House of Commons, 28 March 1905, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan

[...] presumed to be innocent until found guilty. It seems to me they are also designed to injure the community by baffling the aims of the law.
This report has in large types, among others, the following heading : ' A Visit to the Dungeon.' The reporter says that having asked the prisoner several questions he added :
I went on : Yes, that woman Sclater has made a clean breast of it, and this very day ' La Presse ' shall inform its readers that you are really the murderer, that there is no more doubt about that.
I understand that this is a matter more particularly within the province of the local government, but it seems to me that such conduct is inconsistent with our criminal law and that the hon. Minister of Justice should take some steps in order to put a stop to it. It is with that end in view that I bring this matter to his attention.
Hon. CHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, my attention had not been drawn to the newspaper report which my hon. friend has just read to this House. But I can tell him I am fully in accord with him to blame such an unjustifiable interference by newspaper men in murder cases. On the other hand, I must remind the hon. member that the administration of criminal law is not within the jurisdiction of this parliament, which has no other right than to define what constitutes criminal offences. A prisoner does not come under the control of the Department of Justice until the jury have found him guilty and sentence has been passed upon him by the court.


Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER. Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to refer to the issue of Mr. Speaker's writ with respect to the vacancy in Centre Toronto, and to ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether any steps have been taken by the government to give effect to that writ ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). The matter has been referred to the Secretary of State, who informs me that registration will need to take place. I believe he has attended to that ; but if my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) will call attention to the matter to-morrow, I will be able to give a more definite answer.
Mr. E. B. OSLER. Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that a new list must be prepared ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Registration must take place for manhood suffrage voters, I understand.
Mr. OSLER. Is that usual ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I believe so.
Mr. OSLER. I understood the election was to be held on the lists of the last election that had taken place.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I understand not. The last lists may be used, I believe, if they are not more than a year old. But, in any case, I believe there must be a registration of manhood suffrage voters.
Mr. OSLER. Is not that an unusual course to take ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I think not.
Mr. OSLER. I understand that that is not the course taken as a rule. I may be misinformed, but I believe—
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I am pretty sure my hon. friend is misinformed. In any case to-morrow we will be able to give a final answer.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) might condescend to add a word as to when the government intend to fill the present vacancy in the cabinet by taking in a representative from the Northwest Territories. There are constituencies out there where there is no necessity for registration before an election takes place.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. That does not occur there.


House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle). Mr. Speaker, in resuming the debate upon what I hold to be the most important piece of legislation that has been discussed by the Canadian parliament since confederation, I feel deeply the responsibility resting upon me both for the vote I shall give as a member of this House and for the opinions I shall express to-day. In the course of the very remarkable speech in which the Prime Minister introduced this legislation over a month ago, I was especially struck with one sentence, and that sentence has remained in my memory ever since. Having reviewed the legislation through which these Territories had passed since their entrance into confederation, the Prime Minister said : ' Now the time has come to put upon these Territories the stamp of Canadian nationality.' It is under the light of that principle that I intend to carry on this discussion. It seems to be that, through the turmoil, passions and prejudices that have been aroused, in sincerity perhaps on the part of people, but surely with no other purpose on 3253      MARCH 28, 1905                              the part of others than to snatch at popular favour at the expense of the better judgment of the country—I say that perhaps through the turmoil, passions and prejudices we have been passing through for the last month, too many Canadian citizens and Canadian representatives have unfortunately forgotten the important duty they have to perform, and what will be the result of that duty. Sir, we should not forget that those Territories for which we are now legislating will probably contain within half a century or a century, one-half the population of Canada ; therefore if we have any interest in what is going to be the future of our common land, we should be very careful of all the articles of this piece of legislation, as well as of the comments we make upon them.
It is not my intention to discuss at any length, or even to discuss at all, the other features of this Bill, but this one clause so much commented upon—I mean the school question. However, I may say in passing that I thoroughly agree with the position that was taken by the government on the land question. Starting from the same point of view I have just stated, namely, that we must put the stamp of Canadian nationality on these Territories, I think it was the duty of the federal government to retain within their powers the right to legislate over the granting of the lands upon which one half of the population of Canada will be called upon at no distant period to live and to prosper. Although I have the greatest confidence in the public spirit and patriotism of the men who are now at the head of public affairs in the Northwest Territories, I say that before long the time may come when they will not be powerful enough to resist the pressure of the newcomers into that country, men that have perhaps no interest in the unity of Canada, who are not attached to the soil of Canada, who have had no part in the past history of Canada, and who, therefore, by numerical strength, may try to force some obnoxious legislation on the government of these Territories. I say, therefore, that for the protection of the Northwest, for the protection of the present representatives of the Northwest, for the protection of the statesmanship of the men who are now at the head of affairs there, it was good policy on the part of the government to retain the control and administration of the public lands in the Northwest.
Now, coming to the question that has occupied the field of discussion for the last month, I may say that I intend to discuss it from a threefold point of view : from the constitutional point of view, from the religious point of view and from the national point of view. In doing so I shall, as it is my custom, express frankly and clearly what I believe to be true, and in doing so I hope that I shall not offend any man in this House, because every man who is attached to his convictions will understand that in this free parliament of ours every true con 3254 viction should be frankly and sincerely expressed. I may say at once that if there is a regrettable feature in all this discussion, it is not that passions have been aroused, it is not that prejudices have been raised. I entirely agree with the Prime Minister when he says that many of the passions that are now aroused spring from one of the noblest feelings in humanity, they come from an exaggeration, or from a perversion, of that which constitutes the most stable basis of a nation, namely, attachment to religious creed and attachment to national feeling. The men who are committing a crime against this nation are those who, having opinions of their own, are trying to shelter themselves under a constitutional pretense. The great argument which is being used by the opponents of this measure is, I may say, the shibboleth of provincial rights. Now, Sir, there is no man in this parliament who is more attached to provincial rights than I am. I am the descendant of a race that has claimed provincial rights for many years, and just because I am a sincere adherent of provincial rights, I say that if provincial rights are going to be maintained in this country, they cannot be maintained on any sham basis, they can only be maintained on a basis of equal justice to every part of our population and every section, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. What are provincial rights as they relate to the school question ? I am not going into an acute analysis of every word and every letter in the text of the law, though I am not afraid to take up the study of the constitutional question with any man. But I think that once in a while when lawyers get into a muddle about small points of law, sometimes a cool and common sense outsider may throw a little light upon common truths that are too much forgotten by lawyers.
A few days ago the Prime Minister gave to this House a short history of one clause contained in our national constitution, that clause relating to school matters. But to my mind, if I may be permitted to say so, when a motion was made in this House in 1893 by the late Minister of Public Works, then the member for L'Islet, the Prime Minister gave a still clearer and more complete history of the educational policy of Canada, he gave us the true origin of clause 93 of the British North America Act. What was that origin ? That although for a century the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec had been treated, not only in the most just, but also in the most generous manner, still that minority was averse to joining the confederation compact unless their privileges and rights in the province of Quebec were made absolutely secure. Thereupon it was proposed that the same measure of guarantee which was asked by the Protestant minority of Quebec should be given to the Catholic minority in the province of Ontario and the other provinces. Now, Sir, I am bound to say that there was at that 3255                       COMMONS                           time something of the same feeling that exists now, but that feeling was frank enough not to take refuge in legal quibbles. It was stated then, as it is now outside of this parliament, that there should be one rule of justice for the Catholics and another rule of justice for Protestants ; that there should not be one law for both the Catholics and Protestants, but that the Catholics should have one law requiring them to respect the Protestant rights in the province of Quebec. while in the province of Ontario the Catholics should rely upon the generosity of the majority. Indeed, the Hon. A. T. Galt, then the accredited representative of the Protestant minority in Quebec, went to England to secure the adoption of clause 93. Now, eminent legal men in this House, eminent jurists, have tried to make out a case that this clause 93 in the British North America Act should be cut in two, and that wherever a Protestant province outside of Ontario is concerned you should read only the first paragraph of it, thereby giving an absolute freedom to the majority to do whatever they like. I will not give you my own authority, I will not give you the authority of any man of my creed and nationality in opposing the proposition laid down by the leader of the opposition and by Mr. Haultain ; I will go to the highest authority in this empire to prove that this argument is but a sham pretense, because the opposition in this parliament is afraid on the one hand to grant justice to the minority in the west and is afraid on the other hand to state it frankly before the people of Quebec.
When the British North America Act was presented to the British parliament, Lord Carnarvon was Secretary of State for the Colonies and was responsible for the legislation as such, and Lord Carnarvon has given a definition of what were the respective powers of the federal and provincial authority. I respectfully beg the liberty of commending that opinion of Lord Carnarvon to the leader of the opposition in this House. That hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) has charged the government with trying to confuse the federal and the provincial powers in this Bill, and throughout the country the press has stated that education belonged to the provinces, and that there was no interference of the federal parliament possible in educational matters, unless in Ontario and Quebec. It has been stated that the powers of the British North America Act are divided into three classes ; those that belong exclusively to the federal government in clause 91 ; those that belong exclusively to the provinces in clause 92 ; and those questions on which both the federal and provincial parliaments have concurrent jurisdiction. A clearer definition was given in the British parliament when the Bill was introduced there, and I suppose we will all accept the good British theory that if there is a division of opinion as to the effect of a law, we must go to 3256 the real thought of the enacting legislature in order to properly understand it. Lord Carnarvon said in the House of Lords on the 19th of February, 1867, when moving the second reading of the British North America Act :
In this Bill the division of powers has been mainly effected by a distinct classification.
Does he say that the classification is threefold ? No, sir.
That classification is fourfold : First, those subjects of legislation which are attributed to the central parliament exclusively. Secondly, those which belong to the provincial legislature exclusively. Third, those which are the subject of concurrent legislation, and fourth, a particular clause which is dealt with exceptionally.
He then enumerates the powers that belong to the provinces and the powers that belong to the federal parliament, none of which includes education ; and he continues :
Lastly, in the 93rd clause which contains the exceptional provisions to which I refer, your lordships will observe some rather complicated arrangement in reference to education. I need hardly say that that great question gives rise to nearly as much earnestness and division of opinion on that as on this side of the Atlantic. This clause has been framed after long and anxious controversy in which all parties have been represented and on conditions to which all have given their consent. The object of the clause is to secure—
Complete autonomy to the provinces ? No, Sir.
The object of the clause is to secure to the religious minority of one province the same rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority of another province may enjoy. The Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada, the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces will thus stand on a footing of entire equality.
It is true that the origin of that clause was a compact between the delegates from Upper Canada and the delegates from Lower Canada, but fortunately at that time there were at the head of both parties in this country men who had enough sense of justice to understand that in laying the basis of our confederation the result of a compact between the provinces should be crystallized under law into a triumphant principle, and it was that principle which was embodied in this clause—not to furnish arguments to legal quibblers who might come thirty years later, but on the contrary, to lay down as the basis of justice in this Dominion, that a man, in whatever province of Canada he may choose his abode, can rest assured that justice and equality will reign and that no matter what the majority may attempt to do they cannot persecute the minority.
Later on an interpretation was put upon that clause of the British North America 3257 MARCH 28, 1905 Act, or to be more correct perhaps I should say upon the spirit of that clause, by the Manitoba tribunal of the empire. When the ed by the counsel representing it was ms argued by the counsel representing [?] as it has been argued here during this debate that the exceptions—or rather that the subsections to clause 93—applied only to the provinces then existing, and even only to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It was therefore contended that the power of interference that the Catholics of Manitoba were claiming from this parliament, was inconsistent with provincial autonomy in matters of education. What was Lord Herschel's answer to that contention in his judgment ? I shall read it:
'Before leaving this part of the case it may be well to notice the arguments urged by the respondent, that the construction which their lordships have put upon the 2nd and 3rd subsections of section 22 of the Manitoba Act is inconsistent with the power conferred upon the legislature of the province to exclusively make laws in relation to education. The argument is fallacious. The power conferred is not absolute, but limited. It is exercisable only 'subject and according to the following provisions.' The subsections which follow, therefore, whatever be their true construction, define the conditions under which alone provincial legislatures may legislate in relation to education, and indicate the limitations imposed on, and the exceptions from, their power of exclusive legislation. Their right to legislate is not indeed, properly speaking, exclusive, for in the case specified in subsection 3 the parliament of Canada is authorized to legislate on the same subject. There is, therefore, no such inconsistency as was suggested.
I am just as ready to take my legal authority on this question from Lord Herschel and Lord Carnarvon as from Mr. Haultain or the leader of the opposition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, education is not the only subject upon which federal and provincial jurisdiction come in conflict once in a while. The provinces have the exclusive right to legislate on civil matters, but every day we are passing laws here in relation to railways and in relation to banking and commerce which interfere with the provincial powers. Where are these upholders of provincial rights? A province in this fair Dominion, some three or four years ago, passed laws in relation to labour by which it endeavoured to exclude a certain class of people from their territory. The federal government disallowed that law because it was against the interest of the British government. Where were the apostles of provincial rights then ? If I may say it, I was the only man to stand up in this House and proclaim that the province of British Columbia had a right to exclude Asiatic labour. Those gentlemen who seem to be so sincere when they claim that provincial rights should be the basis of our constitution, should not do as was done in 3258 the United States when state rights were invoked by men who wanted to retain on the fair flag of the United States the abominable stain ot' slavery. I say to these gen- [?] they want to have peace and harmony in this country; if they desire that every citizen of Canada shall feel that Canada is his country, then let not these gentlemen come here and speak of provincial rights if their object is to make provincial rights an instrument of tyranny and injustice.
Mr. Haultain, in his letter to the Prime Minister, has admitted frankly that section 93 applied evidently to the Northwest Territories—in fact, that the moment the Northwest Territories became a province, that section applied mechanically from the day they were admitted into confederation, that is, in the month of July, 1870. Here again I find shelter for my dissent from the opinion of Mr. Haultain in the opinion of another man learned in the law—I mean Lord Watson, of the Privy Council. When the argument in the Manitoba case was proceeding before the Privy Council, Lord Watson interrupted Mr. Cozens Hardy, one of the counsels in that case, and what did he say about the very clause so frequently discussed in this House—clause 146, which authorizes the federal government to admit into the union the Northwest Territories, and to carve provinces out of them? He said :
The Imperial legislature in the Act of 1867 left niches to be filled by other provinces. As soon as those other provinces came in they were within the terms of section 93, but I quite admit, in this case, the terms upon which Manitoba came into the federation were settled by the Dominion parliament, otherwise they could not have exempted Manitoba from the provisions of section 93.
We have here the opinion of Lord Watson that the federal parliament acted within its jurisdiction when it exempted Manitoba from all the provisions of section 93, that is, when it claimed for Manitoba the rights under section 22 of the Manitoba Act as opposed to section 93 of the British North America Act which departed materially from it. Therefore we have here the dissent of Lord Watson from the opinion laid down by Mr. Haultain and the leader of the opposition that we must accept section 93 without modification as applicable to these provinces.
But, Sir, I suppose that when the Northwest Territories were admitted into confederation, the Canadian parliament meant what it said. I take also for granted that when the Imperial Order in Council was adopted, the imperial government knew what it did. Upon what terms were those Territories admitted? I will again read section 146 to show the point I want to make. That section says:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of parliament of Canada, and from the Houses of the respective Legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the union, and on address from the houses of the 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.
Moreover, what were the terms of the address that was voted by the federal parliament on the 12th of December, 1867, to admit Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories? I will just read the two paragraphs which are of interest:
That the welfare of a sparse and widely scattered population of British subjects of European origin, already inhabiting these remote and unorganized Territories would be materially enhanced by the formation therein of political institutions-
—and I ask the House to weigh these words:
—bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will admit, to those which exist in the several provinces of this Dominion.
That we do therefore most humbly pray, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased, by and with the advice of Your Most Honourable Privy Council to unite Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory with this Dominion, and to grant to the parliament of Canada authority to legislate for their future welfare and good government; and we most humbly beg to express to Your Majesty that we are willing to assume the duties and obligations of government and legislation as regards these Territories.
What were the terms of the Order in Council of the 23rd of June. 1870. in reply to this address ?
It is hereby ordered and declared by Her Majesty. &c. that from and after the 15th day of July, 1870, the said Northwestern Territory shall be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon terms and conditions set forth in the first hereinbefore recited address. and that the parliament of Canada shall from the day aforesaid have full power and authority to legislate—
For the provisional welfare ? No, Sir;
—for the future welfare and good government of the said Territory.
Mr. Haultain's contention is that the powers exercised under that Order in Council were provisional, and that the moment we pass this legislation those powers are wiped out and the educational provisions of the law of 1875 are abolished in the Northwest. because. he says, you could only give pro 3260 visional powers. and the moment you create provincial government. the new provinces must have the same powers as the other  provinces.
Now, the history of the legislation of 1875 has been given in this debate. The origin of that Act, which was introduced by Mr. Mackenzie at Mr. Blake's request, was stated in the debates of those days. Was it enacted that separate schools should exist in the Northwest Territories only for the time that they should be under our care and supervision? Was it only a provisional disposition ? No. Mr. Blake stated that we should avoid introducing into that new country the religious disputes that had existed in the other provinces, because the parliament of Canada wanted to invite Roman Catholics to settle in the Northwest Territories as freely as ally other class of people. Was it hinted that the Roman Catholic who went there to settle would have the liberty of education, as long as the provisional government existed, but that the moment this parliament. which had given its pledge of honour that that liberty should exist for all time to come. formed a provincial government. that government would be free to wipe out this privilege ? After a man had tilled the. soil for twentynfive or thirty years in the hope that his children would reap the benefit of his labour and have the same liberty that he had enjoyed, was it intended that the federal parliament should then say to him : 'You shall have your liberty no longer' and leave him at the mercy of the majority which has given evidence that it would not permit him to have that freedom ? I say that if this parliament acted in good faith in 1875—and I do not want to presume that Mr. Blake. Mr. Mackenzie, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Alexander Campbell were men who did not act in good faith towards the people who would settle there—we are bound in honour, whatever may be the text of the law or the arguments of quibblers—if we are not bound by a sheet of paper. we are bound by the honour of this parliament. and by the memory of the men who made confederation— men like Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Blake, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Alexander Campbell—to be true to the pledge they gave and to prove that those statesmen were not perjurers.
But how is it that Mr. Haultain and the leader of the opposition, with their great care for provincial rights, have not a word to say against the maintenance of the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which was passed by this parliament ? Where are provincial rights in that case ? Where is the theory of Mr. Haultain, that everything we did before this was provisional, and that we cannot restrict the new provinces? Mr. Haultain. the leader of the opposition and the 3261       MARCH 28, 1905                             hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), are willing that we should impose on the people of the Northwest Territories for all time to come the incubus of that legislation. If we are going outside of our powers in trying to maintain the Act of 1875, in the matter of education, how is it that we are acting within our powers in maintaining the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway as regards the taxation of property in those Territories ? At different intervals, while listening to the speech of the hon. the leader of the opposition on the second reading of this Bill, I was reminded of a saying of Sir Charles Tupper. And of Sir Charles this must be said, and I think it will be admitted on both sides, whatever may be our views regarding him in other respects, that he was always frank and outspoken. He never tried to shelter himself behind small texts of law. I well remember a sentence he uttered once during the debate on the Manitoba school question. Being taunted one day with not being versed in the law and being told that he had better not mix himself up with those legal texts. the old gentleman said : If to be a lawyer means that one must confine himself to texts of law and forget the difference between truth and untruth, I thank Heaven I am not a lawyer. Sir, at one part of the speech of the leader of the opposition I was forcibly reminded of that declaration of his predecessor. It was when turning to the Orange section of his party—I would rather not refer to the fact but it was patent to everybody— he said : If the government will show me a written contract in the case of education such as exists in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I am ready to abide by its maintenance. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that in his study of texts and legal quibbles, my hon. friend has forgotten one of the basic principles of law, and that is that the written document is not the contract. What is really the contract is the agreement entered into between the two parties, and the written document is only the evidence of that agreement. I will go further. Written contracts were invented by legislators when men became dishonest enough not to be true to their pledges and in order to guard against dishonesty. But if we are bound by our contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway, if the hon. the leader of the opposition and his followers are not strong enough to oppose the Canadian Pacific Railway, are we not bound by a far greater bond to the minority in the west, if there is any sense of justice and honour in this parliament ? Are we not bound by the promise made by the highest statesmen of this country to the fathers of families who settled in these Territories, relying on the word of honour of the Canadian parliament ? Are we not bound in honour by the word given to two millions of our fellow subjects of His Majesty, that in those Territories, which were bought with their money as well 3262 as the money of the majority, the rights of the minority, the freedom of conscience of the minority would be respected ? This is a fact which should not be forgotten. Without going again into a deep and fine study of the question whether those Territories became part of the union in 1870 or whether those new provinces are entering the union now, there is one thing we know, and that is that they were purchased and paid for by the people of Canada as a whole. We know that every dollar which has been spent on the development of that country, we know that the millions of dollars which have been expended to bring foreign people into it, were contributed by Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is one principle upon which I think we can safely appeal to the spirit of justice of any English speaking majority, it is that every man is equal before the collector of taxes. Therefore I say that when we are considering the rights and the law and the constitution, this very simple fact should not be forgotten. May I not go a little further ? May I not make a special appeal, not to my compatriots but to the English speaking majority of this parliament, to pause and consider a little what the French Canadians have done for the opening up and development of that country.
When the English settlers of His Majesty were still on the banks of the Atlantic and had not crossed the Ohio and the Missouri, French Canadian priests, French Canadian traders and settlers had opened up that country. I shall go further. If there is one thing which ought to make a Canadian proud of his country, it is the contrast between the relations that have existed in Canada between the white and the red men and those relations which have existed between these two races in the neighbouring republic. Admitting that some credit is due to the policy of the government, long before governments existed, long before any law was introduced into that country, Catholic priests had gone there ; and if those pioneers of Christian faith had not 200 years ago gone into that country to preach the law of charity and Christian civilization, we would have had repeated in Canada the same sad lamentable story of wars between the white and the red man which has marked the history of the United States. The peace of this western country of ours has been due to the good seed of charity, civilization and enlightenment which was sown there years ago by the members of that hierarchy which is now trying to impose its will upon the tender consciences of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and Mr. Haultain. Let me proceed further, and point out that in 1870 there was a rebellion in that country, and a rebellion which has been justified by history and by the testimony of many public men. On what did the government of Canada then rely to appease those people ? Did it rely on 3263 armaments and rifles ? No, it relied on still more effective means. Were there then any cries raised about the powerful domination of the hierarchy ? No, the Prime Minister of that day, Sir John Macdonald, begged Archbishop Taché, who was then in Rome, for Heaven sake, to come back at once to Canada and establish peace in the Red River settlement. There is no hesitation to call in the hierarchy, when we can benefit by its aid. As the editor of ' La Patrie ' very happily put it the other day : What we are denied is not our right to pay. Oh, no, it is our right to have full freedom. Archbishop Taché acted at once on this appeal. He abandoned his functions at the Ecumenical Council at Rome and came to the Red River settlement, and on his way stopped at Ottawa to meet Sir John Macdonald. ' Take any steps, said Sir John to him, to appease the Indians and the half- breeds.' Archbishop Taché however did not want to impose any pledges on politicians which perhaps they would not be strong enough to keep, and all he promised the native population was that the division of their lands would be respected and that they would have the free exercise of their religion and the schools they preferred for their children. What has become of those pledges ? The lands were divided against the wishes of those people and a second rebellion took place—a rebellion which has been justified by no less an authority than Colonel Denison who will not be charged with disloyalty and French demagogy.
What has become of the religious liberty, of the liberty of teaching of the Catholic population of the Northwest ? It has been abolished in Manitoba, against all pledges, against all words of honour ; and the author of that legislation can gain applause in this House by saying : ' If I have a title to the approval and support of the people of Canada, it is because I have gone back upon the pledges given in the name of the Queen of England to a law-abiding and peaceful population.' This, Mr. Speaker, is what we have come to. And now we are called upon to bow to this storm of feeling that has been aroused and to allow a still greater invasion of the rights of the people of that territory. It is time to face the storm. The powers that have raised that storm do not deserve that we should acknowledge their sovereignty. The principle of provincial rights is against them. The constitution is against them. The law is against them. Past pledges are against them. I will go further and say that a religious principle is at stake in this matter.
Under the terms of the capitulation of Montreal, in 1760, and of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, the free exercise of the Catholic religion was promised to the settlers who remained in Canada. And I say that there is no free exercise of the Catholic religion unless the Catholic parent has the full right to give to his child the education he wishes to give according to his conscientious be 3264 liefs. It is strange that there should exist in this country a prepossession in the minds of some people to the effect that in matters of education Roman Catholics have nothing to complain of if, in the public schools aided by the government, there is no sectarian education. As against this, let me put the authority, not of Roman Catholics, not of French Canadians, not of Canadian politicians, but of members of the Privy Council. During the appeal cases on the Manitoba school question this argument to which I have referred was brought forward—that there was no injustice under the laws of Manitoba, that the Catholics were on exactly the same footing as all others with respect to education, because education in the public schools was perfectly non-sectarian. What did Lord Watson say about that ?
These kind of questions were more or less burning questions in Great Britain about the year 1865 or 1866. and during the whole of that period, as far as my knowledge and experience goes, there were large classes of Protestants, and especially Presbyterian Protestants, who I am glad to see are recognized as Christians in Manitoba, who were in favour of secular education, and think that religious education ought to be imparted in the family, or by the church, and not in a secular school, where they are learning the rudiments of knowledge. On the other hand there are a great number of Episcopalian Protestants who take a different view ; but I have never yet met a Roman Catholic who took that view.
And what did Lord Morris say later on ? The point had been urged that the Catholics ought to accept these schools, and Lord Morris said :
But what is the use of discussing other matters ? Nobody can deny that Roman Catholics cannot avail themselves of the system.
And Lord Watson, speaking especially of the idea of the denominational school in the mind of the Roman Catholics, said :
I rather think that the original idea of denominational schools is a school of a sect of people who are desirous that their own religion should be taught in it, and taught in their own way—a doctrinal religion ; and not only taught because religion is taught in a non-sectarian school, but, in the view of those who founded denominational schools originally, the theory was that their views of religion and teaching of their religion should permeate and run through all the education given in the school—that, whether it were rudimentary science or anything else, there should be an innoculation of the youthful mind with particular religious views.
And, in the judgment that was delivered in the second case, Lord Herschell said, speaking of the public schools system of Manitoba :
While the Catholic inhabitants remain liable to local assessment, for school purposes, the proceeds of that assessment are no longer destined to any extent for the support of Catholic schools, but afford the means of maintaining schools which they regard as no more suitable for the education of Catholic children than if 3265 MARCH 28, 1905 they were distinctly Protestant in their character. It is true that the religious exercises prescribed for public schools are not to be distinctively Protestant, for they are to be 'non-sectarian,' and any parent may withdraw his child from them. There may be many who share the view expressed in one of the affidavits in Barrett's case, that there should not be any conscientious objections on the part of Roman Catholics to attend such schools, if adequate means be provided elsewhere ot giving such moral and religious training as may be desired. But all this is not to the purpose. As a matter of fact the objection of Roman Catholics to schools such as alone receive state aid under the Act of 1890 is conscientious and deeply rooted.
Is it not a strange fact that in England, the centre and heart of Protestantism, where the Catholic population is but a mere handful, where the idea of Roman Catholicism is generally associated in the public mind with the Irish land question or the agitation in favour of home rule for Ireland—is it not strange that Protestant statesmen and lawyers should have a better understanding and a broader view of what the rights of Roman Catholics are than in this country, where Roman Catholics form two-fifths of the population, and where no man can point to an action, individual or collective, to the discredit of Roman Catholics so far as their loyalty, their observance of the law, or their national spirit, is concerned ?
And this brings me to a question that has been lightly touched upon in this House by—I was going to say the yellow hierarchy which has been lightly touched upon by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). And—it is just as well to frankly admit it—this question is the very basis of this discussion. I wish to treat completely, if I can, the question of the influence of the hierarchy and the alleged sinister motives animating the Roman Catholics in this House. I have referred to the case of Archbishop Taché in 1870. That was only one instance. Let us take our history since the beginning ; and I may say that when I read what is now appearing in the Ontario newspapers, I cannot help asking myself what kind of history can be taught in the public schools of Ontario? Eleven years after this country had been acquired by England by treaty, when practically the whole population of Canada was French and Catholic, when the English- speaking Protestant population consisted almost wholly of a few traders in the city of Quebec, as the House knows, some trouble arose in certain English—speaking Protestant communities to the south, and some regiments, entirely composed of Anglo-Saxons and Protestants, came to besiege Quebec. The Governor of that day was named Guy Carleton—I do not know whether his name is ever mentioned in the public school histories of Ontario. "When it was known that these regiments were on their way to Quebec, Governor Carleton issued a proclamation requiring all those who were not loyal to the British Crown to leave the city, and 3266 calling upon those who were loyal to the Crown to remain and defend it. Who went out? Who staid in ? All the English Protestants leftthe city and went to the Island of Orleans to wait for the result. The French Canadians, who have been conquered twelve years before, remained there and saved Canada to the British Crown. Mind you. there were among the Anglo-Saxon rebels men of our race and creed. There were French regiments in the American army. Appeals were made to us by men of our blood, men whom the French race had no reason to be ashamed of. Among them was the Marquis de Lafayette. And what was our answer to the Marquis de Lafayette? Under the guidance of that dominating hierarchy, we declared that we believed in the pledge given us by the King of England. We declared: The free practise of our religion is guaranteed to us; and, so long as the King will not go back on us, we will never go back on him.
Thirty-six years later there was another little disturbance between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant family. Canada was again invaded ; and remember that in those 36 years of time, the French Canadians had been ill-treated, their public men had been put in gaol because they wanted to have what ? The same right that British citizens enjoyed in any other part of the empire. Their bishops had been threatened with the same treatment if they still dared to appoint parish priests instead of allowing Governor Craig to nominate them himself. In spite of that when the time of danger came, what did the representative of that obnoxious hierarchy say? He said: ' My brethren, it is true we have been ill—treated, but I still believe that the law of justice will be stronger with our King than injustice ; stand by him, be loyal, be constitutional and the time of justice will come.' The French Canadians fought at Chateauguay and elsewhere and once again contributed to save Canada.
Twenty-five years later, the same ill-treatment having been carried on, some of our people rebelled, wrongly I think, not because their case was not just, but because, as their leader at the time, Papineau, told them, the rule of any British citizen was to carry on constitutional agitation but to avoid rebellion. In any case, at the request of an English speaking Protestant physician of the British army they rebelled in arms. Who stood out against the rebellion ? The same obnoxious representatives of the hierarchy who asked the French Canadians to remain peaceful.
A few years later an annexation movement was started in Canada. By whom ? By the hierarchy ? By the Jesuits ? By French Canadians and Catholics? No, by the very political fathers of the hon. gentlemen opposite, because the British Crown at last had opened its ears to the claims of its French speaking subjects and was beginning to grant justice, and as those gen 3267 COMMONS tlemen had been fed on injustice for years and years they rebelled against the Crown and pelted the governor because he had granted a measure of justice to the French Canadians; and immediately after that they issued an annexation manifesto. Some French Canadians signed it and others were disposed to sign it. Again came the obnoxious power of the hierarchy who told the people of Canada: 'No, be true and loyal, the day of justice is beginning to dawn and it will come by and by.' Later on when Confederation was being discussed it was not, entirely acceptable to the people of Quebec. They had some suspicion of the treatment they might receive at the hands of the English speaking majority which up to that moment had not been such as to give them much confidence for the future. Again the hierarchy stood up and asked the people of Quebec to accept the compact which had been entered into. Has the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and his colleagues of the same— might I say hierarchy or sect? no, of the same, group of thought, if there is any thought in that group—have these gentlemen ever reflected on that point?
Mr. SPROULE. Heap it on strong.
Mr. BOURASSA. They have. I think, one group of allies in Quebec. There has been for many years past a small anticlerical party that has been using all these arguments against the domination of the priests, against the power of the hierarchy, but what has been their aim and object? It has always been to throw down the British flag; and the great grievance they have against the bishops is that the bishops prevented us from joining the United States in 1774, again in 1812. and opposed the rebellion of 1837, supported British supremacy in 1849 and induced us to accept confederation. When newspapers in Ontario are filling their sheets with attacks and insults on the hierarchy they are simply insulting the men who, for 100 years have been the bulwark of British government in Canada. If there was any sincerity in these men, who are the great apostles and preachers ot loyalty, they should feel ashamed of the attack they are now launching on the Catholic bishops of Canada, because when they attack the hierarchy they attack the party that has always stood by the British Crown, that has always stood by law, that has always stood by the flag that has given us the basis of a nation in this country.
Coming back to the point where I left my argument, it is just as well to realize the position in which we are. When you speak of the liberty granted to the Roman Catholic to go into a non-sectarian school there is no such thing as liberty. He may abide by the law if he be forced to send his child to such a school, but his religious Iibertv is interfered with. When. by any measure in this House or in any provincial parliament 3263 you force a Roman Catholic to send his children to a non-sectarian school, you are committing an act of injustice just as direct, just as much against the conscience of the Roman Catholic, as if you would force the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec to contribute to Roman Catholic denominational schools. This is the position urged upon and this is what was acknowledged frankly by Lord Watson, Lord Morris and Lord Herschell. May I say that there should be in this House a little more of that broad British spirit of tolerance. so that at last when we come to judge the feelings and the convictions of our fellow- citizens we should not trample on their feelings and override their convictions—we should endeavour to know the convictions of their hearts and to learn their thoughts ?
Sir, there is no solid ground left for those who are opposing this legislation as far as school matters are concerned. There is just one ground; it may be a good one for some. but on the whole it is not a lasting one: and that is the right of might. If the rule is to be laid down that there is to be one law to protect the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec. and that the same law shall not apply to Catholic minorities elsewhere. so far, so good! But let men be strong enough to stand up here and say: 'No, the Catholics of the western provinces cannot enjoy in the west what the Protestants enjoy in Quebec, because, on the one hand, they are Catholic and on the other land they are Protestants.' Let a statesman be strong enough to stand up in the House and say that, and he will strike the root of this question of legislation. There was only one man who came near that point, and I acknowledge his sincerity. It was the hon. member for Brandon the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton).
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. BOURASSA. Sir, on this ground, I know my words are useless. I know that I probably represent the views of very few men in this House, but there is one thing I would like to impress upon the minds of my Protestant English speaking fellow members. It is that when one party gets up and says that justice cannot be done to the Roman Catholics in the Northwest and another party gets up and says there must be only a scant measure of justice because it cannot afford to have the people accept a full measure of justice, allow me to say that I think the good people of Ontario are not fairly represented in this House.
An hon. MEMBER. Bosh.
Mr. BOURASSA. I cannot believe that if any member in this House would go to his constituency, even the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)—although I think the great process with that hon. gentleman would be to bring his mind to the point of understanding the question—I do not be 3269 MARCH 28, 1905 lieve that if any hon. member in this House, even if he represents the most Protestant constituency, would go to his county and say : ' Here is the treatment which is accorded to our fellow citizens in the province of Quebec, here is the treatment which is accorded not only under the written law but under the law of the humane heart of the French Canadians who even at the time when they were persecuted by the British Crown always gave an ample measure of justice to the Protestant minority. Now, we ask you to stand by us in giving the same treatment to the Catholics of the western provinces that the Protestants have in the east. We ask you to remain true to the pledges given to that effect by the greatest statesmen of this country—I do not believe that such language would fail to bring a fair reply from the good people of Ontario.
Let the Liberals be true to the memory of Mr. Blake, of Mr. Mackenzie and even of Mr. George Brown, because when Mr. George Brown made up his mind that this compact should be observed, he was courageous enough to say that it should be observed in fact and for ever. So far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned, I do not wish, on an occasion like this, to speak from a party point of view. I may say to the leader of the opposition, for whom, on all other questions I have had up to this time the greatest respect, that when I listened to him the other day, I came to the conclusion that he was not speaking for the Conservative party, he was not showing himself to be the heir of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper, but he was only voicing the opinions of a gentleman who was obliged to find an abode in the county of Carleton in order to obtain a seat in this House. The hon. gentleman is broad enough—I render him that justice— be is broad enough by birth, by nature and by education to be fair-minded, that he had not the courage to stand by his new flag ; and he felt obliged to gather up a pile of small documents and papers behind which to shelter himself in his denial of justice.
We have frequently been told : Why can't you trust the majority of the people of the Northwest ? Well, Sir, here again I must speak frankly ; and I say : No, we cannot. Suppose we could trust the people who are living there now ; is there a man in this House childish enough to say that the condition of things which exists now is sure to exist in the Northwest fifty years hence ? What will be the population up there ? Who knows what feelings will dominate the majority there ? Who knows but that the great majority of the people there will be settlers coming from a land where the idea, not only of non-sectarian schools but of Godless schools, now prevails, and to my mind, to the great detriment of the future of the republic ? Who can tell what the future will be ? But confining my 3270 self entirely to a survey of past events, I say now that we cannot trust the present majority of the people of the Northwest to stand for right and justice. Their record is before us. It is my intention to make a comparison, for the enlightenment of our friends up there, if my words can reach them, and for the enlightenment of my English speaking Protestant friends in the House and out of it ; I am going to make a comparison between the history of the school legislation in the Northwest and the history of the school legislation in Quebec, and I am ready to abide by the judgment that will be passed by any fair minded man, if not by his vote, at least by his conscience.
The leader of the opposition made another fine legal argument to show that the people of the Northwest have never legislated on that subject. I admit that from a narrow legal point of view the people of the Northwest did not legislate freely, because they were bound by the Northwest Territories Act, just as this parliament cannot legislate freely because we are bound by the British North America Act, and just as any parliament in this country is not free because all the powers possessed by any legislative body in Canada is limited by imperial legislation. But I presume that we can ascertain the feelings of the people of the Northwest by considering their legislation. In 1885, ten years after the Northwest Territories Act was passed, legislation was enacted by the legislature which, within its scope, was just as free as this parliament. And what did they do ? As the ex-Minister of the Interior clearly told us the other day, they passed a law quite in accord with the letter and with the spirit of clause 11 of the Act of 1875. They passed a law similar to the one we have in Quebec, a law by which Catholics had the management of their own schools, had the choice of their own text books, and had the right to have their schools inspected by men of their own creed—but all under government supervision. They enjoyed separate schools, not only in name but in fact, as the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) well stated the other day. The inspectors had to be appointed by the government, but they were chosen by the Catholic section, just as in the province of Quebec Protestant schools are inspected by inspectors chosen by the Protestant section of the Board of Education. The books used in the separate schools of the Northwest were also selected by the Catholic section, and approved by the government. That state of things went on for some years, and then, in 1892, after several other ordinances had been passed, the separate school system, as the member for Brandon stated the other day, was wiped out. Lately. Mr. Haultain, who is now here claiming liberties for his people, has given utterance to his lofty opinions on this matter, he has 3271 COMMONS said: If I were a dictator to-morrow I would not abolish separate schools, all I want is freedom for my province. But Mr. Haultain never told the country of a little fact in his political career which I will take the liberty of divulging to the House. When Mr. Dalton McCarthy, in 1892 and in 1894, brought into this House a Bill to abolish separate schools and the French language in the Northwest Territories, he was acting upon an address voted in the legislature of the Northwest Territories, moved by Mr. Cayley and seconded by Mr. Haultain. Therefore I think I now have the right to say, as claiming some liberty for the minority in the Northwest, that I have no confidence in Mr. Haultain, who now comes here posing as our friend, but who was one of the first men to start a movement in the legislative assembly to abolish the separate schools.
Mr. LEIGHTON McCARTHY. Would the hon. gentleman allow me ? I think he is a little inaccurate in stating that this was legislation to abolish separate schools. The legislation then sought was only to delegate to the legislative assembly the right to do as they saw fit ; and they will of course continue the separate school system if they so choose.
Mr. BOURASSA. I am glad my hon. friend has interrupted me, because he affords me an opportunity of illustrating once more what I said a little while ago, that every time an act of persecution is committed, it is committed under a false pretense. Everybody knew the views of the hon. gentleman—and whose views I certainly respect—who was so closely connected with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. McCarthy). The motion which was made in this House by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, and which he developed by a very eloquent argument, was to wipe out the separate schools and wipe out the French language on the ground that there should be only one race and one language in this country. It is useless to resort to legal quibbles. The purpose of Mr. Haultain and of Mr. McCarthy was to abolish Catholic education and the French language ; they succeeded so far as the language is concerned, and they succeeded to a large extent in so far as schools are concerned, according to the testimony of the hon. member for Brandon.
There is one further point I would like to draw to the attention of our friends on this side of the House. I have listened to the very nice words, words with which I agree completely, spoken to us by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs ; I entirely agree with their conciliatory sentiments. I especially coincide with the Minister of Finance, who gave us a good illustration and a strong re-enforcement of the argument I have tried to make, when he painted the happy condition of 3272 things which exist in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where the majority, in order to do justice to their Catholic fellow citizens, had to grant them separate schools in fact. So it is not only in Quebec and Ontario that we have separate schools. I have visited the maritime provinces frequently, and was happy to observe the good relations which exist between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants there.
But, may I suggest to the Minister of Finance, if the Roman Catholic minority had not developed the strength of numbers that it represents to-day in those provinces, would it be treated as it is treated ? We know the history of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I do not want to bring up old feuds, but I am bound to say, looking through the history of all the provinces of Canada, that while in the province of Quebec the same ample measure of justice was always granted to the minority, unfortunately in all the English speaking provinces there was a time when the passions of the majority were aroused and successfully aroused against the Catholic minority. In consequence, a feeling has developed—not of distrust—but a feeling has developed amongst us that if we want equality and peace to reign in this country, we must give to the representatives of the majorities in the English speaking provinces the right to do what Sir Oliver Mowat did. I took an active part in two elections in the province of Ontario ; I was but a boy at the time, but I was proud to stand by Sir Oliver Mowat and help in his campaign for justice and equality. I was living on the borders of the province of Ontario and I crossed the river of my own free will without being asked by anybody, without being known by anybody, to do what I could in support of the old statesman. What was the argument used by Sir Oliver Mowat? He was prudent and he knew of the power of the appeals made by such men as the member of East Grey. When the system of separate schools was attacked in Ontario, Sir Oliver Mowat said. 'I shall not discuss the relative merits of separate schools and public schools ; I am not any partisan of separate schools ; but separate schools have been established in this province under law, and therefore it is useless to agitate against the law of the land.' What I want is that the future rulers of the Northwest may be put in such a position that when passions are aroused and prejudices fomented by such men as we have in this House, by such newspapers as we have in this country, these future rulers of the Northwest will be in a position to say—when passion is too strong or when they are not strong enough to oppose it— ' What is the use ? there is a law protecting the minority.' I do not wish to cast any aspersion on the breadth of mind of any 3273 MARCH 28, 1905 future statesman of Canada, but it is no harm for the peace of the country, it is no harm for the good of our land, that should prejudices exist between creeds and nationalities, every Canadian statesman, whether he be weak or strong, whether he be popular or unpopular, can always find a shelter under the constitution of our country and be able to point out to all men that there is laid down in our constitution the clear written principle that equal justice exists for all and that Catholics as well as Protestants have the right to live in this country.
It may be said : But what is all this trouble about ? The minority in the west is satisfied ; it is only the hierarchy, it is only the Quebec crowd who are trying to impose their will upon the Territories. Sir, that is one of the most cynical arguments that has been used so far. We have the testimony of the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), who ought to know, that when the ordinances abolishing separate schools were passed in the Northwest, a protest was made. The member for Brandon—I do not know if it was in a moment of forgetfulness, or if it was because he also has been drawn into the dangerous abyss in which some gentlemen opposite are having such a fine time these days—but the member for Brandon said the protest came from the Roman Catholic clergy and in order to convince us, he immediately gave the opinion of two of the most eminent laymen of the Northwest Territories ; two fathers of families, two representatives of the people, one the Lieutenant Governor to-day and the other a judge of the Supreme Court. These were the members of the hierarchy quoted by the hon. member from Brandon. These gentlemen came here and they said: ' An injustice has been done us ; we are deprived of the right of giving to our children the education which our conscience binds us to give ; our money is taken for the support of schools we cannot attend.' But, they were sent away from Ottawa ; they were not numerous enough probably to obtain justice. Then they went to the provincial assembly and again they laid their case at the foot of the Crown—as the Crown was represented there—and again they were found to be too weak and too few. Because they did not rebel in arms, because they accepted the established state of things; a state of things which was a breach of the compact, a state of things which in the words of Sir John Thompson and the words of the member for Brandon, constituted a legal encroachment upon their rights; because they did not rebel in arms; because they followed the advice that has always been given by the hierarchy to the Catholics of this country to be peaceful ; now they are told : ' You are satisfied ; ask for nothing more because you can't expect it.' To my friends who are saying to us : 3274 'Be conciliatory ; let us cut in two what remains.' I shall cite a little illustration which may perhaps help some of them to realize the situation. Suppose that Canada stands in the position of a father having two sons, big Peter and little Paul. He gives $4 to big Peter and $2 to little Paul and he says : " Now, boys, agree together, work together, do the best you can with the money I gave you.' Once they are on the street big Peter gets after little Paul, beats him and takes $1.50 of his two dollars. These gentlemen opposite stand up and say : Don't tyrannize big Peter ; but force little Paul to give Peter the 50 cents he has left. And hon. gentlemen on this side of the House get up and say : Be conciliatory, take those 50 cents left to Paul, and divide it with big Peter, for after all big Peter is a good fellow.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Little Paul comes from Nova Scotia.
Mr. BOURASSA. I am not going to be dragged into provincial limits just now. Now, Sir, there is another subject which is much talked of in the public press, but which has not been treated of in this House and I think one voice at least should be raised in parliament to protest against it. It is said : ' Admitting that the constitution allows you to grant separate schools to the Northwest, yet you should not fasten upon these people such a bad system of education which has made of Spain, of Italy, of France, of all Catholic countries, the scum of the earth.' And we are told : Look at the province of Quebec, look at the south of Ireland, a degraded population, a low- minded ignorant people.
I propose to deal for a few moments with the subject of Catholic education, with what it has done for the world. in what way it has succeeded and why it has not always succeeded. Here again I am tempted to ask: What kind of history is taught in the public schools of this country ? I know as well as any man. and I have learned to know in the Catholic schools where I was educated. that there is such a thing as the evolution of nations, that nations in our own age as well as nations in the past. and as well as nations to come for all time. have and will have their periods of prosperity. and their days of decadence.
The race from which I sprung has done so much for the enlightenment and civilization of this world that I can, without undue baseness. admit that the Anglo-Saxon is now ahead among the nations. But I may remind my English speaking friends that three centuries before there was anything like English civilization, Catholic Spain had covered the world not only with physical power, but with civilization and enlightenment—with schools of higher education and primary education and with a knowledge of all then available sciences that no nation 3275 COMMONS has since surpassed ; and this is no disparagement of the English any more than the present pre-eminence of the Anglo-Saxon is a disparagement of the Spanish. May I remind my English-speaking friends also that three hundred years ago, in Venice and Genoa, those Catholic-ridden states, the system of book-keeping, of stock exchange, of currency, of everything which the Anglo-Saxon is using now with such success, was practiced to an extent which brought to those little republics a degree of prosperity and civilization which, considering their time and their size, has never been surpassed. I could go on with examples like these ; I could make a history of the world with such examples, after the manner of a speech which was made in this House some years ago by I think my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes), who began at the creation and ended with the end of the world. I will content myself with stating the truism that nations grow, develop, prosper, and then pass into oblivion. The Greeks have passed ; the Romans have passed ; the Italians and Spanish have passed. Let the Anglo-Saxon look to the Slav and the Japanese before he concludes that he possesses the world for ever. But this is not the point. The point is, what has Catholic education done for Catholic countries ? If our friends who are making so much noise about the corruption of Catholic countries would go to the depth of the history of those countries. they would find that their greatest time of material as well as moral prosperity coincided with the time when the Catholic church, not dominated, but inspired those countries, and when Catholic education high or low, was given to all classes of the people. Spain began to decay when greeders in the colonies displaced the missionaries–when the King of Spain lent himself to the anti-Catholic movement which started in France and which led to the abolition of the Jesuit order. The same thing happened in France. But why not go for an example to countries which are now under Catholic influence ? The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)—I do not know what text book he got his information from, but if it is authorized in any province, it should be taken from the schools at once—spoke of the national non-sectarian system of education carried on in Belgium. Now, Belgium is one of the most prosperous countries on earth, and there you have Catholic education right through, from the primary school to the university. But let me point to a Protestant nation, Germany, where thirty-three years ago the Prussians abolished Catholic education and expelled the Jesuits and other religious orders from the country. What do you see there now ? The German Emperor, observing the progress which Catholic education has made in the empire, is turning to the Catholic hierarchy and asking them to save his empire from the dangers 3276 of socialism. Might I refer some of our friends also to the comments appearing daily in the American papers and reviews, coming not from Catholic priests or bishops or Catholic religious orders, but from Protestants, eminent Protestants, men of science, professors of universities and statesmen, among a few statesmen who find their way to political life in the United States, who recognize that what must save the United States from the social plague which is going to involve all nations between the crushing burden of capitalism and the equally crushing burden of standing armies, is the influence of the Catholic church on the working classes. I am not saying this in disparagement of any other creed ; but, in view of the fact that during the past two months railing attacks have been made against the creed of two millions of the subjects of His Majesty in this country, I feel that I should stand up here and say that the Catholic people and the Catholic hierarchy will never suffer when compared with any other creed or sect.
But, leaving aside foreign countries, and coming to my own poor province, the province of Quebec, let us study for a moment what has been the influence of the Catholic church on the development of education in that province ? It is generally contended in all English-speaking provinces that we are—I will not say an inferior race, because I do not think that is accepted by a great number of the English-speaking people ; but it is very often contended that the system of education in the province of Quebec is an inferior one, and that that province has a greater number of illiterate people than any of the other provinces. It may be that a little insight into the history of the educational system of Quebec will throw some light on the subject. Before the conquest, the French government had given lavishly what was necessary for the support of public education in New France. At the time of the cession there was necessarily a great disturbance of the whole system. Five years after the cession of Canada the Jesuit order was suppressed by the Pope ; and, strange to say, there was nobody at the time to raise an argument against the English government for using a papal bull. On the day that papal decision was registered, all the estates belonging to the Jesuits were seized by the British government. Those estates had been given to the Jesuits with the legal obligation of founding colleges and secondary and primary schools ; and before the conquest they had established two colleges and a great number of primary schools—a greater proportion being given to the people of New France than were given in the British colonies to the south. After the estates of the Jesuits were seized by the British government, were the proceeds used for the education of the people ? No. The Montreal College was destroyed, and was replaced by the Champ de Mars.
3277 MARCH 28, 1905
The Quebec College was seized and the pupils and professors turned out, and soldiers put in. For thirty years after representative institutions were given to us, we petitioned the British government to give us back those estates, not to return them to the Jesuits, but to use them for the purposes of education, and we were refused. For twenty-seven years we were refused any education law. In 1801 the government imposed on us a system of education under the control of the Anglican bishop of Quebec, through which Anglican students of theology were sent to all the Catholic centres with the avowed object—because at that time they had the frankness to avow the purpose of their operations—of turning young French Canadians into English—speaking Protestants. Naturally our people refused to send their children to those schools: but while the legislative assembly was voting money for educational purposes, the English governors handed the proceeds over to the Protestant schools and gave not one cent to the Catholics. That continued during 24 years until at last the legislative assembly passed a law which gave the Catholic church wardens the right to take a part of the revenues of their poor parish churches and devote it to the building and maintaining of their own schools. And at the same time the Protestant schools were kept up with the moneys paid by the Catholics and appropriated by the government. That went on until 1841, when the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada became united. It was only then that the province of Quebec obtained its first school law. What was that law? It was a law which Lord Sydenham forced upon his advisers. Under it the whole school system was put under the municipal authorities, who were appointed by the governor personally, and the governor was careful to appoint a majority of English speaking Protestants to regulate the school system of a population, nine- tenths of which were French speaking Catholics. It was only in 1846 that we finally secured a system of schools satisfactory to our people. So that during 100 years we were deprived of the right of using our own money for the education of our own people. Is it then surprising that there should be some people in our province to-day who can neither read or write? While the English speaking immigrants who did not profess the Catholic religion, found on our shores, even in the Catholic province of Quebec, a system of education suited to their consciences, under which their own schools were entitled to their proper share of the public money, and while these people had come from the British Isles or the United States, from countries where there was an established system of education which suited them, for a hundred years the great majority of the province of Quebec were deprived of the opportunity of educating their children. Am 3278 I not then justified in saying that if you will compare the results of our education, which is only fifty years old, with those of the education in the English speaking provinces, which practically had no beginning, because it was simply the continuation of the American and English systems, we have no reason to be ashamed. As far as higher education is concerned—and that education with us is entirely in the hands of our clergy—let me give, not my testimony, but that of a professor of McGill University, Dr. Johnstone, who some years ago made certain comments upon the difference between the attainments of the pupils of McGill University who came from the Catholic colleges and those who came from the high schools. He was struck with the fact that there was always a preponderance of points secured by those who came from the Catholic colleges, and he said:
There was no possibility of mistaking the superiority of the men with classical training. I was so struck with what appeared to be a marked difference between the two divisions of the classes that without suspecting what I now believe to be the true course of it, I, many years ago, assigned separate rows of seats in the lecture room to them, in order to make quite sure of the fact. Year after year there was the same invariable result.
May I also refer to the results of the examinations carried on at the Manitoba University, where the pupils of the Jesuits college of St. Boniface compete in the proportion of 1 to 15 or 18—three or five out of 80 or 100 altogether ? Those pupils of the Jesuits' college generally carry off from thirty to thirty—five per cent of the points and medals given. True, we are not now discussing higher education, but primary schools. Well, if the primary school system be so rotten as it is said to be, surely it could not send to our colleges young men who are so successful when they come into competition with the students from the other schools. But I look at the question from another point of view. Suppose there should be a little less book-keeping taught in our primary schools than is taught in the public schools. I lay it down as a basis of social law that the right to educate the child belongs in the first place to its parents; and, therefore, when the state takes the place of the parent, it is bound to give that child the same moral education which the father would give it in his own house. Secondly, the duty of the government is to develop law-abiding, broad-minded citizens; and, thirdly, to give the child school knowledge. I claim if that rule is considered our system has given better results than any other. We never see in the province of Quebec or in any part of the country in which Catholics can have any control, the display of passion and prejudice which we are now witnessing among those who advocate public schools as against separate schools. We see in the outbursts to-day 3279 COMMONS in which sectarian prejudice is appealed to, the result of public school education, and we are justified in saying that in the province of Quebec, under our system, we have never produced any thing of the kind.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has pointed with pride to his own province. But there is still one province ahead of Nova Scotia as far as the spirit of tolerance is concerned, and that is the province of Quebec. Do some of our friends who make so much noise about the illiteracy and narrow mindedness of that province under priestly control, know that Lower Canada was the first self-governing part of the British Empire, not excluding Great Britain and Ireland, where disabilities were removed from the Jews? We emancipated the Jews in the province of Quebec before the Catholics were emancipated in England. At the very time that we in the province of Quebec were denied our most sacred natural rights, every new creed that came to that province was given complete civil and corporate powers. Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists were granted by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec the same powers to keep civil registers and act as corporate bodies as were given Catholics. Do they know that at the time when we were denied the right of teaching our children according to our conscience, we always put Protestant schools on the same footing as our own as regards the law and the constitution? I go further, as far as the working of our system of education is concerned. May I refer hon. members to a speech made by the right hon. the First Minister in 1893 in which he said in substance : ' I know that the law protects the minority in the province of Quebec, but there are many ways in which an unwilling majority can evade the law—and we have evidence of that in several provinces of the Dominion. Suppose, for instance, the government of the province of Quebec were to abolish the Protestant section of the Council of Education. Would not that be an infamous thing which would call for redress at the hands of a federal government?' Well, that was done by the government of the Northwest Territories some years ago. But if it be infamous to abolish the supervision of Protestant schools by Protestants, how comes it to be perfectly proper to abolish the supervision of Catholic schools by Catholics? How can one thing be good in the west and bad in the east? How can it be just in the west and unjust in the east? If we are to make a nation of this country, surely every one will admit that the principle must prevail, not in word but in fact, of equal rights and equal justice to all.
To again give the House an idea of what kind of argument is offered to our English speaking friends these days on this question, may I read a few lines written by a very talented gentleman in the city of Quebec, and an Anglican minister, the Rev. F. G. Scott:
If we are to be a house divided against itself, if we are to set province against province and perpetuate our racial discords, there can be but one ultimate result, and that is the submergence of Canada by the United States and the grand sweeping away of all of our civil strife by the uprooting of treaties, rights and legal safeguards under a nation that recognizes no state religion and tolerates no duality of speech.
To avert that, to save Canada to Canadians, we must establish, as I have said a broad spirit of Canadian sentiment and that can only be done by a system of national common schools. The day is past when we looked to England's interests first. Canada comes first to Canadians ; and to the west, broad, tolerant and expansive, we look for the light and healing of the spirit of true Canadianism that will put an end to the inherited animosities which darken and strangle the national life of the older Canada.
And then there is this still better :
Of course, the true inwardness of this attempt to force upon the new provinces a school system distasteful to them, is the desire to establish French Canadian colonies in the west, where separate schools would enable them to establish the French language over wide areas. The means for doing this would be readily furnished by the religious communities expelled from France, and it would not be many years before there would grow up in the west a new Quebec, with all its racial, lingual and sectarian animosities, eating the life out of true Canadian nationalism.
There are English-speaking Protestants from my province in this House. I wish the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) were here. I see here my hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Parmelee). And the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) is present. I will ask any one of these Protestant representatives from my province, whether present at the moment or not, and whether Conservative or Liberal, and regardless of their opinions in the legislation that is now before us, to state frankly in this House Whether there is, in their opinion, in any part of Canada, or in any part of the world, so much toleration of so much breadth of mind as that shown by French Canadians towards their English- speaking Protestant compatriots. The other day a letter was published in the Toronto ' News ' which attracted my attention. It was written by a gentleman in the town of Aylmer in the neighbouring county of Wright. This is what it said, speaking of the schools of Quebec :
The separate school system is one of distrust, suspicion and antagonism. . . . As it is, the priesthood are given control and proficiency, while they teach the merest rubbish for history, while the teaching of the catechism leaves no other impression possible but that Protestants are a curse to the earth.
Now, that letter was written in the county of Wright opposite Ottawa. That county is two-thirds French Canadian and four-fifths Catholic. There was a by-election in that county three weeks 3281 MARCH 28, 1905 before that letter was written. Three candidates were in the field. The Liberal candidate was an Irish Canadian without a drop of French blood in his veins. The Conservative candidate was a Scotch Presbyterian without any trace of French Canadian blood. A third candidate came into the field and appealed to my fellow-countrymen, saying : ' This county is two-thirds French Canadian ; you should not vote for an Irishman or a Scotchman ; you should vote for me, a French Canadian.' And what was the result ? The French Canadian who appealed to racial passion in that county, notwithstanding that the voters were brought up under this priestly education, notwithstanding that they were educated in schools where they were ' taught that Protestants were a curse to the earth '—this French Canadian lost his deposit. The Irish Canadian was elected. And the Scotch Presbyterian received the strongest Conservative vote that had been cast in the county for years and years. And, in the city of Hull, Where the whole population is under ' priestly education,' where the teachers are not merely the ordinary parish priests, but priests who belong to the monastic orders, some of these ' abominable orders ' of which the Reverend Scott is so afraid ; in the city of Hull where the schools are wholly in the hands of friars and nuns, and where any man who spent his childhood there has received no other education than that given by these friars and nuns under the control of the hierarchy ; in that Liberal Catholic and French Canadian city of Hull the Scotch Presbyterian Conservative candidate had a majority of the votes. Sir, the province of Quebec, where you may so frequently notice Protestant Englishmen elected by a French- speaking majority, is the only province where you find such proofs of toleration and breadth of view. And the same has been true since confederation and long before confederation.
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to speak of a little experience I have had in this relation ? It shows the working of the school laws in my province. There is a small country newspaper in the county of Quebec which has declared that the result of the separate school law in Quebec was to drive the Protestants out of the province. I refer to the Huntingdon ' Gleaner.' And the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has re-echoed that declaration. I passed most of my life—and my happiest days, because they were before I entered public life— in a small village on the borders of the Ottawa river forming one municipality of eight hundred souls. This village was separated municipally and for school purposes from the parish in which it was situated and which also contained some eight hundred souls. In these two municipalities there were three English-speaking Protestant families. The father of one family was the 3282 head of a large lumbering firm and the fathers of the other two families were the other's clerks. These three families lived in the village. They organized a separate school under the law. Then the lumbering company bought immense properties in the parish. Under our ' priest-administered ' law, the Protestant ratepayers—as they were entitled to do by law—annexed this property to the village for school purposes, thus depriving the Catholic ratepayers of the parish of all the receipts of their schools on account of that land. But there was not a word of dispute. There came a time when the separate school was not carried on according to law, because, in our province as in others, it requires a certain school attendance to make a school under the law. There came a time when all the taxes paid by the Protestants went to support a school where there were only five or six children, which is only half or one-third of the number required under the law. One of the Catholic ratepayers suggested : ' Why don't we abolish the separate school and get all that money ?' I put my foot upon the proposition at once. I said: ' My friend, if you think as I do and as, I believe, the people of this parish and of this village do, you will never ask a man, rich or poor, to contribute a cent to the maintenance of a school system in which he does not believe.' And the whole population was with me. That whole ' priest-ridden population '—and they were poor farmers—preferred to pay twice as much as they otherwise would rather than ask these Protestant ratepayers to contribute, as they were legally bound to do, to the maintenance of any other than this separate school. Show me such an example in any of the English-speaking Protestant provinces of this Dominion, and I will admit that the separate school system cannot develop a national spirit.
Let me refer my hon. friends to the example of a country, that, perhaps above all the nations of the earth, has done most for the development of ideas of liberty and toleration : the little republic of Switzerland. There is in Switzerland a population composed of three nationalities with clearly marked differences of religion. They have the Protestant Germans and the Catholic French and Italians. After their common struggle for liberty, they fought among themselves for years and for centuries—the Germans to impose the German language and the Protestant religion upon the others and the French seeking to impose the French language and the Catholic religion upon the Germans. But the day came when they found out that only principle under which they could maintain their union was that every man should be free to worship God in his own church and to educate his children in his own school. And upon that principle of toleration they have carried on their schools ; and to my mind, their national 3283 spirit is much more united, than unfortunately ours is at the present day.
Now, Sir, there is one last point I wish to make. I contend that if we look upon this question from the point of view of a broad national ideal, not only should we propose the widest measure of liberty for the minority of the Northwest, but, even if it were not asked for and if we were not bound to give it, we should, in duty to Canada and to the integrity of the empire, establish separate schools in the Northwest in the fullest sense of the word.
I have stated, at the opening of my remarks, that nobody knows what the population of that country will be fifty or one hundred years hence. Do you want to make it safely Canadian ? Do yo want to have there a nucleus of population whose only love, whose only care will be for this soil of ours, who will have no other devotion but to the future and the welfare of Canada ? Open the Northwest to the French Canadian, emplant him there and give him all his freedom and liberty. Make him feel that he is at home in the west just as much as in the east, make him feel that he can have there the same religious liberty that he enjoys at home, and which he gives to his neighbour at home and you will have there a growing tree that will stand the storm, resist the influence of American absorption and the development of foreign ideals, because the French Canadian is the oldest Canadian, because the French Canadian has founded on the soil of our country the whole of his hopes. He has abandoned the past; he has ceased to look to any foreign country for the development of his moral and material forces and when you compare the past with the present, when you think that all the French Canadians. whether living in this country under the British flag or in the United States under the stars and stripes, that these 3,000,000 French Canadians are all the descendants of 60,000 peasants who were abandoned on this land by the French government 150 years ago, who had been ruined by the French government, robbed by French intendants whose methods British governors faithfully followed ; when it will be remembered that those 60,000 peasants, unaided by any influx whatever of immigration and capital, have developed their education, their agriculture and their trade; that they have done all they could for Canada whether in peace or war, and if you consider the point at which they started and the result they have achieved, there is no reason why any man in this House should be afraid of the hold the French Canadians may obtain in the west.
Again referring to past history might I once more appeal to my English speaking friends in this House and say to them : Do not trust the religious zealot. Remember the New England Puritan who burned witches 200 years ago. He condemned the 3284 British Government because it granted religious liberty to the French Canadians, but ten years later he rebelled against the British Crown and was stopped from entering Canada only by the French Canadians. Do not trust too much to the political jingo. Remember 1849, when the fathers of the Tories wrecked the parliament buildings and rotten-egged the governor for giving freedom to all. I simply say this and I leave my friends with these words : Be just to the French Canadians. That is all 1 ask. I do not ask you to be generous, if the state of mind of your province has not yet been brought up to the state of mind that we have in Quebec. If you cannot afford to be generous, all I ask you is to be just. Give us the same rule that we have given you, do for us what we have done for you and trust the French Canadians under the guidance of that hierarchy which has stood for British connection in the past. The French Canadian's heart is generous, his heart is grateful and he will never forget what you have done. But on the other hand—and in this I am not uttering any threat—I regret every time I go back to my province to find developing that feeling that Canada is not Canada for all Canadians. We are sometimes in Quebec accused of being provincialists. We are not provincialists by nature. We have stood for the defence of the whole soil of Canada and have contributed our share for the benefit of the whole of Canada. But after such examples as we have had in New Brunswick, in Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories, after such attempts as were made in Ontario itself where we were preserved only because there was a text of law, we are bound to come to the conclusion that Quebec is our only country because we have no liberty elsewhere. I do not say that we are treated as slaves ; but we are proud enough and I contend that we have rendered service enough to claim at the hands of the majority of this country not only such treatment as you would grant to a good natured inferior being, but such treatment as I think we, as your brethren, are entitled to receive at your hands. If you do that, if you are just and just without quibbling, just and just without trying to take with one hand what you give with the other, I say : Trust the French Canadian in the west or in the east. trust the French Canadian anywhere in Canada ; he will be true to you, true to the British Crown, if you do not expel from his mind the belief that Canada is a free country and that the British Crown is in this country the protector of equal justice and equal law.
Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel). I do not propose to follow the very lengthy address of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I am quite sure that the people of the province of Quebec and of the 3285                 MARCH 28, 1905                       other portions of Canada are quite well aware that the hon. gentleman has been delivering this same lecture in different parts of Canada for several years past. While I do not wish to make any comparisons, for I do not think it is the duty of a member of parliament, living in a country of this kind, to make too many comparisons between the different nationalities of this country, may I be permitted after the reference that my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) has made to the narrowness of the English-speaking people of Canada to say that I come from the province of Ontario. We had a general election for the local legislature there a few weeks ago and I might say to my hon. friend that the city of Toronto sent a Roman Catholic representative to that legislature and that Roman Catholic has the honour of a seat in Mr. Whitney's cabinet at this moment. And may I be permitted to remind my hon. friends of the French nationality that for the first time in the history of the province of Ontario your own town, Mr. Speaker, has been recognized by the putting into office of the Hon. Dr. Rheaume, Minister of Public Works in Mr. Whitney's cabinet. And of course I need not refer to my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Claude Macdonell), who sits on this side of the House, as another example of the generosity of the English speaking people of that important province, I was a little interested to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) dealing with those legal questions and I thought I would look up the history of the hon. gentleman to see what knowledge he had to bring to bear in competition with that of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I find on examination that my hon. friend had one special Act of parliament passed in his own province of Quebec to permit him to study law in that province. Then on further examination, I find another special Act of parliament passed for the hon. gentleman to allow him to pass an examination that he has never yet passed and he has not to this date practised law in his own province, and yet my hon. friend will put his opinion on these legal questions in competition with the opinion of the distinguished leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). On February 21, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) introduced the two Bills that are to constitute new provinces in what is now known as the Northwest Territories. The right hon. gentleman gave to the House a very lengthy history of different matters in connection with those Bills. I have here Bill (No. 69) 'An Act to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta,' Clause 12 of the Act reads:
Until the said legislature otherwise provides, the legislative assembly shall be composed of twenty-five members to be elected to represent the electoral divisions defined.
Clause 3 of the Bill says:
The said province shall be represented in the Senate of Canada by four members : provided that such representation may, after the completion of the next decennial census, be from time to time increased to six by the parliament of Canada.
Clause 8 says:
Unless and until the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the said province otherwise directs, by proclamation under the great seal, the seat of government of the said province shall be at Edmonton.
Clause 20 of the Bill says:
The Dominion lands in the said province shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of Canada.
Clause 24 enacts:
This Act shall come into force on the 1st day of July, one thousand nine hundred and five.
I may be permitted briefly to refer to Bill No. 70 to establish and provide for the government of the province of Saskatchewan. The same number of representatives, 25, are to be elected in that province; the same number of senators, four, are to be appointed to the senate of Canada, with the privilege of parliament increasing the number to six. The capital of the province is to be Regina; and this Act also is to come into force on the 1st of July next. I will now give the areas in square miles of the various provinces :
Amount to be paid annually to each province.
Support to government.. ..  $ 50,000
Estimated population of 250,000 at 80 cents per head. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200,000
Interest at 5 per cent. per     annum on $8,107,500.. 405,375
In lieu of lands retained by the Dominion government.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 375,000
Construction of public buildings to be paid yearly for five years only. .. .. .. . 94,500
Total.. .. .. .. .. $1,124,875 each.
For two provinces. .. .. .. .. .. $2,249,750
This to increase from time to time until it reaches an annual payment of.. $2,207,875 each.
For two provinces. . . . . .. .. $4,415,750
Prince Edward Island. . . . . . . . 2,284
Nova Scotia. . . . . . .. 21,428
New Brunswick. . . . . . 27,985
Quebec. . . . 351,873
Ontario. . . . . . 260,862
Manitoba... .. .. .. .. 73,732
British Columbia. . . . 372,630
Total. . . . . 1,110,694
New Provinces.
Alberta. . . . . . . . 250,000
Saskatchewan. . .. 250,000
I wish now to point out the financial assistance that is to be given to these two new provinces. This, briefly, is the substance of some clauses in the Bill.
Now, Sir, when the right hon. gentleman introduced this Bill he expressed some surprise at the references made by newspapers and by some distinguished gentlemen in this country. Of course the people of Canada everywhere were very much interested in the introduction of these Bills. This question had been up for consideration in this parliament. Indeed, the leader of the opposition had moved a resolution in the session of 1903 and again in 1904 in favour of absolute provincial autonomy being given to these Territories, unrestricted right to deal with every thing of a provincial character. That was the policy of the opposition in this House in the sessions or 1903 and 1904. May I be permitted to tell the right hon. gentleman what was the chief reason for the adverse newspaper comment and criticism which he has read from distinguished men in this country ? It is because they had known the stand the right hon. gentleman had taken in 1896 on this educational or religious question. The people did not distrust the right hon. gentleman, they never thought for a moment that he would go back on his record of 1896, and venture to introduce into this House certain clauses in the Autonomy Bills which would stir up religious strife in this country. Therefore, he had at his back the whole Canadian people; he had not only the confidence of the Liberal party, but the confidence of a great number of Liberal-Conservatives in this country, many of whom voted for him in 1896 on this very question. So, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman would not have far to go to find a reason why the newspapers and leading gentlemen who had supported him in 1896 were very much surprised to find that he had now changed his policy in regard to provincial rights. Some hon. gentlemen who have spoken from the other side of the House ventured to say that those who have criticised this Bill are not well acquainted with the question. Well, that may be the case as to some of the criticisms, but I do not think the right hon. gentleman or any member of his government would say this applies to all the criticisms that have been offered to the educational clauses in these Bills. I have here a protest from the Presbyterian body. I am glad to see my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, who as I am informed is a distinguished member of that denomination, in his seat. I will read this protest from the Presbytery of Guelph:
Another protest against the Educational Provisions of the Autonomy Bill.
A meeting of the Guelph Presbytery was held in Melville church, Fergus, to-day. The following resolution was moved by Major Hood, Guelph, seconded by Rev. Mr. Horne, Elora : The Presbytery of Guelph, representing a large 3288 portion of the counties of Waterloo, Wellington and Halton, hereby presents its strong protest to the parliament of Canada against the educational clauses of the Provincial Autonomy Bills now before the House for consideration. The presbytery regrets that any attempt is being made to debar a free people from the exercise of their constitutional prerogative, the right to decide for themselves the character of their school system. It is the conviction of the presbytery that should the proposed legislation become law it would involve the new provinces in perpetual racial and sectarian discord, which would be a most serious obstacle to the future prosperity and happiness of the people. Believing that the placing of such an Act on the statute book would be a misuse of the powers of the federal government, members of the presbytery pledge themselves to do all in their power to oppose and prevent such proposed invasion of provincial rights, and most respectfully urge the government and both Houses to grant to the two new provinces complete control over their educational system.
I have here a statement by a gentleman who stands at the head of the Presbyterian Church in the province of Ontario, and who spoke at a mass meeting in Toronto, in Massey Hall, on March 20. I refer to Rev. Dr. Milligan, moderator of the Presbyterian Church, who declares:
That, believing in a commonwealth with equal rights for all and favours for none, and believing that a great crisis had arisen in the national history, demanding united and patriotic action by every citizen, irrespective of creed or politics.
The premier's policy in the present issue, he continued, had come to him like a clap of thunder from a clear sky. It was a direct controversion of the attitude taken in 1896.
Wherever one party had privileges at the expense of another there could never be peace. Let there be no restrictions imposed on the new west, but one common brotherhood and one common school system. He noted that the federal separate school legislation in regard to Ontario and Quebec was in the nature of an exception, and he urged the fallacy of the argument which sought to make this exceptional case apply to all the provinces.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that statement voices the views of all the Presbyterians in Canada-or, to be more correct, of nearly all the Presbyterians in Canada, who believe that the government are now invading provincial rights in attempting to fasten upon the new provinces a dual system of education.
Some hon. MEMBERS. No, no.
Mr. BLAIN. Who says 'no, no' ? I say that the Presbyterian body in Canada and the leading Presbyterians who are as well versed as the member who calls out 'no, no,' have sent in their protest with these facts before me. I have the right to say that the Presbyterian body of this country are almost a unit in opposition to the government forcing upon the people of the west this educational clause. Here is a protest from the Church of England.
3289 MARCH 28, 1905
Keep hands off—Provinces must be free in matter of education.
In a sermon preached in this city by a distinguished gentleman, the Rev. Dr. Spencer, in Emmanuel Reformed Episcopal Church :
He argued that the scriptures do not warrant a state church in any form. The union of church and state, he said, would he fraught with trouble. National money should be used for national purposes only and not for the promotion of any propaganda or teaching of dogmas of any sect.
He concludes by saying :
We should say to any church : Keep your hands off the public treasury—and we would say to the state : Keep your hands off the church. Give to no denomination privileges not common to all and to no one of them precedence by right.
That is a protest from the Church of England body in this country, and I would remind the right hon. gentleman that it represents in the main the feeling of the Church of England people in every province in Canada. I am therefore right in saying that the Church of England denomination of this country are opposed to the Autonomy Bill in so far as it takes away the rights of the people in the western provinces to deal with their own educational matters. What is the opinion of the Baptist Church ?
Baptists state their position. Let new provinces determine their policy. Bill was a surprise. A large and representative meeting of Baptists was held last evening in the lecture room of the Bloor Street Baptist Church, Toronto, to consider the situation arising out of the introduction in parliament of the Autonomy Bills creating the new provinces. A resolution was unanimously carried by a standing vote protesting against the proposed legislation.
I think I shall read that resolution, because I am anxious that the Baptists shall be put on record. I heard the Minister of Customs say the other night that some of the criticism was from gentlemen who did not understand the question and were unable to give a fair and honest opinion, but I invite the attention of the Minister of Customs to this resolution, and I will ask him whether it does not speak as if those behind it understood the question quite as well as some gentlemen on the other side of the House and possibly as some members of the government. The resolution reads as follows :
Whereas, the British North America Act, as to provinces other than Ontario and Quebec, provides that each province may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject to the right of the Dominion parliament when appealed to in a specific case to enact remedial legislation ; and the imperial Amending Act of 1871 empowers the Dominion parliament to establish new provinces, and to define the constitution thereof, but prohibits such parliament from ever afterwards altering such constitution ; 3290 And whereas, the Bill establishing the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan proposes to make the maintenance of a separate school system a permanent constitutional obligation of these new provinces, thus depriving them of their full provincial rights and fettering their whole future educational development ;
And whereas, the introduction at any time of such a question into federal politics is calculated to awaken ill-feeling on a subject in regard to which the Canadian people are peculiarly sensitive ; and more especially at this time, since no intimation was given to the electorate prior or during the recent general elections that it was intended in connection with the granting of autonomy to the Territories to impose any such fetters.
Therefore this meeting of Baptist citizens respectfully protest against the proposed legislation, and expresses the hope that the government may so modify its Bills as to leave the determination of their future educational policy to the free action of the new provinces.
I may say to the right hon. Prime Minister that Mayor Urquhart, of Toronto, the gentleman to whom he sent a very interesting telegram last election was present at this meeting and he stood up with the others and endorsed this resolution in favour of leaving educational matters to the provinces. Mr. D. E. Thomson, K.C., a distinguished gentleman in the city of Toronto, spoke thus in support of this resolution :
Under the powerful leadership of Hon. George Brown the Liberal party had made a stand for the principle of local government and provincial rights. The Liberal party were returned to power in 1896 on that stand. . . . To pass the Autonomy Bills now before parliament would be a complete reversal of the policy, both of the Liberal leader and party. If Sir Wilfrid Laurier be sincere in his suggestion that the provisions of the British North America Act cover the ground, why not leave the question to the Act ? . . . . If Sir Wilfrid Laurier had told his policy in advance he would have come out of the election twenty short.
Mr. Thomson points out that if this matter had been submitted to the people in the last election, instead of my right hon. friend sitting on that side of the House he would be sitting on this side in opposition. That speaks for the Baptist people of Canada, and I leave it for the consideration of the Prime Minister.
There is another denomination, called the Congregationalists, not very large, yet very important. The Rev. Dr. Wild, a gentleman well versed in those questions, spoke at a meeting in Toronto a few days ago and said :
Of the thirty-two nationalities that will compose these two new provinces, most of them of different churches and creeds, we cannot expect to favour any one race or creed at the expense of the others. The state has its rights and must look especially to the education of its citizens. If we are to have an intelligent population as voters this is essential. No church, creed or race must have special legislation that will discriminate against others. A 3291                       COMMONS                           state form of education is the only sure way and just way.  
That, I think, represents the Congregational body. Then I have the opinion of the Methodist people of Canada. On March 15, 1905, the 'Christian Guardian,' the leading Methodist newspaper wrote:
Sooner or later the Roman Catholic church in this country must be taught conclusively that it does not and cannot dominate its public affairs. It must be taught that it is only a sect among sects, a church among churches, and that the adherents of the smallest and weakest among them has equal rights with its own adherents in all political and social relations. It must be taught that its sinister influence upon public men and public life will no longer be tolerated, and that it must be content with holding precisely the same relation to governments and laws as are held by other communions. It must be taught that, while absolutely free and untrammelled in its spiritual functions, it has no status in law or in fact that differentiates it from any other body of Christians in the wide Dominion.
Then, I have here a resolution passed by the Methodist ministers of the city of Toronto, a few days ago and addressed to the right hon. leader of the government :
The Question of Education is Entirely Provincial.
The following letter has been sent to the premier by' the Methodist ministers of Toronto :—
To the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., P.C., President of the King's Privy Council, Ottawa :
Honoured Sir,—The assembled ministers of the Methodist church of Toronto, in their regular meeting on Monday morning, March 13, 1905, unanimously beg to advise you as follows :—
That we view with alarm the introduction into the Autonomy Bill of that clause relating to separate schools against the wishes and contrary to the vehement protests of the peoples most deeply affected in the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Our position is clear and firm that the question of education is purely and entirely a provincial matter, as defined by the British North America Act, and should be left to the exclusive authority of the provinces to determine.
We therefore most respectfully urge the government and both Houses of parliament to grant to the two new provinces full provincial rights, and to each complete control of its educational system. By so doing these new provinces will develop a true, healthy, self- governing citizenship, which will be an element of strength to the Dominion.
Signed on behalf of the Methodist Ministers' Association of Toronto
                         Yours rspectfully,                        GEO. M. BROWN,                                                   Chairman.                          ROBT. R. CADE.                                                 Secretary.
The Rev. C. O. Johnston, a leading Methodist minister, opposed to separate schools in any form, says this :
It was absolutely necessary in a country such as this that the people should live together in harmony, and to this end there should be one wide, national school system. The public schools of Canada were not Protestant schools in the proper acceptance of the term, but the system was so framed as to admit of all creeds and classes attending without fear or favour. For his part, as a British subject, he objected to any form of separate schools, whether they be Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist, Roman Catholic or any other denomination.
I will read a sentence or two from a letter by a gentleman who is at the very head of the Methodist body in Canada, the Rev. Dr. Carman, the general superintendent of the Methodist Church ; and I do not think any one would charge him with being an over- ardent supporter of the Conservative party. In a letter over his own signature, he says :
There is something astounding even in the realm of politics that the men who gained power in our Dominion in 1896 by resisting the coercion of Manitoba on the school question are now, in less than a decade, undertaking to impose a vastly heavier and severer coercion for all time on the new provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
             *               *               *                    *
Where are the Anglicans' rights, and the Methodists' rights and the Quakers' rights, and the Lutherans' rights, and the agnostics' rights, and the rights of Doukhobors and Jews ? And if all these people claim their special rights and get them, and go taxing their separate communities and drawing on the public funds, where is your national school system ? Where are your united populations, your firm and strong Canadian commonwealth ? Plainly the foe of our public school system in the foe of national strength and prosperity. The legislation that weakened national schools threatens our liberties and fills the land with irreconcilable divisions and ceaseless strifes.
          *                 *               *              * 
Let the people of the new provinces determine their own school matters, settle their own school policy, as is provided in the fundamental law of the Dominion. There are in the proposed Act of Autonomy the charter of the new provinces, at least two iniquities, forcing separation on the people for a11 time, and providing for it from public lands and public funds which constitutionally belong to national and public education. The rights of minorities can be secured and safeguarded in the west as they are in some of the older provinces.
                                                      A. CARMAN.
Toronto, March 2, 1905.
That is a letter to the Toronto 'News.' Now, that is the feeling of the church mem; bers of Canada. I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Customs is not more anxious to keep peace with his government than he is with his church. My hon. friend will have to take care of that himself.
Now, the Liberal party had something to say about this. I take the following from the Toronto ' Globe ' of March 14, 1905 :
At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Liberal Association of Centre Toronto held on Saturday the following resolution was unanimously passed :—
3293 MARCH 28, 1905
That whereas the Liberal party has always taken strong ground on the question of provincial rights ; and
Whereas all matters pertaining to education are by the British North America Act delegated to the provinces ;
Therefore, we, the Executive of the Liberal Association of Centre Toronto, desire to place ourselves on record as being of the opinion that the government should expunge entirely the clauses from the Autonomy Bills relating to education, and that all matters pertaining to education be left entirely to the new provinces.
This is a voice from the right hon. gentleman's own party in the city of Toronto. The right hon. gentleman might issue the writ for an election in Centre Toronto and test the question. Then we would see whether or not this Reform Association expresses the views of the people regardless of politics in that great city. I am reading these extracts because I think they are stronger than any statement I could make to show why the people of this country were aroused when the right hon. gentleman introduced this measure. The Toronto 'Globe' of March 8, 1905, has a long article which I will not stop to read. It is well known throughout the country that the Toronto 'Globe' is very much opposed to the educational clauses in the Bill, and in this article it warns the government not to force them through parliament. Then, I have a heading of the Toronto 'News' of March 14, and continued from day to day: 'A Free West, A Common School, Provincial Rights and Religious Equality.' With that I may give a statement from the editor of this important and valuable independent journal, who, I may say, is a personal friend of the right hon. Prime Minister. Indeed. I think he wrote his life some little time ago.
An hon. MEMBER. A part of it.
Mr. BLAIN. A part of it, I mean. My hon. friend says he may not get out a second edition. The editor of the 'News,' Mr. J. S. Willison, speaking on the school question, made this statement:
He took the ground that nowhere was education provided by separate schools as efficient as the public schools, and many Roman Catholic citizens and lay Catholic educationists were gravely dissatisfied with the conditions of elementary Catholic education in this province. The future of Canada depended largely on the measure of success achieved in resolving the many nationalities which compose the population into common Canadian citizenship, and it was vain to argue that such a process could be served by a school system which tended for separation rather than union.
That is the statement of the editor of the independent Toronto 'News,' which is doing so much service for the people of Canada at the present time. I have here the authority of the Huntingdon 'Gleaner,' published in the province of Quebec. and which, if I am correctly informed, is one of the 3294 leading English speaking journals of that province.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, no.
Mr. BLAIN. My hon. friends say no, but I rather think I am correct in that statement because in the earlier days, before my right hon. friend came into the House, it was quoted very often in the interest of the Reform party. Dealing with the statement of the First Minister that the Protestants in the province of Quebec have nothing to complain of, the editor writes as follows:
How does the premier reconcile this declaration of his with the fact that the English- speaking people outside of the island of Montreal have largely disappeared and are continuing to disappear ? Whole townships, settled by them and which prospered under them, are to—day French. Protestant churches are to he found in which no service is held and that the spot where Protestants were buried for three generations and more are now to be found in the corners of farms of French Canadians. In only one of the counties that compose the Eastern Townships have the Protestants a majority, yet once they had absolute control. Do men throw up their farms and leave a province where they have no cause of complaint ? Let Sir Wilfrid explain this—the extraordinary spectacle of a people abandoning the land of their birth, to which they are bound by every tie of affection and patriotism, to seek new homes in the United States, for the proportion has been trifling who have gone to our Northwest. What is it they find under an alien flag they could not in the province of Quebec ? We want no rhetorical generalities, no vapouring about justice and toleration. Here is a plain problem—Why are the Protestant farmers of the province of Quebec going away ? Do men flee a province where they have no cause of complaint ?
There is no more saddening aspect in the condition of our province than the groups of Protestant children to be found here and there all over it destitute of the means of acquiring the elements of education, and threatening us with a coming generation of Protestant farmers as ignorant as Russian moujiks. This is a fruit of separate schools. If we had national schools, instead of sectarian schools, no child in the province would be without opportunity to learn to read and write. Another consequence of these sectarian schools should never be lost sight of, and that is, where Protestant farmers are few  to have a school, they are taxed to support Catholic schools, which, sometimes, have as their teachers nuns and Christian brothers. There are hundreds of Protestant farmers who are forced either to support Catholic schools or sell out.
That is the statement of the Huntingdon 'Gleamer,' and I commend it to the consideration of my right hon. friend.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess

House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. BLAIN. Before you left the chair, Mr. Speaker, I was giving some quotations 3295                         COMMONS                             from leading newspapers of Canada showing their opinion of the educational clauses of the Autonomy Bills. As there was some slight reference to the politics of the Huntingdon 'Gleaner,' from which I quoted, I thought I would produce a newspaper which will be acknowledged to be a supporter of the government. I turn to the Toronto 'Globe,' which is looked upon as the leading government organ of the province of Ontario, and a very creditable journal indeed. I quote from the issue of February 28, 1905 :
    Why not leave the question to him—
Referring to Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Northwest Territories.
—and his colleagues in the new provincial government ? It belongs there by the terms of the Confederation Act. If it is dealt with at Ottawa there may develop opposition from the provincial governments, not because they would abolish separate schools, but because they would resent federal dictation in matters of provincial rights. If the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta want separate schools, let them have them on their own motion and in the way provided by the constitution. If they do not want them, any attempt at constitutional compulsion, even if it succeeds, would awaken antagonism which would embitter local politics and be disastrous to the separate schools themselves. And for that proposition we can ask the support of Catholics and Protestants alike. It involves the principles of provincial rights. On that ground all classes and creeds can stand together.
I have another opinion, which I regard as a very valuable one, objecting to the educational clauses. This is from Mr. Haultain, the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories. I quote from his letter addressed to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and bearing the date of March 11th, 1905:
I must take strong exception to the way in which the subject of education has been treated both in the conferences and in the Bills. I must remind you of the fact that your proposition was not laid before my colleague or myself until noon of the day upon which you introduced the Bills. Up to that time the question had not received any attention beyond a casual reference to it on the previous Friday, and I certainly believe that we should have an opportunity of discussing your proposals before twelve o'clock on the day the Bills received their first reading. No such opportunity, however, was afforded.
He continues :
With regard to the question of education generally, you are, no doubt, aware that the position taken by us was that the provinces should be left to deal with the subject exclusively, subject to the provisions of the British North America Act, thus putting them on the same footing in this regard as all the other provinces in the Dominion, except Ontario and Quebec.
That I regard as a very valuable opinion indeed. It is the opinion of the duly authorized representative of the Territories, the man who has the right, and whose duty it is, to speak on behalf of the 500,000 people 3296 there. Of course, it will be a little surprising to the people of Canada to know that, though the Prime Minister of that Territory was sent for by this government to consult with upon the clauses of the Autonomy Bills, yet the educational clauses, the all- important clauses seemingly to the people of Canada, were not submitted to that hon. gentleman until noon of the very day when the Prime Minister introduced these Bills in the House. I will not make any comment upon that further than to ask the Canadian people to consider what it means. Perhaps they will be able to answer it to their own satisfaction.
I come now to the county I have the honour to represent, the county of Peel. I have presented some petitions from the county. I have here the resolution of the Brampton Ministerial Association, held at the residence of the Rev. W. S. McAlpine, B.A., on the 6th of March, 1905 :
Moved by the Rev. J. G. Bowles, B.D., and seconded by the Rev. R. N. Burns, B.A., and carried unanimously :
That the premier of the Dominion government has introduced a Bill by which separate schools are to be fastened on the Territories to be organized into new provinces ;
And whereas, we do not favour separate schools in principle and practice ;
And whereas, the matter should be left wholly to the new provinces to decide ;
Therefore be it resolved, that we, the members of the Brampton Ministerial Association, place ourselves on record as being unalterably opposed to the educational clause of the Bill, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to R. Blain, M.P., the representative of the county in the Commons.
                                     W. S. McALPINE,                                                            President.                                   WM. HERRIDGE,                                                                Secretary.
I have, in addition to that, the names of several leading gentlemen in my own county who have signed the petition that was circulated and afterwards presented to the House. Among the others, I find the following : George A. Robinson, Claude ; John McEachrine, merchant, Englewood ; Alex. Dick, manufacturer, Alton ; Rev. G. C. Balfour, Inglewood ; David Graham, Inglewood, David McGregor, Inglewood ; T. H. Graham, Inglewood ; and H. H. Shaver, Cooksville. These are the names of some of the leading Reformers whom I have the honour to reprensent, who willingly signed a petition to this government protesting against the educational clauses of the Autonomy Bills. And I may say that, while I have had the honour of sitting in this House since 1900, no question has ever arisen on which I represent so large a proportion of the electorate of my county as I do in protesting against the educational clauses of this Bill.
Some very unfair criticism was offered this afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle 3297            MARCH 28, 1905                           (Mr. Bourassa) against the Orange Association of Canada. That association does not require any defence at my hands. But when that hon. gentleman thought it his duty to cast reflection upon the Orange Association, already numbering about 400,000 members, and those not now affiliated, I thought that some slight reference to the association, though it may seem a littly beside the question, may be in order. I turn up the Act to incorporate the Grand Orange Lodge of British America, which was assented to on April 24th, 1890. Among the names of the corporators are those of the late Hon. N. Clarke Wallace, the late Edward F. Clarke and other leading men. I have looked very briefly over the clauses of this Act of incorporation of the Grand Orange Lodge of British America to see if any special favours had been given to the association by this parliament. I find that no special favours were given—this is simply a Bill permitting the members of the association to organize, to hold property and to take care of their own rights, and to extend those rights to every other loyal citizen in Canada, whatever his creed may be. And I have here a copy of the Orange constitution, which I will be glad to send to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), for evidently he has not looked into this document before venturing upon the statements which he made this afternoon. This constitution is open to every man in Canada, and from beginning to end there is no clause in it that interferes with the rights and privileges of any class of people in this country. I think it does not come with a good grace from the hon. gentleman to cast reflection upon this important body. Other references were made to the Orange Association a few days ago, one by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I thought I would try to learn what part the Orange Association has taken in the agitation since this Bill was introduced on the 21st of February last. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who holds the highest position in the gift of the Orange Association in Canada, felt it to be his duty to sound a note of warning to the Canadian people, and he issued this letter and sent it to the different Orange Associations throughout the Dominion :
                        Ottawa, February 16th, 1905.
     Dear Sir and Brother,—
We believe an effort is about to be made to impose separate schools for all time on the people of the new provinces, now being established in the Northwest Territories. It behooves every lover of liberty, and especially every Orangeman, to lend a helping hand, to prevent this injustice being perpetrated on a liberty-loving people. Being comparatively weak and helpless they must largely depend on others to fight their battles for them.
The effort made in 1896 to compel Manitoba to grant separate schools nearly drove the people of that province into rebellion, and had it not been abandoned, would doubtless have resulted in serious consequences. In view of this, is it 3298 not little short of criminal folly to attempt to deprive the people of these new provinces of the right to control their own educational affairs as to them seems best. I would suggest that every member of our order lend a helping hand to prevent this outrage by writing or wiring and getting others to do so as well, the member for his constituency to oppose any legislation or enactment for that purpose. If we speak out freely and do our duty no government would dare to disobey our request. Brethren, let us do our duty ; also get accompanying blank petitions signed by all friendly to our cause, giving name and occupation in every case, and forward to me to House of Commons post office, Ottawa, at earliest possible date.
                                           T. S. SPROULE.
I shall also read the petition sent out which is referred to in this letter :
To the Honourable the Senate and House of      Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled :
We, the undersigned electors of the electoral division of                do pray that in granting provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories the Dominion parliament will not by any enactment or otherwise withhold from the newly created provinces full and unrestricted freedom of action in all matters affecting the establishment, maintenance and administration of schools—
That is the document sent out by the hon. gentleman who holds a distinguished position as head of the Orange Association, and I would like to ask any hon. gentleman on either side of the House what objection he could take to the statements either in the letter or in the petition. These petitions have been returned, signed not by Orangemen altogether, but by hundreds and thousands of electors of Canada not all Liberal-Conservatives, but very many of them Reformers who supported this government at the last election. The petitions have been presented from both sides of the House entering protest against the educational clauses contained in the Bill.
Leaving the educational question for a moment, clause 20 of the Bill reads thus:
The Dominion lands in the said province shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of Canada.
I was wondering what the hon. gentlemen representing western constituencies would think about that clause, a clause which says that the provincial governments of those two territories cannot control their lands, but that the lands shall be controlled by the parliament sitting at Ottawa. 1 therefore looked up the records of some of these hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) speaking in the debate of October 13, 1903, on a resolution moved in this House by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) for provincial autonomy for the Northwest Territories made this statement at page 13892 of ' Hansard' of 1903 :
I may say that I have had a long acquaintance with Mr Haultain, and I am quite satisfied that he is able to protect himself ; and from my more brief acquaintance with the members of the present government, I believe they are able to take their own part, and that we can leave that matter to be settled between them
The House will bear in mind that Mr. Haultain had submitted a proposition for provincial autonomy to the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, and in that proposition he said he would ask that the lands be retained to the provincial government and the hon. member for Alberta said that he had entire confidence in Mr. Haultain, that he would take care of himself and his provinces. I was a little surprised the other evening when the hon. gentleman addressed the House on these Bills that he should say nothing or almost nothing about the land. It is a well known fact that the gentlemen who have been representing the western constituencies in this House for several years stated in this House on more than one occasion that the lands should be vested in the provincial governments. I shall read from the remarks of Mr. Davis, an hon. gentleman who represented Saskatchewan in the last parliament, but who has now gone to the Senate. At page 13896 of the ' Hansard' 1903, he made this statement :
I have taken the liberty of boiling down the demands, and I think I can give in brief just what Mr. Haultain asks this House to give him, if we are prepared to give provincial autonomy. He wants first all the public lands. The leader of the opposition said he was prepared to support that part of the proposition. I am glad to see that he has approached the matter in that spirit. We in the west would like to see the lands given to the government of the Northwest Territories.
That was the statement of an hon. gentleman who represented a western constituency. We have another statement from an hon. gentleman who represented West Assiniboia in the last parliament and who is also in this parliament (Mr. Scott). Indeed it is said by some Ottawa newspapers, that the hon. gentleman is about to go into the position lately given up by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and to become Minister of the Interior in the government. I shall read to the House what he said on this land question, because he has been bubbling over in support of these Bills. On October 13, 1903, at page 13926 of ' Hansard ' the hon. member said :
I wish to take occasion to thank the hon. leader of the opposition for the expression of opinion which he gave in favour of the view which we in that country unanimously take, that when a province is formed it is only fair, just and proper that the lands, timber and mineral resources in that province should be handed over to the people dwelling there to be managed and owned by them. This should be done in the Northwest Territories.
The hon gentleman is now supporting the land clause in the Bill but I am wondering what change has come over the people in his constituency in the west that they would permit him to make a statement of that kind in 1903, and now in 1905 he is saying: Do no give us the lands, leave them with the government in Ottawa, they can take care of them better than we can. I suppose if the hon. gentleman goes into the government and goes back to his constituency for re-election, the electors will take care of that part of the question.
I shall refer for a moment to the debate which took place in this House on March 20, 1896, when the Manitoba school question was up for consideration and the present Postmaster General was dealing with it. He made this statement at page 4189 of ' Hansard.'
There are seven provinces in this Dominion, there is territory out of which to carve many more. There is a minority in every province. Shall we to-day, hastily, thoughtlessly and without due consideration, without first exhausting every other means of settlement, legislate as is proposed by this Bill, and place upon our statute-book a statutory invitation to the minority in every province now existing, and every province that may hereafter be carved out of our territory, to appeal to the people's representatives in this parliament to settle questions that might be better settled, under the spirit of the Confederation Act, by the provinces in which those questions arise. We have been six years dealing with this one issue, six long years, and we are only at the threshold of it yet.
That was a suggestion to the leader of the Conservative government, then in power, to leave Manitoba alone, Manitoba could take care of her own affairs, but now the Postmaster General says : No, we must not leave the new Territories alone, they cannot take care of themselves, we must take care of part of their provincial matters here at Ottawa. I was wondering why this great change in the hon. the Postmaster General. My hon. friend from Labelle made some reference to separate schools, pointing out the splendid educational system in the province of Quebec, a system that, he said, turned out first-class students, who were the pride and admiration of the people of the province of Quebec. I would not venture to put my opinion against that of the hon. gentleman ; but I will quote the opinion of a gentleman who occupied a high position in his own province, an opinion which I find quoted in the ' Hansard' of 1896, page 2768. I will read an extract from the report of the Superintendent of Education for that province for the year 1895, as published in the Montreal ' Gazette,' in the year 1895 :
The country schools are not as good as they might be. The children leave them without having received a sufficiently lasting impression to make them wish to increase their knowledge. . .  .   .To quote from one inspector's report, 3301               MARCH 28, 1905                       the slow increase in efficiency is due to the apathy of most of the members of the school board—too many of whom are unable to read— to the indifference of parents, to the miserable salaries paid to teachers, which make it difficult to obtain competent ones. . .   . In one district, another inspector declares, where 166 schools were in operation, 38 teachers were without certificates, and 66 the year before. .   .    . Most of the teachers are entirely ignorant of the first principles of pedagogics, have no system in their work, and content themselves by making their pupils learn their books by rote. .    .    . The pupils recite their lessons fairly well, but without understanding their meaning. . .    . As it is declared that the average salary to teachers is, in some districts, $108 for ten months work, and as some must get considerably less than this, and as these small wages are not always promptly paid, it is not difficult to understand what is behind the teacher's indifference. .    .    . To put it briefly, the people, in too many cases, do not appreciate their duty to their children in the way of education. They are content to fit them to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for their more fortunate or better educated fellow citizens.
I am not going to say anything about that statement, further than that it comes from one of the inspectors of this educational system in the province of Quebec, and therefore I am not responsible for it. My hon. friend can read this over at his leisure. The right hon. gentleman who leads the government, when speaking on these Bills the other evening, said that we must not copy from the United States because they had a godless school system. Well, I will not say much about that. I am not very much of an imitator of the United States myself, but I look upon them as a very advanced nation, and a nation from whom we might take some good lessons. I have here a statement from an educationalist of some standing, Prof. Goldwin Smith, of Toronto who has had experience not only in Canada but in the United States and England as well. What does he say about the United States :
In the United States the public school system serves the very special function of assimilating the alien elements introduced by an immense immigration.
Now this government pride themselves on bringing out a large immigration from the different parts of Europe ; I do not wish to detract any credit from the right hon. gentleman and his government for that. These people are coming into Canada by thousands every year, coming from every part of Europe and settling in western Canada. Professor Goldwin Smith says that a uniform system of education such as they have in the United States is best suited to assimilate these different populations ; and if that be so for the United States, would it not apply to Canada as well ? That might be worth the consideration of the right hon. 3302 gentleman and his government when they are deciding this question.
We have had some resignations from the cabinet in the last few years. The Minister of Public Works resigned during the last parliament, and the Minister of Railways and Canals left the government as well. These gentlemen differed from their colleagues on important questions and resigned their positions in the cabinet ; they thought their differences were sufficient to justify them in resigning from the government. I have very little to say about these hon. gentlemen, they are not in the House, and therefore I will not say much about them. I will say, however, that the people of Canada were disappointed in that these gentlemen, after having left the government, did not go into the country and defend their principles which they considered were in the best interests of the people of this country. I think it was their duty to go before the electors and endeavour to uphold their views. But these hon. gentlemen did not do that. We have had another resignation within the past few days in the case of the late Minister of the Interior, who left the government upon this school question. He just stepped outside the cabinet, some people say he is going back into it. I know nothing about that ; if he does, some hon. gentlemen on the other side will be very much disappointed, I am sure. The people of Canada expect better things from the hon. member from Brandon (Mr. Sifton). He had been fighting in opposition to separate schools in his own province of Manitoba, and he came down to Ottawa and entered the government of the right hon. gentleman. In the preparation of these Bills, he says he was not consulted on the educational clauses. Well, I have not much sympathy with the hon. gentleman on that point. He had been taking an active part in the preparation of the western country for provincial autonomy. When the hon. gentleman knew that these Bills were coming up to be considered in this House, it was his duty, as a representative of the Northwest, to see to it that the educational clauses were such as would be satisfactory to the western people, and if they were, I think they would satisfy his own views too. But he left them alone. He had entire confidence in the right hon. gentleman. But the right hon. gentleman rather disappointed him, because he introduced the Bill before the Minister of the Interior came back. Then when he looked at the clauses he said: I will leave the government. But the other night he gave an exhibition of coming back. He condemned the separate school clauses of the Bill, he says that separate Schools were a bad thing in the province of Manitoba, and he did not support them very earnestly on the floor of the House the other evening. But. he says. rather than shake up this government any 3303 COMMONS more, rather than that this government should be defeated at the polls, I will set aside my principles of a lifetime, I will let the educational clause go as it is, and allow this government to fasten separate schools upon western Canada for all time to come; I will sacrifice every principle which has been dear to me for the last fifteen years in order to preserve the government from defeat.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for myself, I am absolutely opposed to fastening separate schools on these two new provinces. I believe it would be in the best interests of the people of Canada that only one educational system should prevail in that western country, and that that system should receive every dollar of public money and all the revenues from the public school lands in order to make it a perfect system. I would open the door to every nationality, and allow every child to receive the same uniform education. This is the policy I am here to support. The people are not so much interested in what we are saying upon this question, because it is an old question and one that has been debated for many years, but the people of Canada are interested in how we vote. and for my part I will vote against the government in respect to this educational clause.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Only?
Mr. BLAIN. Not only, because I am opposed to the land clauses and I believe that the people of western Canada can take care of their own lands better than the federal government. I would vote to postpone provincial autonomy for five or even ten years rather than fasten for all time on the new provinces a dual school system, both systems receiving public aid and sharing in the revenue from the public school lands. That is my position. I would rather vote for an increased subsidy from this government to western Canada for five or even ten years yet to come than I would record my vote to take away the rights of the people of that western country to deal with their education as they see fit. That is my policy and I have nothing to add to and nothing to detract from what I have said. I am in favour of absolute provincial rights for western Canada in all matters. The people of that country are the sons and daughters of the people of older Canada, living there With the people who are coming from foreign countries, and I am anxious that their children shall have the best education that can be given them. I do not believe in dividing the school money (part of it going to the separate school system and part of it to the national school system.) I do not believe they can perfect these two educational systems in that way. If the people of the west wish to do so then let them be responsible for it themselves. For my part I do not wish to take the responsibility of recording my vote to fasten 3304 this separate school system upon them. I have, therefore, much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition which reads :
Upon the establishment of a province in the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed by Bill (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.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Solicitor General). Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much pleasure to the able speech delivered by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), and if I had not been within the precincts of parliament when he was reciting all the protests which have been sent from the province of Ontario and elsewhere, I would have thought that I was present at a church meeting and not in a legislative chamber. Listening to my hon. friend reciting the protests from the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Congregationalists and the Methodists, uttered as they were in his own sweet voice, I thought we were listening to a preacher and not to a parliamentarian. The thought crossed my mind, that if we in the province of Quebec are to be accused of being priest-ridden, my hon. friend (Mr. Blain, well deserves the compliment of being himself ridden by some of the ministers of the dissenting sects. Let me tell my hon. friend further, that if there came from the pulpits and from religious bodies in Ontario and other provinces protests against the educational clauses of this Bill, I can appeal to him to point to one speech, one word, one sentence delivered by a member of that fearful Quebec hierarchy. Not one word, not one phrase, not one sentence of protest was uttered in the province of Quebec for or against the educational clauses.
An hon. MEMBER. What about the petitions?
Mr. LEMIEUX. I will explain the origin of those petitions. In this matter, the Conservative party has played the same old double game it played years ago when it stirred up the feelings of the austere Protestants in Ontario and the ultramontane element in the province of Quebec. When petitions were, so to speak, commanded from the Orange lodges by the member, from East Grey, at the same time an order was given by the Conservative organization in Montreal to get protests from some of the counties in Quebec. We presented these petitions to parliament, as it was the right of the petitioners to ask us, but we said we were not responsible for them. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) stated this afternoon that the right hon. the Prime Minister had obtained power in 1896 by riding the Catholic horse in the province of Quebec, and he told us that if the Liberal party were in power to-day it 3305 MARCH 28, 1905 was due to its alliance with the Catholic clergy in that province. Sir, the hon. gentleman ought to know better; he ought to know that during the elections of 1896 in the province of Quebec, every Liberal candidate was asked by his Conservative opponent to choose between the Catholic church and the leader of the Liberal party, and in spite of the hurricane of protests which came from sone presbyteries and some pulpits the candidates of the Liberal party in Quebec stood to their guns and won the battle.
My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) quoted not only the opinions of some clergymen in Ontario and other provinces, but he also referred to the defection of the Toronto ' Globe. I, have been a reader of the ' Globe ' for many years ; every Liberal in this country is proud of the great Liberal organ in the province of Ontario, and I, for one deeply regret the defection of the ' Globe ' on this question. I regret that it forgets what the policy of George Brown did for the Liberal party. The Toronto 'Globe' should remember that the policy of George Brown on certain questions, kept the Liberal party out of office for a quarter of a century. But I must say this to the credit of the Toronto ' Globe': Though it fought the government and is still fighting the government on the educational clauses of this Bill, it has made no wild appeals such as those made by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) in his paper. The Toronto ' Globe ' has discussed fairly the question from its own point of view. It has appealed to its own readers who belong to the school of George Brown, and it has loyally severed its connection with the government on this question. But what has been the policy pursued by my hon. friend, the editor of the Toronto ' World.'
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. A consistent one.
Mr. LEMIEUX. What has been the policy of Mr. Willison, of the Toronto ' News ' ? What has been the policy of the ' Mail and Empire ' ? Have they presented calmly to their readers the question now before the House, like men desirous to create an opinion, or have they not discussed it like men anxious to stir up passions and bad feelings? Sir, I have known my hon. friend since 1896. I have been a journalist myself, and I have read his paper for many years ; I have followed his career in this House very closely; and I say to him that he would not dare to utter before me, eye to eye, what he has published in his paper since the biginning of this debate.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) quoted from the Huntingdon ' Gleaner,' which he said was a leading Liberal organ in the province of Quebec. I admit that the editor of the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' Mr. Robert Sellar, is an old journalist. 3306 He resides in the county of Huntingdon, a county where the French Canadians and Catholics form nearly a majority of the electors, and elect Protestant members. During the last election they elected an Irish Protestant. Mr. Robert Sellar is an intelligent man, an honest and pious man ; but, Sir, he is a doctrinaire. My hon. friend who is ready to accept the statement of Mr. Robert Sellars, whom he does not know ; who is ready to accept the statement of the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' which he does not read once a year, because the paper has but a limited circulation in the county of Huntingdon, should, instead of accepting blindly such statements, look around him and ask his friend the member for the county of Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh), and his friend the member for the county of Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington), and my hon. friend who represents St. Antoine division of Montreal (Mr. Ames), and my hon. friend who represents Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), to read the article referred to and he will learn then whether it is true or not that the French Canadian majority in the province of Quebec is driving away the English-speaking minority.
Mr. SPROULE. Might I say this to the hon. member, that I remember distinctly that some years ago an application was made to the government of the day—and two maps were brought here showing how the country had been peopled with English- speaking people years ago and the condition it was in then—to lend or grant them money enough to take them to the Northwest Territories, because they were becoming so few that it was utterly impossible for them to keep up their schools and churches and to have English-speaking communities, as they had before.
Mr. LEMIEUX. My hon. friend has not made even a point. Does he for one moment believe that the French Canadians in the province of Quebec are driving away the English-speaking Protestant minority ? Does he believe that ?
Mr. SPROULE. If the hon. member will allow me to explain, I say I believe it—not that they are driving them away offensively, by any means ; but here is the system that was represented to us : that whenever a farm was offered for sale, or a farmer was at all willing to sell, a French Canadian was prepared to buy.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. SPROULE. Will hon gentlemen extend to me that courtesy which I always extend to them ? Not that the French Canadians were desirous of getting the farms at less than their value ; but it was said that they were always ready to buy, and that they had a fund at their disposal to 3307                 COMMONS                         buy out the English-speaking farmers. They could get money at a very low rate of interest—
Mr. BRODEUR. The hon. gentleman refers to a fund. What fund is that ?
Mr. SPROULE. A fund supplied by the church.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. SPROULE. That may be something laughable, or it may be something absurd.
Mr. BRODEUR. Will the hon. gentleman—
Mr. SPROULE. Now, the hon. gentleman made it a point to interrupt me repeatedly when I was up before. I simply made the request to be allowed to explain. Then it was said that the farm was purchased— why ? For this reason, that as soon as the farm got into the hands of a Roman Catholic it was subject to the tithes which the church could collect, and thus became a supporter of the church ; but that so long as it was owned by a Protestant, it was not a supporter of the church. Therefore there was a strong inducement for the Roman Catholic to purchase it. It was said that a fund was raised by the church for this purpose— not improperly at all—and that one farm after another was taken over in that way until the English-speaking population got to be so few that they were unable to keep up their schools and churches, and these were closed ; the people had no community of interest amongst themselves because they could not keep up their schools, their children were raised in ignorance ; and this application was made to the government for assistance or for a loan to enable a number of these people to go to the Northwest Territories. That is the explanation.
Mr. LEMIEUX. Mr. Speaker, you have there an evidence of the ignorance—the honest ignorance, I must say—of my hon. friend. I appeal to his neighbour, my hon. friend from Beauharnois, to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, to my hon. friend from St. Antoine, to my hon. friend from the county of Huntingdon, where the Huntingdon 'Gleaner' is published, and I ask them to stamp at once such statement as arrant nonsense. To think that the church, which is greatly indebted in the province of Quebec, and which is even borrowing money from English insurance companies and English banks, has a fund to buy farms from the English-speaking people of the province of Quebec, why ! it is simply preposterous.
Mr. SPROULE. I wish to say—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Sit down.
Mr. SPROULE. Is that the tolerance that is extended to a member who wishes to say a word on behalf of Protestantism in this country ? I treat those hon. gentlemen 3308 with respect and am entitled to expect a like return from them. I rise to say that the Huntingdon ' Gleaner' gives an account of the very same thing described in the letter I read.
Mr. FISHER. It is altogether astray.
Mr. LEMIEUX. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) quoted some of the authorities against this measure, and did not fail to mention the name of Mr. Haultain. I have very much respect for the First Minister of the Northwest Territories. Mr. Haultain is a talented young statesman from the west. He has been in Ottawa a few weeks, and no doubt feels compelled to speak in accord with the Tory press, because he is also a Tory statesman. During the last elections he took a very prominent and active part against this government in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Haultain is therefore bound to be against the government. But there is another gentleman who accompanied Mr. Haultain on his mission to the Ottawa government. We saw him on the floor of this House when this Bill was introduced. I refer to Mr. Bulyea. I understand that Mr. Bulyea gave an expression of his opinion to the Toronto press not long ago, and when I compare the statements of Mr. Haultain with those of Mr. Bulyea, I find that they differ toto coelo. Mr. Haultain has taken this government to task on the educational clauses, the land clauses and on the division of the provinces, But Mr. Bulyea declares, speaking for his province and himself, that he is perfectly satisfied with the measure as presented by the government.
Sir, the question now before the House and the country marks an epoch in the history of Canada. It deserves our best attention and all our solicitude, as it is surrounded with immense difficulties. I must crave the indulgence of the House during the few remarks I will offer, remembering always that the more contentious an issue is the more it must be approached in a spirit of conciliation and tolerance, and I earnestly hope that not one word, not one sentence, will fall from my lips that will in the least offend even the most sturdy opponent of the measure.
As to the principle of autonomy, I do not believe that there is in the House one dissenting voice. From every part of Canada the birth of the twin provinces has been hailed with joy ; nay, more, with a legitimate pride.
The Northwest Territories are the creation of the Canadian commonwealth. They are its offspring. The fathers of confederation were not satisfied with the union of the different British colonies scattered from one end of the continent to the other. They thought—and wisely so—that the immense prairies extending from the great lakes to the Rocky mountains should also be included in the Dominion, so as to unite, under the British flag, all the territories extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They did 3309           MARCH 28, 1905                     not hesitate to pledge the credit of the country to what was then considered a huge amount of money—but which has since been found to be but a trifling sum—in order to secure for Canada that great lone land, known only in those days from the early pioneers, from the missionaries, from the voyageurs and the trappers of the Hudson Bay Company.
Sir, the more we study the history of confederation the more we appreciate the spirit which guided its fathers. They were nation-builders, the men who sat at the conference of Quebec. Their vision of the future extended much beyond the union of the four original provinces. They foresaw that, in the years to come, the existence of a great Canadian nation. under the aegis of British monarchical institutions was not only a dream, but a striking reality ; aye, even by the side of by far the greatest of all modern and ancient republics.
Before I proceed any further, let me express the hope that the day is not far distant when the last link will be added to the chain of Canadian provinces by the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. More so, now that the vexed French shore dispute has been settled between England and France. It seems to me that nothing stands in the way to prevent the union of Newfoundland with the Dominion on fair terms. The public men of both countries would indeed be remiss to their duty if they did not grapple and overcome the objections or the difficulties which have been raised in the past whenever the question was brought up for discussion.
As I said, a moment ago, the granting of autonomy to the Northwest Territories has been received with favour by the country at large. Long ago, it was felt, that if ever the tide of immigration would turn our way it would never recede. The tide is on us—more especially since the last five or six years—and from all parts of the world, immigration is pouring so to say, towards the new promised land of western Canada. With a population of half a million inhabitants ; with the expectation of doubling that figure before many years have elapsed ; having fairly passed the period of infancy, it was but just and fair that the Northwest Territories should be given the full control of their local government.
I insist however on two points : 1. The Northwest Territories have been acquired by Canada,—they are our creation ; 2. Whilst in the case of Canada, the constitution was framed by the imperial parliament, in the present instance, with regard to the Northwest Territories, their constitution is framed by the Canadian parliament. It seems to me that at this stage of the debate, it is well to bear in mind those two peculiar features of the situation. Though not eternal, constitutions are not by any means of a transitory nature. They are framed to be permanent—as permanent as human institutions can possibly be. I 3310 therefore quite understand the keen and lively interest which the two Bills now under consideration, have aroused from one end of the country to the other. I less understand, however, the sentiment of bitterness which, of latter days, they have so intensely developed.
Sir, I do not intend to discuss the several clauses contained in the Bill. The masterly effort of the right hon. the leader of the House, when he introduced this measure, has made our task an easy one indeed—I will confine myself to the land question and the school question.
I wish, however, before taking up those two features of the Bill, to say a word or two concerning the division of the Northwest Territories into two provinces. This is one of Mr. Haultain's grievances-but from all appearances, it seems to be a personal grievance. Is it because, as future premier of one of the provinces, he will command less influence ? That, I would not venture to say. But be it a personal grievance or not, the fact remains that the division of the Northwest Territories into two provinces is in accord with public opinion all over Canada. Sir. we are legislating for the future whilst Mr. Haultain—if his views on this question were adopted—would bind us to the present only. Moreover, we live in a confederation. Should not the history of other confederacies be an object lesson to us? The danger may be remote, but do you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that by carving two provinces out of that immense western territory, the balance of power is more equally, more equitably distributed as among all the others ? At the time of the first republic of France, a great orator, Vergniaud, said of the French revolution that it resembled Saturn devouring his own progeny. Sir, I am not a pessimist, but I fear that the very reverse would likely happen, if we did create one huge province extending from Manitoba to the Rockies; in this instance the child abnormally overgrown, would soon devour his father.
The hon. gentlemen opposite and the Conservative press throughout the Dominion, have been very loud in their protests against the clause of the Bill which vests in the Dominion the property of the public lands in the Northwest Territories. 'Why is the west deprived of its birthright'? is the question put by those who, by all means, are bound to find fault with this measure. 'Why not treat the west as well as the other provinces'? Sir, such appeals may perhaps stir up the feelings of those who do not know under what peculiar and exceptional circumstances the Northwest Territories entered confederation. But surely, they cannot and will not bias the judgment of any of the hon. gentlemen who sit in this House. True it is. that the British North America Act stipulates that each province 3311              COMMONS                             is vested with the property of its lands. Such has been the case with Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and British Columbia. But one must remember that when they entered into confederation, each of these provinces had the property of its lands. They were independent colonies and they exercised a sovereign power over their Crown lands. Nearly all their revenues have since been derived from that source. Their right was inalienable and they stipulated in 1867, that they would continue to exercise it. Quite different in the case with the Northwest Territories. At the time of confederation, the delegates of the provinces inserted a clause in the British North America Act by which they empowered the Dominion to purchase from the Hudson Bay Company—then suzerain of the Territories—all this vast tract of country. The purchase was made in 1870, and the price paid by the Dominion to the Hudson Bay Company amounted to £300,000. Out of that domain, was first carved the province of Manitoba, but, with the exception of the swamp lands, all the public lands of the new province remained the property of Canada.
Mr. MONK. Would my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) allow me to ask him a question ? If the land in the Northwest remains vested in the Dominion, why was it necessary in the case of Manitoba to put a special provision in the Bill creating that province to reserve the lands of that province ? It does not seem to have been necessary, according to the hon. gentleman's argument.
Mr. LEMIEUX. It was to avoid litigation. The province of Manitoba might have said : We must be treated as the other provinces have been treated ; the other provinces have their public lands and we must have our public lands. Therefore there was a special enactment in the Act of 1870, that Manitoba should not have its lands but that these should remain vested in the Dominion.
We were told the other day by the right hon. leader of the House how Sir John Macdonald refused the request of Manitoba when in 1884 that province raised a claim to the property of her public lands. The same policy has been followed with regard to every new state entering the American union. It seems to me therefore that we would not have been justified to adopt a different policy with regard to the two new provinces. Their territory covers in round figures a total area of 345,000,000 acres— one-third of which has already been reserved or sold. We must deduct from that total area, the land grants made to railway companies by the Conservative administrations, the Indian reserves, the timber limits, the school lands, the Hudson bay lands, and the homesteads already taken, which leaves a balance of about 225,000,000 acres. Sir, 3312 I claim that this domain is the property of the whole Dominion of Canada. Administered by Canada since 1870, it has added not a little burden to the public exchequer. We had to pay the cost of two rebellions and besides, we have—in order to maintain law, peace and order—equipped a corps of mounted police, which has patrolled the west and afforded ample protection against the Indians and the rough element. Again, the Dominion has spent millions to advertise and settle the west. We have subsidized the vast system of railways which is now netting so rapidly the prairies from north to south, from east to west. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific are in a sense national highways, but who will deny that the Northwest Territories are not the most interested in their completion ?
All this vast expenditure has enhanced the value of the Northwest Territories and the Dominion has yet to draw the interest to which any creditor is entitled on an investment. Would it be fair, Mr. Speaker, to divest ourselves of our lands, under such circumstances ? Would not that policy be inopportune and unwise?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My hon. friend will of course remember, and he will pardon me for interrupting, that this is exactly the argument which was made fifty or sixty or seventy years ago in Great Britain as a reason for not handing over to the people of the various provinces the control of their lands and their minerals.
Mr. LEMIEUX. Yes, it is always well to borrow from Great Britain. Sir, I have read some very wild statements in the press, concerning this question of public lands. Having myself been a journalist ; far be it from my mind to minimize the influence of the press—but it thus happens that sometimes the press finds grievances which are more imaginary than real. Some people have that weakness ;—they are happy —yet a grievance heretofore unsuspected comes to them as a relief. Let me, Mr. Speaker, answer some of the statements made in favour of entrusting the lands to the new provinces. First, it must be admitted that a revenue had to be provided to run the machinery of the local government. This is what is being done by granting a subsidy in lieu of lands. Is this subsidy a fair equivalent for the public lands surrendered to us ? In order to answer this question, one must bear in mind the following facts. The lands are not sold by the federal government, but are given away as an inducement to the settlers. Suppose the lands were left to the now provinces, would they depart from the policy of free grants to the settlers ? I assume that they would —in all wisdom—continue the issuing of free grants. Thus, the revenue which otherwise would accrue from the sale of these 3313 MARCH 28, 1905 lands, would amount to nothing—with perhaps the exception of very limited receipts arising from stumpage dues or timber limits and royalties on coal lands. Let us suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the lands would be vested in the new provinces. What would happen ? One of two things would have to be done—either issue free grants to the settlers or sell the lands. In the first instance, i.e., issuing free grants, the provinces would get no revenue. In the second instance, i.e. selling the lands, true they would derive a revenue from the sales, but at the same time, they would fatally restrain and check the growth of population. On the contrary, the continuation of the free grants system will, by increasing the population increase also the annual payments made by the Dominion government. The actual revenue which the Dominion government draws from the Northwest Territories is derived mainly from (a) homesteading fees and from (b) royalties on coal mines—but without worrying the House with figures, we may take it as granted that this revenue is quite insignificant compared to the cost of surveying, settling and administering the lands. I say, Sir, that if these lands were in the future ofiered for sale, instead of being free, the Dominion government would hardly be justified in maintaining as it does, a costly scheme of immigration at the general expense of the country, which would chiefly benefit the land speculators of the Northwest Territories.
I claim, Sir, that the new provinces have received a generous, a liberal treatment at the hands of their government. The financial clauses of the Bill bear evidence of our generosity. What do they receive besides their autonomy? Each province at the very start-off will have in addition to the usual federal subventions, an income in lieu of its lands of $375,000. This amount will grow with the growth of population to $502,500 when either of the provinces has 400,000 souls ; to $750,000 when it has 1,200,000 souls, and when it exceeds that number, the payment will reach $1,125,000 yearly. In addition, interest will be paid on swamp lauds Valued at $4,250,000 which will increase eventually to a capital amount of $7,500,000.
Moreover, the Dominion will—and this fact should not be overlooked—still maintain our corps of mounted police in the Northwest Territories—a maintenance which entails an annual cost of $300,000. Sir, I will not begrudge the Northwest Territories the happy circumstances under which they assume their Political autonomy. This is not the time—and it is not in my nature to be envious. The prosperity, the happiness of my neighbour rejoices me; it never saddens me. But may I not pause for a moment and remind the House that the older provinces might well envy the fortune of Alberta and Saskatchewan? They, of 3314 their own volition, acquired the great lone land in 1870; they—patrlotically—pledged their credit for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway; they unreservedly launched themselves into a vast scheme of colonization in order to settle the prairies, Yet today, after thirty-five years of sacrifices, saddled with their own obligations, cheerfully assess themselves again, to endow generously their two younger associates, in order to complete the gigantic work of confederation.
Again I say that I do not begrudge the Northwest Territories their good fortune. The ideal which we, as Canadians, pursue in this North American continent is too noble, too exalted, not to call for some sacrifices. The game is well worthy of the stake; the aspirations of Canada call forth our common efforts; the task of today is not unbecoming the attainments of to-morrow. In the language of the poet:
In the race, not in the prize. Glory's true distinction lies.
I have now reached, Sir, the educational clauses of the Bill—which, in the present instances, might well be termed the crucial clauses if one can judge by the storm— nay, by the tornado they have raised in the Dominion. Political agitation is always fraught with danger even ina country where one race alone is dominant, but, Sir, far more dangerous is a religious agitation in a country like Canada, where two races and two creeds are staring at each other. Experience has taught us how easy it is to inflame religious passions and how difficult to quell them. Yet, it seems as if this sad experiment was to be renewed periodically in this fair land of ours. As a Canadian, I deplore the intolerant spirit which of late has pervaded spheres, where one would expect Christian charity, broad-mindedness, tair-play, to inhabit. After the bitterness displayed from one end of the country to the other on this school question, after the abuse heaped upon one particular class of His Majesty's loyal subjects, I fear not to say, Sir, that unless reason and wise counsels prevail, the future of this confederation is doomed and the cause of union buried for ever. Well might we apply to the present situation the prophetic word of Thlers when the 2nd empire was on the eve of crumbling to pieces : Il n'y a plus qu'une seule faute à commettre ........
I fail to understand, Sir, why the educational clauses have roused such anger amongst men who, by their calling in life, should be specially guarded against any display of temper. I quite agree with you that there are firebrands who delight in seeing the country ablaze, but I am not referring to the professional demagogues. I am addressing myself to that honest yet credulous class of people, whose sleep is haunted by nightmares, and who—once led astray— 3315 COMMONS talk of rebellion instead of constitution. And yet, Sir, that matter or rather this difficulty is purely a constitutional one. It is in the light of our constitution that the question must be examined. To look at it from any other point of view is to err and to quibble. According to the British North America Act has the minority in the Northwest Territories any rights to a system of separate schools ? This is, in my judgment the only question to be decided. But before I answer it, let me, Sir, add a few missing links to a chapter of the history of the Northwest Territories. I do so, in no hostile spirit, I am only refreshing the memory of some Canadians who are too apt to forget. Sir, in the early part of the 18th century—nay even in the 17th century, the explorers of the Northwest were men of my race. La Verendrye and his sons, were the first Europeans who climbed up the Rocky mountains. The French missionaries soon found their way towards those distant lands to preach the Gospel to the Indian tribes. The fur traders, the voyageurs, the trappeurs and coureurs des bois followed—filling the early history of these vast domains with their adventurous yet heroic exploits. Not a river, not a lake, not a hill, not a valley that was not discovered by them. One has only to read carefully the deed of transfer of Ruperts land to Canada in 1870, to realize that nearly all the posts of the Hudson Bay Company, in the far west, bear most picturesque French names. After the conquest, when the Hudson Bay company took full possession of that immense territory, the French Canadian element continued to be an important factor in the affiairs of the west. So much so, that the Bishop of Quebec, whose diocese included all British North America decided to send missionaries in those distant regions. By referring to the archives of the Quebec Archbishopric, one will see that in 1818, the first school in the Northwest Territories was established at the request of Monseigneur Plessis, Sir John Cope Sherbrooke was then our Governor and it is under his protection that the three missionaries sent by Monseigneur Plessis entered the Northwest. The instructions of Governor Sherbrooke, given in writing, are well worth reading.
I do hereby call on all His Majesty's subjects, civil and military, and do request all other persons whomsoever to whom these presents shall come, not only to permit the said missionaries to pass without hindrance or molestation, but render them all good offices, assistance and protection wherever they shall find it necessary to go in the exercise of their holy calling.
That is what Sir John Sherbrooke said when the three first missionaries left Quebec to evangelize the Indian tribes of the Northwest Territories. They did not go there as marauders. The object of their mission, as indicated by the Bishop of Quebec, can be read in a very few lines :
The missionaries will make known to the people the religious faith they enjoy in remaining under the government of His Majesty, will teach them by words and example the respect and fidelity they should have for the sovereign, will accustom them to offer to God fervent prayers for the prosperity of His Most Gracious Majesty, of his august family and his empire.
These are the missionaries who explored the west, who discovered the west, so to speak, and opened it to civilization, and who preached the Gospel to the Indian tribes. Sir, they belonged to a noble race ; and when they bade farewell to their families, to their homes and to their province, they went knowing that some of them might not come back to civilization, in order to fulfil a sacred duty towards God and their King.
Now, before I refer to the legislation of 1871 and 1875, let me examine this section 93 of the British North America Act. First of all. I would like to say that the right hon. leader of the government has been taunted by many hon. gentlemen opposite and by the Conservative press throughout the country, because, forsooth, he had given us a page of history in explaining to the House, as he did on the 21st February last, when he introduced this measure, how that clause came to be inserted in the British North America Act. Now, it is usual, when we have legislation of a somewhat complicated character, as this is, to go to the root of that legislation and to inquire under what circumstances it was enacted. There is, therefore, nothing extraordinary in the fact that the right hon. leader of the government should have explained the peculiar circumstances under which that clause 93 was enacted. In the case of the St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Company versus the Queen, Mr. Justice Strong, in giving his judgment, used these words :
In construing this enactment of the British North America Act we are not only entitled, but bound—
Mark his word, ' bound.'
—to apply that well established rule which requires us, in placing a meaning upon descriptive terms and definitions contained in statutes, to have recourse to external aids derived from the surrounding circumstances and the history of the subject matter dealt with, and to construe the enactment by the light derived from such sources, and so to put ourselves as far as possible in the position of the legislature whose language we have to expound. If this rule were subjected and the language of the statute were considered without such assistance from extrinsic facts, it is manifest that the task of interpretation would degenerate into mere speculation and guess work.
This is the language of the ex-Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, the highest court of our land, which he used a few years ago in a very important case. In that case Sir Oliver Mowat was defending the rights of the province of Ontario—I think it was the Provincial Streams case. The province of Ontario was deeply interested in that 3317 MARCH 28, 1905 case, and was represented by that upholder of provincial rights, Sir Oliver Mowat. He used this language :
In various cases it has been decided, I am not quite sure whether in this court or in other courts, reference has been made to the resolutions upon which the British North America Act was founded. What degree of importance should be attached to them has not been stated, but at all events it is reasonable for judges to look at them, and if they do find that they throw any light on the subject they should avail themselves of that light.
Therefore, I say that the right hon. leader of this government was right in going back to the history of confederation, to the origin of clause 93 of the British North America Act, in order that he might the better interpret it as the basis of the present measure. We know, from the history he gave this House, that if clause 93 was embalmed in the constitution of this country it was at the request of the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec. Now, Sir, I may say at once that it was not necessary to embalm that principle of religious equality in the constitution. If we examine the words of Sir John Rose, in the confederation debates, one may easily see that the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec did not require the enactment of clause 93 in the British North America Act. Here is the statement made by Sir John Rose :
Now, we the English Protestant minority of Lower Canada, cannot forget, that whatever right of separate education we have, was accorded to us in the most unrestricted way before the union of the provinces, when we were in a minority and entirely in the hands of the French population. We cannot forget that in no way was there any attempt to prevent us educating our children in the manner we saw fit, and deemed best; and I would be untrue to what is just, if I forgot to state that the distribution of state funds for educational purposes was made in such a way as to cause no complaint on the part of the minority.
That was the statement made by Sir John Rose at the time of confederation. Therefore, I say that in the light of this testimony it was not even necessary for the minority to exact the enactment of that clause 93. Nevertheless, Sir A. T. Galt, in fulfilment of the pledge given to the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, went to London and had that clause inserted in our constitution. Now, the first question which presents itself is that which has been treated this afternoon by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), namely, does this clause 93 apply to Quebec and Ontario only, or does it apply to all the provinces ? My hon. friend from Labelle has cited the opinion of Lord Carnarvon. I will not weary the House by giving the quotation again, but I will only quote a few words. Lord Carnarvon, in 1866, used the following language :
The object of this clause is to secure to the religious minority of one province the same rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority of another province may enjoy. 3318 The Roman Catholics of Upper Canada and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces will thus stand on a footing of equality.
But has the local legislature exclusive jurisdiction in matters of education ? We are told that the jurisdiction of the provinces is absolute in matters of education. It is not so—on the contrary, it is limited. It is precisely what the Lord Chancellor said in rendering judgment on the second appeal to the Privy Council of the Manitoba minority :
The Act imposes a limitation on the legislative powers conferred. Any enactment contravening its provisions is beyond the competency of the provincial legislation and consequently null and void. In relation to the subject specified in section 92 of the British North America Act the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures may be said to be absolute. But this is not so as regards education.
Sir, not only is the jurisdiction of provincial legislature restricted in matters of education, but to use the language of Lord Carnarvon :
In the event of any wrong at the hand of local majority, the minority may appeal to the Governor in Council and claim the application of any remedial laws that may be necessary from the central parliament of Canada.
Therefore, the Privy Council declared that in all matters enumerated in section 92, the powers of the legislature are supreme and exclusive, but we have the authority of the Privy Council—the highest authority in the British Empire—that on matters of education this Dominion parliament has certain authority. I can quote not only authorities from the other side of the Atlantic, but I can quote the authority of Mr. Edward Blake, of the late Sir John Thompson, and even of Mr. Dalton McCarthy, the champion of the public school system in this country. On March 6, 1893, Sir John Thompson, speaking in the House of Commons, and addressing himself to the scope of section 93, at a time when the separate school controversy in Manitoba was becoming acute, said :
I take it that the principle is well settled and well agreed upon by both parties in this country, as well as by lawyers and tribunals of justice, that that provision, that qualification, nullifies any Act of a provincial legislature which conflicts with it ; and that the legislature of a province, while to a great extent its powers are exclusive with regard to education, steps beyond its power and enacts a void enactment when it enacts a law which prejudicially affects any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons had by law in any province at the time of the union.
Sir John Thompson also quoted from Mr. Edward Blake, who some years before had introduced resolutions for referring a certain class of semi-political questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, and Mr. Blake dealt inter alia with section 93, and said :
Under these clauses a limited power to make educational laws is granted to a province, provided, amongst other things, that nothing therein contained shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any of the provinces had by law or, in the case of Manitoba, by practice at the union.
Mr. Dalton McCarthy's opinion will be found at page 73 of the official report of his argument before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the city of Winnipeg vs. Barrett. He was explaining to their lordships the meaning of section 93, and went on to call their attention to section 146 in these words:
  By this section 146 the Dominion was to take in the province of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, and also it was assumed Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories would be acquired, and would be ultimately divided into provinces, just as the Northwestern Territories had been divided into states. And provision was made for taking in these various provinces, and accordingly they were taken in, British Columbia first, if my memory serves right, in 1871, and then Prince Edward Island. This clause (section 93) was made applicable to British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, but in neither of these provinces were there any denominational rights, nor has it been so pretended, in respect of schools to be protected or reserved. But the scheme was to apply to the provinces as they came in the general terms of the British North America Act where there were not special circumstances which rendered some other legislation necessary.
And now, as to the contention that section 93 applies only to the four original provinces, or, as some contend, only to the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, let me state what occurred in the province of Prince Edward Island. That province came into confederation in the year 1873. Although the delegates met at Charlottetown, although they had debated the union in Prince Edward Island, yet in 1867 that province declared that she would not join confederation, and she did not join at that date. Before 1873, there had existed in that province a system of public schools. and side by side with it had grown up a system of separate schools. There were French schools in several parishes, and in 1875 an Act was passed by the local legislature of Prince Edward Island, abolishing the separate schools system. An appeal was made to the Governor General in Council. On that appeal it was admitted by the appellants, the Roman Catholic minority, and by the respondents, the local legislature, that although Prince Edward Island had joined confederation only in 1873, clause 93 applied, and the late Hon. Rodolphe Laflamme, who was then Minister of Justice, submitted a lengthy report, in which he said that clause 93 could not be of any avail to the minority in the province of Prince Edward Island, because 3320 the system of separate schools had grown up illegally by the side of the public schools system. There was no legislation to warrant it, and therefore clause 93 could be of no avail.
But we are told by Mr. Haultain and a portion of the press that what may apply to a province does not apply to a territory. This is indeed a very fine and very subtle distinction. Mr. Haultain's objection is not serious. That it is only sophistry is quite obvious. In 1871, doubts had arisen as to the right of the federal parliament to establish provinces out of the Territories admitted in the union. The imperial parliament then passed a statute amending the British North America Act in order to remove any such doubts. What does section 2 of that Act declare ? Our parliament was authorized
To make provision for the constitution and administration of the provinces carved out of those regions, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government thereof.
I claim that by the clear and concise enactment I have just quoted, ample authority was given this parliament to frame a constitution for the Territories. Mr. Haultain's interpretation of the British North America Act is this one : He wishes to date the entry into confederation of the two new provinces back to July 15, 1870—because, forsooth, at that time there was no system of separate schools established by law—such as there is under the law of 1875 and under the ordinances 29, 30, 31. As section 93 of the British North America Act does not mention Territories, but provinces. Mr. Haultain concludes that it cannot benefit the new provinces. But the hon. gentleman cannot alter facts. Territories were admitted in the union in 1870. But in 1905 we admit provinces—according to section 2 of the imperial statute of 1871.
It is only this year that this Bill will be in force; it is only on the first of July next that the Northwest Territories will join the union as provinces, and therefore the legislation enacted in 1875 by this parliament granting a system of separate schools, can be retained by the present legislation. I could cite the ablest authorities on the American constitution, Cooley, Randolph Tucker, Sutherland, and others, to show that when the Territories are acquired they do not become states, and so it is with our own Territories. When they were purchased by Canada they did not become full-fledged provinces. And how did these Territories come into Canada ? We are aware that there was some doubt expressed as to the validity of the Act of 1870. Some people believed that we could not carve provinces out of these Territories, and therefore Sir John Macdonald, who was Prime Minister, applied to the imperial authorities to have the legislation of 1870 confirmed by an imperial statute. It is well to refer to the memoran 3321 MARCH 28, 1905 dum sent to the home government by Sir John A. Macdonald in order that we may see the scope of the imperial statute. Writing to the Earl of Kimberly, he asked the imperial parliament to enact legislation in its next session :
1. Confirming the Act of the Canadian parliament, 33 Victoria, chapter 3, above referred to, as if it had been an imperial statute, and legalizing whatever may have been done under it according to its true interests.
2. Empowering the Dominion parliament from time to time to establish other provinces in the Northwestern Territory, with such local government, legislature and constitution as it may think proper, provided that no such local government or legislature shall have greater powers than those conferred on the local governments and legislatures by the British North America Act, 1867, and also empowering it to grant such provinces representation in the parliament of the Dominion.
These were the purposes, as stated by Sir John Macdonald, for which the imperial parliament passed the Act of 1871.
With regard to this Bill, the British North America Act of 1867 cannot alone apply. The British North America Act of 1871 must also apply: The two must be construed together.
Let me go one step further. Are the educational clauses of this Bill inconsistent with the spirit of our constitution? Read the preamble of the British North America Act and what do you find ?
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.
I ask you, Sir, is there anything in the educational clause contrary in principle to the constitution of the United Kingdom?
Sir, if there is a redeeming feature in the present debate for the partisans of the separate schools system, it is the fact that in Great Britain, in the mother country, there is also a system whereby denominational schools are state aided. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in England, the country wherefrom we borrowed our parliamentary institutions; in England, wherefrom we borrowed a constitution; in England, minorities enjoy their full liberty in matters of education. I, a Canadian and a Roman Catholic, am proud to cite this example of tolerance given by our mother country. I ask my friend from Grey would he be in Canada less generous, less tolerant than the average English Protestant in England ?
Sir, I need not refer at any length to the history of the school question in England. But I may say at the outset that the right hon. leader of the House is not the only statesman who has had to face grave difficulties with regard to an Educational Bill. Sir, the greatest of all modern British statesmen has also had his hours of anxiety 3322 when in 1870 he attempted to legislate upon a similar question. Mr. Gladstone lost many a warm friend, many a firm supporter, when he introduced the Educational Bill of 1870.
For years, I might say for centuries, there had been in England a system of national schools. But there were many sects, many creeds in England, and it was felt that it would be a violation of the principle of religious liberty if the dissenters were forced to send their children to schools, the religious teaching of which was not in conformity with their views. So, by the side of national schools, grew up a system of voluntary schools—that is to say, separate schools—where the dissenters of all sects and denominations sent their children. The secular teaching did not differ much from that of the national schools; but the religious teaching given the children was in accordance with the tenets of the parents' faith. Catholics, Wesleyans, Quakers established all over the realm voluntary schools. So much so, that a time came when more children frequented the voluntary schools than the national schools. The board schools were state aided; the voluntary schools were self-sustaining. There were in England, as there are in this country, partisans of the neutral school. There were also men who thought that the children had a right to a religious teaching according to the religious belief of their parents.
Such was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone. Such was also the opinion of Lord Salisbury. Let me quote, Mr. Speaker, the opinion of those two great British statesmen. As far back as 1856 Mr. Gladstone said:
We have happily found it practicable in England to associate together in the most perfect harmony these two principles, the principle of voluntary exertion, through which you get heart and love and moral influence infused into your school instruction, and the principle of material aid from the state, by which the skeleton and framework of your education is provided. I am convinced that the harmony which has hitherto been maintained between them, even in times of doubt and difficulty, will continue, and, if possible, increase, but if I were driven utterly to abandon the voluntary, or to place exclusive reliance upon it, I would not hesitate a moment in making my choice. In such an emergency, I would say at once, give me the real education, the affection of the heart, the moral influence operating upon character, the human love, that are obtained through the medium of the voluntary principle carried by men whose main motive is one of Christain philantropy rather than throw me upon a system which, whatever the intentions of its mover may he, must sooner or later degenerate into hard irreligion.
Lord Salisbury, on another occasion, spoke as follows :
There is only one sound principle in religious education to which you should cling, which you should relentlessly enforce against all the conveniences and experiences of official 3323 COMMONS men, and that is, that a parent, unless he has forfeited the right by criminal act, has the inalienable right to determine the teaching which the child shall receive upon the holiest and most momentous of subjects. This is a right which no expediency can negative, which no state necessity ought to allow you to sweep away ; and, therefore, I ask you to give your attention to this question of denominational education. It is full of danger and of difficulty, but you will meet the danger by marching straight up to it and declaring that the prerogative of the parent, unless he be convicted of criminality, must not be taken away by the state.
Sir, as I said a minute ago, the first important Bill in relation to education in Great Britain was introduced in 1870. For the first time parliament passed a measure making provision for a 'sufficient, efficient and suitable' elementary education; but mark well, it was understood that the work of efficient voluntary schools should not be hampered, but that their efforts should be supplemented. In those days there were men like my hon. friend from Grey who opposed denominational Schools. Here is the answer which Mr. Gladstone gave to their opposition:
Can it be said that the prevalence of denominationalism in those schools at the present moment is generally felt to be a grievance ? On the contrary, is it not the case that everybody and every section are telling us continually that the religious difficulty directly you came to practice becomes insignificant, and that it is a difficulty made for parliament and for debate rather than on which would be felt within the walls of the schools ? Now I come to denominational, or as I shall call them, voluntary schools and if I am told that an overwhelming majority of voluntary schools are denominational, I think I can draw a lesson from that fact, which is that it shows what a powerful agency we have to do our bidding, to perform much of our work for us, if only we will not obstruct it. We are as much convinced as he is that with respect to these voluntary schools, the duty of the state is to make use of them for the purposes of secular instruction which they give, but to hold itself entirely and absolutely detached from all responsibility with regard to their religious teaching.
This was, Sir, the opinion of Mr. Gladstone with regard to denominational schools. But I explained a moment ago, though the voluntary schools were tolerated—they were self-sustaining, whilst the other schools were state aided. I shall not refer to the school legislation which since 1870 was passed by the imperial parliament. I come immediately to the Education Act of 1902, an Act passed by the Balfour government.
Mr. Balfour has himself, in a few words described what reforms were brought about by the Bill :
Our reform, if it is to be adequate, must, in the first place, establish one authority of education—technical, secondary, primary—possessed of powers which may enable it to 3324 provide for the adequate training of teachers, &c. In the second place, I conclude that this one authority for education, being, as it is, responsible for a heavy cost to the ratepayers, should be the rating authority of the district. In the 3rd place, I lay down that the voluntary schools must be placed in a position in which they can worthily play their necessary and inevitable part in the scheme of national education.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the object, one of the objects of the Bill was to include in the national school system the voluntary schools. The Bill became law and to-day, Sir, you have in England, a system of denominational state-aided schools. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this law gave rise to a great opposition amongst a certain class of people. In England, as in Canada, the government lost many of its friends. Mr. Balfour and his colleagues were assailed. They were denounced as being ' under the unchecked sway of the priest.'
It is a clerical war, said Dr. Clifford, and this Bill is meant to be its victorious Waterloo. The coveted goal is the rule of the priest over the British people. The reason of the cleric is the motive and spirit and aim of this movement, and this legislative measure is the ladder constructed by the cabinet up which the cleric is to climb.
And further :
We cannot therefore treat too seriously a measure which is the latest of a series of efforts of clericalism to capture young England and carry it over to Rome.
And further :
We never dare let the clergy have their own way; they would have destroyed us; we should have been as Sodom and as Gomorrah.
When a bad government and bad religion work together, the ruin of the government is as certain as death. It is that union we have now to face.
You have, Sir, in the few lines I have just read, an idea of the campaign of vituperation to which the government was subjected in England. I find in those impassionate appeals, a certain relationship with those we have heard during last month.
But Sir, in England as well as in Canada, the government, though assailed and bitterly so, faced the situation with courage. I do not wish to worry the House with any lengthy quotations. I will confine myself to a few, emanating from men, who occupy leading positions in the British empire. The Prime Minister, speaking at Manchester, on January 18, 1895, said :
I altogether object to the tone which is sometimes taken up by the controversialists upon this subject. They appear to think that the voluntary school is the relic of an ancient system permitted as a matter of compromise to remain, tolerated by parliament, submitted to by the department, but altogether out of harmony with the needs and requirements of a progressive community—an instrument of edu 3325                           MARCH 28, 1905                   cation which in process of time shall be thrown on one side as of an antiquated pattern and worn out by long use. I take precisely the opposite opinion. In my views, the normal education, the normal machinery for education required alike by the parent and by the community, is the voluntary school. I do not say there ought not to be—I have no attack to make on—a school board system. We require to deal with these questions, one who will look at them from a broader standpoint, who will feel that, outside the question of grants and the question of classes there are other issues to be decided, other interests to be considered, and who will feel his duty as Education Minister as but very imperfectly accomplished if he does not do all in his power to foster every influence which may mould, not merely the children committed to his care, not merely these subjects of secular learning— which may not advance their happiness in life —but these larger questions, the sense of these greater issues, necessary, as I must firmly believe, to the well-being of every community and most of all necessary in these days among the rising, full-fledged forces of the new democracy. In making this profession of my educational faith have I said anything which runs counter to the interests of that democracy to which I appealed just now.
Sir, if there is a man whose name has been heralded throughout the length and breadth of this country as that of a great statesman ; if there is a man whose imperial policy we have been asked to adopt ; if there is a man who, in one section of the country at least—enjoys unlimited confidence and great popularity—this man—this British statesman is Mr. Chamberlain. What views does that enlightened statesman hold on this question of education ?
In the course of this controversy, I observe a great number of people appeal to the time- honored principle of religious equality, well, I entirely approve of that. I consider myself to be a devoted advocate of religious sentiment of that kind. What do you mean by religious equality ? How far are you prepared to go in order to secure? For instance, do you think it consistent that churchmen, Roman Catholics, Jews, Unitarians and a number of other minor sects should be forced to pay rates which provide religious instruction which in their opinion either leaves out the essentials which make it valuable, or in other cases teaches doctrines in which they do not believe. Do you think, I say, that it is religious equality to insist upon that and at the same time refuse to those denominations the right of having their religious instruction for their children to which they do attach real importance?
And further :
I ask another question. You are in favour of religious equality. Would you be willing to accept a system by which it has been attempted to secure that equality in some of the provinces in Canada, where every ratepayer is permitted to say to what class of school his rates should go? That is a religious equality.
And further :
And it you admit the right of these people who built the schools for the greater part by 3326 private contributions, who have supported the schools by really very large contributions, amounting on the average during the past 30 years to something like one million pounds a year—if you admit their right to have secured to them the results for which they make their sacrifices—that is to say, the right to give and have given to their children the education, the religious education, which they believe to be essential—then there is no reason whatever why upon every other point sensible men and moderate men should not be able to come to an agreement.
As I said a minute ago, Mr. Balfour met a very strong opposition when he introduced his Bill—even in the ranks of the Unionist party, many friends of the government were somewhat influenced by the wild appeals such as that I have already mentioned. Mr. Chamberlain uttered the words I have just quoted at a meeting of the leading Liberal Unionists held at Birmingham on the 9th of October, 1902. At the conclusion of his speech, the stand taken by Mr. Chamberlain in favour of denominational schools was endorsed by the whole party.
I might quote the opinions expressed on the same subject by Mr. Lyttleton, the present Colonial Secretary, by Sir William R. Anson, by Canon Maccoll, by Mr. Haldane, M.P., and many others, but I do not wish to worry the House.
It seems to me, Sir, that the opinions of the leaders of public opinion in the British empire have on such a grave issue, more weight than that of the hon. gentleman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule).
But, Sir, my friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) has triumphantly referred to France in his address of Thursday last. Church schools have been abolished in France, exclaimed my friend, because forsooth they had produced illiterates, and to remedy that state of things the government has established a system of neutral schools. True it is, Sir, that in France the government is seeking to suppress denominational schools. But What has been the result ? Does not my hon. friend read the papers ? The government which suppressed the schools, which exiled the religious orders, denounced the Concordat—that government has been also suppressed, yes suppressed after many a tumult, many an uprising of all liberty-lovers in France. The movement against that act of the French government was not started by the illiterates ; it was organized by whom ? By members of the Academie Francaise, by men like Francois Coppée, Jules Lemaitre, Brunetiere—by men of all parties, of all creeds; aye, by free thinkers, by French Protestants like Mons. de Pressense, one of the most eminent French writers of the day. These men are all united, and they have published a manifesto protesting against the policy of the government. Let me quote a few lilies of that manifesto :
We can have no illusion. Efforts have been made to strangle the liberty of education. One is not free to think when one is not free to propagate one's thoughts publicly, and one is not free to think when one is not permitted to have one's children brought up in accordance with one's ideas, conviction and faith. To suppress the liberty of education, the government dares not act openly, but invokes hypocritically a law of which the apparent and declared object was to extend the scope of the liberties indispensable to a democracy. . . To grant the monopoly of education to one party doctrine and opinion is to establish a censorship over matters of public instruction, to organize the servitude of thought, and to prepare political tyranny.
This is what the elite of the French litterateurs think of the school policy of the French government. Let me tell my friend from Grey that he is greatly mistaken if he really believes that the denominational schools in France have produced a race of illiterates. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the land of Racine, of Moliere, of Corneille, of Bossuet, is not a land of illiterates ? Surely the schools and the lycees which have produced men like Victor Hugo, Lamartine, Thiers and Guizot, were not mere hotbeds of ignorance and cretinism ! The hon. gentleman, in his endeavour to give the public schools a superiority over the denominational schools, might have spared his French Canadian friends in the House his untimely reference to the so-called illiteracy of Frenchmen. For my part, Sir, I am a British subject, and an admirer of the British institutions. I may add that, politically speaking, I am more at home in London than in Paris —that my ideals in politics are at Westminster, not at the Palais Bourbon ; yet no one will ever deny—I for one will never do so—that in literature and in fine arts, France is second to no other nation in the world. But if France is still, at the beginning of this twentieth century, the leading nation of the world in the field of literature and fine arts, she has nothing to regret of the teachings given to her sons in the old church schools.
Reference has been made during this debate to the American settlers in the west. We are told that we must have public schools, because the settlers happen to come from across the boundary line, where a system of public schools exists. In other words, we must ignore the spirit and the letter of our constitution because the Americans are coming to our country. I shall not discuss the school system as it exists in the United States, but I have enough pride in the institutions of my country to believe that our system is not inferior to theirs. I have enough patriotism to stand by the rights of a Canadian minority, even if it does not suit the American settlers. And I am amazed, Sir, to see the ultra loyalist element of Canada so subservient to the desires, to the wishes, of the newcomers. Let them come from Dakota, from Arkansas, Illinois, or from any other 3328 state of the union. I do not object to that ; but, in the name of common sense and for our own dignity, let us not trample upon our own constitution because it happens to please these people.
Sir, it has been suggested in the course of this debate that the Northwest Act of 1875 provided only for a temporary state of things. There is no such declaration in the Act. Let me say, Sir, that the men who enacted that law had taken part in the battle for confederation. They knew what had been the stumbling block of the union and what compromise had been reached. They, therefore, deliberately pledged the faith, the honour of parliament, that as long as there would be a Catholic minority in the west it would be entitled to its schools. Thirty years have elapsed since 1875. The separate school system has been adopted, and to-day we are told that those who have settled in the west with that guarantee should do without it. The Act of 1875 was passed under Mr. Mackenzie's government, and it was supported by Sir John Macdonald. It was amended in 1882 under a Conservative administration, and the separate school system was maintained.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the British empire, if there was some sympathy for the Uitlanders, it was because it was asserted that President Kruger had not kept faith with them. In 1880 President Kruger went to London, and he then invited immigration to the Transvaal, promising the immigrants full citizenship. I have read several books on the South African war, and in them I found that the chief cause of the war was the lack of faith of Kruger in his stringent naturalization laws. Sir, laws concerning education are also with us fundamental laws. We enjoy religious liberty in Canada. Religious education is to a large degree considered essential by Roman Catholics. Why then should we deprive them of their right to schools ?
Mr. Speaker, we are told, those of us who favour this measure, that we should trust the western people. Such is the language of the 'Globe', such is the language of the Toronto 'News.' For my part, I would trust, and I do trust, the western people as well as the eastern people ; but the present issue has been made a religious one. The protests which have been made from the pulpit, the petitions which have been sent to this House, all bear the mark of religion. We have had petitions from the Orange Order, from the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists ; and there is between the opponents of the separate schools and the opponents of the public schools such a wide breach that, if left to the popular vote in the west, it would be impossible to bridge the difficulty. Those who sincerely believe in the separate school system would soon come to grief, because their opponents are unquestionably the majority. Besides the opposition to the separate schools seems to be doctrinal, and I do not see how you could reconcile both 3329                           MARCH 28, 1905                   systems. By the census of 1901 I find that the several religious denominations in the Northwest Territories stand as follows:
Presbyterians.. .. ..   ..   .. 27,800
Methodists.. ..   ..   ..   ..   .. 22,151
Baptists.. .. .. ..   ..   ..   ..   .. 5,340
Lutherans.. ..   ..   ..   ..   .. 12,097
- 67,394
Roman Catholics .. .. .. .. 30,073
Anglicans.. ..   ..   ..   ..   .. 25,366
- 55,439
Having those figures in hand, I find that there is a majority against the system of separate schools of 11,955 in comparing the relative strength of the two factions. Under these circumstances, and in the interest of peace and harmony, do you not believe that it is far better to settle the difficulty at once, by an honourable compromise satisfactory to all those who believe in moderation and fair-play ?
We have been told the other day by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the Catholics of the United States were paying something like fifty million dollars per year, in order to have their separate schools. Is it not far better to enact the present legislation, which, although giving the minority their right to religious teaching of their own, brings their schools to the standard of the public schools system in secular matters ? If you were to refuse them what they are getting by the ordinances, they would be left to their own private resources ; they would be self-sustaining. How could they compete with the state-aided public schools ? What interest have you to starve them ? Surely the half hour of religious instruction should not debar the Catholics from government assistance.
I ask any fair-minded Protestant if he believes, in his heart and conscience, that my son can be taught history, for instance, in the same book as his son ? Is it possible for an honest Protestant and an honest Catholic to think alike, and to see in the same light any of the historical events connected with say, the Reformation, Mary Stuart, Henry VIII, Queen Mary, John Knox or Thomas Beckett ? Are there not, on such questions, deep differences which it is almost impossible to reconcile ?
We are told that this legislation is an infringement on what is called provincial rights. As a consistent Liberal, I claim myself to be an upholder of such rights. After the battles fought by the late Sir Oliver Mowat and by the Hon. Edward Blake, we on this side of the House cannot but defend the rights of the provinces. But, as I have already demonstrated, the rights of the provinces are clearly defined by section 92 of the British North America Act. Section 93 gives also the federal parliament a jurisdiction on matters of education. At the time of the Equal Rights movement, when parliament was asked too to dis 3330 allow the Jesuits' Estate Act, we too invoked provincial rights, and we were answered by the late leader of that campaign, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, as follows :
The worship of what was called local autonomy, which some gentlemen have become addicted to, is fraught, I venture to say, with great evils to this Dominion. Our allegiance is due to the Dominion of Canada. The separation into provinces, the right of local self-government which we possess, is not to make us less citizens of the Dominion, is not to make us less anxious for the promotion and welfare of the Dominion, and it is no argument to say that, because a certain piece of legislation is within the power of a local parliament, therefore the legislation is not to be disturbed. By the same Act of parliament by which the power is conferred upon the local legislature, the duty and power—because where there is a power there is a corresponding duty—are cast upon the Governor in Council to revise, and review, the Acts of the legislative bodies. If you are to say that because a law has been passed within the legislative authority of the province, therefore it must remain, we can easily see, Sir, that before long these provinces, instead of coming nearer together, will go further and further apart. We can see that the only way of making a united Canada, and building up a national life and sentiment in the Dominion, is by seeing that the laws of one province are not offensive to the laws and institutions, and it may be to the feelings, of another—I will go so far as to say that they must be to some extent taken into consideration.
I have quoted the above extract in order to show that the principle of provincial rights is not always adhered to by those who are quite ready, when circumstances arise, to invoke it. Let me, however, give the opinion on this subject of one of the fathers of confederation. In an address to his constituents, October, .1864, Sir A. T. Galt said :
It was clear that in confiding the general subject of education 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, 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 Catholic minority. The same privileges belong of right here, as belonged to the other 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.
Therefore, I say, Sir, that I am within the scope of provincial rights in asking that this parliament should protect the minority in the Northwest. But, there is something else than provincial rights. We, the Liberal party, stand for provincial rights. That was the policy of our old leader, Alexander Mackenzie; it was the policy of Sir Oliver Mowat; it was the policy of Mr. Edward Blake. It is still the policy of the Liberal party. But, Sir, with provincial 3331                  COMMONS                             rights there are other rights which are under the care and protection of the Reform party. These are the rights of the minority of whom Mr. Edward Blake once said in this House that it should be given not only a fair measure, but an abundant, an overheaping measure of justice. Sir, I shall not refer to the hierarchy and the Quebec ecclesiastics. I think this question has been threshed out in the masterly speeches of both my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and of my friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I do not wish to pose as the defender of the Roman Catholic clergy in this House. As a Liberal, I have, during the few years that I have been in public life felt at times the interference of the clergy in politics. I will say nothing however in condemnation of the clergy of my province, as they acted within their rights as citizens, but I can say this, that the history of the Roman Catholic clergy in this country is its best vindication. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) recalled what has taken place in 1774 and in 1812. I will invite the hon. gentleman who spoke the other day, the member from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to come to Montreal. I shall ask him to pass with me along Notre Dame street at the seminary of St. Sulpice. He will see there, an old gate and an old sun dial. I will remind him that in 1774 the American rebels despatched to Montreal a young ecclesiastic, who later on became Bishop of Baltimore. That young ecclesiastic passed under that historic gate in order to ask the old French priests, the Sulpicians, to induce their flocks to join the American rebels. Sir, what was the answer given by the superior of the Sulpicians ? There at that very gate near the old sun dial ? Carroll, who had been despatched here by Lafayette and Washington was answered by the old superior that he could not stay one hour more in the country, that he would not be allowed to induce the French Canadians to become rebels to His Majesty's government. This is only one of the chapters of the history of the Roman Catholic clergy in my province.
I regret to have to quote in conclusion the very caustic remarks made by a man who resides in the city of Toronto and who bears a name which should be a protection and a shield against any such vituperation. I read, Sir, the interview given the other day to a newspaper by Mr. Sam. Blake, of Toronto. What does he say :
Why, he asks, should the Dominion, while awarding provincial rights of these new provinces, try to strangle them in their birth by insisting on the trail of the Jesuit surrounding the vital matter of the education of their children ?
This is the language of Mr. Sam. Blake, the brother of that great Canadian statesman, the undaunted friend of the minorities 3332 in the British Parliament as well as here in Canada, the man who enacted the very legislation of 1875. This is the language which Mr. Sam. Blake has used towards the province of Quebec and the Roman Catholic clergy. Sir, I will not answer by my own words. Let me quote in answer to Mr. Blake the words uttered by the Archbishop of Canterbury who visited this Dominion last fall. Speaking in Quebec in that old church of the Recollets, now the Anglican cathedral of Quebec, the Primate of England said :
But you, who know far better than I the varied story of Quebec, are recalling to-day the earlier memories which—in a larger than any technical sense—gave imperishable consecration to this place, which links it back along a chain of quite peculiar pathos, and interests to the work done centuries ago by members of the fraternity of St. Francis of Assisi, and along with them for a little while, at least, to the devoted men who, in a very different 'society,' a society whose very name became a catchword for a policy of behaviour which we condemn—did yet show to the whole world an example of missionary enthusiasm and a steadiness of persevering faith in face of persecution and suffering which, while the world standeth, will encircle with a halo of glory, the memory of the Jesuit missionaries of 250 years ago. In the words of the foremost historian of the colonial church—a historian of whose staunch Protestantism none can make question—at every season and in every place the unwearied French missionary was seen winning his way to the Red man's home. Sometimes lost amid the trackless snow or forests, at other times hurried in his light canoe down some fearful rapid, he perished and was never heard of more. Of some, the tidings came that they had met with death more terrible than this, tortured by every art of savage cruelty, burnt or scalped or starved or mutilated in every limb. Yet none quailed or faltered. New men instantly pressed on. As we mark the steadfastness of the faith which animated the hearts of Goupil and Jogues, and Lalement, and Breboeuf and Daniel in their martyrdom, we feel that we should violate the truth did we withhold, or only with niggard and reluctant spirit, acknowledge the praise which is their due.
This is my answer, this is the noble answer of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Mr. Sam. Blake. In conclusion, Sir, let me repeat the words of the great Protestant writer Lecky. Speaking of the Catholic priesthood he said :
No other body of men have ever exhibited a more single-minded unworldly zeal, refracted by no personal interests, sacrificing to duty the dearest of earthly objects, and confronting with undaunted heroism every form of hardship, of suffering, and of death.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY (Calgary). Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to give a silent vote on this question, nor do I intend at this late hour to be led into a discussion of the statements of different newspapers. It seems to me that there are matters of greater importance to be considered in the discussion of this Bill. There is just one matter 3333 MARCH 28, 1905   to which I wish to refer in regard to the insinuation that Mr. Haultain does not represent the views of the people of the Northwest Territories, nor the views of the Territorial government. The hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) has seen fit to state that the letter signed by Mr. Haultain was not assented to by his colleague, Mr. Bulyea, and that therefore it did not represent the views of the Territorial government. Now, I assume that the same reason would apply if we should say that this Bill was introduced by the right hon. First Minister without the consent of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). Let me ask the Solicitor General to point out one fact of one protest in that letter signed by Mr. Haultain, that is not borne out by the draft of the Bill which he submitted to this House in December, 1901, and to which the legislative assembly at Regina had given their approval. That was their mandate, that was their case ; and until the hon. gentleman can point to something in that letter which is not borne out by that draft Bill, then I would consider that the insinuation is not worthy of any further reply. If the hon. gentleman is looking for some members of the Territorial government who have been false to their trust, he certainly cannot point his finger to Mr. Haultain. Mr. Haultain needs no recommendation in the west, nor does he in Ottawa. He has been dealing with the federal government, and it is in your judgment as to how he has laboured to secure the rights of the people of the west.
Now, Sir, I was somewhat surprised to hear the Solicitor General revive the old contention that the federal government had purchased the Northwest Territories. We are advised to-day that we were not only purchased for the general benefit of Canada, but also that we were discovered by a French Canadian. I think if he will look into the records he will find that that argument was abandoned many years ago. In 1885 the strongest position this government would take was that they had a large pecuniary interest in that country, and that is the position they did take. Let me ask the hon. gentleman to answer a couple of questions in regard to the purchase to which he has referred. Let me ask him to explain to this House when the Bill comes up for discussion of the clauses seriatim in committee, if that money was paid as the purchase price of these lands, why was not the deed of surrender made to the people who paid the money ? Again, let him explain why, if this land was purchased for the general benefit of the Dominion and to be held for the benefit of the Dominion, a large part of that land was included in the area handed over to the province of Quebec in the year 1898 ? All we desire in this matter is to be treated as our other fellow-citizens are treated throughout the Dominion of 3334 Canada. Let me also say in passing that the Solicitor General can produce no document which will show that ÂŁ300,000 were paid as a purchase price for the land. That money was paid to get rid of a trading monopoly, and, as he says, it has been a very bad investment. But I would like to direct him to the debate of 1869, where he will see that the increase in customs and excise duties more than doubled the amount of interest on this ÂŁ300,000 that was paid for the release of the land. I would also point out that the purchase of these rights opened a field for the trade of eastern manufacturers which has been worth ten times, or a hundred times, the money that has been paid for it. Now, he seems to think that this administration has some claim or title upon that land because they have expended a certain sum of money upon it. He says that it has cost us a couple of rebellions, and that we have been obliged to keep up the mounted police. Well, on the same reason I assume that the Dominion own part of the province of Ontario for the cost of the battle of Queenston Heights.
Sir, I regret that this government has seen fit to place restrictions upon the educational freedom of the new provinces. I do not fail to realize the importance of that question, I do not desire to belittle it for one moment. But I regret that this discussion should take place at this particular time, when our boundaries are being fixed, when our political status is being determined, questions of the most vital importance to us that are liable to be lost sight of in the excitement of this racial and religious question. As representing a western constituency, I do not relish being ushered into confederation under such circumstances, circumstances that have been created by this government without any demand, without any complaint, and without any doubt expressed by the minority in that country in the spirit of fairness of the local government when they come to deal with this question of education. I speak of course subject to correction. The right hon, the First Minister, when introducing this Bill referred to certain threatening letters ; perhaps if these letters were produced we would see where this agitation originated. Now, I do not intend to go into this educational question at any length. I have had occasion to observe that it is likely to receive very careful nursing from hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House. I intend, however, to deal with it before I take my seat.
I desire particularly at this time to direct the attention of the House to some features in this Bill which are liable to be lost sight of in the excitement which surrounds the discussion of the educational question. First of all let me refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) a few evenings ago. To my mind it 3335 goes directly to the principle of the Bill which we are discussing. In order that I may not misquote the hon. gentleman I will read what he said :
I represent a section of the people of the Northwest Territories and I say that the people or the Northwest Territories have never asked for provincial autonomy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know who represents the people of the Territories the better, the thirty-five representatives in the local legislature at Regina or the hon. gentleman who represents Edmonton. I do not know what he means by stating that the people of the Northwest Territories never asked for provincial autonomy. I would remind him of the fact that on July 20, 1900, an address was sent to this government by the legislative assembly at Regina, and that on December 7, 1901, a draft Bill was prepared to which reference has been made and the terms of which were familiar to the thirty-five local representatives at Regina. In the year 1901, the Board of Trade of Edmonton, the town the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) lives in, passed a resolution asking that the Territories be created into two provinces. On April 2, 1902, the Eastern Assiniboia Liberal Association met at Indian Head and passed similar resolutions. I am not quite sure, but I have a suspicion that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) was present at that meeting in company with Mr. Bulyea. In 1902, there was a local election in the Territories, and in the platform put forward by Mr. Haultain there were these two planks :
1. Equal rights with all the other provinces of the Dominion.
2. Control of the public domain in the west.
These are the matters that the government of the Territories are now fighting for and these are the matters upon which your judgment is invited in my appeal to you for re-election in the legislature. A similar appeal has been made in every constituency in the country by every candidate whose election will give support to the government at this particular period in the history of the Territories. The issue is plain ; it is for the people of the Territories to decide.
The election took place and the result of that election demonstrated that Mr. Haultain and his supporters represented public opinion in the Territories on the question of provincial autonomy. I find that four resolutions have subsequently been passed by the territorial assembly demanding the provincial status ; I find also that the very strongest advocate of the stand taken by Mr. Haultain, was, up to a short time ago, the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). He complimented Mr. Haultain on the stand he had taken in asking for provincial autonomy, but a short time afterwards the hon. member (Mr. Scott) changed his opinion, and assigned as a reason for 3336 delay that litigation was now pending as to the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation, and he held it would be folly for the government to put through a Bill leaving that matter an open question. But to-day, the hon. member (Mr. Scott) is supporting a Bill which contains a clause continuing that exemption for ever. I also find that on April the 3rd, the Prince Albert Board of Trade passed a resolution declaring that the government should grant provincial autonomy. On March the 3rd, there was a similar resolution from the Calgary Board of Trade. On March 25th, the Conservative convention at Moosejaw at which there were over 200 delegates, some of whom came 700 miles to attend, passed a resolution declaring in favour of the immediate granting of full provincial autonomy including the ownership of the public lands, mines and minerals. I also find that the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), speaking on October 13, 1903, used these words :
I would wish to point out to the hon. members and to the gentlemen on both sides, that it is not we who are objecting to provincial autonomy. We are asking provincial autonomy, but we want it on certain terms.
In January, 1904, the Liberal convention in nominating a candidate for Southern Alberta, passed a resolution in favour of provincial autonomy. On September 29 last, the right hon. the First Minister wrote to Mr. Haultain promising that if his government were returned to power they would immediately take into consideration the question of granting provincial autonomy to the Territories. I may point out that seven of the Liberal candidates were returned to this House, and not one of these gentlemen, so far as I know, has been instructed by his constituents to repudiate the pledge given to the people by the Liberal leader. I say, Sir, that the resolution I have read, asking that the mines, lands and minerals be left to the provinces, represents the true sentiment of the people of the west. They have the conviction that they are entitled to have in the local government the administration of the mines, lands and minerals in their territory, and without that they will not be satisfied. The only argument which I have heard presented in support of the overturning of the principles of the union, is that there might be a conflict between the local and federal authorities, and that the federal government might not be able to carry on its immigration policy. That argument was used by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), but he has not always thought that way because in the province of Manitoba in days gone by he contended for full provincial rights and he advocated handing over the lands to his province ; later on he advocated handing over the school lands as well. 3337 MARCH 28, 1905 The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) seemed to fear greatly that if the control of the public domain should be given to the provinces, the provinces would use the lands for revenue and would not settle the outlying districts. Well, Sir, I am not so willing as he is to suspect the foresight and business-like management of the local assembly. That assembly has undertaken no function up to date that the people of that country would consent to have abrogated, and the enlargements heretofore made in the powers of the local assembly have been amply justified by the results. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) also entertained a different view of this question in days gone by, and on the 24th of July, 1884, he moved in the local legislature a resolution which expressed his views at that date, and which are not his views of to-day. He tells us that the lands might be exploited by the people of the west, but let me ask him if the people of the west are not the most interested in the proper administration of these lands, and do they not realize that by settling these lands they would be enhancing the value of their heritage. For my part, Sir, I am not prepared to say that if the immigration policy were handed over to the local government, they would continue the present system in its entirety. I do not know that a large expenditure out of the immigration vote for campaign literature would be carried on ; I do not know that the large army of officials now in the Northwest would be continued in office, and I do not know that the local government would hand over its lands in blocks of 250,000 acres at one dollar an acre.
We are told now, Sir, and it is common report throughout the country, that the duties of the Department of the Interior have become too onerous for one man. We were told that the ex-minister (Mr. Sifton) was so broken down in health that he of all men was unable to attend the conference with regard to the granting of autonomy to the Territories. Is not this a very good opportunity to relieve the Department of the Interior of some of its work, and of handing over to the local administration of the Territories the control of the public lands, a right which is enjoyed by every other province but one in this Dominion ?
All that we have heard from the ex-Minister of the Interior is that there would be a conflict; but that will not satisfy the people of the west. They want some more satisfactory reason, in view of the attitude which the hon. gentleman assumed in days gone by. They will not endure in silence the withholding of their public lands. I doubt if some of the other Liberal members, in view of the statements which they have made in days gone by, will get up in this House and make the declaration that the people of the Northwest Territories are 3338 not fit to be entrusted with the same measure of self-government that is enjoyed by the various provinces of this Dominion. If they do, I think we on this side of the House will have some reason to congratulate ourselves on the manner in which they will be received by the people of that country after such a declaration. In view of the statements that have been made, I think it is only fair to this House and to the people of that country that these hon. gentlemen should give the grounds for the conclusions at which they have arrived.
The hon. the Solicitor General was very pleased to exalt and extol the British constitution. He thought very much of the British constitution in certain respects; but if the British constitution applies in one direction, why should it not apply in the other ? If we are going to follow the British constitution in respect of education, why should we depart from it in regard to the important matter of the control of the public domain? Are hon. gentlemen opposite, in withholding from the new provinces the control of the public domain, following the British colonial policy ? What was that policy ? It is perhaps unnecessary for me to state to the House that the original idea of the British statesmen was to control the lands in the colonies; but when they tried to put that idea into practice, they had to abandon it for a better policy, namely, that the people on the spot were best qualified to manage their own lands, and that was the policy they adopted. They felt that with local representation the management of the lands would be better looked after. Is that principle not equally applicable to-day? Here we have a territory two thousand miles away, represented in this House by only ten members. If those lands are handed over to the local government, there will be fifty members looking after their management in the interest of the people; and if mistakes or jobbery are liable to happen, are these not more likely to be detected by governments representing fifty members than by a government representing only ten ? I say that to withhold from the provinces the management of their own lands is directly contrary, not only to British colonial policy, but to the spirit of confederation. When confederation was formed, what was the arrangement made between the various provinces ? Was it not that each province retained the right to administer the public domain, while the customs and excise duties were surrendered to the Dominion ? That was the policy carried out with regard to Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Then, in what spirit are these provinces being created to-day ? I take it that it is under section 146 of the British North America Act, which especially provides that the admission shall be ' subject to the provisions of this Act.' The spirit is also in section 109, if the letter is not, un 3339 der which is handed over to the original provinces the right to administer their public domain. If there is any doubt as to the policy that was adopted by the fathers of confederation, let us see what was said. I find in the confederation debates, at page 40, that Sir John A. Macdonald said :
It will be seen that the local legislature have the control of all the local works; and it is a matter of great importance, and one of the chief advantages of the federal union and of local legislatures, that each province will have the power and means of developing its own resources and aiding its own progress after its own fashion and in its own way.
Another distinguished Canadian, also one of the fathers of confederation, the Hon. George Brown, referring to this matter, in the course of his speech, said :
Each province is to have charge of its own Crown lands, Crown timber and Crown minerals, and will be free to take such steps for developing them as each deems best.
Further on, the Hon. Mr. Holton, interrupting Mr. Brown, said :
Unfortunately for your argument, the lands will be in the hands of the local governments.
Mr. Brown replied :
So much the better. My hon. friend can manage his public lands in Lower Canada as he likes, and we will manage ours.
At page 16 of the debates of 1869, Mr. Edward Blake made the following statement in opposing a resolution to admit Newfoundland into the union and to pay Newfoundland $150,000 a year in lieu of its lands :
He was very strongly opposed to the Dominion acquiring the Crown lands of Newfoundland, and he has as strongly objected to Newfoundland being deprived of its Crown lands. He commended the policy of the framers of the constitution in leaving to each of the provinces the control of their own public lands. This was from the Canadian point of view. Then as to Newfoundland the arrangement was equally objectionable : (1) Its distance from the seat of government (2) and its small representation in parliament would lead to an unsatisfactory management.
The local government would be deprived of the control of these lands, which might by it be rendered valuable for the future development of the colony.
The development of mineral wealth could not be effected by raising a revenue, but by encouraging local enterprise. If the proposition was between giving Newfoundland $150,000 a year and taking her lands, and giving $150,000 a year and leaving her her lands, he would willingly vote for the latter (hear, hear). These lands under the local management of the government would contribute much more largely to the prosperity of Newfoundland than if they were in the hands of the government of Canada.
And he closed with an amendment to the resolution to this effect :
That the public lands can be managed more efficiently, economically and satisfactorily by 3340 the provinces in which these lands are situated than by Canada, and that there is no good reason for a departure from the principle of the Union Act.
That is a statement which I desire to impress upon the members of this House in regard to the principles of the Union Act, as Mr. Blake regarded them in 1869.
But, Mr. Speaker, if there can be any doubt at all as to what was in the minds of those gentlemen at that day, I will refer to another statement which was made on June 10 in the same debate by Mr. Alexander Mackenzie. Mr. Blake had made his argument first, and had been twitted by the members of the government for voting to pay money to the Hudson Bay Company. If there could be anything plainer or clearer as to what was in their minds at that time, it would be hard to find it. Mr. Mackenzie said :
The Minister of Public Works, and the premier said they were surprised that the member for West Durham should object to our acquiring the public lands of Newfoundland after voting for the acquisition of lands in the Northwest Territories.
There was (a) difference between the two cases, in the Northwest Territories there were at present no constituted authorities as there were in Newfoundland, and it would not be pretended that after a government was established in the Northwest Territories we would administer its lands from Ottawa.
That statement to my mind is most significant because it was made in the year 1869, the very year when the surrender was taken from the Hudson Bay Company ; and I am sure that the First Minister and the Solicitor General will pardon the more obscure members from the west if we venture to differ from them in opinion, backed as we are by the statements of these men at the very time the contract went through. These were the views that prevailed at that time ; and in the consideration of this question we look to our fellow-citizens in the other provinces to admit our right to be put on an equal footing with them and be given the administration of our own public domain. I have shown what the arrangements were when the four original provinces entered confederation. Let us trace what the subsequent arrangements were in the case of those provinces which entered later.
British Columbia, which entered in 1870, was a colony entitled to its public lands, and not only has it control of its lands, but the Dominion pays it annually the sum of $100,000 for a twenty mile strip through the Rocky Mountains that was alienated for railway purposes. Prince Edward Island entered in 1873, and I think at that time her Crown lands were in such a shape that an annual grant of $45,000 was given her in lieu thereof. Manitoba is the one exception. That province was not allowed to retain its public lands, and hon. gentlemen opposite take glory in the fact that 3341 MARCH 28, 1905 the arrangement with Manitoba was made by their predecessors. They are willing to shield themselves behind the example of their predecessors in some things, but see how different were the circumstances in Manitoba then as compared with what they are to-day in the Territories. In Manitoba in the year 1870, there were only 12,000 people, and it was perhaps prudent to withhold from that mere handful of people, unaccustomed to self-government, living on the banks of the Red river, their right to administer their public lands, but the conditions which then existed no longer remain nor do they exist in the new provinces about to be established. Whereas in Manitoba you had only 12,000 people in 1870, you have in the Territories to-day, if we are to believe the Minister of the Interior (Mr Sifton) a population of 500,000 people, and a population accustomed to all the responsibilities that go with self-government. But fourteen years later, when the same party was in power, the government of Manitoba came down to this parliament and asked to be given control of its public lands and its petition was refused. True the province of Manitoba agreed to waive her claim to the public lands in consideration of an annual payment of $100,000. But it was her privilege to do that, and that does not form a precedent to be followed in this case. Besides hon. gentlemen opposite have been holding themselves out as nation builders and carefully avoiding any errors into which previous governments have fallen, as all government must fall sometimes. But can any man, I ask, look into the negotiations which have taken place between Manitoba and the federal government, and say that the policy followed was a wise one ? Look at the negotiations which have taken place at frequent intervals between that province and the administration at Ottawa, and you will find that the result of that policy has been continued dissatisfaction and continued agitation for better terms. Look at what has taken place. It is a record of almost annual pilgrimages from Manitoba to Ottawa for better terms. In 1876 her subsidy was increased to $90,000. In 1879 it was increased to $105,653. Again in 1882, she came knocking at the federal door, and her subsidy was increased to $215,000. In 1885 she was still given further assistance. She was given swamp lands, 150,000 acres for a university, $100,000 a year in lieu of public lands, and a per capita grant on a basis of population of 150,000. But that was not the end. In 1898 further application was made and she was given a cash grant to construct the government house, and in 1899 she was given better lands in exchange for the swamp lands. These are only a few of the begging trips of Manitoba ; and I ask : Is it good policy, is it wise administration to keep the provincial government at the 3342 mercy of the federal ? I submit, Sir, that to the province of Manitoba as well as to the new provinces should be given the right to administer the public domain within her borders. Speaking for my own constituency, I believe that a majority of the people of the Territories would be willing to take up the case of Manitoba and make the fight together, and I believe that at no distant day, when we receive the representation in this House to which we are entitled, we will be here in such numbers as to justify us in insisting upon equal rights with the other provinces to administer the public domain within our respective borders.
We have heard a great deal about representations with regard to educational matters which were made to certain people when they went out to that country. I have seen pamphlets in circulation claiming protection for a certain class in matters of education and in matters of religious teaching on the ground that they went into that country relying on the protection of a certain clause in the constitution. But let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite under what promise did the hardy pioneers go into that country? Under what constitution did these men go into that country and enhance the value of those one time unoccupied lands by their energy, thrift and enterprise? Is there any difference in that respect between that part of the Dominion and any other part? When people went out to that part of the Dominion did they give up any portion of their birthright, and is it right, when they take up the burden of a province, that they should start out in confederation as a province on any less advantageous terms than any other province ?
But what is the real reason why these public lands are being retained by this government and withheld from the Territories ? Is it because the governments of the Territories are not capable of giving an honest administration ? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason. We have in that country to-day a large population accustomed to self-government, and no one has as yet ventured to sugest the merest suspicion against the competency of the people in the Territories to manage their own public affairs in their own public interests. That is not the reason, but the reason is that the Ottawa administration realizes that as long as it can retain the immense army of officials which it has up there now, it will have under its control a great machinery for securing votes. That is the difficulty in the way of giving up the lands and no matter what party may be in power, there will always be the danger of its making an improper use of its machinery, because the recent experience we have had up there is not such as to allay our apprehensions in that regard. That this objection is a serious one cannot be denied and 3343 COMMONS such experience as we have recently had in the west is hardly sufficient to relieve our apprehension, and I assert, Sir, without fear of contradiction, that popular sentiment in the west emphatically condemns any attempt to use government officials for political purposes.
I will give you the names of a few officials who participated in the recent elections in one riding in the last election.
1. Neil G. McCallum, Yorkton, H.I., acted as an agent for Liberal candidate at McKenzie.
2. S. G. McKee, Yorkton, clerk, Dominion Land Ordinance, acted as an agent.
3. John Komainitaky, clerk, interpreter, Dominion Land Ordinance, acted as an agent.
4. Carl Cenik, Winnipeg, Interior Immigration Office, acted as an agent and canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
5. Mr. Wolf, Winnipeg, Immigration Office, acted as an agent, and canvassed for the Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
6. Paul Bredt, Immigration Agent at Regina, resigned and since promoted, addressed meetings and canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
7. C. W. Speers, Central Colonization Agent, canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
8. Mr. Halloquist, Scandinavian Interpreter, canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
9. Thos. McNutt, acting Immigration Agent, canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.
Some of these men, homestead inspectors and interpreters were brought all the way from Winnipeg. I merely mention this matter to direct the attention of the First Minister to it. I regret that he is not in his place. The Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), if I remember correctly, stated that a public officer should be persona grata to all the people. And the Prime Minister said :
I feel as strongly now in 1903 as I did in 1896 that when a man has taken office under the government he should take no part in politics.
I mention this to the House to ask these hon. gentlemen, in view of the statements I have given as to the British colonial policy, is it sufficient reasons to withhold from these new provinces the right to administer their public domain ?
Now, coming to the educational clause, I desire to examine these clauses for a few minutes. Before I proceed to discuss the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) from its merits, I wish to direct my attention to the speech made a few evenings ago by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He claimed that the clause inserted in Mr. Haultain's draft Bill was identically the same as that of the Bill now before the House, so far as the educational question is concerned. And, for fear of misquoting him, let me give his own words as found at page 3163 of ' Hansard ' :
But I find that section 3 of this draft Bill, which was prepared by the Northwest government in 1901—and these provisions were re 3344 peated in 1903—is almost word for word with section 2 of the Autonomy Bill which is before the House and as a matter of fact is a reproduction of the similar section in the Act admitting each individual province into the Dominion. It reads:
Now, before this matter could be discussed, or even fairly understood, I presume, it would be necessary to make sure that we realize the difference between 'continue' and ' perpetuate.' Does the hon. member for Edmonton propose that creating new provinces in the Northwest, we should get along without any law at all until the legislature can meet ? Surely not. And this section 3 simply perserves for the time being the laws in existence on the 1st of July next. A section similar to this has been put in every law creating a province, simply to provide a body of laws until the legislature can meet and pass laws to continue the laws that have been handed over or repeal or amend them. Yet, the hon. member for Edmonton tries to construe this Bill as simply giving to the people of the Northwest what they asked for in their draft Bill. But I have already indicated the difference—we may have asked for it for the time being; but we do not ask to have the present system of schools perpetuated or the power to repeal the existing system taken away. We have a law with regard to brands. Does the hon. member for Edmonton want to discontinue that and have no law? We have a law with regard to bulls. If there was a law in the Northwest with regard to strikes, no doubt the hon. member for Edmonton would like to have it kept on the statute-book until the legislature could meet and pass such a law. He says also :
I say that in view of the fact that these separate schools have been in existence for 20 years absolutely at the disposal of this parliament, without a word of objection from the legislature of the Northwest Territories—
But I find that on reference to the Journals of the legislative assembly, for 1889, page 65 and for 1890, page 129, that there were certain proceedings of that assembly of which the hon. member for Edmonton did not inform the House. Now I find that the Act of 1875 deals with education, and I am going to trouble the House while I read a few words from one section, as it is necessary for the point I desire to make. Section 14, the much-discussed section says:
14. The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education but it shall therein always be provided, that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor ; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic may esta 3345 MARCH 28, 1905 blish separate schools therein—and in such case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
I find that in 1889, a petition was sent to the Dominion authorities by the local legislature at Regina, of which the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was then a member, praying to this effect :
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, the Senate and the House of Commons, praying for the amendment of ' The Northwest Territories Act ' by repealing that portion of subsection 1 of section 14 after the word ' education ' in the second line.
And the hon. member for Edmonton supported that. So did the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), then a member of the assembly. Thus they prayed this administration that everything that had to do with education should be shut out of the law, which would leave the province a free hand with the matter of education. In view of that point, I think that hardly all the facts were stated by the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) when he said that there was no feeling in the Northwest with regard to this Bill and no objection taken to it. If the prayer of the petitions had been granted, I think these gentlemen would have been in nearly the same position as the amendment of the leader of the opposition would place them in. Apparently, their opinions have changed. But it did not stop at the point I have indicated. In the following session of the legislative assembly, they repeated their prayer. And the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for East Assiniboia supported that contention, that education should be left entirely to the provinces. Now, apparently, they have changed their mind as they did with regard to the land policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, in proceeding to discuss these educational clauses of these Bills, I cannot say that I shall be able to show, but shall contend, that the amendments presented to this House to-day do not differ in the slightest degree from the original Bill as brought down. But, before I proceed to discuss the amendment and the original Bill let me point out the contrast between the position taken by the right hon. leader of the government and the ex-Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton).
The right hon. the First Minister has said in introducing the Bill that it was obligatory upon this government to preserve certain rights and conditions which by reason of good faith were inviolable, and lest I should misquote him I shall read what he said. These rights and conditions are inviolable because they are given under the Act of 1875, and he says:
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 parliament ; 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.
Proceeding further in reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption:
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.
That is the position he took that certain rights under the Act of 1875 were created and were inviolable. He took the position that these rights which were created should be guaranteed to the minority. But the hon. member from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has endeavoured to show that there is a vast difference between the rights of the minorities under the Act of 1875 and their right to-day under local ordinances. He said that under the Act of 1875 the minority were entitled to and were given a complete dual system. This is what he says on page 3239:
That was the clause in the Act of 1875. I read it because it is important in view of the remarks I intend to address to the House, that its exact terms should be in the minds of the gentlemen who are honouring me with their attention.
What followed the passage of this law ? There was established in the Northwest Territories a complete dual system of schools.
Further down on the same page he says :
This system went on for some time in the Territories, and then the legislature began to interfere and to curtail the privileges of the separate schools. This curtailment proceeded from time to time until the year 1892 when what was known as the dual system was entirely swept away and that system which we have in the Northwest Territories, substantially as we have at present, was established.
So there is a vast difference in the views taken by the right hon. the First Minister and the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). There is a vast difference between the rights conferred under the Act of 1875 and under the ordinances according to the member for Brandon. The hon. member for Brandon has compared these rights and further says that these rights were conferred under the Act of 1875 and that the local ordinances curtailing them were unconstitutional and ultra vires. He will not consent to the preservation of the conditions which are inviolable, but he will agree to perpetuate the curtailed rights, although he intimated that such an invasion was an illegal and uncon 3347 stitutional invasion of the rights conferred under the Act of 1875. I shall cite his exact words. At page 3241 he says :
We have it that the clerical control of these schools was absolutely abolished. Every one recognizes that it was absolutely abolished and in addition to that, I desire to say—whatever we may think of the justification for the action which was taken—it seems to me perfectly clear, that in abolishing the distinctive character of the schools, the legislature of the Northwest Territories did go beyond the powers that were bestowed upon it by this section of the Act of 1875.
There is the opinion of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), that when the local ordinances abolished these rights they went beyond the power given to them under the Act of 1875. Upon that point Sir John Thompson expressed his opinion:
In making a report on one of the ordinances passed shortly before 1802 but somewhat similar in its effect—not so sweeping in its effect—Sir John Thompson in substance reported that this ordinance, contracts or diminishes the rights of minorities to an extent not contemplated by the Act or 1875, and that the Act of 1875 must nevertheless be held to remain in force notwithstanding the passage of the ordinance.
Now, there is the position. The First Minister insists upon the inviolability of that Act. The ex-Minister of the Interior finds that under the Act the minority were entitled to a complete dual system. This was taken away by an ordinance. If they had the right to have them then they have the right now in spite of any ordinances to the contrary. I propose a little further on to deal with that section which specifically continues these rights of the minority in force in that country. The position then is this, that the Prime Minister repudiates his speech and accepts a vioation of the Act of 1875 and accedes to a proposition to perpetuate a violation of the inviolable. There is the position between the Prime Minister and the hon member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton).
But let us examine into these clauses for a moment, and we shall see just who has been making a compromise, who has been giving away his rights or his religious opinions. I find that the objections of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) are, first, that he objects to subsection 2 of section 16, and it is on account of this clause he says that he resigned, because he says that in that all the evils which he has dilated upon existed under the Act of 1875 in Manitoba. I wish to make myself clear, but I am not going to be dragged into the discussion of the merits or demerits of a separate school system. That is a matter of which I know nothing, and I am simply taking the argument and citing the cases cited by the hon. gentlemen opposite who have had more experience in dealing with these systems than I have had. He says that he objects to subsection 2 of section 16 because in that 3348 all the evils he has dilated upon exists, and he has persuaded the First Minister to accept a proposition that in his opinion has eliminated all the essential characteristics of a separate school system. What does subsection 2 of section 16 to which he makes objection contain? It says:
That a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the said province, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name it is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit.
On that he builds up what he calls his university argument. He takes the general word 'education' at the beginning of that clause and ignores the fact that this general word is followed by a number of particular words. The reading of it is:
3. 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.
He takes the comprehensive word 'education' and tries to read into that that there was some risk and danger of endowing a Catholic university, ignoring altogether the fact that the general word education is followed afterwards by the particular words 'separate schools and public schools,' so he creates a man of straw in this so-called university argument and then proceeds to demolish it. I submit that it is based upon a fallacious construction of that clause to which he raises his objection. Now, what are his other objections and why did he resign ? Now, he objects to endowing a separate university, he objects to ear-marking the public land fund. But what does the amendment do ? Does it not create and endow schools from the same funds ? Does the amendment make any distinction between these two sections? Now, let us deal with the position as it is. How does the amendment change the Bill, if it changes it at all ? I desire to point out that if the rights of the minority to separate schools were created under the Act of 1875, and if they were entitled under it to a complete dual system, then I say that under the amendment exactly the same state of affairs will prevail. Let me read subsection 1 of the amended section :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudically affect any right or privilege with respect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinance of the Northwest Territories passed in the year 1901.
Now I find that section 41 of chapter 29 of these ordinances reads as follows :
The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish a separate school therein, and in such case the ratepayers establishing such 3349 MARCH 28, 1905 Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school shall be liable only to the assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
Now, in that section is everything that is included in the Act of 1875, which gives these people the right to separate schools, and which gives them the rights the member for Brandon dilated upon a few days ago, Therefore, I take the position that there is not the slightest difference to-day between the amended Bill and the Bill that was originally presented to this House. Now an attempt was made by the Minister of Customs, who is not in his seat, and by a number of other gentlemen, to show that all the amendment gives to these local legislatures is the power to give a half hour's religious instruction at the end of the day. Now, Sir, there is nothing in these ordinances which pares down the rights given to them under section 41, so far as I have been able to find, except to designate at what time this religious teaching shall take place. They have attempted to make this House believe that under this amendment it is not possible to have a dual system of text books, a dual system of inspection, but that everything given under the Act of 1875 is preserved by the introduction of section 41 in chapter 29. Now, this amendment, which they argue will preserve to the people of that country what they have got today, simply continues the law, it does not continue the administration. The dual system of text books, the dual inspection and all that is a matter of administration. Therefore, if the argument of the member for Brandon is sound that the action of the local legislation in paring down the rights these people had under the Act of 1875 was ultra vires, then any Order in Council which was passed by the commissioner of education would be equally ultra vires.
Then the minority, under this section 41 which gives them the rights they had under the Act of 1875, and which are preserved to them under this amendment, would be able to demand that these rights be enforced.
Mr. SCOTT. Does my hon. friend understand that after the 1st of July they will not be able to do that ? That after this legislation takes effect they will not be able to do as he says they can do at present ?
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. Why not ?
Mr. SCOTT. Because this legislation removes any defects that may exist in the present ordinance.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. No, it does not.
Mr. SCOTT. Does my hon. friend say that this Act, when it passes, will not confirm chapters 29 and 30 as law ?
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. SCOTT. Then that is the end of your argument.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. The hon. gentleman may think so. Let him take chapters 29 and 30 and show the section to this House where the rights under the Act of 1875 or of section 41 are pared down by them.
Mr. SCOTT. Are not those the ordinances which abolish the ecclesiastical schools in the Northwest Territories ?
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. The hon. gentle- you will see that if you cannot take rights away by legislaton you cannot take them away by Order in Council. If the opinion of the hon. member for Brandon is correct, that the local ordinances which pared down the Act of 1875 were ultra vires, then any Order in Council which is passed paring down the rights which are continued to them under section 41, would also be ultra vires, and they would have a right to insist upon their privileges.
Mr. SCOTT. He will not contend that these ordinances will be ultra vires after these Bills have passed this House.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. You will find that this amended Act does not preserve the administration, it simply preserves these ordinances, and all there is in these ordinances paring down the rights given under section 41, would be identically the same rights they had under the Act of 1875. The only thing that is pared down is the half hour I have mentioned.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend is mistaken. One of the conditions that was pared down was the existence of dual management and dual boards, one board managing the Roman Catholic schools, and the other board managing the public schools.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. Is that not under the regulations of the Commissioners of Education ?
Mr. SCOTT. Certainly not, it is a provision of the ordinance.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. I differ from the hon. gentleman entirely and I want to impress upon the House the fact that this amended Act continues these ordinances only, and it does not continue the administration of them ; and if the Commissionser of Education passes certain Orders in Council which contravene the rights given under section 41, then this Order in Council will be just as much ultra vires and unconstitutional as the ordinances that were passed paring down the Act of 1875.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE. How does the hon. gentleman suppose that the administration of these new provinces would formulate and try to pass ordinances that will be beyond the terms of the constitution ? The hon. gentleman makes the statement that ordinances ultra vires of the constitution 3351 COMMONS   will be passed. If the hon. gentleman is making a legal argument. I would like to know what authority he has for saying that they will go beyond their rights in chapters 29 and 30 ?
Mr. MONK. I do not think it is very difficult to understand the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). He says that if the ordinances were invalid we are validating these ordinances now, but we are not validating the Order in Council passed by the Commissioner of Education in the Northwest Territories, and consequently the invalidity of the ordinances still remains.
Mr. SCOTT. Could they not have passed identical Orders in Council, which will be validated under this Bill ?
Mr. MONK. That is another thing ; he speaks of the Orders in Council that have been passed.
Mr. DUNCAN ROSS. If the contention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. S. M. McCarthy) is right, surely we are leaving it to the provincial government to pass these Orders in Council.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. Does not the hon. gentleman see that if anything were done by ordinance or by Order in Council paring down the rights under the Act of 1875, then, if the hon. member for Brandon is correct, it would be equally ultra vires and could be set aside. If he cannot see that, I am sorry for him. Under the conditions existing to-day the Commissioner of Education can go back and establish a dual system of inspection and a dual system of text books.
Mr. SCOTT. Certainly.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. Then if you are protecting the rights of the minority, why not protect the rights of the majority ; you say that all you want is what you have today. I am assuming that all the rights created under the Act of 1875 are preserved in section 41 ; and that being so, what would a stranger coming into this House think of the picture that has been presented to us by some gentlemen on the other side of the House ? I repeat that I know nothing of the separate school system, of its merits or demerits. What I know of it has come from hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Finance, although he declared himself opposed to separate schools, has gone on record with the statement that he will support this Bill. I quote from ' Hansard ' :
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 the 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 and 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, 3352 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 take these words to mean nothing else than that he is supporting this legislation because it is going to kill the very thing that it is intended to create. I have spent some time of my life in the study of law, and that class of legislation is new to me. I do not know what name to call it, but if it were not unparliamentary I would suggest that it is boomerang legislation. something that comes back, something that has an opposite effect to that intended. And what can we say of the position taken by the Minister of Finance. He says that he wants separate schools abolished, but in his mind the longest way round is evidently the shortest way home. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) claims to have a great experience in matters of education, and, speaking of the Act of 1875, which I contend is continued in section 41, he says :
We had in the Northwest Territories at that time, under that Act, to all intents and purposes what are generally known as church schools or clerical controlled schools. That was the system that was built up under this Act of 1875. It went on for some time. It was exactly the same system—I do not know as to the efficiency, for I am not familiar with that—but in principle it was the same system we had in Manitoba up to the year 1890, when it was abolished by the Public School Act of that year.
Further on, at page 3110, he says :
When we, in the province of Manitoba undertook to remove what was a school system, that I said was ' inefficient to a point of absurdity ' we found ourselves confronted with many and serious difficulties.
The school system which we abolished by the Public School Act of 1890 in the province of Manitoba, was precisely the same school system as the system that was abolished by the ordinance of the Northwest Territories in 1892.
There you have the ex-Minister of the Interior saying that the Act of 1875 gives to the people of the Territories exactly the same system that they had in Manitoba, and which, according to him, was inefficient to the point of absurdity. Again the ex- Minister of the Interior says :
Although we took strong ground upon that principle, yet the attacks we made were not so much on that account as they were on account of the fact that the school system of the province was admittedly inefficient, and that children were being allowed by thousands to grow up in absolute ignorance and illiteracy. That was the ground upon which we attacked successfully that system. We said then : Your system is inefficient ; you have taken the public money and you have not applied it for the purpose of giving the children the education they ought to have ; and we pointed to the fact that in districts where this clerically controlled system had been in force, the children had grown up in ignorance and the population was 3353 MARCH 28, 1905 illiterate, and that fact could not be disputed.
Sir, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, speaking last night, referred to the fact that it was said that the province of Manitoba had been harsh in abolishing that system. Well, Sir, I am here to say that you cannot abolish abuses of that kind by handling people with kid gloves. I am here to say that if there is any act in my public life I am proud of, it is the fact that I was one of those who helped to abolish that system of education in Manitoba in the year 1890.
The hon. member for Edmonton, at page 3160, places himself on record as follows :
I am one of these who pin their faith unreservedly to a system of national schools, established for the purpose of educating the people of the country, of imparting to them knowledge in secular subjects. I am one of those who believe that religion can best be taught by those whose special training is the teaching of religion, that geography can be better taught by those whose special training is for the purpose of teaching geography.
Now, Sir, we have the opinion of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) that the systems are identical. We have his view, the correctness of which I do not know, as to the efficiency of the system in Manitoba. We have also the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), in his election address in July, 1892, appealing to the people of Manitoba for a further return to office, one of the grounds which he strongly urges being that his government had abolished the dual system. I may state to the House that the hon. gentleman has not deputed me to state what his views are ; we have been anxious for him to speak for himself. I find that among those supporting him on that occasion, were : Mr. Clifford Sifton of Brandon; Mr. Burrows of Dauphin ; Mr. Jackson of Selkirk, and Mr. Crawford of Portage la Prairie, all of whom sit in this House to-day. If these hon. gentlemen have assigned to that system its true character, I can only take the position that nothing but absolute freedom in this matter of education can satisfy the people of the west. They should be left free to legislate in years to come and to profit by the experience of the past. If the present system proves to be satisfactory, if it can be preserved ; if the time comes when it does not prove satisfactory, the people of the west desire to have reserved the right to repeal it. I desire to point out to this House that the people of that country have never had an opportunity of deciding upon that question for themselves. They differ from a colony. They are not coming into this confederation with a separate school system that they have chosen for themselves ; but I believe that if this administration had trusted the people of the west any rights possessed by minorities there would have been respected. I am not here to say that that system would be abolished, if we had the power, on the second day of 3354 July; but what I plead for on behalf of those provinces is that they be allowed to legislate in that matter as they see fit, in view of the experience they have had.
In 1875, when the Act to which so much reference has been made was passed, there were only 500 people living there ; and the hon. Minister of Finance, a few evenings ago, stated that he never would be a party to the passing of an Act to override a local ordinance or local statute—that would be a gross interference with provincial rights. But to my mind there is not a very great distinction between overriding an Act in existence to-day, and picking out of our ordinance a certain portion and saying that suits us, and we will adopt it so that you cannot repeal it for all time to come. It seems to me that the one is no greater infringement or invasion than the other. The hon. Minister of Finance holds up as a model of tolerance the province of Nova Scotia, which I have no doubt is all that he claims for it ; but it did not strike me that the attitude he took in passing legislation which was going to kill what it was going to create was a very tolerant attitude. I think I can say for my own constituents that they will exercise as much tolerance and give as much fair-play to the minority in that country as any class of people that can be found in Canada. If you come with me to the foot-hills of the Rocky Mountains, you will find there public school boys from Eton, Harrow and Charterhouse ; Cheltenham and Clifton in city of Calgary ; those for whom I can claim just as much intellect and spirit of fairness as can be found in the people of Nova Scotia.
I have been surprised to hear the statement made by some people that many immigrants have come into that country on the faith of that Act of 1875, or of these ordinances existing in the Territories at present. Well, Mr. Speaker, while I believe that the people of that country are as good and as law-abiding as they are anywhere else, I am convinced that it is not the condition of the schools out there which has attracted the young men to it. What has attracted immigration is the land and the great possibilities in that country, and the settler always knows that if the educational facilities do not suit him, he is at liberty to return home again. If you will take the statements issued by the land agent giving replies to the many inquiries sent to them, you will not find in any one of them any reference to the schools, separate or otherwise, which is most convincing proof that the school question has nothing to do with the influx of settlers. Let me also point out that if people are coming into that country under misrepresentations regarding the schools, then the literature issued by the Department of the Interior must be misleading because it states 3355 COMMONS   the schools out there are non- sectarian and national. In this connection, I would also draw attention to the fact that the great mass of immigration to-day is from the United States, where there are no separate schools. Therefore, the argument that certain people have come out there by virtue of representations regarding a system of separate schools, is not borne out by facts. The hon. the Minister of Finance stated that he would be quite willing to accept the views of seven out of the ten representatives coming from the Territories. Let me congratulate him and the government on their change of front, because they have not always been ready to accept these views. If they had, we would like to know whether the seven gentlemen from the Northwest Territories are responsible for this legislation, because it is generally understood that they stood out against it until it was amended. But if there are seven gentlemen from the Territories who say that the people out there are satisfied with a separate school system and want that system to be continued and are in favour of having the right to establish any system they please taken from them, let me tell you that that has not always been the case, because the hon. members from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) voted in the local legislature up there to cut out everything in the Act of 1875 after the word ' education,' which would have the effect of handing that matter entirely over to the local legislature. I would also suggest that if the government desire to feel the pulse of the people on the question, let them open up a constituency there and appeal to the electors.
I see that the hour is getting late and I do not desire to trespass too much upon the time of this House, but there are certain matters which I feel bound to bring to its attention; and if I am transgressing the time allotted a new member, I shall only have to appeal to the indulgence of the House and point to the fact that there are none but new members on the Conservative side from the Northwest Territories. There are certain other important features in this Bill to which I wish to refer. There is first the placing of the boundary line at the fourth meridian. A few days ago I called attention to a resolution passed at a public meeting in the town of Medicine Hat which pointed out the objections to this line. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) let the cat out of the bag the other day when he said he was of the opinion that the dividing line should be sixty miles further east. Thus we see the disadvantage of not having in this cabinet a representative from the west. I was accused of having indulged in ill-natured criticism the other day when I said that the minister who was in charge of the Territories should have been consulted, but I certainly did not intend to make any ill-natured reflec 3356 tion, and shall continue to call the attention of the government at every opportunity to the injustice they are inflicting on the Territories in not filling the vacant portfolio. To-day we are in this position that there is not a man in the cabinet west of the city of London, Ont., except one, and that gentleman is only half in. And the result of having no man in the cabinet charged with the supervision of the task of dividing that country has been that local interests have been allowed to prevail. The boundaries have been fixed to suit particular localities without regard to the ranching industry or anything else. It will be found, on examining the map published by the Department of the Interior, that only a very small amount of the ranching country remains to-day in the eastern province, and the danger will be that the ranching industry, which is a very important one, will not be sufficiently represented in the local House to have its interests properly looked after. That industry in the eastern province will be a mere side issue. Take, for instance, the difficulties which will probably arise out of conflicting branding laws. That may seem a very small matter to the man in the east, but it is very important to the west. The other day it was pointed out, in the discussion of an Order in Council passed by the Department of Agriculture, that 411,000 cattle, were treated under that order in an area practically abutting this dividing line. The badge of ownership to-day in that country is the brand, and the result of drawing this line and so splitting up the ranching country will be a conflict of brands. One province may or may not enact a branding law. One province may declare that cattle and horses not branded may be sold irrespective of the owner, and you will have a conflict in that way, whereas if the line went a little bit further east, where the Minister of the Interior says it should go, that difficulty would not arise and you would include practically all the ranching country in the western province.
Again, one province may adopt a free open range, while the other may make restrictions. We have the same difficulty to-day on the international boundary, although there is the same grazing country on the boundary as we have at the dividing line of the two provinces, and although we have customs officers and the mounted police who assist in keeping matters in order. Yet difficulties have always arisen. Another difficulty we are creating is that you will leave such a very little portion of the irrigated land in the eastern province that it will be hardly worth while passing legislation respecting it. While that difficulty may be got over by the provisions of the Bill under which the matters are left with the federal administration. But, if I understood the ex-Minister of the Interior 3357 MARCH 28, 1905 (Mr. Sifton) correctly, he stated that it was only for the time being that this was going to be retained, but that in time to come, after certain international difficulties had disappeared this jurisdiction would be handed back to the provinces. As the dividing line runs now the area of the two provinces will show a considerable difference. As I figure it the area of the eastern province will be 258,400 square miles and that of the western province 249,600, or a difference of 8,800 square miles. So, this line must have been crowded west for some purpose and perhaps I may be able to point out before I sit down what that was for. I desire also to call attention of the advisability of including in the new provinces the great northern country. I pointed out that no man in the west but would hope that their great expectations would be realized, yet to-day in view of what the Prime Minister has said we cannot consider that an agricultural country. I have already shown that the census of 1901 shows that the population of Athabaska was 242 white people, 2,395 half-breeds and 3,700 Indians, and 262 unspecified. Now, there may have been people who have gone in there since 1901, but there are also people who have come out. To my mind the very best evidence that there is not much permanent settlement in that country is seen in looking at the map published by the Department of the Interior only a year ago. We find that land does not appear to have been surveyed. There may have been preliminary surveys, but from the map as it stands, we do not find any township subdivisions. And a man cannot go very far wrong in saying that there will not be much permanent settlement where there is no assurance of title. Settlers do not squat to-day in advance of survey. And the conditions of the country are not such as will make the administration cheaply handled by the provincial government. It is not that the people of the new provinces are desirous of shirking the duties of administering it, but the district to the north of the provinces will be still under Dominion administration. It would cost practically very little to administer this through the Dominion government. The questions that will arise will be mainly interprovincial. Take the regulation and preservation of the fur trade, for instance. Suppose that one province establishes a certain close season for certain animals while the other does not ; and the Dominion government may have a different law with regard to the same matter further north. If the inland fisheries are handed over to the new provinces, the same difficulty is likely to arise in regard to these–there will be the same conflict of jurisdiction. I have spoken of the boundaries not having been fixed with a view to economical and efficient administration. It seems to me that political 3358 considerations have had a great deal to do with the making of the eastern boundary. If we look at the map and see the dividing line ; it will be found, if you take the Rocky Mountains out of the western province, the western province is practically a triangle with the apex at the south. And, if you look at the election returns, you will find that the south elects two Conservatives and the north two Liberals. Now, I submit, in all fairness, that considerations of this kind should not interfere when you are creating limits to provinces for all time to come. It seems to me that the fathers of confederation sat down in a spirit of give and take and tried to make a compact free from political consideration ; and I think that is an example that might well be followed. The result of making these boundaries for the western province is that the further north you go the greater the Liberal majority. And that is the reason why the line is fixed sixty miles west of where the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) thinks it ought to be.
There is only one other question I wish to refer to for a moment, and it is the selection of the provisional capital. The First Minister when he introduced the Bill stated that this was a matter that gave them some trouble, but they looked at the map and selected the centre. Well, if that is the principle that governed and they are selecting the centre, why did they not select Athabaska Landing, for that is the centre and it would be more convenient for the population of Athabaska to whom I referred a few moments ago. If he wishes to consider the convenience of the people let him take a point half way between Edmonton and any point on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and he will find in the southern portion there are constructed 980 miles of railway, and in the northern only 150 miles. I introduced the deputation from Calgary who interviewed the members of the government and asked them to select a non-competitive point as the provisional capital. They suggested the selection of Medicine Hat, Banff, Lethbridge, Macleod, Red Deer or any other point that would be near the centre of trade and the centre of population, and that would meet the convenience of the people whose business called them to the capital and the convenience of the members of the first legislature. But, for some reason, I cannot say what, the government has seen fit to select the point at the end of railway construction and away from what I hope to be able to show when the clause comes up in committee is the centre of trade and the centre of population. If it is the convenience of the people that is being considered, I would ask the First Minister to look at the map again and to look at the distribution in the local House for Alberta. In the local House there are 3359 35 representatives; 14 of these come from Alberta and of these Alberta constituencies only three, and but a small portion of these three, run north of Edmonton, while 11 are south of Edmonton. I must ask the Prime Minister to again look at the map if the convenience of the people is being consulted. But, in conclusion, let me say that I desire to congratulate the government for being original for once, because surely if the convenience of the people had been consulted in the choice of a site for the capital it would have been placed at the centre of population and trade. The government's manner of selecting a central point is an original one. The method adopted in this case would not have led the people of Ontario to select Toronto instead of Whitefish or some other point on Lake Superior, the people of Quebec to select Quebec, the people of Manitoba to select Winnipeg, or the people of British Columbia to select Victoria on Vancouver Island.
There is but one other question on which I wish to touch, that is the financial terms. I am glad in that to be able to agree with the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). It seems to me that in discussing these terms it is not fair to make comparisons with the terms of eastern provinces. The conditions are altogether different. In the west school houses and roads have to be provided, matters which are done in Ontario and Quebec by local taxation which it is practically impossible to do in that country by reason of the great distances. The financial terms in comparison with those granted to the other provinces are none too generous, and the development of that country is proceeding at such a rate that it is impossible for us to sit here and calculate what its future needs will be.
Mr. CLEMENTS moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Wednesday.


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



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

Personnes participantes: