Document Information
Date: 1905-07-18
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, Senate Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 821-829, 836-846.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
821
PROVINCE OF ALBERTA AUTONOMY BILL.
THIRD READING
Hon. Mr. SCOTT moved to the third reading of Bill (69) An Act to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.
Hon. Mr. PERLEY moved in amendment: that the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of amending it, as follows :-
That the first subsection of section 17 be struck out and the following substituted therefor :
‘ in any Act by the legislature of the province, it shall always therein provided, that the minority in any school district, whether such minority or majority, be Protestant or Roman Catholic, shall have the right to have the doctrines of their religious faith, taught during the last half hour of any school day, to the children of parents professing such religious faith, always provided that teachers, inspections of schools, and examinations, shall be under the control and direction of the provincial government.’
Hon. Mr. LANDRY – I have no objection to seconding that motion, but I want it understood that if I do so, I shall not lose my right to propose a motion in amendment.
Hon. Mr. BEIQUE – The hon. gentleman has to be bound by the procedure of the House.
Hon. Mr. LANDRY – That does not throw any light on the subject. I contend that in the Senate any motion may be made without a seconder. I do not object to seconding the motion, but if I do second it, I do not want to lose my right to propose an amendment of my own.
Hon. MR. PERLEY – Then I ask the Hon. Mr. Wood to second my amendment.
Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL – I do not think the seconding of a motion to refer a Bill back to committee on the third reading interferes with the hon. Gentleman moving or seconding any other amendment if he thinks proper to do so. I know of no rule against it. The hon. Gentlemen from Wolseley makes a motion to refer the Bill back to committee, to accomplish a certain object. After he has done that and the motion is carried or defeated, then any one can move another motion. I have a distinct recollection of a case of my own where in 1869 on my motion a Bill was referred back to committee three times. It was the Militia Bill introduced by the late Sir Geo. E. Cartier. The seconding of a motion does not deprive any one of the right to move an amendment.
The motion before the House is one that somewhat of a wide character and would require some little time for consideration before the House could intelligently vote upon it. It seems to me to lay down a plain and distinct principle, and one that is very much in accord with the explanation of the Bill given by the hon. Secretary of Trade and Commerce. If my interpretation of the resolution be correct, it would be only placing in very clear and distinct language the meaning of the Bill itself so that the most Illiterate man who could read would be able to understand it. That I believe is the object of the hon. Gentlemen who has made the motion.
I take this opportunity to call attention to one point of this Bill that has not my mind been properly discussed. Speaking for myself, I could have no possible objection to a half hour devoted to the teaching of the religion of any class of people at the close of the school in the afternoon, but I do not hesitate to say that it is a mere shadow, that is has no substance whatever. Let us think for a moment. A child has been in school from nine o’clock morning until half past three in the afternoon. How many children will remain unless they are forced to remain in school for half an hour afterwards, and supposing they do who is to give the religious instruction. Take out own two provinces here, where the schools are very numerous in every town and city. Is there any clergyman, Protestant or Catholic, who will go from school to school to give religious instruction for a half hour every day? Unless you have a teacher who is of the faith of the parents of the children, who desire them to get religious instruction, you get no religious instruction. I say it is totally
882
impracticable, so far as regards giving religious instruction by a priest or by a Protestant clergyman, for the simple reason that no denomination will keep a sufficient number of teachers to go around from school to school; hence I say it is a fraud on the face of it, so far as the professed intention to give the right to religious sects to impart their doctrines is concerned. I repeat that I do not object to the clause, but speaking from experience in the management of public schools, I say it is a mere shadow, and the man who votes for it on the ground that he is to have his children taught religion is voting for a platitude. That is my honest conviction. I do not propose to discuss that point further. I hope my hon. friend from Mille lies (Hon. Mr. David) never fancied for a Moment that in any remarks I made to himself I implied, much less said, that he had no right to do precisely what he did. If my remarks had the effect of arousing him as they did, I am very glad of it for two or three reasons; I like to hear the hon. gentleman, speak, because whenever he gives an opinion or utters a sentence it is evidently done with an earnest conviction of right, and when a man is in earnest, no matter how much he may differ from any of our views, it is always a pleasure to listen to him. The hon. gentleman smiles; I do not desire what I have said to be considered flattery.
Hon. Mr. BEIQUE – We agree with you.
Hon. SIR MACKENZIE BOWELL – The hon. gentleman may think it is a sin on a question of this kind to agree with an Orangeman like myself. However, it will not do him any harm. I wish to point out to my hon. friend that I find no fault with him for denouncing the agitations that have taken place either in the province of Quebec or Ontario, or anywhere else. There is a means of expressing one’s views without being offensive to those who hold opposite opinions, and that I take to be the true position for any hon. member, especially in this House, to take upon questions of this kind. What I wish to say to the hon gentleman is that when he wants to refer to this question again, whether in the Senate or before the electors of the province of Quebec, he should avoid attributing to one particular class of people the agitation to which he (Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWEL) has called attention. I wish to repent that in the city of Toronto, to which so many references have been made, the agitation was begun by the Toronto ‘Globe,’ the organ of the party now in power.
Hon. Mr. POWER – No.
Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL-And the first mass meeting that was held in the city of Toronto was conducted by the leading Liberals of that city.
Hon. Mr. LANDRY – Hear, hear.
Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL-The petition presented yesterday by his honour, the Speaker, protesting against the Autonomy Bill and praying that it be not passed, was signed by Liberals. There are two names to the petition that I cannot vouch for, but the other petitioners are leading Liberals of the city of Toronto. I do not know whether the other two are Orangemen or green ribbon men, but I want to impress this on the gentleman’s mind that it was the Liberals in the city of Toronto who were the loudest in condemnation of this Bill. As for clergymen, take the president of the conference of the church which I attend, an out-and-out Liberal; 110 no one has written more strongly in denunciation of this Bill than the head of the Methodist Church in Canada, Dr. Carmian. I do not find fault with him for doing so. If he conscientiously believes that the Bill should not pass, he has a right to say so. I do not find fault with any clergyman for looking after the interest of his church or advocating a principle that is dear to himself or in his judgment in the interest of the country. The orange order seems to be a ghost that bans some people from morning until night, among them my hon. friend, yet he is supporting a cabinet one of whose members belongs to that order. The Prime Minister stated on one occasion that there would be no Orangemen in his ranks, and in case his party came to power, they would never recognize one; yet we have the Hon. Mr. Emmerson, who is now Minister of Railways and Canals, in Sir Wilfrid’s cabinet. In 1893 Mr.. Emmerson delivered a violent speech in the legislative assembly in New Brunswick He is reported, in what is represented as the official record, speaking in reply to a Mr. Pitt, as follows:
“As a member of the Orange Order, I do not regard the member for York (Pitt) as a true
823
representative of that fraternity, and 1 know that the leading members of the order throughout this province favour that belief….. The true principles of that association, to which I am proud to belong, breathe the gospel of peace and harmony. ”
As that comes from a minister of the crown and a member of the order, I hope. It will satisfy the hon. gentleman that it is not the raw bones and bloody head that he supposed. Then Mr. Emmerson goes on to say:
I say that I am proud to belong to that order. But I would be ashamed of it if it allowed itself to be governed and guided by bands like his.
He goes on for a number of pages, and to show the spirit which actuated the gentlemen in that House in this discussion, it is just as well to refer to the reply of the other gentleman, Mr. Pitt. I do not desire to be understood and even hinting as to which course we should pursue. Mr. Pitt says:
I may be mulcted for costs in a suit in court, it is possible, but I tell the hon. member that though I cannot get satisfaction in any other way that I propose taking that costs out his hide before he gets out of political life and let him not forget It.
I do not know that we have gone quite so far as that. There are a great many more tit-bits in that speech which I shall not trouble the House with.
Hon. Mr. ELLIS – That was merely Pickwickian.
Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL – Perhaps it was-in a place where he knew it could not be resented. There are many brave men of that kind. Now, I want to place on record, for the benefit of my hon. friend. from Mille Iles, the opinion of Mr. Fielding, the present Finance Minister, upon the school question. On the 6th Marcb. 1895, at Windsor, Nova Scotia, when he was joining with my hon. friend and with the leader of the present government in denouncing the Remedial Bill, he spoke as follows:
I ask the people of Hants County and the people of Nova Scotia to know the value of a system of free public schools. We have shown in the past that while we may differ on many questions, we are practically a unit in support of that system. If the Dominion Authorities should attempt to interfere with out school system, if they should attempt to impose upon this province a system which they are trying to force upon Manitoba, we would expect to have the sympathy of the friends of the free schools elsewhere, and we would expect the people of the western provinces to give us their sympathy and support in such condition. Let us today give them our hearty sympathy and support in the struggle until we find that they are not amenable to reason.
Then the hon. gentleman at Windsor goes further to say:
What can we say of the position that gentleman (Sir Charles Tupper) to-dy, who, instead of standing up as the champion of a fine school system and resisting those who attack it, scrambles into parliament through the unfair influence of th Roman Catholic pulpits of the county of Cape Brenton, and is now devoting the evening of his life to destroying the free school system of Manitoba and forcing upon that province a system chich he would not dare to attempt to force upon the province of Nova Scotia?
Then we come to the remarks of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Mr. Longley—
Hon. Mr. FURGUSON – He has been rewarded with a judgeship.
Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL – he used the following language at the same time in discussing the school question:
The people of Nova Scotia are tired of their loyalty to the Frenchmen of Quebec, the Indians of the Northwest, and the recently imported pig-tailed gentlemen from China. When we get repeal Nova Scotians will feel the air of freedom once more, and will expand their vitality by free and unrestricted commercial and social intercourse with our brethren to the south of us.
I could occupy the time of the House for a few hours with extracts of that kind, which I have no doubt would be highly interesting to the hon. Gentlemen whom I am particularly addressing in this House.
Hon. Mr. LANDRY – More!
Hon. Sir. MACKENZIE BOWELL – No; I give these as evidence of the spirit which actuated these gentlemen when in opposition and working in the same harness with the gentlemen who are now condemning those who differ from them upon this school question. That is the principal reason why I have taken the liberty of placing these matters on record. I have a pile of extracts here in my hand which I am sure would be interesting to my hon. friend from Mille Iles, if he would like to occupy a few Sundays after church in studying this question. I need scarcely call his attention to other equally important extracts, to the utterances of his friends in the province of Quebec
824
during the late election. I shall not refer to them further than to say that I am sure, with his knowledge of politics in his province and the action taken by those who were fighting what they called the battle of freedom, and denouncing, as they all did, a particular society as being the originator of all this agitation, he will at least on reflection come to the conclusion not to attribute in the future to any particular class of people in this Dominion all the crimes and iniquities he lays to their charge. I have extracts here from the utterances of nearly all the present ministers on the question of separate schools, the Jesuits’ Estates Act and provincial autonomy. They all apply, not to provincial autonomy, but to the question of provincial rights, and we may begin with the Hon. David Mills, who spoke very strongly and clearly in support of the action of the government on this question of schools. Then I find extracts from Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s speeches, and the utterances of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, who expressed somewhat strong views. When I heard the eulogy passed on that gentleman for the course he is now pursuing by the eloquent member from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Cloran) last night, I turned up these extracts from speeches delivered by the hon. gentleman, by Sir Louis Davies, by James Armstrong, another leading Liberal, and Hon. James McMullen, who is sleeping soundly just now.
Hon. Mr. McMULLEN—No.
Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—I am very sorry I waked him up because I would not like to disturb his peaceful slumber. I have a quotation also from that hon. gentleman’s speeches on the question of Provincial Autonomy. Then I have extracts from speeches of the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie who took a very decided position on that question. If you will compare their speeches and actions to-day with their record in “Hansard,” you will find that they oppose to-day that which they advocated when in opposition. They have reformed. My hon. friend from London (Hon. Mr. Coffey) expressed the hope that as I grew older I would follow their example. I always thought that the hon. gentleman had some little personal regard for myself, and that he would not be so hardhearted as to wish to see me deteriorate as I grow older. The older I grow the more I am confirmed in the correctness and righteousness of the principles I have been advocating from boyhood up to this day. If he lives, I hope he will reform from the position he is taking, and will act in parliament in accordance with his record in the paper he publishes. If I reform, it will be in the direction of cherishing a stronger conviction of the soundness of the position I have been advocating most of my life. I have to apologize for the time I have occupied, but I deemed it my duty before this Bill passes the House, to place on record my views upon the 17th clause, and its effect, and also to rebut as far as I could the accusations cast upon people with whom I have been associated ever since I was eighteen or nineteen years of age. I do not wish to be understood as saying that there are not violent men connected with the society and with the party to which I belong, but I say there are equally violent, unreasonable and bigoted men on the other side. Let us try in our intercourse with each other in dealing with these questions in a deliberative body like this to allay such feelings as far as possible. That is the course that I have endeavoured to pursue and that I shall endeavour to follow in the future, without changing the strong views I have on religious or political questions. I have lived long enough to respect the opinions of every one whatever they may be, and I am quite willing—not only willing but anxious to avoid wounding their convictions, provided they let me alone on questions of this kind.
Hon. Mr. DAVID—The hon. gentleman has been so courteous that I should like to please him, and to show that I appreciate his courtesy. I think that he was right when he said that I always endeavour to say what I think and do what I believe is right, though naturally I am not always sure that my judgment is sound. In this instance I should like to know what expressions I should withdraw. If I said something that was not right I should like to know it, and will immediately withdraw it. If I understand the hon. gentleman right, it may be that I attributed too large a share in that agitation to the Orange Association. It may be that I did not attribute a large enough share to Liberals like those connected with the Toronto News..
825
and the Toronto “Globe.” The principal point is this; if I said the agitation had been raised by the Orange Association, the hon. gentleman has occasioned some doubts in my mind. If I used the word “raised,” I would change it and say that I should have said “intensified,” because after all I cannot withdraw anything I said that is true, and what is true is this, that I based my remarks on resolutions published in the press. They cannot be false; I did not invent those resolutions passed by the Orange lodges in which strong expressions were used against the hierarchy and the papal delegate. If it will satisfy the hon. gentleman, I am ready to admit that perhaps instead of saying “raised” I should have used the word “intensified,” and secondly if I said that the Orange Association were the cause and that the agitation arose in the Orange Association, I am not sure that I was right. I am ready to say that a large share of the agitation must be placed on some of the principal Liberals of the city of Toronto, including the proprietors of the “News” and even of the “Globe.”
The SPEAKER declared the amendment lost on a division.
Hon. Mr. BOLDUC—I rise for the purpose—
Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—Yeas and nays.
Hon. Mr. YOUNG—Yeas and nays.
Hon. Mr. LANDRY—I rise to a point of order. The Speaker has declared the motion lost on a division. It is too late to ask for the yeas and nays now.
Hon. Mr. YOUNG—I submit that the Speaker only declared an opinion. We ask for the evidence of that opinion by recording the vote. No succeeding business has arisen and we wish to complete this item of business, by taking a vote of this House. It is not too late.
Hon. Mr. POWER—No other business has been gone into.
Hon. Mr. LANDRY—When some one cried “yeas and nays” the hon. gentleman from Lauzon (Mr. Bolduc) was on his feet and addressing the House.
Hon. Mr. YOUNG—If the hon. member for Lauzon was too previous, that is not our fault.
Hon. Mr. POWER—The rule on the subject is that the yeas and nays can be called for if no other business has been gone into.
The SPEAKER—Call in the members.
The members were called in, and the motion was put from the Chair.
Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (P.E.I.)—I rise to make a motion.
Some hon. MEMBERS—Order, order.
Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (P.E.I.)—I move that the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his amendment.
Hon. Mr. LANDRY—That has already been declared lost.
Some hon. MEMBERS—Order, order.
The Senate divided on the amendment, which was lost on the following division:—
Contents: Honourable Messieurs
Dobson,
McMillan,
Wood—3.
Non-Contents: Honourable Messieurs
Baker,
Béique,
Bernier,
Black,
Bolduc,
Choquette,
Church,
Cloran,
Coffey,
Dorville,
Edwards,
Ellis,
Ferguson,
Fiset,
Forget,
Frost,
Kerr (Cobourg),
Kerr (Toronto),
King,
Landry,
Loughheed,
Macdonald (P.E.I.),
Mackay (Alma),
McHugh,
McKay (Truro),
McMullen,
Mitchell,
Power,
Ross (Regina),
Ross (Halifax),
Scott,
Sullivan,
Templeman,
Tessier,
Thibaudeau (Rigaud),
Thibaudeau (de la Vallière),
Thompson,
Wilson,
Yeo,
Young—40.
Hon. Mr. PERLEY—I presume that my motion was rather too plain and pointed to meet the views of the ordinary politician, and that is the reason it was defeated.
Hon. Mr. BOLDUC—I do not wish to prolong the discussion of the question now before the House, because it was fully discussed yesterday, but as I wish to place
826
myself on record on this question, I beg to move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Macdonald (P.E.I.), That Bill (69) be not now read the third time, but that it be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend it by adding the following proviso to clause 3:—
Provided always that no provision of the present Act shall be construed to restrict in any way the rights and privileges heretofore granted to any class of persons in the Northwest Territories relating to education or language.
The House divided on the amendment, which was lost on the following division:—
Contents: Honourable Messieurs
Baker,
Bernier,
Landry,
Macdonald (P.E.I.),
Bolduc,
Boucherville, de (C.M.G.),
McMillan,
Montplaisir—8.
Non-Contents: Honourable Messieurs
Béique,
Black,
Choquette,
Church,
Cloran,
Coffey,
Danand (Speaker),
Dorville,
Edwards,
Ellis,
Ferguson,
Fiset,
Frost,
Kerr (Cobourg),
Kerr (Toronto),
King,
Legris,
Loughheed,
Mackay (Alma),
McHugh,
McKay (Truro),
McMullen,
Mitchell,
Power,
Ross (Regina),
Ross (Halifax),
Scott,
Templeman,
Tessier,
Thibaudeau (Rigaud),
Thibaudeau (de la Vallière),
Thompson,
Wilson,
Yeo,
Young—36.
Hon. Mr. LANDRY—I intend to take the sense of the House on the amendment I moved last evening in Committee of the Whole. I want this House to decide if the population of the Northwest Territories shall have the same rights as the population of all the other provinces, or if the government has any reason to impose special legislation upon this province. The government has undertaken to manipulate the British North America Act. Though the Prime Minister and all the other speakers in the House of Commons as well as the speakers in this House, have contended that they stood on the rock of the constitution, they have manipulated the British North America Act, and brought in am endments which upset entirely the meaning of that Act.
Section 93 of the British North America Act reads as follows:—
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education subject and according to the following provisions.
And the first subsection is as follows:—
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.
By this first restriction imposed by the British North America Act, no legislature has a right to enact a law which interferes with the rights recognized by the provincial laws in matters of education with respect to denominational schools. What does this Bill presented to us enact? The Bill now before us does away with that provision of the British North America Act; what is the substitution therefor? The Bill reads:—
Section 93 of the British North America Act shall apply to the said provinces with the substitution for paragraph 1 of the said section 93, of the following paragraph.
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the Ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed in the year 1901, or with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate schools as provided for in the said Ordinances.
This clause amends the British North America Act in two ways; first in inserting in the place of “denominational schools,” the words “separate schools,” and second in applying to the separate schools all the ordinances passed by the territories up to 1901, and which were in force in that year. I claim that this is placing our co-religionists of the Northwest Territories in a position inferior to the position occupied by the minority in all the other provinces of the Dominion. What is a denominational school? It is a school in which not only religion is taught, but one in which the teaching in a general way is impregnated with the spirit of the denomination to which the school belongs. That is the idea of a denominational school. If you consult the authorities in the matter, if you consult the judgment given by the privy council in the Manitoba case, you will come to the same conclusion, that denominational schools are schools
827
impregnated with the spirit of the religious instruction of the sect or denomination to which those schools belong. This is done away with by the Bill that is presented to-day. In the place of denominational schools being preserved as provided by the British North America Act, the government strikes out the words “denominational schools” in the British North America Act and inserts the words “separate schools.” Denominational schools and separate schools are two different things. Everybody acknowledges that, and my hon. friend from Salisbury (Mr. Béïque) admitted that they were two different things. All the speakers who addressed this House on the question admitted that denominational and separate schools are two different things. Why put our fellow countrymen of the Northwest, the minority of the Northwest, in a position inferior to the one occupied by the minority in the other provinces. It is for that reason that I shall propose amendments which will bring out an expression of the members of this House upon that subject.
I go further and I say that the ordinances of 1901 rob the people of the territories of their rights. A law was passed in 1875. That was a federal law, and was the law under which the territories have been governed up to date. That law of 1875 is still in force, and it enacts that no ordinance whatsoever can be passed in the territories unless it is always enacted that the majority of the school district shall have the school they think fit. That is, for the minority there may be a separate school. The majority has a right to have the school they think fit; and I call attention to the fact that in the territories the majority are not looked upon as the majority in the province, but the majority in the school district. In the other provinces when we speak of the majority or the minority we allude generally to the majority in the province or the minority in the province. But by the law of 1875 that majority is restricted to the territorial division which is comprised under the name of school district, so that in certain school districts you may have a majority that is French and Catholic.
According to the law of 1875 that Catholic French majority would have a right to select the school they think fit, they would have a right to have a denominational and French school. That is the right and that law is still in force, and the minority have their separate schools. What has occurred since then? In 1884-85 and 1887-88 up to 1901, ordinances have been passed, and in all those ordinances which were passed under the operation and with the authority of the federal law of 1875 they have had the schools they thought fit to establish, according to the views of the majority in the different districts. Real separate schools were accorded to the minority in those different districts also, and more than that the Board of Education that was formed under the provisions of that Act was separated into two sections, a Catholic and a Protestant section, just as exists in the province of Quebec. The Catholic section having the control and management of the Catholic schools and the Protestant section having the control and management of the Protestant schools. That was according to the provisions of chapter 11 of the Northwest Territories Act of 1875; but in 1893 an ordinance was passed in violation of the law, against the enactment of the federal law, and the system of schools that was then established did not give to the majority in each school district the school to which they were entitled by the Act of 1875, the school they thought fit to establish. The separate schools were similar to the public schools. The Consolidated Statutes of the Northwest of 1888 state that a public school is a school in which the pupils from such an age to such an age shall receive the elements of an English commercial education, and then you find what is a separate school. The definition which applies to a public school applies word for word to the separate school. It says the separate school, like the public school, is a school in which the pupils from such an age to such an age receive the elements of an English commercial education. That was against the law. Those ordinances were not declared unconstitutional. An Act that is unconstitutional ab initio remains unconstitutional, and nothing could render it constitutional or bring it within the powers of the legislature that enacted it. So the law remains unconstitutional according to the statement of the premier in another place. He acknowledged that if the law was unconstitutional in 1892, it was still unconstitutional; but to remove legal doubts
828
which might arise in the minds of the people of the Northwest Territories as to the rights of the minority, he introduces an enactment which sets aside what is the law and which states what is against the law. He sets aside the law of 1875, which conceded to those minorities rights and privileges which they have enjoyed up until to-day, and he confirms those ordinances which take away from our fellow-citizens of the Northwest the privileges and the rights which were accorded to them by the law of 1875. So that my amendment is to strike out those words of the first paragraph, strike out the words giving the rights which are now accorded by the ordinance of 1901. I want the law of the territory which is in force to-day, the federal law, to remain and to be the basis of the rights which we are to give to our fellow-citizens of the Northwest. For that reason I move:
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend it in the following way:
-
- Subsection 1 of clause 17 is amended:
(a) By substituting in the fifteenth line the word ‘denominational’ for the word ‘separate’;
(b) By striking out in the seventeenth and eighteenth lines the words ‘chapters 29 and 30 of the Ordinances of the Northwest Territories passed in the year 1901,’ and substituting therefor the words ‘Imperial and Federal laws’;
(c) By substituting the word ‘laws’ for the word ‘ordinances’ in line 20.
-
- Subsection 2 of clause 17 is amended:
(a) By striking out in the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth lines the words ‘the said chapter 29 or any Act passed in amendment thereof or in substitution therefor,’ and substituting therefor ‘said laws’;
(b) By striking out in line 26 the words ‘the said chapter 29,’ and substituting therefor the words ‘said laws.’
-
- Subsection 3 of clause 17 is amended by striking out in line 29 words ‘chapters 29 and 30’ and substituting the following therefor: ‘Imperial and Federal laws.’
Bringing in by this substitution the British North America Act and providing that it shall operate automatically in the provinces as well as the federal laws which gave rights of which the minority cannot now be deprived, because you must not forget that by the British North America Act, subsection 3 of clause 93, it is enacted:
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.
My contention is that the law in 1875 has given to those territories separate schools which are looked upon by subsection 3 of section 93 of the British North America Act as separate schools, and if the denominational schools are safeguarded by subsection 1 of section 93, the separate schools are further safeguarded by subsection 3 of section 93 of the British North America Act, which says that in the concession which has been made since their entry into the union the minority have acquired certain rights. By this amendment we are putting aside the unconstitutional ordinances of 1901 and we are taking for the basis of the rights which we want to give to our fellow-countrymen of the Northwest, the British North America Act and the Federal Act of 1875. Who could vote against that? Who could vote against giving to those minorities of the Northwest the same privileges which are enjoyed by the people of the other provinces of the Dominion? Who could vote against giving to those people the privileges and the rights conferred upon them by the Act of 1875 and conferred upon them by the federal law. That is what I am asking by this amendment.
I hope that all who have the interests of this Dominion at heart, who do not want to put our fellow-citizens of the Northwest in an inferior position to that occupied in the other provinces of the Dominion by the Catholic minority or the Protestant minority, will vote for this amendment, so that they will consecrate the justice to be given to those people. I hope the government will take this amendment into consideration and accept it. I was told yesterday that it was not by an oversight that the word ‘denominational’ had been struck out and the word ‘separate’ inserted. I never had any explanation why that was done. Some hon. members said ‘Oh, but if you leave the Bill as it is the Doukhobors, Galicians and the Japs—I think the hon. gentleman from Victoria brought in the Japs—would participate in the benefits of the amendment and you would have all those denominational schools spread over the Northwest Territories.’ I say no, because the law says that nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the provinces at
829
the union. When the Manitoba Act of 1870 was passed the words ‘and by practice’ were added. But that was not the case in the Northwest Territories. If those people want to enjoy their schools, they cannot raise a claim to denominational schools, because their schools were never recognized by law. So that my amendment does not in any way recognize, as was suggested yesterday, the claims that those people might have. There are only two denominations recognized by law in those provinces, the Catholic and the Protestant—those two only. The division is not made according to race. It is made according to creed only, and nobody has reason to fear that if this amendment is carried the division by race would be substituted for the division by creed. I hope that all our friends and the people who boast so much about their love for our minority will join with me and help the government to improve their Bill in order to render it more acceptable to all classes of the community.
Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—I fully agree with the able argument made by the hon. gentleman from Stadacona (Hon. Mr. Landry). It is an able argument and if it had been advanced at the second reading I should have voted for it. But the hon. gentleman and the House must remember that a similar amendment was moved in the Commons, and the government would not accept it. Whatever amendments are moved in this House will not be accepted, and it is a foregone conclusion that the Bill will pass in its present shape. Therefore much as we would like to have the Bill amended in the direction indicated, it is only a waste of time moving the amendment now. And I hope hon. gentlemen will not suggest any more amendments, because they can see it is useless. They will not be carried, and hon. gentlemen have placed their opinions on record several times. I will not vote for any amendment, because it is useless and a waste of time. The result is a foregone conclusion.
Hon. Mr. BEIQUE—I am going to vote against the amendment, because I am of the opinion that it would remove any rights which the minority have at present.
The House divided on the amendment, which was lost on the following division:
Contents: Honourable Messieurs
Baker,
Bernier,
Bouch.,
Boucheriville, de (C.M.G.).
Béïque,
Black,
Choquette,
Church,
Cloran,
Coffey,
Dandurand (Speaker),
Donville,
Edwards,
Ellis,
Ferguson,
Fiset,
Frost,
Kerr (Cobourg),
Kerr (Toronto),
King,
Legris,
Non-Contents: Honourable Messieurs
Lougheed,
Mackay (Alma),
McHugh,
McKay (Truro),
McMullen,
Mitchell,
Power,
Ross (Regina),
Scott,
Templeman,
Tessier,
Thibaudeau (Rigaud),
Thompson,
Wilson,
Yeo,
Young.—34.
Hon. Mr. BERNIER—I move in amendment, That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend it by striking out all the words after ‘this Act’ in the third line of said first subsection 1 of clause 17, to the word ‘with’ in the fifth line of said subsection.
The amendment will have the effect of doing away with an improper limitation and place every one under the operation of the Act of 1875. It will be for the court to determine whatever may be the rights of any party under this Act, if the parties choose to go before the court.
The amendment was lost on the same division as the previous amendment.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED moved the adjournment of the debate.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate adjourned until 3 p.m.
SECOND SITTING.
The Speaker took the Chair at 3 p.m.
…….
836
PROVINCE OF ALBERTA AUTONOMY BILL.
THIRD READING.
The Order of the Day being called :
Third reading (Bill 69) An Act to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.—(Hon. Mr. Scott.)
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I beg to move, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Perley.
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole to strike out section 13, and to insert in lieu thereof : 13. The Lieutenant Governor shall on or before the 1st day of January next, by proclamation under the Great Seal, divide the said province into twenty-five electoral divisions, due
337
regard being had to existing local divisions and population.
I stated last evening when this Bill was before the Committee of the Whole the objections which I had to this particular clause. It has proved to be a very controversial one, not only in the House of Commons but also in the minds of those who are opposed to this manner of distribution. I will content myself by simply saying that the principle which has been embodied in the section is a vicious one,—that of the government in a partisan way making a distribution of those electoral divisions. When the province of Manitoba was carved out of Rupert’s Land it was provided in the Act of Union that the electoral divisions of the then province of Manitoba should be delimited in the way I have mentioned, and the language of the amendment which I have moved is taken from the Manitoba Act. A precedent of this kind was adopted by the government of the day so long ago as 1870 and it gave eminent satisfaction. It should certainly apply under the conditions already pointed out and which I hope it will be unnecessary for me further to enlarge upon.
The House divided on the amendment which was rejected on the following division :
Contents : Honourable Messieurs
Baker,
Bowell (Sir Mackenzie),
Dobson,
Ferguson,
Landry,
Lougheed,
Macdonald (P.E.I.),
McKay (Truro).
McLaren,
McMillan,
Merner,
Owens,
Sullivan,
Wood.—14.
Non-Contents : Honourable Messieurs
Béique,
Black,
Cartwright (Sir Richard),
Choquette,
Church,
Cloran,
Coffey,
Davis,
Domville,
Edwards,
Ellis,
Fiset,
Frost,
Kerr (Cobourg),
Kerr (Toronto),
King,
Legris,
Mackay (Alma),
McHugh,
McMullen,
Mitchell,
Power,
Ross (Regina),
Ross (Halifax),
Scott,
Templeman,
Tessier,
Thibaudeau (Rigaud),
Thibaudeau (de la Vallière),
Thompson,
Wilson,
Yeo,
Young.—33.
Hon. Mr. CHOQUETTE—In addressing you on this occasion, I shall use the language of Shakespeare, though I can never hope to imitate England’s immortal poet in any other way. I consider that an educated man should understand and speak both French and English. Some of my colleagues in the Lower House have been complimented—and rightly so—upon their fluency in the English tongue. I was myself most agreeably surprised at the facility with which they spoke that language, as they had only learned it in our French colleges, in the midst of an almost exclusively French population, and, in spite, I must confess, of an intellectual repugnance which some of your countrymen have contributed not a little to provoke. Still it was with not less pleasure that I observed that their command of the English language did not wholly conceal their French origin. This is as it should be. ‘Speak English’ is my advice to all my fellow-countrymen, but do it in such a way that there shall never be any mistake about your true origin, and I am sure you will admit that I put this advice into practice.
Cicero asks if the gift of eloquence has been more beneficial than hurtful to mankind and to society. ‘If I consider,’ said he, ‘the evils which have distracted our country, if I recall the catastrophes which formerly befel the most flourishing cities, I everywhere observe that most of these ills were caused by eloquent men; but, on the other hand, I also note the effect of wisdom, and still more so of eloquence, in laying the foundations of cities, in allaying discords, and in tightening the bonds of a holy friendship; consequently, reason itself leads me to believe that wisdom alone, without eloquence, is of little use to States, but that eloquence without wisdom is often only too fatal, and can never be useful.’ (De Oratore.) What would the great Roman orator think, if he had attended those long debates in the Lower House, which, after exciting such a flow of words, and occasionally of eloquence, have flooded with violence and bitterness a chamber that should be the temple of wisdom and maturity of judgment? Would he find among us the useless citizen, whose anxiety for the power of eloquence may become dangerous to the country,
838
or the useful citizen, who, armed with the weapon of oratory to defend, not to assail, public interests, deserves the esteem of his fellow-countrymen? I would be glad to be ranked in the latter category, and it is to merit your esteem and that of my fellow-citizens that I, to-day, for the first time, raise my voice in this chamber.
It is undeniable, Sir, that amidst all these floods of writing and this deluge of words, and in spite of the oft-repeated assertion that the only issue before us is provincial rights, that the only care is respect for the autonomy of the new provinces, the least prejudiced mind can discern a biassed and unavowable sentiment: dread of French and Catholic influence, that is to say, fear of an influence which would not be in harmony with the ideas of certain citizens of the Dominion. But it does not lie with you to bridle that influence, for it springs from higher principles than the narrow considerations of a narrowed mind.
I confess, Sir, that my contribution to the discussion of this question will be small. It would seem that everything that could be said has been said. You have also read everything on the subject. I probably could only repeat the arguments already used by the speakers in this House or in the Commons. But, in the course of my career as a lawyer and, above all, as a judge, I have learned that precedents are the great criterion of laws and their interpretations. Precedents are opinions which, in their way, have the force of laws. To the study of this question I shall, therefore, bring a few real, true precedents, so to speak, but I shall especially cite what is equal to the most explicit precedents, the opinion of eminent men who, by their fame for ability, deserve to carry weight with my hon. colleagues speaking the English language.
This is not the first time, Sir, that we Roman Catholics have had to raise our voices in defence of our right to educate our children. History shows that for upwards of half a century, in 1840, 1851, 1867 and 1875, we have struggled valiantly, I might even add, brilliantly for that cause, but the present debate is the most important, as it is also the sharpest of all. It would seem as if our adversaries were burning their last cartridges, feeling that the solution of the question now will entail a permanent state of things in the public administration of the Dominion. And the question relates particularly to a territory in which millions of men of all tongues, all characters and all religions, will find homes.
Formerly in the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec, there were, strictly speaking, but two languages and two creeds. Quebec was almost exclusively French and Catholic, while Ontario was similarly English and Protestant. In spite of their centrifugal tendencies, the minorities brought about the union, the first step towards our glorious confederation. As far back as 1860, Hon. Mr. Scott, who is at present our worthy leader, was proposing the separation of the schools. Three times did he fail and was his appeal rejected, but at last he silenced all opposition, and in 1863 the Scott law was passed. Are we to believe that the antagonisms of race and creed are more violent to-day and that the unfortunate campaigns of the P.P.A. and the A.P.A., notwithstanding their defeat, have left behind them a leaven of hatred and ultra-fanaticism? I do not think so. I prefer rather to see in it a specific frame of mind, which under the guise of a discussion of the principle of separate schools, a principle that is not at stake, recoils from acknowledging the justice of an accomplished fact.
Who can deny that what we are asking to-day, was given as a matter of fact to all the minorities at the time of confederation?
Sir Charles Tupper, speaking on the Remedial Bill in 1896, ‘Hansard,’ page 2723, said :
And hon. gentlemen will see in a moment, if they will indulge me with the opportunity, the point to which I wish to call their attention. There would have been no confederation—I say it in the presence of my colleague who was at the Westminster Palace Hotel. I say it within the knowledge of Sir Leonard Tilley, who was one of the fathers of confederation, of the Hon. Peter Mitchell, who was at that conference, of the Hon. William Macdougall, and the Hon. Sir William Howland; I say it within the knowledge of all these gentlemen, for six of us still, I am glad to know, remain—that but for the consent to the proposal of the Hon. Sir Alexander Galt, who represented especially the Protestants of the great province of Quebec on that occasion, but for the assent of that conference to the proposal of Sir Alexander Galt, that in the Confederation Act should be embodied a clause which would protect the rights of minorities, whether Catholic or Protestant, in this country, there would have been no confederation.
839
These vigorous words are not mine. They were uttered by a man who was the contemporary and the peer of the Tilleys, the Mitchells, the McDougalls and the Browns, by one of the fathers of confederation, by Sir Charles Tupper, who only a few days ago went to seek the blessing of the Pope for his eighty-two well-filled years and probably also for the impoverished, mutilated remains of what was once the great Conservative party. He was at Rome in company with his venerable friend, the Bishop of Antigonish, to whom public malice attributes the anathema. ‘To Hell with the Liberals’ and ‘these illustrious debris as the poet said, consoled each other.’ These were truly eloquent words. The Sir Charles Tupper who used them, would not recognize his former allies in those who are to-day making the worst appeal to the passions of the public, and the newspaper men of Toronto. There is a popularity which arises from the admiration excited by great actions; this is the best, and there is another which is derived from the popular passion for noise and applause and which is the worst. The one is the popularity of heroes, the other the popularity of quacks.
And what was Sir Charles Tupper’s conclusion? I commend it to your meditation. It requires your reflection and deserves it.
To render justice and above all to render justice to a minority said he, is always grand and noble; it is one of the noblest attributes of human nature.
Hon. Mr. Fielding also took a just and a far-seeing view of the question, and I refer you to the great speech he delivered in the other House. Sir, in this vast Dominion, under the regime of that confederation, which will mould us into a nation, the two predominating races, different in their origin, their language and their mental equipment, should march hand in hand, keeping step together for better, for worse, in joy and in sorrow, in prosperity and in adversity, and in the exciting crises of their history as in the calm of their daily political duties, like the twin rails of that immense iron road which links the different provinces together by an indissoluble bond, ever running parallel to each other, ever keeping equally distant and equally close together, imparting to each other equal and sufficient strength, on the level soil of our immense prairies, over the hills and in the hollows, on the banks of giddy precipices, and at every turn of the route until they join by the hand, so to speak, the English-speaking Columbia with the for ever French Quebec. I say it boldly, Sir, and in doing so, I believe I echo the sentiment of almost the entirety of my fellow countrymen. We reject neutral schools. We demand schools in which religion is taught. We regard religion as the life of the body politic, which is only left the alternative of preserving itself through it or dissolving without it. On this point I have the satisfaction of knowing that I am in accord not only with the great principles of national law, that widespread law which every one bears imprinted within himself, not only with the great philosophers and thinkers among the Latin and Catholic races, but also with the philosophical minds and the most eminent ecclesiastical dignitaries of other religious denominations.
Stuart Mill is one of the glories of modern England. His works on morals are the standard books of the English schools. In his treatise on liberty, he demonstrates that it is the duty of parents to cause a religious education to be given to their children. Now, when you speak of duties you speak of rights for there are no duties without correlative rights and vice versa. According to this illustrious moralist, parents have therefore the right to demand religious education for their children and governments the duty to satisfy those rights.
Herbert Spencer has just died at a very advanced age—full of honours and esteem. His name enjoys a great reputation and carries with it great authority in all English speaking countries. You know all this better than I do. I do not approve all Herbert Spencer’s opinions—very far from it; but I take what is good wherever I find it, and I advise you to read the fine pages in which he vigorously asserts in the name of natural law, the right of parents to educate their children.
Mr. Balfour recently gave expression to pretty much the same opinion in the British House of Commons.
These testimonies, whatever may be their value have nevertheless less weight, Sir, than the following fact which I beg to recall for the admiration of the Orange lodges.
Into the land itself of William of Orange, into that very Holland which, until these
840
latter years, was deemed to be the bulwark of the reformed religion, Catholicism has succeeded in penetrating. Following the advent of Catholicism, and as a consequence of that innovation, narrow-mindedness, and fanaticism have had to yield to the pressure, inevitably exerted in the course of time, by those natural sentiments of justice and equality which to-day reflect honour on all the great nations. On the 8th September, 1889, the Dutch parliament passed a law which lays down the principle that the state owes to the free schools, provided that they are properly organized and that they do not call for too high a contribution, the same grant as it makes to public schools. Does not this show how unjust and odious it is to force citizens to pay for schools which their conscience cannot accept and also to pay for others in consonance with their convictions? Education is too serious and too sacred a thing to be left to the mercy of any majority to decide how it shall be given. Something more is needed than the dull, cold, dry teaching of the neutral schools to form vigorous characters and firm wills. Children, as well as men, have need of the faith, of the reasons to act and love, which religious instruction alone can inculcate.
I glory in belonging, Sir, to that province of Quebec where primary, secondary and even university education is almost exclusively under the direction of the clergy. I made my classical studies in an institution conducted entirely by priests, whose salaries amounted to the incredible sum of $20 a year each. All my venerable professors are to-day sleeping their last long sleep, enshrined in the veneration so well due to their virtues, their great intelligence and their unswerving devotion to the cause of youth. I admit, Sir, that I have often asked myself, not without a very anxious feeling, whether the intellectual level of the young people issuing from our colleges is up to the right standard; others moreover, animated by an unquestionable good faith, have publicly manifested a similar fear. The desiderata were laid down and improvements and reforms demanded. I blame nobody. But since my fellow-countrymen in the course of this debate, have, in the Lower House, won the admiration of their adversaries and written that page of history which shines as brilliantly as those in which our annalists have recorded the great achievements of the Bedards, the Lafontaines, the Morins, the Tachés, &c., I have become reassured and I assert that our educational institutions have nothing to envy in those of the other provinces and that they have deserved well of their country. In very happy language, Lord Grey gave expression to this same idea on the occasion of his visit to Laval University. ‘I am glad’—he said—‘to pay homage to the science and the enlightened patriotism of the eminent men, who, in the different faculties have trained the professional classes, whose role and influence in the country are ever increasing. It is in a utilitarian age like ours that it is well to appreciate the nobility, the uprightness, and the disinterested zeal of those professors, who, slaves to duty and friends of the arts and science, dedicate their lives to education and to guiding the steps of that youth which is illuminated by the divine ray of hope and whose heart thrills responsive to every generous inspiration.’
You remember the famous saying attributed to the Duke of Wellington. One day, the victor of Waterloo was visiting Oxford University where, in his youth he had been educated. Amidst the atmosphere of study and reflection, he cast his eyes on the desks at which he had worked and toiled and suddenly made this admission, which involves a great truth: ‘It was here,’ said he, ‘that I won the battle of Waterloo’; and when these brilliant defenders of a just cause will again see the walls of their old colleges, when they will breathe over again that atmosphere of science, of enlightened zeal and of judicious devotedness, so profoundly imbued with the religious spirit, they can also exclaim: ‘It was here that we won the battle against prejudice and intolerance. This is the system of education which we wish to see established in the whole Dominion. Sir Alexander Campbell, whom I quote with pleasure because he received his education in the College of St. Hyacinthe where I was myself educated, said here in the Senate in 1875:
The object of the present Bill is to establish and perpetuate in the Northwest Territories the same system which prevails in Ontario and Quebec and which has done so much good in the interest of peace and harmony between the different peoples of the provinces.
841
A great writer, Sir, has said, ‘A man must change his opinions often to remain in a party.’ This aphorism emphasizes here at present an incontrovertible truth. Who are they who to-day object to the passing of this Bill—to what party do they belong? Did that party exist in 1875, when Mr. Mackenzie, at the suggestion of Hon. Edward Blake, and to avoid the troubles that had been raging for three years in New Brunswick, introduced the Bill respecting the Northwest Territories in which the following clause was inserted:
When and as soon as any system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion of the Unorganized Territories, the Lieutenant Governor or Assembly, as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education, and it shall therein be always provided that a majority of ratepayers in any district may establish such schools therein as they may think fit and make the necessary assessments and rates therefor; and further that the majority of ratepayers therein, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics may establish separate schools therein.
Sir Alexander Campbell then filled the position of leader of the opposition in the Senate and the measure passed unanimously. Why? Because—and history will tell it to the eternal shame of the opposition of to-day—the minority in the Northwest Territories was at the time a Protestant minority and nobody would have ever dreamed of the minority being Roman Catholic in the future. But, Sir, the rising tide of immigration, which has attracted thither to-day such a mass of humanity, has not changed the law of justice. In the Commons, Mr. Hall very properly recalled the fact that section 11 of the Act of 1875, which created separate schools, either Protestant or Roman Catholic, in the Northwest Territories, has stood upon the statute-books of Canada for upwards of thirty years. It has not been repealed, altered or amended in any respect during that period, although the Northwest Territories Act was under the consideration of parliament in 1885, ’86, ’89 and 1902.
I do not wonder at the present opposition. I know that reactions occur, not only in the physical, but in the moral and political world. ‘All movement is rhythmical, that of opinion included. After going to one extreme a reaction in course of time carries it to the other extreme and then comes eventually a new reaction. The opinion which prevails is never quite right and only after numerous actions and reactions may it settle into the rational mean.’ (Herbert Spencer—Facts and Comments.)
Nobody was taken by surprise. All right-thinking minds accept the Mackenzie Bill as establishing a permanent state of things. The Montreal ‘Gazette,’ on the 17th March, 1875, said, ‘The Mackenzie Bill seeks to fix the constitution which is going to govern these vast territories in the future . . . . Upon consideration it will be found, we think that Mr. Mackenzie has adopted the wise course. . . It will avoid all disputes about terms . . . and thus render at least improbable any of those complications which have harassed the political discussions of the past few years.’
Events have confirmed the truth of these words in a most striking manner. What have become of those who during nearly two decades controlled, uninterruptedly, the policy of this country? Where are those who, to my personal knowledge, had won to such an extent the confidence of the people, the clergy and the hierarchy that their sayings and doings were quoted with the greatest admiration. There only remains a few to relate their story, so true is it that he who lays a rash hand on the irrepressible sentiments that lie hidden in the depths of the heart of man, that he who wages impious war upon them, meets his punishment in his failure.
Thanks to God, thanks to our history, thanks to our trials and the examples and words of our great men, we French Canadians are to-day a powerful organism in the confederation, an organism that cannot be ignored without lessening and maiming yourselves. In what country has any one ever dreamed of governing or legislating against the will of a fraction of the ruled amounting to more than 30 per cent of the population? That would be folly. What makes and has always made the strength of the French Canadians, and will always vivify the solidarity of our race, is that, in spite of our surface differences, there is amongst us a small number of master ideas conceived and obeyed, as the intense rule of our relations towards each other and towards others. We cannot lose sight of the fact, moreover, that the Roman Catholics number upwards of 42 per cent of the population of this Dominion and that there are only a few counties in which the Catholic
842
vote cannot win in a struggle on the religious question.
In spite of all that has thus far been said and done against us, we have remained faithful and always striven to maintain intact the bond that unites us to the British Crown. We undoubtedly love our old mother country, France, to which we are indissolubly attached by the ties of blood, but we also love England for the liberties which she has granted to us and which we have ever and always have done our share, and sometimes even more than our share, to win and to uphold. But, as I have already said elsewhere, there is a limit to our patience in the face of constant abuse and slander. If we are driven to it, if we are pushed to the bitter end, the time may come when we shall look elsewhere for the protection of our rights, but this will only be the last result of the outrageous fanaticism, lay, clerical and journalistic, of which we had such startling samples recently in the Ontario by-elections. These people should remember that if the British flag floats to-day over the Dominion and especially over the province of Quebec, the happy fact is due in a large measure to us French Canadians, and I now repeat what I said on another occasion that if we ever take our hands off the British flag, if we are, in spite of ourselves and against our dearest wishes, compelled to do this and to resent the abuse, injustice and intolerance of some of our copartners in this confederation, then confederation will go to smash and down will come the British flag. So far we have upheld that flag in spite of the abuse hurled against us and we do not need the advice of any lord or general to keep our hands on that flag, for we know that this abuse emanates from a small element, who are not fit to be citizens of this free country and who should rather be regarded as cranks whatever be their party, religion and even their nationality.
Fanaticism, bigotry, rash, brainless enthusiasm, give it whatever name you please, has never built up anything solid or done any good. On these heads, the history of England furnishes some terrible lessons. Catholic emancipation was the pretext for one of the vastest conspiracies ever hatched in that country, not because a fraction of the population were deprived of certain rights or privileges, but solely because others forming a numerous group had been freed and delivered from an outrageous ostracism.
The day of such things has passed. England has recognized the fact and shown her independence by raising a Catholic to the great dignity of the Chief Justiceship, by the appointment of another Catholic as Viceroy of India and later of Ireland—Lord Ripon, if I am not mistaken. I may further recall the noble attitude of the Gladstones, the Grahams, the Cobdens and the Brights towards the Ecclesiastical Dignities Bill and the establishment of a Catholic hierarchy in England. ‘When I speak of a vote in parliament’—said Mr. John Bright, ‘I endeavour to shut out from mind any idea of controlling influence down here or elsewhere. I am most happy when I can agree with you, but I think there is a higher, loftier and purer standard for a representative than even the influence of those whom he may represent and that standard is his own intelligence, his conscientious conviction of duty on the question before him.’
It was Quintilian, I think, who said that the principal feature of oratory, and a fortiori of legislation, is probity, without which it degenerates into declamation, deforming or exaggerating the facts, quoting falsely, exciting and exhausting the passions and the animosities of those in favour of whom it is used. I may repeat that it is the eternal law with tyrants to suspect the good faith of their friends.
Sir, it cannot be denied, a leaven of hatred is fermenting among a certain part of the population of this country. What is feeding it—what is its source? Hon. Mr. Fisher pointed it out in the other House when he said: ‘No wonder that the Tory party should want to ignore the rights of a minority, the rights of weaker people in the country. This has been the history of Toryism through generations and through centuries. It has always advanced the view of the stronger controlling and ruling the weaker without regard for the privileges, feelings and distress of the weaker. It was the old principle of autocracy of oligarchy, when the few, the favoured few, had control over the rights of the many. We had a specimen of that in Canada in our early history, in the history of the family compact, and now, though passively,
843
they show the same spirit in my own province.’
Reference has been made to the English Protestants leaving the province of Quebec, as an evidence of the intolerance of my fellow-countrymen. It is an undeniable fact that the English are moving away more and more from the counties where they were formerly the majority, especially in the section known as the eastern townships. I have studied the exodus of those who were formerly strong and powerful in the counties of Stanstead, Compton, Missisquoi, &c., and I find another cause for it, a natural cause, and one that may be termed voluntary and deliberate. The first, results from the natural increase of the French families. The hardy pioneers of the ‘Bois Francs’ have no greater satisfaction than to see themselves at the head of a family of ten, twelve or fifteen children, while the old English families, on the other hand, the first occupants of this domain, seem to hold the baby in extreme horror. The consequence is that the French settlers soon become the most numerous, penetrating one by one into the municipal councils and ending, but always without noise or violence, by forming the majority and taking over the reins of administration. The moment this happens, but not before, the signal is given to leave, to abandon the territory which, until then had been watched over with so much solicitude, and the properties, the farms, are put up for sale. My fellow-countrymen, with whom love of the soil is innate, are not slow to learn the news, to ascertain the terms of sale and the value of the property, and they have always a disinterested friend in the parish priest, who becomes the intermediary between the buyer and seller, but not the business agent. There are no ecclesiastical funds for that object. The simple-minded member, who asserted that there is a reptile fund to buy up the farms of the English in the townships provoked an immense amount of laughter. I may be permitted to tell him that on that occasion he missed a fine occasion to keep silence.
It has been said also that the taxes levied from corporations for the schools is distributed pro rata of the population although such corporations are largely com posed of Protestants. The Montreal ‘Gazette,’ which has never manifested any very great sympathy for the French Canadian Catholics, but which has, however, as I have always noted, a fair sense of justice, replied impartially on that occasion.
Sir, we wish to live in peace, and this is possible, because it has existed. We are all jointly and severally dependent upon each other, not in the fashion of the lion, which cannot live without its victim. The role of the victim is not pleasing to us. We proved this under the union between 1840 and 1850, the tendency of government was to crush the French nationality. Now, it was precisely during this period that we asserted ourselves that we went through our apprenticeship in parliamentary life, that the French Canadian conscience awoke. The struggle has developed in us the spirit of resistance. We have learned what a French writer, who takes great interest in us, recently said and what you will willingly admit, that ‘to get a footing among the English you must take your volume and assert your resistance. Energy and action are what they best understand and, it is only after feeling the vigour of an adversary that they are most inclined to desire him as a partner.’ Is not this well depicted? Much has been said about the assimilation of the races. That is a sophism. ‘Some men,’ said Burnichon, ‘are born business men and others are born artists or warriors. Hence a whole train of ideas, opinions and usages which differentiate certain societies of those who have not been so deeply impregnated by the mercantile spirit. We have perhaps not what is termed the business instinct. This is due to our Gallic blood, to atavic influences, to our qualities and defects. All these combine to give us a moral temperament which condemns us to leave to others the superiority in business, and really we see no reason to feel humiliated or aggrieved.”
In spite of these divergencies of origin, of aspirations and of temperament our fine country, as Lord Grey recently said in his reply to the address of Laval University, at Montreal, ‘with its unrivalled resources, its picturesque aspect, its glorious traditions and its intense development presents to the British empire, of which it forms part, (I may add, to the whole world), a unique
844
spectacle. It is peopled by the descendants of two heroic races who, under the sheltering folds of the same flag, protected by a wise and liberal constitution, have a common destiny, that of labouring steadily for the development of their common patrimony. Here, the generous sap of the two great French and Anglo-Saxon races spreads out into branches interlaced by perfect concord.’
Sir, section 93 of the Confederation Act decrees that nothing in the Act of incorporation of the new provinces, shall prejudice any right or privilege in regard to separate schools enjoyed by any class of persons at the date of the going into force of the said Act. The separate schools which the Catholics of the Northwest actually enjoy are established under the ordinances of 1901. These ordinances were pronounced to be valid and constitutional by Sir John Thompson, on an appeal from the Catholics of the Northwest. There is no going back upon this fact; it cannot be shaken. The government’s Bill embodies all these ordinances by clause 17, which is as follows:—
Section 93 of ‘The British North America Act,’ 1867, shall apply to the said province, with the substitution for paragraph (1) of the said section 93, of the following paragraph:— ‘(1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to separate schools which any class of persons have at the date of the passing of this Act, under the terms of chapters 29 and 30 of the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, passed in the year 1901, or with respect to religious instruction in any public or separate school as provided for in the said ordinances.’ (2) In the appropriation by the Legislature or distribution by the government of the province of any moneys for the support of schools organized and carried on in accordance with the said chapter 29 or any Act passed in amendment thereof, or in substitution therefor, there shall be no discrimination against schools of any class described in the said chapter 29. (3) Where the expression ‘by law’ is employed in subsection 3 of the said section 93, it shall be held to mean the law as set out in the said chapters 29 and 30, and where the expression ‘at the union,’ is employed, in the said subsection 3, it shall be held to mean the date at which this Act comes into force.
This is a compromise and in all compromises the contracting parties yield something of their rights.
Under the circumstances, I have no hesitation in saying that the Bill should be accepted, especially after the changes that have been, but should never have been made in it. It should have been passed as originally submitted, but the moment that the general principle of separate schools is recognized and sanction given to the apportionment of the moneys that the Catholics shall have the right to receive, in order to support their own schools, it is useless to fight over words and the Bill should be accepted.
Hon. Mr. SULLIVAN—I can congratulate the hon. gentleman on his eloquence and the spirit of enthusiasm which he must have evoked in the breasts of his countrymen. I would just point out to him that it is among his fellow-countrymen that the difference of opinion on this Bill has particularly existed, and they are the parties to whom we should address these sentiments of peace. Knowing the great power of the French Canadian element in this country I am sure they could have demanded anything, and that is the reason I think it would have been better if they had demanded the fullest amount possible. I am satisfied with what they have at present, and I have given my reasons for voting for the measure, and have nothing further to say, excepting that during the whole of this debate no hon. gentleman has mentioned one particular phase of it, a matter which occurred at the time when Sir Mackenzie Bowell held the reins of government. At that time the school question was at its highest point, and the manner in which he managed it deserved, on the part of any Catholic, of Ontario particularly, cordial gratitude and thanks. The Bill which he brought in was one which satisfied their wants more than any other which preceded it or has been introduced since that date. However, I am not going to touch on that Bill or make a comparison. Reference has been made to the Orangemen; I am not their defender. There are able Orangemen in this House who can take care of themselves. I simply crave permission to state one fact. I was at one time a member of a company and an interested one, in which the chief actors were Orangemen; I mention this for the purpose of showing that bigotry does not enter into all their doings. Then in order to complete my statement with regard to the hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Mackenzie Bowell), I wish to state that the Catholics of Ontario are grateful to him for the magnanimous course which he took on that occasion. Further I may say that when
845
he was premier he made more appointments of Catholics to high positions than any other minister before or after. It would be very interesting to consider the matter; I will refer to a few. He made an appointment of a Catholic to the office of Collector of Customs for Montreal, one of the finest appointments in this country, and one that was sought after for by many others. A French Roman Catholic and an Irish Catholic applied for the position, and the hon. leader of the opposition, considering the merits of the men, made the appointment. The religion of the man was not made a barrier, as might have been done by other men. Then came Judge Curran, a distinguished member of the House of Commons. He was very anxious to retire from the public labours of the House of Commons, and his friends sought to obtain a position on the bench for him. That was accomplished only by Sir Mackenzie Bowell, and could not be accomplished by anybody else strange to say; and it was opposed by the French Catholics, if I remember rightly, because they considered—that is the idea we had of it in Ontario—that the appointment was theirs by right. However, I will not deal with that. There was a determined opposition to the appointment, but it was made because Sir Mackenzie had more confidence in him; at any rate he was appointed. There is a man who never would have been judge if it had not been for the hon. leader of the opposition. Next there were two senators, Senator O’Brien, of Montreal, a very respectable and wealthy man, was appointed from the city of Montreal by the hon. leader of the opposition, a man without any party or other influence.
Then, there is the appointment of the Hon. Sir W. Hingston by the Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell. I might mention others, because a record such as the hon. leader of the opposition made in the office of premier should not be overlooked. We are about to close this matter, and I hope that there will be no further action taken in it. I hope that the hon. leader of the opposition may yet—because he is getting younger and more juvenile every year—take the reins of government again, and direct us in the way we should go. I also congratulate hon. gentlemen on the good feeling which has prevailed, and hope we will all go home with a feeling of peace and good-will.
Hon. Mr. LANDRY—The hon. gentleman said something yesterday in contradiction of what he has stated to-day. He thanked God that not one Irishman had been concerned in that Bill. He thanked God it was only a split among the French of this country, and that the Irishmen were not a party to it. He comes out now with the eulogium of Sir Mackenzie Bowell, because he feels remorse, and he wants to put himself in a good position with reference to his leader. When the hon. gentleman from Belleville (Sir Mackenzie Bowell) moved the six months’ hoist, the hon. gentleman from Kingston (Mr. Sullivan) could have shown all his admiration for him in sustaining his chief—which he did not do. But we accept the good words he utters to-day as a proof of the remorse he feels.
Hon. Mr. SULLIVAN—There is no such thing as remorse in my case. If the hon. gentleman is incapable of understanding a true friendly sentiment, I am not. I say there is no such thing as remorse in my mind. I did not say, I thank God. I said there was no quarrel between the Irish Catholics. I said it in a humorous way, and he makes a fuss about that. I think we should cultivate a friendly sentiment. I do not care for the hon. leader of the opposition.
Hon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL—Yes, the hon. gentleman does.
Hon. Mr. SULLIVAN—I only mentioned it because I thought it was a matter which should be mentioned. I hope that I shall never disregard the principles which I hold.
Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED—I move, seconded by the hon. gentleman from Wolseley (Mr. Perley) :
That Bill (69) be not now read a third time, but that it be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole to strike out clause 17.
As I intimated before, the battle which has been waged in both Chambers was largely concentrated upon this clause, and I desire to state shortly, without entering into any controversial discussion of the clause, why I do so. Permit me to say that my reason for voting against the various amendments which were moved against the Bill during the forenoon, was owing to the fact that I have taken the ground, as strongly
846
as I possibly can, that any interference by the federal government with the educational privileges of the West would be an invasion of the British North America Act, and for that reason I opposed the various amendments which were moved from time to time. Under 2clause 3 of this Bill, the British North3 America Act in its entirety has been incorpor4ated into the Bill, and, as und5er section 93 of the British Nor6th America Act, the exclusive right is given to the provinces to legislate with reference to education, the passage of clause 17 would manifestly be an invasion of whate7ver rights are given to the majority or the minority under clause 93 of the British North America Act and its subsections. In view of this fact, I take the ground, and assert strongly the rights of those provinces to legislate, in the language of the Act, ‘exclusively in relation to education,’ and, therefore, I move that this clause be stricken out.
The House divided on the amendment, which was lost on the following division :
Contents :Honourable Messieurs
Baker
Bowell (Sir Mackenzie)
Dobson
Ferguson
Landry
Lougheed
Macdonald (P.E.I.)
McKay (Truro)
McLaren
McMillan
Merner
Owens
Sullivan
Wood
Non-Contents: Honourable Messieurs
Béique
Black
Cartwright (Sir Richard)
Choquette
Church
Cloran
Coffey
Davis
Domville
Edwards
Ellis
Fiset
Frost
Kerr (Cobourg)
Kerr (Toronto)
King
Legris
Mackay (Alma)
McHugh
McMullen
Mitchell
Power
Ross (Regina)
Ross (Halifax)
Scott
Templeman
Tessier
Thibaudeau (Rigaud)
Thibaudeau (de la Vallière)
Thompson
Wilson
Yeo
Young
Hon. Mr. LANDRY—I should like to have my name inserted in the list of members who voted. I stood up but the clerk did not call my name. I voted against the amendment.
Hon. Mr. MITCHELL—Hon. Mr. Macdonald (B.C.) has not voted. Is there any reason for that ?
Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (B.C.)—I declared to the House that I would not vote for any amendment because I think it is only wasting time.
The motion for the third reading of the Bill was carried, and the Bill was then read a third time and passed.