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

As a matter of fact one of the reasons given for the refusal of the United States to recognize Canadian certificates is that in Canada there are various certificates, and the American authorities could not undertake to examine into the different associations which issue them. The natural answer was : If you will recognize Canadian national certificates, we will make our certificates national. That is one of the reasons why this movement has, attained such force.
Mr. INGRAM. Has the hon. gentleman communicated with the United States government regarding this matter of certificates and regarding also the admission of Canadian thoroughbreds free of duty ?
Mr. FISHER. The first point is with regard to the recognition of our certificates to entitle an animal to exhibition as a thoroughbred. I think that that would follow the recognition of our certificates by the customs authorities. I may say however that the United States exhibition authorities have recognized our certificates. At the St. Louis exhibition last year, animals that were registered in the herd books were accepted as thoroughbreds and allowed to compete. We could not however get free entry of those animals for sale. That is a question of customs over which the exhibition authorities have no control. They referred the matter to the customs authorities. and these authorities applied their ordinary rule which does not recognize Canadian certificates of registration. The consequence was that any animal exhibited at St. Louis had to pay the customs duty before it could be sold.
Mr. INGRAM. Am I to understand that the hon. minister made no representations to the authorities at Washington at. all ?
Mr. FISHER. We made representations to the exhibition authorities and they told us that we would have to deal with the custom authorities, but we had been already dealing with the customs authorities many years and knew exactly what they would say. They always told us they could make no change in their rules so that there was no object in appealing to them again.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


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. T. MARTIN (North Wellington). As a new member, I feel that I should apologize for taking up the time of the House after the lengthy discussion we have had on this 5083 5084 Bill. The question however is so important, more especially as the Bill before us is not only one of the very first measures that has to be considered by myself as well as other new members, but extends our confederation by the admission of new provinces, great in area and rich in future possibilities, that I think I may fairly claim the indulgence of the House while I take up its attention for a short time. I listened last night with pleasure to the speech from another young member of the House (Mr. Lalor), and while I congratulate him on the excellent address he made as his maiden effort. I was very much astonished at some of his remarks. Indeed I thought that he skated around the question very carefully ; and I noticed in the past few days an inclination among members opposite to sail all around the subject and not face it as it should be faced. I would refer, in the first place, to the speech of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) in which he challenged the government to open up a constituency in the west and appeal to the people to elect its Minister of the Interior. You will notice in that speech that he almost tells us that if the government had courage enough to place this matter before the country he would have very little objection to the Bill afterwards ; that is, if any member from the west was appointed Minister of the Interior and was elected by his constituents. I am sorry he is not in his place to-day, and I am sorry to say that that good looking young man has not been in his place since the 25th day of this month. He seems to have already commenced to think that it is time to go back on what he has said.
Mr. SCHAFFNER. Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the hon. member for Calgary had not been in his place ?
Mr. T. MARTIN. I only said that I had not seen him and I have not seen him here in the House. The hon. member for South. York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has made several speeches, one particularly, challenging the government to appoint a Minister of the Interior and to go to the country, to open any constituency in the west and elect a minister there. We find that since the 25th of this month that courageous gentleman's chair has also been vacant. I call attention to the fact that even the shepherd of the flock, the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has made some statements in this House that I think are worth calling the attention of the House to. He said :
I wish to make a proposition to the Minister of Justice which I shall ask the Minister of Finance to convey to him as he is not in his place. I suggest to the Minister of Justice that if the statements of the Minister of Finance and the ex-Mlnister of the Interior are true, he should let the lawyers on both sides of the House get together and frame an amendment in accordance .with the statements of these two gentlemen, an amendment which shall contain 5085 APRIL 28, 1905 nothing more, but which shall be put in plain language so that the man on the street may know what it means. Then, so far as I am concerned, there will be no opposition because it is a national school as both of these hon. gentlemen say, a national school with only one half hour's religious teaching between 3.30 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon. And I am sure the people of the Northwest or of Ontario, or at any other section of. the Dominion will raise no objection to that.
Mr. TAYLOR. Read further.
Mr. T. MARTIN. Then we come to the speech of my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) last night. He was very particular on four different occasions to state and he wound up his speech by stating:
When I vote in favour of the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), I am not voting against separate schools, and I want that distinctly understood.
I would say to these gentlemen that after we have spent something like six weeks on this question we would ask them to at once drop the discussion and fall in with us and make the passage of the Bill unanimous. If they want to vote for separate schools they can have all the opportunity they wish. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) also said in his speech that the leader of the government was a coward, that one of the greatest acts of cowardice that had ever been perpetrated upon this country was the apappointment of the present Minister of the Interior because he had had a large majority in the last election. I never knew that it was a crime to have a large majority in this country ; I never knew'that a man had to sit on the back benches all his life because he had a large majority, and I believe that no fairer and no wiser act could have been done under the circumstances than the premier's action in appointing as Minister of the Interior the Hon. Mr. Oliver. The hon. member also stated that he does not believe there is a more clever man in this Dominion than Premier Haultain. I believe he is correct, I presume he is. But I notice in an interview with the Toronto ' News ' that Premier Haultain when interviewed at Winnipeg spoke on this subject. The interview appears under the heading 'No Significance in Mr. Oliver's Election.' Mr. Haultain believed there was no significance, but the hon. member for Haldimand believes there was a great deal of significance. In Mr. Haultain's interview he was asked it' there was any probability of the Northwest legislature being called together to pass a resolution on the question. Mr. Haultain replied in the negative. I believe Mr. Haultain is a clever man, but I say that when the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) was challenging the Postmaster General to throw up his seat and run an election he might have gone one further and challenged Premier Haultain to call his council together and see what they 5085 5086 would say on the question. I believe Premier Haultain knows to-day that he dare not call his council together, I believe that if he called that council together he would be defeated in an attempt to pass any resolution or any measure that would be in any way against the Bill that we have now before us. I believe that there is no greater coward, that no man has shown himself the coward so much as Mr. Haultain. Mr. Haultaln has written a letter to the premier, a letter which I have in my hand, and in it you can easily see that if it were possible that he could make any political capital out of calling his legislature together, he would do so and have a resolution passed opposing this measure. He has not been able to do so, he has been afraid to attempt to do so. Therefore I fall back upon what I said in the first place that it was rather amusing when we listened to the remarks of the speakers last night how they all skated around the question, how they were trying to get some way crawl out the back door, stating in their arguments if you can call them arguments, as the member for Haldimand said : ' I am not voting against separate schools; I want that distinctly understood.'
Mr. LALOR. Are you voting for separate schools?
Mr. T. MARTIN. Now you leave me alone, I will attend to that before I get through. At the very outset I wish to take strong objection to some statements made by that member in his speech. He said :
I want to tell them there is no mutiny on this side.
It did not look like it.
The leader of the Conservative party told us both in caucus and out-
I suppose that means there would have been a mutiny if the leader had not told them so.
The leader of the Conservatiye party told us both in caucus and out to vote as our consciences dictated to us on this Bill, and that is the way we are voting on the measure.
Evidently, the leader of the opposition had reached a point where he had to tell his followers that there would have been an end to his authority. We have the evidence of half a dozen hon. members on the opposition side to prove that that is the case. And, gentlemen. I wish to go one step further and tell my hon. friend from Haldimand that he is entirely wrong when he makes this statement :
The hon. member says their consciences will not allow them to follow him. I would like to see the consciences of some members on the other side of the House who are compelled to follow the Prime Minister whether they want to or not, the men who are whipped into line, the men who have had the whip lashed over their backs, and have been brought to the centre with a round turn and made to support the 5087 COMMONS Prime Minister notwithstanding the fact that they know when they are doing so that the people who sent them to this parliament are opposed to this measure.
Now, I do not wish to make any joke of this, but to speak earnestly about it. And I say truthfully—and I challenge contradiction—that in no case, in caucus or out of caucus, in this House or out of this House, has one member of the government or one member of this House on the government side, even asked me what I intended to do on this question. Now, gentlemen, I say. that openly-
Mr. TAYLOR. I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. T. Martin) thinks he is before a country audience. He should address the Chair.
Mr. T. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, if I am out of order, I apologize and am ready at once to conform to the rule of the House. But if the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), the whip of the Conservative party, had called his freshman to order last night, I think he would have done well. It is astonishing that he, an old member of this House could sit and listen for an hour and a half to such nonsense, to such stuff, and yet, lose his head before I have been speaking fifteen minutes. It seems to me that if leniency should be shown in this House. new members should have the benefit of it. I was quite willing that all leniency should be shown to my hon, friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) even though, he did allow himself such latitude. Had he been before a country audience and made such a speech as he made last night. he would have been told a dozen times that he was very fresh.
Mr. LALOR. There is a pair of us.
Mr. T. MARTIN. We are both from the country, and I am not ashamed of the country. Now, I wish to be thoroughly understood, and I wish these words of mine to go to the country, when I say that on no occasion have I—and I believe the same is true of every hon. member on the government side of the House—been requested, even so much as requested, to vote for the Bill now in consideration.
An hon. MEMBER. Or any other Bill.
Mr. T. MARTIN. Yes, or any other Bill. I was very sorry also that the young member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) should attack so recklessly and with so little conscience that grand man the right hon. leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). The hon. member used language with reference to the Prime Minister that no young member of this House is entitled to use. The Prime Minister of this country has a record, and by that record he is to be judged. He has behind him a record of twenty- three years of publlc service, a lifetime in itself. He has a record of. never failing tolerance. He has a record of clean 5087 5088 and able administration, such a record as we have seldom had among the public men of Canada. Can any man charge the Prime Minister of this Dominion with having misused in any way a penny of the public funds? Can any man charge the Prime Minister with intolerance or with any disregard of the rights or feelings of any section of the people? I say that it is unbecoming of any young member of this House, of any man of little experience either political or parliamentary, to use such language with reference to the right hon. leader of this House as was used by the hon. member for Haldimand.
I was much pleased to hear the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) the other day quote the utterances of a Presbyterian minister and declare, as he did, that any one would accept the statement of the gentleman whose name he gave and whose words he quoted. I belong to that church myself. and I am proud of the church and of the men it has produced. Therefore, I desire to follow the hon. member for Peel and give the opinions of some members of that denomination, to show that the school system of the Northwest as it now stands is satisfactory to the people of these new provinces and that therefore, we are right in voting for this Bill. This quoting of the opinion of members of one church may seem a little sectional, but I am sure that hon. members will bear with me when they hear the names of those whose words I desire to give. First I would refer to the late Rev. Dr Robertson, and I am sure, when I mention his name, those hon. members who belong to the Presbyterian church—and I am glad to say there are a large number in this House who belong to it—and all the adherents of that church throughout the country, will receive almost as final evidence any utterance of Dr. Robertson with regard to the Northwest. Dr. Robertson became a superintendent of missions of the Presbyterian church in 1882 and continued in that work until his death in 1902. And I believe that I state only the simple truth when I say that in the twenty years of his service no man ever did more for the Northwest, or said more for the Northwest, than this great man whose name I have given. Those of us who have had the honour and pleasure of receiving him at our own firesides know that his whole conversation was of the Northwest. And those of us who have attended the courts of the church to which he belonged, know that his great theme in the courts of our church was the building up of the Northwest and the extending of religious ordinances to the people of that great country. Dr. Robertson was a broad man. Dr. Robertson was a man who could see past his own church. I have heard him say time and again that the was glad to see other churches in the Northwest, he wanted other churches to prosper, but one of his greatest 5089 APRIL 28, 1905 troubles in the Northwest was that there was an overlapping of churches. He felt that in many cases that overlapping was not doing the good it ought to do. I mention these facts to remind hon. gentlemen who did not know Dr. Robertson, but who had perhaps heard of him, that he was a broad-minded man, a man who could take a broad view of all questions. From the year 1882 to 1902, I have followed every one of Dr. Robertson's reports presented to our church. I have followed these reports for twenty years, I have carefully looked into them, I have been myself a delegate to the assemblies of the Presbyterian church and I know that Dr. Robertson's reports were full of information and dealt in the most comprehensive manner with the Northwest Territories. When I mention the fact that in all these reports I failed to find one single word in twenty years against these schools in the Northwest it should have great weight with Protestants all over this country. If there was anything wrong with these schools in 1882, would not a broad-minded man like Dr. Robertson. whose life work was in the Northwest, have mentioned it in his first report? Would he not have mentioned it in his second report, or would he not, in the twenty reports that he presented to the general assembly, have had something to say regarding that question ? I have a great many of these reports here. He gives first a general sketch of the character and resources of the country and then he goes into the question as, it appeared at that time, of the economic and social development of the Northwest and his firm belief at that time was that the west was to be one of the most important parts of our land; it was to be one of the parts of our land that would contain more people than even the grand province of Ontario. He believed the day was coming when millions would live in peace and luxury in that country. In giving his opinion on all these things he was always pressing for men and money to help on the work of the church and I am glad to say. now that that great man is gone. that he was broad minded enough to find no fault with any other church in all the reports he made to our church.
Mr. LANCASTER. May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. T. Martin) a question? Did Dr. Robertson at any time report against the provinces themselves dealing with the school question?
Mr. T. MARTIN. No, he did not.
Mr. LALOR. Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. T. Martin) aware that the Presbytery in his own county passed a resolution in condemnation of this Bill?
Mr. T. MARTIN. In my own county ?
Mr. LALOR. Part of your own county.
5089 5090
Mr. T. MARTIN. Are you sure that is the case?
Mr. LALOR I am informed so by gentlemen here.
Mr. T. MARTIN. Who are they? I would like to have those gentlemen rise and make that statement.
Mr. CHISHOLM. I had a resolution sent to me and I have a resolution here from the Presbytery of Saugeen and it stated that the resolution was to be sent to me and also to my hon. friend from North Wellington (Mr. Martin).
Mr. T. MARTIN. It so happens that I do not live in the same Presbytery as my hon. friend from East Huron (Mr. Chisholm). I know that in some Presbyteries resolutions have been passed, but the fact that he may have received the resolution to which the hon. gentleman refers does not prove that I did. We were told by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) that there was no one-
Mr. SPROULE. I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. T. Martin) will not deny that the Presbytery of Owen Sound, representing some 2,500 families-
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order, order.
Mr. T. MARTIN. I do not know it.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order. order.
Mr. SPROULE. I am in order.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
Mr. SPROULE. I am in order. Two can play that game.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. With the consent of the Speaker the hon. gentleman has the right to ask him a question.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. member (Mr. T. Martin) is living in an adjoining county to my own. As a matter of courtesy I propose to ask him a question which I think I have a perfect right to do. I wished to ask him if he was aware of the fact that the Presbytery of Owen Sound, representing 2,500 families, had passed a strong resolution in opposition to the school clause of this Bill.
Mr. A. JOHNSTON. Write us a letter about it.
Mr. T. MARTIN. I was not aware of it. I have no doubt it is true. I have noticed in the papers that several Presbyteries have done so, but I do not live in the Presbytery of Owen Sound. I live in the Presbytery of Saugeen. It was stated by the hon. member for Haldimand last night that the people of the Northwest Territories were very much apposed to the school clause in the Bill. I have a letter here. dated April 5091 COMMONS 28, from a gentleman in Regina and I have also another letter dated April 18, from another gentleman living in the Northwest Territories. I think it might be well to give quotations from these letters just to put that hon. gentleman right in this respect. One of these letters states:
As far as the people out here are concerned, there is very general satisfaction with the Bill in all particulars, and I presume we ought to be the ones who are most directly interested and know best about it.
The other letter says:
All here are satisfied with the school clause 1n the Autonomy Bill, even Conservatives are finding very little fault.
These letters are from gentlemen who have been living in the Northwest for twenty-two years, two prominent men in the Territories. I would also read a further extract for the benefit of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in regard to a matter upon which he seemed to be a little misty last night. I refer to the question of school books. The writer of this letter says:
We sell the same books to both schools.
This is a long letter and I need not read it all through as it would only be taking up the time of the House. But, he incidentally mentions in this letter that they sell to both parties the same school books. I trust that that will set at rest the mind of the hon. member for East Grey, and that he will be able to keep his seat now until I get through. I was very glad also to hear from the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor). He stated—I think I have his words here exactly—that there was no more independent paper in Canada than the 'Witness,' that it was a very independent paper. I have the 'Witness' here.
Mr. LALOR. I did not make that statement. I never mentioned the 'Witness.'
Mr. T. MARTIN. The Montreal 'Witness'
Mr. LALOR. I never mentioned it at all.
Mr. T. MARTIN. What paper did you mention ?
Mr. LALOR. The 'Farmers' Sun.'
An hon. MEMBER. Oh.
Mr. LALOR. 'Hansard' shows it. Read 'Hansard.'
Mr. T. MARTIN. I think I heard every word that was said. I think he mentioned the ' Witness ' also. However, I will take that back. I do not want to use the hon. gentleman's words in a way that should not be done, but I will read an extract from the 'Witness.' I know that the people of western Ontario believe that the 5091 5092 'Witness' is as reliable a paper from a Protestant standpoint as we have in Canada. It is an old established paper and it seems to have run in a very independent course for many years. This paper is dated April 25th. A clergyman writing to the paper on the school question says this:
To the editor of the 'Witness ' :
Sir,—As a reader of the ' Witness ' from boyhood I am very much surprised at your attitude on the Autonomy Bill. You seem to think that too much stress is being laid on provincialism by us in Ontario.
Well, I am afraid there has been, and I think that some of the members of the opposition in this House, when they look over their speeches a couple of years hence will come to the conclusion that they have gone too far in that direction. The letter continues :
Yet who were they who refused to enter into legislative union at confederation, and insisted on a federal union ? Who were the ones who at that time demanded provincial rights in certain matters, of which education was one ? The Roman Catholics of Quebec were the opponents then of a legislative union. They were then advocates of provincialism, but what they claimed for themselves at that time they now are unwilling to grant the people of the west.
No, Mr. Editor, the people of Ontario are true to the principles of confederation. It is the people of Quebec who have gone back on their principles. To my mind there has been no more audacious and treacherous act in our history than the attempt to fasten separate schools upon the west. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as a faithful child of the Roman Catholic church, has determined before he retires from public life to do all he can for his church.
We do not want a second Quebec in this Dominion. One 'solid Quebec' is sufficient.
For this reason I am extremely sorry to find that the 'Witness' is not on the side of the freedom and liberties of the people on this occasion.
The editor of the ' Witness replies to that letter in an article headed 'Is it treachcry,' and he says:
That it was the Roman Catholics who opposed a legislative union when the provinces of British North America came together, and insisted not only on a provincial autonomy for Quebec, but demanded that the interests of education should be under provincial jurisdiction ; so that it is they, and not the people of Ontario, who have gone back on the principles of confederation ; what they then claimed for themselves they are now unwilling to grant to the people of the west. Is this quite fair to them ? They certainly did demand to control their own educational system through the provincial government, but they did not claim to control the education of the minority. The minority was to control its own educational system and has always done so. The majority would probably have acted rightly by the minority, even if they had been free to ac otherwise, but at confederation the minority demanded that their educational freedom should be guaranteed by the national compact, and so it was. Now when new provinces are being created the Roman Catholics ask for the minorities there, what 5093 APRIL 28, 1905 the minority here enjoys, namely, control by constitutional right of its own education. No doubt the two systems are different in character. The one is sectarian and sectionalizing and estranging ; the other is unsectarian and uniting. The latter is without question, in our mind, the best ; but our neighbours conscien~ tiously take a distinctly opposite view. Each part of the community would prefer that, its own system should be universal, but we can scarcely imagine how the minority of this province would feel or act if the system of the majority was forced upon it. The Protestants of Quebec would say that their religious liberty was invaded and would probably rise in revolt against such despotism. Determined to have their own conscientious convictions respected, they cannot but respect the convictions of their neighbours, however much they may deplore them.
What our correspondent asks is, that the majority in the new provinces should have the determination of all school questions absolutely in their hands. Our belief is that they would use such a power in a way as liberal to the minority as the Autonomy Act proposes. In fact what is proposed is to extend the system which has been brought into shape under local legislation.
I would like the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) to take note of that because he seems to be doubtful on that question. I am sure that if his mind is clear on that point, he will do as he promised in his speech and vote for the Bill. He is now not only getting the views of members on this side of the House. but he can take his authority from the editor of the Montreal ' Witness.'
But we cannot blame the minority for wanting to have the minority right constitutionally guaranteed, as that of the Protestants is in Quebec, nor can we think that for proposing to give them this security, a premier who is seeking only to be true and fair to all should be spoken of as guilty of the most audacious and treacherous act in our history.
That statement ought to be of some value to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) and I will read it again.
Nor can we think that for proposing to give them this security a premier who is seeking only to be true and fair to all should be spoken of as guilty of the most audacious and treacher~ one act in our history.
I do earnestly hope that when we see the very best amongst the newspapers of our country taking up the question in this way, the members of the opposition in this House will become more tolerant; they will show more respect for the minority in this country, and that they will not try to inflame the public mind into outbursts of passion between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I have been one of those who lived amongst Catholics all my life; I have Catholic neighbours on all sides of me; by jumping over the fence I can get into the field of a Catholic, and I can say this, and there are members of the opposition here who know it is true; we have lived together like friends, we have lived together like 5093 5094 brethren, and I ask : cannot we be allowed to continue to live in that way? Cannot the minority be allowed to have religious teaching in their schools as they have in Ontario, without anybody being the worse for it? I have lived in my township for 48 years and I cannot see Where any Protestant has lost one iota because there are two separate schools in that township. 1 appeal to the members of the opposition in this House to come down to fair-play. I appeal to them to leave this intolerance aside and to frown upon the injustice perpetrated in this paper before me which contains the most scandalous cartoons which ever appeared in print. Let the incidents of the past couple of months he blotted out for ever, and let us as members of this legislature show that we at least are possessed of a good deal of common sense and that we have the spirit of fair-play and of wisdom about us. Let us not endorse the unjust warfare that the Toronto ' News' has indulged in for some time past with its tremendous headings : ' A free west, a Common school, provincial rights, religious equality.' The idea conveyed by these headings is a false one. Who can deny that there is a free west, and who can deny that there are not common schools in the west ? Where is the evidence that provincial rights are infringed upon ? Are we infringing upon provincial rights before they have a province? We must create a province before they can have provincial rights, and I guarantee the members of this House that so far as I am concerned, that after the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are created on the first day of July next, if there is any attempt to take away their rights, I shall be the first to jump up and defend provincial rights. But how can we defend provincial rights until they are provinces ? The ' Witness ' continues to say :
We should like to ask our correspondent to put to himself one question. Let him imagine, if he can, that the present prospect was that of a large Roman Catholic majority in one of these provinces, and of a large Mormon majo[r]ity in the other, and then ask himself if, under such an outlook, he would be-quite as sure as he is that the constitution guarantee those majorities the right to legislate with regard to education just as they might like, and would be be quite as sure as he is that they ought to have that unlimited power. If he finds his mind revolt against giving absolute power to the provinces in such a case, he will be able to see the attitude of mind of those who are demanding that some limit be placed on possible majority despotism. Practically the system of schools which prevails in the provinces, and which it is proposed to perpetuate, seems to us an excellent one.
I think these words are particularly applicable to the members of the oppos1tion. They never have seemed to realize that fact, and if they will not take the word of the Prime Minister for it. if they will not take the word of any member of the government, 5095 COMMONS surely they will take the word of a newspaper like the Montreal 'Witness' which as an independent paper has stood up for Protestantism ever since it was first published. Surely we can give these gentlemen the credit of being fairly good men ; and surely we can claim that we are not straining our conscience when we have the pleasure of voting for the Bill now before the House. This paper goes on to say :
Schools are necessarily carried on and managed by the local majority. What is guaranteed is, first, that religious teaching shall not invade the hours of general study ; and, second, that if any religious minority feels dissatisfied with majority management, it shall be free to have a school under its own management, but that such school shall be required to come up to the same standard of teaching and be under the same limitations. This is of course a guarantee for Protestant minorities as well as for Roman Catholic ones.
I believe that is an article well worth studying and considering.
Mr. GUNN. Will the hon. member give us the date of that paper ?
Mr. T. MARTIN. I will give you the paper itself ; but I would rather you would not read it while I am speaking. There is another point I wish to refer to. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) made a rather mean insinuation about the interference of the Papal ablegate. I know that that has been part of the stock-in-trade of the opposition—to try to fix upon the premier that by some means he had mentioned the matter to the Papal ablegate, or that the Papal ablegate had mentioned the matter to him.
Mr. LALOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has again misstated. I never insinuated that the premier had an interview with the Papal ablegate. I said that the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) had made insinuations from which we inferred-
Mr. T. MARTIN. I did not say that. The hon. gentleman should not put words in my mouth. I said that he had referred to the Papal ablegate, and so he did ; and not only the hon. member for Haldimand, but other members of the opposition have attempted to drag his name into this discussion. While I believe there is no warrant for that, still, as a citizen of the province of Ontario, I do not suppose it would be out of place for me to call the attention of the House to some dealings of governments with Protestant ministers. I propose to mention to the House certain facts in our provincial history, and in doing so I am not breaking any confidence. I am able to state that the late Sir Oliver Mowat more than once consulted eminent divines in my own church. I do not say that he did not consult divines of other churches, but I am going to speak particularly of my own church, and then perhaps people cannot find 5095 5096 so much fault with me. It is well known that the late Principal Caven, head of Knox Theological College in Toronto, stood very near to Sir Oliver Mowat, and was frequently consulted by him, and that on matters pertaining to the state. It is also a matter of history, as stated in the life of the late Principal Grant, the head of another Presbyterian college. written by his own son, that he was invited by Sir Oliver Mowat to take a seat in his cabinet as Minister of Education. That was somewhere in the early eighties. There is nothing private about that ; but the conclusion I wish to draw from it is this. If the present premier, or any other Liberal premier, dared in the same way to consult with any clergyman of the Catholic Church, what an enormous uproar would be raised in this House, and also, I am sorry to say, in some parts of the province of Ontario. We know that a great deal of the present excitement and intolerance is batched in the city of Toronto, and it is sent broadcast by some of our daily papers, by means, not only of large headlines, but also by scandalous and shameful cartoons, which the best press of our country should be ashamed of and will be ashamed of five or ten years hence. I have it from pretty good authority—if I am wrong I will stand corrected—that another Presbyterian divine. Dr. Pringle, of the Yukon, when he was in Ottawa, was consulted, or at least conversed with, by the right hon. leader of the government about the affairs of the Yukon ; and as the hon. leader of the opposition yesterday left it open to me to propose some one who would make a first-class Governor of the Yukon. I believe Dr. Pringle would be a good man to fill that position.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much more of the time of the House. The educational clauses in the Bill are of a very interesting and important character, and no doubt that is why there has been so little discussion of the other clauses. The constitutional question I do not propose to discuss. Like the speaker who preceded me, the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor), I do not belong to the legal profession, and therefore shall leave constitutional points to be discussed by men who are versed in legal science. I believe, however, that laymen are quite capable of judging from the speeches we have had in this House who has had the best of the argument ; and I am sure that there is no man in this House, who wishes to express an opinion consistent with his own conscience and who is not tied down by the leader of his party, who will say that the weight of the argument on the constitutional question has not been on the government side. Let me also say that I stand up for provincial rights ; and if we want more evidence that we are doing so than the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) gave us last night, then we are pretty hard to please. I believe he proved 5097 APRIL 28, 1905 conclusively that we are on the side of provincial rights. and I shall not attempt therefore to add anything to what he has said.
A public school system is no doubt an agent in the promoting of unity among our settlers, but there is another side to be considered. As I have said before, I belong to a church which has exerted itself to create a religious sentiment in the west, and I have given you from leading men in that church evidence to show that the schools, as they are now constituted in the west, are satisfactory to the people belonging to that church. For twenty years—and to that fact we should attach a great deal of weight—the man who took such an interest in education in the Northwest, Dr. Robertson, never said a word against the school system as it existed there in 1882. And if we read through the ordinances, we cannot but help coming to the conclusion that. from a Protestant standpoint, these schools are very lunch nearer a national system than they were even at that date.
Mr. BLAIN. Wonld the hon. gentleman be good enough to give to the House the name of any leading Presbyterian minister who has endorse this Bill ?
Mr. D. D. MCKENZIE. Is the hon. gentleman looking for a living Presbyterian? I am alive and I am one.
Mr. T. MARTIN. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that he cannot get one out of ten Presbyterians who is not in favour of the Bill. I have a number of letters in my desk from Presbyterian ministers which, if they were not private, I would read to the House, in support of the Bill ; and if the hon. gentleman thinks I am not stating what is true, I shall let him read them. I have also letters from Presbyterian ministers which I have been authorized to show to the right hon. the First Minister, in which they state they are heartily in sympathy with him on the school question. There is not one Presbyterian out of ten in the province of Ontario who will not stand up in favour of this measure. For the benefit of my hon. friend I may also state that these letters—and I have more if I wished to read them—are from members of the Presbyterian church—and not only members but elders. For my part, I cannot resent any one's desire to have his religious views taught to his children just as etiiciently as arithmetic or geography. I am one of those who believe in having rellgion taught in the schools, and I would say in all earnestnes that if forty per cent of the Dominion- or forty—one per cent to be more accurate- instead of wishing to have religion taught in the schools were in favour of ostracising religion from our schools—if forty per cent of the province of Ontario or of the Dominion were in that state of mind that they wanted their children to go to Godless schools, I would say: God help the parents ! But because forty-one per cent of our people 5097 5098 are asking for separate schools in order that they may have their children taught their religion in those schools—and we know that unfortunately Protestants and Catholics cannot teach their respective religions together—I shall not be the one to raise my voice and hand against granting their wish. I say further, with all earnestness, that I trust the time is coming when the Protestants will unite and also plead for more religion to be taught in the schools. As we grow up in years, we see the other side of life and a great deal of it ; and I tell you gentlemen it is a very serious thing, when we are raising our families, to know that they are not being raised in the fear of God. If we are to have good citizens and a great country, surely we must remember that righteousness exalteth a nation. But how can we have righteousness, if it is not taught to our children at every opportunity? I come from Scotland, where, in many of our schools, there was but very little taught besides the Bible and the Presbyterian Catechism, and I have yet to meet a Scotchman who is ashamed of himself and his education. Where will you find men better educated than the Scotchmen ? I come from that country, and I feel that, as noble sons of Canada, we should imbue into our school system a little more religion. Perhaps our boys and girls might not have such an education as they otherwise would in some other things, but we know that the teaching of the Bible will impart to them a moral training which no other teaching can give. It gives them a training such as no other book can give. Why should we, a lot of intelligent men, spend weeks and weeks in this House discussing the question of whether we should try to deprive forty per cent of our people of the privilege of having religion taught in their schools if they wish it ? I am speaking as a citizen of Canada and a member of parliament from the province of Ontario representing a constituency which I do not believe is equalled by half a dozen other constituencies in this Dominion. We have not only a country of which we are proud, we have not only land that cannot be beaten on the face of the earth for the production of the best articles of human food, but we have also a class of farmers in the county of Wellington who are known from end to end of this country. It is a pleasure to visit the homes of the farmers of Wellington county and to go about their houses and their farms. Their farms would stand comparison with some of the best farms in Midlothian, in Scotland ; I have the honour of representing such a class of people, intelligent men, tolerant men, and a great majority of them Protestants, and I am not afraid to take the stand I have taken in this House. Or if the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) with all his challenges wishes to come up some night or some day I will see that the largest build 5099 COMMONS ing in my riding is obtained for the purpose of a meeting. I will give him all the time he wishes, and I will see that the meeting is well advertised. I shall go there although I am only one of the members of this House, only a country member and I shall put my case before my people myself and he may put his case as he likes ; he may take under his arm all these cartoons that have been in his paper and hang them around the walls ; he may take all the inflammatory articles that have appeared in his paper and distribute them among the people. But I am not afraid to go up there and lay the whole case before my people and I know what the verdict will be. I know that nine-tenths of the people will back me up in the position which I have taken to-day and in the vote which I intend to give.
I sympathize with the determination to have separate schools in some form, and since that determination exists we must consider well the question whether it is fair to tax minorities for public schools which they do not use. To create such a grievance would divide rather than unite the elements of our population. We have been told very often in this House that the best system would be for the children to be brought up together, but under our present circumstances is it not true also that we would thus divide rather than unite the elements of population ? Of course it may be said, I hope it will not prove true, that the provinces could continue the privileges for which this Bill provides. I quite understand that the provinces might do that, but we can easily understand why minorities should be eager that the constitutional guarantee which only federal legislation can give, should be established.
In conclusion, I wish to say a word in favour of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in addition to what I have already said. Can we find evidence of one instance—I know we hear the charges—but can we find evidence to show that in any case the right hon. gentleman has ever given himself away to the church to which he belongs ? I have already spoken of Sir Oliver Mowat even asking a Presbyterian minister to join his cabinet, and I would say that I believe there are very few men who have ever sat in parliament who have kept themselves freer from such a course as the premier is charged with than that right hon. gentleman has done. Let me remind the House of the patriotism of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) what a true patriot he has been to this Canada of ours, what a broad-minded far-seeing statesman, and yet we find hon. members of this House abusing him in such a manner as did the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) last night. I am glad that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has been tolerant in his remarks. It is a credit to him, but I am sorry he has not 5099 5100 been able to vote for the question, and to induce his followers to be a little more tolerant in their remarks. Such inciting and inflammatory articles as we have seen in their press, such inciting and inflammatory speeches as we have heard from opposition members in this House cannot be of benefit to this Dominion. I deplore the use of such language in this country, I regret that we have men in Canada who will come to parliament and raise their voices in such an intolerant way against the Roman Catholics of this country and in opposition to their having the schools which they wish to have. I would urge them to for ever drop such a course, to be tolerant and instead of raising these flames of religious prejudice and cries of religious inequality, to help on the good work which our great premier has carried on with such great success, the unification of the people of this Dominion.
Mr. P. ELSON (East Middlesex). Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on this very important question, the Autonomy Bill, I wish to say to the House that I shall be very brief and shall not weary the members by a long speech. Neither do I intend to allude to any extent to the remarks which have been made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. 1 know that at this late stage in the debate it is difficult to bring forward anything new that would be of interest to the House, and therefore I shall be very brief, but at the same time I shall advance a few ideas of my own. Being as I am, a native born Canadian. there is no portion of the face of the earth in which I feel so much interest as in that portion which is bounded by the outward boundaries of the Dominion of Canada. There are no people who live and move and have their being upon the face of the globe, in whom I feel so much interest as in those persons who are Canadians and who at least live on Canadian soil. We have in our country a very great variety of most valuable natural resources, which have been given us by the bountiful hand of a bountiful Giver ; and upon these resources and with these resources, it is altogether likely a great nation will be built up in the Dominion of Canada. Now. Sir, it is the duty of the government of the day, in connection with the people of the country, to develop these resources as quickly and as reasonably as we can. Most certainly, Sir, do I feel it to be the duty of the government to so govern the people that contentment will rest on their minds. To so govern the people that—Mr. Speaker, I cannot find words to convey the meaning I desire to convey to the House unless I am permitted to use a few of those words which you so reverently read on every occasion when you open the sitting of this House, and when you pray. That the deliberations of the three branches of the 5101 April 28, 1905 federal parliament shall be such and shall have such effect that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety shall be established amongst us for all generations.
Now, Sir, I feel that these words apply, not only to the hon. members of the House, and to the hon. members of the Senate of Canada, and to His Excellency the Governor General, but also to the masses of the people. I hope that these words will apply to those people who are residents or who may hereafter become residents of that portion of the Northwest Territories which are about to blossom forth into two fine provinces known as Alberta and Saskatchewan. ' Peace and happiness ;' it is indeed difficult for me to explain really the meaning of those words. And yet, happiness is something that we are all seeking after, that we are all trying to grasp, something we are endeavouring to obtain as much of as we can before we shuffle off this mortal coil. And how can we expect to obtain this boon ? Will it come to us of itself ? Will it come to us spontaneously? Will it flow upon us like a river and envelop us ? No, Sir, it will not come that way. It will not come except by preparation on our part, by elfort on our part, to cultivate a social, friendly feeling between ourselves and those persons with whom we are brought in contact. And when ought we to begin to cultivate this friendly feeling ? Is it When we reach the middle years of life ? Is it when we are on the downward incline? No, I hold that that is not the time—though perhaps better late than never. I hold that the right time for us to cultivate, that, friendly, social feeling which ought to exist between the people of our country is when we are young, when our hearts are susceptible to good impressions. And there is no place in my opinion better than the public school for boys to become acquainted with one another and to cultivate that feeling of friendliness and sociability that it is so desirable to have amongst neighbours and citizens of the same country.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will pardon me if for a moment I allude to my own experience as a boy in the public schools, because, Sir, sometimes the experience of one person may be taken as a type of the experience of thousands. When I attended the public schools as a boy, a son of Protestant parents, I met there boys of about my own age who were sons of Roman Catholic parents. These boys whom I met were strictly taught in the religious faith of their parents, the Roman Catholic faith. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say, I am delighted to say that I formed an attachment for those boys and they for me. We became very agreeable and friendly towards one another. We sat in the same classes, we helped each other with our lessons, we played together upon the old school-house green with the 5101 5102 joyful hilarity which is one of the greatest possessions of boyhood. And I am delighted to be able to say that that same pleasant feeling continued between myself and the friends I made at school. When we reached the years of manhood and dealt together in various ways, it was always with a degree of confidence in one another and in a friendly, social spirit. And that feeling lasts with us up to the present time, and I am satisfied that it will continue so long as we live. Now, suppose there had been a separate school in that particular school section to which I belonged, and in which I attended school. Had that been the case, no doubt these friends of mine would have attended the separate school and I would have attended the public school. Possibly we might never have become acquainted at all. Or, we might have known one another simply as living in the same school section two or three miles apart—for I speak of rural schools altogether—and perhaps we might be a little acquainted. When we met each other on the country road it would be a cool nod of the head on the part of one and a formal 'good morning ; ' and a cold nod of the head on the other side and an equally formal ' How do you do '—and that would be all the friendliness between us. There would not be the social feeling and pleasantness that ought to exist between people of the same neighbourhood. And possibly this breaking up of interests might have led to mutual distrust and to a feeling on the part of each that the other was only waiting an opportunity to do him an injury. But feelings like this should not exist ; and therefore, I hold that the public school is the place in which to bring the people of the rising generation together. I believe that when boys are brought up in the public school together they become acquainted with one another and there is a warm friendliness and sociability such as ought to exist between them. And so, when they meet each other on the country road there is a warm grasp of the hand and a ' John how do you do ? ' And an answering hand clasp with the warm greeting. ' Charley, I I am glad to meet you.' I hold that the separate school creates discord and irritation and unfriendliness, and that it strikes a blow at the very foundation of the public school which has for its object the uniting together of the rising generation. The public school seems to harmonize, to a certain extent, the minds of the rising generation. and rubs off the rough edges of all classes, races and creeds. Attending the same school, they feel that they know one another, and they march along together, as it were, a united body of men, each perhaps having his own views with regard to religion,—which is rlght enough—but of one mind in doing the best they can for themselves and for the building up of Canada as a great nation.
Therefore, I hold that the public school is the right school for this country. However, Mr. Speaker. I believe that every school, as far as religious instruction is concerned, should open with the Lord's prayer. Further than that I feel that the instruction should be continued to secular teaching. The home, the Sunday school and the church are the proper places for moral and religious instruction. When children go to Sunday school or church, their minds are more in accord with the object that they are trying to attain, they are more ready to accept religious instruction than they would be in a public or a separate school from which they are anxious to get away home just as fast as they can. So I say that religious instruction should very largely be confined to the home, the Sunday school and the church. of course, as I said before. Opening the school with the Lord's prayer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. first Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) introduced this very important measure on the 21st February, he did so in a very able speech. It was a speech that attracted the attention of every person within hearing distance and more than that, judging from the vast number of petitions which have come in from all parts of the country against certain clauses in the Autonomy Bill, it was a speech that attracted the attention of all readers of newspapers in all parts of the country. When the right hon. First Minister spoke on the land question it struck me that perhaps it was not right that the federal government should withhold the land from the provinces and give them in lieu a certain sum of money. I felt that way, and after my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) had delivered his speech, which was certainly a most able and argumentative speech on the land question, and after he had brought forward some excellent precedents to show that when provinces are created out of these Territories the land should pass within the control of those provinces, I felt more firmly convinced that the land ought to go to the provinces and be placed under their particular control. When the right hon. First Minister spoke on the educational clauses of the Bill, I noticed that he based his argument very largely upon the utterances of the late Hon. Geo. Brown. He said that Hon. Geo. Brown had said that once separate schools were introduced into the Territories then separate schools for the future ; once separate schools were introduced then separate schools for all time. Well, no doubt, the Hon. Geo. Brown said that, but Hon. Geo. Brown on the other hand fought very strongly for many years against the establishment of separate schools. He did his very best against separate schools, but when it came down to the time of confederation he ceased his agitation against them. Why did he do that ? It was in order that he 5103 5104 might do his part to bring about the great scheme of confederation. He felt that it was his duty to cease his agitation against separate schools for the sake of confederation, but at the same time his parting shot when he ceased his agitation was that he was still opposed to separate schools and that he would always be opposed to separate schools. Mr. Brown more than once said, in presenting his arguments, that separate schools had a tendency to separate the people, that they created a dual system of schools which was very expensive indeed to the people especially in rural school sections and taking it all round—no doubt his arguments are quite familiar to the house- he was entirely opposed to the separate school system. I think when the right hon. reader of the government placed so much confidence in the assertion of Hon. Geo. Brown when he said once separate schools always separate schools. certainly he ought to have kept in mind the assertion of Mr. Brown when he said he was opposed to separate schools on the ground that they would be an injury to the country and that they were not equal to the public school system. Therefore, if the right hon. leader of the government believed Hon. Geo. Brown in both of these utterances. the only thing he could do was to leave the matter to the new provinces to deal with.
The late Hon. Geo. Brown also said that if the Roman Catholics were allowed separate schools all other Protestant bodies would have the right to separate schools, the Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists and all other sects, and he argued very strongly upon the fact that all others would have the right to separate schools and of course tangle up the country in a way that would be very bad for it. That would include a great many other sects, for instance the Galicians, Doukhohors, Mennonites, Mormons and many others. Now, we will just deal with the Mormons for a moment. I will endeavour to show that there is likely to be a very great influx of the Mormon people into the Northwest Territories and I will then endeavour to show that the separate school clauses in the Autonomy Bill would be an advantage to the Mormon people which is something that I think ought not to be given. We take from a very reliable paper that is published in Ontario the following :
The report which comes from Toronto that the Cochrane ranch in Alberta has been sold to President Smith of the Mormon church in Utah will not be received with surprise by Canadians generally, but it is apt to create a feeling of concern as to whether the embarrassing question with which the American people are wrestling is to be transferred to the Dominion. The Cochrane ranch comprises 66,500 acres in one great block, and would admit the settlement upon it of four hundred and fifteen families, giving to each family a homestead of a hundred and sixty acres. This would mean a population 5105 APRIL 28, 1905 of from two thousand to two thousand five hundred souls or more, settled upon some of the best land in western Canada and so powerfully entrenched by reason of their numbers and possessions that they could to all intents and purposes practice what customs they chose and could propagate with impunity their opinions among their neighbours. That is what a large and compact colony of any people, distinctive in their customs and habits, means in the Canadian Northwest, and that is what such a settlement of the Mormons means.
That the Mormon people are thrifty, industrious, and, from their own point of view, moral, it would be impossible to deny. They are intelligent, and, with the exception that they venture on active proselytizing, they attend to their own affairs, and do not interfere with their neighbours. That they would quickly make any district in which they settled, in the west, one of the most prosperous in the Dominion, may be taken for granted. The question, however, remains whether the people of this country are prepared to accept the Mormons on their own guarantee that they will abstain from the practice of polygamy and other customs which have attracted hostility in the United States and which are regarded with equal abhorrence in this country. It is a question which demands consideration whether the frugality, the industry and the general intelligence of the Mormons, should they come to this country, would in the opinion of Canadians, counterbalance any unlawful customs to which they are addicted or any opinions which are not in accord with the views of the people at large.
Now, we take up the Toronto 'Globe' of April 3, which also alludes to something of the same kind:
Mormons in Alberta.
Joseph Smith purchases tract of land there. Will divide it into small farms and colonize it with chosen people from Utah—Latter Day Saints' movement to Illinois.
(Associated Press Despatch.)
Butte, Montana, April 2.—Joseph Smith, head of the Mormon church, has bought 67,000 acres of land in Alberta and proposes to establish a colony of Mormons. The price paid was about $400,000.
The plan is to divide the tract into small farms to be settled upon by Mormon colonists from Utah and elsewhere. Although the deal has been closed, the Mormons are not expected to take possession until late this fall or early next year. They will raise crops this season at their old homes.
I quote the following from a reliable paper of long standing published in New York :
The Mormon Revival.
The question of secular or parochial schools is not the only religious difficulty confronting the new provinces of the Canadian Northwest. That region, like the United States and Mexico, has its Mormon problem. Within the past five years thousands of Mormons have migrated to Alberta from the United States and Europe, and one-third of them are said to be polygamists. Prosecutions have been begun against a number of these people at Raymond, with the avowed intention of making them give up polygamy or leave the country. The Mormon element is so 5105 5106 numerous that it is expected to control two seats in the Alberta legislature, and the experience of Idaho shows what may be expected when the saints once get into politics. In Utah the church is displaying an arrogance that recalls the days of Brigham Young.
There is evidence that there is likely to be a very large influx of Mormons into our Canadian Northwest, and it is my purpose to show that the separate school clauses of the present Autonomy Bill would give them a privilege which I feel they ought not to have. We have no objection to the Mormon people personally, but we do object to some features of their religious belief, and we ought to guard against the privilege they would have under this Bill of inculcating that religious belief in the minds of children in our schools. We will suppose that there is a rural school section in the west, in which the majority is composed of Roman Catholics who ask for and obtain a separate school. Then there is a Protestant minority, the greater number of whom are of the Mormon persuasion, and who for school purposes would come under the head of Protestants. Suppose there are ten families of Mormons in that school section, one family of Anglicans, one family of Presbyterians, one family of Methodists and one family of Baptists ; the Mormons will be in the majority and they will elect as a board three trustees of their own religious belief who in turn will engage a Mormon teacher. The school opens in the morning at nine o'clock, let us hope with the reading of the Lord's Prayer, and the teaching goes on to half-past three when the religious instruction privilege comes in. Now Mr. Speaker, I would ask you what kind of religious instruction is likely to be given in that school which is controlled by a Mormon board. We find by the ordinances of the Northwest Territories that:
The board means the board of trustees of any district.
And in section 137 we find:
No religious instruction except as hereinafter provided shall be permitted in the school of any district from the opening of such school until half an hour previous to its closing in the afternoon ; after which time any such instruction permitted or desired by the board may be given.
I ask hon. gentlemen to mark these words. I contend that the board would have the power to decide what kind of religious instruction should be given, and in the case I mention that board would be composed of Mormons. I believe they would not be open and above board in the matter as the Roman Catholics or Protestants would be, but you know how the Mormons make their proselytes or converts and that they do so in a quiet, subtle, under cover kind of way- There is not the slightest doubt that the teacher in such a school, backed up by the trustees and by the Mormon majority would have a very great personal influence in inculcating in the minds of the children the religious tenets of the Mormon people. It may be said: What of it ? They could not practice polygamy under our Dominion laws. True enough, and we are glad they cannot, but they might influence a Protestant boy or two, a Methodist boy or two, a Presbyterian boy or two, an Anglican boy or two, a Baptist boy or two, to begin to believe in the precepts of the Mormon doctrine, and although they could not practise polygamy in the Dominion of Canada they could go to Utah, or Salt Lake City, and there become followers of the late Brigham Young and Joe Smith. I am sure that the members of this House would not be inclined to allow anything of that kind, and that being so we should have the school clauses so carefully framed that the Mormons would not be able to avail of them for their own ends. It would be no credit to us as Canadians if we should raise up young men here to go off as recruits to that Mormon population in the United States which has caused so much trouble, and which has actually become so strong as to send a representative to the House of Congress. I am glad to say that the members of congress, as would no doubt the members of this House under similar circumstances, did not feel comfortable in having such a member sitting with them, and excluded him from that body. But, it behooves us to be careful in Canada because already we find that one of these newspapers has said that the Mormons are likely to control two seats in the legislative assembly of Alberta, and it may not be many years before they might send a representative to the Canadian House of Commons. I feel that there should be no privilege given to the Mormons under the school laws which would tend to strengthen them in these practises which are so repulsive to the vast majority of the people of this country. I feel that any Canadian government, whether Conservative or Reform, would blush to think that they would even turn the key that would open the door that would permit the Mormons to teach their doctiine in separate schools. I believe that every hon. gentleman on the government side of the House and on the opposition side of the House too; I believe that the First Minister and the hon. gentlemen who sit with him on the treasury benches will agree with me when I say: It is a glorious thing for any man to have one good helpmate through life, and that one good helpmate is quite sufficient to take the best possible care of any one respectable man in the Dominion of Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. KENNEDY. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Elston) has read one clause from the 5106 5106 school ordinance, but I would ask him to read the succeeding clause which qualifies it.
Mr. ELSON. A great deal has been said in this debate with regard to standing on the rock of the constitution, I believe in that. I believe it is right to stand on the rock of the constitution in this Autonomy Bill, but there seems to be some uncertainty as to the power that the federal government has under the constitution. Some members have suggested that it would be well to submit this measure to the Privy Council in England so that we might learn just what powers we have in granting this Autonomy, and I believe myself that would be a wise course for us to take.
I think it was the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) who said that we should look at the spirit of the constitution rather than the letter of the constitution. I have noticed, in my limited experience, that when men get into difficulty and become entangled in the law, they find before they get out of it that the law is carried out to the very letter rather than in the spirit, especially when their treasury is considerably depleted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned, I stand as firm as a rock against separate schools. I hold that the public school, the national school, is the right school for this country. Of course, as the separate school is established in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we must be satisfied with it ; I am not complaining of that. But I feel that it is the duty of both Protestants and Roman Catholics to be united as much as possible in friendly intercourse, each enjoying his own religious beliefs, and moving on together with the one great object of building up a great nation in the Dominion of Canada.
In conclusion, I am in favour of giving the Northwest autonomy. If the right hon. the First Minister will not delay this measure until we can obtain the information, which I am sure many members on the government side of the House, as well as many on the opposition side, would like to have from the highest authority, then we shall have to vote on the Bill when the proper time comes. In giving autonomy to the people of the Territories, I believe in giving them full autonomy. Let them have self-government, not only in the matter of their municipal affairs, but in the management of their public lands and in the control and management of their educational system. It is my intention to support the amendment put forward by the hon. leader of the opposition. I feel strong on the question of provincial rights. I believe in equal rights to all and special favours to none. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for so kindly using your influence in keeping such splendid order in the House, and, through you, I want to thank the hon. members of the House for the kind attention they have given to my remarks.
5109 April 28, 1905
Mr. J. B. BLACK (Hants). Mr. Speaker, I had intended to give a silent vote on this question ; but I have found that outside of this parliament there are existent and rampant such erroneous and false ideas regarding the school clause and the class of schools now in the Territories, that I find it binding on me to state the facts as I find them, both in regard to the class of schools now in the Territories, which the school clause of the Autonomy Bill proposes to endorse and continue, and in regard to the attitude of the people in the Territories touching this legis iation; and I further deem it my duty to publicly declare why I heartily support the amended clause relating to schools in the Autonomy Bill.
In 1896 I took an active part, in my own county, in opposing any interference with the public schools of Manitoba as established by the Greenway government of that province. The same principles of fair play to wards the people—equal rights for all and special legislation for no class or church—as actuated me then actuate me now in giving this Bill my unqualified support. When this legislation came before the House I confess I was as ignorant of the conditions of the so- called separate schools in the Territories as are some whom I have found outside of parliament publicly teaching the people on this question. With regard to the schools in the Territories with which this Bill deals, I find that they are housed in 1,100 schoolhouses. Of these less than a dozen—to be exact, eleven—are occupied by the separate schools. Of these, again, two are so-called Protestant and nine are so-called Roman Catholic. I find that these 1,100 are using exactly the same textbooks ; are taught, every one, by normal school graduates from the government normal school ; are all examined by the same government inspectors ; in fact, in every way are public government schools, wholly under the government care, inspection and regulation. and none are under the control of any church or denomination. One difiierence only exists, and it is this: I find that in the two so-called Protestant separate schools, if a majority of parents desire it, a clergyman—Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, or whatever other denomination—may come after school hours are done, after 3.30 o'clock, and may for thirty minutes give religious instruction. I find that in the nine so-called Catholic separate schools, if a majority of parents desire it, a clergyman of that faith may have the same privilege, at the same hour, and for the same length of time ; and I further find that no child is obliged to remain whose parents object. This provision is in exact accord with our public school system in Nova Scotia, which we have been accustomed for many years, and justly so, to boast of as the best school system in America. With regard to religious instruction, the school law of Nova Scotia provides :
It is ordered, That in case where the parents or guardians of children in actual attendance 5109 5110 on any public school or department signify in writing to the trustees their conscientious objection to any portion of such devotional exercises as may be conducted therein under the sanction of the trustees, such devotional exercises shall either be so modified as not to offend the religious feelings of those so objecting, or shall be held immediately before the time fixed for rthe opening, or after the time fixed for the close of the daily work of the school ; and no children. whose parents or guardians signify conscientious objections thereto, shall be required to be present during such devotional exercises.
I find by comparison that the schools of the Territories and the schools of Nova Scotia are practically the same. If these schools in the Territories are not free public schools, if there is not here civil and religious liberty, if there are not here equal rights for all, then I have failed in my conception of these terms. These are the kind and quality of public schools which with slight variation have been in these Territories for about thirty years. These are the kind and quality of schools which the amended clause of the Autonomy Bill seeks to perpetuate—seeks this and this only—seeks this and nothing more and nothing less. These are the kind and quality of schools which the Catholic clergy are uttering their complaint against, because they are not sectarian. These are the schools against which many Protestant preachers are hurling their anathemas, because they claim that these schools are altogether Catholic and French. Some of these tirades against the school clauses of the Autonomy Bill are, I believe, said in honesty, but in profound ignorance of the public school system of the Territories, which this Bill seeks to establish and perpetuate. These are the schools of which Mr. Haultain, the Conservative premier of the Northwest Territories said a few weeks ago: ' If I were a dictator I would not change the school system of the Territories.' These are the schools of which Mr. Greenway saidand mark it well—'If Manitoba had had such a system as is in existence in the Northwest Territories there never would have been any Manitoba school question.'
Who that remembers the long and bitter fight led by Mr. Greenway for the free public schools in Manitoba, will not give weight to these words of his, and earnest heed and thought to his wise advice on the question of the Northwest Territories' public schools. Would you hear Archbishop Langevin's sad refrain over the non- Catholic control of these schools? In a circular to his clergy, he said :
Just as we are committing to press this circular, we learn with unspeakable sorrow that the educational clause destined to be inserted in the Autonomy Bill of the two new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan will not restore us to the position we held in 1875, when the Northwest Territories were organized in virtue of the British North America Act, but that this 5111 COMMONS clause will conserve the spoilation of our school rights by the ordinance of 1892 and will sanction all ordinances passed up to 1901.
This is for us a cruel disappointment and a source of great sadness and grave anxiety for the future. The spoilation of 1892 will thus be definitely confirmed and conserved, and we lose all hope of recovering our rights, we who expected this act of justice and high wisdom, as well as of true patriotism, from our rulers at Ottawa.
In 1873 we had the same school rights as the Protestant minority of Quebec and the Catholic minority of Ontario, and these rights, shamefully violated in spite of the constitution, as the lamented Archbishop Taché so well proved in his memorial of 1894, will not be recognized and restored to us, as we had reason to expect, by parliament which had power to do so.
Catholics who express satisfaction at such a state of things betray not only unpardonable ignorance of Catholic educational principles, but also a lack of understanding of the painful position in which we are placed since 1892, ostracized, as we truly are in the Territories.
Wherefore, reverend and dear brethren, we deem it our duty to lift up our voice in protest against this ignoring of school rights, which the constitution of our country gives us. Our rights are as sacred and as certain to-day as they were in 1875. And, if some opportunists were tempted to ask us to be silent for the sake of peace, or because it is impossible now to recover our right, we would answer : ' There can be no peace except with justice.' There can be no prescription against right. No question of principle is truly settled except when it is settled according to justice and equity.
Our cause is that of justice and peace, because it is the cause of conscience and truth ; as truth, like God, never dies.
I have yet to hear of a single Protestant clergyman in the Territories preaching or speaking against the school question there. Of the satisfaction shown by western Orangemen, we have had convincing evidence on the floor of this House. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) an ardent orangeman a few days ago expressed himself, not only as favourable to the Bill, but as intending to vote for it on the ground that it was just and righteous to all classes of people.
Besides the eminently satisfactory status of the Territorial school system which the school clause endorses and perpetuates, I support it because it will prevent further future fighting in the local legislature over the vexed question of Catholic separate schools in the Territories, and forbids the necessity of a repetition of that bitter warfare which took place in Manitoba for free public schools. I support this Bill because the people of the Territories have unmistakably declared that they are wholly satisfied with their school system and desire no meddling interference from Tory Toronto or ultramontane Quebec. I support it because the almost unanimous voice of the representatives in parliament of the Northwest Territories are in its favour. I say almost, because there are some members of the opposition who would vote against a 5111 5112 passport to Paradise if it were offered by this government.
As regards the constitutional and legal aspect of this school clause, I have heard learned and eminent legal gentlemen in this House declare that the federal government had no right to interfere in this question ; that it was an invasion of 'provincial rights,' and I have heard them quote eminent authorities on both sides of the Atlantic to support their contention. I have also heard learned and eminent lawyers in this House declare that the federal authority had the right to deal with this question and quote eminent jurists in Great Britain to support their case. Now while these legal lights are engaged in the gentle art and exercise of splitting hairs, I deem it my privilege, nay, my bounden duty, as the representative of a liberty loving constituency, to support a Bill which gives the new provinces a system of schools which they desire, and which they have had for thirty years, and approve of the system which gives free public schools, calculated for the enlightenment, and making for the intelligence of the young people who are teeming into this great west, as well as for those unborn, in these new provinces—a system which by this Bill can never be controlled by any one church or sect or denomination, and will remain untrammelled by religious dogma and uncontrolled by religious bigotry or fanatical zeal.
I readily find in the examination of this measure, as it is presented by the leader of the government, and also by the leader of the opposition, that he who votes on it at all must vote for separate schools, as they are and must continue to be in the new provinces. If he vote with the government, he must endorse separate schools; and the leader of the opposition in the amendment he has offered, certainly does not propose to remove or interfere in any way with the territorial school system. The voting problem as I see it is this: Vote with the government and in favour of the present school system in the Territories—or vote with the opposition, who do not propose to remove or interfere with these schools, but an opposition which when in power put themselves on record as in favour of separate schools, controlled by the Catholic church in Manitoba; and went to wreck and ruin on this question, and who never have shown even a death bed repentance. Or if the member do not vote at all, he shows himself an arrant coward pandering to the ignorance or bigotry of a few fanatics.
I understand that the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has sent to the Orangemen of Nova Scotia a telegram giving his advice and opinion in regard to this Bill. In that organization in Nova Scotia there are many grand men, and noble supporters 5113 APRIL 28, 1905 of this government; and had they known the hon. member's party subservience, his hide bound, slavish adherence to everything Tory whether right or wrong, they would long have hesitated to ask or receive his advice. I have no objection to this gentleman washing his political garments in Boyne Water, but I do object to his afterwards taking them out of the cesspool of party prejudice and Conservative misrepresentation and sending them down to Nova Scotia as the pure robes of a patriot.
As well might our Orange supporters there have asked of beelzebub—his opinion of the supreme delights and divine glories of the heavenly world. For the hour he may deceive a few of these Liberals, but only for the hour. Every intelligent Orangeman, every intelligent Catholic, every intelligent citizen, who is not a narrow party slave, if he seek the facts in regard to the school system in the Northwest Territories, will see in that system, righteous justice which panders to none and shows a broad- mindness which well becomes this broad and great country which by justice and right, we are trying to build into a great nation, broad, tolerant, self-respecting and self-governing.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.



Bill (No. 97) respecting the Dominion Central Railway Company—Mr. Harty.
House in committee on Bill (No. 106), respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company—Mr. Black.
On section 2, Mr. LAURENCE moved:
That section 2 be amended by adding thereto the following words : And the said Midland division is hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


House resumed consideration of 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.
5113 5114
Mr. A. J. ADAMSON (Humbolt). Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is now before the House is one of great importance to Canada and particularly to the Northwest Territories which are about to be created into provinces. As I have the honour to represent a constituency which forms a part of these great Territories I consider it my duty to give some reasons why I intend to support the Bill which is before the House as I certamly will do. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the views expressed by hon. members on both sides of the House and I have endeavoured to realize their point of view. I was particularly struck with the simile used by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) when he congratulated my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on the introduction of this Bill. He likened the provinces which are being created to a pair of twins which had just arrived on the scene. At the time I thought the comparison was a very happy one, but further consideration struck me that it perhaps did not quite fit the occasion. I thought it would have been fairer to have compared the two young provinces to a couple of youths who have been under probation, who have completed their education and are about to enter into their estate. The Dominion government have been the trustees who have been looking after their interests until they came of age and until they were fit to be entrusted with their own attairs. I thought the simile was very well taken by the hon. member for East Grey, but at the same time I thought possibly his professional pride was piqued at not being called in as consulting physician on the auspicious occasion. These provinces, having attained man's estate, are about to become independent to a certain extent ; that is as independent as any person can be in these days, or as any province can be that is a member of this great confederacy. No province can be perfectly independent any more than any individual who is a member of a community can be perfectly independent. There must be some restraints to guard against entrenching upon the rights, privileges and property of the different provinces, but so long as they keep within their rights and privileges they are free. It is so with these new provinces. They are now the centre of observations and the methods adopted by them at this present juncture and their ability to cope with the problems with which they must deal will have a most powerful effect in the future of these provinces. If at the commencement of their career they deal recklessly, weakly, or carelessly with the questions which will be presented to them their future career will be most injuriously affected and all that affects them will certainly affect the rest of Canada to an extent that 5115 COMMONS very few people can at present realize. Fortunately the territorial government has been so far most satisfactory and we must be careful now not to undo any of the good work that has been done in the past. The first provision of this Bill which I want to discuss relates to the financial terms arranged for the new provinces. They, of course, are the most important ones, at least they are very important to the well- being of the provinces, and looking at them as a whole I may say that the representatives of the Territories are satisfied with the provision which has been made. I believe that the income which has been provided for them will enable them to conduct their internal affairs in a satisfactory manner. They are not in the position of remittance men. They have had a fair settlement and they can go on and develop the country in a perfectly independent manner. Each province will have over a million dollars to start with and as their population increases so will their income, and thus they will have increasing means with the increasing demands which will be made upon them for the support and establishment of schools, roads and different public improvements of one kind or another. If the lands were handed over to the provinces they have to be used immediately as a source of income. We would have to get revenue out of them. The present policy of the Dominion government is to settle the lands and not to make them a revenue- producing property. Every settler that goes into the Northwest is a valuable asset to the Dominion of Canada. He contributes to the general revenue so that it is a great benefit to the Dominion, and looking at it from the purely financial point of view it is proper that the government should get as many settlers into the country as possible, but as these settlers necessitate expenditure on the part of the provinces it is also necessary that their income should increase wlth the advent of new people. If the lands had been handed over to the new provinces it would be a most difficult matter to determine the interests of each. A large amount of land in the Territories has already been disposed of and it will be almost impossible to say how much was taken from one or the other and to adjust matters between them. Under the proposition as adopted all trouble of this kind is avoided and there is no material for dispute between the provinces. Beth are satisfied with the liberality of the terms and feel that they have been fairly dealt with. Many possible complications have been disposed of by this settlement and there is no room for further discussion in the matter. In regard to the boundary question, I believe that the division of the Territories has been a most ideal one. There was at one time some difference of opinion as to where the line should be. Many people con 5115 5116sidered that the north country, bounded by the North Saskatchewan river, should be made into one province and that the south country should be made into another province. I myself at one time held that opinion, but on further considering the matter and hearing the views of others expressed, I can easily see that this is an equally good division, and we are all satisfied with it. Only one objection, and one only, has been raised against the dividing line decided on, and on examination that objection proves to have very little force. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) states that the 104th meridian will divide the ranching country and that confusion is likely to arise between the different cattle brands in the new provinces. If this objection were a valid one, it would entail taking the boundary east to the western boundary of Manitoba, which would be out of the question. There are cattle brands extending all over that country, and therefore the adoption of another boundary would not remove what he regards as a serious objection. It would entail making this whole territory into one province. I consider then that the present dividing line is as nearly ideal as is possible, and that the two provinces will be closely equal in their present population, in their prospects of increased population, in their natural resources and in the income which is at their disposal.
There has been much discussion on the subject of the extension of the Manitoba boundaries to the west. On this question I am fully in accord with the sentiments of the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) and the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Lamont). To quote the words of the latter gentleman, I believe that if such an extension were seriously contemplated it would raise such a storm in the west that our friends of the opposition who talk so persistently of the agitation of public opinion, of conflagrations and storms, would really see what a Northwest hurricane does mean. In this case they would not have to whistle for a breeze. The storm would be on them in very short order. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, as to the temper of the west on this subject. Public opinion is crystallized, and they have very clear-cut ideas on the subject. That opinion is growing every day. There was a time when union with Manitoba might have been accepted, but dating from the day of that meeting held at Indian Head, a joint meeting which Mr. Haultain and Mr. Roblin, premier of Manitoba, attended, and at which meeting Mr. Roblin actually threatened to hold up the Northwest Territories if they did not accede to his desires in this matter, there has been a change of sentiment. From the moment that Mr. Roblin attempted to tell these people that if they did not consent to join with Manitoba, if they did not fall in with his views at that time expressed, he would make certain reprisals upon them, a feeling 5117 APRIL 28, 1905 of antagonism to the idea of union has grown up. It is impossible that people who have any self-respect should submit to these threats or should give way to pressure of this kind. That feeling has been growing, and there is, further, a strong and rooted Objection to throwing in their fortune with a province which has so many heavy and serious liabilities at this time. A union with Manitoba would be entirely out of the question. This feeling is universal, and a determination exists, and has existed for some time, to oppose by every possible means the adding to Manitoba of one foot of territory to the west. I venture to say that if a vote were taken on this question 95 per cent of the people would vote in this way.
The school clauses of the Bill have been the subject of much criticism and much discussion, and their consideration has taken up most of the time of the House. I am not a lawyer and I cannot discuss the matter from a constitutional point of view, but I have heard the opinions of constitutional lawyers on both sides of the House, and I must say that the different conclusions at which they have arrived have confused rather than enlightened those who listened to them. I will speak on the school question from a point of view different from that taken by any other gentleman who has spoken on the subject. I have been living in the Northwest for many years. I have reared a family there. and I am going to speak on the subject from the point of view of the father of a family whose children have attended those schools which are under diseussion. I have availed myself of the opportunity to somewhat carefully study our school system since I went into that country, because I have always considered the education of a family to be a very serious matter. I can say this, Mr. Speaker, and I can say it frankly and plainly, that in the Northwest Territories we have as good a school system as exists anywhere in Canada. The people who use these schools are satisfied with them. We can turn to our friends from Quebec and we can say to them: Your compatriots and your co-religionists in the Northwest Territories are satisfied with those schools ; and we can say to our friends from Ontario or any of the other Protestant provinces: We, the Protestants of the Northwest are satisfied with our school system which has worked well and is satisfactory to every one concerned. Let me say, Sir, that from the constituency which I have the honour to represent I have had not a single petition asking me to do anything else than to support the system of schools which is at present established in that country. I would like to say one thing further, Mr. Speaker, and that is, that after listening to the speeches made from the opposition side of the House, I do not think that any one of them described the actual state of affairs. 5117 5118 I do not think you will find in one of these speeches that the real state of affairs in regard to education now existing in the Northwest is plainly set forth before the people. You hear from these gentlemen opposite a great deal about shackling the new provinces and tying up the people of the Northwest, but all that kind of talk is an entire mystery to the people of the west themselves. I have just arrived from the west to-day, and I can say that in the hotels, travelling on trains, passing through the country and meeting people of all kinds, I failed to find a single man who really understood the exact state of affairs and who was not satisfied to see the school clauses of this Bill become law. The fact of the matter is that to find any agitation on the subject you have to get away from the Northwest Territories. The hon. gentleman who addressed the House this afternoon was able to give us some very valuable information on the subject, and I intended to deal at length with it but it has been gone over so often that it is hardly worth while to do so at this stage of the debate.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Go on.
Mr. ADAMSON. There are at least eleven hundred schools now in operation in the Northwest Territories. Any of the school districts have the power, if they choose to exercise it, to call into operation the separate school clauses of the Act, but we find that less than one per cent of them have done so, and that one per cent is hardly noticed although both Protestant and Catholic children do attend these separate schools. I lived within twelve miles of one of these separate schools for a long time without knowing that there was a separate school there. I think every member of this House who seriously considers the question will acknowledge that this is just as close as we possibly can get to having a national school system. We had a very pleasant picture drawn by the member for Middlesex (Mr. Bison) of a condition of afiairs which he considered to be ideal, in which children grew up together knowing one another well, and becoming closer in friendship and more united in ideas. We all agree with that. The ideal state of afiairs possibly would be that, and I contend that in the Northwest Territories we have attained as near as is humanly possible to that ideal. Now, I do not say that religious instruction in the schools is good, nor do I say it is bad ; but, acting on the assumption that national schools are actual perfection, and seeing that the extreme limit of religious instruction which can be given in these schools amounts to one-half hour each day, then in the Northwest Territories we have it, that as one- twelfth of the time only can be devoted to religious instruction, and that only one per cent of the schools exercise that right, We, therefore, come within one—twelfth of a 5119 COMMONS one-hundreth part of perfection, as perfection is described by the gentlemen who oppose this Bill. I think, Sir, that no one will deny that this is just about as close to perfection as can be attained. If a man, no matter whether he be a lawyer, a physician, or a member of the House of Commons, gets within one-twelfth of a hundredth part of perfection in doing his duty he is very close to the real thing. I can tell you, Sir, that it would be weak in us and it would be shirking our responsibility, if the parliament of Canada when passing these Autonomy Bills did not settle the school question for now and for all time. We would not be doing our duty here if we were to throw it as an apple of discord into the midst of the new provinces. The future of Canada hinges very largely on the prosperity and the settlement of this new territory of ours. It will be found on examination that the expansion of trade in eastern Canada is just about commensurate with the development of the west. It is the duty of every Canadiana to do what he can to develop his country, and if we can people the west with an industrious and enterprising population, then we will be helping every province in this Dominion. We have heard discussions in this House as to whether there should be two story sheds or one story sheds built on the wharfs of Montreal ; we have heard discussions as to the improvement of harbours and canals, but, when you come to consider the solid facts of the case you will see that in the final analysis the prosperity of all these great undertakings must depend upon the development of the west. If the wheat lands of the west are not cultivated and brought under the hands of the tiller of the soil there is no use developing the harbours of the cities of the east. I would strongly impress upon the House that the attention of the people of the west should not be diverted from the great work which they have in hand to develop the fertility of the soil. I was one of those who for seven   years took part in the fight about the school question in Manitoba. We fought there for just such a system of schools as we have now in operation in the Northwest Territories, and I know how that agitation tore the people apart, how it exhausted their energies, and how it diverted them from the work they might otherwise be profitably employed in.
It is a serious matter to involve people in a strife of this kind with one another ; and, as we have the matter practically settled amongst ourselves, it would be a lasting shame on this government if it did not continue the system of schools which has proved so effective. We hear much declamation about the imposing of conditions on the new provinces ; but how can there be imposition where all the parties concerned are willing and anxious that the measure should be adopted ? There can be no shack 5119 5120ling where the bonds do not bind ; and, as the Territories say distinctly that they want the present school system, where is the point of the opposition in this discussion ? Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Northwest Territories, has declared that if he were dictator to-morrow, he would not change the school law, and he is certainly right in so expressing himself. That law is a good and satisfactory one, and I consider that it is in line with the record of this Liberal government that knowing the wishes of the people on this point, they should make it a part of the constitution of the new provinces.  
I notice that the Conservative press of to-day claims that a great victory on the school question has been won by the Conservative party in Manitoba, in the division of Mountain, where a supporter of the Roblin government has been elected. I would like, however, to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Prime Minister of Manitoba distinctly stated in opening the campaign, that the school question was not an issue in that election. He made that very clear and distinct, and his utterance on that point is quoted in today's press. He has made a stand on what he calls the rights of Manitoba in the matter of the enlargement of its boundaries. If our friends of the opposition wish to put to the test how the people of the Northwest stand on this question, there is a very good opportunity for them. There happen to be at present seven vacancies in the Northwest legislature, and I believe it would be the consistent and the proper course for Mr. Haultain to submit this question to the electors in those vacant constitutncies. He would then get his answer with no uncertain sound ; and then, by calling the legislature together, he would be in a position to obtain a declaration from that body on the subject. I venture to prophesy that he would find himself in the very unpleasant position of being voted down by the Northwest legislature. The school Act of the Northwest Territories makes it very clear what the powers of the provinces are. The school system is under the control of a superintendent ; that superintendent is responsible to the government : he has his advisory board, he licenses the teachers, provides their curriculum, selects the text-books of the schools, provides for their inspection, and has complete control over them. There is but one system, not a dual system, and, as I said before, it is perfectly satisfactory to the people of the Territories.
These are briefly my reasons, Mr. Speaker, for supporting the Bill, and I can say confidently that it is acceptable to the people of the Northwest Territories, and that any portion of those Territories will confirm the action that is now being taken. We have had an illustration of the feeling or the people in what has taken place in the constituency of the present Minister of the 5121 APRIL 28, 1905 Interior, the Hon. Mr. Oliver. The Conservative association there passed a resolution to the effect that it would be useless or impolitic to oppose him ; his late opponent, Mr. Secord, endorsed his candidature ; and he has been returned by acclamation. If he had been opposed, he certainly would have been returned by a larger majority than he had before. The Board of Trade of Edmonton, which certainly cannot be called a sectarian body, which is neither Galician nor Doukhobor, but strictly Canadian, passed a resolution endorsing his candidature. I think that is a fairly good answer to our critics on the other side of the House, and I am confident that any other constituency in the Northwest Territories, I care not which it is, would give exactly the same answer. I believe that the people of the Northwest are at one on this subject. These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I intend to support this Bill, and I am sure that everybody in the House will join in the wish of the hon. member for Middlesex that peace and happiness may be the lot of these now provinces which are now about to join the great federacy of Canada.
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough). Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate my hon. friend from Humbolt (Mr. Adamson) on the splendid speech to which we have just listened. It has been one of the most interesting contributions that has been made to the present debate. It would have been more in accord with the etiquette of debate for some hon. gentleman from the other side of the House to undertake to answer my hon. friend ; but one thing that has struck me very forcibly during the last few days has been the great calm which has come over the opposition benches. Three or four weeks ago it was different. One would have imagined, from the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, and from the articles in the newspapers which support their party, that there was a great agitation in this country, that the heather was on fire all over Canada. The Toronto ' World ' and the Toronto ' News ' came out day after day with extravagant headlines ; the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) deluged us with sarcasm ; the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) went about with a chip on his shoulder challenging us all to resign ; and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), in his own mild and gentle manner, said some pretty hard things about us. But, Sir, the Easter holidays came and have passed away, the ice has melted from the river, the grass has begun to grow, the tulips have begun to appear, and we have all been struck with the quietness of this chamber. We cannot but ask ourselves: Has there really been an agitation in this country? And those who remember that there was an agitation are beginning to inquire what it was all about.
5121 5122
We are told that this is a struggle for provincial rights. Hon. gentlemen opposite claim to be the divinely constituted champions of these rights considering their past record. It is rather satisfactory to find them in that frame of mind. We are rather gratified to perceive this change of heart among so many of our hon. friends opposite on this important question. But in my opinion provincial rights are not at all assailed in this measure, and our hon. frends opposite, in rushing to the rescue, are simply seeking to combat a phantom of their own imagination. If we look into the facts, we will find that there is no such thing in this country as strict provincial rights on the question of education. That is a thing unknown in our constitution. It might be a good thing and I am not at present disposed to say it would not ; and if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to start a crusade to change the constitution and place the question of education on a different basis, that would be a fair question to discuss in public and on which to get the sense of the people. And if hon. gentlemen opposite were to start any such crusade, possibly many of us would feel like having the question of education made a purely provincial one. I need hardly refer to the fact, since every hon. gentleman here knows it, that section 91 of the British North America Act enumerates certain subjects as coming under Dominion control, such as the public debt, postal service, fisheries, the criminal law and many others, and that section 92 enumerates the subjects which fall under the control of the provincial legislature, such as direct taxation, the maintenance of hospitals and asylums, property, and civil rights. Then we come to section 93, which deals with the question of education, and that question is dealt with in a different way from any of the others. We do not find it mentioned at all in sections 91 and 92, but we have it specially mentioned in section 93, and that section places it under a divided jurisdiction. Provision is made for separate schools in the old provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and there is also a provision that the minority in the other provinces will have the right to appeal to the Dominion parliament against any injustice done them by a provincial legislature. It seems to me therefore plain that in the matter of education there is no such thing, strictly speaking, as provincial rights under our constitution.
But what are the real merits of the agitation when it is sifted down? The school system of the Northwest Territories is admittedly a good one. The hon. gentleman who spoke last has described what an excellent one it is ; and none of the hon. gentlemen opposite who have been addressing us for the past month has ventured to say a word against it. What they do say is simply this, that while in itself it is an 5123 COMMONS excellent system, it would be a bad thing to perpetuate it, because that is a matter which should come purely under provincial control. Premier Haultaln himself has said that it cannot be improved, and that if he should be declared dictator to-morrow he would not change it. He, however, is not willing that this parliament should take from him the power to do a thing which he says he never would do if left to himself. In that respect he reminds me of the small boy who would not let the other little fellow play in his back yard, and refused to allow him the privilege of hollering down the empty water barrel. And for what reason forsooth? Simply because it was his barrel, and he insisted on doing all the hollering himself. If that be not a case of tweedledum and tweedledee, I have never known of such a case in all my life.
There is one feature, however, of the agitation which is extremely regrettable and that is the extremely inflammatory course which has been adopted by certain newspapers in this country. What justification, for instance, can be given for articles such as these. Let me read you an extract from an article in the Toronto 'World' from some correspondent in Manitoba and which is given all the notoriety of capital letters :
You may give it for what it is worth, but my individual opinion is that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was informed immediately by Monseigneur Sbarretti of the failure of his advances, and that the invitation to the other provinces to put forward their claims was made expressly in Sir Wilfrid's speech on the following day from personal motives of pique, because the Manitoba delegates had not listened to reason.
That is a statement made in the Toronto ' World,' and made in spite of the fact that the speech was not at all made the following day. The dates were falsified obviously for the purpose of creating in the public mind the impression that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had brought the delegates from Manitoba here in order to expose them to the blandishments of the Papal delegate.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speech was made on the 21st February and the meeting of Mr. Campbell with the Papal delegate—mind you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rogers never met the Papal delegate at all—was (on the 23rd February, two days after the public announcement was made of the policy of the government regarding the boundaries of Manitoba. That falsehood was not only stated in the Toronto 'World' on that occasion but has been repeated time and again both in that newspaper and the Toronto 'News.' I have gone through the columns of the 'News' carefully to see if the writers on that paper ever corrected that false impression. They might have been misled in the first instance by the impression given by Mr. Rogers in the interview he published in the city or Winni 5123 5124peg, but did they attempt to set the public right subsequently? Not at all. I have carefully gone through the editorials of that paper, and find that not the slightest attempt was made to correct the false impression to which it gave circulation regarding the First Minister. Then I find another editorial, such as the following:
Was there an understanding ? That Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Monseigneur Sbarretti would deny formal co-operation in the attempt to coerce the province of Manitoba into the adoption of such a separate school system as they both desire, was only to be expected. Negotiations of this kind under circumstances involving inflammatory and dangerous questions are not carried on by an astute politician, and an equally astute diplom'atist in such a way as will leave any visible trail. Nevertheless, enough has been disclosed to render it in the highest degree probable that a tacit but very clear understanding existed between them. It is not necessary to suppose that a formal conference took place at which the Papal delegate was authorized to give the Manitoba delegates. the very distinct intimation that he did give.
These are extracts from the 'World.' I shall give you now one or two from the 'News.' Here is an editorial from that paper :
On February 13th, Mr. Rogers and his colleague, Mr. Campbell, received a telegram from Sir Wilfnid Laurier asking them to visit Ottawa on the 17th. They saw Sir Wilfrid and presented the claims of the province for an extension, and were asked to wait three or four days for an answer.
0n the 20th they received a letter, not from Sir Wilfrid, but from the Papal delegate, asking for a conference. When they saw the delegate, he told them that the settlement of the boundary question would be greatly facilitated if the Manitoba government would consent to certain amendments in the school law, which he submitted.
The same criticism applies to that. They received no invitation from the premier, on the contrary they asked for the interview themselves. The date there, of course, is also changed. On the 17th they saw Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and presented the claims, and they were asked to wait three or four days. This has been denied by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose statement is corroborated by the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), and those newspapers which have circulated these falsehoods throughout the country have not apologized or tried to correct them. Another item from the Toronto ' News ' is headed :
The Grit apostasy.
This item was published in the Halifax 'Herald,' which describes the Toronto 'News ' as an independent Liberal paper.
It is doubtful if a single member of the House of Commons, either to the right or left of the Speaker. is deceived by the specious argument that the government is constitutionally obliged to create a separate school system for the new western provinces. The truth is that the Bills 5125 APRIL 28, 1905 now before parliament represent a bargain between certain ministers and the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and, in consequence of this secret compact, we must accept an interpretation of the Canadian constitution, not by the Supreme Court of Canada or the Privy Council of the empire, but by the Court of Rome.
There is not the slightest foundation for any of those statements. There is now abundant proof that they are absolutely untrue. I could give a large number of other extracts from such leading pournals as the Toronto "Mail ' and from a paper called the ' Sun,' published in Toronto, but I shall not weary the House by reading them. The object of these items is to convey a false impression to the people Of this country; and, to say the least of it, is it not disgraceful and reprehensible on the part of these newspapers? I am not in the habit of using strong language, but I question if the usage of parliament would permit language strong enough to characterize the conduct of those newspapers in connection with this matter. Everybody in Canada knows that these repeated and persistent attacks in connection with the Papal delegate would not have been made if the right hon. gentleman who leads this House was not a member of the Roman Catholic communion. It is repeated day after day that there is a power behind the throne. that this legislation is introduced and is being carried through at the instigation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, that the premier of Canada has abrogated his functions altogether, and has betrayed the trust which this country has placed in him. We are invited to witness the noble spectacle of men standing patriotically for a great principle. But what do we see ? Why, Sir, instead of that, we see men attempting to besmirch and injure the reputation of a great statesman by an utter disregard for the truth ; that is the spectacle we see. Let hon. gentlemen look at this measure, calmly examine the charges against the premier, and then judge for themselves. Why, Sir, there is not a sentence in those educational clauses, not a single line that the veriest baby in public life would attribute to the pen of a prelate of the Roman Catholic church. Does any man imagine that if a prelate of the Roman Catholic church had an opportunity of moulding a school system for the Northwest, he would provide for national schools, for schools taught by duly licensed teachers, in which only authorized school books were used, schools subject to strict public inspection and controlled altogether by the local legislature, schools in which the only concession made to his views is that both Protestants and Catholics have the same opportunity or teaching religion for one-half hour at the close of each day ? I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, what is their opinion ? Do they think that the educational provisions of this Bill show internal evidence that they were inspired by a priest of the Roman 5125 5126 Catholic church ? I know that the press of both political parties on occasions of excitement say extravagant things, but there should be some bound even to newspaper discussion. I have watched the course of public discussion in this country for the past twenty years, but this is the first occasion on which I have known the press of a great political party, such as the party represented by hon. gentlemen opposite, to abandon all fair dealing and all decency and fair-play, and to revel in falsehood and misrepresentation, as they have done during the course of this discussion. I do not now refer to all the Conservative papers in Canada. The Conservative papers of Montreal, such as the Montreal 'Star' and the Montreal 'Gazette,' have throughout maintained a sober and dignified course ; the newspapers which have lost all sense of decency and fairness are certain Toronto newspapers, and among the lowest and most despicable of the yellow journals of the city of Toronto, representing the Conservative party, are the Toronto 'News' and the Toronto 'World.' I am very sorry to say it, because we are all proud of Toronto as a great city, but Toronto seems to have won for itself the unenviable reputation of being the hotbed of bigotry and intolerance in this country. This is not my opinion alone; I shall give you the opinion of one of the leading newspapers in the city of Montreal. the Montreal 'Gazette.' The Montreal ' Gazette (Conservative) sums up the Toronto- made 'situation' in the following concise and effective manner :
The Toronto 'Globe' of Saturday speaks of the situation at Ottawa as a crisis. The 'Globe ' is being too much excited by its own surroundings. In a good many parts of the country there is a belief that if telegraph and mail communication with Toronto were shut off in some way for a few days, the people generally would forget that parliament was doing anything more serious than voting money for nonpaying enterprises.
That, Sir, is the opinion of the Montreal ' Gazette,' that if we could cut the telegraph and mail connections between Toronto and the rest of Canada, that this agitation would stop in a few days, and, Sir, I think the 'Gazette' is right. There must be some compromise on a question of this kind. It has always been the case in the history of Canada that we have had to compromise delicate questions like this. You cannot override the views of a minority of the people that after all comprise nearly half our population, you cannot crush them and say they must do just what you say and what you think. Every student of Canadian history must know that no political leader in this country ever yet succeeded in doing that. The coterie that surrounded the old 'Family Compact' tried to do it and no political combination in this country ever had so good an opportunity to succeed in that attempt and they failed.
What was the result? The people of Quebec led by Lafontaine and joined by Baldwin rallied the broad-minded and tolerant men of Canada to their standard and routed old Toryism in this country for ever. Then George Brown emerged from the Baldwin party and began an agitation to unite the Protestants of Upper and Lower Canada against the Roman Catholic minority with the result that he kept Sir John Macdonald in power for a generation. Then our overzealous fellow-countrymen in Ontario led on by the 'Mail and Empire' started a similar propaganda in more recent times with the result that the Liberal party led by Sir Oliver Mowat held power in Ontario for a quarter of a century. And, Sir, in view of our past history and the circumstances that surround us at present it is plain to every thinking man, and the leader of the opposition himself must have realized it by this time, that the course adopted by him today in regard to this measure will have the effect of cementing the ranks of the Liberal party from the Atlantic to the Pacific and perpetuating Liberal rule in this country for the next twenty years. I know very well that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) does not like the position that he is in, does not like the task that some of his over-zealous friends have imposed on him on this occasion. I have always felt sorry that he was placed in that position as he is an eminent fellow- countryman of my own. And I firmly believe that if he had a good, large following from the province of Nova Scotia, and if he continued to represent the good old county of Halifax, where race and religious disputes are unknown, he would find it easier to make his way through this tangle than he has found it under existing circumstances.
The two provinces that profess to have this question most at heart are the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. It is from the Tory press and the Tory politicians of these provinces that the wild, hysterical appeals have come to which we have been compelled to listen during the course of this agitation. What is the past record of the Conservative party in these provinces on this question? Is it such that we are bound to give them credit for sincerity now? What did the Conservatives in these provinces do in 1896? Did they stand by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, or did they vote for their own party, which, at that time, was attempting to force separate schools of a clerical type on the province of Manitoba? On that occasion, which was the only occasion in the history of this country when the people lead an opportunity to vote upon this question Ontario gave Sir Wilfrid Laurier 44 supporters out of 92 representatives elected, and Manitoba elected four Conservatives, two Liberals and one independent. Such is the record of these hysterical gentlemen on the only occasion in all their lives when they 5127 5128 had an opportunity of showing that they had genuine and sincere convictions on this question ; and that is a record that entitles every thoughtful man in Canada to regard their present agitation as a thoroughly political agitation carried on, not for the purpose of establishing free schools in the west, but for the sole purpose of getting votes for the Conservative party. What are the facts ? We all know that the course of the Toronto 'Globe' has not been friendly to the Liberal party on this question, and perhaps I cannot do better than to read to you a short extract from the Toronto 'Globe' describing the system of schools we are establishing in the west. We all want to place that before our friends in the country, because, that is, after all the vital question. I want to show What kind of schools we are giving to the new provinces, and this article from the Toronto 'Globe ' explains that point :
Stick to the facts.
No good can come of misrepresenting the facts in the controversy respecting the schools in the new provinces. It is a gross misrepresentation to pretend that what is called a separate school in the Territories is the same thing as a separate school in Ontario. By no stretch of language could the separate school in the west be designated as a church school. From 9 o'clock in the morning till 3.30 in the afternoon the schools of the Catholic or Protestant minority are conducted precisely as the public schools are conducted. The scholars are taught by a teacher certificated and authorized by the Department of Education of the Territories ; he teaches from the same text—hooks as are used in the public schools; he follows the same programme as is followed in the public schools: his school is regularly inspected by the inspector that inspects the public schools, and if the teaching were unsatisfactory the government could withhold the public grants. So thoroughly undenominational is the teaching that Protestant children attend separate schools when these are more convenient than public schools. The only privilege that the Catholic minority obtain is that the teacher is a Catholic, and after halt~ past three may impart religious instruction according to the tenets of the Catholic church to the children who choose to remain.
These are the facts, and those who are honestly seeking a permanent and satisfactory solution of the vexed questions which arise under the Autonomy Bill's can afford to admit them. Those who are merely desirous of forwarding their political designs by appeals to passion are unfortunately seeking to mislead people and distort the facts of the case.
This is the description of the facts given by the Toronto 'Globe' and it is a very fair description. Now, Sir, it comes down to this, that we are. by the educational clauses of this Bill, establishing a national system of public schools for the west with the right to give one-half hour's religious instruction to the pupils at the close of each day. This is not a new idea by any means. We have the same in the province of Nova Scotia, and we have had it for a great many years. This was brought to the attention 5129 APRIL 28, 1905 of the House this afternoon by my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Black). However, as he did not read the whole clause I would like to place it on record. I quote from the school regulations made by the Council of Public Instruction and now in force in Nova Scotia. This is the regulation:
Whereas, it has been represented to the council that trustees of public schools have, in certain cases, required pupils, on pain of forfeiting school privileges, to be present during devotional exercises not approved of by their parents ; and whereas, such proceeding is contrary to the principles of the school law, the following regulation is made for the direction of trustees, the better to ensure the carrying out of the spirit of the law in this behalf:
It is ordered that in cases where the parents or guardians of children in actual attendance on any public school or department signify in writing to the trustees their conscientious objection to any portion of such devotional exercises as may be conducted therein under the sanction of the trustees, such devotional exercises shall either be so modfied as not to offend the religious feelings of those so objecting, or shall be held immediately before the time fixed for the opening, or after the time fixed for the close of the daily work of the school ; and no children whose parents or guardians signify conscientious objections thereto, shall be required to be present during such devotional exercises.
It seems to be taken for granted by the council of public instruction of Nova Scotia that there will be devotional exercises in the schools, and this is a provision to regulate these exercises. Now, this system has worked well in Nova Scotia for a good many years. There is no person there who has turned pale or become hysterical over it. Everything has gone well; and I have no doubt that when we adopt this system in the west, it will work well there.
I do not wish to weary the House with a speech of any length. Like my hon. friend from Hunts (Mr. Black) I simply intended, when I rose to give a few reasons why I intend to support the measure now before the House. While other clauses of the Bill are of equal importance, I have not attempted to deal with anything except the educational clauses. The reasons why I intend to support this Bill and to vote against the amendment of the leader of the opposition, I desire to state briefly as follows :
First. Because it is an honourable and fair compromise of a very difficult and delicate question, and, while it satisfies to some extent the religious convictions of forty- one per cent of the people of Canada, it contains nothing that should be in any sense offensive to the religious views of the remaining forty-nine per cent.
Second. Because the school system that we are now perpetuating is a school system that was adopted about thirteen years ago by the people of the Territories themselves ; that system has worked satisfactorily ever 5129 5130 since; and it may be fairly said to be an expression of the will of the people of the Territories.
Third. I am opposed to the amendment of the leader of the opposition because the effect of it is to leave the whole matter in a state of uncertainty, to give rise to disputes and litigation, and to destroy the peace and retard the progress of the new provinces.
Fourth. I am opposed to the amendment of the leader of the opposition because it is a sheer evasion of the question at issue. If the words 'at the union' are to be held to mean 1905, then, by passing this amendment we should be fastening on the new provinces the system of clerical schools that the people abolished in 1892, a system to which I am determinedly opposed.
Fifth. I am in favour of the educational clauses of this Bill because they give an opportunity to both Protestants and Catholics who hold religious convictions on this question to give religious instruction to their children for half an hour at the close of each school day without interfering with the national character of the school.
Sixth. I support the Bill because it definitely settles this question once for all, and prevents the introduction into these western provinces of those painful racial and religious quarrels that have disturbed the peace of the older provinces of Canada.
Seventh. I support the Bill because the schools to be established under this regulation must of necessity be free public schools, using only the authorized text-books, taught by regularly licensed teachers, inspected by the public school inspector, and in every respect under complete public control.
Eighth. I support the Bill because it preserves existing rights and prevents any feeling of injustice on the part of those who enjoyed this system for the past thirty years.
Ninth. I support the Bill because the policy of the Liberal party to-day is consistent with the policy of the party in 1896. In 1896 the Liberal party stood for schools established by the people of Manitoba, and to-day they stand for schools established by the people of the Northwest.
Tenth. Because we ought to have the courage of our convictions on a question of this kind, and not, like the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), take refuge behind legal technicalities. What do you think of the spectacle of the leader of a great party declaring that he has nothing to say in favour of separate schools, that he has nothing to say against separate schools, who confesses that he has absolutely no more opinion than a baby on a great question of this kind, and who contents himself With moving a resolution that bewilders everybody, and that he has not yet ventured to explain.
Eleventh. I am in favour of this measure because it secures to every child in Alberta 5131 COMMONS and Saskatchewan for all time to come a good common school education.
Twelfth. Because every other province that has come into confederation has carried in with it the educational system that existed in the province at the time it came in. and there is no good reason why any different course should be adopted in the case of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Now, Sir, I believe that we ought to get past these racial and religious quarrels. We are too near grown-up people to go on in the way that the old provinces went many years ago. I think the time is past for these things. I am of opinion, Sir, that Canada is destined to expand and grow, that there is a great future before this country during the century upon which we have now entered, and that it is the duty of every patriotic Canadian to cease quarrelling one with another and to endeavour to develop the great resources that have been given to us. We have a great work to do, and we cannot afford, as the hon. member who last had the floor (Mr. Adamson) said, to spend our energies in tearing one another in pieces. I believe it is the duty of every patriotic Canadian to stand shoulder to shoulder to help build up on the northern half of this continent a state worthy of ourselves, worthy of the great heritage that has been left to us, worthy of the splendid stock from which we have sprung, a state in which there will be justice for all, free scope for all, tolerance for all, and a fair reward for labour, and a new home from freedom. If this, Sir, is our destiny, as I believe it is, we cannot achieve it by internal strife and discord, or by mutual hatred and distrust. Let us trample both under our feet, and let us stand by the right hon. gentleman who leads this House in the great task that he has set for himself of bringing order out of confusion and peace out of discord. break ing down the barriers that separate the various races that compose the people of this country and welding them together into one happy, prosperous and united people.
Mr. A. MARTIN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding. House adjourned at 9.20 p.m.


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



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

Personnes participantes: