House of Commons, 5 April 1905, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan

3833 APRIL 5, 1905


WEDNESDAY, April 5, 1905.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.
Bill (No. 129) to amend an Act respecting certain patents of Wm. A. Damen.—Mr. Campbell.
Mr. LEFURGEY—by Mr. Taylor—asked :
1. Is it the intention of the government to have any dredging done on the Miminegash river this coming spring or summer?
2. If any dredging is to be done, when will the work commence ?
Hon. C. S. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works). The matter is under the consideration of the Public Works Department.
Mr. BENNETT asked :
1. Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries purchased the steamer ' Sequin ' ?
2. If so, what is the date of purchase ?
3. What is the name of the vendors ?
4. What was the consideration paid ?
Hon. R. PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries). To the first question the answer is no, and the same answer applies to all the other questions.


On the Orders of the Day being called,
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). I beg to lay upon the table of the House a return supplementary to the return which was laid on the table of the House on Monday last with respect to the claims of the government of Manitoba for an extension of the boundaries of that province. At the same time I move that the rules of the House be suspended, and that the return be printed forthwith.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Might I inquire whether the letter of the 23rd of February, which I observe in the public press, is included in the document brought down ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. No; I shall have to refer to that in a moment. In making this motion, I desire to make a statement. I desire at this moment to call the attention of the House to a statement which was published this morning in the newspapers of the city, and which I understand has been published in all the press of Canada. This statement is made by Mr. Rogers, a member of the Manitoba government, concerning the action taken by myself and by my colleagues upon an application made some time ago by the government of the province of Manitoba, under instructions from the legislature of that province, for an extension of its boundaries. I may say at once that it will be my duty, so far as the action of the government is concerned in this matter, to give the statement a direct, an absolute and a categorical denial. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I think it is better that I should read to the House, and therefore place upon the records, the statement of Mr. Rogers, as I find it in the 'Citizen.' It is as follows:
On February 13, we received a formal invitation by telegraph from Sir Wilfrid to come to Ottawa as soon as convenient. We left on February 14 and arrived on the afternoon of the 16th, when we received a letter from Sir Wilfrid at the Russell House saying that he would be pleased to meet us at his oflice at mid-day on Friday, the 17th.
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.
In three days' time, on February 20, a letter was received from Monseigneur Sbarretti, asking for a conference. This invitation was accepted and His Excellency then presented the following memorandum, remarking that if we would place this on the statute-book of our province it would greatly facilitate an early settlement of our mission, the fixing of our boundaries, which would be extended to the shores of Hudson bay. His Excellency further added that our failure to act in the past had prejudiced our claim for extension westward. The following is a copy of His Excellency's memorandum, containing the proposed amendment to the Manitoba School Act:
"Add to section 125.—(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.
3835 3836
"Add to section 49.—(b)—And when in any district there shall be fifteen or more Roman Catholic children and fifteen or more non- Roman Catholic children, the trustees shall, if required by a petition of parents or guardians of such number of either of such classes, provide separate accommodation for each of such classes and employ for them. respectively Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic teachers."
Notwithstanding Sir Wilfrid's invitation and our interview, followed by his promise of which he was reminded by our letter, strange to say, up to this very hour we have had no reply to ours of February 23. What more natural conclusion can be arrived at than that Sir Wilfrid is simply killing time and making pretexts in order that the polite invitation of Monseigneur Sbarretti could be acted upon by Manitoba.
In this way, of course, Sir Wilfrid thinks he can secure a political advantage for his friends in this province. This is a palpable political trick, which he is quite capable of undertaking, with the view to force the local government to do something which would be resented by the people and by this means he hopes to reinstate his Liberal friends in power here. I, for one, promise to take no chances in allowing Sir Wilfrid or any person else to take advantage of us by any underhanded scheme of this sort. All I ask is that every citizen of the province should have an opportunity of expressing his opinion by his vote as a protest against continued delay. I deny the right of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Monseigneur Sbarretti to undertake to mix up the matter of separate schools with that of the extension of our boundaries, and I am sure that in so doing they do not reflect the wishes of either Roman Catholics or Protestants in the province. It ill-becomes the ' Globe ' to make this charge against the government of Manitoba, when the only persons affected are Sir Wilfrid and Monseigneur Sbarretti.
We have no desire in Manitoba for double- dealing about this or any other question. This. however, appears to be a favourite course of Sir Wilfrid. For example, in 1896 he signed an official statement declaring himself to be entitled to credit for the final settlement of the Manitoba school question, while immediately following we find from the correspondence brought down in the parliament of Canada the following extract from a letter to Cardinal Rampolla, which he has never denied:
' It is desirable, if not necessary, that the mission of Monseigneur Merry Del Val should be renewed or rather continued, and that he should be present in the midst of us for a more or less prolonged time as the accredited representative of the Holy See.'
It will be remembered that Monseigneur Merry Del Val was appointed Papal delegate by His Holiness the Pope on the petition of Sir Wilfrid and forty odd members of the parliament of Canada. The petition was presented to His Holiness by Mr. Fitzpatrick and further urged by the Canadian legal representative in London, England, Charles Russell, who was afterwards instructed to go to Rome as Sir Wilfrid's representative, and who, on November 26, 1897, addressed the following to Cardinal Rampolla, secretary of state to the Pope.
3837 APRIL 5, 1905
'I have just arrived at Rome once more at the urgent request of the Catholic members of the government and parliament of Canada. My instructions enjoin me to again renew to Your Eminence the desire which I had already the honour to express to you, that His Holiness will be pleased to nominate a permanent delegate to Canada as representative of His Holiness who would reside on the spot but would be outside all local interests.'
  So that by this plain arrangement a delegate was appointed who was regarded as necessary on account of differences of opinion which existed at that time between Sir Wilfrid and certain of his following as to his official signed statement declaring he was a party to the final settlement of the Manitoba school question. Here again, we have the hand of Sir Wilfrid engaged in double-dealing in this matter as is evidenced by his assurance to Cardinal Rampolla through Mr. Russell, the Canadian legal representative, who wrote to His Eminence as follows, presenting Sir Wilfrid's side of the case at Rome:
  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.
  Now, this to my mind is conclusive that Sir Wilfrid in combination with Monseigneur Sbarretti had hoped by their present course to carry out the promise given through their accredited representative, Mr. Charles Russell, in this underhand way. In view of the foregoing, I am sure that Sir Wilfrid Laurier owes it to the people of this province to at once give a reason why we are not entitled to immediate consideration and action other than the flimsy excuse which he has already himself created in his invitation to Mr. Whitney to advance a claim to some portion of Keewatin which did not form part of old Canada.
  It is certainly idle for any person to assume that Monseigneur Sbarretti, occupying the position he does, would press me to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he did without the full knowledge and consent of Sir Wilfrid and his colleagues. And on the other hand Sir Wilfrid's attitude carries with it evidence of a full knowledge of arrangement, as is evident by his creation of excuses for delay as well as his failure to give reason or cause for same, and further by his unfairness in bringing down one side of the case and attempting to secure a prejudicement from the people without their having Manitoba's reply to his minute of council of March 21, which was received by this government on March 28 and replied to on March 31.
  Can you give us your reply for publication ? Mr. Rogers was asked.
  No, because it can only be made public through the usual channel, that of being laid on the table of the House and Sir Wilfrid is at perfect liberty and should do this at once.
  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 an 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 nor a tittle of truth in it. Mr. Rogers uses this language :
3837 3838
  It is certainly idle for any person to assume that Monsigneur Sbarretti, occupying the position he does, would presume to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he did without the full knowledge and consent of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues.
  I assert that if Mr. Rogers states 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. If that has taken place it has taken place wholly without my knowledge and without my participation, and I never heard of it in any way whatever until last Saturday, when the matter was brought to my notice by a telegram from the Toronto ' Globe.' Then Mr. Rogers goes on to say :
  And, on the other hand, Sir Wilfrid's attitude carries with it evidence of a full knowledge of arrangement, as is evident by his creation of excuses for delay, as well as his failure to give reason or cause for same and further by his unfairness in bringing down one side of the case and attempting to secure a prejudgment from the people without their having Manitoba's reply to his minute of council of March 21, which was received by this government on March 28, and replied to on March 31.
  On Monday last, which was the 3rd of April, I brought down to this House a return to an address moved for some time ago by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), asking for copies of all correspondence that had taken place between the government of Manitoba and this government on the subject of the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. The last paper upon this return was the acknowledgment of the receipt of our reply to the prayer of the Manitoba government. We have received since that time a further rejoinder by Manitoba to our reply. We did not bring it down on Monday with the return, because we had not then received it. It arrived at the Privy Council office only yesterday. I at once gave orders to the clerk of the Privy Council to have it prepared for presentation to the House and I have to-day laid it on the table of the House. In all this there was no evidence of any intention to conceal anything. There was nothing to conceal, this was a public document. Then I see by the correspondence that the order of the Manitoba government was passed on the 31st of March, which was last Friday. It was sent to us on the following day, Saturday. It could not therefore get here until yesterday morning, and as soon as it was received by us, as I said a moment ago, I gave instructions to have it prepared and laid on the table of the House, so as to form part of the correspondence which the people of this country have a right to have before them. Now, I pass to another statement of Mr. Rogers :
In three days' time—
I shall come back to this.
—February 20, a letter was received from His Excellency, Monseigneur Sbarretti, asking for a conference. This invitation was accepted, and His Excellency then presented the following memorandum, remarking that if we would place this on the statute-book of our province that it would greatly facilitate an early settlement of our mission, the fixing of our boundaries, which would be extended to the shores of Hudson bay. His Excellency further added that our failure to act in the past had prejudiced our claim for extension westward.
According to this statement, it appears that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Colin Campbell, who were the delegates of the Manitoba government, had a conference with Monseigneur Sbarretti, the Papal ablegate, There has been a rumour in the press—not in the press, but at all events, about the corridors of this House—that this conference had been brought about by means of one of my colleagues. I have to say to the House, and I have the authority of my colleague for this, that there never was any conference brought about by him between the delegates and Monseigneur Sbarretti, and I have to make the further statement that neither myself nor any of my colleagues were the intermediaries between Monseigneur Sbarretti and the delegates of Manitoba. If there has been such a conference how it came about I cannot say. Perhaps Monseigneur Sbarretti may have had previous communication with these gentlemen; I do not know. Perhaps he knew them and perhaps that is the reason why he called upon them to have a conference. At all events, it is no concern of mine. I know nothing, and I never knew anything of it until this day, nor did the government. What conversation took place between the papal ablegate, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Colin Campbell I do not know. This is a question, perhaps, as to which there may be something later on; I do not know. But, I take the statement as I find it here, and upon this statement I have the right to make some comments which may throw some light, perhaps, on what has taken place. Mr. Rogers says that the abiega-te made this remark :
This invitation was accepted and His Excellency then presented the following memorandum, remarking that if we would place this on the statute-book of our province it would greatly facilitate an early settlement of our mission, the fixing of our boundaries, which would be extended to the shores of Hudson bay.
As to that, I have no reason to make any comment, because that is a thing as to which I know nothing. Then Mr. Rogers goes on to say :
His Excellency further added that our failure to act in the past had prejudiced our claim for extension westward.
3839 3840
Well, Sir, I cannot conceive how the papal ablegate, or anybody else, could have stated that the failure of the province of Manitoba to amend the School Act prevented the extension of its boundaries westward and that if such had been done it would have facilitated this extension. I cannot conceive how it is possible that such a statement could have been made, considering the fact that since the month of July, 1896. when we came into office, up to the month of January, 1905, we never received from the government of Manitoba a communication asking for the extension of the boundaries of that province. There may have been resolutions passed by the legislature, asking for the extension of their boundaries; I do not know. I am told that there have been, and I have seen in the press that resolutions were passed in 1901. that resolutions were passed also, as I understand, in 1902, and resolutions were passed, I know, in 1905. In 1905, these resolutions were followed by executive action, they were called to our attention, but neither in 1901 nor in 1902, were these resolutions passed by the legislature of Manitoba, followed by executive action or called to the attention of the government of Canada. This morning, when I read the interview with Mr. Rogers, I asked myself if my memory was at fault, and if there had been any communication sent to us, which, in the multitude of things with which we are called upon to deal, I might have forgotten. I inquired of my colleagues if they had any recollection of any such communication being sent to us, and they all answered me they had no such recollection. I then inquired from the clerk of the Privy Council if there was anything in the archives of the department which would show that any such communication had been received by us, and I received this memorandum from the clerk of the Privy Council.
From June, 1896, to January, 1905, there is no record in the Privy Council office of a claim advanced by the province of Manitoba for the extension of its boundaries. In May, 1902, there was a protest from the Northwest Territories against the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba.
Now, Sir, with these preliminary remarks I shall proceed to give my version of what took place between Mr. Colin Campbell and Mr. Rogers, and us, when they came here as delegates from the government of Manitoba. I shall take in the first place the following statement made by Mr. Rogers :
On February 13th we received a formal invitation by telegraph from Sir Wilfrid Laurier to come to Ottawa as soon as convenient. We left on February 14th and arrived on afternoon of the 16th, when we received a letter from Sir Wilfrid at the Russell House, saying that he would be pleased to meet us at his office at mid-day on Friday the 17th.
In this statement there is nothing which 3841 APRIL 5, 1905   is not in accordance with the truth, but it is not the whole truth. It leaves the impression that we took the initiative of our own accord to have these gentlemen come from Manitoba to discuss that matter with us, whereas the truth is, that we simply responded to an invitation which came to us from the government of Manitoba. I have brought here the whole correspondence which has taken place upon this subject. I stated a moment ago that from the month of June, 1896 to the month of January, 1905, we had not received a communication from the government of Manitoba asking for the extension of their boundaries, and I repeat the statement. The first communication we received upon this subject is the following:
Department of the Provincial Secretary,
Winnipeg, Man.
January 20th, 1905.
Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., President of the King's Privy Council for Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,—The government of Manitoba, on a motion of the legislative assembly, has to-day forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General, a memorial relating to the extension of the boundaries of the province, and I am directed to write you and request that you will be pleased to appoint an early date for receiving a deputation from the government of Manitoba in relation to the matter. It would be appreciated if such a date could be named for the first or second week in February.
I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, D. H. McFADDEN, Provincial Secretary.
To this letter I answered in the following: terms :
Ottawa, 24th January, 1905.
Dear Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your favour of the 20th instant, informing me that the legislative assembly has forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, a memorial relating to the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, and asking to have a date fixed for receiving a deputation from the government of Manitoba in connection with this matter.
The memorial has not yet been received at the office of the Privy Council. I shall bring your request to the attention of the government as soon as possible after its receipt, and will communicate with you again later on.
Yours very sincerely, WILFRID LAURIER.
Hon. D. H. McFadden,
In accordance with the promise there made, when we had received the memorial from the government of Manitoba, I brought it to the attention of the Privy Council, and I was authorized to send the following telegram :
Ottawa, 13th February, 1905.
Hon. D. H. McFadden, Winnipeg, Manitboa.
With reference to your last memorial re extension of limits, will be glad to receive your delegation at any time convenient to you.
3841 3842
That telegram is dated the 13th of February, and on the same day I received the following telegram from Mr. McFadden :
Winnipeg, Man., 13th February, 1905.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Ottawa, Ont.
Replying to your telegram of even date, Hon. Messrs. Rogers and Campbell have been appointed to confer with your government regarding extension of boundaries. They leave here to-morrow, will reach Ottawa Thursday 16th. Kindly notify them at Russell House as to time and place for interview suitable to your own convenience.
In accordance with this last telegram inviting me to fix a time and to inform Mr. Campbell and Mr. Rogers at what time we would be ready to receive them, I caused my secretary in compliance with their desire, on the 16th of February to send the following letter :
Ottawa, 16th February, 1905.
Dear Sir,—Sir Wilfrid Laurier will be glad to receive you to-morrow the 17th instant at 12.30 o'clock in his office, Privy Council.
Yours respectfully, (Sgd.) RODOLPHE BOUDREAU. Private Secretary.
That was on the 16th of February, and on the following day accordingly, there took place at my office the interview with the delegates from Manitoba. There had been a subcommittee of the Privy Council appointed to receive the delegates, and the ministers present on that occasion were, the Minister of Justice, the Postmaster General and myself ; I think the Secretary of State was present, but of that I am not quite sure.
I take now the statement of Mr. Rogers as to what took place then. Mr. Rogers says :
During that interview we presented the claim 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.
As to the latter statement I am sorry to say that my memory is not in accordance with the memory of Mr. Rogers. I do not want to make any imputation, but I flatter myself that I have a pretty good memory and my memory is corroborated by that of my colleagues. What took place was this : We heard the petition presented to us by the delegates from Manitoba. Mr. Rogers was the spokesman. I do not think Mr. Campbell said anything at all, but if he did he took a very indifferent part in the discussion which was mainly carried on by Mr. Rogers. He presented to us a repetition of all the claims which are advanced in the state paper now on the table of the House. He asked that the 3843 COMMONS boundaries of the province should be extended westward, northward and eastward— westward, that it should have a part of the new province of Saskatchewan, a part of the districts of Assiniboia and Saskatchewan ; northward, that they should have the territory towards the north, and eastward towards Hudson Bay. I may say at once that we discussed this at some length, in fact at considerable length. When Mr. Rogers advanced the claim on behalf of Manitoba, that its boundaries should be extended westward and include part of the present districts of Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, we presented to Mr. Rogers what seemed to be a very strong objection to that. We told Mr. Rogers in fact : that this claim had been considered by the government of Sir John Macdonald in 1884 and had not been granted ; that the reasons which existed in 1884 for refusing the prayer of Manitoba were far stronger to-day than they were then : that at that time that part of the Territories was in its infancy, but that at present it had a considerable population, as advanced as the population of Manitoba. That there was the objection further : that the legislature of the Territories had protested against its being annexed to Manitoba, and therefore we did not see how it was possible to grant that part of the prayer of the province of Manitoba. With regard to the northern portion of the district of Saskatchewan, we said to Mr. Rogers and to his colleague, Mr. Campbell : we do not know that there is any objection to granting you the upper portion of the district of Saskatchewan ; it is true that we understand there is an objection raised, but it is a question which can be discussed later on ; at all events, we do not intend to introduce this part of the territory of Saskatchewan into the new provinces and we had better leave it for further discussion.
  When it came to a discussion on the extension of the boundary eastward, towards Hudson Bay, my colleague the Postmaster General, who was with me then, at once took strong objections to that claim of Manitoba. He stated that in his opinion it would not be fair to the province of Ontario that that claim should be considered unless the province of Ontario had an opportunity to discuss it with the province of Manitoba. That was on the 17th of February. I do not remember that I said to Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell that if they were to wait for some days we would again send for them and be in a position to give them an answer. What I distinctly remember stating, as it was my duty to do, was that their representations would be brought to the attention of the Council, and that probably they would get an answer at an early date. More than this I do not remember stating, and I do not think I did. The two Bills for the creation of the provinces of 3843 3844 Saskatchewan and Alberta were introduced on the following Tuesday, the 21st of February. Both Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell were present on the floor of this House and heard the statement I then made. That statement was that I had the authority of my colleagues to say that we could not see our way to extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba westward, for the reasons which I have just given, that we had reserved the northern portion of the district of Saskatchewan for future action, and that with regard to extending the boundaries of Manitoba to Hudson Bay we were of opinion that the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec should be consulted. Mr. Rogers heard this statement, and, therefore, knew what was the policy of the government on that question.
  This shows one thing, that this policy of ours was settled then and there, without interference from anybody, without participation by anybody. We settled our own business according to our lights. We told the province of Manitoba that we could not extend its boundaries westward for the reasons we gave, and on that decision we took our stand before this House and maintained it. But we stated we were prepared to consider the claim of the province of Manitoba for extension northward towards Hudson Bay in connection with the claims of the new province of Saskatchewan and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Since that time we have embodied these views in a Minute of Council, which has been communicated to the Manitoba government. There is no difference between the Minute of Council and the statement I made on the floor of this House on the 21st of February except this, that in the Minute of Council. after having given the matter due consideration, we take the view that there is no reason for calling the province of Quebec to that conference, because it is not sufficiently interested in the matter; but we declare our readiness, immediately after the creation of the new provinces, to have a conference, in which the provinces of Saskatchewan, Ontario and Manitoba will be represented. That is the position in which the matter now stands.
  My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has called my attention to a letter of Mr. Rogers of the 23rd of February. That letter is not in the interview as reported in the 'Citizen,' but I found it in another paper, the Toronto 'Star' of yesterday, and is as follows:
  Russell House, Ottawa, February 23, 1905.
  Sir,—As we find it necessary to leave Ottawa to-morrow, we desire to refer to our interview of Friday, the 17th, respecting Manitoba's claim for extension of her boundaries westward and northward, when you were good enough to suggest that if we would come here for two or three days you would be in a position to give us an answer respecting same. Up to the present, however, we have heard nothing further from you, excepting your statement in parlia 3845 APRIL 5, 1905 ment on Tuesday last, when introducing your Autonomy Bills, which we presume represents your fixed and final decision as to westward boundary.
In view of Manitoba's very strong claims, as presented to you in the memorial unanimously passed by our legislature, and supported and supplemented in our interview, we must enter, on behalf of the province, our firm protest against your decision in refusing to grant the prayer of our request, extension of our boundaries westward, and exceedingly regret that apparently local considerations have deprived Manitoba of what she rightfully regards as a most just claim.
Respecting extension northward, we most respectfully urge it on you that this should engage your consideration and attention during the present session.
We, of course, most emphatically deny the right of Quebec and Ontario having further to say in respect to the extension of our boundaries north to James bay, or that they could advance any claim worthy of consideration that would necessitate delay in attaching this territory immediately to Manitoba.
we regard this as exclusively a matter for settlement between our government and Manitoba. We sincerely trust that upon further consideration you may see your way clear to grant the request we make on behalf of a united province.
Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) R. ROGERS.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked me a moment ago why this letter was not included in the correspondence that has been brought down. The answer is, that I have not received that letter. It is not of very great consequence in view of the facts. It is simply a letter of protest ; it adds nothing at all to the facts; but I did not receive it. This morning I asked my secretary to search and see whether or not it had been received. I have no remembrance of having received it and it is not on file. I have brought everything that there is on file on this question. Moreover, I do not think it matters very much whether Mr. Rogers wrote or did not write that letter, in view of the interview he gave and which was published in the 'Citizen' of the 20th of February last upon this very point. In that interview Mr. Rogers stated to the reporter:
Mr. Campbell and myself have been appointed to come here to plead for what is considered by Manitoba to be her just claims, before the government who are the tribunal in the case, and whose decision must be final.
When do you expect a decision ?
I presume that when the Bill which is promised for Tuesday next is brought down, it will represent the government's decision in the matter.
Mr. Rogers was present on the floor of this House on the 21st of February and heard me state the decision of the government, and therefore there was not much occasion for him to write two days later asking for a decision. But this point is of no consequence. I mention it simply as a 3845 3846 reason why the letter was not included in the correspondence.
I have only one word more to say about the extraordinary interview of Mr. Rogers. I will read again a statement of Mr. Rogers which appears in the 'Citizen' under the heading 'Laurier's Double Dealing.' Mr. Rogers says:
We have no desire in Manitoba for double dealing about this or any other question. This, however, appears to be a favourite course of Sir Wilfrid. For example, in 1896 he signed an official statement declaring himself to be entitled to credit for the final settlement of the Manitoba school question, while immediately following we find from the correspondence brought down in the parliament of Canada the following extract from a letter to Cardinal Rampolla, which he has never denied.
I have only two observations to make on this. I do not know to what Mr. Rogers refers when he says that I signed an official statement declaring myself to be entitled to credit for the final settlement of the Manitoba school question. It is not of any consequence, but I do not know what Mr. Rogers means when he says that. In the statement immediately following, the impression is conveyed that the Canadian government brought down correspondence between the government of Canada and Cardinal Rampolla. There is no such thing in fact. The government of Canada never had any correspondence with Cardinal Rampolla and never brought down any correspondence, because there was none to bring down. What is true is that in 1896 my self and several of my co-religionists, having some difficulties in our own church, appealed to the authorities of our own church to settle them. There was nothing more than that. We did it, not as a government, but simply as men belonging to the Roman Catholic church. We had trouble over matters of ecclesiastical policy, and we appealed to the supreme arbiter in our church to determine these matters. There was nothing more or less. On this occasion I have nothing more to say, but I thought that under the circumstances I owed it to myself and the House simply to make a statement of the facts as they are.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. I simply wish to supplement briefly some of the remarks that have fallen from my right hon. leader. The communication from Mr. Rogers contains a statement to the effect that at the invitation of His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti, he waited upon him, and that on that occasion the Papal ablegate said that if they would make some concessions, the mission of the Manitoba representatives would likely be successful. That mission was for the purpose of having the boundaries of that province extended to the shores of Hudson bay. It was suggested that the difficulty in the way of Manitoba securing the extension could, in some way or other he removed if some concessions were made by 3847                                                             COMMONS                                                       the Manitoba government on the school question. To that point I wish to address myself for a moment. I was requested by the First Minister to attend the meeting of the 17th of February at which were present the gentlemen named by him. I did not know before going the object of the meeting. I was aware that the Manitoba government had sent to this administration a memorial requesting, among other things, the extension of its boundaries northward to Hudson bay. The words of the memorial are literally 'northward to Hudson bay.' I attended that meeting and there were present Mr. Colin Campbell, Mr. Rogers, the premier and perhaps the Minister of Justice.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. The Minister of Justice was not present, so far as my recollection goes, during the time I was there. A few minutes after I arrived Mr. Rogers,—who was the only minister from Manitoba who spoke—explained that his government desired the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba easterly to the Hudson bay and northerly. The memorial said northerly, and when he explained that they desired an extension easterly to Hudson bay, so as to include territory at the mouth of the Churchill river and the Nelson river, I at once observed that he was asking to extend the territory of Manitoba easterly in a direction which would perhaps interest the province of Ontario as well. Up to that moment, when it was only proposed, so far as the memorial went, to extend Manitoba northerly,—although they may have intended north easterly to come out at Hudson bay— it did not occur to me that the desire was to go to the mouths of those two rivers. Therefore so soon as that object was known to me, I said that the province of Ontario would have the right to be heard before we could adjudicate upon that point or form any opinion upon it. Mr. Rogers took the ground that the province of Ontario had no right or claim to any territory lying north of that province and adjacent to Manitoba's easterly limit, and therefore had no right to be heard. I controverted that view and explained that I could not agree to it. He said if you will allow me I can satisfy you that Ontario has no right to be heard. I replied that it would be a waste of time to try and convert me on that point and that, speaking as a minister from the province of Ontario, I must insist upon that province being heard before this question is gone into.
I did not succeed in influencing the Manitoba representatives and I turned to the premier and informed him that, as a minister coming from Ontario, I was not prepared to discuss these questions affecting the rights of Ontario until the government of that province was present and could submit its case. Upon that statement I withdrew from the meeting, and I am told 3847 3848 that the claim for extension to Hudson bay then and there ceased for the time being. I take the ground to-day, as a minister from Ontario, without expressing any opinion as to how the territory should be divided, that our province is entitled to an opportunity to present its case before the parliament of Canada deals with it. In my opinion it is quite possible to make a fair distribution, so that Ontario may be able to acquire a deep sea harbour and Manitoba be similarly equipped on the Hudson bay. Our territory extends to James bay but I believe James bay is shallow and not suitable ocean navigation, whereas when you go to the west coast of Hudson bay, you have two possible ports, one at the mouth of the Nelson river, which with dredging may be made a very good sea harbour, and it might be regarded by the two provinces as a fair division of territory if Manitoba were given a harbour at the mouth of the Churchill river and Ontario at Nelson river. That was the idea that went through my mind when I heard of this claim ; and so far as the Papal Ablegate is concerned, the statement made in this newspaper is the first intimation I have that he took any part in the adjustment of the boundaries of Ontario. Long before the interview in question, I had given, so far as a minister from Ontario could do so, a decision as the attitude I assumed on that question, and that was that until the province of Ontario could be heard, no conclusion could be come to.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) I have very little to say in respect of what has fallen from the Prime Minister. I am glad to know that the Prime Minister to-day has not adhered to that reticence which has characterized him on similar occasions in the immediate past, and I suppose that it might be fair to assume, that if he had as good a case with respect to the ignoring of his Minister of the Interior and his Minister of Finance in regard to important measures as that which he has made today, with regard to the matter with which he has dealt, he would have given us an explanation that has not yet been made with reference to the introduction of this Bill without even consultation with these two gentlemen. It is gratifying to know that although two members of his own government could not be consulted with regard to the provisions of this Bill, the Postmaster General has been so strenuous in his advocacy of the rights of his province of Ontario that the ministers of that province had to be consulted. However, there is an old proverb that charity well understood begins at home, and possibly the rights of ministers to be heard with regard to important matters to be dealt with by parliament may be extended not only to the provincial ministers of Ontario, but to ministers of this very administration.
3849 APRIL 5, 1905
I do not know anything about the letter of the 23rd of February which has been referred to to-day except that I received a telegram only this morning from the attorney general of Manitoba, who evidently had observed that this letter had not been included in the documents brought down, and he asked me to mention the matter to the Prime Minister and to see that it was brought down with the other documents. That is the only knowledge I have with regard to it and it is quite evident that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell were thoroughly under the impression that that letter had not only been sent, but had been received by the Prime Minister. Assuming that that letter was written and should have been received it seems to bear out very strongly the view which Mr. Rogers had expressed in the interview alluded to by the Prime Minister. He says :
Sir, as we find it necessary to leave Ottawa to-morrow, we desire to refer to our interview of Friday, the 17th, respecting Manitoba's claim for extension of her boundaries westward and northward, when you were good enough to suggest that if we would come here for two or three days you would be in a position to give us an answer respecting same.
They remained here not only two or three days, but as the letter shows until the 23rd of February, and they departed without receiving any answer or any intimation beyond that. But they received an intimation from His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti which has been dealt with by the Prime Minister and by Mr. Rogers in his interview. As to that I have nothing to say to-day nor have I anything to say with regard to the whole situation, although it may afford an opportunity for a little more debate later on. It seems to me that the explanation of the Prime Minister which has been made in consequence of the interview with Mr. Rogers might well have been made at some earlier date. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is surely not unaware that in two very important journals, one of which at least is in very close touch with the administration and is supposed to have been controlled up to a day or two ago by a very prominent member of this administration, this very reason has been put forward. I would think that when a distinct rumour of that kind is heralded throughout the length and breadth of this country it might have been well for the Prime Minister at an earlier date to take an opportunity of contradicting that which he has so strongly contradicted to-day. He knows that every prominent journal in Canada has published words which are to be found in the Northwest ' Review,' in the later part of February or early in March and which are as follows :
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 3849 3850 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.
That is a pretty direct statement. In so many words it says that until Manitoba alters its schools policy it shall not have its boundaries extended in any direction. That or a similar statement in the press was brought to the attention of the House and my right hon. friend paid some attention to it then, but did not pay attention to it in this connection. I have observed his words carefully. He said there was no intention on the part of this administration to attempt any remedial legislation with respect to schools in Manitoba, but I did not observe in my right hon. friend's remarks on that occasion any suggestion that the statement I have read was absolutely without foundation, may I observe to the right hon. gentleman that it might have been better in the interests of the whole country that some such utterance as that which he has made to-day should have been made in consequence of the statement in the press to which I have referred ? In a journal, controlled as it is said—I know not with what truth—by a member of the administration until within the last two or three days, the same statement is made in very specific language, and it is right to observe also that this journal claims to be the special mouthpiece of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He has disclaimed that and I accept his disclaimer to the full. He says he is not interested in that journal. but the journal itself declares that it is the organ of the Liberal party, and that it is under the direction and absolute control of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That journal has said :
The school legislation of the little province—
That is the province of Manitoba.
—is not of a nature to attract 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.
A little before that the same paper says :
In proportion to her big sisters Manitoba will count as little more than a large county.
In view of these suggestions, they are more than suggestions, in view of these direct statements, one of them made by a journal supposed to be under the control of a very prominent member of the administration, and claiming for itself to be under the absolute direction and control of the 3851 COMMONS   right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in view of all this, might I not respectfully inquire whether it would not have been well for the right hon. gentleman on an earlier occasion than that which he has selected to have made to the country the statement which he has made to-day.
I have nothing to say with regard to the position which is said to have been assumed by His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti. He is not in any sense responsible to this parliament, he is responsible only to his ecclesiastical superiors in authority. The only persons who are in any way responsible to this parliament are the government of this country, and I thought that my right hon. friend to-day might have gone a little further than he did go. He knows as well as any of the rest of us, that it has been rumoured throughout this country, not only rumoured but stated in the public press that there were negotiations with His Excellency with regard to education in the Northwest Territories if not in Manitoba. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did not see fit to touch that question at all to-day and I suppose when he thinks a proper occasion arises he will deal with it, but in the meantime I may call his attention to the fact that the statements to that effect are being made in the press of the country ; upon what authority I do not know. All I do know is this, that when statements made in a very much less direct manner, and on very slight foundation were current in 1895 and 1896, with regard to the Conservative administration of those days my hon. friend was always ready to come forward and ask for ministerial explanations and if necessary to move the adjournment of the House in order that they might be discussed.
In view of the attitude which he saw fit to adopt ten years ago, we might have expected that he would have gone a little further to-day when he called the attention of the House to these circumstances. As I said before, the matter may perhaps require to be discussed a little further. I was not aware that the right hon. gentleman intended to bring it up to-day in this somewhat extended form. If necessary, it may be brought up and discussed on a future occasion.
Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald). I want to call attention for a moment to that mysterious letter of the 23rd of February. I think I can bring testimony to show where this letter went, and I think I can trace it to the right hon. the First Minister's own residence. Now, 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. He says now there is no doubt but that he did deliver the letter. Surely 3851 3852 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 now as it was in his younger days. 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.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I want to correct my hon. friend. I stated that Mr. Rogers was here on the 21st of February, and I am sure of that ; and I stated that Mr. Campbell was here also, but I was not so sure of that and that is what I said. In regard to the letter that was sent to my House, I think that if it was sent to my house it must have gone astray somewhere, because I have never seen it. I really did not suppose that anybody would suspect that I would make an inaccurate statement in regard to that.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York). I intend for a few moments to refer to and comment upon the statement made here to-day. On February 27th I brought to the attention of this House the very question referred to just now by the leader of the opposition, when I read a declaration of the French newspaper called ' Le Soleil ,' saying it was the organ of the government, and I also read its editorial, which declared that Manitoba wes being punished by a denial of extension of her western or other boundaries because of her school laws. The right hon. gentleman repudiated all that. He said there was no intention of punishing Manitoba, and he made light of the statements I made. But since then it has come out that that newspaper was his newspaper, at least it has never been denied, and a colleague of his, according to a statement in the papers, transferred the other day a large portion of the shares he held in that paper to a senator who is a supporter of the right hon. gentleman. It has been shown by other quotations from papers supporting the government that little Manitoba was being punished for her iniquitious school legislation, there is no doubt about that. Now comes the Hon. Mr. Rogers, and his statement has been read here to-day and remains undenied in a great many respects so far as the Prime Minister is concerned. Mr. Rogers says that he received a letter from the Archbishop of Ephesus, Monseigneur Sbarretti, and there 3853 APRIL 5, 1905 is no denial of that; there is no denial of the fact that he waited upon the Apostolic delegate at his residence. There is another statement that the Papal ablegate presented to him these amendments which he desired to be put in the school law of Manitoba, and that is the question before the people of Canada to-day. Did this Archbishop of Ephesus, the delegate Apostolic to Canada, this delegate of the Pope—did he present these amendments to one of the ministers of the province of Manitoba ? And what were they ? They were in the shape of a command that members of the government of Manitoba should stultify themselves by making provision in the law in Manitoba for a separate school establishment, after it had been refused by the legislature and by the people of that country, and after the right hon. gentleman had .refused to pass remedial legislation or to take any hand in securing remedial legislation for the Catholic minority of that province. Well, that much has been proved. What more has been proved? What more has not been denied here to-day ? What is singular is that which has not been denied. Probably the right hon. gentleman is in no position to deny it. Mr. Rogers says :
This invitation was accepted and His Excellency then presented the following memorandum, remarking that if we would place this on the statute-book of our province it would greatly facilitate an early settlement of our mission, the fixing of our boundaries, which would be extended to the shores of Hudson bay. His Excellency further added that our failure to act in the past had prejudiced our claim for extension westward.
Now is that true or is it not ? Is it true that the delegate of the Pope told this member of the Manitoba government that their failure to act in the past had prevented an extension of their western boundary, and that if they would give him this remedial legislation now—for it is remedial legislation that he was seeking—they would get their request for an extension to the north. The people of Canada want to know to-day if that statement was really made. There has been no denial of it today. The Prime Minister says he cannot deny it, but the people of Canada want to know if it is true befdre any such Bill as that now before the House is passed. What more took place ? There has been no denial to another statement of Mr. Rogers, namely, that this office of Papal delegate to Canada was created by the hon. gentlemen Opposite, or rather was created at their request—there is no denial of that. It is known now to all the people of this country that we have a Papal delegate here at the request of hon. gentlemen opposite and that is proved in this very document.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Mr. Speaker. the hon. gentleman is entirely misstating the facts if he means by 'hon. gentlemen opposite ' the government.
3853 3854
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I did not say that. I said gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House are responsible for this Papal delegate being here.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. I suppose the hon. gentleman would feel at liberty to attend to his own church without the permission of parliament?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Let me read what Mr. Rogers says. The following extract has not been denied:
It is desirable, if not necessary, that the mission of Monseigneur Merry Del Val should be or rather continued, and that he should be present in the midst of us for a more or less prolonged time as the accredited representative of the Holy See.
The hon. Minister of Justice, as Mr. Chas. Fitzpatrick, and the right hon. Prime Minister, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and forty other colleagues of theirs in this House made the representation to the Holy See and the hon. the Minister of Justice, though acting as Mr. Chas. Fitzpatrick, asked that this delegate should be sent to Canada. The statement is here and it is not denied.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The hon. gentleman can read the petition. The petition of the Catholic members was read in this House. '
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I know and it proves that statement.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. And then, the
legal agent of this government in London was used as a missionary to go to Rome to have this appointment confirmed.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. How much did it cost ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I do not know. This is an extract from the letter that Mr. Russell presented in Rome :
I have just arrived at Rome once more at the urgent request of the Catholic members of the government and parliament of Canada. My instructions enjoin the to again renew to Your Eminence the desire which I had already the honour to express to you, that His Holiness will be pleased to nominate a permanent delegate to Canada as a representative of His Holiness, who would reside on the spot. but would be outside all local interests.
That is not denied. Then, what else follows '3 Mr. Russell, the Canadian legal representative, wrote to His Eminence as follows :
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.
Now, that is a very important statement. The beginning of justice took place in 1896. The completion of justice is taking place in 1905, when the west is to be fettered in 3855 COMMONS regard to her school freedom. In addition I wish to refer to another thing. Does not the right hon. gentleman, in the view of responsible government, in the full conception we have of responsible government in this country and in England, consider that he is responsible for that delegate being here and responsible for his conduct in this country just as much as if he were one of his own administration, or one of his own civil service ?
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The right hon. gentleman and his colleagues laugh, but they brought that high dignitary here. He came at their request and for all the things that he does in connection with the politics and education of this country the right hon. gentleman will find that he is held responsible, and as a matter of fact he is responsible, within the full meaning of the British constitution.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. He has not denied his responsibility.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Now, we have had it very clearly pointed out in this debate so far that the ablegate is here at the request of the government.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. That is not correct. He is not here at the request of the government.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. He is here at the request of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Some gentlemen.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. He is here, according to Mr. Russell's statement, which has never been denied, at the request of members of the government of Canada and at the request of members of the parliament of Canada, and I say, and I say it in the hearing of the people of Canada, that the government of the day are responsible because all the members of the government are responsible for the acts of the individual members of the government and every member who sits behind them and supports the government is responsible for the conduct of the government in this matter. We referred to Russian rule the other day. They have the procurator general of the Holy Synod in Russia, and it looks now to me as if the Papal ablegate in this country occupies the same position as a member of this government. Any way the evidence of that is not denied ; it has not been denied to-day. The Papal ablegate has had an oppourtunity day after day of denying it. For some reason he has not seen fit to deny it and unless he does deny it, it will be taken as true that he did have that conversation with Mr. Rogers, that he did press the acceptance of these two amendments upon them, that he did tell them that if they did accept them they would find that their boundaries 3855 3856 would be extended to the north, and that the reason that their boundaries had not been extended to the west was because of their school legislation. This is something that the people want an explanation of. It is something of which no explanation has been given here to-day and if the right hon. leader of the government thinks that this is to pass off with the explanation made here to-day he greatly misunderstands the situation of this country. There is a political crisis in this country, there is a feeling of unrest that hon. gentlemen opposite pretend to ignore but it is here, it must be dealt with and there is nothing that confirms it so much as the timidity of hon. gentlemen opposite. They are afraid to do anything. They cannot fill the vacancies in their cabinet. They cannot send the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) back for the endorsation of his constituents, they are doing everything that men who have done wrong and fear public censure could do, but they are not discharging their duty as they ought to discharge it.
I do not know that the right hon. leader of the government made it clear whether any of his colleagues had been in consultation with the Papal ablegate or not, but let us recall what took place. It is well to bear in mind that there are two faiths in this country ; there is the Roman Catholic faith and there is the Protestant faith, and there is such a thing as keeping faith between the two faiths in this country. How did this Bill come before parliament as far as we know from the discussion which has taken place here ? The right hon. leader of the government, the hon. Minister of Justice, and the hon. the Secretary of State, three co-religionists, one with the other drew up this Bill.
Mr. BRODEUR. Shame.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Now let me make my statement. The hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) and the hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), who are supposed to represent Ontario opinion, as far as we know, were not present when it was drawn up. Then, we have the further statement that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), both men who were supposed to represent the Protestant faith in the government,–I suppose there has been some recognition of religion in the formation of the cabinet—were not consulted. But, on the contrary, by some process of stealth, it was got past them. There is no accounting for that, but the fact remains that legislation was actually introduced by three members of the government, and I am not saying anything as reflecting on their religion in any way whatsoever, but they happen to be of one religion, and they did not consult with their colleagues before the Bill was introduced.
3857 APRIL 5, 1905
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. That is quite untrue.
Mr. FISHER. Absolutely untrue.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Well. it has not been denied.
Mr. FISHER. It is denied now.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. It has been denied over and over again by the premier.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. It has been admitted that the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior knew nothing about it and the hon. Minister of Finance says he knew nothing about it and they both have said in the House that practically that Bill was introduced by stealth.
Mr. FISHER. Not so.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. They have not.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will leave it to the hon. gentleman to explain.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. You need not lie about it.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then, another thing; by stealth it was taken past the members of the west, by stealth it was taken past the representatives of the government in the Northwest Territories, and by stealth it was taken past the caucus of hon. gentlemen opposite, so that, as far as we know, this Bill got into this House under the circumstances which I have stated here to-day. Now then, there is another thing and I want to deal with these questions as they have been stated here and as they are. I take the full responsibility for every thing I say. There is evidence now in this country that the right hon. gentleman is paying his political debts at the ex— pense of the civil and educational rights of the people of this country.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. That is an imputation that the hon. member should not make,
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I don't think that Mr. Speaker—
Mr. SPEAKER. I think that is an offensive imputation which the hon. gentleman should not make.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Take it back.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will modify it.
Mr. SPEAKER. Withdraw it.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Which statement ?
Mr. SPEAKER. As I understand, when you are out of order and I have directed you to do so, you will withdraw the statement which is out of order.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. What statement do you object to? I said the right hon. gentleman is paying his political debts
3857 3858
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. My ruling must not be discussed; it I am wrong the hon. gentleman has his remedy.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Will you please tell me the statement to which you object ?
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to call your judgment in question, but if the point you make is that the hon. member for South York is out of order in saying that the right hon. the Prime Minister is paying his political debts, it seems to me that is straining the rule.
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman (Mr. White), as I understand it, misconceives what the hon. member (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has said. As I understood him, he said that the Prime Minister was attempting to pay his political debts by sacrificing the civil rights of the people.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. And the educational rights of the people.
Mr. SPEAKER. In my judgment and under my ruling, that is an offensive statement in reference to the Prime Minister. which the hon. gentleman must withdraw. If I am wrong in that, he has his remedy.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Withdraw.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Mr. Speaker, I must bow and withdraw, and I will have an opportunity elsewhere of saying what my opinion is. And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this, that we have government in this country—
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Don't let them bluff you Billy.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order, please; or I will be obliged to name you (Mr. Sam. Hughes).
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I will not be—
Mr. SPEAKER. Order; you must sit down.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order. Expel him.
Mr. SPEAKER. I am again in the judgment of the House, when I call a gentleman to order who says to another member who is speaking. directing his reference to the Speaker : Don't let him bluff you.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I rise to a point of order. I rise to take the full responsibility in this House for what I have said. I say that the member for South York ought not to be bluffed by any authority in this House.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I assume the full responsibility for it.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. or I will be obliged to name you.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Do all the naming you like.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Pshaw.
Mr. FOSTER. What will happen if you are named? Will he call out: 'Colonel Sam. Hughes' ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. My opinion is, and I take the full responsibility for saying it, and I intend to say it from one end of this country to the other, that the government of this country is to-day due to two things. The government of this country is to-day due to a combination between a solid Quebec and a corporation interest in this country, which is centred in Toronto. And what happened here the other night in regard to the municipal rights of the city of Ottawa is one instance of it.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Yes, it is one instance where the municipal rights—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Nonsense.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Yes ; the municipal rights of the people of Ontario were in question here the other night, and there was a vote of eighty against them, and forty-one of that eighty came from the province of Quebec. And this legislation which is brought here today, this proposal to put fetters on the people of the west in regard to their educational authority, is a contribution to the demand from a solid Quebec that the people of the Northwest shall be deprived of their educational rights. The people of the Northwest are here asking for educational freedom, and I do not believe they will get three or five votes from the province of Quebec. It is evident that the province of Quebec is going out of its way—
Mr. BELCOURT. Nonsense.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. It is evident that the province of Quebec is going out of its way to put fetters on and manacle the people of the west and deprive them of their rights under the constitution.
Mr. BELCOURT. Why don't you march on Quebec right off ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Just let me bring out an instance that shows it. The province of Manitoba has been denied an extension of her boundaries at the instigation of the province of Quebec.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.
An hon. MEMBER. Prove it.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will prove it in this way : that a solid Quebec within two or three members will vote for this iniquitous proposition in regard to the autonomy of the Northwest.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.
3859 3860
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Will the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question to him ? Speaking of the demand of the province of Manitoba to extend its boundary easterly to Hudson bay, does he say, or does he not, that the province of Ontario should be heard before such a request is conceded ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will not deny that.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. And when the Postmaster General said that the province of Ontario ought to be consulted in regard to a few waste acres, what about the people of the west, and the minister from the west, and the government of the west, not being consulted in regard to their civil and educational liberties ? What is a bit of land to a man's educational rights ? What is a bit of land to a man's freedom and religious liberty ? Coming back to the other issue. When the little province of Manitoba asked for an extension to the west, 'Le Soleil' of Quebec denied that request, and gave as a reason—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Let me give you another reason which also comes from the province of Quebec. If Manitoba were allowed to extend her boundaries to the west, that portion of the new territory brought into Manitoba would have no separate schools and that portion of the Territories which remained in the new provinces would have the right to separate schools under this legislation.
Mr. TURRIFF. I beg leave to ask a question.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. TURRIFF. The province of Quebec has not the first thing to do, one way or the other, with the extension of Manitoba to the west—
Mr. SPEAKER. I understood the hon. gentleman to say he wanted to ask a question.
Mr. TURRIFF. I want to ask what evidence he has that the province of Quebec would prevent the extension of Manitoba to the west ? It is the people of the Territories who object to the extension of Maui toba westward.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The province of Quebec made the statement here through one of its members that they helped to pay for that land in the west, and they have as much to say about it as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff).
MR. INGRAM. Which land ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I am not going to discuss private ownership of land in this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear—
3861 APRIL 5, 1905
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh ; where ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The hon. gentlemen opposite like to throw out their gibes and their flaunts, but it is clear that if the province of Manitoba had been extended westward, even if it were only one meridian, it would have knocked the constitutional argument of the Prime Minister into a cocked hat. And if Manitoba were extended westward, that portion included in it would be free from this separate school clause. Now, then, I want to deal with the solid Quebec and what they are doing in regard to this school question. This is a question that never should have come into this House. It is a local question which could be settled in a local way, and which should not be spread out in the Dominion parliament as a federal issue. It should have been settled in the province ; it should have been left to the west.
Mr. BRODEUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not think the hon. gentleman should discuss the Bill which is now engaging the attention of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER. I think that is the rule.
Mr. BENNETT. Take it up to Centre Toronto.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then I have this to say, that this Bill which is the subject of discussion here to-day—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. If hon. gentlemen will have it that way, I will leave it with them ; but I have this to say in conclusion, that any legislation which is attempted in this House in regard to this matter will receive whatever opposition I can command, and the opposition of a considerable number of the members from Ontario. The right hon. gentleman is near the exhaustion of his supplies, and, so far as I am concerned, I wish to tell him now that no legislation of the character that he has introduced without consulting the people of the west will be allowed to go through committee or any other stage as long as I am able to oppose it, with some others who will be associated with me in that work. This legislation is not in the interest of the people of Canada. There will be meetings held in this country from one end to the other.
An hon. MEMBER. Hold them now.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. All right. Hon. gentlemen may make these statements here ; but let them come out on the platform with me, and see who will get a hearing. Let the right hon. gentleman open a constituency in the west if he dare. Let him put up his candidate in Centre Toronto to justify the statements made here to-day. Let the Postmaster General dare to face a meeting in the city of Toronto. He dare not go even 3861 3862 into his own constituency of North York and discuss this Bill. I will go into North York and discuss it before his own electors. I challenge him now to name the day and the place in North York where he will discuss this measure with me. Or I will resign my seat if he will resign his seat, and I will run against him in North York. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I will resign my seat in South York and run against the Postmaster General in North York where he had a majority of nearly one thousand. And I challenge the member for London (Mr. Hyman) to resign his seat, and I will go and run against him there. I challenge my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell) to do the same. That hon. gentleman would have been to-day in the cabinet but for this legislation ; but because of this legislation his career is absolutely wound up, and he dare not resign his seat. But if he does, I will resign mine and run against him in Centre York. Yes, I will go further : I will resign my seat, and I will run in Oxford if the government care to make a vacancy there, and I will make only the one issue, the abandonment of provincial rights by this government, which at one time professed to be the champion of provincial rights. Later on I intend to expand much more fully on this question, when I suppose I shall be more in order than I am to-day. But I do now challenge the Prime Minister and those who sit alongside of him. Where is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who is implicated in these statements, and who ought to be here to-day ? I expect hon. gentlemen opposite to make a statement on this matter to-morrow. I expect them to go to the Papal ablegate, who is here at their request, and get from him a statement which will clear them of the charge made to-day. The denial which has been made is no denial. It is not even an explanation to the country, which today is demanding that an answer be made to the statement made in that letter of Mr. Rogers and no answer is forthcoming. The people Want to know if those two propositions were submitted to the Minister of Public Works of Manitoba. The people want to know if there was a reference in that interview to the question of the Manitoba boundaries ; and, if it is true, they want to know what the government of Canada intend to do. We know what President Cleveland did with the British ambassador. The moment he was trapped into making a statement which he should not have made, President Cleveland gave him his passport. I say that the right hon. gentleman, as a member of the Dominion government, and the forty members of parliament who were associated with him, are bound to send Mr. Russell to Rome, even at the expense of the Dominion, to ask for the recall of this Italian priest who has had the temerity to interfere with 3863 COMMONS the government of this country. Hon. gentlemen may laugh ; but we all know what King John said—and let me tell these hon. gentlemen that this is my sentiment—that 'no Italian priest shall tithe or toll in our dominions.' Now, there is a proposal to toll and tithe in our dominions by an outside influence. The Prime Minister knows that his statement was not in accordance with the facts when he said that there was no intention to interfere with the Dominion school lands. There is practically an intention to interfere with the Dominion school lands, and there is a proposition to toll and tithe in our domains by an outside influence. I leave hon. gentlemen to explain this matter before the country. They have not explained it to-day ; I do not believe they can explain it. I challenge them to attempt to explain it before this House. I challenge them to come out on the public platform and try to explain the statements that have been made here today.
Mr. H. H. MILLER. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has today quoted Shakespeare. I would like to remind him of another quotation, the words of one Shakespearian character to another:
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, Seem to see the things thou dost not.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Mr. Speaker: 1 rise to a point of order. I thought, when you were so earnest in the discharge of your duty to protect the good name of members of this House, that the same earnestness would have characterized your conduct towards the hon. gentleman who has referred to me.
Mr. SPEAKER. If the hon. gentleman had heard distinctly, he would have heard me call that hon. gentleman to order also.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then I must ask the hon. the Speaker to call on the hon. member to withdraw the statement.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Take it back.
Mr. SPEAKER. I call on the hon. member who applied the term ' scurvy politician' to the hon. member for South York to withdraw the term.
Mr. MILLER. I beg to explain that I made no accusation.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Withdraw.
Mr. MILLER. I beg to withdraw the quotation, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle). Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of following the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) through the rambling speech which we have just heard. I desire simply to ask 3863 3864 hon. gentlemen opposite if they really intend to fasten on the parliament of Canada such a reputation that in any civilized country we would be looked upon as not worthy of enjoying liberty of speech and representative institutions. In Russia where there is no such thing as representative government, no sane, no decent man would think of getting up before any audience of peasants, deprived of the most primary education, and make such an onslaught on the representative of His Holiness the Pope as has been made in this House. Why, all the civilized nations of the world entertain relations with the head of the Catholic church. The Protestant government of England entertains direct and official relations with the Pope. The Protestant government of Germany, the Orthodox government of Russia— in fact all the governments of the world, including the government of Washington. entertain official relations with the Pope, and no citizen of any one of these countries would think for a moment that it was any discredit to his country that it should hold relations with the highest moral authority acknowledged by the greatest number of men in this world at present. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has challenged the Postmaster General and other members of this government and of parliament to go and make an election in their respective counties and to meet him on the public platform. But on what ground, Sir, does he invite them to make the election ? 0n the ground of provincial rights. He had not even the courage to say what really was the ground on which he wanted to make the contest. If he had stated the true grounds on which he would care to run an election, he would have stated grounds which might have been of some use in England 300 years ago but would not be tolerated in any civilized country to-day— the ground of no popery and no romish domination. That is the cry the hon. gentleman would like to raise. And that is the kind of cry, as things have been going, the past few weeks, which the leader of the opposition will be charged with encouraging. That is the cry which the leader of a once respected party in the Dominion is lending himself to.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am charged with that perhaps by the hon. gentleman but I absolutely deny that anything of the kind can be taken from any word I have spoken.
Mr. BOURASSA. The leader of the opposition has got into this unfortunate position that he is not even capable of either standing for or against anything which is going on in his party. He will not be charged with being the direct author or promoter of all the offensive and silly things which are being stated in the organs of his party and by some members of his party, but he will be charged with not having the courage and the manliness of standing up 3865 APRIL 5, 1905   and denouncing such an infamous policy. And at a moment like this, when such appeals are being made to the worst passions of the people, the leaders of great parties who have not the courage to stand up against this current of opinion and check the fanaticism of their partisans, are as responsible as if they were the authors of them. Let the hon. the leader of the opposition consult some of his best and most enlightened friends. Let him have a conversation upon this question—I will not say with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) or the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), who have shown by their speeches that they had the courage to separate from their party upon a question like this and stand for truth and justice and fair-play— but I will say to the leader of the opposition : let him consult the most enlightened Protestant members of his party, those men who have been educated in the political school of the late Sir John Macdonald, and ask them if the Conservative party is following a wise and a good course in allowing itself to be dragged down to such depths of political infamy, as it is being dragged into by the Toronto ' News ' and the Toronto ' World,' and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the member for South York and the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). These gentlemen may meet with some success for a little while ; but as a French Canadian, who has gone time and again into the province of Ontario, I have too much respect for the good people of that province to think that even if they may get excited a little while by such wild appeals, they will stand for any such policy. The member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has defied any member of the government to go and meet him on the public platform in the province of Ontario. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am ready to accept that challenge. I am ready to meet the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) or the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) or even the hon. and gallant member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) even with his man Turpin behind him—I am ready to go and discuss the issue with these gentlemen before any audience in the province of Ontario. I do not say that I would gather votes ; but I say that if any man in this House, whether French or English-speaking, Protestant or Catholic, Liberal or Conservative, would go and appeal to the common sense and spirit of fair- play of the people of Ontario he would, if not gain votes, at least get a good hearing. And I do not hesitate to say that in the long run, when the heat of passion had subsided, he might even ask for some votes on such a ground.
As regards the propriety and the advisability of the presence of a Papal delegate in this country, I need not speak at length. I need only mention, as I have done, that all governments of civilized nations entertain 3865 3866 direct official relations with the Pope. My hon. friend the Postmaster General has said that this government had nothing to do with the appointment of the Papal delegate. As a matter of fact that is perfectly true. But even if the government of Canada had requested the Pope to send a delegate to this country, would that be a greater sin than is committed by other governments at Washington, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Vienna ? Even the present anti-clerical French government at Paris, though the official relations have been broken off, keep relations with an unofficial representative of the Holy See.
An hon. MEMBER. And in London.
Mr. BOURASSA. No, I do not think there is an official ablegate in London. But I understand there is an accredited representative of His Holiness there who keeps up relations between the British government and the head of the church. But the talents of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) have been wasted. He should have gone to the old country some years ago, when, through the representative of the British government in Rome—not the representative accredited to the King of Italy but the representative accredited to the Pope— the British government entered into negotiations with His Holiness in order to bring about a better understanding between the Irish party and the government of England. Even in that small section of the British empire from which, if I know anything of their origin, my hon. friends from South York and Victoria and Haliburton come, there arose no cry of dissent to that proceeding. Even the Ulster Orangemen were not prepared to find any fault if, through the pacifying influence of His Holiness, the Irish people could be brought to a better understanding with the King of England. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) at the beginning of the session made a plea for greater autonomy for Canada. Sir, the people of Canada would not be worthy of greater autonomy if one great political party of this country, which once held the reins of the government for years and which may again occupy office, has no better understanding of what constitutes the dignity of a nation, no better appreciation of the feelings of two millions of their fellow-citizens, and no better sense of the manner in which a respectable government should conduct the business of a self-reliant and self-respecting people, especially in their relations with foreign powers. And if the government of the Pope was for a time a foreign government from a temporal point of view, it is to-day no longer a temporal government but only a high moral government, guiding the spiritual affairs of 300,000,000 of human beings, among which are 12,000,000 respectable, law-abiding British subjects, including 2,000,000 Canadians of different origins. It is unworthy of mem 3867                                                         COMMONS                                                         bers of this House, of representatives of a great party, and representatives of a great province such as the province of Ontario, to come here and by means of innuendoes and insinuations and accusations which they have not the courage to make openly from their seats in parliament, to try and excite religious strife. I say they dare not make these openly because when you pin them down to the crucial point, they say : Oh yes, you are ruled by the Pope, and you are under French domination, but what we are ready to discuss in this House is provincial rights and constitutional principles. They are prepared to lead the people of Ontario to vote for provincial rights, but to do so animated by anti-Popish, anti-French feelings.
With reference to the request made by the Catholic members of the Liberal party to the Pope for the nomination of a Papal ablegate, I have no shame in saying that I have taken my share in that action; I have signed the document, and I have no shame either as a French Canadian, a Catholic, a British subject, or a member of this House, for so doing. Sir, knowing and appreciating as I do the liberty I enjoy as a British subject, under the British Crown, I was proud to ask the highest moral authority of the church to which I belong to send here a Papal ablegate who would see that good and proper relations existed between the clergy and laity of Quebec, to see that relations between the clergy and laity would be such that there would not be any cause of misunderstanding such as those which occurred at certain times in the past. The cause which induced the Liberal Catholic members of this House to seek the appointment of an ablegate here was that we could not see eye to eye with a certain part of our clergy as to the right way of dealing with certain political questions. And, Sir, in that respect I want to remind the House of the words of one of the greatest Protestant writers and philosophers of the nineteenth century, who has said that the Catholic church was a great school of respect. Appealing to the head of the church, we found justice, enlightenment, breadth of view and respect for the rights of the people. At one time or another there was trouble between the clergy and people of Quebec. Hon. gentlemen opposite are always talking about the priest- ridden people of Quebec, about the clerical domination under which the poor habitant is resting; but, Sir, do you know that we never stood from our clergy the kind of sermons and political interference that has been going on for the last month in Ontario ? For what reason did we ask the Pope to send an ablegate out here ? Exactly to prevent what is going on now in the province of Ontario. And this was not the first time that an ablegate was sent to Canada. The same thing was done in 1876 and later on on the 80's. But how was it in 3867 3868 those days ? The arch-defenders of British citizenship and of loyalty to Protestantism never raised their voices against the relations which existed between the Catholics of the province of Quebec and the Pope. Why ? Because of political reasons; because in those days the people of Quebec and the majority of the Catholic people kept them in the fats of office. Sir, I am sorry to see that a question which is put on this high ground of national feeling and fidelity to religious principle must after all be brought to that very low placed feeling of a thirst for office. These gentlemen, having found that their fiscal policy was of no influence with the people, that the country had no confidence in them, thought that there was in this country a sufficient number of people who would still believe in the old tales about the Gunpowder Plot, the Guy Fawkes conspiracy, and other matters that were taught 150 years ago, but which the poorest schoolmaster in England would be ashamed of mentioning, except possibly as the remnant of a legend which existed in the times of credulity in that country. That may appear to be exaggerated. But not later than a few days ago I read in a newspaper that proposes to enlighten the people of Canada, a statement to the effect that the same conspiracy, the same dark and sinister organization and the same powerful people who are now trying to shackle the people of the west, that same power of the province of Quebec, headed by the hierarchy that was trying to prevent the free people of the west from enjoying their liberty, could be related to the same man, to the same power and the same influences that brought about the Gunpowder conspiracy ! I have seen that statement printed in the columns of either the ' News' or the 'World,' because these two papers constitute a pair, and I cannot say which is the silliest. But, Sir, even when I read such things, printed in the twentieth century, in leading newspapers, published in a city like Toronto, and in a province like Ontario, I refuse to believe that you would find a majority of the people of Ontario who would believe such silly talk. I cannot believe it, and I must say that the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), in the allusions he has made to-day, just as in the cartoons which are published every day in his newspaper, is simply putting on his province the greatest slur that could be cast on it by any man. Sir, if I would stand up in this House and say that the province of Ontario is filled with a population of ignorant people, with a drown-trodden people under the control of the Methodist ministers, by which you could organize any kind of conspiracy to deprive the Catholic church of their power, to unthrone the Pope and prevent the priests of the province of Quebec from saying mass, I would not be saying more silly things than you read every day in three or four columns of the 'World' 3869 APRIL 5, 1905 or the 'News.' These newspapers are trying to create outside of Ontario the impression that Ontario is one of the most ignorant places on earth. I refuse to believe that. I refuse to believe that a majority of the people of Ontario can be carried by such an appeal. If any constituency in Ontario should be opened, I would be prepared to enter it, and unless the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), and the hon. member for Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes), with his man Turpin and the seventeen men who took General de Villiers and let him skip off the next morning—unless these two gentlemen would come together and throw stones at me, I do not think I would be prevented from speaking in Ontario, standing for the rights of my people, for the rights of justice in this country; standing for the good reputation of our country, and saying that it is just as legitimate for the Catholics to have here a representative of the highest spiritual authority on earth, as it is legitimate for the government of any civilized country to have a representative of the Pope, to have an ablegate to look after what ? Not to look after political questions, but to look after the interests of the church. And what are the interests of the church in any country ? The interests of the church include everything which looks to the development of the religion to which that church belongs and all such things must be looked after by that Papal ablegate.
I know nothing of what may have occurred between Monseigneur Sbarretti and Mr. Rogers, and I think it is most absurd to come into this House and ask any member of the federal House to give an account of what may have occurred between the Papal ablegate and a member of the Manitoba cabinet. If the hon. member for South York was so excited over the liberties of the people of Canada, he should have had some friend in the Manitoba house to raise the question and put Mr. Rogers on trial in Manitoba, before the people of that province, to whom he is responsible. If, Sir, it is such a nasty thing for the Catholics to have called for an ablegate to come into this country to look after their own affairs, after their own interests as Catholics, how is it that the hon. member for South York (Mr. IV. F. Maclean) has nothing to say against Mr. Rogers. a Protestant   statesman, who comes here and entertains relations with Monseigneur Sbarretti? If it was a sin, and a sin for which any man in this House should be arraigned before the people of Canada, it it was a sin for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for Mr. Brodeur, for Mr. Lemieux, for Mr. Bourassa, or any other hon. gentleman in this House to ask the Pope to send a representative to look after their own affairs, then what a crime has been committed by a member of the Manitoba government and of the legislative assembly of Manitoba, by a Protestant 3869 3870 statesman, in having an interview with Monseigneur Sbarretti ? I do not suppose that Mr. Rogers was troubled in his conscience and wanted to get absolution for his sins. So I presume that he visited His Excellency, acting in his official and political capacity. Therefore, if anybody must be denounced before the Protestantism of this country, if anybody must be denounced before the crowds of the county of South York, and must be burned or brought to the scaffold, it is Mr. Rogers, member of the Manitoba government. But, Sir, no, I would never think of making that kind of appeal; I acknowledge Mr. Rogers' right to go and meet Monseigneur Sbarretti and have a conversation with him. If the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam Hughes), would go and see Monseigneur Sbarretti and talk with him, I think it would do them a great deal of good—if any improvement is possible for those gentlemen—I am sure it would do them good. As for the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I do not think any improvement is possible with him, because I think he is desperately sincere.
But, coming back to our action in having a Papal ablegate to be appointed, we did it because we thought it was our duty to do it. Monseigneur Sbarretti has succeeded Monseigneur Falconio in the same capacity that Monseigneur Martinelli exercised at Washington where he has been succeeded by Monseigneur Falconio transferred from Ottawa. These prelates have been here representing the church, to look after the interests of the Roman Catholics of Canada. As I have said, I know nothing of what passed between Mr. Rogers and Monseigneur Sbarretti, and I would advise the hon. member for South York to call on them if he wants to know what transpired between them. But suppose that Monseigneur Sbarretti did discuss with Mr. Rogers the rights of the Catholics of Manitoba, suppose he did ask Mr. Rogers to do something for the Catholics of Manitoba, where in the name of justice and common sense is there anything wrong in that? Here is a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church, sent here to look after the interests of the people belonging to his church, and what harm is there in his meeting another gentleman and asking him if something could not be done for the interests of his people? Now, we have in this city a consul from the United States, he is here to look after the interests of the American people living in this country and the interests of American citizens who may be trading in this country; suppose he finds something in our tariff which he thinks is prejudicial to their interests, would it be a great sin for that gentleman to meet the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask if some change could not be made? Sir, it is about time that we should look at these questions from a common sense point of 3871 COMMONS view, and with greater breadth of mind. Monseigneur Sbarretti, in discussing with Mr. Rogers the interests of the Catholics of Manitoba, was not only acting within his rights, but was fulfilling his duty. As I said, I have not the slightest knowledge of what took place between them; but the idea of hon. gentlemen getting up in this House and talking about a conspiracy of the hierarchy, about the dark and sinister designs of the church, because a member of the local legislature of Manitoba has thought fit to hold an interview with the representative of the highest spiritual power in our church, I say that it is entirely unworthy of the dignity of a member of this House and the representative of a free people.
Hon. PETER WHITE (North Renfrew). I am sure that if the object of my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was to raise this discussion out of the rut into which he says it has fallen, the region of race and religion he has signally failed in doing so ; because during all the long years in which I have sat in parliament I do not think I ever listened to a more inflammatory speech than that to which the hon. member for Labelle has just treated this House. For my own part, speaking as a Protestant and as a representative of an Ontario constituency, I have to say, and I think the House will agree with me, that I have not the slightest objection to the bringing of a Papal delegate here to superintend the religious affairs of the Church of Rome. For my own part I have a great admiration for the moral teaching of the Church of Rome, although I do not believe in its tenets. But I do say as a citizen of this country that when the allegation is made that the Papal delegate, who comes here properly enough to fulfil the purpose for which he was brought—though the manner in which he was brought might not be acceptable to many of us who sit on this side of the House—though he came here properly enough to supervise the affairs of the church of which he is a distinguished dignitary; but I say that when it is alleged by the newspapers and by a leading member of the government of Manitoba, that that gentleman has interfered in a matter that does not belong to the domain of the Church of Rome at all, then I say that the people of this country, and at all events those of us who sit on this side of the House, have a right to complain. Now. Sir, what are the facts in relation to this matter? I am not here to relate the facts, because I do not know them. I accept to the fullest extent the statement made by the right hon. leader of the government that he had no knowledge of these negotiations going on between the Papal delegate and the representatives of the province of Manitoba; but I say that if these negotiations did go on according to the allegation that has been made, then Monseigneur Sbarretti ought not to remain in this country a single 3871 3872 hour longer than those gentlemen who secured his presence here can manage to effect his recall by communicating with his superior in Rome. I think it is their duty, it is the duty of those forty members of this parliament who secured his presence here. and especially is it the duty of the leader of the government, at the earliest possible moment, at once to communicate with the head of the church in Rome and secure the recall of that gentleman—if, I say, it be proven that these allegations made with regard to him are true.
Now, Sir, I want to say one word with reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Labelle respecting the hon. leader of the opposition. The hon. member for Labelle said that the hon. leader of the opposition had no opinions of his own, that his opinions were simply moulded by those who were following him in this House. I think, Sir, it ill becomes any supporter of the right hon. leader of this government to make a statement of that kind with regard to the leader of the opposition, when we know as a matter of fact, from the mouth of the right hon. gentleman the leader of the government himself, that his policy with regard to those important Bills which are now under discussion, was changed and modified to a material degree by the pressure of his followers in this House. Sir, I am sorry that I have been obliged to rise upon a question of this kind. But I thought it my duty to do so, and I consider I hold moderate views both political and religious. I have no objection to any man's political or religious views. but I do think that it is an unfortunate thing that an hon. gentleman like the hon. member for Labelle should take the course which he has taken here today and that he should accuse hon. gentlemen on this side of the House of endeavouring to inflame the public mind in this country.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. WHITE. I hear some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House laugh. What was the object which my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) had in making the proposition that he made to hon. gentlemen opposite ? He had a right to call in question the conditions that exist upon the other side of the House. He had a right to express his opinion that the failure of the right hon. the leader of the government in filling the vacancy in the portfolio of the Interior and in filling the position which has practically been vacant in the Public Works Department and he had the right to assume that the failure of the right hon. the leader of the government to fill these positions was because he feared public opinion in the country. It was. I assume, because he took the ground that the right hon. the leader of the government fears to open any constituency in the province of Ontario, or in any of the English speaking provinces at the present time, 3873 APRIL 5, 1905 that my hon. friend made the challenge that he did make to hon. members on the other side of the House. As I stated a moment ago, I am loth to discuss a question of this kind. 1 have no desire whatever to discuss a question which raises distinctions of creed or nationality. I think we ought to be as one people throughout this country and I may say this for the province of Ontario to which I belong that whatever may be the opinions of our hon. friends from the province of Quebec they will find as much liberality and toleration in Ontario as can be found in any part of the world.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to say anything on this subject just now, but for the frequent references to myself by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). They were very pointed. Whether he considered them offensive or not, to my judgment, they were offensive and they were uncalled for and nothing on my part, as far as my judgment enables me to determine, would justify the references which the hon. gentleman made to me. He started out by asking a very significent question : Are we like the serfs of Russia that we have not freedom of speech in this House ? Are we ? The exhibition we had for the following twenty minutes is the best answer I can give to that question, because, if there ever was in any civilized country in the world, a desire to restrict freedom of speech the tirades to which he has treated this House, ought to have induced this House not to have listened to him. Now, the hon. gentleman went on to say that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and his party are opposing the Pope. What justification had he for that statement ? What word was ever said from this side of the House that would justify that statement ? 'Not a single word that I have heard and none that I am aware of. But, he says that we are opposing his church. Was there anything said in the shape of abuse of his church ? There is no desire or intention to abuse his church, but our desire is to give that church its rights the same as every other church in the country and to respect its rights as much as we respect the rights of every other church. Then, the hon. gentleman said : Has not every civilized government in the world its Papal representative, its ambassador ? He asks the question which I can answer by telling him that there is not one in France to-day. Diplomatic relations have been broken off. Then, why should the hon. member for Labell stand up and say that we are worse than France, that we are worse than England and that we are worse than other countries ? I could point to many countries, even Italy itself, in which diplomatic relations do not exist between the Pope and the government. Do they exist in the United States ? Not at all. There is, it 3873 3874 is true, a Papal representative, but to deal with the church, not to negotiate with the state, and he has no relationship with the government of the United States and does not pretend to exercise any authority over, or to assume the right to dictate or to negotiate with the government in regard to matters of state. So that, in no civilized country that he has mentioned is there a condition known to exist which the hon. gentleman claims is all right in this country. There are a few questions which I think you might reasonably ask. We know that there is a Papal delegate here. That is a self evident fact, but we might ask the question : Who brought him here ? Some one has stated that it was the present government. Well, I think that was too wide ; I would say that the Reform party brought him here. The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) does not deny that he was one of the forty who sent an application to the Pope to send a delegate here. We are not objecting to it and do not object to it if he confines his duties to the work that the right hon. gentleman told us was the work for which he was brought here. What was he brought here for ? What did he come for ? The right hon. gentleman has told us what he came for. There was a difference between us and the bishops of our church and it was to settle disputes between the Roman Catholic people and their clergy. If he confines his operations to that I say we have no reasonable ground for complaint. He has a right to be here and remain in this country just as long as he likes and so far as he can succeed in readjusting the differences between the Roman Catholic people and their bishops it is nothing that concerns us and we do not desire to interfere with him in any way. Has he confined his operations to that line ? This is the first time in the history of Canada that we have had such an ablegate. Commencing with Monseigneur Mery Del Val, the hon. member for Labelle stated that we have had several of them before. I believe there was one away back in the eighties but it was scarcely found out he was in the country until he was out of the country. The hon. member for Labelle does not wait to hear any criticism that may be made of his remarks or to answer any questions that may be asked of him. We know that he is a remarkably valiant man and that he displays a great deal of that peculiar grace which is indicative of courage. But he seems always to exemplify the old saying that :
He who fights and runs away May live to fight another day,
for every time he finishes speaking he gets up and clears from the House. He has not the moral courage to sit there and listen to the replies to his tirades or answer the questions that may be asked him. Therefore, he ought to be the last one to talk about a lack of courage. But, what are the 3875 COMMONS duties of this Papal delegate ? We were told that his duties were to settle differences between the Roman Catholic people and the church and as long as he confines himself to those duties we have no complaint to make. It is a fact well known in this country that in 1896 there was a difference between the present Reform party, or at least one portion of that party, the Roman Catholic element of the party, and the bishops in regard to the school question and it was said that the Papal delegate was brought here for the purpose of settling that difficulty. So long as he attempted to settle that difficulty you heard no complaint from any Protestant in this country as to what he was doing and no complaint that he was here. But, is he confining himself to the interests of the church ? The hon. member for Labelle says that he has a perfect right in the interests of his church and of his co-religionists to take part in anything which is going on and in which that church is directly interested. In my judgment he has no right to go the distance that it is alleged he has gone. Now, it is said sometimes. and I think correctly said, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
The history of the ages has taught that lesson over and over again, and the maxim is as true today as when it was first announced. The complete separation of church and state is another principle recognized in the history of the English parliament long ago. That principle was adopted in constitutional government, and we are trying to live up to it and we desire to carry it out to the fullest extent. When we took the clergy reserve lands from the church and distributed them for' the benefit of the state we asserted that principle because we desired there should be no semblance of connection between church and state. We declared that every church should stand on its own footing and we have lived up to that according to the best of our judgment. But as I said, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and when we see any encroachment on that principle we are bound to draw attention to it in the interests of our constitutional rights and in the interest of our constituents. That is what we are doing to-day. Since the settlement of the clergy reserve lands we have not had that question up until today, when it comes forward again in a different way in connection with the presence of the Papal ablegate here. We fought against the contention of the church in 1898, because we believed it was the church that was making the fight against the rights of the people of Manitoba. The Prime Minister and his friends joined with us in that fight, and I stood up here day atter day and night after night to defend the rights of the people against improper interference. I am glad to know I had the assistance and support of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his friends in that fight, With his sunny ways and his diplomatic 3875 3876 ability he succeeded in arranging that trouble and bringing about conciliation and harmony where they did not exist before. But it was out of that incident that grew the troubles which induced him to bring this Papal delegate here. Is there not to-day interference by the church with the rights of the state ? Can we believe what appears in the newspapers of this city from day to. day, that every time there has been a crisis in connection with this Bill the Prime Minister has visited that Papal delegate and every change that has been made has been made with his knowledge and on his advice. We are told that the Bill was submitted to him and that the Bill was satisfactory. to him or otherwise it would not have been introduced into this House. Then there is the strange coincidence that on the 13th of February, the Manitoba delegates were invited down here to consider the question of extending the boundaries of Manitoba ; on the 16th they reached here ; on the 17th they had a conference with the Prime Minister who asked them to remain four or five days when they would get an intimation as to the position of the government. They remained in obedience to that request and though he said he denied certain statements categorically and in toto he did not as a matter of fact deny some of them categorically. He does not deny that he asked Mr. Rogers to remain here. And what happened. On the 17th of February they had a conference, on the 20th they were invited by the Papal delegate to visit him, and on the 21st the Bill was introduced. I noticed the Minister of Agriculture coaching the member for Labelle to draw attention to the fact that Mr. Robert Rogers and Mr. Colin Campbell were with the Papal delegate trying to negotiate with him. But, Sir, they were there in answer to a respectful invitation to visit him. Did they not show respect for the high position he occupied ? Did they not show the ordinary courtesy which one man would show to another when they accepted that invitation and went there not knowing the purpose for which they were invited. He told them that if they would amend their law and give separate schools to Manitoba, they could have the boundary question settled at once, but they would not agree to that and the Bill was introduced the very next day. The Prime Minister said nothing about the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba when he introduced the Bill, except to say that it could not be done. and he did not deign the courtesy of a reply to the Manitoba delegates. The Prime Minister has told us that he did not remember receiving a letter from the Manitoba delegates written on the 23rd of February asking for a reply, and it turns out that that letter was sent to the Prime Minister's house. I will not say that his letter reached the hands of the Prime Minister because it may never have reached his hands, but at all events it verifies the state 3877 APRIL 5, 1905 ment made by Mr. Robert Rogers, that from that day to this they have never received the reply they believed they were entitled to. Was that the way to treat the accredited representatives of the Manitoba government ? Is that complimentary to the dignity of the Prime Minister of this federal parliament of his ministers. It is not. I assume that the statements made in the newspaper is correct because the First Minister, did not deny it, and the next step was that there was an invitation to the premier of Ontario to set up a claim for a portion of that territory.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I deny it now. I never wrote to Mr. Whitney.
Mr. SPROULE. I inferred from what appeared in the paper that by some means or other there was an intimation conveyed to Mr. Whitney that it was desired that he should put up some claim. At all events the suggestion was made in the speech of the Prime Minister, and I have no doubt he had friends enough to bring that to the attention of Mr. Whitney. At all events, Ontario set up a claim and this government took advantage of that to say : We cannot settle the boundary of Manitoba because Ontario has set up a claim to that territory. Why did the First Minister say that a settlement could only be reached after a conference between Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba ? What interest had Quebec in it ; it did not touch the boundaries of that province in any way. However, the Prime Minister since arbandoned that contention. We do find however, that according to the statement of Mr. Robert Rogers, the boundaries of Manitoba are not extended because Manitoba will not grant separate schools ; and we find that the provisions of the Bill which were submitted to that ablegate—if we can believe what appears in the press, fasten separate schools on these new provinces for all time to come. That Bill was only accepted by the members from the west when some amendments were proposed, which amendments were submitted to the Papal delegate and approved of by him before they were submitted to parliament.
Then I ask is this Papal ablegate going beyond his duty ? Is he interfering with the rights of the state ? In my judgment he is. So long as he confines himself to the rights of his church, we have not a word to say against him ; but we respectfully deny the right of any dignitary representing that church, for which we have the greatest respect, or representing any other church, to come here and interfere with the rights of the state. In the name of this country we protest against it ; in the name of constitutional government, which we represent, we protest against it. Who has been responsible for this unprecedented act ? The present government and their friends of the Reform party. They brought him here, and they have not put a single check upon 3877 3878 him, so far as we know. I need not go into the history of his being here ; but I want to ask one very important question. When all these negotiations were going on with regard to this Bill and when the knowledge that the Papal ablegate was taking a particular interest in it was so apparent, where were the Protestant members of the cabinet ? Where was the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) who took such an interest in the subject the other night? Where was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who made such a pitiable excuse for the Bill, and declared that government could not be carried on in this country if it were defeated, because there would have to be a Protestant government formed ? Where was the lynx-eyed Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock). the only Protestant representative on that subcommittee to which the Bill was submitted? Where is there any evidence that he lodged any protest against the improper interference of the Papal ablegate ? Where was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright)? And, lastly, where was the ex- Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), who fought so vigorously before against interference with the rights of Manitoba ? It is true, he lodged his protest against the government and went out as a rebuke to them for their improper conduct ; but to day he is silenced, he is chloroformed. And the other ministers seem to be chloroformed, for we have not a word from them. Who among them represents the great Protestant element of this country ? You can speak freely on behalf of the other side; but if you raise your voice as a Protestant, it would seem as if you were almost a fugitive from justice. That is the kind of toleration that we are treated to in this House. It is toleration all on one side, with no evidence of any on the other side. Let us have a little more of it on that side. Let charity begin at home. Let our Roman Catholic friends show some charity and to]erance towards those opposed to them, and then they will have very much less trouble in this country. I do not wish to continue this discussion longer, but I did wish to say, and I repeat it, that we are to-day as firmly opposed to church interference with the state as we ever were in this country. It must come to an end, and it must come to an end now. What is the logical sequence of all this ? It is admitted, and the circumstances justify the conclusion, that Manitoba's boundary is not extended because of the interference of the Papal ablegate. There is no doubt about it whatever. Then, let the government say that as a protest against that interference they will extend the boundary of Manitoba, and hereby show that the state is the supreme arbiter in this country, and the province of Manitoba will get its rights. Until that is done, there will be a lingering suspicion in the minds of the Canadian people that the 3879 COMMONS Papal ablegate did interfere, not only with that question, but with the other important question that is engaging the attention of parliament at the present time, the question of granting autonomy to the new provinces in the Northwest, and the educational clauses in connection therewith.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a personal matter. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) was this afternoon called to order on a certain point. After some hesitation, he obeyed the ruling of the chair and proceeded with the discussion, when the hon. gentlemen behind the First Minister, who are a little too prone to make unseemly interruptions, not only to the hon. member for South York but to other members of this House interrupted the hon. gentleman. He paused, when I said to him : 'Don't let them bluff you,' I take the responsibility of the words I used, and I was justified in saying what I did. My remark had no reference to the Speaker, and I protest against being called to order.
Mr. SPEAKER. The words as I distinctly heard them were : 'Don't let him bluff you.' If the hon. member now says that his reference was not to the Speaker, I accept his statement ; but at the time it was perfectly clear to me that the reference was to myself. I desire also to say that interruptions are becoming a little too frequent, not only from the side referred to by the hon. gentleman, but also from the hon. gentleman's own side, and from himself.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. The only interruption I made to-day was perfectly legitimate and within my right, and therefore I must protest against being called to order.
Mr. SPEAKER. I have accepted the hon. gentleman's statement. The only point is that the hon. gentleman should have called the attention of the House to that at the moment.
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 45) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada—Mr. Macdonald.
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals). There will appear on the order paper t'o-morrow a Bill to amend the General Railway Act and enable the government to take running rights over the Canada Atlantic from Parry Sound to Coteau—in fact over the lines controlled by the Canada Atlantic to-day, and known 3879 3880 as the Canada Atlantic system, and also over the Grand Trunk Railway from Coteau to its terminus at Montreal. The compensation is to be fixed by the Railway Commission and also the regulations for running the Intercolonial Railway trains. It is proposed that the rates between Montreal and Parry Sound will be subject to the control of that Commission, but that Commission will not control the rates over the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal east. The right to use the terminals and also construct its own terminals at Parry Sound will be given to the Intercolonial Railway.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Might I ask the hon. minister if it is the intention to have the Intercolonial Railway compete the other railways and accept freight at Georgian bay ports ?
Mr. EMMERSON. The Intercolonial will have running rights and control its own trains, subject to the order and direction of the Railway Commission.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Is it the policy of the government to go into the transportation business by means of the Intercolonial Railway and accept freight at the Georgian bay terminal of the Canada Atlantic ?
Mr. EMMERSON. It will be the policy of the government to use this portion of the line together with the present system, taking freight from the lakes to Canadian seaboard at Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, St. John and possibly Sydney.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Is it the policy of or the government to take similar rights for the Canadian Northern over the Canada Atlantic portion of the Grand Trunk Railway ?
Mr. EMMERSON. This Bill has nothing to do with the Canadian Northern.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What are the terms upon which the hon. gentleman proposes to acquire the running rights ?
Mr. EMMERSON. The compensation is to be fixed by the Railway Commission. The tariff from Parry Sound to Montreal will be subject to the Railway Commission, but it is not proposed to place the present system of the Intercolonial Railway under the control of that commission.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Is it the intention to operate a through line from Parry Sound to Halifax or St. John, as the case may be ?
Mr. EMMERSON. Yes, to run Intercolonial trains right through.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If the Railway Act is to apply to the portion between Parry Sound and Montreal, how are through rates to be fixed from Parry Sound to Halifax and St. John ?
3893 APRIL 5, 1905
The hour for private bills having expired the Speaker took the chair.


House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfried Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69), to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.
Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox and Addington). Mr. Speaker, the Bill now under discussion is one of the most important measures that have come before this House since I have had the honour of a seat in it, and I feel that it is my duty to have somethings to say upon it, representing as I do one of the old rural constituencies of the province of Ontario. For many years no Bill has attracted so much public attention as this Bill, perhaps more especially because of the school clause contained in it. But before I come to the school clause, I want to say a few words about the division of the Territory that has been made by the government. In the first place, I think the government, before the last general election, fully intended to divide the Northwest Territories and give them provincial autonomy, and it seems to me that it was their duty to have said something to the public on the subject, so that the public would have had some understanding of the measure, instead of having to go it blind, as they did on that occasion. I am quite sure that if the details of the Bill had been known to the people, there are a good many constituencies both in the province of Ontario and in the western country that would have been very differently represented in this House from what they are now. There was some correspondence, I believe, with Mr. Haultain, the Prime Minister of the Territories, but, so far as I have been able to learn, there was not one word in that correspondence with reference to the details of the Bill. although there was a promise that at this session of parliament a Bill would be introduced granting autonomy to the Northwest provinces. I am not at all disposed 3893 3894 to agree with the government in the division they have made, creating two provinces out of the Northwest Territories and leaving Manitoba with its present area. I think that it is most unfair to the province of Manitoba, which, if left as it is at present, will be crippled for all time to come. Manitoba being the oldest province of that western country ought to exercise its full proportion of influence in the Dominion, which it can never do if it is, as it were, simply a postage stamp on the map of Canada. I have heard accusations made against the government—and I do not like to say harsh things unless I am positive they are true; but a good deal has been said about the course pursued by Manitoba with regard to separate schools having something to do with her not being able to get her territory enlarged. There is no doubt that the province of Manitoba should be enlarged and very greatly enlarged. If the government had considered Manitoba and the Northwest Territories together, and had formed them into two provinces instead of three, it would have been a far better arrangement.
Not only that, but they would not have been unduly large if we had made two provinces of what are now three, or will be after the 1st July, should these Bills carry. The two new provinces contain 500,000 miles, and if we added to them the 73,000 miles that Manitoba contains, that would simply make 573,000 miles altogether. Divide that by two, and you would have two provinces, each with 286,500 miles, as compared with British Columbia, which has 372,620 miles, Quebec, which has 351,873, and Ontario, 260,862 miles. You can easily see, therefore, that if the government had taken into consideration the desirability of having only two provinces instead of three, neither of the two would have been unduly large. Then consider what an amount of money would have been saved by this means. In fact, the complaint in this country for a great many years has been that we have too much government and that our people are paying too much for government. I think it is pretty generally conceded that it would be to the advantage of the maritime provinces to have only one local government instead of three. It that were the case, they would be quite as strong, or even stronger in this House, than they are now, as three separate provinces each with its own administration. When dealing with the Northwest Territories, the government should have had a view to the future and have taken warning by the experience of the maritime provinces. Instead of having the small province of Manitoba and two other large provinces, we could then have two fairly large provinces. But in consequence of the policy of the government, the province of Manitoba will always be inferior to the others.
I have no particular fault to find with the $50,000 given for the support of the government and legislature in each of the new provinces, or the 80 cents per head on the estimated population of 250,000. I think perhaps that these grants are fairly reasonable, and I do not suppose there is a man in this House who would want to deal by these provinces in any oher way than fairly and squarely and with the view of assisting them in every possible manner. But I am entirely opposed to the policy of the government with reference to the lands. The lands naturally belong to the provinces. In agreeing to pay each of the provinces a certain amount for its lands, we really concede that they belong to them. The only plea I have heard why the lands are not given to the provinces is that that would interfere with our immigration policy. With that view I entirely disagree. I have taken pains to find out what arrangements were made with the older provinces with regard to immigration, and I find that there has been no difficulty experienced in bringing immigrants to this country and locating them wherever the government thought best. Is it likely that the new provinces, which will be deeply interested in attracting settlers, would not be as much alive to the necessity of getting in population as possibly can be the Dominion government ? It seems to me that the provinces could administer their own public lands better than we can and would be more interested in securing a good class of settlers. I have had occasion to speak several times with reference to the immigration into Canada, and the fault I have found is not that we are getting too many immigrants, but too many of an inferior class. Only the other day, the Ontario inspector of asylums said that in the Brockville Lunatic Asylum, out of the six hundred lunatics, sixty were immigrants, or ten per cent of the whole, which is entirely out of proportion to the number of immigrants located in that section of the country. It is not necessary for me to go into the details of the amounts that have been realized by the Dominion government from time to time on the sale of public lands, but I will content myself with saying that I am entirely opposed to the policy of the Dominion keeping these lands. I think it would be better to at once hand them over to the provinces and let the provinces administer them as they see fit. Let me give here the figures showing what we have received from the sale of lands, and 1 take those which were given by my hon. friend from Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) the other day. They will be found in his speech on page 3607 of 'Hansard.' From 1870 to 1880, the administration of Crown lands in Manitoba and the Northwest cost $1,244,499.34 in excess of receipts. In the years 1881 to 1890 the accounts show $753,576.53 in excess of revenue. In the years 3895 3896 from 1891 to 1900 there was again an excess of expenditure amounting to $184,398.95. In the years from 1901 to 1904, there was an excess of expenditure over receipts of $11,733.49. Taking the whole period from 1870 up to date, therefore, the administration of lands in the Northwest has cost this Dominion $687,055.25 in excess of receipts, to which must be added refunds amounting to $329,950, making a total of $1,017,005.25 of deficit. I fail to see how the government arrived at the amount they could give as a payment for these lands. They claim that there are twenty-five millions of acres of land to each province, which are worth $37,500,000, and on which of course they pay interest from time to time until it reaches a certain amount. I do not see why the government took it into their heads to keep these lands when it costs more to administer them than we are getting out of them. I hope that the government will reconsider this question, but I can quite understand why the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) should have declared that he was perfectly willing to accept this arrangement provided the government kept the lands for the settlers. We can quite understand that position. The province gets the benefit of the lands inasmuch as it gets the people who settle on them, and it gets the money besides, while we are giving away our lands from time to time. but continuing for all time to pay that subsidy.
There is another point. The right hon. the First Minister based his whole argument for submitting this legislation to the House, especially clause 16 dealing with separate schools, on constitutional grounds. 1f I understood him rightly, he claimed that he had to do this because the constitution demanded it. That is not the way, Sir, that I understand the constitution, and I do not think that is the way this House understands it. Not only that but I think he used synonymously the names 'province' and 'territory.' He used the words 'province' and 'territory' as if they were synonyms. I can quite understand that if these had been provinces it might have been that we would have had to give these rights but as they are territories I think it is quite different. We have been trying for a good while to induce Newfoundland to come into the Dominion. We have been anxious at times for this and I think we would be glad at any time to have her come in because that would round off the Dominion, and it is a province which w e very much desire to have. if it had been a territory we would not have had to ask their consent ; we would simply have brought them in under the constitution. That is what we are doing as I understand, with the provinces in the west. We are not obliged to ask their consent to bring them in ; we simply pass an Act and they come in of necessity and we give them such terms as the constitution provides unless we see fit 3897                     APRIL 5, 1905                        to give them extra terms by the legislation of this House. The thing that is important in this matter is that whatever Act we pass now, so far as I have understood the debate will be permanent so far as this parliament is concerned, and any change that is made will have to be made by the imperial parliament. It is important, therefore, that we should go slowly ; and it is very important that this should be debated from every standpoint, because if we make a mistake now it will be a lasting mistake. The Prime Minister when he brought this Bill down said that there were four subjects which dominated all the others. The first was :
How many provinces should be admitted into the confederation coming from the Northwest Territories—one, or two or more ?
They have decided on two, and have apparently decided to leave Manitoba as it is, so far as any extension west is concerned.
Then the next question was :
In whom should be vested the ownership of the public lands ?
They decided that they would keep the land. The only advantage I can see in their keeping the lands is that they will be able to use them for political influence. It will not be any advantage to us from a financial or any other standpoint.
What should be the financial terms to be granted to these new provinces ?
They have been liberal, but I certainly would not have complained of that if they had not kept the lands and then the premier said :
And the fourth and not the least important by any means was the question of the school system which would be introduced—not introduced because it was introduced long ago, but should be continued in the Territories.
That I think is where the premier made a mistake ; that is where he talks of these Territories as though they were provinces and as though we were bound to retain these Acts with reference to separate schools in the Territories just as if they had been provinces. If I understood the legal arguments which have been advanced in this House at all, I think that does not apply. Then, Sir, we had a speech from the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) on the constitutional side of the question, and I think that every one who heard that speech and every one who has read it will concede that he really put the Prime Minister out of business so far as the constitutional aspect of the case is concerned. I fully expected that when our leader had finished speaking they would have put up the Minister of Justice to answer him and certainly they would have done so if the contention of the First Minister had been right because then the Minister of Justice would have been able to down our leader, but he is not easily downed. To my great surprise they put up the Min 3897 3898 ister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and I was further surprised by the admissions he made. He differed entirely from the very beginning with his leader. He said :
My right hon. friend the First Minister has not declared that it is not within the power of this parliament to make a change. He has not declared that there is any legal or binding obligation resting on the parliament of Canada to re-enact the clauses of the Act of 1875.
I think that is exactly opposed to what the leader of the government contended for, and I think that if the leader of the government had felt that he was strong in his position after he had heard the speech of the hon. member for Carleton who leads the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) he certainly would have answered him in like manner, that is, he would have appointed a legal gentleman to answer the opposition leader. I find also that the Minister of Finance is not in favour of separate schools. He said that if he had his way personally, speaking for himself he would not go in for separate schools, he would leave that word ' separate ' out of all schools. Then he went on to tell us that they had no separate schools by law in Nova Scotia, and he said that this was owing to the good fellowship that existed between the people there, because they divided up. Where there was a strong minority they had their schools, they had their teachers, I believe with the same examination as those for public schools, but although they had not a separate school by-law they had by the consent of the majority in that province. I am strongly of opinion that this Bill which has been introduced will not tend to make it easier to have separate schools in the western provinces than it would have been to have them without it. My own impression is that when you try to force a man to do something he does not want to do you will have a good deal of difficulty in making him do it. I understood the hon. gentlemen who have spoken to tell us that they have had no difficulty in the last few years with reference to separate schools. If that is the case I do not see why they want this enactment. The separate schools do not appear to have been a great success in that country anyway. I believe there are only about a dozen of them all told, nine Roman Catholic and two or three Protestant. These Protestant schools are as much separate schools, I presume, as the others.
I took some notes of what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) and I was astonished at the state of things existing in that country. I was especially surprised at his construing of the Act now before the House.
We are proposing to make these people fully responsible for their own self-government in the important matters of education, public works and all affairs of internal development.
The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) seemed to think that there was 3899                     COMMONS                         no difference between the public schools of that country and the separate schools. Well there seems to be a difference according to the gentleman who spoke last night, a slight difference at least. The hon. member (Mr. Scott) found a good deal of fault with the headlines that are published in some newspapers in Ontario. For instance :
A free west, a common school, provincial rights and religious equality.
He did not seem to think that was a good thing to publish in any part of this country. I think they are sentiments that even he might endorse although he may support this Bill, if he does I am of opinion that he will not be voting for all these sentiments. He seems to differ with me. He says :
Articles and inflammatory cartoons under that motto have led the innocent citizens to believe that the proposals of the government are entirely in the teeth of this motto. I say that every item proposed by the government is in strict observance of these principles. .    .    .    . A common school—that is just what we are asked to vote for in this proposition ; a nonsectarian school, absolutely under state control. A free west—that is a reasonably free west ; just as free as Ontario.
Now, if it is no freer than Ontario, it has to have separate schools, because by the constitution which we have we are bound to maintain separate schools, but we do not maintain them in every part of the country. I am proud to say that I live in a town where we do not have any separate schools. We had a separate school a good many years ago, but the people got tired of it, and away back in 1875, before the law compelled us to put a Roman Catholic on the high school board, by common consent the town council, of which I had the honour of being a member, asked the Roman Catholics to name a man to represent them on the high school board. He was put on, and I think he has been a member of the school board ever since. We employ a certain number of Roman Catholic teachers in our schools, and we have had no trouble whatever, we have lived in peace and harmony, which is the kind of thing I would like to see all over this country. I think when our boys and girls grow up and attend school together, they come to know one another, and they forget for the time being what particular sect each one may belong to. They grow up to respect one another, and to live together as Christian people ought to live, in my judgment. A free common school under state control is what my hon. friend calls it. Then the hon. member for Beauharnois asked the question :
Mr. BERGERON. What is the difference between the two schools then ?
Mr. SCOTT. Not any difference, only the one I have mentioned.
Mr. BERGERON. Where is the separate school then ?
3899 3900
Mr. SCOTT. It is certainly a separate school, though it is not a religious school.
Mr. BERGERON. It may be in a different building, but it is the same school.
Mr. SCOTT. It is the same class of school.
Now the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) spoke last night, and he said :
The only difference is that in the first and second readers the text is a little different, but even these books have to be authorized by the Minister of Education. There is no church or clerical control in any shape, form or manner over the Catholic schools in the Northwest Territories to-day.
Now we have one gentleman saying there is no difference whatever, and another gentleman admitting that there is a difference ill the two first books that the children use. And there may be others. Then the hon. gentleman quoted some things, and I have not been able to understand why he quoted them, unless it was to obtain the good opinion of his leader ; because there is a vacancy in the cabinet, we have no Minister of the Interior at the present time, and as a matter of course they will have to take a man from the west. I do not object to the hon. gentleman if he can get the position, but I fear he will have a good deal of trouble in getting elected. Now he said :
I have a communication from an important body, the Baptist convention of Manitoba and the Territories, the third clause of which is as follows :
This is a scheme which will promote discord and defeat one of the main purposes of public school education, which is the unification of all classes. A confederation cannot be sound in which the elements lack the first essential of harmony.
Now, why he should quote that communication as a reason for voting for the Bill, I cannot understand, because if I had a communication like that sent to me I would think that they wanted me to vote the other way. But I noticed that after he got through his leader went up and shook hands with him, and I wondered whether it was on account of the amount of scrap book material he used, or on account of his independence of the people he represented. Again he said :
Another petition very largely signed contains the following :
We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully urge you to use all influence you may have against the separate school clause in the Bill now before parliament.
That is another reason why he should vote for that Bill.
In a petition dated March 7th, from the Ministerial Association of Winnipeg, the second clause reads as follows :
Whereas the rights of the minority are sufficiently protected by the British North America Act in any particular case.
3901                   APRIL 5, 1905                          
That is another reason he gave for supporting the Bill. For myself I do not see anything in any of these petitions that would induce any member of this House to support the Bill before parliament at the present time ; I think the very reverse is the case. I said in the beginning that this Bill had caused more contention than any other Bill that has been before this House since I have had the honour of a seat in it, and I think that is true. We had notice to-day from a gentleman in this House that there was going to be a large number of public meetings all over this country in the near future. There was a large public meeting in Toronto a few days ago, a good many speakers took part, and I judge from what I see reported that they were all Liberals except one, and he was an independent, I suppose, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy). He said he was an independent, and I am bound to take his word for it. The gentleman who occupied the chair at that meeting is a Liberal, I think no person who lives in Toronto and knows anything about the public men there will dispute that he is a Liberal of the Liberals. I refer to Mr. Stapleton Caldecott. He said himself before the meeting was over that as Paul called himself, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, so he, Mr. Caldecott, was a Grit of the Grits. He is reported to have said :
We must make no mistake, and if we pass the clause as brought before us by Sir Wilfrid Laurier we should make a most tremendous mistake. (Hear, hear). What he proposes is open to most serious objection, and for myself, with my previous admiration for this man, giving him my hearty service as a model statesman, for the moment I have lost my respect for his judgment. (Hear, hear). He has sought, almost in an indecent manner, to thrust upon this people a piece of legislation they will never submit to. What have our Ontario cabinet ministers been doing in the meanwhile ? (Hear, hear). What is the reason for their silence ? Are we to take it that they are in favour of the proposal ?
Well, Sir, the Minister of Customs took a fling at that gentleman, he said he did not think the First Minister would suffer much because he had lost the respect of that gentleman, but he did not respect Mr. Caldecott's judgment because, he said, a man who knew anything about parliamentary practice would know that if a minister stays in a government he must agree with the doings of that government. Well, there was another gentleman who spoke at that meeting, the hon. member for North Simcoe, (Mr. Leighton McCarthy) and let me read what he said :
Since the date of the introduction of these Bills, there has arisen a huge wave of public opinion, and would you believe it ? It has reached as far as Ottawa, it was wafted there in some particular way, it has caused much ex 3901 3902 citement—acute situations, resignations have taken place, and rumors of more.
Now, Mr. Speaker, under that state of things, Mr. Caldecott must not be blamed much if he did not know exactly where the Ontario ministers were of the opinion that they did not know themselves exactly where they were at first. After this Bill was introduced, any person looking over on to the other side of the House could see that there was pretty general confusion everywhere, and I think if a vote had been taken then, we would have had no Liberal government at the present time. But when the shepherd got back, you know, and when they changed the wording of the clause without changing the meaning, as a matter of course they had an excuse to come back. That is all it amounted to.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Are you not sorry that you did not have to vote then ?
Mr. U. WILSON. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Centre York will be glad at the next election if there are a good many men in this riding who will not have votes. You may fool them once or twice, but you cannot fool them all the time. You remember that the hon. gentleman got in once on higher duties on vegetables. Then he got out of that by saying that he could not induce the government to do what he wanted them to do. I do not know what he will do the next time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. He is here any way.
Mr. WILSON. That is about as good an argument as the right hon. First Minister once gave us when he said : We are here, and you are there ; what are you going to do about it ?
Mr. CAMPBELL. What did you do about it ?
Mr. U. WILSON. We ran again and got beaten. There was another gentleman at that meeting, Dr. Goggin, who made a very strong speech. Some say he is a Tory and some say he is a Liberal. I do not know what he was or what he is, but I will read an extract from what he said, as follows :
I take it that we meet here to-night as a body of Liberals, intent upon setting before our party our views on this subject, whether they be right or wrong. This I believe is one of the qualifications of a good party man. We are not here as a body of Conservatives intent upon making capital for ourselves. We are not here as a body of Orangemen trying to arrest Romanism.
It is most unfortunate that the question was ever raised. The responsibility for the state of the public opinion now existing in the west does not rest upon the people of Ontario. or of any other province, but upon that fraction of the cabinet at Ottawa who manufactured those educational clauses for the people of the Dominion without the knowledge of those members of the cabinet most concerned therewith.
I ought to have said, perhaps, earlier in my speech that I am strongly of the opinion that had the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) been here we certainly would not have seen the Bill we have seen introduced into this House. I think we never would have seen these educational clauses in it. It seems to me that if the right hon. First Minister had been well advised, and I am afraid he was not, these clauses would have been left out and the constitution that the British North America Act provides for these provinces would have gone into operation without any let or hindrance from this parliament. It does seem to me that that would have been the fairest thing to do. We would have saved all this discussion and all this bad feeling. We would not have seen what we are seeing every day here–a debate on a question that we really ought to have nothing to do with because we ought to be willing to give our fellow subjects the same rights as we claim for ourselves. I notice that the hon. ex- Minister of the Interior, the hon. Finance Minister and even some hon. gentlemen from the Northwest have stated that if the decision were left to them whether there should be separate schools or not they would not have them, but rather than have this government go out of office, rather than have the possibility of a Liberal Conservative administration they would bury their principles, have three, or four, or five years in parliament and take the chance of the people forgetting what they have done. It seems to me from the speech made by the hon. Finance Minister in this House that those were the tactics which were pursued in the caucus. When this was brought before the members in caucus they said to them : If you vote us out there will be a general election, you will have all the odium of this Bill and the Tories will beat you ; you had better vote for it and stay in.
Now, there was a pretty strong resolution passed at this meeting. I have not heard it read in the House up to this time. It appeared in the Toronto ' News ' on the 21st March, 1905. I do not suppose I dare mention that name in this House.
At the mass meeting held in the Massey Hall last evening to protest against the school clause of the Autonomy Bill the following resolution was moved by Mr. D. E. Thomson, seconded by Rev. Dr. Milligan, and carried unanimously :
I do not suppose that any one will accuse Dr. Thomson or Dr. Milligan of being Tories. I have the pleasure of an acquaintance with Dr. Milligan and I regard him as a very fine man, but a great Liberal and I am informed that D. E. Thomson is quite as strong a Liberal as Dr. Milligan.
Whereas it is of vital importance to Canada that the new provinces about to be established shall be left free to shape their own educational policy in accordance with the needs of the future, as these shall develop ;
3903 3904
Be it therefore resolved, that this meeting emphatically protests against the enactment of section 16 of the present Autonomy Bills, or any other provisions inconsistent with their constitutional freedom in this regard ;
Be it further resolved, that, since the electors have had no opportunity to pass upon the principle embodied in the school clauses of the Bills now before parliament, the government should :
(a) Abandon the clauses, or
(b) Appeal to the country on the measure, or
(c) Defer action entirely until after the next general election.
And be it ordered that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Honourable the Prime Minister and to the city members of the House.
That is, in my judgment, a pretty strong resolution to be passed at a public meeting by reformers. I do not care whether they were reformers or not, they were citizens of this country, but the men who moved and seconded this resolution were reformers beyond all doubt. Then, there was Mr. Willison, the editor of the ' News,' a great admirer in other days of the present Prime Minister. He wrote his life and, I have no doubt, he gave him as favourable a character as could well be given. I do not wish to detract from it but if he writes another volume it will be a very different volume from those which he has written. I have here quite a number of extracts. I have an extract from a statement of the Hon. David Mills, who was the great constitutional authority of this House at one time and who afterwards occupied a seat on the Supreme Court bench. I have another from a statement by Sir Louis Davies, once a prominent member of the Liberal party in this House, and who has also been elevated to the Supreme Court bench. Both of these gentlemen tell us that when the time comes to create provinces in our great Northwest that will be the time for them as provinces to initiate their own school system. I will not detain the House by reading all of these quotations, but there are one or two that I cannot refrain from giving. My time is about up and I do not intend, as the speeches have generally been long, to follow the bad example that has been set on both sides of the House. This is a comment by the Toronto ' News' of 11th March, 1905 :
The remedial legislation of 1896 had some warrant in the constitution ; the present legislation has none. It is a gratuitous seeking for trouble which could easily be avoided.
That the antagonism to forcing separate schools on the west should come from Liberal sources can easily be understood. The Liberal party is threatened with a far greater disaster than loss of power. It is threatened with the loss of the principles to which it owes its vitality.
The measures now before the people were not in issue in the general election, and parliament has no popular mandate to place them on the statute-book.
I daresay this was written by the gentleman who wrote the life of the Rt. Hon. Sir 3905                      APRIL 5, 1905                         Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada. I shall not quote extracts from papers which have been opposed to the Liberal party heretofore ; I am reading from the newspapers which have always supported the Liberal party, and if I had time I could read a good many extracts from the 'Globe '—I was going to say I could read the whole 'Globe'—denouncing the policy of the government on this question. The 'Globe,' in its turn, has been denounced by hon. gentlemen opposite, but their denunciation is because the 'Globe' stood by Liberal principles which the Liberal party have recanted. Take the Toronto 'Saturday Night'; Mr. Sheppard has been for many years a great admirer of the present Liberal leader, and he has said a good many kind things of that right hon. gentleman, but on the llth of March, 1905, Mr. Sheppard wrote thus :
No legislation is too wild, unpatriotic or indefensible to be regarded as a possibility under a government which repudiates its most solemn professions, and deliberately plots to force upon the people the thing which it came into power pledged to oppose.
Any man who places the will of the priest of his church above the will of the people who made him what he is, can not be trusted. And the hierarchy demands and exacts implicit obedience from its subjects.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have placed before the House some of the views I entertain on this subject. Personally I am strongly opposed to separate schools and have always been. I left my party in 1896, and voted with the present Prime Minister for six months hoist of the Remedial Bill, and I did that against the strong remonstrance of my leader.
An hon. MEMBER. You got into bad company.
Mr. URIAH WILSON. No ; the Prime Minister was all right in 1896, but the trouble is that he has changed his principles since, and I can no longer follow him in endeavouring to maintain provincial rights. In 1895, I stood for provincial rights, and I stand for provincial rights to-day. Ever since I was a boy, I have heard the Liberal party fighting for provincial rights, but the Liberal party no longer has that plank in its platform. We all remember the difficulties between Upper and Lower Canada before confederation, when one province wanted representation by population, and the other did not. We remember the difficulties that arose until the crisis came that we could not govern the country properly, and a solution was sought in confederation. Was not the understanding at confederation that every province should be left to do its own business and that the federal parliament should only do the general business of the country. Why is there a change made in that compact now ? I say Sir, that as honourable men we are bound to carry out the compact of confederation and to pursue the policy which the fathers of confedera 3905 3906 tion have laid down as the principles of the constitution of our country.
Mr. H. S. BELAND (Beauce). Mr. Speaker, I feel satisfied that however long may be my public career in this parliament, I shall never be called upon to address the House of Commons of Canada on a question of greater importance than this. Let me say at the outset of my remarks, which I hope will be brief, that having but slight experience as a debater, having no legal training whatever, I being a physician, and having but a very imperfect command of the English language, I feel that I must crave the indulgence of the House. This subject is one which should be approached with a deep sentiment of patriotism, and with the spirit which animated the illustrious fathers of confederation when they met to endeavour to devise a scheme under which the people of the British possessions in North America might live together in union, happiness and prosperity. It should be gratifying to every true Canadian that in the evolution of our national history we are in this Canadian parliament to-day discussing a measure to create two new provinces in our splendid Northwest domain. The Northwest Territories were discovered long ago by French settlers and French adventurers chiefly. Thirty years ago these Territories had a population of only 500 white people, and it is claimed to-day (and the claim is well founded) that these Territories are now settled by 500,000 frugal, sturdy and industrious people, who are asking to be admitted into confederation and to enjoy the full privileges of statehood and self-government. The years of 1903 and 1905 will go down in Canadian history as memorable years, because they are identified with the introduction into the Canadian parliament of two enactments, the most important in the history of our country—I refer to the creation of provinces in the Northwest Territories with their untold and unimagined possibilities, and the measure providing for the building of the National Transcontinental Railway. When our children and our childrens' children read the history of these years, they will feel that the venerated statesman who leads the Liberal party, who leads this House, and I make bold to say, who leads this country, has associated his name with two epoch marking events, they will feel Sir, that these measures mark an era in the progress of our country, and that entitle the great statesman who fathered them to rank amongst the foremost patriots of this country of ours.
Now, Sir, many important questions are involved in this Autonomy Bill. And while the question as to the number of provinces to be created, the financial aid to be given them. and the location of the capital, have met with very little criticism, the land and educational clauses of the Bill have excited 3907 COMMONS           much comment; although in my opinion they have received, and are receiving the warmest support of the majority of the people of Canada. Nevertheless the land clause, and especially the educational clause, have encountered very bitter opposition from some quarters.
With regard to the lands, it has been stated by the hon. leader of the opposition, in that very able statement which he presented to us the other day, that it was important and in accordance with the principles of the constitution that the lands of the Northwest Territories should be handed over to the new provinces. Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to that view of the question, because I believe that it is the part of wisdom for this government to retain control of the lands, apart from the consideration which was offered to us the other day by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), that, from the point of view of an effective immigration policy, it was not wise to have two or more governments dealing with it. There is another consideration, and that is the following : The moment you hand over to the new provinces the control of their lands, you leave them face to face with two propositions, which, I believe, are contrary to each other —the creating of a revenue and the maintaining of an efficient immigration policy. The new provinces, if possessed of the lands, would naturally be deprived of the financial aid extended to them by this government in lieu of the lands. They would have to create their revenue from those lands ; and the moment you increase the price of land you hamper immigration, while you want to promote immigration you have to decrease the price of land.
I have heard some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House say that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have the control of their lands. Very true, Mr. Speaker ; but the provinces of Ontario and Quebec should not be considered from the same point of view as the Northwest provinces, and I will tell you why. Because there are in those two provinces immense timber limits, from which they derive a very large revenue. In the province of Quebec, during the last year, I think the revenue accruing from the Crown lands amounted to $600,000-not from the sale of lands, but from the stumpage only. The situation is not the same in the Northwest Territories.
There is another point of view from which I think we should withhold the lands from the new provinces, that is the national point of view. In stating this opinion, I may be taxed by some hon. gentlemen with being a Utopist ; I may be told that I am dreaming ; but let me say frankly what I think. It is obvious to every one who observes the Northwest Territories to-day that the loyal sentiment which prevails there is pure, deep and large, as the stately rivers which run over the endless prairies. But who knows what will be the immigration of 3907 3908 to-morrow ? There are to-day half a million people in the Northwest Territories ; how many will you find in twenty or thirty years from now ? Who can tell ? Perhaps two million, perhaps three million, perhaps five million, perhaps ten or twelve million ; and as we know that the largest foreign immigration to-day is from the United States, who can assure this House and this country that the control of the legislatures in the two new provinces thirty years from now will not be in the hands of people having a greater interest in the country to the south of the boundary line ? And, Mr. Speaker, we shall have, in the control of the lands and in the control of immigration, perhaps not a complete remedy, but certainly a palliative. Hon. gentlemen opposite say to us : Hands off the twins ; let them enjoy the greatest liberty ; give them all their lands and the largest possible autonomy. Well, I can assure my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), whom I am glad to see in his seat, that in that future time, if he wishes, in order to maintain a loyal sentiment in the Northwest Territories, the services of that Roman Catholic clergy, whom he does not appear to like very much, they will be found as usual ready to support, day and night, through weeks and months and years, the British flag.
Mr. SPROULE. I may tell my hon. friend that, contrary to his opinion or belief, I do not dislike them by any means. I have no feeling of dislike against them.
Mr. BELAND. I am very glad to hear it. Coming to what is known in the country as the educational clause of this Bill, it is a very burning question and a question of very great importance. The agitation which has been aroused over that clause is immense, and we all regret it. That agitation is so intense that we are that that the provincial government of Manitoba, now on its last legs, is seeking to get a new lease of office out of it. Well, the educational clauses of this measure have already been discussed a good deal in this country. They have encountered very bitter opposition from the newspapers, especially in that enlightened city of Toronto, where even men who used to be ranked amongst the foremost Liberals have been outspoken in their opposition to those clauses, and they have also enjoyed the distinction of being made the subject of the censorious tongues of those who adorn the pulpits of this country. There are many points of view from which this important question may be considered. There is a constitutional point of view, there is the provincial autonomy point of view ; but whatever may be the reasons invoked in this debate, the main object of those who are making to-day a solid opposition to these educational clauses is nothing else but political capital. Before proceeding further, I must say that I was very much surprised the other night when I heard the eloquent member for West As 3909                         APRIL 5, 1905                     siniboia (Mr. Scott) state in this House that amongst the Protestant population of this country the opinion prevailed that the privileges of the Catholic minority had been called for by them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The educational privileges of the minorities in this country were called for, not by Catholics, but by Protestants. They were called for by Mr. Galt, and I will go further. I will say that the man who had every authority to represent the Catholic population of this country, John Sandfield Macdonald, moved a resolution in the parliament of United Canada asking that the Catholic minority be left in the hands of the Protestants of this country, as they could rely on the good faith of the Protestants—and what was the fate of that motion ? It was defeated by a vote of 95 to 8.
You have heard, Sir, on this question constitutional authorities ; you have heard men of great legal training ; you have had the opportunity of hearing men who are professors in our most reputable universities ; and you have also heard men whose profession it is to read themselves in national and international problems. We have had in this House on the constitutional question the spectacle of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government differing with one or two of his ministers, while they all adopted the same course. We have had on the other side of the House the spectacle of the leader of the opposition differing in toto from his first lieutenant, the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I will refrain from going any further into the divergencies we have witnessed in this House regarding the constitutional aspects of the question, and will present on that aspect the point of view of a layman. There are two alternatives, I believe, which confront every member of parliament on this matter. Are these Territories entering confederation today or did they enter the union in the year 1870 ? You may take whichever view you prefer, but you must adopt the one or the other. Either they entered the union in 1870 or they are going into it to-day. If they are going into it to-day, article 93 is very plain :
Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
Well, if we take the alternative that the Northwest Territories are going into the union to-day, it seems to me that this clause should apply, but some hon. gentlemen, I think among them the leader of the opposition, contend that the Territories entered the union in 1870. If they did, what is our position to-day ? Legislation was passed by this parliament in 1875, in the full exercise of its powers, creating in the Northwest Teritories a system of separate 3909 3910 schools by which the minorities were to enjoy certain privileges. In pursuance of that law, ordinances were passed in the Territories by which this system of schools was amended over and over again. What then is our position to-day ? Are we going to adopt the views of those who enacted that law of 1875 or are we going to repudiate them ? I think that when we know that this parliament in 1875 passed a law conferring upon the Catholic minority certain privileges, and that that law has been amended by the legislature of the Territories in the exercise of its power—and we must admit that it was in the exercise of its power so long as these ordinances have not been repealed by this parliament —I submit that when we know that, our paramount duty is to confirm the legislation passed both by this parliament and the legislature of the Northwest Territories. This is the layman's point of view. By adopting this course we put an end to interminable judicial disputes ; and if only the hon. leader of the opposition had adopted that view, as he seemed to be about to adopt it when the Bill was first introduced into this House, if he had left aside those elements of his party who are opposed to any privilege being given the Catholic minority, it he had said : I will stand with the right hon. gentleman in upholding legislation that this parliament has passed, that men like Sir Alexander McKenzie, Sir John Macdonald, Sir Alexander Campbell, have supported—had he adopted the view of those eminent statesmen, what would be the position to-day ? There would have been no agitation of any importance in this country, we would have buried for ever the old feuds which I say have been a curse to the nation in the past.
There are three systems of schools; first there is the system of separate schools with two boards, each board having the supervision of its schools, the qualification of teachers, text books, inspection and so on. The type of these schools is to be found in the province of Quebec. There is a second system of schools which you call neutral or godless schools. The best illustration of that system of schools is, I believe, to be found in the United States of America. There is a third system of schools which may be called either separate or public schools, which are under one single board, and in which religious instruction is allowed, according to the wishes of the parents. This system, I believe, is the one which is in force in the Northwest at the present moment. The argument of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) the other day was fairly conducted all along the lines that church influence in the schools was prejudicial to their efficiency. He went so far as to say that information which he has gathered permitted him to state that church influence, clerical 3911 COMMONS schools, in France, for instance. had produced a people of illiterates and atheists. He will likely be disposed to recognize that he has been led into error. In France there are very few atheists ; there are a good many free-thinkers—
Mr. SPROULE. I was not expressing an opinion on that at all. I referred to what a French gentleman had told me was the result of that system. I was using his language, not my own, because I am not competent to express an opinion of that kind, never having visited the country and knowing little about it.
Mr. BELAND. That is exactly what I say, that the hon. gentleman had been led into error.
Mr. SPROULE. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that I had said that of France.
Mr. BELAND. No, Mr. Speaker, I said that by some information he had gathered the hon. gentleman had been led into error when he stated that in France there was a large number of atheists. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing this question from the point of view of an advocate of separate schools, nor from the point of view of an advocate of public schools. We are not called upon in this House to say whether we favour the one or the other. We are discussing a Bill which provides for religious instruction in the schools in the Northwest, a system which has been adopted by the Northwest and which is in force now. Our country is a British country, our institutions are modelled after the institutions of Great Britain, and I am very sorry, I deeply regret—I say it sincerely—that the great lines, the illuminated paths which have been set for us in the mother country, are in this debate willingly ignored. Unshakable attachment to all things British, be they military, be they political, be they social, has been boasted of here, especially by hon. gentlemen opposite. It is but a few days since the echoes of this chamber were disturbed by the imperialistic eloquence of my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). In his footsteps we have seen the hon. member from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the hon. member from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), earnestly and honestly, we believe, preaching the rapproachement, closer relations between England and Canada. It is their contention that British institutions are the climax of perfection for a constitutional country. Why in the name of common sense was the British school system not good enough for them ? The French Canadian is very devoted to British institutions, and I make hold to say here that if my countrymen, my compatriots in the province of Quebec. were offered to-day the opportunity to sever their connection 3911 3912 from Great Britain, if they were offered independence, if they were offered annexation, if they were offered French allegiance, I have not the slightest hesitancy to say they would squarely refuse and remain, faithful to Great Britain. And why, Mr. Speaker ? Because as was said so eloquently by one of the hon. gentlemen opposite in a debate a few years ago, Great Britain has distinguished herself at home and abroad for that broad spirit of good faith and toleration, for those sacred principles of religious equality and self-government. In England an education Act was recently introduced providing for religious instruction in the schools, according to the wishes of the parents. By whom was it introduced ? By men like Chamberlain, by men like Balfour, and that legislation was assailed, and I think encountered as bitter an opposition as this legislation is encountering to-day. Ministers of the gospel went as far as to say that the state was in danger, that the primary and elementary rights were threatened, that the birth right of the British citizen was at stake, that it was a battle for life. The Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Lemieux) the other night, in the course of a very able speech, read to this House quotations from speeches that have been delivered in England by Mr. Chamberlain and by Mr. Balfour. I shall not trouble the House by reading any more of those speeches. I think the House will permit me to make an allusion to a reverend gentleman in England, a minister of the Presbyterian denomination, Rev. Archibald Lamont, of St. Paul's Presbyterian Chapel. Here is what that gentleman said :
I have high hopes for education and for Presbyterianism and for future Christianity as the result of the advent of this imperfect, but substantially good, Education Bill, and, in spite of an unreasouing and undignified agitation against it, an agitation to which, as I deeply deplore, my own beloved church has thoughtlessly, but I hope temporarily, committed herself. I fear that in most of our Protestant churches, eloquence of speech is often more a hindrance than help to the practical solution of far- reaching and complex questions. It often puts men unwittingly in a false pre-eminence, so that the rank and file—the common people— are misled and become martyrs by mistake.
This should be read to some of the reverend gentlemen of Ottawa and Toronto who have thought it proper to speak from the pulpit against the educational clauses of this Bill. But, Mr. Speaker. this Bill has been adopted in England, and has been in force for a couple of years, and it has given entire satisfaction. The impression that must prevail in the end is that some people want more religious instruction and some people want less religious instruction than this Bill provides ; but, Mr. Speaker, standing here as a representative in parliament of a country of 43,000 souls. I think it is my duty to uphold the constitution, and by it to confirm the privileges. be they large or be they 3913 APRIL 5, 1905 small, that the majority enjoy in the Northwest Territories. There are some hon. gentlemen on the other side of this House, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) the hon member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) who profess to believe that religious instruction should be done away with in the schools. But, Mr. Speaker, though I have great respect for their opinion,. I must say without hesitation that if those three gentlemen were put on one side, and on the other side you were to show me statesmen like Mr. Chamberlain, like Mr. Gladstone, like Mr. Balfour, like Mr. Guizot, I would have to throw in my lot with the great Englishmen. Now, Sir, the claim has been made in this House and out of it that the Liberal party has trampled upon provincial rights and provincial autonomy, that it has abandoned its principles of 1896, and that now the Liberal party is invading provincial rights and provincial autonomy. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me refer for a moment to what took place in 1890. What was the position of the right hon. the Prime Minister in 1896, when he moved the six months hoist of the Remedial Bill ? He said : This parliament has a right to interfere ; the remedy lies with us, but I think that remedy should not be applied until all conciliatory methods have been exhausted. Now, Sir, in 1896 we stood for conciliation. What are we doing today ? We are still standing for conciliation, we stand for compromise on an honourabe basis.
Mr. BERGERON. Would my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question ? Did the solution of 1896 settle the Manitoba school question to the satisfaction of the minority?
Mr. BELAND. It did settle it to a certain extent which appears to be satisfactory to the minority. It may not be satisfactory to my hon. friend, who is known to be an ardent and devoted supporter of the Catholic church. But to my mind, and as a means establishing peace and harmony in this country between the different elements, it is satisfactory.
Mr. BERGERON. I hope I am not troubling my hon. friend. But how does he explain this trip of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell down here to secure a more favourable settlement for the minority of Manitoba ?
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Was that what Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell came for ?
Mr. BERGERON. That is what we were told this afternoon.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. I am glad to know it.
Mr. BELAND. I think I can satisfy the hon gentleman on that point. Mr. Rogers is fond of notoriety, he desires to make himself and his party some politi 3913 3914 cal capital in Manitoba, and he came to meet Monseigneur Sbarretti for the purpose, in my opinion. of procuring some arrangement by which he hoped to capture the Catholic vote of Manitoba. I think that the object of Mr. Rogers, in my estimation, and I think in the estimation of my hon. friend also, was to make political capital. Now, Sir, who is making a claim for provincial rights to-day ? The hon, the leader of the opposition is making, from the rock of the constitution, as he said, a fight for provincial rights. We had an instance the other day of how hon. gentlemen will stand sometimes for provincial rights when the leader of the opposition criticised the Bill that was introduced a few days ago by the right hon. gentleman, and when he was asked whether the land should be left with the provinces or with the federal government, he was of the opinion that the land should go to the provinces. But then he bethought himself, I suppose, of the strong objection, for it was an objection, that I quoted a minute ago, that it would perhaps interfere with an effective immigration policy. But I will quote his own words :
May I not further suggest that even if there were any danger—and I do not think there is— it would be the task of good statesmanship to have inserted, if necessary, a provision in this Bill with regard to free homesteads and the price of these lands, and obtain to it the consent of the people of the Northwest Territories.
It is no more difficult than that.
Provincial rights, provincial autonomy as long as it serves his purpose ! But, as soon as it does not serve his purpose, let us invade provincial rights and send a postcard,— I suppose that is the system in vogue in Toronto now—to every member and to every citizen in the Northwest Territories saying : Do you approve of that? If he says he does, all right, and if he says he does not, well, where will he be ?
We, of the province of Quebec, we, the Catholic minority of this Dominion, are bound to change our mind as to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L Borden). We had always thought that he was a broad minded Englishman, we had always thought that he was animated by that spirit of fair dealing and kindly forbearance that have distinguished English institutions for the last fifty years. The other day be pronounced upon us a beautiful eulogy. He said that he had traversed the province of Quebec from one end to the other and that every man he had met there was well read, intelligent and sociable and a moment afterwards he moved the amendment which is now before the House. The hon. gentleman, I am afraid, has missed his vocation. He has missed his profession. He should have been a surgeon because he would have made a very skilful one. When I listened to him I could not refrain from thinking that when he pronounced that eulogy, when he uttered 3915 COMMONS   those words in praise of the French Canadian people he was doing the work of a surgeon before the operation—injecting into the tissues an analgesic before he used the scalpel. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says that because we have tried to invade provincial rights we have become a disrupted and disbanded party. But, for a moment or two let us examine what has happened on the other side. The moment the hon. leader of the opposition has placed his constitutional gun in position and the moment he has fired that gun it has been found to be a slate gun. It splits to pieces. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) mortally wounded ; the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) not quite so badly wounded. The list of wounded grows every day. The hon. member for North Toronto says that the weakness of the Czar of Russia is that he does not consult his people. Then, I might retort : What is the weakness of the hon. leader of the opposition ? If it is a mistake for the Czar of Russia not to consult his people how much greater a mistake must it be for that hon. gentleman to turn his gun against his own lieutenants and his own regiment ? But, we have not heard so far in this House from the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). He will be coming some day and making a plea such as he made to-day in favour of provincial rights. That hon. gentleman succeeded in the not very remote past in making himself plainly understood on the question of provincial rights. It was in March, 1902. What did the hon. member for South York say ? He was speaking in this House and he said :
Speaking of the provinces, I have not a moment's hesitation in saying that the result of provincial government in Canada has been detrimental to the progress of the country. I say that the interpretation of the law that has been given by the English Privy Council in regard to the distribution of rights as between the provinces and the federal power, has been against the interests of the country as a whole. That I regret. I agree with the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that some day we will have the whole jurisdiction in this parliament, and in some way we will work it out, and in some way we will increase the federal power and wipe out gradually the provincial power.
Who would believe that after what the hon. gentleman told us this afternoon ? But, that is not all. He said something else. Here is what he said :
Yet we are told that there is no hope of progress, that the main thing is to uphold local rights. That is the doctrine of the Minister of Justice of Canada. I take issue with him there. The thing which the Conservative party of this country committed itself to was to build up a nation, with a unification of laws, if that was possible, and that this country should in some way try to recover the federal power which has been lost to the provinces in the past few years.
3915 3916
I ask my hon. friend frankly if he approves of that ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. All of it.
Mr. BELAND. Well, if the hon. gentleman says he approves of that, I have nothing more to say. The hon. member for North Toronto did not pose as the champion of provincial rights in 1896. He assumed a different position then, but when he made his speech he said he would not do it again, and why ? Because the will of the people and particularly the expression of the popular will in Quebec prevented him from doing it. Do you not see, Mr. Speaker, the skill and adroitness of that argument ? If the hon. gentleman had only said that at the general election in 1896 the people of the province of Quebec went against his position, while we know better, we could have understood it, but he mentioned also the general elections of 1900 and 1904 as giving an expression of the people against the stand he took in this House on the question of provincial rights. He sought to escape the condemnation which was placed upon the Conservative party for their bad administration prior to that day. He affects to believe that in 1896, 1900 and 1904 the people voted for the upholding of provincial rights. He counts for nothing his own disastrous financial administration. He counts for nothing the scandals of his party during the 18 years of their regime. He counts for nothing the stagnation of affairs, the ineffective immigration policy and especially that in the general elections in 1900 and 1904 the people gave expression to the contentment which they felt under the progressive policy that our great leader has introduced into this country and which he has maintained.
The plea for provincial rights is a myth in this debate, cold political calculation is behind it. Men like the leader of the opposition, men like the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) should rise to a higher level, for no one doubts in his heart that they do not know this plea is unfounded. Intended as it is to appeal strongly to the highest principles of autonomy, of liberty, and of equality ; it will utterly fail in its results when the sound reasoning of the plain people of this country is applied to it. I have spoken longer than I expected, but I ask the House to bear with me a few moments longer. There have been very strong appeals made to religious and racial prejudices in this country. I will not refer to the circular sent broadcast by the member for East Grey ; I will not refer to his speech in this House, though he uttered some very regrettable words, but I will deal for a moment and a moment only with the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' which he quoted. The Huntingdon ' Gleaner' I may say is a paper of minor importance in the province of Quebec; it is a purely local paper, and from the extracts that the member for East Grey read to the 3917                          APRIL 5, 1905                       House one would be led to believe that the Protestant people in the province of Quebec are being ill-treated. Well, here is the answer I have to give to the Huntingdon 'Gleaner'; I shall quote the words of the Hon. Mr. Weir, a man of high standing in the province of Quebec, and a representative of the Protestant people in the Quebec cabinet. Mr. Weir spoke at a public meeting in Montreal ; he spoke when he was not asked to deal with the question, when he was not solicited to say a word in reference to it. and here is what Mr. Weir said :
I, being the son of a Scotch father and a Scotch mother. I, a Protestant, have always in this province seen not only our rights but our remotest wishes respected. I challenge any Protestant to say, that he has ever been ill-treated. And therefore, when in the province of Ontario we see politicians and bigots appealing to racial and religious prejudices in order to deprive the minority of the rights to which they are constitutionally and logically entitled, it is our imperious duty to cry shame, and to stigmatize them.
Let me refer for a moment or two to some of what I shall call, the exaggerations of language in the newspapers of Ontario, and Quebec also—for there are bigots in both provinces. Here is what the Toronto 'News ' writes :
It is not conceivable that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, much less the Protestant, members of his cabinet believe they are acting in accordance with the spirit of the constitution. That they have submitted themselves to the will of the hierarchy of Quebec is the only reasonable explanation of their conduct.
I will give you the answer to that from 'L'Evénement' of Quebec, an organ of the Conservative party ; the leading organ of the Conservative party in the district of Quebec. 'L'Evénement' writes :
No, no. It is not the free denominational schools that Sir Wilfrid Laurier guaranteed to the Catholic and French minority of the Territories ; it is the neutral schools which are slaves of the state. This is the truth, the cruel truth, the truth undeniable and manifest.
The Toronto 'World,' the organ of my right hon. friend—not my right hon. friend, but my hon. friend from South York, I shall quote from it. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I had great trouble in finding a clipping from the Toronto 'World' that I could, with any sense of decency, quote to the House, when that paper writes against the province of Quebec. I have been looking through its columns for some time and hardly could I put my finger upon a few lines which would be quotable in this House, but few as they are I will read them. The Toronto ' World ' says :
The new provinces are to be stripped of their public lands and compelled to submit to an educational system modelled under the artistic direction of the Quebec hierarchy.
3917 3918
Let me give my hon. friend from South York the answer from 'L'Evénement,' that same Conservative newspaper in Quebec, which writing of Sir Wilfrid Laurier says :
When one has seventy of a majority, he does his duty or he falls on the field of honour. He does not need to betray to remain in power.
And when ' L'Evénement ' talks of betraying, it does not talk of betraying Protestants; it is surely talking of Sir Wilfrid Laurier betraying Catholics. But there is something more serious than all that. This afternoon I heard the member for East Grey say very plainly : it is about time that we should have some proof of that toleration in the province of Quebec which is so much talked of. Well, I will try to give the hon. gentleman a few proofs of that toleration of ours. The hon. gentleman will admit that in the province of Quebec—
An hon. MEMBER. He will not admit it.
Mr. BELAND. My hon. friend who sits beside me says that he will not admit it, but the member for East Grey is fair, and that being so I am sure that when he hears what I have to say he will stand up and declare that he was mistaken—honestly mistaken, but mistaken just the same. Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) listen. In this House we have twelve Protestant members from the province of Quebec. We have one from Argenteuil, a county in which the Protestant population is 7,800 and the Catholic population 8,100. The division of Montreal, St. Antoine, represented by my good friend Mr. Bickerdike—
An hon. MEMBER. Mr. Ames.
Mr. BELAND. Yes, represented by Mr. Ames, and I can still call him my good friend I hope. In Montreal, St. Antoine, the Protestant population is 22,000 and the Catholic population is 24,000. The county of Chateauguay, represented here by my good friend Mr. Brown, has a Protestant population of 3,000 and a Catholic population of 12,500. The county of Compton, represented here by my good friend Mr. Hunt, has a Protestant population of 10,500 and a Catholic population of 15,000. The county of Huntingdon, the very county in which that newspaper which has been quoted by my hon. friend from East Grey is published, has a Protestant population of 6,620, and a Catholic population of 7,200, and the Catholic majority sends a Protestant representative to this House in the person of my hon. friend Mr. Walsh. But this is not all. I want to make the proof of our toleration so convincing that my hon. friend will feel obliged to stand up and admit it if he wants to be fair. The county of Missisquoi, with a Protestant population of 8,000 and a Catholic population of 10,000, sends 3919                          COMMONS                             as its representative to this House, our good friend Mr. Meigs. Montreal, St. Lawrence division, which is represented by my good friend Mr. Bickerdike, has a Protestant population of 10,000 and a Catholic population of 30,000. The county of Pontiac, which is represented by Mr. Brabazon, has a Protestant population of 6,400 and a Catholic population of 16,000. Sherbrooke, which is represented here by my good friend Dr. Worthington, has a Protestant population of 7,000 and a Catholic populaton of 11,000. Stanstead, which is represented by Mr. Lovell, has a Protestant population of 9,000 and a Catholic population of 9,500. Shefford, which is represented by our eminent friend Mr. Parmelee, has a Protestant population of 5,000 and a Catholic population of 18,000, and I do not blame them at all for electing that gentleman.
Mr. INGRAM. Will the hon. gentleman allow me ? We will agree that that is the standing of the two religious parties in the several constituencies; but when it comes to the vote, all the good Protestants will vote for this Bill.
Mr. FIELDING. Let us hope so.
Mr. BELAND. I am not concerned with that at all. They may vote as they please, and I am sure the French Canadian people will never go back on them on that account. Out of the twelve counties in the province of Quebec which are represented in this House by Protestants, there is only one county where the majority is Protestant, and that is the county of Brome, represented here by my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher).
Now, this may not be exactly fair; it may indicate that we are more tolerant than we are in reality. I will take another point of view—that of the whole population of the province. According to the whole population of the province of Quebec, the Protestants would be entitled in this parliament to eight representatives ; but they have twelve. What does my hon. friend from East Grey think of that ? The 'Evening Telegram,' of Toronto, which makes a specialty of dealing with the question of the tolerance of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, has the following :
Ontario's tolerance is illustrated in the tendency of every Roman Catholic who represents a Protestant constituency to vote as a liegeman of his church rather than as the citizen of his country, upon questions affecting the aims of the church.
The intolerance of Quebec is illustrated in the spectacle of every Protestant representative voting with an eye to the race and creed prejudices of Quebec, and with vision blinded to the principles of his own race and creed.
Ontario's treatment of the minority that is over-represented in the government, over-represented in the legislature, is not equalled by the treatment which the minority receives in any other commonwealth on earth.
3919 3920
Ontario can match her alleged intolerance against the boasted tolerance of any people on earth. It is an outrage that such a province with such a record should be the recipient of lectures on toleration from the bigots of Quebec.
Well, let us see if it is true that Ontario can match her tolerance against the tolerance of Quebec. In Ontario the Protestant population is 1,800,000, and the Catholic population 390,000. On that basis the Protestants of Ontario are entitled to 72 members in this House and the Catholics to 14 members. What is the representation in reality ? Seventy-nine Protestants and seven Catholics, just one-half of what the Catholics are entitled to by their population. These are the figures, irrespective of parties, for they include all the 86 members from the province of Ontario.
But this is not all. Let us take the Dominion as a whole, and see how the representation stands. According to their population, the Catholics are entitled in this House to 87 members, and we have how many ? Seventy-two. I hope that my good friend who publishes the Toronto ' Telegram ' will publish these figures, which are exact, being based on the census of 1901. That would be only an act of justice on the part of the 'Telegram,' instead of misrepresenting the people of the province of Quebec, as it has done in the past.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what the average man of Ontario thinks when he reads such articles as are published to-day in the Toronto newspapers ? I wonder if the average farmer of the province of Ontario has ever been taught in his school—I hope he has—what the Catholic clergy have done for this country of ours. I wonder if he has been taught that that same clergy have rendered eminent and inappreciable services to the British Crown during the last 140 years, especially in the acute and critical days of early British rule in America. I wonder if he has been taught that, if he has been informed of the Catholic clergy's unshakable loyalty to the kings and queens of Great Britain since fate went against us on the Plains of Abraham. If the good farmers of the province of Ontario were taught that the Roman Catholic clergy in the province of Quebec have resisted time and again temptations and inducements to take part in agitations for annexation; if he were taught in his early days what education in the Roman Catholic colleges and universities has done towards supplying this country with men who have gained distinction in literature, in the professions and in agriculture, and who, every one will admit, will stand comparison with those of any other country; if he knew that the great idol of Ontario, the late Sir John Macdonald, declared on a memorable occasion in the city of London, that amongst the most faithful subjects of Her Majesty in Canada were to be ranked the French 3921                                                   APRIL 5, 1905                                                               Canadian Catholic clergy and population; if he were taught in the schools these things, I would have no fear for the result, and would be confident that he would resist any malicious appeals, because he is a moderate man and a man who ponders well before he acts.
Mr. Speaker, I am about to close. I have detained the House longer than I intended, but I find I must claim your indulgence a little longer. I say it is of vital interest, admittedly, that the citizens of this country should not lose sight of their rights but it is far more important that they should not overlook their duties. To sum up my idea, this is the inevitable conclusion to which we must arrive, that the efforts of statesmen and public powers shall always be vain and fruitless if they are not founded on the spirit of good faith and toleration, on that broad spirit of Christianity, vivifying hundreds of thousands of firesides throughout this great land. That spirit of toleration and mutual forbearance between creeds and nationalities in the great west as well as in the older portions of our beloved country, will alone give that social, intellectual, moral and material foundation without which no nation can rise to permanent greatness.
Let us not shelter ourselves under the flimsy parapet of legal technicalities ; and if ever doubt should enter our minds, if our path should appear full of difficulties, let us rise to the great responsibilities of our office with courage, justice and a spirit of fair-dealing. Let us ignore both the zealot and the bigot, and plant our feet in the solid ground of honourable compromise. Let us above all remember that this is a land, unparalleled, perhaps, and certainly unsurpassed for its immense resources, and its future possibilities, to which we invite the civilized nations of the old world, and if we desire to be a true nation, a worthy product of the 20th century, we must be prepared to sink and melt our individual differences in the warm rays of the sun of justice and liberty.
Mr. J. BARR (Dufferin). As the hour is late, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the House should rise and would beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. FIELDING. The hon. member was not present last evening when there was, perhaps, what I might call an understanding that we should sit later into the night. At all events the observation was made that in assenting to an early adjournment last evening, we should, in order that this debate should be advanced in a reasonable way, work harder and sit later, and I think that is the temper of the House.
Mr. BARR. I must of course, bow to the will of the House. I should not attempt to address the House on this subject, did 3921 3922 I not think it was my bounden duty not to give a silent vote on this Autonomy Bill. In voting, as I intend to do, for the amendment of the leader of the opposition, I do not wish to be understood as being opposed to giving to the fullest extent provincial rights to all the great lone land of the Northwest. But before entering upon the remarks I intend to make on the Bill itself, I desire for a shore time to follow my hon. friend who has just sat down. I was pleased to learn that the hon. gentleman is not a lawyer, because I naturally supposed that he would take pains to steer clear of the constitutional question which has taken up so much of our time. I think we might well leave that question to be threshed out by the lawyers who, so far as we can judge, will leave it just as hazy as it was when they entered the discussion. And after we shall have heard all the learned arguments advanced by the gentlemen of the legal profession on the one side or the other, I have no doubt that we shall come back to the same conclusion which has always prevailed in the past, and that is that it is their duty to make black appear white and right wrong. And as that is part of their business, I am glad to know that I am not a lawyer, but a doctor. But there is one thing which I presume every hon. gentleman will admit, and that is that it is the duty of this House to make laws, and that, on the other hand, it is the duty of the courts to interpret them, and whether we arrive at the conclusion that this Bill is ultra vires or otherwise, I presume the end will be that it will have to go to the Privy Council. And as that court is composed of human beings who are also lawyers, the probability is that they will give a decision according to the temper in which they are and according as their digestion is good or bad. We shall therefore have to wait for their decision to decide whether this Bill is legal or not. But I venture to say that the free and independent elector, the ordinary man, as he reads the 92nd clause of the British North America Act, will have no hesitation in concluding that so far as education is concerned, that is a question which has to be left to the province, with the exception that this parliament has the right to pass a remedial law in the event of any province not carrying out the law as it is in the statute-books.
My hon. friend has said we should live in peace and harmony. We all agree with that, we would like to live in peace and harmony with all men in all parts of this fair Dominion of ours, but in order to do that we have rights and we have privileges which we must guard and guard safely. We must remember that the majority have rights which they should exercise just as freely as do the minority. My hon. friend attempted to make a point against the lead 3923 COMMONS   er of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and although not a lawyer he endeavoured to insinuate that we on this side have not succeeded in our argument and that the legal argument of the leader of the opposition had been a failure. I shall not follow that up beyond saying that we are all proud of the leader of the opposition. We feel that we have one man here who is not only able to take care of himself, but able to sustain the combat on any question that comes before this House, legal or otherwise, and to hold his own with any hon. gentleman on the opposite side. He has proved this to be the case in the past, and I venture to say that he will continue to show in the future that it is still the case. Then we have the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) whom I have no hesitation in saying hon. gentlemen opposite have dreaded in the past, but never more than at the present time. This is shown by the very fact that in the past on two occasions when he was defeated, they put forth every effort of the government, not only by their voice and by means that are not too clear or too fair, but they put forth their money bags, which they sent to all parts to accomplish the work to an extent that is detrimental to the best interests and to the morality of this country. My hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Beland) tried to make a point out of the fact that they are more liberal in Quebec than in other provinces. They may be, looking at it from a religious point of view, but when we look at it from a political point of view we must know that there are some reasons why there are only 12 Conservatives from that province. The Conservatives have about 100,000 votes in Quebec while the Reformers have only about 130,000, and notwithstanding that there were only 11 Conservatives returned and 54 Reformers, proving beyond a doubt that there was some work going on behind the scenes that was not of a religious nature. I might point to the liberality of Ontario. In the Conservative government of the province of Onario, one of the strongest governments the province ever had, there is for the first time as Minister of Public Works a French Canadian, and we have as Minister of Crown Lands a Roman Catholic, both men worthy of the positions and we the Conservatives of the province of Ontario were pleased beyond degree when we saw the choice which the present premier, Hon. Mr. Whitney, had made. I ask you to point to such liberality under any other circumstances and I venture to say that if I had the vote here it would be found that so far as their representatives are concerned the Roman Catholics have received a fair share of the vote according to their numbers in the province of Ontario, particularly in connection with the Conservative party. In looking over the votes we find that in all cases they have had a larger representation in the 3923 3924 Conservative ranks than they have had in the Reform ranks, proving beyond a doubt that the Conservatives on all occasions have been more liberal along these lines than the Reformers have been in the past.
I was rather amused to see my hon. friend (Mr. Beland) endeavouring to make a point against the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). He struggled hard, he read 'Hansard,' and read it with all the ingenuity of one well up along that line. He read 'Hansard' to prove beyond a doubt that my hon. friend was opposed to provincial rights, but he did not tell you what the gist of that argument was. He did not tell you what question was being discussed at that time. and of course we all know that there are questions in connection with the rights and privileges of the Dominion and those of the provinces which on many occasions have overlapped ; they have not been well defined and great injustice has on many occasions been done in consequence. Look, for instance, at our railways, look at the conflict of jurisdiction in regard to charters for joint stock companies, &c. Here they are running from one parliament to the other obtaining charters of different kinds when the jurisdiction of the different parliaments in that respect should be well defined. We find that hon. gentlemen were discussing matters in connection with these grievances and that the discussion had nothing to do with equal rights such as we are discussing here to-night. I shall not follow my hon. friend further along that line, but I shall dwell now for a few moments upon the great question of the Bill which is before us and I might say that while the educational question is one of the most important dealt with in this Bill, there is great danger under existing circumstances that the attention of the people of Canada will be diverted from the other great questions which must affect that country in the future by the consideration of this one clause, and it may not be until after this becomes law, it may not be until it is beyond remedy, that we will have discovered mistakes which will then be beyond recall. I look upon the question of the number of provinces as one of great importance and one which cannot be too carefully considered. It is my opinion that it would have been much better for these provinces if we had two provinces instead of three. It would have been much better if the province of Manitoba could have been extended either to the north or west or east, and then we would have had one province west of that, making two in place of three. There is no doubt that Manitoba as she is constituted to-day will be at a great disadvantage in the future. It is a small province of 73,000 square miles, against two provinces of 150,000 square miles each. I submit that Manitoba is not receiving justice and before I have finished I shall endeavour to show why this injustice is being done to her. I believe it would be 3925                     APRIL 5, 1905                       better to have two provinces in place of three. We know that the more populous a province is the more expensive its administration becomes. At the present time in those two provinces there are only half a million people, surely not more than enough for one province. It has been said before, and I will say it again, that we are very much over-governed in the Dominion of Canada. We have more representatives in every legislature than are required. We have too much legislative machinery. So I say that if there were only one province instead of two in the Northwest one-half less machinery would be required. Perhaps there would need to be a greater number of representatives, but only one parliamentary building would be required. We must remember that to-day we are laying the foundation of what will probably become the two greatest provinces in this fair Dominion of ours. Although they have only 500,000 at present, in less than two decades, certainly in less than a quater of a century, there will be 10,000,000 or 20,000,000 in that vast country, people who have come from many parts of the world and from many nations, mingling together and forming probably the brightest and most intelligent people in this fair Dominion. Under these circumstances it is all important that the foundation should be strong and well laid and that no mistake should be made. As for the capitals of the two provinces, whether they are to be Edmonton or Calgary or not, it is well to let the people settle that question for themselves.
Now with reference to the land in those provinces. I do not agree with some hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken on this subject. I believe it would be to the interest of those provinces that they should have control of the public lands, and I believe it would be to the interest of the Dominion of Canada to leave the land with the provinces. Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces except Manitoba have control of their public lands. Manitoba has not, because circumstances were very different when she was created a province, there were only about 12,000 souls in the territory now forming Manitoba, and they were not in a position to manage their own affairs. But here we have 500,000 people, very intelligent, and comprising among them able men such as have composed their legislative assemblies. I freely admit that the Dominion has dealt liberally with them, we have given on the whole to each province, $1,124,125. That is a large sum indeed, larger than the revenue which the Dominion will get out of the land. At the same time it is not sufficiently large to carry on the administration of public affairs as it should be carried on. I have made a calculation of the sums we are giving those provinces. For the support of the government and legislature, $50,000 ; 80 cents per head on an estimated population of 250,000, $200,000 ; interest at 5 per cent on 3925 3926 $38,107,568, as a set-off against the debt of the other provinces which the Dominion assumed when they entered confederation, $405,373. We are also to pay them by way of compensation for public lands, $375,000 yearly, and we give them annually for ten years $92,750 to provide for the construction of the necessary public buildings. That will be increased as the population increases. When the population reaches 800,000 the two provinces will have an income of $4,415,750. Now I submit that it would be better for the provinces to keep their land, the Dominion of Canada will not make that much money out of the land, and the payments we are making to those provinces will be a burden on this Dominion which will be felt for many years to come. I contend that it would be better for the province to keep the land because it would be administered much better and much more economically than it is at the present time. Take the land offices in the Northwest Territories, I submit that many of them are perfect cesspools of corruption, and I speak whereof I know, as I have had some dealings through agents and otherwise with these land offices, and my conclusion is that they are not conducted in a proper manner. For instance, they are surrounded by heelers, by those who have claims upon the government, and the result is that when an actual settler goes there, when he has picked out his land and desires to place his name upon it, invariably he is told that it will require some consideration. Now if the business was properly conducted, they would be able to say at once to that man : You can have it, or : It is sold. But that is not the course pursued. He is annoyed, and, in many cases, he has to settle with the claims of some other parties. The result is hardships to the actual settler, to the immigrant coming in to make his home there. Many of them do not get the land after they have gone to much trouble in picking it out. Whilst that is the case with the actual settler, it is much worse with the, prospector, of whom there are many, they are the most important class of the community. I speak from knowledge on this subject. Prospectors are numerous there, they travel all over the country, hundreds of thousands of miles exploring the land, digging down into the bowels of the earth to see if they can find anything that is worth taking up. When they make application to the land office, in almost every case, I venture to say in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, they are told that it is impossible to decide whether that land is taken up or otherwise, and they will have to wait a few days.
The prospector perhaps spends a large sum of money in locating the land which he desires to obtain. He comes back in a few days and finds three or four bogus claims made, and if he obtains the land by paying two or three rake-offs he is more fortunate than the great majority of pros                 3927 COMMONS pectors that are doing business in that vast country. They are surrounded by the barnacles that are sticking to these land offices like barnacles to a ship, who are looking for a rake-off, and I say that under these circumstances justice cannot be done. There are in that country hundreds and thousands of this class of men who are becoming rich year after year at the expense of the country. Large tracts of land are sold to speculators for very small sums. There is a condition that they have to settle so much land, but this is not always carried out. Different arrangements are made and the result is that the country is suffering because they are not settling the land to the extent that it should be settled, and that it would be if the land were in the hands of the provinces. I venture to say that there is to-day a state of corruption in that country that could not exist for one day if the lands were in the hands of the provinces. I venture to say, and in this I speak whereof I know, that if a commission was issued and if an examination were made, it would be found that the state of affairs is much worse up there than I have described it. It is preventing settlement, it is preventing people from going in there, it is preventing men who are prepared to invest their money in endeavouring to open up that country from making the ventures which they otherwise would make. One of the strongest claims that we have heard put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite is that they should hold these lands in order that they may control the immigration policy. I submit that if there is one branch of the administration which these provinces should have in their own hands, it is immigration. We know that immigration may prove a curse or a blessing. If we have immigrants coming into this country who are not desirable, if we have a great many immigrants who will not make good citizens, who are physically or otherwise unfit to undertake the duties of citizenship and who are not prepared to earn their own livelihood, then I say these immigrants will prove a curse rather than a blessing. It is a regrettable circumstance that we have had so many immigrants coming into this country who are utterly unfit to earn a livelihood. Many of them refuse to become citizens, and I submit that an immigrant, let him come from whatever country he may, if he is not prepared to become a full-fledged citizen and to fight the battles of this country if needs be, is not a person that any country should desire to bring in. It is a remarkable fact that a large class of these immigrants have been brought into this country on more advantageous terms than those granted to settlers from eastern Canada. I presume that one of the reasons why such great interest is taken in this Bill in the eastern provinces is that the people residing in this part of the country 3927 3928 have relatives in the west, that many of them have their sons and daughters up there, worthy sons of the noble sires of Ontario, Quebec and the different provinces of this Dominion, but notwithstanding this fact foreigners and others have been accorded advantages which Canadian settlers cannot obtain in that new land. That is a state of affairs, which, I submit, should not exist. According to the returns of the last year, we brought into this country 134,223 immigrants, of whom 17,055 were under twelve years of age. We paid for the inspection of these immigrants to medical men, a total of $542,126, or $3.57 for the inspection of each immigrant. Yet, we all know that to-day there are hundreds and thousands physically unfit to make their living in this country, that they are a charge upon the Dominion or the province where they are, and we hear from the charitable institutions all over this Dominion that the greater number of those for whom they have to provide are the immigrants that are brought into the country. We know that many of them are affected with contagious diseases, that many are affected with eye diseases, that they have had from infancy, and that if the medical examination had been as thorough as it should have been, the state of affairs that we find in regard to immigration could not exist. Only a few were deported last year, proving beyond a doubt that whilst we have paid large sums for the services of these medical inspectors, the examinations were not such as should have been made, and that those who to-day are imposing the greatest burden upon the charitable institutions are these immigrants. Under these circumstances, I submit we have a state of affairs which could not exist if the provinces had supervision over these lands and of immigrant work, the provinces having much more interest in this work than the Dominion has. Under these circumstances, I submit that it would be much better that they should have the lands. They could make more out of them and they could have settlers of a desirable class coming in under their supervision. Then, again, I submit that the land belongs to the provinces. It is true that the Dominion of Canada paid £300,000 for that country, not for the land, but for the right of the Hudson Bay Company to hunt. Therefore, I say that the land, as I read the British North America Act, should and does belong to the provinces. If the other provinces require all the land they can get in order to make ends meet, if they require money, and if they run in debt year after year, how is it that these new provinces with the amount of money which is to be placed at their disposal, will be able to improve that country as they should ? They have to provide charitable institutions for that unfortunate class that is rapidly increasing in all countries, the insane. They 3929                 APRIL 5, 1905                     have to provide charitable institutions, they have to build roads and bridges and incur enormous expense, and with the money at their disposal it is utterly impossible for them to build up that country as they should. If the province of Quebec is given its lands, why should not these new provinces ? By this Bill they have nothing under the land, they have nothing but the free air of heaven, and I suppose the Dominion government would have grasped that too had it the power. Quebec has no surplus, but out of the lands of the province they are able to give to the parent of twelve children a bounty in land and money.
  Mr. LEMIEUX. Land or money.
  Mr. BARR. Very well. We have never advanced that far in Ontario, and I do not think it would be worth while to offer that inducement because there would be very few to take advantage of it. Ontario has her lands, mines, and minerals and without them that province would have been starved years ago. Every year Ontario has found, it necessary to sell from her timber limits and her Crown lands and to obtain large sums out of her mines and minerals. Notwithstanding that so far as we in the opposition during many years were concerned we never were able to find a surplus. It is true that the Liberal government always claimed they had a surplus, but that surplus was mythical as mythical could be, and when the books are now thoroughly audited it will be proved that not only has the province not a surplus, but that she is millions of dollars behind. What advantage is it for the new provinces to have borrowing powers if they have no security to offer ? Had it not been that Ontario could obtain a revenue from her natural resources years ago that province would have been face to face with direct taxation which is the greatest calamity that could possibly happen to any people, province or country, and under this Bill that calamity is bound to overtake the new provinces. Manitoba has control of her swamp lands which in time will become most productive, and from them she derives a large income. Why should Manitoba have the swamp lands and the new provinces be denied them ? I venture to say that in the near future these provinces will be found coming here demanding better terms and putting up such a strong case that better terms will have to be granted no matter what government is in power. At this late hour of the night I will not speak as long as I had intended, but I shall for a short time discuss that vexed question of separate schools in the new provinces, which is to-day agitating the mind of the people in this fair Dominion as no other question has for many years. It is a question which will live, and which will continue to increase in importance, at all events until free and independent electors of Canada will have 3929 3930 an opportunity to make themselves heard on it. We have had the legal aspect of this question discussed day after day and while no definite decision has been arrived at, nobody will deny that if the government had not seen fit to insert the separate school clause, there would have been no agitation and the people of the new provinces could decide on the question according to the dictates of their conscience and in their own best interests. It is not necessary to discuss here whether we are in favour of separate schools or not. I am glad to say that I am in accord with a number of those on the other side of the House who have announced that they are not in favour of separate schools. The Minister of Finance has told us that he is opposed to separate schools ; the member for Edmonton told us, as he stated many times on the public platform that he was opposed to separate schools. He is an old war horse who fought for provincial rights in the past, and who stated that he would never consent that separate schools should be inflicted on the Northwest Territories, but now he has changed his mind, like many others, in order to save his party. For my part I would be sorry to deprive any people of their just rights, but the people of the new provinces themselves know best what rights should be respected. It has been argued that because we have separate schools in Quebec and Ontario there should be separate schools in the new provinces, but let me point out that they have no separate schools in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba or British Columbia. We have Manitoba on the one side and British Columbia on the other, free to regulate their schools, and these two provinces wedged in between them, with separate schools forced upon them for all time to come—a state of affairs which I think never should have existed.
  The difference between the separate schools in Ontario and Quebec and those in the new provinces in this. By the consent of both parties, by an agreement entered into by Quebec and Ontario, after due consideration, separate schools were established in those two provinces in perpetuity, and the government was embodied in the British North America Act. That is a very different position from the position occupied by these two provinces. When they obtained their territorial rights they were in their infancy; they were the wards of the Dominion government. They had no voice in the settlement of the school question at that time. The system was provided for in the Bill of 1875 after much discussion, both in this House and in the Senate. An amend ment was moved, I think by the late Senator Aikens in the Senate, but was defeated by a small majority. It was then that those memorable words, of which so much has been made, were uttered by the Hon. George Brown, to the effect that in providing for 3931 COMMONS separate schools in the Territorial Bill, they were establishing them for all time to come. He did not wish to imply that they would have to be placed there ; but, being a farseeing man, he knew that the fact of that provision being made would be used for the purpose of perpetuating separate schools in those provinces ; and it is well known that he was always opposed to separate schools. Now, what guarantee have we that the separate schools in these two provinces will continue as they are at the present time ? I submit that we have no guarantee. We find that the provisions of the Bill are very hazy, so much so that lawyers might place very different interpretations upon it ; and the ordinances only guide the Territories, but do not ensure the schools as they now exist being continued for all time to come. While no great hardship may be experienced at the present time, it will certainly be a hardship to the majority in newly settled districts to maintain two weak and sickly schools where there might be one vigorous and healthy school. The Territories have no guarantee whatever that these schools will remain for all time to come as they are at the present time. I suppose they could change them for a system of schools similar to what exists in the province of Ontario to-day. According to a judgment given by Mr. Justice McMahon some three months ago, there are one hundred and five teachers teaching in the separate schools of Ontario to-day who have never passed a legal examination. This is a serious state of affairs; and yet these teachers are going on teaching month after month. It is true they have appealed the case to a higher court, and I suppose it will ultimately go to the Privy Council. These teachers are now teaching contrary to the law, except that the late government gave them permits to teach until a decision of the higher court could be obtained. Many of these teachers are not educated. It is said that many of them are priests, who are educated ; but many are indies and others who have had no training whatever. The law with regard to separate schools in Ontario has been changed in many ways. For instance. the law provides that all taxes paid by corporations must be used for the support of the public schools ; but a private Bill was passed providing that the Sturgeon Falls Pulp Company should divide its taxes between the public schools and the separate schools. If that state of affairs can be brought about in the province of Ontario, why could it not in these new provinces ? The Minister of Customs endeavoured to make a point against the gov» ernment of the Northwest Territories, particularly against Mr. Haultain, when he used these words :
Talk about Mr. Haultain not having been consulted. He was consulted frequentlym but if he had never been consulted or if no Northwest member had ever been consulted, I ask what better indication can you have of the desire 3931 3932 of the people of the Northwest Territories than their own legislation ?
The legislation to which the Minister of Customs referred was a law of the Northwest council, of which Mr. Haultain was the head, particularly a law based on the school law which was handed down to them from this House. The law set forth that there should be an advisory board composed of not less than two Catholics and four Protestants. But it is only an advisory board : it is not clothed with any power except to advise the Minister of Education, and he can change the regulations at any time ; so that we might have a very different state of affairs in the near future from what we have at the present .time. To my mind it seems most extraordinary that the ex- Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was not consulted and more extraordinary still that he himself did not make it a point to be present at the cabinet meetings when this matter was being decided. He well knew that these Bills were being prepared and he should have made it his duty to impress on his colleagues and the right hon. gentleman the necessity of having them passed upon by him before they were finally drafted. ln not taking this action, I submit he was recreant to his duty. 1 submit that he did not do what was expected of him by the people of the Northwest. It is indeed extraordinary that on the subcommittee of the cabinet which undertook to frame those Bills, there was only one representative from Ontario while there were three from Quebec. Mr. Haultain. the premier of the Territories was not consulted, and Mr. Rogers from Manitoba informed us to-day that neither was be consulted, and we must conclude that it was decided by two or three representatives from Quebec that this clause No. l6 should be embodied in these Bills. It is evident that the First Minister took upon himself to bring down these Bills and force them through the House without consulting his colleagues, proving beyond doubt that we have to-day in this country a one man government. Let us for a moment look at the position occupied by this government today as compared with the one they took in 1896. In the election of 1896, the position I admit was a unique one. The late government was endeavouring to force on this House remedial legislation against the province of Manitoba. The right hon. gentleman. who was then leading the opposition, seized that opportunity to declare in the province of Quebec that if he were returned to power he would see that Manitoba gave the Catholic minority of that province what they desired. That was the stand taken by the Quebec wing of the right hon. gentleman's party. but what did they do in the province of Ontario? In the elections in 1896 in that province. I took a rather active part and had the pleasure of hearing the First Minister and the Postmaster General on several occasions, and the arrangement 3933 APRIL 5, 1905 they entered into was this. The First Minister went up to the western part of Ontario and entered into an agreement with the late Sir Oliver Mowat to this effect, that if the Reform party were returned to power—and the signs of the times pointed that way— Mr. Mowat would resign his seat in the local cabinet and take office as Minister of Justice in the Dominion. Sir Oliver, being a canny Scotchman, was not going to take any chances and would not resign his premiership of Ontario until it was certain that the Liberals were returned to power in the Dominion. Contrary to his protestations in the past, that the provincial government should not interfere in Dominion elections, Sir Oliver Mowat took a very active part in those elections, and I had the pleasure of meeting him on several platforms. The position he then took was this. An effort, he said, is being made by the government of the Dominion to force remedial legislation upon Manitoba to deprive that province of its rights, and I ask the electors of Ontario to look back at my past history and say whether I have not on all occasions stood for equal rights. Have I not, he exclaimed, fought the battle of equal rights in years gone by, have I not fought it in connection with the boundary award and the license question and fought it successfully. And just as I fought it in the past in the local legislature, so I shall, when I enter Dominion politics, fight for the rights. not only of Manitoba but of all that great western country ; and he went on to declare that when in the near future the territories would be created provinces, he would see that equal rights were extended to them. He would never agree to separate schools or to remedial legislation for the purpose of forcing those schools upon Manitoba or any province in the great lone land. And if the time should ever come when he would not have that power, he would resign his place in the House. The Postmaster General took the same ground. He declared on many a platform that he would never support separate schools in the Dominion and would never allow remedial degislation to be forced on Manitoba. The First Minister was also loud in his denunciation of the late government. He declared that he had stood in this House, and was prepared to stand in any part of the Dominion, for provincial rights, and that he would never allow this remedial legislation to be placed on Manitoba. He would never shackle any province with legislation along that line. He would never put the fetters upon any of those provinces, he was opposed to separate schools, he was pleased to know that they could attend school together, that they could go to the polls and vote together, and the result was that all these statements had their effect in Ontario. Seat after seat that had gone Conservative in the past went by overwhelming majorities to the Reform party and the result was that in 1896 the 3933 3934 Reformers were surprised at the large vote which they received in Ontario. They obtained it under false pretenses in the way which I have pointed out. I ask the question how have they been able to swallow all these principles, to swallow themselves and to come here to-day after making these pledges in Ontario and endeavour to force separate schools upon this province, although they are the very men who denounced them in the past. I wonder how they in ten years succeed in swallowing all these promises. I cannot understand it unless in the words of the poet :
An all-wise and ever-indulging Providence has made them hollow. In order that they their promises might swallow.
We have no separate schools in my county. We had them on one occasion but they have all disappeared. After a trial the Roman Catholics found that the public schools were much better and cheaper than the separate schools. It has been pointed out to us in the past that our public schools are Godless schools ; in fact some speakers almost seem to have the idea that as far as the Protestant religion is concerned there is no God in that. So far as our national schools are concerned they must remember that we had enacted the Ross Bible from which portions of scriptures were to be read each day. Religious instruction can be given by Ministers of different denominations if they so desire and if the trustees and parents desire it and this is very often done. Under these circumstances I submit that it cannot be charged that these schools are Godless schools. So far as the county of Dufferin is concerned they do not want separate schools, and I venture to say that that is the case in many parts of the province as well. I have here a resolution which was passed in my county regretting that a provision for separate schools was placed in this Bill. I have here also the statement of the Minister of Public Works for Manitoba and I must say that it shows a most extraordinary state of affairs indeed. We find that in place of the First Minister meeting these delegates, as naturally we would expect, they were met by the Papal delegate. We have no objection to there being a Papa] delegate in the Dominion of Canada so long as he confines his services to the work of the church, but just as soon as he interferes in our educational questions, then I say the line must be drawn and we have a right to take exception to his action. It has been going the rounds for many days that the Papal delegate met Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell by appointment and made a proposition to them. The proposition was that they should place a clause in the Manitoba school law that where there were in a rural district fifteen Roman Catholic children or in a city or town thirty Roman Catholic children separate rooms must be provided for them 3936 COMMONS and that the trustees if they so desired it must engage a teacher of their religious persuasion. Now look how that would work out; suppose there were sixty children in the district, then one-quarter of those would have one teacher and the other forty or forty-five would have one teacher, yet under that direction the trustees would be required to pay their equal share of taxes for the Catholic teacher who was only teaching fifteen children. I submit that this is a most unjust proposal and one that should not be entertained. If that meeting was not brought about I ask why the rumour has not been denied. I submit that it is up to His Excellency that he should set himself right upon it. Here are two men holding honourable positions, standing high in their province, men who have the confidence of their province, and they state distinctly that that meeting took place and that that proposition was made. Did the First Minister know about that meeting or did he not ? That is the question to be decided. If he did not know then I submit that the Papal delegate was going beyond his proper sphere in making that proposition and therefore taking it in any light you can it was an improper thing to do ; it was wrong to make the proposition. He told them according to this report that if they agreed to put this clause in, it would expedite the enlargement of the province. What does that mean ? Does it not carry out the statements that have been made in the past over and over again that Manitoba need not expect any extension of territory unless she agreed to separate schools, and. here we have a proposition made that proves beyond a doubt that this was the case. I say again that we in this House object to any interference whatever in connection with church or state. We refuse to allow any foreign potentate to take any part in our legislation or to dictate how our children shall be educated in any part of this fair Dominion of ours.
Now in this age of the world when church and state are being separated in France, we in Canada are binding them together. I submit that is a state of affairs that should not exist. It has been said that in the United States, because they have national schools where no religion is taught, the people have become unchristian, and we are pointed to the eastern countries where state church schools have existed for so long. I have travelled through those eastern countries myself. I have seen the sun rise and set in many lands, and in travelling through them I have observed the way in which the Sabbath was kept. and have endeavoured to learn something of the results of the church schools which prevail there. I found that those eastern countries have not been going ahead as the United States has. Spain has had church schools for centuries, and today Spain is one of the dying nations of the world. France has had church schools, 3936 3936 and to-day she is severing all connection between church and state, and as a result of establishing national schools I believe we will see France rise amongst the nations of the world. It is true that in the United States where there are no separate schools, there are divorce laws, and lynchings and many other problems that are difficult to solve ; nevertheless the United States stands to-day among the foremost nations of the world. As regards Sabbath observance, it is in those countries where church schools prevail that you will find the Sabbath most generally violated, theatre going and all kinds of amusements are carried on on that day. If you want to find a Christian nation you will find one that observes the Sabbath. Where will you find the Sabbath as well observed as it is in this fair Dominion of ours ? You will find it observed just as well in those provinces that have national schools as in those that have separate schools. I am not prepared to say that there is any difference. But 1 think we can boast that we have a Christian people in this Dominion, who observe the Sabbath better than in any other country in the world.
Therefore, I say, that in building up this great country we are making history, and! we must carefully procure the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people. We must give those new provinces provincial rights, we must give them all the freedom they have a right to expect at our hands. Sir, the time will come, whether it is this year or next year, when the free and independent electors of this Dominion will assert themselves. We have seen petitions coming from every part of this Dominion, the table has groaned beneath their weight. We have seen public meetings passing resolutions in almost every province in the Dominion, protesting against forcing separate schools upon these new provinces. There is an awakening amongst the free and independent electors such as never existed in this Dominion before, and it will go on and increase. Exception has been taken to the petitions that have been presented and to the public meetings that have been held. Sir, that is the only way in which the people can express their opinions when no election is going on, it is only by petitions and by public meetings passing resolutions that they can make their voice heard. Then we find that the newspapers from one end of this Dominion to the other, except in the province of Quebec, have condemned this legislation. The 'Globe,' the organ of the Reform party, is just as strong on this question as the Conservative newspapers. I venture to say that if we could have now an expression of opinion at the polls, we would find Reformers and Conservatives going to the polls side by side and shoulder to shoulder in every constituency in Ontario, 3937 APRIL 6, 1905 to vote against this legislation and against the present government. This agitation will not die out. No matter whether the elec4 tions come on in one year, or two years, or three years, or four years from now, this is a live question, and I venture to say that so far as the province of Ontario is con cerned, even four years from now, this government will not carry half a dozen seats. I venture to predict that the same state of affairs will be found to exist in! Manitoba and in those two new provinces. The present government will find that the free and independent electors will drive them out of power the first opportunity that presents itself.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Thursday.


Canada. House of Commons Debates, 1875-1949. Provided by the Library of Parliament.



Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Paige Gelfer.

Personnes participantes: