House of Commons, 16 July 1894, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan

[COMMONS] 6080


Sir JOHN THOMPSON moved third reading of Bill (No. 149) further to amend the Act. respecting the North-west Territories.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker. I do not rise to object to anything the Bill contains, but, for the purpose of asking the House to add to the measure an amendment which, I think, on reflection and consideration, the House will believe to be in the public in terest. In 1891 we conferred upon the Legislative Assembly of the North-west Territories almost complete power, power almost as full as that which the provincial bodies enjoy under the scheme of the British North America Act, by which a certain portion of legislative authority is vested in the provinces, while a certain portion of authority is retained by this Parliament. But we did not confer on them any additional authority to that they already enjoyed in the matter of education, and it is in regard to that subject I propose to draw the attention of the House this evening. It cannot too firmly be kept in mind that, according to the scheme of the distribution of legislative authority, the subject of education was declared to be a matter of local concern, and, therefore, properly belonging to the province; and my argument will be that, as we have conferred upon the Legislative Assembly of' the North-west Territories nearly all the power and authority which have been conferred upon the provinces, this power or right to deal with the matter of education should not be withheld. Let me, for a moment. draw the attention of the House to the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act of 1891. By that Act it was determined that the Legislative Assembly " shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, and of any other Act of the Parliament of Canada at any time in force in the Territories, have power to make ordinances for the government of the Territories in relation to the class of subject next hereunto mentioned, that is to say." I want to compare that Act, section by section with 6081 [JULY 16, 1894] 6082 the authority which the provinces possess under the British North America. Act. In the first place, as no. constitution, properly so-called. was given to the Territories, so, of' course, there is no power possessed by them to amend the constitution. The first authority given to a province is to amend its own constitution, and in that regard the Legislature of a province has wider powers than is possessed by this Parliament, because this Parliament has not the power to amend its own constitution. The next power which is conferred by the British North America Act is " taxation within the province in order to raise a revenue for provincial purposes." Upon the Territories we conferred power of direct taxation within the Territories in order to raise a revenue for territorial or municipal or local purposes. So that the great sovereign power, the power of taxation, the power of raising money in that way was conferred upon the Legislative Assembly of the Territories. Then "the borrowing of money on the sole credit of the province " was withheld, because, as I have already had occasion to say with respect to amending the constitution, there being no province, the power to borrow money was very reasonably and very properly withheld. The next is, "the establishment and tenure of provincial offices and the appointment and payment of provincial ofllcers." We gave to the Territories "the establishment and tenure of territorial oflices, and the appointment and payment of territorial oflicers, out of the territorial revenue." Then, the management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province, and of the timber and wood thereupon " are withheld, as in the province of Manitoba. We give, however, " the establishment, maintenance, and management of prisons in and for the province," and "municipal institutions in the territories," while we withhold the " establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals." We give the power to raise a revenue by " shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer, and other licenses." We confer power with respect to "local works and undertakings, other than such as are of the following classes,"—these are not quite the same as apply to a province, but are very nearly so. We confer power with respect to " solemnization of marriage in the provinces," and also in the Territories. We confer power " with respect to property and civil rights," and " with respect to the administration of justice, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in these courts ; but not the power of appointing any judicial oficers." We give authority for enforcing any law to punish " by fine, penalty or imprisonment for enforcing any law of the province made in relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in the section " ; also, " generally matters of a merely local or private nature in the Territories." So it will be seen that, with very few exceptions, and some of those exceptions incident to the fact that autonomy has not yet been fully conferred on the Territories, the same power as the Territories would have if they were a province, has been substantially conferred upon the legislative body which has power to make ordinances in those Territories. With respect to education, we made no change. We left the law with respect to that subject as it has been since 1875, and that law is a most extraordinary one. unprecedented, so far as I know, and one which, I think, ought no longer to remain in force in the Territories. It is compulsory as to separate schools. It enacts that there shall be separate schools. Substantially, its provision is that whatever the majority may be in any locality, it may establish a school known as a public school, and the minority in that locality may establish a separate school. So that there may be in every locality where there are Protestants and Catholics the two school systems. The majority have the right to call theirs a public school, the minority have the right to establish what is called a separate school, and it becomes a separate school in that locality, although it may not be a separate school in any other locality. The exact provision of the clause reads:
But such ordinance shall always provide that the majority of ratepayers of any district, may establish such schools there as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collect-ion of rates therefor; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, may establish separate schools there.
That is a provision which has been the law with regard to the North-west Territories ever since 1875. Now, Sir, let me draw the attention of the House to the present position of the North-west Territories so far as population is concerned. The population of the Territories, according to the last census, is 66,799, of whom 13,008 are Roman Catholics, or not 20 per cent.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. How many Indians are included in the total population ?
Mr. McCARTHY. I do not think the Indians are included in this 66,000.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Well, I do.
Mr. McCARTHY. I may be wrong about that. In British Columbia there are 20,000 Catholics in round numbers, out of a population of 97,000, or over 20 per cent.
Mr. MARA. How many Indians ?
Mr. McCARTHY. I cannot tell the hon. gentleman whether that includes the Indians or not, but he probably can tell me.
Mr. MARA. It does.
6083 [COMMONS] 6084
Mr. McCARTHY. The 97.000 includes the  Indians. and I suppose there are Catholics among the Indians as well as Prostestants
Mr. DALY. The larger proportion are Roman Catholics.
Mr. McCARTHY. So that out of the 20.-  000 Catholics the larger proportion are Indians. according to the information the hon. gentleman gives me, and therefore my figures will be understood in that sense. Then in Manitoba there are 152,000 population. of whom 20,000 are Roman Catholics. or 13 per cent. In New Brunswick, out of   a population of 321,000, there are 115,000 Roman Catholics, or 36 per cent. In Nova   Scotia there are 122.000 Roman Catholics out of a population of 454,000. or 27 per cent of Roman Catholics. In Prince Edward  Island the proportion of Roman Catholics seems still larger. there being 47.000 out of a population of 109,000. That is the pro-  portion of Roman Catholics in these various provinces. But it must be remembered that in the province of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick there is no separate school system. The absolute unlimited control of education is vested there in the Provincial Legislatures. and it is so vested because, according to the scheme of Confederation that being a matter of local concern, was deemed to be one proper to be left to the local authorities. We know that   In Ontario there was a separate school  system at the time of Confederation, and that it was stipulated on the part of those representing the province of Quebec. as I understand it. that that system of separate schools—which in fact  had  been  imposed  upon the province of Ontario by a majority of the representatives from the sister province of Quebec, when they were united as Canada—that that system should be perpetuated, and as a correlative. it was en-  acted that the same system existing for the benefit of the Roman Catholics in Ontario should be established for the benefit of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. So far as these two provinces are   concerned, a special arrangement was entered into as a part of the terms upon which Confederation was established ; but with regard to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia they were left free to deal with the matter of education as to them seemed fit. When  Prince Edward Island was afterwards admitted to the Union, the authority respecting education was left to the Local Legislature in Prince Edward Island. and when British Columbia was brought in, the authority to deal with education unfettered was left to that province, and when we conferred a constitution upon Manitoba we conferred it in the manner which is perfectly familiar now to the House. and which is expounded to be practically. that Manitoba was to have unlimited control in the matter of schools. Now. Sir, why under these circumstances should we fail to trust. or be afraid to trust, the people of the North-west Territories with full and complete power in matters of education ? In the case of almost every other power which it is possible to confer upon the Territories, we have though them  worthy of our confidence. and I want to  know why it is that we think them unworthy of dealing with this matter of education ? I am not here to argue one way or the other with reference to separate  schools. My own view on the subject is   perfectly well known. I would prefer that   there should not be separate schools. I would prefer to see all the children of the land brought up without being divided into hostile camps on the matter of religion ; but I am quite free to say that I would not interfere with any of the provinces, or with the laws or regulations of any province. that in their wisdom think proper to adopt separate schools. It is a matter with   which this Parliament ought to have no concern. The question here is : why should we  insist, because in 1875,  when there was  hardly any population in the Territories at all. and when we governed them from here almost absolutely, why should we now when we have though proper to give them power and authority in matters of legislation ? Why should we in this particular matter of schools withhold from them the full and complete power which I submit is theirs as of right ? I do not propose to occupy the time of the House with anything more than a brief statement—because the subject is pretty well known to us all— a brief statement of the scope and object of my amendment. I have tried for many years past : in  1893. in 1893 and during this session. to have this change made. I did not try before. because I felt it was a matter so local in its nature that until invoked by the Territories to move in the matter, I did not take upon myself to bring the matter to the notice of this House.    But in the year 1890, I   think, the Assembly of the Territories by a  practically unanimous vote, petitioned this Parliament to do away with this clause with reference to education, and to give them  unlimited power to deal with it. and since  that time. from session to session. whenever the Bill has been brought up, petition after petition has been presented to this House. So far as I know. no petition has been presented against that power to deal with education being conferred. We have therefore the request of those who care locally interested that they should have this authority. and having that request from them. there should be some good reason for withholding it.  During the two last sessions the Government introduced a Bill dealing with the North-west Territories, and in neither of  thse Bills did the Government propose to deal with question of schools. and  upon my moving in the matter at the close of the session. the Government thought proper to withdraw the Bill without permitting a discussion on the subject. This year the Government have again introduced their measure : and if I had known that they in 6085 [JULY 16, 1894] 6086 tended to introduce it and pass it through the House I should not have troubled the House by the introduction of a Bill on the subject ; because it seems to me that it is a matter that the Government ought to have dealt with, and if the Government did not think fit to deal with it, the proper time to move an amendment was the time I am now taking, when the Government measure for enlarging to some extent the power and authority of the Legislative Assembly is under the consideration of the House. Now, I want to draw the attention of my hon. friends to a very important. provision. By this legislation we are really rivetting upon the people of the North-west the separate school system for all time. One of the provisions of the constitution with regard to separate schools—a provision which was observed with reference to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and, if my memory serves me rightly, also with reference to Prince Ed ward Island and British Columbia—was that conferring full power on the Provincial Legislatures with reference to education. with this proviso :
If and for each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education subject and according to the following provisions.
This is not merely of application to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. but is of universal application, so far as it is embodied and may be embodied, and probably would be embodied, in any constitution given to any province. Subsection 1 provides:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the Union.
Now, we insist by the clause of the Act of 1875, which has been included in the various consolidations of the legislative powers of the North-west Territories, which have been made from time to time, that they shall have separate schools: and if we continue insisting that that system shall prevail up to the time we create provinces in the North-west. then the application of this clause of the first subsection of section 93 of the British North America Act, to which I have referred, rivets for all time upon the new provinces the system of separate schools. Create a province there now, enact the usual clauses of the British North America Act. and the result will be that in the new province those who have enjoyed what is spoken of as a right or privilege with respect to denominational schools would be able to say: The constitution given to this province by the Dominion Parliament does not permit any interference with any right or privilege which we enjoyed prior to the time of the creation of this province. That, I think. is a. most important consideration. It has been urged, and I have heard it argued : Why not allow this matter to remain until the new province. is created ? Why interfere with the matter so long as there are mere territories ? It will be quite time enough, when we are creating provinces in the North-west, to give them full power in school matters. Well, those who argue in that way will, I think. find it very difficult to contend that the population of the North-west are not as competent as any other population throughout the Dominion to legislate in regard to educational matters. But even if they were not, we ought to leave it to them to select the system of education which they prefer, so that they should not be conducted against their will by the clause of the Act to which I have referred. Nor is it altogether an unimportant matter in another sense. In a sparsely-settled population, such as you have in the North-west, could there be anything more suicidal and foolish than the division of the school population into two separate bodies ? It is difficult enough, no doubt, to educate the children in the North-west, even with one school system. But for the people to divide their resources and to fritter away their means in the establishment and perpetuation of two systems. does appear to me to be the greatest possible folly. and probably more so there than in any other part of the Dominion. Now, what is the position of affairs there at the present time ? And when I say the present time I refer to 1891, the last year for which I have been able to get a report on educational matters in the library—I do not, suppose there has been any important change since then as to the number and the division of the schools. According to this report there were 210 Protestant public schools and 34 Roman Catholic public schools: and when I speak of the public school, it is the school of the majority. In the North-west, unlike the province of Ontario, there is not one. set of public schools and another set of separate schools; but there may be a Protestant public school in one locality, and a Roman Catholic public school in the adjoining locality, and the school of the minority will be the separate school, whatever it. may be. Now, I cannot find that there are in the North-west any separate schools of Protestants; however. my hon. friends who come from the Territories will be able to correct me on that point. The Protestants have not availed themselves of their privilege of establishing separate schools, and the result is that either their children have to so without schooling or have to attend the Roman Catholic schools in places where the Roman Catholics are in the majority. But there are eleven Roman Catholic separate schools: and I think the House will be astounded to learn the cost at which these schools are maintained. Now, at Lacomb, which I believe is the term used by the separate school party for Calgary, if I am correctly informed, the daily average attendance at the separate school is 94. and the cost per pupil, $29.53. In the Protestant public school the average attendance is 159, and the cost per pupil, $18.65. So that for the separate school the cost per pupil is $10.88 more than for 6087 [COMMONS] 6088 the public school. No doubt that is owing to the fact that the public school is the larger ; but join these two schools together, and the cost of both would be materially reduced. And that is by no means the worst example of division. In Prince Albert the average attendance in the Protestant public school is 78, and the average cost per pupil, $33.55 : the separate school has an average attendance of 11, with a cost of $48.58, or $15.03 per pupil more in the separate school than in the public school. Well, these are the places that I am able to trace and compare the public school system with the separate school system. because the names are not identical, and I have not been able to trace the others and to make any comparison with them. But let me give the House the statement of one or two schools here. Catholic separate schools. At the school called St. Andrew's —I do not know where it is—the average attendance is nine and the average cost $56.25 per pupil. At the school called St. Peter's the average attendance is seven and the cost per pupil $58.96.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Are those Indian schools ?
Mr. McCARTHY.I fancy not. They are put down as Roman Catholic separate schools. They are not Indian schools, no doubt.
Mr. FERGUSON. Have you any idea of the locality of these two schools ?
Mr. McCARTHY. I have not.
Mr. FERGUSON. They may be at very remote points.
Mr. MCCARTHY. No, because there is a larger Protestant population there than Catholic population, or there would not be separate schools.
Mr. FERGUSON. Can you give us a comparison of the cost of the pupils in the Protestant public and Catholic public schools?
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes; but I first want to draw the attention of the. House to the cost in Ontario of the schools. In Ontario the cost per pupil is $8.40. I think it is only fair to tell the House that I understand that calculation has been made, not upon the average attendance, but upon the average number; but working it out upon the average attendance, the cost would not be more than $14 or $15 per pupil.
Mr. MASSON. Is that the provincial cost alone ?
Mr. MCCARTHY. Everything—the Legislative grant, the municipal School grants, and assessments, the clergy reserve fund, and everything. The cost is put down for 1892 at $8.40 per pupil, but I understand that is based upon the total number of pupils and not upon the average attendance, whereas in this table, in the public schools here. it is based upon the average attendance. My hon. friend (Mr. Ferguson) wanted to know what the cost of the public schools is compared with the cost of separate schools.
Mr. FERGUSON. Pardon me, I want the cost of the public Catholic schools and the cost of the public Protestant schools.
Mr. McCARTHY. The public schools or each denomination. At Moose Jaw the cost is $11 per pupil ; at Qu'Appelle, $16.76.
Mr. FERGUSON. Pardon me again. Can the hon. gentleman give it to us territorially divided.
Mr. McCARTHY. I have not worked that up.
Mr. FERGUSON. That does not amount to anything at all.
Mr. McCARTHY. My hon. friend will treat that as he pleases. I give it to him just as 1 find it here. It is $11 or perhaps $14. as the figures are not very clear. I find another school at Regina. is $33. then I find a school at $21, and one at $17, and running down the column I find one as low as $6.64. and another as high as $35. where the attendance is twelve. I think probably that is the highest in the list.
Mr. FERGUSON. Is that a Protestant school ?
Mr. MCCARTHY. I am speaking of Protestant schools now.
Mr. FERGUSON. They are getting the most after all
Mr. MCCARTHY. I was speaking of the highest among the Protestant schools. My hon. friend is assuming the part of an advocate before he learns the facts.
Mr. FERGUSON. We will get the facts before you sum up.
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Take the other schools—public Catholic schools. The first one shows a cost of $55.75 per pupil. The school at Saskatchewan costs $46.76 per pupil. The school at St. Albert costs $21.21 per pupil. That at St. Leon $56 per pupil, and that at St. Laurent $64.28. There is no doubt that the average cost of the Roman Catholic public schools was larger a good deal than that of the Protestants. No doubt about that, but I do not think that is a matter of comparison so much as the comparison between public schools and separate schools. Where we find both these in the one locality, we find the difference in cost, which I have given the House, and that difference is enormously in favour of the public school system, and we can easily conclude that if there were but one school system instead of two, the cost would be proportionately less. Now the total amount spent by this Parliament in school matters is over $100,000, so that the question appeals 'to us from the economic point of view. $101,696 is the total amount we have granted apparently for educational purposes in the 6089 [JULY 16, 1894] 6090 North-west, and the House can judge, from the statement I have given, whether the expenditure is a wise or foolish one. Of that expenditure, the amount spent on the Protestant schools is 73.20 per cent, and on the Catholic 26.28 per cent, both public and separate. Therefore my conclusion is that whatever way you look at it, this question—and I desire not to raise any irritation or excite any passions, but simply that the matter should be discussed on its merits—whatever way we look at it, I am unable to see or appreciate any argument or reason why we should not rid ourselves of this question from Dominion politics, and hand the dealing with education to where it properly belongs. I therefore beg to move an amendment, which will carry out that provision. I propose to make the amendment fit in with the Bill which we are now asked to read a third time. The first provision of that Bill is as follows :—
3. Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph seven of subsection one of the section substituted by section six of chapter twenty-two of 1891, for section thirteen of The North-west Territories Act, is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor :-—Railway Companies, (not including tramway and street railway companies) and steamboats, canal, transportation, irrigation companies.
That is the additional power conferred upon the Territories by this section, one of the powers that we withheld from the Territories having been the incorporation of railway, steamboat, canal and transportation companies, and the effect of this amendment will be that the Territories will have power to incorporate tramways and street railway companies. Now, I propose to add :
That the said Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend the same by adding to the first section the words following: "and said subsection is further amended by inserting therein after the thirteenth paragraph thereof the words following :
14. In relation to education. But this amendment shall not take effect until after the next genera election of members of the Legislative Assembly of the North-west Territories.
2. And by amending the second section thereof by inserting the words "fourteen and" after the word "section" in the first line thereof.
That will be to repeal the law with regard to education as it is now found in the Statute- book. I move this, seconded by Mr. Denison.
Mr. HUGHES. In rising to offer an amendment, I need not say, Sir, that I do so fully recognizing the position of the House as to this question. We have had this question before us for some years. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. McCarthy) has on more than one occasion given notice of his intention to move amendments to this North-west Territories Act. But, until the present time, the House has never been favoured with the opportunity of hearing the hon. gentleman's views or his arguments in support of them. The hon. gentleman has rightly stated that two years ago he gave notice of a motion to bring in a Bill abolishing the control of this House in relation to separate schools in the Northwest Territories, to amend the Act in the manner he now proposes to do. You may remember, however, Mr. Speaker, during the whole session, those of us who were anxious to take part in the discussion of that question had to sit here awaiting the convenience of the hon. gentlemen, until finally we were very much surprised one evening to have the House called together to deal with the subject. the only warning that we were to have the question under discussion being the simple announcement, "call in the members." It had been my intention on that occasion, had the opportunity been afforded, to move an amendment in the line I now propose. But, as I said, no opportunity was afforded me ; the members were obliged to vote one way or the other on the question, and that without warning. We also remember, Sir, how last session we were called upon day after day to be in our places in the House in anticipation and expectation of the hon. gentleman from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) bringing on his motion. But the matter was allowed to drift until the close of the session and nothing was done. Then, on that occasion, as on the present, the hon. gentleman showed but little interest in the affairs of the House, his attendance being evidently with the desire of getting in his motion in the closing hours of the session, when it could not be discussed, and when, as now, there would be a very small House to discuss the question. I need not comment further—it is not proper I should— than to say that is the seeming object in bringing in his motion at the time and in the manner he does. Ample opportunity has been afforded this session, as in former sessions, to have this matter brought up and discussed calmly and fully when the members would not be hurried, as at the present time, when a member occupying the time of the House even for a few minutes is subject to the odium in the minds of his comrades, who wish to bring the session to a close, of occupying time unnecessarily. But, that aside, the proposition of the hon. gentleman is to relegate to the Territories control in matters of education. Now, Sir, from the view-point on which I stand, that seems an objectionable proposal. So far as secular education is concerned, I go as far as the hon. gentleman does, possibly I go further than he does, in relegating that to the control of the Territories. But, in regard to theological education in the public schools, when the hon. gentleman proposes to hand that over to the Territorial Legislature, I certainly differ from him, and 6091 [COMMONS] 6092 I shall endeavour in as brief a manner as possible to give my views on these points. I shall outline briefly my reasons for differing from the hon. gentleman, reasons jotted down, as his arguments were given in the course of the address to which we have just listened. In the first place, if the hon. member's motion is passed, we recognize as he does, the right of those Territories to establish separate schools. That right I deny as being entirely subversive of the principles of responsible Government, and good Government in any form. He also leaves it an open question with the Territories and provinces arising therefrom to establish these schools. I shall endeavour, as I proceed, to show that this idea is fallacious. If the Territories, following out the views of the hon. gentleman, were given this control of education, and at the time of their establishment as provinces, by their own act, only one system of public schools was recognized, the obnoxious principle of separate schools might still find root in the North-west Territories as in the province of New Brunswick and in the province of Nova Scotia to-day. Both of these provinces have asserted the principle of public schools, and yet, Sir, you will find that virturally they have their separate schools, theological institutions, in the city of St. John, Moncton and other parts throughout the province. We find in the city of St. John that the Roman Catholic convents are leased to the public school board of that place—I know whereof I speak. and this is true not only of St. John, but of other places in the Maritime Provinces—and the Sisters and Brothers are hired, and are regularly on the staff of the public schools as teachers. Thus, though in name there are no separate schools, the principle of separate schools is established in the province of New Brunswick. And there is an agitation springing up now causing dissension among the people. an agitation which, I fear, will go a long way toward creating unrest throughout this country. More than that, Sir, the policy of the hon. gentleman, if adopted, would allow of the taxes collected from the people being used for theological purposes, and that, of course, I object to. The hon. gentleman recognizes that theological or sectarian teaching is part of national education, and that is a point in which I would differ from him. I hold that our object should be the total severance of theological teaching from our national system of education. I think no one will gainsay this point—that it is the duty of the state to recognize how the citizens of this country shall be trained. In declaring for a Dominion franchise—whatever the faults may be found in the details—we have declared our right to say that the citizen in Nova Scotia shall stand before the country on the same footing as the citizen in British Columbia or any other part of the Dominion. We have asserted that we have the right as a nation to lay down the rules that guide our citizenship. Now, no doubt, in the old days, the church controlled state affairs, and it remained part and parcel of the state machinery, and the only education one could find was the little smattering in the church. There were scarcely any schools except for the purpose of training people for the clerical profession and a few state functions, and education was very limited. The church in those days controlled the whole machinery of education, and the theological part of education was considered, as it is even down to our own day, to be by all odds the most important. But times are changed, and we now find that the people of the nation recognize that the children of the land should be educated, not only in matters of church form, but in various other interests of life. As time advanced, we find a little reading, writing and arithmetic taught in the schools, and there education ended. Now, however, we find that not only are children trained intellectually, but that attention is given to sanitary matters, and they are trained in the broad political principles of the nation, and taught the municipal, provincial and national institutions under which we live. We even go further and admit that it is necessary to train them morally or ethically, that they may be able to distinguish between right and wrong , and that each may know his duty towards his fellow men. This, in short, is the difference in the aim of the education of to-day, and the aim of the education of a number of years ago. But that the state should tax the people for the purpose of inculcating any theological creed or dogma, is something that I am satisfied is, if not of the past, will be of the past in a very few years, in this land. Now, in dealing with this matter of separate schools in Canada, we find ourselves confronted not only with the question of religion, but also with the question of race; and here I may be permitted to say a word on this latter point. Some of our French- Canadian fellow-citizens take it as a personal attack upon their rights when any opposition is offered to separate schools. Now, it is not long since I had the pleasure of reading a report. I think it was of the Roman Catholic Committee of the Council of Public Instruction of the province of Quebec, where the very best men in that province demanded that the theological control of the schools should be abolished, and that the teachers should be trained just as they are in other provinces of the Dominion ; that the clerical control so long exercised over the schools there, should be, if not entirely abolished, at least largely abolished. However, I wish to touch briefly on this question of French nationality. It is a myth. Our French-Canadian fellow- citizens are of the same race and lineage as are those of British origin. France was originally settled by the Celtic race, so were the British Islands : in other words, we find one the Britannia major and the other 6093 [JULY 16, 1894] 6094 Britannia minor. Then we find France overrun by the Teutonic races ; the Francs, the Goths, Burgundians and. other peoples from the forests and plains of Germany. The same or kindred peoples we also find settling in Britain, the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes, at exactly the same period, all kindred races exactly. Later on we find France settled largely by the Norsemen or Normans. as they are called in history, all along the valley of the Seine, along the shores of the Bay of Biscay, and even around the southern part of France. That large infusion of Scandinavians or Norsemen flowing into France, has made her largely what she is to-day. We find the identical people settling in Britain under the names of Danes, or Swedes and Scandinavians. Following on down there is an infusion of those Norman people into England, and then we find a return movement in the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, during which there were settlements in France from Britain even up to the days of the Henrys. So that so far as race and blood are concerned, the two peoples are identical, and the cry of difference of race, when viewed in the light of history, must necessarily vanish. Now, language is another point on which great stress is laid. I stand here prepared to indorse any system that will, in any legitimate manner, encourage the study of the French language. A child who speaks and understands one language well, is educated, but a child who understands two languages well is better educated. It has been said that a child who understands three or four languages knows nothing at all ; but, at the same time, I am free to say that it is an advantage to any one to be able to understand and speak two languages well. I would be the last man, the last member of this House, either by voice or vote, to seek to deprive my French-Canadian fellow-citizens of any right they enjoy in the province of Quebec or the Northwest Territories, of educating their children in their mother tongue. You can box the compass on religion every morning if you choose, but language cannot be changed short of a lifetime. Therefore, this question is one that we must necessarily leave to settle itself ; and in the years to come I am satisfied that you will see a language neither all English nor all French, but a language strengthened by the best elements of the two tongues, and the people will be the better for it. Now, in discussing this question many considerations must necessarily be touched upon, and what I propose to say I shall say with all due regard to every man's faith and every man's creed. I have no desire to interfere in the slightest with any man's creed or theology ; I would not tolerate any man interfering with mine ; and, therefore, I would not in the slightest interfere with any man's theology. If, therefore, in reviewing these matters. I should say anything that might be considered harsh, or that is not generally discussed on the floor of this House., I trust that those who differ from me will recognize that I am only dealing with historical facts, and not with a desire to hurt any one's feelings. Many of our fellow- citizens, the moment you talk of separate schools, raise their hands in holy horror and proclaim that their religion is attacked, that an attempt is made to abolish their church. Well, Sir, I maintain that a church, be it Protestant or Roman Catholic, or be it of any other denomination, that cannot stand without being bolstered up by the state, should vanish, and the sooner it vanishes the better for all concerned. Now, the contention that the French religion is synonymous with Romanism is also a myth. Let us review history, and you will find that up to the sixteenth century the people of France fought heroically against being subjected to the tyranny of the Romish Church. We find that as late as the sixteenth century the people of France held out heroically against being subjected to the control of the Church of Rome. Away back, before the end of the first century there were over a hundred creeds. Early in the fourth century we find the famous Council of Nice called, and even then, just as in the present day, we find theologians quarrelling ; there has been a standing quarrel from that day to this, and so it will be until the end of the chapter. I will mention another very important fact, from which I date the rise of what you may call the assumption of temporal power on the part of the Roman Church. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that early in the fourth century the capital of the Roman Empire was changed from the city of Rome. to Constantinople. We find at about the same time that Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, adopted the Christian faith, and that the hangers-on of the Government and the great majority of the priests of the old heathen religion boxed the compass and turned with him. That has been the rule from the time of Constantine down to to-day. About that time we find the whole Roman empire divided into metropolitan divisions, and a metropolitan placed over each of those divisions. The capital was removed from Rome to Constantinople. We find almost the only authority existing in Rome to be the bishop of the church ; from that time dated the power of the church in Rome and its assumption of power in the Western Empire. During succeeding years we find various attempts made by the priests of the Christian Church to fasten themselves on western Europe. Shortly after this time we find the church ready to support the party prepared to pay the highest price for its support—just as we do today. The price to be paid for the support of the church has not changed from that day down to the present. In the eighth century we find the church extend 6095 [COMMONS] 6096 ing its power to France. We find the Pope of Rome, fearing there would be a unification of Italy under the Lombard princes, formed an alliance in order to secure his authority in Europe. In return for assistance given in favour of the Pope of Rome against the Lombard princes in northern Italy, Romagna and Ancona, the Pope gave two provinces to his ally, and thus began the temporal power of the Church of Rome. From that date, step by step, we find that church gradually becoming stronger—I will not enter into all the historical facts connected with it—and gradually becoming, age after age, more intolerant, until, in the eleventh century it absolutely refused to recognize the control of the Emperor. Up to that time, it is well known that every priest and bishop and even the Pope himself was elected by the people or appointed by the Emperor. They claim no divine right to rule, as they do at the present time. In the middle of the eighth century we find the temporal power of the church established, and it continued to be so down to 1870, until the unification of Italy, when Victor Emmanuel changed his capital from Florence to Rome, and from that date to this, the Church of Rome has gradually ceased to be a temporal power. Having entered into this historical review, we need not go further ; I could go into details and show how, step by step, this power was assumed, and this divine right was assumed, but it is not necessary. We find ourselves in Canada suffering from the misgovernment and mismanagement of by-gone ages. I have no antipathy whatever to any of our Roman Catholic citizens or to the citizens of any church, but when it comes to our having our schools governed by that church—I will not go into the details, although I have all the figures here—and when it is apparent that extra cost is incurred, that bad management prevails and other objections arise, I object to this state of things, especially in a sparsely-settled country—but I need not go into these facts as they have already been stated by the last speaker, and are very well known. But there are very many objections that are very properly urged to any such system being perpetuated in this country. We find that separate schools were established as a compromise measure. In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec they are established, and I suppose they will remain until some time in future years when they will vanish of their own accord, when the people will have become so broad and liberal that a system of theological government will not be tolerated. But in the North-west, the matter is entirely different ; in the Territories there is no need of compromise. I can easily see why, in the early days of the province of Quebec separate schools were established. We have two races in that province, English-speaking and French-speaking people, and I can easily see how the question might readily arise of establishing separate schools, based on the question of language ; but I cannot see any reason why such schools should be based on theology, as subsequently was the case. As regards language, the two races were about evenly divided—language on the one hand and theology on the other. The English- speaking people, mostly Protestants, and the French-speaking mostly Roman Catholic, and it is very easy to see how the school question gradually developed into the form it subsequently assumed, when Roman Catholic and Protestant separate schools were established. I do not wish to be misunderstood— do not desire to be understood as being in favour of Protestant separate schools or Protestant control of schools ; but my theory is this, that there should be no theological control whatever in connection with schools. I shall endeavour to submit a few points to support my view. It is our duty to teach the youth of the land, intellectually. The question of theology cannot possibly arise in teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, or, in tact, teaching any of the subjects that form our school curriculum. History is the only subject on which any difference of opinion can possibly exist, and even in regard to that I am satisfied an arrangement could he arrived at which would be perfectly satisfactory to persons of all creeds and forms of theology. Therefore, no question can be raised by any theologian on subjects which we may call intellectual in our public schools. There can be no possible objection to teaching sanitary laws or physical laws relating to disease, and the development of the human frame in our schools. Those are recognized to-day by all theologians as being proper, and certainly theology does not enter into those subjects; therefore, Protestants and Roman Catholics can attend such schools without straining their consciences. Moreover, it is well recognized that the principles of government should be thoroughly instilled in the minds of the youth, and theology cannot possibly enter into the principles of government ; and i am satisfied that no one should, for a moment, object to the teaching of that subject. It is said, look at what the free school system in the United States has produced. I point to the United States as a country carrying out the free school system. The men who are causing the dissensions and troubles in the United States, are not men who were educated under the free school system of the United States, but they are the offscourings of theological institutions in the countries of Europe. I speak of every theology, not caring what it may be. There is an old saying which is this :
Of all ills with which mankind is cursed Ecclesiastical tyranny is the worst.
If you can point me in history, anywhere. and find the beneficial results of any such teaching, then I am prepared to admit I am 6097 [JULY 16, 1894] 6098 in error. These strikes in the United States and these anarchist troubles that reveal themselves all over the country are the product of those who have been brought up in countries ruled by theological institutions.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Mr. Speaker, I protest against such language.
Mr. AMYOT. The gentleman attacks Protestant theology as well as Catholic.
Mr. HUGHES. One as well as the other.
Mr. AMYOT. Go on.
Mr. HUGHES. There is no objection whatever that can be urged on the part of any theologian to the teaching of morality. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Long before we found any of the precepts of theologians that are blessing or injuring the world, long before these theologies were introduced on the face of the earth, we found right, right, and wrong, wrong. Morality as taught in our schools cannot be objected to from a theological point of view. For the benefit of some of our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens who might object to the absence of the teaching of morality in the schools, I wish to read what a very eminent writer says on the subject of the teaching of morality, and when his name is mentioned it will prove acceptable to the great majority of the members of that faith. Mr. Lilly, one of the leading members of the Jesuit branch of the Roman Catholics in England, says:
The ethics of Christianity are not, as Mr. John Morley somewhere calls them, " a mere appendage to a set of theological mysteries." They are independent of those mysteries, and would subsist to all eternity, though Christianity and all other religions were swept into oblivion. The moral law is ascertained, not from aimonncements of prophets, apostles, evangelists, but from a natural and permanent revelation of the reason. " Natural reason," says Suarez, in his great treatise De Legibus, "indicates what is in itself good or bad for men ;" or, as elsewhere in the same work, he expresses it : " Natural reason indicates what is good or bad for a rational creature." The great fundamental truths of ethics are necessary, like the great fundamental truths of mathematics. They do not proceed from the arbitrary will of God. They are unchangeable, even by the flat of the Omnipotent. The moral precepts of Christianity do not derive their validity from the Christian religion. They are not a corollary from its theological creed. It is mere matter of fact, patent to every one who will look into his Bible, that Jesus Christ and his apostles left no code of ethics. The Gospels and Epistles do not yield even the elements of such a code. Certain it is that when, in the expanding Christian society, the need arose for an ethical synthesis, resource was had to the inexhaustible fountains of wisdom opened by the Hellenic mind.  
The clearness, the precision of pyschological analysis, which distinguish the ethics of the Catholic schools, are due more to Aristotle and Plato, than to Hebrew prophets or Christian apostles.
I merely cite that to show that even among eminent writers and theologians in the Roman Catholic church the question of morality is not necessarily connected with the teaching of theology, so that so far as the teaching of morals is concerned our schools could very well be spared the trouble. Now, Sir, it may be asked, why is it that the church is so anxious to control the teaching of theology in our schools ? Of course it is a relic of the old days and they do not care to give it up. In fact none of these principles have been given up without a struggle. During the last 200 years, since the overthrow of theological control in relation to education, the world has made more progress than in all the previous years of its existence. That fact alone I would urge in opposition, to any control on the part of theologians in our schools ; any control other than as citizens of this country. We may well ask: have theologians any confidence in their own principles ? If they have, why do they seek to take advantage of the public schools of the country in order to inculcate their principles. They have their various meetings every day during the week, and they have the Sunday schools in which to control the children, and yet we find they are not satisfied with that, but that they wish to control the public schools of the country in relation to the matters of their theology. They certainly should not fear intelligent public criticism, if their dogmas are right they should not be afraid to have them fearlessly criticised. There is one other reason why we should not have this system of separate schools, either Protestant or Roman Catholic, for I do not make any exception to either one or the other. There is the question of vested rights. The record shows that every year these separate schools in the North-west are increasing in numbers, and by the time we come to establish these Territories as provinces, we will find that these schools have taken such firm root that it will be all but impossible for this Government to eradicate them. I could point to the record of Ontario—but I shall not take up the time of the House to go into that aspect of the case—to show that separate schools instead of unifying and upbuilding the nation, divide it, and create a citizenship inside of a citizenship owing allegiance, not necessarily to the nation, but to a foreign power. I contend that separate schools are unnecessary, and especially where settlement is very sparse. Many of these schools in the North west Territories have not more than seven or eight children attending them, and yet you will find that in some localities Protestant children—because there are no Protestant separate schools there, and I hope there never will be—are forced to walk many miles in order to attend the public schools, because the schools in their own sections are Roman Catholic ones. I am informed by many people who come from the North-west, and I am informed by Roman Catholics in the province of Quebec, that neither in the province of Quebec nor in the North-west do they demand 6099 [COMMONS] 6100 theological schools . The Roman Catholic people themselves do not ask them, and, therefore, I do not see why they should be forced upon them. This is a new country, and in a new country we should be very careful what groundwork we lay down, and we should examine very critically into the question of allowing these theologians of any denomination to control our schools, for the seed planted in early days is very hand to eradicate in later years. I maintain that separate schools are contrary to the principles of responsible government. Responsible government recognizes the individuality of each citizen and separate schools train the youth of the land, not to recognize that individuality which is necessary for true citizenship. Therefore, I maintain that children trained in separate schools are not likely to be as good or as loyal citizens, ready to sacrifice their whole independence for the country, as those trained in public schools. Another point I am pleased to say that not only do we find several branches of the Christian church to-day denying the right of the state directly or indirectly to recognize any church, but we find many individuals in other religious bodies which do not take the same stand. stepping out and refusing to accept from the state any recognition of churches. I trust that it will not be long before all the churches, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, will take the same line and agree to abolish separate schools, not only in the North-west, but in these provinces. Another point. In separate schools the control of the youth is abdicated to the theologians— there is no getting round that point—and in that way the children are brought up not to recognize the parental authority and the state authority as supreme, but to recognize the church as overshadowing both the state and the home and as the great fountain of authority. The church to-day has a high recognition, owing to the respect we all show the clergy, from the position they occupy: and if their doctrines are as they should be, they should not ask for more. They have a certain amount of superstitious regard—I do not use the word improperly— tendered to them by people of all denominations, so that the utterances from the clergy go further, and are received with less criticism, than the utterances of ordinary citizens. Therefore, I maintain that they should not ask for any special privilege in relation to the schools of this country, on account of the position they already hold in the minds of the people. Separate schools, Sir, create a nation inside of a nation. Before separate schools existed in this country the youth of all creeds and doctrines were loyal to the core; but today we find, unfortunately, springing up in various localities a spirit which looks to the church before it looks to the state. In other words, we find the ultramontane spirit growing up in many parts of Canada to-day, and recognizing the Government of Canada, not as the paramount authority, but as secondary to other authori ties. Another point is this : If one creed has separate schools, then all must have them. The schools of the North-west are wrong, even on the basis of separate schools, for they are recognized simply as Protestant and Roman Catholic schools. But if one creed is entitled to separate schools, then all are : the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Anglican, the Baptist and all other denominations have an equal right to demand them. Therefore, I maintain that the present basis for separate schools, if separate schools are to be recognized, is entirely wrong. I advance these arguments to show the absurdity of the whole principle of separate schools.   Now. there is another aspect of this matter. If the older provinces seek to force the system of separate schools on the North-West Territories. I feel satisfied that the day is not far distant when those territories will be peopled with a race that will not tolerate separate schools. It does not require much of a prophet to foresee that in the near future the North—west Territories will have. a much more predominant population than they have to-day, and it is well for us in the older provinces to consider, if we seek to impose separate schools on the people of those territories at the present time. whether they will not in the near future come down here and say : we will abolish your separate schools. In other words. they may retaliate in the coming years, as I have no doubt they will in any event. Another important point is this : Every session in Canada, so long as I remember, we have found one province arrayed against. another and one theology against another, owing to this creed interference in state affairs, and, Sir, look at it as you will, get round it as you may, compromise as you will, and concede any point you deem it necessary to concede, the question of these theological influences is eternally cropping up in this country. I maintain that the true position is that every man should, as I trust every man does. worsnip God according to the dictates of his own conscience. and that there should be entire separation of church and state in all matters. and that can only be brought about by abolishing all separate schools. Another objection to separate schools is this: You may remember that the American revolutionary war was brought about because the people were taxed without representation. They were free men, and they refused to pay taxes without representation. The contrary principle, I maintain, should hold good, that no taxation should carry with it no representation. We find, however, that the separate schools in Ontario and also in the North-west, are governed by the clergy, and the clergy in both Ontario and the Northwest are exempt from taxation. Therefore, we find a set of men, we may almost say a sovereign body, governing without being taxed. That principle is wrong. We also find the other principle in this fact : that the Roman Catholic people of the country are taxed. while they have not their share of 6101 [JULY 16, 1894] 6102 representation in the government of these schools. Another very important point is this: We find that these Roman Catholic schools are almost entirely under the control of church orders. That undoubtedly closes many avenues of life to young men and young women of the Roman Catholic faith. These people have not the same privileges in the way of rising in the world as their Protestant fellow—citizens. We find our Protestant young men and women engaging in the teaching profession and becoming ornaments of society; while in almost all these Roman Catholic schools the teaching is done largely by members of church orders, and this closes that important avenue to young men and young women of that faith. I could go further; but I will not take up the time of the House with any more arguments on this subject. I am well aware, Sir, that any man who stands up and differs in the slightest degree from those who favour separate schools, or attempts to put the brake on theological interference in the control of the community, will be called intolerant, and have the finger of scorn pointed at him. However, although I do not expect, I may inform the House my amendment to carry just at present, I am satisfied that the day is not far distant when the question of the separation of State and Church will be one of the live issues of this Dominion. I am satisfied that the people will rise above all petty matters and advantages that are now flung around this, and will recognize no man's creed but look on him simply as a citizen of Canada. That is the only true basis here, I care not what a man's creed may be, but only what his politics are. I have set an example of this in my political career. So long as a man stands forth and takes a straight line in relation to public affairs, I shall support him. irrespective of what religious creed he may profess in his private life. But once I find a community governed by theological opinions. or questions of state made subservient to questions of theological concern. then I must respectfully beg to express my opposition to that state of affairs. We are all citizens of Canada and should stand forth as such, and place ourselves on record before the country as public men, and not as members of any religious organization. I therefore beg to move the following amendment :—
That all the words in the amendment be struck out and the following inserted instead thereof : " That the said Bill be not now read the third time, but : recognizing, that the fullest powers relating to education, consistent with the well-being of the Dominion of Canada as a whole should be conferred on the provincial and territorial Legislatures ; and that those powers should involve the training of the youth :—
(1.) Intellectually, that each one may know how to read, write, cipher and be instructed in geography, history, language and literature.
(2.) Physically, that- t-here may be sound bodies for sound minds.
(3.) Politically, that each one may understand the duties and rights of citizenship, and be familiar with the various educational, judicial, municipal, provincial and federal forms, powers and functions of government in Canada.
(4.) Ethically or morally, that each may know right from wrong, and understand man's duty towards his fellow man.
And further recognizing that from a national view-point it is wrong and contrary to the spirit of responsible government to confer upon a provincial or territorial Legislature, authority to establish or to enact to establish a system of separate or denominational schools wherein theology or creed may be taught.
That the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend section 14, subsection 1, of the North-west Territories Act by omitting all the words in the subsection after the words " provided that " in line 3, and inserting the following : " No authority shall be vested in the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or the Legislative Assemhly of the Territories to pass ordinances or to enact laws permitting or authorizing or recognizing the teaching or the ractising of any creed, or theology, or sectarian orms in any educational institution receiving public support, and that separate or denominational schools supported in whole or in part by public taxation or receiving any support from national, provincial, territorial, municipal or local taxation may not be established."
In moving that amendment I do not for a moment profess that I will receive much support: in this House. I would be very much surprised if I did. But whoever lives to stand on the floor of this House in the near future, will find that the sentiments embodied in that resolution, are the sentiments that will carry, not only on the floor of this House but in the Dominion of Canada.
House divided on amendment to amendment of Mr. Hughes :
Hughes, McDonald (Assiniboia).—2.
Allan. Henderson, Amyot, Ingram, Bain (Soulanges). Innes, Baker (Wentworth), Ives, Beausolcil, Joncas, Béchard, Kenny, Beith, Lachapelle, Belley, Langevin (Sir Hector) , Bergeron, LanRiviere, Bernier, Laurrer, Blanchard, Leclair, Boston, Leduc, Boyd, Legris Brodeur, Lippé. Brown,   Macdonald (Huron), Bruueau, McCarthy,   Bryson, McDougald (Pictou). Calvin, McDougall (Cape Breton), Carignan. McLennan. Carling (Sir John), McMillan, Caron (Sir Adolphe), McMullen, Carroll, Mcheill,
6103 [COMMONS] 6104
Cartwright (Sir Richard), Madill, Casey, Mara, Charlton, Marshall, Chesley, Masson, Choquette, Metcalfe, Christie, Mignault, Cleveland, Mills (Bothwell), Costigan, Monet, Craig, Montague, Curran, Mulock, Daly, Ouimet, Davin, Patterson (Colchester), Davis, Patterson (Huron), Dawson, Pelletier, Delisle, Pope, Denison, Prior, Desaulniers, Proulx, Devlin, Rider, Dickey, Rinfret , Dugas, Robillard, Dupont, Rosamond, Earle, Ross (Dundas), Edgar, Ross (Ligar), Fairbairn, Rowand, Featherston, San born, Ferguson (Leeds & Gren.), Semple, Ferguson (Renfrew), Simard, Flint, Smith (Ontario), Foster, Somerville, Fréchette, Sproule, Fremont, Stairs, Geoffrion, Sutherland, Gillies, Tarte, Girouard (Jacques Cartier), Taylor, Girouard (Two Mountains), Thompson (Sir John), Godbout, Tisdale, Grandbois, Tupper (Sir C. Hibbert), Grant (Sir James), Turcotte, Guay, Tyrwhitt, Guillet, Wilmot, Haggart, Wood (Brockville),—l31. Harwood.
Amendment negatived.
And the question being put on the amendment.
Mr. AMYOT. I shall only detain the House for a very few moments. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) asks that full liberty be given to the North-west Territories to legislate in the matter of the schools. I am glad he has put the question so clearly and distinctly. The hon. gentleman quoted section 93 of the Confederation Act, and I admit the interpretation he gave to it. He has admitted that that clause gives forever to the provinces, which will enter into the Dominion, the right to separate schools. But he says that since we have given to the North-west Territories nearly all the rights which we have given to the other provinces, we ought also to give it the control over education. That is, if I understand it rightly, the stand the hon. gentleman has taken. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is this—and I am surprised that it is not more generally understood by the adversaries of separate schools—that when we established Confederation we established the autonomy of the provinces, guaranteeing to the provinces exclusive right and control of all matters assigned to them. But, so far as education is concerned, we have extended the principle of autonomy further yet, we have extended it to the father of the family, and have virtually declared that each father of a family shall be the supreme master of his children, and may send them to the school that pleases him. To make certain that the Local Legislatures shall not use their majorities to infringe upon the privilege of the father of the family, we, the Parliament of Canada, have remained the trustees and guardians of his rights. We cannot interfere with the provinces in matters assigned to them, but in relation to education, the principle is extended further and it is for us to see that the rights of the father of the family are protected. Does the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) understand me ?
Mr. AMYOT. In matters of education, for fear some ill-advised people, bigots or fanatics, moved by whatever motives, should try to deprive the father of the family of his sacred right to educate his children as he pleases, we have constituted the Parliament of Canada the protector of that right. So that upon us is thrown the moral obligation and duty of preventing the provinces from taking the money of the parents to teach their children in any other language or religion than that which the parents desire. I am glad the hon. member has admitted that this section applies to the whole of the Dominion not only as it was originally constituted but as it was intended to be constituted later on, and will even apply to Keewatin district when it is made a province. The preamble of the Act says :
And whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts of British North America.
And if the hon. gentleman reads section 146 he will see that provision was made for the admission of Rupert's Land and the North-west Territories, which included the present province of Manitoba, and it was provided that this should be on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act. I will add only one word. The hon. member for North Simcoe must remember that by this House and by the Senate of Canada it was promised most faithfully that the Parliament of Canada would be ready to provide that the legal rights of any corporation, company or individual within the same shall be respected and placed under the protection of courts of competent jurisdiction. One of these rights was the right of education and another was the right to speak French or English. The hon. gentleman knows that all the Acts concerning Manitoba and the North-west have referred to the British North America Act and to that address of both Houses. I remember that at that time some doubts were expressed as to the meaning of the phrase. but does the hon. gentleman not remember the interpretation that Lord Granville gives it in his letter to Sir John Young? I need not take the time of the House to read the letter I speak of. The hon. gentleman 6105 [JULY 16, 1894] 6106 knows that in that letter it was solemnly affirmed that the language and the separate schools would be protected. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) is an honest man I am assured ; he is a sincere man, and understanding that Confederation took place on that condition will he say now that it is fair that the majority, merely because they are a majority should refuse to be bound by the condition ? Would we have induced these provinces to join the Confederation under false pretext ? Let Canada not repeat here at Ottawa the miserable and contemptible tricks by which, in the province of Manitoba they have succeeded in abolishing for the present —for the present, but not for long—the separate schools and the French language. If Canada wants to be peaceful and prosperous let her give justice and due protection to every one. After all, of what does the hon. gentleman complain ? He says the separate schools costs $100,000 a year. How much does it cost him ? It costs us as much as it costs him. Does he think we would be glad to send our money there to educate the children in a manner contrary to the wishes of the parents ? Are not the French-Canadians loyal ? We want the British Empire to be prosperous, grand, to dominate the world ; we want Canada to remain joined with England. We have the right to say that our forefathers assisted in keeping this domain for the Queen, and today we pretend to be the most devoted subjects of Her Majesty. Sir George Etienne Cartier declared that the last gun fired in defence of British supremacy in Canada would be fired by a French-Canadian. We are loyal subjects of the Queen, and we have the right to remain loyal as French- Canadians and as Catholics. The hon. gentleman need not be afraid ; he will not find any traitors amongst us; he will never find us working against the Queen, because the Pope teaches us to respect constituted authority and to be faithful to the Queen. But we have these treaties and guarantees that these institutions shall be preserved ; we have the honour of the Dominion pledged. Can we not depend upon that ? The hon. gentleman says he approaches this question in a cool way. I may set fire to my neighbour's house in a cool way, but that does not justify my act. I shall not go into details or take the time of the House. but I say that in matters of education autonomy has been granted to the father of the family, that the provinces have no right to interfere with him, and, if they do, the Parliament of Canada is bound under the treaty, in honour and, I might say in conscience, to interfere and protect him. Then let us not for a moment enact a law that will deny those vested and sacred rights.
Mr. LAURIER. This is a subject which, as we all know from past experience whenever it has been brought before the House, is liable to create a great deal of excite ment and even of bitterness. I am sure that the House must feel happy that the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), in introducing this subject to our attention today, has done so in a speech certainly remarkable for its moderation and its temperate tone. For my part, while differing in toto from the hon. gentleman in the conclusions to which I arrive upon this question, I may say that I shall try and emulate the moderation with with which he has approached it. The hon. gentleman, in his opening remarks, said that the legislation which is now on the Statute-book concerning the subject of education in the North-west Territories, is extraordinary and unprecedented, I admit at once that it is extraordinary, but I do not at all admit that it is unprecedented. It is certainly extraordinary, and I agree with him in his statement that the subject of education is one which, by its very nature, should pertain to the Local Legislatures. This was the case at the time Confederation was discussed in 1864, and it is equally the case in 1894 ; and we may ask ourselves why was this extraordinary legislation adopted in 1875. We may well ask ourselves, what is the reason which induced the Parliament of Canada, when dealing with the question in 1875, while granting local powers to the North-west Territory, to deprive the Legislature which was then created of a power which must be admitted is essentially of a local nature ? Here comes the precedent. The legislation, as my hon. friend knows, was not unprecedented. The Legislature was deprived of its supremacy in matters of education in order to make that Legislature conform to the other provinces in respect to the powers relating to the subject of education ; it was made to conform to the two largest provinces of the Dominion in respect to that matter. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that in that respect the Legislature of the Northwest Territories was placed unon absolutely the same footing as the Legislature of Quebec and the Legislature of Ontario. Again, we may ask the question why the Legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada were deprived, at the time Confederation was discussed. of their control over the matter of education. The reason everybody knows. It is a matter of history that when in 1864 the idea of Confederation, which up to that time had been a misty and hazy one, at last took something like a practical and tangible shape, the old provinces of Upper and Lower Canada had been convulsed by an agitation over the question of separate schools. True it is, that the Protestant minority of Lower Canada had enjoyed for more than thirty years the privilege of having its own schools without any interference from the majority ; and it was only in the year before that the long agitation had been settled in Upper Canada by granting to the minority of that province the same privileges which had been granted to the minority in Lower Canada more than 6107 [COMMONS] 6108 twenty years before. It is also a matter of history that of all the leaders of public opinion at that time. Mr. George Brown was among the most uncompromising opponents of separate schools. It is also a matter of history that if there was any man who, more than another, contributed to shape the events which made Confederation possible, that man was Mr. Brown ; but it is also a matter of history that in his anxiety to make Confederation a success, and to anchor the new scheme in the affections of the people, Mr. Brown did not hesitate at that time to sink his own opinion on the question of separate schools, and consented to deprive the Local Legislature of his own province of supremacy over the question of separate schools. Let me here quote the language of Mr. Brown in regard to that question. The quotation may be a little lengthy. but I believe it is quite apposite to the subject we have in hand. After showing the advantages which Ontario was to obtain from having control over its own local affairs, Mr. Brown, in the Confederation Debates, spoke as follows :—
But, I may be told, that to this general principle of placing all local matters under local control, an exception has been made with regard to common schools.
Mr. Brown here quoted the clause about education in the resolutions of the Quebec Conference :
Education : saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic majority in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools, at the time when the Union goes into operation.
Then, Mr. Brown goes on to say :
Now, I need hardly remind the House that I have always opposed and continue to oppose the system of sectarian education so far as the public chest is concerned. I have never had any hesitation on that point. I have never been able to see why all the people of the province, to whatever sect they may belong, should not send their children to the same common schools to receive the ordinary branches of instruction. I regard the parent and the pastor as the best religious instructors-and so long as the religious faith of the children is uninterfered with, and ample opportunity afforded to the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their flocks, I cannot conceive any sound objection to mixed schools. But while in the Conference and elsewhere I have always maintained this view, and always given my vote against sectarian public schools. I am bound to admit, as I have always admitted, that the sectarian system, carried to the limited extent it has yet been in Upper Canada, and confined as it chiefly is to cities and towns, has not been a very great practical injury. The real cause of alarm was that the admission of the sectarian principle was there, and that at any moment it might be extended to such a degree as to split up our school system altogether. There are but a. hundred separate schools in Upper Canada, out of some four thousand, and all Roman Catholic. But if the Roman Catholics are entitled to separate schools and to go on extending their operations, so are the members of the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and all other sects. No candid Roman Catholic will deny this for a moment ; and there lay the great danger to our educational fabric, that the separate system might gradually extend itself until the whole country was studded with nurseries of sectarianism, most hurtful to the best interests of the province and entailing an enormous expense to sustain the hosts of teachers that so prodigal a system of public instruction must inevitably entail. Now, it is known to every honourable member of this House that an Act was passed in 1863, as a final settlement of this sectarian controversy, I was not in Quebec at the time, but if I had been here. I would have voted against that Bill, because it extended the facilities for establishing separate schools. It had, however, this good feature, that it was accepted by the Roman Catholic authorities, and carried through Parliament as a final compromise of the question in Upper Canada. When, therefore, it was proposed that a provision should be inserted in the Confederation scheme to bind that compact of 1863, and declare it a final settlement, so that we should not be compelled, as we have been since 1849, to stand constantly to our arms, awaiting fresh attacks upon our common school system, the proposition seemed to me one that was not rashly to be rejected.
I admit that, from my point of view, this is a blot on the scheme before the House, it is confessedly one of the concession from our side that had been made to secure this great measure of reform. But assuredly I for one have not the slightest hesitation in accepting it as a necessary condition of the scheme of union, and doubly acceptable must it be in the eyes of hon. gentlemen opposite, who were the authors of the Bil1 of 1863. But it was urged that though this arrangement might perhaps be fair as regards Upper Canada, it was not so as regards Lower Canada, for there were matters of which the British population have long complained and some amendments to the existing School Act were required to secure them equal justice. Well, when this point was raised gentlemen of all parties in Lower Canada at once expressed themselves prepared to treat it in a frank and conciliatory manner, with a view to removing any injustice that might be shown to exist ; and on this understanding the educational clause was adopted by the Conference.
And here I am pleased to say that so far as the Protestant minority of Quebec are concerned, the pledges given at the Quebec Conference have been amply and fully redeemed since Confederation has been established. One of the first acts done by the Local Legislature in 1861 was to pass a law, which has proved satisfactory to the Protestant minority ever since. I call my hon. friend's attention to this. Mr. Brown was no more than is my hon. friend an advocate of a separate school system—Mr. Brown was just as thoroughly an opponent of that system. He said, just as does the hon. gentleman, it is a blot on our system. But for all that, strong as was the objection of Mr. Brown to 6109 [JULY 16, 1984] 6110 the separate school system, in order to secure peace and harmony, and in order to carry out this great scheme of Confederation, he consented to sink his own personal views on education, and I ask why not every patriot, with a view to secure the same result, adopt the same course as Mr. Brown did then ? Such was the position in 1875, when the Territories were organized. The question then sprung up, and I well recollect what took place at that time. When Mr. Mackenzie introduced the Bill there were no provisions in it regarding the question of education. As soon as the Premier sat down. Mr. Blake. who was not a member of the Government at that time, but was a prominent supporter of the Administration, rose and made some remarks. Speaking of the general power of the Legislature, he went on to say :
It give the Council all the powers practically enjoyed by this Parliament and the Local Legislatures together ; and it would be proper to restrict and define their powers in all matters connected with municipal government, and provision should be made at the earliest possible moment for municipal institutions, local taxation, and improvements. He regarded it as essential under the circumstances of the country, and in view of the deliberation during the last few days (referring to the New Brunswick school question) that a general principle should be laid down in the Bill with respect to public instruction. He did believe that we ought not to introduce in that Territory, the heart-burnings and difficulties with which certain other portions of this Dominion and other countries had been afflicted. It seemed to him, having regard to the fact that, as far as we could expect at present, the general character of that population would be somewhat analogous to the population of Ontario, that there should be some provision in the constitution by which they should have conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of the province of Ontario. The principle of local self-govormnent and the settling of the question of public instruction, it seemed to him, ought to be the cardinal principles of the measure.
This proposition was introduced by Mr. Blake. How was it accepted by the House at that time ?
Mr. McCARTHY. In what year was that ?
Mr. LAURIER. In 1875, at the time that the Bill for the organization of the Territories was introduced. Mr. Mackenzie, who was in charge of the measure, rose immediately after Mr. Blake, and answered him in the following terms :—
As to the subject of public instruction, it did not in the first place attract his attention, but when he came to the subject of local taxation he was reminded of it. Not having had time before to insert a clause on the subject, he proposed to do so when the Bill was in committee. The clause provided that the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of his Council or Assembly, as the case might he, should pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, but it would be especially provided that the majority of the ratepayers might establish such schools and impose such necessary assessments as they might think fit, and that the minority of the ratepayers, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, might establish separate schools, and such ratepayers would be liable only to such educational assessment as they might impose upon themselves. This, he hoped, would meet the objection offered by the hon. member for South Bruce.
I may say that these observations were received without a word of dissent from any hon. member on either side of the House, and when the Bill was in committee, Mr. Mackenzie introduced the following amendment :—
Provided further that when and so soon as any electoral district shall be established as hereinafter provided the Lieut.-Governor, by and with the consent of the Council or Assembly as the case may be, shall have power to pass ordinances for raising within such district by direct taxation or by shop, saloon, tavern, or any other licenses, a revenue for local and municipal purposes for such district and for the collection and appropriation of the same.
When and so soon as any system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion of the North-west Territories, the Lieut.-Governor and Council or Assembly as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, and it shall therein always be provided that a majority of ratepayers in any district, may establish such schools therein as they may think fit and make the necessary assessment and rates therefor, and further that the minority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein.
This provision was introduced at that time. Not a word of dissent was expressed. It became the law of the country, and is the law of the country to-day, and this is the provision which the hon. gentleman desires to remove from the Statute-book. I will not discuss with the hon. gentleman here or anywhere else at present, at all events, the subject of separate schools. There are different views as to those schools. This question does not, however, come up for discussion on the floor of this House to-day. I have noted all the objections brought forward to the separate school system in the North-west. It is alleged that it is very expensive, more expensive than the system of public schools. So be it—I will not discuss the matter with the hon. gentleman. Let me, however, observe this, that if the system of separate schools is more expensive than the system of public schools, the minority will suffer, and not the majority, in fact, it will be so much worse for the minority ; but if the minority are willing to pay that price in order to have their own schools and their own system of education, why should this be a matter of offence, or a subject even of objection on the part of the majority ? But I will not discuss the question with the hon. gentleman, and I will not discuss the objections he has raised. I ask : is it advisable, let separate schools he objectionable, 6111 [COMMONS] 6112 they cannot be more objectionable today than they were in 1876, or in 1864, when Confederation took place—they are just the same now as they were then—is it advisable, in view of our present condition, in the hope we entertain of forming a nation on this continent, because after all that is the hope we entertain to-day—is it advisable. entertaining, as we do that hope, to go back to the old heart-burnings, which Mr. Brown declared to exist in 1864, and open up again the question to agitation which we had hoped was finally closed at that time ? I know very well there are men, I will not say in this House, but in the province of Ontario, and perhaps elsewhere, who would be pleased to have the door opened to that agitation and have the whole system of separate schools discussed again, not as regards the Territories, but also as regards the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Well, there may be two sides to this question. Looking at the press of Ontario we find this idea expressed : but the question was discussed before, and when it came to be discussed practically by practical men, it was found advisable to allow matters to remain as they are at the present time, and allow a minority to have separate schools where they desire them. My hon. friend has surely not forgotten the convention of the Equal Rights Association, which sat in Toronto in June, 1889. Among the other subjects that were discussed there was this very question of separate schools. Mr. J. L. Hughes moved the following resolution :—
Mr. EDGAR. He is a brother of the member for Victoria.
Mr. LAURIER. I did not know he was related. However, Mr. J. L. Hughes is well known in the city of Toronto, and he moved the following resolution :—
We record our approval of our national system of free education in this province, and we insist that every ratepayer should be deemed a supporter of the public school, unless he himself, of his own free will, signifies his desire to be ranked as a supporter of separate schools, and that the Act should be so amended as to be explicit on this point.
This resolution, moved by Mr. Hughes, was not satisfactory to a certain number of delegates there, and Mr. D. W. Clendenning, seconded by Mr. Holmes, moved an amendment to the resolution, as follows :—
That the system of separate schools was a standing menace to the civil and religious liberties of Canada.
Mr. A. F. Campbell then moved an amendment to the amendment :
That the separate Schools system was not an institution which it was desirable to allow to grow up in the country.
I have just heard these very words from my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), who has told us that separate schools were a menace to the country. The subject came to be debated, and there was in that convention a gentleman whose name is a household word to the province of Ontario, I mean Professor Cavan, a man of sterling worth, a man of unspotted character and of great breadth of thought. Principal Cavan, speaking on the amendment and sub- amendment, used the following language :—
Principal Cavan said that he was entirely in sympathy with those who opposed separate schools. The separate schools, most unfortunately, were guaranteed by the Act of Confederation, when this question had been thoroughly taken into account. There was another thing. Their Protestant brethren in Lower Canada had also in some sense the system of separate schools, and they must take extreme care they did " not take ground that would be injurious to their brethren in the province of Quebec. The resolution before the chair was framed by gentlemen every one of whom was opposed to separate schools, in Ontario, and he would never vote for it if it expressed by implication acquiescence in the separate schools, but they could not undertake at one stroke the entire reform of the Dominion. They had concentrated themselves upon one great and flagrant violation of the law of equality and they had better get that righted before attacking any bad feature in the constitution.
There was a representative from the province of Quebec also present at that meeting, Mr. Lee, of Sherbrooke, and he used the following language :—
Mr. Lee, Sherbrooke, said that the name proposed for this association was Equal Rights to all. In this agitation, what they asked for themselves, they must be willing to grant to others. He did not believe the separate schools system was a good one, but thought that if separate schools were taken from the Roman Catholics in Ontario, the majority in Quebec would demand that the Protestant schools be taken from the minority in that province. He did not think the convention could demand the abolition of separate schools in this province and ask that they be retained in Quebec.
Thereupon the question of separate schools was dropped by the convention. Now, Sir, I have no fear, for my part, that there should ever arise an agitation in the province of Quebec for the removal of the separate schools of the Protestant minority ; but, certainly, it is only fair to ask that what is granted in Quebec to the minority should also be granted to the minority elsewhere. It is not unfair to ask that the one measure of justice which prevails in one province should also prevail in the other provinces and territories. And so long as we agree to have separate schools anywhere, I see no reason why we should not agree to have them everywhere as they exist at the present time. It may be that the system of separate schools is not acceptable to the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy), but does he, or does anyone, expect that it is possible to form this nation it each one of us insists 6113 [JULY 16, 1894] 6114 upon what he conceives to be the right, in any matter whatever ? Is it possible to form a nation upon any other basis than the surrender of prejudice, of passion, of sentiment, or even of conviction, for the general good ? The system which now prevails in this country may not be acceptable to the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy), but I would call his attention to the words which were pronounced upon the floor of the British Parliament upon one occasion by that master of political thought. Edmund Burke, an authority which ought to be acceptable everywhere. Burke once spoke these words :
In most questions of state there is a middle. There is something else than the more alternative of absolute destruction and undeformed existence. This is, in my opinion, a rule of profound sense, and ought never to depart from the mind of an honest reformer. I cannot conceive how any man can have brought himself to that pitch of presumption, to consider his country as nothing but carte blanche upon which he may scribble whatever he pleases. A man full of warm, speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise constituted than he finds it ; but a good patriot and a true politician always considers how he shall make the most of the existing materials of his country. A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together would be my standard of a statesman. Everything else is vulgar in the conception, perilous in the execution.
Now, Sir, these words seem to me to apply to our country more than ever they applied to the United Kingdom. We have here a mixed community. As has been well expressed by the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot)—although I do not share his manner of expressing his views—we want to form a nation on this continent. I appeal to my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). He is English, and I am French; he is Protestant and I am Catholic. I call upon him and I call upon all Canadians, French or Catholic, Protestant or English, to sink a little of their preferences, of their prejudices, of their passions, of their sentiments, upon the altar of our common country. I will not detain the House at any length at this period of the session, and I believe it would be injudicious on my part to protract the discussion, although the subject is a tempting one. Again, I repeat : it is not the question of separate schools that I am discussing at this moment, it is simply the question of carrying on our system of Confederation upon the basis which was adopted in 1864, and maintained in 1875.
Mr. DALY. I do not intend to detain the House at any length, but possibly it is right that I should take some part in this discussion, seeing that the matter before the House is an amendment moved by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) to a Bill which I have charge of, and more particularly from the fact, that I am the member of the Government representing the people of the North-west Territories in this House. I wish, Sir, to give the House a little history in connection with the government of the North-west Territories. Since these Territories were acquired by Canada, I find that the first Act for the temporary government of the North-west Territories and Rupert's Land, was passed in 1869. In that Act there is nothing as to schools. It would appear that a doubt arose after the passing of that Act as to whether or not its provisions were in the power of this Parliament, and subsequently in order to meet the objections which were raised, and to settle the question whether or not that Act of 1869 was within the power of this Parliament, legislation was obtained from the British Parliament, and the Act respecting the establishment of provinces in the Dominion of Canada was assented to by the Imperial Parliament on the 29th June, 1871. Section 1 of that Act says :
This Act may be cited for all purposes as the British North America Act of 1871.
Section 2 reads as follows :-—
The Parliament of Canada may, from time to time, establish new provinces, in any of the territories, forming for the time being, part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof ; and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you will see from the provisions of that law, that this Parliament has been given power by the British North America Act of 1871 to, from time to time, establish new provinces in the Territories, and at the establishment of those provinces in the Territories make provision for the constitution and administration of such provinces. Up to the present moment, with the exception of the province of Manitoba, which was given its constitution by the Act known as the Manitoba Act of 1871, no provinces have been carved out of that vast territory. But no doubt the time will come—it may come very shortly—when the people of that country will come to this Parliament and say that the time has arrived when one or more provinces should be carved out of what is now known as the North-west Territories. Those Territories are now governed, as the House knows, under the laws passed by this Parliament from time to time, by a Territorial Legislature. Now, the British North America Act of 1871 confirms and makes valid the Act of 1869, which I have quoted. The next Act relating to the government of the Territories is an Act to make further provision for the government of the North-west Territories, chapter 16, 34 Victoria, 1871. There is nothing in that Act as to schools. Then, we come to chapter 5 of 36 Victoria, 1873, and there is nothing in that Act as to schools. The next is chapter 34 of 36 Victoria, 1873, an Act further to 6115 [COMMONS] 6116 amend the Act to make further provision for the government of the North-west Territories ; and there is nothing in that Act as to schools. Then, the next Act is chapter 49 of 38 Victoria, 1875, upon the introduction of which by the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, the debate arose from which the hon. leader of the Opposition has quoted. Now, I may say for the information of the House, that the Bill introduced by Mr. Mackenzie was entitled "An Act to consolidate and amend the laws respecting the Northwest Territories." On that occasion, Mr. Blake preceded what the hon. gentleman has read with the following language :—
The task which the Ministry has set for itself was the most important it was possible to conceive. To found primary institutions under which we hope to see hundreds of thousands, and the more sanguine among us think millions of men and families settled and flourishing was one of the noblest undertakings that could he entered upon by any legislative body, and that it was no small indication of the power and true position of this Dominion, that Parliament should be engaged to-day in that important task. He agreed with the hon. member from Kingston that the task was one that required time, consideration and deliberation, and they must take care that no false steps were made in such a work. He did not agree with that right hon. gentleman that the Government ought to repeal his errors. The right hon. gentleman had tried the institutions for the North-west Territories which he now asked the House to frame, and for the same reason as he had given to-day—that it would be better for the Dominion Government to keep matters in their own hands and decide what was best for the future. He (Mr. Blake.) believed that it was essential to our obtaining a large immigration to the North-west that we should tell the people beforehand what those rights were to he in the country in which we invited them to settle. It was interesting to the people to know that at the very earliest moment there was a sufficient aggregate of population within a reasonable distance, that aggregation would have a voice in the self-government of the territories, and he believed that the Dominion Government was wise, (although the measure might be brought down very late this session and it might be found impossible to give it due consideration) in determining in advance of settlement what the character of the institutions of the country should be in which we invite people to settle. He did not agree with the policy of asking people to settle in that western country, and tell them that a paternal government would look after them, and would give them such institutions as the Government thought suitable. We had better let the people know their fate politically and otherwise before they settle there. The task to be discharged now, or at some future time, was one of considerable importance. And amongst the difficulties was the determining of what the range of power the council would be in the first place, assuming that its character would be that of a mixed nominative and elective council, as he understood it would be, of the First Minister; the Council at a subsequent period assuming the position of a Legislative Assembly when the population was sufficient to en title it to assume that position. He did not hear from the Honourable First Minister any distinct enunciation of the powers cbmmitted to the Council and afterwards to the Assembly. Looking over the Bill hastily, it seemed that the powers were amongst those of the British North America Act with respect to the peace, order and good government.
Then, in order to make my narrative complete, I would like to read the quotation from the same speech which has been read by the hon. leader of the Opposition :
He regarded it as essential under the circumstances of the country, and in view of the deliberation during the last few days that a general principle should be laid down in the Bill with respect to public instruction. He did believe that we ought not to introduce into that territory the heart-burnings and difficulties with which certain other portions of this Dominion and other countries had been afflicted. It seemed to him, having regard to the fact that, as far as we could expect at present the general character of that population would be somewhat analogous to the population of Ontario, that there should be some provision in the constitution by which they should have conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of Ontario. The principles of local self-government and the settling of the question of public instruction it seemed to him ought to be the cardinal principles of the measures.
Then, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, replying, said:
As to the subject of public instruction, it did not in the first place attract his attention, but when he came to the subject of local taxation he was reminded of it. Not having had time before to insert a clause on the subject, be proposed to do so when the Bill was in committee. The clause provided that the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the consent of his council or assembly, as the case might be, should pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, but it would be specially provided that the majority of the ratepayers might establish such schools and impose such necessary assessment as they might think fit ; and that the minority of the ratepayers, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, might establish separate schools ; and such ratepayers would be liable only to such educational assessments as they might impose upon themselves. This, he hoped, would meet the objection offered by the hon. member for South Bruce.
That took place on the 12th of March, 1875. The debate continued, and amongst others who spoke on the subject was the hon, member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) ; but I see that no reference whatever was made by any of the other speakers to this question of the wheels. On the 1st of April, 1875, we find that Mr. Mackenzie, when the Bill was in committee, with Mr. Moss in the Chair, introduced the resolution that was read by the hon. leader of the Opposition :
When and so soon as any system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion of the North-west Territories the Lieutenant-Governor 6117 [JULY 16, 1894] 6118 and Council or Assembly, as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, and it shall therein be always provided that a majority of ratepayers in any district may establish such schools therein as they may think fit and make the necessary assessment and rates therefore, and further that the minority of ratepayers therein whether Protestants or Roman Catholics may establish separate schools therein.
There was no other important amendment made, and the House sat in committee till six o'clock. After recess the discussion continued, it appears from the record, upon other matters. The Bill was reported and received its third reading on the following day, namely, the 2nd of April, without discussion. Now, Sir, from the reading of the language used by Mr. Blake on that occasion and the reply made to him by the then leader of the Government, Mr. Mackenzie, and considering that there was no dissenting voice in the House at the time that this amendment was proposed by Mr. Blake and accepted by Mr. Mackenzie, and subsequently embodied by him in legislation, it is clear that it was made deliberately and designedly, because, as Mr. Blake said in his speech, "it was essential to our obtaining a large immigration to the North-west that we should tell the people beforehand what those rights were to be in the country in which we invited them to settle." Now, it might be well to read what the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie's views were on the subject of separate schools. In the debate which took place on the motion of the hon. member for Victoria in reference to the New Brunswick School Act on the 10th of March, 1875, Mr. Mackenzie said :
In this particular instance, I may say, I believe in the secular system—I believe in free schools, in the non-denominationa1 system, and if I could persuade my fellow countrymen in Ontario or Quebec, or any other province to adopt that principle, it is the one I would give preference to above all others ; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact, that in all the provinces there is a very considerable number of people—in the province of Quebec indeed, a very large majority, who believe that the dogmas of religion should be taught in the public schools—that it has an intimate relationship with the morality of the people— that it is essential to their welfare as a people, that the doctrines of their church should be taught, and religious principles according to their theory of religious principles be instilled into the minds of their children at school. For many years after I held a seat in the Parliament of Canada I waged a war against the principle of separate schools. I hoped to be able, young and inexperienced in politics as I then was, to establish a system to which all would ultimately yield their assent. Sir, it was impracticable in operation and impossible in political contingencies ; and consequently when the Confederation Act was passed in 1867, or rather when the Quebec resolutions were adopted in 1864 and 1865, which embodied the principle should be the law of the land, the Confederation took place, under the compact then entered upon.
I heartily assented to that proposition, and supported it by speech and vote in the Confederation debates. And, sir, the same ground which led me on that occasion to give loyal assistance to the Confederation project, embracing as it did the scheme of having separate schools for Catholics in Ontario, and Protestants in Quebec, caused me to feel bound to extend at all events my sympathy, if I could not my active assistance, to those in other provinces who believed they were labouring under the same disability and suffering from the same grievance that the Catholics of Ontario complained of for many years.
In that extract Mr. Mackenzie lays down the views that were held, not only by himself, but by Protestants in Ontario then, and by Protestants, not alone in the Legislative Assembly, but in the House of Commons. and which are, I am sure, held today by people who are Protestants as Mr. Mackenzie was. Now, the question before the House is as to whether or not we should, by legislation at this time, by the amendment to the Bill now before the House, take away from the minority, or from the people of the North-west, who went in there and settled on the understanding and with the expectation that they would enjoy the rights given them by Mr. Mackenzie in 1875, and I confess my opinion is that it would not be right or just, so long as the territorial condition exists in that territory, so long as this Parliament governs that country as it does to-day, so long should the law remain as it is. But when the time comes, as it must come shortly—because the provisions of the Act of 1871, gives us the authority—for this Parliament to give a constitution to any province, or to any two provinces carved out of those Territories, then, and not till then, will the time come for this House to deal with this question of education. Nor would it be right or just that we should repeal clause 14 of the Act, as it now stands, giving the powers that were given by Mr. Mackenzie. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) tried to argue that by the legislation which was passed by this House in 1875 and by the continuation of that upon the statutes, we were riveting upon the people of the North-west Territories a separate school system for all time ; and by way of strengthening his argument, the hon. gentleman quoted section 93 of the British North America Act. With deference to the hon. gentleman's opinion, I cannot see the application of section 93 in the way the hon. gentleman suggests. That section says :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege in respect to denominational schools which any class of persons may have by law in any province of the Union.
Now, we are not discussing law affecting any province of the Union at this time, but laws that were given by this Parliament by virtue of the Imperial Act of 1871, to the Territorial 6119 [COMMONS] 6120 Assembly ; and so far as section 3 of section 93 is concerned, in my opinion, the same argument would prevail. What do we find is the condition of things now? We find that, under the authority of the Northwest Territories Act, section 14, Ordinances have been passed by the territorial legislature in reference to education. and we find that on the 3lst December, 1892, an Ordinance was passed by that legislature which made considerable changes in the matter of education there. Up to that time, under the Ordinance immediately preceding, namely, the Ordinance of 1888, education in that country was governed by a Board of Education, which was composed of men representing both the majority and the minority. Under the Ordinance, the inspection of the different schools was made by inspectors appointed by the different sections of the Board of Education. But in 1892, by the Ordinance passed then. we find that the system of inspection now is similar, so far as all the schools are concerned. The inspectors are appointed by the Council of Public Instruction, or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. and they are appointed irrespective of their religion, to inspect all schools, whether separate or otherwise. in any portion of the district for which they are appointed. Objection was taken here. in a previous debate, to that Territorial Ordinance on the ground that by it separate schools were taken away from the minority. On the contrary, it is stated, and I think on good foundation. that, so far as separate schools are concerned, they continue to exist in that country to-day, to all intents and purposes, and it is only with regard to their inspection that any change has been made. And I think, in justice to the people who have gone into that country, under the Ordinance passed by virtue of section 14 of the Territories Act, and who established schools under that Ordinance, and subjected themselves to taxation for that purpose, believing that that law would prevail for all time to come, it would not be just or right for this Parliament now to take away, by one stroke of the pen, the rights of these people. But, when the time comes. as it may come soon, when the people of that country desire that one or more provinces shall be carved out of their territory, then it will be necessary for us to give a full constitution to such provinces, then, and not till then, will we be called on to deal with this question of education.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). It is not my intention to detain the House but for a brief period. I am not called upon, of course, to address myself to the subamendment of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). because that has already been disposed of, and I think that the vote of this House has shown that it is not easy to embrace eighteen hundred years' history of the world in a motion, and get for that motion the support of a very large number of repre sentative men. Now. I have a few observations to make with regard to the speech of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). I do not agree with the hon. gentleman in the view he has put forward as to the importance of conferring upon the people of the North-west Territories all the powers of self-government that are possessed by the people of the provinces. Such a course would be altogether at variance with what has transpired under representative institutions, wherever the English race has spread, and wherever English institutions prevail. We know that new colonies are being established and governors appointed to them, the instructions which are given these governors embrace a very much more limited area of legislation than in the case of colonies where there is a larger population existing,where society has become more complex and where there is a greater variety of interests to be dealt with. In fact, Sir. the growth of society does not differ very much from the growth of the individual. No one undertakes to put a minor in the full possession of his property and allow him to dispose of it just as he pleases, and, in the same way, no one undertakes to confer upon a new society all the powers that belong to a sovereign body. In these matters experience shows the wisdom and necessity of proper regulation. We must remember that the Territories are being peopled. so that, in a five-years term those interested in the government of the Territories are often very much smaller in number at the beginning of the term than at the close. And those who in the future, at no distant day, will be interested in the Territories, are under the jurisdiction of this Legislature and have a voice in moulding the legislation here. so that the interests and wishes of those who are to become inhabitants of the Territories are better represented than they would be if the matter was put into the control of those who are the first occupants of the Territories. It is for that reason that the House wisely kept control of this very important question when government was bestowed upon that country. If you look at that country to-day you will find they have not responsible government. In fact I am told by a number of the members from the Territories that the majority of the people would be opposed to responsible government. They confess their immaturity ; they confess that their circumstances are such that it will not always be the case that, with responsible government, their control of larger matters would not be as great as through this House, in which they are represented in proportion to their numbers. So. I think, there was no ground of complaint as put forward by the hon. member for North Simcoe, that this House had retained for itself control over the subject of education, when, in 1875, the principle of representation was, to a limited extent, introduced into that country. Then, 6121 [JULY 16,1894] 6122 Sir, the hon. gentleman might look to the experience of our neighbours. Take the case of the territories of the United States that have not sufficient population to entitle them to become states of the union, you will find that what they possess is determined by Congress and Congress is authorized to make all needful rules for the government of the territories. And the assumption throughout the territories and elsewhere ever since the Union has been that Congress could be more safely entrusted with the superintending control of that government than could the first settlers in the territory. Then, Sir, you have the fact that the Territories are the common property of the Dominion. They are held in trust, if I may use the expression, on behalf of all the provinces ; and, that being so, this House has undertaken, in so far as it possesses control, to use that control with a view to producing as little friction as possible either with the interests or with the prejudices of the people, no matter what those interests or prejudices may be. Now, Sir, when you look at the subject of education prior to the union, you will find not that any system was expressly imposed upon the province, not that the principle of separate schools was virtually established, but the rule was established that where separate schools were established and had been established before the Union, they should remain, and where they were not established, the province should retain control over the subject to introduce them or prevent their introduction, as seemed proper to the people. We have a practical illustration of this fact in the position of things in the Maritime Provinces and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. So far as the Territories were concerned—I do not at all admit that the introduction of separate schools there stands upon the same footing as the introduction of separate schools in the province of Ontario, or of dissentient schools in the province of Quebec. In these provinces they are protected under the constitution ; they cannot be interfered with by the Local Legislature. But in the Northwest Territories, as the hon. Minister has said, it has been a matter not of right, not of guarantee to any particular class of the population, but a matter of policy. They were introduced with a view of preventing conflict in this House upon the subject of separate schools and for the reason that they were introduced there they should be maintained as long as these Territories are under the control of this Parliament. When this Parliament has discharged its duties and when the people of these Territories have received the population to entitle them to enter the union they must assume the responsibility of deciding for themselves under the British North America Act how far they shall maintain the principle of separate schools or maintain the non-denominational system. Any attempt on our part whatever our inclinations of feelings may be to anticipate what ought to be done in that particular, by the province after its autonomy is established, instead of being a source of security to its institutions would be a source of the greatest danger. The hon. member for North Simcoe has referred to the fact that these separate schools in the North-west Territories are expensive, that it costs a very considerable sum to educate children in these schools. If the hon. member had looked at the returns of the schools of the whole North-west Territories, he would have found that there was very little difference in that respect between one class of schools and the other. I took the trouble of going into the accounts of the North-west Territories. I was anxious to get some information before the Public Accounts Committee on the subject, but have been unable to do so. Any one can see that the expenses have been very large, and I do not think it is because separate schools and public schools exist there, but it is that the people of that country had the means of education provided by grants from Parliament, and, therefore, they are not as economical as they would be if the money had been raised in the ordinary way through taxation of the people themselves. Now, the hon. member has said, and others hold that view, that it would be well if we could educate all our population in the same public schools. I at once accept that proposition, I say that, too, and I would be rejoiced if all our people could see alike and all accept the public schools as the only schools for the elementary education of our people. But, Sir, that is not the view taken by all the population. A very considerable number of our people wish to accompany secular with religious instruction. They believe that it is a matter of immense consequence, they hold strongly to that view, and they hold to that view so strongly that wherever they are able, they will establish parish schools instead of separate schools, if these are denied them ; and they will educate their children in those schools and pay for their maintenance, besides contributing their portion of taxation to the maintenance of the public schools. Well, Sir, that is an expression of very strong feeling. Practical results show how strong that feeling is. Inquiry into the subject satisfies me, as I think it will satisfy any one who makes it, that if you take the centres of population in the United States, where a system of secular instruction prevails, and where there are no provisions for denominational schools to any extent as they exist with us in the province of Ontario, you will find that the percentage of children attending. the parish schools in proportion to the number of that faith by whom those schools are supported, is greater than the percentage of children in the province of Ontario who are attend 6123 [COMMONS] 6124 ing the separate schools, showing that you do not secure the object which you profess to have in view when you do away with separate schools and undertake to introduce the entire population into the public schools under a secular system. You do not accomplish that object ; you do not accomplish another object. Under our separate school system in the province of Ontario we have the same examination, the same system of inspection, for the separate as for the public schools : and in that way we secure a fair standard for imparting that education which the community thinks the interests of the state, under a system of popular government, demand. Under the system of parish schools which must prevail where you have such institutions as those that are established in the United States, you have no such inspection, you have no such examinations. You cannot have ; you cannot undertake to interfere with the affairs of the household and to say how well qualified the private teacher employed by the voluntary contributions of the parents, shall be to discharge the work in which he is engaged. So far as I have been able to examine those institutions, the great majority of the parish schools, say in the state of Michigan, where they exist, are altogether inferior in point of efficiency to the separate schools that are established in Ontario. Now, that being so, I think we ought, as public men, to look at practical results rather than at ideal notions of theoretical perfectibility, which we are not likely to attain, and which certainly has not been attained, but has proved a very great failure where an opposite system has been tried. But, however that may be, I think this is perfectly plain, that if we are not to make this House and this Parliament the arena of religious contention, if we are not to raise religion against religion and race against race in the national assembly of Canada, we must abstain from undertaking to make this a battle ground for a decision of the question as to whether in the Territories there shall be a system of wholly secular education or not. We leave that question, under the restrictions imposed by the Act of 1875, to the people of the Territories ; and when they have obtained the maturity entitling them to representation as a province, then the Legislature of that province, subject to the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, subject to the restrictions which that Act imposes, must decide for themselves what system of education will be established there. I believe myself, if I were a voter, I would vote to establish the Ontario system in the Territories ; but, not being a resident of the Territories. not expecting to be when they become a province. I must leave that question to them, because they are the parties who will be chiefly affected by the decision to which they come. Now, my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot) has spoken about the provisions of section 146 of the British North America Act, arguing, as I understand him, that the question has already been decided in that Territory, not by this Parliament, but by the terms of the British North America Act itself. I do not see that, By section 146 of the British North America Act it was open to us when we acquired that Territory, and when we acquired the Territory now constituting the province of Manitoba along with it—I say it was open to us to set out in our application for the acquisition of the territory, the terms and conditions upon which it was to be governed. The Act contemplated our doing so, the Act contemplated our stating with what population any portion of that territory should become a province. We did not do that, we acquired the territory without setting out any terms and conditions within the meaning that it was necessary to put upon these words in the Act. And while we may have power to govern it as colonies, as provinces of the Dominion, we had no power to constitute a province or to admit that province to the Union, we had no power to make a federal union with provinces that were already united. And so when Manitoba was admitted to the Union, that was so apparent, so obvious to every person who had carefully inquired into the matter, that Imperial legislation was necessary to consummate that object; and then amendments were sought to the British North America Act by the Act of 1871 for the purpose of enabling us to do in the future what we had not power to do at that time, what we had power to do if we had exercised the power when we obtained the admission of the territory, but not having done so, then our opportunity had passed altogether. Now, how is that territory to be governed when it is admitted to the Union ? We cannot make terms and conditions that will alter the distribution of power, that is not the meaning of the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions mean the financial terms and conditions; but as to the distribution of power, that is determined by the Act, and the very words which provide that the Queen may by an Order in Council admit other territories, also provides that they shall be not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The distribution of power must be the same, the power to legislate on the subject of education must be the same in a province admitted from that territory that it is in a province already within the Union. If a province already within the Union had established separate schools, it has no power to take them away ; but the Act does not contemplate applying that rule to a territory. When Ontario decided to adopt the school system it was established by her own act. The system of separate schools established in Quebec was established by her own act ; it was done deliberately by the province, 6125 [JULY 16, 1894] 6126 and when a province decided to establish a system of separate schools that system could only be got rid of by the act of the province.
Mr. AMYOT. Does the hon. gentleman attach no importance to the promises given by Lord Granville and Sir John Young ?
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I attach no importance to any one's promises; I attach importance to the constitution itself. What the constitution decides is to govern us. We have decided at diiferent times that this is the best means of securing the settlement of the country and its contentment, and of avoiding the differences and conflicting opinions on the subject of religion in this Parliament, and I believe we decided rightly. I see no reason why we should change that policy , I believe it is the proper policy to pursue; but it is not a compact under the terms of the British Neith America Act, as the terms entered into with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec constitute a compact. It is a matter of policy, as a matter of policy we have supported it, and as a matter of policy it is attacked by the resolution which the hon. gentleman has presented to the House to-day. If it was a constitutional rule irrepealable by this House the motion of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) would amount to nothing; but everybody knows that if the motion of the hon. gentleman were adopted it would alter the policy we have pursued heretofore, which I believe we adopted in the public interest. When the people of the Territories or any portion of the Territories are sutficiently numerous to constitute a province, when in fact, they attain thei1 majority in regard to local matters and when they propose to set up for themselves, this Parliament has no right to exercise control over them, no right to exercise any authority; it can give good advice, but it has no right to give commands. But we are not dealing with the future. When the Territories have a sufficient population to entitle them to become a province, they must decide for themselves whether they will have separate schools or not. I have my view as to what will be the best decision for them to arrive at, but I must not impose on them my view as regards the present time as to how they should be governed after they have attained their majority. I think what we have before us is the Act of 1875. Shall we amend it in this particular— shall we go on as we are ? Mr. Speaker, I think we have difficulties enough without undertaking to create more, and I am perfectly sure this will be an additional one if we adopt the amendment of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). I am satisfied we would govern this country with less success. We would have additional toad's heads in the witch's cauldron. I do not know what might come of it, but certainly something more serious than we have at the present time. I differ widely with the Government on questions of public policy; I differ with them on questions of tariff, on public expenditures, on schemes by which large sums of money are expended, on which I believe to be profitless enterprises, and I would like the people to have an opportunity of pronouncing their opinion upon these questions, and of dealing with them before we introduce other subjects, for my personal view is that an expression of public opinion upon them is very important. Talleyrand has said that this world comes before the next, and I agree with that opinion, and I prefer to settle those questions which affect our material well-being at this moment without interfering with other questions that might end in a cyclone.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I am sure those who have followed the debate must realize that there is very little left to say, and I shall act taccordingly by curtailing my observations. I listened attentively, as no doubt we all did to the 1e111arks of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCalthy) because this is one of the few occasions when we have had the opporttmity to listen to the line of argument by which the hon. gentleman will endeavour to support his measure. I gathered from the observations of the hon. member that he assumed that the conferring of powers upon the Legislative Assembly of the North—west was entirely an arbitrary act. that we selected one or more powers. and added occasionally from time to time other powers, and the hon. gentleman therefore thought he felt justified in calling upon us to say what reasons should be given as to why this power. as to education, should not be added. I think, when we examine a little and reflect on the observations already made in the. course of this debate, we shall see. that it is for the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarathy) to establish a reason why we should make the change. and that he is not in a position to ask us why this power ought not to be added. A my one who reads the powers which have been given to the provinces by the British North America Act and contrasts them with the powers which have been given by this Parliament to the Legislature of the North-west Territories will perceive at a glance the diiference which exists in the treatment of the two cases, the different provinces as compared with the Territories. In the British North America Act the British Parliament was dealing with provinces having provincial autonomy before the Act of Union, and the distribution of powers was simply to be a redistribution, in view of are fact that this Parliament was to he created and the Federal system to be established. In dealing with the Territories we were legislating from time to time for a country which was to remain, until provinces should be established under the legislative control of this Parliament. And what share did we give to the Territorial Legislature in regard to the matter of legislation ? We 6127 [COMMONS] 6128 gave it a number of powers—a large number of the powers given by the British North America Act to the Provincial Legislatures. But mark the broad line of distinction which was drawn by this Parliament. Matters referring to the constitution of the Territories it was not to be in their power to change, for the reason that the constitution was to be in the hands of this Parliament to change from time to time. A province from the outset had the right of autonomous government. It had a responsible system of government. The Territories were not to have responsible government, they were not to have autonomy in that sense, but were to remain from day to day to be controlled by the Legislature here, and by Orders in Council issued by His Excellency and his advisers. Again, the provinces were to have the right to increase their debt from time to time. But, because of the very guardianship which we have over those Territories, the Legislature there were not allowed to incur any debt. One other important characteristic was to be considered in regard to the Territories while they were to remain in the Territorial condition, and that was in view of the peculiar circumstances of the Territories, the fact that we were inviting there all races, creeds and denominations, there was to be the widest toleration while the Territories existed. That was the corner-stone of the whole; the corner-stone which the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) proposes to remove, on the ground that there can be no good reason given for its existence. As the hon. leader of the Opposition has said to-night: no men knew better than those who were engaged in framing the Act of 1875, the difficulties which, sectarian disputes might create in that new country. No one realized better the fact, that in so far as the population was to be gathered into the Territories from the older provinces, it was to be gathered from different races, and from amongst men who had strong lines of difference as regards religious belief. While the population should be going in there, and while the Territories should remain under our control, at least, there was to be the broadest toleration for every belief, and for the races, as regards worship, and as regards larguage and as regards instruction in the schools. Is it anything new for us to be told to-day that toleration was expensive, and that therefore we should not determine as our predecessors in 1875 determined, that the settlers should be allowed in that country to educate their children ac. cording to their religious convictions ? Education new is not more expensive than it was then. They understood perfectly that as regards the welfare of these people, and the development of these Territories, there would be nothing so expensive and burdensome to Government as the want of ample toleration everywhere, whether as regards religions worship, religious education, or the language which the people should speak and in which they should legislate. That was the whole Territorial scheme. It was not therefore, an accidental and haphazard manner in which certain powers were dealt out indiscriminately from time to time; but there was a deliberate scheme framed for legislation with regard to the Territories which should—while they were in the 'Territorial condition—keep them not only under the control of this Parliament, but keep them governed upon principles consistent with the policy of this Parliament, a policy which this Parliament conceived to be the best adapted for the peopling of the Territories. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). after having challenged us to give the reasons why these powers shduld not be conferred, stated some reasons which would seem in his opinion to have justified a proposal to break up the system of the past. The first was: that while the population of the Territories only consisted of 66,000 persons, a little more than 13,000 of these pro' fess the Roman Catholic belief, and his deduction from that is—if the fact admits of any deduction at all and if the hon. member will apply that fact to his proposal—that because only 13,000 persons have accepted the pledge and the good faith of this Parliament as to the maintenance of certain institutions there, namely, the right to enducate their children according to their religious belief, it is a matter of no importance that we should break faith with these 13,000 people. It is just as much a matter of sound policy now as it was in 1875, that teleration should exist there, and that we should extend the broadest invitation to the people of different races and religions to come and settle there with a per- feet sense of toleration ; and it matters not how many people in the past have availed themselves of our invitation. The bad faith this Parliament would show in repealing a provision of that kind, while the Territorial system existed at least, would be just as great as if the population who availed themselves of our pledge and relied on that system today, were only thirteen, instead of 13,000. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) in the next stage of his argument said that it was an expensive thing to keep up a system of toleration, that it was an expensive thing to maintain separate schools. I have suggested to the House that the statesmen who framed the Act of 1875 knew as much, from their experience of the older provinces, about the expense of separate schools as we do now. The hon. gentleman's argument, if anything, was this: that the Roman Catholic schools of the North-west Territories are more expensive than the public and Protestant schools. The hon. gentleman did not complete his argument because he did not complete his facts by showing us what the facts are as regards the schools taken as a whole. He went on further to say that in consequence of the 6129 [JULY 16,1894] 6130 Catholic schools being attended by a smaller number of pupils, the average cost per head of the pupils was greater than in the Protestant schools. Where I thought the hon. member (Mr. McCarthy) did the greatest injustice to the question was, that he undertook to compare the cost, with the cost of education per pupil in the province of Ontario where conditions are as widely dif— ferent as they possibly can be. Every one knows that spareness of the settlement in the Territories, the high price which teachers have to be paid there, and other such conditions are peculiar to every community of the like kind. If the hon. gentleman had taken for example the statistics, not of the province of Ontario, but of the province of Brtish Columbia, in parts where the like conditions exist, he would find that he had no word of reproach to utter as regards the cost of the separate schools in the North-west Territories. One of my hon. friends here has furnished me with the figures as regards the cost of education per pupil in the outlying districts of British Columbia, and just observe these results as compared with the results which the hon. member (Mr. McCarthy) read :
School Enrollment. Average Attendance Cost of each pupil on enrolment. Cost of each pupil, average attend ance.
$ cts. $ cts.
Williams Lake... 12 7.30 68 50 110 93
Yale........... 33 18.33 21 71 41 41
Whonnock...... 34 12.07 17 92 50 48
Sumas....... 26 13.87 26 92 50 46
Spence's Bridge.. 12 7.48 50 00 80 21
Shuswap...... 20 11.86 38 00 64 08
Sathlaw........ 11 6.07 43 63 79 09
Round Prairie... 27 11.47 28 14 66 25
Quesnelle...... 23 12.00 38 26 72 78
Port Kells..... 23 9.53 25 00 67 15
North Thompson. 21 10.35 35 41 71 85
Barkerville...... 22 10.06 64 54 74 50
That is a comparison with a province where education is economically managed, and managed regardless of the separate school lines which are complained of as having introduced a want of economy in the North-west Territories. But, as pointed out by the leader of the Opposition, within the lines of our constitution, which provides that separate schools may be established and must be provided for there, we know that the regulation of the schools, as regards expenses and as regards management, is under the control of the Territorial Legislature, to-day, and if the schools are expensive under the present system, they are no more expensive than the Territorial Legislature has thought fit to make them. Now, there was one argument advanced by the hon. memebr for North Simcoe which has already been answered, but with respect to which I wish again to put the view we take ; because it would be a point of the greatest importance if the argument of the hon. gentleman were well founded. The hon. gentleman stated that one important reason why the system of separate schools in the Territories should be abolished, and abolished at once, was that by allowing it to remain we were riveting the system on the future provinces : and the hon. gentleman relied on the provision of the British North America Act, which says : that nothing in the Act of any province— and he was referring to the provinces which might hereafter be established—should take away or prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have, by law, in the province at the time of the Union. The hon. gentleman's argument, of course, was that if this system were allowed to stand until provinces are created, we would, by force of the British North America Act, be unable to withdraw that system, and that it would be riveted on the provinces. As has been shown by the hon. member for Bothwell, the provisions of the British North America Act relate only to the provinces which were entering into the Union at that time, and to the provinces which were named in the last section of the Act as entitled to be admitted into the Union, and have no relation whatever to the provinces which are to be created out of the Territorial district of the country. That is clearly seen when we come to the British statute of 1871, which, for the first time, conferred the power on this Parliament to create provinces out of our territories, and, as the hon. Minister of the Interior has said, enables this Parliament to decide what the constitutions of those provinces shall be. We claim, therefore, that the constitutional system which was established with regard to schools and with regard to language in 1875 ought to be maintained for the same reasons as those which dictated its creation, and that this condition of affairs should last, at least. while the affairs of the Territories are under the control of this Parliament. What the constitution of the future provinces shall be, in view of the pledges which have been referred to, or in view of any other set of circumstances, will be for Parliament to decide when it decides to create those provinces. I hope, therefore, that the House will be careful to-day not to disturb the arrangement so wisely made in 1875, and which is as useful to the Territories now as it was then.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I state my views on this question. I am the more anxious to do this, as a few days ago I paired with a member of the Opposition, and so am not able to record my vote. I do not intend to try to 6131 [COMMONS] 6132 answer any of the arguments which have been offered, or to defend any of the positions which have been taken : I merely wish to state my own position on the question, and to give my reasons for holding that position. If I did vote to-night, I would support the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). One of my reasons for doing so would be that the amendment proposes, as we have heard tonight, to leave this question entirely to the Legislature of the North-west Territories. Now, it has been taken for granted by a great many speakers that if this were done, separate schools in the Territories would be abolished. Of that I know nothing at all ; but it does seem to me that if the members of that Legislature are competent to deal with the subjects which are committed to their care, they are equally competent to deal with the subject of education ; and, for my part, I would vote to give them that authority. Now, why should this Parliament interfere in this matter at all ? I think there is one very good reason, and that is that Parliament has interfered already. Parliament has imposed on those Territories, separate schools, and I think Parliament is the body to remove them. But it is said by some, and this is supposed to be a very strong argument ; wait until a province is created. It has been replied to that by those who favour this amendment that if separate schools are allowed until that time, they will be forever fastened on that province by the constitution. That point I do not pretend to know anything about ; but it did occur to me, in thinking on this question, that if separate schools were allowed by the constitution to remain in the Territories until that time, then the question of vested rights would be set up. I am satisfied of that in my own mind. Those who favoured separate schools, while they might have no legal right to set up that contention, would, no doubt, set it up, and I would not blame them for doing so. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing ; and if the separate schools were allowed to remain until that time, their case would be a strong one. So that, apart from the question of law or the question of the constitution altogether, it appears to me that that is one strong argument why Parliament should act now. Then, it is said by some that, after all, everything that is wanted has, in effect, been accomplished by the Ordinances passed a year or two ago by the Legislature of the Territories. But I would point out that the right of that Legislation to do even that was questioned by those who are in favour of separate schools. A strong position was taken against the power of the North-west Legislature to enact those Ordinances, and the Government have been appealed to to veto them. And right here I want to say this : I give the Government great credit for the position they have taken on that question, and on the question of separ ate schools in Manitoba. I believe the Premier has done what he said he would do ; he has stood by the constitution, and I admire him for doing it. There is no doubt that great pressure was brought to bear upon him to veto those Ordinances, and he has resisted that pressure, because on looking into the matter, he decided that the Legislature, in adopting them, was acting within its constitutional rights. So I give the Government credit for that ; and, for myself, I may say that I have confidence that they will act in the same manner in the future. One reason why I would like the Government to act at present on this matter is that the longer they delay the more the difficulties increase. It is said by some —and I admit that there is a good deal of force in the argument—that the rights of minorities ought to be protected. But I ask myself, what are those rights ? They are rights to what ? And in asking that question I have to ask another, what does the state owe to the minority ? To my mind, the answer is : a good, fair, secular education—that and nothing more. Would the minority lose that if this amendment were adopted ? I answer no, if the public schools supported in part by the state were confined to their true object, in my mind, a secular education. I hold—I know I differ from some in this—that it is not the duty of the state to teach religion ; that it is not the duty of the state to use the funds of the state to inculcate any particular tenets ; and I apply that to all bodies. The duty of teaching religion, in my opinion, belongs, not to public schools, or to any schools supported in part by the state, but belongs to parents and churches. But, in any case, we know that the state would not prohibit separate schools. I merely mention this, because it is thought by some that in advocating the passage of this amendment, we say that there should be no separate schools. But the fact of the case is, not that the state would prohibit separate schools, but that the state would decline to aid them. As I said, I have no intention of taking up the time of the House at any length, but merely wish briefly to state my views. I want to say in conclusion that, in advocating the passage of this amendment, I am not prompted by any hostility to the Roman Catholic religion or to Roman Catholics. All who know me and know my course in this House, know that, without my saying it ; but as there is a feeling abroad in some parts of Ontario tending in that direction, I want to say publicly that I have no sympathy at all with any society which would ostracise a man because of his religion. That is my position. I am perfectly free from all bigotry. I do not ask whether this man or that is a Catholic or a Protestant, but whether he is a respectable fellow-citizen, and I advocate the passage of this amendment, not from any hostility to any sect or body of men, but because I believe it would he 6133 [JULY 16, 1894] 6134 for the good of the country. These are my views. I wish to take this question out of the domain of Dominion politics. I would like to see these matters of separate schools and religious matters banished for ever from our policy. I do not know that that time will ever come, but I shall do my part to bring it about; and I would be glad to see the time when our schools would be all public schools and our children not separated into two different sections, but growing up in public schools all over the country. I do not know whether it is possible to have that time come, but I hope it will, and will do what I can to bring it about.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I will just begin with the last words from the last speaker. What rights have minorities ? When this Parliament gave a constitution to Manitoba, the minority there, which was Protestant at the time, was protected in a broad and statesmanlike manner. At that time, the minority was comprised of Protestants for the majority was composed of Catholics. Again, when in 1875 these school provisions were introduced into the Canadian North-west Territories Act, the same state of things existed, and, therefore, this Parliament passed those provisions protecting the Protestant minority. But things have changed since. In Manitoba and the North-west Territories the minority has become the majority; and because this not any longer, as my hon. friend who has just spoken has said, any claims to protection. I was exceedingly pleased with the moderate speech made this evening by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Mc(Carthy). On the first occasion he brought this question before the House, we all remember the very obnoxious preamble which headed his Bill: and in his speech the hon. gentleman then made was very obnoxious to those who did not entertain the same views. I have since then noticed with pleasure that he has moderated his antagonism. and on this occasion he has been more moderate still, and I join with the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Government in complimenting him on the very moderate way in which he introduced his resolution. The hon. leader of the Opposition, in the course of his remarks, read a copy of a resolution of proceedings that took place before the Equal Rights Association in Toronto. I have before me a few extracts from the speech which the hon. member for North Simcoe made before the same association in the city of Ottawa about the time it was started, and with the permission of the House I will read a few quotations from it. The hon. gentleman then said :
We have a record for eight months which no political party could boast of in a decade of years and if there are men among us now who want to go back to their old political alliance, I say shame on them. They ought to be satisfied with what we have accomplished in so short a time. What have we a complished ? Go to Manitoba, and what do we see there? Why, that province of Manitoba is going to deal, not only with the dual language question and the iniquitous Act which would fasten it upon them but with the separate schools. Do you tell me that the Equal Rights Association had nothing to do with that? Of course the feeling was there, the greivance existed, peoples minds had only to be directed to it, and the moment attention was drawn to it, the province of Manitoba rose to a man and declared : we want no dual language and away with separate schools. * * * I am glad to notice the Protestant minority of Quebec had waked up, and at an early day I hope to have the pleasure of addressing them in Montreal on that question. They all had their hands full. In Ontario they would have to do with the question of French teaching in the schools: in Manitoba they had the dual language to deal with ; and in the North-west they had the same question. As soon as the work had been accomplished, they would then be in the same position to master the same difficulties in the province of Quebec.
This shows the animus that exists in raising this question from session to session. But that is not all. These remarks and those speeches that ar erepeated over and over again have their echo; and if to-day the people in the North-west Territories, who are anxious to retain their own separate schools, insist on being protected by the constitution, it is just because they are often and often again threatened with persecution. I will only cite as an instance an article that was published in the Moosomin ' Courier,' a paper published in Moosomin, N.W.T. This is entitled : ' One people. one language." Speaking of Roman Catholics it says :
Are they a superior kind of people from the Protestants that they hold themselves aloof by having separate schools. To private schools, no one can object, but we must emphatically protest against separate schools being maintained by the Government for any denomination other than Protestants. Our motto is " One people, one country, one religion."
When such articles are published in the public press, is it a wonder that a minority so small as this is represented to be by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) should be alarmed and should look to this Parliament for protection, protection which we are in duty bound to give them ? It has been contended that the British North America Act, the constitution under which we are governed, does not give as separate schools. It is true the constitution does not impose the system of separate schools, but it protects that system whereever- it has existed prior to the entry of a province into Confederation or wherever it is afterwards created by the province. Therefore, I say that according to the spirit of the constitution such a system should exist, because the constitution protects it and, in fact, maintains it and renders it unassutilable from the moment it has been established. It is true that there is a pro.vision in the Constitutional Act whereby the 6135 [COMMONS] 6136 constitution of a province can be amended by that province, but I claim that that provision does not apply to section 93, which deals with education, because that section is outside of the series of sections which come under the title " Constitution of the Provinces." The only amendments that a province can make to its constitution would be with respect to such clauses as come under the title of " Constitution of the Provinces." I do not wish to detain this House at this late hour of the night. I had made up my mind to extend my remarks much further. but I am something like the traveller whose satchel was stolen by some other passenger— all the arguments and good ideas that I had have been stolen from me by those who have previously spoken, and, therefore. I am left with nothing fresh or new to be offered to the House.
Mr. DENISON. I had no intention of speaking on this question, and should not have done so but for some remarks of the last speaker (Mr. LaRiviere), and I intend to occupy" but a short time. The hon. gentleman spoke of the Roman Catholics being in the majority in Manitoba some years ago. It so happened that I spent about a year of my life in Manitoba in 1870, and my recollection of the matter at that time is that the two classes, the Protestants and the Roman Catholics were about equal in number. At any rate we must not forget that up to that time the country had been ruled by the Hudson Bay Company, that it had been ruled as a Crown colony and that there were no rights such as it has been intimated they possessed by the member who last spoke. There was no such thing officially as the French language. Of course many of the people spoke it among themselves, and there was no wish to interfere with them in doing so, but the language was not recognized officially at least. It is true that in the case of rules that it might be necessary the. French should understand, they were often published in French, but further than that the Hudson Bay Company paid no attention whatever to anything of that sort. The only rights the French people obtained were obtained subsequent to that, and were obtained through the Bell rebellion. and what followed. The hon. the leader of the Opposition. in reading from some of the remarks of the Hon. George Brown, tried to make a point of Mr. Brown's abandoning his contentions with regard to separate schools because he was in favour of carrying Confederation. No doubt that was a very good reason why the Hon. George Brown should abandon these views, to lose sight of this question in the greater question of bringing about the Confederation of this great Dominion. But this is an entirely different question. The question is not one of making a great Dominion ; the question is what shall we do with these provinces we are about forming in the North-west, shall we start them with all the paraphernalia we have in Ontario and Quebec, or shall we start with a clean sheet and allow them to do as they please. As regards the language question, for my part—though it does not come in properly here, but what I shall say now may save me getting on my feet later—I should like to see the mover go even further than he has done, and, instead of leaving it to the people, declare that no other language shall be used except the English language. The reason is because we have there vast empty prairies, the population being sparse. If we allow the French language to be made an official language on account of 2 per cent of the population there is no earthly reason why we should not allow the same right to the German population who represent. I believe, more than 2 per cent. Then if so, the Scandinavians, who are nearly equal to the French in numbers, might fairly come to this House and ask us to give them the right to have the Swedish tongue spoken up there.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. What would you do with the English in Quebec ?
Mr. DENISON. I am not referring to Quebec, because the French in Quebec have the right to speak their language by the constitution, and no one is talking of interfering with that. I am talking now about empty prairies, equal almost in size to Europe; and the question is, how are we going to start them out. Are we going to start them out as provinces speaking one language, or as provinces speaking perhaps half a dozen languages ? I would like to say that I have received a telegram from Mr. W. F. Maclean, of East York, in which he asks me to state: " If present, I would vote with Mr. McCarthy. I am detained here."
Mr. McNEILL. I wish to say but very few words on this subject. I think the fact to some extent has been overlooked that we are dealing not only with the amendment of my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) but also with the expressed wish of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Those who are opposed to the amendment, I think, have carefully avoided any reference to that fact : but it is an important fact, and I think that those who are asking tonight that the representatives elected by the people of the North-west Territories should be allowed the privilege of managing their own affairs in reference to education, as well as in reference to other matters, should not at all events be accused of intolerance. I confess I was a good deal surprised and a good deal hurt to hear the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government, speaking of those who advocate. the views that he advocates, as those who are in favour of tolerance, thereby implying that the people of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia, who have not granted separate schools, "have been intolerant, and that the 6137 [JULY 16, 1894] 6138 people of the province of Ontario who disapprove of separate schools on principle, and who are in favour of the resolution of my hon. friend from North Simcoe, are also by implication intolerant. Now, I confess I was surprised and pained to hear the right hon. gentleman speak in that way, I think that those who conscientiously believe that separate schools are not for the benefit of the people of the North—west Territories. and who think that the people of the Northwest Territories ought to have the right to say whether they wish for separate schools or not, should at all events he considered as tolerant as those who desire that separate schools should exist there, and are unwilling to let the people of the Territories decide for themselves. For my part I cannot see that there is any more intolerance in the former than in the latter view. My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) has spoken of our desiring to make this Parliament a battle ground for sectarian differences, and he spoke of our desiring to settle the question here whether there were to be separate schbols in the North-west Territories. Now. surely my hon. friend was unintentionally unfair when he said so, because I am sure he did not wilfully mean to be unfair. There is no proposal that separate schools should be forced upon the people of the North-west Territories. No one is saying by this resolution whether there should be separate schools in the North-west Territories or not. The proposal of my hon. friend from North Simcoe is that the people of the North-west Territories should have the right to decide that matter for themselves, and that the petition of the Legislative Assembly should be granted by this House.
Mr. AMYOT. And deprive the minority of their privilege ?
Mr. McNEILL. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the right the people of the North-west Territories are asking for has been exercised. as the hon. member for Bothwell himself admits, by the province of Quebec, has been exercised by the province of Ontario, by the province of Nova Scotia, by the province of New Brunswick, and in point of fact by all the provinces in the Dominion, because the province of Manitoba, so far, at all events, as the courts have decided, exercises the same privilege legally. Now, I think under these circumstances it is a little hard that we should be described as an intolerant party, or intolerant individuals. Now, one word with regard to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and if he will forgive me for what he may consider an impertinence, I will say that I exceedingly admired the speech that he delivered in the House to-night on this subject. But I wish to join issue with him on one point. Be very eloquently told us what in his view was necessary to the building up of a nation; he thought that in order to build up this nation we should have separate schools in the North-west Territories. His argument went so far as to say that there should always be separate schools there. I see my hon. friend is inclined to dissent. If I am not correct, I will withdraw the statement.
Mr. LAURIER. Go on.
Mr. McNEILL. But I understood very distinctly that his argument was that there should always be separate schools in the North-west. Now, I cannot agree with my hon. friend in thinking that that is the way to build up a nation. In the first place. I cannot agree with him in thinking that the best way to build up a nation is to have our children separated from one another and divided into classes, one being a Roman Catholic and the other a Protestant class. I am quite satisfied that the friendships of childhood, the friendships acquired by children working together in the same school and playing together in the same play-grounds. would in the course of a very few generations do more to cause sectarian feeling in this country to disappear than any other one thing that could he mentioned. I believe that I could point to sections in our own muntry to-day where the system pursued of educating these children together has done a great deal already to do away with these bitter sectarian feelings which unfortunately in some parts of the country do exist today. I would say further to my hon. friend that not only do I not believe that the dividing of children into separate camps in this way is a good means of building up a nation. but I can not agree with him that the policy of depriving the people of the Northwest Territories, or the people of any province in this country, of the right to manage their own educational affairs, is one which, if persevered in, would effectually build up a nation in Canada. I think it would be a policy to cause heart-burning, to cause dissension, and thus to cause very great evil in this country.
Mr. DAVIN. I shall not at this late hour discuss at any length a subject which now has been exhaustively discussed. I wish to state, however, what I consider to be the question before the House. I do not think we have before the House the question of the relative merits of separate or public schools ; the question is whether it shall be left to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest to deal with the school question, to deal with what remains of the ques tion as respects the use of the French language in the North-west Territories, which I may say here, as I have said once or twice before, is no question at all in the North-west Territories to-day. Suppose the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) succeeds in carrying his amendment, not one iota of result will be accomplished as regards the use or the disuse of the French language in the North-west Territories; so we may pass that by as only a bubble question. However, that question has been raised 6139 [COMMONS] 6140 outside this House, and put before the minds of the people, exciting with apprehension the minds of one class of the subjects of the Queen in one province, and filling the minds of another class of the subjects of the Queen in another province, with enthusiastic feeling or enthusiastic passion, more properly speaking, and making them think that they are engaged in a magnificent crusade, breaking down an awful arrangement that menaces the peace, and prosperity, and the very dignity of Canada. Now, the practical question is, whether or not the Legislative Assembly of the North-west Territories shall have power to deal with the schools. I entirely repudiate the assumption of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Denison), and the hon. gentleman who spoke at an earlier period, both of whom assumed that if the hon. gentleman's amendment were carried, the North-west Assembly would at once proceed to pass legislation doing away with separate schools. I exceedingly doubt whether the North-west Assembly would do anything of the kind, and, therefore, those hon. gentlemen who would vote for the motion of my hon. and learned friend to go into committee and pass these amendments, believing that thus they were doing away with separate schools. I say to them, and I know something of the temper of the North-west, and of the temper of the North-west legislators, they may as well spare themselves the pains. It will be very gratifying to a large number of people in the North-west in case this House should decide not to accept the motion of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), to have such an authoritative declaration on the part of the Prime Minister, on the part of the Minister of Justice, a man who can speak on legal subjects with authority, to this effect that even if five, six or ten years hence the Territories should remain in their present state, yet when they come here, they will have the fullest freedom as to whether separate schools shall or shall not exist. Not only has the Prime Minister made that statement. but the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills), who can also speak on a subject like this with authority, has also made a similar statement to-night, and if on a future occasion this question is brought up, if to-morrow, or years hence we come to this Parliament assembled for the purpose of securing the admission of the Territories in the character of a province, it will not be possible, but that the dicta of those hon. and learned gentlemen shall have great weight.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I think the hon. gentleman misunderstood me. I merely said that this Parliament would have complete control of the subject.
Mr. DAVIN. I apparently miunderstood the Premier. I understood the right hon. gentleman, as I have stated to the House, We have to consider this question, whether or not the Legislative Assembly of the Ter ritories shall deal with this subject. I made a point of calling on an eminent ecclesiastic, whose recent death I deplore, to talk with him on this very subject ; and I stated to him then, what I state here, that I believe that to give the Legislative Assembly of the Territories power to deal with this question would be far safer for the existence of the separate schools than to deprive it of that power. His Grace said to me that if, as regards the schools of Manitoba, they had thrown themselves on the Local Government and the Local Legislature, they would have been better off. I do not think there exists in the Territories any such feeling against separate schools as there is against being deprived of the power to which they believe they are entitled in accordance with the spirit of the British North America Act. It is not merely this Parliament depriving them of this power, but when they are impressed with the idea that they are deprived of that power, not because the wisdom of Parliament suggests it, and that it is well they should be deprived of it, but because of an influence and force used by other branches of our federation, this irritates the Territories, just as it would irritate any province if menaced with the sentiments of another province. With respect to the argument of the hon. gentleman for St. Boniface (Mr. LaRivere), I may mention that Mr. Mercier used the same argument some years ago. He said : Beware as to what you do in the North-west, because we are deeply interested in that part of the Dominion —take care least we do not squeeze you Protestants in the province of Quebec.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I did not use that as an argument at all. I only made that, as a remark when the hon. gentleman opposite was speaking when he stated what should be done in the provinces, I asked what he would do in Quebec, applying his own argument.
Mr. DAVIN. If the hon. gentleman did not use the argument, Mr. Mercier used it.
Mr. AMYOT. No.
Mr. DAVIN. If this argument was never used, what was the meaning of the phrase "look at the minority in the province of Quebec ?" The position as regards the minority in Quebec was brought about in accordance with legislation in which they themselves were concerned, and by which they have certain rights and are protected. The minority also in Ontario have certain rights in accordance with legislation in which they had something to say. But what has that to do with the question we have to consider in regard to the North-west Territories, namely : the time has now come to ask whether, looking at the number of our population and their intelligence, this provincial right to say what is desirable as to the character of our school" system, should not be placed in the hands of the 6164 [JULY 16, 1894] 6142 Legislature. There have been many questions raised here to-night which I would like to answer. if this were the time and the place. questions raised by the hon. gentleman in moving the amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Simme (Mr. McCarthy). questions of vital importance. and I am bound to say that it would be very interesting and might be even instructive to hon. gentlemen if we were to discuss some of those questions. That motion. if I may refer to it in passing. proposes to force on the Territories a denominational system. although the hon. gentleman spoke against that. and deprive them of every right which they claim on this question. The Territories do not want to be told that they must have a certain description of education. one that does not teach them anything about God but simply questions of duty between man and man. If there was time I should like to ask. where do you get the idea of duty if you banish the idea of religion? I do not think we could get the idea of a morality worthy the name unless it is founded on religion. But we must not go in to these large questions. It would be interesting also to go into the whole educational question as regards purely secular education on which so much store is laid, and also with regard to the value of the education given in separate schools. I do not know what kind of education is given in the separate schools of the Catholics. or in the separate schools of the Protestants. for l have not had an opportunity of investigating it. But if a real religious education is given by either of them. side by side with a good secular education. I would infinitely prefer it for myself. or for any relative in whom I was concerned. to a mere secular education. I cannot, with any little knowledge I have of the curriculum. understand how any of the great questions that a man of any education has to grapple with can be met without facing at every step the propositions of religion. You cannot climb the starry spiral of science without on every stair being confronted with the great postulates of religion. You cannot have a thorough education. in my opinion. without its having been also a religious education. But it may be said to me : holding the opinions that you do as to schools where no religion is taught. abhorring. as every man listens to me knows I abhor. these prejudices of race and religion. which so far as I have been able to judge from observation. excite people in proportion to their want of all depth in religion. and to their want of all knowledge of the race that they so spontaneously dislike or hate—if 1 abhor all that. why is it that I am re: dy to give over to the Legislative Assembly the power of dealing with the educational question? I will tell you. Sir: We live in an age of a wide suffrage: we live in a democratic community; we live in a time when the people rule; we live in a time when the majority is sacred, and when vox populi is actually vox dei. I do not say I would have preferred to have lived in another age. but finding myself in such a time I must live up to it. I live in a country and at a time where these things prevail. and I represent a constituency to whose opinions I am bound to pay some attention. I know nothing whatever about the teachings in the separate schools. Looking at the men I have seen coming from Protestant separate schools, and looking at the men I have seen coming from Catholic separate schools. I find a commensurate and correlative prejudice in the minds of each. I find, as I have found, a Protestant taught to believe. for instance. that anybody holding Catholic tenets was predestined to eternal ruin. and I have found as strong prejudices in the minds of Catholics. 1 know nothing whatever about the schools. but the chief thing is that I stand. as Mr. Lowell makes one of his charactets say : "I stand upon the constitution."
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Suppose both should be right ?
Mr. DAVIN. Well. now, my hon. friend must not give me riddles at five minutes past one in the morning. The question is simply this: whether or not we should give the Territories the power of dealing with this matter of schools. There is no question about language here at all. The added power would be welcome to the North-west. I shall, therefore. vote for the motion. but in voting for it I wish it to he distinctly understood that I am voting merely to place in the hands of the Assembly the power to deal with this question. I am not voting for or against separate schools. and as I explained to the House. I am not what you would call very strongly in favour of a public school education. Let me correct my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) in one thing. In his speech he talked the whole time about the Protestant public schools. Sir. we have no Protestant public schools in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. McCARTHY. Allow me to explain what I meant by that. I find that the Act says: the majority may establish a school. and I find that that majority may be either Protestant or Catholic, and consequently I used it in this sense: that if the majority were Protestants. and did establish a public school. it was a Protestant public school. just in that sense. as distinguished on the other hand from the majority who happened to be Roman Catholics and who establish a public school which would be a Roman Catholic public school.
Mr. DAVIN. There are two reasons why it is desirable to correct my hon. and learned friend. The first reason is that under the Act of Parliament and under the Ordinance founded on that Act of Parliament the phrase is incorrect. and the next reason is that the phrase is misleading. It gives the idea that at a public school. Protestant tenets that weald be objectionable to Catholics were 6143 [COMMONS] 6144 taught, and that a Catholic could not attend the schools without menace to his faith, whereas in Regina, Moose Jaw, Medicine Hat and Moosomin, there are no separate schools. Yet at all these places Catholics attend the public school, and I have never heard a Catholic in my constituency or anywhere else in the North-west Territories object to anything that took place in the public schools, complain that their faith was interfered with or that anything objectionable either in book or otherwise was heard. I merely rose to state what I consider to be the question on which we were voting. We are not voting on this education question at all; we are voting on the powers of the Territorial Assembly as to whether we shall enlarge these: powers or not. That is the sole question, and voting on that question I shall vote in favour of enlarging the powers of the Assembly.
Mr. McMULLEN. I do not wish to give a silent vote upon this question. The Bill introduced by the hon. member for- North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) in 1890 had two clauses linked together, one being with regard to the abolition of the dual language in the North-west Territories, and the other with reference to separate schools. On that occasion I supported the Bill, with the intention when we got into committee of supporting the clause with regard to the dual language simply and solely on the ground of economy. It was not because I have any feeling whatever against the French population of the Dominion, or not because I wish to deprive them of any rights; but because I was led to understand that the French population in the North-west Territories understood English as well as French, and that to continue the printing of the ordinance in French as well as English was in my opinion imposing an unnecessary expense on the country. With regard to the question of granting to the North-west Territories the power of dealing with education, I am strongly inclined to respect the stand taken by the Hon. Alex. Mackenzie when the Bill was passed granting the privileges the Roman Catholic minority now enjoy, and I am also in favour of the views expressed by the Hon. Edward Blake on that occasion. For my part, I am not an advocate of separate schools. At the same time. I do not Wish by force of law to take from any Catholic minority the right to have separate schools if they desire to exercise that right. I would like very well that they should agree with us to have our children all educated together in the same school : and for that purpose I would quite willingly eliminate anything in the curriculum of our schools at all offensive to them. I would not agree to make the schools absolutely secular schools. I would rather have a continuation of the separate schools as they now exist in Ontario than to have an entirely secular system of education. I be lieve that in the present age we are altogether drifting too much into secularism, and are not devoting that attention, even in our common school education, to the doctrines of Christianity which we ought to devote. The hon. member for North Simcoe says that we have in the North-west Territories a population of about 66,000. If that Territory contained a population sufficient to have full provincial rights granted to them. I would be quite willing to grant them power to deal with education as well as the power to charter railways, to borrow money, and to levy taxes. If any hon. member in this House thinks that with their present limited population, it would be well to confer that power upon them, I am willing to debate that question with him. In my humble opinion it would be premature. We have been spending large sums of money to try to bring immigrants to that country Would we not be glad to see the surplus population of the province of Quebec, French and Catholic as it is, go to the North-west rather than to the United States ? We would rather see the congested population of Ireland, where there is a very large Catholic population, come to settle in our country, than go to the United States. Our object is to fill up that Territory with population, and as soon as there is the necessary population to he formed into a province, I am quite willing that they should have full power to deal with education and every other question. To those who are strongly opposed to separate schools and are in favour of granting the Territory the power of dealing with the whole question now, I would say, supposing that the population of the North-west were different from what it is at present—suppose there were 45,000 Catholics and only 15,000 Protestants—would they then as enthusiastically and determinedly advocate granting to the Territory the right to legislate on school questions ? I do not think they would. I think they would say that it is better to wait until the country fills up ; the population may partake of a different character from what it has at present, and might reverse thevery Act that they might now pass. I think that this Parliament. with the experience it has had since. Confederation on these questions, is in as good a condition, and perhaps better, to deal with this question than the North-west Assembly. I think we understand the question perfectly, we have made the history of this country on this question, and I think the intelligence of the whole Dominion assembled in this House is quite as capable of dealing with this question in its present position as the North-west Assembly. The hon. member for North Simcoe advanced another argument which, if it were based upon an unquestionable fact, would make me feel disposed to support his resolution; that is, that in voting to continue the present condition of things, we are riveting upon the North-west 6145 [JULY 16, 1894] 6146 irrevocably, either on our part or their part, separate schools. But in opposition to the opinion expressed by the hon. member for North Simcoe, we have the opinion of my respected leader, the opinion of the hon. member for Bothwell, and the opinion of the hon. leader of the Government, all of whom challenge and deny the hon. gentleman's contention. They say there is nothing in the constitution to prevent the Local Legislatures controlling the whole matter when the Territories come to be formed into provinces. Perhaps I hold views on education different from those of a good many. I am not in favour of such an absolutely secular system such as that established in Manitoba ; I believe it is wrong to abolish from our schools every vestige of religious education. I find from the statement given to us by the hon. member for North Simcoe that there are in the North-west two hundred and ten Protestant public schools and only thirty-four Catholic public schools. Well, surely the people of the Territories can tolerate that number of Catholic schools until they find what the Territory is going to develop into. The hon. gentleman points out that some of those schools cost more per capita than the Protestant schools. That is not the fault of the law; it is the fault of the system of administration. If the Government were to administer the system so as to grant a per capita allowance, we would not have that condition of things. We are contributing large tracts of land for the construction of railroads for that country, and are doing everything in our power to develop it; and it is to be hoped that the influx of population will be so rapid that it will before many years be entitled to full provincial powers; and when that time comes, if I hold a seat in this House, I will undoubtedly vote to give them all the powers provided for in section 93 of the constitution. My hon. friend said something with regard to the request of the North-west Assembly. There is no doubt that that Assembly have asked to be allowed to deal with the question of schools; every Assembly likes power, and we know there has been considerable trouble up there in the last year or two on this question. But what is the system at present existing in the Northwest ? It is exactly the system we have in Ontario. Our Ontario readers are the readers that have been established there by the Northwest Council as the books that are to be used. If a teacher from Ontario goes to the North-west holding a second or first-class certificate, that certificate is admitted as a certificate of qualification to teach, and if he does not hold such a certificate, he has to procure one. We have virutally the same system. We have two inspectors, a Catholic and a Protestant, The Catholic inspector does not only inspect Catholic schools, but all the schools in his district, and the Protestant does the same. We have not a Cath olic inspector paid simply for inspecting 34 Catholic schools, and a Protestant paid for inspecting 210 Protestant schools. They divide the work between them, and inspect them all on one common system. In that regard, the practice is just about the same as in the province of Ontario. I contend that it is the duty of this House to legislate in the direction of peace and harmony, in order to develop rapidly this entire Dominion. That can best be done, peaceably and quietly, by granting all rights and privileges, within reasonable bound, to any class that comes into our country and settles in any portion of it. If we are going to extremes in any direction. we are going seriously to retard the peaceful and successful development of the Dominion. I should rejoice to see thousands of Catholics from any part of the British dominions come in and take up locations in our 'Territories and develop them, and should be glad to give them the enjoyment of the privileges enjoyed by the Catholic minority in the province of Ontario. You can never drive people out of a conscientious right by legislation. You may gain them over by kindly treatment into a different groove, but you cannot force them by coercion. I do not know of any part of the British dominions in which such a policy has been successful. They tried to coerce Ireland by legislation for eighty years, and the policy has been declared by the best English statesmen to have resulted in utter failure. We do not want to coerce people by legislation. We want to treat them kindly and generously. We want to respect their conscientious feelings and religious beliefs Whatever you may be able to do by kind and generous treatment, you will never, by means of coercive legislation succeed in accomplishing your object.
Mr. SPROULE. I wish to say a few words in explanation of the vote I intend to give. We have now seven provinces in the union, five of which have the undisputed right to control their own education and to every successive province that has been brought into Confederation since 1867, we have given that right. It was disputed in the province of New Brunswick, but the courts ultimately upheld the right of the province to control its own education. It was disputed in Manitoba, but the courts also, in the case of that province. upheld that provincial right. In the North-west Territories, when the Act of 1875 was passed, there was no Legislative Assembly there having power to regulate or control education, and therefore it was quite in order for this Parliament to pass legislation governing that territory. But since then we have given the no Legislative Assembly there having power Legislature. We have given them certain powers within their own control, and amongst those they are dealing with. the subject of education. Whether they are so dealing legally or not, that right has not been refused them, and, in view of the 6147 [COMMONS] 6148 fact that it Seems to be an undisputed right of the provinces to deal with the subject of education. and in view of the fact that there is now a legislature there. it does not seem to me out of harmony with provincial rights to cede to that: Legislature the power of dealing with this question. It is dealing with it to-day. and it must be dealing with it either in accord with its legal rights or the reverse. If illegally, it ought to be stopped ; but if under the sanction of the law. we ought to extend to that Legislature the full rights we have given the other provinces. Some hon. gentlemen speak of this as taking away the rights of the minority. I do not think that assertion is warranted. All we have a right to assume, if we give the power into the hands of the Legislature, is that it will protect the minority in any rights they possess to-day. We all know. as far as I can judge. that the regulations which the Board of Education there has made for controlling education, are of a very liberal character. Therefore, we have the right to assume that there is no disposition on the pa 't of the North-west Assembly to do injustice to the minority. in voting as I intend to to-night, it is not because I apprehend there is any danger of our refusing provincial rights to the provinces after they are fully organized. whether the present leader of the Government be in power or the leader of the Opposition, because I think both recognize what would be the rights of the province then. But I must confess that I agree with the assumption advanced that if we allow usages to grow up for a length of time, in proportion to their duration, they will be difficult to remove. They were given. by the Act of 1875 the right to establish separate schools there. It might happen, afterwards, when we establish a province there, and give the Legislature the full autonomy of a Provincial Legislature. that we could not do away with the order of things then existing. There was one part of the speech of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. .McCarthy) with which I disagree. and I am glad to say that, on speaking to him privately. he expressed an opinion that he intended to convey a different impression. I understood him to say that because by the Act of 1875 we gave the right to the North-west Territories to have separate schools, if we allowed that to go on, when we came to establish the province, we would find it riveted upon the Provincial Government, by usage, so that it would be difficult, in fact, illegal, to make a change. That: was the impression his remarks left on my mind. However, I am glad to notice that the hon. gentleman states that was not the impression he intended to convey. What he meant to state was not that there would not be a legal right vested in this Parliament to give the full power of controlling education to the Provincial Government, when that Government was established there. That would go a long way towards satisfying the minds of many hon. gentlemen with reference to allowing the present condition of things to remain as they are, and, for my part, I would feel that there was no injustice done to the Territories or Council, provided things did remain as they are. But as the question is forced on us now. and as the amendment is in harmony with the principle I have always held of the undisputed rights of the provinces, with the exceptions of Ontario and Quebec, which were governed by legislation introduced and passed before Confederation, and as it is the undisputed right of every province outside of those two, and of every other province that may come into the confederacy, to deal with its own education. I believe they should have that right. Knowing that the Legislature out there is discharging many of the functions of a Provincial Legislature. I think we should give them this right, and put them on a par with the other provinces.
Mr. MACDONALD (Huron). In order to give an opportunity to an hon. member who has already Spoken upon this question, but who desires to answer some of the objections which were brought against his arguments, I move the adjournment of the House.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I am not going to trespass upon the indulgence of the House by any lengthened argument. But I would like to put myself right upon a subject that seems to be misunderstood as to the legal question involved, and to answer some arguments put forward upon the general proposition. Now, my hon. friends around me understood me to say—and perhaps I used language that would convey that impression—that, as a matter of positive law, when we created provinces in the North-west, we should be obliged to restrict the power of the new provinces in respect of education by the clause to which I referred as limiting the clause 93 of the British North America Act. Now, Sir, I did not, and I do not desire to convey that impression, and it is only right that I should explain, because it. may have an effect possibly upon some hon. members, and I wish to make myself perfectly plain. What I was thinking of was not the dry question of law to which my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) has devoted some attention, and upon which the right hon. First Minister has also given his views. That is, that according to the system that we find embodied in the British North America Act, the provinces, the admission for which was provided for in the Act were to come in subject to these general clauses in the Act, and amongst them was this clause No. 1. So when British Columbia was admitted to the Confederacy and when Prince Edward was admitted, the terms embodied in the Order in Council— which, the Act provides under section 146, were to be equivalent to an Act of Parlia 6149 [JULY 16, 1894] 6150 ment—were that all the provisions of the Act not solely applicable to one province. in other words, the general provisions of the Act were to be applicable to the new provinces brought in. At the moment I had not in my mind that this provision applied to provinces created out of the Territories. may be that the view of the hon. gentleman from Bothwell is right in that respect, and that the clause 2 of the Act of 1871 does not give to this Parliament the power, in creating provinces, to confer any constitutional rights. other and different from those mentioned in the British North America Act. That may possibly be the correct view. I am free to say that I had not that in my mind when I addressed the House. I did not consider it, and I am not prepared to say that it is or is not the proper one. Section 2 says:
The Parliament of Canada, may, from time to time, establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such provinces.
I understand the hon. member for Bothwell to limit the meaning of this to such questions as whether they are to have one or two chambers and matters of that kind, and not as to the scheme of the division of legislative authority and power.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). It refers to the constitution as it covers the first article of section 192 of the Act.
Mr. McCARTHY. I was not thinking of that. These words are very general, " and for the passing of laws for the peace. order and good government of such provinces," and it seems to me they enable this Parliament to enact in the constitution of any province such laws as this Parliament may see fit. I think it is open to that construction, but I have not considered it, and I do not want to express an opinion one way or the other. My argument was, and is now —if we hand this matter over to the control of tne Territories there will be no harm done. If the people in the North-west adopt a scheme of separate schools and afterwards apply for admission into Confederation there will be no great harm done to say: Very well; nothing in any law we can give you shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with reference to denominational schools. But, if we do not give them power to choose, if we deny them the right to select for themselves, then, when the day comes. as it must before long. when some part of the Territories will ask for admission and be entitled by their population and position to have this clause enacted, then, this Parliament would be bound to repeal the law, otherwise we should be, as I say. riveting the system of separate schools upon them. This point I think a most important one.
The right hon. Prime Minister, when challenged by the hon. member from West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin, repelled the assumption that they would not be so bound. He said of course it would be open to Parliament, but the First Minister, as I understood, in his answer to the hon. member for West Assiniboia—perhaps I was wrong, but I should like to be corrected if I was wrong—rather insisted upon the view I am putting, which is that if separate schools are continued until the North-west Territories are given provincial autonomy, they will have the right of insisting upon that being continued when provincial autonomy is conferred upon them.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I did not say that.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Then I fail to understand the views which the First Minister holds. He seems to be on both sides of the question.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Not at all. If I spoke ambiguously before, I was not at all conscious of it; but I cannot be said to be ambiguous after the explanation I made to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I appealed to the House to continue the present system while the Territorial system continued, and I declared that in my opinion the whole subject would be open and free to Parliament as to what constitution we would give to the provinces when the provinces were created.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am very glad the right hon. gentleman has explained it in that way, and perhaps I was wrong in my understanding of his remarks. Of course it is an important declaration from the First Minister. Now, the House will have to use its own judgment on this question. What I say is this : that if this question of separate schools is to remain in its present position until we grant provincial autonomy to any portion of the North-west, it will be practically impossible, unless there is an enormous change in public opinion, to deny them what every other province that has joined the Confederation has been entitled to, what Manitoba was entitled to, and what I submit under the circumstances every province would be entitled to. Now, let me draw attention to the constitution conferred upon Manitoba, in that regard. I have not got it under my hand, but it will be found on consulting it that when we conferred autonomy upon the province of Manitoba we did it by reference to the British North America Act. What we declared was, that where not otherwise provided for in the Act, all the provisions of the British North America Act should apply to the province of Manitoba, and I think the very same words were contained in the resolutions which were passed at the time British Columbia and the province of Prince Edward Island came into the Union. So that we have got that precedent before us : that was the promise upon 6151 [COMMONS] 6152 which we admitted Manitoba, and looking at the character of the legislation, I do not think there can be any doubt that the same rule must apply when we come to admit the provinces to be created out of the Northwest Territories. So much for that point. I might say more, but it would be unreasonable at this late hour to occupy the time of the House by any attempt to criticise this long and very important debate. I desire to say this, however, which I think ought to be said : that I am not the one who is breaking faith in moving the passage of this amendment. Because in 1875, in the condition things were at that time, this separate school enactment was passed, on what principle can it be said that in 1894 the repeal of that clause will be a breach of faith ? Surely that is not a fair way to put it. This Parliament has power and authority to revise, and did year after year alter and change the powers and the authorities that were granted to the North-west, and the change in any one of these enactments cannot by any fair- minded man be characterized as a breach of faith. Can any great harm be done to any class of people who have gone in there and who are permitted to deal with this subject in their own Local Legislature ? 1 am not seeking to deprive any person of separate schools ; I am not going into that argument. I have my own views about them, and though I would agree with the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. McMullen) in saying that I would sooner see a separate school system than a secular system, I see no necessity at all for a secular school system displacing a separate school system. I am free to say that, but it does appear to me to be an abuse of language to say that we should not give this power to the people of the North-west, who have enormous powers from us already, who are not abusing those powers, who are quite as intelligent, I think, as the ordinary constituents that we represent here, and to give them power to decide and dispose of this question amongst themselves, can hardly be treated as a breach of faith. Why, the hon. member for West Assiniboia, with the knowledge he has of the people of the North-west, with the knowledge he has of the autonomy of the Legislative Council, tells us that he doubts very much whether the separate school system will be abolished. But is there any reason why, in a matter of that kind, they should not have the power ? Are they not quite as competent to deal with their schools as British Columbia was at the time of the Union, as British Columbia is to-day ; as Prince Edward Island was, as Prince Edward Island is, and so with the other provinces ? When you talk about heart-burnings, and when you talk about peace, do not forget, none of us can forget, or ought to forget, that we have no trouble in respect of those provinces which have complete power over their schools. The trouble that is constantly occurring does not come from those four provinces. but it does come from the province that we are attempting to control and coerce by our legislation here. Nor can we forget that the difficulties that are arising in my own province arise because the people feel there that the separate school system was imposed upon them against their will, and there is continual ferment, and continual agitation, and continual unrest with regard to that subject cropping up at almost every election and on every occasion. Sir, it is because I desire the peace and welfare of the Dominion, because I believe that will be best promoted by giving this power to the proper authorities, by adjourning to the proper quorum the matter belonging to it, that I have moved the amendment I have had the honour to place in your hands.
Mr. MACDONALD (Huron). I ask leave to withdraw my motion to adjourn the House.
Motion withdrawn.
House divided on amendment of Mr. McCarthy :
Allan, McMillan, Bain (Wentworth), McNeill, Bolth, Madill, Boston, Marshall, Carscallen, Mulock, Charlton, Rowand. Davin, Smith (Ontario), Denison, Somerville, Innes, Sproule, Macdonald (Huron), Tyrwhitt.—21, McCarthy,
Nays :
Amyot, Harwood, Bain (Soulanges), Henderson, Baker, Hughes, Beausoleil, Ives, Béchard, Jeannette, Belley, Joncas, Bennett, Kaulbach, Bergeron, Kenny. Bernlcr, Lachapelle, Blanchard, Landerkin, Boyd, Langevin (Sir Hector), Boyle, LaRiviere Brodeur, Laurier, Brown, Lavergne, Bruneau, Leclair, Bryson, Leduc, Calvin, Legris, Carignan, Lippé, Carling (Sir John), Lowell, Caron (Sir Adolphe), McDonald (Assiniboia), Carroll, McDougald (Pictou), Cartwright (Sir Richard), McDougall (Cape Breton), Casey, McLennan, Chesley, McMullen, Choquette, Masson, Christie, Metcalfe, Cleveland, Mignault, Cochrane, Mills (Bothwell), Costigan, Monet, Curran, Montague, Daly, Ouimet, Davis, Patterson (Colchester), Delisle, Patterson (Huron), Desaulmers, Pelletier, Devlin, Pope, Dickey, Prior, Dugas, Proulx, Dupont, Rider, Dyer, Rinfret, Earle, Robillard, 6153 [JULY 17, 1894] 6154 Edgar, Rosamond, Fairbairn, Ross (Dundas), Ferguson (Leeds & Gran.), Ross (Lisgar), Ferguson (Renfrew), Sanborn, Flint, Simard, Fréchette, Stairs, Frémont, Tarte, Geoffrion, Taylor, Gillies, Temple, Girouard (Jacques Cartier), Thompson (Sir John), Girouard (Two Mountains), Tisdale, Godbout, Tapper (Sir C. Hibbert), Grandbois, Turrcotte, Grant (Sir James), White (Shelburne), Guay, Wilmot, Guillet, Wood (Brockville), Haggart, Wood (Westmoreland).—114.
For. Against.
McKay, Fauvel , Hutchins, Lavergne, Ingram, Foster, White (Cardwell), Préfontaine, Roome, McGregor, Craig, Featherston, Wilson, Mara, Carpenter, Vaillancourt, Sutherland, Bourassa.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. TAYLOR. The hon. members for Cardwell, East Elgin and West Durham have not voted.
Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). I am paired with the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Préfontaine .
Some hon. MEMBERS. How would you have voted ?
Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). I would have voted as I voted on this question on a previous occasion.
Mr. INGRAM. I am paired with the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Foster).
Mr. CRAIG. I am also paired.
Mr. GUAY. The hon. member for South Essex has not voted.
Mr. McGREGOR. I am paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex. If I had voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
On the main motion,
Mr. McCARTHY. The other matter I desire to bring to the attention of the House is in regard to the dual language.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Dispense.
Mr. MCCARTHY. There can be no dispensing with this matter. Hon. gentlemen will have to vote.
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman has already spoken to the third reading of the Bill, and, therefore, he cannot move an amendment.
Mr. McCARTHY. Is that the ruling ?
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.
Bill (No. 167) further to amend the Post Office Act—(from the Senate)—(Sir Adolphe Caron).
Sir JOHN THOMPSON moved the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to; and House adjourned at 2.05 a.m.


Canada. House of Commons Debates, 1875-1949. Provided by the Library of Parliament.



Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Gordon Lyall.

Personnes participantes: