March 28, 1905

CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

Would my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) allow me to ask him a question ? If the land in the Northwest remains vested in the Dominion, why was it necessary in the case of Manitoba to put a special provision in the Bill creating that province to reserve the lands of that province ? It does not seem to have been necessary, according to the hon. gentleman's argument.

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX.

It was to avoid litigation. The province of Manitoba might have said: We must be treated as the

other provinces have been treated; the other provinces have their public lands and we must have our public lands. Therefore there was a special enactment in the Act of 1870, that Manitoba' should not have its lands but that these should remain vested in the Dominion.

We were told the other day by the right hon. leader of the House how Sir John Macdonald refused the request of Manitoba when in 1884 that province raised a claim to the property of her public lands. The same policy has been followed with regard to every new state entering the American union. It seems to me therefore that we would not have been justified to adopt a different policy with regard to the two new provinces. Their territory covers in round figures a total area of 345,000,000 acres- one-third of which has already been reserved or sold. We must deduct from that total area, the land grants made to railway companies by the Conservative administrations, the Indian reserves, the'timber limits, the school lands, the Hudson bav lands, and the homesteads already taken, which leaves a balance of about 225,000,000 acres. Sir,

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX.

I claim that this domain is the property of the whole Dominion of Canada. Administered by Canada since 1870, it has added not a little burden to the public exchequer. We had to pay the cost of two rebellions and besides, we have-in order to maintain law, peace and order-equipped a corps of mounted police, which has patrolled the west and afforded ample protection against the Indians and the rough element. Again, the Dominion has spent millions to advertise and settle the west. We have subsidized the vast system of railways which is now netting so rapidly the prairies from north to south, from east to west. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific are in a sense national highways, but who will deny that the Northwest Territories are not the most interested in their completion ?

All this vast expenditure has enhanced the value of the Northwest Territories and the Dominion has yet to draw the interest to which any creditor is entitled on an investment. Would it be fair, Mr. Speaker, to divest ourselves of our lands, under such circumstances ? Would not that policy be inopportune and unwise ?

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
?

Mr. R.@

,L.' BORDEN. My hon. friend will of course remember, and he will pardon me for interrupting, that this is exactly the argument which was made fifty or sixty or seventy years ago in Great Britain as a reason for not handing over to the people of the various provinces the control of their lands and their minerals.

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Yes, it is always well to borrow from Great Britain. Sir, I have read some very wild statements in the press, concerning this question of public lands. Having myself been a journalist; far be it from my mind to minimize the influence of the press-but it thus happens that sometimes the press finds grievances which are more imaginary than real. Some people have that weakness ;-they are happy -yet a grievance heretofore unsuspected comes to them as a relief. Let me, Mr. Speaker, answer some of the statements made in favour of entrusting the lands to the new provinces. First, it must be admitted that a revenue had to be provided to run the machinery of the local government. This is what is being done by granting a subsidy in lieu of lands. Is this subsidy a fair equivalent for the public lands surrendered to us ? In order to answer this question, one must bear in mind the following facts. The lands are not sold by the federal government, but are given away as an inducement to the settlers. Suppose the lands were left to the now provinces, would they depart from the policy of free grants to the settlers ? I assume that they would -in all wisdom-continue the issuing of free grants. Thus, the revenue which otherwise would accrue from the sale of these

lands, would amount to nothing-with perhaps the exception of very limited receipts arising from stumpage dues or timber limits and royalties on coal lands. Let us suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the lands would be vested in the new provinces. What would happen ? One of two things would have to be done-either issue free grants to the settlers or sell the lands. In the first instance, i.e., issuing free grants, the provinces would get uo revenue. In the second instance, i.e. selling the lands, true they would derive a revenue from the sales, but at the same time, they would fatally restrain and check the growth of population. On the contrary, the continuation of the free grants system will, by increasing the population increase aiso the annual payments made by the Dominion government. The actual revenue which the Dominion government draws from the Northwest Territories is derived mainly from (a) homesteading fees and from (b) royalties on coal mines-but without worrying the House with figures, we may take it as granted that this revenue is quite insignificant compared to the cost of surveying, settling and administering the lands. I say, Sir, that if these lands were in the future offered for sale, instead of being free, the Dominion government would hardly be justified in maintaining as it does, a costly scheme of immigration at the general expense of the country, which would chiefly benefit the land speculators of the Northwest Territories.

I claim, .Sir, that the new provinces have received a generous, a liberal treatment at the hands of their government. The financial clauses of the Bill bear evidence of our generosity. What do they receive besides their autonomy ? Each province at the very start-off will have in addition to the usual federal subventions, an income in lieu of its lands of $375,000. This amount will grow with the growth of population to $362,500 when either of the provinces has 400,000 souls ; to $750,000 when it has 1,200,-OOO souls, and when it exceeds that number, the payment will reach $1,125,000 yearly. In addition, interest will be paid on swamp lands talued at $4,250,000 which will increase eventually to a capital amount of $7,500,000.

Moreover, the Dominion will-and this fact should not be overlooked-still maintain our corps of mounted police in the Northwest Territories-a maintenance which entails an annual cost of $300,000. feir, I will not begrudge the Northwest Territories the happy circumstances under which they assume their political autonomy. This is not the time-and it is not in my nature to be envious. The prosperity, the happiness of my neighbour rejoices me; it never saddens me. But may I not pause for a moment and remind the House that the older provinces might well envy the fortune of Alberta and Saskatchewan ? They, of

their own volition, acquired the great lone land in 1870 ; they-patriotically-pledged their credit for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; they unreservedly launched themselves into a vast scheme of colonization in order to settle the prairies, Yet to-day, after thirty-five years of sacrifices, saddled with their own obligations, cheerfully assess themselves again, to endow generously their two younger associates, in order to complete the gigantic work of confederation.

Again I say that I do not begrudge the Northwest Territories their good fortune. The ideal which we, as Canadians, pursue in this North American continent is too noble, too exalted, not to call for some sacrifices. The game is well worthy of the stake; the aspirations of Canada call forth our common efforts ; the task of today is not unbecoming the attainments of ro-morrow. In the language of the poet:

In the race, not in the prize,

Glory's true distinction lies.

I have now reached, Sir, the educational clauses of the Bill-which, in the present instances, might well be termed the crucial clauses if one can judge by the storm- nay, by the tornado they have raised in the Dominion. Political agitation is always fraught with danger even in a country where one race alone is dominant, but, Sir, far more dangerous is a religious agitation in a country like Canada, where two races and two creeds are staring at each other. Experience has taught us how easy it is to inflame religious passions and how difficult to quell them. Yet, it seems as if this sad experiment was to be renewed periodically in this fair land of ours. As a Canadian, I deplore the intolerant spirit which of late Iras pervaded spheres, where one would expect Christian charity, broad-mindedness, fair-play, to inhabit. After the bitterness displayed from one end of the country to the other on this school question, after the abuse heaped upon one particular class of His Majesty's loyal subjects, I fear not to say, Sir, that unless reason and wise counsels prevail, the future of this confederation is doomed and the cause of union buried for ever. Well might we apply to the present situation the prophetic word of Thiers when the 2nd empire was on the eve of crumbling to pieces : II n'y a plus qu'une seule faute & commettre

I fail to understand, Sir, why the educational clauses have roused such anger amongst men who, by their calling in life, should be specially guarded against any display of temper. I quite agree with you that there are firebrands who delight in seeing the country ablaze, but I am not referring to the professional demagogues. I am addressing myself to that honest yet credulous class of people, whose sleep is haunted by nightmares, and who-once led astray-

talk of rebellion instead of constitution. And yet, Sir, that matter or rather this difficulty is purely a constitutional one. It is in the light of our constitution that the question must be examined. To look at it from any other point of view is to err and to quibble.' According to the British North America Act has the minority in the Northwest Territories any rights to a system of separate schools ? This is, in my judgment the only question to be decided. But before I answer it, let me, Sir, add a few missing links to a chapter of the history of the Northwest Territories. I do so, in no hostile spirit,

I am only refreshing the memory of some Canadians who are too apt to forget. Sir, in the early part of the 18th century-nay even in the 17th century, the explorers of the Northwest were men of my race. La Verendrye and his sons, were the first Europeans who climbed up the Kocky mountains. The French missionaries soon found their way towards those distant lands to' preach the Gospel to the Indian tribes. The fur traders, the voyageurs, the trappeurs and coureurs des bois followed-filling the early history of these vast domains with their adventurous yet heroic exploits. Not a river, not a lake, not a hill, not a valley that was not discovered by them. One has only to read carefully the deed of transfer of Ruperts land to Canada in 1870, to realize that nearly all the posts of the Hudson Bay Company, in the far west, bear most picturesque French names. After the conquest, when the Hudson Bay company took full possession of that immense territory, the French Canadian element continued to be an important factor in the affairs of the west. So much so, that the Bishop of Quebec, whose diocese included all British North America decided to send missionaries in those distant regions. By referring to the archives of the Quebec Archbishopric, one will see that in 1818, the first school in the Northwest Territories was established at the request of Monseigneur Plessis, Sir John Cope Sherbrooke was then our Governor and it is under his protection that the three missionaries sent by Monseigneur Plessis entered the Northwest. The instructions of Governor Sherbrooke, given in writing, are well worth reading.

I do hereby call on all His Majesty's subjects, civil and military, and do request all other persons whomsoever to whom these presents shall come, not only to permit the said missionaries to pass without hindrance or molestation, but render them all good offices, assistance and protection wherever they shall find it necessary to go in the exercise of their holy calling.

That is what Sir John Sherbrooke said when the three first missionaries left Quebec to evangelize the Indian tribes of the Northwest Territories. They did not go there as marauders. The object of their mission, as indicated by the Bishop of Quebec, can be read in a very few lines :

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX.

The missionaries will make known to the people the religious faith they enjoy in remaining under the government of His Majesty, will teach them by words and example the respect and fidelity they should have for the sovereign, will accustom them to offer to God fervent prayers for the prosperity of His Most Gracious Majesty, of his august family and his empire.

These are the missionaries who explored the west, who discovered the west, so to speak, and opened it to civilization, and who preached the Gospel to the Indian tribes. Sir, they belonged to a noble race ; and when they bade farewell to their families, to their homes and to their province, they went knowing that some of them might not come back to civilization, in order to fulfil a sacred duty towards God and their King.

Now, before I refer to the legislation of 1871 and 1875, let me examine this section 93 of the British North America Act. First of all. I would like to say that the right bon. leader of the government has been taunted by many hon. gentlemen opposite and by the Conservative press throughout the country, because, forsooth, he had given us a page of history in explaining to the House, as he did on the 21st February last, when he introduced this measure, how that clause came to be inserted in the British North America Act. Now, it is usual, when we have legislation of a somewhat complicated character, as this is, to go to the root of that legislation and to inquire under what circumstances it was enacted. There is, therefore, nothing extraordinary in the fact that the right hon. leader of the government should have explained the peculiar circumstances under which that clause 93 was enacted. In the case of the (St. Catharines Milling and Lumber Company versus the Queen, Mr. Justice Strong, in giving his judgment, used these words :

In construing this enactment of the British North America Act we are not only entitled, but bound

Mark his word, ' bound.'

to apply that well established rule which

requires us, in placing a meaning upon descriptive terms and definitions contained in statutes, to have recourse to external aids-derived from the surrounding circumstances and the history of the subject matter dealt with, and to construe the enactment by the light derived from such sources, and so to put ourselves as far as possible in the position of the legislature whose language we have to expound. If this rule were subjected and the language of the statute were considered without such assistance from extrinsic facts, it is manifest that the task of interpretation would degenerate into mere speculation and guess work.

This is the language of the ex-Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, the highest court of our land, which he used a few years ago in a very important case. In that case Sir Oliver Mowat was defending the rights of the province of Ontario-I think it was tlie Provincial Streams case. The province of Ontario was deeply interested in that

case, and was represented by that upholder of provincial rights, Sir Oliver Mowat. He used this language :

In various cases it has been decided, I am not quite sure whether in this court or in other courts, reference has been made to the resolutions upon which the British North America Act was founded. What degree of importance should be attached to them has not been stated, but at all events it is reasonable for judges to look at them, and if they do find that they throw any light on the subject they should avail themselves of that light.

Therefore, I say that the right hon. leader of this government was right in going back to the history of confederation, to the origin of clause 93 of the British North America Act, in order that he might the better interpret it as the basis of the present measure. We know, from the history he gave this House, that if clause 93 was embalmed in the constitution of this country it was at the request of the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec. Now, Sir, I may say at once that it was not necessary to embalm that principle of religious equality in the constitution. If we examine the words of Sir John Bose, in the confederation debates, one may easily see that the Protestant minority of the province of Quebec did not require the enactment of clause 93 in the British North America Act. Here is the statement made by Sir John Rose :

Now, we the English Protestant minority of Lower Canada, cannot forget, that whatever right of separate education we have, was accorded to us in the most unrestricted way before the union of the provinces, when we were in a minority and entirely in the hands of the French population. We cannot forget that in no way was there any attempt to prevent us educating our children in the manner we saw fit, and deemed best; and I would be untrue to what is just, if I forgot to state that the distribution of state funds for educational purposes was made in such a way as to cause no complaint on the part of the minority.

That was the statement made by Sir John Rose at the time of confederation. Therefore, I say that in the light of this testimony it was not even necessary for the minority to exact the enactment of that clause 93. Nevertheless, Sir A. T. Galt, in fulfilment of the pledge given to tile Protestant minority of Lower Canada, went to London and had that clause inserted in our constitution. Now, the first question which presents itself is that which has been treated this afternoon by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), namely, does this clause 93 apply to Quebec and Ontariq only, or does it apply to all the provinces ? My hon. friend from Labelle has cited the opinion of Lord Carnarvon. I will not wearjT the House by giving the quotation again, but I will only quote a few words. Lord Carnarvon, in 18C6, used the following language :

The object of this clause is to secure to the religious minority of one province the same rights, privileges and protection which the religious minority of another province may enjoy.

The Roman Catholics of Upper Canada and the Roman Catholic minority of the maritime provinces will thus stand on a footing of equality.

But has the local legislature exclusive jurisdiction in matters of education ? We are told that the jurisdiction of the provinces is absolute in matters of education. It is not so-on the contrary, it is limited. It is precisely what the Lord Chancellor said in rendering judgment on the second appeal to the Privy Council of the Manitoba minority :

The Act imposes a limitation on the legisla- [DOT] tive powers conferred. Any enactment contravening its provisions is beyond the competency of the provincial legislation and consequently null and void. In relation to the subject spec!-, fled in section 92 of the British North America Act the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures may be said to be absolute. But this is not so as regards education.

Sir, not only is the jurisdiction of provincial legislature restricted in matters of education, but to use the language of Lord Carnarvon :

In the event of any wrong at the hand of local majority, the minority may appeal to the Governor in Council and claim the application of any remedial laws that may be necessary from the central parliament of Canada.

Therefore, the Privy Council declared that in all matters enumerated in section 92, the powers of the legislature are supreme and exclusive, but we have the authority of the Privy Council-the highest authority in the British Empire-that on matters of education this Dominion parliament has certain authority. I can quote not only authorities from the other side of the Atlantic, tout I can quote the authority of Mr. Edward Blake, of. the late Sir John Thompson, and even of Mr. Dalton McCarthy, the champion of the public school system in this country. On March 6, 1893, Sir John Thompson, speaking in the House of Commons, and addressing himself to the scope of section 93, at a time when the separate school controversy in Manitoba was becoming acute, said :

I take it that the principle is well settled and well agreed upon by both parties in this country, as well as by lawyers and tribunals of justice, that that provision, that qualification, nullifies any Act of a provincial legislature which conflicts with it ; and that the legislature of a province, while to a great extent its powers are exclusive with regard to education, steps beyond its power and enacts a void enactment when it enacts a law which prejudicially afiects any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons had by law in any province at the time of the union.

Sir John Thompson also quoted from Mr. Edward Blake, who some years before lin'd introduced resolutions for referring a certain class of semi-political questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, and Mr. Blake dealt inter alia with section 93, and said :

,3319

Under these clauses a limited power to make educational laws is granted to a province, provided, amongst other things, that nothing therein contained shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any of the provinces had by law or, in the case of Manitoba, by practice at the union.

Mr. Dalton McCarthy's opinion will be found at page 73 of the official report of his argument before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the city of Winnipeg vs. Barrett. He was explaining to their lordships the meaning of section 93, and went on to call their attention to section 146 in these words :

By this section 146 the Dominion was to take in the province of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, and also It was assumed Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories would be acquired, and would be ultimately divided into provinces, just as the Northwestern Territories had been divided into states.- And provision was made for taking in these various provinces, and accordingly they were taken in, British Columbia first, if my memory serves right, in 1871, and then Prince Edward Island. This clause (section 93) was made applicable to British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, but in neither of these provinces were there any denominational rights, nor has it been so pretended, in respect of schools to be protected or reserved. But the scheme was to apply to the provinces as they came in the general terms of the British North America Act where there were not special circumstances which rendered some other legislation necessary.

And now, as to the contention that section 93 applies only to the four original provinces, or, as some contend, only to the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, let me state what occurred in the province of Prince Edward Island. That province came into confederation, in the year 1873. Although the delegates met at Charlottetown, although they had debated the union in Prince Edward Island, yet in 1867 that province declared that she would not join confederation, and she did not join at that date. Before 1873, there had existed in that province a system of public schools, and side by side with it had grown up a system of separate schools. There were French schools in several parishes, and in 1875 an Act was passed by the local legislature of Prince Edward Island, abolishing the separate schools system. An appeal was made to the Governor General in Council. On that appeal it was admitted by the appellants, the Roman Catholic minority, and by the respondents, the local legislature, that although Prince Edward Island had joined confederation only in 1873, clause 93 applied, and the late lion. Rodolphe Laflamme, who was then Minister of Justice, submitted a lengthy report, in which he said that clause 93 could not be of any avail to the minority in the province of Prince Edward Island, because Mr. LEMIEUX.

the system of separate schools had grown up illegally by the side of the public schools system. There was no legislation to warrant it. and therefore clause 93 could be of no avail.

But we a.re told by Mr. Haultain and a portion of the press that what may apply to a province does not apply to a territory. This is indeed a very fine and very subtle distinction. Mr. Haultain's objection is not serious. That it is only sophistry is quite obvious. In 1871, doubts had arisen [DOT] as to the right of the federal parliament to establish provinces out of the Territories admitted in the union. The imperial parliament then passed a statute amending the British North America Act in order to remove any such doubts. What does section 2 of that Act declare ? Our parliament was authorized

To make provision for the constitution and administration of the provinces carved out of those regions, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government thereof.

I claim that by the clear and concise enactment I have just quoted, ample authority was given this parliament to frame a constitution for the Territories. Mr. Haultain's interpretation of the British North America Act is this one : He wishes to date the entry into confederation of the two new provinces back to July 15, 1870-because, forsooth, at that time there was no system of separate schools established by law-such as there is under the law of 1875 and under the ordinances 29, 30, 31. As section 93 of the British North America Act does not mention Territories, hut provinces. Mr. Haultain concludes that it cannot benefit the new provinces. But the hon. gentleman cannot alter facts. Territories were admitted in the union in 1870. But in 1905 we admit provinces-according to section 2 of the imperial statute of 1871.

It is only this year that this Bill will be in force; it is only on the first of July next that the Northwest Territories will join the union as provinces, and therefore the legislation enacted in 1875 by this parliament granting a system of separate schools, can be retained by the present legislation. I could cite the ablest authorities on the American constitution, Cooley, Randolph Tucker, Sutherland, and others, to show that when the Territories are acquired they do not become states, and so it is with our own Territories. When 1 hey were purchased by Canada they did not become full-fledged provinces. And how did these Territories come into Canada ? We are aware that there was some doubt expressed as to the validity of the Act of 1870. Some people believed that we could not carve provinces out of these Territories, and therefore Sir John Macdonald, who was Frime Minister, applied to the imperial authorities to have the legislation of 1870 confirmed by an imperial statute. It is well to refer to the memoran-

dum sent to the home government by Sir John A. Macdonald in order that we may see the scope of the imperial statute. Writing to the Earl of Kimberly, he asked the imperial parliament to enact legislation in its next session :

1. ' Confirming the Act of the Canadian parliament, 33 Victoria, chapter 3, above referred to, as if it had been an imperial statute, and legalizing whatever may have been done under it according to its true interests.

2. Empowering the Dominion parliament from time to time to establish other provinces in the Northwestern Territory, with such local government, legislature and constitution as it may think proper, provided that no such local government or legislature shall have greater powers than those conferred on the local governments 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 were the purposes, as stated by Sir John Macdonald, for which the imperial parliament passed the Act of 1871.

With regard to this Bill, the British North America Act of 1867 cannot alone apply. The British North America Act of 1871 must also apply. The two must be construed together.

Let me go one step further. Are the educational clauses of this Bill inconsistent with the spirit of our constitution? Read the preamble of the British North America Act and what do you find ?

Whereas the phovinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.

I ask you, Sir, is there anything in the educational clause contrary in principle to the constitution of the United Kingdom?

Sir, if there is a redeeming feature in the present debate for the partisans of the separate schools system, it is the fact that in Great Britain, in the mother country, there is also [DOT] a system whereby denominational schools are state aided. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in England, the country wherefrom we borrowed our parliamentary institutions ; in England, wherefrom we borrowed a constitution; in England, minorities enjoy their full liberty in matters of education. I, o Canadian and a Roman Catholic, am proud to cite this example of tolerance given by our mother country. I ask my friend from "Grey would he be in Canada less generous, less tolerant than the average English Protestant in England ?

Sir, I need not refer at any length to the history of the school question in England. But I may say at the outset that the right hon. leader of the House is not the only statesman who has had to face grave difficulties with regard to an Educational Bill. Sir, the greatest of all modern British statesmen has also had his hours of anxiety 1061

when in 1870 he attempted to legislate upon a similar question. Mr. Gladstone lost many a warm friend, many a Arm supporter, when he introduced the Educational Bill of 1870.

Eor years, I might say for centuries, there had been in England a system of national schools. But there were many sects, many creeds in England, and it was felt that it would be a violation of the principle of religious liberty if the dissenters were forced to send their children to schools, tlie religious teaching of which was not in conformity with their views. So, by the side of national schools, grew up a system of voluntary schools-that is to say, separate schools-where the dissenters of ail sects and denominations sent their children. The secular teaching did not differ much from that of the national schools; but the religious teaching given the children was in accordance with the tenets of the parents' faith. Catholics, Wesleyans, Quakers established all over the realm voluntary schools. So much so, that a time came when more children frequented the voluntary schools than the national schools. The board schools were state aided; the voluntary schools were self-sustaining. There were in England, as there are in this country, partisans of the neutral school. There were also men who thought that the children had a right to a religious teaching according to the religious belief of their parents.

Such was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone. Such was also the opinion of Lord Salisbury. Let me quote, Mr. Speaker, the opinion of those two great British statesmen. As far back as 1856 Mr. Gladstone said:

We have happily found it practicable in England to associate together in the most perfect harmony these two principles, the principle of voluntary exertion, through which yon get heart and love and moral influence infused into your school instruction, and the principle of material aid from the state, by which the skeleton and framework of your education is provided. I am convinced that the harmony which has hitherto been maintained between them, even in times of doubt and difficulty, will continue, and, if possible, increase, but if I were driven utterly to abandon the voluntary, or to place exclusive reliance upon it, I would not hesitate a moment in making my choice. In such an emergency, I would say at once, give me the real education, the affection of the heart, the moral influence operating upon character, the human love, that are obtained through the medium of the voluntary principle carried by men whose main motive is one of Ghristain philantropy rather than throw me upon a system which, whatever the intentions of its mover may he, must sooner or later degenerate into hard irreligion.

Lord Salisbury, on another occasion, spoke as follows :

There is only one sound principle in religious education to which you should cling, which you should relentlessly enforce against all the conveniences and experiences of official

We can have no illusion. Efforts have been made to strangle the liberty of education. One is not free to think when one is not free to propagate one's thoughts publicly, and one is not free to think when one is not permitted to have one's children brought up in accordance with one's ideas, conviction and faith. To suppress the liberty of education, the government dares not act openly, but invokes hypocritically a law of which the apparent and declared object was to extend the scope of the liberties indispensable to a democracy. ... To grant the monopoly of education to one party doctrine and opinion is to establish a censorship over matters of public instruction, to organize the servitude of thought, and to prepare political tyranny.

This is what the elite of the French litterateurs think of the school policy of the French government. Let me tell my friend from Grey that he is greatly mistaken if he really believes that the denominational schools in France have produced a race of illiterates. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the land of Racine, of Moliere, of Corneille, of Bossuet, is not a land of illiterates ? Surely the schools and the lycees which have produced men like Victor Hugo, Lamartine, Thiers and Guizot, were not mere hotbeds of ignorance and cretinism ! The hon. gentleman, in his endeavour to give the public schools a superiority over the denominational schools, might have spared his French Canadian friends in the House his untimely reference to the so-called illiteracy of Frenchmen. For my part, Sir, I am a British subject, and an admirer of the British institutions. I may add that, politically speaking, I am more at home in London than in Paris -that my ideals in politics are at Westminster, not at the Palais Bourbon ; yet no one will ever deny-I for one will never do so-that in literature and in fine arts, France is second to no other nation in the world. But if France is still, at the beginning of this twentieth century, the leading nation of the world in the field of literature and fine arts, she has nothing to regret of the teachings given to her sons in the old church schools.

Reference has been made during this debate to the American settlers in the west. We are told that we must have public schools, because the settlers happen to come from across the boundary line, where a system of public schools exists. In other words, we must ignore the spirit and the letter of our constitution because the Americans are coming to our country. I shall not discuss the school system as it exists in the United States, but I have enough pride in the institutions of my country to believe that our system is not inferior to theirs. I have enough patriotism to stand by the rights of a Canadian minority, even if it does not suit the American settlers. And I am amazed, Sir, to see the ultra loyalist element of Canada so subservient to the desires, to the wishes, of the newcomers. Let them come from Dakota, from Arkansas, Illinois, or from any other Mr. LEMIEUX.

state of the union. I do not object to that ; but, in the name of common sense and for our own dignity, let us not trample upon our own constitution because it happens to please these people. .

Sir, it has been suggested in the course of this debate that the Northwest Act of 1875 provided only for a temporary state of things. There is no such declaration in the Act. Let me say, Sir, that the men who enacted that law had taken part in the battle for confederation. They knew what had been the stumbling block of the union and what compromise had been reached. They, therefore, deliberately pledged the faith, the honour of parliament, that as long as there would be a Catholic minority in the west it would be entitled to its schools. Thirty years have elapsed since 1875. The separate school system has been adopted, and to-day we are told that those who have settled in the west with that guarantee should do without it. The Act of 1875 was passed under Mr. Mackenzie's government, and it was supported by Sir John Macdonald. It was amended in 1882 under a Conservative administration, and the separate school system was maintained.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the British empire, if there was some sympathy for the Uitlanders, it was because it was asserted that President Kruger had not kept faith with them. In 1880 President Kruger went to London, and he then invited immigration to the Transvaal, promising the immigrants full citizenship. I have read several books on the South African war, and in them I found that the chief cause of the war was the lack of faith of Kruger in his stringent naturalization laws. Sir, laws concerning education are also with us fundamental laws. We enjoy religious liberty in Canada. Religious education is to a large degree considered essential by Roman Catholics. Why then should v e deprive them of their right to schools ?

Mr. Speaker, we are told, those of us who favour this measure, that we should trust the western people. Such is the language of the * Globe ', such is the language of the Toronto ' News.' For my part, I would trust, and I do trust, the western people as well as the eastern people ; but the present issue has been made a religious one. The protests which have been made from the pulpit, the petitions which have been sent to this House, all bear the mark of religion. We have had petitions from the Orange Order, from the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists ; and there is between the opponents of the separate schools and the opponents of the public schools such a wide breach that, if left to the popular vote in the west, it would be impossible to bridge the difficulty. Those who sincerely believe in the separate school system would soon come to grief, because tlieir opponents are unquestionably the majority. Besides the opposition to the separate schools seems to be doctrinal, and I do not see how you could reconcile both

systems. By the census of 1901 I find that the several religious denominations in the Northwest Territories stand as follows :

Presbyterians .. .. 27,800

Methodists .. .. 22.151

Baptists .. .. 5,340

Lutherans .. .. 12,097 67,394

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
?

Roman Catholics .. ..

.. .. 20,073

Anglicans .. .. 25,366 55,439

15,949

Having those figures in hand, I find that there is a majority against the system of separate schools of 11,955 in comparing the relative strength of the two factions, tinder these circumstances, and in the interest of peace and harmony, do you not believe that it is far better to settle the difficulty at once, by an honourable compromise satisfactory to all those who believe in moderation and fair-play ?

We have been told the other day by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the Catholics of the United States were paying something like fifty million dollars per year, in order to have Their separate schools. Is it not far better to enact the present legislation, which, although giving the minority their right to religious teaching of their own, brings their schools to the standard of the public schools system in secular matters ? If you were to refuse them what they are getting by the ordinances, they would be left to their own pri-[DOT] vate resources ; they would be self-sustaining. How could they compete with the state-aided public schools ? What interest have you to starve them ' Surely the half hour of religious instruction should not debar the Catholics from government assistance.

I ask any fair-minded Protestant if he believes, in his heart and conscience, that my son can be taught history, for instance, in the same book as his son ? Is it possible for an honest Protestant and an honest Catholic to think alike, and to see in the same light any of the historical events connected with say, the Reformation, Mary Stuart, Henry VIII, Queen Mary, John Knox or Thomas Beckett ? Are there not, on such questions, deep differences which it is almost impossible to reconcile ?

We are told that this legislation is an infringement on what is called provincial rights. As a consistent Liberal, I claim myself to be an upholder of such rights. After the battles fought by the late Sir Oliver Mowat and by the Hon. Edward, Blake, we on this side of the House cannot but defend the rights of the provinces. But. as I have already demonstrated, the rights of the provinces are clearly defined by section 92 of the British North America Act. Section 93 gives also the federal parliament a jurisdiction on matters of education. At the time of the Equal Rights movement, when parliament was asked too to disallow the Jesuits' Estate Act, we too invoked provincial rights, and we were answered by the late leader of that campaign, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, as follows :

The worship of what was called local autonomy, which some gentlemen have become addicted to, is fraught, I venture to say, with great evils to this Dominion. Our allegiance is due to the Dominion of Canada. The separation into provinces, the right of local self-government which we possess, is not to make us less citizens of the Dominion, is not to make us less anxious for the promotion and welfare of the Dominion, and it is ho argument to say that, because a certain piece of legislation is within the power of a local parliament, therefore the legislation is not to he disturbed. By the. same Act of parliament by which the power is conferred upon the local legislature, the . duty and power-because where there is a power there is a corresponding duty-are cast upon the Governor in Council to revise, and review, the Acts of the legislative bodies. If you are to say that because a law has been passed within the legislative authority of the province, therefore it must remain, we can easily see, Sir, that before long these provinces, instead of coming nearer together, will go further and further apart. We can see that the only way of making a united Canada, and building up a national life and sentiment in the Dominion, is by seeing that the laws of one province are not offensive to the laws and institutions, and it may he to the feelings, of another-I will go so far as to say that they must he to some extent taken into consideration.

I have quoted the above extract in order to show that the principle of provincial rights i^ not always adhered to by those Who are quite ready, when circumstances arise, to invoke it. Let me, however, give the opinion on this subject of one of the fathers of confederation. In an address to his constituents, October, .1864, Sir A. T. Galt said :

It was clear that in confiding the general subject of education to the local legislatures, it was absolutely necessary it should he accompanied with such restrictions as would prevent injustice in any respect from being done to the minority. .

Now this applied to Lower Canada, but it also applied, with equal force, to Upper Canada and the other provinces, for in Lower Canada there was a Protestant minority, and in the other provinces a Catholic minority. The same privileges belong of right here, as belonged to the other right elsewhere. 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.

Therefore, I say, Sir, that I am within the scope of provincial rights in asking that this parliament should protect the minority in the Northwest. But, there is something else than provincial rights. We, the Liberal party, stand for provincial rights. That was the policy of our old leader, Alexander Mackenzie; it was the policy of Sir Oliver Mowat; it was the policy of Mr. Edward Blake. It is still the policy of the Liberal party. But, Sir, with provincial

goes directly to the' principle of the Bill which we are discussing. In order that I may. not misquote the hon. gentleman I will read what he said :

I represent a section of the people of the Northwest Territories and I say that the people or the Northwest Territories have never asked for provincial autonomy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know who represents the people of the Territories the better, the thirty-five representatives in the local legislature at Regina or the hon. gentleman who represents Edmonton. I do not know what he means by stating that the people of the Northwest Territories never asked for provincial autonomy. I would remind him of the fact that on July 20, 1900, an address was sent to this government by the legislative assembly at Regina, and that on December 7, 1901, a draft Bill was prepared to which reference has been made and the terms of which were familiar to the thirty-five local representatives at Regina. In the year 1901, the Board of Trade of Edmonton, the town the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) lives in, passed a resolution asking that the Territories be created into two provinces. On April 2, 1902, the Eastern Assiniboia Liberal Association met at Indian Head and passed similar resolutions. I am not quite sure, but I have a suspicion that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) was present at that meeting in company with Mr. Bulyea. In 1902, there was a local election in the Territories, and in the platform put forward by Mr. Haultain there were these two planks :

1. Equal rights with all the other provinces of the Dominion.

2. Control of the public domain in the west.

These are the matters that the government

of the Territories are now fighting for and these are the matters upon which your judgment is invited in my appeal to you for re-election in the legislature. A similar appeal has been made in every constituency in the country by every candidate whose election will give support to the government at this particular period in the history of the Territories. The issue is plain ; it is for the people of the Territories to decide.

The election took place and the result of that election demonstrated that Mr. Haul-tain and liis supporters represented public opinion iu the Territories ou the question of provincial autonomy. I find that four resolutions have subsequently been passed by the territorial assembly demanding the provincial status ; I find also that the very strongest advocate of the stand taken by Mr. Haultain, was, up to a short time ago, the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). He complimented Mr. Haultain ou the stand he had taken in asking for provincial autonomy, but a short time afterwards the hon. member (Mr. Scott) changed his opinion, and assigned as a reason "for Mr. m. s. McCarthy.

delay that litigation was now pending as to the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation, and he held it would be folly for the government to put through a Bill leaving that matter an open question. But to-day, the hon. member (Mr. Scott) is supporting a Bill which contains a clause continuing that exemption for ever. I also find that on April the 3rd, the Prince Albert Board of Trade passed a resolution declaring that the government should grant provincial autonomy. On March the 3rd, there was a similar resolution from the Calgary Board of Trade. On March 25th, the Conservative convention at Moosejaw at which there were over 200 delegates, some of whom came 700 miles to attend, passed a resolution declaring in favour of the immediate granting of full provincial autonomy including the ownership of the public lauds, mines and minerals. I also find that the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), speaking on October 13, 1908, used these words :

I would wish to point out to the hon. members and to the gentlemen on both sides, that it is not we who are objecting to provincial autonomy. We are asking provincial autonomy, hut we want it on certain terms.

In January, 1904, the Liberal convention in nominating a candidate for Southern Alberta, passed a resolution in favour of provincial autonomy. On September 29 last, the right hon. the First Minister wrote to Mr. Haultain promising that if his government were returned to power they would immediately take into consideration the question of granting provincial autonomy to the Territories. I may point out that seven of the Liberal candidates were returned to this House, and not one of these gentlemen, so far as 1 know, has been instructed by his constituents to repudiate the pledge given to the people by the Liberal leader. I say, Sir, that the resolution I have read, asking that the mines, lands and minerals be left to tbe provinces, represents the true sentiment of the people of the west. They have the conviction that they are entitled to have in the local government the administration of the mines, lands and minerals in their territory, and without that they will not be satisfied. The only argument which I have heard presented ' in support of the overturning of the principles of the union, is that there might be a conflict between the local and federal authorities, and that the federal government might not be able to carry on its immigration policy. That argument was used by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton), but he has not always thought that way because in the province of Manitoba in days gone by he contended for full provincial rights and he advocated handing over the lands to his province ; later on he advi-eated handing over the school lan Is as well.

The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) seemed to fear greatly that if the control of the public domain should be given to the provinces, the provinces would use the lands for revenue and would not settle the outlying districts. Well, Sir, X dm uot so willing as he is to suspect the foresight and business-like management of the local assembly. That assembly has undertaken no function up to date that the people of that country would consent to have abrogated, and the enlargements heretofore made in the powers of the local assembly have been amply justified by the results. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) also entertained a different view of this question in days gone by, and on the 24th of July, 1884, he moved in the local legislature a resolution which expressed his views at that date, and which are not his views of to-day. lie tells us that the lands might be exploited by the people of the west, but let me ask him if the people of the west are not tlhe most interested in the proper administration of these lands, and do they not realize that by settling these lands they would be enhancing the value of their heritage. For my part, Sir, I am not prepared to say that if the immigration policy wete handed over to the local government, they would continue the present system in its entirety. I do uot know that a large expenditure out of the immigration vote for campaign literature would be carried on ; I do not know that the large army of officials now in the Northwest would be continued in office, and I do not know that the local governs ment would hand over its lands in blocks of 250,000 acres at one dollar an acre.

We are told now, Sir, and it is common report throughout the country, that the duties of the Department of the Interior have become too onerous for one man. We were told that the ex-minister (Mr. Sifton) was so broken down in health that he of all men was unable to attend the conference with regard to the granting of autonomy to the Territories. Is not this a very good opportunity to relieve the Department of the Interior of some of its work, and of handing over to the local administration of the Territories the control of the public lands, a right which is enjoyed by every other province but one in this Dominion ?

All that we have heard from the ex-Minister of the Interior is that there would be a conflict; but that will not satisfy the people of the west. They want soihe more satisfactory reason, in view of the attitude which the hon. gentleman assumed in days gone by. They will not endure in silence the withholding of their public lands. I doubt if some of the other Liberal members, in view of the statements which they have made in days gone by, will get up in this House and make the declaration that the people of the Northwest Territories are

not fit to be entrusted with the same measure of self-government that is enjoyed by the various provinces of this Dominion. If they do, I think we on this side of the House will have some reason to congratulate ourselves ou the. manner in which they will be received by the people of that country after such a declaration. In view of the statements that have been made, I think it is only fair to this House and to the people of that country that these hon. gentlemen should give the grounds for the conclusions at which they have arrived.

The hon. the Solicitor General was very pleased to exalt and extol the British constitution. He thought very much of the British constitution in certain respects; but if the British constitution applies in one direction, why should it not apply in the other ? If we are going to follow the British constitution in respect of education, why should we depart from it in regard to the important matter of the control of the public domain ? Are hon. gentlemen opposite, in withholding from the new provinces the control of the public domain, following the British colonial policy ? What was that policy ? It is perhaps unnecessary for me to state to the House that the original idea of the British statesmen was to control the lands in the colonies; but when they tried to put that idea into practice, they had to abandon it for a better policy, namely, that the people on the spot were best qualified to manage their own lands, and that was the policy they adopted. They felt that with local representation the management of the lands would be better looked after. Is that principle not equally applicable to-day? Here we have a territory two thousand miles away, represented In this House by only ten members. If those lands are handed over to the local government, there will be fifty members looking after their management in the interest of the people; and if mistakes or jobbery are liable to happen, are these not more likely to be detected by governments representing fifty members than by a government representing only ten ? I say that to withhold from the provinces the management of their own lands is directly contrary, not only to British colonial policy, but to the spirit of confederation. When confederation was formed, what was the arrangement made between the various provinces ? Was it not that each province retained the right to administer the public domain, while the customs and excise duties were surrendered to the Dominion ? That was the policy carried out with regard to Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Then, in what spirit are these provinces being created to-day ? I take it that It is under section 146 of the British North America Act, which especially provides that the admission shall be ' subject to the provisions of this Act.' The spirit is also in section 109, if the letter is not, un-

der which is handed over to the original provinces the right to administer their public domain. If there is any doubt as1 to the policy that was adopted by the fathers of confederation, let us see what was said. I find in the confederation debates, at page 40; that Sir John A. Macdonald said :

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

Another distinguished Canadian, also one of the fathers of confederation, the Hon. George Brown, referring to this matter, in the course of his speech, said :

Each province is to have charge of its own Crown lands, Crown timber and Crown minerals, and will be free to take such steps for developing them as each deems best.

Further on, the Hon. Mr. Holton, interrupting Mr. Brown, said :

Unfortunately for your argument, the lauds will be in the hands of the local governments.

Mr. Brown replied :

So much the better. My hon. friend can manage his public lands in Lower Canada as he likes, and we will manage ours.

At page 10 of the debates of 1809, Mr. Edward Blake made the following statement in opposing a resolution to admit Newfoundland into the union and to pay Newfoundland $150,000 a year in lieu of its lands ;

He was very strongly opposed to the Dominion acquiring the Crown lands of Newfoundland, and he has as strongly objected to Newfoundland being deprived of its Crown lands. He commended the policy of the framers of the constitution in leaving to each of the provinces the control of their own public lauds. This was from the Canadian point of view. Then as to Newfoundland the arrangement was equally objectionable : (1) Its distance from the seat

of government (2) and its small representation in parliament would lead to an unsatisfactory management.

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

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

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

That the public lands can be managed more efficiently, economically and satisfactorily by Mr. m. s. McCarthy. '

the provinces in which these lands are situated than by Canada, and that there is no good reason for a departure from the principle of the Union Act.

That is a statement which I desire to impress upon the members of this House in regard to the principles of the Union Act, as Mr. Blake regarded them in 1869.

But, Mr. Speaker, if there can be any doubt at all as to what was in the minds of those gentlemen at that day, I will refer to another statement which was made on June 10 in the same debate by Mr. Alexander Mackenzie. Mr. Blake bad made his argument first, and had been twitted by the members of the government for voting to pay money to the Hudson Bay Company. If there could be anything plainer or clearer as- to what was in their minds at that time, it would be hard to find it. Mr. Mackenzie said :

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

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

That statement to my mind is most significant because it was made in the year 1869, the very year- when the surrender was taken from the Hudson Bay Company ; and 1 am sure that' the First Minister and the Solicitor General will pardon the more obscure members from the west if we venture to differ from them in opinion, backed as we are by the statements of these jnen at the very time the contract went through. These were the views that prevailed at that time ; and in the consideration of this question we look to our fellow-citizens in the other provinces to admit our right to be put on an equal footing with them and be given the administration of our own public domain. I have shown what the arrangements were when the four original provinces entered confederation. Let us trace what the subsequent arrangements were in the case of those provinces which entered later.

British Columbia, which entered in 1870, was a colony entitled to its public lands, and not only has it control of its lands, but the Dominion pays it annually the sum of $100,000 for a twenty mile strip through the Rocky Mountains that was alienated for railway purposes. Prince Edward Island entered in 1873, and I think at that time her Grown lands were in such a shape that an annual grant of $45,000 was given her in lieu thereof. Manitoba is the one exception. That province was not allowed to retain its public lands, and hon. gentlemen opposite take glory in the fact that

the arrangement with Manitoba was made by their predecessors. They are willing to shield themselves behind the example* of their predecessors in some things, but see how different were the circumstances in Manitoba then as compared with what they are to-day in the Territories. In Manitoba in the year 1870, there were only 12,000 people, and it was perhaps prudent to withhold from that mere handful of people, unaccustomed to self-government, living on the banks of ilie Red river, their right to administer their public lands, but the conditions which then existed no longer remain nor do they exist in the new provinces about to be established. Whereas in Manitoba you had only 12,000 people in 1870, you have in the Territories to-day, if we are to believe the Minister of the Interior (Mr Sifton) a population of 500,000 people, and a population accustomed to all the responsibilities that go with self-government. But fourteen y ears later, when the same party was in power, the government of Manitoba came down to this parliament and asked to be j given control of its public lands and its petition was refused. True the province of Manitoba agreed to waive her claim to the public lands in consideration of an annual payment of $100,000. But it was her privilege to do that, and that does not form a precedent to be followed in this case. Besides bon. gentlemen opposite have been holding themselves out as nation builders and carefully avoiding any errors into which previous governments have fallen, as all government must fall sometimes. But can any man, I ask, look into the negotiations which have taken place between Manitoba and the federal government, and say that the policy followed was a wise one ? Look at the negotiations which have taken place at frequent intervals between that province and the administration at Ottawa, and you will find that the result of that policy has been continued dissatisfaction and continued agitation for better terms. Look at what has taken place. It is a record of almost annual pilgrimages from Manitoba to Ottawa for better terms. In 1876 her subsidy was increased to $90,000. In 1879 it was increased to $105,653. Again in 1882, she came knocking at the federal door, and her subsidy was increased to $215,000. In 1885 she was still given further assistance. She was given swamp lands, 150,000 acres for a university, $100,000 a year in lieu of public lands, and a per capita grant on a basis of population of 150,000. But that was not the end. In 189S further application was made and she was given a cash grant to construct the government house, and in 1899 she was given better lands in exchange for the swamp lands. These are only a few of the begging trips of Manitoba ; and I ask : Is it good policy, is it wise administration to keep the provincial government at the

mercy of the federal ? I submit, Sir, that to the province of Manitoba as well as to the new provinces should be given the right to administer the public domain within her borders. Speaking for my own constituency,

I believe that a majority of the people of the Territories would be willing to take up the case of Manitoba and make the fight together, aud I believe that at no distant day7, when we receive the representation in this House to which we are entitled, we will be here in such numbers as to justify us in insisting upon equal rights with the other provinces to administer the public domain within our respective borders.

We have heard a great deal about representations with regard to educational matters which were made to certain people when they went out to that country. I have seen pamphlets in circulation claiming protection for a certain class in matters of education and in matters of religious teaching on the ground that they went into that country relying on the protection of a certain clause in the constitution. But let me ask lion, gentlemen opposite under what promise did the hardy pioneers go into that country? Under what constitution did these men go into that country and enhance the value of those one time unoccupied lands by their energy, thrift and enterprise ? Is there any difference in that respect between that part of the Dominion and any other part? When people went out to that part of the Dominion did they give up any portion of their birthright, and is it right, when they take up the burden of a province, that they should start out in confederation as a province on any less advantageous terms than any other province ?

But what is the real reason why these public lands are being retained by this government and withheld from the Territories ? Is it because the governments of the Territories are not capable of giving an honest administration ? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason. We have in that country to-day a large population accustomed to self-government, and no one has as yet ventured to sugest the merest suspicion against the competency of the people In the Territories to manage their own public affairs in their own public interests. That is not the reason, but the reason is that the Ottawa administration realizes that as long as it can retain the immense army of officials which it has up there now, it will have under its control a great machinery for securing votes. That is the difficulty in the way of giving up the lands and no matter what party may be in power, there will always be the danger of its making an improper use of its machinery, because the recent experience we have had up there is not such as to allay our apprehensions in that regard. That this objection is a serious one cannot be denied and

such experience as we have recently had in the west is hardly sufficient to relieve our apprehension, and I assert, Sir, without fear of contradiction, that popular sentiment in the west emphatically condemns any attempt to use government officials for political purposes.

I will give you the names of a few officials who participated in the recent elections in one riding in the last election.

1. Neil G. McCallum, Yorkton, H.I., acted as an agent for Liberal candidate at McKenzie.

2. S. G. McKee, Yorkton, clerk, Dominion Land Ordinance, acted as an agent.

3. John Komainitaky, clerk, interpreter, Dominion Land Ordinance, acted as an agent.

4. Carl Cenik, Winnipeg, Interior Immigration Office, acted as an agent and canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.

5. Mr. Wolf, Winnipeg, Immigration Office, acted as an agent, and canvassed for the Liberal candidate in McKenzie.

6. Paul Bredt, Immigration Agent at Regina, resigned and since promoted, addressed meetings and canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.

7. C. W. Speers, Central Colonization Agent, canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.

8. Mr. Halloquist, Scandinavian Interpreter, canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.

9. Thos. McNutt, acting Immigration Agent, canvassed for Liberal candidate in McKenzie.

Some of these men, homestead Inspectors aud interpreters were brought all the way from Winnipeg. I merely mention this matter to direct the attention of the First Minister to it. I regret that he is not in his place. The Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), if I remember correctly, stated that a public officer should be persona grata to all the people. And the Prime Minister said :

I feel as strongly now in 1*03 as I did in 1896 that when a man has taken office under the government he should take no part in politics.

I mention this to the House to ask these hon. gentlemen, in view of the statements I have given as to the British colonial policy, is it sufficient reasons to withhold from these new provinces the right to administer their public domain ?

Now, coming to the educational clause, I desire to examine these clauses for a few minutes. Before I proceed to discuss the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) from its merits, I wish to direct my attention to the speech made a few evenings ago by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He claimed that the clause inserted in Mr. Haultain's draft Bill was identically the same as that of the Bill now before the House, so far as the educational question is concerned. And. for fear of misquoting him, let me give his own words as found at page 3163 of ' Hansard-' :

But I find that section 3 of this draft Bill, which was prepared by the Northwest government in 1901-and these provisions were re-Mr. m. s. McCarthy.

peated in 1903-is almost word for word with section 2 of the Autonomy Bill which is before the *House and as a matter of fact is a reproduction of the similar section in the Act admitting each individual province into the Dominion. It reads:

Now, before this matter could be discussed, or even fairly understood, I presume, it would be necessary to make sure that we realize the difference between 'continue' and ' perpetuate.' Does the hon. member for Edmonton propose that creating new provinces in the Northwest, we should get along without any law at all until the legislature can meet ? Surely not. And this section 3 simply perserves for the time being the laws in existence on the 1st of July next. A section similar to this has been put in every law creating a province, simply to provide a body of laws until the legislature can meet and pass laws to continue the laws that have been handed over or repeal or amend them. Yet, the hon. member for Edmonton tries to construe this Bill as simply giving to the people of the Northwest what they asked for in their draft Bill. But I have already indicated the difference-we may have asked for it for the time being; but we do not ask to have the present system of schools perpetuated or the power to repeal the existing system taken away. We have a law with regard to brands. Does the hon, member for Edmonton want to discontinue that and have no law? We have a law with regard to bulls. If there was a law in the Northwest with regard to strikes, no doubt the hon. member for Edmonton would like to have it kept on the statute-book until the legislature could meet and pass such a law. He says also :

I say that In view of the fact that these separate schools have been in existence for 20 years absolutely at the disposal of this parliament, without a word of objection from the legislature of the Northwest Territories

But I find that on reference to the Journals of the legislative assembly, for 1889, page 65 and for 1890, page 129, that there were certain proceedings of that assembly of which the hon. member for Edmonton did not inform the House. Now I find that the Act of 1875 deals with education, and I am going to trouble the House while I read a few words from one section, as it is necessary for the point I desire to make. Section 14, the much-discussed section says:

14. .The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect to education but it shall therein always be provided, that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the Territories or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name the same is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor ; and also that the minority of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic may esta-

blish separate schools therein-and in such case, the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.

I find that in 1889, a petition was sent to the Dominion authorities by the local legislature at Regina, of which the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was then a member, praying to this effect :

That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, the Senate and the House of Commons, praying for the amendment of ' The Northwest Territories Act ' by repealing that portion of subsection 1 of section 14 after the word * education ' in the second line.

And the hon. member for Edmonton supported that. So did the hon. member for East Asslniboia (Mr. Turriff), then a member of the assembly. Thus they prayed this administration that everything that had to do with education should be shut out of the law, which would leave the province a free hand with the matter of education. In view of that point, 1 think that hardly all the facts were stated by the bon. member (Mr. Oliver) when he said that there was no feeling in the Northwest with regard to this Bill and no objection taken to it. If the prayer of the petitions had been granted, I think these gentlemen would have been in nearly the same position as the amendment of the leader of the opposition would place them in. Apparently, their opinions have changed. But it did not stop at the point I have indicated. In the following session of the legislative assembly, they repeated their prayer. And the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for East Assiniboia supported that contention, that education should be left entirely to the provinces. Now, apparently, they have changed their mind as they did with regard to the land policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, in proceeding to discuss these educational clauses of these Bills, I cannot say that I shall be able to show, but shall contend, that the amendments presented to this1 House to-day do not differ in the slightest degree from the original Bill as brought down. But, before I proceed to discuss the amendment and the original Bill let me point out the contrast between the position taken by the right hon. leader of the government and the ex-Minister of the Interior. the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). [DOT]

The right hon. the First Minister has said in introducing the Bill that it was obliga-[DOT] tory upon this government to preserve certain rights and conditions which by reason of good faith were inviolable, and lest I should misquote him I shall read what be said. These rights and conditions are inviolable because they are given under the Act of 1875, and he says:

It is open to any man to break his word, it is open to any man to violate his engagement, it is open to any man to trample under foot his plighted troth. Now if it is open to any man to do that, it is also open to parliament ; and if it be the view that parliament is not bound by the acts of any preceding parliament, that parliament may violate its plighted troth, then we have a double opportunity on this occasion to signalize ourselves.

Proceeding further in reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption:

But does anybody in this House think of removing from the Canadian Pacific Railway the powers and immunities which have been granted to that company ? Does anybody in this House think for a moment of giving to those new provinces the power to levy taxation upon the Canadian Pacific Railway ? No, we respect our engagements. Then I ask if we respect our engagements in the one ease, why should we not respect our engagements in the other case.

That is the position he took that certain rights under the Act of 1875 were created and were inviolable. He took the position that these rights which were created should be guaranteed to the minority. But the hon. member from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has endeavoured to show that there is a vast difference between the rights of the minorities under the Act of 1875 and their right to-day under local ordinances. He said that under the Act of 1875 the minority were entitled to and were given a complete dual system. This is what he says on page 3239:

That was the clause in the Act of 1876. X read it because it is important in view of the remarks I intend to address to the House, that its exact terms should be in the minds of the gentlemen who are honouring me with their attention.

What followed the passage of this law ? There was established in the Northwest Territories a complete dual system of schools.

Further down on the same page he says :

This system went on for some time in the Territories, and then the legislature began to interfere and to curtail the privileges of the separate schools. This curtailment proceeded from time to time until the year 1892 when 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 at present, was established.

So there is a vast difference in the views taken by the right hon. the First Minister and the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). There is a vast difference between the rights conferred under the Act of 1875 and under the ordinances according to the member for Brandon. The bon. member for Brandon has compared these rights and further says that these rights were conferred under the Act of 1875 and that the local ordinances curtailing them were unconstitutional and ultra vires. He will not consent to the preservation of the conditions which are inviolable, but be will agree to perpetuate the curtailed rights, although lie intimated that such an invasion was an illegal and uncon-

stitutional invasion of the rights conferred under the Act of 1875. I shall cite his exact woru.s. At page 3241 he says :

We have it that the clerical control of these schools was absolutely abolished. Every one recognizes that it was absolutely abolished and in addition to that, I desire to say-whatever we may think of the justification for the action which was taken-it seems to me perfectly clear, that in abolishing the distinctive character of the schools, the legislature of the Northwest Territories did go beyond the powers that were bestowed upon it by this section of the Act of 1875.

There is the opinion of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), that when the local ordinances abolished these rights they went beyond the power given to them under the Act of 1875. Upon that point Sir John Thompson expressed his opinion:

In making a report on one of the ordinances passed shortly before 1802 but somewhat similar in its effect-not so sweeping in its effect-Sir John Thompson in substance reported that this ordinance, contracts or diminishes the rights of minorities to an extent not contemplated by the Act of 1875, and that the Act of 1875 must nevertheless be held to remain in force notwithstanding the passage of the ordinance.

Now, there is the position. The First Minister insists upon the inviolabi'ity of that Apt. The ex-Minister of the Interior finds that under the Act the minority were entitled to a complete dual system. This was taken away by an ordinance. If they had the right to have them then they have the right now in spite of any ordinances to the contrary. I propose a little further on to deal with that section which specifically continues these rights of the minority in force in that country. The p isition then is this, that the Prime Minister repudiates his speech and accepts a yio ation of the Act of 1875 and accedes to a proposition to perpetuate a violation of the inviolable. There is the position between the Prime Minister and the hon member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton).

But let us examine into these clauses for a moment, and we shall see just who has been making a compromise, who has been giving away his rights or his religious opinions. I find that the objections of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) are, first, that he objects to subsection 2 of section 16, and it is on account of this clause he says that he resigned, because he says that in that all the evils which he has dilated upon existed under the Act of 1875 in Manitoba. I wish to make myself clear, but I am not going to be dragged into the discussion of the merits or demerits of a separate school system. That is a matter of which 1 know nothing, and I am simply taking the argument and citing the cases cited by the hon. gentlemen opposite who have had more experience in dealing with these systems than I have had. He says that he objects to subsection 2 of section 16 because in that Mr. m. s. McCarthy.

all the evils he has dilated upon exists, and he has persuaded the First Minister to accept a proposition that in his opinion has eliminated all the essential characteristics of a separate school system. What does subsection 2 of section 16 to which he makes objection contain? It says:

That a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the said province, or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name it is known, may establish such schools therein as they think fit.

On that he builds up what he calls his university argument. He takes the general word 'education' at the beginning of that clause and ignores the fact that this general word is followed by a number of particular words. The reading of it is:

3. In the appropriation of public moneys by the legislature in aid of education, and in the distribution of any moneys paid to the government of the said province arising from the school fund established by the Dominion Lands Act, there shall be no discrimination between the public schools and the separate schools.

He takes the comprehensive word 'education' and tries to read into that that there was some risk and danger of endowing a Catholic university, ignoring altogether the fact that the general word education is followed afterwards by the particular words 'separate schools and public schools,' so he creates a man of straw in this so-eailed university argument and then proceeds to demolish it. I submit that it is based upon a fallacious construction of that clause to which he raises his objection. Now, what are his other objections and why did he resign ? Now, he objects to endowing a separate university, he objects to ear-marking the public land fund. But what does the amendment do? Does it not create and endow schools from the same funds? Does the amendment make any distinction between these two sections? Now, let us deal with the position as it is. How does the amendment change the Bill, if it changes it at all? I desire to point out that if the rights of the minority to separate schools were created under the Act of 1875, and if they were entitled under it to a complete dual system, then I say that under the amendment exactly the same state of affairs will prevail. Let me read subsection 1 of the amended section:

Nothing in any such law shall prejudically 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 ordinance of the Northwest Territories passed in the year 1901.

Now I find that section 41 of chapter 29 of these ordinances reads as follows :

The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish a separate school therein, and in such case the ratepayers establishing such

Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school shall be liable only to the assessments of such rates as they impose upon themselves .in respect thereof.

Now, in that section is everything that is included in the Act of 1875, which gives these people the right to separate schools, and which gives them the rights the member for Brandon dilated upon a few days ago. Therefore, X take the position that there is not the slightest difference to-day between the amended Bill and the Bill that was originally presented to this House. Now an attempt was made by the Minister' of Customs, who is not in his seat, and by a number of other gentlemen, to show that all the amendment gives to these local legislatures is the power to give a half hour's religions instruction at the end of the day. Now, Sir, there is nothing in these1 ordinances which pares down the rights given to them under section 41, so far as I have been able to find, except to designate at what time this religious teaching shall take place. They have attempted to make this House believe that under this amendment it is not possible to have a dual system of text books, a dual system of inspection, but that everything given under the Act of 1875 is preserved by the introduction of section 41 in chapter 29. Now, this amendment, which they argue will preserve to the people of that country what they have got today, simply continues the lawT, it does not continue the administration. The dual system of text hooks, the dual inspection and all that is a matter of administration. Therefore, if the argument of the member for Brandon is sound that the action of the local legislation in paring down the rights these people had under the Act of 1S75 was ultra vires, then any Order in Council which was passed by the commissioner of education would be equally ultra vires.

Then the minority, under this section 41 which gives them the rights they had under the Act of 1875. and which are preserved to them under this amendment, would be able to demand that these rights be enforced.

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

Does my hon. friend understand that after the 1st of .July they will not he able to do that ? That after this legislation takes effect they will not he able to do as he says they can do at present ?

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
?

Mir. M. S.@

McCarthy. Why not ?

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

Because this legislation removes any defects that may exist in the present; ordinance.

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

Does my hon. friend say that this Act, when it passes, will not confirm chapters 29 and 30 as law ?

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
CON
LIB
?

Mir. M. S.@

McCarthy. The hon. gentleman may think so. Let him take chapters 29 and 30 and show the section to this House where the rights under the Act of 1875 or of section 41 are pared down by them.

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

Are not those the ordinances which abolish the ecclesiastical schools in the Northwest Territories 7

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
?

Mir. M. S.@

McCarthy. The hon. gentle-yon will see that if you cannot take rights away by legislaton you cannot take them away by Order in Council. If the opinion of the hon. member for Brandon is correct, that the local ordinances which pared down the Act of 1875 were ultra vires, then any Order in Council which is passed paring down the rights which are continued to them under section 41. would also he ultra vires, and they would have a right to insist upon their privileges.

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

He will not contend that these ordinances will he ultra vires after these Bills have passed this House.

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
?

Mir. M. S.@

McCarthy. You will find that this amended Act does not preserve the administration, it simply preserves these ordinances, and ail there is in these ordinances paring down the rights given under section 41. would be identically the same rights they had under the Act of 1875. The only thing that is pared down is the half hour I have mentioned. ,

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

My hon. friend is mistaken. One of the conditions that was pared down was the existence of dual management and dual boards, one board managing tbe Roman Catbolie schools, and the other board managing the public schools.

Topic:   T. S. SPROULE.
Permalink

March 28, 1905