Document Information

Date: 1905-04-12
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 4375-4457.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

4375

….

PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.

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. G. O. ALCORN (Prince Edward). Mr. Speaker, the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in introducing these Bills to the House, announced that he would, by these measures, crown the present constitutional status of the Northwest Territories with complete and absolute autonomy. I propose very shortly to examine some of the sections or clauses of these Bills with the view of ascertaining how far their provisions promise to carry out that undertaking. In creating new sovereign states it has been

4376

the practice of the imperial government and, I think of the government of Canada, as the dominant or governing power, to consult and settle with the dependent power whose status is to be dealt with and enlarged the terms and conditions of autonomy, in so far as these terms and conditions are not already fixed and settled as a matter of law. It has not, I think, been the practice of either government to deal with or depart from such terms as are already so fixed, as is proposed to be done in the present case. Instances will readily suggest themselves to the minds of hon. members. Let us take the instance of confederation itself. Every Canadian is well aware that from the time the project of uniting together the scattered provinces of Canada came within the scope of politics there ensued a long period of the most anxious consultation and the fullest exchange of confidences, not only among the provinces as between themselves and their public men, but also between the provinces on the one hand and the imperial authorities on the other. I think that no whisper of suspicion has ever been heard that any of the provinces which intended to cast in their lot in the projected scheme of confederation, or that the views of any public man whose position in any such province entitled him to be heard, were or was in the least degree slighted, or that any person was denied the hearing which he might properly have claimed. I think the same may be said in regard to the subsequent admission of the provinces of Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia into the confederacy. Another familiar instance is that of Australia. We all know that the various states now forming the confederacy under the Southern Cross met in consultation, that their voices were heard in that instance, and that no statesman in those states whose position entitled him to a voice in the forming of that union, was denied a hearing. But, Sir, it has remained for this so-called Reform, so-called Liberal administration in Canada, to depart from that principle in the present instance, and to deny consultation to the provinces which are about to cast in their lot with Canada. In this case there has been practically no consultation with the Territories. Beyond question, neither the people of these Territories, nor the people of Canada at large, have had the slightest opportunity of making their voices heard at the polls, where they should have been consulted. The whole matter appears to have been practically settled by the right hon. First Minister through a sub-committee of the Council. Upon that sub-committee there was no representative of the west. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), then Minister of the Interior, was not consulted. We have had this statement made upon the occasion of his explanation of his resignation, when he said that upon his arrival in Ottawa, two days after the presentation of these Bills to the House, he was under the necessity of

4377

sending for copies of these Bills for the purpose of informing himself of their contents. We know, too, that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), generally conceded to stand next to the First Minister himself, was not consulted. Well, what about the other members of the government? Doubtless we have constitutional principle that a Bill presented to the House by a member of the administration, and particularly by the leader of the government, is held to embody the united wisdom of the government, in regard to the measure dealt with. But in this case we have some evidence as to the facts, and with the exception of the statement made a few days ago, during the course of this debate, by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), and, I think, by the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), to the effect that they had some acquaintance with the provisions of this measure at or about the time it was introduced, the evidence appears to point to the conclusion that the other members of the government were not consulted; at all events, in regard to clause 16, commonly known as the educational clause. On this educational clause Mr. Haultain was denied consultation. He, beyond question, was the legally and properly constituted representative of the people of the west, whose status for all time was being fixed and disposed of. There is no evidence that the members from the Northwest supporting the government were consulted. As regards the educational provisions of this Bill as originally introduced, the evidence appears to be the other way, because we know that the government occupied a period of about a month continuously in consultation ostensibly with these hon. gentlemen upon the one hand as we now know, with the Papal ablegate upon the other, with this singular result that the right hon. leader of the government did not recede one inch in principle, but in matters of detail he went even farther than did the Bill as originally introduced. I say he went farther, because the body of the amended clause 16 makes no pretense of concealing a direct amendment of the British North America Act. It will not be denied that this is a most important step in the political life of the Northwest. It is an occasion when no shadow of a pretense should be left for the suggestion that the people whose interests more directly were being dealt with were not most exhaustively consulted. Mr. Haultain should be left no peg upon which to hang an assertion of want of the fullest confidence in him as the duly accredited representative of the people of this region. He was, indeed, specially in attendance for the purpose of consultation. Instead of this we have Mr. Haultain’s statement and that statement is that, with regard to these educational clauses, with the exception of a casual reference to them on the Friday preceding the Tuesday on which they were

4378

presented to the House, and another at twelve o’clock of the day on which, at three o’clock they were presented, there was no consultation with him whatever. Mr. Haultain’s letter to the right hon. Prime Minister published in the press stands as the record, so far as he is concerned; and we know that the people of the Northwest themselves have protested against this measure, by public meetings, through their press, by representations made to their members in this parliament, and otherwise. In fact, Sir, it would seem that the right hon. Prime Minister has, throughout this transaction, acted the part of an autocrat and a czar. Instead of crowning the political status of the Northwest with complete and absolute autonomy, the right hon. gentleman, it seems to me, proceeds by his Bill, as I propose, in part to show, to dim the lustre of that crown by plucking from it those bright particular stars with which it should be adorned. It will not be denied, that on this occasion, it would have been eminently proper, in framing these Acts to have regarded the whole Northwest including Manitoba, when redividing that great region into new jurisdictions. Manitoba’s boundaries should have been extended westerly and northerly. Its area is ridiculously small as compared with its sisters in confederation. Manitoba, for many years, was charged with the serious burden of administering these enormous territories, and was also burdened with the introduction of law and order, in fact of civilization, into that great lone land. In a word, Mr. Speaker, Manitoba was the experiment by which was proved, and by which has been most abundantly proved, the enormous, the absolutely limitless possibilities of the whole west. Its just claims should undoubtedly have been considered. It should not have been left cribbed, cabined and confined as it is and as has been fitly said, as a mere postage stamp upon the map of the Dominion. It appears to me from the frame of the Bills and the amendment proposed by the government to clause 16, and the general history of their introduction into this parliament, and also from the tenor of this debate, that the primary object of the government in imbedding these Bills, was to fasten about the necks of the new provinces a system of separate schools for all time. And I think it has always been a just inference from the facts within our knowledge that the reason, or at least, a reason, for the refusal of the government to extend the boundaries of Manitoba westerly, was that to the extent of such extension, the object of the government would be defeated. It may be said, Sir, that complete and absolute autonomy granted to a territory on its erection into a province, means at least, no restrictions upon its full constitutional rights and powers as

4379

defined by sections 92 and 93 of the British North America Act, 1867. But, if we turn to section 2 of this Act we see that such is not the intention of the government. That section, in effect, says that the provisions of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the province of Alberta in one instance and Saskatchewan in the other, ‘except in so far as varied by this Act’—showing a clear intention of amending that imperial statute. If we then turn to section 16, we find the proposed amendment to that section, to say, that section 93 of the British North America Act 1867 shall apply to the said province with the substitution for subsection 1 of said section 93, of the following subsections—and then follow certain subclauses to which I will presently advert. This, Mr. Speaker, is clearly arrogating to this parliament the right to amend the British North America Act, an imperial statute; and, as the facts show, it is assuming so to amend it without the assent of any minister of this government representing the particular people whose status is being irrevocably dealt with; without the assent of the Prime Minister of that people, and without the assent of the people themselves. It will be observed that an integral part of the Prime Minister’s complete and absolute autonomy, is, that under section 6 of these Bills, the right hon. gentleman retains in his own hands the fixing of the franchise for the election of members to this House. This is clearly a discrimination against Alberta and Saskatchewan as compared with every other member of the Canadian confederation. I need not recall the fact that on the occasion of the introduction of Sir John Macdonald’s Dominion Franchise Act, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the whole of his followers kept this House in session for a period, I believe, of about six weeks in an endeavour to force their views with regard to provincial rights upon parliament, and to show that the taking into their own hands by the Dominion parliament of the fixing of the franchise was the gravest possible departure from the principle of provincial rights. Yet, this same so-called Reform or Liberal government has seized upon this very first opportunity which has presented itself under their regime to swallow their principles in that respect; and, in this instance they are by this section retaining absolutely in their own hands the fixing of the franchise, which course on the occasion I have referred to, they in the strongest terms reprobated. But Mr. Speaker, the crowning effort of the Prime Minister to deprive the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan of complete and absolute autonomy is found in section 16 of these Bills. To my mind, the most striking difference between the Bills as introduced and the amendment by

4380

clause 16 is shown in the right hon. gentleman’s attempt to shift the responsibility from his own shoulders and the shoulders of his government to those of the people of the Northwest. The Bills are based upon the Northwest Territories Act of 1875, an Act of this parliament. The amendments are based upon the Northwest Territories ordinances of 1901. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) in the course of his remarks attempted to make out that this Act of 1875, or, at all events that the ordinances of 1901, are the voluntary and independent legislation of the provinces. But I think, Sir, that no one need be deceived by that action of the Prime Minister or the contention of his Minister of Customs, because the ordinances are evidently only the present crystallized form of the practise or procedure which the legislature of the Northwest, as faithful British subjects, have promulgated as the means of carrying into effect the Act of 1875, and working out a system of separate schools which was by that Act imposed upon them; in the same manner as any court charged with the administration of an Act of parliament would endeavour to carry that Act into effect by a code of practice. But for that Act there would have been no ordinances. The right hon. gentleman, knowing that the advocates of provincial rights would take this ground against these Bills and show that they were based on the Dominion Act, seeks to remove the stigma from that accusation by basing his amendments on the Northwest ordinances of 1901.

A point which it seems to me has hardly been accentuated as much as it might have been is this, that both the Bills and the proposed amendments to clause 16 go entirely beyond the Act of 1875. That Act provided for the introduction of the principle of separate schools into the Northwest, for their maintenance by the taxes of their supporters and for the freedom of these supporters from liability to taxes for maintenance of public schools; but that Act did not provide for a division of the public moneys devoted to education. In 1879, the re-enactment of the Dominion Lands Act in that year named ‘public schools’ as the recipients of the school funds from the Dominion Lands in Manitoba and the Territories. Before that date, in former re-enactments, the statutory provision was that such moneys should be devoted simply to ‘education.’ In that year the word ‘education’ was struck out and the words public schools inserted. In the measure now before the House we have embodied the Northwest ordinances of 1901 by which the legislature and people of the Northwest Territories voluntary divided the public moneys originally devoted to education among public and separate schools. This voluntary act of the

4381

legislature and people of the Northwest is surely the best possible evidence that could be furnished that those people may well be trusted to be both just and generous.

But, in considering this question, we must always bear in mind that these ordinances are merely the creature and outcome of the Act of 1875, which was an Act of the Dominion parliament, and not of any legislature of the Northwest, and that Act imposed and forced separate schools upon that region; so that these ordinances are really not independent voluntary territorial legislation. It is to be observed that the ordinances sharply define and make minute provisions for the erection and maintenance of both classes of schools, ‘separate schools’ and ‘public schools,’ and that those ordinances making that distinction and containing those definitions are now proposed to be incorporated in these Dominion Acts, thereby, it seems to me, making it impossible to contend, as has been done during this debate, that the words ‘public schools’ contained in the Dominion Lands Act include ‘separate schools’ as defined by the ordinances.

When we come to review the utterances of members of the cabinet who have given us their views during the course of this debate, we find these gentlemen singularly at variance. The right hon. the First Minister, who introduced this measure, told us that he stood on the rock of the constitution. He contended, though he made no serious attempt to prove it as a matter of law, that Canada was under a legal obligation to restrict the legislative rights of the proposed new provinces to legislate as to schools. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that he very properly stated what, and what alone, can be the real question which this parliament ought to decide, and that that question must be decided and decided favourably to the contention of the government before they can hope for one hour to enforce these Acts, even if they become law. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) puts his support altogether upon the ground of a moral obligation. Let us see what that hon. gentleman says, as reported in ‘Hansard.’ He says:

My right hon. friend the First Minister has not declared that it is not within the power of this parliament to make a change. He has not declared that there is any legal or binding obligation resting on the parliament of Canada to re-enact the clauses of the Act of 1875.

Further he says:

But what my right hon. friend does say is that if you will read the whole history of the question, you will come to the conclusion that though, as a matter of law, there may be no binding obligation—though in that sense you may not be able to produce a written contract, signed, sealed and delivered, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition demanded a few moments ago—there may arise out of the whole history of this matter an obligation which the parliament of Canada should

4382

consider, and which many men regard as a moral obligation which this House should fulfil.

Mr. SPROULE. The right hon. the First Minister went much further than to speak of it as a moral obligation, because he used the expression that the constitution provides that we must do it.

Mr. FIELDING. I do not think he said that the constitution provides that we must do it.

Further on he observes:

Therefore, I am not claiming that there is any binding legal obligation, but I do say that we are obliged to look carefully into the circumstances under which that Act was passed; and if we find that at the time it was regarded by its friends and supporters, and parliament generally, as an Act which was passed, not only for the present but the future, that creates a moral obligation which this House may well take into consideration.

These observations are contained in pages 3123 and 3124 of ‘Hansard.’ This amounts to saying that because the people of the Northwest did not rise in revolt when by the Act of 1875 separate schools were imposed upon them, but carried out that Act, and were generous enough to pass the ordinances of 1901 dividing the public moneys devoted to education, therefore the parliament of Canada are now under a moral obligation to treat them as abject slaves and to fasten separate schools upon them for all time. The hon. Minister of Customs defends the Bill by a hotch-potch of assumed law, and doubly assumed fact, as a basis for a policy behind which to shield the government. That hon. gentleman as reported in ‘Hansard’ made use of this language:

Judging from the arguments I have heard, and bringing to bear what common sense I have on the subject, and what legal knowledge as a layman I may have, it seems to me we have power to deal with this matter. In dealing with this matter, I have regard to the fact that in those Territories, of thirty years, by Act of this Dominion parliament under which people have entered that country, knowing that the existing school system had been established by an Act of this parliament, knowing that under these conditions people have gone in there and settled there under that system of education, I say it is only just, and right, and sensible, and the proper thing to do in dealing with this matter on the basis of justice of law, to say that the advantages, whatever they may be, that these people have had for thirty years, shall not, by this Dominion government, be taken away from them now.

He said further, on page 3190:

Yet these gentlemen talk about provincial rights being invaded by this Bill. Amid all the doubts and uncertainties that our constitutional lawyers in this House and outside of this House present, in reference to ascertaining what are the facts of the case, if, as I believe, from advice which I have received from men in whose legal knowledge I have confidence, we have the power under the amendment to the British North America Act of 1871 to pass this law which we have submitted for the approval of this House, and if

4383

this Bill simply provides for the continuance of the law which was passed by the men who represented the Northwest Territories three years ago, and which has been in existence for three years without, so far as I am aware, any man having lifted up his voice against it, is it not better to deal with this question now, to settle this question in this way, rather than to leave it open to be a very possible cause of discord, and a means of holding back the prosperity and the progress of this Dominion ?

This is contained in pages 3185 and 3186 of ‘Hansard.’ Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Customs throughout his speech took for granted and directly assumed that the Act of 1875 was absolutely binding upon the people of the Northwest. As has been pointed out that Act might during any session of this parliament since its passage have been repealed. He dwelt at great length upon the ordinances but as I have pointed out—and I think it is undeniable—the ordinances simply are the creature of the statute which was a Dominion statute and which was not the legislative Act of the Territories even as Territories, although section 93 would require it to be the Act of a province to make it binding on the people of the now proposed provinces. He was assuming further that the system of separate schools introduced by that Act of 1875 was regarded by the people of the Northwest as a very precious heritage, as something which they would by no means allow themselves to be deprived of, as something which they regarded as of extreme value. Might I refer that hon. minister and the House to the observations of his late colleague the present member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) in which he demonstrated from his personal knowledge of the facts that the people of the Northwest, the very people to whom the Minister of Customs was ascribing the utmost anxiety to retain separate schools, these very people at the very time of the passage of the Act of 1875 and ever since that time, have fought against the principle and have, as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has pointed out, reduced the system of separate schools which grew up under the Act of 1875 to what he now represents to be their present innocuous status. He showed that the efforts of the people of the Northwest have always since the introduction of that Act, been in the direction of curtailing this institution, evidencing a desire not to continue the separate school system in their midst. The hon. the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) in the speech to which I have referred threw law and constitution, legal and moral obligation to the winds, and placed his adherence to the amended clause 16 entirely on the ground that he considered it necessary to save this government. This government could at any time save itself and its reputation as the champion of provincial rights in this country by withdrawing these

4384

Bills or at all events by withdrawing clause 16. That hon. gentleman in the course of his remarks, made use of this language which is to be found at page 3259 :

I do not think they would be able to convince me that it would not be better that the legislature of the Northwest Territories should be free.

And further on he says :

I came to the conclusion that, whatever anybody else might do, my course was perfectly clear : I should, when this question came up, be in a position to speak with a freedom with which a member of the government could not speak, and I should be called upon to decide to what extent and how far I would be prepared to compromise opinions which I had publicly expressed, and opinions which I still hold in order not to destroy the government of which I have been a member.

Further on he says :

The question is how far a man is justified in compromising his opinion for the purpose of preventing a political crisis.

This might be referred to as practical politics with a vengeance. The moral obligation argument appears to me to amount to saying that there is a moral obligation arising out of Canadian history, as to separate schools binding the government of Canada to impose upon the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan separate schools, and it amounts to saying that we are in fact under a moral obligation to amend the British North America Act, because that is what we are doing by the present legislation, a thing which we certainly have no power and therefore no right to do. We are asked nevertheless in pursuance of that moral obligation to amend that Act. As I have pointed out in the sections to which I have referred, numbers 2 and 16 we are also asked in effect to amend the Dominion Lands Act, section 25, subsection 3 which I would like to call to the attention of hon. gentlemen. That section reads :

All moneys from time to time realized from the sale of school lands shall be invested in securities of Canada, to form a school fund, and the interest arising therefrom, after deducting the cost of management, shall be paid annually to the government of the province or territory within which such lands are situated towards the support of public schools therein ; and the moneys so paid shall be distributed for that purpose by the government of such province or territory in such manner as it deems expedient.

It is beyond question that the effect of the measure now before the House is to work an amendment of that Dominion Act. If it is necessary to pursue that matter further let me refer to subclause 2 of the proposed amendment which reads :

In the appropriation by the legislature or distribution by the government of the province of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with said chapter 29 or any Act passed in amendment

4385

thereof, or in substitution therefor, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any class described in the said chapter 29.

It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, to be a mere pretense to say that there is any obligation binding Canada to restrict the legal rights of the new provinces to legislate exclusively as to education under section 93 of the Act of 1867. The strongest admission the government could make of that fact is that they find it absolutely necessary to alter section 93 to attain that object, and as I have already shown that is what they have deliberately attempted to do. The Postmaster General based his support of the Bill upon what he is pleased to assume to be the spirit as opposed to the strict letter of the constitution, I might point out what the hon. gentleman said upon the subject:

In fact, there are just two ways of looking at the British North America Act; you may look at it from the standpoint of a lawyer, or you may look at it from the standpoint of a statesman. If you look at it from the standpoint of a lawyer—and I submit that is the standpoint of the leader of the opposition—you take the letter of the constitution without regard to its bearings and its application to the time being, and apply it literally, whether the application fits the time and occasion or not. But taking the spirit of the Act on each occasion of creating a new province, you adopt the constitution, as far as possible, to the new province, having due regard to the conditions then prevailing.

The Postmaster General, apparently construes the British North America Act of 1871 as authorizing this parliament to hand out to the new provinces any kind of constitution we might see fit to give them, and the hon. gentleman based that contention upon section 2 of the British North America Act of 1871, which provides as follows:

The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion, but not included in any province thereof, and may at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament.

Now, the hon. minister is a lawyer, and a lawyer of very old standing, and consequently must be well acquainted with the canons of construction which the law prescribes as the proper method of ascertaining the meaning of any writing, namely, that where there are general words regarding any provision in that writing, and in the same writing there are particular words on the same subject, the operation of the general words must be held to be restricted, controlled and governed by the particular words. Well, those general words are in the clauses to which I have just adverted as to making ‘provision for the constitution and administration of any province.’ But the particular words are to be

4386

found in the body of section 93 of the Act of 1867:—

In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions.

Then follow certain restrictive subsections to which I shall advert later. The hon. minister set what he considered the spirit as against the strict letter of the law, in the face of that canon of construction. I now bring to his notice both the Act of 1871, containing the clause I have cited, and section 93 of the Act of 1867. The hon. gentleman also adverted to section 146 of the Act, and I shall have some observations to make hereafter in that connection. Let me ask him who is to be the judge of what is the spirit of any writing which may be submitted for construction. Surely the spirit of the Act will be varied indefinitely according to the object, bent of mind or interest of the person who is placing a construction upon it. The observations of the hon. minister would almost lead one to suppose that he was descending to what is familiarly known as ‘fireside law’ and asking us to accept what he would have us believe is the ‘intention’ of the Act. But, Sir, the intention of any writing can only be ascertained by the words used. It must not and cannot be drawn from a history of the subject to which the writing relates nor from surrounding circumstances or attendant facts. The only manner in which a writing can be properly construed is by a critical examination of the language it uses. The hon. minister would apparently have us believe it was the part of statesmanship to disregard the letter of the law and endeavour to find out its spirit by taking the broad view which he enunciated. Well, I have only to observe that so far as I am aware statesmen—even statesmen of the status of the Postmaster General himself—are subject to law and to the letter of the law equally with the king’s meanest subject. May I be permitted—not for the information of hon. members, but for the possible benefit of the man on the street, as to whom the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) was the other night not improperly solicitous—roughly—without argument, barely to state the provisions of the various acts entering into a consideration of the exclusive right of the new provinces to legislate on the subject of education. First let me bring to the attention of hon. gentlemen the provisions of section 146 of the British North America Act of 1867. That section is as follows:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of the parliament of Canada and the houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island or British Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces or any of them into the union

4387

and on address from the Houses of parliament of Canada to admit Rupert’s Land and the Territories or either of them into the union on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act, provisions of any order in council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Hon. gentlemen will notice that the governing words of this section are the words ‘subject to the provisions of this Act.’ That is subject to the provisions of the whole of this Act; that is, subject to the provisions of section 93 of this Act. And we cannot bear the provisions of that section too strongly in mind:—

In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions.

Let me now advert to the British North America Act of 1871, section 2:—

The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion, but not included in any province thereof, and may at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament.

This particular section is necessarily recited in the preambles of the Bills now before the House and is apparently so cited with a view to the possibility of the contention which has been raised by some speakers on the other side, namely, that the words which I have quoted ‘make provision for the constitution’ authorize this parliament practically to hand out to those new provinces any kind of constitution we may see fit. But it is to be observed that these general words must be taken in conjunction with and subject to the restrictive power of the particular words contained in section 93. Then, let us look at the British North America Act, 1886, where we find in section 3 this provision:

This Act and the British North America Act, 1867, and the British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed together, and may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886.

This is, in effect a statutory enactment of that other canon of construction which the law provides, viz.: that the true construction of any writing must be arrived at while giving due force to all its parts; by harmonizing all these parts and making the writing one harmonious whole. And the effect of the joint application of these two canons of construction to these three Acts of 1867, 1871 and 1886, is, in my humble opinion, that parliament is not justified, while framing a constitution for the two new provinces, in inserting any provision

4388

that is at variance with sections 92 and 93 of the Act of 1867. Examine for a moment sections 91, 92, and 93 of the British North America Act of 1867. We find section 91 headed ‘distribution of legislative power’ and that it contains 29 subjects of legislative power which it assigns to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. Section 92 is headed ‘exclusive powers of provincial legislature.’ It contains an enumeration of sixteen subjects of legislation which it exclusively assigns to the provinces. Then follows section 93 (headed ‘Education’) which provides that ‘In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education.’ Can it for one moment be contended that there is any greater warrant for the Dominion parliament attempting to invade the exclusive legislative field of the provinces stated in section 93, than that in 92? Manifestly not. Now, let us look for a moment at the amended clause 16 as proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister. That amendment says:

Section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province, with the substitution for subsection 1 of said section 93, of the following subsections:—

Then follow the three subsections which are to be substituted for subsection 1 of section 93. It is hardly necessary to observe again that we have here the bold, bald proposition to amend the British North America Act, an imperial Act—an impossibility. It appears to me that our power as the parliament of Canada is exhausted when we create a province, and that then section 93 automatically comes into effect. The general rule is contained in the body of section 93 which I have twice read to the House. But the body of the amended clause 16 says that the whole of section 93 as amended shall apply to Alberta and Saskatchewan, that is with the substitution for subsection 1 of section 93 of the three subsections of the amended clause 16. Why, let us ask, is this done? It is done because the government know that these restrictive subsections of sections 93 do not and cannot be made to apply as they stand and unless, amended by the amended clause 16. And let us see why that is so? If we turn to the restrictive subsection 93 we find these to be their provisions:

Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools——

The amendments to clause 16 say ‘separate schools.’

—which any class or persons have by law in the province at the union.

Subsection 2 says:

All the powers, privileges, and duties at the union by law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools and school trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic

4389

subjects, shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Quebec;

Subsection 3 says:

Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at the union or is thereafter established by the legislature of the province, an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen’s subjects in relation to education;

Subsection 4 deals with the subject of remedial legislation under the circumstances there set out. I beg to observe that these restrictive subsections could not apply to Alberta and Saskatchewan, because they could only apply in favour of a province having existence as a province when brought into confederation, and not to a territory becoming a province only when brought in. We are dealing with a territory not with a province and therefore, in my opinion, this particular subsection 1 could not apply. Second, this subsection could only apply in case the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have by law a right or privilege with respect to denominational—or, as the proposed amendment of section 16, says, separate—schools. The words ‘by law’ occurring both in subsection 1 and subsection 3, I submit, mean, by an independent law of the provinces, and do not mean by a law of the Dominion forced upon any province. The Act of 1875, as I have before observed, was a Dominion Act passed at a time when the Territories had no representation in this parliament. It was not a voluntary independent law of even a territory. The ordinances as I have also observed can only be regarded as the outcome of the Act of 1875, which, we cannot bear too strongly in mind, was a Dominion Act which forced separate schools upon the Territories. As a third reason it may be observed that the class of persons must have such right at the union. The Territories came into confederation, beyond question, in 1870, and there is no pretense that at that time such a right existed, for the very good reason that practically no schools of any kind then existed in the Territories. As regards subsection 2 of section 93, that admittedly relates only to Ontario and Quebec and does not enter into this discussion. For the same identical reasons which I have stated as to subsection 1 of section 93, I would contend that subsections 3 and 4 providing for a remedial order and for remedial legislation, do not, and could not apply to Alberta and Saskatchewan; except that under the provisions of subsection 3, if Alberta or Saskatchewan when they become provinces, should enact a separate school law and afterwards pass a law doing away with separate schools, appeal against the Act so attempting to

4390

abolish the separate schools would be available to the minority. The general result is that the Dominion parliament can create a province, and then the general provision of section 93 applies in all cases. Whether the restrictive subsections of section 93 apply or not is dependent on three facts, which, being facts, cannot be altered by legislation. And these facts are: First, whether the area to be admitted is or is not already a province; second, whether there is or is not a system of separate schools already in existence there by law of that province; and third, whether such law exists at the union. All three of these questions must be answered in the negative in the case both of Alberta and Saskatchewan. But as I have observed, if either of these provinces, after their erection into provinces, saw fit to enact a separate school law, such law at once would become irrevocable; and to that extent, but to that extent only, in my humble judgment, subsections 3 and 4 of section 93 would apply. In view of these considerations, which, it is clear to me, are beyond question, what does the government do by their proposed amendment to section 16? Let us keep that distinctly in mind. They say:

Section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province, with the substitution for subsection 1 of said section 93, of the following subsection.

That is the action of the government upon it. This, of course, cuts out subsection 1 of the Act of 1893, and substitutes this whole amended clause 16, as being and constituting subsection 1 of section 93. This is assuming to amend the British North America Act in such manner as to compel the application of this restrictive subsection 1 as amended that is to Alberta and Saskatchewan, notwithstanding that the facts do not fit, notwithstanding that Alberta and Saskatchewan are not provinces, notwithstanding that the union was thirty years ago and not now, and notwithstanding that the Act of 1875 was a Dominion and not a provincial, or even a territorial Act. Let us look at subsection 3 of the amended clause 16:

Where the expression ‘by law’ is employed in subsection 3 of the said section 93, it shall be held to mean the law as set out in said chapters 29 and 30, and where the expression ‘at the union’ is employed, in said subsection 3, it shall be held to mean the date at which this Act comes into force.

It is impossible to reconcile the statement of the law, or what I respectfully submit it to be, with the provisions of this subsection. This means, Mr. Speaker, that parliament is asked to legislate in two instances that to be a fact which is not a fact, and then to say, that in consequence of those facts which are not facts that the whole of section 93 as amended shall apply to Alberta and Saskatchewan. It may be

4391

observed that that which is not true cannot be made true by legislation; and also that no legislature ought to be asked to pass legislation of this description. The truth is that the government finds itself compelled to adopt this utterly illegal and senseless course to effect an object which, without adopting such course, it admits it could not effect. If this legislation is passed, manifestly it must be confirmed in England. The hon. member for Brandon foreshadowed that as being the intention of the government. It seems to be a most extraordinary proposal for any government to submit to this parliament legislation which it must admit, and which, by the mouthpiece of one of its late colleagues, it admits, is totally inoperative, in fact is ultra vires, and as such could not be enforced even if passed. It would appear that the advocates of provincial rights in this country should, if that foreshadowed intention of the government is put in force, make the fight of their lives in that connection, and should submit to the imperial parliament the entire history of this subject with a view of showing what, with regard to Alberta and Saskatchewan is undoubtedly the fact, that the people of the Territories have from the first fought against the imposition of separate schools upon their territory. I have made this statement of what I humbly conceive to be the law in the hope that among the many thousands of our fellow citizens throughout this country who are intensely interested in this question of separate schools, and who have the statutes of our country at their hand and also copies of these Bills, may be led possibly to peruse and examine some of those Acts for themselves, and in the further hope that if they do so, they will come to a conclusion consonant with that which I have had the honour to submit to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the imposition of separate schools upon the population of the new provinces, because the people of that land, in my humble opinion, have a constitutional right under section 93 to exclusively to legislate upon the subject of education. This does not appear to me to be a question of the merits or demerits of public schools; it is not a question, as asserted by the Minister of Finance, of a moral obligation; neither is it a question of finding a solution which will satisfy all creeds and classes as advocated by the Minister of Customs, neither is it a question of saving the government, as indicated by the hon. member for Brandon. It is simply and solely, in my humble opinion, a question of law, and was properly put by the premier, in his speech in introducing these Bills, as one of legal obligation upon this parliament to impose separate schools upon the new provinces. If that ground is abandoned, and apparently, to a considerable extent, hon. members on the other side of the House speaking during the course of this

4392

debate, have abandoned that ground, it appears to me that the government case is largely given away. Undoubtedly that legal question stands on the very threshold and in the forefront, and it must necessarily be decided, and decided in accordance with the contention of the government, or, as already observed, the Acts become in effect waste paper. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, of what avail has been the wilderness of words, the weary waste of verbiage with which this House has been daily deluged during the past three weeks, relating to the work and sufferings of the Jesuit fathers in the dim and distant past of New France, to a nice balancing of the volume of alleged tolerance of intolerance said to exist in the various provinces, to the results alleged to be attained by the various systems of schools, clerical and otherwise, established in various provinces? On the contrary it seems to me that this legal question absolutely must be decided, and the decision must be upon the point as put by the premier. If the government were able to point to any competent decision,—it must necessarily be the decision of a court of last resort in this realm—if they were able to point to any such decision, our difficulties would be removed; but in the absence of any such decision it appears to me to be child’s play to force these Bills through this parliament without any decision upon that subject. We have to look to the future of our great country. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that we need not inquire with too great nicety whether by possibility this parliament may have the power to enact legislation such as that now submitted because Canada is under no obligation, moral, legal or other, to any one, to experiment with her constitution. If doubts do exist on that score, and they do exist, then I say it would be our legal duty, our duty in justice and in equity to give full force to the doctrine of provincial rights leaving the new provinces educationally absolutely free. A free people may be trusted to be both just and generous. A restricted people will probably act as Manitoba acted. Having pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the dicta of a number of the members of the cabinet it plainly appears that they failed to agree in their views upon this school question, except as to the necessity of saving this government. But, is it not possible, Mr. Speaker, that we may find the true reason why the government insists upon forcing separate schools upon the new provinces in the utterances of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)? Let us see what that hon. gentleman says. While neither the hon. Minister of Customs, nor the hon. Minister of Finance, nor the hon. member for Brandon was a member of the subcommittee which framed this legislation, the hon. Minister of Justice was a member of that subcommittee and is generally credited with having drawn section 16 both as

4393

originally introduced and as amended. That hon. gentleman, in speaking upon this subject, is reported in ‘Hansard,’ page 2692, to have used this language:

My hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has spoken of the 500,000 people in the Northwest who ought to be consulted. I have no desire to introduce unnecessarily controversial matter, but I ask him in all earnestness—and when I do so I ask him to remember the speeches he made in this House in 1896 which I read then and have read only quite recently—I ask him in all earnestness: have we no regard to pay in the settlement of that delicate question, to the opinion, the honest convictions of over forty per cent of the population of this Dominion? I say that there are deep seated prejudices being aroused, passions being inflamed, and the desire, I am quite convinced, of every man in this House is that peace should reign supreme throughout this land. All I say now, and I speak for myself, is that there can be no peace except that peace which is based on justice; there can be no peace except that peace which is based on equal rights and respect for the honest convictions of every man in this country.

Well, Mr. Speaker, one, I think, might naturally conclude that the honest convictions, as they have been evidenced by the action of the people of the Northwest Territories ever since the Dominion Act of 1875 forced separate schools upon them, should be accorded the first consideration. But it appears that it is only the religious convictions and sectarian desires of the minority, of the 41 per cent, mostly resident in the province of Quebec, and not of the 59 per cent to which the government sees fit to give ear. The probable consequence of the passage of these Bills and their confirmation, if confirmed by the imperial authorities, as foreshadowed by the hon. member for Brandon, will be an effort on the part of the legislatures of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan to free themselves from a hateful restraint, from an odious burden. There will be appeals to the Governor General, remedial orders and possibly Remedial Bills if any political party in Canada can be induced to take up such a fight. Certainly the Conservative party, after the experience of 1896, will hardly be induced, at all events, will have little reason to induce them to adopt such a course. Yet, as was ever the case, the government and its followers talk of the opposition and the press of Protestant Canada as stirring up bitterness and racial and religious strife. It seems to me that insincerity, intolerance and disregard for the law could hardly go farther. Let me advert to another instance of the right hon. First Minister’s absolute and complete autonomy. It is found in clause 20 of these Bills by which the right hon. First Minister refuses to hand over the crown lands to the proposed new provinces. I think that there was an excuse in the oft cited ease of Manitoba. That country was then absolutely new. It was familiarly referred to in old Canada as the great lone

4394

land and was practically uninhabited. At that time land and immigration policies had to be formulated. Europe had to be reached and educated as to our landed estate in that country. That has now all been done. Immigration will continue to flow into that country as long as there are unoccupied lands. Surely the Territories are more competent than the Dominion to administer the lands of the great west. The experimental stage is now passed and the government on the ground is surely more competent to deal with the subject both of land and immigration in the west than a government 2,000 or 3,000 miles away, just as the Liberal party in days gone by contended that the Canadian government was more competent to deal with Canadian affairs than was Downing street. No doubt, however, the government considers it good party politics to maintain its vast army of land officials as a standing party force for election purposes. The large foreign element, which will increase in that region, can as it becomes naturalized, thus be more effectually taught to vote for the party under whom it holds its lands. In my humble opinion it is not a good defence that was raised by the right hon. gentleman himself when he said that this parliament had paid for and purchased these lands. The Hudson Bay Company never owned the fee and all that it can be contended it passed or that it granted to the Dominion was the mere right of occupancy for certain purposes connected with the business in which that company was engaged. All this is quite apart from the long line of judicial decisions of the highest status cited by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), in the course of their eloquent addresses on this subject, showing that the Crown holds these lands in right of the provinces and that the provinces are therefore entitled to them. Then, by way of rendering autonomy to the provinces beyond question complete and absolute, we have clause 23 of these Bills leaving in full force the Canadian Pacific Railway right to full exemption from all powers of taxation, provincial or municipal, for all time. I might also draw attention to the fact that these Bills make no provision as to the subject of irrigation in the west, although the right hon. First Minister had before him in framing these Bills the draft Bill of the Hon. Mr. Haultain, which showed in section 10 and its explanatory notes the very great importance which that hon. gentleman, who is well acquainted with the needs of the Northwest, placed upon that subject. On the whole it appears to me that instead of granting his much vaunted absolute and complete autonomy to the new provinces the right hon. gentleman is not granting any autonomy at all other than in name; in fact, a not unfitting title for these Bills might be ‘autonomy, how not to grant it.’

4395

In conclusion, let me observe that if the government is determined to disregard the legal rights of Alberta and Saskatchewan as provinces, and to set aside the doctrine of provincial rights and to cause these provinces to be branded at their birth as inferior to their sisters in confederation, the consequences will be more serious than years can either cure or cause to be forgotten. If we consider the conduct of the Northwest members supporting the government, and the history of their dealings with the measures now before the House, in the light of the vast mass of patronage dangled before their eyes, we are irresistibly forced to the conclusion that their course, including that of their former leader, the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and that of the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), savours altogether too strongly of what may be termed practical politics. If we consider also the conduct of the right hon. the First Minister in introducing these Bills at this the first session of a new parliament, immediately following a general election, at which the subject of autonomy was not even mooted—the people of this country or even those of the Northwest being accorded no opportunity whatever of speaking upon these subjects—and if we regard the general tenor of this debate and the revelations of the past few days in connection with it, I think we are also forced to the conclusion that the conduct of the right hon. gentleman savours altogether too much of distrust of the people, and fear of the people, leading inevitably, in my opinion, to dark and devious electoral methods in the future, and to the conviction that the right hon. gentleman is actuated further by deception of the people in the course he has taken. I might warn the right hon. gentleman that it was just such failure to trust the people, such electoral methods long practiced, and such deft deception of the people, which eventually brought about the disastrous downfall of the Ross administration in Ontario.

Mr. A. M. BEAUPARLANT (St. Hyacinthe). (Translation). Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn), who has just resumed his seat, has in a general way approved of the stand taken by his chief (Mr. Borden). If I understood him right, he is of opinion that the legislation now submitted to the House does not come within the purview of this parliament and should be left to the legislatures of the provinces about to be organized. As I am speaking in a tongue which is not that of the members who oppose this legislation, I shall be content with answering objections in a general way, without referring to any one in particular, awaiting in the near future some more favourable opportunity which may present itself to me of addressing the House in English, the tongue generally spoken here, and which hon. members more readily

4396

understand. In rising to express my views on this question, while not over-confident, I am not dispelled by any great feeling of fear. I am not over-confident inasmuch as I do not flatter myself to the point of thinking that I shall throw new light on the subject. Numerous and learned speeches which we have heard since the opening of this debate have supplied all the light which the matter called for. On the other hand, I am not fretful, for, should I somewhat mix up matters, I might be excused on the ground that some of those who preceded me have been doing the very same thing. So, then, it is not so much with the idea of throwing new light on the subject, but rather impelled by a sense of duty that I am undertaking to explain at this stage of the debate the vote which I shall be called upon to give on this occasion.

The question submitted to the House has been discussed from the constitutional and legal standpoint; it has also been discussed from the standpoint of equity and public interest, concerning all of which people are apt to differ greatly in their views. The matter has been discussed with more or less fairness and breadth of mind, according, of course, to the mental and moral quality of the various speakers make-up. I propose dealing with the question in a rather theoretical way and from a few standpoints only which possibly, for the most part, have already been touched upon, and which, consequently, I do not claim to have discovered. I shall omit discussing for the time being some enactments, disappointed as I am at having heard them construed in directly opposite sense with apparently the same sincerity on both sides. I must say that if there had not been enacted legislation providing for the establishment or maintenance of separate schools in a country inhabited by about equal numbers of people belonging to two distinct nationalities, we should pass such a law. Even if the minorities were not, under the constitution, entitled to schools of their own liking—a statement with which I do not by any means agree—I say we should grant them that right, not only without hesitation, but even with cheerfulness, through a spirit of fairness, of justice (let us say generosity, for those who scorn the word justice), or at any rate with a view to ensuring peace in this country.

I have followed the discussion of estimates relative to public works. I noticed with pleasure—and I take this opportunity of acknowledging the spirit of fairness exhibited on such occasions—that whatever the locality where improvements were to be carried out the items were discussed solely on their merits, from the point of view of utility, and without considering the special community who would profit more directly through the work. As it was merely a question of money, it was in every case settled without any display of prejudice, excitement or commotion. In this case the interest

4397

at stake are the education of our children, the building up of their minds, the moulding of the community’s future ideals through succeeding generations, the race sentiment, and, forthwith, public opinion is astir, swayed to and fro by conflicting elements, until the wave is breaking into this very House. From that we may judge what a superior interest is involved. And on this very account it would be specially regrettable if a portion of the people of this country were deprived of such a boon. Although a minority, although in smaller numbers, we none the less cherish those feelings which in the nature of things are so dear to men and which they are intent on transmitting to their descendants. Fortunately, and I am glad to acknowledge it, several of the fair and broad-minded English speaking members of this House have spoken in such a way as to restore confidence. I have listened to a great many arguments, some of which, in spite of my good will, I have scarcely been able to consider as offered in good faith. Two reasons have I been able to make out from all that has been said in opposition to the educational clauses of the Bill. The first is on the ground of economy. It is cheaper to build and maintain one school than two; the second is based on a desire to bring about the disappearance of religious and racial differences.

Well, I have just stated that whenever money is at stake, people are apt to be fairly broad, fairly generous, fairly liberal. Why should they not be broad, generous and liberal as well when they have an additional reason for being so—the desirability of allowing men the free enjoyment of feelings which, while harmless to outsiders, are particularly dear to them and their children? On the other hand, if it were possible, by experiments carried on simultaneously, to ascertain what separate schools will cost, and what expenditure would be involved in a refusal to grant to a numerous class of citizens, making up 41 per cent of the country’s population, their right to their proportion of the public funds, to which they have contributed in like proportion, I think that economy would be found to lie in the former plan of action.

As regards the second reason, is there one hon. gentleman in this House who would venture to say that he has a right to exercise some control over the beliefs of his neighbour? Well, as a matter of fact, that is what he is trying to do when he claims control over the young mind at the very period of life where it is being moulded for all time. Is there one hon. gentleman in this House who would claim the right to substitute his views to those of a fellow-citizen whom he knows to cling to his opinions, for himself and his children, just as tenaciously as the hon. gentleman clings to his own? Is there one hon. gentleman in this House who is willing to lay down the principle that, as regards that question of education,

4398

wherein the deepest and warmest feelings of the human soul are in play, strength should prevail in a country like Canada, which is sometimes called free? Were such a one to rise and speak in that sense, and then explain how such a claim can be made to agree with the fundamental principles of justice and liberty, I must say that I, for one, would be greatly interested. Let him stand up and down, if he can, those who would fain brand him as an egotist, a bigot and a narrow-minded citizen, and one totally blind whenever he tries to look beyond the compass of his own small person. Let him stand up, so that the country may know him, that public opinion may appreciate him and our successors judge him.

However, I must say, in justice to this House, that the principle that force should rule has not been asserted here, although the reasons set forth to hide it from sight could not leave any doubt in our minds as to its existence. As for me, the fact of my belonging to the nationality which claims redress, will not induce me to withhold, on this question, the statement of principles which I owe to my country, and especially to my electors who have honoured me with their confidence. I am in favour of separate schools, under circumstances such as exist just now in this country, when minorities insist on having them. Nor do I object to any religious denomination or racial group settled in Canada to-day, whatever its importance, having its separate schools, so long as its members are moral and peaceful, and provided they fulfil the conditions as to numbers laid down in the law of their province and recognized as reasonable by all. In the province of Quebec the minimum number of children between five and sixteen years of age required for the establishment of a separate school is twenty within a radius of five miles.

I am in favour of separate schools, because my feelings are dear to me, and I sympathize with those whose feelings are dear to them. In the near future I may have an opportunity of showing otherwise than in word my toleration and sympathy for the minorities in matters of belief and of feeling. In that respect, I am in favour of minorities, not because they are made up of French Canadians, Englishmen, Irishmen or Scotchmen, but because they are men, that is to say, beings with a heart and a soul, and consequently capable of resenting injustice and violence, as well as recognizing kindness, benevolence and fair treatment.

I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Speaker, that did I belong to a race or a creed which represented the majority of the population, I would not leave myself open to any reproach on the part of the minority in connection with the question under discussion in this House and in this country. Did I occupy a seat in the government of a sovereign country, I would not leave myself open to reproach on the part of the

4399

colonies. Were I a member of a Russian parliament—an institution which, of course, does not exist to-day, but which may pretty soon come into existence as the outcome of current events, and fortunately so—I would not take a hand in riveting by statute the tongue and traditions of the Slavs on the inhabitants of Finland. In these matters of belief and feeling, my sympathies for the minorities are well enough known to my friends ; and, as regards others, they will have no difficulty in believing me to be sincere in that respect, if, as is likely, the good name of the people whom I have the honour to represent, for toleration, benevolence and fairness, has come to their knowledge. It cannot be said that, as a matter of course, the views of the minorities are wrong. The fundamental principles of justice and truth remain unaltered ; while those in the majority to-day may be in the minority tomorrow, in the same way as the wealthy man of to-day may be destitute to-morrow. The main difficulty, if I may say so without hurting too much our self-conceit, lies in the limited disposition or ability of man to grasp what constitutes justice and truth. And the very sense of our inadequacy in that respect should be sufficient reason for all good-natured and sincere men, who would not unwillingly commit an injustice, to move slowly and show toleration under circumstances such as these. Those who claim they have a monopoly of truth, and who act on that belief in their intercourse with their fellow-men, are the most dangerous enemies of peace and harmony, without which no community can enjoy happiness. If the spirit of toleration, of freedom, of philanthropy, which I advocate and which you condemn as criminal, said a philosopher addressing a bigot, has inspired your fellow-citizens and mine, there would not have been so many wars, and so many of our children would not have lost their lives on the fields of battle. Principles should be judged by their results.

As for those who seek by force to bring about the unification of the various religious and racial elements, let me state that they are undertaking a task which they cannot hope to accomplish. Powers greater than those wielded in Canada have failed in their endeavour to do so. The Spanish inquisition, at a time when Spain was at the height of her power, vainly sought to crush the Protestants in the Netherlands. Protestantism in another country and in another age has similarly failed to blot out the Catholic faith in Ireland. You are intent on establishing a state religion, said a French statesman ; you may expect that there will be agitation, uprisings and probably bloodshed. From where I am addressing you, he added, I behold the window whence the criminal hand of one of our kings, armed by fanaticism, gave the signal for the massacre of a portion of the French people.

4400

Bigots may have used the knife, majorities may have crushed opposition, groups of men may have shown themselves cruel, unjust, inhuman, towards their fellow-men ; families may have been afflicted and homes desolated ; people may have been made miserable, persecuted, spoilated in all countries, all communities, all ages ; but never has violence, which is a blot on the principles advocated throughout it and renders them odious and unacceptable, ever succeeded in uprooting from the human soul its cherished beliefs.

We appeal to all good natured men, whose kindliness, benevolence and righteousness forbids them to have recourse to spoilation and to whom violence is repugnant—violence which experience and history have shown to be of no avail—we appeal to these men for their support on behalf of legislation making for toleration and equal rights for all. Such is the Act which is now under discussion and which we are glad to see supported by a goodly proportion of English-speaking members.

I shall now, Mr. Speaker, take up a few objections which I wish to answer very briefly. It has been stated here more than once that the question should be referred to the legislatures of the provinces which this Bill is intended to organize. As I stated a moment ago, I do not like to be personal, especially as I am addressing the House in a tongue which is not well understood by gentlemen on the other side. However, I think I may say without leaving myself open to a charge of unfairness on the part of any one, that had I, on these questions of provincial rights, made on any previous occasion such distinct statements as those attributed in the course of the debate to hon. gentlemen on the other side, I, for one, would have abstained from voicing to-day exactly the opposite opinion, a stand which has been taken in the hope that, by means of this out-and-out inconsistency, an objectionable interest might be promoted.

In the second place, these gentlemen should take the responsibility of stating what is their policy on that question. It seems to me they should not be relieved of that responsibility by merely stating that the matter of separate schools is within the purview of another legislature. They should, besides, state what stand they would take if they occupied a seat in these legislatures we are about to organize. The country is entitled to hear more from them in this respect.

Then again I say : The new provinces are receiving from our hands a constitution, together with money grants and pecuniary advantages attached ; we should be entitled to state on what terms these things are granted. Is the donee entitled nowadays to accept a donation while at the same time rejecting the terms ? In the fourth place, by the process of disallowance or

4401

appeal, we exert a certain control over provincial legislation. Why should we not settle at once, a point which otherwise would be apt to give rise to litigation. By doing that, one undoubted advantage is secured : the saving to parties interested of some heavy expenditure, and the saving to the country at large of an agitation uncertain as to the proportions it may assume and the time it may last. Judging from past experience, we may assume, of course, that if the present government were in power, at the time the trouble broke out, six months might be sufficient to restore harmony ; but should we happen to be then under the rule of our friends on the other side, the discontent would last for six years.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, if the legislatures of the new provinces propose granting or maintaining separate schools in the Northwest Territories, they should not, it seems to me, have very strong objections to our doing it for them, and if such is not their intention, it is only wise and just—as previously shown in full—that we should see to it ourselves and once for all. Sincerity is a grand virtue, greatly prized in private life, and which is proportionately of still greater value in public matters.

Would those who stick to this contention be willing to permit that all the provinces, Quebec included, should legislate unreservedly and exclusively, at their own free will, on matters of education? If so, they are giving credit to my province for a spirit of justice and fairness and for breadth of mind, which testimony fills me with pride; if not, we have a right to say that they are not sincere, and they have not the right to complain that we are giving offence in so saying.

Now, another objection has been raised; it has been contended that such legislation should be referred to the courts. I claim that such a contention is not new. Judges are appointed by parliament, or, at any rate by the government as representing the majority of the members, and while the courts are entrusted with the duty of applying the law, it devolves on parliament to enact it. I see no reason why, under these circumstances, the creative power should be superseded by the power it has created. We have here the hon. Minister of Justice who is the official head of the bench in all of the provinces. We have here a number of lawyers, of legal gentlemen, some of whom will become judges without being possessed of a greater knowledge of the law than what they possess to-day, so that parliament should be in a position to fulfil the part which public confidence has assigned exclusively to it. Rather than seeking refuge behind such pretenses in order to avoid the responsibility of the views I might express, I would much prefer condemning outright the policy contained in the Bill in the hope that I might be still worthy of the confidence with which

4402

people have heretofore honoured me on account of my frankness. As for those who favour the establishment of a single system of education, and who, because they find it satisfactory, want to see it accepted as such by all, they forget that everything in society, in the universe, is relative; that such a system which answers perfectly well the needs of so and so, may not be at all what suits the requirements of somebody else. Those who start on such a narrow basis, who have only one term of comparison and who, utterly uncompromising, want the state to distribute justice and protection to its citizens solely in accordance with their own narrow views, while at the same time they claim equal rights for all, they recall to my mind the levelling theory of a certain monarch in olden times. Having put it into his head to establish absolute equality in his domain, he took his own stature as a standard which all his subjects should conform to; he ordered his officers and soldiers to take hold in the cities and throughout the country of all tall men and to cut them down to the required height, while on the other hand smaller men were to be stretched out until they reached the full royal stature. While there may be men in this House who understand equality in that fashion, fortunately there are others whose ideas are sounder.

Those who, like ourselves, are in favour of the proposed legislation are quite willing to let all and every one with the beliefs and feelings he owes to birth, family or national traditions, in the same way as they are willing to allow to every man the stature which he holds from nature. These broadminded, fair and generous men are not of the opinion that liberty consists in thinking freely, provided you think exactly in the way of the man who holds an opinion contrary to yours.

Judging from the way in which the various statements in respect to the proposed legislation have been received in this House I am perfectly satisfied that the men who have a sound conception of equality, justice and liberty constitute, and on the day the vote is taken will constitute an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons in Canada.

Many things have been said, in fact I think everything has been said for or against this legislation. Many quotations have been made, and in this respect, I am indebted to those hon. members who have spoken before me, as they have saved me considerable labour.

Although, I have, as a rule, been present during the debate ever since its inception, it may be that some things have escaped my notice. Neither have I been able to take cognizance of all the speeches reported in ‘Hansard,’ whose bulkiness I am contributing to increase just now. I am not sure, however, that the name of the discoverer of these Territories, or of the man who first explored them, has been recalled in this

4403

House. He was a Frenchman and a Catholic, Varennes de la Verendrye? I am not sure whether it has been stated that, some years later, Lord Selkirk, founder of the Red river settlement, requested Monseigneur Plessis, bishop of Quebec, to send French and Catholic missionaries for the purpose of preaching the gospel in these regions, a request which was complied with. I am not sure whether it was stated that there existed in 1818, on the very boundaries of these Territories of the Northwest, two Catholic and French schools? On the other hand, I am aware that the eloquent member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), among others, has recalled the statements made at the time of the introduction of the Act of 1875, by the then Prime Minister, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, the Hon. Edward Blake and Sir John A. Macdonald, which statements, in express and implicit terms, contained a pledge that the rights of future settlers to have schools of their own liking would never in the future be interfered with. I wonder if those who are not utterly indifferent to the sacredness of vested rights and to the claims of services rendered do not feel some anguish in the bottom of their hearts when they refuse to grant any concessions on behalf of the men who have thus served their country, a country which they have some reason to believe, does not belong exclusively to others. I wonder if any claim of the Doukhobors, who have arrived in this country 350 years after its discovery would meet with such determined opposition as that which is shown to-day against this provision on behalf of the pioneer settlers of this country.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that we are witnesses of a conflict between these two currents of opinion. I shall only remark to-day that we have given in more often than circumstances warranted. However, I may state, not as a matter of gratification from the national or political standpoint, but with a view to claiming our dues, that on three occasions we did not give in : In 1775, in 1812, and in 1861. On the latter occasion some of my generous fellow-citizens of St. Hyacinthe, who are still there personally enlisted. We were foremost on all occasions when it was necessary to repulse the invader sent forth by the neighbouring republic, and to preserve for those who refuse us everything to-day that territory of Canada, wherein we were to be deprived of so many privileges.

We accepted confederation unwillingly, as far as a good many of us are concerned, as if we had foreseen what treatment was to be dealt out to us. On the faith of kindly representations and promises of fair treatment, we went aboard that ship of confederation. If now we are told that a change is to be effected and that the treatment granted to others is not due to us, I appeal to the love of liberty of the Anglo-Saxon race, would it be surprising that people,

4404

under such treatment, should look through the window to see whether there is not in the neighbourhood, or under the skies, some other boat wherein they may hope for more equitable treatment.

Together with some of my fellow-citizens and other broad-minded, fair and just men, such as the hon. Ministers of Justice, of Finance, of Customs, of Militia, of Agriculture, of Public Works, and the Postmaster General, I shall cast my vote with those who think that minorities are worth considering in this country of Canada, which is sometimes praised as a land of freedom. And if later on, owing to the importance, the interest and the sympathy which attaches to legislation of the kind now submitted to us, some one wishes to investigate in the reports of the House the various stages and circumstances of the case, I desire my name to be found amongst those who think that if oneself should be attended to, the other man is also worthy of some consideration.

Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto). Mr. Speaker, it will hardly be expected that I should discuss the constitutional aspect of this question. That phase of the matter has been discussed by eminent lawyers who have differed among themselves in reference to it, and therefore I as a layman may be excused from entering upon such a discussion. I wish to call attention to an extract published in the Toronto ‘News’ of the other day, from a speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in the House of Commons in 1893. He said :

I am to-day as firm a believer as I ever was in the doctrine of provincial rights. I take as much pride as ever I did in belonging to the great party which in the past carried that doctrine to a successful issue; an issue, indeed, so successful that we rank among the advocates of that doctrine to-day the most prominent of the men who opposed it in the past. And when the historian of the future shall refer to the first twenty years of confederation, the brightest page he will have to record will be the page on which he will trace the efforts of the Liberal party to maintain inviolate and intact the liberties and independence of the local legislatures.

I would commend these sentiments of 1893 to the Prime Minister and his followers to-day.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Hear, hear.

Mr. OSLER. In presenting this Bill the Prime Minister thought it was going to be a very light and simple matter, that there was nothing controversial in this measure. He said :

A great deal has been done, in fact, more has been done than we have to do to-day. We have to take the last step but it is easy and comparatively unimportant in view of and in comparison with what has already been accomplished. The metal has been in the

4405

crucible and all we have to do now, is to put the stamp of Canadian nationality upon it.

I wonder if, in view of the events of the last five or six weeks the Prime Minister, if he were introducing that measure to-day, would speak so lightly. I would suggest as a coat of arms for the new Territories the vast prairie, a tethered buffalo, and the motto ‘provincial rights strictly limited,’ a good commercial motto. The Prime Minister excused the delay in introducing this Bill in previous sessions on the ground that there was to be a new election, that there would be increased representation of the Northwest Territories and that he wished to have the benefit of the advice of the new members from the Territories. There has been a new election, and there is now an increased representation, but the right hon. gentleman did not avail himself of the advice of the leaders from this part of the west. The leaders who ought to have been consulted were not consulted on the educational clause. All the other clauses apparently were discussed but this clause was put to one side, it was shirked because apparently it was known that those who were most interested would most strongly object to it. The Prime Minister of the Territories, Mr. Haultain, was not consulted. Surely the right hon. gentleman who leads this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) acted differently from his usual custom in treating that hon. gentleman with such discourtesy. Surely the way to bring about conciliation and the way to effect peace would have been to consult with the man who was the representative of the people. That was not done. The Hon. Mr. Haultain was deliberately ignored. The Minister of the Interior, the member of the cabinet who ought to have been chiefly consulted among the ministers was also ignored. The Minister of Finance the next most important man was also ignored. The Bill was brought down in a hurry just a few days before the return of these two ministers. The Prime Minister evidently had it in his mind that if before bringing down the Bill these two leading members of his cabinet had an opportunity of discussing the educational clauses and the financial clauses, it might have been impossible to force that Bill upon the cabinet. He no doubt thought that if he could take the plunge and place that Bill before the House as the action of the government then his two colleagues would be forced to accept it rather than to bolt. One of these ministers did accept, the other bolted; but he did not bolt for long.

The people of this country in 1896 were much astonished at the ease and rapidity with which the Prime Minister settled the vexed and difficult school question of Manitoba. They gave him credit for marvellous powers of conciliation but as soon as this Bill was brought down the reason for that settlement in 1896 was thoroughly explained. That settlement of 1896 was a

4406

settlement with a string upon it. The promise that went with the sunny smiles that brought about that settlement was the promise that when the Northwest should be divided into provinces, restriction should be placed upon that territory and a restriction should be placed upon Manitoba as far as her boundaries are concerned, if she did not accept separate schools as desired. That, Sir, is the reason why there has been such an arousing of feeling in Ontario and in the west. It is a feeling that the people have been deceived and that this is an attempt to force upon these new Territories that which they do not want, that which by right they ought to settle among themselves, and to force upon Manitoba a restriction of her area as a punishment for her rebellion of 1896. The Prime Minister, and I think, the Minister of Justice both made the statement that they thought the school clause as embodied in this Bill was merely confirming exactly what the Territories now have. If that was the case it would surely have been easy to make that statement plain without putting in an elaborate clause which has caused so much trouble, so much excitement and so much distrust. The Prime Minister in referring to separate schools contrasted the separate schools with the godless schools of the other side of the line, gave credit to these separate schools for the difference in the morals of this country and the morals of the people to the south of us. If that was the case he certainly had not in view the separate school as it is now said to exist in the Northwest, merely a secular school with half an hour at the end of the day for religious instruction if the children wish it. The separate schools he must have had in view were separate schools, religious schools, pure and simple, or the reference which he made was of no value. It has been said that there has been an active canvass by fanatics to raise the excitement of the people of the west. There has been no such thing. The excitement, the meetings, the feeling that has been aroused there is a feeling that has sprung up spontaneously among the people. One of the results of that feeling was the meeting at Massey Hall. That meeting was organized by friends of the right hon. gentleman and organized in his interests. So much was that the case that not one of the Toronto members were asked to attend it. It was organized with a view of keeping it outside the politics of Toronto, because the politicians of that city were on the Conservative side. It was a representative meeting of the friends of the right hon. gentleman and it passed a resolution, a copy of which was sent to him. That resolution reads as follows :

Whereas it is of vital importance to Canada that the new provinces about to be established shall be left free to shape their own educational policy in accordance with the needs of the

4407

future, as these shall develop, be it therefore resolved, that this meeting emphatically protests against the enaction of section 16 of the present Autonomy Bills, or any other provisions inconsistent with their constitutional freedom in this regard. Be it further resolved, that, since the electors have had no opportunity to pass upon the principle embodied in the school clauses of the Bills now before parliament, the government should: (a) abandon the clause; or (b) appeal to the country on the measure; or defer action entirely until after the next general election. And be it ordered that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the city members of the House.

That resolution is a very moderate one and a very wise one, and either of the three courses it recommends should have appealed to the common sense of the cabinet. The general elections, Sir, took place a few weeks before the meeting of this House. These Bills had no doubt been fully decided upon, at any rate in their general lines, before that election; and that being the case, surely their provisions should have been submitted to the people. It constitutes a gross deception upon the electors, especially the electors of the Northwest, that such measures should have practically been decided upon, and not one reference made to them by any one on behalf of the government during the last general elections. In my opinion this conduct of the government is deserving of the severest censure. As my right hon. friend is aware, that meeting at Massey Hall was attended by an enormous number of his followers—men who had been his steady followers for years—and I believe I am quite within the mark in saying that the Prime Minister has received more strong remonstrances from his own supporters in Ontario than from all the rest of the country put together. The right hon. gentleman made his appeal standing upon the constitution of the country. In that respect he was right because if the constitution is good for anything it surely ought to be capable of meeting such a case as the present. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) threw to the winds the constitution. He said the question was not a constitutional one, but one of expediency. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), I understand, believes that the substituted clause is practically the same as the clause in the original Bill. If that be the case, what power has been brought to bear upon the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) to induce him to swallow that amended clause as almost sufficient for the needs of the people of the west and as not placing upon them any more onerous restrictions than the law now in force in the Territories does? The ‘Globe’ the other day took the view of the Minister of the Interior with regard to the original educational clause and held that it was the duty of the Liberals to reject it, who believed in provincial rights and provincial

4408

freedom. How could it be supposed that the law officers who drafted the Bills and those who advised the Prime Minister to present them to parliament could have imagined that legislation so inconsistent with the First Minister’s expressed purpose and so regardless of his past Canadian liberalism would be accepted by the Liberals in the country and would not instead have called forth their indignation and surprise? The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) paid the Minister of Justice the compliment of saying that he certainly could not have drafted those clauses, if they were supposed to mean what the First Minister said he intended them to mean, and an attempt was made to put the onus on the draughtsman. I am quite sure that the Minister of Justice will not shirk responsibility in any such manner. Those clauses were drawn deliberately, they were drawn knowingly, they were drawn in the shape they were, although it was known that they would not be accepted by the great bulk of the people. They were concealed from those who, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice knew, would oppose them tooth and nail. They were only presented to Mr. Haultain the day they were submitted to this House and to the Minister of the Interior and Finance not more than a day or two before they were introduced here. They were deliberately suppressed and kept back from all those who as the Prime Minister and other members of the government well knew, would strongly and strenuously oppose them. What the people want to know is why were these clauses forced on an unwilling cabinet? Why were they forced upon people who objected to them? Why were they forced upon the very people who are most interested in this Bill? These people were not consulted. The man who represented them in the cabinet was not consulted, and yet apparently such force was brought to bear upon the government that they were inserted in the Bill and kept secret until the very last moment. Surely that is not the way to bring about conciliation, but it is rather the way to arouse the worst feelings on both sides. There must have been some strong power that forced the government to take this position and what the people want to know is who is that power, who pulled the strings? When the clause was first read and created such excitement throughout the country, if it was so innocent as the Prime Minister said it was intended to be, why did nearly five weeks elapse before it was re-drafted and again submitted to this House? During that interval we had the resignation of one of the ministers; we had bickerings among hon. gentlemen opposite, and the country was aflame with excitement. There was more than a simply re-drafting of that clause to cause all that delay. The cause of that wrangling,

4409

whatever it may be, has done the country infinite harm. In some of the speeches made by hon. members opposite, the meeting at Massey hall was described as a mob trying to enlighten its rulers. Well, I think that that mob of ‘renegade Liberals,’ as another member called them, were decidedly right in trying to enlighten their leaders, for their leaders were leading them into a pit—which, I hope, the leaders themselves will fall into.

We have seen, in the interview with the newly-appointed Minister of the Interior published in the papers last night, that the educational clauses in this Bill have already been altered and there is no reason why they should not be further altered. If it is the intention of the government to change these educational clauses, surely the government ought to let us have it now. They should not put it off, allowing this bitterness to increase, and this misunderstanding—if it be a misunderstanding—as to the interpretation of the clauses to grow more intense. If this Bill is sent to the Privy Council or to any other competent authority to be revised, surely it would have been wiser on the part of the government to find out what their authority was and then bring in the Bill under that authority, rather than bring in the Bill first and find what it means afterwards.

The question of control of the lands and other matters in connection with the Bill will be discussed much better when the Bill is in committee. The educational clauses have been discussed at length and I do not propose to go further into them just now.

There is one gentleman to whom, I think, the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will owe a deep apology in connection with this Autonomy Bill. I refer to his admirer—his late admirer—the man who has been for years holding him up to the public as the great advocate of provincial rights and a great constitutional lawyer—Mr. Willison, who wrote the right hon. gentleman’s biography. Mr. Willison wrote the biography of the right hon. Hon. Dr. Jekyll-Laurier in 864 pages. He will now have to write the biography of the right hon. Hon. Mr. Hyde-Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada. It is a great misfortune for Mr. Willison that he had not a full knowledge of his subject before he wrote the right hon. gentleman’s biography. The man wrote the life of that strange dual character Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde knew from the very beginning of his writing the two sides of the man, and so was able to make his biography complete in every part. But Mr. Willison in his 864 pages, saw only one side of the character he was portraying. And now he has to undo all he has written and write the biography of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as he now knows him, in 865 pages at least.

Mr. R. R. HALL (West Peterborough). Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to take up

4410

much of the time of the House in discussing the matter before the chair, but I would like to make a few observations with regard to the constitutional aspect of these Bills. The Northwest Territories, as we know, were admitted into the Dominion in 1871, pursuant to section 146 of the British North America Act. When these Territories were admitted into Canada, they did not come in in the same way as other provinces had done. They did not come in as the British North America Act of 1867 evidently assumed new territory would come in. They came in as Territories and not as provinces, and, coming in in that way, it became necessary to have an Imperial Act passed for the purpose of providing for the peace, order, and good government of these new Territories. Had they come in as provinces, the machinery of the British North America Act would have applied to them. The Act that was passed to meet this case is known as the British North America Act of 1871. By section 4 of that Act, it is expressly provided:

The parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the administration, peace, order and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any province.

Canada, therefore, under this section of the British North America Act of 1871 was given full power to give these Territories such laws as, in its judgment, seemed wise, during the time they were territories. Canada accordingly passed an Act which is known as the Northwest Territories Act of 1875. Powers of local self-government were given these Territories, so that they could look after their own local affairs. Subsequently these powers were from time to time extended, and further powers were given as the circumstances made necessary. Let us consider for a moment the circumstances surrounding the Act of 1875, the original Act granting local self-government to the Territories, so far as educational matters are concerned. We know that the Bill which, when passed, became the Act of 1875, was brought down by the then Prime Minister, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. It had no educational clauses. However, Hon. Edward Blake, whom we all know to be a staunch Protestant, pointed out the fact that the Bill did not contain any provision in respect of separate schools. Accordingly the suggestion was made to introduce section 11, giving to the minority, Protestant or Roman Catholic, the right to establish separate schools, and empowering the ratepayers, Protestant or Roman Catholic, establishing schools, to be liable to assessment only for such rates as they might impose on themselves in respect of their schools. I may say that this clause 11 was passed unanimously by the House of Commons at that time. Some comments were made in favour of it, and it was approved

4411

by the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, in whom hon. gentlemen opposite must have some confidence. As for the Liberals, we say whatever the faults of Sir John Macdonald may have been, and we thought they were neither few nor small, at all events we say there was one thing that could not be charged against him, and that was anything savouring of bigotry or intolerance. He was a broadminded man, he recognized the claims of minorities as well as of majorities, he was built upon broad lines ; and his whole political career shows that had he been leader of the opposition at the present time, he would not have introduced an amendment such as has been offered by the present leader of the opposition, the discussion of which savours so much of bigotry and intolerance. We also find that the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie and Sir Charles Tupper support clause 11 introducing separate schools. The Hon. David Mills was in the House at that time, the present leader of the Conservative party in the Senate, the Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell, was also in the House at that time, and both supported the introduction of separate schools in the Northwest Territories. We must also remember, Mr. Speaker, the idea with which they were introduced. It was understood by everybody that this law providing for separate schools was not one which might be repealed the next day, or the next session, or at any future time. Local self-government was to be extended to the Territories, but with a larger and a wider signification, it provided for the future government of the Northwest Territories. The Hon. Edward Blake said on that occasion :

He believed that it was essential to our obtaining a large immigration to the Northwest that we should tell the people beforehand what those rights were to be in the country in which we invited them to settle.

Surely when an Act of that kind was passed, creating separate schools in the Northwest Territories, and when language of that kind was used in the House, the people who have gone into the Northwest Territories relying upon that Act and upon those expressions of opinion, had every reason to expect that the system of separate schools was to be permanent. Then take the language of the Hon. George Brown, of whose opposition to separate schools we have heard so much, and against which he had fought all his life. Speaking upon the Bill to introduce separate schools, he said :

The moment this Act passed and the Northwest became part of the union, they came under the union Act, and under the provisions with regard to separate schools.

I do not quote Mr. Brown’s opinion in that regard as a constitutional authority, but I quote him for the purpose of showing that he recognized that once this clause was enacted into legislation the government were under a moral obligation to see that separate schools were introduced into the

4412

Northwest Territories and maintained. Now, when that Act was passed there was a population of about 500 souls in those Territories. To-day they contain a population in the neighbourhood of 500,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, are we to disregard entirely the rights of those people, our Catholic brethren, who have gone in there with the belief that separate schools were a part of the institutions of that country? These men have gone in there and taken up homesteads, and have dragged out their lonely lives for three or four years in order to get a title to their lands ; they have erected buildings, they found separate schools in certain districts ; and are we now to say that the honour and faith of this parliament are not to be relied upon? Are we to say that the justice which proceeds from the representatives of the people in this House is not pure and clean, but is liable to be polluted and violated by a subsequent parliament? So far as I am concerned, I will be no party to any attempt to deprive a single subject of His Majesty of any right to which he is entitled. I say, therefore, that, under the circumstances, having regard to the way in which this clause 11 was introduced, this parliament is bound in honour to see that separate schools are provided for in the Bill now under consideration, and that we shall not delegate our constitutional powers to a body which will be in a position to undo this legislation passed many years ago, in which the honour of this country is involved, and upon which there is so much at stake.

At six o’clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o’clock.

4413

….

4414

….

PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.

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

4415

Of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.

Mr. R. R. HALL. Mr. Speaker, section 11 of the Act of 1875 which created separate schools, either Protestant or Roman Catholic, in the Northwest Territories has stood upon the statute books of Canada for upwards of thirty years. It has been unrepealed, unaltered and unamended in any respect ever since. Although the Northwest Territories Act has been under the consideration of this parliament in 1880, in 1885, in 1886 and in 1898, in those various years there never was a single objection made by any member of this House to clause 11 of that Act. Other changes were made in the Northwest Territories Act with the view of giving more extended powers to the Territories, but at no time was there any attempt made by any member of this House to repeal or amend clause 11. Once, and once only, in 1894, as I find by the records, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy introduced a resolution into this House to repeal section 11 of the Act of 1875. The reason he gave for that course—and he was supported, I believe, by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)—was that with that law on the statute-book of Canada, when provinces came to be formed out of the Northwest Territories, separate schools would become a part of their constitution. The parliament of Canada did not see fit, however, to accede to his views. In fact, the vast majority of the members of this House, Liberal and Conservative alike, voted against the late Dalton McCarthy’s resolution, showing that at that time they respected the opinion of the members of this House who had passed the Act of 1875, and that it was their intention that the system of separate schools, no matter what form it might ultimately take, should remain a part of the constitution of the Northwest Territories when they would be created into provinces. We find that the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories have passed certain laws in the form of ordinances in relation to education. Many persons thought at the time they passed those ordinances that they were going much beyond the constitutional powers which they had under the Northwest Territories Act of 1875, because in that instance the Northwest assembly did impair the rights which the minority supposed they had. The Northwest assembly defined, accurately and in no uncertain way, exactly what the rights of the minority were to be in respect to separate schools. So drastic were the changes introduced by the Northwest ordinances in those days that the minority claimed to be aggrieved, objected to the course which had been taken and made their objections to the Dominion government here. But we find that Sir John Thompson, who was then minister of Justice, declined to interfere, and allowed the ordinances to remain as the law

4416

relating to education in the Northwest Territories. No change, therefore, took place at that time. The matter was drawn to the attention of the people of Canada, and the people of Canada seemed to be quite content that the impairment which had been made by the Northwest assembly in respect to the rights of the minority should stand.

Now, it becomes important for us to consider exactly what are the rights of the minority in respect to educational matters in the Northwest Territories. There seems to be a great deal of misapprehension by hon. members opposite and by people living in different parts of Canada on this subject. I would not go to the trouble of reading the oft-repeated sections of the Northwest ordinances were it not for the fact that some hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osler), who spoke this afternoon, have admitted that they have not read those ordinances so as to appreciate the changes made by them. I contend that no person can read those ordinances without seeing that, so far as these new provinces are concerned, they will have absolute control over the public and separate schools of the Northwest Territories from nine o’clock in the morning till three thirty in the afternoon. There is no impairment of their provincial rights in this respect. We find that section 4 of chapter 29 of the Northwest ordinances says:

The department shall have the control and management of all kindergarten schools, public and separate schools, normal schools, teachers’ institutes and the education of deaf, deaf mute and blind persons.

Could the English language more clearly define the right of the province to have the control and management of public and separate schools? That is the Act under which these new provinces shall come. Could language be any plainer to show that provincial rights in the new provinces are not in any way infringed upon, but that the department of education in those provinces shall have the absolute control and management of both public and separate schools? And moreover, in order to make the matter more clear, and to elucidate and define exactly the rights which the provinces may have, we find that section 6 of this same Northwest ordinance goes on to specify exactly what jurisdiction the new provinces shall have over their schools. That section says:

The commissioner with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall have power:

1. 1. To make regulations of the department—

1. 1. For the classification, organization, government, examination and inspection of all schools hereinbefore mentioned;
   2. For the construction, furnishing and care of school buildings and the arrangement of school premises;
   3. For the examination, licensing and grading of teachers and for the examination of

4417

persons who may desire to enter professions or who may wish certificates of having completed courses of study in any school;

d. For a teachers’ reading course and teachers’ institutes and conventions;

2. To authorize text and reference books for the use of the pupils and teachers in all schools hereinbefore mentioned as well as such maps, globes, charts and other apparatus or equipment as may be required or giving proper instruction in such schools;
3. To prepare a list of books suitable for school libraries and to make regulations for the management of such libraries;
4. To make due provision for the training of teachers.

I ask, could the English language more clearly define what the rights of the new provinces shall be? I therefore say it is talking nonsense, it is stultifying one’s intelligence, to try to make the people of this country believe that the legislatures of the new provinces shall not have the exclusive control and management of the educational systems of those provinces. I would also refer to section 41 of the same ordinance, around which there seems to be a certain amount of discussion. That section says :

The minority of the ratepayers in any district whether Protestant or Roman Catholic may establish a separate school therein; and in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.

I claim that under that clause the parliament of Canada is not in any sense of the term forcing separate schools on the people of the Northwest Territories. It is leaving the people in each separate district free to say for themselves whether or not they shall have Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools. The parliament of Canada is not saying to the people of the Northwest Territories: You must have separate schools. It is leaving to the people themselves in the particular school district to say whether or not they shall have separate schools. And moreover, even if the minority, Protestant or Roman Catholic, do establish separate schools, we find that these schools again under section 45 are clearly brought under the control of the governments of the new provinces. We find that section 45 says :

After the establishment of a separate school district under the provisions of this ordinance such separate school district and the board thereof shall possess and exercise all rights, powers, privileges and be subject to the same liabilities and method of government as is herein provided in respect of public school districts.

1. 2. Any person who is legally assessed or assessable for a public school shall not be liable to assessment for any separate school established therein.

That is to say, under that clause the new provinces have the same control over these

4418

separate schools as they would have over a public school. I therefore desire to make it perfectly clear that so far as the new provinces of the Northwest are concerned, in matters of secular education, they will have exclusive power and full control, and that these schools from 9 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. are national schools, non-sectarian schools, schools under the control and jurisdiction of these provinces. I might further point out in regard to teaching of religion in these schools that clause 137 of these same ordinances restricts the teaching of religion as follows:

No religious instruction except as hereinafter provided shall be permitted in the school until one-half hour previous to its closing in the afternoon, after which time any such instruction permitted or desired by the board may be given.

Here again I say that the parliament of Canada are not forcing upon the new provinces the necessity and the obligation to teach religion in their schools. They may teach religion or they may not as the people in the particular district may see fit. It is for the people themselves, the people immediately concerned, the people whose rights according to hon. gentlemen opposite will be trampled to dust, to say whether or not they shall have religious teaching in the schools. The school trustees will decide whether Protestant or Roman Catholic religious teaching shall be given. Again under section 138 it is enacted:

Any child shall have the privilege of leaving the school room at the time at which religious instruction is commenced as provided for in the next preceding section, or of remaining without taking part in any religious instruction that may be given if the parents or guardians so desire.

Here again in this clause power and authority is given to any child that may attend any of these separate schools, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic to withdraw from school during the time of religious instruction; he is not bound to attend in school during the last half hour of the day, and to accept the teaching of a religious faith with which his parents do not agree. So far as secular education is concerned that child who does not wish religious instruction has exactly the same teaching and the same privileges as any other child in these new Territories. There is no handicap upon such child. The Northwest ordinances in order to make it more clear that such a child shall not be prejudiced provides under section 139, which will also apply to the new provinces:

No teacher, school trustee or inspector shall in any way attempt to deprive such a child of any advantage that it might derive from the ordinary education given in such school, and any such action on the part of any school trustee, inspector or teacher shall be held to be a disqualification for and voidance of the office held by him.

4419

Therefore, I say that this Act has been drawn with the utmost care, it has been drawn so as to clearly define that this child who does not accept the religious instruction given in the school by direction of the trustees shall not be prejudiced in the matter of secular education. So far as the Northwest ordinances are concerned, there is very little to harp upon, and any person who reads the Act and brings any intelligence whatever to bear upon the matter, must be very narrow-minded indeed if he cannot see that the Act is drawn upon broad, liberal grounds to which all classes of people in this country may readily subscribe.

There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. There are two important results which will follow in regard to the establishment of these schools; the first of these is that in the west no class of the people in any district will have any inducement to establish voluntary or denominational schools, which will not be under state control in matters of secular education. There is, therefore, in the new provinces little inducement for any class of people to establish denominational schools; in fact, there is practically no inducement for them to do so.

The second advantage is that no class of people will have any inducement in any district to establish voluntary schools or denominational schools for the purpose of receiving religious instruction, and thereby be forced to pay a double tax, that is the cost of voluntarily maintaining his denominational schools and also the enforced payment of public school taxes.

These are two distinct advantages that apply to the schools in the Northwest, and, therefore, I say that whoever conceived and designed that Act certainly conceived and designed it upon broad and liberal principles, upon principles which would give every possible encouragement to every class of people, no matter from what land they may come, to locate in the Northwest Territories with the knowledge that when they came to that land they came to a land of freedom, justice and toleration, a land where their children could receive a secular education under the control of the state, and where, if they particularly desired to have religious instruction, one half hour a day would be set apart in order that their children might be taught their particular faith. The very best proof that these laws have been satisfactory in the Northwest lies in the fact that we have had no agitation for the repeal of the ordinances. We have not had the Northwest Territories in past sessions knocking at the doors of this parliament and creating an agitation to have the right to repeal the school ordinances. Everything has gone on in peace and harmony, so far as their educational system and the working of their schools is concerned. In addition to that, we find that the people of

4420

the Northwest have been taking up land rapidly, people have been pouring into that country, and those who have gone in there have adapted themselves to the new conditions which they found there, and have been quite content, not only to settle on the lands themselves, but to send for their friends to come in ever increasing numbers. The very fact that the population of the Northwest has gone ahead so rapidly shows that there is not in the Northwest a system of education which tends to keep people out, to drive back the tide of immigration from the Northwest, but, on the other hand, there is every possible inducement for the people to locate there. The people of the Northwest are confronted with quite other difficulties than matters of education. That is a matter which, in a measure, is lost sight of. They desire to have provincial autonomy in order that they might have greater power over their own local affairs. We know that when a new country is opening up and settlements are being made at various distances from each other, new roads and bridges have to be built, and money must be expended for the development of the country. Hospitals must be built, and colleges for higher education must be erected. Where you have half a million people settled in various parts of the Territories, it is important that they should be at liberty to found their own higher educational institutions in order that the youth may receive the higher education that they require without the necessity of coming to some eastern university. The people of the Northwest felt that this was so important that they required to have provincial autonomy in order that they might keep pace with the growth and development of their country.

It was also necessary for them to have public works of different kinds established. These were the matters which impelled the First Minister of the Northwest Territories and the members of his government, and the members of the Northwest assembly, to petition this parliament for provincial autonomy. I find from the records of the assembly of the Northwest Territories that on May the 2nd, 1900, they voted an address to the Governor General in Council praying that a new province be created in the Territories. A copy of this address was sent to the Secretary of State on the 20th July, 1900. In the same journals I find also subsequent correspondence set forth. On December 7th, 1900, Mr. Haultain sent a letter to the First Minister in relation to the establishment of new provinces. He went so far in that letter as to set out in detail, word for word, what he thought should be the law in these new provinces when created. He, in fact, submitted a draft Autonomy Bill for the consideration of this government. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osler) has charged this government with having been discourteous to Mr. Haultain. Why, if the hon. gentleman had read up the history of the case, he would have

4421

seen that this government have been anything but discourteous. He would have seen that Mr. Haultain had been in correspondence with this government, explaining his views, and even suggesting the very words which he desired to have inserted in the Bill. Therefore, it seems to me, that the charge made by the hon. gentleman that members of this government were in the slightest degree discourteous to the premier of the Northwest Territories was entirely uncalled for. As a matter of fact, the ministers of this government were most courteous. It was at the request of the right hon. First Minister that Mr. Haultain sent a copy of the draft Bill which, in his judgment, should be the constitution for the new provinces; and in his letter forwarding that copy, he expressly stated that it was for the parliament of Canada to decide what the law should be, and that he was merely giving his views as to what constitution should be granted the new provinces when they received their full autonomy. I find in section 2 of the draft Bill which was presented by Mr. Haultain an expression of his views as to what educational system should prevail. His views will be very clearly understood when we read section 2 of his draft Bill in conjunction with the British North America Acts from 1867 to 1886. Section 2 provides as follows:—

From and after the first day of January, 1903, the provisions of the British North America Act of 1867, except those parts thereof which are in terms made or by reasonable intendment may be held to be specially applicable to or affect one or more but not the whole of the provinces under that Act composing the Dominion, and except so far as the same may be varied by this Act, shall be applicable to the province of Alberta in the same way and to the same extent as they apply to the several provinces of Canada and as if the province of Alberta had been one of the provinces originally united by the said Act.

Now, the province of Alberta was not in existence in 1870. It was only to come into existence the 1st January, 1903. Therefore, Mr. Haultain takes the condition in which the province of Alberta would be on the 1st January, 1903, as applying to the British North America Act. Consequently, when we read section 93 of the British North America Act, which deals with the question of education, in conjunction with Mr. Haultain’s Bill, we can see what this clause in Mr. Haultain’s draft Bill means. Section 93 of the British North America Act of 1867 reads as follows:—

In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions:

1. 1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.

Now, the district of Alberta could not come into the union as a province until the

4422

1st January, 1903, when, under this draft Bill, it was to be created a province. Can the English language express more clearly the intention of Mr. Haultain? Could any one err in his construction of what the law might be? The territories of Alberta and Saskatchewan only come into the union as provinces when they are so created. Neither of them came into the union in 1870 as a province, and consequently did not come in subject to the provisions of section 146 of the British North America Act of 1867. That section only provided for their admission as territories, and that Act was amended, so far as these Territories are concerned, by the Act of 1871. Therefore, I claim that they only come in as provinces when the Bills before the House become law; and the minority, under the strict terms of the constitution, will be entitled to any denominational schools then in existence. I can quite understand that it would be difficult to determine whether it would be section 11 of the Act of 1875 or the Northwest ordinances, as they stand to-day, which would be the law, if this House were to pass the Bill submitted by Mr. Haultain. I can readily understand that there would be a great chance of a lawsuit arising to determine whether the Northwest Territories Act of 1875, passed by this House, or the Northwest ordinances, as they exist to-day, would be the law. I can well understand that that would be a vexed and troublesome question which would bother the people of the Territories for years; and, therefore, it is important that we should express clearly and unequivocally exactly what we mean. I would not like to vote for the passage of a law which was bound to be productive of a lawsuit and to stir up strife and broil. We are here to express our views and intentions in clear and unequivocal language so that only one meaning can be taken out of it. I should be very diffident about giving my views with regard to the effect of Mr. Haultain’s Bill did I not find it supported by much higher constitutional authority. I find that the right hon. the First Minister, who has, during the past thirty years, taken a great part in the legislation of this country, gives it as his view that the Northwest ordinances would, under Mr. Haultain’s Bill, become part of the law governing the new provinces to be created. I find that the Minister of Justice expresses the same view. I find also that the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), who, long before he became a member of this government, held a distinguished place at the bar of Ontario, is also of the same view. That also is the opinion held by the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux), whose business it is to construe the different measures submitted to this House. I might go further and refer to the opinion which has been expressed by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), who is also a distinguished member of the bar of the province of Quebec. It is his view that Mr. Haultain’s draft Bill

4423

entitles the minority in the Northwest Territories to separate schools. And I will go further and say that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) a learned professor of law in Laval University intimated in clear language that that would be his view as well. We also have the opinion of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Leighton McCarthy), who is a leading member of a large firm of solicitors in Toronto, that separate schools would be introduced into the constitution of the Northwest Territories should Mr. Haultain’s Bill pass. That being the case, it becomes important to consider the position of the opposition leader in this regard. I find that he says, at page 3111 of ‘Hansard’ :

I base my case and my contention on the terms of the constitution. I do not argue against separate schools, I do not argue for separate schools.

Again, on page 3112, he says :

I do not think it is wise to attempt to step outside of the limits of the constitution to provide remedies which have no warrant within the terms of our charter.

He wants the law, he wants the constitution. Now, let us consider for a moment how that harmonizes with his resolution and with the Bill of Premier Haultain. This is the resolution the hon. gentleman moved in amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Autonomy Bill :

That all the words after the word ‘that’ to the end of the section be left out, and the following substituted therefor : Upon the establishment of a province in the Northwest Territories of Canada, as proposed by Bill 69, the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full powers of provincial government—

Does he stop there ? No, sir. That would be the limit of the constitution. He goes further and imports into the constitution these words :

Including powers to exclusively make laws in relation to education.

That flies right in the teeth of the statements he made which I have just quoted : ‘I do not think it is wise to step outside of the limits of the constitution to provide remedies which have no warrant within the terms of our charter.’ Now, when we refer to the Bill presented by Premier Haultain to this government, no such words are injected as : including powers exclusively to make laws in relation to education. Why ? Because he wanted to have the Northwest Territories continue the same school system as they have to-day, and to have that made part of the constitution under section 93 of the British North America Act ; and to show further that the leader of the opposition did this deliberately, we find that the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) stated

4424

in his speech that if the leader of the opposition would drop these last ten words, he would vote with him on this occasion. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) took similar grounds. Therefore, the leader of the opposition is not standing upon the rock of the constitution, but is trying to import into this legislation a term which will deprive the minority in the Northwest Territories of their rights under the constitution.

Now, Sir, the construction of Premier Haultain’s Bill is of great consequence when we take into consideration the events which followed the writing of his letter to the Prime Minister of the Dominion. The general elections in the Northwest Territories took place on the 21st of May, 1902, and the Bill which Mr. Haultain had drafted was widely circulated among the electors. I will not ask the House to take my word for that, but I will quote Mr. Haultain’s own words. This is an extract from an address issued by him to the electors of the Northwest Territories when he appealed for re-election in 1902.

The government has presented to the federal authorities the claims of the people of the Territories in the document which has been published and is being widely distributed. In that document the territorial government has expressed its opinion in favour of the recognition of one province. Action upon the whole question has been postponed by the Dominion government principally on the ground that ‘there is a divergence of opinion respecting the question whether there shall be one province only or more than one province,’ a question which in the last resort is one for the Dominion government to settle.

You will see that in that he speaks of a document which he describes as having been widely and extensively distributed throughout the Northwest Territories. It contained the draft Bill which he submitted to the Dominion government in regard to granting autonomy to the Northwest. In this same election address to the electors of the Northwest Territories, he says :

A similar appeal has been made in every constituency in the country by every candidate whose election will give support to the government at this critical time in the history of the Territories.

Many of the newspapers in Canada, particularly the opposition newspapers in Ontario, have taken the ground that the people of the Northwest Territories have not been consulted in regard to the autonomy to be granted. We find, according to Mr. Haultain’s letter in May, 1902, that the election turned upon the draft Bill which was widely distributed so that anybody who could read could see that, without importing the words the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) desires the system of schools in use in the Northwest Territories would be continued as a part of the constitution of those Territories.

4425

On January 31st, 1903, Mr. Haultain wrote a letter to Hon. Clifford Sifton in which he referred to his election address, and said:

The people have decided, and their decision is founded on the fact that not only am I offered the support of a greater portion of the members of the house than I have ever had before, but also twenty-four out of twenty-five members of the last house who sought re-election and who all voted ‘yea’ on the resolution of May 2nd, 1900, were returned at the top of the polls in their respective districts.

That is to say, that this Bill which was submitted by Premier Haultain continuing the system of separate schools in the Northwest was supported by certain representatives in the Northwest assembly, and that twenty-four out of twenty-five of those who voted for that system were returned at the head of the poll in their respective districts. That being the case, surely it does not lie in the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite to say that the voice of a free people has been stifled and that the people of the Northwest are being treated as children. The hon. member for North Toronto says that they are being treated as if they were in swaddling clothes and without intelligence. I do not think the people of the Northwest Territories, as free electors will appreciate such words indicating that they do not know their own business. Surely, in the next election to take place in the Northwest Territories, the people will resent these imputations. In his letter to Hon. Clifford Sifton, Mr. Haultain goes on:

I will go further and say that the people of the Territories practically unanimously voted for the establishment of the country upon a provincial basis. The manner in which that is to be done, to again quote from my address, ‘is a question which in the last resort is one for the Dominion government to settle.

That is to say, it is for this parliament to say how far we shall accede to Mr. Haultain’s view, what changes we will make in regard to the lands, or in regard to any controversial subject, and whether there shall be one or two provinces. He admits that it remains to this House to say, in the last resort, what the form of the constitution shall be which is to be granted to the Northwest Territories.

In this letter to Mr. Sifton he goes on to say:

At the request of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in my letter of December 7, 1901, I placed on record the views of the government of the Territories as to the matters which should receive consideration, and at the same time condensed those views in the form of a draft Bill. Since then, with the full knowledge of the facts, the people of the Territories have elected new representatives, a large majority of whom support and approve these terms.

Now I contend that it does not lie in the mouth of any gentleman in this House or of any newspaper in this country to say

4426

that the people of the Northwest have not been consulted, that they have not had an opportunity of expressing their views on this subject, because, in the most solemn manner in which a free people may express their views, they have declared their wish that the Northwest ordinances should be continued as part of the law of their province, and they do not desire the leader of the opposition to import into their constitution any power to exclusively make laws with relation to education. Of course we can readily understand that when Mr. Haultain came down here and got among his Tory confreres he did not want to be open to the charge, when he went back to the Northwest, that he had swallowed himself body and bones under the influences of the leader of the opposition and of his fellow-Conservatives, when they met in room No. 6, and sent that letter; he did not wish to be open to the charge of swallowing himself, and so we find him saying, in this interview with the ‘Globe’ of February 25, 1902:

The present system is working out as we wanted it, and there is no indication that there is a desire to change it. I am satisfied with the way in which it is working. If I were dictator to-morrow I would not change it.

Therefore, speaking for the people of the Northwest Territories in regard to the educational clauses of that Bill, he expresses himself as perfectly satisfied that they shall remain in the constitution, and says that if he were dictator to-morrow he would not change the school law of the Northwest Territories. Therefore, I say, we are bound by every sense of honour and decency to continue in the new constitution the system which has been approved of by the people of the Northwest Territories.

Now then, with regard to the power of this parliament to pass this law I think there can be no question whatever. Under the British North America Act, 1871, express power was given to this parliament to create out of the Territories new provinces containing such provisions for the constitution and administration of such provinces and for the passage of laws for the peace, order and good government of the provinces, as this parliament might see fit. I contend that under this Act this parliament has full jurisdiction to create these provinces, and inasmuch as we have full power to create these provinces, I say we should not involve them at the outset in a great lawsuit in order to determine what rights they possess under the new constitution, but we should take pains now to express them as clearly as we can. I can readily understand that the creation of lawsuits and constitutional difficulties has been part of the political capital of hon. members opposite in the past, and that they would no doubt like to continue that policy in the

4427

future. We know that when the province of Manitoba was created, the Conservative party then in power, did not see fit to express in unequivocal language exactly what the rights of that province were in regard to education, and the consequence was a great lawsuit and much turmoil, which kept the people of Manitoba in a state of worry and excitement for many years. I hope this parliament will not adopt the policy of the Conservative party in that regard, and leave an opening for lawsuits, as was suggested by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Pringle) in arguing that this question should be submitted to the courts, the consequence of which would be to continue the uproar that now unhappily prevails. Therefore, as we have full power under the Act of 1871, I think we should define in clear terms exactly what the rights of minorities shall be.

Mr. PRINGLE. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question, as he has mentioned my name. The authority to create a constitution given under the Act of 1871—is it to be in accordance with the terms of the British North America Act? Are not the Acts of 1867, 1871 and 1886 to be read together?

Mr. HALL. I thought I had already dealt with that question. Under section 146 of the British North America Act the new territories did not come in as provinces, they did not come in subject to the provisions of the British North America Act, they came in as territories and it became necessary to obtain another imperial Act to provide for the peace, order and good government of those Territories under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. That same Act which gave power to the parliament of Canada to legislate for the preservation of the peace, order and good government of the Northwest Territories, also gave power in these words:

The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament of Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I understand the English language, and if I appreciate the surrounding circumstances, I can understand that the imperial parliament had full confidence that the people of Canada were able to pass laws for the peace, order and good government of the Northwest Territories, and that when we came to create new provinces out of those territories we would be more interested than the imperial parliament and better able to say how these provinces should be formed, what jurisdiction

4428

they should have, and how they should be administered.

Mr. PRINGLE. The hon. gentleman has not answered my question, perhaps this is an effort to do so. I understand his contention to be that under the Act of 1871, the Dominion parliament could create any constitution they saw fit, and are not bound by clauses 91, 92 and 93 which set out what powers come under the federal jurisdiction and what come under the provincial jurisdiction, and that we are not bound by these clauses. I would like his opinion on that point.

Mr. HALL. The imperial parliament has full power and full control over the Northwest Territories to create provinces, and to give them such jurisdiction as they may see fit. It is quite open to the imperial parliament to grant to this parliament such powers and authorities under the widest terms, giving them any discretion they may see fit, in regard to the establishing of new provinces and therefore I say that the imperial parliament did delegate and did give full power and authority to this parliament to pass such laws as they saw fit under the Act of 1871. Of course, I can readily understand that this parliament would desire as far as possible to follow the principles of the other provinces, to adapt these principles as far as they possibly could and as far as they were applicable to the new provinces to be created, to apply the same principles as those under which other provinces have acted and to give to these provinces similar jurisdiction to that which other provinces possess. I desire to say a word in regard to the question of provincial rights. It was pointed out very clearly and very fully by the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) in his address that there are not two provinces in the Dominion which have exactly the same constitution word for word. They are all different in some respects. The differences in some cases are minor but in other cases they are not, so that when you hear people talking about provincial rights being invaded they should learn just exactly what the rights are, what are provincial rights and what are not provincial rights before they express their opinion upon the question. I find in section 80 of the British North America Act, 1867, that there are twelve electoral districts in the province of Quebec which are not at liberty to change their boundaries without the consent of the majority of the representatives of these twelve electoral districts in matters relating to their own legislative elections. In matters relating to the election of members to the legislative assembly, the province of Ontario has the fullest power and control over all the boundaries of their constituencies, whereas the province of Quebec has not. Is that an infringement of provincial rights? Yet, we find in the British North America

4429

Act which these people are loudly championing that section 80 prevents the legislature of Quebec from interfering with the boundaries of these twelve electoral districts without the consent of the majority of the members representing these districts. Is that an infringement of provincial rights? If so who introduced that clause, or, who was the means of introducing it? It was no less a person than Sir A. T. Galt, the champion of Protestant interests in the province of Quebec at the time that Canada became a part of confederation. Surely it does not lie in the mouths of papers like the Toronto ‘World’, the Toronto ‘News’ to make the statement that provincial rights are being infringed upon when we find that Sir A. T. Galt had that provision inserted in the British North America Act. Then we also find that subsection 2 of section 93 was added at the request of Sir A. T. Galt. That does not apply to any other province; yet the Protestants in that case have the right to their own separate schools in the province of Quebec. We also find that the Catholic minority in the province of Ontario are entitled to separate schools, that it is part of the constitution of Canada and therefore why should not the educational clauses of this Bill go into force and be part of the constitution of the Northwest Territories? I think myself that if the province of Alberta and Saskatchewan are in the company of Ontario and Quebec they are not in very bad company. We find that 75 per cent of the people of Canada at the present time are living under separate schools. We find that the people of Ontario, Quebec and the Northwest Territories are living under a system of separate schools and that they comprise 75 per cent of the population of Canada. Surely if 75 per cent of the people of Canada do not have to groan to live under a system of separate schools there cannot be any reason to complain that these provinces also will continue in the future as they have for thirty years in the past to live under a system of separate schools. It has been stated in certain quarters and by certain parties that the province of Ontario was rather inclined to be an intolerant province. I have lived in that province all my life and have been extensively acquainted throughout that province, and I must say that it is a tolerant province. We know that in the provincial election of 1886, and in subsequent elections, the leaders of the Conservative party sought by all means at their command to deprive the Roman Catholic section of the population of Ontario of their separate schools, to impair and practically destroy their system of separate schools and we know with what result. We know that in each case Sir Oliver Mowat appealed to the broad, tolerant views of the people in regard to separate schools and as to the rights of the minority, and we know that in each

4430

and every one of these cases without exception or reserve Sir Oliver Mowat was returned at the head of the polls. Therefore, I say the people of Ontario are a broad-minded people, that they are not an intolerant people. I regret, however, to say that we have in Ontario some rags like the Toronto ‘News’ and will mention another paper like the Toronto ‘World,’ which, for the time being, contain so much inflammable material that they make a great blaze, but it is only a temporary blaze, which, like all ‘violent fires soon burn out themselves.’ Therefore, I would say to our Catholic brethren who do not know the people of Ontario that they may rest assured that the people of Ontario are a broad-minded people, and I will go further and say that when the right hon. Prime Minister comes to appeal to the people of Ontario on account of the narrow views which have been expressed in opposition to him and when the broad-minded, tolerant people of Ontario come to size up the situation and know the facts they will cast into the fire of rags all such journals as those which I have mentioned and which are trying now to stir up religious strife and animosity. I also wish, Mr. Speaker, to point out the advantage that will result from having peace and harmony assured in the Northwest Territories and from having this Act placed beyond the control of any particular firebrand who may afterwards arise in these new provinces and who may desire to make cheap political capital out of it the same as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). I think it is of the utmost importance that we should have the school system clearly defined as it is in these Bills, so that there will be no bickering, no lawsuits extending over a number of years and no cause for strife in these new provinces. I ask what will be the result? The minority in the Northwest Territories will know that they will be entitled to separate schools, that they will be guaranteed to them. We know that there are thousands of people who are coming from foreign lands, from the United States and other countries, to settle in these new provinces. It is of the utmost importance that we should give every possible encouragement to our friends, Protestant and Roman Catholic, throughout all parts of Canada to locate in these provinces so as to leaven this foreign element with the Canadian spirit. Therefore, I say it is of the utmost importance that we should have that law in force and that we should give every encouragement to the 41 per cent of our Catholic brethren to locate in these provinces, knowing that they are going to a place where they are at liberty to have conscientious scruples regarding education respected and where they are at liberty to teach their children as they may see fit in matters of religion.

4431

We know that if this country is ever to be great we must for ever bury all questions of religious or racial nature, we must proceed upon broad lines, upon the broad lines that have been laid down and followed by the right hon. Prime Minister in this country during the last eight years when we have had the proud satisfaction of knowing that the trade of Canada has more than doubled, and when we find that the tide of immigration has been turned towards Canada and that our population is increasing by leaps and bounds. I was glad to hear the right hon. the First Minister the other day say that while the nineteenth century had been the century of progress of the United States, the twentieth century would be the century of progress of the people of Canada. Let us look for a moment at the history of the United States after the close of the civil war, after they had settled their differences at a very great cost in blood and treasure. When the Northwestern States along the Mississippi and Missouri valleys were opened for settlement, when the credit of the country and security for life and property were firmly established and people began to flow into those new states in millions and bring in their millions of money to develop their resources, it is on record that a western statesman made the remark that a man only needed to put his ear to the ground to hear the tramp of the coming millions. So, when we have settled our racial and sectarian disputes, we may hope to see people going into our western country, not as now in hundreds of thousands, but in millions—when we can place our ear to the ground and hear the tramp of the coming millions. It is the duty of the members of this House to consider in what ways we can make the people of that country happy and contented rather than to try to create trouble and distrust by inefficient legislation and to stir up religious strife and difficulty. As one of the means of stirring up religious strife in this country we find that attacks have been made upon respectable members of the Roman Catholic church on the ground that they have tried to influence legislation. While it may appear that the vote which I shall give on this occasion to have the system of the Northwest ordinances continued may be favourable to our Catholic brethren, I may say that from the time I came to this House as a member, there has never been a Roman Catholic to speak to me or to ask me to vote for this Bill ; and I believe the same is the experience of large numbers of the members of this House. Therefore I say it does not lie in the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite to try to impute any such designs to any members of this House. Some of these accusations have been made because the present government refused to extend the western boundary of the province of Manitoba. To quote again from the same letter of the hon. premier Haultain to

4432

the Hon. Clifford Sifton, of January 31, 1903, we find Mr. Haultain referring to the matter as one which had been submitted to the electors of the Northwest Territories in the same election address, saying : ‘Annexation in part to Manitoba has not a single advocate in this House.’ That is a communication that was sent to the members of this government as far back as January, 1903, in order to show that the people of the Northwest provinces were not in favour of the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba towards the west. We find also that a certain amount of party capital is sought to be created because the boundaries of Manitoba have not been extended to the north immediately on that being asked for, and because the province of Ontario was given an opportunity to have its views expressed in regard to the territory lying north of the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. We find that the Toronto ‘Mail’ of this day has an editorial under the heading, ‘Standing up for Ontario,’ in which it says :

The stand the Whitney government is taking on Ontario questions will commend itself to the people of this province. Mr. Whitney was early in the field demanding an extension of the boundaries, and as a consequence a large slice of territory to the north of us will surely be ours before long. We shall then have a clear right to an area extending to the shore of Hudson bay. The new land is rich in minerals, and will no doubt be a source of wealth.

I wonder if the Toronto ‘Mail’ has published that at the solicitation of the Papal ablegate. And yet we find men base and mean enough, when similar views are expressed by members of this government, to endeavour to stir up religious strife and passion by imputing to them anything but correct and honest and patriotic motives which inspire the members of this government. I, therefore, feel, and feel very strongly, that it is of the utmost importance, in the consideration of this measure, that we should watch and study well the principles and the policy which guided the fathers of confederation when they formed these provinces. We should take into consideration the reasons and arguments which caused them to make their honourable compromises and harmonize their differences in order to make Canada one grand harmonious whole. I would not have the hon. members of this House take their inspiration from such firebrands as the Toronto ‘News’ and the Toronto ‘World.’ I prefer to take my inspiration from the fathers of confederation, who have set the people of Canada upon the high road of a happy, united and great nation. Animated by their bright example, we should approach the consideration of this Bill with the same unconquerable spirit, the same unflinching devotion to duty and the same patriotic zeal that inspired them. If we are guided by the example of the great

4433

fathers of confederation, I feel satisfied that our duty will lead us to vote for this Bill.

Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma). Mr. Speaker, at the outset of what remarks I have to offer to the House, I feel I can to a certain extent and in a certain qualified manner offer my congratulations to my learned and honourable friend—because I understand that my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Hall) is of the same profession as myself—on the marvellous ability and the wonderful mental dexterity and alertness which he has displayed in making, by a circuitous route, a very careful road around this subject. Round and round the subject, after the calm and deliberate discussion of this House for many weeks, that hon. gentleman has travelled. Nothing could induce him to get to the centre of the subject and to touch the real question involved, namely, for what reason or purpose and with what object parliament is trying to force these objectionable clauses on the people of the Northwest provinces. My hon. friend will perhaps be able, when he goes back to his constituents, to congratulate himself upon their lack of memory of all these things, because, Sir, he does constantly associate, I believe, with gentlemen who are very anxious indeed to forget some things, and, therefore, when my hon. friend goes back to his constituents and is brought face to face with the remarks which he has made to this House in support of this Bill, perhaps my hon. friend, like a man well known to him, from his own riding, who in this province has won doubtful fame—will also ask them, ‘Can’t you forget some things.’ My friend, perhaps, may wish with regard at least to one portion of his speech that his constituents would and could forget the expression of opinion which he has in cold type in ‘Hansard.’ My friend has stated that the resolution offered in amendment by the leader of the opposition, to use his own words, savoured of bigotry and intolerance. We have had some extraordinary propositions from hon. gentlemen opposite during this debate, but this position enunciated by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Hall) is the most extraordinary. The language and the clear intent of that amendment contradict the hon. gentleman. The desire has been evident on that side of the House, even before this debate commenced, to make it appear that any gentleman on this side of the House raising his voice in opposition to this Bill and saying that some drastic clauses are objectionable, is rousing passion and prejudice in this country and encouraging that current of passion which created such trouble in this country in 1896, an imputation which rests now heavy as a dark cloud over the government. What is the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition? At the risk of monotony I shall read it to the House:

Upon the establishment of a province in the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed

4434

by Bill (No. 69), the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full powers of provincial self-government including power to exclusively make laws in relation to education.

What does that mean? My hon. friend talks of a desire expressed on the part of the leader of the opposition to impose something on the new provinces to which they were not subject before. I am not so well versed and so astute in reading statutes as he has shown himself in his speech, but I desire to say that I cannot by any stretch of my imagination, by any stretch of logic, by any kind of trite reasoning read into that amendment any other than a moderate desire to adhere strictly to the lines of provincial rights and not to take away from the provinces those rights which appertain to provinces, the withdrawal of which rights would be a violation of the constitution. I am sorry to say, Sir, that is the sort of reasoning that in several instances we have heard on this clause. Much is it to be regretted, and my friend will live to regret that ever the accusation of intolerance was thrown across the floor of this House against the leader of the opposition in connection with that amendment. That charge will not bear the light, the language of that amendment refutes the charge and the only conclusion, the only inference one can draw from the attack which has been made upon my honoured leader is the conclusion that my hon. friend desires to throw across the floor of the House an imputation which is absolutely groundless. My hon. friend has invoked the dictum of Edward Blake that it is a good thing to tell the people beforehand what law they are going to have. That is an excellent proposition and one to which nobody can take exception, but do we forget that the tide of immigration which set in many years ago has been steadily flowing into these western countries, and that it has been flowing into these western countries as the result of a policy inaugurated by this or a former government under a Minister of the Interior. Do we forget that representations have been made by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) when Minister of the Interior, with regard to what these immigrants may expect in the shape of education? Does my hon. friend deny that the ex-Minister of the Interior has for years circulated abroad pamphlets to the effect that the schools in the Northwest are non-sectarian or national schools? If so, it is a good thing to tell the people beforehand what to expect and when that cloud of immigration comes in and settles down and the new settlers, if this Bill passes, ask: Where are the non-sectarian schools spoken of in the pamphlets? What answer would my hon. friend be disposed to give them? Would he be disposed to answer with the

4435

words of Edward Blake, and would they be satisfied with that ? Does my hon. friend forget that we are legislating for people that are yet to come. My hon. friend evaded a point which is of vital import, which is the keynote of the situation that is his opinion as to whether there should be positive or negative legislation in this important Bill with regard to the educational clauses. He spoke with regard to the delegation of authority from the Dominion to the provinces. I trust I am not misquoting my hon. friend—he will correct me if I am,—when I say that he stated to the House that the Dominion parliament had authority to delegate its authority to the local parliament.

Mr. HALL. That was not what I said. I said that the imperial parliament had delegated certain authority to the Dominion parliament to create these provinces out of the territory.

Mr. BOYCE. If my hon. friend does not remember it I shall withdraw at once. That we had the power then to pass on to these provinces or to any province that we created such power as that.

Mr. HALL. No, I did not say that.

Mr. BOYCE. If that be the proposition or the principle around which my hon. friend was circulating so swiftly ; although he may not have said it, yet the whole trend of his ideas as evidenced by his speech was that that was in his mind or his words misrepresented him.

I put to you this proposition, that the question is not whether the federal parliament has the power to give to these Territories provincial rights but whether we have the power, upon this or any other question, to deprive a province of the rights given it by the constitution. My hon. friend was asked across the floor by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Pringle) a direct question, which brought him very near the vortex of this maelstrom. Did he answer it ? No, with that skilful evasion which distinguished his whole speech, he carefully avoided that question and it still remains unanswered. But he must know, as a lawyer, that all the three British North America Acts, from 1867 to 1886 must be read together. He had lost sight of that, but it was brought to his recollection by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Pringle). The hon. gentleman, in order to avoid the issue, fell back on the traditions of his constituency and forthwith forgot some things. I am sure that the proprietors and the managers and the others interested in the Toronto ‘ News ’ will be grieved to hear that my hon. friend has visited it with his condemnation. I wonder did he condemn the Toronto ‘ News ’ last autumn when it prophesied that his constituency would return a Liberal, and I wonder also whether he condemned such

4436

a renegade party organ as the ‘ Globe,’ for instance, when, on the introduction of the Autonomy Bill it came out in flat opposition to it. I wonder whether the Liberal associations throughout the country which have sent petitions to this House against the Bill and those gentlemen who have signed the numerous petitions laid on the table and who rank as Grits, and those newspapers independent, Liberal and Conservative, which have dared to point out that we are attempting to usurp powers which belong to the provinces—I wonder whether all these come under my hon. friend’s condemnatory tongue and are denounced by him as renegade Grits.

It is with considerable diffidence, Mr. Speaker, that I approach the consideration of so important and momentous a question as the one we are discussing. Were I not impelled by a sense of the responsibility which rests upon me, as a member of this House, and of the obligation which I am under to those who have honoured me with their confidence, were I not convinced that I should betray that confidence and not be worthy of the name of a British subject, if I did not lift up my voice in opposition to the clauses of this Bill which I believe interfere with British institutions and British traditions, I would leave the discussion of this matter entirely in the hands of the older and more experienced members of this House. But I feel bound by a sense of duty to put my views on record. The importance of this measure cannot be minimized. We have now reached a period in our history when our western Territories have developed to such an extent that they require greater autonomy and are entitled to be raised to the status of a province. What we are about to do is not to create new provinces in the sense of establishing provinces with new peoples and new traditions, but we are simply lengthening the cords and strengthening the stakes of the Dominion. We are simply, in the progress of development, transforming the Territories into provinces and granting to the provinces we are creating the constitution, the rights, powers and authorities to which they are entitled under our Confederation Acts. In doing this, we should be actuated by that broad and liberal spirit which my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr Hall) tells us characterized the fathers of confederation ; we should seek to avoid being niggardly in the legislation by which we are conferring a constitution on these provinces. We should be careful not to impose on them any bonds or shackles which may give rise to heart-burnings in the future, but give them a broad and liberal constitution which in years to come they will regard as a measure that was conceived and discussed in the broadest spirit of statesmanship. But that will be a realization which we cannot hope for, should this Bill go through with

4437

the warped and narrow restrictions which are now incorporated in it—restrictions as to which I shall have something to say presently. It were better by far that these Territories be left as they are, better by far that this Act should not pass, better by far that we should wait for a better order of things and until wiser counsels prevail, than to give these Territories provincial autonomy shackled by the impediments, so grievous and burdensome which are contained in this measure. Our original powers as a Dominion were derived from the British Crown under the British North America Act of 1867. And there were no narrow dealings in connection with that legislation; the lines of it were broad enough to suit the conditions which existed at that time. And, Sir, referring to that Act and its history, and going back to the Quebec resolutions which are the basis of it, it is important to observe at the outset that the provisions of the British North America Act were the result of treaty, of consent or agreement. Thirty-eight years before the leader of the House introduced this Bill, on the 21st of February—thirty-eight years before, within a few hours, the Earl of Carnarvon was speaking in the House of Peers in England on the question of the federation of the British North American colonies. I quote from his speech at page 576b :

We are laying the foundations of a great state, perhaps one which at a future day may even overshadow this country. But, come what may, we shall rejoice that we have shown neither indifference to their wishes nor jealousy of their aspirations, but that we honestly and sincerely, to the utmost of our power and knowledge, fostered their growth, recognizing in it the condition of our own greatness.

But there was a little temerity shown in the introduction of this Bill in the House of Lords in England. It was looked upon rather as an experiment. This experiment of confederation had been tried only four times, and in two of these four cases the confederation had subsequently dissolved or those who had been parties to it had retired from the agreement which led to it. This speech of Lord Carnarvon was quoted to considerable extent by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). In it some references were made to the question of education, which is now before the House. One of the cardinal principles which the noble earl laid down was that the federal parliament of the Dominion should be strong enough to maintain its own opinions and to resist the sudden gusts of popular opinion, and secondly, that it should not be so strong but that it should be amenable to public sentiment, and therefore out of harmony with the other branch of the legislature. There was doubt in the mind of the noble Earl, when he introduced this Bill, as to the use which might be made by parliament of the powers which were to be given to it in respect of the creation

4438

of provinces, powers which, as he points out, might lead to oppression, to the improper use of too strong a majority ; doubts whether, when the parliament of Canada exercised its powers under this Act, and when the time came, as it was hoped it would come, when provinces should have to be created, that there would be an overcrowding of power, an infliction upon the provinces of powers which were not suitable and which would amount, possibly, to coercion. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), in the course of his remarks referred to the Earl of Carnarvon’s speech as proving that the powers which are now under discussion were contemplated on the introduction of the Bill. At page 3399 of ‘ Hansard ’ the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) said :

Sir, a clearer definition was given in the British parliament when the Bill was introduced there, and I suppose we will all accept the good British theory that if there is a division of opinion as to the effect of a law, we must go to the real thought of the enacting legislature in order to properly understand it. Lord Carnarvon said in the House of Lords on the 19th of February, 1867, when moving the second reading of the British North America Act :

In this Bill the division of powers has been mainly effected by a distinct classification. Does he say that the classification is threefold ? No, Sir.

That classification is fourfold : First, those subjects of legislation which are attributed to the central parliament exclusively. Secondly, those which belong to the provincial legislature exclusively. Third, those which are the subject of concurrent legislation, and fourth, a particular clause which is dealt with exceptionally.

He enumerates all the powers that belong to the provinces and the powers that belong to the federal parliament, none of which includes education ; and he continues :

Lastly, in the 93rd clause which contains the exceptional provisions to which I refer, your lordships will observe some rather complicated arrangement in reference to education. I need hardly say that that great question gives rise to nearly as much earnestness and division of opinion on that as on this side of the Atlantic. This clause has been framed after long and anxious controversy in which all parties have been represented and on conditions to which all have given their consent.

Mr. hon. friend from Labelle, who, I regret to say, is not now in his seat, stopped at that point, although he stated that the noble earl continued and gave the rest of it omitting certain sentences that were uttered by the noble earl between the one which ends the quotation which I have just given and the one with which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) proceeds, which is :

The object of the clause is to secure to the religious minority of one province the same rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority of another province may enjoy. The Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada. The Protestant minority of Lower Canada, and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime

4439

provinces will thus stand on a footing of entire equality.

I was curious, when I heard that quoted, to find out what the noble earl really did say. I find that my hon. friend from Labelle has left out from the quotation of the noble earl’s utterances three or four cogent sentences. We find that where he stops he says ‘and he continues.’ Then he cites the paragraph down to the word ‘consent.’ Then he goes on with a sentence which appears also in the same paragraph, leaving out these words :

It is an understanding which, as it only concerns the local interests affected, is not one that parliament would be willing to disturb, even if in the opinion of parliament it is susceptible of amendment ; but I am bound to add, as the expression of my own opinion, that the terms of the agreement appear to me to be equitable and judicious.

Now, the hon. gentleman left out the very pith of that passage, which went to show what the noble earl was contending for with regard to the new provinces, and the clauses which he referred to in his speech were only incorporated at that time as touching the local interests affected.

Mr. A. LAVERGNE. If I remember aright, that declaration of Lord Carnarvon was made on the 19th of February, and there is another one made on the 22nd of February in answer to Lord Shaftesbury, which is quite complete. Perhaps my hon. friend has not seen it.

Mr. BOYCE. I think I understand the statement that was made, and if my hon. friend will read it again he will find that it does not at all detract from what the noble earl said on the 19th of February. I fancy the noble earl was too much of a statesman to say one thing to-day and a different thing the day after. I think my hon. friend will be satisfied as to that when he sees what the noble earl did say on the 22nd of February and contrasts it with what he said on the 19th. But if the hon. gentleman is a champion of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), I would ask him if he justifies the emasculation that was made of the noble earl’s speech?

Mr. A. LAVERGNE. I have not before me the speech of Lord Carnarvon, but I sent for the imperial ‘Hansard’ and read it, and I did not see any emasculation.

Mr. BOYCE. I read from the Canadian ‘Hansard,’ page 3399, and I read from the imperial ‘Hansard,’ page 565, and I read the part which has been emasculated. I say that when the hon. gentleman said to this House that the noble earl ‘continued’ with his remarks in such a strain, and then dodged three or four very cogent and restrictive sentences, though quoting it as a whole—I say that he was guilty of emasculating a part of the noble earl’s utterances in quoting them to this House.

4440

Mr. A. LAVERGNE. The hon. member for Labelle never said he was quoting it as a whole. He said the noble earl continued in the same speech, and so he did. It is in the same speech.

Mr. BOYCE. Now, Sir, this Bill provides, or pretends to provide, for self-government in the Northwest provinces. There are two important questions which have occupied a great deal of time in this House in respect to self-government of the new provinces, the question as to whether this Bill gives the new created provinces power to deal with their lands, and the question with respect to the educational clauses. Now, the right hon. gentleman introduced this Bill with some very fulsome and very eloquent remarks. He is apt at simile, but in the introduction of this Bill I fancy there are hon. gentlemen here who were impressed with the fact that he made, in contrast with what has now been disclosed, some very awkward similes. He introduced this Bill as a measure which was going to give the new provinces ‘the fulness of the rights that appertain to provinces’ ; that he was going to ‘stamp them with the seal of Canadian nationality’ ; that he was going to ‘crown them’—mark the term, nothing could be stronger, or wider, or broader—with absolute autonomy. But when we come to examine the Bill we find that it falls far short of granting them the freedom of self-government, it falls far short of granting to them full and absolute autonomy. It is hard to see where the crown of local self-government is pre-eminent in the constitution of these provinces. Now, first with regard to their position in respect to the lands. When the right hon. gentleman welcomed these provinces into the Dominion sisterhood, he welcomed them as one would welcome, by analogy, the heir who comes of age. But with what rights does he clothe the heir that comes to his majority and is entitled to his heritage and his patrimony? Does he say to the heir, to these provinces : ‘You have now attained your majority, and we will now clothe you with all that pertains to your majority ?’ But this Bill says another thing. The Bill says that the heir shall have no heritage ; the Bill says that the heir shall have no estates. The right hon. gentleman’s fulsome speech and eloquent words indicate that the heir shall come to his full estate, that he shall have absolute power to guide his own destinies, that he shall have the fulness of rights that appertain to the provinces ; at the same time he says in his Bill : You shall have no estates so far as the lands are concerned, you shall have no right to deal with these lands, you shall have no heritage, nothing to pass on to your children, for all time you shall be dominated by your father, you shall be restricted to the pocket money that is doled out to you by him, and you shall be tied to him, instead of having the freedom which the words of the right hon. gentleman

4441

gave us to understand he was to have. Now, Sir, I have listened with great attention to all that has been argued on the floor of this House as to the right of these provinces to hold and administer these lands, as they are now administered under the direction of this parliament. But I must confess that I cannot see the cogency of the reasons which hon. gentlemen opposite have brought in support of the policy of refusing to grant the administration of the lands to the provinces. I cannot see in the reasoning of the hon. member for Brandon the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) any sufficient ground for withholding these lands. I fail to see at the outset why, if these provinces are fit for self-government, if they are fit to assume all the responsibilities which appertain to local autonomy they should be deprived of the right to administer their own lands, and should also be restricted in the benefits which would accrue to them from the administration of those lands. If the provinces themselves are not the best judges of the methods by which the lands might be made the most productive and the most fertile sources of improvement, then who would be? Would this parliament be? Can this parliament say for all time that it would be the best dictator as to what policy should be adopted in regard to these lands? There are different policies in regard to different kinds of lands in the Northwest. As I understand there are farming lands, grazing lands and mining lands and a certain small area of timber lands. Different policies have to be enunciated in regard to the administration of these different lands and these policies necessarily have to be changed as time goes on, and as these provinces fill up as they will in the proportion in which they have filled up recently. Where, I ask, would these policies by which these lands are to be administered best be worked out with the autonomy that is to be granted by this Bill and when these Territories have become part of confederation? At Ottawa, the federal capital, by ministers and their deputies and others who are remote, as far as distance is concerned, and who are certainly not as directly in touch with the needs and necessities of the district in which those lands are situated as those on the ground? They would be working, so to speak, in the dark in regard to what is necessary to stimulate the immigration to the west of people who are desirous of inhabiting and cultivating these lands. The primary source of information upon which the department at Ottawa would administer these lands would be furnished through one of the various sources or channels of information; for instance, the agents of the Department of the Interior who are supporters of the policy of this government which might be worked out free from any complication from the provinces. Other channels of information would be the personal investigation

4442

by agents sent direct from here or by agents who are resident upon the ground there. All of these methods would conduce only to the use, or rather to the misuse and maladministration of these lands for the political advancement of the party which was in power at Ottawa and to the detriment of the party in power and the people in these Northwest provinces. Take, for instance, the greed of the land grabber who desires to acquire large blocks of land in the Northwest; he would not have to go to the responsible government in the Northwest, to the government which represented the people in relation to the lands, but he would go to Ottawa. He would go where his political influence could obtain for him large grants of land from the Dominion, which, if the lands were under the control of the provinces the policy of those provinces would prevent him from obtaining. There is also a great advantage to the political parasite in withholding these lands in the Northwest provinces. There will be an opportunity of using these lands for political purposes and of placing the heritage of the Northwest provinces at the disposal of the political birds of prey in power at Ottawa. That is a factor to be considered. We are human and we know that political expedients are resorted to in connection with the administration of these lands. I therefore say that it would be an unwise policy to put it in the power of the government at Ottawa for all time to permit, whether knowingly or unknowingly, their political friends of whatever complexion to use for political purposes the lands which properly belong to the Northwest provinces. There is also the danger that these lands may be used to create trouble, dissention and dissatisfaction among the people of these Northwest provinces. There are instances in which complaints have been made that the ordinary settler, the man who is the pioneer in that country, the man who bears the burden of civilization, has been obliged to pay more for the land which he has obtained than some more favoured individual who has not been subjected to the hardships of the settler’s life. There are instances where political influences could be used to the deprivation of the colonist who should, of the most vital necessity, be encouraged. There is then the question to consider as to who should have the administration of these lands. I have seen it stated, and it cannot be denied as a proposition that because the lands in these newly formed provinces are administered from Ottawa, or administered by a government which is not responsible directly to the people, they may suffer from their maladministration. What consequences, may I ask, under the present conditions would result to the Dominion government from the maladministration of these Northwest lands? Supposing that a policy restrictive

4443

of the interests of those Northwest provinces was inaugurated by the Dominion government after these provinces were created, what would be the result? The worst that could happen the Dominion government would be that it might lose the representation of a majority of the seats in the Northwest provinces. But that would not mean the condemnation and fall of the administration. It could go on as before. It could go on and carry out that policy against the protests and against the wishes of the people whose rights had been interfered with. Is not the vital principle of governmental responsibility to the people more closely and more constitutionally applied when the lands of the Northwest are given over to the custody and control of the Northwest legislatures to administer as they may in their wisdom see? As the conditions change you will have of necessity a change in policy. If that were so would not that be direct control by the people? Would not that be direct control of the people by the people and for the people? Would not that be direct control by a legislature answerable to the people for its maladministration, because, if there were enacted in the provinces by the government, in regard to the administration of these lands, policies, which, in the opinion of the people, were destructive of the best and highest interests of the people, that government when it appealed to the people, would be swept from power, and a new policy, a new government representing the people would be inaugurated in its stead, the people’s rights would be restored and the people would be carrying on a government which would not be the case if these lands were administered from Ottawa.

Another ground that was taken, and it was insisted upon by the hon. member for Brandon, was that the retention of the present land policy of the Dominion government was vitally essential for the due increase of population of the Northwest by immigration. I fail to see that that proposition, going that length, can justify the deprivation which we are inflicting on those provinces by taking away their lands. I fail to see why those Northwest provinces, if they are fit to be entrusted with the powers that we give them, are not capable of administering their lands. If they possess all the other powers of local government, I fail to see that they are not capable of carrying out, and carrying out successfully, such an immigration policy as is necessary for the filling up of those lands. I think those provinces are capable of carrying out an immigration policy sufficient for their purposes. I think that those provinces, represented by the men who are more closely in touch with the needs of their country than we could be, would be better able to fit such a policy to the changing and growing conditions of that country than

4444

could be done by people two or three thousand miles away from their governments and legislatures. Autonomy is given to them by reason of their growth; autonomy is rendered necessary by reason of the expansion that has taken place in that country and by reason of the rapidity with which those lands are being settled upon; and yet the very reason that those lands are withheld from them is the immigration policy which is to settle those lands. It may well be suggested that the depriving of those provinces of their lands is shackling them very severely and in a manner which will cripple their operations in the future.

The right hon. gentleman cited the policy of the United States government in withholding the lands of the newly created states. That is one of the customs and laws of our neighbours which appeals to the right hon. gentleman. There are others which do not appeal to him; but he uses that as a precedent, because it is in accord with what he desires to pass on to the new provinces to be created in the Territories. But when it comes to other questions, questions involved in the same Bill, questions which have given rise to heart-burnings and strife and to expressions of great feeling by an aroused people, then we are warned against following in the footsteps of the United States, where there are such a number of lynchings and outlaws. It is one thing to have caution, it is another thing to know how to fit that caution properly to conditions which exist. I am therefore strongly of opinion that the conditions of affairs in these provinces require that in granting autonomy to them, it would be better and more satisfactorily worked out, and in that respect the Bill would be more cordially received by the people whose interests we have to serve, if the lands were to be granted to the provinces. If it be nothing more, it is a principle of justice which we owe to those Northwest provinces not to withhold from them the rights which appertain to the fulness of local autonomy, one of these being the administration of the lands in that domain.

Coming to the educational question, which is the vital question in the Bill, one is at once beset by the different constructions which have been placed, or which have been attempted to be placed, upon the statutes which have been invoked. We have heard it said that one statute represents the constitution, and that we are bound this way or bound that way. Sir, whether it be the Act of 1867 or the Act of 1871 or the Act of 1875 which governs the creation of these provinces, I submit that there is one special provision which does govern the rights of the provinces themselves. If by reading the Acts from 1867 to 1886 together we find that the provinces have the power to make laws with regard to education, why should we in this Bill deprive them of the right to

4445

make such laws? Why should we interfere in any way with the constitutional rights of the provinces in order to saddle them for all time with the dictum of this parliament which is contained in clause 16 as amended? We know that the conditions of these provinces must very greatly change, that from the nature of the immigration which will flow steadily into them, which will make that era of prosperity which we all hope for, there must necessarily be very greatly changed conditions, and to those changed conditions it is necessary that a policy of education, as of everything else, should be fitted. From time to time the legislatures of the provinces newly formed might desire to alter in some respects their laws. I do not suppose for one instant that any one will say that the school ordinances of the Northwest Territories, which are to be fixed as the laws of these provinces for all time, are the very acme of perfection of legislation in regard to education. I do not suppose that any hon. gentleman who represents the Northwest Territories will say, even with regard to the policy of educational finance, that it would not be possible to improve those ordinances.

We say to the Northwest by clause 16: You have passed a law, the ordinances chapters 23, 30 and 31, and we decree that you shall never change that law, that it shall be the law and the policy of your educational system for all time and you will have no power as a legislature ever to change that system. These ordinances are, for the purposes of education, like the laws of the Medes and Persians which cannot be changed. This is a free people. If autonomy is given to this people because the time has come when it shall be trusted with self-government, if this people is to be trusted to rule a copybook, why not trust it to have the rights that pertain to provinces and to make laws from time to time for the people that come to that country. It is an extraordinary proposition, that this people, which is competent and progressive enough and important enough to carry on its legislation in every other branch should be judged by this parliament incapable of managing its own affairs in this respect. It is contrary to the British constitution, moulded for this Canada of ours, that we should withhold from them the power to change their educational system as the necessities of the case require. The Prime Minister has been asked across the floor of this House why he did not trust the people upon this measure, why not trust the people with regard to the educational policy, why not obtain a dictum from the people upon so important a subject. He has not obtained a dictum from the people, he has no dictum from the people of the Northwest to-day for the legislation with regard to education which it is proposed to foist and cement upon these new provinces and in the absence of such a dictum I would say that

4446

the coercion and that the usurpation of provincial rights is doubly aggravated because the people are not only shackled by the legislation with regard to their educational policy, but they have no opportunity of saying before the shackles are put on them whether they shall have this or that for their educational policy. It is a form of coercion against which the right hon. gentleman himself raised his voice long and earnestly, it is a position which he fought strongly in 1896. At that period when, as he said, the Conservative party under the leadership of Sir Charles Tupper were endeavouring to coerce the people of Manitoba under circumstances very similar to the facts now before us, the right hon. gentleman’s utterances were very vigorous. He attacked the position under which the government of that day would impress and imprint the domination of this parliament with regard to education on the autonomy of the Northwest. He calls it the ‘constitutional right,’ and in introducing this Bill he speaks of the ‘rock of the constitution.’ Hon. gentlemen on the same side of the House have differed with him with regard to the question of the constitution and the discussion upon the constitutional aspects of the question has been so diversified that I fancy the lay members of the House are very weary indeed of the subject and desire to get at the true issue. Sir, the true issue with regard to the educational sections of this Bill is the issue of provincial rights; it is the question whether we shall take away from a province that which the province by right ought to possess.

The right hon. gentleman discoursed at length upon the position with regard to provincial rights in Manitoba in 1896, at the time the Remedial Bill was under discussion. The policy of non-interference with local legislation was the great text of his speeches, and if there was any greater emphasis that he could have placed upon the doctrine of provincial rights, it was that, under no circumstances, would the power of the provinces be interfered with by the federal parliament. At page 2742 of ‘Hansard’ of 1896, the right hon. gentleman said:

In view of these facts, what is the lesson to be adduced from this teaching of our history? The lesson we should deduce is that if it was a wise provision to establish this power in the constitution for the supervision of the local legislatures, perhaps it was dictated by unmixed wisdom. For, Sir, experience has taught us that this remedy of interference with local legislation has never been applied and probably never can be applied without friction, disturbance and discontent; that you cannot apply that remedy without causing as much dissatisfaction as satisfaction.

And again:

The hon. gentleman told us a moment ago that the government is bound to act mechanically in this matter. Now, I ask parliament this question: Are we, upon the complaint of

4447

the minority, unsupported by evidence, without having made any investigation—are we to be told that the laws of the majority are to be set aside ? Sir, if you tell me this, then I say it was a mere mockery to give to the province of Manitoba the right to legislate upon this question. It is true, hon. gentlemen say, that they stand upon the constitution. I take issue with them. I stand also upon the constitution, and I rest the case on the judgment of every Canadian, of all men who believe that above the constitution, nay, not above the constitution, but in it, incorporated in every word and syllable of it, there are to be found those laws of eternal truth and justice on which alone nations can be founded.

The right hon. gentleman goes on to propound the proposition that the legislature of Manitoba, having power to legislate and create separate schools and then having the power to abolish them, was not subject to coercive interference from this parliament ; and I see in the present circumstances no difference under that grand and burning principle for which the right hon. gentleman so eloquently contends in his speech, from the situation at that time. The right hon. gentleman said, at page 2737 :

The hon. gentleman (Sir Charles Tupper) is aware—more than anybody else, perhaps, he ought to be aware—that, in a community with a free government, in a free country like this, upon any question involving different conceptions of what is right or wrong, different standards of what is just or unjust, it is the part of statesmanship not to force the views of any section, but to endeavour to bring them all to a uniform standard and a uniform conception of what is right.

Then the right hon. gentleman proceeded to discuss the attitude of the former leader of the government, Sir Charles Tupper, with regard to the bringing into confederation of the province of Nova Scotia. In that connection he used these words, which will be found on page 2738 of the ‘ Hansard ‘ of 1896 :

Instead of applying himself to persuading his own fellow countrymen of the grandeur of this Act of confederation, he forced the project down the throats of the people of Nova Scotia by the brute force of a mechanical majority in a moribund parliament. And, Sir, the hon. gentleman must to-day bear the responsibility and the stigma that for a whole generation the great idea of confederation was to the people of Nova Scotia synonymous with oppression and coercion.

Again, at page 2742, the right hon. gentleman said :

It seems also essential that all the legislatures should be absolutely free of each other and free from supervision. Experience has taught us that this remedy of interference with local legislation has never been applied and probably never can be applied without friction, disturbance and discontent ; that you cannot apply that remedy without causing as much dissatisfaction as satisfaction.

That same principle has been enunciated by others for whom the right hon. gentleman

4448

must have great respect. In the correspondence which was carried on between the government of Canada and the Earl of Carnarvon, in the year 1875, regarding the power of the Governor General to veto provincial legislation and the responsibility of ministers in connection with that veto, there are some very interesting statements concerning the supervisory power by the Dominion over provincial institutions. At page 561 of Todd’s ‘ Parliamentary Government in the Colonies,’ I find that the Supreme Court of New Brunswick expressed itself as follows :

For the British North America Act is distributive merely in respect to powers of legislation exercisable by the Dominion parliament and by the local legislatures respectively ; and the Dominion parliament may not intrench upon property and civil rights, which are under the guardianship and subject to the power of the local legislatures, except to that extent that may be required to enable parliament to work out the legislation upon the particular subjects specially delegated to it.

At page 512, the same author says :

Moreover, in the precedents which illustrate this portion of our inquiry, we observe repeated instances wherein appeals have been made, as well by the Dominion as by the provincial authorities in Canada, to Her Majesty’s government to interfere for the promotion of harmony, or for the settlement of disputes between conflicting jurisdictions. But in all such cases the principle is affirmed, that no interposition to the detriment, in any degree, of the established principle of self-government in matters of local concern would be permitted or approved, whether on the part of the imperial or Dominion governments, in their several and appropriate spheres of action, in matters within the acknowledged competency of either tribunal.

And, at page 448, he says :

Mr. Blake, moreover, contended that inasmuch as by the British North America Act the power of disallowing provincial enactments is expressly vested in the Governor General in Council in substitution for the jurisdiction which was exercised by the Crown over legislation in the same provinces, when they were directly subordinate to the Queen in Council, it follows that the Canadian ministers must be directly and exclusively responsible to the Dominion parliament for the action taken by the governor in any and every such case.

This gives some light through the then Minister of Justice (Mr. Blake) on a question as to what are the relative powers of the federal and provincial parliaments. The Secretary of State on June 1, 1876, suggested a reference of the question under consideration, namely, the power to veto, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and he suggested certain differences in the powers of the Governor General and the Governor General in Council. That having been referred to the Minister of Justice, upon his report a minute was passed and approved, dated 19th September, 1876, which contains the following:

4449

But, in fact, the Canadian ministers, representing the several provinces of the confederation, and dependent for their continuance in office upon their retaining the confidence of the confederate parliament, are most unlikely to disregard provincial rights under any circumstances ; and any such abuse of power would be quickly followed by disastrous consequences to themselves.

At page 456 of ‘Todd’s Parliamentary Government in the Provinces’ this dictum is further laid down :

The British North America Act does not contemplate or justify any interference with the exclusive powers which it entrusts to the legislatures of the several provinces.

If any higher authorities are wanted in support of the principle for which I am contending, than the right hon. minister and the Minister of Justice, there is the dictum which has already been quoted in this House of Sir Louis Davies, formerly Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the right hon. gentleman’s government. What did he say in 1891 in parliament with regard to the provinces over education. He said :

My opinion is now and has been for years, that when that time comes you cannot withhold from the provinces so erected the right to determine for themselves the question of education in one way or the other. I would be the last to favour this parliament imposing on the people there any system of education, whether free or separate. I only claim that when a Bill is introduced to erect those Territories into provinces, it should contain a provision enabling the people of the provinces so created to decide what system of education they will have.

Again, the late Mr. Mills, at one time Minister of Justice in the right hon. gentleman’s government, expressed himself as follows on the floor of this House in 1894 :

When the people of the Territories, or any portion of the Territories, are sufficiently numerous to constitute a province—when, in fact, they attain their majority in regard to local matters, and when they propose to set up for themselves—this parliament has no right to exercise control over them. It can give good advice, but it has no right to give commands. When the Territories have a sufficient population to entitle them to become a province, they must decide for themselves whether they will have separate schools or not. I have my view as to what will be the best decision for them to arrive at, but I must not impose upon them my views as to how they should be governed after they have attained their majority.

Now, Sir, these are the dicta of two of the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman. And suppose they sat with him now their position would be diametrically opposed to his in forcing this clause 16 upon these provinces. It is a direct contradiction, a double contradiction, of the position which the right hon. gentleman takes. It is a position which would leave the right hon. gentleman nothing to say except that he differs with his own colleagues. The position then is this : The people of the Northwest Territories, diverse in their nature—necessarily so by

4450

reason of the varied character of the immigration flowing into that country—are entitled by the constitution, as I contend, to regulate their own system of schools. They are entitled, under the working of the constitution, to say what their educational system should be. If this Bill becomes law, if the government does not change its mind with regard to this clause, as it has changed its mind since the Bill was introduced, then I say we are perpetuating in these newly-created provinces a state of things which the right hon. hon. Prime Minister himself has characterized as burdensome and intolerable. We should be interfering with their rights ; we should be exercising coercion upon them, and should be preventing them in the future from securing new-comers to fill their fertile lands, and will make them incapable of giving such an educational policy as will fit the needs of a growing people. The question has been raised as to whether there is any danger in the section as now introduced by reason of the very small amount of religious education allowed in the schools. I have not heard it said by any hon. gentleman on that side of the House, with the possible exception of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that under clause 16 as now amended, the half hour following half-past three was all that could possibly be worked out of the clause. If it were intended only to mean that, possibly hon. gentlemen opposite might have been more frank in regard to it, and, on introducing it the second time after a full consideration, might have made it express just what was meant. But we are dealing with something the effect of which is far-reaching, a subject of great difference of opinion. It would be very instructive if this House could get a decisive and emphatic expression in plain English as to just what that clause really means. Several members of this House, when the right hon. gentleman introduced the Bill, doubtless wondered whether the clause as originally framed and subsequently amended was proposed from a burning desire to do justice to the Doukhobors, to the Galicians, to the Scandinavians, to the Icelanders, to the Mennonites and possibly to the Mormons that are filling up the Northwest provinces. Was it for that purpose, and labouring under a keen sense of the injustice done to these denominations and sects, that the right hon. gentleman provides means for all time for separate schools ? If so, Sir, he might have mentioned it. He might at least have consulted them and consulted his Minister of the Interior who formulated and administered the policy which brought these different sects into that country. Since the Bill was introduced we have seen some reason why the Bill assumed this form. We have seen that with regard to certain clauses certain ministers of the Crown have not been consulted. Why ? No explanation has been

4451

given. But within the last few days we have seen that somebody has been consulted, some other high functionary, not belonging to this House and not belonging to this state, and having no right to interfere in the affairs of the state. We find that he has been consulted with regard to the educational provisions of this Bill. Three or four times, possibly half a dozen times during the debate, the right hon. gentleman was challenged and dared and defied to deny that this clause had been submitted to the ablegate in this Dominion of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. And he was silent, he made not a word of denial when the statement was made across the floor of this House. That statement involved neither more nor less than a direct charge that there was an interference, an unjustifiable interference by that church with the state. If the right hon. gentleman does not deny it we can only presume that it was because he could not deny it. Having only the silence of the right hon. gentleman to guide us in regard to this important question, we can only assume the facts to be as they have been stated, viz: That, while the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was afraid to take the dictum of the people of the Northwest Territories in the election of 1904 upon the question, while he concealed the real issue from them, refusing to consult their representative, while he was quiet on the question until they had a larger representation in this House, while he did not consult the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), though the Minister of the Interior says he knew about all the other provisions of the Bill, while he did not consult the other representatives in this House from that territory and did not consult the delegation, we find—and I regret to say it—that the right hon. gentleman consulted and conferred with, and submitted these clauses to the ablegate of the Roman Catholic hierarchy whose power was to be affected by the clauses of this Bill. Now that fact being proven, if being proven beyond contradiction, because the right hon. gentleman does not deny it, then I say we are face to face with a crisis. We are face to face with a state of things which is not tolerable, and which the people of Canada will not tolerate, and are not tolerating today. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to rise and cry, peace, and tolerance, and moderation of speech, when their leader has himself thrown down the gauntlet which has aroused so much passion and prejudice throughout this land on this question of religious instruction in the Northwest Territories. It cannot be that hon. gentlemen can cry, peace, peace, when there is no peace. They themselves have dragged into this House a question which they must have known from past experience would at once engender feelings throughout this country which they deprecated in 1896, feelings which they deprecated so strongly

4452

that it helped them to obtain power, and a position in which they could forever make a lasting settlement of these vexed questions. The right hon. gentleman had an opportunity to prove his words by his deeds. He had an opportunity to show to the people of Canada that what he said in 1891, in 1894, in 1895 and in 1896, he would carry out and thus establish his claim to the confidence of the Canadian people. Sir, it is said to-day by a large number of Canadians—I grant a large number of them are of that class characterized by hon. gentlemen opposite as renegade Liberals—it is said by that type of renegade Liberals who supported the hon. gentleman in 1896 and who trusted his word, that he obtained power then by false pretences; it is said by them that he advocated certain principles upon which he obtained power, and that now, on the very first opportunity given him to show that his opinions were genuine and his convictions steadfast, he has gone back on them all, and has introduced a measure containing a clause which is absolutely opposed to all the principles and professions which he then uttered. He has cast to the winds the principles which he then clamored for so earnestly in order to obtain power. Every day that this clause is insisted upon, a clause which will undoubtedly fasten upon the Northwest provinces a distasteful system of education every day does he depart from and abjure the principles which he advocated in the House and on the hustings in 1895 and 1896. What is the secret of this passion and prejudice that is raised by this question? It comes from the fact that there has been, as the people of this country believe, a betrayal of trust in regard to this same principle. Had the leader of the government been true to those professions, he would have left the matter of education entirely to the provinces themselves, and have allowed them to establish such a system as they think best suited to their circumstances. But instead of that he has chosen rather to bring a sword, and with the first blow of the sword he lops off everything he contended for in 1896. If there has been an interference with the prerogatives of this parliament by the representative of any church, I care not which church, even though it were my own church—if there has been an interference and a combination between the representative of the state and the representative of a church, then I say it is time for the people of Canada to become alive to the situation. It ill becomes hon. gentlemen opposite to say that we should be calm, that we should be tolerant, that we should allay excitement, in face of the measure which is now sought to be forced through parliament.

Toleration is desirable at all costs, toleration is much to be encouraged, as intolerance is to be deprecated. But I say there may come a time when toleration is not possible when burdens are placed upon

4453

people which they cannot bear. When their rights are being encroached upon, then it is only natural that people should resist; that is the natural result where seeds of discord and seeds of coercion are sown. The right hon. gentleman himself has spoken loudly and passionately with regard to this question. He said the people were aroused, that the torch had gone through the land. Can he say less now, or are these mere dull and idle platitudes? It is he who has lighted the torch and has sent it through this land, as is evidenced by the volume and multiplicity of the petitions that are laid on the table day after day, petitions coming to this House irrespective of party, showing that the people are aroused. These petitions come, to a large extent, from former adherents of the right hon. gentleman’s party in 1896, which fact is sufficient to show that he has broken faith with that party, and that he does not represent it any more on this question. This plea for toleration was loudly raised by ministers of the Crown who, it was thought, from their previous utterances, would have taken a very different stand in regard to these Bills. The cry of toleration and the cry of peace were raised by these hon. gentlemen, from whom it was thought we would have had a very much more stable line of argument. We have had from them a plea for the cessation of strife and passion. We have had the thunder of the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) against this engendering of strife and passion. In his sonorous tones, that filled this chamber, we had an appeal for moderation, and I wonder how his voice will sound when he goes back to his constituency and tries to square the remarks he made upon this Bill with what he said on a previous occasion. There is a great deal of hypocrisy about the cry of toleration. There is this much hypocrisy, that while we are asked to be tolerant, a part of the people are being muzzled and bound hand and foot by measures of a coercive character. We are asked to allay strife and passion while the people of the Northwest are being bound for all time under the slavery of a coercive law. They are asked to calmly submit to the imposition by this parliament of such measures as this parliament sees fit to impose, and if we raise our voices in opposition to this we are accused of engendering strife and passion. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) claimed that this Bill was a compromise. I fail to see in what respect it is a compromise. My conception of a compromise is that the parties interested pro and con come together, they discuss, they give way and they agree. I do not understand that this is any compromise in the ordinary acceptation of the term and the meaning which I have always seen attributed to it. It is not that kind of a compromise. It is the kind of a compromise which is inflicted on the people of the Northwest. They are told to

4454

take it and be satisfied, and then, forsooth, it is stated across the floor of this House that it is a compromise. Then we are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that this is a final settlement of the question of education. We are told that there will be no more heart burnings, no more difficulties, no more strife and passion engendered in this country, and that the people will for ever be at rest upon this question. Sir, I fancy that there is an element among the people, a very strong element, a very eloquent element, that will differ from that proposition laid down by hon. gentlemen opposite. There is an element of the people, and a strong and representative element, among them being the former adherents and supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite, who take a very different view of the situation, and many of these will say that there is no settlement of this question except a settlement, in the words of the Minister of Justice, based upon justice. The Minister of Justice says that there will be no peace except a peace based upon justice. The justice which he meant was justice to the 41 per cent of the Roman Catholic denomination of this Dominion. That was the only justice that the hon. Minister of Justice meant. The Minister of Finance referred to the peace that we should reach in regard to all these burning questions of religion and he stated that it was not an ignoble peace that he desired, but that it was peace with honour. He did not mean the same justice. The Minister of Justice, sitting side by side with him, said that there could be no peace except it was founded upon justice to the minority, and while these hon. gentlemen are crying ‘peace,’ they are, by this clause, sowing the very seeds of discord in this land. The Minister of Finance urged his followers to unite upon this measure, because, forsooth, the King’s government must go on. He urged them to unite because, as he said, no other government could be formed that could deal with this question. He was loudly applauded when he said that if his leader were to go out of office upon this question no other government could be formed that could deal with this question as this government is now dealing with it. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. gentleman is not blind to the pages of history. I do not know that the party that is represented in opposition in this House has been lacking in the power to deal with great questions which make for progress and prosperity in this country. If the hon. minister laid that down as a proposition, I must say that it is the first time that any one has dared to say it upon the floor of this House. Is he forgetful of all that has been done by the party which is now in opposition in this House, of all those great principles involving the progress, prosperity and protection to the people, irrespective of race or creed, in trade in national status, and in importance, and in religious toleration, that have been instituted

4455

and have been demonstrated by that party ? This is the party that provided, against the opposition of many hon. gentlemen now sitting on the other side of the House, and in whose steps they now follow, the main arteries of the commerce of this country, the arteries through which throb and pulsates that great commerce, that flow of trade and prosperity, for which hon. gentlemen opposite are not slow to take full credit at this time ; that provided and extended the canal system that forms another artery, outlet, or channel, for the trade of this country, and that provided, in the early days, in the early twilight of that great prosperity which we are now enjoying, the basis, the foundation stones of a greater country and larger institutions built upon no narrow corner stones, cramped by no coercion laws saddled by no restrictive constitution, but laying the broad foundation stones, building fairly and wisely, so that when hon. gentlemen opposite come to power by reason of the profession of principles which they now abjure, and now deride and scorn, and upon the confidence which the people reposed in them as a result of the profession of those principles, they take full advantage of the stability of the institutions and the foundation stones laid by the Conservative party in this Dominion, and the prosperity and progress which has flowed from it, and claim it as their own, and are not modest in claiming it as their own. It is a spectacle that this country has to behold to-day, contrasted with the position which hon. gentlemen opposite, many of them now ministers of the Crown, took as lieutenants of the right hon. the premier, when he was leader of the opposition in 1896. On the question which was then before the House the right hon. gentleman took one position, and they supported him. He cried white in 1896, and they supported him ; they said it was good. In 1905 when he cries black, they say, it is better, it is right, it is justice to the minority. It might be said outside of this House that it is ever with them, in the policy enunciated by their leader, the voice of a god, and that never since the days of Herod has there been such slavish adulation or such clinging to party or such serving of the exigencies of party which they desire to hold together at all costs. He says, thumbs up, and up they go ; he says, thumbs down, and down they come. And these hon. gentlemen, some of them having the responsibility of ministers of the Crown, some of them who were looked upon as the champions of provincial rights, as the undoubted disciples of true provincial freedom, especially in matters of education, come under the yoke, and submissively swallow the professions they made in years gone by, when it suited their lust for power to make those professions in order to obtain the confidence of the people of this country. Well, hon. gentlemen have succeeded to the extent of gaining power by the profession of those

4456

principles. Hon. gentlemen, with a large majority behind them, a majority larger now than they ever had, are taking advantage of the moment to enact laws which will create a state of unrest and enable them to do that which they deprecated and scorned in 1896. Hon. gentlemen will as a party take the full responsibility for what they are doing. If they persist in betraying the people’s rights, if they can make one promise and obtain power on that promise, and then desecrate and violate it, there is only one question that remains, and that is, whether there is a right of appeal. This is the first session of a new parliament, and early in the session the Bill was introduced. The Bill is one that has been talked of for two years. It was kept in the shade by hon. gentlemen opposite until they had obtained a large and substantial majority in this House. The moment that majority is obtained, it is used for the purpose of passing through a measure to brand by coercive methods these Northwest provinces with a system of education which they do not desire, and which the majority would not have voted for if they had ever had an opportunity of voting on this question. Then the question arises, is there an appeal ? Sir, this is the first session of a new parliament. Hon. gentlemen opposite congratulate themselves that in six months’ time all this magnificent flurry which they have raised will pass as a cloud of dust before a June rain. Hon. gentlemen are congratulating themselves in vain. Let me remind these hon. gentlemen that there are men in this country who think more of the eternal principles of justice than to let these events pass as a daydream. The people of this country will remember, not only for six months, not only over one session, but over several sessions, and when the time comes, be it early or long deferred, when hon. gentlemen have to submit themselves to their respective constituencies in the changed garb which they have now adopted, and the people have an opportunity through the ballot of passing judgment upon them, that judgment will, I fancy, emphasize to these hon. gentlemen that the people have not forgotten and do not forget this interference with their sacred rights as easily and as soon as the hon. gentlemen would like them to forget. Sir, it is a dangerous thing to trifle with public rights ; it is a dangerous thing to interfere with the principles and privileges that belong to a free people, and it is, in this particular case, an act for which the people will mete out justice when they have the opportunity with regard to the changed position of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Sir, I shall cast my vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. I shall cast my vote in that way, because I think the amendment contains those principles which will make for the pacification of this country, which will make for the removal of

4457

heart-burnings, which will make for the establishment of the rights of the provinces, and for constitutional rights which we are bound as a matter of national honour and as a matter of that justice which hon. gentlemen opposite, when it suited them, have so loudly advocated, which they have so long denied.

Hon. SYDNEY FISHER moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.