SUPPLY—PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.). Mr.
Speaker, before you leave the chair, I wish to bring an important question
to the attention of the House. I had intended to have
brought to the attention of the House yesterday, the matter which I am about
to mention, but it was not very convenient for the First
Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) so I have let the matter stand over
until to-day. The subject on which I wish to speak for a few moments concerns certain
passages in a letter which the Prime Minister
of the Northwest Territories has recently addressed to the right hon.
gentleman who leads this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). In proposing
to discuss certain passages in that letter I do not for one
moment forget that it is not open for me to-day to discuss the measures
which the letter relates and therefore I am touching the letter of Mr.
Haultain in so far only as it is concerned with the manner and
circumstances in which and under which this Bill was introduced in this
House. I assume that Mr. Haultain's letter will be brought down with
any other additional correspondence and laid upon the table of the
House by the government in due course. In the meantime, however, it has
been made public in the press of the country and, without
going over what I have already brought to the attention of the government on two
occasions last week, may I be permitted at
least to say this, that the situation which has developed between
2494 the month of October last and the present time is certainly a very
peculiar one. We had this subject, the granting of provincial autonomy
to the Northwest Territories discussed to some extent in the year 1901,
again in 1902, and again in 1903. On the last occasion I moved a
formal resolution in this House in which after setting out resolutions of the legislature
of the Northwest Territories to the
effect that provincial status should be granted to these Territories. I had submitted
to the House that that request
should be taken into immediate consideration by the government of this
country and should be acted upon forthwith. I pointed out at that time that
even if my motion passed, if the government was disposed at
once to accept the suggestion which I then made, it would take a
considerable time to arrange the details. It was not a matter, as
I admitted, to be lightly undertaken or to be disposed of in haste,
and it was for that reason that I urged upon the government the immediate consideration
of the question, in the month of October,
1903, saying as I did at that time, that if the matter were taken up
by the government at once the
population of the Northwest Territories of Canada would probably be
500,000 before the details could be arranged and the measure brought
down for the consideration of the House and of the country.
Not one member of the administration made any answer to the motion which I
brought before the House on that occasion. My hon. friend who now
represents the constituency of Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) spoke
on that motion. He would not support the resolution for the granting of
provincial institutions to the Northwest Territories unless he knew
exactly the terms upon which autonomy would be granted. Let me quote
his own expressive words :
I, as a representative of the Northwest Territories, do not propose to go into a
sort of blind pool, not
knowing how we are going to come out when the conclusion has been reached on
this very momentous question.
And the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) spoke on the same subject.
If I remember his attitude correctly, on one occasion at least, he was not prepared
to have this matter discussed or even
considered in the House of Commons unless his leader the Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Sifton) were present for the purpose of guiding the
discussion, as he thought that hon. gentleman's guidance necessary
for the protection of the rights of the people of the Northwest
Territories. No member of the administration spoke in answer to
the motion. The gentlemen to whom I have referred answered
for the government ; then the division was taken, and the members of the
administration stood up and voted solemnly one after the other that
the request of the people of the Northwest Territories for provincial
status—a request expressed un
2495
COMMONS
animously on the two occasions, I believe by the
legislature of the Northwest Territories—should not be considered
nor acted upon in the immediate future. My motion demanded that the
question should be considered and acted upon as promptly as
circumstances permitted. Parliament was dissolved. Then, in the month of
October, 1904, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) suddenly awoke to the gravity of the situation in the midst of
an election campaign. He then, for the first time, recollected that letters
written to him by the Prime Minister of the Northwest
Territories in the month of May previous had not been answered ; and, in
all the stress and hurry of that campaignno doubt, upon
advice communicated to him by his friends in the Northwest Territories,
—suddenly he came to the conclusion, notwithstanding the
arguments put forward on his behalf, and indeed by himself in previous sessions of
parliament, that the matter must be taken up
without the slightest delay. So, he wrote to the Prime Minister of
the Northwest Territories as follows :
You will have learned, prior to the receipt of
this letter, that parliament has been dissolved. The new House of
Commons will contain not four but ten representatives of the Northwest
Territories, who, coming fresh from the people, will be entitled to speak
with confidence as to the views and requirements of those whom they
represent. Should my government be sustained, we will be prepared,
immediately after the election, to enter upon negotiations for the
purpose of arriving at a settlement of the various questions involved in the
granting of provincial autonomy, with a view to dealing with the
question at the next session of parliament.
That was a very much balder proposition, I think, than the opposition had
presented to parliament by motion and by speech in this House. We had
at least defined our position with regard to the lands in the Northwest
Territories which are owned by the government of Canada, and
we had defined our position with regard to the tax exemption of lands
patented, or about to be patented, by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and not
one of these matters was mentioned by the Prime Minister. And,
although my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was not willing to
enter a 'blind pool' when it was proposed by the opposition, I understand
he gleefully accepted the proposition of the government, although in
that case the pool was very much 'blinder' than that to which he had
objected. Now, certainly, the terms of the government's proposal might
properly and indeed should properly have been discussed
before and considered by the people of the Northwest Territories in that
campaign. And so the ex-Minister of the Interior, my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr.
Sifton) was asked about the
terms. I do not know whether he was asked about the terms at the
instigation of the hon. member from Edmonton or not. The Prime
2496 Minister of the Northwest Territories, who
spoke during the course of that campaign, asked the Minister of the
Interior of that day (Mr. Sifton) to define the terms. The request was
much along the line which had been suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr.
Oliver). No satisfaction was given by the hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), then Minister of the Interior. His
answer to the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories, who desired that
the terms might be discussed during the progress of that
election campaign, was that that hon. gentleman was a mischiefmaker in
even suggesting that terms should be discussed. Speaking at Regina, about the
19th or 20th of October, 1904, he said :
Any man of ordinary intelligence in public
life, and Mr. Haultain is a man of more than ordinary intelligence, knows
full well that one member of a government consisting of fourteen members would not
come here, and, without consulting his
colleagues, undertake to bind them and the parliament of Canada on questions of
such importance. Therefore, the suggestion
is made in a spirit of mischief.
And again he said :
But I want to say that the man who gets up
in the heat of a political contest and makes his strongest endeavour to
bring that question into political discussion is not a friend of the
Territories in any way, sense or shape.
Differing very much from my hon. friend from Edmonton, who said that the
question ought not to be discussed as a matter of
practical politics in this House or in the country, until the terms upon
which these Territories were to enter the Canadian confederation as
provinces should be absolutely defined and made known to the
people of the Territories. My hon. friend from Brandon
(Mr. Sifton) continued :
He is endeavouring to do a thing which
might bring very serious results to the people of the Territories.
For what reason pray ? Were not the people of the Territories entitled to
have the hon. member for Brandon, then Minister of the Interior,
discuss that question before them ? Were they not entitled to have
the views of the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues as to
this matter which was precipitated into the political arena by the
Prime Minister himself in the midst of an election campaign ?
I have no authority whatever to say anything
with regard to the subjects Mr. Haultain has mentioned, but we shall
be in the position of having not four but ten members from the
Territories in the next parliament, and we will get their views ; and while
we do not say that their views will prevail—for the entry of the
Territories into confederation is a matter of contract with the other
provinces—and while the terms we will be able to give you will be
those we can get the other provinces to agree to, yet I can say for myself
that I will do my best to get the most liberal term possible, and I
will leave you to judge me by my past record.
2497
MARCH 15, 1905
The Prime Minister seems in the end to have given my hon. friend from
Brandon (Mr. Sifton)—if I may use a common expression—a dose
of his own medicine. For the hon. member for Brandon thought that this
matter should be settled by the government without giving any opportunity to
the people of the Northwest Territories to consider the terms of the
proposed Bill, and the Prime Minister, carrying that idea a little
farther thought that the matter should be discussed and the Bill brought
down to parliament without giving even the ex-Minister of
the Interior an opportunity to consider or even to see it.
I would remark to my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that the manner
in which this Bill was introduced—introduced on the eve of the return
of the ex-Minister of the Interior, who was then still a minister (Mr.
Sifton) and on the eve of the return of the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Fielding)affords an excellent specimen of the way in
which a ' blind pool ' was offered those gentlemen. Let us revert
for one moment to the debates of 1902 and to the speech which the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) then made with all the authority of a
member of the administration. The ex-minister spoke then for the Prime
Minister of this country, for his colleague the Minister of Finance,
and for my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock.) He was
endeavouring to show good reason for postponing
the introduction and consideration of a Bill of this kind, and what did he
say :
Last year it was arranged that a discussion
should take place, and our friends of the territorial government
did urge that it should take place earlier. But the Minister of Finance was
obliged to go to England immediately after the session, and a
discussion in his absence would of course have been impossible, he being one
of the members of the government whose presence would be absolutely
necessary in addition to the Prime Minister and myself. So that until
the return of the Finance Minister from England, it was impossible
altogether to arrive at any arrangement as to when the conference
should take place.
I am not reading this as simply the language of the Minister of the
Interior, but as a declaration by the present administration, whose mouthpiece that
hon. gentleman then was, that the
consideration of this question could not possibly be proceeded
with in the absence of these ministers. But to-day, not much more than
two years later, we find the Prime Minister of this country, in the
absence of his Minister of the Interior and his Minister of Finance—the
presence of both of whom this government had declared absolutely
necessary in order that this question might be considered and a
decision arrived at—we find the Prime Minister bringing down to the
House on the 21st of February this important measure in the absence of
these two ministers. And we find further that notwithstanding that ex
2498traordinary—I might even say, in view of all the
circumstances, that indecent hastenot one single step has since
been taken to press this Bill through. And when we asked the right
hon. gentleman why it was that, without regard for constitutional usage, in
absolute contempt of all constitutional precedent, he not
only did that which I have just mentioned but brought this Bill down,
as the Act of the government and the result of the collective wisdom of the
government, without the assent of his two colleagues,who
above all others should have been consulted—when we ask him why he
took that extraordinary course, he vouchsafes to the House not one
word in explanation. I ventured to suggest some days ago that it was
due, not only to the House and the country but to the right hon. gentleman
himself, that some explanation should be given. I am
still of that opinion. What was the reason, when the Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton) was expected in Ottawa within two days, that
this Bill was rushed into the House of Commons before his arrival,
while not one step has been taken to forward it through any of its
stages for three weeks afterwards ? Why was it, when the Minister of
Finance was on his way home from England and expected to arrive, as he
did arrive, in Ottawa within four or five days, that the Prime Minister
rushed in feverish haste to the House with this measure, and
has not since sought to advance it one single stage ? Was it because some
of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues were wavering and he dreaded
the result of the influence of two such strong members of his cabinet
as the ex-Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance
upon those who were hesitating to indorse the course the right hon.
gentleman purposed to pursue. Was there any idea in the mind of the
First Minister that these gentlemen might not be so ready to hesitate or to
retreat once this measure had been brought down as a government
measure. Was there anything of that kind in the mind of the right hon.
gentleman ? I do not know. I cannot tell what was in his mind, but we
at least are able to conclude that something very extraordinary must have
impelled him to take the course he did.
But a still more extraordinary condition of affairs seems to have
existed with regard to the representatives of the Northwest
Territories. The right hon. gentleman, when I brought up this matter
in 1902 and again in 1903, took the ground that the Northwest Territories
already had a very considerable degree of responsible government. They had a legislature
of their own, a cabinet of their own, and
he pointed out that with the exception of the right to incur debt and
one or two other matters, they were already invested with the powers
of responsible government. Well, Sir, the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr.
Sifton), in the speech to which I alluded a moment
2499
COMMONS
ago—a speech delivered at Regina about the 19th or
20th of March last—told us that this Bill must be in the nature of a
contract between the Northwest Territories and the rest of this
country—a contract made, as the premier of the Northwest Territories has
pointed out, between the great majority of the people of this country
and the minority who live in the Territories ; an agreement to be made
between five and one half millions of the people of Canada
residing in the seven existing provinces and the half million people
who reside in the Northwest Territories. These 500,000 people have a
government. That government was summoned here to Ottawa for the
purpose of conferring with a special committee of the Privy Council in
regard to the terms of this measure. It was to be a matter of contract,
so the ex-Minister of the Interior told us. Well, one, would suppose
that, under these conditions, at least the representatives of the
Northwest Territories would have been consulted about all the
important provisions of this Bill. Does my right hon. friend remember how he swelled
with indignation in 1896 when he charged
Sir Charles Tupper across the floor of this House with having trampled
upon the liberties of the people of Nova Scotia in passing through
a moribund legislature the resolutions relating to confederation ?
Does he remember how he advocated the rights of the people at that time ?
Does he forget how he accused Sir Charles Tupper of having trampled
upon the dignity of a proud people who would never forget that
treatment ? But at least this can be said in favour of the measure which Sir
Charles Tupper caused to be passed at that time, that it went before
the representatives of the people and was considered by them in
parliament, even if it were a moribund parliament. But, the Prime
Minister, if we are to believe the statements contained in the letter
of Mr. Haultain, has seen fit to bring down to the parliament of Canada
certain provisions in this measure without even deigning for one
moment to consult the representatives of the people in those territories. We see
the constitutional advocate of the liberties
of the people of ten years ago changed into the—may I say—tyrant of
to-day ? What are the words of Mr. Haultain ?
I must take strong exception to the way in
which the subject of education has been treated both in the conferences and
in the Bills. I must remind you of the fact that your proposition was
not laid before my colleague or myself until noon of the day upon which you
introduced the Bills. Up to that time the question had
not received any attention beyond a casual reference to it on the previous
Friday, and I certainly believe that we should have had an opportunity
of discussing your proposals before twelve o'clock on the day the Bills
received their first reading. No such opportunity, however,
was afforded, as unfortunately, you were not able to be present at the
session when this section was submitted ; neither was Sir William Mulock.
2500
The same day ! The same day !
I feel sure that you will acquit me of any
feeling in the matter other than that such an important subject should have
been fully discussed before any definite conclusion was arrived at by the government
and before the Bills dealing with
it were laid before parliament.
Now, can any hon. gentleman on either side of the House, looking at the
situation as I have endeavoured to present it to the House in a few
words, say in his heart that the declaration made by Mr. Haultain in
the sentences I have just read is an unreasonable one ? He is here as the
Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories, having behind
him the entire people of the Northwest Territories as voiced by their
representatives in parliament and he is called here to confer about this
Bill. It is handed to him, in so far as this provision is
concerned, two or three hours before the right hon. gentleman
presents the measure to parliament and handed to him without any
opportunity of discussion with the Prime Minister, without any opportunity of discussion
with the Postmaster General and without
apparently any opportunity of discussion except with one or two
members of the administration for a few moments and a few moments
only.
Well, I do not know what my right hon. friend will make of all this. He did
not consult the hon. ex-Minister of Interior who specially represents
the people of the Northwest Territories ; he did not consult the
Minister of Finance who is especially concerned with the financial features
of this Bill ; he did not consult, in so far as this part of the
measure is concerned, the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories and his colleagues.
The question naturally arises :
Whom did he consult ? I can only answer that question in one way. It
seems to me that he must have consulted the seven gentlemen from the
Northwest Territories who are elected as Liberals and these provisions are
the result of their collective and united wisdom. He postponed this
measure in order that he might have the benefit of the wisdom of ten
gentlemen from the Northwest Territories. He did not get as many
as he thought he would get ; he got seven and I presume that the
educational provisions of the measure which has been brought down are
the result of the advice and assistance of the seven gentlemen who
sit on that side of the House for the moment. Assuming that to be the
case—and we must assume that it is the case in the silence of these
gentlemen—is it good constitutional practice after all, to put to one side
the Minister of the Interior when he is about to return, to put to one side the Minister
of Finance, to put to one side the
Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories and his
colleagues and to follow altogether the advice of these seven
gentlemen who have evidently drafted the educational clauses
2501
MARCH 15, 1905
of the Bill ? I yield to no one in appreciation of the great abilities of these gentlemen
and of the
experience of some of them, but while conceding everything that can be
conceded in that regard, it was hardly fair to pass over the ex-Minister of
the Interior, the Minister of Finance and the representatives of the people of the
Northwest Territories and to follow
solely the advice of these gentlemen and to seek solely their
assistance.
I have no more to say at present. I trust that my right hon. friend will
recede a little from the position which he took the other day, and
that he will give us some reason for the very extraordinary course
which he has pursued in the introduction of this Bill, that he
will perhaps be good enough to advise us, although he has not seen fit
to do so up to the present time, whether or not any amendments to the
Bill have been under the consideration of the government. Whenever I have
asked that question before, my right hon. friend has told me with a
great air of wisdom that amendments can be made to any Bill. Nearly
all of us on this side of the House were aware of that before the right hon.
gentleman told us. There may have been one or two hon. gentlemen to
whom that came as a refreshing piece of news, but nearly all of us
were aware of it before. That was not the question I asked. The
question I asked and to which I have a right to get an answer is this : Has
the government under consideration at the present time any
amendments to the Bill which was brought down in such extraordinary haste three
weeks ago and in the progress of which not one step
has been taken since ? In addition to that perhaps my right hon.
friend will be good enough to enlighten the House as to the personnel
of the members of the administration who constituted the committee of
council which was appointed to deal with this question. We have
nothing official before the House in so far as I am aware with regard to it.
I understand from the documents that my right hon. friend was a
member, that the hon. Postmaster General was a member, and I would
gather also that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice must have been
a member, because it would be absolutely indispensable to have the
assistance of his very great legal ability and experience.
Were there any other members of this sub-committee and if so, who were
they ? Was there any gentleman specially appointed to represent the
interests of the people of the Northwest Territories ? Was there any
gentleman appointed to consider this question from the standpoint of the
maritime provinces, because, as the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior
has well pointed out, this is a matter which must be considered not only from the
standpoint of the interests of the people of the
Northwest Territories but from the standpoint of the
2502 interests of the entire country ? Now this would appear not an
unreasonable demand, and I trust my right hon. friend departing in
that regard from his practice on the last few occasions on which I brought
this matter to the attention of the House, will really on this
occasion give the House information upon the subjects which I have
ventured to refer to.
There has just been placed in my hands a copy of a journal which is
sometimes supposed to be in the secrets of the government ; which is sometimes supposed
to contain
statements that have an official inspiration. I observe that this
journal, quoting from the Montreal organ of a member of the
administration, gives currency to a rumour that some question or questions
in connection with this Bill are to be submitted for the
consideration of the Supreme Court. If my right hon. friend's view, expressed when
he introduced this Bill, is a sound one—and I
presume it was not taken without due consideration—of course it would
not be necessary to submit any question to the court, but perhaps
he may have had new light on the subject since he made his speech.
However that may be, I do respectfully ask the Prime Minister to
give the House some information with regard to all these matters, and
especially to inform us why it was that he did not see fit to consult
these gentlemen from the Northwest Territories who were in Ottawa at
his call and who were supposed to represent the voice and the
desires of the people of the west.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime
Minister). My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has stated that it
would have been convenient for him to speak on this matter yesterday
as he had given me notice, and that I had asked him to postpone his remarks until
this afternoon, because I had an engagement after
the dinner hour before which the question could not have been
reached. I knew I could appeal to the courtesy of my hon.
friend, because he and I have always managed these matters between us to our mutual
satisfaction. I thanked my hon. friend, and I thank
him all the more because I appreciate that in agreeing to my
request to postpone this discussion, I deprived him of the
pleasure of bringing forward once again extract after extract from his scrap book.
Judging from the extract after
extract which my hon. friend has read, and the innuendo after innuendo
which he has given utterance to, my hon. friend has come to the conclusion
that this Bill has been too hastily prepared. As an evidence of this
hasty preparation he tells us that the Bill though given a first
reading on the 21st of February has not yet been called for second reading.
It is true that we have not yet moved the second reading of the Bill,
and it makes my heart sink within me to think that whenever we defer
to the wishes of my hon. friends on
2503
COMMONS
the other side of the House, we are always
reproached for having done something wrong. I had scarcely taken my seat
when I moved the first reading, when a gentleman (Mr.
Sproule) who sits very close to the leader of the opposition rose and spoke
thus :
This is an important Bill and I ask that a
large number of copies be printed as there are many applications for it. I
would suggest that the second reading might be delayed for some period
until there has been an opportunity to hear from those who are most
interested, the people of the Northwest.
This request seemed to be not unreasonable. I thought it would be
advisable that all parties in this country should have an opportunity
of reading the Bill and digesting its provisions. So persistent
was my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that he again repeated
his request on another occasion, and on the 7th of March he
spoke as follows :
The second reading of the Bill to establish
autonomy in the Northwest Territories is expected to take place
some time soon, and there are many members who desire to be present on
that occasion. In referring to the matter I am not in any way intimating a
desire to have an early reading of the Bill because the later this
comes on the better for our aims and our desires.
In order to facilitate the aims and desires of my hon. friend
(Mr. Sproule) who is member of parliament for East Grey and who holds
another position in the country also, I thought that by giving him an
opportunity of having this Bill read and digested I was
conferring upon him a favour and meeting the wishes of the leader of the
opposition. It appears to have been a sad mistake on my part ; a
mistake which I shall be perhaps slow to commit on a future
occasion. I shall steel my heart against the blandishments of my hon. friend
from East Grey in future, and strive to do my stern duty.
My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has found another evidence of the hasty
preparation of this Bill, in the general scope of the
letter of Mr. Haultain. I do not agree with my hon. friend in this
respect. It is true that the letter from Mr. Haultain which he asks to be
placed on the table of the House, takes exception to almost
every provision of the Bill, but, if I am to judge from the expressions of
public opinion which are coming from all parts of the country, there
is only one feature of the Bill, and that the school clause, which has
caused any comment. With regard to the number of provinces to be created ;
with regard to the land question, with regard to the finance question
; indeed with regard to all other proposals of the Bill I have yet to
learn that serious exception has been taken. There have indeed been some
expressions from here and there, but so far as concerns any
general views from the people
2504 of Canada, the manifestations seem to be only against the clause
referring to education. The House is aware that every day we have
received numerous petitions regarding these Bills. Do they speak
of the land question ; do they speak of the finance question ; do they
speak of the number of provinces ? No ; it is only on the education
clause of the Bill as to which we have received any petitions so far.
I know, Sir, that in dealing with this question we are walking upon very
tender ground. It shall be my duty some time or other to discuss it,
but I do not need to say anything as to the merits of the question at the present
time. I take issue with my hon. friend when he says
that the Bill bears evidence of hasty preparation. On the contrary it
has every evidence of having been discussed and prepared with
great care and deliberation, and, if the educational phase
were eliminated, I do not think the Bill itself would then receive a
word of criticism. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) says : You have not
consulted Mr. So-and-So, and Mr. So-and-So, and in particular you have
not consulted Mr. Haultain. On this ground I am prepared to give
my hon. friend all the satisfaction, and perhaps more than
all the satisfaction he is entitled to. Upon a recent occasion my hon.
friend questioned me as to what had taken place in the conferences between
us and Mr. Haultain and Mr. Bulyea. I did not think it advisable to
give my own version on that subject, and I gave my reasons to the
House and it is for the House to decide whether these reasons were good or
bad. I stated that in my judgment and to my way of thinking these
conferences had been confidential ; that there had been no secretary appointed ;
that there had been no record
kept, and that there had been simply an exchange of opinion across the table
between the members of the government at Ottawa and the
members of the Northwest government.
Under such circumstances, I do not think it would have been right for me to
have given my own version of what had taken place at that conference.
I am still of that opinion ; and, Sir, I can appeal to the judgment of any man in
this House that when you have a
conference, the proceedings of which are not recorded in writing, it is
always a somewhat risky process to endeavour to say exactly
what took place. Mr. Haultain thinks differently. I do not know that
Mr. Haultain, in the letter which he has addressed to me, and which he has
also given to the public, has improved the criticism which he makes of
the Bill when he complains that he had not received due consideration.
Sir, I would be sorry to think that I or my colleagues had been guilty
of any want of courtesy towards Mr. Haultain in regard to the matters which
were treated at the conference. But Mr. Haultain has relieved us of
any such im
2505
MARCH 15, 1905
putation, because, in the last paragraph of his
letter, he speaks as follows :
In concluding this letter I beg to express, on
behalf of the Northwest government, our high appreciation of the
attentive and courteous consideration extended to us by yourself and
the other members of the sub-committee of council throughout the whole
conference.
I could not conceive it possible for Mr. Haultain to complain that the
questions before us had not been properly treated, when, at the same
time, he says he has been shown every possible consideration. It would
have been showing Mr. Haultain very poor courtesy indeed simply to ask him
to sit at the table of conference and give him no information
whatever. But I will take the statement of Mr. Haultain. My hon.
friend read it a moment ago ; I will take the liberty of reading it again,
so that the House may appreciate whether there has been any fault on
my part or on the part of my colleagues on the sub-committee, or
whether Mr. Haultain is making a case which, as I have said, it would have
been better for him not to have attempted. Mr. Haultain says :
I must take strong exception to the way in
which the subject of education has been treated both in the conferences and
in the Bills. I must remind you of the fact that your proposition was
not laid before my colleague or myself until noon of the day upon which you
introduced the Bill. Up to that time the question had not
received any attention beyond a casual reference to it from the previous
Friday, and I certainly believed that we should have an opportunity of discussing
your proposals before twelve o'clock on the day the
Bills received their first reading.
So it appears, according to this testimony of Mr. Haultain, that this
matter was considered twice by the conference—on the Friday
previous to the 21st of February, and again on the 21st of February. Now,
Sir, I do not propose, like Mr. Haultain, to go into the particulars
of what took place there, but I will take his own language. True it is
that we differed on several matters with Mr. Haultain. True it is,
as he says, that we differed with him on the land question. Mr.
Haultain was of opinion that the land should be given to the provinces.
We thought, on the contrary, that the land should be kept in the hands
of the Dominion government. I have already given the reasons
for that, and I think those reasons, when they come to be discussed, will
stand good in the judgment of every one. Mr. Haultain differed with us
also in regard to the subject of irrigation. We thought that subject
should go to those who have the management of the land, because the two
are intimately connected. Mr. Haultain refers to the fact that we
proposed to establish two provinces instead of one. We
differed from Mr. Haultain on this point also. We thought it would be
preferable to have two provinces in that vast domain ;
2506 Mr. Haultain thought it would be better to have only one province. But
I appeal to the judgment of my hon. friend who has taken us to task
because we have not adopted the ways and means of Mr. Haultain, and I
ask him if he is prepared to say that there shall be one province in that
immense territory instead of two—that we should create there
one province which would have almost twice the area of the largest
province of the Dominion. Whatever may be the views of Mr. Haultain on
this subject, the government came to a different conclusion, and our
action in this regard, as on everything else, is in the judgment
of the House.
But now I come to the principal point made by Mr. Haultain—that the
education clauses did not receive fair consideration. As Mr. Haultain
says, this question was debated on the Friday previous to the 21st of
February. Mr. Haultain calls this a casual consideration only. Well, Sir,
this is the result of having no record of what took place. What may
have been casual to Mr. Haultain may have been thorough to somebody
else ; what may have been only passing to him, may have been sufficient
for somebody else. On this I have only to say that the discussions
which took place on the 21st of February between Mr. Haultain and
members of Council there revealed this fact, that while he held one view, we
held another, with regard to the educational clauses. As Mr. Haultain
has laid down his views in his memorandum, I shall not commit any
breach of privacy if I say what his views were. Mr. Haultain took the
ground that section 93 of the British North America Act applied mechanically
to those new provinces. The ground we took was that section 93 of the
British North America Act did not apply mechanically, but that it
should be made to apply in the legislation we offered to the House, subject
only to such modifications as the circumstances of the new provinces
would warrant. That was, therefore, a distinct difference of opinion
between us and Mr. Haultain. The Bills before the House indicate what our
position was. The letter of Mr. Haultain speaks of the views he laid
before the committee of Council. Those views were that
section 93 of the British North America Act applied mechanically to those
provinces, and that there was, therefore, no necessity of going beyond
section 2 of the Bill. But we said : No ; we agree with you that
section 93 must go into this Bill, but we think it should be done
legislatively, subject to such modifications as are called for by the
present condition of the people. There was the subject of difference.
Therefore, we knew exactly what our position was and what the position
of Mr. Haultain was. Although we might have discussed the question for a month or
a year, there would have been the same difference. We
knew exactly the line of cleavage between us and him. We said to Mr.
Haultain : We do not agree with you : perhaps you are right, perhaps
2507
COMMONS
wrong ; but at any rate, that is our way of
thinking, and we will prepare a clause according to our view which we will
submit to you. When the clause was prepared, it was submitted to him.
It was open to him to discuss it ; but after he had taken his position and we had
taken ours, I do not suppose there
would have been much to accomplish by discussion. We knew where we
were and where he was. That is the position of the matter, and I leave
it to the House to say whether or not, under such circumstances, we have not given
to Mr. Haultain, and Mr. Bulyea, the members
representing the Northwest government, every opportunity to
be heard by us and to have their views represented to us and thoroughly discussed.
Every impartial man who reads the letter of Mr.
Haultain will come to the conclusion, after the explanation that I
have given to the House, that there was nothing to complain of on his part.
The subject was thoroughly threshed out on the first day on which it
was taken up, and after that we placed before the House the result of
our deliberations.
Now, this is all I have to say on this question at the present time. My
hon. friend has again pressed me for information on other subjects. I
do not think that on such an occasion I am called on to give my hon.
friend more information than I have given on former ocasions.
It will be the duty of the government, in due time, to give to my hon.
friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) and to the House every information
that is necessary for the discussion of the Bill. My hon. friend
has asked me if we contemplate amendments to the Bill. I do not know,
Sir, that any wrong will be done to anybody if we are contemplating amendments.
Would it be the first time that a government when
introducing a measure should endeavour to see whether or not it was
possible to satisfy all sections of the country in regard to that
measure ? In view of the petitions that have been
presented to the House, some coming from one quarter and other petitions
coming from another side, would it be wrong if the government would
say : We will reconsider our position and see whether or not we can
satisfy this country ? I am sorry my hon. friend has treated the subject a
little more lightly than I would have expected him to do on an
occasion of this kind. What is the spectacle we have to-day ? We have
the spectacle of numerous petitions being presented asking that the
educational clauses should be withdrawn from the Bill and numerous
other petitions asking that the Bill should be passed as it is. This is
a very delicate subject. It is not the first time this question of
education has come before the House. It is not the first time it has
engaged the attention of the country and upon every occasion that it has
come before the House, in 1872-73 with regard to the New Brunswick
school question, in 1875,
2508 with regard to the school question again, and in 1896, whenever it has
come before the country there has always been an exhibition
of strong public sentiment and of contrary opinions. Sir, under such
circumstances, if the government were thinking : ' Well
we may consider again the position we have taken ; we may again look at what
we are going to do,' is there any man on that side or on this side of
the House, or without the House throughout this broad country who
would say that the government was not doing right in thinking
twice before taking a final step upon this question ? Sir, I
claim that I have some sense of the responsibility that attaches to the
government and to those who are entrusted with the administration of
the affairs of the country, and, in a question of this kind
especially, whenever such a matter is brought up the government is faced
with a difficulty which perhaps it has not anticipated and finding difficulties which no man could have foreseen, viewing
the virulence with which passions are roused, perhaps, Sir,
there is some reason why a government should be slow to take any
action and should hesitate in coming to a final decision. I have
spoken of the virulence of the passions exhibited. I do not say that
offensively ; I know that would be greatly mistaken if I were to say
anything offensively on this point. I would not do so ; I know that
public passions, strong passions, are not always ignoble ; sometimes on the contrary,
they are only the exaggeration of a
noble sentiment, but even the exaggeration of a noble sentiment may
lead to outbursts of public passion. I say to my hon. friend, if he wants to
know, that this subject gives me a great deal to think about, and if
it be possible to amend this Bill the government need not fear to
consider the matter. More than this I will not say at present. This I will
say, that we are thinking upon these matters, that it is our duty to
do so and the result of our deliberations shall be given in due time to
the House, but at this present moment, I think I have given to my hon.
friend all the answer to which he is entitled.
Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).
Mr. Speaker, although the House can hardly congratulate itself that the
right hon. gentleman who so ably leads it (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) has shed any great flood of light upon the questions submitted to
him, still, day by day, as question follows question we do elicit
information, and in due time if the Bill continues to be delayed and if only
as much information leaks out every day as has so far leaked out we
will at all events be able to discuss the matter when it comes before
us with a light of understanding that certainly was lacking in the first
instance. To-day the right hon. gentleman has accepted
the statement of Mr. Haultain as to the facts laid down in his letter and he
has
2509
MARCH 15, 1905
told us in so many words that Mr. Haultain had no
right or reason to complain of the opportunity given him to
discuss the educational clauses in the Bill. When we look at
Mr. Haultain's letter and find that he states that he never saw these
clauses until noon of the day on which the Bill was introduced, that
he never heard of these clauses until the previous Friday when there was but
a casual reference to them—and evidently the clauses themselves could
not have been laid before him—we have an idea of the importance the right hon. gentleman
attaches to the opinion of the Northwest
Territories when it applies to the educational clauses of these
important Acts. When a most important question touching the
province of Manitoba was presented to the right hon. gentleman, when
the legislature of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba were a
unit in desiring that their province should be extended to the west,
when it was an undeniable fact that a little province 73,000 square
miles in size, of which 10,000 miles were under water, was to be placed side
by side with two gigantic provinces of a quarter of a
million square miles each, when the legislature of Manitoba and the people
of that province pleaded that their province might be placed on an
equal footing with these new provinces, the one sufficient answer that the right
hon. gentleman gave was why the people of the
Northwest Territories through their legislature have opposed such a claim. And inasmuch
as the people of the west
have opposed it the request of Manitoba was promptly denied.
Why is it that the people of the Northwest Territories and the premier of
the Northwest Territories have so extraordinary an influence
on the right hon. gentleman and his government in regard to some matters,
and that their opinions have so little value in regard to the
educational clauses which it passed must bind these provinces for all
time to come, through all eternity. The right hon. gentleman thought the
matter was of so little importance that to-day, after the country has
been convulsed for more than a month he congratulates himself and
gravely tells us that Mr. Haultain had ample opportunity to discuss these
clauses which he never saw. I am sorry, Sir, that a case such as this,
without precedent one might say, leads to peculiar complications, and so I
am not perfectly certain that I agree with my leader in one statement
that he made. That hon. gentleman seems to be under the impression
that the seven members from the west were those who enlightened, instructed and
controlled the premier in this legislation.
Possibly they did, Sir, on the principle of the doctrine of
exclusion. We know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) did not
; we know that the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) did not, and we
know that the premier, representing the people of the Northwest
Territories did not, and I suppose that the hon. gentleman
2510 who leads this side of the House, (Mr. R. L. Borden), must have
concluded that the seven gentlemen in question were the ones who
really did guide the premier, basing his opinion on the kind of advice they
gave on statements of the right hon. gentleman as made before the
House when the Bill was introduced. The hon. gentleman who leads the
opposition may be right, but I decline to think that any
native—born Canadian could have given the right hon. gentleman such advice as he evidently
received. I think that no
one who reads the statement which he made when the Bill was introduced, and I say
it with all respect to the right hon.
gentleman, because I quite understand that the onerous duties of
the leader of a government, especially when the session is in
progress—can doubt that the right hon. gentleman has no time to devote
to the acquisition of facts of law and otherwise, and therefore he
is dependent on some one for these facts. It would seem that the
gentleman who instructed him relied on imagination for his history
and his invention for his law, and I think we are justified in
considering that even these seven were not consulted. The question as to the
propriety or impropriety of the clauses is oi course not a question
which we can discuss at the present time.
But surely all must admit that the very evidence we have seen in this House
day after day, when, from one end of this country to the
other petitions are pouring in, some for and some against this measure,
must be enough to impress the members of this House with the gravity
of the position in which the right hon. gentleman placed this House,
has placed these provinces, has placed the people of Canada by introducing
the Bill which has been so long held back. And the right hon.
gentleman seems to lead us to infer that the Bill was held back out of
kindness and consideration for the wishes of the hon. member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule). Applying the old rule that it is the unexpected that
happens, we would naturally expect the right hon. gentleman
to defer his own wishes to the convenience and interest of the
hon. member for East Grey. But, as I understand the complaints made by
the hon. member for East Grey and other gentlemen on this side of the
House, they are not that the right hon. gentleman has held back the second
reading of the Bill so much as that we cannot find out what the Bill
is. I think the hon. member for East Grey was right in asking that
ample time should be given to the country to consider and digest
the provisions of the Bill. But how is the country to consider and digest these
most important matters when the right
hon. Prime Minister will not tell us, though appealed to again and
again, what the provisions of the Bill are to be. It is all very well for
the right hon. gentleman to tell us that no important Bill
2511
COMMONS
goes through parliament without changes and
amendments. That is perfectly true. But I would ask the right hon gentleman
if, in the course of his reading of constitutional law, he
has ever found a case where the leader of a government introduced a
Bill and, contrary to the ordinary practice not only explained its
provisions, but made an impassioned appeal to the House by all the
principles of right, and by all the claims of justice, loyalty, and even
religion, to pass certain clauses, and days and weeks after told the
House gravely that the government was considering these clauses
and reserved its right to do as it saw fit about them ? I would ask
the right hon. gentleman's followers if it would not be more
in accordance with constitutional procedure and more statesmanlike if this
consideration, this discussion, had taken place before the Bill came
down, and before this burning question was thrown into the political arena?
Would it not have been better to discuss the matter with his hon.
colleagues, so that they might have a chance, before the Bill was
brought to parliament, to oppose the measure and to try, by resignation or
in any other proper way, to compel a modification of its terms? Would
not this be better than, after parliament is called, the members
should be detained from their business week after week because the
government is not ready to announce its policy ? My hon. leader (Mr.
R. L. Borden) asked the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a most
important question—it occurs to me the most important question in
connection with this matter—which the right hon. gentleman did not
answer. He inquired whether it was the intention of the government, as
stated in a newspaper ordinarily supposed to be one of the organs of
the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, to refer this question to the Supreme
Court. Now, I do not know what the policy of the Conservative party or
any other member of the Conservative party may be on this
subject. But, speaking for myself, I oppose any proposal to refer
this matter to the Supreme Court. We know that even a wise man may be
caught napping once, but no wise man will be caught napping twice in
the same way. I remember a question similar to this that agitated
this country nearly ten years ago. I remember that a constitutional question arose
along lines similar to this in the province of
Manitoba. After it had been decided that Manitoba had not the right to
separate schools because there were no separate schools by law or
practice in the province at the time it entered into confederation, Manitoba
claimed the right, under the remedial clauses of the law, to appeal to
the Dominion parliament. The right of this parliament to repeal a provincial statute
passed after the union was discussed, and the
House was asked to consent to a reference of the matter to the Supreme
Court. It was so referred. But
2512 no less an authority than the right hon. gentleman himself (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) potnted out—and, I think, wisely and correctly—that the very fact
of the House referring to the Supreme
Court the question of its right to pass this legislation was an
admission by the House that, should it be held that parliament had the right
to pass such a law, it was in reason and in honour bound to exercise
that right. And it was for that reason, and not because we were
advocating separate schools in Manitoba that I and many others like me,
thought that, this House having asked whether it had the power to pass
remedial legislation, it would be a monstrous absurdity, it would be a
stultifying of ourselves not to pass it. To ask whether we had the right to
act and, when that right was established refuse to act, would simply
be playing a double game. It would be asking the Supreme Court and the
Privy Council gravely whether our rights extended to a certain point while
determined that even if they did extend that far, we would not act
upon the right thus decided to be ours. There is a clear cut line
between the right hon. Prime Minister and Mr. Haultain and many other
gentlemen in this country as to the constitutional right
of this House to pass the legislation now proposed. Of course, I do not
propose to discuss that point at present. But I venture to say that no
lawyer will look into the matter and not come to the conclusion that,
at least, the question is open to argument that it is doubtful
whether this House has power to pass and enforce such legislation. But, if we should
pass such legislation, and it should
be decided to be ultra vires of our powers, the provinces will find
that out for themselves and it will not be long before the people will find
that they are not bound as they were supposed to be. But I would
protest against submitting the question to the Supreme Court or Privy
Council whether we have power to pass such educational clauses as are
proposed ; for all must see that, if this House should ask the Supreme
Court whether we have that power to pass such clauses, it might be
contended, as the right hon. Prime Minister said ten years ago, that, if it
should be decided that we had the power, then we should be bound to
show our sincerity and good faith by passing such legislation and so
impose these clauses upon the Northwest Territories for all time to come.
Now, the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) spoke of the
educational clauses as the only objectionable clauses in the Bill. I
would enter a very earnest dissent from that proposition. The Bill
may have many objectionable clauses, but, if it has one transcendently
objectionable, it is quite reasonable for the people, for the time
being, to concentrate their attack upon that clause rather than spend their
time on minor clauses which, however objection
2513
MARCH 15, 1905
able, are comparatively of small importance. I can
assure the hon. gentleman that he will find in the Northwest Territories the
people have a very strong, and, he may find, a very well-founded
objection to many of the clauses outside of the educational clauses to
which he has referred. I do not wish to occupy time more than to say that
the members of this House, I suppose, have a perfect right, when the government brings
down such a measure as this and
when the right hon. gentleman tells us that the government is
considering the question, to ask that when they have pondered over, they
will give us the benefit of their views. When the right hon. gentleman
takes the position he does we have the right to ask if he brings to
the discussion of this question the same open mind, the same views as to
constitutional law and the rights of the provinces that
he held years ago. In case he may have forgotten, I will read his
own views as to the rights of the provinces, as explained by himself some years
ago. In 1893, he said :
Sir, I am to-day as firm a believer as I ever
was in the doctrine of provincial rights. I take as much pride as ever
I did in belonging to the great party which in the past carried that doctrine to
a successful issue, an issue, indeed, so successful
that we nank among the advocates of that doctrine to-day the most prominent
of the men who opposed it in the past. And when the historian of the
future shall refer to the first twenty years of confederation, the brightest
page he will have to record will be the page in which he will trace
the efforts of the Liberal party to maintain inviolate and intact the
liberties and independence of the local legislatures. And
I am proud to say that among the names which shall be revered in the hearts
of their countrymen, as the names of those who stood foremost in the
fight, will be the names of Edward Blake and Oliver Mowat.
Surely, Sir, we have the right even yet to expect that the right hon.
gentleman, misled by those who by distorted facts and mistaken law,
have caused him to abandon the position which apparently he would like
to occupy—surely we have the right to expect that the right hon. gentleman,
after considering the question, as he promised to do, will
be only too proud to add his name to those dear to the Canadian people
as the defenders of provincial rights, and thus complete the glorious
triumvirate Edward Blake, Oliver Mowat and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto). When
my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, charged the leader of the
opposition with treating this matter with levity, he made Mr. Speaker,
what I consider a most extraordinary statement. I fail to see how
any one who has listened to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden)
could come to any other conclusion than that he has treated this
question as what it really is, one of the most serious that has ever come
before this House. But if a charge of levity in this connection rests
against any
2514 one, it certainly does against the Prime Minister. In his reply to my
hon. friend I fail to discover a single argument. Instead of
arguing seriously the points raised by the leader of the opposition, he has
sought lightly to brush them aside as if the question were not to be
considered or discussed at all until it suited the right hon.
gentleman to proceed further with his Bill and favour the House with some
further particulars. But that my right hon. friend is daily finding
his position more uncomfortable and his difficulties increasing is evidenced by
the fact that in his reference to the hon. member
for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) he let slip an allusion of a personal
nature, because that is a species of retort which my right hon. friend
is usually careful to avoid. In referring to the hon. member, he
spoke of him as not being a member of parliament only, but as
something else. Well, we all know what the right hon. gentleman meant. We
all know that by something else he meant that the hon. member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) was the chief source of those petitions
which are being daily presented against the clause in this Bill relating to
schools. For my part I can say, so far as my knowledge goes, that my
hon. friend is not the chief source of those petitions. In fact I have
been very much surprised that the body which the hon. member for East
Grey represents has shown itself so thoroughly self contained
throughout this matter. I do not believe that the First Minister
realizes for a moment the feeling which this Bill has created. Already
by this measure he has set creed against creed in the province of Ontario. Already
he has done evil which ten years will not wipe
out; and I appeal to him to lose not another day in submitting this Bill
to the House and the people because every day's delay is widening the
breach and intensifying the feeling against it. It is intensifying that
feeling to such an extent that no matter whether the Bill be altered to
meet the views of those who are opposing it or not the bitterness now
created will last longer than the lifetime of many in this House. I have
been astonished at the strength of the feeling which has been aroused in
connection with this educational clause. My right hon. friend pleads that as
this is the only clause in the Bill to which objection has been made, we
must conclude that great consideration has been given to it.
But, Mr. Speaker, the fact rather is that this educational clause so
overshadows all the others that the other clauses have not received the
criticism which they ought to get. It is stated in the newspapers
without contradiction that this measure was left to four members of the
cabinet—the First Minister, the Minister of Justice (Mr.
Fitzpatrick), the Secretary of State (Mr. Scott) and the Post
2515
COMMONS
master General (Sir Wiliam Mulock). I am sorry my
hon. friend the Posmaster General is not in his place because I wished to
call his attention to the fact that there is a feeling in the
constituency I represent and among my friends that he has not given
his full assent to this measure and has reserved his right to withdraw
later. I have felt it my duty to bring before the right hon. gentleman
and this House what I believe, the right hon. gentleman does not
realize, namely, the intense feeling which is being created by this Bill and
I appeal to the First Minister not to delay a day in submitting the
Bill in its present shape, if he be determined to submit it in that
shape. Let us in that event deal with the Bill and fight it out, and perhaps
the feeling which is being created in the country and is
continuing to spread may then be stopped. Surely from the 21st February until the
15th March is a reasonable length of time to
have the Bill before the country, and it ought now to be submitted to
the consideration of parliament. Surely that is all the time the hon. member
for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) could possibly have asked for. Every day
the feeling is intensifying. Every day the newspapers are instilling
more and more into the minds of the people that this is a measure
which simply is setting creed against creed. Let us then face the issue
straight and squarely. Every day's delay is intensifying the
feeling against the Bill, and that feeling has taken such root that I
venture to-day that ten years hence will not see the sore healed.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY (Calgary). Representing, as I do, one of the constituencies directly affected
by this Bill, I do not see how I can remain silent in this discussion especially
in view of some of the remarks which have been made
by the right hon. the First Minister. I rise to protest against the
conduct of the administration in having framed this measure without any
reference to, and in the absence of the minster who is charged by
statute with the control and management of the affairs of the
Northwest Territories, and for having introduced it in his
absence. I may perhaps be permitted to draw the attention of
hon. members to the statute to which I refer. By section 3 of chapter 22
of the Revised Statutes of Canada it is provided that the Minister of
the Interior shall have the control and management of the affairs of
the Northwest Territories. Why then should a measure of such vital
importance to the people of that country have been framed and introduced
without reference to the minister who has been clothed by statute with
this particular duty. That needs explanation. No one can fail to see
that there was no member of the cabinet whose presence was more
2516 necessary before arriving at a conclusion on such an important matter
for the west than the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) for there
was no minister whose individual responsibility in that matter was
so great. It is a matter of common complaint that the
affairs of the Northwest Territories can be given only a very small
portion of the time which the ministers are able to spare from their
respective departments.
That is a complaint that one often hears, and perhaps the reason is plain.
There are matters pressing on the different ministers in their
departments—matters near at hand —in which they must be more interested
than they are in the rights of the people living two or three thousand
miles away. That it has been the practice in the past to consult the
Minister of the Interior in regard to matters of much less importance
regarding the administration of the affairs of the
Northwest Territories, I think cannot be denied. Looking at the
correspondence which has been had between members of the legislative
assembly and the federal government, it will be observed that nearly all that correspondence
has been carried on with the hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). I find that on April 5th, 1901, he
writes the Hon. F. W. G. Haultain in connection with this matter,
saying that business is so pressing upon the respective ministers that the measure
could not be brought down that
session. Then, again, I find that Mr. Haultain was communicating with the
Minister of the Interior over an appointment to discuss
affairs relating to the territories with the members of the
government, and I find that on June 4th, 1901, the Hon. F. W. G.
Haultain wired to Hon. Clifford Sifton :
Can you arrange early meeting for us with sub-committee of Council
before ministers disperse for summer? Any time after fifteenth
will suit us.
(Sgd.) F. W. G. HAULTAIN.
And in answer to that a wire comes back, dated June 5th, 1901, as follows :
Hon. F. W. G. Haultain,
Regina.
It is impossible to settle date of conference now. Finance Minister must
be present. He has gone to England and is not expected back until
August.
(Sgd.) CLIFFORD SIFTON.
Apparently there is a variance between the mind of the right hon. First
Minister, and even that of the ex-Minister of the Interior, as to the
necessity of having the Minister of Finance present at the conference. Following
on with that correspondence, I find
that on December 7th, 1901, a letter was addressed to the Rt. Hon. Sir
Wilfrid Laurier by the Hon. F. W. G. Haultain. In that letter
the condition of affairs in the Northwest Territories was fully gone
into, and a draft Bill was inclosed setting Â
2517
MARCH 15, 1905
out what the legislative assembly of the Northwest
Territories considered they were entitled to claim in dealing with this
question. I will not read all the letter, but in part it
states :
I have the honour to submit, on behalf of
the government of the Territories, the following statement of the present
position as it appears to us, together with such remarks as seem to be
necessary to properly set forth the reasons which led the assembly to request that
inquiries be made and accounts
be taken with a view to the establishment of provincial
institutions within that portion of the Northwest Territories
lying between the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia.
Then, further on in the letter, he says:
After giving some earnest thought to the matter of presenting this part of the subject
as desired by the
sub-committee of the Privy Council, I have concluded that I cannot do so
in any better manner than by submitting the views of the executive
council of the Territories in the form of a draft Bill, in which
the several points we would like to have brought to an issue are duly
set forth, making such comment upon the principles involved as occurs
to me in connection with each section or group of sections.
And he concludes:
In conclusion I would venture to express the hope that His Excellency's
advisers will, at an early date, arrive at a favourable conclusion
to their consideration of the subject matters herein set forth.
(Sgd.) F. W. G. HAULTAIN.
That was written on the 7th December, 1901. On March 15, 1902, when the
legislature was about to meet at Regina, a telegram was sent to the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid
Laurier as follows:
Legislature opens Thursday. Important that we should know nature of
reply to letter of December 7 for reference in speech. Will you
kindly have summary wired if possible.
(Sgd.) F. W. G. HAULTAIN.
The answer comes back on March 18, 1902:
Hon. F. W. G. Haultain,
Regina.
No answer can be sent until the return of Minister of Interior, who is
absent through illness.
(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER.
The point I desire to make is that, although that was not a new
matter which was before the members of this government, although they
had had the matter under consideration since January 20, 1900, although there had
been one conference on the Bill which had
been in their possession since 7th December, 1901, they would not even
take the risk of framing a bald telegram to the legislative
assembly at Regina without first having a consultation and conference with the Minister
of the Interior. What is it that has happened
since that has
2518 caused this administration to change their minds as to consulting and
conferring with the Minister of the Interior in respect to a question
which was submitted to them by that draft Bill ? The right hon. leader of
the government has stated that no complaints have come in
from that country. with the exception of a complaint with regard to
the educational clauses of the Bill. I may say that if that statement had
not been made I would not have troubled the House this afternoon. I
have here a copy of a resolution passed at Medicine Hat three
weeks ago. I may say, explaining it, that it objects to the
attempt of the federal administration to retain the lands; it also
objects to the proposed legislation in respect to education, and it
goes further, and declares that the placing of the dividing line on the
4th meridian is a great hardship to the ranching industry, in that the
laws governing a farming country would conflict with the
laws governing a ranching country. Further on it says:
We would respectfully suggest that the government appoint a commissioner to inquire
fully into all the
circumstances, and that a copy of the resolutions be forwarded to the
principal newspapers in the country. the pre~ mier and leader of opposition,
also to the premier of the Northwest Territories, and W. Scott,
M.P.
When the right hon. leader of the government says that no other
objections were taken to this Bill, either he had not received a copy
of that resolution, or the information which was communicated to the hon.
member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) could not have
been made known to him, or no attention was paid to the resolution
by either gentleman. I say that there are complaints coming
in, and that they are coming in all forms from all parts of the country
in respect to the educational question, in respect to the boundaries
of the new provinces, and as to the advisability of including in these provinces that
great northern country. There is
where the difficulty lies ; the people of the west to-day have no person
through whom they can communicate with the government, because there
is no Minister of the Interior. They can communicate with their
representatives, as the people of Medicine Hat did with the hon. member for
West Assiniboia; but, apparently. if their representations do not meet
the party views of these gentlemen, they will not take the trouble to
lay the matter before the government. Therefore, the situation we
have today is that the people of the Northwest Territories
have no channel of communication with the government because there
is no Minister of the Interior in the House of Commons. Taking up
these resolutions that have been passed at Medicine Hat, which. I may
say. is one of the most prosperous and flourishing towns in the
Northwest Territories. and which is practically on the
line which divides the proposed pro
2519
COMMONS
vinces in two ; while I do not propose to go at any
length into the suggested dividing line, in view of what the right hon.
gentleman has suggested to the House to-day, I feel that
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not point out some of the objections
that are coming from that country in regard to this proposed divided
line. This line, I may say, is placed right in the heart of the ranching country.
I have in my hand a map published by
the Department of the Interior, and on which the ranching country in the
Northwest Territories is shown, and from which it can be seen that but
a very small portion of the ranching country is to be placed in the
eastern province of Saskatchewan. The objection to that division
is that the ranching country in that eastern province will
have such small representation in the local House that its demands and its
needs may not receive the recognition which they deserve. The people
inhabiting that district have realized this, and so they sent their
resolution of protest down to their representative in this House. Another
objection which may seem of small concern to the people
of the east, but which is very important to the people of the
west, is that by placing a portion of the ranching territory
in the eastern province there is a possibility that there will be
a conflict in the branding laws, which would undoubtedly lead to great
inconvenience.
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. member is now
discussing the terms of the Bill.
Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY. We were told
to-day by the Prime Minister that no objections had been raised to
the Bill except as regards the educational clause and l want to show
the right hon. gentleman that there are still other objections. I
point him to the fact that there is no channel through which we
could approach the government to make known our objections other than
by open statements in this House of Commons, and so it devolves on us
from the Northwest to call the attention of the government to some
very important objections which the people of the west have
to this Bill. Of course, Mr. Speaker, if I am out of order I will bow
to your decision and desist. Let me however point out that another
very strong objection raised against this Bill is, that the great
northern country is being included in the new provinces. While we
may have great hopes and aspirations for the future prosperity of that
northern country yet the greater part of that territory is not
agricultural, if we can accept as true the statement of the Prime Minister
on introducing the Bill.
If we look at the census of 1901 it will be found that in the provisional
district of Athabaska the population consists of 80 English : 8 Irish
: 39 Scotch : 105 French : 7 Germans : 2 Scandinavians ; 1 Belgian, or
142 white people in all. There were 2,393 halfbreeds. 3,716 Indians, 262
unspecified,
2520 giving a total population for the district of Athabaska of 6,615. We
remember that the Prime Minister when introducing the Bill discussed
the question as to whether or not it was advisable to give Manitoba,
with a population then of 10,000 a provincial status in 1870, and
he suggested that it would have been better to allow them to mature by
gradual process. If that view were sound in regard to Manitoba is it not
equally applicable to-day to this great northern country ? Is there
any great demand from that northern country to be included in any province ? I believe
that they need and are entitled to the
establishment of courts of law and a further measure of civil justice,
but I have not heard there is any demand for autonomy in the district
of Athabaska. Would it not be just as logical to add the Yukon to British
Columbia or to add Keewatin to Ontario or to add Ungava
to Quebec, as to add the district of Athabaska to the western
province and extend that territory to the north ? There is this
additional objection : that under the proposed autonomy Bill the provinces have
no interest in the lands, mines. or minerals, and
that is an important consideration when we are dealing with this
phase of the measure. What would the members in this House from
British Columbia, from Ontario and from Quebec say if the
territories to the north of their provinces were to be given
representation in the provincial legislatures and they were to be
saddled with the cost of this administration under conditions
similar to those on which Athabaska is to be included in the province
of Alberta ?
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman is
plainly discussing the terms of the Bill, and that is out of order.
Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY. Then, Sir. it is
my duty to point out to the First Minister the very serious inconvenience
suffered by the people of the Northwest by reason of the fact that we
have to-day, no Minister of the Interior. The right hon. gentleman has
complained that no objections to the Bill have come from the Northwest
save in respect to the educational clauses. Let me remind him, that
there is no minister of the Crown representing the Northwest, to
whom the people can transmit their grievances. I trust that the Prime
Minister will at a very early day be able to assure us that the portfolio of the
Interior will be filled. Day after day questions
are asked in this House, which should be answered by a responsible Minister of the
Interior ; day after day people are coming here
great distances to interview the Minister of the Interior on matters
seriously concerning the Northwest, but there is no Minister of
the Interior to whom they can make their representations. It is true there is a very
capable oflicer in the
position of deputy minister, but, he has been so recently
appointed
2521
MARCH 15, 1905
that he is not familiar with the details of the
department, and he cannot be expected to give that authoritative information
which a cabinet minister would, We have people here today from Dawson
city. from Battleford and from distant points who have
travelled thousands of miles to transact business with the Minister of the
Interior, but they have been forced to return home without being able
to attain their object. I trust. Sir, that we shall soon have a Minister of the
Interior with whom the people of the Northwest
Territories can transact public business, and through whom they can
make their grievances known to the government of Canada.
Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle). Mr.
Speaker, in a matter of such importance to the Northwest Territories, I feel
it my duty to say a very few words at the present time, and especially
shall I address myself to the urgency of the appointment of a Minister
of the Interior. To learn, as we did the other day, that the terms of this
Bill had been agreed upon and laid before parliament without
consultation with the Minister of the Interior—and as it afterwards proved, in direct
opposition to his known views—was surprising
enough ; but to have the statement ten days later from the Prime
Minister, that he had then no intention of selecting a new Minister of the
Interior, was simply amazing. I am glad to say that on the following
day the right hon., gentleman modified that statement and gave us a
hope that in the near future there would be an appointment. I feel that
we are entitled to ask from the right hon. gentleman an absolute and
positive statement on this question.
If it is not unconstitutional to go on with such important measures as
those before the House in the absence of the Minister of the Interior,
and I believe it is unconstutional, I will make this assertion,
that it is plainly against the spirit of the constitution,
and that it is also against the principles which were laid down by the
Prime Minister himself, in the Order in Council which was published in
connection with the retirement of the Earl of Dundonald last year. I
submit, Sir, that it is absolutely necessary at the present time that the
Prime Minister should admit into his most confidential counsels some
man who is thoroughly imbued with the spirit and the aspirations of
the west. I do not believe that the Bills in their present form would
have been brought down if the Prime Minister had had in the
cabinet at the time they were being discussed a gentleman from the
west who was in touch with the west ; and I feel quite certain that those
Bills would not have been introduced in the terms in which they
were—terms which practically threw down the gauntlet to the people of
the west on a subject on which the Prime Minister must have known that they
were very sensitive indeed.
2522
In his speech in introducing the Bills, the right hon. gentleman said : '
The Northwest Territories have at the present time a large
measure of local autonomy.' He went on to say that they have ' most of the
essential powers which are now given to the provinces,' and he
concluded by saying that he proposed to crown that with ' complete and absolute
autonomy.' I sometimes wonder whether it could be
possible that the right hon. gentleman really meant that when he said
it. I do not think that anybody who chooses to study these Bills and to take
them in connection with the constitutions of the other provinces of
Canada, can doubt but that it is proposed to form in the Northwest
Territories ' imperfect and inferior organizations,' to quote the
words of the premier of that country ; and if more proof were needed
that the people of the Territories did not believe that they were going to
be put on the plane of the older provinces of the Dominion, I would
point to the character of the meetings which are now being held almost
daily throughout the west. This question is not dealt with up there as a
party question. I notice that in the towns in the district which I
have the honour to represent, in several cases the prime movers are
gentlemen who are supporters of the right hon. gentleman opposite ; and
I was surprised to hear that he had not heard that other objections
had been taken to the terms of these Bills above and beyond
the objections which were taken to the educational clauses. I may tell him
that I have received copies of resolutions taking the very
strongest objections to other clauses. Of course, the terms in which
the educational clauses are couched have been such as to raise a feeling
which must overshadow all other feelings amongst the people of the
Northwest Territories ; and therefore we find that the agitation against
these educational clauses takes the first place. But I can assure the
Prime Minister that there are the very strongest objections against
the proposal that our lands should be retained by the Dominion of Canada.
There are the very strongest objections to having the perpetual
exemption from taxation which is at the present moment enjoyed by the
Canadian Pacific Railway Company placed on the shoulders of the new
provinces forever. That is a burden which we believe the Dominion of Canada
should hear. I may say that the large measure of local autonomy which
the Prime Minister referred to in his speech as having been enjoyed by
the Territories has developed a strong western sentiment and solidarity
which is manifesting itself in connection with the clauses of these
Bills ; and I would suggest to him that he should put this matter to the test by
inviting some genleman from amongst the western Liberal
members of parliament to enter his cabinet and in this way open a seat
in the Northwest Ter
2523
COMMONS
ritories and see what the verdict of the people will
be.
The right hon. gentleman said : ' We have had the benefit of the presence
of Mr. Haultain and Mr. Bulyea,' and he went on to say
further : ' We have had the advantage of the advice of several members from
the Territories in the discussion of these Bills. Now, as has been
pointed out this afternoon, Mr. Haultain at any rate has put
himself definitely on record as objecting to the terms of
the draft Bill. And I may say that Mr. Haultain and Mr. Bulyea do not
speak as private individuals ; they speak as being armed with the authority
of the accredited representatives of the government and the
legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories. And it must be
remembered that the claims of the Northwest Territories were set forth in the most
distinct and definite terms—were set
forth categorically—in a draft Bill which the premier of the
Northwest Territories submitted to the Prime Minister more than three years
ago. Those terms were discussed in the legislative assembly, and were
for all practical purposes unanimously approved. I may say
that there was a unanimous approval of the various terms of that draft Bill,
with just one exception : that was as to whether there should be one
or two provinces. On that question the majority--
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. member is again
commencing to get very close to a discussion of the Bill on the order paper.
Mr. LAKE. I was endeavouring, Mr.
Speaker, to answer a remark which was made by the Prime Minister himself ;
but I will get at it more directly. The Prime Minister made a strong
point of the fact that Mr. Haultain had objected to two provinces being formed.
That made a large part of his argument, and surely I
should be allowed to say a few words in reference to that. What I wish
to point out is this, that a very large majority of the members of the
legislative assembly were in favour or one province. There was a small
minority in favour of two provinces, but they were
divided in opinion as to how these two provinces should be formed—whether
there should be a northern one and a southern one or an eastern one
and a western one. Mr. Haultain was only doing his duty when he
advocated what was the very strong verdict of the members of the
legislative assembly. When the right hon. gentleman referred
to the immense province which such an area would make, I think he
forgot that the legislative assembly had not asked for the immense area
which he now proposes to include in the two new provinces. They had only
asked for a portion of it ; and I might suggest to him that the three
present organized districts only include an area less than that of British
Columbia or that of Quebec.
2524
I may say further that the terms of this draft Bill formed the principal
question in the general election of the Northwest Territories which took place shortly
after its submission to the legislative
assembly ; and that the principal campaign literature issued by the
local government of that day was the correspondence in connection with the
draft Bill, and the draft Bill itself, so that there can be no
question, seeing that Mr. Haultain's government was returned to power with an overwhelming
majority, that he was voicing the
opinion of the people of the Northwest in the demands which he has
made in regard to the terms upon which the Northwest Territories were to
become provinces. But, as the right hon. the Prime Minister
says, he had discussed this question and had great advantage in
the discussion not only with the representatives of the
Territorial government, but also with several western members, we must
presume that the Bill was introduced with the concurrence of
these western members. We must assume that, or else these remarks of
the Prime Minister would have no significance or meaning. I
noticed also that some Northwest members on the other side of the
House greeted the remarks of the Prime Minister on that occasion with the
most vigorous applause.
Again I say that I consider that the presence of the Minister of
the Interior in this House is most necessary. A proposal is made in
these draft Bills that the Dominion government should remain in
possession of the public lands of the Northwest. I venture to assert
that it has been found impossible in the past to administer the lands
of that country, with satisfaction, from Ottawa and I think that if a close
inquiry were made into the conditions it would be found that there is
a great deal of dissatisfaction in that country with the
proclaimed policy of the Minister of the Interior with reference to
the settlement of these lands, and that the administration of these lands
is not satisfactory to the people of the Northwest. This
House should have the fullest information on these points, and I
apprehend that it would be practically impossible to get that full
information unless we have, sitting in his seat on the other side of the
House. a Minister of the Interior.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette). Mr.
Speaker, as a western representative, I
desire for a very short time this afternoon to discuss more particularly
one feature of this debate that has been referred to, especially by my now colleagues
from the west, a question in which we are
particularly interested in common with the people who
reside in that portion of Canada. I refer to the vacancy which exists in
the portfolio of the Minister of the Interior. Some two or three years ago
when the territorial executive consulted with the right hon.
gentleman  as to whether he was willing and ready to
2525
MARCH 15, 1905
enter into a conference with the members of the
executive with a view to granting provincial government to the
people of the Northwest Territories, the right hon. gentleman replied at that time
that he could not accede to their request ;
for what reason ? Because of the absence of the Minister of
the Interior through illness. He could not take up this great question in
the absence of the member of the government who was particularly
charged with looking after the welfare of western interests, with the
gentleman who, from his long residence in that western country and from his
long official connection was better able to give him official advice
than any other colleague in his cabinet. I must admit that the contention of the
right hon. gentleman at that time was a very
valid one and that in the absence of this gentleman it was not
reasonable to take up the question of self government for the Territories.
According to my judgment this was in accordance with constitutional
procedure and was a deferring to the Minister of the Interior that
was only that gentleman's due. The granting of autonomy to
the people of the Northwest Territories is a most important
question ; it marks another epoch in the history of the
confederation of Canada and it is a question requiring the best advice of
the most responsible advisers. Realizing this, as undoubtedly the
Prime Minister did, he would not enter into the initial stages even,
he would not take up the question of holding a conference with the
territorial executive in the absence of his responsible Minister of the Interior.
If, however, it was so very necessary
to have that gentleman present in the conducting of negotiations, how
much more was it necessary to have him here when that Bill was being drafted
for submission to this House. And yet, we find the right hon.
gentleman having a Bi11 prepared or preparing it himself, in company with his colleagues,
without that gentleman's
presence, without his consent, without his knowledge even, and
launching it on this parliament without ever having submitted it to him for his
approval or disapproval. No explanation
has yet been vouchsafed to this House by the Prime Minister
why he followed such a course. He has not touched upon that phase of the
speech of the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)
this afternoon. He realizes that there is no explanation that can
be forthcoming for his having treated his Minister of the Interior so
cavalierly and having so contemptuously treated indirectly the people
of the west. There has been no explanation of why he took so different
a position from that of two or three years ago when he would not even have a
conference in the absence of the Minister of the
Interior. This information, I may say, did not come from the right hon.
gentleman himself ; it remained for the Minister of the
Interior, upon his return to the House of
2526 Commons when he saw for the first time this Bill that has been
submitted to
parliament, when he read the educational clauses, and realized that he could
not consistently give his support to the educational clauses to sever
his official connection with the government and give an
explanation to the members of the House, which conveyed the idea to
every member in this House that that hon. gentleman resented, and justly
resented, the treatment accorded to him by his chief, the head of the
government, in paying so little respect to those views which the premier knew quite
well his colleague held. This is especially
remarkable in view of the policy that was laid down by the hon.
gentleman and his colleagues no longer ago than the session of 1904 in
regard to the principle that was to guide the right hon. gentleman and
his government in the division of ministerial responsibility. This
has been referred to on a previous occasion, but it will
stand emphasizing, and I desire to read this Order in Council wherein the hon. gentleman
laid it down as his guiding principle
as to how the affairs of the country were to be managed. He said :
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 each minister for the public affairs of
the province or district with which he has close political connection,
and with which his colleagues might not be so well acquainted.
And yet, notwithstanding that declaration of policy within eight
months of laying down that principle to guide himself and his
colleagues, he, the erstwhile democrat to the hilt, in the most autocratic
manner, rides roughshod over the terms of this Order in Council and
practically ignores the fact that he has a Minister of the Interior at all. The
right hon. gentleman knew quite well the very strong
views held by his Minister of the Interior on that separate
school question. He was quite well aware of the fact that in the west a few
years ago he earned himself the sobriquet of being the special
champion of national schools. The right hon. gentleman knew the strong
stand his minister had taken against Dominion interference with matters
that should be entirely under provincial control and yet,
with this knowledge in his possession, he had so little respect for his
colleague from the west that he did not even submit the educational
clauses to that hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman evidently did
not do so, to judge by the remarks of the ex-Minister of the
Interior himself. Is it at all surprising, therefore, under the
circumstances that that gentleman should resent such treatment and
should sever his official connection with his colleagues and should
step down and out.
2527
COMMONS
But, at the same time, the country, and especially the west, is left
without a voice in the council, without a representative of the
western interests that are paramount, at a time when they should have
somebody in the cabinet to maintain their rights. The Prime Minister
has informed this House that he has taken no steps to fill this vacancy, nor is
it his intention to take any immediate steps
towards that end. In order that I may not do him any injustice, let
the quote from 'Hansard' of March 9, the right hon. gentleman's answer to a
question of the leader of the opposition:
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 retreat 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.
Now, it is because of that declaration on the part of the Prime Minister
that I rise to protest as a western representative, against this
procedure. The idea of having these great questions considered without
having that portfolio filled is contrary to the best judgment of the people
of western Canada. The Prime Minister may say that there has been no
undue delay in filling that portfolio, that a longer time has elapsed
in filling other vacancies in other cabinets. But this vacancy at this
particular time is unique in its character, and there are very special
reasons why the portfolio should be tilled at the earliest possible moment.
In the first place, the resignation has taken place during the holding
of a session of parliament, and even before the estimates of this
department have received the approval of this House. Important
transactions have been carried out under this department since the session of 1904,
especially in regard to
western Canada, which transactions should be explained to this House
by a responsible head of that department. Then, we have the
Autonomy Bill, a Bill of vital importance and affecting the whole
future of the people of western Canada. The people of that portion of the
country demand that they shall have a voice at the council board. The
right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) must know that no
acting Minister of the Interior, no colleague of his holding
another portfolio, can possibly discharge the duties of the Minister
of the Interior to the satis faction of the people of the west, especially at this
juncture ; for they need a man there whom they
can hold directly and especially responsible for his official
acts. The territory from the great lakes to the Pacific ocean, a
territory some 2,000 miles from side to side, is to-day without cabinet
representation. Fancy for a moment the great province of
Quebec in a similar position. Suppose that, with its 351,000 square miles,
2528 a large portion of it were still without provincial autonomy; and
suppose that a Bill were submitted to this parliament to confer upon
the territory organized all the powers of local self government : and suppose that
there were no representative of those people in the
council to maintain their rights ;—would not there be strong expressions of indignation
? And would not those expressions be
justified and be supported by every other portion of Canada? And
still, to-day, we have all the territory west of the great lakes, almost a
million square miles, inhabited by almost a million souls, of whom
half are in the new provinces about to be created. and as yet they are left
without anybody to stand up for their rights and see that even—handed
justice is meted out to them. Now, there is another great question that demands
a representative in the cabinet council to-day and one
in which, as a representative of Manitoba, 1 am especially
interested; I refer to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. I will
not enter into the merits of that question today. I have
only to say that we have had many requests made to this government by
the people of Manitoba through their legisature, speaking with
unanimous voice, for the extension of the boundaries of the province. This is a
most opportune time to have that question
settled, now that the new territories are having their boundaries
fixed. Let any one look at the map, and he will see the proposed new
provinces with an area of about 250,000 miles each. British
Columbia with 370,000 miles, Ontario with 200,000. and Quebec with 351,000 ;
and, in contrast with these, you find little Manitoba cribbed, cabined
and confined within an area of 73,000 square miles. The right hon.
Prime Minister gave his reason why he would not accede to the request of
the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories to have only
one province. He said in effect: Look at this one territory of 500,000
square miles, and then look at Ontario and Quebec with so much
less. Well, turn the right hon. gentleman's argument against himself ;
look at little Manitoba with an area of 73,000 square miles in contrast
with each of these other provinces with an area of 250,000 square
miles. Any person with a spirit of fairness must resent such treatment
of Manitoba at the hands of the Prime Minister. And what is the reason
for this refusal on his part to listen to the unanimous demand of the people
of Manitoba ? I am afraid the right hon, gentleman
has not been as frank with this House as he might have been. I am not sure
that we have had the true reason expressed publicly by the
representatives of the government why this treatment is meted out
to Manitoba in regard to her boundaries. The Prime Minister says that
the government cannot even accede to the request to extend the
boundaries of Manitoba northward to Hudson's Bay, but must consult Quebec,
2529
MARCH 15, 1905
must consult Ontario, and even must consult the new
province of Saskatchewan—but must not consult his own Minister of the
Interior. Apparently, he did not submit this question to the responsible
representative of the west, his own Minister of the
Interior, for I cannot and will not believe that that hon. gentleman (Mr.
Sifton) representing, as he does, a Manitoba constituency, and knowing the wishes
unanimously expressed of the
people of his own province—for this has not been a party question—would agree to have
the representations of
Manitoba turned down as they have been, and her request refused on the
ground that these other provinces must be consulted, even though Manitoba's
boundaries might be extended without trespassing upon a
single foot of territory belonging to any of these provinces. I think we
shall have to look to the press of the right hon. gentleman to find
out the reason. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has told us already
that the press supporting the right hon.
gentleman has given the reason away. I do not know whether
these newspapers speak by the book or not. The Prime Minister has stated
that he must not be held responsible for the utterances of his party
newspapers. But, when a paper like the ' Le Soleil ' will announce itself as follows
:
We declare, once for all, that ' Le Soleil ' is
the organ of the Liberal party, and by that fact is under the
direction and absolute control of Sir Wilfrid. The supporters of Sir
Wilfrid, and those who affirm themselves to be such, are begged to
take notice of the present declaration.
I say when the ' Le Soleil ' so announces itself, surely the Prime Minister
will not repudiate an organ that distinctly states that it is so
abject to him as to be under his absolute direction and control. And,
this is why Manitoba's boundaries have not been extended at the present
juncture, according to this paper :
The school legislation of the little province is not of a nature to
attract the immigrants who people the districts. The Northwest has
its separate schools. Manitoba has abolished them.
Every good act has its reward, every bad act its chastisement. Manitoba
will remain lowest with her pretentious law.
Is this the true reason ? Have we to go to the press of the right hon.
gentleman for his true reasons in these matters ? Is it not a
humiliating position for any government to be placed in, when one
of its own journals distinctly gives such a reason why Manitoba's
boundaries have not been extended ? But it is not only that one
journal which has been speaking in this manner. There is another
publication in the west, the ' Northwest Review,' which deals with the
very same question in much the same spirit. Speaking a couple of weeks ago
2530 about Mr. Rogers and the Winnipeg ' Telegram,' it says :
Two days after the ' Telegram ' had trumpeter abroad the Hon. Robert Rogers' great
hopes for the western
extension of Manitoba, the same wise and prophetic journal deplores the fact
that there will be no such extension in any direction.
Then this newspaper goes on to say :
But it omits to give the reason thereof. The
only obstacle to the territorial expansion of our province is its
iniquitous and cruel school system. Not even the wildest corner of any
unorganized territory willl consent to saddle itself with such a
tyranny. Manitoba must be content to remain small and mean so long as it
maintains its small and mean school policy.
Is that the kind of policy we have in that province? If it is, who is
responsible? Who but the right hon. gentleman's own colleague, the
ex-premier of Manitoba (Mr. Greenway) now the hon. member for Lisgar. It was Mr.
Greenway's government which passed the school
law, and the hon. gentleman, ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton)
is one of our public men who was mainly responsible for the passage of that law.
These gentlemen will hardly agree that it
is a mean and a cruel school policy. If there is any blame to be
attached to the people of the province by reason of this school policy, the
hon. gentleman's own friends are responsible and he himself
is accessory to the fact. He supported the instigators and the supporters of that
policy every time they appealed to the people of
Manitoba both before and since this Manitoba school law was passed. He
gave them every assistance in his power to gain their re-election, and he
has been heralded everywhere as the great conciliator, the
gentleman who settled the school question to the satisfaction of everybody.
But his own journals evidently are not satisfied. They say that it has
not been settled to the satisfaction of the minority, and that on that
account the boundaries of Manitoba will not be extended. Because that
province happens to he ruled at present by a Conservative
government and because that government will not alter the school
policy to suit the wishes of supporters of the right hon.
gentleman, we are to be denied our just request for an extension of our boundaries.
1 bring this matter to the attention of
the House because the right hon. gentleman may not be aware of the
extent to which the discussion of this question is carried in the journals
of the west. I have even seen that reason given circulation in the
Toronto ' Star.' Well, if we are to be treated in this way, we ought
to know it. The right hon. gentleman has never yet given this
House any reason why the request of Manitoba for an extension of its
boundaries should not be granted except the puerile one that he
2531
must consult three of the other provinces before he
can accede to it. But his own supporters are coming from Winnipeg to
protest against such treatment. The Board of Trade and the city council are
sending down deputations, and I trust the right hon. gentleman will
give some satisfaction to these representatives and remove the impression created
by his own press that the reason why the
application of Manitoba is denied is because the government of that
province will not change its school laws. As a singular indefiniteness
characterizes the utterances of the First Minister regarding
his intentions with respect to this measure. I am not in a
position to discuss it at present. He has not yet explained why he did
not consult his own colleagues and responsible ministers, the Minister of
Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the ex-Minister
of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) or why he did not consult on this educational
clause the First Minister of the Northwest Territories. Who then did
he consult? Did he consult the other members of the cabinet? Perhaps
not, except the subcommittee which drafted the clause. It
may turn out that until noon on the day the Bill was introduced, the other
members of the cabinet knew nothing about that clause. I
am forced to the conclusion that the Postmaster General (Mr.
Mulock) did know about it because he was a member of the sub-committee, but
I am somewhat shocked at his success in swallowing himself
as he has done. I have here a record of the views he held in 1896
regarding provincial jurisdiction. Let me read a few words of the speech he
delivered in this House on March 20th of that year, pages
4189 and 4190 of ' Hansard ':-
There are seven provinces in this Dominion.
There is territory out of which to carve many more. There is a minority in
every province. Shall we to-day, hastily, thoughtlessly and without
due consideration, without first exhausting every other means of
settlement, legislate as is proposed by this Bill, and place upon
our statute-book a statutory invitation to the minority in every
province now existing, and every province that may hereafter be carved
out of our territory, to appeal to the people's representatives in this
parliament to settle questions that might be better settled, under the
spirit of the Confederation Act, by the provinces in which those
questions arise.
Here is a distinct statement by the Postmaster General that,
according to the spirit of the Act of Confederation, these questions
should be settled, not by the Dominion parliament, but by the provincial
legislatures where they arise. He then realized that the question of
education should be left as a matter of provincial concern, to
provincial jurisdiction. But as a member of the sub-committee which
drafted this clause, he took entirely different ground.
2532
I do not desire to weary the House any longer. I simply rose, as a western
representative, to protest most strongly against the
course of the government in deciding this question and others incidental to
it in the absence of that representative in the cabinet from the west
whom the people of that country can hold particularly responsible. If the right
hon. gentleman wants to give the people directly
interested an opportunity to make their views known, let him select a
representative from the west to replace in the cabinet the ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) and have him go back to
the people for election. If he should be re-elected, then the right hon.
gentleman will be in a position to say that the people of the west
have given their sanction to this Bill and the other provinces should not press
further any ob~ jections. I would urge the right
hon. gentleman to adopt that mode of procedure without delay
and not push the Bill through the House first and then invite a
representative from the west to enter his cabinet. Let the people of that
country be given an opportunity of expressing their opinion and let
them have a representative in the cabinet to whom they can look to
vindicate their rights.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
SUPPLY― PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fielding, that
the House go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. F. L. SCHAFFNER (Souris).  Mr.
Speaker, I would not rise to-night to address this House on this
question, which has been so well discussed this afternoon —perhaps I
shall only be repeating very many of the statements that have been
already made—were it not that I felt it to be an imperative duty. There are
one or two reasons why I believe it imperative that I should have
something to say on this question. I will endeavour to-night, in
the few remarks which I make, not to discuss the Bill. There seems to
be a great temptation to enter into a discussion of the Bill.
When the proper time comes to discuss the Bill, I hope to have an
opportunity of making a few remarks. But I will say right
here that when the proper time comes my effort will be to address this House
on that question in a manner absolutely free from offence to any creed
or any set of people in this House or in this country. I believe that
this great question in connection with the formation of these two
provinces in the Northwest is more than a provincial question ; itÂ
is a national question ; and I believe that whatever men, or
whatever hon. members on this or the other side of the House
think, that is the way in which we should endeavour to discuss it.  There
are one or two reasons why I wish to trespass upon the time
of the House.  One is that I represent a constituency of the west,
which I can say—and I do not do it boastfully—has to—day more
elevators and grows more wheat, although it is somewhat of a large
district, than any other section of a similar size in the Dominion of
Canada. One other reason why I would like to make a few remarks is that
the present government were good enough to give us, before
the last election, increased representation. In order that we might have
that increased representation, it was necessary that the
constituencies that already existed should be divided.  I was particularly
favoured by having the honour of contesting a portion of the
constituency which has been repre― sented by the hon. member for
Brandon (Mr. Sifton).  I was given the south half. In the south
half of that constituency, which
2549
MARCH 15, 1905
was controlled by and which always elected my hon.
friend the member for Brandon when he was able to bring those wonderful
powers which he possessed to bear upon the electorate, he was able to
secure a majority of 200 or 300. To-day, after that power has been
withdrawn, the same people who elected him were good enough to
elect me by a majority of a little over 500. Knowing, as I do what
these same people think on this great question, I feel it my duty to
trespass upon the time of the House for a short while.
Now, Mr. Speaker, although I am new in this parliament, I am not very new
in the matter of years, and I am not very new in my knowledge of the
political aspect of this country and of my friends who sit on the
other side of the House. Living so near as I do to the hon. member for
Brandon (Mr. Sifton), we became to same extent at least
chums—I do not know if that is a parliamentary expression, but it is at all
events a somewhat endearing term. I do not suppose the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sifton) wants my sympathy, but I cannot help being a
little sensitive for him and I feel very deeply the manner in which he was
treated in connection with this Bill. Some time ago, when we asked the
First Minister as to when the member for Brandon might be expected
back, we were told he was in the south for his health. Soon after that Bill
was introduced, and from a health point of view it was very unfair to
compel the Minister of the Interior to make such a break
neck journey to Ottawa, and after getting here to force him to rush out on
the street to ascertain what were the contents of the Autonomy Bill
which had been introduced to parliament. The Prime Minister told
us to-day that the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) had asked for
three weeks' delay between the first and second readings of this Bill,
but hon. gentleman will remember with what derisive cheers from the government supporters
that request of the member for East Grey
was met at the time. The three weeks asked for by the member
for Grey have passed and although this House of Commons has not been
very busy, we are still waiting for the second reading. To-day the honoured
leader of the opposition endeavoured to get some information from the
premier as to when the second reading would be moved, and when that
request was made a gentleman on the Liberal benches remarked : You will
know soon. Well, I for one, would like to know how long that 'soon'
is. We have the information now that the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Sifton) was not consulted as to this Bill, that the Minister of Finance
was not consulted either, and that Mr. Haultain, the Prime Minister of
the Territories was not consulted as to the educational clauses. The
Prime Minister tried to make out that Mr. Haultain had been consulted, but I
have too much confidence in the ability of
2550 the right hon. gentleman to think that he for one moment thought that
he was making the House believe any such thing. So far as we
know at present, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Finance, Mr.
Haultain and the members of parliament from the Northwest Territories
were not consulted on this matter. Right here I would like to say that
this afternoon during the discussion of this great question, not one
member from the Northwest Territories supporting the government
was in his place in the House. I do not know all these members and
that statement may not be correct, but I am told that it is a fact.
Any way, whether they were here or not they were absolutely silent on the
question and I suppose the inference is they are satisfied with what
has occurred. I have not such a deep interest in the other members of the government
as I have in the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton)
and therefore I am not so concerned in the fact that the
others were not consulted about this matter, but I really do feel chagrined
that the Minister of the Interior should have been so slighted. There
are other gentlement in the cabinet, who, if they were consulted must have experienced
an extraordinary
conversion from their views if they gave their consent to such a measure as
that now before the House. In 1896, when the Manitoba school question
was before parliament, the present Minister of Militia (Sir
Frederick Borden) said :
This measure proposes to make use of the
powers of this House as has never been attempted since
confederation, namely, to interfere, to amend, to supplement, to
change the legislation of a province with reference to a subject over
which the provinces have exclusive control under our federal
system of government.Â
Even if I rested my case there, that is pretty strong language from the
Minister of Militia and we have no reason to think that his views have
changed since. How did it come that he gave his consent, or was it
that he was not thought of When the consulting was going on. Sir
Wilfrid Laurier (then Mr. Laurier, leader of the opposition) used this
language :
But the hon. gentleman knows that the bitterness of the initiation of confederation,
the feeling
against the coercion then practised has never been removed, and never will
entirely disappear until it is buried in the grave of the
last man of that generation whose manhood was outraged by the arbitrary
proceeding which trampled under foot the dignity and manhood of a
proud people.
That reference to coercion was intended by Mr. Laurier for Sir Charles
Tupper in relation to his efforts to bring Nova Scotia into
confederation, but I am old enough to remember some things which were said
and done by members of the present govern
2551
COMMONS
ment in reference to the same matter and which they
would no doubt like to forget.
Now, it is my opinion, and I say it believing it from the bottom of my
heart, that it will be more than ten years, when many of us who are
now in this House will have reached the chloroform stage, before this
question will be satisfactorily settled by the Bill which was introduced a
short time ago. Again, the Minister of Militia said :
My hon. friend (Mr. Laurier) might have gone
further than he did in his statement because it will not only be the
last man who was able to exercise the franchise of that time but
his children and his grandchildren will have to pass away before the
memory of that unjust Act is effaced from the minds of the people of
Nova Scotia. . . . When we think that we are about to pass a system of laws
upon the subject of education which is exclusively a provincial right, and that
we are going to impose upon a great province this
law for all time, no matter how the circumstances may change, or how
the population may change, or how desirous they my be to make a
change in that matter, when we think that for ever that law, by our act
here, is to be fastened upon that unwilling province, surely it ought to
cause us to pause.
Again, he said, that nine-tenths of the people were known to be opposed to
that legislation, just as the vast majority of the people of Canada
to-day are known to be opposed to the Bill which these hon. gentlemen
are now trying to force through this House. Further he says :
And I dare say it is fitting that the hon.
gentleman who so successfully bull-dozed the legislation of Nova Scotia in
1867 could carry confederation through the House against the well
understood wishes of the people of that province, should be brought here to
coerce this House into passing legislation which the majority
of the people are opposed to and which is inimical to the interest of the
province of Manitoba and the interest of the Dominion at large. . . .
We hear a great deal about the rights of minority. I believe in preserving
and conserving the right of minority, but, Sir, we are here under a
system of responsible govern-Â ment, and the very foundation stone of
respon-Â sible government is to govern in the interest of the majority
with a view to the greatest good of the greatest number.
That is a noble and very old and tried sentiment.
It is most gratifying to us on this side of
the House, whose policy has favoured this course from the first,
because my hon. friend the leader of the opposition long ago laid down
the policy of investigation and the policy of conciliation as
opposed to the policy of blind coercion.
And I want to say that if anybody reads the speech then delivered by the
then Mr. Laurier, now the right hon. leader of this House, he will find
that the very core of his argument, the silver thread that ran
through it from beginning to end, was the argument
2552
of investigation. Now, it has not been shown to us that the First Minister
took any great pains to make an investigation before introducing his
own Bill ; he did not even consult the members of his own cabinet.
What possible good can be served by proceeding with this Bill until we know what
becomes of these
negotiations. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman who leads this House
has conducted himself in such a way as to give every
indication of the strongest desire to annoy the government and the people of
Manitoba to the utmost extent of his ability. . . . Well, Sir, I
leave it to the hon. members of the House to judge who are mainly
responsible if these fires have been kindled in this Dominion—whether it
is those hon. gentlemen who rush madly into this offensive course
toward the province of Manitoba, or whether it is my hon. friend here,
the leader of the opposition, who has always counselled moderation, who has
always counselled conciliation, who asks only that all the
facts of the case be ascertained and the fullest information be secured
before this tremendous step is taken.
The right hon. gentleman said something today about creeds. I want to ask
right here, who is responsible if we have any trouble with creed, race
and religion in connection with this Bill? Upon whom must this House
and this country place the responsibility if it is not upon the right
hon. gentleman and his cabinet who have introduced these unnecessary clauses
into this Bill ? The hon. Minister of Militia went on :
Was the hon. gentleman able by himself to
make up his mind what alterations should be made in the tariff ?
He is asking when the great fiscal policy was introduced into this country
by the great party which I have no hesitation in saying has introduced
nearly all the great policies of this Dominion. I admit that these
policies have been followed by our friends on the other side. They may not
be very good introducers of policies, but they are first-class mimics.
I am very thankful that in their fiscal policy they have come so near
to adopting those rules and directions that were laid down by the members of the
great Conservative party. The hon. gentleman said
:
Was the hon. gentleman able by himself to
make up his mind what alterations should be made in the tariff ? No, Sir, he
took his two assistants, the Comptroller of Inland Revenue and the
Comptroller of Customs with him and he went all over the country and called
into his counsel people who are going to be affected by the
legislation which he proposed—that is, some of the people. But at any rate
he laid down this principle that he was going to enact legislation
which affected the rights and might affect prosperity of the people of this
country, and that it was his duty to consult or con-Â fer
with those people who are to be affected by the legislation which he
proposed to enact.
Now, there is no use in saying that we have rumours. The rumours are
regrettable,
2534
MARCH 15, 1905
but where there is so much smoke there must be some
fire, and there is no doubt that there is a great disturbance in the cabinet
to-day, a disturbance which is retarding business and is detrimental
to this House and this country. Then the hon. gentleman referred to
what was said by Mr. Kenny, a member for Halifax, as to the way the school
laws were being operated in the province of New Brunswick, as follows
:
I was glad to hear him say he went further, and would be willing to
leave it to the common sense of the majority of the people of this
country that they would not inflict an injury upon any minority in this
country. Well, Sir, if that is the case, if the hon. gentleman has so
much confidence in the good sense of the people, why should he not
leave the administration of the law in the province of Manitoba to the
people who are charged with administering that law ? Why not give
them an opportunity at any rate of showing whether they are willing,
by the administration of the law, to do as the government and
people of Nova Scotia have done—that is, consult the prejudices or
requirements of the minority of that province. Mr.
Speaker, in the province of New Brunswick we have a law similar to that
of Nova Scotia. I was here during part or the time in 1872-73-74
when the question of the New Brunswick school was brought up by the
present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who invited us to interfere. Wisely, Sir,
we abstained from interference, and what is the result to-day ? The result is that
in
New Brunswick the law is being administered in a way that is satisfactory
to all classes of the community. Suppose we had listened to the
hon. gentleman who now fills the position of Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, who so eloquently urged upon us the necessity of interfering with the legislation
of New Brunswick,
and had undertaken to interfere with the laws of that province. Suppose
we had interfered, what would have been the position in
that province to-day ? Think you that you would have had the same
amicable and friendly relations between that province and this
Dominion that exists to-day ? No, Sir. If the hon. gentleman had
prevailed he would have sown the seed of discord throughout this Dominion. As a
result I say that to-day you have in the
province of New Brunswick as happy a condition of things as
exists in the province of Nova Scotia, so also in the province of Prince
Edward Island. There is a Public School Act and there is no
difficulty among the different denominations in that province.
There we have the three maritime provinces of this Dominion presenting
an object lesson to this parliament to take note of and to take
warning by that it is possible, nay that it is probable that if the
province of Manitoba is left to the administration of its own laws
it will administer them in such a way in its own interests, if it is
wise that every part of the community shall be satisfied.
These are the words, these are some of the sentiments expressed by the
Minister of Militia who, I suppose or really I cannot suppose, was one
of those who sanctioned the Bill introduced some three weeks ago.
But hon. gentlemen opposite propose, without having given that province
an opportunity to
2554 say whether they desire to make their law satisfactory to the
minority of that province, to start out on a policy of coercion. They
take the province of Manitoba by the throat by issuing
their remedial order, and then follow up that remedial order by
legislation.
Hon. gentlemen propose to coerce that province. Mr. Speaker, I
ask you and I ask this House whether anything was ever gained anywhere by a policy
of coercion. I say you cannot
coerce Manitoba, and the legislation will be a failure. We hear a good
deal about the rights of minorities.
And that is something of which we will hear a good deal when this question
comes up for discussion. I said in the beginning that I believed in
treating these questions freely, that I believed in treating them on
high national principles and when we treat them in that way we will
certainly settle all these questions to the very best interests of this country.
I have referred to the particular view that the
member for Leeds takes of the rights of the minority, but speaking
seriously we all desire from the bottom of our hearts to protect the
rights of the minority everywhere. The rights of the minority appeal to our
best sympathy always. But, Sir, we have to consider what is the best
course in the interest of that minority. Is it the best course to pursue in
the interest of the minority to run a muck of the great majority of
the people of Manitoba and to attempt coercive measures upon that
province ? No, Sir, I think not. I think that no more fatal mistake
could be committed in the interest of the minority of Manitoba than to
attempt to force this measure through this House at this time.
If we substitute 'the Northwest Territories' for 'Manitoba' we
will have a pretty good description of the Bill which is now proposed
in this House, and which no doubt this House will be asked to sanction. We
have here just what the Minister of Militia thinks about this
question, and if he thinks that, how is it possible that he could have
approved of the present Bill which is contrary to the views which
he expressed before. Now, let us sum up briefly the opinions which he expressed. First
he objects to coercion. None
of us like that word. Then he takes the stand that what is past cannot
be changed even down to the third or fourth generation. I am afraid that
before that time we will all be chloroformed. He also
takes the stand for provincial rights he thinks the minority should be
considered, he thinks that before any great change in the policy of the
country is made there should be an investigation. He thinks that if
Manitoba is left to administer its own laws it will administer them in its
own interest and in the interests of all parts of the Dominion. I have
taken some pains to find what the minister said on this question, and I want the
House to take it into consideration that it is
difficult to understand how this gentleman ever supported
the introduction of a Bill of this spirit. As
2555
COMMONS
regards the extension of the boundaries of the
province of Manitoba, I would like to say that I think that is a right
principle. The people of that province have been to a large extent
pioneers in that western country ; they have been pioneers in reference to
the government of that western country. In that case are they not
deserving of some rights now ? When the First Minister wanted to make
two provinces in the Northwest he seems to have been determined on
making them so large that even the member for Calgary, who
lives in that district, thinks they are too large and yet he did not
even consult the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of
Finance or I believe the Minister of Militia, or several other
ministers. It is impossible, the First Minister says, to extend
the boundaries of Manitoba unless he calls into council with him the
province of Quebec, Ontario and the Northwest Territories. I claim that
that is not fair to us in Manitoba. I cannot understand how it is that
the hon. the First Minister could occupy as much time as he does in
replying to straight away questions put from this side of the House, and say
so little. It seemed to me that he absolutely failed to give
information. I suppose, perhaps, that is part of the game and that
I have not been here long enough to understand, but I think
on some points at least we should have the information we asked. He
said to-day that although this question had been before the people for some
three weeks the only fault found with it was in connection with the
school clauses. This House must remember that the people who are most
interested in that clause are scattered over very many hundred
miles of this country and it takes quite a long while for mails to
reach them, but if that hon. gentleman has not yet received any communication from
that country objecting to any other clause
except the school clause, I wish to read to-night a petition that has
been received since the meeting of the House this afternoon, which will show
that there are others and perhaps just as great objections to this
Bill. This petition is as follows :
The undersigned settlers in and around the
town of Neudorf, Assiniboia, do strongly protest against the
proposed action of the Autonomy Bill in regard to the compensation
offered by the present government, for withholding our public lands
from us. Also in regard to clause 23 which leaves the exemption of Canadian
Pacific Railway from taxation for ever free, and lastly
in regard to the educational clauses, and we wish to express our
indignation, to the above, by appending our signatures as follows :
I am glad to have an opportunity of presenting this petition
before the right hon. gentleman, and of assuring him that from this
time forward, he is likely to receive a great many petitions of the same
kind. A question that affects me personally, as greatly as any is the
fact that that great
2556
country west of Lake Superior is not represented to-day in the
Dominion government. However great his ability may be, no man on
either side of this House at such a time in the history of the country as
this can be Prime Minister and at the same time perform with
satisfaction the duties of the Minister of the Interior. I hold that this
cannot be done, and I want to say further that I do not want to
detract from any eastern province. Nearly all of us who have
been in that western country for 20, 25 and 30 years, who have been
pioneers, nothwithstanding that we have made that country our home, we
are sons of the east ―I am sure this is true of the majority of the
people of that country—and we are loyal to the east. Personally, though I
have been in the west for twenty-four years, I never hear the word '
Nova Scotia ' spoken but it fills me with pride. And I believe that is
true of every easterner. Every member of this House, I am sure, believes
that if this Canada of ours is to be a great country like the country
to the south of us, great in population, in trade and in wealth, the
resources upon which its progress must be based lie west of Lake Superior.
We have, perhaps, to take some of our lessons from the east, but it we
are to become great, if we are ever to have forty or fifty millions of
inhabitants, it must be because of the resources of the west. And yet that
country is deprived of a man in the council to represent our case as
it should be represented. That is not a condition of affairs that
ought to exist to-day. I think I need not say more on the subject of the
extension of the boundaries. If I were to talk for an hour I could not
make myself better understood than by the statement that I believe it
is the right of Manitoba to have her boundaries extended. And we
should have at once a Minister of the Interior, a man who can do
our business for us. And I would like to make a suggestionwell, no ; I have no right
to put it that way; I would like to submit a
request—to the First Minister that when he, in his own good time,
appoints a Minister of the Interior, he will appoint a man who is
responsible to the people. We do not want a man, however
great his ability may be, that belongs to some constituency in which he
is not directly responsible to the people. I would like to see some
constituency in the west opened up to test public opinion on these
great questions. I think we are ready for it. When this question was being
settled for Manitoba the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) was very anxious for investigation. Well, Mr. Speaker,
don't you think that a very good way to find out what the people think
upon this question would be to throw open one of the constituencies ?
We are not very particular which constituency in the west these hon.
gentlemen decide to open ; any of them will
2557
MARCH 15, 1905
afford a fair test. I thank the House very much
for the kind attention with which they have heard me.
only a few minutes of your time, Mr. Speaker, in stating, as briefly as
possible my views on the phase of the provincial autonomy question that is now before
us. I was much surprised to hear the Prime
Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) state this afternoon that he believed
that the clauses of his Bill affecting education were the only
clauses not satisfactory to the people of the Northwest Territories.
If the Prime Minister believes that he expresses the opinions of the people
of the Northwest when he says that, except for the educational
clauses, they are entirely in accord with the Bill, I can only tell him
that I believe that he is mistaken. What his sources of information
may be, I do not know. But this is one of the reasons, I think, why we
should have a Minister of the Interior to represent that country and
express at the council board the wishes of its people. Dealing with the
question which involves such important questions, such grave financial
responsibilities and controls such vast areas of land, and dealing
also with the right of half a million people, it seems perfectly plain
that those people should be represented in the government. I do not
consider that we are represented at this time. And that is one of the objections
the people have to the present situation. We in the
Northwest will not be satisfied unless we get the handling of our own
lands and our own minerals. I for one believe that no compensation could be
given by this government that would reconcile the people of
that country to being deprived of this control, for this involves far
more than dollars and cents to the people. I wish to put myself on
record as saying that there are several clauses in the Bill
as objectionable to our people as the clauses dealing with education.
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (North Toronto). Mr. Speaker, the discussion of this afternoon, I
believe, has not been without its lessons for this House and the country.
Any one of an observant turn of mind sitting in the gallery
or even on the floor of this House, would have thought over a great
many things, while many deductions from the circumstances would have forced
themselves upon his mind. Why is it, for instance, that when an important question
of this kind is being discussed we
are not afforded even the courtesy of having responsible
ministers—still ministers, however long they may continue in their
positionsin their seats ? The conduct of the policy of
the government of which they form, I suppose, a responsible part is being
reviewed by His Majesty's loyal opposition. I do not think there is
any sufficient answer to that
2558 question. I think these ministers ought to be here. I think they owe
it to themselves, to those they represent and to the country at large
to be present in their seats. And yet, as this discussion has gone on the
observant person would have noticed that at one time
there would be but one minister in his seat, at another time two, sometimes
even three, but the number always very small. Now, it may be good
policy for hon. gentlemen opposite to affect a show of indifference,
and, perhaps, at the same time to conceal their true feeling, which is
not indifference, but a very genuine discomfiture at the mistakes
they have made and the position in which they find themselves. Why is
it also that when a subject involving so greatly, the interests of the
Northwest is under review, we find almost all the members on the other
side representing constituencies in the Northwest Territories
absenting themselves from their places ? Was it because
they have such superior knowledge and such superior parts that they
did not think it consistent with their high qualities to listen to
animadversions and to statements reflecting on a policy of the
government or a Bill which vitally afects themselves ? I do not think it
was. I think that their modesty would not allow them to come to any
such conclusion. Then was it because they were supremely careless and did not care
a fig how things went? I hardly think it was that
either. Or was it because they were schooled to silence and told to say
nothing and get out of the House? Perhaps that would come nearer the
right answer than either of the other suppositions I have made. These
hon. gentlemen opposite were wont to be voluble enough. In 1896, their
tongues were not tied. When they were on this side of the
House they had a volume of speech and sound which was admirable, long
continued and vehement it seemed to come from inexhaustible sources. Why
are those gentlemen so silent now ? Why is it they have not a single
word to say in their own defence? Why is it that responsible
ministers who, I suppose, count for something in the cabinet—some ministers do count
for something—why is it that two of them at
any rate who counted for something were forestalled deliberately
before the Bill was brought down. The others who remained, and who presumably did
not count for much, were simply taken in hand by
that autocrat, the First Minister. His Bill was rushed in and he
practically said to these gentlemen : there it is before you and the country
; you can support it or not as you please. I make bold to say, Mr.
Speaker, that never before has any parliament witnessed such an
exhibition. Like whipped children fearing the lash, yet afraid to confess
their faults, the members of the government, from the
2559
COMMONS
highest to the lowest, sit in the House, take their
medicine and say nothing. To the simplest question they have no answer, or if they
attempt an answer—I should not put it in the
plural but in the singular—or if the Prime Minister attempts an
answer, it is an attempt not to give the information but to evade the
questions put to him. I put it to the right hon. gentleman as a
serious sensible man : Is it or is it not a question to which the opposition and
the country have the right to an answer, why he
rushed his Bill into parliament as the measure of a united government
when he knew that his two most important ministers were diametrically opposed to
one of the principal clauses in that Bill,
and had placed themselves on record as irrevocably pledged
against it time and again ? Was not that somewhat peculiar? One by one the
pretenses of the right hon. gentleman have been struck
from him, and by this time he stands before this House and country
pretty bare. He is no longer the somewhat picturesque object he
was a few months ago. Shorn of his feathers and his beautiful colours,
he is coming to be known more and more for what he is and what he has
proved himself. If in 1896, my right hon. friend secured any popularity among the
staunch stalwart Liberals of this
country, he secured it solely because he then made himself the champion of provincial
rights. And if to-day he has forfeited the
respect, esteem and confidence of thousands and tens of thousands in this country,
as he has, it is because he has at last
come out in his true colours as being the opponent and not the
champion of provincial rights. It is because he has reversed his
position. The position of 1896' was apparently a brave one. That of
1905 is an entirely different one, and to it is due the loss
of respect and confidence of which the right hon. gentleman and his
colleagues are only too well aware. The speech which he delivered in
this House not two weeks ago abounded in pretense and assumption, but
when the facts come to be known these are stripped from it one after
the other. He declared that he was about to put the crown of complete
and absolute autonomy on these western territories, and all his people
behind him cried out amen, and rent the air with their plaudits. But
five minutes after any one of them that listened knew that the two
most sparkling gems in that crown, the control of education, the right to
the public lands, were missing and thus rendered his
statement absolutely meaningless and without foundation. In 1896, what was
the plea of the right hon. gentleman ? It was that he wanted to
consult the people whose interests were chiefly affected. He wanted to
get at the exact condition of
2560
things amongst the people of Manitoba in order that he might find out the
exact remedy to be applied. He wanted to know exactly what the people
desired. He was, as he had often boasted, a democrat up to the hilt
and—he wished to find out exactly what the people required and
carry out their will. What reason had he for not giving autonomy a
year ago? Because he wanted to wait until he had ten representatives from that country
in this House instead of four. He wanted also
to have the executive of the Northwest here in order that he
might confer with them. And
yet when I asked the right hon. gentleman tonight whether he
embodied in that educational clause any of the fruits of that wide and
thorough consultation of the wishes of the 500,000 people of the Northwest, what
answer has he? He must answer that he had not.
When I asked him whether in that same clause be embodied the results
of his conferences and interchanges of opinion with the executive
of the Northwest Territories, his reply and that of Mr. Haultain taken
together show that he did not.
I ask him and ask hon. members from the Northwest sitting on that side of
the House if the educational clause embodied their last thought, or
deepest conviction, or complete assent, to what ought to be given to their
people in the Northwest, and I have but to ask the question to answer
it. Can the right hon. Prime Minister say that he did ? Yet in his
speech he declared that what he had the benefit of was, not only the
consultation with, but the advice of the representatives from the Northwest. Let him
get up and answer now whether the
educational clause embodied the advice, the last thought,
and best thought of the representatives from the Northwest. Let
any representative from the Northwest get up and say that it did so. I
challenge them to-night—those that are here—I challenge them. Does
that clause represent them ? Did it represent them when it was brought
down ? Does it represent them now ? There is not a man of them that will get
up on his legs and say that it does. All of the preceding negotiations
of the Northwest in reference to autonomy went on the assumption that the man chiefly
to be employed, the medium chiefly
to be considered, the representative through whom all the ideas should
filter to the government, was the right hon. gentleman's Minister of the Interior.
Does he deny that ? The records show it. The whole
course of the administration shows it. It was so in our time ; the
people from the outside get to the inside of the cabinet through an
accredited member of it. It is more so now, because, at the instigation of
my right hon. friend himself, the government have enlarged
and strengthened the functions of the cabinet minister. Not only have
they made each a cabinet minister as
2561
MARCH 15, 1905
to the country at large, but they have invested him with
what we may call a geographical ministerial responsibility, and
they have declared above board, honestly, we suppose, earnestly, we
know, that the new doctrine has been embodied in the government of this country,
that a minister is not only responsible to the
whole country, but he is especially responsible to the geographical division which
he is more intimately connected with.
Now, Sir, if that were good for a Fisher, why is it not good for a
Sifton ? If that were good enough when you wanted some machinery and
engineering in order to carry out a piece of vile patronage, why is it not a
thousand times better when the rights of 500,000 free people in the
great and growing Northwest are in question ? Good, when you
want to suppress a Dundonald, but bad, when you want to use it as the means
for keeping these 500,000 people from getting their wishes
embodied in parliamentary form. The pretense of absolute and complete autonomy has
been completely stripped off from the
right hon. gentleman. These pretenses were lovely and
beautiful when the speech was being delivered, and all the men on
that side of the House said 'amen' and rent the air with their
plaudits. What do they think now, that these pretenses are stripped off ?Â
Today the Northwest has no representative in the cabinet.
To-day I cannot say that the Northwest has any friend in the cabinet.
You are not legislating here for the province of Nova Scotia, you are not
legislating here for the province of Prince Edward Island, you are not
legislating here for the province of New Brunswick, of Quebec, of Ontario or
of British Columbia. Only in a general way are you legislating for
these provinces, and in this particular Bill that general way is a
very small way indeed. Thus we, the representative of these other provinces,
are legislating for a great people now and an immensely
greater people hereafter, laying down a hard granite mould, outside of
which they cannot step or run in their great growing life for all the years
that are to come. Yet these gentlemen who stood up in 1896 to demand
provincial rights, who stood up in 1896 in strong demand that the people
in the country for which that legislation was demanded were the people
whose wishes and will were to be found out—these people to-day rush
into legislation without consulting the accredited representative of
the Northwest, who, I do not think, have a single friend in the cabinet. Why
should I think they have not a single friend in the cabinet ? Who is a
friend ? The hon. Minister of the Interior had his convictions. He
made them known. The right hon. First Minister knew them. But there
were other men who said they had convictions. The hon. minister who
sits alongside my right hon. friend, the Postmaster General (Sir
William Mulock), said in 1896 that he had
2562 convictions. They were as strong as those that were held by the
Minister of the Interior. That hon. minister has been in the
cabinet. He has seen his brother minister who had convictions leave it for
these convictions. He himself has subscribed to the clause
which has made it necessary for his brother minister, the Minister of the
Interior, to leave the cabinet. Can we count upon the
hon. Postmaster General as a friend of the Northwest Territories ? We
have got to say this, that the hon. Postmaster General agreed with
the legislation, helped to frame it, stands by it, let his convictions of the past
be what they may have been. We know the hon.
Postmaster General to be a man who has ideals when they are
pleasant, who has ideals, and high ones, when he is aiming for power, but
who forgets to practise them when once he gets into power.
What have we to-day ? My right hon. friend has declared before this
House that he does not propose to take into consideration at present the
nomination of a minister of the Northwest Territories. How long are we
going to sit in this parliament without having a minister for the
Northwest Territories, without having the cabinet filled up ? The hon.
Postmaster General had ideals at one time. One ideal was that you
should not keep offices dangling before the minds and eyes of representatives for
fear you might influence them corruptly.
What a splendid thing to keep dangling to-day is the ministership for
the Northwest Territories ? How effectively my right hon. friend
might use it, and he knows how to use such things. He used them with
Mr. Langelier, and all the world knows it. He has been using them ever
since, and all Canada knows it. How nice it is to see him now holding this
Ministership of the Interior up before the gaze of all
the members from the Northwest, as much as to say—and it is not necessary
for the right hon. First Minister to say it in words—behold the
beautiful thing ! See the patronage and power that are attached to it!
Look at the splendour which crowns it ! It is for one of you, which one I do
not say ;Â but it is certainly not going to the chap who does not
stand by me. Yet the hon. Postmaster General, who made a long crusade
against that kind of thing at a period when he had ideals, helps to forward
the same gross and material conception as an aid to twentieth century
statesmanship.
Where is the Minister of Finance ? He too was a brother of the Minister of
the Interior in these good old days when they were straining for power
and when it was popular to advocate provincial rights. Can any
stronger statements be made by anybody than were made by the
Minister of Finance ? Is that the reason why the Bill should have been
brought down before the Minister of Finance got here ? Any way the
Bill is down and the education clause is in it. Is the Minister of Finance a
friend
2563
COMMONS
of the Northwest, is he to take the place of the
Minister of the Interior ? Their opinions were the same, their
convictions were the same, one has stood by his convictions and gone
out—the other, where oh where is he ? It is said that he may go out ; well,
he may go out. And there is the Minister of Customs, not in his seat
of course, but the Minister of Customs has a record on this very
question. In what thundering tones in 1892 and 1896 and years inclusive,
did he pulverize these Tories who were against provincial rights.
Where is he today ? Is he a friend of the Northwest, or does
he believe in the school clause as it is, and has he been one of those who
has favoured it and brought it down, and so must stand by
it. And the Minister of Militia ; his record has been read. The
statements he made in 1896 were as strong as ginger ; were stronger in fact.
Does he too acquiesce ? Now, there is the government for
you, with all its pretenses stripped, with its professions of 1896
absolutely reversed, flinging to the winds anything smacking
of the democratic idea of consulting the people whose interests
are at stake. And, like the autocratic Czar of Russia, the Prime
Minister rushing his Bill in before his ministers can get together to
consult him, declaring the Bill to embody his doctrine and the doctrine on
which he is bound to stand. What is the weakness of the Czar of Russia
to-day ? It is because he does not consult the people ; it is worse
than that : it is because while not consulting the people he
consults only the Grand Dukes. The Prime Minister of Canada is in the
same position to-day. The people, are the 500,000, out in the west for whom
he legislates. Who are the grand dukes ? We know right well whom he
has not consulted, but do we know whom he has consulted if there has been any consulting.
I am bound to say that if anybody
is to be consulted it is the members of this House primarily, and it
is essentially the representatives of the people of the great
Northwest for whom we are legislating in this matter.
When my friend the leader of the opposition put his question and put his
case today, every man in this House noticed how he was answered. The
question was : Why so much haste to get the Bill down two days before
two of his most responsible ministers could arrive here, when three
weeks have since elapsed without a step in advance ? That was a fair honest
question. What was the answer the right hon. gentleman
gave ? Did he himself believe in that answer ? Did any man who heard
him believe in it ? He tried to make it appear that this delay was
all due to the fact that my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) asked
him not to be in too great a hurry to bring on the second reading of the
Bill. I ask the right hon. gentleman now: Is that the reason of this
delay of three weeks ? The right hon. gentleman knew it was not
2564
the reason when he stated it, and why then make that
answer ? If that was simply the reason, why all this travelling to
and fro by the ministers for the last three weeks ; why these frequent
consultations ; why this disruption in the cabinet ; why the rumour of
other ruptures; why this government reduced to utter incapacity for
three weeks ? Is it all because the member for Grey asked the Prime Minister
to postpone the second reading ? My right hon. friend may take credit
to himself for having dodged the question, but he cannot
take credit for having answered it. What reply has the Prime Minister to the
question put to him as to whether he thought it right to
go on in this matter in the absence of any accredited representative
from the Northwest Territories. Has he given any answer ? There is none. I
call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that this is all
the worse because there are now two departments of government which
are in hypothec, so to speak ; they are not being carried on by men
responsible to this House. One is under the nominal
headship of my old friend Sir Richard Cartwright, but Sir Richard Cartwright is
in another House, and the deputy minister is not
physically able to transact the business. That is not a live department, and we
only needed to have the exhibition of
the Minister of Customs trying to put through its simple estimates to tell
us how little anybody else know about that department. There is the
Department of Public Works not under a responsible head. I sympathize
as much as any one can with the cause that prevents our friend the minister from
being in this House, but the business of this
country must go on, and sickness, and death, cannot always be pleaded
as an excuse for the public business not going one. It is high
time that there should be a responsible minister in this House in
charge of the Public Works. I believe it is nominally under my hon.
friend from London (Mr. Hyman). Will not the Prime Minister now do a good
turn to the hon. member from London, and do a good turn to the public
service, by accepting the resignation of the Minister of Public Works
at once and giving a chance to my hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) to go back to his
old constituency and get the endorsation of his people.
Mr. FOSTER. The hon. gentleman would
run where he ran before.
Mr. FOSTER. Only twenty ; but this
Bill which has been brought down in such a hurry is of such sterling quality
and commends itself so strongly to the electorate of the
west, that it would be a strong factor in favour of the member of London
if the constituency were opened now. My hon. friend (Mr. Hyman) will
not be doing
2565
MARCH 15, 1905
his duty and living up to his responsibilities, and
gauging the possibilities of the passing hour, if he does not demand that he
shall have an opportunity of testing the feelings of the people of
London. The portfolio of the Interior is vacant. To-night in this city,
there are two or three hundred men from all parts of the Dominion, and
especially from the great Northwest, who are down here to do business
with the Minister of the Interior, and very important business at
that. Can they do it ? No, it is absolutely impossible. Even this
House has not been able to do anything in connection with the Interior
Department for the last three, or four, or five weeks. The right hon. gentleman
says he is trying to administer the department. He may
be trying to do it, but he will not think I am saying anything out of
the way when I say that he is not doing it, and it is practically impossible
for him to do it. It is a very large department, with great
ramifications. The right hon. gentleman has all he can do without trying
to master the details of that department. It is impossible for him to
do it ; he cannot undertake it and he cannot overtake it. Why should
not my right hon. friend appoint his Minister of the Interior and let him go
to his constituency and come back here as soon as possible in order
that the business of this country may go on ? It will not take long,
and it will serve another very useful purpose, the purpose, namely, of
testing the feeling of the Northwest itself upon the measure which my right
hon. friend has brought down. Will he do it ?
Some hon. MEMBERS. No.
Mr. FOSTER. I do not think he will ;
but I think he ought to do it in the interest of good government and also in
the interest of a full and free expression, in the only way
in which it can be given, of the people of the Northwest in regard to the
measure which he has brought down.
My right hon. friend accused the leader of the opposition of treating this
subject lightly. Well, I must say that I bent forward
quickly in my seat when I heard that expression, to make sure that it was
the expression actually used. If the treatment of my hon.
friend the leader of the opposition was light treatment, what does the
right. hon gentleman think of his own treatment? If the earnest,
honest, straightforward way which my hon. friend beside me took to put
his question and to ask for explanations was light treatment, what was the
tone adopted and the arguments used by the right hon. gentleman
himself ? Surely my right hon. friend must have been laughing inside of
himself when he made that statement. Does not my right hon. friend see this?
He took his own method of getting his information; he took his own
time to consult the members of his government―those whom he
chose to consult ; he took his own leisure
2566 to frame a measure that should be adequate ; and so sure was
he that it was adequate that he could not wait until the second
reading to make his argument, but made it on the introduction of the Bill.
However, he had taken his ground, and was determined to stand to
it—that was the position of my hon. friend when he introduced this Bill three weeks
ago. Now he says that even his government is
not above making changes if they are necessary, studying the
people and the expression of their feelings, and trying to meet them if they
possibly can. Should not that have been done before ? The right hon.
gentleman spoke of the gravity of the question. It is a grave
question. I do not think we are going to discuss this question,
whenever it does come before us, in any other than an open, honest and
straightforward manner, on its merits. The merits of separate schools
are not involved in this Bill. It is a constitutional
question, pure and simple, as it seems to me. If we differ upon it, we will
differ as gentlemen differ, not reproaching each other for differences
of creed or race.Â
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FOSTER. Hon. gentlemen do not wish
to do that. They are opposed to such a course as that. Very well ; they can
have their way. If they wish the other way, they can have it ; but if
they do wish it, upon themselves will be the responsibility, that is
all ; and there is this further to be said, that although no man knew better
than my right hon. friend the danger of explosion, the
closeness and nearness with which opinions on creed and race are held,
and the danger that whenever you touch them you will have harsh expressions,
which will grate upon opposing ears—although no man knew better than my
right hon friend, for he has been through these from confederation up, yet, when
it was not called for, when he himself disowned
it in the first part of his speech, he forgot himself in the latter
part and raised the question pure and simple of public schools as opposed
to separate schools. Now, if in the heat of debate some harsh
expression is used, you will probably find the right hon. gentleman
and some of his followers saying : Oh, you are raising the sectarian
discussion. The sectarian discussion has been raised by my right hon.
friend. He has challenged the public school system of this country and of
this continent. He did it gratuitously ; it was absolutely unnecessary
; although in the first part of his speech he declared that he was not
going to do it. Therefore if there is any sinner, it is my right hon.
friend ; and if there be further sinners, so far as I am concerned, they
will be gentlemen on the other side of the House, and not
myself at least, nor, I believe, gentlemen on this side of the House.
Autonomy is a question which was bound to come up. No human
2567
COMMONS
foresight could, I suppose, have prevented it. New
provinces had to be created, and when they were created the question of
their educational rights would have to come up;Â Statesmanship
does not cower before a problem of that kind. It meets it in a
bold and statesmanlike way. We who represent the people of
different creeds and races have to meet it in this House, and whilst
we have our opinions and hold them strongly and express them
boldly, we will not, I hope, offend even the most sensitive of those
who do not agree with us on questions of creed or race.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to carry this further to-night. I am going
to reiterate what I think the right hon. gentleman ought to
take into consideration. He ought to fill up his vacant or dormant cabinet
positions, especially the one in which is needed a
representative of the Northwest people, whose interests are being legislated
upon; and I hope the right hon. gentleman will revise the statement
which he made a few days ago, that he does not propose to give his
attention to that matter at the present time. I think it ought to be done ;
we on this side of the House think it ought to be done ; I believe the
people of the great Northwest think it ought to be done. Deprived of their own champion
and representative in this matter,
they do at least ask the government of the day to give them another
representative through whom they can voice their opinions. It is not enough
to say to that great country and the million of people who are there :
Give your views to us, and we will take them into consideration. Everybody knows
that even a representative cannot go
where a minister goes. The formative process is in the cabinet itself,
and it is difficult to decide upon what is not formulated in the cabinet.
Therefore I say the west needs its representative, needs its champion.
How inadequate was the argument of my right hon. friend that there was
no objection to any part of this Bill but one clause. Suppose we take that
for granted, will not my right hon. friend admit that that one clause
is the great clause for this whole Dominion as well as for the
Northwest ? If public opinion centres, with unerring aim and unerring sense
of right, upon the one great essential clause, is that an argument for
saying that all the rest of a multiplicity of enactments are satisfactory
and find no dissentients in the Northwest or anywhere else in this
country ? It is simply that this one overshadows the others, but that
there are others my right hon. friend knows and he will know still better
as this discussion goes on. He will find out one thing I think and
that is that his financial terms, as he has placed them in this
Bill, will bring upon him every province in this Dominion. Already the
mutterings are in that direction, already the tendency is clearly
discernible. Take it on any ground
you like and by the proportions which you have meted out to the Northwest
and you have gone beyond the financial conditions of every other
province of this Dominion. That is why the Minister of Finance, I think,
should have been here and should have been considered when this Bill
was in preparation. But my right hon. friend will find that
there are other clauses besides the educational clause which will
be brought up.
Now what has the right hon. gentleman told us ? He gave us the wonderful
information the other day that amendments are very often
made to Bills and that they are very often made as the Bills go through
committee. He did not say whether he was going to amend the Bill or
not. To-day he rather foreshadowed an amendment. The right hon.
gentleman came out without its being necessary or constitutional, three
weeks, four weeks, five weeks, out of due season and ahead of time,
burned all his bridges behind him and made an impassioned
argument for the four chief points of his Bill. He nailed his colours to the
mast, and he declared that he would have the courage once his
convistions were formed to stand by those convictions. What said he in
1895 ?
Well, Sir, to be wanting in courage is a grave
charge I admit. But if to make promises and not to implement them is
courage, if to make threats and to quail before their consequences is
courage, if to be boisterous in language and meek in action is courage, if
to pass an order and refuse to execute it is courage, if to act in
such a manner as to force your best friends to the conviction that you are
deceiving them is courage, there is a galaxy of courageous men on the
treasury benches before us, such as we have not seen for a long time. Sir,
courage is a noble thing in itself, but foresight is not to be
despised either. Foresight is not to be despised in such a country
such as this, with all its conflicting elements. My courage is not of the
kind of courage possessed by hon. gentlemen opposite, I admit. My
courage is not to make hasty promises and then to ignominiously break
them. My courage is to speak slowly, but once I have spoken to stand or fall
by my words.
That is the right hon. gentleman's answer to the Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) to the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) to the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), to the Minister of Militia (Sir
Frederick Borden) to the people of the Northwest, to the people of this
broad Dominion : ' I have foresight ; I have used it. That Bill is the
result of it. In that I have made my promise and mine is the sterling
courage which never goes back on its promises.'
We will see, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice). It is not necessary for me Mr. Speaker, to say that I
have no desire to follow my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) on the path on
which he has entered. I have no desire to do it because I think it would
entail a useless waste of time in the first
2569
MARCH 15, 1905
place and in the second because I feel I am not by
any means qualified to tread the same path. However I think it proper to
say that my hon. friend's (Mr. Foster's) allusion to my
friend the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should
not pass unnoticed and my answer to him will be brief, brief because I
trust it will express the sincere convictions which I entertain. My
hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has spoken of the leader of the government (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) as one who has been shorn of his feathers ; he has
referred to him in contemptuous terms as the erring champion
of provincial rights. Now in the first instance let me say that in so far as
my hon. friend's allusion to the leader of the government
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as one who has been shorn of his feathers is
concerned, our answer to him is this : We have heard that statement,
not so eloquently put forth but put forth very frequently in this House,
and our answer is to appeal to the verdict which the people of this
country have given in 1896, have given again in 1900 and have renewed
in the month of November last, 1904. He has said that the leader of the
government has lost the respect and the confidence of the people of
this country. I venture to make this statement, Mr. Speaker, that the
leader of the government has not lost the respect nor the confidence
of any man in this country whose respect and whose confidence he values. My
hon. friend has gone on, leaving the path marked out by the leader of
the opposition when he began this discussion to-day, to challenge the
government to appeal to the country at the present time so as to see whether
or not, under existing conditions, the conduct of the government in
respect to this Northwest Territories Bill will be approved of. I say
Mr. Speaker, and I say it deliberately, and I say it with the honest
conviction that .my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Foster) will agree
with me that designedly gentlemen opposite, as representing the Conservative
party, have appealed to passions, have aroused prejudices in
this country--
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FITZPATRICK—in connection with
this Bill upon which they expect to rely. But they will find that appeal in
the present time to be nothing more than a broken reed as was the case
in 1896 when they endeavoured to appeal to the passions and
prejudices of the Catholics in this country.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Sit down. Order, order.
Mr. SPROULE. I rise to a point of order.
I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is in order to say
that the opposition deliberately and of set purpose appealed to the
passions of the people.
Mr. SPROULE. I ask the ruling of
the Speaker if the hon. gentleman has not gone beyond the bounds '
deliberately and of set purpose '.
Mr. SPEAKER. I think that that statement goes a little beyond the bounds of parliamentary decorum.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. If that expression
goes beyond the rules of parliamentary etiquette as suggested by the hon.
member for North Toronto, I will attempt to pare it down, and instead
of making the statement I will bring forward the proof. What
is going on at the present time, in this country, Mr. Speaker ?
What is being done ? Petitions are being circulated emanating from the
other side, addressed on the one hand to the people of Ontario in the hope
that they may arouse them against this Bill on the ground that the
privileges of the Northwest Protestants are being invaded.
And, on the other hand, what have we going on ? Petitions emanating from
the same source addressed to the Catholics of the province of Quebec.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Petitions are being circulated throughout the province of Quebec asking what
? Asking that this government should be forced to adopt that clause in
this Bill that hon gentlemen opposite are asking the people from
Ontario to repudiate.
Mr. FOSTER. Will my hon. friend (Mr.
Fitzpatrick) allow me a word? He said he was going to prove it. Does he not
acknowledge the gravity of the charge ? Will he not prove it ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What I for my part,
would ask is this : The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has said
that there were petitions to the province of Quebec emanating from
this side, pointing to myself and to the gentlemen around me,
asking the Catholics of that province to urge the
government to pass this Bill. Now, I want to tell the Minister of Justice
(Mr. Fitzpatrick) that, so far as I am concerned--
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
2571
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Allow me to get
through;—so far as I know any act on the part of any other hon. gentleman on
this side of the House, the statement of the Minister of Justice is
without one particle of foundation.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend (Mr.
R. L. Borden) in his usual guarded way says that so far as he knows, this
statement is without foundation--
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I want hon. gentlemen opposite not to trouble themselves about attempting to
intimidate me.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. Hon. gentlemen must keep better order.
Mr FITZPATRICK. The statement I made
was that these petitions were being deliberately circulated in the province
of Quebec. And I make the statement now on the authority of a
colleague of mine in this House--
Mr. FlTZPATRICK—that these petitions are being circulated by one Elie Maurault, secretary of
the Jacques Cartier club, which has extended its hospitality to the
leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) within the last ten days.
Some hon MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. R. L BORDEN—if every other statement that the Minister of Justice has made is equally untrue
with the one he has just made, there is not the slightest truth in any
of those statements.
Some hon MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am perfectly in
order I am speaking of that which is within my own knowledge. I say the
Jacques Cartier club did not extend its hospitality to me within the
last ten days; and if the Minister of Justice has no better
knowledge of other facts than he has in this particular case, he had better
defer his remarks until he is more fully acquainted with
what he is talking about.
2572
Mr. FITZPATRICK. The statement I made
was that these petitions were being circulated--
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman stated that the club from which emanated these
petitions sent to Quebec had extended its hospitality to me within the
last ten days, meaning to imply, it he meant anything, that I had in some
way some connection with the circulating of those petitions. I ask him
to make that statement good, or, as a gentleman, to withdraw it.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. The statement that I
made was that these petitions were being circulated through the agency of
Mr. Elie Maurault, of the city of Montreal, secretary of the
Jacques Cartier club. The Jacques Cartier club is a prominent
Conservative organization in the city of Montreal. And, in that connection,
I said that the leader of the opposition had been entertained by the
Jacques Cartier club within the last ten days. I am now informed that in the last
statement I was incorrect, and I now take it back.
Some hon MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would like one
word more;—we might as well thrash these things out as we go along. The hon.
gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) said that he is able to prove
that those petitions emanated from some gentleman on this side of
the House. I ask him either to withdraw that statement or to name in
your presence, Mr. Speaker, and in the presence of members
of this House, the hon. gentleman on this side of the House from whom any
one of those petitions emanated.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I want to say for the
benefit of the leader of the opposition that I do not intend to allow him or
any other member in this House to put words into my mouth--
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
2573
MARCH 15, 1905
Mr. FITZPATRICK. What I said tonight was said for a purpose, and said deliberately—―
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not think the
hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) ought to say
'untruthfully.'
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FOSTER. I ask my hon. friend (Mr.
Fitzpatrick) if he will allow me to explain. If ever I heard anything
plainly and distinctly—and now, if I am wrong, I will take it back—it
was the statement made by the Minister of Justice that these petitions
emanated from hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.
Some hon. MEMBERS. No, no.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FOSTER. If the hon. gentleman did
not state that, then, my ears deceived me. But, I most certainly, have
pretty sharp ears.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not want to get
into any altercation with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)—―
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I think I am showing
a great deal of good temper about this matter.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. This is a personal
matter, and it seems to me it is better to thrash these things out on the
spot than have any ill-feeling on the matter afterwards. I
distinctly say, that, so far as my ears could gather the words of the hon.
gentleman, spoken distinctly and with a great deal of
passion and earnestness, they were that these petitions to which he
referred, and one which he said he held in his hands, emanated from
this side, and he pointed to this side of the House. I ask him to name
to this House and this country the hon. gentleman on this side from whom
these petitions emanated, or else to withdraw the statement.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I did not make the
statement that the petitions emanated from any hon. gentleman on the other
side of the House. I did make the statement that they emanated from
the other side--
2574
Mr. LENNOX. The hon. gentleman said
they emanated from the same source as the petitions from the province of
Ontario.
Mr. FOSTER. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Fitzpatrick) is pretty badly in—―
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It is because I am so
badly in that my hon. friends opposite ought to be more generous. It seems
to me not quite fair that I should have to answer four or five at a
time. When it is realized that I am endeavouring to come after the
hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) it seems to me that I ought
to have the sympathy of every member of this House.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I am entitled to the
hon. gentleman's (Mr. Foster's) sympathy, because my task is no easy one. I
quite understand that. Now, leaving that question aside for
the moment I want to be precise in the position I take, I want to be quite
sincere about this, for it is a serious matter. I hold the
Conservative party responsible for the fact that two sets of
petitions are being circulated in this country at
present—one addressed to the people of Ontario for the purpose of creating
prejudice in their minds against this Bill and the other addressed to
the people of Quebec for a like purpose. My hon. friend the member for
North Toronto (Mr. Foster) charged us with not having consulted the people
of the Northwest who are most concerned in this Bill. I say, and I say
it deliberately, that an attempt is being made to prejudice the people
of Ontario against this Bill. And for what reason forsooth ? Because they
are jealous that a Catholic happens to be connected with it.
Some hon. MEMBERS. No.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Read the Toronto
'Telegram' and you will find the proof of what I say. But, Mr. Speaker, it
is said that this Bill was introduced into this House without any
previous conference or consultation with the representatives of
the people of the Northwest Territories who are most concerned. Let me
say that every line of this Bill was settled after previous conference
with the people representing the Northwest Territories, with the single
exception of the educational clause--
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I rather like to hear
my hon. friends interrupt me. There must be some reason for it. When I rose
in fear and trembling to follow the Goliath of the opposition, I did
not expect so much success. As far back as 1902, Mr. Speaker, a Bill
was prepared by the executive of the Northwest Territories in
anticipation of that autonomy which is now about to be granted.
They prepared for the consideration of this
2575
COMMONS
government the provisions under which they wished to
be granted provincial status. That Bill has been under consideration since.
Not only that, but it was in the possession of the present member for
Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and we had the advantage of his notes on that
Bill and his consideration of it. The only exception was with respect to
the clause regarding education. Let me deal with that, and I want to
be precise. In so far as that clause is concerned, there is no direct
reference to it in the Bill as it was submitted to us or in the Bill which was
handed over to me by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) previous
to his going away on his last journey immediately before the session. But
when that question came up for consideration I myself had a conference with Mr.
Haultain, and I want now to say that in the
statement I am about to make I have absolutely and exclusively to trust
to my recollection of what took place in that meeting. I have no notes of
what occurred, but I feel certain I can put almost in terms what
passed between us. When that Bill was up for consideration it was
necessary to refer to the educational clause ; and on the Thursday preceding
the day when the Bill was introduced Messrs. Bulyea, Haultain, Read
and myself with two or three other members of the government—I forget
who they were—discussed the measure. Then the question arose
regarding schools, and I said to Mr. Haultain, what are we to do with respect
to this educational clause ? His answer to me was that provision was
made for the school question, so far as the Northwest Territories were concerned,
by section two of the Bill, section two being that
section which makes applicable to the Northwest Territories
the provisions of the British North America Act, section 93 included. My
answer to that was that in my judgment to make the British North
America Act applicable in these general terms would be
fruitful of difficulties in the future, and I had no desire to have a
repetition of the Manitoba school controversy. I wanted to make the
position of the people in the Northwest with respect to educational matters so clear
and simple that any man might understand the
clause when he read it. I said that nothing should be left to
doubt, uncertainty or misconception ; and in so far as I am concerned,
that clause, in the terms in which it is now drafted, was prepared
merely for the purpose of giving to the people of the Northwest Territories
those things which they now have and it never was intended to go one
inch beyond that.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What does my
hon. friend mean by that ? He says the intention was to give the precise
rights which are enjoyed at present. Of course that might be susceptible
of two meanings, as my hon. friend will rightly gather. He knows what
I mean, and I would ask him to be a little more precise.
2576
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not think that
this is the proper time to discuss that provision of this Bill.
When the time comes, it will be my duty to explain line by line and
clause by clause this Bill from beginning to end, and I shall
endeavour to do so to the best of my ability. But I think the question
put by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is a perfectly fair one,
and I shall answer it as briefly as I can without, I trust, breaking
to too great an extent the rules of the House. In 1875 the principle of separate
schools was settled so far as the Northwest
Territories are concerned, and so far as it could be settled under the
provisional legislation of that time. Under the Act of 1875 a system of
schools was created by an ordinance of the Territories ; and to that
system of schools so created, certain pecuniary allowances were made.
This Bill is intended for no other purpose, in so far as I am concerned,
than to give effect to that provision of the Act of 1875 and the
conditions of the ordinances now in force in the Northwest Territories.
I am quite sure that I have trespassed on the attention of the House far
beyond the limits I originally assigned to myself, but I would like to
say a word in conclusion. My hon. friend the member for North Toronto
(Mr. Foster) has spoken of the 500,000 people in the Northwest who
ought to be consulted. I have no desire to introduce unnecessarily controversial matter,
but I ask him in all
earnestness—and when I do so I ask him to remember the speeches he made
in this House in 1896 which I read then and have read only quite
recently—I ask him in all earnestness ; have we no regard to pay in
the settlement of that delicate question, to the opinion, the honest convictions
of over forty per cent of the population
of this Dominion ? I say that there are deep seated prejudices being
aroused, passions being inflamed, and the desire, I am quite
convinced, of every man in this House is that peace should reign supreme
throughout this land. All I say now, and I speak for myself, is that
there can be no peace except that peace which is based on justice ;
there can be no peace expect that peace which is based on equal rights and
respect for the honest convictions of every man in this country.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT. (East Simcoe). Mr.
Speaker, the government are at least to be congratulated on the fact that at
last they have found some hon. gentleman ready to stand behind them
and perhaps it may be that there is some truth in the rumour that the
hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is about to retire from the
cabinet, and that to-night he is giving a parting shot. Be that as it may
the hon. Minister of Justice has appeared as he always has
done in his favourite role of fanning and appealing to prejudices.
One would imagine that the hon. Minister of
2577
MARCH 15, 1905
Justice had comported himself throughout his
lifetime and particularly prior to his advent to this House as a perfect
harbinger of peace, and that he had gone from one end of
the country to the other in order to pacify and alleviate the feelings of
those who might have been influenced by religious
prejudices. One would have supposed, at least from the strong statements he
has made to-night, that the hon. Minister of Justice would be the last
man who would desire to look back upon the recent history of this
country. There was a general election in 1896 and it was found by
hon. gentlemen opposite to be a matter of life and death.
From 1878 down to that time they had attempted time and again on different
issues to achieve office, but always with the same result that they
had been repulsed by the electors. Unfortunately, perhaps, for the
peace of the country and for the peace of the Conservative party, a question
similar to the present one loomed up on the political horizon. The
hon. Minister of Justice went down through the province of Quebec and
his complaint against the Tupper government on that occasion was
that the Tupper government had been recreant to the cause of the Roman
Catholic part of the population and he said that if he went to Ottawa
he would go there—to be a Liberal ?—No, not a Liberal. To be a
Conservative ?—No, not a Conservative, but that if
elected he would only support the party which would support a Remedial Bill.
I challenge the hon. minister to-night to deny that statement.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend from
North Toronto (Mr. Foster) used that quotation with very much more force
before, and I think I can stand a repetition by my hon.
friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett)).
Mr. BENNETT. Well, the hon. gentleman may affect that, but I challenge him to deny the
statement that when he went into the province of Quebec and was elected
for the county of Quebec he did not think it was wrong on his part to
pledge himself to the hilt to the bishop of the diocese, that if he
was elected to a seat in this House he would not be a Conservative, not a
Liberal, but he would be a Remedial Bill man, first, last and always.
That was the pledge the hon. gentleman made and the pledge upon which
he was returned by the electors of that riding. How did the hon. gentleman
redeem his pledge ? He came into this House, he secured or was
appointed to the position of Solicitor General, and after the pledge
that he had made to his party and the pledge that he had made to his
electors that Remedial Bill was thrown to the winds and nothing
further was heard of it. But, the day has come when the hon.
gentleman has to meet his overdue note. That is what it is. The
hon. gentleman has found out
2578 that he cannot hoodwink the people of the county of Quebec any longer.
Living as he is living, not on what should be the ground work of
statesmanship, but on religious fanaticism—and that is what he is
liv- ing on in the province of Quebec—he finds that he is brought face
to face with the question of this Northwest school Bill and he is
bound to throw in his lot on the side of the church, that is why the hon.
gentleman is to-day posing as the advocate of these
people in the Northwest Territories. But, I tell the hon. Minister of
Justice that in the province of Ontario and in every province of this
Dominion there would be little religious prejudice were it not for fire
brands of the stamp of the hon. Minister of Justice.Â
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Bennett) will withdraw that remark, I hope.
Mr. BENNETT. No, I am not sure that
the hon. Minister of Justice has been a flaming torch in Quebec
nor has he been a flaming torch perhaps from Quebec on the minsterial
side because to-day the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
announced that he was going to back down from his
position. The hon. minister is put in this position that after all these
strong pledges and promises which have been given, he and the right
hon. Prime Minister are to-day endeavouring to cover their retreat. I
had supposed that the hon. Minister of Justice would have denied the
charge that he had made a pledge to support a Remedial Bill, but
as nothing has been denied he stands confessed to the new members of
the House at least as having secured his election in the county of Quebec by making
a promise and a pledge to the bishop of the
diocese and to the electors of that riding that if he came here as their
representative, and that if Sir Wilfrid Laurier—then plain
Mr. Laurier—became premier, he, the Minister of Justice, would
vote against him unless he produced and formulated a Remedial Bill.
Yet, here the hon. Minister of Justice sits, his pledge made to the
people unredeemed and unfulfilled, he coutinues in the emoluments
of his office and being confronted with this overdue note he is
endeavouring to get even with his pledge. The hon. Minister of Justice talks about
religious prejudice in the province of
Ontario. Who is stirring up religious prejudice in the province of Ontario to-day
? Who is stirring it up in this House to-day ? Not
one word is said from this side of the House on this question, but,
when the Bill is introduced one of the supporters of hon.
gentlemen opposite, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) rises
up on his feet, denounces the
2579
COMMONS
Bill and tells the right hon. Prime Minister and the government that they shall not
have his support on this
question. What attitude has the Toronto 'Globe' taken on this question
? What attitude has been taken by Mr. Stapleton Caldecott, a gentleman who a little
time ago was nominated in the city of
Toronto as the Liberal candidate, but declined the honour ? It is
a very doubtful honour to be nominated as a Liberal candidate in the
city of Toronto. And, to go further, Mr. Robinette, the candidate for hon. gentleman
opposite in Centre Toronto, only a few
months ago, has denounced the stand taken by the government
on this question. Still further, the candidate of hon. gentlemen opposite in
North Toronto, Mayor Urquhart, has also denounced the position which
the government has taken on this question. The hon. Minister
of Justice says that the right hon. Prime Minister has not lost the respect
of any of his former supporters. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, let
them bring on a general election to-day in Ontario and throughout the
whole Dominion, and they will find whether or not he has lost the
respect and support of the country. What an exhibition this government is
to-day before the people of Canada. Ministers are in open
mutiny. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), one of the
most prominent members of the cabinet, the gentleman who has been named as the successor
of the Prime Minister when the
Prime Minister shall see fit to drop out of his position. is
insulted. He is on his way to the city, but within two or three days of his
arrival this Bill is brought down without his knowledge,
consent or confirmation, and Sir, while it was manliness on the part of the
hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) to resent the
insult, apparently the Minister of Finance likes to lick the hand that
smites him.
As to the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior he is to be congratulated on his
position and on the attitude which he has taken. Insult
could not have gone further, and hon. gentlemen opposite show their pique
and resentment as soon as an hon. gentleman on that side of the House,
be he a member of the House or Minister of the Crown, turns upon them.
What is being said to-day of the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior ? Look
at the newspapers in the province of Quebec. Do they
attribute to the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior the fact that he
left the government by reason of an honesty of purpose and a regard for
principle ? Not at all, but he is reported as having been kicked out
of the government by reason of scandals which it is said attach to him.
Why does not the right hon. Prime Minister display a more
noble and manly spirit towards his late minister ? Why does he not
stand up in his place and resent the imputations that are being
cast upon the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior ? Nay more, there
2580 are other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. There is the
hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) whose name is associated with
'Le Nationaliste.'
Why does he not rise in his place and impeach the ex-Minister of
the Interior for wrong-doing in connection with his department ? The fact is that
this government is all at sixes and sevens,
knowing not where to turn or what move to make next. And as to the
ministers from Ontario, with the two old men of the sea in the Senate
Chamber and the two chloroformed ministers in this
House—the Postmaster General and the Minister of Customs—both Oslerized
because they are over 60, what can the Liberals
of Ontario expect from them ? What is the hon. member for Centre York (Mr.
Campbell) doing on the present occasion ? He was at a meeting in his
own riding the other night, at which the government was denounced on
all sides, but the member for Centre York was afraid either to condemn
the government or approve of their policy. His cry was : Wait, wait ; you
will see something will happen. To-day we have an intimation of what
is going to happen. I suppose it will be a repetition of the Remedial Bill experience
in 1896, of members and ministers
opposite giving their pledges that they are going to do this and that, and
then doing the other thing. The debates on the Manitoba question show
that the question of the Northwest schools was a live
question in 1896, and although the Minister of Justice did not go so far as
to pledge his word of honour that in the event of a Remedial
Bill not being passed he would oppose any administration that might be
formed by Mr. Laurier ; yet there were other members who found their
way into this chamber by giving pledges that when the question of the
Northwest schools came up they would stand for legislation similar to the
remedial legislation for Manitoba. There is fear and trembling among
them to-day. The Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) came to parliament on one of these
pledges.
Mr. BENNETT. I thought perhaps the
Minister of Justice might invite me to read his.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I can refer the hon.
gentleman to the four elections I have since had in my county.
2581
MARCH 15, 1905
Mr. BENNETT. We all know that certain influences were at work in the province of Quebec in
the
last election ; there was the pledge that there should be separate
schools in the Northwest, and I have no doubt that was worked to the bitter
end ; quietly no doubt ; much quieter than in the case of the Remedial
Bill in 1896. Be that as it may, here is a cabinet disjointed and
disrupted, paralyzed before the people of Canada for the last three weeks,
fighting within and fears without, and its supporters all muzzled
except the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Leighton McCarthy), whom
I congratulate on his bravery in standing up in defiance of the government,
and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who has not
been seen since. My fear is that if any other gentleman on that side
were to make a similar statement, the same fate might attend him. And what
is the position of the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) to-day ? Here is the
Bill which he was to support going to be emasculated, nothing to be
left of it, and if the hon. gentleman comes back to the House he
will have to denounce the government for taking the very vitals out of
his pet measure. And where is the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) ?
He published in the newspapers that he was favourable
to this legislation, but to-night he is as silent as the tomb. What a
humiliating spectacle! Only the Prime Minister to speak, and after him
the Minister of Justice ; and when the Minister of Justice has had his say,
it is the same parade of the stock in trade that brought the Prime
Minister to the front in the province of Quebec, and on which he has
been depending ever since, and on which he must always depend in order to
have a political existence in this country.
Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma). If this
House can congratulate itself that during the discussions of this measure
inflamma tory addresses have been unknown in the past, we
have now to regret that such a happy condition of affairs has come to an
end. It has remained for another member of the silent ministry to drag
in that passion, that prejudice and that extreme asperity and
bitterness which hon. members on this side of the House have been most
anxious to exclude. In reply to the repeated demands from
this side of the House that some one should speak for the government,
the Minister of Justice flew to his feet and indulged in the most extreme
degree of heat and passion. I would remind the hon. minister that
there is a time to be bitter, as there is a time to be tranquil. If, in the
bitterness of his soul. the Minister of Justice is forced to
rise up and denounce the engendering of passion and prejudice where
passion and prejudice did not exist, I must refer him to his leader, the
Prime Minister, for the ground upon which passion and
prejudice is fostered. Eating dead sea fruit is bitter work, and the bit
2582terness
of the eating lies with the Minister of Justice to-day, and it is
made more bitter because the bitterness of it is thrust down his
throat by the leader of the government. The hon. gentleman has
appealed to the verdict of the people in 1896. Will he stand by the
verdict of the people in 1896 ? Is he content to take that verdict upon the
principles involved in this question ? But, Sir, it is the verdict of
the people of to-day that is wanting, and that verdict we have not by
reason of the fact that this measure was not submitted to the people, but
was kept in the back ground when the government made their
appeal at the last general election. The Minister of Justice has told
us that in pursuing the course which he has pursued, the Prime Minister has
not lost the respect of a single person whose respect he values.
Contrast that with the statement of the Prime Minister, who said he accepted
with sorrow and regret the resignation of his Minister of the
Interior, and you will see in it a direct contradiction of the statement of the
Minister of Justice.
The right hon. gentleman said, in accepting the resignation of
the hon. Minister of the Interior, on the first day of the
month, that he had regret in accepting it—that there were no causes of
difference between them beyond the cause of difference set
forth in the correspondence. Yet, the hon. Minister of Justice would have
this House believe that the right hon. gentleman did not
care for the support of the hon. Minister of the Interior, and therefore he dismissed
him and sent him from the cabinet doors.
There is a position of inconsistency, Sir, which it is hard to reconcile. But when
we talk of inflammatory
addresses, let us see the extraordinary position in which this cabinet finds
itself to-day. Upon this important question, which has occupied more
or less off and on the attention of this House since the 21st day of
February last, when the Bill was introduced by the Prime Minister,
what intimation have we had from the members of the ministry of their
individual views pro or con? Although challenges have been issued from
this side of the House, they have not met with any response
except from the right hon. gentleman who has posed as the Czar of
this measure. Yes, they have. Through these weary days of waiting, we
have heard from the hon. Minister of the Interior, and the moment he
spoke he condemned the measure; and when after further weary days of
waiting, enlivened possibly by the eloquence the mental vision and the
mental dexterity with which the right hon. gentleman evaded
the appeals to him from this side of the House to explain, we have at
last, at long last, Sir, been favoured with an expression of
opinion by the hon. Minister of Justice. Sir, from all that rumour has
brought to our ears, some
2583
COMMONS
of us on this side of the House would not have been
astonished if we had seen the hon. Minister of Justice rise to disagree
with the right hon. gentleman, and to state that he was not entirely
in accord with him; because rumour has been bandying about
strange things lately in connection with the name of the hon.
Minister of Justice. But that is indicative only of the
tempest that is raging or the fire that is burning within those doors.
There was a burst out on the 2lst day of February, when the Bill was
introduced, and we have again had a burst out from the Minister of
Justice in another way. But I must refer again to what the hon.
gentleman said, although the hon. member for Simcoe has referred to it. The
hon. Minister of Justice has stated that we have appealed to
prejudice, that we have circulated petitions and have dragged in the
creedal question. Sir, I have been in this House during the whole of this
discussion since this Bill was introduced, and I say that
on every occasion on which it has been dealt with, it has been dealt with on
this side irrespective of party, faction, section or creed.
There has been no question raised upon which that charge could be
visited upon any member on this side of the House. But it has been said that
the action of bodies or associations of persons, and of individual
persons who have felt themselves aggrieved, and who are exercising their prerogative
in appealing to parliament by petition, has been
engineered and provoked from this side of the House. I would ask the
Minister of Justice if he considers that the action of the Liberal
papers in Ontario has been engineered by gentlemen on that side of the
House—whether they are responsible for the position which
the ' Globe ' has taken, and the papers which profess independent
support of hon. gentlemen opposite, in opposition to this Bill. Would
he like to take one horn of the dilemma or both? If we are responsible for one,
is it too much to say that they are responsible for the
others ? Then, Sir, there is in this measure that which has provoked
some questions from the leader of the opposition to-day ; and, without
desiring or intending to take the time of the House longer than a few moments to
run over the ground, I would just like to point out
to you, Sir, the extraordinary position, chronologically, in
which this government finds itself to-day, face to face with the utterances
of the Prime Minister himself. On the 21st day of February there was
transacted here an event for which this House had been waiting for some time. In
the speech from the Throne we had read that the
long- looked-for Bill granting autonomy to the Northwest
Territories was to be brought down. Questions were asked in the House
as to when that might be expected. On
2584 the 31st day of January, the Prime Minister was asked across
the floor of this House when the hon. Minister of the Interior might be expected
to return, and the hon. member for North Toronto
was informed by the Prime Minister that the minister was
expected to return on the 15th day of February. On the 10th day of
February, as appears by ' Hansard,' the question as to the absence of the
Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance was
again repeated by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and,
in conjunction with other business, it is a notable circumstance that
the Prime Minister was asked whether it was his intention to introduce this Bill,
and he stated that the Bill
would be introduced, so far as he then knew, on the 21st day of February; and significant
was his remark, when asked if the
Minister of the Interior would be here, that ' the Prime Minister
would be in his place'. The introduction of the Bill took place on the 21st
day of February. With regard to education, the clause which the right
hon. gentleman says is the only one to which there is opposition, the right hon.
gentleman, in the course of a deliberate speech,
says, on page 1526 of ' Hansard ':
I now come to the question of education, and
this question is perhaps under the existing circumstances
the most important of all that we have to deal with.
This afternoon the right hon. gentleman stated, and the hon. Minister of
Justice has echoed his remark, that we on this side of the House are
responsible, forsooth, for the outbreak of passion. The right hon.
gentleman went further, and put it in an abstract interrogative form, that
there was a hesitation on the part of the government, because was it
not open to the government to change this measure if it thought fit so
to do? Then, what does he say?
There are evidences, not a few coming to us
from all directions, that the old passions which such a subject always
aroused, are not, unfortunately, buried.Â
However, this was before the Bill received its first reading. The right
hon. gentleman was fully in touch with the situation throughout the country, knew
that these old prejudices and passions, as
he is pleased to call them, would be engendered and were engendered and further
on he says :
The government has been warned, threatened
from both sides of this question, from those who believe in separate schools
and from those who oppose separate schools.
And then the right hon. gentleman, proceeding to argue the case,
set forth reasons why this clause which he read should be introduced, and in order
to show the House that he really intended at that
time to stand
2585
MARCH 15, 1905
by what he said I shall read his further remarks :
That is the position that we have before us
to-day. I am not here to advocate separate schools as an abstract
proposition, but we have introduced into this Bill the two propositions
that the minority shall have the power to establish their
own schools, and that they shall have right to share in the public money. It
is the law to-day.
And further on the right hon. gentleman says in the same speech that he had
decided on the incorporation of this clause as it then stood with the
explanation and the argument in support of it which he then gave
the House. If I understand the word ' decision 'Â it means that first
there were conferences, consultations, deliberations and a great deal
of searching of hearts with respect to matters then under
consideration, and that the final decision which was reached was then
crystallized into that Bill and was then explained and argued for by the
introductory speech. Then a change came over the spirit
of the dream of the right hon. gentleman. The Minister of the Interior resigned,
and there came one of those eloquent silences
which have prevailed latterly over the government benches when
awkward questions from this side of the House have been asked. There
have been silences when questions as to the absence of ministers have
been asked, and questions with regard to the intention to change that
which the government had said was decided upon, and there have been great
silences to-night and this afternoon with regard to the cogent
questions which have been asked by the leader of the opposition. The
right hon. gentleman is face to face with a position which is
not an enviable one and one which he will find it difficult to reconcile
with what has been said. There has been the deliberation which he
admits, there has been the knowledge of the existence of the factional strife, knowledge
of the existence of that prejudice to
which in his speech he referred ; there has been the argument and the
positive assertion that the clause has been introduced after mature
deliberation ; there has been the first reading of the Bill, its
printing and circulation, and then there were rumours with regard to the
dissentions which exist in the cabinet to-day. The House and the
country are in the dark, are labouring to know what the intentions of
the government are with regard to this important clause in that Bill. I
consider, Sir, that they are entitled to know because if the Prime
Minister of this country can stand up in his place and pronounce for a
certain state of things as the result of deliberation, and state that that
is his decision, and that is the law to-day, and then
afterwards state or hint vaguely that changes may take place and will not
deny the suggestion that there may be a reference to a judicial
tribunal, then I say the people
2586 are entitled to know the reason for this vaccillation. The position of
the government upon this question is simply incomprehensible. It is simply impossible
to ascertain from its members where it
stands. The record of ' Hansard ' shows that it stands in
one place and that it is absolutely, irrevocably or in the words
of the hon. member for Wellington, unalterably committed to one line
of policy. Then we have the dark hints which have fallen from the lips of
the Prime Minister, that there might be changes —and changes with
regard to the very clause of this Bill which he states was the subject
of mature deliberation. There is a point with regard to the resignation of
the member for Brandon, the ex-Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), to which
I would like to refer. The hon.
minister on that day made an explanation of his reasons and that
explanation is before the House. It contains something to which I would
invite the consideration of the House in view of the
statements made by the Prime Minister since that time. He says :
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.
What does that indicate ? Is it not reasonable to infer from the
very plain utterance of the hon. gentleman that he had conferences with the leader
of the government, that the result of these
conferences was that clauses of this Bill were submitted for consideration that
he was leaving on a prolonged
absence and that further consideration, further conferences at any rate, as
he understood, were postponed until he should have returned
? He further proceeds :
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.
And hence followed the resignation. If I read English aright that meant
that the Minister of the Interior felt that he had not been rightly
treated by the leader of the government ; he felt that he had been promised consideration
and attention and that he had a right to
be further consulted before that Bill was brought down. And
very natural was his chagrin and disappointment when he found on
his return that the Bill had been introduced with clauses to which he
had objected. Sir, reference has been made by the Prime Minister to the
record of the election of 1896, when hon. gentlemen opposite came into
power, on the advocacy of a principle the diametrical
2587
2588 opposite of the principle that has been lately
enunciated by the leader of the government. I would point out that
the quotations the right hon. gentleman has given from the
utterances of hon. George Brown will not gloss over the inconsistency he has
shown or make more tenable the unstable position he has taken. The
hour is late and in conclusion, I would only desire, if the right hon.
Prime Minister were in his place to contrast the position he took in 1895
and 1896, when he was on this side of the House, with the utterance he
has recently made. I would contrast the inflammatory addresses which
he then made in this House and on the hustings advocating provincial
rights and non-interference with the acts of provincial legislatures, with
his present speeches. And I would refer the right hon. gentleman to
the words of the Hon. George Brown on the subject of the stability, and
consistency that ought to be the ornament and the crown of the Prime
Minister of a country of the importance of Canada. In 1896 the right
hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) took a certain position in order to
obtain power. And now, after his third return, we have him
laying down a policy which is the absolute negation of that which he
contended for in 1896. Let him consider the words of Hon. George Brown :
'If, Sir, a public man can avow certain principles, agitate those
principles and seek to overthrow the government of the day to
establish those principles, and, when he obtains power
laughs at his professions and casts his principles to the winds, he is
aiming a blow at public morality.'
Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin). At this
late hour, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House. But, in
view of the Bill introduced by the Prime Minister on the 21st: of
February, in view of the large number of inquiries that are being made
from time to time concerning it, and in view of the rumours that are in
circulation, I have not been in a position, up to this
evening, to give a definite answer to those who have asked me whether the
government proposed to carry the Bill through the House
as it has been introduced or not. So, I wish to compliment the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) for being so frank as he was this evening,
for he has stated that when he framed this Bill he framed it on the
line of the legislation already affecting the people of the
Northwest Territories. That being true, I am in a position to state exactly what the
government propose to do in
the matter of this legislation. The Minister of Justice stated
that there could be no peace except it were based on justice. There
are a large number of people in this country who do not believe in the
present system in the Northwest Territories being carried out by
any law passed by the Dominion parliament. I would like to
ask him whether he believes that
COMMONS those who oppose this legislation are doing what they ought not to do ?
And will he say that there shall be no peace in this country if his
so-called justice is not meted out to the people of the Northwest ?
The Minister of Justice is the man above all others in this House who should
keep an even temper, should calmly consider all questions coming
before him and should be particularly guarded in the remarks he makes,
for it is to his department that the people look for good advice based upon
calmness and judgment. I was sorry therefore, to observe,
the tone of the hon. gentleman's speech to-night. He has charged hon. members on
this side with appealing to prejudice. He
was not a member of this House in the first session of 1896. Had he been,
how would he have found his friends occupied ? The
government of that day, after introducing a Bill in this House, were trying to get
it into committee to have it considered on its
merits. But hon. gentlemen opposite then on this side, showed
no willingness to have this carried out. They even remained for one
hundred and twenty-nine hours without rest, keeping this House in
session, for the purpose of preventing that Bill being considered
by the House. And, on the one hand we found members in the opposition
of that day standing up and condemning the government
because the Bill went too far. On the other hand some condemned it because it did
not go far enough. Still others condemned the
financial arrangements as unsatisfactory. But, on all sides, they were
fanning the flames of prejudice, and it was through the existence of these
prejudices that they came into power in 1896. So far as
the present opposition is concerned nothing of this kind has been done. No
man on this side, so far as I can learn, has expressed his opinion in
regard to that legislation. They have carefully waited to see what the
government would do in the matter—and rightly so. The leader of the
government has told us that amendments may be introduced. But,
thank goodness, the Minister of Justice, with his frankness has stated
exactly the position the government is in. And, when the First
Minister proceeds with the second reading of the Bill, I have no doubt that
the same good judgment will be displayed and the same calm criticism
given by the opposition, whether they agree or disagree with
the Bill. Whatever hon. members on this side may say will be in
parliamentary form and will be the result of calm consideration and not of mere
prejudice. The Minister of Justice tried to work
up a little agitation about the Toronto ' Telegram.
Everybody who knows the 'Telegram' knows that it is an independent
paper with Conservative leanings. It is almost as likely to condemn
the Conservative party as to condemn the Liberal party. The
Conservative party would not hold itself
2589
MARCH 15, 1905
responsible for the opinions of the Toronto 'Telegram.' Reference was made to the
Bill of 1902 as submitted by
Mr. Haultain. The Minister of Justice did not pay much of a
compliment to the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) when he
said that the draft Bill was submitted to the government for its
consideration. If that statement meant anything at all it meant that
the draft Bill contained the very sections the ex-Minister of the Interior
is objecting to in the Bill introduced by the leader of the House (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier). I have read that draft Bill and I fail to find in it
any similarity to the educational clauses in the Bill now
introduced. That being true, the government could not have consulted
the ex-Minister of the Interior with respect to these educational
clauses.
I wish to say a word or two about these gentlemen who resign from the
government. It seems to me that if a question arises on which the
difference of opinion between one of the ministers and his colleagues is so
clear that he feels it is his duty to resign, then, he is not doing
his duty to his conscience, or to the people he represents, or
to the people who agree with him, by sitting silently in his place and
refraining from taking any part in the discussion of that question
when it comes up. It strikes me that if I were in such a connection, I
would lose no opportunity to make myself heard. I would rise day after
day and, by my protests seek to prevent the passing of the
legislation which seemed to me so far wrong. Those hon.
gentlemen who have resigned from the cabinet seem to think they do their
duty when they make one speech explaining their position. If there are
more ministers in the cabinet who take the same view, it seems to me
that, even though they differ with their colleagues they might as well
swallow the objectionable legislation holus bolus and remain where they are.
Now, a word about the petitions and I am through. The Minister of Justice
(Mr. Fitzpatrick) seems to lay great stress upon the fact that certain
Conservatives sign petitions in favour of this legislation. I fail to
see why any Conservative in the province of Quebec, or Nova Scotia, or in
the Northwest Territories for that matter, if he feels that the
legislation introduced by the government of the day is legislation that
should be approved, does any wrong by petitioning the government in
favour of its being made law. If the petition is a proper one, one
that can be fairly presented to this House, in what way does a Conservative
violate good taste or any rule of this House when he signs it ? But,
what is the object of what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has stated ? He remembers
quite well the conduct of
his own friends in 1896 —his own included—when they did not take an
honourable stand on the school question. They fanned the flame of prejudice,
and it
290 was only by doing so that they attained power. A prominent legal
Liberal came to this House in 1896 and advised his friends here to
keep up the work of increasing popular prejudice as the only means
by which they could get into power. And, had it not been for their
success in that work, they would have been in opposition until this
day. And I say, as a humble member of this Conservative opposition, that, I
would remain in opposition until doomsday rather than obtain power by
such means. We ought to be above that kind of thing, and we are. We
have here a good country, a great country, and our aim, instead of
stirring contention should be to unite our people and, as far as possible to
quench these dangerous fires of popular prejudice.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). I wish
merely to refer to one or two statements made in the course of this
discussion. The first was a statement by the Prime Minister (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier), who spoke of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
as occupying a dual position, and in one capacity stirring
up strife in the country, while in the other he might be doing his duty as
a member of this House. That can only refer to one thing, to the
petitions which are coming in and which hon. gentlemen opposite have
been good enough to attribute to myself as having sent them out. I accept that ;
and I gave the explanation. I have never denied
or attempted to deny that I did it nor do I make any apology for doing
it. The Minister of Justice followed this up by saying that the members of
the opposition were deliberately and of set purpose arousing
religious prejudices by distributing petitions amongst the Protestants of
Ontario for that purpose while, from the same source, they were
distributing petitions to the people of Quebec to arouse feeling
amongst them. I took down the hon. gentleman's statement as he
made it. Have I recorded it correctly ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) says he took it down, I suppose he took it
down correctly. But I must say that I do not think he did.
Mr. SPROULE. That is the statement as
I took it down. Had it not been that the Minister of Justice displayed so
much warmth and declared that he could prove his statement, while at
the same time flourishing a document as though it contained the
proof, I would not have paid so much attention to his
statement. But he made the statement that these petitions emanated
from the same source as the others. And just before that he had attributed
the distribution of these petitions in Ontario to myself.
Had he not thus, by implication at least, attributed the distribution of
these petitions to myself, I would not have paid any attention to the
matter. If any one in this House could know whether his allega
2591
COMMONS
tions are correct, it would be the member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule), and I rise to give that the most emphatic contradiction
possible. There is not a word of truth in the statement.
I am not here to deny that petitions may have come in on the other
side from the province of Quebec. About that I know nothing. The
Minister of Justice endeavoured to lead this House to believe that
these petitions were distributed among the Protestants of Ontario for the
purpose of inflaming their passions, but that similar petitions were
not distributed among the Protestants of Quebec. I said last night,
and I repeat, that the very same petitions which were distributed
in Ontario were distributed throughout Quebec, and many of them have
come back since signed, not only by Conservatives, but by Reformers as well. If
petitions did come from the supporters of the
one party for and against a certain measure, does it necessarily
follow that the members of that party are working these petitions for the
purpose of raising sectional strife ? If it does, then let me refer
the hon. gentleman to the fact that supporters of the government in Ontario
are petitioning today in hundreds of thousands against the very Bill
the government has before the House, and from the province of Quebec
as well, and likewise the maritime provinces. They are petitioning against
this Bill, while, at the same time, supporters of the government are
sending here petitions in favour of it—doing the very thing
which the Minister of Justice tried to lead this House to believe is so very
wrong. Because petitions come against this Bill from
Conservatives and also in favour of it, therefore the
Conservatives must be doing something that is radically wrong. But
the very same thing applies to the opposite side. And, as my hon.
friend from East Elgin has said: Is it not the right of every British
subject to petition the Crown and parliament ? Have we not members
supporting the Conservative party who are to-day supporting this Bill
and others who are opposing it ? Have we not among the members of the Reform
party some who are petitioning for this Bill and others against it ?
If that argument is worth anything, it applies with equal force to the
opposite side as well as to this side. But, with respect to the petitions
that have been circulated, the hon. Minister of Justice made the
statement that they were deliberately and intentionally put in circulation to arouse
religious strife and passion.
What justification has be for making that statement? Who is
responsible for raising the religious strife and passion that have
been imparted into this debate during the present session? Was it the
Conservative party ?—not by any means. Who introduced the Bill? Was it not
the Reform party? Who made an impassioned appeal along
religious lines? Was it not the right hon. Prime Minister on the
occasion of the introduction of the Bill and
2592 was it not a thing most unusual in this House? It invited reprisals
from the other side of the House. I can tell the hon. Minister of
Justice when he says that there will be no peace until it is fought out,
and he added I throw down the gauntlet and I invite this fight to come
on. He has thrown down the gauntlet and I assure him that he will not
be disappointed about the fight. When it is over he can congratulate himself
upon what he has done for the purpose of promoting peace, harmony and
good feeling amongst the citizens of this country. If he succeeds in
doing it I will be very much mistaken. He has thrown down the gauntlet
to a class of people who will stand up for their rights whether it pleases
or displeases the Minister of Justice. There is no doubt that from the
commencement of this discussion, from the first word to the last which
has been said on this subject, there has not been displayed so
much rancour as that which has been exhibited by the hon. Minister of
Justice, and there has not been heard as strong language as that which
has come from the Minister of Justice who ought to be the last man in
this House to set such an example to the parliament of Canada. If this
measure results in arousing passions and creating hard
feelings let me assure hon. gentlemen opposite that upon them above all
others must the responsibility rest.
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Mr. FIELDING. I do not imagine the
House has any desire to take up the estimates at this hour. I
therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave
to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
This individual participated in:
