Document Information

Date: 1905-07-13
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, Senate Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 603-661.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

603

PROVINCE OF ALBERTA AUTONOMY BILL.

DEBATE CONTINUED.

The Order of the Day being called :

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading (Bill 69) an Act to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta—Hon. Mr. David.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—I think I must commence my speech by congratulating the hon. gentleman from Stadacona (Hon. Mr. Landry) on the well prepared speech which he delivered yesterday. I must especially congratulate him on the fine citations which he made. In view of the dryness of his speech at certain times the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which he cited so properly had the effect of a refreshing breeze, and I am sure that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was entitled to a good share of the applause with which the speech of the hon. gentleman was greeted. In the remarks which I had the honour to address to this House in the beginning of the session, I expressed the opinion that our constitution contained elements of friction and contradiction, and that our statesmen required a great deal of wisdom to avoid serious conflicts. I also expressed the opinion that the winds which came from the Northwest were violent, and that they were the messengers of dangerous storms at certain times, especially in view of the fact that they were obliged to pass through or over Ontario. They would be less dangerous if they were coming directly to the province of Quebec. On the introduction into parliament of the Bill creating the Territories of the Northwest into provinces, the country has been struck by a wave of national and religious excitement and the wonder is that there is any longer any inclination to deal temperately and wisely with any question of religious or national feeling. It seems that this measure is charged with dynamite, and threatens to explode. It is very easy to understand that, national feelings being the principal motive power of the world politically, men are sometimes inclined to make use of them through interest, partisanship, or excess of zeal.

I am glad to say there have always been, and I know there always will be, wise men who are able to reconcile their national and religious feelings and their peculiar views with the principles of justice, fair play and tolerance; and I am happy to say that such men are numerous. There are many of them in this House especially. Those men understand that in a country like ours they must take into consideration the views and feelings of other people, and respect their national and religious feelings. Such men recognize that if they had been born and brought up under the same circumstances and conditions, in the midst of the same surroundings, they would think and feel in the same way as their neighbours do. They are consequently prepared to allow their fellow-citizens to retain their religious and national traditions. In times of excitement like those through which we have been passing, the duty rests upon those men of speaking the language of reason, of quieting public opinion, of stilling the waves of the political sea. Their only aim and object in all the questions which arise under our system of government is to see where truth and justice are to be found, and then act in accordance with justice and fair play. I have no hesitation in saying that the Bill which is now before this House is based upon principles of justice, toleration, and fair play, and upon the general interests of the country. No doubt it is not perfect ; it cannot meet the views of everybody. There are in the Bill certain defects, but taken as a whole I think the Bill is a good one which renders justice to those to whom justice is due. I have no intention of going into all the details of the measure; it is sufficient to deal with its general provisions. From all the Acts which have been cited in the newspapers and in this House, from the Federal Act of 1867, from the Act of 1875, from the declarations which have been made at certain times, from the interpretations which have been given to these Acts by all our leading statesmen, whether Conservative or Liberal, I have come to the conclusion that the aim of those great statesmen was to give to all the provinces a system of schools, based on the acquired rights of the minority, whether Catholic or Protestant, with a patriotic wish to give satisfaction to all creeds and nationalities. I have no doubt that the provisions of section 93 of the Federal Act and the Act of 1875, apply to the schools of the Northwest, but even supposing that there was a doubt on that point, I think the majority of this country should be tolerant and generous and make what

604

concessions it can without going contrary to its conscience and principles. It is different with the Catholics; for them it is not only a question of principle but it is a question of duty towards God and towards their children. It is a question of conscience. Is there anything more sacred than the conscience of a man or a nation? You may remember the commotion which was produced in the old world when the great Newman in his discussion with Gladstone, and Cardinal Manning exclaimed, in connection with the relations of church and state: ‘Conscience above all.’ At first sight it seems that it should be possible to have our children, Catholic and Protestant, brought up in the same schools and receiving the same education. At one time I was pretty nearly of the opinion of many of our English countrymen, but I have modified my views. I thought it was possible to give all children an education which would put them on the same footing and prepare them to succeed in the different careers of this world. I was inclined to say that after all we worship the same God and the same Christ, that we cherish the same doctrines and the same Christian principles. But there are essential differences which you must take into consideration. If I speak frankly, I hope you will forgive me, but Catholics believe that the Catholic church alone has received the mission of interpreting the teachings of Christ; and one principle of the church is that Catholic children must be educated in schools where they receive a religious education in order to make them good Christians and good citizens. Naturally these are not the views of the majority of Protestants, but you must admit that they are none the less to be respected. There was a time when people who were divided in religion were necessarily bitter enemies. There was a time when Catholics and Protestants burned one another in the name of the religion of love and charity, but those dark days have passed away I hope for ever. The fires of the funeral pyre are extinguished for ever, I hope. Blood does not flow any more on the altars of the true God. Protestants and Catholics have learned to respect each other mutually, to love each other and to work together for the common interest of the country in which they are called to live.

We have a notable example every day of that religious fraternity. The president of our chamber each day addresses to God the prayer which was brought to us by Christ himself, and in which we ask Him to forgive our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. If we are to be good Christians and bound to forgive every insult and injury, I think the Catholics of this country have a right to be forgiven for holding a special religious and national feeling, for believing that they must follow the teachings of their churches, and for claiming the right which they possess in virtue of the constitution and in virtue of the laws of the country. I will not go over the whole Bill, but will consider two of the reasons which have been urged against the Bill. Firstly, the question of Autonomy. Having always been, as hon. gentlemen know, a very strong advocate of provincial rights, I admit that if it were shown that the Bill interferes with the rights of the provinces, I should be inclined to give a good deal of consideration to the arguments of the adversaries of the Bill on that question of autonomy. I am one of those who believe that we must protect provincial rights, and that those who represent the province of Quebec especially must take a very strong position on that question in favour of provincial rights. But in what way is provincial autonomy affected by this Bill ? The only object of the Bill is to confirm to the new provinces exactly what has been done by the council of the Northwest and by the legislature in accordance with the laws and with the constitution. Let me frankly make an admission which perhaps will be turned against me, but which I am ready to make nevertheless. It is that if any persons have a right to complain of the Bill it is not the Protestants. It is the Catholics.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—I am ready to admit that they do not get the very thing which they would be entitled to get in virtue of the constitution and of the Act of 1875. But whose fault was it? There were ordinances passed by the council of the Northwest which were not disallowed as they should have been, because that was the only way to prevent the evil which they might produce and which they have produced. Those

605

resolutions and ordinances, not having been abrogated, are still in force ; and the government was bound to consider them as forming part of the whole system of schools which existed at the time of the organization of the new provinces.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Were they constitutional ?

Hon. Mr. DAVID—That is another question. Perhaps they were not ; but they have been treated as if they were constitutional. The Conservative government, which the hon. gentleman supported for so many years, refused to disallow those ordinances. They have not been tested before the courts, and consequently they are in force and you could not now abolish those ordinances without interfering with the question of provincial rights.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—If they were unconstitutional they do not require to be disallowed.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—It was the only means which was at the disposal of the government. The time has passed now, but it was the only means to do away with those ordinances. I will recall to the hon. gentleman who says they were unconstitutional—

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—They were unconstitutional.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—Sir John Thompson did not give that reason for refusing to disallow them. That was not the reason given by him at all.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—He did not disallow them because they were not a provincial law.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—That is a fine distinction. I do not want to enter into all the details of the question and to take into consideration all the subtle distinctions which can be drawn. For the last six months those subtle distinctions have been made, and nobody knows where they are any more than they did before. Let us consider the question broadly and drop those subtleties. If I discussed the matter for six hours, I would not convince the hon. gentleman from Stadacona and the hon. gentleman would not know any more about those subtle distinctions.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—I admit he would not know more.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—I did not catch the last remark made by the hon. gentleman, but it must be good, like everything else he has said. Take the question of general interests. It is said those Bills are against the general interests of the country. I will make another admission for the moment. If it were demonstrated that the education which has been given, and which is given now, in separate schools, in schools which are under the control of our bishops and priests ; if it were demonstrated that the education given there to our children is contrary to the laws and to the constitution, to the principles of religion and morals, and that the children are taught disloyal doctrines, that they are taught to be disloyal to the constitution and to the king, and to despise religion, I should be inclined to say : ‘The argument is strong,’ and I think I should be on the side of those who employed the argument ; but who is the man who is able to make that assertion ? I will say that the contrary is true, and that our bishops and priests have been blamed very often for being extreme in their teaching of loyalty, in their feelings of loyalty ; and I am ready to admit that I blamed them very strongly for having been, in 1837, on the side of the government, for having been extreme in arraying themselves against their countrymen fighting for political liberty. They have been blamed very often for having, in the first years of the last century in the great wars which took place between England and France, been too sympathetic towards England, for having sung Te Deums in the Catholic churches on the occasion of British victories, and for having contributed toward a monument to Lord Admiral Nelson to commemorate the great victory of Trafalgar. They were also blamed for having allowed themselves to be charmed by the Conservative party, and for having assisted our Orange fellow-countrymen to establish confederation. No ; the teaching of disloyal doctrine and pernicious theories will never come from those schools, and I think the time is near when all those who govern the different countries of this world will appreciate the teaching which is given in our religious schools. Socialists, anarchists and all those people, who threaten

606

to cover the world with blood and ruin, will not emanate from those schools. They will come from the clubs where the teachings of Christ are replaced by the doctrines of demagogues. Religion will become more and more necessary for the government of this world. Especially, I say, it is essential when men are young that the principles of religion, of morality, should be infused into their souls. I am inclined to believe in the teaching of Protestant religion in Protestant schools, and in the teaching of Catholicism in Catholic schools. I think that the teaching of Christian principles and doctrines will give to the children of this country the strength which they require to struggle against pernicious doctrines and against depressing influences, equally fatal to society as to man individually. The teaching in separate schools, instead of being detrimental, will be beneficial to the country, will give to our children principles of justice and fair-play, which are absolutely necessary for the government of this country and the working of confederation. But the situation of the government was very difficult. They were placed between two extremes; on one side they were condemned and stigmatized, and the Prime Minister especially was referred to as a fanatic by the Conservative newspapers of the province of Ontario, and denounced in the province of Quebec as a traitor to his race and to his religion. But, fortunately, the Prime Minister of Canada is above all accusation, and nothing can prevent him from doing what he thinks is in the interest of his country. He did what he thought proper. He thought, in this matter, as in all the matters that have arisen since confederation has been established—all national and religious questions especially—that there is only one way to settle such questions, which was the means adopted by the Conservative party while they were in power. It was to come to some agreement, to have recourse to compromise and to mutual concession. But compromise, which was a virtue at the time of the splendour of the Conservative party, is now a crime. It does not become those who established confederation on the foundation of tolerance and compromise, those who have governed the country in the name of conciliation, and who, so many times, have put forward the plea of political necessity, saying that this country could not be governed otherwise than by mutual concessions—it does not become them to abolish the pedestal of their policy and to tear to pieces the flag of their party. I may be allowed to say that it does not become their friends of the province of Ontario, and especially those who belong to the Orange lodges, because I have a right to assert that all the agitation came from those quarters. I do not say so with any feeling of hatred; I have a right to mention it as a fact. It does not become them to denounce the policy which has made them so strong for so many years, because there is no doubt that the Orange Order was the bone and sinew of the Conservative party and enjoyed a great deal of advantage on account of the Conservative party remaining in power. I say it does not become them now to be so violent against those bishops and priests with whom they were so happy to co-operate in former days in fighting the Liberal party.

Hon. Mr. PERLEY—Did not Laurier join the Orange party in 1896 in opposing the Remedial Bill?

Hon. Mr. DAVID—These are questions of fact which we cannot ignore. I know a little of the history of Canada and when occasion requires I have the right to state what I have learned in studying the history of our country. Speaking of the events of 1896, on what side were the Orangemen at that time?

Hon. Mr. PERLEY—They voted with Sir Wilfrid.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—On what side were they in the election of 1896, when Laurier was struggling for provincial autonomy and political liberty? They were not on the side of Laurier.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—They were.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—They were co-operating at the time with the bishops and priests, whom they now denounce as dangerous. That is the fact.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—I am sorry to say that is not the fact.

Hon. Mr. PERLEY—Mr. Sifton is not an Orangeman.

Hon. Mr. THIBAUDEAU (Rigaud)—The clergy were against Laurier.

607

Hon. Mr. DAVID—In 1896 the great majority of the Orangemen supported the Conservative candidates. There may have been some who took the other view, but that was what the majority did. We saw so many strange things at that time—

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—That nothing can surprise us. I have a right to say that in 1896, as in all former times when the Conservative party were in power, the Orangemen were the bulwark of that party.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Who fought the Remedial Bill?

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—Who defeated it?

Hon. Mr. DAVID—That is another question. I have a right to say that the Orange order which was so fierce and violent against our Catholic priests and bishops did not denounce their Conservative chiefs in 1896 or at any time for thirty years before that for being the friends of those who fought for the success of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. It was not a crime at that time to be allied with the Catholic priests and bishops. That is a new doctrine which has come into force since the Conservative party and the Orangemen have been in opposition. I mention these matters without passion and simply to bring to the remembrance of the opponents of the Bill and of the government what they have done themselves in the past, in order that they may be more charitable to their opponents. That is my only object; because the hon. member for Stadacona and his friends should remember the events of the past and take into consideration that if the premier, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whom he attacked yesterday with so much energy, is placed in such a situation that he cannot do more than he has done for his countrymen and co-religionists, it is because of the Ordinances passed by the legislative council of the Northwest, and that to do entire and complete justice he would have been obliged to repeal those ordinances. Who is the man who will say in good faith that any government or any party would have been able at the present time to repeal the ordinances adopted by the Northwest council? Who is the statesman who would have taken such a position, which might have become so dangerous for the minority in this country, and especially in Quebec? Who is the statesman who would undertake to establish a precedent which might be so detrimental to the best interests of the country, and especially to Quebec?

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Sir Wilfrid Laurier took that position himself on the 21st February last, and what changed his mind is not the conduct of the Conservatives, but the conduct of Mr. Sifton.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—Laurier did—

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—What Sifton wanted.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—Did what any statesman in this country would have been obliged to do. When Mr. McCarthy moved a resolution to abolish the use of the French language in the Northwest Territories, and Sir John Thompson moved to refer the question to the council of the Northwest after the elections which were to take place—when the resolution was voted upon authorizing the people of the Northwest, if they thought proper, to abolish the use of the French language in the Northwest, how is it the hon. gentleman from Stadacona voted for that resolution?

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—I defy the hon. gentleman to show that I voted for that resolution. I was not in the chamber at that time.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—Was there another Landry?

Hon. Mr. PERLEY—Yes, from New Brunswick.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—That Landry is a judge in New Brunswick.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—I withdraw the statement. Seeing the name and knowing the hon. gentleman from Stadacona better than the other Landry—because he is better known, I thought it must be the hon. gentleman. It is said that it was the principle of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the commencement to repeal the Northwest ordinance. No doubt it is the only chance that the hon. members have to attack the premier. Yes, it is true that he was obliged to modify his Bill; it is true that the present Bill is not in my opinion and in the opinion of many, as good as

608

the first one, but it is a large question. What were the hon. gentleman’s friends the leaders of the Conservative party saying everywhere in the recent elections and in the House of Commons—I have myself heard Mr. Borden, Mr. Sproule, and other chiefs of the Conservative party taking the same position—how is it that everywhere and especially on the hustings of North Oxford and London, they have stated that the original clause was not more favourable to the Catholics than the amended clause ? I must suppose when such men speak that they mean what they say and that what they think is worth something. I am of opinion consequently that it is open to doubt whether the amended clause is not as good as the original clause.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Not for us.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—Naturally not for you, never.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—I am able to read the clauses.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—I am ready to admit that there are exaggerations everywhere and repeat the words of the Holy Scripture, ‘Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.’ But there are times when such exaggerations and appeals to religious and national prejudices are especially dangerous. It is particularly so in circumstances like the present, when the object is to prevent justice being done to a certain class of the population who are entitled to certain rights under the constitution and laws, because, then unfortunately one has the right to think that the apparent motives of public interest which are alleged are connected with other motives, dangerous motives which generally are not avowed. In this case I have a right to say what I think since it was proclaimed on the hustings, in the papers and especially in certain papers, that the object of the violent opposition to the Bill was because they wanted to have a Protestant and English Northwest. I do not consider it a crime for a nationality to endeavour to secure its predominance, provided it is done without violating the constitution and the laws of justice. It is a natural feeling. I am not surprised that after the cession of the country to England, there were a certain number of English people in the province who endeavoured to unite Canada and make it an English and even a Protestant country. That is natural. It is natural for people having strong convictions and strong feelings of patriotism to wish the prosperity of their nationality. Patriotism is as much to be respected in the heart of an Englishman as in the heart of a Frenchman. The older I grow the more I come to the conclusion that it is dangerous to despise a man on account of his religion, or nationality because I say if I had been born under the same circumstances, of the same origin, of the same father and mother and brought up under the same circumstances, I would think the same way as does my fellow-countryman of another race. Unification is not immoral, but as I have said those who want to unify a people must do so by just and proper means. Look at what unification accomplished under other circumstances has produced in the world. At a certain time in the history of France one of the best and most industrious portions of the French nation was obliged to leave the country and go elsewhere, taking with them to the country of their adoption all the advantages of their industry, talent and ability, and thus France lost for ever the high position which she had occupied in this world, in material progress especially. That was because some of the kings of France wanted to unify the population and thought any means were permissible to attain their object. It was to unify the population in the different parts of Spain that Philip II, burned thousands of people and thus destroyed, as had been done in France, the prosperity of his empire. I have no hesitation in saying of Philip II that he was a tyrant, and that he forced a great many of his subjects to leave the kingdom in order to avoid his cruelty and escape the scaffold and the funeral pyre. It is to unify the Northwest—because they know now very well that it is impossible to unify the province of Quebec—to make the Northwest a Protestant and English country, that this agitation has been fomented.

In conclusion, let me say it must have been a disappointment to those who brought about confederation and their successors who have endeavoured to complete their work of pacification to find this outburst of fanaticism. If such a thing is possible, when there was so little reason for agitation, what would happen if there was serious

609

ground for excitement. Really, it is calculated to frighten those who are interested in the future of this country, and naturally it has frightened those who fear it will have the effect of checking the tide of immigration which is pouring into our country and enriching the Northwest. I hope I shall say nothing to offend any one, because that is not my intention, but if those who have fostered this agitation and have expressed their intentions, had the right to do what they say they intend to do, what would be the effect of their policy? It would be to close the Northwest to Catholic and French immigration. There is no doubt if they could do what they wished they would cover the whole Northwest with inscriptions upon which you read those fatal words, ‘Abandon hope all ye who enter here.’ It would close the Northwest to the descendants of those immortal pioneers, adventurers and warriors who discovered that vast region and shed their blood to conquer it, and gave their names to its rivers, its mountains, and to places where to-day there are thriving towns and cities. As reasonable men you must understand that the French Canadians have listened to what has been said and done in the last six months, and they would be less than human if they had not felt and resented it; but you must admit that the province of Quebec has shown a patience which must be acknowledged and admired by all citizens of this country and especially by our Protestant fellow-countrymen. Like all other people, they are sensitive especially on questions of nationality and religion, and you must be surprised that they have shown so much patience throughout this agitation. They have given an example to all other parts of the country and to all other nationalities. As a matter of fact, the people of Canada generally, whether of Ontario or Quebec, have been wiser and more prudent than those who pretended to be their leaders.

The electors of Levis, of North Oxford and of London have shown that it is useless to make appeals to their national and religious prejudices, and that they wanted fair-play and justice. One of the questions which embarrassed the most of our French and Catholic population is that they cannot reconcile the words and doings of their English fellow-countrymen with the words and doings of those great English statesmen who do so much honour to England. They cannot help remembering what has been said in the country by those who are sent from England to preside over the destinies of Canada. How many times have those great men admitted that the diversity of nationalities in this country was an element of progress, an element of welfare, of happiness and of prosperity—the great element of civilization—and how many times have the newspapers in England said that there is only one country in the world, where so many nations speaking different languages, having different beliefs, are living under the same flag. At the time of the glorious jubilee of Queen Victoria, the great satisfaction of Englishmen was expressed in the newspapers, and by the mouth of their public men, to see marching through the streets of London men of all nationalities, all origins, all creeds, and even all colours. There was no discrimination in the sympathy of the people for the visitors—yes there was a discrimination. Who was the most honoured man in that great galaxy of national celebrities that appeared before the Throne of England? It was a French Canadian, the Prime Minister of Canada, and I have no hesitation in saying that if those great statesmen of England were consulted they would repeat what they have said so many times, that it is an advantage that there are so many nationalities working together for the welfare and prosperity of that country, and if they were consulted on this question of the schools I am sure, in view of what they declared not long ago, that the Catholics have the right to give their children religious education in the English schools, that they would say the present Bill is founded on principles of justice and fair-play, and that all Canadians should support that Bill. In conclusion I would say without hesitation that the agitators in this country, whether they are French, Irish or English are not acting—

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—Don’t leave out the Scotch.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—And Scotch. They are not acting in accordance with the true principles of religion and patriotism when they

610

arouse the national and religious prejudices of their fellow-countrymen, because it may be disastrous for the future and prosperity of this country, and it is not true religion. It is not true Christianity, because Christianity is based upon charity. It is not true patriotism, because true patriotism does not arouse prejudices which may endanger the future welfare of the country. I will go further and say that they are not truly loyal because they shake the confidence of the people in the working of the constitution. The French Canadians are proud of the English constitution. They consider that it is one of the most admirable masterpieces of wisdom that the world has ever produced. They consider that it is the compass which guides the ship of the nation towards the shores of liberty. The French Canadians know that that constitution deserves their gratitude, because it has been constructed for them, and it has protected their rights and their national religious feelings. The hon. gentleman concluded his energetic speech by speaking of what would be said to Sir Wilfrid Laurier who has deserted the cause of the Catholics and the French people in this country. He did not finish. He omitted certain things in that part of his speech. I will put in what he has omitted. I will continue as if it were his speech, and I say that history will show that of all the statesmen who have governed the country, none has done more for the welfare, for the happiness and prosperity and the honour of his country than Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—I do not assent to that.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—History will show that his wisdom and his spirit of conciliation saved the country from troubles which threatened to destroy its foundation and precipitate it into the horrors of racial and religious war. History will show that he sought to reconcile his duty towards England with his duty toward Canada and towards his native province and that he sought to convince his countrymen of the province of Quebec that the best means of protecting minorities in this country is not to be aggressive but to be fair and just, just as he treats all creeds and nationalities, that the province of Quebec ought to be prudent in its demands, and stand always upon the constitution and the law. History will add that the province of Quebec remained faithful to her chief up to the end of his career, which I hope will last for some years yet; that she has been deaf to the appeals made to her feelings and to her sentiments by people who tried to lead her astray; that she has been deaf to the seducing voice of the sirens, and has placed implicit confidence and implicit faith in the great pilot who is guiding so surely and so patriotically the bark which carries the destinies of Canada and of the province of Quebec.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—I must congratulate my hon. friend who has taken his seat upon his very great and (to his own opinion) good oration on everything but that which is before the House. I have come to the conclusion from the tenor and trend of the speeches which have been delivered on the government side that they want to talk on everything but the question before the House, and I must say that they do it most successfully. They are successful as far as entertaining the House is concerned. They are doing it well so far as delivery is concerned, and demonstrate their knowledge of history and of the circumstances connected with everything, as I said before, but the question of separate schools. I am more convinced than ever that it is necessary for those who take the stand which I am obliged to take on this question to put themselves on record and give good, sound and logical reasons for the faith that is in them. My hon. friend talked about the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, and then attempted to lay the blame upon the late lamented Sir John Thompson for not providing for the relief or the protection of the minority in the Northwest, because Sir John Thompson had not disallowed the ordinances passed in 1892. I am sure my hon. friend knows better than that. He knows that Sir John Thompson had said that the ordinances of the Territories were entirely different from an Act of a provincial parliament, that there was a limitation to the powers of the provincial parliament, while the ordinances of the Territories could be changed and could be repudiated or disallowed at any time, the Territories being immediately under the federal authorities. I go further

611

than that. As a proof of this fact and as a proof of what I have stated, it was not necessary for Sir Wilfrid Laurier to base his Act upon the ordinances of 1901 or upon any other ordinance in the Northwest. His Bill as introduced the first time goes beyond the ordinances and repudiates them entirely, he bases his action upon the British North America Act of 1867. What does Sir John Thompson say ? I wish to place his remarks on record, because my hon. friend referred to that. He said :

Let me call attention especially to the differences which exist, as to the disallowance, between an ordinance of the Northwest Territories and the statute of a province. If a year is allowed to elapse without the disallowance of the statute of a province, that statute being within the provincial powers—and that is practically admitted here, except for the statement of Mr. Justice Rouleau, which I shall not discuss—that statute becomes law and is beyond the reach of any power but the legislature which enacted it. But, as regards an ordinance of the Northwest Territories, it must be remembered that this parliament has control of the Territories in a fuller and more absolute sense than it has control of the provinces.

It is a great fallacy—the word is none too strong, I can use stronger words than that—it is drawing a red herring across the trail to try to excuse Sir Wilfrid Laurier for not being able, by reason of these ordinances, to bring in any other Bill than the Bill which is before us now.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—Does the hon. member think that he is justified in saying that clause 16, No. 1, had the effect of abrogating and abolishing the ordinances ?

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—I do most distinctly. It paid no attention to the ordinances.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—And the Minister of Justice said so also.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—That disposes of that point. Now, my hon. friend, with all his liberality, and with all the toleration that characterized his speech, was a little bitter on some things. He wanted to associate the Orange party, whom he does not like, with the Conservative party, and he claimed that everything wrong that had been done by the Conservative party was done through the influence of Orangeism. I remember the day, in the united parliament of Canada, when the French Canadians, led by Sir George Cartier, brought up the separate school question, that out of fifteen Orange members thirteen or fourteen supported the schools.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—And that his friends, Hon. George Brown, Oliver Mowat and their followers, were the opponents of the separate schools. I will go further than that, and perhaps show my hon. friend a little more. When Dalton McCarthy joined the Reform party, the Radical party, the Laurier party, the first thing he set about doing was to destroy the French language and separate schools in the Northwest.

Hon. Mr. POWER—How many Liberals voted with him ?

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—I will tell you how many Liberals and how many Orangemen voted with him. The Orangemen who were the helpers of Dalton McCarthy in the endeavour to destroy the French language, are the ones he accuses of being in our ranks now, Mr. Sproule and Mr. Maclean. What did Sir John Macdonald do when Mr. McCarthy brought up the question ?

Hon. Mr. DAVID—Dalton McCarthy was not a Liberal.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—To all intents and purposes he was a Liberal. He left us and supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The hon. gentleman’s party got the benefit of all he did for them. Sir John Macdonald came to the rescue of the French Canadians and the people of the Northwest on that occasion. And what did he say ?

I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other. I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible. The statement that has been made so often that this is a conquered country is ‘à propos de rien.’ Whether it was conquered or ceded, we have a constitution under which all British subjects are in a position of absolute equality, having equal rights of every kind—of language, of religion, of property and of person. There is no paramount race in this country ; there is no conquered race in this country.

He went further in another extract which I could quote, and said nothing was more dear to a French Canadian—and I can well understand that—nothing was more dear

612

to a French Canadian than to be able to speak the language he learned at his mother’s knee,’ and to know that it would be respected and given a place. My hon. friend has stated that he is not satisfied with the present Bill. He spoke in the same way as my hon. friend the Secretary of State did. Both made what I would call first-class separate school speeches, yet they are willing to accept this Bill, this gold brick, instead of separate schools. It does not provide for separate schools any more than they have separate schools in Russia. There is perhaps no man in this chamber who is a greater supporter of separate schools than myself. We have, since 1865, in our town and in our county separate schools that are second to none in the province of Ontario. I state that publicly. My children were educated there, and I know ‘whereof I speak; and I am so much impressed with the idea of teaching religion in schools, that if there were two schools by my door, one of them a public school and the other a Protestant school, I would prefer to send my children to a Protestant school.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—We are of the same opinion.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—But I am not willing to take from Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s government what my hon. friend is willing to take. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the first Bill he introduced in the House of Commons, inserted clause 16 which gave to the people of the Northwest separate schools. He knows best the reason why he expunged that clause granting separate schools. I understand that Hon. Mr. Sifton withdrew from the cabinet because he could not get clause 16 altered, and Mr. Fielding threatened to withdraw from the cabinet because clause 16 was not according to his ideas. Both of these gentlemen were absent at the time clause 16 was framed. The clause was, however, changed to the present one, and the only thing I regret is that my hon. friend the Secretary of State did not threaten to withdraw if it were amended as it has been amended. But he did not, and that is a question he has to settle with his own conscience. As I read both clauses, clause 17 in the measure before us gives us nothing in the way of separate schools—gives us nothing, I repeat; and if there is any hon. gentleman in this House who can show me that we have the first iota of what can be considered separate schools under the control of the Catholic board or any other governing board of that description I am willing to concede that I am wrong. I have looked over the Bill carefully, and have compared it with clause 16 in the Bill as originally introduced, and while clause 16 as introduced in the first place by Sir Wilfrid Laurier gave us separate schools, clause 17 in the present Bill gives us nothing. Perhaps it would be well to go into the history of these things to a certain extent. What prompted the proclamation and every letter which was sent to the people of the Northwest during the troubles there in 1869. What was the great inducement which was inserted in all the proclamations? It was that their religious rights and religious practices would not be interfered with in any respect. When the troubles arose in 1869, on the authority of a telegram received from Her Majesty the Queen by Sir John Young, who was then Governor General of Canada, a proclamation was issued by him to the people of the Northwest which reads as follows:

By His Excellency the Right Hon. Sir John Young, Baronet, a member of Her Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross, of the most honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the most distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George, Governor General of Canada. To all and every the loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and to all whom these presents may come, greeting: The Queen has charged me as her representative to inform you that certain misguided persons in her settlement on the Red river have banded themselves together to oppose by force the entry into her Northwest Territories of the officers selected to administer in her name the government when the Territories are united to the Dominion of Canada under the authority of the late Act of parliament of the United Kingdom, that those persons have also forcibly and with violence prevented other of her loyal subjects from ingress into the country. Her Majesty feels assured that she may rely upon the loyalty of her subjects in the Northwest and believes those men who have illegally joined together have done so from some misrepresentation. Her Majesty is convinced that in sanctioning the union of the Northwest Territories with Canada she is promoting the best interests of the residents, and at the same time strengthening and consolidating her North American possessions as part of the British empire. You may judge then, of the sorrow and displeasure with which the Queen views the unreasonable and lawless proceedings which have occurred. Her Majesty commands me to state to you that she will always be ready through me as

613

her representative, to redress all well founded grievances, and that she has instructed me to hear and consider any complaints that may be made or desires that may be expressed to me as Governor General.

At the same time she has charged me to exercise all the power and authority with which she has entrusted me in the support of order and the suppression of unlawful disturbance.

By Her Majesty’s authority, I do therefore assure you that on the union with Canada all your civil and religious rights and privileges will be respected, your property secured to you, and that your country will be governed as in the past under British laws and in the spirit of British justice.

I do further under her authority entreat and command those of you who are still assembled and banded together in defiance of law, peacefully to disperse and return to your homes under the penalties of the law in case of disobedience.

I do lastly inform you that in case of your immediate and peaceable obedience and dispersion I shall order that no legal proceedings be taken against any parties implicated in those unfortunate breaches of the law.

Given under my hand and seal at arms at Ottawa this sixth day of November in the year of our Lord, 1869, and in the thirty-third year of Her Majesty’s reign.

(Sgd.) JOHN YOUNG.

A similar letter was addressed by Sir John Young to Governor McTavish at the same time, in which he says:

Government House, Ottawa.

W. McTavish, Esq., Governor of Assiniboia.

Sir,—I have the honour to address you in my capacity as representative of the Queen and Governor General of Her Majesty’s British North America possessions, and inclose for your information a copy of a message received from Earl Grenville in respect to the account I sent officially of the events occurring in Red River settlement. The message conveys the mature opinion of the imperial cabinet, the proclamation I have issued is based upon it, and you will observe that it requests all who have desires to express or complaints to make to refer to me as invested with authority on behalf of the British government and the inhabitants of Rupert’s Land and all classes and persuasions may rest assured that Her Majesty’s government has no intention of interfering with or setting aside, or allowing others to interfere with the religion, the rights or the franchises hitherto enjoyed or to which they may prove themselves equal. Make what use you think best of this communication and of the inclosed.

A letter, dated the 6th December, was sent to Donald A. Smith, now Lord Strathcona, which was as follows:

You may state with the utmost confidence that the Imperial government has no intention of acting otherwise or permitting others to act otherwise than in perfect good faith towards the inhabitants of the Red river district of the Northwest.

The letter to Mr. Smith further says:

‘The people may rely upon it that respect and protection will be extended to the different religious persuasions.’

All the correspondence that was sent to leading persons in that district at that time contained the promise that the religious convictions of the people, including their schools, would not be interfered with. Now what class of schools had they? In Ruperts Land and the Northwest Territories the schools were denominational and had been such for I might almost say centuries. The Roman Catholics, the Anglicans and I believe the Presbyterians and Methodists had denominational schools, supported by the people, prior to the union, and were always liberally aided, I believe, by the Hudson Bay Company. This is the meaning of the expression used in all the letters to these important men stating that they need not fear that their religious rights and convictions and all the liberties that they had enjoyed with their denominational schools would be interfered with. To carry out that promise, when Manitoba became a part of the union, Sir John Macdonald at once looked after the fulfilment of the promises made by His Excellency the Governor General, Sir John Young, and gave them separate schools. To carry out that promise, when the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie introduced the Northwest Territories Act in 1875, he amended the Bill after it had been before the House some time, in order to give separate schools to the people of the Northwest Territories. This he did when reminded of it by Sir John Macdonald. The clause which was then added to the Bill was as follows:

When and so soon as any system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of the council or assembly, as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education; but it shall therein be always provided, that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Northwest Territories, or any lesser portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same may be known, may establish such schools therein as they may think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor, and further that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and that, in such latter case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they may impose upon themselves in respect thereof.

Hon. Mr. POWER—Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that that clause was inserted in the Bill of 1875 on motion of Sir John Macdonald?

614

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—No, I did not say that. I said it was done at the suggestion of Sir John Macdonald, who reminded Mr. Mackenzie that he had omitted the provision. The Hon. Alexander Mackenzie gave Sir John Macdonald credit for it, and said he was reminded by his right hon. friend that he had omitted it. The law was so amended as to give Roman Catholic or Protestant separate schools to the people of the Northwest Territories. We had the opinion of Hon. Mr. Miller, of the hon. Secretary of State, of Sir Alexander Campbell and a number of hon. gentlemen who occupy seats in this House, that the intention was to give the people of the Northwest separate schools in order that those who might be going to that land would know exactly the conditions existing there with respect to education. I have here a pamphlet containing extracts from the speeches on that occasion. Sir Alexander Campbell, a most eminent man and leader of this House for many years, said:

The object of the Bill was to establish and perpetuate in the Northwest Territories the same system as prevailed in Ontario and Quebec, and which had worked so well in the interest of peace and harmony with the different populations of those provinces. He thought the fairer course, and the better one, for all races and creeds, was to adopt the suggestion of the government, and enable people to establish separate schools in that Territory and thus prevent the introduction of the evils from which Ontario and Quebec had suffered, but had judiciously rid themselves.

Mr. Ryan of Montreal, and Hon. Letellier St. Just and Hon. Mr. Miller all spoke in the same line. Now it is said that it would not be necessary, if they adhered strictly to provincial rights to perpetuate the existence of the schools that were granted in those days. I believe it would not. I believe that the federal government would have a perfect right to ignore everything of that kind, and were entitled to credit for trying to carry out the promises and establish separate schools in the Northwest. When the present government introduced the Bill in the first place they showed the same disposition; they showed a disposition to try to carry out these promises, but I am sorry to say by the amended clause they have not done so. The present ordinances give you nothing. Clause 8, on page 6 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, is as follows:

There shall be an educational council consisting of five persons, at least two of whom shall be Roman Catholics, to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council who shall receive such remuneration as the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall determine.

These are a mere advisory board. They have not even a vote; they have no control over anything. Then it goes on in clause 10 to provide:

All regulations respecting the inspection of schools, the examination, training, licensing and grading of teachers, courses of study, teachers’ institutes and text and reference books shall before being adopted or amended be referred to the council for its discussion and report.

Under the separate school system in Quebec there are two boards, a Protestant board which has control of the Protestant or dissentient schools, and a Roman Catholic board which has control of what they call public schools in that province. In Ontario we have it in a little different form; we have a Minister of Education, but under him there is an inspector who has control over and inspects all separate schools in the province, so that there is direct control over the separate schools of Ontario, over the selection of books, the curriculum generally, the teachers, their qualifications, and everything else. In the province of Alberta, under this much-vaunted Bill, they have control of nothing. They cannot even select the books for the separate schools, and to demonstrate that, let me go to clause 137. That clause provides:

No religious instruction except as hereinafter provided shall be permitted in the school of any district from the opening of such school until one-half hour previous to its closing in the afternoon after which time any such instruction permitted or desired by the board may be given. 2. It shall, however, be permissible for the board of any district to direct that the school be opened by the recitation of the Lord’s prayer.

Then it goes on in another clause to provide that they shall have permission from half-past three to four, if the parents desire, to teach religion in the schools. Those who wish can go home, and leave the boys and girls who remain to receive their religious education. From whom will the Catholics receive their religious education? From a Protestant teacher? From whom will the Protestants receive their religious education? From a Catholic teacher?

Hon. Mr. FROST—My hon. friend is mistaken. I think the child will receive

615

Religious instruction from the clergyman of his church.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—Permission no doubt will be given to the clergyman to visit the school at half-past three, dismiss those children who do not wish to remain, and impart religious instruction, but that clergyman might live fifteen, twenty or twenty-five miles away and I should like to know how often he could visit those schools.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Is that a privilege ?

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—I do not consider it much of a privilege.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—Have you anything better to offer from your friends?

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—If you go through the history of the country you will find that our friends never gave you a stone when you asked for bread. They gave you separate schools when you wanted them, and always protected the minority.

Hon. Mr. POWER—They have changed their base lately.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—They have not changed their base. Since my hon. friend provokes discussion on that point, I will give him some ancient history on the separate school question.

Hon. Mr. POWER—We have had enough of that.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—We will get a little more of it. In the confederation debates, Sir John Macdonald said :

We will enjoy here that which is the great test of constitutional freedom, we will have the rights of the minority respected ; in all countries the rights of majorities take care of themselves.

Sir George Cartier said :

Of course the difficulty it would be said, would be to deal fairly by the minority. In Upper Canada the Roman Catholics would find themselves in the minority—in Lower Canada the Protestants would be in a minority, while the lower provinces were divided. Under such circumstances would any one pretend that either local or general government would sanction any injustice ? What would be the consequence . . . it would be censured everywhere . . . any attempt to deprive the minority of their rights would at once be thwarted.

D’Arcy McGee said:

All that the Protestant minority in Lower Canada can require by way of security to their educational system will be cheerfully granted by this House. I, for one, as a Roman Catholic, will second and support such amendments.

Now that is the history of the Conservative party. And I should like my hon. friend to point out in the history of this country where any attempt was made to interfere with the rights of the minority by that party. It is true that a few scattering supporters of the Conservative party in the past, as now, may have gone over to the Liberals to oppose us when we were trying to do justice to the minority. A few have perhaps supported those who are in opposition to Sir Wilfrid Laurier in this supposed grant of separate schools to the Catholics, but their action does not bind the Conservative party. The party has never gone back on the rights of the minority. They have carried out their promises in every instance. At the time of confederation the Protestants of Lower Canada felt that they were not protected, and as the schools in that province were more of a religious than of a public character, they wanted to be protected, and I think they were right. Who came to their rescue ? Sir George Cartier resigned his seat and went into the local legislature in order to see a Bill passed giving them their rights in Lower Canada. Sir John Macdonald stood by them in that instance ; D’Arcy McGee stood by them, every Conservative leader stood by them and saw that their rights were protected. Go with me to Manitoba and you will find their history is equally good there. The minority were protected until they were deprived of their rights by my hon. friend’s friends in the province of Manitoba, who were then on the treasury benches—I have reference to the Greenway government, in which Mr. Sifton occupied a prominent position, who was one of the first men from the Northwest that Sir Wilfrid Laurier took into his cabinet when he came into power. The same history and the same record holds good in the Territories. Alexander Mackenzie had forgotten to provide protection for the minority until reminded of it by Sir John Macdonald. The Conservative party have carried out in every instance the promise made in 1763 of toleration towards the Roman Catholic religion in Canada. Lord North, one of the greatest Tories of his day, supported the Quebec Act, and therefore it ill becomes my hon. friend to charge the Conservative party

616

with intolerance and opposition to the Roman Catholic religion, or the establishment of separate schools. Those who are in glass houses should not throw stones, because they will find their house broken over their heads. It ill becomes the hon. gentleman to talk about the Conservative party being intolerant. What has his leader done on this occasion? I am not going to beat around the bush and go to France, Spain and other countries ; I will stay at home. The 16th clause of the first Bill provides :

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

1. 2. Subject to the provisions of the said section 93, and in continuance of the principle heretofore sanctioned under the Northwest Territories Act, it is enacted that the legislature of the said province shall pass all necessary laws in respect of education, and that it shall therein always be provided (a) that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the said province, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name it is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessments and collection of rates therefor, and (b) that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor, and (c) that in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessment of such rates as they impose upon themselves with respect thereto.
   3. In the appropriation of public moneys by the legislature in aid of education, and in the distribution of any moneys paid to the government of the said province arising from the school fund established by the Dominion Lands Act, there shall be no discrimination between the public schools and the separate schools, and such moneys shall be applied to the support of public and separate schools in equitable shares or proportions.

That gives separate schools. Mackenzie’s law gave us separate schools, but the ordinances passed from time to time obstructed the carrying out of that law. In fact the aim was evidently, especially from 1885 onward, to cripple the separate schools. Under the ordinance of 1885 there was to be a board composed of 5 members, two Catholics and three Protestants, and each of those bodies had control over its own schools. From that day forward the Separate School Act given by Mr. Mackenzie was crippled, until 1901, when the whole thing was taken away. It is on the Ordinances of 1901 that this Bill is based ; and to-day we have not a shadow of separate schools in the Northwest. The clause in this Bill as amended reads :

1. 17. Section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said province, with the substitution for paragraph (1) of the said section 93, of the following paragraph:

(1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act, under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories passed in the year 1901, or with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school as provided for in the said ordinances.

These are the Ordinances No. 29 and 30, of 1901, of which I have spoken. If my hon. friend can extract separate schools out of that clause, he can extract sunbeams from cucumbers.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—I am not an extractor.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—No, but my hon. friend is very good at delivering orations which have nothing to do with the subject—interesting orations—but he was quite right in saying that he did not offend anybody. Such orations could not give offence to any one.

What stand do I take on this question? My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, has moved the six months’ hoist, and I have no hesitation in defining my position, that I shall support that motion.

Hon. Mr. BAKER—Why?

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—Because we are not getting separate schools. For bread we are given a stone ; we are getting a gold brick for the genuine article. We are not beggars ; we are entitled to our rights. We are a respectable minority in that country to-day ; those rights were promised us, but since the hon. gentleman’s friends have got into power, the minority in the Northwest have been robbed as the people of Manitoba were robbed of their separate schools. They have robbed us in the Northwest though they have done it in a different way. I for one would not accept such a law. I want reasonable separate schools, separate schools under which the children either Roman Catholic or Protestant of that district can be educated in a respectable manner by teachers holding certificates that will be inferior to no other class of schools in that district.

617

That is the kind of school I desire. If I do not get that I am not going to accept anything else. We are getting nothing ; the hon. gentlemen talk about getting a little concession, a compromise forsooth. We cannot have compromises on a matter of that kind. Religion is too important. It is a right that we hold too dear to have any compromise upon it. For that reason I will vote heartily and cordially for the motion to give the six months’ hoist to this Bill. Perhaps at the end of six months, if we are successful in defeating it in this House, as I hope we will be, my hon. friend’s leaders will come to understand that the people of this country want no such compliment, no such stone for bread. We want bread where we are entitled to it.

Hon. Mr. COX—I should like to say that if the hon. gentleman who has just spoken had been leader of the opposition in the House of Commons and had delivered that speech there and had assisted in the carrying through of the Bill as it was originally submitted to the House, the chances are that the Bill would have been law two months ago.

Hon. Mr. McMULLEN—I have no intention at this stage of the debate of taking up the time of the House on this important question, but I think it is my duty to express my views with regard to the Bill now before the House. We all have a pretty fair recollection of the history of separate schools in this Dominion. We have had them in Ontario for a great many years, and we have not suffered any serious interference. In some places in the rural districts perhaps our people thought it would be better if we had not had them. But after all our Roman Catholic and Protestant friends have got along nicely together and we have a separate school system and an educational system which are a credit to Ontario. That educational system with separate schools intermixed, took the first prize at the Worlds Exposition in Chicago, as the best educational system in the world. Now with regard to this exceedingly important question—because it is an important question—I desire to point out a few facts. While hon. gentlemen opposite can all get under the shadow of a resolution for a six months’ hoist, we know perfectly that a great many of them, as well as their friends in the House of Commons, entertain the view that these new provinces should be clothed with full powers of self-government as provided by the 93rd section of the British North America Act, that they should receive full power to deal with every question within the range of property and civil rights as laid down in the constitution, and that they should get the right to deal with matters of education just the same as they did in Manitoba. When we erected Manitoba into a province we gave them full powers of autonomy, we reserved nothing. We gave everything that the constitution provided for, and what is the result in Manitoba ? The people of Manitoba were quite aware that this Dominion had entered into a covenant with the Canadian Pacific Railway that no charters would be granted for twenty years for lines of railway running southward from the main line. That contract was in existence when Manitoba was erected into a province. After they got their full powers of self-government, in open violation of the covenant with the Canadian Pacific Railway they granted charters for roads running south-west of the main line. At that time the government of Sir John Macdonald controlled the affairs of this Dominion, and that government disallowed the Act. It was re-enacted and disallowed several times. At last they came to a decision that they would submit to the Privy Council the question of the powers granted to Manitoba under the Provincial Autonomy Act as to how far she had a right to grant those charters. The question was submitted and the answer of the Privy Council was that Manitoba had the right and had the power to grant those charters if she chose. We then paid the Canadian Pacific Railway ten millions in cash to abrogate that clause in the covenant with them in order to allow Manitoba to do as she pleased. The next thing Manitoba did was to establish separate schools. The attention of the House has been drawn to the fact that it was under Messrs. Greenway and Sifton that that Act was passed. After the Act was passed advantage was immediately taken of a provision in the constitution regarding remedial legislation. The government was appealed to, whether under my esteemed friend opposite or not I do not very well remember, but it makes no

618

difference. They were appealed to under the provisions of the constitution to introduce a remedial Bill and to reinstate the people of the province of Manitoba in the rights of which they had been deprived under the law that had been passed. That Bill was introduced in the closing hours or days of parliament. The opposition took objection to the utilization of that particular provision, or its application to the case of Manitoba, fearing the result of a measure passed to reinstate in the province of Manitoba a matter which the province had themselves done away with under the powers vested in them. The opposition, led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, kept the question before the House until parliament expired. I think it was a most fortunate thing that parliament was as near the closing hours of its existence as it was when that measure was brought in. Had parliament been in such a position that the consideration of that question could have been forced upon the House and had it become law, I do not know where the trouble might have ended, and no man can point out what the result might have been. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce stated last night that we had two wars in the Northwest at a cost of some $12,000,000. If the government had succeeded in passing the Remedial Bill we might have had another war. We cannot tell what it might have caused. While provision is made in the constitution for remedial legislation, it is a remarkable thing that there is no indication in that provision of how it is to be carried out or enforced. It simply says that the central authority at Ottawa shall have the right to introduce remedial legislation in the interests of the minority deprived of their right. But how are you going to carry it out? In what way is the remedial legislation to be enforced? How are you going to re-establish the separate schools and restore to the minority their rights? I contend it is an utter and absolute impossibility.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. McMULLEN—If the provincial government set their neck determinedly to resist the re-establishment of separate schools on an equitable financial basis, it is an impossibility by a statute of this Dominion to fetter the province so that she cannot after all frustrate the object parliament may have had in view. For my part I earnestly hope that where there is a Protestant majority in any province in this Dominion, they will so exercise themselves regarding the rights of Catholics as to concede every reasonable request that they can ask. Catholics do hold it as a conscientious conviction that it is their duty to teach their religion to their children together with secular education. My hon. friend declares that it is one of the fixed principles of Catholicism to do that. As a Protestant I am not going to stand in the way of the Catholic when he declares that that is a part of his religion, I am not going by act or otherwise to interfere with the exercise of this right. No man should do that. I hold that we should exercise that spirit of toleration, forbearance and respect one towards the other, that we should concede to them the right to enjoy those privileges where they are in the minority, and that the same should be done where the Protestants are in the minority. Suppose that we give the Territories which we are now erecting into provinces the same power we conferred on Manitoba, supposing we give them full powers, give them a full right to legislate with regard to education and with regard to everything else. Start them out on the road with full autonomy. What is to be the result?

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—But under the British North America Act.

Hon. Mr. McMULLEN—Under the British North America Act, certainly. Give them the full powers there provided. We know perfectly well that the Conservative party made a covenant with the Canadian Pacific Railway that for all time to come their track, rolling stock and machinery was to be free from taxation. I do not find fault with them for it, but is not that the condition of affairs to-day? When you give these provinces full powers of autonomy they will have the right in violation of that law to impose taxation on the Canadian Pacific Railway. But you say, ‘Don’t curtail them, give them full powers of autonomy. Let them legislate for themselves as they please. You have no right to withhold any power from them.’ In that case the first thing they may do—and they will

619

have the right and power to do it—is to tax the Canadian Pacific Railway for its rolling stock, for its machinery, for its road-bed, for its track, and for everything else and then you will have the Canadian Pacific Railway coming to us again. We had to settle with them before and give them ten millions to dispose of their claims with regard to Manitoba, and now we will have them coming back to us again with regard to these two provinces and they will say ‘The province is violating the law; they are imposing taxes upon us. You covenanted with us that we would not be subjected to taxation. Now we want you to do the same as you did in Manitoba and recoup us for the injustice to which we are now subjected under the full powers of autonomy which you have given to the provinces.’ Is it in the interests of the Dominion that we should be placed in that position by the powers conferred upon the new provinces, if no restraint is to be imposed. Now this Act provides for that. No doubt the government were actuated by a desire to avoid the difficulties which were met with in the case of Manitoba. The payment of $10,000,000 taught them a lesson and is teaching us a lesson for I observe that there is a clause in the Act which restricts their power of taxation, a clause which covers this particular point. Let us now take the other case. Supposing we give them full power to legislate as they please and that ten or fifteen years from now some government comes into power in the province which thinks it would be a popular thing to abolish separate schools, and they do it as they did in Manitoba, what is to be the result of that? Back comes the minority to Ottawa, and they say, ‘We want you now to bring into play the provisions of the constitution and grant us remedial legislation to reinstate us in our rights.’ I should like to see the government backed by the full force of the province of Quebec—and I do not blame them—advocating the rights of the minority, with also the support of the scattered population of Catholics throughout other provinces that would naturally and justly demand that under the provisions of the constitution the minority shall get relief. There you are; remedial legislation again. Another Remedial Bill—it may not come in at the close of parliament. It may come in at a time when the House has to face it. They have to pass the law. Now, how are you going to enforce it? Where are the provisions by which you will reinstate that minority in the rights of which they have been deprived as they have been in the case of Manitoba.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—All that is coming.

Hon. Mr. McMULLEN—You have no provision whatever, it is not outlined how or by what method or means you are to reinstate the separate schools. The result would be you would be likely to have another clash with the two provinces. There are a great many people in the country who are saying that we are getting a great many United States people in the Territories, a mixed population from all parts of creation into that country, and some of our friends have gone so far as to say that if it gets largely filled up with a United States population there might be an agitation for annexation after a while. It is becoming a danger of late, so many people are flowing in there from the United States. I would ask this House, what is more likely to cause an excitement for annexation,—an insurrection in those provinces—than attempting to reimpose upon them something that they themselves had abandoned and resented by their law. If they had the power to abolish separate schools and they abolished them and the central authority endeavoured under the constitution to reimpose them, what would be more likely to create dissension and a feeling for annexation to the United States than an act of that kind. I know of nothing. The government have looked over the whole ground seriously and have come to the conclusion that the best time to settle that question is the present. They have given a very mild type of separate school, but the people are satisfied with it. Notwithstanding the fact that the measure has been before parliament for several months there has not been any large volume of petitions presented against it. There has been no appeal. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out last night the Minister of the Interior went up there and appealed to the people and was returned by acclamation. There is no feeling there against the system of schools which they have at present. They are perfectly

620

Satisfied with it, and in view of the experiences we have had with Manitoba and in view of the experiences all over the Dominion, in view of the provision in the constitution providing for remedial legislation, in view of the fact that there is no provision by which the relief can be provided, the government have come to the conclusion that it is best here and now to settle this question for ever, and have peace for all time to come. No more prudent or statesmanlike conclusion can be imagined than that which has been arrived at on this question. It is the best settlement that could be made of the whole matter, and I contend that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his associates deserve credit not merely from their followers, but from every sober sensible individual in this Dominion in placing the charter of the new provinces upon a firm ground that will secure peace and harmony and will for ever set at rest the question that caused so much trouble and so much excitement in Manitoba and in other provinces. Under all the circumstances we are glad to be able to say that the government has acted prudently, and I do not think that the government could have acted more wisely than they have done in this case.

Hon. Sir W. HINGSTON—I was about to ask the hon. gentleman, if he considers it a settlement made for the people when 40 per cent of the people cannot avail themselves of its provisions, when their consciences prevent them from availing themselves of that settlement.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until eight o’clock this evening.

Second Sitting.

The SPEAKER took the chair at 8 p.m.

Routine proceedings.

….

PROVINCE OF ALBERTA AUTONOMY BILL.

The Order of the Day being called—

Resuming the adjourned Debate on the motion for the second reading Bill (69) An Act to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Alberta.—(Hon. Mr. David.)

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED said : I would claim your indulgence while I make a few observations on the Bill before us and perhaps enter upon a short discussion of two or three of its features which up to the present time have not received attention from hon. gentlemen who have discussed it. I might say that the educational clause has very largely overshadowed every other question which has arisen, and owing to that fact very little attention has been given to many questions which certainly are of great importance, if not of vital importance, to those new provinces. It would be somewhat interesting probably if one had time, and the thermometer were not at 80 degrees, to review historically the evolution of those territories from the time of their acquisition by the federal government through the various stages of government that have been granted to them by the central power up to the present time ; but that is largely a matter of record and it is therefore unnecessary for me to direct attention to those facts. Permit me, however, to say this, on the threshold of the observations I have to make, that for some years the people of those territories have been very properly looking forward to the time when provincial autonomy would be given them. For some years they have memorialized the federal authorities through the territorial government for that measure of self-government, viz., provincial autonomy, which their position and their interests demanded. They had a right to expect that when the time arrived for the Dominion government to give consideration to this question—a question which in my judgment transcends every other question which has been before this parliament for many years—the fullest consideration would be given to this measure and that they would

621

be placed upon an equality with the other provinces of our confederation. For various reasons they had a right to expect that this position of advantage would be accorded them as a matter of right by the federal power. It is almost unnecessary for me to point out that when the Act of Confederation was passed, the framers of that Act certainly had in view a uniform system of provincial government so far as it would be possible to adopt uniformity with reference to the different provinces of the Dominion. It was never contemplated for a moment, I venture to say, that there should be imperfect or incomplete provinces or forms of government not provided for in the Confederation Act. I venture further to say that there has not been placed on the statute-books of the Dominion or even Great Britain a measure which was more fully considered, more carefully prepared, or so far reaching in its results as the British North America Act. It possessed practically all the elasticity necessary to include within the confederation not only the then existing colonies which had not entered into the union, but those territories known as Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territories and which the federal government anticipated acquiring through treaty with the Hudson Bay Company and the imperial government; it cannot be said that at the time, not only of the passage of the Confederation Act, but at the time it was discussed, these territories were not fully in contemplation of the framers of the British North America Act. Any hon. gentleman who has studied the confederation debates cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the fathers of confederation fully foresaw the day on which these Bills would be introduced in the parliament of Canada, and the discussion that must necessarily take place thereon, and every provision was made in that Act for the entry of those territories into confederation. Prefatory to what I have to say with reference to other features of the Bill, permit me to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that section 146 of the British North America Act provided for the entry of those territories into the union. That section provided the manner in which they would be admitted, namely, upon an address by the Houses of parliament to the Queen. The section is as follows:—

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, on addresses from the Houses of parliament in Canada, and from the Houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces or any of them into the union, and on address from the Houses of parliament of Canada to admit Rupert’s Land, and the Northwest Territories, or either of them, into the union on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act ; and the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The Dominion parliament prepared an address with reference to the entry into the union of those territories, and I will take the liberty of reading a clause of the address in question to show what was in contemplation at that time. This is an address to Her Majesty the Queen from the Senate and House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, passed by this body on December 17th, 1867, and the clause to which I refer and which is peculiarly applicable to this discussion reads as follows :

That the welfare of a sparse and widely scattered population of British subjects of European origin, already inhabiting these remote and unorganized Territoiries would be materially enhanced by the formation therein of political institutions.

I call attention particularly to these words:

Bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will admit, to those which exist in the several provinces of this Dominion.

In view of this fact will any hon. gentleman say that the language embodied in that address and presented to the Queen in Council could bear two meanings, when the Senate and House of Commons in 1867 prayed the imperial parliament to grant them power over these Territories so that they might establish institutions analogous to those which existed in the several provinces of this Dominion. What other conclusion can we possibly arrive at, than that those institutions were to be the same as those provided for in the British North America Act ?

Hon. Mr. POWER—Did that address refer to what are now Manitoba and the Northwest Territories ?

622

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—This address had reference to the Northwest Territories, not Manitoba.

Hon. Mr. POWER—At the time those Territories were not part of Canada.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Manitoba was carved out of Rupert’s Land, and there was an address for that which my hon. friend will find in the statutes.

Hon. Mr. POWER—I am simply asking for information. It was only in 1869 that we got possession of those Territories.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—The address I am speaking of had particular reference to the Northwest Territories. There was an address also presented practically at the same time having relation to the province of Manitoba which was about entering the union.

Hon. Mr. POWER—In 1867?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—This was passed on the 17th December, 1867, by the Senate and House of Commons, and is signed by Joseph Cauchon, Speaker of the Senate and James Cockburn, Speaker of the House of Commons.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—That address was sent to the Queen in Council in order to supply defects supposed to exist as to the power of Canada to take in the territories.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Probably what the hon. gentleman has reference to is the Act of 1871, which dealt with an infirmity which was thought to exist as to the creation of provinces out of those territories.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—Perhaps it was.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I should like to call my hon. friend’s attention and ask his opinion with reference to section 146 of the British North America Act, as to whether under the last part of it provision was made merely for taking into the union the Northwest Territories and Rupert’s Land, or whether it empowered the parliament, by address as mentioned there, to erect them into provinces.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I am of opinion that when section 146 was passed by the imperial parliament, it was thought sufficiently broad to give authority for the admission of those Territories as provinces into the Dominion; but afterwards it was thought better to specifically declare the fact, and consequently the passage of the Act of 1871.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Which superseded the Act of 1867?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I will come to that presently. In pursuance of the address to which I have directed the attention of hon. gentlemen, those Territories became part of the Dominion, and the admission into the union will be found in an imperial Order in Council dated 23rd June, 1870, the part of which relating to the admission of those Territories into the union being as follows:—

It is hereby ordered and declared by Her Majesty, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, in pursuance and exercise of the power vested in Her Majesty by the said Acts of parliament, that from and after the 15th day of July, 1870, the said Northwestern Territory shall be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the terms and conditions set forth in the first hereinbefore recited address, and that the parliament of Canada shall from the day aforesaid have full power and authority to legislate for the future welfare and good government of the said territory.

I have cited this authority simply for the purpose of pointing out to the House what the territorial government had a right to expect at the time they memorialized this government to have a province or provinces established in that Northwest country. Therefore, I say that in view not only of the legislation which had been passed by this parliament, but in view of imperial legislation, they had a right to anticipate that the fullest measure of responsible government would be given them, and that they would be placed on a parity with the other provinces of this Dominion. That leads me to point out to hon. gentlemen some of the advantages of which we have been deprived, and which are enjoyed by the other provinces. The leader of the government in this House, when introducing this Bill the other evening, pointed out with considerable force and great eloquence the probable future of those provinces and the very important part they are calculated to play within this confederation, and I think I may safely say that my hon. friend in no way portrayed beyond the actualities of the situation the possibilities of those two provinces. I have no hesitation in saying from my place here this evening that the time will

623

come within the observation of many hon. gentlemen present, when those provinces will occupy a more important position numerically, commercially, and in many other respects than any other of the provinces of Canada. Their natural resources and the various possibilities which are to be found within the boundaries of those provinces are calculated to make them more important in the various respects which I have pointed out than any of the older provinces. Consequently, my hon. friends would not have been mistaken in at the same time pointing out that they were entitled to as full a measure of government as the other provinces which now constitute the federation. In the first place, we have been deprived of our land, and I have yet heard no good reason advanced by the government why those lands should not have been given to those provinces. I might say that the Conservative party through its leader declared, previous to last election, that if that party came into power they would be prepared to hand the public domain over to the new governments. There is no reason to suppose that those local governments would not be able to administer those lands to very much greater advantage than the representatives of the Dominion government. When you take into consideration that the area of those two provinces will represent over 300,000,000 acres of land, and that those lands are to be administered from two to three thousand miles distant from where they lie, one can easily appreciate the almost impossible task which the federal government has taken upon itself. Now I venture to make the statement that not only the fathers of confederation, but the early leaders in the Dominion parliament immediately after confederation contemplated that when the time would arrive for the erection of those territories into provinces, the administration of their lands would be handed over to them, and I take the liberty of citing to hon. gentlemen opinions which were expressed upon that point, not only at the time of confederation but after confederation became a fact, and when the giants, I might say, amongst the Liberal leaders expressed themselves along the lines which I have indicated. Permit me to direct your attention to a statement made by Sir John Macdonald in the confederation debates as to what was contemplated to be given over to the provinces :—

It will be seen that the local legislature have the control of all the local works; and it is a matter of great importance, and one of the chief advantages of the federal union and of local legislatures, that each province will have the power and means of developing its own resources and aiding its own progress after its own fashion and in its own way.

I need scarcely state to hon. gentlemen that it would be utterly impossible for a province to develop its resources except it were vested with the control of the lands. If anything is calculated to make those western provinces great, it must necessarily be the power to develop the natural resources lying within their boundaries. But coming down later, when the Newfoundland question was being discussed in the House of Commons in 1869, the late Alexander Mackenzie gave expression to what was in the minds of the framers of confederation when they drafted the powers relating to the local legislatures as to the lands, not only within their boundaries but as to the lands within the boundaries of that Northwest Territory. Mr. Blake, in discussing the question of paying $150,000 for the Crown lands in Newfoundland, said :

He was very strongly opposed to the Dominion acquiring the Crown lands of Newfoundland, and he has as strongly objected to Newfoundland being deprived of its Crown lands ; he commended the policy of the framers of the constitution in leaving to each of the provinces the control of their own public lands. This was from the Canadian point of view, then as to Newfoundland the arrangement was equally objectionable : (1) Its distance from the seat of government (2) and its small representation in parliament would lead to an unsatisfactory management.

The local government would be deprived of the control of these lands, which might by it be rendered valuable for the future development of the colony.

The development of mineral wealth could not be effected by raising a revenue, but by encouraging local enterprise. If the proposition was between giving Newfoundland $150,000 a year and taking her lands, and giving $150,000 a year and leaving her her lands, he would willingly vote for the latter (hear, hear). These lands under the local management of the government would contribute much more largely to the prosperity of Newfoundland than if they were in the hands of the government of Canada.

And he closed with an amendment to the resolution to this effect :

That the public lands can be managed more efficiently, economically and satisfactorily by the provinces in which these lands are situated than by Canada, and that there is no good

624

Reason for a departure from the principle of the Union Act.

The Minister of Public Works having spoken on the subject, Mr. Mackenzie, in reply to what Mr. Blake had stated, said :

The Minister of Public Works, and the premier said they were surprised that the member for West Durham should object to our acquiring the public lands of Newfoundland after voting for the acquisition of lands in the Northwest Territories.

There was a difference between the two cases, in the Northwest Territories there were at present no constituted authorities as there were in Newfoundland, and it would not be pretended that after a government was established in the Northwest Territories we would administer its lands from Ottawa.

I ask hon. gentlemen if any better authority can be cited for the intention which was in the minds of the framers of confederation than the remark which was made by Hon. Alexander Mackenzie as long ago as 1869 ?

Hon. Mr. POWER—Your friends did not adopt that system.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Two wrongs do not make a right. Why do your friends not adopt it ? This brings me down to another feature of the case. This Bill provides for compensation for the lands. I apprehend that when the present government concluded to give compensation to the two new provinces for the lands of which they have been deprived, it was tantamount to the admission that those provinces are entitled to their lands. Why talk of compensation ? Why talk of deprivation of lands ? Why fix a sum running into the millions, and designate the payment of that sum as compensation for those lands, if those provinces are not entitled to their lands ? I desire further to say that this is not really a compensation for their lands not being handed over. I should like to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to the financial terms which largely have to do with this question of the lands. I know that on a hot evening like this a financial criticism is anything but entertaining, but we have this duty before us and consequently have to discharge it. It has been said in many quarters, not only by the government but by many who are opposed to this Bill, that the financial terms seem fairly generous.

I venture to say that no one making a close analysis of those terms would conclude, in view of the surrounding circumstances, that they can be said to be generous. In round terms each province starts out with a money grant of one million dollars, made up as follows :

This would amount to $1,030,375. For the purpose of keeping the figures in our minds with greater facility, let us say that the two provinces are each receiving one million dollars a year, or two million dollars for the two. As has been pointed out by the leader of the government, when introducing this Bill, the estimates for last year in connection with those Territories as stated by the Prime Minister, exceeded the sum of $1,600,000. It was pointed out by the Prime Minister, when introducing his Bill, that this sum would have to be considerably augmented during the present year if provincial autonomy were not adopted ; or to speak perhaps more correctly, he said the increasing expenses of the Territories were of such a character as to not only warrant, but to necessitate, the government increasing the estimates of $1,600,000 for last year. At the same time he very properly pointed out that the establishment of two provinces meant a duplication of administrative machinery which must necessarily add to the expenditure. I would point out to hon. gentlemen that the additional expense consequent upon the duplication of governmental machinery would possibly approximate $400,000, which, if provincial autonomy were not adopted and if two territorial governments were administering the affairs of the Territories, would necessitate an appropriation being made by the government of at least $2,000,000 for the purposes of those Territories during the present year. I will point some of the items which will be duplicated or partly duplicated, and hon. gentlemen will see that they are very large items. For instance, last session $101,540 was granted for civil government, $21,375 for legislation, $29,000 for administration of justice, and $345,125 for education.

Now, the first three items must necessarily be duplicated on account of the creation of

625

of two governments. The item of $345,125 for education to a substantial extent must be increased, inasmuch as the educational machinery for these vast provinces will require to be duplicated hereafter. Then there were items such as agriculture and statistics, hospitals, charities and public health, miscellaneous, public works, justice and so on. Many of those items will have to be increased, so that the terms granted and which by the government have been claimed to be more than generous, are not so liberal as have been represented. Those claims of generous treatment are simply a phantasm placed before us to reconcile us to the deprivation of our lands. The grant for compensation for lands for the first year for each province will amount to $375,000. Now it would seem from what was said when this Bill was introduced by the Prime Minister, that this amount of $750,000 which is being paid over by the Dominion government to the new provinces, would be an entirely new item being peculiarly stated to be in the nature of compensation for lands, and that we would be that much ahead. Hon. gentlemen will appreciate the statement that subtracting this item of compensation for lands, $750,000, from the sum which was voted last year, namely, $1,600,000, would leave the Territories in debt to the extent of several hundred thousand dollars, so that it would be utterly impossible on the basis of last year’s estimates to run the civil government of the provinces. I say therefore that the so-called financial terms are entirely inadequate to the requirements of the new provinces. Many hon. gentlemen have pointed out that they far exceed the terms given to the other provinces at confederation. Many hon. gentlemen, and particularly those in the other House, who advocated the Bill, seemed to think that if those new provinces received the same terms from the federal government that the old Canadas and the maritime provinces received, they would be getting all they were entitled to. Perhaps we are not always in sympathy with the demands which have been made by the older provinces for better terms, but when we take into consideration the fact that thirty odd years have passed since confederation, that the public expenditures have increased enormously from that time, that the demands made upon the provinces from time to time have been equally large in proportion with the demands which are made upon the central government, we must come to the conclusion that the standard of terms adopted at that time is entirely inadequate at the present day. Hon. gentlemen can appreciate that fact when they recall that the revenue of this country in 1868 was only about $12,000,000 and the expenditure about the same. To-day we have reached a revenue of about $80,000,000, and the expenditure considerably exceeds that, and yet we find the same terms given to the provinces on the statute-book at that day in the law of to-day. Therefore I say to have adopted those terms as the terms the new provinces should receive would be entirely inadequate to the requirements of the situation, and would not have permitted the machinery of government to be carried on in an efficient way. I further desire to point out to the House that these terms are not terms given in compensation for our lands, that they are entirely misleading, that those terms have been simply estimated on the basis of the appropriations made last year by the House of Commons, and which were not more than sufficient to carry on the ordinary services of the government in the Territories for last year. I would point out the disadvantages at which those provinces are placed owing to what will be our insufficient revenue. I am not familiar with the revenues enjoyed by many of the provinces from their lands but it is a well known fact that all the other provinces excepting Manitoba have the control of their lands. During the last 20 years the province of Ontario has collected through the Crown Lands Department on account of lands and timber sales the enormous sum of $28,500,000. Consider that for a moment ; and how much of the public domain is exhausted by reason of that ? Only 20 per cent.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—Those were timber lands.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—They are Crown lands, and mines, and only 20 per cent of that domain has been exhausted. It means that Ontario is now in receipt of a revenue of at least $2,000,000 a year from its Crown lands.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—From its timber, not its Crown lands.

626

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—My hon. friend should know that the timber would go with the land.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—Unfortunately you have not the timber in the Northwest.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—But the lands without the timber are more valuable. I therefore say by way of illustration that in Ontario where the taxes are high, where the expenditure is up to the revenue, the province has no more than it can get along with under the terms which it receives by the Act of Union, in addition to the $2,000,000 which it derives from its public lands. It might be said, and has been said, whenever this question has been discussed that Manitoba did not receive its public lands. I would point out to hon. gentlemen that when Manitoba entered the union somewhere like 1,500,000 acres of land was given within the narrow confines at that time of the province to its half-breed population. A very large grant of lands was given for university purposes, and in addition shortly after the Act of Union, under the ‘Better Terms’ Act, the province was given its swamp lands, a magnificent and valuable asset to-day. So that Manitoba, although it was not given all its lands, was at the time and has been since given such a quantity of lands as to establish a revenue which helps to augment to a surprising degree the other terms to which she is entitled. Under these circumstances you must agree with me that these new provinces should have been given their lands. Now, why were those lands not given ? As pointed out by Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Blake and Sir John Macdonald at the time and after confederation, and as must appeal to the mind of every hon. gentlemen to-day, those new provinces could administer their lands to infinitely greater advantage than they could be administered from the city of Ottawa. What would you hon. gentlemen who come from the maritime provinces think if you had to approach the authorities in Ottawa with reference to every transaction incident to your public lands—if you required a hay permit, or to cut a cord of wood—no matter how insignificant the service you wished to perform upon those lands—if you had to approach an officer of the federal government before being able to secure the right to do so ? Would not the intelligence of the people of those provinces be equal to the administration of their lands ? In the public interest, as well as in the interest of those provinces, I cannot conceive any reason why those lands should not have been handed over to the provinces, except it be to give that advantage to the central government which it is bound to enjoy, consisting chiefly of party patronage and all the prestige which accompanies that from being able to administer a public domain, approaching an area 320,000,000 acres. When hon. gentlemen consider this, that the school lands which have been sold since 1872 down to the present time have averaged no less than $10 an acre—and hon. gentlemen can verify this by the return which was yesterday laid on the table at my instance—one can readily perceive the injury which will accrue to this Dominion from the haphazard and reckless administration of public lands which for years has been going on and is being continued at the present time. When you consider that an average of $10 an acre has been realized for these school lands, and place that fact in contrast with the disclosures which have been made from time to time within the last couple of years that public lands have been alienated in those Territories for $1 an acre, that railway corporations, syndicates and aggregations of individuals are acquiring those lands for a song, one cannot fail to be alarmed at this reckless administration of the most magnificent public domain with which a people have ever been endowed.

Before touching upon some of the more important features of the Bill I should like to direct attention to the distribution of the electoral seats within the new provinces. While this possibly may not apply to the entire principle of the Bill, yet I must point out to the hon. gentleman that the grossest injustice has been done to the southern part of the Territories which is by very considerably the most populous part in the distribution of the electoral boundaries which has been embodied in this Bill. Now representation by population had long been the battle cry of the old Liberal party, and up to the time of their accession to power in 1896 the Liberal party had regarded

627

representation by population as almost sacred. But when this Bill was being framed, when it was being passed in the House of Commons, there was stamped upon it the most infamous gerrymander that has ever been put upon a statute-book in Canada or anywhere else. When Manitoba was taken into confederation the Manitoba Act provided that the Lieutenant Governor shall . . . by proclamation under the Great Seal, divide the said province into twenty-four electoral divisions, due regard being had to existing local divisions and population. Had this been done in the present Bill it would have met the requirements of public opinion in those Territories. It was represented not only by those opposed to the Bill, but it was represented in the most vehement terms by the Liberal party, Liberal associations, the Liberal press and Liberal leaders, by the most influential parties in the southerly part of the Territories that the grossest and most serious injustice was being done to the most populous parts of the Territories at the instance of those who conceived and carried out this gerrymander. It was proposed to the government that this very serious question should be referred to a judicial commission; but the government turned it down. It was proposed that an equitable distribution should take place in each of the federal electoral districts, but that was turned down, although the Minister of Justice made no concealment of his view as to the injustice of the distribution; yet notwithstanding all that was done even by representative Liberals from that western country, this still remains in the Bill and apparently will become law. In the Territories a distribution of electoral seats for the territorial government took place as late as 1902. Fifteen seats were given to the proposed province of Alberta. I might point out to hon. gentlemen who are not acquainted with the geography of that country that half way between Edmonton and Calgary is the populous town of Red Deer. It is the dividing line practically between the north and the south. Under that distribution six members were given to the northerly part of Alberta and nine to the southerly part. That is two-fifths to the north and three-fifths to the south; and that represented, I might say, the difference in population between the north and the south—as six was to nine.

Hon. Mr. KERR (Toronto)—Did the nine include Red Deer ?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Red Deer was partly in each of those two divisions. That was satisfactory to all parties; but what do we find in this case. I say without fear of contradiction—I may be contradicted as far as the statement is concerned, but I say without fear of successful contradiction—that the southerly part of the Territories has been growing faster than the north, as the returns to the government will show; when this matter is up in committee, when time will not hang perhaps so heavily on our hands as at present, my hon. friend from Wolseley (Mr. Perley) and myself will be able, if desired to establish this to the satisfaction of this body. Twenty-five members have been given to the province of Alberta, a majority of whom are to represent the northerly half, and why is that ? Because the unpardonable crime was committed at the general election in November last, by the southerly half of Alberta, of electing two Conservative members, while the northerly part of the province elected two Liberal members. The public in that free country thought that no very serious results would befall them in sending to Ottawa a couple of representatives of the Conservative party. They were scarcely able to penetrate the designs of the Liberal party in the event of their being retained in power. But be that as it may, we find that by reason of a free people exercising their franchise in the very intelligent way that they did, they have been penalized to the extent of practically being deprived of the franchise, the administration, or absolute control as I might put it, of provincial affairs being placed in the hands of a majority of the representatives in the northern part of the country. I might say the same thing of Saskatchewan. It was not confined to the province of Alberta. The public of the province of Saskatchewan, a free and enlightened public, thought in exercising their franchise that they had the right to elect a Conservative. In the southerly part of Saskatchewan, a Conservative was elected and the consequence is, that the penalty is now being paid by a

628

Practical eprivation of representation in the new province of Saskatchewan. I would point out that in Saskatchewan, where a representation of 25 members is given, drawing a line between north and south, taking as the pivotal point the electoral district of Yorkton, ten members have been given north of that and 15 south. According to the voters on the list at the last general election, that gives an average of 1,617 votes in each southern constituency to an average of 733 votes in each constituency in the northern part of the district. I ask hon. gentlemen who belong to the party which, for so many years have been preaching representation by population, if that is fair-play, if that is their idea of justice ?,

In view of the figures which can be established beyond all peradventure to support the facts which I have stated I trust that they will not, when this Bill comes before the Committee of the Whole, permit gross injustice of that kind to be done to the people of those two new provinces, particularly when, in addition to that, you consider that a very large proportion of that northern country is composed of a foreign population. not able to speak the English language, not familiar with our institutions, a population that will not assimilate with our own people for many years to come. I ask you if your patriotism should not rise beyond your partyism and impel you to undo the injustice which is being done to those two new provinces. When this matter comes before committee I hope to be in a position to establish by figures and other data the facts to which I have already directed your attention. There is another feature of the Bill which I would take the liberty of discussing notwithstanding the hour being somewhat late, and that is the educational clause. I said a few moments ago that when the Territorial government memorialized this government for provincial powers, they had a right to expect that consideration which was due to them at the hands of the federal government. The expectations of the territorial government, particularly upon this question, were of such a character as to lead them with, I might say, the greatest confidence, to rely upon securing all the advantages which the British North America Act would give them with reference to the question of education. They could not overlook the fact that so recently as 1895 and 1896 the present leader of the Liberal party had conducted a campaign throughout the length and breadth of Canada, denouncing the government which had been led by my hon. friend to my left, who was succeeded by Sir Charles Tupper, with reference to the Manitoba Remedial Bill. There was scarcely a part of this Dominion where the denunciations not only of that right hon. gentleman but of the Liberal party generally were not heard with reference to the question of coercion of the provinces. Going back to the confederation debates, I need not direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that from that time down to the present around the educational question the battle of provincial rights has ever been fought. There is no question contained within the 91st, 92nd and 93rd sections over which there has been greater controversy, and over which provincial rights have been more bitterly fought and firmly established, than the educational question; and up to the time of the Manitoba school question I think I might say the Liberal party had been fairly consistent in according to each province the rights of the union upon the question of education. In fact, I think a perusal of the confederation debates would almost lead one to the conclusion that what led to the federal union which we enjoy to-day was the apprehension which existed in the minds of the public men of Quebec at that time that if they were to enjoy the privileges which had been accorded to them by treaty in view of the rapid growth which was being made by the province of Upper Canada, and by the other English-speaking provinces they must have a federal union by which those rights would be observed in all their integrity. We know that the representatives of the English-speaking provinces were more in favour of legislative union than of a federal union, that the Quebec leaders, Sir George Cartier and others, were in favour of federal union, because they concluded that it was only by a federal union that their rights could be best protected, and the rights which they had in view particularly were the rights of education. From that day down to the present, the people of Quebec have been extremely jealous as to provincial rights, and more particularly as to the right of education.

629

Now, I venture to say that it was a mistake to so accentuate education at the time of union, although I may stand unsupported. I think Sir Alexander Galt showed undue apprehension when he insisted upon special provisions being made for the recognition of the rights of the minority in Quebec as well as in Ontario. I think if the framers of confederation had relied upon the tolerance and the generosity of the majority in both those provinces, that the rights of the minority would have been enjoyed very much more quietly, comfortably and securely than under the statute which has been passed to protect them. I notice in looking over the confederation debates that John Sandfield Macdonald, a Roman Catholic himself, was in favour of relying in both Canadas upon the majority without the intervention of statutory safeguards.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—He always opposed separate schools, just as George Brown did. He allowed my Bill to pass by a special agreement.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—He was not apparently opposed to separate schools.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—I say Sandfield Macdonald was just as much opposed to separate schools as George Brown. That Bill was passed under his regime by a special agreement with myself.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I take no exception to the minority having their separate schools in the Northwest Territories, if the right be given them by the constitution. This right if given by the Confederation Act, which I dispute, should be given them in the fullest integrity, but nothing more nor less than the law provides in the constitution.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—Yes.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—If the British North America Act is interpreted by the Privy Council in their favour, they are entitled to separate schools of the fullest and widest character consistent with an efficient system of education. If they are entitled to separate schools by the constitution, then they are entitled to something more than a skeleton. They are entitled to something more than what my hon. friend described last night, as a mere symbol, or skeleton or the shadow of a substance.

Hon. Mr. BAKER—A sham.

Hon. Mr. KERR (Toronto)—Is the hon. gentleman in favour of separate schools being granted to them in their entirety ?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I am not in favour of separate schools. But I say that all the hon. gentlemen who have spoken in support of the Bill have not touched the question at issue at all, but they have dealt with a question entirely foreign to this Bill. The question of separate schools is not at issue in this discussion. The question at issue in this measure, and the question which the people of the Northwest Territories protest against, is that notwithstanding the provisions of the constitution, this government has invaded the rights of the province, has encroached upon the rights under the constitution to which we are entitled, and by a specific provision has said that notwithstanding the constitution we must recognize separate schools in all their entirety.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—No.

Hon. Mr. CLORAN—Will the hon. gentleman state where the protest came from in the Northwest Territory ?

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—That is the occasion when his partner, Mr. Bennet, came up to Ontario and raised a rebellion at the elections.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—The people of the Northwest Territories are sufficiently well aware that notwithstanding all they might have done after the introduction of this Bill, no matter what injustice might be contained within it, no remedy would be accorded them in response to their protests. But I will say to my hon. friend that this question immediately upon the organization of the Territories will become a burning question, that while my hon. friend opposite and his government fancy that this question is settled, it has only begun to receive attention in the Territories. For many years to come it will be a bone of contention between the different religions in those new provinces, and the strife engendered will be entirely due to

630

the despotic and unwarranted manner in which it has ben introduced by the present government.

Hon. Mr. KERR (Toronto)—I wanted to know whether we are to understand that the hon. gentleman was advocating that separate schools should be granted in their entirety ?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—As I said before, I say again that the question has nothing to do with separate schools. The question to be determined and which we are asked to determine now is whether the constitution permits those new provinces to deal exclusively—to use the terms of the British North America Act—to deal exclusively with education, or whether this government, notwithstanding the constitutional rights to which they are entitled have the power to impose upon those new provinces a restrictive provision, and obligation, which we say is unconstitutional.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—The hon. gentleman is not quoting the constitution properly.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I would say to my hon. friend when he tells me that I am not quoting the constitution properly, that I certainly will not take from him any view which he may entertain upon the question of the constitution because if I know of any hon. gentleman who is not capable of expressing a disinterested view upon a subject of this kind it is my hon. friend. I say there was never a more monstrous proposition placed upon the ‘ Hansard ’ than the statement made by my hon. friend on the introduction of this Bill, as to the constitutional authority exercised by this government with reference to it.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—I made no reference to it at all. I did not discuss it. I merely answered a number of questions with regard to it, and went on with the general Bill.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—My hon. friend seemingly does not know what he has done.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—I will take an opportunity later on to discuss the matter.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—My hon. friend does not seem to be responsible or aware of what he said. If my hon. friend says that he did not make any reference to the constitutional authorities upon which the introduction of this Bill was based, I certainly must differ with him. My hon. friend in introducing this Bill said that it was based upon the provisions contained in the Northwest Territories Act passed by the government in 1875, and my hon. friend went on to lay down the proposition that authority was given to this parliament in 1875 by the imperial government to pass the Northwest Territories Act.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—Yes, I said that.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—And that that Act had all the authority of an imperial statute.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—Yes.

Hon. Mr. YOUNG—The hon. gentleman made use of an expression that I scarcely think he would characterize as parliamentary when he said the hon. gentleman was not responsible for what he said.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I certainly will retract anything of that kind because I know the hon. gentleman is responsible for what he said, but if I understood him rightly to say he quoted no constitutional authority on the introduction of the Bill, I must certainly differ with him. My hon. friend went into a lengthy discussion upon the effect of the Act of 1875. If my hon. friend says he did not, I shall very gladly withdraw the statement.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—I said briefly that the Act of 1875 was under the authority of the Imperial Act of 1871. I said that, and I say it now, the federal parliament had just the same power as the imperial parliament had when it passed the British North America Act.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I say to my hon. friend with all due deference that the Imperial Act of 1871 had nothing to do with the Act of 1875. The Act of 1871 was passed for the purpose of removing a doubt which existed in the minds of the government of Canada as to its rights to create provinces out of these territories, and had in view the exercise of the very power which we are exercising on this occasion in the passage of these Bills. If my hon. friend will look at the Act of 1871 he will see it was also passed to remove certain doubts which had arisen with reference to the Manitoba Act.

631

In creating the province of Manitoba out of Rupert’s Land the educational rights to which the province of Manitoba was entitled were invaded to the extent of placing a qualification in the Manitoba Act of union, and the question arose as every hon. gentleman should know, and I presume does know, as to whether the parliament of Canada had a right to impose that restriction upon the province of Manitoba with reference to education. So serious was the doubt as to their exercising that authority that they obtained the Act of 1871 to validate the Manitoba Act.

Hon. Mr. POWER—If the hon. gentleman looks at the English Act he will see it goes a great deal further than what he says.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—It of course deals with other subjects. While they were about it they removed a doubt which they thought existed in regard to section 146 of the British North America Act and at the same time granted power to erect provinces out of those Territories. That was the Act of 1871. So that I will say to my hon. friend that it was not in pursuance of that Imperial Act that the Northwest Territories Act was passed. The Northwest Territories Act was passed in pursuance of the authority given to the Canadian parliament under the Imperial Order in Council to which I directed the attention of the House before my hon. friend came in, by which was delegated the power to pass laws for the peace, order and good government of those Territories. Consequently this Act was passed in 1875, for the purpose of giving to the territorial council authority to govern those Territories in a limited way. But that in no way changed the right which those Territories had when they should become established as provinces to an exclusive right to legislate as to education. I would direct the hon. gentleman’s attention to one of the drafts of the British North America Act. My hon. friend yesterday, in introducing the Bill referred, I think, to the original draft of the British North America Act. which can be found by any hon. gentleman in Mr. Pope’s confederation papers. But one of the last drafts of the Act in providing that to each province a number of powers should be given, and among them education, omitted the word ‘exclusive.’ Now when the Act was submitted to the imperial authorities for the purpose of accentuating the right of the provinces to legislate upon the question of education, we find the word ‘exclusive’ introduced into it. It was introduced, I think, in the last draft which was passed by the fathers of confederation, but in the earlier draft of the British North America Act the word ‘exclusive’ was not inserted. If any hon. gentleman desires to look into this matter, he will find that in the earlier draft it was thought, in delegating to the local legislature the right to legislate on education, that the word ‘exclusive’ was not necessary but afterwards the exclusive right to legislate was given.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Subject to certain exceptions.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Yes.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Do I understand the hon. gentleman to express the opinion that subsections 1, 3 and 4 were not intended to apply to all provinces, not only the four provinces which formed confederation but to all future provinces which might join the union?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—For the purpose of discussing it a little more intelligently I will read the clause. It is as follows:—

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

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

I say that that applied to all the provinces.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—And to these new provinces?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—If there were conditions in that country answering to the case provided for I would for the purposes of this argument say yes. Then the second subsection reads as follows:—

1. 2. All the powers, privileges and duties at the union by law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools and school trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Quebec.

I say clause 2 only applied to old Canada. Then subsection 3 would of course apply to any province. It reads as follows:—

632

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

That of course would apply to any province where a system of denominational or separate school education was adopted after the union.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Or that existed at the time of the union?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Yes, I think as far as the application of those sections are concerned, we are not very much apart, provided the conditions existed. What are the facts? We are asked to legislate here with reference to a fact which does not exist. The British North America Act provides in subsection 1 that 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 time of the union. The territories became part of the union on July 15, 1870. I read to hon. gentlemen a moment ago the Imperial Order in Council introducing those Territories into the union, and that Order in Council was to take effect on and after July 15, 1870.

Hon. Mr. CLORAN—Will the hon. gentleman state that the union was complete at that time?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I will approach that in a moment. On July 15, 1870, the Territories became part of the union, part of the confederation of Canada expressly under the Imperial Order in Council. It was not until 1875 that any system of education was introduced into these Territories, consequently there was at the time of the union no system of denominational schools within the boundaries of those Territories. Consequently subsection 1 could not possibly have any application to the peculiar conditions which then existed.

Hon. Mr. CLORAN—The hon. gentleman might answer the question.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I am going to answer it. The government was fully convinced of the fact that the union referred to in subsection 1 of section 93 was the union of July 15, 1870, otherwise they would not have introduced into this Bill subclause 3 of clause 17. Hon. gentlemen will see that this is a most remarkable statement to introduce into the statute. Is the British North America Act not sufficiently clear? Is it not for the courts of the realm to determine the meaning of those Acts without the parliament of Canada undertaking to interpret the meaning of a constitutional enactment. Hon. gentlemen will see that under subclause 3 of clause 17 we are asked to make a declaration as to what the meaning of that clause is. It is this arbitrary interference to which the people of those new provinces take exception, and demand that the proper courts interpret what their rights shall be.

Where the expression ‘by law’ is employed in paragraph 3 of the said section 93, it shall be held to mean the law as set out in the said chapters 29 and 30.

Those chapters are the ordinances passed by the Northwest Territories in 1901; and will any hon. gentleman here say that when the British North America Act was passed, when the framers of confederation between 1860-67, gave their best thought and attention to the drafting of this clause, they had in view an ordinance to be passed by an assembly which then had not an existence, and an ordinance which was not passed for 30 years afterwards. We are asked to say that the law which was passed in 1867 looked ahead for 30 odd years, and contemplated as I say the existence of an assembly which then was unknown and the passage of the two ordinances which then could not possibly have been in anticipation. The imperial parliament, in passing section 93, had in view the law as it then stood within the boundaries of any part of the union of Canada. The Bill goes on:—

Where the expression ‘at the union’ is employed in the said subsection 3, it shall be held to mean the date at which this Act comes into force.

Why, the Northwest Territories have been in the union for 30 odd years, since the 15th July, 1870, and yet we are asked coolly and deliberately by this parliament to enact a wilful misstatement, that what the law meant at that time was the legislation about to be passed at this time. What union?

633

There is no union to be consummated at this time. These territories are simply being erected into provinces. The territories at the present time are as much part of confederation as the old provinces of Canada, as the maritime provinces of the Dominion, as Manitoba or British Columbia ; and will any hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House, will my hon. friend who leads the government point out one jot or tittle of any constitutional authority or of any statutory enactment showing that these territories are not as much a part of the union as any of the provinces of Canada.

Hon. Mr. CLORAN—Not yet.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Then hon. gentlemen we are asked for the purpose of this legislation and for the purposes of changing the constitution and for the purposes of coercing the territories and for the purpose of imposing upon them an obligation which the constitution never contemplated, to enact what is absolutely a wilful misstatement, clothing those territories retroactively with all the attributes of a province and setting forward the hands of time from the 15th July, 1870, to the 1st July, 1905. I ask my hon. friend from de Salaberry, who is a very keen lawyer, if he for a moment thinks that if the constitutional rights for which the government contend, are to be found within the four corners of the British North America Act, they require legislation of this kind to bolster up a so-called constitutional case which they are endeavouring to make for the purpose of shackling and throttling those territories for all time to come. I do not wish to misconstrue what my hon. friend the Secretary of State said, but I did understand him to say that when the statute of 1875 was passed, giving separate schools to those territories with all the force and effect of an imperial statute, no attempt was ever made to repeal it, and that it remained like the laws of the Medes and Persians, fixed and unalterable for all time to come. If my hon. friend had perused the parliamentary journals upon this question he could not fail to have acquainted himself with the fact that time and again the territorial government demanded the repeal of that statute, and that time and again members in the House of Commons directed the attention of the government to the fact that public opinion in the territories demanded its repeal, and that time and again it was represented to parliament by the leader of the government that the Act was but temporary, pending the erection of those territories into provinces. Sir John Thompson, in 1894, said :—

What the constitution of the future provinces shall be, in view of the pledges which have been referred to, or in view of any other set of circumstances, will be for parliament to decide when it decides to create those provinces.

Hon. Mr. POWER—Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—If my hon. friend can get any comfort out of that he is entitled to it. I think I shall be able to point out to my hon. friend as I proceed, that the opinion of Sir John Thompson was that the legislation was but temporary and was simply placed upon the statute-book pending the erection of those Territories into provinces.

Hon. Mr. POWER—I understood the hon. gentleman to read a statement by Sir John Thompson that parliament could give any sort of constitution it pleased to a province when erected into a province.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Sir John Thompson was catechised by Mr. McCarthy at the time.

Hon. Mr. POWER—Then he would be careful as to what he said.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Mr. McCarthy asked this question and Sir John Thompson gave the answer as follows :—

As I understood the First Minister in his answer to the hon. member for West Assiniboia—perhaps I was wrong, but I would like to be corrected if I was wrong—rather insisted upon the view I am putting which is that if separate schools are continued until the Northwest Territories are given provincial autonomy they will have the right of insisting upon that being continued when provincial autonomy is conferred upon them.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I did not say that.

Mr. McCARTHY. Then I fail to understand the views which the First Minister holds. He seems to be on both sides of the question.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Not at all. If I spoke ambiguously before, I was not at all conscious of it ; but I cannot be said to be ambiguous after the explanation I made to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I appealed to the House to continue the present system while the territorial system continued, and I declared that in my opinion the whole subject would be open and free to parliament as to what constitution we would give to the provinces when provinces were created.

634

Hon. Mr. POWER—Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—In view of what my hon. friend the leader of the House has said, that that statute was fixed and unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, I find it difficult to reconcile that statement with the statement of so great a constitutional lawyer as Sir John Thompson, so that, I hope, may confirm my hon. friend from Halifax in the faith which I hold. Let me cite a few authorities from the Liberal ranks, whose views upon this question were looked upon as oracular and worthy of the very best attention. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in discussing this question in 1896, said:—

It is impossible to admit for instance that the institutions of the Northwest are permanent. On the contrary they are exceptionally temporary; they deal with a state of things which is exceptional in itself; they were devised at a time when there was no population and they must be modified from time to time as the necessities of the case require. But at this moment to say they are permanent is a thing in which I cannot agree except so far as they must be permanent in every particular, so long as we are not ready to give these people a more extended form of authority.

The late Hon. David Mills, than whom in the composition of the Liberal party there was no greater constitutional authority in Canada, speaking in parliament in 1894, said:—

When you look at the subject of education prior to the union you will find not that any system was expressly imposed upon the province, not that the principle of separate schools was virtually established, but the rule was established that where separate schools were established and had been established before the union, they should remain, and where they were not established, the province should retain control over the subject to introduce them or prevent their introduction as seemed proper to the people. We have a practical illustration of this fact in the position of things in the maritime provinces and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. So far as the Territories were concerned—I do not at all admit that the introduction of separate schools there stands upon the same footing as the introduction of separate schools in the province of Ontario, or of dissentient schools in the province of Quebec. In these provinces they are protected under the constitution; they cannot be interfered with by the local legislature. But in the Northwest Territories, as the hon. minister has said, it has been a matter not of right, not of guarantee to any particular class of the population, but a matter of policy. They were introduced with the view of preventing conflict in this House upon the subject of separate schools and for the reason that they were introduced there they should be maintained as long as these Territories are under the control of this parliament. When this parliament has discharged its duties and the people of the Territories have received the population to entitle them to enter the union they must assume the responsibility for deciding for themselves under the British North America Act how far they should maintain the principle of separate schools or maintain the non-denominational system. Any attempt on our part, whatever our inclinations or feelings may be, to anticipate what ought to be done in that particular, by the province after its autonomy is established, instead of being a source of security to its institutions would be a source of great danger.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Does the hon. gentleman agree with his view?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—That is a view expressed by the Hon. Mr. Mills, and that is the only constitutional interpretation which I think can be placed upon the statutory enactment which we have before us.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—It is to this effect: that so long as the Northwest Territories are in the union as territories, but not as provinces, that section 93 of the constitutional Act does not apply I understand that the hon. gentleman concurs in this view?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—My view is that this parliament should not interfere in the question of education; that the passage of an Act erecting those territories into provinces would have brought section 93 into play automatically, and whatever rights were included in section 93, the supporters of separate schools would have all the advantage thereof, or in other words, when this constitution was passed, provision was made in anticipation of those territories being created into provinces; and whatever the rights of the minority are under the Confederation Act, they are entitled to nothing more nor less.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—The hon. gentleman very frankly answered the previous question. He stated in answer to a question I took the liberty of putting that section 93, subsections 1, 3 and 4 was intended to apply to all the provinces joining the confederation as provinces.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Yes, if the conditions existed.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—And now I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he does not admit that this subsection of section 93 did not apply to the Northwest Territories

635

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Certainly.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—That is what Mr. Mills contended.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Section 93 did not apply while the Territories were in a state of tutelage, so to speak. But immediately those territories become erected into provinces section 93 comes into operation.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Then the hon. gentleman should admit that the words ‘at the union’ cannot be taken to mean at the time of the purchasing of those territories as territories, but it must necessarily mean at the union of the provinces.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—May I answer that question by asking one, what does section 93 mean by ‘the union’?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—It means the provinces or territories coming into confederation as a union.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—What date does the hon. gentleman fix for this Act coming into force? 1st September, 1905?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Yes.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Then my answer to my hon. friend is that if this section 93 means what he says, why legislate in this way as we are now being asked to do? Is it not an imperial statute? Is it not already a fundamental law of the Dominion; and if that be the case, and there is no doubt about it, why are we performing this work of supererogation, solemnly declaring what the law is to be?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—It is to avoid contention on this point, as to whether it shall apply the law as it stood in virtue of the Act of 1875, or as to whether it shall apply the law as embodied in the ordinances, and it is moreover for the purpose of removing questions of doubt, as the hon. gentleman has expressed it, and as was expressed by the hon. leader of the opposition in the House of Commons.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Removing a doubt in favour of the Catholics or against them?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—If the hon. gentleman takes his law from the hon. gentleman from Calgary or the hon. leader of the opposition, he will admit that there is a great deal in this Bill in favour of the minority and much more than we would be entitled to.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—The very best answer I can give to my hon. friend is this: if he and his friends are so confident of the rights of the minority having been already provided for under the British North America Act and of their wide and comprehensive character, then I think he is doing a very great injustice, not only to himself, but to his co-religionists, if he votes for the Bill and reduces the rights of the minority to the skeleton described by the hon. Secretary of State.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—Would the hon. gentleman have supported the Bill if we had relied on the British North America Act?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Certainly.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—A good many of the hon. gentleman’s friends did not.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—If the hon. gentleman will withdraw clause 17 and rely on the educational clauses in the British North America Act, I will support the educational feature most heartily. Another hon. gentleman who stood high in the councils of the Liberal party, regarded as a constitutional authority, was Sir Louis Davies, and in 1891, in expressing an opinion on this point, he spoke as follows:—

My opinion is now and has been for years that when that time comes you cannot withhold from the provinces so erected the right to determine for themselves the question of education in one way or the other. I would be the last to favour this parliament imposing upon the people there any system of education, either free or separate. I only claim that when a Bill is introduced to erect those territories into provinces that Bill should contain a provision enabling the people of the different provinces so created to decide what system of education they shall have. I do not discuss that question now. I only express this view lest I might be supposed by my silence to give assent to some extreme doctrines which hon. gentlemen have propounded. In view of the remarks which have been made, I thought it necessary to disclaim that, in assenting to the passing of this Bill, I bound myself for all time on this question of education. I do not. Although we are giving powers almost equal to those conferred upon local legislatures, we are not erecting the territories into separate provinces. When that is done I suppose it will be done by the Queen in Council under the 146th section of the British North America Act, and I simply claim the right when that time comes to determine for myself. In accordance with the view I have always held and hold now, I have no hesitation in expressing, respectfully, that

636

the people of those new provinces should have the right to determine what system of education they shall have.

Then at that time my hon. friend formed an alliance with the late Dalton McCarthy. They were very glad to accept the support of that hon. gentleman at that time. And what was his view? He was regarded as no mean authority upon a constitutional question. In 1890 Mr. McCarthy, in the Dominion parliament, contended that the Northwest assembly should have power to deal with this question of education in an unrestricted manner. In 1894 he said that he had tried for many years to have this change made. He referred to the assembly resolution, and said that since that time from session to session, whenever the Bill has been brought up petition after petition has been presented to this House. So far as I know, no petition has been presented against that power to deal with education being conferred.

Mr. McCarthy moved an amendment in these terms, and a long and important debate ensued. The ground taken against Mr. McCarthy was that the arrangement was only temporary, to last only until provincial rights were conferred. ‘It is perfectly plain,’ said Mr. Mills, ‘that if we are not to make this House and this parliament the arena of religious contention, if we are not to raise religion against religion, and race against race in this parliament of Canada, we must abstain from undertaking to make this a battle ground for a decision of the question as to whether in the territories there shall be a question of wholly secular education or not. We leave that question under the restrictions imposed by the Act of 1875 to the territories; and when they have obtained the maturity entitling them to representation as a province, then the legislature of that province, subject to the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, must decide for themselves what system of education shall be established there,’ and again, ‘when the territories have a sufficient population to entitle them to become a province, they must decide for themselves whether they must have separate schools or not.’ And I may quote to hon. gentlemen the opinion of Mr. Christopher Robinson, than whom there is not a more careful and weighty lawyer in the Dominion upon this question. Mr. Robinson stated emphatically that there was no obligation cast upon this government to legislate as to education.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I will not pretend for my part that there is any obligation except the spirit of the constitution.

Hon. Mr. FERGUSON—Then my hon. friend does not agree with Sir Wilfrid Laurier who contended strongly that there was an obligation.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—He did not contend that.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—So much for what I might term the constitutional opinion of constitutional lawyers upon the question. As to the spirit of the enactment which has been referred to by my hon. friend, let me say—and I think every hon. gentleman must necessarily agree with me—that the only way in which the constitution can be interpreted must be according to the letter of the law. If we are to take into consideration my hon. friend’s version of what the spirit of the constitution is—and we must set against that what the hon. leader of the opposition may regard as the spirit of the constitution—could we ever get an interpretation of the constitution? When hon. gentlemen talk about interpreting the constitution according to the rights and liberties and consciences of the people, they talk about an impossibility, and no man of common sense, once he gives deliberate consideration to that question, can come to any other conclusion than that it would be impossible to deal with such question other than according to the strict letter of the law. I ask if it will be possible in view of the different races, religions, and sentiments of the people of this Dominion, province against province, one section of the Dominion against another, if we are to consider the constitution as having to be interpreted according to its spirit, if a conclusion could ever be arrived at. All I have to do is to mention the fact to my hon. friend opposite, and I feel thoroughly satisfied he will agree with me. I listened to my hon. friend from Wellington with a considerable degree of pleasure this afternoon because I thought he was going to arrive at a different conclusion. It struck me that he presented one of the strongest arguments that could possibly be presented why the six

637

months hoist should be carried, and the Bill should not become law. He went on to describe the various enactments passed by the federal authorities and imposed upon the provinces which had been against the sentiment and the local rights of the provinces, and he pointed out that every enactment which he referred to as having been imposed against the constitutional rights of the provinces had resulted disastrously for the Dominion.

I say to hon. gentlemen that you cannot, by passing a law of this kind, throttle and choke the people of any particular province with reference to a question upon which they have a strong feeling of resentment. You cannot say unto the people of those new provinces: ‘We are interpreting for you the constitution according to its spirit, and we are going to force upon you educational restrictions and qualifications which are not warranted by the constitution.’ You have to rely upon the moderation and toleration of the different peoples of this Dominion and their readiness to accord to the minority, those rights to which they are entitled. I was about to read to you a few moments ago a passage from the speech of the Hon. John Sandfield Macdonald towards the close of the confederation debates on this question, and so well has he expressed the sentiment which I would like to express, that it seems to me I cannot do better than read the remarks he made on that subject. He said:—

I rise, Sir, to propose another amendment. I assure the House that I never knew a measure of anything like this importance go through with so few attempts to amend it. Nor do I rise for the mere purpose of putting my amendment on record, for I do feel that the views I am about to express, and which I have ever held since I have been a member of this House, may not commend themselves to any considerable number of hon. members. I have no desire that the rights of the Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada shall be abridged, nor that the rights and privileges of any other denomination shall be interfered with in any respect. But I wish hon. members to bear in mind that the experience we have had in this country—not to allude to that of the neighbouring states, proves that a denial of the right of the majority to legislate on any given matter has always led to grave consequences. I need only mention the clergy reserve question. That it must be recollected, was forbidden to be legislated upon by the Union Act; yet it was the cause of fierce strife, and legislation for many years. The original constitution of the United States prohibited the question of slavery from being interfered with by Congress; yet an agitation for its suppression was early commenced, and at last terminated in civil war. (Hear). The agitation of the clergy reserve question produced a rebellion in Upper Canada. I say, Sir, that by making a constitutional restriction in respect to the schools of the minority, we are sowing the seeds from which will in the end arise a serious conflict, unless the constitution be amended. The minority will be quite safe on a question relating to their faith and their education in a colony under the sway of the British Crown; but if you expressly withdraw that question from the control of the majority, the rights of the minority will not be safe in either section of the province, if you distrust the action of the majority. It is our duty, Sir, to see that a question which affects us so dearly as the education of our children—a question which has before now created no little excitement in Upper Canada—shall not be withdrawn from the management of the local legislature. We ought not to deprive them of a power which they will want to exercise, just because they are deprived of it, and provoke a desire on their part to alter the system. You may rely upon it, other religious bodies will be sure to protest against any particular creed having special rights, or an exclusive monopoly of certain privileges, whatever they may be. I should be astonished if any one in this House would say, either to the Protestant minority in Lower Canada or to the Roman Catholic minority in Upper Canada ‘You are not to trust to the justice of the majority.’ Have they ever known a country where the majority did not control affairs and where the minority had not to submit? Does not the majority rule and the minority submit in England and in France? I have never heard of any state where this was not the case. The minority is safe against undue encroachment on its rights, and I am willing to trust to the sense of justice of the majority in Upper Canada to preserve the religious and educational liberties of the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada. I am now getting somewhat advanced in years, and I am the more anxious to put my opinions on record, because before long I shall have the satisfaction of saying, though perhaps not on the floor of this House, that I protested against resolutions intended to prevent the free expression of opinion by the majority of the people of Upper Canada, and the exercise of a power which ought to be intrusted to them.

Now permit me to say that I regret very much indeed the observations which have been made by some hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to the alleged prejudices and passions and fanaticism of certain sections of this Dominion, more particularly in the province of Ontario and especially the city of Toronto. I say to the hon. gentlemen opposite who are supporting this Bill that they cannot find in any of the observations which have been made by the opponents of the Bill any reflection upon the religious prejudices of the people of Quebec or of any minority.

Hon. Mr. DAVID—I did not apply that to the members of this House. I took all the precautions necessary to enable hon.

638

gentlemen men to understand me. I did not apply any remarks to hon gentlemen in this House.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Many hon. gentlemen take the liberty of making remarks of a very general character, which while made in a very general way are extremely inflammatory. My hon. friend is sufficiently intelligent to know that the remarks which he made with regard to the large and influential Orange order would be scattered broadcast throughout the Dominion, and the minds of these men must necessarily from what he has said be inflamed to a very great degree. I see nothing in the attitude of that order upon this question which warranted the reflection which he passed upon it. I cannot refrain from also pointing out that the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, as well as the hon. Secretary of State in introducing this Bill, could not make their remarks upon a question which was purely constitutional, which had in view the adjustment of differences between the religious bodies in the new provinces without casting the most serious reflections upon the people of Ontario. I cannot understand the spirit which actuates many hon. gentlemen who come from Ontario and express themselves in the most derogatory language with reference to the so-called religious bigotry and fanaticism of the people of their own province. Yet we find those hon. gentlemen participating in the extreme and inflammatory remarks which are often made in this House and elsewhere as to the people of their own province. I am bound to say, although I am not a resident of the province of Ontario, that there is no part of this great Dominion where there is more toleration, more generosity to the minority and a higher standard of morality, intelligence and culture than the province of Ontario. I know they give to the minority as broad and as generous treatment as that minority can receive in any part of Canada or in any part of the broad continent of America. To say that the seeds of dissension are being scattered broadcast in the city of Toronto and throughout the province, to say that the great press of the province of Ontario has ever sought to produce antagonism between the people of the different provinces is, I say, to cast an unwarranted aspersion on the people of Ontario and on a press which is a credit in every respect to the Dominion.

Hon. Mr. POWER—The hon. gentleman cannot be reading the Toronto ‘News,’ or cannot have seen its cartoons.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—Or ‘Saturday Night.’

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Who are the principal leaders with reference to the agitation which has been stirred up by reason of many iniquitous features of this Bill ? They have been the very bulwarks of the Liberal party. Who was the pioneer in this agitation but the ‘Globe’ newspaper, as I shall show presently. Who is the editor of the Toronto ‘News’ upon which my hon. friend from Halifax casts an aspersion? Why the gentleman who presided over the editorial department of the ‘Globe’ for years, is the biographer of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the gentleman who deified him far beyond the glowing language of my hon. friend from Mille Iles (Hon. Mr. David). This is the gentleman on whom the hon. member from Halifax (Hon. Mr. Power) casts aspersions, a gentleman who has ever been high in the councils of the party, and who for years had been looked upon as the Delphic oracle of the party in Ontario. Another journalist prominent in this agitation is Mr. Sheppard, of ‘Saturday Night,’ who has been writing some of the most trenchant articles that have appeared in the press on this subject. Who is Mr. Sheppard ? He was one of the Liberal fold from 1896 until the introduction of this Bill. This government was only too pleased to secure the robust services of Mr. Sheppard in 1896, and by seductive ways to establish him within the Liberal party. For many years he could not write too glowing panegyrics of that party and particularly its leader, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and in recognition of his services they invested him with the authority of a commercial mission to one of the South American republics.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—All governments make mistakes.

Hon. Mr. KERR (Toronto)—Does the hon. gentleman say that Mr. Sheppard was purchased by a thing of that kind ?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I did not say he was purchased. I made no such aspersion. I know him to be above approaches of such

639

a character. I say as a small appreciation of his services to the Liberal party in helping to place them in power in 1896 practically on this very question the very first thing they did was to make him a kind of plenipotentiary and send him on a commercial mission to a South American republic.

Hon. Mr. KERR (Toronto)—Mexico ?

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—The West Indies.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—My hon. friend’s forgot to consider who the gentlemen are that have been conducting this agitation and those who have been the pioneers in this agitation in Toronto. Why they are they some of the strongest Liberals we have in the ranks of the party in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. DAVID—What of that ? It makes no difference.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—It makes this difference: My hon friend must not overlook the fact that the agitation was started by friends of his own household. It was they who began to analyse, to criticise and to denounce this Bill, and I am satisfied that my hon. friend will be sufficiently candid—because I know his sense of honour will dictate that he do so—to accord to the Conservative party a consistent record upon the question of separate schools in seeking to secure to the minority the fullest possible rights to which they are entitled under the constitution. I am satisfied no hon. gentleman can say that I have cast the slightest aspersion upon the convictions or even the prejudices which any minority may entertain upon this subject. In this Canada of ours, made up of different races and religions, we must exercise toleration and respect for the opinions of all and agree to live together in unity and in a brotherly spirit. Nothing can possibly be gained in the discussion of this Bill by appealing to the religious passions, and hon. gentlemen must assuredly see that it is purely a question of constitutional law as to what those provinces are entitled to, and I am satisfied those gentlemen even who have made inflammatory remarks must come to the conclusion that if those provinces are entitled to legislate with reference to education to the same degree as the other provinces of the Dominion, that right should be accorded to them by their constitution, which constitution must be sacred in the minds of the public men of this Dominion. I do not know that I can do better than conclude my remarks by subscribing myself as a supporter of the position taken by the Toronto ‘Globe,’ on this subject. On March 21, the ‘Globe’ made its confession of faith upon this subject, nailed its colours to the mast.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—It did not keep them there.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—For the time being it made a declaration on this question, and from a constitutional standpoint, seeing it has ever been accepted as the oracle of the Liberal party, I think it should be accepted by the government as having greater weight than any of the other authorities I have cited. On March 21 last the ‘Globe’ valiantly declared as follows:—

1. 1. The ‘Globe’ stands for the provincial rights of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Those rights are created and secured by and under the British North America Act. The ‘terms and conditions’ of their provincial autonomy must be ‘subject to the provisions of this Act.’ They can have no rights as provinces that are not expressed or implied in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886. They can be deprived of no rights to which they are entitled under that constitution.
   2. The ‘Globe’ holds as has been argued in these columns again and again, that the new provinces now to be created do not come under the separate school obligation of section 93, clause 1, of the British North America Act, and therefore they are free under the constitution exclusively to make laws in relation to education, to continue their present system, to modify it, or to substitute another for it, as their legislatures shall decide.

1. 3. The ‘Globe’ is persuaded by its first hand knowledge of western conditions and by assurances of representative western men, that had the education question been left without direction or trammel to the legislatures, the present system would have been enacted and all privileges possible under any obligatory federal clause would have been secured to Catholic minorities without dispute or acrimonious debate.

CLAUSES ARE ULTRA VIRES.

1. 4. The ‘Globe’ holds that the educational clauses in the first draft of the Autonomy Bills are ultra vires of the federal parliament, especially the third clause, which is held to contravene the Dominion Lands Act and to interfere with provincial control of details of school administration.
   5. The ‘Globe’ as a logical consequence of the foregoing, holds to be ultra vires of parliament and an infringement, in theory, if not in practice, of the rights of provinces under the constitution and legislation based on the assumption that in the meaning of the British North America Act there is no

640

difference between the creation of a province out of a territory, for thirty-five years part of Canada under federal supervision, and the union to the Canadian confederation of an independent self-governing autonomous province or colony such as British Columbia, was prior to 1871, or such as Newfoundland is to-day. A territory is not a province, and the constitutional obligations of a province cannot rest upon a territory until it becomes a province.

Now this statement of the ‘ Globe’s ’ position is made without reservation. Obviously it is opposed, point for point, to the position of the government, and its principle is opposed to the principle of any suggested amendment. The only reason for any abandonment of this position would be the proof that it is constitutionally untenable. Such indubitable proof would be a judgment of the Privy Council. Party politics, anti-French demonstrations, and the irrelevance of sectarian clamour have nothing to do with it.

These sentiments and this constitutional opinion expressed by the ‘ Globe’ represent, I think, the best constitutional thought that can be given to this subject, and I heartily urge its consideration upon my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House who for so many years have been loyal and faithful followers of that organ.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—The ‘ Globe ’ recanted afterwards.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—It did not do more than the Liberal party is always doing. If I were to take up the work of reviewing the recantations of the Liberal party on all great questions, not excluding this educational question, it certainly would require considerable time to review the whole of them. If there is any characteristic of the Liberal party it is their habit of recanting. Their consistency in their inconsistencies only accentuates that strange and perverse inconsistency which ever has characterized them in the past. In 1896 they were against coercion; in 1905 they are preaching coercion throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion, and probably in another decade or less we will find them where they were in 1896.

In conclusion, allow me to express the hope that notwithstanding the very many differences of opinion which are entertained upon this question, the good sense of the people of Canada may come to a happy conclusion, so that in these new provinces no clamour or discord may arise to disturb the good feelings of a portion of this Dominion which in the near future will be populated by the millions of a free and prosperous community.

Hon. Mr. KERR (Cobourg)—I understood the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat to argue that there is no constitutional obligation on the parliament of Canada to pass his Bill.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I say the parliament of Canada has a constitutional right to erect provinces out of those territories, but that it has no right to impose educational restrictions on the people of those provinces.

Hon. Mr. KERR (Cobourg)—Does the hon. gentleman risk his reputation as a constitutional lawyer in saying that the parliament of Canada has not the right to pass this Bill?

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—To what part of this Bill does my hon. friend refer?

Hon. Mr. KERR (Cobourg)—I am willing to limit it to the educational clauses.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—In my judgment this parliament has not that right.

Hon. Mr. KERR (Cobourg)—I take issue with the hon. gentleman, and if he will take the question to the Supreme Court and it is decided in his favour, I will pay the costs.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I am afraid the hon. gentleman would lose his money.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—At this time of night I do not purpose following my hon. friend in all his wanderings during the two hours he has held the attention of the Senate. He has been through the whole Northwest and part of the old country. I rather liked his peroration, when he made the statement that he hoped no matter what difference of opinion there might be in this House and country upon this question that good feeling would prevail in the Northwest Territories. But in another part of his speech half an hour before that, he told us and made the threat to this House and country that this would be a bone of contention for all time in the territories, and we would soon find out that it would become a source of trouble. I commenced to think there was not much reliance to be placed on the peroration when he appealed to the good feeling of the Dominion. He closed his

641

speech by reading an article from the ‘Globe’ which he said conveyed his views with reference to the whole question, but I noticed that he did not take the trouble to quote from the Montreal ‘Star.’ One would expect that when he gave us the views of Liberal newspapers on this question he would also have given us the opinions of some of the Conservative papers. The Montreal ‘Star’ told these gentlemen that they had better close up and go home, that they were practically ruining the Conservative party, and the ‘Gazette’ has done practically the same thing. My hon. friend made a good speech, but it contained a great many ‘ifs.’ I am not a lawyer, and I do not intend to try to put up a legal argument. I do not take much stock in legal arguments. I fancy if my hon. friend were on the other side of the House, he would make just as strong and logical an argument on the other side of the question, because lawyers differ. I remember reading a speech made by Mr. Borden, the leader of the opposition in the other House, in which he said he stood on the constitution. The right hon. the Prime Minister in his speech also said he stood on the constitution. When gentlemen like these two leaders cannot agree, I am sure one of them must have been off the constitution. It put me in mind of the battle of Langside, when the King led on one side and the Queen on the other. The Queen’s forces were calling out ‘God and the Queen,’ while the other side called, ‘God and the King.’ It appeared to me that the Lord could not very well be on both sides at once, and in the same way I do not think both these gentlemen can stand on the constitution. My hon. friend has dodged all around this question, but has not left it clear whether he is in favour of separate schools, or not. He skated all around the hole but he never went near the water. He was asked the question by some hon. members on the other side of the House, but dodged it very artfully, and has left the impression on my mind that he has not committed himself one way or the other upon that subject. I am not a lawyer, and I have judged this matter from my own common sense as a farmer and a man of business. This school question that my hon. friend has dealt with at such length is one that does not stir the people of the Northwest to any great extent. My hon. friend said there was going to be a protest from the west against this educational clause. He had an opportunity to protest in the west when the Minister of the Interior went back to his constituency for re-election. Why did not my hon. friend and those who share his views protest then ? When the legislature of the Northwest Territories was discussing this question, and when it was being discussed in the press and amongst the people for the last four years, when the Northwest assembly on different occasions presented memorials to the federal government asking for autonomy, there was no reference to the separate school question at all. They were quite willing to accept the provisions of the British North America Act at that time. Mr. Haultain and his colleagues, the Northwest government, drafted a Bill which was presented to the government of the day here with reference to this very question. They embodied in that exactly what they expected to get from the federal government. When these two Bills were brought down in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister explained them, if they were not satisfactory to the Northwest assembly, what was Mr. Haultain’s duty ? There were, I think, 5 vacant seats in the Northwest Territories at that time, caused by gentlemen resigning to run for the Dominion parliament. Some of the candidates were returned, others were defeated, but those vacancies existed. If these Bills were not satisfactory to Mr. Haultain, then it was his duty to go back to the Northwest Territories and hold elections in each of these 5 constituencies and test the feelings of the people with reference to this question. Did he do it? No, Mr. Haultain stayed down here in Ottawa talking very loudly. Then he went home to the Northwest Territories, and held interviews with representatives of the press. He came back again to the elections in London and North Oxford and made speeches there, but he never tried to test the feeling of the people of the Northwest Territories on these measures. I submit that the people of the territories that are to be formed into two provinces are the people most interested in this subject. They are more interested than the people of Toronto, of London, of North Oxford, or of any other part of this country,

642

because under the provisions of these Bills they and their descendants will have to live for all time to come. These provisions have been published in the press of the Northwest Territories and the people are intelligent enough to know what they want. We do not have to ask for the opinion of the people of Ontario or any other part of the Dominion. If the provisions of the Bills were not satisfactory to the people of the Northwest Territories you would have heard such a roar from them that there would be no mistake about it ; but when you find the members from the Northwest Territories with the exception of three, supporting the clauses of this Bill, I think it may be taken for granted that the people of the Northwest Territories are pretty well satisfied with this legislation as it has been submitted to us. I do not know that I am very enthusiastic over separate schools, not the class that we had at one time in the Northwest Territories ; but I do believe that when this parliament dealt with the subject in 1875, when the subject was discussed in both Houses at Ottawa, and it was stated then by the leading statesmen of this country that it was only right that a settlement should be made and the people given to understand what privileges they would have in going into that country, and when an Act went through both Houses granting certain privileges to the Roman Catholics of the Northwest Territories, and people have been going into that country for the last 15 or 20 years and settling there on the strength of that legislation, it would be nothing short of highway robbery to take away those privileges from the minority in that country, even if we had the power to do so. We must live up to our contract. I know some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the other House take a different view on this subject, and talk about provincial rights. Mr. Borden, the leader of the opposition, spoke strongly about provincial rights. As the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other night, there is no question of provincial rights in this matter because these territories are coming in as territories, not as provinces, at the present time. Mr. Borden, discussing the land question, said what he was willing to do for provincial rights. He said it would be a good thing to hand over the homestead land to the local government, but that a clause might be inserted requiring the provincial authorities to give free homesteads to settlers. Was not that an infringement of provincial rights ? What is far more important to the people of that country is the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation. That affects the people more than the educational question, and if Mr. Haultain were to test the feelings of the people of the Northwest Territories he would find there are twenty-five men interested in removing the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption to every one that is interested in the school question. I consider that an infraction of provincial rights. As to legal arguments, as I said before, I take no stock in them. I heard what my hon. friend said about the Territories coming into the union in 1870. After telling the House practically that he was willing to give the Roman Catholics all they were entitled to under the constitution, he then went on to tell us that the territories came into the confederation in 1870. It occurred to me on reading section 93 of the British North America Act that if these territories came into the union in 1870, since there were no separate schools by law or by practice in that region previous to that time, the Roman Catholics would be entitled to nothing at all, according to his argument. I was going to ask him, if they came into confederation in 1870, did section 93 of the British North America Act apply to them at that time, and if not why not. It is all nonsense to say that the territories affected by this Bill were brought into the confederation as provinces in 1870.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—Not as provinces. As territories.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—But they are coming in now as provinces. When they come in as provinces they come under the provisions of the British North America Act, if not what is the meaning of the preamble to the Act of 1871 ?

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—The Dominion was given authority to erect them into provinces.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—If they existed by law at the union, then practically they cannot be interfered with. If those territories came into the union in 1870 there being at

643

that time no separate schools either by law or practice, I assume the Roman Catholics in that part of the country would have no rights at all. The preamble is as follows:

Whereas doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of the parliament of Canada to establish provinces in territories admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted into the Dominion of Canada, &c.

So I fancy there is just as good legal authority for saying these provinces did not come in in 1870, but are coming in now, as for taking the opposite view, and that they are entitled to the law which has been in force for years and of which the people have had advantage, up to the present time.

Hon. Mr. FERGUSON—Why not leave it that way?

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—I do not believe in leaving it that way for the reason that Mr. Haultain and some of his friends have led the country to believe that if that were done there would be no separate schools at all. That is what they said in the late by-elections in Ontario, that if Mr. Borden’s policy were carried out and the British North America Act left to work automatically, there would be no separate schools at all.

Hon. Mr. FERGUSON—But you do not believe that.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—I do not, but they tried to create that impression. If you left it that way, it would be open to every demagogue in the Northwest to stir up strife among the people. We have had an illustration of that to-night. My hon. friend from Calgary said this was going to be a bone of contention. Does my hon. friend think if it was to be left open as Mr. Borden desires to leave it, they would not attempt to stir up religious strife for the purpose of making political capital? We had a demonstration of it in London and North Oxford. One man speaking in North Oxford asked, how the people liked Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s proposition to hand over 15,000,000 acres of school land to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. Hon. gentlemen who have read the Bill know what foundation there was for such a statement, yet it was made by a leading politician who desired to make capital against the government. If such people had an opening they would stir up strife on this question in the Northwest Territories and we would never have it settled.

I shall discuss some questions which I consider, and the people of the Northwest consider more important than clause 17 of the Bill before us. I cannot understand the position that the hon. gentleman from Belleville (Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell) has taken with reference to this question in moving the six months’ hoist. Mr. Haultain has been agitating for provincial autonomy for the last five or six years. The main thing the Liberal party in the Northwest has had to fight in the recent election is this question of provincial autonomy. They said, we must have autonomy. We cannot build bridges and carry on other works without money; and the Conservative party have condemned the government because they have not granted provincial autonomy sooner. A year ago the leader of the opposition in the other House moved a resolution about the end of the session, condemning the government in unmeasured terms for failing to grant autonomy, claiming that the people of the Northwest Territories were as capable of managing their own affairs as any other men under the British flag, and we had to fight it out in the last campaign in the Northwest Territories, because the whole campaign was conducted on this question of provincial autonomy. We took the ground that there was no haste, that the country was in a state of transition, and it would be better to let matters stand as they were for a few years until there was more population and the people were more settled, and we knew where we were; but our opponents would not hear of that. They pointed to the fact that Manitoba had entered the confederation with 12,000 people and had prospered. We had to contend against this thing in the elections and now what do we find?

After going all over the length and breadth of the country, making provincial autonomy an issue, we have the spectacle, when the government bring down a measure of autonomy which cannot be proved to be unsuitable to the Northwest or unacceptable to its people, of the leader of the opposition in this House moving the six months’ hoist, which means, if carried, killing the Bill, and

644

preventing the legislation for which Mr. Haultain has been fighting. But, hon. gentlemen, it is politics. I did think that politics was confined to the other side of this building. I did not know that it had entered the Senate, but I had my eyes opened this evening while listening to the speech of my hon. friend from Calgary (Hon. Mr. Lougheed.) He made a long argument on the land question. He tried to show that the lands in the Northwest were being given away. I assume when he advanced that argument he was satisfied in his own mind that those lands were the property of the people of the Northwest Territories and did not belong to the whole people of the Dominion. It occurred to me while he was speaking that the older provinces when they were under separate governments had made a bargain, had gone into partnership, each of them retaining its own lands, which was a proper thing to do. Afterwards the united provinces acquired another large tract of country for which they paid a certain amount of money and thus acquired the ownership of these rich lands. The hon. gentleman from Calgary told us to-night that they are worth many millions—hundreds of millions. If so how many millions of dollars did the Conservative party give away in the eighteen years they were in power, from 1878 to 1896, when the people turned them out? How many millions of dollars in value did the Conservative government give away to railway companies for which they receive no returns whatever? But if all those lands belonged to the people of the Northwest Territories, and if my hon. friend knows the law, he must know what he is speaking about, how much does the Dominion of Canada owe us for the lands exploited by the Conservative party from 1878 to 1896? Millions and millions of the broad acres of the Northwest Territories were given away to companies and to their political friends. Millions of acres were given away to colonization companies for which the country did not receive more than 25 to 50 cents an acre, tracts of land on which those companies never placed a settler. Speaking on this question the hon. gentleman alluded to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company. That company was given a tract of land which was a wilderness, for which nobody would have paid anything. The arrangement made by the government with the company was that they should receive a certain amount of land on settlement conditions on paying $1 per acre. The government said, if you put so many people in each township we will give you this land at $1 per acre, but you will get no land until our homestead inspector has seen that the people are there. Carrying that out, the inspection was made and the people were found on the land, but before the company got a deed for an acre of land they had to put the settlers there. They have colonized a tract of country where the gophers had been hopping around for the 18 years the Conservatives were in power. There are prosperous settlements now, mills, churches and schools where nobody lived before, and still the hon. gentleman who has lived for 25 years in that Northwest country, and knows something about the country, speaks about the value of the lands. They had not value before settlement. If they are as valuable as he says, it does not lie in the mouth of the Conservative party to speak about it, because they have given away enough lands, valued at $10 per acre, to build three transcontinental railways through the Northwest Territory.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Have you the railways now ?

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—We will have the railways at the proper time, and there will be something for the railways to do. It will not be like the time when the Conservatives were in power, when the gophers had possession of the Northwest Territories with an occasional stray skunk hopping around, but there is settlement in the country now, wheat is grown there and thanks to the policy of the Liberal party the country is now being settled up, and my hon. friend will be able in a few days to get his indemnity raised from $1,500 to $2,500. I think he is entitled to the increase, and the country is able to pay it. When his party was in power the country was so poor that it could not afford to grant such an indemnity. In the interest of the people of this country the lands of the Northwest Territories should be left in the hands of the federal government ; they have all the machinery to colonize them. They have advertised that country from one end of the globe to another. They have their

645

Immigration machinery all over the world, and we have a stream of people flowing into that country who do not come in empty-handed. They are coming in at the rate of 150,000 a year. Does any one want to stop that progress. To promote such immigration you must have free lands. If the policy of my hon. friend was carried out and these lands were handed over to the provinces, would they be able to give free homesteads? It is a well known fact to any one living in the Northwest Territories that all the odd-numbered sections in any district near a railroad or in any place that is easily reached, have been given away by our friends, the Conservatives, to railway corporations years and years ago.

Now you cannot run a province without money any more than you can run a car without putting grease on the wheels. If we were to hand over to the provinces the lands that we have at the present time, where are they going to get the money to run the affairs of the provinces? They are getting the money from the lands at the present time. If they took the lands in lieu of the money what would they do. They have scarcely any odd-numbered sections that are available for sale, for which any one would give much. They have nothing but the even-numbered sections. It strikes any person that the first thing the local government would do if they got these sections would be to withdraw them from the market and rightfully so. That is all the revenue they have got. My hon. friend talks about twenty-eight millions made by Ontario out of their land. I suppose people think we should make money out of our land. If we made any money out of our land we would have to make it out of even-numbered sections, and we could not give them away if we did that. We have to give free homesteads to induce people to come into the country and we do not want to put the brake on the wheel at the present time. Now supposing Mr. Borden’s ideas were adopted, if we placed a clause in the Bill which would be an infringement of provincial rights and compelled the provinces to give free homesteads to these people you would then have a Commissioner of Crown Lands in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, because you would have to treat Manitoba the same as the other two provinces. If you gave these lands to these two provinces you would have to do the same with Manitoba. If the immigration department desired to take some action with regard to settlement they would have to deal with three different Crown Land Commissioners who would have three different policies. The House can see it would be an impossibility, that you could not carry on an immigration policy like that, and that if you handed over the lands to a local government it would mean that you would stop immigration into that country, and you would have the old state of affairs coming back to us. I do not think anybody in the country wants that; and my hon. friend from Calgary is the only one in this House who holds the view that these lands are so valuable. I think the government have treated the new provinces very decently as far as the financial terms go. I do not know under what principle the public lands in this country have been dealt with since confederation. When the province my hon. friend (Mr. MacDonald, B.C.) comes from came into confederation, it came with its own lands. We had to build the Canadian Pacific Railway through that province to reach the Pacific coast, which will be admitted to be a great benefit to the people of British Columbia. For that purpose the Dominion bought a narrow strip of property through British Columbia, and now British Columbia receives one hundred thousand dollars a year for that property for all time to come, and they have the benefit of the railway running through the province as well. If the land belongs to us in the Northwest, how were we treated with reference to that question? The government obtained a right of way in our country but we got no $100,000 for it. Instead of that they gave away 25,000,000 acres of our land for a railway through that country. There is one policy for British Columbia and another for the Territories. I am not claiming that we own the land, but my hon. friend says that we do, and if his argument is sound they gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway a right of way through the Territories for nothing, and they gave 25,000,000 acres of our land to them for building the railway. While in the case of British Columbia the province received $100,000 a year for granting a strip of rocks

646

For a right of way for a railway which was a benefit to the province.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—What does that land yield every year?

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—I am not talking about that.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—I will tell you about that later.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—Prince Edward Island is given a large sum of money in payment every year because she has no lands at all. So that I have made up my mind that this question is one which has been arranged from time to time to meet the cases as they arise. There is no use of a province going into housekeeping without sufficient money to carry on its affairs. And I venture to say if our people did not get what they considered sufficient money to run the province, people would never go in for autonomy. We do not want to come in on any starvation arrangement like Manitoba. Since Manitoba was admitted they have been hammering on the federal door for better terms, and I venture to say they will have to come again. What did they do with Manitoba ? They gave Manitoba $100,000 a year for all time to come in lieu of her lands and then they gave her the swamp lands. In selecting these lands I do not think it was all swamp lands that were given to the province of Manitoba; so that from start to finish there has been no principle laid down with reference to the lands, and I assume that in fixing the financial terms the government has taken into consideration the needs and requirements of that country, the vast amount of arable land in that territory, the possibilities of the country, and the population that will be found in those two provinces in the course of a few years. I assume that is what has been done. I am not altogether satisfied with some of the features of the measure. I do not always agree with my own leaders with reference to some of these matters. We were told last night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the east had made great sacrifices for the people of the west. I am willing to admit that the east have paid out a good deal of money for the people of the west, but I assume it was not paid out of current revenue or consolidated fund. A great deal of it was borrowed. Let us deal with this question shortly. Where did the money that went to build the Intercolonial Railway come from? It was borrowed, I suppose, and the people of Canada are paying the interest on it, and when the bonds mature they will have to be renewed or other bonds will be issued, and we will continue paying the interest for many years to come. I venture to say that the principal money which was paid for the building of the Intercolonial Railway will not be paid until there are three or four million people in these two new provinces which we are erecting now.

Hon. Mr. DOMVILLE—The Intercolonial Railway is quite a different subject, because it was built when we entered confederation.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—I understand that. I was trying to show that if the east has been making sacrifices for the west in years gone by, the time is soon coming when the people of the west will have to be making sacrifices for the people of the east, and I think I will be able to show that. The money that built the Intercolonial Railway has been borrowed, and we are paying the interest on it. The people of the west are helping to pay that interest, and per capita we pay more into the Dominion than any other province, because we consume more goods per capita than any other portion of the Dominion. We are not grumbling, but we will have to pay the interest on that. The government has built eighty million dollars worth of canals. Who is paying the interest on that? Are we not paying our share of that? And when we get a million people in these provinces in the course of a few years I assume we will be paying a large proportion of the canal expenditure. There have been railway subsidies granted in Ontario and Quebec and every other portion of older Canada. How did you get them? In hard cash, dollars and cents—borrowed money. The people of the west in common with the people of the east have to help pay the interest, and as the population increases we will be paying the bulk of that interest. In dealing with our railway question, the government took a different policy. The Conservative party inaugurated the policy of giving away the lands. My hon. friend from Calgary says the lands belong to us, and the government has given to railways 6,400 acres of land per mile worth $15 an acre.

647

Let my hon. friend figure out how much Brother Osler and the Canadian Pacific Railway got out of the Calgary and Edmonton road at the valuation he has placed on the lands given away by the Conservative party to Brother Osler and his friends when they built that little tramway into Edmonton. If those lands are so valuable, it would be well for my hon. friend to go to work and show how much the railways cost. You have given our lands away to build railways in the west, and you have borrowed money to subsidize the railways in the east, and we not only paid for our railways in the west out of our lands, but we are helping to pay the interest on the money borrowed to subsidize your systems in the east, and I venture to say, in the course of events, taking into consideration the amount of arable lands we have in the west, that in years to come we will pay the larger portion of this money borrowed for the purpose of subsidizing railways, building bridges and canals and constructing the Intercolonial Railway. I claim we will have to make great sacrifice in the years to come for the people of older Canada. We are making great sacrifices now, paying a big tariff for the benefit of the people of the east. Until this year we have been choked off and allowed to build no railways to the other side of the boundary line. We were not allowed to have freedom of transportation until this year, and everything had to be kept for the people of the east. We are not grumbling, but I want to say that the 150,000 people who come into that country every year bring money into that country, and every dollar of that money finds its way to the east. You have your banks in the east, but we have not a single bank out west. However, charters have gone through and we will soon have banks of our own. The banks of the east have branches covering the whole country from the lakes westward, and what are they doing? I venture to say—and some hon. gentlemen know something about banking business—that they are doing business principally on the deposits of the people of the country and those coming into that country. They are taking our money (and we do not grumble) because it gives us banking facilities, but the result is that loans are made to us out of our own money and the banks are making a profit out of it. And still we are told the east is making sacrifices for the west.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Is the Northwest not receiving annually a certain amount for an imaginary debt?

Hon. Mr. DAVIS. I am coming to that. I am glad the hon. gentleman touched on that, because if there is anything I feel a little aggrieved about in this legislation, it is the question of the imaginary debt. Let us consider this imaginary debt. When the old provinces were formed into confederation what do we find? We find the beautiful old province of Quebec, where I was born—and I love it—owed how much? If my hon. friend figures out the readjustment he will find it was about eighty millions. It was taken over as a debt—forty millions from Quebec and forty millions from Ontario. That is a debt to-day. It is not paid. Who is paying the interest on that debt? The people of the Northwest Territories are helping to pay that interest, just the same as Quebec and Ontario. Are we supposed to pay interest on the debt that was incurred for the benefit of Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario, and that was spent for public improvements in those provinces before we came into existence? Are we to pay that interest and receive nothing in return? Is that the argument my hon. friend would advance?

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—No.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—What is the argument?

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Are the Territories paying interest on only seventy-five million or eighty million?

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—I do not understand.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Are they paying interest on the whole debt?

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—Yes, our share, and I wish to point out further that to-day when we come into confederation, because we have no debt and because we are paying interest on the debt of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and the other provinces which had a debt, the government has placed to our credit $8,000,000 in round numbers for each province. That is what is usually done. When the provinces at the union took the

648

census they figured up the debt and they calculated that every man, woman and child owed $32.46. When we came in we had to assume that debt and pay our share of the interest of it, and there is placed to our credit a like amount, I admit we have $32.46 on our 250,000 population in each of those provinces and we are going to draw interest on that. But I say this is an injustice. The province of Ontario has $40,000,000 of a debt, and the province of Quebec $40,000,000 and we are paying interest on that. We have $8,000,000 to our credit. When we have 2,000,000 people the same as Ontario and Quebec, what will we have? We will have 2,000,000 people in Saskatchewan and 2,000,000 in Alberta helping to pay the interest on $40,000,000 from Ontario and $40,000,000 for Quebec and the 2,000,000 people of Ontario and the 2,000,000 people of Quebec will only help to pay the interest on $8,000,000 for Saskatchewan and $8,000,000 for Alberta. I claim that that should be placed on a sliding scale, and that the census should be taken every ten years and a readjustment made ; and as our population goes up it should reach a maximum of $40,000,000, the same as in Quebec, and I think we are entitled to that.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—The hon. gentleman is going to vote against the Bill?

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—No. I understand my hon. friend is going to vote for the six months’ hoist. I think there are many good features in this Bill which the Conservative party has been crying after for four years, and I would hate to see them lose any more sleep over it, and I should hate to see Mr. Borden appealing to the sentiment of Canada for the 500,000 subjects in the Northwest that were not allowed to govern themselves. For that reason I will vote for the Bill, and if my hon. friend thinks it over he will vote for the Bill and not go back on his leader here and his leader in the Northwest Territories. Now with reference to capitation grant, that is a grant that we receive of 80 cents per head. It has been arranged by this government—and I am not complaining about it—that that shall go on until our population reaches 800,000 souls. Ontario receives that grant on something over a million and Quebec receives it on something over a million.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Not a capitation grant.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD, (B.C.)—They get paid until it reaches 1,200,000 population.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—No, we get paid until it reaches 800,000, and then it ceases. I claim that the restriction should not be imposed on the people of the west or any other portion of the country. I say that this matter of 80 cents a head should be left an open question and rearranged every ten years. Supposing we take one province—I am not saying this is something which is likely to happen, but it may occur—take one province drawing 80 cents a head for 500,000 people, and something happened and half of them left, the remaining population would be drawing $1.60 a head while in other provinces you would have them drawing only 25 cents a head on the population. I claim it is not a fair proposition at all. I am speaking now about the 80 cents a head in lieu of the customs duty and I do not think my hon. friend from British Columbia has grasped what I was talking about. Quebec receives a certain amount paid on the population until it reaches the point of over a million and Ontario in the same way up to over a million ; but we are confined to 800,000. We start at 250,000, and we go up to 800,000, and that is as far as we can go.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD, (B.C.)—If the hon. gentleman reads the clause he will see that it is quite clear.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—The clause the hon. gentleman is referring to is dealing with the land. That is not the question.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD, (B.C.)—No, that is population.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—I claim it should be left open and every ten years there should be a rearrangement. When the census is taken the noses should be counted, and if we are going to adopt this principle of giving 80 cents a head, it should be carried out in its entirety in a logical way, and the provinces should be paid according to their population. That is my idea, and that is what I think should be done. Now I come to another question in which I am

649

Interested, which was mentioned by the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is the question of representation in this House. The Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce told us last night that the representation in this House had been arranged in years gone by without reference to population. As I understood him, the country was divided into three divisions; that the maritime provinces were to have a representation of 24 members in this chamber, Ontario 24, Quebec 24, and that the west should have 24 members. I submit with regard to the representation in this House that the correct principle is that each of the smaller provinces in the Dominion should have as much representation as the larger ones. The leader of the opposition (Sir Mackenzie Bowell) maintained that we should have had only one province. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I venture to say that in 50 years from now there will be more representatives coming from those two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, than from all the rest of the Dominion put together, and if you were now to include it all in one province you would have a representation in the other chamber that would actually control the whole Dominion and the other provinces would have no show. Then the safeguard would be the Senate. Therefore in the Senate it is a good thing that a small community should have the same representation as a larger community. That is the principle in the United States. The great state of New York with a population of 7,500,000 has the same representation as Rhode Island with 350,000 souls. I am satisfied that the proper arrangement of representation would be to give Prince Edward Island with a population of 100,000 just as much representation as Ontario or Quebec or Saskatchewan, which is destined to be the banner province of this country. I would give them the same representation, but I strongly object to the province of Saskatchewan being tied down to six members while Ontario has 24, Quebec 24, and the smaller provinces combined 24. We should make a basis, take all the provinces which have been brought into confederation, and all the provinces which may hereafter come into confederation—because I believe we will have another province erected in that northern country which many people imagine is of no use. I know something of that country and I think it will be found that there will be large mining districts in the northern part of the Territories. Start in with Prince Edward Island and give them a representation of 5, New Brunswick, 5; Nova Scotia, 5; Ontario, 5; Quebec, 5; Manitoba, 5; Saskatchewan, 5; Alberta, 5, and deal in the same way with the rest of the provinces and there will be no complaint about it. Nobody knows the prospects we have in the Northwest. We have more good arable land in the province of Saskatchewan than you have in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces combined; what does that mean? It means that the people are going to come there. There is very little free land in any other part of the world. We are going to get the people, and this country will be built up. History is going to repeat itself. What took place in the United States will take place here. The old New England states along the sea coast have spread out to the Pacific ocean and where is the wealth of the United States at the present time? In the middle and western states. Where will the wealth in this country be in 50 years? There is no doubt that it will be in the west, and we are going to have the population up there and if you are going to treat the question in a fair way it should be put upon this basis. The hon. gentleman from Calgary (Hon. Mr. Lougheed) spoke about the division of the Territories into electoral districts. He spoke of the gerrymander attempted on the people of the west. We have had a local government in the Northwest Territories for fifteen or twenty years. The main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway was built through the southern portion of the Territories, and that part of the country has had an opportunity of developing for twenty years. They had a transcontinental line of railway through that district and it did develop in spite of the lands being held by the railway company there. In the north the people, not having a railway, were not able to develop the country. The majority of the local assembly were from the southern part of the Territories. Big sums of money were voted, as the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce stated last night, for public works and so on. How much did the north

650

receive of it? We scarcely got any and we never got cabinet representation. Sometimes they would spend a few dollars but it was the crumbs that fell from the table. When there was talk about forming a province, we said: ‘We in the north have not been treated fairly and we do not want to go in with the south. We want a province of our own. We want to draw a line east and west and make a northern and southern province. We held cut and fought for it, but it was pointed out that it would be unfair to do anything of the kind because the country was so deep that the division should be made the other way. We wanted a fair representation or we did not want to go into the province at all. With reference to the voters’ lists, what does it amount to? When the voters’ lists were made I do not suppose there were 100 people in Humboldt who were qualified to vote, while to-day I venture to say there are seven or eight hundred people. The settlers may not all be able to vote. Some of them are aliens and must reside there three years before they can take part in our affairs, but the moment they settle in the district are they not entitled to consideration? It is absurd to talk about foreigners coming into the Territories and to cast reflections on them. The great bulk of the people coming from the United States are the finest settlers that could be found anywhere. They have come into the country and made it blossom like the rose. With the money they have brought with them they have established themselves in our country, and are they to be called foreigners? We want those settlers because they will become the backbone of the country. What built the United States? Was it not the foreign element? What built Minnesota? Was it not the Scandinavians? These foreigners have come in here and cast their lot with us and it is our duty to treat them fairly. They have a right to representation in the councils of the province so that they can obtain a measure of justice.

Again, with reference to this educational question, which my hon. friend says is the great question, but which I say is not the great question, we have brought people into that country for twenty years under a promise, because there are the speeches made by the leaders on both sides of the House when this question was brought up in 1875. It was then said that the people coming into this country should know what they had to expect. It was scattered broadcast. It was a contract entered into between the people of the Dominion and the people of that new country. It is true it might not be written down, but what are written contracts for? They are not for honest men. They are intended for dishonest men—to keep them honest. Surely the word of the leading men of both political parties is worth something and should be taken into consideration. It is understood the settlers were to have these rights and privileges and whatever the hon. gentleman from Calgary may think about it I think they have a right to them whether the constitution gives it or not. We promised it years ago, and they have enjoyed it for twenty years, and I say it would be nothing short of highway robbery to take it away from them at the present time. I am not enthusiastic over separate schools, but there is nobody in the country objects to the system of schools we have at the present time. I have been all through the country and I know whereof I speak. The leading men in the country take part in the school affairs of their district. Every five miles is divided into a school district. We have some 1,000 schools. The leading men are the trustees in these schools and they are intelligent men, and generally take the trouble to read up the school ordinance, and I have spoken to some of them that belong to the society of which Dr. Sproule is a member, and they say they were perfectly satisfied. They had no objection to the school system in existence at present. If we are going to have separate schools, I say let us have good schools. Under the present ordinances which are going to become the constitution, we have a first class system of schools. Whether separate or public, it makes no difference; they cannot employ a teacher unless he or she is qualified. I have the regulations here but will not take up time to read them. A teacher must have certain qualifications before he can teach. I have never heard them use the word Roman Catholic or Protestant in the Northwest Territories. They say ‘we want a teacher with a first or second class certificate to teach in such a school.

651

If you read the papers you will see it there, and I venture to say that the people of my country are so broadminded that in many school districts if a man asked for employment the trustees would never question him about his religion. In one place they employed a coloured man to teach school, and he taught for years. Now if a certain number of our fellow-citizens think that for half an hour in the day they would like to have the benefit of that clause in the ordinance of the Northwest Territories which gives them the right to have a little religious instruction, who should say that they have not the right to do it? It is not the Roman Catholics alone that are getting it. The Protestants enjoy it the same as the Roman Catholics. If in any rural district Roman Catholics start a school and the trustees are Roman Catholics no doubt the official instruction will be given by the Catholics. That is all right, but if there is a section of Protestants where they think they have a grievance that they would rather have some one give their own religious instruction—mark you, the children need not remain when the religious instruction is being given—if they say ‘the Roman Catholics are enjoying the right of religious instruction, and we would like our children to be brought up in the same way, and we will form another school district here which is practically another public school, because the same subjects are taught, the same inspection provided for, the same qualifications required of the teacher, they can form their district and have their school. It is not a separate school but is practically a public school, and they can have the right to teach religion in that school for the half hour a day according to their views. The government of the Northwest Territories pay by results. If at the end of the year, when the inspection has taken place whether the school be Catholic or controlled by the Protestant element, if the subjects have been taught, if the children have been advanced as well in that as in the other schools, they receive just as much per capita as in the other schools. Why should they not do so? A few persons may for conscience sake go and form a separate school of that kind. Their taxes are naturally a little higher than they would be in the public schools, but if they are carrying on good schools they will receive the government grant the same as the others. We must have a grant to make them efficient. There are parts of the Northwest where Protestant and Catholic sit on the same school board and there is never any dispute. They get along nicely and will continue in that way until some one like my hon. friend from Calgary comes along and stirs up religious strife. My hon. friend tells us he intends to do that. We know that a few short weeks ago his partner in the law business came to the county of Oxford and to the city of London and told the people that if this Bill went through he could assure them that there was going to be a rebellion in the west, and they were going to shoulder their rifles. But after the election was over my friend from Calgary took to the west like a lonely coyote. We heard no more of his rebellion or his musket. The newspapers—even Conservative newspapers in the west—were making game of him, and he has been the laughing stock of the whole Northwest Territories since he came down here and talked about rebellion in the Northwest. My hon. friend from Calgary (Hon. Mr. Lougheed) is going to the Northwest to raise the standard of revolt. I imagine I see him straying through the Territories with his pockets full of pamphlets trying to stir up the people. I think I may tell him that as far as stirring up a rebellion is concerned his partner, who is a member of the Northwest assembly, is a greater success at it, and if Mr. Bennett fails to stir up strife in the Territories there is extremely little chance of the hon. gentleman succeeding. As far as the bluffing goes, we do not care one iota for it. When the election in these new provinces take place the hon. gentleman will be out in the cold—the handwriting is on the wall—they will not be so ready to go up there and talk about the foreign element then. They know it is a foregone conclusion. A couple of years ago they held a convention in Moosejaw and Mr. Bennett and the hon. gentleman from Calgary were there, I think. However, if he was not there he had something to do with getting it up, and they brought in Mr. Haultain, who was running the coalition government, and they told him that he had to drop into line. They passed a resolution in favour of introducing

652

party politics at the next election. Mr. Haultain was supported by the votes of the Liberals in the assembly and he practically said: ‘Gentlemen, support me for the next three years and at the end of that time I will kick you all out and put in Conservatives.’ Now he finds out that things have not gone to suit him; that he could not stir up strife over the autonomy matter, the rebellion has not come; the revolt has not materialized, and when he sees the handwriting on the wall he says: ‘I do not think it is a good thing to have politics introduced into the province. We will run it on non-political lines.’ I say there will be no non-political lines about it. They have thrown down the gauntlet and we will take it up. In the last election in the northern country what happened? I think six or seven Conservative candidates bit the dust, and I think there was something like twelve hundred dollars of their money went to fatten up the federal treasury in lost deposits. They were wiped out of existence. No wonder my hon. friend will howl about gerrymander and this outrageous thing that was going to be perpetrated in Calgary because they elected two Conservatives. We do not bother about their electing two Conservatives. They had a right to do so. They can elect whom they please. When the whole northern country went against them—they knew that in the distribution of seats this government would give the north the justice which they did not get from Mr. Haultain. But they know that the handwriting is on the wall and they say: ‘Let us have a non-political government.’ He wants to get in some place; he is like a gopher, when you stir him out of one hole he will make a dive for another. He is running around and diving about to see where he can get in. But he will have to take to the timbers, and the coon will have to come down. It is all very well for the hon. gentleman from Calgary to tell about this outrageous gerrymander that is being perpetrated upon the people of the southern part of the country. There is no gerrymander about it. In the district of Saskatchewan there is as little disturbance as possible. We adopted the principles of giving the cities—and there are four of them there—a representative each, and when it was shown that Moosejaw had not representation the people of the north very gladly gave up a seat and said let Moosejaw take it.

We do not want anything but what was right, but we do want what is right and fair and just, and that is all we have got. Everybody else agreed to it—everybody but people like the hon. gentleman from Calgary and the hon. gentleman from Wolseley; and nothing can satisfy them. Anything that will have a tendency to keep their political friends out of power in the Territories will not satisfy my hon. friend from Wolseley. But this was not made with anything of the kind in view. If we had started in the gerrymander, we could have distributed the seats in such a way that they could not have won six constituencies in each province in the elections that are to come on. There was no gerrymander. The only representative of the Conservative party who discussed this question of Saskatchewan representation was Mr. Lake, who came down with the most outrageous gerrymander that I ever saw. I am sorry that I have not his distribution of seats for Saskatchewan just to show what he proposed to do. Here are the cities of Moosejaw, Regina and Prince Albert, all prosperous and increasing in population, with 5,000 or 6,000 people in each, and they want representation in the assembly; but Mr. Lake would do away with that. He wants to give the people of the north hardly any representation at all, I suppose on the same ground that my hon. friend alleges, because they are foreigners and scalawags. But this proportion before the House is absolutely fair. It is giving to the north what the north is entitled to, and to the south all that they are entitled to, because the population is going more rapidly into the north than into the south and they should have more representation. My hon. friend from Calgary says he can prove that there are more going into the south than into the north. I do not know where he is going to get his figures. I suppose he has not been up there counting noses this summer. And I suppose Mr. Bennett, who is going to start a rebellion, was not up there counting noses. I venture to say that this year over 100,000 people have come in already. No doubt some have settled in the

653

south, but I venture to say that the opening of the Canadian Northern Railway and all these other branch lines in the north have attracted the great bulk of the people entering that country to the north, and will continue to do so for years to come. All the homestead lands along the Canadian Pacific Railway have been taken up and people naturally go where they can get homesteads for themselves and children. In order to do that they have to go to the northern belt. Land around Indian Head and along the main line is worth from forty to fifty dollars an acre. That is not a place where settlers will go. The poor settler has to go to the northern belt where he can get a free homestead for himself and buy land for his son at $5 to $6 an acre. That is where the stream of immigration is going, and before another redistribution takes place the north will have more population than the south. Taking everything into consideration, I think the distribution of seats is fair. My hon. friend says this outrageous proposition was made for the purpose of taking the capital from Calgary. What right has Calgary to be the capital? I say Regina has some shadow of a right to be the capital of Saskatchewan. It has been the capital for a long time, and the public buildings are there, but why should Calgary have more claim than Edmonton to be the capital of Alberta? Is it because they are better looking in Calgary or because Mr. Lougheed lives there, or because the fire-eater Bennett lives there? I say we must take into consideration the position of the different towns.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—They have a right to make a claim.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—They have a right to make a claim, but they have no right to say, because they do not get what they want, that they have been cheated.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Does my hon. friend say that I made any reference to Calgary?

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—My hon. friend made a reference to Edmonton and if I understood him aright he claimed that the capital should have been at Calgary.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—Then the hon. gentleman was not listening to what I said.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—It was very hard to understand what he was driving at because he was roving from Dan to Beersheba.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman must withdraw his statement that I made any statement with reference to Calgary or Edmonton either.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—I will withdraw it if the hon. gentleman says he did not.

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I did not, and the hon. gentlemen must know I did not.

Hon. Mr. DAVIS—I am taking my hon. friend’s word for it that he did not say it, but I do not know why he was creating so much excitement about the outrageous gerrymander perpetrated on the south. Everyone who lives within sound of the cannon on this hill knows that it has been discussed in the other House, and the whole fight is put up simply because Mr. McCarthy and others from the south claimed that it was to pass over Calgary and give the capital to Edmonton. It does not make any difference what my hon. friend may have said. He may have beaten about the bush on that subject as he did on the educational question, because when he sat down nobody knew whether he favoured separate schools or not, or what he thinks about this question. If he did not try to convey the impression that an outrage has been perpetrated on Calgary, that reason has been advanced in another place, because the people of Calgary have not been able to secure the capital. Why should it not go to Edmonton? Any one who will look at the map will see that Edmonton is in a better position and more centrally located than Calgary. The hon. gentleman tries to make out that it is a question of politics because the two constituencies in the south have elected Conservatives. He has told me, and I accept his statement, that he did not say anything about Calgary or Edmonton, but I venture to say that a little while ago he made a statement that something was done to the people of Calgary because they had exercised their rights as a free people to elect a Conservative member. He has no right to say that the government did not give the capital to Calgary because they had elected a Conservative. They gave the capital to Edmonton, because it is the best

654

place for it, because it is more centrally located than Calgary is. Everybody knows that Edmonton has a magnificent river, that it possesses immense coal deposits and I understand natural gas; that there is petroleum close to the town and everything there to build up a great city. It has the Canadian Northern. It will soon have the Grand Trunk Pacific, and will have other railroads and become a railway centre. Why should not the capital of Alberta be Edmonton? I venture to say there are nearly as many people in Edmonton now as there is in the district of Calgary. They have all the facilities there which I have mentioned, and seeing it is in a better location that it will be on the Grand Trunk Pacific and other railways and that there are millions of acres of good land to the north of it, magnificent farming lands for three or four hundred miles north, why should it not have been selected as the capital? If Calgary had been chosen it is nearer the international boundary and if any trouble should arise between this country and the United States our neighbours would take possession of it in twenty-four hours. Let us go back to the hinterland for our capital. As I said before, Regina had some claim to be the capital, but Calgary has no earthly claim that I know of. The government did not take into consideration the fact that two Conservatives had been elected from there, but they knew that Edmonton was a better place for the capital and it was selected. The next assembly will have a right to change it if they think proper to do so. It is suggested to me by an hon. gentleman that the reason why Calgary was not selected as the capital is because the government were afraid that Mr. Bennett would start a revolution and hoist the banner of revolt.

I am glad the government have taken a stand on the educational clauses in the Bill. The people are entitled to what they have got, and I am very glad they are getting it. I think in saying so I am expressing the sentiments of two-thirds or more of the people of the Northwest Territories, not the Catholic population at all, but those of other creeds. They are generally satisfied with this legislation. It is all very well for my hon. friend from Calgary to put up a legal argument on this question. He could be employed to put up an argument on the other side which would be just as logical. If I had a case in court and employed him he would put up a magnificent argument for me, but if my opponent in the case had succeeded in employing him first he would have done equally well for him. It all depends on whose ox is gored. My hon. friend is a member of the Conservative party and knows that his party has got into trouble. If he does not know it, his attention has been called to the Montreal ‘Gazette’ and Montreal ‘Star.’ He knows that they cast their die on this thing and made the greatest mistake of their lives. They should have satisfied themselves as to the feeling in the Northwest Territories before playing this card. If they had any political astuteness they would have ascertained the feeling of the people of the Territories and avoided the greatest mistake they have ever made. They know it now and feel angry, and even my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is aware that they have made a mistake. We have been told the Liberal party have gone back on their principles. I sat one night in the gallery of the other House and heard Mr. Foster speaking. I could not believe that the gentleman who was making the speech on the question was the Foster whose speeches I had read in 1896, and I had to ask somebody, is this Hon. George E. Foster that made these other speeches. I was told that he was the same gentleman. Talk about transformation, that gentleman is a quick change artist. He can change his coat quicker than anybody I know of. The government by the introduction of these Bills will settle this question for all time to come. We want no more remedial orders; we want no drag on the wheel. We got rid of that some years ago when the old Manitoba trouble was settled, thanks to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We have started out on the race of progress. The country is filling up and getting wealthy. Hundreds of thousands of people are coming in there, all consumers and making a market for the manufactured products of eastern Canada. We are doing well and we want no school question. We do not want to have gentlemen coming to the assembly with a bone of contention to start racial strife among the people. We want the matter to be put in such a shape that these gentlemen will not be able to start up strife of that kind. Knowing what some of the people did in London and North Oxford in the recent by-election,

655

when they were asked whether they would vote for the Pope or the King, we want to avoid such trouble in the west. These gentlemen say that they would not think for one moment of raising racial or religious strife in the country. Why they have the whole of this session been scattering the seeds. Look at the efforts they made to stir up the people of the west. The whole country was covered with petitions, and brother this and brother that was running about trying to get people to sign them. We know that many people will sign petitions without much thought, but a great many did not sign these petitions and the agitators failed to create trouble. The government has done perfectly right in bringing down these Bills in this way. We are going to get rid of this trouble, settle it for all time, and put it beyond the power of demagogues to stir up strife.

I wish to refer for a moment to the question of Canadian Pacific Railway exemption. I am going to put myself on record in favour of our the people of the west being released from that Canadian Pacific Railway exemption. Every one will admit that the Canadian Pacific Railway was built for the benefit of Canada, and it has been a benefit to the whole Dominion. It was built to keep British Columbia in the confederation, not for the people of the Northwest Territories, although 25,000,000 acres of land in the Territories were given in aid of its construction. It was built by the whole of Canada. We cannot fill up that country without benefiting the old provinces. We are paying our share of interest on the money borrowed to build the Intercolonial Railway, to construct the canals, and to pay railway subsidies; and against that you have spent some money on the mounted police and Indians and have given $25,000,000 of borrowed money to aid the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and what did you do further ? You gave the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption from taxation on its road-bed and branches for all time to come. I venture to say that when the population of that country will have increased many times over in the next 50 years that the exemption from taxes, if it is allowed to continue will amount to more than the whole subsidy those provinces get from the Dominion government. That road was built for the whole country, and the whole country should assume the responsibility of paying its cost. I am not going to say a word about the foolish bargain that was made at that time. It has been alluded to already. We made an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I am not one to say that we should break it. Let us stick to our agreements whether written or not, as we are doing in this education matter, but this Canadian Pacific Railway question affects the whole Dominion, and I ask why should the people of those two provinces be saddled with an exemption for all time to come, when it was granted for the benefit of the whole Dominion. All Canada should release us from the exemption, and assume the liability. I intend to move an amendment on the subject when the Bill is referred to committee. I know that when these Bills become law and go into force on the 1st September and those two provinces are launched out as members of this confederation, that you will see great development in the course of a very few years. It is taking place at the present time. If we get rid of this racial and religious strife, this bone of contention that is talked of and allow the people to work out their own salvation in that country, we will have populous and wealthy provinces in the Northwest. It is not the people of the Northwest Territories alone that own the land. The people of Canada own it and we are all one and the same. There is too much of this sectional feeling in Canada. We should try to work together for the purpose of building up a great nation, and any public man who endeavours to stir up strife, either in Ontario or Quebec, and put man against man, and province against province is no friend of the Dominion. Let us have peace, let us work out our destiny and in the course of a few years, you will find we will build up a great nation in Canada under the British flag which will be a great source of strength to the empire.

Sir WILLIAM HINGSTON—I should not like to give a silent vote on this question, I am compelled by conscience to say a few words in support of the position I intend to take. There is an adage, old as the time of Horace : ‘Nil admirari’—be surprised at nothing, for what is least expected is sure to happen, and thus we find it to-day. A

656

few years ago a party, in the enjoyment of power and privilege imperilled its life to carry a measure of simple justice and lost it. The personnel of the party has changed, and now it would appear almost, to take the words of Mon. Fleury : ‘ Puis faisant volte face assez loin de ce lieu., D’un grand air de chapeau je fais mon adieu,’ so that we do not know where or how to find them. Questions should not be approached in a party spirit, and I am very sorry to have heard from two or three of the gentlemen the introduction of the religious question. The time is passed for divisions between Catholic and Protestant. It should be no longer a struggle between them. The Catholic has his position to find and so has the Protestant, but there must be a combined effort upon the part of both, for the struggle is not of one against the other, but of both against agnosticism and atheism. I have visited a good deal the other side of the Atlantic. On my first visit I saw, wherever I went, a religious people. I went back 15 years afterwards and many of my old friends were no longer staunch Presbyterians or Episcopalians. Many of those with whom I came into contact had lost all faith in religion and were agnostics, if not atheists. To me it was a matter of exquisite pain. I intend to confine myself to the educational part of this measure, because it is the only part I think myself competent to speak upon. I shall not allude to the financial question, and I am perfectly indifferent as to the boundaries to be given to Alberta and Saskatchewan, or whether we take a few thousand acres more on this side or on that ; whether we come down broadly with either to the boundary line, or whether we encroach upon Hudson bay. The Territories are ours, and if one gets a little less the other will get a little more, and it is impossible to please both parties where a dividing line between neighbours is to be established. I am prepared to accept all that ; but there is one question upon which I feel strongly, that we are apt to commit an act of injustice, and that is not the function of this honourable House. Justice comes from Heaven, says Bossuet, who styles it the queen of all the moral virtues.

Now where does the injustice come in here? A parent has a right, given him by God, to educate his child in his own way. The State has nothing to do with it. If the State steps in to take possession of the child’s mind, the State usurps the authority which belongs to the parent, and does a damnable act. I do not want to mince matters ; the parent is responsible and the child is obliged to listen to the parent first and not to the State so long as its first laws and regulations are respected. The State is there to see that the parent does his duty, but if he does his duty the State has no right to interfere. It has no more right to say what education the parent shall give his child than it has a right to go into his house and say what food shall be given it, or how it shall be clothed and so forth. These belong to the parent, who is responsible to God for the bringing up of the child. In the service of the State are found some of the brightest intellects, but after some of those speeches I have heard on the question, I should be sorry indeed to entrust my children to the management of some of them. The State sometimes does strange things in moments of excitement. The proposed measure is ultra vires. It is ultra vires because there can be no proper legislation which is not the embodiment of justice. I speak not as a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, thank God. To me it is a question as clearly to be defined as if it were one of tumour or no tumour, cancer or no cancer, dislocation or no dislocation ; the matter is evident and plain as day. The common school as it exists in some parts of the world is based upon the principle of state education. When did the state step in and say what the education of a child should be ? It is almost within my recollection when the thing was unknown, and it is still unknown in the best governed and freest countries in the world as I shall shortly prove.

Hon. Mr. KERR (Toronto)—I think the leader of the opposition pointed out that it was the Conservative party which introduced that Public School Act.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—The hon. gentleman is speaking of the other kind of schools.

Sir WILLIAM HINGSTON—The state has its duties, and very important ones ; but the

657

education of a child, or rather the starving of its soul during six hours and a half a day and giving it a little condiment at the end of the day, when the child’s mind is fatigued, seems farcical, were it not so serious, and a matter of cruelty. One might as well serve to him at meals, eggs without salt—meat and other kinds of food without salt—salt with nothing—and after he got through a meal, dose him with salt. Speaking of religious education, first of all let me ask, what is education? There are two aspects from which we may regard education. The true way of educating, says an eminent writer, is first to correct the beast that is within us. We were born with these tendencies, and the first effort is to correct them, in order that conscience may emerge; then to educate conscience that intellect may emerge. But what do we propose to do ? We begin, first of all, with the intellect, sharpen the intellect and load the memory, and allow the conscience to take care of itself. A godless school is a source of evil beyond all calculation. There are countries in the world where they have no religious education and where they have common schools which are striking at liberty of conscience, as in France. Who is it that implants within us that liberty of conscience ? We were born with it. It is our birthright. From whom does it come ? It comes not from the State—the State cannot give liberty of conscience. You cannot take it away. You cannot step between man and his Maker. It is our Maker that implants in our breast that liberty of conscience—although not always, unhappily, liberty of action. Men are not always permitted to act according to the dictates of their consciences, but when they can they must, and they are not at liberty to do the opposite. One must bear in mind that from conscientious motives a large number of people cannot avail themselves of state education. In this country forty per cent cannot in conscience avail themselves of it. I will not say that they are always right. I have gone, myself, to Catholic schools for a short period of my life, and to the Protestant schools for a longer period, by far the longer. But the man who has a conscientious desire to have his child brought up in the fear and love of God in his own way, has an inalienable right to do so; and woe to the person who steps between that man and his conscience. Then we are accustomed to speak of the common school. What right has it to be called the common school, when it represents the views of only 60 per cent of the community ? Are we to ignore the other 40 per cent ? They are weak already, numerically inferior to the others, and have we a right to ignore them ? Had the government brought in a measure to favour the minority and deal less generously with the majority, there would be less to complain of, but I contend that the state has no right to legislate in a particular direction and call that a common school which can only be used by a section of the population. It is to be regretted that in all these discussions opponents cannot enter into their opponents’ mind and see things from their standpoint. Two of the speeches to-night came from entirely different quarters. They seemed to have nothing in common in their arguments, and arrived at opposite conclusions from an examination of the legal bearings of the same Bill, and yet they both possessed bright intelligence. Well, perhaps if we were to try to get out of ourselves a little more than we do, exercise a little more imagination than we do—because most of the injustices done in life arise from a want of imagination—and have more to do with justice and less with law, things would be different. If we have no imagination then follows injustice, but if a man can step out of himself and place himself in the position of one opposed to him, injustice will not usually follow. When one sees with the eye of the other, he sees with him, and justice cannot but be done. But it is unhappily the condition that there are a great number of men with little or no imagination. They see things microscopically and they attach enormous importance to trifles while matters of greater moment pass by them unheeded. Then there is a difference in the way one looks at a thing. We are all at one as to the need of religion, yet how men differ in the very concept of what religion is. One man lives an honest life, is kind to others, is honest in his dealings and practices some form of religion—to him the particular form is of no moment. On the other hand, there are those Christians who believe that every tenet of revealed religion is essential, that nothing in belief is a matter of option, and consequently nothing can be a matter for compromise. How differently men of such

658

opposite views of religious duty will consider the present educational question. How ready the former will be to adjust or compound what he deems to be unessential, how prone to accuse those unwilling to imitate him of narrow-mindedness and bigotry; and yet how impossible for the latter to do so without forfeiting for his children that which he professes to hold dearer than life. This educational question is not a new one. It has been discussed again in England, that England to which we look for guidance and example, and whose constitution has served as the model of our own. How has England solved this question? England has never stepped between the parent and the child and has never attempted to give state education. I hope the time will never come when we will cease to look to Great Britain for example and to follow it as far as we can. The educational question has been a burning question with them for many years, but they have dealt with it in a fair and generous manner. They have made changes in the government of the school. At one time it was by the school trustees, at another time by inspectors, and later it was municipal. One system was found to be expensive and they changed for a cheaper system, but while they changed the form of government they never attempted to do what has been done in this case. The children were educated by their parents, or rather in the schools of their choice. Anglican, Protestant, Dissenters or Catholics, mentioning them according to their numerical strength. And how are the expenses of education paid? In the fairest manner possible, according to results. At first they had Catholic inspectors of Catholic schools and Protestant for Protestant schools; but both sides agreed that the inspectors they had were fair and impartial. The question of religion never came up as regards the inspectors, and that is the condition of things which exists to-day. Is it not better to have something of that kind for ourselves than to go to our neighbours, in the United States, for an example. What must be the result of irreligious education, where, until half-past three in the afternoon, God is excluded from the school,—the God who made us, who permeates everything, who should be always present with us, is permitted to knock at the door and come in for half an hour in the afternoon? We have in this country evidence of two kinds of schools, and let me here say how admirably we manage those things in the province of Quebec. I am not so familiar with the conditions of things in Ontario, but I am told they are equally happy. In Quebec, there are the Protestant school commissioners and the Catholic school commissioners, each all powerful quoad education, and the Protestant commissioners have told me that they never ask anything from the Catholic commissioners which is not at once granted. There is a superior authority superior to both to see that no injustice is done, so that if those who are numerically stronger were to attempt to do injustice to the numerically inferior the superior body immediately checks it. As an evidence of the harmony which exists, that superior body has not been called upon to act for the last 25 years. That is the happiest condition of things which could possibly exist, and why? Because perhaps the minority had in the French Canadians to deal with an amiable godfearing people. To go, however, into matters of education in the United States, where religion is not taught and not supposed to be taught, and not permitted to be taught, what is the result? Living here in Canada, and attached to Canadian institutions as I am, I should not like to see in this country what is described by writers in the United States to exist there. I could quote a thousand observers if time allowed; I shall take only two or three. I shall first take Bishop Spalding, of Peoria, Ill., who, as you know, has written some admirable works, especially one entitled ‘Thoughts on Education,’ a book which one can afford to read with profit a dozen times. What does he say? In the United States, millions of money are expended on education, and children get not individual teaching, but machine teaching in large buildings, with highly paid officers; and here is the result:

The dwellers in our fine houses are ordinary people, and show no tendency to become equal to the splendour of their habitations. The travellers in our luxurious cars and steamships have vulgar thoughts and aims, and long not for anything higher.

Our education, says Emerson, speaking of the United States, is a system of despair. It is a device to help us to gain a livelihood, to prepare the young to

659

become clerks, or merchants or mechanics, or lawyers or preachers—a key which unlocks the world of story books, novels and newspapers; but in education as a divine force, whereby a nobler race may be formed, we have no faith. We see to it that our machinery shall be made more and more perfect, but we have no hope that it shall be put into the hands of more godlike men and women.

Now that is the statement of one of the most thoughtful men in the United States. Emerson, whom we all know, continues: ‘Our education is a device to help us to get a a livelihood.’ And he adds it is not a Divine force. Now what is the result of this condition of things? I take up an official document which is authority for the statement that in volume of business and number of convictions the criminal court of Cook county (Chicago),—and I take it because it is at hand and for no other reason—is the greatest criminal tribunal in the world. More prisoners are arraigned at its bar than in any similar court in the world, including London with a population of over four million! In two months less than four years the grand juries passed upon 16,518 cases, an average of over four thousand cases each year. Yet Cook county luxuriates in the enjoyement of godless education. But the western Gotham has its ‘juvenile court,’ and its John Worthy school, and, its other reform methods—and will, no doubt, do something to diminish the plethora of vice with which it has to deal. Its anthropometric system, and its bureau of identification is said to be second only to that of Paris in perfection of detail. Perhaps a little religious education might have given it less to do. Yet, notwithstanding these artificial aids to detection and repression and correction of crime, statistics show an ‘increased proportion of criminals, in every social system, as compared with that of past years—and shows at the same time its penal system, however perfect, to be a colossal failure.’

In many parts of the United States, and in too many parts of Canada the purpose of education would seem to be to encourage youth to seek a career which promises wealth—the possession of which being the ‘ultima thule’ the limit—and too often the only limit of their desires. I am not competent to speak of Ontario, nor yet of other parts of the west, but knowing well my own province, I can say, ‘Youth there is led rather to aspire after excellence in some loftier plane, and often in some avocation of an intellectual character.’ In the modern Gotham matters are not more cheerful. Statisticians show an increased population of $33 per cent, or onethird in ten years. That is something to rejoice at. But during the same period crime has increased not one-third or 33 per cent, but one-half or fifty per cent. New York, like Chicago, is reaping some of the advantages of a godless education. In ten years the felonies have increased ninety per cent, in one year suicide two hundred and fifty per cent.

The United States of America are at the present moment at the most critical period of their existence. And the note of alarm has been more than once sounded by the most thoughtful of their citizens, even by a vigilant and able chief magistrate. That note of alarm has swelled with each returning year till what was first a timid whisper of dissent has become a loud continued roar of distress rather than of exultation.

When, in 1855, the state of Massachusetts decided that no state money shall be appropriated to any religious sect for the maintenance exclusively of its own schools, ‘and made the reading of the Bible compulsory, but allowed neither written nor oral comment, and forbade the use of any school books,’ calculated to favour the tenets of any particular sect of Christians, its acts were considered wise—but time has not established their wisdom. Religious training was banished from the school and soon fell into desuetude. But something had to take its place, and instead of wholesome Christian principles—Agnosticism, or that too popular phase of geology and zoology which goes by the name of Evolutionism.

Honourable gentlemen, it has been left to our day and generation to divorce religion and education. Our Saviour acted not in this wise: His first lesson was with the doctors in the schools. The Israelites to whom so much has been promised, had their children taught at home, later in the synagogue where the Rabbi taught the usual elements of education—but always, and

660

foremost, the bible, which formed the very key-stone of all their schooling. And they were not content to delve into a translation—but the Hebrew language was taught to the children in order that they might have the priceless advantage of reading, and their children are taught the bible in the original Hebrew to this day.

It is, I believe, due to this circumstance, that the Israelites—notwithstanding the persecutions to which they have been subjected—have preserved their religious distinction, in every clime, and in every form of existence.

Before I leave the United States, I will allude to a cancer that is eating more deeply into the body politic than the tuberculosis in which my hon. friend Senator Edwards takes so much intelligent interest—more than tuberculosis and cancer combined. What is that disease? In some states the birth-rate is far below the death rate, so that if it were not for English, Scotch and Irish men and women, the red men would come back and take possession. Why is this? Unfortunately a few years ago, the doctrine of evolution cropped up. It was seemingly harmless, I thought it charming, and I was disposed to embrace it until I began to reflect what would be the result. Are we merely links in an endless chain, with God, if there is a God, at one end, and the little zoophyte at the other? If so, where is the harm of lifting out of that endless chain a life ab initio, or at least an anticipated life? Unless religious education is present to say that life comes from Almighty Power, and He alone can take it away, there is no safety for the unborn. At the present time it is not by thousands, but by hundreds of thousands that life is steadily sacrificed, by a nameless and shameless method, to which I dare not allude even in the presence of elderly gentlemen as most of us are. But there is not only disturbed gestation. Ladies will not be debarred from society. They must join in the whirlwind. Maternity is not agreeable and—well—they do not like children and will not be bothered with them. There are a thousand devices. Hon. gentlemen, I formerly saw something of this kind every day in my office, and when I was a much younger man than I am now, and supposed to be impecunious, I was inundated with such cases, but I may add the same person never came back to me a second time on a like errand. This is a frightful crime; it is decimating and more than decimating the American people. Women are becoming hopelessly barren because of the expedients to which they resort, and which they think can be dropped at pleasure, but I have seen some of them when they were old—perhaps one child arriving at maturity, and I have seen them with faces in which unutterable woe was painted. The child they had permitted to live had been taken away by death and there the old father and mother would sit opposite to each other and either of them would have given all they possessed to have a child to cheer them. How is this? It is as I say, the legitimate outcome of evolution, a theory that has taken possession of the world. Some of the most brilliant men have adopted it, and yet it was exploded nearly a hundred years ago. Shortly after I read the views of evolutionists, I read the antidote prepared nearly a century ago; but for one copy of the antidote that is read, ten thousand copies of the works which are doing the mischief are read, yet the evolutionists are good men who do not see the direction in which evolution is leading them. Huxley was one of the best and most amiable of men, but he did not surely realize where his teachings were leading. We are slow to suppose that in the United States the feeling of maternity is dead. Writers speak of the cold reception that fashionable women give to the child. It is different with the poor. I have never heard the first cry of a child that did not seem to give intense pleasure to the mother, however poor. There is another class free from that vice—I allude to the Jews. Persons are astonished, not I, to find the Jews, wherever they settle, increasing rapidly. When they take possession of a quarter of a city the houses are soon filled with children, each woman endeavours to realize the promise made in an especial manner to that interesting and moral people: to multiply and replenish the earth. But to come to a section of our own population; the growth of the French Canadian people, is remarkable, without assistance from immigration. It is admitted that 146 years ago

661

there were 70,000 men, women and children of French origin in Canada when it passed under British regime. It is supposed that 10,000 went back to France rather than live under the British flag. The 60,000 that remained have increased, how many fold, in that period of time? It is almost fabulous. They have increased 50 times. Every man, woman and child at that period is represented to-day, notwithstanding the large mortality, by fifty persons.

Now why is this? Why is it that, while the indigenous population of the Northern United States has been on the decrease, we in Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec, rejoice in the growth of a healthy and vigorous population? I answer unhesitatingly: it is due exclusively to the absence in the one case, and to the presence in the other of religious education. Whereas in one case children are permitted to grow up with insufficient views of life, and in the midst of false theories of evolution, in the other they are taught that, while they have obligations towards their fellow-men and towards their country, they have stricter obligations towards Him who created them; that God is the author of life and that He alone can take it away.

I have spoken of the United States advisedly, as the climatic conditions which there exists are pretty much what they are with us. But France also furnishes a most painful illustration of the results of godless education. Together with the successive encroachments of the State in matters of education, and the gradual banishment of the religious element from the school, France has had to deplore a corresponding decrease in her birthrate, till now, she whose people are of the same stock as our own prolific inhabitants of Quebec, has the lowest birthrate in Europe.

I have touched upon, and with great reluctance, one of the evils everywhere attendant upon education from which religion has been eliminated; and have not mentioned the alarming growth of divorce; of juvenile criminality, &c., &c., but have confined myself to the evil which has been most brought to my notice by my professional duties. And I would say that apart from any question of justice; apart from any question as to sacred guarantees to a minority, but simply as Canadians loving Canada and wishing her growth and prosperity, we should give to those Territories which are to form part of our Dominion, a constitution which will ensure, to all who desire it, the religious training of the young.

We have a people who have hitherto been let alone and have worked out their own salvation wonderfully well. If, therefore, it is our policy to attract to the new provinces, immigrants of all kinds even at the risk of having undesirable ones among them, let us beware of so framing our legislation as to exclude these of our own soil, the oldest settlers and the most attached to Canadian soil.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.), moved the adjournment of the debate.

The Senate adjourned until 3 p.m. to-morrow.