Document Information

Date: 1905-07-14
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, Senate Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 665-715.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

665

….

PROVINCE OF ALBERTA AUTONOMY BILL.

DEBATE RESUMED.

The Order of the Day being called

Resuming the further adjourned debate on the motion of the Hon. Mr. Scott for the second reading (Bill 69) an Act to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the motion of the Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell in amendment thereto: That the said Bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read this day six months.

Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—We have before us a subject on which we should be able to felicitate each other and congratulate each other on the progress of the country in population, and wealth which leads to the necessity for the creation, or formation of two new provinces in the great Northwest. Instead of such felicitations we have war, discord and ill-feeling. Who is to blame for all this? Those who departed from the letter of the law under the conditions of which the rights of religious minorities are safeguarded. The provisions of the British North America Act should have been adhered to. I am in favour of national schools for all and let those who wish for separate schools have them and pay for them. This separation should not be perpetuated. When children grow up what do we find? Intercourse in every phase of life—in the most sacred, such as marriage—as well as commercial and social intercourse. Not only that but we find the religious side of this question thrown to the wind as against party. The Bill as first introduced embodied the wishes of Catholics and I suppose the Catholic clergy. Are we never in this country to have a homogeneous people or are we to be for ever divided into the lambs and the goats? It is an evil state of things—and who will say: ‘I am holier than thou art—stand back.’ If Catholic children are holier and better than Protestant children that is the very reason they should mix and associate and so leaven, improve, and reform by their good example. Carry this separation to its logical conclusion—in all stages of life keep the Catholics separate. It cannot be done; Catholics of full age and of common sense would not tolerate such restrictions. In my dealings with men, and from my observations and experience, I find no difference between Catholic and Protestant. We have an example of that in this House. The feeling is as friendly and cordial as if our tenets were the same. We find Catholics individually, men of culture and refinement, and of broad liberal views. We have such in this House—who will, I know, pardon me for making a comparison of nations in a public way. Take Italy, a strongly Catholic nation, is it progressive, stable and

666

to be envied and copied ? A country where you have a stiletto for breakfast or supper as it may happen. Take Spain, a strongly Catholic country; the same remarks will apply, substituting machete for stiletto. Take France—once strongly Catholic—now more infidel than anything else. Take the 13 Latin-American States in South America with the Catholic religion prevailing over all. Are they progressive and stable, and is life safe ? Certainly not. My reference is to the countries from Mexico to Chili, including Venezuela, Brazil, and the Argentine. Take Germany, largely Protestant. It is stable, full of progress and prosperity. Take Great Britain, largely Protestant, and we find it stable, powerful, and prosperous with freedom for all to worship as they like. Take the different divisions of Ireland—Catholic and Protestant—let some one draw the comparison, I will not, out of respect to my friends of Irish origin. Take Scotland, largely Protestant; where does she stand ? At the head of all countries, in stability, progress and wealth, contributes to the imperial revenue $4 per head more than England does, and double the contribution of Ireland. If therefore religion influences nations, and we believe it does, with which countries lies the preponderance in stability, progress, civilization and wealth, Catholic or Protestant nations ? I need not answer, it is too well known. The United States, great in every way, is largely Protestant.

The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to the placid way in which the country has taken this separate school question, and intimates that those most interested in the subject have not remonstrated. He asks what is the inference to be drawn ? I say the inference is want of knowledge of the provisions of the Bill, on the one hand, and indifference on the other. Of the five and a half million people in Canada how many know anything of this Bill ? Are there a million who know? I think not, and the majority of those who know do not care one way or the other. I don’t know if any senator will say that the recent elections in Ontario turned on the school question. I think not; they rather turned on the general national policy of the government and the personal popularity of the elected members. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce alluded to another subject not germane to that under discussion. It was an entirely uncalled for and cold-blooded stab at a political party. Not only that, but the statement regarding stagnation in the country from 1878 to 1896 is not according to facts, totally unwarranted, totally unsubstantiated. I challenge the hon. gentleman to prove his words. Any one who will take the trouble to look at the revenue as a criterion of the condition of the country will find that the revenue rose steadily from $24,000,000 in 1879 to $36,000,000 in 1896. With that revenue the Conservative government carried on, in face of the most strenuous opposition ever seen, the most gigantic public works ever carried on in Canada, and such as the hon. gentleman would not have had nor ever will have the courage to carry out, viz.: the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Sault Ste. Marie canal and the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. These are some of the works carried out in those days of stagnation, as the hon. gentleman called them. Every stage in our progress was opposed by the hon. gentleman and his friends. We have now before us Bills to create two new provinces in the Northwest. If the Canadian Pacific Railway had not been carried into that country would it to-day be ripe for the creation of new provinces? The answer must be that it would not. The Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed and has opened up that country. Who did this? The Conservative party. Would that road have ever been built if the hon. gentleman and his party could have prevented it? No, never. And if the Canadian Pacific Railway had not been constructed the Northwest to-day would be the wilderness it was 100 years ago. These facts cannot be controverted. The hon. gentleman knows better than I do how the whole Liberal party fought against the building of that road.

Does the hon. gentleman remember the soup kitchens and the thousands of idle men from 1874 up to 1878? Does he not know of the closed factories? Does he not remember preaching unrestricted reciprocity, which meant handing over control of our affairs to the United States? Does he not know that under the Liberal policy this country was made the dumping ground for the United States surplus of inferior products? Does he not know that with the

667

National Policy under Conservative rule the country rose with a bound from depression and despondency to full confidence, resulting in the reopening of factories and the building of new ones and in manufacturing being undertaken on a larger scale than previously? Does he not remember that capitalists, full of confidence, invested their capital? Does he not know that the revenue increased during the period he calls stagnation from $24,000,000 to $36,000,000? Does he not know that if the Liberal policy of low tariff and no protection had been put into force the country would have been bankrupt before now, factories would be closed, no Pacific Railway built, no Northwest opened, no line of steamers or trade with Japan, China, Australia and the South Sea Islands? Does he not know and see how that under such a policy as he advocated there would have been no progress, but decay? Does he not know perfectly well that the policy under which the country carries on its commerce and under which the country is so prosperous is the Conservative policy of moderate protection?

The hon. gentleman knowing all this why does he cast stones? No matter what party is in power we are delighted to see the country prosperous and this government has been most fortunate in the condition of the country for the last eight years under the Conservative protective policy—and I hope it will go on prospering.

Hon. Mr. MILLER—I feel reluctant to take any part in this or any other debate in the Senate just now, being advised to avoid any kind of work for some time to come on account of my health; but I feel the vote I intend to give in favour of the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition in this House, chiefly on account of my hostility to the educational clause of the Bill under discussion, may subject me to a charge of inconsistency, in view of my antecedents as an advocate of separate schools, unless fully and frankly explained. Not that I attach much importance to charges of that character, as no sensible man refuses to change his opinion under altered circumstances or on the acquisition of new light or information; otherwise his consistency, if a merit at all, belongs, as has been tritely said, to the virtues of a class not reckoned among the wisest of men.

It is not always necessary, however, to make a speech here or elsewhere in justification of one’s change of mind in relation to public affairs, when that change, as in my case, only involves a legal opinion; but I do not see how I can avoid doing so on this occasion, as I have on many occasions in the past, during the early years of my political career, been known as a warm friend of separate schools.

Let me say at the outset, that I am today as strong an advocate of the wisdom and justice of giving separate or voluntary schools to all that claim them on the ground of conscientious scruples or convictions as I ever was, and if any issue involving such a claim as I have just stated were now properly before me, I would not hesitate how to act. But according to my present reading of the imperial Acts under which we are now legislating—I mean the British North America Act, 1867, and the Acts in amendment thereof—I consider that no such issue is properly before us to-day; but other issues of paramount importance to the peace, welfare and good government of the country demand our consideration at the present time.

But I must also say, at the outset of these remarks, that while I still entertain the views just expressed relative to separate schools. I have changed my opinion since 1875-6 with regard to the power of this parliament to enact the educational provisions contained in this Bill, as I now consider the subject one exclusively assigned by our Constitutional Act to the provincial legislatures, and with regard to which parliament has no right to interfere.

I entered public life in 1863 as an independent member of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Nova Scotia. In the following year, the Hon. Charles Tupper introduced in that body the measure that was afterwards known as the Common Schools Act. In fact, the leader of the opposition, the Hon. Adams Archibald, united his forces with him to carry the Bill through the assembly. The measure was compulsory in all its provisions, and ignored separate or voluntary schools. I opposed it from start to finish, and frequently got into bitter

668

altercation with some of the able men who supported it, and as may well be imagined, was often pretty roughly handled in some of these encounters. Yet I did not hesitate to give fight to the unequal forces arrayed against me. I always considered that the ground on which I stood was firm and unassailable, and that some at least of the arguments I could advance were irresistible and unanswerable, and made even so feeble a champion as myself an opponent not to be despised. I have always looked upon the right of the parent to control the education of his child as a natural, inalienable right, (unless forfeited by parental misconduct) with which the state cannot justly interfere. I have always held that the state has no right to ask or compel a parent to pay for a school, or to send his child to a school, in regard to whose teaching, or want of teaching, he entertained conscientious objections. I have always considered that the state has no right to intrude on the domain of conscience in matters of education any more than it has in matters of religion. I do not care whether a man’s conscientious convictions are right or wrong or even absurd, while he sincerely holds them—doing no wrong to society and giving no offence to his neighbour—he is entitled to have them respected by the laws of the land. Wherever any other rule exists, liberty of conscience cannot exist, and if we ignore liberty of conscience, then the boasted freedom of our laws and institutions is nothing better than a mockery, a delusion and a farce. What, I ask, is to-day the secret of Britain’s amazing success as a ruler of alien races of every clime, colour and description throughout her world-wide possessions? It is, in the first place, that wise laws and just treatment everywhere follow the flag of the empire; but it is equally true and equally important that respect for the religious rites, beliefs and superstitions of conquered races, no matter how absurd or fantastic in our eyes, is a well recognized principle of her imperial policy, and largely the foundation of its success. It is the key note to-day of Protestant England’s policy both at home and abroad, and especially at home, in relation to her laws respecting education, which are framed, as far as possible, to meet the religious views of all classes, thus making liberty of conscience also a recognized principle of her educational system; but Protestant Canada has not followed that noble example, alike generous and just, except where the terms of the hard and fast contract of the British North America Act oblige her to do so. But it must be admitted by all who heard the interesting historical statement of the hon. member from Belleville in his masterly speech the day before yesterday, that the record of the opposition in Canada for nearly a century far outshines in liberality that of the Liberal party on this question. I say, where liberty of conscience is not respected, there can be no real freedom; there can be no real happiness or contentment among the oppressed; and there can be no guarantee for the safety, the permanency or the greatness of the state.

These, hon. gentlemen, were the views I entertained on the question of common school education in 1867, when I became a member of this Senate, and so far as the right of the people to separate schools, if they desire them, is concerned, my views, I repeat, are unchanged.

The first occasion on which I was called upon to act in an educational controversy in this body was when the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie’s government, in 1875, submitted to this House a Bill for consolidating the laws for the government of the Northwest Territories. That Bill contained a clause—clause 11—which was forced on the government by the Hon. Edward Blake while the Bill was passing through the House of Commons, and which produced no small excitement at the time in parliamentary circles. That clause reads as follows:

When, and as 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 deem 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 assessment of such rates as they may impose upon themselves in respect thereof.

669

Many of the supporters of the government of that day in the other chamber, who felt compelled to vote for the clause for one reason or another, to my knowledge, hoped, schemed and plotted to secure its defeat in the Senate. I knew all that was going on when the Bill came before our House, and made up my mind to do all in my power to defeat the plotters. I consulted with the leader of the opposition, Senator Campbell (afterwards Sir Alexander), who assured me he was in favour of the clause, and that I could tell all his friends so. I used his name with great advantage in my canvass of the Conservative Senators, many of whom, however, only agreed to abstain from voting, rather than vote against their respected leader. On the third reading of the Bill in the Senate, the combination to defeat the provision for separate schools in the 11th clause developed itself on the motion in amendment of the Hon. Mr. Aikins, who had been Sir Alexander Campbell’s colleague in the last Conservative government, to strike out all the words in the 11th clause relating to separate schools, warmly supported by the Hon. George Brown, the great Liberal statesman of that day. There was a warm and prolonged debate in this House on the motion of Senator Aikins, very imperfectly reported in the Senate ‘Hansard’ of those days, with much excitement in the Senate, and up to the last moment before the division the result was doubtful.

When Mr. Aikins’ motion was put from the Chair it was declared lost on the following division:

Contents, 22; non-contents, 24—only a majority of 2.

The names were as follows:

Contents—Aikins, Alexander, Benson, Botsford, Brown, Christie (Speaker), Dickey, Dickson, Flint, Haythorne, Kaulbach, Leonard, McClelan, Macfarlane, Macpherson, Montgomery, Muirhead, Seymour, Simpson, Sutherland, Vidal, Wark.—22.

Non-contents—Allan, Armand, Baillargeon, Bellerose, Bureau, Campbell, Carroll, Chaffers, Cormier, Dumouchel, Guevremont, Hamilton (Inkerman), Letellier de St. Just, McMaster, McDonald (Toronto), Miller, Paquette, Penny, Price, Ryan, Scott, Shaw, Skead, Trudel—24.

When the result was announced the Conservative leader, Sir Alexander Campbell, close to whom I sat, turned to me and said, ‘Miller, they may thank you for saving that clause.’

I certainly spoke more than any one else to save it, as the imperfect ‘Hansard’ reports of that period will show, and I know I worked more to save it than anybody else, not excepting the two ministers, and it may not be unworthy noting that I enjoyed the distinction on the occasion of the division of being the sole and solitary senator from the three maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island whose name is recorded in the list of non-contents, who saved the clause by the majority of 2.

The Act of 1875 was to be put into operation by proclamation, but when parliament met in 1876 no proclamation had been issued by the government. This gave an opportunity to the opponents of clause 11 to get up petitions against it, and the table of the Senate was loaded with a very large number from the maritime provinces, asking for the amendment of the Act in regard to separate schools. On that occasion I spoke at considerable length against the petitions, and in favour of the clause, concluding my speech with the following words: ‘He (Mr. Miller) thanked the government again for their determination to adhere to the law of last session, which secured freedom of education for ever to the Territories of the Northwest. When the Act will have been proclaimed, which he supposed would shortly be done, it can never be repealed, and the privileges it guarantees will then become the birthright of the generations that are to people that great and promising country, so long at least as British institutions and British justice shall prevail there.’

That was the opinion I held thirty years ago, when the Act of 1875 was passed, with regard to the legal effect and operation of clause 11, and it was, I think, the opinion generally held at that time by lawyers and leading public men like the Hon. George Brown, due largely I believe to the fact that the clause had the approval of so eminent a lawyer as Mr. Blake. The paragraph just quoted is my only recorded utterance during the last thirty years on the school question, in parliament or elsewhere, although since 1890 the question has engaged the attention of all our courts from the lowest to the highest, and has been the subject of prolonged discussions in parliament and in the press, as well as on many public platforms. Up to 1890, I rested under the belief that in

670

Giving my humble assistance to secure the passage of clause 11, of the Act of 1875, I had done my share to settle the vexed question of education for ever in the Northwest Territories, and as I thought very satisfactorily. I looked upon the Act of 1875 as a permanent settlement beyond disturbance or evasion. But, first, in 1890, by the abolition of separate schools in Manitoba by the Greenway government, and shortly afterwards by the ordinances of the Northwest council abolishing Protestant and Roman Catholic separate schools in the Territories, I had a rude awakening to the incorrectness of my conclusions. It will be admitted the investigation in the courts, and the agitation outside, threw a flood of light on the legal and constitutional points involved that parliament had not to guide it in 1875. I did not fail to keep myself as well informed as I could on the various developments of the subject in controversy, between the friends and opponents of separate schools, with all my sympathies in favour of the former.

In 1890, I took occasion to discuss the school question with the late Sir John Thompson. My intimacy with Sir John and my connection with his public career, are well known in Nova Scotia, and perhaps in all the old provinces, as the Toronto ‘Globe’ published verbatim a pamphlet written by me in relation to Mr. Castell Hopkin’s biography of that distinguished lawyer and statesman some years ago. We discussed clause 11 of the Act of 1875, and clause 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, several times. Sir John differed from my view of the legal effect and operation of the Act of 1875 as a permanent settlement of the school question in the northwest. He expressed himself in his usual modest way of only throwing out doubts, which he would like me to take further time and opportunity to consider and investigate. He regarded clause 11, as merely tentative, provisional and temporary, and as creating no vested rights whatever, and his recorded utterances are to that effect. I clearly inferred from the general trend of his conversation that his views leaned distinctly to non-interference with the local authorities in educational matters, even in the Territories, in conformity with the spirit of clause 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, although the letter of the clause might not strictly apply to the Territories. We talked the subject over frequently in the early nineties, and while I still held to my views of 1875-6, he seemed to me to show a stronger leaning to the doctrine of provincial rights. When he was required in 1894 to report on the virtual abolition, as I thought, of separate schools in the Territories, as contemplated by the Act of 1875, by the Haultain ordinances, on the petition of Father Leduc and others, some people attributed his report against the petitioners to timidity or cowardice, or a desire to evade the issues raised. Nothing could be more erroneous or unjust. In my opinion, he would have advised the disallowance of the obnoxious ordinances if he thought in doing so he stood on safe constitutional ground; but he feared a conflict with the Northwest council in which he might be worsted in the courts, thus showing how strong a hold the idea of provincial rights had on his mind. When Thompson had passed off the stage in 1894, and after further study and research on my own part, I came reluctantly to the conclusion, that my opinion as to the legal effect and operation of clause 11 of the Act of 1875 was untenable and unsound, and that the subject of education belonged exclusively to the provinces, whether already in existence, or afterwards created; and this is the opinion I hold at the present time.

It is I admit a change of the legal view I took of the subject in 1875-6—a change largely due to intervening events and circumstances, and to the exhaustive discussions and investigations in the courts, in parliament, and in the public press during the last thirty years. But how often in a less period of time than thirty years are even the ablest lawyers compelled to change or modify their opinions on legal questions in consequence of new light from further study and investigation? I am not at all embarrassed by the change I have to admit, when I see the great changes so many eminent men have felt themselves at liberty to make on this vexed question. For instance, how different is the position the Prime Minister occupied not ten years ago, when he denounced as coercion, remedial legislation authorized by the highest court

671

in the empire, and cried ‘hands off Manitoba,’ from what he does to-day when attempting by his Autonomy Bills to override provincial rights, and the difference is one both of principle and policy? The course of the late Premier Mackenzie was equally inconsistent, or even more so. In 1867, Mr. Mackenzie reprobated separate schools in the Canadian legislature with all the strength of his robust vocabulary, and commended the non-sectarian system of education prevailing in the United States as one of the wisest emanations of the mind of man. Yet in 1875, only eight or nine years afterwards, while he was Prime Minister of Canada, he approved the insertion of a clause in the Provisional Constitution of the Northwest Territories, creating Protestant and Roman Catholic separate schools.

Let me here say, that I do not consider the educational provisions of the Bill before the Senate secure separate schools to the minority of the new province, or in fact any educational privileges whatever, and this the Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce virtually admitted yesterday. I believe they will prove absolutely worthless towards any such end or purpose. I will not call them a ‘gold brick,’ but they are most certainly a deception, so far as they hold out any hope in that direction. I take the ground that you cannot compel the new province to establish separate schools within its borders or give any school privileges whatever, without its consent, no matter what laws this parliament may pass to attain that object. Such laws will become perfectly futile and inoperative against the will of the people. When Alberta becomes a province it will have just such schools as suit it, despite our wishes or legislation. Need I do more than point to the province of Manitoba as proof of what I assert? We all thought when Manitoba entered the union its educational status was irrevocably settled, and that it guaranteed for ever separate schools to religious minorities. What are all those guarantees worth to-day? Absolutely nothing.

We will experience the same result with this new province of Alberta, when its legislative machinery is in working order. I repeat, when Alberta becomes a province it will establish just such schools as will suit its people, despite our coercion or legislation. And what will the oppressed minority be able to do about it? Seek remedial legislation? Surely the Liberal party will never attempt to coerce the new province by remedial legislation. Rather would we expect to hear from that quarter the cry ‘Hands off Alberta’; ‘no coercion.’ And just as surely it would not be expected from the Conservative party, after its experience of injustice and ingratitude, and the lesson of three general elections, that it would ever again rush to its doom on another Remedial Bill. There will never again be any remedial legislation attempted by either political party in this Dominion, no matter how unjustly the majority may treat the minority in any of the provinces. And this is the mess that Papal ablegates and delegates have made of the school question in Canada.

The only result of the obnoxious legislation now before the Senate will be to create in the new provinces a never-ending cause of irritation and strife—accompanied with creed animosities—and the general disturbance of that harmony and peace so necessary to the progress and development of a new country with a great future before it.

So strongly was I animated by these sentiments that, although prostrated by sickness when this Bill was introduced in the other branch of parliament by the right hon. the Prime Minister in a very extraordinary speech—a speech that did more than anything else to inflame passion; to arouse religious and national prejudice, and prolong the session—I felt it my duty to address the following letter to the hon. leader of the opposition two or three days before the resignation of the Hon. Mr. Sifton:

(Private and confidential.)

181 Lisgar street, Ottawa, February 27th, 1905.

Dear Mr. Borden,—I have been confined to my rooms, in fact to my bed, for the last ten days, threatened with appendicitis.

As one who has given the school question in Canada some study since the beginning of my public life in 1863, I think my knowledge of every phase of the subject equal to that of most public men. I think I know as much of the blunders of both parties in regard to it, as well as my own, as most onlookers.

I consider the speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the Autonomy Bill in parliament a few days ago a marvel of political indiscretion. Can he recede? If not, the disruption of the Liberal party cannot be delayed six months.

What should be the attitude of the opposition on this question at the present time? To me nothing is clearer than our duty to stand by the

672

constitution—fearlessly and firmly; and the control of education belongs to the new provinces constitutionally.

I have neither inclination nor strength to give the reasons for the opinion I hold, but they exist abundantly in my mind.

I do not know when my physician will allow me out of bed.

Yours truly, WM. MILLER.

R. L. Borden, Esq., M.P., House of Commons.

But the Prime Minister did recede under the dictation of that practical statesman the Hon. Clifford Sifton, and readily cast to the winds the high, moral and religious ideas so offensively expressed in his indiscreet speech on the first reading of the Bill, sacrificing his convictions to retain place and power. Would any of our great Conservative leaders in the past—Sir John Macdonald, Sir George Cartier or Sir Charles Tupper—have played so ignoble a role? They would have stepped proudly out of office sooner than do anything of the kind. And yet no later than yesterday we heard Sir Wilfrid Laurier lauded as the greatest statesman Canada has ever produced, by an hon. gentleman whose admiration for his friend seems to amount to personal idolatry.

The legal and constitutional features of the Bill have been so ably, fully and clearly placed before the country in the other branch of parliament, as well as in the public press of the Dominion, that I will not by repetition of the arguments of others, or by any new argument of my own, pay so poor a compliment to the intelligence of the Senate as to appear to suppose that hon. senators are not as well informed on the vital legal points at issue as I am myself, and some even more so. Besides, this general expression of my views is just as much as I care to attempt at present. The able legal statement of the leader of the opposition in another place remains unanswered and unanswerable, and had I been a member of the House of Commons on the occasion of the second reading of this Bill in that House I could not have avoided voting with him on his constitutional amendment; and I believe had the late Sir John Thompson been present on that occasion he would have recorded his vote with the minority in defence of provincial rights.

But I also consider the Bill does not fairly settle the land question. The province of Alberta should have all the provincial resources for revenue and development that the old provinces secured as the terms of confederation when the union was created in 1867. It is true that Alberta is treated no worse than was Manitoba when it became one of the provinces of the Dominion, but it does not follow that that treatment was either wise or just. At any rate the circumstances and conditions, both as regard the Dominion and the Territories, are entirely different from those which existed in the early seventies when Manitoba was admitted, and any comparison of its case with the new province would be very absurd, or at least very inapplicable. Moreover, from all I can learn from the best authority the distribution of the constituencies in the Bill is grossly partisan and unjust, and has been openly denounced in the House of Commons as nothing less than indecent, and I therefore have no hesitation in consequence of my hostility to the Bill on the three important subjects I have referred to in voting against the motion of the hon. Secretary of State, and in favour of the six months’ hoist.

Hon. Mr. COFFEY—I was surprised to hear the views on education expressed by my hon. friend the member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Macdonald, B.C.). Surely he does not seriously entertain the idea that Protestants and Catholics can obtain religious instruction in the same school from the same teachers. That would be impossible. I think that all who have spoken on this subject both inside and outside of the two Houses of parliament will agree for the sake of argument that our population is divided between two great sects or religions, the Catholic and Protestant. As far as I am concerned, I will not hold second place to any one in insisting upon a thoroughly Catholic education in our Catholic schools, and let me say that I would look with pride on the bringing back of the old days and the old schools that were in the shadow of the Protestant churches. In those times schools turned out men which gave Canada a name and a fame, men of rectitude, men of honour, men who did not go crazy on financial matters, men who were not of that class described by Lawson, of Boston, who make the dollar their God and care not for the

673

freedom or happiness of their fellow men. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition yesterday read a very interesting document prepared and circulated a few months ago for the members of this House. I must confess that I was pleased at its contents. In that document he made reference to the school agitation of the old days. My hon. friend seemed to convey the impression that in the old days when the Conservative party was in all its glory the Liberal politicians were upon record as the opponents of Catholic education and separate schools. Among the other men mentioned was the late Hon. Sir Oliver Mowat, and as a tribute to his memory I feel that I should say something in his defence on account of what was stated in that document yesterday. It is quite true indeed that Sir Oliver Mowat in his earlier years was an opponent of separate schools, but Sir Oliver Mowat lived to do better. The hon leader of the opposition also made reference to the present hon. leader of the government in this House having been a Conservative in those days. We all learn as we grow older, our minds become matured and broadened; and in finding a place in the Liberal ranks I am sure the hon. leader was not out of place. If he has left the Conservative party he is in good company, for we must remember that men like Gladstone did the same thing. I have often with pleasure referred to the leader of the opposition as being the youngest man in the Senate. I sincerely hope that as he grows older his mind will also be broadened, and he may yet, as our Secretary of State, be found on this side of the House.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—There is no hope for me.

Hon. Mr. COFFEY—Let me say this in regard to Sir Oliver Mowat and as a tribute to his memory. Nineteen years ago the elections in the province of Ontario were fought by the Conservative party with the express purpose of abolishing separate schools. I say this advisedly and thoughtfully. There were two elections in Mr. Meredith’s time. We all know that Sir William Meredith at that time was the leader of the Conservative party, and we know that the Toronto ‘Mail’ and Sir William Meredith deliberately went to the country with the avowed purpose of abolishing separate schools. Finding that this could not be done they promised on their return to power to make our separate schools in Ontario unworkable. As friends of separate schools we had Sir Oliver Mowat, and his party. He went to the country as the champion of separate schools and carried the country, and I was proud of my fellow-citizens of Ontario for decrying the agitation which was got up in those days.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—I am only taking in the situation now; I should like to know where those statements which the hon. gentleman mentioned were made. I took part in that contest and we never had such a platform. It is true that Sir William Meredith and His Grace the Archbishop of Kingston had a squabble over it in the press, but so far as the electorate are concerned they took no part in it.

Hon. Mr. COFFEY—I was myself present in the London Opera House when Sir William Meredith described the Catholics of Ontario as the common enemy.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—That may have been his opinion, but I am asking you what the contest was.

Hon. Mr. COFFEY—I am giving you the opinion of the leader of the Conservative party in that election.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—The party were not bound by that opinion.

Hon. Mr. COFFEY—The compromise agreed to by the representatives from the Northwest Territories, and which appears to be the full extent of what they were pleased to call their concession, leaves but little ground upon which they may base a claim for fair dealing, not to speak of generosity, towards the minority. It becomes a majority to be generous; but they should at the very least be just. Let me draw attention for a moment to this view of the matter: The Catholic people of the Northwest Territories desire, as do the Catholic people of the Dominion, that their children should receive a religious training in their schools, and that this religious training should be imparted during every school day. Be it remembered that the entire expense of supporting these schools is borne by the Catholic ratepayers. I might say here that in the election in London several respectable Protestant

674

gentlemen were found to be fully persuaded, that the Protestant people of the Northwest Territories would be compelled to support Catholic schools. Our Protestant neighbours are not called upon nor are they expected by Roman Catholics to contribute the smallest amount directly or indirectly towards the maintenance of separate schools. It is a mistake to suppose that any sum of money granted by the government towards the separate schools is a contribution coming out of the pockets of non-Catholics. The separate schools receive only that percentage from the public exchequer to which they are entitled, because the supporters of these separate schools contribute their share to make up this common fund.

When we take into account, then, the fact that separate schools are maintained entirely by the Catholic people, is it not something which deserves a harsher term than presumption for any portion of the community to dictate to the supporters of separate schools what amount of time should be devoted to religious instruction? An Ontario politician has placed himself upon record as favouring the study of blue-books in the public schools, but that study of all studies—that study which fits the soul for eternity, that study which enrolls soldiers of the cross, that study which trains the heart and the mind, and ever holds before us the beauty and the grandeur of following in the footsteps of Him whom we all adore; that study, hon. gentlemen, is barely tolerated. It must not interfere with the regular curriculum, but is given half an hour at the closing time, when the children’s faculties are tired from the day’s work. Twenty-seven hours of the week are devoted to the things of this world—the things of time—and three hours a week to the things of eternity; and all this in a country where the great mass of the people make boast of their Christianity; all this in a land, which, while it has sent millions to China and Japan and Africa for the conversion of the heathen, will barely tolerate the teaching of Christianity to its own children as part of the daily school work.

While I think it is advisable, under the circumstances, to accept the school clause as a compromise, I cannot, and I regret to say it, compliment the majority upon their sense of fair-play. It has been truly said that in our dealings one with the other there should be a policy of toleration, a policy of give and take; but in the case before us as much as possible has been taken and as little as possible given to the minority.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Hear, hear. That is the compromise.

Hon. Mr. COFFEY—I am not in sympathy with the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Belleville, because I believe, were it to receive a majority of the votes of this honourable House, it would in all likelihood result in placing the minority still further at the mercy of a majority which is not friendly disposed. Some who favour this amendment are, it seems to me, gentlemen of very opposite aims. It is a sword which may cut both ways. While some sincerely hope that its effect would be to bring to the minority its full rights in regard to religious education in the schools, others there are, I believe, who anticipate that it would have the effect of destroying altogether the separate school system. Concede to the new provinces the right to legislate in the matter of education, and the future may bring us face to face with a condition akin to that which is now the shame of Manitoba.

It may be advanced that there is no such scheme in the minds of the majority of the people of the Northwest Territories, and that if left to themselves they would deal justly with those who desire the establishment of a separate school system. I wish I could look at the case in this light, but experience teaches me that it is well to have guarantees protecting the rights of the minority. In the years to come we may have a population hostile to religious teaching in any of the schools, and the Catholic minority, as in Manitoba and the United States would be forced to support two sets of schools, the public schools and the separate schools.

Many of my non-Catholic friends advocate the national or public school system, which they believe would result in a greater degree of harmony amongst the entire population. This has been proved over and over again to be but a very attractive theory which has not in practice met the anticipations of its promoters. Catholics will at all times and in all countries make sacrifices for the

675

training of their children in that faith which they hold dear as life and which they wish to transmit to their descendants. If I am asked for proof of this assertion I may point to the states of the American union, where it is computed they pay a sum amounting to $25,000,000 yearly for the support of their parochial schools, and they are also burdened with their share of the tax required to meet the necessities of the public schools. The charge is commonly made that the separate are not equal to the public schools in respect of efficiency. Let me take the separate schools of London as an example, and I firmly believe the same conditions are found elsewhere in the province of Ontario. The best test as to efficiency may be found in the number of children passing the entrance examinations for the high school. It will be found that there is a slightly larger percentage sent from the separate schools than from the public schools. Let me not be understood as casting any reflection upon the secular training imparted in these schools. They do excellent work in the different studies which form the curriculum. But why should there be any objection to teaching religion in the schools when we have here such satisfactory results? And be it remembered that in these Ontario schools, Catholics are given a free hand in the matters of religious teaching. No one ventures to dictate to the school management how little or how much religious instruction may be given.

But even in Ontario, where the rights of the minority are fully guaranteed by the constitution, they do not in practice receive fair play. They do not receive any share of the money derived from the tax on stock companies. Furthermore, if a Catholic sends his child to a public school in cases where the separate school is somewhat distant he must transfer his taxes. On the other hand, if a Protestant sends his child to a separate school for the same reason he cannot, under the law, pay his taxes to the separate school. In other words, a Catholic may support the public school, but a Protestant cannot give his taxes to the separate school.

When the fathers of confederation had finished their noble task—when a splendid whole was created by a combination of the scattered dependencies forming the northern half of the North American continent—it was hoped that all cause of friction on the lines of race and creed prejudices had been for ever allayed and that Canadians would evermore be found united as one family, each vieing with his neighbour in the promotion of a patriotism having the golden ring, but we are confronted with the aftermath of the heartburnings of the old days, and it becomes true patriots to stem the tide which is bearing us on to disaster. Combinations of disturbing elements form a menace to the grand future before us—the building up of creed and racial barriers is an unholy task—the implanting in the minds of one section of our people a distrust of another portion of the community (as causeless as it is criminal) by men whose patriotism comes from the lips only—is a crime to which all Canadians proud of this country should treat as a treason punishable by consigning to obscurity the guilty ones. We have entered upon an area of prosperity. Let us also enter upon an era of good will. We have in the years before us a prospect golden with promise. Let us not mar it by fostering hatred in place of love, distrust where there should be confidence, commotion where should reign peace and concord. There is room for us all and let each do his share to make fair Canada what nature intended it should be, a land of freedom, a land of contentment, a land of happiness, a land of promise for the generations to come.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL — In fairness to the present chief justice of Ontario, I must be permitted to say that while I am not prepared to doubt the veracity of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken nor to contradict the language which he says he heard Mr. Meredith utter, I have had a hand in every contest that has taken place in Ontario, and I deny most emphatically that since confederation there has ever been to my knowledge in any contest in which I have been engaged, the question of the abolition of separate schools in Ontario. I know that that was the case in contests before confederation, because I have had some experience in it, having been defeated myself in refusing to pledge myself to do that which the hon. gentleman says the Conservative party went to the country upon. Mr.

676

Meredith, before he was appointed chief justice, had a controversy with His Grace Archbishop Cleary, and a very bitter one, but they never went so far as has been indicated by my hon. friend. I regret to hear him make that statement, because it is so at variance with my knowledge of the political character of Chief Justice Meredith, and I know so far as the Conservative party is concerned, in any contest which I have entered, and with which I have been connected, that was never a question at issue. It is true that Mr. Meredith, when leader of the Conservative party in Ontario, took a position against the extension of separate schools and declared his adherence to the system which prevailed when the province entered confederation and the maintenance entirely of the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act. But he never went beyond that so far as my knowledge goes.

Hon. Mr. COFFEY—I should be sorry now to do Sir William Meredith any injustice, but I have a distinct recollection of the discussion in those days in regard to separate schools. Sir W. Meredith placed himself on record as an opponent of separate schools. I will not go so far as to say that he promised to abolish separate schools, because as a good lawyer he knew he could not do it; but he promised to do the best thing he could, just as my hon. friend said—to let the schools go back to the condition they were in at the beginning, when separate schools were first established in Ontario.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—He could not do that. He was not foolish enough to think so. He knew he had to adhere to the provisions of the Confederation Act.

Hon. Mr. COFFEY—When we first had separate schools in the province of Ontario we were saddled with a great many things. We were saddled with the ill-will of our neighbours, who did not want separate schools, and the assessors did us great injustice—

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—But that was cured afterwards by the Act.

Hon. Mr. COFFEY—Allow me to finish. In many respects we were subject to great annoyances, one of which was that we were compelled to collect our own taxes, and in many other ways we suffered a great deal of injustice. Sir W. Meredith promised to go back to that condition of things if he was elected.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I have prepared no speech on the question but I think it is incumbent upon me as a member of this honourable House to express my opinion, in as calm a manner as I am able to do, first on the question as to whether this parliament has a right to deal with the educational clause as is attempted to be done by the Bill now before us; second, as to whether clause 17 of the Bill is within the letter and spirit of the constitution; third, as to whether the Bill with that amended clause is giving the minority its full share of right, or if not in what respect it falls short of doing so; and, fourth, as to whether the Bill as it is—and I refer specially to clause 17 of the Bill—deserves the approbation of this honourable House and of the country at large. However before taking up these questions, I feel a desire to congratulate the last speaker upon the tone and the manner in which he has approached the school question. I desire to extend my congratulations to the hon. member from Richmond (Hon. Mr. Miller) for the noble words and the noble sentiments which were expressed in the first portion of the speech which he delivered a few minutes ago. I cannot fail to remark as I am sure a number of hon. gentlemen in this House have done, that these noble sentiments have been unfortunately marred by the last portion of the speech. I say unfortunately marred not only by the tone, but by the way in which the hon. gentleman has deemed it proper to refer to the leader of the government, to the Prime Minister, being to my mind an invitation, so to speak, to the people of this country to disregard the law, whatever it may be, that parliament may place on the statute-book of the country on this question. The hon. gentleman has stated and given the best reasons why he has been in favour of separate schools. The hon. gentleman has stated that in 1875 he was of opinion that the letter and spirit of the constitution demanded the insertion of clause 11 in the Act of 1875. He went further and

677

stated that he was then of opinion that that statute of 1875 was to be binding for all time to come, but that he had since changed his opinion. I must say that I agree with him that it is the worst of pride in any man not to have the courage to change his opinion when in conscience he is inclined to do so, on any political or other question. But I have not understood the hon. gentleman to give us any reason why he changed his opinion, and I have not understood him to say that clause 93 of the Constitutional Act is not applicable to all the provinces of the Dominion, including any new provinces which may be created. I have rather understood the hon. gentleman as saying that whatever may be the law of the land in the Northwest, the people in these two provinces would rise against and above the law of the land and strike out, so to speak, by a stroke of the pen, whatever law we choose to place upon the statute-book. For my part with all the respect and I may say the admiration which I entertain for the talent of the hon. gentleman who is very far my senior and my superior in this honourable House, I regret that he has deemed it advisable to take a position of that kind. These remarks of the hon. member from Richmond, and especially the remarks which were directed against the acts of the Liberal party or of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, have suggested to my mind that we might very well compare at this hour the position which the two parties occupy on this question. Let us examine the position of the Conservative party first. It is well known that the Conservative party, represented by its leader, the Hon. Mr. Borden, in the House of Commons, deemed it advisable to first stand on the letter of the constitution, as he stated he was taking his position when the Bill came into committee, to meet the motion for the second reading of the Bill by the following motion:

That upon the establishment of a province in the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed by Bill No. 70, the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy the full powers of provincial self-government, including power to exclusively make laws in relation to education.

The hon. gentleman did not at the time consider that it would be safe to rest on the Imperial Acts of 1867 to 1886, but he added in his resolution to make it explicit, and beyond any question ‘including power to exclusively make laws in relation to education.’

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—But always subject to the provisions of the British North America Act.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Always otherwise subject to the provisions of the British North America Act.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Not otherwise.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—When he took the precaution, instead of stopping with the words ‘full powers of self-government,’ of adding these words:

including power to exclusively make laws in relation to education,

it was because he wanted to remove any doubts and therefore to affirm that the new provinces should be vested with the exclusive right of dealing with education. Now what was the next position taken by the hon. leader of the opposition?

Hon. Mr. de BOUCHERVILLE—Has it not been decided and is not even our rule that we are not to speak of what has passed in the other House. That objection was made in the Senate some time ago, and I should be sorry if my hon. friend, whose reasoning I am sure would be very strong, should expose himself to being called to order. I submit he ought not to speak of what is passing in the other House.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—The hon. gentleman I understand does not raise the point of order.

Hon. Mr. de BOUCHERVILLE—I beg the hon. gentleman’s pardon; I do raise the point of order.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—The hon. member from Stadacona (Hon. Mr. Landry) was allowed for over two hours to quote speeches made in the other House, and we have just allowed the hon. member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Miller) to read his speech in which references of the same kind were made, many of them in not the most appropriate terms; now that it is our turn to speak, the hon. gentleman would deprive us of the right in reply to those remarks to make references to matters in the other.

678

House. If the hon. gentleman insists on his point of order, I would say this that in the other House, where they are pretty jealous of their rules, during the present session a member placed on ‘Hansard,’ the speech made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Mackenzie Bowell), and I know that no point of order was raised. I am not aware that it has even been ruled in the House of Commons that references of that kind cannot be made. I am not quoting from speeches, I am speaking of resolutions merely giving the text of resolutions bearing on this question.

Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman cited the resolution proposed in the other House. Bourinot lays down the rule that debates in the other House cannot be quoted, but documents of record of the other House may be cited. I declare the point of order not well taken.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I gave the text of the resolution offered by the hon. leader of the opposition in the House of Commons. How was that resolution treated by that body?

Hon. Mr. FERGUSON—Does my hon. friend think that this last clause of Mr. Borden’s resolution changes the legal import of it in any respect whatever? Does not the language ‘subject to the provisions of the British North America Act’ govern the last clause of it as well as all the rest?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I have already expressed my opinion in that respect, and have no desire to repeat myself. I said that it was an indication that he felt the necessity of over-riding, so to speak, any doubt which might arise in regard to the imperial Act, by incorporating these words, ‘including power to exclusively make laws relating to education.’

Hon. Mr. FERGUSON—Does the adding of these words change the import of the resolution in any degree? I am asking for the hon. gentleman’s opinion.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I will have occasion to deal with that question later, and I will not shirk the inquiry of the hon. gentleman; but for the purpose of saving time, and being consecutive in my remarks, I would rather not deal with the matter at the present moment. I was going to call attention to the fact that on this motion of the hon. leader of the opposition in the House of Commons the Liberal party was united, with the exception of two, and that the Conservative party were disunited. Some fifteen or twenty of their number, amongst whom were leaders like Mr. Monk, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Pringle and others whom I could name, voted against their leader’s motion. Then the next step taken by the Conservative leader was to move the following resolution:

That the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the said provinces in so far as the same are applicable under the terms thereof.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—That was on the third reading?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—On the third reading; it was proposed in committee also. The hon. leader of the opposition prefaced that motion by expressing his opinion—

Hon. Mr. de BOUCHERVILLE—I rise to a point of order. The Speaker has decided that documents may be cited, but that you cannot state what has happened in the other House. I ask if that is not according to the rules and according to authorities on the subject?

Hon. Mr. FERGUSON—I would appeal to my hon. friend not to press this point. No doubt both sides have transgressed the rule in this debate, and at this late stage of the debate it would be unfair to press the point against the hon. gentleman when others have set him the example.

Hon. Mr. de BOUCHERVILLE—I am willing if the Senate is of that opinion; but I am afraid if this is allowed to go, a precedent will be established and followed for ever.

Hon. Mr. FERGUSON—Oh, no.

Hon. Mr. de BOUCHERVILLE—When I made my objection I said then, and I must repeat, it is because I know that the hon. gentleman will not merely repeat the opinions of others, but will give us good reasons of his own, and I should be sorry if we were to get into the habit and even claim the right to discuss the conduct of the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition or any other member of the House of Commons. If we follow that course we cannot avoid saying, perhaps

679

Unintentionally and in the excitement of the moment, things which will bring us into collision with the House of Commons, and I think it would be better to stop it. The hon member from Marshfield has said that we have already departed from that rule. That is not my fault. For example, the hon. member from Stadacona (Hon. Mr. Landry) was called to order by the hon member from Toronto (Hon. Mr. Kerr) after he had been reading extracts and was nearing the end. My hon. friend replied that he had only one more citation and asked to be allowed to read it, and the hon. gentleman from Toronto consented. It was not my business to interfere. But in this case I know the hon. gentleman who is speaking and have the greatest regard for his talent I consider him the ablest man on the other side of these questions, and I think he should keep to the rule more strictly than others. That was the question which I put just now, and which I still put, that the hon. gentleman ought not to violate the rule, and I am sorry that I cannot accede to the request of my hon. friend from Marshfield.

Hon. Mr. SULLIVAN—The admonition given by the hon. member is opportune and the manner in which he endeavours to keep to the rules of the House is to be commended. If I wanted to be a little captious I might say, but I will not say it, that the hon. gentleman from Marshfield is himself out of order for leaving his seat.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I am of opinion that I am in order. I am dealing with the Bill, and I have the right to quote the legal opinion expressed by anybody on the question, whether it be Mr. Borden, in the House of Commons, or Mr. Christopher Robinson, in Toronto. I have a right to show the construction which others place upon that clause, and it is for that purpose that I am referring to the opinion expressed by the Hon. Mr. Borden. I am not quoting his language or any part of his speech. I am merely drawing attention to the fact of common repute that the Hon. Mr. Borden has expressed certain opinions on the question. However, I invite the decision of the Speaker.

The SPEAKER—The point is of too considerable moment to consider at the time, and inasmuch as the House last evening allowed an hon. gentleman to cite the opinions of members of the other House on this question, I will allow the debate to proceed and decide the point at a later sitting.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—The position taken by the Conservative party on this second resolution of Mr. Borden’s was very much the same as that taken on the first resolution. There was a division in the party and a large number of prominent members of the party refused to follow their leader, and even moved resolutions of their own, going much further than the Bill which is now before us in favour of the minority. In other words they tried to reinstate clause 16 as it was originally in the Bill. The hon. leader of the opposition, in making that second motion, expressed the opinion that if clause 93 of the British North America Act was automatically imported into this Bill, it would not have the effect of securing any rights in favour of the minority, and the position which he took was the position taken last night by the hon. member for Calgary (Hon. Mr. Lougheed), to wit, that the words in subsection 1, of section 93, ‘at the union,’ would refer not to the day when these two new provinces would enter into the confederation as provinces, but to the day when the Northwest Territories were purchased by the Dominion of Canada, and the territories came under the jurisdiction of this parliament. With that view I cannot agree, and I submit that the answer given very frankly by the hon. member from Calgary last night shows that this view is unfounded. The hon. gentleman admitted, first that subsections 1, 3 and 4, of section 93 are applicable to all the provinces, these new provinces as well as all the others, excepting Ontario and Quebec, which are governed by subsection 2. The hon. member admitted that up to this time, and up to the day when these two provinces shall be admitted as provinces into the confederation, section 93 does not apply to those territories. But nevertheless his reasoning or his conclusion would be that notwithstanding that, the section mentioned would apply, the words ‘at the union’ referring not to their entry into confederation as provinces, but to their admission merely as territories when purchased by the confederation. That I cannot agree with for

680

this reason, because it is against the text of the constitution, and because also it would be against common reason. What is the text of the constitution? The text of the constitution speaks of union in different parts of the Act. It uses the word ‘union’ in the preamble:

And whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the union of other parts of British North America.

It refers there, I submit, clearly to the admission as provinces. Then in the heading of subsection 3, we find ‘union’ relates to the compact made between the different provinces. Then we take section 93 and find that the words are used:

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

If it had been intended to cover not only provinces, but territories it would have been necessary to make the last words of the clause read, ‘have by law in the province or in the territory at the time of the union.’ But there was nothing of the kind. The word ‘union’ was used throughout the Act in connection, and close connection, with, not the territories, but with the provinces, dealing with the question of the congregation of several provinces together and the admission of other provinces which might take place thereafter. We have the same thing in section 146 where the machinery is provided for the bringing in of new provinces, not only such provinces as Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, but also the bringing in of new provinces which might be created in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, I express for my part the opinion, and it seems to me that it is beyond contradiction, that if we were to apply the Constitutional Act automatically as has been suggested, the words ‘at the union’ would necessarily refer, not to 1870, but to the first of September next when this Bill becomes law and goes into operation.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—I think that is also the opinion of the Minister of Justice.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—It is the opinion of the Minister of Justice and the opinion of the Prime Minister, and I have no doubt the hon. member from Calgary, with the ability and the judicial mind which he possesses to such a high degree, on considering the point further will come to the same conclusion. It being six o’clock, I move that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

The motion was agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until this evening at eight o’clock.

Second Sitting.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Eight o’clock.

Routine proceedings.

THIRD READING.

Bill (87) ‘An Act to incorporate the International Bridge and Terminal Company.’—(Hon. Mr. Kerr, Cobourg.)

PROVINCE OF ALBERTA AUTONOMY BILL.

DEBATE RESUMED.

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. Beique.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—When the debate was adjourned I was dealing with the contention of the hon. gentleman from Calgary (Hon. Mr. Lougheed), that according to his reading of the constitutional Act the words ‘At the union,’ in clause 93, referred, not to the time when the new provinces shall be created, but to the time when the Northwest Territories were placed under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I draw the attention of hon. members of this House to the consequences to which this would lead. We have on our statute-book the Act of 1875, which was the law dealing with the organization of the Northwest Territories. Section 11 of that law did not give a full measure of autonomy to the Northwest Territories, as far as the educational question was concerned. If the Northwest Territories in the full enjoyment of their provincial autonomy in that respect had established separate schools as we had them in the province of Quebec or

681

as you have them in Ontario, and these schools would have been by virtue of the law, and unanimous consent of the people in operation for 20, 25, 50 or 100 years, according to the contention of my hon. friend, whenever this parliament deemed it advisable to organize the territory into a province, it would not have been in the power of this parliament, in applying section 93 of the imperial Act, to have made provision for the maintenance of that system of separate schools. In that connection the hon. gentleman asks the question as to whether the framers of confederation had in mind the 1st of September, 1905, for the application of the Imperial Act to the new provinces. I might return the question and ask why they would have had in mind the 15th July, 1870, rather than the time when the territory would be created as a province, and would enter the confederation as a province? I have stated that an interpretation of that kind would not be in harmony with the whole of clause 93 of the Imperial Act. What was the system that was inaugurated under clause 93? What had the fathers of confederation, to use the expression, of my hon friends, in mind? They had in mind that this Dominion was inhabited by two different nationalities, divided into two different religions, Protestant and Catholic, that the rights were to be equal as between Protestants and Catholics, and they had in view the protecting of the one denomination and the other, and as the schools were intimately connected with the two religions, which were the dominating religions in the country—they deemed it advisable to make provision not only for the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but for all the provinces which were to enter confederation in 1867 as well as all provinces which might enter thereafter.

They were so jealous of protecting the rights of those minorities for all time to come that they not only provided by subsection 1 that the rights or privileges existing in regard to denominational schools at the time any provinces would enter the union should be protected for all time to come, and that it would not be in the power of the legislature to enact any law infringing in any way upon such rights or privileges, but they went further, and by subsection 3 of the same section, declared that even in provinces where there were no separate schools at the time of the union or at the creation of the province, if at any time thereafter they should establish a system of separate schools, that system should be maintained for ever and could not be encroached upon by future legislation of the province. Is it not clear that the determination was that this system of protection to minorities, whether Protestants in one province, or Catholic in another province, was to be continued by the federal parliament of Canada. The interpretation of my hon. friend would lead us to this consequence, that whereas this system would apply to the four original provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec, and equally to British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, it would not apply to the two provinces which we are now about to create. That because some of the provinces would have been created by carving them out of the Northwest Territories, the general law could not be applied and that in those provinces there would be no protection to the minorities, either the protection afforded by the first subsection or by the third subsection of section 93. It seems to me that one has only to call attention to these consequences and to the clear intention of the framers of confederation, to dispose of my hon. friend’s contention. If the interpretation of the hon. gentleman were correct, it would follow that in applying the Imperial Act automatically as he says to the new provinces, the minority would have no guarantee, because the application of the law would go back to the 15th July, 1870, when there were no schools established in the Northwest Territories; and it is very likely for this reason that the hon. gentleman added that as far as he was concerned he was disposed to give in the new provinces all the privileges to which the minority are entitled under the constitution. On the one hand he has shown generosity—

Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I do not think I put it that way. I said the minority would be absolutely entitled to whatever rights and privileges they had under the constitution. It is not a matter of giving it to them at all; it is a matter of right.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I do not take exception to that part of the able address of.

682

the hon. gentleman. I know it was uttered in a good spirit, that he has no doubt expressed his sincere opinion, and that he would not be one who would grudge protection to the minority in the province in which he happens to live. Under the Bill as framed we have section 17, and the hon. gentleman takes exception to subsection 3 of that clause because he claims that it is an abuse of the power of this parliament in so far as it purports to declare that the rights which are intended to be protected are the rights which exist under chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances at the time the Bill goes into force. On my part I am of opinion that it was not necessary. Section 3 of the Bill provides:

3. The provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the province of Alberta in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the provinces heretofore comprised in the Dominion, as if the said province of Alberta had been one of the provinces originally united, except in so far as varied by this Act and except such provisions as are in terms made, or by reasonable intendment may be held to be, specially applicable to or only to affect one or more and not the whole of the said provinces.

For my part I am of opinion that that section would have been sufficient to incorporate section 93 with the construction that I place upon it, but from the mere fact that a doubt has been suggested that another construction might be placed upon the statute, the duty of this parliament is to remove any doubt and to adopt a clear text in that respect, not only for the purpose of removing any doubts if there were any reason for doubt, but for the purpose of preventing this pretended doubt being made use of to continue the agitation which we have witnessed in this country for the last three or four months. If the Bill contained only this third clause, then we would have seen people in Ontario and the west, and possibly in other provinces, continuing the discussion and trying to create an agitation in the new provinces for the purpose of inducing the legislature at its next session or at some future session to attempt to legislate in contravention of the Bill which we have before us. We would have had under this Bill what we have had in the province of Manitoba, case after case carried from court to court until finally disposed of by the Privy Council. Therefore I say that it was incumbent on the government to adopt a clear text in order to prevent such a state of things. And in doing so they follow the example of the Conservative government in 1870, when this parliament was creating the province of Manitoba and doing it avowedly under section 146 of the British North America Act stating that the new province would be created:

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.

Notwithstanding the terms of section 146 and nothwithstanding the fact that this Imperial Act of 1870 was passed avowedly in virtue of that section, the fathers of confederation, the Conservative government, with the approval of both sides of the House, enacted section 22 of the Manitoba Act which imported the word ‘practice’ which was not to be found in section 93 of the British North America Act.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—That motion was not concurred in by both sides of the House. The majority, led by Mr. Mackenzie, voted against it.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I am very much obliged to the hon. gentleman for correcting me if I should be corrected, but what I mean is that as far as that is concerned no exception was taken by either side of the House as to the power of parliament to enact the section in the words which were adopted.

Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—That is quite right.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—That is, in using not merely ‘by law,’ as appears in subsection 1 of section 93 of the Imperial Act, but adding to these words the expression ‘or practice’ in the province at the union. Therefore, I say that this parliament has a very good precedent and has only followed an example to which nobody has taken any exception.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—They do take exception now.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—To which nobody took any exception in 1870.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Would that law not have been as clear if the government in place of quoting the ordinance of 1901, had

683

stated that the rights that were given to the minority would be according to the law of 1875?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I will deal with that when I am discussing another point, when comparing the Bill as it now stands with the Bill as it was originally introduced. I believe that I have established that this parliament has the right to legislate upon the matter; that the Bill which is now before us falls within the province of this parliament. It falls within the powers of this parliament; and it is in accordance, not only with the letter, but also with the spirit of the constitution.

I do not contend for my part that the Act of 1875 is absolutely binding upon this parliament.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—The federal law.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Yes. The Northwest Territories remain until the new provinces are created, under the jurisdiction of this parliament and it is perfectly clear to my mind that this parliament could now repeal the provisions contained in the Act of 1875 in regard to education as it could have been repealed in any of the past sessions of this parliament. If those provisions were repealed, chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances would unquestionably be the law of the Territories. And the Bill now before us in perpetuating the provisions of the ordinances in regard to separate schools and to religious instruction, has the effect of repealing any provision of the Act of 1875 which may conflict with that part of the ordinances. The hon. member for Calgary referred to the opinion given by Mr. Christopher Robinson. Mr. Robinson in his opinion says:

The right of the Dominion to impose restriction upon the provinces about to be formed, in dealing with the subject of education and separate schools, is, I think, not beyond question. This would require more consideration than I have yet been able to give, and must ultimately be settled by judicial decision. I am asked, however, whether parliament is constitutionally bound to impose any such restriction or whether it exists otherwise, and I am of opinion in the negative. It must be borne in mind that I am concerned only with the question of legal obligation. What the parliament ought to do or should do in the exercise of any power which they may possess, is not within the province of counsel.

Mr. Robinson simply answers the question, as to whether this parliament is legally bound to maintain the provisions of the organic Act of 1875, and to crystallize those provisions into the constitution of the new provinces, and I am perfectly in accord with him, because so long as these territories remain under the jurisdiction of this parliament, this parliament has the power to repeal any law it has passed for the territories. But a point that I would like to make which commends itself to my mind is this; although this parliament would have the right to do it, it would not be in accordance with the spirit of the constitution and it would not be dealing fairly with the minority in the new provinces. It would not be dealing fairly with these provinces, because as I have said, it would not be in accord with the spirit of the constitution, which demands that the rights of the minorities be guaranteed, and it also would not be in accord with the promises which have been made. It is perfectly well known that when this organic law was enacted for the Northwest Territories it was enacted with the avowed intention, as expressed by the men who took part in the debate, that it would be of a permanent character. The compromise, so to speak, was made that it would not be repealed, and that it would stand as a guarantee in the future for all newcomers into the Northwest Territories. I say therefore that when framing the constitution of the new provinces it is incumbent upon this parliament to perpetuate these provisions and keep faith with the minority in the new provinces.

I desire to say a few words on the question as to whether Bill 69 gives to the minority the full share of protection to which the minority is entitled, and this raises the question as to how far clause 16, No. 2, now clause 17, has departed from the original clause 16. The hon. gentleman from Alexandria (Hon. Mr. McMillan) in the very able speech which he delivered last night in this chamber, made a comparison between the school laws as they exist in Quebec and in the province of Ontario, and the Bill as it is presented to us. I would draw his attention to the fact that it is hardly fair. The law as it exists in Quebec or the law as it exists in Ontario, but especially in Quebec, is not the measure of

684

right which the majority is bound to give to the minority, it goes far beyond especially in Quebec, what was guaranteed by the constitution. And one has moreover to bear in mind that these laws have been enacted under section 2 of section 93 which are applicable only to the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and that the measure of guarantee which was provided for in subsection 3 of section 93 for the other provinces does not go as far as that. Therefore a comparison should not be made with what the law may be, as it exists to-day, but with the law as it should be under subsection 3 of section 93, which is the section applicable to the new provinces. I desire to correct, I think, the hon. gentleman from Alexandria when he stated that in the province of Ontario the Catholic schools have their own inspectors. If I can read properly the Revised Statutes of Ontario, I should not put that construction on the law in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—I know that is a fact. The inspector visits the schools in our town twice a year.

Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN (Windsor)–Yes, that is the case.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—In the Revised Statutes of Ontario, chapter 65, I find the following :

The Minister of Education, all judges, members of the legislature, the heads of the municipal bodies in their respective localities, the inspectors of public schools, and the clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church, shall be visitors of Separate Schools. R.S.O., 1887, c. 227, s. 62.

But I find the following section 66 :

The Roman Catholic separate schools (with their registers) shall be subject to such inspection as may be directed from time to time by the Minister of Education, and shall be subject also to such regulations as may be imposed from time to time by the Education Department. R.S.O, 1887, c. 227, s. 64.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—That is exactly what I quoted last night. I drew the distinction that in Quebec they had a board of education, composed, I think, of twelve members, and that they controlled all the schools in that province, while in Ontario there was no provision of that kind, that it was under the Department of Education, and that the Department of Education had the power, under the law, to appoint a Roman Catholic separate school inspector.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I take exception merely to the last statement. I do not question that in practice they may appoint Roman Catholic inspectors, but I contend that under section 66 they are not bound to do so and to-morrow they might refuse ; they would be entitled in Ontario to refuse to appoint Roman Catholic inspectors, and they might compel the inspection of all schools, separate and public, by inspectors of the Protestant faith.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—No ; they would not do that.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—The hon. gentleman referred last night to the law as it stands in Quebec, but in Quebec it is because the majority of the legislature desires to treat the minority liberally, but they are not bound to give them a board of education of their own faith. In 1868, after the confederation, just the year following confederation, and in face of the imperial Act, what was the statute enacted by the province of Quebec ? They provided for the appointment of a Minister of Education. That Minister of Education happened to be Catholic, and might have been Protestant, but he was very naturally Catholic, because the majority were Catholics ; and he had the whole control of the schools, separate as well as common schools, and it was only in 1869 that the two boards of education—one Catholic and one Protestant—were organized. It was not by virtue of the imperial Act, it was not because the legislature was compelled to do so, but it was because it was deemed proper under the circumstances to afford that remedy to the Protestant minority. I am very glad that we have that spirit of conciliation in both provinces, and I hope that the example of these provinces will be followed in the new provinces, and that the idea that in these new provinces the people are going to rise against the enforcing of the law which we propose to place on the statute-book will not be realized at all. But with the organic law of 1875 and the old section 16 of this Bill, which was practically a copy of that organic law, or with section 17 as it is now before us, I defy any legal gentleman to determine the division line where the legislature would have to stop in the enactment of regulations with regard to separate as well as public schools. I defy

685

any legal gentleman to prepare a text, a safe text, which would draw the division line, leaving to the state the control to which the state is entitled under the letter and spirit of section 93 of the imperial Act, and giving to separate schools the protection or guarantee to which they are entitled. The only thing which can be done in matters of this kind is to adopt a clause embodying the principle in such general and clear terms as will enable the court to apply the letter and spirit of the law as circumstances may arise. I say that even in Quebec, or in Ontario, I think no legal gentleman would be able to draw the line where the legislature should stop in dealing with educational laws. It may take all kinds of forms, and I know that the constitution protects the control of the state in all matters which pertain to education, except religious education.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Under the imperial Act, in the province of Quebec, in the province of Ontario, and in all the other provinces, the legislature has the power of determining the books which shall be used in the school, but they have not the power, without abusing their authority, of imposing books doing violence to the faith of the minority in separate schools, imposing books in which there would be anything contrary to the teachings of the religious faith of the pupils.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—What is a denominational school ?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—A denominational school is a school where religion is taught but it does not mean a school where only religion is taught, and because it is a denominational school it does not remove the power of the state, the control of the state as far as the selection of the text books and as far as general education is concerned, but it prevents the state from prohibiting the use of proper books for the purpose of teaching the religious faith to which the pupil belongs.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Will the hon. gentleman give to a school which is denominational the right to choose the books ?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I would not necessarily go as far as that.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Say in history ?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—But we are dealing with the constitutional law, with the legal question, and that is the main question before us, as to what are the rights that are guaranteed under the constitution ; I am dealing with the full rights which are guaranteed under the constitution and I say that in denominational schools, even in the province of Quebec, or in the province of Ontario, the power of the school boards to choose their own books even as far as religion goes, provided the state choose books to which no objection can be taken, is not beyond question or doubt.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Who would be the judge ?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—It would be the courts who would have to decide. The hon. gentleman shakes his head. Can he suggest anybody else ? Supposing a law is passed in the province of Quebec appointing a minister of education instead of the Catholic and Protestant boards and that he orders the use in both public and separate schools of such and such books. If there is anything in those books which is contrary to the faith of the Catholic or to the faith of the Protestant, then the question will arise as to their right to disobey the regulation and the judge would have to decide ; if the minister of education maintains his decision, the matter would have to come before the court and the judge would have to decide according to the circumstances.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—Does the hon. gentleman think the law clothes the Minister of Education with the right to choose the school books that are to be used in the schools—the original organic law as the hon. gentleman calls it.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Yes, the law authorizes him to choose the books which shall be used in the schools, but he cannot choose books for use in separate schools containing anything contrary to the religious faith or teachings of the pupils. That is my opinion on the Constitutional Act. It is very difficult to draw the line, and this brings me to deal with the Bill before us. I would have preferred the old clause 16 because it was

686

wider in its terms. I do not agree with the hon. leader of the opposition in the Commons when he contended that the organic Act of 1875 did not guarantee separate or denominational schools. I think that the wording of the original clause 16 would have gone further for the protection of the minority, but I must admit that although it may be contended that the law of 1875 remained in force—because the law could not be repealed by any of the ordinances—one must admit that from the fact that these ordinances had been passed not by a legislature in full control of its legislative powers, but by a council which remained all the time under the jurisdiction of this parliament; when the Northwest Council had to submit to this parliament all its ordinances, and when parliament was challenged so to speak to disavow any ordinances infringing upon the organic law, and when parliament from 1892 to this day not only allowed these ordinances to remain on the statute-book but allowed a whole machinery to be put in operation, allowed the system of schools to be organized and carried on under these ordinances, allowed a new state of things to be created, I say that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the contention that it would not be expedient now, for this parliament, to go back to the state of things which existed in 1875. For this reason I say that it was the duty of the parliament, and it is our duty to take into serious consideration the reasons which are offered in that direction, not by parties who are animated by bad motives, but by parties who possessed of a proper spirit of conciliation, claim, not without reason, that this new state of things which has obtained for such a great number of years should be respected and that we should not now go back to 1875.

Turning to clause 17, to my mind it affords two guarantees. First it guarantees separate schools.

Nothing in any such law shall in any way affect any right or privilege which any persons have at the time of the passing of this Act under the terms of chapters 29-30 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories.

There was no complaint made as far as the separate schools were concerned, except—and very properly—that this would not allow full protection to the majority wherever in any school district the majority would be Catholics. I must confess that this is rather a remote danger, where the majority is Catholic they have their own school board. That school board is elected by the ratepayers and it has the right to choose teachers, and in practice I cannot reasonably anticipate that this condition of things will be changed. But the objection was that with people who would be evilly disposed, with a legislature which might desire to reduce to the smallest limit possible the protection accorded to the minority, that they could devise means whereby they would curtail the rights of the majority in the school districts. That I admit is the case. But to my mind the point was satisfactorily covered by the last part of the section, when these words were added: ‘Or with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school as provided for in the said ordinances.’ This last part of the section has the effect of crystallizing into the constitution section 137 of chapter 29 of the ordinances, and that section, to my mind, goes beyond section 41, providing for separate schools. If the minority had been left under section 41 for its protection, inasmuch as that section provided only for separate schools, the matter would have been left to all kinds of doubt. But by crystallizing section 137 into the constitution, I claim that the teaching of the Catholic religion—

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—In half an hour.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—The teaching of the Catholic religion for half an hour, as the hon. gentleman says, is guaranteed in all schools whenever the parents desire that it should be done, in all schools, whether public or Protestant, whether of the majority or of the minority. I claim that it is a most valuable guarantee. The objection is as to the half hour. Would the hon. gentleman who makes the objection be ready to assert that the state is obliged by law to allow religious teaching for an hour or two hours every day? The state has the control of education and in Quebec as well as in Ontario would the hon. gentleman be prepared to say that it would not be open to the legislature to limit the teaching of religion to half an hour each day? Is he under the impression that a court of justice would

687

curtail that right and declare that an Act of that kind would be unconstitutional ?

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—No, I do not contend that, but I do contend that the court would give separate schools to the Catholics, while this clause does not. It gives half an hour for religious education in the public schools.

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—We must not play on words; we want separate schools. Under the section in question they can establish separate schools, for what ? For the purpose, as far as Catholics and Protestants are concerned, of giving a teaching in harmony with their respective faith ; therefore, for the purpose of protecting the religion of the minority—whatever it may be.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—Is not the object of the clause to give separate schools where it says they can establish separate schools? Are they going to have any right to separate schools beyond the half hour?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—They have the choice of the teachers.

Hon. Mr. McMILLAN—I want to know if they have any more than half an hour for religious education?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—They are not entitled to more than half an hour for the purpose of teaching religion, but they are guaranteed that half hour. The point I make is that under the constitution, even in Ontario, you would not be entitled to more than half an hour if the legislature should choose to limit it to that extent, and therefore you cannot take exception to that clause as curtailing the guarantee given to the minority. I admit that it would have been fairer if the agitation had not taken place and if this parliament has considered itself free to deal with the matter in a broader spirit. I think that is what should have taken place, but on the other hand, I must confess, anticipating history as my hon. friend from Stadacona did the other day, that the Prime Minister would not have shown himself worthy of the position he occupies if he had not taken the course he has pursued. If he had resigned on the question he would only have increased the agitation in the country and he would not have protected the very people whose interest he would have been defending. I am ready to admit with the hon. member from Stadacona that it would have been unworthy on the part of the Prime Minister to make a concession for the purpose of retaining in his cabinet the late Minister of the Interior, because then it would have been a question between one of his ministers and the public interest. But I am satisfied that the reason which prompted the Prime Minister and government in adopting another clause was nothing of the kind, and as a matter of fact the Minister of the Interior did not resume his portfolio in the cabinet. What prompted the Prime Minister was the agitation in the country and in which a large number of Liberals and Conservatives well disposed and in good faith had taken part, and it was the duty of parliament to give due consideration to all opinions in that connection and try and adopt a measure which would put an end to the agitation and receive the approval not only of Liberals, but of Liberals and Conservatives alike. I am satisfied these are the considerations which prompted the Prime Minister to adopt the wording of the clause we are discussing.

I cannot close my remarks without expressing my disappointment at seeing in a century when immense progress has been made in the whole field of the human mind, such an agitation as we have been witnessing for the last few months in the Dominion. The hon. gentleman from Calgary took exception to some remarks of my hon. friend from Mille Iles. I cannot agree with him; I think the remarks were appropriate. They were not directed against any Conservative or Liberal who in good faith took as we contend a wrong view of the question. Everybody is master of his own opinions, and so far as they are respectable they should be respected. My hon. friend’s remarks were directed against those who from political or other like considerations tried to create strife between races and religions in Canada. I say it is to be regretted by Conservatives as well as by Liberals and that we should all bear in mind that we are two races in this Dominion destined to live together, not one to be absorbed by the other, but to work in complete harmony in building a Canadian nation. I ask hon. gentlemen would it make for the better progress of British institutions and for the welfare of this Dominion if by a stroke of

688

the pen the French element could tomorrow be transformed into an English element? I say no. The two nationalities have the genius proper to each. The English have the commercial and practical genius. These are dominating qualities in them which I admire. I try to borrow, as far as I am concerned, as much as possible of these qualities. We Canadians of French descent have the characteristics and qualities of our race, and I claim that they are not inferior to that of the English race, and I claim that it is for the welfare of this Dominion that the qualities of the two races be perpetuated and harmonized as much as possible.

Hon. Mr. de BOUCHERVILLE—I shall, in the first place, refer to the remarks of the hon. Secretary of State when introducing this Bill. He said what I think I have read before, uttered by a prominent gentleman in another place, that the education of children belongs to the parents, that religion is necessary in education, that this Bill would ensure religious education to the children, that the schools in the neighbouring country are neutral schools, that the results of such education have been divorce, lynch law, and many other crimes, which fortunately are not very numerous in this country; and he added that morality was not on the same footing now as it was forty or fifty years ago. After hearing those sentiments expressed by the hon. Secretary of State, I did not expect that he would introduce a Bill which overthrows all those great sentiments which he seemed at least to wish that we should agree to. This brings me to the question of separate schools and I wish to refer to a question raised by the hon. gentleman from de Salaberry (Hon. Mr. Béique) that the government had full power to change the educational law. I will only say for the present that I admit the power, but I do not admit the moral right, and there is a great difference between the two. We have seen countries doing such things in the past. It was done in England when Henry VIII. violated every law in separating himself from the Church of Rome; and to-day we find France repealing laws which were designed to promote Christianity.

But I wish to speak first of separate schools. Different systems are to be found in the different provinces. In Nova Scotia, though they had some trouble years ago on the subject of education, we are told by distinguished politicians that at present the Catholics of that province have de facto separate schools. I admire the liberality of that province. Another eminent gentleman from the adjoining province of New Brunswick says the same thing has taken place there. What a difference between those provinces and the provinces in the west. When the question of separate schools was agitated in the old province of Canada, when the hon. Secretary of State, then Mr. Scott, the father of separate schools, brought the matter up, what was the state of feeling in the country? Nobody thought of having neutral schools. There were in those days two parties, the Protestant and the Catholic party. While they differed on some points, they agreed that religion must be taught in the schools. It was so all over Canada. It has been said that the Protestants could not agree with the Catholics, but there is one thing on which they do agree and that is the Ten Commandments. Where do you find morality if you do not accept the Ten Commandments. We have the history of other nations in ancient days, and what was their morality? Look at the lives of even the best philosophers of Greece and Rome. Look at Lacedemonia, where thieving was encouraged; look at Greece, where they had the Eleusinian mysteries. But in old Canada we were all Christians, and all agreed that it was necessary to teach the Ten Commandments. Now, you cannot inculcate the Ten Commandments in the minds of children from six to fourteen years of age by a mere lesson as to their importance. Everything you do must come under the rule of the Ten Commandments. A little boy may tell a lie and the schoolmaster will have to correct him. In doing so, he must tell the child, you are sinning, you are going against the command of God. Does a child use bad words, the same course must be pursued. That is the opinion of Catholics and I think of many Protestants. We want religion taught during the whole day. We do not want to be always praying or studying the catechism or the Bible, but we want the religious education to be continuous. According to the school laws in Manitoba and the Territories, the school

689

hours are from nine to twelve and half-past one to four, five and one half hours altogether. We contend that religion must be taught in the schools during the whole of that time. They say no, we will give you half an hour out of the eleven half hours of the day, and there are some people who say in half an hour you can teach the catechism. I am addressing myself to Catholics. Is it not astonishing to hear Catholics say that that is the proper way to instil religion into the minds of children, and to bring them up. Are we not Catholics and have we not chiefs to direct us—our bishops? What do those bishops tell us to do?

Are we to be led by politicians in such matters. I have seen the effect of it in the United States and I do not understand how a Catholic can have such ideas. I was remarking just now that in old Canada there were but two parties in the country, Catholic and Protestant. There are three parties now. Forty or fifty years ago—and there are several hon. gentlemen here who can remember those times—we did not know what an atheist or agnostic was. There were some who called themselves deists. That is to say, they believed in God, but not in certain other doctrines. But if a man said he was an atheist he was not believed. Now, however, how many proclaim that they are atheists and agnostics? Some have gone so far now that they believe they are descended from monkeys, and so on. This party is not yet the most numerous, but it is active and working in the dark in advocating neutral schools. What does a neutral school mean? It means that you can speak of religion only during half an hour during each school day. They do not forbid the teaching of any other subject. It is only religion which is prohibited during ten of the eleven half hours. In some places, what sort of books are used ? There is a history which is approved by some hon. gentlemen present, which eulogizes Oliver Cromwell. If Oliver Cromwell is admired, surely it cannot be by gentlemen of the Irish nationality. It was Cromwell who said when he was asked to be more lenient to the Irish, ‘let them go to hell, or Connaught.’ Yet in the schools of Manitoba there is a history used in which I can show you a eulogium of Cromwell. The fact that Protestants in old Canada were all in favour of religion being taught in the schools is confirmed by a passage I am about to read in Ryerson’s ‘Story of My Life.’ Mr. Ryerson concludes a letter with these emphatic words:

Be sure that no system of popular education will flourish in a country which does violence to the religious sentiments and feelings of the churches of that country. Be assured that every such system will droop and wither which does not take root in the Christian and patriotic sympathies of the people—which does not command the respect and confidence of the several religious persuasions, both ministers and laity—for these in fact make up the aggregate of the Christianity of the country. The cold calculations of unchristianized selfishness will never sustain a school system. And if you do not embrace Christianity in your school system, you will soon find that Christian persuasions will soon commence establishing schools of their own.

Ryerson, as probably every one knows, was superintendent of education for nearly thirty years. I do not like to name anybody, but I do not like to think that one who has fought so nobly and gloriously for the right of people to give religious education to their children should vote the other way now. This Dominion contains, according to the last census, about 5,000,000 of people. Of this population nearly four-fifths are in Ontario and Quebec, where the separate school system exists, and in the maritime provinces where it exists de facto. That is, separate schools are to be found everywhere throughout the Dominion east of Manitoba and to some extent they exist in Manitoba; therefore for a few hundred thousand who are agitating the country, and will agitate it still, you pass this law. Where is there a country happier than Canada? Are we not fully satisfied? Apart from some excited minds who are always looking for a chance, we do not quarrel among ourselves. Protestants and Catholics do their best to educate their children, and our education is certainly as good as any to be found in other countries. Our superior education is as good as any in the United States and our common schools are as good as the best they have, and we are improving our system every day. We can continue to improve if we have peace; but we cannot if we quarrel; that is the position of the country. I objected this evening to an hon. gentleman speaking of what occurred in the House

690

of Commons and therefore I will not say what comes to my mind, which comes to my lips naturally, and which I have some difficulty in repressing. I shall now endeavour to answer as well as I can my hon. friend from de Salaberry (Hon. Mr. Beique). He said in reply to the hon. gentleman from Calgary (Hon. Mr. Lougheed), that we had full power to change the law. I reply we have the power, but I do not think we have the right. If a law passed in 1875 and confirmed in 1886, giving full liberty for separate schools in the Northwest Territories, does not apply for the future, there is this to be said—it is the opinion of my hon. friend that it does not apply ?

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I said it would not be fair to the minority, but it is within the power of this parliament at this day to change the law of 1875.

Hon. Mr. de BOUCHERVILLE—I admit we have the power to do many things, but it is another question whether we have a moral right to do them. That law will stand, if the opinion of such men as Hon. Messrs. Scott, Blake, Brown and Mills count for anything. According to those gentlemen this law is permanent. If it is permanent, there is no necessity of confirming ordinances which amount to nothing. By the very act of confirmation you show that you do not believe they are legal in themselves. I am not a lawyer but I think I know enough of equity and good sense to know that an inferior legislature could not pass a law changing the legislation of the federal government. The opinion of the gentlemen I have named was of sufficient importance to bring the matter to the attention of the government. In 1891 a statute was passed, intituled ‘An Act to amend chapter 135 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, intituled An Act respecting the Supreme and Exchequer Courts. Section 4 of that Act is as follows :

4. Section thirty-seven of the said Act is hereby repealed, and the following is substituted therefor :

Important questions of law or fact touching provincial legislation, or the appellate jurisdiction as to educational matters vested in the Governor in Council by the British North America Act, 1867, or by any other Act or law or touching the constitutionality of any legislation of the Parliament of Canada, or touching any other matter with reference to which he sees fit to exercise this power, may be referred, by the Governor in Council, to the Supreme Court for hearing or consideration; and the Court thereupon shall hear and consider the same.

2. The court shall certify to the Governor in Council, for his information, its opinion on questions so referred, with the reasons therefor, which shall be given in like manner as in the case of a judgment upon an appeal to the said court and any judge who differs from the opinion of the majority shall, in like manner, certify his opinion and his reasons:
3. In case any such question relates to the constitutional validity of any Act which has heretofore been or shall hereafter be passed by the legislature of any province, or of any provision in any such Act, or in case for any reason, the government of any province has any special interest in any such question, the attorney general of any such province, or in the case of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor thereof, shall be notified of the hearing, in order that he may be heard if he thinks fit :
4. The court shall have power to direct that any person interested, or, where there is a class of persons interested, any one or more persons as representatives of such class, shall be notified of the hearing upon any reference under this section, and such persons shall be entitled to be heard thereon.
5. The court may, in its discretion request any counsel to argue the case as to any interest which is affected and as to which counsel does not appear, and the reasonable expenses thereby occasioned may be paid by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General out of any moneys appropriated by parliament for expenses of litigation.
6. The opinion of the Court on any such reference although advisory only, shall, for all purposes of appeal to Her Majesty in Council, be treated as a final judgment of the said court between parties.
7. General rules and orders with respect to matters coming within the jurisdiction of the court under this section may be made in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided by this Act, with respect to other matters within its jurisdiction, and, in particular, such rules and orders as to the judges making them seem best for the investigation of questions of fact involved in any reference thereunder.

Now, it is said here the word ‘may’ is used. In the Senate Debates of 1875 the speaker said :

Words of compulsion are never applied either to the Sovereign or to a sovereign body. Our constitution, like that of England, imputes the intention both to the sovereign and to parliament, to keep faith and to perform all the duties falling within their respective jurisdiction.

Therefore this clause when it says ‘may,’ implies also a compulsion. Those gentlemen having before them the opinion of such men as I have mentioned, and some others, should have taken the opinion of the Supreme Court.

691

Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—On what question?

Hon. Mr. de BOUCHERVILLE—To ascertain whether it is constitutional to change the promise made by the Crown in 1875 and 1886, assuring the people of the Northwest Territories that they would always have the right to separate schools. When they first introduced this Bill there was no necessity of asking such a question because it was then the opinion of the government that the promise should be adhered to—that it was according to law. They had to ask the permission of the Governor before imposing certain taxes in aid of education. But the Bill has been changed. When they were changing what had been promised by the Crown, what men of eminent ability like those I have mentioned said could not be changed—the law relating to separate schools—the government ought at least to have sought the opinion of the Supreme Court, but they did not do so. If they had done it they would have told us; they have not told us, therefore they have not done it.

I go further, and I say the minister is obliged to ask the permission of the Sovereign, represented by the Governor General, to impose taxes to give aid to certain institutions. They must have permission from the Governor, because all the public moneys belong to the Sovereign. He is the guardian of the treasury, and we must ask his approval before we can deal with them in any way. Now, if he is the guardian of the treasury, there is another thing he guards with much more care, and that is his own honour. If without having his permission you bring in a measure changing the law of the Territories, guaranteeing separate schools to the minority, there should be some authority for doing so. The government should ask the permission of the Sovereign himself through his representative; and it is because they have not done so that I have great pleasure in seconding the motion of my hon. friend from Belleville (Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell).

Hon. Mr. McDONALD (C.B.)—I am as strongly in favour of separate schools as any member of the Senate. I endorse every word that has been uttered by my hon. friend from London (Hon. Mr. Coffey) in favour of separate schools; but at the same time I consider that we are not getting separate schools, and therefore I shall not vote for this Bill. I have studied this question a little during the session, and I wish to ask the hon. Secretary of State now whether this Bill gives anything in addition to what we get from the statutes of the territories now in existence. I wish to know if it contains anything or gives any rights or privileges to the minority in the territories that are not given to them by the statutes of the territories to-day.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT—It practically enacts the law of the territories. It was all we could obtain—all we could get. It was that or nothing.

Hon. Mr. McDONALD (C.B.)—That is the conclusion I have come to. Therefore this government has no right to create the contrary impression in the minds of those who advocate separate schools in this Dominion, particularly those who want separate schools in the new provinces created by this Act. The Catholic minority in the province of Alberta have nothing given to them by this Bill but what they have already, and the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier has no right to claim any credit for giving to those people what they now possess. I think it is not at all fair to the people of this Dominion that that impression is sought to be created among—

Hon. Mr. POWER—Does not my hon. friend see that if there is no Dominion statute, the new provinces can change the law at once? If we pass the law they cannot. The privileges remain.

Hon. Mr. McDONALD (C.B.)—I will come to that in a moment, if the hon. gentleman from Halifax will be patient. I consider that it is not at all complimentary to the intelligence of those who favour separate schools in this Dominion to be told that this Bill introduced by the Sir Wilfrid Laurier government is giving them what they already possess. My hon. friend from Halifax says that if this Bill was not introduced and carried by this parliament the rights of the minority in those Territories would be swept away. Our experience of affairs in Manitoba, I think, sweeps the argument of the hon. gentleman from Halifax completely away. The people of the

692

Territories can do what the people of Manitoba have done, and they can do it with much greater justice than the people of Manitoba. The cause of the minority in Manitoba was a just cause, a right cause; it was a cause that was decided by the highest court in the empire in their favour, and it was ordered that they should have a remedy. They applied to parliament for that remedy, and parliament, led by the right hon. gentleman who is at the head of the government to-day, blocked that remedy and for ever prevented the minorities in the new provinces of this Dominion from applying to parliament for a remedy in regard to school matters. If the people of the province of Alberta should be ungracious enough to repeal the Act which they now have in the statute-book, there would be no remedy, no appeal. If there were an appeal, it would never be listened to. That matter has been for ever killed in this Dominion. I think it would be much better policy if the government had not interfered in this matter at all. It would have created a friendship with the people of the province of Alberta on this question that I am afraid will not exist now, and my experience of parliament for thirty years justifies me in coming to the conclusion that it is better for this Dominion, even if it has the jurisdiction, to abstain from legislating in educational matters for any of the new provinces coming into the Dominion. My experience of the Manitoba school question, my experience of the New Brunswick school question, and my experience in all the agitations on school questions since I came to parliament in 1873, justifies me in that conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that the principle adopted by the leader of the opposition in the other House is the correct one, and that we should abstain altogether from interfering in educational matters in the province. What will be the result in the province of Alberta when it becomes a province of 500,000 or 600,000 inhabitants? Are they going to be content with the legislation they have on the statute-book now for their schools in that province? They will not. The laws with regard to education will be constantly advancing in that province, and if this legislation which is proposed to be passed is to be stationary for ever, the consequences will be that the minorities in those provinces will suffer. The new provinces cannot be less just to the minorities than they are now. I am therefore against this Bill, because it does not grant us anything that we have not now under the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, as contained in chapters 29 and 30, mentioned in the Bill. I believe that the jurisdiction in this matter rests entirely with the provinces, and therefore I intend to vote for the six months’ hoist.

Hon. Mr. BERNIER—For five months parliament has been engaged in framing a constitution for two new provinces wishing to become full partners in the confederation. These new provinces are to be carved out of the Territories lying west of Manitoba. Surely this is one of the most important functions of this parliament, and no wonder that the measure now before us has caused here and outside, all through the land, considerable attention and discussion.

Numerous and far-reaching are the problems involved in this proposed action. These new provinces, before very long, will have much to say in the public affairs of the Dominion. Everybody is alive to the rapid settlement of those countries. They will be in the near future, potent factors in politics as well as in the building up of the national wealth. With such a project before our minds our aim must be to give them such a standing in this aggregation of provinces that they be impressed with our wisdom and with our consideration for their present and future wants, so that they may also be desirous of maintaining their partnership with us and their loyalty to the flag which overshadows our destinies.

The prime aspect which confronts us in connection with this measure is the opportunity of creating these new provinces at the present moment. For my part I have no hesitation in saying that their welfare would not have been endangered by postponing this measure for some years. Proper arrangements could have been made by which their present condition could have been improved so as to tide them over without this machinery of provincial life. As a matter of fact, they have at present a political organization which is equivalent to provincial unity. But, at the same time, it cannot be denied that public opinion in

693

the Territories is in favour of this movement. The Territories feel that it is time for them to take their place around the federal board, and have, not only the institutions of a self-governing body, but also the name of provinces in this large Dominion. And under a popular regime such as we have, governments are bound to take notice of public opinion. No fault then, according to my idea, is to be found with the cabinet for bringing in such a measure. This feeling seems to be pretty general. Where differences of opinions come in is when the various provisions of the Bill are under consideration.

I am not concerned with the financial allowances made to each of the new provinces, except in this particular, that it appears to me to be the acknowledgment of the principle that the public lands, although their administration is to remain in the federal authority, still are an asset of the provinces.

Indeed, the financial allowances made to these provinces exceed the allowances made to the other provinces, and the ground upon which these provisions are justified is the fact that which the old provinces are in possession of the public lands, and enjoy thereby a large revenue, the new provinces are deprived of such possession and revenue. It is according to my humble views, a sound policy. In the confederation Act the principle is laid down of the ownership of the public lands by the provinces. If, in certain cases, circumstances were such that this principle could not be carried on to its full extent, we must, however, adhere to the principle and dispose of those lands for the benefit of the provinces where they are situated. It is simply a trust that we must administer in all good faith and in the spirit of the constitution.

This brings me to the question whether the Dominion should in the present case, turn over or not the public lands to the new provinces created by these Bills. In my opinion, the government has taken the proper course in retaining the administration of these lands.

The title of the Dominion in those lands is a combination of two elements. First, of ownership, and second, of a trust. For, if the government of Canada can claim that they have bought these lands, and, consequently are the owners of the same, still they cannot assimilate such an ownership to that of the rancher on his cattle. The government owns for the benefit of the nation or for a section of the people. In this instance, the government owns the lands for the benefit of the provinces where such lands are situated. That is the way that these lands form, as I have stated a moment ago, a trust in the hands of the federal government. On the other hand, it is said with truthfulness that the whole Dominion has contributed to the indemnity that was paid for the acquisition of those Territories, and consequently that trust is so held by the government not only for the provinces, but for the whole Dominion. Then, the primary object which the federal government must have in view in the disposition of those lands must be, no doubt, the advantage of the province, but it is easy to conceive that in many instances the welfare of the whole Dominion may be involved in the administration of that trust. Then again it follows that the central power has a pre-eminent interest in keeping the trust in its original form. Apart from that, it is in the nature of a trust that it be maintained in the form it was originally created until it is determined. True it might be said that the power that creates the trust could have it determined or could alter its conditions. But then it becomes a matter of policy. It seems to me that the policy adopted by Sir John A. Macdonald still holds good. Sir John A. Macdonald justified his policy by the following statement. It will be found in an Order in Council of the 30th May, 1884:

The success of the undertakings by the Dominion government in and for the Northwest, depends largely upon the settlement of the lands. Combined with a great expenditure in organizing and maintaining an immigration service abroad and at home, parliament pledged its faith to the world that a large portion of those lands should be set apart for free homesteads to all coming settlers, and another portion to be held in trust for the education of their children. No transfer, could, therefore, be made, without exacting from the province the most ample securities that this pledged policy shall be maintained ; hence in so far as the free lands extend there would be no monetary advantage to the province, whilst a transfer would most assuredly seriously embarrass all the costly immigration operations which the Dominion government is making mainly in behalf of Manitoba and the Territories.

694

The great attraction which the Canadian government now offers, the impressive fact to the mind of the men contemplating immigration is that a well known and recognized government holds unfettered in its own hand the lands which it offers free, and that that government has its agencies and organizations for directing receiving, transporting and placing the immigrant upon the homestead which he may select. And if the immigration operations of the Dominion, which involve so large a cost, are to have continued success and to be of advantage to Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, your sub-committee deem it to be of the utmost importance that the Dominion government shall retain and control the lands which it has proclaimed free to all comers. Were there other considerations of sufficient force to induce them to recommend their transfer to Manitoba, and as a consequence and by precedent the surrender to the provinces to be created from the Northwest Territory, all the lands within their boundaries, then they would advise that the provinces holding the lands should conduct their own immigration operations at their own expense.

There is a question which I cannot let pass without referring to it; it is the question of how the territories should have been divided and the new provinces mapped out. As to the division and number of provinces, I do not think the present proposition is the best that could be put before us. I think it would have been much better to have removed the present western boundary of Manitoba to a point somewhere near Moosejaw, and then organize the rest, from this point to the Rockies, in one province, thus forming only two provinces, the northern limit of which might have corresponded with the 63rd or 64th degree of latitude north. Manitoba was entitled to that extension of its area. A mere look at the map shows the absurdity, at the present time, of leaving it with its present boundaries, when they are compared with the size of the other provinces. Besides, Manitoba has been the pioneer province of the west; it has opened the way for the creation of other provinces in that far distance; its people have been instrumental in bringing prosperity not only within its limited area, but to the whole western prairies. All this should have inclined the government to satisfy our claims in that respect. And then, as I said, it would have been possible to form only one province with the balance of those territories west of Manitoba as far as the Rockies. The advantage of such an arrangement would have been to reduce considerably the expenses and to simplify the machinery of government. We are too much governed in this country. No doubt, a federal government is the only one possible in Canada, if we want to maintain the unity of British North America. There are in Canada differences of origin, of opinions and of feelings which would not be satisfied otherwise. There must be different provinces. But at the same time we should try, when circumstances and conditions permit it, to lessen that provincialism, so as to leave the people somewhat free from excessive expenses and complicated government machinery. Again, I say, we are too much governed. We have a federal government, we have provincial governments, county councils, local municipal councils, school trustees, and what others; so much so that the people of Canada are continually thrown into spasms on account of elections taking place somewhere. That is not good for the peace and harmony that should prevail amongst us nor for the quietness of mind, necessary to the proper working up of the prosperity and the building up of the nation. And although the subject is not one to be discussed along with the measure that is now before us, I would like to be permitted to respectfully submit to our friends of the maritime provinces whether it should not be better for them and for Canada, to unite and organize their respective territory into one larger province, so as to save a portion of the turmoil of elections, and of expense to themselves and to the central government. Be that as it may, it seems to me the claims of Manitoba should have been satisfied, and those claims having been so satisfied, it would have been to the interest both of the people west of Manitoba and the people of Canada at large to have but one other province east of the Rocky mountains.

Before leaving that subject let me express the hope that if this Bill passes as it is, the government of Canada will at a near date recognize our claims to the territory east and north of Manitoba, up to Hudson bay, and annex that portion of Canada to our province. The other provinces which have been mentioned, Quebec and Ontario can have no claims upon that domain, which almost as a matter of right belongs to Manitoba. It would also be in the interest of all parties concerned if an amicable arrangement could be entered into

695

by the province of Ontario and Manitoba, by which the former would abandon to our province the districts of Lake of the Woods and of Rainy Lake to be compensated by the addition to the Ontario territory of all that part of Keewatin extending northward to Hudson bay and lying east of the Severn river, this last river to form a natural boundary line between the two provinces from its mouth up to a point where it intersects the 92° of longitude, and then the boundary to be a line projected duly south to the American boundary. If hon. gentlemen will be kind enough to consider the matter a little, they will see that these territories belong to the western system rather than to the eastern system. They are only 130 miles from Winnipeg, whilst the distance from Toronto to reach them is 1,200 miles. It seems that they should more naturally fall under the jurisdiction of Manitoba than under the jurisdiction of Ontario. While dealing with that subject of frontier, I suggest to our government the idea of approaching the government of the United States in an amicable and dignified way, for the acquisition, for consideration, of a few acres of land belonging at present to that government, and lying west of the Lake of the Woods. If hon. gentlemen will look at the map, they will see a mere spot, on the west shore of the Lake of the Woods bearing the colours of the United States. This piece of land does not seem to be of much importance to our friends in the south, while it should naturally form part of Canada. Such anomaly in the possession of the territory around Lake of the Woods has already been the cause of some friction and is liable to create at any time uneasiness between the two governments. Hence perhaps the desirability of restoring this piece of land to the country to which it seems more properly to belong, by prudent and proper negotiations with our neighbours. I throw out this suggestion for what it is worth, not wishing to unduly insist upon it. Now, I come to the question which has caused so much agitation to arise in certain parts of the country. It is a very delicate question to deal with. One is never sure in speaking on such topics that he may not hurt the feelings of others. I will try to keep within the bounds of propriety and moderation while affirming the principles of justice and equal rights. My intention is to give to my remarks on this subject the character of an explanation rather than of a discussion. Much of the feeling exhibited in connection with these matters is generally the result of some misapprehension. It is with the view of clearing up such misunderstandings, in so far as my ability may go, that I venture to address this House on the measure now before us.In the first place, is the clause 17, formerly 16, within the jurisdiction of parliament? I have no hesitation in saying that it is. The constitution gives this parliament the full power to make laws for the good government of the country when creating new provinces out of the Northwest Territories. Let me here refer to the British North America Act, 1867, as foreshadowing the union of the territories to Canada. For, as it has been said elsewhere during the last five months, we must, every class and every one of us, rest upon the constitution for every safeguard to our liberties. It is not only the solid rock upon which stands our political fabric, but it is moreover the bridge which permits us to meet, whatever may be the distance which separates us in certain matters. Let us adhere firmly to our constitution, and confederation will be maintained and will work smoothly. Clause 146 of the British North America Act, 1867, expresses itself as follows:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council on addresses from the Houses of the parliament of Canada to admit Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territory, 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.

Some years afterwards, in 1871, the imperial parliament passed what is known as the British North America Act, 1871. By this Act it was provided, section 2, that:

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

Please remark that in this legislation full jurisdiction is given to Canada to create

696

provinces and make provision for the constitution of the province and for passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province. The words which are to be found in the British North America Act, 1867, viz. : ‘Subject to the provisions of this Act’ are omitted in the Act, 1871. So that the parliament of Canada is under no restraint or limitation as to its legislative power, with regard to the matters now under our consideration.

If we refer to the correspondence which then passed between the Canadian government and the imperial government we will better understand the whole bearing of and the unlimited power conferred on us by the British North America Act, 1871.

Sir John Macdonald, then Prime Minister of Canada, wrote to Lord Kimberley, then the Secretary of State for the colonies, that he wanted an imperial Act confirming the Act of the Canadian parliament, 33 Victoria, chapter 3. In that letter he said :

To empower the Dominion parliament from time to time to establish other provinces in the Northwest Territories with such local government, legislature and constitution, as it may think proper, provided that no such local government or legislature should have greater power conferred upon it than the power conferred upon the local government and legislatures by the British North America Act, 1867, and also empowering it to grant such provinces representation in the parliament of the Dominion.

These words, read in connection with the Act of 1871, show clearly the true meaning of this Act of 1871 and makes clear to everybody the extent of the power of this parliament.

It has been argued that the Act of 1886 did limit the legislative power of Canada in connection with the creation of the new provinces. The clause quoted in support of this contention is the last one, which reads as follows :

This Act and the British North America Act, 1867, and the British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed together.

I contend that this clause and the whole Act of 1886, has no bearing at all on the point we are considering at present. In the first place there is not in this clause nor in any other clause of this Act any provision restricting the power given to parliament by the British North America Act, 1871, which is the governing enactment. In the second place, this clause of the Act of 1886, applies only to the subjects dealt with in that Act. Now, the subject dealt with in this latter Act is merely the representation of the Territories in parliament. So the restrictive provision, if there is any, would only apply to the subject of such representation. The consequence is to leave unimpaired the legislative authority of this parliament in so far as education is concerned as in all other matters. But, admitting for the sake of argument, that there would still be some kind of a doubt, it would be easy to clear that doubt by having the Act creating the new provinces ratified by the imperial parliament, as has been done very often, since 1867.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—Has the Act of 1886 qualified that Act of 1871 ?

Hon. Mr. BERNIER—No it has not, it qualifies the British North America Act of 1867. If it has any bearing on any Act it would bring the British North America Act of 1867 to the reading of the Act of 1871.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—I understood it qualified the Act of 1871 and brought it under the British North America Act.

Hon. Mr. BERNIER—Not to my mind, it is impossible that it should be so. It is the very reverse. By considering the two I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that the Act qualified in this clause is rather the Act of 1867 which it brings into the construction of 1871.

There has been before an interpretation put upon this British North America Act, 1871, by the highest tribunal of the empire. In the famous case of Riel, the Lords of the Privy Council declared as follows :

That the words of the statute (1871) were apt to authorize the utmost discretion of enactment for the attainment of the object pointed to.

After reading this pronouncement, it seems to me that we should not have any more doubt as to the soundness of the position which I have placed before the House.

Having said so much, and having, to my mind, demonstrated beyond a doubt that the parliament of Canada has full jurisdiction in this matter, and can provide in this Bill for the establishment of denominational schools in the future provinces, I would

697

like to add that if it (the Act of 1871) stood alone, I would say that it does not make an obligation to parliament to give such a school system to these new provinces. But there are grounds other than the strictly legal aspect of the matter, grounds upon which one can and must stand if he wishes to come to a right conclusion. Some of these grounds are the vested rights legitimately secured to these people by virtue of various promises and previous legislation. The pledges have been numerous. We have only to recall to our memory different circumstances which are now somewhat forgotten.

In the first place, let us recall that under the Hudson Bay Company regime there were nothing but denominational schools, conducted by the various churches doing missionary work in the far west. On the 1st of May, 1851, the Rev. Cochrane, of the English church, moved, seconded by the Rev. Laflèche, that:

To weaken the mischievous and destructive energy of these violent and untamed qualities of human nature which so frequently manifest themselves in society, in a half civilized state, and to strengthen the feelings of honourable independence, to encourage habits of industry, sobriety and economy, it is moved—that £100 be granted from the public fund to be divided equally between the bishop of Rupert’s Land and the bishop of the Northwest (Catholic) to be applied by them, at their discretion, for the purposes of education. Carried unanimously.

A few months after, in the fall of 1851, the Presbyterian church presented to the council of Assiniboia the following petition:

To the Governor and Council of Assiniboia: The petition of the trustees of the Presbyterian church of Frog Plain humbly showeth: That, as the improvement of education seems to be more requisite, at least among the Protestants of the settlement, than its mere extension, your petitioners pray that their minister may receive from the public fund a sum proportioned to the fifty pounds, as aforesaid granted to the Church of England, without prejudice, however, to the recognized equality in the premises, between the Protestants as a whole and the Roman Catholics.

And your petitioners shall ever pray. (Sgd.) A. ROSS, JOHN FRASER

and the other trustees of the Presbyterian community, Red River Settlement, 26th November, 1851.

Later on Dr. Bunn moved and Mr. Laflèche seconded this resolution: That fifteen pounds be granted to the Rev. John Black, of Frog Plain, for the purposes of education in accordance with the petition of the committee of his congregation.

Mr. Laflèche gave notice that, at the next meeting, he will move for an additional grant to the bishop of St. Boniface of fifteen pounds for education in consideration of the additional fifteen pounds now granted for education of the English population.

This last notice of motion was carried into effect on the 9th of December, 1852. The motion was introduced by Rev. Mr. Laflèche and seconded by Dr. Bunn, and it reads as follows:

That fifteen pounds be granted to the bishop of St. Boniface for the purposes of education.

We have in these money grants to the different churches the recognition of the denominational school system, in so far as any system could then be established and recognized in those territories, and that system has since been looked at by the people as a right vested in them.

The people of the west lived under that rule up to 1870, when the territories became a part of the Dominion of Canada.

I beg the hon. gentlemen in the Senate to bear in mind this condition of things, when I recall what has taken place between all parties connected with the transmission of the authority from the Hudson Bay Company to Canada. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that this recognition by the ruling power of the time, viz.: the Hudson Bay Company, created for every section of the people vested rights about education, in order to understand fully the bearing of subsequent events.

On the transfer of the territories to Canada, trouble arose as every body knows, on account of the injudicious way in which certain officials of the government had acted. The government of Canada had to take some steps to restore peace and confidence. Negotiations took place, and these negotiations were the occasion of distinct promises on the part of the imperial government itself. Let us recall some of those promises. In the first place I will recall the answer of Lord Granville to whom the government had asked for military assistance. In a despatch sent to the Governor General, 5th of March, 1870, Lord Granville, speaking on behalf of the imperial government said:

The proposed military assistance will be given if reasonable terms are given to the Roman Catholic settlers, and if Canadian government enable Her Majesty’s government to proclaim transfer simultaneous with movement of troops.

698

It is well to refer here to the list of rights, which the delegates of the west had submitted to the Canadian government. Section 7 of the Bill of Rights claimed the granting of denominational schools.

That Bill of Rights was then of public notoriety, the imperial government was aware of it, and this injunction of Lord Granville about reasonable terms to be given to the Roman Catholic settlers indicates clearly he had in view the claims of the Catholics with respect to education. It does so, more especially when we recall the action of the Hudson Bay Company in granting money to denominational schools. What next? Then came the assurances given to His Grace the Archbishop of St. Boniface by the Governor General of Canada, Sir John Young. By his position, His Grace was in fact representing all the interested parties. He had the confidence of the government and of the resisting element. So any direction or promise given to him may be considered as partaking of the nature of a compact. It was in this spirit that the then Governor General, Sir John Young, afterwards, Lord Lisgar, wrote to Monseigneur Taché on the 16th February, 1870:

The imperial government has no intention of acting otherwise than in perfect good faith towards the inhabitants of the Northwest. The people may rely that respect and attention will be extended to the different religious persuasions.

Previous to writing this letter the Governor General had issued a proclamation in which there were the following words:

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.

By these proclamations and directions, the Canadian government became a party to the imperial promises.

Then here again, we have a clear undertaking by the highest authorities in the land and in the empire to respect the rights of the Catholic population, in whatever number, of whatever colour they might be. And those rights are clearly those referred to in the Bill of Rights and recognized as far back as 1851, by the Hudson Bay Company.

The Crown itself is a party to the compact, and for this parliament to repudiate to-day the pledges of the Crown is almost equivalent to a crime of insubordination against the authority and pledges of the Sovereign.

Apart from that, let me say just here that too often we hear and we see in the general press that even if there was ever a compact in connection with the Territories it was with a few half-breeds and that the white population coming into the country is not to be bound for ever by that compact. That is a doctrine which does not sound well to the ear of a law-abiding people. Any agreement entered into with any class of the population should be adhered to as strictly as any covenants gone into by any two respectable individuals. Any nation, any public body, any government is bound to live up to the agreements entered into by them. And if they do not, public opinion and parliament should force them to retrace their steps and do what is right. In this case the very weakness of those concerned should induce us to treat them honestly and with generosity. Let us not be misled by such attempts at getting over our signature without delivering the goods. The agreement entered into is not only with those first settlers. It was made with the prospective settlers, too. The immigration literature of the governments of Canada, past and present, has represented to the intending settlers that if they were to come to this country they would enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and also the privileges of denominational schools. In a recent book issued by the government, with the view of making the foreigners aware of the conditions that they will find when coming within our borders, it is said that

At the union, in 1867, care was taken to safeguard the rights and privileges of denominational and separate schools. (La Puissance du Canada, page 52.)

This sentence is only one which has been repeated year after year since 1867. If the system did not suit them they were aware of it; they could stay at home; they came here with their eyes opened; they became party to the agreement and they are bound to-day by the same. If on the other hand it suited them, it is a breach of promise to-day to

699

deprive them of it. And who are the other parties to that agreement ? It is the Canadian government, it is the Canadian nation, it is the Crown itself, as shown by the proclamation and letters of Lord Lisgar, just quoted. Is it not an act unworthy of the honour of Canada that we should by repudiating these pledges, bring now such a disregard upon the nation, upon the government of Canada and upon the Crown. Let us Canadians of this 20th century, let us take a position not inferior to that of our predecessors ; let not the pages of the history of our own country at the present time, be defaced by the application of a less dignified and less honourable rule than that which was laid down by the fathers of confederation and their immediate successors. Truly I say by their immediate sucessors, because Mr. Alexander Mackenzie himself, who became premier of Canada in 1873, himself recognized that the policy now advocated by me was a good one. He recognized it both by his legislation and by his words in parliament, as I will show in a moment; but, as my line of argument purports to show that this policy of justice and protection to the minority has been affirmed not only on principle by expressed words of our public men, but also by legislation, let me go back to 1870—I will come after to Mr. Mackenzie’s acts and utterances.

In 1870, the parliament of Canada had to frame a constitution for a part of the western territories. It created the province of Manitoba. It provided that the minority would be entitled to denominational schools. The Act creating Manitoba may have been defective in some respect ; but there was not at any time, and there is not to-day one soul who doubts for a moment that the deliberate intention of the framers of that Act was to assure to the minority on whatever side it might eventually be, the enjoyment of denominational schools. And that enactment was then an affirmation of the policy contemplated by the fathers of confederation, a construction of the British North America Act, 1867, in its proper spirit, and the sanction of legitimate principles that were to guide the nation with regard to such matters. Then the Act received the imperial stamp, thus again and more deeply, if possible, giving the true and the inward interpretation of the compact entered into as well as the very best indication that freedom of conscience was to be the rule in Canada.

The same lesson is to be drawn from the Act of 1875, passed under the Mackenzie regime. Then there was as there is to-day some divergence of opinions on the floor of this House and in the country, although it seems that none existed in the House of Commons. But the sober judgment of our leading men in both parties carried the day. The spirit of our political fabric prevailed. The policy of protection for the views of the minority was upheld, and the result was that clause 11 was introduced in the Act constituting the government of the Northwest Territories (1875). And as to that clause being the result of such a policy let me quote a few sentences uttered then by the leaders of both parties.

In the first place, I wish to recall the speech of Mr. Blake, who introduced the subject in the House. That quotation will show light on the subsequent action and words of Mr. Mackenzie. Mr. Blake said:

To found primary institutions under which we hope to see hundreds of thousands, and the more sanguine of us think, millions of men and families settled and flourishing, was one of the noblest undertakings that could be entered upon by any legislative body, and it was no small indication of the power and true position of this Dominion that parliament should be engaged to-day in that important task.

These are solemn words, deeply considered sentences, in which nobody could fail to discover that Mr. Blake then meant that the measure of liberty and protection they were about to give to the people of the Northwest Territories was to be of a permanent character and would apply not only to the then actual population, but to all comers, and to the very largest population that could be dreamed of. And Mr. Blake, in speaking in that way wanted to warn that future population. Because he says again:

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

He regarded as essential under the circumstances of the country, and in view of the deliberation during the last few days that a general principle should be laid down in the Bill with respect to public instruction. He did believe that we ought not to introduce into that territory the heartburnings and difficulties with which certain other portions of the Dominion and other countries had been afflicted. It seemed to him, having regard to the fact that, as far as we could expect at present, the general character of that population would be somewhat

700

analogous to the population of Ontario, that there should be some provision in the constitution by which they should have conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of the province of Ontario. The principles of local self-government and the settling (mark, the settling) of the question of public instruction seemed to him ought to be the cardinal principles of the measure.

In the light of these suggestions of Mr. Blake to the government, let us see now what Mr. Mackenzie, the then Prime Minister of Canada, said. Mr. Mackenzie said that he would provide a clause by which,

The Lieutenant Governor, by and with the consent of his council or assembly, as the case might be, should pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, but it would be specially provided that the majority of the ratepayers might establish such schools and impose such necessary assessment as they might think fit; and that the minority of the ratepayers, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, might establish separate schools; and such ratepayers would be liable only to such educational assessments as they might impose upon themselves. This, he hoped, would meet the objection offered by the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Blake).

This again was a declaration of policy and a compact. This conclusion is all the more strongly forced upon us by some of the utterances of other leading members of the House then.

Mr. Smith, now Lord Strathcona, and then member for Selkirk, said that he

was glad to find that the First Minister intended to introduce a provision in committee dealing with the subject.

Hon. Mr. Mills, a respected member of the Liberal party said at the time:

There was another matter, it seemed to him, ought not to be disregarded; and that was the terms and conditions under which these people would ultimately be formed into a province. It would be better that the people who settle that territory should know beforehand the terms and conditions under which they would be an organized part of the Dominion.

The policy suggested by those utterances was adopted and the Bill passed in the Commons. Then it came to the Senate. Here again that policy was regarded as most appropriate. Many honourable gentlemen addressed the House. Amongst others there were Hon. Mr. Miller, Hon. Mr. Scott and Hon. Sir Alexander Campbell, then the leader of the opposition. On an amendment proposed by Hon. Mr. Aikins to the effect of rejecting the clause introduced by Mr. Mackenzie in the Commons, Sir Alexander Campbell said:

It would be much to be regretted if the amendment passed. 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 the people to establish separate schools in that territory and thus prevent the introduction of evils from which Ontario and Quebec had suffered, but had judiciously rid themselves.

Mr. Brown himself who had been all his life an opponent of separate schools on principle, agreed to the remarks made by his colleagues on that occasion. He said:

He concurred with what had fallen from his hon. friends on the treasury benches, and from hon. gentleman who had spoken on the amendment with respect to the propriety of allowing separate schools.

The Hon. Mr. Scott, who was then, I believe, as he is to-day, Secretary of State, gave, in the following words, the true doctrine on this matter. He said:

He was one of those who maintained that parents had a right to educate their children as they pleased, and that they ought not to be taxed to maintain schools to which they could not conscientiously send their children. Our whole system of government was based upon that sound principle, and how long could we have happiness and peace in this country if we were to abolish that safeguard, which was now recognized in both the large provinces.

Hon. Mr. Miller has said to-night that he has changed his views on this matter in so far as the constitutional power of this parliament goes, but nevertheless, let me quote his words as repeated by him to-night. It will go a long way to show that at the time the law of 1875 was passed, it was the general consensus of opinion that such law was settling the question for all time to come.

Parliament, said the hon. gentleman, had an undoubted right, under the circumstances, to make such provisions regarding the question of education, or any other question, for this new territory, as in its wisdom it thought best for the future peace and well-being of the country.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. … He thought they should take a lesson from their past experience, and deal with the subject in a fair and liberal spirit. All the Bill asked was that all parties in that new country should have such schools as they chose to establish at their own expense, and that minorities would at all times be safe against the tyranny or intolerance of majorities. That would not be interfering with the just rights of any body or clan but, on the contrary, it would be guaranteeing the rights of all.

701

classes. It would simply be providing, while they had the power to do so, for freedom of conscience with regard to the vexed question of education.

And again in 1876, the hon. gentleman said with regard to the law of 1875 :

He (Mr. Miller) thanked the government again for their determination to adhere to the law of last session, which secured freedom of education for ever to the Territories of the Northwest. When the Act will have been proclaimed, which he supposed would shortly be done, it can never be repealed, and the privileges it guarantees will then become the birthright of the generations that are to people that great and promising country, so long at least as British institutions and British justice shall prevail there.

Before making further remarks let me point out to you some of the sentiments which seem to prevail in the above quotations. The right of this parliament to legislate upon this matter as they please, the rights of the parents to educate their children according to their views, freedom of conscience in this country are affirmed; necessity of peace and harmony between ourselves, and as the best means to reach that noble goal, the guarantee to the minorities against possible intolerance in matter of education are advocated; the right for the minorities to establish denominational schools is pointed out as the best legislation that can secure to our country quietness all over the land and one which is in complete accord with the recognized principles upon which confederation rests; the propriety of framing laws which will be a warning for the intended immigrants as to the conditions under which they will have to settle and with which they have to conform their own views and their life is also insisted upon. More than that, it was affirmed that the action of this parliament in passing clause 11 of the Act of 1875 had the effect of creating permanent rights for the minorities. This was affirmed by the Hon. George Brown, who said at the time:

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

Hon. Sir Alexander Campbell said :

The object of the Bill was to establish and perpetuate (mark, perpetuate) in the Northwest Territories the same system as prevailed in Ontario and Quebec.

And when Mr. Blake and Mr. Mills said that ‘ We should tell the people beforehand what those rights were to be, the situation in which we invited them to settle,’ or that ‘ it would be better that the people who settle that territory should know beforehand the terms and conditions under which they would become an organized part of the Dominion,’ they evidently contemplated the actual creation of permanent rights, of permanent terms and conditions for the Northwest; and parliament having sanctioned the law under these circumstances, it has endorsed those views and have de facto created such a condition of things as we should not disturb now. I have referred to all these facts and expressions of opinions because they constitute in my view a long and strong chain of national traditions which should impress every one who is called to participate in the political affairs of our country. Every nation that has evolved within its national traditions has been successful, but any nation that was imprudent enough to disregard those same traditions and to disturb the foundation stone of its political regime, has seen its national life marred by hurtful explosions. Let us profit by the lessons of other nations. We are on the path of progress and consolidation. Let us not throw across the road any stumbling blocks such as would be division amongst ourselves, oppression of the minorities by the majority, suppression of freedom of conscience in questions where conscience obtains. Now, I wish this House would listen to another argument arising out of past legislation, I mean the legislation adopted by the territories themselves. We are told we should have full confidence in the people of the Northwest. But, when we recall the way in which the Catholic minority in Manitoba has been treated, when we recall the fact that in the territories themselves the Catholic minority has been deprived by the ordinances of 1891 and 1892 of the advantages secured to them by clause 11 of the Act of 1875, is it a wonder that we should exhibit some hesitation ?

After the territories had been given a political organization by Act of this parliament, they passed ordinances, or laws, establishing a system of denominational schools, by which the two great sections of our country—the Catholics and the Protestants—could establish schools of their own. They

702

provided by those ordinances the machinery by which each section could control their respective schools. Now, I say that such local legislation, both in Manitoba and the Territories placed the Territories within the rule of subsection 1 and 3 of clause 93, of the British North America Act, which decreed that:—

Subsection 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.

Subsection 3. 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.

This language is tantamount to saying that the provisions made in matters of education, when once passed by the province, shall not be altered nor repealed. They are to be the permanent law of the province.

Now, I contend that the fact of the Dominion parliament having given to the territories a political organization of their own in 1875, has placed those territories in the position of a province. For all the purposes of the Bill now before us, the words territories and province are synonymous. The rights belonging to the one political organization belong to the other as a matter of course. There is no substantial difference between the annexation to confederation of a province and the annexation of these territories. The word province in subsections 1 and 3 of clause 93 aforesaid of the Confederation Act, stands to mean any portion of the territory duly organized and having a distinct entity from any other part of confederation. As a matter of fact those territories have had for many years past their political autonomy. They have had their own legislative authority, they have had their provincial political assembly, they have had the management of their affairs, their government, their judiciary, their lieutenant-governor, their representatives, both in the Senate and in the House of Commons. What we are doing now is simply to determine their boundaries in a different way and to give them some extended powers and the name of provinces after having given them long ago provincial powers.

This action of ours now is not a question of substance, but simply a question of degree and of delimitation. We merely say to them: ‘instead of being one political entity you will henceforth constitute two political entities, and instead of having the right to legislate on such and such a matter, you will have the right to legislate on such and such other matters. We are supplementing their legislative jurisdiction. They are already sovereign on certain matters within their boundaries, (subject only to the veto of the Governor General in Council, as in the case of any other province) we extend those powers to some other subjects.

True it may be objected that the fact that the federal power is still able to interfere with their political status, is an evidence of their subordinate condition. It is true that their condition is a subordinate one. But subordinate as it may be, they are just the same a political entity. It is indifferent whether they hold that political entity under the name of province or territories. The moment they enjoy the privilege of administering their affairs to any extent then they come under the operation of subsections 1 and 3 of the clause 93 of the British North America Act. Because there is, as it were, a contract entered into between the different powers that be and the people, to abide by certain enactments and by certain ideals, without which a certain part of the people would not have gone into those Territories, without which that part of the people would not have abandoned their native land for their new land, nor their comparatively easy life for the trials and the hardships of the settler’s life.

In the year 1891, an Act was passed amending the Supreme Court Act, so as to give to the Governor in Council power to submit certain questions of law or facts to that court. In that Act, subsection 3 of section 4, assimilates the territories to the provinces in providing that in any such case the government shall notify the attorney general of the province interested, or, says the statute: ‘in the case of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant Governor shall be notified of the hearing,’ in order that he may be heard if he thinks fit.

This statute manifestly here makes the Northwest Territories rank as a province and recognizes to such territories the same rights as to the provinces generally. As a

703

matter of fact they are considered as a province.

This assimilation of the territories to a province made by me as above, is warranted by the parliament of Canada itself. Indeed, if I turn to the interpretation Act, as found in the Revised Statutes, 1886, there I read (subsection 13 of sec. 7) :—‘The expression ‘province’ includes the Northwest Territories and the District of Keewatin.’

Thus by common sense, in equity and in accord with the enactments of our parliament, we have to admit that the territories stand now, although bearing a different appellation, on the same footing as the provinces in our political fabric. And being so, we must treat them under the present circumstances as we would be bound to treat any other province having distinctly that status. In the latter case parliament would be bound to recognize and to maintain the rights conferred by clause 11 of the Act of 1875. Now let us do the right thing and maintain in the Act now before us those rights for these new provinces. It is due to them, and it is due to us, inasmuch as it was, when the Act of 1875 was passed, the clear meaning of the parliament of Canada as shown by the above quotations, which I will now repeat and supplement.

Mr. Brown, on the 8th of April, 1875, said in the Senate :

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

By these words, Hon. Mr. Brown expressed the opinion that the provision of the Act of 1875 was placing the Territories in the position of a province and, to use the very words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister : ‘If the principle of separate schools was introduced, then according to the terms of the constitution, it was introduced for all time to come.’ And so must also be construed the words of Mr. Blake, when he said, discussing the same Act of 1875 :

They should have conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of the province of Ontario. The principles of local self-government and the settling of the question of public instruction it seemed to him ought to be the cardinal principles of the measure.

In the Senate Sir Alexander Campbell put the same meaning on that clause, when he said :

The object of the Bill was to establish and perpetuate the same system as prevailed in Ontario and Quebec.

Let me add the words of the Hon. Mr. Penny, who though not an admirer of the separate schools, expressly declared that we—

Might as well settle the matter at once by allowing the creation of separate schools.

Now, let us see what public opinion understood and said. The ‘Mail,’ on the 19th April, 1875, said :

By their Northwest Territories Bill the present government provide that separate schools may be established in those territories. The proposal we regard as eminently wise. . . Every one may see how fortunate a thing it would have been if the school question had been put on a stable basis in New Brunswick, and if by the Northwest Act, the government should have prevented future burnings on educational matters in the great new country which belongs to us in the far west, they will have done a good work indeed. We cordially endorse their action in this matter.

Montreal ‘Gazette,’ 17th March, 1875 :

The Bill seeks to fix the constitution which is to govern these vast territories in the future.

And whilst approving of this principle, the ‘Gazette’ suggests that ample time should be given to that Bill in view of its importance. It says, however :

Looking to the encouragement of immigration into the Northwest there can be little doubt of the importance of having the character of the institutions under which, in the future, these immigrants will have to live, settled in advance.

With the form of government settled in advance, and with the machinery provided for its coming into practical operation without further legislation, and by the force simply of advancing settlement any immigrant settling in the country will do so with the full knowledge of the institutions under which he is to live and will assume therefore, a voluntary allegiance to those institutions. . .

From these remarks it will appear that the ‘Gazette’ is taking the view that the enactment of 1875 fixes the future condition of existence of the territories. And these remarks are applying to the school system as well as to the other portions of the Bill. This is made evident by the following lines :

In the Bill, as prepared, the government had omitted all reference to the important subject of education and all provision for the avoidance

704

of those difficulties which at this moment are doing so much harm in New Brunswick. True, after it was printed Mr. Mackenzie discovered the omission and submitted a manuscript clause to cover it.

So, according to what has been said, there were certain rights, certain conditions of things established then, in 1875, and those things and conditions were to be for ever, they were to be perpetuated, according to Sir Alexander Campbell. They knew then what those conditions were. It was the system of denominational schools as understood in Quebec and Ontario. That seems to have been forgotten and also to have become more complicated than it was then, on account of certain legislation of the territories themselves.

Let us ascertain the constitutional condition of things existing there at the present time in matters of education. If the Catholic population have vested rights no amount of reasoning should be able to deprive them of those rights. The parliament of Canada ought to be the first to respect such a compact and apply in their proper spirit the principles laid down in subsections 1 and 3 of clause 93 of the British North America Act 1867.

That condition of things is the one which was duly established by the Act of 1875, and by the legitimate ordinances passed under that Act by the legislative assembly of the Northwest. It cannot be denied that by clause 11 of the Act of 1875, the intention was to give to the denominations coming under the designation of Protestants and Catholics,—the privilege of establishing such schools as are regarded by them as affording full protection to their respective views, viz : denominational schools. As a matter of fact, that intention was carried out by subsequent ordinances, notably by the ordinances from 1884 to 1888. Those ordinances were intra vires of the legislative assembly and created a denominational school system which is still, legally and constitutionally, the very condition of things in the Northwest. I say it is still the legal actual condition of things, because all ordinances passed since are ultra vires, consequently they are null, void and as such, non-existent. These latest ordinances are void because they were passed against the letter and spirit of clause 11 of the Act of 1875. By the ordinances of 1891 and 1892, they abolish the denominational schools previously established. The legislative assembly of the Northwest could not do that. Subsections 1 and 3 of the 93rd clause of the British North America Act, 1867, prohibited such action.

Mr. Haultain himself was very far from being sure of the correctness of his legislation, because, according to the present Lieutenant Governor of the Northwest, he was reported by the Regina ‘Leader’ as having said that :

There were some points in the Bill he could not agree to and which he would mention. He could not agree to the clause making uniform text books compulsory. It was contrary to the constitution.

Judge Rouleau wrote at the time to His Grace Archbishop Taché that the ordinance was unconstitutional and that separate schools were no more in existence although they were still designated under that name. According again to the present Lieutenant Governor of the Northwest, the Hon. Mr. Forget, the ordinance had for its object the ‘abolishing of every feature which characterizes the Catholic schools.’ ‘Nothing essential no more distinguishes the Catholic schools from the Protestant schools, except the now ironical designation of ‘separate schools.’ Now, chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances of 1901 are but a revised edition of the ordinances of 1891 and 1892 which took away the characteristics of the Catholic schools, and now it is proposed to make that legislation the limit of the guarantee which the minority is to rely on in the future, and also the limit of the control that the same minority will ever have on the education of their children. I do not believe, hon. gentlemen, it is the way we should deal with the people of the Northwest.

The actual rights of the minority now are those guaranteed by the Act of 1875, and by the ordinances passed by the legislative assembly of the Northwest from 1884 to 1888 in the exercise of its legal and legitimate jurisdiction. The subsequent ordinances limiting those rights were not within the jurisdiction of legislative assembly, and consequently must not govern the situation. The de facto situation is not the legal situation nor is it satisfactory to the section of the people whose cause we are now advocating. The legal situation would be satisfactory and

705

this parliament ought not to hesitate to ratify the same by the new charters. Does the present Bill give the minorities the school system which they are entitled to? It may give it in name, it does not give it in fact. It is the greatest political bantering that ever was perpetrated. We hear some supporters of the Bill stating in emphatic terms the necessity of granting to the minorities satisfactory conditions. and they lead the people to believe that this Bill has this effect, while, as a matter of fact, it does nothing of the kind.

It is claimed, as an objection to the establishment of a true system of denominational schools, that if we were to enact here a charter imposing that system we would put the new provinces in a subordinate position. Who would dare to rise on the floor of this House and say that Ontario and Quebec are subordinate provinces? Yet, they have the system of denominational schools? Both are satisfied, both are keeping the pledges they made to the minorities when they went into confederation. Surely the west could be satisfied if placed in the same situation as those great provinces, which may be called the parent states in our federal aggregation.

Now, if parliament has full jurisdiction, the question presents itself to our consideration: Is it a good policy to confer upon minorities certain guarantees which should satisfy them in matters of education, and further than that, are we not bound to confer such guarantees? It was considered a good policy to legislate in that way when confederation was framed. And it was considered to be a good policy not only for the time being, not only for certain provinces, but for the future and for all the provinces for which the parliament of Canada would then be in a position to frame a constitution. The intention of that policy is to be found in many of the speeches made by our statesmen at the time of the introduction in the old Canadian parliament of the Quebec resolutions.

Sir Etienne Pascal Taché, then Premier of United Canada, said on the 3rd of February, 1865, when explaining the reasons for which confederation had been brought in before parliament:

The reasons were two-fold. They related first to the intrinsic merits of the scheme itself, divested of all other considerations, and next, to the settlement of domestic difficulties which, for some years, had distracted the country, and the means we might and ought to employ to restore good feeling, harmony and concord therein.

That is the language of a French-speaking Canadian. Let us have now the views of an English-speaking Canadian, and one whose position was such that nobody can suspect for one moment his earnestness. I refer to the Hon. Geo. Brown, who expressed the same idea almost in the same terms. Speaking of the value of the confederation scheme he said:

The existing evils it will remedy.

What were those domestic difficulties spoken of by Sir E. P. Taché, and what were those evils referred to by Mr. Geo. Brown? Exactly the same difficulties and evils we are now endeavouring to conjure, and these men, and all others who were favourable to the scheme, were of opinion that it was worth sacrificing long standing and strong personal views in order to secure the passage of the Bill providing for federal union. So Mr. Geo. Brown said expressly:

Now, I need hardly remind the House, said Mr. Brown, that I have always opposed the system of sectarian education. . . . But assuredly, I, for one, have not the slightest hesitation in accepting it as a necessary condition of the scheme of union.

These are samples of the sacrifices some of our Canadian public men had to and did make of their opinions for the high purpose of putting an end to the unhappy condition of things then existing. Is it to be believed that in the minds of those public men the remedy was only to be temporary? Is it to be believed that in their inner heart there was a secret wish for the revival, at any future time and in any other place in confederation of such difficulties? I would not like to do such an injury to their memory. As a matter of fact, Mr. George Brown foresaw the time when the Northwest Territories would be a part of confederation, and spoke of the maintenance in these lands of ‘liberty and justice and Christianity.’

These facts and these utterances show in what spirit the confederation was conceived. It shows also what was in the minds of the fathers of our present constitution, the only policy that should be pursued

706

with regard to the questions which are again agitating public opinion. Let me add to the above the following words of Sir A. T. Galt, he who took such a hand in securing to his co-religionists in Quebec the guarantee which they have ever since confederation enjoyed untrammelled. Here is what Sir A. T. Galt said:

It must be clear that a measure would not be favourably entertained by the minority in Lower Canada which would place the education of the children and the provision for their schools wholly in the hands of a majority of a different faith.

These words of Sir A. T. Galt had reference to the minority in Quebec and in Ontario. But he adds almost immediately those significant words: ‘The same privileges belong to the one of right here as belonged to the other of right elsewhere,’ thus covering all provinces.

These words and the occasion on which they were uttered leave no doubt in the mind that Sir A. T. Galt meant that the situation which was to be created for the minority in Quebec should be the rule all over Canada. And he gives his reason for advocating such views:

There could be no greater injustice to a population than to compel them to have their children educated in a manner contrary to their own religious belief.

Such is the spirit which animated the fathers of confederation, and such is also the spirit underlying our constitution—a spirit of generosity and of liberty, which is but the expression of the freedom that every class within the empire is entitled to.

We have fortunately amongst us one of the delegates at Charlottetown and Quebec, in the person of the Hon. Mr. Macdonald, from Prince Edward Island. I hope he will add his testimony to those which I have quoted above.

Let us now take the Bill itself. The original clause 16, though not perfect and not placing beyond all doubts the rights of the minorities, yet was acceptable. I would have voted in favour of the Bill if that original clause had not been removed. The present clause 17 has been substituted for the other. It is very unfortunate. That clause 17 in the Bill as now presented to us does not give to the minorities any thing like what they are entitled to. The contention that it gives separate or denominational schools is not accurate. It gives separate schools in name, but not in fact. It gives a separate school-house which is only a material feature, but it does not give the genuine article, the teaching institution which has been known all over the land and for a long time as constituting a distinctive school controlled by the parents whose children attend the same. The half hour of religious instruction or exercises at the fag end of the school hours, or rather after the school hours, do not constitute the Catholic school. According to our views the atmosphere of the school during the whole day must be Catholic. The teaching must be permeated, as it were, with Catholic views and sentiments. The text-books must not be only inoffensive, but Catholic in form and in spirit. These are the views held everywhere by the Catholics and at all times. In doing that they are right not only in their own estimation, but in the estimation of others. The Duke of Argyle, the father of the present Duke, while speaking on Australian schools expressed himself in the following way in the House of Lords:

The Catholics had the high honour of standing alone and refusing to pull down in their schools the everlasting standard of conscience. This resistance on the part of the Roman Catholics, I believe, may be the germ of a strong reaction against the pure secularism; against what I venture to call the pure paganism of the education of the colony.

As to its possibility or advisability in this country let us see what Mr. Alexander Mackenzie once said:

For many years after I held a seat in the parliament of Canada, I waged war against the principle of separate schools. I hoped to be able—young and inexperienced in politics as I then was—to establish a system to which all would ultimately yield their assent. Sir, it was found to be impracticable in operation and impossible in political contingencies.

There is nothing in the school system allowed by this Bill which may commend it to our views and place it within the description of such schools as were contemplated by the fathers of confederation and by the Act of 1875. We have only to refer to various expressions of opinions stated elsewhere to be convinced that my proposition cannot be controverted. We have amongst others the right hon. Prime Minister himself, who said in a letter addressed to one of his friends:

The impression prevails that separate schools such as they are intended by the Bill will be

707

ecclesiastical schools. This is quite an error. What you call separate schools in this instance is practically national schools. Here is the law of the Northwest Territories at the present moment : All the teachers have to pass an examination and be certified by the Board of Public Instruction ; all the schools have to be examined by inspectors appointed by the Board of Public Instruction ; all books in use at the schools have to be approved by the Board of Public Instruction ; all secular matters are under the control of the Board of Public Instruction, all tuition has to be given in the English language ; at 3.30 children can be given religious instruction according to rules made by the trustees of the schools, but attendance at this is not even compulsory.

Do you find fault with this last clause ? Do you not believe that what you call ‘ separate schools ’ in this instance is really ‘ national schools ’ ?

The great objection to separate schools is that it would divide our people, but if the same education is given in what is called ‘ separate schools,’ as in all other schools, I fail to see what objection there is to such a system.

Then, Mr. Sifton said, speaking in the House of Commons on the same subject :

In the year 1892, what was known as the dual system was entirely swept away and that system which we have in the Northwest Territories, substantially as we have it at present, was established. . . . Where there is a public school, the minority, Protestant or Roman Catholic, may organize a separate school ; but every separate school is subject absolutely to all the foregoing provisions, and is in every sense of the term a public school.

Hon. Mr. Paterson, the Minister of Inland Revenue, is reported as having spoken in the same strain. He said :

It must be borne in mind that those separate schools are formed precisely as every school district is formed. Although the name separate school appears to convey to the minds of some people the impression that they are separate in the sense in which they are established in some other province, there is no distinction between these schools and the other public schools as regards organization.

Let us see what the Hon. Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Finance has said. I will quote his words :

It would be utterly mistaken to say that we are giving to the Northwest provinces separate schools in that sense of the word. I submit to this House that the system of schools which we have to-day in the Northwest Territories is a national school system, and if it has all the elements of a national school system then I say there is no principle involved in this discussion which would justify us in having a quarrel over it. What is this system ? From the hour at which these schools open in the morning up to half-past three in the afternoon they are absolutely alike ; there is no difference ; the teachers have the same duties, the same qualifications the same examinations, the same course of study, the same books are prescribed by the government, the regulations are made by the government. I repeat that from the hour of opening in the morning up to half-past three in the afternoon there is no shade of difference in all these schools in the Northwest Territories.

Shall I quote now a member of parliament, Mr. Crawford, representing Portage la Prairie. Mr. Crawford is an Orangeman, so he says at least, and he spoke in the following way :

The original clauses of the Bill were very indefinite. Under those clauses it was open to the people to have such school laws as they had in Manitoba, or they could have the old school laws that were in existence in the Territories previous to 1890. . . . Now these school laws as they are in the Northwest Territories, and as they are intended to be continued by this legislation are not at all the kind of school laws that the people, particularly of Ontario, have in their minds.

If this Bill goes through it will establish not what I claim are separate schools. In fact, the name ‘ separate ’ should hardly have been used in connection with them.

Coming now to what has been said in this House, we find the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir Richard Cartwright, expressing himself as follows :

What is it that Quebec proposes ? It proposes purely and simply this : That we guarantee to these people in the Northwest the simple privilege that I have adverted to, that during one-half hour in each day on paying the proper cost and charges they may confer religious instruction upon a certain portion of the population. That is a good deal less than Catholic Quebec has guaranteed to the Protestant minority within its borders. It is less and a good deal less than Protestant Ontario has guaranteed to the Catholic minority within its borders.

Hon. Mr. LANDRY—Hear, hear.

Hon. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT—I am free to admit that as far as I can judge, it is considerably less than the actual legal obligation incurred by us in the Act that we passed in 1875.

Hon. Mr. Scott, Secretary of State, was as clear as the others in his appreciation of the present clauses. He said :

I shall say no more on that subject other than this : The proposal in the present Bill is vastly different from the concessions as I may term them, that were made by this parliament in 1875, and which were fully discussed in this chamber. Those are a mere skeleton of what parliament then conferred upon the community, but for the sake of peace the minority are willing to accept. They will make the best of the situation. Practically there are to be no separate schools beyond the fact that there may be half an hour’s instruction from 3.30 until 4 o’clock, if the trustees so desire.

The clear and formal admission made in this chamber by the hon. gentlemen

708

Occupying treasury benches, proves beyond all doubt that we are not given what the original clause gave and what was due to us.

It is very regrettable that the government should have thus receded from their former position. This Bill, as originally drafted, could have carried, and thereby justice and right would have been done. As the effect of this Bill will be quite the reverse and as this feature of the Bill is the most important one, I am bound to vote for the six months’ hoist.

I had many more observations to make. My intention was to refer to many objections that are generally made against the working of the school system now in existence in Ontario and Quebec. I will only refer to one or two.

It has been claimed that our schools were inferior and inefficient. In that regard the Manitoba Catholic schools have been especially referred to. This alleged inefficiency of our schools is simply an afterthought. When the Greenway government declared its new policy with regard to education, they had never blamed our schools, they had never even called our attention to any improvement that could, in their mind, have been made.

A few months before the opening of the provincial legislative session of 1890, many public men spoke on the proposed changes. Amongst them were Mr. McCarthy, then a member of the House of Commons; Mr. Martin, attorney general for Manitoba; Mr. Smart, Minister of Public Works in our province. None of them is reported as having referred to this alleged inefficiency. The reasons given for a change were only that the time had come when the province should dispense with the dual language and the double-barrelled school system, as they called it, so that unity could be brought about in the land by the children sitting side by side in the public schools.

Then when Mr. Martin introduced this measure in the local House, he expressly said :

The government’s action had not been determined because they were dissatisfied with the manner in which the affairs of the department are conducted under this system, but because they are dissatisfied with the system itself.

This declaration makes it clear that it was not a question of efficiency or inefficiency. They wanted a change under any circumstances; they wanted what is called a system of national schools, but which should be called merely governmental schools.

Instead of being looked at as inefficient, our schools were at all times given the highest praise. People visiting our settlements and our institutions expressed their surprise at the excellency of the school work. Many of the gentlemen now sitting in this House were not here in 1895. But those who were may remember that then I placed on the table specimens of our school work generally, and they were such that they could not be excelled.

At the time the law of 1890 was passed in Manitoba and at the time Mr. Sifton made his famous Haldimand speech there were in our Catholic institutions in Winnipeg over 30 per cent of pupils belonging to English-speaking and Protestant families. Surely these families would not have sent their children to those schools if they had not been efficient. Some of the parents of those children have since testified in favour of those schools. Amongst them I find the late Captain Clarke, a gallant soldier who took part in the fight against the rebellion in the Northwest in 1885. Here are his words :

I can speak with experience with reference to the excellence of your section, two of my daughters having been for a long time with the good sisters of St. Boniface, where their progress was as satisfactory to me as it was pleasant to them.

We were called to take part in the school exhibition at the Indian and Colonial Exhibition in 1886, at London, England. On this occasion the ‘Canadian Gazette,’ 4th November, 1886, of London, spoke in the following way of our schools :

The collection contains samples of books, exercises, scholastic materials, &c., coming from the Catholic schools as well as from the Protestant schools of the province (Manitoba).

The excellence of the work, and especially of the geographical charts, is incontestable. This is the more pleasing if we consider the fact that many of the exhibits are dated from the year 1884 and the beginning of the year 1885. It is evident the exhibit is composed of the ordinary duties of the schools in all parts of the province, and not of work specially prepared for the occasion.

No pretension has been made to eclipse the school exhibits of the other provinces, but the collection under our eyes denotes that in one of the most recently organized provinces of the confederation, there exists a school system which, although respecting the faith and

709

Religious convictions of the population, offers to every one an education capable of fitting for the highest rank in society the child who is placed under its care.

That sort of evidence could be multiplied. Governors, lieutenant governors, men of rank in every class of the people, visited our schools and could not but pay them the highest praises.

Mr. Sifton has said elsewhere, this year again, that our schools were absurdly deficient. After what I have just said, it must be evident to all gentlemen that Mr. Sifton was, in saying so, absurdly wrong, absurdly unfair, absurdly ignorant of what he was speaking about. Mr. Sifton has never been in a position to judge or misjudge of our schools. He never set his foot in them, although he was by the law a visitor of the same. His utterances are slanderous. Indeed that gentleman must be placed amongst that class of men who not satisfied with ruining the institutions of a people, not satisfied with taking away from them their own property, are disposed to ruin also their reputation, to insult their feelings, so as to cover his own deficiency and his own wrong-doing. I will not say any more on that point except that the assertion that the Catholic schools are deficient is merely a catch word and ought not to have any influence on the mind of the legislators of this country.

However, I desire to add to the above testimonies that of our late Senator Boulton, from Manitoba, an opponent of separate schools, who said on the floor of this House on the 23rd April, 1895:

In my immediate neighbourhood there is a separate school, named after the clergyman, Father Decorby, who founded it. He conducted a separate school there for years to which the Protestant population in its neighbourhood went. They were all satisfied with the school; they had no complaint to make of it.

If I understand well the plea that is made with regard to one system of schools being preferred to the other is that the denominational schools are inferior. This is quite inaccurate. They are equal to the others, at least. In our case, they are even superior in so far as they teach generally two languages. What is more practical than language in life? Surely this creates a kind of superiority over the schools where one language only is taught.

Leaving that aside, however, there is one thing which may be apparent to everybody. It is the fact that if we are not allowed to control our schools, we will have eventually to start private schools or parochial schools, so as to procure to our children the kind of education, the moral training that we believe they ought to have. But these parochial schools will have to starve, being deprived of the municipal taxes and of the legislative grant. Being so deprived of financial resources, they will of necessity be unable to give such instruction as we would like them to give. Then you will have just the kind of schools which you want to guard against. Whilst, if we are allowed to fare as we think we should be allowed, then we will have well equipped schools, both mentally and financially, and the result will be that our children will receive such an education as will prepare them, to use the expression of the ‘Canadian Gazette,’ for the highest rank in society. Those schools would be, to a legitimate extent, under the supervision of the government officials, who will ascertain whether the assistance given to such schools is well earned, and if not, will suggest any desirable improvement. So, even at that point of view, it would be better to let us have the school system we are asking for.

The doctrine which is propounded somewhere that by granting subsidies to the denominational schools the state is endowing the church is very far from being accurate. The state has no fund by itself. It is the money from every individual in the land that constitutes the funds of which the state may dispose. The Catholics are contributors to those funds like any other subjects of the Crown. And as it is a principle under British institutions that every one who pays must share in the benefit of the fund where his money goes, it follows that in receiving any grant from the government or from the municipal chest, we are only recovering our proportionate share of our own money. Other considerations of the same nature could be gone into. But let us come to figures, which is the most practical thing to do. In putting at $500 in round figures the cost of the maintenance of a rural school, I think I do not

710

Exaggerate in any way. Now, what amount do such schools receive from the government? I will take the figures in the province of Manitoba, as more familiar to me. These figures are taken from the official reports of the Department of Education:

The conclusion of this is, that the state is receiving its secular education at half price; we pay the other half, and the state gets religious instruction and moral training for nothing, although it goes a long way to the maintenance of good order in the community.

Although not a pleasant subject to refer to, allow me to say a few words about public schools. Merely from a social point of view it is well, surely, that we should give the warning, if anything transpires to justify it. It is a service to them and a service to the country that we render in doing so. It is not a pleasant duty, but a duty just the same. We hear very often some say that they have been educated in the public schools and that they are not worse than ourselves for all that. It may be, it may not. I do not want to penetrate into the inner life of our Christian brethren to that extent. Comparisons, it is said, are always odious; very often they are not safe. The question can afford to be considered from higher grounds.

The Catholics do not claim to be a better lot than others. We have our miseries and too great a number of human weaknesses. But I say this, hon. gentlemen, if you and we have still a superior morality, it is because we have all in our hearts some principle of Christianity. And so long as we retain some vestiges of that Christian training, we will continue, I hope, to shine amongst the nations so far as the social and moral dispositions of our people are concerned. But history must have some lessons for us. It is admitted amongst all students of history that paganism does not offer a sure moral principle, does not even lead to it, but on the contrary is apt to instil in the very heart of the individual and of the people generally, moral disorder and villainous passions. Whoever has gone somewhat deeply into the Roman life before the advent of our Saviour, knows how lamentable it was in that respect. May it please God that we never come down to that. But if we eradicate all religious teaching, all religious training from those institutions, where the younger generation pass most of their lives, I mean the schools, do you not believe that the Christian principles which maintain the older generation in the right path will gradually disappear, and what then?

Let me quote a few words of public men and moralists on the American public schools. I hope these quotations will not be offensive to anybody. It is not my intention; I merely desire to place before you the warnings given by some who are in a position to do it.

The New York ‘Methodist’ said some years ago that public schools of the United States were ‘hot-beds of infidelity.’ A writer of good standing in the United States, Mr. Richard Grant White, wrote (December, 1880) in the ‘North American Review’:

Vice has increased almost pari passu with the development of the public school system, which, instead of lifting the masses, has given us in their place a nondescript and hybrid class.

If fifty or sixty years of public schools have given such results in the United States, would it not be a good thing for us to pause now while it is still time. Let us come nearer home. Some weeks ago Toronto was horror-stricken by a crime which had happened within its territory. A young girl carried away and cruelly murdered without any motive a child that she found on the street. I refer to the Carr girl. After the first explosion of grief and of surprise people began to think. The ‘Globe’ of the 23rd of May wrote the following lines:

That a girl scarcely entered her teens could be capable of treating a living thing in a way that she would not treat her doll is veritably amazing. . . . The child’s surroundings have probably not been good, but this alone would not account for the callousness, hardness and lack of sensibility which she displayed.

The ‘Mail and Empire’ was more courageous and spoke clearly in its number of May 26:

711

Even for the most forsaken child, it is true, there is always the school. In this city it is free to all—in fact, all children are obliged to attend it a minimum number of days every year during what is known as the school period of their lives. But the school cannot, as now constituted, be the moral asylum for these little ones that it ought to be. One thing it does—it teaches them to read. How much better would many of them be without that knowledge? Illiteracy would place them out of the reach of the depravers who write and purvey the five-cent novels which are the mental pabulum of children of the Josie Carr type.

Is not this a timely warning, gentlemen? Should we not pause before such appalling statements?

The extreme and ultimate results from human institutions do not crop up at once. Any seed put in the soil does not at once come out of the ground. Sometimes it takes days; sometimes it takes months before one sees the stem coming out, but one day or other it is sure to come out and grow and give seeds for another and more powerful crop. So it is with education. It is a seed that we put in the inner part of the soul. It may take years or centuries to bear its fruits, but it will some day or other bring forth good or evil according to the kind of education communicated to the people. Leibnitz said that by the education of the youth you can change the surface of the world.

If once a nation begins to relax in its views on anything pertinent to education, it is sure that gradually the relaxation will go on affirming itself more and more. Let us take an example amongst ourselves. In the province of Manitoba, by the law of 1890, it was provided that some religious exercises could be had after school hours. Now, what has been the outcome of that regulation? Let us see the official reports of educational authorities in that province:

IN MANITOBA.

As you see, as the years have rolled on, and as the number of schools in operation has been increasing, the number of schools where religious exercises have taken place have immensely decreased.

I heard the other day a gentleman say that he would like to see religious training given in all the schools, but that for Protestants it was impossible on account of the diversity of creed amongst them. I confess I was somewhat surprised at such a remark. My conviction had always been that there was not such an insuperability of doctrine as between themselves. Sir A. T. Galt, when claiming protection and separate schools for his people in Quebec, did not make any distinction as between the various Protestant churches. He merely claimed separate schools for all the Protestants as a group, showing thereby that all the Protestants of Quebec, no matter what was their particular church, would be safeguarded and satisfied. Moreover, I have lately noticed in the newspapers of the country that there was a proposition for the union of churches. If those churches can religiously unite, is it not an evidence that there is no such insuperable obstacles as could prevent the attendance of the Protestant children at a union school? Surely the Protestants do not regard the public schools as offering to them any conscientious objection. Because, if they did, I am sure our fellow-countrymen of the Protestant faith would act upon it.

Mr. McKenzie, a member of the House of Commons, said the other day, elsewhere:

Why shall we hold out for a thing that Roman Catholics cannot and will not accept? Is it not a proper thing for us as protestants who have children to educate them in our own way? There is nothing in so far as the different Protestant bodies are concerned that will prevent them from having their children educated together in the same classes, taught by the same teachers or from receiving religious instructions upon grounds common to all Protestant bodies.

But, after all, if, by the circumstances surrounding themselves, some of our fellow-citizens could not take advantage of a good thing, is it a reason why others should also abstain? Because you cannot afford, by circumstances or otherwise, to relish certain delicacies placed on the table for you as well as for other people, is it a reason why I should not myself touch it?

A good deal has been said about the hierarchy. It is to be regretted that too many people do not better study the history of our country. I am sure that if they did they would take a better view of our clergy. From the earliest days of the British occupation up

712

to the present time there is ample evidence of the loyalty of the Catholic church. On every occasion of the invasion of Canada by our present southern friends, the church dignitaries have preached to their flocks their duty towards the Crown. It has been very often said with truthfulness that had it not been for the gallant conduct of the French Canadians, England would not have been able to preserve this part of Canada to her allegiance. On many occasions, when the people were of a troublesome disposition, the voice of our prelates was heard advising peace, harmony and submission to the laws of the land. They did it in 1837-38, they did it when confederation was inaugurated, they did it in the east, they did it in the west. For that purpose our missionaries were called to the distant prairies by Lord Selkirk, a Presbyterian. Bishop Plessis, of Quebec listened to the request of Lord Selkirk, and he sent there Father Provencher, who was made a bishop afterwards. This first bishop was succeeded by His Grace the lamented Monseigneur Taché. He also in his turn was a worker of peace. The Canadian government called him back one day from Rome and at the request of both the imperial and Canadian authorities, he undertook the difficult task of quieting the people of the Red river and of reassuring them about the intentions of the Canadian government. This he did faithfully and successfully.

Later on, on the still farther distant prairies, Father Lacombe exerted his influence for the peace of the country and by his influence amongst the Indians he assured the peaceful construction of a great national work and prevented bloodshed when it was most dangerous to interfere. Let me put before you what the Winnipeg ‘News,’ a daily paper said at the time about it.

These lines are a retranslation in English from a French translation of an article in the ‘Evening News,’ of Winnipeg:

When the whole of Canada feared and trembled to see the blackfeet side with the rebels, who firmly stood before them? Who prevented them from rushing upon us? Was it the Canadian government or the forces of the empire? No, the poor, humble and devoted Father Lacombe was the man who did so. To him the Canadian mothers owe their thanks for not having to-day to mourn their sons, to him many happy wives to-day owe their gratitude for not having to sob over the tombs of their husbands. Lacombe and his companions the Fathers André, Fourmond, Cochain, and other brave soldiers of the Cross did not hesitate, they went and faced deadly weapons; they threw themselves between the Indians and the Canadian people at a time when danger was extreme, and they prevented the shedding of blood and saved millions of dollars to the public treasury.

These are only few instances of their good will, and of their influence for the welfare of our country. I may sum up their action in this regard by saying that their constant teaching and their whole life is devoted to that peaceful and beneficial work. Is it not too sad indeed to hear now and then some one hurling at them the bitterest and most unjustifiable accusations? Those who do that and believe those accusations are not always devoid of good faith and of natural good dispositions. Unfortunately they read unreliable books where that stuff is to be found; they do not read history in its proper light and hence their difficulties. Many speak about the unity of the nation. No one is better fitted to bring that unity than our clergy; no class is better disposed towards that view than that fine body of able, intelligent and zealous men. For the sake of Canada itself, believe in these words and act generously towards our church and our religious convictions, one of which is the organization of the schools on the lines we have been suggesting all the time.

This testimony which I am glad to be in position to give our hierarchy, is but the echo of higher authorities. During the last century there lived in England a man who has commanded and still commands the admiration not only of his countrymen, but of the whole world. That man was styled in his own life-time the grand old man. Now, what did Mr. Gladstone say on one occasion:

Since the first three hundred years of persecution the Roman Catholic church has marched for fifteen hundred years at the head of human civilization, and has driven harnessed to its chariot as the horses of a triumphal car, the chief intellectual and material forces of the world; its learning has been the learning of the world; its art the art of the world; its genius the genius of the world; its greatness glory, grandeur and majesty have been almost, though not absolutely, all that in these respects, the world has had to boast.

My hon. friend, the member for Victoria, has thought proper to run down the Catholic countries in a comparison with Protestant

713

countries. I commend these words of Mr. Gladstone to his meditation. I desire also to call his attention to certain facts and to some testimonies, which ought not to be suspected of partiality in our favour.

England was a Catholic country once. Modern England owes to Catholic England her Magna Charta, her sound constitution, her parliament, the jury, her universities, her splendid cathedrals. Even if we take only the material side of the matter, let us see what her writers and her public men said. John Ruskin writes :

Though we are deafened with the noise of spinning-wheels and the rattle of the looms, our people have no clothes; though they are black with digging fuel, they die of cold; and though millions of acres are covered with ripe golden grain, our people die from want of bread.

Mr. Chamberlain, M.P., (‘Fortnightly Review,’ December, 1883).

Never before in our history were the evidences of wealth more abundant, never before was luxurious living so general and wanton in its display, and never before was the misery of the poor so intense, or the conditions of their daily life more hopeless, or. more degraded.

And then Mr. Chamberlain goes on speaking about :

A million of paupers and millions more on the verge of it.

I could call to my help other testimonies of the same kind and from sources equally at variance with my own faith, but for Britishers these are sufficient. I leave those words to your meditation. One word more about unity. Surely this is a noble goal. But unity lies more in the soul than in the external forms. National love of the country and of its magnificence in every shape, attachment to the soil, respect for each other, an equal devotion to the same flag, a sincere allegiance to the same Crown, these are the strongest factors of unity. No matter what may be our differences otherwise, we will get at unity by cultivating the above sentiments. And in no other way shall we get at it. Look back in the Canadian history. The moment the people of French origin perceived in the English policy towards us a disposition to have proper respect for our race, that moment we, as a people, reconciled ourselves to the new regime, and so much so that to-day we would not go back to the French flag, were we at liberty to do so. Lord Dufferin found no objection to unity in the diversity of languages and of races.

Lord Dufferin, on one occasion, expressed himself as follows :

I think that Canada should esteem itself happy in owing its prosperity to the mixture of several races. The action and reaction of several national idiosyncrasies, the one upon the other, give to our society a freshness, a colouring, an elasticity, a vigour, which without them, would be wanting to it. The statesman who would seek to obliterate these distinctive characteristics would be truly badly advised.

It has been regarded as an absurdity by certain English statesmen to try to obtain unity by the obliteration of our characteristics. On a measure that was then before the imperial parliament concerning the former two Canadas, Burke, the famous orator and statesman, said:

To attempt to amalgamate two populations composed of races of men, diverse in language, laws and customs, was a complete absurdity.

Now I will quote another opinion which goes further and is diametrically opposed to the opinions which have lately been freely expressed in Canada. That opinion goes to say that instead of counteracting the views of the people, it is better to adapt the laws to the character of that people so as to produce a better result. After the constitution of 1774 had been given to Canada, a debate arose in the House of Commons in England, on the occasion of a petition from the people of Quebec, asking for the reinstallation of the trial by jury and the writ of habeas corpus. Sir Robert Smith, a member of the House, then spoke and said :

Whoever reflects upon the excellencies of the British laws would wish to see them extended over the whole face of the British empire; but if there are local and circumstantial reasons, arising from the national character of the people, their language, customs, usages, institutions and I will even add, their prejudices, which in this case, ought to be consulted, and not only consulted, but, in some measure, indulged; but if there are reasons arising from these various circumstances that make it impossible for the English laws to be adopted in their original purity, I will venture to affirm, that a legislator is not only justified, but that is an essential part of his duty so to alter and modify these laws as may best adapt them to the peculiar genius and temper of the people, so as to become the best rule of civil conduct possible and the best calculated to promote their general happiness. It was ever the maxim of the greatest legislators of antiquity to consult the manner and dispositions of the people and the degrees of improvement they had then

714

Received. and to frame such a system of laws as was best suited to their then immediate situation.

This reminds me of a lesson which comes to us from antiquity. The wise legislator Solon had been called to give laws to his people. Some time afterwards learned men of some other parts of the world came and asked him whether, in his opinion, he had framed for his people the best laws that could be made. He simply answered that he had given to his people the laws that could best be adapted to them. This was considered wisdom, and has been considered wisdom at all times up to this date. Truly the laws ought to be made for the people and not, the people for the laws. Taking into consideration the circumstances under which we live, it would be for the best interest of this land of ours to legislate so as to afford contentment to the various sections of the people.

But then I hear some say that the majority must rule. Are you sure that such a rule should obtain in everything? Then, if I am not mistaken, the Catholics, although not the majority over all other churches, are the largest religious denomination in the Dominion. If the majority must rule in all cases, then let all the smaller denominations come to us, or vice versa. Many would object to that, I am sure. No, gentlemen, religious convictions cannot be matters to be decided by yeas and nays. In a country of liberty, each one is free to kneel before his own altar. When it comes to education, the Catholics regarding that subject in the light of their conscience, should be granted without discussion the institutions which they regard as touching the very soul of their children.

Is not, in fact, this rule that the majority must rule everywhere, and in everything, too brutal?

We are, in round figures, 40 per cent of the whole population. Is not that figure large enough to inspire towards us better appreciation? Are the conscientious views of such a large section of the country always to be questioned, debated, neglected and ignored? Parliament of Canada does not do that with other bodies. Every session deputations from various concerns come here and appeal to the government for some betterments. These are, however, of a material order, less important than the interest that we have at heart, and still they are heard, and we do not send them back by brutally saying to them that they are a minority.

Unity! Do you think that you will find unity in the repulsion which will necessarily be engendered by a policy which refuses satisfaction to conscientious views? Such policy is not calculated to foster good feeling between races and creeds. That policy is rather calculated to widen the gap which divides us.

Unity! I have already said where we could find it. Let me, however, put before you the words of one of those who assisted in bringing about confederation.

Sir John Rose said on one occasion:

We trusted each other when we entered this union; we felt that our rights would be saved with you; and our honour and good faith and integrity are involved in and pledged to the maintenance of them.

There lies unity; in carrying out respectfully and faithfully the pledges referred to in the above words, that unity will be realized.

I know, circumstances are sometimes difficult to overcome. But the solving of those difficulties depends much of our action. The leaders of the nation are very rarely unable to master public opinion. In times of emergency the parties must do as they did in 1864. Then many of our political men rose superior to their party feelings. They united to find a way out of our troubles. They succeeded and they created confederation. Now, if I am permitted to refer to the events of 1896, I will say that then the opposition, and its leaders especially, should have risen in their places in the House of Commons and pledged their support to the Remedial Bill. If they had done that, the question then would have been settled and settled for all times, and for every part of the Dominion. No war in the Northwest was to be dreaded. We would have no such troubles as we have to-day. And to-day, consistent with myself, I say that this year when the Autonomy Bill was laid before the House of Commons it was to my mind the duty of the present opposition to offer their support to that measure in its original form inasmuch as the Bill as originally drafted was an acceptable one.

715

one. Again I say that if the opposition had taken that course, much of the agitation which has been going on for the last five months would have been quelled from the beginning. And in the long run such attitude would have received the approval of the people. Unfortunately, another course was followed and the result is that we have neither peace, nor justice, nor a good measure.

The Senate, however, exists to act as moderator. It was created to represent the second sober thought of the country. Such being the case, I submit that this House should inspire itself with the sentiments contained in the words of Sir John Rose, quoted above, and improve this Bill or reject it. My voting for the six months’ hoist is only to record my dissatisfaction of the measure in its present shape. I know this will not have the effect of throwing out the Bill. We will have then an opportunity to improve the same when in committee, and I hope the government will consent to such an improvement.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Bill (199) An Act to amend the Act respecting the arbitrations between His Majesty and the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada.—(Hon. Mr. Scott.)

Bill (160) An Act to amend the Act respecting the Northwest Territories.—(Hon. Mr. Scott.)

Bill (190) An Act in amendment of the Criminal Code, 1892.—(Hon. Mr. Scott.)

Bill (195) An Act respecting roads and road allowances in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.—(Hon. Mr. Templeman.)

The Senate adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow.