Document Information
Date: 1905-04-17
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 4703-4749.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
4703
….
PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. GEO. D. GRANT (North Ontario). Some few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the discussion on this Bill,
4704
who is not now in his seat, I am sorry to say, was good enough to say that he would like to have an expression of opinion on this Bill from the member for North Ontario. In the course of his remarks on that occasion, my hon. friend referred to a by-election which took place in my riding some two or three years ago, the contestants in which were the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and myself. The hon. gentleman said that the Manitoba Remedial Bill was one of the issues, if not the principal issue, in that campaign. Now, I cannot let that statement go entirely unchallenged. Necessarily I took considerable interest in that by-election, and therefore must be supposed to know what the issues in it were, and I have this to say that not only was the Manitoba Remedial Bill and the action of the late Conservative government in reference thereto and the action of the ex-Finance Minister (Mr. Foster), then a candidate, in the same connection—not only were all these matters not principal issues but they were not issues at all. Furthermore I do not think that the Manitoba Remedial Bill or the Manitoba school question has been at all an issue in the province of Ontario since the general election of 1896. I am much afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the memory of my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) is not at all dependable ; I am afraid his memory plays pranks with him. And in this fear I am rather confirmed by what fell from the lips of his late leader, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who spoke in another place on the 1st of March last. Speaking of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) in relation to another matter then under discussion, Sir Mackenzie Bowell said :
I am utterly at a loss to know or understand how Mr. Taylor could have given utterance to such a statement, unless it be that he talked it over so often with others that he finally believed it himself. That is an idiosyncrasy of some people, as we know.
Well, in the best of good nature, I rather think that in his recollection of what took place in the election in North Ontario that idiosyncrasy of my hon. friend from Leeds has shown itself.
The hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames), who preceded me in this debate on Thursday last, made, in my judgment, a very moderate, calm and dignified statement of the case. He told how generously, how very well indeed, the Protestant minority of Quebec were treated by the Catholic majority of that province. But I rather think, in fact I am strongly of opinion, that the hon. gentleman marred a forceful and eloquent speech by the reference he made to the attitude of hon. members on this side of the House who support the government on this question. On more than one occasion, more frequently than was necessary to my mind, the hon. member for St. Antoine thanked his
4705
leader for the freedom of action which had been given to individual members of the opposition on this question. He seemed indeed very grateful that freedom of action had been granted. In fact, he said, if not in so many words, yet in effect, that had it not been for that freedom of action given by the leader of the opposition to his followers, he doubted whether he would take the position which he is taking upon the Bill. I have nothing to quarrel with in that attitude of the hon. gentleman. But he went on to express his great sympathy for members on the government side who, he seemed to think, were bound to stand by the government—bound in what way I do not know—in its proposed legislation in regard to the Northwest. I must say to the hon. gentleman that we cannot accept his sympathy on this side—we do not want it. And I take strong exception to the innuendo in his remarks as to the attitude of government members in supporting this Bill. I cannot understand him. Surely the hon. gentleman will not say that the same arguments for toleration, for respect for the rights of a minority, which appeal to him may not also appeal to individual members on the government side. The hon. gentleman said—and I think it is not beside the question for me to refer to his words and to clear up these points before entering upon the consideration of the main part of the issue—that his leader—
—has told them that they shall one and all consult their constituents and their conscience and shall then vote as they see fit upon this Bill.
I want to tell the hon. gentleman that no instructions, no advice, different from that has emanated from the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads the government to his followers.
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. We do not need it.
Mr. GRANT. No, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Zimmerman) says, we do not need it.
Mr. SPROULE. Was the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) in the House when the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said that if this Bill was not carried this government must resign? That was the statement ; and, of course, that declared the measure a government measure, and compelled the government’s following to stand by them.
Mr. GRANT. I agree with the Finance Minister to this extent—that the resignation of this government and the advent to power of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and his friends would be a sad calamity for the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. SPROULE. That is not the question at all. I understood the hon. member (Mr. Grant) to say that nothing had been given out on the government side that, in relation to this Bill, the government supporters were to do otherwise than consult
4706
their consciences and their constituents, which was what was done on this side.
Mr. GRANT. I wish to repeat that, so far as I am aware—and I think I know pretty well what goes on—there has been no indication, either from the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads the government or any member of the cabinet, to any private member supporting the government, as to the attitude he should take upon this Bill. Now, the hon. member for St. Antoine went on to say :
—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 own conscience dictated, and as their constituents demanded,—
Note the words—
—at this time.
I want to tell my hon. friend that, at least so far as I am concerned, and so far as my knowledge extends to other members on this side, we are voting and acting upon this measure as our consciences dictate. And I regret that the hon. member for St. Antoine, who, I must say again, made a judicious, a moderate and a well-argued speech, saw fit to mar that speech by the reference he has made to the attitude taken by government supporters in regard to this question. And again I ask if he supposes that the same principle of toleration and respect for the rights of the minority that appeal to himself do not appeal also to the members supporting the government?
But on the same line, I read in the Ottawa ‘Citizen,’ the main organ of his party in Eastern Ontario, as late as last Saturday, the following paragraph :—
There are several Conservative members voting for the Autonomy Bills not because they personally approve of the principle, but because they believe it to be their duty to represent the feeling of a majority of their constituents. On the Liberal benches the members do not appear to be afflicted with any concern as to how the majority of their constituents view the matter.
I think that was a very unkind reflection for the chief organ of the Conservative party in Eastern Ontario to make upon gentlemen opposite who support this Bill. Boiled down, what does it mean? It means, if it means anything, that these hon. gentlemen are trying to save their parliamentary hides by this vote. I think that a very poor compliment to pay to these gentlemen. I do not believe that to be the reason actuating such members as the hon. and learned members for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) and Stormont (Mr. Pringle). I give it as my opinion
4707
that these hon. gentlemen, in acting as they are doing, while, in one sense, they may be acting against their own feelings, yet, in another, are acting according to the dictates of high duty. And, Sir, why cannot credit for acting from conviction and from a high sense of duty be given to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who are supporting the same proposals? I plead for nothing else than this, Mr. Speaker, both from the newspaper press and from hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House, that they shall not impute unworthy motives to any member of this House, no matter how he speaks or how he votes on this measure. It is, I hope, to be taken for granted that no matter what position a member may take in regard to these Northwest Autonomy Bills, he is actuated in taking that position by a sense of duty, both to his constituency and to the country at large.
It has occurred to me that if a citizen of some foreign country were visiting Canada and her capital now for the first time for the purpose of inquiring into our legislative methods and ascertaining how we conduct public business, he would be curiously impressed by our treatment of these autonomy Bills ; he would be curiously impressed not only by the course of the debate in this House but also by the newspaper discussion throughout the country. Two large provinces are to be added to this Dominion of Canada, two provinces mighty in area, rich in resource and rich in future promise. The enacting legislation is under advisement, the proposals of the government in reference thereto, the terms and conditions of the entry into confederation of these provinces are now before us. Surely our visitor from abroad would say : The members of the legislature considering this question will discuss large issues, such as the adjustment of the public lands, and the settlement of these mighty areas in the west. Surely such large questions as these, the conditions under which these new provinces shall enter the union, will be well pondered and considered. However, one topic alone to the exclusion of other topics in my judgment much more important, seems to be monopolizing the attention both of parliament and of the country. And what is that question? Stripped of all legal and mystifying verbiage, that question is : Shall the people of these territories, in entering the confederation as provinces, be allowed to maintain a certain school system that has been in force for more than a quarter of a century and which they themselves have moulded and formed. I think I am putting the case fairly when I am putting it thus. I say, Sir, that our visitor from abroad would surely be surprised at what I might term this phenomenon, and if he were of an inquiring and observing turn of mind he would seek some reason for the same, and I think, Mr. Speaker, he would not have far to seek ; he
4708
would not need much knowledge of Canadian history to answer this question, he would not need any profound insight into our institutions to satisfy his mind and his curiosity as to why this one issue was monopolizing attention in this debate. He would find by a very superficial knowledge of Canadian history that agitations such as this in the past history of Canada have almost rent our country asunder ; he would find that the progress and the growth of Canada has been retarded and stunted in times past by agitations arising from questions similar to this, and he would, I think, conclude and rightly conclude that those people are indeed poor friends of Canada who would lightly make a political football of an issue of this sort. And, Mr. Speaker, poor friends of Canada indeed they are. I venture to remark that in no other country where representative institutions obtain, certainly in no other part of the British empire, would such an outcry and such a commotion over a matter so comparatively trifling ever occur. When I style the issue as unimportant, I do not wish to be taken to say that the matter of education in and for these new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan is at all a trifling matter, but I do say that the aspect of the education question as presented to us is not of paramount concern, and I deal now with the practical aspect of the matter. I find in fact existing in those western territories a school system built up practically by the people themselves. I find that the local council and the territorial legislature have perfected a system that seems to meet the requirements and conditions of the west. I find that the premier of these territories has said that it is a satisfactory system, he has said that his constituents, if they had the power, would not change it to-morrow. I find that a great majority of the representatives of that western territory in this House expressed themselves in unmistakable language, in favour of its perpetuation in these two territories. I find that public opinion in the west is overwhelmingly in favour of the present system.
I shall not trouble the House by reading any long quotations but I would like to quote from a gentleman who for many years was superintendent of education in these Territories, Dr. Goggin. On the 23rd of February, speaking to an interviewer in Toronto, Dr. Goggin made certain statements as to the schools of the Northwest. He said :
The separate school in the Territories, Catholic or Protestant, is a minority school. Its course of study till 3 o’clock is identical with that in the public school. Its text books—readers in the first two classes excepted—are identical. Its teachers have the same academic standing, have undergone the same professional training as the teachers in the public school. It is subject to the same inspection and examination. It receives legislative grants on the same basis as the public school.
4709
In the course of the same interview he says :
The Territories had arrived at a working arrangement, and should be left in charge of the system.
Precisely what we propose doing by this Bill, Mr. Speaker. Later on he says :
Their experience—
That is, the experience of the Territories.
—proved that they had arrived at a working plan.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there also was an opinion expressed some three years ago by the hon. gentleman who has just laid down the seals of office as Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). This expression was made long prior to any promise of legislation for the Northwest Territories, it was not made in the heat of debate but was made casually and no doubt expressed the mind of that gentleman at that time and I have no doubt at this time. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), speaking in 1902, said of the Northwest schools :
I know of no political game that can be played, and so far as the separate schools are concerned, my own view is that the school question is settled.
I understand that the settlement at which they, the Northwest Territories, have arrived—and I am very happy to be able to express an opinion—is a satisfactory settlement, and that the Roman Catholic people on the one hand and the Protestant people on the other feel that they have made a satisfactory compromise and that there is no necessity for difficulty or agitation upon the question.
That opinion was given some three years ago and it must be taken to be authoritative and much value must be attached to it. The Toronto ‘Globe,’ which does not see eye to eye with the government as to this measure, took the trouble to send a correspondent to the Territories before these Bills were introduced. That correspondent travelled throughout the length and breadth of the Territories and endeavoured to adduce public opinion generally upon the matter of the schools. I feel sure that the opinions gathered by that correspondent are unbiased. He, himself, judging from the tone particularly of letter No. 4, written to the ‘Globe’ is not particularly in favour of the government’s proposition. Therefore, we may take it that the opinions are unbiased and that weight and value can be attached to them. I find that he interviewed Mr. Alderman May at Edmonton in the beginning of March. Mr. May was the acting mayor and a supporter of public schools :
He, Mr. May, does not, however, find that the privileges which the minority enjoy occasion any trouble or harm. He sees, moreover, that to withdraw them would cause a great deal of bitter feeling which there is no good reason for incurring.
‘Some people say,’ said Mr. May, ‘that the privileges the minority enjoy are so insignificant
4710
that the separate school will soon die out, but I do not care whether it does or not. It is fairly satisfactory to our Roman Catholic neighbours, or at all events they have made up their minds that they have the full extent of the privileges which they could possibly get from any legislative body in this country. That being the case, there is a perfect understanding and peaceable relations between the two sections of the community, and I think that the eastern sectarians have no right to come in here and disturb that peace.
I commend that last sentence, pregnant with meaning, to the careful attention of some of my hon. friends opposite and particularly to the newspaper press of the city of Toronto. Let me read the Regina opinion, and this opinion was given prior to the distribution of those blank petitions to the House of Commons that were sent out from Ontario to the Northwest Territories in order to raise and fan into flame an agitation there over this question. This opinion comes from Regina and is also reported by the ‘Globe’ correspondent :
Their attitude—
Referring to the attitude of the people of Regina.
—towards the school question is similar. Without exception all those I have spoken to have no apprehensions with regard to that feature of the settlement. They know by experience the system they have got. They are perfectly satisfied with it, and if its continuance is a part of the settlement there will be no objection from the people of the Territories. The Catholic portion of the population have at times exhibited dissatisfaction, but it has never been very serious, and the general expression is that if the present system is continued, practically everybody will be satisfied.
That is a statement of the opinion of the citizens of Regina as gathered by the ‘Globe’ correspondent who, as I have said, is not favourable to this legislation. Furthermore this ‘Globe’ correspondent went to Medicine Hat, farther west, I believe, in the Territories and this, as far as he could gather, was the view of the citizens of that enterprising western town :
The separate school is sometimes inferior to the public school from the point of view of what is regarded as its main purpose, namely, to impart secular education. But this is regarded with some placidity for two reasons : first, because there is the feeling that those who prefer the separate school are getting what they want, and, in the next place, that the provincial authorities hold the master key to the situation in possessing the right to inspect and approve or disapprove of the way a school is fulfilling the great end of its existence….
If a separate school in Ontario is inferior in any way there is really no effective means of compelling it to come up to the requirements. It is not so with the western separate school. It is as completely within the control of the Department of Education as what are called public schools.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I regret to have occupied so much time in quoting these
4711
opinions, but it occurred to me that it might relieve to a large extent the impression which exists in the province of Ontario as to the nature of the schools which we propose by this Bill to perpetuate in the west. For days and weeks some of the members of this House, assisted by a section of the public press, have delayed the despatch of public business, and are promoting an injurious agitation throughout the Dominion over this educational question, and why? What prompts them to do it? Surely it cannot be anything else but the knowledge that in the past discussions on matters of this kind stirred up ill-feeling in this country have stirred up sectarian strife and commotion and that the stirring up of strife and commotion may bring about political results unobtainable by methods more honourable and more patriotic. In the main this commotion has been confined to the province of Ontario. I do not know that that should afford me, coming from that province, any very great satisfaction; rather the reverse, but it is quite true that this commotion has been confined to Ontario and to one section of Ontario. It is also a fact that the head and front of this agitation is the newspaper press of the city of Toronto, and this very fact may induce hon. gentlemen here coming from other provinces in the Dominion to conclude that the population of Ontario as a whole is convulsed over this matter and that the people of Ontario are sitting up all night devising ways and means of combatting this legislation. By no means. Let me assure my fellow-members from other provinces that such is not the case. The only part of our population in the province of Ontario that is really excited over these Bills is the city of Toronto. Toronto newspaperdom particularly is working overtime in the effort to create and fan into flame those slumbering passions that it might be well to let lie. But, let me assure my hon. friends, and particularly my hon. friends from the province of Quebec, that Toronto is not Ontario and that the voice of Toronto is not the voice of Ontario. It has been said in times of crises that Paris was accustomed to speak for all France. Toronto has no such authority to speak for the province of Ontario. We of the province of Ontario, let me say, are profoundly thankful too that such is the case. Let me assure my hon. friends from the province of Quebec and from the maritime provinces that there is a large silent, solid section of the province of Ontario, particularly in the rural parts, who are not of the mind of Toronto in this matter and not only in this but in many other matters too. I say from positive knowledge having visited several parts of Ontario since this trouble, if I may so term it, began, that the thinking men and the sober minded citizens of the province, having been correctly informed of the facts—and it is
4712
very difficult to get the truth through our Toronto press—have come to the conclusion that the government have grappled in a wise and statesmanlike way with a very difficult and delicate subject. Therefore, I ask my hon. friends from other provinces not to do us the injustice of thinking that the blatant mob of Toronto speaks for the whole province of Ontario. The incendiary daily cartoons that appeared in the Toronto ‘News’ and other sheets published in that city were at first deplored by the good people of the province of Ontario, and now, I may tell you they are laughed at. The editor of the Toronto ‘News’ occupied at one time a very honourable place as a publicist in our province, but, Sir, since he apparently has come to the conclusion that to be strong in Ontario he must be unjust and offensive to his fellow-citizens in other parts of the Dominion, he has lost the esteem of the self-respecting and the thinking and the solid people of Ontario.
Now, the policy of the Toronto ‘News’ as outlined day after day on its front page is for a common school; for a national school. I say that these Bills when passed will give to the Northwest Territories a common, a national school in all its essential and integral features. The Toronto ‘News’ at the inception of this trouble made a great deal of the constitutional point; spoke a great deal about the shackling of the west, as it termed the educational clauses. If on reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council it were held—and it might well he held—that the minority of the Territories is entitled to a full system of separate schools under the legislation of 1875, and the British North America Act, what becomes then, I want to know, of the contention for a common and a national school? Is it to be a national school, constitution or no constitution, judicial decision perhaps to the contrary notwithstanding? Is that the position assumed by the Toronto ‘News’ and assumed by other opponents of the government in this regard? I can readily understand a member of this House taking this or that view of the legal question and taking his stand and casting his vote pursuant to his view, but I cannot understand a positive demand for a certain system of schools simply because that system recommends itself to that man’s turn of mind and may not at all be, and whether or not at all it is, permissible under the law and the existing conditions. As an example, I find a reverend gentleman—he comes from Toronto of course, Mr. Speaker—I find a reverend gentleman speaking in Toronto and reported in the Toronto press of the 20th of March last, using this language:
Separate schools in Ontario would be done away with.
Now, it would require only the most fragmentary knowledge of our constitution to
4713
know that separate schools in Ontario are an inherent part of the confederation compact, and cannot be done away with. This quotation from this reverend gentleman illustrates my point, which is this : Whatever one’s individual views as to a system of education may be such language as I have quoted can only lead to trouble, to misunderstanding and to friction. It in no manner whatever contributes to the solution of the problem in hand ; on the contrary, it constitutes only, and it is intended only to be a threat to the Ontario Catholics, and is as unwise as it is idle.
Sir, it had not been in my mind to discuss the constitutional aspect of this case, but in relation to that I want to quote from this same paper, the Toronto ‘News.’ The Toronto ‘Globe’ had said : that it was not a question of separate schools versus national schools ; it was purely a question of provincial rights. That is to say, it was a dry constitutional subject, purely a matter of constitutional law, and on that principle the Toronto ‘Globe’ took its stand. The Toronto ‘News’ however, was not able to, or did not care to take that view of the question, and in commenting on the ‘Globe’ position said :
Nor would it be wise from their point of view——
He is referring to the opponents of the measure.
Nor would it be wise from their point of view to narrow discussion down to the interpretation and application of constitutional documents.
Oh, no, that would not suit the firebrand press.
That is an important matter no doubt, but it is one that interests only a small proportion of the people. The study of the constitution is a useful and interesting pursuit, but not in that way can a formidable public opinion be aroused and brought to bear upon the government.
What does that mean? If the English language can be made to convey any meaning it means, that you cannot excite the people about a constitutional point ; you must import into the controversy something of a semi-religious tinge in order to excite them, and the Toronto ‘News’ and those who stand with it on this question propose to import that tinge into the discussion.
The article continues :——
In laying down the rule, therefore, the ‘Globe’ is asking that Hamlet be played with the part of Hamlet omitted.
It has been said in criticism of the government and its supporters, that diverse attitudes have been assumed by the advocates of this measure. Well, I will not say whether that is true or not, but it certainly strikes me that very diverse attitudes are being assumed both by hon. gentlemen here and by their press in opposition to this
4714
measure. What was the one note ringing through the speech of the leader of the opposition in this House ; how many times did he repeat it ; these were the words, we all know them by heart:
I argue not for separate schools ; I argue not against separate schools.
And the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) said : With the merits or demerits of separate schools I have no concern, I do not know anything about it. And the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) entered into a long, able, discursive theological discussion on the demerits of separate schools—the only part of his speech I could agree with was the peroration in which he quoted a part of the Lord’s Prayer. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) also made an onslaught upon separate schools ; he said they tended to disunite the people, that they tended to all manner of evils, and he thinks the merits of separate schools enter into this discussion although his leader does not think so. I instance these only to show how very wide apart and on what different views gentlemen who are opposing this measure take their stand.
I said a moment ago that it was not my intention to discuss the constitutional bearings of this Bill. Other men of the legal profession, very much better fitted than I am, of very much more authority than myself, have done so, and I feel that it would be bold indeed for me to touch that question. But in a broad way, Mr. Speaker, what was the spirit of the union compact? What was the spirit that guided the fathers of confederation in 1866 and 1867? Surely it was the spirit of toleration ; more than that, it was the spirit of solicitude for the conscientious convictions, not to say the undoubted rights, of minorities ; and the same spirit which actuated the fathers of confederation in 1867 should actuate us in 1905 when we are extending confederation—because it is really one and the same thing. In organizing these Territories into provinces, we find that the minority has been for over a quarter of a century in possession of certain school privileges. I say we should respect these rights. Nay, more, we should put it beyond peradventure that these rights shall be maintained to them. It has become the fashion to say that these minority rights amount to very little, that they are very trifling, and, therefore, we may leave them. While such may be the fact, I do not think that in itself would constitute a ground for perpetuating those rights. The ground is broader and deeper than that. It has its root and being in a great and generous principle, and that is, respect and care that the weaker party be protected and be treated with consideration, so that its confidence may be won and retained. I would not seek to make this Bill palatable by saying that it is nothing. I would say that by law and by right the minority have certain educational privileges in the Northwest, and
4715
when they enter the confederation, as they are doing in this year of grace 1905, we feel bound to protect and respect those privileges. I happened lately to be reading the life of the late revered Principal Grant, written by his son. He was the principal of Queen’s University, and a man whose name and memory stands hallowed, not only in the Presbyterian Church, of which he was a foremost divine, but by all classes and creeds throughout Canada. Principal Grant was referring to an agitation similar to this, which was gotten up for the purpose of ousting Sir Oliver Mowat from power in Ontario a few years ago, but which, by the way, was singularly unsuccessful.
An hon. MEMBER. As this will be.
Mr. GRANT. As this will be. Said Principal Grant:
There can be no doubt that Sir Oliver Mowat stands now for the fair treatment of minorities, and that is the only way to make possible a united Canadian people. Some Protestants seem to be scared now, and they will be ashamed of themselves by-and-by. We Protestants used to be fearless; we used to say that the truth is great and would prevail; that truth needs only a fair field and no favour; but now some of us seem afraid of the rustling of a leaf. The forms that this thing takes are so extreme that it is impossible for the thing to last any time.
This is an expression of opinion by the late Principal Grant on a similar agitation that took place in Ontario. I leave it with the House, feeling sure it will have great influence upon the hon. gentlemen in the consideration of this aspect of the case.
Now, I would like to point out that the giving of autonomy to these Territories will work no radical or revolutionary change up there. These Territories have gradually been growing up to a provincial status. On the 1st of July next, when, despite the threats of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and one or two others, these Bills will become law, things will be very much the same in those Territories as they were on the 30th of June, the day preceding. The enactment of these Bills will not change the face of nature. It will not make the prairies any more productive; it will not add a dollar’s worth to the assets or the natural wealth of the Territories. One would imagine that some revolutionary changes were about to take place; but should the rights of the minority, small though they be, change or rest on any less secure footing because autonomy, full and complete, has been granted to these Territories? For instance, would those rights not indubitably continue if for some reason we postponed giving autonomy to those Territories for the next ten, fifteen or twenty-five years. Would any hon. member of this House deny that statement? The Act of 1875 under which the minority hold their rights have been in force nearly thirty
4716
years, and in that time there have been many opportunities to repeal that Act. Time and time again the Northwest Territories Act has been before this House for consolidation or consideration, and I think that on two occasions it was proposed by some hon. member of this House to repeal the educational clauses of that Act and hand over the entire charge of education to the territorial authorities. This House has had the opportunity to repeal them on many occasions.
Mr. BELCOURT. It could do it now.
Mr. GRANT. It could do it now, as the hon. member for Ottawa says. My point is this, that if the granting of autonomy were put off for some indefinite period, undoubtedly these educational rights or privileges of the minority would continue. Then, should the fact that we are admitting those Territories to full provincial status militate against the continuance of these rights and privileges? That is to say, the minority may enjoy these rights and privileges according to their conscientious convictions while those Territories remain in a state of tutelage merely as Territories; but when they become autonomous provinces are we then to put that minority in a less secure and less beneficial position by reason of our own act? Supposing autonomy were not granted at the present time, the rights enjoyed by the minority under the Act of 1875 would continue. If those rights were infringed, this parliament would be appealed to, as it was in 1894 when the representatives of the Catholics of the Northwest Territories came down here and asked Sir John Thompson to disallow the Northwest Ordinances.
But it is said: Leave it to the provinces to say what system of education shall be established. In reply to that I say we are leaving this question of education to the provinces, because we are adopting their own approved and valued system. Moreover I would point out that the practical working out, the practical control of all matters of education, will be left with the Northwest legislatures themselves, and in the end it will be the power which has the practical every day working out of the educational system which will be the all controlling element in the matter.
I have already stated that I did not propose entering into a discussion of the constitutional bearings of the case, but some allusion thereto is absolutely necessary to a proper presentation of the facts. Very much difference of opinion has been expressed by legal gentlemen and laymen as to the real meaning and significance of the word “province” and particularly the words, “at the union” occurring in subsection 1 of section 93 of the British North America Act, which we all know by heart and which, if we go on discussing much longer, we will be all dreaming about at night. I cannot think—and I give my opinion in great fear and trembling and
4717
with all possible diffidence—that the union, the real union, in the fullest and proper sense of the term of those districts with the Dominion of Canada, occurred in 1870. The proceedings of 1869-70 merely incorporated those areas with the Dominion. That was not a union in the broad full sense of the word. Why, Sir, at that time these Territories were unpeopled. They had not even institutions of the most primitive sort. In my humble judgment, the real consummation of union will take place on the passage and going into force of these Bills. It would seem to me a matter of grave doubt whether, under the British North America Act of 1867, we had the power to admit these districts into the Dominion, except on a provincial status. The Imperial Act of 1871, called the doubt removing Act, took away, however, any doubt on that point, and these regions in the west were incorporated with the Dominion, not as provinces, but as Territories. In my judgment, I believe that in legislating as we did in 1870, we exhausted the powers given us in that regard by section 146 of the British North America Act of 1867. But those powers were amplified or extended by the Imperial legislation of 1871.
It has been a matter of wonder to me that the Imperial House did not, in its Act of 1871, content itself with simply validating the Manitoba Act; but it did not stop there. It went on to treat of the admission of further Territories west of Manitoba, and gave us power to constitute them into provinces, and in the meantime to make provision for their peace, order and good government. Had it been the intention of the Imperial parliament merely to validate our legislation admitting Manitoba into the union, surely that parliament would have stopped there, but instead it went on to add to our power; and in my judgment we are to-day properly acting under clause section 2 of the Imperial Act of 1871 in constituting these provinces. Acting under the power given by that Act of 1871 this Dominion parliament undertook to provide for the administration of those Territories and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government therein. The most important piece of legislation in that regard was Mr. Mackenzie’s Northwest Territorial Act of 1875. In the exercise of our powers, we granted a constitution to these Territories. The educational enactment of that Act of 1875 has been so often referred to that I shall spare the House a repetition of it. Suffice to say that a system of separate schools was instituted, and on that system was based the Territorial school system such as we know it to-day. Take up the debate which took place in 1875 on that measure, and you will find the utterances of the Liberal leaders—and they were Ontario men too—very instructive. Particularly instructive are the words by the Hon. Edward Blake. To an Ontario Liberal—
4718
and I claim to be one—the words of Hon. Edward Blake ought to carry weight and authority. They have been quoted two or three times in this debate, but I am sure the House will bear with me whilst I quote them again. Discussing the Bill of 1875, Mr. Blake said:
The task which the ministry had set for itself was the most important it was possible to conceive. To found primary institutions under which we hope to see hundreds of thousands, and the more sanguine of us think, millions of men and families settled and flourishing——
Let me break off here to say that Mr. Blake evidently did not regard this legislation at all as of a temporary, fleeting character, because he was looking forward to the great future when millions of people would be settled in the Territories. He regarded the provisions of that Bill, not as temporary or fleeting in their character, I say, but as permanent and lasting.
He agreed with the hon. member for Kingston (Sir John A. Macdonald) that the task was one which required time, consideration and deliberation.
Further on he said:
He believed that it was essential, to our obtaining a large immigration to the Northwest Territories, that we should tell the people beforehand what those rights were to be in the country in which we invited them to settle.
He regarded it as essential, under the circumstances of the country, and in view of the deliberations during the past few days, that a general principle should be laid down in the Bill with respect to public instruction. He did believe that we ought not to introduce into that territory the heart-burnings and difficulties with which certain other portions of the Dominion and other countries had been afflicted. It seemed to him, having regard to the fact that as far as we could expect at present, the general character of that population would be somewhat analogous to the population of Ontario, that there should be some provision in the constitution by which they should have conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of the province of Ontario. The principles of local self-government and the settling of the questions of public instruction, it seemed to him, ought to be the cardinal principles of the measure.
Surely no reasonable man can read Mr. Blake’s remarks and not be struck by the fact that, in his opinion the parliament of Canada was engaged in passing legislation, particularly with regard to the school system, which should obtain in the Territories, not for a few years, not simply while they remained as Territories, but so long as the Northwest Territories themselves lasted. That seems to me to be the legitimate deductions from Mr. Blake’s remarks. Need I go on and quote what the Hon. David Mills, also an Ontario Liberal—a name which we in Ontario, in Canada in fact, honour and revere—said. Here is the opinion of Mr. Mills:
There was another matter it seemed to him ought not to be disregarded; and that was the
4719
terms and conditions under which these people would ultimately be formed into a province.
And these educational clauses of the Act of 1875 providing for a certain system of separate schools were part of the terms and conditions on which these people settled there and would become an organized part of the Dominion. Now, it is true, as I have said, that it was open to this parliament at any time to repeal or amend the law of 1875, and it is equally true that on several occasions this parliament was asked to repeal these provisions of the statute, but refused to do so. One would suppose, from what is said by hon. gentlemen opposite, that this was the first time it had been proposed to recognize the desire of the minority for educational privileges suitable to their condition. That has been recognized for over a quarter of a century, and over and over again it has been confirmed by this House. In the session of 1894, on consideration of the Bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act, under Sir John Thompson’s premiership, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy went fully into the question of separate schools and school legislation for the Territories. He was endeavouring to persuade the House that the time had come when the Territorial legislature should be given full control of educational matters. The scope of the legislation of 1875 was fully investigated by Mr. McCarthy, and it is instructive to note that he made use of the following expressions :—
Now I want to draw the attention of my hon. friends to a very important provision.
He was warning the House of Commons in 1894.
By this legislation we are really riveting upon the people of the Northwest the separate schools system for all time.
And further on he held this language :
Now we insist by the clause of the Act of 1875 which has been included in various consolidations of legislative power of the Northwest Territories which have been made from time to time, that they shall have separate schools, if we continue to insist that that system shall prevail up to the time we create provinces in the Northwest, then the application of this clause of first subsection of section 93 of the British North America Act, to which I have referred, rivets for all time upon the new provinces the system of separate schools.
And further on Mr. McCarthy said :
It has been urged, and I have heard it urged, why not allow this matter to remain until the new province is created ? Why interfere with the matter so long as they are mere territories ? It will be time enough when we are creating provinces in the Northwest to give them full power in school matters. Well, those who argue in that way will, I think, find it very difficult to contend that the population of the Northwest is not as competent as any other population in
4720
the Dominion to legislate in regard to educational matters, but even if they were not, we ought to leave it to them to select the system of education which they prefer so that it shall not be conducted against their will by the clause of the Act to which I have referred.
It will be remembered that Mr. McCarthy was moving an amendment to vary the legislation of 1875 in order that the Territories might be left to deal with the matter of education. At the conclusion of the debate, in reply to Sir John Thompson, the First Minister, Mr. McCarthy said :
My argument was and is now, if we hand this matter over to the control of the Territories there will be no harm done, but if we do not give power to choose, if we deny them the right to select for themselves, then when the day comes, as it must before long, when part of the Territories will ask for admission and be entitled by their population and position to have this clause enacted, then this parliament would be bound to repeal the law—
That is, the law of 1875.
—otherwise we should be as I say riveting the system of separate schools upon them.
And further on he says :
What I say is this, that if this question of separate schools is to remain in its present position until we grant provincial autonomy to any parts of the Northwest, it will be practically impossible unless there is an enormous change in public opinion to deny them what every other province that has joined confederation has been entitled to, what Manitoba was entitled to and what under the circumstances every province would be entitled to.
The inference from these quotations is clear, that so eminent a jurist as the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy gave it as his opinion that if the separate school system, or the right of the minority to enjoy their educational privileges, call it what you may, obtained in these Territories until the time when they came to us seeking admission as provinces into confederation, then we would be bound to perpetuate the existing state of affairs in regard to education. I want to point out how remarkably consonant this opinion of Mr. McCarthy was with the opinions expressed in 1875 by Hon. Edward Blake and Hon. David Mills, and consonant also with the opinion—not, of course, the opinion of a lawyer—expressed by Hon. George Brown in the Senate when the Bill of 1875 was under advisement. We hear very much about these proposals as regards education being an invasion of provincial rights. And, strange to say, this cry of provincial rights comes from a quarter that did not, in the old days, hold provincial rights in very high esteem. Why, Sir, the province of Ontario, whence I come, has on many occasions had to do battle and strenuous battle for provincial rights. And who constituted the enemy on those occasions ? The Conservative party in the Dominion who sat on these government benches and supported Sir John Macdonald when provincial rights were
4721
assailed, as I say, on more occasions than one. And it was to the late Sir Oliver Mowat, that great advocate of provincial rights, that we in Ontario owe it that the assaults of that enemy were not successful. The Conservative party supporting Sir John Macdonald on these occasions had very little respect for provincial rights. Now, the doctrine of provincial rights is a good doctrine, an excellent doctrine. But it is not a doctrine, to be invoked in defence of the perpetration of a great national wrong. These estimable people in the province of Ontario who are so much concerned at the so-called invasion of provincial rights seem to confine their attention in that respect altogether to the educational clauses of this Bill. They have nothing to say, in their petitions and resolutions sent here to parliament, about the lands; they have nothing to say about the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption. If the government proposals in regard to education be an infraction of provincial rights, how much more so are their proposals in regard to the lands? And yet, do we find these very excellent people complaining or memorializing the government about the land clause of the Bill? Nor do we find them complaining as to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption. I am of opinion that in future years the matter of that exemption will bear very heavily and very harshly upon the people of the Northwest Territories. But do we find any sympathy expressed by the province of Ontario with these new provinces either on the ground that they will not have their lands, or on the ground of the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption from taxation for all time to come? No sympathy on that score is expressed at all.
Mr. SPROULE. Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that many petitions have been presented to this House from the people of Ontario praying that the people of these Territories be allowed their land and that there are also petitions from the west expressing regret declaring that they regard that as one of the provincial rights they should enjoy?
Mr. GRANT. I can readily understand the people of the west petitioning to have their lands placed under provincial control; that is a natural thing; but I have been pretty constantly in my place in the House and I do not think that one in 500 of the petitions from the province of Ontario made any mention of the lands at all; they referred only to the educational part of the Autonomy Bill. I say if these excellent, estimable people were sincere in their regard for provincial rights, if they were solicitous for the future welfare of these provinces, they would not confine their attention to the educational clauses of these Bills alone but would take up the points I have mentioned. What does that convince me of, Mr. Speaker? I am sorry
4722
to believe it but I must believe that all this commotion and concern is manifested largely because clause 16 of the Bill relates in a measure to the religious convictions of a minority of our people. I am forced to that conclusion and any reasonable man must be forced to that conclusion because there are at least two other great matters that are of paramount concern to the people of the Northwest Territories, that they may have a right to complain of, in reference to which these people in Ontario who are stirring up an agitation are absolutely and entirely silent. It is said that the Liberal party is historically the defender of provincial rights. I am glad to acknowledge that; I heard the hon. member for East Grey say that in his place in the House the other day. The hon. member (Mr. Sproule) is quite correct in making that statement and I may say that the Liberal party were defending provincial rights from 1878 to 1890 when my hon. friend was supporting the late Sir John Macdonald in this House in six or seven struggles with regard to provincial rights, but my hon. friend if I mistake not was not on the side of the provinces in these struggles. It is charged that the Liberal party has changed its front with regard to provincial rights, and the leader of that party is also charged with a departure from his record, and it is vehemently charged that the Liberal party is false to its position and to the principles enunciated in connection with the Manitoba school difficulty of 1896. I take issue directly with those who charged the Liberal party with inconsistency, viewing their actions in 1896 in regard to the Manitoba school question and their actions in 1905 in regard to the Bills now under consideration. There is no parallel between the Manitoba school case and the case under discussion. Manitoba, in the exercise of her undoubted powers, altered a school system which she herself had brought into being. I am not saying whether that system was good or bad, I have no expression of opinion to make in that regard, but that system, at least according to the judgment of a great majority of Manitobans, had outlived its usefulness. The late Conservative government sought in the dying hours of a parliament to coerce an unwilling province to return to that abandoned system and we all know the result that followed that attempt. In the present case the Territories adopted their own system of schools and brought it to a state satisfactory to the people of the Territories. The man who cannot see the difference between the case of 1896 and the case of to-day is either wilfully blind or his perceptive faculties are, I think, very very weak.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman made a statement that Manitoba of her undoubted rights adopted a system and afterwards made away with it.
Mr. GRANT. I think that is the state of affairs.
4723
Mr. SPROULE. That is as I understood him and the Northwest Territories of their own free will and accord have adopted a system. Does he consider that the law which compelled them to adopt that system gave them any opportunity of exercising freedom either of will or judgment? They were obliged to do it, whereas Manitoba acted of her own judgment and free will.
Mr. FIELDING. Did not the Northwest legislature by a resolution some years ago refuse to ask for a repeal of their clause thereby confirming it?
Mr. SPROULE. That does not confirm it at all.
Mr. FIELDING. I say yes.
Mr. GRANT. My good friend—I may call him so—from East Grey, is no doubt an expert in medicine but I do not know if he and I entered into a legal argument either he or I would be wiser nor would the House be the wiser for that argument. I would say that the Northwest Territories by their ordinances have practically set up a system of schools satisfactory to themselves, because in my judgment—and I give it for what it is worth—they have very much restricted the rights of the minority as expressed and given by the law of 1875, and I think Sir John Thompson was of that opinion and practically expressed it in a minute of council in reference to the petition for disallowance in 1894, so that I say, by taking the action which they did take, they to some extent at least have formulated a school policy that is satisfactory to themselves. It is also to be remembered that this Dominion parliament in 1875 held out the assurance of certain educational privileges to the minority and it is to this parliament that that minority must look for the protection of its rights. The legislation of 1875 in regard to education may have been ill-advised; I do not say whether it was or not, it may have been ill-advised or it may have been very wise legislation. However, it has remained ever since on our statute-book and therefore I say that the somewhat specious phrase ‘trust the new provinces’ has no particular force. The promise was made, the undertaking was entered into by this Dominion parliament and this sovereign parliament having enacted the law, having held out the inducement to the incoming settler, having continued the law in force, gave every sign that the law was to remain in force. It is, therefore, incumbent on this parliament to follow the course set forth in the Bill. I have wondered since this agitation began, whether if the original portion of Catholics and Protestants had remained in those Territories we would have had all the trouble and commotion that we have to-day. As I understand it, at the very beginning of the settlement of those new Territories the Catholic people
4724
were largely in the majority. They were the first settlers, they were the pioneers of those districts and were necessarily in the great majority. I want to know if that preponderance of Catholic population had kept up in the Territories and we found it existing to-day if we would have all this trouble and agitation over our proposals. I think, Mr. Speaker, we would have had a demand for the Protestant separate schools that they have in the province of Quebec to-day, and as a Protestant, if it were the very last vote I gave in the House of Commons, I would give that vote with the feeling that I was only doing equity and dealing fairly with this minority in casting my vote for the perpetuation of their privileges.
Now, Sir, I have said that the hon. leader of the opposition made it a point that the merits and demerits of separate schools did not enter into this discussion. Hon. gentlemen opposite apparently did not think so and I have wondered too how some of them could bring themselves to support in its entirety the amendment offered by the hon. leader of the opposition to this Bill because quite possibly the logical effect of the amendment offered by the hon. leader of the opposition might be to bring into force a full dual system of sectarian schools in the new provinces. I do not say whether that would be a blessing or whether that would be a great detriment to those new provinces, but I do say that hon. gentlemen opposite who have gone out of their way to attack separate schools should think twice and that they should think long before they vote for an amendment which may have the effect that I have just pointed out. I come from the province of Ontario. I do not know that separate schools have worked very badly in Ontario. I am like the hon. leader of the opposition; I argue not for them, I argue not against them, but I have been observing in the province of Ontario and I am bound to say, whether I like the system or whether I dislike the system, that I have seen no evils arising from separate schools in Ontario. I do not think the system tends to disunite. I do not think it tends to any vital separation of the people. I know that in my own riding we have a number of separate schools. I know of no spot in the whole Dominion where people of different creeds live together in greater amity and concord than in my own riding of North Ontario and particularly in two townships where the population is very evenly divided between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and where, I am very happy to say, both unite in supporting the humble individual who is now addressing the House. In this onslaught upon separate schools it is well to remember that separate schools, as I have said, have worked not badly in the province of Ontario and while I expressly refrain from expressing my opinion in regard to them on this occasion, because it is not necessary, I want to refer
4725
to what must be a very valuable opinion as to separate schools in Ontario. I want to refer to the opinion of the Toronto ‘Globe’ expressed in 1895, at a time when, if my memory serves me right, there was an attack being made upon the Liberal government in Ontario in regard to the separate school question.
Mr. EMMERSON. Who was the editor?
Mr. GRANT. The editor of the ‘Globe’ in 1895? I would not like to say, but I rather think it was the present editor of the Toronto ‘News.’ However, the ‘Globe’ said this, speaking of separate schools in Ontario:
We advocate the Ontario system, not because it is fixed by the constitution, but because we consider it to be a good system. If this province were making a fresh start to-day, absolutely untrammelled by constitutional restrictions, we do not know that it could do better than continue that arrangement without any material change.
I give that opinion for what it is worth. The Hon. David Mills, in 1892, expressed his opinion of the operation of separate schools in Ontario, and I quote these expressions for the benefit of hon. members from Ontario who have seen fit during the progress of this debate to decry separate schools. I think that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) expressed his opinion very adversely to separate schools the other evening. Mr. Mills said in 1892:
Certainly the course taken in the province of Ontario, on the whole, produced most satisfactory results on this continent of the educational question. I say there is no public school system on the continent produced more satisfactory results and that works out with less friction than the separate school system of Ontario.
Mr. Mills was a close observer. He was a man who did not express his opinions hastily. He was a man, who, when his opinions were expressed, stood by them and his opinions and observations are entitled to the very highest respect in this country.
Now, I fear, Mr. Speaker, that I have already trespassed too long upon the time, the attention and the patience of this House. The hon. member for Brantford, who, I am glad to see, has recently taken his seat saw fit the other evening to refer to the English Educational Act of 1902. He condemned, in very mild terms of course the English Educational Act of 1902. I agree with him in that condemnation and I say from some knowledge of what has gone on in England in the past two or three years that an outrageous wrong was perpetrated upon the non-conformists of England by the passing of the Educational Bill of 1902, and that perhaps more than anything else is tending at the present time to the overthrow of the Balfour government. But, Sir, when my hon. friend went across the water—it is a good place to go for precedent—
4726
when he went so far to get a precedent in the matter of education I wish he had gone north of the Tweed, where he would have found a country in which, perhaps, they look after education and everything else a little better than they do south of the Tweed. If he had examined into the educational system of the little country called Scotland he perhaps would have been surprised. Scotland, Mr. Speaker, is a country, perhaps more than any other country which has valued education. The peasant of Scotland is a philosopher. The artisan in the mills at Paisley and elsewhere throughout Scotland is a scholar. This is mainly due to the splendid educational system that has obtained in Scotland for the past 300 or 400 years, a system which has produced men in all walks of life second to none the world over. Now, how do they manage this matter of education in Scotland? I find that in the year 1903 there were £722,000 spent on public schools; for Church of Scotland schools, the Presbyterian church, the Established Church nearly £27,000 from the public chest; for United Free Church schools, £25,000 from the public moneys; for Episcopal schools, £15,000; for Roman Catholics schools, £70,000; and that in Presbyterian and Protestant Scotland. I leave the consideration of that with my hon. friends opposite, and I say that Scotland, in that as in many other matters shows an example that should be emulated.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support this measure believing it necessary to keep good faith; I support it because I recognize it as based on the sure foundations of equity and fair-dealing; because it honours the religious convictions of the minority without trespassing at all upon the rights of the majority, and because it appeals to me as in the true interest of all Canada inasmuch as it makes for unity, for conciliation and for peace. Let me close by quoting and commending to the earnest attention of the House the words of the late Principal Grant, used by him in paying a tribute to the memory of Archbishop Connolly, a revered prelate of the Roman Catholic Church in Nova Scotia, who died during Principal Grant’s term as pastor of a Presbyterian church in that province. Said principal Grant of Archbishop Connolly:
He was a man of peace, ever seeking to build bridges rather than to dig ditches between men of different creeds.
Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings). It has been intimidated to me by a certain hon. member on the government side of the House, that it is desirable to bring a public measure of considerable importance to the attention of the House to-day, and to have it disposed of if possible. Knowing something of the nature of that measure, at this late hour, I feel like not insisting upon my right to continue this debate but to give way
4727
for the discussion of that measure which will no doubt occupy the attention of the House as long as it will desire to sit tonight. I feel that I would only be doing justice to that hon. member if I moved to adjourn the debate.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not see any good reason, why at this hour of the night the debate should not continue.
Mr. PORTER. It is pretty late to proceed with the discussion of this question now.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Go on.
Mr. PORTER. I understood that I was to adjourn the debate in order that this other measure might be discussed. I have been sitting here since three o’clock this afternoon after spending a whole night on the train, and I think it is rather pressing me to ask me to proceed with the discussion at this late hour. No time will be lost by adjourning the debate, and adopting the course a member of the government has asked me to assist in pursuing.
Mr. SPROULE. There has evidently been a misunderstanding, because I was told that Mr. Porter was to adjourn the debate and that the government intended to discuss another Bill. Mr. Ritchie, of Toronto, was my informant, and I replied to him that it could only be done by the unanimous consent of the House. There must be some misunderstanding.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not know that there is any misunderstanding, and if so, no one on this side of the House is responsible for it. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Porter) wishes to ask for the privilege of adjourning the debate that is one matter, but if that is done there is going to be no public Bill or order considered to-night so far as I am concerned.
Mr. SPROULE. I am not asking that any public Bill should be considered.
Mr. PORTER. I may have misunderstood my informant, and I may be wrong in stating what I did state to the House. If so, I am very pleased to withdraw it, and I would ask as a special favour to myself that it be not insisted on that I should proceed to-night.
Mr. FIELDING. I have nothing to say regarding any understanding, but we have on several occasions recently been asked to adjourn early and we have always consented upon the assurance that the next night we would not adjourn early. I think the next night has arrived now, and we should continue the business.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Go on.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have heard a great many expressions of surprise at the position assumed by the right hon. the First
4728
Minister upon this question. These expressions of surprise have emanated very largely from this side of the House, but, having heard the address delivered by the right hon. gentleman on the introduction of these Bills and his subsequent explanation of the amendment which is now under discussion, I am bound to say that the attitude assumed by the right hon. gentleman is not to me a matter of surprise. It is to me more a matter of regret. I say it is not to me a matter of surprise, because from my observation, the course of the political life of the right hon. gentleman since he was entrusted with the confidence of the people of this country, has been characterized by such qualities of insincerity, of deception, and of pandering to outside influences as to lead me to the conclusion that the course pursued by the Prime Minister on this occasion is perfectly consistent with what has been his political career heretofore. I say, Sir, that since the right hon. gentleman obtained power in 1896, he has shown such a willingness to sacrifice principle; he has shown such a willingness to deceive the people of this country by the tortuous course he has pursued in this parliament, and he has shown such an utter want of principle as to satisfy me at least—and I think to satisfy the people of this country—that he is no longer entitled to the trust they reposed in him.
I have said, Sir, that his political career since 1896 has been characterized by insincerity, deceit and pandering to outside influences. Now, it would be unfair to the right hon. gentleman to make that assertion unless I were able to offer some reliable evidence in support of it. Let me, then, offer to the House a few illustrations to prove the assertions I have made.
Perhaps the greatest question that has engaged the attention of the right hon. gentleman and his government since 1896 is the trade question. When the right hon. gentleman received the suffrages of the people of this country in 1896, and prior to that time, what was his attitude upon that question? I might go almost so far as to say that he was an avowed free trader. He was taken to be a strong advocate of the principle of free trade. I cannot say that he was a champion of free trade—and here comes in the evidence. We all remember the speeches delivered by the right hon. gentleman on that question in the province of Quebec, and also his speeches in the province of Ontario; we know how his speeches in one province differed from his speeches in the other. It is perfectly evident to any one who takes the trouble to read those speeches and consider them that on that important branch of public policy, he was playing a double part and was deceiving the people of this country. When he came into power in 1896, he was not satisfied apparently with the deception that he practiced up to that time; but
4729
when he formed his cabinet, he took into it a gentleman who was before then and who has been since an open advocate on all occasions of the principle of protection. If we are to believe the statements made by that hon. gentleman, when he was taken into the cabinet, it was upon some understanding or arrangement that in the near future legislation would be introduced by the right hon. gentleman tending towards the principles advocated by that minister. Subsequently we found that minister advocating, as he had done before he entered the government, and as I submit he had a perfect right to do, the principles of protection under the arrangement that had been made with him; but we find that the right hon. gentleman was not willing to carry out the promise he had made to his own minister, but played the double act again, and as a result of that duplicity he lost from his cabinet one of the ablest members who has graced it since 1896.
Let me give another illustration. The conduct of the right hon. gentleman was characterized in the same way upon the question of preferential trade. We all know, from his reported speeches delivered during the time he was in England, the position he took upon that question there. We know the speech he made in the city of Toronto when he returned from England, and we recollect the questions that were put to him on that occasion and the answers that he gave. He was charged there with having made speeches in England on that question that were entirely inconsistent with the position that he took before his Toronto audience; and what was his conduct when he was accused in that way? He had the audacity to tell that intelligent audience that when he was speaking in Great Britain, he was only fooling the people there, or, to use his own language, he was only luring them on, thus admitting that he was playing a double game.
Let me proceed a little further in this history. Take the railway policy of the right hon. gentleman, as embodied in the measure brought before this parliament in relation to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. When the right hon. gentleman introduced that Bill into this House, he declared that the agreement made between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was a perfect agreement, and that the Bill he had introduced was one that could not be amended or improved in any particular; and that measure was forced through this House by the power which the right hon. gentleman had behind him. But, Sir, the very same thing characterized his conduct in that important matter as characterized it on the trade question. When it was ascertained that the Grand Trunk Railway Company were not satisfied with the conditions of that agreement, and of that Bill which he had declared to be perfect and unalterable, we find him coming
4730
again to this House and swallowing holus bolus what he had declared, by introducing amendments to that measure—for what purpose? Simply to please the outside influences that were operating upon him. And that was the second occasion on which he refused to listen to the advice of perhaps the ablest minister on that particular subject in his cabinet.
He preferred to ignore the advice given to him by his ministers and to satisfy the outside influence of the Grand Trunk Railway, and upon that second occasion he lost another minister from his cabinet. Let us take another illustration. Look at the position taken by the right hon. gentleman in 1896 upon this very school question. At that time, with all the ability and eloquence at his command, he stood up and proclaimed that the minority of the province of Manitoba should not have remedial legislation at the hands of this government. He was then denying to the people of his own faith, the rights they were clamouring for. To-day he is making a complete right about face upon that important question. While in 1896 he was declaring hands off Manitoba and that the minority should not have separate schools in that province, you find him to-day just as strongly advocating in just as eloquent and forcible language that this parliament shall for all time to come fasten upon these two new provinces the system of separate schools. Again the right hon. gentleman has been playing a double game. Let me ask me why he is playing this double game? What influence is it that is making him do so? It is certainly not the advice of the one minister who above all others should advise him in this particular instance. No, it is due to a pandering to outside influence and a total disregard of that particular minister to whom he should have listened. And upon this, the third occasion, he has lost the most valuable member in his cabinet. So I might go through almost every branch of the government, nearly every particular measure which has come within the attention of this government since 1896, and draw the very same conclusion I have drawn from these two or three matters to which I have referred the House.
But let us take one more instance. We had in 1902-3 in this country a gentleman, a British subject, a soldier who had brought credit to himself and his country, a man who was sent here as the accredited agent or delegate of the Imperial parliament, a man who was charged with the performance in this country of a very great duty; and when that gentleman undertook to advise this government, his reports are said to have been mutilated or pigeon-holed, his advice is said to have been ignored. That was stated on the floor of this House and not denied, and that gentleman, when he found that he could not get the ear of the government and he could not carry out the important duty which he was charged to perform, took the
4731
means he did to call to the attention of the government and the country the fact that he was being ignored, and that the militia force required and should have certain reforms which he indicated. What was the course taken by the right hon. the leader of the government? That man, a British subject and a soldier, was called upon the floor of this House by the right hon. gentleman a stranger and a foreigner and practically exiled from this country. Let me ask what was the conduct of the right hon. gentleman with regard to a certain other stranger and foreigner. We have in our midst now a gentleman against whom I have nothing whatever to say personally, but a gentleman who is not, to begin with, a British subject, who is not charged with the performance of any public duty so far as Canada is concerned, and that gentleman is not only allowed to interfere in the legislation of this country, but he is consulted as to what legislation shall take place. And that man is not called a foreigner and a stranger and is not sent away, but is taken into the bosom of the family, so to speak, and petted and pampered and excuses made for him. There was some excuse, whether Lord Dundonald was right or wrong, for the course he took, but where is the excuse that can be offered to any reasonable man for the treatment of Lord Dundonald in the way in which he was treated by this government and their treatment of Monseigneur Sbarretti. If the hon. gentleman was right in 1896 upon this school question, he must be wrong now. It is not possible for him to take the position he did then and now turn around and take the very opposite and say: I am right all the time. Let me ask you what was the attitude of the influence that was operating upon the hon. gentleman in 1896? Did the church of his faith, when he stood up in this House and defended the doctrine that Manitoba should not have separate schools, throw him out? Did it discard and did it discredit him? Did it say he was wrong then and he ought not to advocate such a course? No, not one word of condemnation, not one word of criticism. Why? I will come to that in a moment. We find him taking exactly the opposite course on this occasion and he could not have been right in both instances. But was that the case? No, just as in 1896, when they refused to condemn him for the course he took then, the church is standing by the right hon. gentleman although he is advocating an entirely different theory. There must be some reason for all that. The reason that appeals to my mind is this. That in 1896 there was some well defined plan, thoroughly understood between those two elements which was to have been worked out at some subsequent date, and I think the evidence before us in the Bills now engaging the attention of the House shows the working out of that proposition.
4732
Now, Sir, when these Bills were introduced in this House there was a spontaneous expression of disappointment. That feeling of disappointment, after all the discussion that has taken place in this House, after all the discussion that has taken place through the public press has not downed at all, but has been growing and growing until it is a perfect chorus of condemnation of this measure from one end of this Dominion to the other. There is a general outcry against the injustice that will be done these new provinces by imposing upon them the system of separate schools provided for in these measures. There is an outcry at the injustice that will be done by binding and shackling the people in these new provinces by a system of education that is not agreeable to their wishes. These mutterings that we first heard in this House upon the introduction of these Bills have grown and will continue to grow, I verily believe, notwithstanding the passing of these measures by the force behind the right hon. Prime Minister. These mutterings will increase and grow, and there will be no possibility of there being perfect rest and a feeling of perfect freedom, unless this government shall see fit, in its wisdom, to withdraw the educational clauses of these Bills and allow these provinces to legislate on that subject as to them seems meet and just. And, now, Sir, this feeling of disappointment has been expressed by the press of this country, the greatest of all powers not only for the expression but for the formation of public opinion. The majority of the press have condemned these educational clauses. Resolutions have been passed by public meetings held in many places throughout the Dominion condemning this legislation. There have been pulpit discourses from almost every religious denomination in condemnation of these clauses. Educational bodies meeting in solemn conclave for the discussion of this matter, have also passed resolutions condemning this legislation. Educationalists, who are especially fitted to judge of this matter, have also announced themselves against this measure in unmistakable terms. And, Sir, hundreds, yes thousands, of the very best people in the Dominion of Canada have expressed the same sentiment by the petitions that have been presented from day to day to this House. And hon. members in this House have been endeavouring, for days and weeks to convince this government that the legislation proposed under these Bills is not in the interest of the new provinces. Now, Sir, can it be possible that all these bodies, all these persons, all these petitioners, and the great majority of the public press—that all these are wrong upon this question? Is it possible that only the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the influences under which he is acting are right? Is the intelligence of the right hon. gentleman upon this question so heaven born, is his knowledge
4733
edge so divinely inspired, that it is impossible for him to be wrong?
Mr. DANIEL. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a quorum present in the House.
Mr. SPEAKER. There is a quorum.
Mr. PORTER. Such a denial of the will of the people as that of the Prime Minister expressed in the manner in which it has been expressed is, to my mind, subversive of the very first principle of freedom and is a direct blow at the constitution of our country. I have hoped since the introduction of these Bills, that, observing the strong feeling of disapproval throughout the country in regard to them, the government would see fit to withdraw or alter these clauses in the Bill, to modify them so as to enable every hon. gentleman in this House to support the measure granting provincial rights to these two provinces so that on the first day of July next, when these Bills are intended to come into force and effect, there would be genuine cause for universal rejoicing at the birth of these two new provinces. But, Sir, if we make the mistake now of inflicting upon these provinces the system of separate schools intended by these Bills, we shall be doing an Act—and it is important for each of us to consider this—which is irrevocable, we shall inflict a burden upon these provinces which cannot be removed for all time to come. If we recognize in these Bills the right of the church to interfere in matters of state, especially in so important a matter as the education of the youth, if we set up the principle of separating or isolating different portions of the youth and preventing them from growing up together which is so necessary to the growth of a common interest and a common sentiment which alone can build up a young country like Canada, we shall be doing an injustice, which, I think, every member of this House will sooner or later regret. Let us, if possible, avoid that condition of affairs. If these new provinces, if any part of these Territories, see fit to inflict upon themselves a system of separate schools, that is their own business—it is their own misfortune.
Sir, I have been surprised at some of the arguments addressed by hon. members on the government side of the House as a reason why these Bills in their present form should be supported by this House. Some hon. members have gone so far as to say that the passage of these Bills in one form or their defeat in another might mean the defeat of this government, that it might mean the driving from power of the right hon. gentleman himself. For my part, I think it would be a thousand times better that this government should go down to defeat, a thousand times better that the right hon. gentleman should be driven from power, than that this parliament should inflict an injustice, however small, upon these new
4734
provinces upon this the day of their birth. The sentiment expressed in regard to the defeat of the government or the driving of the right hon. gentleman from power is a fallacious sentiment. It is cowardly, it is unpatriotic, and I hope that no hon. gentleman in this House will hide himself upon the vote on this question behind any such subterfuge as this. Since the introduction of these Bills a great change has come over some of the government supporters. It is pretty evident that the right hon. gentleman, with the cat-o’-nine tails in his hand, has been able to whip his followers into line upon this question, but I venture to think the right hon. gentleman will waken up one of these days to the fact that he cannot, with the whip in his hand, whip the Dominion of Canada into line, and I believe the people of this country will wrest that power from the right hon. gentleman and will administer such a castigation as the insincerity displayed by the right hon. gentleman in this matter so richly deserves, and as the dominating powers have brought upon him. It is a well-recognized principle of legislation in all civilized communities, and one that I have never heard questioned, that all legislation should be so directed as to do the greatest good for the greatest number, and liberty is the boasted bulwark of the British constitution. I do not believe that by such legislation as that now before us the principle I have enunciated can be maintained, nor can liberty be upheld if we are legislating for a class as against the mass, or asserting the principle of coercion as against the principle of liberty. I have taken some pains to read the constitution and the constitutional history of this country, and while I acknowledge the fact that lawyers will differ, perhaps the view of this matter that has appealed to me will be such that some hon. members or the public will be able to gain some knowledge from it. I have searched the constitution in vain to find one word, clause or paragraph that makes it incumbent upon this parliament to legislate in regard to education in these new provinces. Especially is this so in the initiatory stages of this legislation. But, Sir, I find that there is a prohibition contained in the words in the 93rd section of the British North America Act, where it says that:
The legislatures may exclusively make laws in regard to education subject to the qualifications therein set forth.
I want to point out that while we may differ in regard to the right of this parliament to legislate upon this subject, there is no obligation upon this parliament to do so. What is the position in regard to the local legislatures? While the constitution, so far as this parliament is concerned, leaves it in the position of a doubtful right and imposes no obligation; in regard to the local legislatures, there is not only an undoubted right, but an obligation, too. What would
4735
be the duty of this parliament under those conditions? Here is one parliament completely clothed with an authority to legislate in regard to this subject. On the other hand, this parliament, which is attempting to deal with this matter, has at most only a doubtful right, and it has no obligation at all. It appears to me that the wise, just and fair course would be for this parliament not to interfere, but to leave it to that other legislature which has complete jurisdiction in the matter. Why is this parliament to assume a doubtful right and to impose unnecessary obligations upon itself simply for the purpose of depriving the legislatures of their undoubted right and their obligation? I must say that I have implicit confidence in the people of these two new provinces, I have perfect confidence that they will, when the time comes elect to their local legislatures men of integrity, men of wisdom, who, when the time arrives for legislation upon this subject, will be wanting neither in courage nor in toleration to pass such legislation and enact such measures as will ensure to the whole people of those two new provinces equal rights of civil and religious liberty. Another point to which I desire to call the attention of the House is the right of appeal that is provided by the British North America Act and which is retained by this parliament. A consideration of that right of appeal will lead to the conclusion that initiative legislation in regard to educational matters was intended to begin, and should begin with the local legislatures. The constitution provides that there should be a right of appeal for the minority. What does that right of appeal mean? Is it limited in any way? It is not limited, because it assumes that there shall be that right of appeal where there is legislation against any right or privilege of the minority. Here we have legislation affecting a right or privilege of a minority. The right of appeal could never be intended to mean an appeal from this parliament back to this parliament again. As I understand the right of appeal, and as I think every hon. gentleman in this House will understand it, it means the right to take any matter in controversy from an inferior to a superior tribunal.
Now, we are enacting legislation here in these Bills affecting a right or privilege and the constitution says there shall be an appeal in regard to that right or privilege. How are the minority in the Northwest Territories going to employ the right of appeal? Is there any right of appeal after we pass this legislation? There is not, because when the minority of these two provinces apply to the legislature to remedy what has been passed here and to set right what has been made wrong against their rights and privileges, they find that the local legislature has no power to deal with the question. Then they turn to this parliament. Is there a right to appeal here? This
4736
parliament have initiated this legislation, can they come here with any hope of having that legislation disturbed? I think they will be coming here upon a fool’s errand, so to speak, and therefore that being the case I conclude that by this legislation the greatest safeguard we have secured by the British North America Act, namely, the right to appeal against legislation concerning a right or privilege in regard to education, is entirely taken away from the minority of these provinces. For that reason I again say that an injustice will be done to the minority if this legislation is passed. In regard to that matter it has been argued here that under the ordinances of the Northwest Territories the people there have acquired certain rights which have been referred to by hon. gentlemen discussing the question as vested rights. I want to look at that for a few moments. Just at the outset I would ask any hon. gentleman who entertains the idea that unless these Bills are passed in the form in which they are presented to the House these vested rights are going to be swept away to strike out of this Bill every word and every clause relating to education, then read the Bill and see if there is one word or sentence that prohibits the establishment of separate schools in these two provinces. He will look in vain for such. There is not a single enactment, or word, or phrase that would prohibit the establishment of separate schools. It is not so in regard to the majority. These Acts are prohibitive as far as they concern the majority these Acts say to the majority of the people in those new provinces: Thou shalt not, to use a scriptural phrase, but you shall establish a certain system of schools in spite of yourselves, no matter what your wishes or desires may be in the matter. It appears to me that it is no more necessary to have this provision in these Bills to protect the rights of the minority in these new provinces than it is to have a clause in these Bills protecting the rights of the majority and I cannot see, in view of what I have already said as to my view of the constitution in regard to that matter, that there is any necessity for it one way or the other.
Now, let me go a step farther in regard to that. What are these rights? Is the maintenance of separate schools in these provinces a right that has been acquired or is it a right that is to be acquired permanently? It is an acknowledged principle of law that I think no lawyer will contradict or dispute that a right cannot be acquired against a superior right so long as there is notice and there has been no abrogation of that superior right. Now, in this particular case under discussion, we have both the notice, we have the superior rights and we have no abrogation of those rights. What are those superior rights? First the right to erect or to create portions of the North-
4737
west Territories into provinces, and secondly, when they are erected or created into provinces these provinces shall have the exclusive right to legislate in regard to education. These are the superior rights granted under the constitution to the people who went into those Territories. Both of these superior rights are guaranteed by the constitution. That constitution is actual notice not only to the people of Canada, but it is actual notice to the people of all the world. Any person going into the Northwest Territories with that provision of the law staring him in the face must be taken to have gone into that country consenting to the conditions therein laid down. He has full notice of what his rights are, he has full notice of what his rights will be when those Territories are created into provinces, but he has no notice as to what will take place in the interval. But when these Territories are erected into provinces he has actual notice, he has notice that the people of those provinces shall enjoy these superior rights and he knows too that unless there is an abrogation of these rights, a giving of them up, these rights shall continue. Now, having that notice and knowing what the conditions are when they are erected into provinces, what right have a portion of the people of those Territories to say that in the interval they will acquire certain vested rights which will cut out the superior rights of some of their fellow-citizens there? The position, it appears to me, is not tenable; it is not one that can be fairly argued. Both parties, Roman Catholics and Protestants, start in there upon a fair footing, upon an even footing, knowing exactly what the conditions are and what the conditions will be. But, there is this to be said about it, and it bears upon the discussion which has taken place upon this particular point that in the interval between the time at which these people go into the Territories and the time when they are created into provinces some provision must be made for their government and that provision that has to be made in the interval must be made by the Dominion parliament. It has sole jurisdiction as to the subject, but limited jurisdiction as to the time. These people have notice that the parliament of Canada can only legislate during the interval. This parliament, by the constitution which has been adopted, agree with these people that they will only legislate during that interval.
Now then, that being the position, this parliament starts out to legislate, to provide for the government of these Territories in the interval and what do they do? They establish a system of administration of justice, they establish a system in regard to public works, they establish a system in regard to immigration and they establish a system in regard to education. Neither can it be argued that this government
4738
intended, or that the people of these Territories understood, that any one of these provisions should be permanent. If any one is permanent why not all? Why does the government not make provision in these Bills for the immigration policy of these new provinces, or for the administration of justice. If the people, under this legislation which was only of a tentative character, could acquire rights in regard to any one thing, they would have acquired vested rights in regard to all, and that being so, why single out this one particular department and declare what the law shall be in regard to it, and disregard the others altogether. Carrying the argument that length and applying it to every department of the government that this parliament has provided for in these two new provinces, it shows the utter absurdity of the position the government has taken in regard to that one department of education. No injustice will be done to the people of these new provinces by the government taking the position that the legislation passed prior to their becoming provinces was only tentative. It appears to me that where no injustice will be done them, and where they have complete legislative powers themselves to pass legislation such as is suitable to the condition of the people of the country, it is far more fair to these people to allow them to enjoy that position than for this parliament to impose any obligation upon them. Take the Protestant denominations going into these new Territories. They knew perfectly well, and they had the constitution of Canada as security for it, that separate schools would not and could not be imposed upon that portion of the country after it was erected into a province unless the legislature of that province said so. Catholics going into that country knew, and they had the constitution as security for it, that separate schools could be and would be established in these new provinces just as soon as the local legislatures of these provinces saw fit to so enact. There was no uncertainty as to the power of this parliament; there was no uncertainty as to the power of the local legislature; there was no uncertainty as to the rights of the people; the only uncertainty there was, was as to what the legislatures of these new provinces would do when they had the authority placed in their hands. And to guard against any injustice being done by that uncertainty, a clause was put into the constitution providing for this right of appeal in case any rights or privilege of the minority should be violated. But by these measures now before the House, that right of appeal has been taken away and the promise made by the constitution of this country to encourage these people to go into the Northwest Territories until such time as they should be erected into provinces; that guarantee of good faith will be entirely taken away, and these people will have such an injustice
4739
perpetrated upon them that I firmly believe this government will in future regret it. I say that no portion of the people of these two new provinces have any right to ask this parliament, in framing a constitution for the provinces, to provide that there shall be only public or national schools; nor have the Roman Catholics the right to ask that this parliament shall enact that they shall have the right to separate schools. And Why? Because the constitution does not give that right to either class of people. And while the people have no right to make that demand on this parliament, this parliament is bound by the very same principle, and what the people have no right to demand from parliament, this parliament has no right to inflict upon them. I argue from that, that this legislation is not only an infraction of the constitutional rights secured to the people of these provinces, but it is placing an obligation upon this parliament which it ought not to assume. Another reason why this government should not be asked to initiate legislation on this subject is, that it would be perfectly just and competent for them to say: we may have to sit in appeal upon whatever legislation may be enacted in these new provinces, and therefore it would not be fair for us to express our opinion in legislation beforehand. If these Bills are passed the government cannot take that position, and that shows again that the right of appeal has been taken away or interfered with by this legislation. After all, the question is not whether these provinces shall or shall not have separate schools; the question is: shall this parliament interfere with the educational rights of the provinces. I concur in the opinion expressed by my honoured leader; I venture to think that the subsequent legislation has in no manner changed the position which I have argued prevails under the British North America Act. Take the Manitoba Act of 1870 or the confirmatory Act of 1871. It may be observed that that legislation was passed under very exceptional circumstances. It was passed owing to conditions prevailing in that province at that time, and I might say passed by agreement between the people of Manitoba and this government.
Now, no such conditions as existed in that province exist in regard to these two new provinces. The right hon. leader of the government, when introducing these Bills, did not see fit to shelter himself behind the legislation of 1870 or 1871; and perhaps I need not trouble with that more than to say that the Imperial Act of 1871 appears to give unlimited power to this parliament to frame a constitution for a new province; but while that appears to be the effect of that Act, the British North America Act was in full force at that time. Now, that confirmatory Act of 1871 makes no reference whatever to the British North America Act and it cannot be contended that there was any
4740
intention on the part of parliament in passing that Act that the British North America Act should be interfered with. Had there been such intention, some reference would have been made in that Act of 1871 to the British North America Act. That being so what is the position? Here we have the constitution under the British North America Act declaring that the provinces shall have the exclusive right to legislate in regard to education; and we have the Imperial Act of 1871, passed under these exceptional circumstances, and to meet the condition of affairs to which I have already referred, and when it could not have been intended to affect the British North America Act. Granting that these Acts are both of equal force, we have the British North America Act which says you shall give the exclusive right to legislate to these provinces and the Act of 1871 saying you may give these rights or not as you please. Granted that they are both of equal force, what is the fair position that this parliament should take? To carry out the guarantee which these people had under the constitution, or to take advantage of the permissive right which the statute of 1871 gives them? In the constitution it is obligatory; in the Act of 1871 it is only permissive; and for this reason I argue that the fair course to be taken by this parliament would be to say we will observe the obligation which we have entered into with you and will not take advantage of the right we have of denying you your full right of provincial government. Now, when the Act of 1875 was passed, the Act of 1871 was in full force; but we do not find in that Act of 1875 any reference whatever to the Act of 1871; so that that Act of 1875 could not have been based upon the right that was conferred by the Imperial Act of 1871. Such being the case, I conclude that the statute of 1875 offers no warrant whatever for legislation such as the government is pressing through the House now.
Considerable has been said in regard to the provisions of this Bill as it was originally introduced into this House, and the amendments now under discussion, and I want as briefly as possible to treat that subject as it appears to me. At the time of the introduction of this Bill it must have been apparent to any person who gave attention to the matter that whoever had charge of the drafting of the original Bill must have entertained a doubt as to whether the ordinances preserved all the rights and powers that were conferred on the minority by the Territories Act of 1875, under which Act, as the late Minister of the Interior said, there grew up, and was maintained a complete system of separate schools with the dual language, or what may be known as clerical schools, or that the ordinances superseded the provisions of that Act and deprived the minority of their rights to a complete system of separate schools with the two languages. This doubt must have
4741
existed in the mind of the person who drafted the original clauses of this Bill, because, if we look at the Bill as originally drawn, we shall find that the objectionable clause in regard to education has identically the same language as the Act of 1875. So that it is perfectly apparent, no matter what declarations as to intention have been made in this House upon the discussion of this matter, that whoever prepared that Bill intended that all the rights and privileges accorded by the Act of 1875 should be preserved to the minority in these two new provinces; and those rights and privileges, as the late Minister of the Interior says, included a complete system of clerical schools. Now, when dissatisfaction was expressed, and it became so great as I have already pointed out, the right hon. gentleman, no doubt seeing the impossibility of defending such a course as that, either in this parliament or before the country, introduced the amendments now under discussion. The question now arises, do these amendments improve the situation in any respect, or do they preserve to the minority in those two new provinces exactly what was aimed at by the original Bill as drafted and brought down? I have given this question a good deal of consideration, and my firm conviction is that the amendments as they stand to-day will confer upon the minority in those two new provinces just as great and as wide rights as they would have obtained under the clauses of the statute of 1875, and I will tell you why. The amendment now introduced provides, in effect, that nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege conferred upon the minority by the ordinances 29, 30 and 31. Now, what does that mean? I have looked over the ordinances very carefully and can only find one section that confers any right or privilege, and that is section 41, and section 41 confers that right without any limitation whatever. Let me refer to this section in order to be perfectly accurate:
The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish a separate school therein, and in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
Compare the wording of that section with the wording of the Act of 1875:
Protestants and Roman Catholics may establish separate schools therein, and in such latter case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic schools shall be liable only to such assessments of such rates as they may impose upon themselves.
That is identically the language of the ordinance I have quoted. Then comes in this amendment which says:
Nothing in the provincial law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege conferred by such ordinance.
4742
Now the right conferred is to establish separate schools without any limitation of any kind or description, just as the statute of 1875 contained no limit or restriction, and the same rights and privileges will grow up under section 41 as grew up under the latter part of section 14 of the statute of 1875. Hon. gentlemen opposite have argued that section 41 is controlled by the subsequent sections of this ordinance. That contention, I do not think, will bear investigation. They point to section 45 as controlling, but note carefully the wording of section 45:
After the establishment of a separate school district under the provisions of this ordinance, such separate school district and the boards thereof shall possess and exercise all rights, powers, privileges and be subject to the same liabilities—
Not the same limitations.
—as are herein provided in respect of public school districts.
Mr. CAMPBELL. And methods of government.
Mr. PORTER. And methods of government. They are subject to the same liabilities but not to the same limitations, and even if they were, section 41 would be in exact accord with the statute of 1875, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the legislative assembly, but section 45, which cuts that down, would be ultra vires that legislature altogether. So that this amendment, as it now stands, leaves the matter in this shape that the right to establish separate schools, without limitation or restriction, as provided by section 41 of the ordinances, shall be preserved, and it will not be in the powers of the provinces to cut down or prejudicially affect that right. For those reasons I have concluded that under this amendment, these two new provinces will have fixed upon them unalterably, and for all time to come, the same conditions as are enacted by the statute of 1875, which the people of the Territories have tried to get rid of; and having shown their disposition to get rid of that system of clerical schools it seems to me the greatest injustice for this parliament to endeavour to inflict that system upon them.
But apart from the constitutional question altogether, if I had no other reason for opposing those Bills than the fact that the introduction of this subject, which, it appears, cannot be discussed without raising the ill-feeling that has been exhibited, I am sorry to say on more than one occasion during the debate, could just as well have been avoided and the matter left to the provinces to settle for themselves—if there was no other reason for opposing this measure, I would consider that a perfect justification. But if we are not to enjoy that condition of attending to
4743
our own affairs and allowing the provinces to attend to theirs, upon whom should the responsibility rest? It must rest upon the right hon. the First Minister. True, his followers will have to bear a certain share of that responsibility, but to him alone must be left the responsibility of having put his followers in such a position that they are obliged to choose between serving their country or their church, between serving the right hon. gentleman or the people. Upon the question of the advisability of having a system of separate schools in any portion of this Dominion, there is fair room for differences of opinion. We can quite understand why our Roman Catholic friends desire such a system. It is quite natural that I should entertain an entirely different attitude. That I do, there cannot be very much doubt, but I want to point out this. Whether separate schools be right or wrong is not the question before us. Every man has a right to his own religious belief, and I would be the last man to interfere with it. But to observe the laws of God and make laws for good government are two entirely distinct things, and I draw that distinction in this measure. The late Dr. Ryerson, than whom perhaps the country never had a greater educationalist, made use of this language in pointing out a similar distinction:
What ought to be done in regard to religious instruction and what the government ought to require are two different things. Who doubts that public worship should be attended and family worship performed? But does it, therefore, follow that the government is to compel attendance upon the one or the performance of the other? If our government were a despotism it would compel what it pleased, but our government is a constitutional and popular government.
I could not express my views upon that subject more forcibly than Dr. Ryerson has expressed them. And another reason why I am opposed to this system of separate schools is that the conditions do not at present exist in this country that would warrant the establishment and maintenance of such schools. It is, to my mind, very much better, very much more in the interest of the children growing up in this country that there should be a common system, that there should be a mingling of the children that will promote the growth of a common interest and a common sentiment. It is much better that that state of affairs should exist than that we should have a condition that would produce the opposite result. Dr. Ryerson said, speaking of the establishment of separate schools:
In the earliest history of separate schools they were desired to meet peculiar circumstances or extreme cases of neighbourhoods where religious bigotry and party spirit deprived the minority of protection from injustice and oppression.
4744
Now, I venture to think that no such condition of religious bigotry or party spirit exists in any portion of this country as to warrant any section of the people in asking for separate schools to protect them from injustice and oppression. These being the grounds upon which separate schools were originally established, and there being no such condition of affairs existing in this country, I argue that it is not in the best interest of the country as a whole that that system should be continued or that we should enact laws to force such a system upon these new provinces.
There is an additional reason. I put it as matter of time. When you come to look at the time devoted to secular education and the time allowed for religious education, what do you find? You find that in the school week of five days there is a total of thirty hours, cut down by daily recesses to say $27 hours. On the other hand, if you allow ten hours a day for sleep, you have seventy-one hours still left for religious instruction. If $27 hours is sufficient for secular education, surely 71 hours is sufficient for religious instruction. Or carry it a step further and make the comparison on the basis of a year. We find that the school year, taking out vacations and holidays, including Saturdays and Sundays, is about 1,100 hours. This is the time allowed in a year for secular education. And upon the same basis as before what are you allowed for religious instruction? Seven thousand hours—over six times as much time as is allowed for secular education. Looking at the fact that ninety-seven per cent of the children never get beyond the common school, and of that proportion a large number attend school for only a short time, is it not manifestly unfair that the time these young people have to prepare themselves for the battle of life should be cut down by even half an hour a day? Would it not be better that the time for secular education should even be increased rather than diminished? That is why I should say it would be an injustice to the youth to impose this system upon them. We must recognize that there is a duty resting upon the parents and pastors as well as upon the state. The state has recognized very clearly and specifically parental duty. The state, for instance, does not furnish food and clothing for the children, but that leaves that for the parents to do. So, I think, the state should recognize the duty and obligation upon the parent to provide for the religious education of the child. And if the religious education of the child is deficient or wanting in any respect the blame rests upon the parent and upon the pastor—it does not in any way, to my mind, rest upon the state. It seems to me that it would be a very bad position for this country to occupy to make itself the tax-gatherer for the church. In all countries where that has been the case we know the result. The result has been that the people have attained no efficiency in matters of education. It is
4745
a matter of history that in the countries where such an idea has prevailed, the people have grown up in ignorance, and where there is ignorance there is a corresponding amount of slavery. We ought not to impose such conditions upon this new country in the Northwest or any portion of it. I apologize to the House for occupying so much time at this hour of the night, even though I was not allowed to postpone speaking. I shall vote against the educational clause of the Bill. I had hoped that there would have been such amendments that I should have been afforded the pleasure of voting in favour of this measure to establish autonomy for the Northwest, but under the circumstances I cannot do otherwise than vote against it, and so I shall with pleasure support the amendment of the leader of the opposition.
Mr. F. A. LAURENCE (Colchester). Mr. Speaker, I am reminded by the clock in front of me that the night is far spent and that the patience of the members of this House has already been considerably taxed. It would be improper, therefore, for me to prolong the debate this evening beyond a very few minutes, especially as I shall have an opportunity to complete my observations when the discussion is resumed. In offering to address the House upon this subject, important as it is, I have no expectation whatever that I can contribute anything to this debate. I rather seek an opportunity to address myself to the House for the purpose of expressing my views and giving the reasons for the vote which I shall give upon this Bill.
I do so as a duty to myself and as a duty also to the constituents whom I directly represent in this parliament. It is nothing new to say that this is a very important measure. It is important, Sir, from many considerations. It is important because it marks the period when two new provinces are to be admitted to the union of the Dominion of Canada. It is important by reason of the vast extent of those two immense territories which are to be presently erected into two provinces as part of our Dominion. We are informed that each of these provinces will comprise no less an area than 275,000 square miles. The mind of man almost fails to grasp the significance, the vastness, the greatness of these figures. We can only faintly do so, Sir, by comparison, and I may be permitted to say that each of these provinces will be nearly six times as large as the great state of New York, with its population of seven and a quarter millions; each of them will be five times as great in point of area as the large state of Illinois, with its population of 5,000,000; each will be six times as large as the large state of Pennsylvania, with its population of six and a half millions; each of them will be seven times as large as the large state of Indiana, with its population of two and a half millions. In point of fact, each of them is larger in area than the
4746
states of Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Delaware and New Jersey, all combined together. Each of them is twice as large as England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, with their immense population of 42,000,000 people; each of them is much greater than the German empire in Europe, with its population of 56,750,000; each of them is greater far than the republic of France in Europe, with its population of 39,000,000. By a simple comparison of that kind we are enabled to realize the immensity of the heritage which we as Canadians have in our great Northwest. This Bill deals, among other things, with the question of the public lands of these provinces. It proposes to leave them vested in the Dominion, as they are now and have been vested since they were acquired. For myself, I entirely concur with the arguments which were addressed to this House in favour of the proposition that the Dominion of Canada should administer those public lands. I realize, and I am sure every member of the House must realize, the importance of a vigorous, strong and national policy of immigration, in order that this country may grow and prosper. That policy of immigration, Sir, I think ought to be administered by the central authority of our country. Uniformity in the regulations with respect to immigration, uniformity in the price of lands and the conditions and regulations upon which settlers shall be invited to come into this country, is of the highest importance. We cannot permit one province to have regulations and prices and conditions of settlement of its own, inconsistent and at variance with the conditions and regulations and prices of another province. We must have system and uniformity in connection with these things. We must have a progressive policy, such a policy as we have had in the past, under which it is the proud boast of Canadians that our country is growing and prospering so well.
This Bill deals with another question, perhaps not more important, although one would judge by the discussion that has taken place here during the last six weeks, that it is at least quite as interesting—the question of education. This Bill is intended to settle the question of education in the new provinces by making the system now existing there part of the constitution of these provinces. That constitution is as prescribed in the British North America Act, save as to education, and the provisions with regard to education are in entire harmony and consistent with the principles, the spirit, the genius and the intention of the British North America Act. In fixing the constitution of an incoming province, we certainly have not plenary or absolute powers as to jurisdiction. We may not and we cannot disturb the arrangement of these jurisdictional matters prescribed by the British North America Act. We cannot, for example, commit to the provinces the
4747
regulation of trade and commerce, or the right to legislate with respect to indirect taxation, nor can we give them control over the postal service, the military and naval defence of the country, currency or coinage, or the criminal law; as defined in section 91, all of which are committed to the federal parliament. Nor can we, upon the other hand, usurp to ourselves in this parliament the right to legislate upon the subject of direct taxation within the provinces, or in respect to any other of those subjects which are exclusively and especially committed to the provincial legislatures by section 92 of the British North America Act. We have no such thing, as I understand it as absolute and unlimited power in regard to legislation upon the subject of education, either in this parliament or in any provincial legislature of this Dominion. A province may have an absolutely free and non-sectarian system of schools when it enters the union. It may change that system to a denominational system, but, that being once done, it can never change back again without violating the constitution and prejudicially affecting, as it is said, the rights of the minority and giving that minority the right of redress at the hands of this parliament. A province may have a sectarian system of education when it enters the union, and if thereunder the rights of the minority are secured by law, that system can never be altered under our constitution. I think it may be assumed then, in dealing with education, that we have a qualified power, not, however, inconsistent with or contrary to the British North America Act. We have a pregnant illustration of this in the case of Manitoba. The Act of 1870, which admitted that territory as a province into the Dominion of Canada, in respect of education, in a material and important sense varied the conditions and principles of one subsection of section 93 of the British North America Act by incorporating therein the words, ‘or practice.’
These words have an important signification taken in connection with the history and particularly the constitutional history respecting the province of Manitoba. These words are important considered in the light of the two cases, namely, the city of Winnipeg vs. Barrett, in 1891, and Brophy vs. the Attorney General of Manitoba in 1894. These two cases really comprise the constitutional history of the struggle which went on with all its irritation, all its disturbing aspects and phrases and uncomfortable conditions during these years in the history of our Dominion. The system of education in 1870 in Manitoba was a purely denominational or church system and the schools were maintained wholly by voluntary contributions made up from the fees of the parents of the children and of the respective churches interested in these schools. None of these schools was established by law at that time, yet, Sir, so anxious was this
4748
parliament to preserve, continue and perpetuate that system in that province that the words ‘or practice’ were inserted in the Act by which the province of Manitoba was admitted to the union. Not only was the minority guaranteed by the Act which admitted Manitoba to the Dominion of Canada as a province, any sectarian or denominational system of schools which they then had by law, but they were guaranteed the continuance of any system that they might have had by practice, so anxious, I say, was the parliament of Canada to preserve the condition of things which existed at the time that Manitoba was brought in, which shows to my mind the jealous anxiety of this parliament to preserve and perpetuate the system of education that was existing in that country not only by law but by practice. The debates, such as we have of that period, show that this school question was wholly overshadowed by other considerations of more importance, but, Sir, the school question provoked little or no discussion, little or no opposition from any quarter or from either side of the House. While this parliament in the exercise of its right was perpetuating to the people of Manitoba the denominational system of schools which they had when they came into the union, not a voice was raised against the adoption of that principle then, no dissent, no objection whatever, and I apprehend that every man who participated in that debate and who participated in the formation of that province believed that he was carrying out the spirit and true intention of the British North America Act. In 1867, the Roman Catholics of the province of Ontario, then Upper Canada, had a system of separate schools and the Protestants of Lower Canada, at the time of confederation, insisted upon having the same principle incorporated into the compact of confederation. Some persons associate the term ‘separate schools’ with the idea of Roman Catholic schools. It is a mistake, Sir, to so confound the notion of separate schools with the Roman Catholics of this country. Looking at the institution of separate schools from the point of view of the British North America Act it will be seen that they are distinctly and emphatically Protestant schools because it was by the persistence of the Protestants and the representation of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec that the very principle now under discussion in this parliament of the right of the minority to enjoy these schools was incorporated in the Confederation Act. This is no reproach, Sir, to the Protestants and it comes as no shock to me as one of that persuasion to know that it is the case, for I regard it as an expression of a sentiment indicative of liberality, tolerance and respect for the religious convictions of those who cannot agree with us and who cannot see eye to eye with their neighbour. It is the expression Sir, in a word of the golden maxim, ‘Do
4749
unto others as we would have others do unto us.’ The Protestants are the majority in this Dominion and the Roman Catholics the minority. Let it never be said to the disgrace, the discredit and the shame of the majority that they only respect this principle when it works to their advantage, and that they are unwilling to admit its operation when it is sought by others.
I was referring, Mr. Speaker, to the history of this question in relation to Manitoba. In 1870, there existed in Manitoba a system of purely voluntary schools. They were entirely denominational, some maintained by the Roman Catholics and some by the Protestants, but all supported by fees paid by the parents of the children who attended them and by the several churches to which these schools appertained. One short year after the creation of the province in 1871, a law was passed by Manitoba establishing a system of denominational schools. A Board of Education composed of two sections was constituted, one-half Protestants and one-half Roman Catholics and the province was divided into twelve Protestant districts and twelve Catholic districts. Nothing could be fairer than this equal division as between the two denominations. This system was maintained until 1890 when the policy of the preceding nineteen years was reversed and the denominational system of schools swept away. The Public Schools Act of 1890 provided that all schools be free schools, all were declared non-sectarian and no school not conforming to this Act and to the regulations of the Department of Education could participate in state funds. Such was the legislation down to 1890. In 1891, the minority, chafing under this condition had recourse to the courts and to litigation and we have then the irritation, the agitation, the painful disquiet which has lasted in this country during six long years down to 1896. I am reminded that I am already trespassing upon the promise I made and if agreeable to the House and if I am in order I will move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 1.15 a.m., Tuesday.