Document Information

Date: 1905-04-13
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 4480-4549.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

4480

……

PROVINCIAL AUTHORITY IN THE NORTHWEST.

House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (no. 69) to

4481

Establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.

Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture). Mr. Speaker, at this advanced stage of the debate on the question before the House I would not like to occupy the attention of the House for any length of time. I would like probably on a further stage of the Bill to say a few words in regard to the question of Dominion lands, and perhaps in regard to the question of the boundaries of the provinces which are here under discussion ; but, as the attention of the House and the country has been riveted for the moment almost entirely on the educational clauses of these Bills, I would like to say a few words upon them at the present time. I think that, perhaps, as a representative of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec it is especially right that I should say a few words.

The existence of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec is probably the direct cause of the introduction of the separate school provisions into the British North America Act, and the principle of which has been perpetuated when other provinces were afterwards admitted into the Dominion or when provinces were created within the Dominion. It was due to Mr. Galt, the special representative of the Protestants of Quebec, that exceptions were made in the control of educational matters given to the provinces under the British North America Act. Mr. Galt insisted that the Protestants of Quebec should have a guarantee of their rights as a minority, and naturally that guarantee was extended to the other provinces in which there were separate schools established at the time of their entry into the union. Later on I shall deal with the question of separate schools per se, and I shall state why I believe in separate schools in our Dominion, and why I think the Protestants of this country generally should stand by the Protestant minority of Quebec in this matter, as they did in the negotiations which led up to the confederation compact of 1867. However, Sir, this is not the only issue which has been brought forward in this discussion. Some who are bold and frank in the expression of their opinions, have declared against separate schools in toto, others have hidden themselves behind the cry of provincial rights and have attempted in this way to abolish the principle of separate schools in so far as it may be embodied in this Autonomy Bill. The amendment of the leader of the opposition would leave this question in the hands of the two provinces. While, under ordinary circumstances, and by the Confederation Act, education in general terms has been left to each provincial legislature as being within the purview of the province, there has been a special exception made in regard to the rights of minorities in the matter of separate schools, and

4482

it seems to me that when we discuss any question of provincial rights we must take just as much account of the exception that is made as of the general statement that to the provincial authorities belongs the jurisdiction on education. I believe that in considering the principles of the British North America Act, this exception is just as strongly embodied, and is just as important a part of that Act, as is the statement that the provincial authorities should control educational matters. I am not a lawyer ; I do not want to discuss this matter from a legal and constitutional aspect, I probably am not capable of doing so ; but the fact that one is not a lawyer is no very great disability in this particular case, because we find that the lawyers differ very materially. Hardly a constitutional point has arisen in this debate which has not elicited diverse views from eminent lawyers, and under these circumstances I do not know that I, as a layman, need shrink from discussing the constitutional question. But, Sir, I believe it is more in the interest of the question at issue, and more in the interest of the people of the country at large, that these points should not be dealt with from any technical or purely legal aspect, but that they should be dealt with on the broad principles of justice and equity ; the principles upon which our confederation is based, and upon which we have existed as a confederation since 1867. The British North America Act itself asserts the principle of separate schools in a limited degree as applying to the four original provinces of confederation. Prince Edward Island and British Columbia afterwards came into confederation, and the principles and the provisions of the British North America Act were made to apply to these provinces, for, as they had at the time of their entry into the Dominion no system of separate schools, there was no necessity for any precise specification with regard to the educational clauses of the British North America Act in relation to them. When Manitoba was created a province there was a special provision inserted into section 93 of the British North America Act to provide, as it was thought at the time, for the peculiar conditions in Manitoba, and directly pointing to the endorsement and the continuance of the principle of separate schools found in the British North America Act. It is true that this intention was imperfectly carried out ; it is true the provisions of the Manitoba Act were not specific enough apparently to accomplish the object its framers had in view. That was attended by disastrous results to the minority in Manitoba, and it gave rise to an unfortunate agitation throughout the length and breadth of Canada. In the Bills which are now before the House we recognize the principle that education should be relegated to the province, but with the restriction that the conditions in regard to separate schools existing at the time of the coming into force of these Acts

4483

should be maintained and guaranteed in future to the minority in the provinces. That is simply carrying out the principles of the British North America Act. In this case we have tried to so draft the educational clause that there shall be no question in the future as to what it means; that there shall be no room for dispute, for litigation or for doubt on the part of the people of these two new provinces. I believe, Sir, that in the preciseness of the language of the disputed clauses we have accomplished what the framers of the Manitoba Act failed to accomplish. I believe that in the history of the new provinces no agitation will arise on the question of education, and that we will have accomplished the most laudable object of settling for ever this question in that country.

Mr. SPROULE. If lawyers differ so much regarding the interpretation of the new clause, is it a matter of wonder that people outside will still differ ?

Mr. FISHER. Lawyers have differed as to the constitutional right of this parliament to pass this clause, but my hon. friend is not correct in saying that they differ as to the construction of the clause.

Mr. SPROULE. They differ on their interpretation of what the new clause really means.

Mr. FISHER. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has learned something from this debate which I have not learned. I do not know that there is any doubt as to what the clause as amended in the Bill means, and I do not believe that if this Bill becomes law there will be any question in the future as to the rights under which the minority will live in the new provinces. Provincial rights we give to the provinces, with a reserve—a reserve for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of minorities. In the province of Quebec, at confederation, the Protestant minority was a pretty strong minority. We held a much stronger position numerically than we do to-day. It was important for us then to be given a certain protection, certain safeguards, certain guarantees for the continuance of our rights. As we are becoming weaker numerically in that province, the guarantee and safeguard thus accorded to us becomes more and more important ; and if, to-day in these new provinces the Catholic minority is weak numerically, and weak perhaps in other ways, it is all the more important that they should be given a guarantee of those rights and privileges which they guard so jealously and value so highly. The weaker the minority is, the more important it is that a guarantee should be given to it.

Sir, I am surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite, that any section of the Protestant people of this country, should hesitate or doubt in this regard. Perhaps I ought

4484

not to be surprised that the Tory party and those imbued with Tory principles, should have this feeling, that they should want to ignore the rights of a minority, the rights of a weaker people in the country. This, unfortunately, has been the history of Toryism through generations and through centuries. It has always been advancing the view of the stronger controlling and ruling the weaker, without regard for the feelings, desires or privileges of the weaker. It was the old principle of autocracy ; it was the old principle of the divine right of kings, when the common people were ignored, and the Tories rallied round the king and held up his hands. A little later on in the history of the world the Tory party were the party of an oligarchy, when the few, the favoured few, had control over the rights of the many. We had a specimen of that in Canada in our early history, in the history of the family compact.

Since then we have gone a little further. These older struggles have disappeared with the assertion of the larger rights of the many ; but we find the Tories now wedded to the idea of the right of the majority, the absolute right of that majority, which they say demands that in Canada there shall be no separate schools, and that the Catholic people of this country shall not be given consideration for their cherished principles and cherished feelings. Sir, I do not wonder at this. We Liberals believe that the majority should rule ; but we believe that the majority should rule with full consideration for the rights, the feelings and the privileges of the minority. That is the essential difference between the principles of Tories and the principles of Liberals. Their principle entails a caste to rule by force over the weaker. Our principle is to so rule through the majority that the minority may be contented, happy, and in sympathy with the majority—not in antagonism to it, and not feeling discontented or ill-used. Sir, I cannot do better than here quote a word or two from a great English statesman, the present leader of the government of England, as to the rights of minorities. Mr. Balfour was writing a letter in answer to a pamphlet which had been issued in regard to the school question there, and he said this of the writer of that pamphlet :

His constitutional studies have apparently convinced him that in an assembly where the majority govern, a dissentient minority is a negligible quantity. Were this theory sound, what an arcadian existence would be that of the leader of the House of Commons. But in truth, the theory is absurd.

Yes, Sir, I believe that the theory that the minority can be neglected, that they are a negligible quantity, is absurd, contrary to good morals and contrary to the interest of the state. Sir, I am glad to

4485

know that the Liberal party in this country hold, and it is of the essential principles of Liberalism, that while the majority must rule, the rights, privileges and feelings of the minority must be always carefully considered and carefully reckoned with in all that the majority does.

Now, Sir, a word as to separate schools—and I repeat again quite frankly, as I said in my opening remarks, that I believe in separate schools in Canada. I believe that in our conditions and circumstances here in Canada, it is necessary that those who have different views and ideas in regard to education and in regard to what education implies, should have those views respected ; and if there is a large section of our people who believe that it is necessary that religion should be taught in the schools, they ought to have the opportunity and the advantage of having religion taught in their schools if they wish it. I say this with the experience of a Quebec man, who perhaps knows a little more about the operation of a complete system of separate schools than people in other parts of Canada. We have in Quebec the most complete and absolute separation of the two systems of school education that exists in any part of Canada. We have a good deal of knowledge of its working and its results, and I venture to say, as one who enjoys the privilege of separate schools in the province of Quebec, that we would consider ourselves very much ill-treated if any jot or tittle of that privilege should be withdrawn from us. There has been some curiosity as to its results. I remember, in the early part of this debate, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) read an article from the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner,’ I think it was, in which that little paper attributed the immigration of Protestants from the province of Quebec to the unfortunate school system there, and seemed to endorse the idea that the Protestants were leaving the province of Quebec and going away because they could not get education for their children. Without in any way wishing to impugn the authority of the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner’ I would venture to say that I and others on the floor of this House can speak with as great authority as the editor of that paper as to the rights, privileges and conditions of the minority in the province of Quebec, and I would say this. My hon. friend from East Grey gave us an extraordinary history of what he called a system on the part of the Catholic Church in the province of Quebec for aiding this exodus of Protestant farmers from the province. My hon. friend, I believe, did that in full honesty. I have no doubt that he really believed that extraordinary story, and I would tell the hon. gentleman a little story which I heard myself once. I did not believe it, I was not so credulous as my hon. friend ; but I can put it about on a par

4486

with the story which my hon. friend retailed to the House of this alleged scheme of the Catholic Church to get rid of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. The story I heard was of some Orangemen of the county of Hastings in the province of Ontario, I was told at the time of the Jesuits’ Estates agitation that a number of the members of the Orange lodges there went to bed every night with loaded rifles under their pillows because they feared an invasion from the Catholics of Quebec to down the Orangemen of the province of Ontario. I say I was not so credulous as my hon. friend, and I did not believe the story.

Mr. SPROULE. Somebody must have been telling the hon. gentleman fairy tales to put him to sleep.

Mr. FISHER. Just about the kind of fairy tale that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) detailed to the House in regard to the efforts of the Catholic Church to get rid of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. I did not go to sleep because I did not believe the story, but my hon. friend, if he went to sleep, believed the story and retailed it here with honest conviction and showed how credulous he was. I think it would have been better for him to appreciate and understand the people of his own country a little better and to have, like myself, not believed the story which I heard. The hon. gentleman gave us that story and said, quoting the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner,’ that the Protestants of Quebec were leaving that province. I take direct issue with that statement. It is true that some Protestants of Quebec have been leaving their farms and going away, but it is equally true that Protestants from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have been going away. I know a good deal about the New England states and I know that in Boston and other large cities there is a large number of the flower of the youth of the maritime provinces, just as in these cities there is a very large number of the flower of the youth of the eastern townships of Quebec. They have gone to the eastern states from provinces where there is a Protestant majority just as they have gone from Quebec where there is a Roman Catholic majority and they were in a small minority. They went because of the fiscal policy of the government preceding ours in this country, which drove so many people out of Canada to seek a fortune in the United States and which depleted the people of our country unfortunately for so many years. It is not only the English-speaking Protestants of the eastern provinces, the maritime provinces and Ontario who have gone to the United States ; the French Canadians of the province of Quebec have gone there in numbers four, five, six and even seven times those of the Protestants who have gone. These

4487

people were of the Roman Catholic majority, these were the very people whom my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) says were driving the Protestants out and yet they went to the United States in considerably larger numbers, even proportionately, than the Protestant minority of that province. The statement of the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner’ is absolutely unfounded and far-fetched. My hon. friend has here again shown his credulity when listening to stories about the condition of affairs in Quebec. If he went to Quebec and studied a little more on the spot, he would not make such statements as he has done. It has been said that the Catholics can go to Protestant schools, that there is no earthly reason why Catholics should not go to Protestant schools because offensive religion is not taught in public schools, but that Protestant children cannot go to Catholic separate schools because the Catholic religion is taught in them. So far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I do not know that there is any more reason why the Protestants should object to their children going to a Catholic school in that province than why a Catholic should object to his children going to a Protestant school. It is true that the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) the other day said that the schools where they did not speak of God are Protestant schools. I am sorry my hon. friend said that, because he ought to know better as he comes from the province of Quebec; he should know that the Protestant schools of Quebec are not schools in which God is not mentioned, are not schools which can in any way be called Godless schools. Sir, the Protestant religion is taught in the Protestant schools of the province of Quebec just as much as the Catholic religion is taught in the Catholic schools. I have here the report of the superintendent of public instruction of Quebec for the year 1903-4, the last one which I have received. I have here the curricula of the elementary Catholic and the elementary Protestant schools of the province of Quebec. I find in the curriculum for the Catholic elementary schools for the first year the first morning exercises are prayers and catechism taught orally, for the second year prayers and catechism, for the third year catechism, for the fourth year catechism. These are the opening exercises of the regular curriculum in the Catholic elementary schools of the province of Quebec. Now what do I find in regard to Protestant schools ? I find that the first half hour of each day is to be devoted to the opening exercises, scripture reading, singing and prayer, instruction in scripture as below, and in morals, including readings and lessons upon Godliness, truthfulness, honour, respect for others, good manners, temperance, health, kindness to animals, &c., first lesson for the day is scripture knowledge. In grade I, events connected with the birth of Christ, outlines of chief events to the end

4488

of the life of Joseph. Grade II—as in previous year, together with the Circumcision and Presentation of Jesus and outlines of chief events to the death of Joseph. I find in grade III there is the same thing and in grade IV studies about the life and words of Christ.

In other words the Catholic schools of Quebec and the Protestant schools of Quebec both teach religion, each according to the lights and faith of their church, and it would be just as offensive for one portion of the people of the province to be obliged to have their children go and listen to the religious teaching of the other as vice versa. Under these circumstances, I want to repel the statement of the hon. member for Beauharnois, that the Protestant schools of Quebec are Godless and secondly I want to point out that it is no more right that the Protestants of Quebec or the Protestants of this country should ask that the Catholics should be forced to go to Protestant schools than it is that the Protestants should be forced to go to the Catholic schools. The legitimate and logical conclusion of this statement is that we must have in Canada separate schools, and if we have separate schools, Sir, that they should be guaranteed to the people who enjoy them and that they should not be dependent on the will of a local majority which may change its mind. There is another argument in favour of separate schools. Supposing that we have public schools in which no religion is taught at all. We have a large number of people in this country who believe that a proper and good education requires religious instruction, that it is necessary in a school to have the children taught in religious exercises. If in public schools religion is not taught and if Catholics are obliged to pay their taxes to the public schools, then if they want to live up to their conscientious convictions they would be obliged instead of sending their children to the public school to keep them at home or to create out of their own pockets with their voluntary subscriptions private schools in which their form of education should be taught. Now, Sir, if their taxes are obliged to be paid to the public schools, it is very evident that these same people cannot effectively and efficiently keep up private schools as well owing to the payment of their taxes into the public schools. It is not to be expected that they could do so, and the result would be that the Catholic people of our country, not being able conscientiously to send their children to the public schools in which no religion is taught, not being able to get in those public schools the religious education which they think conscientiously it is right and proper their children should be taught, would be obliged to pay taxes to public schools and then would be obliged to provide, to the best of their ability, but necessarily inefficiently and ineffectively, schools in which religious

4489

Instruction was given. If they did, it would be a necessary consequence that under those circumstances these schools would be ineffective and inefficient and the result would be that a large proportion of the youth would be growing up without the proper education which it is in the interest of the state that every body in the country should have.

I do not propose and I do not desire to enter into a discussion of Christian ethics or of the Christian religion, but, Sir, there is a main principle of Christian ethics that is known as the Golden Rule, that we should do unto others as we would that they should do unto us. Now, Sir, in Quebec, we Protestants do wish to have separate schools, we Protestants value the privilege that we have there. We Protestants value the privileges we have in that province with our separate schools, and I think the least we can do is to try to live up to the fundamental principle of Christian ethics and do for others what we wish them to do for us. I want to go a step further, and to say to the Protestants of Canada and other provinces that I think it would be more to their credit ; and would illustrate better their belief in the Christian religion, if they would stand by us in that principle and would extend to the minority in the provinces in which they are a majority the privileges which the Roman Catholics have given to the Protestants, their fellow-citizens, in the province of Quebec. I do not think that our Protestant friends in the other provinces realize in the slightest degree the advantages afforded us by the Catholic majority. By the Catholic majority, did I say ? No, by the fathers and framers of confederation, the men who decided that the principle of separate schools should be acknowledged in our confederation compact. And, Sir, it was not only the Protestants of that time of our history who gave that privilege of separate schools. Men like Cartier and other leaders of the Roman Catholics who were engaged in framing our constitution did not hesitate for a moment when Mr. Galt asked for separate schools for the Protestants of Quebec. There was no attempt on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to refuse to the Protestants of Quebec what to-day so large a number of the Protestant churches in the other provinces where the Protestants are in a majority are trying to refuse to the Roman Catholic minorities of those provinces. We have had treatment from the Roman Catholics of Quebec which, I am ashamed to say, the Protestants where they are a majority seem to grudge to their fellow-citizens, the Roman Catholic minority.

Sir, what is it we have in the province of Quebec? I said a few moments ago that we had a system of absolute separation of schools. We have a Council of Public Instruction. There are in that council two absolutely separate bodies the Protestant committee and the Catholic committee. The Protestant

4490

committee absolutely do not suffer from any interference by dictation from or discussion with the Catholic majority. We have absolute control over our whole school system ; we regulate the Normal school ; we regulate the qualification of our teachers ; we regulate the inspection of our schools ; we regulate the curriculum ; we regulate the text books. And, in addition, we have an absolute division, according to the population, of all the votes given in favour of schools and education by the province, and we have our own taxation to be voted entirely and exclusively to the carrying on of our own schools.

Mr. BRODEUR. And share in special funds.

Mr. FISHER. I am coming to that in a moment. I do not care particularly to compare the privileges that the minority in the province of Quebec enjoy with the privileges which, by this Bill and the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, are being given to the Catholics of the new provinces. That comparison would show obviously that we have a great deal more privileges than are proposed to be given to the Catholics of the Northwest Territories. However, that is not a matter I need discuss now. The people generally on both sides of this question, have accepted the principle of giving to the Catholics of the new provinces the rights and privileges that they enjoy to-day, which, as I say, are small in comparison with the privileges enjoyed to-day by the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. But these privileges granted to the minority in the Northwest under the Bill have worked satisfactorily and successfully for a number of years, and we can, therefore, safely say they will work satisfactorily and successfully in years to come and, so will satisfy both the Protestants and the Catholics of these new provinces. The Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur) a moment ago said that we of the minority in Quebec have another privilege in regard to the distribution of certain funds. In Quebec to-day the Protestants number about one-eighth of the population. But, in the first place, let it be understood that all the taxation levied for school purposes on any Protestant goes to Protestant education just as the taxation levied on Catholics goes to Catholic education.

Mr. SPROULE. That is not what the Huntingdon ‘ Gleaner ’ says.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Knows nothing about it.

Mr. FISHER. I am sorry if it says what is not true.

Mr. SPROULE. It is quite true. I do not know anything about it. But I am referring to what is stated by a newspaper that ought to know, as it is published in the province of Quebec.

4491

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I did not mean to say that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) did not know anything about it, but that the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner’ does not know. And that is a charitable way of putting it on my part, because if they do know and yet state what they do, it will be necessary for me to use another expression.

Mr. FISHER. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) takes exception to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) saying that he does not know anything about it. Why the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) said so himself—

Mr. SPROULE. I have just said so, and I say so still. I do not pretend to know anything about it, but I drew attention to the fact that the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner,’ a newspaper printed in the eastern townships stated that Protestants had to pay taxes toward Roman Catholic schools.

Mr. FISHER. If the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner’ said that—I am not aware that it did, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) says it did and I suppose he knows—it stated what is not correct. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) the other night was talking of this matter and was asked a question by an hon. gentleman on this side, and his own reply was ‘I do not know anything about it.’ I acknowledge my hon. friend’s frankness and I acknowledge the correctness of his statement. I have no doubt that he does not know about these things. What I object to is that the hon. gentleman says the things he does, yet will not come to the province of Quebec to learn the facts. And I am sorry to say that he is only an example of a large number of people in the country who are discussing these questions without knowing anything about them.

Mr. SPROULE. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) allow me to quote what the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner’ says?

Another consequence of these sectarian schools should never be lost sight of, and that is that where Protestant farmers are too few to have schools they are taxed to support Catholic schools, which sometimes have as their teachers nuns or Christian brothers.

That is the statement of a newspaper the proprietor of which, I understand is a very prominent and respectable Reformer.

Mr. FISHER. That particular statement has enough truth in it to make it worse than a plain lie. Under the school law of the province of Quebec, in any municipality, the minority, provided there are a certain number of families—I think the number is three or five—can petition to have a dissentient school. They can declare that they do not belong to the religion of the majority. When they so declare, they cannot be taxed for the school of the majority. It may be that in a particular municipality there are two or three Protestants living, all the other residents being Roman Catholics. They

4492

may not be able, with the taxes that they themselves pay, to maintain a separate or dissentient school. But, they can be joined, for school purposes to any adjoining municipality where there is another little group of the same kind. And I venture to say that to-day in the province of Quebec there are not a dozen Protestant families who are not in such a position that, if they choose, they can be within reach of a Protestant school and can have their taxes applied to the support of a Protestant school. But all this may be true of Catholics also in the province of Quebec. I have known cases, in days gone by when there were comparatively few Catholics in the eastern townships, when in certain municipalities there would be only one or two families of Catholics,—not enough to support a dissentient school. They had the opportunity to join with the Catholics in adjoining municipalities to support a school to which they could send their children, and, under the school law of Quebec, their taxes were applied to that school. If there were any cases where the Catholics were too few to support a school, they would have to support a Protestant school, just as the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner’ says Protestants where they are too few to have a school of their own must support a Catholic school. And if their children go to a Protestant school, they would have to hear the teaching of the Protestant religion, just as Protestants under similar circumstances would send their children to a Catholic school to hear the teaching of the Catholic religion. The law puts the Catholics and the Protestants on exactly the same footing and justice is given to all. I have stated that the Protestants constitute about one-eighth of the total population of the province of Quebec, and that the taxes collected for the schools are divided proportionately among the Protestants and the Catholics. In the second place, the provincial government gives large grants in aid of primary or elementary education, and those funds are generally divided according to population. That is the general principle, but I want to say further that there are a great many individual items in those funds which are not divided according to population, but of which the Protestants get a far larger share than they would have a right to expect on that basis. I have here a statement of last year’s estimates voted by the Quebec legislature. There is a vote of $80,000 for superior education. Of this $4,000 is specifically given to the Laval University and $2,000 is given as a compensation to Protestant higher education. That is to say of the $6,000 special vote the Protestants get one-third and the Roman Catholics get two-thirds; but if the division were made according to population, the Protestants would only get one-eighth, instead of one-third. The remaining $74,000 is divided strictly according to population between the two committees and distributed by them,

4493

subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council among the Roman Catholic and Protestant schools respectively. There is also a sum collected for marriage license fees, and that money is given entirely to the Protestants, because the Catholic church takes the license fees paid by Catholics. There is besides a marriage license fund which became created in this way. For some years after confederation the marriage license fees were collected by the Dominion government. In 1873 the sums collected were remitted to the provincial government and invested. The interest on this investment and the fees arising from the sale of marriage licenses from year to year are acknowledged by the Roman Catholics to have exclusive Protestant sources and are therefore devoted to Protestant education. There is further a sum of $4,270 voted annually to the high schools of Quebec and Montreal which are Protestant schools. This is in continuation of the grants made to the two royal grammar schools of these cities which were founded in 1816, and which became merged years ago into the two high schools I have mentioned. The compensation to Roman Catholics on the basis of two to one has never been questioned. The Protestants get one-third of the whole vote and the Catholics two-thirds instead of the Protestants getting one-eighth and the Catholics seven-eighths. With regard to normal schools, the Protestants have the entire control and management of their own normal schools. They control the appointment of teachers the teaching, the granting of diplomas to teachers and the qualifications which teachers must have before they can be appointed. There are two Catholic normal schools and one for the Protestants. We get one-third of the money spent on those schools; and when this question came up in 1857, long before confederation, long before we had the rights guaranteed to us by the confederation compact, it was proposed that the Protestants should receive about one-sixth of the grant which would represent the proportion due them according to population. But what occurred? The Hon. P. J. O. Chauveau—not a Protestant, not an English speaking man, but one of the leading French Canadian Roman Catholics of the province of Quebec—pointed out to his compatriots that it would cost as much to establish and conduct an efficient Protestant normal school as an efficient Roman Catholic one, and that consequently to restrict Protestants to their share according to population would be equivalent to depriving them entirely of normal school privileges; therefore the Protestant normal schools ought to receive just as much as either of the two Catholic normal schools, and the legislature accepted that view of the case. Let me point out to hon. gentlemen opposite, and to Protestants who are crying out against recognizing the privileges to which the Catholic minority are

4494

entitled in the Territories, this example of Christian tolerance and generosity to the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. The Protestant normal school has always received practically as much as either. For many years—more than fourteen years—the McGill normal school share has been $13,866.67, while one Roman Catholic normal school has received $14,900 and the other $14,233.33 annually. There is a vote for the inspection of schools and the amount varies from year to year, but the Protestants have always received from one-fourth to one-third of the money spent on public school inspection. For the year ending 30th June, 1904, the Protestant inspectors received $7,575 and the Roman Catholics $28,100 or just about one-fourth was paid to the Protestants instead of the one-eighth to which they were, strictly speaking, only entitled according to population. We have a Protestant and a Catholic Committee of Public Instruction, and a vote of $2,500 is made yearly, out of which the expenses of the two committees are paid. The travelling and hotel expenses of the members attending the meetings of that committee, Catholic and Protestant alike, are paid indifferently without any regard to any division of the funds into two parts. But the Protestant committee receives in addition $1,500 yearly, for its own expenses, for which the Roman Catholic committee gets no equivalent and the Protestant committee has been paid this sum for the last ten years out of contingencies. The expenses of the two committees are therefore paid indifferently, but the Protestant committee gets in addition $1,500 for which the Catholic committee gets no equivalent. With regard to the journals of public instruction, which are published in English for the Protestants and in French for the Catholics, the Protestant journal got last year $1,480 out of a total of $7,550, or about one-fifth of the whole when, according to population, it was only entitled to one-eighth. There are several votes given indifferently to Catholics and Protestant institutions. There is a sum of $50,000 granted annually by the government for elementary education. It is commonly known as the $50,000 grant and is distributed by the government of the day. I have here a statement of the secretary of the Protestant Council of Public Instruction in which he says that this grant is divided generally in a fair ratio according to population, but that $3,000 out of it is given to the McGill normal school for which there is no equivalent given the Catholic normal school.

I think I have given here a pretty clear statement of the privileges and advantages which we Protestants enjoy in the province of Quebec, and I would like to point out that the privileges granted us to-day are not given by virtue of any law or guarantee. Many of them have been given from time to time without any law or statutory enactment but voluntarily, and they have

4495

been given us by a legislature in which the large majority is Roman Catholic. I might add that in that legislature there is not the Roman Catholic majority which the population of the province would justify, because in it, just as in this Dominion parliament, there are a number of members representing constituencies in the province of Quebec, which have large Catholic majorities, but which nevertheless elect Protestants to represent them. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) knows that in the last elections the Magdalen Islands—a constituency in the province of Quebec in which I do not suppose there are one hundred Protestant electors—elected a Scotch English speaking Protestant to the Quebec legislature and rejected a French Canadian Catholic candidate. We have this condition of affairs existing in our province and we value it highly, and believe it is important to us that it should be continued. It is important for the Protestants of the province of Quebec that they should be able to manage their own schools, on their own lines, and in their own way. We have never had any agitation amongst the majority of the people of the province of Quebec to take away from us one iota, jot or tittle of the advantages or privileges which we enjoy. We have never had any such display of feeling, opinion, or thought as has been displayed on the floor of this House in discussing the question in regard to the privileges of the minorities in other provinces—never one iota, jot or tittle of it. Sir, we value this, but if the principles which we have heard enunciated by hon. gentlemen opposite are to be carried out to their legitimate conclusion, if the Protestant majorities of other provinces of the Dominion are to do away with the principle of separate schools, what kind of an appeal could we make to the majority of the province of Quebec in our behalf? I do not believe for one instant that the Catholic majority of the province of Quebec would allow themselves to be influenced by these feelings, statements, or thoughts. I have no fear that in the province of Quebec the Catholic majority will take away, or make the attempt to take away our rights and privileges, but, Sir, if the principle which hon. gentlemen opposite seem to inculcate were to be adopted in Canada and if the principle of separate schools were to be eliminated from our confederation compact what kind of an appeal could we make to that majority in the province of Quebec to continue to us these privileges and rights? Sir, I do not think that it will come about in our day, and I wish as a member of this parliament from the province of Quebec to see to it that the principle adopted in 1867, the principle continued in taking in Prince Edward Island and British Columbia and the principle continued, though not carried out to its fullest extent as was intended in the Manitoba Act, shall be introduced into these Acts and

4496

that the minority of the new provinces shall have guaranteed to them those privileges and rights which they are to-day enjoying and which are to their advantage as they will be in the future.

I think I may say fairly that I voice the opinion of the Protestants of the province of Quebec. I regret very much to hear those expressions of opinion which have been given on the floor of this House. I regret to see them in the press of the province of Ontario. It was not always thus. These very gentlemen of the Conservative party, and this Protestant and Conservative press of the province of Ontario, were not always actuated in this way. The fathers of confederation listened to Mr. Galt and introduced the principle of separate schools. The fathers of confederation, Protestants many of them, some of them no doubt ultra Protestant, desired to have separate schools and agreed to have separate schools. I understand that in the province of Ontario there is a separate school system. I believe that it is based on the Bill which was introduced by the Hon. Mr. Scott in 1863—the Separate School Act of the province of Ontario. That Bill was debated and discussed in the old parliament of Canada, there were divisions on it, the six months’ hoist of the Bill was moved, and amongst those who voted against this amendment and in favour of the Bill were John Hilliard Cameron, then Grand Master of the Orange Lodge of the province of Ontario; William Anderson, then Treasurer of the Orange Lodge of the province of Ontario; and John A. Macdonald, whose name will be familiar, I think, to hon. gentlemen opposite, as to the rest of the people in this country, and who was then a member of the Orange Lodge of that province. I am sorry, very sorry indeed, to find that the successors and the descendants of these broad-minded men, these generous and tolerant men, should assume and adopt the position that they are adopting on the question of separate schools. It would be better for the public opinion and for the future of the country if the sort of tolerance which animated the fathers of confederation were continued in their successors on the opposite side of the House.

I said a few moments ago that I believe I voiced the Protestant opinion of the province of Quebec. It may be said that the Protestant members, with the exception of myself, are influenced by the fact that they have a majority of Catholic electors. It is a poor compliment on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to pay to their colleagues and friends to say that, notwithstanding the fact that they are not in sympathy with the government party, not in sympathy generally with our political feelings, views and ideas, they are still going to vote with us on this question, because they were afraid of their Catholic electors. It is said by hon. gentlemen opposite, that the whole of the Quebec delegation is going to vote for this

4497

Bill irrespective of party and irrespective of religious feeling. I cannot be sure of that. I know that every Quebec delegate on this side of the House is going to vote for the Bill. The other night, when my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Béland) was pointing out that Catholic majorities had elected Protestant members to this House, the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) said that every one of them was going to vote for the Bill. I do not know whether he had authority to say so or not, I do not know whether the hon. members for Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh), for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) and for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) had told him so, or if he had authority to say so.

Mr. INGRAM. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Béland) was using the argument that in the province of Quebec Protestants were elected in constituencies which were largely Roman Catholic. He was basing his argument on that fact, and I said that if so they would all vote for the Bill, meaning that they would be guided by the opinions of those who elected them.

Mr. FISHER. Exactly, that is just what I am saying. I stated it rightly.

Mr. INGRAM. That is what I say now.

Mr. FISHER. My hon. friend repeats it. Again I say that it is a poor compliment to pay to his colleagues on that side of the House, whose natural predilections and whose party alliances, affiliations and surroundings, would induce them to vote against a government Bill, or against a Bill introduced by this government at any rate, and I think my hon. friend will acknowledge—

Mr. INGRAM. We have had the statement of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) of the position of the opposition on this question, which is that it is an open question, and that every member is at liberty to vote as he pleases.

Mr. FISHER. Yes; that is very good indeed. The Conservative party have no policy on it. The Conservative party have no principles upon it. They have no principles upon anything. We would like to know it if they have; we would like to hear what their principles are, so that the people of the country may judge them.

Mr. INGRAM. Before the session is over I will enlighten the hon. gentleman on a few of them.

Mr. FISHER. All right.

Mr. SPROULE. Did the government say to their following: We will leave this an open question?

Mr. FISHER. We did not require to. We are a united party on this question. We are a party of conciliation; a party which, while the majority rules, recognizes

4498

the rights of minorities. Hon. gentlemen opposite used to undertake to control the members of their party. I can remember a Tory leader in Canada who held the whip over his followers and made them come to time on such a question as this. But things have changed since those good old days. The present hon. leader of the opposition has a rebellious party around him, there is mutiny in the ranks, and he knew when he made that statement here that he had to make it, because if he had not the rebellion would have been open, and his followers would not have followed him. We have the proud spectacle of a great political party in opposition in this House. We have a policy advanced by the hon. leader of the opposition; we have a policy advanced, perhaps, by the hon. member for East Elgin, and we have policies advanced by other hon. members. They have a policy on which they cannot unite their own party, and by which they cannot draw any votes from ours.

Mr. SPROULE. What made the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) resign?

Mr. FISHER. The hon. ex-Minister of the Interior has explained that very thoroughly, so that the House and the country fully understand it, and the ex-Minister of the Interior has told the country that he is going to vote for the Bill with the amended clause.

Mr. SPROULE. You had to amend it all the same.

Mr. FISHER. I therefore believe, Sir, that I voice the feeling of the Protestants of the province of Quebec. It may be said, and it has been said, that some gentlemen on the other side of the House do not believe in their vote but have to give it because of fear of their electors. That cannot be said of the press of the province of Quebec. That cannot be said of the Montreal ‘Gazette’; that cannot be said of the Montreal ‘Star’; that cannot be said of the Montreal ‘Witness’ which is the particular exponent of Protestant feeling in the province of Quebec, which for years has been—I will not say ultra-Protestant but consistently and always Protestant in its first principles. The Montreal ‘Witness’ has been that in all conscientiousness and all integrity, and it is well recognized as being essentially a Protestant newspaper. But listen to what the Montreal ‘Gazette’, the leading English Conservative paper of the province said the other day:

The threat has been made in the House of Commons that the passage of the Autonomy Bills will be obstructed, as was the passage of the Remedial Bill in 1896. It can be trusted that no attempt will be made to put the threat into execution, first, from a national point of view, second, because the Conservative party would stand to lose from such a line of action.

I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will take that home.

4499

The Conservative party is not united in opposition to the principle of separate schools.

We know that.

Taking it altogether there is probably a larger proportion of its membership favourable to educational concessions to the religious minorities than there is in the Liberal party.

I wish their representatives in the House would show that. The ‘Gazette’ continues:

In the province of Quebec, where the concession is usually made to the Protestant, there is not and has not been from the majority any call for ‘nationalizing’ the school system, nor any objection on principle to the manner in which the minority uses its privileges.

The ‘Gazette’ goes on to say of the Protestant people of the province of Quebec:

They are not at all excited over the prospect of separate schools being maintained in Alberta and Saskatchewan. They are not even alarmed at the hierarchy being behind the movement.

That comes from the leading organ of the Conservative party in the city of Montreal. It is not depending on votes, it is not depending on pap or assistance in any way whatever, but it is giving expression to the feelings and views of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) will recognize the authority of the Montreal ‘Star.’ It is a newer recruit to the Conservative ranks than the Montreal ‘Gazette,’ but it is more devoted just at the present moment, and it has been more devoted in the near past. The Montreal ‘Star’ cannot be claimed to be anything but an out and out Tory sheet, and here is what the Montreal ‘Star’ says:

But with the effort made in some quarters to bring on a religious civil war—

Mark you Mr. Speaker; mark the words ‘religious civil war.’

But with the effort made in some quarters to bring on a religious civil war over these interwoven western questions, we have not the slightest sympathy. As ‘Ralph Connor’ said last night, to the Young Men’s Christian Association, the busy men of the west hesitate ‘to stir up that monster, that demon, race strife,’ and, that being true, what right have we of the east to force so disastrous a quarrel upon them? The question of whether or not the educational clauses as they are now in the Autonomy Bills, should become law, can be discussed with a sober sense of the gravity of the subject and the dangers that surround it. We can avoid inflammatory off-shoots of the debate, instead—as is the short-sighted and unpatriotic custom in some quarters—eagerly seeking out and emphasizing them.

I think it might be well for the Ontario newspapers to take that to heart and to say that to the Protestants of Ontario. The ‘Star’ continues:

With all seriousness, we believe that a greater matter than the school question is at stake, and that is the future of Canada as a British colony. Our people are composed—shall we say, by the will of Providence—of two races

4500

and two religions, having regard only to the larger divisions. We must dwell together in mutual harmony and toleration if we are to dwell together at all in the peace which is the only possible condition productive of progress and prosperity. Neither race and neither religion can wholly have its way. We must give and take. No one knew this better, having learned it through years of bitter experience, than the fathers of confederation. Confederation itself was the child of conciliation and compromise.

Coercion was it? Was it the child of coercion and Toryism?

If the finest group of patriots whom Canada has yet produced had not then come together and sunk their individual predilections in the common interest, we would never have had a Dominion of Canada. What we would have had, in all probability, would have been a northern tier of states in the American union.

Here is the warning:

And if the old quarrel is to come up—if the old intense religious antagonisms are again to be excited into activity—it is impossible to say that this danger has wholly passed.

Is the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite going to lead to annexation?

Every day that the controversy, which is now raging over purely religious differences, lasts, we can see the two camps into which our people are divided becoming more distinct and more perilously moved by mutual suspicion and distrust.

Again the Montreal ‘Star’ says:

In the sixties we saw two provinces facing each other at Ottawa, and the wheels of government stopped. Sir John Macdonald, that master of conciliation, was there, but he was powerless. Nothing but the patriotism of the men on both sides—of George Brown and Sir George Cartier, as well as Sir John Macdonald and Sir A. T. Galt—saved the situation. But the presence of other Canadian provinces gave them an opportunity which does not now exist. As we said yesterday, there is no larger area today in which we can drown our troubles except the American union. We may easily find ourselves, then, with the old disease, but with no possible remedy short of suicide.

Will the hon. gentlemen opposite take that to heart. The ‘Star’ says:

Then we should never forget that racial and religious questions are dangerous topics for us to stir up in this country. We must face them at times; but there is no necessity for keeping them before the public, week after week, largely for purposes of party agitation. Canada has surely suffered enough in the past over her racial and religious divisions without voluntarily bringing on another period of unrest and rancour just when we should be bending all our united and harmonious efforts to ‘building up the west.’

Sir, I say, take and ponder over these quotations from the Conservative newspapers in the city of Montreal. Now I want to read an extract from the Montreal ‘Witness’ of April 11th, and I want hon. gentlemen opposite who object to separate schools

4501

to take this as being the outspoken and conscientious conviction of one of the most ultra-Protestant newspapers we have in this country. The Montreal ‘ Witness ’ says :

The Roman Catholic has a conscience about his schools. We deny the rightness or wisdom of that conscience. But whatever its source, it has to be recognized as a fact, and if so, it is in the same category with other claims based on liberty of conscience. . . .

It is not hard to understand the strength of provincialism in Ontario, whose whole history has been an effort to get free from the adjoining province, which at one time had too powerful a sway over her. But it always seems strange to us when this cry is echoed among the minority in Quebec, which has everything to lose by it. The declaration that education is absolutely a matter for the individual province, and that any national stipulation with regard to it is an outrage, sounds very strange coming from people who would not submit for a moment to such a system of schools as the majority in their own province would consider ideal. When asked if they would so submit, they say with surprise, ‘ Why, that is a totally different thing, the Quebec system would be sectarian, while the common school system should be so carried on as to offend no religion.

I would point out that although it might be so carried on it is not so carried on in the province of Quebec. The ‘ Witness ’ continues :

They do not see that this is begging the question. Of course the two ideals are very different. If it were not so, there would be none of this trouble. But just as strong as is our objection to the clerical school for our children, so strong is the objection of the Roman Catholic for the non-clerical school.

And, Sir, if we wish that our prejudices, our ideas and our views in regard to non-sectarian schools should be adopted, we must respect the idea of the Roman Catholics in regard to religious teaching. I think, Sir, that I have proven that I voiced the feelings of the Protestants of Quebec. These hon. gentlemen opposite have been raising an agitation, and as it is hinted at there by the Montreal ‘ Witness,’ they have been trying to drag out the demon of racial and religious strife in this country. Why ? Hon. gentlemen opposite have tried to place the responsibility for this on the government and on the Prime Minister especially. Sir, in any Autonomy Bill like this, whoever may frame it, it is necessary to specify in regard to education just as much as it is necessary to specify in regard to anything else with regard to the formation of the new provinces. No government could frame an Autonomy Bill without introducing an educational clause. The provisions of the British North America Act cannot apply under the peculiar circumstances and conditions of this case, and therefore we have to use precise language and for the purpose of using precise language we have to introduce a clause in the law. It has been said in some of the newspapers—and I regret to say that the words of the leader of the

4502

opposition on several occasions in this House have tended to raise that question—it has been said that these clauses have been framed and have been drawn up entirely by the Catholic members of the government. The insinuation has been made that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, and the Minister of Justice were the only Ministers that knew about these clauses. I have denied already, but without revealing a cabinet secret. I want to say now : that, without having been myself personally on any sub-committee, and without having any peculiar or special advantages for knowing what these clauses were to be and were, I knew personally every detail and every word of these clauses before they were brought down to parliament—both the first clause and the second clause. I knew that just as much as any Catholic member of the government. I am responsible for these clauses personally and individually and not alone by reason of the collective responsibility of every minister of the cabinet. It is an unfair and unjust aspersion upon the Prime Minister and upon his Catholic colleagues to insinuate for a moment that they ever tried to trick their colleagues, or to trick their party, or in any way to introduce a Bill that their party and their colleagues did not know of.

Sir, I will not detain the House much longer. I have talked already longer than I intended to do ; but the condition of affairs which hon. gentlemen opposite seem to want to bring about reminds me of a word or two which I read in a letter of the right hon leader of the Conservative government in England at the present time.

Mr. BLAIN. If the hon. gentleman would permit me, before he leaves that subject. My hon. friend has said that he knew all about the first clause as it was introduced by the Prime Minister, and all about the second clause. Would the hon. gentleman favour the House at this point with an explanation of the two clauses, and of the difference between them ?

Mr. FISHER. No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to waste my time on that just now. The clauses have been explained and discussed over and over again, and it is not my purpose to discuss them at the present time. I think I understand them both, and I am responsible for both as much as anybody else. This to my mind is a fair picture of what would go on in this country and what to a certain extent is going on, in consequence of the appeal of hon. gentlemen opposite :

The ear gets wearied with this unrelenting scream, the palate jaded with these perpetual stimulants. And though one of Dr. Clifford’s warmest admirers has invented in his honour the verb to ‘ Cliffordise,’ I am, for my part, doubtful whether the style thus happily described is likely, even among the least critical members of the community, to produce more than a passing perturbation. Some there may

4503

be who think that if a thing be said often enough, it must be true ; if it be said loud enough it must be important. But we may hope that these are not in a majority, and until they are, the controversial methods which Dr. Clifford has so abundantly exemplified can win no permanent success.

I think, Sir, these words, wise, clear, and epigrammatic as they are, fairly well describe the condition of affairs which hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to excite in this country ; and I think the outcome of it will be just what Mr. Balfour has described as the outcome of the agitation in England at that time. Sir, we have the spectacle of the hon. leader of the opposition moving an amendment for which he cannot even carry his own party, still less attract votes from outside of his party. We have him appealing to provincial rights. We have him appealing to a very small and unimportant part of provincial rights, and ignoring the right of restriction in regard to education lest we may magnify the general right. We find his friends, and largely his press, appealing against separate schools ; and here again they cannot carry with them those who, in their party as in ours, are best able to judge of the results of separate schools, the Quebec wing of the Conservative party. We find, on the one side this insensate and fanatical appeal. We find, on the other side, a united party, a party which, in bringing forward these important measures, have consulted everybody interested in the question, have taken the necessary steps to see that Catholic and Protestant, local and other interests, should all have their opportunity of expressing their views, have discussed the matter in detail, in every line and every word, and, having done that, have introduced a measure which, a compromise it is true, but a well thought out and successful one, now appeals for support to the people of this country. Sir, here as always the Tories stand for coercion, while the Liberals stand for conciliation and the recognition of the rights of the minority. Here as always we find the struggle between the two classes of people in the country. I have full enough confidence in the people of this Canada of ours, in the electors all over the country, in every part and in every province, to believe that, even though for the moment some—not a majority, Sir—not even a large minority—may be led away and blinded by fanatical appeals, appeals mostly made with sinister and ulterior motives, and not honest or sincere in their wording or action, to believe, Sir, that public opinion will settle down to the full and satisfied conviction that a difficult and even perhaps dangerous problem has been solved in a statesmanlike and wise manner ; and that our country, disturbed and alarmed for the moment, will then shake herself free of this nightmare, and again move on in her material, moral and intellectual progress, aided and strengthened by the addition of two new members to the family

4504

of provinces, helping us to build up our great Dominion, and holding a contented population, no part of which will feel that they have a grievance, but all mutually respecting the rights of those who do not see exactly eye to eye with them on educational matters. But if, in contradistinction with this, the policy of the Tory party were to be carried out, and we were to create a festering sore among the people of that country who did not happen to come under the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite, we would have a check to the progress of that northwestern country which would be fatal to the interests of the whole Dominion, and would not only check our progress in the future, but would take away from us much of the great advance and progress which we have made in the near past. I am satisfied that the great mass of the people of Canada will believe this, and, believing it, will suppport and endorse it. I do not like to prophesy ; it is better to state things after the event ; but from what hon. gentlemen opposite and their press in the country have said, it is probable that this Bill and these clauses will be supported in this House by the largest majority that has been given to any government measure for many years. Sir, I can expect that ; I think we have a right to expect it ; because these clauses embody a compromise in which the rights of every party, having been consulted, are recognized and considered, and embody a principle which is the essence of our confederation compact, and which, being carried out, will contribute to the progress and advancement of the country, but without which Canada must necessarily be divided on religious and racial lines in a way that will be fatal to her future development.

Mr. Speaker, I will not detain you or this House longer. I trust that these few words will throw a little light, at any rate on one or two points of this question. I have tried thus to put before the House the reasons why, as a Protestant from the province of Quebec especially, I am in favour of separate schools, and why I want to see them introduced into the Northwest Territories, and their continuance guaranteed on behalf of the Catholic minority there. I speak not only as a member from the province of Quebec, but as a member of the government of Canada, and a citizen who is interested in our country, and I believe, Sir, that the only way by which we can cement the people of this country together is by conciliation, by recognition of the rights of minorities, by helping the weak in order to make them as good as the strong.

At six o’clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o’clock.

Mr. H. B. AMES (St. Antoine, Montreal). Mr. Speaker, after this question has occupied

4505

the attention of this House for a period of two weeks, after a large number of members on both sides of the House have given to us the result of their investigation and of their thought, after many speeches have been delivered, until the late hours of the night, it is almost impossible that there should be anything said upon this subject that is either new or interesting and I should certainly yield to the temptation to give a silent vote upon this question were it not for two considerations: First, the fact that representing the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec and having had some experience in school conditions in that province, I feel that I may perhaps be able to contribute something towards the debate along educational lines, and secondly because there have been permitted to emanate from this chamber many statements that have caused a misapprehension throughout Canada in general and among my own electors in particular. If to-night my remarks may be of a somewhat neutral character my main desire is to clarify the question in such a way that it may be plainly understood.

This parliament is called upon at the present time, in conformity with the British North America Act, 1871:

To establish a new province in territories forming part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof,

And this parliament may at the time of such statement—

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.

Consequently the main question which we now find before us for consideration is this: whether this parliament, in conferring upon these new provinces the charter under which they will, from now on, exercise certain privileges of self-government, should endeavour to a certain extent to limit them in the exercise of the legislative privileges, or whether this parliament should declare that they shall have and enjoy the fullest possible freedom of action which can be given to them under the law. It is a difficult matter for us to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the legal aspect of this case, because we have in this House the spectacle of very eminent constitutional authorities differing upon it. We find upon the one side the Prime Minister intimating that, according to the constitution, when we are called upon to give a charter to this new province we must necessarily observe the rights of minorities and must necessarily protect them in the legislation which we may pass, especially in reference to education. And we have upon the other hand an equally eminent authority, in fact

4506

on this side of the House we consider him an abler authority, we have the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), who says that according to his opinion, after a close examination of the British North America Act and other statutes, he is of the belief that the British North America Act applies automatically and that the several provinces, by the very creative Act come into the possession of full provincial autonomy and full local liberty, that in fact this is their birthright, and that this parliament can neither give to them nor take away from them anything that inherently belongs to them. The same line of argument, if properly applied, would also include whatever rights the minority may have at the present time in this territory under the same British North America Act. Thus we find eminent legal authorities differing very materially as to what are the powers which this parliament may exercise in respect of the legislation which we are now called upon to pass, and I must say that the fact that the government, in permitting the parliament of Canada to be in such a position as it finds itself to-day, has, according to my mind, been guilty of grave negligence. I feel that this parliament is in a very peculiar position. Suppose we should pass legislation, and it should prove to be ultra vires, in what position would we find ourselves? This legislation will be immediately contested in the courts and will eventually go before the highest judicial authorities. Suppose it is declared that certain sections in this Bill, we have no power to pass? Then where are we? It will simply mean that this parliament will have at some future date to undertake to pass legislation and to petition the imperial parliament asking that our own illegal Acts may be made legal, and once again shall we have this long, weary debate and this acrimonious discussion throughout the whole country; once again the whole question will be reopened and reconsidered, I trust that time to a finality. The position, which this parliament finds itself in, is that we are called upon to pass legislation of doubtful legality and the government may possibly expect to pass such legislation trusting that imperial ratification will be given to it ultimately. Why did not the government in the first place prepare for this contingency? Is this any new question? Has this question not been before this House and before this country for the past five years? In 1900 did not the legislature of the Northwest Territories pass various resolutions asking to be created into provinces? In 1902 did they not bring down and present to this government a draft Bill of what it was suggested by them should constitute the charter of the new provinces? And two years ago did not the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in this House press this once again on the attention of the government

4507

and say that the time had fully come for the granting of autonomy to the new provinces in the Northwest? Thus, for the last five years this question has again and again been brought to the attention of this government and this government has known that at some very early date it would be necessary to legislate for the purpose of giving to these two new provinces the charter under which they would subsequently be governed. Has the government made the preparation that was necessary for such an important step? Has the government made any attempt to ascertain what we in this parliament may legally do? Now we are face to face with a constitutional difficulty and the government have apparently said: We shall pass the Bill and test its constitutionality afterwards. Is that a dignified position for parliament to take? I should judge not. I think that the government is certainly blamable for the raising of this constitutional difficulty. Seeing that constitutional authorities of the highest character differ as to the powers of parliament in respect to this legislation, this government should have submitted a series of questions to the highest judicial tribunal and should have obtained from them a finding so that we would be relieved from the necessary anxiety of passing legislation, the legality of which is at present greatly in doubt. If I may offer a suggestion to the members of the government, a suggestion which has been made before, it would be that it is not too late for them to draw up a series of questions as to just what this parliament may or may not legally under imperial statutes put in the Bill now before this House. It is not too late for the government now to submit such a series of questions to the highest judicial tribunal. Having obtained a finding they could come before this House and say: This we can do and this we cannot do. Let this be done and we will then make good law. And so, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the first words that come from my mouth must be these, that I do believe that the government at the present time, owing to lack of foresight in settling the judicial aspect of this question, has placed this House in a very delicate and a very difficult position.

Assuming for the moment that this parliament, in granting to the new Territories their autonomy, has the power of laying certain limitations on these new provinces, more especially in respect to the laws which they may subsequently pass with respect to education, admitting for the moment that the government has this right—which I do not admit except for the sake of argument—the manner in which this Bill has been introduced into this House has, I think, been most unfortunate and most mal-à-droit. It has, in fact, been largely responsible for the storm which has arisen throughout the entire country over this matter. If I may be permitted I would like to

4508

refer to the opening remarks of the Prime Minister delivered on the 21st of February, when he made his first speech in connection with this legislation. I find that he uttered these words which, I know, commend themselves to every member of this House:

We have known by the experience of the past, within the short life of this confederation, that public opinion is always inflammable whenever questions arise which ever so remotely touch upon the religious convictions of the people. It behooves us therefore all the more at this solemn moment to approach this subject with care, with calmness and deliberation and with the firm purpose of dealing with it not only in accordance with the inherent principles of abstract justice, but in accordance with the spirit—the Canadian spirit of tolerance and charity, this Canadian spirit of tolerance and charity of which confederation is the essence and of which in practice it ought to be the expression and embodiment.

I endorse these sentiments. And I would like to say, in reply to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) who spoke this afternoon, that the Liberal party has not had, nor has it to-day, a monopoly of tolerance and Christian charity in this country. But the words of the Prime Minister to which I wish to call particular attention are these: ‘ This subject should be approached with care, with calmness and with deliberation.’ And I would like to ask this House if, in the opinion of hon. gentlemen, this educational question has been approached by the government with care, with calmness and with deliberation. I would like to ask them whether the original clause 16 of the Bill shows internal or external evidence of having been prepared with care. And, I should like to ask them if the fact that the clause was prepared just three hours before the Bill was presented to this House shows that in dealing with this matter care and deliberation were exercised. This original clause 16, poor new-born infant laid on the table of this House and seen for the first time on the 21st of February last, whose parentage we have never yet been able to ascertain—for no one will own it—this short lived clause, threw the country into a furore of excitement for three weeks and then it died, and was put away unwept, unhonoured and unsung,—and peace be to its ashes. We had the spectacle of ministers of the Crown giving different interpretations to the legislation which they were endeavouring to force through this House. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) declared that this original clause was intended—and the Minister of Justice ought to know what was intended—to guarantee to the minority of Northwest nothing more than the privileges which they presently enjoy under the existing statutes. A few days afterwards, we had the spectacle of the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) arising and explaining that, from his point of view, the clause contained far more than we had been told, that it contained the seeds of a complete separate

4509

school system and the opportunity for the greatest sectarian endowment that could be created. When we have two ministers of the Crown differing as to the interpretation of a clause of this kind, a clause of such importance, we are encouraged to believe that it was prepared with care, with calmness and with deliberation?

And, again, the speech with which the Prime Minister introduced this clause, was, in my humble opinion, not calculated to secure for it that reception which I know he desired, that reception which all peace-loving men throughout the country would desire in the case of a question of this kind. I have endeavoured to analyse the speech, in order, if possible to see what the Prime Minister had in his mind when he was defining the original educational clause before this House. And his line of reasoning as I found it, was something like this:—What are separate schools? For a reply he reviews their history in Canada. He describes the separate schools before confederation. He traces the evolution of school law in Quebec from 1841 to 1863. He emphasizes the basic differences in matters of dogma between Catholics and Protestants. He shows how and why the separate schools of old Canada were established. He recalls the acrimonious debates of 1863 and George Brown’s vigorous denunciations. He reminds Canadians that for fifty years they have disagreed on this subject. He reviews the agitation from 1841 to the deadlock of 1864; reminds us how separate schools were ‘a necessary condition to confederation,’ claims similarity of conditions as regards the new provinces of the Northwest, emphasizes how Manitoba avoided the separate school system, how the Northwest Territories cannot thus escape, and finally, though refusing to discuss the merits, denounces the American system, which is the presumable alternative towards which the Northwest is drifting.

Now, what is the impression created by that speech? What is the impression created upon the mind of the man on the street of whom we have heard so often. I went to my own constituency a few days ago and tried to find out what was the impression which existed there with reference to the contemplated legislation. And I failed to find a single man who did not understand that the contemplated action of the government was to duplicate in the Canadian Northwest a system of separate schools similar to that found in Ontario and Quebec. Now, that, I claim, is a misapprehension; but that certainly is the idea fixed in the minds of many throughout the Dominion of Canada after reading the speech with which the Prime Minister introduced his Bill. And what a magnificent opportunity the Prime Minister had. Following the unusual course of delivering a speech on the first reading, he spoke to a Bill which no member of the opposition had seen; making

4510

a speech, therefore, to which no immediate reply could be given. He spoke with care, and the country listened; and for three weeks that was the only speech that went forth to the country as explaining the intention of the government. And no word of criticism could be or was, during that time, given utterance to in this House. The opportunity was his. He might have used it, I think, to far greater advantage than he did. I believe he might have used it in such a way as to have tided us over a period which, I know, has been very trying to many on both sides of the House. Now, there are those who believe that the separate school system, as we find it in Ontario and Quebec, was a ‘necessary condition of confederation,’ men who are willing that it should then be established and who are today willing that it should be continued, but who are not willing that the same system should be duplicated in new, unorganized territories. And we can not blame them. They are as honest and sincere in their opinions as are those who differ from them; but it is their opinion, and, as such, it must be accepted and reckoned with. Now, it seems to me that the Prime Minister and the members of the government, foreseeing that this question would bring on a discussion that was very likely to be a difficult and trying one, should first have agreed among themselves upon a clause that they could all accept. They should then have submitted it to their caucus and secured the support of their own members. That clause should have been so precise, so distinct, so clear, that there could be no misinterpretation of it. If the clause was intended to give nothing more or nothing less than that which they now enjoy, that should have been distinctly and specifically stated to the House. That clause should be so clear as to lead to no misunderstanding. And, had the Prime Minister, having secured the agreement of the members of his cabinet, having consulted his rank and file and secured their endorsement, had he then come in with a clause to perpetuate the privileges of the minority in the Northwest, and had he frankly stated to the House and people that this was all that could be read into the clause, he could have appealed to the spirit of tolerance and Christian charity of which he has spoken, and I believe that the country from one end to the other would have accepted what he proposed. I believe the country would have accepted it had not the apprehensions been created in the minds of the people to which the original clause and the speech of the right hon. gentleman gave rise. What this country wants is frank and straightforward treatment. What our people want is to be told the truth, even if it be not palatable. As this question was introduced into this House, we find that the people of the province of Quebec had false

4511

hopes raised and that the people of the province of Ontario had groundless fears excited. The people of the province of Quebec were led to believe that the clause, as originally introduced, tended to give more to the minority in the Territories than they now enjoy, and that was also the interpretation which the people of the province of Ontario placed upon it; and the right hon. gentleman would have appealed far more effectively to the broad spirit of tolerance in this country had he stated frankly and in a straightforward manner the facts, neither more nor less. Had he, in introducing his measure, informed the House that this amended clause number 16 would not satisfy the extremists of either party, but was a fair compromise measure which would in no way interfere with the educational efficiency of the schools in the Northwest, and which was framed in a conciliatory spirit and for the purpose of establishing harmony and unity, I believe that even if both sides did not accept it, certainly the country would not have been worked up to its present state of excitement.

It is because this misapprehension exists, not only in the constituencies generally, but also in my own division, that I find it necessary to explain what is the real purport of the legislation which the government proposes in this amended clause 16. I want my electors to understand exactly what this legislation means which we are called upon to pass.

Without any intention of making disparaging comparisons, without any intention of saying anything to the detriment of the school system of the province to which I belong, without in any way desiring to lessen the credit which is due to those who are working in the educational ranks in the province of Quebec, permit me, Mr. Speaker, to make a comparison between the separate school system, as we have it in the province of Quebec, and the national school system of the Northwest Territories which it is proposed to perpetuate. There is a very wide difference between the two; and if men of good intent only realized what a wide difference there is, I do not think there would be so much heat over this discussion. It will be necessary for me, even at the risk of repeating something which has been already said, to describe the educational system as we find it to-day in the province of Quebec. In the province of Quebec we have a dual educational system. We have a Council of Public Instruction composed of thirty-six members, twenty-four of whom are Catholics and twelve Protestants. This council has jurisdiction and control over all educational matters in the province. We have a superintendent of public instruction, who is a member of the council, but who is really but an executive officer. This council is divided into two sections, the Protestant and the Catholic. The Protestant committee deals

4512

with all matters relating to Protestant education, and the Catholic committee has the same jurisdiction over Catholic education. Therefore we find a dual system of schools. There are Roman Catholic and Protestant universities, Roman Catholic and Protestant normal schools and Roman Catholic and Protestant superior and primary schools. The two systems are entirely separate. We have a dual system of examinations and certificates and inspectors. Each is practically as distinct and separate from the other as though the other did not exist. We have another feature in the province of Quebec and that is the large number of religious teachers engaged in the work of education in that province, and special exception is made with regard to them in our school laws. For while all other teachers are required to be certificated, there is a provision at the end of section 93 of the school Act which provides:

Saving, nevertheless, ministers and members of either sex of religious corporations constituted for educational purposes, who are exempt.

Under that provision we find that a very large number of clerics are engaged in teaching in the province of Quebec. The total number of teachers is 12,072, of whom 4,659 are religious. Of this number, 577 are clerics, 1,070 religious brothers and 3,012 nuns. In the elementary schools 10 per cent of the teachers are in religious orders. In the superior schools, 83 per cent of the teachers are members of religious bodies, and in the colleges 94 per cent are clerical and 6 per cent lay professors. I should be the last one in this House or out of it to utter anything but words of credit and praise for those devoted persons who consecrate their lives to education in the province of Quebec among the members of religious orders. They certainly give back to the state, in the teaching service they render for little or no remuneration, far more than they take from it, and I doubt whether, without their assistance, we would be able in the province of Quebec—at least our Roman Catholic fellow citizens would not be able—to secure for their children the educational facilities which they now enjoy. My only reason for bringing this to the attention of the House is because I want to show that 39 per cent of the teachers in the province of Quebec are members of religious corporations and that none of these are required to be certificated. Then again in the matter of school books and text books, we find that religious teaching permeates the whole system in our province. Here again let me not be misunderstood for I do not wish to go on record as in any way condemning religious teaching in the schools, but I wish to point out that such teaching takes up a considerable part of the curriculum, not only of Roman Catholic but also of Protestant schools. We find in the Roman Catholic schools moral and religious

4513

instruction in the first, second, third and fourth year elementary courses. Prayers and catechism are taught orally, and also, under the head of history, the pupils are instructed in sacred history, the duties of a Christian and the history of Canada. We find also in the Protestant schools that they are likewise opened with prayer, that the children are given scriptural readings and that portions of the scriptures are committed to memory. And I may say that all denominations of the Protestant faith find that they can work together in these schools in perfect harmony and have no difficulty in deciding what religious instruction shall be given the children. Again I want to point out that in the Roman Catholic schools of the province of Quebec the direction of the church authorities is distinctly recognized from beginning to end. On the Roman Catholic section of the council of public instruction there are twenty-four members, twelve of whom are bishops, who have in whole or in part their dioceses within the limits of the province, and the other twelve are laymen. But the bishops constitute always one-half of the total number. And as the bishops always work together and most of the laymen agree with them, it follows that the courses and methods of study will be those which are acceptable to the church authorities. So that we find in the province of Quebec a dual system in which the Roman Catholic section is distinctly sectarian and over which the Roman Catholic church authorities have practically undisputed control.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that this system satisfies local conditions. I wish to say that the people of the province of Quebec, both Protestant and Catholic, would not change it if they could. A national school system such as it would be possible to establish in the province of Quebec would give satisfaction to neither party. I do not stand here as criticising the educational system of the province of Quebec and the only reason for bringing these facts before the House is that hon. members may distinctly see that this is not the system which it is proposed to perpetuate in the Canadian Northwest.

Mr. McCOLL. May I ask the hon. gentleman if this Council of Public Instruction which he speaks of is under any department of the provincial government?

Mr. AMES. No.

Mr. McCOLL. It is independent of the legislature altogether?

Mr. AMES. Practically so. The greatest liberty is given to the Council of Public Instruction and its several committees. They pass all regulations in respect to education and although the regulations have to be concurred in by the Governor in Council, as a matter of fact, they are nearly always accepted as drafted.

4514

Now we come to the constitution of the school system as we find it in the Canadian Northwest to-day and which it is proposed by statutory enactment to render permanent. In the first place we find that there exists the basic right of dissent, that where, in a community, there are Roman Catholic taxpayers, these taxpayers may unite and have a separate school. They may then elect Roman Catholic trustees, and these Roman Catholic trustees may engage a Roman Catholic teacher. A Roman Catholic in the Canadian Northwest to-day, cannot be taxed twice for education and that is practically his only advantage. After the school has been constituted in the Canadian Northwest, it cannot deviate in any particular from the fixed national type. That school comes immediately under the control of the government. There is a minister, or a commissioner of education and that officer is aided by a council, but mark you, that council is very different from the Council of Public Instruction such as we know it in Quebec. There is a very great difference, because, as I said, our council passes regulations, looks after the administration of the schools and is very rarely in any way interfered with, but the council which exists in the Canadian Northwest is a purely advisory body. It has no right to vote. It can simply suggest, counsel, consider and make reports. It meets once a year and is merely a sort of expert advisory board to the government which may accept or reject the report submitted to it. The Northwest system as I said is completely under the control of the government. The Minister of Education is himself a member of the government, responsible to the legislature and to the people, and under him there exists a uniform system of national schools throughout the Canadian Northwest. We have one normal school and every one who would be certificated as a teacher must either pass examination or go through that normal school. No teachers are permitted to teach in the Canadian Northwest unless they are duly certificated. It would be impossible for members of religious orders to teach in these schools as members of these orders. They may teach as teachers and cases are on record where certain of the nuns have been at considerable difficulty and trouble to pass through the normal school at Regina, just as every one else must do, in order that they may be qualified and certificated to teach in the separate schools of the Canadian Northwest. But the fact that they are nuns gives them no right to teach in the separate schools of the Canadian Northwest. The whole system is uniform. We have uniform certificates for teachers, uniform examinations, and uniform inspectorates all of which show that the system is a national system. In the matter of school books, we find that the same school books are used in all the schools whether public or separate, with the exception of the first.

4515

and second years in the elementary course. In this respect the regulation is as follows:

The Dominion readers, first (part I., part II.) and second—these are optional for Roman Catholic separate schools; bi-lingual series, first (part I., part II.) and second readers—these are optional in schools where French is the vernacular; German readers, Ahn’s first and second German books.

This is the only deviation from the regular class books permitted to separate schools that are ordinarily employed throughout the schools in the Canadian Northwest.

Then, I come to the question of religious teaching which has so often been referred to in this House. It is permissible to open the school with the Lord’s Prayer and it is also permissible after half past three in the afternoon to have religious instruction. But that can only be given in case the parents themselves petition for it and the trustees consent to it. In such case a minister or a priest may teach from half past three to four o’clock, but it is specially provided that any scholar may absent himself from such teaching if his parents so desire, and also that any scholar who may be proficient in religious teaching shall not have his marks counted to his advantage in the general total. We also find that the university which they have by recent legislation decided to establish in the Northwest shall be strictly non-sectarian in principle and that no religious dogma or creed shall be taught and no religious test shall be required of any student or other person, so that, as I pointed out, the system in vogue in the Canadian Northwest is not only a non-sectarian system, but I might also say a system that is practically divorced from religious teaching.

There is a small number of separate schools in the Canadian Northwest and that number is not increasing notwithstanding the fact that the Roman Catholic population has been growing. In 1898 there were 509 public school districts established in the Canadian Northwest. Last year this number had increased to 1,235, or, in other words it had become just two and a half times as great as it was six years ago. Has there been a corresponding increase in the number of separate schools? Let us see. In 1898 there were 14 separate school districts, and in 1904, 16 separate school districts, and if I am rightly informed but 12 of these are in operation and but 10 of these are Roman Catholic separate schools. If we look into the character of these Roman Catholic separate schools we find that eight of them are to be found in municipalities of considerable size where there are already other schools established and where the existence of two schools together is in no wise a detriment to education. Further, by reference to page 129 of the annual Northwest Territory report for 1903 we find that every one of these eight separate schools has a certificated teacher.

4516

and that four of these schools have two certificated teachers. It has been said that if this legislation that the government is now proposing in the form of the amended clause 16 should pass, it would be but the entering wedge for the gradual establishment of a complete dual system of schools in the Canadian Northwest. I think the history of schools and of education in the Canadian Northwest denies that proposition. I know it is extremely difficult for the separate schools at the present time existing to keep pace with the requirements—that the struggle which it is necessary for them to make is hardly commensurate with the returns they secure from it, and it is highly improbable if this legislation is permitted to continue that the number of separate schools in the Canadian Northwest will ever be an appreciable quantity.

As one interested in Canadian education and not without experience in dealing with some of its problems, in endeavouring to arrive at a conclusion as to what course I shall follow in regard to this Bill, I naturally ask myself whether the existing educational system in the Canadian Northwest is in any way detrimental to educational efficiency. If I should find that the perpetuation of this so-called—for it is only so-called—separate system in the Canadian Northwest diminished the educational excellence that might otherwise be attained, then I would feel strongly constrained not to perpetuate a system which was calculated to fall below the general average of education. But my fears in that respect would be absolutely groundless, I believe. The more I examine into the existing system in the Northwest, the more I am convinced that it is one of the most efficient systems to be found anywhere in Canada. I have been endeavouring to make certain tests of this system in order to find out, by the rules we are accustomed to apply in other provinces, whether educational efficiency in the Northwest is all that may be desired. We speak, for instance, of the percentage of certificated teachers, and I find that in 1903 only five per cent of these teachers in the entire Canadian Northwest were teaching on temporary permits without certificates, and although 250 new teachers flocked in there last year the percentage of uncertificated teachers is now only seven per cent. I believe the best provinces we have, educationally speaking, are Manitoba and Ontario, but they cannot make any such showing as this, while in the province of Quebec, exclusive of the clerical teachers, we have from 15 to 17 per cent of the teachers who, unfortunately, are not properly certified. Again, if we look at the salaries which are paid, and this is always an excellent test as to the efficiency of the school system, because if the teacher makes the school it is the salary that gets the good teacher, here again we find the Canadian Northwest the banner section of Canada in.

4517

this respect. The average salaries paid there to elementary school teachers is from $40 to $45 per month, while in the province of Quebec we pay our teachers from $15 to $20 per month to do similar work. We need not wonder that they are from time to time deserting us to go to this western country. Again, taking all the schools throughout the Canadian Northwest we find that the period of the school year gives an average of six months of teaching, a very high average, indeed, and an average which reflects great credit upon those who have control of that system. Therefore, having applied the tests which educationalists are accustomed to apply to an educational system, we find there is no province in the Dominion which has a higher standard than the Canadian Northwest. What is the secret of this? I think the secret may be found in the very generous treatment which the provincial legislature affords to the schools in the matter of grants. In the province of Quebec, I regret to say, out of the entire sum which is annually expended for education, only 12 per cent comes from the government and 88 per cent is raised by local taxation, whereas in the Northwest one-third of the total amount expended for education comes from the government. We in the province of Quebec only appropriate annually for a population of 1,600,000 about two and a half times as much as the Northwest Territories legislature has been accustomed to grant for a population only one-fifth as large as ours. I cannot help digressing to condemn here the niggardly treatment accorded by the several administrations in Quebec in the matter of education. There are many other things they could far better afford to cut out of their budget and they certainly should increase the amount given for education in that province.

But, Sir, what is the immediate effect of this generous treatment of the schools on the part of the Northwest assembly? We find there is given to every school throughout the Northwest an average of $217 per year or about $6 per capita of school attendance. Compare that with my native province, where I regret to find, we give only $72 per year per school, or an average of $1.42 per capita of school attendance. And what is the advantage that the government of the Northwest Territories has obtained by means of this generosity towards its schools? It is the enormous influence which the government can exert in forcing every school to come up to its regulations. I have been a member of the Council of Public Instruction in the province of Quebec for the past ten years; I have again and again, with the other members, weighed the question of elementary education and wondered how it might be possible to improve the standard. We have inevitably come up against the same difficulty, and that is the smallness of the amount of money at the disposal of the Council of Public

4518

instruction for distribution throughout the schools in the province of Quebec. Again and again have we endeavoured to make schools come up to the regulations which we have prescribed, and again and again have these schools replied: we do not want your paltry grant; we would rather forfeit your grant and be permitted to go on as we are, breaking the regulations. That cannot exist in the Canadian Northwest because no school there can afford to forfeit a grant which is equal to 50 per cent of the amount which they raise themselves. The result is that in the Northwest, every school makes a herculean struggle to fulfil the regulations as laid down by the commissioner of education in order that it may earn the grant to which it is entitled. If we consult the Northwest educational report for last year we find that $22,287 of the grant was held back because it was not earned, which means, that certain schools had not been able to come up to the required standard. But we know that that money within a few months will be earned, because these schools are putting forth an effort which will bring them to a point where they can rightly be entitled to the grant. So it is, that I wish to point out that the large sum of money which these new Territories of Alberta and Saskatchewan shall have at their disposal for distribution among the schools, will enable them to enforce the regulations with absolute strictness, and will enable them to continue the high standard of educational efficiency which they have already secured.

There is another clause the school ordinances of the Northwest which I think has been lost sight of in this debate; I refer to the extensive powers that are conferred upon the commissioner of education as to the appointment of an official trustee. Clause 7 of chapter 29 of the school ordinances reads partly as follows:

It shall be the duty of the commissioner of education, and he shall have power to appoint an official trustee to conduct the affairs of any district, and any such official trustee shall have all the powers and authorities conferred by the ordinances upon the board and its officers.

I wonder if this House catches the full purport and significance of that clause; I wonder if this House sees that the commissioner of education in the Northwest, if he so desires, can be an absolute dictator with reference to every school board in the province. If there is a school board which refuses to come up to the ordinances and regulations, that school board can, by a single stroke of the pen of the commissioner, be wiped out of existence, and the commissioner can put an official trustee of his own naming in charge, and that official trustee will collect taxes, pay the teachers, administer the school and is absolute dictator within the limits of that municipality. You will readily see that with a power like that no lagging school, separate or otherwise,

4519

would be permitted to exist in the Canadian Northwest. If there were a school board of recalcitrants, unable or unwilling to give to the people of their locality the school facilities which they should provide, it would be in the power of the commissioner of education to place that board to one side, even though they might have been elected in the ordinary way, and to replace them with a professional to carry on the work. So that it appears to me that in the school ordinances of the Canadian Northwest, as they exist to-day, and as they will doubtless continue to exist for the government of the schools of Alberta and Saskatchewan, there is the amplest safeguard for the continuance of educational efficiency; and, that being the case, I cannot see that the slight limitations which it is proposed to place upon the liberty of the provincial legislature in the matter of education will in any way interfere with the present or future efficiency of the schools in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my remarks hitherto have been mostly of an explanatory character. I have endeavoured, as far as I could, to make clear what was the purport of the contemplated legislation before this House, and also what were the existing conditions in certain parts of this our country for the purposes of comparison. And now it becomes necessary for me to make a statement as to what attitude I shall take upon this Bill when it reaches the committee stage or the second reading. I wish to state that, as a member of the Conservative party, I feel that our party deserves the greatest credit for being a party in which full liberty is given to the individual when questions which relate to conscience come up for discussion. An attempt was made by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon to make it appear before the country that the Liberal party at the present time were the sole custodians of the spirit of toleration and freedom in this country. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the spectacle, as it was called this afternoon, which the Conservative party presents at this time is one of which it has no reason to be ashamed. On this side of the House at least there is absolute liberty of conscience; on this side of the House there is complete absence of coercion; on this side of the House every member is permitted by his chief and his fellow members to look at questions of this nature conscientiously, and to arrive at the conclusion which to him seems best; and, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the words of my honoured chief in which he said:

When I addressed the House on the first reading of the Bill I said I did not desire to make this a political question. Perhaps the expression was not very happily chosen, because from whatever aspect you view it, it must in the highest sense of the term be a political question in the end. What perhaps I should have said was that I did not desire to make it a

4520

party political question and I do not desire to make it a party political question to day. I shall express my own opinion with regard to it; I shall express that opinion at the present time; I have not felt called upon to speak before.

And so, Mr. Speaker, the honoured leader of the Conservative party, realizing that in questions where religious prejudice, as it has been called—I prefer to call it devotion—is concerned, the leader of the Conservative party has seen fit to give to his followers complete and absolute liberty. He has told them that they shall one and all consult their constituents and their conscience, and shall then vote as they see fit on this Bill; and, unless I am greatly mistaken, there are many members on the other side of the House who would have been glad enough if their leader had made the same declaration. I think there are quite a few in that solidly united party of which we heard this afternoon, and of which we have heard on many previous occasions, who would be glad enough if they might be allowed to vote as their consciences dictated, and as their constituents demand, at this time. If the leader of the government had been willing to make the same frank statement which the leader of the opposition has made and had he said to his followers, Gentlemen, on this phase of the question you have your absolute and complete liberty, I believe the House would then have been divided naturally, each man voting as he thought to be in the best interests of Canada, and the result would have been a far more true expression than the one that will be reached by the present method.

Mr. Speaker, we are called upon, as I said at the outset, to pass legislation for the creation of two new provinces. In the natural course of events those provinces would be given full provincial autonomy; they would be given power to prosecute their own affairs in their own way; and it could only be under the stress of another and a greater principle that this House would venture in any way to curtail that provincial liberty. At this time it is necessary for us to ask ourselves whether this greater principle excludes the less. And so I find myself exercising the liberty which my chief has given me, and the liberty which I feel bound to use. Had this been a matter which was considered vital to the Conservative party as a whole, I might have found myself in a position similar to that of some hon. members on the other side of the House; but the fact that my leader has given to me and to every other member who sits about me absolute and complete liberty to follow his own conscience on this question, that fact renders it necessary for me to make my individual investigations, to weigh the evidence personally, and to stand before my constituents in support of the clause I believe, to be just. Only if I stand conscientiously

4521

can I expect or deserve to retain my seat. And so I have found myself under the obligation of going into this matter, and particularly into the historical aspect of it. I have gone back to the law of 1875, which has been read so often, but which can never be read too often—the first Act that was passed in reference to the Northwest Territories, which provides in section 11, that they shall, when constituted :

Pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education, but it shall therein be always provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district . . . . may establish such schools therein as they may think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor ; and further that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and that in such latter case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they may impose upon themselves in respect thereof.

As many another member of this House has done, Mr. Speaker, I have carefully gone over the debate which took place at the time of the passage of this Act of 1875, and I have been convinced from my personal reading of the remarks made at that time, especially in the Senate that the men who enacted that law considered that they were passing a statute which would be a finality, or at least establish a system which it was expected would remain. I find the law of 1875 passed through this House, introduced by the Liberal leader, Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, and seconded by Mr. Edward Blake ; I find that in 1880 that same law was again consolidated and reintroduced, this time by Sir John A. Macdonald ; I find in 1886 it was again passed in this House, so that on three successive occasions that section has come up in this parliament, and on every one of these three occasions it has been passed without comment, division or debate ; and so, Mr. Speaker, it is very evident that both Catholics and Protestants in this House accepted that law when it was passed. It is very evident that the old-time leaders of the Liberal, as well as the Conservative party, accepted that law when it was enacted as a final settlement. Under the law there have been various enactments passed by the local legislature. First we find the local ordinances of 1884, and we learn that from 1884 to 1888 there existed a dual system of schools in the Northwest very similar to that which we now have in Ontario and Quebec. We find that in 1891 that system was greatly modified, and that in 1901 practically the last vestige of clerical control had disappeared. It certainly seems to me that the minority in the Canadian Northwest, in view of the rights and privileges which they have enjoyed, and in view of the curtailment that has already come to them of those privileges, have conceded all that they can reasonably be asked

4522

to concede, and that if a question of this kind is to be settled by mutual concession and compromise, it is time now for the majority to yield a little. Suppose, for example, that the ethnological conditions in the west were reversed ; suppose, for example, that there was to-day a Roman Catholic majority there instead of a Protestant majority. If you look back at the census of 1885, what do you find ? You find that there were 20,295 people in the Northwest Territories, west of the boundaries of Manitoba, between Manitoba and the Rocky mountains, and of that 20,295 9,301 were Roman Catholics, or 46 per cent of the total number. Bear in mind the fact that this was about the time when the first school ordinances were passed in the west. At that time, in the Edmonton district, six-sevenths of the population were Roman Catholics. Thus, when the population was almost equally divided, the separate school system was established without discussion and without resentment of either party. It was as much a protection to the Protestants as it was to the Catholics. There was no prophesying who would go into that country. The French Canadians from Quebec were emigrating in large numbers to the United States. Who could tell that they would not decide to go to the Canadian Northwest in equally large numbers ? The people of Ontario at that time had hardly awakened to the possibilities of the Canadian Northwest. They did not awaken until later, but there was no one who could prophesy whether the majority in the Northwest would be Protestant or Catholic in the future. It was by mutual consent and agreement, for the protection of either, for the protection of both, for the protection of those who should come after them, that both sides agreed that certain minority privileges should be granted, and these minority privileges we find existing to a very limited extent to-day. Assuming then that this parliament has the power—which, bear in mind, I challenged at the outset, and am not yet convinced that it has—assuming that it has the power to restrict, to a certain extent, the free action of the new provinces in respect of education, and assuming that the government intends to press this legislation, whether legal or illegal, it will therefore become necessary for us to take a vote, but the vote will be little else than an expression of opinion upon the principle involved, and in that light I shall be called upon to cast my vote. I have, therefore, investigated this historical aspect of the subject, and I feel that this parliament has, to a certain extent, by its own Acts, limited its freedom of action at the present time. Were we called upon to deal with this question for a country in which there were no separate schools, for a country which had never passed any separate school ordinances or any separate school legislation, then we

4523

might act as we should see fit, on the merits, but the fact that this parliament has for thirty years permitted separate schools to exist and has repeatedly passed enactments, continuing these separate schools, seems to me to impose an obligation—it may be only a moral obligation, but certainly it imposes a limitation—on this parliament, and according to my way of thinking makes it imperative upon this parliament to permit the minority to continue to be safeguarded in the rights they presently enjoy. I feel that it is of the highest importance that this parliament should keep faith with itself. I feel that, not only the minority in the west, but throughout this whole land, considers that this parliament has gone on record in favour of a limited separate school system in the west; I feel that if any portion of our community conceives the idea that parliament can or will break faith with them, that breaking of faith will be a shock to such and to the whole country that will be a serious injury to all. Although this parliament may find itself in the position of him ‘who sweareth to his hurt and changeth not,’ still it seems to me that if this is good doctrine for the individual it is the same for the parliament of Canada. I know that there is a strong feeling of western pride that resents the imposition of the slightest limitation on the powers of the new provinces. This is what would be expected of those who breathe the free air of the western plains. But let it not be forgotten that these new provinces when they come into our sisterhood of provinces, where they will enjoy the advantages of confederation, also assume their full share of responsibilities, and must also be expected to bear their share of the burden, sacrificing for the common weal some of their privileges. So in this particular case, while we are prepared to grant them the fullest autonomy, we must still ask them to protect, to a certain extent, the engagements and obligations which this parliament in the last thirty years has incurred. A short time ago the legislature of British Columbia passed legislation discriminating against the Japanese coming into their country and against those already there. This legislation was promptly disallowed by the imperial parliament. Why? Because the imperial parliament was on friendly terms with Japan, because the two nations were in close alliance, and because any act of this kind would tend to weaken the bond of unity between them. We have a somewhat similar case here. British Columbia may repass that legislation, but ultimately British Columbia must consent to restrict her own liberties to that extent because she is a part of the Canadian federation, because she is a part of the British empire. And so these new provinces may be called upon—and I think would cheerfully respond—to sacrifice a certain modicum of the liberties which they would otherwise enjoy, in order that the common weal of the whole country may be served.

4524

I wish to say a few words as a representative of the Protestant minority in Quebec. Most of what I had intended to say was stated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) this afternoon so that it will not be necessary for me to make my remarks very lengthy. It is not necessary for me to remind this House of the way in which the legislation of 1869 came to be passed, how it was enacted in the fulfilment of the agreement which Cartier had made prior to confederation, and how that law of 1869 established fully and completely as satisfactory a system as the minority in Quebec could ask, a system that has been practically unchanged down to the present day. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we in Quebec, in many ways have been given more than was in the bond of the Act of 1869 and its subsequent amendments. We have the Council of Public Instruction, of which I have spoken, two-thirds of whom are Catholics and one-third Protestants. At the time the law was passed the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec constituted one-sixth only of the population, to-day they constitute 13.3 per cent or one-eighth, and yet their representation on the educational council is the same as it was 35 years ago, and there is not the slightest expectation that that representation will be reduced. In the matter of the amount voted annually by the provincial government for schools we again have generous treatment. The money which is received for superior and for elementary education is divided according to population in absolute strictness on the basis of population as shown by the last census. But, when we come to the normal school grant of $42,000 per annum, we find that the Protestants are getting one-third and the Roman Catholics two-thirds. Yet, this is in direct contravention of the law of 1869 and the settlement made where it is stated, according to the French version which I have here:

(Translation). —the grants to the normal schools and all other grants whatsoever for educational purposes and all expenses of the government for educational purposes shall be divided between the Roman Catholic and Protestant institutions, and for the benefit of Roman Catholics and Protestants respectively, in proportion to the Roman Catholic and Protestant population of the province, at the then last census.

That is to say, according to the law of 1869, which has remained as the standard of our statutes, we were entitled to but one-eighth of the grant for normal schools; but it was early recognized that we could not carry on a normal school with $5,250 a year, so we were given $13,866 to be devoted to that purpose. There was at one time a grievance in the possibility of the alteration of school boundaries. At one time they could be altered on the demand of the

4525

majority, the minority being compelled to conform thereto. But, on representations being made to the Mercier government that this worked against the interests of the Protestant minority, that was changed, and now we find it provided that the erection or alteration of school boundaries shall apply only to the Roman Catholics or to the Protestants of the territory affected. So, if in the erection of a new municipality the limits are not acceptable to the minority, the minority do not need to conform to them, but may have limits of their own.

As I said a few moments ago, I have been for ten years a member of the Council of Public Instruction, Protestant section, of the province of Quebec. We meet four times a year and sometimes sit for several days. At our meetings we discuss every detail of the educational system of the province of Quebec. I can say without fear of contradiction that, during the ten years of my service, we have never had to consider a single case where there was a grievance caused by unjust or unfair treatment on the part of the majority towards the Protestant minority. We have no difficulty in the province of Quebec in getting along together and living in harmony with one another, and dealing with some of these very difficult questions without heat and without friction. A short time ago a question was raised in the city of Montreal with reference to the care of those suffering from contagious diseases. It was found impossible to agree to have a common hospital, so it was decided that there should be two hospitals, the Roman Catholic children suffering from measles, scarlatina and other diseases of that kind, to be sent to one, and the Protestant children similarly afflicted to be sent to another. Well what was the result? Although three-quarters of the population of Montreal is Roman Catholic and only one-quarter Protestants, when it became necessary to make contracts for the carrying out of the agreement, the representatives of the Protestant hospitals were given a twenty-five year contract at $15,000 a year for taking care of the non-Roman Catholic children and others who might be afflicted with contagious diseases, while the Roman Catholics were given $15,000 for a similar term to take care of the Roman Catholics who were taken down with these diseases—absolutely the same treatment to both sides.

So, Mr. Speaker, it would ill become one who represents the Protestant minority of Quebec, one who has never had reason to find serious fault with the treatment in educational matters that has been given that section of the community—I say it would come with very bad grace if we who represent the Protestant minority in Quebec should be parties to legislation intended to lessen the privileges of a minority found elsewhere, and similarly situated. We have no fear of reprisals in the province of Quebec—it is not because we fear that if we

4526

take any other stand than the one we do that our privileges will be curtailed—not that. The liberties we enjoy in the province of Quebec are guaranteed by the British North America Act. For, as we know subsection 2 of section 93 provides that subsequent legislation becomes fixed and cannot be altered. I am not attempting to give great credit for the fact that the legislation has not been altered, but for the fact that in carrying out that legislation we have been given more than was in the bond and have no reason to complain either of the generosity or justice of the treatment accorded us.

It has been stated at times in this House that there exists much hardship in certain regions in the province of Quebec. If I had time I might go into that. But I wish to point out briefly that this is not due primarily to the school system but to a series of circumstances of which the school system is but one. Fifty years ago in the eastern townships, of every 1,000 of the population, 658 were English and only 342 were French. To-day, of every 1,000, 314 are English and 686 French. In other words the proportions of the population in the twelve so-called eastern townships is completely reversed. The Protestants were two-thirds of the population fifty years ago, to-day they are but one-third. It will be readily seen that where a population is coming in or going out there will be a period when there are but few representatives of one class, and, at that time, there will be a certain degree of hardship. So we find, from time to time, that a school municipality ceases to exist. And if you take up the Quebec ‘Official Gazette,’ you will find obituary notices stating that in this or that municipality the Protestant school has ceased to exist. It is sad we all admit it; we hate to see the schools die. Yet, as a matter of fact, there has been no falling off in the number of Protestant elementary schools, in fact, they have shown a satisfactory increase in the last twenty years. There were 797 in 1883, 878 in 1893, and 898 in 1903. But the dying out of schools here and there arises from conditions not chargeable to the school law, for that law makes every effort to keep a dying school alive as long as possible. A school can unite with its neighbour, or several sections can join forces. Or they can consolidate the schools and bring the children together by means of carriages. It is only when it becomes impossible to get together enough children to make even a small school by uniting the districts that a school municipality ceases to exist. And before it ceases to exist it must be a year without school; and, at the end of the year it must be shown that there is no attempt being made to revive the school. After all this the school passes out of existence. There is a certain degree of hardship on the part of those who, from that time, are

4527

forced to pay their taxes to the school of another denomination other than that to which they belong, and to send their children to such a school. But I wish to refer to the report of the superintendent of public instruction of the province of Quebec to show that this does not affect Protestants only but affects Roman Catholics as well. We find, for example, in the last report that 628 Protestant children were attending Roman Catholic schools; and, on the other hand, 2,252 Catholic children were attending the Protestant schools. Again, in the model schools we find that 290 Protestant children were in the Roman Catholic model schools while 221 Roman Catholic children were in the Protestant model schools. So, if there is a certain degree of hardship and disability in connection with this matter, it affects both classes of the community, and cannot be said to work special injustice towards the Protestant minority. And I may say frankly that we in the province of Quebec would not exchange our school system for any system of national schools that local conditions would enable us to have. In this I do not speak for myself alone, for I realize that I am making an assertion which, to some extent needs to be supported. The Reverend W. I. Shaw, chairman of the Protestant committee of the Council of Public Instruction of the province of Quebec, who occupies the highest educational position among the Protestants of that province, having read, I presume, the article in the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner,’ replied to its assertions in the St. Johns ‘News’ as follows:

In your last number an article appeared respectfully asking me to specify the advantages which, I have claimed, we as Protestants have from the dual system of education in the province of Quebec. . . . My answer to your inquiry then is, in substance, under the circumstances we are at least as well off as we could possibly be under such a single system as the province would establish, and in most of our constituencies far better off than if all our resources were pooled to provide one set of schools. . . . The Protestant population of Quebec is 219,639 out of 1,648,898. One third of these are in the city of Montreal and suburbs, where Protestantism, on the admission of professional and disinterested judges, has a school equipment unsurpassed in the Dominion. Would Protestants have such an equipment had we one system? Certainly not. Here we have far more revenue for teaching 10,000 Protestant children than the Roman Catholic board has for teaching 20,000. . . . . . Another large proportion of Protestants is found in other cities and towns and thrifty rural communities, and they are doing better under the dual system than under single system. . . . . . . What improvement in the present system can any critic suggest that is within the range of reason and possibility to meet the unfortunate position of this small Protestant remnant? I think the facts justify me in claiming that as conditions are now in Quebec, and as they are likely to be for a century or more, the

4528

Protestants in this province derive great advantage from our dual system of schools.

The letter from which these extracts are taken will be found in the St. John’s ‘News’ of the 7th March. Again on the 21st March, in the same paper, Dr. Shaw says:

In most places in the province Protestants are now much better off with our dual system and in the remaining places, of whose deplorable destitution we hear so much, any single system the province would adopt would leave things as they are or worse for Protestants.

And in a personal letter to myself, Dr. Shaw writes as follows:

The deplorable conditions exaggerated by the ‘Gleaner’ relate only to a small fraction of the Protestant minority of Quebec. I am sure that it is not so much our educational system as the great differences of religion and language which naturally decimate our small Protestant communities. The same thing might happen to isolated peoples in any country on earth without any blame attaching to their stronger neighbours.

Sometimes you will hear, however, that there is a grievance, especially in the city of Montreal, and that is the manner in which the money raised from joint stock companies for educational purposes is divided. It is a fact that probably the greater portion of the capital stock in joint stock companies in the city of Montreal is in the hands of Protestants and consequently a certain share of Protestant money passes over to be spent on the education of Roman Catholic children. A statement was recently prepared which set forth the fact that in the city of Montreal $112,000 annually paid by joint stock companies for educational purposes, went into the neutral panel. Out of this the Protestants got $27,162 and the Catholics $84,838, the money being divided, according to school attendance, among the various schools. I do not propose to express an opinion for or against that provision of the Act as it is in force in the province of Quebec.

Mr. SPROULE. What is the relative value of the property assessed belonging to Roman Catholics and Protestants respectively which goes into that neutral panel?

Mr. AMES. I have no information at hand which would meet the hon. gentleman’s question, but roughly speaking four-fifths of the capital employed in mercantile operations in the city of Montreal is in the hands of the Protestants. That is a general statement, not necessarily applying to joint stock companies.

Mr. SPROULE. That is what makes up the neutral panel?

Mr. AMES. No, I was simply making a general statement of commercial values. Whether that same proportion would apply to joint stock companies, I cannot say,

4529

but I am prepared to say that by far the greater portion of the capital in these companies is owned by Protestants.

Mr. SPROULE. Yet the Protestants only get one-fourth, while the Catholics receive three-fourths.

Mr. AMES. I do not propose to discuss that question. It is a two-sided one and there is much to be said on both sides. That is not the reason why I give these figures. I give them to show that the only grievance one ever hears of in the city of Montreal, namely, the application of the funds raised under the school law from joint stock companies, is entirely obviated by the legislation existing in the Northwest Territories. Chapter 30 of the School Ordinances of the Northwest Territories, section 93 provides:

The share or portion of the property of any company entered, rated or assessed in any municipality or in any school district for separate school purposes under the provisions of this section shall bear the same ratio and proportion to the whole property of the company assessable within the municipality or school district as the amount or proportion of the shares or stock of the company so far as the same are paid or partly paid up, held and possessed by persons who are Protestants or Roman Catholics as the case may be, bears to the whole amount of such paid or partly paid up shares or stock of the company.

We find therefore that whatever money is contributed by any joint stock company is expended on schools, according to the religious belief of the person who owns the share of stock. Every share is supposed to carry with it the religion of its owner, and the division made accordingly, so that this one possible grievance which we have in the province of Quebec does not exist in the Territories and cannot arise under the ordinances I have read.

But to come back to the heart of the question. This House will shortly be called on to vote, and the options before it are these. We may either vote for the amended clause 16, which is intended to restrict the power of the new provinces to this extent, that they cannot take away any of the privileges which the minority in the Northwest at present enjoy; or we may vote for the resolution which the leader of the opposition has presented and which he has told us is his own view. Reading carefully the amendment of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, I find it may be understood as the opinion of an eminent legal authority on the validity of the legislation which we are about to enact, or as an expression of opinion regarding the principle which should be applied by this House to the successive clauses that make up this Bill. As a legal opinion, I am prepared to accept the amendment of my hon. leader as

4530

authoritative. I consider him to be a constitutional authority of the highest possible standing; and when he makes the declaration that in his opinion this legislation is ultra vires, I believe him to be right and that the government are incurring great risk in going on with this legislation. But his amendment also affirms a principle. It says that as we are called upon to deal with the several clauses of the Bill, we shall judge them by one standard of measurement alone. We are to test each successive clause so as to ascertain whether it gives full provincial rights; and any clause which accords anything less than complete control over provincial matters shall be voted down. That is the standard which is proposed. For my part I cannot admit this as the one and only principle which should be applied to the Bill. I am prepared to accept it as regards every other clause in the measure, but into the consideration of the matter of education I believe a higher principle enters. I believe we would be breaking faith with the minority, whom it is the duty of parliament to protect, if we should decide to take away the guarantee they now have, for the perpetuation of the special privileges they now enjoy.

I represent a constituency which in some respects is, I think, typical of the Dominion of Canada as a whole. I represent a constituency in which all races, creeds and nationalities dwell together in perfect harmony. It was intimated by the Minister of Agriculture, I think, this afternoon that some of the members on this side were about to vote for the Bill through a feeling of fear, that they were likely to be compelled to support it through dread of a certain portion of their electors. For my part I wish to repudiate the assertion absolutely. I am not voting through fear. I am voting through a sense of justice. I have not during this entire debate, although I have nearly 2,500 French Canadian electors and probably 2,000 English-speaking Roman Catholic electors in my division, received a single letter, a single petition, or a single request to vote with the government in respect to this Bill. Therefore, I am not in any way voting under compulsion nor through fear of offending any portion of my electors. If I vote, as I will with the government on amended clause 16 of the Bill, it will do it because I conscientiously believe that they are right on that issue. I said a moment ago that I represent a mixed electorate, and Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say that I consider this to be no disadvantage but the very reverse. It has been my good fortune for many years to enjoy the confidence of men of different races, nationalities and religions, and to learn that on nearly every great question there may be differing points of view and to learn also that it is quite possible for good men to disagree on questions that seem vital to both. We have been taught in the city of Montreal that there

4531

may be a degree of right in practically every contention and we have also been taught that men who were sincerely desirous of serving their country could nearly always get together and with mutual respect and mutual forbearance agree upon a course, which, while it might not satisfy the extremists on either side, would be acceptable to the sound common sense of the great majority. Mr. Speaker, during this debate I confess that I have been amazed at the intemperance of some of the remarks that have been made on both sides of this House. I confess that possibly I know more about the inflammable materials that there are in this country than some of the hon. members who have made these utterances. In most mining communities there are laws which prohibit, under the severest penalty, a man from carrying a naked lamp into a coal mine where there are noxious gases liable to explode; and a special lamp has been invented with a wire screen about it that will give light but will not cause ignition. So it is possible for a miner to pass through the noxious and explosive gases with his safety lamp and to come out unharmed. I think that, in a debate of this kind, where men’s minds are likely to be embittered and where their sentiments are liable to become overwrought, we should travel with a safety lamp. All the light that is required on the subject can be thrown by a safety lamp, but the fire which would cause combustion is not necessary to a discussion of this character. So, I feel that we should, in dealing with this question, deal with it absolutely upon the merits of the case, each man following what he believes to be right from his own point of view. I have not been very long a member of this House. I do not know how long I may be a member of this House, but whatever record I leave behind me I want to be chiefly remembered for this, that, while I was here, my influence was for peace and not for war, that my influence was to build up and not to tear down, to heal and not to hurt. We have in this Dominion elements derived from different origins. We have come from different countries. There is one race here by right by discovery, there is another race here by right of conquest, but the country belongs to us both alike. To this mixed people there has been given a great task to work out. No nation in the world has been more beneficiently endowed by the Creator than have we Canadians and there is a call—an insistent call—for us to be up and doing and to work out the development of this great inheritance. To properly accomplish this task, I believe it is absolutely necessary that we should be able to work together in unison and harmony, and anything that seems to have the appearance of a breach of faith, anything that appears to a large section of the community to be a violation of an agreement, is something that the people of this country

4532

should carefully and studiously avoid. We can only have unity if we have mutual trust in one another and that is impossible if a portion of the community is under the impression that this parliament does not keep the obligations that have been entered into. Therefore, although I am very reluctant in some respects to break with my colleagues; on this particular question I must do so, and I feel that when clause 16 is called in committee I shall find it necessary to support the government.

Mr. O. S. CROCKET (York, N.B.) Mr. Speaker, this question has already been so exhaustively discussed that it is very difficult for one at this stage of the debate to address himself to the subject without retreading to a very large extent ground which has already been gone over by others. But the matter is one of such deep interest in the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House, as I believe it is of deep interest in every constituency throughout Canada, that I feel that I would be recreant to my duty if I did not at least state the views which I hold in respect to it. Let me say then at once, Sir, that I am in full sympathy with the establishment of self-government in the Northwest. I think that the time has come when that great and rapidly developing portion of our country, comprising as it does that great fertile belt which is the hope of our future, is entitled to provincial autonomy, not the mock autonomy which is provided by this Bill, but a real, genuine autonomy which will enable the new provinces to govern themselves independently in matters of provincial concern and place them upon a footing of equality with the other settled portions of this confederation. It is because this Bill which is now before the House, while purporting to grant such autonomy, so restricts and circumscribes the legislative powers which are granted as practically to destroy their value and to make the whole scheme of the government a delusion and a sham that I am opposed to the measure as it stands and intend to vote for the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I think, Mr. Speaker, that this House has never had a more striking illustration of a misnomer than is exhibited by the application to this Bill of the name ‘autonomy’. I think the Bill would be more accurately described if it were to be called a restriction rather than an Autonomy Bill. The autonomy which it embodies is, to my mind, very much of the same character as the permission which a timid and considerate mother gave to her daughter who asked to be allowed to go out and swim to which request the mother replied:

Yes, my darling daughter, Go hang your clothes on a hickory limb And don’t go near the water.

4533

The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in introducing this measure declared, I think, that he was presenting to the Northwest the crown of complete and absolute autonomy. The hon. member from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) who addressed the House yesterday very aptly described the crown, when he stated it was a crown from which the generous donor had plucked its most valuable jewels.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the province of New Brunswick, and I venture to say that this remark can be applied to most of the other provinces of the Dominion if not to all, there are no two more important departments of government than the Department of Crown Lands and the Department of Education; there are no two subjects of more vital local provincial concern than education and the administration of public lands. Any yet we find that under this Bill the ownership and control of the public lands is absolutely withheld from the new provinces, while with respect to education the legislative power of the new provinces is so restricted as to make the educational systems which are to be imposed upon these new provinces, not the will and creation of the people of the new provinces, but the will and creation of this parliament; an external body which has no interest—no direct interest at any rate in the subject—and no responsibility whatever to the people of the provinces upon which these systems are to be imposed. In the first place, speaking on the subject of the public lands, I wish to refer to section 109 of the British North America Act, which says:

All lands, mines, minerals and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the province in the same.

It will be seen from this section, that the original provinces of the confederation were given the ownership and control of their public lands. The hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in his speech the other night cited a series of judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which show that the title to the public lands in Canada vested in the King in right of the provinces. The hon. member (Mr. Monk) referred particularly to the case of the Attorney General of British Columbia vs. the Attorney General of Canada, in which it was decided that the title to the public lands in that province vested in the King in right of the province, notwithstanding that British Columbia was not specifically named in the section which I have read and was admitted subsequent to the formation of confederation. These cases

4534

prove conclusively that under the terms of the British North America Act the title of the lands in this country is vested in the King in right of the province. But hon. members on the other side of the House suggest that the lands in the Northwest Territories having being purchased by the Dominion of Canada from the Hudson Bay Company that alters the case. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this makes no difference whatever, and that the lands vest in the King regardless of whether they are acquired by purchase or by conquest. The title in the lands of this country does not vest in this government as a government or in this parliament as a parliament, but they vest in the King in the right of the provinces as has been decided by the Privy Council in the cases to which I have alluded. We have had quite a recent judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Attorney General of New Brunswick vs. the liquidators of the Maritime Bank, in which it was laid down that the lieutenant governor in the province represented the Crown just as fully and effectually as the Governor General does in the federal sphere. We have in these cases the authority that the title to these lands properly vests in the Lieutenant Governor representing the King in right of the provinces; but it is not necessary to refer to these authorities to establish the proposition that the title is in the province and not in the Dominion. We have in section 19 of this very Bill the admission that the provinces are entitled to the lands. Section 19 says:

In as much as the public lands in the said province are to remain the property of Canada, there shall be paid by Canada to the said province annually, by way of compensation therefor, a sum based on the estimated value of said lands, &c.

The Bill itself therefore contains the admission that the provinces are properly entitled to these lands. But aside altogether from the legal question as to the title of these lands, I submit that every consideration of public policy, public interest and public convenience supports the claim that these lands should be in the hands of the provincial authorities. In the first place, the administration of these lands is directly a matter of local and provincial concern; it is the people of the provinces who are chiefly interested in the administration of these lands; it is their interests that are chiefly affected. If the lands are wisely and efficiently administered it is they who profit and benefit; if the lands are unwisely and inefficiently administered it is they who suffer. That being the case, I submit that the administration of these lands should be in an authority responsible to the people who are interested. If these lands are retained by this government, as is proposed in the Bill, we may have the federal authority administering the lands in a most efficient and most unwise manner.

4535

the people of the province who will suffer, and yet they are without a remedy, because so long as this government can command the support of a majority of the members from Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island the people of the Northwest Territories must simply grin and bear it. These members, representing these other provinces, have no direct, immediate interest whatever in the administration of the local conditions and requirements. That seems to me to be a conclusive reason why these lands should be vested in the government of the Northwest Territories and not in this parliament.

The only pretense that has been set up, so far as I have been able to discover, for withholding the ownership and control of those lands and no knowledge of the local was suggested by the right hon. the premier in introducing this Bill. He said:

If the lands were given to the new provinces, the policy of either one of them might differ from ours and clash with our efforts to increase immigration. It might possibly render these efforts nugatory.

That is the reason which has been assigned by the premier for withholding from the proposed provinces the lands to which they seem, in law and upon grounds of policy, to be entitled. In connection with this matter of immigration, I wish to refer to section 95 of the British North America Act, which deals with the question of agriculture and immigration. It is this:

In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and to immigration into all or any of the provinces; and any law of the legislature of a province, relative to agriculture or to immigration, shall have effect in and for the province, as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the parliament of Canada.

It will be seen by that section that the original provinces of the Dominion were entitled and are entitled to make laws in reference to immigration, as they are entitled to make laws in reference to agriculture, although this parliament has also the power to make laws in reference to the same subjects if it sees fit to do so. But the point I wish to make is that, under the terms of the Bill now before the House, and under the section which I have quoted, the new provinces in the Northwest will occupy precisely the same position in reference to immigration as do the original provinces of the confederation. Why then should there be a difference made with respect to the public lands? The original provinces of confederation, and all the provinces of this Dominion, except, I believe, the province of Manitoba, have control of the public lands;

4536

and yet the only reason which the Prime Minister has advanced for withholding from the new provinces the ownership and control of the public lands is that it might interfere with the policy of this government in reference to immigration. The section to which I have referred shows that the relations of this parliament to the new provinces in the matter of immigration would be precisely the same as its relations to the other provinces of the Dominion; and if the other provinces are entitled to retain those lands, then surely there is no reason why this discrimination should be made against these provinces in the Northwest. It is the same, I submit, with reference to immigration as with reference to the administration of the public lands. It is the province and the people of the province who are chiefly interested in immigration. If immigration flows into the Northwest Territories, it is the people of those provinces who profit by it; and if there is an unwise policy in reference to immigration, it is the people of the province who suffer. So that I submit there is no reason or argument whatever in the only pretext which has been set up for withholding from the two provinces the ownership and control of the public lands. The only condition which would lend any colour to that pretext is that this government is to control absolutely the subject of immigration in the Northwest Territories, and not to leave that question to the provinces in the same way as it is left by the British North America Act to the other provinces of the Dominion. So that we have the premier justifying the withholding of original power with respect to one subject by the unjustifiable withholding of it in reference to another. So much, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question of the public lands.

I come now to discuss clause 16 of this Bill, the educational clause; and I desire to say, in the first place, that I am opposed to this parliament enacting that clause, because I believe that this parliament has no power to do so. I think it will not be disputed that this parliament has no power whatever except such power as it derives from the British North America Act. Now, the only clause in the British North America Act which relates to the subject of education is clause 93, and under that clause, I submit, this parliament has no original jurisdiction whatever in reference to the subject of education. All the power it has is power to pass remedial legislation. I will read the clause as it is in the Act:

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.

There is certainly nothing in that subsection giving this parliament any power

4537

whatever in respect to education. It simply provides that nothing in any law which may be passed by a provincial legislature 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. Subsection 2 relates exclusively to Upper and Lower Canada and is not relevant, and therefore I will not read it. Subsection 3 reads thus:

Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exist 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.

That subsection provides an appeal to the Governor General in Council from any Act or decision of a provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen’s subjects in relation to education. Before that appeal lies there must exist a system of separate or dissentient schools at the time the province was admitted to the union, or there must have been established thereafter by provincial authority, such a system and there must have been subsequent provincial legislation affecting these rights.

Then we have subsection 4 of section 93:

In case any provincial law as from time to time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper provincial authority in that behalf, then and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section, and of any decision of the Governor General in Council under this section.

It must be quite evident to any one who examines this section with any care that there is not any original jurisdiction granted by its terms to this parliament in respect to education, that the only power that we have is the power to pass a remedial law and before we can exercise that power there must have existed in the province at the time it was admitted to the union a system of separate or dissentient schools, or there must have been established thereafter by provincial law a system of separate or dissentient schools. There must then have been provincial legislation subsequent to that again, affecting the rights of the minority in respect to these schools. There must then be an appeal to the Governor General in Council; there must be an order by the Governor General in Council to the provincial authority to apply the remedy in the provincial legislature and there must then furthermore be a refusal by the provincial authority to pass the legislation

4538

which the Governor General in Council may deem expedient and then and then only is this parliament authorized to legislate in any way with respect to education, and then as the clause says:

And as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the parliament of Canada may make remedial laws.

I think I have said that no one can read that section with any degree of care without being convinced that we have no original power. There is only one other section in this Act from which any attempt can be made to spell out any power to this parliament to legislate with reference to education, and that is section 91, which reads:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.

It will be seen at once that if the subject of education has been assigned exclusively to the provinces under the terms of the Act that then we cannot claim under this section any power to legislate, and education is by the terms of section 93 a subject which is assigned exclusively to the provincial legislatures. Therefore we must rely upon that section and that section only, and as I have pointed out our power there is based upon these four or five conditions precedent which I have already mentioned. That being so it may be asked where we get our authority to constitute these provinces. There is nothing in the words of the original Act of 1867 to give us that power. It is by virtue and by virtue only of section 2 of the Act of 1871 that this parliament gets the power which it is now seeking to exercise. That section is:

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

It seems to me that the argument of the learned leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) with respect to this matter was absolutely conclusive, that that section must be read in connection with the Act of 1886, the last section of which provides:

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

So that all these several Acts must be read together and construed as one Act, and the power which is granted to this

4539

parliament by section 2 of the Act of 1871 must necessarily be read as being subject to the provisions of those Acts, and of the original Act just as the power of the Queen in Council to admit the provinces of Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territories to the union under section 146 was subject to those provisions. Now it surely was not intended that this parliament which is the creature of the British North America Act and which is subject to all the limitations embodied in that Act as all the provinces of this Dominion are subject to the same limitations, it was surely not intended that this parliament, which is a creature of this Act, could constitute a province and give it whatever powers it pleased without reference to the terms of the Act under which this parliament itself was created. If we have any power to vary in any way, in the slightest degree, the terms of the British North America Act, then we can vary them to whatever extent we please and we could withhold from the new provinces any one of the subjects or all of the subjects which are assigned exclusively by the British North America Act to the provincial legislatures, and we could confer upon the new provinces in the west the power to legislate with reference to any one of the several subjects which the British North America Act assigned exclusively to this parliament. It seems to me that that would be an absurd view for any lawyer to advance, and I think it is perfectly clear that the intention of the British North America Act is that in the case of the constitution of any new province, it must be subject to the terms and conditions of the Act as they apply to the other provinces of the confederation. My view is in common with the views that have been advanced not only by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) who is opposing this Bill, but by other legal authorities, as for instance the hon. and learned member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) who is supporting this Bill, that we have power only to create this province and that the provisions of the British North America Act which apply to the other provinces of the Dominion then apply automatically to the new provinces. I think I shall be able to show that this is not only the view of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), and of other eminent gentlemen who have been quoted in this House, but that it is really the view also of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who framed this Bill. That hon. gentleman argued an important case in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1903. It was styled ‘in re-representation in the House of Commons’ which I believe, was initiated by the province of New Brunswick, the question involved being whether in estimating the population of Canada only the population of the four original provinces

4540

was to be taken into consideration or whether the population of the provinces admitted subsequently to 1867, was to be considered in the estimate. In the course of that argument, the Minister of Justice advanced, I think, the same view that has been advanced by the leader of the opposition in this case, that the provisions of the British North America Act apply automatically to new provinces as they should be created. In the course of his argument, he dealt with section 146 and said :

Now, my lords, it is outside the question to discuss this question as to whether British Columbia came in with the number of representatives it ought to have had under the constitution or not. That is outside the question we are now considering. But my construction of section 146 is this, that the Queen had the right by Order in Council to legislate in the way and subject to the limitations contained in section 146. The Order in Council became and had the effect of an imperial Act of parliament so long as the powers conferred by section 146 were exercised subject to the limitations contained in section 146. Legislation by Order in Council is an exceptional legislation and can only be exercised subject to the limitations in the power authorizing the legislation to be had in that form. An Act of the imperial parliament might modify, alter or amend the British North America Act, might absolutely repeal the Act or alter any of the terms or provisions of it, but the Order in Council cannot do that. The Order in Council can only legislate in so far as its provisions are within the provisions of the Act, and it would not be competent with respect to the imperial Order in Council which would have for effect the altering or the amending of the provisions of the Act and under the control of all the provisions of the British North America Act, so that no Order in Council could be passed that could in any way affect this section 51 of the Act.

Now, the Order in Council to which the learned Minister of Justice was referring was an Order in Council which the section 146 of the British North America Act authorized the Queen in Council to pass for the admission of any other British possession in the northern part of America. Now, this parliament gets in the same way, the power to constitute those provinces in the Northwest as the Queen in Council got under section 146. So that the argument which the Minister of Justice addressed to the Supreme Court in reference to that Order in Council would apply as effectually to this matter. But, furthermore, in the course of his argument, the Minister of Justice said, as will be seen in vol. 33 of the Supreme Court of Canada Reports, p. 584 :

I have no desire to put forward a provincial view of this matter at all ; on the contrary, so far as the Dominion parliament is concerned, our desire and our duty is to see that the Act operates automatically without respect to consequences.

So, we have not only the authority of the leader of the opposition and the other gentlemen to whom I have referred and whose

4541

opinions have been cited in this House, but I think we have it clearly shown that the Minister of Justice entertains the same view.

Now, I think it perfectly plain that this parliament has no power to pass this legislation. But, if this parliament had power to pass it, I would still oppose it upon the ground that it is an unwarrantable, flagrant invasion of provincial rights. Education is a matter essentially of provincial concern. What right have we sitting in this House, representing constituencies in other provinces, to pass a law imposing upon the people of the Northwest Territories any particular system of education? That is a matter that should be left entirely to the provincial legislatures of the Northwest. I submit that this parliament has no more right to impose upon the people of the Northwest such legislation as this Bill proposes than the people of the Northwest Territories in their new legislatures would have to pass a similar law to be applied to the province of New Brunswick. And we are passing a law not for this year or even for the term of this parliament for which we are here, but we are passing a law which will be binding upon the people of the Northwest for all time to come. It seems to me it is nothing short of a political outrage, a piece of tyranny for this parliament to attempt to impose such legislation for ever upon the people of the Northwest. Let me emphasize it in this way. We have here a House composed of 214 members, only 10 of whom represent constituencies in the Northwest, only 10 of whom, therefore, are responsible in any degree to the people who are affected by this legislation. The other 204 members who are to pass this law and impose it upon these people have no interest whatever in the educational system of the Northwest, no direct interest whatever, except the possible interest of seeing systems to which we have become attached in our own provinces established in the other provinces as well. I submit, therefore, that it is a most tyrannical thing for this parliament to put through such legislation as that now before us. In my judgment it is not a matter of separate schools or no separate schools ; it is a matter of provincial autonomy, provincial rights and local self-government. And it seems to me a most striking spectacle that in this controversy it happens that those who have been in this House the most earnest and the most persistent advocates of home rule for Ireland are the most determined opponents of home rule for the west. But although it is not in my view a question of separate or no separate schools, I have no hesitation in saying that personally I am convinced that the common, national, non-sectarian school system is the one best adopted to the needs and aspirations of this country. I believe that such a system, whose tendency is to blend the various

4542

elements of our population into one broad, patriotic and homogenous Canadian citizenship, is preferable to a system which is based upon the principle of separation, and which seeks, not to unify, but to separate the youth of this land into different classes according to the religious dogmas which are professed by their parents, and in order that these dogmas may be instilled into them under the auspices of the state, and whose tendency therefore is to breed antagonism and discord rather than harmony in our citizenship. I am one of those who hold that the state, which is presumed to regard all people as citizens and as citizens only, and in the eye of which all are equal, without reference to their religious faith or whether indeed they have any religious faith at all, has no right to provide for the teaching of any particular religious belief under the auspices of the state. A good deal has been said regarding the character of the schools in the Northwest, and the argument is made that these schools are public and not separate in the true sense of the term. There can be, however, in my judgment, no question about this. There can be no doubt that this Bill distinctly provides for separate schools, and it does so for the purpose of enabling religious instruction to be taught in them. That is the only object of a separate school system. There can be no doubt also that this Bill compels every municipal body, wherever such bodies may be constituted in the Northwest, to collect the taxes of Roman Catholic citizens for the support of schools which are maintained as separate schools for the propagation of that religion. The Bill also provides that the separate schools shall share in whatever money may be voted by the legislatures of the new provinces for educational purposes, including the school land fund which is payable to the provinces, under section 25 of the Dominion Lands Act, which Act sets apart two sections in every township as an endowment in aid of education and provides that the proceeds of those lands, when sold, shall be invested in Dominion securities and form a fund, the interest on which shall be paid for the support of public schools. Yet we find that this Bill will divert a proportion of that fund which was distinctly established for the support of public schools. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs argued that we ought to pass this measure because it gives what is now the law in the Territories and what has been the law a long time past. If that be a good reason why this parliament should enact the legislation now proposed in respect of separate schools, I submit that it affords an equally good reason why we should not change the law relating to this specific trust fund. The only ground upon which any invasion of provincial rights could be justified would be that there is a

4543

constitutional obligation upon us to do so. That is the only ground upon which I would support this or any other measure which invades provincial rights. I think that the right hon. the First Minister is practically the only member in this House who has taken that position. In his speech introducing the Bill he said :

Mr. Haultain argues that section 93 applies automatically, that this House has nothing to do but simply to admit the province and immediately it becomes subject to section 93, whereas the position we take is while the provision is embodied in section 93, it has to be introduced legislatively by this parliament into the constitution of the Northwest Territories. . . .

We have taken the ground on more than one occasion, we again take this ground and it is the ground upon which we stand in dealing with the present case, that wherever a system of separate schools exists that system comes into force and is constitutionally entitled to the guarantees which are embodied in section 93 of the British North America Act. . . .

I want to impress upon the House once more that we are acting strictly in accordance with the principles involved in the constitution of Canada. . .

. I take the position that the constitution certainly makes it imperative for us to respect separate schools wherever they exist.

That is the position taken by the right hon. gentleman, and it is the only ground upon which this parliament would be justified in interfering in any way with provincial rights. But it is a position which was almost immediately abandoned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). It was abandoned also by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) ; and I do not think there is another gentleman in this House who has taken the position that there is any constitutional obligation upon us. The only way in which any constitutional obligation could be made out would be by having recourse to section 93 of the British North America Act. But surely if the minorities in those provinces were entitled to the protection only which was given by section 93, it cannot be argued that constitutionally the minority in the new provinces would be entitled to any larger or any different protection. If the provisions of this Act were to apply automatically to the new provinces, as is the contention of the hon. leader of the opposition, then the constitutional obligation would be fulfilled. There cannot certainly be any larger or any different guarantee properly given than the guarantee which was given to the original provinces. I have already read section 93 of the British North America Act and I want particularly to call attention to the first subsection to show that that subsection relates to denominational schools.

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.

4544

Now we have had the statement made in this House by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) by the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), by the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), by the hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) and by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) who is supporting this Bill, that these schools in the Northwest are not denominational schools. If they are not denominational schools then they would not come under the terms of subsection 1 of the British North America Act. That is the ground upon which the judgment proceeded in the New Brunswick school case. That is the ground upon which the appeal of the Roman Catholics of New Brunswick failed in the New Brunswick school case ; it was because the schools in that province were not denominational schools. In an extract of the judgment given in that case by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick and which was confirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to be found at page 479 of Clements’ ‘Canadian Constitution,’ we have these words :

The Parish School Act, 1858, clearly contemplated the establishment throughout the province of public common schools for the benefit of the inhabitants of the province generally ; and it cannot, we think, be disputed that the governing bodies under that Act were not, in any one respect or particular, denominational. . . . The schools established under this Act were, then, public, parish or district schools, not belonging to or under the control of any particular denomination ; neither had any class of persons, nor any one denomination—whether Protestant or Catholic—any rights or privileges in the government or control of the schools, that did not belong to every other class or denomination, in fact, to every other inhabitant of the parish or district ; neither had any one class of persons or denomination, nor any individual, any right or privilege to have any particular religious doctrines or tenets exclusively taught or taught at all, in any such school. What is there, then, in this Act to make a school established under it a denominational school, or to give it a denominational character ?

That is the ground upon which, as I have stated, the appeal of the Roman Catholic citizens of New Brunswick failed in the New Brunswick school case. The Supreme Court held that the system was not a denominational school system. If we are to accept the statements which have been made in this House by those hon. gentlemen, to whom I have already alluded, that these schools in the Northwest are not denominational schools then they would not have been entitled under the terms of the original Act to any protection. Why then should we give to these schools in the Northwest Territories a protection and a guarantee which the original British North America Act withheld from the original provinces forming the confederation ? It seems to me that one or other of these views must be adopted ; either they are

4545

denominational schools in which case they are open to all the objections which the hon. Minister of Finance and other members of the government as well as other members of this House have to a denominational school system, or they are not denominational schools in which case they are not entitled to the protection which hon. gentlemen are seeking to give them. Upon what ground, then, it may be asked, if there is no constitutional obligation upon us, should we enact this legislation and upon what ground is it contended by those who are supporting the Bill that this legislation should be crystallized into law? The only other ground that has been advanced is that there is a moral obligation upon us. So far as that is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see for my part that there is any moral obligation whatever upon this parliament. But, if there were any moral obligation why not leave that moral obligation to be recognized by the provincial authorities? If there really exists a moral obligation surely we can trust the people of the Northwest Territories to recognize it. There is no justification or warrant, good, bad or indifferent, to my mind, for this parliament attempting to take the people of the Territories by the throat for the purpose of seeing that a moral obligation is recognized. If there is any let the people of the Territories recognize it and do not let this parliament transcend its powers for the purpose of enforcing it upon them.

A good deal has been said in reference to the difference that exist between the original clause 16 and the substituted clause. For my part I cannot see there is any practical difference between the two provisions. Subsection 1 of the original clause 16 reads as follows:

The provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province as if, at the date upon which this Act comes into force the territory comprised therein were already a province, the expression ‘the union’ in the said section being taken to mean the said date.

That section applies to the terms of subsection 1 of section 93 of the British North America Act, with an attempt to twist the interpretation of the word ‘union;’ but under that section the original subsection 1 of section 93 of the British North America Act is applied. That, as I have pointed out, relates to rights and privileges with respect to denominational schools. If these schools in the west are not denominational schools, that original subsection 1 of clause 16 of the Bill would give the minority in the Northwest no protection whatever. Now, subsection 2 is:

Subject to the provision of the said section 93, and in continuance of the principles heretofore sanctioned under the Northwest Territories Act, it is enacted that the legislature of the said province shall pass all necessary laws in respect of education, and that it shall therein

4546

always be provided (a) that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of said province, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name it is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessments and collection of rates therefor, and (b) that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor, and (c) that in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessment of such rates as they impose upon themselves with respect thereto.

This is the only provision in the original clause 16 which guarantees any rights to the minority in the Northwest Territories, and the only right and privilege which it guarantees is the right to have separate schools, nothing more and nothing less. Now, that clause is the same as the clause in the Act of 1875, which is enacted in terms in the ordinances of 1901. The substituted clause provides:

Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed in the year 1901.

The effect of this subsection is to incorporate into this Act, just the same as if we were reprinting them in this Bill, any provisions of the ordinances relating to rights and privileges of the minority. There is, therefore, absolutely no difference between these two provisions, the original clause of the Bill and the substituted clause accomplishing the same purpose.

Furthermore, in connection with this subsection I want to point out this. A good many members of this House seem to have been labouring under the misapprehension that the effect of that clause is to embody all the provisions of these ordinances as they exist, the limitations and duties of the minority, as well as their rights and privileges. Now, it requires not a very close reading of that section to see that it includes only the provisions which relate to rights and privileges. If this parliament had passed the original clause as it was proposed by the Prime Minister, the legislatures of the new provinces would have had a right to legislate with respect to education in any way they saw fit, subject only to this condition—that it must always be provided by the law that there should be separate schools. I believe that, under the original section, the legislatures of the new provinces could have cut down the half hour of religious instruction, and they could have made any provisions they chose with respect to the schools, provided they maintained a school which would pass as a separate school. Under the terms of subsection 1 of the substituted clause what-

4547

ever rights and privileges the minority have are guaranteed, but with respect to the limitations and duties and the liabilities which are imposed by the ordinances, there is no guarantee given to the majority.

With reference to the provision in respect of the appropriation of public moneys, there does not seem to be any difference whatever between the original provision and the substituted provision. The substituted provision is this:

In the appropriation by the legislature or distribution by the government of the province of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with said chapter 29 or any Act passed in amendment thereof, or in substitution therefor, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any class described in the said chapter 29.

Now, subsection 3 of the original clause specifically mentions the Dominion Lands Act, and there was a great outcry throughout the country with reference to that. Subsection 2 of the substituted clause, although it does not mention that specifically, certainly includes it, and the separate schools will be entitled under it to their share of any moneys which are appropriated or distributed by this government. If, therefore, there were objections to the original clause 16, the same objections certainly exist to the substituted clause, because there is no difference between them. If there is any difference, I would say that it is in the direction of extending the rights and privileges guaranteed to the minority in the Northwest, because, although I do not intend at this late hour to refer to the different provisions of those ordinances, there are other provisions giving the minorities in the Northwest Territories certain rights. For instance, there is a provision with reference to the educational council, that that council, which is composed of five members, must always contain two members of the Roman Catholic religion. There is no provision that the other three members must be men of the Protestant faith. All five may be Catholic, and two of them must be, but there is no provision that the other three must be Protestants. So that there is a right in that ordinance which will be included in the substituted provision, which was not in the original provision.

Before resuming my seat, I desire as a member of this House and a citizen of this country to enter my protest against what has transpired in reference to the shaping of this legislation behind the backs of the constitutional representatives of the people. I refer to the conferences which have taken place with reference to the educational clauses of the Bill between the Prime Minister and Monseigneur Sbarretti, the ablegate and representative of the Pope. Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to utter any words which would even be capable of being misconstrued into an expression of disrespect either with reference to the personality

4548

of the eminent gentleman who has come to this country in the capacity referred to at the instance of the Prime Minister and other gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House or with reference either to the great church of which he is the representative. I have no doubt that Monseigneur Sbarretti is a gentleman of highest character and intellectual attainments, and I feel sure that he was doing what he conscientiously believed to be his duty as the emissary of His Holiness in this country. The criticism, which I make in reference to the matter, is not of him or of the church he represents, but of the Prime Minister, who as such is presumed to represent the whole electorate of this country—Roman Catholic and Protestant alike—and who, presumed in his public, representative capacity, to know no creed, has violated his duty by recognizing in the interest of a particular church a power, which is not recognized by our constitution, and which is wholly foreign to our system of government. The people of this country have a right to insist, and, I think, will insist that in no affair of state shall the premier or government of this country take counsel with or accept dictation from any foreign ecclesiastical power, be that power Roman Catholic or Protestant, and I have no hesitation in saying that if the Prime Minister has taken counsel with the Papal ablegate, as has been charged and re-charged in this House without contradiction as to what educational laws shall be imposed upon the new provinces in the Northwest while ignoring two of his most influential constitutional advisors and the premier of the Territories upon which the legislation is to be imposed, he has committed an offence against our constitutional government which the people will not soon forget. They have probably forgotten, as the right honourable gentleman seems himself to have forgotten his lofty, high-sounding professions of 1896 when, as leader of the Liberal party then in opposition, he moved the six months’ hoist to the Manitoba Remedial Bill, but they will, I venture to predict, not so readily forget this affair of 1905.

I am here—

—said the right hon. gentleman as Mr. Laurier, democrat to the hilt and leader of the opposition in 1896—

—representing not Roman Catholics alone, but Protestants as well, and I must give account of my stewardship to all classes. Here am I, a Roman Catholic of French extraction, entrusted by the confidence of the men who sit around me with great and important duties under our constitutional system of government. I am here the acknowledged leader of a great party composed of Roman Catholics and Protestants as well, in which Protestants are in the majority, as Protestants must be in the majority in every part of Canada. Am I to be told, I, occupying such a position, that I am to be dictated the course I am to take in this House by reasons that can appeal to the

4549

consciences of my fellow Catholic members, but which do not appeal as well to the consciences of my Protestant colleagues.

‘No’ he answered as leader of the opposition in 1896, but in 1905 as Prime Minister of Canada, representing not a party, but the entire electorate of the country. Roman Catholics and Protestant alike, as I have said, with thirteen or fourteen constitutional advisers, he sits silent in this House when he is told not once, or twice but many times across the floor of parliament that he has been advising, not with Roman Catholic priests, who are citizens of the country and whose right to participate in the administration of public affairs the same as other citizens is not denied—was not denied by him in 1896—but whose alleged attempts to dictate to him as leader of the opposition in 1896 he professed to resent—but advising with an Italian ecclesiastical envoy, who is not a citizen of this country, who is himself a foreigner and who is here to represent an ecclesiastical power which is not recognized by our constitution—who neither in his personal nor representative capacity is entitled to any voice whatever in the government of this country. In the light of this latest development I beg to remind the right hon. gentleman of his eloquent and patriotic words of 1896, which I have quoted, and I beg in the same light also to commend them to the members of this House and to the people of this country.

Mr. BRUNEAU moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 11 p.m.