RESIGNATION OF THE HON. CLIFFORDÂ SIFTON.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). I have
to inform the House that my colleague, Hon. Mr. Sifton, has resigned
his position in the government, and as Minister of the Interior.
Mr. Sifton finds himself unable to agree with the terms of the
Bill which has lately been introduced for the admission into the
Dominion of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, his
disagreement being confined altogether to the educational clause. After a
conference with him, the following correspondence has been exchanged
between him and myself :
Ottawa, February 27, 1905.
Dear Sir Wilfrid,—After giving my best consideration to the matters which we discussed
last evening, I have arrived at the conclusion
that it is impossible for me to continue in
office under present circumstances, and that it
is better for all concerned that I should act at
once. I therefore beg to tender my resignation
as a member of the government. I trust that
the unhappy necessity which has arisen will not
in the least impair the friendship with which
you have been kind enough to honour me.
Believe me,
Yours most faithfully,
CLIFFORD SIFTON.
Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G.,
Ottawa.
To this I answered yesterday in the following terms :
Ottawa. February 28, 1905.
My dear Sifton,—I received yesterday your
letter of same date, whereby you tender me
your resignation as a member of the government.
There is no alternative to me, but to accept
it, and with much regret, it will be my duty to
place it in the hands of His Excellency.
After our conversation of the other day, I
had left you with the impression that the differences between us were more of words
than of
substance, and until I received your letter, I
had cherished the hope that it would be possible ere this to find a comparatively
easy solution.
Whilst I feel more regret than I can express
at this termination of our oflicial relations, let
me assure you that should our old friendship
be ever impaired, the fault will not be mine.
Yours very sincerely,
WILFRID LAURIER.
The Hon. Clifford Sifton, Ottawa.
The resignation has been placed in the
hands of His Excellency, who has been
pleased to accept it.
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON. The statement made by
the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
necessitates a very short explanation to the House on my part. When it
was determined that during this session of parliament legislation should
be introduced creating new provinces out of a portion of the Northwest
Territories, I felt called upon. in view of the history of
1852 the educational question in Canada, to give very serious consideration
to the position which I should take with regard to the legislative power to be conferred
upon the provinces in regard to the
subject of education. It was necessary that conferences should take
place with members of parliament representing the Northwest Territories and
with the representatives of the Territorial government, upon the
subject of education and other subjects involved in the Bill. These
conferences were unavoidably postponed until after the beginning
of the new year, by reason of the absence of the Prime Minister, who,
after the general election, was compelled to take a short rest, and was
therefore absent from the country. Shortly before the time fixed for
holding these conferences I was compelled by my own state of
health to leave Ottawa, and was therefore unable to be present at
the discussions which took place. Before leaving I discussed
with the Prime Minister most of the subjects that necessarily required to be
dealt with in the Bill which was to be introduced, and so
far as I was able to do so at that time, I communicated my views to
him upon the various subjects. I may say that when I went away I did not
anticipate that it would be considered necessary to introduce the Bill
for creating the new provinces, before I returned. As members of
the House are aware, I returned to the capital on Thursday afternoon.
I immediately took occasion to read carefully the speech
which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had
delivered in introducing the Bill. I regretted that in the right hon.
gentleman's address I found some principles enunciated with which I am unable to
agree. On Friday, the next day after I returned, at
the earliest possible moment, I procured a copy of the educational clause of the
Bill which my leader had introduced. That
clause is as follows :
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the
said provinces as if, at the date upon which
this Act comes into force, the territory comprised therein were already a province,
the expression 'the union' in the said section being
taken to mean the said date.
2. Subject to the provisions of the said section 93, and in continuance of the principles
heretofore sanctioned under the Northwest Territories Act, it is enacted that the
legislature
of the said province shall pass all necessary
laws in respect of education, and that it shall
therein always be provided (a) that a majority
of the ratepayers of any district or portion of
the said province or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name
it is known
may establish such schools therein as they
think fit, and make the necessary assessments
and collection of rates therefor, and (b) that
the minority of the ratepayers therein whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish
separate schools therein, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates
therefor, and (c) that in such case the ratepayers
establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic
separate schools shall be liable only to assess1853 MARCH 1, 1905 Â Â ment of such rates as they impose upon themselves with respect thereto.
3. In the appropriation of public moneys by the legislature in aid of education, and
in the distribution of any moneys paid to the government of the said province arising
from the
school fund established by the Dominion Lands
Act, there shall be no discrimination between
the public schools and the separate schools,
and such moneys shall be applied to the support of public and separate schools in
equitable
shares or proportion.
That is the clause which is contained in
the Bill which was introduced by the leader
of the government. Between Friday, when I procured a copy of the clause, and Monday
morning I gave the subject my best consideration, and I had the privilege in the meantime
of having an interview with the Prime Minister on the subject. Â As the result of such
consideration I determined that I could not endorse or support the principle of the
educational clauses. Â Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, my duty became perfectly
clear, and on Monday morning I wrote to the Prime Minister tendering my resignation
as a member of the cabinet. Subsequently, I expressed the desire that my resignation
should be acted up on at once and to that wish the Prime Minister has now assented.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, not intending
and not considering it proper at this time to
enter into a discussion of the merits of the
matter which has caused the difference between myself and my leader, I have only
to add my regret that circumstances have
compelled the severance of my official relations with my leader and with my colleagues
with whom my relations have always been of the most harmonious and pleasant character,
and with whom upon other
questions I am in entire accord. The circumstances, however, in my judgment,
make my duty perfectly clear, and it does
not seem possible for me to properly consider anything except the principles which
are involved.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto). Mr. Speaker, I
quite agree with the hon. gentleman, the retiring minister (Hon. Mr.
Sifton) that this is not the time to undertake the discussion of
the principles involved in the Bill. But, with the two statements which have been
read and with the reading of the
statements and the causes which make the reading of the statements
necessary this afternoon, we alone have to deal and with these I shall deal
for a moment with your kindly permission. It did not come as
a matter of surprise to this side of the House that the Minister of the
Interior should at some early period read his letter of resignation,
or give his reasons for resigning to this House, nor do I
think it came as a matter of surprise to hon. gentlemen who are within the
secrets of the party on the other side of the House. We all remember
the peculiar circumstances under which this Bill appears to have been
1854 framed and to have been rushed before the House. Â It did seem an odd
and almost unexplainable thing that a Bill of such importance should be framed in
the absence of two of the most
responsible ministers in the House as regards the country and the scope
of territory in which that Bill was to be operative, and having respect to
the declaration of policy which I think a year or two ago
was made in this House when, with some new idea of a division of
ministerial responsibility, it was announced that certain ministers were to
be held more or less accountable for the particular provinces
or sections from which they came. This was exemplied in the case of the
hon. Minister of agriculture (Mr. Fisher) in his intermeddling with the
militia matters of this country. Â During the last few weeks this
important Bill has been framed and has been laid before the House in the
absence of the hon. Minister of the Interior, who was
especially charged with the supervision of and the responsibility
for the Northwest Territories and the west generally. Â We
were led to think that possibly the second chapter of what took place on
an almost similar line a year or two ago was being prepared for the
House and the country. It is well known that at that time a most
important railway Bill was conceived and formed and was almost, if not
quite, presented to this House behind the back of the responsible Minister
of Railways and Canals, whose office it should have been to
have aided in the consideration and preparation of that Bill. We
were of late led still more to suppose this from a remark which fell
casually, but rather acridly, from the lips of the right hon. Prime
Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself, who, when, not long ago,
asked about the time when we might expect the introduction
of the Bill, gave as his answer that it would probably be introduced at a
certain time, and when some inquiring mind of the many
inquiring minds on this side of the House put the question to the right hon.
Prime Minister as to whether the hon. the Minister of the Interior
would be back by that time, the right hon. Prime Minister, as I say,
rather sharply retorted that he did not know whether he would or not, but
that he, the Prime Minister, would be here. Taking all this
with the history of this Bill into consideration it did not come as a
surprise to this part of the House, and I doubt very much if it fell
as much of a surprise upon hon. gentlemen on the other side of the
House. But, it is a still stranger thing that the hon. Minister of the
Interior, a most important member of the cabinet at any time and a
specially important member of the cabinet as regards the conception and
arrangement of this Bill, did not actually know, although it is
supposed that telegraph wires stretch from here to almost all
parts of the United States of America in some particular portion of
which the hon.
1855
COMMONS
Minister of the Interior has been for the past
number of weeks, of the educational clauses of this Bill until after he had
returned to this city and to this House when he obtained
a copy of the clause. One would have thought that on the general
theory of responsible government, of a cabinet acting unitedly, of a cabinet
acting wisely. consulting with every unit of the cabinet, as, I think
it is in duty bound to do, in order to secure the united wisdom of the
whole of the cabinet, that the hon. Minister of the Interior would have been
consulted with, not even by telegraph or letter does it seem that the
hon. Minster of the Interior was apprised of the one prominent clause in the Bill
in which it would be supposed naturally that he
would be very much interested.
The excuse, the reason, is given to-day-
and we are bound to take the reason in a
parliamentary sense—that the hon. gentleman is retiring because he could not find
it
consistent with his principles to accede to
that particular clause in the Autonomy Bill,
but from what I have stated and from what
we have seen, it would be easily inferred, I
think, by any member of this House that
there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or
not that was the cause of the resignation, as
to whether the deliberate actions of the
Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet
heretofore have not made it quite abundantly apparent that it was the intention to
get
rid of the hon. gentleman whether he got
out on this particular clause of the Bill or
on some other. The Prime Minister has not
quite satisfied the curiosity of the House.
Outside of the information which was conveyed to us by the bulletin boards there are
other rumours which are abroad in the corridors of this House, abroad on the streets
of the city and, I dare say, are tingling
the wires, which stretch from Ottawa to different parts of this country even now while
we are speaking. And why? It is stated
that another important minister, another
important member of the cabinet of the right
hon. gentleman, is deliberating as to whether
he shall not follow in the tracks—no, I would
not put it that way—but follow, at least, the
example of the hon. the Minister of the Interior who has retired, in also expressing
his
formal and unqualified dissent from this
Bill. There might be some reasons which
would impose on us the idea that there is
truth in that. I could hardly reconcile to
my own mind the idea of a Prime Minister
and a cabinet undertaking to frame and to
put before the country so important a Bill
as this, involving no trivial and unimportant
financial burdens, but involving very onerous and continuous and growing financial
burdens upon this country, I cannot, I say,
understand how a Bill of that kind could
be conceived, put into form and introduced
into this House in the absence of the, Minister of Finance, who is responsible, if
any
man in the cabinet is responsible, for the
1856
financial interests of this country. Was he
also altogether and entirely in the dark
with reference to this Bill? Did he know
the clauses, financial or otherwise, before
he came back to Ottawa and ascertained
what they were by asking for a copy of the
Bill? Was there such an urgent necessity
for the introduction of the Bill that a delay
of at least two or three days could not have
been given until both the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance should
have had opportunity to meet their colleagues in Council and by word of mouth
and interchange of ideas, see if an amicable
and united conclusion could not be had?
Now, we would be very loath to lose the
Minister of Finance.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. FOSTER. His pleasant countenance is always an
inspiration to us—when it is not the opposite, and it is not often it is the
opposite. But we would like to have this set at rest and to hear the
Prime Minister state whether there is any truth in the rumour which is persistent
that the Minister of Finance, not having been
consulted, is not altogether at one with the rest of the cabinet
in relation to this Bill. We must bid adieu to the Minister of the
Interior with varying feelings. We do it some with sympathy ; some
will say he has fought the fight and finished the course—I am not going to
say how good a course it was—and he has entered into his
reward. Probably he has had his reward before; possibly, like the late
Minister of Railways and Canals, there is some glorious future awaiting him
in some of the large official charges of this country. Anyway, if he
leaves us as Minister of the Interior, he has not stated that he is going to
leave us as member and we will still have him with us to remonstrate
with and to counsel and as far as we can abiding in good will and
friendship.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York). Mr. Speaker, partly as
a question of privilege I desire to refer now to the question before
the House, and I would ask the right hon. gentleman, who lives in the
ramshackle house now, and who is the Samson who has pushed down the
pillars and has the roof upon him and his co-ministers in the government? The other
day the right hon. gentleman
said I was quixotic. Well, there is this at least to be said about Don
Quixote, that he was a country gentleman, a man of high honour and
that he died with good Christian burial. If I must search for a historical reference
to the hon. gentleman after what has
happened here to-day, I could think of no one else than one of these
autocratic Russian grand dukes of whom we hear at the present time. He
has confessed here and the late Minister of the Interior has confessed
here that in this House on Monday of this week when I asked where was the
Minister of the Interior and the right hon. gentleman said it was for
me to have him here, that he
1857
MARCH 1, 1905
knew then, as the House knows now, that he was not
in his cabinet and was not in his administration. What is the reason of all
this ? This autocratic Prime Minister that we have in this country
eight years ago using the words of Bismarck said: We shall not go to
Canossa. The right hon. gentleman has been to Three Rivers; he has
made the treaty of Three Rivers, and in pursuance of that
treaty he has chosen in his autocratic way to bring down a Bill dealing
with the great questions now at issue without consulting his
colleagues. It is said that in the preparation of this Bill he consulted only three
of his ministers, of whom two came from his
own province of Quebec. I do not propose to discuss the Bill, but I
know now why the Minister of the Interior has left the government; it is now
known that it is on the school question and it is on the land question
as I said on Mondaybut it is more. The right hon. gentleman
in introducing a certain measure in this House argued on three grounds, the
constitutional ground, the ground of policy, and he
argued for separate schools per se and it is because the proposition is for
separate schools per se that the late Minister of the Interior has had
to leave the administration.
Mr. SPEAKER. I presume the hon. gentleman
(Mr. W. F. Maclean) intends to conclude with a motion)
Mr W. F. MACLEAN. Yes, I have certainly the
right to speak somewhat from the standpoint of privilege, but I intend to
conclude with a motion. There is another thing in regard
to this question. There is a good old verse in the Bible which says
that all they who take to the sword shall perish by the sword; and I say
that all those who take to provincial rights and school questions will
die by provincial rights and school questions. The handwriting is on
the wall.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Yes, and the right hon. gentleman
has lost not only his Minister of the Interior, the Napoleon of the West,
but that panegyrist of his, who set the right hon. gentleman up as the
greatest statesman we have ever had in this country, and who
glorified the late Minister of the Interior as the Napoleon of the West. The
two of them are now joined together against the right hon. gentleman.
He has lost his chief organ, the Toronto 'Globe,' or this question ;
he has lost the Montreal ' Witness,' another of his organs ; and I am
afraid that he is now about to repudiate the last organ he appears to have
left, ' Le Soleil,' that organ which, in its pontifical way, said the
other day : 'We are the organ of Sir Wilfrid, and every one must take
note of it and govern themselves accordingly.'
I now come to the question of the school
lands and the way little Manitoba is treat
1858ed; and again I call the attention of the
hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway),
who is now in his place, to this declaration
of the leading organ of the right hon. gentleman, that it was the intention to punish
Manitoba because she had vindicated
provincial rights in connection with educational matters. The province of Manitoba
has an area of only 74,000 square miles,
while the proposed provinces are to have
an area of nearly 300,000 square miles
each. But the province of Manitoba happens to be in favour of public education,
and she is to be punished ; and now the
House and the country will be able to
see how all this came about. If you extended the limits of the province of Manitoba
to the west, the result would be that
the portion of territory to the east would
have the right to regulate its own educational affairs, while the other portion of
the
same territory would be shackled. That is
the reason why Manitoba is being punished.
And so it turns out, after all the taunts
that I was met with here on Monday, that
I was right when I said that Manitoba was
being punished, and that the Dominion Lands
Act would have to be changed in order to
carry out the proposal made in the Bill. I
was given what was called a categorical
denial ; but to-day I have received a categorical affirmation from the late Minister
of
the Interior, I warn the right hon. gentleman that he is engaged in a quixotic career
if he fancies that he and his party, which
claims to be the party of provincial rights,
can shackle the two new provinces of the
west and impose a separate school system
upon them without consulting the people.
He does not consult his own ministers-
the confession is made to-day. And what
is to be the fate of that minister who today declares that he has not been consulted?
He is to be Tartified and Blairified, like the
other ministers who have resigned ; and
the same fate awaits any one else who
chooses not to come under this new czardom
which we have in this country, under which
not even a cabinet minister is to be consulted in regard to public policy; under
which that great free west, which feels
more keenly on these great public questions
than we do in the east, is not to be consulted through its recognized minister, but
this hasty and ill-advised proposal is to
be introduced into this House in his absence.
I congratulate the late Minister of the
Interior upon having the courage to come
out. I can say this at least of him, that
he has justified to-day that mission which
he made several years ago into my own
province, into the county of Haldimand,
to say that he came to the province of Ontario to ask for our sympathy because
it was proposed to put shackles upon his
province ; because, he said, if the province
of Manitoba is shackled to-day, the time
will come when the greater provinces to
1859
COMMONS
the west will be treated in the same way.
It turns out now that this treatment is
being meted out by the czar of the Liberal
party without consulting his colleagues. And
this man of autocratic tendencies gets up
in this House and reads us a lecture and
calls us all kinds of names; and yet,
within less than forty-eight hours of his
lecture to me, everything I said has been
justified and proved true. The right hon.
gentleman to-day stands discredited in this
House. He stands discredited of his ownÂ
colleagues ; he stands discredited in the
different provinces, especially in the province of Ontario, and by his own newspaper,
the 'Globe.' The right hon. gentleman quoted George Brown. The right hon. gentleman
actually read into the constitution the utterances of George Brown's newspaper and
George Brown's speeches, in justification of
this proposal of his to shackle these great
new provinces of the west. The right hon.
gentleman has failed. He has no justification for his proposal except as a matter
of
policy. But he has not made it a question of
policy. He made a bogus constitutional
argument, and then he made a moral argument, and that moral argument was what ?
Many a time in this House the right hon.
gentleman has read us a lesson about respect for our neighbours ; but there never
was a more insulting statement made to
the people of the United States than that
statement of his that they were immoral, that
divorces, lynchings and murders prevailed
in their country, and that the reason of
Canada's superiority in this respect was
that dogma was taught in our public schools.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. What the people of Canada believe in
is the separation of state and church. With regard to what is embodied
in the constitution, so far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned,
we say all right, we accept the situation.
An hon. MEMBER. Thank you.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Nay, more ; I go further and say, I
for one would not lift my hand to prevent the people of these western
provinces having separate schools if they desire them. But my plea is that
the question must be left to them—that we must not impose these
schools upon them. I am ready to declare here or anywhere else ——shall
I say as a radical or a democrat ?- for the principle of the entire
separation of church and state, so far as our constitution will permit
it. The right hon. gentleman is in this House to-day as the champion of
a new alliance between church and state, Again I warn him that he is
on dangerous ground. Again I tell him that he who takes to the sword
shall perish by the sword. He who apparently, a few weeks ago, entered
on a long career of office, is today face to face with the
handwriting on the wall. I would like to see the right hon.
1860 gentleman introduce great measures into this House, and not bring up
questions of this kind. I do not want to say anything against my hon.
friend who has retired from office to-day ; but if there is one thing he
can recall, it is this : He came in on that wave ; he goes out on that
wave ; whither it will carry him I leave him to find out in
his own experience.
Mr. SPEAKER. There is still no question
before the House.
Mr. LEIGHTON G. McCARTHY. The hon. member for South
York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has referred to matters which, perhaps should
not have been referred to in discussing the question before the House.
But, lest my silence should be misconstrued, l desire to make a short
statement. I occupy, on this question, a much different
position from that occupied, probably, by any other member in this
House.  My hon. friend from South York refers to the campaign of some ten years
ago in the county of Haldimand. The fact was
referred to that, on that occasion, the ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) and myself stood on the same platform when we were fighting
the men who are now calling in question the actions which have taken
place and have caused that hon. gentleman's (Mr. Sifton's) retirement.
Therefore, for the last ten years, my position on the school question
has been defined. I also fought on the school question in 1895 in Cardwell,
and again in June 1896 was the school question fought out in my
riding. From that day to this, I have remained firm and free, so far
as my constituency was concerned, upon this question, and I have been thrice
endorsed upon it. Therefore, I simply rise to announce to
this House as I announced the first time I spoke in the House and as I
have previously announced to individual members, that I am, like the
ex-Minister of the Interior, absolutely opposed to the education
clauses as submitted in the Autonomy Bills ; that I will oppose
them and oppose them unalterably.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). I do not rise to
anticipate the discussion on the Bill that will shortly be before us or to
explain to the House where I stand on the question—I think my position
is pretty well known. But I rise merely to say that, so far as the
Prime Minister has given this House his confidence, and so far as he has
explained the position, all is well. But some of us thought he might
well have gone a little further. Perhaps to expect that would be to
ask him to anticipate events. He did not indicate in any way who is to
be the incumbent of the office
1861
MARCH 1, 1905
which has just been made vacant. However, that is something that concerns him more
than it does us on this
side of the House. But, in view of the loss from the cabinet of the
representative of Manitoba and the Northwest,—and a man regarded by
many as one of the ablest members of the cabinet to which he belonged, I
wish to ask the Prime Minister if he does not think that it would be
well to tell this House that he is prepared to drop that clause of the
Bill ? I wish also to congratulate the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton)
who has just resigned, and to congratulate ourselves who are
opposed to this feature of the Bill, upon the acquisition by our ranks
of that hon. gentleman and also of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L.
G. McCarthy).
Mr. SPROULE. I hope that many others on that side will
find that open confession is good for the soul, and will rise and do
as these hon. gentlemen have done. While I am on my feet I would like to say
a word with regard to the number of copies of the Bill distributed so
far. Eight days ago the Bill was introduced. Up to to-day each of us
could only get one copy of the Bill. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that
there was no objection to having a large number struck off. It would
only take two or three hours to strike off a couple of thousand copies
of the Bill. It seems strange to us, therefore, that up to the
present, we have been able to get only four or five copies each. I made
inquiry of the Printing Bureau and they told me : We were instructed
to give no information as to the number of copies of the Bill to be
printed. It seems strange that there should be such secrecy. I would ask the
Prime Minister if he knows any good reason why we should not get more
copies of the Bill, and whether he will give instructions that a much
larger number be printed, because there is an urgent demand for them from
many parts of the country. I myself have applications for at least a
hundred copies of the Bill. Yet, though it is eight days since the
Bill was introduced, I am able to supply only five.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Haliburton). It
is not my intention to speak on this matter, further than to congratulate
the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) on the action he has
taken in withdrawing from the present government. I take this
opportunity of stating that, as soon as the Bill was introduced, knowing the
action that the late Minister of the Interior had taken in 1895 and
1896, when the Manitoba school question was under discussion, though I
had no consultation with the hon. gentleman, I had absolute faith
that he would take the course he has taken to-day. Â In
1862 justice to that hon. gentleman I may say îhat I am in a position to
state positively, knowing whereof I speak, that it was his desire that
the Manitoba school question should be kept out of the arena of Dominion politics
and be settled in a satisfactory manner by the
province. That was the wish also of many hon. gentlemen on the Liberal-Conservative
side of this House. But the wishes of those
gentlemen and of the late Minister of the Interior were not gratified. I felt that
there was no other honourable
course open to the late Minister of the Interior, than that which he has
taken, and I had the most perfect confidence in his strength of
purpose and knew that he would not tolerate the infliction upon the
Northwest of the clause in this Bill relating to education. I ask
the Prime Minister; I appeal to his patriotism—and he pretends to be
patriotic—in view of the fact that the Minister of the Interior has retired
and that other ministers hang their heads when this Bill is mentioned
; in view of the fact that many hon. members behind him will not and
dare not support him ; in the interest of the west and of the
financial and commercial institutions that depend upon the development
and progress of that great country, I appeal to him to pause in pressing this Bill.
He cannot but know that the great tide of
immigration now flowing toward that country, once checked will not
easily resume its course. I predict, if he goes on with this Bill—and
I am not the only one who predicts—dire disaster to this country.
An hon. MEMBER. War.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. War ? Sir, if because a few
half-breeds on the banks of the Saskatchewan refused to accept the new
and reasonable method of survey instead of the old one to which
they were accustomed, the First Minister would have been justified in
shouldering his musket in their support, as he declared in 1885 he
would have done, then far more would the boys in the Northwest—it will not
need the boys from Ontario—be justified in shouldering their muskets
in resistance to the tyranny the Prime Minister proposes in this Bill.
His action, if he persists in it, will check the tide of immigration into
that country and will produce a crisis in the financial and business
affairs of the Dominion. I ask the First Minister to give his
most careful attention to this idea. He can turn a corner as quickly
as anybody can. It is not too late for him yet. Let him withdraw these
clauses of his Bill. and leave it to the Northwest to settle this
matter.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds). I do not rise to discuss the
Bill which has led to the resignation of the Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) but only to congratulate my hon. friend from North
Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) on having already de
1863
COMMONS
lared his attitude. He is not a member of the
cabinet ; but I presume that he was a prospective minister. I have been
waiting to hear from another gentleman who sits close to that hon.
member. I refer to the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant). At a
by-election in that constituency, I had the honour to go there to say a word
on behalf of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster)
who was then a candidate in North Ontario. And one of the principal
things brought against the hon. member for North Toronto in that campaign,
was that he had supported the Remedial Bill, and if elected would
advocate the granting of separate schools in the Northwest. That was
the principal argument used in that by-election to further the election of
the hon. member for North Ontario, and I now expect to hear from him
that he will follow the hon. member for North Simcoe and declare the
position he purposes taking when the Bill comes up.
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) On the motion to
adjourn, moved by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean)
and on which several members have spoken, some of whom have said that
they are unalterably opposed to clause 16 of the Bills creating two new
provinces in the Northwest Territories, I would say on my own behalf,
speaking for myself only, that I am unalterably in favour of that
clause 16 in the two Bills shortly to come up for a second reading. So far
as I have been able to gather, the only point urged today is that made
by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who says that the
Bills are hurried ones. Surely he does not mean that these are new Bills. I
remember last session hearing this matter discussed, if not in the
House at all events around the House, and likewise the session before
that. They are, I submit, two of the best considered Bills that have ever
been brought forward; and although they may not have been as fully
discussed with some members of the government as they might have been,
still I venture to say that during the past five or ten years no question has received
greater consideration. If I read
parliamentary practise aright, if I understand Todd's parliamentary
procedure and May's usages of parliament, I believe I am correct in
saying that it is the Prime Minister who should introduce measures of
the kind we are now discussing; and if any of the members of his cabinet are
not in accord with him, they have one duty to perform and that is to
resign. If the ex- Minster of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) found
he could not support the government in this matter, he has taken the
proper course; but as I understand the question, so far as it has now
gone, there is a distinct desire on the part of hon. members opposite,
evinced both in their speeches and their newspapers, to create some
inflammatory condition in this
1864 country which there is nothing in the Bills introduced to warrant.
Some hon. MEMBERS. What about the
Globe ?
Mr. GUTHRIE. I have read the editorials in
the ' Globe,' in which that newspaper takes issue with the
government regarding the educational policy laid down in the
Bills presented to this House. I am sorry that the ' Globe' cannot see as
the government do on this question, but the ' Globe ' is only one
newspaper, and we are legislating for the whole Dominion. If the '
Globe ' cannot see eye to eye with us, that is no reason whatever why we
should turn back from what we believe to be our duty. The majority of
this House and the country, I am convinced, are of the opinion
that the measure submitted to us is right and just; and in that belief
I think we should go forward notwithstanding the Toronto '
Globe ' and the organ of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and
those other organs which are criticising these
Bills very adversely at present.
Mr. FOSTER. I do not want the right hon. the First
Minister to forget the second question that I ventured to put to him so
that he may settle, if it is in his power to do so, these disquieting
rumours which have been given currency with reference to the attitude
of some others of his ministers on this Bill. We have had a most important
piece of information from the hon. gentleman who has just
spoken. He has just told us that this Bill has been discussed for two
sessions, and he has informed the House with all becoming gravity that it is
still being discussed. Where ? Is there an inner circle somewhere ?
Mr. FOSTER. Is there a circle within a circle in the
party headed by my right hon. friend, and at the head of which is probably the right
hon. gentleman who leads the government? Is
there an inner circle which takes up these things in advance and
discusses and settles them and brings them to a point where they are in the
position of not being new matters but things well discussed
and settled during these two years? Last year my hon. friend the Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was, I believe, present in this
House and in his wonted health. He was also present the year before last in equally
good condition. During all that time, as
we have just been informed. the principles of this Bill were being discussed, and
surely if any one of them was discussed it
must have been that one dealing with the school question. But evidently the Minister
of the Interior was not in that warm
current.
Mr. SPEAKER. Is the hon. gentleman bringing up some new
matters? I would
1865
MARCH 1, 1905
remind him that he has already spoken once.
Mr. FOSTER. I spoke not on the adjournment
but on the ministerial explanation, and I am now calling the attention of
the First Minister to the question I have just put. I also want to
call his attention to something else. It is in the interests of the
country that we should know whether two or three days ago, after conferring
with the Minister of the Interior, my right hon. friend still had
hopes that the Minister of the Interior would accede to what was evidently
a proposition put to him, possibly in modification of this
clause of the Bill, and that his resignation at the last moment came as
a disappointment. It would be interesting to the House to know whether
the right hon. gentleman made any advance towards a compromise in the
Bill as presented, in order to retain his colleague in the
cabinet. I want to call to the attention of my right hon. friend two
other matters, which I may as well bring before him now, as otherwise
I should have to call his attention to them later. I find that in the
printed Bill there are material alterations as compared with the Bill
laid on the table, when introduced by the right hon. gentleman. Â What is the
cause for these modifications? Have some modifications been made
between the time this Bill was introduced and the time when it was
sent to the printer, with a view of retaining in the government the Minister
of the Interior or any other aggrieved minister? When my
hon. friend here to my right asked for the printing of a larger number of copies
of the Bill, it struck me that perhaps there
was method in not printing too many copies, because, before the next
printing takes place, it may possibly be that some other clauses will be
modified in order to retain members who are at present recalcitrant, or to gain the
favour of those who are opposed to
the Bill as it stands. But I call my right hon. friend's attention to
this peculiarity, that some of the clauses of the Bill which he put in Mr.
Speaker's hands do not appear in these Bills, the swamp lands clause
for instance.
Mr. FOSTER. Â I think not. Â I had a copy of the Bill and
read it, and I am sure that was not in the Bill. I merely mention the
matter so that the right hon. gentleman may notice it. There is
one other thing I would like to speak of. We have had placed in our
hands what purports to be a history from oflicial sources of the
legislation of the united provinces of the Dominion since confederation. I
do not know to whose courtesy we are indebted for this. It is useful in
its way, so far as it goes. But it has been stated in the public press
that it was arranged and collated by the Secretary of State,
1866 and publicity has been given to that statement, and it is
believed by a great many people. I do not know whether that is the
case or not. I have no objection to the government giving us all and the
fullest information with reference to the subject, but I do object to
the government putting anything in circulation as official information if it has
been done under the auspices I have mentioned,
and as has been reported in the press, because the information is more
than a statement of facts, and is shaped into an argument from the
beginning to snpport the contention of the government. I hope my right
hon. friend will be able to say that this has not been prepared by the
government or any member of the government, or officials connected
with the government. It seems to bear the impress of being
printed in the Government Printing Bureau, though that may not be the case.
However, as that has been current, I bring it to the attention of my
right hon. friend so that he may mention it, if he will be kind enough
to do so, in connection with the other points I have raised.
Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark). In order to emphasize
some of the remarks of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster)
I wish to draw the attention of the premier to a statement he made in the
ministerial correspondence which he read as having taken
place between him and his late colleague. It is to my mind a very curious statement.
He said that in consultation with
his colleague he hoped he would be able to yield somewhat to his views so
as to retain him in the cabinet. Now what the House wants is a clear
cut statement from the premier whether he is wedded to that particular
clause of the Bill regarding separate schools, or whether he is prepared
to do what his colleague wishes him to do in order to retain him in
the cabinet, and in order to meet the wishes of a great number of his supporters
in the House in that direction. The difficulties may
be all removed, there may be such an alteration in that
clause as that it may receive the support of the whole House.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have no observation of
any kind to offer to the House on this occasion, because the occasion does
not call for any observation from me beyond the statement which has
been made by myself and by my late colleague, the present
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). The hon. member for South York (Mr.
Maclean) knows better than anybody that on such an occasion
ministerial explanations are to be given when a gentleman withdraws from
the administration, and it is left to the prime minister and to the
minister withdrawing to make such explanations as they deem
fit. I rise simply to answer one question, though it is not at all
pertinent to the issue, because everything that has been said here on
this occasion beyond that which
1867
COMMONS
refers to the withdrawal from the cabinet, is aside
altogether from the issue. But the hon. gentleman has questioned me with
regard to a pamphlet which has been issued purporting to
be certain collations from the debates of this House on a former occasion
on the question of separate schools. I was not aware until this moment
that this pamphlet had been distributed, and I shall make
inquiry and ascertain who is responsible for it. I do not mean any
discourtesy to the House, on the contrary ; the House is entitled to
the amplest information, and that it shall have at all times, and I hope
before this matter is settled. But many of the matters which have been
introduced today are absolutely foreign to the question
which I was forced to bring before the House, that is to say the resignation
of my hon. friend from Brandon. The other questions will
come up at a later date. Some remarks have been made, for instance, by
the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) when he said that this
Bill had been before the House for two sessions. That was evidently a
slip of the tongue, and was easily answered. My hon. friend meant only
to say that the question of autonomy had been discussed for two
sessions. Everybody knows, especially the members who were in the old
parliament, that for the last two sessions the question of autonomy for the Territories
has been under discussion ;
I presume that is what my hon. friend had in his mind when he spoke on
this Bill. But the only object I had in rising was to refer to a
statement—not a statement but an insinuation, made, I think, by
the hon. member for South York. The hon. gentleman insinuated that in
bringing forward this measure there was an intention on my
part in some way to get rid of the Minister of the Interior. I simply notice
the statement to give it the most emphatic denial that I can. Whatever
may be the differences of opinion between myself and my late
colleague, I am sure he will acquit me of having had any idea of acting
deceitfully towards him. I am sure that no one knows
better than himself that it is with extreme regret that I have to lose his
valuable services, and if I could have retained them 1
would have done so with great pleasure. When the hon. member for
South York insinuates that I was conspiring in some way to get rid of my
hon. friend from Brandon he makes an insinuation which is absolutely
eithout the shadow of foundation.
Mr. SPROULE. We are entitled to some information
showing why we cannot get more copies of the Bill.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend is very persistent
in his question. I may say at once that this matter of printing is not
in my department, it is in the hands of the Secretary of State. The hon.
gentleman will not be surprised perhaps to learn
1868 that I have many things to attend to these days, but I will not forget
the subject and will communicate directly with the Secretary or'
State.
Motion (Mr. W. F. Maclean) to adjourn,
negatived.
This individual participated in:
