3555
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
FRIDAY, March 31, 1905.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three
o'clock.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
ABSENCE OF MINISTERS AND CABINET
VACANCY.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.). Before the Orders of the Day are called, I
wish once more to call to the attention of
the House the quite unprecedented condition of affairs which exists at the present
time. During many months we have not
had in this House the presence of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland).
That gentleman is one of my personal
friends, although we are opposed in politics,
and no one regrets more than I do the unfortunate circumstance that illness prevents
him from taking his place among us, and
any remarks which I have to make
with regard to violation of constitutional
usage by the government are, of course,
not connected in any way with that gentleman, because I would be very glad indeed
to have him restored to us, to once more
have his assistance in the House and to
have him back at work in his department
again.
But my right hon. friend seems to take
for granted that he is at liberty, so long as
he may see fit, to deprive parliament and
the country of the services of a Minister
of Public Works possessing the authority
and invested with the responsibility which
that position gives to him. I have
looked a little into this question, which
has arisen more than once in Great
Britain, and I find that the rule there acted
upon is not at all in accordance with that
3555
3556
suggested by the right hon. gentleman. To
cite just one instance, in 1871, action was
taken in both Houses of parliament in regard to the absence of Mr. Childers, the
First Lord of the Admiralty, during the
early part of the session, on account of
the state of his health, and within a month
after his resignation took place. It has
been asserted in this House, I do not know
with what truth, that the Minister of Public Works some time ago placed his resignation
in the hands of the right hon. gentleman, or at all events told him that his portfolio
was at his service whenever the interests of the country required it. However
that may be, I wish courteously to place
on record a remonstrance against the continuance of this condition of affairs. I do
not think there is any warrant for it under
the constitution. Indeed, I do not think
there is any warrant for it under the terms
of the Order in Council which was discussed
somewhat last session, and under which one
minister of the Crown may under certain
circumstances act for another minister of
the Crown.
On another occasion, which is referred
to by Mr. Todd in his work on constitutional government, Lord John Russell
had accepted the seals of the Colonial
Office, at a time when he was absent on
a diplomatic mission in Vienna. Within two
weeks after he had accepted the seals of
office, the matter was brought to the attention of parliament, and again on two or
three occasions subsequently, and was made
the occasion of a grave criticism of the administration, which only ceased when he
took his place in parliament on the 28th
of April. Now, so far as my hon. friend
the Minister of Public Works is concerned,
he has been absent from his duties in parliament and from his duties in the department
for a very long time ; and if there be
any foundation for the rumour that he is
ready to surrender the seals of office at a
moment's notice, I do not know for what
reason the right hon. gentleman proposes to
carry on the business of the country in the
way in which it is carried on at the present
time.
We have not only the case of the Minister
of Public Works, but we have what seems
to me a much more serious violation of
constitutional usage in the conduct of the
government with respect to the vacant portfolio of the Interior. I do not want to
repeat to-day what has already been said
in this House. I have asked the Prime
Minister more than once for an explanation
of his extraordinary conduct in passing over
that gentleman in introducing a very important measure, a most momentous measure,
into this parliament without even having submitted the terms of perhaps its
most important clause to that gentleman,
although his return was daily expected.
My right hon. friend has treated that very
3557 MARCH 31, 1905
lightly. He has treated also very lightly
the circumstance that he also withheld
the terms of that clause from the knowledge
of his Minister of Finance, who certainly
of all ministers of the Crown, should have
been acquainted with the provisions of the
measure. I might almost venture to say
that the conduct of the Prime Minister,
in bringing that Bill down while withholding from parliament the knowledge
that those gentlemen had not approved of
it, amounted to an insult to this parliament ; I think I might even go further,
and say that the right hon. gentleman, in
taking that course, demeaned himself ; and
not one word of explanation with regard
to that very peculiar circumstance has fallen from the right hon. gentleman's lips
from that day to this. Instead of that, we
have had mere flippant replies or absolute
silence when any explanation has been courteously demanded across the floor of this
House. Moreover, we have had rumours,
1 do not know with what truth, but it is
right that they should be stated and some
answer made—we have had rumours from
the press of the province of Quebec in close
touch with this administration, and even
direct statements, that the cause assigned
to this parliament for the resignation of the
Minister of the Interior was not the true
cause. Further than that, a certain journal
published in the province of Quebec with
which a very devoted champion and warm
and intimate personal friend of the Prime
Minister is connected, has seen fit to make
that statement in the form of a cartoon,
which most of us have seen, but to which
I will not make any further reference by
way of description.
Mr. LEMIEUX. I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. It is not a paper friendly to
the government. It is opposed to the government every Sunday.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I accept at once the
superior knowledge of my hon. friend the
Solicitor General. I do not profess to be an
expert in regard to the opinions of that
paper ; but my hon. friend from Labelle
(Mr. Bourassa), who is a warm champion
of the government with regard to this measure with which the resignation of the late
Minister of the Interior is closely associated, has a very close connection with that
paper, if I am rightly informed.
Mr. LEMIEUX. If the hon. member for
Labelle were here, I am sure he would dissent from my hon. friend's statement. The
hon. member for Labelle has repeatedly declared before this House and before the public
that he had nothing to do with the 'Le
Nationaliste.'
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I accept the statement of my hon. friend as I would accept
3557
3558
the statement of the hon. member if he
were here ; but I have been imformed, perhaps incorrectly, that the hon. member for
Labelle has been one of the regular contributors to that journal, and I myself have
seen contributions in that journal which purported to be signed by that hon. gentleman.
I do not think my hon. friend will deny that.
Mr. LEMIEUX. I can say to my hon.
friend that when the paper was started about
two years ago the hon. member for Labelle
wrote two or three articles which he signed
'Henri Bourassa ;' but since then he has
declared over and over again that he has
nothing to do with the paper.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I accept whatever
my hon. friend states about it without the
slightest reserve, either parliamentary or
otherwise, and I will leave that for the gentlemen from the province of Quebec to
settle. I do not pretend to know anything
about it. There is another little interesting
rumour which has come to us from time to
time, and I observe that in former days my
right hon. friend was very much interested
in these rumours and used always to bring
them to the attention of parliament in order
that they might be contradicted. I have
looked up his record in that regard and find
that I have good precedent for what I am
about to mention. There is a very strong
rumour, said to have emanated from a certain member of the administration, who
lately received a pretty severe little stab
in this House from the ex-Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton), that the ex-minister
was not so absolutely ignorant of the terms
of this measure, in the first instance, as had
been suggested in this House. I do not
know about that, but my right hon. friend
can perhaps give us information and set at
rest at once that disquieting rumour.
But what is the position to-day, so far as
the Department of the Interior is concerned?
We have a statute which says that there
shall be a Department of the Interior and
there shall be a Minister of the Interior. We
start with that in the first instance. That
statute goes on to say : ' The Minister of the
Interior shall have the control and management of the affairs of the Northwest Territories.'
Those are the exact words of the
statute, and that statute has been in force
during every one of the thirty-one days
which have elapsed since the ex—Minister of
the Interior has resigned. What was my
right hon. friend's view with regard to this
constitutional question not long ago ? I
have already brought it to the attention of
the House, but it is not out of place that I
shall repeat his own words again :
In the practical working out of responsible
government in a. country of such vast extent
as Canada, it is found necessary to attach a
special responsibility to each minister for the
public affairs of the province, or district with
which he has close political connection, and
3559 COMMONS
with which his colleagues may not be so well
acquainted.
Well, we have a statute which says that
the Minister of the Interior shall have the
control and management of the affairs of
the Northwest Territories, and we have the
words of the Prime Minister himself who
tells us that the Minister of the Interior,
apart from any statute, has a special responsibility with regard to the affairs of
the
Northwest Territories with which he is more
closely connected than his colleagues. But
What are we proposing to do at present?
We are proposing to take a step which
the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues
declare to be one of the most momentous
ever taken by a parliament of Canada.
Yet the right hon. gentleman has not
filled the post of Minister of the Interior.
That position is still vacant. We are now in
the heat of debate upon the Bills he has introduced. Before long we shall be in committee
on those Bills, and we shall not have
the advantage of the presence and counsel
of a minister specially responsible for the
administration of those Territories. We do
not find at present in the cabinet any minister who is able to carry on the work of
that
department. I have been informed by men.
whom I have no reason to disbelieve, on
various occasions during the last two or
three weeks, that the work of that department is practically at a standstill for the
lack of a responsible minister, familiar with
its affairs and able to give his undivided
attention to them. Why is this the case?
Is there any reason for it? Let me show
my hon. friend how zealous he was in respect of such matters when little difficulties,
such as have recently occurred in the present
administration, happened to occur some ten
years ago in the Conservative administration of that day. What was the right hon.
gentleman's view then:
No administration would dare to sit and discharge the public business of the country
unless
the different provinces, or at all events the
great provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick, were properly represented
in the cabinet; and when it is known that at
present three of the ministers representing one
province—that three of those gentlemen who represent a great portion of the population
of the
country—are out of the cabinet at the present
time, whether ofiicially or not, they are practically out of the cabinet. I say that
we are
not only in the midst of a great political crisis,
but that we have reached a position unprecedented in the history of Canada, where
the government would undertake to carry on the business of the country, one great
province. the
second in the Dominion, being altogether unrepresented in the cabinet.
But what is the right hon. gentleman proposing to do to-day ? We have in the Northwest
Territories today a population 150,000, greater than was the population of
New Brunswick at the time when it served
as an illustration for the comments of
my right hon. friend which I have just read.
3559
3560
He is proposing to give to these Territories
a constitution which at no time in the future
will a Canadian parliament be able to
change, and, forgetting the great constitutional rule which he laid down in days gone
by, he is proposing to do this in the absence
of any representative of those Territories
in the cabinet. He is proposing that parliament should finally deal with a measure
vitally affecting the Northwest Territories
while these Territories are absolutely unrepresented in the cabinet. For what purpose
was that statute passed creating the portfolio
of Minister of the Interior ? Why, if not
that there shall be in the cabinet a minister
representing that country who would be
thoroughly competent to safeguard its interests especially in matters of such importance
as the one now before us? Why, in
those days my right hon. friend was so
anxious in this regard, that upon the mere
rumour of the resignation of ministers from
Quebec, he moved the adjournment of the
House and discussed the question at length.
Later on, upon full explanation being given,
when he had been assured that those gentlemen had not resigned and were at one with
their colleagues, he was so much interested
in the constiutional aspect of the case that
he again moved the adjournment. But today when we inquire whether or not the
vacant portfolio of the interior will be filled,
my right hon. friend seems to emerge temporarily from a condition of forgetfulness.
He is as one who would say: 'Why, bless
my soul, then there is a Department of the
Interior: I must look after it one of these
days. There are Northwest Territories, but
I had almost forgotten their existence. One
of these days we will take the question up
when there is nothing else to do ; but in the
meantime we will go on and deal with most
important questions affecting these Territories without any regard Whatever to the
statute.' In those days he was a stickler
for constitutional usage but today he displays a complete change of front. Let me
read one more brief extract from a speech
of the right hon. gentleman of those days :
Moreover here are two seats vacant, vacant
since yesterday, and although the hon. gentlemen who occupy these seats may not have
tendered officially their resignations to His Excellency, it is quite evident that
they are no
longer in harmony with their colleagues. otherwise they would be in their places to
discharge their share of the business of the
country.
In view of the cynical disregard of the
constitution which we see every day in this
House, is not the reminiscence, brought up
by the utterances I have just quoted, perfectly delicious ? Here are two-thirds of
the
cabinet not in harmony with the other one-
third, if we apply the test which the right
hon. gentleman himself applied ten years
ago. How many of the colleagues of my
right hon. friend are present in the House
to-day ? There is a vacant seat next to him.
3561 MARCH 31, 1905
The one next to that is vacant. There is
another vacant on his left and another alongside of the Minister of Inland Revenue.
There is also a vacant seat immediately behind the right hon. gentleman. But still
there is an unusually large number of ministers in the House to-day, and I have taken,
I must admit, an unfortunate occasion to
exhibit an object lesson to the country.
Usually we have only about three ministers
present, and we must therefore, according
to the test which the right hon. gentleman
applied ten years ago, conclude that the
other ten are on the eve of resignation.
However that may be, let me say that I do
not observe in anything which has been suggested by my right hon. friend any reason
why the portfolio of the Interior should not
be filled.
He has said nothing on the subject. Has
he no material ? If he does not appoint
my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver)
to be Chief Justice of the Northwest Territories, in view of the constitutional argument
he gave us the other day, I imagine
that that hon. gentleman would make a very
good Minister of the Interior, and I am inclined to press his claims. He is a very
good friend of mine personally, though we
differ somewhat politically ; and I stand
here to urge the claims of my hon. friend
from Edmonton to this position. He is a
gentleman of ripe experience and great
ability, and, as we all know a gentleman
of absolute and perfect independence on
all questions. But, if we cannot have my
hon. friend from Edmonton, why should
we not have the hon. member from West
Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). Is not he capable ?
Is there any apprehension on the part of the
right hon. Prime Minister that there will
be any difficulty about securing the election
of either of these gentlemen ? Does he
propose to let this matter stand until after
the close of the present session, in defiance
of all the high constitutional principles
which he professed ten years ago ? If there
is a lack of material among the members
for the Northwest Territories, why not appoint some broad minded man like my hon.
friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt), who
spoke last night, or my hon. friend from
Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) ? Could not one of
these gentlemen be induced to go up and
teach these men in the Northwest Territories, whom they described as so narrow
and bigoted that they could not be trusted,
some of these men whom my hon. friend
from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) described as
regenade Liberals?—why not send one of
these broad-minded tolerant gentlemen to
these men of the Northwest Territories to
teach them what true Christian charity and
toleration really are. I do not think there
could be any objection to that, though, of
course, my hon. friend from Labelle might
be himself a candidate for the Chief Justiceship in oppositon to my hon. friend from
Edmonton, for he has said that he is ready
3561
3562
to discuss the constitution with any man
in this country or anywhere else.
Now, just one more observation on this
subject. The right hon. gentleman (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) was rather facetious ten
years ago. He told us of those two ministers coming back and likened them to
kittens coming back to their cream. Well,
we have had a couple of kittens who were
a little skittish on this occasion. One, it is
true, did not leave the cream. It arched
its back and curved its tail, but remained
within a reasonable distance of the cream,
and is still lapping. The other did leave
the cream.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. There is a disquieting rumour throughout the country, to which
the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) might address himself, that, although
the minister in question, like the kitten, has
left the cream for the time being there is
being prepared for him an exceedingly
dainty dish of cream which will be served
up in due season. We do not know whether that may be the case or not; but, perhaps
it would be well for the right hon.
gentleman, remembering the analogy which
he gave to the House some time ago, to
tell us whether or not there is anything
in this rumour.
But, in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I do
think it is due to the House and to the country that the Prime Minister should state
what the intention of the government is in
regard to the filling of the portfolio. The
government, in defiance of all constitutional usages and of constitutional rules laid
down by themselves on many occasions
intend, apparently, to press this measure through parliament without having in the
cabinet any minister who is more
especially responsible for the Northwest Territories. We should be informed, in view
of the delay in filling this position, what
is the cause of that delay and also when
the Prime Minister expects to fill this portfolio. Or, if he does not propose to fill
it
in the immediate future, may I not, respectfully, and with every right, ask him
to announce to the House and to the country what the difficulties really are which
prevent him, at the present time, from calling to his cabinet some gentleman from
the
Northwest Territories or elsewhere, who, in
the cabinet, will particularly represent these
Territories.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime
Minister). Mr. Speaker, I have no serious
fault to find with my hon. friend (Mr. R. L.
Borden) if he has chosen to have another
little joke upon a subject which is evidently
congenial to him. I have no fault to find
if he has brought to the attention of the
House the resignation of my hon. friend
the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton)
from the portfolio of the Interior and the
3563 COMMONS
reason why he has not yet been replaced.
Yet, I might have hoped that my hon. friend
would abstain on this occasion from referring to another gentleman, a highly respected
member of this House, who, unfortunately, is
not in his seat, from a cause which, we
might have hoped, would appeal to the hon.
gentleman's sympathy as to the sympathy
of every member of this House. My hon.
friend, I think, was not well actuated, nor
do I think his remarks were at all called
for, in directing the attention of the House
to the fact that the Minister of Public
Works (Mr. James Sutherland) has not been
in his place in this House during the present session. The fact is correctly stated,
and, perhaps, under different circumstances,
no fault could be found with the observations which my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden)
has made. But I was under the impression that the well known cause of the
absence from the House of the Minister of
Public Works would warrant everybody in
allowing that absence to pass without remark. The hon. gentleman (Mr. James
Sutherland) has been absent from this
House because of the state of his health.
I am reminded that, some six or seven years
ago, when another of my colleagues, the
Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden)
having suffered a severe shock in a railway
accident, was absent from this parliament
for a whole session, not a word was ever
uttered upon the subject. Everybody understood the circumstances and hoped that
the hon. gentleman would resume his duties
as we hope that the hon. Minister of Public
Works will, in the near future, be able to
resume his place. And that is the reason
why the absence of the Minister of Public
Works should not be commented upon. My
hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has referred
to a rumour that the Minister of Public
Works has tendered his resignation to me.
I would have preferred not to speak upon
this subject. I do not know that the House
expects me to speak upon it even after
the reference to it made by my hon. friend.
Still, I may say that the Minster of Public
Works has not placed his resignation in my
hands. When he told me that he was in
poor health and could not attend to the
business of the session, I took it upon myself to say to him, ' My friend, you had
better go away and stay away until you are
better ; we will arrange to carry on the
work of your department ; and every member of the House will be glad to know that
there is hope that you will soon come back
again.'
Now, with regard to the resignation of
my hon. friend the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), I have only one observation
to make in answer to the numerous
queries my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden)
has put to me. So far as I know, and I
have no reason to believe to the contrary,
the only difference that occurred between
3563
3564
myself and the late Minister of the Interior was that he resigned upon this educational
question and for no other reason.
I owe it to my hon. friend from Brandon to
make this statement openly, widely, and,
as I hope, for ever to set at rest any rumours to the contrary.
Now, it is true that my hon. friend has
not been replaced yet. How many days
have elapsed since he resigned his portfolio?
Just thirty-one days. But, before I come
to that, let me say that I do not think there
is any anology whatever between the resignation of my hon. friend the late Minister
of the Interior and what took place some
ten years ago, in 1895. Then we saw a
very different spectacle—members coming
in and members going out, members resigning one day and taking back their resignation
the following day, or the following
week, members absent from parliament,
not because they were called away a few
days for any reason, but members not in
their seats because they were neither in nor
out of the government, and because they
did not appear to know what position they
occupied. There is nothing of the kind
here, we know where we are, at all events.
But when there are disagreements amongst
ministers, the honourable course is for the
dissenting minister to proffer his resignation, and to say to the Prime Minister :
I
do not agree with your policy. This is what
has taken place ; and therefore there is no
analogy whatever between what took place
in 1895 and what is taking place to-day.
It is true, as I say, that the hon. member
for Brandon has not been replaced in the
cabinet. My hon. friend the leader of the
opposition asks, for what cause ? Is it any
lack of material ? Perhaps it may be for
an opposite cause, perhaps it is too abundant
material. There is such a thing as an embarras de richesse, although my hon. friend
appears to be suffering from the reverse,
he is suffering from penury. while we on
this side are suffering from abundance and
that may be just as good a reason as the
reason suggested by my hon. friend.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I do not know
but that would be a good reason, I will think
of it. It might be well to have two ministers
instead of one ; but I am sure that if I
were to ask parliament for an appropriation
for another minister my hon. friend would
be one of the first to object, he would not
allow us to do it. However, we will have
to be content with one Minister of the Interior, that is all we are called upon to
appoint. I do not think my hon. friend can
charge the government with negligence because it has not appointed another minister
to a portfolio which has been vacant only
thirty-one days. I do not think there has
been any negligence whatever, on the contrary I think the government has done right
3565 MARCH 31, 1905
to deliberate, to consider what position
they are going to take, who they are going
to call upon to fill the very important place
left vacant by the late minister.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The right hon. gentleman appreciates of course the fact that
in this connection I called attention to the
peculiar condition, namely, that we are
about to pass a very important Bill with
regard to those Territories.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Yes, and this
is a reason why, in my estimation, instead
of pressing the matter. we should exercise
a little delay. This Bill cannot be postponed
if we intend to have these provinces begin
operations on the 1st of July next. There
are many reasons why this should be done.
the people expect it, and therefore we cannot delay the prosecution of the Bill. But
the hon. gentleman wants us at the same
time to proceed with the Bill and to proceed
with an election in the Northwest Territories, or somewhere else. I do not think,
under the circumstances. we can do anything else than to proceed. as governments
have always proceeded in these matters,
and to take time to consider who is the best
man to seek to fill this position. There are
numerous precedents, of which I will refer
to a few. There has been a vacancy before
in the portfolio on the Interior. For instance, the Department of the Interior had
been filled by a very able man. the Hon.
Thomas White. from the 5th of August.
1885. to the 21st April, 1888, and then a
vacancy occurred through the death of that
gentleman. That vacancy remained from
the 21st April to the 3rd August, 1888. not
one month. not two months, not three
months, but more than three months elapsed
before the vacancy was filled. This occurred during a session of parliament. and
I do not remember that any word of criticism was made against the government
because they did not proceed immediately
to fill that portfolio. But that is not all.
I would call attention to another important
department of the government, the Department of Railways. That department was
created on the 20th of May, 1879. it was
filled by Sir Charles Tapper, who occupied
the position until the 23rd of May, 1884,
when the position became vacant and remained vacant—how long? To the 25th of
September, 1884 ? No, but until the 25th
of September, 1885, nearly a year and four
months. But that is not all. The Hon.
John Henry Pope occupied the portfolio
from September 25, 1885, to April 1, 1889.
when a vacancy again occurred by the death
of Mr. Pope, and the portfolio remained
vacant until the 28th of November, 1889,
when it was filled by Sir John A. Macdonald. He occupied the post of Minister of
Railways until the 6th of June, 1891, when
the portfolio became vacant and remained
so until the 11th of January, 1892, when
it was filled by the hon. member for Lanark
3565
3566
(Mr. Haggart). Yet there was not. so far
as I remember, much criticism on the fact
of these vacancies remaining so long, one
of them for a year and four months. On
the present occasion, a vacancy has occurred in the portfolio of the Interior, but
it
will not remain vacant for one year and four
months. not even for four months, not even
for three months, but in due time, and before long, I shall give my hon. friend the
fullest satisfaction that he desires to have
on this question.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto)
The right hon. gentleman has, as usual,
risen to the occasion in his own way ; whether that way is satisfactory to the House
and to the country is another matter. He
has, as often happens recently, not treated
the matter seriously. He seems to think
that. as the responsible head of a government, he is not bound to give any sufficient
reasons for violations of constitutional practice, violations of precedent and violations
of the canons of good government. He read
my hon. friend. the leader of the opposition,
a lecture upon propriety, which I think was
altogether uncalled for. It seems to me that
the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. R. L.
Borden) introduced his reference to the
Department of Public Works in the most
kindly and most courteous way. He
attempted to find no fault with the
minister personally. But what did
strike him, and what, I think he expressed to the House very properly and very
reasonably, was the fact that one of the
most important departments of the government is now, not for one month, or two
months. or three months, or four months,
but for many, many months more than that,
practically without a head. Well, whilst
disposed in every way to have a kindly
feeling to the hon. gentleman who has the
misfortune by illness to be away from his
department, I think it is very well understood that there is not a probability of
that
hon. gentleman again administering that department. He has been out of it for a long
series of months. It. has been practically
taken over by another gentleman who is
not responsible in the way that a minister
is. I am not at all saying that he would not
make a very good responsible minister, but
no man can in a lay position, so to speak,
administer a department with the same
power and with the same sense of responsibility as one who is specially appointed
under the law. So that, in reference to that
the maxim which has been so often mentioned here of late that the King's government
must go on applies. The King's government must go on. It will not wait even
for illness or for death or for any of these
circumstances. The affairs of the country
are over and superior to all these and there
is not the least doubt in the world that the
department suffers from the lack of a responsible head.
3567
Saying no more about that, if this department is, for the reasons that the right
hon. First Minister stated, vacant and has
been vacant for ever so long it ought to be
an additional reason and a very strong
additional reason why other departments
which are vacant or virtually vacant in
this House should be filled up. For instance, take the Department of the Interior.
The minister himself of that department
for a long time, by reason of illness, was
unable to be at the department. I suppose
there is no department of this government
which has so varied a range of interests and
requires so much a constant, steady and
firm head as the Department of the Interior. The hon. gentleman who was the
minister has been away from that department for a considerable length of time.
Changes took place whilst he was away,
changes which have never been explained
to this House. The deputy minister retired
or was forced to retire, I do not know
which, and a new man was placed in the
department. There is an additional reason
why there should be some responsible head
of the department. With its varied interests, with its multiplied avenues of approach—approach
for all kinds of influences
extending from the administration of the
gold regions in the far north down
all through an immense range of territory
in Canada itself, with its branches all over
the United States of America and all over
Europe as well there is not a department
which lends itself so much to abuse and
to results which inevitably arise from the
want of careful and firm handling than
that very same department. There have
been things said against that department
and they are said against that department
now. The right hon. gentleman has not
read the newspapers and moved up and
down Canada without knowing all these
things. For that reason then, and when a
new deputy minister takes hold, nominally,
there should be a strong, firm and responsible man at the head of the department.
During the whole session we have not been
able to get any information from the Interior Department such as we should have
got. There has not been a question of
moment brought up because there has been
no person in the House representing the department to answer for the department.
The right hon. gentleman who leads the
government says : I am nominally the head
of the department. ' Nominally' that is the
correct word. It is absolutely impossible
for him to master the details of that
department with the multiplied duties
that he has as premier—absolutely impossible and still that portfolio remains open?
Why ? Because of lack
of material ? The Prime Minister will
not say that. In his easy way he has
rather attributed it to an embarrassment of
riches. Well, the right hon, gentleman cannot delay for ever. He can make up his
mind quickly enough if he wishes to. He
3567
3568
can delay just as long as any other man if
it suits him to delay, but we know that at
this very moment he has within his mind's
eye the man he proposes to appoint as
Minister of the Interior. Why does he not
have him go to the west? Is he afraid that
his Bill will be through before the election
can be carried out. I think he can possess
his soul in patience so far as that is concerned. He will have ample time to send
his man to the Northwest Territories and
give one single, solitary opportunity, the
only one, of permitting the Northwest 8.
voice of allowing one portion at least of
the people of the Northwest Territories to pronounce upon the policy of this
Bill which is so all important to that great
western country. The right hon. leader
of the government, stickler for precedent
that he is when he is out of office, puts it
lightly away when he assumes the badge
of office. He erects into a constitutional
principle what had never before been taken
is a constitutional principle in order to serve
a purpose. The purpose once served he
throws away his invention, he has no use
for it, until another circumstance arises
which will call for another constitutional
principle. What is his constitutional principle ? It was adverted to by my hon.
friend here (Mr. R. L. Borden). It was the
result of a circumstance which was none
too creditable to the government of my
right hon. friend. An hon. gentleman went
into a department in the temporary absence of another minister meddled in a
matter of its administration and so brought
about some considerable confusion in the
government of this country. It was then
that the new constitutional principle was
devised, invented, brought out brand new.
that there was a geographical ministerial
responsibility as well as a constitutional
responsibility—all very good for the occasion and yet when you have a great part
of this country to be erected into provinces,
to be, by an irrevocable decree fashioned,
moulded and formed the right hon. gentleman refuses to consult with the representatives
of the government of that country. He brings down here at his own express request
and call the only representatives that are available of these two great
Territories—the premier and one of his cabinet, backed up, as I said the other day,
by a third member of his cabinet. When
he gets them here he throws them lightly
aside, at least the Tory part of the reprensentation, he finds sources of information in
his own way and he refuses almost absolutely upon the most important part of his
Bill to recognize the legal and constitutional
representative of that portion of the country for which this Bill is being specially
provided. As he himself says this is the
most momentous of questions before the
House affecting absolutely and particularly
that portion of the country, and yet he will
not either test the feeling of the people of
that country, or what is of much more im
3569 MARCH 31, 1905
portance than that, he will not give to
that portion of the country its minister
with geographical responsibility as well as
constitutional responsibility.
Now, a circumstance occurred not long
ago which rather lends force to the argument and which affects some men in
the right hon. gentleman's cabinet. What
did we find in October of last year ? We
found the right hon. gentleman coming
down to the province of Ontario, getting
down upon bended knees before a luminary
of the law and saying to him in so many
English words: My dear Mr. Aylesworth I
have colleagues and representatives in the
government from the province of Ontario
who have been with me for some time, but
I find that in Ontario my hold is growing
gradually weaker. I am not only not increasing the strength, but I see that
strength diminishing. I do not want to
turn these out to pasture, poor as they
are, and so I must have you come in and
save the remnant in the province of Ontario. The right hon. gentleman needed some
strength, and if ever there was a practical illustration of that need we have it
this year. The lynx-eyed minister, the
Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock),
is not here, and I suppose I may venture
to mention him to-day Without his inflicting
upon this House that oft-repeated story
repeated so well along the concessions and
side lines of North Ontario, learned and
conned and repeated so often up and down
the province of Ontario, and repeated so
often in this House, that it is becoming a
tale oft-told, with the little interest that
attaches to a tale oft-told. I suppose that
I may refer to the fact that he slept at his
post while the most important legislation
was being performed for these orphan territories in the Northwest. Is there not some
reason why there should be a brave, bright,
strong, wide-awake man brought in from
the west who will not sleep at his post,
but who will know What is going on and
see that his geographical ministerial responsibility is fully exercised in the representation
of the people in the country from
which he comes. If the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) can keep constitutionally
portfolios open for one month,
he can keep them open for two, three or
four months. He was the gentleman who,
in opposition, pleaded always for a full
cabinet, for the ministerial responsibility
to be properly divided and distributed, and
that there should be at the post of power
in each department a responsible head.
He knows as well as we all know that that
is proper constitutional doctrine, and that
it is necessary for the good government and
good administration of the country. Yet he
does not fill the vacant position, and he does
not give us any valid reason why.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Haliburton). The First Minister has referred
3569
3570
to the fact that after the death of the late
Hon. Thomas White the portfolio of the
Interior was vacant for some time. That
is true, but he also knows that at that time
a new principle in constitutional government, the principle that there must be a
responsible minister for the district, had
not been engrafted on the constitution of
this country. The First Minister has given
us that new line in the constitution. At
that time also there was no great crisis in
the Northwest, as there is on the present
occasion, for it must be remembered that the
vacancy in the portfolio of the Minister of
the Interior to-day is caused owing to the
fact that legislation is before this House
which the responsible minister from the
district refused to endorse and which he
claims is not satisfactory to the people of
that region. Therefore, the circumstances
are entirely changed, and, as far as the
parallel goes, the Prime Minister's argument will not hold godd. The custom in
all these matters in the old country is that
there shall be a responsible minister at
each post. The leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden) has referred to a case in
point, where, in 1871, objection was simply
taken in the House of Commons to the fact
that Mr. Childers, First Lord of the Admiralty, was absent during illness, and
within one month thereafter Mr. Childers
resigned. This is even more important than
the case of the absence of a minister
through illness. We have before us an important measure which is going to affect
that Northwest country for weal or woe.
The minister refuses to sanction that measure and retires from the cabinet, but owing
to certain pressure, I do not know what
the pressure or arrangement may have been,
time may solve it, but owing to some negotiations—and they are good at carrying on
negotiations and bringing about mediations
in the cabinet—the Ex-Minister of the Interior has agreed to vote for the government's
emasculated measure, as he terms it,
although on every solitary point in the Bill
he differs essentially from the First Minister and the cabinet. The circumstances
are such that I maintain they warrant the
action of the government in filling the post
at the very first opportunity. The First
Minister has stated that this Bill cannot
wait, that it must become law by the lst
of July. It is not very long from now until
the 1st of July, and if the First Minister is
anxious that the measure shall get through
by the lst of July it might be advisable for
him to seriously consider whether or not
its passage would not be facilitated by the
appointment of a new Minister of the Interior, who might go before his constituents.
seek re-election and test the feeling as to
the reception which the Bill will likely
meet when it has been passed by this House.
The Prime Minister would likely make
time if he adopted such a course rather
than trusting to the Bill being passed with
3571 COMMONS
out opposition and becoming law by the 1st
of July, so that he could thereafter have
the election of the Minister of the Interior.
I want to say a word about the position of
the Minister of Public Works. The acting
minister (Mr. Hyman), I regret to say, has
just gone out. No man regrets the illness
of the present minister—I refer to the Hon.
Mr. James Sutherland—more than I do myself. He is a gentleman for whom I have
always had and always shall have the very
highest personal regard, and no one will
more heartily welcome him back to health
and to this House than I. But what are
the facts of the case ? It is generally understood, in fact a gentleman whom the
minister himself has consulted, has stated
that the Minister of Public Works has asked
the First Minister to accept his resignation,
but for some reason or other this resignation has not been accepted. That responsible
position, which the constitution requires
shall be held by a member having a seat in
the parliament directly responsible to the
people, has not been filled, and one of the
largest spending departments of the public
service is without a responsible head in this
House to-day. I am not saying one word
about the hon. member for London, the minister without portfolio (Mr. Hyman), a
gentleman who I believe undoubtedly stands
head and shoulders over his colleagues from
that province. I am not saying one word
about his fitness, and that is all the more
reason why he should be made the responsible minister. He occupies a peculiar
position. His position in the cabinet is
simply that of a minister without portfolio.
He is not responsible for any department,
and has not appealed to the people for reelection after his appointment as minister.
I am sure the First Minister will hear me
out when I say that the position he now
occupies is entirely unconstitutional. It is
pointed out in Todd, page 483, volume 2, in
reference to the case of Lord Russell, spoken of by the leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden) :
On March 9 the Earl of Derby took notice in
the House of Lords of 'the very great inconvenience and injury to the public service'
occasioned by the absence from the country and
from his official duties of the Colonial Secretary—
It was only in February that Lord Russell went to Vienna.
—more especially as no Under Secretary had
been yet'appointed to represent the department
in the House of Commons.
Earl Granville (the president of the council)
replied, that for the present the Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) would also take
charge
of the Colonial Department, being 'formally
and technically' competent, as a secretary of
state, to control any branch of the secretariate.
As a matter of fact. Lord Jehn Russell
returned and resumed his seat on April 30.
3571
3572
Although the Prime Minister was in his
place, the minister who was both formally
and technically responsible returned in less
than two months, and that satisfied the
House and the country. The case of the
Minister of Public Works was entirely diferent. The member for London is not technically
qualified. He may be formally qualified as a member of the Privy Council, but
he is not technically qualified for the office
of Minister of Pubilc Works, and therefore
I maintain that there should be no delay in
accepting the resignation of the Minister of
Public Works. Then the member for London, one of the most popular men in the
country, will have an opportunity of proving whether or not the present cabinet has
the confidence of the people of this Dominion, not only in regard to the Public Works
Department, but in regard to their general
conduct of other matters. The custom of the
English constitution is that all important
measures involving important principles,
such as that involved in the Bill before the
House, should be pronounced upon by the
people before becoming law. The First Minister knows that this measure was not at
all
discussed before the electorate. No one
dreamed that there were going to be the contentious matters in this Bill that have
been
found in it. Therefore I maintain that the
duty of the Prime Minister is to hold this
Bill off until the feeling of the country in
regard to it can be tested in a general election. I maintain that there is only one
of
two courses open to him at the present time.
One is to go to the country and test the
feeling of the electors in a general election;
another is to appoint a new Minister of the
interior and put him in the field in some
riding in the Northwest and test the feeling
of the country in that way. The portfolio of
the Interior should not be held open a moment' longer than is absolutely necessary.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). Mr.
Speaker, I beg to say a few words on this
question before the motion is disposed of.
it seems to me that we are face to face with
a very unusual state of things both in this
House and in the country. We are confronted with what may fairly be regarded. under
constitutional government. as a very grave
crisis. Confederation is yet on its trial. It
was adopted many years ago to overcome
difficulties which experience had shown to
exist in our previous form of government,
and with the object of doing justice to every
interest and every locality. The fathers of
confederation wisely and carefully considered this constitution before it was adopted.
for the purpose of endeavouring. as far as
the experience of the national life would enable them to do up to that time. to avoid
the troubles of the past and to provide a pm.
per government for the future; and the
principle they laid down was representation
by population in the popular chamber—this
3573 MARCH 31, 1905
is, that every member should represent a
certain number of the electors or population.
But they provided that every member should
represent a certain area as well. The delimitation of the areas each of which should
elect a member was made in the first statutes, and that was observed and carried
out in our first election. The fathers
of confederation believed that we required
an upper House as well as a lower
House—a corrective chamber that would
not be subject to the excitement of elections
but that would be appointed by the Crown;
and the selection of the men who were to
form that chamber was made on the principle that each should represent not only
a certain province, but a certain district in
that province. From Quebec there were to
be twenty-four, from Ontario twenty-four,
and from the maritime provinces twenty-four
and each was to represent a certain district within his particular province. There
were not only twenty-four members of the
Senate assigned to Quebec, but the British
North America Act says :
In the case of Quebec each of the twenty-four
senators representing that province shall be
appointed for one of the twenty-four electoral
divisions of Lower Canada. specified in schedule
' A ' to chapter 1 of Consolidated Statutes of
Canada.
I am giving this recapitulation to show
that the designers of confederation had in
view not only representation by population,
but representation of locality as well, and
that this principle applied not only to the
popular chamber, which was to be elected,
but to the Senate, which was not to be elected, and to the cabinet ministers. With
regard to ministerial representation, we find
that a certain number of ministers were assigned to Quebec. Originally it was three.
Now it is four, with an extra one, which
makes the number five. The same number
was assigned to Ontario and the same number to the maritime provinces ; and these
were so arranged that each locality would
be represented. That principle was followed for years as strongly as any other principle
to be found within the four corners
of the constitution. It was a part of our
unwritten constitution, and we lived up to
it carefully and closely, because it was believed that by doing so we did justice
to all
parts of the country and to all interests involved, and no injustice to any. A certain
number of cabinet ministers was assigned to
each province in proportion to its population, its importance and its area. As time
went on and settlement went westward,
we were obliged to change that a little. We
dropped some of our representation in the
smaller provinces in the east, and endeavoured to give representation to the west
; because it was felt that so long as there was
a section that had no voice in the cabinet,
we were not fully carrying out the principle of representation that was adopted by
3573
3574
the fathers of confederation. What was all
this intended for ? That every locality
should have its voice and its spokesman in
the parliament of the nation and in the cabinet, so that justice might be done to
all
parts of the country. That was the aim
and the reason why this unwritten constitution was followed as closely as any portion
of our written constitution.
There are two objects in view in organizing a cabinet. What are these two objects
? The first is to select men who are
fitted for the position. The second is to
make the selection so that each member of
the cabinet may represent a certain locality and the special interests in that locality.
These interests may be commercial or maritime or something else. And the selection
should be such as will receive the endorsation of the people. These are the two
objects in view in filling a cabinet. In a
well balanced cabinet, every district has its
voice at the council board, every district
has its representative in council. But applying this principle to the present condition
of things, what is the situation today. We have in this confederation about
2,100,000 square miles of territory. How
much of that territory is represented in
this cabinet ? Take the combined provinces
of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and they
only represent 564,000 square miles. Take
the balance of the territory which is not
represented, which has no voice in the cabinet, which has no say at the council
board, and we find that it comprises 1,558,888 square miles.
Mr. SPROULE. I am not going into details as regards population, but if you take
the map of the Dominion and draw a line
straight through it from south to north.
going as far west as you will find a cabinet
representative at present—that is the city
of London—you will find that two-thirds of
the territory of the Dominion is without a
cabinet representative. Is that just or unjust ? Is that carrying out the design of
the fathers of confederation ? Is that doing
justice to all and injustice to none ? I
say it is not. Two-thirds of the Dominion
to-day have no voice at the council board.
Whatever policy may be introduced and decided upon there, they have no opportunity
of expressing their dissent or assent or of
shaping it any way whatever. A rather eminent writer on confederation said that it
was the solemn duty of each province keenly to watch and promptly to repel any attempt
faint or forcible which the federal
government might be disposed to make on
the rights and privileges of any one of them.
That is Mr. Watson's idea of the duties of
the provinces. But how can a province exercise this scrutiny unless it has its full
representation, not only in the House of
3575
COMMONS
Commons, but on the council board of a
nation. And if this large portion of the
Dominion has no voice in the council, surely
it is deprived of a portion of its undoubted
rights. I find that two-thirds of the area
of this Dominion is not represented at the
council board, and that at the very time
when a most important question, one vitally affecting the interests of that country,
is about to be decided. One of the provinces to-day has almost been driven into
revolt, if we can believe what we read in
the newspapers. I refer to the province of
Manitoba. The absolute refusal of the
rights of that province to have its boundaries extended, the absolute refusal to do
its
claims justice when these new provinces
are being created, has irritated it to such
an extent that its government has threatening to resign as a protest against the conduct
of this administration. Are we not
then face to face with a very serious crisis?
A great question is now before us for determination, namely, the establishment of
two new provinces out in the Northwest
Territories. What ownership shall these
provinces have in the soil? What representatives shall they possess ? What legislative
power shall be given them ? What
interference shall we make with what they
believe to be their undoubted rights in the
future ? All these great questions are being discussed by this parliament, and these
Territories have no voice at the council
board. They had a voice there not long
ago, but their representative resigned as a
rebuke against the high-handed and unwarranted conduct of the government on the
Autonomy Bill. A Minister of the Crown,
representing that country, gave practical expression of his dissent from that policy
by
resigning his portfolio. Under the circumstances, it certainly is the duty of the
government to fill that portfolio at the earliest
possible moment and have a united cabinet
on the policy which they are submitting to
parliament. Why are they not acting in
accord with the principles of constitutional
government ? Why do they not appoint a
minister and let him go before the people,
so that the people may have an opportunity
of endorsing or condemning the policy of
the administration? The reason, Sir, is
evident. They dare not do it. They want
to force the Bill through without giving
the people chiefly interested an opportunity
of declaring their will regarding it. They
refuse to respect the sovereign rights of the
people. They are acting in utter disregard
of the great electorate which can make
and unmake parliament ? Are they afraid
to appeal to that power ? I am justified by
their conduct in coming to the conclusion
that they are afraid to trust the people.
Then, are we not justified in raising our
voice in rebuke of the conduct of the government ? Are we not justified in calling
public attention to that conduct as a violation of the principles of constitutional
gov
3575
3576
ernment under which we live ? We should
clearly be doing less than our duty if we
refrained from inviting public attention to
the present condition of affairs. As I have
said, it is clear that the government dare
not allow the people to speak, to signify
their agreement or disagreement with the
measure now before the House. At best,
the representation of the Northwest in regard
to this measure could only be indirect so
far as the cabinet is concerned. The people of the Northwest Territories sent their
Prime Minister, their accredited representative. Except for this delegate they are
represented only by a few members in this
House whose voices are but little heard.
The government has acted in a most highhanded and tyrannical fashion in its treatment
of the rights of the people of Manitoba and the Northwest.
Now, when a member is selected for the
cabinet, he is selected on two grounds—
his fitness for the position and the locality
he represents. And who is to determine
his fitness ? First, the Prime Minister who
chooses him. But the judgment of the
Prime Minister must be endorsed by the
people, for, according to our constitutional
forms, a minister, on his appointment, must
go before the people to be endorsed by
them. Have the government dared to appoint a minister and so seek the judgment
of the people on their policy? They have
not. This policy was not before the people in the last election, and so there has
not been the opportunity for the people to
express themselves upon it. The only conclusion that we can come to is that the
government are afraid of the people and
dare not take the step of appointing a minister to fill the present vacancy because
the
effect of that would be to give the people
an opportunity to express their opinions upon
this important measure. The financial interests of that great country in the Northwest
are involved ; their whole future is
involved. Yet, they have no one in the cabinet to speak for them or determine their
rights,—the people of the Northwest must
go into the ' Blind pool' to which the hon.
member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) referred
last year. Yet, the Prime Minister declares
over and over again that he admires the
British constitution and tries to follow it.
His conduct, in my opinion, is the very reverse of all that; he violates every principle
of constitutional government by the
course he pursues. He acts like the Czar
of Russia, deliberately against the people's
rights and wishes. The people are given
no opportunity to determine what their legislative rights shall be with regard to
their
property, their financial relations to the Dominion or any of the other great questions
involved in this measure. And their accredited representative, their Prime Minister,
is spurned when he comes here and seeks to
speak on behalf of his people.
The conduct of the government is a direct
3577 MARCH 31, 1905
invasion of provincial rights. The present
Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should
be the last man in Canada to disregard or
ignore provincial rights in carrying on our
government. The fathers of confederation, when they were determining what
form of government we should have, were
compelled, owing to the sentiment of Quebec to favour a federal union rather than
a
legislative union. Under the federal union
the boundaries of provincial rights are
clearly marked and held as sacred, while,
under a legislative union the provinces
would have only such powers as were given
them by the central authority. I find the
following passage in the life of Sir John A.
Macdonald. Speaking of the discussions
which took place before confederation was
consummated he said :
But, on looking at the subject in the conference, and discussing the matter as we
did most
unreservedly, with a desire to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, we found that
such a system
was impracticable.
This refers to a legislative union. And
why was it impracticable ?
In the first place, it would not meet the
assent of Lower Canada.
And why not ?
Because they felt that, in their peculiar position—being in a minority, with a. difierent
language, nationality and religion from the majority—in case of a junction with the
other provinces, and their institutions and their laws
might be assailed and their ancestral associations, on which they pride themselves,
attacked
and prejudiced.
And, for that reason, they would not accept a legislative union. So, they secured
a federal union, in order that their provincial rights might be maintained. But the
Bill now before the House infringes provincial rights, determining in advance the
course of action of the new provinces in
the Northwest. It deprives these new provinces of the right to manage their own
affairs as the older provinces are free to
manage theirs. In this respect, the measure does not carry out the principle of confederation.
And it comes with doubly bad
grace from a Prime Minister who comes
from Quebec, a province that insisted upon
a form of confederation which would make
their provincial rights secure. Now that the
rights of his own province are established,
the Prime_ Minister attacks the provincial
rights of the new provinces in the west.
In view of all this I say we are face to
face with a great crisis and there is strong
excitement throughout our country. And
why ? Because of the outrage upon the
feelings and opinion: of the people who
have no opportunity to help themselves.
Should this continue ? I say it should not.
I have called attention to the fact that disregard of our constitutional system almost
drove one province into revolt, and, if it
3577
8578
is persisted in, it may arouse to revolt the
people of the new provinces. The sooner
the government place themselves squarely
upon the principles of the constitution and
give to the Northwest a representative in
the cabinet, the better it will be for everybody. We shall then have an opportunity
to work out our constitutional system to a
success, instead of making it the discouraging failure it undoubtedly will be if this
government and their SUCcessors set constitutional principles at defiance.
Mr. A. A. STOCKTON (St. John City and
County). Mr. Speaker, I think the points
made by the leader of the opposition (Mr.
R. L. Borden) are well taken. I hope the
First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will
pardon me if I say that I do not think that
he met the question asked by the leader of
the opposition with the frankness which the
circumstances demanded. It will be remembered, that, after the introduction of
the Bills which have produced so much
discussion in this House, the question was
asked of the Prime Minister whether the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) would
be back in time for the discussion of these
Bills. The First Minister replied that he
did not know when the Minister of the Interior would be here, meaning that he did
not expect, and did not care whether the
Minister of the Interior were here 01- not,
since he, the First Minister, had charge of
the Bill.
Now, let me say that the First Minister
has not answered the question put by the
leader of the opposition except by citing the
instances which took place ten, twelve or
more years ago. What is the opinion of
the First Minister with respect to those
instances? Did he approve of them, or
does he approve of them now? Does he
think that citing those instances is a sufficient answer to the question put him by
the leader of the opposition? I would like
to know what the opinions of the First
Minister are upon those instances. I say,
Mr. Speaker, thatif there ever was a time
in the history of this country when it was
necessary that a responsible minister from
that Northwest country should be here on
the floor of this House, it in to-day. We
know that the proposition has been put
forward that the ministers represent localities, and that they are to be trusted
to a large extent with the administration of
affairs in those localities. How stands the
matter to-day? Is there any representative
from the great Northwest here today to
look after the interests of that great country, which is causing so much discussion
and occupying so much attention in this
House and in the country at large? Not one,
Sir, and so far as any information is given
by the First Minister to-day, there will be no
representative in the government from the
Northwest until after these Bills are passed.
Is that fair to the people of that country?
3579
COMMONS
Is it fair to the representatives of that
country in this House to force this measure through without the people of the Northwest,
by their responsible minister, having a voice in the consideration of the measure?
I think not, Sir, and I think it is unfair to that country that it should have no
responsible minister here while this discussion is going on, and while this measure
is being passed through the House.
But, Sir, there is another phase of the question. When the ex-Minister of the Interior
appeared here, apparently to the confusion of the First Minister, two days after he
had introduced this Bill, what took place? The resignation of the Minister of the
Interior. Why ? As a protest against the action of the First Minister in introducing
the Autonomy Bills in his absence, and particularly against the educational clauses
thereof, which the ex-Minister of the Interior could not endorse, and he vacated his
seat as a protest against the action of the First Minister and of his government.
That was a challenge thrown down to the First Minister and to his government upon
their polict with respect to these Bills. There is a vacancy in the government now,
the government is without a Minister of the Interior. Let the First Minister test
the feeling of the people of the Northwest upon this question by selecting from his
plethora of ability that he has behind him a gentleman to fill the position of Minister
of the Interior, and let him send that gentleman back for re-election in order to
test the feelings of the people of the Northwest with respect to his policy. That
would be the manly way, that would be the bold way, that would be the proper way on
the part of men who are willing to trust the people. Is this government willing to
trust the people in connection with these Bills?
Mr STOCKTON. The conduct of the government apparently shows that they are not willing
to trust the people. I say, don't gag the people of the Northwest, give them an opportunity
to say whether they want this legislation or not, give them an opportunity to say
in a constitutional way whether they are in harmony with the government with respect
to this measure. The right hon. gentleman has an opportunity of doing that. If he
and his government do not do it, they show that they do not trust the people; although
the right hon. gentleman is reported to have said that he was a democrat to the hilt.
Now, Sir, I should say no more on this question. I felt that I could not remain silent
while a question of this importance was before the House. I repeat that the conduct
of the government in keeping this seat vacant is not fair to the people of the Northwest,
it is not fair to the people of the rest of Canada, and, furthermore, it is contrary
to the constitu
3579
3580
tional usages which obtain in the mother
country and all the great self-governing colonies of the empire.
Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe). I did
not intend to speak on this question until the main question came again before the
House. But I do feel that this is a time for hon. members of the House to speak out,
and say distinctly what they think of the conduct of the government. I had hoped,
there being seven representatives in this House from the Northwest supporting the
government, that they at all events would defend the interests of their own section
in this matter. When I find that the First Minister has been able so far to influence
and to control those hon. members, I think it necessary that the rest of us should
speak definitely on this subject. Now the First Minister has been perfectly consistent,
and with my great respect for the First Minister, I shall take the liberty of addressing
a few plain words to him in the English language which I hope he will fairly understand.
I hope that the people of this country will become seized of the situation, and although
it is vain to hope that the government will listen to the voice of reason on this
subject, there is one power in this country great enough to arrest the action of the
government, and that is the press. I hope that they will take this matter up and
agitate from end to end of Canada before this measure goes through, in order that
we may guarantee the interests of the great west in this House. I say that the First
Minister to-day has been consistent in his attitude throughout this whole matter,
not only in this matter, but during the last two sessions, in treating lightly subjects
of great importance and in treating the representative of the people with levity by
neglecting their just demands. The First Minister must apprehend that he has not on
any occasion when the leader of the opposition, either to-day or previously, asked
for information which this House has a right to obtain, given a fair, square and honest
answer to a question.
Now the First Minister says, we know
where we are. Well, perhaps they do. It is rather recent information, for they did
not know where they were two or three weeks ago, but the party lash has been applied.
They know where they are to-day but they do not know where they will be to-morrow.
They do not know where they will be a week hence and I warrant there are some hon.
gentlemen opposite who do not know yet quite what is going to develop during the course
of this discussion, and who do not know where they will be a week hence. Probably
the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) thinks he knows where he is. The hon. member
for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) probably thinks he knows where he is
3581 MARCH 31, 1905
or where he is going to be, but, they do not
both know it. One of them will probably
get the office and we will then see a display
of the anger of the one who has not got the
position he desires. The right hon. First
Minister says that it is only thirty-one days'
delay, and he also said that in 1888 it was a
matter of months or probably more that the
position of Minister of the Interior was
vacant. Does the right hon. gentleman want
that to go to the country as the honest, statesmanlike utterance of the First Minister
of
the Dominion of Canada ? But, if we have,
as was said by hon. members on his own side
of the House, and as is the fact, before us
one of the most momentous questions that
have at any time involved the consideration
of this House, a question that will affect the
future of the west, half a million miles of
the best territory of this Dominion and
the best agricultural country that exists
to-day, is there any analogy between this
case and the case of the Minister of the Interior in 1888 ? 'Only thirty-one days
ago,'
says the right hon. First Minister, and in a
while when it suits my convenience, when I
get entirely ready, after I have held at bay
the office-seekers who want the position and
whom I dare not now offend because I want
to dangle before them the plums of office
and not offend any one of them until after
this crucial period has gone by, then, after
the 1st of July, after I have riveted upon
the west and established the system of
fetters that I desire, then, at my convenience, as the great Czar of Canada—for the
time being ; not for all time to come, thank
God,—I will announce what I will do. He
says that he is embarrassed by a wealth of
material. Very likely. The right hon.
First Minister is perfectly sincere. He
has a wealth of material in this House.
One man says that he is as good as the other.
Each man says: I am the big man for the
situation; and this is a source of embarrassment perhaps to the right hon. First Minister.
He dare not fill that position because
he is afraid that some of his followers whose
votes he depends upon might not be available in this crisis. I do not know that I
need say much further in reference to what
the right hon. First Minister has said.
The right hon. gentleman is more remarkable for what he does not say on these
occasions than for what he says. But, he
asks : Would you expect us to have an
election and to have this discussion going
on at the same time ? What does the right
hon. gentleman mean by that ? Does it
require his personal supervision to engineer
the election in the west ? Does it require
that the strength of the cabinet shall
be transferred to the west or to any of the
most important points of the west while an
election is going on ? Does the right hon.
gentleman feel that the situation is so delicate and dangerous in the west that it
will
require all the power of the government,
3581
3582
and probably more to bring about the result
that he wants ? Does he anticipate now
that when the 1st of July has gone past and
when he does appoint a Minister of the Interior the people of the west will visit
with condemnation the administration which
is now in power at Ottawa ? Or, does he
simply mean that it will require so much
manipulation that it would be impossible
to carry on this discussion in the House
and carry on an election in the west at the
same time ? What is the meaning of it ?
Is it an admission to the people of
Canada (wrested from the right hon. First
Minister) because we have not had such an
admission made often in this House, that
he realizes that it will take the most superhuman effort on his part to win in
the west if he were to open a constituency there at the present time ? In
other words that he has not, with all the
wealth of material that he has in this House
or out of it, because he could select a
minister for this position out of the House
as well as in it—he could send Mr. Aylesworth up there if he could be elected,—the
least chance of electing his Minister of the
Interior if he will accept the challenge
which is a fair and square challenge, to
give to those people who have not been allowed to voice their opinions the opportunity
of testing this question and of saying
whether they want this measure proposed
by the right hon. First Minister or not.
Now, I had intended to refer to another
aspect of this case, but I find that I have got
excited and that is not usual with me. I
must excuse myself. I believe I am justified in asking for the indulgence of this
House if I do get a little excited on this
occasion. I believe as the right hon. minister says, that our passions on some of
these
occasions are not wholly ignoble, it is probably ' the exaggeration of a noble sentiment,'
the right hon. minister says and perhaps
there is a little exaggeration of noble sentiments from time to time as the debate
goes
on. I think that when we cannot get a
solitary member representing the west on
the government side of the House to stand
up and advocate the rights of the west, when
we cannot get the hon. Minister of Finance
(Mr. Fielding) who was an advocate of
opinions which are in direct conflict with the
proposition of the government to-day, when
we cannot get that great democrat to rise
up and say that in this day the people shall
be supreme, when we cannot get back into
the House that champion of national schools,
the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton),
to speak one word on behalf of the great
people of the west, a place which is to be
the garden of Canada in the future and the
grandest agricultural territory within this
country,—when we cannot get these hon. gentlemen to stand up and say one word on
behalf of the great people of the west, then,
I feel that I am justified in having got a
3583
COMMONS
little excited and not being able to pursue
a distinct and logical argument as I intended when I rose to speak.
Mr. J. B. KENNEDY (New Westminster).
Mr. Speaker, I rise for a little information, not that I expect to get any from
the solon who has just addressed the House.
But, the principle has evidently been laid
down this afternoon that a province is not
represented in this House unless it has a
member of the government. In this case it
seems to me that there has been a rather
gross insult addressed to the ten men who
represent these Territories in the House
to-day.
Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin). Mr.
Speaker, in the opening remarks of my hon.
friend the leader of the opposition this afternoon he referred to the course pursued
by
the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) when he was leader of the Liberal
opposition in this House some years ago.
The right hon. gentleman on that occasion
drew the attention of this House to certain
rumours going the rounds of the newspapers
of this country coupled with the fact that
His Excellency the Governor General had
postponed a trip that he anticipated making.
He thought the circumstances sufficient to
warrant him in calling the attention of the
government of the day to the importance
of these rumours. One of the arguments he
employed in that case was to the effect that
the government was not in the position in
which it ought to be before asking parliament to transact the business of the country.
He said :
The government, I submit, has no right to ask
parliament to vote a single penny under the
circumstances.
What circumstances? The circumstances
arising from the rumours going around the
public press of this country that certain
seats in the government were vacant. It
seemed to him a remarkable thing that he
found some of these seats vacated, vacated
by whom ? By the representatives of the
west ? No ; the right hon. gentleman seemed to be exercised particularly about the
representatives, not of the Northwest Territories, but of the province of Quebec.
Why was my hon. friend so much exercised
on that occasion ? It was not because of
any particular or important question brought
up in this House on that occasion. In 1893
parliament met on April 18. This matter
was brought up by the right hon. gentleman
on July 9, and that session closed on July
22, thirteen days after he had given the
government notice of the fact that certain
ministers had not been in their places the
day before. Why was he so much exercised
over the fact of these ministers not being
properly representative of the province of
Quebec ? Was it bcause parliament was
liable to vote a penny unwiseiy in their
absence ? Every man who knows anything
3583
3584
of the political history of this country knows
what was taking place at that time ; he
knows that an issue similar to that which
is being discussed to-day was being considered by the people and the government,
and it was more due to that fact, I venture
to say, that the right hon. gentleman objected to these ministers not being in their
places on that particular occasion. My
right hon. friend has been asked civilly and
often lately by the leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden) why it is that the position of Minister of the Interior is not
filled.
The right hon. gentleman rises in his place
and says that the leader of the opposition
again has another little joke. And what is
the little joke ? It is not the spending of a
small amount of the people's money, but it
is the passage of legislation for all time
affecting the Northwest Territories, that
will involve millions of dollars, and yet the
Prime Minister says this is a little joke, and
that there is no occasion to have a Minister
of the Interior appointed to perform the
special duties of that portfolio. The right
hon. gentleman has submitted to the House,
in the .speech from the Throne, this paragraph :
The rapid growth in the population of the
Northwest Territories during the past two years
justifies the wisdom of conferring on these
Territories provincial autonomy. A Bill for
that purpose will be submitted for your consideration.
Before I deal with that, let me refer to a
rumour or two that we have recently heard,
because if the hon. gentleman was justified
in those days I am justified to-day in referring to these rumours. A rumour went
abroad in this country previous to the 23rd
of November last that certain gentlemen
met at Three Rivers, in the province of
Quebec, and that certain arrangements
were entered into by the government with
respect to provincial autonomy in the Northwest. Again I say that I cannot understand
how the right hon. gentleman and his government placed that paragraph in the speech
from the Throne and submitted it to this
House, and then come to this House and
told us, as members of this House, and
told the people of the country, that he had
not consulted the Minister of the Interior
upon this important plank in the platform
in the speech from the Throne. What did
the right hon. gentleman say when he introduced this Bill in this House ? I shall
quote his own words. He said :
How many provinces should be admitted into
the confederation coming from the Northwest
Territories—one, or two or more ? The next
question was : in whom should be vested the
ownership of the public lands ? The third question was : What should be the financial
terms
to be granted to these new provinces ? And
the fourth and not the least important by any
means was the question of the school system
which would be introduced—not introduced. because it was introduced long ago, but
should
be continued in the Territories.
3585 MARCH 31, 1905
Of the four questions which are to be embodied in provincial autonomy, the education
question was in the mind of the right
hon. gentleman the most important. I
again ask the Prime Minister are we to believe, are we to suppose, that in the preparation
of the speech from the Throne, which
was prepared during the early part of this
year, the Minister of the Interior was in no
wise consulted in respect to these four
planks ? I for one refuse to take that view,
because I do not think the ex-Minister of
the Interior is so ignorant with respect to
the contents of this Bill as he would leave
this House and this country to believe. Reference has been made to the creating of
a
vacancy. What do we find in the city of
Toronto ? We find a bargain day for the
Conservative party. Why have we a bargain day now ? Is this the old system of
the Liberal party of this country, when they
have a government backed up by a large
majority and a seat becomes vacant, is it
now the new Liberal policy to give the
Conservative party a bargain day and to
allow them to elect their candidate by acclamation ? I have here the statement of
the executive of the Reform Association of
the city of Toronto. We have the candidate
in the last contest coming to the city of
Ottawa, consulting with the Prime Minister
and his cabinet, going back to Toronto and
advising the Liberal executive of the city of
Toronto not to put up a candidate, refusing
to be a candidate himself and saying that it
was not a wise policy to put a candidate in
the field ; and, therefore, the Liberal party
are going to allow the Conservative candidate to be elected by acclamation. Why is
this ? Is that the way to ascertain public
opinion in this country on an important
question of this kind ? I venture to say that
if the right hon. gentleman had an election
in Toronto he would find that the policy
which he is now pursuing would be rejected,
not only by the Conservative party of Toronto, but by a very large number of the
Liberals as well. I would like to ask the
premier, if he has any influence upon the
ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) or
upon the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), one the late premier of the province
of Manitoba and the other one of his ministers, to kindly whisper into the ears of
these gentlemen the suggestion that they
should stay a little more in this chamber
and give the people of this country the
benefit of their presence and advice, even
as private members. Is it any wonder that
members of the opposition find fault with
the government, when we find important
members like these absenting themselves
when one of the greatest and most important issues ever brought up in parliament is
being discussed from day to day ? They absolutely refuse, by their absence from this
House, to take part in the discussion. I am
sure it would allay, to some extent, the
feeling of the people of this country if they
knew that men entertained the views which
3585
3586
the late premier of Manitoba did entertain—
I do not know if he does now or not—but
certainly the views entertained by the ex-
Minister of the Interior, were to stay in their
places in this House and give us the benefit
of their views from time to time as occasion requires. Then probably they would
assist in allaying the strong feeling that
exists in this country that these gentlemen
are overlooking the interests of the Northwest Territories by their undue absence
from this House. The Prime Minister referred to-day to the fact that the opposition
are making a great deal of capital out of
the thirty-one days of non-appointment of a
Minister of the Interior. Let me point out
to my hon. friend that the Minister of the
Interior has not been in this House during
this session. He came in after the introduction of this Bill. Let me remind the
premier that since 1896 we have had minister after minister absent from their duties
during the session, and no one has been a
greater sinner in that respect than the Minister of the Interior. To-day he is seen
passing by this chamber, paying attention
for a moment or two to the proceedings
here, but then, in his high and lofty way,
he retires from the chamber and allows the
members to discuss these important matters
in his absence. It is high time that these hon.
gentlemen fully understood that it is their
duty to attend in this chamber and give us
the benefit of their advice on these important matters. If the right hon. gentleman
and his friends were correct in 1895, when
they said that it was important for ministers
to be in their places, they should take a
little of their own medicine to-day, and see
that their ministers are in their places in
this House.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe). Mr.
Speaker, I usually agree with the leader of
the opposition, but I think he is rather too
exacting this afternoon. My hon. friend
asks that the First Minister should go back
on his official record since he has been
premier of this Dominion, and start from
this day on a new course. That is altogether too much to ask of the First Minister,
and I think my hon. friend the leader
of the opposition is rather drawing on his
imagination when he expects that the
First Minister will do it. My hon. friend
referred to the fact that the First Minister found fault with the government of
Sir John Thompson on one occasion for not
filling up his cabinet and complained that
at that time for nearly two days two ministers had absented themselves from the
chamber. Well, Sir, the circumstances were
very different then from what they are now.
Neither of these hon. gentlemen had resigned his seat ; the present premier was not
in a position to know that either intended
to resign his seat ; but the fact that they
had not been in their places, and some newspaper comment which he saw on the cir
3587
COMMONS
cumstance, suggested to him the idea of
dividing the House on the matter, and he
did divide the House. What do we see on
the present occasion ? We see the Minister
of the Interior absent from the first day
of the session. Whether his absence was
owing to ill-health I know not, and I think
the public are very little concerned about
it. But we do know that as soon as the
First Minister introduced certain legislation into this House, the Minister of
the Interior was here to dissent from the
proposition of the government ; and we
know that as a result of his dissent he has
gone out of the cabinet and is out of it
to-day ; and every one knows that the First
Minister and his cabinet are afraid to take
the bull by the horns—I am speaking metaphorically—and test popular opinion in the
west, just as they are afraid to test popular
opinion in the province of Ontario. What
is the report of the hon. gentleman's own
political friends from the city of Toronto ?
It is that he has become a Czar and an
autocrat. Mr. Robinette, their candidate
in the last election came down here the
other day ; he was seen here ; his presence
was reported in the newspapers ; and because Mr. Robinette informed the First
Minister that he would not be a supporter
of the government's policy in regard to the
Northwest, the Czar, the leader of this administration, says there must be no contest
in Centre Toronto. Now, I am going
to appeal to the First Minister to remember the watchword of the late premier of
the province of Ontario, his own right arm,
which was paralyzed on the 25th of January, when the people got a chance. What
was the watchword of the Hon. George W.
Ross ? It was : ' Build up Ontario.' What
did that mean ? It meant to build up Ontario in every possible way—mentally, morally,
educationally and commercially ; and
I appeal to the First Minister to build up
Ontario to-day. In the first place, build
it up morally by keeping faith with the
public there. The First Minister went
through the province of Ontario last November—but I will not harrow up his feelings
by mentioning the places where he
spoke, because every one knows what followed—desolation and disaster to the Liberal
candidates. He came to East Simcoe, and
the result there is seen. He went to the
city of Toronto and to other points and
said, it is true, my cabinet representatives
from Ontario are a rum lot ; I have one
in the Senate who is past four score years ;
I have Sir Richard Cartwright on my hands,
but he is to be transferred to the Senate at
an early day ; although the Minister of
Customs is a benevolent, good-hearted soul,
he is not known beyond the confines of his
own bailiwick. But, he said, I am going to
strengthen the cabinet in Ontario ; I am
going to bring in a big man in the person
of Mr. Aylesworth. The First Minister
3587
3588
has not got Mr. Aylesworth yet, but there
is a chance to get him. There are two
counties in Ontario which he could carry,
and only two. Why does he not give Mr.
Aylesworth a chance to run in Russell or
in Prescott ? I know he will not trust himself in North Oxford, nor will he trust
himself anywhere else in Ontario.
Mr. BENNETT; Mr. Aylesworth knows
Toronto ; he lives there. Now, the First
Minister has not kept faith with the electors
of the province of Ontario. He promised
them last November that if they would only
support him, he would build up a stable aggregation from Ontario. What has he done?
There was a time in this House when our
dull moments were enlivened by the oratory of Sir Richard Cartwright ; but he
has stolen Sir Richard Cartwright from the
House and sent him to the Senate. We
have left only our benevolent friend the
Minister of Customs and our soporific friend
the Postmaster General. I think it has
come to a pretty pass in the province of
Ontario that we have to content ourselves
with the cabinet representation that we
have. But let us go a little further. Let
us bear in mind that these two gentlemen
are seriously restricted—that they are not
allowed to perform any acts of importance.
They are allowed to manage departments
which extract money from the pockets of the
people ; neither of them is allowed to
spend a dollar, practically ; but when it
comes to spending money, all the departments for that purpose go to ministers from
the other provinces. True, the Minister of
Public Works for a time had some disposition of patronage, but the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries came up and filched that
from the province of Ontario, and to-day
what is left for the Minister of Public
Works amounts to practically nothing, and
even that is not controlled by a minister who
has the consent and approval of a constituency in Ontario. It is quite true that
my hon. friend who represents North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). and whose absence
we all regret just as sincerely as any gentleman on the other side of the House, is
practically out of politics. The kindly reference made by the hon. leader of the opposition
did not deserve the reply which it received from the First Minister. We all acknowledge
that circumstances sometimes
arise in politics to deprive both political
parties of some of their friends and leaders;
and it is to-day a notorious fact, admitted
by hon. gentlemen opposite, that Mr. Sutherland is not coming back to this House.
Nay,
I go further and say that I saw a letter
myself the other day, written by a friend of
Mr. Sutherland in Mexico, where he is, in
which it is stated that his health was precarious, and that no one seriously believes
3589 MARCH 31, 1905
he will resume his duties in the Public
Works Department.
And the First Minister knows, just as
well as he knows that the sun will rise tomorrow, that Mr. Sutherland does not intend
to come back and take charge of that
portfolio, and we all regret it. He knows
equally well that the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) has been named for that
portfolio—named months ago—and has been
discharging the duties for the past year.
Yet in the face of that fact, this government
are so much in terror of the Ontario electorate, that they dare not open the seat
in
London to-day. You may boast that you
have a majority of five hundred or six hundred for the hon. member for London in that
city, but that majority was reduced to
something like twenty in the last campaign.
The excuse given by his friends is that they
were over-confident or he would have received his old-time majority. Well, this
is the time and place in which, if the government have a scintilla of confidence in
the
people of Ontario, to show that confidence
by throwing down the gauntlet and opening
up the constituency of London. But if they
should, the hon. member for London (Mr.
Hyman) knows, and the cabinet knows,
what will be the result. Here we have a
cabinet in this humiliating position that it
has only two ministers of the Crown on the
floor of this House from Ontario. True, there
are two in the Senate, but I do not suppose
the public are much exercised about them.
The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) has
been over the stony path and the thorny
places. He spent all his life in the constituency of South Brant but that constituency
finally turned him out. Then he went over
the corduroy road in North Grey but did not
dare return there, and finally sought solace
in a haven of rest with a solid Liberal majority of 1,000, but that hon. minister
knows
that so low has his party fallen in the estimation of the people of Ontario that nearly
every seat went against it in the last local
election. And what is the position of the
hon. member for North York (Sir William
Mulock)? That riding was long in the Liberal
fold, but the hon. gentleman knows that if
it were open to-day it would return an
opponent to the present government. Then
there is my hon. friend from Centre York
(Mr. Campbell), who, we all know, is knocking at the threshold for admission to the
cabinet, and who represents a riding specially constructed for him. He has been
standing at the door waiting and watching
long, but they dare not open it for him, and
it is a notorious fact that another gentleman
who has been aspiring to cabinet promotion,
the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has openly gone out in revolt against
the government on this question. Yet the
government intend to rush this Bill through
the House this session. If we were in the
last days of a last session of parliament,
the government would never be able to put
3589
3590
their Bill through, but if this Bill cannot
be killed in this House, the government
which brought it down will be killed when
they go before the people of the Northwest.
This government may force the Bill through
by means of what I would call a machine,
if it were parliamentary, or what I would
call a servile majority, if the rules of parliament would allow it ; it may be voted
through by a majority who have promises
of preferment and place; but all I can say
is that the government will not get preferment at the hands of the electorate when
they go before the country. There is one
power which is irresistible and that is the
power of the people, and those gentlemen
who vote for this measure will certainly
stultify themselves in the eyes of their constituents in the Northwest Territories.
They
know that they are stultifying themselves
to-day. Their own leaders have told them,
as the hon. member for St. John (Mr Stockton) told them a little while ago, that this
cabinet is afraid to trust the people who
are most vitally interested. It knows that
it cannot have a cabinet minister elected
in the west. What is the standing of the
government today in the great city of
Toronto ? Why, a large number of their
friends want to precipitate a fight there,
but they will only do it on one condition
and that is that the policy of the government on this question must be condemned.
What a pitiable spectacle does not this
government represent ? In a riding like
Centre Toronto, which was only carried by
the late Mr. Clarke, probably the most popular man in that city, by a bare majority
of three hundred in the last contest, this
government and their followers dare not
put up a candidate to-day. They call however on their followers to vote for this measure
and to trust that in time it will be forgotten. They should remember that there
was a statesman named Stratton in Ontario
who asked the people to forget, but the people
did not; and we have a spectacle presented
to-day by this government exactly similar to
that which was presented by the Ross government in Ontario, and in like manner
when this government does go to the people
it will have as little chance as it expects to
have in Centre Toronto and share the same
fate which overtook the late local government. It may win Russell and Prescott but
will be beyond help in the rest of the province.
Motion (Mr. R. L. Borden) to adjourn
negatived.
THE ONTARIO BOUNDARIES.
Mr. SAM. BARKER. Before the Orders of
the Day are callled I might ask the right hon.
leader of the House if there has been any
correspondence between his government or
any member of it and the late government of
the Hon. G. W. Ross or any member of it,
with regard to any extension of the boun
3591 COMMONS
daries of Ontario and whether, if there be
any such correspondence, he will lay it on
the table.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I am not
aware of any, but if there should be any,
there is no objection at all to bringing it
down.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the
proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for
the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of
the
province of Alberta, and the amendment of
Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia)
If, Mr. Speaker, the Bills before the House
to create the two provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan constitute to representatives
from the other parts of Canada the
most important measure that has been submitted to parliament since confederation,
how much more should their importance be
impressed upon one, who, like myself, is
entrusted with the duty of representing
in this House a very considerable section
of the country which it is proposed to form
into these new provinces. I may say, Mr.
Speaker, in all sincerity that I regret to a
very much larger extent to-day than on any
former occasion that I am not gifted with
that felicity of expression which has distinguished so many of the speakers who
have preceded me, and that consequently I
shall not be able to embellish the remarks
I shall have to present to the House with
flowers of oratory such as have adorned
many of the speeches we have had on this
question.
Of the magnitude of the subject, of course,
there can be no question. We are proposing
to round out the confederation of half, and
probably the richer half of the North American continent, affecting an enormous area
of exceptional fertility and capable of sustaining millions, if not tens of millions
of people. We are fulfilling the dream of
those far-sighted men, the fathers of confederation. We are, once for all, placing
upon the half million of people who, at
present, constitute the population of these
areas and upon the future millions that
will constitute that population, the duties
of self-government according to free British principles. And we are, at the same
time, fixing for all time to come the financial status, setting apart the financial
resources, upon which these people shall be
enabled to carry on their duties of self-government, We are giving by charter to
these new provinces many powers which
the people there have been exercising up
to the present time, as well as a number of
powers, which, until now, have been exercised on their behalf by this parliament.
We are proposing to make these people
3591
3592
fully responsible for their own self-government in the important matters of education,
public works and all affairs of internal
development which, it may be said, are
the most vital, the most constant, and the
most intimate affairs affecting the life of
the people of any country, and the management of which, it may be said, is so much
more difficult in a sparsely-settled country
such as these areas are at the present time,
than in old communities. Upon the importance of the subject of education there is
no occasion for comment here. In my opinion, the House has been, during the present
debate, giving more attention to a
matter which has developed into an extremely sentimental issue, than to the practical,
substantial phase of the education
question. I may say that I am more concerned, and I am satisfied that the people
that I represent are more concerned, as to
whether they are to be enabled by the powers which parliament proposes to confer
upon them and the financial resources the
House proposes to place at their disposal,
for all time to come to keep up an efficient
system of education than they are as to the
extremely narrow issue which divides the
proposition of the government from the proposition of the leader of the opposition
(Mr.
R. L. Borden)—no, I beg the pardon of the
opposition,—of the hon. member representing the county of Carleton. The
matter of local public works, the matter of bridges. the matter of fire guards,
the matter of drainage, and in some
localities the matter of domestic water
supply—these are all affairs of exceeding
importance to the people now, and will be
of importance to the millions of people who,
we expect, will be in that territory in the
years to come. And these matters now must
be dealt with, and, for a considerable time
to come, will have to be dealt with, by
the provincial government more than is the
case in older communities where these affairs are handled municipally. These are
matters which lie at the very root of the
existence of a people in a new country
and upon these things depend whether the
settler in these new provinces is to be
encouraged to wage the battle of life under
the conditions to be found in that country,
or whether he shall labour under disadvantages too great to be borne—as unfortunately,
has been the fate of some who
went into those Territories in the past, though
not, I am glad to say, in the very recent
past. The condition of the settlers' land
as to drainage ; the state of his range,—whether devastated by the prairie fire or
properly
protected—the existence of a bridge over the
creek or river so that the settler may pass
over with his team without risking his life
at a crossing ; the efficiency of his school
—upon these matters, I say, depends to a
very large extent the whole future of the
new provinces which parliament by these
3593 MARCH 31, 1905
measures proposes to create. The subject
of transportation is one to which very great
attention has been given by this parliament in recent years. The subject of railway
transportation is a very important
one ; but I may point out that in these
Territories at the present time, I think it
is not going too far to say, the matter of
wagon roads is of quite as great an importance as the matter of railway communication.
Railways of course, are necessary.
But the railway cannot be brought to every
man's door, and, to reach the railway, the
wagon road is necessary. A computation
has been made which goes to establish the
fact that the settler or farmer who is fifteen
miles from the railway shipping point is under as great a cost in getting his wheat
to
the shipping point—supposing that that point
is Regina, where I live—as he is under for
the carriage of that wheat from the shipping point to the head of the Lakes, nearly
800 miles.
Therefore, there can be no question of
the importance and magnitude of the questions involved in the Bills. I have, on several
occasions before, had the privilege of
addressing this House ; but on no previous
occasion have I felt so greatly the responsibility resting upon me as upon this occasion.
And, whether my tenure of office here
as the representative of a constituency prove
long or short, I do not think that at any
future time it will be my duty to address
the House upon a subject of such importance
as I feel the subject now under discussion
to be.
In replying to the admirable speech with
which these Bills were introduced by the
right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the hon. member for Carleton (Mr.
R. L.
Borden) devoted a good deal of attention—
more attention than I had expected him to
give—to certain aspects of the case which
had formed the subject matter of discussion
up and down the township lines and in the
school-houses of the Northwest up to the
third of November last, but which did not
seem to me to be quite in keeping with the
kind of discussion which might be expected
from the leader of the opposition speaking
upon such an occasion, and dealing with
such a measure as this, before a body as
this House. The hon. gentleman sought to
establish the proposition that the right hon.
First Minister and his government had
made a right-about-face since last session
upon the question whether or not provincial autonomy should be granted to the
people of the Northwest Territories. And,
in his endeavour to sustain a very weak
position, he sought to make use of a remark
or rather an ejaculation of the Prime Minister on one occasion about two years ago.
It was alleged that the Prime Minister had
said 'Hear, hear,' when the hon member
for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) had made
some remark to impress the idea that the
3593
3594
government was not favourable to provincial autonomy. I do not know whether
my hon. friend—in fact I must take it for
granted that my hon. friend was not aware
that before the end of that session the First
Minister had set himself right on that point,
and I will read a passage which may be
found in the 'Hansard' of 1903, page 13907 :
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). I stated that I was
putting the Prime Minister's sentiments correctly before the House to the effect that
for
many years to come the Territories need not
expect autonomy at the hands of this government, and the Prime Minister said ' hear,
hear.'
The PRIME MINISTER. It I said ' hear, hear '
it was not affirmation. On the contrary, it was
negation.
Why, it is within the knowledge of everybody in Canada, and should be within the
knowledge of every member of this House
who was in the last parliament, that on several occasions responsible ministers of
the
Crown stated their opinion authoritatively
that the time had nearly come when full provincial powers must be conferred on the
people of the Northwest Territories. The hon.
member for Brandon, then Minister of the
Interior, as long ago as three years, stated
in the House that he had arrived at the
conclusion that provincial autonomy must
very soon be meted out to the people of the
Northwest Territories. During the session of 1903, the Minister of Finance, in
the most explicit terms, stated two or three
times that the government had arrived at
the conclusion that the time was near at
hand when full provincial powers must be
conferred on these people.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal
of interest to the able address given to the
House last evening by the hon. gentleman
who represents the district of Qu'Appelle
(Mr. Lake) in this House. If it would not
be presumptuous on my part to say so, I
would congratulate the House, I would congratulate the Northwest, and particularly
I
would congratulate our hon. friends opposite upon their acquisition of that hon. gentleman,
who was elected last November to
represent the district of Qu'Appelle. Of
course, I do not quite agree with every one
of the statements made by that hon.
gentleman ; but I will say this for him,
that he made the class of speech that friends
of the Northwest Territories desired to be
made before this question of provincial
autonomy was determined, before the
details and terms were determined ; it was
the class of speech which the true friend
of the Northwest felt it proper to make, and
just the class of speech I have made myself
the first session I came into this parliament.
But I cannot agree with quite all the
things which my hon. friend stated as
facts. I understood the hon. gentleman to
say that Mr. Haultain's draft Bill, prepared, I think, in December, 1901, or January.
1902, was unanimously endorsed
by the assembly of the Northwest Terri
3595 COMMONS
tories, with the exception of one point, that
point relating to the number of provinces,
whether there should be one province or
more. I think I can convince my hon. friend
that he was mistaken in that regard. One
strong objection was raised, not by a Liberal in the assembly, but by one of the Conservative
members, a gentleman who acts
in conjunction with the member for Qu'Appelle, and who was a Conservative candidate
in one of the districts of the Northwest Territories last fall, Dr. Patrick, of
Yorkton, who took violent exception to the
terms of the draft Bill, because, as he said,
it was attempting to grab too much, the
terms were extravagant and would do damage to the interests of the Territories by
attempting to grab too much. Then, I understood my hon. friend to lay down the proposition
that because that draft Bill had
been endorsed by the assembly, and because
it was before the people of the Northwest
Territories last fall during the general election, therefore no member representing
a
district of the Northwest Territories had
any mandate or right to do other than object to any kind of a Bill which was not
framed entirely upon the lines of that draft
Bill, voted upon by the Northwest legislature. If that was the position taken by my
hon. friend, and I think it was, for I listened to him carefully, I may tell him that
he
is entirely out of accord with his mentor,
Mr. Haultain. Mr. Haultain never took such
a position. My hon. friend from Qu'-Appelle, as well as myself, heard Mr. Haultain
declare himself explicitly, in a meeting
of the legislature towards the end of 1903,
that he never expected to get all he asked
for, they were simply laying down their proposition, and were asking everything that
was possible, leaving to those on the other
end of the bargain to say how much the
terms had to be cut down.
However, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that in
this discussion it is rather the amendment
proposed by the hon. member for Carleton
(Mr. R. L. Borden) which is engaging the
attention of the House. That amendment
reads :
All the words after the word 'that' to the
end of the question be left out and the following substituted therefor :—
Upon the establishment of a province in the
Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed
by Bill (No. 69), the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with
the
provisions of the British North America Acts,
1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full
powers of provincial self-government including
power to exclusively make laws in relation to
education.
That is a proposition, Mr. Speaker, that
commands my warm approval in some respects, but I am sorry to say that my hon.
friend's speech did not quite fit in with his
amendment. It is a proposition that, on the
face of it, would be looked upon with favour
by every resident of the Northwest Territories. But when we look at it a little more
3595
3596
closely, it may not be such a favourable proposition. As the members of this House
can
readily believe, particularly when they listen
to such representatives from the Northwest
as the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr.
Oliver) and the hon. member from Brandon
(Mr. Sifton), the people of those western
prairies like to have things placed before
them definitely, and I may tell the hon.
member for Carleton that before the residents of the Northwest Territories will be
able to accept his proposition they will want
to know what class of schools he means,
whether he means absolute freedom to
settle their school system or whether he
means anything else ; whether he means,
for instance, the application of section 93
of the British North America Act, which
would not leave the people of the Northwest
absolute freedom to settle this question for
themselves. And upon another phase of the
question, that concerning the lands, I am
sorry to say that my hon. friend's speech
entirely disagrees with his resolution. With
reference to the matter of the retention of
the lands by the federal power, to which
proposition he takes exception, giving his
opinion that the land should be transferred
to the provincial authorities, he said :
May I not further suggest that even if there
were any danger—and I do not think there is—
it would be the task of good statesmanship to
have inserted, if necessary, a provision in this
Bill with regard to free homesteads and the
prices of those lands.
We had a suggestion in the discussion that
took place this afternoon and we had a more
particular suggestion in the discussion that
took place some days ago as to there being
at the present moment no friend of the
Northwest in the government. The friends
of the Northwest must be looked for
amongst hon. gentlemen opposite. Well,
I am bound to say that I think the friendship
of the hon. member for Carleton will bear
a little analysis. If it has a sentimental
feature, something that is not going to cost
anything, something that is not going to
bear on any other section of Canada,
our hon. friends opposite are great friends
of the Northwest, but, whenever we
come down to a substantial matter like
limiting the self governing powers of the
people of the Northwest in regard to their
actual and substantial resources the boot
is on the other foot. That is an entirely different aspect of the case. There are
hon.
gentlemen behind my hon. friend from
Carleton who are great friends of the people of the Territories too. It would be such
an awful thing if any power of self government were denied to the people of the Northwest
Territories, but they are anxious to
take away about half the territory of the
people of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. May I ask my hon.
friend without wishing to interrupt him
3597 MARCH 31, 1905
unduly, at what page he quoted from my
speech ?
Mr. SCOTT. I have not the page here but
I will ask one of my friends to hunt it up.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will quote it. The
hon. gentleman began in the middle of a
sentence and did not give the whole quotation.
Mr. SCOTT. Will the hon. gentleman
quote the whole sentence ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will. I had first
stated that I believed in handing over the
lands to the people of the Northwest absolutely and had pointed out the objection
that
the right hon. Prime Minister had made to
that. Then, I said :
Are they not the people chiefly interested ?
May we not rightly conclude that if these lands
are handed over to them, they will so deal
with them as to best conserve their own interests by forwarding and assisting a vigorous
policy of immigration ? May I not further
suggest that even if there were any danger—
and I do not think there is—it would be the
task of good statesmanship to have inserted, if
necessary, a provision in this Bill with regard
to free homesteads and the prices of those
lands, and obtain to it the consent of the
people of the Northwest Territories.
My hon. friend began in the middle of a
sentence and closed his quotation before the
end of it. That is all I desire to call attention to.
Mr. SCOTT. I fail to see what difference there is in the meaning between the
portion that my hon. friend has quoted and
the portion that I quoted, except the suggestion added that the consent of the Northwest
might be asked. And let me tell him
that he will very much more readily get the
consent of the people of the Northwest Territories to leaving in perpetuation a system
of schools which is absolutely satisfactory
to Protestant and Catholic alike than he
will get their consent to any such invasion
of their rights as is involved in his suggestion. On the sentimental question of lands,
on the sentimental side of the school question hon. gentlemen opposite or a section
of them, headed by the leader of the opposition, are great friends of the Northwest
Territories, but when it comes down to substantial things, as I said, the boot is
entirely
on the other foot. Talk about invading
autonomy. Why, Sir, no such radical and
substantial invasion of Northwest autonomy
as this suggestion involves—as read and repeated again here now by himself—could be
imagined by an avowed enemy of provincial
rights.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
3597
3598
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.
CENTRAL COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.
House in committee on Bill (No. 64) respecting the Central Counties Railway Company.—Mr.
Stewart.
On section 16,
Mr. SPROULE. All of this Bill is expunged except the preamble and section 16.
Is this railway company already in existence ?
Mr. CAMPBELL. This Bill asks for a
great many powers which the Railway
Committee did not see fit to give them.
They granted them only an extension of
time in their old Bill. Clause 16 only gives
an extension of time on the charter obtained
a few years ago.
Bill reported, read a third time and
passed.
CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE—THIRD READ—
ING.
Bill (No. 60) to incorporate the Algoma
Copper Range Railway Company—Mr. Dyment.
PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE
NORTHWEST.
House resumed consideration of the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second
reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and
provide for the government of the province
of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R.
L. Borden thereto.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT. When you left the
chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was
commenting upon the violent difference
between the purport of the amendment
moved by the hon. member for Carleton
(Mr. R. L. Borden) and the direct suggestion
contained in his speech. The proposals of
the government contemplate a payment in
lieu of the public domain to these two new
provinces aggregating $750,000 per annum at
the beginning ; as the population of the
provinces increases, this payment is to
increase to an amount in the future
of $2,225,000 per annum. The gentleman
from Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden) objects
to these proposals and suggests instead that
the public domain should be transferred to
the management of the provincial governments, but with the proviso that those provincial
governments shall be limited in their
management of this public domain, the
suggestion being, if I understood my hon.
friend accurately, that the homestead lands
should continue to be given away as they
are now given by this government as free
3599 COMMONS
homestead lands, and that the odd-numbered
sections should continue, in accordance with
the policy of the present government, to be
sold at low settlement prices, probably not
greater than $3 per acre. The proposition
then of the hon. gentleman is to turn over
that land to the provinces, to saddle on
these provinces all the expenses of administration and say to them : You must give
away free your own property or you must
dispose of that land at low settlement
prices, as is now done, to induce settlement.
Much of this land might be disposed of to
great immediate profit if a purely revenue
policy was applied. You say to those provinces that they must use their own property
for all time to come, not for their
own purposes but for the purposes and
benefit of the Dominion. I repeat, Mr.
Speaker, that I am amazed that any man
in this House would give voice to such
a suggestion, for such a violent invasion of provincial autonomy, as is contained
in the suggestion of my hon. friend.
It needs no argument to show the difference that might be made in the receipts
from this public domain by the application
of a different policy. The policy which is
being pursued by this government is a settlement policy which yields practically no
net revenue. There has been practically
no net revenue from these lands in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories since
these lands were acquired thirty-five years ago.
But a purely revenue policy might be
followed, as it would be right of those provinces, if they were to assume the responsibility
and the expense of administering the domain, to follow a purely revenue policy. The
probability is that a provincial government, as has been well explained by my hon.
friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), not having the same inducement, or the same opportunity,
to reap indirect profits from the settlement policy of the federal government, would
be driven by necessity to adopt a purely revenue policy ; and the suggestion contained
in the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition would simply amount to putting
a limitation upon the new provinces amounting in the years to come to perhaps scores
of millions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I dare say that it is hard
for the leopard to change his spots, and it is hard for our friends of the Conservative
party to do more than express sentimental friendship for the Northwest Territories.
It is hard for them to get away from the policy with regard to provincial autonomy
which was announced on their behalf last session, when they gave us to understand
that they were anxious that the people of the Northwest should be granted autonomy,
so that hereafter they should be under the expense of building their own railways
and this parliament should not be under the expense of maintaining the
3599
3600
mounted police force. It was suggested in
their campaign literature that the reasonably generous money grants voted to the
Northwest government were a proof of the
gross incompetence and extravagance of the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance;
and there was the further suggestion from
one of their front bench members that provincial autonomy ought to be granted to the
Northwest Territories and independent legislatures should be created there and put
in
charge of the public resources, so that those
legislatures might be able to turn handsprings with those resources in favour of
the corporations.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of important details embodied in this provincial
autonomy proposal ; and different items in
this collection of details gave different
members who felt the seriousness of the
proposals different difficulties. My hon.
friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) explained
to the House a week ago to-night that the
school phase of the matter constituted the
most serious difficulty for him. I have to
confess that another detail constituted a
very serious difficulty for me. That was
with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption embodied in section 23
of the Bills. This is one feature in these
provincial establishment proposals with regard to which I think that less than justice
has been meted out to the people of those
new provinces. As a matter of fact, as the Prime Minister can testify, and as my fellow
Liberal members from the Northwest Territories know, in my opinion the unsettled position
of that tax exemption matter was a sufficient reason to justify further delay in granting
autonomy to the Territories ; and if act, protest or influence of mine could have
prevented the preparation and presentation of these Bills, the Bills would not be
before the House. But when I found this Dominion government unanimously, together
with the Northwest government and a majority of the Northwest members all determined
to proceed now, I had to come to a decision which would either prevent me from exercising
any influence in the details of autonomy or agree to forego my own opinion on the
point, agree to action now, and take my part in obtaining a settlement of terms and
conditions according to the wishes of the electors whom I represent. Even now, were
I not satisfied that the financial terms as a whole are so ample and generous as to
offset in a great measure the financial handicap meant by the exemption feature, I
should deem it my duty to myself and the Northwest Territories to oppose the Bills.
I may say further that the overturning by the Supreme Court of the decision given
by the Manitoba Court in 1903, does seriously lessen the force of the position I held
against creating these provinces at present, and my reluctance is also relieved in
some degree by the intimation given by the premier of probable
3601 MARCH 31, 1905
action in the future by this government
towards removing the incubus of the exemptions. The mention in the Bills of specific
compensation to the provinces on account of the exemptions was deemed unwise
for the reason that such mention might
complicate such action at a future day.
While voting for the Bills, I hold myself
free to perhaps move an amendment in
some direction in committee to section 23.
One of the questions which had to be
considered in connection with this matter
was the question of the number of provinces — whether there should be one province,
as was contemplated in the request
made by the Northwest government and
legislature, or more than one province. I
may be permitted to say that I was myself quite strnngly in favour of the proposition
that only one province should be
created ; and even yet, looking at the question purely from the local and territorial
point of view, I can see no reason why one
government, one legislature, one set of machinery, should not have been sufficient
for
that territory. But, on the other hand, I
was bound to recognize, as the people of
the Territories generally have recognized.
that the other partners in confederation had
a right to an opinion in this matter, and
the decision which has been come to, to
create two provinces, is, I think, generally
satisfactory to the people of the Northwest as a whole. Except for the protest in
the letter of Mr. Haultain, which was
given a mild echo by the hon. member for
Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) last evening, I know
of no protest raised in the Northwest Territories against the creation of two provinces.
Those of us who originally favoured one province were finally compelled to recognize
the impossibility of having the whole of that great area erected
into a single province while leaving Manitoba in its present size, and the people
I
represent were unanimously against the extension of the Manitoba boundaries westward.
My duty to the people I represent,
therefore, seemed to be clear, and I believe that I have done my duty by those
people in assenting to the proposition to
have two provinces created.
My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S.
McCarthy), speaking two or three nights
ago, voiced an objection against the dividing line which has been selected, the fourth
meridian, contending that it should have
been farther east, and pointing out that
the ex-Minister of the Interior had contended that. the line should have been sixty
miles farther east. Well, the question of
the dividing line was not looked upon, on
my part at least, as being a contentious
matter. From my point of view, it would
have been better for my province, in one
sense, to have had the dividing line brought
farther east, because if the financial position of each province were to be the same
it would be better for the province the
3601
3602
smaller it was. But on the basis that each
should have equal financial strength, each
member in giving advice was under great
responsibility as regards the line to divide
the area. I may say that my own advice
was that the present eastern boundary of
Alberta should be selected as the dividing
line and I still believe that the future will
Show that that would have been the most
equitable dividing line between the two provinces, looking to their future populations.
It must not be forgotten that the province
of Alberta will have in the extreme north a
large habitable area, the counterpart of
which the province of Saskatchewan will
not possess. My hon. friend from Calgary
suggested that the area covered by the
foothills in the Rocky Mountains should, so
far as population is concerned, be eliminated. I do not agree with him at all in
that regard. There are immense coal deposits in that area. and I have no doubt
that in the years to come there will be immense coal-mining towns in the southern
part of Alberta in the Rocky Mountains.
A question has been raised regarding the
interests to stockmen and the branding of
cattle. Well, if there should be any difficulty in that regard, it is one that will
be
very easily overcome by such a means possibly as the creation of a commission by
the two provinces acting conjointly to deal
with the administration of brands. But no
matter how far east you might put the dividing line. the whole ranching country would
not be included in the western province.
There have been years when the town of
Yorkton, at the extreme east side of the
eastern province, was the largest cattle exporting point in the Territories.
In the matter of representation, as well
as other non-contentious matters which have
been dealt with in the Bill, the people of
the Territories have nothing but satisfaction
to express. The provision for a census to be
taken next year and for a redistribution for
the purposes of this House on the basis of
such census is entirely satisfactory, as is
also in a general way the provision with
regard to representation in the Senate.
Now I come to the matter of the compensation for the lands and the financial terms.
I may say at once that the financial terms
and the compensation for lands command
together my very hearty endorsation. I
propose to trouble the House with a few
details. They will be pretty dry, but I am
inclined to think that they have more bearing on the case and should interest the
people concerned considerably more than a
good deal of the matter that has been presented to the House. Taking the two provinces
together the financial terms include
a grant for government of $100,000, a per
capita subsidy at the rate of 80 cents per
head on a basis of 500,000 population—a very
generous computation at present—amounting to $400,000 ; an annual payment as
3603
COMMONS
debt allowance of $810,750 with a land
allowance of $750,000, being a total annual
subsidy to the two provinces of $2,060,750.
And in addition to that there is a grant
in the first five years towards public buildings in the two provinces of $937,500.
In
some respects these terms are even better
than those which were demanded by the
people of the Northwest through their legislature and government. We must bear in
mind that Mr. Haultain's draft Bill contemplated only one province whereas now
we are creating two provinces. The draft
Bill asks for a grant for government of
$50,000 and we are giving a grant of $100,000. The original draft Bill asked for a
debt allowance which would have yielded
only $405,375, being calculated on a population of 250,000 for the whole area, whereas
the population to-day is estimated at
500,000 and the allowance is just twice the
amount in the draft Bill. The claim in
the draft Bill with regard to the per capita
subsidy was 80 cents up to a limit of population of 1,300,000, that being the limit
applied in the case of the province of Ontario,
whereas this Bill provides for payment
up to a limit of population of 1,600,000. This
will mean a difference eventually of $163,200 annually to the advantage of the two
provinces. In these respects the proposal
of the government is better than the petition
made by the people of the Territories through .'
their legislature. To put the thing briefly,
each province will start with a revenue as
follows :
| Grant for government.. .. .. .. .. |
$ 50,000 |
| Per capita subsidy.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
200,000 |
| Debt allowance.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
405,375 |
| Land allowance.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
375,000 |
|
1,030,375 |
When each province has 400,000 population, it will receive :
| Grant and debt allowance .. .. .. |
$ 455,375 |
| Per capita subsidy.. .. .. .. .. |
320,000 |
| Land allowance.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
562,500 |
|
1,337,875 |
When its population reaches 800,000, its
revenue will be :
| Grant and debt allowance.. .. .. |
$ 455,375 |
| Per capita subsidy.. .. .. .. .. .. |
640,000 |
| Land allowance.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
750,000 |
|
,1,845,375 |
And when it has 1,200,000 population, it
will get :
| Sundry items.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
$1,095,375 |
| Land allowance.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,112,500 |
|
2,207,875 |
Analyses show that these revenues will
yield at the beginning on the present population $4.10 per capita. When the population
reaches 400,000, they will yield $3.33
3603
3604
per capita, when the population amounts to
800,000 they will yield $2.30 per capita, and
when it reaches 1,200,000 they will give
$1.84 per capiita.
Of course any autonomy proposition is
a matter of comparison. There is no such
thing as absolute autonomy. We are not
professing to grant absolute autonomy to
the people of the Northwest Territories.
All we are professing to do, and all we
are asked to do, is to put the people of the
Territories in an equitable position compared With the other provinces. All the
Territories asked was that in the matter of
local self-government, they should be put
on an equal footing with the other provinces. It is therefore necessary to make some
comparison between the conditions which
these new provinces will enjoy and those
enjoyed by the other provinces. I find that
the province of New Brunswick during the
year 1903—which is the last year for which
I was able to obtain reports—had an approximate population of 331,000 and drew
a subsidy of $491,361. That province derived from its public domain a gross revenue
of $176,570, from which ought to be deducted the expenses of administration ; but
taking the gross figures, that province received $2 per head of its population as
compared with $3.33 per head which the new
provinces will receive when their population is 400,000, and $4.10 which they will
be entitled to receive as soon as this Bill
goes through. The balance of the revenue
of New Brunswick was of course derived
from local taxation, such as receipts from
licenses, &c.
In the same year the total population of
Nova Scotia was 460,000, and it drew a
subsidy of $432,807 from the Dominion.
From the Crown domain its gross revenue
was $681,731, making a total of $1,114,538
or $2.42 per head. whereas the province of
Saskatchewan, with the same population,
will receive $1,337,875 or $2.90 per head.
And, in 1899, four years earlier, Nova
Scotia had only a total of $336,000 from the
Crown domain, and, from the two sources
of subsidy and lands derived only $1.60 per
head.
In 1899 Quebec drew a subsidy from
the Dominion government of $1,086,714 and
derived from the Crown domain $1,029,473,
or a total of $2,116,187, which, with an approximate population of 1,600,000 meant
$1.32 per head. The province of Saskatchewan, with a population of 1,200,000 will
draw $2,207,875, or $1.84 per head ; and,
with a population equal to that of Quebec,
or 1,600,000, will draw $1.38 per head, as
against $1.32 per head in the case of Quebec.
In 1899, Ontario, with an approximate
population of 2,180,000 drew as subsidy $1,339,287, and derived from Crown domain
$1,302,562, gross, a total of $2,641,849, or
$1.20 per head. And, with an equal population Saskatchewan will draw $2,217,875.
3605 MARCH 31, 1905
or only $1.10 per head. With Manitoba I will
make no comparison, because that province,
I think every one admits, is not under fair
terms. In 1899, with an approximate population of 250,000, Manitoba drew only
$524,281 from lands and subsidies, as against
a little over $1,000,000 for Saskatchewan
with the same population. For the last two
years Manitoba has been selling railway
lands and increasing her annual revenue.
But that cannot long continue. In 1903,
even with these sales of nearly $300,000,
Manitoba's total lands and subsidy revenue
was $826,175 with a population of 255,000.
I think, that as a whole, these comparisons
will show that the terms which have been
granted to the people of the Northwest Territories while not over-generous, are fair
;
they simply place the people of the Northwest Territories, judging by the conditions
of the other provinces, in a fair and equitable position to carry on their affairs
of
local government.
Attention has already been called to the
fact that I gave expression to some opinion
in this House on the matter of dealing with
the lands when the question of autonomy
came to be settled. That is perfectly true.
I may be permitted to read again some of
the very good doctrine that I then uttered,
as it is preserved in 'Hansard.' In 1901 I
said :
If the proper principle is adhered to, if
the principle of absolute equality be observed,
if parliament places the new provinces upon
an equitable basis, the local government will
be given a proper grant for government, also
the per capita subsidy, and be given what
may be shown to be due as the debt allowance;
and they will be put into possession of the
public resources, lands, timber and minerals,
in the same way as the other provinces were
put into possession of these resources.
I might point out that that is not an absolutely accurate expression. These other
provinces were not put in possession, but left
in possession of these resources. Very
young members sometimes fall into these
inaccuracies.
I appeal to the House whether it would not
be unwise and impolitic to create provinces
on any different basis from that on which
other provinces stand. Entire equality is the
only sure guarantee of the permanency of the
confederation structure.
I think that is a perfectly true sentiment.
Is it not a fair proposition that the citizen
of the Northwest should be looked upon in all
respects as equal to the citizen of any other
province. The proper policy for this parliament to pursue is to make the Northwest
citizen in all respects equal to the citizen of
any other province of Canada. The subjects
that come under the purview of the local government affect the people more closely
than
those subjects dealt with by this parliament,
and the best way to promote the progress of
that part of Canada will be to give as much
financial ability as possible to the local legis
3605
3606
latures to deal with their local affairs, so
that education, public works, and all local
services may be efficiently and adequately dealt
with. My opinion is that by no other means
can parliament do as much at one stroke to
promote the progress and the true welfare,
not of the Territories alone but of Canada
as a whole, as by placing the main portion
of Western Canada in a strong, efficient,
capable position as concerns its local government.'
It will be observed that the burden of my
statement related not so much to the question whether the lands should be transferred
to local management as to the question
whether these local governments should be
given an equitable financial status in comparison with the local governments in the
other provinces. And that object is achieved
in these propositions presented by the government, not precisely, as I then urged,
by
actual transfer of the lands, but by a
method, which, I am convinced, is financially even better for the local governments.
I was a strong believer in the principle of
the ownership of the lands by the province,
or at all events, that the province
should have the right of the beneficial
interest in them. I am a strong believer in
that principle still, and it is that principle
that is practically assented to in this
measure. But I may say, that in 1901, when
I made that statement, and even later, the
principle found no general acceptance in this
House or amongst any of the people east of
the great lakes ; and my main purpose in
uttering these words here was to try and impress upon the people of eastern Canada
the
necessity of recognizing the right of possession or, at least, of the beneficial interest
in
the lands of the Northwest Territories by
the people of these Territories. Now, this
House has already heard the very clear and
ample statements made on this subject by
the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton)
and by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr.
Oliver). They have made arguments which
in my opinion are unanswerable. There has
been no genuine attempt on the part of hon.
gentlemen opposite to answer them. At all
events those arguments were sufficient to
convert me to the proposition that it is absolutely better for the people of those
new provinces to have the lands administered here, so long as the provinces obtain
a sufficient sum in lieu of lands to place
them in an equitable position to carry on
their educational system, their public works,
and, generally, their local affairs. And I am
the more confirmed in that view by the expressions which have fallen from hon. gentlemen
on the other side of the House. The
hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster),
who, we assume, is the chief financial spokesman for the Conservative party in this
House, gave expression on the 15th of
March, to the following with regard to the
financial terms embodied in these Bills. Addressing the Minister of Finance, he said
:
3607 COMMONS
His financial terms will bring upon him every
province in the Dominion. Take it on any
ground you like, and by the proportions which
you have meted out to the Northwest, you have
gone beyond the financial conditions of every
other province of this Dominion.
What did the hon. gentleman mean ?
There is no difference in the item, grant
for government. No one will contend that
that is a better grant than the other provinces are drawing. There is no substantial
difference in the per capita subsidy. There
is just one province, Nova Scotia, up to the
present time, exceeding the limit of 400,000
souls. Their population now is 460,000.
But, except in that case there is no difference at the present moment in the per capita
arrangement made for these provinces and
the arrangement at present in existence with
other provinces. There is no difference in
the debt account ;—no other suggestion
would be listened to with regard to the debt.
The only meaning that can be attached to
the hon. gentleman's words is that too much
money is being paid to these provinces in
lieu of their public lands. The hon. member
for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) gave expression to this sentiment on March 23rd :
I would like to point out, as a member from
the province of Quebec, that it would be a great
calamity indeed if the Minister of Justice and
the government did not arrive at a conclusion
that it is necessary to modify that section
which has regard for instance to lands....
As to us in the piovince of Quebec, why, Sir,
we have twenty-five million acres of good land
for settlement, which we are trying to settle,
which we are doing our best to settle. Instead
of devoting all our energies and all our moneys
and public resources to settle the lands in our
own province, under the terms of the constitution, we are going to pay this enormous
indemnity, these millions of dollars to keep a hold
on the lands of the North-west.
It is evident from these expressions that
our hon. friends in the Conservative party,
if they had the making of these proposals,
would not have granted as good financial
terms as we have now, would not have
granted the amounts which are stated in
the Bills to be paid to these new provinces.
Now I find, in looking up the public records,
that in pursuit of a proper and wise policy
of settlement and development, this government has derived practically no profit from
the Crown lands in the Northwest Territories since the Dominion first acquired
them. From 1870 to 1880 the administration of Crown lands in Manitoba and the
Northwest cost $1,244,499.34 in excess of
receipts. In the years 1881-1890 the accounts show $753,576.53 in excess of expenditure.
In the years from 1891 to 1900 there
was again an excess of expenditure amount
ing to $184,398.95. In the years from 1901
up to 1904 there has been an excess of expenditure over receipts of $11, 733. 49.
Taking the whole period from 1870 up to date,
therefore, the administration of lands in
the Northwest has cost this Dominion $687,
3607
3608
055.25 in excess of receipts, to which must
be added refunds amounting to $329,950,
making a total of $1,017,005.25. But if we
take into account certain lands granted
in redemption of scrip issued for rebellion
services, half-breed claims and other purposes, amounting to $3,758,490, there is
shown a favourable balance of $2,741,484.75,
or an annual average of $78,328.13. As
has already been stated, the Dominion profit
from the policy so wisely pursued has to be
looked for in other quarters,—from the customs and other receipts and from the generally
improved conditions throughout Canada. The total revenues of Canada have increased
in the last seven or eight years by
about 100 per cent. In 1896 the total revenue
was $35,000,000 or $36,000,000, last year the
total revenue was over $70,000,000. We
have been spending money in administering
the lands, not for the purpose of making
direct profit, but, on the other hand, we have
brought about an exceedingly favourable
result, in seven or eight years doubling the
total revenue of this Dominion.
The particular benefit to the provinces in
the plan that is being adopted as opposed to
the plan of transferring the public domain to the local governments, is found in
the fact that we have from the start
an assured revenue ; whereas, if the lands
were transferred to the local governments,
and if no change of policy were put
into effect by them, they would have great
difficulties, in the initial years of their provincial experience, in getting enough
revenue to carry on the affairs of government,
Moreover, their financial position is assured
in the far future years, fifty or one hundred
years hence, as long as this confederation
lasts ; whereas, on the other hand, and in
the case of some of the other provinces
fifty or one hundred years hence, the Crown
domain cannot be worth very much to
those provinces so far as concerns their revenues. The principle of the provincial
right to a beneficial interest in the
land is recognized in the most substantial
manner, and I am pleased to be able to
say, because I believe it to be the truth,
that the people of the Northwest are emi
nently satisfied. I venture to say that there
is scarcely a man in the Northwest, who is
not actuated by partisan sentiment, but has
stated, either to himself or to his neighbours,
that this is a better proposition than would
be the proposition to turn over the lands to
local management. I may be permitted to
give to the House some actual expressions
of opinion on this point. So far as possible,
I will not give partisan opinions. The
'Standard' newspaper of Regina, published by a gentleman of independent tendencies,
neither Conservative or Liberal, since
the publication of the terms of these Bills,
has written :
It is difficult, at the present stage, to pass
judgment upon the terms proposed in the Autonomy Bills. It is, however, quite evident
that
3609 MARCH 31, 1905
the Dominion will retain control of the Territorial public lands. Perhaps, under the
circumstances, this is best for all concerned. The two
great needs of the new provinces at first, will
be population and railway development. To secure the former, the inducement of free
homesteads must continue to be offered, and to secure
railway extension, lands, or the proceeds of lands
are usually granted. Thus, we see, that if the
new provinces owned the unallotted lands they
should have practically to give them away. At
the same time the cost of land administration
would have to be borne. The duties of the immigration Department, too, would follow
the
land. The new provinces could not be easily
equipped for these onerous duties. It took the
federal authorities many years to bring immigration work up to its present status.
They
have it now in a state of high efficiency, with
experienced agents at work in various parts of
the world. It is important that the good work
shall continue to go on undisturbed. A handsome equivalent, either in cash or in interest-
bearing credit, will suit the new provinces much
better than the extra responsibilities which are
involved in the ownership and control of the
public domain.
The circumstances of the old provinces were
altogether different. They had railways and
population long before confederation, and they
also had the lands and their respective. land
departments in full organization.
By all means let Saskatchewan and Alberta
have each an adequate allowance ' in lieu of
lands,' but let parliament take due heed of the
full import of the term ' adequate ' as it applies
in this instance.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, I could find
any better authority on this subject than
Mr. Haultain. In that famous letter of protest which Mr. Haultain directed to the
Prime Minister, and which, it strikes me,
was merely a formal protest in that regard,
he stated at the conclusion :
But I am not unwilling to admit that an immediate income, increasing with population
and
certain in amount, may in the long run prove
quite as satisfactory as any probable net income resulting from local administration
of the
public domain.
Now, I am going to read to the House a
portion of a letter which came to me from
a gentleman in Regina, dated February
24th, three days after these propositions had
been presented to the House and had been
reported in Regina. This letter was not
sent me for publication, or with the idea
that its contents would ever reach any person but myself. I think a letter of this
kind
is the best sort of evidence to show the
actual situation as it struck the gentleman
who wrote the letter :
So far as the feeling here is concerned, it
could hardly be stronger in favour of the government's propositions.
Such pronounced Conservatives as C. E. D.
Wood, S. B. Jamieson, W. B. Pocklington, Norman Mackenzie and James Brown voluntarily
expressed not only their surprise at the generosity of the terms but their complete
satisfaction with them. Mayor Laird stated to me
that as to the lands what the people wanted
3609
3610
was money and if they received from the Dominion as much as they would realize by
handling the lands themselves there would not be
the slightest complaint.
All these gentlemen whose names are
here contained are well known Conservatives. Mayor Laird is a gentleman who
took a very prominent part in the campaign
of last fall.
Mr. SCOTT. I have not the slightest
objection to sending the letter across to my
hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), but I would
rather not publish the name of the writer.
I think I have advanced a fair measure of
proof that as far as concerns the treatment
given to the provinces in connection with
public domain it is treatment that is eminently satisfactory to the people chiefly
interested.
I come now to a subject which is perhaps more contentious in its nature, although
I am obliged to repeat again that I
think that a totally disproportionate amount
of attention has been given to what is only
a phase of the educational matter. The matter of education is one of very prime importance,
the most important matter to the people of any province and the most important
subject that could possibly be dealt with
by any parliament or local legislature. But
the matter that is being debated in the
House is the narrowest kind of an issue as
between the proposition of the government
and the proposition, as it is explained by
himself, of the hon. member for Carleton.
However, before actually taking up the
educational clause, let me make another
brief reference. The year of confederation,
1867, chances to be also the year in which I
was ushered into this world and it will not
be a matter of surprise, therefore, that some
of the negotiations and some of the events
that occurred prior to that time are not
very definitely within my recollection. I
was thrown into circumstances which did
not conduce to a great deal of research or
study historical or constitutional. Probably
there are many people in Canada, in Ontario, in Manitoba and in the Northwest
Territories who may be like myself in this
regard. We have had it in our minds, from
what we have seen in the newspapers and
from the sentiments we have heard expressed by people around us that the responsibilty
for the insertion of the clause
protecting the rights of minorities in the
Canadian constitution, the British North
America Act, was upon the Roman Catholic
hierarchy, that they had in some way engineered that provision into the Confederation
Act and that it was probably only the
Roman Catholic people of the Dominion of
Canada who were interested in the observance of that principle. Or, to state it the
other way, we have had the impression
that the Protestants in Canada were and
3611
COMMONS
ought to be antagonistic to the observance of
that provision for the protection of minority
rights which is embodied in the British
North America Act. I have to admit that
it came with a kind of a shock to me in the
first instance to hear that it was not the
Roman Catholic hierarchy but the Protestant people of Canada who stood up for the
insertion of that protection in the constitution. The House has heard the indisputable
proof of that fact which was given by
my hon. friend the First Minister in his
speech in this House on the 21st of February and again in another speech on the
22nd March of this year. But, perhaps, it
will do no harm if I quote from another
gentleman for whom some hon. members
on the other side of the House may have a
higher regard. The late leader of the
Conservative party, Sir Charles Tupper, referred to this matter in a speech delivered
in this House in 1896. Sir Charles Tupper
was one of the fathers of confederation
who took part in the negotiations which resulted in confederation, and he speaks as
a man having knowledge. He said:
I say with knowledge that but for the consent
to the proposal of Mr. Galt, who represented
especially the Protestants of Quebec, and but
for the assent of that conference to the proposal of Mr. Gait, that in the Confederation
Act should be embodied a clause which would
protect the right of minorities, whether Cathoics or Protestants, in this country,
there would
have been no confederation. I draw attention
to the fact that when you contrast our present
position with that which Canada. occupied
when Mr. Geo. Brown and Sir John A. Macdonald felt impelled, by the necessities of
the
case, by the condition of their country, to seek
some change in its constitution which would
relieve it from the terrible war of religion
and race that had been maintained in old Canada down to that time, it is significant
that
but for the clause protecting minorities, the
measure of confederation would not have been
accomplished, and no man can say how humiliating might not have been the position
either
of Canada or any of the smaller provinces if
that great work had not been accomplished.
I find that at that same time the hon. gentleman who at present represents North
Toronto (Mr. Foster) in this House said of
that provision that it was the sine qua non l
of the Protestant minority of their entrance 1
into confederation. I may just at this point
read a little further from the speech made;
by the then Minister of Finance:
And so the first paragraph—
Referring to section 93 of the British
North America Act.
—the educational clauses of the confederation resolutions gave by general consent
to the
provinces the power to deal with respect to
education ;
Saving the rights and privileges which,
Catholic or Protestant minorities in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational
schools at the time when the union goes into.
operation.
3611
3612
The only change which took place in that
clause was this—
That is the change that took place in
London.
—that instead of its being confined to both
Canadas, it was broadened to include the provinces which entered confederation. .
. . It
was the sine qua non of the Protestant minority of their entrance into confederation.
There cannot be any doubt, if we accept
that statement, that this provision which
was put into the British North America
Act referred, not only to the two Canadas,
but to all provinces entering confederation,
and, I take it, to all provinces that will
enter confederation in the future.
Mr. SPROULE. May I ask the hon. gentleman this question: In the original resolutions that were
moved, and upon which
the British North America Act was founded,
is that provision not strictly confined to On
tario and Quebec ?
Mr. SCOTT. That is just exactly Mr.
Foster's statement. This was the original
resolution adopted in Quebec :
Saving the rights and privileges which
Catholic or Protestant minorities in both Canadas may possess.
And he went on to say that the change
which took place in the clause was this,
that instead of its being confined to both
the Canadas, it was broadened to include
all the provinces that might enter confederation. 0f the fact, therefore, that this
provision was inserted for Protestant interests.
and not for Roman Catholic interests, there
cannot be any successful dispute. It was
not inserted for the Protestants of Quebec
alone, but it was inserted for what was
expected to be the Protestant minority in the
territory lying west of the great lakes. Parliament, in 1870, in creating the province
of
Manitoba, provided for minority rights in
separate schools, not for Catholic interests
in Manitoba, but for what were believed to
be Protestant interests. There was just as
much expectation that the minority in Manitoba would be a Protestant minority as
that it would be a Roman Catholic minority.
Let any gentleman read the 1875 debates.
read the debate that took place when the
Northwest Territories' Act was passed, and
it must be plain to him, if he has an open,
impartial mind, that the parliament of Can
ada in 1875 provided, not specially for Roman Catholic minorities, but provided for
expected Protestant minorities in the North
west Territories. At all events, let any
gentleman read these 1875 debates impaiu
tially, and he cannot possibly deny that
Blake, Mackenzie, Sir John Macdonald and
Sir Alexander Campbell—I believe that
none of these gentlemen was a Roman Catholic; each one of them bears an honoured
name, and each one of them was a Protestant—supported the separate school
clause in the Northwest Territories' Act,
3613 MARCH 31, 1905
having clearly in mind that he was legislating. not temporarily, but for all time
to
come.
And George Brown who did not support
the legislation ; what did he say?
The moment this Act passed and the Northwest became part of the union, they came under
the Union Act, and under the provisions with
regard to separate schools.
In the face of that language if the late
Mr. Brown were still alive and had a seat in
this House and were confronting the legislation which we have before us, what would
he do? Support the protection to minority rights ? Certainly. That therefore
should I do even though I be as violent an
opponent of the separate school as was Mr.
Brown.
Take the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy ; he
proposed in the year 1894 in this House to
do what was the duty of any one who had
a seat in this House, and believed that
the separate school in the Northwest Territories was an iniquity, an impropriety or
an injury to the Northwest Territories. He
proposed that they should be abolished so
far as this House was concerned. He proposed to leave the people of the Northwest
Territories free to abolish separate
schools if they wished to do so, and one
of the very reasons he urged was that if
the separate school provision was not abolished until the moment when the Territories
entered the union as provinces then it would
be impossible ever to abolish separate schools
in that Territory.
But looking at the whole history of the
matter, we must remember that it was for
Protestant minorities as well as for Roman
Catholic minorities that this protection was
placed in the British North America Act. I
want to speak with perfect sincerity. This
is a serious question especially for those of
us who come from the Northwest Territories.
I want to say, speaking as a Protestant,
not as a member of the minority, that in
view of the history of this matter I would
be ashamed of myself as a Protestant and
ashamed of the Protestant majority if we
would wish now, merely because we have
the power and because it is no longer our
rights that will be affected, to use that power, to deny the very thing which we as
Protestants stood out for when a Protestant minority was affected. The principle
is there clear and distinct to me. as I think
it must be to every man with an impartial
mind.
It is urged against the Liberal party
to-day that they are taking a course contrary to their course in 1896 in the Manitoba
case. I do not think so. In 1896, as
the right hon. gentleman who to-day fills
the position as leader of this House expressed it :
The government is proposing a course which
is a violent wrench of the principles on which
our constitution is based.
3613
3614
Was he speaking truly or falsely? Was
the course proposed in 1895 and 1896 a violent wrench? I think that nobody who
understands the situation, especially nobody
living in the country west of the great
lakes and familiar with the sentiment of
Manitoba, could deny that he was telling
the truth. It was such a violent wrench that
if that action had not been prevented by
the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
the chances are that confederation would
have been split into its original fragments.
The hon. gentlemen opposite were taking
a different course from what they are
taking to-day. but then as now they
were forgetting that constitutions are made
for the provinces, not provinces for
the constitution. The right hon. gentleman who now leads the House (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) was standing then for respect for
established rights. the established right of
the people of the province to have such a
school system as they saw fit to have within its constitution. He is doing the same
to-day, he is standing to-day for respect for
the established rights of minorities in that
area of country which is going to constitute
these new provinces. Is he proposing any
wrench of the principle of the constitution
as the government of 1896 did? Why Sir,
he is proposing the very opposite as has
been conclusively proven by the extracts
from speeches which I have read to the
House. The principle of protection for
minority rights is there in the constitution,
and no impartial man, no man who wishes
to be fair, can disregard the existence of
that principle in the constitution ; whether
it is there by letter of law, whether the
letter of the constitution would hear this
interpretation, or not, there can be no
successful denial of the fact that in providing as these Bills do, for the continuation
to the minorities of exactly the
rights they are enjoying when they enter
this confederation as provinces, the government is purely and simply regarding the
spirit of the Confederation Act.
There has been a good deal of cavil upon
the point as to whether that area should
be considered as a province before its entry
or as a Territory. No person will deny
or seek to deny that it is only a Territory
but after all the human beings on the
areas out there are just the same as they
would be if they were in provinces, and
their interests and conditions are practically not different at all from the
conditions under the same institutions
if the areas were provinces instead of
being territories. On this point perhaps
it will not be out of place for me to quote
from a gentleman whose authority is very
considerably respected at least by the hon.
member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Mr.
Haultain said, speaking in the legislature at
Regina in 1900 :
We have been created what I may be allowed
to call a political entity. We are for purposes
3615
COMMONS
of self-government as separate a part of the
Dominion as any of the provinces. We have
a legislature and form of government bearing
a. very close analogy to that which exists in the
provinces, and in every respect, therefore,
except in respect of the necessary means for
carrying on those institutions, we stand in
very much the same position as a province,
and we may for present purposes be fairly
called 'an integral part of the Dominion'.
We have been created what I may be allowed
to call a political entity.
Of course that is for present purposes.
Mr. SPROULE. I have no doubt he was
speaking of rights which were quite within
their power and which they were entitled
to exercise ; for present purposes they were
to all intents and purposes a province, but
that would not give them the same rights
as if they were really provinces.
Mr. SCOTT. As I have something more
to say on this point later on I will not
take up further time at this moment.
A great deal of discussion has taken place
throughout the country and I am afraid there
has been a good deal of misconception with
regard to this school matter. I am afraid
that some of it has not been entirely honest
misconception. I am afraid that some
public journals in this country are not very
careful to create a proper conception with
regard to this subject. In one paper we have
a motto appearing day after day.
A FREE WEST, A COMMON SCHOOL, PROVINCIAL RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS EQUALITY.
Articles and inflammatory cartoons under
that motto have led the innocent citizen to
believe that the proposals of the government
are entirely in the teeth of this motto. I
say that every item proposed by the government is in strict observance of these
principles. Where is there to be found any
religious inequality in the proposition of
the government. Read over the resolutions;
are Roman Catholic minorities especially
singled out? The protection is for Protestant as well as for Roman Catholic. It may
be that the Roman Catholics as a whole in
the Northwest are in the minority but that
is not the interpretation of this section ; it
is the minority in each public school district that is concerned. It may be that in
time to come there will be—there may be
now for all I know—as many Protestant
minorities as Catholic minorities in the
two provinces. At the present moment I
believe the majority of the Roman Catholics in the country are in groups.
They do not constitute minorities. Provincial rights, as I have already said,
3615
3616
is a comparative term. I believe—and
the large majority of the people in
the Northwest Territories that I have
heard from since these proposals were
brought down also believe—that provincial
rights are being granted to them in the fullest sense in which they are enjoyed by
any
other province of Canada. A common
school—that is just what we are asked to
vote for in this proposition; a non-sectarian
school, absolutely under state control. A
free west—that is, a reasonably free west;
just as free as Ontario. Talk about
throttling the west! Then two-thirds of
the people of this Dominion live in provinces which are throttled, are they feeling
very badly? They have in Ontario, I understand, what are called church schools, and
I believe they have church schools in Quebec also. Are they feeling badly ? If this
proposition were placing a severe hardship
on the people of the west, it is not as severe
a hardship as has been placed on the people
of these other provinces, because it is giving the west, not an ecclesiastical school,
not a church school, but a free common
school under state control. At all events,
two-thirds of the people of this Dominion
are living in provinces not more free, not
so free,—provinces that have always been
looked upon as being autonomous provinces,
and apparently doing very well. The Bill,
I believe to be in strict harmony with that
motto: 'A free west, a common school,
provincial rights and religious equality.'
These provinces will be as free as any other
province if we are to regard and apply the
principles of the British North America
Act—I for one believe more free, because,
by section 16 of the Bill, we restrict and
diminish the full and complete application
of section 93 of the British North America
Act.
Autonomy, as I said before. is a
comparative term. As was pointed out
very well by the hon. Postmaster General
last evening, there are no two provinces of
Canada with the same constitution. I venture to say that the average citizen of the
Territory, if he had been asked if he would
accept the autonomy that British Columbia
has would have said: No, the limit of population would not suit either of these new
provinces. If asked if he would accept the
autonomy that Manitoba has, he would say
certainly not, notwithstanding that Manitoba is absolutely free in regard to the
school matter, because the financial terms
given to Manitoba would be entirely unsatisfactory to the new provinces. For the same
reason as in the case of British Columbia
he would not be prepared to accept the autonomy which the maritime provinces possess.
Make the suggestion to him that he
accept the autonomy which Quebec has, and
what would he say? Quebec is limited in
the matter of language; it is obliged to recognize officially two languages, and it
is
limited in other respects. He would not ac
3617 MARCH 31, 1905
cept that. The average citizen of the Territories, if asked to accept the autonomy
of
the province of Ontario, would at first blush
say yes; but some of us on inquiring a little
further would say: Certainly not; there is
a limitation in Ontario with regard to schools
which we do not want to apply in Alberta
and Saskatchewan, and in these Bills it
is not applied.
Mr. SPROULE. Might I ask the hon.
gentleman one question ? I understood him
to say that the Northwest provinces are
getting exactly the same provincial autonomy as the other provinces. Is it not a
fact that every province in confederation today, except Ontario and Quebec, has the
absolute right to legislate with regard to
education ?
Mr. SCOTT. I have endeavoured to explain to the House very clearly my position
on that point—that there are no two provinces in Canada with exactly the same
measure of autonomy, and probably the
people of the Northwest Territories would not
be willing to accept the exact position occupied by any other single province in Canada.
I believe that the provisions of these
Bills will place the Northwest Territories in
a position as nearly as possible of absolute
and satisfactory average equality with the
other provinces of Canada. I know that the
hon. member for East Grey, in the depth of
his sincerity, would like to have a contrary
impression created. I said a moment ago
that there were some misconceptions prevailing, and we have heard some of them
voiced in this House. I am going to read
to the House a communication which I have
received which puts those misconceptions
a little more bluntly than we hear them
put in this House, but it expresses the
same spirit. This letter reached me this
week. To satisfy my hon. friend from East
Grey, I will say at the beginning that I am
not going to give the name.
Mr. SPROULE. Then you should not
read it. If a letter is quoted in this House
it should be laid on the table. I appeal to
the Speaker if I am not correct.
Mr. BRODEUR. The hon. gentleman is
entirely mistaken. It is only official documents which are to be laid on the table,
not
private letters of members.
Mr. SPROULE. A member has no right
to quote anything in this House that he is
not willing to give the authorship of.
Mr. SCOTT. In this particular case there
need be no dispute, because there was no
name on the letter. It was signed 'A Lover
of Freedom,' and is as follows:
Walter Scott, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,—It is with a feeling of shame I read
your letter from a clipping sent me from
Ontario addressed to A. Banner, of Maple Creek,
3617
3618
and I must say I feel ashamed of those representatives of the citizens of Canada who
purpose voting for such an infamous measure as
the separate school clause makes, of the Autonomy Bill, with which it is the purpose
of
the Laurier government to shackle for all time
to come the new provinces of Canada. Rather
than vote for such a measure I would drown
myself or commit suicide in some way, or flee
to some place of exile or desert island where
no self-respecting man could look me in the
face. Have you no eyes ? Have you never
read history ? Are you not conversant with
the current newspaper news—
The writer, I suppose, must have been
reading the Toronto 'News.'
—or have you not any conscience, that for the
sake of party politics or for the sake of the
emoluments and patronage of the party in
power, you propose to shackle the poor ignorant Roman Catholics of these new provinces
with the fetters of Romish priesthood, and
keep them in ignorance for all time to come ?
Look at the peasants of Russia, and of Spain
and of Italy and Mexico and Cuba, and all the
petty republics of South America where the
hierarchy of Rome have the ruling of the
people. Look even at your own province of
Quebec, and at Manitoba, before it was set
free by the Liberal party ; and behold the result of the power of Rome in educational
matters; and with all that before your eyes, you
still declare that, as far as your vote will
do so, you will put shackles on the Catholic
element who do not know enough to resist, as
well as the coming generations of Catholics
for all time to come, in a territory ruled by
British freemen, and in extent nearly half a
continent.
—Why are the Russian peasantry so ignorant ?
Is it not because it suits the purposes of the
Greek and Roman churches to keep them in
ignorance ? And what is true of Russia is
also true of every country in the world where
the hierarchy of Rome holds sway. You have
a Roman Catholic premier in power at Ottawa,
and a servile majority at his back whom he
purposes to control in the interests of the hierarchy, and is making an attempt to
shackle
the greater part of the territory of Canada as
it has done the laity of the Roman Catholic
population of Ontario and Quebec. Be warned
in time. Do not permit your name to go down
in history as one who was a party to such
infamy and calamity to a people that ought to
be free. Be a man, do the right thing, and
let the Roman Catholic hierarchy go to the
devil where they belong.
A LOVER OF FREEDOM.
Mr. INGRAM. Is this one of the hon.
gentleman's electors ?
Mr. SCOTT. I am proud indeed to say
that that letter was not posted from my
constituency, and for the benefit of my hon.
friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I will
add that I absolve him entirely from any
connection with that letter, I merely give
it as an expression of a spirit which unfortunately is evident sometimes in this
3619
COMMONS
House, though not quite so plainly expressed as it is in this communication, and as
a
proof of the entire ignorance and misconception under which are labouring the people
who are complaining against this measure. What we are legislating for is a
common school—not a church or ecclesiastical school—but a common school system
to be entirely governed and controlled by
the people of those provinces through their
legislatures and administrations. I have received a very large number of communications,
petitions and protests of various sorts
in connection with this measure, from which
I ask permission to read just two or three
extracts. Here is a resolution which came
to me from the Orangemen of Maple Creek :
That the Orangemen of Maple Creek feel it
incumbent upon them to protest in the most
earnest manner against any question of separate schools being established in the Territories,
and, believing that the great majority of
the population of the Territories are against
the idea, earnestly entreat the premier of the
Northwest assembly and his co-delegate at
Ottawa, and also the members of the Dominion
parliament for the Territories to fight the introduction of separate schools even
to the refusal of provincial autonomy with that as a
condition thereof.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are not proposing
to introduce separate schools. What we are
proposing to do is to perpetuate conditions
which exist in that area at present, and
which have given, and are giving, entire
satisfaction to practically everybody in that
country. I have a communication from an
important hotly, the Baptist Convention of
Manitoba and the Territories, the third
clause of which is as follows:
This is a scheme which will provoke discord
and defeat one of the main purposes of public
school education, which is the unification of all
classes. A confederation cannot be sound in
which the elements lack the first essential of
harmony.
Well. this system which we are perpetuating by the proposed legislation is one
which has been in force in the Territories
for fourteen years, and I have yet to learn
that it has caused any discord. The first essential of harmony therefore must be in
that system, or discord would have broken
out under its administration at some time
or other during the fourteen years it has
been in force. Another petition very largely signed contains the following :
We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully
urge you to use all influencc you may have
against the separate school clause in the Bill
now before parliament.
The majority of these petitions are directed against the original clauses, which
some of us, at all events, claim were not
identical with those now before the House.
In a petition, dated March 7th, from the
Ministerial Association of Winnipeg, the
second clause reads as follows :
3619
3620
Whereas, the rights of the minority are sufficiently protected by the British North
America
Act in any particular case.
But we are certainly not increasing that
protection by this measure. If we should
let the British North America Act, section
93, apply mechanically or automatically, we
would not be giving any less protection to
the rights of the minorities, but would
leave the matter in a position of uncertainty, and there can be no doubt that where
you leave uncertainty you give opportunities to agitate, and you create, not only
the
possibility, but the strongest likelihood, that
the first years of the new provinces. when
the attention of their legislatures should be
directed to more profitable things, will be
misused in an agitation which my hon.
friend from East Grey might take some opportunity in helping to raise for the abolition
of that remnant of the separate school
which does exist in the Territories.
Mr. SPROULE. I should think that the
statement I made would have exonerated
me from any such charge. What I asked
was that the right be left with the provinces to deal with the school question as
they saw fit. I did not ask that they should
do away with separate schools or introduce
separate schools, but be left free to deal
with them as a matter pertaining to themselves, about which we are not concerned,
and in which I do not propose to meddle.
Mr. SCOTT. I do not know that it will
be possible for me to arrive at an exact understanding with my hon. friend from East
Grey (Mr. Sproule).
Mr. SCOTT. I would ask my hon. friend
whether anybody in the Territories communicated with him in regard to this matter
before he commenced communicating
with the people out there?
Mr. SCOTT. I understand my hon. friend
to contend that he has had no part in endeavouring to engineer an agitation in the
Territories. That is a statement which I
accept.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman asked me a specific question, and I gave him
a specific answer.
Mr. SCOTT. I accepted last evening the
frank statement of my hon. friend that he
had not written people in the Northwest
Territories urging upon them that this was
the time for them to get rid of their separate schools.
Mr. SCOTT. I do not know that it is of
any consequence to anybody that I should
pursue this matter further with my hon.
3621 MARCH 31, 1905
friend, but the fact remains that there were
people in the province of Ontario who, in
last January, before these Bills were brought
down, were writing to people in the Northwest Territories; and if I had the file of
the
Calgary 'Herald' here—which is a Conservative organ—1 could read a very strong
article advising the people of Ontario to
mind their own business and not meddle in
this affair of the people of the Territories,
who are well able to look after it themselves. But to continue with these communications
and resolutions; here is a resolution which was adopted by a public meeting at Moosejaw
:
That the school system now in force in the
Territories was brought in force by our local
legislature and is giving entire satisfaction, and
we respectfully urge that the new provinces
be given full control of educational affairs.
Mr. SCOTT. It is evident, on the face of
it, that right in that clause there is a misconception. As a matter of fact, this
legislation was not brought into existence by the
local legislature, but initiated by this parliament. Practically all the protests
and
communications and complaints which have
been raised are based upon misconceptions,
though not of so violent a character, I must
admit, as those which exist in the mind of
the writer of the letter who signed himself
'a lover of freedom.' And a good deal of
that misconception exists apparently in the
city of Toronto. A gentleman who for many
years held, first in Manitoba and then in the
Territories, the important position of superintendent of education, spoke at a recent
public gathering in Toronto—a gathering
held as a protest against the legislation submitted to this House. I refer to Dr.
Goggin.
I read from the report in the Toronto
'News' that he said :
I take it that we meet here to-night as a
body of Liberals, intent upon setting before
our party our views on this subject, whether
they be right or wrong. That I believe is one
of the qualifications of a good party man.
We have all had experience with
'Old Liberal,' 'Disgusted Liberal,' 'Long-
standing Liberal,' and various other
classes of Liberal who come to the front
during a general election or at other
periods of excitement. In my own
hearing the name of Mark Twain has
been used twice in the course of this debate.
On one occasion Mr. Clemens, more widely
known by his pen-name ' Mark Twain,' was
inspecting a group of statuary in the house
of a friend. One statue was that of a
young woman coiling her hair. The great
humorist had a puzzled expression, and,
when asked what he thought of the statue
he said, 'Well, it isn't true to nature : she
ought to have a mouth full of hairpins.' We in the west have been
acquainted with Dr. Goggin for many
years. but no matter how full of politi
3621
3622
cal hairpins he was even his best friend
would fail to recognize him from this description given of him in the Toronto ' News.'
We have always known him as a very estimable, a very genial, but a very thoroughgoing
Conservative. I entirely refuse to believe that Dr. Goggin is correctly reported.
I venture to say that the Toronto 'News,'
pursuing its very frequent policy of misrepresentation, has incorrectly reported Dr.
Goggin, in representing him as belonging to
the class of 'Disgusted Liberals.' Dr.
Goggin later on referred to Mr. Haultain's
draft Bill :
I would like to say a few words in regard
to this draft Bill. Certain things are asked for,
including provincial control of public lands,
but they make no demand for the incorporation
of any provisions for separate schools under
the new constitution. They do not say one
word about it. Nor at the elections did Mr.
Haultain say one word about it. No ! They
trusted to the British North America Act.
I will make some further reference to that
later on :
Sir Wilfrid Laurier has said that he did not
think there was much to be accomplished by
discussion. We know where Mr. Haultain
was, and we know where we were. That is
what he said. I might ask, in view of subsequent events, whether he knew where he
was
or not. One of our objects in coming here tonight is to help him to discover where
he
ought to be. We know that the people of the
Dominion were not consulted; neither were
the people of the west. We know that Mr.
Haultain and his colleagues were not consulted,
we know that neither the Minister of Interior
nor the Minister of Finance were consulted.
Do you know whether anybody else at Ottawa
was consulted ? Have you heard whether the
Papal Legato was consulted? . . . Are you
people of the west to be trampled upon by him?
It is as a western man that I appeal to you
to-night and especially to the Liberal party,
to let its voice be heard in no uncertain sound.
And we had one of the representatives for
Toronto rising in this House one night a
week ago, at white-heat of indignation because the Minister of Finance had stated
that some religious considerations were
being imported into this discussion. Is there
no religious suggestion in the statement I
have just read, no insinuation calculated
to excite the prejudices and passions of the
Protestant people of Ontario ? Let me say
a word with regard to what has been discussed a great deal—' We know that Mr.
Haultain and his colleagues were not consulted.' Now Mr. Haultain in his letter has
stated that he was consulted in regard to
everything except the matter of education.
Mr. SCOTT. I may remind the hon. member for East Grey that Mr. Haultain came
here just after New Years and was here
almost continually until the 21st of February when this measure was brought down.
3623
COMMONS
There were consultations going on nearly every day. If there were no discussions between
the members of the government and
the representatives of the Northwest Territories with regard to education whose was
the fault ? Was there any prohibition resting upon Mr. Haultain against bringing the
matter of education into the conference ?
I will point out to you a little later, Mr.
Speaker, that in not bringing up the matter
of education Mr. Haultain was doing exactly
what he had been doing in the Northwest
Territories. For years he had been discussing this autonomy matter, and yet until
the time of the general election last October
you will fail to find any reference he ever
made in any discussion to the subject of
education. If there were no long discussions
between him and the members of the government with regard to education, I venture
to say that Mr. Haultain and his colleague
are at least as much to blame as are the
members of the government.
Now I revert to a matter that I mentioned
a little while ago,—I will have something
to say with regard to Dr. Goggin a little
later—whether this Territory should be
treated in these measures, as a territory or
a province. There has been a good deal of
discussion coming from the other side of the
House on that point. I find that the opinion
from Mr. Christopher Robinson, K.C., read
by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr.
Sproule) had that idea in it—in fact that
idea was the basis of Mr. Robinson's opinion. Mr. Robinson said :
There is not in any part of the Northwest
Territories as a province any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools
possessed by any class of persons, created by
the province, or existing at such union.
Mr. Haultain, too, in his letter, remarks
in reference to this matter :
The first subsection of section 16 of the
Bill is drawn in direct contradiction of this
principle. It is an attempt to create a province retroactively. It declares territorial
school laws passed under the restrictions imposed by the Northwest Territories Act
to be
provincial school laws. It clothes laws imposed
by the federal parliament with all the attributes of laws voluntarily made by a free
province. It ignores territorial limitations and
conditions. It denies facts and abolishes time.
It declares what was not to have been and
seeks to perpetuate as existing what never was
or is.
Very definite language. Hon. gentlemen
on the other side have been using similar language. They have been fairly 'rampaging'
through the fields of ridicule so far as concerns that feature of the Autonomy Bill
which proposes to treat these areas as provinces. I do not know that it would be any
harm just to look for a moment at what was
the demand of the Northwest Territories
in this regard if we take the view expressed
by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr.
Lake) that the draft Bill of Mr. Haultain
constituted the demand of the people of the
3623
3624
Northwest Territories. Section 2 of the draft Bill is as follows :—my hon. friend
from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) I hope, will
pay particular attention to this, for he also
had something to say about the ridiculousness of treating that area as a province.
The name of the province is left blank in
the draft Bill, but I supply the name:
On, from and after the said first day of
January, 1903, the provisions of the British
North America Act, 1867, except those parts
thereof which are in terms made or by reasonable intendment may be held to be, specially
applicable to or to affect only one or more
but not the whole of the provinces under that
Act composing the Dominion, and except so far
as the same may be varied by this Act, shall
be applicable to the province of Saskatchewan
in the same way and to the same extent as they
apply to the several provinces of Canada and
as if the province of Saskatchewan had been
one of the provinces originally united by the
said Act.
As if Saskatchewan had been a province
and not a territory ! Create a province retroactively ! Treat territorial school laws
as
provincial school laws ! Ignore territorial
limitations and conditions ! Deny facts and
abolish time ! Declare what was not to
have been and perpetuate as existing what
never was nor is ! Ridiculous when proposed by this government ! But high statesmanship
when proposed by Mr. Haultain !
That draft Bill, the famous draft Bill.
was prepared, I think, in January, 1902
I have discussed that clause with lawyers, and with laymen, and I venture
to say there is not a lawyer in this
House or in this country who dares
chain his reputation to the opinion that that
clause would not have fixed ecclesiastical
separate schools certainly and irrevocably
on the new provinces if it were adopted or
at least have fixed certainly and irrevocably
a system of separate schools. I go farther
and I say that when that draft Bill
was prepared Mr. Haultain, nor any
of his colleagues, nor any of the members of the Northwest legislature, nor
any of the people of the Northwest Territories who were taking an interest in
the matter, ever had any intention of asking for greater freedom in this matter of
schools than they had been enjoying for
the last fourteen years. Dr. Goggin, as I
said. was superintendent of education in
the Northwest Territories for a number of
years ; he was practically the deputy of
Mr. Haultain in the educational department at the time this draft Bill was framed.
Dr. Goggin moved to Toronto a little more
than two years ago, at about which time
he was interviewed on the subject of autonomy by the Toronto 'News.' He was
asked his opinion as to the reason of the
delay by parliament in dealing with this
matter of autonomy, and this is what he
said :
There are those who assert that the delay in
granting autonomy is owing to the difficulties
3625 MARCH 31, 1905
anticipated in connection with separate schools
and the use of the French language. It is
said that the legislature will insist upon being
left perfectly free to deal with this as with all
other questions of internal administration,
though I have not seen any declaration to that
effect by the premier or the legislature.
Dr. Goggin knew the contents of the
draft Bill, he was in Regina at the time
it was prepared, and was then Mr. Haultain's superintendent of education. He was
there during the local election in 1902 when,
as is stated, the people of the Territories
voted upon and endorsed the demand made
by the government for autonomy, and after
he came to Toronto a year later he declared
he had seen no declaration by the premier
or legislature of the Territories that they
wanted additional freedom in the matter of
the schools constitution. I say, Mr. Speaker,
and I say it solemnly, because it is a weighty
statement, not to be made lightly, I say
that in view of the fact that in his own
draft Bill, Mr. Haultain asked for a provincial charter in which separate schools
would be imposed and guaranteed in the
new provinces as if the Territories were
one of the original provinces, a charter having the effect which the Nova Scotia charter
would possess with regard to separate
schools if a separate school system had
been in existence in Nova Scotia in 1867—I
say that the ground taken in this letter of
protest by Mr. Haultain can only be classed
as a piece of the rankest and most patent
partisan misrepresentation ever witnessed
in the Dominion of Canada. I ask the hon.
member for Qu' Appelle who was a member
of the legislature, and was one of Mr.
Haultain's closest associates, if, up to April,
1903. if up to the time of the Moosejaw convention in 1903, when Mr. Haultain was
dragooned by his party associates at the
instance of the leader of the Conservative
party here—if the hon. member for Qu' Appelle ever understood that Mr. Haultain, or
his government, or the legislature intended
to ask a constitution with regard to education different from the constitution that
they had at that moment ?
Mr. LAKE. I thoroughly understood that
the draft Bill provided for absolute freedom
of action to the new provinces in the matter of education.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, the draft Bill speaks
for itself, and it asks that these areas be
not treated as Territories but be treated as
if they were at this moment provinces. And
Dr. Goggin had no such understanding as
my hon. friend professes. Nor had I. Nor
had the assembly generally. I think it is
proper for me to point out that this particular conduct on the part of Mr. Haultain
is strictly of a piece with his whole conduct
of political matters since the convention
two years ago when he was dragooned at
Moosejaw.
3625
3626
Mr. LAKE. I strongly object to the
suggestion being made that I knew Mr.
Haultain was dragooned ; nothing of the
sort, I think he acted entirely of his own
free will.
Mr. HERRON. I do not think the hon.
gentleman from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott)
would dare go into Alberta and make a
statement of that kind.
Mr. SCOTT. Well, my present sphere is
sufficient for me now, perhaps I may have
an opportunity some time to make this statement elsewhere. Mr. Haultain knows since
last October and November whether I have
fear or hesitation about making the statement elsewhere. I say his conduct in
this matter is of a piece with his conduct
during the last two years. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) remembers
that in the fall of 1903 We had a discussion
about a certain matter of capital advance.
I read a telegram from Mr. Haultain which
practically asked me to get a capital advance on certain terms which he said
would be satisfactory to him. Well, later
in the assembly he declared that they were
not satisfactory, and it is to the knowledge
of everybody that that declaration had
absolutely no other motive than partisanship
and had no other result that the detriment
of the people of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. SPROULE. I understood Mr. Haultain's objection was this, that if the increased amount of
money was given out of expenditure it was to be regarded as paying
off so much debt, it was to be counted as
a debt against the province and taken into
consideration when autonomy was given,
because, he said, we have no right to be
saddled with that as a debt.
Mr. SCOTT. That of course may be called a side issue. Mr. Haultain asked us by
telegram to get a capital advance on certain terms, we got it on those terms, and
he
said in his telegram that he would be satisfied. But later on he stated in the legislature
that it was not satisfactory, and for
purely partisan reasons, which nobody can
successfully deny.
Mr. SPROULE. I did not understand
that the money was got on the terms that
he asked for at all.
Mr. SCOTT. Absolutely. Then as this
matter has become one of some interest as
we hear it said that here is the opinion of
the duly accredited, constitutional representative of the Northwest Territories, their
Prime Minister. I think it becomes our duty
to look into his credentials. What is his
position at the present time ? He is
the reputed head of the legislature, but
I make the statement on my responsibility as a member of this parliament, that Mr.
Haultain does not at the
present moment possess the confidence of
3627
COMMONS
the Northwest legislature. If he had a meeting of the legislature to-day I know positively
that he could not command a
majority. There are seven vacancies, since
the last meeting of the legislature seven
gentlemen have resigned, and I verily believe that if these constituencies were
to elect new members, Mr. Haultain tomorrow would not be able to control
a majority. He is in a sense, of
course, Prime Minister, but if we are going to stick to the constitution as strictly
as our friends this afternoon have argued
for it, Mr. Haultain must admit that he is
not the constitutional representative of the
people of the Northwest Territories at this
moment. Is further evidence needed ? Mr.
Haultain made this very autonomy matter, as my hon. friend from Brandon
knows, an issue in the Northwest Territories in the last general election as far as
he could to obscure the Grand Trunk Pacific.
He stumped the Northwest Territories on it
and what was the result ? Seven Liberal
members returned, every one with an average majority of 1,200, as against three Conservatives
with an average majority of less
than 150.
Mr. INGRAM. You ought to have an
election for the Minister of the Interior
now.
Mr. SCOTT. We had a good deal of discussion this afternoon and many brave
statements were made by hon. gentlemen
opposite. We had very similar statements
made last year. We had a number of fingers pointing across the floor of the House
then as they were pointing across this afternoon and from month to month in 1904 and
during the previous session of 1903 hon.
gentlemen said: Only dare to come down
to the people; only dare to do it. Well, the
government did dare do it and the result is
as I have said, that in British Columbia
there were seven Liberals returned and
not a single Conservative, in the Northwest
Territories seven Liberals. with a majority
averaging a little over 1,200, as against
three Conservatives barely squeezed in,
and in Manitoba seven Liberals as against
three Conservatives. And when we got
before the people their complaint was that
we had taken them unawares. Let the hon.
member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) not
concern himself. Whether a new Minister
of the Interior is selected from British
Columbia or the Northwest Territories 0r
Manitoba, I venture to say that the government will be able to carry the election
of
such a minister in whatever district they
may choose to select him from.
Some references have been made to Mr.
Bulyea, the colleague of Mr. Haultain.
Some serious insinuations have been made
against Mr. Bulyea. Some were made by
the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr.
Foster) a few days ago. He insinuated,
3627
3628
and because no direct denial was made he
took it as an admitted fact, that Mr. Bulyea had been, as he put it colleaguing with
the right hon. Prime Minister and the Liberal members from the Territories apart
from Mr. Haultain. I think I am revealing
no secret when I say that I have been present at no conference at which the right
hon. Prime Minister was present and at
which Mr. Bulyea was present. We have
had numberless conferences with the Prime
Minister and his colleagues, but at none
of these conferences was Mr. Bulyea present. Let me turn that proposition around.
I am sorry that the hon. member for North
Toronto is not here. Is there anybody here
who is prepared to state—
An hon. MEMBER. The hon. member for
North Toronto did not make that statement
at all.
Mr. SCOTT. Is there anybody present
who is able to state—and the hon. leader
of the opposition will have an' opportunity
of answering this question—that Mr.
Haultain was careful to have Mr. Bulyea
with him every time he was in meeting and
in discussion with the hon. leader of the opposition in regard to this autonomy matter?
Several hon. gentlemen opposite have suggested that Mr. Bulyea had deserted the
position of the Northwest Territories in
failing to sign the letter of protest which
appeared over the signature of Mr. Haultain. I have already read the letter
and it is patent to everybody that the only
protest of any kind contained in that letter
is in regard to this school matter. He does
not lay stress on the matter of the number of provinces, he does not lay stress on
the matter of lands; the only thing he does
lay stress on is the matter of the schools
and I have proved to the House, I think,
to the satisfaction of every lawyer and
every layman in the House, that Mr. Haultain's own draft Bill, which was assented
to by the legislature and the people of the
Northwest Territories, asked for the continuation of the separate school system. Is
it Mr. Haultain or Mr. Bulyea who has deserted the position of the Territories ?
If, as alleged, Mr. Bulyea declined to sign
that letter, I think Mr. Bulyea was simply
performing his duty. He declined to turn
from the position that the people of the Territories had taken on that matter.
The hon. member for North Toronto, too,
stated something in connection with the
question that had been asked by Mr. Haultain in regard to schools at the time of the
last general election and the answer given
by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). That is perfectly true. He went on
to say that a question was put to all the
Liberal candidates in the Northwest Territories as to what their action was going
to
be in regard to schools if they were returned to parliament and that they told the
people that they must trust to the govern
3629 MARCH 31, 1905
ment. If the hon. member for North Toronto were here, I would put the question
to him—perhaps the hon. member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule) can answer it—what
basis is there beyond their imagination for
such an assertion as that?
Mr. SCOTT. That the Liberal candidates
were asked as to what their action would
be if returned to parliament on the matter
of schools and that their answer was: You
must trust to the government. I make this
statement here, that beyond the question
that was put by Mr. Haultain in Regina
to the then Minister of the Interior, who
was going to Regina a week later, I never
heard the question mentioned in the whole
of my campaign. The question was never
put to me ; I never gave an answer in
regard to this question. Everybody knew
that the Northwest Territories were to be
granted autonomy very early in the new
parliament and no Roman Catholic or Protestant ever came to me privately or ever
put the question at a public meeting or
asked me in any way, prior to the 3rd
November, what my action would be in that
regard. This is further proof of the most
convincing nature, if any were needed beyond what I have already given to the
House, that the Northwest Territories were
not asking for any more freedom in regard
to schools than that which they have enjoyed for the last 14 years. The hour is
late—
Mr. SCOTT. Some hon. gentlemen appear to be very much concerned about the
meaning of the new section 16, about the
meaning of the Bills as they at present
stand. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr.
McCarthy), the other evening, expressed
what he considered a doubt about it and
this doubt was repeated last night by the
hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake).
They are doubtful whether any change has
been made in the Bills. I am not very much
concerned with the meaning of the original
section 16, because we are not dealing with
that. But, of course, we are very much
concerned with the meaning of the Bills in
the shape in which they are going to be
adopted, we hope. I would ask the House
just for a moment to try and wipe away
some of the technical and constitutional rubbish with which some hon. members seek
to confuse our minds. The main question
as presented by the original section 16 had
reference to the provision for the distribution of the money to all classes of schools.
In the first place the right was given to
minorities to establish separate schools and
in the next place it was provided that an
equitable division of the funds should be
granted to them. There was no connecting
link, so it appeared to us, which would keep
the separate schools under state control as
3629
3630
they are at the present time. The new
section 16 simply validates and keeps in
effect ordinances Nos. 29 and 30 of the
Northwest Territories passed in 1901. My
hon. friend from Calgary advanced the
contention that these ordinances which,
when they were of questionable validity,
as some men think, yet did undoubtedly
effect the total abolition of the church or
religious school, will by the process of
acquiring unquestioned validity effect the
restoration of the ecclesiastical school. It
seems to me that the proposition only needs
to be stated clearly to constitute its own
answer. The right to separate schools is
very clearly laid down in section 41 of ordinance No. 29, as follows :
The minority of the ratepayers in any district, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic,
may establish a separate school therein, and
in such case the ratepayers establishing such
Protestant or Roman Catholic separate school
shall be liable only to assessments of such
rates as they impose upon themselves in respect thereof.
I believe this is the exact language imported from section 14 of the old Northwest
Territories Act. But that is governed in
the ordinance by section 4, which says :
The department shall have control and management of all kindergarten schools, public
and separate schools, normal schools, teachers'
institutes and the education of deaf, deaf mute
and blind persons.
The department, subject to the legislature,
in turn subject to the people, shall have the
control and management of separate schools
and if that were not sufficient we also have
section 45 which states :
After the establishment of a separate school
district under the provisions of this ordinance
such separate school district and the board
thereof shall possess and exercise all rights.
powers, privileges and be subject to the same
liabilities and method of government as is
herein provided in respect of public school districts.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we
just keep our minds free from being confused by technicalities, keep our minds on
the point which is as to whether or not we
are to have a separate school controlled by
the church or a separate school controlled
by the state, there is no liability of any
conflict of opinion about the legislation which
the government asks the House to adopt.
I am not going to take the time to read
the various regulations in these ordinances,
they have already been placed in ' Hansard,'
but I say that there is in them no limitation of power to control, vary, improve or
do anything in relation to the management of schools, all the schools, the
separate school and the public school,
except that the province must by legislation provide for public schools and permit
minorities to have separate schools, both
of which, conducted in the same way and
3631
COMMONS
yielding the same results, must receive the
same public aid. This is the minority right
which is enjoyed in the NorthWest Territories at the present moment.
To me this is not so much a constitutional
as a practical question. What is the best
thing for parliament to do in the interests
of the people who live in those Territories ?
I may say that the legislation is no compromise for me as it was for the hon. member
for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). It is exactly
what I wanted, I would not care to assent
to anything else. it is just what the Northwest wanted, it is in fact, stated a little
less clearly in his Bill, just what Mr. Haultain asked for in his draft Bill. It is
just
what the Northwest people voted for in
the general election of 1902 and what the
assembly more than once unanimously voted
for, or thought they were voting for. I
would ask again if the hon. member for
East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has ever heard a
protest from any one in the Territories
against the condition of things existing
there. I say there is no objection so far as
I have ever heard. There are I think in the
Northwest Territories 11 separate schools,
Line Roman Catholic and two Protestant.
One of them is at Edmonton, and the hon.
member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has already spoken ; I venture to say he has not
heard in the town of Edmonton any protest
from anybody against the existence of that
separate school there. Another one is at
Mrathcona and another at Wetaskiwin and
the same remark will apply to my hon.
friend for Strathcona (Mr. P. Talbot). The
hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) spoke the other day and he did not
enter any protest against the separate
school. There is one at Lethbridge and one
at MacLeod. If the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) is still here he may be
able to say whether there is any protest
in his district against the existence of
the two separate schools in that district.
There is another one at Regina and another
one at or near Wapella. Speaking of the
Regina separate school, I say that it is
satisfactory to all the people in Regina
and that any proposition to abolish the
separate school in existence in Regina
would be more unsatisfactory to the
Protestants who live there than to the
Roman - Catholics. I admit that there
is some objection against the permission
of separation in school matters. That is the
only possible objection there can be to separate schools in the west, the objection
against
separation, but in the practical operation
in town school districts there is no practical
objection, because, as in the case of Regina,
the separate school takes the place of a
ward school in the same way as it does
in Nova Scotia, as I am informed. For instances, in towns in Nova Scotia there is
one ward school set apart for Roman Catholics. It is managed entirely
3631
3632
by Roman Catholic trustees and attended entirely by Roman Catholic children.
It is merely in effect the system we have
in the Territories. The word 'coercion'
used in this case is a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of this
country. To speak of coercion in this
matter is to distort the meaning of the
word. You cannot find a protest in the
Northwest Territories against existing conditions. You cannot find an advocate of
any alteration in the separate school feature
of the existing law. We will have the
separate school whether you pass section
16 or not. The most vehement denouncers of
these Bills on the ground 0f provincial rights
in the same breath proclaim their satisfaction with our separate school. The provincial
rights cry in this case has no substance. It is a cry: for a shadow and such
a cry becomes ridiculous. I say as a member of the Liberal party that I protest
against this attempt to bring ridicule on
what is a good sound principle of the
Liberal party. Provincial rights with substance is a principle worth fighting for,
and
the Liberal party has always fought for
that principle when it was challenged.
Mr. SPROULE. How is it that so many
Liberals from the Territories have signed
petitions to this House praying that the right
be left to them to legislate with regard to
schools ?
Mr. SCOTT. Some or these people have
signed under a misconception. There are peo»
ple in the west, as (I shall prove to my hon.
friend before I get through, who do not
know that we have a separate school system
and they signed petitions under the impression that this parliament was trying to
introduce a separate school system. I ask
my hon. friend now to be candid about
it. Would it not be simply and absolutely
ridiculous for me coming from the Northwest Territories as I do to be crying for
a right and demanding a power and in the
same breath protesting that I would not
exercise that power if I had it?
Mr. SCOTT. That is exactly the position
Mr. Haultain takes; he is crying for the
power to deal with this matter and pro
testing in the hearing of. the whole people
of Canada that he would not exercise that
power if he had it.
It is said that if the privileges of the
minority are safe in the hands of the people
of the west, we should leave this question
for them to settle. That is the position of
the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. R. L.
Borden). He says: Leave it to the provincial legislatures and trust to the justice
of the people of the province. That question
cannot be put to me. I am not one of the
minority who are chiefly concerned; I am
3633 MARCH 31, 1905
a member of the majority. The question
must be put to the representatives of the
minority in this House. I presume that the
hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
is to-night representing the hon. member
for Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden), and I would
ask, when the leader of the Opposition put
the question to the representatives of the
minority who sit with him in this parliament how many of them expressed their
willingness to have the guarantee left out
and to leave the matter to the justice of the
majority. It is not for me as a member of
the majority to answer this question, it is
not to the majority, it is to the members
of the minority that that question is put.
If they say they are willing I would say
that possibly we might consent to leave
out the guarantee, although as a matter of
fact I prefer to have the guarantee left in
this shape so that there will be no uncertainty in these provinces. Can we blame
the members of the minority after all when
we look at the history of Manitoba and the
Territories ? We have cut the minority privilege down there from what it was originally
interpreted to mean. It was originally interpreted by the legislature of the
Territories, the old Northwest council, to
mean that there should be church control for
Roman Catholic schools. We have cut that
down. We all know what occurred in Manitoba and what occurred in regard to the
French language. As soon as the Northwest
legislature obtained the power to deal with
it, it abolished the dual system, and I say as
a representative of the Northwest Territories that it did the only reasonable thing.
It would have been absurd in that country
to have continued the official publication of
all laws and court records in French, because not one out of 500 of those who could
read laws at all could not read them in
English. I say looking at the history of
Manitoba and the Northwest, that if I was
a member of the minority I would not consent to have the guarantee cut out, because
I would fear that the time would come, and
that not in the very far future, when the
final vestige of the separate school would
disappear.
Mr. BERGERON. Will my hon. friend
allow me to put a question to him ? Will
he tell us what he understands by separate
schools ?
Mr. SCOTT. I understand that the minority, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic,
in any school district have a right to set
up a school of their own ; and that school
comes under the same government as the
public school. Its teachers have to be certificated in the same way, with the same
qualifications and the same normal school
training. It has the same text books and
has to produce the same results to earn the
same money grants.
3633
3634
Mr. BERGERON. What is the difference
between the two schools then ?
Mr. SCOTT. Not any difference, only the
one I have mentioned.
Mr. SCOTT. It is certainly a separate
school, though it is not a religious school.
Mr. BERGERON. It may be in a different building. but it is the same school.
Mr. SCOTT. It is the same class of
school. When our friends of the minority
decline, as, in my judgment, they have good
reason to decline, looking at the history of
the school question in the Northwest, to
have the guarantee cut out of the Bill, then
it is reasonable for me as a member of the
majority, in view of the fact that it is not
going to violate any principle of sound
public policy, to leave the guarantee in.
Indeed, as I have explained, I prefer to
have the guarantee left in in this shape,
and, so far as the educational provisions are
concerned, I vote for these Bills without
any hesitation. This is exactly the proposition I want, for the following reasons
:—
1. It removes all uncertainty.
2. It respects the minority conscience
without violating any sound public principle.
3. It provides securely against agitation
in future.
4. It perpetuates a system which has in
practice proved to be eminently satisfactory
to all classes.
5. It means coercion in no sense or adaptation of the word, because it merely guarantees
what would be continued by the almost universal will of the provinces.
6. It continues a system preferable in its
practical working out to the public school
system of Manitoba, where the minority
have a theoretical grievance, which interested parties are constantly able to exaggerate,
and who continue to chafe under what
they believe to be an infringement on their
rights.
7. It furnishes a possible common ground
of action by the members of this House, and
thus maintains unity. No common action
was possible either upon the original section
16 or upon the amendment of the leader of
the opposition.
8. More than all, it is satisfactory to me
as a citizen of, and one of the majority in,
the Northwest, because it not only reasonably secures minority rights, but it absolutely
secures majority rights against such invasion as was attempted by parliament in
1896 in the case of Manitoba. It is the only
absolute guarantee of educational autonomy
contained in any suggestion made to this
House, excepting only that of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), to specifically
make the provinces free and get imperial
ratification of the free charters. Mr. Haultain's draft Bill left the door specifically
3635
COMMONS
open for the sectarian or ecclesiastical
school.
Mr. LAKE. Do I understand the hon.
gentleman to state that Mr. Haultain deliberately did that ?
Mr. SCOTT. If my hon. friend has listened to me at all carefully, I think there can
be no doubt in his mind as to what I have
stated. I say that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, Mr. Haultain, until that
convention two years ago, when he changed
from being a non-partisan in local politics to
being a partisan all along the line—in fact,
down to the time of the last general election
in October, 1904—had no intention, as nobody connected with the public affairs of
the Northwest had any intention, of asking
for any different constitution in regard to
schools than that we have had in force for
the last fourteen years.
Mr. LAKE. Of course, the hon. gentleman is entitled to his legal opinion as a
layman in regard to this question ; but I
can assure him that Mr. Haultain holds an
entirely different opinion from that which
the hon. member for Western Assiniboia
has expressed in regard to the effect of the
draft Bill ; and I may say that Mr. Haultain has been responsible for the drafting
of the vast majority of the ordinances of
the Northwest Territories during the last
thirteen years, he being an experienced
draughtsman.
Mr. SCOTT. As I have already stated,
Mr. Haultain not only apparently neglected, during all the conferences held with the
government here, until two or three days
before the Bill was presented to the House,
to mention the subject of education, but
neglected during all the discussions that
took place on the subject of autonomy in
the Northwest—and there have been discussions of that question for years—to mention
the subject of education. He pointed out
the advantages that autonomy would give,
and the changes it would mean, but never
once referred to the matter of schools. I
will read to my hon. friend the description
which Mr. Haultain himself gave in 1900, in
a formal address, of the advantages and
changes that would be brought to the Territories by provincial establishment. He
said :
But, to put it shortly, in order to show what
a very slight difference there is between the
powers enjoyed by the Territories to-day, so
far as political institutions are concerned, and
those which are enjoyed by the provinces, I
will state in a few words the exact differences
which exist. I need not take the House over
a description of the powers which we do enjoy.
The educational power was one we did
enjoy, and so he made no mention of it. He
went on :
We have nearly all the principal powers a
province has. Where we fall short of provincial
powers is in these points : We have not the
power to amend the constitution outside of the
3635
3636
power to deal with certain phases in our election law ; we have not the power to borrow
money ; we have not the power to deal with
the public domain ; we have not the power to
establish certain institutions, such as hospitals,
asylums, charities—eleemosynary institutions
as they are called in the British North America
Act ; we have not the power to take cognizance
of public undertakings other than such as may
be carried on by certain sorts of joint stock
companies ; and our powers are limited to the
extent that we have not the administration of
the criminal law in the Territories. That, I
think, will suffice for any reference which it is
necessary to make to the eighth recital.
Take all the speeches that were ever
made by Mr. Haultain, or by anybody else
in the Territories, for that matter, and there
never was any reference to the question of
schools. And if there had been in the mind
of any person a desire for more freedom in
the matter of education than the Territories
already possess, is it not ridiculous to think
that, when the cue was given by Mr. Haultain last fall, in the heat of the election,
there would not have been some one to present the matter to the candidates, and to
seek to obtain an expression from them as
to the position they would take on the subject if elected to parliament ?
Mr. SPROULE. I understood the hon.
gentleman to say earlier in the debate that
during the election the question was not
brought up or discussed, nor was there any
truth in the statement that the government,
through Mr. Sifton, had requested the people to trust the government and they would
do the best for them. I understand him to
say there was no such statement made during the election.
Mr. SCOTT. I say that the question was
never presented to me, and I met Mr. Haultain himself twice, once at Medicine Hat
and again at Moose Jaw, and he never asked
me any question about it. Nobody asked
me anything about it.
Mr. SPROULE. Will my hon. friend
allow me to refresh his memory ? The hon.
gentleman lives in Regina. That is in his
riding. The Manitoba ' Free Press ' of
October 20, 1904—during the time the elections were going on—reports Mr. Sifton as
having spoken at Regina as follows. After
referring to the question of annexation to
Manitoba, Mr. Sifton said :
I believe that Haultain has further suggested
that I should be asked to state what the policy
of the government would be with regard to
public schools. I do not believe that Haultain is doing the people of the Territories
any
service when he makes suggestions of that
kind. 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. Let
3637 MARCH 31, 1905
me say to you in all seriousness that the subject of school legislation in Canada
is a serious and important subject. I have had a good
deal to do with it in my own province and I
know the difficulties that beset it. But let
me say this. We shall endeavour with every
possible thought, with every possible power the
Lord has given us to settle this question in
such a way as will not raise a racial or religious cry in this country.
Mr. SPROULE. My question was whether
he was not asking the people to trust the
government then. He went on to say :
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 sense or shape. He is endeavouring to do a thing which might bring
very
serious results to the people of these Territories. 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, yet I can say for myself
that
I will do my best to get the most liberal terms
possible.
Yet the hon. member will have us believe
that the people of the Territories were never
asked to trust the government and that they
never heard the question mentioned.
Mr. SCOTT. I appeal to the House if my
hon. friend has not taken up quite a bit of
my time in a wholly unnecessary fashion.
What he has just read is exactly what I said.
I have stated, as is described in what the
hon. gentleman read, that the cue was given
by Mr. Haultain, that Mr. Haultain, as a
Conservative partisan, endeavoured to start
the flame even then with the idea that it
would injure the Liberal candidates. Mr.
Haultain gave the cue and put the question,
and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr.
Sifton) gave the very sensible and proper
statement in reply.
Mr. SPROULE. The answer was, you
must trust the government.
Mr. SCOTT. I was never asked the question. I never heard the question raised except as it was
asked by Mr. Haultain and
replied to by the hon. member for Brandon.
The very best proof which can be advanced
to convince any reasonable man, who wants
to arrive at a just opinion of the sentiment
in the Territories on the question, is the fact
that not one of the candidates, so far as I
know, was asked what he would do in the
matter of the schools.
Mr. TURRIFF. Let me in reply to the
question of the hon. member for East Grey
3637
3638
(Mr. Sproule) say that I had thirty-nine
meetings in my constituency last fall. At
every one of these there was an able lawyer
representing the Conservative candidate. At
every one the question of autonomy was discussed, and I was never asked at any one
of
them by anybody, Liberal, Conservative,
Catholic or Protestant, one word about the
school question in any shape or form.
Mr. SPROULE. Will the hon. member
excuse me just one moment ? I want to
settle a question of fact. We are told that
there is absolutely no difference between the
conduct of the minority schools and the
majority schools. We are told that the
qualifications of teachers are the same, the
inspection, the curriculum, the text books,
and that the only difference is the last half
hour in the day.
Mr. SCOTT. There is not even any difference then ?
Mr. SPROULE. Well, here is the annual
report of the Department of Education of
the Northwest Territories for 1903. What
does it say with reference to the readers :
The Ontario readers (part one, part two),
second, third and fourth (The Canada Publishing Company) ; the new Canadian reader,
book
V (W. J. Gage & Co.) ; the Dominion reader,
first (part I, part II) and second—these are
optional for Roman Catholic, separate schools.
Surely that is a difference.
Mr. SCOTT. Does my hon. friend think
the point is essential ? If he will study the
effect of the legislation we are passing, he
will find that we are giving the provinces
full autonomy in the matter of those very
text books.
Mr. SPROULE. I was setting right the
statement that the schools both of the
minority and the majority are conducted
exactly the same in every respect with the
exception of the last half hour.
Mr. SCOTT. I was about to make a sort
of confession to my hon. friend. I would
have had no objection at all to stating my
views during the election regarding what
would be the proper action for the Dominion
parliament to take on the school question.
I will give my hon. friend the proof of this.
Two years ago his leader put on the order
paper a motion with regard to autonomy,
concerning which I prepared some notes.
The debate came on very late. I spoke on
the question after midnight and did not use
all of my notes. In the next session of 1904,
I expected the leader of the opposition to
again raise that question and I amplified my
notes. The question never did come up ;
but if it had. I have here exactly what I intended to say and I shall read a portion
of
it for the benefit of my hon. friend :
To-day 95 out of 100, probably 99 out of every
100 of the Northwest people are eminently satisfied with our present constitution
and system
3639
COMMONS
as regards schools. Technically the minority
in Manitoba lack the guarantee of separate
schools, while in the Northwest Territories
they possess the right. Practically the Northwest Territories system is just as satisfactory
to the majority as the Manitoba system is to
the majority in that province. In the Northwest Territories we have public and separate
schools under uniform inspection, uniform
training and certificates for teachers, and uniform text-books.
The difference my hon. friend alludes to
is so slight that it is generally not considered worth referring to. There is a difference
in the authorized text books used
in the first two standards, but we are giving
the provinces full autonomy to deal with this
question of text books themselves.
In Manitoba prior to 1890, there was popular
complaint, and very well justified I believe it
was—against the conduct of the separate
schools. In the Northwest Territories there is
not a vestige of popular complaint against our
separate school management.
I intended going on to say that I believed
the legislature of the Northwest Territory
did not intend and Mr. Haultain's draft Bill
did not contemplate any change with regard
to schools. I had Dr. Goggin's interview
given two years ago, a portion of which I
have read, in which he said that he had not
seen any declaration by the legislature or
the premier that they intended to ask for
any change with regard to schools. The
interview is a very considerable one and I
shall not read any more from it. In the
manuscript which I had written out. I went
on to say :
Doubtless there are extremists on both sides
who will seek to foment trouble over the
school question when autonomy is dealt with,
but speaking not as a member of the minority
but as one of the Protestant majority, I have
no hesitation in expressing my belief that if
our legislature and people were free to act
to-morrow thy would retain the present school
system which permits the minority to have
their separate schools. In Regina, where I live,
we have excellent public schools and we have
also an excellent separate school, and I verily
believe that any step taken to abolish that separate school would find its most active
and resolute opposition amongst members of the Protestant majority.
That was typewritten some time in June
or July last, and it was really amplified from
notes made nearly two years ago. If the
question had ever come up, I should have
had no hesitation at all—and this is the
truth—in expressing my opinion on the separate school matter prior to the election
that was supposed to be impending, or in
the campaign for that matter, just as I am
expressing it here to-night. I consider the
proposition before the House is better for
these provinces than any other suggestion
that has been made. The proposition of the
hon. member for Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden)
to permit the application of section 93 of the
British North America Act, even if his inter
3639
3640
pretation were correct—which other able
lawyers deny—and 1870 was the time of
union for the purposes of interpretation,
would leave the provinces subject to the
cast-iron rock-ribbed, irrevocable—as the
hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster)
said—system of church and ecclesiastical
schools which this Dominion parliament, by
a majority of eighteen, at the instance
of hon. gentlemen opposite, endeavoured
to force upon the people of Manitoba in 1896.
Who can guarantee that a similar juncture
is impossible at some time in the future,
when parliament, regardless of the sentiment of the people, may be cajoled and
coerced, by threats, by intimidation, by any
of the devices known to unscrupulous political leaders—by the same means that the
hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
knows better than any of us were used in
1896, parliament might be induced to attempt to invade the autonomy of these new
provinces. The hon. member for East Grey
knows that if the remedial legislation of
1896 had been enacted there was no power
111 the Dominion of Canada that could have
repealed it. I find that this Bill not only
protects minority rights to a perfectly justifiable extent without coercion or invasion
of substantial provincial autonomy, but it
is also intended to protect the majority
rights in the way I have described. It embodies a charter, secure and safe against
the possibility of a later invasion of the political autonomy of the provinces, which
the application of section 93 as intended by
Mr. Borden's amendment would leave room
and invitation for ; and this Bill is a far
more complete and secure measure of autonomy than is the proposition of the leader
of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, since the opening of the present session this House has lost one of its
valuable and prominent members, the late hon. member for Centre Toronto, Mr. E. F.
Clarke. He was prominent not only in this House but in the organization of which
the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is an ornament. Amongst all classes of
people and in this parliament he was recognized as a very broad-minded man. It is
fortunate, perhaps, that he has left his opinion with regard to this very subject.
In his newspaper the 'Orange Sentinel' of which he was the editor for many years is
the following statement, published in the issue of February 9 :
It is not certain whether the people or. the
Northwest Territories and their representatives
object to having separate schools fastened upon
them. There has been no organized or official .
protest against such a course, although it has
been known for two years or more that the
change was imminent. This makes it
appear that the people interested are satisfied. If that is the case, there is nothing
for
the other provinces to do but to acquiesce with
what grace they may. The attitude taken in
1896 was that a province should not be co
3641 MARCH 31, 1905
erced. It is strong ground still. But if a
province should not be coerced into establishing separate schools, it follows that
it should
not be coerced into rejecting separate schools.
Consequently the logical position for Ontario
electors is to remain silent and allow the
measure to become law if the Territories are
satisfied.
Mr. SPROULE. I may say to the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Scott) that it is not proposed
to coerce them even to doing away with
separate schools to-morrow. We do not ask
the question whether it is wise for the
people of the Northwest to do away with
separate schools or whether they desire to
have them. We do not even take the opportunity to give advice. We only ask that
the people of the Northwest should be allowed freedom to legislate on this subject.
Mr. SCOTT. That is my hon. friend's
(Mr. Sproule's) position. But his colleague's
position was, 'The logical position for Ontario electors is to remain silent and allow
the measure to become law if the Territories
are satisfied.'
Now, perhaps the House will bear with
me while I deal with this point. I appreciate the fact that I am infringing upon
the good nature of hon. members. I propose to give the House some proof that
the Territories are satisfied, and that there
is no agitation, no well founded agitation,
no widespread agitation in the Northwest
Territories. I will quote first an expression of opinion from the Calgary 'Herald.'
This is a Conservative newspaper, probably
the chief Conservative newspaper in the
Northwest Territories—certainly the principal one in Alberta :
Mr. SCOTT. It is subsequent to the revised Bill—I think it is March 15 :—
If the news from Ottawa that there is to be
no interference with the present educational
system of the west is true, the agitation which
has arisen, mainly in Ontario, will in all probability subside. A creed disturbance
is always
of a most rancorous kind—it spreads like a
prairie fire and in its train leaves a bitterness
where harmony prevailed. Sir Wilfrid's decision is sure to be regarded with strong
favour throughout the west.
With regard to the existing separate
schools the. Calgary 'Herald' goes on to
say :—
All regulations have been made by the Regina
government, and he must be blind indeed who
cannot see that even if separate schools were
detrimental to the country's true interests, all
objectionable features have been clipped off.
Harmony prevails : why disturb it ? It is
worth repeating that the west is glad that the
federal premier has changed his mind.
I have here an expression of opinion of
a member of the Northwest legislature. a
gentleman who voted for Mr. Haultain's
draft Bill. I withhold the name. This
letter was written on March 25 :—
3641
3642
I must congratulate you on the Autonomy
Bill. It is almost impossible to find a person
here who is dissatisfied with it. Of course,
some people, for political reasons probably,
are very sorry that the public lands have not
been given us, that Canadian Pacific Railway
exemptions are to be allowed to remain, and that
the separate school question has been forced
upon us, but their opposition is so very faint
that no one has for one instant any idea but
that everybody is more than pleased with the
way things have been managed by our representatives, and the generous treatment we
have received from the Ottawa government.
As far as I can see we have got everything
that we hoped for and a good deal more than
we expected, and I think the sentiments I
express are only those of the people at large
throughout the country.
One of the newspapers of the Northwest
Territories which took strong ground against
the original section 16, the Medicine Hat
'News,' speaks as follows :—
A general feeling of relief and pleasure is
being experienced throughout the Territories
by reason of the announcement that the Autonomy Bill has been re-introduced with the
educational clauses modified to meet the wishes
of the people principally concerned and their
representatives in parliament. The provisions
affecting the school question are now so framed
as to maintain in the west the same system
which has been in vogue in the past and under
the conditions of which educational matters
were conducted mcst harmoniously. The
amended clauses have already met with the
endorsation of the leading papers in the Territories, including the Calgary 'Herald'
and
others which were greatly concerned as to the
effect which would be the outcome of the
clause as originally presented.
Mr. SPROULE. May I ask if the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Scott) was present when
the hon. member (Mr. Lake) who spoke last
night read the account of the meeting of
the Reform party convened at Indian Head,
which passed a strong resolution against
interference with the Territories.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule)
surely understands that you will never get
unanimity of opinion over a great area like
this. The people in some quarters hold a
contrary opinion to that of the government.
sometimes a contrary opinion from that of
their neighbours The Reform party has
always been specifically a party in which
divergence of opinion has existed and is
not only permitted but expected.
Mr. J. J. Young. who is a Conservative
member of the legislature for Calgary, and
the proprietor of the Calgary 'Herald,' made
a statement immediately after the introduction of the original Bills, in the course
of which he said:
As to the school question, the present arrangement is working satisfactorily, and
as
long as the federal authorities leave things as
they are, I apprehend that there will be no
serious opposition from the intelligent portion
of the electorate.
The Toronto ' Globe ' had a correspondent
in the west at the time these Bills were in
3643 COMMONS
troduced, Mr. Ewan. In one of his letters
he stated :
Their attitude towards the school question is
similar. Without exception all those I have
spoken to have no apprehensions with regard to
that feature of the settlement. They know by
experience the system they have got. They are
perfectly satisfied with it, and if its continuance
is a part of the settlement there will be no objection from the people of the Territories.
The
Catholic portion of the population have at times
exhibited dissatisfaction, but it has never been
very serious, and the general expression is
that if the present system is continued, practically everybody will be satisfied.
Mr. SPROULE. I would ask the hon.
gentleman if he read the last letter in the
series, the one written from Moosejaw ?
In summing up the situation he declared emphatically that the sentiment of the people
was against it. I think that was written
by Mr. Thompson.
Mr. SCOTT. I have a large number of
friends in Moosejaw, and I have heard from
numbers of them since the modifications
were made to these Bills, and I think I may
say that they are quite satisfied with the
modified Bill. Moosejaw is in my own constituency. Now take the expression of
opinion at Regina, my own town. When the
Bills were first introduced and it was
thought that the school clause would continue the present situation, the Winnipeg
'Free Press' the next morning contained
the following despatch from Regina :
Now that the people of Regina have had an
opportunity of studying full details of the autonomy measures, the approval is even
more
pronounced than was expressed over the forecasts. The final terms are accepted on
all
hands as not only satisfactory but generous, in
fact one and all regard the terms as much more
favourable than could reasonably have been expected. So far your correspondent has
not
heard one word expressed that was not in praise
of the measures submitted to parliament by
Sir Wilfrid Laurier yesterday.
In last evening's Toronto 'Globe' there
was an account of a protesting meeting in
Toronto.
Rev. Dr. Chown said he was in Regina when
the news of the details of the Autonomy Bills
arrived. Every detail of these Bills was talked
about except the school clauses, and the same
was the case in other parts of the west.
In Lethbridge there is a Conservative
paper called the 'News,' which stated on
March 16 :
The separate school question in respect to
the new Northwest provinces continues to exercise politicians in the east, and to
read some
of the articles published, one would be led to
conceive the idea that people in the west were
violently opposed to a continuation of the system that has been in existence since
the opening up of the country, which, in fact, has given
such general satisfaction that but few people
have ever been induced to inquire into the
basis on which separate schools in the west
3643
3644
were founded. These people in the east who
are doing their best to stir up religious strife
are no friends of the west, which is wide enough
in area, aspirations and religious toleration, to
permit a system of schools which are a concession to religious views without being
a
detriment to the educational standard adopted
for the country and inflicting no injustice on
any one in the community.
It concludes with the statement :
It is stated that the Northwest members will
give unanimous support to a clause continuing
the present privileges, but no more, and in
taking this stand we believe they are fairly
representing the feelings of the people as a
whole.
I have another expression of opinion from
the Calgary ' Herald,' with particular reference to a gentleman in Toronto who is
so
much exercised on this question—the Calgary ' Herald' is a Conservative journal :
A few journalistic firebrands in Ontario are
as busy these days as hens in the month of
April. The basis of their activity is to be
found in a pathetic anxiety for the educational
fate of the new northwestern provinces. We
have not asked them to be anxious, we are not
in fear ourselves, and yet they worry dreadfully lest his Holiness whose home is on
the
banks of the Tiber jollies or jockies or lobbies
us into something really very awful.
One of the most distracted of these gentlemen is J. S. Willison, who moulds public
opinion down east through the medium of the Toronto ' News.' Prior to January 25 last,
he was
engaged in a long and most strenuous effort to
oust Mr. Ross & Co., and with the incidental
assistance of tens upon tens of thousands of intelligent voters he won a victory over
his foes
somewhat in the style in which Bill Adams put
Napoleon to flight at Waterloo. The 'News'
had then a just and sensible cause to advocate
and success is as easy under such circumstances
as taking candy from a child.
Exhiliarated by his recent victory Mr. Willison has again removed his coat and has
constituted himself the champion of a cause which
affects people two thousand miles from the
sanctum where he wields his anti-papal pen.
He is determined that come what may Willison
and not the Pope is to be the educational dictator of the western provinces. The hierarchy
are to be made to run away back and sit down.
Unasked advice is seldom enjoyed. Newspaper blatherskites two thousand miles away
should be heavily discounted. There is no
room for any religious clash out here. We have
more important duties to perform.
That is from the chief Conservative paper
in the Territories. Then a letter from
Medicine Hat :
All are pretty well satisfied with the school
law in the Territories, and that is what is
going to be continued as I understand it.
A gentleman in Regina writing on February 27 :
As to the Autonomy Bill, the satisfaction is
very great, the dissatisfaction not visible to
the naked eye.
Another gentleman from Regina with regard to the schools :
3645 MARCH 31, 1905
Prior to the reading of the Bill every one
I spoke to was perfectly agreeable and satisfied, so long as the present school law
was not
changed.
Another gentleman from Yellow Grass,
for many years a school teacher :
First let me say that the provisions of the
Autonomy Bill were better than I expected from
a financial standpoint. I must express my
satisfaction with the terms secured by the
Northwest. The result is all that could have
been expected. As regards the educational
clauses, I am prepared to accept the old law.
I am not competent to judge of how far the proposed clauses exceed the clauses in
the Northwest Territories Act, but where they do I believe Sifton and others are justified
in opposing
them. But I prefer that this question as an
issue be removed from the provincial field. So
long as the assembly retains control and enforces uniformity of teachers' qualifications,
books, curricula and inspection, we have nothing
to dread from the 'narrow and illiterate'
separate school products. In fact I feel that
we lose sight of our main privilege that we may
always, when we so desire, act in unity and
harmony with our Catholic neighbours, and my
experience with the Catholic laity is that they
will meet us half way.
I cannot but commend the unselfish interest of
the Toronto ' News,' Sam. Hughes and others in
our education. As for the position taken by
Sifton, I hope he is prepared to agree to the
re-enactment of the old law. I could not follow him further than that. I do not think
there
would be any difficulty in justifying before the
electorate an adherence to the Northwest Territories Act. To so many of us the matter
does
not appeal, as the Catholic population in most
settlements is so small as to have no power ;
in other settlements so largely in the majority
that the question is unimportant. In no case
have I known of a duplication of schools when
not required. Considered on its merits from a
practical view-point and leaving sentiment
aside the question is unimportant so long as
uniformity is maintained in the course of
studies and general efficiency.
I think my hon. friend referred to a meeting held at Medicine Hat where some resolutions
were adopted. A gentlemen writing
from Medicine Hat says :
You will get a copy of them, but don't think
they express the true opinion of the people of
Medicine Hat or even of the meeting, for they
don't.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think we are justified
in concluding that these measures in all
respects are eminently satisfactory to the
people who are mainly concerned. I promised to give the hon. member for East
Grey some further information in regard to
petitions. I believe it is a fact as I have
stated, that the majority of the signatures
in the Northwest Teritories to those petitions against this legislation, were given
against the interpretation placed upon the
original section 16, either that or they were
given under an absolute misapprehension.
A gentleman writes me from Moosejaw :
3645
3646
Moosejaw, N.W.T.,
March 20, 1905.
Walter Scott. Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,—I take the liberty to write you for
the purpose of finding out a little more than
I know at present concerning the school question. Now, Sir, I am an Orangeman ; in
fact
I hold the position of master in our lodge. I
have already signed a petition against the
government's imposing a separate school law
upon the two new provinces. But this was
before I stopped to consider the matter carefully. I read a letter written by you
to the
Maple Creek Orange lodge secretary, which
puts a different light on the subject. If this is
straight, which I have every reason to believe
it is, we are harping about a thing which has
been in our midst for years and not a new
thing at all as has been represented to us
here. . . . If you have time I want you to
answer and let me know in brief the real meaning of the situation in this separate
school
matter.
I believe that expression represents the
views of most of the people who have been
signing these protests and petitions. I believe that practically everybody in the
Territories, ninety-nine people out of a hundred, would prefer to have these schools
continued in the same way as they have
been carried on for the last fourteen years.
Mr. SPROULE. In reply to that statement, may I ask the hon. gentleman this
question : I understood him to say that
these people were directing their attention
to the original clause 16 and were not aware
of the modification, or otherwise they would
be satisfied. Is it not a fact that most of
the petitions only expressed the hope that
the government would not, by any enactment or otherwise interfere with the freedom
of the provinces in legislating in regard to education ?
Mr. SCOTT. I venture to say that every
one of these petitions originated in Ontario.
Mr. SPROULE. That is about as nearly
correct as the other statement.
Mr. SCOTT. I venture to state again
that most of the people who signed these
petitions will later on express themselves as
entirely satisfied with the school constitution. I say again that the proposition
in
the Bills is not a compromise to me at all.
It is purely and exactly what I myself, and
I believe the majority of the members from
the Northwest Territories, wanted placed
in the Bills. We have in the Northwest
Territories in this very delicate and difficult
matter of religion in connection with education reached a solution which has been
in effect for fourteen years, which has no
superior in any province of Canada, not excluding the province of Manitoba, not excluding
the province of Nova Scotia or any
other province. We have the most satisfactory solution of this difficult subject that
is to be found anywhere in Canada, and
why should we take away the advantages
3647 COMMONS
of that solution from the people in the initiation of these new provinces ? Why should
we endanger the future prosperity of these
provinces by subjecting them to the possibility of an agitation over this difficult
and
delicate matter ? The proposition which is
contained in these Bills is the most successful and satisfactory proposition that
could
be devised in respect to this subject. Yet
there can be no doubt about the disturbed
state of feeling existing in various other
parts of the country—a disturbance fraught
with exceeding danger. There are two men
in this country who could in a day settle
all further difficulty in this matter. There
is practically a unanimity of opinion on
this side of the House and amongst all
Liberals throughout Canada on this question. There are two men who could in a
day take all possible further danger out of
this question. These two men are Mr. Haultain, who, notwithstanding the fact that
he
lacks the constitutional position to enable
him to represent the Northwest Territories,
is still bound to be held by a great many
people as being in a sense the representative of the Territories in this matter. If
Mr. Haultain and the hon. leader of the opposition together could bring themselves
to
the plane that was adopted by the hon.
member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in
this House, entirely above party politics and
take a patriotic stand, I say that we would
come to a satisfactory settlement in regard
to this question in a day or a week, and that
we would hear no more about this difficulty
in connection with the Northwest Autonomy
Bills. If the hon. member for North Toronto
were here, I would like to quote to him
some very admirable words to which he
gave voice in 1896 :
Let us plant our feet in the firm path of
constitutional compact and agreement, of good
faith, and of honest, fair dealing. Let us take
and pass on that gleaming torch of prudent
compromise under whose kindly light the fathers of the confederation marched safely
through in times far more troublous and far
less advanced than ours, into an era of harmony and continued peace.
The hon. member for North Toronto made
a very excellent speech in 1896, which would
apply with far greater and more proper
force to the present situation than it did to
the suggested legislation of that time ; and
if he were here, I would say to him that I
think that if ten years from this he reads
both of these speeches—the speech of 1896
and the speech of 1905—he will be far
prouder of his 1896 speech than he will be
of the speech which he delivered two days
ago in this House.
I repeat, in conclusion, that I am
satisfied with the propositions contained in
these Bills and that they are the most important that ever have been presented to
this parliament nobody disputes. I am
satisfied that they will result not only in
the immediate future, but in the inter
3647
3648
mediate future as well as in the far future,
in the existence of two provinces in no sense inferior to, in every way equal with,
their sister provinces-enjoying absolute religious equality, full provincial rights,
an efficient free public or common, non-sectarian school system controlled by the
state and on a plan guaranteeing the perfect autonomy of every conscience and scruple
-in a word, enjoying freedom in every resonable and British sense of the term ;-and
that the provisions of these Bills will enable the people of these new provinces to
carry on their great work and fulfil the duties that fall upon them as self-governing
provinces in this Dominion with every measure of success. When I remember that this
government and this parliament are undertaking, in addition to the generous terms
which I have already described, to bear the cost of the lands administration, that
they are undertaking to continue the free homesteading policy, that they are undertaking
to continue to maintain an active immigration policy, that they are undertaking to
continue the Northwest Mounted Police in that country for some time and that they
are aiding and continuing to aid great railway projects in these new provinces, I
say, and I am sure that in so saying I voice the sentiment of the Northwest people,
that these measures are based upon those principles of justice, equality and above
these, generosity, the observance of which in his whole public life has contributed
to the position which my right hon. friend the leader of the government holds in the
confidence and affection of the people of Canada.
I trust, that, notwithstanding the threats that were made this afternoon across the
floor of the House, the 1st of July next, the 38th anniversary of the birth of confederation,
will witness the admission of these twin provinces into full sisterhood of the provincial
communion to continue in a path of development already well started and which each
and every one of us may hope will lead as the years go by to greater and greater
magnitude and perfection-helping to make in still more pronounced degree this fair
Dominion of Canada the proudest gem in the great galaxy of nations forming the British
Empire.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE moved to the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
This individual participated in:
