes on to half-past three when
the religious instruction privilege comes in.
Now Mr. Speaker, I would ask you what
kind of religious instruction is likely to
be given in that school which is controlled
by a Mormon board. We find by the ordinances of the Northwest Territories that:
The board means the board of trustees of any
district.
And in section 137 we find:
No religious instruction except as hereinafter
provided shall be permitted in the school of any
district from the opening of such school until
half an hour previous to its closing in the
afternoon ; after which time any such instruction permitted or desired by the board
may be
given.
I ask hon. gentlemen to mark these
words. I contend that the board would
have the power to decide what kind of religious instruction should be given, and in
the case I mention that board would be
composed of Mormons. I believe they
would not be open and above board in the
matter as the Roman Catholics or Protestants would be, but you know how the
Mormons make their proselytes or converts and that they do so in a quiet,
subtle, under cover kind of way- There
is not the slightest doubt that the
teacher in such a school, backed up
by the trustees and by the Mormon
majority would have a very great personal influence in inculcating in the
minds of the children the religious tenets
of the Mormon people. It may be said:
What of it ? They could not practice polygamy under our Dominion laws. True
enough, and we are glad they cannot, but
they might influence a Protestant boy or
two, a Methodist boy or two, a Presbyterian
boy or two, an Anglican boy or two, a
Baptist boy or two, to begin to believe in
the precepts of the Mormon doctrine, and
although they could not practise polygamy
in the Dominion of Canada they could go
to Utah, or Salt Lake City, and there
become followers of the late Brigham
Young and Joe Smith. I am sure
that the members of this House would not
be inclined to allow anything of that kind,
and that being so we should have the
school clauses so carefully framed that
the Mormons would not be able to avail
of them for their own ends. It would be
no credit to us as Canadians if we should
raise up young men here to go off as recruits to that Mormon population in the
United States which has caused so much
trouble, and which has actually become so
strong as to send a representative to the
House of Congress. I am glad to say that
the members of congress, as would no
doubt the members of this House under
similar circumstances, did not feel comfortable in having such a member sitting with
them, and excluded him from that body.
But, it behooves us to be careful in Canada
because already we find that one of these
newspapers has said that the Mormons are
likely to control two seats in the legislative assembly of Alberta, and it may not
be many years before they might send a
representative to the Canadian House of
Commons. I feel that there should be no
privilege given to the Mormons under the
school laws which would tend to strengthen
them in these practises which are so repulsive to the vast majority of the people
of this country. I feel that any Canadian
government, whether Conservative or Reform, would blush to think that they
would even turn the key that would open
the door that would permit the Mormons
to teach their doctiine in separate schools.
I believe that every hon. gentleman on the
government side of the House and on the
opposition side of the House too; I believe
that the First Minister and the hon. gentlemen who sit with him on the treasury
benches will agree with me when I say:
It is a glorious thing for any man to have
one good helpmate through life, and that
one good helpmate is quite sufficient to take
the best possible care of any one respectable man in the Dominion of Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. KENNEDY. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Elston) has read one
clause from the
5106
5106 school ordinance, but I would ask him to read the succeeding clause
which qualifies it.
Mr. ELSON. A great deal has been said in this debate
with regard to standing on the rock of the constitution, I believe in
that. I believe it is right to stand on the rock of the constitution in this
Autonomy Bill, but there seems to be some uncertainty as to
the power that the federal government has under the constitution.
Some members have suggested that it would be well to submit this
measure to the Privy Council in England so that we might learn just
what powers we have in granting this Autonomy, and I believe myself that
would be a wise course for us to take.
I think it was the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) who said that we
should look at the spirit of the constitution
rather than the letter of the constitution. I
have noticed, in my limited experience, that
when men get into difficulty and become entangled in the law, they find before they
get
out of it that the law is carried out to the
very letter rather than in the spirit, especially when their treasury is considerably
depleted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned, I stand as firm as a rock against
separate schools. I hold that the public
school, the national school, is the right
school for this country. Of course, as the
separate school is established in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we must be
satisfied with it ; I am not complaining of
that. But I feel that it is the duty of both
Protestants and Roman Catholics to be
united as much as possible in friendly intercourse, each enjoying his own religious
beliefs, and moving on together with the one
great object of building up a great nation
in the Dominion of Canada.
In conclusion, I am in favour of giving the
Northwest autonomy. If the right hon. the
First Minister will not delay this measure
until we can obtain the information, which
I am sure many members on the government side of the House, as well as many on
the opposition side, would like to have from
the highest authority, then we shall have to
vote on the Bill when the proper time comes.
In giving autonomy to the people of the
Territories, I believe in giving them full
autonomy. Let them have self-government,
not only in the matter of their municipal
affairs, but in the management of their public lands and in the control and management
of their educational system. It is my intention to support the amendment put forward
by the hon. leader of the opposition. I feel
strong on the question of provincial rights.
I believe in equal rights to all and special
favours to none. I want to thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for so kindly using your influence
in keeping such splendid order in the House,
and, through you, I want to thank the hon.
members of the House for the kind attention
they have given to my remarks.
5109 April 28, 1905
Mr. J. B. BLACK (Hants). Mr. Speaker, I had intended to
give a silent vote on this question ; but I have found that outside of
this parliament there are existent and rampant such erroneous and
false ideas regarding the school clause and the class of schools
now in the Territories, that I find it binding on me to state the
facts as I find them, both in regard to the class of schools now in the
Territories, which the school clause of the Autonomy Bill proposes to
endorse and continue, and in regard to the attitude of the
people in the Territories touching this legis iation; and I further deem it
my duty to publicly declare why I heartily support the amended clause
relating to schools in the Autonomy Bill.
In 1896 I took an active part, in my own
county, in opposing any interference with
the public schools of Manitoba as established by the Greenway government of that province.
The same principles of fair play to
wards the people—equal rights for all and
special legislation for no class or church—as
actuated me then actuate me now in giving
this Bill my unqualified support. When this
legislation came before the House I confess
I was as ignorant of the conditions of the so-
called separate schools in the Territories as
are some whom I have found outside of
parliament publicly teaching the people on
this question. With regard to the schools in
the Territories with which this Bill deals, I
find that they are housed in 1,100 schoolhouses. Of these less than a dozen—to be
exact, eleven—are occupied by the separate
schools. Of these, again, two are so-called
Protestant and nine are so-called Roman
Catholic. I find that these 1,100 are using
exactly the same textbooks ; are taught,
every one, by normal school graduates from
the government normal school ; are all examined by the same government inspectors
;
in fact, in every way are public government
schools, wholly under the government care,
inspection and regulation. and none are under the control of any church or denomination.
One difiierence only exists, and it is
this: I find that in the two so-called Protestant separate schools, if a majority
of
parents desire it, a clergyman—Baptist,
Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, or whatever other denomination—may come after
school hours are done, after 3.30 o'clock, and
may for thirty minutes give religious instruction. I find that in the nine so-called
Catholic separate schools, if a majority of parents
desire it, a clergyman of that faith may have
the same privilege, at the same hour, and
for the same length of time ; and I further
find that no child is obliged to remain whose
parents object. This provision is in exact
accord with our public school system in
Nova Scotia, which we have been accustomed for many years, and justly so, to boast
of as the best school system in America.
With regard to religious instruction, the
school law of Nova Scotia provides :
It is ordered, That in case where the parents
or guardians of children in actual attendance
5109
5110
on any public school or department signify in
writing to the trustees their conscientious objection to any portion of such devotional
exercises as may be conducted therein under the
sanction of the trustees, such devotional exercises shall either be so modified as
not to offend
the religious feelings of those so objecting, or
shall be held immediately before the time fixed
for rthe opening, or after the time fixed for the
close of the daily work of the school ; and no
children. whose parents or guardians signify
conscientious objections thereto, shall be required to be present during such devotional
exercises.
I find by comparison that the schools of
the Territories and the schools of Nova
Scotia are practically the same. If these
schools in the Territories are not free
public schools, if there is not here
civil and religious liberty, if there are
not here equal rights for all, then I have
failed in my conception of these terms.
These are the kind and quality of public
schools which with slight variation have
been in these Territories for about thirty
years. These are the kind and quality of
schools which the amended clause of the
Autonomy Bill seeks to perpetuate—seeks
this and this only—seeks this and nothing
more and nothing less. These are the kind
and quality of schools which the Catholic
clergy are uttering their complaint against,
because they are not sectarian. These are
the schools against which many Protestant
preachers are hurling their anathemas, because they claim that these schools are
altogether Catholic and French. Some of
these tirades against the school clauses of
the Autonomy Bill are, I believe, said in
honesty, but in profound ignorance of the
public school system of the Territories,
which this Bill seeks to establish and perpetuate. These are the schools of which
Mr.
Haultain, the Conservative premier of the
Northwest Territories said a few weeks ago:
' If I were a dictator I would not change the
school system of the Territories.' These are
the schools of which Mr. Greenway saidand mark it well—'If Manitoba had had
such a system as is in existence in the Northwest Territories there never would have
been any Manitoba school question.'
Who that remembers the long and bitter
fight led by Mr. Greenway for the free
public schools in Manitoba, will not give
weight to these words of his, and earnest
heed and thought to his wise advice on
the question of the Northwest Territories'
public schools. Would you hear Archbishop Langevin's sad refrain over the non-
Catholic control of these schools? In a
circular to his clergy, he said :
Just as we are committing to press this circular, we learn with unspeakable sorrow
that
the educational clause destined to be inserted
in the Autonomy Bill of the two new provinces
of Alberta and Saskatchewan will not restore
us to the position we held in 1875, when the
Northwest Territories were organized in virtue
of the British North America Act, but that this
5111 COMMONS
clause will conserve the spoilation of our school
rights by the ordinance of 1892 and will sanction all ordinances passed up to 1901.
This is for us a cruel disappointment and a
source of great sadness and grave anxiety for
the future. The spoilation of 1892 will thus be
definitely confirmed and conserved, and we lose
all hope of recovering our rights, we who expected this act of justice and high wisdom,
as
well as of true patriotism, from our rulers at
Ottawa.
In 1873 we had the same school rights as the
Protestant minority of Quebec and the Catholic
minority of Ontario, and these rights, shamefully violated in spite of the constitution,
as
the lamented Archbishop Taché so well proved
in his memorial of 1894, will not be recognized
and restored to us, as we had reason to expect,
by parliament which had power to do so.
Catholics who express satisfaction at such a
state of things betray not only unpardonable
ignorance of Catholic educational principles,
but also a lack of understanding of the painful
position in which we are placed since 1892,
ostracized, as we truly are in the Territories.
Wherefore, reverend and dear brethren, we
deem it our duty to lift up our voice in protest
against this ignoring of school rights, which the
constitution of our country gives us. Our rights
are as sacred and as certain to-day as they
were in 1875. And, if some opportunists were
tempted to ask us to be silent for the sake of
peace, or because it is impossible now to recover our right, we would answer : ' There
can
be no peace except with justice.' There can be
no prescription against right. No question of
principle is truly settled except when it is
settled according to justice and equity.
Our cause is that of justice and peace, because it is the cause of conscience and
truth ;
as truth, like God, never dies.
I have yet to hear of a single Protestant
clergyman in the Territories preaching or
speaking against the school question there.
Of the satisfaction shown by western Orangemen, we have had convincing evidence
on the floor of this House. The hon. member
for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) an
ardent orangeman a few days ago expressed
himself, not only as favourable to the Bill,
but as intending to vote for it on the ground
that it was just and righteous to all classes
of people.
Besides the eminently satisfactory status
of the Territorial school system which the
school clause endorses and perpetuates, I
support it because it will prevent further
future fighting in the local legislature over
the vexed question of Catholic separate
schools in the Territories, and forbids the
necessity of a repetition of that bitter warfare which took place in Manitoba for
free
public schools. I support this Bill because
the people of the Territories have unmistakably declared that they are wholly satisfied
with their school system and desire no meddling interference from Tory Toronto or
ultramontane Quebec. I support it because the almost unanimous voice of the
representatives in parliament of the Northwest Territories are in its favour. I say
almost, because there are some members of
the opposition who would vote against a
5111
5112
passport to Paradise if it were offered by
this government.
As regards the constitutional and legal
aspect of this school clause, I have heard
learned and eminent legal gentlemen in this
House declare that the federal government
had no right to interfere in this question ;
that it was an invasion of 'provincial
rights,' and I have heard them quote eminent authorities on both sides of the Atlantic
to support their contention. I have also
heard learned and eminent lawyers in this
House declare that the federal authority
had the right to deal with this question
and quote eminent jurists in Great Britain
to support their case. Now while these
legal lights are engaged in the gentle art
and exercise of splitting hairs, I deem it
my privilege, nay, my bounden duty, as
the representative of a liberty loving constituency, to support a Bill which gives
the new provinces a system of schools
which they desire, and which they have
had for thirty years, and approve of the
system which gives free public schools, calculated for the enlightenment, and making
for the intelligence of the young people who
are teeming into this great west, as well
as for those unborn, in these new provinces—a system which by this Bill can
never be controlled by any one church or
sect or denomination, and will remain untrammelled by religious dogma and uncontrolled
by religious bigotry or fanatical
zeal.
I readily find in the examination of this
measure, as it is presented by the leader
of the government, and also by the leader
of the opposition, that he who votes on it at
all must vote for separate schools, as they
are and must continue to be in the new provinces. If he vote with the government,
he must endorse separate schools; and the
leader of the opposition in the amendment
he has offered, certainly does not propose
to remove or interfere in any way with the
territorial school system. The voting problem as I see it is this: Vote with the
government and in favour of the present
school system in the Territories—or vote
with the opposition, who do not propose to
remove or interfere with these schools, but
an opposition which when in power put
themselves on record as in favour of separate schools, controlled by the Catholic
church in Manitoba; and went to wreck
and ruin on this question, and who never
have shown even a death bed repentance.
Or if the member do not vote at all, he
shows himself an arrant coward pandering
to the ignorance or bigotry of a few fanatics.
I understand that the member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) has sent to the Orangemen of Nova Scotia a telegram giving his
advice and opinion in regard to this Bill.
In that organization in Nova Scotia there
are many grand men, and noble supporters
5113 APRIL 28, 1905
of this government; and had they known
the hon. member's party subservience,
his hide bound, slavish adherence to
everything Tory whether right or wrong,
they would long have hesitated to ask or
receive his advice. I have no objection to
this gentleman washing his political garments in Boyne Water, but I do object to
his afterwards taking them out of the cesspool of party prejudice and Conservative
misrepresentation and sending them down
to Nova Scotia as the pure robes of a
patriot.
As well might our Orange supporters
there have asked of beelzebub—his opinion
of the supreme delights and divine glories
of the heavenly world. For the hour he
may deceive a few of these Liberals, but
only for the hour. Every intelligent Orangeman, every intelligent Catholic, every
intelligent citizen, who is not a narrow party
slave, if he seek the facts in regard to the
school system in the Northwest Territories,
will see in that system, righteous justice
which panders to none and shows a broad-
mindness which well becomes this broad
and great country which by justice and
right, we are trying to build into a great
nation, broad, tolerant, self-respecting and
self-governing.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY 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.
5113
5114
Mr. A. J. ADAMSON (Humbolt). Mr. Speaker, the Bill
which is now before the House is one of great importance to Canada and particularly
to the Northwest Territories
which are about to be created into provinces. As I have the honour to represent
a constituency which forms a part of these great
Territories I consider it my duty to give some reasons why I intend to
support the Bill which is before the House as I certamly will do. I have
listened with a great deal of attention to the views expressed by hon.
members on both sides of the House and I have endeavoured to realize
their point of view. I was particularly struck with the simile
used by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) when he
congratulated my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
on the introduction of this Bill. He likened the provinces which are
being created to a pair of twins which had just arrived on the scene.
At the time I thought the comparison was a very happy one, but
further consideration struck me that it perhaps did not quite fit the
occasion. I thought it would have been fairer to have compared the two
young provinces to a couple of youths who have been under probation,
who have completed their education and are about to enter into their estate.
The Dominion government have been the trustees who have been
looking after their interests until they came of age and until they
were fit to be entrusted with their own attairs. I thought the simile was
very well taken by the hon. member for East Grey, but at the same time
I thought possibly his professional pride was piqued at not being
called in as consulting physician on the auspicious occasion.
These provinces, having attained man's estate, are about to become
independent to a certain extent ; that is as independent as any person can be in
these days, or as any province can be
that is a member of this great confederacy. No province can be perfectly
independent any more than any individual who is a member of a
community can be perfectly independent. There must be some restraints
to guard against entrenching upon the rights, privileges and
property of the different provinces, but so long as they keep within their
rights and privileges they are free. It is so with these new
provinces. They are now the centre of observations and the methods
adopted by them at this present juncture and their ability to cope with the
problems with which they must deal will have a most powerful effect in
the future of these provinces. If at the commencement of
their career they deal recklessly, weakly, or carelessly with the questions
which will be presented to them their future career will be
most injuriously affected and all that affects them will certainly
affect the rest of Canada to an extent that
5115
COMMONS
very few people can at present realize. Fortunately
the territorial government has been so far most satisfactory and we must
be careful now not to undo any of the good work that has been done in
the past. The first provision of this Bill which I want to discuss
relates to the financial terms arranged for the new provinces. They, of
course, are the most important ones, at least they are very important
to the well- being of the provinces, and looking at them
as a whole I may say that the representatives of the Territories
are satisfied with the provision which has been made. I believe that the income
which has been provided for them will
enable them to conduct their internal affairs in a satisfactory manner. They are
not in the position of remittance
men. They have had a fair settlement and they can go on and
develop the country in a perfectly independent manner. Each province
will have over a million dollars to start with and as their
population increases so will their income, and thus they will have
increasing means with the increasing demands which will be made upon
them for the support and establishment of schools, roads and
different public improvements of one kind or another. If the lands
were handed over to the provinces they have to be used immediately as a
source of income. We would have to get revenue out of them. The
present policy of the Dominion government is to settle the lands and
not to make them a revenue- producing property. Every settler
that goes into the Northwest is a valuable asset to the Dominion of
Canada. He contributes to the general revenue so that it is a great
benefit to the Dominion, and looking at it from the purely financial point
of view it is proper that the government should get as many settlers
into the country as possible, but as these settlers necessitate
expenditure on the part of the provinces it is also
necessary that their income should increase wlth the advent of new
people. If the lands had been handed over to the new provinces it
would be a most difficult matter to determine the interests of
each. A large amount of land in the Territories has already been
disposed of and it will be almost impossible to say how much was
taken from one or the other and to adjust matters between them. Under
the proposition as adopted all trouble of this kind is
avoided and there is no material for dispute between the provinces. Beth are
satisfied with the liberality of the terms and feel that they have
been fairly dealt with. Many possible complications have been disposed of by this
settlement and there is no room for further
discussion in the matter. In regard to the boundary question, I
believe that the division of the Territories has been a most ideal one.
There was at one time some difference of opinion as to where the line
should be. Many people con
5115
5116sidered that the north country,
bounded by the North Saskatchewan river, should be made into one
province and that the south country should be made into another province. I myself
at one time held that opinion, but on further
considering the matter and hearing the views of others expressed, I can easily see
that this is an equally good division,
and we are all satisfied with it. Only one objection, and one only, has
been raised against the dividing line decided on, and on
examination that objection proves to have very little force. The hon.
member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) states that the 104th meridian will
divide the ranching country and that confusion is likely to arise
between the different cattle brands in the new provinces. If this objection were
a valid one, it would entail taking the boundary
east to the western boundary of Manitoba, which would be out of the
question. There are cattle brands extending all over that country, and
therefore the adoption of another boundary would not remove
what he regards as a serious objection. It would entail making this whole
territory into one province. I consider then that the present dividing
line is as nearly ideal as is possible, and that the two provinces will be
closely equal in their present population, in their prospects of
increased population, in their natural resources and in the income
which is at their disposal.
There has been much discussion on the
subject of the extension of the Manitoba
boundaries to the west. On this question I
am fully in accord with the sentiments of
the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr.
Turriff) and the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont). To quote the words of
the latter gentleman, I believe that if such
an extension were seriously contemplated
it would raise such a storm in the west that
our friends of the opposition who talk so
persistently of the agitation of public
opinion, of conflagrations and storms, would
really see what a Northwest hurricane does
mean. In this case they would not have to
whistle for a breeze. The storm would be
on them in very short order. There is no
question, Mr. Speaker, as to the temper of
the west on this subject. Public opinion is
crystallized, and they have very clear-cut
ideas on the subject. That opinion is growing every day. There was a time when union
with Manitoba might have been accepted,
but dating from the day of that meeting held
at Indian Head, a joint meeting which Mr.
Haultain and Mr. Roblin, premier of Manitoba, attended, and at which meeting Mr.
Roblin actually threatened to hold up the
Northwest Territories if they did not accede
to his desires in this matter, there has been
a change of sentiment. From the moment
that Mr. Roblin attempted to tell these people that if they did not consent to join
with
Manitoba, if they did not fall in with his
views at that time expressed, he would
make certain reprisals upon them, a feeling
5117
APRIL 28, 1905
of antagonism to the idea of union has
grown up. It is impossible that people who
have any self-respect should submit to these
threats or should give way to pressure of
this kind. That feeling has been growing,
and there is, further, a strong and rooted
Objection to throwing in their fortune with
a province which has so many heavy and
serious liabilities at this time. A union
with Manitoba would be entirely out of the
question. This feeling is universal, and a
determination exists, and has existed for
some time, to oppose by every possible
means the adding to Manitoba of one foot
of territory to the west. I venture to say
that if a vote were taken on this question
95 per cent of the people would vote in this
way.
The school clauses of the Bill have been
the subject of much criticism and much
discussion, and their consideration has
taken up most of the time of the House.
I am not a lawyer and I cannot discuss the
matter from a constitutional point of view,
but I have heard the opinions of constitutional lawyers on both sides of the House,
and I must say that the different conclusions at which they have arrived have confused
rather than enlightened those who
listened to them. I will speak on the school
question from a point of view different from
that taken by any other gentleman who has
spoken on the subject. I have been living
in the Northwest for many years. I have
reared a family there. and I am going to
speak on the subject from the point of
view of the father of a family whose children have attended those schools which are
under diseussion. I have availed myself
of the opportunity to somewhat carefully
study our school system since I went into
that country, because I have always considered the education of a family to be a
very serious matter. I can say this, Mr.
Speaker, and I can say it frankly and
plainly, that in the Northwest Territories
we have as good a school system as exists
anywhere in Canada. The people who use
these schools are satisfied with them. We
can turn to our friends from Quebec and we
can say to them: Your compatriots and
your co-religionists in the Northwest Territories are satisfied with those schools
; and
we can say to our friends from Ontario or
any of the other Protestant provinces: We,
the Protestants of the Northwest are satisfied with our school system which has
worked well and is satisfactory to every
one concerned. Let me say, Sir, that from
the constituency which I have the honour
to represent I have had not a single petition asking me to do anything else than to
support the system of schools which is at
present established in that country. I would
like to say one thing further, Mr. Speaker,
and that is, that after listening to the
speeches made from the opposition side of
the House, I do not think that any one
of them described the actual state of affairs.
5117
5118
I do not think you will find in one of these
speeches that the real state of affairs in regard to education now existing in the
Northwest is plainly set forth before the people.
You hear from these gentlemen opposite a
great deal about shackling the new provinces and tying up the people of the Northwest,
but all that kind of talk is an entire
mystery to the people of the west themselves. I have just arrived from the west
to-day, and I can say that in the hotels,
travelling on trains, passing through
the country and meeting people of all
kinds, I failed to find a single man
who really understood the exact state of
affairs and who was not satisfied to see the
school clauses of this Bill become law. The
fact of the matter is that to find any agitation on the subject you have to get away
from the Northwest Territories. The hon.
gentleman who addressed the House this
afternoon was able to give us some very
valuable information on the subject, and I
intended to deal at length with it but it
has been gone over so often that it is hardly
worth while to do so at this stage of the
debate.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Go on.
Mr. ADAMSON. There are at least eleven hundred schools
now in operation in the Northwest Territories. Any of the school
districts have the power, if they choose to exercise it, to call into
operation the separate school clauses of the Act, but we find
that less than one per cent of them have done so, and that one per
cent is hardly noticed although both Protestant and Catholic
children do attend these separate schools. I lived within twelve miles of
one of these separate schools for a long time without knowing that
there was a separate school there. I think every member of this House
who seriously considers the question will acknowledge that this is just as
close as we possibly can get to having a national school system. We
had a very pleasant picture drawn by the member for Middlesex (Mr.
Bison) of a condition of afiairs which he considered to be ideal, in which
children grew up together knowing one another well, and becoming
closer in friendship and more united in ideas. We all agree with that.
The ideal state of afiairs possibly would be that, and I contend that in the
Northwest Territories we have attained as near as is humanly possible
to that ideal. Now, I do not say that religious instruction in the schools
is good, nor do I say it is bad ; but, acting on the assumption that
national schools are actual perfection, and seeing that the extreme limit of religious
instruction which can be given in these schools
amounts to one-half hour each day, then in the Northwest
Territories we have it, that as one- twelfth of the time only
can be devoted to religious instruction, and that only one per cent of
the schools exercise that right, We, therefore, come within one—twelfth of a
5119
COMMONS
one-hundreth part of perfection, as perfection is described by the gentlemen who oppose
this Bill. I
think, Sir, that no one will deny that this is just about as close to
perfection as can be attained. If a man, no matter whether he be a lawyer, a physician,
or a member of the House of
Commons, gets within one-twelfth of a hundredth part of perfection in
doing his duty he is very close to the real thing. I can tell you, Sir,
that it would be weak in us and it would be shirking our
responsibility, if the parliament of Canada when passing these
Autonomy Bills did not settle the school question for now
and for all time. We would not be doing our duty here if we were to throw
it as an apple of discord into the midst of the new provinces. The
future of Canada hinges very largely on the prosperity and the
settlement of this new territory of ours. It will be found on examination
that the expansion of trade in eastern Canada is just about
commensurate with the development of the west. It is the duty of every
Canadiana to do what he can to develop his country, and if we can people
the west with an industrious and enterprising population,
then we will be helping every province in this Dominion. We have heard
discussions in this House as to whether there should be two story
sheds or one story sheds built on the wharfs of Montreal ;
we have heard discussions as to the improvement of harbours and canals,
but, when you come to consider the solid facts of the case you will
see that in the final analysis the prosperity of all these great
undertakings must depend upon the development of the west. If the wheat
lands of the west are not cultivated and brought under the hands of
the tiller of the soil there is no use developing the harbours of the
cities of the east. I would strongly impress upon the House that the
attention of the people of the west should not be diverted from the
great work which they have in hand to develop the fertility of the soil.
I was one of those who for seven  years took part in the fight about the
school question in Manitoba. We fought there for just such a system of
schools as we have now in operation in the Northwest Territories, and I know how
that agitation tore the people apart, how it
exhausted their energies, and how it diverted them from the work they
might otherwise be profitably employed in.
It is a serious matter to involve people
in a strife of this kind with one another ;
and, as we have the matter practically settled amongst ourselves, it would be a lasting
shame on this government if it did not
continue the system of schools which has
proved so effective. We hear much declamation about the imposing of conditions on
the new provinces ; but how can there be
imposition where all the parties concerned
are willing and anxious that the measure
should be adopted ? There can be no shack
5119
5120ling where the bonds do not bind ; and, as
the Territories say distinctly that they want
the present school system, where is the
point of the opposition in this discussion ?
Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Northwest
Territories, has declared that if he were
dictator to-morrow, he would not change
the school law, and he is certainly right
in so expressing himself. That law is a
good and satisfactory one, and I consider
that it is in line with the record of this
Liberal government that knowing the wishes
of the people on this point, they should
make it a part of the constitution of the
new provinces. Â
I notice that the Conservative press of
to-day claims that a great victory on the
school question has been won by the Conservative party in Manitoba, in the division
of Mountain, where a supporter of the
Roblin government has been elected. I
would like, however, to draw the attention
of the House to the fact that the Prime
Minister of Manitoba distinctly stated in
opening the campaign, that the school question was not an issue in that election.
He
made that very clear and distinct, and his
utterance on that point is quoted in today's press. He has made a stand on what
he calls the rights of Manitoba in the matter
of the enlargement of its boundaries. If
our friends of the opposition wish to put to
the test how the people of the Northwest
stand on this question, there is a very good
opportunity for them. There happen to be
at present seven vacancies in the Northwest legislature, and I believe it would be
the consistent and the proper course for
Mr. Haultain to submit this question to
the electors in those vacant constitutncies.
He would then get his answer with no
uncertain sound ; and then, by calling the
legislature together, he would be in a position to obtain a declaration from that
body
on the subject. I venture to prophesy that
he would find himself in the very unpleasant
position of being voted down by the Northwest legislature. The school Act of the
Northwest Territories makes it very clear
what the powers of the provinces are. The
school system is under the control of a superintendent ; that superintendent is responsible
to the government : he has his advisory
board, he licenses the teachers, provides
their curriculum, selects the text-books of
the schools, provides for their inspection,
and has complete control over them. There
is but one system, not a dual system, and,
as I said before, it is perfectly satisfactory
to the people of the Territories.
These are briefly my reasons, Mr. Speaker,
for supporting the Bill, and I can say confidently that it is acceptable to the people
of the Northwest Territories, and that any
portion of those Territories will confirm the
action that is now being taken. We have
had an illustration of the feeling or the
people in what has taken place in the constituency of the present Minister of the
5121 APRIL 28, 1905
Interior, the Hon. Mr. Oliver. The Conservative association there passed a resolution
to the effect that it would be useless
or impolitic to oppose him ; his late opponent, Mr. Secord, endorsed his candidature
; and he has been returned by acclamation. If he had been opposed, he
certainly would have been returned by a
larger majority than he had before. The
Board of Trade of Edmonton, which certainly cannot be called a sectarian body,
which is neither Galician nor Doukhobor,
but strictly Canadian, passed a resolution
endorsing his candidature. I think that is
a fairly good answer to our critics on the
other side of the House, and I am confident
that any other constituency in the Northwest Territories, I care not which it is,
would give exactly the same answer. I believe that the people of the Northwest are
at one on this subject. These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I intend to support
this Bill, and I am sure that everybody in
the House will join in the wish of the hon.
member for Middlesex that peace and happiness may be the lot of these now provinces
which are now about to join the great
federacy of Canada.
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough). Mr. Speaker, allow me to
congratulate my hon. friend from Humbolt (Mr. Adamson) on the splendid
speech to which we have just listened. It has been one of the most interesting contributions
that has been made to the present debate.
It would have been more in accord with the etiquette of debate for some
hon. gentleman from the other side of the House to undertake to answer
my hon. friend ; but one thing that has struck me very forcibly during
the last few days has been the great calm which has come over the
opposition benches. Three or four weeks ago it was different. One would
have imagined, from the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, and from the
articles in the newspapers which support their party, that
there was a great agitation in this country, that the heather was on fire
all over Canada. The Toronto ' World ' and the Toronto ' News ' came out
day after day with extravagant headlines ; the hon. member
for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) deluged us with sarcasm ; the hon. member for
South York (Mr. Maclean) went about with a chip on his shoulder
challenging us all to resign ; and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr.
Sproule), in his own mild and gentle manner, said some pretty hard things
about us. But, Sir, the Easter holidays came and have passed away, the
ice has melted from the river, the grass has begun to grow, the tulips
have begun to appear, and we have all been struck with the quietness of
this chamber. We cannot but ask ourselves: Has there really been an
agitation in this country? And those who remember that there was an agitation
are beginning to inquire what it was all about.
5121
5122
We are told that this is a struggle for
provincial rights. Hon. gentlemen opposite
claim to be the divinely constituted champions of these rights considering their past
record. It is rather satisfactory to find
them in that frame of mind. We are
rather gratified to perceive this change of
heart among so many of our hon. friends
opposite on this important question. But
in my opinion provincial rights are not
at all assailed in this measure, and our hon.
frends opposite, in rushing to the rescue,
are simply seeking to combat a phantom
of their own imagination. If we look
into the facts, we will find that there is no
such thing in this country as strict provincial rights on the question of education.
That is a thing unknown in our constitution. It might be a good thing and I
am not at present disposed to say it would
not ; and if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to
start a crusade to change the constitution
and place the question of education on a
different basis, that would be a fair question to discuss in public and on which to
get the sense of the people. And if hon.
gentlemen opposite were to start any such
crusade, possibly many of us would feel
like having the question of education made
a purely provincial one. I need hardly refer to the fact, since every hon. gentleman
here knows it, that section 91 of the British North America Act enumerates certain
subjects as coming under Dominion control, such as the public debt, postal service,
fisheries, the criminal law and many
others, and that section 92 enumerates the
subjects which fall under the control of the
provincial legislature, such as direct taxation, the maintenance of hospitals and
asylums, property, and civil rights. Then
we come to section 93, which deals with
the question of education, and that question
is dealt with in a different way from any
of the others. We do not find it mentioned
at all in sections 91 and 92, but we have
it specially mentioned in section 93, and
that section places it under a divided jurisdiction. Provision is made for separate
schools in the old provinces of Quebec and
Ontario, and there is also a provision that
the minority in the other provinces will
have the right to appeal to the Dominion
parliament against any injustice done them
by a provincial legislature. It seems to
me therefore plain that in the matter of
education there is no such thing, strictly
speaking, as provincial rights under our
constitution.
But what are the real merits of the agitation when it is sifted down? The school
system of the Northwest Territories is admittedly a good one. The hon. gentleman
who spoke last has described what an excellent one it is ; and none of the hon. gentlemen
opposite who have been addressing
us for the past month has ventured to say
a word against it. What they do say is
simply this, that while in itself it is an
5123 COMMONS
excellent system, it would be a bad thing
to perpetuate it, because that is a matter
which should come purely under provincial
control. Premier Haultaln himself has
said that it cannot be improved, and that
if he should be declared dictator to-morrow
he would not change it. He, however, is
not willing that this parliament should
take from him the power to do a thing
which he says he never would do if left
to himself. In that respect he reminds
me of the small boy who would not let
the other little fellow play in his back yard,
and refused to allow him the privilege of
hollering down the empty water barrel.
And for what reason forsooth? Simply
because it was his barrel, and he insisted
on doing all the hollering himself. If that
be not a case of tweedledum and tweedledee,
I have never known of such a case in all
my life.
There is one feature, however, of the
agitation which is extremely regrettable
and that is the extremely inflammatory
course which has been adopted by certain
newspapers in this country. What justification, for instance, can be given for
articles such as these. Let me read you
an extract from an article in the Toronto
'World' from some correspondent in Manitoba and which is given all the notoriety of
capital letters :
You may give it for what it is worth, but
my individual opinion is that Sir Wilfrid
Laurier was informed immediately by Monseigneur Sbarretti of the failure of his advances,
and that the invitation to the other provinces
to put forward their claims was made expressly
in Sir Wilfrid's speech on the following day
from personal motives of pique, because the
Manitoba delegates had not listened to reason.
That is a statement made in the Toronto
' World,' and made in spite of the fact that
the speech was not at all made the following day. The dates were falsified obviously
for the purpose of creating in the public
mind the impression that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had brought the delegates from Manitoba
here in order to expose them to the
blandishments of the Papal delegate.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speech was made on
the 21st February and the meeting of Mr.
Campbell with the Papal delegate—mind
you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rogers never met
the Papal delegate at all—was (on the 23rd
February, two days after the public announcement was made of the policy of the
government regarding the boundaries of
Manitoba. That falsehood was not only
stated in the Toronto 'World' on that occasion but has been repeated time and
again both in that newspaper and the Toronto 'News.' I have gone through the
columns of the 'News' carefully to see if
the writers on that paper ever corrected
that false impression. They might have
been misled in the first instance by the
impression given by Mr. Rogers in the interview he published in the city or Winni
5123
5124peg, but did they attempt to set the public
right subsequently? Not at all. I have
carefully gone through the editorials of
that paper, and find that not the slightest
attempt was made to correct the false impression to which it gave circulation regarding
the First Minister. Then I find
another editorial, such as the following:
Was there an understanding ? That Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Monseigneur Sbarretti would
deny formal co-operation in the attempt to
coerce the province of Manitoba into the adoption of such a separate school system
as they
both desire, was only to be expected. Negotiations of this kind under circumstances
involving inflammatory and dangerous questions are
not carried on by an astute politician, and an
equally astute diplom'atist in such a way as
will leave any visible trail. Nevertheless,
enough has been disclosed to render it in the
highest degree probable that a tacit but very
clear understanding existed between them. It
is not necessary to suppose that a formal conference took place at which the Papal
delegate
was authorized to give the Manitoba delegates.
the very distinct intimation that he did give.
These are extracts from the 'World.' I
shall give you now one or two from the
'News.' Here is an editorial from that
paper :
On February 13th, Mr. Rogers and his colleague, Mr. Campbell, received a telegram
from
Sir Wilfnid Laurier asking them to visit Ottawa on the 17th. They saw Sir Wilfrid
and
presented the claims of the province for an extension, and were asked to wait three
or four
days for an answer.
0n the 20th they received a letter, not from
Sir Wilfrid, but from the Papal delegate, asking
for a conference. When they saw the delegate,
he told them that the settlement of the boundary
question would be greatly facilitated if the
Manitoba government would consent to certain
amendments in the school law, which he submitted.
The same criticism applies to that. They
received no invitation from the premier,
on the contrary they asked for the interview themselves. The date there, of course,
is also changed. On the 17th they saw
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and presented the
claims, and they were asked to wait three
or four days. This has been denied by
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose statement is
corroborated by the Postmaster General (Sir
William Mulock), and those newspapers
which have circulated these falsehoods
throughout the country have not apologized
or tried to correct them. Another item
from the Toronto ' News ' is headed :
The Grit apostasy.
This item was published in the Halifax
'Herald,' which describes the Toronto
'News ' as an independent Liberal paper.
It is doubtful if a single member of the House
of Commons, either to the right or left of the
Speaker. is deceived by the specious argument
that the government is constitutionally obliged
to create a separate school system for the new
western provinces. The truth is that the Bills
5125 APRIL 28, 1905
now before parliament represent a bargain between certain ministers and the Roman
Catholic
hierarchy, and, in consequence of this secret
compact, we must accept an interpretation of
the Canadian constitution, not by the Supreme
Court of Canada or the Privy Council of the
empire, but by the Court of Rome.
There is not the slightest foundation for
any of those statements. There is now
abundant proof that they are absolutely untrue. I could give a large number of other
extracts from such leading pournals as the
Toronto "Mail ' and from a paper called the
' Sun,' published in Toronto, but I shall not
weary the House by reading them. The
object of these items is to convey a false
impression to the people Of this country;
and, to say the least of it, is it not disgraceful and reprehensible on the part of
these
newspapers? I am not in the habit of
using strong language, but I question if the
usage of parliament would permit language
strong enough to characterize the conduct
of those newspapers in connection with this
matter. Everybody in Canada knows that
these repeated and persistent attacks in connection with the Papal delegate would
not
have been made if the right hon. gentleman
who leads this House was not a member
of the Roman Catholic communion. It is
repeated day after day that there is a power
behind the throne. that this legislation is
introduced and is being carried through at
the instigation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, that the premier of Canada has abrogated
his functions altogether, and has betrayed the trust which this country has
placed in him. We are invited to witness
the noble spectacle of men standing patriotically for a great principle. But what
do
we see ? Why, Sir, instead of that, we
see men attempting to besmirch and injure the reputation of a great statesman
by an utter disregard for the truth ; that
is the spectacle we see. Let hon. gentlemen look at this measure, calmly examine the
charges against the premier,
and then judge for themselves. Why,
Sir, there is not a sentence in those educational clauses, not a single line that
the
veriest baby in public life would attribute to the pen of a prelate of the Roman
Catholic church. Does any man imagine
that if a prelate of the Roman Catholic
church had an opportunity of moulding a
school system for the Northwest, he would
provide for national schools, for schools
taught by duly licensed teachers, in which
only authorized school books were used,
schools subject to strict public inspection and
controlled altogether by the local legislature,
schools in which the only concession made to
his views is that both Protestants and Catholics have the same opportunity or teaching
religion for one-half hour at the close of
each day ? I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, what is their opinion ? Do they
think that the educational provisions of
this Bill show internal evidence that they
were inspired by a priest of the Roman
5125
5126
Catholic church ? I know that the press of
both political parties on occasions of excitement say extravagant things, but there
should be some bound even to newspaper
discussion. I have watched the course of
public discussion in this country for the
past twenty years, but this is the first occasion on which I have known the press
of a
great political party, such as the party represented by hon. gentlemen opposite, to
abandon all fair dealing and all decency
and fair-play, and to revel in falsehood and
misrepresentation, as they have done during
the course of this discussion. I do not now
refer to all the Conservative papers in Canada. The Conservative papers of Montreal,
such as the Montreal 'Star' and the Montreal 'Gazette,' have throughout maintained
a sober and dignified course ; the newspapers which have lost all sense of decency
and fairness are certain Toronto newspapers,
and among the lowest and most despicable
of the yellow journals of the city of Toronto, representing the Conservative party,
are
the Toronto 'News' and the Toronto
'World.' I am very sorry to say it, because
we are all proud of Toronto as a great city,
but Toronto seems to have won for itself
the unenviable reputation of being the hotbed of bigotry and intolerance in this country.
This is not my opinion alone; I shall
give you the opinion of one of the leading
newspapers in the city of Montreal. the
Montreal 'Gazette.' The Montreal ' Gazette (Conservative) sums up the Toronto-
made 'situation' in the following concise
and effective manner :
The Toronto 'Globe' of Saturday speaks of
the situation at Ottawa as a crisis. The 'Globe '
is being too much excited by its own surroundings. In a good many parts of the country
there is a belief that if telegraph and mail
communication with Toronto were shut off in
some way for a few days, the people generally
would forget that parliament was doing anything more serious than voting money for
nonpaying enterprises.
That, Sir, is the opinion of the Montreal
' Gazette,' that if we could cut the telegraph
and mail connections between Toronto and
the rest of Canada, that this agitation would
stop in a few days, and, Sir, I think the
'Gazette' is right. There must be some
compromise on a question of this kind. It
has always been the case in the history of
Canada that we have had to compromise
delicate questions like this. You cannot
override the views of a minority of the
people that after all comprise nearly half
our population, you cannot crush them and
say they must do just what you say and
what you think. Every student of Canadian
history must know that no political leader
in this country ever yet succeeded in doing
that. The coterie that surrounded the old
'Family Compact' tried to do it and no
political combination in this country ever
had so good an opportunity to succeed in
that attempt and they failed.
5127 COMMONS
What was the result? The people of
Quebec led by Lafontaine and joined by
Baldwin rallied the broad-minded and tolerant men of Canada to their standard and
routed old Toryism in this country for ever.
Then George Brown emerged from the Baldwin party and began an agitation to unite
the Protestants of Upper and Lower Canada
against the Roman Catholic minority with
the result that he kept Sir John Macdonald
in power for a generation. Then our overzealous fellow-countrymen in Ontario led on
by the 'Mail and Empire' started a similar
propaganda in more recent times with the
result that the Liberal party led by Sir
Oliver Mowat held power in Ontario for a
quarter of a century. And, Sir, in view of
our past history and the circumstances that
surround us at present it is plain to every
thinking man, and the leader of the opposition himself must have realized it by
this time, that the course adopted by him
today in regard to this measure will have
the effect of cementing the ranks of the
Liberal party from the Atlantic to the Pacific and perpetuating Liberal rule in this
country for the next twenty years. I know
very well that the leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden) does not like the position that he is in, does not like the task
that
some of his over-zealous friends have imposed on him on this occasion. I have
always felt sorry that he was placed in
that position as he is an eminent fellow-
countryman of my own. And I firmly believe that if he had a good, large following
from the province of Nova Scotia, and if
he continued to represent the good old county of Halifax, where race and religious
disputes are unknown, he would find it
easier to make his way through this tangle
than he has found it under existing circumstances.
The two provinces that profess to have
this question most at heart are the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. It is from
the Tory press and the Tory politicians
of these provinces that the wild, hysterical
appeals have come to which we have been
compelled to listen during the course of
this agitation. What is the past record of
the Conservative party in these provinces
on this question? Is it such that we are
bound to give them credit for sincerity now?
What did the Conservatives in these provinces do in 1896? Did they stand by Sir
Wilfrid Laurier, or did they vote for their
own party, which, at that time, was attempting to force separate schools of a clerical
type on the province of Manitoba? On that
occasion, which was the only occasion in
the history of this country when the people
lead an opportunity to vote upon this question Ontario gave Sir Wilfrid Laurier 44
supporters out of 92 representatives elected,
and Manitoba elected four Conservatives,
two Liberals and one independent. Such is
the record of these hysterical gentlemen on
the only occasion in all their lives when they
5127
5128
had an opportunity of showing that they
had genuine and sincere convictions on this
question ; and that is a record that entitles
every thoughtful man in Canada to regard
their present agitation as a thoroughly political agitation carried on, not for the
purpose of establishing free schools in the
west, but for the sole purpose of getting
votes for the Conservative party. What are
the facts ? We all know that the course
of the Toronto 'Globe' has not been friendly
to the Liberal party on this question, and
perhaps I cannot do better than to read to
you a short extract from the Toronto 'Globe'
describing the system of schools we are
establishing in the west. We all want to
place that before our friends in the country,
because, that is, after all the vital question.
I want to show What kind of schools we
are giving to the new provinces, and this
article from the Toronto 'Globe ' explains
that point :
Stick to the facts.
No good can come of misrepresenting the
facts in the controversy respecting the schools
in the new provinces. It is a gross misrepresentation to pretend that what is called
a separate school in the Territories is the same thing
as a separate school in Ontario. By no stretch
of language could the separate school in the
west be designated as a church school. From
9 o'clock in the morning till 3.30 in the afternoon the schools of the Catholic or
Protestant
minority are conducted precisely as the public
schools are conducted. The scholars are taught
by a teacher certificated and authorized by the
Department of Education of the Territories ; he
teaches from the same text—hooks as are used
in the public schools; he follows the same
programme as is followed in the public schools:
his school is regularly inspected by the inspector that inspects the public schools,
and if the
teaching were unsatisfactory the government
could withhold the public grants. So thoroughly
undenominational is the teaching that Protestant children attend separate schools
when these
are more convenient than public schools. The
only privilege that the Catholic minority obtain
is that the teacher is a Catholic, and after halt~
past three may impart religious instruction according to the tenets of the Catholic
church to
the children who choose to remain.
These are the facts, and those who are honestly seeking a permanent and satisfactory
solution of the vexed questions which arise under the Autonomy Bill's can afford to
admit
them. Those who are merely desirous of forwarding their political designs by appeals
to
passion are unfortunately seeking to mislead
people and distort the facts of the case.
This is the description of the facts given
by the Toronto 'Globe' and it is a very
fair description. Now, Sir, it comes down
to this, that we are. by the educational
clauses of this Bill, establishing a national
system of public schools for the west with
the right to give one-half hour's religious
instruction to the pupils at the close of each
day. This is not a new idea by any means.
We have the same in the province of Nova
Scotia, and we have had it for a great many
years. This was brought to the attention
5129 APRIL 28, 1905
of the House this afternoon by my hon.
friend from Hants (Mr. Black). However,
as he did not read the whole clause I would
like to place it on record. I quote from
the school regulations made by the Council
of Public Instruction and now in force in
Nova Scotia. This is the regulation:
Whereas, it has been represented to the
council that trustees of public schools have, in
certain cases, required pupils, on pain of forfeiting school privileges, to be present
during
devotional exercises not approved of by their
parents ; and whereas, such proceeding is contrary to the principles of the school
law, the
following regulation is made for the direction
of trustees, the better to ensure the carrying
out of the spirit of the law in this behalf:
It is ordered that in cases where the parents
or guardians of children in actual attendance
on any public school or department signify in
writing to the trustees their conscientious objection to any portion of such devotional
exercises as may be conducted therein under the
sanction of the trustees, such devotional exercises shall either be so modfied as
not to offend
the religious feelings of those so objecting, or
shall be held immediately before the time fixed
for the opening, or after the time fixed for the
close of the daily work of the school ; and no
children whose parents or guardians signify
conscientious objections thereto, shall be required to be present during such devotional
exercises.
It seems to be taken for granted by the
council of public instruction of Nova Scotia
that there will be devotional exercises in
the schools, and this is a provision to
regulate these exercises. Now, this system
has worked well in Nova Scotia for a good
many years. There is no person there who
has turned pale or become hysterical over
it. Everything has gone well; and I have
no doubt that when we adopt this system
in the west, it will work well there.
I do not wish to weary the House with
a speech of any length. Like my hon.
friend from Hunts (Mr. Black) I simply
intended, when I rose to give a few reasons
why I intend to support the measure now
before the House. While other clauses of
the Bill are of equal importance, I have not
attempted to deal with anything except
the educational clauses. The reasons why
I intend to support this Bill and to vote
against the amendment of the leader of the
opposition, I desire to state briefly as follows :
First. Because it is an honourable and
fair compromise of a very difficult and delicate question, and, while it satisfies
to some
extent the religious convictions of forty-
one per cent of the people of Canada, it contains nothing that should be
in any sense offensive to the religious views
of the remaining forty-nine per cent.
Second. Because the school system that
we are now perpetuating is a school system
that was adopted about thirteen years ago
by the people of the Territories themselves ;
that system has worked satisfactorily ever
5129
5130
since; and it may be fairly said to be an
expression of the will of the people of the
Territories.
Third. I am opposed to the amendment
of the leader of the opposition because the
effect of it is to leave the whole matter in
a state of uncertainty, to give rise to disputes and litigation, and to destroy the
peace and retard the progress of the new
provinces.
Fourth. I am opposed to the amendment
of the leader of the opposition because it
is a sheer evasion of the question at issue.
If the words 'at the union' are to be held
to mean 1905, then, by passing this amendment we should be fastening on the new
provinces the system of clerical schools
that the people abolished in 1892, a system
to which I am determinedly opposed.
Fifth. I am in favour of the educational
clauses of this Bill because they give an
opportunity to both Protestants and Catholics who hold religious convictions on this
question to give religious instruction to
their children for half an hour at the close
of each school day without interfering with
the national character of the school.
Sixth. I support the Bill because it definitely settles this question once for all,
and
prevents the introduction into these western
provinces of those painful racial and religious quarrels that have disturbed the
peace of the older provinces of Canada.
Seventh. I support the Bill because the
schools to be established under this regulation must of necessity be free public schools,
using only the authorized text-books, taught
by regularly licensed teachers, inspected by
the public school inspector, and in every
respect under complete public control.
Eighth. I support the Bill because it preserves existing rights and prevents any feeling
of injustice on the part of those who
enjoyed this system for the past thirty
years.
Ninth. I support the Bill because the
policy of the Liberal party to-day is consistent with the policy of the party in 1896.
In 1896 the Liberal party stood for schools
established by the people of Manitoba, and
to-day they stand for schools established by
the people of the Northwest.
Tenth. Because we ought to have the
courage of our convictions on a question of
this kind, and not, like the hon. leader of
the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), take
refuge behind legal technicalities. What do
you think of the spectacle of the leader of a
great party declaring that he has nothing
to say in favour of separate schools, that he
has nothing to say against separate schools,
who confesses that he has absolutely no
more opinion than a baby on a great question of this kind, and who contents himself
With moving a resolution that bewilders
everybody, and that he has not yet ventured
to explain.
Eleventh. I am in favour of this measure
because it secures to every child in Alberta
5131 COMMONS
and Saskatchewan for all time to come a
good common school education.
Twelfth. Because every other province
that has come into confederation has carried
in with it the educational system that existed in the province at the time it came
in.
and there is no good reason why any different course should be adopted in the case
of
Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Now, Sir, I believe that we ought to get
past these racial and religious quarrels.
We are too near grown-up people to go on
in the way that the old provinces went many
years ago. I think the time is past for
these things. I am of opinion, Sir,
that Canada is destined to expand and
grow, that there is a great future
before this country during the century upon which we have now entered, and that
it is the duty of every patriotic Canadian to cease quarrelling one with another
and to endeavour to develop the great resources that have been given to us. We
have a great work to do, and we cannot
afford, as the hon. member who last had the
floor (Mr. Adamson) said, to spend our energies in tearing one another in pieces.
I believe it is the duty of every patriotic Canadian to stand shoulder to shoulder
to help
build up on the northern half of this continent a state worthy of ourselves, worthy
of
the great heritage that has been left to us,
worthy of the splendid stock from which
we have sprung, a state in which there will
be justice for all, free scope for all, tolerance
for all, and a fair reward for labour, and
a new home from freedom. If this,
Sir, is our destiny, as I believe it is, we
cannot achieve it by internal strife and discord, or by mutual hatred and distrust.
Let
us trample both under our feet, and let us
stand by the right hon. gentleman who
leads this House in the great task that he
has set for himself of bringing order out
of confusion and peace out of discord. break
ing down the barriers that separate the
various races that compose the people of
this country and welding them together into
one happy, prosperous and united people.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding. House adjourned at 9.20 p.m.
This individual participated in:
