1. No. They have filed the route map
from Toronto to Parry Sound.
2. To the east of Lake Couchiching.
3. Yes.
4. No.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.). Before the
Orders of the Day are called, I shall make a few remarks with respect to a
matter which I have informed my right hon. friend the Prime Minister I
would speak upon to—day. My remarks will be very brief. They are in
connection with the introduction of the Bills for the
establishment of new provinces in the Northwest Territories.
I do not of course propose to discuss the merits of these measures—the rules
of the House would not permit me to do so. and even if they would,
that course is not advisable at the present moment, when, as I
understand, certain questions in connection with these Bills are under
consideration by the government. However, if I were disposed
to enter into a discussion of the merits, I would be unable to do so on
account of the very well known rules of the House which
do not seem to be thoroughly understood in some quarters throughout the
country. The particular matter to which I desire to call attention is
: that the Prime Minister introduced this legislation, as a measure
concurred in by all the members of the administration, whereas we discovered afterwards
that this was not the fact. My right hon.
friend has always vaunted himself as a strict follower of constitutional usage—he
has sometimes done more than that, because some ten
years ago he claimed for himself the attributes of foresight and of
courage when a somewhat similar question as that which arises to-day
2193
MARCH 9, 1905
was to a certain extent agitating the parliament and the people of this country. My
right hon. friend
then said:
My courage is not to make hasty promises
and then to ignominously break them. My
courage is to speak slowly, but once I have
spoken I will stand or fall by my words.
I mention that, because my right hon.
friend though he may have shown a great
deal of courage in his action with regard to
this measure, does not at least seem to have
combined foresight with strict regard for
constitutional usage. It is beyond all doubt
that this House is entitled to regard every
measure brought down by the Prime Minister, or by any other member of the
cabinet, as a government measure, which is
the result of the collective wisdom of the
cabinet. I need not cite authority for that,
to those who are at all familiar with the
usage as laid down by recognized constitutional authorities ; let me, however, quote
two or three words from volume II of Todd
on parliamentary government in England
where it is thus laid down :
Except in the case of an admitted open question, it must be taken for granted that
the
whole cabinet have assented to the ministerial policy as officially presented or propounded
by any minister acting or speaking on their
behalf.
Words could not be plainer. We have
the absolute right to regard the measure
brought down by the Prime Minister on
the 2lst day of February last, as a measure in respect of which every member of
the cabinet had been consulted, and which,
whatever differences of opinion might originally have existed with regards to its
terms,
was in the end concurred in by all the members of the cabinet, and had the support
of each of them. Now, it has turned out
since the introduction of the measure, that
the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton),
until recently the Minister of the Interior,
was not consulted about that measure at
all. I do not know how it may be with
regard to other members of the cabinet ;
we have no information with respect to that.
We do not know whether or not the Minister
of Finance was consulted with regard to
the clauses which did not meet with the
approval of the Minister of the Interior, nor
do we know to what extent, if any, the Minister of Finance was consulted with regard
to the financial terms embodied in
this measure. But we have this peculiar
circumstance, at least, that the measure
was brought down two or three days before the return of the Minister of the Interior.
Naturally we would not be led to
suppose that a measure of this importance,
with the terms of which the Minister of
the Interior is so intimately connected,
would be brought down within two or three
days of his return to Ottawa, without his
having had an opportunity to become ac
2194quainted with its terms. Nor is it to be
supposed. in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance had sailed about a week
before from Europe to this country, that
legislation of so great importance as the
financial clauses of this Bill, would be introduced into this House on the eve of
his
return, without his having any opportunity
to advise with regard to them, or to give
his colleagues the benefit of the wisdom and
experience which of course he must possess
after occupying for some eight or nine years
the position which he now holds. Under
these circumstances, I think we might well
call for an explanation from the right hon.
gentleman who leads the House as to why
it was he brought down this measure without vouchsafing to the House the explanation
that two members of his cabinet had not
been consulted at all with regard to its provisions, and that, so far as they were
concerned, this was not the act of the government.
But I need not go to Todd or to any other
authority on parliamentary government in
regard to this matter. This administration
has laid down a rule, peculiar, as it is declared, to the form of government which
we enjoy in this country. What was the
position of affairs ? The Minister of the
Interior represented in the cabinet the great
west of Canada—represented more than any
other member of the cabinet that portion
of this country which is now being created
into two new provinces. Further than that,
owing to his experience of some eight years
in the position of Minister of the Interior,
he might be supposed to possess a more intimate knowledge of the needs and requirements
of that country than any other member of the cabinet. And yet the Minister
of the Interior was not consulted with regard to this measure, and that in the face
of the most explicit declaration made by
this administration no further back than
the 14th of June, 1904, that he was the
man above all others who should be consulted on this question. When Lord Dundonald
was dismissed from his position as
General Officer Commanding in this country, the government passed an Order in
Council which was laid upon the table of
the House, and in which the action of the
administration in that regard was justified
upon certain grounds; and one of the reasons put forward by the administration for
the interference by the Minister of Agriculture in a department with which otherwise
he had no concern whatever, indeed, the
only justification for that interference, was
expressed in that Order in Council in these
words :-
In the case of members of the cabinet, while
all have an equal degree of responsibility in a
constitutional sense, yet in the practical working out of responsible government,
in a country of such vast extent as Canada, it is found
necessary to attach special responsibility to
2195 COMMONS
each minister for the public affairs of the province or district with which he has
close political connection, and with which his colleagues
may not be so well acquainted.
Well, I would submit to my right hon.
friend that, taking his own standard of
ministerial responsibility thus expressed in
this Order in Council, the Minister of the
Interior was in this case the minister above
all others who should have been consulted
in the first instance about those very provisions which at the present time are causing
some discussion in the country, and, if
we may believe all we hear, some dissension on the other side of the House ; and I
would like to know from the right hon.
gentleman how it was that after having delayed some two years before taking up the
question at all, the minister who, under
the constitutional rule laid down by the government itself, was most to be consulted
with regard to the terms of the measure,
was not consulted at all, although the measure was introduced within three days of
his return to Ottawa. My right hon. friend
has been a very strict stickler for constitutional usage in some of his dealings with
his ministers in days gone by. I will advert to only one case. We remember that
the right hon. gentleman felt himself constrained to ask for the portfolio of Public
Works at that time held by the Hon. J. I.
Tarte, because Mr. Tarte had seen fit, in
the words of the Prime Minister, to advocate a policy which had not yet been adopted
by the government. Well, if that be a
just reason, have not the colleagues of the
right hon. gentleman a right to demand his
portfolio at the present time, because he
has seen fit not only to advocate, but to
place before parliament and the country,
a measure to which his colleagues have not
all agreed. I do not know on what ground
the right hon. gentleman can justify himself in this regard, because it seems to me
that it is not treating the House of Commons with due respect to bring down a
measure of this kind as one which is concurred in by every member of the administration,
and afterwards to acquaint the
House, as we are now acquainted, with the
fact that certain members at least were not
consulted.
Have we not the right under the circumstances to inquire respectfully of the First
Minister whether there are any other members of his cabinet outside the member for
Brandon, lately Minister of the Interior, and
the Minister of Finance who were not consulted with regard to the terms of this
measure. The right hon. gentleman has
adverted to the aid which he obtained from
members of the Executive Council of the
Northwest Territories. May we not also
respectfully inquire whether all the provisions of this measure were considered at
the
conferences which took place between the
members of the cabinet and the members
2196
of the Executive Council of the Territories.
There is some further desirable information,
if the right hon. gentleman will not regard
my curiosity as fastidious—because that is
the term he usually applies when any question is in the least degree awkward—might
I
ask whether or not any conculsion has been
arrived at with regard to the filling of the
position made vacant by the resignation of
the Minister of the Interior. I would also
respectfully inquire of the right hon. gentleman regarding another matter which I
mentioned the other day, namely, whether or
not changes in the proposed Bills creating
the new provinces are under consideration
by the government ? We of course, do not
seek to concern ourselves with any differences which may have occurred in the
ranks of the hon. gentlemen opposite, but
the shape in which these measures shall
eventually come before parliament is a matter in which we are legitimately concerned
and as to which we have a reasonable right
to inquire. It is said over and over again
in the organs supposed to have the confidence of the government—for example in the
very last issue of that newspaper which is
supposed to be the organ of the Minister of
Agriculture ; it is stated not only that these
matters are being discussed within the cabinet and in the ranks of the hon. gentleman
opposite, but that certain conclusions have
already been arrived at and will be announced in due course. I suggested to my hon.
friend only the other day that as soon as
those changes—if any are contemplated—be
agreed upon, they should be announced to
the House in order that we may have them
under consideration before the time arrives
for discussing them in parliament. I venture to bring this matter before the government
to-day. The right hon. gentleman
told us some ten years ago, when matters of
this kind were discussed in parliament
and the country, that he was not in the battle ' No,' he said : 'The battle is there
;
there is the seat of contest ; there is the
raging confiict.' I do not want to make
any special application of those words today ; but I do think that as soon as the
differences are amicably adjusted, we should
have a statement from the Prime Minister
as to the form this measure will eventually
take when it comes before parliament.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I am sorry to say that I have very
little to tell my hon. friend of which he is not already aware. He is
too old a parliamentarian not to know the answer I must give him. My hon.
friend knows well, none better, that the deliberations of
cabinets are secret, that all the members of a cabinet are sworn to secrecy.
and that solidarity exists among them until one of them chooses to
express his dissent because he finds he cannot support any longer the policy of
the government. When such a thing occurs, it
becomes the duty of the government to inform parliament of the
2197
MARCH 9, 1905
causes of the differences which have arisen between
the dissenting member and his colleagues. My hon. friend knows
that in every government, it must always be presumed that
there will be some diflerences of opinion among the members composing it.
It is not to be supposed that in a cabinet composed of 13 or 14
members, all the ministers are of one mind upon all questions.
It must be expected that there will be some differences among them. It
is not in human nature that they should agree on all
matters, and therefore some latitude must be allowed the individual members,
and this latitude is always extended until it becomes
impossible for one of the members of the administration to agree with his
colleagues. Let me quote Todd :
Upon the formation of a ministry which embraces men of different shades of political
opinion, it necessarily follows that there must be,
to a greater or less extent, mutual concessions
and compromises. But with the rare exception
of certain questions, which by previous consent
it is agreed shall be considered as 'open,' it is
an admitted principle that all the responsible
ministers of the crown are bound to unite in
furthering the measures of government through
parliament, and in otherwise carrying out the
policy which has been agreed upon by the
cabinet. This policy is framed in the first instance by the prime minister in accordance
with the principle of the party to which he
belongs. It then forms the basis of negotiation between himself and those whom he
may
invite to assist him in carrying on the Queen's
government.
All members of the cabinet should agree
on questions of policy, but if there should be
a disappointment, if, as in the case of the
hon. member for Brandon, there should be
a difference of opinion, then either a compromise must be reached or the dissenting
colleague resigns from the cabinet. In the
latter case it is the duty of the First Minister
to give the House information of the causes
which led to this unhappy result just as
an explanation of the policies of the government is due to the House when the government
is formed. But does my hon. friend
expect the government to give to the House
all the different conversations or deliberations which may have taken place in council—everything
which passed either in writing or by word of mouth ? If he so expects,
his expectation is not borne out by the authorities on the subject.
It will be sufficient for me to quote to
him the author from whom he himself has
quoted, who is recognized as the standard
authority upon these subjects. I quote from
Todd, Vol. 2, page 487. After having stated
that the House is entitled to have full explanation on the formation of a government,
Todd goes on to say:
But the House has no right to ask for more
than a general exposition of the main principles
on which a government is formed. It has no
right to inquire into all the conditions which
may have taken place between the several
2198
members of the government. Any arrangements,
however, which have been specially referred
to in debate by new ministers as the stipulations and conditions upon which they agreed
to accept office, may be suitably inquired into
by other members.
And this rule that is laid down for the
formation of a government is exactly the
rule laid down, as I understand the constitutional authorities on the point, in relation
to giving information concerning a government that, instead of being formed is, to
some extent disrupted. A few days ago, it
was my duty—my painful duty—to communicate to the House the reasons which
had brought about the rupture between the
hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and
the government. I do not know that the
House in entitled to more information than
I gave them. There are the facts, and the
matter has been brought before the House.
My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has taken
exception, and when the time comes to discuss the matter, he will be able to give
whatever explanation he thinks it well to
give. Until that time, the House must rest
content with the explanation given. The
hon. gentleman has not stated whether, in
this matter, he refers to the Bill in toto, or
simply to the educational clauses. It will
be open to him to tell the House to what
extent he refers to the Bill as a whole or to
what extent he refers to in toto. Up to this
time, I do not think the House is entitled to
more information from us than that which
has already been imparted.
My hon. friend asks a second question.
He wants to know whether any action is
to be taken to fill the vacancy in the portfolio of the Interior- caused by the resignation
of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton). He is entitled to a full and categorical
answer. No action has been taken,
and it is not my intention now to take any
action in the way of filling that portfolio.
And my hon. friend asks still another
question. He wants to know if any changes
are contemplated in the Bill. Really, the
hon. gentleman is very inquisitive. I said
the other day—and I think my hon. friend
will agree with me—that I am not aware of
any measure of any great importance, and
I am aware of very few measures even of
little importance, that have ever gone over
that table without having changes made in
them ; and I shall be much surprised if this
Bill, which is of such great importance
runs the gauntlet of this House without
fault being found with it—perhaps by my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden) ; perhaps by my hon. friend
who sits next to him (Mr. Foster) ; perhaps
by my hon. friend who sits behind him (Mr.
Monk), or, perhaps by my hon. friend who
sits at his right hand (Mr. Sproule). Perhaps fault will be found on one hand, perhaps
on many. Therefore, I cannot see how
it is possible to gratify my hon. friend and
say anything as to changes being contem2199 COMMONS plated. But I must say that I can understand that my hon. friend is very anxious
to know in advance if there are to be any
changes made in the Bill. I think, judging
from past experience, my hon. friend will
think it important to know in advance what
is to be the precise character of the Bill
when it shall come to the second reading.
I presume—and in so presuming, I think I
do not state anything that is not in accordance with the truth ; if I do, he will
correct
me—and I have reason to believe, that he
is preparing some batteries to attack this
Bill ; and, perhaps it is important for him
to know at this time whether he should
place his batteries on a certain hill or place
them on another hill. I can understand
that my hon. friend is anxious to know whether or not the Bill is to be as it is.
If there
are to be other provisions, as a matter of
tactics he would like to be in a position to
judge whether his batteries should be placed
in one place or in another. But I can hardly
give myself the pleasure of coming to the
rescue of my hon. friend by giving him today information to which, in due time, he
will be entitled.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. May I say one word to my right hon.
friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier): Whatever else I do I shall not retire within
the lines of Torres Vedras. Might I respectfully suggest to
him that he has not at all answered the question which I put to him,
namely : Why did he so far violate constitutional usage as to bring down a
Bill as the act of the administration when two members, who were on
the eve of return, had not been consulted in regard to it. That is the
point, the chief point, of my remarks.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York). The right hon.
gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has given no explanation as to the questions put
to him.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The House is to be moved in supply in
a moment, and that will give the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) an
opportunity to speak.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN The right hon. gentleman had the
opportunity to speak, and so had the leader of the opposition (Mr. R.
L. Borden) and I claim the same privilege of discussing the matter at the
present stage.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. In order to keep myself within the
rules of the House, I intend to conclude with a motion. The right
hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has made a statement that does
not meet the point that has been raised. He has been asked to explain
why he introduced legislation in this House dealing with the
auto
2200nomy of the Northwest without having the
approval of his colleagues. And he tells us that he does not intend to
appoint another Minister of the Interior at the present stage and to
consult that minister in regard to these Bills. We heard the other day about
autocracy in this House ; but what about the autocrat of the present
occasion ? Not only has he got rid of one minister, but he intends to
go on with this question without calling to his cabinet a new Minister of
the Interior. Apparently, he does not care to consult the opinion of
the west in regard to these things. But surely the west is worth
consulting. Surely the new provinces of the west are just as well entitled
to be consulted in this matter as are some other provinces. But every
stage of the right hon. gentleman's conduct is on unconstitutional lines. I think
the Prime Minister is constitutionally bound to tell
us whether one of his colleagues had not objections to the finnancial
phase of the Bill that has been brought before the House. We are supposed to have
a Minister of the Interior especially charged
with the affairs of the west. We have a Minister of Finance who is
especially responsible for the financial program of the government. Yet we
have this autonomy measure involving grave financial charges, and
giving reason to all the other provinces for demanding better terms,
and the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) so far as we can gather, has not
even been consulted, as the Minister of the Interior was not
consulted. Where are we to end, if these things continue ? And let us
refer to another minister. I spoke of this matter the other day, but it
should be mentioned in this connection also. We have a
gentleman acting as Minister of Public Works who is putting through
estimates for $10,000,000, and will probably have supplementary estimates for $3,000,000
more. The amount will depend on the
political exigencies of hon. gentlemen opposite. Last
session this gentleman was in the same unconstitutional position, and then
put through estimates of about $10,000,000. And yet this
unconstitutional method is to be continued, and when explanations are asked none
are forthcoming. There are more governments in
trouble than this one. If you read the papers to-day, you see that
nearly every government in Europe is in trouble for some reason. But there
is a cure ; there is a solvent for these difficulties ; and
that is to consult the people. If the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) believes in the principle professed by his
party, he will not carry on the negotiations that are now going on
in the way of fights and bickerings in his own cabinet, but he will do
the constitutional thing and go back to the country and submit this question to
the people. He has confessed to-day that he is afraid
to open the constituency of London, in Ontario ; he is afraid to open
a constituency in Manitoba, and bring in a
2201
MARCH 9, 1905
Minister of the Interior. On such unconstitutional lines he has carried his course
for a good many years. Take for
instance, his Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. He did not go to the people
with that before he introduced it here? He carried it through two sessions and then
went to the country with it. Sir John A.
Macdonald, when he introduced the national policy, first went to the people,
and got the approval of the people. The right hon. gentleman was
afraid to go before the people of this country in the last
election on the Autonomy Bill, and he brings it down in the first session in
order to escape responsibility for it. Now, if he is in trouble, as he
is in trouble, if he has trouble, if the Minister of the Interior--
Some hon. MEMBERS. No, no.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Do hon. gentlemen opposite
mean to say that the Minister of Justice has not thrown all the members from the
Northwest into fits? There is trouble. I will
tell you why the right hon. gentleman will not appoint a Minister of
the Interior ; it is because if he gets a Minister of the Interior to
consent to these modifications he proposes, he will have an other
province on his hands, another rebellion to quell ; and, being in
that position, he cannot resort to the straight constitutional method of solving
these questions. He should not have introduced
this Bill without having had the consent and advice of the members
from the Northwest ; and on behalf of the province of Manitoba to-day
I ask the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), I ask the hon. member for
Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), I ask all the delegation from the west, whether
they approve of this legislation having been introduced without their
representatives in the cabinet being consulted, and whether they propose to
submit any longer to this legislation being proceeded with without
having a minister in the cabinet representing them and representing the west. It
is not constitutional. It may be justified, but it
will end in disaster, it cannot end in anything else. Now,
if the right hon. gentleman fixes up his fences as far as Manitoba is
concerned, he will find them down in Nova Scotia, and as soon as he
fixes them up in regard to Nova Scotia and the Northwest, he will find them
down in the province of Quebec ; and, being in that position, he has
to resort to all these tricks. He is afraid of trusting the people
to-day, he is afraid of the good old principle he laid down years ago of
provincial rights. Now, I want to tell him in regard to this education
problem, that he can patch it up as much as he likes, he can hold what
caucuses he likes, he can fix up his fences in this direction and in that
direction ; but there is only one thing that will satisfy the
provinces of Canada to-day, and that is complete autonomy for the Northwest
provinces. the right of the people of the west to settle
their own educational affairs. They
2202 wish to be free to settle this question ; they don't want all these
bickerings in the cabinet. They want to be treated as freemen,
with the right to settle their own educational questions ;
and it is because they dared to assert their freedom in this House,
because they had a minister in the government who was prepared to
assert that right, that that minister has been put out, and they are
to-day to be treated as slaves. Again I tell the right hon. gentleman that
he must have more respect for the constitution. So far he
professes to be upholding the constitution. But everything he does is
irregular—his relations with his ministers, these negotiations that are
going on to-day, all these things that we hear of, and many other
things that don't get into the press, but that we know are going on, with no
peace in prospect, continued bickerings are in store for us. Again I
say he is on the wrong line, and he must retrace his steps. He has
spoken to—day of the retreat of the late Minister of the Interior. There was
no retreat on the part of the late Minister of the Interior in
standing up for the rights of the new provinces. He was maintaining
what I call good doctrine in regard to provincial rights. Yet,
because he took that position in this House, the First Minister says
he is retreating. Well, the right hon. gentleman may say it is a retreat,
but I say, No. Once again, in the name of the people of the great
Northwest, I ask the government to keep their hands off these new
provinces in regard to education. Let the people up there settle these
questions themselves. They are well competent to do it ; they know
what they want without any advice from any other province, I do not
care which. Al lthey ask is that they be permitted to settle their own
affairs. I do not care what batteries may be placed in this House, on
the one side or the other. There is no service in this House but the
one service—the public service. I want to tell the right hon. gentleman
this, that it may take much longer than he counts on to put this
session through. I do not see why the right hon. gentleman should get one
dollar of supplies while he has no minister of the Interior to take
the part of Manitoba. I do not see why he should get any legislation through this
House until he comes forward with
a complete ministry, until he comes forward with a man representing that
portion of the country—if the government believe in geographical
representation—with a man from that portion of the country prepared to assume the
responsibilities of this government in connection with
their programme in dealing with the autonomy of the west.
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman did not conclude with a
motion.
Mr. SPEAKER. In making a motion the hon. gentleman
should rise.
This individual participated in:
