April 5, 1905

CON

John Barr

Conservative (1867-1942)

Air. BARR.

I must of course, bow to the will of the House. I should not attempt to address the House ou this subject, did

I not think it was my bounden duty not to give a silent vote on this Autonomy Bill. In voting, as I intend to do, for the amende ment of the leader of the opposition, I dO not wish to be understood as being opposed to giving to the fullest extent provincial rights to all the great lone land of the Northwest. But before entering upon the! remarks I intend to make on the Bill itself, I desire for a short time to follow my hon. friend who has just sat down. I was pleased to learn that the hon. gentleman is not a lawyer, because I naturally supposed that he would take pains to steer clear of the constitutional question which has taken up so much of our time. I think we might well leave that question to be threshed out by the lawyers who, so far as we can judge, will leave it just as hazy as it was when they entered the discussion. And after we shall have heard all the learned arguments advanced by the gentlemen of the legal profession on the one side or the other, I have no doubt that we shall come back to the same conclusion which has always prevailed in the past, and that is that it is their duty to make black appear white and right wrong. And as that is part of their business, I am glad to know that I am not a lawyer, but a doctor. But there is one thing which I presume every hon. gentleman will admit, and that is that it is the duty of this House to make laws, and that, on the other hand, it is the duty of the courts to interpret them, and whether we arrive at the conclusion that this Bill is ultra vires or otherwise, I presume the end will be that it will have to go to the Privy Council. And as that court is composed of human beings who are also lawyers, the probability is that they will give a decision according to the temper in which they are and according as their digestion is good or bad. We shall therefore have to wait for their decision to decide whether this Bill is legal or not. But I venture to say that the free and independent elector, the ordinary man, as he reads the 92nd clause of the British North America Act, will have no hesitation in concluding that so far as education is concerned, that is a question!, which has to be left to the province, with, the exception that this parliament has the right to pass a remedial law in the event of any province not carrying out the law as it is in the statute-books.

My hon. friend has said we should live in peace and harmony. We all agree with that, we would like to live in peace and harmony with all men in all parts of this fair Dominion of ours, but in order to do that we have rights and we have privileges which we must guard and guard safely. We must remember that the majority have rights which they should exercise just as freely as do the minority. My hon. friend attempted to make a point against the lead-

er of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and although not a lawyer he endeavoured to insinuate that we on this side have not succeeded in our argument and that the leg'al argument of the leader of the opposition had been a failure. I shall not follow that up beyond saying that we are all proud of the leader of the opposition. We feel that we have one man here who is not only able to take care of himself, but able to sustain the combat on any question that comes before this House, legal or otherwise, and to hold his own with any hon. gentleman on the opposite side. He has proved this to be the case in the past, and I venture to say that he will continue to show in the future that it is still the case. Then we have the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) whom I have no hesitation in saying hon. gentlemen opposite have dreaded in the past, but never more than at the present time. This is shown by the very fact that in the past on two occasions when he was defeated, they put forth every effort of the government, not only by their voice and by means that are not too clear or too fail', but they put forth their money bags, which they sent to all parts to accomplish the work to an extent that is detrimental to the best interests and to the morality of this country. My hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Belaud) tried to make a point out of the fact that they are more liberal in Quebec than in other provinces. They may be, looking at it from a religious point of view, but when we look at it from a political point of view we must know that there are some reasons why there are only 12 Conservatives from that province. The Conservatives have about

100,000 votes in Quebec while the Reformers have only about 130,000, and notwithstanding that there were only 11 Conservatives returned and 54 Reformers, proving beyond a doubt that there was some work going on behind the scenes that was not of a religious nature. I might point to the liberality of Ontario. In the Conservative government of the province of On-ario, one of the strongest governments the province ever had, there is for the first time as Minister of Public Works a French Canadian, and we have as Minister of Crown Lands a Roman Catholic, both men worthy of the positions and we the Conservatives of the province of Ontario were pleased beyond degree when we saw the choice which the present premier, Hon. Mr. Whitney, had made. I ask you to point to such liberality under any other circumstances and I venture to say that if I had the vote here it would be found that so far as their representatives are concerned the Roman Catholics have received a fair share of the vote according to their numbers in the province of Ontario, particularly in connection with the Conservative party. In looking over the votes we find that in all cases they have had a larger representation in the Mr. BARR.

Conservative ranks than they have had in the Reform ranks, proving beyond a doubt that the Conservatives on all occasions have been more liberal along these lines than the Reformers have been in the past.

I was rather amused to see my hon. friend (Mr. Belaud) endeavouring to make a point against the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). He struggled hard, he read 'Hansard,' and read it with all the ingenuity of one well up along that line. He read 'Hansard' to prove beyond a doubt that my hon. friend was opposed to provincial rights, but he did not tell you what the gist of that argument was. He did not tell you what question was being discussed at that time, and of course we all know that there are questions in connection with the,rights and privileges of the Dominion and those of the provinces which on many occasions have overlapped; they have not been well defined and great injustice has on many occasions been done in consequence. Look, for instance, at our railways, look at the conflict of jurisdiction in regard to charters for joint stock companies, &c. Here they are running from one parliament to the other obtaining charters of different kinds when the jurisdiction of the different parliaments in that respect should be well defined. We find that hon. gentlemen were discussing matters in connection with these grievances and that the discussion had nothing to do with equal rights such as we are discussing here to-night. I shall not follow my hon. friend further along that line, but I shall dwell now for a few moments upon the great question of the Bill which is before us and I might say that while the educational question is one of the most important dealt with in this Bill, there Is great danger under existing circumstances that the attention of the people of Canada will be diverted from the other great questions which must affect that country in the future by the consideration of this one clause, and it may not be until after this becomes law, it may not be until it is beyond remedy, that we will have discovered mistakes which will then be beyond recall. I look upon the question of the number of provinces as one of great importance and one which cannot be too carefully considered. It is my opinion that it would have been much better for these provinces if we had two provinces instead of three. It would have been much better if the province of Manitoba could have been extended either to the north or west or east, and then we would have had one province west of that, making two in place of three. *There is no doubt that Manitoba as she is constituted to-day will be at a great disadvantage in the future. It is a small province of 73,000 square miles, against two provinces of 150,000 square miles each. I submit that Manitoba is not receiving justice and before I have finished I shall endeavour to show why this injustice is being done to her. I believe it would be

better to have two provinces in place of three. We know that the more populous a province is the more expensive its administration becomes. At the present time in those two provinces there are only half a million people, surely not more than enough for one province. It has been said before, and I will say it again, that we are very much over-governed in the Dominion of Canada. We have more representatives in every legislature than are required. We have too much legislative machinery. So I say that if there were only one province instead of two in the Northwest one-half less machinery would be required. Perhaps there would need to be a greater number of representatives. but only one parliamentary building would be required. We must remember that to-day we are laying the foundation of what will probably become the two greatest provinces in this fair Dominion of ours. Although they have only 500,000 at present, in less than two decades, certainly in less than a quater of a century, there will be 10,000,000 or 20,000,000 in that vast country, people who have come from many parts of the world and from, many nations, mingling together and forming probably the brightest and most intelligent people in this fair Dominion. Under these circumstances it is all important that the foundation should be strong and well laid and that no mistake should be made. As for the capitals of the two provinces, whether they are to be Edmonton or Calgary or not, it is well to let the people settle that question for themselves.

Now with reference to the land in those provinces. I do not agree with some lion, gentlemen opposite who have spoken on this subject. I believe it would be to the interest of those provinces that they should have control of the public lauds, and I believe it would be to the interest of the Domiuion of Canada to leave the land with the provinces. Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces except Manitoba have control of their public lands. Manitoba has not, because circumstances were very different when she was created a province, there were only about

12,000 souls in the territory now forming Manitoba, and they were not in a position to manage their own affairs. But here we have 500,000 people, very intelligent, and comprising among them able men such as have composed their legislative assemblies. I freely admit that the Dominion has dealt liberally with them, we have given on the whole to each province, $1,124,125. That is a large sum indeed, larger than the revenue which the Dominion will get out of the land. At the same time it is not sufficiently large to carry on the administration of public affairs as it should be carried on. I have made a calculation of the sums we are giving those provinces. For the support of the government and legislature, $50,(X)0 ; 80 cents per head on an estimated population of 250,000, $200,000 ; interest at 5 per cent on 125

$38,107,568, as a set-off against the debt of the other provinces which the Dominion assumed when they entered confederation, $405,373. We are also to pay them by [DOT]way of compensation for public lands, $375,000 yearly, and we give them annually for ten years $92,750 to provide for the construction of the necessary public buildings. That will be increased as the population increases. AVhen the population reaches 800,000 the two provinces will have an income of $4,415,750. Now I submit that it would be better for the provinces to keep their land, the Dominion of Canada will not make that much money out of the land, and the payments we are making to those provinces will be a burden on this Dominion which will be felt for many years to come. I contend that it would be better for the province to keep the land because it would be administered much better and much more economically than it is at the present time. Take the land offices in the Northwest Territories, I submit that many of them are perfect cesspools of corruption, and I speak whereof I know, as I have had some dealings through agents and otherwise with these land offices, and my conclusion is that they are not conducted in a proper manner. For instance, they are surrounded by heelers, by those who have claims upon the government, and the result is that when an actual settler goes there, when he has picked out his land and desires to place his name upon it, invariably he is told that it will require some consideration. Now if the business was properly conducted, they would be able to say at once to that man : You can have it, or : It is sold. But that is not the course pursued. He is annoyed, and, in many eases, he has to settle with the claims of some other parties. The result is hardships to the actual settler, to the immigrant coming in to make his home there. Many of them do not get the land after they have gone to much trouble in picking it out. Whilst that is the case with the actual settler, it is much worse with the prospector, of whom .there are many, they are the most important class of the community. I speak from knowledge on this subject. Prospectors are numerous there, they travel all over the country, hundreds of thousands of miles exploring the land, digging down into the bowels of the earth to see if they can find anything that is worth taking up. When they make application to the land office, in almost every case, I venture to say in ninety-nine cases out of a nundred, they are told that it is impossible to decide whether that land is taken up or otherwise, and they will have to wait a few days.

The prospector perhaps spends a large sum of money in locating the land which he desires to obtain. He comes back in a few days and finds three or four bogus claims made, and if he obtains the land by paying two or three rake-offs he is more fortunate than the great majority of pros-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Land or money.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

John Barr

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BARR.

Very well. We have never advanced that far in Ontario, and I do not think it would be worth while to offer that inducement because there would be very few to take advantage of it. Ontario has her lands, mines, and minerals and without them that province would have been starved years ago. Every year Ontario has found it necessary to sell from her timber limits and her Crown lands and to obtain large sums out of her mines and minerals. Notwithstanding that so far as we in the opposition during many years were concerned we never were able to find a surplus. It is true that the Liberal government always claimed they had a surplus, but that surplus was mythical as mythical could be, and when the books are now thoroughly audited it will be proved that not only has the province not a surplus, but that she is millions of dollars behind. What advantage is it for the new provinces to have borrowing powers if they have no security to offer ? Had it not been that Ontario could obtain a revenue from her natural resources, years ago that province would have been face to face with direct taxation which is the greatest calamity that could possibly happen to any people, province or country, and under this Bill that calamity is bound to overtake the new provinces. Manitoba has control of her swamp lands which in time will become most productive, and from them she derives a large income. Why should Manitoba have the swamp lands and the new provinces be denied them ? I venture to say that in the near future these provinces will be found coming here demanding better terms and putting up such a strong case that better terms will have to be granted no matter what government is in power. At this late hour of the night I will not speak as long as I had intended, but I shall for a short time discuss that vexed question of separate schools in the new provinces, which is to-day agitating the mind of the people in this fair Dominion as no other question has for many years. It is a question which will live, and which will continue to increase in importance, at all events until free and independent electors of Canada will have 125J

an opportunity to make themselves heard on it. We have had the legal aspect of this question discussed day after day and while no definite decision has been arrived at, nobody will deny that if the government had not seen fit to insert the separate school clause, there would have been no agitation and the people of the new provinces could decide on the question according to the dictates of their conscience and in their own best interests. It is not necessary to discuss here whether we are in favour of separate schools or not. I am glad to say that I am in accord with a number of those on the other side of the House wTbo have announced that they are not in favour of separate schools. The Minister of Finance has told us that he is opposed to separate schools ; the member for Edmonton told us, as he stated many times on the public platform that he was opposed to separate schools. He is an old war horse \yho fought for provincial rights in the past, and who stated that he would never consent that separate schools should be inflicted on the Northwest Territories, but now he has changed his mind, like many others, in order to save his party. For my part I would be sorry to deprive any people of their just rights, but the people of the new provinces themselves know best what rights should be respected. It has been argued that because we have separate schools in Quebec and Ontario there should be separate schools in the new provinces, but let me point out that they have no separate schools in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba or British Columbia. We have Manitoba on the one side and British Columbia on the other, free to regulate their schools, and these two provinces wedged in between them, with separate schools forced upon them for all time to come-a state of affairs which I think never should have existed.

The difference between the separate schools in Ontario and Quebec and those in the new provinces in this. By the consent of both parties, by an agreement entered into by Quebec and Ontario, after due consideration, separate schools were established in those two provinces in perpetuity, and the government was embodied in the British North America Act. That is a very different position from the position occupied by these two provinces. When they obtained their territorial rights they were in their infancy ; they were the wards of the Dominion government. They had no voice in the settlement of the school question at that time. The system was provided for in the Bill of 1875 after much discussion, both in this House and in the Senate. An amendment was moved, I think by the late Senator Aikens in the Senate, but was defeated by a small majority. It was then that those memorable words, of which so much has been made, were uttered by the Hon. George Brown, to the effect that in providing for

separate schools In the Territorial Bill, they were establishing them for all time to come. He did not wish to imply that they would have to be placed there ; but, being a far-seeing man, he knew that the fact of that provision being made would be used for the purpose of perpetuating separate schools in those provinces ; and it is well known that he was always opposed to separate schools. Now, what guarantee have we that the separate schools in these two provinces will continue as they are at the present time ? I submit that we have no guarantee. We find that the provisions of the Bill are very hazy, so much so that lawyers might place very different interpretations upon it ; and the ordinances only guide the Territories, but do not ensure the schools as they now exist being continued for all time to come. While no great hardship may be experienced at the present time, it will certainly be a hardship to the majority in newly settled districts to maintain two weak and sickly schools where there might be one vigorous and healthy school. The Territories have no guarantee whatever that these schools will remain for all time to come as they are at the present time. I suppose they could change them for a system of schools similar to what exists in the province of Ontario to-day. According to a judgment given by Mr. Justice McMahon some three months ago, there are one hundred and five teachers teaching in the separate schools of Ontario to-day who have never passed a legal examination. This is a serious state of affairs; and yet these teachers are going on teaching month after month. It is true they have appealed the case to a higher court, and I suppose it will ultimately go to the Privy Council. These teachers are now teaching contrary to the law, except that the late government gave them permits to teach until a decision of the higher court could be obtained. Many of these teachers are not educated. It is said that many of them are priests, who are educated ; but many are iadies and others who have had no training whatever. The law with regard to separate schools in Ontario has been changed in many ways. For'instance, the law provides that all taxes paid bj corporations must be used for the support of the public schools ; but a private Bill was passed providing that the Sturgeon Falls Pulp Company should divide its taxes between the public schools and the separate schools. If that state of affairs can be brought about in the province of Ontario, why could it not in these new provinces ? The Minister of Customs endeavoured to make a point against the government of the Northwest Territories, particularly against Mr. Haultain, when he used these words :

Talk about Mr. Haultain not having been consulted. He was consulted frequently, but if he had never been consulted or if no Northwest member had ever been consulted, I ask what better indication can you have of the desire Mr. BARR.

of the people of the Northwest Territories than their own legislation ?

The legislation to which the Minister of Customs referred was a law of the Northwest council, of which Mr. Haultain was the head, particularly a law based on tlie school law which was handed down to them from this House. The law set forth that there should be an advisory board composed of not less than two Catholics and four Protestants. But it is only an advisory board ; it is not clothed with any power except to advise the Minister of Education, and he can change the regulations at any lime ; so that we might have a very different state of affairs in the near future from what we have at the present time. To my mind it seems most extraordinary that the exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was not consulted and more extraordinary still that he himself did not make it a point to be present at the cabinet meetings when this matter was being decided. He well knew that these Bills were being prepared and he should have made it his duty to impress on his colleagues and the right lion, gentleman the necessity of having them passed upon by him before they were finally drafted. In not taking this action, I submit he was recreant to his duty. I submit that he did not do what was expected of him by the people of the Northwest. It is indeed extraordinary that on the subcommittee of the cabinet which undertook to frame those Bills, there was only one representative from Ontario while there were three from Quebec. Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Territories was not consulted, and Mr. Rogers from Manitoba informed us to-day that neither was he consulted, and we must conclude that it was decided by two or three representatives from Quebec that this clause No. 16 should he embodied in these Bills. It is evident that the First Minister took upon himself to bring down these Bills and force them through the House without consulting his colleagues, proving beyond doubt that we have to-day in this country a one man government. Let us for a moment look at the position occupied by this government to-day as compared with the one they took in 1896. In the election of 1896, the position 1 admit was a unique one. The late government was endeavouring to force on this House remedial legislation against the province of \Manitoba. The right hon. gentleman, who was then leading the opposition, seized that opportunity to declare in the province of Quebec that if he were returned to power he would see that Manitoba gave the Catholic minority of that province what they desired. That was the stand taken by the Quebec wing of the right hon. gentleman's party, but what did they do in the province of Ontario ? In the elections in 1890 in that province, I took a rather active part and had the pleasure of hearing the First Minister and the Postmaster General on several occasions, and the arrangement

they entered into was this. The First Minister went up to the western part of Ontario and entered into an agreement with the late Sir Oliver Mowat to this effect, that if the Reform party were returned to power-and the signs of the times pointed that way- jir. Mowat would resign his seat in the local cabinet and take office as Minister of Justice in the Dominion. Sir Oliver, being a canny Scotchman, was not going to take any chances and would not resign his premiership of Ontario until it was certain that the Liberals were returned to power in the Dominion. Contrary to his protestations in the past, that the provincial government should not interfere in Dominion elections, Sir Oliver Mowat took a very active part in those elections, and I had the pleasure of meeting him on several platforms. The position he then took was this. An effort, he said, is being made by the government of the Dominion to force remedial legislation upon Manitoba to deprive that province of its rights, and I ask the electors of Ontario to look back at my past history and say whether I have not on all occasions stood for equal rights. Have I not, he exclaimed, fought the battle of equal rights in years gone by, have I not fought it in connection with the boundary award and the license question and fought it successfully. And just as I fought it in the past in the local legislature, so I shall, when I enter Dominion politics, tight for the rights, not only of Manitoba but of all that great western country ; and he went on to declare that when in the near future the territories would be created provinces, he would see that equal rights were extended to them. He would never agree to separate schools or to remedial legislation for the purpose of forcing those schools upon Manitoba or any province in the great lone land. And if the time should ever come when he would not have that power, he would resign his place in the House. The Postmaster General took the same ground. He declared on many a platform that he would never support separate schools in the Dominion and would never allow remedial legislation to be forced on Manitoba. The First Minister was also loud in his denunciation of the late government. He declared that he had stood in this House, and was prepared to stand in any part of the Dominion, for provincial rights, and that he would never allow this remedial legislation to be placed on Manitoba. He would never shackle any province with legislation along that line. He would never put the fetters upon any of those provinces, he was opposed to separate schools, he was pleased to know that they could attend school together, that they could go to the polls and vote together, and the result was that all these statements had their effect in Ontario. Seat after seat that had gone Conservative in the past went by overwhelming majorities to the Reform party and the result was that in 1896 the

Reformers were surprised at the large vote which they received in Ontario. They obtained it under false pretenses in the way which I have pointed out. I ask the question how have they been able to swallow all these principles, to swallow themselves and to come here to-day after making these pledges in Ontario and endeavour to force separate schools upon this province, although they are the very men who denounced them in the past. I wonder how they in ten years succeed in swallowing all these promises. I cannot understand it unless in the words of the poet:

An all-wise and ever-indulging Providence has made them hollow.

In order that they their promises might swallow.

We have no separate schools in my county. We had them on one occasion but they have all disappeared. After a trial the Roman Catholics found that the public schools were much better and cheaper than the separate schools. It has been pointed out to us in the past that our public schools are Godless schools ; in fact some speakers almost seem to have the idea that as far as the Protestant religion is concerned there is no God in that. So far as our national schools are concerned they must remember that we had enacted the Ross Bible from which portions of scriptures w ere to be read each day. religious instruction can be given by Ministers of different denominations if they so desire and if the trustees and parents desire it and this is very often done. Under these circumstances I submit that it cannot be charged that these schools are Godless schools. So far as the county of Dufferin is concerned they do not want separate schools, and I venture to say that that is the case in many parts of the province as well. I have here a resolution which was passed in my county regretting that a provision for separate schools was placed in this Bill. I have here also the statement of the Minister of Public Works for Manitoba and I must say that it shows a most extraordinary state of affairs Indeed. We find that in place of the First Minister meeting these delegates, as naturally vie would expect, they were met by the Papal delegate. We have no objection to there being a Papal delegate in the Dominion of Canada so long as he confines his services to the work of the church, but just as soon as he interferes in our educational questions, then I say the line must be drawm and we have a right to take exception to his action. It has been going the rounds for many days that the Papal delegate met Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell by appointment and made a proposition to them. The proposition was that they should place a clause in the Manitoba school law that where there were in a rural district fifteen Roman Catholic children or in a city or town thirty Roman Catholic children separate rooms must be provided for them

and that the trustees if they so desired It must engage a teacher of their religious persuasion. Now look how that would work out; suppose there were sixty children in the district, then one-quarter of those would have one teacher and the other forty or forty-five would have one teacher, yet under that direction the trustees would be required to pay their equal share of taxes for the Catholic teacher who was only teaching fifteen children. I submit that this is a most unjust proposal and one that should not be entertained. If that meeting was not brought about I ask why the rumour has not been denied. I submit that it is up to His Excellency that he should set himself right upon it. Here are two men holding honourable positions, standing high in their province, men who have the confidence of their province, and they state distinctly that that meeting took place and that that proposition was made. Did the First Minister know about that meeting or did he not ? That is the question to be decided. If he did not know then I submit that the Papal delegate was going beyond his proper sphere in making that proposition and therefore taking it in any light youl can it was an improper thing to do ; it was wrong to make the proposition. He told them according to this report that if they agreed to put this clause in, it would expedite the enlargement of the province. What does that mean ? Does it not carry out the statements that have been made in the past over and over again that Manitoba need not expect any extension of territory unless she agreed to separate schools, and, here we have a proposition made that proves beyond a doubt that this was the case. I say again that we in this House object to any interference whatever in connection with church or state. We refuse to allow any foreign potentate to take any part in our legislation or to dictate how our children shall be educated in any part of this fair Dominion of ours.

Now in this age of the world when church and state are being separated in France, we in Canada are binding them together; I submit that is a state of affairs that should not exist. It has been said that in the) United States, because they have national schools where no religion is taught, the people have become unchristian, and we ard pointed to the eastern countries where state church schools have existed for so long. I have travelled through those eastern countries myself, I have seen the sun rise and set in many lands, and in travelling through them I have observed the way in which the Sabbath was kept, and have endeavoured to learn something of the results of the church schools which prevail there. I found that those eastern countries have not been going ahead as the United States has. Spain has had church schools for centuries, and today Spain is one of the dying nations of the world. France has had church schools;

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

John Barr

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BARR.

and to-day she is severing all connection between church and state, and as a result of establishing national schools I believe we will see France rise amongst the nations of the world. It is true that in the United States where there are no separate' schools, there are divorce laws, and lynch-ings and many other problems that are difficult to solve ; nevertheless the United States stands to-day among the foremost nations of the world. As regards Sabbath observance, it is in those countries where church schools prevail that you will find the Sabbath most generally violated, theatre going and all kinds of amusements are carried on on that day. If you want to find a? Christian nation you will find one that ob-f serves the Sabbath. Where will you findt the Sabbath as well observed as it is in this fair Dominion of ours ? You will find! it observed just as well in those provinces that have national schools as in those that) have separate schools. I am not prepared to say that there is any difference. But I think) we can boast that we have a Christian people in this Dominion, who observe the Sabbath better than in any other country ini the world.

Therefore, I say, that in building up thi* great country we are making history, andj we must carefully procure the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people. We must give those new provinces provincial rights, we must give them all the freedom they have a right to expect at our hands; Sir, the time will come, whether it is this year or next year, when the free and independent electors of this Dominion will assert themselves. We have seen petitions1 coming from every part of this Dominion, the table has groaned beneath their weight. We have seen public meetings passing resolutions in almost every province in the! Dominion, protesting against forcing separate schools upon these new provinces. There1 is an awakening amongst the free andi independent electors such as never existed in this Dominion before, and it will go oif and increase. Exception has been taken td the petitions that have been presented and to the public meetings that have been held. Sir, that is the only way in which the! people can express their opinions when no election is going on, it is only by petitions and by public meetings passing resolutions that they can make their voice heard. Then we find that the newspapers from one end of this Dominion to the other, except in the province of Quebec, have condemned this legislation. The * Globe,' the organ of the Reform party, is just as strong on this question as the Conservative newspapers.

I venture to say that if we could have now* an expression of opinion at the polls, we* would find Reformers and Conservatives going to the polls side by side and shoulder to shoulder in every constituency in Ontario;

to vote against this legislation and against the present government. This agitation will not die out. No matter whether the elections come on in one year, or two years, oh three years, or four years from now, this is a live question, and I venture to say that so far as the province of Ontario is eons cerned, even four years from now, this government will not carry half a dozen1 seats. I venture to predict that the same state of affairs will he found to exist ini Manitoba and in those two new provinces. The present government will find that the free and independent electors will drive them out of power the first opportunity that presents itself.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
?

Mr. L. G.@

McCarthy moved the adjournment of the debate.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink

Motion agreed to. On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Thursday.



Thursday, April 6, 1905.


April 5, 1905