EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF
MANITOBA.
On the Orders of the Day being called,
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont). Mr.
Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are
called, I would like to say a few words
with respect to a matter that was mentioned
in the House yesterday. Let me, in the first
place, speak of the letter of February 23rd,
which evidently was not received by the
Prime Minister. May I be permitted to
say that I understood from the remarks of
the Prime Minister yesterday that there
was rather a reflection on Mr. Rogers in the
suggestion that the letter had not been received. I rather gathered that the Prime
Minister had some doubts as to whether or
not the letter was written. Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. gentleman, but
it is, I think, right to say that very ample
evidence was forthcoming of the writing
and of the sending of the letter, and while
we at once accept most unreservedly the
statement of the Prime Minister that he
(lid not receive it, still I would think that,
under the circumstances, it would be a perfectly proper thing to include that letter
in
the correspondence which is about to be
printed.
Since the discussion of yesterday a statement has been made by His Excellency
Monseigneur Sbarretti. I will come to that
a little later on. Let me say that I know
nothing of the circumstances under which
a delegate of the Holy See was in the first
place brought to this country beyond what
has been stated by gentlemen on the other
side of the House, who are well qualified to
make such statements, because they have
personal knowledge of that which they
state.
As I gather from them the Delegate Apostolic came to this country in 1897, not at
the instance of the bishops of the Roman
Catholic church in Canada, but at the instance of some forty Liberal members of
parliament who are members of the Roman
Catholic church. I understand that there
was no demand for the appointment of a
delegate by the bishops or clergy. In making that statement, of course, I rely entirely
3939
COMMONS
on what has been said by hon. gentlemen
on the other side. by the right hon. Prime
Minister. by the hon. member for La belle (Mr. Bourassa) and others who
have very frankly stated the position
of affairs in that regard. The delegate came
to this country. as the hon. member for
Labelle has stated, because there was a
certain misunderstanding between the laity
and the clergy of the church. I understood
him to say that the difference arose in connection with the Manitoba school question,
which was made (a political question. Thus,
I venture to suggest, not on lily own
authority at all, but from what has
been said by hon. gentlemen on the other
side of the House, that the delegate came
to this country in the first place on account
of a political question which arose in this
country and that his functions have been
to some extent at least political and perhaps more political than ecclesiastical.
Now the right hon. gentleman has laid a
great deal of stress upon the fact that no communication from the executive of Manitoba
in regard to the boundary question had
come to this government before the month
of January last. But, my hon. friend was
not unaware that that question had been
brought up in the Manitoba legislature. He
was not. unaware that resolutions, unanimously concurred in by his own political
friends in Manitoba, had been passed by
thc legislature of that province: and when
he sent his letter into the Northwest in:
the month of September last. announcing
that, new provinces would be created in the
Northwest Territories, he knew perfectly
well that the question would be to the fore
as soon as the Bill was introduced for the
purpose of creating.r those provinces. Therefore. the boundary question was to all
intents and purposes to the fore, and very
much to the fore, during the present year
in connection with the legislation which is
now before the House for discussion and
in connection with the distribution of territory attending the creation of these provinces.
It has been very much to the fore
during the last few months especially.
I referred yesterday to certain press comments on the subject. but I did not refer
to
them very fully. I will take the opportunity of mentioning them again, because
they are significant. I have here an article
which appeared in the ' Northwest Review .'
published in the city of Winnipeg. I am
not familiar with the ' Northwest Review,'
I have no knowledge except what is stated
in the press in regard to it. Other hon.
gentlemen who are more famliar with that
publication can speak better in that regard.
I am about to read a statement which would
attract attention coming from any responsible source in this country. and I understand
that the source to which I refer is a very
responsible one in that regard. The words
of the ' Northwest Review ' are as follows :
3939
3940
Two days after the 'Telegram ' had trumpeted abroad the Hon. Robert Rogers' great
hopes
for the western extension of Manitoba, the same
wise and prophetic journal deplores the fact
that there will be no such extension in any
direction. But it omits to give the reason
thereof. The only obstacle to the territorial
expansion of our province is its iniquitous and
cruel school system. Not even the wildest corner of any unorganized territory will
consent
to saddle itself with such a tyranny. Manitoba.
must be content to remain small and mean so
long as it maintains its small and mean school
policy.
Let me say in passing that that small
and mean school policy was hailed by my
right hon. friend the leader of the govern
ment in a speech in this House in 1897. as
a happy solution of a very difficult question
and one which he pronounced to be perfectly
satisfactory to the people of his own province. He said in regard to it:
The only thing I care for is that. whereas,
under the Act, 1890, they had not the privilege
of teaching their own religion in the schools,
by the concessions which have been made,
whether they are concessions of new rights or
a restoration of old rights, they will have. the
right hereafter of teaching their own religion
in the province of Manitoba.
Further on:
Well, the moment. I found that the people of
Manitoba was ready to make concessions which
practically restored to the Catholics the right
of teaching the French language and ot' teaching their own religion in the schools.
I submitted to my fellow countrymen in the province
of Quebec that it was far better to obtain
those concessions by negotiation than to endeavour to obtain them by means of coercion.
 Further on:
 And I venture at this moment to say that
I there is not a man in the province of Quebec.
 there is not a. man in this country. who. looking
at the settlement unbiassed and unprejudiced,
will not come to the conclusion that it was a
happy solution of a very difficult situation indeed.
 I hardly think that the words which I
have quoted from the "Northwest Review'
are applicable to the happy solution of a
very difficult situation which was referred
to by my right hon. friend on that occasion.
I may say in this connection that some
criticism was directed against my hon.
friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on
account of his statement respecting the confirmation or approval by the people of
this
country of that settlement in the elections of
1900 and 1904. Why, Sir. my right hon.
friend the leader of the government, in 1897,
in the same speech to which I have referred,
declared that there was ample approval and
confirmation of the settlement by the three
by-elections which had taken place before
lthe time at which he spoke. Surely. it in
the opinion of my right hon. friend three
by-elections were a sufficient approval of that
3941 APRIL 6, 1905 Â Â
settlement so auspiciously made, my hon.
friend from North Toronto did not go too far
the other day when he made the remarks
to which attention has been drawn
in this House. Well, what further ?
The 'Northwest Review' is not, so
far as I am aware, under the control
or direction of the government or any member thereof, but there is a newspaper in
the province of Quebec which declares itself to be the organ of the Liberal party
and
to be under the direction and control of my
right hon. friend the leader of the government. I quote from an editorial statement
of the 11th of February last in that journal,
'Le Soleil,' published in the city of Quebec:
We declare once for all that 'Le Soleil' is
the organ of the Liberal party, and by that
fact is under the direction and absolute control
of Sir Wilfrid. The supporters of Sir Wilfrid
and those who affirm themselves to be such,
are begged to take notice of the present declaration.
Now, it will be interesting to know
whether or not that is a plain, clear, unvarnished falsehood or whether there is any
foundation for the statement made editorially in the columns of that newspaper. It
has been stated, and stated without contradiction in this House so far as I am
aware—and I speak under correction from
the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the
House who know more of this matter than
I do—that the editorial management of that
journal was controlled by my hon. friend
the Minister of Justice (Mr Fitzpatrick).
Further than that, it is stated that now the
control of that journal has passed into the
hands of Mr. Choquette, a gentleman who,
in the first place, was a follower of my
right hon. friend the leader of the government in this House, who, in the
next place, was appointed by my right
hon. friend to an important judicial
position in the province of Quebec and
who, immediately before the last election
campaign, descended from the bench for
the purpose of becoming the organizer of
my right hon. friend in the province of Quebec. There is an editorial article in this
newspaper, 'Le Soleil,' of 4th of April which
I will translate for the purpose of reading:
The 'L'Evenement' announced yesterday
afternoon that 'Le Soleil' had been bought by
the Gouin-Turgeon faction. Our contemporary
made a mistake ; it often makes mistakes.
The purchase of a certain number of shares in
the 'Le Soleil' Publishing Company by the
Hon. Senator Choquette is only an ordinary
transaction such as takes place every day in
the affairs of every company. As to our journal, it remains as it has always been,
the organ
of the Liberal party, and in the future as in
the past it will defend the policy and the interests of the Liberal party.
Having defined as far as we can define
with the information at our hand, the position of 'Le Soleil' and its relation to
the
3941
3942
Liberal party in this country, and especially to the Prime Minister and the Minister
of Justice, let us observe what that journal
has said with regard to this boundary question, because it is sometimes important
to
consider the utterances of great political
organs upon political questions. It is desirable in the present instance to do so,
in
order to lead up to the incident to which attention has been drawn only yesterday.
On
the 17th of February 'Le Soleil' editorially
made the remarks, which have been translated as follows :
In proportion to her big sisters Manitoba will
count as little more than a large county.
This is one of the reasons invoked by Manitoba's delegates to obtain an enlargement
of
her territory.
There is another. Quebec and Ontario have
extended their limits, the one to the west, the
other to the east, to attain on the north the
shores of James bay.
Manitoba aspires to the shores of Hudson bay,
on the northeast. It would be necessary to
withdraw her boundaries several hundred miles
towards the north, to cut the district of Saskatchewan and Athabaska, and encircle
that of
Keewatin.
Manitoba is asking for treble her existing
territory.
This enlargement is hardly possible.
The district of Saskatchewan opposes it, at
least the part directly interested.
The finances of Manitoba in their actual state
are not made to attract the free residents of
the districts. Manitoba has a debt of $4,000,000.
The school legislation of the little province is
not of a nature to attract the immigrants who
people the districts. The Northwest has its
separate schools. Manitoba has abolished them.
Every good act has its reward, every bad act
its chastisement.
Manitoba will remain lowest with her pretentious law.
Those, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, are
very significant words coming from a journal which claims to be under the actual control
and direction of the right hon. gentleman, and which is said—and without contradiction
up to the present time—which is
said to have been at the moment of these
editorial utterances, under the direct control
of the Minister of Justice.
Under these circumstances, what took
place ? The delegates from Manitoba arrived in Ottawa on the 16th day of February.
They came here for the express purpose of discussing with the government the
extension of the boundaries of Manitoba ;
they met the right hon. gentleman and the
Postmaster General, and perhaps some
other members of the cabinet. According
to their statement, they were told by the
right hon. gentleman that if they would
remain a few days in Ottawa he would send
for them again, and perhaps be prepared
to give them an answer. They were not
sent for by the right hon. gentleman again
although they remained in the city of Ottawa until the 23rd day of February. I
do not know whether the exact date has
3943
COMMONS
been given, but before they left Ottawa, and
some time between the 20th and the 23rd
of February, they received a letter from
His Excellency, Monseigneur Sbarretti. I
make no criticism upon His Excellency in
extending to them that invitation; I make
no criticism upon them for courteously accepting that invitation. Let us consider,
however, how far the situation had developed up to that time. Legislation in regard
to the schools in the Northwest was about
being brought down; it even then had just
been brought down by the administration—
or at least by a portion of the administration, because two members of the administration
had not been consulted. I will correct myself and say that legislation had
been brought down by the Prime Minister
in the name of the whole administration.
but with the authority of only a part of
the administration. It is true that we had
very direct avowals from the Minister of
Agriculture and from the Postmaster General yesterday, that they were thoroughly
familiar with the terms of the legislation
as originally brought down and that they
thoroughly approved of it as originally
brought down. I am making no criticism
so far as they are concerned, because the
Prime Minister certainly had their approval and the approval of the Minister of
Customs, but he had not the approval of
the Minister of Finance nor of the Minister
of the Interior.
I do not know to what extent any consultations had been had with His Excellency in
regard to the terms of this legislation. The statement has been made in
the public press—I called my right hon.
friend's attention to it yesterday, I invited
him to make some explanation with regard
to it—and the statement has been made
across the floor of the House, that His Excellency had been consulted with regard
to the terms of this legislation. I am not
at present making any criticism about that;
I am only mentioning it to lead up to what
follows, because, educational matters in the
Northwest Territories were considered, if in
these consultations it is a little difficult to
believe that the schools of Manitoba were
absolutely ignored in these discussions and
that the boundaries of Manitoba were never
mentioned. What follows ? The interview
took place. I made no comment yesterday
with regard to that, because I thought it
was not advisable for me to do so, as we had
not yet the version of His Excellency before
us, and I thought we were entitled to have
his version of what took place before we
should make much comment upon this particular incident. Last night, His Excellency,
I believe, gave out an interview which has
been published in the newspapers of today, and I will follow the example of my
right hon. friend yesterday, by placing the
whole of that interview on ' Hansard,' in
order that we may have the full benefit
of the explanation that has been given.
3943
3944
Monseigneur Sbarretti last night handed out
for publication the following statement :
I think it my duty to declare that the press
report of a conference with the Manitoba delegates is not altogether exact and that
it is
given in such a way as to make a false impression on the minds of the people.
These are the facts :
Taking occasion of the presence in Ottawa of
the Hon. Mr. Campbell, the attorney-general of
Manitoba, whom I had met in a friendly way
more than a year ago, I invited him to come to
see me. I never met Hon. Mr. Rogers, nor did
I have any communication with him. On the
evening before his departure for the west, February 23rd, Mr. Campbell came. I asked
him if
something could not be done to improve the
condition of the Catholics of his province with
respect to education. I pointed out that in the
cities of Winnipeg and Brandon, for instance,
the Catholics were paying double taxes. I urged
my request on the ground of fairness and justice and referring to his mission to Ottawa
I
remarked that from the point of view of the
Manitoba government some action on these
lines would be politically expedient and tend
to facilitate the accomplishment of his object,
inasmuch as Catholics in any territory which
might be annexed to Manitoba would naturally
object to losing the right they had to separate
schools and to be subjected to the educational
conditions which existed in Manitoba. Mr.
Campbell then asked me what would be my desire in this respect. I then gave him the
memorandum which has already appeared in
the press.
This is the sum and substance of my interview with Mr. Campbell. The federal government
had absolutely no knowledge of it. It
was a private conversation and simply intended
to express a suggestion and a desire that the
condition of the Catholics in the respect I
have mentioned would be improved. Any other
assumption or interpretation is altogether unfounded. I think my right of speaking
to Mr.
Campbell in a private way and on my own
responsibility cannot be disputed.
I notice that my hon. friends opposite
cheer very much the statement of His Excellency that ' Catholics in any territory
which might be annexed to Manitoba would
naturally object to losing the right they
had to separate schools, and to be subjected to the educational conditions which
existed in Manitoba.' That is what they
cheer, as I understand. I am amazed at
these hon. gentlemen. The other day we
had the ex-Minister of the Interior rise in
his place and publicly thank the right hon.
Prime Minister, without whose aid, he said,
the Catholics of Manitoba could not have
been deprived of those rights—publicly
thanked the right hon. gentleman for having
come to the aid of the majority in Manitoba and prevented the Conservative government
from restoring to the minority those
rights of which they had been deprived. The
right hon. gentleman has declared this to
be a happy solution of a difficult situation ;
but hon. gentlemen opposite cheer the utterance which I have just quoted. Their
attitude is a little incomprehensible to myself, and I think it must be incomprehensible
3945 APRIL 6, 1905 Â
to any reasonable man throughout the country.
Now, let us observe a little what His
Excellency does say. He is an able and accomplished man, brought up in one of the
best schools of diplomacy in the world;
a diplomat; a man who, I am sure, would
make no suggestion, to Mr. Campbell or to
Mr. Rogers, which he did not feel himself
able to carry out. And let us see if my
hon. friends opposite will cheer a little analysis of what His Excellency does say:
I remarked that from the point of view of the
Manitoba government some action on these
lines would be politically expedient—
Politically expedient, mark you—
—and tend to facilitate the accomplishment
of his object, inasmuch as Catholics in any
territory which might be annexed to Manitoba
would naturally object to losing the right they
had to separate schools and to be subjected to
the educational conditions which existed in
Manitoba.
Conditions which the right hon. gentleman
himself stated in 1897 were absolutely satisfactory not only to himself, but to the
people of the province of Quebec. Politically
expedient—what does that mean ? Let us
consider it for a moment. It would be
politically expedient for the government of
Manitoba, which desired an extension of its
boundaries, to make certain amendments
to that law which the Prime Minister had
declared to be a happy solution of a difficult situation. Politically expedient—who
had the power to extend those boundaries?
The government of this country—hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the
House. There was one and only one power in
this country that could deal with that question, and that is the power represented
by
the fourteen or fifteen gentlemen who sit
around the Council board of Canada; and
His Excellency declared that 'from the
point of view of the Manitoba government
some action on these lines would be politically expedient.' Now, there is only one
possible meaning to that, and it is this ; His Excellency must have thoroughly believed
that
he had the authority to suggest to these
gentlemen that if they acceded to his demand, to his request with regard to the
school laws of Manitoba, there would be
such an extension of the boundaries of
Manitoba as the government of that
province desired. I am reluctant to
believe that His Excellency would have
made any such suggestion unless he
believed he had authority of some kind.
I do not know Whether he received authority from or had any discussion with the
right hon. gentleman or with any other
minister of the Crown. I do not know
whether we shall receive any information
on that subject. I do not know whether
my right hon. friend will think it advisable to give us any information. I do
3945
3946
remember, however, that after the right
hon. gentleman had declared, in answer to
my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr.
Monk) and in answer to myself, only last
session, that every document in connection
with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had been brought down, the Minister
of Finance weeks afterwards read a document which had not been brought down, and
used it for the purpose of debate; and
the government justified their action in
that regard by declaring in effect that if a
document of a confidential character came
into their possession, they were perfectly
justified in denying in this House that any
such document existed. I do not know what
denials or what statements we shall receive
in this regard; but it is interesting to
observe another thing in this statement of
His Excellency, and it is this: that there
is no direct statement in it, so far as I
have been able to observe, that he did not
have the authority which he assumed on that.
occasion. He has said, and the Prime
 Minister has said. that that interview was
not arranged on behalf of the government
or at the instance of the government; but
I do not observe any statement of His
Excellency that he did not consider himself to have authority to make the suggestion
which he did make to the Hon. Mr.
Campbell on that occasion. If there was a
 Â
supposed authority, or if beyond that there
was real authority given on behalf of this
government, or given by any member of this
government, how does the action of the
members of this administration contrast
with their attitude in 1896? Then their
cry, at least in most of the provinces of
Canada, was: No coercion; hands oft
Manitoba. That was their answer to a remedial order and remedial legislation proposed
by a Conservative administration within the strict terms of the constitution.
But what has been suggested might
rightly be regarded, I think, as a remedial
order of another type—as a remedial order
of an unconstitutional and unwarranted
character ; and I for one am surprised that
upon the statement of His Excellency, which
I have no doubt is absolutely accurate in
every respect, there should have been this
suggestion to the members of the government of the province of Manitoba.
I am not concerned wth the question as
to whether or not His Excellency should
be recalled; as I said yesterday, he is not
responsible to us in any sense, he is responsible only to his superiors. But the government
of this country are responsible to
us, and if there has been any suggestion of
this kind by or on behalf of the government of this country, or by or on behalf
of any member of it, then I say the country will demand. and I think the people will
demand, the dismissal or retirement of any
member of this government who ventured to
confer upon His Excellency any authority
3947
COMMONS Â
of that kind. His Excellency is not responsible to us, but the members of the administration
are. This was not an ecclesiastical
matter, it concerned no ecclesiastical matters in no way whatever, it was to all intents
and purposes a purely political matter,
the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. I venture to think that
in addition to the explanations which
were given to the Prime Minister yesterday
in this regard, there should be some further
explanations made to the House and to the
country to-day, in view of the very frank
statement which has been made by His Excellency, and which I have brought to the
attention of the House. I move the adjournment of the House.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime
Minister). Mr. Speaker, in the exchange of
courtesies which usually prevail between
the two sides of the House, it has been customary up to this time for my hon. friend,
when he intended to move the adjournment
of the House in order to bring up some important question, to give me some intimation
of his intention ; but my hon. friend,
for some reason of his own which I do not
know, has thought it advisable on this occasion to depart from the practice hitherto
followed by himself and by his predecessors.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Allow me to say to
my hon. friend that I received no intimation
whatever of the extended remarks which he
offered to the House yesterday.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I thought it
advisable yesterday to give no notice what
ever to my hon. friend that I intended to
make a statement which concerned myself
personally, and to dispute a statement which
had appeared in the newspapers on a previous day. Nor did I believe, nor do I believe
yet, when a member of this House
finds himself attacked in a newspaper in a
manner which he thinks is unwarranted,
that he requires to give any notice of his
intention to rise in his place and make an
explanation, particularly when the matter
is in no way controversial. It is also the
general rule that when a member of the
House gives his word in contradiction to
alleged facts stated in a newspaper, his
word is accepted, nor do I understand my
hon. friend to dispute that rule. But today my hon. friend has thought it advisable,
for reasons of his own, to bring up a
matter which is essentially controversial,
because it implies a censure by the House,
and, therefore, I would have expected that
the usual courtesy would have been extended to me. Had I been informed of his intention,
perhaps I would be in a better position to give him an answer, which I think I
can give him nevertheless on this occasion.
I must say that in the multiplicity of business which I have to attend to I had read
only cursorily the statement which appeared in the newspapers, given by His Excel
3947
3948
lency, Monseigneur Sbarretti, the Apostolic
delegate, and which my hon. friend read a
moment ago. But all this is not very much
to the point. We have to-day, according to
the hon. gentleman, a new phase of this
question, and I am glad to say that we have
a new phase, because it is a confirmation
and a corroboration of the statement I made
yesterday on the floor of this House. My
hon. friend referred to my statement yesterday that up to the month of January
last we had no information, no official information, of the intention of Manitoba
to
make an application for an extension of her
boundaries. Why did I do that ? My hon.
friend, for a reason, explained the alleged
interview which was said to have taken
place between Mr. Rogers, Mr. Campbell
and the Apostolic delegate. In that interview Monseigneur Sbarretti was reported
to have said that it would facilitate matters
if these gentlemen would consent to the restoration of separate schools in Manitoba,
and that if that had been done before it
would have facilitated the extension of their
boundaries towards the west. Well, Sir, I
stated that I could hardly believe that His
Excellency could have used such language,
because then and there Mr. Rogers would
have answered, and could have answered to
the Apostolic delegate that there never had
been by the government of Manitoba any
demand upon this government to extend
their boundaries prior to the month of
January> last, and therefore Monseigneur Sbarretti could not, in my judgment, have used
such language in the presence of Mr. Rogers.
Now to-day we have the confirmation of my
opinion that Monseigneur Sbarretti had
never spoken in that way to Mr. Rogers, for
the very good and obvious reason that Monseigneur Sbarretti never saw Mr. Rogers.
There are many things in that interview
published by Mr. Rogers which turn out
to be not altogether according to the facts.
You have the impression from the interview
which was published yesterday, that the
Apostolic delegate had sent an invitation to
the delegates of the Manitoba government
who were in Ottawa, to discuss with him
this question of the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. Is that
according to the facts as we know them
to-day? No, Sir, we find that the invitation of Monseigneur Sbarretti was not at
all extended to the delegates of the government of Manitoba, he says he never knew
Mr. Rogers ; but the invitation was extended, not to the delegates, but to Mr.
Campbell whom he know before, and whom
he treated as a friend. It is a very different thing to have an official interview
and
conversation with the delegates of a government, and a private interview and conversation
between His Excellency and a
gentleman who happened to be in Ottawa
at the time, and who was a member of the
government of Manitoba.
Now, Sir, there are many things alleged
3949 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â APRIL 6, 1905 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
in this interview which I might comment
upon. It is quite evident from the explanation of His Excellency, and is indeed obvious
to all, that this interview was not a
public discussion, it was merely a friendly
conversation between two gentlemen who
had met together to discuss a question
which they had previously discussed. Now,
my hon. friend has hinted, or has attempted
to create the impression, that the government of Canada was actuated by sinister
motives with regard to the province of
Manitoba, and that we refused to extend
her boundaries because we wished to punish
the province of Manitoba for having abolished separate schools. To establish his point
he quotes a statement in a Quebec newspaper, thc 'Soleil,' which is a newspaper
friendly to myself and which claims to be
my organ.
Sir, it is very strange that whenever a
newspaper friendly to the government says
something which the hon. gentleman thinks
is favourable to themselves, he at once
holds the government responsible for the
statement. Well, does he hold me responsible, for instance, for the attitude of the
'Globe' upon this occasion, or of the other
newspapers who do not support the government ? And if I am not to be held responsible
for the attitude taken by the
' Globe,' why in the name of common sense
should I be held responsible for the opinion
of the 'Soleil ?' There would be just as
much reason in one as in the other. 'Le
Soleil' is a paper friendly to myself. But,
because 'Le Soleil' is friendly to myself
and wants to serve me, surely it does not
follow that under any circumstances, I am
bound to be responsible for everything appearing in 'Le Soleil,' or in any newspaper.
It would be absurd to say that because men
agree upon political matters, they will therefore see eye to eye in everything. There
are other matters than politics on which men
can differ in opinion. And it is, to my
thinking, a position unworthy of my hon.
friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) to say that the
government should be supposed to have been
actuated by belief in a certain line of policy
because that policy was supported by a
certain newspaper. The day has not yet come
when the Canadian government must look
for its policy or the ground for its opinions
to newspapers, however respectable those
newspapers may be. We decide these matters upon our own lines and according to
our best judgment. But the hon. gentleman has endeavoured to convey the idea—
he did not say it in so many words—that
there had been a sort of understanding. He
did not use the word 'conspiracy,' but he
intended to convey the idea, if he meant
anything at all, that there had been a conspiracy between the government of Canada,—and
in particular myself and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)—and Monseigneur
Sbarretti to do certain things,—
that is to say, that the extension of the
3949
3950
boundaries of Manitoba should depend on
the restoration of separate schools in that
province. Why, we have only to take the
facts in chronological order as they are
known to have occurred to show how unfounded, how absolutely unfounded, how
devoid even of the shadow of foundation,
such an assertion as that made by my
hon. friend is. What are the facts ? As
stated yesterday, we received in the month
of January, towards the end of it, the request of the Manitoba government for a
conference. We agreed to that conference,
and it took place on the 17th of February.
There were present a subcommittee of council and the question was discussed. We
told the delegates that they should have an
answer at an early day. That answer they
had on the floor of this House four days
later, on the 21st of February, when I introduced the Autonomy Bills, and in the course
of my explanation stated our position with
regard to the boundaries of Manitoba was
clearly defined. It was two days afterwards, on the 23rd of February, that the
conference took place between His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti and Mr. Campbell.
When that conference took place, the
decision of this government was already
known. We had stated what we would do.
We had stated that we would reserve the
northern portion of Saskatchewan to be annexed to Manitoba or not as circumstances
might suggest, and the extension of the
boundaries should take place to Hudson
bay if there was an opportunity to do so,
after conference. The policy of the government was thus determined, and could
not be affected by anything that might
take place in the conference between His
Excellency the apostolic delegate and Mr.
Campbell. But, Sir, there is more. My
hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) wants to
know whether or not there was any question between the government of Canada and
Monseigneur Sbarretti as to the extension
of the boundaries of Manitoba. As I said a
moment ago, I have not seen the statement of His Excellency,—I have not read it
critically—but the answer to my hon.
friend's question he already has before him-
he has only to read that statement. He
has read it, and in it he finds that Monseigneur Sbarretti says explicitly that the
government had nothing at all to do with his
own action. That ought to suit the purpose
of my hon. friend and ought to convince
him that he cannot make any political capital on that line. I have only to refer to
the words of Monseigneur Sbarretti when
he says himself—and his words are in the
memory of every member of this House—
that he stated to Mr. Campbell that if they
would restore the separate schools in Manitoba, it would be politically expedient.
Why?
In what manner ? In respect of any action
to be taken by this government ? No ; but
because the people in the Territories would
then have no objections to going into Man
3951
COMMONS
itoba. There you have the whole meaning
of this matter of political expediency.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. What do these
hon. gentlemen mean ? Would they suggest that there is something behind ? They
seek to prove their case by the words of
the Apostolic delegate, and I give them his
words making clear his own meaning. It
would be, politically expedient. Why ? On
account of any action to be taken here ?
No, but because the people in the Northwest Territories who were affected would
have no objection to be taken into the province of Manitoba. That is all there is
in
the matter. Yet, in the face of a statement
so obvious as this, you have the leader of a
great party doing his best to show that
there was something hidden on the part of
the government of Canada in this matter.
A few moments ago my hon. friend said
that we would fight this question out elsewhere. I accept that challenge without any
qualification. We will fight out this question in this House. We will fight it out
elsewhere. We will fight it out on the charge
that hon. gentlemen opposite have brought
to the attention of the House. I have no
fear about the result. This is not the first
time in the thirty years of my experience
that I have seen the Tory party playing
this part of endeavouring to arouse the prejudices of the people. We shall meet again
and shall discuss this question elsewhere.
In the mean-time, I accept the challenge of
my hon. friend that we are responsible to
the people ; and that responsibility we shall
not decline, but shall meet it in due time.
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (North Toronto). Mr. Speaker, the unwonted heat the
right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
developed in his speech was unnecessary to
remind us of the weakness of his argument
in the opening, and, in fact, during the
greater part, of his remarks. Though so
valiant, though he has fought for thirty
years and is willing to fight for ever so
many years more, he found himself obliged
to plead the baby act in the very first sentence of his speech. His hon. friend the
leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden),
he said, had not given him notice that he
was going to bring this new and unheard-of
and unexpected question before the House.
And this great, strong man of battle for
thirty years endeavoured to make a little
cheap capital against my hon. friend the
leader of the opposition by imputing to him
a want of courtesy. But, as he thinks it
over the right hon. gentleman will remember
that yesterday my hon. friend the leader of
the opposition gave notice that he would
again discuss this matter. And the reason
he did not so fully discuss it yesterday was
that there had been no word uttered by
Monseigneur Sbarretti, and, for very good
reasons and very prudent reasons, I think,
my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) refused
3951
3952
to fulfil the whole purpose of the discussion
until Monseigneur Sbarretti had either been
heard from or had refused to say anything
about this matter. So that I do not think
there was very much in that matter of lack
of courtesy. My right hon. friend may refine on the technical point but he certainly
came here yesterday fully prepared to make
as much as he possibly could out of this
question politically. My right hon. friend
is, I have no doubt, doing some thinking
these days.
Mr. FOSTER. And whether he and his
colleagues and his followers are doing much
thinking or not we may be certain that the
people of this country are doing some thinking these days and I must say there is
good
material and plenty of it. But, Sir, let us
ask now what my right hon. friend took
such pains to deny yesterday. He took
great pains to deny absolutely and categorically a great many things which are altogether
of secondary importance. For instance he made a point against the Hon.
Mr. Rogers because he said that they had
not been invited on the initiative of the Dominion government to have a conference
in Ottawa with reference to the extension
or the boundaries. Neither did Mr. Rogers'
statement declare that the invitation was on
the initiative of the Dominion government.
It might have been implied from that letter
that it was or it might not, but in all conscience what difference did it make whether
the invitation went from my right hon.
friend in reply to a request or whether it
was on his own initiative. As far as the
facts of the case go what difference did it
make ? But there was a very authoritative,
a very absolute and a very much cheered
denial on the part of my right. hon. friend of
that first statement made by Mr. Rogers.
He thought he had triumphantly floored his
opponent when he contended that the
interview had not taken place on his initiative. He made another strong point in connection
with the interivew in that the Manitoba government had from 1896 up to January of
this year made no step by way of
initiative towards getting an extension of
their boundaries. The Manitoba government
I suppose is a fairly sensible government.
They knew that their legislature had backed
up the demand for an extension of territory.
It had done it once, it had done it a second
time and possibly a third time, but
a claim for extension of territory waits
generally for the favourable period and
during all this time there was the
prospect of the erection of new provinces in the Northwest, a prospect
coming closer to fulfilment and it was felt
that the time when the Territories were to
be erected into provinces would be an opportune moment for the Manitoba government
to press for an extension of their boundaries,
3953 APRIL 6, 1905
so that the argument based upon that point
was scarcely worth the time it took to state
it. It was within the right of the Manitoba
government to choose their own time and
the time chosen was that of the approaching
creation of provinces in the west. Then
they pressed their claim and I say that was
an opportune time. The right hon. gentleman tried to make something out of the
fact that he stated his policy with reference
to the extension of Manitoba's boundaries
on February 21st, and that therefore there
was no reason at all for any person no
matter what his position to attempt to gain
influence for any purpose over the Manitoba
government by holding out to them the idea
that their territories might be enlarged. I
take issue with my right hon. friend in that
respect. He did not state in detail the policy
of the Dominion government with reference
to the extension of those Territories. He
simply stated that they did not propose to
extend those Territories until after conference with other provinces, and that steps
would be taken at once or as soon as convenient to call the representatives of the
ditferent provinces that might be interested
to come together and to talk this matter
over. It would have been possible to extend Â
the Manitoba boundaries to the northwest,
to the north or to the northeast at any time ;
these districts were all perfectly open and
they lay there with all their possibilities.
Let us come to one other point, to the very
small point that was taken to-day that
Monseigneur Sbarretti did not see Mr.
Rogers, he did not know Mr. Rogers, he had
no conversation with Mr. Rogers, and that
therefore the whole argument was against
Mr. Rogers. My right hon. friend must
have taken leave of his senses. Was
the Hon. Colin Campbell down here on a
private pleasure trip ? Was he down here
as a private citizen ? He was down here
with his colleague Mr. Rogers as a delegation of the Manitoba government backed
by the resolutions of their legislature as official as any commission could be made.
They were here on an official visit and for an official occasion and it does not matter
a single bit as to whether this conference was had with Mr. Rogers or Mr. Campbell.
 Mr. FOSTER.  Or with the two of them together.
Mr. FOSTER. It was with an accredited representative of the Manitoba government. But oh, says
my right hon. friend—and this is his final argument—this was a private conference.
It was not a public conference. In what way would a conference take place ? Would
it be supposed that Monseigneur Sbarretti would put an advertisement in the newspapers,
would send a bellman about the streets to tell everybody that at a certain hour he
was going to meet the representa
3953
3954
tives of the Manitoba government to talk
over certain matters of policy ? Would he do
that ? In what way could any conference
take place between these gentlemen that
would not ncessarily be a private conference ? But it was not private in this sense
that both of the contracting parties have
thought that it was their right and their duty
to take the public into their confidence and
to tell them what transpired at that conference. So there does not appear to be much
in that argument.
 There were certain things that my right
hon. friend however did not deny and they
are quite as remarkable as the things that
he did deny. He has been told times without number to his face in this House and
he has not once risen to deny it, it has been
very courteously brought to his attention
to-day and he has thoroughly ignored it, that
before he brought down his educational
clause on February 21, 1905, there had been
numerous conferences between himself and
Monseigneur Sbarretti with reference to the
provisions of that Bill. Will the premier
deny it now ? He does not. Mr. Speaker, I
ask you, I ask this House, I ask the people
of this country if it has come to this that in
Canada the representative of any church I
do not care what it is—
 Mr. FOSTER. Through its accredited highest head—must be visited by the premier of
this country before he dares to bring down
the policy to be adopted for the Northwest
provinces ?
 Mr. FOSTER. The right hon. gentleman
has not denied it yet. Then I wish to ask
one other question to aid this thoughtfulness
that I am sure is pervading the country at
the present moment. Is it proper for the
right hon. gentleman as leader of a government to have frequent conferences with the
Papal ablegate in Ottawa with reference to a dominant part of his policy in creating
new provinces and to give the go-by to the representatives of the people of the government
?
 Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman did not consult the Minister of
the Interior who represented the Northwest Territories, who was their sole
representative in the cabinet in reference to
the educational clauses of the Bill, but he
sits in abject silence and allows me to state
here in the House endorsed by that silence
that he did care to consult the Papal delegate
here in Ottawa. The right hon. leader of the
government did not consult the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Will the
right hon. gentleman tell me now whether
he consulted on that educational clause more
frequently the one than the other, his Postmaster General or the Papal ablegate ?
Why all this trouble and talk in the country
because Monseigneur Sbarretti goes to the
3955
COMMONS
representative of the Manitoba government
and tries to get something for his people
there ? Why all this heated denial, this hedging, this twisting. this turning, in
respect
of a province which is able to defend
itself, which has the absolute legislative
power confirmed by the highest judicial
authority in the British empire, which
is able to stand up like a man and
defend itself, if it wants to or which
is able like a free man to give what it
pleases if it gives it out of its own generosity
and good will ? Why all this fuss about
such a thing as that, whilst, when it comes to
a question of infants in arms, the wards
of my right hon. friend, when their manhood and their rights for ever are to be given
to them or abridged from them, my right hon.
friend ignores the Minister of the Interior,
ignores other members of his cabinet, but
consults the Papal ablegate. Now, Sir, despite the fiery and incendiary speech of
my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)
which may be repeated here to-day—I do
not know—my position is simply this that
if there was a high representative of the
Methodist church, of the Anglican church,
of the Presbyterian church or of any other
church in this country who was here in
such a position as the Papal ablegate, and if
he were consulted in the same way I should
make exactly the same objection. This
country is not going to have any semblance
of alliance between church and state. The
people of this country come from a stock
who absolutely denied that doctrine years
ago, who fought for its overthrow and enthroned the opposite one in the constitution
and laws of their country, and the people
of Canada are born and bred to the
same idea and they will stand by it.
The right hon. leader of the government may be as valiant as he pleases
but I tell him that he has raised by
his tortuous course a question in this country which far transcends the Manitoba
controversy. Why is Monseigneur Sbarretti here ? My hon. friend (Mr. R. L.
Borden) gave what he considered he
could fairly gather from what he knew of
the circumstances that led to the coming
here of Monseigneur Sbarretti : What were
they ? Dare I analyze them for a moment?
I think we may take the risk even though
the hon. member for Labelle may frown
against it. I ask this first question in order
to clear matters : Were there any spiritual
difficulties between the bishops and clergy
and the church Catholic of this country
which made it necessary primarily that the
Papal ablegate should be sent to this country ? There were no such. It has so been
stated. It has not been denied. That gentleman would never have been asked for as
he was asked for in his own handwriting by
the right hon. gentleman who leads this
government if it had not been that there
was trouble in the Reform camp, that there
was very deep seated trouble and the right
3955
3956
hon. gentleman conceived that it would be
a good stroke of party policy to bring a very
celebrated, distinguished and high dignitary
of the church to minister to his spiritual
consolation ? To minister to the spiritual
needs of my devout friend the Minister of
Justice ? To minister even to the clear
white conscience of my hon. friend from
Labelle ? Oh, no, it was not spiritual consolation they wanted. It was party political
consolation. That and that alone was the
prime motive of the movement for bringing
the Papal ablegate to this couotry. Who
brought him ? Here is a letter.
Ottawa, 30th October, 1897.
Eminence,—I made known to you in the month
of August last, when Your Eminence did me the
honour to grant me an audience, the happy result which the mission of Monseigneur
Merry
Del Val had accomplished among the Catholics
of Canada, and the profound impression which
his high Christian virtues and his talents as a
statesman-I say statesman, and the expression
is not too strong—
Not spiritual comforts, but statesmanship
you see !
—had created in all classes of our population.
Having now returned to my country for several months. I wish to make known to Your
Eminence that if these happy results are to remain permanent and efficacious, it is
desirable,
if not necessary, that the mission of Monseigneur Merry Del Val should be renewed,
or
rather continued, and that she should be present
in the midst of us for a more or less prolonged
time as the accredited representative of the
Holy See.
I have established, since my return, that
there is among a certain class of Catholics an
underhand agitation against the work accomplished by Monseigneur Merry Del Val, a
work
of pacification, concord and union.
The same reason of state which inspired His
Holiness in the affairs of France, and which
caused him to preseribe to the Catholics of
this country the duty of abandoning the old
strifes of the past—
In matters of religion ? In matters of
church polity ? Nothing of the kind.
—and to accept the state of things agreed
upon, has quite as much force in Canada as in
France.
What state of things ? A spiritual concordat between the bishops or settlement of
disseusions amongst the lesser clergy ?
Nothing of the kind. Everybody knows
what it refers to. It does not require any
interpretation at all.
Such is the opinion of a great number of the
Catholics amongst us. I admit that it is not
the unanimous opinion ; this very divergence
of opinion only renders more necessary among
us the presence of a man at once firm and conciliatory like Monseigneur Merry Del
Val, and
of one who above all would understand all the
danger there is of exasperating the men who
are sincere, convinced, and who wish to be
faithful to their duty as Catholics, while remaining faithful to what they believe
to be
their duties as citizens.
May I be permitted to ask Your Eminence
to be good enough to lay these conditions be
3957 APRIL 6, 1905
fore His Holiness, while assuring him at the
same time of my profound respect and of my
filial attachment.
Accept, Eminence, the expression of the high
consideration with which I remain.
Now, Sir, that letter is signed by Wilfrid
Laurie r; it was written, I imagine, to His
Eminence Cardinal Rampollo. So much with
reference to that.
Let us carry this out a little further.
Not only was this letter written by the
right hon. gentleman, who then led and who
now leads the government, but a certain
counsel was arranged for who was accredited and instructed by this government to
visit Home and to bring about what the
right hon. gentleman had made a beginning
of in the letter which I have just read. The
agent whom they used as an intermediary
was appointed by this government after
they had dismissed—for purposes of state
I wonder, or what ?—one of the best and
most eminent of the legal counsel that this
government has ever had in the city of London. On the 26th of November. at Rome.
in the year 1897, Mr. Russell writes the following letter :
Eminence,—I have just arrived at Rome once
again at the urgent request of the Catholic
members of the government and of the parliament of Canada, in whose name I have already
presented myself to you. Although I have come
so far I do not dare to present myself to Your
Eminence, because I would not in the least
like at this moment to seem to be bringing
pressure to bear or to wish to impede the complete liberty of His Holiness. Moreover,
I
know how busy Your Eminence is and I remember with what patience Your Eminence has
so
many times before heard our representations
on the subject of Manitoba, which, besides
Your Eminence now fully understands.
This is a very good pointer that it is not
spiritual matters, that it is not any disagreement amongst the bishops or amongst
the clergy, but that it is for party reasons.
and for party reasons alone, that it is urged.
reasons arising from the exigencies of the
Reform party.
I should not even like to give you the trouble
to read this letter if I had not been very particularly asked to go to Rome by those
whom
I represent, and who, living far from Rome. do
not know quite what to do in order to plead
teir cause and fulfil their duty to the Holy
See.
This is therefore why I take the liberty of
writing to Your Eminence as follows :
Some days ago the newspapers caused to appear an item by which it was set forth that
His Holiness had published a letter condemning in the most formal terms the concessions
obtained for the Manitoba schools.
Obtained by whom ? By whom were
these concessions obtained ?
A few days afterwards a declaration of official
appearance made it known that no such letter
existed.
Although not resting upon any foundation,
the publication of this news has created in
3957
3958
Canada such a state of feeling that my principals thought they would be wanting in
their
duty to His Holiness if they did not bring their
respectful representations before him.
The object of my visit is to call the attention of Your Eminence to the subject upon
which I have so often negotiated—
He had been there before it appears and
on the same errand !
—to know that such a condemnation would
have the most disastrous effects for the peace
of Canada and the cause of Catholic education
in this country, while at the same time it
would sow discord among the Catholics themselves.
Now, this is the gist of the whole matter.
We do not solicit His Holiness to sanction
as perfect the concessions obtained, but that
in his wisdom he will be pleased to regard
them as a. beginning of justice. With the aid
of time and thanks to the patient work of persuasion by their compatriots, the Catholics
of
Manitoba may hope to obtain satisfaction. The
condemnation of the concession made would,
at the present hour, render (I am begged to
insist upon this point)—
Begged by whom ? By those who sent
him there ; begged by the right hon. gentleman and those who sent him there.
The condemnation of the concession would, at
the present hour, render (I am begged to insist upon this point) any future concessions
impossible. My instructions enjoined me again
to renew to Your Eminence the desire, which
I had already the honour to express to you, that
His Holiness will be pleased to name a permanent delegate in Canada. The representative
of His Holiness would reside on the spot,
but would be outside local interests, and thus
he could with more wisdom guide Catholics
through the difficulties which they have to surmount.
There is another point which I dare to beg
Your Eminence to be good enough to consider.
Almost immediately when the Latin text of
the letter of the Holy Father appears, difficult
and even contradictory translations will appear
and, I am sure of it, most regrettable discussions will at once arise as to the interpretation
of the words of His Holiness: In order to
avoid such a misfortune may I be permitted to
suggest to Your Eminence how desirable it
would be that the Latin text should be accompanied by authorized texts in French and
English. This procedure has been followed, it
I recollect aright, on several occasions in the
case of France and of England.
I shall leave Rome on Saturday, till that day
I am entirely at the disposal of Your Eminence.
This was written by Mr. Russell, who, as
he says, acted under special instructions of
the Catholic members of the government.
including Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Â
Mr. FISHER. May I ask what is the hon.
gentleman quoting from ?
Mr. FOSTER. I am quoting from a return brought down to the Senate.
3959
COMMONS
Mr. FOSTER. Or was it a question put
in the Senate ? Let me see—you will find
it in the Senate reports of 1898, page 678 ;
part of it is on that page and the rest of it
is on another page.
Mr. BRODEUR. Is the hon. member very
sure it is a return brought down to the
Senate ?
Mr. FOSTER. I took it from a question
asked in the Senate.
Mr. BRODEUR. Is it from a speech
made by Senator Landry ?
Mr. FOSTER. Will my hon. friend (Mr.
Brodeur) rise in his place and deny that
such a letter was written by Mr. Russell ?
Mr. BRODEUR. I put a fair question to
the hon. gentleman. He said it was a return which had been brought down to the
Senate. and he thus implied that it was
brought down by the government. I ask
him is it a return ?
Mr. FOSTER. And I found it was not
a return, and I started where it was to be
found and what it was. But the point is
not whether it was a return, or an answer
to a question, or from a statement made by
a senator—the point is : Was that letter
written by the right hon. gentleman as I
read it ? If it was not written by him, the
right hon. gentleman can now rise and deny
it. Was the other letter which I have read
written by his accredited and instructed representative, for whose expenses the Canadian
public treasury paid ? Was it written
by him or was it not ? If the right hon.
gentleman will deny it, then that settles the
controversy ; but he does not deny it.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not know anything about the letters my hon. friend (Mr.
Foster) has referred to, but I do know that
Mr. Russell's expenses were not paid by
the Canadian public.
Mr. FOSTER. If my hon. friend says
they were not so paid, I cheerfully take that
statement back, and I am very glad to do
so. Â
Mr. FOSTER. I have heard assertions
made in this House—
Mr. FOSTER. By gentlemen on both
sides of the House as to which, as soon as
they were informed they were not true, they
immediately accepted the denial. However,
it is undeniable that Mr. Russell received
money from this government, but it may
have been for other services, and as the
Minister of Justice says it was not for this
service, I unreservedly accept that statement. It matters little on the point at issue.
3959
3960
Taking these letters as being genuine, and
there is no doubt about it, I think we have
found thus far in our analysis that the present Papal ablegate was not brought here
and is not here to-day on account of spiritual difficulties that have arisen in the
Catholic church of Canada.
Mr. BERGERON. Nor asked for by the
bishops or clergy of Canada.
Mr. FOSTER. This also is suggested to
me : that it is not on record and cannot be
substantiated, that such a personage was
asked for by the bishops and the clergy of
the Roman Catholic church in this Dominion of Canada. If that is wrong, it is quite
in order for those who know all about it
to deny that assumption; but as it is not
denied, it goes to strengthen the analysis
I am making, and the conclusion that 'par
consequence' the only reason for the ablegate being asked to come, and being here
to-day, is in order to help the Reform government out of difficulties into which they
had involved themselves, and to help them
out of that confusion and trouble by the intervention of a higher dignitary of the
church.
This House and this country will know in
a moment whether that inference is a violent one or a fair one. Why, in the whole
tenor of those letters, the right hon. gentleman's and the accredited agent's, there
is no assumption that he has come here
for spiritual or church purposes. It is all
put on the basis of political or state reasons. What were the difficulties he was
to settle ? If they had put it honestly in
black and white, they would have said: the
difficulties amongst Reformers and between
Reformers. and Conservatives, and we want
a high dignity of the church to come here
and help us to smooth out those political
difficulties.
But there is another very singular thing
which Mr. Russell put into that statement
of his to His Eminence, that is, that his
senders. including the right hon. gentleman,
who leads the government, writing in 1897,
after the right hon. gentleman had declared
that he had settled satisfactorily the Manitoba school question, had instructed Mr.
Russell to remind His Holiness through His
Eminence that they did not pretend to believe that ' the concessions were perfect,
but
they begged His Holiness to take them as
the beginning of justice.' Now, Sir, is that
straightforward conduct ? The right hon.
gentleman, I said, is paying for his tortuous policy. So he is. In 1896 he saw a
bridge by which he could get into power;
he was anxious to cross the bridge; he
threw his principles, the constitutional principles on which he had prided himself
so
much, to the winds; he also threw to the
winds his solicitude for the Catholic minority in Manitoba; and after he had crossed
the bridge by a promise to more than one-
half of this Dominion that he was the
champion of provincial rights, and by a
3961 APRIL 6, 1905
promise to the forty-one per cent which
has been referred to in this House that
he would give them something more and
better than the Tupper government could
give by the Remedial Bill, and had attained
p-wer by these means, he negotiated privately or publicly with the Manitoba government,
and then announced to the country that he had settled the question. As
an honourable statesman, he ought to have
allowed it to remain settled. The Manitoba government came to him and said : this
is our utmost concession ; and if he, as the
Prime Minister of this country, took it as
their utmost concession, why should he send
an agent to Rome to say to His Holiness :
I do not offer this concession as a perfect
settlement ; it is only the beginning of justice ; send out your highest dignitary
to reside permanently in Ottawa, so that, by insistence, by methods proper in themselves
from our standpoint, he can bring to bear
a tireless, resistless pressure, in times of
party stress, in time of provincial trouble,
when a government has a small support,
may be, to tide them over, or when they
are exceedingly anxious to get their rights
in point of territory, he shall be in a position to use the influence which he knows
so well how to use, and backed up by us
at the proper time this beginning of
justice may blossom out into the perfect
fulfilment of separate schools for the province of Manitoba. That is why Monseigneur
Sbarretti is here today. If it had not
been for that reason and that policy of
conduct, he would not be here to-day. What
futile reasoning for the right hon. gentleman, after thirty years of political battle,
to get up and make this kind of defence
before the country, and think it will go
down with the people: "Monseigneur Sbarretti did what he was brought here to do;
did what I asked him to be sent here for;
did what I sent an agent to Rome to get
him appointed to do; he did it, but he had
no authority from me to deliver the goods.'
Does the right hon. gentleman see the two
horns of his dilemma ? You brought him
here; you have kept him here for those five
or eight years ; you brought him for those
purposes; you have kept him for those purposes; and when he comes to the final, crucial
point, and uses his influence, you disown him. If that is not cowardice, then
let it go by its own imputation.
But my right hon. friend does worse than
that. He gets up before this House and
this country, and says : 'If Monseigneur
Sbarretti made that promise of an extension
of the boundaries of Manitoba as a political consideration to the province of Manitoba
for those two proposed amendments,
he did it without any authority or any well-
grounded hope that we would supplement
his promise.' Come now, I will put a question to my right hon. friend : Suppose that
Monseigneur Sbarretti had obtained those
two amendments made in the Manitoba law,
3961
3962
and then had come to you and told you
what he had done, and had read the whole
of that correspondence, giving the raison
d'etre of his being here, would you have refused to implement it ? There is a question
for my right hon. friend. I will put another, which is more searching still : When
you say that Monseigneur Sbarretti held
out a political consideration to the envoys
from Manitoba, and that he had no right to
do it, what estimate do you place on Monseigneur Sbarretti yourself? I refuse to believe
that a high dignitary of the church,
such as Monseigneur Sbarretti is, a man
of his training and his parts, would by a
trick endeavour to get two amendments for
his co-religionists in the Manitoba school
law, unless he knew that if they were
granted, the other thing would be. Along
what by-ways and crooked paths the right
hon. gentleman is forcing himself now, as
a result of his misdeeds, to tread with sorrow and humiliation.
Now, Sir, I have no more to say on this
question at the present time, except to reiterate again that my right hon. friend
may
take this home and keep it. The people of
Canada demand that there shall be no possible alliance between church and state in
this country. A bishop of the Methodist
church has no more right to be consulted
than a layman of the Methodist church
in reference to political matters in this
country. And so with reference to every
other representative of every other church.
But can you compare a bishop of the Methodist church or a bishop of the Anglican
church with Monseigneur Sbarretti? Who
does not know that, with my right hon.
friend in power, when Monseigneur Sbarretti, representing forty-one per cent of the
people of this country, makes a plea, he
holds out a hope, through his authority of
a fulfilment that can be given by no other
church or collection of churches in this
country. Now, I can see that some one
will rise on the other side and declare that
I have made an incendiary speech. Why,
the right hon. gentleman himself, seeing
that he had no argument, had to have recourse to that kind of declamation, and it
was very signfificant of the weakness of
his case. For Monseigneur Sbarretti himself I have every respect.
Mr. FOSTER. Quite a number of skeptics
on that side of the House. But I show
my respect for Monseigneur Sbarretti by
clearing him of the imputations which the
position of my right hon. friend fastens upon him. So far as the Papal ablegate's
position in this country is concerned, so far as
his position as a spiritual envoy from the
Church of Rome is concerned, he is welcome
to this country may he stay here and grow
up with this country and help to make
it great. So far as his mission is confined
to spiritual purposes in his own church,
3963
COMMONS Â
to the reconcilement of differences of doctrine, or of polity, or of church government,
or anything in that broad domain, no
one will cavil with his existence here, and
no one but will wish him a long and happy
stay. But when he undertakes, presuming
on the raison d'etre of his position in this
country, to set up a claim that he can
interfere in the politics of Canada and use
inducements by his interference, then I say
that no protest can be too strong against
that, and I believe it will be supported by
the voice of Canada.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY (North Simcoe).
One thought occurred to me when the hon.
member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was
addressing this House : How long is he prepared to stand by the principles he has
enunciated this afternoon ? Coming from
the province of Ontario, and as a constituent of the hon. member for North Toronto,
I have a right to ask him this : Are these
clothes which he puts on this afternoon to
be discarded as were the clothes he wore
prior to 1896 should he be again defeated ?
If he was speaking sincerely this afternoon,
I would welcome his declaration and would
be pleased with it. But I have heard him
stand on platforms in the province of
Ontario and denounce the late Dalton McCarthy for the views which he entertained,
I have heard him say that no such sectarian cry as Mr. McCarthy dared to raise
would ever have any effect in this country ;
I have heard him say, when Mr. McCarthy
was speaking on behalf of Manitoba in
another school case, that he must not forget minorities ; I have heard him say that
to sit in a Conservative administration he
would bury those principles, and he did
bury them from 1882 to 1896. Therefore,
I ask the hon. gentleman now whether he
has cast off for ever the yoke of the hierarchy
under which he lived from 1882 to 1896 ?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, I have sent the yoke
over to my hon. friend.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. My hon. friend
will find out that the nigh ox is hitched on
the off side. He need not talk about the
yoke, when one of his colleagues who now
sits beside him, hounded Dalton McCarthy
from one end of Ontario to the other, saying
that he was not worthy to be called a Protestant champion, because, forsooth, he had
a Catholic stepdaughter who lived in his
house.
Mr. FOSTER. May I ask my hon. friend
a question ? Does he refer to me when
he states that I made any assertion of
that kind ?
3963
3964
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. No, the hon. gentleman was not listening, or he would have
heard what I said. I said his colleague
who sat beside him, the hon. member for
Leeds (Mr. Taylor), and I have his words
here. The hon. member for Lanark (Mr.
Haggart) also has spoke in derogatory terms
of Mr. Dalton McCarthy. I say that the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) who has just
made this appeal this afternoon, did live
under the yoke of the hierarchy of Quebec
from 1882 to 1896.
Mr. HAGGART. Did I hear the hon. gentleman aright when I understood him to
say that I had made any allusion to a stepdaughter ?
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. No, no. The
hon. gentleman from Lanark, speaking at
Brockville, used this language :
Mr. Haggart dealt at great length with the
school question, and then launched out into a
personal attack on Mr. Dalton McCarthy whom
he called ' that little gentleman.' Mr. McCarthy
was, the minister said, putting on airs and
talking about different members of the government, particularly about 'my brilliant
friends.' the Minister of Agriculture, Mr.
Ives and Mr. Wood. None were better
able to take the measure of a jack-daw
posing in borrowed plumage than the electors of the country. A man fighting and quarrelling
in small courts or law got a narrow and
contracted intellect which unfitted him as a
statesman or a representative of the people.
He might be able to torture a witness in the
box. What did he know beside law ? Did he
ever make a speech in the House of Commons
that was listened to ? He posed on the narrow
grounds of bigotry and lived upon resentments.
Those are the words of the hon. member
for Lanark. Now why do I say that the
hon. gentleman from North Toronto lived
under the yoke of the hierarchy of Quebec from 1882 to 1896 ?
Mr. BERGERON. What do you call the
hierarchy of Quebec, please ?
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. I am not speaking disrespectfully of them, I am speaking as I would of the Synod
of my own
church, or the general assembly of the
Presbyterian church. The hon. member
must know what the hierarchy of his own
church is. The hon. member for Labelle
(Mr. Bourassa) spoke of it the other day.
Now I ask the hon. gentleman from North
Toronto, who has just made a speech, if he
was sincere ? If I thought he was sincere
I would not be speaking as I am now.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. It is all very
well to say, hear, hear, but I tell you I
come from a stock that knows what it is
to be jeered at, just as you are jeering at
me now. I know that prior to 1896 they
hounded us from one end of Canada to
the other. They spoke disrespectfully of us,
3965 APRIL 6, 1905
they told us we were bigots, they told us
that the views we were then expressing,
which were in accord with their own views
to-day, were not sincere, and were not in
accord with our convictions. In 1896 when
Mr. Dalton McCarthy defined his policy on
the Jesuits Estates Bill, what was the
position of the hon. gentleman then ? We
then pointed out to them that they were
leading to the very trouble that exists today, they were recognizing in that Bill
a
Papal power which was thereby given the
right and power to dispose of. some millions
of the peoples' money in this country. These
hon. gentlemen, who take another position
to-day, said then : Let us stand by provincial rights, toleration and moderation,
let that go on as it is. And when we objected to the dual language clause in the
Territorial Act, and in the Manitoba Act,
what did these hon. gentlemen say then?
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Mr. Dalton McCarthy. I do not think the hon. gentleman
can deny that I have a right to say ' we.' I
do not think the hon. gentleman will deny
that I have the right to say 'we.' The hon.
member for East Northumherland (Mr. Cochrane) will remember having seen me in some
of these campaigns, when mud was thrown
at us because of the position we took.
When we asked you not to coerce Manitoba,
were you acting under the dictation of the
heirarchy or not ? I say most explicitly
you were. And when the bishops of the
Catholic church threatened to excommuncate the opponents of the Tupper government,
when the bishops of that church
talked about the opponents of that government as ' hell-inspired hypocrites,' were
you
acting under the dictation of the heirarchy
or not ? Were you under the yoke of the
'heirarchy or not ?
Mr. LENNOX. What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) mean by
' yoke ' ?
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) wants to know, I will
tell him. The hon. gentleman allowed that
yoke to be placed upon him in 1896, when
he contested the riding of North Simcoe.
The hon. gentleman remembers the result,
and I do not want to rub it in too much, as
it would be painful to him to recollect that
he lost his deposit. I say I am perfectly
justified in what I have said so far ; and I
point out that this very trouble which has
taken place was brought to the attention of
the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Foster)
when he was in the governments of Sir John
Macdonald and Sir John Thompson. Mr.
Dalton McCarthy urged them both to get
rid of section 14 of that Act—Mr. Dalton McCarthy had moved to have it repealed. But
the hon. gentleman voted in
favour of allowing it to remain on the
3965
3966
statute-book, and that is largely the cause
of the present difficulty. And now, forsooth.
the hon. gentleman says that this Papal delegate is improperly interfering in our
affairs.
In that I am prepared to agree with him,
and I do agree with him. But I want sincerity. And, if I do nothing more than draw
attention to what has taken place in the
past and to what is taking place now, I
shall show to the satisfaction of every
reasonable man that it only depends on
which party is in power, because whichever
one is in power always do these things.
You only get a corporal's guard in this
House to vote for a straight motion against
any such position as is being taken to-day.
I say that advisedly, and the hon. member
for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) knows it.
What was the position in 1896 ? It was
this : The hierarchy of Quebec were behind
the Tapper government, and were threatening to excommunicate the people who refused
to vote in favour of the Tupper government at their dictation.
Mr. L. G MCCARTHY . My hon. friend
(Mr. Bergeron) says 'no.' But it is on the
records of 'Hansard '—
Mr. BERGERON. It is on the records as
having been often said, but never proved.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. What about Archbishop Cameron of Nova Scotia, who spoke
of those who opposed the Tupper government as 'Hell-inspired hypocrites' ? What
about Archbishop Cleary, of Kingston, and
his speeches? What about Archbishop Lafleche? In 1896, the bishops of the Roman
Catholic church—the heirarchy of that
church—and I do not speak disrespecttully
of them—
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman says he is all right. He has changed
his spots. He has moved from St. John.
New Brunswick, to Toronto. where the sentiment is—
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I
wish to finish the line I was on, and then
I will deal with the hon. member for North
Toronto. I say that in 1896, at the dictation of the heirarchy of Quebec, you endeavoured
to coerce Manitoba—
3967
COMMONS
Mr. FOSTER. I suppose that, the hon.
gentleman (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) having
made. a straight statement, he must be replied to by me, or I am in danger of being
held to acqueisce in that statement.
Mr. FOSTER. I rise to a point of order.
I deny absolutely what the hon. gentleman
stated in his last sentence, and I ask him to
withdraw it and give me the credit I demand
for sincerity in the statement I made.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the
rules of debate require that a member of
this House must accept the denial of another member on a personal matter.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. I accept the hon.
gentleman's statement. And I change my
own to this : I say that the Tupper administration of which Mr. Foster was a member,
were endeavouring to force through this
House a Bill to coerce the province of Manitoba at the request and under the dictation
of the heirarchy of Quebec.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) denies that, but I am not
obliged to withdraw my statement. 1 will
stand by it, as I have always stood by it ;
and I leave it to a discriminating public
ll.) judge whether it is true or not.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Well, it is not
the first time that a McCarthy has stood
alone in this House; and, please God, if
necessary, it will not be the last. I say that,
in 1896—and hon. gentlemen opposite do not
seem to like me to get too close to that—we
found the state of alfairs that I have spoken
of. And here is the peculiarity of the situation. In that year, we found the hon.
gentlemen who are now in opposition in close
alliance with the bishops of the church of
the province of Quebec. It became necessary, apparently, if justice was to be done,
for
the Papal power to be asked to interfere. If
we are to believe what we have heard within the last two days, the Papal delegate
came to settle some difficulties—and unquestionably they were difficulties with regard
to political affairs,—between the hon.
gentlemen on this side of the House and
their bishops. If the Papal delegate is interfering I declare his action is highly
improper and I denounce it. But, I want this
House and country to understand that if
the respective parties expect to make capital
out of it, their whole record on the subject
should be considered. Take the history of
Canada from confederation down to the
present day, and how many members have
ever stood up to vote squarely on an issue
of this kind? Twenty-one, I believe, is the
3967
3968
largest number that ever united to prevent
such encroachments as these, in regard to
which, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster)
would lead us to believe, he was so sincere
in protesting. If so it is the first time in
twenty-three years that he has so spoken.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simeoe). I do
not know that I need say much in reply to
the hon. member (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) who
has just taken his seat. That hon. gentleman has displayed his political stock in
trade. I think the House and the country
will acknowledge that the late Dalton McCarthy was a man of considerable eminence
both at the bar and in this House. His
record is history. But I do not know that
anybody would venture to express a belief
that the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
L. G. McCarthy) will ever be noticed in history. The hon. gentleman spoke at a meeting
in Toronto at short time ago, and was then
very boastful of his Protestantism and of
the Protestantism of his family before him.
He told the people assembled on that occasion that the cry of equal rights and opposition
to French domination in Canada was
the cry he had always raised in North Simcoe; that on that policy he had nailed his
colours to the mast and would stand or fall
by them. There was a contest last fall in
North Sinicoe. as there was in the rest of
the Dominion, and I challenge the hon. gentleman to produce a scintila of proof that
he
even opened his mouth upon the equal rights
question or any such question as he has
dealt with before the House to-day.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. I may tell the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) that I made
no such statement in Toronto as that he
has attributed to me as to this question
been in issue in my campaign last election.
I stated that in the first and second campaigns it was an issue. But, if the hon.
gentleman wants to know I can tell him that I
can produce evidence that I stated at
Hawkestone. in the township of Oro. that I
was certain that when the Bill for the granting of autonomy to the Northwest came
up,
the school question would again arise.
Mr. BENNETT. I took occasion to look
up the file of a Collingwood newspaper devoted to the government, and, it will be
apparent to any body reading that newspaper
that the great issue in North Simcoe last
election was whether or not the Collingwood
harbour should have the benefit of a large
grant of government money. And that was
the whole question. As to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. L. G. McCarthy's) political
stock in trade in that riding, I can tell the
House that it does not carry the people as
his late uncle used to do. In the township of
Vespra the late Dalton McCarthy used to
get a majority of about one hundred ; the
hon. member (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) was in
a minority of thirty in the last election.
3969 APRIL 6, 1905
This hon. gentleman was in a minority
of thirty, and Sir, this hon. gentleman instead of parading this racial revenge question
and this religious question in North
Simcoe is always toadying to the other element. He had an appointment to make in
Barrie a little while ago and, expecting that
the township of Tiny which has a large
French vote would be attached to North
Simcoe. the hon. gentleman threw aside all
his Protestant friends and pushed them
over in favour of a French Canadian Roman
Catholic. Will the hon. gentleman deny
that ? I think he won't.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. I will deny one
part of it. that I had any anticipation that
the township of Tiny was going into North
Simcoe. I will admit that I recommended
the appointment of Emile Sevigny as caretaker of the public building in Barrie and
i am not ashamed of that appointment.
Mr. BENNETT. That shows how deep
his Protestantism is. He had his friends
riding the Protestant horse for him from
end to end of the riding and yet they all
had to be thrown overboard when at the
last moment the hon. gentleman driven to
'the wall—for he had a majority of only
thirty or forty—was in this position that
he had to toady to the Catholic vote, and
he dared not open his mouth in North Simcoe on that question, and had he dared to
do so he would not be here to-day.
Now apart from the speech of the hon.
gentleman what is all this question about?
It is, as has been put by the leader of the
opposition, a question as to whether or not
any member of this government is responsible for the presence of the Papal delegate
in this country and if any member of this
government or of the government as a whole
commissioned the Papal ablegate to have
this conference with Mr. Colin Campbell.
We heard a denial yesterday by one member
of the government. What was that? When
it was charged by some gentlemen on this
side of the House that the government of
Canada as constituted to-day had asked for
the presence of the Papal ablegate in this
country, up gravely rose the Postmaster
General to say that he as a member of the
government had not asked for the presence
of the Papal ablegate here. His Excellency
the Papal ablegate does not say that he did
not consult some member of the government as to this interview with Mr. Colin
Campbell. He makes a specific statement
that he was not instructed by the government. but he did not make the statement
that some hon. member of this cabinet did
not ask him to have that interview and
there is no denial by every member of the
government specifically on that point. It
has gone forth in the public press. it has
gone forth from the leader of the opposition and hon. gentlemen on this side of the
House that in all these negotiations the
premier, day in and day out, has consulted
3969
3970
the Papal ablegate as to the terms of this
measure. That is not denied. The premier
has had ample opportunities of denying it
but he has not done so. The position of the
Papal ablegate is reduced to this that he
has made a specific denial of the statement
that he was instructed by the government,
but he has not made a specific denial of
the statement that he was not consulted
by some member of it. Every one admits
the ability and the standing of the Papal
ablegate in the church of which he is so
distinguished a member, and does any one
believe that the Papal ablegate would be
so lost to any sense of common reason that
he of his own accord and off his own bat,
would go about negotiating as he has been
doing ? I am not going to traverse the
ground that has been gone over by the
hon. member for North Toronto as to the
equestrian performances of the premier on
this question. The Prime Minister has
played this game of fast and loose on this
question from end to end of Canada. He
has gone before Ontario posing as a perfect Ajax defying the lightning as one who
has been assailed by the hierarchy, and asking Protestant votes on that score. It
is
amusing to read the utterances of that hon.
gentleman in Ontario when he felt that he
had not the power of the church behind him.
Let me read his utterance in Toronto on a
certain occasion when he thought it was
necessary for the exigencies of his political
party to make a bid for Ontario support.
At a great meeting in September, 1889, in
Toronto speaking on the Jesuits Estates
Bill, he said:
Now I believe that the whole of that Act
would have passed without any trouble whatever, but for the fact that the name of
the Pope
is prominently introduced in it, and that it
was construed in such a manner as to mean a
thing which I shall presently discuss—that it
was putting the supremacy of the Pope over the
supremacy of the Queen. Gentlemen, I think I
put the question fairly. I want to put it honestly and to discuss it manfully. I know
one
thing, I know enough of my fellow countrymen
of English origin, I know enough of English
history, I know enough of English literature to
know that when Shakespeare put into the
mouth of King John the proud words which he
makes him address the Pope's legate
No Italian priest
Shall tithe or toll in our Dominion.
he touched the British heart in its most responsive chord (Cheers). I know this. that
there is no man of English blood, let his condition in life be ever so humble, let
his range
of. information be ever so limited, but knows
this much of English history that at no time
would the English people or English sovereigns
allow the sway of the Pope in the temporal
affairs of England (Cheers).
And cheers greeted that too.
Mr. BENNETT. I do not think the right
hon. gentleman would go down into Quebec
3971
COMMONS Â
to-day and treat in that slighting manner
the Papal ablegate in Canada as he did on
that occasion in Toronto. In the speech, as
it is reported, he was not meeting with a
very responsive welcome, and during the
course of his address certain things that he
mentioned were hissed by the audience, and
he saw that he had to go the Protestant
horse. And what did he do ? He made exactly that kind of an appeal knowing of
course it might touch the palate of the
crowd although he was ridiculing the church
of which he is a member. The right hon.
gentleman then as usual had two strings
to his bow. His language then was very
different from that in his address at a great
meeting in the province of Quebec when
he said that he thanked God there was not
an Orangeman in the Liberal party. And
how they cheered him to the echo when he
volunteered that statement voluntarily to
them ! The right hon. gentleman has never
denied that statement since. I have heard
it charged in this House, I have seen gentlemen with stacks of declarations of gentlemen
who were present and what was the result, there was no specific denial that he
had made those statements. The fact is he
has been pirouetting on both toes and he
is where he is to-day.
As far as this meeting between these
gentlemen from Manitoba and the Papal
ablegate is concerned, I have only this to
say that I believe the Papal ablegate was
quite within his commission and his duties
in inviting these gentlemen to meet him.
He had a perfect right to do that. The
Papal delegate came to this country at the
request of the right hon. gentleman and
his political friends and he has been in
close touch with the right hon. gentleman
all through these proceedings and has had
frequent consultations with the right hon.
gentleman in reference to the terms to be
contained in these Bills. These statements
have all gone forth specifically, that the
right hon. gentleman had these meetings
and the right hon. gentleman has had ample
opportunity to deny it but has not done so.
It is with the right hon. gentleman that
the quarrel of the people of this country
rests and not with the Papal ablegate at
all. The Papal ablegate has a perfect
right to be in this country just as any other
gentleman might have as a plenipotentiary or
ambassador to any power, but I do say that
the people of this country will hold the
right hon. gentleman and the members of
his government responsible for what has
gone on. Talk about the right hon. gentleman leading a responsible and united party
which is behind him on this question. Why
it is openly seen by the attitude of the Ontario members not only of the cabinet,
but
of the House that they are all in a condition of doubt and fear on this question.
The hon. Postmaster General will not dare
to take up the challenge that was thrown
to him by my hon. friend from South York
3971
3972
(Mr. Maclean) the other day to resign his
seat and let the question be tested in the
country. The hon. member for London
(Mr. Hyman), who is discharging the duties
of the Minister of Public Works and has
been discharging them for the past year,
dare not go to the city of London for reelection as Minister of Public Works. Why?
Because of this incubus of the school question. I need not refer to other reasons
that deter that hon. gentleman from going
back there, but if the school question were
out of the issue altogether I doubt very
much if he would seek a contest there. The
hon. gentleman dare not go back to his riding and face this school question as it
presents itself to-day.
The people of Canada have no quarrel
with the Papal ablegate. They have no
quarrel with the powers at Rome for sending the Papal ablegate here to do what he
came to do. He came here to try and get
restitution of rights, from certain gentlemen
who obtained power and place by misrepresentation and fraud as against the Roman
Catholic electors of this country which some
day they will answer for and must answer
for and the people are biding their time to
get even with them. There is one consolation for hon. gentlemen who sit upon the
treasury benches and those who support
them and that is that they will have the
full tenure of the five year parliament because they will not venture to test public
feeling before their time expires. I should
not have risen but for the remarks of the
hon. member for North Simcoe. I think the
House is tired of the changes rung by that
hon. gentleman in regard to the part which he
has played in the political history of Canada.
While that hon. gentleman dilates at great
length in this House he is as silent as a
mouse on this question when he goes into
North Simcoe. I have had placed in my hand
the issue of the Toronto newspaper which
published the speech made by that hon.
gentleman in Toronto on the occasion of the
Massey Hall meeting which will prove that
what I stated was actually borne out by
the facts. Speaking at that meeting Mr. McCarthy said :
I appealed to them in 1900 and again was
successful, and that time it was against a Conservative, and I appealed to them again
in 1904
upon the same ground and the same platform,
and was again sustained, though, I regret to
say, with a reduced majority.
The hon. gentleman was referring to this
question. He redeemed himself to some extent by at last saying that at the village
of
Hawkstone he mentioned this question. The
hon. gentleman did not acquire much distinction from having held a meeting at that
village and I will tell you why. In the
first place the meeting held by him at
Hawkstone was held a night or two before
the election. I am not saying it disrespectfully of the people of Hawkstone, but Hawk
3973 APRIL 6, 1905
stone is probably one of the most intensely
Protestant parts of Ontario, and the hon.
gentleman was taking advantage of the
fact to crawl down to the Protestant end
of the riding and make his Protestant appeal there that he did not dare make in the
township of Floss where he was coquetting
with the Catholic vote.
Hon. SYDNEY A. FISHER (Minister of
Agriculture). Mr. Speaker, when the hon.
member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) sat
down a few minutes ago, he stated that
probably he would be accused of making an
inflammatory speech. I can only take it that
a guilty conscience enabled him to read the
minds of those who listened to the speech he
made for certainly he was right in describing it as an inflammatory speech. The hon.
gentleman, in that speech, certainly tried to
inflame the minds of those in this country
who distrust or dislike the Catholic church
and the Catholic religion. The whole tenor
of the hon. gentleman's speech, was such as
to raise Protestant prejudice and Protestant
feeling against this government because he
implied that this government, led by a
Roman Catholic, was in constant touch with
the Roman Catholic church in regard to
secular affairs in this country. The hon.
member himself on former occasions has
complained, that he and his government
when he was in the government, was subjected to similar attacks, not to similar attacks
by Liberals or by those opposed to
him, but similar attacks from the ranks of
his own party when the late member for
West York (Mr. Wallace) and the present
hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)
separated themselves from the Conservative
party ceased their support of the Conservative government in 1896 and tried, as members
of the government then said, to raise
Protestant and English speaking feeling
against the government at that time. Sir, I
would like the hon. member for North Toronto to recall a speech he made in 1896,
when, replying to an interruption from the
hon. member for East Grey, he used these
words, and I think perhaps he will admit
that when he uttered these broad-minded
words he was more of a statesman than he
is to-day in making what he himself has
characterized as an inflammatory speech.
What did the hon. gentleman then say? He
was not then representing a strong Protestant constituency in the Protestant province
of Ontario, but he was a member of
the then government of Sir Charles Tupper,
representing the maritime provinces, and
he said this, referring to a speech which the
hon. member for East Grey had quoted or
alluded to as his authority:
If made by Archbishop Langevin or if made
by ten thousand archbishops, the hon. gentleman would yet have no ground in logic
or in
truth for making the assertion he made here
the other day, which was, not that Archbishop
Langevin did not agree with the ordinance, but
3973
3974
that the government held it in abeyance because the clergy did not approve of it.
Let him mark these words and let the
House marks these words and see how well
they apply to the speech which the hon. gentleman made a few moments ago.
This assertion, carried as broadly as newspapers will carry his speech, was meant,
and
will have the effect of raising prejudice and
opposition to this legislation amongst the Protestant people of this country, and
fan those
fires which my hon. friends there and my hon.
friends here so much deplore.
I hope the hon. gentleman will take these
words to heart and act upon them instead
of acting in the way his conduct shows he
wishes to act this afternoon. The hon. gentleman has based the whole of his attack
upon this government and upon my right
hon. friend the leader of the government
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on implications and
assumptions, on implications and assumptions which are not borne out by the interview
of Mr. Rogers and which are still less
borne out, but are in fact absolutely refuted by the statement issued by the Apostolic
delegate. The hon. gentleman quoted
some words from Mr. Rogers' statement and
he pointed out that something might be implied by that statement. I venture to say,
Sir, that anybody who reads the statement
of Mr. Rogers, in Winnipeg, will say that
there is a great deal more implied in that
statement than there is actually contained
in it, and that there is an evident intention
by the wording of the statement to make implications and insinuations that the gentleman
who gave that statement did not dare
to come out and state as matters of fact.
These implications and insinuations are not
founded on facts, but they are false to the
record and they are untrue. Sir, the very
first thing that would strike anybody in
reading that statement, the first thing which
i I confess, myself, impressed me was that
Mr. Rogers had met the ablegate here in
Ottawa. The statement contains these words:
During that interview we presented the
claims of the province as urgently and strongly
as possible. In reply Sir Wilfrid said that if
we would be good enough to remain in Ottawa
for three or four days he would again send
for us and would then be in a position to give
us an answer.
It is ' we,' 'us.' Then it continues:
In three days' time, on February 20, a letter
was received from Monseigneur Sbarretti, asking for a conference.
Who would have supposed for a moment
that that did not mean asking 'us'
for a conference ; but. as a matter of fact. it
was not those men who were asked for a
conference. It was simply a private letter
from the delegate asking one of these gentlemen, an old friend of his who had discussed
this question before with him, for a
private interview. The implication and the
3975
COMMONS
insinuation in this statement are not supported by the facts, because the public are
led to believe that both of these gentlemen
were invited and that both of them had
gone.
When speaking a few moments ago, the
leader of the opposition laid stress upon the
assertion that he did not know yet whether
the ablegate had had authority from this
government, or any member of the government, to make that offer, as it is alleged,
to the representative of the Manitoba government. Now, at the very moment that
the leader of the opposition made that statement he knew that yesterday the Prime
Minister had made a categorical and absolute denial in these words :
Before I proceed any further I may say at
once referring to the whole tenor of this document, that in so far as there is a charge
that
there was any understanding between Monseigneur Sbarretti and myself to have the school
question considered in connection with the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba,
there
is not a shadow or a tittle of truth in it.
When the leader of the opposition stated
here today that he did not know yet whether
Monseigneur Sbarretti had authority to
make that statement, the hon. gentleman
must have known that yesterday the right
hon. the leader of the government had given
this denial, but yet the leader of the opposition ignored it.
Mr. FISHER. I am reading from 'Hansard' of yesterday, page 3837 just about
the middle of the page. And furthermore,
when the leader of the opposition made the
statement to-day, he must have seen in the
'Citizen' of this morning Monseigneur
Sbarretti's own statement :
This is the sum and substance of my interview with Mr. Campbell. The federal government
had absolutely no knowledge of it.
The leader of the opposition is unfair, he
is disingenuous, when he stated this afternoon that he had no knowledge of these
denials, and that he was at liberty to assume that there had been collusion and
arrangement between the government, or
any member of the government, and the
Papal ablegate. In view of the denial of
the Prime Minister and of Monseigneur
Sbarretti, the leader of the opposition this
afternoon allowed the impression to remain
on the House that he was not aware yet,
that he had heard no denial yet, and that
the public were still in doubt as to whether
the members of the government, or the
Prime Minister himself, had authorized the
statement which was attributed to Monseigneur Sbarretti. There is nothing clearer
before the public of Canada to-day than
the fact, in the first place, that the government themselves, through the Prime Minister,
had stated that they knew nothing
3975
3976
whatever about it, that no authority was
ever given to Monseigneur Sbarretti for such
a proposal ; and further, that Monseigneur
Sharretti himself has declared that the government had no information of or connection
with that statement on his part. I
therefore say that the leader of the opposition was disingenuous and unfair to the
government, as well as to the people of the
country, whom he trys to lead away from
the true facts.
An impression was tried to be created this
afternoon that the right hon. the leader of
the government was inconsistent in the fact
that he had said at one time that the present school arrangements in the province
of
Manitoba were satisfactory, and that there
had been brought about by his intervention a satisfactory settlement of the Manitoba
school question ; not by coercion, not
by remedial legislation, but by conciliation
and negotiation.
The other day, when the leader of the opposition was criticising the Prime Minister,
he used several adjectives, and one statement he made, slurring it over as if it were
a matter of no account, was that Sir Wilfrid
Laurier was a great conciliator. Sir, I do
not think that anybody in this House or
in this country has ever applied a truer and
more apt expression towards the leader of
this government. Sir Wilfrid Lauricr has
stood out, not only among the public men
of Canada, but among the public men of
the empire, as having succeeded, by conciliation, in solving questions which no coercion
could ever solve. I venture to say that
in the history of Canada Sir Wilfrid Laurier
will be held up as the brightest example of
a statesman who, without coercion or force,
has been able to bring about an entente cordiale between the different peoples, the
different religions, the different nationalities in this country, and who has been
able
to demonstrate that by conciliation majorities and minorities can live together in
peace and work for the progress, the advancement and the good government of the
country. I said a few moments ago that the
intention of gentlemen opposite was to
show that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was inconsistent. The settlement of the Manitoba
school question was the settlement of a difficulty under a certain condition at that
time
existing. The law had been passed by the
legislature of Manitoba, there were difficulties then existing, and the settlement
was
a settlement under a condition of affairs
which was not absolutely satisfactory, probably, to either side. The Roman Catholics
of Manitoba, the Roman Catholics of Canada, would have liked to have had much
more. The Protestant element would, perhaps, like to exert a greater influence and
to have taken away more of the rights, or
the privileges, if you will, of the Catholics
in Manitoba. If there are two extremes
warring against each other, irreconcilable in
most cases one might say, but who are willing and ready, by conciliation, to come
to
3977 APRIL 6, 1905
a common standpoint where their differences
will vanish, both sides may agree to a fair
and just and equitable compromise. That
was the basis of the settlement of the Manitoba school question. But, Sir, to say
that
because that was the settlement, and that
it was on the whole satisfactory to both
sides of the controversy at that time, does
not mean that under any circumstances in
the future, or under a new condition of
affairs existing in the adjoining new provinces, such a settlement must necessarily
be absolutely satisfactory for ever. We have
a totally different condition of affairs in regard to our school legislation in the
new
provinces. We have a new start to be made.
We have a condition of affairs existing today in these Territories which gives certain
rights to the minorities in the way of separate schools. To maintain these rights
by
our legislation, we give in the future a
guarantee that these rights shall be maintained. Some people may consider that the
condition in the Territories is not better,
nor even so good, as the condition of affairs
in Manitoba to-day ; but, however that
may be, the proposition in this legislation
is a settlement of the question. Perhaps,
as in the case of Manitoba, you may call it
a compromise, and probably the two extremes to the controversy may say that the
legislation we propose is not satisfactory,
but a compromise has to be reached between
these extremes. You cannot get a compromise which will be absolutely acceptable
to the extreme adherents of one side
or the other, but you may get a compromise
which will be acceptable to the common
sense of the great mass of the people of this
country. I believe that by this Bill we have
attained that desirable end.
The question of the boundaries of Manitoba has been discussed, and this question
is perhaps the raison d'etre of this whole
discussion this afternoon. A complaint is
made—perhaps not actually made by anybody on the floor of this House, although
it is implied—a complaint is made by Mr.
Rogers that the boundaries of Manitoba have
not been moved westward, because of the
difficulties connected with the school question. There is no justification whatever
for
any such statement. There are newspaper
rumours of all kinds. I regret to say that
our friends opposite in their press are quite
equal to the manufacture of newspaper
rumours of all kinds. I regret to say that
they feed on these rumours. They have
not much else to feed upon, Mr. Speaker.
They have been beaten over and over and
over again, when the people of this country
have been appealed to and have had an opportunity of pronouncing on their policy
and their utterances in comparison. with our
policy and our utterances. We heard just
such language here session after session between 1890 and 1900. We heard that the
Liberal government was to be swept out
of power in 1900 the moment the people had
3977
3978
an opportunity of judging our record and
our policy. We all know the result. All
through the last parliament we had hon.
gentlemen opposite talking very loudly in
this House about what they were going to
do when the elections came on. They impressed a good many people in the country.
They are loud-mouthed and denunciatory ;
and they are like some people who think
that by saying a thing very often you actually make it true. But the result of the
election in November, 1904, showed them
that their loudest denunciations and loudest
assertions were mere empty wind, and the
government came back with a larger majority than any party in Canada had got
in many years.
Mr. FISHER. I will not say anything
about that ; I do not wish to indulge in personalities. But in that connection I would
like to refer to a statement which I saw
in a Conservative newspaper within the
last day or two—I am sorry I cannot remember which paper it was. The statement was
that the people of Nova Scotia
and the people of Quebec were inferior in
intelligence and superior in bigotry and prejudice to the people of Ontario. It is
easy
enough to see where a sentiment of that
kind comes from ; it comes from the disappointed ambitions of men who tried to be
elected in those provinces and had to suffer
the defeat which their party and their
policy deserved.
There is one thing more which I wish to
say a few words about ; and, coming as I
do from the province of Quebec, perhaps I
know a little more about these matters than
the great mass of English speaking or Protestant members of this House. It may be
a little delicate for one who does not belong to the Roman Catholic church to speak
about the action of Catholics in regard to
their own church, or about the difficulties
which may have arisen in the internal
economy of that church in this country.
But, having lived among the Catholics of
the province of Quebec, it may not be out
of place for me to say a word or two in
regard to the coming of the Papal ablegate.
In 1890 a request was made by certain people belonging to the Catholic church for
a
permanent representative of the Pope in
Canada. That was not the first time that
a request of that kind had been placed before the head of the Catholic church. Those
of us who can look back a little in the history of this country can remember the condition
of affairs in the province of Quebec
before 1896. We can remember that as
long ago as 1876 there was an election in
the province of Quebec, in which it was
notorious that leading dignitaries, of the
Catholic church took an active part—such
an active part that the Tory candidate in
that election was elected ; such an active
3979
COMMONS
part that certain Liberals who did not believe in the interference of the church in
secular aifairs, such as political matters,
made a protest to Rome, and asked that a
delegate should be sent from the Pope to
regulate those affairs within the Catholic
church in Canada.
 Mr. BERGERON. What election was
that ?
 Mr. FISHER. It was the election of Mr.
Langevin, in Charlevois. The case was tried
in the courts, and the interference of the
church was proved. Somebody on the other
side of the House a little while ago talked
about proof—when was proof required, when
was proof given, and so on. I think it was
the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron). I cannot quote the exact volume
of the reports in which that case appears ;
but the hon. gentleman, who is a lawyer,
can find it himself, and he will see that
the proof was given. I do not think it was
the only case, but it was the one I had in
my mind at the moment. The Papal delegate was sent to Canada, not to interfere
in political matters, or with legislation, but
to prevent the interference in political matters of certain dignitaries of the church,
whose influence it was well known had been
exerted.
 Mr.FISHER. My hon. friend from Beauharnois can remember. My hon. friend
from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) can remember. I daresay the hon. member for
North Toronto (Mr. Foster), if he searched
his historial reminiscences, could remember.
It was exerted on behalf of the Conservative government, who for long years carried
a large majority of the constituencies in
Quebec by reason of the assistance of the
Catholic church, and only by reason of that
assistance. Coming down to 1896, the hon.
member for North Toronto was a member
of the then Conservative government.
 Mr. FISHER. Sometimes. He knows that
before the elections of 1896, there were certain changes in that government, and that
the gentlemen who were chosen to fill the
places naturally given to the province of
Quebec were well known to be representatives of the ultramontane wing of the Conservative
party of that province ; and it is
not very much of a jump for me to suppose
that the gentlemen who controlled the then
Conservative party and the then Conservative government remembered what had occurred
in days gone by, when Sir John Macdonald, having on the one hand the Tory
Orange organization of the province of Ontario, and on the other hand the Catholic
church organization of the province of Quebec, ruled this country for so many years
by means of that unholy alliance.
3979
3980
 Mr. BERGERON. For the good of the
country.
 Mr. FISHER.  The hon. member says ' forÂ
the good of the country.' I can only point to the condition of the country in 1896.
Surely the hon. gentleman must admit that it was for the evil of the country that
the government were then carrying on the affairs of Canada.
 Mr. SPROULE.  Which element of theÂ
combination is the unholy one ?
 Mr. FISHER. The combination was unholy, not either elements of it. It was the
alliance, the combination of the two sets of
people who held diametrically opposite
views, who were joined together in an unholy alliance to keep the government in
office. My hon. friend from East Grey rebelled against it himself, he found it quite
beyond endurance ; and when, in 1896 an
effort was made to coerce Manitoba by the
government of which the member for North
Toronto was a member, the member for East
Grey and others rebelled against the alliance, and stepped out from the support of
that party on that occasion.
 Mr. SPROULE. Very much like the hon.
member and his friends who fought against
the church and took it into court ; now they
are on the other side and are returning to
the church. They want to appeal to both
sides.
 Mr. FISHER. I do not know what the
hon. gentleman means by referring to the
church. I take it that he has been following the lead given this afternoon by the
leader of the opposition and the member for
North Toronto, who pretend that in our present legislation we have been consulting
the
church, and going to the heads of the church
for permisson to introduce this legislation.
That has been denied by the right hon.
leader of the House, and denied by the statement of Monseigneur Sbarretti himself.
Therefore the insinuation which the hon.
gentleman makes and the implication suggested by the leader of the opposition and
the member for North Toronto, are absolutely unfounded and untrue.
 Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman said
he did not know what I meant: I was referring to his own statement when he told
of the time his party took the church into
court and fought the church ; but now they
are entering into an alliance with the church
and getting the church to help them.
 Mr. FISHER. That is what I deny, the
insinuation which the hon. gentleman and
his colleagues are making is absolutely unfounded and has no justification in any
form
or shape. Mr. Speaker, in 1896 an effort was
made to pursue that kind of policy, the
effort was made by the then government to
carry the province of Quebec in the same
way. A little while ago the member for
3981 APRIL 6, 1905
North Toronto, in opening his speech, made
a remark which I cannot help but consider
almost offensive, when he said the right hon.
leader of the government started in by doing
the baby act. Now. without saying anything about the delicacy of such language,
I do desire however to state that if ever
there was a man in Canada who has never
shown the white feather on any occasion
when he required to take courage, to take
heart, and to stand before the people and
boldly tell them what they should do, it is
the right hon. the leader of this government.
I remember when, in the campaign of 1896
at the time the Manitoba school question
was before the country. the right hon. gentleman went down into his own constituency
in the city of Quebec, when the people of
that province were more or less excited on
the question which was then occupying all
minds, and he led them into the Way of
peace, he showed them that justice and
consideration ought to be given to provincial rights in Manitoba; and in the ensuing
elections we saw that by his courage, by
the justice of his- pleas, and the justice of
his position, he was able to defeat the gov-.
ernment in the province of Quebec itself,
when the Conservative party, by the help
of the ultramontane press and members,
hoped to carry the province by an enormous
majority in favour of the Tupper government. Sir, there never has been in the history
of Canada an exhibition of greater
moral courage and of greater devotion to
duty, whatever the cost might be. I remember another Occasion when the right
hon. gentleman went to the city of Toronto,
at a time there was an agitation being carried on throughout the province of Ontario
in relation to the Jesuit Estates Act. The
right hon. gentleman faced a great audience
in the ultra Protestant city of Toronto, and
the first cheer that arose during his speech
was on his mentioning the name of Col.
O'Brien, who was then supposed to be the
champion of Protestantism in Ontario; the
right hon. gentleman showed that audience
the justice of his position. and the actual
condition of affairs in the province of Quebec. and before he had spoken for twenty
minutes, he had that audience in the hollow
of his hand, and when he sat down he received an applause which has never been
equalled in that great Protestant city of
Toronto.
Mr. SPROULE. May I ask the hon. gentleman why they do not put up a candidate
in that city today ?
Mr. FISHER. Because we do not want
to give you and your friends an opportunity
to raise fanatical prejudices on this question. Sir, for the hon. member for North
Toronto to imputc cowardice to the right
hon. leader of the government, is going from
the sublime to the ridiculous.
3981
3982
Mr. FISHER. The case requires strong
language. but if it is not parliamentary, I
can withdraw it, but nevertheless I want
to say it. The right. hon. gentleman was
charged a few minutes ago with having
shows heat when he rose to speak in reply
to the leader of the opposition. I do not
wonder that one who has seen what has
been going on here during the last few days
shows heat; I do not wonder that a man
who has his country's good at heart shows
heat when he sees the efforts of the press
of a great party in this country devoting
itself to stirring up religious strife and national prejudice. Sir. heat is required
to put
down such action as that, and to challenge
it, and to meet it. I say that the Liberal
party and the Liberal government are ready
at all times to fight such a policy whenever
it is attempted to be carried on in this country. Sir, the question at issue is the
false
assertion that this government has refused
to extend the boundaries of Manitoba westward because of the school question. The
 right hon. leader of the government, in introducing this Bill a few weeks ago, gave
a
clear and explicit statement of the reasons
why the boundaries of Manitoba could not
be extended to the westward, and in that
statement and those reasons there was not
a single suggestion that the boundary question had any connection whatever with the
school question. The reasons were explicit,
and they are shown in the papers laid on
the table of the House. The reasons given
were that the people west of Manitoba did
not wish to be joined to Manitoba and preferred to be in the new provinces, and we
had to consider the people who were concerned rather than the desire of the government
of Manitoba. And, as I am reminded
by my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr.
Campbell.) why did not they extend it in
1884. when Manitoba made the request. The
reasons given then were very much as they
have been given now in the answer to the
memorial of the government of Manitoba.
Those reasons were conclusive with the Conservative party in 1884: they are doubly
strong today. The conditions which made
the westward extension undesirable then
have been intensified by the development of
the country. And these reasons, and these
reasons only, caused the government to reply
to the government of Manitoba and say that
the boundaries of Manitoba could not be
extended westward, but that the whole of
that territory must go into the two new
provinces. It is assuming a great deal—unfortunately hon. gentlemen opposite and
their press live on assumptions and they
therefore must assume a great deal—but
there is no justification for the assumption
that the school question was in any way
connected with the decision of the government that the boundary of Manitoba could
I not be extended to the west. I will not deal
with this question longer. I regret exceedingly that to-day and yesterday, as several
3983
COMMONS Â
times before, the time of the House has
been taken up in dealing with these question which are really extraneous to the legislation
before the House, and the bringing up
of which here can serve only one purpose,
and that purpose is the continuance of the
agitation and excitement amongst the people and the stirring up of prejudice on these
questions.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York). Mr.
Speaker, in taking up the special subject of
debate this evening I intend to read another
document in order to place it on record, a
document which bears very pointedly on
the question that has been raised. It is a
letter that was sent to His Holiness the
Pope by the members of the government
and by the members of parliament, and
which was referred to in the remarks which
I made yesterday. That document, which
was sent, I believe, in 1896 or 1897, was as
follows :—
Most Holy Father,—We, the undersigned,
members of the Senate and members of the
House of Commons of Canada, and representing therein the Liberal party, present ourselves
before Your Holiness as respectful and
devoted children of holy church, to complain
of the existence of a state of things which,
if allowed to continue, must be extremely
dangerous to the constitutional liberties of this
country, as well as to the interests of the
church itself.
Your Holiness has already been made aware
of the conduct and attitude of certain prelates and of certain members of the secular
clergy who, during the general elections in
this country, in the month of June last, intervened in a violent manner in restraint
of
electoral freedom, taking sides openly for the
Conservative party, and going so far as to declare guilty of grievous sin those of
the
electors who would vote for the candidates of
the Liberal party.
Sincerely attached to the institutions of our
country, which ensure to us Catholics the
most complete liberty, we respectfully represent to Your Holiness that these democratic
institutions under which we live, and for which
Your Holiness has many times expressed sentiment of admiration and confidence, can
only
exist under perfect electoral freedom.
Far be it from us to refuse to the clergy
the plenitude of civil and political rights.
The priest is a citizen, and we would not, for
a single instant, deprive him of the right of
expressing his opinion on any matter submitted to the electorate but when the exercise
of that right develops into violence, and when
that violence, in the name of religion, goes
to the extent of making a grievous sin out of
a purely political act, there is an abuse of
authority of which the consequences cannot but
be fatal, not only to constitutional liberty,
but to religion itself.
If, in a country such as ours, with a population
consisting of persons of various creeds, and
3983
3984
wherein the Protestant denominations are in a
majority, Catholics did not enjoy, in all matters
relating to legislation, the same political freedom as their Protestant fellow-countrymen,
they would ipso facto be placed in a position
of inferiority, which would prevent them from
taking the legitimate part which they are
entitled to take in the government of the
country, with the possibility, moreover, of
conflicts between the various groups of the
population, which history shows to be ever
fraught with danger.
Then again, an active and violent intervention of the clergy in the domain of political
question submitted to the people must, of
necessity, produce against a great mass of
the Catholic population a degree of irritation
manifestly and prejudicial to that respect
which religion and its ministers ever inspire
and command. Some twenty years ago, His
Holiness Pius IX, your illustrious and lamented predecessor on the pontificial throne,
acting through the Sacred Congregation of the
Propaganda, deemed it his duty to put a stop
to certain abuses of a similar character, and
forbade the intervention of the clergy in politics. This prohibition was generally
respected
so long as His Eminence Cardinal Taschereau
was able to guide the church in Canada, but
since old age and infirmities have paralyzed
his guiding hand, the abuses to which your
illustrious predecessor had put a stop, have
begun again, and threaten once more to create
trouble among us, and to compromise, not
only Catholic interests in this country, but
the peace and harmony which should exist between the various elements of our population.
Again affirming our absolute devotion to the
faith of our fathers and to the church of which
your are the supreme head, affirming our
respect and attachment for the person of
Your Holiness, our attachment to the interests
of our country and to the Crown of Great
Britain, its aegis and protector, we beg that
Your Holiness will renew in our behalf the
most wise prescriptions and prohibitions of
your predecessor protect the consciences of
the Catholic electors, and thus secure peace
in our country by the union of religion and of
liberty—a union which Your Holiness has
many times extolled in those immortal encyclicals whose precious teachings we desire
in
all things to follow; and lastly, grant to the
children of the church now addressing Your
Holiness the apostolic benediction.
Hon. Wilfrid Laurier, Premier of Canada;
Hon. Joseph Israel Tarte, Minister of Public
Work; Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick, Solicitor
General; Hon. R. W. Scott, Secretary of State;
Hon. C. A. Geoffrion, Minister without portfolio; Hon. C. A. P. Pelletier, Speaker
of the
Senate; Hon J. R. Thibaudeau, senator; R.
Préfontaine, M.P. ; O. E. Talbot, M.P. ; C. R.
Devlin, M.P. ; L. B. Brodeur, M.P. ; L. A. C.
Angers, M.P. ; T. M. Guay, M. P. ; F. Langelier,
M.P. ; C. Beausoleil, M.P. ; R. Lemieux,
M.P. ; A. A. Bruneau, M.P. ; J. A. C.
Ethier, M.P. ; B. Monet, M.P. ; M. E. Bernier,
M.P. ; J. A. C. Madore, M.P. ; P. V. Savard,
M.P. ; H. G. Carroll, M.P. ; T. Fortin, M.P. ;
P. A. Choquette, M.P. ; O. Desmarais, M.P. ;
C. J. Rinfret, M.P. ; G. Turcotte, M.P. ; J. H.
Legris, M.P. ; H. S. Harwood, M.P. ; Joseph
Lavergne, M.P. ; H. Dupuis, M.P. ; C. Bazinet,
M.P. ; Joseph Gauthier, M.P. ; T. Proulx, M.P. ;
N. A. Belcourt, M.P. ; J. B. R. Fiset, M.P. ;
J. H. R. Bourassa, M.P. ; R. M. S. Mignault,
3985 APRIL 6, 1905
M.P.; A. Bourbonnais, M.P.; C. Pouliot. M.P.;
Joseph Godbout, M.P.; A, M. Dechene, M.P.
This letter, which was sent by the forty
immortals of this country to His Holiness
the Pope, complained of certain political
grievances which they had in this country,
supporting the request already made that
he would send a delegate to this country
to look after their interests and to protect
them from what is here set forth, namely,
the unfair interference of the clerics in the
province of Quebec with the rights of the
electors. and especially with the rights of
members of parliament. I must say that
I am rather disappointed in the opinion I
had formed of the clergy of Quebec after
the high commendation of their conduct
given by the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) last night, when I see that he has
stigmatized, more than any one I know,
with these forty immortals from Quebec,
the clergy of that province. They have
charged them with all kinds of political interference, they charged them with interfering
with the rights of the people to vote,
and they asked His Holiness to interfere
with these clergy in the province of Quebec, so that when the hon. member for Labelle
says that members from Ontario have
been throwing stones at the clergy of Quebec, he has evidently forgotten that he and
forty others signed this document to have
a delegate sent out here to regulate the
clergy of the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, the ablegate was sent out here
;
we have had three or four of them.
Mr. BRODEUR. I understand my hon.
friend read from a certain petition asking
that a delegate be sent here. Would he be
kind enough to repeat the part of the petition in which that was included ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I said this document set out the grievances and that other
missions and presentations made at Rome
requested a delegate to be sent out and
especially the letter of the right hon. the
Prime Minister, which asked that an ablegate be sent to this country and he was sent.
We have the facts that these gentlemen,
all engaged in politics, after stigmatizing
the clergy of Quebec, undertook a mission
to Rome to get His Holiness' consent to
the appointment of an ablegate to this country for political purposes, that that ablegate
has practically had a political mission, that
that ablegate from Rome has been here as
an appanage of the Grit machine in this
country and that especially he was to be
the Papal policeman with a big stick to keep
the bishops and clergy of this country in
order. This is a fair inference to draw
from the representations that were made to
Rome and from the conduct of the ablegate in this country. I know it for a fact—
at least I have seen it stated and I do not
think it will be denied—that at the recent
election and at other times Liberal candidates in all parts of the country, or some
3985
3986
of them, when they had a grievance against
any of the clergy of the church of Rome,
immediately telephoned to the big policeman at Ottawa to take his big stick and
wire back disciplining the Roman Catholic
clergyman who dared to hold an opinion
of his own in regard to politics.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Again they are
laughing, but they laugh when the facts are
brought home to them. The truth is, and
it is admitted on the other side of the House,
that this Papal ablegate was brought to
this country as an appanage of the Grit
machine, that he is the policeman with the
big stick to discipline the bishops and the
clergy of the Roman Catholic church and
that those who, more than any one else,
stigmatized the hierarchy and'clergy of Quebec were the forty immortals who signed
that document on that occasion.
Now, the hon Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Fisher) this afternoon got rather eloquent and grew rather warm when he
charged this side of the House with enkindling the flames of ill-feeling in this
country. I want to know who lit the flame,
who set the heather on tire over this question.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I say that it was
the right hon. Prime Minister of this country who introduced this Bill at the request
of a solid Quebec to coerce the minority
in regard to educational matters in the
Northwest. That is what caused the flame.
that is what lit the torch, or in other words.
the torch was carried and fired the moment
the right hon. gentleman introduced that
Bill.
Mr. BUREAU Will the hon. gentleman
tell the House where he gets his authority
for the statement that this Bill was introduced at the request of a solid Quebec?
Mr. BOURASSA. If that be true was it
introduced at the request of a solid Nova
Scotia, because a solid Nova Scotia will
support it also?
Mr. W F. MACLEAN. We will see about
that. We have heard about a bolt in Nova
Scotia over this Bill and we will hear more
of it. What else has fanned the flame?
The thing that fanned the flame was the discovery by the great Protestant element
of
this country that the right hon. Prime Minister had deceived them. He told them by
his conduct in the elections of 1896 that
the Manitoba question had been settled.
that in this country there was to be no
more coercion, that the sunny ways had
settled this question and these people took
him at his word. They accepted the pledge
which he made when, as the hon. Minister
3937
COMMONS
of Agriculture said, he went to Toronto in
1889 and made that speech from which we
had a quotation this afternoon, that speech
in which he said that 'no Italian priest shall
tithe or toll in our Dominion.' He went to
Toronto and made that speech and what has
fanned the flame is that these people of
Ontario and these people of the west now
find that an Italian priest is in this country
for that very purpose and that he was
brought here by the right hon. gentleman.
The fact that the people have discovered
all these things has helped to fan the flame.
What more has fanned the flame? It is
the discovery of how this Bill was introduced into parliament in so far as it has
been divulged in this debate. It has been
proved that the sub-committee which drew
up this Bill was composed of the Secretary
of State, the Minister of Justice and the
Prime Minister, and no one else as far as
we know. Something else has come out
this afternoon which will still further fan
the flame and it is that the Prime Minister
all along was in consultation with the Archbishop of Ephesus as regards this school
clause and as regards the boundaries of
Manitoba. Is it not enough to fan the
flame when the great Protestant majority
of this country, the 59 per cent, find that
the Bill dealing with the educational liberties of the people of the west was drawn,
brought forward and introduced into this
parliament by these three members of the
government with the assistance of the Papal
ablegate and that not one of the ministers
who represent the great Protestant body
of this country as consulted, but that they
were ignored in the matter? Is not that
something to fan the flame?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then it rests
with the hon. gentleman to state who were
there. I am speaking of the committee now
and that is all the knowledge we have. The
hon gentleman is there to increase our
knowledge. All we want are the actual
facts, but, so far. I say the public mind is
inflamed and the Protestant mind is justly
inflamed by this conduct. What further
has inflamed the public mind? What has
lighted the torch? It is the constant discovery of duplicity and deception in connection
with this matter. The flame was
still further fanned by the letter of Mr.
Rogers, which was published yesterday, and
we know what was in that letter. We know,
according to Mr. Rogers, that the delegate
from Manitoba—and we will have to confine it now to the Attorney General of Manitoba,
Mr. Campbell—was asked by the Papal
ablegate to put two certain clauses in the
school law of Manitoba. It was intimated
to him that if they would do that the boundaries of his province would be extended
to
the north and it was also stated that the
reason why his province had not had its
boundaries extended to the west was be
3937
3983
cause of the school law of Manitoba. Is not
that something to inflame the public mind,
to increase this fire that seems to be burning all over the country? But, who is doing
it? Is it being done by this side of the
House or by the Conservative press? Perhaps somewhat, but everything that is done
is based on these revelations of duplicity.
of deception and of ignoring of the public
right and the right of the people of the west
to be consulted in this matter. Again I ask,
as did my hon. friend from North Toronto
(Mr. Foster) this afternoon, if the Papal
ablegate was to be consulted, if he was consulted, it he was waited upon, as he was
repeatedly waited upon by the right hon.
Prime Minister. and if this matter was discussed why was not the Minister of the
Interior consulted, why was not the Finance
Minister consulted, why was not Mr. Haultain consulted, why were not the people of
the west consulted? And still further will
the public mind he inflamed to-day when it
is known, as it knows now, that practically
the statement made by the Papal ablegate
and published to-day is a confirmation in
substance of what was stated in Mr. Rogers
letter. Here is the crux of the whole matter and it was not denied; grant, for the
moment, that the Papal ablegate had the
right to discuss the school question in this
interview with the Manitoba minister, he
coupled the school question up with the
boundary question where he had no jurisdiction, but where apparently he claimed
to have authority to propose a settlement
of the school question.
There is the crux; that is a thing that
is not denied. It is asserted by Mr. Rogers,
it is not denied by the ablegate and it is not
denied by the government. The kernel of
the whole matter lies in this that the ablegate discussed the boundary question of
Manitoba in connection with the school question. I want to know if the Minister of
Justice had night interviews or any other
kind of interviews with the Papal ablegate ?
I want to know if the Secretary of State
has been in communication with the Papal
ablegate ? I want to know if it is not true
that the Secretary of State, the Minister of
Justice, the Prime Minister and the Papal
ablegate, were daily holding interviews
about this school question and discussing
the matter in all its shapes and forms, while
the people of the west and the minister from
the west and Mr. Haultain were ignored.
Is there any wonder why the country has
been fanned into flame when the people
discover these things ? I would like to know
if the Minister of Finance and the Minister
of the Interior had any interviews with the
Papal ablegate. I do not suppose they will
admit it, but all the other gentlemen have
to admit it ; the Prime Minister had an
opportunity of denying it and he did not
deny it, and his colleague who followed
him was not able to deny it. The additional
fact, which goes to the public to-morrow,
3989 APRIL 6, 1905
will still further fan the flame, when it is
known that the Papal ablegate was in the
city of Ottawa all the time in constant consultation with the ministers, and that
those
who are directly interested were not consulted. I have read the letter which the
forty immortals sent to Rome, asking for
protection from the clericals of Quebec,
and the letter of Mr. Russell has also been
read here. This evidence proves that the
Prime Minister. or Sir Wilfrid Laurier the
private individual, induced the Holy See to
send an ablegate to this country and to
send him here for a political purpose; for the
political purpose of being the policeman with
the big stick to regulate the clergy of Quebec ; and, also for the purpose of something
else.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will come to
that in a moment, but I say now to the
Prime Minister of Canada that whether acting as an individual or not, if he induced
the Holy See to send an ablegate here for
the political purpose which is confessed in
his letter, he is responsible for everything
that the Papal ablegate has done in connection with our politics in this country.
It is
now confessed that the Papal ablegate did
interfere in our politics. He submitted to the
Manitoba ministers certain clauses he wished to be put in the Bill ; he told them
if
they would pass these clauses they might
have their boundaries extended, and that
their failure to give relief to the Catholics
in the past was the reason why an extension of the provincial boundaries was denied.
I do not agree with all that has been
said in this debate as to the right of the
ablegate to be here. I say he is here as a
political agent in connection with the Prime
Minister, and the Prime Minister and the
government and its supporters are responsible for the conduct of that ablegate in
this country. It is up to the right hon.
gentleman, either to endorse what the ablegate did in that interview with Mr.
Campbell or to repudiate it, and if
he repudiates it, to ask for the recall
of the Papal ablegate. We are told as a
matter of fact that he has been recalled and
that he is to leave the country—or rather
it is put in a more polite way–that he is to
go back to Rome to explain his conduct in
this matter. I believe they are most anxious to get him out of the country ; I believe
the Minister of Justice has already drawn
up his passports, and that the member for
Labelle asked to be allowed to drive the
hack that will take the cardinal to the station, and that the Postmaster General is
to
be there in his weeds, to weep and to say :
not an revoir but adieu.
Mr. BOURASSA. And the member for
South York will play the band.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. What else was the
ablegate brought into Canada for ? Mr.
3989
3990
Russell wrote in connection with the school
question, that the first instalment had been
granted, but, that a further instalment was
to come, and the Minister of Justice to all
intents and purposes, is pledged to give that
other instalment and not to rest until he restores the school rights of the Catholics
of
Manitoba, and also gives separate schools to
the Northwest Territories. It is clear that
the ablegate has been brought to Canada
for two purposes : to discipline the clergy
and the bishops of Quebec, and to assist the
government in securing separate schools
for the Northwest. And he has been working on these lines in connection and in conjunction
with the government and therefore the government is responsible for everything he
has done. The people of Canada
will hold him responsible for everything he
has done, until they either repudiate him
and ask for his withdrawal, or else endorse
his conduct. It is this deception that has
been practised all through in connection with
our public affairs that has set the spark
into a flame and fired the heather all over
Canada. I am somewhat of a protectionist
and so is the member for Labelle, who is
especially a protectionist in regard to matters concerning Quebec. But the member
for Labelle is not the protectionist I am,
for I am in favour of the home product as
regards the bishops and the clergy of the
country, and I do not believe in bringing
from the outside a policeman with a big stick
to regulate them. I believe the bishops and
the clergy of the province of Quebec are
able to manage their own affairs.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then. gentlemen
opposite, who pretend to be the great champions of the clergy of Quebec, are the men
who asked His Holiness to send over an
ablegate who would regulate them and keep
them in their place. The bishops and clergy
of the province of Quebec resent this conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite, in bringing
in a prince of the church for their political
purposes. I believe to-day that the great
majority of the hierarchy of Quebec are
not rejoiced to see what has happened, but
they recognize that a mistake was made
and that things will be better in the future
if there is no more ablegate in this country.
I think it has been made clear here to-day
that the ablegate has interfered improperly
in Canadian politics, and it has been made
clear that everything that has occurred in
this country, which has inflamed the public
mind, is the direct result of the conduct
of hon. gentlemen opposite. They asserted
that they had settled the school question,
that it was buried for all time and they
would never resurrect it ; yet they have
been guilty of that very thing. Again I
tell the Prime Minister, who made that
quotation in a speech in Toronto, ' No Italian priest shall tithe or toll in these
Dom
3991
COMMONS Â
inions,' that the people of Toronto have
found him out as the very man who brought
a Papal ablegate to this country for that
very purpose. This is the issue before this
country, and I leave it with the House and
the country. The proposal is to establish a
connection between church and state in the
new provinces, and to allow a denominational interest to tithe and toll the school
lands of those two free provinces. Hon.
gentlemen may laugh and jeer at it, but
that is the issue that is to be decided in
the country. It may he laughed at in this
House ; but every man from Ontario, every
man from the west–nay, more, every man
from the maritime provinces—will be asked
to account for his conduct in regard to this
effort which is being made to establish a
connection between church and state, and
to share the public school funds of this
country with one denomination to the exclusion of every other. Another thing which
hon. gentlemen will have to settle, whether
they be of the government or private members, is the way in which this legislation
has
been introduced into this House—how only
one side has been consulted and every other
interest has been ignored. Sometimes it is
necessary to say a word in the interest of
a majority. There is a majority of fifty-
nine per cent in this country that is entitled to fair-play, and that majority says
to-day that it has not been given that fair-
play which it had a right to expect from
the right hon. gentleman when that majority
gave their confidence to him, and when he
in return gave a pledge, which they took
from him on his honour, and which pledge
to-day is broken and in the dust. That is
the issue, and on that the public will judge
hon. gentlemen opposite. The fifty-nine per
cent do not want to do anything unfair to
the minority ; but those who compose that
fifty-nine per cent are of that character
that if they think an attempt is being made
to manacle or interfere with the educational freedom of those great provinces in
the west, they will resent it. All that the
people of the province of Ontario say to-day
is what they said before. They said in
1896 : Hands off Manitoba ; and they say
again to the province of Quebec : Hands off
the new provinces in the west ; leave them
alone ; let them manage their own affairs,
especially their school affairs, as you have
full liberty to manage yours. That is all
they say ; and if the fifty-nine per cent of
this country are to he charged with fanning
a flame and stirring up creed and race wars
in this country, I say it is not just to make
that charge, because they have not done it ;
but they have said to the government, in a
fair and respectful way : Leave these new
provinces to settle their own educational
affairs. On the other hand, the charge
comes home to hon. gentlemen opposite, and
they must give an account of themselves to
the people of Ontario. Where is the Postmaster General to-day, who was so anxious
3991
3992
yesterday to repudiate the letter of the forty
immortals ? He did not want to be identified with it ; and yet is he not responsible,
being a member of the government, for
every political act of his colleagues ? He
is trying to escape the responsibility, but
he will be held responsible for it, and so
will every other member from the province
of Ontario.
Now, my advice to the right hon. gentleman is—not that I want to see him force
the ablegate out of the country ; but he had
better have an explanation from the ablegate, and if that explanation is not satisfactory,
he must repudiate him. Another
thing he must do, and I tell him now ; he
must withdraw this school clause from that
Bill. That Bill will never pass this House
or this parliament in its present shape. Leave
that school clause out, and leave the courts
to interpret what the constitutional rights
of the minority in the province are, and we
in Ontario and the west will be satisfied.
That is all we want. But do not try to fetter when you have no right to fetter ; do
not claim constitutional interference when
you have no right to interfere. So far as I
am able to prevent it, and other members of
this House, that clause will never go on the
statue-book of this country.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou). Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for South York
(Mr. W. F. Maclean) has been busily engaged for the past three-quarters of an hour
in his favourite occupation of fanning the
flame of religious discord in this country ;
but the bellows do not seem to be working
as well as they did yesterday, and the flame
is not being fanned with the same alacrity
as was displayed yesterday afternoon. My
hon. friend, coming from the premier province, the largest province of this Dominion,
is accustomed to speak, and I am
sorry to say a great many other gentlemen who come from that province,
are in the habit of speaking of Ontario as if it were the whole Dominion. The
time was in the history of this country
when our friends who sit on the opposite
side of the House claimed to be the national
party, the party which stood for a united
Canada all round. That is not the song they
sing now. We hear Ontario spoken of as
if there were no other portion of this whole
Dominion, and those of us who come from
the maritime provinces and the province
of Quebec, and who, in the exercise of our
rights as members of parliament venture to
express our views on matters of ordinary
importance, are pilloried by the Tory newspapers as being more liable to be corrupted
than those who possess the high ideals of
the gentlemen from the province of Ontario.
Sir, I want to resent any such imputation.
We, from Nova Scotia, may not belong to
such a big province in area ; but we come
from a Province to which the Tory party
were forced to go not long ago in despera
3993 APRIL 6, 1905
tion to get a leader. If those gentlemen who
sing the song of Ontario so smoothly think
their province is the premier one, how is it
that they cannot scare up a leader from
among the men they send to this House ?
All this excitement, all this religious
flame that my hon. friend speaks about,
comes from the allegation that the claim
of the province of Manitoba to have its
boundaries enlarged was not conceded by
the Dominion government the moment it
was asserted, because there was interference from the Papal ablegate in this
country. That is the charge in a nutshell,
and I want to examine it for a moment.
The attitude assumed by our friends from
Manitoba is a most dictatorial one. Without saying a word with regard to the question
of having an enlargement of their
boundaries for a long period of years, they
suddenly woke up on the 16th of January
last and said they wanted to have their
boundaries extended west, north and east,
cutting into one province, asuming a large
portion of territory in another, and taking
out of the new provinces to be constructed
a third portion of territory. They want to
have it done right away, not a moment of
hesitation. No interests are to be considered, even the interests of the province
of Ontario are to be disregarded, and I
assume that the hon. member for South
York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is one of those
who agree with the proposition that although
Premier Whitney may think they have some
claims, yet they are not to be considered
at all by this coterie of politicians that
happen to be in charge and who are just
now demanding it. Let me say, as coming
from one of the smaller provinces of the
Dominion, that they also have a right to
be considered in regard to this subject. The
legislature of the province of New Brunswick, minor in size, though important as a
factor in the confederation, no later than
a month ago passed a strong resolution in
which they represented to the federal government that on this question of the accretion
of the provinces the rights of the smaller provinces should be considered. We
hear about Manitoba being a postage stamp
on the map. Well, we who come from
Nova Scotia, although it may be a postage
stamp on the map, we come as one of the
partners in this confederation, and we say
that we have the same interest as New
Brunswick to be considered before any addition is made to the territory of any province.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker,
that the province of New Brunswick, through
their legislature, asserted no less than a
month ago that by reason of the accretion of
the provinces of Ontario and Quebec which
was made a few years ago, their position,
as regards their representation in this
House has been imperilled, according to
the decision of the Supreme Court and the
Privy Council, for all time to come. The
3993
3994
same thing may occur in regard to Manitoba. And are we to be told that this government
who were asked on the 17th of
February to add to the territory of Manitoba, because they took four days to answer
it, and answered it in this House, are
doing this at the dictation of the hierarchy
and of the Papal ablegate to this country ?
I say that the federal government would
be recreant to the interests of every province in this Dominion if they did not
hesitate long and seriously before they decided to increase the province of Manitoba
or any other province by one foot
of territory. Now these are the facts upon
which these gentlemen base the proposition that because they did not get, in four
days time, what they asked for, that therefore there is some interference from outside.
Our friends opposite grow almost
hysterical over the failure of the government to grant these demands, which every
one of them, on deliberation, will concede
are demands that should be well weighed
as affecting the rights and status of every
province in this confederation.
Now let us examine somewhat critically
the position of affairs in regard to this
whole question over which the hon. member for South York spoke so excitedly. In
the province of Manitoba the premier has
been negotiating for some time with Archbishop Langevin in regard to the postlon of
separate schools in that province. It is evident that these negotiations conducted
through Archbishop Langevin have reached
the Papal ablegate. These negotiations
were initiated by the Manitoba government
some time ago and Mr. Campbell, the Attorney General of Manitoba, had an interview
with the Papal ablegate with regard
to this question. Were they initiated by
this government, or even at the suggestion
of this government? The statement of
facts that has been issued by this buccaneer
member of the Manitoba government do not
contain the faintest suggestion that these
negotiations were initiated by any member
of this government. On the contrary, we
have the fact stated that the Attorney
General of Manitoba consulted with the
ablegate a year ago; we have the fact asserted and not denied that negotiations
have been going on for a long time between
the premier of Manitoba and Archbishop
Langevin on behalf of the Papal ablegate.
Now these gentlemen come down to Ottawa
of their own accord, at their Own suggestion. Who asked them to come ? Did
this government ask them to come? On
the contrary, the correspondence laid before the House last night by the First
Minister showed conclusively that when
these gentlemen woke up on the 16th of
January they wrote to Sir Wilfrid Laurier
and asked that they might be permitted
to come down and discuss this question.
3995
COMMONS
No doubt, at the instance of Premier Roblin, Attorney General Campbell and Mr.
Rogers intended to see the ablegate when
they came down here in regard to this
school question—there is not the slightest
doubt about it—and they did go and see
the ablegate. Now what took place ? We
have a statement of alleged facts given
to the people of this country. Is it issued
by the man who is supposed to guide the
province of Manitoba, by the premier of that
province? Does he venture to give his
official sanction to any statement of facts
in regard to this matter? Not at all. Is
it issued by the Attorney General of the
province of Manitoba, the man who had the
interview with the ablegate? If we are
going to have any official statement as to
the negotiotions, as to what was said and
done, and if we are going to have this flame
of religious discord fanned in this country
by our hon. friends opposite, at least we
should expect them to start this flame agoing by some facts based upon the statement
of a man who was present and who
took part in the interview. Why, Sir, my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition is
too good a lawyer—and we recognize him
in our province as a good lawyer—he is
too good a lawyer not to know that hearsay testimony is not worth anything, and
the statement of Mr. Rogers upon which
all this flame of religious discord is to be
started up is the worst kind of hearsay
testimony, it is testimony that my learned
friend, if he were a judge, would not listen
to for one moment, and would reject if it
were offered in evidence.
Now the result is that we have all this
excitement based upon what ? Upon a statement of facts made by a gentleman in regard
to certain things within his own knowledge?
No, Sir, mark that. While we have been
discussing in this House and the newspapers have been discussing for days certain
alleged facts in regard to certain things,
no public man has yet ventured to state
that he knows anything of these things of
his own knowledge. But we have this hearsay statement, and hearsay statements as
well as any other old statement are sufficient
material just now for certain gentlemen to
fan a flame of religious discord. We have
in addition to the statement two insinuations. The first insinuation is that Sir
Wilfrid wanted time to enable the invitation of the Papal ablegate to be acted upon.
Well, now, what do we find ? We find that
the interview with the premier of this country took place on February 17, we find
that the interview with the ablegate took
place on February 23. In the meantime the
policy of the government had been formulated in regard to the western boundaries of
Manitoba, and it was announced in this
House and in the country what the policy of
the government was. Could it be possible,
3995
3996
is it reasonable to suggest to any sane man
that a statement made two days after an
announcement of policy in this House, could
be taken as being indicative of an intention
to have anything to do with, or any influence
upon, this government in determining that
policy ? Yet that is what is being asserted.
Then we are told that the ablegate's suggestion was made with the full knowledge
and consent of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which
is the second insinuation. And what do
we find ? We find that the premier of this
country solemnly stated yesterday:
I assert that if Mr. Rogers stated that Monseigneur Sbarretti did press him to make
the
suggestion of terms and conditions which he
says Monseigneur Sbarretti did with my knowledge, he states something which is not
in accordance with truth.
Could any statement be more categorically denied than that? And no member
of this House ventures for one moment to
declare that that denial should not be accepted with the fullest credence. Let us
look at what the ablegate said in regard
to this matter:
This is the sum and substance of my interview with Mr. Campbell. The federal government
had absolutely no knowledge of it.
And yet, as I say, upon hearsay testimony, upon inferences which the youngest
child would not draw and which no judge
in this country would venture to think of
considering in a case tried before him, this
House is being detained to listen to asser
tions such as we have heard for two days
past. And this is done, because hon gentlemen opposite have been eight years in opposition
and have exhausted every possible
effort to tarnish in the slightest degree the
escutcheon of the great leader of the Liberal party, and hope, at last, by this roorback,
by this fool story, that judge and
jury would not hang a out upon, to mislead
public opinion.
Let us look at this statement, the only
statement of fact we have from any source
as to what went on—every hon. member
will agree that Mr. Rogers' statement must
be discarded as hearsay testimony. The
ablegate says :
I never met Hon. Mr. Rogers, nor did I have
any communication with him.
On the evening before his departure for the
west (February 23), Mr. Campbell came. I
asked him if something could not be done to
improve the condition of the Catholics of his
province with respect to education. I pointed
out that in the cities of Winnipeg and Brandon,
for instance, the Catholics were paying double
taxes.
I urged my request on the ground of fairness
and justice, and referring to his mission to
Ottawa. I remarked that, from the View of the
Manitoba government, some action on these
lines would be a political expedient, and tend to
facilitate the accomplishment of his object. inasmuch as the Catholics in any territory
which
3997
ARRIL 6, 1905
might be annexed to Manitoba. would naturally
object to losing the right they had to separate
schools. and to be subjected to the educational
conditions which existed in Manitoba.
Mr. Campbell then asked me what would be
my desire in this respect.
I then gave him the memorandum which has
already appeared in the press.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) this afternoon endeavoured
to build an argument upon a
certain construction which he put upon the
words 'politically expedient.' Let me submit to the reasonable attention of the House
what the inference to be drawn from these
words is. For whom was this to be 'politically expedient' ? Was it for the government
of the country that, for the third time
had received a mandate from the people,
and by an overwhelming vote, by a majority greater than ever known in the history
of the country ? What would be the necessity for this government to descend to ' political
expediency ' ? In whose interest would
the course suggested be 'politically expedient' then? Unquestionably in that of the
Manitoba government, the government that
had been interviewing Archbishop Langevin, the government whose Attorney General had
been interviewing the ablegate
endeavouring to arrange to obtain political support—as I would say, if I were to
use the style of argument of hon. gentlemen
opposite—in return for making these concessions. For whom else could it be 'politically
expedient' than for the government
that was talking of having a dissolution
some of these days, and was looking for
political support ? I submit that the argument of my hon. friend and the inference
he attempted to draw were wholly unwarranted. Who were the people who were
chasing this ablegate in relation to the
schools ? Were they the members of this
government? On the contrary, the indisputable evidence of the facts before us,
shows conclusively who were engaging in
these 'political expedients.' For, what does
the ablegate say ? He says it will be politically expedient,
- inasmuch as the Catholics in any territory
which might be annexed to Manitoba would
naturally object to losing the right they had to
separate schools, and to be subjected to the
educational conditions which existed in Manitoba.
For whom was this 'politically expedient'? For the government that wanted
to secure the support and sympathy of the
people of the Northwest Territories, so that
they might come and ask to be joined to
Manitoba. Surely the inference is so irresistible that no one came to any other
conclusion than that this was the reason
Why the statement was made that it was
'politically expedient' for the Manitoba
government. And the story of this matter
has not yet all been told ? We have not
heard from Mr. Roblin yet. This forecastle
3997
3998
member of the administration, who is, perhaps, playing the game of politics for his
own personal advantage—
Mr. MACDONALD—and looking for
Roblin's job, as an hon. friend suggests—
when we come to get the whole story about
this political pirate from Manitoba, it may
be found that there are some little things
yet to be said that will not be heard with
very great satisfaction by our friends who
have raised this question.
Now, we are told, in the light of facts
such as I have outlined—outlined fairly, I
submit—that the Protestant feeling in this
country should be roused against this government and against the leader. That is the
argument that hon. gentlemen opposite have
been making and to whom are we asked to
look for guidance? To the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) who leads the opposition.
Well, that hon. gentleman knows
very well that his entrance into political
life was signalized by the advocacy of the
coercion of the province of Manitoba. He
knows that the then leader of the Conservative party, recognizing his legal abilities,
was anxious that the hon. gentleman should
lend those abilities to the advocacy of the
cause of the coercion of Manitoba, to which
that leader was then committed. The hon.
gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) did not enter political life under auspices of so clear
and unequivocal a character as to be able
to hold out very alluring hopes even to my
hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F.
Maclean), who might be looking for a
leader on this question. Or, are we to look
to our hon. friend (Mr. Foster) who addressed us this afternoon and who reads us
a moral lecture every time he gets on his
feet. This hon. gentleman assumes a high
moral attitude. As he soars above ordinary
mortals, and as 'his tongue drops manna.
and makes the worst appear the better
reason, he fancies that the people of this
country are deluded by the sermonettes he
gives us. Why, Sir, what is the political
history of that hon. gentleman? Born in
the province of New Brunswick, representing the county of King's, his native county,
he was driven thence after four or five
years. He found a resting place, for a
moment, in the county of York—but, as an
hon. friend behind me remarks, he dare not
go back. He flitted about St. John for a
while; and then the people of New Brunswick took summary methods of dealing
with him and drove him away politically,
not only from St. John, but from the province of New Brunswick for ever. And the
result has been that for some years past
he has been a political Ishmaelite. He has
been going up and down this country like
a lonely pelican of the wilderness, like a
solitary sparrow on the liousetop, looking for
3999
COMMONS
some nest in which he might sit and from
which he might descant upon the decay
of political virtue in Canada. At last he
has found, in an adjoining constituency to
that of my hon. friend from South York
(Mr. W. F. Maclean), a place that was willing to take him in. And, coming back to
the political arena once more, he proceeds,
absolutely oblivious to the past record. Like
the ostrich he puts his head in the sand and
fancies that no one sees what is going on.
Metaphorically he has put his head in the
sand and says to the people of Canada : Do
not look at my history previous to 1900, but
gaze on this apostle of virtue, this George
Eulas Foster, who has come to life again.
My hon. friend who descanted upon this
question so glibly was a leading member of the former government of this
country. He talks about Italian prelates who are going to take tithes
from interference in the political affairs
of this country. He talks with great
glibness, with a great deal of energy but
my hon. friend was the associate of gentlemen who were very glad not so many years
ago to look to these gentlemen for aid and
comfort and were fanning the flames of religious discord—only they were doing business
from the other end of the line. What
do we find they were doing in those days ?
The history is embalmed in the records of
our courts. I refer the hon. gentleman who
is looking for data on which to discuss
matters likely to give rise to discord not to
take hearsay statements from buccaneer
politicians but to look at the Supreme Court
reports of the Dominion of Canada. What do
we find that the associates of my hon. friend
who descants on political virtue to-day were
doing in the past when he blossomed and
flourished as a minister of the Crown 7 We
find in evidence here that in those days some
of the clergy in the province of Quebec dis—
cussed political questions in this way:
You know in what manner the serpent found
his way into the terrestrial paradise, with what
cunning he succeeded in convincing Eve that
she should not die, nor Adam either, by eating
of the forbidden fruit. You all know what took
place; the serpent was the cause of the misfortunes that are weighing upon us. In
the
same manner Catholic Liberalism wishes to
find its way into the paradise of the church to
lead her children to fall. Be firm, my brethren,
our bishops tell us that it is no longer permitted to be conscientiously a Catholic
Liberal;
be careful never to taste the fruit of the tree
Catholic Liberal.
These are the injunctions of the friends
of the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in days gone by. Let me give you another
quotation from the same case to show
how delightfully consistent he is, how lovely
my hon. friend from North Toronto has been,
and what a splendid record he has upon this
question. What do we find ?
Now. if sometimes it is sinful to vote in a
certain way, rather than in another way,
3999
4000
it cannot be, assuredly, when you are
voting according to the wise counsels of
all the bishops of the province; and if it is
not in that way, it must be in the opposite.
However, I must tell you that if you are voting
for a Liberal candidate, not believing him to be
so, because your conscience tells you that he
is the man that will best represent your interests in parliament, in such case you
do not
sin. But if you know that he is a Liberal, you
cannot conscientiously give him your vote;
you are sinning by favouring a man who supports principles condemned by the church,
and
you assume the responsibility of the evil which
that candidate may do in the application of the
dangerous principles which he professes.
Let me say further that the hon. member
for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and I regret
that he is not here—was engaged in other
political matters in this country in 1896
which touched on religious matters and fanning the flames of religious discord was
a
favourite occupation of the hon. gentleman
and his friends in those days. What do we
find was the battle cry of our Conservative
friends in 1896 in Quebec and other places
in this country ? We find that they were
aware of and assented to the issuing of a
mandement dealing with the question of
how people should vote. In a sermon of
Bishop Lafleche in 1896, after quoting the
latter part of the speech of Sir Wilfrid
Laurier, the bishop added :
In the circumstances, a Catholic could not
without making a mortal sin vote for the
leader of the party who has made such a statement (referring to Sir Wilfrid's speech)
and
for the partisans who support him so long as
they will not have publicly repudiated that
error and taken the engagement to vote for a
remedial law approved by the bishops.
This is the record or the member for
North Toronto in 1896. a record which he
would fain forget. And of course he tells
us to-day that as long as the grass grows
and water runs he is not going to do the
like again. The only difference now is that
while he is trying to carry on the same
game he is now trying to work upon the
Protestants of this country instead of on
our Roman Catholic friends. And he tells
us he is not going to do this again because
he was beaten, forsooth, in 1896 and in 1900
and in 1904. That is not the Spartan-like
virtue of the old heroes who when they fell
down got up again. He is perfectly willing
to desert the cause which did not give him
office or bring him satisfactory results.
There is only one thing to be said with regard to my hon. friend and it is this that
the men who sit behind him, that the Conservative party in this country found him
out four years ago. Down in New Brunswick, they knew him right along and this
year when the opportunity came to these
men, when he had been for twenty years
in political life, to advance him to a position
of honour and leadership in that party, they
knew him so well that they would not trust
him, hence it is son of my own province sits
4001 April 6, 1905
as leader. But fancy the humiliation of
this old political veteran who has to sit as
second to a man many years his
junior. Let me say that when the hon.
member for North Toronto or any man in
this country after so long an experience in
political life with such a record as
this talks as he talks in this House
it is not likely that the Protestants of this
country will have the slightest faith in the
assertions or statements or leadership of a
man of that kind. Whom are we asked to
follow? We are asked to follow my hon.
friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). We all recognize our friend from
South York, the W. R. Hearst of Canadian
politics, the gentleman who runs sensational
journals. He is a well known advocate of
public ownership. and he is so able an advocate-and I am going to give him credit
for it—that he was able to foist it on his
leader and his party and enabled them to get
soundly beaten on it last year. My hon.
friend who comes along with all these fetishes of his, according to the eloquent speech
of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland)
last night, not so many years ago instead
of being a stout advocate of provincial
rights, an expression which he rolls as a
sweet morsel under his tongue to-day was
going up and down this country and in this
House demanding a strong central government, and saying that the intention of the
fathers of confederation was that power
should be centred in the federal government
in Ottawa, and that there should not be
found in the various centres of Canada
little legislatures exercising varied powers
but that everything should be done in this
great central body. The record of my hon.
friend is hardly as inconsistent as that of
his coadjutor from North Toronto, but on
this question of provincial rights he has not
much license to speak in this House or in
this country.
Then we are asked to follow the hon.
member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) a gentleman who has had a long career in politics
and a gentleman whom I am sure we
respect. because I think he is the only
one of the four that believes in this talk
that he is giving us. I am free to say that
I believe that. but I am also free to say
that my hon. friend from East Grey is in
very strange company. Was he not a follower of old Sir John ? In the United
States it used to be the proud boast of men
who had been through the war that they
had fought with Grant and it is only a short
time in Canada since the Shibboleth of the
Conservatives was that they had been with
Sir John. Now what was Sir John's history on this question of provincial rights ?
He was the great centralist as the hon.
member for South York told' us. Every
one knows that Sir John Macdonald was
not a federationist, or a legislative unionist.
that he was not an advocate of provincial powers. or of the recognition of
4001
4002
the rights of provincial legislatures to control certain questions, merely conceding
to
them those questions that could not be kept
from them. Why, the day was when the
Conservative powers in this country asserted that the King was not present in a provincial
legislature, that this parliament was
the only power that had the right to pass
license laws. and we all recollect the occasion when Sir John Macdonald asserted the
right, as a legislative unionist, of this federal parliament to pass a Liquor License
Act. We all remember the time when he
asserted on a question in relation to the
constitution of the courts the right of the
federal government to appoint King's Counsel's. And we also remember that in the
days when the battle went on in the province of Ontario, the little tyrant, as they
called him, maufully withstood the efforts
of Sir John Macdonald, the hon. member
for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and some other
old veterans on the other side in the
House who sought to filch from Ontario her rights, legislatively and territorially,
and that the men who are
now claiming to represent provincial rights
and who speak about them as if they were
something sacred are the very men who
spent all their lives battling against provincial rights and in favour of the centralization
of power. Although we have to respect
the hon. member for East Grey because he
is sincere, I am sure that when he talks
about provincial rights he must feel a
twinge of regret that he is departing from
the policy of the old leader under whom
he entered politics and under whose political aegis he developed in this parliament.
There was not an hon. gentleman on the
other side of the House who supported Sir
John Macdonald who knew anything about
provincial rights. The word sits very
strangely on their tongues. They were never
provincial rights people. They never knew
what provincial rights were. and yet they
are coming here to-day and talking about a
proposition in which they assert that the
compact recognized by Sir John Macdonald
and by all the fathers of confederation as
being the essential element in the formation
of this confederacy, namely, that the rights
of minorities in all the provinces of this Dominion should be respected, is one which
shall not be kept. They come here and in the
name of provincial rights go back on their
record, go back on the traditions of their
old leader who sleeps in Cataraqui cemetery
at Kingston, they forget the great position
that he once occupied in this parliament,
and there are none so poor as do him reverence because they turn to those propositions
that were advocated by his traditional
opponent, Sir Oliver Mowat. Shall we follow these men to-day upon this question ?
Or shall those of us, who represent not merely what may be called Protestant constituencies
but who represent constituencies, even
though they come from smaller provinces,
4003
COMMONS
where people are guided by the principle
that here, in Canada, the lines of race and
religion must be obliterated, and who demand that we shall be Canadians one and
all, not rather follow him, who, during his
long life, not merely on the testimon of
his friends but on the testimony of those
who ought to be his friends, but who have
for a peculiar reason, become opponents of
his, battled for civil and religious rights in
the province where he was born and bred ?
I want to know if there is any one who has
studied the history of Canada who does not
recognize that great leader of the Liberal
party every year of whose career as a public man is marked by progress and by some
effort on behalf of the rights both civil and
religious of the provinces of this confederation. But, talking about the ablegate
being brought to this country, I want to know
whether there is a man who will say
that the sons of the Roman Catholic
church who had sutfered by reason of the
tyranny exercised on behalf of the Conservative party should not go to the head of
their church and ask for the intervention
of that dignitary by the appointment of a
representative in Canada in order to see that
the system of interference in politics which
had hitherto prevailed should be obliterated
from this country. That is why the ablegate came to Canada. Everybody knows
that is so, and everybody knows that the
reason why Quebec spoke in 1896 as she
did and as she has spoken since is because
the great heart of the French people rose
above all those limitations which had bound
them and because the people of that province
recognized that in their great leader they had
a man who was ever ready to stand for
equal rights for all and special privileges
for none. As he stood for the rights of
the provinces in 1896 so he stands to-day
for the constitutional rights of minorities
and the recognition of the principles which
the confederation compact involves and
which were embodied in the constitution.
But, cries such as we have heard here today are not new. My little province down
by the sea has not turned its ear to any
such appeals as seem to avail in other portions of Canada. But, in the county from
which I come and in which I have run
three federal elections. I want to say that
in every fight we have had to contend
against the canvass which was being made
on behalf of the Conservative party amongst
the Protestant and Presbyterian section of
the electors in these words: Surely you
will not vote for a Frenchman and a Roman
Catholic like Laurier. That was the shibboleth of the Conservative party. But, our
people rose above that. Our people recognized that he was the champion of civil
and religious liberty in Canada, that he was
possessed of a generous mind, that he was a
believer in all that was going to make Canada great and her people happy, and they
sent a unanimous delegation here to support
4003
4004
him. Let me say that we are unanimously
behind him to-day and further let me say
that upon this question we know in whom
we believe. We are not asked to follow
any man whose record is of a character
such as I have outlined as being possessed
by some hon. gentlemen opposite. We know
that when the excitement upon this question passes away the Protestant people of
Canada will recognize as in days that have
gone, that in our great leader We have a
pillar in the storm. a man who has stood
above all these cries of race and religion, a
man who rises above them and who sees
with clear vision the path which we should
follow and the principles by which we should
be guided. So, I say that when the history of this country comes to be Written
our children's children will speak of the
great leader of the Liberal party who has
fought the battle of civil and religious lib
erty and who has stood up for the rights
of provinces and minorities as one whose
name will ever shine with lustre so long
as Canada has a history.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). Mr.
Speaker, if this took place in some countryi
barnyard, I imagine I could hear some old
farmer saying it is not the first time that he
heard a great deal of noise and cackling
for a very small egg. The hon. member for
Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has taken an hour
to enlighten us on the subject before the
House and he has trotted out almost every
subject under the sun which suggested itself
to his mind but he has studiously avoided
touching the question before the House, and
I think it would be quite in order for me
to ask, Mr. Speaker, to read the question
before the House because the attention of
the House has been directed to everything
except that. The hon. gentleman treated
us to a great many subjects: Roorbacks;
cold storage, Mr. Rogers' statement must be
discarded; absolutely untrue; sparrow on
the house tops; pelican in the wilderness;
manna dropping from the tip of the tongue;
fanning the flames of religious strife:—
Mr. SPROULE. These are a few of the
subjects the member for Pictou dealt with
in his very intelligent way.
Mr. SPROULE. I presume he wishes us
to imagine that we are looking towards the
cast, and we see the silver edged lining of
the cloud which betokens the rising sun of
a clear day. The effort of the hon. gentleman to enlighten the House on the subject
4005 APRIL 6, 1905
reminds me of a story I heard when comparatively a boy, of a would-be celebrated
chemist, who, asked to demonstrate a proposition in chemistry said : Well boys, you
will take an effervescent and you add a
deliquescent and there will be a precipitation and that is a conglomeration and that
amounts to a demonstration. The chemist
defied any one to prove the proposition more
logically than that, and the chemist's demonstration is about on a par with the demonstration
we have had from the member for
Pictou. It was a conglomeration in the
highest sense of the word. He told us that
Ontario thought she had all the intelligence
of the world, but that we were not above
going to the east to get a leader. Well, Ontario is like Simple Simon ; she knows
a
good thing when he sees it, and takes it.
Mr. SPROULE. The man he called a
political Ismaelite was born in the maritime
provinces but they discarded him, and we
accepted him with gratitude and pleasure
and I think he has given the member for
Pictou and his friends one of the best drubbings they have got for some time. Scripture
tells us that it was from the east the
wise men came, and we have drawn many
a wise man from the east, but if we are to
judge from the sample we heard to-night I
can assure him we are not likely to make
any more pilgrimages east in search of wise
men. The member for Pictou said that Sir
John Macdonald was a legislative unionist
and that the member for East Grey who
championed political rights to-day was a
great admirer of his. If the member for
Pictou were as familiar with the political
history of this House as he seems to be with
the barnyards of Nova Scotia, he would
know that the member of East Grey disagreed with Sir John Macdonald on many
of these questions in regard to provincial
rights, and that the member for East Grey
was as sincere then as he is to-day upon the
question we are now dealing with.
The fact is admitted that the Attorney
General of Manitoba had visited the Papal
ablegate. Who admitted it ? The member
for Pictou made the pure bald statement
without anything in the world to hack it up
so far as we know except his own imagination—
Mr. MACDONALD. Would the hon. gentleman permit me to call his attention to the
fact that the ablegate's statement shows
that Mr. Campbell visited him.
Mr. SPROULE. Did he say they had a
conference ? He incidentally met him.
Mr. SPROULE. The ablegate says : I
met him in a friendly way a year ago, but
there is not one word with regard to a conference ; there is only the solitary statement
4005
4006
that they met and the member for Pictou
wove out the rest of the fairy tale, and presented it to the House as a fact. The
member for Pictou tells us that his province is
not opposed to provincial rights. No, but if
he represents his province, Nova Scotia is op;posed to the extension of the boundaries
of Manitoba because it is one of the smaller
provinces.
Mr. MACDONALD. The attitude adopted on that question was, that the smaller
provinces of the Dominion should be consulted before the boundaries of any other
province in the confederation were extended.
Mr. SPROULE. It was not that the
smaller provinces should be consulted, but
that Nova Scotia as a small province was
opposed to enlarging other provinces because it would make Nova Scotia comparatively
smaller. That is the only logical
deduction from his remarks. The hon.
member for Pictou told us that the hon.
member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean)
is singing the song of Ontario. Yes, he is
singing the song of Ontario, and Ontario has
sung a good many songs and they have all
panned out well, and this one will also. He
told us that the member for South York is
fanning flames of religious strife. Is he ?
We hear that from every hon. gentleman on
the other side of the House.
Mr. SPROULE. I hear the weakling
from Cape Breton say 'hear, hear.' The
only two things he can do is to say 'hear,
hear ' and ask a question.
Mr. TURRIFF. I wish to say that the
hon. member for Cape Breton was strong
enough to defeat the leader of the hon. member for East Grey in 1896.
Mr. SPROULE. What is starting the
member for the west ; is he after another
cinch '?
Mr. SPROULE. I cannot hear a word
the hon. gentleman says. He is good at
interrupting ; he had better wait—
Mr. SPROULE—because if it is necessary
I may direct attention to him in a way that
would not be pleasant to him, and if I am
driven too far I will and don't forget it.
The member for Pictou says that the Reform party are fighting for the rights of the
4007
COMMONS
people, and one of his friends said that the
Reform party fought the church a few years
ago, and that it even took the church to the
courts and that this is an evidence that the
Reform party is not in favour of a Papal
ablegate. Perhaps not, but it was the Reform party that brought him here. The
member for Pictou told us that we on this
side dislike the Catholics and the Catholic
church. That is a peculiar assertion on
his part ; it has no foundation in fact, not
the slightest in the world. So far as I know
and I verily believe it, there is no sentiment of dislike here either for a Roman
Catholic or the Roman Catholic church. We
have the same respect and veneration for
that church that we have for other churches
and for its members as we have for other
members of the community. That statement of his only exists in his imagination
and I want to say so. What is the gist of
all this discussion this afternoon ? The Minister of Agriculture gave us a very learned
disquisition but he never touched the subject. He tried to draw a red herring across
the track like the member for Pictou who
never mentioned the issue from the moment
he rose till he sat down. He tried to do like
that little fish that spouts out an inky fluid
in the water so as to becloud everything—
I see the hon. member for Pictou is leaving
the House ; the sun has gone down.
Mr. SPROULE. Perhaps I was doing the
hon. gentleman an injustice. Unlike some
of his friends he is willing to stay in the
chamber and hear what is being said. Of
all the speeches made on the other side of
the House, none of them touched the subject at all. The Prime Minister told us :
we will fight this battle to the end upon the
very line upon which it is brought into the
House. What are the lines on which the
battle was brought into this House ? What
are the lines to-day? The interference of
the church with the state. I tell him that we
accept the challenge, and that we are prepared to meet him on every platform in the
broad Dominion of Canada. He will find
us ready for the battle, and willing to take
our share in it. The allegation is that a representative of the church has improperly
interfered with the duties of the state. Who
is responsible for that ? Not the ablegate.
He is trying to do his duty, and I do not
blame him ; he is representing his church.
Who is responsible for it ? The men who
brought him here—brought him under false
pretenses if you can judge from the history of the ablegate since he has been here.
What did he come for ? To reconcile differences between them and their church
that they were unable to reconcile for them
4007
4008
selves. As long as he was doing that we
had no complaint to make. Is that the work he is doing to-day ? Not at all. He has
gone beyond the bounds of that work,
and who is responsible for it ? Who is to
blame ? Is it the ablegate ? No. He is
reputed to be an able statesman, a
diplomat, and he was brought here by men
who think themselves statesmen, but who
are not equal to the occasion. Who are
they ? The Prime Minister was the first
who sent to Rome, and he was joined by
thirty-nine of his supporters. They are the
parties who brought the ablegate here, who
are responsible for his being here, who have
been using him since, and who are bringing discredit on their church by the capacity
in which they are employing him. I
say that if there is any objection to what
the ablegate has done, we do not blame
him, and have not a word to say against
him ; but we blame the men who brought
him and who have employed him in that
work. They are the parties who are responsible, and they are the parties who will
be brought to book for it as soon as the
voice of the people of Canada has an opportunity of being heard on the subject.
The memories of the people of Canada are
not so short that they will forget it. They
will not forget it by any means. I ask
again, who brought him here ? I have answered that question, and can my answer
be denied ? Is there any attempt to deny
it? Not at all. There is and always has
been in this country a dread of the interference of the church with the state, and
there
will be the same dread in the future ; and
when we see the first indications of that
interference cropping up, we want to stop
it. That does not refer to one church more
than another. When I say church, I include every church, and we are ready to
fight one as vigorously as another. I am
speaking of a principle which is inherent
in the constitution of the British empire.
We have learned long since of the painful
effects of the interference of the church
with the rights of the state. That question
was fought out, and the relative duties of
each was assigned to it. But that question
is cropping up to-day, and who are responsible for it ? The present government ;
they are the parties who have introduced
that question. We are told that there is
excitement in the country today. If there
is, what is the occasion of it ? It is the
danger apprended by the people of Canada
that we are going to have the issue of state
and church to fight over again. That is why
there is excitement ; that is why so many
letters and petitions are coming to Ottawa ;
that is why there is such an intense feeling
throughout the country against the present
government. Is there today any interference with the affairs of the state by any
church ? Need I ask that question after
the information that has been given to this
House several times during the last few
4009 APRIL 6, 1905
days? My answer is, yes, there is. By
what church? By the representative of
the Church of Rome, who was brought here
by the present government. What important questions of state are under the consideration
of parliament to-day? There are
two. One relates to the establishment of
new provinces in the west. The other is
the question of whether the boundaries of
Manitoba shall be extended. These are
two important questions which the state is
dealing with to-day. We are erecting two
new provinces and giving them provincial
rights and provincial powers. Then, application is being made on behalf of the province
of Manitoba for the extension of its
boundaries, so that it may be of a size proportionate to the other provinces around
it.
It is much smaller to-day. Let me deal
first with the question of erecting these new
provinces. One of the duties of the state
is to assign certain rights to these provinces,
among them the right to legislate with regard to education. The state is exercising
its undoubted right to pass this legislation
in this House. It is claimed, and not denied–no hon. gentleman in this House has
dared to deny it up to the present—that the
proposal in the Bill was submitted to the
Papal ablegate ; that several conferences
over it took place between him and the premier, if not between him and the Minister
of Justice and the Secretary of State as
well ; and that it was made satisfactory to
His Eminence before it was submitted to
parliament or the country. Is that interference by the church with the state ? Certainly
it is.
It is as plain as anything can be, and it
has not been denied. Attention has been
drawn to it several times, but neither the
First Minister nor the Minister of Justice
have dared to get up in this House and deny
it. Therefore we assume that it is an admitted fact because there is no denial, and
if there was any ground for denial there is
no doubt the denial would be given. It is
afterwards asserted and not denied, either,
that the minister in the cabinet representing Manitoba and the Northwest objected
to a certain provision in the Bill—the clauses
relating to education—and he struck, he
left the cabinet, and carried his followers
from the west with him. It was shown that
there was trouble ahead, and there was a
proposal to amend one or two clauses in that
Bill. Several conferences took place with
the western members on the one side and
the premier, and with whom on the
other ? With the Papal ablegate, to
see if they could make some arrangement that would suit the Papal ablegate, and at
the same time suit the member
for Brandon and his followers in the west.
Several times we were told that they had
reached a conclusion satisfactory to both
parties, but the next day the negotiations
were off again. So we were kept in suspense day after day for nearly two weeks,
4009
4010
until finally they reached a conclusion and
it was announced to the House. But the
conclusion was not announced to the House
until after it was finally submitted to the
Papal ablegate and was found to be satisfactory to him. Therefore, I again ask the
question : Is the church through its representative interfering with the state, is
it or
is it not ? Is the church interfering with
the duties of the state, with the policy
of the state, with the functions of the state ?
I say it is, and this is the question that is
interesting the Canadian people to-day, and
this is the question which will be fought out
in the future. The Prime Minister says :
We are prepared to accept the challenge
and we will fight it out. I tell him that it
will be fought out. Well, when the Bill
was first presented, some of the western
members objected to some of the provisions,
but when amendments were made that
were satisfactory to the ablegate and satisfactory to the members of the west, they
were announced to the House, then and not
till then. Now, who is responsible more
than anybody else for these educational
clauses ? The Papal ablegate. I do not
blame him, not at all ; he is trying to do
what he believes to be a good work. But
the government of this country have abnegated their functions, and have given them
over to the church, they have given them
over to the representative of the church, and
they have got him to do what they could
not do themselves. They saw that the Papal
delegate possessed the element of statesmanship and desired to avail themselves of
his diplomatic powers and his great foresight
and statesmanship to help them out of what
would otherwise have been a very difficult
position, and he has succeeded in helping
them out of it so far. But these were matters of state policy about which the church
should have no concern, and over which it
should have no control. The church had no
right to be consulted with regard to it.
Now then we come to the question of the
extension of Manitoba's boundaries. A conference was held with the government, they
hear representatives, and say that an answer
will be given in a few days. The First
Minister, in dealing yesterday with the statement of the Hon. Robert Rogers, said
:
So far as the action of the government is
concernend in this matter I wish to give the
statement a direct, an absolute and a categorical denial.
' A direct, an absolute and a categorical
denial.' It is said that the whole is made
up of its parts. First he denies it in its
parts, and then he denies it in toto. Well,
after all this is done does the denial hold
good ? He admits a conference took place
afterwards, therefore that part of the categorical denial falls to the ground, because
Mr. Rogers states that a conference was held
with the government, and that they heard
the representations of Manitoba. Mr. Ro
4011
COMMONSM
gers says that the premier told him that an
answer would be given in a few days. Well,
the premier says, I have no remembrance
of making such a statement, it is possible I
may have done it, but I have a good memory and I have no remembrance of it. In
the meantime an invitation comes from the
Papal ablegate to one of the delegates, and
they visit the Papal ablegate. What takes
place there ? Now then what does the Papal
ablegate say ? He admits that he invited
them to come and see him :
 Taking occasion of the presence in Ottawa of
the Hon. Mr. Campbell, the attorney general of
Manitoba, whom I had met in a friendly way
more than a year ago, I invited him to come
and see me.
 Yet everything was denied so far as the
premier knew or could tell.
 I never met Hon. Mr. Rogers nor did I have
any communication with him.
 Now the Minister of Agriculture expressed himself strongly of the opinion that the
whole thing was unreliable, because it was
proven that Mr. Rogers was not there, while
Mr. Rogers spoke of the delegation which
came down in the plural number as if there
were two. Well, I suppose that a member
of the government referring to what the
government did, if he said : We did so and
so, would not necessarily mean that he was
individually present. I presume that any
conference that took place between the ablegate and any member of the delegation,
represented a conference between the ablegate and the delegation. And that is what
Mr. Rogers says, he did not say he visited
the ablegate. The ablegate admitted that
he invited Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Campbell
came.
 I asked him if something could not be done
to improve the condition of the Catholics of
his province with respect to education.
 That is an admission that there was a
conference, and an admission as well, what
he was there for.
 I pointed out that in the cities of Winnipeg
and Brandon, for instance, the Catholics were
paying double taxes. I urged my request on the
ground of fairness and justice. and, referring
to his mission to Ottawa.—
 And what was his mission ? To extend
the boundaries of Manitoba.
 —I remarked that from the point of view of
the Manitoba government, some action on these
lines would be politically expedient—
 'Politically expedient.' Why ? Because
he was dealing with politicians, and he was
pointing out how they would be likely to
accomplish their end.
 — and tend to facilitate the accomplishment
of his object, inasmuch as Catholics in any
territory which might be annexed to Manitoba
would naturally object to losing the right
had to separate schools and to be subjected to
the educational conditions which existed in
Manitoba.
4011
4012
 It would be 'politically expedient,' and
would help them to accomplish the mission
on which they came here. Was not that
diplomacy and an interference with the
rights of the state ? Was not that an admission that Hon. Robert Rogers' statement
was correct ? And if Mr. Rogers came
to the conclusion that the ablegate was an
intermediary between the government and
the delegate, was not there sufficient circumstantial evidence to justify him in
reaching that conclusion ? In my judgment there was. Lawyers often depend on
circumstantial evidence to establish a case.
Even in the matter of life or death, the
lawyer will tell the jury that circumstantial evidence is often much stronger and
more reliable than direct evidence. The
Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), an
eminent lawyer, I have no doubt has advanced that plea over and over again. Applying
it to the hon. gentleman himself and
his government, is there any circumstancial
evidence here to justify the conclusion that
Hon. Robert Rogers, when he assumed that
the Papal delegate was speaking for the
government, and that the Minister of Justice
was in it and the Prime Minister was in it ?
Certainly there was. He goes on to say.
 Mr. Campbell then asked me what would be
my desire in this respect, I then gave him the
memorandum which has already appeared in
the press.
 This, he says, is the sum and substance
of the interview. Now, what was the memorandum he gave ? It was two carefully
drawn clauses handed by the Papal delegate
to Hon. Colin Campbell to enable him to
facilitate the object he had in view—the
extension of the boundaries of Manitoba.
He proposed to this end the alteration of the
statute of Manitoba relating to education,
by adding to section 125 two subsections.
One was as follows :—
 (b) And when in any city or town there shall
be thirty or more Roman Catholic children and
also thirty or more non-Roman Catholic children, or in any village more than fifteen
of
each of such classes, the trustees shall, if requested by a petition of parents or
guardians of
such number of such classes, provide separate
accommodation for each of such classes and
employ for them respectively Roman Catholic
and non-Roman Catholic teachers.
 That was one of the amendments. The
other was to provide for exactly the same
in the country—two carefully drawn, well-
worded subsections to put in a statute. And
what conclusion did the Manitoba delegates
reach with regard to the matter ? I say
the only conclusion they could come to was
that these clauses were drawn up by the
government here. And I think that they
honestly believed that they were drawn up
by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Does that hon. gentleman deny that he had
anything to do with the drawing up of these
subsections ?
4013 APRIL 6, 1905
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I will say this, Mr.
Speaker, out of courtesy to my hon. friend
(Mr. Sproule), for whom I have a certain
regard—there are gentlemen, of course, for
whom I would not reply—I never saw those
clauses till they were published— Â
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Never knew anything about them, directly or indirectly,
nor of the interview, until yesterday. Â
Mr. SPROULE. Now, the Minister of
Justice has made a statement which I accept
with pleasure, as I always do any statement
he makes in this House. I only gave him
the opportunity, in view of the statement
made in the press over and over again concerning him. Very frequently, when a direct
stetement is made concerning any im- Â
portant politician, that politician takes the
earliest moment to deny it. I only gave
the hon. minister that opportunity——
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend (Mr. Â
Sproule) will bear witness that I am not
very lavish with my denials. I do not, as
a rule, pay much attention to statements of Â
that sort.
Mr. SPROULE. I speak only of the general practise among politicians. As the Minister of Justice
has denied it, I have nothing
more to say. But was it not natural that
the delegate from Manitoba should come to
the conclusion that the government's hand
was behind it ? Was it the fine Italian
hand alone that accounted for it ? How
did he know our statutes so as to be able Â
to draw clauses that would dove-tail into
them and accomplish what was wanted in Â
Manitoba ? Was there not some power behind him that prepared these subsections
for him ? There must have been. And
certainly it would not have been any one in
the Manitoba government, for they did not
accept it. Now, it is admitted and not
denied that the Papal ablegate took an important part in preparing these Autonomy
Bills to establish the two new provinces, in
drawing up their educational clauses. It
is admitted that conferences took place,
that he was satisfied and accepted them.
Now, if separate schools are fastened on
half a continent there, who has done it ?
The government through the representative
of the church. He helped them to do it.
And if he was successful in establishing
them over 500,000 square miles of territory.
is it any wonder that he attempted to go
farther and fasten them on Manitoba as
well ?
When he had succeeded so well with
the government of the day with his diplomacy and with the craft which belongs
4013
4014
to men of his position in getting the state
to accept that, is it any wonder that he tried
to go a little farther and attempted to add
to his name something else that would embellish him in the history of fame if he
could only compel Manitoba to give these
separate schools. Why it is the most natural thing in the world. He had the same
men to deal with, he had been successful
with them once and he hoped to be successful with them again. He ventured a little
further and he entered into communication
with the delegates of Manitoba who came
down here in a case of emergency in their
strong desire to have justice done to their
province, and he takes advantage of their
necessity and of their dire necessity to play
the game a little further. He endeavoured to secure from them the establishment
of separate schools in Manitoba. Is this
not another case of church interference with
the rights of the state ? That was a state
matter, that was a government policy and
a function of the state and this was an
interference with it. It is not denied, it is
practically accepted by the present government and yet the First Minister says we
will fight it out along these lines to the end.
I will tell him to keep on with that fight
and to congratulate himself on the result
when he comes to the end of it. It is claimed and not denied that this proposal in
the
Bill was submitted and it was carried
through. There is no doubt on that subject. Now, we combine the statement of
the Papal ablegate and the Dominion government with regard to the statement of
the Hon. Robert Rogers. Three of the five
specific items mentioned by Rogers which
are known to the government are admitted to be correct. As to the fourth one
a lapse of memory is pleaded ; the First
Minister says : I have no remembrance of
it and I think I I would remember it if it was
so—but he does not say it was not so. On
the fifth one the government denies that
they had any knowledge of what took
place when the Manitoba delegates were
with the Papal ablegate. Rogers never
said they knew what took place but he
assumed they did in consequence of the
circumstances that surrounded it, and I say
he was justified in that conclusion. Then
we take the Papal ablegate's admission that
he invited them ; as Rogers said an invitation came. When did it come ? Mr. Rogers
says March 20, the Papal ablegate says : I
think I met them on the 23rd or the 24th
before they left for home. The invitation
seems to have been on the 20th of March.
When was the Bill to be introduced in the
House to give separate schools to the two
new provinces ? On the 21st of the month.
When was the first disclosure to be given
to the people whether or not their boundaries were to be extended ? On the 21st. Is
it
not natural to reach the conclusion that that
4015
COMMONS
invitation which went on the 20th of the
month was in order to have the benefit of
that conference before the information was
given in this House and in order that the
First Minister could take advantage of it.
Was it not likely ? It seems the most likely thing in the world. That conference was
held, the Manitoba delegates did not accept
the invitation and respond to it as desired,
by agreeing to grant separate schools,
and what was the result ? The next day
when the announcement was made they
were told through the Prime Minister's
speech in the House that their boundaries
could not be extended. No reason was assigned except that other provinces might be
interested. Practically no reason whatever
was assigned for it, but they have that simple information. Robert Rogers says they
were to get information in a few days.
Afterwards Mr. Rogers writes a letter asking whether the information was not forthcoming.
The Prime Minister says he never
received the letter but we have had evidence
in this House that that letter was sent
direct to the Prime Minister's own house.
That was established by indisputable evidence. There was no doubt about that.
Whether it ever went into the Prime Minister's hands I do not know, but it went
to his house.
Mr. SPROULE. He says if it ever came
to his house it was not put into his hands.
Mr. SPROULE. That is all he says and
we have the evidence of the party that
carried it. The hon. member for Ottawa
(Mr. Belcourt) is a lawyer and is too previous and ought to be correct in his facts
before he starts to contradict.
Mr. SPROULE. I am dealing with the
statement of the First Minister, a more
important man. Allow me to finish with
him. I say that the First Minister said :
That letter may have reached my house,
but it never came into my hands.
Mr. SPROULE. That is an admission of
another plain fact ; there is no doubt of it
whatever. The statements are admitted as
facts and are established by irrefutable evidence in my judgment.
4015
4016
Mr. CALDWELL. Might I ask a question of the hon. gentleman? May I ask
him if he is sure that that letter which he
is saying was delivered was the letter
which he meant ?
Mr. SPROULE. The letter was handed to
a messenger brought into the room for that
purpose by the member who was charged
with it. His word should be worth something in this House. That messenger gives
his word that he delivered the letter. Is
he making out that that messenger was
a liar or the member ? Which ?
Mr. CALDWELL. I am asking a question, are you sure that the letter delivered
was the one that you referred to ?
Mr. SPROULE. Did the messenger get
any other letter ? Is he aware of any other
letter which he got ? The messenger says
he delivered it. The letter was handed to
him by a member of parliament who says
that this letter was the one written by
Robert Rogers. Is that direct enough ?
I might very properly ask whether the
minister got a letter at all that day ; I
might ask a dozen questions from some
messenger, I am taking the evidence that
has been submitted to this House, but
that I think, is reliable and should be accepted. Part of it is the evidence of an
hon. minister of the Crown, part of it is that
of an hon. member of parliament and the
other portion of it is furnished by a messenger whom we believe to be telling the
truth and by the record of the book which
shows that the message was taken. What
was the subject discussed ? The extension
of the boundaries of Manitoba ; the school
question. The Papal delegate admits that
the suggestion was made that it will facilitate business if you will make these two
amendments to the school law. That is what
Mr. Rogers says ; that is what the Papal
ablegate admits. And then the ablegate
admits that the proposed clauses of the
Act read substantially as he gave them.
Put the story all together and what is
it ? It exactly confirms the statement made
in the main by the Hon. Mr. Rogers. Now,
the Papal ablegate has a connection with
the Autonomy Bill, he has a conference and
his success in fastening separate schools
upon two provinces naturally create a desire to go a little further and see if he
could
not extend that system to Manitoba. That
is the most reasonable thing in the world.
Why would he not do it ? He ventured to
do it. What does this mean if it does not
mean that there is interference with the
duties of the state by somebody? Who
is that somebody ? The representatives of
4017 APRIL 6, 1905
a certain church. Who brought that somebody ? The present government. Who are
charged with discharging the functions of
the government or the functions of the state
to-day ? The present government. Who
have given over a portion of those functions
to the Papal ablegate? The present government. Who is responsible then for that
improper interference of his ? I say it is
the present government and that they and
they alone, will be held responsible for it.
There is no doubt about it whatever. I ask:
Is it to be continued? Will it be stopped
right here? The people of Canada say it
must be stopped and it will be stopped.
Mr. SPROULE. Yes, hon. gentlemen may
laugh in derision. The weakling is to the
fore again. Sometimes it is said that loud
laughter speaks the vacant mind. But
there is a stronger voice than that of the
weakling and the electors of Canada will
speak with no uncertain sound in the future.
The members of the government as well as
the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald)
will be obliged to obey their mandate when
it is given. In view of all this is it any
wonder that there is excitement, that there
is a strong feeling created and that there is
anxiety in the country to-day? If there
is excitement, anxiety, and noise, who
is responsible for the whole of it ?
-—The present government who introduced this subject and who brought
this man here under false pretenses. There
is no doubt about it whatever. The premier
says we will fight this to the bitter end. Yes,
we will fight it. He has given the challenge
and I want to tell him in the name of the
people of Canada that that challenge has
been accepted. The same challenge was
thrown down by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) some nights ago when
he said that this fight will never cease until
we accomplish the end which we have in
view. We accept that challenge and this
fight is going on. I say that there shall be
no cessation of it until we show that church
that this is not one of the rights which belong to a church, but that it is a right
belonging to the state, and if this government will not do their duty they must get
out of office because the people will hold
them to account. They themselves began
it. They gave the challenge and they
will be met on every platform in this broad
Dominion of Canada. This discussion is
going on. We have the inalienable
right of free speech in this country as in
every British country in every part of the
world. I say that we will transfer this discussion from this tribunal to the high
tribunal of the nation, we will let that tribunal
speak and when the voice of the nation has
been heard we will be vindicated in what
we are doing to-day, because we are fighting the fight of constitutional government.
We are fighting against the interference of
4017
4018
the church with the state, we are fighting
along the lines of the British constitution
and in doing so we believe that we are
doing what would be regarded as our duty
not only as politicians but as statesmen in
any part of the British empire.
Hon. Wm. PATERSON (Minister of Customs). Mr. Speaker, having already
spoken upon the second reading of
the Bill I did not intend to say
anything more, one speech only being allowed while the Speaker is in the chair,
until the Bill is in committee. Nor, would
I have spoken to-night, when another motion made by the hon. leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden) affords an opportunity for speaking, except for the reason that
I think it is now time that there should perhaps be more speaking from this side of
the
House. I have abstained from endeavouring to waste the time of the House—I do not
want to use that expression in an improper
way—taking up the time of the House—further than is necessary in order to intelligently
discuss questions coming before us.
To-day we are not engaged in discussing
the question that is properly before us. We
are not discussing a question of principle.
We have been moved to adjourn the House
to afford the hon. leader of the opposition an
opportunity of supplementing the remarks he
made yesterday in reference to the statement that was made by a brother Tory of
his through the medium of the newspapers.
He did not say—and I do not blame him for
it—all that he perhaps should have said to
the House yesterday and he took this opportunity of returning to it again. The opportunity
has been taken advantage of by
other hon. gentlemen opposite and the object, as I conceive it, that these hon. gentlemen
have is not to discuss whether
church and state are being united in the
Bill before this House or whether the principle of provincial rights is involved ;
the
one object it seems to me, not judging uncharitably, of that letter, that manifesto—
call it what you will—of Mr. Rogers, the
speeches of the hon. leader of the opposition
and the bringing it up in the House the second time, the speech of the hon. member
for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon.
member for South York (Mr. Maclean) were
not to establish a principle or to declare
that church and state shall not be united,
but the object is that these men want to
inflame the passions of the people of this
country. There is no other object. A high
object that is for gentlemen sitting in the
parliament of Canada ! Upon what statement has this been brought up—a statement
by Mr. Rogers. Who is he? The bosom friend
of hon. gentlemen opposite, is he not? Why
did he write that letter on the 23rd ? What
did the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr.
Staples) tell us—it was written and he rang
the bell from room No. 6 and it was sent.
What was he doing in No. 6 ?
4019
COMMONS
 Mr. PATERSON. No. 6 is the old room
that we were in for 18 years and that the
opposition are in now. When we were in
opposition and when we occupied that room
our leader used to visit us sometimes there.
Did the hon. leader of the opposition visit
that room when Mr. Rogers was there ?
Has he seen Mr. Rogers ? Has he talked
with Mr. Rogers ? I ask the question and
he does not deny it ; therefore, according to
his argument, it is a confession.
  Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I may tell my hon.
friend (Mr. Paterson), if he is so inquisitive,
that I was not in Ottawa at the time.
 Mr. PATERSON. May I ask the hon.
gentleman another question ? Was he away
from Ottawa all the time these delegates
were here ?
 Mr. R. L. BORDEN. No, I was not.
  Mr. PATERSON. Then he saw these
gentlemen, I suppose ?
  Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I certainly saw Mr.
Rogers.
 Mr. PATERSON. Ah ha! Oh yes ! That
is very good.
 We can get something out of this cross-
questioning. Here is a letter posted from
No. 6; we find the leader of the opposition
in conversation with Mr. Rogers; we find
Mr. Rogers' letter, and Mr. Rogers after
a time tells us what is in this letter.
 Mr. BARKER. Oh, no, you don't find
the letter.
 Mr. PATERSON. I am alluding to Mr.
Rogers' manifesto, if you may call it that.
 Mr. HENDERSON. Where did you find
it ?
  Mr. PATTERSON. In the 'Citizen.' An
interview took place, as is alleged, between
the Papal ablegate and the Manitoba delegates, but, it now appears that it was only
with Mr. Campbell. There is great indignation expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite
because some one on this side of the
House, as they suppose, had arranged for
that interview in some way. If there was
something so very wrong in that interview,
as these gentlemen suppose—notwithstanding that any knowledge or any connection
with it by any one on this side of the
House is absolutely denied—what kind of
characters are these gentlemen opposite
who consort with the men who went there,
and held that interview ? Mr. Rogers professes to tell us what transpired, and what
the ablegate said. I submit it would be of
still greater interest to know what these
people said in reply to the ablegate. If
the thing was so very bad and so very
wrong on the part of the ablegate, if it
was such an encroachment of the church
on the state, if it was such an awful thing,
4019
4020
how is it that these Manitoba ministers
listened to it ? Why did he not rise and
say : sir, you insult me ; the idea of trying to propose to this country what you
have proposed ; I will out of your house and
never enter it again. But, Mr. Rogers, or
Mr. Campbell, manifested no indignation,
or at least the indignation was bottled up six
weeks nearly before we heard anythingabout
it. And yet these very gentlemen opposite
are the men who talk about this government having something to do with the
gentleman who occupies a high position
in connection with one of the churches of
the land. My hon. friend from East Grey
does not think that the ablegate drew up
these clauses himself, and the only one
he could think of was the Minister of Justice, and when the Minister of Justice did
not rise at once to contradict him—the Minister of Justice would be on his feet all
the
time if he tried to keep contradicting all
the suspicions of the member for East
Grey—the hon. gentleman took it for granted that the charge was proven, till the
Minister of Justice thought it worth while
to tell him that he was altogether mistaken.
The member for East Grey wants to know
who drew the clauses. I cannot tell. I
believe the Colin Campbell he was interviewing is the Attorney General of Manitoba,
and it seems to me that it would be
a more natural conclusion to arrive at that
Mr. Campbell wrote the clauses than that
they were written by the Minister of Justice, who knew nothing about it at all.
But talking about interviewing people and
talking about rumours, with which the
leader of the opposition and his friends
deal so largely. When the leader of
the opposition got the emphatic denial
of the Prime Minister yesterday, the best
thing left for him to say, as he thought,
was : well, this thing has been rumoured
and why didn't the Prime Minister deny it
sooner ? That was a mighty poor refuge
for the leader of the opposition to seek.
But, I think there were some rumours a
couple of years ago when the leader of the
opposition and his band of trained followers
made an excursion out west to try and
capture the votes of the people. The member for East Grey was with the party, and
rumour had it that when they got to Winnipeg the member for East Grey left the
party. Might I ask if that is true ?
  Mr. SPROULE. What has that to do
with the question before the House ?
  Mr. PATERSON. May I ask the member
for East Grey if that is true ?
 Mr. SPROULE. If the question did not
come from a minister of the Crown I
might deign to answer it, but it seems to
me that the question is very far from the
discussion.
 Mr. PATERSON. Well, then, I shall
have to fall back on the rumour, and the
4021 APRIL 6, 1905
rumour is that the member for East Grey
left the party and got home before them.
Will the leader of the opposition say why
the member for East Grey left the party ?
Was it because there was a rumour that
the leader of the opposition and some of
his party went to wait on Archbishop Langevin ?
Mr. PATERSON. Do you know it to
be a fact ? What has the member for East
Grey to say ?
Mr. SPROULE. I say there is not a
word of truth in it ; that is what I say.
Mr. PATERSON. We have a denial now
from the member for East Grey, but not
from the leader of the opposition.
Mr. PATERSON. If there is not a word
of truth in it, then the member for East
Grey did not come home before the rest
of the party.
Mr. SPROULE. Three or four members
of the party came home before the others.
Mr. PATERSON. If there is no truth
at all in it, the member for East Grey did
not arrive home earlier than the others.
Mr. SPROULE. If it is a matter of any
importance for the hon. gentleman to know,
I can tell him that business at home compelled me to come away before the others.
Mr. PATERSON. There is no necessity
for the member for East Grey explaining
something that never happened.
Mr. SPROULE. The Minister of Customs
put a straight question and I answered it.
His statement was, that owing to the visit
of the leader of the opposition to Archbishop
or Bishop, I forget his name, he said the
member for East Grey left and came home.
I say there is not a single word of truth
in it.
Mr. PATERSON. Do you say it is not
true that the leader of the opposition went
to see the archbishop ?
Mr. SPROULE. The Minister of Customs now says I left for home before the
others, and that because of that there is
some truth in his statement.
4021
4022
Mr. SPROULE. That was not your statement at all; it was that I had left the party
on account of the visit.
Mr. PATERSON. Â A little further explanation will be interesting. Did the
Leader of the opposition and some of his
party wait on Archbishop Langevin on
that occasion ?
Mr. SPROULE. It reminds me of the
story of two sharp 'Alicks' putting questions to each other, and one said: Why is
it you never see any dirt around the mouth
of a chipmunk's hole; the answer was:
Because it commences to dig at the bottom; and the other asked: How did it get
there ?
Mr. PATERSON. I have no doubt the
hon. gentleman thought he was a 'smart
Alick' until the Minister of Justice gave
him his answer. But the point remains:
has the member for East Grey good reason
to suspect that such a horrid thing happened as that the leader of the opposition
when he was in the west on a political
tour, visited Archbishop Langevin?
Mr. SPROULE. If he did visit the archbishop, I would not regard it as horrid.
Mr. PATERSON. Church and state!
What an exhibition hon. gentlemen opposite
are making of themselves in order to try to
light the fires of sectarian bigotry and
race and ill-feeling in this country. Here
you get behind the scenes, and see the
bosom companions of these men meeting in
room No. 6 and posting their letters from
there.
Mr. STAPLES. Mr. Speaker, I do not
know what the hon. minister has said
during my absence. I was out for a
moment or two, but I have been told
since I came into the chamber that he
spoke of me being implicated in some
way in the construction of a letter. All
I can say to the hon. gentleman and
this House is that, so far as my having
anything to do with the construction of a
letter in room No. 6 is concerned, it is absolutely untrue, and I know nothing of
it.
What I stated yesterday in reference to the
letter were the simple facts. I was asked
by the Hon. Mr. Rogers to see that that
letter was immediately transmitted to the
First Minister of this Dominion, and the
messenger was particularly told that Mr.
Rogers wanted that letter delivered to the
First Minister immediately. because he
was leaving that evening for Toronto.
4023
COMMONS
Mr. PATERSON. I do not charge the
hon. gentleman with constructing the letter.
I make no statement of that kind.
Mr. PATERSON. If the hon. gentleman
is ashamed of having anything to do with
the letter, I have nothing to say. All I did
was to quote what he said yesterday :
On the 23rd of February, the Hon. Mr.
Rogers, after writing this letter, asked me to
see that it got over to the Hon. the First
Minister. I rang the bell from room no. 6,
and there came a messenger named Julius
Beaulieu, I gave the letter to him, and he said
he would deliver it.
Mr. BARKER. There is more than that.
You have not read it all.
Mr. PATERSON. I am referring to what
took place in room No. 6. If the hon. gentleman wants to hear the rest, I will read
it :
He says now there is no doubt but that he
did deliver the letter. Surely we are living
in a mysterious age, mysterious things are
taking place every day, and this is one of them.
I wish to call the right hon. gentleman's attention to another statement he made.
He
told us to-day that his memory is as fresh
new as it was in his younger days.
Mr. PATERSON. I would if a member
less important than the hon. member for
Hamilton had not asked me to read it.
He stated that the Hon. Colin Campbell was
on the floor of the House on the 22nd day of
February when these Bills were introduced,
which is not the case. I may add regarding
that letter that I have been down and consulted the records in the messengers department
in this building, which show that this
wonderful letter went from room No. 6, and
that it was delivered to the messenger at about
the time that the messenger states it was carried to the right hon. gentleman's residence on
that particular day, and they show that it went
from that particular room.
Now, why did the hon. member for Hamilton desire to have the whole letter read ?
Mr. BARKER. Because, according to the
statement made by the hon. gentleman as
quoted in 'Hansard,' the messenger said
that the letter was actually delivered on
that day.
Mr. PATERSON. What is the object of
the hon. gentleman, unless it be to insinuate
that the word of the Prime Minister may
not be taken ? Surely the hon. member for
Hamilton ought not to take that position.
The statement of the Prime Minister is
before the House and the country.
Mr. BARKER. May I ask the hon. gentleman to let me explain why I asked him
to read further ? I did so simply because
he omitted to read the most material part
of the statement.
4023
4024
Mr. PATERSON. The material part of
the statement in my argument was that this
gentleman was in No. 6. Whether the letter
was delivered or not might, I think. be safely left between the Prime Minister, the
member who is interrupting me and the
messenger.
Mr. STAPLES. I ask the permission of
the hon. gentleman to put a question to
him.
Mr. STAPLES. Have you made the statement to this House that that particular
letter was written in room 6 ? Have you
or have you not ?
Mr. PATERSON. What I did was to
read what the hon. gentleman said. I was
not there.
Mr. R L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman
did state over and over again, as he knows,
that that letter was written in No. 6.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Why did the hon.
gentleman not state that when the question
was put to him ?
Mr. PATERSON. I read what the hon.
gentleman stated. If there is any doubt
about it, where was the letter written ?
Who wrote it ? The hon. gentleman said :
On the 23rd of February the Hon. Mr. Rogers
after writing this letter, asked me to see that
it got over to the hon. the First Minister. I
rang the bell.
'After writing it '—as if the letter had
been written right there ; and the hon. gentleman immediately rang the bell. If the
hon. gentleman says the letter was not
written there, I will, of course, accept his
statement.
Mr. PATERSON. Might I ask the hon.
gentleman then to inform the country where
it was written ?
Mr. STAPLES. All I know about it is
what I stated, that Mr. Rogers came in with
the letter and asked me to see that it was
delivered to the right hon. the premier.
Mr. PATERSON. I will not ask the hon.
gentleman if he knows what was in the
letter.
Mr. STAPLES. I certainly know what
was in the letter. It was read in the House
yesterday. The only thing I do not know
is where it went to.
Mr. PATERSON. The main point I made,
by reading from the hon. gentleman's remarks in 'Hansard,' was that Mr. Rogers
was in room 6. I suppose he will not deny
that.
4025 APRIL 6, 1905
Mr PATERSON. Yes, I think the inference is that way. The member for East
Grey says that circumstantial evidence is
very strong.
Mr. PATERSON. Oh, yes, he says he
rang the bell. Well, now, there has been a
complete denial given by the First Minister
as to his having any connection whatever
with the interview that took place between
these gentlemen. They should be more concerned to know what took place at that interview,
what led up to it. Is there any
truth in the rumours that were alluded to
by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr Macdonald) that negotiations have been going
on between the members of the Tory government of Manitoba and the clerical dignitaries
of the church in that country. Is that
true or is it not? Are we to take their test
again and say that because these gentlemen don't deny it, therefore it is true? Are
we to deal with them as they attempted to
deal with the First Minister and the Minister
of Justice with regard to any rumours they
hear?—and dear knows there are enough of
them going about through the Tory papers
nowadays—that because they don't deny
the rumours therefore they are true. Where
is the denial that the Manitoba government
have been negotiating with the dignitaries
of the church? Is it true or is it not? Sir,
I judge from what we see in the newspapers that they will come out and tell us
what has taken place in these negotiations
with regard to the improvement of the condition of the children of the minority in
the
province of Manitoba, or at least what the
minority consider would be an improvement. I cannot say more than what I see
in the papers. Perhaps these hon. gentlemen may be able to get an answer from
Mr. Rogers, or from Mr. Roblin, or from
Mr. Campbell to know what has been done
in that direction. But I want to say emphatically that if it is the object of the
hon.
gentlemen opposite—and I do not see what
other object they could have—to fan the
flame of religious antagonism in this country, they are engaged in a work that is
not
creditable to any man who engages in it.
I think the people will ask them whether
the parliament of Canada is the proper
place for members elected to represent all
portions of this community to endeavour to
excite one portion against another on matters that come very close to their hearts.
Great love is professed by some of them for
the Papal ablegate. Oh, how they admire
him, how they respect him, and so on; then
in another breath they call him a man who
is conspiring against the liberties of the
people. Take the 'World' of yesterday, the
organ of my hon. friend opposite. Here I
may say that if the leader of the opposition
holds the Prime Minister responsible for
4025
4026
what appears in 'Le Soliel' and other papers
all right, if that is to be the line, we will
hold him responsible for what appears in
the organs of his party.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The journal in question had declared itself to be under his particular charge and
direction and to be the
organ of the Liberal party, and it was admitted.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am speaking of
the ' Soleil.' I read an extract from the editorial utterance of the ' Soleil ' of
the 11th of
February, and I also pointed out that, as
we understood, the control of that paper
was vested in a very important member of
the present administration, the Minister of
Justice.
Mr. PATERSON. Yes, I heard what the
hon. gentleman said; and I leave it to your
judgment, Mr. Speaker, and to the members
of the House, whether that connects the
Prime Minister with the 'Soleil' as closely
as the Toronto 'World' is connected with
the hon gentleman who leads the opposition. The editor of the 'World' is his supporter,
to judge by his utterance, he is his
right-hand man—if you leave the member
for North Toronto out—in this House, and
he will not deny it. He is not the one who
was anxious to have the hon. gentleman to
come to Carleton with the hope of getting a
seat in the House, when unfortunately he
was defeated in his own province ; he is the
man who rises and speaks for the party, the
bosom friend of the leader of the opposition. Surely, surely, the paper of that hon.
gentleman may be taken as indicating the
views of the leader of the opposition, according to the reasoning of the leader of
the opposition with regard to the 'Soleil.'
What is one of the leading editorials in that
paper to-day? Speaking of Monseigneur
Sabatti—
Mr. PATERSON. I am glad to be corrected, because it would be too bad to make
a mistake with reference to his name, lest
the wrong person should be summoned. But
the organ of my hon. friend, known to be
his organ because it is edited by one of his
chief lieutenants, wants this reverend gentleman to be brought to the bar of the
House. That is what they want to do with
him. Now, then, I want to ask the leader
of the opposition, does he propose—if we
are to hold him responsible, according to
his own reasoning, for what appears in the
Toronto 'World'—does he propose to bring
—I had better say the Papal ablegate—before the bar of the House? Is that the
policy of the leader of the opposition and
his party with reference to this matter ?
4027
COMMONS
Mr. PATERSON. The hon. gentleman
does not deny it. Are we then bound to
assume, by his silence in answering my
question, that they propose to bring that
gentleman to the bar of the House? If
that is a part of their policy, they had better
bring Mr. Rogers too, because he has said
a great many things in his manifesto which
are very difficult to reconcile or to understand ; and if there is to be any examination
at the bar of the House as to what
has transpired, it would be very nice to put
some questions to Mr. Rogers. It would be
very nice to ask him, in the first place, how
he came to write that manifesto which anybody reading it would suppose to mean that
he himself was the one who had the interview with the Papal ablegate. He speaks
in the plural, the hon. gentleman says, and
he was one of the deputation. And in the
document also he speaks in the singular—he
says 'I ' rather a mixed document. Like to
know where the singular ceases and the
plural commences. Like to know why he
thought it necessary to write such a document. His indignation, it would seem, was
aroused against this Papal delegate for
daring to suggest such a thing to him, but
he had no opportunity, apparently, to express his indignation for six long weeks.
And at last, when he had time to express
his indignation, he carefully dug out from
' Hansard,' or somewhere else, correspondence that had taken place between certain
parties years ago, when some members of
this House professing the Roman Catholic
faith had communication with the head of
their church in reference to matters in
which there was feeling in the province of
Quebec in which these gentlemen resided.
And these things are dragged in here. What
for ? Why to work upon the feelings and
passions of those whom hon. gentlemen
opposite hope to influence. But let me tell
these hon. gentlemen one thing which, if
they go on, I am sure they will find out for
themselves. My province, which is also the
province of the hon. member for East Grey
(Mr. Sproule), the province that I am proud
to call my own, will not be led away by such
unworthy cries as these.
Mr. SPROULE. I would like to read the
hon. gentleman a letter from a respectable
constituent.
Mr. PATERSON. Yes, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) might read me letters.
And am I uncharitable in saying that the
object of the hon. gentleman in bringing up
subjects like these, taking up the time of
the House and delaying the business of the
country, is to keep alive the feeling that has
been created ? But that is the very reason
why these hon. gentlemen must have their
answer every time they bring these matters
up. We must know whether their object
is to uphold the grand principles of provincial rights and separation of church and
state, or whether it is that the Tory party
4027
4028
may be restored to power by creating
dissension among the people.
Mr. INGRAM. I would like to ask the
hon. gentleman Mr. Paterson) whether,
when he occupied hours of the time of this
House in denouncing the Manitoba school
law he was raising a race and religious cry?
Mr. PATERSON. Certainly not. The
Liberal party does not do that. Certainly
not. And we are challenged and told that
if we go to the country we shall be defeated. Does the hon. gentleman know
that all these events the correspondence concerning which has been dug up by Mr.
Rogers occurred before the election of 1900,
when the country sent the leader of the
government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) back to
carry on public affairs? Is he aware that
this matter was before the country, and
all the documents in ' Hansard,' before 1904
when an appeal was made to the country,
and when the Liberal party was again
returned to power by a sweeping majority ?
There is only one object in this that I can
see, and that is the vain hope that, now that
there is some feeling—and I am bound to
confess a good deal of feeling—in the country owing to the press. not alone the '
Toronto World,' but papers from whom better
might have been expected—
Mr PATERSON. If the 'Globe' differs
with the government in reference to the
Autonomy Bill as they understand it, hon.
gentlemen opposite can get an idea of the
'Globe's ' opinion of. Mr. Rogers if they read
the editorial of to-day's issue. I have not
the paper with me, but I think the Tories
will find that the portrait of the man they
have tried to magnify is not a flattering one
as presented by the 'Globe.' I must not
detain the House longer, having spoken at
greater length than I had intended. But I
make no apology. I have no desire to prolong the debate, and I want the business of
the House to go on. For that reason, I have
remained silent sometimes when I would
have liked to speak. And so have other
members on this side. But, if this is to be
made the arena in which the battle of political parties are to be fought out on the
basis of attempts on the part of Liberal-
Conservatives, to arouse the passions and
feelings of the country, I am prepared to
take my part by speaking here when it
becomes necessary. And the same is true
of other hon. gentlemen on this side. Hon.
gentlemen opposite will not deny the ' Hamilton Spectator ' as one of their organs.
The
hon member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker)
dare not deny it. And what does the
'Hamilton Spectator' say. Here it is—
black line at the top, and the heading 'Never
again.' The article says :—
The attempt made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to
force separate schools on the new provinces
4029 APRIL 6, 1905
of the west will settle one thing. Never again
will a French Canadian be entrusted with the
premiership of Canada ; never again will a
French Canadian have the opportunity to betray the people of this country. Canada
cannot
afford to take chances again.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have had read
'Le Soleil' and other Liberal papers, and
sought to hold the government responsible
for their utterances. The Prime Minister
has given his answer. But here is the organ
of the Tory party in the city of Hamilton,
where dwells the chief organizer, as I understand it—Mr. Barker—and I ask the leader
of the opposition : Is that the policy of the
Liberal-Conservative party under him ?
Well, Sir, if it be, all I can say is that it
is unworthy of any party or any paper to
take such a position as that which he has
taken. Sir, what is implied in it, and what
is in it ? That two-fifths of the people of
this country can never expect to have one
of their number, no matter how gifted, no
matter how pro-eminent his abilities may
be, to fill the first position in this land ;
he cannot have that position because he is
a French Canadian. That is something
which I think the people of my province
will not endorse. That is something which
the people of this country will not endorse,
and I hope to hear a repudiation of that
from hon. gentlemen opposite, for it will be
better for them to denounce such sentiments
as that. Sir, all I want to say in conclusion is this : The attempt is made by the
party opposite, in order to secure power,
and it is made through their press, to attack the leader of this government, knowing
the strong man that he is, and believing
that if they can strike him down, they
might then hope to attain office, and to this
end you will find such articles as I have
read to you and such expressions in this
House. These attacks are made in order
that he may be struck and that, by striking
him and by possibly weakening his power,
they will weaken the party which he leads.
They tell us they have succeeded to such an
extent that, as one hon. gentleman told us,
only two counties in Ontario would return
Liberal supporters of the Liberal government the county of Prescott and the county
of Russell. They ask us : Why don't
you open London ? Why don't you open
other constituencies ?
Mr. PATERSON. London is not vacant.
They say we dare not open a county. I
would ask them : Do they suppose that if
Centre Toronto, or London, or any other
single constituency in this country, was
opened and was carried by them that that
would mean the inevitable return of the Conservative party to power ? Sir, if it was
to
be decided by the verdict of a single constituency and on one question, I would say
that the better place to open a consistuency
would he in the Northwest Territories,
4029
4030
where they say these people are going to be
bound and shackled.
Mr. PATERSON. I am glad to hear that
they approve of that ; I thought they could
not do otherwise. If there happened to be
an election there that would be a better test
in reference to this question than any constituency you might open in another province.
They tell us there is a departure
from principle in this Bill. They say that
the relations of church and state are embodied in this Bill. I would like to know
how ? Are these separate schools, as they
are termed in the Bill, in the Northwest
separate schools for Catholics alone ? No ;
hon. gentlemen know that they are minority
schools for Protestants as well as Catholics. Do you say the provinces do not want
them ? Then why have they kept them, as
I am told they have ? As was pointed out
by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr.
Scott), while there may be a minority of the
Catholic faith in the Territories, taking
them as a whole, there are several localities
where the Protestants are in the minority,
and if in some of these they desire to have
their minority schools, they are, under the
law which it is proposed to continue, the
law of the Territories, enacted by the legislature representing these people, enabled
to
have their schools and to have their religious instruction of a Protestant character
and
according to the Protestant faith. Where
is the connection between church and state?
Provincial rights ! Members talk about provincial rights who have not been noted for
standing up for them in the past. The hon.
member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster),
who made that inflammatory speech this afternoon—and he has admitted by the reference
which he made at the close that it was
an inflammatory speech—gives us to understand that he is on that platform, admits
that he hopes he may be able to climb into
power, not, as he professed some years ago,
by being in favour of securing liberty and
rights to the minorities, but by being in
favour of taking them away from whom ?
As far as he is concerned, by taking out the
clauses in the Bill that now gives liberty to
the minority. He told us on a previous occasion that for three successive elections
this question had been fought and the
Liberal party sustained, and, therefore, as
long as grass grew and waters ran, he did
not feel disposed to go against that will as
thus three times expressed upon that question. Sir, a principle, if it is right, is
right
all the time. If minority rights were sacred
in his eyes, as he said they were in 1896,
minority rights ought to be sacred to him
now, no matter how the election went. Sir,
I am not going into the question ; I have
spoken once, and I do not want to again
take the opportunity of doing so. I am replying to what hon. gentlemen opposite
have said in their speeches. All I have to
4031
COMMONS
say is that they may strike at the Prime
Minister, their papers may endeavour to
inflame the people, as in that article which
I have just read—and they confess that it
is having its effect on the country, and that
some friends of the Liberal party are not in
accord with their friends on this Bill, and
that may be true, and I shall regret if it
continues so—but I want to say that, so
far as I know, the Liberal parliamentary
party, which ought to know as much about
the nature of this Bill as any one, a party
who, I believe, are as honest and conscientious as their fellow—men, are not divided,
are not disunited on this Bill. And, Sir,
when the time comes that this question has
to be discussed before the people, as it will
come, then it will be discussed in all its
bearings, and Whatever the verdict may be,
the government, and the members who have
confidence in the government, will accept
the verdict that may be rendered by the
people. Prophesies as to what will occur
are of no value. We had prophesies before
the last election, great prophesies which utterly failed. All I have to say is
that I believe the Liberal party stand
to-day where they have ever stood. They
stood on the principle of ruling this country
in such a way as to give equal rights,
liberties and privileges to all classes and
creeds, and we are here to—day. There has
been no departure. There was an attempt
made by the Conservative party in 1896 to
have this parliament enact a law which
would override a law passed by a province
which had the power to pass that law.
They say that the right hon. gentleman
who leads the government threw himself
across the path and prevented it. Yes,
because he said that the only way to accomplish that was to accomplish it through
the
action of the local government which had
the power under the constitution, as had
been declared by the highest court in the
empire. But, Sir, is that the case of the
Territories ? Is that the case of this Bill?
Are we seeking to override the law of the
Territories, making them take something
they do not want? We are simply continuing what the government and the legislature
of the Territories enacted as their school
law, and which their premier says, if he
were a dictator to-morrow, he would not
rescind or abrogate. Sir, where is the principle of provincial rights in this? Yes,
the
attempt was made to have the country
believe that the right hon. Prime Minister
has gone back on the principles he professed
and that he is no longer worthy of the confidence of the people. Well, I say we have
confidence in him. They speak about what
he did in; 1896. They unearthed the documents and read them to-day. What has been
the condition of this country since 1896 under,
as their papers will say, a French Canadian Prime Minister, or as they put it sometimes,
a French Prime Minister? What
has been the condition of this country?
4031
4032
What was it before 1896?—stagnation, no
increase of population, an empty Northwest,
as Mr. Blake said at one time, trade almost
paralyzed, hope in many breasts gone, divisions among the people like what I am
afraid their efforts tending in that direction
may produce again. And yes, there were
divisions in the government as well and
this was the result of it. Yet we find a
member of that government standing up today and making the speech that the hon.
member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster)
made, speaking in reference to this matter,
belittling this government, or the members
of this government, although he was a
member of that government during the years
of this stagnation and decay. What is the
condition of the country to-day under Sir
Wilfrid Laurier, French Canadian Premier
though he is? We do not put it in that
way; French by extraction, French in his
ancestry. His ancestors were French and
he is proud of it, yours may have been
English and you are proud of it, yours may
have been Irish and you are proud of it,
mine were Scotch and I am proud of it.
Still we are Canadians one and all, and Sir
Wilfrid Laurier is Canada's Prime Minister.
I say to the hon. gentleman opposite and
to those whom my words may reach outside
of this House who have given us their confidence in the times past that there is no
one
who will say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier by
any unworthy motive can be swerved from
what he believes to be the line of duty.
Not only do I want to tell these people
but I want to tell you younger members
of the House who have come in here that
I was here when the Liberal party lost the
services of Edward Blake. It became a
question who was to lead us. We were
in opposition and a small minority too.
There was one man amongst us who stood
preeminent above all others, known and
admitted, and of course the choice fell on
him. He was asked to accept. He hesitated; no, he refused at first. Pressure was
brought to bear upon him. I remember his
reply: No, I am one of the minority in race
and one of the minority in faith; I think
that the party would do better to elect one
of the majority. The reply of the Liberal
parliamentary party was this: The Liberal
parliamentary party do not ask a man what
his race or ancestry have been. They do
not ask at what altar he kneels. If they
know him to have the qualities and the
character that mark him out above all
others for the position that is the man they
want. Reluctantly he accepted it. For
years he led us in opposition. Eight
years in power under his leadership, eight
years of unexanipled prosperity under his
reign; eight years of national peace.
Mr. PATERSON. I do not wonder that
some hon. gentlemen opposite laugh. These
4033 APRIL 6, 1905
are laughing times, peaceful times, times of
plenty and prosperity and due largely to
the right hon. gentleman who leads the
government to—day. We do not object to
our Conservative friends rejoicing with us
in the prosperity of the country. We wish
to do them well, and, Sir, we believe that
by keeping the Prime Minister in power
under his happy influences, supported by
the men who are around him, who have full
confidence in him, there are in store years
of progress and prosperity greater even than
we have attained in the past, and, Sir, in
this young country we must above all things
be a united people, be Canadians one and all
with equal rights and privileges.
Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto). Mr.
Speaker, I thought that this House had for
the last two or three weeks and especially
for the last two or three days been discussing a most serious question, a question
that is recognized in this country, that is
recognized by every hon. gentleman who has'
spoken on the other side of the House,
except the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier), as the most serious question we have had before this House in
many and many a session of parliament.
I suppose the strain of it has been too
great, and therefore is has been arranged
that we should have, for our relief, an
exhibition of nigger minstrelsy and that a
member of the government should be set up
to do the Bardell and Pickwick sergeant
Buzfuz act. He has done it admirably. He
has done it to the entertainment of the hon.
gentlemen who sit in front of him and be.hind him, but he has not done it to the
edificntion of the country, nor has he ans
weer the charges that are made against
the government.
The question before the House to-day is
not the prosperity of the country; the question before the House to-day is not concerning
old matters and old controversies
between old members on this side and old
members on that side of the House. The
question before the country to-day is: shall
we be governed by our own people or shall
we be governed by a delegate representing
a foreign authority ?
Mr. OSLER. Now, let us look at it
squarely and fairly in the face—
Mr. OSLER. Let us look at it fairly and
let us face it.
Mr. OSLER. Yes, honestly. When this
Bill was first brought into this House, it
was admitted that the man who ought to
have been consulted, the Premier of the
4033
4034
Northwest Territories, had not been consulted—
Mr. OSLER. It has been admitted that
the other member of the Northwest Territories cabinet of the same faith as the
Prime Minister—
Mr. OSLER. I do not make that charge
against any one at all—
Mr. OSLER. I am only showing the
unfortunate position that the Prime Minister has put himself and the country in—
Mr. SCOTT. May I ask my hon. friend
to whom he refers—
Mr. OSLER. It has been charged here
to-day—
Mr. SCOTT. May I put a question to
my hon. friend ? To whom in the Haultain
cabinet does he refer, as being of the same
faith as the Prime Minister ?
Mr. OSLER. It has been charged here
to-day—
Mr. OSLER. It has been charged here
to-day, and it has not been denied, that
the Prime Minister, although he did not consult the premier of the Territories, was
in
constant consultation withthe Papal ablegate in the framing of these educational
clauses. I will give the Prime Minister an
opportunity to deny that now, and if he denies it I shall withdraw all I am going
to
say ; I will not proceed farther.
Mr. OSLER. That is the charge that is
made. When the storm arose after this Bill
was brought in, the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Justice, the next time they spoke,
both said that the intention of that clause
was simply to let things in the Northwest
remain as they are to-day. Is that true?
If that be true, it took a whole month after
the first Bill was introduced to get somebody to agree to the modification as we
have it now. If the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Justice, and all the other
members of the cabinet understood, or
rather meant, that one thing should be embodied in that clause but found that another
thing quite different was really in the clause
4035
COMMONS
as drawn—and that has been admitted by
the Prime Minister and the members of his
government—if that had been so, why
should not that connection have been made
within twenty—four hours ? Why did it take
a whole month of bickerings, of wranglings,
of strife, which necessitated the resignation
of one minister ; the most important minister in connection with this Bill. It took
a
whole month of tribulation in the ranks of
the government before any change was
made. The Prime Minister said that he did
not understand that clause to mean what it
did mean, the Minister of Justice said that
he did not understand that clause to mean
what it did mean.
Mr. OSLER. Did not the Minister of Justice say that ?
Mr. OSLER. I beg the minister's pardon ; he said he did not understand it to
mean what it did—what it was supposed to
mean.
Mr. OSLER. It took a month to have
that clause changed. It was not in the
Prime Minister's power, apparently, to
change it to suit his own views within that
time. There was a power outside the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Justice who
had to be consulted before the concession
was made that that clause should be
changed.
Mr. OSLER. It is the view the country
takes of it.
Mr. OSLER. It is the only view sensible
men can take of it.
Mr. OSLER. The colleague of the Postmaster General took the view I take, namely, that the
meaning of the clause at first
introduced, was so radically different from
the clause now before us, that he resigned
rather than accept it as first introduced,
while he accepted it as now changed.
The Prime Minister says that originally
he intended the clause as it in the Bill
to-day. Was it not easy then, if he had the
power to alter that clause to its present
state, to do so without requiring the resignation of the Minister of the Interior
?
4035
4036
Sir WILLIAM MULOGK. That hon. gentleman said a moment ago that the government were
not allowed to make this change
without the consent of some outside power.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Then the hon.
gentleman says what is absolutely without
foundation. He has no authority for such
a statement, and it is a malicious fabrication.
Mr. OSLER. Oh, no ; let the Postmaster
General's statement go on ' Hansard '; I
know him.
Mr. OSLER. I know the Postmaster
General, I know him. Then, if I am to
accept the Postmaster General's statement,
I say that the First Minister and the other
ministers in needlessly delaying a month to
make that change, committed a crime
against this country that it will take generations to wipe out, for they have during
that month aroused such a passion in this
country—
Mr. OSLER. I say that all that has
tended to arouse passion in this country has
come from that side of the House.
Mr. BUREAU. What about the Hamilton 'Spectator' article.
Mr. OSLER. Like the other article read
to-day from a French paper, there are injudicious articles on both sides, and no one
appreciates that more than I do. There is
no one more sorry than I am that this condition of affairs has arisen—
Mr. OSLER. I say that the country
will hold the Prime Minister and the
ministers responsible until they deny,
and they have not denied it yet, that they
are under the inflence and have been influenced by outside parties in the framing
of this Act. Canada can stand bad government, she can stand bad laws—
4037 APRIL 6, 1905
Mr. OSLER. The Canadian Pacific Railway and anything that is bad about it. The
people of Canada can stand anything, but
they cannot stand—
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Having the
Tories in opposition; that is the worst crime
Canada has committed yet.
Mr. OSLER. If the Postmaster General
will cast his mind and his eye back to that
pathetic appeal which the Minister of Finance made to persuade himself that he was
in favour of this Bill, he will find that the
Minister of Finance looked down at his
venerable chief, and he pictured the disaster
that would overtake the country if Sir Wilfrid Laurier were to resign. Great Heavens;
there would not be another immigrant come
to this country, we would be bankrupt, we
would be a laughing stock. Well, if the
Prime Minister resigned I think the country
would be fairly resigned also. The Minister
of Finance pictured what would happen if
the Prime Minister would resign and the
woeful disaster that would follow. I venture
to say that consols would not fall one-eighth
of a cent if the Prime Minister resigned. I
venture to say that not one immigrant less
would come into this country this year, and
that the business of the country would go
on and continue to be quite as prosperous
as it is. The Prime Minister is being lauded
as the man of conciliation. I say that in
the manner in which he has introduced this
Bill he has done more to cause racial and
religious strife in this country than all his
previous life of conciliation could counteract;
and when his biography is written, instead
of his epitaph being conciliation, as the Minister of Agriculture suggested, it will
be the
reverse. In this one act, be it as honest, as
straight, as simple in intention as it is
claimed to be, yet, from the fact that he
consulted outsiders and ignored the men
who ought to have been consulted, he has
brought about a state of things in Canada
the effects of which not one man in this
House will live to see wiped out.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Mr. Speaker, I wish
to say one or two words with regard to the
remarks made by the hon. Minister of Customs with reference to myself. In the first
place. it does seem to be a very considerable
lowering of the dignity of parliament for a
minister of the Crown to stand up in this
House and make such an extraordinary exhibition of himself as the Minister of Customs
has made this evening. I hesitate to
apply words to the conduct or the hon. gentleman, because I am afraid that I might
transgress the rules of the parliamentary
decorum.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Oh, I am not afraid
of the hon. gentleman. I have never ob
4037
4038
served anything very alarming about him,
although he has a very loud voice. He is
comparatively harmless. He is perhaps not
as wise as the serpent, but after all he is
as harmless as the dove. He has suggested
as plainly as he could that I am in some
way endeavouring to foment religious strife
in this country—
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentlemen
on the other side say hear, hear. I want
any one of those hon. gentlemen, when he
comes to address this House to-night or on
any future occasion, to point to one single
word of mine during the progress of this
debate which he can call in question in that
regard. I am perfectly ready to be judged
by my utterances ; but I do not want
general statements of that kind applauded
by men who apparently do not know that
of which they speak. I have never said
any word in this House or in this country
which would suggest that any man, on account of his race or religion, should not
have the right to be Prime Minister of Canada. On the contrary, many times, in portions
of this country where there was no
man of the French race or who understood
the French language, I have said, with regard to my right hon. friend who leads this
House, that I saw no good reason why his
fellow citizens of the province of Quebec
should not entertain for him the very highest possible admiration as a distinguished
public man of their own race ; and I challenge the production of any word I ever
uttered such as the hon. Minister of Customs has endeavoured to-night to fasten
upon me. Fomenting discord :—why, there
was more in the speech of the hon. Minister
of Customs to-night to foment race cries
and religious discord than anything I have
heard in this House since this debate began,
and in his heart he knows it. And he knows
the intent with which he quoted from the
Hamilton ' Spectator ' ; no one knows it
better than himself. He did it with a
motive, and that motive is unworthy of any
member of this House, and especially unworthy of any man who strives to pose as
the hon. Minister of Customs has done in
this House ever since I have been a member
of it.
Mr. PATERSON. Did not the hon. gentleman quote ' Le Soleil ' ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I did quote ' Le
Soleil,' and I attached the responsibility of
its utterances to the Prime Minister, because I knew that that paper was published
by responsible men, and that those responsible men had said that it was under the
control and direction of the Prime Minister.
Mr. PATERSON. Is the Hamilton ' Spectator ' not controlled by responsible men ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will come to the
Hamilton ' Spectator ' in a moment. Further
4039
COMMONS
than that, when the control of 'Le Soleil'
passed from the hon. Minister of Justice, it
passed to the very gentleman who descended
from the bench of the province of Quebec
in order that he might become the organizer
of the Liberal party in that province in the
last election. That is why I attached some
responsibility to the right hon. gentleman in
connection with its utterances ; and I would
like to know whether or not the Minister of
Customs thinks that in so doing under these
circumstances I took anything like the
position which he did with regard to myself
and the Hamilton ' Spectator.' Has the
Hamilton "Spectator" ever pretended to be
my organ? Have I any control over it ?
The hon. gentleman knows, and he knew it
when he made that quotation to-night, but
he suppressed the fact, that the Hamilton
' Spectator' has most severely criticised me
in connection with the very Bill which is
before the House.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, the hon. gentleman ought to have known it before he
spoke.
Mr. PATERSON. Why should I have
known it ? Am I to be expected to read the
Hamilton 'Spectator' every day ? I did
not know that it had criticised the hon. gentleman adversely in connection with this
Bill, as he states.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have not seen it
myself, but I have been informed that such
is the case, and I believe it to be correct.
Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON. Will my hon.
friend permit me to ask him a question?
Will he deny that within a comparatively
recent period the Hamilton 'Spectator' has
declared that it is perfectly satisfied with
the manner in which the hon. member for
Carleton is at present leading the opposition ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not know
whether it has done so or not; but I have
been informed that the Hamilton Spectator' some two or three weeks ago severely
criticised me in connection with this very
Bill; and yet the Minister of Customs seeks
to place upon me the responsibility of utterances of the Hamilton 'Spectator,' and
accuse me of inciting race prejudice and religious discord in this country. That is
what I understood to be the hon. gentleman's charge; am I correct ?
Mr. PATERSON. If the hon. gentleman
assumes that my remarks were all addressed
to him, the remarks that had reference to
many gentlemen on the other side of the
House, he is assuming a good- deal. My
words will show for themselves what I
said.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, the hon. gentleman will not answer a straightforward
4039
4040
question which I put to him. Very good, I
will pass from that. If he has not the
courage to answer yes or no, I will leave
him to the judgment of the House and of the
country. But I want to know this from
him, and from those who have said so much
about exciting race prejudice and religious
discord, whether they make that charge also
against the Laurier Club of Toronto, which
has uttered some protests on this subject.
whether they charge that against the Indian Head Liberal Club in the Northwest
which has addressed a similar protest, and
whether they charge that against the
hundreds of Liberals who attended a
large meeting in the city of Toronto at
which resolutions were passed with regard
to this Bill. My hon. friend the Minister
of Customs is very inquisitive, might I address the question to him and ask whether
he is charging these gentlemen with exciting
religious discord and race prejudice ?
Mr. PATERSON. No, I am not. A great
many of my remarks were intended for men
whom they will fit. I did not allude very
much to the leader of the opposition in the
remarks I made, his remarks in this House
have not been of the inflammatory nature
of some others. But if he wishes to assume
responsibility for all that has been said on
the other side of the House, then of course
I am not to blame. Individually, I did not
attribute it to him. My remarks, if I must
say it here, were based more especially on
what has been said by the member for North
Toronto (Mr. Foster), who is not in the
House.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Then I must say at
once that I very much misunderstood the
hon. gentleman. He was pointing his finger
at me in a somewhat dramatic way, and on
several occasions at least he alluded to me
because he mentioned the leader of the opposition. I do not think that gentlemen
throughout this country, and many of them
Liberals who have protested against certain features of the Bill now under discussion-I
will not discuss it at all, the hon.
gentleman spent about twenty minutes or
half an hour in discussing the Bill, which
he had no right to do—I do not think these
gentlemen can be accused of exciting religious prejudice or race discord. Nor do
I think that they should be characterized,
as the member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt)
has characterized them, as renegade Liberals.
Mr. BELCOURT. Yes, but not in the
connection that the hon. gentleman states
now. Â
4041 APRIL 6, 1905
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, these gentlemen, these Liberals throughout the country
who have some difference with the government with regard to the principle of this
measure, will have to decide for themselves
as to those that term applies to, because
they get no information whatever on the
subject from the hon. member for Ottawa.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It was applied to
them, as I understood, somewhat comprehensively. I did not notice that the hon. gentleman,
in making his remarks, expressed
any reservation, I understood his words had
a general application.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Then whoever differs from the government is a renegade Liberal, according to the
member for Ottawa,
because this cap may fit him. Now
something has been said about the interference of clergymen in the province of Ontario
and elsewhere, and I myself have read
protests passed in different portions of the
maritime provinces by religious bodies and
bodies composed of clergymen, in regard to
this matter. They have been charged, as
I understand also, with exciting religious
prejudice and race discord, so I suppose
the observations of the Minister of Customs
will apply to these gentlemen as well. Does
he charge them with exciting religious prejudice and race discord ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, then, I want
the Minister of Customs to answer me this :
Where has anything been said in this House
in criticism of this measure that goes beyond the protest to which he referred from
his Liberal friends throughout the country,
and from clergymen in the province of Ontario and in the maritime provinces ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, I have not
heard it, my hon. friend has not quoted it.
Now I have here the expression of the hon.
member for Ottawa to which I alluded, it
is this :
Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that this agitation
has been confined almost exclusively to the
Conservative press and to gentlemen who belong to the Conservative party ? With the
exception of a few misguided or misinformed or
renegade Liberals, the agitation has been carried on.
That is the expression.
Mr. BELCOURT. Some hon. gentlemen
on the other side asked me if that was applicable to the ' Globe.' Perhaps the hon.
gentleman will go on and read what I said.
4041
4042
Mr. LENNOX. What about the 'Globe.'
Mr. BELCOURT. I said renegade Liberals.
Anything further ? Well, I will leave it
in that way, Mr. Speaker. Now some criticism has been made by the Minister of
Customs and the Minister of Agriculture
with regard to my having adverted in this
House to a statement made by the Hon.
Robert Rogers. May I be permitted respectfully to observe that I made no reference
to that, except a very brief one yesterday, after it had been introduced into
this House by the right hon. the Prime Minister himself. My observations to-day were
not based upon what Mr. Rogers said in
the interview referred to ; my observations
were confined almost exclusively to the statement which has been given out by His
Excellency, the delegate of the Holy See. I
did not base that article, although the
article has been characterized as a hearsay
article by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr.
Macdonald). He asked whether I did not
know as a lawyer that hearsay evidence
is of no value ? I ask him as a member of
this House who sat here and heard me,
where were his ears ? Does he not know,
or did not he hear at all ? What is the use
of his talking about hearsay evidence ?
Mr. MACDONALD. Does my hon. friend
undertake to say that he does not pay any
attention to this statement of Mr. Rogers,
and does not put it forward as a ground for
this discussion ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The question of my
hon. friend is an impertinent one. That
is all I have to say with regard to it.
Mr. MACDONALD. My learned friend
can characterize it as he pleases.
Mr. FIELDING. The leader of the opposition cannot characterize it as he pleases,
he cannot use the word 'impertinent.'
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Mr. Speaker, you
will be good enough to observe that we have
a new speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is giving us his ruling.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have the floor, and
the Minister of Finance is out of order in
attempting to take it from me.
Mr. FIELDING. I submit that the
leader of the opposition is not at liberty to
say that the speech of the hon. member for
Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was impertinent.
4043
COMMONS
Mr. FIELDING. The hon gentleman's use of the word ' impertinent ' I submit, is out of order, and
he should not persist in it.
Mr. SPEAKER. The word ' impertinent '
is one of those words classed as out of
order in the authorities as I have read
them.
Mr. HENDERSON. I may say, Mr.
Speaker, that a former Speaker of this
House ruled that the word ' impertinent '
is allowed, if used in a proper sense.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will not take
up time with regard to that. I will simply say that the hon. gentleman's question
is not pertinent—which is what I understand the word ' impertinent ' to mean. I
assure my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr.
Macdonald) that I did not use the word in
an offensive way. I thought he was rather
quibbling when he put the question and so
answered in the way I did. His point was
that I had used hearsay evidence ; mine
was that I had used the statement of the
delegate himself. He asked me if I considered the statement of Mr. Rogers of any
value. That was not pertinent to the matter with which I was then dealing. I was
pointing out that he was absolutely mistaken, and could not understand why he
should be mistaken, when he suggested
to me that I was using hearsay evidence
and that as a lawyer I ought to know that
it was of no value.
Mr. MACDONALD. The question is whether he places any value on the hearsay
evidence of Mr. Rogers.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If my hon. friend
will pennit me to say so without offence, I
place more reliance on the statement of Mr.
Rogers than I do on statements of my hon.
friend.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am not saying that
in any offensive sense. It would be natural
as Mr. Rogers has been called a Tory friend
of mine, that I should place more reliance
on statements of that hon. gentleman than
I would on the statements of the hon. member for Pictou. Now, just a word more.
So far as the subject I introduced to the
attention of the House this afternoon is
concerned, I trust my right hon. friend (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) will not think that I was
guilty of any intentional discourtesy in
not sending him word about it. The relations between the right hon. gentleman and
myself in that regard have been very good,
and I think he will do me the justice of
saying that I have taken pains, sometimes
even when I thought they were unnecessary, to give him notice of matters that I intended
to bring up in the House. There was a statement made by the right hon. gentleman
4043
4044
yesterday and he was perfectly in order in
making it without giving me notice, though
I might have supposed that, if he intended to make the extended remarks he
did, it would have been proper that I should
have had a word of intimation. But, as the
subject was taken up and as it was followed
by the statement of His Excellency the
delegate himself, I did not suppose for a
moment that he would expect further notice
from me. And I trust that he will accept
the further assurance that if I had dreamed
that he would expect notice of my bringing
it up to-day, I would have given it and so
fulfilled the courtesy that was due to the
right hon. gentleman, and which has always
been extended from him to myself in all
matters.
So far as the question at issue is concerned, the debate has wandered considerably
from the point at which it started.
I do not know that I could usefully add
anything to what I said this afternoon. I
endeavoured to express the views that I
hold in a temperate and moderate manner ; and, without any idea of fomenting religious
discord or race prejudice, I brought
the subject to the attention of the House and
drew certain inferences which, in my judgment were well founded, but which, are
matters of judgment and opinion. These
were very strongly controverted by my right
hon. friend in the remarks he addressed to
the House. I have no fault to find with the
tone of his remarks or with the challenge
he threw out. It may be that the right
hon. gentleman's prophesy will prove correct : If this question ever does come as
a direct issue before the people, the course
the right hon. gentleman has taken may be
found, in the judgment of the people, to have
been a wise, prudent, and constitutional
course. I greatly doubt it. So far as I am
concerned, if that verdict is given, I shall
be perfectly willing to accept it. For the
present, the only thing that remains for me
to say is that whether the verdict of the
people shall be as the right hon. gentleman
prophesies or not, I shall have no word
to withdraw from those which I have spoken
on this subject to-day.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice). Mr. Speaker, the speech
my hon. friend the leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden) has just made is such
a speech as those of us who have known
him for the last seven or eight years in
this House would expect. He is quite
evidently heartily ashamed of a great deal
that has been said in this House and for
which, perhaps, improperly, he has been
held responsible, and he is even more
ashamed of what has been said outside of this House ; and in as far as it was possible
for him to do it, he
has fully apologized and excused himself for his connection direct or indirect
4045 APRIL 6, 1905
with what has been said. Sir I was somewhat at a loss to apprehend the meaning
of this discussion, somewhat at a loss to
understand the cause of it. I must admit
that, I could scarcely see the reason for
resurrecting a debate that had practically
ended yesterday. But when a distinguished
politician from the province of Quebec, one
who is prominent in the local legislature,
appeared on the floor of this House this
afternoon, and when I witnessed the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Beauharnois
(Mr. Bergeron), when my hon. friend
the leader of the opposition was speaking,
I realized what it all meant. And what
does it all mean ? It means neither more
nor less than an attack upon the Papal delegate, not for anything he has done in connection
with the particular question now in
issue before this House, but because of
the political conditions which have existed
in Quebec since his coming here. Now,
the events of 1896 are fresh in the minds of
all of us. I have no desire to go over the
old story of our troubles and misfortunes
at that time. Every one here knows what
took place in the province of Quebec, and
knows the circumstances under which it
was necessary for a certain number of
Roman Catholic gentlemen in the province
of Quebec to appeal to the Pope; and
every one knows who has followed the current of political events that the result of
that appeal was the coming to this country
of the delegate. And since his coming in
the province of Quebec we have had peace,
and since his coming political liberty has
reigned in the province of Quebec. And
that peace and that political liberty are
what our friends on the other side from the
province of Quebec do not want, and the
hon. gentlemen are now endeavouring to
obtain the recall of this gentleman who has
become a burden to them, because that peace
of which I have spoken a moment ago has
become irksome to these gentlemen who
have fed and thrived on discord during their
years of power. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has in the performance
of what he believed to be his duty
to his party brought this matter up in a
half-hearted way. He has brought it up because he has thought it necesary to do it
and I cannot say that with any word he
littered I can find fault. I do not find fault
with the leader of the opposition ; those
with whom I find fault are the gentlemen
who are hiding behind all this agitation and
who are not courageous enough to come
out and say : We want to take up this
fight with the delegate and to get rid of
him. It has been made a matter of reproach
to us that the delegate was brought to this
country and it is now said that he has
been interfering with this political question
in the Northwest Territories. Why, is the
memory of our friends so short that they
cannot go back to 1870 when the leader of
4045
4046
the Conservative party of that day dispatched a message to Rome for the purpose
of calling to his aid Archbishop Taché, and
sent him up to settle a difficulty in Manitoba? Were they so indifferent then to
the influence of the hierarchy ? Were they
then such superior persons as they profess
to be now and so anxious to separate church
and state, so desirous of having nothing
whatever to do with the Catholic clergy ?
Why did they send at that time for Archbishop Taché ? Why did they bring him'
out and utilize his services at that time ?
Where is the difference ? The hon. member
for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) is pleased
to laugh. Perhaps instead of laughing he
will explain ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. And tell us whether down in his heart of hearts he is not
seeking revenge for 1896 ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Reference has been
made to the fact that the delegate in some
way or other is supposed to be connected
with this Bill, that he has been consulted
in connection with it and that he represented the minority in the negotiations for
a settlement of this difficult question. Am
I rightly informed that in 1896 a Remedial Bill was introduced into this House ?
Mr. Speaker, who is there here who will
tell me who drafted the Remedial
introduced in 1896? Who will tell me
What connection Mr. Ewart, of Winnipeg, had with that Bill and whether Mr.
Ewart was the intermediary between the
government of that day and the representatives of the Roman Catholic minority ? Who
will deny it? Where is the difference?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Assuming it to be
true that the delegate was consulted, where
is the difference in principle between the
case of our friends in 1896 and the present
occasion. I do not think it is necessary to
take up the time of the House very long
with these quotations from newspapers.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. R.
L. Borden) was somewhat indignant at
the Minister of Customs quoting from
the Hamilton 'Spectator' and he imputed motives to my hon. friend because of that
quotation. What about the
motives of the man who wrote the paragraph quoted ? What about the men who
sat silently by and derived benefit from it?
What about these motives ? Where is the
difference between the action of the man
who wrote that article for some sinister
motive and the action of the gentleman
who brought the attention of the House
to it ? Does the hon. gentleman expect
that we are to allow these things to
go by? Does the hon. gentleman expect
4047
COMMONS
that we are to allow attacks of that kind
to be made and not draw attention to
them ? If they are right what are they
ashamed of ? If they are justified what are
they ashamed of ? If they are not right
why do they not repudiate them ? Why do
they not deny any complicity with any such
doings or any desire to benefit by such a
course of action ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I want to assure my
hon. friend that I never heard of the article
until the Minister of Customs read it here
in the House to-night. I most unhesitatingly
say that I do not approve of it. I most unhesitatingly say that, and I thought it
would
be gathered from what I said before.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I accept, of course,
the repudiation of my hon. friend and I
want to add that this is only a sample of a
thousand other paragraphs that are published daily in the press of Ontario. That
is only a sample of the articles and the cartoons inspired by the same spirit that
are
published every day in the Toronto 'World'
and the Toronto 'News.'
Mr. BARKER. Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask a question. Does he
attribute that article to any other person on
this side of the House?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not attribute
it to any person on that side of the House ;
I attribute the article to the gentleman who
wrote it whoever he may be, who published
it in the organ of hon. gentlemen opposite
and I attribute the result of the article to
the gentlemen who tolerate the publication
of such articles.
Mr. BARKER. What I would like to know
is whether in his own mind, in his own suspicion, he means that any person on this
side of the House had anything to do with
that article. He used language that implied
that. He ought to withdraw that language
if he does not mean it.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not as a rule
deal in suspicions or inferences ; I try to
make statements. I stated that the article
was published in an important paper connected with the Conservative party of Ontario.
I say that that article is only a sample of other articles that are constantly being
published in the same press by the result of which hon. gentlemen opposite hope
to benefit. The leader of the opposition refers to an article published in 'Le Soleil'
of
17th February, 1904. You can take almost
any article in any newspaper and make extracts from the article which can be made
to mean almost anything, but now I want
to quote for the benefit of the House the
text in the original, of the reference read
4047
4047
by my hon. friend with the surrounding
sentences and I can say this that that article
does not bear the construction based upon
it. You must begin with the article somewhat further up than the quotation is made
and you will find that among other things
after having discussed the question of the
division of provinces the article goes on to
say :
Proportionately to the great sister provinces, Manitoba will not be of much more
import than a large county.
That is one of the reasons urged by the
Manitoba delegates why they should be granted
an increase of territory.
There is another reason. Quebec and Ontario have extended their boundaries, one
westward, the other eastward, in order to
reach towards the north, the shores of James'
bay.
Manitoba wishes to get to the shores of
Hudson bay towards the north-east. To attain
that object, it would be necessary for her to
extend her boundaries several hundred miles
northward, cutting through Saskatchewan and
Athabaska and taking in Keewatin.
All this has never been quoted before and
this is the introduction to what follows :
Manitoba Wants as an increase three times
its present area. Such an extension could
hardly be granted. The district of Saskatchewan, at least that part which is directly
interested, is opposed to it.
The finances of Manitoba, in their present
state, are not in such a condition as to attract
the free inhabitants of the districts. Manitoba's debt aggregates $4,000,000. The
school
legislation of the small province is not of a
nature to attract the settlers in the districts.
The northwest has its separate schools. Manitoba has wiped out those that existed
within
its limits.
Every good act has its reward ; every evil
act its penalty.
Now for those who understand the French
language, what does that paragraph mean ?
I shall endeavour to translate it off hand :
This extension is hardly possible. The district of Saskatchewan is opposed to it,
at
least that part of the district that is directly
interested.
Now they give the reasons why they are
opposed to it:
The finances of Manitoba in their present
state are not in such a. condition as to attract
the free inhabitants of the district.
That is the first question, the financial
question.
Then they are giving us the school legislation of a little province which is not of
a nature
to tempt the immigration of people into the
districts adjoining. The Northwest Territories
have separate schools. Manitoba has abolished
them. All good acts have their rewards ; all
bad acts have their punishments. Manitoba
shall remain small because she has pernicious
schools.
There is the text; there is the whole
article. Now, what does that mean ? Does
4049 APRIL 6, 1905
that mean anything like what has been suggested ? If you extract one or two phrases
from it you can make it mean anything you
like. But, take the article in its entirety.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition
quoted from the 'Northwest Review' and
sought to make the government responsible
for its utterances. Â
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. No, I expressly said
that it had no connection with the government as far as I understand.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend says
it has no connection. Then, I will go a step
further. I am sorry to say it has considerable connection in the way of criticism.
I think it has been the most violent opponent that the government has had. I would
refer my hon. friend to the articles published
in 1896 by the ' Northwest Review ' in which
they criticised my right hon. friend the
leader of the government more severely than
any other paper in the country. They even
went to the length of comparing him in effect
with Judas Iscariot among the other vagaries which they indulged in. This is an organ
for which this government cannot be held
responsible. I do not think it is necessary
for me to go very much further. But, I
would like to draw the attention of the
House to the fact that the hon. member for
North Toronto (Mr. Foster) this afternoon
said, in speaking of this interview that took
place down at the delegate's house, that
both parties to the interview agreed to take
the public into their confidence. Nothing
could be further from what I conceive to be
the fact. The parties to the conference, as far as I can judge of what
occurred, both respected the obligation that
is binding upon gentlemen. The delegate is
a gentleman and I presume that this applies
with equal truth to Mr. Campbell. I am
sure that he is a gentleman but the man
who violated the confidence of these gentlemen is Mr. Rogers. This is the man
who takes it upon himself to tell us what
took place out of his presence and without
his personal knowledge. How is it that Mr.
Campbell has not corroborated this interview ? The delegate has made the statement
only because this document has been
published, only because his confidence has
been violated. That is the only reason.
The delegate has not taken anybody into
his confidence. I appeal to the hon.
leader of the opposition to tell me
whether or not he thinks that this conference having taken place under these circumstances.
Mr. Rogers was justified in
violating it. That is what strikes me at the
outset. How is it Mr. Rogers makes this
declaration ? Why did Mr. Campbell not
make it if he had any declaration to make ?
If it were necessary for somebody outside
of Mr. Campbell to make this statement
why did Mr. Roblin not make it ?
Mr. Roblin, the head of the government,
not issue this manifesto ? Does his silence
4049
4050
suggest anything ? Perhaps before this
controversy ends we will hear from Mr.
Roblin and we will understand why it is
that he has not made this statement, that
he has not issued this manifesto.
Now, I will not detain the House any
longer. But, perhaps I might draw the attention of the House to the interview with
the delegate. I might say that in so far
as I am concerned, and I am speaking entirely for myself, I have no desire to see
the delegate leave this country. He never
will leave it in so far as I am concerned if
I can prevent it. There shall be, there can be
no misunderstanding about my position. He
has brought about peace in the province of
Quebec, that peace has been maintained
since 1896 and I trust that he shall continue to be with us so that peace may continue
to remain with us. What is it that
he has done in this matter? What is he
to be criticised for ? Some hon. gentlemen
have told us that he was in Manitoba last
year. He there met Mr. Campbell. He
does not say what occurred between
them. He is a gentleman. Then he
tells us that hearing that Mr. Campbell was here on the 23rd February, a
few days after this Autonomy Bill was
introduced into this House, he asked him
to come down and meet him and there he
discussed with him this question of the condition of the Catholics of Manitoba. I
want
to say here and now that in so far as I am
concerned the delegate was perfectly within
his rights when he discussed this matter,
that the delegate was perfectly within his
rights when he endeavoured to obtain from
this gentleman the redress of this grievance
that has continued for a long time. When Mr.
Campbell got down there what occurred
between them ? The delegate pointed out
again to him the condition of the Roman
Catholics in Manitoba and said to him :
Cannot you alleviate in some way the grievance under which these people labour ? Can-
you not in effect extend to the larger towns,
such as Brandon and Winnipeg, the
same privileges that you have extended to the Roman Catholic population
in the country districts ; that is simply
extending the law in operation in Manitoba
in such a way as to enable it to be
availed of in cities and towns. Mr. Campbell does not appear to have repudiated the
suggestion. He accepted it. Then, the
delegate said : You are endeavouring to have
your boundaries extended. This was a matter of common notoriety, it was a matter
of common notriety that the inhabitants of
the district which would be affected were
opposed to any extension of the boundaries
of Manitoba and he said that the first step
to be adopted in the direction of obtaining
what was desired was to conciliate the interest of the people in the Territories to
be
affected.
4051 COMMONS
Mr. LAKE. I thought that question was
settled.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It was settled before this interview. That is exactly
what we contend for. The delegate evidently did not know anything about what
had taken place. It was settled two days
before that conference. He said that if you
want your boundaries extended the best
thing you can do is to conciliate the inhabitants of the country to be affected because
the government cannot agree and will not
agree in all probability to extend the boundaries of Manitoba against the wishes of
the
people whose political interests depend upon
the change and whose political interests
would be affected by the change. And he
said to him : Here, these people, the Roman
Catholics, are in the enjoyment of separate
schools, whereas if they come into the province of Manitoba they will be under a
different constitution and they will object
to any extension of the boundaries of Manitoba which will prejudicially affect their
interests in so far as the school question is
concerned. Is there anything improper in
that ? Is there anything wrong ? Is there
anything that the delegate should apologize
for ? Incidentally let me observe that we
have heard a great deal about the nefarious
system of separate schools in the Northwest.
We have heard a great deal about the
shackles that we are going to put on the
hands of the people there, it has been said
that we are going to submit the people of
the Territories to an indignity by imposing
upon them a separate school system and yet
here we find that these people, instead of
desiring to throw off the shackles, unanimously protest against any change. This
is simply an incidental remark that I want
to make at the present moment. But, I
shall not transgress the rules of the House.
Unfortunately, some time before we reach
the third reading of the Bill, I shall be obliged to inflict a speech upon the House.
But, is there anything improper in
what has taken place which makes it
necessary to speak of the delegate in
the ill disguised terms of contempt
which have been applied to him by
hon. gentlemen on the other side of the
House ? Why should he be called a policeman, or likened to a cabman ? Is there any
necessity for that ? Is there anything in
what has occurred to justify these epithets
that were applied to him ? Now, the delegate goes on, and see what he says about
his conversations so far as the government
is concerned. He says :
The federal government had absolutely no
knowledge of it.
That is to say ; had absolutely no knowledge of his interview with Mr. Campbell.
And, as had been suggested by my friend
4051
4052
beside me here, sometimes people think that
I have more to do with these things than I
actually have, but I can tell you that I never
knew of that interview until yesterday.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I will add this : if
the ablegate had consulted me about it
probably this interview would never have
occurred—I saw these two gentlemen when
they were here with Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
It was a private conversation and simply intended to express the suggestion and the
desire
that the condition of the Catholics in the respect I have mentioned would be improved.
What was there wrong about that : what
was there improper about that ? What is
there in that of which the government need
be ashamed ; what is there in that for
which the government can be held responsible ? The delegate says he had a private
conversation with this gentleman, that his
object was simply to improve the condition
of the Catholics, and he says the government had no knowledge of it. Why should
we be held responsible for that. If I were
not a member of the government and had
not certain responsibility as such, I would
say immediately right now, that I would be
prepared to take all responsibility for
everything the delegate said. I see nothing
in it that any man need be ashamed
of and I speak now, not as a Catholic, but as a citizen of this country. I have
made a longer speech than I intended and
I apologize to the House for so doing, but I
thought it was my duty to make this statement, and I trust that in doing so I have
not been apologetic for a course which I
think was perfectly legitimate and proper.
Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois). I
do not understand why the Minister of Justice has brought my name into this discussion.
He referred to my being in company
this afternoon with the Hon. Mr. Leblanc, a
member of the Quebec legislature and ex-
speaker of that body, who happened to be
here and who was kindly offered a seat on
the floor of the House. And the Minister of
Justice availed of this incident to introduce
my name into the beginning of his speech,
and to say that we wanted to make an attack upon His Excellency. The Minister of
Justice also said that the leader of the opposition had thought it well to make an
apology for the remarks he made this afternoon, but I do not know that the leader
of
the opposition made any apology, and I do
not understand that he had any to make.
The question which the leader of the opposition brought before the House, is a most
important one, and in what I shall say now
I will be as candid as the Minister of Jus
4053 APRIL 6, 1905
tice. I have a great deal of sympathy for
my hon. friend the Minister of Justice.
Mr. BERGERON. I am sincere in the
statement that I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister of Justice. I understand
he has had a great deal to do with the
preparation of the measure which is now
before the House, and it has been stated
here that interviews have taken place with
His Excellency and that there were conferences with His Excellency and either the
Premier or the Minister of Justice. That
statement has not been denied and let me
say at once, that even if it is true I do not
see that any blame is to be connected with
it. But, if the 'Prime Minister has thought
fit to consult His Excellency on a question
which he knew would interest His Excellency, or if the Minister of Justice has done
so, I would like to know when that consultation took place. Did they consult him before
they introduced clause 16 of the original Bill. I believe they must have done
so. That was the clause I was ready to accept myself. If they consulted him then
did they consult him afterwards when the
Minister of the Interior forced the government to withdraw clause 16 and present the
amended clause now before us.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Does my hon. friend
say there is very much difference between
the two clauses ? Does he agree with the
member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) on
that point ?
Mr. BERGERON. I will not say that I
agree with the member for Jacques Cartier,
or that I disagree with him. I will speak
for myself and according to my own judgment, pronounced in a very modest way, I
will say that I think there is a great deal
of difference between the two.
Mr. BERGERON. I think there is a great
deal of diflerence, but I am not allowed to
discuss the merits of the Bill now, although
I may have the opportunity to do so later
on, because I imagine there will be some
more amendments. I have sympathy with
the Minister of Justice because in 1896 he
took to heart the conduct of the Liberal
party at that time. I hope the Minister of
Justice was sincere in what he said and in
what he wrote in 1896, and which in my
View explains the position he now takes in
regard to this measure. In 1896 the Min
4053
4054
ister of Justice was a candidate in the county of Quebec, and like a great many of
the
Quebec Liberal members he made a great
many pledges. On the 6th of June, 1896, he
wrote a letter addressed to the administrator of the archdiocese of Quebec, that letter
I have here in French and translate it as
follows :—
Being sincerely disposed to put aside all
party spirit and all question of men for the
triumph of the cause of the Catholics in Manitoba, I the undersigned, pledge myself
if I am
elected to conform to the mandement of the
bishops altogether and to vote for a Bill which
will render to the Catholics of Manitoba the
justice to which they are entitled by the judgment of the Privy Council, as long as
that Bill
will have the approval of my bishop. If Mr.
Laurier comes into power and does not settle
that question at the first session according to
the mandement of the bishops, I pledge myself
either to withdraw my support from him or to
resign.
That letter is signed ' Charles Fitzpatrick.'
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Has the bishop to
whom that letter is addressed ever condemned me for anything I have done as a
result of that ?
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend had
better settle that with his bishop. This
brings us to the question at issue; this
is why there is a delegate here, so that
the bishop cannot condemn the Minister of
Justice, and I understand now why he
is so anxious that the delegate should stay
here. He would rather be in the hands of
that delegate—for whom I have the deepest respect—than in the hands of his bishop
in Quebec, who would remind him of the
letter written in 1896. We might as well
admit at once that the action of the Liberal
party in 1896 was the initiation of the
question which we are discussing in this
House to-day.
Mr. Speaker, this is a heritage of the
Liberal party that we are having to-day.
We have heard my hon. friend from Pictou
(Mr. Macdonald), and my hon. friend the
Minister of Customs, with his beautiful
voice, speaking of having peace in Canada,
and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice
says that religiously we have peace in Canada. These hon. gentlemen have a most
extraordinary way of bringing peace to the
country ; peace with the bishops and
clergy, by having here a delegate from
Rome, who says to them, Gentlemen, not
another word; peace for the minority of
Manitoba by not giving them what they
wanted, and leaving them still under the
foot of the majority of that province. That
is the kind of peace the right hon. gentleman gave to them after promising in Quebec
that he would do more for them than
the remedial Bill would do. Would we
have in Canada to-day His Excellency, of
whom so much has been said, if the minor
4055 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â COMMONS Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
ity in Manitoba had been granted their
due in 1896 ? If my right hon. friend,
sitting on this side of the House, had not
proposed the six months' hoist to the remedial Bill, and done everything in his
power to prevent it passing, would His Excellency have been in Manitoba consulting
with Archbishop Langevin and the minority there, to obtain for them that justice
which they have been claiming since 1896?
The Minister of Justice was to resign if
that justice were not obtained, but he has
not resigned ; but by the Bill at present
before the House he hopes to redeem the
peace of his conscience. My hon. friend
says there is no harm in having a Papal
delegate here. I will not say there is any
harm, but there was no necessity for a
delegate here, if my right hon. friend and
his party had not created such a turmoil
among the people in 1896, and afterwards. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice tries
to show an analogy between the trip of Archibishop Taché in 1870 and the residence
in Canada of His Excellency. There is a great difference. In 1870 there was an uprising
in the province of Manitoba; we were threatened with revolution: we were threatened
with the loss of all the provinces in the Northwest; and we could not do anything.
We had not the soldiers or muskets or cannon with which to put a stop to that uprising.
There was only one way of settling the trouble; that was by the persuasion of Archbishop
Taché, then the Bishop of St. Boniface, whose wisdom was held in immense respect
by the people of that part of the country. Sir John Macdonald, as a great politician
and statesman, knew that it was the only way to settle that difficulty, and he was
not ashamed to adopt it, although he was the Premier of Canada and a Protestant,
because he was working for the best interests of the country. He therefore turned
his eyes towards Rome, where Archbishop Taché was at the time, and invited him to
come here, not in the interest of one religion or another, but in the interest of
Canada.
Mr. BERGERON. Archbishop Taché
came and he accomplished what he came for; and many promises were made to him then.
Mr. BERGERON. Yes, many promises were made to hime and to his people, and he afterwards regretted
what had happened, and expressed that regret very often before he died.
Mr. BERGERON. It does not make any difference whether they were made by a Conservative administration
or by a Liberal
4055
4056
administration. Archbishop Taché is dead,
but the people living there are the successors of those to whom the promises were
made. Suppose they were made by a Conservative administration; was it the duty
of the Liberal party later on, and principally in 1896, to do everything in their
power to prevent the Conservative administration from fulfilling its promises to
Archbishop Taché ? Some of those promises were that the minority would be allowed
to have separate schools, that they
would have the use of the French language, that they never would be troubled,
that if they would allow the legislative
council to be abolished, they would never
have anything to fear from the majority
of the province of Manitoba.
Mr. MACDONALD. Might I ask my hon.
friend a question ? He asserts that promises
were made at that time by his Conservative friends. Why does he not ask his Conservative
friend, Mr. Rogers, in Manitoba, to redeem them to-day ?
Mr. BERGERON. I will give the answer. The remedial Bill, which was read the second time in this
House, is still hanging. The question has never been decided; it is in the Privy
Council; and if the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Justice wanted
to do what they promised in the province of Quebec, they would bring back the remedial
Bill in favour of the minority in Manitoba. That is why Mr. Roblin cannot do it. It
is impossible for him to do anything of the kind to-day.
Mr. BERGERON. Because the remedial
Bill is standing at the second reading.
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend speaks
of the analogy between the visit of Archbishop Taché and the residence in Canada
of the ablegate. Now, why have we a delegate here ? I said a moment ago that it
was a heritage of the Liberal party.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. Do I understand
my hon. friend to be against Canada having a delegate?
Mr. BERGERON. It does not make any
difference to me personally. It only makes
a difference to those who have some matters of conscience to settle with their
bishops; I have not. My hon. friend from
Pictou, when speaking this evening, had in
his hand a book which I presume was a report of the Supreme Court. It had been
given to him after six o'clock. and I imagine I know the gentleman who gave it to
him.
Mr. MACDONALD. Let me say that no
hon. gentleman gave me that book. I
have read that case long ago. I am suffi
4057 APRIL 6, 1905
ciently acquainted with my profession to
have studied some of these questions. I
went to the library and got the book.
Mr. BERGERON. Naturally, I accept
the word of my hon. friend; but I am very
much surprised if the hon. gentleman in
the county of Pictou followed what took
place in the county of Charlevoix in 1877.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Every law student
knows the case of Brassard vs. Langevin
by heart.
Mr. BERGERON. Is that so ? Well, that
is something new. Who will say that we
have not to deal with a very religious party?
They are au courant with all matters in
the province of Quebec. The Charlevoix
election took place in 1875 or 1876. Before
that we did not hear of any trouble. We
had bishops and priests—good bishops and
good priests ; at least, everybody thought
so and said so. Although I was young then,
I do not remember hearing any fault found
with the clergy of our province. In that election in Charlevoix it seems there were
some
indiscretions committed by the clergy. They
were called undue influence. The Liberal
party at that time, indeed the Liberal party
or this Country has never been an orthodox
party, and my right hon. friend knows it.
The Canadian Club of that time, in the 60's
and the Club St. Jean Baptiste of Montreal, knew something about it. They
belonged to the old Liberal school of
France, they were far from being religious,
and they have preached their ideas in the
province of Quebec, and that is why the
Liberal party were distrusted by the people
of Quebec. They had clubs like the Institute Canadien and other institutions of that
kind, where they were not at all bashful in
expressing their opinion about the clergy
from the bishops down. No wonder then
that the population of Quebec, being a religious population, distrusted them and were
unwillingto confide their interests in their
hands. That explains why they were in
opposition for so many years. But during
that election they took hold of this question
of undue influence and brought it before
the courts and succeeded. It is true it was
proved rthat some curés had gone out
of their way, had been over zealous. But,
Sir, we read every Monday morning in the
newspapers of Protestant ministers who
have been over zealous in their remarks. I
do not blame the Anglicans for that, I do
not blame the Presbyterians, nor the Baptists, nor the Methodists, as a body. I do
not hold them responsible because one or
two ministers are too enthusiastic. So
probably some of the Quebec curés were indiscreet. The election was voided, and another
election took place, and again a Conservative was elected.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the beginning of our having Papal delegates here.
The Liberal party at that time, or some of
4057
4058
their representatives, made a demand upon
the Holy See for a delegate. It was most
extraordinary for people who did not believe much in bishops or priests to make
a demand upon the Holy See for a delegate
to come over here and find out whether
they were as good as the Conservatives.
Bishop Conroy came here as a delegate to supervise the bishops in the province
of Quebec, and to investigate the disputes.
Bishop Conroy was well received, received
with open arms, the Catholic population of
Quebec treated him very well, in fact he
was so well treated, he found everything so
good and so nice that he made a report
that the Liberals were very good people,
were very religious people, indeed they were
as good as the Conservatives, and there was
no reason why they should not be entrusted
with the affairs of the country as well as
the Conservatives.
Mr. BERGERON. And he died after he
made that report, and was not replaced.
Mr. BERGERON. Well, I hope he has,
because if he had to carry the sins of the
Liberal party with him, he needed to go to
some place where he could lay them down.
We did not hear much more about these
things until the Manitoba affair. We all
know that when our friends were in opposition the country was filled with fads. We
don't hear about them now. We do not
hear about Patrons of Industry, we do not
hear about prohibition any more, nor any
other of these side issues. Because they
were not able to fight their opponent with
a serious policy, they had recourse to things
of that sort. When the Manitoba school
difficulty came up, what a God-send it was
to them. And how did it come about ? Our
friend, the late Dalton McCarthy, had gone
to Manitoba and spoken there very eloquently. He told these people what they
should do, and his propaganda took well.
The Manitoba government took hold of it,
and I have no doubt in my own mind that
my right hon. friend had nothing at all to
do with it, or any of his friends. The Manitoba government was over ears engaged
in some railway deals, and they had to divert public opinion if possible. They saw
that Mr. McCarthy had had great success
in preaching against separate schools and
against the official use of the French language, and they took hold of his teachings
themselves. In 1890 they abolished the separate schools and the French language. They
did more than that. As I said the other day,
they kept $14,000 worth of the property of
Roman Catholics, they have got it yet, they
have never given it back to the Roman
Catholic minority of Manitoba. From 1890
to 1896 what did we see ? What a spectacle
there was in this country ! The Minister of
4059
COMMONS
Customs said that their party was above
these things, that their party would not go
so low as to seek to raise national or religious prejudices. Why, Sir, that has been
their stock in trade, they never had any
other policy than that. What policy have
they to-day, what fiscal policy have they?
Is it not the same policy that they opposed
for 18 years in opposition, the policy of the
Conservative party which they have changed
a little, but the principle is the same ? What
policy have they upon provincial autonomy,
or any other question? So they went to
the country. In the province of Quebec
they used to say that it was impossible for
the minority in Manitoba to obtain a redress
of their grievances because, forsooth, the
Prime Minister, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, was
an Orangeman ; while in the province of
Ontario they said that the Prime Minister
was bound hand and foot to the hierarchy
of the province of Quebec. This was the
way they treated that question throughout
Canada.
But, during all that time the Conservative
party were endeavouring to do justice with
a sincere desire to end this question in a
way to render justice to the minority in
Manitoba. They brought the question before the courts, it went to the Supreme
Court and then to the Privy Council, where
it was decided that the law was intra vires
of the province of Manitoba, as they had
passed the law themselves and had changed
that law, but it was declared later on by the
Privy Council that the minority had a grievance, and that the Dominion government,
according to the British North America Act,
must come to the relief of the minority.
Then when the Remedial Bill was presented
to parliament, what did we see? We saw
the friends of those gentlemen opposite—
many of them have now disappeared from
the House-opposing that Bill with all their
might, speaking against time, knowing that
parliament must dissolve on the 24th of
April. They followed the lead of my right
hon. friend who had proposed the six months
hoist, knowing that he was defeating the
Bill, knowing that that law was good, but
knowing also that he was helping his party
to obtain power. That was the way that he
obtained his great name among the Protestants, which he has held for so many years,
the name of being a tolerant man, of being
above prejudice, the name of being so liberal minded that he had put his foot upon
the hierarchy in the province of Quebec.
But that, was not the language used in
Quebec. In Quebec, his French name and
his eloquence were enough to help him and
his friends into power, and in that way he
succeeded in overthrowing the Conservative
government. Well, after he came into power
what did we see? On the opening of the
new parliament in the month of August,
1896, in the debate on the address, he
talked about the traditions of the Liberal Conservative party. Nobody has ever
talked about the traditions of the Liberal
4059
4060
party, they had none to boast of. Sir Charles
Tupper, who was then in opposition, declared that he had gone down to defeat because
he thought that he was right in standing by the constitution of Canada in attempting
to render justice to the minority of
Manitoba. What did Sir Charles Tupper say?
He said: My hon. friend is now in power :
he has a big majority ; let him bring down
a Bill to render justice to the minority in
Manitoba, and I pledge myself and my
friends behind me to help him. There are
the traditions of the party. This was not
because Sir Charles Tupper believed in separate schools or because the majority of
those behind him believed in them, but because it was the law of the land ; it was
because it would render justice, and be
cause, as has been said before, it would be
an act of cowardice on the part of any majority not to render justice to a minority,
whatever that minority might be.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I was in the House
in 1896 and followed the debate to some
extent. As a matter of curiosity will the
hon. gentleman point out to me where I can
find in 'Hansard' the statement of Sir
Charles Tupper to which he has referred?
Mr. BERGERON. I can point it out to my
hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and, if he
wants me to do so immediately, I will send
for 'Hansard.'
Mr. MACDONALD. May I ask the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) a question? He
has made a declaration of policy on behalf
of the party behind him. Are we to understand that the hon. member for North Toronto
(Mr. Foster) will support him in the
course he speaks of ?
Mr. BERGERON. I have been here twenty-
four sessions, and the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Macdonald) is not smart enough to catch me
like that. I am speaking for myself and
am stating what happened in 1896.
Mr. MACDONALD. Do I understand my
hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) to decline to
answer that question?
Mr. BERGERON. No, thank God, I am not.
I may say that I have sent for the volume
of 'Hansard' containing the remarks concerning which the Minister of Justice asked
and I will be able to quote them to him
because they are in 'Hansard.'
Mr. BERGERON. It is there. I have
quoted it very often in public meetings and
elsewhere, for it is worth while to do so.
When my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) found himself in power on the
4061 APRIL 6, 1905
morning of the 24th of June, mainly by the
majority from the province of Quebec, the
question naturally arose with him: How
can I do justice to the minority in Manitoba ? I have taken a position and I cannot
abandon it; I have a great name as a
tolerant man because I sacrificed my compatriots. How, then, can I do it ? And
somebody whispered to him : Don't be at all
alarmed there is a way of settling it. And
a little while afterwards a gentleman was
sent to Manitoba to settle that question.
Talk about settlement. What happens when
a question between two men is to be settled by the intervention of a third ? The
mediator must meet and talk to both. But,
what happened in the Manitoba school question ? The gentleman who went from Ottawa
to Manitoba went to the Prime Minister of Manitoba, Mr. Greenway occupying the position
at that time. A settlement was agreed upon between them. And
what was that settlement ? That the pupils
should be given the opportunity of a half
hour's religious instruction after half past
three in the afternoon. That is a great
way of settling the question of separate
schools. Did the delegate who went to
Manitoba consult the Archbishop of St.
Boniface on that question ? Was the minority of Manitoba consulted in order to reach
a settlement between them and the Dominion government ? Not a word. The hon.
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) told us
about it the other day when he said : We
consulted our friends. And who were their
friends ?
Mr. BERGERON. No, not Joe Martin.
The man whom the Prime Minister sent to
do more for the minority than a Remedial
Bill could do—according to what was stated on the hustings of Quebec—went to Mr.
Greenway and Mr. Sifton. And these gentlemen showed the settlement to whom ?
Did he show it to the archbishop or to any
Catholic of Manitoba ? No, it was shown
to Mr. Dalton McCarthy—Mr. Dalton McCarthy, the great friend of the French Canadians
and Roman Catholics in the Dominion of Canada—it was to him that the settlement was
shown before it was signed by
my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
for the Dominion of Canada and by the
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) for the
province of Manitoba. And this was the
settlement of the Manitoba school question.
And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)
who, I believe, sincerely knows that it has
never been settled satisfactorily—it is not
surprising to me to see the pains he has
taken to at least give justice, according to
his view and mine, to the minority in the
Northwest Territories. Then what was to
be done ? A promise had been made to the
bishops of Quebec. Talk about the hierarchy. This was a question that interested
the hierarchy and the promises had been
4061
4062
made to them. I have read just now the
promise of one important man in the House,
the Minister of Justice. I could read—
they are in 'Hansard'—letters from thirty
or forty candidates in Quebec who promised
the bishops and priests that they would
see to it that the right hon. gentleman
(Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should render justice
as soon as he attained power. Something has to be done, said they, or we shall
be chastised for having deceived the bishops.
I have now the volume for which I sent.
I am sorry to detain the House with a quotation, but the Minister of Justice has asked
for it. This is the first volume of 'Hansard' for the second session of 1896. I
quote from page 57. Sir Charles Tupper is
speaking.
Now, Sir, I do not intend to say more upon
that subject on the present occasion, but I will
say this : that in the future, as in the past, the
cardinal principle with the great party to
which I have the honour to belong will be
equal justice to all without respect to race or
creed.
That is the position of the Conservative
party to-day as it was then.
I am glad to know that the responsibility of
this question—an important question, although
not so gravely important as I had supposed—
It is quite natural that Sir Charles Tupper
should speak in that way after the rebuke
that he had received in Quebec.
—I am glad to know that the responsibility
rests no longer upon my shoulders, but upon
those of the hon. gentleman who is now the
First Minister of the Crown. I can only say,
that I trust and sincerely hope that he will be
most successful in obtaining such a settlement
of this question as will do justice and give
satisfaction to all parties. I can assure the
hon. gentleman not only that he has my most
cordial wishes for a happy and early and fair
settlement of this important question, but that
anything that I can contribute to that end will
be at all times most cheerfully done.
Is my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) satisfied—
Mr. BERGERON—because I could read
a great deal more. But my hon. friend
knows how to read and I will send him the
volume and he can read it himself.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I would like the
hon. gentleman to find in 'Hansard' what
he said was there.
4063 COMMONS
Mr. BERGERON. He could not say any
more than that. My hon. friend could not
expect a man in the position Sir Charles
Tupper then occupied to go further than he
did. I am sure that Sir Charles Tupper
offered every possible opportunity to my
hon. friend to render justice completely to
the minority of Manitoba. Now, what is
the use of playing on words if the minority
of Manitoba did not get their rights.
Mr. BERGERON. That is the question.
To-day the minority in Manitoba, in Winnipeg or Brandon or any of the large cities
are in a worse position than they were
when the Remedial Bill was presented in
1896.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. And that is the reason an attack is made on the delegate for
attempting to get a remedy.
Mr. BERGERON. Not at all, I am not
making an attack. That is the proof that
it is not settled, when there are pour parlers between the Manitoba government and
His Excellency, the representative of the
Holy See. That is the proof the question
is not settled although my hon. friend has
said in his letter he would resign and not
give support to the right hon. gentleman if
it was not settled. Where is he with his
promises ? He sits there and where is the
minority of Manitoba when they are
obliged through their archbishop and their
friends in the House to come down here
and try to get a settlement ? The Minister
of Justice has put the question to me : Has
my bishop done anything to me ? My hon.
friend was too cute to wait until the bishop
would chastise him ; he was too cute, he
went over to Rome, he went to the fountain. It is easier to deceive Rome than
to deceive the bishop of Quebec who was
nearer. Rome was far away and I declare
here that the Holy See was deceived in the
Manitoba settlement. I have once shown
here by a document sent over to Rome that
the Holy See was deceived.
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend went
there with Mr. Russell. We engaged Russell as a lawyer instead of the legal firm
we had employed before. We were told
when we voted $9,000 for Russell's services
afterwards and when we asked why they
had dispensed with the services of the other
firm: Oh, they were too old. Russell went
there, he did the work and charged $9,000.
Nobody could see what he had done, besides going to Rome and asking for that
settlement of the Manitoba school question.
Then what happened ? We had the visit
of Monseigneur Merry Del Val. Talk about
having ambassadors in Canada ! The Conservative party, although at the head of this
country for years and years, never contem
4063
4064
plated the introduction here of a delagate
from Rome on any where else. The Conservative party had confidence in their bishops
and in the clergy of the province of Quebec
and they still have confidence in the clergy
and bishops. My hon. friend went to Rome
With Russell and at that time they had the
assistance of Monsignor Proulx and Chevalier Drolet, a Papal Zouave who had had
experience in Rome. They went to Rome
and on Chevalier Drolet's return he was interviewed, and I need not say that that
interview was well prepared. In that interview he was asked :
(Translation).
Q. To whom did you make representations
in Rome ? How did you proceed?
A. First, I went to the congregation of the
Propaganda ; but I found, on arriving there
that the Cardinal Prefect of that congregation,
under whose purview we are as a mere mission
country, had been successfully forestalled by
the five bishops who had come in succession
to the Eternal city, since the general elections
of June 23, up to my arrival on October 12. I
had the honour to be received in audience by
the Cardinal Prefect, eight or ten times, but
the Red Pope—as the powerful president of
that congregation which embraces all countries outside of Europe, is designated in
Rome—had accepted with such implicit faith
the representations made by the bishops of the
ecclesiastical province of Quebec and Manitoba,
that I was not a little surprised to hear at my
last interview, Cardinal Ledochowski address
me as follows in all seriousness.
And now, this is very important.
'Why does this Mr. Laurier, whom you represent as a Catholic, refuse to comply with
the mandate of the Queen, ordering him to restore at once separate schools in Manitoba
as
they existed previous to 1890, when a good
Protestant like Mr. Tupper offers to do so if
returned to power ?
What is the English of this ? Chevalier
Drolet says that when he arrived in Rome
he found that a great deal of work had
been done by five bishops of Quebec who
had already been there between the 23rd
of June, the day of the elections and the
12th of October, the day he arrived there.
These had already conferred with Cardinal
Ledochowski, the head of the congregation
and Cardinal Ledochowski asked why it
was that Mr. Laurier whom they represented to him as such a good Catholic refused
to obey the command of the Queen
which command meant the immediate reestablishment of separate schools in Manitoba
when a Protestant like Mr. Tupper
declared himself ready to give justice to
the minority if he was still in power or if
he was put in power. Mr. Drolet goes on
to say that Cardinal Ledochowski was a
very old man which explained why the
cardinal would not believe him but would
4065 APRIL 6, 1905
believe the bishops. Later on he says that
after he had been many times to see Cardinal Ledochowski he was told to go to Cardinal
Rampolla. It is no use going over
all these things at this late hour to show
the work which was done by the emissaries
of the government or their friends, by Mr.
Drolet and later on by the Minister of Justice and by Mr. Russell and all the work
that was done to find a way of preventing
the bishops in Canada from telling the right
hon. gentleman that he had deceived them.
Then Monseigneur Merry del Val was sent
here ; he came here as a delegate and went
throughout the country and my impression
is that he was sadly deceived and that he
made a report along that line. He had been
deceived but that did not prevent them—because in Rome they are very slow before
rendering a judgment.
Mr. BERGERON. Yes, it takes a long
time before they make up their minds, but
they very seldom make a mistake. When
the judgment was rendered it was shown
that the settlement of the Manitoba school
question was ineificient, incomplete and—
Mr. BERGERON. Inacceptable, that is
what it is, and it has remained in that state
ever since. Never did any bishop or priest
in Canada ask to have this delegate from
the Holy See. It seems to me that it would
have been very important that these high
dignitaries of the church should have been
consulted unless that dignitary was brought
out here to hold them in check and to prevent them from expressing their opinions
as
they used to do before. I find here :
Is it the episcopate that has asked for the
delegate? No, the episcopate is united and
being above political parties it is working
towards the acquisition of our rights and the
triumph of our principles.
Monseigneur Merry Del Val was not here
very long. He was replaced by His Excellency Monseigneur Falconio. Monseigneur Falconio
was only in the country for
a short time. He was replaced by the present delegate. I have not a word to say
against the fact that he is the delegate
here. It does not make any difference to
me personally, but I believe the presence
of the delegate here is humiliating to the
Canadian episcopate.
Mr. BERGERON. Yes ; I believe that
if you consult our bishops, not only in the
province of Quebec, but everywhere throughout the Dominion of Canada, you will obtain
that answer, and I say it is due to the
course which has been pursued by the right
hon. leader of the government. I repeat
again that if the right hon. gentleman and
if the Liberal party had rendered justice
4065
4066
to the minority of Manitoba in 1896, or
rather if they had not prevented the Conservative party from rendering justice at
that time, there would have been no
occasion for a delegate in this country.
Mr. A. JOHNSTON. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Bergeron) has said that it was a humiliation to the bishops and priests of Canada
to have a delegate in this country. Will he
submit the name of any bishop or priest
who regards the presence of the delegate
as a humiliation ?
Mr. BERGERON. I will repeat the assertion, and I will ask my hon. friend (Mr.
A. Johnston) to bring a letter from any
bishop or priest saying that what I have
said is not true.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. When the first delegate came to this country, I think he was
received with great pomp by the bishop of
Quebec.
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend will
surely not place himself in any disagreeable
position. He knows that His Excellency
has the respect, esteem and affection
of all the bishops in this Dominion, and if
that were not the case they would not long
remain in their sees, because he is the representative of His Holiness ; but between
having a respect for his personality and
yielding obedience to him, and being happy
and glad to see him here, there is a difference. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr.
Macdonald) spoke this evening about coercing Manitoba. If my hon. friend had been
in the province of Quebec in 1896, he would
not have heard such language as that used
by his friends. They never spoke about
coercion in Quebec. I would ask my hon.
friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) if it is
a matter of rendering justice where justice
is due, he would refrain from what some
people call coercion, but what my hon. friend
and myself would call an act of justice. It
is an operation. It is sometimes painful to
perform an operation, but you have to do
it so as to save the body.
Mr. BOURASSA. I will give him my
reply. The position I took in 1896 in my
election was this, and I am just as much a
friend of the minority in Manitoba as I was
then. I am just as convinced as my hon.
friend is that the minority in Manitoba
does not enjoy that to which it is entitled,
but what I said in 1896, and what I still say,
is that the manner in which the Conservative party had played with the Manitoba
school question for ten years had made it
perfectly impossible to expect anything
from the application of the Remedial Bill
passed by this parliament, and that, as did
my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, I
expected more from the policy of concilia
4067 COMMONS
tion than from the policy of coercion. That
is the position that I took in my county in
the presence of the parish priests, and it
was supported by the people as well as the
clergy of my county.
Mr. BERGERON. I suppose my hon.
friend is very sincere in what he says. Will
he allow me to say that I think he is entirely mistaken ?
Mr. BERGERON. I am saying to my
hon. friend that he is sincere, but that he is
entirely mistaken. He will admit that the
minority of Manitoba have not the rights to
which they are entitled ?
Mr. BERGERON. The hon. member for
Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was very unhappy
in his remarks. He made a fine speech.
I heard a number of my hon. friends say
that he made a beautiful speech, but when
he spoke of the bishops of Quebec as being
Tory machines he made an awful mistake.
Let me say again, because we cannot say
it too often, that although there may have
been abuses in some places, for instance, in
the county of Charlevoix, which has been
referred to, there are the most damnable
things in this book which have been sent to
Rome and which are not true. But, on the
whole, our bishops in Quebec are men of a
great deal of prudence. They are learned
men. They are chosen with a great deal
of care. They are wise, and they are men
of delicate sensibilities. There is a bishop
in the county I have the honour to represent,
and he has never dropped me a letter or expressed a desire to see me as to the vote
I
may give or as to the position which I intend to take upon this question. Some
people may think that I am getting hot
upon this question of the Manitoba schools.
I have been the victim of it. In 1900 the
gentleman who presented himself against
me in the county of Beauharnois was an
English Protestant. You know this gentle
man ; you have seen him here. He was a
thorough Conservative until 1896 ; but he
went against the Conservative party in
1896, because the Conservative party wanted to render justice to the Catholic minority
of Manitoba. There are many English
votes in that county, and they were cast for
that gentleman when he was a candidate
in 1900. I believe that these people voted
for him sincerely and honestly, and naturally they elected him, because our people
do
not separate upon national lines. There
are many priests in my county, and I say
here, upon my honour as a member of parliament, that never has a bishop or priest
in the county of Beauharnois gone to a
man and told him that he should vote for
me because I was a French Canadian and
a Roman Catholic. The result was that
4067
4068
many gave their votes for Mr. Loy, an
English Protestant. Is this not a conspicuous indication of tolerance and broad-
mindedness ? When the hon. member for
Pictou spoke of the bishops of Quebec as
if they were Tory machines, he made a
great mistake.
Mr. BOURASSA. Is it not a fact that
the bishop in whose diocese the county
which my hon. friend represents is situated
did not sign the mandement which was
issued by the bishops in 1896 ?
Mr. BERGERON. I will take the hon.
gentleman's word. I do not know if he
signed it or not ; and if he did not, I do not
know why he did not sign it. I will take
the testimony of my hon. friend. The bishop
might have said : Why do you not vote for
your own compatriot ? But it was never
done. My opponent addressed large meetings of my compatriots, although he could
not speak their own language very well.
Mr. BERGERON. He may have spoken
well on the hustings, but he was not a
Demosthenes or a Cicero. I never took advantage of this fact. Our people would
listen to him most politely, and never did
I ask one man directly or indirectly that
he should give me his support on account
of my nationality. I was sorry to hear my
hon. friend from Pictou—I hope it was a
slip of the tongue—call the bishops of Quebec Tory machines.
Mr. BUREAU. Why did not you correct
your friend from South York (Mr. W. F.
Maclean) when he called the Papal ablegate
a policeman.
Mr. BERGERON. If my hon. friend (Mr.
Bureau) will allow me I will take care of
my own conscience. My hon. friend from
Three Rivers is not afraid of anything or
any body, and he can deal directly with the
member for South York. I do not approve
of everything the member for South York
says or does, but he is not responsible to me.
Mr. DUNCAN ROSS. Before the hon.
gentleman goes further—the hon. member
for Pictou is not here, and if I remember
aright he did not call the bishops of Quebec, Tory machines. but, he quoted from the
law reports a statement in which those
words were used.
Mr. BERGERON. That may be and
'Hansard' may show it, but I heard the
statement that the bishops of Quebec were
Tory machines, and I took a note of it.
The Minister of Customs spoke about prosperity and the great things that have been
done since 1896. That is all very good but
all the same it is very painful and regret
4069 APRIL 6, 1905
table to see what is going on in the country
to-day. There is no question but that this
country to-day stands upon a volcano ; a
most dangerous question is agitating the
people. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say
that it is the fault of gentlemen on this side
of the House, and I may say that it is the
fault of gentlemen on the other side, but
there is blame on both sides, if not in the
House in the country. I say it is a most
unfortunate state of things, and I am sorry
to have to lay it at the door of my right hon.
friend. It is all due to the policy which he
followed in 1896. He let it be spread broadcast throughout the Dominion that he was
opposed to the hierarchy and to any clerical influence. He said, or he let it be said
that the Liberal party in Quebec had been
fighting the clergy ever since that party existed, and that at least they had conquered
the hierarchy. The right hon. gentleman
obtained a great name for himself in the
English provinces because of this and that
is why they thought when they saw clause
16 of the original Bill that the Prime Minister had fallen from a very high place.
It
is that which has created the trouble we
now hear of in the country.
Mr. BERGERON. Because in the English
provinces in 1896 the right hon. gentleman
was put on a very high pedestal in view of
the stand he took, and when he fell he fell
from a higher position in their opinion, than
in 1896, if he remained with the rest of us
who desired to give justice to the minority
of Manitoba.
Mr. BELAND. What do you consider to
be his fault ?
Mr. BERGERON. The newspapers which
were full of compliments to the right hon.
gentleman two or three years ago, now publish the most extraordinary statements
about him, and say, he is not the man they
expected him to be. That is what I call
falling, in my estimation.
Mr. BERGERON. I am not speaking of
myself ; I am stating the reason why there
is so much turmoil in the country to-day. I
tell my hon. friend the Minister of Justice
for his own justification, that when clause
16 was put in the Bill, whether with or
without consultation with any one, and, I
would not blame him if he had consultation,
when it was put in the Bill he should not
have dropped it. My hon. friends from Quebec who stand behind the Prime Minister
were ready to accept clause 16 and now are
ready to accept the amended clause which
is almost the reverse of what was provided
for in clause 16. My hon. friends from Quebec know very well that the amended clause
which we are now discussing cannot be a
4069
4070
very good clause for the minority when the
member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) accepts it.
The member for Brandon resigned because
clause 16 was in the original Bill and now
that he accepts the substituted clause it is
quite plain that the new clause cannot be
in favour of the Catholics of the Northwest.
I tell the Minister of Justice that it would
have been a great deal better for the country, and it would not be any worse for the
minority in the Northwest Teritories, if
there had been nothing at all mentioned
about schools in the Bill, than that the
original clause should have been withdrawn
and this one substituted. My impression is,
and there are some good lawyers who say
so, that the Northwest Territories would
have come in confederation with the schools,
not the schools they have to-day, but with
the schools provided for in the Act of 1875'
and which was never repealed, although
some ordinances had been placed upon the
regulations by the Northwest legislature.
If my hon friend had omitted the school
clause and allowed the Act of 1875 to come
into operation, the country would not have
been in the condition it is in to-day ; a condition which is very dangerous. For weeks
and weeks we have been talking what ?—
talking nationality, talking religion when
we have been living together for over 150
years. I hope in the interest of the country
this will be the last occasion on which such
a discussion will take place. I think this
is the last question of the kind that will
arise. Surely we are not going to buy
another province ? These two are the last
that we can organize and I hope this is the
last occasion on which we will have such
a discussion and that henceforth we shall
work like patriotic Canadians, working
separately, on diflerent sides of the House,
but working sincerely in the united effort
to do what we believe to be best in the interests of the country.
Mr. O. E. TALBOT (Bellechasse). Mr.
Speaker, at this late hour of the night I
do not intend to impose upon the House a
very long speech, because it is with a very
strong sense of shame and with a feeling
of reluctance that I now rise in answer to
the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) who
has just taken his seat. After what has
taken place in the province of Quebec since
1896 and when we know what the political
record of that hon. gentleman is and when
this hon. gentleman has the audacity to
stand up in this House as the defender
of the episcopate and the clergy of Quebec,
I say that I rise to answer him now with
a great sense of shame and reluctance.
Every one in this House knows and sees
through the hon. gentleman's motive at
this moment—he wants to apologize to his
leader because he is going to vote against
his amendment ; and it is a shameful apology that he has given to the House during
the last hour. The hon. gentleman thinks
4071 COMMONS
he can swallow himself and cover his tracks
from the public eye. The hon. gentleman
now stands up as the defender of the
episcopate of the province of Quebec ; but
what did we see this afternoon ? We saw
him applauding the abuse that fell from
the lips of the hon. member for South York
(Mr. W. F. Maclean). Thank God, Mr.
Speaker, the clergy and the episcopate of the
province of Quebec have not fallen so low
as to require the defence of the hon. gentleman. The clergy of Quebec stand to—day,
as they have always stood, highly respected
and loved by every French Canadian
and even by every Protestant of the
province of Quebec and other provinces.
What was the use of the hon. gentleman going so far back into ancient history
as to talk about the elections of 1896 ? Is
that the question before the House to-day ?
He wanted to know what was the reason
the Papal ablegate was sent to Canada ?
No man knows the reason better than the
hon. gentleman. He spoke of a certain
document to which the name of the hon.
Minister of Justice was attached. He knows
where that document was prepared. He
knows that it was prepared in the city of
Quebec by two leading Tories, Mr. Chapais
and Mr. L. P. Pelletier, who imposed that
document on the episcopate. I remember
very well, in the election of 1896, when the
hon. leader of this House was in the parish
of St. Raphael in my county, when Mr.
Landry, Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Chapais
came with that document before a couple
of thousand of my electors, and asked
the right hon. gentleman to sign it. What
was his answer ? He said : Go with that
document to your leaders and get their
signatures to it, and come to me afterwards,
and I will then tell you what I will do. What
was done to get some gentlemen to sign
that document? I remember when Dr.
Vaillancourt was fighting the battles of
the Liberal party in the county of Dorchester
adjoining mine, Mr. Pelletier, the great
friend of the hon. member for Beauharnois
(Mr. Bergeron), went to Dr. Vallaincourt
and said to him, 'if you sign this document, we will allow you to be elected by
acclamation.' Dr. Vallaincourt signed it,
and the next day or the day after he had
an opponent. What was the use of Liberals
signing a document ? Did we make any-
thing as a party by doing so ? Was not
the clergy against us from beginning to
end in 1896 ? Did we gain any votes in
the province of Quebec by signing that
document ? On the contrary. What was
the reason the people of Quebec as well
as the people of every other province rose
in their might on that occasion and carried
the Liberals into power ? It was because
homes were deserted and windows and
doors barred up, and where there had been
happiness before there was nothing but
wilderness and desolation. It was because
4071
4072
of the strong feeling that the people had
that a change had to come. There was distress for the farmers everywhere, and the
people could see no prospect under Conservative rule except what had happened
for eighteen or twenty years before—our
people leaving Canada and going to the
other side of the line for the bread which
they were unable to earn on their own soil.
That was the principal reason. My hon.
friend from Beauharnois wants to involve
the clergy of the province of Quebec again
in political conflicts when we are leaving
them alone. When he says there is no analogy between the fact that Archbishop Taché
was brought from Rome to Canada and the
fact that of the Papal ablegate being
brought from Rome to Canada, we all know
that there is an analogy in one respect.
Archbishop Taché, before he died, left a
letter, which is a portion of his will, in
which he said that he had come to Canada
at the request of the leader of the Conservative party ; and he said : 'Promises
were made to me, and the cause of my premature death at this moment is that those
promises have never been fulfilled, and I
have been deceived by the leaders of the
Conservative party.' That is where the
difference is, and that is where there is no
analogy between the two cases. The Pope
was not deceived at the time we remonstrated against the straight, direct intervention
of the clergy in political contests
in the province of Quebec. Though we
were Liberals, we were just as good Catholics as my hon. friend, and why were
we damned from some pulpits because we
voted as Liberals ? Why was it that in
some of the pulpits some men went so far
as to say : 'Hell is red, and heaven is
blue ; vote for the blue, and you are all
right, but if you vote for the rouge, you
are damned, and damned for ever.' Was it
not time that the people of this country
should have some protection from this
kind of thing, so that we might vote as free
men for the party in whom we had confidence. I am sorry to have to refer to
these matters, and I would not have done
so if the hon. member for Beauharnois had
not dragged them on to the floor of this
House. The hon. gentleman says he has
been here for twenty-four years ; but he
forgot what happened between the twentieth and the twenty-fourth years.
Mr. TALBOT. He had time to reflect.
One of the strong arguments that elected
him in the last election in the county of
Beauharnois was that his opponent was a
Protestant and an Englishman. I do not
say that the hon. gentleman used that
argument, but his heelers used it. We saw
it and read it in the papers at the time.
4073 APRIL 6, 1905
Mr. BERGERON. If my hon. friend
will allow me, he was not there, but I was
there all the time. He can ask his own
friends in the county of Beauharnois.
Never a word of that sort was said during
the whole election.
Mr. TALBOT. The whole campaign in
the town of Valleyfield was carried out on
that very point.
Mr. MORIN. If the hon. member will
allow me, I would like to correct a statement he made. He said that there was an
agreement made between Mr. Landry, Mr.
Chapais and Mr. Pelletier, and that even
they would not live up to the agreement.
To be sure, the agreement was made, but
Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Chapais and Mr. Landry
had nothing to do with it after it was
signed. The people of Dorchester were
very angry at that, and they said : It is
not Pelletier, it is not Landry, it is not
Chapais, who will choose the candidate for
Dorchester—We will choose him ourselves ;
and I was chosen.
Mr. TALBOT. When the document to
which I refer was signed and was published and sent abroad to every one of us, my
hon. friend from Dorchester was not born
politically; so he knows nothing about it
He came at the last minute, like mustard
after dinner.
Mr. MORIN. I was not supposed to know
What took place before I came into Canada.
Mr. O. E. TALBOT. There is one thing
more I wish to say. My hon. friend from
Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) has now gone
out of the House. I wished to remind him
of a certain speech that he made in the elections of 1900, to show him why the people
of Quebec gave the verdict they then gave.
In the county of Kamouraska, at St. Pascal, six or seven of these gentlemen came
one day, and among them the member for
Beauharnois. When speaking he went so
far as to treat the Liberals like animals
being in a trough, and so deep in the trough
that their horns got caught and they could
not get out. That is the way he treated
the Liberals of Quebec in county after
county. Is it any wonder to you, Mr.
Speaker, that the Liberals rebelled against
such treatment, and they returned the right
hon. gentleman to power with such a large
majority ? Sir, I hope this is the last time
we shall hear the episcopacy and priesthood of Quebec dragged into discussions of
this kind. After all, we were only fighting
for our political freedom. Since the Papal
ablegate came to this country, and even
since Rome has been directly represented
in Canada, we have had peace in the province of Quebec, and perfect liberty. to
vote just as we pleased, and we have had
no more trouble.
Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin). I have
a few words to say, even at this late hour.
4073
4074
The leader of the opposition is supposed
by some hon. gentlemen to have made an
apology here this evening. I want to say
that I did not so understand him ; because
if there is one thing in the leader of the
opposition of which I am proud, it is that he
is always so guarded in anything he says
that it is unnecessary for him to offer any
apology to the House afterwards. Now it
has been said to-night that, owing to the
presence of the Papal ablegate in the province of Quebec, the citizens of that province
are enjoying political liberty. I want
to say as representing an Ontario constituency that I am very glad to know that the
Papal ablegate is having such a good influence in the province of Quebec. I am
not going to charge the people of Quebec
with being bigots because they cannot agree
among themselves, and because they require
the presence of a Papal ablegate in order
that they may enjoy political liberty. I hope
they may long continue to enjoy that liberty.
But I wish to say that I entertain different
views from the majority of the people of
the province of Quebec, though I am glad
to say that my father was born in
the city of Quebec, and I have a
friendly feeling for that province. But
I differ from a large number of my
friends from that province. I am a
Protestant, and I have no hesitation
in saying it ; and when I say that I do not
think that I am incurring the contempt of
any hon. gentleman from Quebec. Now
the belief of Protestants, and of the great
majority of the electors I represent, is this
We say that in the administration of state
affairs in this country the government has
no right to act as I hold the First Minister
has done in this particular instance. Will
any man say that I am a bigot because I
make this declaration ? That is my right,
that is my privilege. I want to say in making that statement that I can place my finger
on dozens of supporters of the government who entertain the same views, and so
does the large bulk of the constituents who
elected them.
I want to point out to the right hon. gentleman that at the last Dominion election
the gentlemen who form his cabinet were
elected on the principle of representative
government. Now as a Protestant my faith
teaches me to find fault with the right hon.
gentleman for refusing, or at all events for
neglecting, to consult with the representatives of the people who were in his cabinet,
the ministers of the Crown, on this important and vital question, namely, the educational
clauses of this Bill. The leader of
the opposition and other members on this
side of the House, have asked a straight
and practical question, that is of vital moment to me as a Protestant, and of vital
moment to the people I represent, who are
largely Protestants ; the right hon. gentleman has been asked the question calmly
and squarely. whether or not he had con
4075 COMMONS
sulted with the Papal ablegate with respect,
to the educational clauses of this Bill, and
he has refused to answer that question. In
view of that fact I am justified, on behalf
of the people I represent, in saying to the
right hon. gentleman that they do not
approve of his course because it is
against their religious faith, and we do not
believe in that system of administering the
government of this country. That is my
position, and in making that statement I do
not think my Quebec friends can take
offence. Possibly, they believe that the
first Minister has done quite right in consulting the Papal ablegate, I have no fault
to find with them for that, they have a perfect right to their opinions and a right
to
express them, as I have a perfect right to
express conrtrary opinions.
Now, much has been said about Bishop
Taché and Mr. Ewart. I was in Manitoba
when Bishop Taché was there, and I know
something of the arrangement that was
entered into with the minority in the
province of Manitoba. When the Mackenzie government were in power, delegates came
from Manitoba to Ottawa
for the purpose of securing more money
to conduct their government. The answer Mr. Mackenzie gave was this: Go
back to your own province and see if, by
wiser economy, you cannot administer your
affairs more economically, then I may be
in a position to grant you more financial
assistance. The chief fault Mr. Mackenzie
found with them was that they had two
chambers, they had a legislative council
and he thought a new province like that
ought to abolish the legislative council,
and he promised if they would exercise
economy in that matter, he would be willing possibly to assist them financially. I
was a government employee there at the
time, and I remember the promise made
squarely to the minority of the province, as
represented in the legislative council that
if they would vote themselves out of existence they would continue to exercise all
the
rights they had had up to that moment.
Mr. Davis, who was prime minister, ex-
Attorney General Clarke, who had been defeated during the session and others, pledged
themselves that the minority should continue to exercise their rights for all time
to
come. But when the Manitoba school
question came up in this House, I was
here, and representing a strong Protestant
constituency. I voted in favour of remedial legislation. And I want to tell my hon.
friends from Quebec, that, while many of
my constituents found fault with me for
voting in favour of the legislation, I told
them straightforwardly that if they elected
me again and Sir Charles Tupper's government was sustained and reintroduced remedial
legislation for Manitoba, I would vote
for it as I had done before, to protect the
rights of the minority. When hon. gentlemen opposite accuse the leader of the op
4075
4076
position and his supporters of being unwilling to give the minority in Manitoba
their rights, I want to tell them that one
stands here who is ready to vote to secure
the rights of any minority in this country,
Catholic or Protestant. I was astonished
to hear the ex-Minister of the Interior the
other night utter these words, which I find
reported on page 3253 of this year's ' Hansard ' :
Therefore, in 1896 when this settlement was
made—and it was a settlement that hon. gentlemen opposite had refused to accept—although
it was a settlement which led my right hon.
friend the leader of the government out of a
great difficulty and made his path smooth, yet
the settlement has never been combated or
criticised by any member of this House from
that time up to the present moment.
There has never been a session since 1896
when reference has not been made to the
Manitoba school question. How the ex-
Minister of the Interior could have made
such a statement I cannot conceive. I can
only assume it as conclusive evidence that
he is not well posted on what takes place
in this House.
It is true that reference was had, as
has been said, to Archbishop Taché and
Mr. Ewart. We, as Protestants, do not
object to that, for both Archbishop Taché
and Mr. Ewart were citizens of this country.
If the Conservative Prime Minister chose
to consult them he had a perfect right to
do so. The present Prime Minister would
have the right to do the same. But we
draw a distinction here—the papal delegate
is not a citizen of this country. There are
Catholic bishops who have the welfare of
the church at heart as well as the Papal
delegate, and if the Prime Minister, after
consulting his cabinet, wishes to consult
any of them, we have no fault to find. But
when he goes outside, we believe, as Protestants, that he has gone beyond the proper
line.
Now, I would like to say to hon. gentlemen opposite who differ with me in the
matter of religion that it is not well to be
too sensitive as to the way members express their views on this question. The
question comes before us, as we believe,
not in proper course. Had this Autonomy
Bill been brought in minus the educational
clauses, the people of the Northwest Territories would have continued to enjoy the
same privileges in education that they now
have, unless those privileges were curtailed
by the legislature we might create. But,
if the legislature made such changes we believe they would be within their rights.
And I am prepared to vote against any interference with their freedom in educational
matters.
Just a word or two with regard to the accusation that hon. gentlemen on this side
are backward in expressing their views on this question. There are gentlemen on this
side who do not agree with me on
4077 APRIL 6, 1905
the questions involved in this Bill. They
hold their views honestly, and have a right
to hold and to express them. And they
have expressed their views frankly. My
hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr.
Monk) made one of the best speeches of
the session in explaining his views on this
question, though those views were not the
same that I hold. Is he to be found fault
with because he has honestly stated his
position ? Certainly not. And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who offered
this criticism, it seems to me, has not shown
much courage in speaking out on this question. When the Bill was introduced with
section 16, as it originally was, he made the
statement :
Mr. INGRAM. Then, why should he find
fault because some on this side have not
spoken and say they lack courage ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not understand
what my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) is talking about.
Mr. INGRAM. If the hon. gentleman will
read ' Hansard ' to-morrow, he will find that
he spoke of men on this side of the House
as not having courage to speak out. He
told them to come from behind the leader
of the opposition and express themselves.
Mr. INGRAM. I think the country would
have been better satisfied if the Minister of
Justice himself had spoken on the measure.
He has a great deal to do with this Bill :—
And I am bound to say that hitherto the
hon. gentleman has always handled legislation he had in charge in a manner to reflect
credit upon himself and upon the government. But I think, he has been a little
careless, perhaps, in not making a speech a
little earlier that might have-
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Is there any chance
of converting my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) ?
If so, I will speak at the very next sitting
of the House.
Mr. INGRAM. I am bound to say that
there is not the slightest chance. Let me
point out to the Minister of Justice the fact
that clever lawyers on his own side have
spoken on the Bill, but these clever lawyers
4077
4078
do not agree. If the Minister of Justice
himself had stated first what these clauses
did contain, we might have been saved
some of the exhibitions we have had in this
House in connection with the Bill, and perhaps we should not have had the slurring
allusions which we have had from the ex-
Minister of the Interior and others concerning the Minister of Justice.
Motion (Mr. R. L. Borden) to adjourn
negatived.
This individual participated in:
#/media/File:Jean-Baptiste_Morin.jpg){kind=link}
