PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the
proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for
the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of
the
province of Alberta, and the amendment of
Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue). Mr. Speaker, I desire to
express my deep gratitude to the House
that I have the opportunity of taking part
in such an important discussion as the one
now going on. We must all feel gratified
that this debate has been carried on in such
a manner that the citizens of Canada must
feel proud of this parliament. In fact, we
have not heard throughout the whole debate
any expression which could hurt the feelings
of any member of this House. The debate
has been carried on in a dignified way, and
I will try, in the few remarks which I intend
to offer, to follow the example set by those
who have preceded me. The first question which we have to consider is whether
we should create new provinces in the
Northwest, and, if so, what constitution we
should give to those provinces. The unanimous feeling in this House is in favour of
granting provincial autonomy to the Northwest. It has been suggested that we should
have only one province instead of two ;
but generally the opinion of the members
is strongly in favour of the creation of two
provinces. Now, what constitution should
we give to those provinces ? On that
question there has been some difference of
opinion, especially with regard to the school
question, and I will try to give the reasons
why I think the educational clauses of the
Bill, as amended should be supported by the
members of this House. The hon. leader of
the opposition the other day, at page 3096
of ' Hansard,' spoke as follows :
If my hon. friend is able to show me that
there is, in respect of those proposed provisions, any such compact as that which
was
made before confederation between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, I will then
readily accept his illustration.
The illustration referred to was to the
effect that since Ontario and Quebec have
their separate schools, the new provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan should not be
denied that privilege. We see, therefore,
that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has declared that if we can establish
a compact or agreement with regard to
separate schools in the Northwest such as
there was with regard to schools in the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec, he is
ready to concede that separate schools
should be established in the new provinces
we are now creating. Well, Mr. Speaker, in
my opinion, there was a formal agreement
and compact by virtue of which separate
schools were to be established in the North
5211
5212
west Territories. I shall prove this by referring to what occurred in 1869 and 1870,
and that consequently the parliament of
Canada is to-day bound to give separate
schools to the new provinces. I need not
refer to the treaties which were passed between England and France in 1763, because
those treaties cannot be called upon to establish any rights or privileges with regard
to
the Northwest Territories. We know very
well that Rupert's Land or the Northwest
Territories were under the sovereignty of
England for more than two centuries. We
know very well that they were under the
laws and constitution of England from 1670
to 1870, when they were brought under the
control of the Canadian government. We
well recollect that in 1869 or 1870 there was
a disturbance in the Northwest. The Canadian government, without having the necessary
authority, sent up some persons to
that country to take possession of it. At
that time there was no law which had been
passed by the British parliament, there was
no proclamation issued by the British parliament, handing this territory over to the
Canadian government. However, the Canadian government took upon itself to send
people up there to exercise the sovereign
power. An agitation and disturbance ensued, and a very serious agitation it was indeed.
The imperial government then tried
by all means to adjust the differences of
opinion which existed at that time between
the settlers of the west and the Canadian
government. Lord Granville, then Colonial
Secretary, sent a despatch to Sir John
Young, then Governor General of Canada,
in 1869, and Sir John Young wrote to Governor McTavish, of the Territories, a letter
in which he transmitted the despatch from
Lord Granville. Speaking of that despatch
from Lord Granville, Sir John Young used
the following language ,
The message conveys the matured opinion of
the imperial cabinet. The proclamation I have
issued is based upon it, and you will observe
that it requests all who have desires to express or complaints to make, be referred
to me
as invested with authority on behalf of the
British government, to the inhabitants of Rupert's Land ; and all classes of persuasion
may rest assured that Her Majesty has no
intention of interfering with, or setting aside,
or allowing others to interfere with the religion and rights and the franchise hitherto
enjoyed.
Thus we find, in the words of that letter
from Sir John Young, the representative of
the imperial government in Canada, that all
the rights and privileges enjoyed by the
settlers of the Northwest Territories were to
be continued. Sir John Young at the same
time issued a proclamation to the settlers,
in which he said :
I do, therefore, assure vou that in the union
with Canada all your civil rights and religious
rights and privileges will be respected.
5213 MAY 2, 1905
At the request, both of the imperial government and the Canadian government,
Archbishop Taché, who was then in Rome,
came back to Canada for the purpose of
inducing his people to come willingly under
the control of the Canadian confederation.
In a book which he published some years
ago on this school question, Archbishop
Taché quotes a personal letter from Sir John
Young, in which Sir John Young said, in
substance, that his people may be assured
their rights and privileges will be maintained. That is not all. We find that after
Archbishop Taché went to the Northwest, a
delegation was sent from the settlers of that
country to Ottawa to confer with the Canadian government and the Governor General,
Sir John Young. Those settlers presented a
Bill of Rights covering the demands which
they intended to make upon the Dominion
government. Among other things, they asked the Canadian government that the
privileges which they had hitherto enjoyed should be continued. More than that.
Let me call special attention to this fact,
because it shows what was the agreement
and contract then entered into. The imperial
and Canadian governments had both been
asking the settlers to formulate their demands, to mention what they wanted in connection
with the establishment of Canadian
authority in their country. The representatives of these settlers came to Ottawa,
and among the demands they made is the
following, which we find in article 7 of their
Bill of Rights:
That the public money for schools be distributed among the different religious institutions
in proportion to the number of people belonging
to the same creed, according to the system established in the province of Quebec.
So we see that the representatives of the
settlers came to the government here and
asked that a system of separate schools
should be established in the Northwest
similar to that in the province of Quebec.
And I may add that the governor, Sir John
Young, afterwards telegraphed to Lord
Granville the Secretary of State for the
Colonies : ' Negotiations with delegates close
satisfactorily.' And Lord Granville answered expressing satisfaction. Archbishop
Taché, one of those engaged in these negotiations states that it was understood that
the rights and privileges of the minority
should be respected and that there should
be separate schools in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. SPROULE. What Bill of Rights is
the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) quoting ? Â
Mr. SPROULE. Of the fourth Bill of
Rights? The authenticity of that Bill of
Rights is disputed.
5213
5214
Mr. BRODEUR. I do not know whether it has been disputed or not. But I know that the man who brought
down this Bill of Rights to Ottawa swore in court, in the case of Lepine, that this
Bill of Rights was genuine. And if my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) goes to the library
he will find that this Bill of Rights is included in the papers brought down to parliament
at that time. More than that, Lord Stratheona, a man whose word we cannot dispute,
a man honourable in every respect, and one connected with these negotiations, -having
been sent by this government to induce the settlers of the Northwest to accept the
situation-says, as will be found in the House of Commons 'Debates,' 1896, page 4137:
It is true that not much was said about
schools at that time, but it was distinctly understood by the people there, and the
promise
was made to these people that they would have
every privilege in joining Canada, which they
possessed at that time.
Is there anything plainer, anything surer,
than that there was a compact at that time,
by which separate schools should be maintained in the Northwest ?
Mr. SPROULE. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur), but,
with his permission, I would like to ask
him a question. If I understand him correctly, he says that these settlers were to
continue to enjoy every privilege they then
had. What privilege which they enjoyed
then has been denied them since ?
Mr. BRODEUR. I do not say that these
privileges have been absolutely denied. At
the same time, in certain parts of the Northwest, they have been denied. Perhaps in
the Northwest they have not gone so far
as to destroy entirely the separate schools,
but they have certainly to a large extent
decreased the privileges which the minority
enjoy with regard to separate schools.
Mr. SPROULE. They did not have any
privileges of separate schools, therefore that
privilege has not been taken from them.
Mr. BRODEUR. My hon. friend (Mr.
Sproule) is entirely mistaken, they had privileges with regard to separate schools.
Is
it not perfectly clear that they had voluntary
schools in the Northwest at that time ?
Mr. BRODEUR. Were not these schools,
where Catholics, controlled by the Catholics,
and where Protestants controlled by the
Protestants? And let me put this question.
to my friend : Is it not true that the authority then exercising rights of sovereignty
in
the Northwest Territories, the Hudson Bay
Company, was giving a share of money
to these schools whether Catholic or Protestant ?
Mr. SPROULE. May I remind the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) that what the peo
5215 COMMONS
ple had were voluntary schools, and that
the decision of the Privy Council with regard to the Manitoba case was that these
people were not to be denied any right
which they had in the church schools, voluntary schools. And that is clear, for they
could have those schools today.
Mr. BRODEUR. There is one fact which
cannot be disputed,—that the Catholics had
their schools which they controlled, and
the Protestants had their schools which
they controlled. The people in the west
were afraid that these rights would be
taken away from them, and so they showed
hesitation in accepting the terms of union.
At last there was a promise made by the
imperial government and by the Canadian
government, and by Lord Strathcona, who
had been sent out there to settle the difficulty, that these rights and privileges
would
be continued ;—that is to say, Catholics
would have the right to their schools and
Protestants to their schools. My hon. friend
(Mr. Sproule) will not deny, I suppose, that
the delegates who came from the west were
recognized by the Dominion government. In
fact, the cable which was sent by Sir John
Young, to Lord Granville, the Secretary of
State for the colonies, recognizes them as
such ; and more than that, I am informed
that the expenses of these delegates on their
journey to Ottawa were paid by the Canadian government. So. Mr. Speaker, there
was a formal agreement, a formal compact
by which these rights and privileges, should
continue to be exercised by the Protestants
and Catholics of the Northwest. There is
no doubt about that. And, now that we are
called upon to give autonomy to the Northwest Territories, some elements in this
country would have the government and
parliament not carry out the promise which
was made to the minority by the imperial
government, by the Canadian government
and by Lord Strathcona. Sir, the government of this country will not commit such
an injustice; we will not go back on the
promise which was made in 1869-70. The
government of this country will give the
minority their rights which were guaranteed
to them by the promise then made, the
rights which they enjoy under the constitution.
While on the subject of compacts, and
before dealing with the constitutional aspect
of the question, I would like to say a word
or two with regard to the compact with the
other provinces. I noticed a few days ago
in the Toronto 'News,' a statement which
has been made time and again in the course
of this controversy. The Toronto 'News'
is a newspaper of great importance, but one
which, perhaps, in this agitation, has not
done its duty to the country as it should
have done. The Toronto 'News' has said
that the compact with regard to separate
schools was one which affected only the
provinces of Quebec and Ontario and not
the others. Mr. Speaker. I am here to as
5215
5216
sert that there was a compact with regard
to separate schools not only in connection
with Ontario and Quebec but in connection
with the other provinces which formed the
union or might later enter the union. Now.
what is the history of section 93 of the
British North America Act, 1867 ? There
was a conference at Quebec in 1864, attended by representatives of Upper Canada,
Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. After
discussing the question of confederation for several days, the delegates
came to the conclusion that the educational
laws should be under the control of the legislatures of the several provinces. saving
the rights and privileges which the minority
in Upper and Lower Canada might enjoy.
It is true that the compact then applied
only to those two provinces, it is true that
the compact then simply embraced Quebec
and Ontario. But I am going to show, and
I am going to put before this House conclusive evidence, that the compact later
on was extended to all the provinces, not
only to those which had entered into confederation, but to those which would come
in later on. What have we then? Immediately after the Quebec conference, Mr.
Galt, then representing the Protestant minority of Quebec, made a speech in Sherbrooke
in which he said :
It is clear that in confining the general subject of education to the local legislatures,
it is
absoluntely necessary that it should be accompanied with such restrictions as shall
prevent
injustice in any respect from being done to the
minority.
Now this applied to Lower Canada, but it
also applied and with equal force to Upper
Canada and the other provinces.
The same privileges belong to the one of
right here as belong to the other of right elsewhere. There could not be greater injustice
to a. population than to compel them to have
their children educated in a manner contrary
to their own religious belief.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we find this gentleman
representing the Protestant minority of Quebec, saying that the compact should not
only
cover the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
but should cover also the other provinces,
and especially the provinces of New Bruns-
to a population than to compel them to have
wick and Nova Scotia. But the negotiations
did not stop there, there was something
more. What was done? After the conference
at Quebec, the negotiations went to London.
they had a conference in London, and my
hon. friend will find at page 98 of Pope's
Confederation Documents, that the following provinces were represented in London :
Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. They discussed the question of
confederation, and the way in which the Bill
which was to be introduced into the imperial parliament should be drafted. What
occurred then ? When they came to discuss
section 43 of the Quebec conference, we find
5217 MAY 2, 1905
that Mr. Galt moved an amendment, which
is to be found in the same book at page 112 ;
we find this amendment moved, not by a
Catholic, but by the representative Protestant of the minority of Quebec :
And in any province where a system of separate or dissenstient schools by law obtains,
or
where the local legislature may hereafter
adopt—
Notice that, Mr. Speaker, not in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario alone, as we
have so often heard it declared in this House
and outside.
Where a system of separate or dissentient
schools by law. obtains, or where the local
legislature may hereafter adopt a system of
separate or dissentient schools, an appeal shall
lie to the Governor in Council of the general
government from. the Acts and decisions of the
local authorities which may affect the rights or
privileges of the Protestant or Catholic minority in the matter of education. And
the
general parliament shall have power in the
last resort to legislate on the subject.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we find in the same
book and on the same page a facsimile of
the motion which was made by Mr. Galt, in
the handwriting of Mr. Galt, which motion
proves that Mr. Galt wanted the compact
with regard to separate schools extended so
as to apply not only to Quebec and Ontario,
but to all the provinces, not only to the provinces which were then in existence,
not
only to Quebec, Ontario. New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia, but also to those provinces
which might come in later and form part
of the confederation. What then happened,
Mr. Speaker ? We are told that the compact existed only between Quebec and Ontario.
Well, Sir, we find in the handwriting
of Sir John A. Macdonald. in the same fac.simile to which I have just alluded, that
there
was a vote taken on the question whether
these powers with regard to separate schools
should be extended to all the provinces.
that is to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
others which might come in: there was a
vote taken, and we find the result stated in
the handwriting of Sir John A. Macdonald.
a document which was found among his
papers after his death. by his then secretary, Mr. Joseph Pope, and this is how it
reads :
Nova Scotia votes, yes : New Brunswick
votes, yes ; Canada votes, yes.
So, Mr. Speaker, the agreement did not
cover only the two provinces but it covered
all the provinces which then entered into the
union, and the provinces which should be
created in the future.
Mr. SPROULE. Might I ask the hon.
member this question ? These were the
delegates who went home after the resolutions were submitted to the parliament here
and accepted by that parliament. and after
the most emphatic assurance was given by
the Attorney General of Canada here that
5217
5218
the delegates would bring back no Bill but
one which was exactly in accord with the
resolutions. Then that amendment was made
in England, but it was not assented to by
the parliament of Canada except in so far as
the representatives of those provinces were
satisfied and assented to it.
Mr. BRODEUR. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am
sorry to see that my hon. friend wishes to
deny this agreement. This is an important
question, one to which I am sure he has
given much attention, and I am surprised to
hear him express the opinion that those
who made that agreement in England were
not authorized to do so. Will he say for one
moment that Sir Charles Tupper was not
authorized to speak for his province of Nova
Scotia ? Will he say that Sir Samuel
Leonard Tilley did not represent his province of New Brunswick. and was not
authorized to do what he did on that occasion ? Will he say that Sir John A. Macdonald,
that Sir George Etienne Cartier
were in error, and did not carry out the promises which they made to this country
?
Mr. SPROULE. I will say this, if the hon.
gentleman will allow me to say it, that when
the question arose in the Canadian
parliament as to whether the Bill, after it had
passed the imperial parliament, should or
should not be submitted to the Canadian
parliament, an amendment was moved that
it should be submitted, and it was claimed
as; a reason for that amendment that laws
were often brought back from the imperial
parliament that did not exactly accord with
the resolutions that were made and carried
by the Canadian parliament, and that therefore it was necessary to review these laws
and ascertain whether they were exactly in
accord with the resolutions. In opposition
to that amendment Sir George E. Cartier
was the one who spoke on behalf of the government, and declared that he would bring
back no law but one which was exactly the
same as the resolutions.
Mr. BRODEUR. I think my hon. friend is
entirely mistaken as to that. He reminds
me of something which I have read somewhere, that it was perfectly understood between
Mr. Galt, Sir George E. Cartier and
Sir John A. Macdonald that when they went
to England they would see that the Protestant minority in Quebec was absolutely protected.
and would receive special power to
dispose of their money and control the administration of their schools. I think my
hon. friend must remember that. Therefore
it was not understood that those Quebec
resolutions should be embodied in a law
passed in England in precisely the same
form as they were passed here. No, there
was a conference de novo, the delegates of
each province united together. discussed the
question and they came to the conclusion, a
conclusion which cannot be denied. that the
compact in regard to separate schools should
5219
COMMONS
apply not only to both Canadas but to all
all the provinces—the provinces which were
then entering confederation as well as the
provinces which would come later on into
the confederation.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question? Is he making the
point that there is something in this compact which was not embodied in the British
North America Act, or does he conceive that everything in this compact made
at London was embodied in the British
North America Act? What is the point?
Mr. BRODEUR. I have not discussed
the British North America Act so far. I
have simply been speaking of the compact
which was existing and answering the assertion that has been made almost every
day in some of the papers that the compact was only in regard to Quebec and
Ontario and did not affect the other provinces.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What I would like
to know is if the hon. gentleman contends
that in this compact to which he has just
referred and which was made in London,
there is anything which was not embodied
in the British North America Act ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well then you have
every thing in the British North America
Act.
Mr. BRODEUR. I do not think my hon.
friend has understood exactly. It is probably my fault; it is probably my mistake;
I speak so badly that perhaps I have been
misunderstood by my hon. friend. The
point which I wanted to make is this, that
it has been asserted time and again in the
papers, for instance in the Toronto ' News'
of the 1st April, that the compact had reference purely and simply to both Canadas.
That has been asserted almost every day.
I wanted to prove by the book which I
have just quoted and by the motion which
was made by Sir Alexander Galt and
which was assented to by the delegates
from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that
a system of separate schools should not
only be maintained in the provinces which
were then entering the union, but that a
system of separate schools should be maintained that was later on, even after confederation,
embodied in the laws and that
future provinces in consequence should be
bound also to maintain a system of separate schools Whether they should establish
these separate schools at the union or
whether they should establish them later
on. That has been embodied in the British
North America Act and that is the reason
why I am surprised that papers that want
5219
5220
to inflame public opinion in all parts of the
country are always repeating the story
that the compact was simply in regard to
the two provinces. I have proved that the
compact affected all the provinces in the
Dominion.
Now, before I discuss the constitutional
question my hon. friend, the leader of the
opposition, will probably forgive me if I
discuss for a moment or two the amendment which he has moved and which we
have now to consider. I have read this
amendment over several times and I have
had some difficulty in making up my mind
as to its exact meaning. Perhaps it is my
mistake. I am sure it is my mistake, because my hon. friend certainly wanted to
put before the House a concrete motion embodying perfectly his views and ideas. I
will read the amendment again in order to
find out whether, with the help of my hon.
friend, I will be able to understand exactly its meaning. It says:
Upon the establishment of a province in the
Northwest Territories of Canada, as proposed
by Bill (No. 69), the legislature of such province—
Here are the words which I do not understand exactly.
—subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America. Acts,
1867
to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full
powers of provincial self-government, including power to exclusively make laws in
relation to education.
I understand perfectly well the latter
part, that the provincial legislature shall
have the right, if this amendment carries,
to exclusively make laws in relation to
education. Does it mean, however, Mr.
Speaker, that these laws shall be subject
to section 93 of the British North America
Act? Does it mean that the provincial
legislature shall have the right to exclusively make laws in regard to education,
and that at the same time these laws should
be submitted to the federal parliament control under section 93 of the British North
America Act? That is the point which I have
not been able to understand. It is true, as I
have said, that my hon. friend is very clear
in the latter part of his amendment, but
he does not seem to be so clear in the qualification which he gives to these powers.
What does he mean by 'subject to and in
accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act"? Does he mean
that section 93 will apply or does he mean
that section 93 shall not apply as far as
education is concerned? I would like to
put to him a question to know exactly whether I understand the exact meaning of
his amendment. Suppose that his amendment should carry, suppose the legislature
of the province of Saskatchewan should
pass a law creating separate schools—could
this legislature vary, or decrease, or abolish
these separate schools? I do not know
5221 MAY 2, 1905
whether my hon. friend understands the
question I have just put?
Mr. BRODEUR. Yes. The question
which I want to ask is this: Suppose the
legislature of Saskatchewan to-morrow
should pass a law establishing separate
schools—I am supposing that this motion
carries, and that the legislature, acting upon it, will pass a law to-morrow establishing
separate schoolswould the legislature
be entitled afterwards to abolish those separate schools, or to repeal the law?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If the legislatures
of the provinces were given full authority
in respect to education, of course, they
would be permitted to abolish separate
schools. They would have the authority to
abolish them. As to whether or not there
would be any remedy by an appeal to the
executive and to this parliament would
bear upon the question as to whether the
4th subsection of section 93 had application to the new provinces, when you apply
the constitution to these new provinces, not
being provinces in the first instance but
coming in as Territories.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I assure my hon.
friend that I am trying to answer him and
I think my answer is quite as plain as his
question.
Mr. BRODEUR. I will repeat my question in order to be fully understood. If
this motion of my hon. friend passes and
the legislature of Saskatchewan is organized. immediately after the organization—
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Just one moment.
I must ask my hon. friend to be definite.
Organized under what kind of legislation?
Mr. BRODEUR. Suppose the amendment should carry and it should be declared that :
—subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Acts,
1867
to 1886,— Â
The legislature—
—is entitled to and should enjoy full powers
of provincial self-government, including power
to exclusively make laws in relation to education.
And that the legislature had established
separate schools protecting the rights of the
5221
5222
minority, would the legislature have the
right to repeal that law. and if it did repeal
the law would, this parliament be entitled
to pass remedial legislation?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The legislature
would undoubtedly be entitled to repeal the
law just the same as the legislature of
Manitoba was entitled to repeal the law
which had been passed after Manitoba came
into confederation.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I suppose, so far as
that is concerned, if you apply the constitution of Canada it depends on whether subsection
4 would apply. If my hon. friend
had been careful enough to read my speech
he would have seen that I had already pronounced an opinion on that and he need
not have asked me the question. I said that
in my opinion, the application of subsection
1 might give the answer as to the application of subsection 4, and I thought subsection
1 would not apply to conditions existing
in the Territories. Some hon. gentlemen on
this side of the House have not taken that
view, and most hon. gentlemen on the other
side have taken precisely the opposite view.
That is a point on which I do not pretend to
have a very strong opinion. I have not considered it very carefully. My proposition
was simply to apply the constitution of Canada as contained in the Acts of 1867, 1871
and 1886 to these new provinces. I was prepared and am prepared to abide by the result
of the application of that constitution.
But in any event. I would point out to my
hon. friend that the question of remedial
legislation could not be one of very great
importance in his opinion, because, if the
minority in the provinces would apply for
remedial legislation, undoubtedly my hon.
friend and his leader would oppose it in the
future just as they did in 1896.
Mr. BRODEUR. My hon. friend (Mr. R.
L. Borden) has not given me a very definite
answer and I think I can go a little further
and ask him: leaving aside what the
judges may decide in the future, whether
in his own opinion he is ready to declare
that the minority will have the right to
remedial legislation under the circumstances
which I have mentioned. The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) proposes to make
the law now ; he should know exactly what
he intends in making that law and he must
be in a position to declare whether that law
will be sufficient or not.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I told my hon.
friend already—why does he ask me to repeat it—that in my opinion subsection 1
certainly does not apply. That surely is the
important question.
5223 COMMONS
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Subsection 1 as I
understand it gives the key note. I believe
that subsection 1 would not apply to territories coming in under legislation of the
character I asked for in my resolution, and
I thought also that subsections 3 and 4
might be governed by the considerations affecting subsection 1.
Mr. BRODEUR. I think my hon. friend
is absolutely mistaken because While subsection 2 may not apply subsections 3 and
4
might apply.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I concede that, and
the hon gentleman may be right; but
my hon. friend asked me for my opinion and
I stated there was a dilference of opinion
in the House on the subject. I was simply
giving my own opinion with regard to the
matter and with every deference to the
opinions of hon. gentlemen in this House
who differ from me. I could not do any
more than give my opinion in reply to his
question, and I think I have given it with
sufficient clearness. I have a strong opinion about subsection 1. but not a strong
opinion about subsections 3 and 4. The
question is not the same.
Mr. BRODEUR. I am not yet absolutely
satisfied that my hon. friend has answered
my question. I thought that when be undertook to propose this law he should be in
a
position to tell us whether remedial legislation would apply or would not apply. For
my part I believe it is the duty of this
parliament to decide to-day what is the
law and what should be the law.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. As my hon. friend
is in a questioning mood I would like to put
him a question. Does he mean that this
parliament can decide any matter of that
kind by assuming powers which it may be
found eventually not to possess ?
Mr. BRODEUR. I will be in a position in
a few moments to discuss that phase of the
question.
Mr. BRODEUR. I am here to assert that
I consider this parliament has the right. I
cannot be certain whether the future will
agree with me or not. but I assert here that
this parliament has today the right to decide what the law should be with regard
to separate schools in the Northwest. I
go further than my hon. friend does.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The only difference
Is that I am not quite so cock sure as my
hon. friend is.
Mr. BRODEUR. Then I stand in a
better position than does my hon. friend,
and the government stands in a better
position than he .does because the government have decided as to its course
While my hon. friend does not seem to
be able to decide what is the meaning of
5223
5224
his amendment. I may be mistaken, but I
do say here that if under the amendment of
the leader of the oppostion, remedial legislation does not apply, then it is the most
unjust proposition which has ever been
brought before the parliament of this country. In view of the agreements which I
have just quoted. in view of the agreement
which was made in London in 1867, in view
of the agreement which was made with
regard to the schools in the Northwest in
1869, I say that we should be in a position
now to declare whether we shall guarantee
the rights and privileges which the minority
should enjoy in this country; that we
should not leave it to the future to decide
what shall be the position of the minority,
but that we shall be brave enough to say
to them: here is the law under which you
shall live.
Mr. BORDEN. May I ask my hon. friend
one question. Does he attach importance
to the remedial legislation which is provided for by subsection 4 ?
Mr. BRODEUR. Certainly I attach a
great deal of importance to it, and for the
reason that if the legislature should establish separate schools in the Northwest
Territories and if it should afterwards abolish
these separate schools. then this parliament
would have the right to disallow that law
as it should have the right to disallow a
law so unjust.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Might I ask one
more question ? Does he understand that
the minority in Manitoba have their full
rights today ?
Mr. BRODEUR. We are not discussing
the Manitoba Bill. we are discussing the
Northwest Territories Bill and we find on
this side of the House a party which stands
for a definite position. and on the other side
we have a party which is divided against
itself.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Do I understand
that my hon. friend declines to answer that
very disconcerting question which I put just
now ?
Mr. BRODEUR. I will be very glad to
discuss that question some other day. I
have been speaking now for an hour. occasionally interrupted as I have been, and I
will be very glad to discuss that question
any time my hon. friend makes a motion.
and which I trust will be in clearer language
than the one he has now before the House.
5225
MAY 2, 1905
Mr. INGRAM. I would like to point out
to the hon. gentleman—
Mr. INGRAM. I would like to point out
to the hon. member (Mr. Brodeur) that I
remember when he took hours to discuss the
reasons why there should not be remedial
legislation in Manitoba.
Mr. BRODEUR. Now that we do not
know exactly where the hon. leader of the
opposition stands with regard to his motion,
we will proceed to discuss the question
whether or not we have the constitutional
power to pass this Bill. With regard to
this question of constitutional powers, we
must not forget one thing: Section 91 of
the British North America Act determines
what are the powers of the federal parliament; section 92 deals with the powers of
the local legislatures ; section 93 deals with
the powers of local legislatures in regard to education, but; at the same time
gives the federal parliament a certain control over that subject; section 95 places
some subjects. like agriculture, under the
control of both 'the provincial legislatures
and the federal parliament. Now, it has
been asserted time and again that this legislation is an infringement upon provincial
rights. I say with regard to education that
it is not a question of provincial rights. It
is not a question whether the province will
have an absolute right or not, such as it
has in regard to the matters embodied in
section 92; but it is purely and simply a
question of minority rights. It is a question whether the minority shall enjoy the
rights and privileges which are guaranteed
by the constitution or rights and privileges
which they may acquire under the constitution.
Now, have we the power to pass the Bill
now before us ? I say, without the least
hesitation, that we have that power. I am
not going to dwell on that question at great
length. I hope my hon. friend the Minister
of Justice will have occasion to take part
in this debate, and he is certainly in a better
position than .1 am to discuss that question ;
but I may be permitted to say a word or
two upon it. What says section 4 of the
Act of 1871 ? It says:
The parliament of Canada may, from time to
time. make provision for the administration,
peace, order and good government of any territory not for the time being included
in any province.
The parliament of Canada has absolute
power over the legislation of the Territories;
there is no doubt about that. Now, what
does section 2 of the same Act say ? It
says:
The parliament of Canada may, from time to
time, esbablish 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 estab
5225
5226
lishment, make provision for the constitution
and administration of any such province—
The section does not stop there. It does not say, as section 146 of the British North
America Act of 1867 does, that the provinces shall be admitted subject to the provisions
of that Act. Section 4 of the Act of 1871 says that so long as the Territories remain
territories the parliament of Canada will have absolute control over them; but under
section 2 the parliament of Canada has also the right to create provinces in those
Territories, to give constitutions to those provinces, and to provide for the passing
of laws for the peace, order, and good government of such provinces.
Mr. BRODEUR. Certainly. If there is legislation which is going to bring peace and order, and
which should be dealt with by this parliament, the present is that legislation. I
am glad that my hon. friend has
drawn my attention to that point. Now, Mr.
Speaker, in 1875 this parliament passed a
law providing that Catholic and Protestant
minorities in the Northwest should have the
right to establish such schools as they
thought fit. There was no objection to that
law; why ? Sir John Macdonald was then
the leader of the opposition in this House,
and why did he not object to the establishment of separate schools in the Northwest
?
Because he remembered the promise he had
made in 1869 to those minorities. He remembered that he. Lord Strathcona and the
imperial government and Archbishop Taché
had promised that the rights of the minorities in the Northwest should never be disturbed;
and, faithful to his word, he did
not object to that legislation, and the rights
of the minorities were preserved. In 1880
this parliament re-enacted most of the law
which was passed in 1875. My hon. friend
from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was then in
the House, and I see by the Debates of that
day that he made a speech—not on that
question ; oh, no ; but he made a speech on
some other question which was brought up
on the same day on which the Bill was
under consideration. Let us see what was
declared in that Bill. Section 9, which was
a new section, provided:
The Lieutenant Governor in Council, or the
Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice
and consent of the legislative assembly, as the
case may he, shall have such powers to make
ordinances tor the government of the Northwest
Territories as the Governor in Council may,
from time to time, confer upon him ; provided
always, that such powers shall not at any time
be in excess of those conferred by the ninety-
second and ninety-third sections of the British
North America. Act, 1867, upon the legislatures
of the several provinces of the Dominion.
When this matter was up before, I remember that the hon. leader of the opposition
asked me if this was a re-enactment.
I have looked into the question since, and
5227
COMMONS
I find that it was not a re-enactment. I find
that that section was enacted in 1880, and
the hon. member for East Grey (Mr.
Sproule), who to-day claims that the rights
of minorities should not be protected, did
not rise and protest against the incorporation of such a law in our statutes.
Mr. SPROULE. When the hon. gentleman asked me before in reference to that.
I said that I had no recollection of it. I
said that I was not then as familiar with
the British North America Act as I am today, and I did not know the purport of
many of the clauses of that Act; so that
enactments bearing upon it might be passed
in this House without my knowing anything
about them. But when the question was
brought before the House in such a way
that I understood it, I always opposed such
an enactment. In support of that statement,
I need only mention the fact that when Mr.
Dalton McCarthy moved a resolution with
regard to one of the clauses of the Act of
1875, I both spoke and voted in favour of
his motion, and what were the reasons I
gave for doing so ? I said that while Sir
John Thompson says we shall have power
to give the Territories any kind of constitution we like when we come to form them
into provinces, and while other members
think the same, the tendency of members.
especially lawyers, was to have great regard for precedents, and when we come to
that time the very fact that the minority
may have enjoyed those rights for a number of years will be quoted as giving them
vested rights, which it will be held we have
no moral right to take away from them.
As I did not want to have that claim made,
I voted against it.
Mr. BRODEUR. Is it true that before
the introduction of this Bill which we are
now considering, the hon. gentleman sent
through the country some circulars asking
people to protest against separate schools ?
Mr. BRODEUR. Is it true that the hon.
gentleman was connected in any way, shape
or form with the agitation which was excited before the Bills in question were introduced
?
Mr. SPROULE. There is not a word with
regard to separate schools in those petitions.
They simply ask that the provinces be allowed free and absolute right to deal with
the subject of education.
Mr. BRODEUR. There is a great difference then between the position taken by
the hon. gentleman in 1880 and the position
he now takes, before the introduction of
these Bills. In 1880 when a Bill was passed
by this Parliament containing this section
10, which I shall read so that there may be
no misunderstanding, he made no protest
against it. My hon. friend says he does not
know constitutional law. but this clause 10
5227
5228
speaks for itself and may be understood
even by one who is-not versed in constitutional law. It is as follows :
When, and so soon was any system of taxation shall he adopted in any district or portion
of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor. by and with the consent of
the
council or assembly, as the case may he, shall
pass all necessary ordinances in respect to
education. but it shall therein always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers
of any
district or portion of the Northwest Territories,
or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof,
by whatever name the same may be known, may
establish such schools therein as they think fit,
and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor; and, further,
that the
minority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish
separate schools therein, and that in such latter
case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools
shall
be liable only to assessment of such rates as
they may impose upon themselves in respect
thereof.
My hon. friend says he did not understand that section, and that is why he did
not protest against it; but this session,
before the Bills were even introduced, and
consequently before he could have seen the
educational clauses, he started an agitation
against them.
Mr. SPROULE. Will my hon. friend allow me to correct him ? I am not aware
of having said that I did not understand
that clause. I do not know that I was in
the House at the time it was passed. It
certainly was not brought to my notice.
Mr. BRODEUR. My hon. friend was certainly in the House when that clause 10
of the Act of 1880 was passed because he
spoke on that day.
Mr. SPROULE. Will my hon. friend allow me to be responsible for what I do say ?
I said I was not as amiliar with the clause
of the British Nort America Act then as
I am to-day. I did not say that I did not
understand it.
Mr. BRODEUR. I suppose my hon.
friend was then able to read that clause
10, and understand it. and I presume that
when it spoke of separate schools, he knew
what it meant. and when it spoke of the
rights of minority he must have known what
it meant. He did not then object. He did
not then say a word against that clause 10
of the Act of 1880 establishing separate
schools. He did not protest that it was in
violation of the British North America Act.
He had a speech to make that day on
some other question, but on that question
he had not a word to say. This session however, before the Bills to establish these
new provinces were introduced, and consequently before he could have known what
clauses they contained regarding education,
he started an agitation against them.
5229 MAY 2, 1905
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman must
be aware that when the same question was
brought up by the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy
and discussed in this House, I took part in
that discussion and stood exactly where I
stand to-day. I then condemned, as I do
now, the principle of taking the question
of education out of the control of the provinces.
Mr. BRODEUR. I do not want to continue the discussion longer with my hon.
friend. I suppose, however, we can agree
that his position to-day would perhaps he
more consistent, if he had taken a firmer
stand in 1880. I am not complaining. I
am glad, however, to note that to-day he
is giving to his duties a little more attention than he was then giving them. Perhaps
the change of government may have
something to do with the change in his
position.
Mr. SPROULE. And that change may
equally account for the difference between
the position which my hon. friend took in
1896 and that which he takes in 1905.
Mr. BRODEUR. My hon. friend, the
leader of the opposition, said the other day
that the Northwest Territories became entitled in 1870 to the provisions of the
British North America Act with regard to
education. I am not sure that I could accede to that legal proposition, but if there
be any doubt that the minority acquired
certain rights in 1870, there can be no
doubt that section 93 of the British North
America Act was applied to the minority
in the Northwest Territories by the Act
which we passed in 1880. Well, since 1880
the minority have acquired some rights and
privileges. They got some ordinances passed in connection with education; and I
am glad to say that the legislation which
was passed in 1883, and which gave to the
minority in the Territories the full measure of their rights and privileges, was prepared
by two of my colleagues, one of
whom is the Minister of the Interior (Mr.
Oliver). My hon. friend, the Minister of
the Interior, was then a member of the
territorial assembly and one of those who
passed this legislation giving the minority
the full measure of justice and the full
measure of their rights. Whether the minority acquired those rights in 1870 or whether
they acquired them by the legislation of
1880, there is no doubt that in 1880 separate
schools were established, and there is no
doubt that the minority have since been
enjoying these rights in the Territories.
Why then today, when we are constituting
these Territories into provinces, should we
not carry out the provisions of the law as
embodied in the constitution of 1875 and in
the British North America Act ? My hon.
friend, the leader of the opposition says
that section 93 of the Confederation Act
should apply to these Territories when
5229
5230
they entered confederation in 1870. Well,
if it does, the rights which the minority
have since acquired can be protected by
this government. The rights which they
have achIired since their entry into confederation in 1870 can he and should be protected
by this government. We certainly
have the right to legislate in that sense. I
suppose my hon. friend will not dispute
that We have the right to pass remedial
legislation. Well, if We have the right by
remedial legislation to give to the minority
their rights and privileges, why should we
not do that when we are giving these new
provinces a constitution ?
Mr. SPROULE. You are acting as an
appellate court before an appeal is made.
Mr. BRODEUR. No, we are simply embodying in the constitution of these new
provinces what we would have the right
to give them by a special Act. If we can
pass remedial legislation to secure these
people in their rights, why should we not
do that immediately when we are constituting those provinces ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My hon. friend is
putting words into my mouth, and I do not
wish to be understood as concurring in what
he says.
Mr. BRODEUR. Does my hon. friend
question the accuracy of the quotation ?
Mr. BRODEUR. I understood the hon.
gentleman to say that my quotation was
not correct.
Mr. BRODEUR. I say that if my hon.
friend's contention be correct, namely, that
section 93 of the British North America
Act applies to the Territories on the date of
their acquisition by confederation in 1870,
then the rights they have acquired since
1880 couid be preserved under that same
section 93.
Mr. BRODEUR. I want to deal for a
moment or two with an argument which
was made the other day by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).
Mr. MONK. Will my hon. friend allow
me to put him a question before he leaves
that part of the subject ? If, as he contends.
section 93 of the British North America Act
applies absolutely to the new provinces, can
we, under the proposed amendment before
us. vary that section 93 ? He will remember that under the proposed amendment
we eliminate subsection 1 of section 93—
a very important clause—and substitute a
new section. Have we power to do that?
5231
COMMONS
Mr. BRODEUR. I have not the least
thought that we have power to do it. But
section 2 of the Act of 1871 provides not
only for giving a constitution to the Northwest, but also for passing laws to preserve
law and order in that portion of the country. If we have the right to pass laws
to maintain peace and order within these
provinces, I say we certainly have the right
to vary section 93 as we have done.
Mr. MONK. Then, section 93 does not
apply absolutely if we have the right to
vary it?
Mr. BRODEUR. It does apply, but we
have the right to change it, which is a
different proposition.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. With the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Brodeur's) permission, I
would like to ask a question in order that
I may understand his argument. Does he
mean that the Act of 1871 is broad enough
to permit us to provide, in a Bill such as
that we are now discussing, that the customs or the post oflice, for example, should
be within the legislative control of the new
provinces?
Mr. BRODEUR. I do not think so ; and
for this simple reason—that the address presented by this parliament asking for the
passing of this Act of 1871 expressly asked
that the powers of the federal parliament
should not be encroached upon by the legislatures.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Then does the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) say that we could
take any subject confided to the provincial
legislatures by section 92 and transfer it to
the authority of this parliament, when creating the new provinces ?
Mr. BRODEUR. Yes, that is my opinion.
Because the rights given under section 92
are broad enough to even cover that. And
we have to do it ; we actually are doing
it in the case of the lands. My hon. friend
from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) discussed
that question the other day, contending that
we had not the right to change the law
with regard to the lands. I do not know
whether the leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden) is of the same opinion. I
think we have the right to dispose of the
question of lands as we are doing.
Mr. MONK. Is my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) of opinion that we could take, for instance, exclusive
jurisdiction over the subject of agriculture?
Mr. BRODEUR. I think so. Now, I
must deal for a minute or two with a subject which was not brought before this
House, but was discussed in an address by
my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)
at a meeting held in Montreal some time
ago, and also in a letter which he wrote to
5231
5232
'La Patrie.' My hon. friend said that our
Bill may protect the rights of the minority
as to separate schools, but that the Catholic public schools would not fall under
the
constitutional enactment. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) relies simply on subsection
1 of section 93. Confining our attention
to that subsection we find that, perhaps, his
argument may have some weight. But I
think that in order to have a proper understanding of the subject we should not confine
ourselves to that subsection, but should
also consider the effect of subsections 3 and
4. In his letter to ' La Patrie,' he forgot to
quote the first part of the amendment moved
by the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier), which is as follows:
Section 93 of the British North America Act,
1867, shall apply to the said provinces with the
substitution for subsection 1 of said section 93
of the following subsection :
Section 93 of the British North America
Act includes two different things ; Subsection 1 deals with powers which the minority
enjoy in regard to separate schools at
the union, and subsections 3 and 4 provide
for remedial legislation, and concern not
only separate schools but any rights and privileges which any minority may acquire
with regard to education. Now, let us see
section 93. Subsection 3 provides:
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.
We see that this subsection is much
broader than subsection 1. Subsection 1
simply protects the minority with regard to
separate schools. But, under subsection 3
not only the rights of the minority with
respect to separate schools are protected,
but all the rights of the minority in relation to education. So it comes to this,—
if the legislature of the Northwest, after
the Bill has been passed, should try to
prevent the minority in any section of the
province establishing schools to give education satisfactory to them or to use the
French in these schools, there would be
occasion to discuss the advisability of pressing remedial legislation and exercising'the
power of disallowance of the Act. So, I
think the argument of my hon. friend from
Labelle is not a very strong one.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA. Would the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) permit me? I
did not hear the beginning of his argument
in reply to the remarks I made in Montreal. But I understand that he contends
that, according to subsection 3 of section 93,
there would be an appeal to the Governor
in Council, and therefore an opening for
5233 MAY 2, 1905
remedial legislation, in case the legislature
of one of the new provinces should deprive
the Catholics of any rights they may possess in relation to education outside the
subject of separate schools. But I presume that he agrees that under subsection
1, is the only one under which the minority could come before any tribunal to
have a law that encroaches upon these
rights declared null. The proposed amendment deprives them of the right to ask for
anything except protection of their rights
in separate schools. I am not asking the
hon. gentleman to express any view on the
subject, but, in view of the history of the
last thirty years I have come to the conclusion that while remedial legislation, so
far as the Catholic minority are concerned,
may exist in the letter of the law, it does
not exist in fact. Anything that is not
legally granted to minorities so that they
may come before the tribunal and get a
remedy of their grievance is no protection
of their rights.
Mr. BRODEUR. I do not quite agree
with my hon. friend. I have always believed that every legislature in this country
must be supposed to carry out the law with
a certain degree of honesty and rectitude.
Perhaps my hon. friend will not agree to
that, but I may say this, that any law
that might be passed in this parliament, if
the provincial authorities did not try to
carry it out according to its terms, that law
would be of no effect, even if drafted by
the ablest men you can find in this country.
I say we must always rely to a large extent upon the honesty and rectitude of the
legislatures. I know very well, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Ontario, in spite
of the law which now protects the minority
in their rights, any provincial government
could defeat the effect of that law without
passing any legislation which would be declared illegal or unconstitutional under
section 1. My hon. friend knows very well
that the same thing could be done in the
province of Quebec with regard to the Protestant minority. But I repeat, we must
have some faith in the rectitude and in the
honesty of provincial legislatures. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, why should we say
that the rights of a minority are not sufficiently protected when the minority itself
does not even complain of What has occurred since 1892? In 1892 an ordinance
was passed by the Northwest legislature by
which the rights of the minority were toa
considerable extent curtailed. The minority came before this government for relief,
and the government refused to disallow the
ordinance. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) said the other day that
the government refused to disallow that
ordinance because it was too late ; and also,
because Mr. Blake had made a motion
by which the government could not disallow that ordinance. I suppose my
5233
5234
hon. friend will not make that contention
to-day ?Â
Mr. Bergeron. Mr. Blake was speaking about the Manitoba Act.
Mr. BRODEUR. No, about the Northwest. My hon. friend, in discussing the
Northwest ordinances, said that they could
not be disallowed because Mr. Blake had
secured the adoption by the House of Commons of a certain motion which prevented
the government from acting.
Mr. BERGERON. I was speaking about
the Manitoba law, not about the Northwest
law. I gave another reason regarding the
ordinances, I said that the ordinance of
1892 was not disallowed because it was a
reenactment of an ordinance of 1891, and
that it was too late to disallow the ordinance of 1891. Then in answer to my hon.
friend who asked why the government had
not disallowed the ordinance of 1891, whether it was too late to disallow the ordinance
of 1892, I said, No, it was not too
late, but the disallowance of the ordinance
of 1892 would have been of no effect because it was a re-enactment of the ordinance
of 1891. That was the answer I gave my
hon. friend.
Mr. BRODEUR. Well, Mr. Speaker, I
was pretty sure- that my hon. friend, in discussing the question of the Northwest,
had
mentioned the motion of Mr. Blake. But
he must remember that the motion of Mr.
Blake had not the effect which he say it
had.
Mr. BERGERON. I have just said that
I was not talking about the motion of Mr.
Blake in regard to the Northwest Territories. When I mentioned the motion of Mr.
Blake, it was in connection with the Manitoba question, not the other, although it
might have the same effect. But I was not
talking about that.
Mr. BRODEUR. Well, the government
refused to disallow the ordinance of 1892,
because the minority did not come here to
ask the disallowance of an ordinance previously passed. I speak subject to correction,
but that is my recollection.
Mr. BERGERON. It was the ordinance
of 1892 that came down here in 1893.
Mr. BRODEUR. At all events, the minority since then has accepted that state of
affairs. They had a right to come here and
ask for remedial legislation. My hon. friend
from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) did not deny
that they could have come to the government here and asked for remedial legislation.
But they did not do so, they accepted
the situation, they abided by the decision of
the government.
MEMBER INTRODUCED.
Hon. Frank Oliver, member elect for the electoral district of Edmonton, introduced
by Sir
Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Lamont.
5235
COMMONS
Mr. BRODEUR. Before continuing my
remarks on the question under discussion, I
may be permitted to express my congratulations to my hon. colleague the Minister
of the Interior. We heard some days ago
that this government was afraid to open
any constituency in the Northwest. Some
members on the other side, and especially
the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F.
Maclean)—who I have not the pleasure of
seeing in his seat just now—boasted that
if the government dared to open a constituency in the west, so strong was the feeling
of the people against this Bill that no
Liberal candidate would dare present himself. Now we have the answer in the election
by-acclamation of my hon. colleague
the Minister of the Interior.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Mr. Speaker, I
understand that the hon. gentleman made
some reference to myself at a moment when
I happened to be out of the chamber. Would
he please repeat it ?
Mr. BRODEUR. I was merely saying
for the benefit of my hon. friend that before the present Minister of the Interior
was
called upon to enter the cabinet, the hon.
member for South York boasted that the
government dared not open any constituency
in the west, and that if a constituency was
opened no Liberal member would dare resign his seat and accept a portfolio in the
cabinet. I remember the member for South
York making that boast, and now I am
surprised that the hon. gentleman was not
sufficiently courageous to go into the Northwest and oppose my hon. friend and colleague
the Minister of the Interior.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The hon. gentlemen will listen surely ? If they mean fight
they will be fair in fighting.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Well listen then.
The challenge I made was that if the government would open a seat in Ontario—
5235
5236
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I named the seats,
and this in intolerant Ontario of which we
hear so much, in which I would run. I will
resign my seat to-day and run in South
York against the hon. Postmaster General
(Sir William Mulock), or I will resign my
seat and if the hon. Postmaster General will
resign his seat I will run against him in
North York, or I will run in London or
in Oxford. That is the challenge I made
and, Mr. Speaker, you may have my resignation now if any hon. member will accept
this challenge.
Mr. BRODEUR. I accept, Mr. Speaker,
the explanation which has just been given by
the hon. member for South York. I thought
that he intended to go and fight in the Northwest, but I see now that he wants simply
to confine himself to the province of Ontario. Who are the people most interested?
Who are people who should take the most
interest in this question ? Is it the people
of Ontario, or should it be the people of the
Northwest ? That is the question. In view
of the alleged shackles which we are going
to put on the new provinces it was in the
west that the fight should have been made
and I am sorry that my hon. friend who is
full of vigour and energy has not enough
vigour to go and fight in the Northwest as
he should have done.
Mr. BRODEUR. My hon. friend, I suppose, does not intend to make a speech.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. No, but my hon.
friend asks me about the Northwest and he
has thrown it up again at me. I will resign
my seat to-day—
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. And run against
my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway)
or the hon. member for West Assiniboia
(Mr. Scott). Let the hon. member for West
Assinilioia, or the hon. member for Lisgar—
Thomas Greenway—resign his seat to-day
and I will run against him in his own constituency.
Mr. BRODEUR. We have had enough of
all that. We know very well that this agitation which has been brought up by the hon.
member for South York is now subsiding.
Mr. BRODEUR. We know very well
that every day his friends are complaining
of the action which he got his paper to
take on this question. No, I will not follow
him any more. He must accept the humiliating position in which he put his party
5237 MAY 2, 1905
when to-morrow night the vote is taken on
this question.
Mr. BRODEUR. I was discussing the
question which was brought up the other
day in Montreal by my hon. friend from
Labelle and I was saying that if the minority has accepted the state of affairs which
has existed since 1892, there is no reason
why in this parliament we should go farther
than what the minority has been accepting.
Bishop Legal, who is certainly a good
authority on this subject—
Mr. BOURASSA. Will the hon. gentleman permit me a word again ? I am sorry
to interrupt him so often, but as he has
paid special attention to me, I suppose he
will allow me an opportunity of expressing
my opinion. As far as the right of interference by this parliament is concerned in
respect to the Northwest Territories I was
under the impression, as was expressed, I
think, by Sir John Thompson himself, that so
far as the Northwest Territories were concerned, this government had no power of
remedial legislation, but simply the power of
disallowance. The minority came here and
asked for disallowance in 1892, and it was refused by the then government. It is only
because they were refused this justice to which
they were entitled that they accepted the
I repeat in a nutshell that all I stated in
Montreal was that the minority of the
Northwest Territories are expecting from
condition of affairs that then existed. But
this parliament a full guarantee under the
law of all they possess now and not simply
the guarantee that this government may
pass remedial legislation in respect to nine-
tenths of what they are enjoying.
Mr. BRODEUR. For my part I rely on
what the minority have been doing since
1892, and I say that they get some protection
under the legislation which we are now
passing. If the legislature undertakes later
on to destroy or abolish separate schools,
or to abolish the Catholic public schools,
then there will be a remedy at the hands
of this parliament and besides there will be
the right of disallowance. My hon. friend
says that Sir John Thompson declared that
remedial legislation could not exist in regard
to the Northwest Territories. I never knew
of any such opinion being expressed—
Mr. BRODEUR. I have never heard of
such an opinion being expressed, and I would
be inclined to think that Sir John Thompson, if he did so express himself, was mistaken,
because, in the statute of 1880 and
the Revised Statutes of 1886, it was
specially provided that section 93 should
5237
5238
apply to the Northwest Territories. Under
section 93 the power of remedial legislation
exists and if section 93 was incorporated in
the law of 1880, and 1886, I claim that there
was the right of remedial legislation. But,
the minority did not go so far. They
accepted the situation as it was.
Mr. BRODEUR. They accepted that state
of affairs and I do not see why we should
go into the province of Quebec and say the
Catholics are asking for much more than is
presented in this Bill.
I am sorry that I have detained the House
so long. I had some other points that I
wanted to make but I have kept the House
so long that I think I will go no farther.
We are now engaged in the consideration of
a most serious question. Confederation, is
now being submitted to a severe test. Old
appeals on racial and religious grounds have
been revived. We all remember how, a few
years before confederation, these appeals
contributed to render the government of
Her Majesty absolutely impossible in this
country. Governments lasting a few years,
a few months, a few days, were succeeding
themselves and none was strong enough to
carry on the affairs of the country. In
spite of the most prosperous times the
development of the country was at a standstill. Some of these engaged most actively
in that sectional warfare found one day
that their unhappy policy was the cause of
that unfortunate situation. They reflected
and came to the conclusion that they had
to lay down their arms and adopt a more
sensible policy. Then, the confederation
scheme was brought before the country.
They thought that a confederation of all
the British provinces would remedy the
existing evil and they were right. Since
confederation a spirit of toleration has animated the great men that have been at
the
head of both political parties. Macdonald.
Campbell, Tupper, Tilley, Mackenzie and
Blake always respected the creed and the
views of the minority. Confederation developed in a most extraordinary way. New
provinces were brought into the union, a
vast territory was acquired, a great transcontinental railway was built, our canals
and waterways were deepened, railways
were subsidized throughout the country and
millions have been spent to bring immigrants from all parts of the world. We are
all glad to know that during the last few
years Canada has developed in to one of the
most prosperous nations of the world. It
was expected that those sacred traditions
of the Conservative party would be kept
up and that we would continue to enjoy
peace and harmony. But, unfortunately,
a section of the Conservative party today
is forgetting the lessons of history and refuses to give to the minority the rights
to
which they are entitled under the constitu
5239
COMMONS
tion. What are going to he the results?
Already newspapers friendly to the opposition, but which are not in this fight of
hatred, have given a warning note. The
Montreal ' Star' which is known as being
one of the best organs of the Conservative
party said on the 7th April :
With all seriousness we believe that a greater
matter than the school question is at stake, and
that is the future of Canada as a British colony.
We must dwell together in mutual harmony and
toleration. Neither race and neither religion
can wholly have its way. We must give and
take.
The 'Star' though a Conservative newspaper deplores the conduct of some of its
political friends in relation to this question, and it sees that they are going too
far. I do not know whether the 'Star'
would be justified in suggesting that our
colonial relations might depend on the result of this short-sighted policy of its
friends. I sincerely hope that is not the
case, and I trust and believe that those
who for political purposes have been creating a deplorable agitation in this country
will not be seconded in their unpatriotic
efforts by the electorate of Canada. In the
name of my countrymen I can declare here
that we are too much devoted to the British Crown to think for a moment of breaking
the British tie. And why? It is because we are always certain to find under
the British Crown protection for our rights
and privileges ; it is because we will always find on the throne of the British empire
a sovereign desirous of supporting the
cause of the weak and feeble ; it is because
Great Britain will always respect her
treaties. And, Sir, if mayhap. one day the
agitators, backed up by a majority, should
succeed in depriving the Catholics of their
rights and privileges, we know that Great
Britain will come to their rescue and protect them against injustice. Is not the
mother country to-day showing consideration for the sentiments of the minority by
sending to Canada a representative whose
family traditions are all on the side of toleration. We cannot forget that the Lord
Grey of 1805 moved in the British parliament to abolish the restriction that prevented
Catholics from being officers in the
army and navy ; we cannot forget that the
Lord Grey of 1848 proposed in the House
of Lords to restore the use of the French
language in this parliament of Canada, and
we remember his conduct with feelings of
gratitude. Sir, what has been the attitude taken by the opposition in this
House during this controversy. We have
them praising the institutions of the United
States and casting slurs upon an institution which all the best men of Great Britain
have undertaken to preserve. Gladstone once said:
The root of political connections between the
mother country and the colonies lay in the
5239
5240
natural affection of the colonies for the land
from which they sprang, and their spontaneous
desire to reproduce its laws and the spirit of
its institutions. From first to last the really
valuable tie with a colony was the moral and
the social tie.
But, in this parliament we have men
who uphold the neutral schools of the United
States against the religious schools of Great
Britain, and try in consequence to create
distrust in British institutions. Gladstone's
idea was that the colonies should try to
reproduce in their laws the laws of Great
Britain, and not seek inspiration for their
laws in a foreign country. I submit, Sir,
that the very legislation which the government now proposes is in conformity with
our duty to incorporate in our laws the
British ideas in order to cement our tie with
the mother country. I have already said, and
I repeat it now, that if by any misfortune,
the ties between Canada and Great Britain
should be strained, it will not be on account
of any action on the part of my fellow-
citizens in the province of Quebec. How
can this country continue to enjoy prosperity and progress if the normal happy
relations between different sections of the
population are to be supplanted by feelings
of mutual distrust and discord ? The only
wise policy for Canada is a policy based
on broad toleration, frank recognition of
differences of opinion, and scrupulous regard for the feelings of those who may he
in the minority. May I urge here the wisdom, and not only the wisdom but the
patriotic duty of every Canadian at a time
like this when questions are at issue calculated to arouse rancorous feelings and
heated prejudices; or the dangers of sectarian strife the result of which no man
can foresee ; may I urge here that true patriotism decrees that the utmost tenderness
and consideration for the conscience of
others is perfectly consistent with the most
valorous defence of the dictates of ones
own conscience.
Mr. A. C. MACDONELL (South Toronto).
Mr. Speaker, I can assue you that it is with
a great deal of temerity I rise to contribute a few words to this debate. I feel
that I can add but little to what has been
already said, but I believe it my duty, to
give reasons for my vote on such an important matter as this. I formed an opinion
upon the merits of the question when the
Bill was first introduced, and I have listened to the discussion which has taken place
with the intention of becoming informed
as far as possible from the views of others
older in this parliament, older in the public life of this country and abler in debate
than I am. I may say, Sir, that I am of
the same opinion now that I was when this
matter was first brought before the House.
I regard this as a measure intended to give
autonomy to two new provinces ; a measure giving birth to two province; probably
5241 MAY 2, 1905
the last to enter the confederation of the
Dominion, and I feel that in granting that
autonomy we should do so to the same extent as other provinces have been given
their rights and powers. I believe that the
word 'autonomy' as mentioned in the Bill
should have the significance that is given to
it in common parlance and in the dictionaries which define autonomy to mean 'living
according to one's own law or mind ;
self-government.' I desire to view this
Bill purely from the standpoint of the legal
and constitutional questions involved, and
I regret that on this occasion we are called upon to deal with acrimonious questions
that were discussed in former days and
which we had hoped were set at rest when
confederation was formed. I believe it
was the intention of the founders of confederation to arrive at a final decision as
to what should be the underlying principles,
the substrata of the confederation of Canada, and it seems to me that the idea of
the public men of that day was that the
questions which we are now discussing
were then finally settled. In my view the
powers which the then provinces were to
have, and that all new provinces were to
be accorded were laid down in defined and
well understood axioms of our constitution.
I believe that the educational question
which is a very important one was sought
to be set at rest by the Confederation Act
of 1867, as amended by subsequent Acts.
In looking at this Bill from a general standpoint the two most important features
of
it refer to the control of the lands and question of education. It is my opinion that
the public domain of the new provinces
should be controlled by those who are to
administer the affairs of that country, and
I found this opinion largely upon the statements of Hon. Alexander Mackenzie and
the Hon. Edward Blake, which were made
during the discussion in this parliament
when the Northwest Territories were being
admitted into the union as Territories, and
when the question also arose as to the then
proposed admission of Newfoundland. It
was proposed that Newfoundland should be
given $150,000 a year in lieu of its lands.
and the Hon. Edward Blake is on record as
having said :
He was very strongly opposed to the Dominion acquiring the Crown lands of Newfoundland,
and he has as strongly objected to Newfoundland being deprived of its Crown lands.
He commended the policy of the framers of the
constitution in leaving to each of the provinces
the control of their own public lands. This
was from the Canadian point of view. Then as
to Newfoundland the arrangement was equally
objectionable : (1) its distance from the seat
of government, (2) and its small representation
in parliament would lead to an unsatisfactory
management .
I think these two reasons exist to-day in
regard to the lands. the public domain of the
Northwest Territories. Hon. Alexander
5241
5242
Mackenzie went on record shortly afterwards as follows :
There was a difference between the two
cases——
That is the case of the Northwest Territories then under consideration and that of
Newfoundland—
There was a difference between the two cases.
In the Northwest Territories there were at
present no constituted authorities as there
were in Newfoundland, and it would not be
pretended that after a government was established in the Northwest Territories we
would
administer its lands from Ottawa.
I think that is a very fair statement
of the principle that should guide parliament
to-day ; and I cite the case of my own
province of Ontario, in which we exercise actual ownership over the public domain—the
land, the timber and the minerals
—as do the other provinces. There may
be minor reasons why it might be Wise to
keep the lands under the management of
the Dominion ; but we are not legislating
simply for to-day ; we are legislating for
all time, and I think all the larger points
of advantage are in favour of allowing the
public domain to remain in the hands of
the provinces and not in the hands of the
Dominion. I think that the policy we should
pursue in Canada in regard to the administration of the public domain should be the
British policy ; and the British North America Act lays down in its very first recital
that it is intended to establish ' a Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland, with a
constitution similar in principle to that
of the United Kingdom.' Now, we find that
it has been the custom of the imperial authorities, I may safely say at all times,
to allow
the colonies, be they great or small, after
they have ceased to be Crown colonies, and
have become entitled to representative government, to retain in their hands the administration
of their own affairs with regard
to the public domain. We are to-day giving these provinces an indemnity in lieu
of their lands ; and I venture to say that
that is only a matter of guess work. We
are giving them what is now considered a
fair compensation for depriving them of
their lands. That may or may not be an
adequate amount in- the future. It may
work out as a hardship on this parliament,
or as a hardship on the Territories, as the
case may be. Further, pursuing what I
understand to be the policy of the Liberal
party, the policy of decentralization, which
has always commended itself to my mind,
I think it is best to let the local authorities
have such power as they are entitled to,
and as it is reasonably possible to let them
have, so as to prevent congestion at one
particular point of interest which may be
diverse in character. Â
Coming to the educational question, I desire to say this at the inception of—that
5243
COMMONS 5244
question ; as a representative of the city of
Toronto, I regret to have heard in this House
on more than one occasion references made
to that city which I think were highly unfair. I submit, Sir, that the language was
unparliamentary, it certainly was untrue,
in which Toronto was referred to as being
a hot-bed of bigotry and intolerance. This
remark was made by the hon. member for
Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) and I
think by other hon. gentlemen opposite. I
myself stand here in this parliament as a
living protest against that statement, being a member of the minority, not only the
minority in this country, but the minority
in the city of Toronto, where there is a disparity of about five or six to one in
the riding which I represent and some ten to one
throughout the whole city ; and I think
it fair to say that that city is not bigoted
and intolerant, which elected me in the face
of the opposition of two governments, the
late Ross government and this government.
I am not complaining of that. for we
have to face opposition in the political world as in other departments of
life ; but I am placing on record the
fact that in the face of the opposition
of these two governments, I a Roman Catholic, was elected by a very substantial
majority in a constituency where there
were some ten thousand votes on the list,
about two thousand of which were Catholic
votes ; and I attribute that to the fairness, the liberaiity and the toleration of
my non-Catholic brethren, my friends and
neighbours in the city of Toronto. I will
go further : I will say that hon. gentlemen
opposite found the city of Toronto not a
bigoted place in 1896. I recollect the hon.
Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock)
coming there as the representative of the
present premier of this country to attend
a public meeting, and expressing sentiments and opinions which were then in
accord with the public sentiment of that
city. He took advantage of that public
sentiment, and his government took advantage of it then and have taken advantage of
it ever since. I will go further, and will
quote an authority. I think no hon. member
of this House, either present or past, can be
regarded as a more representative exponent
of the French Canadian race than the late
member for L'Islet, the Hon. Mr. Tarte ;
and when he on more than one occasion, as
one of the ministers of the Crown, visited
that city, he was always given a most handsome and cordial reception, and he is on
record as saying that there was no place
which he had greater pleasure in visiting
than the city of Toronto, to make new
acquaintances and to renew old ones. And
if the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) comes to Toronto, notwithstanding
all the heat there may be over the discussion of this question, I will promise him
a
cordial reception and a fair hearing. He
5243
5243
can freely address the electors of that city,
and I give my pledge in parliament that nothing objectionable will be said to him,
but
he will be given a courteous hearing, he Will
receive British fair-play, and he will return
to this parliament with a different opinion from what I believe he has to-day of
the people of that great city.
I ventured a moment ago to say that the
question of the legality of the Bill now
before the House was purely a constitutional
question. That Bill, as now framed, is, in
my opinion, a direct invasion of the provincial prerogative in regard to the matters
therein contained, those more especially
which are referred to in the amendment of
the hon. leader of the opposition. We have
to see in what way this parliament is empowered to pass an Act creating two new
provinces. These provinces are being created or erected under the Act of 1871. What
does that Act say ? By section 4 it gives
plenary powers to this parliament to administer the affairs of those districts so
long
as they are territories ; but when they are
to be created into provinces, we have to
look to section 2, which is the authority
under which these provinces are now being
created. It is unnecessary for me to read
that section to the House, which is already
familiar with it. I desire to refer for a
moment to the correspondence that took
place regarding the passing of this imperial
Act of 1871, because it is contended by
some that the powers vested in the Dominion by this Act are what are called plenary
powers and give to this parliament the
right to clothe these provinces with any constitution it may deem fit. It is well,
therefore, to see what was the intention of the
framers of this Act, what was the view they
had in mind when it was being framed and
put through the imperial House of Commons. When it was found necessary for
Canada to pass what is called 'the doubt
removing Act,' both with regard to Manitoba and the Territories, an Order in Council
was passed by the Canadian government
and sent to the home authorities requesting
that legislation of this nature be enacted.
and I shall read now an extract from the
report of the then Minister of Justice of
Canada, the late Sir John Macdonald, approved by His Excellency the Governor
General in Council on the 27th December,
1870, and which was in effect a petition to
the Earl of Kimberly, then Secretary of
State for the Colonies, to have the imperial
Act of 1871 passed by the British parlia»
ment. That Act is entitled 'An Act to empower the Dominion parliament from time
to time to establish other provinces in the
Northwest Territories,' and it goes on to
say:
Provided that no such local legislature shall
have greater powers than those conferred on
the local governments and legislatures by the
British North America Act of 1867.
A little later, when a draft Bill was sent
5245 MAY 2, 1905
out by the Earl of Kimberly, that draft
Bill was considered and returned to the
Earl of Kimberly by the then acting Minister of Justice for the Dominion, Sir George
Etienne Cartier, dated 29th February, 1871,
and approved by His Excellency the Governor General in Council, transmitting the
draft copy of the Act of 1870. It is as folows:
The undersigned has to observe that it is
absolutely necessary that the province of Manitoba, as well as any that may hereafter
be
erected, shall hold the same status as the tour
provinces now comprising the Dominion and
British Columbia when it comes in, . . . .
and like them shall hold its constitution subject
only to alteration by the imperial parliament.
I submit that this correspondence shows
conclusively the intention of the framers of
the Act, and I submit that the Act contains
this underlying principle, namely, that it
was absolutely necessary that any province
to be created under this Act shall hold the
same status as the four provinces then in
the confederation. We can understand very
readily why such language was used. The
then provinces comprising this Dominion
were jealous lest any other province should,
by any possibility, in the future obtain greater powers than they themselves enjoyed.
There had been a struggle for equality all
through. All through the framers of confederation were struggling for equality.
Sometimes the elfort was to repress the
struggles for supremacy that would break
out here and there on the part of certain
provinces, and they were all exceedingly desirous that no new province should have
any greater powers than they themselves
possessed. Undoubtedly it was not thought
necessary then to suggest to the imperial
authorities to pass an Act which would give
the Dominion parliament the right to create
new provinces with less power. No one
then considered the possibility of our creating new provinces with less powers than
those which the older provinces had acquired. Suppose, for instance, that in this
Bill
we omitted to provide for certain powers
which properly pertain to a province with
regard to many matters that suggest themselves, and which are provided for in section
92 of the British North America Act—
suppose these powers were left out, who
would supply them ? That is a very pertinent question. This parliament could not
do so. I apprehend that the powers of this
parliament would be exhausted by enacting
the constitution, and consequently would be
' functus officio ' as regards the amending
of it afterwards. These provinces would
simply have to go to the imperial parliament in order to obtain imperial legislation
to rectify any omission that might have
occurred in the Act creating them, and to
which they are entitled by law as members
of the confederation.
We had that Act passed—the Act of 1871.
Then the Act of 1886 was passed ; and by
5245
5246
section 3 of that Act we find that the original Act of 1867 and the Act of 1871 and
the Act of 1886 are all to be construed together as the BritiSh North America Act
of
1867 to 1886. In that way I consider that
the full force and effect of the original British North America Act is brought in,
and
it is made to form part of the Act or 1871
and the Act of 1886, so that they are all to
be construed together in the creation of
these new provinces. And I submit, therefore, that wherever you find the words ' subject
to the provisions of this Act in the
original Act of 1867.' You must read them
as applying to these three Acts concurrently
and correlatively, and that these new provinces are to be considered as being constituted
under these combined Acts.
I would like to refer for a moment to the
bargain, if I may describe the transaction
by that term, which took place when these
lands first came under the jurisdiction of
the parliament of Canada, and I think it
will be found to bear out my contention,
namely, that the constitution of these provinces must be in accord with the terms
of the British North America Act of 1867.
I shall refer first to the address from the
Canadian Senate and House of Commons to
the Queen, praying that the territory, then
known as Rupert's Land, be taken over
from the Hudson Bay Company and that
Canada be given the right to legislate for
its peace, order and good government. From
that address I take the following extract:
That it would promote the prosperity of the
Canadian people, and conduce to the advantage
of the whole empire, if the Dominion of Canada,
constituted under the provisions of the British
North America Act, 1867, were extended westward to the shores of the Pacific ocean.
That
the welfare of a sparse and widely scattered
population of British subjects of European origin, already inhabiting these remote
and unorganized territories, would be materially enhanced by the formation therein
of political
institutions bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will admit, to those which exist
in the
several provinces of this Dominion.
In pursuance of that, an Order in Council
was passed admitting into confederation
these Territories on the 23rd June, 1870.
the preamble of which is as follows :
Whereas by the British North America Act
of 1867, it was (amongst other things) enacted
that it should be lawful for the Queen, by and
with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, 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 should be in the addresses expressed and as the Queen should
think fit to approve, subject to the provisions of
the said Act.
That is the British North America Act.
And then, later on, the parliament of Canada was given power to legislate, for the
peace, order and good government of that
territory. And, by the deed of release from
the Hudson Bay Company—which, in pass
5247
COMMONS
ing, I desire to point out was made not to
Canada, but to Her Majesty, that is, to the
imperial authorities,—it is declared in the
preamble as follows :
Whereas by the British North America Act,
1867, it is (amongst other things) enacted that
it shall be lawful for Her present Majesty
Queen Victoria, by and with the advice and consent of Her Majesty's most honourable
Privy
Council, on address from the Houses of parliament of Canada, to admit Rupert's Land
and
the Northwest Territories, or either of them,
into the union of the Dominion of Canada on
such terms and conditions as are in the address
expressed, and as Her Majesty thinks fit to
approve, subject to the provisions of the said
Act.
So, throughout all the documents leading
up to the transfer of this territory to Canada, stress is laid upon the fact that
when
this territory becomes part of Canada, it
shall do so under and in accordance with
the terms of the British North America
Act. Now, in that view of the case, and
having the British North America Act imported into the Act of 1871, under which
this Bill is brought down, it seems clear,
according to my reason and judgment, that
the whole Act applies, and that these provinces are entitled to the same measure of
responsibility as the other provinces under
all the sections of the Act, except where
by direct statement of reasonable intendment only one or more provinces and not
all the provinces is intended. That being
the case, it seems to me that section 93
applies to the Territories referred to in this
Bill. It seems to me that section 93 applies
by force and operation of the law, and, by
section 2 of the Bill it is made to apply
expressly, for it is so stated in the section,
and the side note states 'British North America Act, 1867 to 1886 to apply.' And
so the minority in that province will have
every benefit of these sections and every
benefit of the law. And, whatever the
law may be, in all parts of Canada, the
minority equally with the majority have to
submit. It may be that to-morrow the minority may be seeking the protection of the
statute that is now being invoked ; they
may need the protection of the British North
America Act. It does seem to me that it is
better that the law should be lived up to,
that in these matters we should, as it were,
hue to the line, and that the law as laid down
in our constitution should be maintained
with regard to all classes of the community.
And I believe that the minority in this country have no desire to wrest from the majority
anything to which they are not entitled.
Moreover. I believe that the minority in
these new provinces will receive a larger
measure of justice if they are left to their
legal rights.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. With the hon. gentleman's permission. I would like to ask him
a question. Suppose that section 93 were
left to apply and suppose the rights of the
5247
5248
Catholics in the Northwest were taken away
from them, would the hon. gentleman favour a Remedial Bill ?
Mr. MACDONELL. Absolutely. Most
certainly. The party to which I belong favour remedial legislation where necessary
to protect minorities. We favoured it yesterday ; we favour it to-day ; and I believe
we shall be found favouring it to-morow, for
it is law. We stand upon the constitution.
Now, I am not alone in the belief that the
people of the west will receive a larger
measure of protection and be more clearly
guaranteed their rights by letting the law
take its course and supporting the amendment. Let me quote the words of some hon.
gentlemen opposite. The hon. member for
North Ontario (Mr. Grant) said:
Now, Sir, I have said that the hon. leader of
the opposition made it a point that the merits
and demerits of separate schools did not enter
into this discussion. Hon. gentlemen opposite
apparently did not think so, and I have wondered too how some of them conlld bring
themselves to support in its entirety the amendment
offered by the hon. leader of the opposition to
this Bill because it might quite possibly be the
logical effect of the amendment of the hon.
leader of the opposition to bring into force a
full dual system of sectarian schools in the
new provinces. I do not say whether that
would be a blessing or whether that would be
a great detriment to those new provinces, but
I do say that hon. gentlemen opposite who have
gone out of their way to attack separate schools
should think twice and that they should think
long before they vote for an amendment which
will have the effect that I have just pointed out.
And the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. L. G. McCarthy), in the course of his
remarks on this Bill, spoke as follows :
Now, Sir, upon this legal proposition, I do
ask some consideration at the hands of my hon.
friends. It I am right, as I think I am, I cannot endorse the view of the leader of
the government, nor can I endorse the view of the
leader of the opposition, because I think that
in the event of there being litigation over this
Bill, it will be found that if you leave clause
2-
(That is clause 2 in the Bill now before
the House.)
——in there as it stands—and they are certainly
entitled to something like that—if you do not
vary it, you will have a system of separate
schools imposed upon these provinces, a more
effective system, in the interests of supporters
of separate schools, than the present clause 16.
In that respect I agree with the hon. member
for Beaurharnois (Mr. Bergeron), who made the
suggestion last night that such would be the
result. Now, if that is so, I ask again for protection in that regard for those who
think as
I do upon that question. It is necessary to vary
this Act if you want to get rid of the effect of
clause 93 of the British North America Act, and
to do that you will have to insert in this Bill
some such clause as that the provinces shall
have unconditionally the exclusive right to
legislate on educational matters. If you do not
do that. then I say that the constitution will
take its course, and the courts will decide that
5249 MAY 2, 1905
clause 93 shall apply, and the difference will
be what is in clause 16 now and what clause 93
would give them.
I venture also to quote the Prime Minister
upon this question. In his speech in moving the second reading of the Bill he said
:
Now, Sir, a word as to the changes we have
made in that clause. I stated the other day
that we propose to make a change and we have
given notice of an amendment which we intend
to move to clause 16. What is the reason of
this change ? It is a fair question to ask and
a question to be answered. Sir, we have taken
the ground on more than one occasion, we again
take this ground and it is the ground upon
which we stand in dealing with the present
case, that wherever a system of separate schools
exists that system comes into force and is constitutionally entitled to the guarantees
which
are embodied in secion 93 of the British North
America Act. Be that system much, be it
little, whatever it is, it is entitled to those
guarantees. That is the position we take, and
when we introduce section 16, as it is in the
Bill, we had no other intention than to give to
the minority the rights and privileges to which
they are entitled under the law which they have
to—day.
And again :
So, Sir, now whenever a province comes here
knocking at this door asking to be admitted
into confederation, if in that province there
exists a system of separate schools, the British North America Act has provided that
the
same guarantee we give to the minority in Quebec and Ontario shall also be given to
the minority in that province.
I think that is a fair statement of the
effect of the law as it stands. Now I submit, this is a legal question, not a question
or a matter of policy. I repeat what I said
before, that I believe this question was set
at rest when confederation was formed,
because in the Acts embodying confederation and carrying out its principles we
find all the machinery, so to speak, and, I
may safely say a method of working out all
questions which might come before the parliament of Canada in the then future. It
does seem to me that the foundation was
laid sufficiently broad and sufficiently deep,
and that the terms of confederation were
sufficiently elastic in themselves to permit
of an honest and fair interpretation of
that Act by the parliament of Canada in
such a way that it will at all times bear
the fruits intended by its founders, and
at all times work out, the good that it was
intended to produce for the Canadian people. There is little we can differ upon in
that Act. It does seem to me to be a great
pity that we in Canada who agree upon
so many and who differ upon so few things,
should be at variance on this question, a
question which has aroused so much unpleasantness, and I am sorry to say, so much
bitterness in this country. I regret it exceedingly. I say it is a lamentable condition
of affairs that we should be face to
face with the heat of discussion in this
5249
5250
House and with the heat of discussion outside of this House and in the press of the
country. I must say that in my opinion
I think all that is unnecessary. I believe
that the law as it was laid down could have
been admirably worked out in such a way
as to have avoided all this discussion.
Sir, I desire to revert once more to that
feature of the constitution, because to my
mind it is an all important question. In
discussing this matter in parliament hon.
members may have different opinions, the
opposition may differ from the government,
hon. members on the same side of the
House may differ from one another. But
after all, where are these questions ultimately to be settled, where do they wind
up ? I
am safe in saying that constitutional matters of this kind, matters of great weight
and moment, do not end in parliament. The
courts are to that extent above parliament
in their right of deciding that they may
interpret the powers of parliament, they
have the power of deciding whether an
Act of this parliament is ultra vires or intra vires. whether this parliament can
invade the provincial domain with impunity
or whether it cannot. That principle has
been invoked a hundred times in respect
of provincial legislation, the correlative
remedy has been applied, for in many cases
where it has been invoked against provincial legislation which has been declared null
and void. So it will be in the future with
regard to this Bill. Acts of this parliament
have been passed upon by the courts and
they will be in the future. It seems to me to
be begging the question to say that we must
take a business man's view of a constitutional question, or we must take a statesman's
view, because after all the view that
will prevail will be the legal view. Why
not view this whole question as a legal one,
because that is what it will ultimately be,
If I am correctly informed, the question of the validity of this Act will
not rest here. If I am credibly informed—and I have very little doubt
of the correctness of my information—it
will pass on to the courts. It will not end
here, but it may come back here in the
shape of an application for remedial legislation. History may repeat itself. I hope
sincerely on behalf of the minority that
history will not repeat itself in the calamitous disasters that resulted from the
last
appeal to this parliament by a minority for
remedial legislation. Now, Sir. I pass on to
the View of this question, not of a legal
gentleman, not of a statesman, but of a layman, the Postmaster General. What does
he say upon this question ?
In fact there are just two ways of looking
at the British North America Act; you may
look at it from the standpoint of a lawyer,
or you may look at it from the standpoint of
a statesman. If you look at it from the
standpoint of a lawyer—and I submit that is
the standpoint of the leader of the opposition
5251 COMMONS
—you take the letter of the constitution without regard to its bearings and its application
to the time being. and apply it literally, whether the application fits the time and
occasion
or not. But taking the spirit of the Act on
each occasion of creating a new province, you
adopt the constitution, as far as possible, to
the new province, having due regard to the
conditions then prevailing.
That is to say, that the powers given to
the provinces from time to time as the provinces are created, must differ according
to
conditions then prevailing. Prevailing
where? What conditions ? Conditions of
expediency, or conditions of party exigency ? What does the Postmaster General
mean by ' conditions then prevailing.' Again
he says later on :
I sympathize with the view of the premier,
and I put him in contrast on this occasion with
the attitude of the leader of the opposition.
In one case you have an interpretation of the
constitution by a lawyer; in the other case,
may I be permitted to say, by-a statesman.
Which view is the more likely to be correct?
Which view is the more likely to be in the
best interests of the country? I take this view
of it then; I began by arguing that there could
be no infringement of provincial rights until
they have a right, or until they are created
into a province.
That is a peculiar distinction I had not
observed.
They have no rights until this parliament
has declared what their rights are, that according to the spirit of the British North
America Act and according to the letter of the
amending Act of 1871 it is in the discretion of
this parliament to-day to say what new constitution we shall give to these new provinces.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit with all due
deference to the hon. gentleman who uttered these words, that this parliament has
no discretion to grant or to withhold from
a province, when creating it, what it is
legally entitled to under the British North
America Act. I submit that parliament has
no discretion in regard to what powers
the provinces shall receive; because if it
has a discretion, where does that discretion
end ? Parliament might go the full limit,
they might confer upon the province all
those powers that the British North America
Act reserves to the Dominion, they might
give to the province all the powers the
Dominion has, and they might withhold
from the province all the powers the province has under the British North America
Act. In referring to this subject, 1 mention the question of education. I am taking
it from the lawyer's standpoint, from
the standpoint of the framers of the constitution. If, as it is contended, the parliament
of Canada has a right to pass the
Bill now before the House, which contains
legislation in regard to education, we admit
the principle, and how far can that principle be carried ? If you admit the principle
where are you going to end ? Parliament might go to the full extent of legis
5251
5252
lating in regard to education for all time to
come, they might take all educational matters out of the hands of the province absolutely.
I submit with all deference to
the hon. gentleman that it cannot be argued
that the parliament of Canada who created
this province can take from it every vestige
of a right to legislate in regard to matters
of education, because another government
might come in who would act in
a very different way, another government might act in direct opposition to the way
this government has acted,
because, after all, governments go and governments come. If the government have
the right and power to legislate in the domain of education, no doubt they can legislate
to the full extent either adversely to
the minority, or in favour of the minority,
or adverseiy to the majority or in favour
of the majority. Where is it going to end?
Surely the argument, if they have the right
to pass this legislation, in view of that
statement, must hold good. It does seem
to me that the British North America Act
opposes very strongly the passing of this
legislation because we have always thought
that we had the British North America Act
as our guarantee and we have relied upon
it as we should rely upon our constitution.
It does seem to me that it is ignoring and
overriding that Act because the Bill in its
very terms does proceed to amend the
British North America Act in vital points.
I do not know what the intention of
hon. gentlemen opposite may be whether
it is their intention to ask the imperial parliament to confirm this legislation
or not, but certainly in the absence of
confirmation by the imperial authorities, I
do not think it will be seriously contended in this House that the parliament of
Canada has the right to pass the legislation
now before the House. I think if they do
it will be a matter of regret, because I believe the question will find its way into
the
courts, and if my opinion is worth anything on, this subject, and if the opinion
of eminent counsel whom I have consulted
is worth anything, then I say the Act is
ultra vires. I have consulted counsel who
will probably be concerned in this case if
it ever reaches the courts and I believe I
am correctly informed by counsel as to
what will be in all likelihood the result of
this legislation. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) also went on record
as
against the constitution as follows:
I do not propose to go into that constitutional
question, not because I say it should not receive
any consideration, but because I say it is not
the great question involved, and I prefer to go
on and deal with the practical questions which
are before us. If it is a constitutional question above all others, then, perhaps
the best
thing we can do will be to request the legal
members of this House to adjourn to the Railway Committee room and thresh it out while
we who have not the good fortune to belong
to that learned profession will stay down here
5253
and discuss the practical questions involved
or proceed with the ordinary business of the
House.
And later he said :
Now, I have not been discussing the constitutional question as my hon. friend will
observe.
I have been discussing entirely what I may call
the practical side of the question, and I do that
with the firm conviction that most of the people of this country will not bother themselves
very much about this constitutional question,
but they will want to get at the actual facts
of this very important question.
Now, it seems to me that if they do not
bother themselves about the constitutional
aspect of the question the courts will. I
desire to point out that parliament today
is not, as it were, dealing with children or
babies in regard to this Northwest question. It is dealing with Territories which
parliament itself has been treating as provinces, to which it has been giving the
power of provinces, and parliament has
been dealing with them in regard to the
matter of education as if they were under
the British North America Act and subject
to its terms. In 1880, 43 Victoria, chapter
25. was passed, which, by section 9, provided that :
The Lieutenant Governor in Council or the
Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent
of the legislative assembly, as the case may
be—
That is as the case may be.
—shall have such powers to make ordinances
for the government of the Northwest Territories, as the Governor in Council may, from
time to time, confer upon him, provided always
that such powers shall not at any time be in
excess of those conferred by the 92nd and 93rd
sections of the British North America Act, 1867,
upon the legislature of the several provinces
of the Dominion.
That was re-enacted by the Northwest
Territories Act, chapter 50, section 13. Revised Statutes of Canada. 1886. Further,
these Territories have been treated as provinces in the Interpretation Act. It is
provided by the Interpretation Act. Revised
Statutes of Canada, 1896, chapter 1, section
7, that :
In every Act of the parliament of Canada,
unless the context otherwise requires.
Subsection 13. The expression ' provinces ' includes the Northwest Territories and
the district of Keewatin.
Subsection 14. The expression 'legislature,'
' legislative council,' or ' legislative assembly,'
includes the Lieutenant Governor in Council
and also the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories, and the Lieutenant
Governor
in Council of the district of Keewatin.
Susbsection 15. The expression 'Act,' as
meaning an Act of the legislature, include an
ordinance of the Northwest Territories or the
district of Keewatin.
I submit that these provinces have been
in possession of these rights and powers
to deal with education and to deal with it
5253
5254
subject to section 93 of the British North
America Act, they are familiar with the
Act, it has been applied to them already,
and it ought to have someweight in the
consideration of the question.
Now, I just desire to say a few words
more. I desire to put on record my protest against legislation by reference such
as this is. This measure embodies a form
of legislation that is not now enacted in
regard to any important matter. At the
present time this form of legislation has
almost entirely disappeared from the British House of Commons. This is legislation
by legislatlng into an Act some other Act,
or parts of another Act or parts of other
Acts. The legal authorities are all very
clear upon this point. Hardcastle on the
Construction and Effect of Statute Law is
a book that is well known, a leading authority on that matter, and at page 28 of
that book we find the following statement :
Legislation by reference is usually
the outcome, not of negligence, ignorance, or
incapacity in the draughtsman, but of the foibles
of parliament, and is excused on the ground
that it lessens political difficulties and simplifies the process of getting Bills
through committee by lessening the area for amendment.
The same excuse is made for the practice of
putting very long clauses elaborately divided
into many subdivisions, in what are called
fighting Bills.
Legislation by reference, which was increasing in 1876, and has since that date still
further developed, was described by the committee
as making an Act ambiguous, so obscure and so
difficult that the judges themselves can hardly
assign a meaning to it, and the ordinary citizen
cannot understand it without legal advice.
That was in 1875. Since then the practice has been gradually discontinued and
is today looked upon with disfavour in the
British House of Commons. I think that
is a good reason Why the Bill should not
be approved of in its present form. Now,
I claim that it is unwise to stereotype and
crystallize into law for ever a certain condition of affairs existing at any one time.
I
think that to remove the elasticity which
should be about a measure of this kind and
to limit for all time to come a set of principles which in future years may become
a
hardship to the minority or to the majority
of the people of that country is a mistake,
and that it would have been better to have
left it subject to the power to change from
time to time. Now, it cannot be changed
except by legislation by the imperial House
if this Act is held to be good which I very
much doubt. What will the minority get
by the Bill? It is said that it is going to
give them something of very great value
and importance. The hon. ex-Minister of
the Interior spoke of it as follows :
What does that preserve ? I have read these
ordinances through, and all that I can find this
section to preserve—and it is an important
thing—let us not exaggerate or minimize, let
5255
COMMONS
us know exactly what we are doing—I think
that this is what we are doing and all that we
are doing. This section preserves the right of
the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority to
have their school. a separate school in name,
but a public school in fact, in a separate building it they wish. That is the right
it preserves.
It preserves, secondly, the right of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in
such school
to have religious teaching from 3.30 to 4 o'clock
in the afternoon.
Before I conclude, I desire, Sir, to put
myself personally on record as being strongly in favour of religious instruction in
the
schools. I hold that opinion myself, and it
is the opinion of the church to which I belong. I believe lt is good for Catholic
children; I believe it is good for the children
of all religious beliefs, that religion should
have a place in the schools. I believe that
the character of the child can be better
moulded in the love and fear of God than
by any other training. I believe that youth
is the proper time to inculcatethe knowledge
between right and wrong. But, Sir, I do not
believe that this Bill would conserve that
great principle. I believe that the law existing today in the Northwest Territories
gives the minority of that country rights
at least equal to those embodied in the
Bill. I fear that there will be retaliation
against the enactment of this measure. and
I believe that if this Bill were never enacted
the legislatures in the new provinces would
at once have a revision and consolidation of
their law,. and in that revision and consolidation they would have inserted the reenactment
of these school ordinances, which,
after all, is all that this measure provides
for. I believe that for all time to come the
minority would be under the protection of
section 93 of the British North America
Act; and I believe, Sir, that the minority in
these provinces would in future stand a
better chance of obtaining concessions from
the majority, and that there would be greater amity and greater harmony among the
people of that country if they were left to
themselves to settle whatever differences
might arise. And if these Bills should ultimately be held to be ultra vires, what
a
spectacle will be witnessed. The feeling
that prevails here to-day, if it has not already extended to that country, will certainly
spread there, and mutual distrust and
mutual ill-will may arise. Taking it all in
all. I believe that it is best that the provinces should be left to themselves to
legislate on the subjects mentioned in the amendment proposed by the leader of the
opposition. It is my opinion that the Cathollcs in
the Northwest, will in the end be granted
greater rights and more extended privileges
if that amendment is acted upon. The
minority in Canada do not want to wrest
from the majority anything more than they
are by law entitled to obtain, and the law
is there for the protection of minorities and
majorities alike. There is no church ; there
is no organization. civil or religious, ex
5255
5256
isting in the world today which obeys the
laws of the various countries in which it
is established than does the Catholic church.
Throughout the civilized world the Catholic
church is planted and is flourishing, and I
challenge a denial of my statement, that no
matter what the law may be, no organized
body is more obedient to that law than is
the Catholic church. I believe that the
minority in Canada will be willing to take
what the law gives them and what the constitution guarantees them, and that is what
they will get under the amendment of the
leader of the opposition. Just one word in
conclusion. It is not a question of separate
schools or no separate schools; it is first
of all a constitutional question, and, for the
reasons I have given, I believe that the constitution as it stands today must in the
end
be applied to these new provinces. When I
say it is not a question of separate schools,
or no separate schools I say so for this
additional reason: that the establishment
of separate schools is a matter that is already concluded, because the history of
the
question in the United States, in Great Britain and elsewhere is that if the minority
wants separate schools they Will have them,
and the question is simply a matter of whether the minority are going to pay taxes
for
their own schools and taxes for the public
schools, or whether they will have their
schools separate and apart, as we have
them in the province of Ontario, and as we
would have them in the new provinces of
the west for all time to come if the amendment of the leader of the opposition is
adopted.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. J. B. KENNEDY (New Westminster).
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this question is being debated in rather a peculiar
manner. As I understand, on the second
reading of a Bill the main principle of the
measure is discussed: but in this case we
have been discussing one clause almost altogether. However, I suppose that must be
right, for we have heard no objections made
to it so far. Before I go any further, I
want to define my position personally with
regard to the educational clauses of this
Bill, around which the whole debate has
centred. Personally, I have no use for separate schools. As I understand it, our public
school system exists for the purpose
of training our young people for the battle of life—preparing them to do business,
not only with those of their own
religious persuasion, but with all comers.
Now, fancy a young farmer coming to market with his first load of produce, and saying
to his first customer, 'Before I do any
business with you, I want to know what
church you belong to.' Or imagine a young
merchant opening up his shop. and seeing
5257 MAY 2, 1905 5258
what seems to be a good customer coming
along, saying to him, 'Excuse me, but have
you the same religious belief as I have ?'
Even the young lawyer who has just hung
out his shingle would be in rather a peculiar predicament if he were to ask his first
client about his religious belief before he
would do anything for him. As we expect
all our young people who go out in the world
to fight the battle of life, to deal with all
they come across, no matter what their religious belief is, surely, in preparing them
for this fight, we ought to prepare them all
together. In fact, I go so far as to say
that I think even the sexes should not be
kept apart in school. When I went to school
down here on Le Breton Flats—for I was
born in this town, then called Bytown—there
were no separate schools here, except one
somewhere in lower town. The boys and
girls all went to school together, and friendships were formed then which have lasted
through life. Those who went to that school
have to-day all a warm feeling for each
other; but those who went to the separate
school in lower town—and there were very
few were to us as aliens and foreigners.
On my return to this city after twenty years
absence. I could not receive a warmer welcome from any of my own relatives than I
have received from some of the Roman Catholics with whom I went to that school;
and I felt almost as warmly towards them
as in my own kin. I could name a number
of men who went to that school, and I do
not think one of them is a worse Catholic
or a worse Protestant from having been
educated side by side in the same room.
Although this is my personal belief, I am a
Liberal—a Liberal in more ways than in
name—and I wish every person to enjoy
his own opinion. I know that a great many
of my fellow men do not believe as I do
on this question, and I am quite willing
that they should enjoy their belief and act
accordingly. There are a great many Protestant clergymen nowadays who are clamouring
for more religious education in the
public schools. We hear of it every year
at all their public gatherings. At their synods, their general assemblies and their
conferences, there is nearly always some deliverance made on this question, demanding
more religious teaching in the schools; but
it has been a question to me how we could
accomplish anything of this kind and please
all these bodies and at the same time please
our Catholic brethren. I am sorry to say
that the Roman Catholics can get on more
easily in that respect than the Protestants
can. It is a hard thing to say. but it is
true all the same. Now, I think the educational clauses of these Autonomy Bills solve
this problem to a great extent. The half
hour of religious teaching every day after
half-past three o'clock can be conducted according to the wishes of the trustees.
which
will depend a great deal on the wishes of
the people themselves. That is one way to
5256
5256
have more religious teaching in the public
schools. I am sorry to say that these Bills
have been misconstrued, and in a great
many instances I believe purposely misconstrued. Many petitions have come in here
professing to be in favour of provincial
rights ; but it is a peculiar thing that in not
one of these petitions, so far as I have seen
them, was any reference made to anything
in regard to which provincial rights were
being invaded except the schools—not a
word about the public lands, although any
one who has read the British North America
Act knows that the public lands belong to
the provinces as exclusively as education.
The people have also been allowed to go on
the idea that it is the old separate schools
such as we have in Ontario and Quebec that
are being established by these Bills. I do
not think that is the right thing to do. I
think the members of this House who sent
out the headings for these petitions should
have seen to it that the people understood
what they were signing. I do not believe
that outside of the Orange body one man in
twenty who signed those petitions would
have signed them had he understood what
the Bills were meant to do. I have had letters from some of my constituents, and I
have seen sonle curious scraps in the papers;
and just to let you see what peculiar ideas
some people have on this question, I am going to read one or two things which are
almost too good to keep. The following, from
the Grand Master of the Orangemen in British Columbia, appeared in the Orange 'Sentinel
:'
In reply to your request for my views upon
the Autonomy Bill as it affects the educational
standing of the new provinces, I would denounce
it in the strongest terms possible. I believe
it to be the most serious retograde movement
that has arisen within this fair Dominion of
ours for many decades. Now at least the critics
will cease to cry that we Orangemen have no
work to do. I can see just one possible blessing arising out of this unworthy attempt
to
force separate schools upon the district concerned, and that is, that Orangemen from
ocean
to ocean should be so roused that the order
will receive an impetus such as it needs, and
after the conflict enter upon a period of growth
hitherto unapproached. This is not a question
of party politics, nor yet of anti-papery; it is
a direct assault at the foundation of our liberty
and rights. It is very evident that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has sold himself and his country
to the Roman Catholic church, and in return
has received his return to power with such an
overwhelming majority. There is no denying
the fact that we have been deceived ; the time
is short; we must fight like men, with the
spirit of our noble ancestors. The victory may
long be delayed, but we shall win. In the
name of the God of battles have We unfurled
our banners; this is His fight, and with a prayer
upon our lips let us face the foe, fight honourably and doubt not; we shall win such
a victory as shall make history and wonderfully
advance the cause of religious liberty. Let us
remember Sir Richard Grenville and his little
ship 'Revenge,' as, wounded in the side and
head, he raises himself and cries:
5259
COMMONS
' Fight on! Fight on!'
And dying exclaims:
'I have fought for Queen
valiant man and true;
I have only done my duty, as a man is bound
to do.'
We in British Columbia are earnestly working in this matter, and no question engaged
our more serious attention during the splendid
meetings of our grand lodge just closed. You
can count on the brethren of British Columbia
solid. We are preparing a monster petition
and in every way we are at work. With greetings to our champion in the cause.
I felt inclined when I read that,_to ask
what is all this whirroo about? Did that
man really understand what he was talking
about ?
Mr. KENNEDY. I am not personally acquainted with him but I know a great many
of his followers, and I know that there are
a great many very decent men among them.
i think too a good deal of the Orange order.
I know something of its principles. And I
say that the man who can issue such a
manifesto as that, without knowing the
facts of the case, is hardly fit to be at the
head of that order. But this is not the only
appeal of the kind. A very short time ago,
the Loyal Orange Lodge, number something
or other of another place—I am not going
to mention any names—held a mass meeting
at which we are told g'eat enthusiasm was
exhibited. At this meeting the Grand Master
and several other gentlemen—a good many
of whom I know—were present, and the following resolution was unanimously passed
amid cheers given for the Grand Master :
That King Edward L. O. L., No. 1819, heartily
approves of the resolutions passed by sister
lodges respecting the Autonomy Bill, and the
controversy between the Hon. Mr. Rogers
and the pope's representative at Ottawa, published in the Vancouver papers.
Be it further resolved, that we endorse the
action of. our grand master in the above matter.
And be it further resolved, that all loyal subjects should be warned against the insidious
and jesuitical statements and arguments made
and used by those opposed to the course the
Orangemen are taking in the present great
crisis; that if the truth were known most of
such Laurier champions are seeking oflice or
selfish gain.
And are not worthy of the confidence of
Orangemen; and, further, that if there are any
members of the order who are not prepared
to openly and manfully follow our grand
master in upholding the obligation taken by
them and unite with us in our great and tremendous fight against the school clauses
of
the Autonomy Bill and Romish aggression,
such members should be given an opportunity
to withdraw from our glorious Orange order;
as their presence is inimical and dangerous
to the good of the order and to the cause we
have so much at heart.
5259
5260
Be it further resolved, that we keep up the
fight against the separate school clauses of the
Autonomy Bill and against Papal interference
in Canadian affairs in the most aggressive manner, believing that the time has come
when
every true Protestant should buckle on his
armour and have emblazoned on his shield the
good old watchword:
No Surrender—Is life so dear or peace so
sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains
and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I
know not what course others may take, but, as
for me, give me liberty or give me death.
Liberty is one of these things to which
these people lay the strongest claim, which
they are always prnting about, and yet they
do not give their members the liberty to
think for themselves but to tell them that
they must follow the Grand Master or leave
the order. That is liberty for you. Now.
these men are forgetting the principles of
the order to which they belong—the principles of charity and friendship and I do
know not what the others are, for I forget
the words. But they seem to forget their
cardinal principle of charity altogether. No
doubt I shall hear about this when I get
back to my constituency.
Mr. KENNEDY. I have a lot of good
friends in the Orange order, who, I am confident, will not allow themselves to be
led
by men who do not know what they are
talking about. and I am convinced that if
there should be an election in my constituency to-morrow, I would have a good solid
support from these very men.
With regard to religious teaching in the
public schools such as is provided for in
these Bills. I believe that even if this measures be a little infringement in that
respect on the autonomy of the provinces, they
still should pass in their present form as
they will give peace to these new provinces
—peace, such as some of the older provinces
did not know about some years ago and
which some of them are in danger of losing now. Why did these gentlemen send
out these circulars and petitions ? Why
did they not instruct the people so that they
would know intelligently what they were
doing and not require them to sign what
they did not understand. I do not think
that was exactly a square thing to do, as
I think these gentlemen will find out to their
cost later on.
I just wish to make a few remarks on
some of the observations I have heard from
some of the other speakers. Our hon. friend
from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) must be a mind
reader or a prophet or he must have some
secret spies in his pay among the cabinet
ministers. In what other way could he
have secured all the information which he
gave us the other day? He seemed to be
able to tell us everything that was said and
done in the secret cabinet councils and in
the interviews between cabinet ministers
5261 MAY 2, 1905
and outsiders on this question. How he got
all this information I leave him to explain.
It is indeed difficult for us to understand
how he secured it, if it be true. Of course
it is well to put in that proviso. No doubt
in 1894 he was just as prophetic about what
was then going to happen at the next election as he was the other day; and I suppose
his prophecies concerning the. result
of the next election will be just about as true
as they were concerning the last.
My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr.
Lalor), I do not want to say very much
about. But, really, as an older man. I cannot refrain from giving him a little advice.
I cannot refrain from telling him that I
think, and a great many other members
think the same, that a young member, just
come to the House. should not speak in
quite so flippant a manner about men on the
other side whom our late Queen thought
worthy of honour. Now, he made some, as
I thought, very insulting remarks about the
Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and
about the Postmaster General (Sir William
Mulock). I would be very sorry to hear any
one on the government sidemake any such
remarks about the leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden), and I have never heard
anything of that kind yet. I would advise
the young gentleman. a budding politician.
that if he evér expects to occupy such a
position as these gentlemen occupy, he will
have to learn to he a little more courteous,
in his demeanour to those to whom he is
opposed.
Just one other matter and I am done.
My hon. friend from East Middlesex (Mr.
Bison) spoke of the danger which would
arise through Mormons being able, under
this Bill, to use the schools for the advocacy
of their tenets amongst the children. He
drew us a very startling picture of a family
who happened to be in a Mormon settlement and whose children would be obliged
to attend the school controlled by the Mormons. And he read the clause from the
Act, which I will read you again, as the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Elson) did not read far
enough. Here it is :
(1) No religious instruction, except as hereinafter provided, shall be permitted in
the school
of any district on the opening of any such
school until one-half hour previous to its closing in the afternoon, after which time
any such
instruction permitted or desired by the board
may be given.
(2) It shall, however, be permissible for the
board of any district to direct that the school
he opened by the recitation of the Lord's
prayer.
Now, the hon. gentleman went that far
and then stopped, leaving his hearers who
were not familiar with this provision of
the law, I am sure, under a wholly wrong
impression. I can hardly believe that this
was intentional, because I liked the tenor of
his remarks, and I do not think he is a
man who would intentionally mislead. But
5261
5262
the omission of the next clause certainly
would leave a wrong impression upon the
minds of those not familiar with the law.
The next clause says:
Any child shall have the privilege of leaving
the school room at the time at which religious
instruction is commenced, as provided for in
the next preceding section, or of remaining
without taking part in any religious instruction
that need be given, if the parents or guardians
so desire.
I think that alters the case. The parent,
by simply telling his child to leave school
at half-past three, can prevent the child
receiving any religious instruction of which
he does not approve.
There has been so much said on this
question that I am not going to take up
the time of the House longer. I close by
asking all my friends in the House, and all
Protestants everywhere, in this case as in
all cases, to be charitable, generous and
just.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe). Mr.
Speaker, I have no apology to make for
entering upon this debate, though it has
continued now for upwards of a month.
for a large majority in the constituency I
have the honour to represent, irrespective
of politics, will expect not only that I should
vote, but that also that -I should give utterance to the views that they hold, which,
I
am glad to say are the views I hold myself. No question in Canadian politics for
many years has attracted so much attention as this. In 1896 the attention of the
Dominion was directed to what was known
as the Remedial Bill, relating to the province of Manitoba. But that public attention
was as nothing compared to the attention that has been aroused in the present
instance. This is due primarily to the fact
that the people of the Dominion regarded
the boundaries of the province of Manitoba
as settled and that province as pretty well
populated, so that, even if there were a
principle embodied in the school laws by
which a system of separate schools was
foisted upon the people of Manitoba only
a comparatively small number of people
would be affected. But the development of
the Northwest, which has gone on so rapidly, and which we hope to see increase even
more rapidly, means that there will be there
no limited population, but a population of
millions upon millions. In view of the
number of people to be affected, the whole
population of the Dominion are interested
in the question whether there is to be riveted upon that country for all time a system
of separate schools.
Now, this question has been dealt with by
this government in a most peculiar fashion.
Up almost to the very day of the general
elections last fall. not a single word was
heard as to proposed legislation of the Dominion parliament for the establishment
of
provincial government in these Territor
5263
COMMONS
ies. In fact. Sir, this idea had rather been
opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite when,
on more than one occasion, legislation of
that kind had been proposed on this side of
the House. And it ls a notorious fact that
the proposal that there should be provincial
autonomy with a system of separate schools
fixed upon the province was practically unheard of up to the last campaign. Hon. gentlemen
opposite have on different occasions
seen fit to shirk responsibility for important legislation by resorting to plebiscites.
That was the case in what was known as the
temperance legislation of the Dominion. It
was within the power of a strong government to bring about the enactment of so-
called temperance legislation. And yet this
government, when they had an opportunity
to legislate on that subject, shrank from
the task and took refuge behind the ramparts of a so-called plebiscite. Why did
not they, as they had no mandate from the
people on this school question, refer the
matter to a plebiscite? The reason is
manifest. These hon. gentlemen knew well
that they had stolen a march upon the people and were anxious for a five years to
run their course after this legislation was
passed with the hope that the question
might meantime be forgotten.
The Prime Minister, in introducing this
Bill on February 21st, made an address
which certainly was not likely to conciliate
all classes or to allay feeling. The principle
feature of that address was a discussion of
the utility or advantage of separate schools.
The right hon. gentleman must have known,
and, judging by the forced speech he made,
he did know, that he would draw upon himself the fire of those opposed to separate
schools in this country whether in this
province or the new provinces. The right
hon. gentleman seems to have taken it into his head that there was only one way to
drive this Bill through parliament, and that
was by means of the bludgeon of force.
Aside from the reference to separate schools,
which was the prominent feature of his
address, one of the startling statements
made by him was that the government,
in the introduction of this Bill—I refer
particularly to the educational clauses—
were threatened on both sides. Surely, the
right hon. gentleman received no threats
from the Conservative press. The fact is
that the right hon. gentleman was threatened by men on his own side, and those
threats have been carried into force in a
very plain manner. Where is the press
of this country on this question ? Go into
the great province of Ontario, and I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to name one
newspaper on the Liberal side that is not
opposed to this Bill.
Go into the province of Quebec and
where does the Montreal 'Witness' stand.
a journal that has always stood behind
the right hon. gentleman and his party ?
Where does the Huntingdon 'Gleaner'
5263
5264
stand, a party organ, and has been such
for years gone by? So I might go on and
cite what is known as the county press,
the weekly newspapers in Ontario, strongest on the Liberal side in the past. These
are the journals that to-day are denouncing
the right hon. gentleman and his government for the course they are taking. Come
into this House and what an astonishing
spectacle is presented. The strongest denunciation of the policy of the government
was made by the hon. member for Brandon,
an ex-minister of the cabinet. While it is
quite true that his course has not been
followed by many other gentlemen, it was
followed by the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. L. McCarthy)—and there is not
a more subservient follower of the government than that hon. gentleman—and by my
hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. McIntyre), who is an independent, for the fact
is well known in the locality in which he
resides that he is not an ofl'ice seeker. he
is not one who is looking for favours from
this government and the very fact that the
government cannot hold on this occasion
the vote of that hon. gentleman must be as
gall and wormwood to the Postmaster General and the Minister of Customs.
Now, Sir, a stage has been reached in
the career of the right hon. gentleman. He
has played fast and loose with the question
upon which be secured a party adyantage.
He stole a chance in the general elections
of 1896 to ride into power on the so-called
Manitoba school question, and pledges were
then made by that right hon. gentleman
which must be redeemed, and we are being
brought face to face with this question in
the acrimonious and bitter manner in which
we now have it brought up in this House,
by reason of the pledges made by the right
hon. gentleman in 1896 and by his followers, throughout the province of Quebec.
But the right hon. gentleman has been
threatened, though I deny he has been threatened by the Conservative members or supporters.
The public will have no difficulty in saying, on the day when this vote
is taken, who has been threatening him. It
is not the Conservative party who has
threatened him, but it is the men in the
Liberal ranks who will sit in judgment on
the right hon. gentleman and his government for their course on this question.
There have been some very striking features
in connection with the introduction of this
Bill. And here one may call to recollection the fact that on every occasion when
this government has seen fit to dragoon its
supporters on any question, the same inordinate speed, the same inordinate haste has
been resorted to. What was the action of
this government on the so-called Yukon
Railway Bill, on the Grand Trunk Pacific
Bill. and many other matters I might mention? Brought down to parliament, thrown
at their supporters: and it is quite true
5265
MAY 2, 1905
that while most of them responded to the
crack of the party lash, I am glad to be
able to note that I see opposite me a gentleman who did not so respond, and I congratulate
the Minister of the Interior who
did not on that occasion respond to the
crack of the party lash. The Minister of
the Interior is to-day in this cabinet, he
was acclaimed with great gusto, and he
sits in this cabinet to-night as a geographical and a national freak. He sits there
by reason of the fact that there must needs
be a cabinet representative from the provinces, west of Lake Superior. The hon.
member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) went
through the lobbies day after day, read the
public prints day after day, and read with
the greatest relish that he was to be made
a cabinet minister, and received the congratulations of his friends. We remember
when that hon. gentleman spoke in the
House, and after he had spoken, how warmly he was congratulated as the next Minister
of the Interior. But unfortunately he
was not nationally well placed, there were
not enough Galicians, Roumanians, Russians and hundreds of other what-nots in
his constituency, and so perforce my hon.
friend from Edmonton had to be chosen.
The hon. gentleman himself disclaimed that
the school question was a burning question
in 'his re-election as minister. I see in the
public press that he has announced that to
be the case, and everybody knows to-day
that the great question in the riding of
Edmonton was whether or not Calgary
should be the seat of government, or whether it should be his own town of Edmonton.
That question, fortified by the fact
that two-thirds of the population were foreigners who cared little about public
schools, and, I suppose, much less about
separate schools, explains how it is that
the hon. gentleman to-night has dropped
into the office of a cabinet minister. But I
hope and expect that those kicking proclivities he has evinced in the past—if he
will allow me to say so—which have signalized him on different occasions when
he made strong protests against the action
of this government, will, even before this
vote is taken, once again assert themselves,
and that he will come out even at the last
moment as an opponent of this Bill.
Now, Sir, what was the action of the
government in reference to the introduction
of this Bill? Here was a Bill fraught with
the greatest moment to the western Territories, and where was the Minister of the
Interior, the minister who is specially
charged with conducting the affairs of that
great western country? The Minister of
the Interior was absent from the city, the
reason assigned was that of ill health. He
was absent, he was not here to defend the
sacred principles for which he was always
ready to lay down his life a few years ago
in the province of Manitoba, provided al
5265
5266
ways that the salary of a cabinet minister
went wlth it. It was a patent fact that
he was coming back speedily, but this government could not delay the introduction
of
the Bill until he returned, and so forsooth
it was forced in before that hon. gentleman
could even place his foot in the House.
But worse than that. A special committee
of this cabinet was formed to engineer the
progress of this Bill, and the composition
of that committee is a marvel to all men
who will look at it. First and foremost
was the Prime Minister, who had a place
on it as was to be expected by virtue of
his position. I do not presume any claim
will be made for the premier as being in
the past a constitutional lawyer, or even
at the present time. But he was expected,
by virtue of his position in his government,
to be accorded a place on that very select
and supreme committee. Next to him
came, of necessity, and probably by reason
of his legal attainments as well as of his
olfice, the Minister of Justice, and I am
sure nobody will complain on that score.
But in the name of all that is good in
this country of representative institutions,
where the House of Commons is supposed
to be amenable to the people, they had to
go over to the charnel house for decayed
politicians, as it has been described by hon.
gentlemen opposite in years gone by, and
from its long hidden recesses was drawn
forth the Secretary of State, a gentleman
eighty years of age. The fact goes without saying that the views of Senator Scott,
the Secretary of State, on this question
were well known. Then my own province
of Ontario was granted a seat on that committee in the person of a gentleman who is
prepared to distinguish men in this House
on two great lines, either as statesmen or
as lawyers—I refer to the Postmaster General. That hon. gentleman did not arrogate
to himself that he was a lawyer, but
he does arrogate to himself that he is a
statesman.
Now, Sir, I fancy I see the meeting of
that committee. The hon. Minister of Justice told us in reply to my hon. friend from
Halton (Mr. Henderson) the other night that
he prepared the Bill, word for word and
line for line, and that he was responsible
for every portion of it. I accept that. I
believe that statement is true, and I fancy I
see these four gentlemen drawn up together,
the Minister of Justice laying down the Bill
and saying: There is the Bill; and the
Postmaster General saying: So must it be.
The hon. Postmaster General is never known
to object, and it would not be expected that
he would object to this Bill. Why was not
the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr.
Sifton) included in that committee? The
Bill was introduced before he could reach
the city, and the government hoped that
after the committee had made their finding
and after they had brought down their Bill,
the right hon, Prime Minister's speech would
5267
COMMONS
bring about such terrific results as to fairly
drive everybody on both sides of the
House into acquiescence. Then the hon. ex-
Minister of the Interior turned up, and if
ever there was a panic stricken crew it was
this government and their supporters for
the next thirty days. There was another
gentleman who was not consulted, although
that gentleman was here at the time. I refer to the premier of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Haultain was here, not in his
personal capacity, but in the capacity of the
premier of these Territories, and the statement has been made in the public press,
and
it has not been denied, that this Bill was
only handed to Mr. Haultain an hour before
it was ready to be presented to the House,
and no time was allowed for him to properly digest it, to discuss it with his colleague
who was here with him, or to give an opportunity for proper consideration or reflection
in regard to its provisions. This lack of
consideration is on a par with the treatment that was accorded him afterwards by
the government, because, when the second
Bill was brought down, the right hon. leader
of the government stated in a cavalier way
that he did not allow Mr. Haultain to see
the Bill at all. That statement is on record.
Did the right hon. gentleman think that the
proper way to reconcile people, to conciliate
the people, was to tell their premier who
came here as the accredited representative
of the Northwest Territories that he would
not condescend to show him the legislation
that the government proposed to submit?
Well, then we had these terrible thirty days
of suspense and agony. We saw the government marching and counter-marching,
we saw hon. members lobbying around the
corridors wondering what was to be the
next move, and then we heard the statement made by the hon. member for Brandon as
to the stand he took. That hon.
gentleman came back, and within three or
four days after his entrance into the city
we know what happened. The right hon.
Prime Minister rose up in his place and
announced that he had received the resignation of the Minister of the Interior, and
the
Minister of the Interior made a speech on
that occasion which showed a determination upon his part to oppose this Bill and
to oppose any legislation to this end, if the
English language meant anything. But, Sir,
no sooner had the hon. ex-Minister of the
Interior announced his intention to defeat
this Bill, if it were possible, than all the
force and power of government press were
turned upon the hon. member for Brandon.
Insinuations were made as to his conduct
while in the discharge of his duties as Minister of the Interior. One of the Quebec
papers, and a strong supporter of the government, came out with a cartoon. Did
they depict the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior as dying for principle ? Did they
depict him as a man who could not support
the government by reason of the strong
views which he held? No, Sir; they de
5267
5268
picted the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior
as a man who was fleeing from the wrath,
from the exposures which were to be made.
There had been scandals in his department,
and the pistol was put at his head by
the other ministers through the press, and
the hon. member for Brandon was simply
and solely told if he did not acquiesce in
legislation that would be acceptable to hon.
gentlemen opposite he must expect what
would follow—exposure and disgrace by
reason of scandals connected with his department. Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot
gainsay this. It was in the public press,
and no member of the government has risen
in his place to express a word of dissent in
connection with these ideas which have
been disseminated by the press friendly to
the government. But if this legislation is
along lines that are compatible with the
principles and views of the hon. ex—Mlnister
of the Interior, why did not the hon. ex-
Minister of the Interior come back into the
House and take his place ? That is a question that must suggest itself to the people.
If the legislation was to his mind, he should
have come back as a hero and have said
that he had stemmed the whole tide of this
policy, and forced them to come into accord
with his views on this question ; but this
has not been done, and the public must draw
their own deductions that the threats held
out by the ministerial press and the insinuations made against that hon. gentleman
were the influences that brought him back.
Now, we have heard a great deal about the
constitutional triumph of the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior. But we have not heard
a word about the terrible downfall that his
party got in. Manitoba the other day—not
a word. Hon. gentlemen opposite went to a
riding of their own selection and they won.
But there was the riding of Mountain in
Manitoba, and the hon. gentleman who represents Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) was delegated
to go up there. He was accompanied
by a number of hon. gentlemen from the province of Manitoba ; but, Sir, there is no
acclaim for them, there is no applause.
These hon. gentlemen have found that in
the west, in any riding of strong Liberal
proclivities, where the population is not
strongly foreign, they can only court one
thing, and that is disaster, such as they met
with in Manitoba.
Now, this question has been discussed
from both sides. I shall not repeat the
words of the hon. Postmaster General—
from the lawyer's standpoint and from the
statesman's standpoint. I shall use the
words that are commonly used—from the
legal point of view and from what may be
termed the sentimental point of view. What
is the legal point of view ? First and foremost. lt is a matter of comment, and it
must
be a matter of comment, that although this
debate has gone on week after week, no hon.
gentleman, until today, in the person of the
hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur), has risen to give an official legal
5269 MAY 2, 1905
opinion on this question. Why did not the
hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)
rise in the first instance and give an opinion,
more particularly in view of the fact that
weeks have elapsed since the hon. leader of
the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) spoke on
this question and gave a legal opinion which
stands to-day unshattered, and has not had
one particle stricken from it or from any of
the strong arguments that were adduced in
it? We have two Bills, and it is hardly
worth while going into the merits of the
two owing to the fact that on the question
of principle the two are almost the same.
The whole question is involved in this school
matter, whether or not there shall be two
systems of schools in the Northwest Territories. Two grounds have been taken, and
I propose shortly to speak on this question,
because the ground has been well traversed.
The first ground taken by the Prime Minister was, as I understood it, that in the
original Act which gave power to these Territories a system of separate schools was
conferred upon the people there. But, as the
law that gave these people the system of
schools which there prevails was a law
framed by this parliament, it is an admitted
fact, and it has not been contradicted, that
this parliament had exactly the same right
to take away as it had the right to give.
The people of these Territories had, in addition to their separate school system of
education, under the Acts, the right to the
official use of the French language in the
Territories, and yet, although that right was
similarly given to them, it was taken away
by this parliament. So, on the same line
of argument, and on the same line of reasoning, as they had the right to remove the
privilege of the official use of the French
language in the Northwest Territories, they
had the right to divorce these people from
the system of separate schools. I do not
propose to give my opinion on this question, because my opinion, as I expect the
opinions of many legal gentlemen in this
House, will have very little weight. I can
rely upon the opinions of admittedly great
constitutional lawyers: I will cite the
opinion of Sir John Thompson, who, when
the question arose as to doing away with
French as an official language in the Northwest Territories, said:
What the constitution of the future provinces
shall be, in view of the pledges which have been
referred to, or in view of any other set of circumstances, will be for parliament
to decide
when it decides to create those provinces.
That opinion has been quoted in this
House before, and no gentleman opposite
has attempted to controvert the dictum of
Sir John Thompson. The Hon. David Mills
was the acknowledged constitutional authority of the Liberal party when in opposition,
and on account of his legal attainments he
afterwards was elevated to the Supreme
Court bench, and Mr. Mills said:
5269
5270
When the people of the Territories or any
portion of the Territories are sufficiently numerous to constitute a province, when,
in fact.
they attain their majority in regard to local
matters, and when they propose to set up for
themselves, this parliament has no right to
exercise control over them, no right to exercise any authority; it can give good advice,
but it has no right to give commands. But
we are not dealing with the future. When
the Territories have a sufficient population
to entitle them to become a province they
must decide for themselves whether they will
have separate schools or not.
I quote the opinion of Sir Louis Davies,
another eminent Liberal lawyer and now
a judge of the Supreme Court, who said :
The vast territory west of Manitoba through
which the railway was to run was practically
at the time uninhabited by white men. The
provisions made for its future government
were temporary, tentative and entirely subject to the control and guidance and supervision
of the Dominion parliament and authorities.
Most of the powers of the Territorial government were to be given in the discretion
of the
Governor General in Council from time to time
and withdrawn when and as he thought fit.
I might quote the opinions of other jurists
of repute, all laying down the principle
that this parliament had no right to interfere with these new provinces in their educational
legislation. We have heard the argument advanced on the other side of the
House, that these provinces stand in exactly
the same position under the British North
America Act that the provinces of Quebec
and Ontario did at the time of the union.
That contention has been to some extent
abandoned by the government, and I do not
believe the Minister of Justice will attempt
to justify it. The fact of the matter is that
so far as the law on the question is concerned the government has not a ghost of
a case and the House awaits with expectancy to hear what arguments the Minister
of Justice will advance to buttress up the
position of the government. If the position
of the government is weak in its legal aspect
that weakness is in the main due to the utterances of certain cabinet ministers. When
they saw their weakness and when they
saw that men like the member for South
Perth (Mr. McIntyre) could not be convinced
by the so-called legal argument, they endeavoured to arrest the stampede by dwelling
on the political expediency of the case. The
Minister of Finance in an impassioned address turned to his followers and told them
:
If you don't support this Bill the government goes out and the Tories will come into
power. The Minister of Finance evidently
thought that it is not a question of principle
or a question of the legal rights of the minority, but that the whole question at
issue
was one of practical politics. I want to be
fair to the Minister of Finance who did
offer one argument in favour of the Bill,
and were he in the House to-night I would
ask him a question. He pointed to the fact
5271
COMMONS
that out of the ten members from the Northwest seven were supporting the Bill, and
for
that reason he held that there should be no
complaint against it. But, if the members
from the Northwest stood five for and five
against, then the argument of the Minister
of Finance would go for nothing. I would
ask those gentlemen who applauded the
Minister of Finance to remember, that when
the Manitoba Remedial Bill was before the
House every member from Manitoba with
the exception of Mr. Joseph Martin was in
favour of that Bill, and using the argument
of the Minister of Finance then the Remedial
Bill should have been adopted by parliament.
The Minister of Finance threatened his followers into supporting this Bill, and for
fear that they still might be fleeing away
from the government my genial friend from
Brockville (Mr. Derbyshire) came to the rescue and he offered a wager that the Bill
would be supported by the people at the next
election. What have we descended to ? An
important Bill, a Bill that is fastening a
system of schools for all time upon millions
of people who are not yet in the Territories;
such a Bill is to be driven through the
House by the impassioned appeals of the
Prime Minister, by the threats of the Finance Minister and by the persuasive eloquence
of my hon. friend from Brockville
who tries to stiffen the backs of gentlemen
opposite by wagering dollars on the result
of the next election. Shades of George
Brown ; if Edward Blake or Alexander Mackenzie came into this House of Commons,
how they would sigh for these degenerate
days when Liberal leaders can make such
appeals for the support of a great constitutional measure. And if this were not enough,
my benevolent friend the Minister of Customs rises and he cries for, peace, perfect
peace. There was no argument in his speech
which all through was pervaded with the
one sentence : brethren there should be perfect peace, and he ended by saying that
he
loved the premier and by the love he bore
him he could not possibly oppose his will.
Is that the serious way in which important
legislation should be treated. The Minister
of Customs excelled himself that night in
his eulogy of the Prime Minister ; he had
only to go one better to equal the member
for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) who in a
spontaneous outburst of enthusiasm declared that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the
greatest man that ever lived. Napoleon
may have been a great general, but he was
nothing to Laurier ; Vanderbilt may have
been a Napoleon of finance, but he was not
in it with Laurier. Hon. gentlemen opposite
seem to be inoculated with the idea that
whenever they address parliament they must
raise a paen of idol worship to the Prime
Minister. I had not the honour of being
in the House when Sir John A. Macdonald
was Prime Minister. but I have read a great
many of the speeches delivered then, and it
may have been that Sir John Macdonald
5271
5272
stood so prominent in this country that his
followers did not feel it necessary to advertise him as a great man. But the debate
proceeds, and now and then we have a gentleman like my hon. friend from Westminster
(Mr. Kennedy) who gets up and
does the acrobatic feat. He balances on
both sides ; he starts out by denouncing
separate schools as the curse of the country
and he winds up by saying that for the sake
of perfect peace he will vote for the government. And then last but not least we have
the Minister of Agriculture who gave to us
bigots from Ontario a lesson in peace and
conciliation.
I was rather surprised that the Postmaster General did not take up the cudgels
as an Ontario representative, and deal the
city of Toronto a body-blow too, and denounce that city as a hot-bed of bigotry
and intolerance. But, Sir, if the Postmaster General did not do it, his understudy
from North Ontario did it to his heart's
content. I do not wonder that these hon.
gentlemen have no feeling of kindness towards the city of Toronto, in which they always
thought they had such magnificent
voting chances, where in 1896 Mr. Lount
was elected by a handsome majority in the
same riding which Mr. Bertram a year
or two afterwards succeeded in carrying by
a considerable majority. The fact of the
matter is that the Ontario representation
in this cabinet is so weak and this policy
of the government is so weak that they
dare not make any attempt to carry a
Toronto constituency. But my hon. friend
the Minister of Customs says: Peace, perfect peace. Does the hon. gentleman believe
that majorities have no rights in this country—that we are always to yield to the
will of the minority ? Does he not know
that the old rule must prevail, that the
majority should rule ? How does he expect
that there is going to be peace in this country if, when the majority have the law
and the constitution behind them, they are
expected to pander to the wishes of some
politicians who want to retain their positions as Cabinet ministers, with the accompanying
salaries, and in return are to have
the support of a lot of hon. gentlemen who
are to seek seclusion in a few years in fat
government offices ? I need not go into
the question of who are to be rewarded.
An object lesson has been presented in the
person of the Minister of the Interior who
could go out and revile and denounce this
government in every possible manner for
the Yukon Bill and other measures, exactly
as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals
denounced the government, and then, by
reason of certain qualifications of a geographical and national kind, secure an appointment
to office. I am not saying this
in a belittling way of the hon. Minister
of the Interior, because I think he is far
above the average in point of intelligence.
But, Sir, we are told that there are rea
5273 MAY 2, 1905
sons why this government and this House
must accept this policy of granting allowances to the minority in the Northwest.
We are told that even if the law is against
them, as a matter of sentiment we must
pander to the minority. The hon. gentlemen should remember that that was the
question in Manitoba in 1896, when they
were quite willing to take advantage of
party exigencies and flaunt into power at
the sacrifice of the will and the wishes of
the minority. The Minister of Finance, in
his impassioned appeal to his supporters
the other night, begging and pleading with
them to vote for the government for fear
the Conservatives should come into power,
said this : It is quite true, I am against
separate schools; it is quite true, we have
none of them in the province of Nova
Scotia from which I come ; but there is in
that province a feeling of conciliation and
ainity, and for that reason we allow certain
innovations in the school laws which suit
the Roman Catholic part of the population.
And yet the Minister of Finance is not willing to allow the majority in the provinces
of Alberta and Saskatchewan to extend
to the Roman Catholic minority there, that
same spirit of conciliation that is extended
to the minority in the province of Nova
Scotia.
We are told by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that there is a risk
to be feared in that country, as a reason
why the power of educating the people
should not be given to the provinces. He
pointed out that there was likely to be
a large influx of Americans into those provinces. If there is to be, I for one as
a
Canadian am glad of that fact, I believe
American citizens are preferable to the foreigners we are importing into that country
; I believe they will make better citizens. And it is not to be expected that
men coming from a country where they
have not enjoyed separate schools, but
where they have a system of national
schools, will be the men to accept this whip
of coercion which this governemnt propose
to lash them with when the time comes.
But we are told in extenuation by the
hon. member for Centre York (Mr. A. Campbell) and others : After all, these are
separate schools only in name ; they will
be so handled and regulated as to textbooks, certificates for teachers, and equipment,
that they will be practically nullified as to any religious instruction. All
I have to say is that I do not accept these
schools for that reason. If there is to be
a separate school system in the Northwest
Territories, I think my Roman Catholic
friends are intelligent enough to know how
to conduct their own schools ; and I do not
think they will thank the hon. member for
Centre York and other hon. gentlemen who
are taking refuge for voting for this Bill
in the plea that these schools are going to
be controlled by the state. and that for
5273
5274
that reason they will not be church schools
as they are commonly known.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Do you deny that
they are controlled by the state?
Mr. BENNETT. No, I no not deny that
they are controlled by the state.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The hon. member for
East Grey (Mr. Sproule) did.
Mr. BENNETT. I care not what the hon.
member for East Grey says. He is perfectly free to have his own opinion as I am
free to have mine, and I am going to take
a stand different from that of the hon.
member for Centre York. I am not going
into a constituency in Ontario to tell the
people that I supported these school because I knew that they were useless schools
for the Roman Catholics. I am going to
the riding of East Simcoe, which has 1,600
Roman Catholic votes, and I am going to
argue, just as I did when I voted against
the Remedial Bill in 1896, that I believe that
in this country, in every province, it would
be better for all parties concerned that
there should be no separate schools, but
one system of national schools. That is
the ground I am going to take, and I will
be bound to say that when the time comes
for my hon. friend to go back to the constituency of Centre York, the whole burden
of his song will be: True, I voted for the
Bill, but what does it amount to ? The
schools are controlled by the state; the
law gives no special rights to Roman Catholics, and, to use words which I saw
quoted in the public press a short time ago,
they will be of so little good for their own
purposes that they will soon all die out.
Now, what are we going to do in these
two new provinces ? we are going in there,
with their sparse population as it is to-day,
and we are going to fetter these provinces
with a system of schools that will be irremovable, that cannot be eradicated, that
under the constitution of this country must
continue for all time to come. We are
to saddle on these provinces, before the population that is to be in there will have
anything to say on the question at all in
the years that are to come, what we have
in the province of Ontario. I am here to
say—and I believe I have the confidence
and I have the confidence and good will of
many Roman Catholics—that the same opinion prevails throughout the province of
Ontario that prevails in the town in which
I live, where there have been French Roman Catholic priests and Irish Roman Catholic
priests, and where there is a large
Roman Catholic population. In that town
they want no separate school at all. What
do the returns show as to the separate
schools in the province of Ontario to-day?
Let any hon. gentleman consult the returns,
and he will find that town after town of
2.000. 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 population in
5275
COMMONS
the province of Ontario have no separate
school at all.
They have the right under the law of the
province to establish those schools if they
wish, but they do not desire them or care
for them. Let me give a list of the towns
in and near the county of Simcoe where
there are no separate schools. There are
none in the following towns: Uxbridge,
Aurora, Bradford, Gravenhurst, Midland,
Staynor, Collingwood; and when I go outside of the county I find such towns as
these: Simcoe, Port Hope, Brampton,
Bracebridge, Orangeville, Meaford, Wingham, Clinton, Brussels, Exeter and Aylmer.
I could go on through every county in Ontario and show that the separate school
system is not making headway in that province, but the Roman Catholics, as well as
Protestants, are realizing the benefit and
better effect of not having separate schools.
In Ontario we have no such schools as
separate high schools. Roman Catholics
and Protestants, boys and girls, alike, go
to the same high school, and the best of
fellowships are engendered there, and yet
these hon. gentlemen opposite are to-day
going to force on this western country—
a country that does not know its own
requirements or the class of people that are
going to populate it—a system that will have
the effect of weakening the efficiency of the
schools in every section. If the ordinance
goes into effect. should there be four families in any neighbourhood and twelve children,
they will be entitled to establish a separate school in that district. What do we
find regarding the number of separate
schools in Ontario? I have here a list
given in the report of the education department for the year of 1904. It shows that
in that province, outside the incorporated
towns and cities. there are 254 separate
schools. 70 of which are in the French
county of Prescott and Russell alone. Nearly
one-third of the whole number of separate
schools in the townships are in one county.
Go down to Essex, where there is a large
French population, and you will there find
23 separate schools. In Renfrew, where
there is a large Catholic population. there
are also 12 schools: and in the district of
Nipissing there are 16. so that in the prov:
ince of Ontario to-day this system of separate schools in not being looked on favourably.
I propose to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr.
Borden) for several reasons. First. because
this government has no mandate from the
people to bring in this legislation. It was
not an issue in the last election and ought
to be made an issue before being adopted.
because it is a matter of great import. I
propose to vote against it. in the second
place, because it will be injurious to the
well-being of the Northwest Territories,
which to-day are only in their infancy, the
future population of which is unknown, and
5275
5276
I believe that we should not fasten on that
country any such system. I am further
going to vote for the amendment, principally
and primarily, because I do not believe in
the separate school system in Ontario or
any other province. I do not wish to be
understood as saying that I am in favour
of doing away with the separate schools in
Ontario. They are here as a matter of right,
under the constitution, and are here to stay.
But I for one shall protest by my vote
against passing any legislation which will
place in the great Northwest Territories,
among the millions who must inhabit them
in the years to come. a school system which
will be a matter of regret to those people
and of reproach to those who fastened it
upon them, if the vote of this House should
be in favour of this Bill, as I fear and regret
it will be.
M. A. K. MACLEAN (Lunenburg). Mr.
Speaker, in rising to address this House I
must express my diffidence because of the
fact that this measure has been discussed
so long and by so many hon. members. But
nevertheless I desire to express my views
concerning it before casting my vote. But
before proceeding with my argument. I Wish
to refer for a moment or two to the remarks
that fell from the hon. gentleman who has
just sat down (Mr. Bennett). I hardly know
that hon. gentleman well enough to understand why he should waste so much time
in commiserating with the Liberal party
over what he deems to be their troubles.
Surely if commiseration is needed by any
party it is required by the party he is following to-day. I suppose that in the history
of party government in this country or any
English-speaking country, there never was
an instance of such a lack of discipline, such
a violation of the theory of party government, as is evidenced here today. That
party stands without a leader, without a
policy, with every one of its supporters
going whichever way he chooses. Yet still
my hon. friend wastes time pointing out
the weaknesses which he sees in the government supporters. I am sure we do not
resent the good feeling and the interest
which the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr.
Bennett) evinces towards us, but I would
like to console him by the assurance that the
friends and supporters of the government
are quite capable of taking care of themselves.
My hon. friend is rather exercised over
the fact that several newspapers in Ontario
are not favourable to the administration
on this issue. Well, no doubt the Liberal
party, as a party would be better
pleased if every newspaper in the
Dominion were supporting it ; but we
cannot get everything; and if it does
happen that a newspaper here and
there does oppose this measure, we must
accept the situation. But if my hon. friend
is so much agitated over the want of sup
5277 MAY 2, 1905
port shown by certain newspapers towards
the administration. I am sure he could
render good service to his party if he
would go down to the city of Montreal
and get the Montreal 'Gazette' and the
'Montreal Star' to mend their ways and
back up the policy of the opposition. Perhaps, however, the attitude of the newspapers
is not so very important; and if my
hon. friend desires to promote party unity,
surely he will find in his own party ample
room for missionary work.
The hon. gentleman referred to the recent
election of the Minister of the Interior (Mr.
Oliver). A short time ago our friends to
your left, Mr. Speaker, were challenging the
government to open a constituency in the
Northwest. The leader of the opposition—
or rather I should say the hon. gentleman
who usually leads it, but who does not in
this matter—expressed upon the floor of this
House his approval of the selection of the
hon. gentleman who is now Minister of the
Interior. He publicly stated that he would
make a good Minister of the Interior, and
while my hon. friend has just spoken (Mr.
Bennett) attributes the election of that minister to the fact that the electors of
the
district of Edmonton are largely composed
of Galicians and Russians and other foreigners who came into this country from the
continent, we have it upon the authority of
the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
that the Galicans and the Doukhobors
were all oppposed to separate schools.
Speaking in this House on the 23rd March.
he said :
I have letters stating that if petitions had
been sent to the Doukhobors, translated into
their language, seventy-five per cent of them
would sign those petitions. So would the Galicians and so would the Roman Catholics
of
this country.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman is
not justified in saying that I said all of them
were oppposed to separate schools.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN. I was not aware
that I said all, and if I did so I was certainly mistaken, but the hon. member said
seventy-five per cent of them would sign
those petitions and that so would the Roman Catholics. He went on to say :
The Galicians say we left one country because of the tyranny of the church and we
were
told that we were coming to a free country,
and we do not want it in Canada.
Surely that constituency is just the sort
of one that our hon. friends desired. Surely
it is one after my hon. friend's heart. My
hon. friend the leader of the opposition made
the statement that the present Minister of
the Interior would make a very capable minister, that he was a personal friend of
his
and would like to see the First Minister
select him. My hon. friend from East Grey
(Mr. Sproule) said that the people generally
of the constituency of Edmonton were opposed to the idea of separate schools.
5277
5278
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. member for
East Grey (Mr. Sproule) did not mention
that .
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN. I submit that if
the hon. gentleman's words have any meaning, the interpretation I have placed upon
them is a fair one. Now the hon, member
for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) also complains
that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)
has not made his address, I presume, upon
the legal aspect of the measure. The argument of the Minister of Justice is in the
Bill;
where everybody can read it. But the hon.
leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)
has given no legal opinion on this measure—
absolutely none. And I submit that there are
very few hon. members on the opposition
side who have given such an opinion. The
leader of the opposition has stated that he
stands by the constitution, but he has not
endeavoured to explain what the constitution is, he has not uttered a single word
which would make clear what the effect of
this Bill would be legally or what would be
the effect if the constitution were applied.
So, upon that score, I think my hon. friend
has not very much reason to complain concerning the delay of the speech of the Minister
of Justice.
The attitude assumed by the opposition
on this question is a strange one. I believe it is not a fair one. For instance, the
hon. member for East Simcoe stated that
he would support the amendment of the
leader of the opposition on several grounds.
There is only one ground upon which a member of this House can intelligently support
that amendment, and that is upon the constitutional ground. The leader of the opposition
stated that the educational clauses
constitutionally were ultra vires. Therefore
he moved the amendment. He deliberately
stated in this House, and stated more than
once, that it was not a question of separate
schools or national schools. But the hon.
member for East Simcoe declared a moment
ago that he was going to support the amendment because he was opposed to separate
schools. The same remarks might be made
regarding the speeches of all those hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken on the
measure. And what has been the result ? I
submit that the result has been the creation
of an agitation in the country that is most
undesirable. I say that this agitation is
largely due to the fact that the Conservative
party as represented in this House to-day
has no policy and the members have been
permitted to go here, there and everywhere.
One hon. member was allowed to make
one statement, and another hon. member a
different statement. There were just two
ways to deal with this issue. It could possibly be argued fairly on constitutional
grounds, or it could be dealt with as a
matter of public policy. And the opposition, I contend should have taken one or
other of these grounds. But they agreed
to go every man for himself, upon the
5279
COMMONS
theory that that was the best method
to create an agitation the best method
to secure some political advantage at the
next general election. And I contend. that
there is ample evidence that the opposition
seek to play upon the quickly responsive
cord of religious and racial prejudice for
political effect and nothing else. They talk
about provincial rights and about the constitution. They talk against separate schools
and some of them talk against national
schools. I submit that all this is simply a
patch work of fig-leaves to hide the naked
fact of political expediency.
Let me refer to one or two matters which
afford evidence that this is the policy of
the opposition. Take the land clause of the
Bill. Now. the speech of the hon. leader of
the opposition on that clause of the Bill occupies a very small space in 'Hansard.'
Surely it was a very important matter. The question of provincial tights might have
been
as easily raised in reference to the land
clause as to the educational clauses. And
the people of this country, I can quite understand, were very much interested in the
way parliament should deal with the public
lands. The reason. I suppose. why we had
no petitions in reference to the land clause
was that it did not afford so responsive a
cord to play upon as the eduaational clauses.
I have a word or two to say about the conduct of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr.
Sproule) in reference to this measure. I am
not going to say that the hon. gentleman is
not conscientious in the position he takes
on the educational clauses of the Bill. His
conduct in 1896 lends strength to the position he takes upon this occasion But I
think he has had his weather eye open for
his party. Now, I very seldom tell a story,
and a story is never improved by my telling
it. But the conduct of the hon. member for
East Grey on this occasion reminds me of
a story of Max O'Rell's designed to illustrate a phase of the Scotch character. He
was seeking to show how close the ministers of the old school regarded themselves
in their relations to the deity. An old Presbyterian minister desiring on a certain
day
that the wind should blow got down upon
his knees and prayed 'Oh Lord, give us
a wind ; not a rantin' tantin,' tearin' wind,
but a nice, gentle winnin' wind.' It happened that at that moment a breeze came
up, which blew the parsons manuscript off
the table and scattered the leaves over the
room, whereat he said: 'Now, Lord, this
is ridiculous.' I think the hon. member for
East Grey was playing for an agitation not
a 'nice, gentle agitation' but a 'real rantin
tantin,' tearin' agitation. And when the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) blew
in here to-day. the hon. member for East
Grey must have said 'Brethren this is
ridiculous.' The hon member (Mr Sproule)
is at the head of an organization. Concerning that organization of course I have
nothing to say. But I would say this
5279
5280
that when a gentleman is elected to parliament his palamount duty is to the state.
and, as issues arise he should be in a
position to give his untrammelled judgment
to them, and that judgment should not be
affected by any alliance or connection with
any fraternal organization. The action of
the hon. member in sending out his letter
before this measure was introduced, I submit, was not quite the proper thing. He
was. of course, within his legal rights in
so doing, and one cannot very well complain
of it on that ground. But still I think it is
open to the contention that the purpose and
intention of his circular letter addressed,
' Dear Sir and Brother ' was largely for poll-
tical effect.
My contention in this respect is confirmed, I think, by the fact that down in
the province of Quebec we find a Conservative political club known as the Jacques
Cartier Club, issuing a letter to a different
class of people altogether, asking them to
oppose the administration for the reason
that the educational clauses of the Bill do
not go far enough. Now I say that the
effect of these petitions was bad for this
country. They created an agitation. In
the first place, the hon. member for Victoria
and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) became
agitated, and he was going to shoulder his
musket and fight for provincial rights. Of
course, nothing happened. It affected many
newspapers in this country. For instance.
the Hamilton 'Spectator' of a recent date
used the following language:
The attempt made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to
force separate schools on the new provinces
of the west will settle one thing. Never again
will a French Canadian be entrusted with the
premiership of Canada; never again will a
French Canadian have the opportunity to betray the people of this country. Canada
cannot
afford to take chances again.
This was one of the results of that agitation. I am sure that very' few hon. gentlemen
who sit with the opposition will approve of these remarks of the Hamilton
'Spectator.' But unfortunately that paper
and many others are daily using similar
remarks. they are all bringing grist to the
mill of the Conservative party, and unless
the leaders of that party exercise their
influence and have these papers desist from
such a low tone of discussion of a public
issue. they must bear responsibility for
what they say. Now that extract from
the Hamilton 'Spectator' was read in this
House by the Minister of Customs some
two or three weeks ago. The leader of the
opposition and the hon. member for West
Toronto (Mr. Osler) atempted to apologize
for this statement of the Hamilton 'Spectator.' But we find immediately a Toronto
paper coming to the support of the Hamilton 'Spectator.' I wish to read something
from the Toronto 'Telegram' in reference
to that :
5281 MAY 2, 1905
Trucklers to Quebec.
What will it profit R. L. Borden, M.P., E. B.
Osler, M.P., or any other Conservative leader
to run away from the Hamilton Spectator's
declaration that 'never again will a French
Canadian be premier of Canada ? '
Messrs. Borden and Osler do not edit the
Hamilton ' Spectator,' fortunately for the readers of that journal.
The Hamilton 'Spectator' does not lead the
Conservative party, or it might be better and
could not be worse led.
Ontario is just about tired of having the Conservative party led from. the Montreal
'Star'
office, or from the latitude and longitude of Mr.
Monk's ideas and Mr. Bergeron's ideas.
The Hamilton 'Spectator ' may have erred in
saying what everybody thinks, but if Mr. Borden and Mr. Osler apologize for their
own
errors they will have no time to waste apologizing for the errors of the Hamilton
' Spectator.'
It is, unfortunately, true that Mr. Borden and
Mr. Osler and other Conservative leaders share
the views of the Montreal ' Star' rather than
the opinions of the Hamilton ' Spectator.'
Quebec will not give Mr. Borden votes in return for his subservience to the ideas
of the
Montreal ' Star,' Mr. Monk and Mr. Bergeron.
Ontario is already alienated from Mr. Borden
by his lack of decision and courage upon this
school question.
Quebec is the shadow, Ontario is the substance, and it will be Mr. Borden's own fault
if a solid Ontario for freedom does not supply
the logical answer to a solid Quebec for coercion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that does not
speak well for the press of this country, it
does not speak well for the Conservative
party. to have its leading organs uttering
such unworthy sentiments as that, and it
will be a sad day in the history of this
country if the time should ever come, and
I believe it will not come, when the highest
position in this land, that of Prime Minister, is not open to any Canadian. whatever
be his religion or whatever be his
race. I could give many other illustrations to show how public feeling has been
aroused in this country, a result largely
due I think to the course pursued by the
Conservative party. I have recently seen
two letters addressed to hon. members of
this House both from residents of the province of Ontario. The writer of one letter
inquired if it were not true that the Roman
Catholics of Canada serving in our militia
got bigger pay per day than the Protestants. I saw another letter inquiring as to
whether it was not true that all through
the province of Quebec there were being
stored rifles and ammunition in the basements of the Catholic churches. These gentlemen
scented danger, and they may have
been quite honest in their fear: but I say
they were aroused to this particular form of
excitement largely by the position taken by
the Conservative party.
Now I wish to refer for a moment to the
remarks of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). He made the famous
5281
5282
declaration in discussing this Bill that he
felt himself quite free to reverse the position Which he took in 1896 by reason of
the fact that the Conservative party was
defeated in that year, and had been defeated twice since. Now, Sir. no declaration
has been quoted more frequently in
the United States than that of Henry Clay.
who said that he would rather be right
than be president. But the declaration
made by the hon. member for North Toronto is that he will follow the people,
whether they are right or whether they
are wrong. He is like the immortal. Flannigan from Texas, who, in closing a
speech, addressed his audience saying:
' Gentlemen, them's my sentiments, and if
they don't suit you they can be changed.'
Now certainly these are not high ideals to
put before the youth of this country. There
is a distinction between right and wrong,
and there is surely no reason in this country why a person should desert what he
considers to be the true position merely
because his party meets with a political reverse, and possibly upon some other issue
altogether. But I do not for a moment
admit that the Conservative party were defeated in 1896 upon the school question.
I
may not agree with some of my own political friends on that point. The Conservative
party about that time were in rather
a bad state, they could not get along With
themselves, and certainly they could not
get along with the country. The hon. gentleman who leads the opposition in the
other chamber said that on New Year's
Day, 1896, that day when the whole world
breathes forth hosannas of peace on earth
and good will towards man, he made a call
upon one of the ministers, and he tells us
that while he was paying his respects to
the ladies, this minister was trying to
seduce one of his other ministers away
from the cabinet. Now if such conduct
prevailed on New Year's Day among cabinet
ministers. surely we could expect almost
anything to occur in the ranks of the Conservative party. But I notice that the principles
of the hon. member for North Toronto.
his political ethics, were not of a much
higher standard in the past than they are
to-day. He addressed this parliament in
1896 upon the Manitoba school question and
I think he was the last speaker on the
government side. I must admit that he made
a speech which was an exceedingly able
and admirable one, notwithstanding that
there are portions of it with which I do
not agree. I wish to read just a short
quotation from that speech to show what
was the standard of political ethics of that
hon. gentleman then and when I read that
I am sure hon. gentlemen will not be surprised at the position taken by him the
other day. He was then addressmg the
Conservative party. He knew that there
were to be many desertions from the ranks
5283
COMMONS
of his party and he was making a last appeal to them and it was a clever one. He
said, referring to the opposition.
But, Sir, are those gentlemen opposite playing a part? I do not ask that in any offensive
sense. Are they playing a part? Let us
see. I think they are, and I submit my opinion.
The stake that they are playing for I know,
and so do our friends here. They are playing
for power. They are desperate players. I
do not play myself, but I take leave to ask
those who do a question. If they had been
playing all night and had been losing continually and had got to the last cent they
had in
their pockets, would they not become desperate? Cards up their sleeves, cards in their
laps, cards all around—anything to win. These
hon. gentlemen have been out for over eighteen
years. They have been playing for power and
they have lost. every time. Their last nickel
is invested. If they are desperate players, can
we wonder at it?
I think the hon. gentleman was really expressing his own mind at that time, and
with a slight transposition these words
would now probably represent the ideas of
the hon. member for North Toronto and
many of those who are supporting him.
Speaking for the oppositon the hon.
member for North Toronto would say
about this: 'But, Sir, we of the opposition are playing a part. Let me see.
I think we are and I submit we are. The
stake that we are playing for I know and
so do our opponents. W'e are playing for
power. We are desperate players and I
am a player myself. We have been playing
for the past eight years, and have been
loosing continually, personally, I lost in
St. John in 1900 and North Ontario in 1902.
We are up to the last cent we have in our
pockets, and we have become desperate.
We have cards up our sleeves, cards in our
laps, cards all round, conscience cards in
Quebec, a provincial rights pack of cards
in Ontario, and Mr. Rogers is making cards
for Manitoba. The premier of the Northwest
Territories is now designing cards for the
two new provinces. Anything to win. We
have been out for over eight years. We have
been playing for power and have lost every
time. Our last nickel is invested. I can
turn myself inside out or eat myself if
necessary. We are desperate players and
can you wonder at it?'
Now, I say that I have not the slightest
doubt in the world that the hon. gentleman
who was the Minister of Finance was really speaking his mind at that time, and I have
no doubt that what I have just read really
represents his own mind to—day and also
that of hon. gentlemen supporting the opposition. But, there is another portion from
the very same speech which I wish to read
to show also what the political ethics of
that hon. gentleman were in 1896 and I read
it also in the complimentary sense, because
it was a courageous statement to make.
I wish to read it so that I may contrast it
5283
5284
with the position taken by the hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden). He was appealing to the
Conservative party to stand by the ship
of the administration. He negatived the
old scriptural interrogation: What shall it
profit a man if he gain the whole world and
lose his own soul. I hope I have given the
quotation correctly.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN. If my hon. friend
from Brockville (Mr. Derbyshire) says it is
all right I have no doubt it is all right. He
spoke as follows :
You see the Liberal party utterly discredited
in the country. You see that party without
any policy which can appeal to the business
interests and the solid common sense of the
electors of Canada. You see that Liberal
party to-day, marching up to a test before the
people of this country, and their whole hope of
victory—I say it earnestly and honestly—is
that they may get into power, not because of
the strength of their own arms and batteries,
but because they hope for some desertions
from the citadel of their opponents, which shall
sally out to their help and enable them to take
the position to which they aspire.
This is the portion to which I particularly
desire to refer :
What answer is it to the country's best interests, if we go back to them with a defeated
policy and a defeated government, putting into
power a policy and a government in which we
do not believe, but which we do believe will
not be for the best interests of Canada. If
we have nothing to place against such action
but this one question, upon which we hold
honest beliefs, maybe, can we not to some extent subordinate one opinion, strong though
it
be, for the greater good, the larger policy, the
more valuable and the more precious interest
of the whole. What will it have profited us,
even it we gain a point of sentiment or of
principle in one respect; what will it have
profited us if we lose the soul of a progressive
policy anl a wise administration of affairs.
In other words the hon. Minister of Finance in 1896 said: Sacrifice principle to
keep our party in power and there can be
little wonder, of course, that to-day he has
stated that so long as water runs and grass
grows he will not bind himself to adhere
to that which he thinks is right.
There is one thing about this speech
which claims the admiration even of the
friends of the present administration, and
it is, that the hon. member for North Toronto was making a splendid effort to induce
his party to stand together. He did
it cleverly; I give him all possible credit
for it, but I say the position taken by the
hon. leader of the opposition stands in
sorry contrast with the position then taken
by the hon. member for North Toronto.
Before I proceed let me first refer to one or
two things. When this measure was first
5285 MAY 2, 1905
introduced to the House the cry and prayer
of the hon. leader of the opposition was :
Don't rush the Bill. Then there were many
requests from the hon. leader of the opposition, day after day, to bring the Bill
down immediately and one would imagine
that the whole Conservative party were
united, that there were no dissentients in
their ranks, that they had settled upon a
sound and fixed policy. They were practically saying : Bring forth the beast of separate
schools so that we may get our hands
on it right now and here. That was not
the fact when the second reading of this
Bill was moved. The position which the
hon. leader of the opposition took upon
that occasion was, I say, not creditable to
himself or to his party. It was not fair to
the country and I submit it is open to criticism. The hon. gentleman made a legal
argument and it was, I concede, a very able
one. He seemed very sure about the correctness of his argument, because he postulated
everything from his premises to his
conclusion andin effect he said that this was
the straight and narrow path to sound political principle and statesmanship. He said
the administration had no more right to pass
the educational clauses of this Bill than they
would have to amend Mahomet's Koran.
He says it is not open to argument, and
then he turns to his followers, but he does
not exhort them to stand together in his
support as did the hon. member for North
Toronto (Mr. Foster) in 1896, but he tells
them that he does not expect them to follow
his lead if for reasons of conscience they
cannot see their way to do so. I would
like to know what conscience has to do with
the consideration of a question of constitutional law ? I never saw in any text-book
upon the interpretation of statutes, that
conscience was a canon of construction. I
have heard that at one time in England,
law was measured by the length of the
chancellor's foot, but I never heard of
legal principles being aflirmed on the rule
of conscience. I never saw in Holman vs.
the Crown. or in the Queen vs. Robinson, or
in any other constitutional case any reference to conscience. Nevertheless, the hon.
gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) for some reason or other turns to his followers and says
:
While I am absolutely sound in my opinion,
and while the legislation is clearly ultra
vii-es. still for conscience sake you are at
liberty to oppose it. This brand of conscience seems a very peculiar thing to me—
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN. I am referring to
the particular kind of conscience which the
leader of the opposition was speaking of.
If you try to define it, or measure it, or size
it up in any way, you are puzzled. It does
not seem to be governed by latitude, or by
longitude, or by altitude. From the island
of Montreal there are three Conservative
members, and they have expressed their
5285
5286
willingness to support the government measure. While an hon. member from Toronto
told us this afternoon that he was going
to support the amendment—I suppose on
conscientious grounds. I am curious to
know what effects this change of conscience
within an area of a few hundred miles.
Does the atmosphere of the St. Lawrence
in the neighbourhood of Montreal generate a
different form of conscience from that which
the atmosphere of Lake Ontario does ? The
hon. member for Cornwall and Stormont
(Mr. Pringle) has expressed his intention of
supporting this measure, and I wonder if
the climatic conditions in his neighbourhood produces another kind of conscience.
This conscientious argument submitted by
the leader of the opposition does not appear
to me to be fair. I look upon it as an intimation to his followers to pursue whatever
course might suit their constituents. It is
possible, of course, that some members of
the opposition may not have any conscience
at all on this question, but possibly their
constituents have a conscience, and it might
be right to respect the conscience of your
constituents. I sympathize with any member supporting the opposition who represents
a constituency where there is perhaps a fair
division of conscience, for it may be very
difficult for him to decide which form of
conscience he will be guided by, as to
whether he will vote for the Bill or support
the amendment. I am reminded of another
story which will illustrate this, though perhaps I am breaking my record for storytelling.
During the days of the American
civil war a settler lived upon the Mason
and Dixon line, in the state of Missouri, and
he was very careful whenever he was questioned by a sentry of the northern army to
declare that he was against slavery, and to
a confederate sentry he was as careful to
state that he was in favour of secession.
But one day both sentries met together, and
his declaration then was: I am nothing at
all, and not much of that. I fear that some
members of the opposition will find themselves in that very predicament.
Possibly it may be good party tactics, and
possibly these manoeuvers are not at all
discreditable to the intellect of the leader
of the opposition, for it may be that these
gentlemen who have been given leave to
vote as they like under the conscience
rule, are the doves which the Noah of the
Conservative party is sending out to carry
some message of good-will to hierarchies
and to minorities, so that possibly during
the next election they may come back to the
Conservative ark hearing from here and
there an olive branch.
I submit that the position taken by the
leader of the opposition was not fair to this
country ; I submit that it was not fair even
to his own political friends. The people of
Canada are not agitated about provincial
rights or about the constitutional question.
Possibly not one per cent of Canadian elec
5287
COMMONS
tors have ever read the speech delivered by
the leader of the opposition, and possibly not
one-hundredth of one per cent of them would
understand it if they did read it. There
is no disguising the fact that the issue in
the country in reference to this measure is
on the abstract question of separate versus
national schools. It is a condition that confronts us and not a legal proposition,
and I
submit that the leader of the opposition
should have adopted the course which most
of his followers have pursued, and discussed
the question on its merits. It is said that
this matter should be left to the new provinces. and that in any case the provincial
governments will treat the minority fairly.
Well, there are some things upon which one
man will not trust another, one race will
not trust another, one religion will not trust
another. In ordinary business transactions
it is not considered shrewd to enter into a
contract without reducing it to writing. and
where religious or racial prejudices may
surround a bargain, I submit that it is only
right that people who are asking for protection Should have protection guaranteed
to
them in some form or another. Many good
reasons have developed why the minority in
the Northwest Territories should not trust
the provincial governments to do them justice. If the legal argument made by the
leader of the opposition means anything. it
means that the Territories came into confederation in 1870. He quoted the Barrett
case, and from that he concluded that there
was no system of separate schools in the
Northwest Territories, and he therefore submits that section 93 of the British North
America Act could not possibly apply to
the new provinces. and that the minority
there would have no legal standing whatever. We have some hon. gentlemen stating
that the provinces, when established. would.
if they had the opportunity, legislate against
these separate schools. The hon. member
for Algoma (Mr. Boyce), a few nights ago.
criticising the administration for submitting
this measure to a new parliament, said:
It was kept in the shade by the hon. gentlemen opposite until they had obtained a
large
and substantial majority in this House. The
moment that majority is obtained. it is used
for the purpose of passing through a measure
to brand by coercive methods these Northwest
provinces with a system of education which
they do not desire.
I gather that this is an attack on the
system of schools which the minority desire
to establish there, and it is sufficient to
lead the minority to think that there would
be no protection or guarantee of their
rights. I say further that the tone of the
Conservative press in this country to-day,
particularly in some of the provinces. justifies the minority in believing that their
rights cannot be protected in any other way
than by providing for them in this Act.
Now. there is nothing unreasonable in the
5287
5288
minority of a new province asking to have
these rights provided for in the constitution. The province of Nova Scotia, when
it entered confederation, was not satisfied
to take the word of the fathers of confederation that the Intercolonial Railway
would be built; it was provided for in the
constitution. The province of British Columbia in the same way would not take
the word of the Dominion government that
the Canadian Pacific Railway-would be
built. The construction of that road was
one of the conditions on which that province agreed to enter the confederation.
and that condition was placed in the Order
in Council bringing in that province. And
there does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, no
reason why there should be any agitation
in this country over this issue, or why
there should be any opposition to this measure. In fact, very few members who
have spoken in this House have expressed
any aversion to the separate schools as
they exist in the Northwest. Not one
single member coming from the Territories
has spoken a word against them. In fact,
I doubt if more than two members of the
opposition altogether have spoken against
the system of schools which they have.
That being the case. there is not in my
judgment any ground whatever for the apparent disturbance of public opinion which
has recently existed upon this question.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a question of policy; and, if we read the history
of this country, it will aid us in no small
degree in reaching a proper conclusion in
this case. The history of Canada is a history of compacts from the very beginning
up to the present time. The beginning of
Canadian history dates from the Treaty of
Paris. when this country passed from
French to British control. By that treaty
the rights of the French and the rights of
the Catholics were protected. The next
compact was the Confederation Act, in
which special provision was made for the
protection of the minorities in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and particularly
for the continuation and perpetuation
of the school systems as they existed in
those provinces. Provision was also made
for the continuation of minority schools
which might be established in any other
province coming into the union, and for
granting a remedy in case any provincial
legislature interfered with any system of
separate, schools that had been established.
In 1875. when the Northwest Territories
were given a form of constitution, it was
specially provided that the minority might
under certain conditions establish separate
schools. That proposition received the
support at that time of men like George
Brown. Alexander Mackenzie. Edward
Blake and Sir John Macdonald: and I have
not the slightest doubt that when these
5289
MAY 2, 1905
men expressed their assent to the establishment of that system of schools, it was
with the idea that it once established it
was to be continued. Therefore I submit
that there rests on this country a moral
obligation to give to the minorities in those
two provinces that system of schools under which they have existed in the Northwest
Territories for the past thirty years,
and it would be an unwarrantable repudiation for us not to grant that which they
have had for the past thirty years, and for
which they now ask.
The task of building up a nation in British North America is no easy task. The
diversity of race brought to us other diversities. To mould the constitution and our
public policy along lines that will receive
the recognition of these diversities is the
task of every Canadian. The fathers of
confederation recognized this difliculty, and
the education issue was perhaps the gravest
that-confronted them. Their mode of settlement as applied to the provinces at that
date is the method sought to be applied
to-day to the new provinces. I have
not the slightest doubt that it was the
intention of the framers of the constitution that when these Territories should
enter the confederation, the educational
rights of the minorities should be protected
just as the educational rights of the minorities in the other provinces were protected
by section 93 of the British North
America Act; and any attempt to disturb
this policy which has been lived up to
in the past would, I believe, he disastrous to the country. This is the only way
in which we can secure national contentment and national unity. Canada to-day
is making such progress as to satisfy
the aspirations of the most ambitious
of us; and, as an hon. gentleman said the
other day, we. are simply at the morning
star, at the cock-crowing, of our national
existence, but any interference with those
rights which have been established, and
which are so dear to certain classes of our
population would, I fear, seriously injure
the country. To maintain our present position and develop further with the years
to come internal calm is necessary. It
would take little to disturb the unity of
the Canadian spirit, and perhaps threaten
the compact of confederation. It is our
duty to face our conditions and build up
our growing country on lines that will
meet our conditions. It is due to our
national integrity that we religiously adhere to the compacts a-nd compromises made
by the fathers of confederation—that we
adhere to the legislative compact made with
the Territories in 1875; and I believe, Sir,
that the people of this country will approve
of the clauses of the measure now before
the House, which seek to preserve the
rights granted to the minority in the Ter
5289
5290
riorities in 1875. For these reasons, Mr.
Speaker, I Purpose giving to the measure
my support.
Mr. A. N. WORTHINGTON (Sherbrooke).
Mr. Speaker, smce the commencement of
the debate on the Bill which the right hon.
the First Minster has brought before the
House, I have listened to the speeches delivered on both sides, and have endeavoured
to form an independent and unbiased opinion that would guide me in registering my
vote when the time came for a division on
this important question.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill
contains many clauses relating to the distribution of lands, public moneys and educational
matters, only one clause seems to
have occupied the time of the House to
any extent, and that is the educational clause.
Whether due to a religious zeal or for other
reasons. all other questions seem to pale
before this one, and to such an extent that
the man on the street speaks not of the
Autonomy Bill but of the Separate School
Bill. So many and so varied are the arguments brought forward by hon. members
on either side of the House and so diametrically opposed are the views expressed
that a layman, of non-legal mind and attainments might well pause and wonder
where we are at. For that reason, Mr.
Speaker, I think it would have been wiser
and more in the interest of peace and harmony if the government had submitted this
Bill to the highest legal authorities before
presenting it to the House. My hon. friend
the leader of the opposition, in his amendment to the second reading of the Bill,
laid
down the principle that upon the creation
of a province in the Northwest:
The legislature of each province, subject to
and in accordance with the provisions of the
British North America Acts of 1867 and 1886,
is entitled to and should enjoy full powers of
self-government, including the power to
exclusively make laws in relation to edution.
By this amendment the question in issue
is simply whether or not by an Act of the
federal parliament  the new provinces
of Saskatchewan and Alberta shall be
restricted in their freedom to deal
with the question of education as they
see fit. The amendment is in no sense an
attack on separate schools, nor is it necessary, in order to oppose it, to defend
separate schools; if the issue raised in the
amendment was rigidly adhered to, the
advantages or disadvantages of separate
schools need not be mentioned. The issue
raised is simply a constitutional one and not
a sectarian one. The limitation in power in
What the British North America Act says is
a matter exclusively within provincial control, is what the amendment condemns, and
a strict regard for the constitution should
5291
settle the question as to whether or not the     Â
new provinces shall have the same control        Â
of education as is enjoyed by the provinces    Â
of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, and since the
       Â
defeat of the Remedial Bill, by the then       Â
apostles of provincial rights, the province       Â
of Manitoba. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
When the debate began, the rock of the    Â
constitution stood out in bold relief with a      Â
danger signal on its summit, but the ex- Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was the           Â
first to see that danger signal and strike         Â
for term firma, and the waves of discord and         Â
dissention were loosed in deference to the      Â
man on the street. The rock has been sub- Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
merged and nought remains save the danger        Â
signal; and a government with convictions      Â
which change with dates, are as strongly      Â
opposed to provincial rights to-day as they       Â
were ardent in favour of them 1896. My       Â
hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
quoted the speech of the ex-Minister of the        Â
Interior (Mr. Sifton) which was delivered          Â
at Caledonia Springs in April, 1895. In that        Â
speech the ex-Minister of the Interior was         Â
very warm in his denunciation of separate        Â
schools, but as this speech has been fully        Â
quoted by my hon. friend from Marquette, Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
I will content myself with citing only one        Â
item which deals more especially with pro- Â Â Â Â Â Â
vincial rights The hon. gentleman (Mr. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Sifton) there said:
I will venture the statement that the true       Â
interests of the Roman Catholics ofManitoba
will be better advanced by a policy of conciliation than by a policy of coercion.
This
Remedial Bill which the government are trying to force upon an unwilling parliament,
even
if it should pass, cannot settle the question.
It would be an attack upon provincial rights.
If the Roman Catholics are ever to obtain a
solution of this question which is worth having they must obtain it from the good
will of
the majority of the people of the province to
which they belong.
What has since come over the spirit of
the hon. gentleman's dream? What magic
spell, what hypnotic influence has sent this
doughty champion of provincial rights back
into the rank and file of the great Liberal
party to-day—that party which has bartered
its principles for power? Some men die
hard; others are dead easy, and in the latter category the right hon. the First Minister
seems to have found the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) alld the hon.
member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway).
Though this Bill is a working model of a
plan submitted to the House for inspection,
before the plant is laid down on a larger
scale, and though some alterations have
been made in the machinery to enable it to
run more easily and smoothly—perhaps
with less vibration and danger to its boilers
for the adoption of turbines—it practically
remains the same working model, and as
such has taken up the attention of the
House for many weeks. Consequently at
5291
5292
this late hour of the debate, I do not intend Â
to devote any extended remarks to its perfections or imperfections.
As a junior member of the House, I shall not presume for a moment to discuss the
question of the constitution, and for excellent reasons, the most important of which
is, not that it does not appeal to the man on the street, but because the constitution
seems, in the latter stages of the debate, to have been lost sight of. What I will
have to say in defense of the action I may take will be drawn from the records of
British fair play and from the traditions of the Conservative party; from that sense
of equity and justice which prevails wherever the flag of the motherland floats to-day—
that sense of justice which gave equal rights to Frnench and English Catholics and
Protestants in Quebec, and which, after an arduous struggle of three years in south
Africa, entailing the loss of thousands of her sons and the expenditure of many millions,
has given to a valiant foe equal rights of language, religion, and education; from
the traditions of a party that has always been true to the principles of equality
and justice to the minority, Proestants or Catholics. Personally I would be in favour
of national schools, but representing a constituency composed of all classes, creeds,
and nationalities which go to make up our great Canadian nationality, I consider
that I am not here to advance my
personal ideas at the expense of my constituents, that I am not here to express the
opinions of Catholics or the opinions of
Protestants, but to endeavour to arrive
at a conclusion which will be satisfactory to all. and to make my views
subservient to those of the great majority of the people I have the honour
to represent.
I do not intend to make more than a passing reference to the school ordinances of
1891. I would like to include them in my
I remarks, but they have been fully explained
by hon. members on both sides of the
House. In these ordinances there is nothing that can give offence to anybody.
Under these, the regulating of the duties
of teachers and the control of the schools
is given to the commissioners appointed by
the Territorial goveriinlent and will be within the jurisdictiOn of the new provinces
under the Bills creating them, subject to the
religious instruction provided for under
clause 137, and this should commend itself
to all loyal and God-fearing people. As I
have said, this part of the question has
been referred to frequently and at length,
and I shall not continue the discussion.
In the first public school I attended
in-my native town there were two teachers
a Protestant and a Catholic. One or the
other opened the daily exercises with the
Lord's prayer. And this was acceptable
to every one. Since then some of my warmest friends professional, socially and politic
5293 MAY 2, 1905
ally have been people of diflferent faith to my
own. I believe the educational clauses as
amended are generally acceptable to them
and if adhered to, as we are told by members
of the government they will be, they cannot
but be satisfactory to people of my own
faith. On the other hand, many contend
that they do not go far enough. There are
certain members of the church in the province of Quebec and members of the government
who are dissatisfied with the
amended clauses of the Bill. The following article giving an account of a sermon
by the bishop of Three Rivers shows that
gentleman is dissatisfied :
Monseigneur Clouthier, bishop of Three
Rivers, in a sermon preached last week in the
cathedral of that city, referred to the school
clauses of the Autonomy Bills as follows : The
original Bill was far from assuring to Catholic
children that Christian teaching to which they
are entitled. The amended Bill now before the
House gives, it is true, separate schools, but
teaching submitted to the will of the state will
be almost neutral in practice. The teaching, as
a matter of fact, will only be given in English,
and the half-hour of catechism after school is
only a decoy and can in no way satisfy the proper formation of Catholic children.
The confederation pact centainly assures us
more than that, or Catholics would never have
consented to form a part of it. We may ask
what will become of the confederation should
such a measure become law. The amended Bill,
which hands over to the new provinces the absolute control of their schools, is not
acceptable to Catholics. We must have federal legislation that will guarantee to the
minority the
right to have schools of their choosing, both as
regards religion and language.
The object which a certain number of people
have in view, of establishing so-called national
schools, tends to stamp with the same imprint
every citizen of this country. Now, this fusion
of races, as far as the French Canadians are
concerned, is a dream, a utopia, for it would
mean the renouncing of their providential mission, and we have every reason to hope
that
they will be faithful to that mission.
Our duty for the moment is to live alongside
our English fellow citizens, respecting their
rights, but forcing them, as the occasion may
require, to respect ours.
It is, therefore, the imperious duty of all
Catholics to work courageously to obtain confessional schools for the two new provinces
and
not to let up till we have obtained full and
ample justice.
This gentleman and others to whom the
educational clauses are unsatisfactory, I
would respectfully refer to the right hon.
First Minister and the members of his government. Had they adopted a different
attitude in 1896, this sermon would never
have been delivered. But with a thirst for
power and a policy that changes with dates
what can be expected ? In connection with
this sermon, I would like to say that his Excellency Earl Grey is reported to have
said,
in the course of a speech delivered during
his recent visit to Toronto, that in the
union of our two great races lies the secret
and strength of our future. But as I read
5293
5294
the words or the reverend gentleman from
Three Rivers, I am forced to hope that there
are other secrets and other sources of
strength available, otherwise our future,
this dream, this utopia about which the
reverend gentleman seems not over sanguine, may be indefinitely postponed. And
who is responsible for this postponement?
I do not venture to suggest that the reverend gentleman is responsible. I do not
venture to suggest that the right hon.
leader of the government is responsible.
I would rather on the floor of this House
assume the responsibility for our fathers who
instead of making for union at the beginning in their wisdom, made provision for
separation, not only on race lines, but for
separation between people of the same race
and with each succeeding government for
political reason, aye, and through honesty
of purpose, there has been a tendency to
accentuate rather than minimize this mistaken wisdom of our fathers.
Even the views of the Liberal organs
have changed within the last few years. I
will read from the Montreal 'Herald' of
May, 1896, which after discussing the tariff,
goes on to say :
Can Montreal attord to have Canada rent and
torn for the next decade—perhaps for the next
generation—with racial wars, with sectional
enmities, with religious conflicts ? This is the
question which every voter in Montreal who
has a real stake in the country should seriously
ask himself. A triumph for Sir Charles Tupper
means such lamentable divisions. It means an
attempt to pass at Ottawa, in July, a Remedial
Bill, against which will be arrayed a strong
contingent of members from every other province. If by the use of means now threatened,
which will be repugnant to the enlightened
sentiment of Canada, the support of Quebec to
such a measure is solidified, the hostillity to it
of the other provinces will be all the more intensified and we shall have in parliament
a
lamentable division, in the main between Quebec and the other provinces. The measure
may
not pass, in which case the agitation in its
favour will be continued. Nor will the question
he removed from parliament it it should pass,
as so many people affect to believe. That would
mean the opening of the second stage of the
struggle, the preaching of a Protestant crusade
through the length and breadth of Canada, the
appeals to prejudice and passions, which if
aroused will run their course untempered by
cooler considerations; and the inevitable political cleavage of our people not into
Liberal
and Conservatives, but into Protestant and
Catholic camps. The possibilities of such a
crusade are of the gravest ; they may involve
(we speak in all seriousness) the breaking up
of confederation and the shedding of blood.
And this, Mr. Speaker, from a newspaper
under the control of that harbinger of peace
who lately on the floor of this House, but
like the voice of one crying in the wilderness.
enunciated the blessed tenets of his religious
ethics ' Do unto others as ye would that they
should do unto you.' Mr. Speaker I would
commend these blessed tenets to this hon.
5295 COMMONS
gentleman in the hope that he may carry
them beyond the precincts of this House.
To be candid Mr. Speaker, and I wish to be
candid, I regret that separate schools exist
in Canada to-day, I regret that they exist in
the province of Quebec, and for this reason ;
that Protestant and Catholic boys meet for
the first time in the struggle of life only
after their education has been completed,
and after having been kept apart during the
best years of their life. I regret it also for
the reason that I do not think that two
languages are too much for any child to acquire, especially if those languages are
the
tongues of our two national mothers. England and La Bule France. In almost every
 county of Quebec there are teachers With a
salary ranging from $60 to $120 a year,
teaching a school year of 10 months. What
qualifications can you expect in a teacher
receiving such a miserable pittance as that ?
I noticed an article in a Township paper
some time ago describing a very happy
state of affairs that is to come into force in
parts of the counties of Drummond and
Athabasca, and this will be of interest to
the First Minister, as that was his old
constituency before he found the air of
Quebec more bracing and salubrious. Here
Catholics and Protestants, unable to support,
two systems of schools. are united in a common school. I have extracts from two papers
in the eastern townships giving a description of the meetings which were held
at Kingsey village in one of those counties
on that subject. At one, Mr. Parmelee, secretary of the Protestant committee:
Gave a most interesting account of the working of consolidated schools in Massachusetts
and elsewhere during the last thirty years,
and pointed out the notable fact that although
in nearly ever case provision had been made
for reversal to the old way, it the new way
proved impracticable, there had not been a
single case of going back.
This, Mr. Speaker, I think is a consummation devoutly to be wished, a school system
under which all creeds and races would
grow up together, forgetting the prejudices
which have kept their fathers apart, if not
at enmity with one another, and which
would enable them to meet on a common
ground of union and Canadian citizenship.
My reason for objecting to separate schools
lies in the fact that the differences do not
stop at separate schools, but that the lines
drawn by these divisions extend to all walks
of business and social life and strike at the
root of that great national spirit which it
should be the true aim of every loyal Canadian to foster and maintain. It means the
perpetuation of national societies and benevolent organizations on religious lines;
it
means fĂŞte days, street parades of one section or society equally objectionable to
the
susceptible imagination of one party as the
other. National schools do not mean Protestant schools and should, in my opinion,
be conducted by the laity. Therefore I
5295
5296
say in the working out of the destiny of this great country, of this nation,
and I believe I have the highest authority
in this House when I speak of Canada as a
nation. For the Prime Minister has described how when in the mother land, some
years ago he was presented one bright morning with a babe in swaddling clothes, which
proved to be young Canada destined to
be known henceforth among the peoples
of the world as a nation, whereas the happy
parent. on the evening preceding this momentous event, in utter ignorance of his
condition, (immaculate, I trust) had 'drawn
the drapery of his couch about him
and lain down to pleasant dreams.' Therefore, I say, in working out the destiny of
this young nation we should endeavour to
forget our different origins. I know it is
hard to forget one's origin, but I believe
that in so far as it is possible these ties and
traditions should be forgotten and relegated
to oblivion. We should endeavour to forget
the distinctions which have divided us in
the past, and should strive to be known only
as Canadians. For my part I would be
sorry to see the 17th of March go by Without wearing a sprig of shamrock in honour
of the patron saint of Emerald Isle, but beyond these annual tokens of respect, we
should endeavour to forget our different origins. The Minister of Finance, with wonderful
descriptive power. has painted the
picture of a visit he made to a school in
Nova Scotia conducted by a reverend sister
of some holy order, on whose bosom there
hung a crucifix. In the course of his speech
he said :
The Prime Minister once when in Halifax
visited one of these schools and he alluded
to it as a separate school, and one of the
sisters interrupted him and said: No, Sir, it
is a public. school of the province of Nova
Scotia. And so it was, but it was a school
which was recognized as a Roman Catholic
school and it was attended only by Roman
Catholic pupils and it was taught by the Roman Catholic sister of charity wearing
the
garb of her order and the cross upon her
breast. We have made concessions to our
Roman Catholic brethern in the province of
Nova Scotia.
Evidently the Minister of Finance thinks
the Roman Catholic minority of that province has no rights, evidently he was much
struck with what happened on that visist.
But I can assure him that it is an every
day occurrence in the province of Quebec
where Protestant girls attend Roman Catholic convents and where Roman Catholic boys
attend Protestant schools, and vice versa.
The hon. gentleman goes on to say in another connection:
If my right hon. friend should retire on
an issue like this, then the only thing that
could possibly happen, it my hon. friend the
leader of the opposition should agree to form
a government at such a time, would be that
he must form a Protestant government and he
must have a general election.
5297 MAY 2, 1905
As the hon. gentleman has seen fit to give
us this description of his visit to this Catholic
school, I will endeavour to go him one better,
and to say that in far-off Africa I have seen
a reverend father of the Roman Catholic
Church and a chaplain of the English Church
standing side by side by the grave of a
Canadian who had laid down his life for the
empire, one or other of the reverend gentlemen conducting the service, while the other
stood with bared head in silent prayer. Here
was the union of hearts diametrically opposed on the question of creed and dogma
uniting in the sacred ceremony of wafting
to its heaven of rest in the arms of the First
Minister of the universe the soul of a departed brother—
I may say, en passant, that I have frequently remarked to a friend of mine, that if
at any time I should need the services of a
clergyman, and if my own chaplain were
not available, I should be very glad if this
reverend padre. whom we had all grown to
love and respect. would come to me. These,
I may tell you. hon. gentlemen, are scenes
which bring men together, which make us
feel that we should see more of one another
and mingle more together, English and
French, Catholic and Protestant, particularly in boyhood's earliest days, and not
wait
until our education has been completed before mingling in the strife of life. Experiences
of this kind would also dispel the idea
from the minds of honest men that in the
formation of a government the personnel
thereof need be all Protestant because some
of its members are in favour of provinciail
rights or opposed to separate schools. One
of the epochs in the life of the hon. member
for North Wellington (Mr. T. Martin) seems
also to have been in connection with a visit
to a Romana Catholic establishment. This
hon. gentleman, after treading the heather
of his native heath for some hours and
quoting the biography or autobiography—I
do not know which—of one Dr. Robertson,
goes on to tell how he got over the priest's
fence in his town. I think that the good—
will which this hon. gentleman bears to the
Roman Catholic Church rests on the fact
that the reverend gentleman did not catch
him on this occasion, and if the facts were
known we would find that the hon. gentleman probably got under the fence and that
it was the garden or orchard fence. This
hon. gentleman has been pleased to accuse
the opposition of bigotry and prejudice.
Personally, I deny the allegation, and I venture to say that if he reads ' Hansard
' since
the commencement of this debate, he will
find that over ninety-five per cent of what
the right hon. First Minister was pleased
to describe as the exaggeration of that noble
sentiment as passion, has emanated from the
government benches.
' Le Canada,' which is, I believe, the organ
of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries
(Mr. Préfontaine), has shown a solicitude
about certain Protestant members from the
5297
5298
province of Quebec who applauded their
leader in the eloquent appeal for provincial
rights. and fearing lest they should have
trouble with their constituents, has counselled them to refrain. May not a man mark
his appreciation of his leader's sentiments
and words on this side of the House as well
as on the other? Is the collective wisdom
of this House centred in the brain of the
right hon. First Minister ? May not words
of wisdom emanate from the opposition
benches or a pearl of thought fall from the
scrap book of the opposition leader ? However, with my hon. friend from Huntingdon
(Mr. Walsh), I thank the paper for the timely warning, and, for myself, I promise
to
be more careful in future. Its advice I regret being unable to follow, as, constitutionally,
I firmly believe that this country will
pronounce my hon. friend the leader of the
opposition to be right, and I believe that
this country is of the opinion that should
his amendment carry the minority of the
new provinces would receive equally as
great. if not greater, consideration than it
would at the hands of the right hon. leader
of the government. I believe that this country will pronounce my hon. friend the leader
of the opposition to be constitutionally right
when we read that such an eminent man as
Christopher Robinson, K.C., has expressed
an opinion adverse to the legal and constitutional basis of this separate school legislation,
and that Dr. Goldwin Smith attacks it
on its political side. Dr. Goldwin Smith, so
a Toronto paper says, writes to his friend
the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)
that he cannot agree with him on the school
question. He says :
The legal question the lawyers must decide.
For my part, I fail to see how a purely provisional power, such as that with which
the
Dominion government is invested for the administration of a territory, can legally
prolong its edict beyond the term for which the
power is held, and make it perpetually binding on the province; in face of the plain
words
of the British North America Act, assigning
to the province exclusively the subject of education. It would seem that we are bound,
at
all events, to take a judicial opinion on that
point. Left doubtful, it would be the seed of
future trouble.
Some of our French Canadian friends on
the other side of the House have told us in
eloquent, poetic and tragic language, of the
advance of education and civilization in the
Northwest, and of how the French missionaries were the pioneers of religion and civilization.
What they say of their countrymen
I firmly believe is true. We all know that
they were the pioneers of civilization and
Christianity in the great west. We have,
with these gentlemen, followed the advance
of civilization up the mighty rivers, across
the great lakes and boundless prairies, not
only to the foot of the gigantic Rockies, but
to the very summits thereof. What these
hon. gentlemen say of these missionaries is
no doubt true, and let us hope, Mr. Speaker,
5299 COMMONS
that when Bernier, pushing through regions Â
of thick-ribbed ice, awakens with the eally
rising, rosy fingered dawn to find himself
farthest north, ties his dog team to the end
of the pole and looks aloft, he will find seated on the top some reverend gentleman
administering the last sacred rites to an unfortunate creature who would withhold
from the minority of that frozen region the
rights which their forefathers, now, like the
beaver, the buifalo and the redman, becoming extinct, had inherited from their prehistoric
ancestors; and let us trust that if
he returns by the overland route through
the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, he will find no trace remaining of
the
religious questions that are stirring the people of this country today, but all living
together as one harmonious whole and worshipping a universal God, Who is the Father
and Maker of all.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to go back to my own county and to
the neighbouring counties, as it was there
that the Protestant minority, before confederation, started the agitation in favour
of separate schools in the province of Quebec. I find in the history of Compton county.
page 49, that the following resolutions
touching the rights of the Protestant minority were adopted by the county council,
and
these resolutions show that Compton county
at least was alive to the interests of the Protestant minority :
On June 13, 1866, it was moved by Councillor
Chaddock, seconded by Councillor Lebourveau,
and resolved, that the warden and secretary-
treasurer petition parliament at its present
session to the eflect that previous to the confederation of the North American provinces
the rights of the Protestant minority in Lower
Canada, as respects municipal and school matters, be guarded and protected in such
a manner that hereafter, should confederation take
place, the majority may not have power to interfere with the action of the Protestant
minority on these points.
At the forty-fifth quarterly session, September 12, 1866. Councillor L. Pope moved
the following resolution seconded by Councillor Lebourveau :
That the warden and secretary-treasurer
shall, on behalf of this council, petition the
Imperial parliament to the effect that the
rights of the English-speaking Protestant
community in Lower Canada be protected by
the introduction into the constitution of Lower
Canada of clauses therein similar to those introduced into the last session of the
House
of Assembly, but withdrawn, referring to educational matters. And that the Protestants
of
Lower Canada be allowed the management of
their own schools and tax of contributing their
money to the support of Protestant schools
only, if they see fit, and that a committee
consisting of the warden, secretary-treasurer
and Councillor Robinson prepare such petition.
Carried unanimously.
On March 13, 1867, the warden read and
presented the copy of a despatch from the
5299
5300
Secretary of State for the Colonies acknowledging the receipt of a petition through
the Hon. A. T. Gait, addressed to Her
Majesty, the Queen, and forwarded to him
by the Governor General's secretary, for
the information of the council and municipal
authorities of the county of Compton. This
petition stated that the Secretary of State
for the Colonies would see that the subject
of education for the minority should be
thoroughly discussed with the representatives of British North America. At this
time the eastern townships was the English
speaking portion of the province of Quebec
and it was there that the agitation in favour
of separate schools for Protestants in Quebec originated. I am only reading from
the history of Compton county because it is
the only one available, but similar resolutions must have come from the other
English counties of Stanstead, Richmond.
Brome, Shefford and others. And, Sir, if
these people to-day thought that the Catholic minority itself, of the Northwest was
crying for these same educational rights
they would be the first to ofler them. In
my own case, I go back to the old court
house in the town of Sherbrooke. which
is the centre of the county I have
the honour to represent, and find in
1867, Sir A. T. Galt. the representative of
the county at that time, coming back to his
electors to explain the terms of confederation, and insisting that when Quebec entered
the union that the rights of the Protestant minmity of that province shall be respected
and maintained in perpetuity. Sir
A. T. Galt said:
Mr. Galt, who, on rising, was received with
great applause. addressed the chairman and
said the practice had obtained in England of
late years for the leading politicians and those
charged with the administration of the government to meet their constituents and the
public during the recess of parliament and discuss with them the questions then occupying
the public mind. He believed that great advantage had arisen from the practice of
instructing the public with reference to the question then before it, from the fact
that when
parliament afterwards met it had the intelligent ideas of the people brought to bear
upon
its deliberations.
I commend these remarks to the government, because had they followed the practice
which Mr. Galt says existed amongst
the English parliamentarians, and if they
had taken this question to the people before bringing it to the House all the trouble
which has arisen might have been spared the country. I heard one member of
the government state the other day in connection with the 'School Bill that we were
making Canadian history. I can only say
that if the time of the House for the last
few weeks has been taken up in making history. then the next time we want history
we
had better get it ready-made. Sir A. T.
Galt after discussing the terms of confeder
5301 MAY 2, 1905
ation, the different conferences that were
held in the different provinces, the geographical positions and the question of the
upper
and lower Houses. went on to say:
He would now endeavour to speak somewhat
fully as to one of the most important questions,
perhaps the most important—that could be
confided to the legislature—the question of
education. This was a question in which in
Lower Canada they must all feel the greatest
interest, and in respect to which more apprehension might be supposed to exist in
the minds
at any rate of the Protestant population than
in regard to anything else connected with the
whole scheme of federation. It must be clear
that a measure would not be favourably entertained by the minority of Lower Canada
which would place the education of their children and the provision for their schools
wholly
in the hands of a majority of a different faith.
It was clear that in confiding the general-subject of education to the local legislature
it
was absolutely necessary it should be accompanied with such restrictions as would
prevent
injustice in any respect from being done to the
minority. (Hear, hear.) Now, this applied to
Lower Canada, but it also applied and with
equal force to Upper Canada and the other provinces; for in Lower Canada there was a Protestant minority and in the other provinces a
Roman Catholic minority. The same privileges
belonged to the one of right here as belonged
to the other of right elsewhere. There could
be no greater injustice to a population than
to compel them to have their children educated in a manner contrary to their religious
belief.
In conclusion he said:
He hoped and believed when the question
came up in parliament for disposal the legislature would rescue the Lower Canadian
institutions for superior education from the difficulties in which they now stood;
and this remark applied both to Roman Catholic and Protestant institutions. (Hear.)
The speech as here reported is copiously
interlarded with cries of 'hear, hear' applause and cheers. And although there may
be very few living to-day who were present
on that occasion, I feel satisfied that the
descendants of the men who then cheered
when Mr. Galt urged the rights of the
Protestant minority will not oppose a measure asking for the Catholic minority of
the
west, the same privileges which their own
co-religionists extended to the Protestant
minority in the province of Quebec at confederation.
Mr. J. D. REID (Grenville). Mr. Speaker, before casting my vote on this important question I wish
to state my position
and as the hour is late I shall endeavour
to do so in as few words as possible. The
hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean),
who spoke last on the government side of
the House, undertook to criticise the opposition for lack of discipline and unity,
but,
I venture to think that in this respect the
opposition side of the House compares very
favourably with the government supporters.
5301
5302
Does the hon. member for Lunenburg remember that when the Prime Minister first
introduced this Bill with so much gusto, he
declared he would stand or fall by the measure, and does he not see that the Prime
Minister has since then experienced a complete change of front. What was the position
of the party at the back of the premier
after he introduced that Bill? Was there
discipline and unity in the party ? Is it
not a fact that the first man to fall out
of line was the ex-Minister of Interior (Mr.
Sifton). So serious was the matter that he
resigned his portfolio. Then, what about
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding)?
Was he not following immediately in the
footsteps of the ex-Minister of the Interior ?
Is it not a fact that for several days he
was, as it were, walking the plank, or intending to follow the ex-Minister of the
Interior? Then, what about the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)? Does it
not appear from the remarks he is making
in different parts of the country at the
present time that that hon. member does
not agree with the Prime Minister ? If the
Prime Minister had given the members on
his side of the House the same latitude
that the hon. leader of the opposition gave
to members on this side, and allowed every
man to vote and act as his conscience
dictated, this Bill would not go through
the House in the form that I suppose
it is now going. The hon. member for
Lunenburg also referred to the position
of the Montreal 'Star' and the Montreal
' Gazette,' and said that we should get them
into line. He referred to Conservative
newspapers as not being in accord with the
leader of the Conservative party on this
question. At the same time, I thought he
would have been kind enough to have referred to the Toronto ' Globe,' and explained
to us why it was not in unity with the
Liberal party. I mention these facts to
show that the Liberal party are not at all
in unity on this Bill. The hon. gentleman
also stated that the Conservative party were
without a leader or a policy. I have been
in this House since the year 1891, and have
sat here with several leaders of the different parties since that time, and I do not
believe that we have ever had a leader of
the Conservative party with greater ability
or more respected throughout this country
than the present leader of the Conservative
party. I believe that the Conservative
party under the leadership of the hon.
member for Carleton would have been in
power to-day had it not been for the way
the Liberal party stuffed the lists in Manitoba, the Northwest and other provinces,
stuffed the ballot boxes, used bogus ballot
boxes, used a large amount of money
which was subscribed by the Grand Trunk
Pacific, and promised or pledged contracts
under the Grand Trunk Pacific previous to
the last general election. The hon. member also said that the hon. leader of the
5303
COMMONS
Conservative party had not expressed a
legal opinion upon this question. Well, I
listened to the argument of the hon. leader
of the opposition, and I believe he expressed a legal opinion second to none in this
Dominion, and one which has not been disputed by any equal or higher authority in
this country.
Mr. J. D. REID. I thought that was the
hon. member for Cape Breton,, because he
usually asks a question merely to show his
ignorance. through not having heard or read
the remarks.
Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON. Mr. Speaker.
if my hon. friend will permit me for a moment, I can assure him that I am just as
anxious as he or any other member of this
House is to ascertain exactly where the
hon. leader of the opposition stands on this
question. He has not informed us himself, and I am quite sure that the hon.
member for Grenville, before he sits down,
will tell us. I expect him to do so.
Mr. J. D. REID. If the hon. member for
Cape Breton will kindly read the speech
of the hon. leader of the opposition, I am
satisfied that he has equal intelligence to
the rest of the members of this House, and
he will Lnoroughly understand his opinion
on the question.
Mr. J. D. REID. The hon. member for
Lunenburg referred to the hon. member for
East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and did it in such
a way as to cast slights on the Orangemen
of this Dominion. I am not an Orangeman, but I think it ill-becomes any hon.
gentleman of this House to cast a slur upon
or to speak lightly of that body. They are
an honourable body, a body who I believe
wish to do what is right. fair and just to
every party and every religion in this country. The hon. gentleman referred to the
Jacques Cartier Club in Montreal speaking
in one way and to the Orangemen in the
province of Ontario speaking in the other
way, saying that this was done for the
purpose of stirring up political strife. What
about the Liberal members of this House
in the province of Quebec and the Liberal members in the province of Ontario?
You see members in the province of
Ontario going to their different constituents and making speeches entirely opposite
to those made by other members
in the province of Quebec; they are
doing that for the purpose of creating
strife or truoble. I believe that every hon.
member in this House will agree with me
when I say that the hon. leader of the opposition made his speech with the greatest
care not to cause any religious strife
throughout this Dominion. I believe he
wished to do what was fair, and the fact
that in winding up his speech he left every
5303
5304
member of the opposition free to act on
this measure as he conscientiously believed
to be right, showed that he was acting
fairly. I thought the leader of the government should also have left the members on
his side-free to do what they thought right
in the matter. If he had done so, I believe that there would not have been any
strife in this country on this question.
So far as I am personally concerned, I
agree that the time has arrived when autonomy should be granted to the Northwest
Territories. I believe that the population of
the Northwest Territories has reached such
numbers that they are entitled to provincial
autonomy. I also believe it, for the reason
that they have practically had provincial
autonomy for a great many years. I also
believe that there should be two provincial
parliaments, as the country seems to me to
be too large for only one parliament. Therefore, in so far as that is concerned, I
am
fully in accord with the granting of provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories.
But in doing so, I consider that we should
be entirely governed by the British North
America Act and do nothing inconsistent
with it. The other provinces were formed in
accordance with that Act, and I have
yet to hear where there has been any trouble
in any of them, namely, Prince Edward
Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec or Ontario, or even I might add Manitoba, in so far as the British North America
Act is concerned. Even in the province of
Manitoba, where there was supposed to be
a great deal of trouble, they have been getting along nicely and quietly, and the
majority there have been treating the minority
fair and right, at least as far as I can judge
from reading the newspapers, according to
the newspapers there has been very little
trouble in that province since the advent of
the Conservative party into power in its
legislature. In my opinion, the amendment
moved by my hon. friend the leader of the
oposition is in accordance with the British
North America Act and is consequently fair
and just. I believe further that if this government persists in attaching the educational
clauses to these Bills, that will have
the effect of retarding immigration. I believe that people intending to come and
settle in this country, when they see this
agitation raised and this quarrel going on
probably in the provincial government of
the new provinces, many of them. both Catholic and Protestant, who may feel strongly
on this question, will not emigrate to this
country. Therefore, I think that if the
schools were left entirely in the hands of
the provincial government, there will not be
any strife or trouble, but these governments
will meet the wants of the people as these
wants manifest themselves from time to
time. In my opinion, these educational
clauses are tacked on to these Bills on account of a pledge made by the First Minister
in the year 1896 In that year when all
5305 MAY 2, 1905
the strife and trouble was created by the
right hon. gentleman over the Remedial Bill
in order to defeat the Conservative party, I
believe he then made a secret pledge that if
he should be returned to power he would
:see that certain rights were granted to the
minority. That pledge he was not able to
carry out, and I believe that it is in persuance of that pledge that these educational
clauses are added to these Bills. I have yet
to see any great agitation in the Northwest
Territories in favour of these school clauses.
In reading over the speech of the hon. member for Brockville (Mr. Derbyshire) I see
that he stated that these school clauses
have been endorsed by public opinion in
the west, and he cited the reception given
to the newly appointed Minister of the Interior by the most important constituency
between Winnipeg and the Rocky Mountains
as a most significant evidence of that feeling. I was just looking over the Calgary
papers in order to see what kind of a reception was given the Minister of the Interior
at the banquet in Calgary. I have
read the address which was presented him
by Mayor Emmerson. I shall not weary
the House by reading it at this late hour,
but I do not find one word in it referring
to the school question. But if the people of
that constituency are satisfied with the position of the school question out there,
why did
they not refer to it ?
Mr. FIELDING. There is no such question in the Northwest. It is only outside of
the Northwest we hear of it.
Mr. J. D. REID. The Minister of Finance evidently does not read the newspapers.
Mr. J. D. REID. The hon. gentleman
admits now that there is some agitation in
that country ?
Mr. FIELDING. Did my hon. friend hear
the statement made by a western member
who came back recently from that region
and who says that out there he only met
one man who said a word about it? I refer
to the hon. member for Humbolt (Mr.
Adamson).
Mr. SPROULE. Does the Minister, of
Finance know that the Reform Association
of Medicine Hat deliberately passed resolutions condemning the educational clauses?
Mr. FIELDING. Some time ago resolutions were passed all over the country under
an entire misapprehension as to the nature
of the Bill.
5305
5306
Mr. FIELDING. Do you not think that
if the people of Edmonton were disturbed
over the school question. they would not
wait for the Minister of the Interior to refer
tol it but would have referred to it themselves ?
Mr. FIELDING. And the Minister of the
Interior was elected unanimously.
Mr. J. D. REID. I am admitting that,
but does the Minister of Finance know what
that constituency is made up of ?
Mr. J. D. REID. If the hon. minister analyses the vote in that constituency, he will
see that it is made up of twenty-five per
cent of English. Irish and Scotch combined.
and that the Russians. Austrians. Hungarians and Half-breeds form together fifty-one
per cent of the whole.
Mr. FIELDING. Does my hon. friend
not know that these are British subjects and
Canadians ?
Mr. FIELDING. If they did not, the rest
voted. Somebody must have voted or voted
to that extent that they allowed the Minister of the Interior to be elected without
a
vote.
Mr. FIELDING. Why did not the hon.
gentleman give us an election ?
Mr. J. D. REID. It is impossible to identify these people. They are foreigners.
They are a class of people like the Chinamen, if you see one you can hardly tell
him from another, and for that reason they
are recorded and the lists are made up entirely by the government. It is an impossibility
for any one to follow the lists and
prevent those people from voting, especially
if those lists should turn out like the lists
of Manitoba. Would the Finance Minister
admit for one moment that lists like those
in the province of Manitoba, where the returning officer deliberately scratched out
name after name, are lists under which any
election can honestly and fairly be held ?
By this means hon. members are sitting in
this House who, in my opinion. are not
honourably elected.
Mr. FIELDING. I do not know anything
about the Manitoba lists. We are discuss
5307
COMMONS
ing now the Northwest, and I have not
heard of any complaint about the Northwest
lists. If hon. gentlemen on the other side
think that the Manitoba lists are stuffed
and fixed, why do they not take steps to
put a stop to that. The lists are managed
there the same as elsewhere; and if they
are not properly made up, the courts of
the country are open.
Mr. J. D. REID. Well, we had one election in the west, in the constituency of
Mountain, some time ago.
Mr. FIELDING. No, we had not. The
local government had an election in Mountain, and I saw it stated in the public press
that the Prime Minister of Manitoba said
title school question had nothing to do with
it.
Mr. J. D. REID. I have read the press.
and the Hon. Mr. Greenway, a member of
this House, and several other members here
went out there and discussed the school
question and made it the main issue, and
they claimed that the result of that election
would decide a great deal, in so far as the
Liberal party in this House was concerned.
Mr. FIELDING. I must not contradict
my hon. friend, but I see no statement
which treated the Mountain election as having had any effect on Dominion politics.
Mr. FIELDING. I beg my hon. friend's
pardon, I should not have interrupted him.
Mr. D. ROSS. Will the hon. gentleman
be good enough to inform the House where
he gets his authority for the statement that
the electors of Edmonton are like Chinamen .
Mr. J. D. REID. I said that a lot of these
foreigners, Russians, were men who were
hard to identify. Those are the words I
used. I did not say that all the electors of
Edmonton were that kind, and the hon.
gentleman should not try to misrepresent
me.
Mr. D. ROSS. I should be very sorry to
misrepresent the hon. gentleman. The statement made as I understood it, was that
fifty-one per cent of the electors of Edmonton were foreigners who were like a
lot of Chinamen.
Mr. J. D. REID. No, I did not say that.
I assume that the hon. gentleman (Mr. D.
Ross) does not Wish to misrepresent me.
I read a statement from the papers showing
the composition of the electorate of Edmonton, and I said that a great many of these
electors were Russians. foreigners, whom in
case of an election it was hard to identify.
5307
5308
I did not state that they were like a lot
of Chinamen.
Mr. J. D. REID. No, ' Hansard ' will
show what I stated. Now, I feel that, for
this country at least, church and state
should be kept entirely separated. I do
not believe it is right that the church and
the state should have any connection whatever with each other. The country should
be run entirely independent of the church,
and the church should be allowed to manage its own affairs. And in thus speaking
I do not refer to any particular church. As
far as my constituency is concerned, we
had no trouble with the separate school
question. Mine is an Ontario constituency,
and in the province of Ontario the school
question has been settled since confederation, and we have had no trouble. Concessions
have been made in the Separate
School Act by the provincial government
from time to time, though the government
always has a majority of Protestants. I
believe they have always done what is
fair to the minority, and I believe that in
the great province of Ontario, where the
majority is Protestant, they will always do what is fair and right to the minority.
And I have the same faith in the
Northwest Territories and the new governments to be established. Even if there is
a
Protestant majority, they will do what is
fair and right to the minority. Should there
be a Roman Catholic majority in the new
provinces, I should have the same faith in
their willingness to do justice to the minority. I believe that if the matter is left
entirely in the hands of provincial authority
the minority can trust them without fear.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES. Is not the government of Manitoba or some of its members,
at the present moment making statements
to the effect that the privileges now enjoyed by the minority may be withdrawn.
Mr. J. D. REID. I have not seen that
statement published as having been made
by any member of the Manitoba government, though I have read in the newspapers
that such a thing might be done. This, however, may be mere newspaper agitation.
On the other hand, I believe the present
government of Manitoba have been doing
their best to make things satisfactory for
the minority. And I believe that from time
to time they will help the minority if they
find it necessary. And I also believe that
so far as any provincial government throughout the Dominion is concerned, be it Protestant
or Catholic, the same thing is true.
So believing, and also believing that this
measure will be injurious to immigration
and that will still create an agitation that
5309 MAY 2, 1905
would not be in the best interest of the
country, and believing that we should stand
by the British North America Act as it is,
I shall vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition and shall hope and
trust
that it will be carried and that we may
have peace and prosperity from this time
forth.
Mr. R. D. WILMOT (Sunbury and Queens,
N.B). Mr. Speaker, though an old member
of this House, both in years and in service
here I have never accustomed myself to addressing the House. Therefore, I claim from
my confreres here an unusual degree of leniency and kindness. I ask them to overlook
any mistakes I may make, assuring them
that those mistakes will be of the head not
of the heart. Before I go further, I appeal to
hon. members for consideration especially
upon one point. I would ask an avoidance
of interruptions such as we have just heard.
If any statements I make are such as hon.
members cannot agree with, they will have
their opportunity to reply. I would ask,
therefore, that I be spared interruption of
the few remarks I am to make and I know
that my friends on both sides will treat
me in accordance with my desire. Even in
so important a question as the one now before us, were I left to my own choice, I
would not speak. But I feel that I have
behind me a constituency that should be
heard on the floor of this House on this
momentous question. But, it against my
own will, I occupy the time of the House,
I can assure hon. members that it will not
be for long.
The question before us has been discussed
threadbare. A man would need to be heaven-
born, or at least heaven-inspired, to find
anything new to say upon this subject.
Everything that can be thought of by the
human mind has been thought of already,
and everything that can be said has been
said. I shall not even attempt anything
of an original nature. Among the drawbacks to parliamentary life is the fact that
we are called upon to hear again and again
the same things said until they grow wearisome and make one look back to private
life with longing.
I said that I am here to speak, not in my
individual capacity. but as representing the
sentiments of the people in my constituency.
The whole Dominion of Canada, I believe,
is in favour of the establishment of the new
provinces in the Northwest. I think there
is no difference of opinion on that matter.
But I think the government should have
taken the people into their confidence before
taking a step of such grave import. Had they
done so we would not have seen so much
difference as has been in evidence on the
part of our hon. friends of the Liberal party.
The premier, when he brought in this measure, said that he would stand or fall by
it. Well, we all know that he took four or
five weeks to amend his measure, owing to
5309
5310
the difference of opinion that existed in the
ranks of his own party. I think that time
was not lost. I think every moment of those
four or five weeks could have been used to
the great profit of the country. I think it
was a great mistake to introduce legislation
so important as this after a general election
in which the subject of such legislation had
scarcely been mentioned. The government
should have given the people an opportunity
of expressing their opinion on this legislation before it was introduced. But the
government did not see fit to do so, and consequently this legislation has been brought
before a House elected, in my humble judgment, without any warrant to deal with the
question. Had the boundaries of the new
provinces been known to the people of the
Northwest, I think the result of the election
would have been very different in the Northwest Territories. Had the proposed boundaries
been known, would Manitoba have
given this government one supporter? Would
the men from the Territories have sent the
same contingent had it been known that the
control of the lands was to be wrested from
their possession ? I pause for a reply.
Would they have been satisfied ? I say
unhesitatingly that defeat would have overtaken the government had this Bill been
in
question at the last general election. I
think that Manitoba has been treated with
extreme injustice in leaving that province
with an area only one-third that of each of
the new provinces. There must be a mystery attached to such an apportionment. Can
the government defy or set aside the will
of an entire province ? A new province
bereft of the control of its lands is little
more independent than the Indian reserve.
I think that the local government is in a
better position to deal with the lands of the
province than is the federal government.
They are on the spot, they are more directly
in touch with everything concerning those
lands than is the federal government situated at Ottawa. Another objection I have
to federal control of these lands is the
temptation to spoliation offered to the Dominion government. I do not refer to this
government any more than to any other
government that might be in power at Ottawa. I think there is less liability to act
unfairly in regard to the disposition of those
lands when they are left to the local authorities than when they are left to the Dominion
authorities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the discussion of the educational clauses, I think
this House is to be congratulated upon the
fairness and upon the freedom from disagreeable language with which the discussion
has been conducted. There has been
little or no acrimony. I have not attended the
House all the time, but I have been here a
good deal, I have heard a great many of the
speeches, but I have heard none of an acrimonious nature. It may have occurred
5311
COMMONS
without my being present to hear it. I
think it is very much to the credit of this
parliament that such should be the case.
I think that the new provinces should be
free to choose their own educational system.
The Protestant majorities will give, I feel
confident, their Roman Catholic fellow
citizens even-handed justice. No reasonable
argument can be presented by any member
in this House to lead us to believe that such
will not be the case. I come from a province where we have free schools, where the
people, Roman Catholic and Protestant, get
on in perfect harmony. There is no jar.
The Catholic people of that country educate
their children according to their own religious beliefs, especially in the large centres
of population. I recollect when what is
called the free non-sectarian school was
first established there was a little friction
but it soon became a lnatter of compromise.
There was a desire on the part of the people
to get on harmoniously with their neighbours
and everything went on as our best citizens
could desire. So. it has continued.Â
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will refer in a few
words to my position, and also to my position on the Remedial Bill when it was before
the House. I happened to be a member at
that time, and I voted in favour of the Bill.
I voted in support of the government. I was
nine years younger in age then, and I had
nine years less experience than I have now.
I voted largely from party exigencies. I am
frank in saying so, and I think I will have
many sympathizers amongst my friends who
are supporting this measure on this occasion.
I acknowledge that I made a mistake. I
now, before this House and the country.
disavow my action at that time. And why ?
I found that when I went to my people,
when I went to my Roman Catholic citizens
and supporters, after voting in favour of the
Remedial Bill, in the interest of that church
and in the interest of the minority of Manitoba, they would have none of it. I found
that they were frank, honest, open and
above-board. When I went to them I told
them, and they knew as well as I could tell
them, the position that I occupied. They
were frank, open and square, and they told
me they would not vote for me, that they
were supporters of the Liberal party, and
although they did not tell me so, I inferred
that, inasmuch as the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid
Laurier was the leader of that party, it
was particularly attractive to them. They
received me in the most hospitable manner
and spoke to me in pleasant terms, but vote
for me they would not. Of course, this is
a personal matter, but it has some bearing
on my action on the Remedial Bill. At the
close of the poll in the election of 1896, in
one of the most populous Irish Catholic districts, it was reported to me by a very
intelligent supporter of mine. an active man
engaged in the election, that out of 98 votes
in that section I had received 3. That legislation was in the interest of the minority
in
5311
5312
Manitoba, and it would naturally be supposed that Sir Wilfrid, being a co-religionist
of the minority, would have stood by
them. Did he do so? No. Had he done
so the Conservative party would have remained in power. Had he done so the Liberal
party would have continued to remain
in opposition, and therefore I was led, as
any reasonable man would have been led, to
the natural conclusion that the course adopted by the Liberal party at that time was
adopted for party reasons and party reasons
alone. Because of the manner in which my
Catholic constituents, my fellow-citizens,
treated me, and because of the manner in
which the people of the Dominion of Canada
treated Sir Charles Tupper, I felt absolved
from any obligation to continue my support
to any such legislation. Therefore, I say
now before you, Mr. Speaker. and this
House, that I took the course I did, and that
I regret the vote I gave on that occasion.
Had I voted against the government at that
time it was a moral certainty that I would
have been successful in my appeal to my
constituents. I was defeated only by a comparatively small majority. My Protestant
friends I found were very much dissatisfied
with the course I had taken. However.
that is all past and gone. But my position
I feel in duty bound to clearly define. I
know that my fellow-members will bear
with me, for I do not pretend to be a speaker. I wish a few minutes more, and then
I will give them relief. I remember, Mr.
Speaker, it was stated at the time of the
Manitoba agitation that certain agreements
had been arrived at and put in shape. At
that time, as you all know, there was a
territorial government established to rule
that country. Certain agreements had been
entered into regarding schools by a few
scattered people in that vast country in
conjunction with the good Christian missionaries of the Catholic Church, and all praise
and credit should be given to these pioneers
of religion and morals in that great country.
Certain agreements were entered into
with these people at that time, and the question arises whether it is reasonable to
suppose that such agreements should be carried out for all time. These good people,
on one part poor ignorant half-breeds, honest
and good as they were, in conjunction with
these worthy pioneers of the Catholic Church
were then the only people living in that
country, and I ask in all fairness and sincerity whether it can be considered reasonable
that the future generations in that
country which will be populated by millions, should be restricted in their social
and
political and educational life by such an
agreement. Personally I do not think so ;
I cannot make myself believe any such proposition as that would be reasonable. It
has been said that this is not a question of
sectarian against national schools, but that
it is a constitutional question. Well, the
good God in Heaven if he heard this dis
5313 MAY 2, 1905
cussion, and no doubt he did, would doubtless be able to decide from it what the
constitution is, but I am forced to say that
so far as I am concerned, the more talk I
have heard as to what the constitution
really is the worse I am confounded. I
have had no legal training, and I am not
in a position to form a legal opinion, but
I am able to exercise whatever intelligence
is given to me. My constituents represent a
fair average of the intelligence of this Dominion, and I do not claim any greater
intelligence than the average elector in my
constituency, and if I cannot form an opinion as to what is constitutional and what
is not, then the majority of my constituents
must be in the same predicament. This all
tends to show that there is such division of
opinion on this important question, the
results of which may be likely to cause unrest and friction between different religions
that it would have been far better in the
interests of Canada had the government
before proceeding so hastily, taken the people into their confidence and submitted
this
measure to them. We hear that the voice
of the people is the voice of God, and that
being so the government would have made
no mistake had they submitted this measure
to the electorate. I may say frankly, Mr.
Speaker, that had the government consulted
the people of Canada, I do not believe the
people would have approved of this measure. There is a good old proverb which
says: It is never too late to mend, and I
do not think it is yet too late for the government to take the people into their confidence.
I know that hon. gentlemen on
the opposite side of the House would feel
more comfortable individually and collectively, if they knew that they had the approval
of their constituents in this matter,
so that the government in the interests of
their own friends should have taken the
course which I now suggest. Just fancy
that great Northwest country, comprising
hundreds of millions of acres, being disposed of and divided and re-arranged without
consulting the people. We should transact
the public business as we manage our own
private affairs, but in this case a most important Bill has been launched on the country
without consulting the people directly
interested, and that Bill will no doubt be
passed by a great majority in this House.
Of course it will remain to be seen whether in the end it will be approved by the
people. We are told by hon. gentlemen
on the other side that when the Bill passes
the House, the whole question will be settled. I am afraid that the government
and its supporters are living in a fool's
paradise if they believe that. It is said,
and I believe correctly said, that the schools
at present existing in the Northwest Territories are second to none in this broad
Dominion. If so, why does not this government leave the school system alone;
5313
5314
why do they not let that school system
prevail?
Mr. WILMOT. The people who are most
directly concerned are those which should
control their own educational affairs. I do
not know why the people of the great Northwest should be treated by this government
after such a fashion. I cannot understand
why the people of the Northwest were not
consulted by the government on this question. Why had not the government sufficient
confidence in the people of the west
to say to them: You are intelligent people,
you are fit to manage you own affairs and
we want your opinion on this measure. If
that had been done by the government, it
would have been the best course to adopt,
and it would have avoided a great deal of
trouble in the future.
Mr. O. E. TALBOT. Would New Brunswick say that, or the Northwest Territories
themselves ?
Mr. WILMOT. New Brunswick is already settled for. We are told that this
is a question of constitution and'not a question of schools; but I must say that while
the constitutional view is one thing, the
schools are a very large incident. In comparing separate schools with free schools,
I
have some figures which have been taken
from the Statistical Year-book covering the
years from 1891 to 1900, and they show
the following results:
| - |
Average
Population for 10 Years. |
Average Number Convicted Yearly. |
Percentage. — 1 in every |
| Separate School
Provinces—
Ontario. . |
2,148,634 |
2,594 |
827 |
| Quebec.. ....... |
1,568,716 |
1,536 |
1,021 |
| Public School Provinces—
P. E. Island.,,.. |
106,178 |
32 |
3,318 |
| New Brunswick.. |
326,151 |
112 |
2,900 |
| Nova Scotia. . . |
454,984 |
224 |
2,075 |
I find further that Quebec sent to the
penitentiary an average for the ten years
of one in 10,120, Ontario one in 10,251 and
the maritime provinces one in 12,667. I
give these figures to show that in the provinces which have non-sectarian schools
the
average of morality is quite equal to and
even surpasses that of the provinces which
have separate schools.
Now, I will not occupy any more of the
time of the House. The government can
by force of numbers enact the Bill before
5315
COMMONS
parliament; but let them remember that
the people are not with them ; they are not
consulted. No Act of parliament can bind
an unwilling people. From a constitutional
standpoint this Bill is beset with doubts
and difficulties. If carried, it will lead to
trouble. Let us start fair; let us give
Manitoba and the Territories what is just
and right; let us give the new provinces
full control of their educational affairs and
of their lands—' A bad start makes a worse
ending.' We possess a great and glorious
heritage, populated by people of different
races and different creeds. We should by
mutual concession, tolerance and forbearance, so harmonize our relations, that our
people Will live in peace and goodwill, and
that our undivided aim and object may
be the greatness and prosperity of this Canada of ours.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.15 a.m., Wednesday.
This individual participated in:
#/media/File:Jean-Baptiste_Morin.jpg){kind=link}
