[...] turn carried some time ago concerning Port
Arthur and Fort William harbours, has not,
to my knowledge, been laid on the table yet.
SUPPLY-PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.). Mr. Speaker, before
you leave the chair, I take the opportunity of pressing once more upon
the attention of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the matters
which I took occasion to mention yesterday. What he said in reply to
my inquiry at that time was very excellent in its way. He cited
constitutional authorities as to the course which should be adopted upon the
formation of a government and he read certain quotations
from a great authority on that question, but none of his remarks
touched at all or were even relevant to the real question
which I asked. It seems to me that in a matter of this kind the inquiry is
one worthy of some attention by the right hon. Prime Minister when it
is made in a respectful and serious way, as my inquiry was
intended to be. The circumstances are very unusual. A measure of the
greatest possible importance not only to the Territories of the
Northwest which are now being constituted into provinces, but to the country
as a whole, is brought to the attention of parliament and
the right hon. Prime Minister introduces that measure. When he places
that measure before the House he says to the House as emphatically as if he
had declared it in express words that the measure had been
submitted to, had been con
2264sidered by and had met with the
approval of every one of his colleagues. That is the situation as I
understand it. I have yet to be corrected in that apprehension of my
right hon. friend's conduct in introducing this Bill. Well,
afterwards it transpires that at least one member of the administration had not considered,
and more than that, had not
even seen the measure which was brought down by the Prime Minister,
and it is an open secret that another member of the
administration, then on his way from Europe and expected to arrive in
Ottawa within a few days, was not made acquainted with the provisions of the
measure as far as we are aware. In making that statement,
I am, of course, not making it of my own personal knowledge, and if I
am wrong in my conjecture in that regard I shall be glad to be corrected.
But the importance of the situation is this, that the two hon.
gentlemen to whom I have referred were gentleman who had allied
themselves with the right hon. gentleman in 1895 and 1896
in regard to a very similar question. The hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr.
Sifton), in 1895 and in 1896, used language in
regard to one, of the questions embraced in this measure, language which I have under
my hand, but which I shall not read
to the House to-day because the views of the hon. gentleman are pretty
well known. His language was not only of a pronounced. but, in some
respects, even of a violent character and it would do no good to place
it before the House to-day. There is no dispute and there never has
been any dispute as to the attitude of the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior
in that regard. Yet, he is one of the hon. gentlemen who was not made acquainted with
the intentions of the government in
bringing down this measure. But, there is another hon. gentleman, the hon. Minister
of Finance, to whom I have already
referred, and in so far as we can gauge the circumstances
and in so far as we can learn from the silence of the administration after
the statement has been made across the floor of the House, he was also
absolutely ignorant of the provisions of the Bill which the right hon.
Prime Minister introduced within two or three days of the date when that
hon. gentleman expected to return. Now, I have referred to
the opinions of the hon. ex- Minister of the Interior. I would
like to add also that the opinions of the hon. Minister of Finance,
acting as an ally, as the chief of my right hon. friend in the campaign made
in Nova Scotia in 1896, although not expressed perhaps in so
violent a way as those to which I have just referred of the hon.
ex-Minister of the Interior, nevertheless, are of a very
pronounced character. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance conducted a very able
campaign in support of my right hon.
friend in 1896 in the province of Nova Scotia. He was regarded as the
leader of the Liberal ranks in that province
2265 MARCH 10, 1905
at that time and the exertions which he then
put forth met with their fitting reward in
the tender to him of the position which he
now holds. This hon. gentleman was acting
as the ally and, I suppose. under the direction of the right hon. gentleman in the
east
as was the hon. member for Brandon in
the west of Canada. He pronounced himself in no equivocal terms upon this question.
It was thought by his friends in Nova
Scotia that the speech which he delivered
at Windsor in the county of Hants on the
6th of March, I think it was, 1896, was the
ablest deliverance made in that province in
support of the policy of the Liberal
party at that time, and was perhaps
the best exposition of their policy that
had been made by any man in Canada
up to that time. I will quote a few words
not for the purpose of criticising them, not
for the purpose of assenting to them, but
s'mply to support my position that my hon.
friend had very pronounced views to the
knowledge of the Prime Minister on this
question which makes it all the more strange
that the provisions of this Bill should have
been withheld from him, if, as a matter of
fact, they were so withheld. Said the hon.
gentleman on that occasion to which I have
referred :
Why should we not believe that Manitoba will
be reasonable in this matter ? The Manitobans
are not African savages.
I will venture the statement that the true
interests of the Roman Catholic citizens of
Manitoba will be better advanced by the policy
of conciliation than by the policy of coercion.
This Remedial Bill which the government are
trying to enforce upon an unwilling parliament,
even it it should pass, cannot settle the question. it would be an attack on provincial
rights... If Roman Catholics are ever to
obtain a solution of this question which is
worth having they must obtain it through the
good will of the majority of the people of the
province to which they belong.
Further on in the same speech he said :
I ask the people of Hants county and the
people of Nova Scotia to stand by the principle
of free schools in the case of Manitoba just as
they would stand by it in their own province.
We in Nova Scotia know the value of
a system of free public schools. We have
shown in the past that while we may differ on
many questions We are practically a unit in
support of that system. If the Dominion authorities should attempt to interfere with
our school system, if they should attempt to
impose upon this province a system which they
are trying to force upon Manitoba, we would
expect to have the sympathy of the friends of
free schools elsewhere, and we would ex:pect the people of the western provinces to
give us their sympathy and support in such a
condition. Let us to-day give them our hearty
sympathy and support in the struggle until we
find that they are not amenable to reason.
Further on after giving credit to Sir
Charles Tupper for establishing public
schools in Nova Scotia, he continues:
2266
What can we say of the position of that gentleman to-day who instead of standing up
as the
champion of a free school system and resisting
those who attack it scrambles into parliament
through the unfair influence of the Roman
Catholic pupils of the county of Cape Breton,
and is now devoting the evening of his life to
the work of destroying the free school system
of Manitoba, and forcing upon that province a
system which he would not dare to attempt to
force upon the province of Nova Scotia.
Further on in a letter to the 'Casket'
newspaper published in Antigonish he said :
The uproar is upon us, already the blaze of
religious strife has been kindled and is being
vigorously fanned every day by the efforts to
coerce the province of Manitoba.
In the speech at Windsor to which I have
just now referred he used this further
language :
For twenty years the Roman Catholic minority thus had the privilege of a separate
school system. The result of that system proved
exceedingly unsatisfactory to the people of
Manitoba. Ample evidence has been adduced to prove that the separate schools were
not efficient schools.
Then, one more passage from his speech
which is of some importance at the present
juncture as embodying his views:
I believe that the people of Manitoba it let
alone will settle this question for themselves.
Why should we not believe this? We know
from our own experience in the maritime provinces that it has been found possible
to maintain a free school system and to administer it
so as to make it acceptable to the people of
every class and creed. We hear no complaint
of the Nova Scotia School Law. The Manitoba
school system is substantially the same as
Nova Scotia.
My object in quoting this language of the
Minister of Finance is not to criticise or to
discuss it; it is simply to Show that when
the right hon. gentleman accepted the aid
and support of the Minister of Finance
tHon. Mr. Fielding) and when he invited
him to enter his cabinet, he knew that the
hon. gentleman had used that language, and
had made these speeches in Nova Scotia.
Thus, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) had full knowledge of the views
which the Minister of Finance entertained
in regard to certain provisions similar to
those in the Bill now before parliament.
I wish to once more call the attention of
the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) to the fact that upon the eve of
the return to Ottawa of the ex-Minister of
the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton) and of the
Minister of Finance (Hon. W. S. Fielding)
he has seen fit to introduce to parliament a Bill in such manner that parliament had
every reason to believe, was
bound to believe, and indeed every one of us
did believe, that the provisions of that
Bill had received the assent of every member
of the administration. Under the circumstances, that was undoubtedly a grave departure
from constitutional usage. I do not
2267
COMMONS
know of any modern precedent for conduct
of that kind with regard to a measure of
any importance, and I think it my duty
to once more inquire of the right hon. gentleman what was the overmastering reason
which led him under these circumstances
to introduce that Bill to this parliament
without giving to the people of this country, and especially to this House of Commons,
the information that two members
of the cabinet, members who above all
others, it seems to me, should have been
consulted with regard to the provisions of
this measure, had not even had it submitted
to them, were not even consulted with regard to it, had not even seen it or read it.
There must be some explanation for so extraordinary an act. The right hon. gentleman
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has not vouchsafed any. I do not want to make explanations for
him. I do not want to suggest
any explanations. Explanations are being
suggested throughout the country, and I
would think that it is not only due to this
House and to the country, but due to the
right hon. gentleman himself that he should.
without any further delay, without any
further attempt to avoid the issue, inform
the House as to the real circumstances under which he took this step in defiance of
all unconstitutional usage.
There is one more question which I would
again like to ask the right hon. gentleman,
and I think that in doing so I am not transgressing my duty. I ask it in the same
respectful way and for the purpose of information; it is this: The right hon. gentleman
in his speech introducing this Bill
referred to the aid in its preparation which
the government had received from the members of the Executive Council of the
Northwest Territories. What I would
like to know is whether or not the
educational clauses of this Bill were
submitted to, were fully discussed with,
and met with the appropriation of members of the Executive Council of the Northwest
Territories. In the last place, I would
like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question which I have not already asked but
which seems to me to be very pertinent in
view of his reply of yesterday.. How long
does he propose to carry on the affairs
of the country without filling the vacant portfolio of the Minister of the Interior?
One would suppose that when a
measure of the importance of that which
has been proposed to parliament, a measure
especially affecting the Northwest Territories of Canada, has been introduced and
is about to be discussed in parliament, that
we should have the advantage of the experience and knowledge of some gentleman
of the Northwest Territories, occupying a
position in the administration, or, at all
events that we should have the benefit
of the advice and experience and knowledge of some gentleman filling the
2268
portfolio of the Department of the
Interior, appointed to that portfolio for
the very reason that he is well qualified to
fill it. These three questions I venture to
again bring to the attention of my right
hon. friend, and I trust that he will be
pleased to give to the House, at my request,
that full and sufficient information on the
subject to which I think the House is entitled.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). My hon.
friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has to-day asked one question which
he has not previously put and as to which I am quite ready to give all
the information I have at present. My hon. friend desires to know how
long the vacancy in the portfolio of the Minister of the Interior
will be left unfilled. I have only to submit to my hon. friend and to
the House that there has been no undue delay in filling it. The vacancy
occurred only ten days ago, and I do not think it could be expected
that in so short a time as that the government could come to a
conclusion as to whom they should call to fill such an important office. I
hope before long I shall be able to give to my hon. friend the
opportunity to give his assent to the appointment we shall make. I
do not know whether he will respond to the invitation, but at all
events we shall certainly afford it to him.
With regard to the other two questions I
do not think that I am warranted in giving
more information to my hon. friend than I
have already given.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. That is not much; but I would
submit that strictly speaking my hon. friend is entitled to none at
all. The conferences which took place between the government and
the representatives of the Northwest Territorial government were carried on confidentially,
and I do not know
whether I have any authority to give any information about them to the
House; no record has been kept of this information; the
conferences have been absolutely confidential.
With regard to the other question, which
my hon. friend has now put for the third
time. I am sorry to say my mind has not
changed. I think, with all due respect to
my hon. friend and to the position he occupies, and to this House, that I have given
all the information the House was entitled
to. I can see plainly that my hon. friend
is shaping his course carefully; he is going
ahead bit by bit, he is taking no plunge,
but every day we can see a little more
where we are finally to be led. Yesterday
we could not see where he was to place
his batteries, but today we can see
where they are to be placed. He endeavoured to show that there is a difference
between the position occupied by two mem2269MARCH 10, 1905bers of the Liberal party and by the Liberal party itself to-day and the position
occupied by that party in 1896. My hon.
friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) did my hon.
friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. S.
Fielding) the honour of quoting him. I am
not at all jealous of that honour which he
has paid to my hon. friend the Minister of
Finance. I compliment the minister upon
it; but he might have quoted some of my
speeches on the same question. I took some
part in that discussion. I intend to take
some part in the present discussion. My
hon. friend is re—echoing the attempts that
have been made in the press to show that
there has been a great change from the position taken by the Liberal party in 1896
in
the position taken by them in 1905. Now
we shall have an opportunity by and by of
discussing that question; when we come to
the second reading of the Bill I will endeavour to discuss the question with my
hon. friend, and we shall discuss it on both
sides of the House. I do not admit that
there has been any departure at all in the
conduct of the Liberal party between 1896
and 1905; but I am sorry to say that hon.
gentlemen on the opposite side are always
in the wrong. They never can interpret the
constitution as it is. In 1896, the position
which we took and maintained before the
country was that it was not right for the
federal parliament to try to impose on the
province of Manitoba a system of schools
which the province of Manitoba had rejected, acting within the plenary exercise
of its powers. If there had been a system
of schools in the province of Manitoba in
1870, when it was admitted to confederation. then, Sir, the minority would have
been entitled to those schools by the judgment of the courts; but the courts decided
that there had been no such system of
schools. and therefore the powers of the
province of Manitoba were not in any way
curtailed. There is a difference. therefore,
in the position of Manitoba in 1870, as exposed in 1896, and the position which we
are confronted with at the present time.
But I will not discuss this question with
my hon. friend to-day—I do not think the
time is opportune.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. In my estimation my hon.
friend came very near discussing it. He was very guarded, but
introduced it in a gentle way, just to create the impression
that there was a great difference between the position taken by
the Liberal party in 1896 and its position in 1905. My hon. friend
understands his business too well to have introduced it so bluntly as to
state it in that way, but he led to a conclusion which was
inevitable. I do not think the present is the time to discuss that question. but
I assure my hon. friend that we
2270 shall take the opportunity of doing so at the proper time and on the
proper occasion.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto). Mr. Speaker, it
was a candid admission of my right hon. friend when he confessed that
he had not given much information to the hon. leader of the opposition in
response to his question of yesterday and of to-day. It was a charming
bit of persiflage that the right hon. gentleman made an exhibition of
in those few words—airy, light, well- chosen, skimming all
around, but avoiding carefully any expression which would go to shed
light upon the grave and serious questions which my hon. friend beside me
had raised. Now, I do not intend to be led away by this little
diversion into a discussion of matters which are not at present before the House.
I want to reiterate, in the first
place, the position taken by the hon. leader of the opposition. He quoted
from statements that had been made by the Minister of Finance, and
could have quoted from statements which had been made by the late
Minister of the Interior, to show to the right hon. the premier that he knew
thoroughly well, when these hon. gentlemen were in his
cabinet, and when just lately he introduced his Bill for discussion in
his cabinet, that these hon. gentlemen had well-known and pronounced views
with reference to the question of education as it would develop in
these new provinces. That is the only purpose my hon. friend had in
View. The quotations which he made drove that fact fairly well home, so that
the right hon. gentleman could not say that he did not know, in the
absence of these two gentlemen, that their opinions had been firmly
formed and plainly expressed. The startling thing about it was this—and it
was not explained away by all the charming discursiveness of my hon.
friend yesterday. The question is: what is the constitutional practice
when a Bill, having been discussed in the cabinet and agreed to or supposed
to be agreed to there, is launched upon the House as the utterance of
the government as a whole ? That is the question, and the startling
thing about it is that the premier introduced a Bill for discussion in his
cabinet, knowing the views of these two gentlemen in their absence, and with a haste
that has not yet been explained.
Engaged as it were, in a race for a goal with the Minister of Finance
and the Minister of the Interior, he beat them by about two days and twelve
hours—he got in ahead, and he launched his Bill. Now, the country and
this House had no warrant for believing anything else than
that that Bill in its entirety had been assented to and had the cordial
agreement of every member of the cabinet. That is the point the
country heeds. and that is the point my hon. friend the leader of the
opposition makes. What has happened in this case is. I believe,
unprecedented in the history of this parliament, and it is a
2271COMMONS
matter not of curiosity, but of right, that both this House and the country
should know why this was and what it meant. Now, let me say a word or
two with reference to the changed methods of my right hon.
friend. Take, for instance, the British North America Act. The clauses in it
with reference to education were framed to do what? To give legal
effect to an agreement between thoroughly constituted bodies who under
that agreement went into the pact of confederation. Each had a House with
elected representatives from the people enjoying all the
powers of a representative assembly. Those provinces came together as
independent constituents, and they (did not attempt legislation until they
had made their agreement and asked that it be embodied in an
enactment. Come to the case of the Manitoba Act. In Manitoba there was
no representative body such as an assembly ; but how carefully the
men of that time were minded to consult the constituent
elements of that northwest country. Delegates were sent ; the men
were assembled; their views were got; the views were sent here ; the
views were communicated to the British government, and it was
upon that tacit agreement or real agreement as to the wants and wishes
of the constituent elements of Manitoba that the legislation was based
which became fixed in law. How different has been the action
of the right hon. gentleman in this matter. Whom has he consulted? Why, I
think it is stated in his own speech that there were some reasons why he
should not have granted autonomy two years ago or one year ago, and what
are the reasons he gave?
That as we were on the eve of a general election, the time and occasion would be more
propitious and more fitting after the general election when the Territories would
have the benefit on this floor of a larger representation.
These views were generally accepted. The elections have taken place and immediately
after
the elections, or as soon as was practicable
thereafter, We invited the executive of the
Northwest Territories to send delegates here
to confer with us upon the measure which was
to be introduced so as to admit them into the
confederation. We have had the benefit of
the presence of Mr. Haultain, the premier of
the Northwest Territories, and Mr. Bulyea, one
of his colleagues, and we have had the advantage of several conferences with them.
We have
had the advantage also of the presence and advice of several of the members from the
Territories.
Now, in profession, what does this mean?
it means that before this Bill was agreed
upon and given to the House, the right
hon. gentleman wanted to have all the
representative opinion he could possibly
get from the west. Did he consult it?
There are 500,000 people living in those
two provinces. according to the statement of my right hon, friend. Isit on record
2272
that he consulted those people before
introducing this Bill? There were a
certain number of old and new representatives from the Northwest present in this
House. Did the right hon. gentleman consult them with reference to this clause ? If
he did, did they approve of this clause ? If
they did approve of it, why all this bother
since ? Why has the right hon. gentleman
been held up? The right hon. gentleman also
had an accredited representative of That
Northwest country in the person of the
Minister of the Interior, a gentleman who
had travelled the west, who knew the west,
who, before and from his first entry into
this parliament had taken a very deep interest in this very subject. Did my right
hon. friend consult him ? If so. how comes
it that in a race for time, after he had beaten his Minister of the Interior by a
few
hours, that minister rose in his place in
parliament and said to his chief: I never
saw that clause until I read it after I came
here ? Yet if there was any note in the
right hon. gentleman's voice in 1895 and
1896, it was this. He will find it embalmed
in 'Hansard,' in the pages of his press, in
the hearts of his admirers, in quotations
everywhere. What was it? Translated into a few English words, it was this and
nothing more : I want my people in Manitoba to have separate schools, but I want
them to have those schools by the voice of
Manitoba itself. I desire to see these privileges retained for them, but I desire
still
more not to violate provincial rights. That
was his note. There was none more dominant. How has he changed ? Today he is
an autocrat. To-day he rushes the Bill. Today he rushes the members of his cabinet,
the representatives from the Northwest, and
the representative council from the Northwest for he has not been able to state that
he did confer with that council—a representative body if there ever was any—and
that it ever gave its assent to this clause.
In all these cases the old spirit has departed, the old method has been laid aside,
and
today we have in their stead the work of
the autocrat, caring nothing for his Minister of the Interior, caring nothing for
his
Minister of Finance, caring nothing for the
representatives from the west, caring nothing and consulting in no way the 500,000
people for whom we are legislating. That
is a change to which I call the attention of
this House.
There is another peculiar circumstance in
this connection. On the introduction of a
Bill, the usual method followed is simply
to explain it, but when my right hon. friend
was taxed with going beyond an explanation, he defended himself by saying that he
did give and only intended to give what was
a full explanation of the Bill. What is the
purpose of having a Bill explained, especially an important Bill of this kind, on
its
introduction? It is that the House and
the country may become seized with its sa
2273 MARCH 10, 1905 ient points so that before they are called
upon to make up their minds to it, they may
have the information necessary. I submit
that it was not a lucid explanation of the
Bill which my right hon. friend gave but an
impassioned argument in its behalf. On the
one hand he professed the greatest concern
that no old cries should be renewed, that
no old issues should be called up, that the
demon of discord, which had been laid in
1896, should not be roused again at this
time, but I submit that the argument he
used when he came to that clause was one
he should not have made had he desired to
live up to his profession. On what ground
did the right hon. gentleman advocate his
Bill ? It was not explanation but an
argument which he gave ? He advocated it
on the ground that separate schools were
superior to public free schools or secular
schools. He raised an issue which there
was no need of raising at all, an issue which,
in the earlier part of his speech, my right
hon. friend declared he did not intend to
raise. But he forgot that intention and he
raised the question of the respective merits
of public free schools and separate schools,
and gave the horrible example of the United
States as an argument against public
schools. There you have his argument and
his illustration. He tortured the British
North American Act of 1867 and the British
North America Act of 1871 in order to get
a legal ground—what for ? For an explanation of his Bill? No, but to make strong
his argument for the passage of his Bill.
He tortured the shades of George Brown of
illustrious memory, until I could almost
hear the squeaking ghost of that eminent
statesman fitting through the passages here,
tortured and injured by the violent wrenching and twisting which the right hon. gentleman
gave it. And in all these ways,
instead of making a lucid explanation of the
main feature of his Bill, he entered into an
impassioned argument in order that his Bill
might gain the assent of this House and
the country. Well, the right hon. gentleman has had to eat the fruits of his mistake.
Just then, under the glamour of his
speech, under his successful avoidance of
certain points, under his equally successful
exclusion of certain other points in that
Bill, every man behind him applauded to the
echo ; and if a vote had been called for
then, every man would have risen to his
feet—perhaps with one exception—and have
voted for the Bill. He rushed the House
for the time being, but he failed to rush it
permanently ; and the disorganization and
confusion of these ten days is abundant
proof that the right hon. gentleman went
further than prudence and good statesmanship justified. He taunted my hon. friend
beside me (Mr. Borden) with deftly shaping
his course. We11, I hope his course is more
deftly shaped than that of my right hon.
friend. He lightly told my hon. friend that
he was seeking for hills of vantage and
2274
strategical points, forsooth. There are hills
of vantage but there are also valleys of humiliation. And it would be interesting
to
know who will head the procession through
the valley of humiliation. Will it be the
sturdy young Napoleon of the west with
downcast eyes and drooping colours ? Or
will it be my right hon. friend who in 1895
boasted that he possessed the courage which
did not promise until he had made up his
mind, but once his promise was made stood
immovable as a rock.
Now, all these are questions which we
cannot but be interested in—questions raised in this House and in the country. There
is one other thing. Shall I speak of it ?
Not content with rushing his Bill, not content with throwing aside his colleagues
to
rush his Bill, not content with proceeding
without taking care to ascertain the sentiment of the west, not content with making
his speech on the merits of the Bill and
confounding it with a lucid explanation of
the measure, the right hon. gentleman tried
to rush the country as well. One of his
colleagues in another place prepared a pamphlet, a remarkable pamphlet in some ways.
It purported to be a ' brief history, from
official sources, of the legislation respecting
the separate schools since the year 1863 in
the united province of Canada, and in the
Dominion since confederation.' Now, as I
said before, I have no fault to find, nor has
any one in this House with the publication
by the government of official information
that will shed light upon this question.
But this pamphlet is a partisan pamphlet.
It does give the facts taken from 'Hansard,'
but it does also colour them, and it does
also argue the points involved. How does
it colour them ? I do not suppose, for instance, that Edward Blake or George Brown,
or any of these old worthies, some of whom
have passed away, others of whom are still
with us, in making their speeches, italicized
certain parts of them, or altered them in
double-leaded columns, to make the arguments impressive. But in the quotations from
the speeches of these gentlemen every sentence that favours the contention of the
right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
is italicized or given emphasis which
points the argument. It is not necessary
for me to go into details. But when it
comes to George Brown's momentous sentence, the maker of this pamphlet is not
satisfied with italicizing it, but he puts it in
bolder type, italicizes it and double—spaces
it, in order that it may catch the eye and
make the impression the compiler intended
to make. And, when that is all done, here is
the argument with which it ends—not a
quotation from Blake or Brown, not an abstract from 'Hansard,' but an argument
from the pen of the maker of this pamphlet :
Under the Territorial legislation, the rights
of the minority have in the past been recognized. It would be a breach of faith and
a violation of the British North America Act to dis2275COMMONS
turb now the rights and privileges granted by
the parliament of Canada. thirty years ago and
enjoyed by the minority up to this time.
Now, I say that this is not a very important matter, but it is significant. I say
that no government has a right—and it is
poor politics, I think, for any government
to assume that it has the right and act
upon that assumption—in giving what purports to be official information from the
records, to endeavour, by the means I have
explained, to point out the argument and
lead to a partisan conclusion with regard
to a measure that has been introduced.
Now, I have no more to say on this occasion. These are just some thoughts which
occur to us. We wish them to sink into the
minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. We have
no wish to dictate their policy ; but we
would fain give them something for reflection, for calm and, if possible, fruitful
medi~
tation. This is our contribution, made with
the best of intention and in the best of
spirit, and in the hope that it will contribute to the benefit of the hon. gentlemen
opposite.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). In my judgment, we are
face to face with a most extraordinary state of affairs in this parliament to-day.
We propose to put through an important measure
affecting the destinies of practically half a continent under the
leadership of a government that has not a representative of that half
continent among its members. Under constitutional government, as we understand it,
and as it has been carried out, the cabinet is
composed of heads who have received the endorsation of the people
before they enter upon their work in that cabinet. And these cabinet
ministers are chosen from the provinces according to the population or importance
of those provinces. For instance,
Ontario in the past has nearly always had five members in the cabinet,
Quebec four, the maritime provinces at least three, one of whom was
allowed for New Brunswick, another for Nova Scotia and, until recent years,
one for Prince Edward Island. Thus every part of the Dominion was
represented in the cabinet ; and when important questions came up in
which any portion of the country was particularly interested, its
representatives in the cabinet were supposed to have
influence in swaying the government in regard to that matter. That has
hitherto been the case with regard to Ontario and Quebec and either of
those provinces would rebel to-day if an important measure affecting its interests
were before parliament and it were deprived
of its due proportion of representation in the cabinet. But to-day
we have practically half a continent without representation in the
cabinet, notwithstanding that an important measure is going
through that vitally affects the interests of that half continent, and that
will seal its fate for the future. The only representative
in the cabinet of that part of the country has become so
dissatisfied with the
2276 measure that he has publicly declared that it cannot receive his
support, and, rather than remain in the cabinet and assume any
responsibility for the measure, he has resigned. The government
have not dared to put themselves in touch with that great section of
the country by appointing another member in his place. Is it
because of the unpopularity of the measure or because no one can be
found who will take the responsibility of it, as an in-coming
member of the cabinet would necessarily do ? Or is it because of the
dearth of public men from that country and the impossibility of finding
any one in the ranks of the government supporters sufficiently
intelligent to be a cabinet minister ? It cannot be the latter,
because the government has many supporters from the Northwest,
some of whom would be a credit to a cabinet. We are driven, therefore,
to conclude that it is because of the unpopularity of the measure,
and because the government dare not ask the Governor General to
appoint a new minister and, by an electoral contest, allow the people
of the Northwest to express their opinion upon the measure.
If they did so, in that election which must
take place, this measure would undoubtedly
be discussed, every phase of it would be discussed before the people, and the people
themselves would have an opportunity to express an opinion on it. The government are
in the humiliating position to-day—I am
justified in saying so in view of what has
transpired—that they dare not risk their reputation by appointing a new Minister of
the Interior and sending him back for reelection before this measure goes through.
So that great country is not represented
in this cabinet, that great country is without
a representative to voice their views with
regard to this important measure. Is that
not constitutional government run mad ? Is
that according to the principles of the British
constitution that we have heretofore carried
out in the Dominion of Canada ? I say it
is the very reverse. The government are today in the humiliating position that they
dare not put a minister into the cabinet
and ask him to go to his constituents and
get their endorsation of his appointment
and of the measure that is before the House
to-day. Now in view of this condition of
affiairs what ought the government to do ?
In my judgment they ought either at once
to fill that position, and give the people an
opportunity of endorsing the appointment,
and let this measure be discussed by the
people themselves, or they ought to withdraw the unpopular part of their measure ;
because, if I know anything about the
sentiment of this country, especially of
that part of the country which this measure
will affect more than any other, it is I might
say almost unanimous against the Bill, or
at least the school clauses contained in this
Bill that the right hon. gentleman has submitted to the House.
2277
MARCH 10, 1905 2278
Mr. SPEAKER. I presume the hon. gentleman does
not propose to discuss the Bill at this present time.
Mr. SPROULE. If you will first allow me to commence the
discussion of the Bill, I shall then be happy to be called to order.
Mr. SPEAKER. I judged that the hon. gentleman was
coming very close to a discussion of the Bill in the latter
remarks he made.
Mr. SPROULE. I mentioned the Bill as several speakers
before me have done, and I assume I have a perfect right to do so,
without discussing the principles of the Bill. I am merely referring to the
Bill as a reason why the government do not fill the vacant
portfolio, and I am asking them to fill it so that the people may have a
chance to express their opinion of it. When that is done we will say
that the government are acting according to the principles of constitutional government.
I need not say anything with regard
to another portfolio that has been practically vacant for a long time
; while we are voting large sums of money for that department to spend we
are not carrying out the principles of constitutional
government both during this session and last session. Until the government
bring themselves in accord with the principles of constitutional
government as carried out in Great Britain, we are justified in drawing their attention
from time to time to their failure to do
so, and in asking them to put themselves in accord with these principles
which they have always declared they are desirous of upholding.
Motion agreed to, and House went into
Committee of Supply.
This individual participated in:
