PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved third
reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and
provide for the government of the province
of Alberta.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).
Before this Bill finally passes, I wish to
refer at some length to a very important
matter of detail, namely, the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption. In committee
upon this Bill I proposed an amendment to
section 23 and my amendment was as follows :
Provided that the foregoing shall not prejudice the right of the parliament of Canada,
by
expropriation or otherwise, to obtain the relinquishment by the said company of the
company's rights under section 16 of the contract
aforesaid.
I am sorry to say that in Committee of
the Whole my proposition received very
scant attention. The failure of hon. gentlemen opposite to give more attention to
it
would have been a matter of surprise if
any one really thought that these hon. gentlemen were sincere in the talk they have
been indulging in for the past five months
with regard to provincial autonomy. 0n
the question of education, they have been
disturbing the whole of Canada with the
exception of the Northwest Territories.
They failed, however, to disturb the people of the Northwest Territories on the
matter of education and upon the subject
they have been seeking to create a disturbance about practically nothing. As a representative
of the Territories I tell them
here and now that the Bills creating the
new provinces are granting to these new
provinces, in relation to education, all the
8778
freedom they desire. The Bills leave the
provinces free to do exactly as they please
in that matter. The Bills leave them
free to retain their existing admirable
school system, and I think the House and
country have been given the most ample
proof that what the people of the Territories
desire to retain and maintain their present
school system. But if any one is seriously
concerned in the question of provincial
rights he should devote his attention rather
to section 23, which concerns the matter of
tax exemptions than to section 16 regarding education. In the matter of tax
exemptions involved in section 23, the
provinces are not left free. If the
school districts and municipalities and legislatures were left free to tax the Canadian
Pacific Railway, they would without doubt,
use that freedom. The failure of members
on this side and members of the government
to support my proposed amendment was to
me a matter both of surprise and regret. In
any case I had the right to expect from the
government at least a moment's consideration of the proposal and a statement of
their reasons for rejecting it, if any good
reasons exist. The extremely casual way
in which my amendment was rejected in
committee may have been due to my own
failure to make sufficiently plain my position in the matter, the intrinsic importance
of the subject, and why the amendment
ought to be adopted. If I fail to make these
points plain now, it will not be my fault.
To make my meaning plain, I must refer
to the autonomy question in a general way.
Prior to my first coming to this House in
1901, I was an advocate of immediate autonomy for the Territories. In 1901 and
1902, I urged my opinions in that direction strongly in this House. In March,
1903, the Manitoba courts gave a judgment
on certain test tax cases, to which I shall
refer later. That judgment was such as to
lead me to revise my views as to the desirability of the Territories immediately obtaining
autonomy. The Ottawa correspondent of the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' obtained interviews
upon that judgment from
most of the Northwest members. In my
statement to that correspondent, I spoke
as follows :
As a Northwest citizen I was disappointed last
year when autonomy was not granted, but today I am exceedingly thankful that parliament
then found it inexpedient to grant our demand.
We will now wish for no constitutional change
until judgment on the contention raised by Mr.
Howell has been obtained from the Privy
Council, and if the judgment of the Manitoba
court is upheld, then the Northwest before becoming a province will have a very important
arrangement to be arrived at with the Canadian
Pacific Railway relating to this matter of exemption from taxation.
Towards the end of the 1903 session, the House was called upon to vote on a motion
presented by the leader of the opposition
8779
COMMONS
relating to autonomy, and one of the reasons I advanced for voting against that
motion I stated as follows, as will be seen
on referring to the ' Hansard ' of 1903, page
13931 :
Let me say, in conclusion, that in face of the
position of this Canadian Pacific Railway tax
matter, in view of the millions of acres of the
land that are involved, of the millions of value
in railway property of the company that are
involved, it appears to me that the people of
the Northwest would be simply crazy at present
to accept autonomy unless driven to it as a last
resort—and we are not driven to the last resort
this year, because our immediate financial needs
are fairly well met; the lack of borrowing
power remedied by the capital advance method ;
and little room for complaint is left us as regards railways. Such being the case,
I certainly
approve of delay until all doubts of the Canadian Pacific Railway tax question is
removed.
I hope this doubt will not exist very long. I
hope the case will soon be settled by a judgment
of the Privy Council. Possibly it may be too
much to hope that it may be settled before next
year, because the law counts move slowly. But
the position I take is that the government
should obtain from the Privy Council a final
decision upon this Canadian Pacific Railway tax
exemption, and that as soon as it is obtained
the people of the Northwest should be granted
provincial autonomy.
This view thus expressed in the newspapers and in the House, I also expressed
very distinctly to my electors in West Assiniboia, particularly during the election
contest last autumn, and I have every reason
to believe that the majority of the electors
of West Assiniboia concurred in the view.
I declared explicitly in the contest that I
should oppose any constitutional change until the tax exemption matter became more
clear, and until the people of the Northwest learned definitely that they would not
as provinces stand in danger of the burden
of that perpetual limitation upon their taxing
power which was imposed upon the added
portion of the province of Manitoba in 1881.
The situation in January last when the
autonomy negotiations opened was that no
final judgment had been obtained. It is
true that. since January. the Supreme Court
of Canada has given judgment overturning
the Manitoba court's decision, of March,
1903. But, until the case has been carried
to the Privy Council and judgment, obtained
there. the matter cannot be considered as
finally settled. I need not repeat to the
House that in January last I was opposed
to proceeding with the autonomy measures.
Now, I shall explain briefly the reason why
the Manitoba court judgment led me to revise my view on the question of autonomy.
The Northwest test case was that of a school
district, the Springdale school district. It
was not a case brought by a municipality,
nor a case directly raising the question
of the powers of the local legislature to levy
a tax upon the company. The case was
taken for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation of the disputed question of the
8780
twenty years' land tax exemption, without
reference to the roadway. But the arguments made by the government's counsel,
Mr. Howell, of Winnipeg, were such that,
if concurred in by the court, as was the
case in the Manitoba court, they necessarily applied as well to the feature of the
exemptions relating to the roadway. Mr.
Howell raised the contention that a tax
levied by any body or power within these
Territories did not come within the class
of taxes from which the Canadian Pacific
Railway Company were exempted by the
contract, these classes of taxes being such
as might be levied ' by the Dominion, by
any province hereafter established or by
any municipality therein, in other words
the contention was that, as long as we
remained Territories the Canadian Pacific
Railway had no right to exemption of taxation in the Northwest, either upon lands
or upon toadbed; and that it was not until
the Northwest was created a province that
any exemption rights became existent. The
contention was a new one. Until it was
raised by Mr. Howell. no one ever thought
of questioning the company's rights to freedom from taxation on the roadway or freedom
for at least twenty years on the land.
Let me quote from Chief Justice Killam's
judgment to show that the judgment meant
just what I have stated.
The case from the Northwest Territories
raised another question. Does the exemption
apply to the enactments of the legislature of
the Northwest Territories or to the taxation
by subordinate bodies created by that legislature ? . . . . Evidently these words—
' taxation by the Dominion '—did not mean
taxation by any government or authority in
the Dominion having the power of levying
taxes. Taxation by a province or by a municipal corporation was recognized as something
different from taxation by the Dominion.
In my opinion the expression ' taxation by the
Dominion ' did not, either from the import of
the words themselves or by reference to other
portions of the clause or the contract, include
taxation by the government of the Territories
or any body to be established by it, within its
then powers.
I repent that. when I became aware of the
purport of that judgment I at once made up
my mind that the Northwest had better
accept no constitutional change until we had
ascertained finally whether Chief Justice
Killam's view was the right one, because,
in my opinion, any loss to be occasioned by
delay of two or three years in gaining
autonomy would be light and temporary in
comparison with the permanent loss to the
province involved in the perpetual inability
to tax the Canadian Pacific Railway roadbed. If the Privy Council were to uphold
the Manitoba judgment and if it were finally
found that the Canadian Pacific Railway
must pay taxes as long as we remained Territories, it needs no argument to show that
to
obtain prior relinquishment by the company
of the exemption rights that would otherwise become effective with the erection of
8781 JULY 5, 1905
provinces would be a comparatively easy
task.
I now ask the House to consider the intrinsic merits of this question. There is a
railway mileage involved in the two provinces of 750 miles, with six divisional points.
Assume that this has a taxable value of
$100000 for each three miles—and it is
stocked and bonded for $193,500 for each
three miles—and you have a total taxable
value of $25,000,000 to-day. A tax of 5 mills
on the dollar which is only 1/2 of 1 per cent,
would amount to $125,000 per annum. But
it is not particularly for to-day or for the
immediate future that we are concerned.
To-day it is the custom at least in the newer
parts of the country, to give aid to railways
rather than to levy taxation upon them. It
is to the future that we have to look. If
that property is worth $25,000,000 to-day. it
will be worth—everybody will admit—some
day, $100,000,000. While it is not our policy
to tax railways to-day, yet when more stable
conditions come and the country is more
fully developed it will be fair that railway
properties equally with the other properties
shall contribute toward the cost of school,
municipal and general government. I say
that the loss involved to these two new
provinces if they should be subjected to
perpetual inability to tax this property is a
loss simply beyond calculation. The exemption of the land is the least momentous,
because it is only temporary, but it
is still serious enough. I will give the House
figures showing the land that the company
owns at present in the Northwest Territories. The company has earned land
grants as follows:
|
Acres. |
| Main line construction.. .. .. .. .. .. |
18,206,986 |
| Souris branch.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,408,704 |
| Pipestone extension.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
200,320 |
| Manitoba and South Western colonization lines .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,396,800 |
| On account of Gr. N. W. Central Ry. |
320,000 |
| Total.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
21,532,810 |
| Total taken in Manitoba.. .. .. |
2,720,300 |
| Total taken or to be taken in N.W.T.'s |
18,812,510 |
The company has made sales up to date of
approximately 10,000,000 acres—for about
$33.500,000, I may say—of which as nearly
as can be learned upwards of 7,500,000 acres
were out of the lands in the two new provinces, leaving roughly 11,300,000 acres
still owned, by the company in the Northwest Territory, or about 70,500 quarter sections,
which if taxed at $10 per quarter
section would yield annually $705,000. Now,
you may cut my calculation in two,
and still have a very large amount.
You will still find that by this exemption at
this moment you are leaving each province
shorn of a resource of a value about equal
to what you are going to pay each province
in lieu of its public domain. Instead of
attempting myself to characterize in fitting
language what has been very properly
8782
termed the incubus of these exemptions, I
am going to ask the House to listen to words
far more forcible than any which I could
utter, which were spoken in this chamber
some twenty-five years ago. They should
appeal especially to hon. members on this
side of the House. The experience of
twenty-five years, the bitter experience of
twenty-five years has shown the truth of
everyone of these words. I shall quote the
words of Hon. Edward Blake, spoken in this
chamber on December 15th, 1880, and to be
found in 'Hansard.' 1880-1, page 97. Mr.
Blake was referring to the Canadian Pacific
Railway contract and particularly this exemption feature :
They have perpetual exemption from taxation
on their enormous property, a most monstrous
provision in my opinion. Why ! This monstrosity is not to last merely twenty years,
which is to be the period of bondage in other
respects, it is to last for ever. No matter how
wealthy the company may be, how enormously
lucrative, this institution is to be, for all time
to come it is to be free from taxation in every
place in which this Dominion can free it from
taxation, and it is to be free everywhere from
Dominion taxation in all the territories both
from Dominion and territorial taxation whereever the Dominion can give it freedom
and that
is through all of the fertile belt at any rate.
. . . Then, sir, there is freedom from taxation for the lands for the long period
of twenty
years, and that term of twenty years is from
the time they acquire the lands and, therefore,
is for longer than twenty years from now ; it
is perhaps on the average twenty-five years—
nay, more than that, I am not at all certain
that it may not be very easy to arrange to
make it longer, because by a convenient arrangement by which they are not to take
out
the patents until they want to sell they can
keep them free from taxation until they want
to put them on the market, indefinitely, indeterminately—until it suits them to dispose
of them.
As long as the Conservatives were in
power these words were perfectly true.
The hon. gentleman says, perhaps, it does
look awkward at first sight. . . . All their
lands are exempt from taxation for a generation to come. What a discouragement this
is
to the settlers on the line of railways, to those
who are settled on homesteads and pre-
emptions alternating with these blocks of land
which are to be the property of the syndicate.
. . . There can be no greater obstacle to the
progress of that country by the encouragement
of other settlers than that large spaces of unoccupied lands should alternate with
settlers'
farms. Now add to the difficulty which exists
in that respect, which the largeness of that
area will enhance, at any rate, in a large degree,
the fact that there is no power to impose
municipal taxes on 25,000,000 acres of the
choicest lands, those nearest to the railway.
and you place a bar to progress and render it
impossible to overcome the difficulty. You say
that the cost of roads and bridges, schools and
other municipal taxes are to be imposed on
the settlers to enable the worthy syndicate to
hold their lands until the reduced labours of
those settlers have been sufficient to increase
the unoccupied areas in value to induce the
8783
COMMONS
millionaires, the holders of the lands in the
Northwest, to turn them into money. . . .
Talk to me of this thing standing ! It will not
stand. If you pass this law and if the country
of which you speak so glowingly is what you
depict it, and if its prospects of settlement are
such as you hope they are, I say you are blighting these prospects by passing this
law ; and if
these prospects are measurably realized, notwithstanding the passing of this law,
I say the
people of that counltry would be less than men
if they suffered such a law to exist.
Again, Mr. Blake, on January 18, said :
Do you want that your hands should be tied,
or that they should be free to act as the public
interest may require ?
Mr. Blake was here referring to the alternative contract which had been offered.
If you want to tie them, take the contract ;
if you want to keep them free, take the other
proposal. The choice is yours, the responsibility of choosing is yours. Choose, then,
and
choose wisely. The contract frees from taxation the railway, its property, and its
stock.
That exemption is contrary to the general rule
in the United States. A little book which contains the report of Charles Francis Adams
and
others on the subject of railway taxation in the
United States, and elsewhere, summarizes the
law upon this subject and makes it to appear
that in the whole of the states of the Union
there is no instance of general exemption from
taxation. There may be one or two isolated
cases in particular states of partial and temporary exemption from taxation of particular
railways under special circumstances ; but the
general rule of almost universal application is
that there is no exemption in one form or
another from taxation. The instances which
the hon. Minister of Railways quoted in other
places in Minnesota and Wisconsin, are instances of exemption from taxation by one
statute and the imposition of taxation by another—a license tax, a tax upon gross
receipts,
is imposed in lieu of other taxes, and it may
be that this is the fairest mode of taxation.
Some hon. gentlemen have said that it is of
very little consequence, that the road-bed is
taxed very lightly in Ontario, that some of our
legislatures have declined to tax railway companies at all. But what kind of railway
companies were these ? They were railways built
by private capital, and were not paying interest
on their investments. I do not say that a rule
of this kind does not apply to a railway that is
built at public charge and that is given a monopoly to secure it in obtaining good
rates for
its traffic. But this is no temporary exemption,
it lasts for ever ; no matter how bloated this
corporation may become, no matter how magnificent may be its network of railways,
no matter how blooming its country, no matter how
prosperous the towns which are tributary to it,
no matter how exaggerated its dividend, for
ever and for ever and for ever you free it from
Dominion, new provincial and municipal taxation. In considering that, you have to
look at
the general result of taxation. Some of the
United States railways you find paying a tax of
$300 or $400 per annum, and $600 or $800 per
annum is paid as taxes by the English railways.
You find, therefore, that the possibilities of
railway taxation are very great. You find the
Illinois Central Railway paying almost the
whole expenses of the government of that state,
8784
and You find the people so nervous lest the
legislature should be corrupted and should dispense with that, that they have actually
put a
clause in the constitution providing that the
taxation of the Illinois Central Railway shall
not be modified by the legislature, but shall be
referred to the general voice of the people.
But you do not keep your hands free, you tie
them, and you say for all time we will never
charge this railway company any taxation upon
its property, its stock, or its capital. I say
that I can well conceive a time when a tax on
the gross receipts of railways might be a very
satisfactory tax and a very satisfactory source
of revenue to this Dominion. A tax for transportation would apparently be a very equal
taxation, and if the necessity arose of adding
to the revenue, it is quite possible that we
might wish to avail ourselves of such a tax.
There is another point in which this exemption
is objectionable. It places this company in the
position of a monopoly by itself, because it
places at a disadvantage all competitors who
are to raise the funds themselves to build their
railways. The contract requires perpetual exemption, the other offer does not demand
any exemption at all. Choose ! The choice is yours !
Take the perpetual exemption in the contract
or take the liability to taxation in the offer.
Yours is the choice ; for it you will be held responsible. Then the contract provides
that the
land grant shall be exempt from taxation for
twenty years, unless sold or occupied from the
date of the grant. The money gain to the company is enormous, there can be no doubt
about
that. There can be no doubt but that the
burdens which this company are freed from
are most serious. Hon. gentlemen opposite
have said so. They have said they could not
use this land grant otherwise, that nobody
would buy if they supposed the syndicate was
to be subjected to the same taxes as the rest
of the world. They get the choice of land and
they are not to pay the same taxes as the rest
of the community. Why should they not ? Is
it because they get a large profit ? Because
they are getting altogether four prices for
building the prairie section, that, therefore,
they are to be untaxed and free ? Then the indirect loss is still greater by this
mode of settlement, by the burdens it imposes on the adjoining settlers for the benefit
of the railway
company itself, by the imposition of double
taxes on those who go in for the benefit of this
great corporation. I do not know of anything
that will more interfere with the development
of the Northwest than this clause of exemption
from taxation. Will you free the lands, or will
you make them subject to taxation ? Will you
give the company the benefit of exemption from
taxation, or will you let the lands be subject to
taxation, and let the progress of the Northwest
country be advanced by those lands, like other
lands, being subject to taxation ? The choice is
yours ; choose.
Other members of the Liberal party of
that date uttered equally strong language
upon this feature of the contract. The late
Mr. M. C. Cameron, who sat for one of the
Hurons, said on January 4, 1881 :
We are allowing the company to select the
best lands in the whole territory. We exempt
them from all taxation, and the immigrants we
induce to settle there pay every farthing of
provincial and local taxes. This company and
all of their property and land, stock and roadway, with all their appurtenances are
exempt
8785 JULY 5, 1905
from taxation for all time to come. We are inviting immigrants to settle our boundless
prairies and then tell them they must pay taxes to
keep up the provincial and local governments,
they must build the roads and construct the
bridges, but the poor syndicate must pay nothing—they are altogether exempt from taxation.
Every December the tax collector will call on
the farmer there, but he dare not call on the
syndicate. And so we are building up a gigantic
monopoly, we are giving them huge privileges
that no company should get ; we are doing
more than that, we are giving them all these
privileges and advantages so that they may be
in position to harass and oppress the people
we are settling there. . . . I say, sir, that
this is no small matter ; I say that parliament
should not, even if it had the power, deprive
the people of that country—formed into provinces as it will be—of the power of exacting
from this company taxes upon lands which they
will hold for the purpose of making the most of,
and thus throw the burden of local improvements on the actual settler. Sir, I never
heard
a proposition so monstrous as this one ; I never
heard one justified upon such grounds as have
been advanced to support this proposition and
no such proposition was ever before submitted
to a free parliament.
Mr. John Charlton, on the 27th of January, moved an amendment on behalf of
the Liberal opposition as follows :
That the contract respecting the Canadian
Pacific Railway exempts perpetually the railway and all stations, &c.; from taxation
by
the Dominion, &c.; that the property of the
corporation will be in substance a gift from
the public and its exemption from taxation
is unjust; it creates an unfair incidence of
taxation and gives an undue advantage to the
company over other railway companies calculated to prevent the construction of competing
lines ; and the contract is in this respect objectionable.
In support of that amendment Mr. Charlton said in part :
It is not a principle which can he controverted that for the payment of the expenses
necessary to be incurred in the maintenance of
law and order all property should bear its
equitable and due proportion; that no property whatever should be exempt from payment
of its share of the expenses of maintaining law and order. . . . A settler in addition
to paying the railway tax must pay a
portion of the debt created for the benefit of
the railway. The first item is the $31,000,000
incurred in building the portion of the line to
be handed over to the company and cost of
surveys, that amounts to $7 per head for every
man, woman and child in the Dominion; in
the next place he must pay a proportion of the
taxes for the $25,000,000 to be paid over to the
company, which amounts to over $6 per head
for every man, woman and child in the Dominion ; in other words the amount per capita
is over $13 in addition to a fair proportionate
share of the ordinary taxes of the country
which should be borne by the company. In
addition to all this a settler on the alternate
blocks is to labour for the benefit not merely
at himself but for the benefit of this company
who will be enabled by the advantages given
them in this contract to withhold their lands
from the market as long as they please. For
every two blows that he strikes he is to feel
8786
that he is striking one blow for a soulless corporation which quietly awaits his efforts,
knowing that it has only to wait to realize results
to which they do not contribute in the slightest
degree.
It is 25 years ago that these words were
uttered in this House with rare prophetic
insight. I have quoted them here to establish my proposition that section 23 involves
a limitation upon provincial autonomy
of no trivial character. I trust that I have
said enough now to show the House clearly
my own position in the matter in its relation to the Autonomy Bills and as well
the intrinsic importance of the subject. I
propose next to show particularly why I
think my amendment should be adopted.
Probably it is not necessary for me at this
stage to say that I am not proposing repudiation. I am not proposing to take away
from the company any of its contract rights.
I stand in that regard just as my hon.
friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) who
when referring to this subject some weeks
ago said that no right thinking person would
propose to deprive this company of any
rights which the parliament and people of
Canada 25 years ago with their eyes open
gave to them. I admit, as any right-
thinking person must admit, that the
contract must be respected. But I ask,
whose was the contract ? Was it not a contract made between the Dominion of Canada
and the company ? The Canadian Pacific Railway was and is a federal undertaking. These
exemptions were and are a
part of the cost of the undertaking. Then,
why shift part of such cost price upon these
new provinces more than upon the province of Nova Scotia or any of the other
provinces of the Dominion ? The new provinces are, without these exemptions, bearing
their fair share of the undertaking with
the other provinces of Canada. Then, why
place them under a double burden? Let
me quote a little further from the debates
of 1881, when the contract was first before
parliament. I will quote from a gentleman
whose name is fairly well known and respected throughout the Dominion of Canada,
the Hon. George W. Ross, who was a member of this House in 1881. He spoke as follows
:
What does it mean? It means that the
people of the Northwest as far as the railway
company is concerned must tax themselves
extra to the extent from which the company is
relieved in order to procure such advantages as
schools, highways, sidewalks, and other advantages of civilization. . . . There is
another grievance to which I must refer and that
is when a new province is erected and we
come to confer upon it those advantages which
it can claim under our confederation we will
be bound to consider the exemption from taxation of the lands and property of this
company ; this will mean that the whole Dominion
must be taxed in order to provide a larger
subsidy for the maintenance of looal institutions of such new province or provinces.
We
pay Manitoba already 80 cents a head and
8787
COMMONS
several other perquisites. If we handed over
to Manitoba her wild lands the subsidy to that
province from the exchequer would not need
to be so large. When we come to form a province in the Northwest and when the people
come to find that the public lands are exempt
from taxation with all the railway company's
property and that the means for maintaining
the municipal institutions in that province
are closed against them, they will say : If we
are going to be erected into a provincial government we must obtain a larger subsidy
from
the Dominion exchequer because we have not
the advantages of taxation which other provinces have.
Mr. TAYLOR. Will the hon. gentleman
allow me to ask him a question ?
Mr. TAYLOR. Is the hon. gentleman
aware that the Hon. George W. Ross withdrew that and every other statement that
he had made opposing the building of the
Canadian Pacific Railway in a public speech
that he made a few years ago? He said
that he had opposed it at every stage, but
that he took it all back, that he approved
of the bargain and contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway, saying that the Canadian
Pacific Railway had built up the great
Northwest, that without it our country
would have been practically nothing, and
that he withdrew every statement that he
ever made.
Mr. SCOTT. If my hon. friend will have
the patience to listen to the whole of the
extract from Mr. Boss's speech that I am
reading
Mr. TAYLOR. I heard it in the House
when it was made.
Mr. SCOTT I am certain he will not
find a single word of opposition to the Canadian Pacific Railway in it.
Mr. TAYLOR. He opposed it, as Mr.
Blake and every other Liberal did.
Mr. SCOTT. I will have to read this
again for the hon. gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT. Let the hon. gentleman point
out one single word of this extract which
means opposition to the Canadian Pacific
Railway :
What does it mean? It means that the people
of the Northwest as far as the railway company
is concerned must tax themselves extra to the
extent from which the company is relieved
in order to procure such advantages as schools,
highways, and other advantages of civilization.
. . . . There is another grievance to which
I must refer and that is when a new province
is erected and we come to confer upon it those
advantages which it can claim under our confederation, we will be bound to consider
the
exemption from taxation of the lands and property of this company ; this will mean
that
the whole Dominion must be taxed in order
to provide a larger subsidy for the maintenance of local institutions of such new
province
8788
or provinces. We pay Manitoba already 80
cents a head and several other perquisites. If
we handed over to Manitoba her wild lands the
subsidy to that province from the exchequer
would not need to be so large. When we come to
form a province in the Northwest and when the
people come to find that the public lands are
exempt from taxation with all the railway
company's property and that the means for
maintaining municipal institutions in that province are closed against them they will
say :
If we are going to be erected into a provincial
government we must obtain a larger subsidy
from the Dominion exchequer because we have
not the advantages of taxation which other
provinces have. For instance, if one-quarter
of Ontario or Quebec were exempted from
taxation, in what position would they be ?
Evidently in order to maintain prosperity they
would have to draw freely from the exchequer
of this Dominion and the whole Dominion, from
Vancouver's Island to Halifax, will need to
be more largely taxed because of the exemption
we are now considering under this contract.
Is there a word involving opposition to
the building of the railway in that ? Not
a word. The Liberal party of that day were
not opposing the building of the Canadian
Pacific Railway. On the contrary the Liberal party when in power in the seventies
were undertaking the building of that railway. I cannot conceive what my hon.
friend is referring to. There is nothing I
can find in Mr. Boss's words which involves
any opposition to the principle of the undertaking, but the Liberal party of that
day as a unit stood in opposition to some
of the iniquitous features of this contract
and particularly to the one which is going
to place a limitation upon the provincial
rights of the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan. George W. Ross. twenty-five years
ago, when that contract as being debated,
recognized and admitted that it was a federal undertaking, the cost of which ought
to be borne by the Dominion. When the
Dominion makes a payment every province
contributes its equal share. If these provinces are left under these particular exemptions
you are placing a double burden
upon them—they are paying equally with
the other provinces the money subsidies and
the price of the $27,000.000 worth of completed road that was given the company—
they pay almost the whole of the land subsidy—they bear equally with you the loss
involved in the exemption from taxation by
Dominion—and in addition to their full and
equal share of the whole cost and burden,
you leave them to bear alone a substantial
piece of the cost of this federal undertaking beyond that share which the other provinces
are carrying. Is there any fairness in that ?
Look at it closely. The $25,000,000 cash
subsidy to the company is looked on as a
heavy charge to Canada. What is it actually ? Three per cent on $25,000,000 is
$750,000 a year. If my calculations are correct, the provincial tax exemptions will
cost
these two provinces easily as much. What
then are you doing? You are asking the
8789 JULY 5, 1905
provinces to bear alone a portion of the
cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway equal
to the item of cost which the whole of Canada bears by its $25,000,000 cash subsidy.
I ask again, is there any fairness in that ?
Mr. Ross saw in 1881, if the exemptions
were made an item of the contract, that
when provinces were created it would be
improper and unjust to leave them saddled
with the burden of the exemptions. Mr.
Blake in 1881 declared that the people of
the Northwest would be less than men if
they suffered such a limitation upon their
autonomy to exist. In January, 1905, when
confronted with the declaration of the government that provinces were to be erected
this year, I took the position that if it was
intended to leave the provinces under these
exemptions I must oppose the measures, in
particular view of the possibility that by
waiting for the Privy Council judgment on
the test cases a comparatively easy way
might be found of obtaining relinquishment
by the company of the provincial exemption
rights. The Prime Minister intimated to
me his recognition that these exemptions,
both Dominion and provincial. would have
to be abrogated in the interests not alone
of the provinces but of the Dominion. With
that intimation that the provinces need
not fear that they would be left under the
exemption perpetually I consented to take
my part in discussing the autonomy terms
and voted for the second reading of the
Bills.
Mr. SPROULE. If you had not got that
you would be on strike I presume.
Mr. SCOTT. You can have your own
opinion about that. The Prime Minister
has publicly repeated the assurance which
he gave to me. What I ask now is that
the government and the House shall concur in that assurance in a tangible way by
putting in black and white in these provincial charters the notice of intention to
cancel these exemptions,—a notice to all concerned, to the company, to the people
of
Canada and especially to the people of the
new provinces. Is it unnecessary ? I say
it is no more unnecessary than your section
23. Section 23 does not say that the province cannot tax the Canadian Pacific Railway
road or lands. It is not section 23 of
these Bills, but section 16 of the contract
of 1881 which imposes the limitation. Section 23 merely states that the provinces
are
subject to that contract—to the degree that
the contract is good or bad in legality or
constitutionality, weak or strong, doubtful
or perfect, to that degree the provinces are
bound. If you deem it proper and imperative to thus give notice to the provinces
that their autonomy has been invaded by a
previous parliament, then I say that it is
not only equally proper, but doubly imperative, if there is sincerity behind the assurance
given by the Prime Minister, which
I do not for a moment question, that you
shall give notice at the same time and in
8790
the same manner that parliament will in
good time remedy that invasion, and that
the provinces will not be left for ever under
the unfair burden of these exemptions.
I appeal to the Liberal party on the
strength of the principle of provincial
rights ; on the statement I made here in
1901, that entire equality as between the
provinces is the only sure guarantee of the
permanency of confederation ; on the sound
doctrine preached in this Chamber 25 years
ago by Blake, Cameron, Charlton, Mills, Paterson, Cartwright, Laurier, and other Liberal
leaders ; and particularly on the declaration made in 1881 by Hon. G. W. Ross,
which I have read. I appeal to the Conservative party in this matter because the
difficulty is of their creation. It is not these
Bills, it is not section 23 which limits provincial autonomy, but section 16 of the
Canadian Pacific Railway contract. Whatever substantial or serious lack of autonomy
there is against which these provinces will
have to complain, is not the deed of the
Liberal party, but of the Conservative party.
Let me tell my hon. friends opposite that
they need not think so far as the people of the Northwest Territories are concerned,
that by raising a school question
dust or a land question dust they are going
to hide from the people of these Territories
the knowledge of the fact that it is the Conservative party that is responsible for
the
only material limitation upon their autonomy
which is being granted by these Bills to
the new provinces. In every other respect
where there is a departure from the strict
plan of confederation it is a departure with
which the people of the new provinces are
entirely content. There is a departure with
respect to representation ; provision is made
in these Bills for redistribution upon a census to be taken midway between two
decennial censuses and there never has
been any such provision made for any
other province. That departure is in
the interest of the people of these
new provinces. There is a departure
in connection with the debt or capital
account. When I raised that question my
hon. friend (Mr. Foster) took the position
that it was much better in the interests
of the people of these provinces that they
should be put in a different position from
the other provinces with regard to their
capital or debt account. For instance, several million dollars stand to the credit
of
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and it is
in the power of the governments of these
provinces to withdraw that capital and use
it immediately in any way they choose.
But by these Bills the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan are not going to
be left at liberty to withdraw their capital;
all they will be able to do is to take from
year to year 5 per cent interest on the capital account.
Mr. SPROULE. Where does the hon.
gentleman find authority for saying that
8791
COMMONS
the other provinces could withdraw their
capital account?
Mr. SCOTT. I refer my hon. friend from
Grey to his friend from North Toronto (Mr.
Foster) who, when we discussed this matter, stated that one of the maritime provinces
had withdrawn a portion of its capital and acted very foolishly in doing so.
There is a very material difference in these
Bills from the confederation plan with regard to the land, but my opinion is that
the people of the new provinces are quite
content with that. I do not think I can
quote any better authority on that point
than Mr. Haultain, who in a formal letter
to Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated he was quite
willing to admit that the plan adopted in
these Bills would work out more advantageously to the people of the provinces
than had the actual confederation plan been
followed. I hope I have said enough—
Mr. SCOTT. I hope I have said enough
to convince the House.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friends opposite
evidently think I have said enough, but they
will have to hear more of this and some
other questions out in the new provinces. I
have no doubt that these gentlemen would
be pleased indeed if these questions were
never heard of again either here or anywhere
in the Dominion of Canada. Have I left anything to be said ? I trust that I have been
able to put the case in a way to prove that
this is no light matter—that it is no immaterial limitation upon Northwest autonomy
that is at issue—that a real and substantial
matter of provincial rights is involved. I
trust that I have left no room for doubt as
to my own position. On last 3rd November,
in last January, on the 3rd of May when I
voted for the general principle of autonomy
and for the principles bound up in the main
details of the measures, I deemed myself
in honour bound, and at this moment I deem
myself in honour bound, to oppose any autonomy scheme which will leave the Northwest
provinces for ever under these exemptions. As a whole, I believe the Bills provide
not only fair but generous terms. On
that account, and further because of the
other vexed and complicating difficulties
which have arisen and which would almost
necessarily have led to a contrary vote by
me being misconstrued, I have not deemed
it fair nor right to oppose the Bills nor to
withdraw my support from the Prime Minister on the measures. But in view of the
position which I held on this question before my electors, I have open to me only
one
alternative. If the government and the
House can see their way clear to adopt my
amendment, I shall have redeemed the
pledge upon which I accepted election in
West Assiniboia. I therefore beg to move,
seconded by Mr. Talbot, of Strathcona :
8792
That the words after ' Now ' be left out, and
the following substituted: ' That the Bill (No.
69) be referred back to the Committee of the
Whole House, with instruction to add to Section 23 the following sub-section :
Provided that the foregoing shall not prejudice the right of the parliament of Canada,
by
expropriation or otherwise, to obtain the relinquishment by the said company of the
company's rights under section 16 of the contract
aforesaid.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Mr. Speaker,
I regret, as much as my hon. friend himself who has spoken with a good deal of
warmth on this subject, the necessity under
which the government has found itself impelled to introduce the section in the Bill
to
which he has taken such strong exception.
My hon. friend is aware, and the House is
aware also, that the party to which he and
I belong did everything we could to prevent
parliament from accepting that clause of
the Canadian Pacific Railway contract
when it was submitted to parliament in the
year 1881. Unfortunately the efforts we
made at that time were unavailing ; parliament thought differently. That parliament
made a mistake on that occasion I do not
think is susceptible now of any discussion.
However, even though parliament did make
a mistake on that occasion, it is a rule
which has never been violated, and which
my hon. friend himself admits, that, even
under such a sense of mistake which would
be shared by the parliament of this day,
there is nothing to do but to abide loyally
by what has been done ; and I understand
that my hon. friend himself does not propose that parliament at this juncture should
with a rough hand attempt to repudiate the
engagement which was entered into in 1881.
His amendment does not go that length, nor
did he imply in his argument that we should
attempt to give to the new provinces which
we are now creating the power of taxing
the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in face of the exception
which was made in its favour when the
contract was entered into in 1881. The only
amendment which my hon. friend wants to
have made is a declaration to the effect that
this clause which we insert in the Bill giving effect to the exemption contained in
the
Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway
Company, ' shall not prejudice the right of
the parliament of Canada, by expropriation
or otherwise, to obtain the relinquishment
by the said company of the company's rights
under section 16 of the contract as aforesaid.' The only answer I have to make to
my hon. friend on this point is that the government do not think it advisable to complicate
this Bill further than it is at present
by the unfortunate necessity of inserting in
the Bill the section which he wants thus
amended. The parliament of Canada made
a solemn contract with the Canadian Pacific
Railway Company, and this contract cannot
be done away with except in one of two
8793 JULY 5, 1905
ways, that is to say, by mutual agreement
between the contracting parties, that is, between the parliament of Canada and the
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or by
the parliament of Canada exercising its
power of eminent domain, and expropriating from the company the privilege which
was given to it by parliament. I appeal to
my hon. friend on this matter. I do not see
that this right of the Canadian parliament
would be made any stronger than it is by
applying to it a declaration of this kind.
It would simply amount to a declaration,
and nothing else; it would have no more
effect than the passing of the section in
silence. It would simply complicate this
Bill and put a blemish on it, and the people
on whose behalf my hon. friend has spoken
with great effect and warmth, would not be
benefitted in the least. I said on a previous
occasion that in this matter we are partners with the new provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan; we are in the same boat
with them. The exemptions from which
they suffer this parliament also suffers
from ; and our interests being common, the
people of the Northwest Territories can rely
that the Canadian government, in protecting its own interests, must likewise protect
those of the new provinces which we are
creating. I have only to repeat that in my
opinion this is a blemish which has been
placed, not only on the people of the new
provinces, but on the people of Canada
generally, and that the time has come, I
am not prepared to say when, when the parliament of Canada must address itself to
this question. Therefore I do not see that
we can accept this amendment.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. A two-hours' speech
delivered after nearly five month's of debate
on this Bill, and followed by a motion that
had some effect or meaning might have been
excused to the hon. gentleman who has
taken up the time of the House this afternoon ; but inasmuch as his amendment
means absolutely nothing, does not alter to
the slightest extent the effect of the
clause as it is at present, one can only conclude that this is a very pretty piece
of byplay and comedy on the part of the hon.
gentleman. Here is the clause he proposes
to amend :
The powers hereby granted to the said province shall be exercised subject to the provisions
of section 16 of the contract set forth in
the schedule to chapter 1 of the statutes of 1881,
being an Act respecting the Canadian Pacific
Railway Company.
To which the hon. gentleman by his
amendment desires to add this :
Provided that the foregoing shall not prejudice the right of the parliament of Canada,
by
expropriation or otherwise, to obtain the relinquishment by the said company of the
company's rights under section 16 of the contract
aforesaid.
8794
A more absolutely irrelevant proviso could
not be imagined. It is utterly absurd. The
words in section 23 do not in the slightest
degree affect the power of the parliament of
Canada to deal with that question, and
there is not any lawyer in the House who
would venture for one moment to stake his
professional reputation upon the contrary
assertion.
The parliament of Canada is giving notice to the new provinces of the contract
entered into by the Crown with the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is not withdrawing
anything from its own power. 'It is
dealing with the powers of the provincial
legislature. It does not purport, in any
word or syllable of this section, to be taking away anything from its own power,
and it will have, if this section be passed,
exactly the same power to do that mentioned in this proviso as it had before the section
passed. Therefore, I propose to vote
against the amendment. I shall vote against
it because it has not any effect or meaning,
and I cannot see that it adds anything to or
takes anything from the meaning of the
section, as now proposed, in the slightest
degree.
I do not know what assurance of the
First Minister the hon. gentleman referred
to this afternoon when he spoke of some
assurance of the right hon. gentleman. I
only heard some rather vague prophecy as
to what parliament might or might not be
obliged to do at some time in the remote
future. So far as the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption from taxation is concerned,
the question remains to be determined
whether or not the legislature of the Territories will or Will not under this act
have
full jurisdiction to deal with provincial taxation. In good faith that jurisdiction
must
be exercised subject to the terms of the contract, just as this parliament, if it
saw fit
to attempt the expropriation referred to by
the hon. gentleman, would be obliged in good
faith to have regard to the terms of the contract. As I gave my views in committee,
it is not worth while detaining the House by
repeating them. I might add that one of
the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada,
in dealing with this question under exactly
similar conditions, said this:
I think Manitoba was granted and received
these lands with this special exemption attached and has not attempted to repeal it,
if,
as was argued, it could repeal this provision,
and, in my view, the later taxing statutes of
Manitoba do not purport to repeal this provision.
He leaves undecided the question whether
Manitoba could repeal that provision or
deal with this matter, as far as provincial
taxation is concerned, in exactly the same
way that the parliament of Canada can deal
with it so far as Dominion taxation is
concerned.
Furthermore. I pointed out to this
House on a previous occasion that Mani
8795 COMMONS
toba has asserted the right to tax the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and
has collected the sum of $50,000 or thereabouts during the past year under that head.
Manitoba exercised that right, because
section 16 of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract does not exempt its earnings
from taxation. That section is as follows:
The Canadian Pacific Railway and all stations
and station grounds, workshops, buildings,
yards and other property, rolling stock and
appurtenances required and used for the construction and working thereof, and the
capital
stock of the company, shall be for ever free
from taxation by the Dominion, or by any province hereafter to be established, or
by any
municipal corporation therein; and the lands
of the company, in the Northwest Territories,
until they are either sold or occupied, shall
be free from such taxation for twenty years
after the grant thereof from the Crown.
There is no exemption therein of the
earnings.
Mr. SCOTT. In very much the larger part
of Manitoba, there is no exemption at all.
It might be that the company had not considered that what the Manitoba government
has done in relation to taxes on earnings covered the small exempted strip.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have read carefully the terms of the Manitoba statute.
They are general. They do not deal with
the Canadian Pacific Railway alone but with
all railway companies, and it is under that
general provision that the tax to which I
have alluded has been collected. All the railway companies, I believe, have protested.
as
they always do under the circumstances;
but neither the Canadian Pacific Railway nor
any other company has seen fit to test the.
validity of the tax imposed. For those
reasons I shall vote against the amendment
of the hon. member. I cannot see that it
adds to or takes from the meaning of the
section as now proposed in the slightest
degree.
Mr. GALLIHER. I dealt with this question for a short time about a month or two
ago and propose to say but very few words
on it at present. I do not think my hon.
friend from West Assiniboia goes far enough
or I would support his motion. In my opinion, section 28 should not be enacted at
all. If the parliament of Canada had full
power to enter into the contract it did with
the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1881, there
can be no necessity for our continuing the
exemption therein provided by any new
enactment now. If it was intra vires of the
government at that time, it holds good
now. even after the new provinces are
created. But if it was ultra vires of the
government to continue that exemption beyond the time when the Territories became
provinces, we should not do so by an enactment now. Either this section is for
the purpose of securing such a defect as
may have existed by reason of it not having
8796
been within the power at the Dominion
parliament to continue the exemption beyond
the time when the Territories became provinces, or there is no need for it. If this
section were left entirely out of the Bill.
we would not be in any way ignoring a
contract that was legally made by any preceeding government. If that contract were
not legally made, we should not be called
upon to makeit good by this enactment:
and if my hon. friend had moved for the
expunging of this section. I would have
supported him.
Amendment IMr. Scott) negatived.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. This Bill, which is
now under consideration for its third reading, has been so elaborately discussed,
both
on the second reading and in committee,
that I propose to occupy the time of the
House but a few minutes in moving an
amendment to refer the Bill back to the
Committee of the Whole House.
So far as the main features of the Bill are
concerned, those to which I am particularly
opposed are pretty well known. I will
briefly enumerate them and content myself
with just summing up a few ideas which
have been elaborated on more than one
occasion during the discussion of the Bill.
I object to the policy of the government
as far as the lands are concerned. In my
opinion, as I have expressed it on a great
many occasions during the past three years,
the true policy for the government to adopt
in regard to the lands in the Northwest
Territories would have been to entrust the
administration and control of these lands to
the people and the legislatures of the new
province, and not. to retain that control and
administration at Ottawa. The government,
by adopting that view, would have
followed the analogy of the British
North America Act, section 109 of
which provides that each province shall retain its lands and shall control and administer
them. In the next place, it would have
followed the British practice which has
prevailed as between the government of
Great Britain and the dependencies of the
empire during the past sixty or seventy
years. Every argument which has been advanced for retaining the control and administration
of these lands in the central government would have availed equally in
favour of retaining the control and administration of the lands of this country in
the
imperial government at London. There is
no doubt about that. The British government attempted to enforce that principle.
They did enforce it for a time, with results
so absolutely unsatisfactory to themselves
and to the people of the various dependencies
of the empire that it was found necessary
to make an absolute change. Further than
that, the policy of the government in this
regard is absolutely opposed, as I believe
to the wishes of the people of the Northwest
as expressed by the legislature in the Bill
8797 JULY 5, 1905
presented by Mr. Haultain, which had been
unanimously adopted by the legislature of
the Northwest Territories. It is also opposed
to many expressions in the public press
of the west during the time of this debate.
And it is not unwise at this moment
to recall the circumstances that, with
respect to the boundary, with respect
to many details that have been dealt
with by this Bill, the wishes of the
Northwest have been put forward as the
true test. But when we come to the question of administering and controlling the
lands we have departed from any consideration of the wishes of the people of the new
provinces, and have decided to withhold the
control and retain the administration of
these lands.
Another argument in favour of entrusting
these lands to the people is that the lands
can be better administered and controlled
in the province than at Ottawa. They can
be better administered and controlled by
officers of the provincial government in
touch with the people and comparatively
near at hand than by the officers of the
Dominion government. What reason is
there, as I have said before, why a citizen
of Ontario should have the right and privilege to deal with the minerals and public
lands of his own province at Toronto, while
the citizen of the Northwest must be obliged,
for the same purpose, to write or send to
the city of Ottawa ? I am not going into an
extended argument on this subject. The
matter has been dealt with in detail by my
hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) and my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr.
Lake), as well as by other hon.
gentlemen ; and for me to indulge in an
elaborate argument at this stage of the discussion would be weariness to the House
as well as to myself.
The arguments of the government on this
subject are threefold. The Prime Minister
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) bases his main contention on the necessity of controlling the
lands that they may be used as a means of
promoting immigration. He says there
must be free homestead entries, and therefore there must be control of the lands at
Ottawa. This consideration seems entitled
to no great weight. I dealt with it on a
previous occasion. Another hon. gentleman
seemed to be under the impression
that there would be less corruption
if the administration of the lands were
in the hands of the central government than if they were administered
by the provinces. The Prime Minister adduces on this subject the example of the
United States, where the federal government
has retained the control of the public lands
—although he took good care not to follow
the United States with respect to certain
other features of the Bill to which public
attention has been called. The example of
the United States has not been a happy one,
if we test this question by the possibility of
corruption. Those who have investigated
8798
the political affairs of the United States,
know that some of the greatest scandals
which have occurred in that country have
been in connection with the public lands.
The additional reasons which influenced the
administration are those which they do not
openly state—the desire for preserving patronage, for retaining power over the electorate
of that country. In respect of these matters, no doubt, there were influences which
were exercised upon the administration.
But looking at the matter from the standpoint solely of the public interset, I venture
to say that the policy should have been to
hand over the lands to the administration
and control of the provincial executives and
provincial legislatures.
The next proviston of the Bill to which I
have specially referred is that which deals
with the division of the province for
the purpose of the election of a provincial
legislature. Now, I am not going over a
twice-told tale. I shall not review the
provisions of clause 12 of the Bill and of the
schedule which forms part of that clause.
These matters have been discussed very
elaborately in the committee of the whole
House. But I will just point out one object
lesson in this distribution which seems to
me to afford a guide to the principle, or lack
of principle, which has guided the administration and its friends in framing
clause 12. The population of the province
of Alberta is estimated by the government at
250,000. The number of members in the
new legislature is to be twenty-five. Two
constituencies are to be established in the
northern part of the province in communities which have not, up to the present time,
been given any representation either in the
parliament of Canada or in the provincial
legislature. Hon. gentlemen on the other side
are now extremely solicitous about the persons who inhabit these portions of the province.
They are extremely solicitous that
those people should be represented in parliament. But up to the present time I have
not heard a murmur of protest, either in this
parliament or in the territorial assembly, on
account of their lack of representation in
parliament or in the territorial assembly.
We have certain sources of information
which have been pointed out by the government as those which guided them in making
this distribution. One source of information
is the census of 1901. According to that
census the electoral division of Peace River
contained 92 whites and 677 half-breeds, or
a total population of 769 among whom electors might be found. The constituency of
Athabaska, according to the census of 1901,
contained 117 white persons and 824 half-
breeds, or a total population of 941 among
whom electors might be found. In addition
to this, the Peace River district contained
at that time 955 Indians and Athabaska
contained 735 Indians. There is one post
office in the entire territory comprised in the
two ridings, and the income from that one
post office is $90 per annum. You will
8799 COMMONS
therefore realize the extent and importance
of the population to which has been given
a representation of two members in the new
provincial assembly.
Well, we need not perhaps stop at that;
it is not fair perhaps to stop at that, because we have certain further information
derived from my hon. friend the Minister
of the Interior. Some one told some persons who told the Minister of the Interior
that there is a population of 5,000 souls in
these two ridings exclusive of Indians—or
perhaps it may be that some one told my
hon. friend that directly. I think that was
the way he put it to the House—some person, at some indefinite time, at some unknown
place, the person being also unnamed
and unknown to this House, has informed
the Minister of the Interior that these two
combined electoral divisions contain at the
present time 5,000 persons exclusive of Indians. Well, I venture to think that if
you look at the other sources of information
upon which reliance has been placed by the
government with respect to other portions
of the constituency, we might discount that
statement a great deal. For my part I
should be extremely surprised if it could
be proved by any evidence worth the name
that there are more than 2,500 persons at
the present time in those two electoral divisions, not including Indians. But let
us
take the statement of the Minister of the
Interior; let us take his statement, which
it was not even worth while to put in writing, of which it was not worth while to
give any details; let us assume that there
are in these two electoral divisions at the
present time 5,000 people outside of Indians,
and what have you? You have 245,000 people in the new province of Alberta to whom
is allotted a representation of 23 members
in the new legislature, and you have a supposed 5,000 people in the northern portion
of that constituency to whom two representatives are allotted. That is to say, to
one-fiftieth of the assumed population of the
province of Alberta a representation of two
is given, and to all the rest, to the other
forty-nine-fiftieths of that population, a representation of 23 is given. Now, there
can
be no excuse for that ; there can be no justification for it ; here can be no apology
for
it. I do not know the motives which influenced the Minister of the Interior and
the Prime Minister in forcing this upon the
House. We can only guess at them. But
it seems to be a transaction which is worthy
of being characterized in the strongest possible terms that parliamentary usage will
permit. It seems to me to be indecent and
indefensible that 5,000 persons in the northern part of that constituency should be
given
a representation of two members, while to
245,000 persons 23 members are allotted, and
that this should be done by hon. gentlemen
in this House who stand up and state that
they are solely desirous of distributing the
representation of that province according to
the standards of fair-play, according to
8800
equality of population and other similar considerations. It is perhaps inadvisable
to express our opinion as to why this is done,
why a population hitherto absolutely unrepresented in the provincial legislature
should be given four times the voice in the
new province that any similar number of
persons in any other part of the province
receive under the terms of this distribution.
Another provision to which I desire to
call attention for a few moments is that
contained in section 16. This has been discussed very fully. I will sum up what I
have to say with regard to that in a very few
words. The argument has been made not
only by private members on the other side
of the House, but by ministers of the Crown
as well, not, I think, by the right hon. gentleman, but by some of his colleagues,
that
an obligation is imposed upon parliament
to pass this legislation because of a compact which was made in 1870 at the time
the Territories came into the confederation.
That argument was disposed of by the right
hon. gentleman the other evening, and it
was disposed of by my hon. friend the
Minister of Justice on the same evening. If
there was any compact such as that which
has been relied upon, it extended not only
to separate schools in the Northwest Territories, but to the use of the French language.
A disclaimer was made by the
Solicitor General, concurred in by the Prime
Minister, both of whom declared that no
such compact existed under anything that
took place in 1870; therefore, so far as that
is concerned we come down to what the
Minister of Justice quoting from the judgment of a court, calls a parliamentary compact,
and we find the obligation to enact
this legislation, if we find it anywhere. in
the statute of 1875. The Prime Minister
and his colleagues have taken away from
themselves that argument; they have taken
it away deliberately, with their eyes open,
in answer to the motions of my hon. friend
from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and my hon.
friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), be
cause they say that there is no compact by
reason of the Act of 1877, and I challenge
any distinction between the Act of 1877
and the Act of 1875 in that regard. Therefore, I am free to state upon the authority
of the Prime Minister himself, upon the authority of his Minister of Justice and
of his Solicitor General, upon the authority of every member of the government who
combatted this motion, that there
was no compact contained in the Act of
1875, because otherwise the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues would have felt
themselves obliged to accede to the motions
which they voted down. Therefore, we
come down after all to the question of constitutional power, of constitutional right,
and as to whether it is sound policy in this
regard to limit the rights of the new provinces. I do not admit that there is any
constitutional power; I deny that there is
any constitutional right, and I deny further
8801 JULY 5, 1905
that it is sound policy to limit in this respect the rights of the new provinces.
I
say that so far as the distribution of the
legislative power between parliament and
the legislatures of the new provinces is concerned we should content ourselves with
adopting that code which is contained in
sections 91, 92, 93 and the two following
sections of the British North America Act.
These constitute the code of distribution
of legislative power between the parliament
of Canada and the legislatures of all the
provinces, including those provinces we are
now creating, and I say it is wise for us,
from all standpoints, to abide by the constitution in that regard.
I pointed that out a little more in detail
the other evening than I shall do at the
present time. I pointed out that in the
interest of the minority in this country as
well as in the interest of the majority, it
is right and wise that we should abide by
the constitution, because, that constitution,
if it is invaded to-day for one class, may
be invaded to-morrow for another class. I
deny that there is any intolerance in asking
that we should abide by the compact and
the constitution which were deliberately
adopted in 1867. Any argument as to tolerance is an argument which ought to be
addressed to the people and to the legislatures of the new provinces. I think that
all of us on this side of the House may
at the same time treat with some disdain
the arguments of those who throw the taunt
of intolerance in our teeth and at the same
time turn to their friends and colleagues
and say : We may grant this after all to
the minority because it is absolutely useless
to them; these are not separate schools ; the
privilege granted is absolutely worthless
and in a few years the name of separate
schools will disappear from the Northwest.
That is a very high exemplification of tolerance ! If it is so regarded by some hon.
gentlemen opposite, I do not so regard it.
If there was any compact, if there was any
agreement, why grant separate schools are to
be of no value at all to those who demand
them ? It seems to me that a different policy
should have been pursued.
Now there is this one thing more. I do not
think enough has been said in this House in
regard to a certain motion which the hon.
member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont)
moved the other evening. Perhaps some
members of this House and a great many
people in this country do not thoroughly realize what the import and effect of the
amendment are. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) and my hon. friend
from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) proposed certain motions when this Bill was in committee.
I will not weary the House perhaps if I state the reasons for these motions, as I
understand them. The amended
clause 16 of this Bill provides that :
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
8802
separate schools which any class of persons
have at the date of the passing of this Act,
under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the
ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed
in the year 1901.
The Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in any school section in the Northwest
Territories, if they saw fit to establish separate schools, could elect their own
school
trustees, and if they did so then the powers
of these trustees in respect to religious instruction would be controlled by section
137 of chapter 29 of the ordinances which
is as follows :
No religious instruction except as hereinafter
provided shall be permitted in the school of
any district from the opening of 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.
Now, inasmuch as the Catholic minority
or the Protestant minority could establish
separate schools and could elect their own
trustees, they would, in respect to such
separate schools, control the religious instruction. But in respect of schools which
were not within the designation of separate schools, the legislature of the
new province was not in any way controlled by the provisions of section 16. I
am trying to state this proposition in as
simple and distinct terms as I possibly can.
Inasmuch as these public schools—I may
call them that to distinguish them from
separate schools—were not within the designation of separate schools, contained in
clause 16 of this Bill, the provisions of section 16, to which I have just referred,
would not prevent the legislature of the new
province from interfering with the power of
the trustees or from vesting that control over
religious instruction in the Commissioner of
Education, or in the council of public instruction. or in any other body which it
may designate at any time in the future.
That was the position and my hon. friend
from Labelle, in the first instance, and my
hon. friend from Beauharnois afterwards
proposed motions in Committee of the Whole
House, which in their opinion, guarded the
rights of the Catholic minority when that
Catholic minority happened to be a majority
in anyparticular school district. These motions were voted down. They were voted
down without very much discussion by the
government and without very much reason
being given by any member of the government. They were regarded as unnecessary or
inexpedient—I do not know which—
perhaps both ; at all events, they were very
summarily disposed of and the matter was
supposed to end there. But, it did not end
there. Then came a very pretty little piece
of by-play. That which had been proposed
by my hon. friend from Labelle and by
my hon. friend from Beauharnois and something more to which I will call attention
was proposed by the hon. member for Sas
8803
COMMONS
katchewan evidently by reason of an understanding between himself and the members
of the administration. What was proposed by the hon. member for Saskatchewan was this
: He proposed to add to
clause 16 as it had been amended these
words :
Or with respect to religious instruction in
any public or separate school as provided for
in said ordinances.
So that the section as it now stands before us to receive the sanction of the House
upon the third reading is as follows:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or pnivilege with respect to
separate schools which any class of persons
have at the date of the passing of this Act,
under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the
ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed
in the year 1901, or with respect to religious
instruction in any public or separate school
as provided for in the said ordinances.
Now, I regard those words which I have
just read and which are embodied in
the amendment of the hon. member for
Saskatchewan as an unnecessary and unwarranted attack upon the legislative power
of the new province. They embody what
my hon. friend from Labelle and my
hon. friend for Beauharnois had in mind
but they embody something more. They
embody an absolute restriction of the powers
of the provincial legislature at all times in
the future in regard to the control of religious instruction in the public schools.
There can be no doubt about that. The
words are very distinct and very explicit.
If you omit the immaterial words you have
this language :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
religious instruction in any public or separate
school as provided for in said ordinances.
It might be proper if the policy of the
government were one in which we all
agreed to go as far as my hon. friend from
Labelle and my hon. friend from Beauharnois proposed to go, but it is absolutely unnecessary
to go beyond that and to limit and
restrict the powers of the legislatures of the
new provinces in respect to religious instruction in all public schools. What is the
provision relied upon? I have already read
it, but I will read it again :
No religious instruction except as hereinafter
provided shall be permitted in the school until
one-half hour previous to its closing in the
afternoon, after which time any such instruction permited or desired by the board
may be
given.
Whatever right or privilege is embodied
in that provision, whatever power is vested
in the trustees, under that provision, so as
to create a right or privilege, must remain
at all times in the future as part of the organic law of the new provinces. That is
to say, if the legislature of the new province
8804
should for any special reason in any district
desire to divest the tustees of that power and
to vest it in the commissioner of education
or the council of public instruction or any
other body, it would find itself unable to
do so. This is a specific and definite provision ' that no right or privilege with
respect to religious instruction in any
public or separate school ' shall be prejudicially affected. When this section first
came down I called attention to this. The
Prime Minister differed from me on the
construction of the section. I was not able
to precisely gather exactly what the view
of the administration is with respect to
the clause, but I am giving to the House
my view as to what the difficulties would
be. If the government have any different opinion it should be expressed in this
House at the earliest possible moment in
such distinct, definite and specific terms as
will leave no room for misapprehension and
misunderstanding. In view of the provisions
contained in section 16; in view of its restrictions on the legislative freedom of
the
new provinces, once more I desire to test
the opinion of the House upon that section.
and I therefore move in amendment to the
main motion :
That all the words after 'now' to the end
of the question he left out, and that the following words he inserted instead thereof:
Recommitted to a committee of the whole
House with an instruction that they have power
to strike out section 16 of the Bill and to substitute the following section therefor
:
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said
province in so far as the same are applicable
under the terms thereof.
I make the motion now as I made it in
committee for the reason that I believe it is
wisest to adhere to the terms of the constitution. It is wisest, because the observance
of the constitution is a protection to all of
us ; wisest, because the provisions of the
constitution will leave these matters to be
dealt with by the legislature of the new province ; wisest, because that will in the
end
tend to better relations among the people of
all Canada ; wisest, because it will confine
within the restricted provincial area differences and difficulties of an essentially
local
character. It will leave. the wider area of
Dominion politics free from questions which
concern only a particular province, a particular district or a particular territory.
All
of us who have had experience of the far
reaching and harmful effect of such differences when they overpass provincial bounds
by such differences; all of us who have strong
opinions on the desirability of not lighting
fires which are so easily spread ; we all believe that in the end it is better to
leave
such matters to be dealt with within the
restricted area which is most directly concerned. The motion which I propose will
have that result. It is a result that is not
likely to be fraught with any injustice to
the minority. That feeling of tolerance of
8805 JULY 5, 1905
which mention has been made so often in
this House is just as strong in the people
of the Northwest of Canada as it is in the
people of any province of Canada. The
people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
Prince Edward Island have been cited as
examples of the good fellowship which exists in the maritime provinces between people
of different races and different religious
belief. There is no reason for apprehension that any different result will obtain
in the Northwest of Canada it these matters are restricted to the provincial area
and
it the provincial legislature is left to deal
with these questions. The people of the
west are not less broad, they are not more
narrow than the people of eastern Canada.
than the people of Nova Scotia, of New
Brunswick and of Prince Edward Island
who, even without the sanction of legislative enactment, have been broad enough to
grant rights which are appreciated by the
minority. For what reason are we to conjecture that the people in the Northwest
of Canada would exercise the legislative
rights conferred upon them in any less reasonable or fair manner ? I hope that the
government, even at this late hour, may
accept this motion to leave the constitution
untouched, and to let the new provinces be
governed by the exact provisions of section
93 of the British North America Act, unimpaired and unaltered.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice). I am absolutely certain that
I give expression to the view, not only of
every member of this government, but of
every member of this House who is supporting the government on this legislation,
when I say that it has been proposed with
only one desire and that desire is to respect the true principles of the constitution,
not only in its spirit but in its letter. So
far as we are concerned there is no desire
to antagonize any element of the community, any more than there is a desire to
single out any class in the community for
special favours. We have, however, to bear
in mind that there are obligations on this
government which the government cannot
refuse to accept the responsibility of. It
would be very poor statesmanship, it would
be a very paltry thing, if, by simply shutting our eyes to the duty cast upon us we
would attempt to get rid of it. I shall not
detain the House at any length; I shall
merely deal with the question of the land
and clause 16, and leave the question of the
distribution of seats to the Minister of
the Interior and other hon. gentlemen. My
hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has said that
with respect to the land we are departing
from the principle laid down by the British
North America Act. I take direct issue
with my hon. friend on that, and I submit
to the House that there is absolutely no
analogy between the case we now have in
hand and the case of the provinces as they
came into confederation in 1867 and after.
8806
These provinces were separate political
entities in existence when they decided to
enter confederation. At the time they came
into confederation, these separate political
entities had vested in. them their public
lands; all their public properties were the
property of these federated provinces; and
when in the British North America Act
we proceed to deal with the question of
lands and properties, what do we do ? We
re-vest in the provinces those lands a part
of which have been taken by this Dominion.
That is What we did at confederation. Let
me draw the attention of the House to sections 108 and 109 of the British North America
Act, which deal with this question. Section 108 says :
The public works and property of each province enumerated in the third schedule to
this
Act shall be the property of Canada.
We take from these provinces, as they
came into confederation, the public works
and property therein enumerated. Then,
section 109 goes on to say:
All lands, mines, minerals and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the union,
and all sums then due or payable for such
lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario,
Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in which
the same are situate or arise, subject to any
trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any
interest other than that of the province in the
same.
That is, simply a revesting, in so far as
a revesting is necessary of those lands which
are their property, or which, by the terms
of this section, are declared to be their
property. What are the facts in regard to
the public lands in the Territories ? The
facts are that in 1870 they were almost
entirely the property of the Hudson Bay
Company; and what occurred ? The Dominion of Canada, acting in concert with
the imperial authorities, contracted to pay
to the Hudson Bay Company ÂŁ300,000 sterling for the purpose of acquiring these properties,
they to become the property of
the Dominion; and can any man to-day
dispute our title to those properties? Now,
where is the analogy between the case of
a province which has its property vested
in the province, coming into confederation
and retaining control of that property except
the part which it gives up to the Dominion
of Canada, and the property of the Northwest Territories, which to-day is the property
of the people of the Dominion of
Canada ? How can you compare the two ?
How can you draw any argument from
the British North America Act to make
it applicable to the case in hand ? That
is not all, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend
says we ought to observe the constitution.
The constitution of this country is not only,
strictly speaking, the terms of the British
North America Act, but is, as I conceive it.
the written constitution together with that
8807
COMMONS
intangible constitution which has grown up
by practice and usage. We have a precedent for what we are doing to-day. How
were the public lands in Manitoba dealt
with ?—which public lands occupied, quoad
the Dominion of Canada, absolutely the
same position which the public lands of
the Territories occupy to-day, except that
in the interval we have spent enormous sums
of money to develop that country, in connection with immigration, irrigation, and
other matters. How did we deal with the
case of Manitoba ? We dealt with it absolutely in the way in which we are dealing
with the Territories. Were we to do
otherwise and Manitoba were to come to
us, are we to say to her : We have
given these lands to the new provinces
of Alberta and Saskatchewan, but so far
as you are concerned lands occupying the
same position are not to be dealt with
in the same way ? Why should we distinguish between the two ? But, Mr. Speaker,
we have more than that. This question
has not been raised here for the first time.
It was the subject of much consideration
by the government in power in 1884, and a
report to Council was made by gentlemen,
members of the government, who had been
appointed to consider the whole of these
questions, and chiefly the question that was
then raised, as to the right of the province
of Manitoba to the control, management
and sale of the public lands within its
limits—the same question that is now being considered. How was that question
dealt with by the report of Council of May
20, 1884 ? I have made a few extracts from
that report, which I will read :
The lands of Manitoba hold a very different
position in relation to the Dominion government, from the lands of the other provinces.
Shortly after the union of the old provinces,
the government formed from that union purchased at a large price in cash, all the
rights,
titles and interests of the Hudson Bay Company
in and to the territory out of which the province of Manitoba has been formed, it
incurred
further a very large expenditure to obtain and
hold this territory in peaceable possession, and
at a still further cost which is continuous and
perpetual, is extinguishing Indian tioles and
maintaining the Indians, so that the Dominion
government has a very large pecuniary interest
in the soil which does not exist in respect to
any other of the confederated provinces.
Is there a reason advanced in support
of the position taken by the government
at that time which is not applicable to the
conditions existing in the Territories today? But that is not all. My hon. friend
thought there was not much in the argument with respect to immigration; but
let me point out to him what the views of
the government of 1884 were on that point.
The report says :
Parliament pledged its faith to the world that
a large portion out those lands should be set
apart for free homes-tends to all coming settlers,
and another portion to be held in trust for the
8808
education of their children. No transfer could
therefore be made without exacting from the
province :the most ample securities that this
pledged policy shall be maintained. Hence in so
far as the free lands extend there would be no
monetary advantage to the province whilst a
transfer would most assuredly seriously embarrass all the costly immigration operations
which the Dominion government is making and
mainly in behalf of Manitoba. and the Territories.
The great attraction which the Dominion
government now offers, the impressive fact to
the mind of the man contemplating emigration,
is that a well known and recognized government holds unfettered in its own hands,
which
it offers free, and that that government has
its agencies and organization for directing, receiving, transporting and placing the
immigrant upon the homestead which he may select.
These are the reasons which were given
then, and these are the reasons which apply
under existing conditions to the lands in
the Northwest Territories.
My hon. friend dealt afterwards with section 16, the school clause. I shall not go
over the position I have already taken
with respect to that section or the arguments which I have already advanced.
Briefly, I think I may put it in this way.
You have to provide by this constitutional
Act for the distribution of a legislative
power as between the Dominion and the
province. Sections 91, 92 and 93 of the
British North America Act must be made
applicable, section 91 being the section
which is applicable to the Dominion, section
92 the one applicable to the province, and
section 93, the one applicable to both. Neither the province nor the Dominion can
deal exclusively with the subject mentioned
in section 93. The Dominion can deal exclusively with the subjects mentioned in section
91, and the province can deal exclusively with the subjects mentioned in section
92.
But when we come to deal with this question of education, we find by section 93
that it is a subject over which both the Dominion and the provinces exercise legislative
jurisdiction. Section 93 provides for this
condition of things, that if a school system
has grown up in a province under which any
class in that particular province has acquired a right or a privilege, then that right
or privilege is guaranteed that particular
class for all time to come. That is the restriction placed upon the powers of a province
to deal with the subject of education.
It can only deal with that subject under the
restriction that all the rights and privileges
therefore vested in any class in that province cannot be interfered with. There can
be no doubt on that point because it has
been irrevocably settled as the result of two
judicial decisions. If these Territories
were a province now in existence, the school
system there existing would be of necessity
perpetuated, and whatever rights and
privileges are conferred on the minority
under that school system would be guaran
8809 JULY 5, 1905
teed them for all time. My hon. friend
says, however, that these Territories are not
provinces and conseqently this section does
not in terms apply to the new provinces.
Conceivably that is true. There is a doubt
in my mind as to whether or not these Territories, not being provinces, come within
the wording of section 93 ; and in the technical meaning of the term, the minority
might
not have those rights and privileges which
they enjoy under the School Ordinance. That
is the letter of the law, but what is the
spirit ?
Mr. SCOTT. Was that point ever raised
in the Manitoba case ? Manitoba was not a
province either.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It could not be
raised in the Manitoba case because in that
case there was a special section which provides that the minority shall have not only
the rights and privileges which exist by law
but also those which exist by practice.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Manitoba became a
province at the moment it entered confederation.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I am charging no
narrowness or fanaticism to my hon. friend
the leader of the opposition. I believe the
view he has given to be his conception of
the spirit of the British North America Act,
and that he is seeking to apply that Act, but
I put this question to him ? Have we not at
present in the Territories conditions which
are practically analogous to those which exist in a province ? At the time the Territories
came in, did we not petition the home
authorities to give us the power to legislate
with respect to them ? And did we not, at
the same time, give the undertaking that
we would give them institutions similar to
those which existed in the provinces ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If we had power,
under the Act of 1871, to absolutely disregard section 93 of the British North America
Act, then of course there is no further question. We cannot make a new section 93.
If, on the other hand, we are bound to observe section 93, it does not seem to me
that
we can increase our power by passing any
Act restricting the powers of a territorial
legislature, and then, the following year,
when creating a province, say : there you
have restrictions operating upon the territorial legislature and the provincial legislature
must also be governed thereby.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My answer is cadit
questio. Proceeding on the assumption that
we are dealing with these Territories, under
the Act of 1871, as Manitoba was dealt with
and British Columbia and Prince Edward
Island and every province brought into the
Dominion since confederation, we are applying to these new provinces the same principle
we applied to those provinces. If
these Territories were coming in as provinces, created previous to this time, there
8810
would be no question as to the application
of section 93, and all the rights and privileges guaranteed the minority under existing
legislation would be continued ; but because
they do not come within the word 'province '
my hon. friend says : your door is barred
and section 93 of the British North America
Act does not apply. My answer is that
when these Territories were brought into
confederation, they were brought in under a
compact entered into between the people of
Canada and the imperial authorities. We
find in the petition to the imperial authorities the following language :
That the welfare of the sparse and scattered
population of British subjects of European
origin, who inhabit these remote and unorganized territories, would be materially
enhanced by the formation therein of political
institutions hearing analogy, as far as the circumstances will admit, to those that
exist in
the several provinces of the Dominion.
That was the allegation of our petition.
We asked for legislative control over these
territories on conditions that we would give
them institutions similar in principle to those
existing in the provinces. That prayer was
granted. In the Order in Council it was
provided :
It is hereby ordered and declared by her Majesty, by and with the advice of the Privy
Council, in pursuance and exercise of the powers vested in her Majesty by the said
Acts of
parliament, that from and after the 15th day
of July, 1870, the said Northwest Territories
shall be admitted into and become part of the
Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth in the first hereinbefore
recited address.
The terms and conditions were that we
would give these Territories political institutions bearing analogy, as far as the
circumstances would admit, to those existing
in the provinces. That was in 1870 or 1871.
What then did we proceed to do ? In 1875
we gave these Territories a constitution in
accordance with the solemn compact entered
into with the imperial authorities. In that
constitution what did we provide ? We provided for separate schools, or rather we
provided, under section 11 of the Act of 1875,
for a system of education. That is the letter
of our constitution. At the time that constitution was given these Territories, in
the
execution of our solemn undertaking towards the imperial authorities, the man
who was responsible for section 11 of the
Act of 1875 stood up in this House and
gave expression to the hope that by that
Act we had settled for all time this vexed
question of education in so far as these Territories were concerned. I need not repeat
his words. Mr. Blake then said to the people
of Canada : We are taking out of provincial
politics and out of municipal control this
vexed question of education and are settling
it for all time in so far as these Territories
are concerned. Those great men who then
sat in parliament. those men who had been
8811
COMMONS
framers of the Act of confederation, who
had started Canada on its triumphant
wave,—those men declared, without a dissentient voice, in adopting this measure :
yes, we are settling the question for ever ;
and those who shall hereafter go into the
Territories to establish there homes for
themselves and their children will know the
conditions under which they take possession
of the land. They will know that their
children will be educated under the system
we are creating to-day, which provides for a
separate school system.
Mr. SPROULE. With the hon. minister's
permission, I would like to ask him a question. Is he strictly keeping faith with
those to whom promises were made prior
to confederation that they would have institutions similar to those of other provinces
? Did not the other provinces have
freedom of choice in their educational system?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Absolutely none.
The other provinces have no choice where
rights have been guaranteed.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Never had. A province coming into confederation with a separate school system is
bound to maintain
that system. And if after coming into
confederation they establish a school system under which rights and privileges accrue,
they are absolutely precluded from interfering with them.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I fear I am wandering from the point to which I was addressing myself. Without being
offensive
to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) I will claim
my right to proceed. I feel that he cannot
convince me, and I fear that I cannot convince him. Now, that system was given to
this country at that time, and at that time
those who were opposed to the principle of
separate schools so far as the Northwest
Territories are concerned, through Hon.
George Brown, voiced this sentiment : You
have passed this legislation ; you have settled the question for all time ; it has
passed
out of the domain of Dominion controversy.
I gave you the views of those who promoted this legislation and were favourable
to it. Here I give you also the opinion
concerning it and the construction put upon
by the man who most bitterly opposed it.
So there, friend and foe alike, joined to say
that this question was settled for ever.
And, as I have said, it passed beyond our
domain. Subsequently, in 1891, an attempt
was made to settle this question, otherwise. That is when the Act was being consolidated,
if I remember rightly,
and at that time the attention of the House
was again drawn to this section 11, to this
provision in the constitution we had given
8812
to this territory. We were told : You
must repeal that provision, you must not
consecrate that principle by your positive
legislation ; because if you do, the system
will be continued under which rights and
privileges will be acquired, which, when you
come to deal with these Territories and
make them into provinces, you will find
in existence and you will not be able to
get rid of them. Not only that, but, if I
remember rightly, it was in 1880, that a
statute was passed by this parliament
with respect to the constitution of these
Territories in which we made the provision
of the British North America Act with respect to education, that is to say, section
98, expressly applicable to the Northwest
Territories. Now, in the light of these
facts, we are called upon to deal with these
provinces. and we have to remember the
pledge we gave to the imperial authorities
that we would give to these Territories institutions similar in principle to our own.
We have to bear in mind the fact that
we have by our own Act created in the
province a certain condition of things with
respect to schools, that by our positive act
that school system has been continued up
to the present time. And, when we come
to apply section 93, what do we do ? The
rights that have grown up in that territory
under the present school system, if these
rights and privileges have been brought in
by reason of the legislation of the Territories, go on in spite of anything that could
be done. But, because they have been
created and have grown up not by reason
of the Act of the territorial authority, but
by reason of our Act, we are to repudiate,
and say to these people : It is true, we
have created that system, true we are responsible for it ; true if these had been
provinces and the legislation had been their
work, we would not have had any right to
deal with it;—but because these things have
grown up under our Act, we have the right
to repudiate them. That is a position this
government refuses to take. So far as this
government is concerned, there will be no
repudiation, either with respect to the contracts entered into with the Hudson Bay
Company or the implied parliamentary contract entered into with the minority of the
Northwest Territories.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has accurately stated the conditions
which exist in the Northwest Territories
as the result of section 16, No. 2. The minority—and I do not want to use the word
'Roman Catholic ' or the word ' Protestant,'
I speak of the minority—the minority in any
school district would have guaranteed to
them all the rights and privileges they enjoy at the present time under chapter 29
of
the ordinances. With respect to the minority in general, when they happen to form
a majority in a school district, they would
not have a guarantee of the continuance
of these rights which they now have.
8813 JULY 5, 1905
The intention of this amendment is to
continue to the majority in number in
a school district, where it happens to
be a minority in the province, the same
rights and privileges with respect to religious education that they now enjoy.
That is, we are not depriving them of one
iota of the benefits of the provisions of the
Northwest Territories ordinances. We are
giving to the minority in general. whether
Roman Catholic or Protestant, when they
are a majority in a school district, the same
privileges that they now enjoy. Now my
hon. friend says that the result of this is
to impose restraints on the action of the
legislature. That is true ; there is a restraint upon the action of the legislature.
But here is the condition we have : My
hon. friend says that we are vesting this
control of religious education in the hands
of the trustees. My construction of the Bill
—I am not dealing with it otherwise than
as I construe it—is that which is placed
upon it by the leader of the government
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Secular education,
for which the state pays, is under control
of the statute ; but religious education,
which is essentially that which concerns
the parents themselves, remains under the
control of the parents. The trustee is the
representative of the parent, for he is elected
by the parent. I take all the responsibility
for saying that I have no desire to see the
control of religious education vested in any
other person or authority than the parent.
I have no desire to see it vested in the
superintendent of education or any person
who is under the control of the state. I
wish to see it vested in the person elected
as representative of the parent. That is
what I think my hon. friend's amendment
carries out, and that. I think, we ought to
give effect to.
Mr. BOURASSA. There is a point which
is not very clear and which I would like
to have explained, if the minister will allow me a question. Under clause 137, the
minister has just stated, the trustees would
decide what kind of religious instruction
would be given. It is perfectly clear so
far as that is concerned. But suppose a
school section in which the majority is not
Protestant or Roman Catholic—say, for instance, of the Greek Orthodox church. And
suppose they decided to devote the half
hour for religious instruction to instruction
according to that church. Then, I suppose
the minority would either have to simply
prevent their children from attending the
school during that half hour of religious instruction or form a separate school. In
that case, which would be the minority to
have the right to form a separate school
under section 41 ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I am not able to
answer that question. I am not giving offhand legal opinions to-day.
8814
Mr. BOURASSA. But, if the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will allow
me, I think I put my question courteously.
In case the majority is neither Protestant
nor Roman Catholic, would the minority
have the right to establish a separate
school? That is a simple question.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It may be a simple
question, but it is a question to which I
have not given consideration, and I do not
want to commit myself to anything that I
have not considered. The leader of the opposition also referred to the right to use
the French language, and as I understood
him, he said that the right to use the
French language was as sacredly guaranteed to those who speak that language in
the Northwest Territories, as the right to
separate schools.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I said there seemed
to be as much of a parliamentary compact
in the one case as in the other, because
both depended on the statute.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I will deal with
that question when we have to consider the
amendment which will be moved in that
connection.
Mr. STOCKTON. I was unfortunately
absent from the House when the hon.
member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont)
moved his amendment, which was adopted
by the government and passed. Therefore,
I wish to make one or two observations
upon section 16, subsection 1, as it is affected by the amendment of the member
For Saskatchewan. I do not object to the
interpretation put upon section 93 by the
Minister of Justice. We know that a province has an absolute right to legislate with
respect to education. I ask this question :
What legislative authority outside of the
legislative assembly of the province of New
Brunswick has a right to legislate for that
province in respect to education ? No legislative authority whatever, Sir, except
the
assembly of the province of New Brunswick. But with the interpretation that has
been put upon section 93 by the Minister
of Justice, I agree. If the legislative assembly of the province of New Brunswick,
to-day, or to-morrow, passed a law giving
certain rights to the minority, and next
year sought to withdraw those rights by
which withdrawal they were prejudicially
affected, then I entirely agree with the Minister of Justice that there might be an
appeal to this parliament to interfere.
Mr. STOCKTON. It would be subject
to an appeal. Under that explanation, I
entirely agree with the interpretation which
8815 COMMONS
the Minister of Justice has put upon section 93 of the British North America Act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will very briefly show
in what respect the Bill as now before the
House is a departure from the Bill as originally presented by the Prime Minister,
and as afterwards amended by him. Separate schools, under section 41 of the ordinance
29, can only be established by a
minority of the ratepayers. Under the Act
of 1875, section 11, the majority of the
ratepayers can establish a school district
and provide for education. After the
school district is established then the minority can ask for and have separate schools.
The question was asked the Minister of
Justice by the hon. member for Labelle
(Mr. Bourassa), under what circumstances
could a school be established if there were
neither Catholics or Protestants in the district. Now if you put a construction upon
section 11 of the Act of 1875, that ratepayers mean only Catholics or Protestants,
then a difficulty might arise. But under
section 2 of the ordinance 29, a meaning is
given to the word ' ratepayer,' such as
you would expect to be given it, that is,
a person who pays rates, with the limitation of a certain residence within the district
before he casts his vote for the election
of a trustee. Now, the First Minister provided in his Bill for the minority but not
for the majority. The amendment of the
member for Saskatchewan, following the
amendment moved by the member for
Labelle, and following to a certain extent
the amendment moved by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), sought
to cure this defect, with the exception that
the amendments of the member for Labelle and the member for Beauharnois were
summarily voted down at the instance of
the government and afterwards, when the
member for Saskatchewan, under the inspiration I imagine of the First Minister, or
some member of the government, moved
his amendment, it was accepted by the government and adopted by the House, under
the authority of the First Minister. What
is the effect of that amendment ? I think,
Sir, that many members of this House do
not fully understand the element that has
been introduced into the organic constitution of the province by this amendment. At
the end of subsection 1, section 16, these
words are added :
With respect to religious instruction in any
public or separate school as provided in the
said ordinances.
Now, under section 137 of the ordinance 29
religious instruction can be given from 3.30
p.m. to 4 o'clock, under the direction of the
trustees in separate schools. But what if
you apply it to all the schools ? As the law
now stands it can be changed, it can be
amended by the provincial authorities, because the amendment does not form part of
the organic law ; but by introducing this
amendment into the constitution you make
8816
it a fixture, you make it part of the organic
law. and it puts the trustees for the time
being above the educational authority of
the province, it puts them above the Minister of Education, above the government of
the province, and it makes them for all time
supreme with respect to their action on this
matter. It takes the control away from the
provincial authorities, and it makes the
amendment, as I have said, a part of the
organic law, incapable of amendment or repeal by any authority in Canada, either in
the Northwest or in this House, incapable
of amendment except by an appeal to the
imperial authorities. I think the Minister of
Justice will agree with me that that is the
effect of the amendment which was moved
by the member for Saskatchewan and adopted by the government ; it places the provincial
authority for all time to come in a
position of servitude to a law which they
have not asked for, and which they do not
want. But the irony of the situation is accentuated by the fact that this is an amendment,
moved by the hon. member for Saskatchewan, which, at the instance of the
government, puts shackles upon the freedom
of action of the people of the west, an
amendment moved by a gentleman from the
west, who should have been solicitous to
look out for the freedom and liberty of the
people of the west.
House divided on amendment Mr. R. L.
Borden) :
YEAS:
Messieurs:
| Alcorn, |
Lake, |
| Barker, |
Lalor, |
| Barr, |
Lennox, |
| Bennett, |
Macdonell, |
| Blain, |
MacLaren, |
| Borden (Carleton), |
McCarthy (Calgary), |
| Boyce, |
Martin(Queen's, P.E.I.), |
| Chisholm, |
Northrup, |
| Christie, |
Ratz, |
| Cochrane, |
Roche (Marquette), |
| Cockshutt, |
Schaffner, |
| Crocket, |
Sproule, |
| Daniel, |
Staples, |
| Elson, |
Stockton, |
| Gunn, |
Taylor, |
| Haggart, |
Tisdale, |
| Henderson, |
Walsh, |
| Herron, |
Wilmot, |
| Hughes (Victoria), |
Wilson (Lennox & Add.), |
| Jackson (Elgin), |
Wright (Muskoka).—41. |
| Kemp. |
|
NAYS:
Messieurs:
| Adamson, |
Kennedy, |
| Archambault, |
Lachance, |
| Beauparlant, |
Lamont, |
| BĂ©land, |
Lapointe, |
| Belcourt, |
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), |
| Bergeron, |
Laurier (L'Assomption) |
| Bickerdike, |
Lavergne (Drummond & |
| Black, |
rth.), |
| Borden (Sir Frederick), |
Lavergne (Montmagny), |
8817 July 5, 1905
| Bourassa |
Law |
| Brabazon, |
LeBlanc |
| Brodeur, |
Lemieux |
| Brown, |
Leonard, |
| Bruneau, |
Macdonald |
| Bureau, |
Maclean (Lunenburg), |
| Burrows, |
Macpherson, |
| Caldwell, |
McColl, |
| Calvert, |
McColl, |
| Campbell, |
McIsaac, |
| Carney, |
McKenzie (Bruce) |
| Carrier, |
McKenzie (Cape Breton, |
| Cash |
North) |
| Clarke, |
McLennan |
| Conmee, |
Marcile (Bagot) |
| Copp, |
Marcil (Bonaventure), |
| Costigan |
Martin (Wellington) |
| Crawford |
Mayrand, |
| Cyr, |
Meigs, |
| Delisle, |
Miller, |
| Demers, |
Monk |
| Debyshire, |
Oliver |
| Desjardins, |
Parmelee, |
| Devlin, |
Paterson |
| Dubeau, |
Paquet, |
| Dugas, |
Parent |
| Emmerson, |
Perley, |
| Ethier |
Piche |
| Finlayson, |
Pickup |
| Fisher, |
Power, |
| Fitzpatrick, |
Prefontaine, |
| Fortier, |
Proulx, |
| Galiher, |
Reid (Restigouche), |
| Gaureau, |
Riley, |
| Geoffrion, |
Ross (Rimouski), |
| Girard |
Ross (Yale-Cariboo). |
| Gladu |
Schell (Oxford), |
| Grant, |
Scott, |
| Greenway, |
Sinclair, |
| Guthrie, |
Smith (Oxford) |
| Hall, |
Talbot (Bellechasse), |
| Hughes, (King's P.E.I. ), |
Talbot (Strathcona), |
| Hunt, |
Telford, |
| Jackson (Selkirk) |
Turgeon, |
| Johnston (Cape Breton |
Wilson (Russell), |
| (South) |
Wright (Renfrew). - 109. |
PAIRS:
| Government, |
Opposition. |
| Gordon, |
Clements, |
| Harty, |
Reid, |
| German |
Ganong |
| Mulock |
White, |
| Logan |
Lefurgey, |
| Tobin |
McLean (York) |
| Sloan |
Osler |
| Lanctot, |
Lancaster, |
| Savoie, |
McLean (P.E.I.) |
| Fielding |
Foster |
| Turriff, |
Ward, |
| Watson, |
Avery, |
| Dyment |
Ingram, |
| Finlay, |
Broder, |
| Smith (Nanaimo), |
Porter, |
| Stewart, |
Armstrong, |
| Zimmerman, |
Bristol, |
| Bole |
Bland, |
| Sifton, |
McCarthy (Simcoe) |
| Carvel, |
Fowler, |
Amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden) nega tived.
Mr. TAYLOR. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did not vote.
8818
Mr. FOSTER. I am paired with the hon. member for Shelburne, the Minister of Finance. If I
had a voted I would have voted for the amendment.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
House resumed debate on the motion of
Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the third reading of
Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for
the government of the province of Alberta.
Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).
Mr. Speaker, on the motion for the third
reading of this Bill I desire to propose an
amendment similar to that which I have
already proposed in Committee of the Whole.
When I proposed this amendment in the
committee the Minister of Justice criticised
its wording more than the principle which it
contained. I have therefore tried to meet
his views by making a more perfect translation into English of this amendment,
which I originally wrote in French. I have
modified the wording slightly, and have
added a few words at the end of paragraph
D. I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Paquet :
That all the words of the amendment be
struck out, and the following substituted therefor : 16. Section 93 of the British
North
America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said
province as if at the date fixed for the coming
into force of this Act, the territory included in
the said province were already a province, the
word union in the said section meaning the
said date :
2. The legislature shall have the right to pass
laws with reference to education, but it shall
always provide for, (a) the existence of separate schools and their enjoyment by the
minority, Protestant or Catholic, who may claim
them ; (b) the effective control of said schools
in matters of teaching by the said minority ;
(c) the full liberty for the majority in any
school districts to have such schools as it may
desire ; (d) the equitable and proportionate
distribution between the majority and the minority of all moneys appropriated for
education
by the legislature of the province and of all
moneys arising from the school fund established by the Dominion Lands Act.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Bergeron) :
8832
YEAS:
Messieurs.
| Bergeron, |
Monk, |
| Bourassa, |
Morin, |
| Lavergne (Montmagny), |
Paquet.—7. |
| LĂ©onard, |
|
NAYS:
Messieurs.
| Adamson, |
Lalor, |
| Alcorn, |
Lamont, |
| Archambault, |
Lapointe, |
| Barker, |
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) , |
| Barr, |
Laurier (L'Assomption ), |
| BĂ©land, |
Lavergne (Drummond & |
| Belcourt, |
Arth. |
| Bennett, |
Law, |
| Bickerdike, |
LeBlanc, |
| Black, |
Lemieux, |
| Blain, |
Lennox, |
| Borden (Carleton) , |
Macdonald, |
| Boyce, |
Macdonell, |
| Brabazon, |
MacLaren, |
| Brodeur, |
Maclean (Lunenburg) , |
| Brown, |
Macpherson, |
| Bruneau, |
McCarthy (Calgary) , |
| Bureau, |
McColl, |
| Burrows, |
McCool, |
| Caldwell, |
McIntyre, |
| Calvert, |
McIsaac, |
| Campbell, |
McKenzie (Bruce) , |
| Cash, |
McKenzie |
| Chisholm, |
(Cape Breton, N) , |
| Christie, |
McLennan, |
| Carrier, |
Marcile (Bagot) , |
| Clarke, |
Marcil (Bonaventure) , |
| Cochrane, |
Martin (Wellington) , |
| Cockshutt, |
Mayrand, |
| Conmee, |
Meigs, |
| Costigan, |
Miller, |
| Crawford, |
Northrup, |
| Crocket, |
Oliver, |
| Cyr, |
Parmelee |
| Daniel, |
Paterson, |
| Delisle, |
Parent, |
| Demers, |
Parley, |
| Derbyshire, |
Piché, |
| Desjardins. |
Pickup, |
| Devlin, |
Porter, |
| Dubeau, |
Power, |
| Dugas, |
Préfontaine, |
| Elson, |
Proulx, |
| Emmerson, |
Ratz, |
| Ethier, |
Reid (Restigouche) , |
| Finlayson, |
Riley, |
| Fisher, |
Roche (Marquette), |
| Fitzpatrick, |
Ross (Rimouski ), |
| Fortier, |
Ross (Yale-Caribou) , |
| Galliher, |
Rousseau, |
| Gauvreau, |
Schaiffner, |
| Geoffrion, |
Schell (Oxford) , |
| Girard, |
Sinclair, |
| Gladu, |
Smith (Oxford) , |
| Grant, |
Sproule, |
| Greenway, |
Staples, |
| Gunn, |
Stockton, |
| Guthrie, |
Talbot (Bellechasse) , |
| Hall, |
Talbot (Strathcona) , |
| Henderson, |
Taylor, |
| Herron, |
Telford, |
| Hughes (King's, P.E.I.) , |
Turgeon, |
| Hughes (Victoria) , |
Turriff, |
| Hunt, |
Walsh, |
| Jackson (Elgin) , |
Wilmot, |
| Jackson (Selkirk) , |
Wilson |
| Johnston (Cape Breton |
(Lennox & Addington) |
8833 JULY 5, 1905
| Kemp, |
Wilson (Russell), |
| Kennedy, |
Wright (Muskoka), |
| Lake, |
Wright (Renfrew), |
| Lake, |
Zimmerman.—138. |
Amendment (Mr. Bergeron) negatived.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I beg to
draw your attention to the fact that the
hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr.
Scott) has not voted.
Mr. SCOTT. I came into the chamber
after the question was put. Under these
circumstances I understand that the rules
do not permit my vote to be recorded. If
I am properly informed as to the amendment, I would have voted nay.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, each
of the provinces of the Dominion of Canada
when it entered the confederation came in
with a school system of its own manufacture. That is all that is asked in relation
to the elevation of the Northwest Territories into two provinces of the Dominion.
I hold in my hand a motion which reads
as follows:
That all the words after ' now ' to the end
of the question be left out and that the following words be inserted instead thereof
:
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole
House, with an instruction that they have
power to strike out section 2 of the Bill, and
to substitute the following section therefor :
2. The provisions of the British North
America Act, 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the
province of Alberta in the same way and to the
like extent as they apply to the other provinces
heretofore comprised in the Dominion, except
such provisions as in terms or by reasonable
intendment are specially applicable to or affect
one or more only and not the whole of the
said provinces.
I shall not detain the House with any remarks on the motion further than to point
out that if under the British North America
Act the provinces are entitled to absolute
control of educational affairs subject to the
restrictive clauses of the British North America Act, well and good; but if under
the
British North America Act these new provinces would be subject to the legislation
of 1875 and subsequent legislation, then we
are satisfied that it should be so construed,
and if separate schools are to be attached
to the Northwest Territories which are now
being erected into provinces, all we ask is
that we stand by the British North America
Act.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. We might take the
same division on this as was taken on section 16.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I thought I might
save the taking of a division. The object
of the motion I can explain to the right hon.
8834
gentleman at considerable length if he would like to hear it.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Sam.
Hughes :
YEAS :
Messieurs
| Alcorn, |
Kemp, |
| Barker, |
Lake, |
| Barr, |
Lalor, |
| Bennett, |
Lennox, |
| Blain, |
MacLaren, |
| Borden (Carleton), |
McCarthy (Calgary) , |
| Boyce, |
Northrup, |
| Chisholm, |
Porter, |
| Christie, |
Roche (Marquette) , |
| Cochrane, |
Schaffner, |
| Cockshutt, |
Sproule, |
| Crocket, |
Staples, |
| Daniel, |
Stockton, |
| Elson, |
Taylor, |
| Gunn, |
Walsh, |
| Henderson, |
Wilmot, |
| Herron, |
Wilson (Lennox & |
| Hughes (Victoria) , |
Addington) , |
| Jackson (Elxgin), |
Wright (Muskolm).—37. |
NAYS :
Messieurs
| Adamson, |
Laurier (L'Assomption) , |
| Anchambault, |
Lavergne (Drummond & |
| BĂ©land, |
Arth. ) , |
| Belcourt, |
Lavergne (Montmagny) , |
| Bergeron, |
Law, |
| Bickerdike, |
LeBlanc, |
| Black, |
Leonard, |
| Bourassa, |
Maodonald, |
| Brabazon, |
Maclean (Lunenburg) , |
| Brodeur, |
Macpherson, |
| Brown, |
McColl, |
| Bruneau, |
McCool, |
| Bureau, |
McIsaac, |
| Burrows, |
McKenzie (Bruce) , |
| Caldwell, |
McKenzie (Cape Breton |
| Calvert, |
north) , |
| Campbell, |
McLennan, |
| Cash, |
Marcile (Bagot) , |
| Carrier, |
Marcil (Bonaventure) , |
| Clarke, |
Martin (Wellington) , |
| Conmee, |
Mayrand, |
| Copp, |
Meigs, |
| Costigan, |
Miller, |
| Crawford, |
Monk, |
| Cyr, |
Morin, |
| Delisle, |
Oliver, |
| Demers, |
Parmelee, |
| Derbyshire, |
Paterson, |
| Desjardins, |
Paquat, |
| Devlin, |
Parent, |
| Dubeau, |
Perley, |
| Dugas, |
Piché, |
| Emmerson, |
Pickup, |
| Ethier, |
Power, |
| Finlayson, |
Préfontaine, |
| Fisher, |
Proulx, |
| Fitzpatrick, |
Ratz, |
| Fortier, |
Reid (Restigouche) , |
| Galliher, |
Riley, |
| Gauvreau, |
Ross (Rimouski) , |
| Geoffrion, |
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), |
| Girard, |
Rousseau, |
| Gladu, |
Schell (Oxford) , |
8835 COMMONS
| Grant, |
Scott, |
| Guthrie, |
Sinclair, |
| Hall, |
Smith (Oxford), |
| Hughes (King's, PE.I.), |
Talbot (Bellechasse), |
| Hunt, |
Talbot (Strathcona), |
| Jackson (Selkirk), |
Telford, |
| Johnston (Cape Breton |
Turgeon, |
| South), |
Turriff, |
| Kennedy, |
Wilson (Russell), |
| Lamont, |
Wright (Renfrew), |
| Papointe, |
Zimmerman.—106. |
| Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), |
|
PAIRS :
| Gordon, |
Clements, |
| Harty, |
Reid, |
| German, |
Ganong, |
| Mulock, |
White, |
| Logan, |
Lefurgey, |
| Tobin, |
Maclean (York), |
| Sloan. |
Osler, |
| Lanctot, |
Lancaster, |
| Lavoie, |
McLean (P.E.I.), |
| Lemieux, |
Tisdale, |
| Sifton, |
Haggart, |
| Smith (Nanaimo), |
Pringle, |
| Hyman, |
Macdonnell, |
| Fielding, |
Foster, |
| Borden (Sir F. W.), |
Ward, |
| Watson, |
Avery, |
| Dyment, |
Ingram, |
| Findlay, |
Broder, |
| Stewart, |
Armstrong, |
| Greenway, |
Bristol, |
| Bole, |
Bland, |
| Carvell, |
Fowler. |
Amendment (Mr. Sam. Hughes) negatived.
That the Bill be referred back to a Committee of the Whole House with instructions
that they have power to strike out clause 16 of
the said Bill and substitute the following therefor :
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act of 1867 shall apply to the
said province as if, at the date upon which
this Act comes into force, the Territories comprised therein were already a province,
the
expression ' the union ' in the said section being
taken to mean the said date.
2. In the appropriation by the legislature of
public moneys in aid of education, or in the
distribution by the government of the province of any money arising from the school
fund established by the Dominion Lands Act,
there shall be no discrimination against the
schools of any kind organized according to law.
He said: I need not explain that the object of this clause is purely and simply to
enact the provisions submitted by the government in their first clause No. 16—that
clause which was qualified by the hon. the
Minister of Justice as an ideal one. The
only difference is that I leave out the middle
paragraph, which the Minister of Justice
said was absolutely unnecessary. The position I take upon this question is the same
as that which the government is taking
upon the question of the taxation of the
Canadian Pacific Railway lands. If this
parliament is pledged by contract with the
Canadian Pacific Railway, it ,is equally
pledged to the Catholic or Protestant min
8836
ority in the Territories. I do not see how
we can respect one pledge and not the other.
Moreover, clause 16, as it has been amended
by my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr.
Lamont), to my mind, will create a very
strange position indeed. Of course, I voted
for the amendment of my hon. friend when
that amendment stood by itself before the
committee because it was based on the true
principle that it is the right of the ratepayer and the father of a family to decide
what kind of education his children shall
receive. But when that amendment is connected with clause 16 it brings about a
state of things which should be well put
before the House and the country before a
final vote is given. According to clause 16,
as now before the House, it will be the
right of the majority of every school district in the new provinces to decide what
kind of religious teaching shall be given in
the public schools. The legislatures will
have no right whatever to interfere; and
the result will be that if the majority
should happen to be of any denomination
other than Protestant or Roman Catholic
that majority may decide that the religious
education given in the public schools will
be one that will suit neither Roman Catholics
nor Protestants, and neither this House nor
the legislature will have any power to interfere. In that case, where will be the
minority ? My hon. friend to my left says
they will not send their children to the
schools. Then what becomes of the right of
the minority to have the school teaching
such as we are promised by this amendment? The government press have been
saying that the effect of the amendment of
the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr.
Lamont) will be to secure to the Catholics
the right of having everywhere such religious teaching as they desire. But in a
district where the Greek Orthodox Church,
or the Mormons, or Jews, or others who
are neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic,
are in a majority, they will be able to dictate what kind of religious teaching will
be
had in the public schools, and a separate
school cannot be formed by the secession of
either the Protestant or Catholic minority.
If the majority should be neither Catholic
nor Protestant, you will deprive the Catholics of any religious instruction in the
public schools, and they will be deprived of
their right to secede under section 41 of the
ordinances. So that their position would be
worse than it is now. This answers the
argument of my hon. friend the leader of
the opposition who said the amendment of
my hon. friend from Sasktchewan covered
my point and something more. What he
should have said is that the amendment,
connected with clause 16 of this Bill and
with clause 41 of the ordinances of 1901,
does not cover my point, although it covers
something never asked for by me or anybody else. It will prevent the local legislatures
from dealing with the matter of religious education in the public schools.
8837 JULY 5, 1905
Neither the local legislatures nor this parliament will be able to protect the Protestant
or Catholic minority in any district where
they both may be in a minority. I may be
told that I am predicting an imposslble
state of things; but I would point out that
there is now litigation before the Supreme
Court of Canada as to the relative rights
of the Greek Orthodox Church and the
Catholics on church matters, and we may expect before long the same condition will
exist with respect to schools. Certainly be»
fore ten or twenty years will have elapsed
that state of things will exist in a large
portion of the school districts of the new
provinces.
I need not explain further the purport of
my amendment. Its object is to guarantee
what this government and parliament have
acknowledged to be a pledge given to the
minority, that wherever they are in a majority they shall be authorized to have
schools of their own, and wherever they are
in a minority they shall be authorized to
separate from the public schools. Clause
16, No. 2 does not cover that point, and the
amendment of the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont), although good in
its spirit, does not cover it either, so that I
shall record my vote on this motion as protesting against the abandonment of the
pledge which this government and parliament have acknowledged as binding upon
them.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I agree with my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition respecting the legal aspect of the clause,
and
on further consideration, I think that my
hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)
will find that if the majority in any district
should happen to be either Catholic or Protestant, the right for the Protestant or
Catholic ratepayers to establish a school undoubtedly exists. As to the right of the
Mormons to teach their peculiar tenets in
the Territories including the unsavoury one
of polygamy, I submit, with all deference
to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). that no such right exists in view of
our Criminal Code.
Mr. BARR. But what about the Galicians and other denominations ? What position will they occupy
?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I am not familiar
with the doctrines of the Mormons any
more than those of the Galicians. I assume that the Mormon doctrine goes in the
direction of polygamy, and that cannot be
taught in Canada.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Bourassa) :
YEAS:
Messieurs
| Bergeron, |
Monk, |
| Bourassa, |
Morin, |
| Lavergne (Montmagny), |
Paquet.—7. |
| Leonard, |
|
8838
NAYS:
Messieurs
| Adamson, |
Lalor, |
| Alcorn, |
Lamont, |
| Archambauult, |
Lapointe, |
| Barker, |
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid). |
| Barr, |
Laurier (L'Assomption). |
| Beauparlant, |
Lavergne |
| BĂ©land. |
(Drummond & Arth.). |
| Belcourt, |
Law, |
| Bickerdike, |
LeBlanc, |
| Black, |
Macdonald, |
| Blain, |
Macdonell, |
| Borden (Carleton), |
MacLaren, |
| Borden (Sir Frederick), |
Maclean (Lunenburg), |
| Boyce, |
Macpherson, |
| Brabazon, |
McCarthy (Calgary), |
| Brodeur, |
McColl, |
| Brown, |
McCool, |
| Bruneau, |
McIntyre, |
| Bureau, |
McIsaac. |
| Burrows, |
McKenzie (Bruce), |
| Caldwell, |
McKenzie, |
| Calvert, |
(Cape Breton, N.), |
| Campbell, |
McLennan, |
| Carrier, |
Marcile (Bagot). |
| Cash, |
Marcil (Bonaventure), |
| Chisholm, |
Martin (Wellington), |
| Christie, |
Mayrand, |
| Clarke, |
Meigs, |
| Cochrane, |
Miller, |
| Cockshutt, |
Northrup, |
| Conmee, |
Oliver, |
| Costigan, |
Parmelee, |
| Crawford, |
Paterson, |
| Crocket, |
Parent, |
| Cyr, |
Perley, |
| Daniel, |
Piché, |
| Delisle, |
Pickup, |
| Demers, |
Porter, |
| Derbyshire, |
Power, |
| Desjardins, |
Préfontaine, |
| Devlin, |
Proulx, |
| Dubeau, |
Ratz, |
| Dugas, |
Reid (Restigouche), |
| Elson, |
Riley, |
| Emmerson, |
Roche (Marquette), |
| Ethier, |
Ross (Rimouski), |
| Finlayson, |
Ross (Yale-Cariboo). |
| Fisher, |
Rousseau, |
| Fitzpatrick, |
Schattner, |
| Fortier, |
Schell (Oxford), |
| Gauvreau, |
Scott, |
| Geoffrion, |
Sinclair, |
| Girard, |
Smith (Oxford), |
| Gladu, |
Sproule, |
| Gunn, |
Staples, |
| Guthrie, |
Talbot (Bellechasse), |
| Hall, |
Talbot (Strathcona), |
| Henderson, |
Telford, |
| Herron, |
Turgeon, |
| Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), |
Turriff, |
| Hunt, |
Walsh, |
| Jackson (Elgin), |
Wilmot, |
| Jackson (Selkirk), |
Wilson |
| Johnston |
(Lennox & Addington) |
| (Cape Breton, South) |
Wilson (Russell), |
| Kent |
Wright (Muskoka), |
| Kennedy |
Wright (Renfrew), |
| Lake |
Zimmerman—132. |
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) negatived.
Mr. O. E. TALBOT. Mr. Speaker, I
would draw your attention to the fact that
the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) has not
voted.
8839
COMMONS
Mr. LEMIEUX. I am paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale). Had
I voted I would have voted 'nay.'
That the said Bill be not now read the third
time, but that it be sent back to Committee
of the Whole House with instructions that they
have power to add the following paragraph
after clause 2 of the Bill :
Either the English or the French language
may be used by any person in the debates of
the legislative assembly of the province and in
the proceedings of the courts, and both these
languages shall be used in the records and
journals of such assembly, and all laws made by
the legislature shall be printed in both languages : provided, however, that the said
legislative assembly may by law or otherwise regulate its proceedings and the manner
of recording the publishing the same and the regulations
so made shall be embodied in a proclamation
which shall be forthwith made and published
by the Lieutenant Governor in conformity of
the law and thereafter shall have full force and
effect.
He said: Just one word of explanation.
This is the law of the Territories at the
present time, and, under the terms of the
Bill, that law would be continued until
altered by the provincial legislature. The
law was enacted in 1891. Previous to 1891
the scope of the law was wider. The French
language had the same status as the English language in the Northwest assembly.
This amendment, passed in 1891, permits
the assembly of the Territories to regulate
its proceedings as it thinks fit and to adopt
the English language. It has done so. Under
this amendment, if adopted by the House,
the legislatures of the two provinces would
be free to regulate their own proceedings
absolutely and to adopt the English language. The only right that is safeguarded
by this amendment is the right to use the
French language in the courts and also in
the debates if a member of the House sees
fit to use that language, and it provides for
the translation of the statutes. It maintains to that extent, and to that extent only,
the agreement to which I referred at length
when I proposed this amendment in the
first instance.
Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville). (Translation.) When this question
came up for discussion last Friday, I was
obliged to be absent ; hence my desire to
take advantage of this opportunity to say a
few words in order to explain the vote that
I will be called upon to give upon this
amendment. To begin with, I must remark
that this proposition coming from the hon.
member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)
emanates from a source that we should not
and could not have anticipated. In truth,
when that hon. member delivered an address
on the constitutional question affecting the
schools in the new provinces, we did not
differ in opinion, and we all were unanimous
in recognizing that his speech was evidence
that the hon. member had thoroughly studied
8840
the question. During the debate on the
second reading of this Bill, the hon. member
for Jacques Cartier defined the principles
that should guide us in the exercise of our
powers, as a parliament, regarding the constitution of the new provinces created in
the
west. At page 3071, the hon. member expressed himself thus :
My interpretation of section 2 of the Imperial
Act of 1871, is that that Act clearly gives us
the creative power. It enables us to decree the
establishment of a province, to constitute it
by defining its limits and entering into other
details which are absolutely necessary for the
purpose of such creation, but the moment that
act has been performed our power is exhausted
and the new province comes under the control
of the different clauses of the Act of 1867, and
these clauses apply in their entirety to it.
The hon. member therefore stated that,
in his opinion, this parliament has not the
right to change the provisions of the constitution, nor to alter it in any way, when
we apply it to these western territories ; all
that which we could do, to his mind, was
merely to create those provinces, to define
and limit their powers, and that from the
moment we have defined their powers, the
federal parliament has exhausted its own
legislative power. Such is the theory advocated by the hon. gentleman. If the hon.
member for Jacques Cartier decided to vote
for clause 16, such as proposed by the government, it is because that principle was
consecrated and recognized by the constitution as the one constructed by the hon.
gentleman himself, and that he considered it
opportune to remove all doubts. But the
hon. gentleman is not the only one to claim
that this parliament had not the right to
limit the powers of the new provinces. The
hon. member for Beauhrarnois (Mr. Bergeron)
followed in his footsteps, and at page 3496,
I read the following in his speech of March
30 last :
In speaking of the position taken by my
leader, I wish to say openly that, to my mind,
he made an admirable speech to which nobody
can take exception. We may not all share the
conclusions to which he came, but every man
on this side, and I believe on the other side as
well is convinced that the leader of the opposition spoke in all sincertity without
any bias,
and influenced solely by a desire for the welfare of Canada. So much is that the case,
that
if in that amendment of his, ten words were
struck off at the end, I would be disposed to
support it. And in doing so I would be standing on a good principle, namely, provincial
autonomy and provincial rights ; and in my opinion clause 93 of the British North
America Act
would give the new provinces the school system
they have to-day. But as a doubt has been expressed by the Minister of Justice, I
would
have clause 16.
As will be seen, the hon. member for
Beauharnois did affirm the very principle
formulated by the hon. member for Jacques
Cartier (Mr. Monk). As I said a moment
ago, there is ground for surprise at seeing
8841 JULY 5, 1905
the hon. member for Jacques Cartier laying
down a proposition to restrict the rights of
these provinces, rights that are evidently
recognized as theirs by the British North
America Act.
The hon. member stated also that we
were abolishing the French language ; but
we are not doing away with the French
language, and it will continue to exist by
law. But that is not the issue before us ;
what we are dealing with now, is whether or
not we should place a restriction upon the
liberty of the provinces. That is the question. It is now a matter of formulating
the
principle that this parliament has not the
right to enact without any necessity, special
provisions, when making a constitution for
the new provinces.
Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier after having upheld that position and
having also supported his leader, even to the
school question, was obliged to abandon him.
The hon. leader of the opposition had, likewise, followed the hon. member as long
as
he could do so, he paid him back, he supported him down to the moment of voting
exclusively, but there his zeal stopped.
The hon. gentleman having advocated the
principle that we had not the power to give
the new provinces the constitution we wanted to give them, exclaimed: ' Why, if you
restrict the power of the provinces on the
school question, why not also do the same as
to all their powers ' ? We made answer to
this, that it was necessity alone that could
justify the government in defining more
clearly clause 93 of the constitution.
Now, the hon. member for Labelle
stated that, in his opinion, this motion did
not go far enough, and he moved an amendment to the amendment. The hon. member
for Jacques Cartier claimed that the legislature should have the power to abolish
the
French language in its proceedings, as enacted in the motion passed in 1890. He
considered that it was a question of policy
and that the legislature should be left free
to deal with the question as it deemed fit.
The hon. member for Labelle wished to
take that power away from the legislatures,
and yet the hon. member for Jacques Cartier
supported the amendment moved by the
hon. member for Labelle. But if the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Monk) was of the opinion
that it was but fair to leave it in the hands
of the legislatures to abolish or to maintain
the French language, what are the grounds
which have compelled him, since he moved
his amendment, to change his mind ?
In 1890, the hon. member for Beauharnois
voted in favour of a proposition similar to
that of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, allowing the legislative assembly of
the Territories to abolish the use of the
French language in their proceedings, whenever they shall deem it opportune to do
so.
He voted for that resolution, with all the
Conservative members of the day. How,
8842
then, could he vote for the amendment of
the hon. member for Labelle, as he did the
other day ?
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) Does my hon.
friend believe that we are not bound by
clause 16 of the ' Bill of Rights ' submitted
by the delegates from the Red River settlement in 1870 to the government of Canada,
which provides for the use of the dual language throughout the whole extent of the
Northwest ? Does not the hon. member
believe that the pledge is being now broken
by the abolition of the French language.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) I think the
hon. the Prime Minister, amongst others,
has demonstrated in a most absolute manner that the contention of my hon. friend
from Jacques Cartier was indefensible.
I do not wish to go now into the merits
of that question. This question had been
discussed by this parliament in 1900 and
this House has allowed the abolition of
the French language in the Northwest.
The legislature of those Territories had been
authorized by a vote of this House to do
away with the French language. A most
significant fact, that cannot escape the attention of most members is this, that when
the Bill was submitted to this House the
vast majority of members approved of it.
Take the speeches that were delivered during the debate on the second reading of the
Bill, and you will see, Mr. Speaker, that not
one of all those who spoke has found fault
with the government for not providing for
the use of the French language in the
legislatures of the new provinces.
I would like to know if among all those
members, who then spoke, there was to be
found one single speaker who made the
slightest reservation in favour of the French
language. For my part I did not hear any.
Did not my hon. friend the member for
Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne), give his unqualified approval of the Bill to the 21st
February ?
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. (Translation.) 0n
the school question, I did approve of the
Bill, but not on the use of the French
language.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) I say that
there was no question of the French language, that no complaint was made that its
use was not prescribed, and I aflirm that
no member, before voting on the second
reading, had made any reservation on that
point, nor blamed the government for not
having provided for the use of the French
language. Moreover, how comes it, that
the ' Club Jacques-Cartier ' of Montreal,
which showed so much zeal in regard to
this Bill, that had petitions circulated, did
not think of that omission of the government ? And the Conservative newspapers,
I will say further, the opposition newspapers
such as the ' Nationaliste,' for example, did
not think of that slip. The correspondent
8843
COMMONS
of that paper, Pont Bernard, on the 26th
February, referred to the debate raised by
this Bill, and to the speech made by the
Premier, but he did not say a single word
regarding the omission concerning the use
of the French language. No person, at that
time, had noticed that awful omission, and
it was only later on that, for the purpose
of having a vote, it was thought of.
As I said, it is a most remarkable fact,
that, after the second reading of the Bill,
no person had stated that the French Canadians, in the Territories, had an absolute
right to the maintenance of the French
language. As a matter of fact, I have not
heard of any representations having been
made to the government on the matter, up
to that date.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) On the
grounds that were so ably set forth by the
hon. the Prime Minister ; on this ground,
namely, that under the constitution, we
have a right to the use of the French
language in the Dominion parliament, before
the federal courts, and before the courts
and in the legislature of the province of
Quebec, but nowhere else. That is the
right provided for by the constitution of
1867. But, I may be told that there was
a law passed in 1877, which provides for
the use of the French language. We do
not repeal that law.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. (Translation.) Does
my hon. friend pretend that when this Bill
is passed, the law of 1877 will not be repealed ?
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) The law
of 1877 will be repealed ; but by that very
fact, the French language will not be abolished. I maintain that under this Bill,
we are not doing away with the use of
the French language. I hold, moreover, that
under the constitution, we have no right
to impose that restriction. We have the
power to do it. You may have the power
to do a thing without being bound to do it ?
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) We have the
power ?
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) Does my
hon. friend from Jacques Cartier state that
we have not the power ?
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) Have we that
power ?
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) I have
maintained that we have the power. The
hon. member for Labelle has stated the
same. He could then bring forward this
motion, without stultifying himself.
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) The hon.
member should not forget that I grounded
myself upon the statement made by the
Minister of Inland Revenue, who declared
that, for us, the Bill of Rights of 1870 was
8844
sacred. I argued that if we are bound by
the Bill of Rights on the school question,
we are also bound as concerns the use of
the French language.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) My hon.
friend is now abjuring the principle which
he has laid down.
Mr. MONK. (Translation.) I have been
enlightened by the argument made by the
hon. Minister of Inland Revenue.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) Precisely,
but it is regrettable that the hon. member
did not allow himself to be enlightened
upon other points by the hon. the Minister
of Inland Revenue. The school question is
one thing and the use of the French language is another thing.
We should be very solicitous about the
autonomy of the provinces. We are bound
to give them all the rights conferred upon
them by the constitution. That constitution
restricts the powers of the provinces, as to
the educational question, but not as to the
language. That restrictive provision is to
be found in article 93, with which we are
all familiar. The provision relating to the
French language is limited only to the province of Quebec, and to the federal parliament,
and it applies nowhere else. Could the
government impose this new restriction on
the western provinces, the more so as our
French speaking fellow-countrymen are so
few in numbers there that they would not
even speak French in the legislature, were
they given that right ? The French Canadian population in the west represent but
about four per cent of the total population ;
such being the figures laid before the House
without being challenged by anybody. Each
legislature will have 25 members, making
50 in all. According to that ratio of 4 per
cent. there would only be one French member
in each legislature. That there may be an
assembly, at least three people are needed,
and as that French member would be alone,
he would have to speak French to himself.
To my mind it is not a matter of sentiment, but it is one of principle. I do not
call in question the good faith of any hon.
member. I am quite willing to believe that
the mover of this motion is a sincere convert. To my mind, this is a constitutional
matter, and I say that we should not impose, without an absolute necessity, any restrictions
on the new provinces. This view
of mine tallies with the statement I made
on the first reading of the Bill. The hon.
member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), is of a
different opinion, and I regret very much
that I cannot see this matter in the same
light as he does. For us, it is a very delicate
duty to be obliged to vote against the binding use of the French language, but we
have to follow the wise dictates of reason
rather than those of sentiment.
The present circumstances recall to my
mind an anecdote. A great Greek orator
one day declared at a public meeting in
8845 JULY 5, 1905
Athens that he had devised a great scheme
for the good of his country, but that he
could not inform his audience of it. He
begged of them to point him out a person
to whom he could communicate his plan.
Socrates was the person selected. Socrates, being informed of it, returned to the
Greeks and told them that nothing would be
more useful than the project in question, but
he added that nothing could be more unjust.
The people, then, with one voice, refused at
once to be a party to the scheme. Their
example should be a guide for us. It is
regrettable that public men should have to
pronounce upon delicate matters that touch
their national pride and dignity. I, therefore, consider that this motion, under the
circumstances, is inopportune.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA. (Labelle.)
(Translation.) Before moving an amendment
to the amendment, moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier—that is to say before
making the same motion that I made
on Friday—I wish to offer a few remarks in
reply to my hon. friend the member for St.
John and Iberville. (Mr. Demers), I congratulate the hon. gentleman on the language
that he has used, which contrasts happily
with the stump-speech wherewith another
hon. gentleman honoured me last Friday on
the same subject. No more today than last
week do I propose replying to that language,
but I will take the liberty of saying that
I was surprised at the applause with which
certain French Canadian members, so-called
Liberals, received those passages in the
speech of the member for Kamouraska (Mr.
Lapointe) which insulted the memory of a
man whom the Liberal party had long
claimed as its founder and as the most
illustrious of its leaders.
Mr. BOURASSA. (Papineau). (Translation.) It is scarcely necessary that I
should strive to refute an old time calumny
long known to be false, not only by the disciples and admirers of Papineau, but even
by his opponents. To that colleague who
deemed it fit to unearth that calumny and
to those who cheered him, I will simply recall the words used by a great French writer
in reply to the insult launched by an obscure calumniator against the memory of an
illustrious man. ' A filthy insect may soil
his statue; but the wind that blows carries
off the insect and the stain, and the marble
remains intact in its imperishable beauty.'
The first argument brought forward by
the hon. member for St. John and Iberville
(Mr. Demers), and that upon which he most
depended to oppose the motion of the member
for Jacques Cartier, is that no one here—referred to the maintaining of the French
language, during the debate that preceded
the second reading of this Bill. I agree that
from the standpoint of narraw logic, that
argument might have some weight; but I
do not think I shall have much trouble in
8846
reputing it and in explaining why I did not
deal with this question, at the beginning of
the discussion. It is needless to recall to
the House the explosion of fanaticism that
greeted the attitude taken, in the first place,
by the government in connection with the
educational clause. From the outset of the
debate, the leader of the opposition laid
down a proposition that narrowed the discussion to the consideration of the principle
of the interference of the federal power in
educational matters. When I spoke during
that debate, I squarely opposed the proposition of the leader of the opposition and
the policy of his party on that subject, and
gave a loyal support to the position taken
by the government. I did not then think it
wise to introduce into the discussion the
consideration of the subject which we are
now dealing with. I had, however, decided
to move an amendment similar to that of
the member for Jacques Cartier, or rather
to move the amendment that I submitted
to the House on Friday, and that in a
moment I will repeat. I have, moreover, no
fault to find with my colleague who has got
ahead of me, and I do not hesitate in any
way to give him my support, while yet proposing to impart a more complete scope to
his amendment.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier
is accused of seeking to make political
capital out of this question. It is strange
that the government members and newspapers should so treat the hon. member.
When he supported the policy of the
government, the ' Herald ' and the organs
of the cabinet could not find language sufficiently eulogious to sing the praises
of his
patriotism. To-day, when he is not in harmony with them, but while he continues to
uphold the rights of the Catholic and French
minority in the west, of which the Liberal
party pretends to be the champion, they
have only insults to heap upon him. As to
me, I am in accord with him on this question which affects our national honour, as
I was in accord with him on the school
question, the solution of which affects to
such a degree the minority of the west and
the prosperity of the whole country. I
decided from the very start, to take in all
these questions a stand in conformity with
my convictions, without any regard for the
interests and the intrigues of the cliques.
I was sufficiently liberal to consider all
propositions submitted to this House according to their intrinsic merits, and to give
them my support, no matter from whom
they emanate, if I find them in accord with
my principles and convictions. This, perhaps, is in what my liberalism differs from
that of a number of my colleagues on the
right.
Upon the constitutional ground, whereon
the hon. member for St. John and Iberville. based his second line of defence, he
will allow me to tell him that he entrenches
himself too easily behind the general and
absolute proposition that the Prime Minister
8847
COMMONS
has completely disposed of the theory of the
member for Jacques Cartier. The hon.
gentleman (Mr. Demers) attaches no importance whatsoever to the Bill of Rights which
the delegates from the Red River presented
to the Federal government in 1870. He
denies the existence of the contract that
arose from the acceptance of that document
by the Federal authorities. He does not
agree with his leader on that point. The
Premier recognizes the existence of the contract, but he denies that the obligations
born thereof extend beyond the province of
Manitoba.
The hon. gentleman further wholly disagrees with another of his leaders, the Minister
of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur), who
not only admits the existence of the agreement, but has recalled it in the course of
his argument as made on behalf of the
people of the Northwest Territories, as well
as on that of the people of Manitoba.
I have already clearly defined my position on the subject. I entirely agree with
the Minister of Inland Revenue. I believe
in the existence of the agreement, and I
do not find anything in the records of this
House to warrant the contention of the
Prime Minister. I cannot bring myself to
believe that in tracing the boundaries of
Manitoba, the Dominion parliament have
thereby shown their intention of denying
to the French speaking people settled in the
remainder of the Territories, the guarantees which they granted to that part of
the population comprised within the limits
of the new provinces. Now then, if the
Minister of Inland Revenue and myself are
right, would not the compact whereby the
Dominion government is bound to guarantee
to the Catholic minority in the Northwest
their separate schools, bind them to maintain at the same time the official use of
the
French language, since these two constitutional rights were both included in the
Bill of Rights presented by the delegates
from the Red River and accepted by the
Dominion parliament ? I willingly acknowledge the ability of the member for
St. Johns in all legal matters ; but, with all
due respect, I think I may, in a matter of
this kind, abide rather by the opinion of the
Minister of Inland Revenue, who is also
an eminent lawyer.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation) Will the
hon. gentleman state what paragraph of
the constitution would warrant the enforcing of the use of the French language on
the western provinces ?
Mr. BOURASSA. (Translation.) On this
point as well as on the other, my colleague
will allow me to stand by the opinion of
another of his leaders, a legal authority of
still greater eminence than the Minister of
Inland Revenue, I mean the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). That hon. gentleman has clearly set forth the difference
which exists between the letter and the
spirit of the constitution. Of course, the
8848
Confederation Act has no provision which
defines the powers of the Dominion parliament in this transaction. But, as stated
by the hon. Minister of Justice, beside and
above the written law, there is a constitutional doctrine, which it is diificult to
define, growing out of the gradual and
reasoned carrying out of the very principles embodied in the constitution. The Act
of 1867 provided at the outset solely for
the organization of the provinces then constitutional. Even before entering confederation,
these provinces enjoyed self-government ; they had their parliament, their
official tongue, their rules of parliamentary
procedure. The idea did not occur to the
fathers of confederation to alter that condition of things ; but in establishing the
Dominion parliament, they did so on a
basis in harmony with the rights and
traditions of the two elements which make
up the Canadian nation ; and that is why
they provided that the French and English
tongues would be, on equal terms, the
official language of Canada. Later on, the
Dominion parliament acquired those immense western territories out of which were
carved the province of Manitoba and those
of Alberta and Saskatchewan. These territories were acquired in the name and
with the money of the whole Canadian people, French as well as English, Catholic as
well as Protestant. And when parliament
established the former of these provinces,
they did not forget the rights of the French
Canadian people, they deemed it fair and
reasonable that the two official languages
of Canada be also declared to be such in
the province of Manitoba. Does the hon.
member for St. Johns contend that the
legislators of 1870, that the Macdonalds,
the Cartiers, the Holtons, the Huntingtons,
that all those eminent statesmen who were
then at the head of both parties, broke the
constitution of 1867 when, in 1870, they recognized the rights of the French language
in Manitoba.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) Circumstances have changed.
Mr. DEMERS. (Translation.) As the
Prime Minister has explained, the French
Canadians were numerous enough at the
time to warrant the official recognition of
the French language in Manitoba ; that reason does not exist in the Territories to-day.
Mr. BOURASSA. (Translation.) That is
not at all the contention set forth by the
Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman
acknowledges the existence of the moral
agreement entered into in 1870. But he
suggests that its scope is limited to the
province of Manitoba and that it would not
be possible to make it applicable to the
other western provinces. I contend that
the right hon. gentleman has not adduced
8849 JULY 5, 1905
the slightest evidence in support of that
statement. However, the fact remains that
the makers of the Manitoba constitution
have enacted section 23 provided for the
official use of the French language in that
province; and if they had the right to do
so, why should we be debarred from imposing the same terms on the provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan. I shall go further : I contend that not only have the
promoters of the Act of 1870 not violated
the constitution of 1867, but they have, on
the contrary, been inspired by its fundamental principle, in granting to the French
language in Manitoba the same rights which
the constitution itself grants to the Dominion parliament. And if we wish ourselves
to remain faithful to that principle, we
should follow their example and provide
that the French and English tongues will
be for ever, and on an equal footing, official
in Alberta and Saskatchewan, two provinces cut out, as was Manitoba, from those
vast territories which are the property of
the whole Canadian people. What I claim,
is the carrying out of the same principle
which was applied in connection with the
establishment of the Dominion itself. It
is the principle which Sir John Macdonald
advocated when he proclaimed that there
were no longer in Canada victors and
vanquished, but two allies whose rights,
equal by virtue of the constitution, are not
measured by the numbers and riches of the
various groups. That is the principle which
is embodied in the constitution of Manitoba.
That is the principle which I would have
recognized and applied to-day. I am not
breaking the constitution, but parliament
will be breaking it, should they reject my
proposal and that of the member for
Jacques Cartier.
The hon. member for St. John's has referred to the small numbers of French
speaking people in the Territories. The
Solicitor General argued on the same lines,
when he stated that we had no right to
claim the official recognition of the French
language in the Northwest Territories, because the French speaking people were not
as numerous as the Germans, the Doukhobors or the Mormons. The Prime Minister spoke
in a similar strain, when he
stated that the French Canadians in Massachusetts have stronger claims to the official
recognition of their tongue in that state,
than the French speaking people have in
our western provinces. Have we really
reached that point ? Are we, with one
stroke of the pen, to blot out 150 years
of our history; and on this Canadian soil,
which our ancestors opened up to civilization, under the British flag which we twice
saved from the savage onslaughts on the
part of Anglo-Saxon Protestants from the
neighbouring republic, under this constitution which is the mere outcome of the compact
entered into by the two great groups
of the Canadian nation, are we to be told
8850
that we are entitled to no more consideration than our fellow countrymen who have
drifted to a foreign land? Is that really
the reward coming to us after a century
and a half of unfaltering loyalty to British
institutions ? Is that the result of the compact loyally gone into in 1867 between
English and French speaking Canadians ?
In order to do away with a proposal resting on the wide and solid foundation which
I have mentioned, subterfuges are resorted
to. It is argued that the original compact
and the rights of the French language in the
west have already been interfered with by
parliament in 1890. That is only a pretense.
l have a higher notion of the duties and responsibilities devolving on the representatives
of the Canadian nation. If the parliament of 1890 has made a mistake, that is no
reason for us to repeat it and aggravate it.
If parliament in 1890 misapprehended the
work of the fathers of confederation and
of the makers of the Manitoba constitution,
it is our bounden duty to correct that mistake. Parliament in 1890 abolished the use
of the French language in the legislative
assembly; and now that injustice becomes
an argument for those who wish to carry
through that sinister work and do away
with the printing in French of statutes and
legal proceedings. An effort is made to palliate that wrong by covering it up with
a
further crime. To that I answer boldly:
Instead of resuming the work initiated by
parliament in 1890, let us retrace our footsteps and take the stand taken formerly
by
the promoters of the Act of 1870.
In this connection there has been some
quibbling. It has been contended that we
are not doing away with the French language, but that we are simply leaving to
the legislature in the new provinces the
right to act as they think fit. That is
another attempt at hedging. We all knew
what fate is reserved to the French language if provincial legislatures are granted
full sway. Past experience is sufficient to
enlighten us in that respect. When, in 1890,
Sir John Thompson moved that the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories
be granted the right to decide in what
tongue its proceedings would be carried on.
the then leader of the opposition, to-day
Premier of this Dominion (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) seconded his motion. He drew attention
to the fact that there was not at the
time a single French Canadian member in
the legislative assembly. He added that if
the French minority should elect a single
representative, the English-speaking majority would, no doubt, refrain from abolishing
the use of the French language. What was
the outcome ? In 1892. Mr. Haultain moved
the abolition of the French language. At
the time there were two French Canadian
representatives in the legislature. One of
them, Mr. Prince, spoke on behalf of the
rights of the minority, appealed to the spirit
8851
COMMONS
of fairness of the majority, claimed equal
rights for the two great Canadian nationalities ; but his efforts were in vain, and
the
French language was done away with. So,
then, we are in a position to know what
are the feelings towards us of the English-
speaking majority in the west; and if we
are anxious to perpetuate in these provinces
the conditions of the compact of 1867, if
we are anxious to carry on the work of
the makers of the Manitoba constitution.
if we are anxious to maintain the constitutional basis which I have referred to, let
us
introduce in the Bills submitted to us a
clause guaranteeing the rights of the minority against any interference similar to
that
of which the English majority has been
guilty in 1802. Instead of seeking in our
past experience an excuse for our present
inactivity. I find therein a lesson which
should induce us to define clearly the rights
of the minority and safeguard them by
means of a precise and unmistakable enactment. Let us not delude ourselves in the
matter! If the House rejects my proposal
and that of the hon. member for Jacques
Cartier, then let us give up all hope as to the
rights of the French language in the west.
French Canadian members who are fighting
us are making for the downfall of our
nationality: and should parliament reject
our amendment, I say an essential principle
of our constitution is being violated.
Let each one of us consult his conscience
and realize what responsibility he is assuming just now. As for me, I refuse to take
a hand in this unpatriotic work.
The Prime Minister recalls the obligations which parliament has assumed towards the
Canadian Pacific Railway company. He does not hesitate to go counter
to the letter and spirit of the constitution
in order to secure the rights of that powerful corporation ; and in this connection
he
has the support of the whole House ; the
agreement is considered sacred ; and all
enactments, all constitutions are bound to
disappear in order to secure its full carrying out. Why, then, should the no less
sacred obligations which parliament and
the Canadian people have assumed towards
the French people of the west be violated ?
Is it because that powerful Canadian Pacific
Railway Company commands a greater number of votes than the French minority in
the west ? I refuse to measure or weigh
by such a standard my moral responsibilities
and obligations. I give my support to the
government when they wish to compel the
western provinces to respect the rights of
the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ; but
I regard as still more sacred the rights of
my fellow-countrymen ; and that is why I
am movng in this House a provision which
guarantees those rights still more completely than the amendment introduced by
the member for Jacques Cartier. I wish to
8852
blot out the wrong committed by'the legislators of 1890, and to revert to the constitutional
basis laid down by parliament in 1870.
I therefore move. seconded by Mr. Lavergne, member for Montmagmy, that the
amendment introduced by the member for
Jacques Cartier be amended by striking out
the last clause beginning by the word
'provided.'
The
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
(Translation.) The hon. member for Labelle, knows that there is a principle which
all Liberals, and particularly French-speaking Liberals have always held sacred, and
that is the absolute right of the provinces to
make their own laws. It is an historical
fact, well known to all, that if we have today a federal, instead of a legislative
union,
that is due to the persistent efforts of the
French Canadians, who, in order to secure
self-government, in order to he in a position
to legislate for themselves, and to settle all
questions of internal economy have insisted
on having that division of powers implied
in a federal union. Well, among the rights
embodied in section 92 of the constitution,
there are some which are perhaps more important than all others ; I mean property
and civil rights. The language question is
one of civil rights.
I deny the statement which has just been
made by the hon. member for Labelle. that.
under the constitution enacted in 1867—I am
mistaken, to which we freely gave our assent
in 1867—the French language was put on
an equal footing in the various provinces.
Mr. BOURASSA. (Translation.) I think
the right hon. Prime Minister is mistaken;
that is not what I said. I said that each of
the original provinces had preserved its
rights; but that the French language had
been put on an equal footing with the English in the Dominion parliament, and that
I
considered we should do the same as regards the new provinces.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. (Translation)
I am very much pleased to hear that statement ; in the heat of the debate the hon.
member seems to have gone beyond what
he intended to say. At any rate, if, in this
House, we have the right to use both languages, it is not simply a theoretical right.
It
is because the great majority of the province of Quebec send French Canadian representatives
to parliament.
I am now coming to the principle expressed by the hon. member for Labelle—and I
trust he will recognize it as I do on all
occasions—and that is that the rights of the
provinces are absolute within the limits of
the constitution, and that among these
rights there is the freedom to legislate as
regards the language to be used in the
counts and the legislative assembly.
Now, if the House agreed to that amendment, as desired by the hon. member for
Labelle, and if we inserted it in the consti
8853 JULY 5, 1905
tution which we are enacting for the province of Alberta and for that of Saskatchewan,
we would be interfering thereby with
one of the rights of these provinces, that of
deciding in what language the proceedings
will be carried on in the legislatures.
There is one other thing which he will recognize. In the constitutions which we are
giving to Alberta and Saskatchewan, we
have deliberately restricted the rights of
the provinces to legislate on educational
matters. We have done so under the
authority granted by section 93 of the constitution. For, in matters of education,
the
rights of the provinces are not absolute ;
they are restricted by the powers of interference of the Dominion parliament. We
have done so with a view to remaining faithful to the principle laid down, whereby
in
matters of education the fundamental right
of the provinces is limited, in order to safeguard separate schools. My hon. friend
stated a moment ago that we had refrained
from dealing with the French language
question, on account of the commotion
which the discussion on separate schools
had given rise to. Does my hon. friend
think that the excitement has now subsided ? Is he of opinion that the agitation is
about to cease, and that he may safely today do what he considered unadvisable two
or three months ago ? I ask him, is he any
more justified in taking that stand just new
than he would have been a few weeks ago ?
No ; we would have been grievously amiss
if we had given further cause to the agitation already on foot.
If my hon. friend were able to point out
in the constitution a single clause stating
that the French language shall have official
recognition in every province, I would be
ready to agree with him. But he will seek
in vain in the whole British North America
Act a provision dealing with the French
language in the same way as schools are
dealt with. Schools have been put on a different footing. Exception has been made
for them ; but no such exception has been
made as regards the French language.
I need not tell my hon. friend of Labelle
that I am as proud of my tongue as be himself may be. that I am as proud of my race
as he is, and that I am anxious to see it respected in the other provinces. If the
French Canadians, however, are desirous
that their rights be respected in the other
provinces, they, should always be the first
to abide by the constitution.
As a matter of fact, I do not at all agree
with my hon. friend for Jacques Cartier (Mr
Monk) as to the guarantee which he claims
to find in the Bill Of Rights. But another
question comes up here : Is not that merely
an illusory right ? Of what use would it
be, following on the enactment of 1890 ?
According to the member for Labelle, parliament committed a wrong, in 1890. In my
opinion, parliament did not do anything of
the sort. If there had been a number of
8854
French-speaking members in the Northwest
legislature in 1890, if there were a number
of these French-speaking members in that
legislature today, he would have no reason
to fear-the emergency he refers to. But I
need not recall to the hon. member for Labelle that the hopes he entertains regarding
the development of the French idiom in the
Northwest will not materialize.
I remember—I was not here then, but it
is an historical fact—that Sir George Cartier
speaking from the very seat which I occupy
at present, stated, in 1870, that the province
of Manitoba, which was then being created.
would be a second Quebec. Sir John A.
Macdonald made a similar statement. but
these hopes have not materialized ; the tide
of French Canadian emigration did not flow
towards that province. as was then expected.
In 1890, two Acts were passed by the
Manitoba legislature, one abolishing separate schools, and the other abolishing the
official use of the French language. Enormous efforts were made to prevent the abolition
of separate schools, but as regards the
French language, what steps have been
taken ? Sir John Thompson stated in a
memorandum, that the Act doing away with
the official use of the French language was
entirely ultra vires. Nevertheless, no steps
were taken to have it repealed. Why ? Because the French-speaking people out there
did not care to undertake the tight, being
too weak, and, I imagine, realizing that
there was no need for the use of that language in the legislature. Well, today, in
these
territories where French Canadians are so
few, of what avail would it be to grant a
right which would limit the power of the
legislature on that point.
I regret that it should be so, but I for one
intend to vote against these amendments.
I am not ignorant of the consequences which
may result therefrom : but even in face of
these. I do not hesitate to say that I trust
French Canadians will be the first on this
occasion, as on any other of the same kind,
to respect the constitution which guarantees
their rights in the province of Quebec.
House divided on the amendment to the
amendment.—(Mr. Bourassa.)
YEAS.
Messieurs
| Bergeron, |
Monk, |
| Bourassa, |
Morin, |
| Lavergne (Montmagny), |
Paquet.—7. |
| LĂ©onard, |
|
NAYS:
Messieurs
| Adamson, |
Lamont, |
| Alcorn, |
Lapointe, |
| Archambault, |
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), |
| Barker, |
Laurier (L'Assomption), |
| Barr, |
Lavergne |
| Beauparlant, |
(Drummond & Ath.), |
8855 COMMONS
| BĂ©land, |
Law, |
| Belcourt, |
LeBlane, |
| Bickerdike, |
Lemieux, |
| Black, |
Lennox, |
| Blain, |
Macdonald, |
| Borden (Carleton), |
Macdonell, |
| Borden (Sir Frederick), |
MacLaren, |
| Bourbonnais, |
Maclean (Lunenburg), |
| Boyce, |
Macpherson, |
| Brabazon, |
McCarthy (Calgary), |
| Brodeur, |
McColl, |
| Brown, |
McCool, |
| Bruneau, |
McIntyre, |
| Bureau, |
McIsaac, |
| Caldwell, |
McKenzie (Bruce), |
| Calvert, |
McKenzie |
| Campbell, |
(Cape Breton, N.), |
| Carney, |
McLennan, |
| Carrier, |
Marcile (Bagot), |
| Cash, |
Marcil (Bonaventure), |
| Chisholm, |
Martin (Wellington), |
| Christie, |
Mayrand, |
| Cochrane, |
Meigs, |
| Cockshutt, |
Miller, |
| Conmee, |
Northrup, |
| Costigan, |
Oliver, |
| Crawford, |
Parmelee |
| Crocket, |
Paterson |
| Cyr, |
Parent |
| Daniel, |
Perley |
| Delisle, |
Piché |
| Demers, |
Pickup |
| Derbyshire, |
Porter |
| Desjardins, |
Power |
| Devlin, |
Préfontaine |
| Dubeau, |
Proulx, |
| Dugas, |
Ratz, |
| Elson, |
Riley, |
| Emmerson, |
Rivet, |
| Ethier, |
Roche (Marquette), |
| Finlayson, |
Ross (Rimouski), |
| Fisher, |
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), |
| Fitzpatrick, |
Rousseau, |
| Fortier, |
Schaffner, |
| Galliher, |
Schell (Oxford), |
| Gauvreau, |
Scott, |
| Geoffrion, |
Sinclair, |
| Girard, |
Smith (Oxford), |
| Gladu, |
Sproule, |
| Grant, |
Staples, |
| Gunn, |
Talbot (Bellechasse), |
| Guthrie, |
Talbot (Strathcona), |
| Hall, |
Taylor, |
| Harty, |
Telford, |
| Henderson, |
Thompson, |
| Herron, |
Tobin, |
| Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), |
Turgeon, |
| Hunt, |
Turriff, |
| Jackson (Elgin), |
Walsh, |
| Jackson (Selkirk), |
Wilmot, |
| Johnston |
Wilson |
| (Cape Breton, South), |
(Lennox & Addington) |
| Kennedy, |
Wilson (Russell), |
| Lachance, |
Wright (Muskoka), |
| Lake, |
Wright (Renfrew), |
| Lalor, |
Zimmerman.—140. |
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Bourassa) negatived.
House divided on amendment (Mr.Monk).
YEAS.
Messieurs
| Bergeron, |
Monk, |
| Bourassa, |
Morin, |
| Lavergne (Montmagny) |
Paquet.—7. |
| LĂ©onard |
|
8856
NAYS:
Messieurs
| Adamson |
Lamont, |
| Alcorn, |
Lapointe, |
| Archambault, |
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), |
| Barker, |
Laurier (L'Assomption), |
| Barr, |
Lavergne |
| Beauparlant, |
(Drummond & Ath.), |
| BĂ©land, |
Law, |
| Belcourt, |
LeBlanc, |
| Bickerdike, |
Lemieux, |
| Black, |
Lennox, |
| Blain, |
Macdonald, |
| Borden (Carleton), |
Macdonell, |
| Borden (Sir Frederick), |
MacLaren, |
| Bourbonnais, |
Maclean (Lunenburg), |
| Boyce, |
Macpherson, |
| Brabazon, |
McCarthy (Calgary), |
| Brodeur, |
McColl, |
| Brown, |
McCool, |
| Bruneau, |
McIntyre, |
| Bureau, |
McIsaac, |
| Caldwell, |
McKenzie (Bruce), |
| Calvert, |
McKenzie |
| Campbell, |
(Cape Breton, N.), |
| Carney, |
McLennan, |
| Carrier, |
Marcile (Bagot), |
| Cash, |
Marcil (Bonaventure), |
| Chisholm, |
Martin (Wellington), |
| Christie, |
Mayrand, |
| Cochrane, |
Meigs, |
| Cockshutt, |
Miller, |
| Conmee, |
Northrup, |
| Costigan, |
Oliver, |
| Crawford, |
Parmelee |
| Crocket, |
Paterson |
| Cyr, |
Parent |
| Daniel, |
Perley |
| Delisle, |
Piché |
| Demers, |
Pickup |
| Derbyshire, |
Porter |
| Desjardins, |
Power |
| Devlin, |
Préfontaine |
| Dubeau, |
Proulx, |
| Dugas, |
Ratz, |
| Elson, |
Riley, |
| Emmerson, |
Rivet, |
| Ethier, |
Roche (Marquette), |
| Finlayson, |
Ross (Rimouski), |
| Fisher, |
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), |
| Fitzpatrick, |
Rousseau, |
| Fortier, |
Schaffner, |
| Galliher, |
Schell (Oxford), |
| Gauvreau, |
Scott, |
| Geoffrion, |
Sinclair, |
| Girard, |
Smith (Oxford), |
| Gladu, |
Sproule, |
| Grant, |
Staples, |
| Gunn, |
Talbot (Bellechasse), |
| Guthrie, |
Talbot (Strathcona), |
| Hall, |
Taylor, |
| Harty, |
Telford, |
| Henderson, |
Thompson, |
| Herron, |
Tobin, |
| Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), |
Turgeon, |
| Hunt, |
Turriff, |
| Jackson (Elgin), |
Walsh, |
| Jackson (Selkirk), |
Wilmot, |
| Johnson |
Wilson |
| (Cape Breton, South), |
(Lennox & Addington) |
| Kennedy, |
Wilson (Russell), |
| Lachance, |
Wright (Muskoka), |
| Lake, |
Wright (Renfrew), |
| Lalor, |
Zimmerman.—140. |
Amendment (Mr. Monk) negatived.
8857 JULY 5, 1905
1. That the Bill be not now read a third time
but be recommitted to a committee of the whole
House with an instruction that they have power
to amend it. by adding the following as subsection 2 of section 2 :—
2. Such rights to separate schools and such
educational privileges as are guaranteed or
granted to the Catholic or the Protestant minority in the Northwest Territories, under
chap.
50, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, shall be
continued by this constitution to the minorities
of the said provinces.
I do not deem it necessary, Mr. Speaker,
to go again at any length over the grounds
which I gave to the House last week to
justify the passing of this amendment, but
let it suffice to state that I intend to embody in the constitution of the two new
provinces the provisions which I find in
chap. 30 of the Revised Statutes of Canada,
section 14.
Mr. BRODEUR. (Translation.) Mr.
Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I call
your attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman having seconded the motion of the
hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr.
Monk), he has no right to speak again to
the motion.
The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard)
has already spoken on the motion of the
hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).
He has no right to move an amendment,
because he has already seconded a previous
amendment.
Mr. LEONARD. (Translation). I never
spoke on the motion ; but in answer to
the objection raised by the hon. minister,
I may say that if my name has been given
by the Speaker, as having seconded the
motion, it was altogether without my knowledge.
Mr. SPEAKER. I think the point has
been well taken. If the hon. member desires
to appeal from the ruling of the chair of
course, he may.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY (Calgary). I have
an amendment which I desire to make to
the motion of the right hon. the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to read the
Bill
a third time. The motion which I propose
to offer in amendment is similar to the one
which I had the privilege of introducing
when the matter was under discussion in the
committee. The intention of that motion
was that the distribution of the local seats
in the province of Alberta should be referred
to a commission of Judges of the Supreme
Court residing in that province. While
this matter was being discussed in the
committee I assigned then reasons which I
had hoped would have induced the government to have looked at the proposal in a
8858
favourable light and to have referred this
matter to a commission of judges. I do not
propose to repeat the arguments that I
then assigned or the reasons Why I thought
that this matter should be referred to a
commission of judges. I therefore will move,
seconded by Mr. Herron :
That all the words after 'now' to the end
of the question he left out, and that the following words be inserted instead thereof
:
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole
House with an instruction that they have power
to strike out section 12 of the Bill and to substitute the following section therefor:
12. Until the said legislature otherwise provides the legislative assembly shall be
composed of twenty-five members to be elected to
represent the electoral divisions hereinafter
mentioned.
(a) Such division shall be made by a board
of commissioners consisting of at least three
persons resident in the said province and being
judges of the Supreme Court of the Northwest
Territories who shall for that purpose be appointed by letters patent under the great
seal
immediately after the coming into force of
this Act, and who shall divide the said province into twenty-five electoral divisions.
(b) The letters patent appointing the commissioners shall require the. commissioners
in
making the divisions to have due regard to the
distribution of population, the public convenience, the existing local divisions and
such
other considerations as appear to them best
calculated to do substantial justice.
(c) In case of the death or resignation or
refusal of any one or more of such commissioners to act a successor or successors
shall
in like manner be appointed ; and in the event
of their being no resident judge or judges
available any judge or judges of the said
Supreme Court may be appointed such successor or successors.
(d) Within a time to be limited by the said
letters patent the commissioners shall complete such divisions and report the same
to
the Lieutenant Governor of the said province
setting forth in such report the boundaries of
the electoral divisions to which such report
refers, and the ranges, townships and sections
comprised therein and shall assign an appropriate designation to each electoral division.
Upon receipt by the Lieutenant Governor of
the said province of the report of the commissioners completing the divisions aforesaid
the respective territories described as constituting the respective electoral divisions
into which the said province shall have been
divided as aforesaid shall become and be the
electoral divisions of the said province as
if the same had been so set apart and established as such by this Act.
(e) The commissioners shall also Within the
said time limited forward a duplicate of their
said report to the Secretary of State.
(f) The said report and the said duplicate
thereof shall be signed by the commissioners
or in case of a disagreement by the majority of
them and the report of the majority of the
commissioners shall be the report of the commissioners.
(g) The said report shall be published in the
'Canada Gazette' and in the ' Official Gazette '
of the said province forthwith after the receipt
thereof.
(h) The commissioners may frame rules and
orders for regulating the conduct of their pro
8859
COMMONS
ceedings and generally for carrying into effect
the provisions thereof.
(i) The letters patent appointing said commissioners shall confer upon them the power
of summoning witnesses before them and of
requiring such witnesses to give evidence on
oath orally or in writing, or in solemn affirmation (it they are persons entitled
to affirm in civil
matters) and to produce such documents and
things as the commissioners may deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters
into which they are appointed to inquire and
the commissioners shall have the same power
and authority to enforce the attendance of
witnesses and to compel them to give evidence
as is vested in the Supreme Court of the
Northwest Territories in civil cases.
House divided on amendment (Mr. M. S.
McCarthy).
YEAS :
Messieurs
| Alcorn, |
Lennox, |
| Barker, |
Leonard, |
| Barr, |
Macdonell, |
| Bergeron, |
MacLaren, |
| Blain, |
McCarthy (Calgary), |
| Borden (Carleton), |
Monk, |
| Boylce, |
Morin, |
| Brabazon, |
Northrup, |
| Chisholm, |
Paquet, |
| Christie, |
Perley, |
| Clements, |
Porter, |
| Cochrane, |
Roche (Marquette), |
| Cockshutt, |
Schaffner. |
| Crocket, |
Sproule, |
| Daniel, |
Staples, |
| Elson, |
Taylor, |
| Gunn, |
Walsh, |
| Henderson, |
Wilmot, |
| Herron, |
Wilson (Lennox & |
| Jackson (Elgin), |
Addington) |
| Lake, |
Wright (Muskoka).—42. |
| Lalor, |
|
NAYS:
Messieurs
| Adamson, |
Kennedy, |
| Archambault, |
Lachance, |
| Beauparlant, |
Lamont. |
| BĂ©land, |
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), |
| Belcourt, |
Laurier (L'Assomption), |
| Bickerdike, |
Lavergne (Drummond & |
| Black, |
Arth.), |
| Borden (Sir Frederick), |
Lavergne (Montmagny), |
| Bourassa, |
Law, |
| Bourbonnais, |
LeBlanc, |
| Brodeur, |
Macdonald, |
| Brown, |
Maclean (Lunenburg), |
| Bruneau, |
Macpherson, |
| Bureau, |
McColl, |
| Caldwell, |
McCool, |
| Calvert, |
McIntyre, |
| Campbell, |
McIsaac, |
| Carney, |
McKenzie (Bruce), |
| Carrier, |
McLennan, |
| Cash, |
Marcile (Bagot), |
| Conmee, |
Marcil (Bonaventure), |
| Costigan, |
Martin (Wellington), |
| Crawford, |
Mayrand, |
| Cyr, |
Meigs, |
| Delisle, |
Miller, |
| Demers, |
Oliver, |
8860
| Derbyshire, |
Parent, |
| Desjardins, |
Piché, |
| Devlin, |
Power, |
| Dubeau, |
Préfontaine, |
| Dugas, |
Proulx, |
| Emmerson, |
Ratz, |
| Finlaylson, |
Riley, |
| Fisher, |
Ross (Rimouski), |
| Fitzpatrick, |
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), |
| Fortier, |
Rousseau, |
| Galliher, |
Schell (Oxford), |
| Gauvreau, |
Scott, |
| Geoffrion, |
Sinclair, |
| Girard, |
Smith (Oxford), |
| Gladu, |
Talbot (Bellechasse), |
| Grant, |
Talbot (Strathcona), |
| Guthrie, |
Teltord, |
| Hall, |
Tobin, |
| Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), |
Turgeon, |
| Hunt, |
Turriff, |
| Jackson (Selkirk), |
Wilson (Russell), |
| Johnston (Cape Breton |
Wright (Renfrew), |
| South), |
Zimmerman.—97. |
PAIRS :
| Government. |
Opposition. |
| Bole, |
Ames, |
| Stewart, |
Armstrong, |
| Burrows, |
Avery, |
| Copp, |
Bennett, |
| Dyment, |
Bland, |
| McKenzie (Cape Breton), |
Bristol, |
| Boyer, |
Broder, |
| Clarke, |
Clare, |
| Fielding, |
Foster, |
| Findlay, |
Fowler, |
| Gallery, |
Forget, |
| German, |
Ganong, |
| Gordon, |
Clements, |
| Mulock, |
White, |
| Harty, |
Reid (Grenville), |
| Hyman, |
Pringle, |
| Lemieux, |
Tisdale, |
| Logan, |
Lefurgey, |
| Lavoie, |
McLean (P.E.I.), |
| Sloan, |
Osler, |
| Parmelee, |
Worthington, |
| Greenway, |
Haggart, |
| Ethier, |
Hughes (Victoria), |
| Laurence, |
Ingram, |
| Sifton, |
Kemp, |
| Lanctot, |
Lancaster, |
| Loggia, |
Lewis, |
| Paterson, |
Maclean (York), |
| Smith (Nanaimo), |
Martin (P.E.I.), |
| Gervais, |
Stockton, |
| Watson, |
Ward. |
Amendment (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) negatived.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette). I desire
to move, seconded by Mr. Perley, the following amendment :
That all the words after ' now ' to the end of the question he left out, and that
the
following words be inserted instead thereof :
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole
House with an instruction that they have power
to strike out section 12 of the Bill and to substitute the following section therefor
:
12. (1) Until the said legislature otherwise
provides the legislative assembly shall be composed of twenty-five members to be elected
to represent the electoral divisions hereinafter
defined.
8861 JULY 5, 1905
(2) The expression ' federal electoral district'
where used in this section means an electoral
district as establishd by and under the provisions of 3 Edward VII, chapter 60.
3. (a) The federal electoral district at Alberta shall be divided into five electoral
divisions
each of which shall return one member.
(b) That portion of the federal electoral district of Calgary comprised within the
limits
of the province of Alberta shall be divided
into six electoral divisions each of which shall
return one member.
(c) That portion of the federal electoral district of Strathcona comprised within
the limits
of the province of Alberta shall be divided
into six electoral divisions each of which shall
return one member.
(d) That portion of the federal electoral
district of Edmonton comprised within the
limits of the province of Alberta shall be
divided into six electoral divisions each of
which shall return one member.
(e) That portion of the provisional district
of Assiniboia included within the limits of the
province of Alberta and not included in any
of the federal electoral districts above mentioned shall return one member.
(f) That portion of the unorganized territory of Athabaska which lies west of the
4th
meridian shall return one member.
(4) Where under the foregoing provisions
any federal electoral district is to be divided
into more than one provincial electoral division such division shall be made by a
board of
commissioners consisting of at least three
persons resident in the said province and
being judges of the Supreme Court of the
Northwest Territories who shall for that purpose be appointed by letters patent under
the
great seal immediately after the coming into
force of this Act and who shall divide each
such federal electoral districts into the number of electoral divisions in this Act
assigned
to it.
The letters patent appointing the commissioners shall require the commissioners in
making the divisions to have due regard to the
distribution of population, the public convenience the existing local divisions and
such
other considerations as appear to them best
calculated to do substantial justice.
In case of the death or resignation or refusal of any one or more of such commissioners
to act a successor or successors shall in like
manner be appointed ; and in the event of
there being no resident judge or judges available any judge or judges of the said
Supreme
court may be appointed such successor or successors :
Within a time to be limited by the said letters patent the commissioners shall complete
such divisions and report the same to the
Lieutenant Governor of the said province setting forth in such report the boundaries
of the
electoral divisions to which such report refers
and the ranges, townships and sections comprised therein and shall assign an appropriate
designation to each electoral division. Upon
receipt by the Lieutenant Governor of the said
province of the report of the commissioners
completing the divisions aforesaid the respective territories described as constituting
the respective electoral divisions into which
the said federal electoral districts shall have
been divided as aforesaid shall become and be
electoral divisions of the said province as it
the same had been So set apart and established
as such by this Act.
The commissioners shall also within the said
8862
time limited forward a duplicate of their said
report to the Secretary of State.
The said report and the said duplicate thereof shall be signed by the commissioners,
or
in case of a disagreement, by a majority of
them and the report of the majority of the
commissioners shall be the report of the commissioners.
The said report shall be published in the
' Canada Gazette ' and in the 'Official Gazette '
of the said province forthwith after the receipt
thereof.
The commissioners may frame rules and
orders for regulating the conduct of their proceedings and generally for carrying
into effect
the provisions thereof.
The letters patent appointing said commissioners shall confer upon them the power
of
summoning witnesses before them and of requiring such witnesses to give evidence on
oath. orally or in writing, or on solemn affirmation (if they are persons entitled
to affirm in
civil matters) and to produce such documents
and things as the commissioners may deem requisite to the full investigation of the
matters
into which they are appointed to inquire and
the commissioners shall have the same power
and authority to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence
as is vested in the Supreme Court of the
Northwest Territories in civil cases.
Amendment (Mr. W. J. Roche) negatived
on the same division last recorded.
Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle). I propose
to move an amendment which, if adopted,
would have the effect of granting to the
new provinces the lands, mines, minerals
within their boundaries. To give to the
new provinces those rights and powers in
regard to the public domain as are declared
by the British North America Act to come
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
provinces of the Dominion. I have already
spoken at considerable length in advocacy
of this principle, first on the second reading of the Bill and subsequently on more
than one occasion when the Bill was in
committee. 1 have nothing to add to the
arguments which I then used. They are before the House and it is not necessary that
I should repeat them. I believe that if the
House refuses to accept this amendment
and passes the Bill in its present form it
will be doing a great wrong not only to
the new provinces, but to the whole Dominion. The provincial ownership of the
public domain is one of the basic principles
of confederation ; to disregard it and the
other fundamental principles of the British
North America Act is to undermine the
whole structure of confederation and to lay
up a store of trouble in the days to come.
The struggle for provincial rights will only
begin when this Bill comes into effect on
the 1st September next, if it remains in its
present form. The culmination of that
struggle may not be reached this year or
next year, but it must inevitably come some
day in the future and it will be due to the
action of this parliament if that struggle
does injury to our common country. I said
8863
COMMONS
in the first words that I uttered about this
Bill that the action of Canada in dealing
with what may be called her own colonies
in the matter of self-government, would be
watched with interest not only in the mother
land but throughout the empire. Comparisons will be drawn between the treatment
accorded to the north American colonies
when they become self-governing colonies
by Great Britain on the one hand and the
treatment accorded to her new provinces
by Canada on the other hand. Those comparisons will not be flattering to the Dominion
parliament if the Bill goes through
in its present form.
No satisfactory reason has been offered
to this House for disregarding the clear and
definite provisions of the British North
America Act in regard to provincial ownership of the public domain. The arguments
adduced by the Prime Minister
and others in respect to this matter will
not be regarded either by the country
at large or by the new provinces as adequate or indeed even as quite worthy of
the great principle involved. In the argument he used this afternoon surely the Minister
of Justice did not intend to suggest,
although his words sounded like it, that
Canada had purchased from the Hudson
Bay Company, through the medium of Great
Britain, the absolute title to one-third of the
North American continent for ÂŁ300,000. That
sum, as I understand it, was paid for the
surrender to the Crown of certain claims and
privileges which the Hudson Bay Company
had over this vast area. The claims and
privileges of the company being thus removed, the property itself was vested in the
Dominion, the title being in the Crown. The
very fact that Great Britain having thus
procured a surrender of the Hudson Bay
Company's rights over this area then handed
it over to the administration of the Dominion of Canada with the evident view of its
ultimate formation into provinces is the
very strongest argument that could possibly
be used that the Dominion should hand over
the area comprised in the new provinces to
the administration of those provinces. I
hope that even at this stage it is not too
late, and that the House will be induced to
reverse the policy it has up to this time
sanctioned. I beg to move, seconded by
Dr. Schaffner :
That all the words after ' now ' to the end
of the question be left out and that the following words be inserted instead thereof
:
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole
House with an instruction that they have power
to strike out subsection 1 of section 20 of the
Bill and to substitute the following therefor :
All lands, mines and minerals and royalties
incident thereto situate or arising within the
limits of the province and now vested in the
Crown and all sums due or payable in respect
of the same shall belong to the province subject to any trusts existing in respect
thereof and to any interest other than that of the
province in the same except those portions
8864
thereof now used or occupied for the public
works, the public buildings or otherwise for
the public service of Canada which are more
fully set forth and enumerated in schedule ' C '
to this Act and which shall continue to be the
property of Canada.
Amendment (Mr. Lake) negatived on the
same division, last recorded.
Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton). I have an
amendment to move. It is in the exact
words of the amendment I moved last night
in committee on the Saskatchewan Bill and
I therefore do not intend to occupy the time
of the House in reading it. I might say
that its purport is to recite as the foundation
for the action we are taking in constituting
these provinces, not merely the Act of 1871
as the Bill does, but the British North
America Act of 1867, the Act of 1871, the
final Act of 1886, and also the Rupert's
Land Act. Every one who has listened to
this long debate must be aware that the
very foundation of the constitution both of
the Dominion and the various provinces is
contained in the British North America Act,
and although that is the case there is not
a word in the preamble referring to that
Act as the ground work of our action on
this occasion. Without further remark I
move, seconded by Mr. Henderson :
That the preamble be struck out, and that the
following preamble be substituted therefor :
Whereas, in and by the British North America Act, 1867, being chapter 3 of the Acts
of the
parliament of the United Kingdom passed in
the session thereof held in the thirtieth year of
the reign of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria,
it was, among 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 an address from the Houses of
parliament of Canada, to admit Rupert's Land
and the Northwestern Territory into the union
on such terms and conditions in each case as are
in the addresses expressed and as the Queen
should think fit to approve, subject to the provisions of the said Act ; and that
the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf
should have effect as if they had been enacted
by the parliament of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland.
And whereas in and by the Rupert's Land Act,
1868, of the parliament of the United Kingdom,
it was, among other things, enacted that it
should be competent to Her Majesty, by Order
or Orders in Council, by and with the advice of
Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council,
on address from the Houses of the parliament
of Canada, to declare that Rupert's Land should
from a date to be therein mentioned be admitted into and become part of the Dominion
of Canada.
And whereas, pursuant to such powers and
authority, and to such addresses, by and with
the advice aforesaid, the Queen by Order in
Council on the 23rd day of June, 1870, did order
and declare that from and after the 15th day of
July, 1870, the said territory should be admitted
into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth
in
schedule ' A ' to the said Order in Council, and
that the parliament of Canada should from the
said date of admission have full power and au
8865 JULY 5, 1905
thority to legislate for the future welfare and
good government of the said territory ; and it
was thereby further ordered that, without prejudice to any obligations arising from
an approved report therein recited, Rupert's Land
should from and after the said 15th of July,
1870, be admitted into and become part of the
Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions in that behalf in the said Order
in Council
also set forth.
And whereas, in and by the British North
America Act, 1871, being chapter 28 of the Acts
of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed
in the session thereof held in the thirty-fourth
and thirty-fifth years of the reign of Her late
Majesty Queen Victoria, it is enacted that the
parliament of Canada may from time to time
establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the
Dominion of
Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment,
make provisions for the constitution and administration of any such province, and
for the
passing of laws for the peace, order and good
government of such province and for its representation in the said parliament of Canada
:
And whereas, in and by the British North
America Act, 1886, being chapter 35 of the Acts
of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed in the session thereof held in the
forty-ninth
and fiftieth years of the reign of Her said Majesty, the parliament of Canada was
empowered
to make provision for the representation in
the Senate and House of Commons of Canada,
of any territories which for the time being form
part of the Dominion of Canada but are not included in any province thereof ; and
it was
thereby also enacted that the said Act, and the
British North America Act, 1867, and the British North America Act, 1871, shall be
construed
together.
And whereas that part of the said land and
territory hereinafter described has not been included in any province of the Dominion
and has
heretofore been provisionally governed by and
pursuant to legislation of the parliament of
Canada.
And whereas it is expedient to establish as a
province that part of the said land and territory hereinafter described, and to make
provision for the constitution and administration
of such province and for the passing of laws
for the peace, order and good government
thereof and for its representation in the parliament of Canada.
Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House
of
Commons of Canada, enacts as follows :
Amendment (Mr. Barker) negatived on the
same division, last recorded.
On the question for the third reading of
the Bill.
Mr. H. BOURASSA. I rise to offer a
word of personal explanation and to give
the reasons why I do not feel disposed to
vote either for the third reading of the Bill
or against it, so that I may not be accused
of shirking the vote. My reason is this :
I am in favour of the principle of the Bill;
that is, I am in favour of giving the Northwest Territories their autonomy, but the
Bill does not contain what in my opinion is
a sufficient guarantee of the rights of the
minorities that we are bound to protect,
and therefore I cannot vote with those who
8866
are opposed to any kind of guarantee to
the minorities, nor can I vote for a Bill
which in my opinion does not give a sufficient measure of guarantee.
Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE. Mr. Speaker,
I suppose I shall not surprise any one in the
House by saying that I take the same position as the hon. member for Labelle. I
therefore leave the House before the vote
is taken.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third
time, on division, and passed.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved third
reading of Bill (No. 70) to establish and provide for the government of the province
of
Saskatchewan.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, before this motion passes I would ask the House to allow
me to occupy a few minutes further on the
subject of the Canadian Pacific Railway
exemption. I have no hope, after the reception that was given to the amendment I
moved this afternoon, that I shall succeed
with a similar amendment moved to the
Saskatchewan Bill, but I feel that I would
not be doing my full duty to the proposed
province in which I live, and to the electors
in that proposed province which I have the
honour to represent, if I did not utter on
this motion a further word of protest with
regard to this feature of the measure; and
I do this notwithstanding that I am probably bringing again upon myself the severe
disapprobation of the hon. leader of the
opposition. In face of the fact that that
hon. gentleman has for three or four months
been responsible for a waste of the time
of this parliament, and responsible for a
great deal of disturbance throughout the
Dominion of Canada upon these autonomy
measures, he rises to censure a representative from the Northwest Territories who
has the hardihood to ask the House to listen
for thirty or forty minutes to a protest with
regard to a limitation on the autonomy proposed to be given to the people of these
two
provinces, which is a very serious matter
in comparison with the comparatively trifling matter that he is responsible for causing
to be discussed at such great length and
disturbing the country to such an extent.
The hon. leader of the opposition said that
the words I used in my amendment were
meaningless—that the power of expropriation was inherently in this parliament, and
that, therefore, it was meaningless to put
in this Act words giving notice to the people
of these provinces and to the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company that this parliament intends to exercise its inherent powers
of expropriation if it were not able by some
other means to obtain the relinquishment
of these exemptions.
Mr. LALOR. What construction did the
hon. gentleman's leader put upon the resolution ?
8867
COMMONS
Mr. SCOTT. I would ask my hon. friend
what construction he places on the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the
opposition this afternoon when he proposed
to strike out section 16 and substitute this:
The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the
said province in so far as the same are applicable under the terms thereof.
What is the meaning of that?
Mr. LALOR. May I ask the hon. gentleman if that is the way he answers a question—by asking
another ?
Mr. SCOTT. I venture to say that my
hon. friend cannot tell me, nor can the hon.
leader of the opposition himself tell me what
that means. It means about the same thing
as the amendment he proposed formerly in
relation to education. The hon. leader of
the opposition admitted, when the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue questioned him on
the floor of the House of Commons, that
he did not know how it would work out,
and that he did not know what it meant.
Does the hon. leader of the opposition think
when he speaks before the people of this
country and before the members of this
House that he is speaking to children ? Let
him go to the head of the Canadian Pacific
Railway or to the head of the Canadian
Northern Railway and ask these gentlemen
if they think these words specifying the intention of parliament to exercise its inherent
power of expropriation do not mean
anythng.
Mr. HENDERSON. I rise to a point of
order. I submit that the hon. gentleman has
no right to refer to a previous debate.
Mr. SCOTT. I propose, Mr. Speaker, to
move an amendment, and I trust I am not
out of order in discussing the amendment
which I propose to move. It concerns the
Canada Pacific Railway exemption feature
and the inherent right of expropriation possessed by this parliament with regard to
that exemption feature. I was proceeding
to remind the House that a couple of years
ago we granted certain rights to the Canadian Northern Railway, and it was proposed
at that time that it should be specified
in the Bill that parliament retained the right
to expropriate. I can tell the hon. leader
of the opposition that Mr. Willam Mackenzie, the president of the Canadian Northern
Railway, did not think these words
meaningless, because he opposed the proposition strenuously, and whenever the same
proposition has been made with regard to
a railway which is being chartered, it has
been opposed by the promoters of the charter. It is not so long ago that discussion
took place in this House on the Grand
Trunk Pacific proposition, and if my memory
serves me rightly, we had an amendment
moved on the other side of the House that
the Bill should specify that under such and
such conditions parliament would expro
8868
priate the undertaking. Am I stating the
fact correctly ? I put that squarely to the
hon. leader of the opposition. Silence, I
suppose, gives consent; but we may as well
have the actual proof. On May 26, 1904,
the hon. leader of the opposition summarized certain resolutions which he had in
the previous months presented to this House
with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition. Some of these amendments, I suppose,
were not entirely meaningless, but so
many were presented that I venture to say
that no single person in the whole of Canada can tell at this moment whether the
hon. leader of the opposition faced north,
south, east or west on the Grand Trunk
Pacific question. Here is what the hon.
gentleman said on May 26, 1904, as found
at page 3558 of ' Hansard ':
We then moved an amendment that if the
Grand Trunk Pacific should exercise its right
to force on the government any unprofitable
branches at the end of fifty years, the government might take all or any of the remaining
branches. In this way we desired to prevent
this country being placed in the position of
having to take and operate unprofitable
branches without having the option of controlling the situation by taking also all
the
branches this company might find profitable.
That surely was a meaningless proposition, because parliament had the inherent
right of expropriation. The hon. gentleman
was needlessly taking up the time of parliament when he discussed that proposition
at
great length.
We further moved that the government should
have haulage rights and running powers over
the western division for the same period granted to the company over the eastern division.
Both these amendments were rejected.
Then we proposed that the government should
be empowered to expropriate the railways from
ocean to ocean, upon paying fair compensation,
and in addition we moved a further amendment
empowering the government to do so in case
these railways should not carry out the true
intent of the agreement, or should combine or
conspire to divert traffic to foreign ports.
By the vehicle of these words of his own
I hand back to the leader of the opposition
all the criticism and sarcasm which he
applied to the proposition I took the
responsibility of presenting to the House
this afternoon. What was the main
purpose of the remarks of the hon.
gentleman and what has been the main purpose of many of the remarks of the hon.
gentlemen opposite with regard to members from the Northwest Territories sitting behind
the government ? From day to
day, by means of sneers and other references, they have attempted to lead the country
to believe that the Liberal members
from the Territories have been entirely dominated by the government and ready at
any moment to sacrifice the interests of
the Territories.
8869 JULY 5, 1905
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friends opposite
applaud the remark. I am, therefore, giving
an accurate discription of what they have
attempted. We had some reference here
a few days ago to a Northwest conference
called by Mr. Haultain and to the matters
discussed there. I proposed a motion at
that conference with regard to the redistribution schedules. The hon. member for
Alberta (Mr. Herron) arose here and declared that the motion made by me was
not as I stated, but was that we should
hold out together to get our land and minerals for the new provinces.
Mr. HERRON. I state now that you did
make that statement, and it is the only
statement that you have made.
Mr. SCOTT. I state now deliberately to
my hon. friend that the matter of lands was
not discussed at that conference at all, and
I say it in the hearing of several gentlemen who were present. There were three
conferences in all. The hon. member for
Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) attended the first
two, but was not present at the third, and
the matter of lands was not mentioned at
the third conference concerning which we
had the discussion on this floor. I tell the
hon. gentleman now that there never was
any such motion made at any of the three
conferences.
Mr. SCOTT. Regardless of what my
hon. friend says, I say that no such motion
was presented at any conference.
Mr. SCOTT. I will tell the hon. gentleman more, if he wants to know it, about
those conferences. We had three altogether.
It has been already explained that the invitation was issued by Mr. Haultain to all
the Northwest members to attend conferences at Ottawa and a part of that invitation
reads as follows :
My colleagues and I are very anxious to have
the co-oporation of the Senators and members
from the Territories at the very outset of these
negotiations with a view to, if possible, presenting a case for the Territories which
in
its broader features, at least, shall be approved by all the Northwest representatives.
I ask any of the hon. gentlemen opposite
who were present at these conferences if
he ever heard any mention by Mr. Haultain or any one else at any of them with
regard to the subject of education. Let
them say yes or no, here and now. Did
Mr. Haultain bring up the subject of education ? Was that one of the large and broad
subjects which we were brought together
to discuss ? I say that the subject was
never mentioned. In that fact alone we
have the complete proof that the Northwest
8870
government and the Northwest people generally were not asking for any change in
their educational constitution.
Mr. LALOR. Does the hon. gentleman
make the statement that Mr. Haultain called the conference ?
Mr. LALOR. Did you not make the
statement on a previous occasion in this
House that it was the Prime Minister
who called this conference ?
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend is quite
mistaken. The Prime Minister suggested
to Mr. Haultain that he should furnish to
the government the schedules of redistribution, and Mr. Haultain called a third conference
partly for the purpose of getting assistance from the Northwest members and
senators generally with regard to redistribution and two or three other matters. I
repeat that no motion was made at any conference as is described by the hon. member
for
Alberta (Mr. Herron) either by myself, himself or by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle
(Mr. Lake) or by Mr. Haultain to the effect
that we should stand out for the absolute
transfer of our public lands. What I did
at that conference however, was to attempt
to get it to take the position—not by motion, but by suggestion ; and that is doubtless
what has misled the hon. member for
Alberta—that we should unitedly and resolutely stand out for the principle that the
public lands belong to the people of the Territories and that we should have their
actual
transfer or a fair price.
Mr. HERRON. The hon. gentleman has
acknowledged just now that he was wrong.
Mr. SCOTT. It is my hon. friend who
admits the mistake. I suggested that
we should unitedly take the position,
and hold to it resolutely, that the lands
were ours, and that we should get an
actual transfer of them or a fair price.
And in my opinion, and in that of the majority of the people of the Northwest, even
of Mr. Haultain himself—because he has
said so in a public letter—we have got a
fair price for the lands. Let me say to
hon. gentlemen opposite, from their leader
down, that in view of the history of the
last two years with regard to the subject of
autonomy, it does not lie in the mouth of
any Conservative anywhere in the Dominion
to charge any Northwest Liberal—
Mr. SCOTT. Let my hon. friends be
patient and I will give them plenty of
proof. I say it does not lie in their mouths
to charge any Northwest Liberal with a willingness to sacrifice any Northwest local
interest at the behest of any party leader.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake)
knows very well to what I am referring.
He and I and the Liberals and many Con
8871
COMMONS
servatives in the Territories up to two years
ago were of the belief that, in view of
early autonomy negotiations entered into
with the Ottawa government, it was essential that the people of the Territories should
be united and not have party
divisions in their local affairs, so that we
might come down as one man, with the
whole strength of a united people, in the
presentation of our case to the government
here. I think I am stating the thing fairly.
But what has occurred in the last two
years ? At the instigation of the hon. the
leader of the opposition, the Conservatives
of the Territories were called into convention in April, 1903, at Moosejaw, for the
purpose of reorganizing for the next federal
election. What was one of the most important actions taken by that convention ?
Mr. SCOTT. These hon. gentlemen are
getting a little tired of the subject.
Mr. SCOTT. One of the most important
resolutions adopted at that convention called for the purpose of reorganizing for
the
next federal election was this :
That in furtherance of the objects of this convention be it resolved, that Conservative
candidates as such be placed in nomination in
every constituency, at the next general election of members to the legislative assembly
of
the Northwest Territories, and kept in the field
till the close of the polls.
Since the moment of the passing of that
resolution, since the moment of the holding
of that Moosejaw convention, Mr. Haultain
and his Conservative friends in the legislature—of whom my hon. friend was one—have
been dominated in their management of
local affairs by considerations of federal
party interest.
Mr. LAKE. I deny that statement, so
far as I am concerned.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend (Mr. Lake)
will have a good deal of trouble to successfully deny it in the Territories. We had
the
matter of the capital advance. Mr. Haultain
stated that on certain conditions he wanted
the capital advance—that on certain conditions he would be satisfied to have it. And
on these conditions it was granted. Is that
not true? It was granted on the very conditions that he himself had set out. I make
the statement to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle Mr. Lake, that on the first day
of the meeting of the succeeding legislature
in the fall of 1903, he told a man in Regina
that the capital advance was not going to
be accepted. I make the further statement
that Mr. Haultain did not disclose to his
Liberal supporters in the legislature, until
practically the closing week of the session
the fact that the capital advance was not
going to be accepted.
8872
Mr. SCOTT. I will give my hon. friend
(Mr. Lake), privately, information that will
recall it to his memory. I do not wish to
mention publicly here the name; but I will
give my hon. friend privately the name of
the gentleman to whom he gave that information on the first day of the sitting.
And it was three weeks later before the
Liberal supporters of Mr. Haultain were
told by Mr. Haultain that he did not intend to accept the capital advance. And
my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) knows perfectly
well—1 know he knows—that over that
capital advance matter the unity which had
prevailed in the assembly was very nearly
broken; and if it was not broken it was
not because of any excessive desire on the
part of these Conservatives, or on the part
of my hon. friend, or on the part of Mr.
Haultain, that means should be taken to
preserve it. Any sacrifice that was made
was made by the Liberals in the Assembly,
and to preserve that unity in local affairs
that was so important, the Northwest Liberals have for two years past been putting
up with slights and humiliation and insult,
—having their every confidence abused, their
every action mis-used,—they have been feeling the knife of the traitor in every way.
But, for the purpose of preserving the unity
that they considered essential for the presentation of the autonomy matter to this
government and to this parliament, they put
up with this kind of thing. But Mr.
Speaker, thank God, that condition need no
longer continue.
Mr. SCOTT. The autonomy matter is
now settled, and the question is removed
from the field of controversy. It no longer
furnishes a reason for that sort of party
self-sacrifice, and from this time forward
the Liberals of Saskatchewan will not find
their party interests conflicting with the
interests of the province.
Mr. BOYCE. I ask that the motion before the House be read.
Mr. SPEAKER. Any hon. member has
the right to ask that the motion be read,
but not so as to interrupt the hon. gentleman who is speaking.
Mr. SCOTT. So much for that, at all
events. The leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden) declares that the amendment
I moved this afternoon is meaningless. It
is no more so than is section 23 itself. Does
the hon. gentleman say that section 23 in
this Bill has any meaning; that the Bill
will have any different efiect whether section 23 is retained or is left out of the
Bill ? That is a fair question. Will the
taxing power of the province be the same
if section 23 were not in the Bill as it
will be with the section in the Bill ? My
8873 JULY 5, 1905
hon. friend the leader of the opposition is
not prepared to answer that question.
Mr. SCOTT. Evidently not. Well, in my
own opinion, section 23 in these Bills means
absolutely nothing—or at all events very little. But I say that if section 23 is put
in
the Bill, then it is fair, it is right, it is
imperative that further notice be put in
the Bill that parliament intends, as the
Prime Minister says, to negotiate the surrender of these exemption rights from the
company—that further notice be put in the
Bill, so that the provinces, the people of
Canada and the railway company will understand that parliament, at some future
day will take away these rights by expropriation or by negotiation. But, as I have
had no success with the amendment which
I moved to the Alberta Bill, it is useless to
repeat that proposal. I beg with regard to
this Saskatchewan Bill to move :
That all the words after ' now ' be struck
out and the following inserted :
That the Bill (No. 70) be recommitted to Committee of the Whole House with instructions
to expunge section 23 thereof.
Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton). I
only desire to say that I have no sympathy
with any motion in this House that has for
its purpose the violation of a solemn compact made many years ago by the parliament
of Canada. Therefore, I cannot recognize in any form the motion that has
been moved by the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Scott). I do not believe for a moment that
this parliament will stultify itself by accepting the amendment the hon. gentleman
(Mr.
Scott) has presented and so violating a sacred contract made many years ago.
Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Kootenay). I
fully agree with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that this government
and this parliament should hold sacred the
contracts made with the former government
and parliament by any party or corporation.
But, as I stated this afternoon—and I do
not intend to repeat my remarks—I contend that if the government in 1881 had
power to make this contract and to pass
that law, there is no necessity for this section in the Act, for that law would apply,
and it cannot be overridden by local legislation afterwards. On the other hand, if
this law was ultra vires the parliament of
Canada in 1881, then this parliament is not
called upon to confirm any portion of a contract that was ultra vires of parliament
when it was made. There is a vast difference between carrying out a contract made
with a former parliament which contract
was within the powers of that parliament,
and carrying out a portion of a contract
made that was not within the powers of
parliament. If it was within the power
of parliament to make it, then the rights of
the other party will be safe in any case,
8874
whether section 23 is put in or not. And
if it is not within their power, it is no part
of the duty of this parliament, or any
other, to carry out an arrangement which
was ultra vires of the authority that made
it. For these reasons I support the motion
of my hon. friend (Mr. Scott).
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). There is absolutely nothing new in
this question, which was discussed fully in
committee. And, for the same reasons that
I gave my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) before, I
must tell him that we cannot accept this
motion.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. member
for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has covered
a very wide range in his speech, including
the convention in the Northwest Territories,
Mr. Haultain's secrecy as to capital advances, the conferences held between members
from the Northwest Territories during
the recent session, besides formulating a
number of questions, which no one, himself included, seemed able to answer, with
regard to certain alleged opinions of the
president of the Canadian Northern Railway. These questions seemed to be particularly
irrelevant to the matter we have
been discussing this evening. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) says this is a serious
matter. It certainly is a serious matter,
but he did not treat it in a serious way.
It is a serious matter. But any one who
looks over the volume of ' Hansard ' during
the last four or five years and observes
the gyrations the hon. gentleman has indulged in on this question can form a pretty
good opinion as to how serious he is in
taking up the time of the House in discussing it at this stage.
Look at his motion as he defines it, a
motion in respect of which he has taken up
40 minutes of the time of this House. He
says that section 23 means nothing, therefore he takes 40 minutes to ask us to strike
it out. If it means nothing then striking
it out means nothing. That is the position of
the hon. gentleman according to his own
statement. That is his own definition of the
position which he occupies in taking up the
time of the House to-night. If it means
anything at all it means that a right which
has been made with the Crown, confirmed
by the parliament of this country in 1881,
may be taken away without compensation.
If it has any meaning at all I would suppose it to mean that, or that it was an attempt
to accomplish that result. I do not
know what the hon. member for Kootenay
(Mr. Galliher) means by discussing the question as to whether it was within the competence
of the government to make this
agreement in 1881.
Mr. GALLIHER. If it was not within
the competence of the government to make
it we did not need this section, because that
right will pass on to them notwithstanding
8875
COMMONS
that they are formed into provinces ; and if
it was not within the right of this government to make such an agreement, then I
raised the question whether it was incumbent upon us to carry out the contract.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It is not a question of their right to make a contract, it is
a question of the effect of a contract when
made, it is a question as to whether the government of this country, by virtue of
an
Act of parliament passed in 1881, can make
a contract which shall have effect in the
Territories after they are created into provinces. I suppose that is what the hon.
gentleman means. I have already expressed
my opinion with regard to that, but the
hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) does
not seem to be able to understand it. I have
expressed in committee the view which I
entertain with regard to it. I say the contract is binding upon the Crown because
it
was ratified by parliament. The question of
legislative jurisdiction respecting Dominion
taxation remains in the parliament of Canada ; the jurisdiction over provincial taxation
goes to the provinces. But in both
cases there is a contract to be observed,
and neither in the one case or the other
could the parliament or legislature properly
interfere without compensation. That is
the situation as I regard it. But however that may be, the motion of the hon.
member for Assiniboia does not commend
itself to my judgment because it does not
accomplish what, after all, I presume, he
wishes to accomplish. He referred to a provision for expropriation which we proposed
to introduce into the National Transcontinental contract. We were not doing what
he is doing now, or what he did this afternoon. We prepared a clause providing for
and authorizing expropriation and stating
the terms of it. The hon. gentleman has
done nothing of the kind. If he had made
any such motion as that with regard to section 23, or introduced it by an independent
Bill, I could understand it : but his motion
this afternoon was obviously meaningless for
the reason I have stated.
Mr. SCOTT. It was open to the hon.
gentleman to help improve it.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, there are
some motions conceived and framed in such
a form that no human agency could possibly
improve them. The hon. gentleman has apparently accomplished that result in this
case. If expropriation is desired, the parliament of Canada can act in the future,
and
with all deference to my hon. friend the
Minister of Justice, I think the legislature of
the province can act also in respect to exemption from provincial taxation. But neither
the motion which the hon. gentleman
proposed this afternoon nor the motion
which he proposes now seems to me to deal
with the matter in the way in which it
should be dealt with. If his motion means
8876
nothing, because it strikes out something
which means nothing, surely that does not
improve the situation. If his motion means
to disregard a contract into which the government of this country entered in 1881,
his
motion means something, but it means something with which I certainly cannot agree.
Mr. SCOTT. In the hon. gentleman's
opinion, does section 23 mean anything ?
Does it change the situation ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It is a notice to
the provinces of this contract, it has at
least that operation ; and it is proper that
at least the provinces should be notified of
a contract into which the Crown has entered, and in respect of which the action of
the Crown has been ratified by parliament.
Mr. SCOTT. Is there or is there not a
possibility that by leaving out section 23 the
provinces might be free to tax ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. That the provinces
might be free to tax—I would not think that
would improve the situation at all, because
even if by inadvertence a provision of that
kind were left out of the constitution and
an attempt were made to expropriate without compensation that which was a vested
right in either the Canadian Pacific Railway
or any other corporation, surely the hon.
gentleman knows that over and over again
the executive of Canada has been called
upon to disallow provincial legislation in
cases of that kind.
Mr. GALLIHER. Would not the question whether that was a vested right or not,
depend upon the question whether parliament in 1881 had power to legislate beyond
to the time when these Territories were
formed into provinces ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The parliament of
Canada at that time was the only parliament
that had power to enact this legislation.
But it the hon. gentleman believes what he
says he does to-night, does he not recognize
that he has been voting against his conscientious convictions on section 16 of the
Bill ? If he does not recognize that, then it
is useless for me to argue with him.
Mr. GALLIHER. Argument of that kind
is no answer to a legal question.
Mr. GALLIHER. Supposing even I was
wrong, would that strengthen my hon.
friend's argument ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman, on clause 16, has taken the position
that the parliament of Canada in 1875 could
deal with a similar matter, and that there
was an obligation on us in future for all
time to be governed by that provision. He
has distinctly taken that position, if he has
taken any position at all. On the other hand
8877 JULY 5, 1905
where we have not any such shadowy or
vague understanding as was relied upon for
clause 16, but where there is a distinct,
binding agreement made by the Crown at a
time when these provinces were Territories,
he denies that parliament has any right to
legislate. He says that in the one case there
is an absolute obligation in 1905 to continue
legislation with regard to the schools, but
there is not any obligation whatever to continue the contract made with regard to
this
tax exemption.
Mr. GALLIHER. I have not argued that
it was ultra vires of the parliament in 1881
to make this law and to enter into this contract. But I say that if it was within
their
power to do so, that right goes on, and we
can absolutely leave that alone and dispense with section 23 entirely.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am afraid that
I cannot appreciate or even understand my
hon. friend's argument when he talks
about this contract being ultra vires, a contract ratified by the parliament of Canada
in 1881, when this parliament had the absolute right to deal with the Territories.
I am
not able to follow that.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend
(Mr. Galliher) means to say, I think, that
in 1881 we had power, but when these
Territories became provinces then that power would be restricted.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It is a suflicient
answer to say that the legislation which we
are passing in clause 23 cannot have a greater operation than that which we passed
in
1881. It seems to me that if it is ultra vires
in the one case it necessarily follows that it
is ultra vires in the other case.
Mr. GALLIHER. I think not for the reason that by the virtue of the British North
America Act the provinces are entitled to
absolute control in regard to taxation, but
we are limiting that control of taxation by
this section 23. At the time we are granting
them powers as provinces we are limiting
the power of taxation by section 23 which
says that it shall be subject to the existing
agreement.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, I do not see
the distinction of the hon. gentleman. Perhaps he can see it; I do not. It seems to
me that the parliament of the Dominion in
1881 had the absolute right to deal with this
contract in respect to a railway running
through the Territories which were subject
absolutely to the legislative jurisdiction of
Canada.
8878
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman
says that we have not the right to limit the
constitution of these new provinces
Mr. GALLIHER. I have not said that the
parliament of Canada had not the right to
make the law in 1881. If they had the right
to make that law the instant that these
Territories became provinces that right
passes without this section 23 of this Act.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Very good. Then,
in that view section 23 is absolutely harmless.
Mr. GALLIHER. Not harmless, because
I say that by section 23 we are going further now. We are forming these Territories
into provinces by this Act. We are
giving them the right to exercise the power
of taxation, but we are limiting that right
by section 23.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, the hon. gentleman will have to be content with his own
opinion. It seems to me to be absolutely
clear that we had the right to make that
contract in 1881. It became a contract binding upon the Crown in the right of the
people of Canada and that binds the Dominion
and the provinces after the Territories have
been created into provinces. On the very
lowest position that can be taken it is proper
to insert in his Bill a notice to the provinces
of the contract so entered into by the Crown
ratified by parliament at a time when parliament had power so to legislate. I do not
want to take up the time of the House, because this is a matter between the hon. member
for Western Assiniboia, the right hon.
Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.
1 am not responsible for section 23. I
think it is right to give notice to these provinces, but after all the Minister of
Justice
is responsible for this measure as he is responsible for a similar clause in the Bill
in
regard to the Hudson Bay Company. I
have stated my view as to what should be
done. The contract should be observed.
There should be no expropriation without
compensation. I think upon that we can all
agree. It seems to me, as I have stated
over and over again, that the right
of the Dominion to legislate and the
right of the provinces to legislate within
their respective spheres of jurisdiction continue subject to the contract in both
cases.
I might, in conclusion, refer the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) to some
language of his upon a motion in regard to
this same tax exemption which was introduced in 1901. The hon. gentleman then
said:
If I thought this resolution would do the
slightest good, I would vote for it.
8879
COMMONS
It was a resolution declaring that in the
opinion of parliament the tax exemption of
the Canadian Pacific Railway should extend
only to a period of 20 years. The hon. mem
ber for West Assiniboia said :
If I thought this resolution would do the
slightest good, I would vote for it.
Mr. MACLEAN. It will not do any harm if
you vote for it.
Mr. SCOTT. It might not directly, but indirectly it would be an encouragement to hon.
gentlemen to come forward with demagogic and
buncombe resolutions, and I do not propose to
encourage anything of the kind. I do not think
there will be any practical value in the House
declaring for this resolution and shall, therefore, vote against it.
I would say to my hon. friend that I do
not see any good whatever in either of the
resolutions which he has moved to-day. I
refer him to his word which I have
quoted. If I was a little warm in any of
my expressions this afternoon I trust he
will understand that I did not intend to be
offensive to him in any way. I do not think
either of his resolutions has the merit of
being practical. As far as this one is concerned I shall vote against it with the
same
goodwill as I voted against the one he
moved this afternoon.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, the opposition intended to assist the government in
every way they could in passing these two
Bills before the early hours of the morning.
But the hon. member for West Assiniboia occupied an hour and twenty minutes
this afternoon and 40 minutes more to-night
with speeches and with resolutions similar
to one moved by my hon. friend from South
York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) a few years ago
on this very same question which the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Scott) then characterized as
a buncombe resolution. But I only intend
to deal with one of the many reckless statements that he made this afternoon. He
made the statement that the Liberal party
had always been in favour of building the
Canadian Pacific Railway through the
Northwest. Does he know the history of
the Liberal party in regard to the building
of that railway that created that country
and made something of it? A contract was
made by the Conservative government previous to 1873 to build that railway, but by
the opposition then offered in the House, the
government of the late lamented Sir John
A. Macdonald were driven from power on
account of having entered into that contract. The Liberals came into office. Did
they make a contract to build that railway
or did they attempt to build that railway?
They attempted to use the water stretches
and to connect Port Arthur with Winnipeg
by a part water and part rail route. They
built the Fort Francis lock, squandered a
lot of money, but did not do anything towards the building of the railway. Then
the Conservative party came in again; they
entered into negotiations, and in 1881 this
contract was made. The Canadian Pacific
8880
Railway, under the contract, spent millions
and millions of money in attempting to
construct the railway in that country. When
they had spent the last dollar they had and
when they had exhausted the last dollar of
credit they could obtain owing to the opposition of the Liberal party and of the
Grand Trunk Railway Company, they came
down to this parliament and asked for a
loan of $30,000,000 to save them from going
into bankruptcy. If they had gone into
bankruptcy, what would be the position of
the Northwest Territories to-day? The government of that day said: We will assist
you, we will grant you a loan of $30,000,000
and take ample security. The hon. member
for Western Assiniboia to-day quoted the
words of Mr. Blake, Mr. Ross and Sir Richard
Cartwright. What did these gentlemen say?
They said that if this railway were ever
built it would not earn enough to pay for
the axle grease, and every Liberal in the
House at that time—and there are a few of
them left, as there are only a few on this
side of the House who supported that measure—opposed the granting of this assistance.
The supporters of the government of
that day stood up and voted in favour of
loaning the Canadian Pacific Railway $30,000,000, because, notwithstanding the fact
that under the contract they had the lands
and they had the exemption from taxation
that my hon. friend is now complaining
about, they could not raise a dollar to go
on and complete the road. Yet, the hon. gentleman makes the reckless statement that
the Liberal party were always in favour of
building this road. A few Conservatives
who are here now were in the House then
and they stood up and voted to loan the
Canadian Pacific Railway $30,000,000. The
measure was carried notwithstanding the
opposition of every Liberal in the House at
that time, and there are only a few of them
left. We loaned them $30,000,000: the road
was completed; the company paid back the
$30,000,000, and yet the hon. member for
West Assiniboia will say that the Liberal
party were always in favour of building the
road.
Mr. TAYLOR. He did say it this afternoon. He had the assumption to make a
statement of that kind. There are many of
us in the House to—day who know that the
Hon. G. W. Ross, when the hon. gentleman quoted against the Canadian Pacific
Railway, was man enough to get up and
say in recent years that he had opposed
the Canadian Pacific Railway at every
stage, but he regretted he had ever done so,
and he withdrew every statement he ever
made against it. It is not so with the
other Liberals who opposed the construction
of the Canadian Pacific Railway and who
now try to get credit for building it and
making that western country what it is.
Why, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) would
have no country were it not for the policy
8881 JULY 5, 1905
of the Conservative party in these days.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is evident that hon.
gentlemen opposite do not want to transact
public business when one of them occupies
two hours time talking about nothing. The
opposition here were anxious to facilitate
the despatch of business, but these gentlemen opposite seem to want delay and I
therefore move that the House adjourn so
that we may get out of this heated atmosphere.
Mr. TAYLOR. I will withdraw if the
supporters of the government keep quiet
and allow business to be transacted.
Motion to adjourn the House (Mr. Taylor)
withdrawn.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Scott).
YEAS:
Messieurs
| Adamson, |
Schaffner, |
| Cash, |
Scott, |
| Galliher, |
Staples, |
| Herron, |
Talbot (Strathcona), |
| Lake, |
Turriff.—11, |
| Lamont, |
|
NAYS :
Messieurs
| Alcorn, |
Lapointe, |
| Archambault, |
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), |
| Barker, |
Laurier (L'Assomption), |
| Barr, |
Lavergne |
| Beauparlant |
(Drummond and Arth.) |
| BĂ©land, |
Lavergne (Montmagny), |
| Belcourt, |
Law, |
| Bergeron, |
LeBlanc, |
| Bickerdike, |
Lennox, |
| Blain, |
LĂ©onard, |
| Borden (Carleton), |
Macdonald, |
| Borden (Sir Frederick), |
Macdonell |
| Bourassa, |
MacLaren, |
| Bourbonnais, |
Maclean (Lunenburg), |
| Boyce, |
Macpherson. |
| Brabazon, |
McCarthy (Calgary), |
| Brodeur, |
McCool, |
| Bruneau, |
McIntyre, |
| Bureau, |
Mclsaac, |
| Caldwell, |
McKenzie (Bruce), |
| Calvert, |
McKenzie (Cape Breton, N.), |
| Campbell, |
Marcile (Bagot), |
| Carney, |
Marcil (Bonaventure), |
| Carrier, |
Martin (Wellington), |
| Christie, |
Mayrand |
| Cochrane, |
Miller, |
| Cockshutt, |
Monk, |
| Conmee, |
Morin, |
| Costigan, |
Northrup, |
| Crawford, |
Oliver, |
| Crocket, |
Parmelee, |
| Cyr, |
Paterson, |
| Daniel, |
Paquet, |
| Delisle, |
Parent, |
| Demers, |
Perley, |
| Derbyshire, |
Piché, |
| Desjardins. |
Pickup, |
| Devlin. |
Porter, |
| Dubeau, |
Power, |
| Dugas, |
Préfontaine, |
| Elson, |
Proulx, |
| Emmerson, |
Riley, |
8882
| Ethler, |
Rivet, |
| Fisher, |
Roche (Marquette), |
| Fitzpatrick, |
Ross (Rimouski), |
| Fortier, |
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), |
| Gauvreau, |
Rousseau, |
| Geoffrion, |
Schell (Oxford), |
| Girard. |
Sinclair, |
| Gladu, |
Smith (Oxford), |
| Grant, |
Sproule, |
| Gunn, |
Talbot (Bellechasse), |
| Guthrie, |
Taylor, |
| Hall, |
Telford, |
| Harty, |
Tobin, |
| Henderson, |
Turgeon, |
| Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), |
Walsh, |
| Hunt, |
Wilmot, |
| Jackson (Elgin), |
Wilson |
| Jackson (Selkirk), |
(Lennox & Addington) |
| Johnston |
Wilson (Russell), |
| (Cape Breton, South) |
Wright (Muskoka), |
| Kennedy, |
Wright (Rentrew), |
| Lachance, |
Zimmerman—126. |
| Lalor, |
|
1. That this Bill be not now read a third
time but he recommitted to a Committee of
the Whole House with an instruction that they
have the power to amend it by adding the fol—
lowing as subsection 2 to section 2 :—
2. Such right to separate schools and such
educational privileges as are guaranteed to the
Catholic or to the Protestant minority of the
Northwest Territories, under chap. 50, of the
Revised Statutes of Canada, shall be continued
by'this constitution to the minorities in the
said provinces.
My object in moving this amendment is
to have embodied in the Bill section 14 of
the Revised Statutes, which reads as follows :
14. The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall
pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education ; but it shall therein always
be provided,
that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories, or
of any
less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever
name the same is known, may establish such
schools therein as they think fit, and make the
necessary assessment and collection of rates
therefor; and also that the minority of the
ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or, Roman Catholic, may establish separate
schools
therein. and in such case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic
separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose
upon themselves in respect thereof.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Leonard).
YEAS:
Messieurs
| Bergeron. |
Leonard, |
| Bourassa, |
Monk, |
| Lavlergne (Montmagny), |
Morin—6. |
NAYS:
Messieurs
| Adamson, |
Lake, |
| Alcorn, |
Lalor, |
| Archambault, |
Lamont, |
| Barker, |
Lapointe, |
| Barr, |
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), |
8883 COMMONS
| Beauparlant, |
Laurier (L'Assomption), |
| BĂ©land, |
Lavergne |
| Belcourt, |
(Drummond & Artha.), |
| Bickerdike, |
Law, |
| Black, |
LeBlanc, |
| Blain, |
Lennox, |
| Borden (Carleton), |
Macdonald, |
| Borden (Sir Frederick), |
Macdonell, |
| Bourbonnais, |
McLaren, |
| Brabazon, |
Maclean (Lunenburg). |
| Brodeur, |
Macpherson, |
| Bruneau, |
McCool, |
| Bureau, |
McIntyre, |
| Caldwell, |
McIsaac, |
| Calvert, |
McKenzie (Bruce), |
| Campbell, |
McKenzie |
| Carney, |
(Cape Beton, N.), |
| Cash, |
Marcile (Bargot), |
| Chisholm, |
Marcil (Bonadventure), |
| Christle, |
Martin (Wellington), |
| Carrier, |
Mayrand, |
| Cochrane, |
Miller, |
| Cockshutt, |
Northrup, |
| Conmee, |
Oliver, |
| Costigan, |
Parmelee, |
| Crawford, |
Paterson, |
| Crocket, |
Parent, |
| Cyr, |
Perley, |
| Daniel, |
Piché, |
| Delisle, |
Pickup, |
| Demers, |
Porter, |
| Derbyshire, |
Power, |
| Desjardins, |
Préfontaine, |
| Devlin, |
Proulx, |
| Dubeau, |
Riley, |
| Dugas, |
Rivet, |
| Elson, |
Roche (Marquette), |
| Emmerson, |
Ross (Rimouski), |
| Ethier, |
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), |
| Finlayson, |
Rousseau, |
| Fisher, |
Schaffner, |
| Fitzpatrick, |
Schell (Oxford), |
| Fortier, |
Scott, |
| Gauvreau, |
Sinclair, |
| Geoffrion, |
Smith (Oxford), |
| Girard, |
Sproule, |
| Gladu, |
Staples, |
| Grant, |
Talbot (Bellechasse), |
| Gunn, |
Taylor, |
| Hall, |
Telford, |
| Harty, |
Tobin, |
| Henderson, |
Turgeon, |
| Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), |
Turriff, |
| Hunt, |
Wilson (Lennox & Add.), |
| Jackson (Selkirk), |
Wilson (Russell), |
| Johnston |
Wright (Muskoka), |
| (Cape Breton, South) |
Wright (Renfrew), |
| Kennedy, |
Zimmerman.-124. |
| Lachance, |
|
Mr. BOURASSA. I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron), the hon. member
for Algoma (Mr. Boyce), the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) and the hon.
member for Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh) voted, though they came in after the question was
put.
Mr. SPEAKER. It will not be proper to record their votes if they came in after the question was
put. I would ask the hon. members whose names have just been mentioned if they were
in the House when the question was put.
8884
Mr. BOYCE. I may say, so far as I was concerned, that there was a very imperfect ring of the
bell.
Mr. SPEAKER. The names of the hon. members for Algoma, Alberta, Calgary and Huntingdon, will
be struck out.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Before the motion is put, I desire to make the same motion in amendment with regard
to clause 16 which I made with regard to the corresponding clause in Bill No. 69,
seconded by
Mr. Cochrane :
That all the words are ' now ' to the end of the question be left out and that the
following word be inserted instead thereof :
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with an instruction that they have power
to strike out section 16 of the Bill and to substitute the following section therefor
:
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply
to the said province in so far as the same are applicable under the terms thereof.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. With the consent of the House we might have the same vote recorded with the same
motion.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I had already suggested that, and I concur. Where the provisions of the Bill are
exactly the same and the motion in amendment is exactly the same, surely we need not
come trooping in to vote again.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Instruction might be given to the clerk to have the same motions and the same votes
recorded on this Bill as on the other Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER. On the understanding that that is the unanimous wish of the House, I direct the
clerk to record the same motions in amendment and the same votes on this Bill as those
on the previous Bill, with the names of the movers and seconders entered.
Amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden) negatived.
That all the words after ' now ' to the end of the question be left out, and that
the following words be inserted instead thereof :
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with an instruction that they have power
to strike out section 2 of the Bill, and to substitute the following section therefor:
2. The provisions of the British North America Act, 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the
province of Saskatchewan in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the
Dominion, except such provisions as in terms or by reasonable intendment are specially
applicable to or affect one or more only and not the whole of the said provinces.
8885 JULY 6, 1905
This is a similar motion to that presented by Mr. Sam. Hughes with reference to
the other Bill. I do not propose to accompany it with any remarks, as the argument
has been made on the other Bill and will
apply with equal force to this.
Amendment negatived, and Bill read the
third time, on division, and passed.
This individual participated in:
