Document Information
Date: 1905-04-05
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 3893-3937.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
3893
….
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfried 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. URIAH WILSON (Lennox and Addington). Mr. Speaker, the Bill now under discussion is one of the most important measures that have come before this House since I have had the honour of a seat in it, and I feel that it is my duty to have somethings to say upon it, representing as I do one of the old rural constituencies of the province of Ontario. For many years no Bill has attracted so much public attention as this Bill, perhaps more especially because of the school clause contained in it. But before I come to the school clause, I want to say a few words about the division of the Territory that has been made by the government. In the first place, I think the government, before the last general election, fully intended to divide the Northwest Territories and give them provincial autonomy, and it seems to me that it was their duty to have said something to the public on the subject, so that the public would have had some understanding of the measure, instead of having to go it blind, as they did on that occasion. I am quite sure that if the details of the Bill had been known to the people, there are a good many constituencies both in the province of Ontario and in the western country that would have been very differently represented in this House from what they are now. There was some correspondence, I believe, with Mr. Haultain, the Prime Minister of the Territories, but, so far as I have been able to learn, there was not one word in that correspondence with reference to the details of the Bill, although there was a promise that at this session of parliament a Bill would be introduced granting autonomy to the Northwest provinces. I am not at all disposed
3894
to agree with the government in the division they have made, creating two provinces out of the Northwest Territories and leaving Manitoba with its present area. I think that it is most unfair to the province of Manitoba, which, if left as it is at present, will be crippled for all time to come. Manitoba being the oldest province of that western country ought to exercise its full proportion of influence in the Dominion, which it can never do if it is, as it were, simply a postage stamp on the map of Canada. I have heard accusations made against the government—and I do not like to say harsh things unless I am positive they are true; but a good deal has been said about the course pursued by Manitoba with regard to separate schools having something to do with her not being able to get her territory enlarged. There is no doubt that the province of Manitoba should be enlarged and very greatly enlarged. If the government had considered Manitoba and the Northwest Territories together, and had formed them into two provinces instead of three, it would have been a far better arrangement.
Not only that, but they would not have been unduly large if we had made two provinces of what are now three, or will be after the 1st July, should these Bills carry. The two new provinces contain 500,000 miles, and if we added to them the 73,000 miles that Manitoba contains, that would simply make 573,000 miles altogether. Divide that by two, and you would have two provinces, each with 286,500 miles, as compared with British Columbia, which has 372,620 miles, Quebec, which has 351,873, and Ontario, 260,862 miles. You can easily see, therefore, that if the government had taken into consideration the desirability of having only two provinces instead of three, neither of the two would have been unduly large. Then consider what an amount of money would have been saved by this means. In fact, the complaint in this country for a great many years has been that we have too much government and that our people are paying too much for government. I think it is pretty generally conceded that it would be to the advantage of the maritime provinces to have only one local government instead of three. If that were the case, they would be quite as strong, or even stronger in this House, than they are now, as three separate provinces each with its own administration. When dealing with the Northwest Territories, the government should have had a view to the future and have taken warning by the experience of the maritime provinces. Instead of having the small province of Manitoba and two other large provinces, we could then have two fairly large provinces. But in consequence of the policy of the government, the province of Manitoba will always be inferior to the others.
3895
I have no particular fault to find with the $50,000 given for the support of the government and legislature in each of the new provinces, or the 80 cents per head on the estimated population of 250,000. I think perhaps that these grants are fairly reasonable, and I do not suppose there is a man in this House who would want to deal by these provinces in any other way than fairly and squarely and with the view of assisting them in every possible manner. But I am entirely opposed to the policy of the government with reference to the lands. The lands naturally belong to the provinces. In agreeing to pay each of the provinces a certain amount for its lands, we really concede that they belong to them. The only plea I have heard why the lands are not given to the provinces is that that would interfere with our immigration policy. With that view I entirely disagree. I have taken pains to find out what arrangements were made with the older provinces with regard to immigration, and I find that there has been no difficulty experienced in bringing immigrants to this country and locating them wherever the government thought best. Is it likely that the new provinces, which will be deeply interested in attracting settlers, would not be as much alive to the necessity of getting in population as possibly can be the Dominion government? It seems to me that the provinces could administer their own public lands better than we can and would be more interested in securing a good class of settlers. I have had occasion to speak several times with reference to the immigration into Canada, and the fault I have found is not that we are getting too many immigrants, but too many of an inferior class. Only the other day, the Ontario inspector of asylums said that in the Brockville Lunatic Asylum, out of the six hundred lunatics, sixty were immigrants, or ten per cent of the whole, which is entirely out of proportion to the number of immigrants located in that section of the country. It is not necessary for me to go into the details of the amounts that have been realized by the Dominion government from time to time on the sale of public lands, but I will content myself with saying that I am entirely opposed to the policy of the Dominion keeping these lands. I think it would be better to at once hand them over to the provinces and let the provinces administer them as they see fit. Let me give here the figures showing what we have received from the sale of lands, and I take those which were given by my hon. friend from Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) the other day. They will be found in his speech on page 3607 of ‘Hansard.’ From 1870 to 1880, the administration of Crown lands in Manitoba and the Northwest cost $1,244,499.34 in excess of receipts. In the years 1881 to 1890 the accounts show $753,576.53 in excess of revenue. In the years
3896
from 1891 to 1900 there was again an excess of expenditure amounting to $184,398.95. In the years from 1901 to 1904, there was an excess of expenditure over receipts of $11,733.49. Taking the whole period from 1870 up to date, therefore, the administration of lands in the Northwest has cost this Dominion $687,055.25 in excess of receipts, to which must be added refunds amounting to $329,950, making a total of $1,017,005.25 of deficit. I fail to see how the government arrived at the amount they could give as a payment for these lands. They claim that there are twenty-five millions of acres of land to each province, which are worth $37,500,000, and on which of course they pay interest from time to time until it reaches a certain amount. I do not see why the government took it into their heads to keep these lands when it costs more to administer them than we are getting out of them. I hope that the government will reconsider this question, but I can quite understand why the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) should have declared that he was perfectly willing to accept this arrangement provided the government kept the lands for the settlers. We can quite understand that position. The province gets the benefit of the lands inasmuch as it gets the people who settle on them, and it gets the money besides, while we are giving away our lands from time to time, but continuing for all time to pay that subsidy.
There is another point. The right hon. the First Minister based his whole argument for submitting this legislation to the House, especially clause 16 dealing with separate schools, on constitutional grounds. If I understood him rightly, he claimed that he had to do this because the constitution demanded it. That is not the way, Sir, that I understand the constitution, and I do not think that is the way this House understands it. Not only that but I think he used synonymously the names ‘province’ and ‘territory.’ He used the words ‘province’ and ‘territory’ as if they were synonyms. I can quite understand that if these had been provinces it might have been that we would have had to give these rights but as they are territories I think it is quite different. We have been trying for a good while to induce Newfoundland to come into the Dominion. We have been anxious at times for this and I think we would be glad at any time to have her come in because that would round off the Dominion, and it is a province which we very much desire to have. If it had been a territory we would not have had to ask their consent; we would simply have brought them in under the constitution. That is what we are doing, as I understand, with the provinces in the west. We are not obliged to ask their consent to bring them in; we simply pass an Act and they come in of necessity and we give them such terms as the constitution provides unless we see fit
3897
to give them extra terms by the legislation of this House. The thing that is important in this matter is that whatever Act we pass now, so far as I have understood the debate will be permanent so far as this parliament is concerned, and any change that is made will have to be made by the imperial parliament. It is important, therefore, that we should go slowly; and it is very important that this should be debated from every standpoint, because if we make a mistake now it will be a lasting mistake. The Prime Minister when he brought this Bill down said that there were four subjects which dominated all the others. The first was:
How many provinces should be admitted into the confederation coming from the Northwest Territories—one, or two or more?
They have decided on two, and have apparently decided to leave Manitoba as it is, so far as any extension west is concerned.
Then the next question was:
In whom should be vested the ownership of the public lands?
They decided that they would keep the land. The only advantage I can see in their keeping the lands is that they will be able to use them for political influence. It will not be any advantage to us from a financial or any other standpoint.
What should be the financial terms to be granted to these new provinces?
They have been liberal, but I certainly would not have complained of that if they had not kept the lands and then the premier said:
And the fourth and not the least important by any means was the question of the school system which would be introduced—not introduced because it was introduced long ago, but should be continued in the Territories.
That I think is where the premier made a mistake; that is where he talks of these Territories as though they were provinces and as though we were bound to retain these Acts with reference to separate schools in the Territories just as if they had been provinces. If I understood the legal arguments which have been advanced in this House at all, I think that does not apply. Then, Sir, we had a speech from the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) on the constitutional side of the question, and I think that every one who heard that speech and every one who has read it will concede that he really put the Prime Minister out of business so far as the constitutional aspect of the case is concerned. I fully expected that when our leader had finished speaking they would have put up the Minister of Justice to answer him and certainly they would have done so if the contention of the First Minister had been right because then the Minister of Justice would have been able to down our leader, but he is not easily downed. To my great surprise they put up the
3898
Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and I was further surprised by the admissions he made. He differed entirely from the very beginning with his leader. He said:
My right hon. friend the First Minister has not declared that it is not within the power of this parliament to make a change. He has not declared that there is any legal or binding obligation resting on the parliament of Canada to re-enact the clauses of the Act of 1875.
I think that is exactly opposed to what the leader of the government contended for, and I think that if the leader of the government had felt that he was strong in his position after he had heard the speech of the hon. member for Carleton who leads the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) he certainly would have answered him in like manner, that is, he would have appointed a legal gentleman to answer the opposition leader. I find also that the Minister of Finance is not in favour of separate schools. He said that if he had had his way personally, speaking for himself he would not go in for separate schools, he would leave that word ‘separate’ out of all schools. Then he went on to tell us that they had no separate schools by law in Nova Scotia, and he said that this was owing to the good fellowship that existed between the people there, because they divided up. Where there was a strong minority they had their schools, they had their teachers, I believe with the same examination as those for public schools, but although they had not a separate school by-law they had by the consent of the majority in that province. I am strongly of opinion that this Bill which has been introduced will not tend to make it easier to have separate schools in the western provinces than it would have been to have them without it. My own impression is that when you try to force a man to do something he does not want to do you will have a good deal of difficulty in making him do it. I understood the hon. gentlemen who have spoken to tell us that they have had no difficulty in the last few years with reference to separate schools. If that is the case I do not see why they want this enactment. The separate schools do not appear to have been a great success in that country anyway. I believe there are only about a dozen of them all told, nine Roman Catholic and two or three Protestant. These Protestant schools are as much separate schools, I presume, as the others.
I took some notes of what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) and I was astonished at the state of things existing in that country. I was especially surprised at his construing of the Act now before the House.
We are proposing to make these people fully responsible for their own self-government in the important matters of education, public works and all affairs of internal development.
The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) seemed to think that there was
3899
no difference between the public schools of that country and the separate schools. Well there seems to be a difference according to the gentleman who spoke last night, a slight difference at least. The hon. member (Mr. Scott) found a good deal of fault with the headlines that are published in some newspapers in Ontario. For instance:
A free west, a common school, provincial rights and religious equality.
He did not seem to think that was a good thing to publish in any part of this country. I think they are sentiments that even he might endorse although he may support this Bill, if he does I am of opinion that he will not be voting for all these sentiments. He seems to differ with me. He says:
Articles and inflammatory cartoons under that motto have led the innocent citizens to believe that the proposals of the government are entirely in the teeth of this motto. I say that every item proposed by the government is in strict observance of these principles. . . . A common school—that is just what we are asked to vote for in this proposition; a non-sectarian school, absolutely under state control. A free west—that is a reasonably free west; just as free as Ontario.
Now, if it is no freer than Ontario, it has to have separate schools, because by the constitution which we have we are bound to maintain separate schools, but we do not maintain them in every part of the country. I am proud to say that I live in a town where we do not have any separate schools. We had a separate school a good many years ago, but the people got tired of it, and away back in 1875, before the law compelled us to put a Roman Catholic on the high school board, by common consent the town council, of which I had the honour of being a member, asked the Roman Catholics to name a man to represent them on the high school board. He was put on, and I think he has been a member of the school board ever since. We employ a certain number of Roman Catholic teachers in our schools, and we have had no trouble whatever, we have lived in peace and harmony, which is the kind of thing I would like to see all over this country. I think when our boys and girls grow up and attend school together, they come to know one another, and they forget for the time being what particular sect each one may belong to. They grow up to respect one another, and to live together as Christian people ought to live, in my judgment. A free common school under state control is what my hon. friend calls it. Then the hon. member for Beauharnois asked the question:
Mr. BERGERON. What is the difference between the two schools then?
Mr. SCOTT. Not any difference, only the one I have mentioned.
Mr. BERGERON. Where is the separate school then?
3900
Mr. SCOTT. It is certainly a separate school, though it is not a religious school.
Mr. BERGERON. It may be in a different building, but it is the same school.
Mr. SCOTT. It is the same class of school.
Now the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) spoke last night, and he said:
The only difference is that in the first and second readers the text is a little different, but even these books have to be authorized by the Minister of Education. There is no church or clerical control in any shape, form or manner over the Catholic schools in the Northwest Territories to-day.
Now we have one gentleman saying there is no difference whatever, and another gentleman admitting that there is a difference in the two first books that the children use. And there may be others. Then the hon. gentleman quoted some things, and I have not been able to understand why he quoted them, unless it was to obtain the good opinion of his leader; because there is a vacancy in the cabinet, we have no Minister of the Interior at the present time, and as a matter of course they will have to take a man from the west. I do not object to the hon. gentleman if he can get the position, but I fear he will have a good deal of trouble in getting elected. Now he said:
I have a communication from an important body, the Baptist convention of Manitoba and the Territories, the third clause of which is as follows:
This is a scheme which will promote discord and defeat one of the main purposes of public school education, which is the unification of all classes. A confederation cannot be sound in which the elements lack the first essential of harmony.
Now, why he should quote that communication as a reason for voting for the Bill, I cannot understand, because if I had a communication like that sent to me I would think that they wanted me to vote the other way. But I noticed that after he got through his leader went up and shook hands with him, and I wondered whether it was on account of the amount of scrap book material he used, or on account of his independence of the people he represented. Again he said:
Another petition very largely signed contains the following:
We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully urge you to use all influence you may have against the separate school clause in the Bill now before parliament.
That is another reason why he should vote for that Bill.
In a petition dated March 7th, from the Ministerial Association of Winnipeg, the second clause reads as follows:
Whereas the rights of the minority are sufficiently protected by the British North America Act in any particular case.
3901
That is another reason he gave for supporting the Bill. For myself I do not see anything in any of these petitions that would induce any member of this House to support the Bill before parliament at the present time; I think the very reverse is the case. I said in the beginning that this Bill had caused more contention than any other Bill that has been before this House since I have had the honour of a seat in it, and I think that is true. We had notice to-day from a gentleman in this House that there was going to be a large number of public meetings all over this country in the near future. There was a large public meeting in Toronto a few days ago, a good many speakers took part, and I judge from what I see reported that they were all Liberals except one, and he was an independent, I suppose, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy). He said he was an independent, and I am bound to take his word for it. The gentleman who occupied the chair at that meeting is a Liberal, I think no person who lives in Toronto and knows anything about the public men there will dispute that he is a Liberal of the Liberals. I refer to Mr. Stapleton Caldecott. He said himself before the meeting was over that as Paul called himself, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, so he, Mr. Caldecott, was a Grit of the Grits. He is reported to have said:
We must make no mistake, and if we pass the clause as brought before us by Sir Wilfrid Laurier we should make a most tremendous mistake. (Hear, hear). What he proposes is open to most serious objection, and for myself, with my previous admiration for this man, giving him my hearty service as a model statesman, for the moment I have lost my respect for his judgment. (Hear, hear). He has sought, almost in an indecent manner, to thrust upon this people a piece of legislation they will never submit to. What have our Ontario cabinet ministers been doing in the meanwhile? (Hear, hear). What is the reason for their silence? Are we to take it that they are in favour of the proposal?
Well, Sir, the Minister of Customs took a fling at that gentleman, he said he did not think the First Minister would suffer much because he had lost the respect of that gentleman, but he did not respect Mr. Caldecott’s judgment because, he said, a man who knew anything about parliamentary practice would know that if a minister stays in a government he must agree with the doings of that government. Well, there was another gentleman who spoke at that meeting, the hon. member for North Simcoe, (Mr. Leighton McCarthy) and let me read what he said:
Since the date of the introduction of these Bills, there has arisen a huge wave of public opinion, and would you believe it? It has reached as far as Ottawa, it was wafted there in some particular way, it has caused much
3902
excitement—acute situations, resignations have taken place, and rumors of more.
Now, Mr. Speaker, under that state of things, Mr. Caldecott must not be blamed much if he did not know exactly where the Ontario ministers were of the opinion that they did not know themselves exactly where they were at first. After this Bill was introduced, any person looking over on to the other side of the House could see that there was pretty general confusion everywhere, and I think if a vote had been taken then, we would have had no Liberal government at the present time. But when the shepherd got back, you know, and when they changed the wording of the clause without changing the meaning, as a matter of course they had an excuse to come back. That is all it amounted to.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Are you not sorry that you did not have to vote then?
Mr. U. WILSON. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Centre York will be glad at the next election if there are a good many men in this riding who will not have votes. You may fool them once or twice, but you cannot fool them all the time. You remember that the hon. gentleman got in once on higher duties on vegetables. Then he got out of that by saying that he could not induce the government to do what he wanted them to do. I do not know what he will do the next time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. He is here any way.
Mr. WILSON. That is about as good an argument as the right hon. First Minister once gave us when he said: We are here, and you are there; what are you going to do about it?
Mr. CAMPBELL. What did you do about it?
Mr. U. WILSON. We ran again and got beaten. There was another gentleman at that meeting, Dr. Goggin, who made a very strong speech. Some say he is a Tory and some say he is a Liberal. I do not know what he was or what he is, but I will read an extract from what he said, as follows:
I take it that we meet here to-night as a body of Liberals, intent upon setting before our party our views on this subject, whether they be right or wrong. This I believe is one of the qualifications of a good party man. We are not here as a body of Conservatives intent upon making capital for ourselves. We are not here as a body of Orangemen trying to arrest Romanism.
It is most unfortunate that the question was ever raised. The responsibility for the state of the public opinion now existing in the west does not rest upon the people of Ontario, or of any other province, but upon that fraction of the cabinet at Ottawa who manufactured those educational clauses for the people of the Dominion without the knowledge of those members of the cabinet most concerned therewith.
3903
I ought to have said, perhaps, earlier in my speech that I am strongly of the opinion that had the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) been here we certainly would not have seen the Bill we have seen introduced into this House. I think we never would have seen these educational clauses in it. It seems to me that if the right hon. First Minister had been well advised, and I am afraid he was not, these clauses would have been left out and the constitution that the British North America Act provides for these provinces would have gone into operation without any let or hindrance from this parliament. It does seem to me that that would have been the fairest thing to do. We would have saved all this discussion and all this bad feeling. We would not have seen what we are seeing every day here—a debate on a question that we really ought to have nothing to do with because we ought to be willing to give our fellow subjects the same rights as we claim for ourselves. I notice that the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior, the hon. Finance Minister and even some hon. gentlemen from the Northwest have stated that if the decision were left to them whether there should be separate schools or not they would not have them, but rather than have this government go out of office, rather than have the possibility of a Liberal Conservative administration they would bury their principles, have three, or four, or five years in parliament and take the chance of the people forgetting what they have done. It seems to me from the speech made by the hon. Finance Minister in this House that those were the tactics which were pursued in the caucus. When this was brought before the members in caucus they said to them: If you vote us out there will be a general election, you will have all the odium of this Bill and the Tories will beat you; you had better vote for it and stay in.
Now, there was a pretty strong resolution passed at this meeting. I have not heard it read in the House up to this time. It appeared in the Toronto ‘News’ on the 21st March, 1905. I do not suppose I dare mention that name in this House.
At the mass meeting held in the Massey Hall last evening to protest against the school clause of the Autonomy Bill the following resolution was moved by Mr. D. E. Thomson, seconded by Rev. Dr. Milligan, and carried unanimously:
I do not suppose that any one will accuse Dr. Thomson or Dr. Milligan of being Tories. I have the pleasure of an acquaintance with Dr. Milligan and I regard him as a very fine man, but a great Liberal and I am informed that D. E. Thomson is quite as strong a Liberal as Dr. Milligan.
Whereas it is of vital importance to Canada that the new provinces about to be established shall be left free to shape their own educational policy in accordance with the needs of the future, as these shall develop;
3904
Be it therefore resolved, that this meeting emphatically protests against the enactment of section 16 of the present Autonomy Bills, or any other provisions inconsistent with their constitutional freedom in this regard;
Be it further resolved, that, since the electors have had no opportunity to pass upon the principle embodied in the school clauses of the Bills now before parliament, the government should:
(a) Abandon the clauses, or
(b) Appeal to the country on the measure, or
(c) Defer action entirely until after the next general election.
And be it ordered that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Honourable the Prime Minister and to the city members of the House.
That is, in my judgment, a pretty strong resolution to be passed at a public meeting by reformers. I do not care whether they were reformers or not, they were citizens of this country, but the men who moved and seconded this resolution were reformers beyond all doubt. Then, there was Mr. Willison, the editor of the ‘News,’ a great admirer in other days of the present Prime Minister. He wrote his life and, I have no doubt, he gave him as favourable a character as could well be given. I do not wish to detract from it but if he writes another volume it will be a very different volume from those which he has written. I have here quite a number of extracts. I have an extract from a statement of the Hon. David Mills, who was the great constitutional authority of this House at one time and who afterwards occupied a seat on the Supreme Court bench. I have another from a statement by Sir Louis Davies, once a prominent member of the Liberal party in this House, and who has also been elevated to the Supreme Court bench. Both of these gentlemen tell us that when the time comes to create provinces in our great Northwest that will be the time for them as provinces to initiate their own school system. I will not detain the House by reading all of these quotations, but there are one or two that I cannot refrain from giving. My time is about up and I do not intend, as the speeches have generally been long, to follow the bad example that has been set on both sides of the House. This is a comment by the Toronto ‘News’ of 11th March, 1905:
The remedial legislation of 1896 had some warrant in the constitution; the present legislation has none. It is a gratuitous seeking for trouble which could easily be avoided.
That the antagonism to forcing separate schools on the west should come from Liberal sources can easily be understood. The Liberal party is threatened with a far greater disaster than loss of power. It is threatened with the loss of the principles to which it owes its vitality.
The measures now before the people were not in issue in the general election, and parliament has no popular mandate to place them on the statute-book.
I daresay this was written by the gentleman who wrote the life of the Rt. Hon. Sir
3905
Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada. I shall not quote extracts from papers which have been opposed to the Liberal party heretofore; I am reading from the newspapers which have always supported the Liberal party, and if I had time I could read a good many extracts from the ‘Globe’—I was going to say I could read the whole ‘Globe’—denouncing the policy of the government on this question. The ‘Globe,’ in its turn, has been denounced by hon. gentlemen opposite, but their denunciation is because the ‘Globe’ stood by Liberal principles which the Liberal party have recanted. Take the Toronto ‘Saturday Night’; Mr. Sheppard has been for many years a great admirer of the present Liberal leader, and he has said a good many kind things of that right hon. gentleman, but on the 11th of March, 1905, Mr. Sheppard wrote thus:
No legislation is too wild, unpatriotic or indefensible to be regarded as a possibility under a government which repudiates its most solemn professions, and deliberately plots to force upon the people the thing which it came into power pledged to oppose.
Any man who places the will of the priest of his church above the will of the people who made him what he is, can not be trusted. And the hierarchy demands and exacts implicit obedience from its subjects.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have placed before the House some of the views I entertain on this subject. Personally I am strongly opposed to separate schools and have always been. I left my party in 1896, and voted with the present Prime Minister for six months hoist of the Remedial Bill, and I did that against the strong remonstrance of my leader.
An hon. MEMBER. You got into bad company.
Mr. URIAH WILSON. No; the Prime Minister was all right in 1896, but the trouble is that he has changed his principles since, and I can no longer follow him in endeavouring to maintain provincial rights. In 1895, I stood for provincial rights, and I stand for provincial rights to-day. Ever since I was a boy, I have heard the Liberal party fighting for provincial rights, but the Liberal party no longer has that plank in its platform. We all remember the difficulties between Upper and Lower Canada before confederation, when one province wanted representation by population, and the other did not. We remember the difficulties that arose until the crisis came that we could not govern the country properly, and a solution was sought in confederation. Was not the understanding at confederation that every province should be left to do its own business and that the federal parliament should only do the general business of the country. Why is there a change made in that compact now? I say Sir, that as honourable men we are bound to carry out the compact of confederation and to pursue the policy which the fathers of confederation
3906
have laid down as the principles of the constitution of our country.
Mr. H. S. BELAND (Beauce). Mr. Speaker, I feel satisfied that however long may be my public career in this parliament, I shall never be called upon to address the House of Commons of Canada on a question of greater importance than this. Let me say at the outset of my remarks, which I hope will be brief, that having but slight experience as a debater, having no legal training whatever, I being a physician, and having but a very imperfect command of the English language, I feel that I must crave the indulgence of the House. This subject is one which should be approached with a deep sentiment of patriotism, and with the spirit which animated the illustrious fathers of confederation when they met to endeavour to devise a scheme under which the people of the British possessions in North America might live together in union, happiness and prosperity. It should be gratifying to every true Canadian that in the evolution of our national history we are in this Canadian parliament to-day discussing a measure to create two new provinces in our splendid Northwest domain. The Northwest Territories were discovered long ago by French settlers and French adventurers chiefly. Thirty years ago these Territories had a population of only 500 white people, and it is claimed to-day (and the claim is well founded) that these Territories are now settled by 500,000 frugal, sturdy and industrious people, who are asking to be admitted into confederation and to enjoy the full privileges of statehood and self-government. The years of 1903 and 1905 will go down in Canadian history as memorable years, because they are identified with the introduction into the Canadian parliament of two enactments, the most important in the history of our country—I refer to the creation of provinces in the Northwest Territories with their untold and unimagined possibilities, and the measure providing for the building of the National Transcontinental Railway. When our children and our childrens’ children read the history of these years, they will feel that the venerated statesman who leads the Liberal party, who leads this House, and I make bold to say, who leads this country, has associated his name with two epoch marking events, they will feel Sir, that these measures mark an era in the progress of our country, and that entitle the great statesman who fathered them to rank amongst the foremost patriots of this country of ours.
Now, Sir, many important questions are involved in this Autonomy Bill. And while the question as to the number of provinces to be created, the financial aid to be given them, and the location of the capital, have met with very little criticism, the land and educational clauses of the Bill have excited
3907
much comment; although in my opinion they have received, and are receiving the warmest support of the majority of the people of Canada. Nevertheless the land clause, and especially the educational clause, have encountered very bitter opposition from some quarters.
With regard to the lands, it has been stated by the hon. leader of the opposition, in that very able statement which he presented to us the other day, that it was important and in accordance with the principles of the constitution that the lands of the Northwest Territories should be handed over to the new provinces. Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to that view of the question, because I believe that it is the part of wisdom for this government to retain control of the lands, apart from the consideration which was offered to us the other day by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), that, from the point of view of an effective immigration policy, it was not wise to have two or more governments dealing with it. There is another consideration, and that is the following: The moment you hand over to the new provinces the control of their lands, you leave them face to face with two propositions, which, I believe, are contrary to each other—the creating of a revenue and the maintaining of an efficient immigration policy. The new provinces, if possessed of the lands, would naturally be deprived of the financial aid extended to them by this government in lieu of the lands. They would have to create their revenue from those lands; and the moment you increase the price of land you hamper immigration, while if you want to promote immigration you have to decrease the price of land.
I have heard some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House say that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have the control of their lands. Very true, Mr. Speaker; but the provinces of Ontario and Quebec should not be considered from the same point of view as the Northwest provinces, and I will tell you why. Because there are in those two provinces immense timber limits, from which they derive a very large revenue. In the province of Quebec, during the last year, I think the revenue accruing from the Crown lands amounted to $600,000—not from the sale of lands, but from the stumpage only. The situation is not the same in the Northwest Territories.
There is another point of view from which I think we should withhold the lands from the new provinces, that is the national point of view. In stating this opinion, I may be taxed by some hon. gentlemen with being a Utopist; I may be told that I am dreaming; but let me say frankly what I think. It is obvious to every one who observes the Northwest Territories to-day that the loyal sentiment which prevails there is pure, deep and large, as the stately rivers which run over the endless prairies. But who knows what will be the immigration of
3908
to-morrow? There are to-day half a million people in the Northwest Territories; how many will you find in twenty or thirty years from now? Who can tell? Perhaps two million, perhaps three million, perhaps five million, perhaps ten or twelve million; and as we know that the largest foreign immigration to-day is from the United States, who can assure this House and this country that the control of the legislatures in the two new provinces thirty years from now will not be in the hands of people having a greater interest in the country to the south of the boundary line? And, Mr. Speaker, we shall have, in the control of the lands and in the control of immigration, perhaps not a complete remedy, but certainly a palliative. Hon. gentlemen opposite say to us: Hands off the twins; let them enjoy the greatest liberty; give them all their lands and the largest possible autonomy. Well, I can assure my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), whom I am glad to see in his seat, that in that future time, if he wishes, in order to maintain a loyal sentiment in the Northwest Territories, the services of that Roman Catholic clergy, whom he does not appear to like very much, they will be found as usual ready to support, day and night, through weeks and months and years, the British flag.
Mr. SPROULE. I may tell my hon. friend that, contrary to his opinion or belief, I do not dislike them by any means. I have no feeling of dislike against them.
Mr. BELAND. I am very glad to hear it. Coming to what is known in the country as the educational clause of this Bill, it is a very burning question and a question of very great importance. The agitation which has been aroused over that clause is immense, and we all regret it. That agitation is so intense that we are told that the provincial government of Manitoba, now on its last legs, is seeking to get a new lease of office out of it. Well, the educational clauses of this measure have already been discussed a good deal in this country. They have encountered very bitter opposition from the newspapers, especially in that enlightened city of Toronto, where even men who used to be ranked amongst the foremost Liberals have been outspoken in their opposition to those clauses, and they have also enjoyed the distinction of being made the subject of the censorious tongues of those who adorn the pulpits of this country. There are many points of view from which this important question may be considered. There is the constitutional point of view, there is the provincial autonomy point of view; but whatever may be the reasons invoked in this debate, the main object of those who are making to-day a solid opposition to these educational clauses is nothing else but political capital. Before proceeding further, I must say that I was very much surprised the other night when I heard the eloquent member for West
3909
Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) state in this House that amongst the Protestant population of this country the opinion prevailed that the privileges of the Catholic minority had been called for by them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The educational privileges of the minorities in this country were called for, not by Catholics, but by Protestants. They were called for by Mr. Galt, and I will go further. I will say that the man who had every authority to represent the Catholic population of this country, John Sandfield Macdonald, moved a resolution in the parliament of United Canada asking that the Catholic minority be left in the hands of the Protestants of this country, as they could rely on the good faith of the Protestants—and what was the fate of that motion? It was defeated by a vote of 95 to 8.
You have heard, Sir, on this question constitutional authorities; you have heard men of great legal training; you have had the opportunity of hearing men who are professors in our most reputable universities; and you have also heard men whose profession it is to read themselves in national and international problems. We have had in this House on the constitutional question the spectacle of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government differing with one or two of his ministers, while they all adopted the same course. We have had on the other side of the House the spectacle of the leader of the opposition differing in toto from his first lieutenant, the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I will refrain from going any further into the divergencies we have witnessed in this House regarding the constitutional aspects of the question, and will present on that aspect the point of view of a layman. There are two alternatives, I believe, which confront every member of parliament on this matter. Are these Territories entering confederation today or did they enter the union in the year 1870? You may take whichever view you prefer, but you must adopt the one or the other. Either they entered the union in 1870 or they are going into it today. If they are going into it today, article 93 is very plain:
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
Well, if we take the alternative that the Northwest Territories are going into the union today, it seems to me that this clause should apply, but some hon. gentlemen, I think among them the leader of the opposition, contend that the Territories entered the union in 1870. If they did, what is our position today? Legislation was passed by this parliament in 1875, in the full exercise of its powers, creating in the Northwest Territories a system of separate
3910
schools by which the minorities were to enjoy certain privileges. In pursuance of that law, ordinances were passed in the Territories by which this system of schools was amended over and over again. What then is our position today? Are we going to adopt the views of those who enacted that law of 1875 or are we going to repudiate them? I think that when we know that this parliament in 1875 passed a law conferring upon the Catholic minority certain privileges, and that that law has been amended by the legislature of the Territories in the exercise of its power—and we must admit that it was in the exercise of its power so long as these ordinances have not been repealed by this parliament—I submit that when we know that, our paramount duty is to confirm the legislation passed both by this parliament and the legislature of the Northwest Territories. This is the layman’s point of view. By adopting this course we put an end to interminable judicial disputes; and if only the hon. leader of the opposition had adopted that view, as he seemed to be about to adopt it when the Bill was first introduced into this House, if he had left aside those elements of his party who are opposed to any privilege being given the Catholic minority, if he had said: I will stand with the right hon. gentleman in upholding legislation that this parliament has passed, that men like Sir Alexander McKenzie, Sir John Macdonald, Sir Alexander Campbell, have supported—had he adopted the view of those eminent statesmen, what would be the position today? There would have been no agitation of any importance in this country, we would have buried for ever the old feuds which I say have been a curse to the nation in the past.
There are three systems of schools; first there is the system of separate schools with two boards, each board having the supervision of its schools, the qualification of teachers, text books, inspection and so on. The type of these schools is to be found in the province of Quebec. There is a second system of schools which you call neutral or godless schools. The best illustration of that system of schools is, I believe, to be found in the United States of America. There is a third system of schools which may be called either separate or public schools, which are under one single board, and in which religious instruction is allowed, according to the wishes of the parents. This system, I believe, is the one which is in force in the Northwest at the present moment. The argument of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) the other day was fairly conducted all along the lines that church influence in the schools was prejudicial to their efficiency. He went so far as to say that information which he has gathered permitted him to state that church influence, clerical
3911
schools, in France, for instance, had produced a people of illiterates and atheists. He will likely be disposed to recognize that he has been led into error. In France there are very few atheists; there are a good many free-thinkers—
Mr. SPROULE. I was not expressing an opinion on that at all. I referred to what a French gentleman had told me was the result of that system. I was using his language, not my own, because I am not competent to express an opinion of that kind, never having visited the country and knowing little about it.
Mr. BELAND. That is exactly what I say, that the hon. gentleman had been led into error.
Mr. SPROULE. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that I had said that of France.
Mr. BELAND. No, Mr. Speaker, I said that by some information he had gathered the hon. gentleman had been led into error when he stated that in France there was a large number of atheists. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing this question from the point of view of an advocate of separate schools, nor from the point of view of an advocate of public schools. We are not called upon in this House to say whether we favour the one or the other. We are discussing a Bill which provides for religious instruction in the schools in the Northwest, a system which has been adopted by the Northwest and which is in force now. Our country is a British country, our institutions are modelled after the institutions of Great Britain, and I am very sorry, I deeply regret—I say it sincerely—that the great lines, the illuminated paths which have been set for us in the mother country, are in this debate willingly ignored. Unshakable attachment to all things British, be they military, be they political, be they social, has been boasted of here, especially by hon. gentlemen opposite. It is but a few days since the echoes of this chamber were disturbed by the imperialistic eloquence of my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). In his footsteps we have seen the hon. member from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the hon. member from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), earnestly and honestly, we believe, preaching the rapprochement, closer relations between England and Canada. It is their contention that British institutions are the climax of perfection for a constitutional country. Why in the name of common sense was the British school system not good enough for them? The French Canadian is very devoted to British institutions, and I make bold to say here that if my countrymen, my compatriots in the province of Quebec, were offered to-day the opportunity to sever their connection
3912
from Great Britain, if they were offered independence, if they were offered annexation, if they were offered French allegiance, I have not the slightest hesitancy to say they would squarely refuse and remain faithful to Great Britain. And why, Mr. Speaker? Because as was said so eloquently by one of the hon. gentlemen opposite in a debate a few years ago, Great Britain has distinguished herself at home and abroad for that broad spirit of good faith and toleration, for those sacred principles of religious equality and self-government. In England an education Act was recently introduced providing for religious instruction in the schools, according to the wishes of the parents. By whom was it introduced? By men like Chamberlain, by men like Balfour, and that legislation was assailed, and I think encountered as bitter an opposition as this legislation is encountering to-day. Ministers of the gospel went as far as to say that the state was in danger, that the primary and elementary rights were threatened, that the birth right of the British citizen was at stake, that it was a battle for life. The Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Lemieux) the other night, in the course of a very able speech, read to this House quotations from speeches that have been delivered in England by Mr. Chamberlain and by Mr. Balfour. I shall not trouble the House by reading any more of those speeches. I think the House will permit me to make an allusion to a reverend gentleman in England, a minister of the Presbyterian denomination, Rev. Archibald Lamont, of St. Paul’s Presbyterian Chapel. Here is what that gentleman said:
I have high hopes for education and for Presbyterianism and for future Christianity as the result of the advent of this imperfect, but substantially good, Education Bill, and, in spite of an unreasoning and undignified agitation against it, an agitation to which, as I deeply deplore, my own beloved church has thoughtlessly, but I hope temporarily, committed herself. I fear that in most of our Protestant churches, eloquence of speech is often more a hindrance than help to the practical solution of far-reaching and complex questions. It often puts men unwittingly in a false pre-eminence, so that the rank and file—the common people—are misled and become martyrs by mistake.
This should be read to some of the reverend gentlemen of Ottawa and Toronto who have thought proper to speak from the pulpit against the educational clauses of this Bill. But, Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been adopted in England, and has been in force for a couple of years, and it has given entire satisfaction. The impression that must prevail in the end is that some people want more religious instruction and some people want less religious instruction than this Bill provides; but, Mr. Speaker, standing here as a representative in parliament of a country of 43,000 souls, I think it is my duty to uphold the constitution, and by it to confirm the privileges, be they large or be they
3913
small, that the majority enjoy in the Northwest Territories. There are some hon. gentlemen on the other side of this House, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) who profess to believe that religious instruction should be done away with in the schools. But, Mr. Speaker, though I have great respect for their opinions, I must say without hesitation that if those three gentlemen were put on one side, and on the other side you were to show me statesmen like Mr. Chamberlain, like Mr. Gladstone, like Mr. Balfour, like Mr. Guizot, I would have to throw in my lot with the great Englishmen. Now, Sir, the claim has been made in this House and out of it that the Liberal party has trampled upon provincial rights and provincial autonomy, that it has abandoned its principles of 1896, and that now the Liberal party is invading provincial rights and provincial autonomy. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me refer for a moment to what took place in 1896. What was the position of the right hon. the Prime Minister in 1896, when he moved the six months hoist of the Remedial Bill? He said: This parliament has a right to interfere; the remedy lies with us, but I think that remedy should not be applied until all conciliatory methods have been exhausted. Now, Sir, in 1896 we stood for conciliation. What are we doing today? We are still standing for conciliation, we stand for compromise on an honourable basis.
Mr. BERGERON. Would my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question? Did the solution of 1896 settle the Manitoba school question to the satisfaction of the minority?
Mr. BELAND. It did settle it to a certain extent which appears to be satisfactory to the minority. It may not be satisfactory to my hon. friend, who is known to be an ardent and devoted supporter of the Catholic church. But to my mind, and as a means establishing peace and harmony in this country between the different elements, it is satisfactory.
Mr. BERGERON. I hope I am not troubling my hon. friend. But how does he explain this trip of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell down here to secure a more favourable settlement for the minority of Manitoba?
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. Was that what Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell came for?
Mr. BERGERON. That is what we were told this afternoon.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. I am glad to know it.
Mr. BELAND. I think I can satisfy the hon. gentleman on that point. Mr. Rogers is fond of notoriety, he desires to make himself and his party some political
3914
capital in Manitoba, and he came to meet Monseigneur Sbarretti for the purpose, in my opinion, of procuring some arrangement by which he hoped to capture the Catholic vote of Manitoba. I think that the object of Mr. Rogers, in my estimation, and I think in the estimation of my hon. friend also, was to make political capital. Now, Sir, who is making a claim for provincial rights to-day? The hon. the leader of the opposition is making, from the rock of the constitution, as he said, a fight for provincial rights. We had an instance the other day of how hon. gentlemen will stand sometimes for provincial rights when the leader of the opposition criticised the Bill that was introduced a few days ago by the right hon. gentleman, and when he was asked whether the land should be left with the provinces or with the federal government, he was of the opinion that the land should go to the provinces. But then he bethought himself, I suppose, of the strong objection, for it was an objection, that I quoted a minute ago, that it would perhaps interfere with an effective immigration policy. But I will quote his own words:
May I not further suggest that even if there were any danger—and I do not think there is—it would be the task of good statesmanship to have inserted, if necessary, a provision in this Bill with regard to free homesteads and the price of these lands, and obtain to it the consent of the people of the Northwest Territories.
It is no more difficult than that. Provincial rights, provincial autonomy as long as it serves his purpose! But, as soon as it does not serve his purpose, let us invade provincial rights and send a postcard,—I suppose that is the system in vogue in Toronto now—to every member and to every citizen in the Northwest Territories saying: Do you approve of that? If he says he does, all right, and if he says he does not, well, where will he be?
We, of the province of Quebec, we, the Catholic minority of this Dominion, are bound to change our mind as to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). We had always thought that he was a broad minded Englishman, we had always thought that he was animated by that spirit of fair dealing and kindly forbearance that have distinguished English institutions for the last fifty years. The other day he pronounced upon us a beautiful eulogy. He said that he had traversed the province of Quebec from one end to the other and that every man he had met there was well read, intelligent and sociable and a moment afterwards he moved the amendment which is now before the House. The hon. gentleman, I am afraid, has missed his vocation. He has missed his profession. He should have been a surgeon because he would have made a very skilful one. When I listened to him I could not refrain from thinking that when he pronounced that eulogy, when he uttered
3915
those words in praise of the French Canadian people he was doing the work of a surgeon before the operation—injecting into the tissues an analgesic before he used the scalpel. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says that because we have tried to invade provincial rights we have become a disrupted and disbanded party. But, for a moment or two let us examine what has happened on the other side. The moment the hon. leader of the opposition has placed his constitutional gun in position and the moment he has fired that gun it has been found to be a slate gun. It splits to pieces. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) mortally wounded; the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) not quite so badly wounded. The list of wounded grows every day. The hon. member for North Toronto says that the weakness of the Czar of Russia is that he does not consult his people. Then, I might retort: What is the weakness of the hon. leader of the opposition? If it is a mistake for the Czar of Russia not to consult his people how much greater a mistake must it be for that hon. gentleman to turn his gun against his own lieutenants and his own regiment? But, we have not heard so far in this House from the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). He will be coming some day and making a plea such as he made to-day in favour of provincial rights. That hon. gentleman succeeded in the not very remote past in making himself plainly understood on the question of provincial rights. It was in March, 1902. What did the hon. member for South York say? He was speaking in this House and he said:
Speaking of the provinces, I have not a moment’s hesitation in saying that the result of provincial government in Canada has been detrimental to the progress of the country. I say that the interpretation of the law that has been given by the English Privy Council in regard to the distribution of rights as between the provinces and the federal power, has been against the interests of the country as a whole. That I regret. I agree with the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that some day we will have the whole jurisdiction in this parliament, and in some way we will work it out, and in some way we will increase the federal power and wipe out gradually the provincial power.
Who would believe that after what the hon. gentleman told us this afternoon? But, that is not all. He said something else. Here is what he said:
Yet we are told that there is no hope of progress, that the main thing is to uphold local rights. That is the doctrine of the Minister of Justice of Canada. I take issue with him there. The thing which the Conservative party of this country committed itself to was to build up a nation, with a unification of laws, if that was possible, and that this country should in some way try to recover the federal power which has been lost to the provinces in the past few years.
3916
I ask my hon. friend frankly if he approves of that?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. All of it.
Mr. BELAND. Well, if the hon. gentleman says he approves of that, I have nothing more to say. The hon. member for North Toronto did not pose as the champion of provincial rights in 1896. He assumed a different position then, but when he made his speech he said he would not do it again, and why? Because the will of the people and particularly the expression of the popular will in Quebec prevented him from doing it. Do you not see, Mr. Speaker, the skill and adroitness of that argument? If the hon. gentleman had only said that at the general election in 1896 the people of the province of Quebec went against his position, while we know better, we could have understood it, but he mentioned also the general elections of 1900 and 1904 as giving an expression of the people against the stand he took in this House on the question of provincial rights. He sought to escape the condemnation which was placed upon the Conservative party for their bad administration prior to that day. He affects to believe that in 1896, 1900 and 1904 the people voted for the upholding of provincial rights. He counts for nothing his own disastrous financial administration. He counts for nothing the scandals of his party during the 18 years of their regime. He counts for nothing the stagnation of affairs, the ineffective immigration policy and especially that in the general elections in 1900 and 1904 the people gave expression to the contentment which they felt under the progressive policy that our great leader has introduced into this country and which he has maintained.
The plea for provincial rights is a myth in this debate, cold political calculation is behind it. Men like the leader of the opposition, men like the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) should rise to a higher level, for no one doubts in his heart that they do not know this plea is unfounded. Intended as it is to appeal strongly to the highest principles of autonomy, of liberty, and of equality; it will utterly fail in its results when the sound reasoning of the plain people of this country is applied to it. I have spoken longer than I expected, but I ask the House to bear with me a few moments longer. There have been very strong appeals made to religious and racial prejudices in this country. I will not refer to the circular sent broadcast by the member for East Grey; I will not refer to his speech in this House, though he uttered some very regrettable words, but I will deal for a moment and a moment only with the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner’ which he quoted. The Huntingdon ‘Gleaner’ I may say is a paper of minor importance in the province of Quebec; it is a purely local paper, and from the extracts that the member for East Grey read to the
3917
House one would be led to believe that the Protestant people in the province of Quebec are being ill-treated. Well, here is the answer I have to give to the Huntingdon ‘Gleaner’; I shall quote the words of the Hon. Mr. Weir, a man of high standing in the province of Quebec, and a representative of the Protestant people in the Quebec cabinet. Mr. Weir spoke at a public meeting in Montreal; he spoke when he was not asked to deal with the question, when he was not solicited to say a word in reference to it, and here is what Mr. Weir said:
I, being the son of a Scotch father and a Scotch mother. I, a Protestant, have always in this province seen not only our rights but our remotest wishes respected. I challenge any Protestant to say, that he has ever been ill-treated. And therefore, when in the province of Ontario we see politicians and bigots appealing to racial and religious prejudices in order to deprive the minority of the rights to which they are constitutionally and logically entitled, it is our imperious duty to cry shame, and to stigmatize them.
Let me refer for a moment or two to some of what I shall call, the exaggerations of language in the newspapers of Ontario, and Quebec also—for there are bigots in both provinces. Here is what the Toronto ‘News’ writes:
It is not conceivable that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, much less the Protestant members of his cabinet believe they are acting in accordance with the spirit of the constitution. That they have submitted themselves to the will of the hierarchy of Quebec is the only reasonable explanation of their conduct.
I will give you the answer to that from ‘L’Evénement’ of Quebec, an organ of the Conservative party; the leading organ of the Conservative party in the district of Quebec. ‘L’Evénement’ writes:
No, no. It is not the free denominational schools that Sir Wilfrid Laurier guaranteed to the Catholic and French minority of the Territories; it is the neutral schools which are slaves of the state. This is the truth, the cruel truth, the truth undeniable and manifest.
The Toronto ‘World,’ the organ of my right hon. friend—not my right hon. friend, but my hon. friend from South York, I shall quote from it. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I had great trouble in finding a clipping from the Toronto ‘World’ that I could, with any sense of decency, quote to the House, when that paper writes against the province of Quebec. I have been looking through its columns for some time and hardly could I put my finger upon a few lines which would be quotable in this House, but few as they are I will read them. The Toronto ‘World’ says:
The new provinces are to be stripped of their public lands and compelled to submit to an educational system modelled under the artistic direction of the Quebec hierarchy.
3918
Let me give my hon. friend from South York the answer from ‘L’Evénement,’ that same Conservative newspaper in Quebec, which writing of Sir Wilfrid Laurier says:
When one has seventy of a majority, he does his duty or he falls on the field of honour. He does not need to betray to remain in power.
And when ‘L’Evénement’ talks of betraying, it does not talk of betraying Protestants; it is surely talking of Sir Wilfrid Laurier betraying Catholics. But there is something more serious than all that. This afternoon I heard the member for East Grey say very plainly: it is about time that we should have some proof of that toleration in the province of Quebec which is so much talked of. Well, I will try to give the hon. gentleman a few proofs of that toleration of ours. The hon. gentleman will admit that in the province of Quebec—
An hon. MEMBER. He will not admit it.
Mr. BELAND. My hon. friend who sits beside me says that he will not admit it, but the member for East Grey is fair, and that being so I am sure that when he hears what I have to say he will stand up and declare that he was mistaken—honestly mistaken, but mistaken just the same. Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) listen. In this House we have twelve Protestant members from the province of Quebec. We have one from Argenteuil, a county in which the Protestant population is 7,800 and the Catholic population 8,100. The division of Montreal, St. Antoine, represented by my good friend Mr. Bickerdike—
An hon. MEMBER. Mr. Ames.
Mr. BELAND. Yes, represented by Mr. Ames, and I can still call him my good friend I hope. In Montreal, St. Antoine, the Protestant population is 22,000 and the Catholic population is 24,000. The county of Chateauguay, represented here by my good friend Mr. Brown, has a Protestant population of 3,000 and a Catholic population of 12,500. The county of Compton, represented here by my good friend Mr. Hunt, has a Protestant population of 10,500 and a Catholic population of 15,000. The county of Huntingdon, the very county in which that newspaper which has been quoted by my hon. friend from East Grey is published, has a Protestant population of 6,620, and a Catholic population of 7,200, and the Catholic majority sends a Protestant representative to this House in the person of my hon. friend Mr. Walsh. But this is not all. I want to make the proof of our toleration so convincing that my hon. friend will feel obliged to stand up and admit it if he wants to be fair. The county of Missisquoi, with a Protestant population of 8,000 and a Catholic population of 10,000, sends
3919
as its representative to this House, our good friend Mr. Meigs. Montreal, St. Lawrence division, which is represented by my good friend Mr. Bickerdike, has a Protestant population of 10,000 and a Catholic population of 30,000. The county of Pontiac, which is represented by Mr. Brabazon, has a Protestant population of 6,400 and a Catholic population of 16,000. Sherbrooke, which is represented here by my good friend Dr. Worthington, has a Protestant population of 7,000 and a Catholic population of 11,000. Stanstead, which is represented by Mr. Lovell, has a Protestant population of 9,000 and a Catholic population of 9,500. Shefford, which is represented by our eminent friend Mr. Parmelee, has a Protestant population of 5,000 and a Catholic population of 18,000, and I do not blame them at all for electing that gentleman.
Mr. INGRAM. Will the hon. gentleman allow me? We will agree that that is the standing of the two religious parties in the several constituencies; but when it comes to the vote, all the good Protestants will vote for this Bill.
Mr. FIELDING. Let us hope so.
Mr. BELAND. I am not concerned with that at all. They may vote as they please, and I am sure the French Canadian people will never go back on them on that account. Out of the twelve counties in the province of Quebec which are represented in this House by Protestants, there is only one county where the majority is Protestant, and that is the county of Brome, represented here by my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher).
Now, this may not be exactly fair; it may indicate that we are more tolerant than we are in reality. I will take another point of view—that of the whole population of the province. According to the whole population of the province of Quebec, the Protestants would be entitled in this parliament to eight representatives; but they have twelve. What does my hon. friend from East Grey think of that? The ‘Evening Telegram,’ of Toronto, which makes a specialty of dealing with the question of the tolerance of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, has the following:
Ontario’s tolerance is illustrated in the tendency of every Roman Catholic who represents a Protestant constituency to vote as a liegeman of his church rather than as the citizen of his country, upon questions affecting the aims of the church.
The intolerance of Quebec is illustrated in the spectacle of every Protestant representative voting with an eye to the race and creed prejudices of Quebec, and with vision blinded to the principles of his own race and creed.
Ontario’s treatment of the minority that is over-represented in the government, over-represented in the legislature, is not equalled by the treatment which the minority receives in any other commonwealth on earth.
3920
Ontario can match her alleged intolerance against the boasted tolerance of any people on earth. It is an outrage that such a province with such a record should be the recipient of lectures on toleration from the bigots of Quebec.
Well, let us see if it is true that Ontario can match her tolerance against the tolerance of Quebec. In Ontario the Protestant population is 1,800,000, and the Catholic population 390,000. On that basis the Protestants of Ontario are entitled to 72 members in this House and the Catholics to 14 members. What is the representation in reality? Seventy-nine Protestants and seven Catholics, just one-half of what the Catholics are entitled to by their population. These are the figures, irrespective of parties, for they include all the 86 members from the province of Ontario.
But this is not all. Let us take the Dominion as a whole, and see how the representation stands. According to their population, the Catholics are entitled in this House to 87 members, and we have how many? Seventy-two. I hope that my good friend who publishes the Toronto ‘Telegram’ will publish these figures, which are exact, being based on the census of 1901. That would be only an act of justice on the part of the ‘Telegram,’ instead of misrepresenting the people of the province of Quebec, as it has done in the past.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what the average man of Ontario thinks when he reads such articles as are published to-day in the Toronto newspapers? I wonder if the average farmer of the province of Ontario has ever been taught in his school—I hope he has—what the Catholic clergy have done for this country of ours. I wonder if he has been taught that that same clergy have rendered eminent and inappreciable services to the British Crown during the last 140 years, especially in the acute and critical days of early British rule in America. I wonder if he has been informed of the Catholic clergy’s unshakable loyalty to the kings and queens of Great Britain since fate went against us on the Plains of Abraham. If the good farmers of the province of Ontario were taught that the Roman Catholic clergy in the province of Quebec have resisted time and again temptations and inducements to take part in agitations for annexation; if he were taught in his early days what education in the Roman Catholic colleges and universities has done towards supplying this country with men who have gained distinction in literature, in the professions and in agriculture, and who, every one will admit, will stand comparison with those of any other country; if he knew that the great idol of Ontario, the late Sir John Macdonald, declared on a memorable occasion in the city of London, that amongst the most faithful subjects of Her Majesty in Canada were to be ranked the French
3921
Canadian Catholic clergy and population; if he were taught in the schools these things, I would have fear for the result and would be confident that he would resist any malicious appeals, because he is a moderate man and a man who ponders well before he acts.
Mr. Speaker, I am about to close. I have detained the House longer than I intended, but I find I must claim your indulgence a little longer. I say it is of vital interest, admittedly, that the citizens of this country should not lose sight of their rights but it is far more important that they should not overlook their duties. To sum up my idea, this is the inevitable conclusion to which we must arrive, that the efforts of statesmen and public powers shall always be vain and fruitless if they are not founded on the spirit of good faith and toleration; on that broad spirit of Christianity, vivifying hundreds of thousands of firesides throughout this great land. That spirit of toleration and mutual forbearance between creeds and nationalities in the great west as well as in the older portions of our beloved country, will alone give that social, intellectual, moral and material foundation without which no nation can rise to permanent greatness.
Let us not shelter ourselves under the flimsy parapet of legal technicalities; and if ever doubt should enter our minds, if our path should appear full of difficulties, let us rise to the great responsibilities of our office with courage, justice and a spirit of fair-dealing. Let us ignore both the zealot and the bigot, and plant our feet in the solid ground of honourable compromise. Let us above all remember that this is a land, unparalleled, perhaps, and certainly unsurpassed for its immense resources, and its future possibilities, to which we invite the civilized nations of the old world; and if we desire to be a true nation, a worthy product of the 20th century, we must be prepared to sink and melt our individual differences in the warm rays of the sun of justice and liberty.
Mr. J. BARR (Dufferin). As the hour is late, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the House should rise and would beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. FIELDING. The hon. member was not present last evening when there was, perhaps, what I might call an understanding that we should sit later into the night. At all events the observation was made that in assenting to an early adjournment last evening, we should, in order that this debate should be advanced in a reasonable way, work harder and sit later, and I think that is the temper of the House.
Mr. BARR. I must of course, bow to the will of the House. I should not attempt to address the House on this subject, did
3922
I not think it was my bounden duty not to give a silent vote on this Autonomy Bill. In voting, as I intend to do, for the amendment of the leader of the opposition, I do not wish to be understood as being opposed to giving to the fullest extent provincial rights to all the great lone land of the Northwest. But before entering upon the remarks I intend to make on the Bill itself, I desire for a short time to follow my hon. friend who has just sat down. I was pleased to learn that the hon. gentleman is not a lawyer, because I naturally supposed that he would take pains to steer clear of the constitutional question which has taken up so much of our time. I think we might well leave that question to be threshed out by the lawyers who, so far as we can judge, will leave it just as hazy as it was when they entered the discussion. And after we shall have heard all the learned arguments advanced by the gentlemen of the legal profession on the one side or the other, I have no doubt that we shall come back to the same conclusion which has always prevailed in the past, and that is that it is their duty to make black appear white and right wrong. And as that is part of their business, I am glad to know that I am not a lawyer, but a doctor. But there is one thing which I presume every hon. gentleman will admit, and that is that it is the duty of this House to make laws, and that, on the other hand, it is the duty of the courts to interpret them, and whether we arrive at the conclusion that this Bill is ultra vires or otherwise, I presume the end will be that it will have to go to the Privy Council. And as that court is composed of human beings who are also lawyers, the probability is that they will give a decision according to the temper in which they are and according as their digestion is good or bad. We shall therefore have to wait for their decision to decide whether this Bill is legal or not. But I venture to say that the free and independent elector, the ordinary man, as he reads the 92nd clause of the British North America Act, will have no hesitation in concluding that so far as education is concerned, that is a question which has to be left to the province, with the exception that this parliament has the right to pass a remedial law in the event of any province not carrying out the law as it is in the statute-books.
My hon. friend has said we should live in peace and harmony. We all agree with that, we would like to live in peace and harmony with all men in all parts of this fair Dominion of ours, but in order to do that we have rights and we have privileges which we must guard and guard safely. We must remember that the majority have rights which they should exercise just as freely as do the minority. My hon. friend attempted to make a point against the lead-
3923
er of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and although not a lawyer he endeavoured to insinuate that we on this side have not succeeded in our argument and that the legal argument of the leader of the opposition had been a failure. I shall not follow that up beyond saying that we are all proud of the leader of the opposition. We feel that we have one man here who is not only able to take care of himself, but able to sustain the combat on any question that comes before this House, legal or otherwise, and to hold his own with any hon. gentleman on the opposite side. He has proved this to be the case in the past, and I venture to say that he will continue to show in the future that it is still the case. Then we have the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) whom I have no hesitation in saying hon. gentlemen opposite have dreaded in the past, but never more than at the present time. This is shown by the very fact that in the past on two occasions when he was defeated, they put forth every effort of the government, not only by their voice and by means that are not too clear or too fair, but they put forth their money bags, which they sent to all parts to accomplish the work to an extent that is detrimental to the best interests and to the morality of this country. My hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Beland) tried to make a point out of the fact that they are more liberal in Quebec than in other provinces. They may be, looking at it from a religious point of view, but when we look at it from a political point of view we must know that there are some reasons why there are only 12 Conservatives from that province. The Conservatives have about 100,000 votes in Quebec while the Reformers have only about 130,000, and notwithstanding that there were only 11 Conservatives returned and 54 Reformers, proving beyond a doubt that there was some work going on behind the scenes that was not of a religious nature. I might point to the liberality of Ontario. In the Conservative government of the province of Ontario, one of the strongest governments the province ever had, there is for the first time as Minister of Public Works a French Canadian, and we have as Minister of Crown Lands a Roman Catholic, both men worthy of the positions and we the Conservatives of the province of Ontario were pleased beyond degree when we saw the choice which the present premier, Hon. Mr. Whitney, had made. I ask you to point to such liberality under any other circumstances and I venture to say that if I had the vote here it would be found that so far as their representatives are concerned the Roman Catholics have received a fair share of the vote according to their numbers in the province of Ontario, particularly in connection with the Conservative party. In looking over the votes we find that in all cases they have had a larger representation in the
3924
Conservative ranks than they have had in the Reform ranks, proving beyond a doubt that the Conservatives on all occasions have been more liberal along these lines than the Reformers have been in the past.
I was rather amused to see my hon. friend (Mr. Beland) endeavouring to make a point against the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). He struggled hard, he read ‘Hansard,’ and read it with all the ingenuity of one well up along that line. He read ‘Hansard’ to prove beyond a doubt that my hon. friend was opposed to provincial rights, but he did not tell you what the gist of that argument was. He did not tell you what question was being discussed at that time, and of course we all know that there are questions in connection with the rights and privileges of the Dominion and those of the provinces which on many occasions have overlapped; they have not been well defined and great injustice has on many occasions been done in consequence. Look, for instance, at our railways, look at the conflict of jurisdiction in regard to charters for joint stock companies, &c. Here they are running from one parliament to the other obtaining charters of different kinds when the jurisdiction of the different parliaments in that respect should be well defined. We find that hon. gentlemen were discussing matters in connection with these grievances and that the discussion had nothing to do with equal rights such as we are discussing here to-night. I shall not follow my hon. friend further along that line, but I shall dwell now for a few moments upon the great question of the Bill which is before us and I might say that while the educational question is one of the most important dealt with in this Bill, there is great danger under existing circumstances that the attention of the people of Canada will be diverted from the other great questions which must affect that country in the future by the consideration of this one clause, and it may not be after this becomes law, it may not be until it is beyond remedy, that we will have discovered mistakes which will then be beyond recall. I look upon the question of the number of provinces as one of great importance and one which cannot be too carefully considered. It is my opinion that it would have been much better for these provinces if we had two provinces instead of three. It would have been much better if the province of Manitoba could have been extended either to the north or west or east, and then we would have had one province west of that, making two in place of three. There is no doubt that Manitoba as she is constituted to-day will be at a great disadvantage in the future. It is a small province of 73,000 square miles, against two provinces of 150,000 square miles each. I submit that Manitoba is not receiving justice and before I have finished I shall endeavour to show why this injustice is being done to her. I believe it would be
3925
better to have two provinces in place of three. We know that the more populous a province is the more expensive its administration becomes. At the present time in those two provinces there are only half a million people, surely not more than enough for one province. It has been said before, and I will say it again, that we are very much over-governed in the Dominion of Canada. We have more representatives in every legislature than are required. We have too much legislative machinery. So I say that if there were only one province instead of two in the Northwest one-half less machinery would be required. Perhaps there would need to be a greater number of representatives, but only one parliamentary building would be required. We must remember that to-day we are laying the foundation of what will probably become the two greatest provinces in this fair Dominion of ours. Although they have only 500,000 at present, in less than two decades, certainly in less than a quater of a century, there will be 10,000,000 or 20,000,000 in that vast country, people who have come from many parts of the world and from many nations, mingling together and forming probably the brightest and most intelligent people in this fair Dominion. Under these circumstances it is all important that the foundation should be strong and well laid and that no mistake should be made. As for the capitals of the two provinces, whether they are to be Edmonton or Calgary or not, it is well to let the people settle that question for themselves.
Now with reference to the land in those provinces. I do not agree with some hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken on this subject. I believe it would be to the interest of those provinces that they should have control of the public lands, and I believe it would be to the interest of the Dominion of Canada to leave the land with the provinces. Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces except Manitoba have control of their public lands. Manitoba has not, because circumstances were very different when she was created a province, there were only about 12,000 souls in the territory now forming Manitoba, and they were not in a position to manage their own affairs. But here we have 500,000 people, very intelligent, and comprising among them able men such as have composed their legislative assemblies. I freely admit that the Dominion has dealt liberally with them, we have given on the whole to each province, $1,124,125. That is a large sum indeed, larger than the revenue which the Dominion will get out of the land. At the same time it is not sufficiently large to carry on the administration of public affairs as it should be carried on. I have made a calculation of the sums we are giving those provinces. For the support of the government and legislature, $50,000; 80 cents per head on an estimated population of 250,000, $200,000; interest at 5 per cent on
3926
$38,107,568, as a set-off against the debt of the other provinces which the Dominion assumed when they entered confederation, $405,373. We are also to pay them by way of compensation for public lands, $375,000 yearly, and we give them annually for ten years $92,750 to provide for the construction of the necessary public buildings. That will be increased as the population increases. When the population reaches 800,000 the two provinces will have an income of $4,415,750. Now I submit that it would be better for the provinces to keep their land, the Dominion of Canada will not make that much money out of the land, and the payments we are making to those provinces will be a burden on this Dominion which will be felt for many years to come. I contend that it would be better for the province to keep the land because it would be administered much better and much more economically than it is at the present time. Take the land offices in the Northwest Territories, I submit that many of them are perfect cesspools of corruption, and I speak whereof I know, as I have had some dealings through agents and otherwise with these land offices, and my conclusion is that they are not conducted in a proper manner. For instance, they are surrounded by heelers, by those who have claims upon the government, and the result is that when an actual settler goes there, when he has picked out his land and desires to place his name upon it, invariably he is told that it will require some consideration. Now if the business was properly conducted, they would be able to say at once to that man: You can have it, or: It is sold. But that is not the course pursued. He is annoyed, and, in many cases, he has to settle with the claims of some other parties. The result is hardships to the actual settler, to the immigrant coming in to make his home there. Many of them do not get the land after they have gone to much trouble in picking it out. Whilst that is the case with the actual settler, it is much worse with the prospector, of whom there are many, they are the most important class of the community. I speak from knowledge on this subject. Prospectors are numerous there, they travel all over the country, hundreds of thousands of miles exploring the land, digging down into the bowels of the earth to see if they can find anything that is worth taking up. When they make application to the land office, in almost every case, I venture to say in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, they are told that it is impossible to decide whether that land is taken up or otherwise, and they will have to wait a few days.
The prospector perhaps spends a large sum of money in locating the land which he desires to obtain. He comes back in a few days and finds three or four bogus claims made, and if he obtains the land by paying two or three rake-offs he is more fortunate than the great majority of
3927
prospectors that are doing business in that vast country. They are surrounded by the barnacles that are sticking to these land offices like barnacles to a ship, who are looking for a rake-off, and I say that under these circumstances justice cannot be done. There are in that country hundreds and thousands of this class of men who are becoming rich year after year at the expense of the country. Large tracts of land are sold to speculators for very small sums. There is a condition that they have to settle so much land, but this is not always carried out. Different arrangements are made and the result is that the country is suffering because they are not settling the land to the extent that it should be settled, and that it would be if the land were in the hands of the provinces. I venture to say that there is to-day a state of corruption in that country that could not exist for one day if the lands were in the hands of the provinces. I venture to say, and in this I speak whereof I know, that if a commission was issued and if an examination were made, it would be found that the state of affairs is much worse up there than I have described it. It is preventing settlement, it is preventing people from going in there, it is preventing men who are prepared to invest their money in endeavouring to open up that country from making the ventures which they otherwise would make. One of the strongest claims that we have heard put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite is that they should hold these lands in order that they may control the immigration policy. I submit that if there is one branch of the administration which these provinces should have in their own hands, it is immigration. We know that immigration may prove a curse or a blessing. If we have immigrants coming into this country who are not desirable, if we have a great many immigrants who will not make good citizens, who are physically or otherwise unfit to undertake the duties of citizenship and who are not prepared to earn their own livelihood, then I say these immigrants will prove a curse rather than a blessing. It is a regrettable circumstance that we have had so many immigrants coming into this country who are utterly unfit to earn a livelihood. Many of them refuse to become citizens, and I submit that an immigrant, let him come from whatever country he may, if he is not prepared to become a full-fledged citizen and to fight the battles of this country if needs be, is not a person that any country should desire to bring in. It is a remarkable fact that a large class of these immigrants have been brought into this country on more advantageous terms than those granted to settlers from eastern Canada. I presume that one of the reasons why such great interest is taken in this Bill in the eastern provinces is that the people residing in this part of the country
3928
have relatives in the west, that many of them have their sons and daughters up there, worthy sons of the noble sires of Ontario, Quebec and the different provinces of this Dominion, but notwithstanding this fact foreigners and others have been accorded advantages which Canadian settlers cannot obtain in that new land. That is a state of affairs, which, I submit, should not exist. According to the returns of the last year, we brought into this country 134,223 immigrants, of whom 17,055 were under twelve years of age. We paid for the inspection of these immigrants to medical men, a total of $542,126, or $3.57 for the inspection of each immigrant. Yet, we all know that to-day there are hundreds and thousands physically unfit to make their living in this country, that they are a charge upon the Dominion or the province where they are, and we hear from the charitable institutions all over this Dominion that the greater number of those for whom they have to provide are the immigrants that are brought into the country. We know that many of them are affected with contagious diseases, that many are affected with eye diseases, that they have had from infancy, and that if the medical examination had been as thorough as it should have been, the state of affairs that we find in regard to immigration could not exist. Only a few were deported last year, proving beyond a doubt that whilst we have paid large sums for the services of these medical inspectors, the examinations were not such as should have been made, and that those who to-day are imposing the greatest burden upon the charitable institutions are these immigrants. Under these circumstances, I submit we have a state of affairs which could not exist if the provinces had supervision over these lands and of immigrant work, the provinces having much more interest in this work than the Dominion has. Under these circumstances, I submit that it would be much better that they should have the lands. They could make more out of them and they could have settlers of a desirable class coming in under their supervision. Then, again, I submit that the land belongs to the provinces. It is true that the Dominion of Canada paid £300,000 for that country, not for the land, but for the right of the Hudson Bay Company to hunt. Therefore, I say that the land, as I read the British North America Act, should and does belong to the provinces. If the other provinces require all the land they can get in order to make ends meet, if they require money, and if they run in debt year after year, how is it that these new provinces with the amount of money which is to be placed at their disposal, will be able to improve that country as they should? They have to provide charitable institutions for that unfortunate class that is rapidly increasing in all countries, the insane. They
3929
have to provide charitable institutions, they have to build roads and bridges and incur enormous expense, and with the money at their disposal it is utterly impossible for them to build up that country as they should. If the province of Quebec is given its lands, why should not these new provinces? By this Bill they have nothing under the land, they have nothing but the free air of heaven, and I suppose the Dominion government would have grasped that too had it the power. Quebec has no surplus, but out of the lands of the province they are able to give to the parent of twelve children a bounty in land and money.
Mr. LEMIEUX. Land or money.
Mr. BARR. Very well. We have never advanced that far in Ontario, and I do not think it would be worth while to offer that inducement because there would be very few to take advantage of it. Ontario has her lands, mines, and minerals and without them that province would have been starved years ago. Every year Ontario has found it necessary to sell from her timber limits and her Crown lands and to obtain large sums out of her mines and minerals. Notwithstanding that so far as we in the opposition during many years were concerned we never were able to find a surplus. It is true that the Liberal government always claimed they had a surplus, but that surplus was mythical as mythical could be, and when the books are now thoroughly audited it will be proved that not only has the province not a surplus, but that she is millions of dollars behind. What advantage is it for the new provinces to have borrowing powers if they have no security to offer? Had it not been that Ontario could obtain a revenue from her natural resources, years ago that province would have been face to face with direct taxation which is the greatest calamity that could possibly happen to any people, province or country, and under this Bill that calamity is bound to overtake the new provinces. Manitoba has control of her swamp lands which in time will become most productive, and from them she derives a large income. Why should Manitoba have the swamp lands and the new provinces be denied them? I venture to say that in the near future these provinces will be found coming here demanding better terms and putting up such a strong case that better terms will have to be granted no matter what government is in power. At this late hour of the night I will not speak as long as I had intended, but I shall for a short time discuss that vexed question of separate schools in the new provinces, which is to-day agitating the mind of the people in this fair Dominion as no other question has for many years. It is a question which will live, and which will continue to increase in importance, at all events until free and independent electors of Canada will have
3930
an opportunity to make themselves heard on it. We have had the legal aspect of this question discussed day after day and while no definite decision has been arrived at, nobody will deny that if the government had not seen fit to insert the separate school clause, there would have been no agitation and the people of the new provinces could decide on the question according to the dictates of their conscience and in their own best interests. It is not necessary to discuss here whether we are in favour of separate schools or not. I am glad to say that I am in accord with a number of those on the other side of the House who have announced that they are not in favour of separate schools. The Minister of Finance has told us that he is opposed to separate schools; the member for Edmonton told us, as he stated many times on the public platform that he was opposed to separate schools. He is an old war horse who fought for provincial rights in the past, and who stated that he would never consent that separate schools should be inflicted on the Northwest Territories, but now he has changed his mind, like many others, in order to save his party. For my part I would be sorry to deprive any people of their just rights, but the people of the new provinces themselves know best what rights should be respected. It has been argued that because we have separate schools in Quebec and Ontario there should be separate schools in the new provinces, but let me point out that they have no separate schools in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba or British Columbia. We have Manitoba on the one side and British Columbia on the other, free to regulate their schools, and these two provinces wedged in between them, with separate schools forced upon them for all time to come—a state of affairs which I think never should have existed.
The difference between the separate schools in Ontario and Quebec and those in the new provinces in this. By the consent of both parties, by an agreement entered into by Quebec and Ontario, after due consideration, separate schools were established in those two provinces in perpetuity, and the government was embodied in the British North America Act. That is a very different position from the position occupied by these two provinces. When they obtained their territorial rights they were in their infancy; they were the wards of the Dominion government. They had no voice in the settlement of the school question at that time. The system was provided for in the Bill of 1875 after much discussion, both in this House and in the Senate. An amendment was moved, I think by the late Senator Aikens in the Senate, but was defeated by a small majority. It was then that those memorable words, of which so much has been made, were uttered by the Hon. George Brown, to the effect that in providing for
3931
separate schools in the Territorial Bill, they were establishing them for all time to come. He did not wish to imply that they would have to be placed there; but, being a far-seeing man, he knew that the fact of that provision being made would be used for the purpose of perpetuating separate schools in those provinces; and it is well known that he was always opposed to separate schools. Now, what guarantee have we that the separate schools in these two provinces will continue as they are at the present time? I submit that we have no guarantee. We find that the provisions of the Bill are very hazy, so much so that lawyers might place very different interpretations upon it; and the ordinances only guide the Territories, but do not ensure the schools as they now exist being continued for all time to come. While no great hardship may be experienced at the present time, it will certainly be a hardship to the majority in newly settled districts to maintain two weak and sickly schools where there might be one vigorous and healthy school. The Territories have no guarantee whatever that these schools will remain for all time to come as they are at the present time. I suppose they could change them for a system of schools similar to what exists in the province of Ontario to-day. According to a judgment given by Mr. Justice McMahon some three months ago, there are one hundred and five teachers teaching in the separate schools of Ontario to-day who have never passed a legal examination. This is a serious state of affairs; and yet these teachers are going on teaching month after month. It is true they have appealed the case to a higher court, and I suppose it will ultimately go to the Privy Council. These teachers are now teaching contrary to the law, except that the late government gave them permits to teach until a decision of the higher court could be obtained. Many of these teachers are not educated. It is said that many of them are priests, who are educated; but many are ladies and others who have had no training whatever. The law with regard to separate schools in Ontario has been changed in many ways. For instance, the law provides that all taxes paid by corporations must be used for the support of the public schools; but a private Bill was passed providing that the Sturgeon Falls Pulp Company should divide its taxes between the public schools and the separate schools. If that state of affairs can be brought about in the province of Ontario, why could it not in these new provinces? The Minister of Customs endeavoured to make a point against the government of the Northwest Territories, particularly against Mr. Haultain, when he used these words:
Talk about Mr. Haultain not having been consulted. He was consulted frequently, but if he had never been consulted or if no Northwest member had ever been consulted, I ask what better indication can you have of the desire
3932
of the people of the Northwest Territories than their own legislation?
The legislation to which the Minister of Customs referred was a law of the Northwest council, of which Mr. Haultain was the head, particularly a law based on the school law which was handed down to them from this House. The law set forth that there should be an advisory board composed of not less than two Catholics and four Protestants. But it is only an advisory board; it is not clothed with any power except to advise the Minister of Education, and he can change the regulations at any time; so that we might have a very different state of affairs in the near future from what we have at the present time. To my mind it seems most extraordinary that the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was not consulted and more extraordinary still that he himself did not make it a point to be present at the cabinet meetings when this matter was being decided. He well knew that these Bills were being prepared and he should have made it his duty to impress on his colleagues and the right hon. gentleman the necessity of having them passed upon by him before they were finally drafted. In not taking this action, I submit that he was recreant to his duty. I submit that he did not do what was expected of him by the people of the Northwest. It is indeed extraordinary that on the subcommittee of the cabinet which undertook to frame those Bills, there was only one representative from Ontario while there were three from Quebec. Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Territories was not consulted, and Mr. Rogers from Manitoba informed us to-day that neither was he consulted, and we must conclude that it was decided by two or three representatives from Quebec that this clause No. 16 should be embodied in these Bills. It is evident that the First Minister took upon himself to bring down these Bills and force them through the House without consulting his colleagues, proving beyond doubt that we have to-day in this country a one man government. Let us for a moment look at the position occupied by this government to-day as compared with the one they took in 1896. In the election of 1896, the position I admit was a unique one. The late government was endeavouring to force on this House remedial legislation against the province of Manitoba. The right hon. gentleman, who was then leading the opposition, seized that opportunity to declare in the province of Quebec that if he were returned to power he would see that Manitoba gave the Catholic minority of that province what they desired. That was the stand taken by the Quebec wing of the right hon. gentleman’s party, but what did they do in the province of Ontario? In the elections in 1896 in that province, I took a rather active part and had the pleasure of hearing the First Minister and the Postmaster General on several occasions, and the arrangement
3933
they entered into was this. The First Minister went up to the western part of Ontario and entered into an agreement with the late Sir Oliver Mowat to this effect, that if the Reform party were returned to power—and the signs of the times pointed that way—Mr. Mowat would resign his seat in the local cabinet and take office as Minister of Justice in the Dominion. Sir Oliver, being a canny Scotchman, was not going to take any chances and would not resign his premiership of Ontario until it was certain that the Liberals were returned to power in the Dominion. Contrary to his protestations in the past, that the provincial government should not interfere in Dominion elections, Sir Oliver Mowat took a very active part in those elections, and I had the pleasure of meeting him on several platforms. The position he then took was this. An effort, he said, is being made by the government of the Dominion to force remedial legislation upon Manitoba to deprive that province of its rights, and I ask the electors of Ontario to look back at my past history and say whether I have not on all occasions stood for equal rights. Have I not, he exclaimed, fought the battle of equal rights in years gone by, have I not fought it in connection with the boundary award and the license question and fought it successfully? And just as I fought it in the past in the local legislature, so I shall, when I enter Dominion politics, fight for the rights, not only of Manitoba but of all that great western country; and he went on to declare that when in the near future the territories would be created provinces, he would see that equal rights were extended to them. He would never agree to separate schools or to remedial legislation for the purpose of forcing those schools upon Manitoba or any province in the great lone land. And if the time should ever come when he would not have that power, he would resign his place in the House. The Postmaster General took the same ground. He declared on many a platform that he would never support separate schools in the Dominion and would never allow remedial legislation to be forced on Manitoba. The First Minister was also loud in his denunciation of the late government. He declared that he had stood in this House, and was prepared to stand in any part of the Dominion, for provincial rights, and that he would never allow this remedial legislation to be placed on Manitoba. He would never shackle any province with legislation along that line. He would never put the fetters upon any of those provinces, he was opposed to separate schools, he was pleased to know that they could attend school together, that they could go to the polls and vote together, and the result was that all these statements had their effect in Ontario. Seat after seat that had gone Conservative in the past went by overwhelming majorities to the Reform party and the result was that in 1896 the
3934
Reformers were surprised at the large vote which they received in Ontario. They obtained it under false pretenses in the way which I have pointed out. I ask the question how have they been able to swallow all these principles, to swallow themselves and to come here to-day after making these pledges in Ontario and endeavour to force separate schools upon this province, although they are the very men who denounced them in the past. I wonder how they in ten years succeed in swallowing all these promises. I cannot understand it unless in the words of the poet:
An all-wise and ever-indulging Providence has made them hollow,
In order that they their promises might swallow.
We have no separate schools in my county. We had them on one occasion but they have all disappeared. After a trial the Roman Catholics found that the public schools were much better and cheaper than the separate schools. It has been pointed out to us in the past that our public schools are Godless schools; in fact some speakers almost seem to have the idea that as far as the Protestant religion is concerned there is no God in that. So far as our national schools are concerned they must remember that we had enacted the Ross Bible from which portions of scriptures were to be read each day. Religious instruction can be given by Ministers of different denominations if they so desire and if the trustees and parents desire it and this is very often done. Under these circumstances I submit that it cannot be charged that these schools are Godless schools. So far as the county of Dufferin is concerned they do not want separate schools, and I venture to say that that is the case in many parts of the province as well. I have here a resolution which was passed in my county regretting that a provision for separate schools was placed in this Bill. I have here also the statement of the Minister of Public Works for Manitoba and I must say that it shows a most extraordinary state of affairs indeed. We find that in place of the First Minister meeting these delegates, as naturally we would expect, they were met by the Papal delegate. We have no objection to there being a Papal delegate in the Dominion of Canada so long as he confines his services to the work of the church, but just as soon as he interferes in our educational questions, then I say the line must be drawn and we have a right to take exception to his action. It has been going the rounds for many days that the Papal delegate met Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell by appointment and made a proposition to them. The proposition was that they should place a clause in the Manitoba school law that where there were in a rural district fifteen Roman Catholic children or in a city or town thirty Roman Catholic children separate rooms must be provided for them
3935
and that the trustees if they so desired it must engage a teacher of their religious persuasion. Now look how that would work out; suppose there were sixty children in the district, then one-quarter of those would have one teacher and the other forty or forty-five would have one teacher, yet under that direction the trustees would be required to pay their equal share of taxes for the Catholic teacher who was only teaching fifteen children. I submit that this is a most unjust proposal and one that should not be entertained. If that meeting was not brought about I ask why the rumour has not been denied. I submit that it is up to His Excellency that he should set himself right upon it. Here are two men holding honourable positions, standing high in their province, men who have the confidence of their province, and they state distinctly that that meeting took place and that that proposition was made. Did the First Minister know about that meeting or did he not? That is the question to be decided. If he did not know then I submit that the Papal delegate was going beyond his proper sphere in making that proposition and therefore taking it in any light you can it was an improper thing to do; it was wrong to make the proposition. He told them according to this report that if they agreed to put this clause in, it would expedite the enlargement of the province. What does that mean? Does it not carry out the statements that have been made in the past over and over again that Manitoba need not expect any extension of territory unless she agreed to separate schools, and here we have a proposition made that proves beyond a doubt that this was the case. I say again that we in this House object to any interference whatever in connection with church or state. We refuse to allow any foreign potentate to take any part in our legislation or to dictate how our children shall be educated in any part of this fair Dominion of ours.
Now in this age of the world when church and state are being separated in France, we in Canada are binding them together. I submit that is a state of affairs that should not exist. It has been said that in the United States, because they have national schools where no religion is taught, the people have become unchristian, and we are pointed to the eastern countries where state church schools have existed for so long. I have travelled through those eastern countries myself, I have seen the sun rise and set in many lands, and in travelling through them I have observed the way in which the Sabbath was kept, and have endeavoured to learn something of the results of the church schools which prevail there. I found that those eastern countries have not been going ahead as the United States has. Spain has had church schools for centuries, and today Spain is one of the dying nations of the world. France has had church schools,
3936
and to-day she is severing all connection between church and state, and as a result of establishing national schools I believe we will see France rise amongst the nations of the world. It is true that in the United States where there are no separate schools, there are divorce laws, and lynchings and many other problems that are difficult to solve; nevertheless the United States stands to-day among the foremost nations of the world. As regards Sabbath observance, it is in those countries where church schools prevail that you will find the Sabbath most generally violated, theatre going and all kinds of amusements are carried on on that day. If you want to find a Christian nation you will find one that observes the Sabbath. Where will you find the Sabbath as well observed as it is in this fair Dominion of ours? You will find it observed just as well in those provinces that have national schools as in those that have separate schools. I am not prepared to say that there is any difference. But I think we can boast that we have a Christian people in this Dominion, who observe the Sabbath better than in any other country in the world.
Therefore, I say, that in building up this great country we are making history, and we must carefully procure the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people. We must give those new provinces provincial rights, we must give them all the freedom they have a right to expect at our hands. Sir, the time will come, whether it is this year or next year, when the free and independent electors of this Dominion will assert themselves. We have seen petitions coming from every part of this Dominion, the table has groaned beneath their weight. We have seen public meetings passing resolutions in almost every province in the Dominion, protesting against forcing separate schools upon these new provinces. There is an awakening amongst the free and independent electors such as never existed in this Dominion before, and it will go on and increase. Exception has been taken to the petitions that have been presented and to the public meetings that have been held. Sir, that is the only way in which the people can express their opinions when no election is going on, it is only by petitions and by public meetings passing resolutions that they can make their voice heard. Then we find that the newspapers from one end of this Dominion to the other, except in the province of Quebec, have condemned this legislation. The ‘Globe,’ the organ of the Reform party, is just as strong on this question as the Conservative newspapers. I venture to say that if we could have now an expression of opinion at the polls, we would find Reformers and Conservatives going to the polls side by side and shoulder to shoulder in every constituency in Ontario,
3937
to vote against this legislation and against the present government. This agitation will not die out. No matter whether the elections come on in one year, or two years, or three years, or four years from now, this is a live question, and I venture to say that so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, even four years from now, this government will not carry half a dozen seats. I venture to predict that the same state of affairs will be found to exist in Manitoba and in those two new provinces. The present government will find that the free and independent electors will drive them out of power the first opportunity that presents itself.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Thursday.