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. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto). Mr.
Speaker, it is with a great deal of diffidence that I rise for the first
time to address this House, the more so as I have the misfortune to
come into this important debate after some of the most eloquent and
able speeches connected with these Bills have already been made. I have not
had that opportunity for a full consideration of the remarks of hon.
gentlemen in connection with the matter that I should like to have had,
nor have I had the opportunity of either
5141
MAY 1, 1905
hearing or reading all that has been said by hon.
gentlemen. I have, however, read with a great deal of care the speeches when
the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has made in
support of this measure, as well as the speeches of the hon.
Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr.
Fielding), the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) and the
hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), and I would very much Indeed
have desired to have read everything else that has been said on this very
important subject, because, with the rest of the hon. members of this
House and in common with them, I look upon it as the most important
matter that has been before this House, as far as I know, since
confederation. But, Sir, I am impressed by a further fact. This
debate, in some measure, has drifted, I regret to say, into abuse.
If there is one thing more than another that I admired in the speech
of the right hon. First Minister in which he introduced this Bill, it was
the suggestion that we should proceed to its consideration with
calmness, with moderation and with some effort to conceive that
others besides ourselves might have honest convictions in respect to
this very important matter; but I deeply regret that some of the
followers of the right hon. gentleman have not seen fit to approach this
important question with that feeling which the right hon. gentleman so
well expressed. Why, Sir. how can it be fairly or reasonably said for
one moment that the city of Toronto, in which I happen to live is bigoted
and intolerant? Were it a fact true, how disgraceful it
would be to throw up to us that we were so ignorant, so far behind the rest
of the people of this country in our knowledge of what is
reasonable and just, how disgraceful that such language should be
addresed to us rather than the language of kindness, consideration and
conciliation ? I wish to say, Sir, that the constituency which I have the
great honour to represent in this House, no later than the 25th of
January last, gave a majority of 2,800 votes in favour of a Roman Catholic
(Hon. J. J. Foy), and I want to say also that, bigoted as we are, or
as we are said to be, we have the greatest affection and admiration
for all our fellow- countrymen, whether they are Catholics or
Protestants, whether they are of English, Irish, Scotch or French
descent. We make and we endeavour to make no distinction, and I
sincerely trust that no member of this House will in future feel constrained
to use any such language as that to which I have referred towards any
part of the province of Ontario. But, dealing for the moment with the constituency
which I have the honour to
represent, and for which I had the honour to be elected by acclamation,
can it be said that this constituency, which, in 1896, sent a
supporter of the right hon. gentleman to this House, and which at that
time sent five opponents of the coercion of
5141
5142 Manitoba to this House, is a constituency which is guilty of bigotry
and intolerance ? Of course as Orangemen and as Tories, people
naturally expect abuse, but I did not think the Liberal party would be
disposed to use any such epithets towards the leading Liberals of Ontario.
Now, Sir, we have been told that there has been a compromise in
respect to this Bill. I will deal with that later ; but, Sir, if there is
any compromise in respect to this Bill, what has been the lever that
has brought about this compromise? Has it been the argument of my hon.
friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)? Not at
all. If any compromise has taken place, it has taken place because of
the vigorous, united and strong protests that have come to this House
from nearly every Liberal constituency in Ontario. I venture to
say that in 1896 no Liberal ever got a warmer, more enthusiastic,
heartier or more cordial reception than that accorded to the right
hon. First Minister, when he came to the city of Toronto. Mr. Speaker,
if that was the feeling of the people in the city of Toronto, in 1896,
since When have they suddenly become bigoted and intolerant? If their
hearts and minds and feelings were stirred with admiration of the right hon.
Prime Minister, then in a constituency which, in 1896, returned a
Liberal candidate (the late Mr. Justice Lount), which, later on, returned
a Liberal (Mr. Bertram), and which was barely wrested from the Liberal
party in 1900, in a constituency which, in 1904, with the most popular
candidate the Conservative party could put in the field, was
barely won by such candidate (the late Mr. E. F. Clarke) by a majority
of 200, how is it no Liberal candidate came forward in April last?
What was the change? What facts had intervened ? The people were not
bigoted in 1896. They objected to the coercion of Manitoba. What
facts intervened between the election in November and the election by
acclamation in April last ? Nothing assuredly but the introduction into
parliament of these Bills. Now, Sir, I dare say it has been quoted to
you, and I do not propose to dwell on this matter at length, but I do
feel that some justice should be done to the people who honestly believe
that this legislation is wrong, and that Liberal members of this House
are misrepresenting the views and feelings of the Liberal
party in this country. I wish to read a paragraph from what was once supposed to
be the Liberal organ of this province, the
' Globe' of April 19. It says:
But the point of capital importance, and
which cannot be disproved by shutting ones
eyes to its undesired existence or by shouting
bravely that it does not exist, is the unmistakeable fact that not in Toronto alone,
but in
scores of centres throughout this province the
sanest and steadiest and most intelligent men
cannot bring themselves to approve of the Dominion parliament, on any pretext whatsoever
interfering in the educational affairs of the new
5143
COMMONS
provinces. The men who make this objection
are not Tories. They are not Orangemen.
They are Liberals. They are, some of them,
the men who give virility and prestige to Liberalism in their constituencies, and
without
whom there would be no Liberal party worthy
of the name. To ignore the fact of their opposition, to minimize its significance,
or to
misunderstand its quality is to play the part
of children in a situation which demands the
wisdom and courage of men.
And what happened shortly before this
editorial was written? At a meeting in
Massey Hall, which was addressed not by
Conservatives, but by some of the ablest
Liberals in the province of Ontario if not
in Canada, the same spirit was evidenced.
Let me quote to you remarks which I take
as typical of the whole, and which were
addressed to that great assembly by a gen- Â
tleman who a short time before had been
offered the nomination of the Liberal party
in North Toronto and who had refused it.
What Sir Wilfrid Laurier proposes is open
to most serious objection, and for myself, with
my previous admiration for this man, giving
him my hearty service as a model statesman,
for the moment I have lost my respect for his
judgment. (Hear, hear.) He has sought, almost in an indecent manner, to thrust upon
this people a piece of legislation they will never
submit to. Â
That statement was received by Liberal
cheers at that meeting, and speeches in the
same vein were made there by men of the
type of D. E. Thompson, K.C., a Liberal
lawyer known throughout the whole country, and by Rev. Dr. Milligan, a man most
highly respected throughout this land. On
behalf of such men, if I may be permitted to
do so, I desire to repudiate the suggestion
that they are either bigoted or intolerant,
on the contrary, I could more truly describe
them as patriots, as men who put principle
above party, as men who were not quite so
able as others were to cheerfully cast aside
the political principles which during the
last thirty years they had been educated
in, by Mackenzie, by Blake, by Mowat, by
Davies and by the right hon. the Prime
Minister himself. And, Sir, if the Liberals
in this parliament believe what they
say, how unkind, how ungracious it
was of them not to come to the
great city of Toronto to talk with
these brothers who were so misled,
and to endeavour to convince them of their
wrong. How much more courageous it
would have been for the gentlemen opposite
to have come openly to that city, and standing on the platform say, as the Prime
Minister says in this House: I am standing where I stood in 1896. I can assure
the Prime Minister that had he done so he
would have addressed men who would have
felt in the kindliest way towards him,
 Â
5143
5144
and men whose minds and hearts were
open to conviction. If the right hon. gentleman and those associated with him in the
government of this country believe that
they are standing where they stood in 1896,
I can assure them that the leaders of the
Liberal party who do not sit in this House
have not been able to reach the same conclusion.
The subject under consideration seems
to present itself in practically two ways;
first, has the parliament of Canada the power to pass this legislation? and, second,
if
it has the power, is it good policy to do so?
I would have thought, in view of the able,
and so far as I have been able to read,
unanswered argument of the leader of the
opposition, that if it had been at all possible to have saved this country the unfortunate
discussion which has taken place
for the past two months, it would have
been the part of wisdom, the part of good
politics, and the part of good statesmanship
to have endeavoured to do so. Assuredly,
Sir, if the parliament of Canada has no
power to pass this legislation, then all these
extraordinary appeals, able as many of
them have been, in favour of separate
schools or in favour of the Bill before us
are idle and useless, and the country has
been unnecessarily aroused and the time of
parliament unnecessarily wasted. I wish
for a few moments to direct the attention
of this House to the important question as
to whether the parliament of Canada has
the power to pass this legislation. When
the British North America Act was passed
in 1867, there was I venture to think, no
power given to the parliament of Canada to
carve out new provinces. The only section
which deals with the admission of new
provinces and with the admission of these
new Territories—which by the way were
then not part of Canada and are not possibly covered by the Act—the only section
that deals with this at all is section 146,
and I think the Minister of Justice will not
endeavour to contend that under section
146 the parliament of Canada has the power to pass this legislation. I must confess
that I would have considered it only fair
to the members on this side of the House,
if the Minister of Justice had been
thoughtful enough at an early stage of
this debate to have answered, if answer
were possible the able argument of the hon.
the leader of the opposition. His silence
has placed us in the position that we are
compelled in advance to criticise a proposition which should have been established
beyond all doubt by the government. The
onus does not lie on us to show that this
parliament has not the power to pass this
legislation; the onus lies on the government to show parliament that we have
that power. And, after such an able answer as the leader of the opposition made
to the argument of the Prime Minister, it
was due to the House—if there was any
5145
MAY 1, 1905
further light to be thrown on this constitutional question—that we should have had
an opportunity, as early as possible, or hearing a pronouncement from the Minister
of
Justice. I say, Sir, that there is no power
contained in the British North America Act
to carve out new provinces, but, there was a
power given in that Act to admit these new
Territories which were not then part of
the union. They were therefore, not covered by section 93 of the British North America
Act at that time, because they were not
in the Dominion of Canada at all, they being under the Hudson Bay Company under
the imperial parliament. It takes some further enactment to bring them under that
section. Having got those Territories into
the Dominion under the Act of 1870,
the province of Manitoba, in advance
of legislation by the imperial parliament, was carved out of these Territories by
the parliament of Canada,
but, it does not at all follow that if this
parliament assumed jurisdiction to carve
out the provinces, therefore the legislation
was intra vires. The parliament of Canada
evidently thought they had not the right to
do so, and shortly afterwards there was
legislation in this regard, passed by the
imperial parliament, and the same imperial
legislation which validated the Manitoba
Act, for the first time gave the parliament
of Canada the power to carve provinces out
of these new Territories. I call the attention
of the House to section 2 of the Act of 1871,
which gives this power, because if this
power is not in the British North America
Act, there is no inherent power in the parliament of Canada to create these provinces;
and for this reason, that any power the parliament of Canada has in respect to this
legislation must of necessity come from the
imperial parliament, and until the Act of
1871 was passed, the imperial parliament
alone had the power to carve out these new
provinces. So, Sir, it my argument is correct, the parliament of Canada as representing
the imperial parliament, has just
that power to carve out provinces, which
the imperial parliament gave her. Let us
look at what the power was that the imperial parliament gave to the parliament of
Canada. Section 2 says :
The parliament of Canada may from time to
time establish new provinces in any territories
forming for the time being part of the Dominion
of Canada but not included in any province
thereof, and may at the time of such establishment make provision for the constitution
and administration of any such province, and
 for the passing of laws for the peace, order and
good government of such province, and for its
representation in the said parliament.
I call special attention to the clause:
The parliament of Canada may from time to
time establish new provinces, and may at the
time of such establishment make provision
for the constitution of each province.
5145
5146
It does not say any constitution which
the parliament of Canada may think proper
to establish; but it says that it may make
provision for the constitution: and in 1886
was passed the Act which provided that this
Act of 1871 and the Act of 1867 should be
read together. Now, Sir, what happened?
Simply this, that if the Act of 1871 is to be
construed as part of the Act of 1867, then
assuredly the parliament of Canada, in exercising the power to give a constitution,
has only the right to give such a constitution as the earlier sections of the empowering
Act permitted it to give. In other words,
if the imperial parliament in the later section of the Act says, you may carve out
a
province and give it a constitution, in the
earlier sections it says the constitution must
be thus and so. Where, then, does the parliament of Canada get the power to vary
that constitution ? The imperial parliament,
in section 92 of the British North America
Act, provides what shall be the exclusive
powers of provincial legislatures, and in
section 93, dealing with education, it says :
In and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following
provisions.
Then the subsections follow. What I
desire to submit to the consideration of this
House is that the power having been given
by the imperial parliament to this parliament to make the constitution, the section
which gives that power being part of the
Act which provides the special constitution and powers of the province, the only
power which this parliament has in this
matter is to give these new provinces the
constitution which the British North America Act has provided, and no other. Mr.
Clement, in his work on the Canadian Constitution, confirms this opinion. The late
Hon. David Mills expressed similar views.
If this, then, is a correct interpretation of
that Act, then I consider it a most
unfortunate thing that we have had
this unhappy discussion in this House
and throughout the newspapers of the
Dominion; and, Sir, if I may be permitted to offer a criticism of the right
hon. the Prime Minister, I must confess
that I felt that it was most unfortunate if
he stood on the rock of the constitution, that
he should have thought proper to have introduced this measure with a speech containing
a eulogy of separate schools
as against national schools, which he above
any other man knew must stir up the
strongest feelings and prejudices of every
Protestant in this country. If there was
one method of proceeding with the consideration of this matter which could have caused
anything but calmness and moderation, the
speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister was that method.
Now, assuming for the moment that parliament has the power to pass legislation
5147
COMMONS
of this character, the speakers on the other
side of the House who followed the hon.
leader of the opposition, seemed to base
their argument upon the idea of compromise
and policy. I would like for a moment to
consider whether there has been any compromise; and the best way to see whether
there has been or not is to examine the sections of the Bill under discussion. Section
16 of the Bill as originally presented read
as follows :
The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the
said province as if, at the date upon which
this Act comes into force, the territory comprised therein were already a province,
the
expression 'the union' in the said section
being taken to mean the said date.
If section 93 is applied to one of the new
provinces as if it were a sovereign province
which had come into the union on the 1st
of July, 1905, it is beyond question that subsection 1 of that section would apply
to it,
that subsection being as follows:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudically
affect any right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools which any class of
persons have by law in the province at the
union.
What follows ? It is quite plain that the
laws that are given effect to by that subsection are the ordinances of 1901, chapters
29, 30 and 31, because these are precisely
the laws relating to denominational schools
which will be in existence in the new provinces on the 1st July, 1905. When I examine
the amended clause, what do I find ?
I find that that which is supposed to be a
compromise reads as follows:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudically
affect any right or privilege with respect to
separate schools which any class of persons
have at the date of the passing of this Act,
under the terms of chapter 29 and 30 of the
ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed in the year 1901.
Precisely the same as the other in every
particular. But there is another clause of
section 16, subsection 2, which the hon. the
ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) emphasized as introducing the law in relation
to separate schools contained in the Act of
1875. If anybody should be acquainted with
the provisions of the school law of the west,
it is the hon. the ex-Minister of the Interior.
But there is another authority whom we have
had the good fortune of hearing on this subject, although the right hon. the Prime
Minister apparently considered him a man
of no importance when this matter was under discussion; that is, the hon. the premier
of the Territories; and he has been good
enough to give us some light on this question. He has pointed out that section 41
of chapter 29 of the ordinances of 1901,
which is now being brought into force, is a
provision creating separate schools in the
5147
5148
same words as those of subsection 2 of section 16 of this Bill. So, Sir, the introduction
of this additional section was like putting
up a straw man to knock him down,
and then taking him out and saying, look
what we have done ; because that statutory
provision is not a mere regulation order in
council which can be repealed, but is a
statute law conferring the same right which
the ex-Minister of the Interior said was
conferred by the Act of 1875.
But that is not all. The third and final
subsection of this much criticised section
16 provides as follows:
In the appropriation of public moneys by
the legislature in aid of education, and in the
distribution of moneys paid to the government
of the said province arising from the school
fund established by the Dominion Lands Act,
there shall be no discrimination between the
public schools and the separate schools, and
such moneys shall be applied to the support
of public and separate schools in equable
shares or proportion.
What does the new section say:
In the appropriation by the legislature or
distribution by the government of the province
of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with
said
chapter 29 or any Act passed in amendment
thereof, or in substitution therefor, there shall
be no discrimination against schools of any
class described in the said chapter 29.
What are the schools described in the
clauses of chapter 29 of the Northwest ordinances ? Why, they are the separate schools
provided by section 41 of the statute of 1875
which I have just read. And if I understand the question at all, I venture to say
that there is no difference in principle or
substance between the amended clauses now
presented and the clause originally introduced. What then becomes of this extraordinary
much vaunted compromise ? But
let us assume that what is now provided is
the law as it is at present in the Northwest
Territories. I would like to ask if anybody
in this House is able to say what that law
is. We are told that if this Bill be passed,
everything will be lovely, there will he no
litigation, and everybody will be happy.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement
made by the ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) that the amended section 16
is a great compromise and practically introduces and makes permanent national
schools in the new provinces—separate
schools existing in name only—and in view
of the contrary statement which my hon.
friend the leader of the opposition has
made, namely, that there is no difference
in substance or principle between the original and the amended clause 16, in view
of
the statement made by the First Minister
of the Northwest Territories (Mr. Haultain)
to the same effect, which statement I have
just endeavoured to make plain by an examination and comparison of the original
5149
MAY 1, 1905
and amended clause 16, and in view of
other statements we have had to the very
opposite effect from other authorities in this
House. I venture to say that no one can
tell what this legislation we are asked to
pass will eventually be found to mean. Let
us consider for a moment what the effect
of this measure is likely to be. The Act of
1875, which introduced separate schools into
the Northwest, was very fully dealt with
by the ex-Minister of the Interior. The hon.
gentleman pointed out what, in his judgment, were the great defects of that systemwhat
he calls the dual system of education. But if the ex-Minister of the
Interior was correct in stating that this
dual system and all the evil which he
describes as following from it are embodied
in the Act of 1875, section 14, and if
the very section of the Act of 1875
establishing separate schools is to be reenacted by this parliament, word for word,
for all time to come, how can he escape the
conclusion that by this measure we will be
planting irrevocably in the west this inefficient and useless system, for the weeding
out of which in Manitoba he took so much
credit ? But how has the change from
the inefficient to the efficient system which
the ex-minister describes to the one now
existing in the Territories been brought
about? That there is at present in the
Territories what many people consider a
good system is proved by the testimony
of men who ought to know. Well, the
change has been brought about in this
way. In the Territories we have a Commissioner of Education whose position is similar
to that of the Minister of Education in the
province of Ontario, and the Territorial government assumed the responsibility of
choosing the text-books and administering educational matters generally. That they
did
by virtue of certain regulations which were
adopted from time to time and not by
amendment to the statute of 1875. It
is by virtue of these regulations which
have been adopted from time to time, and
which may be repealed from time to time
that the present school system in the Territories has been established. But if these
regulations have gone beyond the statute of
1875, if they have taken away any rights
to which the minority are entitled, they were
ultra vires, they were beyond the power of
any Commissioner of Education of the
Northwest Territories to pass. If that be
the case, what will happen ? This will no
doubt ensue. Once the measure before us
becomes law, the minority will have the
right to declare that they propose to have
the statute of 1875 applied to their claims
and privileges in its integrity. They will
protest that their rights have been shamefully taken from them by regulations which
have not the power of the statute law and are
in contravention of the statute law, that
the essential section of the statute of 1875
dealing with the right to separate schools
5149
5150
has been re-enacted by this parliament,
and they have the absolute right to have
any regulations made in contravention of
that statute declared null and void. They
will be entitled to decline to obey these regulations or to permit their enforcement
and
to demand their abrogation. The ex-Minister
of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) has declared
that in 1892 a law was passed which swept
away separate schools in the Northwest.
Well, we have the statement of the Premier of the Northwest Territories that whatever
change was made in the Territories
was made by these very repealable regulations which were passed by the Commissioner
of Education with the consent of
Catholics and Protestants alike and not by
changes in the statute. It is not, therefore,
in virtue of any statute that the educational
system for the Northwest is what it is today,
but because of certain regulations passed
by the Commissioner of Education for the
Northwest Territories and against which so
far no appeal has been taken by the Catholics, but which the Catholics could have
appealed against if they chose and can
later on appeal against and have abrogated
if they in any way contravene the statute
law giving the right to separate schools
which law, if this clause 16 goes through,
will be the same as it was in 1875.
Let us deal for a moment with the question of policy. It has been stated by hon.
gentlemen opposite that if we should adopt
this measure, there will be no more trouble,
no litigation, no unpleasantness, and that the
duty and obligation rests on this parliament
to deal with this matter and settle it for all
time. But I submit first of all that if the
Dominion parliament has not the power to
pass this legislation, then the only result
of our passing it will be to provoke litigation
in order to determine our jurisdiction. In
the second place should the courts hold that
this parliament has power, the people of the
Territories—who, if this legislation were not
passed, would no doubt treat with fairness
and justice every class of the community–
considering themselves oppressed by a law,
in the passing of which they had no voice,
would resent its application and decline to
obey it. And then, in all probability, we
would have the parliament of Canada again
called upon to exercise its remedial power.
In that connection I wish to say that, so far
as I am able to appreciate the jurisdiction
of this parliament, it has no power to deal
with the subject of education except by
virtue of subsection 4 of section 93, and
there it has only power to deal with it in certain circumstances. Nowhere else in
the
Act is this parliament given the power to
deal with that subject generally, and I
would ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether
they would consider for one moment that
the Dominion parliament can have general
power to deal with the subject of education when by the Confederation Act that
parliament is only given the jurisdiction to
5151
COMMONS
deal with it in one particular instance and
the general power is given to the provinces.
This is just the opposite when the Act
deals with Dominion and provincial powers
in all other matters ; then the general power
is given to the Dominion and the special
powers to the provinces.
But supposing that we should pass this
legislation, assuredly, in view of the divergence of opinion that exists regarding
the
meaning of the law we propose to enact,
whichever side considers itself entitled to
something more would at once proceed to
find out what its rights are and endeavour
to obtain them. And if it should turn out
that by this measure we are re-enacting the
statute of 1875, and if an inefficient and useless system of education should be established
by virtue of this measure in these
Territories for all time, I am satisfied that
the right hon. gentleman and those associated with him would not care to have
any such state of affairs put in force for all
time. But if the effect of this legislation is to establish national schools,
then with equal force do I come to the conclusion, in view of the speech the right
hon.
gentleman made in introducing this Bill
that it was no part of his intention to propose any such legislation — under these
circumstances I for one am absolutely opposed
to the parliament of Canada meddling in the
educational affairs of this country. I do not
believe that we have the power ; and if we
had the power I do not believe it is good
policy for this parliament to assume that it
possesses the wisdom of all time and all
the ages and that it is competent to give
these people to-day the best system of education possible to last for centuries and
without end.
Now it has been urged that if we apply
the sections of the British North America
Act, that matter will be left in uncertainty.
Permit me to say that I dissent from that
view. I dissent from it because I think,
with all deference to those who differ, that
were the educational clauses of the British
North America Act to be given to these
new provinces as their charter in this regard, subsection 1 would not apply to them,
while subsection 3 would apply. And what
would be the effect of it? Clearly the effect would be that these new provinces
would start with full power to deal with
all matters relating to education ; but if
the minority, by agitation or by any other
means, obtained separate schools, then the
new provinces would be bound to maintain
that system or else become subject to remedial legislation. That assuredly is taking
the matter out of the possibility of litigation, because I venture to think that if
we deal fairly and reasonably with the people of the Northwest, if we give them the
same provincial charter as is possessed by
British Columbia, Prince Edward Island
and Manitoba, under which they have
power to deal with their educational affairs,
5151
5152
I venture to think that there will be no
injustice done to the minority, and that
we will have no further trouble in this
great country with discussions of this
character, which are most regrettable and
the sections of the British North America
tend to cause discord and dissension. I for
my part am a firm believer in the national
school system, but I none the less believe
it to be the part of wisdom, of good policy
and of broad statesmanship to allow the
people of those new provinces to determine
that matter for themselves.
I for one would be glad to see the day
when people would forget, in discussing political affairs in this country, that they
were Catholics or Protestants, that they belonged to any religious sect whatever.
I
would be glad to see the day when the
people of this country, while they might be
proud of their origin, would forget, in discussing political questions, that they
were
of French descent, or English descent or
Irish descent. I would like to see all these
matters dealt with on their merits, always
provided that every section of the people
received fair play. I desire to see such
a state of affairs as that no class can consider themselves as the only tolerant people
in this country, and that all classes
recognize each other as animated by a feeling of kindness and generosity. I for one
most strongly object to this new country
having forced upon it, or placed upon it, by
the parliament of Canada, at this distance
and at this time, a system of education
which its people will not be able to change,
except by imperial legislation, so long as
the centuries last. Why, Sir, what has
been the experience of legislation of this
kind in the past? Take the effect of prohibition laws in this country. There is no
more unsuccessful way of inducing a man
to do right than to endeavour to coerce
him to do right. There is this further argument that I have seen advanced with
respect to this matter, and that is that we
cannot trust the people of these new provinces to do what is fair. Sir, I for one
am entirely out of sympathy with such an
argument. The people of the great west
have gone in there from all of our great
provinces, they have certainly shown themselves up-to-date, intelligent, and very
able.
If the school system, which so far they
have been permitted to enact and to carry
out, if such legislation as they have been
permitted to pass during their tutelage, is
a sample of what they can do, then I think
we may safely entrust to the people of
those new provinces full power to deal
with their educational affairs, such powers
as every other province has been given since
confederation.
Now, Sir, I desire to say in conclusion,
that I deeply and sincerely regret the misfortune which has placed me in the position
of member for Centre Toronto in this
House. If there was one man for whom
5153
MAY 1, 1905
I had the highest possible admiration, both
as a man and as a statesman, as a man
who had the good of his country at heart,
it was the late member for Centre Toronto. I am sure that no one regrets more
than I do that he is not present at this
time and on this occasion to lend the power
of his great personality and of his great
eloquence in dealing with these important
matters, than which no one in this country
was more qualified to do.
Mr. H. GUTHRIE (South Wellington). Mr. Speaker, in
rising at this late stage of the debate, at a time when the chief point
of controversy has been most thoroughly discussed from almost every
point of view, namely, the educational clauses of this measure, one would almost
require some excuse for trespassing further on the
time of the House. I merely rise on this occasion to state, in as few
words as possible, my own feeling and my own position in
regard to this Bill, without entering into details or repeating
arguments except in the most general way, in order to justify the
faith which is in me with regard to this measure. When this Bill was
before the House upon a former occasion, I stated that I was
unalterably in favour of the measure as it was then before
the House. So I say now, I was in favour of it, as I then understood it, so I am,
as I understand it at the present time, to
be a measure to continue in the Northwest provinces that
school system which they now enjoy and which for many years past they have
enjoyed. If the amendments which have been introduced to
the Bill since I spoke on a former occasion, give more precision to
the present state of affairs in regard to education in the Northwest
Territories, than did the original draft, then I think they have been
wisely introduced. I believe further that the measure as now before the House is acceptable
to the vast majority of the
people of the Northwest Territories; and if so, then, apart from my
own convictions altogether on this subject — I may say that my convictions
are entirely favourable to the measure — but apart from them
altogether, I would feel it my duty to support the measure, always with this
provision, that this House has the power, that this parliament has the
constitutional authority, to pass this measure, and that in so doing
we in no way hamper, or infringe upon, or deny any of those rights
which we know under the general term of provincial rights. Now, Mr.
Speaker, I affirm the constitutional right of this parliament to pass this measure,
and I deny that in so doing we in any way
infringe upon provincial rights properly so-called. I am well aware
that in taking that stand and in discussing this measure from that
point of view — which is the only point of view from which I intend to
discuss it — I
5153
5154 find myself in direct conflict with the views and opinions of many
hon. members opposite Who have opposed this measure, hon. members who
have obtained in the legal profession a far greater eminence than I
can ever hope to attain ; but, having the very highest respect and deference
to the opinions of hon. members who differ from me, I still have to
affirm my conviction upon this point, after a critical and
careful examination of the whole case, that I believe the opinions offered
upon the constitutional aspect of the question by the leader
of the opposition and by those who have followed him, are erroneous, and it
is only after very careful study that I have made up my mind to
confront them and Oppose them.
In the first place I confess to some feeling of disappointment in respect to the constitutional
objections urged against the
measure by some hon. members opposite. They have been somewhat inclined
to conjure up for themselves imaginary dificulties in connection with this
measure. Possibly they may be able at
some future time to shield themselves behind what one might call the somewhat in
involved and somewhat refined doctrine of
ultra vires, rather than that they should
come out in the open and fight upon the merits of this measure. I am disappointed
also
to find, as I think I have found, a good
many of those who have opposed this measure who have done so on the principle
that it must be illegal and unconstitutional
simply because it has been met with the disapproval of the hon. leader of the opposittion
(Mr. R. L. Borden). That may be a
very loyal course but it is not a very enlightened course to pursue ; it may be
very complimentary to the hon. leader but
it is hardly complimentary to those who
blindly follow his lead.
Another matter which has caused me
some trouble and not a little difficulty is
that after many careful perusals of the
speech of the hon. leader of the opposition
and of those who have argued upon the
same lines as he has done, I am unable definitely to ascertain whether it this measure
be in fact constitutional and within the
powers and jurisdiction of this parliament,
if the constitutional question he conceded in
favour of this measure, the leader of the opposition would support the Bill or withhold
his support from it. I have failed in many
careful perusals of his speech to find what
his real attitude would be. I believe that
the people of Canada, this House and the
electors of the county of Carleton, would in
their hearts like to know what the attitude
of the leader of the opposition is upon the
merits of the Bill, apart from the constitutional question. Of course that is merely
a hypothetical proposition, and the hon.
member need not give answer to it unless
he sees fit. There is one thing further which
I would point out, and I point that out per
5155
COMMONS
haps more in view of an utterance of the
last speaker than for any other reason. The
last hon. member who addressed the House
(Mr. Bristol) took occasion to remark that
when this Bill was originally introduced by
the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), he
invoked moderation on the subject from all
those who discussed the measure. The hon.
member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol)
Was inclined to praise the right hon. the
leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
for having asked for moderation, and having himself set an example of moderation
in his speech. But a few moments later,
the hon. member for Centre Toronto changed
his tone in this respect and said that the
eulogy pronounced by the Prime Minister
on separate schools stirred up the resentment of every Protestant in this House.
What then does he think of the eulogy or
complimentary apostrophe that was pronounced in respect to the minority, in respect
to the Roman Catholic electors of this
country by his own leader, the leader of the
opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)? Now that
hon. gentleman. I think, went a little out
of his way in the course of his speech to
eulogize the Roman Catholic minority. It
was not necessary for him to do so for the
purposes of his argument. However, I
have no doubt that the Roman Catholic
electors of the Dominion of Canada will be
very much gratified by that eulogy, although
it came to them in a sort of backhanded,
apologetic manner, for at the same moment
the opposition leader said that he could not
support their claims, that he rested his case
solely on the rock of the constitution, as he
understood it, but he gave them not one
single hint of what he would do provided
this were a constitutional measure and this
parliament had power to deal with this question of education in the Bills now before
us.
Before entering upon an examination of
the case, as one might put it, I might say
that I listened with great care to the speech
of the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr.
Bristol), who has preceded me. I congratulate the hon. member on his maiden effort
in this House. He certainly has succeeded
a great man, who formerly represented that
riding in this House, a man who had the
affection of every member in this House, a
man whose good judgment and whose
ability were well recognized. The hon. member is the follower in Centre Toronto of
a
great man, and I might express the hope
that at some day in the future the hon.
member who has just resumed his seat may
be able to fill the place formerly occupied
by Mr. E. F. Clarke, now deceased.
In taking the stand I do on this measure.
it becomes necessary to go into a somewhat
critical analysis of the whole constitution
or of the British North America Act, and
the Acts which bear upon it. I do not desire, and I do not find it necessary, for
my
purpose, to make more than passing reference to conditions which existed prior to
5155
5156
confederation. There is no doubt that the
British North America Act, 1867, was the
outcome of a compact or agreement. It is
not the outcome strictly speaking of imperial legislation or imperial will, but it
is
the result of agreement between representative men from Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia, and in the Act of
1867 we find their agreement consolidated
and put into legal shape by the imperial
government. As I read that Act, I find in
only two places reference of any kind made
to any other provinces or territories. In the
preamble of the Act it is true there is a
slight reference to what might happen in
the future. In the preamble we find this
clause :
And whereas it is expedient that provision be
made for the eventual admission to the union
of other portions of British North America.
And in section 146 we find a direct reference to the provinces or colonies of British
Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and a direct reference to Rupert's
Land and the Northwest Territories.
Now, can it be argued for a minute that
these colonies or provinces or territories,
which had no part in the making of the British North America Act, were parties to
the
agreement or compact which it embodies ?
I submit the Act was framed solely and
exclusively on the agreement of the delegates from the provinces which were interested
as the original provinces coming into
confederation. Now, I think that the statement of my hon. friend the leader of the
opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in regard to
the general purview of the British North
America Act, 1867, contains a very fair analysis of what that Act was, and I think
perhaps I might read that statement by the
hon. leader of the opposition. found in his
speech at page 3077 of 'Hansard.' He says
there :
Analyse the British North America Act so
far as analysis is necessary for the purpose of
considering this question and what do you find?
In the first place you find the establishment of
a federal parliament and a federal executive ;
in the next place you find the establishment of
provincial legislatures and provincial executives; in the next place you find the
distribution of executive power between the federal
executive and the provincial executive, and in
the next place you find the distribution of executive power between the Dominion parliament
and the provincial legislature. This analysis
is not exhaustive, but it covers all that is
necessary for the present purpose.
I submit that that is a very fair analysis
of the Act, and I would point out that in
section 91 of the Act we find the subjects
which are to be entirely dealt with by this
parliament. In section 92 of the Act we
find enumerated all the matters which are
to form the subjects of provincial legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, marking these
two sections, examining them carefully, we
find that section 91 distinctly applies to
5157
MAY 1, 1905
Dominion jurisdiction and that section 92
distinctly and exclusively applies to provincial jurisdiction, and we find in neither
of these sections any mention of the question
of education. That is a fact that may well
be pointed to. Why is it so ? It is because
education was not given exclusively either
to the provinces or to the Dominion and it
is wrong to say as many hon. members have
said, that education is exclusively within
the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. It it were so it would form part of
section 92, but it is put in a section of
the_ Act which we in this House are all
familiar with, section 93, but in order that
my statement on this point may be a complete one, I am going to incorporate that
section with my remarks. Section 93 reads
as follows :
In and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education.
subject and according to the following provisions :
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class
of persons have by law in the province at the union.
Subsection 2. I need not read as it applies
exclusively to Ontario and Quebec.
3. Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law
at
the union or is thereafter established by the
legislature of the province, an appeal shall lie
to the Governor General in Council from any
Act or decision of any provincial authority
affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the
Queen's
subjects in relation to education.
Section 4 is the remedial clause which
I need not read. Now it is argued that the
subsections following section 93, only applied to the original provinces coming into
this union. Subsection 2 certainly covered
the case of Ontario and Quebec. It is argued that subsections 1, 3 and 4 only applied
to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Mr.
Speaker, I do not think such an argument
is tenable for one moment. The language
of the section itself is clear enough upon
that point. In the section and in each
subsection the language is:
In and for each province-
Then in the subsection :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially.
affect any right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the
union.
In subsection 3 again reference is made
to rights and privileges held in the provinces
at the union. I do not take that to refer
merely to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick,
but to any province or colony of the Dominion coming within the four corners of the
British North America Act, 1867. Can there
be any doubt that when section 93 was
framed it was framed in reference to Ontario and Quebec probably more particularly,
because, in the Quebec resolutions, On
5157
5158tario and Quebec are the only provinces
we find mentioned in regard to education
and in regard to the right to have separate
schools? But, in section 146 other provinces or colonies are enumerated, and as
each of these Provinces or colonies would
come into the union I submit that they
would be entitled to all the benefit to be
derived from subsections 1, 3 or 4 or section
93 of the British North America Act 1867.
Mr. SPROULE. May I ask the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Guthrie) a question? He is dealing with the Act that was brought back
from the imperial parliament and going back to the resolutions upon
which that Act was based. The Act was to be in exact accordance with
the resolutions. In these resolutions there is assigned to the provinces the power
to legislate upon education saving the
rights and privileges that the Protestant or Catholic minority of both
Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools at the time
the union comes into operation. That saving clause had reference only to
Canada east and Canada west. Then, before that, when a motion was made
by one of the members that this Act should not be accepted until it was
brought back and assented to by the Canadian parliament, Sir
George Cartier gave a strong assurance in the following words :
Mr. Speaker, in reply to what the hon. member for Hochelaga has just said, I shall
merely
tell hon. members of this House that they need
not take alarm at the apprehensions and predictions of that hon. gentleman. I have
already
declared in my own name, and on behalf of the
government, that the delegates who go to England will accept from the Imperial government
no Act but one based on the resolutions adopted by this House, and they will not bring
back
any other.
They accepted that assurance. They gave
that as a reason why it was not necessary
to have that Act submitted to the Canadian
parliament when it came back. Does that
not show the intention of the delegates in
regard to education in framing the original
resolutions ?
Mr. GUTHRIE. What the hon. member for East Grey (Mr.
Sproule) says may be correct, but I have not to go back to pre- confederation
days. I have to examine the case from the
Imperial Act that we have and from the clauses which are in the Act. I
have understood from some reading I have done on the subject that the
original Quebec resolutions were altered in London, England,
before the British North America Act, 1867, was actually passed, but we have
to deal with the statute as it stands to-day and we have to endeavour
to interpret this statute just as we would interpret any other statute
known to the law of this country or the mother country.
Mr. SPROULE. Several hon. members on the other side of
the House have gone back to the original discussion to show what
5159
COMMONS
the intention was. I am only drawing attention to this because I think it shows
clearly what the intention was.
Mr. GUTHRIE. The hon. members of this House who are of
the legal profession will, I think, bear me out when I say that it is
very questionable whether in the interpretation of a statute we
have any right to go beyond the language of the statute itself.
Sometimes it has been done, but the text writers on the construction of
statutes are rather against allowing the language of debates
in parliament or negotiations previous to the enactment, to influence them
in any way in construing the enactment itself. I turn to section 146
of the British North America Act of 1867, and in this section, I
submit, is to be found in seven words, the one single
fact upon which the leader of the opposition or any of his
followers who spoke after him, can hang an argument. These are the
seven words :
Subject to the provisions of this Act.
For the purpose of my argument I desire
to insert this section verbatim. Section 146 :
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with
the advice of Her Majesty's most Honourable
Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of
parliament of Canada and from the Houses of
the respective legislatures of the colonies or
provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those
colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the
union, and on addresses from the Houses of
the parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's
Land and the Northwest Territory, or either
of them, into the union, on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses
expressed, and as the Queen thinks fit to approve,
subject to the provisions of this Act ; and the
provisions of any Order in Council on that behalf shall have effect as if they had
been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
of Great Britain and Ireland.
What I submit in regard to section 146
is this : that it provides a distinct means for
the provinces or colonies, and the territories,
to become a part of this confederation. A
colony is described by the imperial Act,
known as the Colonial Laws Validity Act,  Â
1865 :
To include all of Her Majesty's possessions
abroad in which there shall exist a legislature
as hereinafter defined.
I can find no definition of what a province is: there was no such thing as a
British province strictly so called ; the term
'Colony' was applicable to them all. In
section 146 of the British North America Act,
Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and
Newfoundland are described as ' colonies
or provinces.' They had legislatures of their
own and could enact laws of their own. It
was provided in respect of these three
colonies that they may come into confederation, and how? Simply as the original
provinces had confederated themselves by
agreement, or upon a joint address of the
5159
5160
Colonial House and of this parliament to
Her Majesty she could pass an Order in
Council admitting them into confederation.
But not so with the Territories. The Territories had no voice in the matter whatever.
They were, as described by the leader of the
opposition, practically unpeopled portions of
Canada, there were a few fur traders,
numberless bands of uncivilized Indians and
for the rest, herds of buffalo. My submission
is this : that there is a distinction in section
146 which we must all recognize as the mode
of admission. In one case colonies or provinces could come in by agreement on a
joint address ; in the other case the Territories must come in on an address of this
House approved by an Order in Council.
The distinction is this : the colonial entities
referred to in section 146 were to come in
as provinces having rights subject to the
terms of the British North America Act as
stated in these seven words I have quoted.
But for the Territories, it was provided that
they should merely come in as a territorial
enlargement of the country, an increased
area for Canada ; that they should merely
come within our boundaries and form a part
of the Dominion of Canada, not subject to
any agreement or compact they made but
subject to our will approved by an imperial
Order in Council. And that is the manner
in which the provinces did come in. I notice
that the leader of the opposition in one part
of his speech takes grave objection to the
proposal in section 2 of the present Bill,
namely. that the British North America Act
is made applicable to the new provinces
with this exception:
Except in so far as varied by this Act.
These words seem to create indignation
in the mind of the leader of the opposition
if one may judge by the way he denounced
them. He said : parliament has no right to
alter the British North America Act of 1867,
and the words in section 2 : except in so
far as varied by this Act, have no place and
there is no authority for inserting them. I
mention this to show how other provinces
came into the nation. Turn to the case of
Manitoba. The Manitoba Act was passed
in 1870 before the Territory out of which the
province of Manitoba was created became
a part of Canada, and in section 2 of the
Manitoba Act you will find that the British
North America Act 1867 was made to apply :
Except in so far as varied by this Act.
Was that wrong? was the Manitoba Act
unconstitutional on that account? Let us
iemember that these words were contained
in the Manitoba Act and that they were
ratified by the imperial parliament the following year. I take the case of British
Columbia ; I take the joint address presented
to Her Majesty in Council by the legislature
of British Columbia and of this parliament,
and I find that in section 10 of that joint
5161
MAY 1, 1905
address the British North America Act, 1867.
is again expressly made to apply :
Except so far as varied by these resolutions.
Then I take the case of Prince Edward
Island which came into confederation in
1873 upon joint address likewise, and I find
that in one clause of that address the British
North America Act is again made to apply :
Except so far as varied by these resolutions.
And turning to the Bill now under discussion. I find in section 2 of the Bill that
same clause :
Except in so far as varied by this Act
Surely the leader of the opposition cannot
argue, that Manitoba, Prince Edward Island,
and British Columbia came into this union
unconstitutionally. If it were proper in the
Manitoba Act which was confirmed by imperial legislation ; if it were in the British
Columbia Act which was approved by Order
in Council having the force of an imperial
Act ; if it were again proper in the Prince
Edward Island case which was approved by
Order in Council having the force of an
imperial Act ; if it were proper and constitutional in these three cases to insert
these
words surely their insertion cannot be unconstitutional in this Act.
Now this clause is far reaching in its
effect. If the clause is constitutional, and I
argue it is constitutional, what does it
mean ? It means that we have the right to
vary the terms of the British North America
Act, and it means more, because if we go
beyond it we find we have varied the terms
of confederation just as each of these provinces came in, and no one has challenged
the constitutionality of these Acts, or, if it
has been challenged the challenge has not
been sustained. 1 turn once more to section
146 and referring to that part of the section
which relates exclusively to the Territories,
and I apply to the Territories these words :
Subject to the provisions of this Act.
What provision in the British North America Act of 1867 applies to Territories ? I
challenge any hon. member in the House to
answer that question—to point to one single
clause or portion of a clause in the whole
Act except section 146 which has any reference to territorial government. Section
93
does not apply ; it only applies in express terms to provinces. Subsection 1 of
section 93 applies to rights in denominational schools which have existed, not in
any territory, but in any province which
had previously been a colony with its own
government. You may search the British
North America Act from its preamble to its
last section, and you will not find a single
clause applicable expressly or by implication to the case of Territories. I state
that
conclusion with a good deal of confidence,
because I am aware that it has been confirmed.
5161
5162
As I have said, in 1870 we passed the
Manitoba Act in anticipation of the entrance
of the Territories into this Dominion. They
did not as a matter of fact become a part
of the Dominion until the 15th of July, 1870,
three months after the Act had been passed ;
and note the language of the Order in Council which admitted them ; that these Territories
should form part of Canada—not
as provinces or colonies, but territorially
should form part of Canada, and that the
parliament of Canada shall from the day
aforesaid have full power and authority to
legislate for the peace, welfare and good
government thereof; these words being
taken from the Imperial Order in Council
passed on the 30th of June, 1870, to take
effect on the 15th of July, 1870 ; clearly
showing that all that transpired was that
the Territories became part of the Dominion
territorially at that date, and that the Dominion was authorized to legislate for
those
Territories so far as their peace, welfare
and good government were concerned.
Now, what happened under the Manitoba
Act ? That Act was passed in May, 1870,
and sought to form the province of Manitoba out of those very Territories which
came into the Dominion in July, 1870. All
the authority to form the province of Manitoba was contained in section 146 of the
British North America Act of 1867; and
when that Act was laid before the law officers of the Crown, they held it to be ultra
vires. They held that there was no authority in section 146 to pass such an Act or
to
constitute a province—that the only authority there given was to bring those Territories
territorially within the Dominion of
Canada. Then it became necessary either to
have a new Imperial Act or a new Imperial
Order in Council to rectify matters, and
the Imperial Act known as the British North
America Act of 1871 was thereupon passed.
It was mentioned in this House by the
late Sir John Macdonald as an Act which
was necessary to confirm the Manitoba Act,
on account of doubts which had arisen as
to its validity. Now, what did the Manitoba
Act profess to do ? By section 2 it enacted
that the British North America Act of 1867
should apply except in so far as varied
by this Act ; and they varied it. The educational clause of the British North America
Act, section 93. was varied ; but when it
was confirmed by the imperial Act of 1871,
the imperial Act went a little further than
the Manitoba Act did. The imperial legislature no doubt thought that they would set
at rest for ever the question of these Territories, and the greater question of their
formation into provinces when the time to
form them into provinces should arrive.
Now, the British North America Act of 1871,
in its preamble, reads as follows:
Whereas doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of the parliament of Canada
to establish provinces in territories admitted,
or which may hereafter be admitted into the
5163
COMMONS
Dominion of Canada. and to provide for the
representation of such provinces in the said
parliament, and it is expedient to remove such
doubts, and to vest such powers in the said
parliament -
—it is therefore enacted, &c. Section
2 of that Act is, I submit, the governing
clause, the enabling power, under which
the present Bill has been introduced into
this parliament, and I desire to read it :
The parliament of Canada may from time to
time establish new provinces in any territories
forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any
province thereof, and may, at the time of such
establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such
province,
and for the passing of laws for the peace, order
and good government of such province, and for
its representation in the said parliament.
This section is wide enough for all the
enactments which we hope to make by the
present Bill. It is true that a subsequent
British North America Act, known as the
Act of 1886, was passed, which says that
the Acts must be read together, and it is
on that point that the hon. leader of the
opposition bases his argument. He says that
we must read into that statute these words:
'Subject to the provisions of this Act.' I
submit, with all deference to his opinion,
that those words occurring in section 146
of the British North America Act of 1867
apply only to the provinces and colonies
mentioned in that section. They can only
apply where they can be applied ; and they
cannot be applied to territories. We must
construe all portions of a statute in such
a way as to give them their true and reasonable meaning, and the only way in
which we can give the words of this section
a reasonable meaning is to apply them to
the colonies or provinces enumerated in it ;
because by no interpretation which I can
imagine, or by nothing in the Act itself,
can it he said that these words have any
reference to territories. If there are any
words about territories in that Act, will
some hon. member point them out ? I will
withdraw all I have said if it can be shown
that within the four corners of the Act of
1867 there is anything expressed or implied
regarding territorial legislation or the constitution of a province out of territories.
Now, reading the Acts together, what is
the rule ? The rule is well established, that
where there is a general enactment followed
by a special enactment, the language of the
special enactment shall govern the language
of the general enactment. That is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of statutes.
I can express it in the language of the textbooks better than I can in my own language.
Here we have the general enactment in section 146 of the Act of 1867, and
we have in section 2 of the Act of 1871 the
precise special enactment drawn to meet
the defective Act known as the Manitoba
Act, drawn to cover the case of the Terri
5163
5164ories explicitly and implicitly, and for no
other purpose ; and it says that the parliament of Canada ' may make provision for
the constitution and administration of any
such province, and for the passing of laws
for the peace, order and good government
of such province.' Have we gone beyond
that ? Is there any suggestion in the Bill
that we are going beyond that ? Is not the
question of education included in the constitution of the new province for which we
are making provision? Is it not included
in the language 'peace, welfare and good
government of the province ' ? These terms
have received judicial interpretation, and
perhaps it is just as well to give them the
interpretation they have received.
Mr. HAGGART. Would not every power to legislate come
under the same terms ?
Mr. GUTHRIE. I should fancy every power would come
under that Act. I think that is the correct conclusion, with all deference to the
opinion of the hon. gentle, man who
apparently thinks otherwise? The language used is 'peace, order and good
government'; and to give these words the interpretation which they
have received at the hands of the Privy Council is to say that they
authorize the exercise by the Dominion government 'of the utmost discretion of enactment
for the attainment of the objects
pointed to.' That is the opinion of the Privy Council expressed in the
case of Riel vs. Regina, Vol. 10 of the appeal cases, page 675, and stated
in Mr. Clement's work on the Canadian Constitution.
My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, says we cannot constitute a province
on a different basis from that on which the
other provinces are constituted. I do not
know where he finds authority for such a
statement, unless it be in a foot note in
Mr. Clement's work on the Canadian Constitution, but that is only an editorial note,
not supported by any authority. Yet it is
relied upon in toto by the leader of the
opposition. Can we constitute a province
on a different basis from that on which
any other province is constituted ? I should
say certainly we can. There is ample
power given in the Confederation Act, and
what is more we have done so time and
time again and our right has never been
challenged. Why, take the province of
British Columbia and take section 91 of
the British North America Act of 1867, and
what do we find ? We find that although
by section 91 the question of marriage and
divorce rests exclusively within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. yet
they have their divorce courts in British
Columbia. Likewise in Nova Scotia and
New-Brunswick. In Ontario and Quebec,
5165
MAY 1, 1905
however, the subject is one which is left
to the jurisdiction of this parliament. It
cannot be said that in that respect the provinces are on equal terms. And it must
be
borne in mind that that power was left to
the province of British Columbia when it
entered this union, three years after our
Federal Act came into force. We allowed British Columbia to retain that power,
either expressly or by implication, although
the question is exclusively within the jurisdiction of this parliament, according
to section 91 of the British North America Act.
Mr. STOCKTON. Is it not provided in the British North
America Act that all laws in force in a province at the time that Act
came into operation shall continue in force until repealed, and were not the
divorce courts of Nova Scotiu and New Brunswick continued under that
section of the Act?
Mr. GUTHRIE. It is quite possible that that clause to
which the hon. member refers is the one under which these courts
do exist ; but I am pointing out the inequality which does
exist to-day between the legislative powers in the different pro~
vinces. Let me point to another matter with regard to British Columbia. By
section 92 of the British North America Act, the lands of
the provinces shall be exclusively under their own management. Yet
the lands of the province of British Columbia were not left
entirely to it. Large portions of those lands were transferred to
the Dominion government. And when the province of Manitoba
was carved out of the Territories, its lands, which would otherwise have become
provincial lands, were expressly excepted
and came under the management and control of the Dominion parliament,
contrary to section 92 of the Confederation Act. Such cases might be
multiplied. The case of the exemption from taxation of the Canadian Pacific
Railway has already been mentioned, and you must not fail
to mark that all municipal rights of taxation, belong exclusively, under
section 92, to the provinces. And now that we are about to create these
two new provinces, the right to tax those Canadian Pacific
Railway lands, which otherwise they would have, we are not granting them.
In Ontario the Canadian Pacific Railway lands could be taxed and I
presume also in Quebec. All these go to show that in the different
provinces which we have taken into the union, as well as in those which.
originally came into the union, there has been no hard and fast line
laid down at all, and no rule followed by which they would be all on the
same basis and enjoy the same legislative power.
Another question presents itself with regard to this matter, and it is this. Is there
any right on the part of the Territories to
come here and demand from this parliament provincial autonomy as something we
5165
5166
cannot refuse? Has this parliament not the
right to refuse to grant it? I submit that
we have a perfect right either to grant or
withhold autonomy, and if we have the
right to grant it, cannot we limit it?
Surely the one proposition is a corrollary
of the other. Should we refuse to grant
it altogether, what is there to prevent the
people of those Territories appealing to the
imperial parliament, which has a plenitude of power in the matter ? And if the
imperial parliament saw fit to grant their
petition and enact this legislation with regard to education which we wish to enact,
would not that parliament have the power
to enact it? I submit that if the imperial
parliament has the power, so have we, because it is a matter beyond dispute that
the powers of this parliament, in all that is
granted to us under this British North
America Act, are what we know as plenary powers. They are powers as ample
and complete as those of the imperial parliament in this respect. They are not delegated
powers. We are not acting as
agents of the imperial government, but are
acting by virtue of our plenary powers to
pass this legislation; and in this respect
our powers are as high as those of the imperial parliament itself. This view of the
law has been given out by the very highest
authority. It will be found in the Privy
Council cases. and I submit that on that
ground the Bill before us is strictly constitutional. For the sake of argument let
me put this case. Let us suppose that
there is no reference whatever in this Bill
to the subject of education. Let the Bill
go through without any educational clause
whatever in it, what will be the position of
the new provinces? They would come under the main part of section 93 which says
that education shall remain exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the provincial
legislatures. The subsections would not
apply because they only apply to provinces which have established rights regarding
denominational schools. They would
come in under the first clause of section 93
and there would be no right to have any
denominational schools.
Then I take the case of the free colonial
legislature of Newfoundland. I do not
know whether there is a system of
separate schools in that colony or not, but
I will assume that it has by law such a
system ; and I say that if Newfoundland
should knock at the door of confederation
for admission and we should admit her,
that colony would come in subject to the
provisions of section 93. subsections 1, 3
and 4, as it is a colony with a free legislature, able to enact its own laws, and
higher
than a territory governed from another
source. It would therefore come in under
section 93 while a territory would come in
practically unrestricted. I submit then that
a free colony is in a minor position to a
5167
COMMONS
territory, which has no government in that
respect. That can never have been the
intention either of the framers of the constitution or of the Act that was the result
of their labours.
Now, I noticed in the amendment which,
was moved by the leader of the opposition
that he has seen fit to stop short of the,
subsections of section 93. He has framed
his amendment in such a way that by no
possibility could a minority claim any rights
whatever. He has transposed the whole
meaning of section 93, which says :
In and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education —
And he stops there. New section 93 is
broader than the amendment of the hon.
member. Section 93 continues :
—subject and according to the following
provisions :
And it does make provisions for the
rights of the minority. May we gather
from the amendment as drawn and as presented to this House the real feelings of
the leader of the opposition upon the merits
of this question? May we assume from the
manner and the language he has employed
in drawing up his amendment that he is distinctly opposed to any claims of minorities
in this matter ? Were his amendment to
carry, and were section 93 to stop as it stops
in the amendment which he has placed before the House, there never could be a claim
by a minority for separate schools in any
way, shape or form, in the new provinces.
Is that what the hon. member means ? and
is that a fair indication of his real feelings
upon the merits of this question, apart from
the highly technical argument which he
placed before the House, and in regard to
which he said he stood upon the rock of
the constitution ?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to
detain the House any longer. I have tried
to place before you as clearly as I could
the reasons which impel me, which force
me, to the conclusion that this parliament
has the power, the constitutional right, to
pass this law : and if it has, and if it does
pass it, then I submit that no other tribunal or no other legislative body has that
power. We have, I submit, the constitutional right, and we should exercise it. It
is said that it will create turmoil, confusion,
prejudice and bad feeling. The educational
question in Canada has done so from about
the year 1840 or 1850, in the old provinces,
and will do so probably for all eternity,
unless it is settled by some legislation
emanating from an authorized source. We
have the right, and I submit that we should
exercise it. Why leave this question to
cmbitter the people in those new provinces
when this is the proper tribunal to settle the
matter? I agree that if we have the pow
5167
5168er to settle it under the British North America Act of 1871, we have the right also
to leave it unsettled and refer it to the
provinces. Would it be wise to do that ?
Would it be manly to do it ? I know
there is a disposition on the part of many
members in this House to shirk, or to shrink
from the question. I know also that there is
a disposition on the part of many hon. members opposite to fall in behind their leader
on the constitutional question, and to satisfy
themselves on the pure technicality which
he raised on the letter rather than on the
spirit of the law—and I submit the letter
is against them—rather than come out in
the open and vote upon the merits of the
question. Has anybody challenged our right
to pass the Act of 1875? Was that a constitutional Act ? Has it ever been challenged
? I submit it was constitutional, and
came within the powers granted by that
Order in Council passed in June, 1870, an
Order in Council which had the same force
and effect as an imperial statute. Under
that Act what do we find? After the
Act had gone into operation, an elective
body was formed in those Territories
with power to make laws, subject to
the assent of this parliament. We have
acted upon the educational clauses of the
Act of 1875, we have changed them time and
again, we have restricted their application.
We have been the representatives of the
people of the Territories. and it is not fair
to say that the Territories had no representation in this House in 1875 ; this parliament
represented the Territories. Surely
the members of parliament of that day
felt their obligation towards that part of
Canada, as towards any other part of Canada. I think that from the year 1888 they
had direct representation in this House,
and also in the Senate. They amended
their school law by ordinances passed in
1890 and 1891, and this government has
assented to them. For thirty years the
people have had a guarantee, with the consent of this House, that the system of
schools in operation there would be perpetuated. Shall we place these new provinces
on a lower plane than we would
place the colony of Newfoundland ? Shall
we say to these new provinces : If you
come in you must come in without the
benefit of subsections 1, 3 and 4 of section 93 of the British North America Act,
while Newfoundland would come in subject to those subsections ? I submit that,
from the point of justice, of equity, of fair
dealing with the minority in this country,
as a pure matter of expediency, if on no
higher ground, for the purpose of taking
this matter out of provincial politics—as a
pure matter of expediency, as well as a
matter of justice, the educational clauses
of the Bill as now framed should be passed.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.
Mr. G. BOYER (Vaudreuill). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker,
it is with some emotion and fear that I rise to take part in the discussion
which has been going on for several weeks between a number of leading
hon. members on both sides of the House. Following in the footstepts
of the hon. member for Haldimand, I trust my hearers will not lose
sight of the fact that I am fighting my first battle on the floor of
the House, within whose precincts racial and religious passions have waxed warm
of late, amidst, on the one hand, the noble accents
of legitimate vindications and, on the other, dangerous and foolish appeals to prejudice,
the whinings of deceptive and
chimerical fears.
I have listened, Mr. Speaker, to the two
leaders and to followers of each one of
them. One of these is at the head of the
party which has been governing this country
in such an admirable way for nearly nine
years. The other is heir to an enfeebled
party, the leader of a loyal opposition but,
it is time it should be stated, of an opposition unsettled in its aim and framing
its
policy on a basis of unpardonable intolerance.
The issue between these two leaders and
their followers is, Mr. Speaker, a most important one. You have, Sir, listened to
the
discussion which has been going on and
you are in a position to decide whether
the parallel which I am about to draw
as to the respective merits of the stand
taken by them is acceptable and reasonable.
The hon. leader of the government has the
almost unanimous support, under the circumstances, of hon. members on this side
of the House, while the hon. leader of the
opposition, finding differences of opinion
among his followers has thought fit to leave
them free to vote as they please. I quote
his own words: (See Hansard, page 2929).
I say, that, in taking the position which I
shall now take, I do not for one moment suggest that any hon. gentleman on this side
of
the House, following the dictates of his conscience and of his good judgment should
feel
himself in any way constrained by party ties
to endeavour to agree with the views which I
shall express.
Now, we have observed, Mr. Speaker, that
several of that hon. gentleman's followers
have taken advantage of the privilege thus
granted them, since we see rising against
the amendment moved by the leader of the
opposition such men as the hon. members
for Jacques-Cartier, Beauharnois, Cornwall,
L'Islet and others.
It is not my intention to enter into a detailed discussion of the Bill, the provisions
of which have been already fully debated.
I lack the boldness to do so, and besides,
I may be permitted to state that I have
come too late to shed new light on the subject, all available material having been
al
5169
5170ready utilized. On the other hand, I see before me in this House quite a number of
leading gentlemen, supporters of the government, who will carry on the discussion
with ability, and who will succeed no doubt,
in enlivening it more than once. That difficult task, I shall leave to them to perform.
I shall confine myself, Mr. Speaker, to
a very few remarks. In the first place,
on the organization of these provinces ;
in the second place, on the educational
clause of the Bill ; in the third place, on
the spirit of intolerance of certain hon.
members, and fourthly, I shall conclude
with some general remarks.
Canada is progressing faster than any
other country. Our export trade, within
recent years, has increased in greater ratio
than that of any other country in the
world ; and the output of the Northwest
Territories, makes up a large proportion
of our total trade returns.
I shall merely state the value of the output of cereals in the Northwest : In 1903,
it was valued at $55,000,000, not to speak
of other agricultural commodities, dairy products and live stock. The following statistics
give us an idea of the possibilities of
the Northwest Territories as regards three
leading cereals :-
|
1898. |
1903. |
| Wheat. . . . |
5,542,478 bush. |
16,629,149 bush. |
| Oats.. . . . . .. .. |
3,040,307 bush. |
14,179,705 bush. |
| Barley........ |
449,512 bush. |
1,741,209 bush. |
The population of these Territories,
which in 1891 numbered only 98,967, rose in
1901 to 211,649, and reaches just now
500,000. In those prairies, formerly, a few
huts were strewn here and there ; to—day,
houses are closer, sturdy farmers have
built their homes all over this once desert
land. Villages, large communities have
sprung up here and there over these great
and fertile plains.
These localities have their banking
houses, their business firms, their lawyers,
their doctors, their brokers, in a word all
the essentials of commerce and progress.
Bold, ambitious and industrious settlers
have come there from all parts to make
their homes. A goodly number come from
the United States, others from Europe,
from the mother country and other parts of
the old continent ; then the older provinces
of the Dominion, and more especially Ontario and Quebec, has sent a good many.
That influx of immigrants which I am referring to just now, has been constantly
increasing of late years, and we are forced
to admit that, through the ingress of these
thousands of settlers, through their daily
work, through their unsparing efforts, the
axis of the Dominion will be displaced
towards the west. For the Northwest, with
its magnificent farming areas, its grazing
lands, which are the richest in America,
is generally recognized as the greatest field
open to settlement; and the best proof in
5171
COMMONS
support of this statemenms to be found in
the addition of these 500,000 settlers to the
population of the west within the last seven
years.
The government, therefore, are justified
in establishing the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. In so doing, they are
only following in the wake of the marvellous progress which has been the result
of their own efforts. I am proud, Mr.
Speaker, to have a seat in this parliament
which, by carving out these new provinces,
is turning a new leaf in the history of
Canada. These two new sister provinces,
entering confederation, will strengthen the
bounds which unite old and new Canada,
and bind more firmly together, through
mutual interest, all the provinces of
Canada.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members of both sides
of the House seem to agree as regards
almost every clause of this Bill. One
single clause, besides that relative to the
lands, has. therefore, taken up the time of
the House: I mean the clause relative to
education.
Before proceeding any further, I may be
allowed, Mr. Speaker, to quote some statistics as to the number of schools, teachers,
&c., for 1903:
|
1891. |
1903. |
| Number of schools.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
213 |
640 |
| Number of teachers. .. .. .. .. .. |
248 |
783 |
| Number of pupils.. .. .. .. .. .. |
5,652 |
27,741 |
Ten, of these, Mr. Speaker, are separate
schools. The right hon. leader of the government has thought fit to add to clause
16 of the Autonomy Bill, an amendment
which, practically, cannot give any but
good and favourable results.
Conservative newspapers of the province
of Quebec,—I may be pardoned for not
stating the exact number, for it is not
large,—taunt the right hon. Prime Minister
for sacrificing, as they allege, the minority
by this amendment. They speak disparagingly of the Prime Minister and rebuke
him for having altered the original clause.
The clause, in its present form, they say,
does not grant to Catholics the rights they
are entitled to .
I quote the following from the 'Evenement,' a Conservative newspaper of Quebec.
The article is under the heading: 'Cain,
where is thy brother?'
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Dominion Act, the legislative assembly of the
Territories pass ordinances forbidding religious
teaching and the use of the French language
in the schools of the majority.
The majority no longer have schools of their
choice.
What does Mr. Laurier do ?
Instead of enforcing the existing Dominion
Act, he introduces a Bill which deprives the
Catholic and French majority of their most
sacred rights.
For a moment, Mr. Laurier thought of maintaining the existing legislation by repeating
it
5171
5172
word for word in the new Bill, but Sifton
showed fight and Mr. Laurier knuckled down.
Instead of basing the new legislation on the
old, Mr. Laurier endorsed the grievances contained in the ordinances passed contrary
to the
law, and his new legislation sanctions these
in turn.
French will no longer be taught in the
school's.
Religious teaching will no longer be given
to Catholics in the N.W.T.
In localities where our fellow-countrymen are
in the majority, they are to be deprived of the
school of their choice, which will be replaced
by the public school, the neutral school.
Such is Mr. Sifton's dictum.
Such is Mr. Laurier's compromise.
Cain,—that name becomes you all,—what have
you done with your brethren ?
On the other hand, what do the hon. gentlemen of the opposition say, what does
the hon. member for Carleton and his organs
say ? I quote in the first place the words
of the hon. leader of the opposition as regards that amendment, page 2964 of Hansard
:
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to section 16 because it is opposed to the spirit and the
letter
of the constitution. I am opposed to the substituted section because it is not different
in
principle from that for which it is substituted.
Then I may quote the following extracts
from Ontario Tory newspapers. From the
'World ' :
The Quebec hierarchy again victorious.—Separate school will be enforced.—The original
clause will not be altered.—No concession whatever to Protestant feeling.
From the ' Mail and Empire' :
The provinces obliged to accept the system.— The educational clause, as amended,
enforces
the recognition of separate schools.
From the ' News ' :
Betrayed ! Western members give in to coercion.—A compromise which is not a compromise.—A
shameful surrender to Quebec's demand that the West be chained.
From the ' Citizen ' :
The principle unaltered—The provinces taken
by the throat.—Sir Wilfrid's concessions do not
alter the principes of his Autonomy Bill ; the
wording only is modified.
We have here, Mr. Speaker, the two extremes ; those who complain that the government
are not doing justice to the Catholic minority, and those who complain that
the government are granting them too much,
and, odd to say, these extremists all belong
to the same party. That would be puzzling,
were it not apparent, at first sight, that
these various protests are inspired, in some
cases, by bad faith, in others by lack of
fairness, and in every one of them by
partisanship, all uniting in one common object: the overthrow of the eminent states.
man who has been administering so gloriously the country for the last eight years.
If exception is taken to the terms of the
settlement, if blame is to be cast on any
5173
MAY 1, 1905
party or on any man, if the minorities in
the Northwest Territories are not receiving
all that they should receive, let us find out
who is responsible for this state of things.
Let us glance over the history of educational
institutions in the Territories we are about
to organize.
In 1875, when the Dominion parliament
passed the Northwest Territories Act
was provided that the minorities, whether
Catholic or Protestant, would have the right
to establish separate schools and would not
be called upon to pay taxes for any others
but such schools. That was the only provision contained in that Act. In 1884, the
legislature organized a system of education,
similar, or almost similar, to that of the
province of Quebec, and comprising, more
particularly, a council divided into two
boards, the one Catholic and the other Protestant. In 1888, the ordinances of 1884
were
consolidated by the legislature.
However, in 1892, these ordinances of
1884-88, were repealed by the Northwest
Territories legislature. The council of education was to be no longer divided into
a
Catholic and Protestant board, and was reduced to the mere rank of a consulting
body. The new ordinance provided at the
same time that teaching in the said schools
would be given in English : but subsection
1 of section 83 provided that school commissioners might have elementary courses
taught in the French language. Catholics
endeavoured to have that ordinance disallowed by the Dominion government, who
had authority to do so ; however, the latter,
by Order in Council dated February 5th,
1894, on the recommendation of Sir John
Thompson, then Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, refussed to disallow the
ordinances of 1892 and 1893. Sir John
Thompson's recommendation stated that the
facts brought to the knowledge of the Governor in Council were not such as to warrant
the disallowance of these ordinances.
The latter provided that the council of education would no longer be divided into
two
boards and put the whole school system
under the control of a single member of the
government, who was to appoint inspectors,
decide upon text books to be used, &c. The
then government decided that the Northwest Territories legislature had the right to
make these changes and to pass these ordinances. The ministers present at the sitting
of council at which the order of February
5 was passed. were Sir John Thompson, Sir
Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Adolphe Caron, Sir
Charles Tupper. Hon. Messrs. Costigan.
Haggart, Ouimet, Patterson, Daly and
Angers.
Now, at these various stages, what was
the part taken by the right hon. present
Prime Minister, who is now being accused
of sacrificing the rights of the minority?
Was is not the Northwest Territories legislature that passed those ordinances in 1884.
and repealed them in 1892 ? Was it not the
5173
5174
party whose present leader is the hon.
member for Carleton, that refused, in 1894,
when it had the power to do so, to disallow
those ordinances of 1892 ? How can the
present government be fairly called upon
to disallow ordinances which have been
sanctioned by a previous government ?
Let us for a moment view the question
from the standpoint of the majority in
those Territories under whose unrestricted
control these schools have been for thirteen
years past. Would they willingly allow that
control to be interfered with ? How is it
that the then government, under the leadership of a Catholic, Sir John Thompson, has
been spared the aspersions of those good
Catholics who are at the same time out-
and-out Tories ?
The government, through its leader, introduces two Bills for the provincial organization
of two districts, that of Saskatchewan and that of Alberta. These two Bills
are similar, and both contain a clause
which, even taking into account the amendment which has been inserted since, ensures
to the minorities those rights and privileges enjoyed by them since the passing of
the 1892 ordinances. Once those provinces
have been organized, the system of education in force at present will become for
ever the lawful system of the country. The
legislatures of the new provinces, should
they desire to do so, will not be in a position to repeal it. Were they not sanctioned
and guaranteed by the constitution, these
rights of the minorities would be left entirely in the hands of immigrants who are
coming to us from all parts of the world.
Thanks to that provision contained in the
Bill, minorities will retain separate schools
to the extent they have them to-day. Without that guarantee, those rights might be
taken away to-morrow at a mere whim of
the legislatures.
The Autonomy Act and its amendments,
now before the House, will render further
interference impossible. The following are
the advantages ensured to the minority by
the said Act, under various circumstances
and subject to the various provinces contained in the educational Acts:
A Separate school house, a Catholic
teacher, Catholic trustees to superintend the
school, the asurance that text books on history, geography, arithmetic, grammar, will
not contain anything objectionable from
the standpoint of the Catholic church, a
half hour per day of religious teaching, exemption from taxation for the support of
public schools, their share of public grants
from the provincial government, an elementary course in French, at least two
out of five members of the board of education to be Catholics.
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the indisputable
rights which the Autonomy Bill ensures to
the Catholic minority in the northwest.
Thanks to the Autonomy Act these rights
become sacred and indisputable.
5175
I have had the honour, Sir, to be elected to
represent my constituency by voters belonging to various races and various creeds;
and I am proud to state, in this House, that
none of these electors, whether Catholic or
Protestant, French or English, have laid
down terms or suggested a policy for me to
follow on religious or racial issues, such as
that now being discussed. And I may add
this, to the credit of the English-speaking
section of my electors, who are quite numerous, that they have not sent me one single
petition or protest such as those which have
rejoiced the hearts of some hon. members on
the other side. As a further proof of what
I say, I may invite the hon. members for
East Grey (Mr. Sproule), for Victoria, (Mr.
Sam. Hughes) and for South York (Mr.
Maclean), to come and spend a few days in
the English-speaking section of Vaudreuil,
in order to judge for themselves what a
happy and contented life lead those whose
digestion is not troubled by the heartburnings of bigotry. These hon. members would
find there inspiring examples and unfailing
recipes to restore tranquillity to their unsettled minds. There would they find pure-
blooded Englishmen; Scotchmen, who are
the direct descendants of those proud Highlanders; Irishmen, from the Emerald Isle,
living in close neighbourhood with people of
pure French Canadian stock, all in perfect
peace and harmony.
However, I fear it may grate on the rather
sensitive ears of the hon. member for East
Grey, that faithful interpreter of the ' Huntingdon Gleaner,' if I state that, in
those
same English sections of the county, the
French population is usually not very
wealthy, but that, there as elsewhere, they
have the love of religious ceremonies and
have built for themselves unpretentious
churches where they congregate to pray to
God after their fashion and in accordance
with the tenets of their church. Now, much
of the material which has been used in the
construction of these buildings, has been
paid for out of the generous donations of
Protestants. A resident in one of these
localities, and its mayor, an Englishman -
and one that I only wish hon. gentlemen
who oppose us would resemble in some little
degree—donated the sum of one hundred
dollars towards the building of one of these
modest chapels.
The Protestant populations in my county
have schools fully equipped, wherein children receive a complete education. Besides
these Protestant schools there are Catholic
schools. In some of the schools, the teaching is given in English, in others it is
given
in French. The English population speaks
English and the French speaks French,
whenever it suits or pleases them. In that
way, all enjoy equal rights and live in
harmony. And on Sundays, all, English as
well as French, Protestants as well as
Catholics, enjoy rest under the eye of the
5175
5176
same Master whom they all serve and honour, although in various ways.
The state of things which I have just described is not special to the county I represent,
it is to be found in all the counties of
Quebec wherein Englishmen and Scotchmen
are to he found.
I wonder at times whether the hon. members for East Grey. Victoria and South York
are sincere in their intolerant warfare: I
will do them the kindness of believeing they
are. However, I cannot help calling to
mind, just now, inflammatory editorials
against French Canadians, and more especially Catholics, which appeared, some nine
years ago, in the Morrisburg 'Courier,' the
leading organ of the ' P.P.A.' That paper
was, at the time, under the control of an
ally of hon. gentlemen opposite who was
then, the leader, or about to become the
leader, of the Opposition in the province of
Ontario, and who is to-day the head of the
government in that province. And to, that
wrathful opponent of the French Canadians
and of our fellow-believers in the province
of Ontario, unexpectedly touched by heavenly grace, and no doubt, also by the expectation
of some future reward, mellowed, little
by little, into a kindlier feeling towards us.
And soon the political sky of his province
cleared up, brighter days shone for him;
he emerged from the cold shades, or rather
from the warm purgatory, of opposition : he
won a great battle and became Prime Minister of his province. And then what did he
do, but take into his cabinet, two Catholics,
and one of them a French Canadian. With
one stroke of that pencil which made up the
list of his future colleagues, the new Prime
Minister made amends for his past record and won the consideration of the
whole Catholic and French population
of Ontario.
I wonder whether the hon. members for
South York, East Grey and Victoria will
not some day imitate such conduct and get
converted. It is high time they do so, for
should they delay until they become ministers of the Crown to atone for their intolerant
warfare of to-day, I fear they will die.
impenitent; and for the information and
edification of the future generation, we
might inscribe on their tombs: under this
barren soil lies the unwholsome seed of
hateful principles which have never germinated in this beautiful country. Allow me,
Sir, to call the attention of those hon.
gentlemen on the other side to whom I
have referred several times to what has
occurred in the provincial legislature of Quebec, not later than last week, when the
Hon. Mr. Weir, a Scotch Protestant, was
elected Speaker of the House, it being the
first time that an English-speaking Protestant was elected to fill such a position
in the province. In the meantime, the
French population of that province are witnesses of outbreaks of feeling in Ottawa
5177
MAY 1, 1905
which are not of a nature to induce a
spirit of toleration. But, in Quebec, as
well as in Ottawa, the French-speaking
members are swayed solely by principles of
justice and fair play.
Now what do we hear from parties most
concerned in the matter ? What is the
stand taken by the majority, what is the
stand taken by the minority in these Northwest provinces ? Of the various minorities
to be found in the western country the
Catholic minority is the most deeply concerned; they it is who we should consult,
they it is who will protest if protests are in
order. Have they not done so in 1893 and
1894? There also do we find leading men
who, of course, are better informed as to
the needs of the people of the west than
can possibly be the firebrands at work in
the province of Quebec and elsewhere. And
what do we find ? We find that they express satisfaction at the present state of
things. Should not their views prevail over
those of outsiders who point out to treachery and surrender of the rights of the minority
?
I for one, Mr. Speaker, am of opinion
that our fellow countrymen and fellow-believers in the west have not been granted
all the rights and privileges to which they
are fairly entitled. But, in a country with
a mixed population, honourable compromises
should not be spurned, especialy when, on
looking back into the past I find that the
present government in not responsible for
the existing condition of things, and that
the reasons which induced the late government to ratify the ordinances of the Northwest
Territories legislature in 1892 still exist. Is not compromise, is not conciliation
the best way out of the difliculty, when
other means fail and the majority are
against us ? In 1892, the minority had a
feeling that they were downtrodden, and
that they could not get along under the new
ordinances. However, subsequent events
showed that their fears had been exaggerated, and it seems as if things had been
going on pretty smoothly as regards educational matters in those great western
plains.
Another very striking circumstance was
the return of the member for Alberta, the
Hon. Mr. Oliver, on the occasion of his
promotion to the position of Minister of the
Interior. The minority had there a unique
opportunity for asserting their rights; on
the other hand Protestants were given the
same opportunity of making known their
views, of carrying on the holy crusade begun by the hon. members for East Grey,
for South York and for Victoria. Now,
there was no agitation carried on. neither on
the one side or on the other, Is not this
unanimity of opinion a proof that people
in the west live in a state of peace and
these people more deeply concerned in the
question than the members for East Grey,
for Victoria and for South York, who
5177
5178
though strangers to that province would fain
make us believe that they are better acquainted with the needs of the people out
there than the very parties concerned.
The leader of the opposition, in his amendment, contends that we are invading
the rights of the new provinces, and insists
that we should leave to them the exclusive
right of legislature in reference to educational matters, as well as in reference
to
all others. Residents in the west do not
seem to worry as to that either, and the
return by acclamation of the Hon. Mr.
Oliver, in one of the Western constituencies,
is clear evidence of the state of peace
which prevails in those quarters.
Let me give here, Mr. Speaker, a further
proof of what I have just stated. The following is an extract of the Edmonton
'Journal,' a Conservative organ, regarding
the Bills now before us :-
It seems as though the educational clauses
of the Autonomy Bills were to give occasion
to inflammatory appeals to racial and religious
prejudices. In the interest of Western Canada,
such a contingency is to be deeply deplored.
Heretofore the main object of western people
has been to build up a free and united province, to profit by the experience of old
Canada
to reduce to a minimum the occasions of friction between followers of various creeds,
to
insist with calm on the necessity of equal
rights for all citizens, without vainly clamouring for provincial rights, but resting
our confidence in the wise decision of the western
members and in the breadth of mind of the
political leaders, for the settlement of that
question.
Two new provinces will be added to the
Dominion of Canada, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Within these two new provinces,
there are Catholics and French Canadians.
Their numbers, already large, will always
go on increasing, and they will be there,
along the banks of the Saskatchewan.
What they have been along the shores of
the St. Lawrence; loyal citizens, respectful
of law, lovers of peace and harmony; and
if that race proves as prolific in those great
western plains as it is in the province of
Quebec, we will have before long the spectacle of a compact body of these sturdy
settlers advancing hand in hand along the
path of progress, not only as regards agriculture, but as regards industry, and
worthily playing their part in public affairs.
And do we know what the future has in
store for us? Possibly, some day to come,
our English speaking and other fellow-
citizens may witness with admiration,
a second battle of Chateauguay in that
country, which, perhaps, has in store for
us in the near future, surprises as great
as its agricultural wealth. For who can
say that those French Canadians, whom a
few bigots are anxious to injure to-day,
will not be the last to remain loyal to the
Canadian government, and to the British
Crown? I believe it was Lord Elgin who
wrote that the last man to uphold the
5179
COMMONS
British flag in Canada would be a French
Canadian. That compliment paid by one
of our governors to the inhabitants of Quebec, might properly, to my mind, be applied
to their worthy and loyal descendants
who have made their homes in the plains
of the great west.
I appeal to my English speaking colleagues in this House ; I appeal to their
good will and to their spirit of fairness, I
beg of them to help in putting a stop to
this racial and religious strife which breeds
nothing but evil for the country. I ask
them, why should we not all, hand in hand,
work together towards the aggrandisement
of our common country; why should we
not, by our common efforts, build up, in
this great country, which extends from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, a great, strong and
united nation ?
Mr. G. H. McINTYRE (South Perth). Mr. Speaker, the
debate on this important question which has been prolonged for
such a great length of time is now in its last stages and as a new
member, if I found myself seeing eye to eye in every particular with
the party to which I belong, with my Liberal friends generally, it is not
likely that I would have felt called upon to make any remarks upon the
matter, but as I see somewhat differently from some of my friends,
I have thought it wise and proper to put on record the reasons for my
action. I have noticed that some speakers, especially in the later
stages of the debate. have as it were apologized for speaking owing to the
fact that the matter has been so thoroughly threshed out, and all
arguments from the various points of view so fully presented to the
House that there seemed little left for them to do except to present them
again with perhaps a little local colouring from the Speaker's own
individuality, and they seemed to regret that it was impossible
for them to make their speeches interesting. But as I
listened to their speeches I found that they did make them interesting, even in
spite of the familiarity of any of the
arguments. Not only so, but they made them exceedingly interesting for some
of their opponents. I have no such desire or intention in addressing
the House tonight. My intention is rather to give an
explanation of my position nor will I need, I think, to speak at any length.
Many of the speeches, if I may use a little criticism, have been of
considerable length and possibly this debate would have been much
shorter if each speaker had confined himself very closely to
the question at issue. It seems to have been the natural inclination
of many to rather criticise the immediately preceding speech. Many
speeches have dealt with matters not strictly pertinent to this
question, matters such as the boundaries of Manitoba and many
matters of that nature entirely outside the question have been
discussed at great length. I shall
5179
5180 endeavour to adhere to the question as closely as possible and I
intend no criticism of those who preceded me or who take different
views from those which I take. The question itself is certainly an important
one. The educational clauses, have been the features of the Bill
principally debated. These clauses are not the only nor may we say the
principal item in the Bill. They are, however, the features that have caused
the greatest antagonism and discussion. In itself the matter of
education does necessarily bring about friction of any kind. It
so happens, however, that a portion of our people have conscientious
views in the matter of the necessity of associating religious
teaching with the education of the young and when that happens and it
will always happen when a religious turn is given to any question
there is the greatest necessity for prudence and moderation of speech. Many
gentlemen who have spoken in this debate have been careful and
prudent. Some of them I have admired very much; others I am afraid
have handled the matter unwisely and in some cases if I may
proceed that iength in criticism have handled it almost recklessly. It
is unfortunate that this should be the case, but I think that the consensus of opinion
is that when the matter is handled with any
exaggeration of statement the intention of the member is lost,
that is the effect of his argument is lost. The occasion of this Bill
is certainly a great event in the history of Canada, an event which
you might almost call a national epoch; we have reached a time in
the history of our country when we can carve out from these
Territories two large and important provinces, and such an occasion ought to be
one of great rejoicing. It should be an occasion on
which we should all unite together with pride in inaugurating these provinces ;
it should be such an occasion as one would have in
his family say for the coming out party of a daughter or a marriage or
the coming of age of a son in whom he has pride, in whom he has great
hope and confidence, and it is natural on such an occasion that if it were
at all possible all parties should unite together in making
it an occasion in which we can drop politics. Unfortunately this event
has been marked by a good deal of friction, especially over the educational
clauses. In considering such an event it is very natural that the mind
should be turned to quite an extent to the progress of our
country, that we should turn with pride to the progress we have made, and
note how rapidly we are progressing, note to what an extent the
commerce and the population of the country have grown, note especially
as we listen to the speeches of the various members in this debate the
unanimity with which every man speaks with glowing confidence of the future of the
country. There is not and has not been a
pessimistic note in regard to the future of our country dur
5181
MAY 1, 1905
ing the whole of this discussion. The growth of
Canada, while not always in the past satisfactory, has of recent years been
quite up to our expectations and fully warrants all the optimism that
has been shown, and we have not only grown in resources and
population, but I think we have grown in intellgence, in richness, and in
all other marks of progress. And yet, as I consider the treatment of
some public questions, it has been a question in my mind whether with
all that progress we have quite held our own — I shall not say progressed —
but quite held our own in matters requiring deliberation and
self-restraint. Possibly it may be a passing phase in our career, but I
regret that at the moment there is some evidence of at least a
standing still in that respect. In a country like ours, that is new and
young, that has immense territories, that has a sparse population
spread over a great area, it is exceedingly necessary that care should
be used in all the legislation we bring forward. The cohesion between the
difierent portions of the country is not yet strong ; the national
feeling has not grown possibly, to the extent it should; we have been
so busy in many other respects. Our country is divided in various ways; we
have in the east a fine set of provinces speaking one language. They
are partially divided from the next province by a territory
which possibly is not fertile or fit for agriculture, and then we come to a
province in which another language is spoken. Then we
pass on to Ontario and there again we have the English language. Between
Ontario and Manitoba there is a portion of territory almost unsettled
and so we find breaks as we continue through our country and
necessarily that leads to a lack of cohesion between the various
parts of it, and it is necessary in all our legislation that we should
be particularly careful to avoid anything that would break or
strain or separate. This is particularly applicable to questions of
the kind that is at present under discussion. The educational
features of this Bill are the ones that have aroused the greatest
friction, but there are many other important questions involved in
it and some of them may have untoward results if they are not
carefully handled. In all new proposals that come before one it is
natural that some special features in them should first take
pre-eminence, that you would first find your mind coming to a decision on
certain points, and this has been most strikingly so in the
consideration of this question. It sometimes happens that you find
that the point on which you first come to a decision is not the point
that you should have first decided; the sequence is not always of
importance. It was natural when this Bill was brought in for the formation
of two new provinces out of those Territories that our minds
should revert to the history of our country, to the time at which
those lands became either in the union of
5181
5182 Canada or in the possession of Canada, which ever term one
may use, to the years 1870 when, by a certain class of purchase from
the Hudson Bay Company we obtained possession of them, not I
think, as I have heard it stated, by a purchase of these lands
from the Hudson Bay Company, but by the purchase of their rights,
whatever they were, and by the grant of that country from the Crown to
Canada. That country contained a very small population and, by the Act of
1871 we were entrusted with the government of it. In the Act, I think,
we will agree, that while they were territories we were entrusted with the power
to govern them as we saw fit. They were governed
under that Act by a lieutenant governor and council. Later
on, when the population had grown larger and when the needs of the
country were greater, they were given a certain amount of legislative
control of their own affairs, and in the Mackenzie Act of 1875. that
was carried to a considerable extent, and they had, even before they became a province,
representatives and have representatives in
this parliament. Under the Act of 1875, a legislature with certain
powers was created there and while full powers were not given, comparatively
large powers were given although certain limitations were
placed upon the powers granted. Under that legislative power these
Territories enacted certain ordinances and among them were those relating to
education, and it so happened that in the Mackenzie Act there was a
specific reference made to the privileges of minorities in
regard to denominational schools and it was under that that these schools
were first established. Later on this legislature, acting, perhaps,
not under the law of 1875, but it seems to me rather acting beyond that
law, or taking power not granted to them by the law of 1875, passed
ordinances which appeared to restrict the privileges given in regard
to denominational schools in that territory. Later on it made other changes
and we find by the record that the Roman Catholic minority in the
Territories made an appeal to the government here at Ottawa, of which
Sir John Thompson was then a member, for redress or for the veto of those
ordinances. This was not granted, but these ordinances remained in
force and certain regulations also passed by their educational
council. That state of affairs has continued down to the present
time. We are told that on the whole these ordinances have been fairly
acceptable. We realize, however, that the Law of 1875 has not been
fully carried out by the ordinances and the regulations now in force.
We realize also that we cannot say positively that the schools or the
educational regulations are entirely acceptable to the Roman Catholic
minority in these Territories. But such of the privileges as under the law
of 1875 and these ordinances and regulations have re
5183COMMONSmained to them are existing at the present day, and claim is made
and made with great force and I think with a force that should be
given proper consideration that it is impossible to grant
privileges of this kind, to allow them to remain in force for many
years, to allow the people in the country to grow up with them and then
to arbitrarily or unnecessarily remove them without grave
cause. I know that it is claimed that the law of 1875 was a temporary law,
that it could have been abrogated or repealed by this parliament at any
time and that this parliament could do so to-day. That is true, but this
parliament has not done so and the law has remained in force. I know also
that it is impossible to bind future generations by an Act of
the present. I know that the present generation, if it found any special
law or even bargain, passed by our great grandfathers, to be particularly
irksome would feel bound to honour it. If it had to be so,
if we were positively bound by every bargain. possibly entered into in
good faith by our great grandfathers. there would be no progress
made in this world, nothing could be changed. But on the present
occasion, I do not feel that there have been any special changes in the
situation that would warrant us in departing from the policy
which has been followed in the past in regard to the privileges of the
minority in the Northwest Territories. I feel that if I were in a
legislative body that was properly empowered to deal with the matter and
I felt assured of the power of that legislative body to deal with it, and
this question coming before me, it would be impossible to pass over the
vested rights, if I may call them so, and the customs of thirty years
unless there could be shown the very gravest reasons of state for doing
so. I was interested a short time ago in a discussion which I had with a
Roman Catholic friend in regard to these schools, to hear him
say that although there had been a great deal of legislation from time to
time and although apparently privileges were given to Roman Catholic
minorities in regard to schools they had failed to get what
they expected or what they thought the law gave them and that it was the
shadow and not the substance which they had obtained. I was
rather surprised at that declaration and I endeavoured to look
into the events in regard to education in the various
provinces and see if they would substantiate it. In looking over
the legislation in regard to education, first, in the province of Ontario, I felt
that the claim was not a good one. In
the province of Ontario I believe that the compact of confederation in
regard to separate schools has been honourably kept. More than
that I find that the law in that respect has been amended in such a way
as to increase the usefulness and proper working of the Act in regard to
separate schools. When I look into the Question as it affects the
province of Que
5183
5184bec, and when I listened to speeches such as
we have heard from the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and
others, I realize that the compact there has been honourably kept in regard to minorities.
When I look into the
question in regard to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia,
in which no special provision had been made and in which at one time there
appeared to have been a little friction I realize that a modus vivendi
has been found, that, as far as we can judge is satisfactory
; so that in all these provinces there appears to be no ground for this
complaint that I refer to. But, when I come to Manitoba
and the west the question takes on a different appearance. Our Roman Catholic friends
claims, and I am afraid they claim with a
considerable amount of force, that they have not received entirely what
they are entitled to, and I cannot say that the record in the province
is satisfactory in regard to the form assumed by the legislation, or in regard to
the reasonable way in which the legislation has been
introduced, or in regard to the way in which the compacts of
legislation have been adhered to. And when I come to the Northwest Territories that
are in question now and consider the privileges
given by the law of 1875 and the infringements, if I may call them so.
of these privileges by the later ordinances, I say again there is some
ground for the complaint. In the consideration of the question it struck me that there
is a reason and that reason. I
think, is largely found in this fact that the provinces coming together and
specifically entering into a bargain as provinces, knowing
what they had to do, have honourably kept that bargain, but when you
come to provinces such as Manitoba and the Territories of the Northwest who,
themselves, have not been parties to the bargain, and who
have been legislated for rather than legislating for themselves, there is a
difference in their attitude. There is an antagonism against any
restraints we may put upon them, and I think in the very action of
this province and these Territories, there is a warning to us as
to the manner in which we shall be wise to deal with them and with
this question.
When this Bill was first brought forward
in the very able speech by the Prime Minister, I thought possibly from the remarks
of the leader of the opposition that it might
not lead to much political antagonism, but
that hope was not borne out by subsequent
happenings. Some striking events followed
the introduction of the Bill. There was in
a portion of our country quite an agitation
against it, and perhaps the most remarkable thing that happened was the resignation
of the Minister of the Interior (Mr.
Sifton) on account of his objection to the
first draft of the Bill. That was even a
more marked event than would have
been on the resignation of some other
member of the government, because of Mr.
5185
MAY 1, 1905
Sifton's close connection with the new provinces and his previous record on educational
matters in that part of the country.
Naturally we watched events with a very
great deal of interest indeed, and I have
been almost amused at the reasons advanced by many Conservative speakers for
that resignation; reasons which showed a
very great versatility of imagination. We
were even told by these gentlemen that the
whole matter of the resignation and of his
ultimate support of the Bill was prearranged for effect. I cannot conceive that
this could possibly have been the case, but
it did strike me that if these gentlemen had
said that the Minister of the Interior (Mr.
Sifton), who very naturally was interested
in that country and who had done much to
encourage large immigration into it, had
taken the course he did with the object of
advertising that country, these gentlemen
might have been using their imagination
very freely, but they would have recognized
at all events the result that has actually
occurred. One thing at least has come out
of this unfortunate trouble and that is, that
these new provinces have had a more magnificent series of advertisements than any
part of Canada has ever had before. Every
hon. member who has spoken has dwelt on
the magnificent resources of that territory,
its scope for development and progress, and
out of our tribulation has resulted this good,
that the minds and thoughts of all people
will be directed towards the development
of this rich portion of our heritage. But,
Sir, while the resignation of the minister
(Mr. Sifton) caused us anxiety we still were
in hopes that some means would be found
by which the apparent divergent interests
would come together. I do not say that we
felt that the decision on this question must
stand between the ex-minister and the government and that we must not think for
ourselves, but it was very natural that we
should consider that the minister (Mr. Sifton represented very largely one view, and
that the government represented the other.
And so, Sir, we waited for the outcome.
At that time I presume the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sifton) did not stand alone, but that
there were many other Liberals who felt
more or less doubtful about the Bill, or
possibly who were not sure as to the extent to which it went in giving privileges
to the minority. I may say that at that
time in whatever opposition I myself felt
towards the Bill I did not feel so much
alone among the Liberal members as I do
to-night. My misfortune is that in the
changes that have been made the government has rather pleased those who felt with
the ex-Minister of the Interior and has overlooked that particular obiection that
stands
in my way. However, Sir, I listened with
great interest to the explanation made by
the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) when he
eventually supported the amended Bill and
I have listened with great interest to the
5185
5186
various speeches of members from the
Northwest with regard to the character
of the schools. I will not take up the time
of the House in reading extracts from their
speeches, although I had thought of doing
so, but you will all agree with me that
their speeches as a rule pointed out how
almost completely national these schools
were and how exceedingly limited was the
time devoted to religious training, or, if I
may put it in another way, how exceedingly Â
small were the privileges granted to the
minority. I am not exaggerating when I
say that this was the general colouring of
the speeches delivered along that line, and
indeed I may say that from the evidence
presented it does appear to me that they
are very largely national schools, and that
the amount of religious teaching that is
available in the last half hour is not very
great. As I listened to very many of these
speeches I could not but think again of my
Roman Catholic friend, of whom I have
already spoken, and whether after all it
was not the shadow rather than the substance which the Roman Catholics were getting.
I would rather think that the claim
in support of this Bill should be based, as
it is based of course in part, on the actual
justice of the case rather than on the
small amount of the privilege given. Of
course I realize that one must take some
of these speeches with a proper degree of
care. We know that in all bargains, if you
listen to the conversation, you will think
that the man who is buying is not getting
very much, and yet he eventually buys. So
it is like that in this case, as in the case
spoken of in the good book in which we
read of the bargainer: it is naught; it is
naught saith the buyer and when he goeth
his way he boasteth. And so I am afraid
that in this case the parties on the one side
speak to a certain audience and the parties
on the other side speak to another audience.
But if the settlement itself is good that
would be satisfactory, and if the people
who make the settlement have the right to
do so that would be also satisfactory. The
more the hon. gentlemen minimize the privileges that are given to the Roman Catholic
minority in these schools, the loss interest
would there appear to he to take any risk
with regard to the constitutionality of the
proceeding. Personally I have no desire to
accept the present Bill just because it gives
little to the Roman Catholic minority. If
the present arrangement is a compromise
which gives justice that would be well, for
a compromise is not necessarily wrong so
long as it is not an actual compromise of
principle. However, it is necessary that the
proper people should enter into a compromise, or do whatever justice may be
necessary. In this case we do not positively know that this Bill is acceptable to
all.
We find at least that the Roman Catholic archbishop, who is nearest, as I understand,
to that portion of the country, objects
5187
COMMONS
that sufficient is not given to his people,
and in this case we do not know who, in
the negotiations that went forward, represented the Roman Catholic people. If we
are going to do justice we should be sure
indeed that we have the right to do it. We
may go abroad and see a quarrel between
two persons on the street and we may actually know what is the right settlement
between them, but it does not necessarily
follow we are empowered to enforce that
settlement. We must be sure not only that
our settlement is just, but we must be also
sure that we are the right authority to make
that settlement. And when we consider
that phase of the question it brings us up
against a fact we must all realize: that
there is a constitutional and a legal feature
of this question that has to be settled before we determine whether a particular compromise
is a fair and just one and should
be enforced. We must know that we are
properly empowered to make that compromise, to make that settlement and to
pass an enactment legalizing it. Other questions such as the merits of the schools
and the justice of the settlement may follow. I claim that it is not quibbling on
a point of law to say that it is essential in
this case to know that we should be first
sure of our ground ; that we should be first
sure we are actually on the rock of the constitution before we undertake to pass a
law
of this kind.
It is not enough to say that the end will
justify the means. that the settlement we
believe is just, and therefore we will put it
through in any case. I am not afraid to
face the constitution lest it should give more
to Roman Catholic minorities than the
present Bill. To say to me that the Bill
gives little to Roman Catholic minorities is
not in itself a recommendation. I am not
seeking to find how little I can give to the
minority in this case, but I am urging on the
government the desirability of ascertaining
exactly what the constitution does give. If
the constitution itself, according to the
decision of the courts should give more to
the minority than the present Bill gives
why should we seek to deny that to them ?
If it should be found that, owing to the
special circumstances of the case the constitution did not apply, and that possibly
nothing was given to the minority, then
would be the time for us, or whatever body
was properly constituted to consider what
the merits and the justice of the case might
demand.
What is this constitution, then, which I
claim should govern in the case, and not
merely our ideas of what is abstract justice?
It is embodied in the British North America
Acts from 1867 to 1886, and when one up
proaches that constitution at the present
time. he finds the path very well worn indeed by those who have recently been there.
Those old Acts have been awakened from
their slumbers in the library, and have been
5187
5188
brought forward at the most unexpected
moments. And what do the seekers get ?
Very often they simply get what they go to
seek for, and they only bring away, I am
afraid, what suits or pleases them. There is
in them very much of what is definite for
the provinces that entered into the confederation compact, but there is a lack of
definiteness for territories which are to be made
into provinces. As a layman approaches the
constitution, the natural question he asks
himself is what should be his attitude and
what is his duty under such circumstances ?
When he is brought face to face with legal
and constitutional questions in this House,
and when these questions have, as he believes, to be decided upon before he can
proceed to decide on other or further stops,
it is very natural that he should hesitate,
that he should approach these questions with
diffidence. He realizes that he is untrained
in that class of work ; he realizes that he
does not know the law, that he does not
know where the law is, that he does not
know whether he has the whole of the law
or not when he reaches it. He knows that
in all lines of work practice makes perfect,
and he lacks practice. But he knows also
that he has to make a decision of some
kind ; he has either to make a decision of
his own, or he has to entrust that decision to
some one else ; and if there is one fault more
than another that has in this country been
found with politicians, I think it is that instead of trying to decide for themselves,
they
have always allowed their party leaders to
do the thinking for them. It may be that,
with the greater wisdom and ability of that
party leader, that is a wise course, but it
is one that is open to reproach. However,
while all that is true with regard to the laymen, it is also true that there are certain
advantages that come to him in the consideration of such a question. It is usually
conceded by the legal men that the ordinary
layman has suflicient intelligence to grasp a
legal point if it is properly explained to him ;
and in this case we have not only the explanation, but we have a full and able debate
from the legal men in this House. We
have their views on every point argued out
very carefully. We have not only the law
supplied to us, but we have all the law. We
do not need to ask, is there any more that
is not quoted to us ? We find that these
Acts are in the language which we speak.
When we examine them, we find that they
are not highly technical in their wording,
and as we read we realize that there has
been an intention to make them clear. In
addition, there is the fact that we are forced
to judge in the case. and, as far as the law
will allow, to make a decision. We cannot
depute that duty to any one else. I may also
say, as an encouragement to any Liberal
who chooses to think for himself in the case,
that we have a good example before US. In
the year 1896 the people of this country
undertook in a wonderful manner the study
5189
MAY 1, 1905
of constitutional law. The Liberal party as
a whole studied very carefully indeed, not
only constitutional law generally, but constitutional law as it related to education
in
provinces. They studied and discussed and
debated, and formed very strong opinions on
that question ; and I may say that my own
feelings and views on that question to-night
are largely coloured by the debates and the
feeling of that time. I have noticed also
that the speakers who have discussed this
matter, the laymen if not the legal men,
have announced that they had no intention
of discussing the legal question; and yet
they have not been speaking for more than
ten or fifteen minutes before they have been
led into the temptation, and have been discussing the constitutional features of the
question. While the legal question is discussed by legal men, we laymen have also
to consider it as judges. We do not approach the matter as advocates but rather
as jurymen, and we have the benefit, in all
the arguments which have been presented
by the legal men, of what I may call pre-
digested food. I may say also that if legal
minds only are capable of arguing and debating and coming to a decision on these
questions, it naturally follows that they will
reach the same conclusion; and yet in this
instance we find legal men differing just
as much as laymen could possibly differ.
So that there is no absolute certainty of a
proper result from the fact that legal men
happen to be arguing the case. However, it
is not a matter of preference on the part of
laymen. I myself would have preferred
very much if this matter had not been left
to a decision in this way. I would have preferred that a decision of the courts on
these
questions had been obtained before the government proceeded to act. I would not
claim that a decision of the Privy Council
would be necessarily better than a decision
of this government or of the Supreme Court
of Canada. But it would be a decision of
the final court of appeal, and it would be
acceptable even by those who did not favour
it, and action based on a decision of that
kind would not be attacked—those attacking
it would be undermined by the very quotation of such a decision. I regret exceedingly
that before this legislation was introduced
such a decision was not obtained. To assume that we have the power to act is, I
think, unwise in the face of the opposition;
but if we are forced to face it, where then
does the battle lie ? We can trust the legal
men at least to produce everything in that
way. We have sections 93 and 146 of the
Act of 1867 brought forward ; we have the
Imperial Acts of 1871 and 1886 and the Mackenzie Act of 1875 ; we have the ordinances
and the regulations : and we have such questions as: does section 93 act automatically,
and if so when ? Has it been modified, and
if so, what is the date of the modification ?
Has this parliament power to act, and if so,
how is it to exercise that power, and must
5189
5190
it exercise it ? We have also the fact that
almost all the speakers declare that they
are on the ground of the constitution, a very
good place indeed to be ; and I must believe
that the Act of 1867 is the real rock of the
constitution, that.wherever it is applicable
it should be the foundation, that at all events
the spirit of the Act of 1867 is actually the
spirit of the confederation of the provinces
which make up this Dominion.
The Act of 1867 was a special bargain
between certain provinces which came together to form confederation; and like all
bargains it was made with an eye to the
special circumstances immediately before
them, each province looking to its own particular interests and safeguarding what
it
valued the most—refusing to concede anything likely to injure it. When this bargain
was completed, then—and then only—was
provision made for future additions to confederation—for the addition of Newfoundland,
British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Ruperts Land, and the Northwest Territories.
They did not make a very specific
provision for these additions. They
saw that they might come. They knew the
bargain that they had made for themselves,
and they thought it would be sufficient to
provide that any additions of these other
provinces and Territories would be subject
to the provisions of the Act they had
agreed to. That, I think was the whole
spirit of the Act. I doubt if any one of
these provinces would have gone into confederation had they been told: We will
make this bargain with you to-day as it
stands, but we may to-morrow introduce
another element into confederation and
deal with it in an entirely different manner
and spirit. They evidently considered that
the provision ' subject to the provisions of
this Act' was to be the spirit which would
govern all future additions to confederation.
It is not likely that the different parties
then entering confederation had any specific thought in their minds of a territorial
form of government in any part of the country before it became a province. That is
one of the misfortunes in the case. The
law itself is, I think, a very creditable law
for the purposes which they had in view;
but like all other laws, it will not at all
suit other circumstances and conditions to
the same extent, and it is but imperfectly
fitted to the present set of circumstances.
The trouble with us now is that we are
literally trying to bring into this law certain
meanings and applications that perhaps
were not foreseen or intended at all ; and it
is probably a defect of the legal mind that
it insists that because this is the law it
must be made applicable in some way. It
might easily happen that such a law will
not in any one case fit the circumstances.
The first question we have to decide is Â
whether this parliament has the requisite
authority to pass such a law. The question may afterwards follow : Is it impera5191tive on us to pass it ? It is evidently conceded that if this parliament has the power
to adopt such a law, it it has the power to
enact these educational clauses, that power
mustbe found either in section 146 of the
Act or 1867 or section 2 of the Act of 1871.
Section 146 of the Act of 1867, which has
been so often quoted, I may take the liberty
of quoting again:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with
the advice of Her Majesty's most Honourable
Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of
parliament of Canada and from the houses of
the respective legislatures of the colonies or
provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island or British Columbia, to admit those
colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the
union, and on address from the Houses of the
parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land
and the Northwest Territories, or either of
them, into the union, on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses
expressed, and as the Queen thinks fit to approve,
subject to the provisions of this Act ; and the
provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had
been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland.
It seems to me that while this is not very
definite with regard to the procedure, the
words 'subject to the provisions of this.
Act ' shows so clearly the intent that in all
future considerations they should not be
forgotten or overlooked. I do not think
that in any future or subsequent additions
to confederation, it was intended or expected that a new or different class of bargain,
a new or different class of constitution, should be given, compared with what
the different provinces confederated had at
that time. That is strongly impressed on
my view. Of course I know it is open to
discussion, and other clauses come in that
must be considered. Section 2 of the Act of
1871, which is known to you all as probably
the main clause and which is regarded as
giving the powers to enact the present educational clauses of the Bill before us,
reads
as follows :
The parliament of Canada may from time to
time establish new provinces in any territories
forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any
province thereof, and may, at the time of such
establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such
province
and for the passing of laws for the peace,
order and good government of such province,
and for its representation in the said parliament.
This is the clause upon which those who
favour the present Bill, on constitutional
grounds base their claim as to the power
of this parliament to enact ; and there is no
doubt that, looking at it in a certain way
and from a certain standpoint, it is possible
to read such a power within it. We have
very different opinions, however, given by
very able men upon that question. I shall
not read them at length, but we have the
opinion of Sir Louis Davies which does not
5191
5192
concede that power as being granted by
section 2 of the Act of 1871. We have the
same opinion given by the late Mr. Justice
Mills, of the Supreme Court, and we have a
contrary one from the late Sir John Thompson. All these are interesting and valuable
;
but considering the circumstances under
which they were delivered, I do not think
we can consider them as specifically definite
or convincing. They were very likely political arguments delivered in the course of
political speeches and not possibly evidencing as much care as had been recently
given this question. We have likewise opinions from very able men indeed at the present
time. The Prime Minister of this country no doubt thinks that the Dominion parliament
has the power, under this section of
the British North America Act of 1871, and
should exercise it, or he would not have submitted to us the measure we are now considering.
The ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) thinks also the Dominion has
the power, but he prefers that we should
not use it. He thinks it should be left to
the new provinces ; and he suggests that,
in the event of our using it, it would be well
to get a confirming Act. The hon. member
for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) thinks this
parliament has only the power to create a
province or call it into existence and to
enact all the necessary details in that connection, and that after our powers in that
respect are fully exercised, the province
comes automatically under the control, of
the British North America Act of 1867. We
find further that that very able lawyer, Mr.
Christopher Robinson, is doubtful whether
the Dominion has the power. We find the
leader of the opposition saying that we have
no constitutional authority to pass the educational clauses. All these conclusions
are
arrived at from consideration of the same
clause, and no doubt all these men have
conscientiously come to these different conclusions through a desire to arrive at
what
is true and correct in the case. If that be
so, it necessarily causes some anxiety to
one who approaches the question for himself. I have watched with some interest
the methods by which, as far as I can judge,
these gentlemen arrived at their conclusions.
If there be anything specially legal or constitutional in their methods that is shut
out
from ordinary laymen, then we must leave
the question entirely to these legal gentlemen. We admire and cannot equal their
very skilful method of presenting their
arguments, but as far as I have been able to
judge their methods of interpretation, I
find they make selection of clauses hearing on the subject, I find that each one
groups together the features that bear out
his contention and draws comparison between the importance of those features and
others that are antagonistic to it. There
is a certain amount of inquiry as to the
spirit of the law there is an examination of
certain words and phrases, and an examina5193MAY 1, 1905tion of the special circumstances of the present case and how far the law is applicable
to them, and if I may say it without offence,
there is alway an appearance of wisdom,
and an impressive appearance of impartiality. Then while you are still waiting to
see the constltutional or mental machinery
put to work, there is suddenly the announcement of a decision which is usually prefaced
by 'It seems to me,' 'I am of the
opinion,' or ' There is no doubt.'
Now, while one has been waiting for
something mysterious in the manner of
reaching this decision, I think it is abundantly evident that the methods by which
these gentlemen reach their decision is just
the ordinary mental process by which
one would reach a decision on such points.
I say there is nothing mysterious, there is
nothing that, when properly explained, a
business man or a literary man who is accustomed to measure and weigh the meaning
of words, could not understand and
reach a decision upon although he could
not put the argument with the skill of
the lawyer. I find, however, nothing unusual in the manner in which they reach
these decisions, and we have not found
cases cited, or judgments or precedents
cited. Acting in that way, and after listening carefully to the debate, one naturally
reaches conclusions of his own. Acting so
far as possible as a juror and not as an
advocate, I must say that I cannot follow
those who find in section 2 of the Act of
1871 plenary power to do any thing in
making a constitution Without having regard to the circumstances in that country.
I cannot conceive that it is the intent and
purpose, the spirit of the Act, that this
parliament should be allowed entirely to
abrogate the law of 1867, as they would
be capable of doing, or that they should
make any kind of a constitution different
from that proposed by the Act of 1867.
They might if possessed of plenary power
establish an autocracy, they might make
a government up there under one man.
It has been said that there is some indefinite kind of an obligation, that the
constitution must be in some way analogous to that of other provinces. As you
have plenary power, then you may do as
you like, and if plenary power had been
intended, I think it would have been put
in very much more explicit language than
it is put in this section. If it had been intended, it could have been put in such
a
way that we would not have required all
this argument to prove it. For myself I
have been unable to accept the reasoning
of those who claim that section 2 of the
Act, 1871, gives this plenary power. If I
could, I would not be at a loss as to my
position on this question. If I felt that plenary power existed in section 2 of
1871, I would heartily support the present
Bill. But after looking at section 2 of 1871.
listening to all these arguments, considering
5193
5194
it from all the points of view from which
it has been presented and reading it in connection with 146 and 93, I feel it is utterly
impossible for me to support that contention.
It may be said that 146 does not give the
power. It may be a question as to whether
power that exists in 146 has already
been used. These also are questions that I
would like very much if they had been referred to the courts, and that a necessity
did not exist for laymen to endeavour to
judge of them. We are asked him to consider whether 93 acts automatically. We
find the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr.
Monk) declaring that it does; we find others
declaring to the contrary. I believe that 93,
like any other class of machinery, works
when you supply the proper material. You
may invent a machine that will put clothing on a man, but it is necessary in all
cases that you bring both the clothing and
the man to the machine ; 93 might act automatically in a special case. If 93 acts
automatically, why should we put it in the
Bill? If it does not, I think the spirit of
93 should control. It might be that a reference to the courts would not satisfy all;
but it would have the value that its decision would be respected. If by such a reference
we found that greater privileges were
due the minorities, then I am willing for one
leges should be given. I am willing for one
to give all the privileges that the constitution provides for. In considering this
section there are certain principles that appear to be stated rather strongly. and
the
decision on the main point will be guided
by the degree of importance which you attach to one or other of these principles.
Now, in looking at 93 I find it provides for
the exclusive right of legislating on education to the provinces, and also provides
for
the rights of minorities, with certain exceptions. It reads as follows:
In and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education,
subject and according to the following provisions :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class
of persons have by law in the province at the union.
I noticed that when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking on that question he
said that the preservation of the privileges
to minorities was there as strongly as the
exclusive right to legislate on education. It
is indeed a question which many minds
will look at in different ways. To my mind
the chief principle underlying section 93 is
the exclusive right over education granted
to the provinces, and that exclusive right is
I think the real point at issue when provinces enter the confederation. At all events
we find that no other body has concurrent
right with the provinces. It has been said
that this is an exclusive right. It is possibly an exclusive right within a circuit,
but
no other power has a concurrent right to
5195
legislate either in or out of that circle, and
no body has power to make that circle
larger or smaller than was prescribed by
the Act of '67. The restrictions that are
made to this section 93 I do not think take
away from the exclusiveness, but rather
limit distance. There is another principle
in section 93 which I would put before that
giving privileges to minorities, and that is
that the initial right of legislation on matters of legislation lies with the provinces,
that the Dominion parliament never under
any circumstances legislates with regard to
educational matters in the provinces until the provincial legislature has gone
beyond its powers and then only does
the Dominion interfere in order to provide a
remedy.
The principle of the preservation to minorities of their rights also exists, but I
think in a subordinate degree to these others,
If I were to ask myself what particular
training or what colouring to my mind, or
what influence caused me to place such an
interpretation upon section 93, I think that
on careful examination I would very likely
find that the campaign of 1896 with the
various cries used in that campaign of, I
shall not say 'Hands off Manitoba,' but
certainly 'Let the provinces attend to their
own educational affairs, would have a
large bearing on it. I may be right or
I may be wrong, but with all due
deference to many gentlemen whose opinions I would value and perhaps defer to in
many other cases, I am inclined to think
that in my present attitude I am nearer to
the position of the Liberal party who swept
the county in 1896 on 'provincial rights'
than they are at the present moment. I realize of course how very subtle is the dividing
line that will at a certain point separate
minds that have been examining various
arguments and that have been up to that
time in agreement. It you take section 93
which gives exclusive rights of legislation
in regard to education to provinces and at
the same time makes an exception in favour
of minorities, it is easy to ask what is the
dominant idea. Reading it with the whole
case in view and remembering the struggles
that led up to confederation, one mind is
struck with the thought that the preservation to minorities of any privileges they
enjoyed was the most prominent feature,
the principle to be most conserved and
safeguarded even to the extent of providing
for remedial legislation if infringed upon,
To another mind the setting apart to
provinces of the exclusive right to make
laws on education is the prominent oneand that mind is impressed with the thought
that exclusiveness is the real essencethe exceptions being only limitations to the
distance to which such exclusive legislation
may go. According as you give pre-eminence to one or other of these views, will
not your whole course of thought leading
up to your final decision on the present
5195
5196
question he settled ? I can readily see how
others may take the other view. I have
followed the arguments advanced with as
much care as I can and with all the
ability that has been given me, and my
course appears to be clear. I think that
the proper course in a case of this kind
would have been when it was known beforehand that these questions would be debated
as we had fought them out on previous
occasions, to have ascertained exactly what
the constitution was in the case and to
have adhered to it, and then we would not
have had a Bill brought in that would
cause almost a mutiny in a party, that
would make it necessary to have reconsideration and a change. A decision on an appeal
to the Privy Council would have
obivated all or a great portion of the opposition that has arisen. Our constitution
being a written one can be interpreted and it
has not the elasticity of an unwritten constitution. The only elasticity that I think
our constitution has is found in such amendments as may be made by a vote of the
people on certain actions of the government and it has been claimed that the remedial
portion of our Act of 1867 has been
abrogated by the elections following 1896
which may be true. There are other questions in regard to which we may well consider.
If these new provinces are not
satisfied with the legislation we give will
they obey ? If they do not obey what will
follow? The west is impatient of restraint;
it is unwise, I think, to try to bind them too
closely. It may be that they will accept, I
hope they will. It may be these Bils will
work out well, I hope they will, but I have
a fear that possibly we are not at the end
of the trouble, but only at the beginning.
It has been urged over and over again by
members of the opposition in this House
that it would be well even yet for the government to take the step of appealing to
the
Privy Council before they put this Bill in
force. I notice in the 'Sunday World'
which is not a very good authority to
quote to the government, a statement that
there were rumours in the corridors that
such a course would be taken, that the government would yet before putting the Act
in force submit certain questions to the
Privy Council in regard to these educational
clauses. I may say that while my vote is
of no importance to the government on the
present occasion, if such a step was taken
it would enable me with very great pleasure to vote for the government on both of
these Bills. As I said the vote of a single
member in such a case is not of very much
value and importance to them, and it of
itself would not be sufiicient reason for the
government taking such action but it might
easily happen that such a course would be of
value to them in the future, throughout the
country at large and it might happen that
numbers of the Conservatives who now feel
somewhat disinclined on the constitutional
5197
MAY 1, 1905
point to support these Bills, would see their
way clear to do so.
There is an alternative presented to us,
the amendment of the leader of the oppostion (Mr. R. L. Borden). It is a question
always with a member, to what extent
he should accept an amendment, even if
certain portions or it are satisfactory. There
are portions of that amendment with which
I shall not say I find fault, but the closing
portion of it leaves some doubt as to its actual meaning; whether the closing words
are
simply a repetition of the idea conveyed
by the earlier ones or whether they are intended to be a distinct addition to the
powers given to the provisions, it is not
easy to state; it is possibly left to the
members to decide each for himself. Owing to that indefiniteness in the matter, I
feel it would be unwise on my part to support it, and therefore I shall not support
the amendment of the leader of the opposition, but I would again urge on the government,
in view of all the danger that
may come from pressing this Bill through,
to consider well and carefully the wisdom
of getting a decision of the Privy Council
on these questions.
Mr. D. DERBYSHIRE (Brockville). Mr. Speaker, in
beginning to speak on this Autonomy Bill, I feel it my duty to express
my sympathy with you who have sat through these long weary weeks listening
to this debate. It must have been a torture to you to listen to some
of these long drawn out addresses that have hardly touched the
question under discussion, listening to quotations day after day,
none of which dealt with the business under discussion, the same
attack made on both sides of the House, the same hairsplitting, the same
twisting of language to suit the object of the different speakers. I
had intended to save you the pain of listening to me on this question on
which there is now but little left to be said. After the able speech
of the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon.
leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) very little new can be said on
the question. It was natural that hon. members from the west should be
heard from as they were the people most particularly interested in
this Bill and they have expressed themselves most freely. I have been struck
with the remarkable unanimity amongst these members as to
the position they take in regard to the school question. They seem to think
that the law as it now stands is all right, that it is the best
possible system that could be inaugurated for the Northwest. I think
in such a case it would be right to incorporate this in the
constitution of the new provinces. One thing has impressed me,
Sir, very much, and that is that this discussion, although weary, has
not been in vain. We are learning more of Canada, we are realizing that every part
of this Dominion is dear to us and we are
more hopeful for Canadian
5197
5198 unity than ever before. I have always thought provincially. Ontario,
to me, has been the brightest jewel in this whole country, but after
hearing some of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec, it has
amazed me how these men can speak so eloquently in a language which is
foreign to them. It has broadened my patriotism and increased my
admiration of my fellow countrymen of the province of Quebec to know
that they have elected an English speaking Protestant as the speaker of
their legislative assembly in a province which is largely composed of
French Canadians. Nova Scotia is particularly to be envied. Solid
eighteen! What a Liberal paradise this must be and such a bunch of fine
representatives! I have had to admire a great many of the
men from the west as well. Nearly all the speakers have said that this
was the most important Bill that was ever presented to this House. Possibly
it is true, but I think, if it is not one of the most important since
confederation, it is the most remarkable. It gives to the two new provinces a constitution.
It deals with the diffcult
matter of boundaries and it makes financial arrangements for the conduct of
the business of these new provinces. It makes provision for education,
and yet such judgment has been exercised in the drafting of this Bill
and so carefully has it been worded that there has practically been no
discussion on any of the points of this Bill save on that in regard to
education. The new provinces have accepted this Bill in its entirety.
The school clauses have been endorsed by public opinion and the
reception given to the newly appointed Minister of the Interior (Mr.
Oliver) in the most important constituency between Winnipeg and the
Rocky Mountains is a most significant evidence of the feeling of
the people in the west. The receptions which have been accorded him after his election
at Calgary and Winnipeg have shown the
unanimity of the western people in connection with this Bill. I am
sure everybody will rejoice on July 1st, when these Bills are brought into
operation and the new provinces are allowed to take their
places in confederation. Let us look for a few moments at the details. The
boundaries have been marked out in a way to meet with the general
approval of the people in the west. It is true that the hon.
ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) raised some objection and that the
hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) thought that
possibly something could be done to assist the farming and ranching interest
in that section of the country. Great discretion has been shown in
leaving the northern boundaries of Saskatchewan unsettled. Had the
northern extension been made at this time endless trouble might have ensued.
As it was for political capital the Roblin—Rogers gang have plotted to
make trouble for the government in the west. They dragged the Papal
ablegate's name into the Autonomy
5199
COMMONS
Bill discussion in a way that was most diabolical. The facts have already been fully
given by the right hon. First
Minister, but they will bear repeating. Mr. Rogers begged an interview
of the government on the boundary question and afterwards published a
statement intended to lead the public to believe that he came to Ottawa at
the solicitation of the right hon. First Minister. He and
Mr. Campbell urged on the premier and his associates the extension of
Manitoba's boundaries to the westward and to Hudson bay.
Naturally they were informed that it could not possibly be done
unless the other provinces were consulted in regard to the question.
The hon. the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) was
very emphatic in the statement that no extension of their
territory should take place, and that Ontario must be heard on this important question
as it had rights in this matter. The hon.
Postmaster General insisted upon this province being heard while
Mr. Rogers, in the meantime, insisted that Ontario had no rights in
the matter. But the hon. Postmaster General, as the representative of this province,
stood firm on this question, as he always
stands on every question which is for the benefit of the country. He
withdrew from the conference and the matter was at an end. Now, the
plotting began. The Manitoba delegate waited on the Papal ablegate and got
him, no doubt at his suggestion, to put into writing his wishes in
regard to the education of the minority in the province of Manitoba. This private
document, of which the government had no
knowledge until it was made public by Mr. Rogers, was used to make
political capital in the interests of Dominion Conservatives and they made a
useless effort to lead the public to believe that they were promised
that if they would grant the wish of the ablegate their boundaries would be extended.
While all this was taking place no doubt the
delegates were thinking of the words of the Postmaster
General that no extension could take place, and also of the words of the
right hon. First Minister in introducing the Bill on February 21st
when he said that no extension could take place until the sister
provinces were consulted on this matter. The right hon.
Prime Minister at this time said that he had the authority of his colleagues
to make that announcement. The provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba
and Saskatchewan must meet here and decide on the important question of the division
of this particular territory in
the interests of all the people connected with the question. Yet, in
the light of these statements made to the Manitoba delegates in private
conference and from the floor of this House, they had the stupid
impudence to insinuate that the government were prepared to make a
crooked deal with them. Their plot had not even the merit of cleverness.
Saskatchewan has been heard from. The
5199
5200
western members who have been indifferent in regard to the school clauses, have
expressed themselves with great indignation
at the suggestion of having any part of
their territory annexed to Manitoba. In
nothing is the Autonomy Bill wiser than
in the boundary clause. Manitoba can
rest assured that justice will be done her.
The boundaries of the new provinces have
been honestly marked out; Manitoba and
Ontario will both have their boundaries
extended, and in such a way that the harmony that has been in Canada since 1896
will continue to reign under the Liberal
government for the balance of the twentieth
century. The action of the government in
regard to the lands of the Northwest shows
equally good judgment, and the decision
that the Dominion lands shall continue to
be invested in the Crown and administered
by the government of Canada for the benefit and for the purpose of Canada must
meet with universal approval. The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), the Minister
of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and the
hon. member from West Assiniboia, all of
whom are best capable of expressing themselves on this question have given their unreserved
approval to this proposal. What
Canada needs most is men and women.
Anything that will tend to check immigration of the desirable class that is now rushing
into the Northwest would be a serious
misfortune to this country. The federal
government has built up a fine immigration
policy and it is best qualified to carry it
on ; any break or change in its management might have disastrous results. Great
railways are being constructed with the
expectation that within the next ten years
the new provinces will have several millions
of people ; factories and wholesale establishments in the east have been increased
and enlarged to meet the present demands,
and in future they expect vastly greater
results. Under the proposed arrangement,
capital can rest assured that the country
will continue to grow under the wise immigration policy that was inaugurated by the
Hon. Mr. Sifton ; a policy with which the
new Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver)
is thoroughly in accord. If the lands of
the other provinces had been controlled by
the federal government with a wide awake
Minister of the Interior in charge, instead
of an increase of the population of one half
million or so for the last twenty years, the
population of the country would have increased several millions. The older provinces
are now beginning to wake up to
imitate the policy of the federal government
and a bright day is dawning. The tramp
of the host of willing workers of the right
class in all the provinces will be heard.
The action of the government with regard
to the lands of the new provinces necessitated the making of special financial
arrangements, and criticism might have
been expected with regard to this provision
5201
MAY 1, 1905
but there has been none. It is, as the
Prime Minister has said in introducing this
Bill, an extraordinary provision. It is a
sound principle of finance, he said, and a
still sounder principle of government that
those Who have the duty of expending the
revenue of the country should also be
saddled with the responsibility of levying
and of providing for it. The right hon.
gentleman deliberately departed from this
principle, but so just and reasonable are
the financial provisions for Saskatchewan
and Alberta that all criticism has been
silenced. The financial provisions have
been dealt wilth at length by the hon.
member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) by the
hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver)
and by the Minister of Finance, and any
words of mine would be mere useless repetition in connection with this question. I
fully endorsed the words of the member for
West Assinaboia when he said:
I think that as a whole, the terms which have
been granted the people of the Northwest Territories, while not over generous, are
fair.
They simply place the people of the Northwest
Territories, judging by the condition of the
other provinces, in a fair and equitable position
to carry on their affairs of local self-government.
I have touched on the question of the
boundaries, the question of the lands and
the financial provisions because I believe it
is necessary to emphasize the remarkable
character of a Bill, that even according to
its antagonists has but one vulnerable point.
And now I come to a matter of all absorbing interest: the question that has raised
so much discussion in this House, and in
Toronto—the educational clauses. Mr.
Speaker, you have heard a good deal about
section 93 of the British North America
Act; everybody has read and everybody
has heard it read many hundreds of times
in this debate. Section 93 reads:
In and for each province the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to education,
subject and according to the following provisions.
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class
of persons have by law in the province at the union.
This certainly means that these new provinces are entitled to the law as it now
stands.
Mr. DERBYSHIRE. Well, if it means anything in the world
it means that it will leave these people in exactly the same position they are in
now with regard to education, and
which position is satisfactory to them. They are not yet formed into provinces,
but in what position will these people
5201
5202 be in two weeks from now when this Bill becomes law. Will they not
have the same law they have to-day? Will they not have the same
privileges and the same rights that they have had for years past? Have you
ever before heard a word of complaint from any one in this Dominion in
connection with this educational law in the Northwest Territories ? Not a word.
It is done now for political purposes. The clauses
in this Bill make provision for confirming and continuing
the present school laws in the Northwest Territories. But. Sir,
section 93 of the British North America Act seems to get mystified the
moment some of our legal friends on the opposition benches attempt to
interpret it. Darkness seems to cover the face of the earth ; and it reminds
me of the story of the Dutchman who was traveling on the
prairies when all at once it turned awfully dark and commenced to thunder
and rain as he had never before experienced. In his dire
distress he got down on his knees and commenced to pray : O Lord, if
it is all the same to you I would like a little more light and a good deal
less noise. That is just what we want in this House of Commons to-day.
We want more light and less noise.
Mr. DERBYSHIRE. Now, Sir we have had a great many
speeches and I must say some of them were good ones, but I question the good judgment
of an hon. member standing up and
occupyng the attention of this House for two hours and hardly touching the subject
under discussion. To me, at least, it is most
tiresome. I have sat here and I have heard these hon. gentlemen reading from all
kinds of books and newspapers and hardly touching
the question at issue. I think that is a great mistake providing we
want to do business and it seems to me that we should come to this
House with the object of doing the business of the nation in the very best
way possible.
What is this system of education ? The
hon. members from the Territories say that
there is not in Canada to-day a school
system better adapted to their needs than
that established in the Northwest Territories. As has already been pointed out
more than once, these ordinances make provision for a national school system from
nine o'clock in the morning until half past
three o'clock in the afternoon. There is not
an essential element of a national school
system that is not to be found in these ordinances. Let me again call the attention
of the members of this House to the powers
of the government in relation to these
schools; for I am satisfied that if the
members of this House and the people or
Canada had an accurate knowledge of the
school laws of the Northwest Territories
which parliament is being asked to confirm,
we would not have had the agitation which
5203
COMMONS
has been going on in the country for the last month. Nor would we have had parliament
flooded with the number of petitions that have been presented to this
House. These ordinances declare that the
government shall control and manage all
schools, kindergarten, public, separate and
normal. The government have power to
make regulations for the inspection of
schools, the licensing and grading of teachers and to authorize text-books and reference
books for the use of pupils and teachers in all schools. In short, the schools of
the Northwest Territories under these ordinances are organized under the direction
of the government. The conduct of schools,
separate as well as public, must be in
accordance with the regulations laid down
by the government, and that conduct is exactly the same both in separate and public
schools from nine in the morning until half-
past three in the afternoon. From half-
past three until four o'clock religious instruction is allowed, but only such religious
instruction may be given as is permitted
or desired by the board of trustees. Not
such religious instruction as any clergyman
or priest may desire, but such as may be
desired by the board of trustees, which shall
be selected by the ratepayers of the district
each year.
The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr.
Lamont) said in his excellent address the
other evening that after nearly twenty-two
years residence in the Northwest Territories, he believed firmly that the public school
system as at present administered is the
one best suited to the needs of the country. The people of the two new provinces
are satisfied with it.
Now, Sir, if this system of education,
enacted by this parliament in 1875, and improved from time to time since by the people
themselves, to meet their requirements,
is satisfactory to the people, why should this
House not confirm this law, which has given
such general satisfaction.
Bishop Worrell, who was a clergyman of
the Church of England in the town of Brockville, and also at Kingston and Morrisburg,
delivered an address the other evening
to the St. George's Society of the city of
Halifax. The report of his speech is headed ' Be Fair and Tolerant ' and is as follows
:
Bishop Worrell, patron of the society, who
responded was greeted with applause. He esteemed it a great honour and privilege to
speak
as the representative of all Christian bodies.
As he went through Nova Scotia his eyes had
been opened as he saw her beautiful scenery
and expanding industries. He humorously referred to the snow blockades and muddy streets.
Best of all he had met the grand sons of Nova
Scotia and he felt satisfied now that this little
province does produce great men, and he only
regretted that his parents did not permit him
to be born in Nova Scotia. He eloquently referred to the growth of the Canadian spirit
and
the development of the imperial idea, looking to
5203
5204
the time when we shall have an imperial federation. But we must remember that here
in
Canada our varying elements must be blended
together in the common interests of the mother
country.
We have in Canada a composite race and, as
in England, the Norman and Celtic blended, so
in Canada the maple leaf will be the brightest
when it is seen to grow not only from the rose,
the thistle and the shamrock, but from the lily
of France. (Applause.) Let us remember that
we must have the spirit of give and take, the
spirit of respecting the consciences and convictions of all Canadians and we would
make a
great mistake if we would cause friction to
grow between the different nationalities of this
great country. Referring to Empire Day he
said we should teach our children in the Christian faith. The little churches have
been the
strength of England and have made British fair-
play, which is after all the principle of Christ
known the world over. (Applause).
I think these are grand sentiments.
What is the trouble with the opposition
anyway ? Shortly after this Bill was introduced, the hon. member for South York (Mr.
W. F. Maclean) moved the adjournment of
this House from day to day, looking wild,
and shouting, threatening the stopping of
supplies, and winding up loudly by wanting a Minister of the Interior at once, and
I am glad to inform the hon. gentleman
that we have one, and he will be here tomorrow. The hon. member for South York
also wanted the Minister of Public Works
in his place. We all regret the cause of
the hon. Minister of Public Works' absence,
and trust that he will soon be restored to
his usual good health and resume his usual
place, which he has filled with so much acceptance. But in the meantime no loss is
sustained to this House or the country
when we have such an able acting minister
doing the work ; and if anything should
happen that the city of London is opened,
you will find the intelligent electors returning Mr. Hyman by a larger majority
than he ever had before. In fact, I am
prepared to bet that he would be. The hon.
member for South York wound up by imploring the hon. the Postmaster General to
resign his place, and run him a race in
North York or challenging the acting Minister of Public Works to resign, or the government
to open any constituency in the
west in order that the renowned editor of
the ' World ' might bare his scalping knife
and wound the government by politically
killing any opponent that might rashly stand
before him. We find, however, that this
John Alexander Dowie, of the House of
Commons, is brave only in words, and that
his most brilliant efforts are for flaming
headlines in his little paper, which after all
exerts no greater influence in the moulding
of thought of the intelligent people of Ontario, than the hon. member himself, exerts
in this House.
Another remarkable address was delivered in this House, that delivered by my hon.
friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor). No one, I
5205
MAY 1, 1905
think, will accuse my hon. friend of
modesty after having listened as carefully
as I did to the speech he made. But I wish
to say, lest some hon. member should be led
astray, that my esteemed friend is an honest business man of more than ordinary
ability, who has been and is now successful in commercial matters, but politically
I
think he is warped. In fact, as one gentleman told me, our friend is so politically
bent that rain coming down straight will
not touch him. His story about the Hon.
Mr. Tarte going to Winnipeg in 1896 to settle
the school question with the Greenway government, getting Joe Martin a $10,000 job,
appointing the Hon. Mr. Preudergast to the
Supreme Court Bench, getting the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) to fix all
these fellows up and giving him as compensation the management of the Department
of the Interior free from all restraint, and
having it so arranged that he could make
two million dollars in eight years—all this
was possibly one of my hon. friend's greatest efforts and shows what a fruitful imagination
he enjoys. But he made one
great omission in that address of his. He
forgot to state—and I find it difficult to account for the omission—that the educational
clauses of this Bill were prepared in Rome,
and that the Pope's representative was sent
with them to this country with instructions
to have the right hon. the leader of the
government introduce them into this House.
If those details had been added to his speech,
it would have been complete and have been
a most wonderful piece of fiction.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton
and Victoria, N.S. (Mr. D. D. McKenzie)
and the hon. member for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) delivered carefully prepared
speeches from a legal standpoint. I
was very much impressed with their addresses and also with that of my hon. friend
from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). From a
legal standpoint, I think they were possibly
the best addresses I have heard; and after
studying all these, I feel prouder than ever
of my right hon. friend, the leader of this
House. I believe that he was standing on
the rock of the constitution in 1896 when
he would not allow Manitoba to be coerced,
and I think he is standing on the same firm
ground in continuing to the new provinces
the school system which is so satisfactory
to the people interested.
In conclusion I feel it my duty to state here
clearly why I am going to vote for this Bill.
I do so because I believe that the boundaries of the new provnces are wisely marked
out and that the government showed great
judgment in leaving the nothern extension
of Saskatchewan unsettled and allowing
Manitoba and the other provinces interested
to have a final say in the adjustment of this
great question. I do so because I am convinced that the action of the government on
the land question is a wise one and that
their action on the school question is in no
5205
5206
way contrary to the spirit and intention of
the British North America Act of 1867. I
approve of the government's policy because
the financial clauses are in my opinion just,
generous and satisfactory to these young
giants of the west. I approve of this Bill
because it is in the best interests of Canada
as a whole that the public lands of the new
provinces should remain the property of
Canada. I endorse this measure because
the rights of the minority are protected by
it and because I believe that the school
clauses, over which there has been so much
bitter debate, will in the end be found beneficial to Canadian unity, to which, as
my
hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Parmelee)
pointed out the other day, the First Minister has consecrated his life. This Bill,
in
my opinion, is the crowning glory of the
right hon. gentleman's political career. At
length Canada is a united country from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, and we have now
from end to end of this great Dominion a
confederation of practically self-governing
provinces. The cope stone has been placed
on our union, and the last provinces admitted are coming in under the most favourable
circumstances, because we know, from
the reports daily coming to us from the
west, that the people of these new provinces
will appreciate the generous treatment they
are receiving at the hands of this government, and the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier
will shine as one of the very brightest in
Canadian history. It will go down to posterity as the name of a man revered, trusted
and loved for his courage, wisdom and integrity and who stands to-day, as he has
always stood, for everything that is in the
best interests of the Canadian people.
Mr. RUDOLPHE FORGET (Charlevoix). I do not intend, Mr.
Speaker, to detain the attention of the House more than a few minutes,
because I think the discussion on this Bill has been already too long for
the good it has done in the country. In fact it has done much harm.
The bad feeling which was created some ten years ago, when somewhat
similar legislation was introduced into this House, had all been
forgotten, but I am sorry to say it has all been revived
by some members of the government who initiated the agitation
which has since been kept up by hon. members on this side. This
agitation has done no good to our country but considerable harm. By
some members it has been kept up, I believe, through fanaticism.
Others have been inspired, I think, by ignorance. Some others have
been moved both by ignorance and fanaticism, but I think the majority of
them were actuated by the idea of ousting the government from office
and getting in themselves. Such political tactics I cannot approve. I
was not elected to this parliament to support any such policy :
and rather than do so I would prefer to remain in opposition all my
life. I was sent here,
5207
COMMONS
like all the other members, with the view of
working for the progress, prosperity and advantage of our country and of
thereby making a nation of our people ; and it is not by talking
religion for eight weeks or by exciting French against English or Catholics against
Protestants or province against province that
we can do this. In my opinion, the best way to promote unity and
harmony and good feeling and everything that goes to make a
strong, prosperous and united nation is to respect each others
honest convictions both in religion and politics. Much has
been said here of the imaginary bigotry and fanaticism of the
province of Quebec. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was born in the
province of Quebec, I have lived there all my life, and I have come in daily
contact with English Protestants for the last thirty years in all
kinds of business. And I can say sincerely that in all my relations with my fellow
citizens and theirs with me, difference in religion
has never entered as an element and has never interfered within our
good understanding of each other. In the province of Quebec we have in
that sense no nationality and no religion and we never talk of religion.
Mr. FORGET. My hon. friend may laugh, but I repeat what
I say. We are there all Canadians in spirit as well as in fact. In the
city of Montreal, where seventy-five per cent of the population are French
speaking and seven-eights Catholics, we elect an English
Protestant mayor every two years. In the legislature of the province of
Quebec we have an English Protestant speaker and our
provincial treasurer, whose portfolio is the most important in the
cabinet from my point of view, is an English-speaking man. I
have seen as many as three English Protestant ministers out of seven
in the Quebec cabinet. More than that, there is at present in the Quebec
legislature an English Protestant, a resident of Nova
Scotia, representing a French Canadian constituency in that province. I see
on this side of the House and on the other side, English-speaking
Protestants of Ontario representing French Canadian counties in
the province of Quebec. In the legislative council of Quebec
the English Protestants again have more than they are entitled to. It is
so in the city council of Montreal, it is so in the house of assembly
of Quebec. So far as education is concerned, if you go into our
Catholic schools, our Catholic convents, our Catholic universities, you will
find a great number of English Protestant children being
educated there.
I said I would not detain the House very
long. But before sitting down I have to announce that it is my intention to vote
against the amendment of the hon. leader
of the opposition. I have a great admiration for that hon. gentleman, but I am afraid
he has made a mistake this time. Not only
5207
5208
shall I vote against the amendment, but I
shall vote in favour of the Bill. I approve
of the creation of these two new provinces.
Some hon. members have said they would
prefer to see only one province. I think
that in creating only one province we would
have been creating a Dominion within the
Dominion, because that province would be
unduly large. I also approve of the settlement of the land question, because those
Territories were purchased by the money
of the Dominion, they were developed by
the money of the whole Dominion. The
Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed
by the aid of money from the whole Dominion for the purpose of developing those Territories.
The present government is doing
the same thing with regard to the Grand
Trunk Pacific, borrowing money on the
credit of all the provinces in order to develop those Territories. Millions have been
spent on immigration, money that was taken
from the Dominion treasury in order to develop those Territories. They are now without
any debt, they are getting a good subsidy to set them going. The federal government,
by keeping control of the lands,
will be able to idemnify, directly or indirectly, the other provinces for their expenditure
in developing the Northwest. These
lands will constitute the finest asset of
the Dominion of Canada. Within ten
years, probably, these lands will be worth
hundreds of millions of dollars. Why should
we leave them to these provinces which have
been developed with the money of the whole
country?
So far as the school question is concerned,
I would like to have seen the same system
established in the Northwest as we have in
Ontario and Quebec. I would have liked to
see that system in every province in the
Dominion of Canada. But as our Catholic
minority cannot expect to get that from the
generosity of the majority, we must take
what we can get. I have no doubt the
Prime Minister and some of his colleagues
have got all they could out of the majority
of the cabinet. I have no doubt they worked
very hard to get more. I am willing to accept what they have got, trusting that in
the near future one of those provinces will
have a majority of Catholics. That time
may come in ten years, and then we shall
see in which of those two provinces the
rights of the minority will be best respected.
I trust that the spirit of British fair play
which is now being stifled by a portion of
the Ontario press and some of the Ontario
members will assert itself some day and
give justice to the minorities in the Northwest.
Motion agreed to.
This individual participated in:
