RIGHTS OF THE PROVINCES.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York). Mr.
Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are
called, I intend to ask the attention of the House
to a very grave matter ; and, if necessary, to put myself in order, I will conclude
with a motion. The very important matter to
which I propose to call attention has reference to
provincial rights, particularly the rights
of the province of Manitoba, and I regret
very much that neither the Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) nor the late premier of Manitoba (Mr.
Greenway), who has now a seat in
this House is in his place. It is largely because
these hon. gentlemen have not chosen to call the
attention of the House to this matter that I
do so today. I think I can best bring the question
immediately within the view of hon. members by
reading a translation of an article that was
published in 'Le Soleil' of Quebec, on February 11.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will read the
original, but for the benefit of the Minister
of Railways, I will translate it ; I am quite
competent to do both. 'Le Soleil,' which claims to
be under the personal control of the Prime Minister
and to speak for him, in its issue of February 11,
made this declaration :
1746
We declare once for all that 'Le Soleil' is
the organ of the Liberal party, and by that fact
is under the direction and absolute control of
Sir Wilfrid. The supporters of Sir Wilfrid, and
those who affirm themselves to be such, are
begged to take notice of the present declaration.
On February 17, that paper, in an editorial, discussed the rights of the province
of Manitoba in this way:
In proportion to her big sisters Manitoba will
count as little more than a large county.
This is one of the reasons invoked by Manitoba's delegates to obtain an enlargement
of
her territory.
There is another. Quebec and Ontario have
extended their limits, the one to the west, the
other to the east, to attain on the north the
shores of James bay.
Manitoba aspires to the shores of Hudson bay,
on the northeast. It would be necessary to
withdraw her boundaries several hundred miles
towards the north, to cut the districts of Saskatchewan and Athabaska, and encircle
that of
Keewatin.
Manitoba is asking for treble her existing
territory.
This enlargement is hardly possible.
The district of Saskatchewan opposes it, at
least the part directly interested.
The finances of Manitoba in their actual state
are not made to attract the free residents of
the districts. Manitoba has a debt of $4,000,000.
The school legislation of the little province is
not of a nature to attract the immigrants who
people the districts. The Northwest has its
separate schools. Manitoba has abolished them.
Every good act has its reward, every bad act
its chastisement.
Manitoba. will remain lowest with her pretentious law.
In other words, a threat is here held out
by the Quebec organ of hon. gentlemen opposite that Manitoba is to be kept in her
inferior position, as compared with the other
provinces, as a punishment because she
chose to vindicate her provincial rights.
She is to be denied territory, and worse
things than that are to befall her. Again
I say I regret the absence of the Minister
of the Interior and the late Prime Minister
of Manitoba. Among the laws of this country is a very important Act called the Dominion
Lands Act. Reading from the Revised Statutes of 1886, I find that section
23 of that Act, under the head of School
Lands, says:
Sections eleven and twenty-nine in every surveyed township throughout the extent of
the
Dominion lands, are hereby set apart as an endowment for purposes of education, and
shall
be designated school lands ; and they are hereby withdrawn from the operation of the
clauses
of this Act, which relate to the sale of Dominion lands and to homestead rights therein
; and
no right to purchase or to obtain homestead
entry shall be recognized in connection with
the said sections, or any part of them.
'Sections 24 and 25 provide how these
lands shall be sold. Subsection 3 of section
125 says:
All moneys, from time to time, realized from
the sale of school lands shall be invested in
1747 COMMONS
securities of Canada, to form a school fund, and
the interest arising therefrom, after deducting
the cost of management, shall be paid annually to the government of the province or
territory within which such lands are situated, towards the support ot public schools
therein ;
and the moneys so paid shall be distributed for
that purpose by the government of such province or territory in such manner as it
deems
expedient.
Now, from the statement which was made
to all Canada the other day, we must infer
that the Dominion Lands Act is to be changed, and that in the province of Manitoba
these school lands, which are now consecrated to public schools, not to separate
schools, are to be sold, and the proceeds distributed in an entirely different way.
That
follows from the statement made here the
other day, and on behalf of Manitoba I protest to-day against any such change in the
law, or any such chastisement being meted
out to that province as is proposed by this
organ of the government. That organ
wants Manitoba chastised because of certain laws which that province has passed
in connection with the school lands, and yet
this same organ is the mouthpiece of this
government, of which the Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton) is a member, and of
which the late premier of Manitoba (Mr.
Greenway) is an ardent supporter. If any
wrong has been wrought to the Roman
Catholic minority of Manitoba in connection with the school question, is not that
due to the Minister of the Interior and the
late premier of Manitoba ? They it was
who caused the Manitoba legislation now
complained of to be enacted. It was the
Liberal party which passed it, and did so
in the interests of that province. Yet to-day
we have the Dominion government, of which
these gentlemen are the mainstay, threatening, through its leading organ, to chastise
Manitoba because of that very legislation.
That organ says to the province of Manitoba : You shall not extend your bounds, you
shall continue in the lowly inferior position
you now occupy. On behalf of that province, and because these gentlemen are not
here to raise their voices in its behalf, I
raise mine.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh. oh.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I raise my protest
because the proposal about to be made here is
of a most far reaching character. Not only the
school lands of Manitoba, but the whole educational
fund of that province, is to be changed by a general
Act, which must follow from what was said here the
other day. I draw the attention of the right hon.
gentleman to this. If these important changes
are to be made on the lines laid down by him, then
it follows that remedial legislation is in order as
concerns Manitoba. The argument is an a
fortiori one. Remedial legislation must follow, and
it will be introduced in this House by the
right hon. gentleman who warned the coun
1748try against such legislation eight years ago.
There is this prospect for Manitoba, that all her
schools lands are, in every probability, to be
diverted this very session of parliament
to other purposes than those to which they are
devoted to-day by a general Act amending the
Dominion Lands Act. Furthermore the
Manitoba school funds are to be diverted by
legislation which must follow as a logical sequence
from the statement made the other day. Logically the
right hon. gentleman is bound to introduce a Bill
remedying the school grievances of
the minority in the province of Manitoba,
and yet these very so called grievances are due to
the Minister of the Interior of this government and his friend (Mr. Greenway) who,
I am told, is to be his immediate successor in
this government. It was to give these hon. gentlemen
an opportunity here to repudiate this language, to
say they could not be parties to any such
legislation, that I brought this mattter up to-day ;
and in all probability the absence of the
hon. the Minister of the Interior from this House
ever since the beginning of this session and the
absence of the hon. member for Lisgar, (Mr. Green-
way) to-day are due to their
desire to shirk their manifest duty in connection
with this matter. The hon. the Minister of the Interior was here only for a moment
the
other day, and his absence no doubt is due, as
well as that of the other hon. gentleman, to what is
in the immediate future in store for them. If what
was foreshadowed the other day is to happen, it must
follow that those school lands are to be diverted
from their present purpose and a Remedial Bill
introduced this session, and the party, which claims
to be the defender of provincial rights from one end
of the country to the other, is to-day doing nothing
to prevent the shackles being put on the provinces
of this great and free Dominion. These provinces are
to-day free, and my-right hon. friend must know
that if there is one thing which the people
who breathe the free air of the prairies, the people
of the great west, value, it is their political
liberty ; and if the right hon. gentleman
insists on shackling these people in connection with
the dispossession of their school lands, he will
make a great mistake. He apparently does not
understand the genius of. the western people if he
thinks that by aid of any constitutional argument,
he can interfere with the school lands of the
province of Manitoba. I leave the case for the
present but may have to return to it.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. But I shall wait
until the Minister of the Interior is in his
place. Again I call the attention of the right hon.
gentleman to the absence of a number of his
ministers from this House. The Minister of Public
Works (Mr. Sutherland) is not here. I
regret that he is ill, but the constitutional
practice is that when a minister is not able to take
his place in
1749
February 27, 1905
the House he ought to vacate the
position, both in his own interest and that of the
country. The hon. member for London, (Mr.
Hyman), who is discharging the duties of the
Minister of Public Works, is contravening
the constitution every day under the circumstances.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh !
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Hon. gentlemen
opposite laugh, but they used to attack the
late government about this very thing. I regret that
the Minister of the Interior, (Mr. Sifton) was not
in his place at the time when these provincial
rights which he held at one time to be most dear to
the people of Manitoba, were being assailed. I
recollect when that hon. gentleman came down to the
province of Ontario and told the people of Haldimand
that of all things the people of Manitoba did not
want separate schools or remedial legislation
imposed upon them. He came to the province of
Ontario for sympathy on that score and he got it.
But now if we are to believe the right hon.
gentleman's organ, all that is to be taken back, the
school lands are to be diverted from their proper
purpose, and the hon. gentleman is bound, if he
carries out what. he promised, to introduce this
session, an Act to remedy the school grievances of
the minority of Manitoba. If any such thing be
attempted, the wrong will be done, provincial rights will be taken away, and to-day,
in
the absence of the two hon. gentlemen to whom I
especially referred, I rise to protest against the
policy outlined by the right hon. gentleman in
connection with these matters. I move that
the House do now adjourn.
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). One could
hardly imagine that any hon. gentleman would rise to
move the adjournment of the House for the purpose ot inflicting on us such a
ramshackleif I may use such an
expression—delivery as we have had from my hon.
friend. He has given us a very modern exemplification
of the old story of Don Quixote tilting against
wind mills. My hon. friend is becoming
every session more and more quixotic in
his views and methods. Take this item which he has
just read from the Soeileil' and on which
he has built so unwarranted a conclusion
that the government contemplates introducing a
Remedial Bill to amend the law of Manitoba. There is
not a scintilla in the article of the 'Soleil'
which can warrant any such conclusion. The whole
thing is manufactured—I will not say wilfully—but if
not, I know not how to characterize in what manner it
was manufactured. Where is there a single word
to warrant what the hon. gentleman sees there
?--
1750
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend
admits there is nothing there to warrant his
outbreak. The whole thing is in my hon. friend's own
mind, and it is from his own mind alone that he has
evolved the notion that this government contemplates
any such thing as introducing a Remedial Bill for
the province of Manitoba. That is the only
authority he has for his remarks this afternoon. The thing is too absurd for consideration.
My hon. friend professes to have his soul
harrowed by the prospect be contemplates.
Let me tell him once and for all that the government
since 1896 has never contemplated introducing any
Remedial Act affecting the province of Manitoba and
does not intend doing so.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I may say to
the hon. gentleman that the government has not
contemplated and does not contemplate to introduce
any law to amend the School Law. Is that categorical
enough for the hon. gentleman?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. You cannot change
the School Law without changing the Dominion Lands Act.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Then I will
make my answer more categorical yet. The
government has not contemplated, does not
contemplate and will not contemplate any amendment
to the Dominion Lands Act. I do not understand what
the hon. gentleman ls aiming at to-day. If
he has any object it must be to try and create a
false impression to arouse prejudices somewhere.
But the hon. gentleman began by expressing his deep regret that the Minister
of the Interior and the hon. member from Lisgar
(Mr. Greenway) the former premier of Manitoba, were not in their seats. Why,
Sir, it would have been very easy for the hon.
gentleman to secure their presence in their seats if
he wanted them to be present. Why did he not notify
them that he wanted to bring before the House some
question requiring their presence, and
which required them to make some defence to charges
that he intended to bring against them. Did
the hon. gentleman notify the Minister of the
Interior that he wanted him here today?
Did he notify the hon. member for Lisgar that he
desired his presence here today? I am in
the judgment of the House when I say that the hon.
gentleman, when he intended to bring charges against
the members of the House. wilful and deliberate charges, has not had the manliness
to notify them that he intended to do so. As
to the ' Soleil,' I have no interest whatever in
that newspaper, financial or otherwise. It generally
supports the government, but sometimes opposes it.
It the hon. gentle' man expects me to be responsible
for anything that is published in the '
Soliel.' be is asking more from me than one would
ask
1751
COMMONS
from any other member of
parliament. The hon. member may be responsible for
what appears in the Toronto ' World,' I have
not had the same connection with the 'Soleil., I
have nothing to do with the article in the '
Soleil,' which I had not read and had not heard of
until it was read on the floor of the House.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Mr. Speaker, the
right hon. gentleman is trying to draw a red
herring across the track. This newspaper
which declares it is his organ, and he has not
repudiated it, says that the province of
Manitoba is to be chastised because of its
pretentious school law, it is to be chastised by the
right hon. gentleman and his party, and the
chastisement is in evidence now before all the
people. Manitoba expected that her
boundaries would be extended, and she expected that
the Minister of the interior would be here to see
that her boundaries were extended, but Manitoba
is being chastised to-day, as the organ of the
right hon. gentleman says, because of her
pretentious school laws. They are not pretentious,
they are constitutional, she had a right to make
them, yet she is to be chastised to-day.
The right hon. gentleman said practically the other
day that the province was entitled to have its
boundaries enlarged, it was entitled to be put on an
equality with the other provinces. All over
the country the statement has been published that Manitoba is being chastised because
of her
manliness in connection with public schools. The
right hon. gentleman says he does not propose to
interfere with the Dominion Lands Act. He
does in substance, he does in a certain measure
which I know of, where it is all outlined that the
public school lands and the public funds in relation to education are to be
interfered with. It may be in a special Bill, but
the intention is to make laws in that direction.
What follows then is this, that in the way the
right hon. gentleman aproaches this question he is
making flesh of one and fish of the other ; certain
provinces are to enjoy certain school lands and
others are to be denied them. If that is
not an injustice and an interference with the lands
of the province, I do not know what it is.
The right hon. gentleman is trying to get away from
this question in saying that he does not
propose to introduce remedial legislation. He is
bound to introduce it if there is anything
in the constitutional argument he made here the
other day. There is nothing in that constitutional
argument, but there is a great deal in the
constitutional argument that Manitoba is entitled to
remedial legislation. If that is true, I
will have to put up for the present with the trivial
reply of the right hon. gentleman; but before two
weeks are over, before another week is over,
he will sing on the other side of his face. He will
find that the people of Canada are in
favour of the maintenance of provincial rights; they
are not in favour of
1752 a paternalized autonomy like that which the
hon. gentleman proposes. The people of this country
believe in provincial rights as they have been
defined and won out by the province of Manitoba.
Again I say that the hon. gentleman is attempting a
revolution, and the Minister of the
Interior ought to be in his place here to-day, since
these things are being done in the department
over which he presides. The hon. gentleman
asks why I did not notify the Minister of
the Interior? Am I the Minister of the Interior's
keeper? If he is not in his place, where shall I
have to go to find him? It is not for the right hon.
gentleman to say to me that I should notify this man
or notify that man; let them be here to look
after themselves.
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington). The hon. member for South York
(Mr. Maclean) Who has just resumed his seat,
may not be the keeper of the Minister of the
Interior. But there is a rule of courtesy recognized
in this House which re« quires that when an hon.
member intends to bring up a matter pertaining
particularly to any department, the minister
presiding over that department must be notified.
Ministers have all sorts of reasons
for not being in the House. Deputations
wait upon them from time to time, as we all know.
We know not why the Minister of the Interior is not in his place to-day; but there
is
this much about it, it is a small thing and a mean
thing for the hon. member for South York to make
these remarks without having intimated to
the Minister of the Interior that he desired his
presence here. Now I desire on this occasion to
enter my protest against such interruptions and
interjections, on the Orders of the Day being
called, as have been made by the hon. member for
South York. If there is anything calculated to stir up strife and trouble in this
country it is speeches such as that hon. gentleman
has delivered, and articles that appear in his
newspaper. If hon. members in this House
would treat the question which the hon. member for
South York has introduced, with calmness, with
candour, with that liberality which no doubt they
all possess, there would be no danger of
producing that storm and that inflamed condition of
the public mind which appears in the party press and
among the people, which we see to-day, and will see
throughout Canada. Now, the hon.
member cites the case of Manitoba. I am not going to
dwell on that, I merely say that so far as I
am concerned, as a member of this House supporting
the government, the question of schools in
the province of Manitoba is a settled question.
There is no analogy whatever between the conditions
of Manitoba and the new provinces which
are to be admitted in to the confederation; I say
this now, although these are matters which
will more properly come up when the Bill is read the
second time. But when we per
1753
FEBRUARY 27 1905
mit a province to come into this
confederation, we permit it to come
in on such terms as this House deems proper and
equitable. It was so with the other provinces, and,
I presume, will be so with the provinces that
are to come in. Mr. Speaker, I only rise to protest
against interjections and interruptions by
hon. members such as those of the hon. member for
South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) who seeks both by his
voice in this House and by the newspaper, which,
fortunately or unfortunately, he controls, an
inflammatory condition of indignation in the
country. I think that, when the Bill is before us
and when discussion is proper, then the hon. member
for South York can enter any protest he sees fit.
But, untiI that time, it is much better for the
House and the country that we should remain silent
on the subject.
Motion (Mr. W. F. Maclean) to adjourn,
negatived.
SOVEREIGN FIRE ASSURANCE CO. OF
CANADA.
House in committee on Bill (No. 26) to incorporate the Sovereign Fire Assurance Co.
of Canada—Mr. E. F. Clarke.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Mr. Chairman,
before you report the Bill as the
hon. Minister of Finance is in his place—and I am
very glad to see him here looking so well-I wish
to call his attention to the general insurance
question, and particularly to the question which has
arisen over in the United States. I am only going to
take a moment because I would like to discuss this
matter with him later on in the session, but I wish
to give him notice today that a very serious question has arisen in the United States
in
regard to life insurance as controlled by private
companies. He must know, as every one. I
imagine, knows, that it came out the other day in
the city of New York that the great Equitable Life
Insurance Company of that city. that now controls
five hundred millions of money in trust for its
policyholders, is absolutely under the control of
one man, who, with his family, owns $75,000 of the
paid up stock of $100,000 which gives him the
control of that company.
1756
It has been pointed out by very import~
ant men in the United States and by the
great newspapers of the United States that
an effort was being made in New York by
great capitalists represented by Harriman
Gould and the great bond house represented
by Mr. Schiff, of New York, to control this
company and that they were willing to give
$5,000,000 of ready money for the controlling
interest in the shares of the Equitable Life.
This has proved to be a matter of supreme
interest to the people of the United States,
that a few men with a very small capital
could control the immense reserve fund for
the benefit of the policy holders. It is proposed there now—and we will have to do
the same thing, we will have to change our
insurance laws—to enact that the policy
holders shall have a great deal to say in the
disposition of these immense trust funds,
and I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the minister to it. I trust
that, it
not this session at a very early date, we will
be able to cope with this great question, be
cause if there is one thing of importance in
connection with an insurance company it is
that the trust moneys which are there for
the security of the policy holders ought to
have the best possible administration. I do
not think the best administration of these
funds can be secured when it is possible for
their management to fall into the hands of
two or three men who by controlling the
shares of the proprietary company are free
to do what they like with great funds of this
kind. It is openly charged by the leading
newspapers in the United States to-day that
Harriman and Gould are anxious to get control of the Equitable Insurance Company in
order that they may play ducks and drakes
with the $500,000,000 of trust money which
is the absolute property of the policy holders,
in order that they may use it for their great
railway propositions, and we are in danger
of reaching the same condition in this country. I trust that later on some proper
provision will be introduced into our General Insurance Act for the protection of
the policy
holders.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of
Finance). The proper
(protection—shall I say the adequate protection—of
the moneys which are invested in the hands of the
various insurance companies of our
country, must always be a question of the utmost
importance, and if at any time there may be
doubt as to whether our legislation is sufficient on that point I am sure that my
hon. friend
(Mr. W. F. Maclean) or any other member would be only
doing his duty in bringing the matter before the
attention of the House. I hope it will be found, on
an examination of the general insurance law and
of the charters of the various companies, that our
legislation in Canada is not open to the objections
which might be taken in the case of United States
companies. However, if there are some companies as to
which that criticism might be offered, I quite admit
[...]
1767 COMMONS
[...] made by the Board of Trade. I must at
once dissent from that interpretation. It
cannot be admitted that the government will
simply till the part of a mere recording
clerk for the Board of Trade. When recommendations are made to the government by the
Board of Trade, the government is bound to consider the fitness of the
persons proposed, but naturally would accept those recommendations unless there
was cause to the contrary. At all events,
that is the interpretation we have given to
the statute, and I think that interpretation
will be accepted by parliament. In this
case the recommendations made by Toronto
were accepted without dissent. So were
the recommendations made by Winnipeg.
But some dissent was expressed to the recommendations made by the Montreal Board
of Trade. I do not mean that the fact that
Messrs. Carrnthers and Metcalfe were
passed over would indicate anything against
those gentlemen. I do not think it would
be fair to imply or accept anything of that
kind. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce informs me that these gentlemen
have been passed over for good and sufficient reasons. which will appear upon the
face of the papers when they are brought
down.
This individual participated in:
