PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE
NORTHWEST.
(Mr. Speaker having
put the motion, both
Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. R. L. Borden
rose at the same time.)
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. If my hon friend wanted simply to
put a question, I would certainly give way to him, but if it is his
intention to address the chair on this measure, perhaps he will allow me the
priviledge of a few remarks before he does so.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I took it for granted from the right
hon. gentleman inclining his head, that he meant he was not going to
speak and that I was to go on.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I am glad that this debate is
starting in such an auspicious manner and that both sides are apparently
in very good humor and in a very good frame of mind for the
discussion. When some time ago I presented this Bill to the House, I
stated that there were certain questions connected with it which
were of paramount importance and which in fact were the
essence of the whole measure. The first was the number of provinces to be
created ; the second was the ownership of the land; the third was the
financial terms to be granted; and the last was the education system.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) rose immediately
after me, but confined his remarks for the moment to two of those
questions only- the ownership of the lands and the school question.
With regard to the ownership of the land, my hon. friend re-asserted the
position he had often maintained on the floor of this House as
elsewhere, namely, that the land should go to the provinces to be
owned and managed by them. On the school question my hon. friend was
reserved. He did not announce any policy, but very wisely said that,
in his judgment, the subject was one which ought to be approached with calm
and moderation. The press which follows and supports my hon. friend
took, notwithstanding this advice of his, a very different
attitude. On the land question it said very little, if it said anything at
all, but upon the school question it offered a very violent
opposition. Perhaps I may not be out of
2916 the way in saying that the press which supports my hon.
friend has spared no effort to inflame the public mind upon an ever
delicate subject.
In the course of the
years I have been in
this House, many have been the occasions in
which parliament has had to face and to solve
questions, simple enough in themselves, but
complicated and rendered difficult by sudden
outbursts of passion. And here again I may
repeat what I had the opportunity of saying
some few days ago, that in using this word
'passion.' I do not want to convey any offensive sense. I recognize, we all recognize,
that passions are very often the outgrowth
of noble sentiment; but let this sentiment
be ever so meritorious, if it goes beyond a
certain line, it may become blind, unthinking, unreasoning passion. In 1875 on the
New Brunswick school question, in 1889 on
the Jesuit Estates questions, in 1896 on the
Manitoba school question, several parts of
the country—now one part, now another-
were roused to a high pitch of excitement.
Since my conduct on
the present occasion
has been assailed, perhaps I may be pardoned if I refer for one moment to myself,
and
say that upon every one of these questions,
I have endeavoured, so far as I know—and
successfully I think—to act on the very principle of the constitution under which
we
live. In 1875, being then a young man,
I supported the government of Mr. Mackenzie which refused to interfere with
certain legislation passed by the legislature
of the provinces of Quebec of which the
Roman Catholic minority complained. That
minority complained that this legislation
was an invasion of their rights and forced
an intolerable burden upon them. But, as
it was established that at the time of confederation New Brunswick had no system
of separate schools, it followed as a consequence that this parliament had no jurisdiction
in the matter, and the government
of Mr. Mackenzie, very properly, I think,
refused to interfere and disallow that Act
it was asked to disallow. In 1889, having
become leader of the party to which I belong, I supported the government of Sir
John Macdonald when they refused to accede
to the request of a section of our fellow
countrymen to disallow the Act of the
legislature of the province of Quebec to
settle what was known as the Jesuit Estates
question. In 1896, I opposed the government of Sir Mackenzie Bowell when they
endeavoured to force upon the province of
Manitoba a
system of schools which, according to high judicial authority, the province
of Manitoba had a right to reject and which
it had rejected by action within the scope
of its legitimate authority. And in this year,
1905, when two
provinces are to be brought
into the Dominion, in which provinces there
is a system of separate schools such as
we have in the province of Quebec and Ontario, I stand
again, as I believe, upon the rock of the
constitution of Canada when
2917
MARCH 22, 1905
I say that this
parliament should, according
to that constitution, give to the minority
in the new provinces the same rights and
privileges that are given to the minorities
in the new provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
Sir, what seems to me this very proper
legislation is opposed throughout the length
and breadth of our country—no, I will not
say that,—but in certain portions of our
country—and in the name, I might almost
say the sacred name, of provincial rights.
But it is remarkable that the men who at
this day, are insisting the most upon what
they call provincial rights have taken no
heed of the fact that, in the very letter of
the constitution on which they rely there is
an abbreviation of provincial rights wherever there exists in any province a system
of separate schools. Provincial rights are
the basis of our constitution. All parties now
admit these rights and recognize them, whatever may have been their position in the
past. But, Sir, it is an old saying that
there is no rule without its exception ;
and, in the very letter of the constitution,
an exception has been made concerning provincial rights wherever there is a system
of separate schools in any province. Now
here is the law upon this point. The words
which I use now may grate upon the feelings of some, may seem harsh to the ears
of others, may seem harsh to my own ears,
but, Sir, here is the law. Section 93 of the
constitution says:
In and for each
province the legislature
may exclusively make laws in relation to education--
If the law stopped
there, if there were
no other words to qualify this general provision, such legislation as is now before
the
House would never have been introduced.
But the law does not stop there; there
are words which qualify the general proposition :
--subject and according
to the following provisions :-
1. Nothing in any such
law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational
schools which any class
of persons have by law in the province at the
union.
Here you have the
fact proclaimed, the
principle laid down, that wherever there is,
in any province, a system of separate schools,
the provincial rights are abbreviated and
the legislature can do nothing to prejudicially affect the rights of the minority
who have the benefit of this clause. But,
though these facts are plain, still, at
the present moment, they seem to be
ignored ; and, even on the floor of this
House the attempt is sometimes made to
cast upon myself, who have always held
these views, the imputation that at one
time or other, I held different
views. The
other day my hon.
friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) quoted some words of
2918
mine in this House
spoken on this same
subject, in which I gave due praise to the
Liberal party, especially of the province of
Ontario, for the stand they made in favour
of provincial rights. These are the words
of mine that he quoted:
Sir, I am to-day as
firm a believer as I ever
was in the doctrine of provincial rights. I take
as much pride as ever I did in belonging to the
great party which in the past carried that doctrine to a successful issue, an issue,
indeed, so
successful that we rank among the advocates of
that doctrine to-day the most prominent of the
men who opposed it in the past. And when the
historian of the future shall refer to the first
twenty years of confederation, the brightest
page he will have to record will be the page in
which he will trace the efforts of the Liberal
party to maintain inviolate and intact the liberties and independence of the local
legislatures.
And I am proud to say that among the names
which shall de revered in the hearts of their
countrymen, as the names of those who stood
foremost in the fight, will be the names of
Edward Blake and Oliver Mowat.
My hon. friend
stopped there. Had he
read a little further, he would have found
that I qualified the statement I made by
saying that, in the matter of education,
provincial rights were not supreme, but
they are abbreviated by the very letter of
the constitution. I continued as follows:
I agree with the
Prime Minister in this
view, that it would have been wiser for the
fathers of confederation to have adopted the
American principle of local independence. But
such, after all, is not the principle which has
been adopted. On the contrary, the principle
of our constitution is this : that while in all
other matters the powers of the local legislature are almost independent, in the matter
of education, a supervisory power has been
given to this government, in so far as separate schools are concerned.
So that, in 1893 I
held the views I now
hold, and I am acting exactly in accordance
with the opinions I proclaimed twelve years
ago and which so far as I remember, I have
always held. This being well established,
this being I believe, impossible of denial-
that the rights of a province are abbreviated
whenever there is a system of separate
schools—yet we are told that this cannot be
adopted because the provinces referred to in
this legislation are not now provinces, but
are simply territories. If I understand that
argument correctly it means that if the
provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan already existed and were to come to—day
and ask to enter confederation, they would
come with their system of schools, and that
system would apply mechanically and parliament would be forced to give it to them;
but as they come as territories, they are
not to have the same privileges as they
would have had. coming as provinces. Now,
in the name of common sense, what does
it matter, so far as law and order is concerned, whether these territories are now
territories or are now provinces? If under the
2919
COMMONS
law we gave them in 1875 they established
a system of schools, is not that system of
schools as dear to them as if they had been
erected into provinces ? If they have acquired rights thereby, are not those rights
as sacred as if they had been erected into
provinces ?
Now Sir, it seems to me that this argument cannot bear examination. But if we
are to take some of the newspaper articles
and some of the speeches I have read, what
is the supreme reason and argument that
is advanced why this principle of the constitution should not apply to the Territories?
It is because parliament is omnipotent, it
is because parliament is not bound to respect the acts of a former parliament, it
is
because the parliament that was elected in
November, 1904, is not to be
bound by the
parliament which sat in this House in 1875.
Well, Sir, if that view is to be taken, if we
are to say that parliament is supreme, I
have nothing more to say. Parliament is
supreme indeed, parliament is supreme, and
may even go to the length of disobeying
the moral laws which bind all governments
and all men. It is open to any man to
break his word, it is open to any man to
violate his engagement, it is open to any
man to trample under foot his plighted
troth. Now if it is open to any man to
do that, it is also open to an assembly of men;
and if it be the view that parliament is not
bound by the acts of any preceding parliament, that parliament may violate its
plighted troth, then we have a double opportunity on this occasion to signalize ourselves,
because not only can we remove
from the minority the system of separate
schools which they have had for many
years, but we can correct another invasion
of provincial rights which is far more reaching than the violation of provincial rights
in the matter of education. If it be true
that in 1875, parliament introduced separate
schools into the Northwest Territories and
gave to the minority the privilege of those
schools, it is equally true that in the
year
1881 this parliament for ever abbreviated the
powers of those new provinces in the matter of taxation ; it is equally true that
in
1891 this parliament decreed by an Act
passed here, passed against the protest of
the minority in that parliament, decreeing
for all time to come, not for one year only,
or ten years, or one generation, but for all
time to come, that the Canadian Pacific
Railway and all stations, station grounds,
workshops, buildings, yards and other
property, rolling stock and appurtenances required and used for the construction and
working thereof, and the capital stock of
the company, should for ever be free from
the power of taxation by those provinces.
It was decreed also that no municipal body
created by the provinces could
levy taxation upon the Canadian Pacific Railway,
its stock, its buildings, its workshops and its
2920
capital stock. Sir, is not that an
invasion
of provincial rights far more reaching in
its consequences than the invasion of provincial rights which is complained of in
the
matter of education ? But does anybody in
this House think of removing from the
Canadian Pacific Railway the powers and
immunities which have been granted to
that company? Does anybody in this House
think for a moment of giving to those new
provinces the power to levy taxation upon
the Canadian Pacific Railway? No,
we
respect our engagements. Then I ask if
we respect our engagements in the one case,
why should we not respect our engagements
in the other case?
But Sir, that is not all. I find no better
testimony in favour of the principle which
is embodied in this Bill than the letter
which was written to me some days ago
by Mr. Haultain, Premier of the Northwest
Territories ; I want no better testimony of
the soundness of the position which we
have taken than the ipsissima verba contained in Mr. Haultain's letter, and which
I
will read to the House.
The territory included within the
boundaries
of these proposed provinces was
' admitted
into the union ' on July 15, 1870, and immediately upon the creation of these provinces
the provisions of section 93 of the British North
America Act, 1867, become, as a matter of indefeasible right, a part of their constitution.
That is to say, as a matter of 'indefeasible right' the provision of section 93 of
the British North America Act becomes part
of the constitution of the Northwest Territories. Now, let me repeat, what is the
disposition of section 93 of the British North
America Act :
In and for each province the legislature
may
exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following
provision :-
1. Nothing in any such law shall
prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools which any class of
persons have by law in the province at
the
union.
Therefore, if I understand the English
language, it means this, according to Mr.
Haultain's own admission, that in this matter of education the rights and privileges
of the minority are secured against any
prejudicial legislation which might be passed. Now, Sir, there is this difference
between Mr. Haultain and myself with regard
to this point. Mr. Haultain argues that
this section 93 applies automatically, that
this House has nothing to do but simply to
admit the province and immediately it becomes subject to section 93 ; whereas the
position we take is while the provision is
embodied in section 93 it has to be introduced legislatively by this parliament into
the constitution of the Northwest Territories.
2921 MARCH 22, 1905
Upon this point I might go further. On
a previous occasion I spoke at some length
on this point, and I will not go over the
same ground again. However, it may not
be inopportune on this occasion to inquire
what is the history of clause 93 in the British North America Act, how did it become
a part of the British North America Act ?
Sir, we live in an age of such intense excitement, we are moving with such rapidity,
our lives are so much engaged in business
occupations, that history is very soon forgotten, and what is the event of to-day
is
forgotten history to-morrow. It may not
therefore be inopportune to look into the
causes which led to the introduction of this
section of 93 into the British North America
Act. It was introduced at the suggestion
of Mr. Galt, in the interest of the Protestant
minority of the province of Quebec, at a
time when he was champion and representative of that minority in the old parliament
of Canada. I have quoted on a former
occasion, and I may be permitted to quote
again, the language of the Quebec resolutions which formed the embryo of section
93 of the British North America Act. We
find that section 43 of the Quebec resolutions, concludes as follows :
Education, saving the rights and
privileges
which the Protestant or Catholic minorities in
both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools at the time when the
union goes into operation.
That was section 43 which guaranteed
separate schools both in Ontario and Quebec, but did not go further. Now, Sir, it
is
a matter of history that the Protestant minority in Quebec at that time was not altogether
satisfied with their condition under
the system of separate schools such as it
was. They wanted the system extended
and improved, and they wanted this to be
done before confederation, so that under the
new constitution the rights and privileges
secured to the Protestant minority could
not be interfered with by the new legislature of Quebec. Mr. Galt, who at that time
as I said was the champion of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec,
and was also a member of the government
of that day, spoke upon that subject at a
meeting held in the town of Sherbrooke
which he represented in parliament.
In
the month of October, 1864, just a few
months after the Quebec resolutions had
been adopted by the conference, Mr. Galt
used the following language:
He would now endeavour to speak somewhat
fully as to one of the most important questions,
perhaps the most important that could be confined to the legislature, the question
of education. This was a question in which, in
Lower Canada, they must all feel the greatest
interest, and in respect to which more misapprehension might be supposed to exist
in
the minds, at any rate of the Protestant population, than in regard to anything else
connected with the whole scheme of confederation.
2922
It must be clear that a measure would not
be
favourably entertained by the majority of Lower
Canada which would place the education of their
children and the provision for their schools,
wholly in the hands of a majority of a different
faith. It was clear that in confiding the general
subject to the local legislatures it was absolutely necessary it should be accompanied
with
such restrictions as would prevent injustice in
any respect from being done to the minority.
Now, this applied to Lower Canada, but it
also applied, and with equal force, to Upper
Canada and the other provinces ; for in Lower
Canada there was a Protestant minority, and
in the other provinces a Roman Catholic minority. The same privileges belong to the
one
of right here, as belonged to the other of right
elsewhere. There could be no greater injustice
to a population than to compel them to have
their children educated in a manner contrary
to their own religious belief.
It had been stipulated that the question
was
to be made subject to the rights and privileges
which the minorities might have as to their
separate and denominational schools. There
had been grave difficulties surrounding the
separate school question in Upper Canada, but
they were all settled now, and with regard to
the separate school system of Lower Canada, it
was the determination of the government to
bring down a measure for the amendment of the
school laws before the confederation was allowed to go into force. He made this statement,
because as the clause was worded in the
printed resolution, it would appear that the
school law, as it at present existed, was
to be
continued.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Galt undertook
that the school law would be amended in
the following session. In the following session, that was the session of 1865, the
resolutions of the Quebec conference
were discussed in the legislature of
Canada but no school Bill was introduced
to amend the law of Lower Canada. Complaint was made to the House by Mr. Holton and
others and a measure was promised
the following year. In the following year,
that was the year beforeconfederation, a
school Bill was introduced giving to the
Protestant minority much more power than
they had then and giving to them the powers
which they have now and which have been
given them since by the legislature of the
province of Quebec. Amongst the dispositions of that measure were the following
:
The superior education will comprise the
universities and the classical and industrial colleges or seminaries, and the provincial
aid
thereto, as well as that for academies, shall be
annually divided between the Roman Catholic
and Protestant institutions in proportion to the
respective Roman Catholic and Protestant population according to the then last census.
Another section reads :
Whenever four of the Protestant members
of
the Council of Public Instruction for Lower
Canada shall be of opinion that the management of the Protestant schools should be
distinct and separate from that of the Catholic
schools, they may make known that opinion
under their respective signatures to the government through the Provincial Secretary.
2923
COMMONS
But a strange thing happened in the
legislature of Canada. It was at the time when
we had a representation from Lower Canada
and a representation from Upper Canada.
A similar Bill was introduced immediately
for the province of Upper Canada. This was
strongly resisted and so strongly was it resisted that the two Bills were withdrawn.
Thereupon Mr. Galt resigned his position
as a member of the government of the day
because he had not been able to improve
the situation of the minority to which he
belonged by legislation before the Act of
confederation came into operation. Then
what took place ? Of course, there was a
great deal of commotion at that time and
the Protestant minority of Quebec felt
disinclined to enter confederation unless
their rights were secured as they thought
they ought to be secured. Mr. Galt was
appointed to go to England with Sir John
Macdonald, Sir Geo. Cartier and others in
order to frame the Act which was to be the
Act of Confederation. At that
time the
'Montreal Gazette' was the principal as today it is the most important organ of the
Conservative party. It spoke for Mr. Galt
and on the 24th October, 1866,
the 'Montreal Gazette' contained the following
article :
We have much pleasure in announcing that
during the recent protracted sittings of the
cabinet at Ottawa, the subject of the position
of the Lower Canada education question was
very fully considered. The ministry were, we
understand. desirous that Mr. Galt should be
appointed as a delegate to represent the interests of the British population, but
that gentleman felt that he could not accept unless he
was assured as to the views of the government
on the points that so seriously concern his
countrymen and co-religionists, and which so
deeply roused their feelings. We are informed
that the ministry entirely satisfied Mr. Galt of
their determination to give practical effect to the
pledges given in parliament, and the gentleman
has in consequence accepted the appointment
of delegate for the express purpose of watching
over these important interests, as well as of
lending his aid to the consummation of the
measure of confederation.
We feel that our Protestant friends may
rest
assured that the man who resigned the honours
and emoluments of office on this question will
not, as a delegate, be found wanting to his
trust as their representative. And we hail with
great satisfaction the approaching settlement
of a question which might have been fraught
with so much danger to the kindly and cordial
relations which have of late so happily subsisted between the people of different
races and
creeds in Canada.
Mr. Galt went to England as a delegate.
We know as a matter of history that he
contributed to the drafting of section 93
of the British North America Act, and those
of us who have read Mr. Pope's book upon
the debates preliminary to confederation
know that as a matter of history the 3rd
and 4th subsections of section 93, the subsections which give the right of appeal,
are
2924
even in his own handwriting. Therefore it
is to him that we have section 93 in its
present form. As to that let me call the
attention of the House to another extract
from the 'Montreal Gazette' of March 2nd,
1867. Either that day or the day before
the 'Montreal Gazette' had published the
whole text of the Bill which afterwards
bcame the Confederation Act and it accompanied this with the following comment:
Few questions have excited a more lively
interest in this country than the education of
children in public schools, or, perhaps, it would
be more accurate to say, the appropriation of
taxation for that purpose. We need not repeat
the particulars of the agitation on the subject,
which commenced with the promulgation of the
resolutions of the conference of Quebec, and resulted in Mr. Galt resigning his seat
in the
cabinet. The short of the story is, all this led
to an agreement on the part of the Canadian
government to advise Her Majesty's ministers
to insert in the Union Bill the provisions with
which the public are, undoubtedly, already
aware. That was the agreement to which we
referred, in October last, as having been satisfactory to Mr. Galt, and on the strength
of
which he consented to become a delegate to
London. The public may find in these provisions in the Bill the proof of the statement
made by us, which some of our contemporaries,
without any evidence, undertook to call in question.
Before the question of confederation was
mooted, the constant cry on the part of a portion of Lower Canada Protestant minority,
was:
give us the same privileges as those enjoyed
by the Upper Canada minority. Well, the Bill
as it stands, in terms, provides that the minority in Lower Canada shall have precisely
the
same privileges as the minority in Upper Canada.
And further, that the minorities in all
the
provinces shall have the right of appeal to the
general parliament.
The Bill, in this form, undoubtedly, in
our
opinion, will become the fundamental law of the
country, forming a part of its political constitution ; and that, as such, it must
be accepted.
It affords essential guarantees as well in immediate practice as in ultimate resort.
Well Sir, Mr. Galt was too great a man
not to stipulate for other minorities that
which he was stipulating for the minority
to which he belonged. Mr. Galt was not
satisfied to have these guarantees under the
constitution simply for the minority of
Quebec, but he put them in the terms which
I read a monment ago so that they could
apply to any minority in any province under
any condition under which a system of
separate schools exist. It is in obedience to
that order of the constitution that we have
inserted the clause which I read a moment
ago.
Now, Sir, a word as to the changes we
have
made in that clause. I stated the other day
that we proposed to make a change and we
have given notice of an amendment which
we intend to move to clause 16. What is
the reason of this change ? It is a fair question to ask and a question to be answered.
2925 MARCH 22, 1905
Sir, we have taken the ground on more
than one occasion, we again take this
ground and it is the ground upon which
we stand in dealing with the present case,
that wherever a system of separate schools
exists that system comes into force and
is constitutionally entitled to the guarantees which are embodied in section 93 of
the British North America Act. Be that
system much, be it little, whatever
it is,
it is entitled to those guarantees. That is the
position we take, and when we introduced
section 16, as it is in the Bill, we had no
other intention than to give to the minority
the rights and privileges to which they are
entitled under the law which they have today.
But, Sir, it has been objected to us that
the language used in section 16 was too
broad, too vague, and that if it were adopted, it would create trouble and confusion
instead of certainty as to the rights of the
minority. By the first paragraph of section 16 as it stands in the Bill, the Act
of 1875 is reproduced in toto. But Sir, an
event occurred some 14 or 15 years ago
which has to some extent limited that Act.
Some 14 years ago the legislature of the
Territories passed a law which in the opinion of the minority abridged the rights
conferred on them by the Act of 1875. They
complained to the federal government
at Ottawa. They made representations to the government of that day
and asked the disallowance of that
law as an infringement upon their
privileges as secured to them by the law
of 1875. Sir John Thompson, who was then
Minister of Justice, examined the question
and refused to disallow the Act. He admitted rather, that the Act was an infringement
on the privileges conveyed to the minority, but he stated that as this was a consequence,
only following a similar Act, or
rather continuing a similar Act passed some
three or four years before, as to which no
complaint had been made, and which was
therefore in force, he would not advise
disallowance and he allowed the Act to go
into force. Under such circumstances the
law of the Territories has been in force now
for 13 or 14 years. Section 16 thus restricted is now the law of the country
which has been in force for 13 or 14 years
and which has given general satisfaction.
Under such circumstances it we were to reenact section 93 of the Act, it was possible
that we would create confusion and that
there would be lawsuits to determine the
exact condition of the law. We therefore thought it was preferable to have
the law made absolutely certain and
in order to do that we have incorporated the ordinances under which
the law as it is to-day has been established.
It may be disappointing to some, but we believe that on the whole it is preferable
to
have a clear understanding on this subject
so that the minority shall have the pri
2926vilege of exercising control over their
schools as they have to-day, and so that
the law shall be absolutely clear and pronounced as to what is intended by the parliament
of Canada if it passes this legislation. That is the reason why we have
done this. The law of the Territories on
this question is established in three ordinances, chapter 29 of 1901, chapter 30 of
1901,
and chapter 31 of 1901. Chapter 29 organized a system of schools and this organization
retained to the minority
the privileges
which they have of separate schools. Chapter 30 regulates the power of assessments
over the municipalities for contributions
to education and chapter 31 regulates the
aid and contributions to be made to the
different schools conforming to the law.
We have introduced into the amendment
chapter 29 and chapter 30 ; we have not introduced chapter 31 which regulates the
aid and grants to be given to schools because we have thought it preferable simply
to lay down the principle, putting no burden upon the Territories, not saying how
they are to dispose of their money, not telling them what they shall do but simply
stating that when schools conform to the
law, whether they are separate schools or
public schools, all shall be treated equally
and there shall be no discrimination between them. That is the reason of the legislation
I have introduced.
Upon this occasion I have nothing more
to say but in moving this Bill, as I now
do, for the second reading, I want to impress on the House once more that we are
acting strictly in accordance with the principles involved in the constitution of
Canada. I want to impress once more the fact
that the constitution of Canada has been
and is a compromise between different
elements in order to produce a great result.
It is a compromise in order to unite different heterogeneous elements. There are differences
of powers, there are
exceptions,
but all this diversity is intended to promote-
unity.
Let me say one last word. We have done
pretty well so far in the development of
our national institutions, but we have not
yet reached the maximum ; we have not
yet reached the end. We may have a great
deal still to do and I hold that we ought
always to be ready for the task, and I am
sure that it will not be too much to say that
it will not injure any one, that it will not do
any harm but on the contrary will do much
good if, whenever we are called upon to
apply the principles of the constitution, we
apply them, not in any carping sense, but
in a broad and generous spirit.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont). Mr. Speaker, the
right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has spoken with his
usual eloquence upon the second reading of this Bill. If I were
inclined to use his own words under certain circumstances in the
2927
COMMONS
past, I might term him a scrapbook orator to-day.
Whenever I have endeavoured to gather up certain pearls of thought which
he has distributed in days gone by and to contrast them with the
utterances made in the immediate present, the right hon gentleman has been good
enough to apply that appellation to myself and I trust
that he will not resent my returning it to him on this occasion. The
right hon. gentleman has told us that the measure which the government
has introduced, and especially the educational clauses contained in section 16 of
the Bill, as well as the provisions which have
been now substituted for that section, make for unity. Well, Mr. Speaker,
they may make for unity in the country if the right hon. gentleman's
own words are to be taken at their face value to-day, but certainly
they have not made for unity in the cabinet nor among the right hon.
gentleman's followers. The Prime Minister has been good
enough a few days ago to charge me with having treated this question in
this House lightly. I desire, in terms as strong as the usage of this
parliament will permit, to repudiate to the utmost that assertion, and
to say that if any man in this House has treated that question lightly
it has been the right hon. gentleman himself. When I brought this
question up two years ago, not he, nor any one of his colleagues in the
cabinet dared to rise in his place and say one word about it. They put
up the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) who was then the
member for Alberta, to say on behalf of the government
that they were not going into any 'blind pool,' and when the right hon.
gentleman tendered to this country and to the members of the Northwest
the blindest kind of pool in the letter which he wrote in the heat of
a general election, then hon. gentlemen on the other side were all too
eager to accept it without one moment's question. That was the first
occasion when he treated this question lightly. The next was when in
this House he asserted, crying 'hear, hear' to the words of my
hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) who interpreted the
remarks of the Prime Minister as meaning that provincial autonomy could not be granted
to the Territories of the Northwest
for many years to come. And, in the next place, Mr. Speaker, he
treated this question lightly when he brought this Bill down to parliament,
telling parliament as plainly as if he had said so in express terms
that this measure embodied the collective wisdom of the cabinet, when
afterwards it transpired although the Bill had not even been submitted to
the ex- Minister of the Interior or to the Minister of
Finance, the most important members of the government. And, in the next
place, Sir, my right hon. friend treated this question lightly when
more than once I asked him across the floor of this House why it 'was
that he, the leader of the House ventured
2928 to mislead it with regard to the attitude of two of his ministers. I
asked him that question not once or twice, but three times, and the
only answer I ever received from the right hon. gentleman was evasion
and badinage. It does not lie in his mouth to charge me with having
treated this question lightly in view of the fact that he has dealt with it
after the fashion I have described. Further than that, the
right hon. gentleman approaches the consideration of this question
now without a minister in the Department of the Interior, although in the right hon.
gentleman's correspondence
the absence of the Minister of the Interior on former occasions has been
put forward as a ground for delay. So much for that. I will leave the
right hon. gentleman himself to judge whether under these
circumstances he or I can most justly be charged with having treated this
question lightly and not in the serious way in which it should be
treated.
I do not agree, Sir, with some remarks
which the right hon. gentleman made in his
speech on the 21st of February. He then
said :
A great deal has been done; in fact more
has been done than we have to do to-day. We
have to take the last step, but it is easy
and comparatively unimportant in view of and
in comparison with what has already been
accomplished.
I do not know whether my right hon.
friend is quite of the same opinion to-day
with regard to the easy nature of the step,
but I venture to say in all seriousness that
the step which we are taking is the most important and momentous step that has ever
been taken by this parliament in regard to
our northwestern country. We are doing
to-day what this parliament cannot undo in
the future, because the constitution which
we now propose to give to the territories of
the Northwest can only be altered by the
imperial parliament.
I agree absolutely with the principle of
this Bill so far as it is designed to give a
provincial status to these territories. As
leader of the Conservative party, I laid
down that principle when in the northwest
more than two years ago. I have stood
for that principle in this House in the sessions of 1903 and 1904, and that
principle I
stand for today.
The mode in which the right hon. gentleman has brought down this measure has led
to the expression of strong differences of
opinion throughout this country. The educational clauses have been discussed almost
exclusively in all parts of Canada. For the
moment they overshadow other questions:
they involve differences of race. When I
addressed the House on the first reading of the Bill I said I did not desire to make
this a political question. Perhaps the expression was not very happily
chosen, because from whatever aspect considered, it must in the highest sense of
2929
MARCH 22, 1905
the term be a political question in the
end.
What I should have said was that I
did not desire to make it a party political
question, and I do not desire to make it a
party political question today.
I shall express my own opinion with regard to it; I
shall express that opinion at the present
time; I have not felt called upon to speak
before. In some parts of the country I have
been referred to as a fanatic; in other parts
I have been referred to as a coward and entreated to speak out. The proper time for
me to speak is to-day upon the
second reading, and before I conclude I shall, I think,
make my position absolutely clear. And I
say, that in taking the position which I shall
now take, I do not for one moment suggest
that any hon. gentleman on this side of the
House, following the dictates of his conscience and of his good judgment should
feel himself in any way constrained by
party ties to endeavour to agree with the
views which I shall express.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FOSTER. They do not seem to understand
that principle over there.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The right hon. gentleman in
his opening remarks adverted to five principal matters contained in the
Bill: to the number of provinces, to the boundaries of the
provinces, to the financial terms, to the control of public lands and to the
provisions respecting education. It seems to me that so far as I
desire to make any observations on the first three of these, I can
better do that in committee. I will, therefore, in the remarks which I
address to the House to-day deal solely with the questions which
concern the control of public lands and the educational provisions of
the Bill.
So far as the control of the lands is
concerned, I adhere to the opinion I before expressed in this House: that the people
of the
northwest when they are granted provincial
rights are fully capable of dealing with these
lands; that they are entitled to the control
of these lands just as much as the people
of the eastern provinces of Canada are entitled to the control of their provincial
domain. I see no distinction. One organ of
the government published in the city of Montreal, an organ in which my hon. friend
the Minister of Agriculture is supposed to
have a controlling interest, has given utterance to a delightful piece of information
with regard to this matter. It declares that
these lands should not be handed over to the
control of the people of the northwest for
fear of the danger which might be encountered from greedy land grabbers. Well, I
am inclined to think—looking at the history
of the past and looking forward a little to
what may be expected in the future—that
we are not likely to suffer any greater danger from land grabbers under the administration
of the people of the Northwest Territories, than we have suffered in the past
2930
and are likely to suffer under the
present
administration. The right hon. gentleman
argued that the control of these lands by
the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan
would probably interfere with the immigration policy of the government; he thought
there might be interference with free homesteads and with the present low price of
government lands. But, Mr. Speaker, may
I not suggest with a great deal of force to
hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House,
that the people of the Northwest are more
interested in attracting immigration to these
splendid territories, which are their glorious
heritage, than are the people of any other
part of Canada.
Are they not the people chiefly
interested?
May we not rightly conclude that if these
lands are handed over to them, they will so
deal with them as to best conserve their own
interests by forwarding and assisting a
vigorous policy of immigration ? May I not
further suggest that even if there were any
danger—and I do not think there is—it
would be the task of good statesmanship
to have inserted, if necessary, a provision
in this Bill with regard to free homesteads
and the prices of those lands, and obtain to
it the consent of the people of the Northwest Territories. I see no possible constitutional
difficulty because after all the question of the lands is not a question of
legislative power until the lands are
handed over to the people and become the
public property of the provinces. There are
hundreds of millions of acres of public lands
in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Are
we not endeavouring now to promote immigration to those provinces ? And has the
government of my right hon. friend found
any difficulties interposed by
any provincial
administration which impede the carrying
out of his immigration policy? Those lands
are under the control of the provinces. The
people of Ontario and Quebec go to their
own provincial capitals and transact there
all business relating to public lands. Why
should not the people of the Northwest in the
same way be entitled, when their own provincial capitals are established in the new
provinces, to deal with their own public
lands and exercise control over them in their
own legislature? My right hon. friend has
referred to the example of the United States.
He found the example of that country very
cogent in this instance; but when, a little
later on, he came to deal with the question
of education, he departed altogether from
that example and presented it as one to
be entirely avoided. But if
the institutions of the two countries are so much alike
that we may safely follow their example
with regard to the lands, are not the characteristics and the religions of the two
people
so much of the same character that we
might also grant to the people of the Northwest Territories exactly the same rights
as
are enjoyed by the states of the Union and
by the provinces of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick?
My right hon. friend referred to his re 2931 COMMONScord in the past. He referred to his
record
with regard to the Manitoba school controversy. I do not desire to discuss this
question from too controversial a standpoint, but does my right hon. friend really
feel satisfied to-day with his record on that
question, which so much disturbed public
opinion ten years ago? If ever there was
a question in this country calculated to
arouse passion and prejudice, and if ever
such a question was deliberately thrown
into the political arena for the purpose of
political gain, it was the Manitoba school
question. That question was precipitated
into the political arena by the right hon.
gentleman and his friends then in opposition, and by his Liberal friends in the province
of Manitoba. There can be no doubt
about that. Let us look at the record for
a moment or two as the hon. gentleman
himself has called attention to it. There
were difficulties surrounding the Conservative administration of that day.
What was the attitude of my right
hon. friend with regard to those difficulties ? When the Conservatives desired to
investigate, he was impatient of delay. When they desired to conciliate, he
accused them of weakness and cowardice.
When they sought an interpretation of the
constitution in the courts, he declared that
they were exciting passion and discord.
When they proposed the remedial order, he
declared it was ineffective and insufficient.
When they sought to enforce it by an Act
of this parliament, he declared it was too
strong and drastic in its terms. He denounced in violent language the late Mr.
Dalton McCarthy in 1890, not only as an
enemy of his creed, but of his race, and
three years later he was content to accept
Mr. McCarthy's aid on that question. On
one side of him, he established a very able
gentleman, who does not now occupy a seat
in this House, but who then represented the
constituency of L'Islet, in the province of
Quebec—he used that gentleman to declare
that the rights of the minority were
being betrayed in Manitoba. And on
the other side he accepted the aid of Mr.
McCarthy, who denounced the action of the
Conservative government as coercive and
oppressive. He himself posed in the English speaking provinces as the champion of
provincial rights, and in the province of
Quebec as the heaven-constituted protector
of the minority. The hon. gentleman thus
addressed himself with great skill to both
opposing elements, and eventually succeeded
in utilizing that question as the means of
putting himself and his party into power.
And after they did attain office, I ask
my right hon. friend, in all seriousness and
earnestness, whether or not he carried out
to the full, and according to the spirit, the
promise he made his compatriots in the province of Quebec. Well, the election came
on, and my right hon. friend secured support in the English speaking provinces as
the upholder of provincial rights. He secured also even a greater measure of sup
2932port in the province of Quebec, and now
he
is face to face with the very same question
to-day. Years ago Brougham, in the
English House of parliament, addressed a
cogent indictment against the gentleman
who was then leading the English administration. There, he said, he sits to-day doing
penance for the disingenuousness of years.
Does my right hon. friend regard those
words as having to-day some application
to himself.
The prime minister first declared that
this
question is not one of separate schools, and
then he proceeded to give us a long argument with regard to the value and necessity
of such schools. I shall not follow him
along that path. It is not, in my opinion, a
question of separate schools, but a question
of provincial rights. It is not a question of
separate schools, but of provincial self-
government. It is not a question of separate schools but of constitutionl home rule.
It is a question of those privileges and liberties of which the right hon. gentleman,
up to the present at least, has claimed to be
the champion and exponent. No one appreciates or respects more highly than I do
the moral and ethical training which the
Roman Catholic Church bestows upon the
youth of Canada who were born within the
pale of that church. I esteem at the highest
the value of the moral training of the children of this country ; and I am free further
to confess that I appreciate more highly perhaps than some others the consistency
and
devotion of Roman Catholics, in this and
other matters of their faith, wherein they
give to the Protestants of this country an
example from which the latter might well
learn valuable lessons.
Perhaps in dealing with this question today I shall not make myself understood, as
I would like to be understood, by many of
my friends in the province of Quebec, whose
esteem and friendship I value second to none
of any of my fellow-citizens in Canada. I
have met these gentlemen in friendly
intercourse, both Conservatives and Liberals ; I have found among them men of
broad, generous spirit, men of culture,
men of wide reading, men able to look
beyond the confines of their province and of
Canada, men inspired not only with patriotism and devotion to this country. but
with a broad and generous spirit in their regard for those who happened to differ
from
them in political opinions or in matters of
religion. And I would desire to make myself understood not only by those who are
within the sound of my voice, but by all my
friends in the province of Quebec, all of
those whom I have known long and intimately and whose opinion I highly regard ;
I desire them to appreciate the fact that I,
to-day, am standing on the rock of the constitution, as I understand that constitution
:
that I simply desire that the domination of
this parliament shall not in any way destroy
or undermine that foundation upon which
the provincial rights of this country
rest. And if there are any men in Canada
2933
MARCH 22, 1905
who should have a sacred regard for provincial rights, they are my friends from
the
province of Quebec, who of all men, have
been in the past most jealous of the liberties
of their province. It was in that school
that my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) learned long ago the lesson which
he seems to have somewhat forgotten to-day.
In the province of Quebec, there is and there
is rightly, a strong spirit in favour of provincial rights. And it is because I interpret
the constitution in the light of that
spirit that I take the stand upon this question which I take to-day. Let me illustrate
my meaning by one further statement. If
any hon. member of this House or any man
in this country should seek to
insert in this
Bill a provision forbidding the establishment of separate schools in the Northwest,
I would combat that proposal to the end,
because I would consider it as absolutely
in the conflict with the provincial rights
which I desire to see maintained. I take
this stand because I believe that not only
in the light of the constitution, but in the
light of the highest wisdom and statesmanship, education should be left absolutely
to
the control of the people of the new provinces.
Sir, in 1896—to refer again for one
moment
to the Manitoba school question—the constitution had been interpreted by the highest
courts of the land. One decision had declared that Manitoba had absolute jurisdiction
over education, except as controlled by
section 22 of the Manitoba Act. (And,
in
referring to the Manitoba Act, let us remember that it has all the force of imperial
legislation because it was found necessary, almost immediately to have it validated
by
imperial statute and it was validated by the
British North America Act of 1871.) Another
decision declared that parliament had power
to enact remedial legislation. A remedial
order was made by the Conservative government; and a remedial measure was introduced
into this parliament by that government. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) fought against it. At his right
hand he had Mr. Tarte, who then represented in this House the constituency of L'Islet,
who I believe, expressed sincerely the strong
views he entertained on this question. At
his left, was Mr. Dalton McCarthy, to
whom at least the same tribute is due. And
between these was the right hon. gentleman
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier), willing to accept the
support of both. Like the three Romans
who went forth to hold the bridge, these
gentlemen went forth to hold the breach.
Mr. McCarthy had upon his shield the device, 'No coercion; provincial rights.' Mr.
Tarte had upon his shield the device 'The
rights of minorities; equal justice to all.'
The right hon. gentleman had on one side of
his shield the device of Mr. McCarthy, and on
the other the device of Mr. Tarte,—I do not
know which side he called the silvern and
which side he called the golden; at all
events the shield was thus exhibited. The
2934
general election came on, and, as I have
said, the Conservative administration was
defeated. In the maritime provinces a
strong campaign was made, especially in the
province of Nova Scotia, by my hon. friend
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), with
the war-cry 'provincial rights; no coercion
of Manitoba.' In the west the same campaign was carried on by my hon. friend the
ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton).
In
Haldimand, in Winnipeg and in many other
places throughout the west, ' No coercion of
Manitoba' was the battle cry of that hon.
gentleman, the ally and friend of the right
hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
And, Sir, what was all the storm about at
that time? Had there been any attempt
to violate the constitution? No; it was
simply a question of policy. The highest
court of the realm had declared the right
of this government to make a remedial order
and of this parliament to enact remedial
legislation. Undoubtedly, remedial legislation was within the terms of
the constitution.
Well, by an overwhelming majority, the
people of Canada rendered this verdict,
a
verdict which has been twice confirmed, if
confirmation were needed—in 1900 and in
1904. That verdict declared that even within the terms of the constitution there should
be no coercion of a province in respect of its
control over educational matters.
Sir, the Conservative party was not unanimous on the question at that time. It was
in the very nature of things that it would
not be unanimous. Nor was there absolute
unanimity among the Liberals of that day.
The great majority of the Conservatives
believed in the constitutional rights of the
minority, and they stood by those rights at
great risk and great cost to themselves.
Men supported that Remedial Bill who knew
that their action in so doing would debar
them from future participation in the public
life of Canada. The sacrifice was great, but
it was not too great for many members
who sincerely believed in the wisdom of
enacting that legislation, who even went
further and believed it to be the absolute
duty of parliament to enact that legislation
as proposed by the Conservative administration. And there were equally sincere
men in the ranks of the Conservative party
who combated that proposal, and, in the
end, their position was sustained by the
verdict of the country, brought about, in
very great measure I believe, by the eloquent addresses of my right hon. friend
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in favour of provincial
rights—addresses which were re-echoed in
Ontario, in the maritime provinces and in
the west by the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Fielding) by the Postmaster General (Sir
William Mulock), by the ex-Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton), by the Minister of
Customs (Mr. Paterson) and many other
gentlemen on that side of the House.
Well, after the elections my right hon.
friend stood forth as the champion of the
2935
COMMONS
liberties of the people, as the defender
par
excellence of provincial rights,
as the conciliator who had dispersed by
sunny smiles
the mists of passion and prejudice. If he
was rightly estimated by the people of
Canada at that time, there is grave question in the minds of many whether he
has not now abandoned the principles which
he then professed. Under what conditions
did be present this measure ? Without
consulting his two ministers best qualified by their knowledge and experience,
without really consulting the representatives
of the people, the executive government
of the Northwest, with regard to this particular clause, and moreover, if we may
believe all that we now hear, without consulting the representatives in this House
of
the people of the Northwest. I have challenged him before to state to this House
and to the people of this country the reasons which induced him to bring down
that measure without exposing it
to the
ex-Minister of the Interior, then a member of his cabinet, or to my hon. friend the
Minister of Finance. I have thought this
involved to some extent the self respect and
even the honour of my right hon. friend.
He has not so regarded it. He must be the
guardian of his own honour, I admit that,
and I do not press him further. But I
venture to think that it was only due to
parliament and to the country to declare
to us why he saw fit to adopt that most
extraordinary course.
Now I come to the arguments of my right
hon. friend when introducing this measure.
He put forward constitutional grounds, and
he gave two reasons, which I must examine
a little in detail, even if in doing so I trespass upon the indulgence of the
House. The
first reason he gave, so far as I was able
to comprehend his argument, was this : That
when parliament in 1875 enacted section 11
of the Northwest Territoires Act of that
year, it imposed permanently upon those territories the provisions therein contained,
so
that they must necessarily become embodied
in the constitution of such territories when
created into provinces. To state that proposition seems to me to refute it. Parliament
could at any time within the last
thirty years have repealed section 11, or
any other section of that Act ;
parliament
could repeal that section to-day. Parliament on many occasions during the
past
thirty years has amended and modified the
provisions contained in that Act. In 1890
Sir John Thompson introduced and this
House carried an amendment, to a resolution moved by Mr. McCarthy. That resolution
so amended conferred upon the people
of the Northwest Territories power to deal
with the question of dual languages after
the next general election. A similar provision could then have been made with regard
to education. So that provision
contained
in section 11 of the Act of 1875 must be
2936
regarded not as a permanent measure, but,
as a temporary provision which could at
any moment be repealed by parliament so
soon as it saw that the legislature of the
Northwest might safely be entrusted with
larger powers. It was absolutely within the
power of parliament at any time during the
past thirty years to have given to the people
of the Northwest the same authority over
education as was given by the measure to
which I referred with respect to the use of
the dual language. It was absolutely within
the power of parliament at any time within
the last thirty years to have given to the
people of the Northwest Territories exactly
the same power over education as that
which is enjoyed to-day by the people of
Nova Scotia, of New Brunswick and of
Prince Edward Island. Now I challenge
my right hon. friend the Prime Minister,
my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, or
any other gentleman on that side of the
House to refute that statement, and to do so
by any convincing or satisfactory argument.
My right hon. friend has referred to the
opinion of the late George Brown. So far as
matters of policy in this country are concerned, Mr. Brown's opinion would undoubtedly
be of great weight, and should commend itself especially to hon. gentlemen on
that side of the House who were brought
up in that school of which Mr. Brown was
the leader. Therefore when my right hon.
friend, upon the first reading of this Bill,
was obliged to quote the words of Mr. Brown
condemning any attempt to create separate
schools in the Northwest of Canada, he
was giving to his followers a lessen read
to them by the leader of that school in
which they were brought up. But he was
not content to deal with the opinion of Mr.
George Brown upon a question of policy,
he rather sought to use Mr. Brown as
a constitutional authority. Well, we
know that Mr. Brown was not dealing
with the question from the standpoint
of constitutional obligation; we know
he was not well qualified to do so, because he had not the legal training and
the constitutional knowledge which would
cause him to be recognized as a great authority on a question of that
kind. Now if
my right hon. friend desired to quote Mr.
Brown's views upon the constitution, he
might well have read to the House these
words from Mr. Brown as a
constitutional
authority :
The constitution was framed with a view
to
leaving this question to the settlement of the
various provinces, and it would be folly in
parliament to violate that arrangement.
But if my right hon. friend really
desired
constitutional authorities, he might have
come down a little later. I will give to the
House the authority upon that question of
men versed in the law, men whose every
word upon the meaning of the constitution
must carry weight. In the first place, let
2937 MARCH 22, 1905
me cite the views of the late Sir John
Thompson, a great lawyer, a great constitutional lawyer, which were uttered in this
House in the year 1894 :
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.
There was another gentleman, a lawyer
who devoted himself, almost all his
great
ability, to the consideration of the constitution of Canada, a gentleman who, after
being a colleague of my right hon. friend
in his cabinet, was elevated to the Supreme
Court of Canada, and whose loss by death
a few years ago we all deplore. I refer to
the Hon. David Mills, who, speaking also
in this House, in 1894, used
this language:
When the people of the Territories or any
portion of the Territories are sufficiently numerous to constitute a province, when,
in fact,
they attain their majority in regard to local
matters, and when they propose to set up for
themselves, this parliament has no right to
exercise control over them, no right to exercise any authority; it can give good advice,
but it has no right to give commands. But
we are not dealing with the future. When
the Territories have a sufficient population
to entile them to become a province they
must decide for themselves whether they will
have separate schools or not.
Another gentleman, at one time a prominent member of this House, now elevated
to the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada, recently dealt with the permanency
of institutions in the Northwest Territories.
I refer to a very distinguished judge, to Mr.
Justice Girouard. In a case lately decided
in the Supreme Court in which he pronounced judgment upon the claim of certain
municipalities in the Northwest Territories
to impose taxation on Canadian Pacific Railway lands, Mr. Justice Girouard said this:
I cannot conceive that until provincial
autonomy be granted under the imperial statutes
to the Territories, or any part thereof, that
the Parliament of Canada cannot amend, alter,
or even repeal in whole or in part any provision passed for its government.
Could any language be stronger ? Continuing the learned judge says :
The express orders of parliament were to
be
the supreme law as long as the Territories
remain part of the public domains of Canada,
without provincial autonomy, which has not
been granted to this day.
A former colleague of the right hon. gentleman, a man of great experience in this
House, a man who was a constitutional
authority, a man whose abilities as a lawyer were so eminent that my right
hon.
friend parted with him as a colleague in
order that he might give his services to this
country as a jurist upon the Supreme Court
2938
—I refer to Sir Louis Davies—also dealt
with this question. He said this:
The vast territory west of Manitoba
through
which the railway was to run was practically
at the time uninhabited by white men. The
provisions made for its future government
were temporary, tentative and entirely subject to the control and guidance and supervision
of the Dominion parliament and authorities.
Further on :
Most of the powers of the Territorial
government were to be given in the discretion of the
Governor General in Council from time to time
and withdrawn when and as he thought fit.
And again :
The powers of legislation possessed by
the
Territorial council were delegated and not
plenary powers. * * * *
All ordinances which the council had
power
to pass were to be subject to and not inconsistent with Dominion legislation
especially relating to the Territories.
Mr. Clement, an eminent constitutional
writer, at page 370 of the 2nd edition of
his book has also dealt with this subject.
I desire to make this question plain inasmuch as my right hon. friend has based
his constitutional argument upon the permanence of those institutions upon the
theory that, forsooth, because a certain
enactment was passed in 1875 when there
were only 500 people west of Manitoba,
that provision must be, by the decree of
this parliament, permanently impressed
upon those territories although they
now
contain a population of 500,000. Here are
the words of Mr. Clement :
From that time--
Speaking of the early history of the Territories--
—-to the present, the Dominion
parliament
has had the power to legislate for the
Northwest Territories in reference to all
matters
within the ken of a colonial legislature; and
although large powers of local self-government have been conceded to the inhabitants
of
these territories they are held at the will of
the parliament of Canada. To what extent
that parliament will interpose in reference to
matters over which legislative power has been
conferred on the Northwest Assembly, depends
on 'conventions' not capable of accurate
definition. No doubt before very long a new
province or provinces will be formed out of
these territories. The position, therefore, is so
evidently temporary that it is difficult to decide to what extent of detail one should
go in
discussing the present position of the Northwest Territories.
Now, are not these authorities sufficient
for my right hon. friend, or indeed sufficient
for any hon. member of this House, to induce him to come to the conclusion that
these provisions were absolutely temporary
and tentative in their nature and that there
exists nothing in the constitution which
for one moment obliges us to impose this
2939
COMMONS
provision for ever upon these Territories
by
an Act which we cannot repeal? If the
authority to which I have referred is not
sufficient let me cite one which occasionally irritates my right hon. friend when
it
is quoted, one which is often inconsistent
with his views, but nevertheless, one
which, if it does not command his respect,
will at least, I am sure,
attract his attention. My right hon. friend himself said in
this House:
It is impossible to admit for instance
that
the institutions of the Northwest are permanent. On the contrary they are exceptionally
temporary; they deal with a state of things
which is exceptional in itself; they were devised at a time when there was no population
and they must be modified from time to time
as the necessities of the case
require. But at
this moment to say they are permanent is a
thing in which I cannot agree except so far
as they must be permanent in every particular, so long as we are not ready to give
these
people a more extended form of local authority.
Mr. Speaker, you do not observe in this
opinion of my right hon. friend any especial
reference to the permanence of this provision which he now seeks to impress for
ever upon the people of the Northwest Territories. But, let me not forget one other
authority which I should refer to, that is
the authority of Sir John Thompson, whom
I have already mentioned. These words
were uttered in the year 1894. Mr. McCarthy, in the course of his speech on that occasion,
used this language and Sir John
Thompson gave the following answer :-
As I understood the First Minister in his
answer to the hon. member for West Assiniboia—perhaps I was wrong, but Iwould 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 Northwest 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
amblguously 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 provinces were created.
Now, my right hon. friend took one other
ground. He says that within the four
corners of the British North America Act,
1867 to 1886, he has found justification for
imposing upon the people of the Northwest
this restriction. I take issue with him upon
this ground as strongly as upon the other.
Neither in the negotiations and resolutions
2940
which led up to the British North America
Act, 1867, nor within the four corners of
that Act, and of the Acts in amendment
thereto, can any provision be found which
obliges, or in my humble opinion even
justifies
parliament in imposing separate schools
upon the new provinces. No doubt in this
I
may be in conflict with some hon.
gentleman
in this House, apparently with the
Minister
of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) for
otherwise
this provision would not be brought down.
If anything would cause me to hesitate in
my own opinion it would be that I differ
from the Minister of Justice (Mr.
Fitzpatrick)
whose legal ability I very highly esteem.
I do not claim to be infallible, but I have
given to this question a good deal of consideration and it is my duty to state the
conclusion I have arrived at, and which I
have just stated, that there is not any
provision within the four corners of the Act
which obliges or in my humble opinion
even
justifies parliament in imposing this
restriction upon the legislative power of the proposed provinces.
Let us examine in the first place the negotiations upon which the British North
America Act was passed. Do not forget
that in the very outset the intention was to
include in the confederation the very territories that are now being constituted into
provinces. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) has referred to the Quebec resolutions. Let me also refer to them. He has
referred to the 43rd article and to the 6th
sub-article. I shall read that because it is
important to consider it in order to judge
whether, outside the strict letter of the law
and within the spirit of the constitution,
within the lines of the negotiations which
resulted in its formation, anything is to be
found which justifies the present action of
the government. The 43rd article enumerates subjects within the exclusive power of
the provincial legislatures and the 6th sub-
article is as follows :-
Education, saving the rights and
privileges
which the Protestant or Catholic minority in
both the Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools, at the time when
the
union goes into operation.
Not a word about Nova Scotia, not a
word about New Brunswick, not a word
about Prince Edward Island. Is there anything about the Northwest Territories in
that resolution ? Not one word, not one
syllable.
But in construing that article do not
forget to read in connection with it article 10
of the same resolution, which is this :
The Northwest Territories, British
Columbia
and Vancouver, shall be admitted into the union
on such terms and conditions as the parliament
of the federated provinces shall deem equitable,
and as shall receive the assent of Her Majesty ;
and in the case of the provinces of British
Columbia or Vancouver as shall be agreed to
by the legislature of such province.
2941
MARCH 22, 1905
What do I argue from that ? There were
resolutions passed with regard to the union
of certain provinces, the 10th article of those
resolutions contemplated the bringing into
the confederation of the very territories
with which we are dealing to-day, and when
the question of education was dealt with
under article 43, sub-article 6 of the resolutions no restriction was placed upon
the
powers of provinces which might be
created in the future in the Northwest. Certainly, this is very significant. My right
hon. friend in his speech upon
the first reading of this Bill very frankly admitted this.
He said :
I shall be told that that exception
applies to
Ontario and Quebec alone, and not to the other
provinces. Sir, that is true.
Amongst the four
provinces then united, Ontario and Quebec
alone had a system of separate schools.
Let us trace the history of this a little
further. The British North America Act
was passed and went into force on the first
of July, 1867. Section 146 provided for the
admission of other provinces upon a joint
address of their legislatures and of the parliament of Canada. I shall read it.
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and
with
the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable
Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses
of the parliament of Canada and from the
Houses of the respective legislatures of the
colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince
Edward Island and British Columbia to admit
those colonies or provinces, or any of them into
the union, and on address from the Houses of
parliament of Canada. to admit Rupert's Land
and the northwestern territory, or either of
them into the union on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses
expressed, and as the Queen thinks fit to approve,
subject to the provisions of this Act; and the
provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they
had been
enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
I lay special stress upon the words 'subject to the provisions of this Act.' Under
this provision the Territories became part
of Canada on July 15, 1870, under an order
of Her Majesty in council passed upon
two addresses from the parliament of
Canada. These addresses, did not, nor did
the Order in Council founded upon them,
nor did the Rupert's Land Act,1868, contain
any provision which authorized, it seems to
me, or justified, in my humble opinion, the
imposition upon the people of the Northwest
of the educational provisions contained in
the present measure. Manitoba was included in the territory which became part of
Canada under that Order in Council. The
position of Manitoba was a little peculiar.
An Act was passed by this parliament in
anticipation of the Order in Council to which
we have just referred. That Act was passed on May 12, 1870, a little more than two
months before these territories became part
of Canada, and therefore Manitoba was
2942
created into a province at the very
moment
that it became part of the Dominion of
Canada. That is a circumstance which
should never be lost sight of in dealing with
any question relating to Manitoba, and I
have already pointed out that so doubtful
was parliament, so doubtful was the administration of the day of the validity of
the Act creating Manitoba into a province.
that recourse was almost immediately had
to the parliament of Great Britain and the
provisions of the Manitoba Act were validated by the parliament of Great Britain in
1871. Therefore, any question which might
otherwise have arisen whether or not this
parliament was justified in inserting certain
provisions in the Manitoba Act became immaterial and never could arise after the
passing of the British North America Act,
1871. Under these circumstances it seems
to me that no constitutional obligation, and,
in my humble opinion, with all deference to
the views of those who think differently,
no constitutional authority is found for the
educational clauses. I am of that opinion
because these educational clauses
depart in
terms from the provisions of the British
North America Act which they purport to
embody. If my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is correct in his contention
that
he is observing not only the letter but the
spirit of the constitution, why is it that he
has inserted in section 16 both as originally
drafted and as amended provisions which
purport to incorporate but which do more
than that, which amend and change the
terms of the British North America Act?
The Prime Minister in his argument today declared that these Territories became
entitled to the provisions of the British
North America Act when they became part
of this confederation. So they did, but 1875
is subsequent in date to 1870, and he is
not seeking to-day to preserve any rights
which existed at the time of the union in
1870. He attempts by this measure to perpetuate privileges which did not then exist,
but which were created by this parliament in 1775. Is my right hon.
friend willing to base his case upon
the rights which existed in the Northwest Territories at the time of the union?
What does my right hon. friend regard as the
time of the union? I gathered from him
to-day that the time of the union, is the
time when these provinces became part of
the Canadian confederation. If that is the
meaning of the constitution let the constitution be so construed and acted upon without
any attempt by this parliament to override or change its provisions. My right
hon. friend says that under subsection one
of section 93 of the British North America
Act, laws imposed by this parliament upon
the Territories in 1875, when those Territories had only 500 people must continue
for ever to be the laws of these Territories,
although they contain 500,000 people now
and inside of twenty years they may con
2943
COMMONS tain 2,000,000 of people. That is my
right
hon. friend's argument when reduced to its
essential terms. He quotes from section 93
of the British North America Act; let us
look at that section :
In and for each province the legislature
may
exclusively make laws in relation to education,
subject and according to the following provisions :-
1. Nothing in any such law shall
prejudicially
affect any right or privilege with respect to
denominational schools which any class of
persons have by law in the province at the
union.
Was it not decided in the Barrett case in
1892, that the inhabitants of the Northwest
Territories comprised within the limits of
the province of Manitoba had no right to
separate schools either by law or practice
at the time Manitoba became part of confederation. Was not that decided, and is
not the date on which the Territories became
part of confederation exactly the same date
on which Manitoba became part of confederation and became a province of Canada ?
Subsection 2 of section 93 is not very
material because it relates solely to Ontario
and Quebec. Subsection 3 of 93 reads :
Where, in any province, a system of separate or dissenting schools exists by-law
at
the union or is thereafter established by the
legislature of the province, an appeal shall lie
to the Governor General in Council from any
act or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the
Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's
subjects in relation to education.
And section 4 provides :
In case any such provincial law as from
time to
time seems to the Governor General in Council
requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or
in case
any decision of the Governor General in Council
on any appeal under this section is not duly
executed by the proper provincial authority in
that behalf, then and in every such case, and
as far only as the circumstances of each case
require, the parliament of Canada may make
remedial laws for the due execution of the
provisions of this section, and of any decision of the Governor General in Council
under
this section.
It will be specially observed that in
subsection 3 the word, 'prejudicially' is not
found. It says :
—an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or decision
of
any provincial authority affecting any right or
privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic
minority of the Queen's subjects in relation
to education.
In the letter to which the Prime Minister
has called attention, Mr. Haultain has
quoted certain words of Mr. Blake, which
are very cogent in considering this question. Mr. Blake in 1869 said:
It is perfectly clear on great and
obvious
principles that the basis of union settled by
2944
the British North America Act is not
capable
of alteration by parliament.
To the same effect is the opinion of the
well known and very able writer Mr.
Clement in the second edition of his work
on 'The Canadian Constitution,' page 352,
where he says :
Can a new province be established with a
smaller sphere of authority than that occupied
by the provinces named in the British North
America Act, 1867 ? By the British North America Act, 1886, the three Acts are to
be read
together and may be cited as the British North
America Acts 1867 to 1886. And by section G of
the British North America Act 1871, a Dominion
Act establishing a province becomes, in effect,
an Imperial Act—at all events an Act which
cannot be altered by anything short of imperial legislation. It is submitted, therefore,
that any new province created under this section must be given full provincial autonomy
and powers as defined in the original British
North America Act, 1867.
Analyze the British North America Act so
far as analysis is necessary for the purpose
of considering this question and what do
you find ? In the first place you find the
establishment of a federal parliament and a
federal executive; in the next place you
find the establishment of provincial legislatures and provincial executives; in the
next place you find the distribution of executive power between the federal executive.
and the provincial executive, and
lastly you find the distribution of legislative power between the Dominion
parliament and the provincial
legislatures. This analysis is not exhaustive, but it covers all that is necessary
for the present purpose. I submit,
Sir, that the basis established by this distribution of legislative and executive
power
cannot be altered either under section 146
of the British North America Act or under
section 2 of the British North America
Act, 1871. In establishing a new province
can this parliament wholly or partially
alter the basis of confederation; can it
change the distribution of legislative power?
That, I submit can only be done by the
imperial parliament. Surely it cannot be
contended that in giving to a new province
the constitutional rights conferred by the
British North America Act we can reverse
the scheme framed by the fathers of confederation and embodied in an imperial statute.
Yet, that is what the right hon. gentleman seeks to do to-day by the provisions
contained both in the original and amended
section 16 of the Bill. In creating a new
province under the British North America
Act can this parliament so
amend section
92 as to transfer to federal jurisdiction nine-
tenths of the powers which by the express
terms of that section are to be exercised exclusively by the provinces ? Can this
parliament transfer to such a province any of
the powers which under the provisions of
section 91 come within the exclusive juris
2945
MARCH 22, 1905 diction of the federal parliament? If we
can transfer any why not all and thus completely transpose and reverse the entire
scheme and compact of confederation. I
submit that we have no duty, nay, we have
no right or power to shatter the foundations then laid, or to rewrite the compact
into which we then entered.
But it may be said that the second section of the British North America Act, 1871,
has the efect of enabling this
parliament
to alter the terms of the constitution created in 1867. I do not so read it. I have
already quoted section 146 of the
British
North America Act, and attention must be
especially called to the words in that section :
Subject to the provision of this Act.
Take in connection with that the words
of the third section of the British North
America Act, 1886. In the passage which
I quoted from Mr. Clement he drew
attention to these words, but I desire to emphasize them, and I shall read the third
section of the British North America Act,
1886 :
This Act may be cited as the British
North
America Act 1886. This Act and the British
North America Act 1867 and the British North
America Act 1871, shall be construed together
and may be cited together as the British North
America Acts 1867 to 1886.
Well, with
that light let us go to the
British North America Act of 1871 and observe its terms. The British North America
Act of 1871 in its preamble recites as follows :
Whereas
doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of the parliament of Canada to
establish provinces in territories admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted into
the Dominion of Canada, and to provide for the
representation of such provinces in the said parliament, and it is expedient to remove
such
doubts and vest such powers in the said parliament--
And after that preamble we have the
words of section 2 of the Act, which are as
follows :
The parliament of Canada may from time to
time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of
the
Dominion of Canada, but not included in any
province thereof, and may at the time of such
establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such
province,
and for the passing of laws for the peace, order
and good government of such province and for
its representation in the said parliament.
In the first place, you must read into
that
the words of the Act of 1886, to which I
have already referred. which declare that
these three Acts must be construed together.
In the next place, you must read into the
Act of 1871 the words contained in section
146, 'subject to the provisions of this Act.'
When you examine section 2 of the British
North America Act of 1871 in the light of
2946
these provisions. I venture to submit
that
the imperial parliament did not intend by
the Act of 1871 to authorize the parliament
of Canada to alter the distribution of legislative power which is provided in the
British North America Act of 1867.
Let us examine then the basis of union
with regard to education, because that still
remains to be considered, and it is upon
that point my hon. friend has rested a considerable portion of his argument. Would
it not be well before doing so to observe
how this question has been regarded by
great constitutional lawyers in days gone
by? There was no man in parliament for
whose opinion in constitutional matters my
right hon. friend had greater regard than
the late Hon. David Mills. Speaking in
this parliament in 1894, Mr. Mills said:
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
the 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 the people of the Territories have received
the population to entitle them to enter the
union they must assume the responsibility for
deciding for themselves under the British North
America Act how far they should maintain the
principle of separate schools or maintain the
non-denominational system. Any attempt on
our part, whatever our inclinations or 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 great danger.
Mr. McCarthy, who was inclined to differ
at one time a little from Mr. Mills in that
regard, said in the same debate, speaking a
little later on:
It may be that the view of. the hon.
gentleman from Bothwell is right in that respect and
that clause two of the Act of 1871 does
not give
to this parliament the power, in creating a
2947
COMMONS
province to confer any constitutional
rights
other and different from those mentioned in
the British North America Act.
And to the same effect, if I desired to
heap
up authorities, is the opinion of a gentleman
who was elevated to the Supreme
Court in Canada by my right hon. friendelevated to a court where these constitutional
questions continually are presented.
He was elevated no doubt for the reason
that he was a student of constitutional law
and a high authority on that subject. I
refer again to Sir Louis Davies. That gentleman said, in 1891, in this parliament
:
My opinion is now and has been for years
that when that time comes you cannot withhold from the provinces so erected the right
to
determine for themselves the question of education in one way or the other. I would
be the
last to favour this parliament imposing upon
the people there any system of
education,
either free or separate. I only claim that when
a Bill is introduced to erect those Territories
into provinces that Bill should contain a provision enabling the people of the different
provinces so created to decide what system of education they shall have. I do not
discuss that
question now. I only express this view lest I
might be supposed by my silence to give assent
to some extreme doctrines which hon. gentlemen have propounded. In view of the remarks
which have been made, I thought it necessary
to disclaim that, in assenting to the passing of
this Bill, I bound myself for all time on this
question of education. I do not. Although we
are giving powers almost equal to those conferred upon local legislatures, we are
not erecting the Territories into separate provinces.
When that is done I suppose it will be done by
the Queen in Council under the 146th section of
the British North America Act, and I simply
claim the right when that time comes to determine for myself. In accordance with the
view I have always held and hold now, I have
no hesitation in expressing, respectfully, that
the people of those new provinces should have
the right to determine what
system of education they shall have.
Is there anything in the terms of section
93, read in connection with section 2 of the
Act of 1871, which authorizes or indeed
justifies the imposing of restrictions on the
legislative rights of the new provinces ?
Let me once more read it, omitting
what is
immaterial in this regard :
The parliament of Canada may establish
new
provinces and may make provision for the constitution and administration of any such
province and for the passing of laws for the peace,
order and good government of such province
and for its representation in parliament.
It is urged that when you read that in
connection with section 93, you are to conclude
for some reason that the schools which
were established in 1875, or the law which
was passed in 1875 and the ordinances
which were enacted in pursuance of that
law, are to be imposed and must indeed
constitutionally be imposed upon the new
provinces. What is the basis with regard
to education ? The basis is that in and for
each province the legislature may exclusive
2948ly make laws in relation to education,
subject and according to certain provisions.
These provisions I have already adverted
to ; and the question arises whether or not
they have any relation to the creation of
provinces from territories which became
part of Canada in 1870—whether or not
laws which were not in force in those territories at the time when they became part
of Canada are or can be imposed upon the
territories under the constitution by virtue
of the provisions of section 93 coupled with
the Act of 1871. With all deference to the
opinion of those who differ from me in this
regard, I submit that such is not the result.
And it is perfectly clear that in their hearts
the government believe that these provisions
have no such effect. Otherwise they would
not have attempted to change those provisions by the Bill now before the House. It
the
constitution is the rock upon which the
right hon. Prime Minister stands,
why does
he not let that rock stand and why does he
not build the superstructure of his legislation upon it ? Why does he seek first to
undermine it as he is attempting to do ?
I submit that the first subsection of section 93 which affords the key to all the
subsections, is only applicable to provinces
already formed, already existing as separate
sovereignties. The words of the section
are: ' In the province at the union ' —contemplating, it seems to me, laws which had
come into existence by the sovereign will
of the people before they entered this confederation, and not laws imposed upon 500
people in the Northwest of Canada in 1875,
at a time when their voice could not indeed
be heard in this parliament because they had
then no representative here. These territories do not come into the union as a
province. The words of the
section I have
just read are not apt, nor were they intended to convey any such meaning as the
right hon. Prime Minister has attempted to
read into them. In making his argument in
favour of withholding the lands from the
province, the Prime Minister
inadvertently
made a very strong argument against these
educational provisions; and I will tell
him what it was. He said :
When the provinces which I have named
came into confederation, they were already
sovereignties. I use that term, because barring their dependence as colonies they
were
sovereignties in the sense of having the management of their affairs.
And a little further on:
But the case of these new provinces is
not
at all similar.
This is the right hon. gentleman's argument when he withholds from them
control of their lands ; but when he wishes
to withhold from them control in matters of
education they are to be regarded
as sovereign and exactly in the same light as the
four provinces that originally entered confederation. Sir. I contend that
that sec
2949
MARCH 22, 1905
tion was only designed to preserve rights
created by the people themselves in their
independent legislatures before the union.
It was a matter of compact. Legislative sovereignty had already established certain
rights. These were not to be prejudiced
after union had taken place.
In the case of the Northwest, however,
the people had never acted. A system imposed upon them in 1875, which
has continued from that time to the present, is now
sought to be made perpetual. The people
did not freely establish separate schools in
the Northwest, but these were established
under the terms of a statute in framing
which the people had no voice, but to which
as good loyal subjects they have been absolutely obedient so long as they were in
a territorial position. The territories have
never had any complete legislative powers
such as were originally enjoyed by the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Prince Edward
Island, and
British Columbia. Parliament, as I have
pointed out over and over again could have
revoked the power conferred first upon the
territorial council and afterwards upon the
territorial legislature. The right hon. Prime
Minister sought to overcome this by a misuse of words—I say that in no
offensive
sense. He said:
So, Sir, now whenever a province comes
here
knocking at this door asking to be admitted
into confederation, if in that province there
exists a system of separate schools, the British North America Act has provided that
the
same guarantee we give to the minority in Quebec and Ontario shall also be given to
the minority in that province.
In this case no province comes here
knocking at the door asking for admission
into confederation. The government is proposing a measure to parliament under
which provinces are created; but these
will not be provinces until after this Act
is passed and has gone into effect. It
is
of no use to attempt to dispose of high
constitutional rights by any such juggling
with words as that. The Prime Minister
deals with the question as if
the people
themselves had established their own system of separate schools by their own independent,
sovereign action. They have
not done anything of the kind. They established separate schools in the Northwest
because the Act passed in 1875, when there
were not more than five hundred people in
the Northwest, imposed upon them the duty
of establishing separate schools if they
should establish any schools at all. Again
the Prime Minister says :
If we were in the year 1867, and not in
the
year 1905, and if we had to introduce into this
Dominion the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan--
Mark the language: 'The provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan '—treating them
2950
as if they were already sovereign
entities.
Why did he resort to what I, without desire
to offend call a misuse of words ? I will
answer for him: It is because he was
obliged to do so to give even a semblance
of support to the measure which he introduced to the House on the 21st of February.
Let me read again what I just now
began to read :
If we were in the year 1867, and not in
the
year 1905, and if we had to introduce into this
Dominion the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, would my hon. friend tell me that
these provinces would not have the same rights
and privileges in regard to separate schools as
were granted to Ontario and Quebec?
Did any one ever hear a more absolutely
unfounded premise and a more absolutely
false conclusion ? And it was
cheered lustily some of these hon.
gentlemen who
since have been going about in sackcloth
and ashes because of their difficulties upon
this question.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House resumed consideration of the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second
reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and
provide for the government of
the province
of Alberta.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) I have pointed out
that it is not a question of introducing into the Dominion in this
year, 1905, provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, but of creating
out of the Northwest Territoiries of Canada these provinces under the Bills which
have been introduced. And
the right hon. gentleman continues as follows:
2964
Would he tell me that when you would say
to Ontario and Quebec: You shall have your
separate schools, Alberta and Saskatchewan
would be denied that privilege ? The thing is
preposterous. Let us rise above such considerations.
Well, I ask him why he conveniently
leaves out of sight in that illustration, the
cases of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Prince Edward Island? He himself, has
pointed out in an earlier passage of his
speech—indeed to-day he has gone into the
historical aspect of that matter—that
these
clauses, so far as Ontario and Quebec are
concerned, were introduced into the British
North American Act by virtue of a compact,
and that no such compact existed in respect
to the three maritime provinces. Well, if my
right hon. friend will show me that the case
of these proposed provinces—because they
are not yet provinces—comes
nearer to the
case of Ontario and Quebec than it does to
the case of the maritime provinces, if he is
able to show me that there is in respect to
these proposed provinces any such compact
as that which was made before confederation
between Ontario and Quebec, I will then
readily and gladly accept his illustration;
but until he does so I contend that his illustration is of not the slightest value.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to section
16, because it is opposed to the spirit
and the letter of the constitution. I am
opposed to the substituted section because
it is not different in principle from that
for which it is substituted; and indeed it is
difficult to understand why there
have been
three weeks of delay, why there have been
three weeks of negotiation, why there have
been three weeks of turmoil, why this measure has been postponed from the 21st of
February up to the present time, simply
for the purpose of bringing down to parliament as a substitute that which is to all
intents and purposes, in principle and for the
most part in detail, exactly the same as
the original section. Is this the result of
the efforts of the ex-Minister of the Interior?
Is it for this that he resigned office
? Is it
to accomplish this that he laid down the
seals of office and placed himself before the
people of this country as the champion of
provincial liberties ? Is this the result of
the unceasing and untiring efforts of the
seven hon. gentlemen from the Northwest
Territories who sit on the other side of the
House ? Sir, the mountains have been in
labour, and a ridiculous mouse has been
brought forth. What does section 16 as
proposed to be amended accomplish? It
sterotypes for ever the ordinances and laws
of the Northwest Territories in a portion of
the country where extraordinary progress
and development must be expected. I venture to think that an Act of this kind will
be productive of more harm in that portion of the country than anywhere else in
2465
MARCH 22, 1905
Canada, because it is into the Northwest
that our immigration will largely flow, and
it is there that we must expect development
and progress to a very unusual degree in
the immediate future.
Why, the very form of section 16 and of
the substituted section show that the government are not serious in the contention
which
the right hon. gentleman has made. What
had they inserted in this Bill before we
came to section 16? They had inserted
section 2, which I will read to the House :
2. The provisions of the British North
America
Acts 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the province of
Alberta in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the provinces heretofore
comprised in the Dominion, as if the said province of Alberta had been one of the
provinces
originally united, except in so far as varied
by this Act and except such provisions as are
in terms made, or by reasonable intendment
may be held to be, specially applicable to or
only to affect one or more and not the whole
of the said provinces.
Has not the right hon. gentleman over
and over again in this House, both upon the
first reading of this Bill and in the speech
which he made this afternoon, told us that
it is his intention solely and absolutely to
apply to the Northwest Territories of Canada the provisions of that constitution under
which all Canadians live. Now I ask
him, and I ask every hon. gentleman on
the other side of the House who proposes
to deal with this question, why section 2
is not sufficient to apply to the Northwest
Territories of Canada, every provision of
the constitutional statutes which it enumerates ? If my right hon. friend proposes
to
stand on the rock of the constitution, what
portion of the rock of the constitution is omitted from section 2? It goes further,
I believe,
in the direction in which the right hon. gentleman desires to persevere, than it should
go having regard to the fact that this is
not a province already constituted coming
into the Dominion, but is a province to be
created by the very Bill we are now discussing. I will have something more to
say about that when this Bill is in committee. But putting aside for the moment
that question, is or is not my right hon.
friend sincere, are or are not his colleagues
sincere, when they tell this House that they
desire the control of education in the Northwest Territories to be regulated solely
by
the provisions of the constitution ? If they
are sincere, then I say that they have everything in section 2 that can possibly be
given
—if they stand as the right hon. gentleman
says he does stand, on the rock of the constitution. Why, the matter is not arguable.
For what reason do they insert these words?
Except in so far as varied by this Act.
If you are to stand on the rock of the
constitution if my right hon. friend and
his colleagues are prepared to stand or fall
by the provisions of the constitution, how
2966
is it that they desire to vary in one
jot,
tittle, or iota the provisions of the constitution ? My right hon. friend has accused
the
press of this country of fomenting discord,
of arousing passion, and strife and prejudice.
An hon. MEMBER. Hear, hear.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I want to tell my right hon. friend,
and I want to tell the hon. gentleman who is venturesome enough to
say, 'hear, hear,' that what has agitated the people of this country is not
so much what has been said by the press as the knowledge that the
right hon. gentleman, in this Bill, has in express terms departed from
the provisions of the constitution. The British North America Act, 1867 to
1886, is to apply to these two provinces, to apply absolutely and in
their whole terms. Are they ? Let the right hon. gentleman answer in the terms of
his own measure: No. they are only to apply 'except
in so far as varied by this Act.' And yet with that provision staring
him in the face, not only in section 2 but in section 16 of the Bill,
he ventures, on his authority as a public man of long experience, on his
responsibility as Prime Minister of Canada, on his honour as leader of
this House, to stand here and tell us that he abides by the
constitution, that he stands upon the rock upon which it is founded. Why,
surely, the matter is not arguable. If the right hon. gentleman is
sincere, let him strike out these words ' in so far as varied by this
Act,' let him abolish section 16, and then you will have in truth and in
their entirety those very provisions which are established upon the
rock of the constitution. Let us look at the substituted section. It is
worse, it seems to me—certainly it is no better than the original
section:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier—In Committee of the
Whole—On Bill No. 69—Will move
that the following section be substituted for section 16 of
the said Bill :
Section 93 of the British North America
Act,
1867, shall apply to the said province.
So far very good.
Shall apply to the said province.
How apply ? Absolutely, in its entirety,
unamended. without variation ? No, Sir.
Here again is the answer of my right hon.
friend in the very words which he put upon
the order paper of this House only the night
before last :
Section 93 of the British North America
Act,
1867, shall apply to the said province, with the
substitution for subsection 1 of said section 93,
of the following subsection :
We are amending in this parliament section 93 of the British North America Act,
which the right hon. gentleman says is
applicable to the new territories. First. he
lays it down in as distinct a way as ever I
heard anything laid down in this
parliament,
2967
COMMONS
that the people of these Territories
became
entitled to the provisions of section 93 of
the British North America Act and every
subsection contained in it. Then, when he
comes to constitute these Territories into
provinces, he takes away what he has already said is the birthright of the people
of
these Territories. Well, that may be argument and that may be logic, but I am bound
to confess that it is argument and logic
absolutely beyond my comprehension. What
is the subsection which we are going to interpolate into the British North America
Act passed by the imperial parliament
in
respect to these provinces ? What is it that
we are going to substitute for the constitutional birthright of these people ?
Nothing in any such law shall
prejudicially
affect any right or privilege
with respect to
separate schools which any class of persons
have at the date of the passing of this Act,
under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the
Ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed
in the year 1901.
We are amending the British North
America Act of 1867 by inserting in it certain ordinances passed by the legislature
of
the Northwest Territories in 1901 under
a delegated authority from this parliament.
That is the position in which the right hon.
gentleman places this matter before the
House. Further, in the second subsection,
it is declared that:
In the appropriation by the legislature
or distribution by the government of
the province of
any moneys for the support of schools organized
and carried on in accordance with said chapter
29 or any Act passed in amendment thereof, or
in substitution therefor, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any
class described in the said chapter 29.
And in the third:
Where the expression 'by law ' is employed in subsection 3 of the said section 93,
it
shall be held to mean the law as set out in said
chapters 29 and 30, and where the expression
' at the union ' is employed, in said subsection
3, it shall be held to mean the date at which
this Act comes into force.
And that, if you please, Mr. Speaker, is
a
strict adherence to the constitution, which
is the birthright of the people of the Northwest Territories. I say, in all sincerity,
and
without the slightest desire to be offensive:
Could absurdity go farther? You have applied the provisions of the British North
America Act in section 2, and now, in section 16 of this Bill, you propose to abolish
subsection 1 of section 93 of the British
North America Act and to amend the third
subsection by putting upon the terms of
that section an interpretation which, I think,
it could not otherwise bear. If the expression 'at the union' really means the date
when the new provinces are tstablished,
it requires no amendment for the Prime
Minister's purpose. If it does not bear that
meaning why and by what authority shall
we amend it? If my hon. friends on the
2968
other side of the House differ from me
there
is one test to which we can both put our
opinions. Strike out these words of interpretation, because, according to their view,
they are absolutely necessary. Then we
will stand by the constitution exactly as it
was passed in 1867, and exactly as it should
govern the people of Canada, including the
people of the Northwest Territories, to-day.
I was under the impression that a great
deal of the agitation and dissatisfaction
said to prevail in certain quarters on the
other side of the House, was occasioned by
the provision contained in subsection 3 of
section 16 of the Bill as originally drafted.
That subsection reads as follows:
In the appropriation of public moneys by
the
legislature in aid of education, and in the distribution of any moneys paid to the
government of the said province arising from the
school fund established by the Dominion Lands
Act, there shall be no discrimination between
the public schools and the separate schools,
and such moneys shall be applied to the
support of public and separate schools in
equitable
shares or proportion.
It was murmured—I
know not with what
truth—that one of the special reasons advanced by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Sifton) for his disagreement with his colleagues was the circumstance
that this amendment had been made,
and that thereby the moneys set apart for
a certain purpose under the provisions of
the Dominion Lands Act were supposed to
be diverted from the purpose for which they
were originally intended. Has that been
changed ? Let us read the provision which
is now proposed to be substituted for it,
and I will venture to say that there is a
great deal less difference between the amended section and the original section proposed
by the government than there is between
either one or other of these sections and
section 93 of the British North America
Act. The amendment does not differ so
much from the section as originally drafted as either one or the other of those sections
departs from the terms of the British
North America Act. Here is the amended
section in regard to public moneys:
In the appropriation by the legislature
or distribution by the government of the province of
any moneys for the support of schools organized
and carried on in accordance with said chapter
29 or any Act passed in amendment thereof, or
in substitution therefor, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any
class described in the said chapter 29.
Almost ipsissimis verbis and certainly
not in the slightest degree different in substance.
What, after all, is the position in which
we find ourselves to-day under
the proposal
of the government ? Parliament undertakes to interpret some provisions
and to
amend others of a constitution which it has
not power to alter. If the constitution
is to be followed, and if parliament
2969 MARCH 22,
1905
is to keep within its terms, the proper
course
is simply to provide that the general provisions of the British North America Act
shall apply, in so far as they are applicable
to the new provinces. It is the only course
to pursue, and I stated a moment ago, what
I now repeat that if the government
of this country, instead of embarking
on their present course had simply confined themselves to a proposal of that
kind, protecting the rights of all parties
under the constitution, as it was originally
framed, there would have been no arousing
of passion, or prejudice, or strife, and this
difficult and delicate question could, I think,
have been settled without any such discord
as that which we have unfortunately known
in this country during the past few weeks.
If the constitution imposes on the new provinces the restrictions which have been
spoken of, why is it necessary to distort, to
amend, to alter its language or
to interpret the Acts referred to ? Sir, it is not wise
to follow a course which arouses passion,
discord and discontent. Let the rights of
all be governed according to the constitution, and no injustice will be done; and,
more than that, no injustice will be felt.
The right hon. gentleman and his colleagues
have been advocates of provincial rights,
champions of conciliation, in the past, and
after all conciliation is better than coercion.
The Prime Minister has laid that principle
down many times, and I am sorry he has
been so forgetful of it on the present occasion. Let us listen to what he
said in 1890 :
What I understand by provincial
rights—and
I suppose what my hon. friend must understand
—is that the people of the Territories should
decide for themselves whether or not they are
to have the privilege or the onus of having
two official languages.
And if he was willing then that the
people of the Territories should have
the right to determine what should be
their language, whether they should
have one official language or two, why
should he be afraid now to entrust
to the same people the rights of any man in
those Territories in respect to education.
Why should there be any fear ? Is not the
question of language something to my
friends in the province of Quebec? I am
led to believe and I do believe that next to
the faith to which they are attached and of
which they are proud, they take a legitimate
pride in their own language. And why
should they not? I am English speaking
and Protestant, I am not ashamed of the
race from which I have sprung or of the
faith to which I hold and it is for that very
reason that I honour the French Canadians,
because they are firmly attached to that
faith which they learned at their mothers'
knees, because they revere that language
which they learned from their mothers' lips
and because they are proud of the traditions
of that splendid race to which they belong-
and every one of us should honour them
2970
for that reason. Any man who has not some
feeling of pride in his ancestry, who does
not honour the traditions of the race from
which he sprang, cannot be a good Canadian and it is well for the future of this
country, it is well for the future of
our
people as a whole, that there should be in
the two great races which dominate this
country, a feeling on either side of attachment to language and of pride of race.
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
was willing in days gone by to entrust that
great question to the fair play and justice
of the people of the Northwest. May I not
ask in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, why it is
that there should be any fear now ? But let
me continue the quotation to which I just
now referred.
If you remove that law, you take away
from
them the privilege which they now have of using two languages. I do not believe that
is in
the direction of provincial rights or provincial
autonomy. The amendment of my hon. friend
the Minister of Justice tends to uphold provincial rights and local autonomy, and
I am
happy to extent my congratulations to the
Prime Minister and to his government that
more and more and day by day the force of
circumstances brings them over to this principle.
You will observe that the right hon. gentleman in view of his attachment to provincial
institutions, and provincial autonomy
was then actually congratulating the leader
of the Conservative government of the day
because he was disposed to leave, and did
leave after the next general election the
question of language entirely to the justice
and fair play of the people of the Northwest
Territories. Yet he takes an entirely opposite stand to-day and insists that restrictions
not to be found in the British North America
Act shall be imposed on the people of the
Northwest Territories. Then he went on :
If the hon. member for Simcoe instead of
placing as a basis of his Bill that there should
be a community of language, and that this
community of language should extend everywhere in the Dominion where French is spoken,
had simply left it to the will and desire of the
people of the Territories, we would not have
one half or one-tenth part of the trouble we
have over this question.
And I will tell my right hon. friend (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) that (to use his own words),
if he had simply left this question of education to the will and desire of the people
of the Territories, constituted as they are
about to be into provinces, we would not
have one-tenth or one-hundredth part of the
trouble that we are having in Canada to-day
over this question.
The right hon. gentleman in 1896, when
he stood as the champion of the liberties of
the people, as the vindicator
of provincial
rights said :
Experience has taught us that this remedy
of interference with local legislation
has never
been applied and probably never can be ap
2971
COMMONS plied without friction, disturbance and
discontent ; that you cannot apply that remedy without causing as much dissatisfaction
as satisfaction. It must be evident that while you redress the grievance of the minority
by such
act of interference you run great risk of creating a grievance on the part of the
majority.
I commend that language of the right hon.
gentleman in 1896 to his attention now and
I ask him, whether or not he is pursuing a
wise course in departing from that principle? And a trusted and valued colleague
of his to whom I have already referred (Sir
Louis Davies) speaking on a similar question at a little earlier date said this :
I desire to follow on the lines of the Liberal
party laid down here years and years ago; in
all local matters to refer the question to the
people more immediately interested. I have
never found that solution of the difficulty to
fail; it has always proved equal to the occasion. Provinces have been driven almost
to
revolt; there has been discontent in Ontario
and in Quebec; but when you apply the principle of provincial rights, when you allow
the
people to deal with their own local affairs as
they please, the question is settled always in
the way the people desire it to be settled. So
it should be in the Northwest Territories.
They have an equal right to speak with the
people of the older provinces, and I for one
will not be a party to taking away that right
which if my own province were interested I
would expect to have given to it.
These were regarded as wise utterances
in days gone by and do they not meet with
the approval of all reasonable and fair minded people and is there reason,
is there justification, is there cause for departing today
from that which was thought wise and right
before ?
Why Mr. Speaker, in the very speech
which the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) delivered on the first reading of
this Bill, it seems to me that he uttered his
own condemnation, and I shall leave it to
the judgment of the House whether I shall
not make good that observation. He was
dealing with the boundary question in the
early part of his speech and laid down the
principle that it was absolutely essential in
Canada, so far as possible, to have the provinces of about equal size, and he attached
a special importance to that principle, indeed, we can all see that it is more especially
important to carry out that principle, in the Northwest of Canada. He was
giving a reason why the boundaries of Manitoba should not be extended westerly, though
Manitoba with 73,000 square miles of territory adjoins Alberta and Saskatchewan,
each having an area of about 250,000 square
miles. What was the reason that he gave ?
Let me read his own words.
But is there a member of this House who
would advise us that we should carve out of the
Territories which for thirty years have been
under the jurisdiction of their own legislature,
which are to-day represented by ten members in
this House, any portion of what belongs to
2972
them and hand it over to the province of
Manitoba, against the consent of the people of those
Territories ? If they agreed to it, well and
good; I would have nothing to say. But the
legislature of the Territories has more than
once declared that they would
not under any
circumstances consent to any portion of their
territory westward of the
province of Manitoba
being taken from them.
Further on he continues in the same
strain :
But even this I am not prepared for my
part
to grant at this moment, because members
representing that section to-day sit on the
floor of this House, and they and their people
have the right to be heard on that question,
and if they do not agree to it I do not think
the parliament of Canada should make the grant
against their wishes.
If the right hon. gentleman is not prepared to extend the boundaries of Manitoba
because the people of the Territories are unwilling that any portion of their territory
shall be attached to Manitoba, how is it
that he is willing to impose these restrictions upon them in face of the strongest
possible protest by their Prime Minister, and
accredited representative, Mr.
Haultain ?
Is there one principle to be applied to
the question, whether or not territory
shall be added to Manitoba, and is
another principle to be applied to a
subject which the right hon. gentleman
himself knows from long experience is liable to arouse feelings of discord and even
of passion when the people think they are
suffering any injustice? Why, any question
as to the boundaries of the Northwest Territories would sink into insignificance,
so
far as sentiment goes, in comparison with
that question which the right hon. gentleman has seen fit to fling abruptly into the
poltical arena of Canada. There cannot be
any doubt about that. What does the right
hon. gentleman say, referring to the members from the Northwest Territories who sit
on his side of the House. He says :
If they do not agree to it I do not think
the
parliament of Canada should make the grant
against their wishes.
What does that mean ? If it means anything it means this: That the seven members from
the Northwest Territories who
sit on that side of the House, hold this situation within the palms of their hands,
and
that if they maintain a firm stand they
can
prevent these restrictions from being imposed on the Northwest Territories. That
is what it means if it means anything; and
I assume that when the Prime
Minister from
his place of responsibility on the floor of this
parliament gives utterance to these words
as a solemn reason why a principle which
he declares good should not be carried out,
we have a right to attach some importance
to his words. May I read them again ?
If the members from the Northwest Territories do not agree to it, I do not think
the
2973 MARCH 22, 1905
parliament of Canada should make the
grant
against their wishes.
And
if the members from the Northwest
Territories do not agree to this grant out
of the liberties of the people of the new provinces, the Prime Minister will tell
the parliament of Canada that they should not
make that grant against the wishes of
these members.
There is one other point upon which I
shall
dwell for a moment and which is, perhaps
a little out of its place here. I refer to the
argument which my right hon. friend made
not only to-day, but also a month ago with
regard to the tax exemption of the Canadian
Pacific Railway. In triumphant tones on
both occasions he likened this matter to an
obligation upon parliament to observe the
terms of a contract ; he has said : in establishing these Territories you cannot rid
the people of the Northwest from that exemption which was imposed by a statute
passed in 1880. He told us that no one
would suggest any such thing, and that no
one had ever attempted to suggest it. Well,
the right hon. gentleman's memory is not
very good. I myself had the temerity to
suggest that very thing in this parliament.
I said two years ago that I thought
the government should seriously take into
consideration the question of removing that
exemption—and parliament can do it—but
I said that parliament must strictly observe
the terms of its obligation and that in such
case it would be absolutely necessary for
parliament to institute an inquiry and to
make good to the Canadian Pacific Railway
everything to which they were entitled by
reason of the removal of the exemption.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The Postmaster General says ' hear,
hear,' and when he and the Prime Minister can show me any contract by virtue of
which this restriction must be placed upon the people
of the Northwest, I will support the measure they have brought down.
Why. Sir, the only contract which exists is in the terms of the
constitution, and I have said over and over again to-day, that in this
matter I myself, and I believe every hon. gentleman on this side of
the House, is absolutely prepared to stand or fall by the constitution. But
before I depart from the question whether or not this
restriction shall be imposed on the people of the Northwest Territories
against their will, I have one inquiry to make from my right hon.
friend. The Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories said that he
was not consulted with regard to the provisions of section 16 as
originally drafted. He has stated in a letter—and I have not heard it
contradicted—that there was only a casual reference made to the education
question—one of the most important questions of all,
surely—that there was only a casual reference to it on the Friday be
2974fore this Bill was introduced, and that at 12 o'clock on
the very day on which the Prime Minister introduced the Bill a typewritten copy
of this provision was handed to him across the
table. Mr. Haultain has further stated, that the Prime Minister was
not then present, that the Postmaster General was not present,
that the Minister of Justice was present for a short time, but the
only gentleman who remained present during the whole ot that interview,
the only gentleman whom the Prime Minister of the Northwest
Territories had any opportunity of consulting, (and that only three
hours before the introduction of the Bill) was the Secretary of State. What
was the answer of the right hon. gentleman to that assertion ? It was
this, that Mr. Haultain—a gentleman, as he always ishad seen
fit to express, in the conclusion of his letter, his appreciation of
courtesy which had always been extended to his colleagues and himself.
I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman at this stage whether or
not the provisions of that amended section were at any time
submitted to Mr. Haultain before they were submitted to this
parliament? Has Mr. Haultain been consulted with regard to this amended
section ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. He has not. My right hon. friend has
certainly abandoned most clearly his former role of advocate of the
liberties of the people. Once he was ready to consult them. Once he was
ready to meet their will. Once he was ready to bow to their will when
constitutionally expressed. But when the Prime Minister of these
Territories, which, according to the right hon. gentleman possess now almost
complete rights of self-government, when the Prime Minister of these
Territories and his colleagues come to Ottawa to consult with this
government, and when a great question is raised, when passion and prejudice are
being appealed to, the right hon. gentleman
deliberately refuses to take the premier of the Northwest Territories into
his confidence or seek his advice and assistance with regard
to this measure. There were sunny ways in days gone by. There seem to
be different ways now. I do not know for what reason the First Minister
of the Territories was ignored. He and his colleagues are the
accredited representatives of the Northwest Territories. They
were summoned to Ottawa, and are here, for the very purpose of being
consulted and of advising with regard to this measure. But although
the situation is so serious, as the right hon. gentleman has depicted it,
he ventures, in the face of public opinion in this country, to bring
down this measure in its amended form without having given the Prime
Minister of the Northwest Terri
2975
tories the right even to see it or examine it before
it was finally decided upon.
Sir,
the conclusion of the whole matter seems plain. The very basis of
confederation, contemplating the eventual inclusion of all British North
America, provided for separate schools in
the provinces of Ontario and Quebec only.
This provision was the result of compact
and agreement. But no restrictions on
provincial powers were contemplated in the
Northwest. None are mentioned in the
Quebec resolutions. The terms of the constitution, if applied in their integrity to
the
new provinces, do not, in my humble opinion, restrict the powers of the provincial
legislature. The people of the Northwest
are, I believe, opposed to any such restrictions. We have passed resolutions in this
parliament in favour of home rule for Ireland. Shall five and a half millions of
people of Canada deprive half a million of
people in the Territories of that home rule
which is theirs under the terms of the constitution? Shall we, despite the terms of
our national charter, impose upon a small
minority of the people of Canada a restriction which they will always resent and
against which they will always struggle ?
Are the people of the Northwest
competent
to receive the rights of self government ?
Why then should they not receive the same
rights which were conferred upon the people
of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island, and which are now enjoyed
by them ? In the provinces of Ontario and
Quebec there is, it is true, a compact
which
is embodied in our constitution and which
has always been—and must always beobserved for that very reason. But at
the same time let us not forget that,
if I am correctly informed, the rights
of the minority in Ontario to-day are
greater than they were at the time of
confederation in respect of separate schools.
That does not look like any desire or intention to coerce. Is there any oppression
of the minority in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island? I can
speak best for my own province, and I do
not know that such question very
much agitates its people. There is
a modus vivendi, an understanding, an
arrangement arrived at. Let no man
suppose that I do not respect the attitude of Catholics with regard to this matter.
No one can for a moment fail to realize the position, so far as they are concerned.
They say: It is a matter of our
faith that our children should be under
instructors of their own faith, that they
should receive religious instruction at school;
and so strongly do we adhere to that principle that we would rather pay the state
tax
and also support our own schools than submit to any other system. I find no fault
with
that view. I only desire that such matters
should be left to the people of the respec
2976tive provinces and not be placed in the wide
area of Dominion politics. Is there any
reason to mistrust the people of the Northwest Territories? Are they disposed to be
less generous than the people of Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island? What does my right hon. friend
himself say on that question? I have
already pointed out what he has said with
regard to the use of the French language
as an official language of the Northwest
of Canada. He was ready to trust that to
the good sense of the people to their instinct
of justice and fair play, and I venture to
think to-day that if this question had not
been hurled into the political arena by the
right hon. gentleman, there would never
have been the slightest hesitation in the
Northwest of Canada about continuing
those privileges to the Catholics which they
now enjoy. One of my hon. friends on the
other side smiles at the idea.
Well, he is
at liberty to enjoy his own opinion; but
I
venture to say that there is no reason why
we should suspect the honesty, good faith
and fair play of these people. I have never
heard very much complaint in my own province, and while I respect the people of that
province as highly as those of any other
in Canada—although they did not treat me
very well at the last election—I am not disposed to admit that there would be in the
Northwest less generosity, less fair play,
less sense of what is right and due to the
minority than there is in the province of
Nova Scotia. W'hat did my right hon. friend
himself say on this question? May I not
appeal from the Sir Wilfrid Laurier of today to the plain Wilfrid Laurier of years
ago? He said in 1890 :-
I have no reason to suppose, and I do not for
one moment suppose, that the people of the
Northwest Territories would act unjustly or
unfairly towards the French minority.
Well, my hon. friend may smile at my
words, but he will surely admit that his
leader is as well qualified to express an opinion on that subject as he is himself.
And
further on the Prime Minister says:
The smallest measure of conciliation is far
preferable to any measure of coercion.
And did he not in his speech the other day
appeal to that Canadian spirit of tolerance
and charity of which confederation is the
essence ? And he went on to say, on another occasion, referring to the treatment of
the minority in his own fair province of
Quebec by those who are his fellow countrymen :
I am glad to say, and perhaps it would be
permitted if in this matter, being myself a son
of the province of Quebec, I indulged in what
may not be an altogether unpardonable pride
when I say that I am not aware that the Protestant minority ever had any cause of
complaint of the treatment they had received at the
hands of the majority.
2977 MARCH 22, 1905
Sir, we are always ready and willing to
acknowledge the sense of justice, the sense
of what is right, which exists in the bosoms
of the French-speaking citizens of Canada.
But may I not, on behalf of my fellow
countrymen in the Northwest of Canada,
claim that they are animated by as just a
spirit of what is right and fair ? If the
record is good in one case, it seems to me
that some consideration at least should be
given it in the other. I can appeal to the
Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock),
because I have in my hand an expression
of similar sentiments uttered by him.
I shall cast my vote to have this matter
settled by the people's representatives in the
Northwest who are best able to settle it, or
by such other tribunal as may be suggested
after they shall have the fullest opportunity of
inquiring into all the conditions of the country,
believing, as I do, that neither the Northwest
Council nor any other tribunal to which it
might be relegated by this House will betray
the trust reposed in it, but will act justly towards all the people without fear,
favour or
affection.
May I not ask my hon. friend the Postmaster General to believe that if this troublesome
question is kept out of the arena of
Dominion politics and is relegated by this
House to the people of the Northwest Territories, the people of those Territories,
through their representatives in parliament
will not betray the trust reposed in them,
'but will act justly towards all the people,
without fear, favour or affection.'
Mr. Speaker, education was assigned to
the provinces. Let any necessary agitation
in respect to education, in respect to the
rights and powers of legislatures with regard to education, be confined to provincial
limits. That is the true solution of the
question. Let the Dominion interfere
and the agitation will be widespread. My
proposition is to let the people settle the
question for themselves, and the agitation
if any—and I do not believe there will be
any considerable agitation—will be confined
within narrow limits, and, in the end, will
be settled by some reasonable compromise,
because, after all, we can always safely
trust to the good sense of the people in
this regard. As I said before, I firmly believe that if this question had been left
to
the people of the new provinces, they would
have dealt, and they will deal, fairly with
the minority. But we must not oppress or
coerce any part of the people to provide
safeguards that have not a warrant in the
constitution. The constitution of Canada
does not always protect minorities by any
definite safeguards. There are nearly 50,000 Nova Scotian electors who, at the last
general election, voted for Conservative or
independent candidates, and about 55,000
or 56.000 who voted for candidates supporting the government. There are today in parliament
18 men representing the 55,000 or
50,000 electors, and the 50,000 men who voted
2978
for other candidates have not one single
representative in parliament. What about
the rights of that minority? Have these
rights been safeguarded?
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Have they been safeguarded in the
sense which hon. gentlemen intend by this Bill? It is true that
in one sense the eighteen men who have been elected represent the
whole people of Nova Scotia ; but in another sense these 50,000
electors to whom I refer have no representative in this
parliament,
One further word I would like to say and
it is this: That restrictions of this character imposed upon the majority for the
benefit of the minority do not always work
out in the way intended. For example
subsection 3 of section 93 of the British
North America Act provides:
Where in any province a system of separate
or dissentient schools exists by law at the
union, or is thereafter established by the legislature of the province an appeal shall
lie to
the Governor General in Council from any Act
or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant
or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subject in relation to education.
If the people of Nova Scotia, or New
Brunswick, or Prince Edward Island, tomorrow were to establish separate schools
by law, they would at once bring themselves within the purview of Dominion interference.
Because, it is not only from any
act or decision prejudicially affecting these
rights established before confederation that
the appeal would lie, but from any act or
decision of a provincial authority in any
wise affecting such rights or privileges
that the appeal will lie. And the very fact
that there is a restriction of that kind may
possibly act as a deterrent in these three
provinces to which I have called attention.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having
so long detained the House; I had hoped
to conclude in a very much shorter time.
I trust that I shall not be misunderstood
by any of my fellow-countrymen with regard
to the position II have taken in this matter.
I base my case and my contention upon
the terms of the constitution. I do not
argue against separate schools ; I do not
argue for separate schools. It is not for
me to determine that question for the people of the Northwest; it is for the people
of the Northwest, under the terms of the
constitution, to determine that matter for
themselves. I shall always endeavour to
respect the opinions of my fellow-countrymen, of whatever race and of whatever
creed. But I do not think it is wise to
attempt to step outside of the limits of the
constitution to provide remedies which
have no warrant within the terms of our
national charter. The battle cry of hon.
gentlemen opposite in 1896 was 'Hands off
2979 COMMONS
Manitoba.' 'There will be no coercion Act
under Laurier.' The slogan of that day
raised against the exercise of coercion under
a perfectly constitutional power, should ring
to-day in thunder tones in the ears of those
from whose lips it then resounded. Let
there be no domination of provincial liberties by the federal power, let no violent
hands he laid upon the charter in which
those liberties are enshrined.
Mr. Speaker, it remains for me to state
to the House what action I shall take at
the present time, holding the views and convictions which I have expressed. Upon the
second reading of any public Bill the
question of principle is discussed. So far as
this Bill grants provincial autonomy, I am
heartily in suport of it ; in so far as this
Bill withholds from the new provinces any
rights to which I think they are justly
entitled under the terms of the constitution,
I am not in favour of it. I shall, therefore,
adapt a course which has in the past been
adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite on more
than one occasion, a course for which there
is ample precedent, both in the parliament
of Great Britain and in the parliament of
this country ; I shall adopt the course of
moving that :
All the words after the word ' that ' to the
end of the question he left out and the following substituted therefor :-
Upon the establishment of a province in
the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed by Bill (No. 69), the legislature
of such
province, subject to and in accordance with the
provisions of the British North America Acts
1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full
powers of provincial self government including power to exclusively make laws in relation
to education.
The effect of this amendment is not to
defeat the Bill.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My right hon. friend says ' hear,
hear.' I do not want the Bill defeated ; I want the Bill amended so that
it shall give to the people of the Northwest Territories the full
measure of self-government to which they are entitled under the
terms of the constitution. It is for that reason that I have made my
motion in amendment, in order that I may embody therein the principle
which I think should be applied to this Bill. If carried, it will not
defeat the Bill ; if carried, the result will simply be that the Bill is
placed on the order paper on a subsequent day, and it will go to
committee with the opinion of this House in favour of the principle which I
have advocated. That is the position which I think I ought to assume
under the circumstances ; at all events, that is the position
which I do assume, and by which I am prepared to stand.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).
Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the procedure under which
my hon.
2980 friend the leader of the opposition has proposed this
amendment and, so far as I do understand it, I do not agree with him as
to the effect which it may have upon the measure that is now before
the House. The motion now before the House is that this Bill be now
read a second time.
Mr. FIELDING. That is the motion which has been placed
in your hands. The motion is that this Bill be read a second time. My
hon. friend moves to strike out all the words after 'that,' and express a
pious opinion on one portion of the Bill. It seems to me that after
you have struck out all the words of the motion that the Bill be now
read a second time, there is no Bill left. It is certainly not the usual
method whereby anybody moves an amendment. If an hon. member regards
the main purpose of a Bill—whatever he may be pleased to
consider its main purpose—with favour and disapproves of some minor part of
it, his obvious duty is to support the second reading of that Bill,
and when in committee we reach the clause to which he objects, then is
the proper moment to move that that clause be struck out and something else
be substituted. 1 think the method of my hon. friend is a mistaken one
; however, I do not attach much importance to that, and I prefer to
proceed with the discussion.
I need hardly say, Sir, that I do not rise
for the purpose of following my hon. friend
in the very lengthy argument, he has addressed to this House on what he is pleased
to regard as the constitutional questions involved in the consideration of this measure.
If I felt, as he appears to feel, that the constitutional questions involved are the
overshadowing questions, I need hardly say that
I would not presume to address the House
at this moment, but I would leave the question to be dealt with by hon. members of
the legal profession, who are supposed to
understand such matters better than those
of us who are laymen. But it is because I
do not agree with my hon. friend that the
constitutional question is the overshadowing question that I venture to discuss the
matter at the present stage. I do not believe that the people of Canada will consent
that any one of us shall shelter himself behind the fence of an alleged constitutional
question. This school question is a vexed
question, a troublesome question. We can
all say with the fullest sincerity that it is
a misfortune that we have to deal with it.
But once we have it here, my belief is that
our constituents, the people of Canada, will
expect us not to evade it, but to meet it
fairly, boldly, to discuss it openly, discuss
it in a generous spirit, and endeavour to
find some solution of the difficult problem.
I do not agree with my hon. friend that we
are not called upon to discuss the question
of separate schools or common schools. I
believe that the people of the Dominion today are not occupying their minds with an
elaborate analysis of constitutional questions
2981 MARCH 22, 1905
which nine out of ten of them will never
read, and which the whole ten will fail to
understand. I believe that the people of
Canada, since this unpleasant question is
brought before us, will expect us to meet
it plainly and openly, and discuss it with the
hope of finding a happy solution. So I put
aside the constitutional question, not for a
moment under-valuing it--
Mr. FIELDING. The Prime Minister did not discuss it in
the sense that was attributed to him by the hon. gentleman.
Some hon. MEMBERS. No.
Mr. FIELDING. I do not propose to go into that
constitutional question, not because I say it should not receive
any consideration, but because I say it is not the great
question involved, and I prefer to go on and deal with the practical
questions which are before us. If it is a constitutional
question above all others, then, perhaps the best thing we can do
will be to request the legal members of this House to adjourn to the
Railway Committee room and thresh it out, while we who have not the
good fortune to belong to that learned profession will stay down here and
discuss the practical questions involved, or proceed with the ordinary
business of the House. But, if it is the case that there are questions other than
the constitutional question and greater than
the constitutional question involved, these are the matters that I may
venture to proceed to discuss before this House. Now. the first question to
be considered. only for a moment, because, happily, there is no
division of opinion upon it, is whether or not the time has come when
we shall give a provincial constitution to these new Territories
in the west. Happily, I say, there is no difference of
opinion on that. It is now thirty- five years since these lands
were acquired and brought under the control of the Canadian
authorities. From the beginning, governments and legislatures have gone on
preparing the people for the work of self- government. At
an early stage the province of Manitoba was carved out and set up in
housekeeping. At a later stage the Northwest Territories were
given another form of organization. That form was developed from time
to time and at this moment they have in the Northwest Territories a very
considerable measure of self-government, but inasmuch as it falls
short of the ordinary powers, privileges and authority of a
province, we all agree that the time has come when we shall give a
provincial constitution to the people who inhabit those lands.
Then, we come to the question whether
these Territories shall come under the operation of one government, as at present,
or
whether they shall be divided into two or
2982
more provinces. There is not much dispute on that point, happily. I think my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition had
previously entertained the view that one
province was sufficient.
Mr. FIELDING. I think some opinions have come from the
other side of the House on that point. However, I am not saying that
for the purpose of arguing it but I am only mentioning it incidentally. When
we consider the question of the population of the Northwest
Territories to-day we can readily agree that the population of the
Territories is not too much for one province. The population in
the Territories to-day is about the same as the population of one of
our smaller provinces, or of the greatest of the maritime provinces. But,
we are well aware of the fact that the population of the
Territories will increase very rapidly, and inasmuch as there is a
vast area of land to be occupied it has been deemed wise to divide the
Territories into two portions and establish a separate government for
each. There may be some difference of opinion on that point. but it is
not a very serious difference and we may say that we are happily agreed that
there shall be two provinces.
The next question to which we come is
the question as to what shall be done with
the Dominion lands. My hon. friend, (Mr.
R. L. Borden) in the small portion of
his speech in which he did not deal
with the constitutional question, devoted
himself to the question of Dominion
lands. We have provided in this Bill
that the Dominion lands shall be retained by the Dominion. My hon. friend
takes very strong ground in favour of these
lands being given over to the provinces. He
argues that inasmuch as by the British
North America Act the lands were left to
the possession of the original provinces we
should apply the same principle and leave
these lands to the new provinces of Alberta
and Saskatchewan. That argument is by
no means conclusive. We know that there
are strong reasons why these lands should
be retained within the control of the Dominion. We have not the slightest doubt
that during the development of the Northwest Territories it is a wise provision that
the Dominion and not the provinces should
retain the management and control of the
public lands. My hon. friend can see no
reason why a distinction should be made
between our dealing with the land question
in the case of the Northwest Territories and
dealing with the land question in the case
of the older provinces. Let me say to my
hon. friend that we think there are strong
reasons. The question of immigration is
one which is properly assigned to the Dominion government. The question of immi
2983 gration and the question of the settlement
of the public lands are closely associated.
In most of the older provinces the amount
of available land is not very great ; at all
events the land which is likely to attract
settlers immediately is not very great—not
so great as it is in the far west. Then, if
we expect population to flow rapidly into
the west, if we are to control the immigration policy, if we are to be able to
carry out that vigorous policy which during
the past few years has been converting that
land into busy hives of industry in many
sections, if, I say, we are to be able to
carry on that vigorous policy which has
built up the Northwest Territories in the
last eight years, it is necessary that there
shall be a retention of those lands in the
hands of the Dominion government. But,
if we make a mistake at this point we, at
all events, have the comfort of knowing
that we err in good company, in company
which my hon. friends opposite will be
bound to consider very good company. My
hon. friend did not note the fact that when
the province of Manitoba was created, just
as we are to-day creating these two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the
land question was considered and that for
the very reasons which I have ventured to
advance to-night the government of Sir
John Macdonald decided that it would not
be wise to give the province of Manitoba
control of its own lands. If for good and
sufficient reasons, the same reasons as those
which have been advanced by this government, it was deemed well that in the case
of the province of Manitoba, the lands
should remain under the control of the Dominion, why is it not an equally sound argument
to-day to say that the lands in the
case of these new provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan shall remain in the hands of
the Dominion? But, that did not settle
the question. After the lapse of some
years the province of Manitoba revived the
question. The province of Manitoba advanced the very reasons which my hon.
friend has advanced in favour of having
control of these lands. They were not content to rest under the constitution which
had been given to them. They came to
Ottawa and they asked the government,
on more than one occasion if I am
not mistaken, to change that provision of
the constitution and to give the province of
Manitoba control of the lands. I have in
my hand the decision of the government of
Sir John Macdonald in the usual form of a
certified copy of a report of a committee
of the honourable the Privy Council approved by His Excellency the Governor
General in Council on the 22nd May, 1884.
The memorandum says :
The Committee of the Privy Council have
named a sub-committee to confer with Hon.
Messsr. Murray, Norquay and Miller, duly accredited delegates from the legislature
of Man
2984itoba, upon the subjects embraced in the memorandum of instructions given by the said
legislature of Manitoba to the delegates, as well
as many other matters affecting the province.
The report deals with a number of matters. It is quite lengthy and I shall only
be justified in detaining the House with the
part of it which comes immediately in connection with the land question. After hearing
these delegates, after hearing the very
strongest arguments that could possibly be
advanced, no doubt the very same arguments that my hon. friend has advanced today,
why these lands should be placed under the control of the province, the government
of Sir John Macdonald came to
the following conclusion :
The lands of Manitoba hold a very different
position in relation to the Dominion government from the lands of the other provinces.
Shortly after the union of the old provinces,
the governent formed from that union purchased at a large price in cash, all the rights,
title and interest of the Hudson Bay Company, in and to the territory out of which
the
province of Manitoba has been formed.
It incurred further a very large expenditure
to obtain and hold this territory in peaceable
possession, and at a still further cost which
is continuous and perpetual is extinguishing
Indian titles and maintaining the Indians so
that the Dominion government has a very large
pecuniary interest in the soil, which does not
exist in respect to any other of the confederated provinces.
The purpose expressed in the memorandum
of instructions--
That is in the memorandum of the Manitoba government--
—for which lands are sought, is that they
may be applied to the public uses of Manitoba.
This purpose seems to be most fully met by
the federal government already, viz.: in providing railway communication to and through
Manitoba, in aiding the settlement of vacant
lands, and in public works of utility to the
province.
Further on the same report says :
The great attraction which the Canadian government now offers, the impressive fact
to the
mind of the men contemplating immigration, is
that a well known and recognized government
holds unfettered in its own hand the lands
which it offers free, and that that government
has its agencies and organizations for directing,
receiving, transporting and placing the immigrant upon the homestead which he may
select.
And if the immigration operations of the Dominion, which involve so large a cost,
are to
have continued success and to be of advantage
to Manitoba and the Northwest Territories your
sub-committee deem it to be of the utmost importance that the Dominion government
shall
retain and control the lands which it has proclaimed free to all comers. W'ere there
other
considerations of sufficient force to induce them
to recommend their transfer to Manitoba, and
as a consequence and by precedent the surrender to the provinces to be created from
the
Northwest Territory, all the lands within their
boundaries, then they would advise that the
2985 MARCH 22, 1905
provinces holding the lands should conduct their
own immigration operations at their own expense.
And so against the contention of my
hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) to-day
that it is a wise policy to surrender these
lands to the local authorities we have the
deliberate conclusion of the Dominion government of earlier days, the government of
that distinguished statesman, whose name
is always so warmly honoured by hon. gen[tle]men on the other side, we have the decision
of Sir John Macdonald at the time of the
creation of the province of Manitoba and
afterwards when the question was revived
by the provincial government, we have the
decision of that eminent statesman that in
the true interests of this Dominion the
lands of Manitoba and the Northwest should
remain under the control of the Dominion
government.
Next, Sir, we may come briefly to the question of the financial arrangements. At the
time of confederation it was agreed that the
various provinces which form the union
should surrender their customs and excise
duties to the common treasury at Ottawa.
But they required as a condition of confederation that some portion of these moneys
should be returned to the provinces to assist
in the maintenance of the provincial government, and thus there was established the
system of provincial subsidies. The principles governing the distribution of money
to
the provinces are pretty well laid down. As
the first step we give a certain fixed sum,
having due regard to the responsibilities
of the various provinces, in the way of
allowance for government. Then there is a
sum of 80 cents per head on the population,
and finally there is an adjustment of the
debt account whereby in some cases
an allowance is made to the province in the
form of interest on a public debt which that
province might owe but which in the particular case does not happen to exist. So
far the principles under which these subsidies and aids to provinces may be granted
are pretty well understood, and they are
applied in this case to the new provinces to
be created, taking an estimated population
which is probably a fair and liberal one
upon which they shall receive the sums set
down in the Bill.
One other financial question remains and
it is one which arises out of the retention
of the lands by the Dominion government.
Since we have allowed the other provinces
to retain the lands, and since they have
them as a source of revenue, and since in
the case of the Northwest Provinces we
withhold the lands from them and they are
deprived of that source of revenue, it follows that we must make some allowance to
them. and it will be admitted that we should
make a reasonable and generous allowance.
1 have seen comparisons made in criticism
of this measure between the sums which
2986
will be received by these provinces in the
west from the Dominion treasury and the
sums which are received by some of the
other provinces. I have seen a comparison
made in the case of my own province particularly. Comparisons of that nature are
very unfair and may easily be misleading.
If I turn to the latest returns which I have
at hand 1 find that in the case of Ontario
the province receives about $1,500,000 a
year of revenue from its lands. The
Northwest Provinces will receive nothing
to correspond with that and therefore we
must make a liberal allowance to them.
Quebec receives about $1,300,000 per annum,
according to a recent report, in the way of
revenue from lands, forests and minerals.
My own province, Nova Scotia, received last
year over $600,000 from its lands, mines and
minerals. We deprive the new provinces in
the west of these sources of revenue, and
of course we should make up the sum to
them by liberal allowances. I do not think
that, on the whole, we can complain much of
the financial terms. It may be that when we
come to deal with the Bill in committee
seine questions may arise that may require
further consideration. but speaking generally I think the most that can be said about
the financial terms is that they are liberaland I am sure that on both sides of the
House we would desire to be liberal as
respects these two provinces which will
have a large territory and will begin with
a comparatively sparse population. We all
realize that a population scattered over a
wide territory requires man for man more
money for the expenses of government than
a population which is closely settled together. I think therefore on the whole,
reserving any discussion of details until we
go into committee on the Bill, that the
terms are liberal to these two provinces,
they are generous. but not more generous
than hon. gentlemen on both sides would
desire we should make them.
But I know that all these questions, important though they may be, are overshadowed
in the public mind by this great
question of education. I believe that to—day
most of the people of Canada are not thinking very much about the financial terms,
the
lands or anything of that sort, but they are
very must disturbed in many quarters in
consequence of reports that have gone
abroad as to the nature and effect of the
resolutions proposed in relation to the public
schools. Now this belongs to a class of questions that at any time should be approached
with all possible deliberation, especially in a
country like Canada. with our diversity of
race and creed. He would be a rash man
who would plunge into a discussion of this
question without a disposition to be considerate with regard not only to the opinions
and convictions. but possibly even to the
prejudices of his fellow men. It is in that
spirit that we should approach the question.
2987
We should be prepared to listen to all that
may be said and to make an honest effort
to meet the views of those who differ from
us in opinion. We should aim as far as
possible to have a system brought
about which would come as nearly as
possible to our own particular views : yet
surely each of us must realize that if we are
to carry on the government of the country
we must not insist on our individual views,
but must try to meet the views of those who
may differ from us, must try to find common
ground of action. For myself I do not like
the principle of separate schools. I regret
that such a large number of my fellow
citizens in Canada are obliged to take the
view, conscientiously as they say and as I
believe, that they cannot support a system
of free common schools. I think it would be
a great thing for our country if in the
growth that is now coming so rapidly upon
us, our children of all races and sections and
creeds could meet from day to day and
mingle together in work and in play, in the
school room and on the play-ground, and if
we could happily agree upon such a policy it
would do much for the grander upbuilding
of the country of which we are so proud. I
say unhesitatingly that if 1 were to have my
own way only, if one could afford to insist
that his opinion must prevail regardless of
the wishes of his brethren, I would like
to see a school law which did not call for
this word 'separate.' But we must take
things as they are. We have to recognize
the fact that forty one per cent of the people
of this Dominion do not think as I think
on that question ; do not think as the
majority of Protestants think. What then ?
Shall we say that they are in the minority
and that therefore we shall have no regard
for them ? Shall we say that they are but
forty-one per cent and we are fifty-nine per
cent, and therefore, we will be indifferent to
them ? No, Mr. Speaker, you cannot govern
Canada by any such rule as that. Let us
remember that the Roman Catholics are
not in a minority everywhere ; there is
one great province in which our Roman
Catholic brethren are in the majority,
overwhelmingly in the majority. Suppose
we insisted upon this doctrine of provincial rights right down to the last point
as was argued to-night, what would be the
condition of our Protestant brethren in
the province of Quebec ? Suppose that under the sacred name of provincial rights
an effort were made to do away with the
separate school system and with the rights
of the minority in the province of Quebec,
what would we find ? We would find the
table of this House and the table of the
greater parliament at Westminster—because
the law would have to pass the imperial
parliament—we would find the table of this
parliament and the table of the imperial
parliament loaded down with petitions, not
of the character of so many that come to
2988
us now insisting upon the doctrine of provincial rights, but with petitions demanding
that the name of provincial rights should not
be used for such a purpose, demanding
that the majority should not have the right
to control, demanding that the rights of the
Protestant minority in the province of Quebec should prevail instead of the wish of
the majority. Let us not forget that, as
my hon. friend the Prime Minister has
shown, in preparing the constitution of confederation, the strongest advocates of
separate schools were the representatives of the
Protestant minority in Quebec. And, Sir,
if it was necessary then to make an arrangement to protect the minority in that
province, is it a dreadful thing that the minority elsewhere should ask to receive
consideration ? I venture to say that in the
minds of the Protestants of Quebec that
thought will sink deep to-day, and that they
will be influenced by the Golden Rule ; 'Do
unto others as you would have others do
unto you.'
There are three great lines of thought today on the question of public education.
One, held by a great many people, is that
the secular system of education is the only
system which we should have in the public
schools. There are many people, altogether
Protestants I think, who claim that it is
useless to introduce anything like religion
into the schools, and that all we can do is
to devote ourselves to secular education.
The second line of thought is that which is
held by a large number of the advocates
of what may be called national schools.
These people think that with secular education you may associate a certain degree
of what may be properly called religious
instruction ; that you may say to the
teacher : thou shalt not teach the 'isms'
of any denomination, but you may and you
should—in the words of the Nova Scotia
school law-
inculcate by precept and example a respect
for religion and the principles of Christian
morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, love of country, loyalty, humanity,
benevolence, sobrity, industry, frugality, chastity,
temperance and all other virtues.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if under a system of
public schools the teacher by precept and
example inculcates those virtues, I do
not know whether all will call it religion,
but in my view the pupils of those schools
will receive a very considerable amount or
the very best kind of religion. However that
may be, many think that it is quite possible
to associate with secular instruction a certain amount of instruction—you may call
it moral instruction if you like or you may
call it religious instruction—and an effort
is made in some provinces of the Dominion
to do that. The citation I have made is
from the Nova Scotia school law and I
think it will be found to be substantially
2989 MARCH 22, 1905
the same in the law and regulations of the
other maritime provinces.
Then we come to the third line of thought.
It is that which is held by our Roman
Catholic fellow-citizens, it is also held
by many Protestants, and it is: that you
cannot have education and religion separated. A great writer has expressed the
thought in this sentence:
So natural is the union between religion and
education that you may justly assume neither
is where both are not.
Our Roman Catholic brethren attach more
importance than our Protestant friends as
a rule do (though many Protestants agree
with them) to this question of religious education. They say that with them it is
a
matter of conscience; they say they must
have their children taught by persons of their
own faith who can give instructions in their
own creed, and they would be very much
pleased if we could adopt their views. They
say—and who shall contend that there is
not much truth in their assertion—they say
that you cannot rely upon children receiving
proper religious instruction in the home. I
fear there is something in that statement ;
a little more to—day than there was in the
good old times. Who shall say that to-day
religious instruction receives as much attention in the homes of Canada as it did
in
the days of our grandparents ? We are living in a very rapid age, and I am afraid
there is some room for the contention of
our Roman Catholic brethren that religion
will not be taught to the children of Canada
unless the foundation of it is given to them
in the schools. We who form the Protestant majority may not be able to agree with
them on that point, but it is not because
we object to religious instruction ; most of
us I think, would be pleased that our children should receive some measure of religious
instruction in the schools ; but the trouble is that you cannot unite the people of
any community in an agreement as to what
is religion. Religion to many is creed and
dogma and there will be differences of creed
and dogma, and inasmuch as it is not possible to bring the people of a community to
a common line of thought and action on
that subject, we who form the Protestant
majority say that we see difficulty in teaching any special form of religion in the
schools. But while we may not agree with
our Roman Catholic brethren on that question. we. I think, can agree that their view
of the matter~that is as to the need of
religious instruction in the schools—is entitled to our profound respect, and that
it
is held to-day, not by Roman Catholics
only, but to a very large extent also by
Protestants.
It is argued by some persons that we
cannot make any change in the conditions
with respect to these Northwest Territories.
I am not referring to anything particularly said in this House. My right hon.
2990
friend the First Minister has not declared
that it is not within the power of this parliament to make a change. He has not
declared that there is any legal or binding
obligation resting on the parliament of Canada to reenact the clauses of the Act of
1875.
Mr. SPROULE. I think the First Minister
expressly claimed that it was binding.
Mr. FIELDING. The point of difference is this. The
First Minister does not, as I understand it, deny the absolute right and
freedom of every member of this parliament to vote on this
question as his conscience and intelligence shall direct him.
I, at all events, take that view, and that is what I understood to be
the view of my right hon. friend ; but what my right hon. friend does
say is that if you read the whole history of the question, you will come
to the Conclusion that though, as a matter of law, there may be no
binding obligation —though in that sense you may not be able to
produce a written contract, signed, sealed and delivered, as my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition demanded a few moments ago—there may arise
out of the whole history of this
matter an obligation which the parliament, of Canada should consider,
and which many men regard as a moral obligation which this House should
fulfil.
Mr. SPROULE. The right hon. the First Minister went
much further than to speak of it as a moral obligation, because he used
the expression that the constitution provides that we must do it.
Mr. FIELDING. I do not think he said that the
constitution provides that we must do it. I do not think my right hon.
colleague is aware of any method by which any member of
this parliament can be compelled to vote in any other way than his
intelligence and conscience dictates. But what I
understood him to say is that the spirit of the constitution created an
obligation, and there he will be supported by very many men on both
sides of the House. For the purpose of record let me read the section in
the Act of 1875—section 11, chapter 49, Act 1875 :
When and so soon as any system of taxation shall he adopted in any district or portion
of the Northwest Territories, the lieutenant governor, by and with the consent of
the council or assembly as the case may he,
shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect
to education; but it shall therein be always
provided, that a majority of the ratepayers of
any district or portion of the Northwest Territories, or any lesser portion or subdivision
thereof, by whatever name the same may be
known, may establish such schools therein as
they may think fit, and make the necessary
assessment and collection of rates therefor ;
and further, that the minority or the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman
Catholic, may establish separate schools
therein. and that, in such latter case, the
ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be
liable
only to assessments of such rates as they
may impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
2991
That is the clause in the Act of 1875, and
with the change of a few words, which in
no way disturbs its substance, that is the
clause we find to-day in the Northwest
Territories Act. It is curious, in view of the
wide discussion and agitation which are taking place to-day, that when this Act of
1875
was passed, there was practically no discussion of it in this House. There was
certainly no adverse discussion. It is remarkable that the parliament of Canada
passed that clause and put it upon the
statute-book by a unanimous vote of the
House of Commons. Again I say I do not
for a moment contend, and I do not understand that my right hon. friend contended,
that, as a matter of constitutional right
fixed by the words of the statute, we are
obliged to re-enact that clause. I go further.
I do not hesitate to say that in my view, at
any time since 1875, it was within the power
—I do not say the moral right—but undoubtedly within the power of this parliament
to repeal the Act of 1875. Therefore,
I am not claiming that there is any binding
legal obligation, but I do say that we are
obliged to look carefully into the circumstances under which that Act was passed ;
and if we find that at the time it was regarded by its friends and supporters, and
parliament generally, as an Act which was passed, not only for the present but the
future,
that creates a moral obligation which this
House may well take into consideration.
The Bill was introduced in 1875 and carried
with practically no opposition. It is worth
while remembering that the government
of the late Mr. Mackenzie was then
in power. The Bill, as first introduced, did
not contain any provision respecting education. Attention was drawn to that omission,
and a provision was made a little later.
The chief speaker on that occasion was the
Hon. Edward Blake—a very eminent member of this parliament, a very able constitutional
lawyer, and a gentleman whose
Protestantism, I believe, is beyond question. Mr. Blake, speaking on that Bill.
said :
The task which the ministry had 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 of us think,
millions of men and families settled and flourishing, was one of the noblest undertakings
that
could be entered upon by any legislative body,
and 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
for Kingston (Sir John A. Macdonald) 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 Northwest 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
2992
decide what was best for the future. He (Mr.
Blake) believed that it was essential to our
obtaining a large immigration to the Northwest that we should tell the people beforehand
what those rights were to be in the country in
which we invited them to settle. . . . . . .
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 heartburnings and difficulties
with which certain other portions of the 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 principles of local self-government and the settling of the question
of
public instruction seemed to him ought to be
the cardinal principles of the measure.
Is it not evident that at that time, in
advancing that view as to the necessity of
settling the education question, Mr. Blake
had the idea that it should be settled, not
for that day only, not as a temporary matter, but settled then and for ever ?
Other members spoke at that time. I find
that, in this House, as I have stated, there
was no objection—the Bill passed without
any division. The Bill went to the Senate,
and was discussed there by several gentlemen, among others by Hon. Mr. Scott, then
as now Secretary of State, who was in
charge of the Bill. Whatever he said might
fairly be assumed to express the view of
the government of the day, the view of Hon.
Alexander Mackenzie and his colleagues.
Mr. Scott in the course of the discussion
said :-
Any gentleman would have to admit that it
was the greatest possible relief to the people
of Ontario that this question was settled for
them, and was not, as in some of the other provinces, a source of constant discord.
He was
one of those who maintained that parents had
a right to educate their children as they
pleased, and that they ought not to be taxed to
maintain schools to which they could not conscientiously send their children. Our
whole system of government was based upon that sound
principle, and how long could we have happiness and peace in this country if we were
to
abolish that safeguard, which was now recognized in both the large provinces ? Would
not
every gentleman in this chamber gladly see the
New Brunswick trouble removed ? Now was
the proper time to establish in the new territory a principle that ought years ago
to have
been established in this Dominion.
We may not feel called upon to agree
with Mr. Scott as to how widely that principle ought to have been established in
former years, but surely we cannot read
the remarks he made on behalf of the gov
2993 MARCH 22, 1905 ernment of Mr. Mackenzie without reaching
the conclusion that what they meant to do
was to establish the system of separate
schools, not for the moment, not for a
short period, but as a part of the government
of that country for all future time. Mr.
Scott is a lawyer; but I do not present his
views as part of a legal argument. I am
not presenting a legal argument; I quote
these words simply to show that Mr. Scott,
representing the government of the day,
judged by the language he used, must have
contemplated that the clause which they
then adopted was intended, even though we
might have the power to repeal it, to continue in force for ever in the Northwest
Territories. Then I find also that the distinguished leader of the Conservative opposition
in the Senate at that time, Sir
Alexander Campbell, also discussed the
question. Sir Alexander Campbell was a
lawyer, and for a time was Minister of
Justice. He refers to an amendment which
had been removed by Mr. Aikins, to strike
out the separate school clause, and this is
what he said :
It would be much to be regretted if the
amendment passed. The object of the Bill was
to establish and perpetuate in the Northwest
Territories the same system as prevailed in
Ontario and Quebec, and which had worked so
well in the interest of peace and harmony with
the different populations of these provinces.
He thought the fairer course, and the better
one, for all races and creeds, was to adopt the
suggestion of the government and enable the
people to establish separate schools in the territory, and thus prevent the introduction
of
evils from which Ontario and Quebec had suffered, but had judiciously rid themselves.
Is it possible to attach to that language
any other meaning than that Sir Alexander
Campbell desired to settle this troublesome
question by adopting the separate school
clause then and for all future time? Is it
conceivable that he meant : We will settle
this question up to a certain day and then
we will throw the door open to discord and
strife? His language cannot be subject to
such interpretation. What could be stronger than these words : ' To establish and
perpetuate in the Northwest Territories the
same system as prevailed in Ontario and
Quebec ?' Not only to establish but to 'perpetuate.' Did that mean a temporary arrangement?
Surely, if the English language
means anything, Sir Alexander Campbell
meant when he spoke that day that the Bill
he was supporting, though leader of the
opposition, was meant to establish and perpetuate in some way a system of separate
schools in the Northwest Territories. Then
the Hon. George Brown spoke. Reference
has already been made to his part in this
debate ; but the words he used may be
quoted again. In the course of the discussion he supported the amendment that was
moved by Mr. Aikins to strike out the
separate school clause and he used these
words:
2994
The moment this Act passed and the Northwest became part of the union, they came under
the Union Act and under the provisions with
regard to separate schools.
Mr. Brown was not a lawyer. I am not
quoting his words as expressing an opinion
which is worthy of any consideration as
part of a constitutional argument : I am
speaking entirely with a view to establishing the intention that existed in the minds
of the men who passed the legislation—the
government who proposed it and the men
in the opposition who supported it. There
is one sentence in the speech of Hon. Edward Blake in this House that I would like
to repeat :
He (Mr. Blake) believed that it was essential
to our obtaining a large immigration to the
Northwest Territories that we should tell the
people beforehand what these rights were to be
in the country to which they were invited.
I have no doubt, from information that
has reached me, that many immigrants have
come into the Northwest Territories upon
representations that the schools there would
he conducted in accordance with their religious views. I believe this to be correct.
I may mention a little incident bearing on that point. I had occasion recently
to come into official contact with the representative of one of the continental nations.
I was discussing with him the question of immigration—we wished to have immigrants
come to Canada from his country.
In the course of our conversation he said :
If you are to get immigrants from our country, this school question that is coming
up
becomes one of very great importance to
us. I have no doubt therefore that it can
be shown that some of the immigrants who
have come to the Northwest Territories
have come—for we have many Roman
Catholic settlers in that country—on the
faith of representations that their schools
were to be conducted in accordance with
the views of the Roman Catholic minority.
I find that not only is there the evidence
I have referred to, showing the intention
at the time this Act was passed, but later on
there were further discussions which may
be cited in the same direction. I find that
some years afterwards, in 1894, there was
a discussion in this House with regard to
some amendments of the Northwest Act
that were proposed. I find that the
late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, who desired that the separate school clause
should be repealed, who was an opponent of separate schools as hon. gentlemen
well remember, in a speech at that time laid
down the principle that if you should continue to allow that separate school clause
to remain on the statute-book, if you should
go on year after year allowing the Northwest people to possess this system of sep[er]ate
schools up to the moment at which they
would be brought in as a province, then they
would be in a position to come to us and
say : It is too late for you to change that
2995 COMMONS
system ; you must now give us a continuation of it.
Mr. McCarthy, course, was desirous
that the system should be changed,
but in the meantime he did not shrink from
the responsibility of saying that if the
parliament of Canada desired to change it.
it must act quickly, and not wait until the
time arrived for the creation of the provinces. I find the words of Mr. McCarthy
in ' Hansard ' of 1894, page 6085 :
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
Northwest 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 Northwest, 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.
Mr. McCarthy, it will be observed, as all
opponent of the system of separate schools,
took the ground that if the parliament of
Canada wished to destroy that system it
must not wait until it undertook to create
a province. His argument is that if you
leave these Northwest people in possession
of the separate school system, if you go on
year after year permitting it, encouraging
it ; if you allow them to pass ordinances
in accordance with it, if you have these ordinances sent to Ottawa year after year
and
you approve of them and allow them to go
into operation, then you are confirming the
system of separate schools to those provinces ; and when the moment shall arrive
that these lands shall pass from the status
of territories into the larger status of provinces. it will then be too late for you
to
come in and say ; we will deprive you of
this system of separate schools. Mr. McCarthy and Sir John Thompson had some
little discussion, and he (Mr. McCarthy)
again emphasized his views on that subject.
I am very glad the right hon gentleman--
Referring to Sir John Thompson.
-—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.
That was the declaration which Sir John
Thompson made, and which was quoted by
the leader of the opposition today. in which
he said that the parliament of Canada would
2996
be free to give to the provinces of the Northwest such a constitution as it might
see fit.
Mr. McCarthy was answering that declaration, and he went on to add :
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 Northwest, 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 which we admitted
Manitoba, and looking at the character of the
legislation. I do not think that 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.
My hon. friend. in quoting to-day from
Sir John Thompson, almost gave me the
impression—he will probably say that he
certainly did not so intend—that Sir John
Thompson had expressed no opinion favourable to the continuance of separate schools
in the Northwest Territories. Sir John
Thompson, in answer to Mr. McCarthy, did
state that the parliament of Canada could
give to the Northwest Territories such a
constitution as it might see fit; but in doing so Sir John Thompson used words which
unmistakably show that in his mind that
moral obligation would exist. Sir John
Thompson said :
What the constitution of the future provinces shall be. in view of the pledges which
have been referred to, or in view of any other
set of circumstances, will be for parliament to
decide when it decides to create those provinces.
Sir John Thompson recognized as a lawyer the power of the parliament of Canada
to give to the new provinces such constitution as parliament might see fit, but in
doing so he carefully inserted the words:
What the constitution of the future provinces shall be in view of the pledges which
have been referred to.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Could the hon. gentleman
state what were the pledges he referred to ?
2997 March 22, 1905
Mr. FIELDING. I take it he referred to the general
legislation as to separate schools in the Northwest. That is what I
take it to mean. Again I quote from Sir John Thompson in the same debate. I
will quote a clause which my hon. friend read to-day, but I want to
quote it in an enlarged form :
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.
That language seems to imply that the
matter might be further considered when
they ceased to be territories. Then he goes
on to say what I read just previously :
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.
Now can anybody point out wherein
there will be a difference in the educational
needs of the Northwest on the 1st day
July, 1905, as compared with the conditions on the 30th June in the same year?
You will have passed from the status of a
territory to the status of a province, but
will that in the slightest degree alter the
needs or conditions of the Northwest with
respect to education ? If the schools which
they have are working happily and satisfactorily on the 30th day of June in this year
1905, what reason will there be for making
any change in the legislation on the lst day
of July following ? Aside from the constitutional question, surely we have to admit
there is the practical question of the needs
of the people of the Northwest Territories,
and in that respect they will not be different on the morning of the 1st day of
July from their needs on the morning or the
30th day of June. A clause of that kind,
Sir John Thompson said, is as useful to the
Territories to-day as it was in 1875, and
surely the same words may be repeated and
we may say that this clause and the conditions which the clause has created will
be just as useful to the people of the Northwest Territories on the lst day of July
as
they will be on the 30th day of June.
Now, I have not been discussing the constitutional question as my hon. friend will
observe. I have been discussing entirely
what I may call the practical side of the
question, and I do that with the firm conviction that most of the people of this
country will not bother themselves very
much about this constitutional question but
they will want to get at the actual facts of
2998
this very important subject. We are proposing by this legislation to confirm certain
Acts of the Northwest Territories. We are
proposing to continue certain legislation, to
continue for a further time and for ever the
school system which now exists. We are
met with the statement that the position of
the Liberal party in that respect is different
to-day from the position which it held in the
case of Manitoba. We have heard that from
the hon. leader of the opposition to-day. I
think it will have to be admitted, after a
careful examination of the situation, that
the conditions in respect to the Northwest
Territories are widely and entirely different
from the conditions that existed in connection with the proposed legislation for the
province of Manitoba. It was proposed by
the Remedial Bill of 1896 to override an Act
of the legislature of Manitoba, passed by
the voice of the people of that province, and,
as subsequently was maintained, entirely
within the legislative authority of that province. We do not propose to override any
Act
of any legislature. What we propose to-day
is to confirm and continue for all future time
a measure which the free voice of the Northwest legislature has placed upon the statute-
book of the Territories. So that, on that
point, there is a wide difference between the
condition of affairs in respect to Manitoba
and the condition of affairs in respect to
the Northwest Territories. Then again it
was said and with some justice that an
effort was made to coerce the province of
Manitoba, because it was proposed to pass
an Act against which the government of
Manitoba entered a solemn protest. There
is no protest from the government of the
Northwest Territories against this measure.
I make that statement advisedly. The premier of the Northwest Territories, an estimable
gentleman who has been taking part
in this discussion, as properly he should,
has written a letter to the Prime Minister
of Canada, but I am informed and believe
that that letter expresses his individual
opinion and it is not authorized by the government of the Northwest Territonies. So,
in
the case of Manitoba I repeat that the proposition was to do something against which
the
government of Manitoba protested. In this
case we are doing something against which
the government of the Northwest Territories
have entered no protest whatever. Then,
there is a further consideration. I suppose
the people in the Northwest Territories have
the best right to speak through their
acknowledged representatives. I have no
right to say what will be the views expressed by my hon. friends from the Northwest
Territories on the other side of the
House, but it is understood—I do not state
it from direct communication with my hon.
friends from the Northwest Territories—but
it is understood and believed that this legislation is accepted and will be supported
by
seven out of ten members from the Northwest. Well, if there is no great matter of
2999
COMMONS
principle involved. and I hope to be able to
show in the few remarks with which I propose to detain the House before I close that
there is no great matter of principle involved in this measure, and if seven out of
ten representatives from the Northwest Territories are satisfied that thist is a good
law for the people, who shall dare to say that we are coercing the people of the Northwest
Territories ? I would say, Sir, that any argument which is designed to prove that
we are dealing in this matter in the way of coercion is entirely unjustifiable. What
is this law which we are going to confirm and to continue in the new provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan? We are told that this provides for a system of separate
schools. Well, a system of separate schools may mean one thing in one quarter and
another thing in another quarter. It is. in a measure, a system of separatc schools.
That expression in the minds of many people means a great deal. I do not think I am
mistaken when I say that in the minds of a great many Protestant people in the country
when you talk about separate schools immediately understand that you are talking about
schools that come under the control of some religious body, and particularly schools
which come under the control of the Roman Catholic church. That is the common idea
of separate schools in many quaters. Whatever may be said as respects other countries,
or other provinces, it would be utterly mistaken to say that we are giving to the
Northwest Province separate schools in that sense of the words. I submit to this House
that the system of schools which we have to-day in the Northwest Territories is national
school system, and if it has all the elements of a national school system then I say
there is no principle involved in this discussion which would justify us in having
a quarrel over it. What is this system ? One would suppose from the frequent references
that are made to it that it is some iniquitous system, something which if continued
would prejudice the interests of the people in these Territories for all time to come.
The system of schoosl which prevails to-day in the Northwest Territories exists by
virtue of chapters 29, 30 and 31 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories. So
far as the principle of separate schools is concerned, of course, that principle was
to be found in the Act of 1875 and the ordinances adapted themselves to it. But if
you read these three ordinances of the Northwest Territories you will rise from the
perusal of them with the conviction that in that country they have a system of national
schools which may well challenge the administration of the people in other portions
of this country. What then are the essential elements of national schools ? I take
it for granted that if you have a school which is established by the public authorities,
if the management
3000
of the school derives all its authority and
privileges from a regulation of the government of the state, if you have a system
of schools under which the proper authorities of the state, or the province, or territory
as the case may be, themselves specify the school books, establish the course of study,
provide for the inspection of the schools and for the distribution of the money, if
you have all those elements, then, I say you have a system of state-created, state-managed
and state- supported public schools. Every one of these conditions exists to-day in
the public school system of the Northwest Territories. A member of teh government
of the Territories becomes commissioner of education and the powers of the commissioner
are set forth in detail. I shall only read the clause under the heading of ' Regulations
of the Department.' These regulations are to be made by the commissioner himself,
a member of the government, with the approval of the Governor in Council. Section
6 of chapter 29 says:
The commissioner, with the approval of the
Lieutenant Governor in Council, shall have power : 1. To make regulations of the department-
(a) For the classification, organization, government, examination and inspection of
all schools hereinbefore mentioned ;
(b) For the construction, furnishing and care of school buildings and the arrangement
of school premises ;
(c) For the examination, licensing and grading of teachers and for the examination
of persons who may desire to enter professions or who may wish certificates of having
completed courses of study in any school ;
(d) For a teachers' reading course and teachers' institutes and conventions ;
2. To authorize text and reference books for the use of the pupils and teachers in
all schools hereinbefore mentine as well as such maps, globes, charts and other apparatus
or equipment as may be required for giving proper instruction in such schools ;
3. To prepare a list of books suitable for
school libraries and to make regulations for the management of such libraries.
4. To make due provision for the training of
teachers
What is there, Sir, in all this to which anybody can take exception ? These details
constitute the essential elements of a national school system. That system prevails
to-day in the Northwest Territories, and that system we propose to constinue by the
legislation which we have presented in this House. The difference between a minority
school and a majority school in the Northwest Territories is so exceedingly small
that he who would attempt to make a definition of it would find himself in difficulty.
The difference is with respect to one half hour's instruction in religious matters
at the close of the school. The school laws of the Northwest Territories provide for
religious instruction, not as a matter of obligation ; they empower the trustees to
authorize religious instructions within cer
3001 MARCH 22, 1905 tain limits. That authority for religious instruction is not confined to separate
schools;
it applies to all schools in the Territories.
It is provided that wherever the trustees
so wish, wherever the local conditions permit, there shall be religious instruction
in
all schools in the Northwest Territories, not
in the minority schools only. Then there
is a further provision that all schools may
be opened with the reciting of the Lord's
Prayer. Does anybody object to that ? I
hope not ; I trust that in any case where
the trustees of a school authorized that, it is
not objectionable. But then there is this half
hour of religious education. From the hour
at which these schools open in the morning
up to half-past three in the afternoon they
are absolutely alike ; there is no difference ;
the teachers have the same duties, the same
qualifications; the same examinations, the
same course of study, the same books are
prescribed by the government, the regulations are made by the government, the inspector
is appointed by the government. I
repeat that from the hour of opening in the
morning up to half-past three in the afternoon there is no shade of difference in
all
these schools in the Northwest Territories.
So it has come to this, that we have a shade
of difference as respects the half hour of re-
religious instruction, from 3.30 to 4 o'clock.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, to this House
that on a question like this that half
hour of religious instruction is not and
should not be a cause of conflict. Where
the majority of the people and the
trustees are of the Protestant faith,
that half hour of religious instruction
will, of course, take the form of the faith
of the majority ; it will be Protestant religious instruction. Where the majority
of
the people and the trustees are Roman
Catholics, that half hour of religious instruction will follow the faith of the Roman
Catholic majority. In each of these cases
the minority, if they wish, may have a
separate school. I am firmly persuaded that
the difference is so slight that if we reach a
wise decision now, if we refrain from
fanning the flame of political passion—I
withdraw that word political, I am not discussing this from a party standpoint, and
I
did not intend to use that word, and I withdraw it—if we refrain from doing or saying
anything which can fan the flame of religious excitement in the Northwest Territories
now, my honest conviction is that
the separate schools will diminish, and the
free common public schools will increase.
I am persuaded that the difference is so
small that the mass of the people in the
Northwest Territories will hardly find it to
their advantage to keep it up except in a
few instances. I am reminded of one point :
I had forgotten to state that even with
respect to that half hour, it is not a matter
of obligation, but if the parents of any child
disapprove of that religious instruction for
that half hour, the child may withdraw.
There is, therefore, liberty of conscience in
the highest degree. I do not hesitate to
3002
say, Protestant that I am, that I do not
think that half hour of religious instruction given by a Roman Catholic teacher
will hurt the children ; I think that half
hour of instruction given by a Catholic
teacher to Catholic children—I think that
we may reasonably feel that if there is
enough of it to have any influence on the
life of the child, it will make a boy a better
citizen, a better Canadian. I want the
House to consider seriously, I submit the
proposition again, that if it be true as I
say, and I believe I am correct beyond the
power of contradiction, that from the moment that the school opens in the morning
up to half-past three in the afternoon there
is no difference between a separate school
and a free national school, and if the only
point of difference between them is that
half hour of religious instruction, is there
enough in it to quarrel about, and to have
public meetings and agitation throughout
the length and breadth of this land ? I believe that the great mass of the people
today who are joining in petitions and holding meetings have not had time to understand
this question. I believe that they
have an erroneous view as to what the
condition in the Northwest Territories is
and as to what is the condition which we
propose to perpetuate. When they discover,
as they will, in the light of the debate which
will take place in this House now and in
the next few days, when the people of Canada shall learn that we have in the west
to-day a system which is practically a national school system, and that the only
point of difference between us is with respect to the small matter of a half hour
of religious instruction, I think the great mass
of the Protestant people of Canada will say
that they regret that there has been any
agitation on the subject.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) referred to-day to
the conditions of education in the province
of Nova Scotia. We are proud to-day. Sir,
of the national school system in that province. We rejoice that from time to time
we hear our public men of all parties and
all creeds cite the province of Nova Scotia
as an example of toleration and good will.
The happy conditions which exist in that
province have many a time been referred
to by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, who has held the people of Nova Scotia
up as examples of moderation and toleration. We have a free common national system
of education in the province of Nova
Scotia. The principle of that system is, as
I stated at an earlier stage of my speech :
Thou shalt not teach any 'ism' but thou
shalt teach by precept and example,
the Christian virtues. This is the essential point, and happily we have got
along very well. But do not make any
mistake. Let no man imagine that that
happy condition has been brought about
without conciliation and compromise. We
have no separate schools by law in
Nova Scotia, but I say that we could not
3003
COMMONS
have brought about that happy condition if
we had not been disposed to meet our Roman Catholic brethren in a generous spirit,
with due regard to their religious convictions. There is no separate school system
by law in the province of Nova Scotia, but I tell this House to-night that the principle
of separate schools is more emphatically recognized in the province of Nova Scotia
than it is to-day in the Northwest Territories.
Come with me down to the fair city of
Halifax and what will you find? The Roman Cahtolic Archbishop builds the school and
leases it to the school trustees. What would they say to that in the Northwest ?
The Roman Catholic authorities receive consideration and this is one of the means
whereby we bring about the happy condition which obtains down there. The sister of
charity teaches in our schools wearing the garb of her order, and many of the sisters
are among the best teachers in our provinces. There are schools in the city of Halifax
which will be pointed out to you as Roman Catholic schools, and so they are. The Prime
Minister once when in Halifax visited one of these schools and he alluded to it as
a separate school, and one of the sisters interrupted him and said : no, Sir, it is
a public school of the province of Nova Scotia. And so it was, but it was a school
which was recognized as a Roman Catholic school and it was attended only by Roman
Catholic pupils, and it was taught by the Roman Catholic sister of charity wearing
the garb of her order and the crossu upon her breast. We have made concessions for
our Roman Catholic brethren in the province of Nova Scotia. Why, if a vacancy occurs
in the teaching staff of one of the Catholic schools of Halifax, the Protestant commissioners
have no vote in the selection of a successor ; the Catholic Commissioners only have
the right to vote. Such is the system in the city of Halifax, and substantially the
same system exists in many of the larger communities in the province, because it is
only in a large community that this condition can be brought about. I am less familiar
with the conditions in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but I think I am right
in saying that they are substantially the same.
Mr. FIELDING. While we have no separate schools established
by law, we have in practice in all these provinces separate schools, and I
hesitate not to make the statement that in my own province of
Nova Scotia the principle of separate schools is recognized more
emphatically than it is recognized in the Northwest Territories today. I would have
this paraliament bear in mind that if we have
that happy condition of things in that fair province, if we can be quoted
from time to time as models of good citizenship and toleration and modera
3004tion, it is not because we have allowed principles to be carried to dangerous extremes,
but it is because we have
recognized the rights and feelings and even the prejudices of
our Roman Catholic brethren. What interest has suffered ? There was a
little friction years ago, but there is none to-day. The sensible people
of Nova Scotia have made up their minds that this is a matter in which we
can please our Roman Catholic brethren without hurting ourselves, and when
we can do tht why should we not make an effort to do it? I repeat
then, that the happy condition in the province of Nova Scotia which is so
often referred to —which I myself have again and again spoken of with
pride—has been brought about by paying due regard to the rights, and the
feelings of the Roman Catholic minority.
Mr. SPROULE. Does the minister think that the people of the
Northwest Territories would be less liberal or less
generous than the people of Nova Scotia ?
Mr. FIELDING. Perhaps they would not, but if forty-one per
cent of the people of Canada think that there is a danger, we might well
see if some compromise, some arrangement could not be made. We have to-day
before us perhapsthe most important measures that have ever engaged the
attention of the parliament of Canada. They are measures
which are wide-reaching in their effect. Whether we have regard to the interest which
is manifested by the people throughout the country
to-day or whether we have regard to the future welfare of this Dominion
which all, irrespective of party, are so anxious to advance, we may feel,
I am sure, that these are great measures, and that we should
approach them
with the utmost care, with the utmost deliberation, with a desire to find
a happy settlement of any differences that may arise. Let us not conceal
from ourselves certain facts ; let us be frank with one another. Let us
say that the gravity of this situation is even more serious than many think.
If my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is to retire from office, as he
would be obliged to do, if this Bill were defeated, what then
? Under ordinary circumstances the retirement of a minister or the
retirement of a government means very little after all. The public adapt
themselves to new conditions ; one government goes out
and another comes in. Party interest may suffer. But that is
not the situation today. There are interests involved in
this question which far outweigh any mere party consideration. What
matters it if one government should go out and another come in
? But think for a moment of what would happen under the present state
of affairs. Some one will say : what matter if the Prime Minister goes
out, somebody else will come in. Sir, no government could be formed under
such circumstances
3005
MARCH 22, 1905
which would command the confidence of this
parliament. I make that statement after due deliberation. But, somebody will
say: What of that ; if you Liberals cannot form a government we
Conservatives will take charge. Will you? I doubt it. I have no right
to speak for my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, but if I know him
at all I venture to remark that he would shrink from the formation of
a government in which he would be obliged to draw religious
lines. As a high-minded man, with due regard for the future of his country,
he would shrink from the formation of a government under which he
would be obliged to exclude from office and vote and power forty-one per cent of the
people of this Dominion. The
leader of the opposition has acknowledged to-day that there is no
union among his party on that question. He chaffed the Prime Minister for a
moment; he said this question was not making
for the unity of the
government. May I venture to suggest that it is not making for the
unity of the opposition ? The leader of the opposition acknowledged
to-day—it was right that he should acknowledge it—that he and some of
the men with whom he sits were not able to see eye to eye. He warned
us that he spoke to—day for himself only and that he did not
presume to speak in the name of his party. What does that show us ?
Does it not prove that if my right hon. friend shall be obliged to
retire from office on this question, my hon. friend the leader of the
opposition would shrink from the formation of a government under such
conditions? The matter is too grave to permit of its being treated lightly
for a single moment, but I venture to say that it will be impossible
to repress a smile on both sides of the House when I suggest the
picture that would be presented of my hon. friends from East Grey (Mr.
Sproule), Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), and
Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) sitting down to prepare a
resolution with respect to separate schools.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. We could not make a much worse mess
of it than the government has up to the present.
Mr. FIELDING. I think my hon. friend is entirely wrong.
He will find, when the vote is taken, that we have a united government and a united
party, and he will find, according to
his own confession, that he will not have a united party supporting
him. My hon. friend made merry at our differences a few days ago, but I
suspect he has been having a few bad quarters of an hour himself. Let
us not, in our momentary good nature. fail to see the gravity of the
situation presented to the House. I say deliberately—and every hon.
gentleman who listens to me knows it—that if this Bill be not passed,
if we should be unable to carry a measure on this subject. then my right
3006 hon. friend will be obliged to retire and no other government can be
formed which will command the confidence of this parliament.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Is that the reason why the Finance
Minister is back into line ?
Mr. FIELDING. The only way a government could
be formed by hon. gentlemen opposite would be by the hon. member for
Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) coming forward to sit cheek by
jowl with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) as
an advocate for separate schools, and I do not think that my hon. friends
would care for the combination. I am speaking in all seriousness. This
is no matter for levity. I repeat that there is in a certain sense a
crisis. There is no party crisis, but there is a crisis with regard to the administration
of public business in
Canada by any government and any party. If my right hon. friend should retire on
an issue like this, then the only thing that could
possibly happen, if my hon. friend the leader of the opposition should
agree to form a government at such a time, would be that he must form a
Protestant government and he must have a general
election.
An hon. MEMBER. Shame.
Mr. OSLER. This is the first time that the religious
question has been introduced.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order ; sit down.
Mr. FIELDING. I do not think that the hon. member for
West Toronto (Mr. Osler) has paid me the compliment of trying to
understand what I was presenting to the House. Again I repeat—and I want to
guard against any misapprehension, I want to give the hon. gentleman
who said 'shame' an opportunity to say it again, because I want to
state the situation as it actually exists. I say this is becoming a
religious question. Who denies it? My hon. friend the leader of the
opposition said as much to-day.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I said
nothing of the kind. If so understood, I desire to disclaim any such
intention. I argued this question, as my right hon. friend the First
Minister did in the first instance, on the constitutional ground
because in his remarks to this House, both on the 21st February and again
to-day, he put the question solely on that ground.
Mr. FIELDING. The point is not important. I
understood my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, to have spoken, in
the course of his speech to-day, of the religious
differences which unhappily would arise in this matter. I think that will be
found somewhere in 'Hansard'; but it is
3007
COMMONS
not important, and if he says he made no allusion
of the kind, I Withdraw the remark. But I say that it is in the minds of a
large portion of the people of Canada a religious question. I take the
responsibility of saying—and every man opposite knows itthat this question today is
largely shaping itself as a
religious question. We have on the one side the Roman Catholic body, largely united,
and on the other side a large portion of the
Protestant body who are agitating against this Bill on what may be
called religious lines. I am not discussing their motive or purpose,
but the line of separation is religion, and no one can contest
that. I say that inevitably if the right hon. the First Minister had
to retire from office on this question and my hon. friend the leader
of the opposition were called on to form a government to settle this school
question in the Northwest, he could not unite the hon. member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)
and the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron). There is nothing
wrong in saying that. We all know that these gentlemen have their differences on
this question and could not agree. I say that the
government then would have to be formed on religious lines, and that
would be the greatest calamity that could occur to the Dominion of Canada.
Surely in the presence of such a condition of things, we would all do
well to see if it be not possible to find some solution of this great
question. This is a time of great promise for our country. Canada united,
happy and harmonious. will present a picture which will command the
admiration and the confidence of the civilized world. Canada. in
that happy condition, may hope to receive immigrants, may hope to move
forward with even more rapid strides on that splendid march of
progress and prosperity with which she has entered the twentieth century. We have
had great progress in the Northwest. but after
all it is but the beginning of better and greater things.
We hear the tread of pioneers,
Of nations yet to be ;
The first low wash of waves when soon
Shall roll a human sea.
Let it be our happy privilege in this parliament to do all that we can to continue
that picture of the condition of Canada. Let
us be careful, lest by a mistaken step today, another picture may have to be
presented. showing our people divided
along religious lines, our country riven
and distracted by religious strife. Canada then would no longer present that
happy picture; the tide of immigration
would be turned back, capital would
take alarm, business men would lose
confidence, we would no longer be able
to enjoy the prosperity we are now enjoying. nor could we reasonably hope for that
3008
magnificent future which today opens to
our vision. Let us realize the danger of religious strife in this matter. Let us try
to avoid it. Let us have peace in Canada
if possible—not an ignoble peace, not peace
at any price, but peace with honour; peace
on the terms of this honourable compromise
which meets the religious prejudices. as
some see fit to call them, which meets the
religious convictions of two and a quarter
millions of our people, and yet at the same
time secures to the people of the Northwest
Territories now and for ever every essential
element of a system of national schoolspeace on the terms of this modified Bill
which we submit to the House with the
sincere conviction that we offer a measure
which high minded and patriotic men may
honourably accept, regardless of party, race,
class or creed.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE. Mr. Speaker, it is now within a few
minutes of twelve o'clock, and we have put in a good faithful day's
work. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Cet individu a participé aux :
