April 26, 1905

?

Mr. W. F. M A OLE AX@

And still believes in it and they do not.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Albert Edward Kemp

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. KEMP.

Yes, a gentleman who has always supported this government and its policy. Then there was another gentleman who could not be present at that meeting, but I shall not detain the House by reading a letter which he sent to the meeting. That gentleman was the mayor of Toronto, the gentleman who ran in opposition to the present member for North Toronto in the last federal election, a Liberal through and through. He felt .called" upon to protest and did protest and his letter will be found in the published report of that meeting in the press. Then the next gentleman whose name I saw was Mr. Stapleton Caldecott, who is a Grit of the Grits. His name was before the public in the last provincial election as Liberal candidate for North Toronto. He came to the meeting which selected Mr. Blain, and explained that it was only because his doctor said he was in too poor health that he did not accept the nomination. Mr. Caldecott is so strong a Grit that I have never in my experience ventured to discuss politics with him. He is altogether too decided in his opinions. Well, he spoke at that meeting and his sentiments were in accord with those of the other speakers. The next gentleman who spoke was Mr. J. S. Willison, formerly editor of the 'Globe,'-the gentleman who wrote the biography of' the right hon. the First Minister. And no more warmer friend or greater admirer of the right hon. gentleman exists than Mr. Willison. Mr. Willison spoke next to the same effect as the others. Then I find that the next speaker was Dr. Goggin. In the course of his remarks, Dr. Goggin said :

I take it that we meet here to-night as a body of Liberals, intent upon setting before our party our views on this subject, whether they be right or wrong. This I believe is one of the qualifications of a good party man. We are [DOT]not here as a body of Conservatives intent upon making capital for ourselves. We are\ not here as a body of Orangemen trying to arrest Romanism. We are not here as representatives of the various churches to protest against the action of our brothers in the Roman communion. But we are meeting here simply and solely as citizens of the city of Toronto, with [DOT]patriotic interest in the welfare of our fair Dominion.

Then I come to the next gentleman who took an active part in that meeting, and whom I find described in this report as Dalton McCarthy's nephew. I presume the reason he was thus described is the high regard which the people of Toronto have for the late Dalton McCarthy and his great attainments. I need not read what his nephew said, because his views are well known to the House. The next gentleman who spoke was Mr. D. E. Thompson, K.C,-I cannot remember of any one political campaign in Toronto in which Mr. Thompson did not take an active or prominent part as an advocate of the Liberal cause. I do not suppose that in all his career he ever cast a Conservative vote." He is one of the ablest lawyers in the city of Toronto ; and unless he were thoroughly convinced of the soundness of his opinions, he would not have attended that meeting. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Thompson said :

The Laurier government came into power on the Manitoba school question. The question of autonomy had been before them four years and they knew what they were doing. What I want to know is why, if they were going to take this serious step in reference to education, the electorate was not taken into their confidence.

Three other gentlemen addressed that meeting, who are clergymen. I do not propose to judge of what type of politics these gentlemen are. In my opinion a clergyman should have no politics, or at least he should not express himself openly on questions of a party character except on a very rare and special occasion. The three clergymen who spoke were the Rev. Dr. Miligan, the Rev. Canon Cody and the Rev. Dr. Potts. I. do not know what are the politics of any of these gentlemen, but I know that Dr. Milligan, was a great personal admirer of the Hon. G. W. Ross, I know that Mr. Ross attended his church, and I do not think he had anything to complain of very often regarding the actions of this government. Dr. Milligan said :

Concerning the deliverance from Ottawa a month ago, the reverend speaker said it came like a thunder clap from a clear sky, considering the attitude of the Liberals in 1896.

The Rev. Canon Cody said :

A simple solution would be the best and the obvious one is to keep this tangled^ question

out of Dominion politics and leave it to the provinces to solve.

The Rev. Dr. Potts thus expressed himself :

If Paul1 could say he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Stapleton Caldecott could say he was a Grit of the Grits. When I open the ' Globe,' as I do every morning-and in order that I may not be injured I read two Conservative papers- and see the noble stand it is making on this question, I am beginning to realize that country is more than party.

Now, I have taken up a little time in'laying before this House the foundation of the agitation in the province of Ontario and the position which intelligent men take on this question. I regret exceedingly that it has been found necessary by some lion, gentlemen, in the course of this debate, to call names and to charge the people of Ontario with being bigots. I do not think that any hon. gentleman in this House will say that these gentlemen who spoke at this meeting are bigots or Tory fanatics or anything of that kind, and I regret that some hon. members have found it necessary to resort to that style of argument. So far as I am concerned, I want to repudiate the charge of bigotry directed against the people of Ontario. A large number of the people of that province sincerely believe (that the educational policy of the government in respect to the two Bills under consideration is opposed to the best interests of the west. They are firmly convinced that it will be a great injury to that country to saddle it with a dual system of schools. It may be that the ideals which a section of the people of Ontario wish to attain in respect of this question are unattainable. But whether they be unattainable or not, let us discuss these things in a reasonable way. Let us not say that the people of the province from which I come are seeking to raise a racial issue. Such is not the case, and I defy any one to bring a tittle of proof to substantiate any such charge.

Before this Bill was introduced, I had received a great many letters, chiefly from my constituents, with reference to this question, and also I received a large number after this Bill was brought down. I have selected two letters from the bunch in my desk, and I propose to read one of them and an extract from the other, and what I do not read in the other has no reference to the subject we are discussing. My object in doing this is to show what is in the mind of the ordinary voter-not the ordinary professor in a university or college or the ordinary lawyer or business man. but the ordinary man on the street : and I must sav that the greater number of the letters I have received come from workingmen and mechanics. The gentleman who wrote me the letter I am about to read, wrote it on the 20th February, before the First Minister introduced his Bill. And I want to say that I have .selected two letters from Orange-Mr. KEMP.

men. I think our friends from another province may have an exaggerated idea what Ml Orangeman is. I do not know as much about the Orange Order as I might hope and I wish I knew more, but what I do know about it is nothing but good. I do not know anything in regard to them different from that. This gentleman in writing to me, Says :

The Orange association does not look upon this question in a spirit of narrow bigotry, but takes the broad view that in a country like ours we should endeavour to assimilate the different creeds and nationalities that make up our population; and in no way do we think this can be accomplished as well as by a system of national public schools.

Now, I can easily understand that that view will meet opposition; I can easily understand that it is different from the view taken by many hon. members of this House. But I do say that there is nothing bigoted, there is nothing fanatical in it. And it is the opinion which prevails largely in the province of Ontario. There is nothing in that opinion which can possibly give offence. Now, I wish to read another letter which was addressed to me. This is dated 10th February, and I would ask hon. mem, hers to bear in mind in this connection the fact that the Prime Minister did not introduce this Bill until 21st February. This correspondent says :

As you are doubtless aware, it is rumoured that it is the intention of the government to insert a clause in the constitution of the new province or provinces to be erected in the Northwest Territories of the Dominion, requiring those provinces to maintain a system of Roman Catholic separate schools. Now, I do not think it can be successfully controverted that the separate schools of this province are a hindrance to its progress; first, by reason of the inferior educational facilities they offer in comparison with our nonsectarian public schools; second, by reason of the distrust towards each other which they engender among our citizens; and, last, because of the additional expense occasioned by maintaining a dual system. If then, separate schools have retarded the progress of our own fair province, bow important it must be that those new provinces destined to become the planting-out ground of a great iempire, should be permitted to develop into gianthood, unshackled by the binding processes which are dwarfing their sisters, Ontario and Quebec.

A truly national policy for the west would be to make all creeds and nationalities equal before the law by maintaining only national secular schools in which only one language is taught and only one flag is recognized.

As, therefore, you were elected to represent the district of East Toronto in parliament, and I am an humble elector of that district,

I respectfully urge you to oppose the enactment of such an iniquitous clause, even should you find it necessary to antagonize political friends by so doing.

I repeat that it may not be possible for every hon. gentleman in this Hquse or for some citizens of this country to agree alto-

gether with these sentiments : but I say that these sentiments are those cherished by a large section of the people of Ontario, people who are reasonable and sensible, and from whom this agitation comes.

The hon. member for North Ontario (Hr. Grant) in discussing this question the other night, showed himself to be in an apologetic frame of mind. He felt called upon to apologize from his place in this House for the province from which he comes. He apologized to his colleagues in this House and to the people in other parts of the country especially for the city of Toronto, because of the position it has taken upon this question. Sir, I have no doubt that the people of Toronto felt very much relieved after that hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) had made his apology. The people of that great city, I have no doubt, were downcast, they went about with their heads down and feeling very glum. But, after the hon. gentleman had made his apology on their behalf they.would make up their minds that the situation was improving and that they might attend the horse show and enjoy themselves. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) in continuing thought his apology as applied to the whole of Ontario, was too general, and he gave us to understand that all the fanatical people were to be found within the limits of the city of Toronto. Now, Mr. Speaker, the population of Toronto is made up almost wholly of native Canadians, and of natives of the province of Ontario at that. Toronto is not a composite city, it is a Canadian city.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Toronto do not differ in sentiment and opinion, at any rate so far as this question is concerned, from the people of the rest of the province of Ontario. The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) tried to lead the members of this House to believe that the educational clauses in this Bill were satisfactory to the people of this province and to the people of his constituency. One hearing or reading the hon. gentleman's speech would come to 1he conclusion that the people of the riding of North Ontario and the people of the whole province of Ontario . were crying out to have these clauses enacted in the Bill. Of course, X do not pretend that these were the hon. gentleman's words, but no other idea could be taken from his observations than the one I have given. As I have said before, it would be far better if hon. members on the other side of the House would tell their colleagues and the people generally the exact position of affairs in Ontario so far as this question is concerned. The hon. member for North Ontario went so far as to speak of the people who had sincere views on this question and who are moderate and reasonable people as a * blatant mob.' He wanted his colleagues in this House and the people in other parts of the country to understand that when these people spoke on this subject they were like a lot of calves bellowing -for that is the meaning of his words. I repeat that it would do much better if hon. gentlemen opposite would speak out and state what is the sentiment in Ontario. Of course, anything that I might say on this point would in all probability have but little influence with hon. gentlemen opposite. But perhaps they will listen to the leading organ of the Liberal party in Ontario. What the ' Globe ' says on this subject may sink deeper into their minds and hearts. On the 19th of April the ' Globe ' had a leading editorial on this subject, and X propose to take up yourt ime in reading this short article in case it may have escaped the attention of hon. members. Xt bears the significant caption, ' In a Fool's Paradise,' and is as follows :

Those who suppose that opposition to the educational clauses in the Northwest Autonomy Bills is confined to Toronto, and that it is dependent on Orange-Toryism (or its vitality are living in a fool's paradise. It may he that the noisiest clamour is being made by Toronto Tories and by newspapers catering (or ultra-Brotestant and Tory or quasi-Tory support. But such opposition is utterly without significance, and may safely be disregarded both by the public and by parliament. And it may be, too, that public opinion on this and other questions is represented as inadequately and as uncertainly in a Toronto club as in the lobbies and smoking rooms of the House of Commons. That point need not be argued.

But the point of capital importance, and which cannot be disproved by shutting one's eyes to its undesired existence or by shouting bravely that it does not exist, is the unmistakable fact that not in Toronto alone but in scores of centres throughout this province the sanest and steadiest and most intelligent men cannot bring themselves to approve of the Dominion parliament, on any pretext whatsoever, interfering in the educational affairs of tne new provinces. The men who make this objection are not Tories. They are not Orangemen. They are Liberals. They are, some of them, the men who give virility and prestige to Liberalism in their constituencies, and without whom there would he uo Liberal party^ worthy of the name. To ignore the fact of their opposition, to minimize its significance, or to misunderstand Its quality is to play the part of children in a situation -which demands the wisdom and courage of men. ,

Another delusion is the notion that this significant opposition is wholly based upon racial or religious prejudices. There are, to he sure, race and creed fanatics here and there throughout Ontario whose occupation would he gone and whose enjoyment of life would be destroyed were they unable periodically to raise a scare about French Canadian domination or the aggression of the hierarchy. But there is no endurance in any opposition they may excite , and if the present controversy is politically abortive it will, in a large measure, be due to the revolt from the part played by the leading organs of anti-French and anti-Catholic fanaticism. The opposition that counts, however, and that will survive when the frenzy of Professional fire-eaters is -past, is the deliberate and convinced opposition of the men m dominantly Protestant constituencies who have never

bowed the knee to the Baal ot race and creed prejudice, and who again and again defended the inalienable rights of religious minorities against unjust political antagonism. There are Protestant Liberals who fought the P. P. A. and its minions in their anti-Oatholic campaign in Ontario ten years ago, who would not join the equal rights movement or withdrew from it when it was diverted to baser purposes, and who in every campaign of bigotry since confederation stood resolutely for the principle and the practice of religious tolerance and racial unity. To class those men, and men of their spirit, with the Toronto sensationalists, or to regard their opposition as either misguided or short-lived, is to comfort one's seif in a fool's paradise.

Members of the Liberal party in the House of Commons would follow the counsels of prudence if, during the Easter recess, they sounded the most intelligent and most significant opinion of their leading support. The echo voice of the purblind partisan is unimportant, and members of .parliament ought to guard against the soothing tones of those who would heal the hurt of the Liberal party lightly with their peace ! peace ! when there is no peace. A public man cannot afford to live in a fool's paradise.

I think, Sir, those words will sink deeper into the hearts and minds of hon. gentle-*inen opposite than the words that fell from the lips of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant). I notice in a cabled press despatch to-day the opinion of another authority, an eminent Canadian statesman who has been translated to the Senate, that place which in late years have become a haven of rest for defeated Liberal candidates and for political nonentities with long purses. I notice by a telegram to the Canadian Associated Press that Senator Fulford has been putting forth some views in England with regard to this question. I do not suppose that gentleman could possibly have received a copy of the ' Globe ' in which appeared the editorial of the 19th of April, which I have just read, otherwise he would not have written the letter he did to the London ' Morning Chronicle.' I do not think that gentleman has ever been in very close touch with the masses of the people of this country, or with the electorate, and I think he would have done well to wait a little while until he became better acquainted with this question before he undertook to pose as a Canadian authority before the English people.

Now I do not propose to refer at any length to the manner in which this legislation was introduced into this House. It was iutroduced in a most peculiar manner.

1 cannot understand why the Prime Minister introduced it without having the advice and assistance of the ex-Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance. I believe if both those gentlemen had been present the educational clauses of this Bill would have been omitted, because the position they took in 1896 upon a similar issue was exactly opposite to the position they were obliged to take in support of the

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Albert Edward Kemp

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. KEMP.

piesent measure. But the Prime Minister may have felt that he was taking the course of least resistance, and that in forcing the Bill hurriedly into the House before these gentlemen returned he would have less insistence to overcome than he would have to meet from other quarters if he omitted these clauses from the Bill altogether. It seems to me in looking into that feature of the case that the Prime Minister was a little over confident in taking the action he did, that his recent successes at the polls had led him to go a little too far and to take up a position which he found himself unable to maintain.

Now, Sir, not having a legally trained mind, I am not able to say exactly what the ordinances of the Northwest legislature in respect to the school question mean, but it seems to me that they are liable' to lead to a great many complications. We have the Finance Minister saying that by this process separate schools in the Northwest will gradually disappear ; while on the other hand we have the opinion expressed outside this House that they mean the introduction of the thin edge of the wedge, and will have the effect of multiplying them. Now, Sir, with all these opinions before us, would it uot be infinitely better at the present time to drop out these clauses altogether ? II submit that if the Minister of Finance is correct in the view he takes that separate schools will disappear altogether in a short time, and if he is supporting this measure because he believes that will be the ease. I cannot understand how his supporters, especially those from the province of Quebec whose views differ from those of other members in this House, can support that measure. Therefore, are we not drifting in another direction in this case the same as we drifted in 1896 ? Have I not proved to this House that the people of Ontario and the people of other parts of Canada generally believed in 1896 that the present Prime Minister was in principle opposed to separate schools in Manitoba, and are we not deceiving the people in the province of Quebec by this legislation ? Is this legislation which the people of Quebec want ? Will we not find this question cropping up again in the federal political arena in a very short time ? I think that is bound to happen, and I believe that this legislation will be the beginning of strife and discord in this country.

Now before resuming my seat I desire briefly to refer to the peculiar position occupied by the ex-Minister of the Interior, the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). I think I cannot better characterize his attitude upon this question than by saying that he has been trying to make a'wide turning-movement. He resigned to prevent separate schools becoming a part of the constitution of the Northwest provinces. The Prime Minister said it was a question of words only between himself and the member for Brandon, indicating

that it was not necessary for his colleague to resign, and that these clauses might have been amended so as to prevent his resignation. The ex-Minister of the Interior has told us in effect that the government were not able to draw a legal document, that they did not know the meaning of a legal document, that it was drawn by an office boy, or a draughtsman-I think the latter Was the word used-that a draughtsman must have drawn the first educational clauses of this Bill. When that statement was made I did not notice any signs of humiliation upon the face of the Postmaster General, nor any very marked sign of humiliation upon the face of the Minister of Justice. If 1 understood correctly, the speech of the ex-minister, taken in connection with the accompanying circumstances, he himself must have drawn these- amendments.

This is a great game, it seems to me. It has not been customary for the hon. Minister of Justice to sit silent when charges of that kind have been made in respect to his work. The hon. Minister of Justice does not lack courage and it is rather a peculiar position in which we find that hon. gentleman. We see him sitting docile and calm, taking the thrusts of the hon. member for Brandon. Is it because there is any brotherly love that we do not know of, or affection, or charity existing between these hon. gentlemen? Is it out of the generosity of his heart that he is not going to pay any attention to these things? No, it is not that. It is a larger game, a bigger game. The hon. member for Brandon knew', when he made that statement in reference to the draughtsman, that it was impossible for the hon. Minister of Justice to answer him. He knew he could not answer him. The hon. Minister of Justice wants a law enacted granting the privilege that the amendment is designed to grant, the privilege of separate schools by Dominion legislation, and the hon. Minister of Justice knew that if he got up and contradicted the hon. member for Brandon in respect to the amendments being radically different from the original clauses that the' Minister of Justice having a following in this House and his legal advice being respected, it would change the intention and belief of the seven members from the Northwest, and he knew that if the belief of the seven members from the Northwest in the cause of the hon. member for Brandon were shattered they would not vote for tliis Bill, that there would be another bolt and that might lead to a further bolt and the result was that the hon. Minister of Justice had to sit in his place and wait until every hon. member from the Northwest Territories and as many as possible from other parts of this country had committed themselves so that they would vote right. I think if I understand the temperament of the hon. Minister of Justice properly, at as late a date as possible he will get on Ms feet and say there is no practical difference between the amended

clauses and the original clauses of this Bill. That is the view I take of the position of the hon. Minister of Justice.

I do not intend to take up any very much time in referring to the conditions in England and France in regard to education to which some reference has already been made.

I do not think it has very much to do -with this question, because the circumstances in both 'these countries are so entirely different from what they are in our o \vn Northwest. They have no influx of different nationalities as we have and the question of how best to assimilate these different peoples and different races does not come before the people of either England or France. It Is a mistake to suppose, in so far as my information goes, that the chief study in the public schools of Great Britain is the study of religious dogma. The tendency in England is towards non-sectarian, civic control. Prior to 1870 denominational schools existed in Great Britain. They were not able to stem the tide of illiteracy and in 1870 the Forster law' provided for the establishmept of public and secular schools. From 1870 to 1902, forty-eight per cent of the children have been educated in these schools. The denominational schools, as they existed previous to 1870, have shrunken in number. They have fallen from 100 per cent, in 1870 to 52 per cent in 1902. By a law' passed in 1902 denominational schools came partly under civic control and in the denominational schools religious instruction is being brought more under civic control all the time. There seems to be a forward movement in England in respect to education.

In France what*s the situation? In 1879, under Jules Ferry, who was appointed Minister of Public Instruction, a measure was adopted by which public schools were freed from all relation with the church. By a regulation of 1886 the employment in future in public schools of teachers belonging to religious orders was forbidden. At the end of 1897 there w'ere 4,000,000 pupils going to secular schools and 1,500,000 pupils going to clerical schools. In the last few years schools 'maintained by religious associations have been abolished. In 25 years the national system has developed, the attendance has improved and there are better courses of study and better qualified teachers. I do not refer to this for the purpose of showing that the conditions which exist in England or in France are suitable to this country, but because of the explanation which has ' been made in this House by some hon. gentlemen that these conditions are different from those w'hich I have stated.

I do not intend to take up the attention of the House any longer. The question- is: How are we to Oanadianize the North-w'est? It is a very serious' and a very pressing question. It may be in the interest of the Northwest to continue the system of separate schools which they have had and which in all likelihood would be continued,

but what I contend for and what I hold is that we should leave that question to them, and that we should not start out by emphasizing by Dominion legislation the importance of dividing the children up into different camps and cliques. It may be necessary to do that, it may be in the interest of . the people of the Northwest that there should be religious education, but what I say is that we should not emphasize the fact at this time taking everything into consideration by our legislation. The new provinces should be permitted to deal with this question in the way which may seem best suited to their conditions as time goes on. What are their conditions? In these Northwest Territories we have colonies of Swedes, Finns, Bohemians, Hungarians, .Tews, Austrians, Germans, Russians, Icelanders, Men-nonites, Galicians and Doulchobors. The question is how to assimilate these races and how to secure their co-operation inVbuild-ing up the nation. It requires every effort we can possibly think of to establish this union, and I think, Mr. Speaker, in no way can this great task be better accomplished than by national public schools. This, Sir, is a provincial question. It is a provincial question in the province of Quebec notwithstanding the British North America Act. If there were not a word in the British North America Act in reference to the situation in Ontario and Quebec, the school system would be precisely the same as it is at the present time, because it is by provincial legislation that these matters are regulated and the people of Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces know better how to regulate these matters to suit th^jr conditions than we do in this parliament. One condition is necessary in the province of Quebec where certain conditions prevail, another system in Ontario, another system in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and perhaps another system in Manitoba or in our great Northwest which is growing and into which so many different nationalities are going. I say it is essentially a provincial question. It is a provincial question in Ontario and Quebec, notwithstanding the fact that reference is made to it in the British North America Act. I believe that upon the seven members from the Northwest must rest the responsibility for this legislation, because if these gentlemen had insisted upon the question being left to the provinces, there is no doubt but what they would have won the day. I am sorry for the course which events have taken. I believe that if the question had been left to the provinces the government would have been less embarrassed than they are at the present time by reason of the course which they have taken. I and other hon. members have said that it is unconstitutional to interfere with this question. We are doing something that is unconstitutional. We are amending the constitution. I say in the name of peace and in the name of harmony let us drop these educational clauses out of the Bill. They Mr. KEiMP.

are unconstitutional in any case, and let the provinces be free to act in their own best interests as time goes on.'

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

William Manley German

Liberal

Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland).

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively and with such intelligence as I could bring to bear to the remarks of the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who has just taken his seat, and I must say, with all due deference to that hon. gentleman and to the ability he usually displays, that I have been absolutely unable to discover one single tittle of argument why any one should vote against the proposition of the government. I can easily understand why there is some dearth of argument from the opposition benches, at present at any rate. The government have been challenged frequently across the floor of this House that they dare not put up a candidate in Centre Toronto in opposition to the lately elected member. Whether they were afraid to put up a candidate or not, I cannot say ; but Sir, is it not an astonishing thing that in the very heart of the country which is most interested in the question now before parliament the opposition dare not put up a candidate against the government ? I can easily understand how it is that the wind of their argument is knocked out, now that they must admit that the people whose interests are most directly affected by the passage of this Bill are satisfied with the measure ; for if they are satisfied, surely the people in the other portions of the Dominion should be satisfied.

The hon. gentleman said that the premier had tossed this vexed question into the arena of politics with undue haste, which he regretted exceedingly. Well, Sir, the matter had to come into politics. Provinces had to be created out of the Northwest Territories. The leader of the opposition had been for months and years crying out against the government for not creating provinces out of those Territories. The government saw fit at this time to bring down a Bill to create these provinces, and, as an adjunct to that Bill and afl incident in the creation of these provinces, the school question had to come up and be discussed ; and I presume that it will be discussed as calmly and as intelligently as possible, and a decision arrived at, and that decision will settle the matter for all time to come. The question is, what shall that decision be, what settlement shall we make of the question now before us ? We are creating provinces in the Northwest, large provinces, which will in the near future, I believe, contain a population larger than the present population of Canada ; and we desire to set those provinces on their way in a happy and contented condition, with an opportunity to extend and grow, and with all the people now living in or hereafter coming into those provinces satisfied with their condition.

I do not intend to enter into any legal

discussion of tliis Bill. People will have different opinions on the legal situation, and the only place where that legal situation can be finally and definitely settled is in the highest tribunal of the empire-the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was stated by the hon. member for East Toronto that this legislation is ultra vires of the parliament of Canada. If it is it is invalid, and the provincial governments need pay no attention to it. It is said : Why not take this matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and get their decision as to the legality of this measure ? That is not necessary. We are proposing to pass legislation which we believe to be intra vires of this parliament. If it is ultra vires, the provinces can ignore it; if it is intra vires, then I submit it is the proper legislation to pass, the only legislation which we can honestly and in fair play pass when we are creating these new provinces.

I wish to say, in the outset, that I have always been and am now opposed to the principle of separate schools. At no time in my life did I ever hold the opinion that it was desirable to have a system of separate schools in this country. Prom my boyhood days until the present moment I have had the same feeling ; and if I did not believe that it was the bounden duty of this parliament, in keeping faith with the people of the Northwest under the provisions of the constitution, to pass the legislation which the government are asking parliament to pass, I would be prepared to vote against the government's Bill. I think it would be well to consider for a few moments how it happens that we have got separate schools in Canada. We have had petitions pouring into this parliament against the provisions of this Bill. We have had petitions very largely from the Loyal Orange lodges of the province of Ontario, and I find under my hand a report to the Right Worshipful Grand Master and members of that organization, which says : *

We, the members of the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ontario West, composed of men of various nationalities and of different shades of political opinion, unanimously pledge ourselves to use every legitimate means to drive from public life any and every member of parliament who votes for these objectionable measures.

I will be glad to know from the Right Worshipful Grand Master of that organization, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), if he approves of that sentiment.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I would be glad to know if the hon. member for Welland has the approval of his own constituents. He can deal with them.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

William Manley German

Liberal

Mr. GERMAN.

I am quite prepared to deal with my own constituents, but in the meantime I am dealing with the hon. member for East Grey, and I would ask him if he approves of the sentiment propounded in 157

this resolution ? It was stated by his friend the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) last night, when this 'same clause was read :

My hon. friend from East Grey did not produce any such document. On the contrary, he did not approve of the document that the member for Shefford read from.

I would be glad to know from the hon. member for East Grey whether he does approve of that statement.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I was not in when the hon. member for Shefford spoke, and consequently did not hear what he read.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

William Manley German

Liberal

Mr. GERMAN.

But the hon. member has not yet answered my question.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I may tell the hon. member for Welland that I am not here to be cross-examined by him. He will have to settle the matter with his own constituents.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

William Manley German

Liberal

Mr. GERMAN.

I tell the hon. member again that my constituents have full confidence in me. But they are exceedingly anxious to know whether the hon. member for East Grey, the Right Worshipful Grand Master of the Orange Order in the province of Ontario, approves of these words. Silence, I presume, gives consent, and the hon. gentleman does. Now, Sir, let us inquire how it is that we have separate schools in Upper Canada-the province of Ontario. I was old enough in 1862 and 1863, when the separate school agitation first arose in Upper Canada, to know that every Orangeman in Upper Canada supported the Conservative party and the separate school proposal.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON
LIB
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

Let me tell the hon. member that he is entirely wrong, and if he was as well informed on Canadian history as he professes to be he would not make the statement.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

William Manley German

Liberal

Mr. GERMAN.

In 1862 I was living in my good old native county of Prince Edward and the man who represented Prince Edward at that time was William Anderson, the grand treasurer of the Loyal Orange Order of Upper Canada. He was elected on the separate school question with the support of every Orangeman in the county and of every Roman Catholic in the county, and he voted for separate sechools in the old legislature of Upper Canada. Hon. John Hilliard Cameron did tne same thing, and I say that if any organization as an organization in Canada is responsible for the establishment of separate schools in Upper Canada it is the Loyal Orange organization of the province of Ontario.

Air hon. MEMBER. Because they were Conservatives.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

William Manley German

Liberal

Mr. GERMAN.

Because they were Conservatives ? One is led to wonder whether

01 not their principles were right then or whether their principles are right now, or whether it is not a matter of expediency in each case rather than a matter of principle at all. We had separate schools established in Upper Canada and separate schools have been in existence in Upper Canada now the province of Ontario since then, and the Conservative party who are now so strongly crying out against this principle being established in the Northwest provinces is the party which is responsible for them. The Liberal party contested it then and has contested it ever since, continuously, honestly and thoroughly. If they are doing what hon. gentlemen think is a different thing now they are doing what in their opinion it is necessary to do in order to keep faith with the people of the Northwest Territories. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Kemp) said that the Postmaster General expressed himself as against the principle of separate schools and I venture to say he did. It is a liberal doctrine, it always has been a Liberal doctrine that it was not necessary to have a separate school system in this country. But separate schools were established and as long as we have sectarian teaching in the schools it will be necessary to have separate schools. Whether or not it is a wise thing to have religious teaching in the schools other than the reading of the Bible is a moot question and need not enter into this discussion. We have the separate school system engrafted on our constitution, it is a part of our system and we must carry out that principle honestly and fairly as between ourselves and the people of the Northwest who are now interested in this matter. Why is it necessary that this legislation in relation to separate schools should be enacted and made a part of this Bill ? In the first place under the British North America Act the Northwest Territories could be taken into this Dominion and when they came into this Dominion and were made a part of it, they came in under the provisions of the British North America Act. Section 146 of the British North America Act gives power :

To admit Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory, or either of them, into the union.

And the provisions embodied in section 93 of the Act are that :

The legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, shhject and according to the following provisions :

And that

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

Then, Sir, subsequent to that, in 1871, a doubt was expressed as to whether or not under the British North America Act the parliament of Canada had the right to create Mr. GERMAN.

provinces out of these Territories. It is very clear that under the British North America Act, Territories coming into the Dominion as a i part of the Dominion would have the right to their denominational schools if such existed at the time of the admission of the Territories to the union. Then -Sir, the British North America Act was amended, giving the Canadian parliament the right to create new provinces out of these Territories under the provisions of the Act as it stands. For myself I cannot see and I doubt if any other man can possibly intelligently argue that when these provinces are brought into the Dominion they do not come in under the provisions of the British North America Act and that under the provisions of the British North America Act they are not entitled to all the rights and privileges which at the time of their entrance to the union they enjoy in regard to denominational schools. It has been argued that the word ' union ' in section 93 refers to the union of the original provinces. It did no doubt refer, so far as the expression in subsection 1 of section 93 went, to the union of the original provinces, but I say that under section 146 outside and outlying territories are to come in subject to the provisions of the British North America Act and to the provisions of section 93 of that Act as well as all its subsections. Thus I think speaking for myself that it was not at all necessary in so far as the rights of the minority in the Northwest Territories are concerned to introduce into this Bill section 16 at all. If these provinces had simply been joined to the Dominion, made a part of the Dominion, created provinces as a part of the Dominion under the provisions of the British North America Act they would have had all the rights and privileges which the British North America Act conferred on any province in this Dominion.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Manley German

Liberal

Mr. GERMAN.

The hon. gentleman says that is all he wants but he goes further than that. The amendment includes the power : to exclusively make laws in relation to education. The leader of the opposition is introducing into his amendment what 1 think is quite ultra vires of this parliament, an attempt to cut off from the people of the Northwest the rights which they would enjoy under the British North America Act. He is saying that we will curtail the rights that you will have under the British North America Act by asserting in this Bill that you shall have full powers of provincial selfgovernment including education, the right to exclusively make laws in relation to education. So it is by reason of the latter part of his amendment that I absolutely object to his amendment. I think the provinces have the right to all the privileges which they enjoy at the present and what is this parliament doing ? It is simply confirming the law which exists in those Territories to-

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

That is not what Christopher Robinson says.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

William Manley German

Liberal

Mr. GERMAN.

I am not responsible for what Mr. Robinson said. He is a leading lawyer in this country, but he was very careful to qualify his opinion by saying that he had not had time to sufficiently consider the matter to give a decided opinion. What I maintain is that the people of the Northwest, by reason of the provisions of the British North America Act and the Act of 1875 cerating a territorial legislature, have the right to insist that all the privileges with regard to schools which exist by virtue of these Acts shall be perpetuated. If they have that right, that is to me sufficient reason why I should support this Bill.

My hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Kemp) quoted very largely from the 'Globe.'

I notice that his speech was very largely made up of quotations from that paper. I am glad he quotes the ' Globe,' and hope he will read it continually because it is about the only sensible newspaper in Toisonto to-day.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

April 26, 1905