House of Commons, 6 April 1905, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan

3937 APRIL 6, 1905


THURSDAY, April 6, 1905.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.



Mr. BERGERON—by Mr. Taylor—asked:
1. How many extradition cases, demanded by the United States, have come, during the past eighteen months, before the extradition commissioner in the district of Montreal ?
2. What decision was given in each case ?
3. Before which commissioner or judge did the said extradition cases come, and by which were they decided upon ?
Hon. CHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) :
1. Five extradition cases demanded by the United States have come, during the past eighteen months, before the Extradition Commissioners in the district of Montreal.
2. In four cases the prisoner was committed to await extradition ; one case (Gaynor and Greene) is still sub judice.
3. All before Mr. Commissioner Lafontaine.
Mr. BERGERON—by Mr. Taylor—asked :
1. Is the government aware that, during the extradition proceedings against John F. Gaynor and Benjamin D. Greene, a recusation for alleged reasons was taken against Mr. Ulric Lafontaine, the extradition commissioner ?
2. 1f so, what course does the government purpose taking in regard to the said recusation?
3937 3938
Hon. CHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) :
1. It is a matter of public notoriety, through the newspapers, that in the extradition proceedings against John F. Gaynor and Benjamin D. Greene, 21 paper called a 'recusation' was filed against Mr. Lafontaine, the Extradition Commissioner; but the government has no official notice of any such proceeding. The question of the magistrate's competency is now before the courts for judicial determination.
2. When the matter is officially before the government, it will be time to say what course the government propose taking in regard to it.


On the Orders of the Day being called,
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont). Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to say a few words with respect to a matter that was mentioned in the House yesterday. Let me, in the first place, speak of the letter of February 23rd, which evidently was not received by the Prime Minister. May I be permitted to say that I understood from the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday that there was rather a reflection on Mr. Rogers in the suggestion that the letter had not been received. I rather gathered that the Prime Minister had some doubts as to whether or not the letter was written. Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. gentleman, but it is, I think, right to say that very ample evidence was forthcoming of the writing and of the sending of the letter, and while we at once accept most unreservedly the statement of the Prime Minister that he (lid not receive it, still I would think that, under the circumstances, it would be a perfectly proper thing to include that letter in the correspondence which is about to be printed.
Since the discussion of yesterday a statement has been made by His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti. I will come to that a little later on. Let me say that I know nothing of the circumstances under which a delegate of the Holy See was in the first place brought to this country beyond what has been stated by gentlemen on the other side of the House, who are well qualified to make such statements, because they have personal knowledge of that which they state.
As I gather from them the Delegate Apostolic came to this country in 1897, not at the instance of the bishops of the Roman Catholic church in Canada, but at the instance of some forty Liberal members of parliament who are members of the Roman Catholic church. I understand that there was no demand for the appointment of a delegate by the bishops or clergy. In making that statement, of course, I rely entirely 3939 COMMONS on what has been said by hon. gentlemen on the other side. by the right hon. Prime Minister. by the hon. member for La belle (Mr. Bourassa) and others who have very frankly stated the position of affairs in that regard. The delegate came to this country. as the hon. member for Labelle has stated, because there was a certain misunderstanding between the laity and the clergy of the church. I understood him to say that the difference arose in connection with the Manitoba school question, which was made (a political question. Thus, I venture to suggest, not on lily own authority at all, but from what has been said by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, that the delegate came to this country in the first place on account of a political question which arose in this country and that his functions have been to some extent at least political and perhaps more political than ecclesiastical.
Now the right hon. gentleman has laid a great deal of stress upon the fact that no communication from the executive of Manitoba in regard to the boundary question had come to this government before the month of January last. But, my hon. friend was not unaware that that question had been brought up in the Manitoba legislature. He was not. unaware that resolutions, unanimously concurred in by his own political friends in Manitoba, had been passed by thc legislature of that province: and when he sent his letter into the Northwest in: the month of September last. announcing that, new provinces would be created in the Northwest Territories, he knew perfectly well that the question would be to the fore as soon as the Bill was introduced for the purpose of creating.r those provinces. Therefore. the boundary question was to all intents and purposes to the fore, and very much to the fore, during the present year in connection with the legislation which is now before the House for discussion and in connection with the distribution of territory attending the creation of these provinces. It has been very much to the fore during the last few months especially.
I referred yesterday to certain press comments on the subject. but I did not refer to them very fully. I will take the opportunity of mentioning them again, because they are significant. I have here an article which appeared in the ' Northwest Review .' published in the city of Winnipeg. I am not familiar with the ' Northwest Review,' I have no knowledge except what is stated in the press in regard to it. Other hon. gentlemen who are more famliar with that publication can speak better in that regard. I am about to read a statement which would attract attention coming from any responsible source in this country. and I understand that the source to which I refer is a very responsible one in that regard. The words of the ' Northwest Review ' are as follows :
3939 3940
Two days after the 'Telegram ' had trumpeted abroad the Hon. Robert Rogers' great hopes for the western extension of Manitoba, the same wise and prophetic journal deplores the fact that there will be no such extension in any direction. But it omits to give the reason thereof. The only obstacle to the territorial expansion of our province is its iniquitous and cruel school system. Not even the wildest corner of any unorganized territory will consent to saddle itself with such a tyranny. Manitoba. must be content to remain small and mean so long as it maintains its small and mean school policy.
Let me say in passing that that small and mean school policy was hailed by my right hon. friend the leader of the govern ment in a speech in this House in 1897. as a happy solution of a very difficult question and one which he pronounced to be perfectly satisfactory to the people of his own province. He said in regard to it:
The only thing I care for is that. whereas, under the Act, 1890, they had not the privilege of teaching their own religion in the schools, by the concessions which have been made, whether they are concessions of new rights or a restoration of old rights, they will have. the right hereafter of teaching their own religion in the province of Manitoba.
Further on:
Well, the moment. I found that the people of Manitoba was ready to make concessions which practically restored to the Catholics the right of teaching the French language and ot' teaching their own religion in the schools. I submitted to my fellow countrymen in the province of Quebec that it was far better to obtain those concessions by negotiation than to endeavour to obtain them by means of coercion.
  Further on:
  And I venture at this moment to say that I there is not a man in the province of Quebec.   there is not a. man in this country. who. looking at the settlement unbiassed and unprejudiced, will not come to the conclusion that it was a happy solution of a very difficult situation indeed.
  I hardly think that the words which I have quoted from the "Northwest Review' are applicable to the happy solution of a very difficult situation which was referred to by my right hon. friend on that occasion. I may say in this connection that some criticism was directed against my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on account of his statement respecting the confirmation or approval by the people of this country of that settlement in the elections of 1900 and 1904. Why, Sir. my right hon. friend the leader of the government, in 1897, in the same speech to which I have referred, declared that there was ample approval and confirmation of the settlement by the three by-elections which had taken place before lthe time at which he spoke. Surely. it in the opinion of my right hon. friend three by-elections were a sufficient approval of that 3941 APRIL 6, 1905     settlement so auspiciously made, my hon. friend from North Toronto did not go too far the other day when he made the remarks to which attention has been drawn in this House. Well, what further ? The 'Northwest Review' is not, so far as I am aware, under the control or direction of the government or any member thereof, but there is a newspaper in the province of Quebec which declares itself to be the organ of the Liberal party and to be under the direction and control of my right hon. friend the leader of the government. I quote from an editorial statement of the 11th of February last in that journal, 'Le Soleil,' published in the city of Quebec:
We declare once for all that 'Le Soleil' is the organ of the Liberal party, and by that fact is under the direction and absolute control of Sir Wilfrid. The supporters of Sir Wilfrid and those who affirm themselves to be such, are begged to take notice of the present declaration.
Now, it will be interesting to know whether or not that is a plain, clear, unvarnished falsehood or whether there is any foundation for the statement made editorially in the columns of that newspaper. It has been stated, and stated without contradiction in this House so far as I am aware—and I speak under correction from the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who know more of this matter than I do—that the editorial management of that journal was controlled by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr Fitzpatrick). Further than that, it is stated that now the control of that journal has passed into the hands of Mr. Choquette, a gentleman who, in the first place, was a follower of my right hon. friend the leader of the government in this House, who, in the next place, was appointed by my right hon. friend to an important judicial position in the province of Quebec and who, immediately before the last election campaign, descended from the bench for the purpose of becoming the organizer of my right hon. friend in the province of Quebec. There is an editorial article in this newspaper, 'Le Soleil,' of 4th of April which I will translate for the purpose of reading:
The 'L'Evenement' announced yesterday afternoon that 'Le Soleil' had been bought by the Gouin-Turgeon faction. Our contemporary made a mistake ; it often makes mistakes. The purchase of a certain number of shares in the 'Le Soleil' Publishing Company by the Hon. Senator Choquette is only an ordinary transaction such as takes place every day in the affairs of every company. As to our journal, it remains as it has always been, the organ of the Liberal party, and in the future as in the past it will defend the policy and the interests of the Liberal party.
Having defined as far as we can define with the information at our hand, the position of 'Le Soleil' and its relation to the 3941 3942 Liberal party in this country, and especially to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, let us observe what that journal has said with regard to this boundary question, because it is sometimes important to consider the utterances of great political organs upon political questions. It is desirable in the present instance to do so, in order to lead up to the incident to which attention has been drawn only yesterday. On the 17th of February 'Le Soleil' editorially made the remarks, which have been translated as follows :
In proportion to her big sisters Manitoba will count as little more than a large county.
This is one of the reasons invoked by Manitoba's delegates to obtain an enlargement of her territory.
There is another. Quebec and Ontario have extended their limits, the one to the west, the other to the east, to attain on the north the shores of James bay.
Manitoba aspires to the shores of Hudson bay, on the northeast. It would be necessary to withdraw her boundaries several hundred miles towards the north, to cut the district of Saskatchewan and Athabaska, and encircle that of Keewatin.
Manitoba is asking for treble her existing territory.
This enlargement is hardly possible.
The district of Saskatchewan opposes it, at least the part directly interested.
The finances of Manitoba in their actual state are not made to attract the free residents of the districts. Manitoba has a debt of $4,000,000. The school legislation of the little province is not of a nature to attract the immigrants who people the districts. The Northwest has its separate schools. Manitoba has abolished them.
Every good act has its reward, every bad act its chastisement.
Manitoba will remain lowest with her pretentious law.
Those, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, are very significant words coming from a journal which claims to be under the actual control and direction of the right hon. gentleman, and which is said—and without contradiction up to the present time—which is said to have been at the moment of these editorial utterances, under the direct control of the Minister of Justice.
Under these circumstances, what took place ? The delegates from Manitoba arrived in Ottawa on the 16th day of February. They came here for the express purpose of discussing with the government the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba ; they met the right hon. gentleman and the Postmaster General, and perhaps some other members of the cabinet. According to their statement, they were told by the right hon. gentleman that if they would remain a few days in Ottawa he would send for them again, and perhaps be prepared to give them an answer. They were not sent for by the right hon. gentleman again although they remained in the city of Ottawa until the 23rd day of February. I do not know whether the exact date has 3943 COMMONS been given, but before they left Ottawa, and some time between the 20th and the 23rd of February, they received a letter from His Excellency, Monseigneur Sbarretti. I make no criticism upon His Excellency in extending to them that invitation; I make no criticism upon them for courteously accepting that invitation. Let us consider, however, how far the situation had developed up to that time. Legislation in regard to the schools in the Northwest was about being brought down; it even then had just been brought down by the administration— or at least by a portion of the administration, because two members of the administration had not been consulted. I will correct myself and say that legislation had been brought down by the Prime Minister in the name of the whole administration. but with the authority of only a part of the administration. It is true that we had very direct avowals from the Minister of Agriculture and from the Postmaster General yesterday, that they were thoroughly familiar with the terms of the legislation as originally brought down and that they thoroughly approved of it as originally brought down. I am making no criticism so far as they are concerned, because the Prime Minister certainly had their approval and the approval of the Minister of Customs, but he had not the approval of the Minister of Finance nor of the Minister of the Interior.
I do not know to what extent any consultations had been had with His Excellency in regard to the terms of this legislation. The statement has been made in the public press—I called my right hon. friend's attention to it yesterday, I invited him to make some explanation with regard to it—and the statement has been made across the floor of the House, that His Excellency had been consulted with regard to the terms of this legislation. I am not at present making any criticism about that; I am only mentioning it to lead up to what follows, because, educational matters in the Northwest Territories were considered, if in these consultations it is a little difficult to believe that the schools of Manitoba were absolutely ignored in these discussions and that the boundaries of Manitoba were never mentioned. What follows ? The interview took place. I made no comment yesterday with regard to that, because I thought it was not advisable for me to do so, as we had not yet the version of His Excellency before us, and I thought we were entitled to have his version of what took place before we should make much comment upon this particular incident. Last night, His Excellency, I believe, gave out an interview which has been published in the newspapers of today, and I will follow the example of my right hon. friend yesterday, by placing the whole of that interview on ' Hansard,' in order that we may have the full benefit of the explanation that has been given.
3943 3944
Monseigneur Sbarretti last night handed out for publication the following statement :
I think it my duty to declare that the press report of a conference with the Manitoba delegates is not altogether exact and that it is given in such a way as to make a false impression on the minds of the people.
These are the facts :
Taking occasion of the presence in Ottawa of the Hon. Mr. Campbell, the attorney-general of Manitoba, whom I had met in a friendly way more than a year ago, I invited him to come to see me. I never met Hon. Mr. Rogers, nor did I have any communication with him. On the evening before his departure for the west, February 23rd, Mr. Campbell came. I asked him if something could not be done to improve the condition of the Catholics of his province with respect to education. I pointed out that in the cities of Winnipeg and Brandon, for instance, the Catholics were paying double taxes. I urged my request on the ground of fairness and justice and referring to his mission to Ottawa I remarked that from the point of view of the Manitoba government some action on these lines would be politically expedient and tend to facilitate the accomplishment of his object, inasmuch as Catholics in any territory which might be annexed to Manitoba would naturally object to losing the right they had to separate schools and to be subjected to the educational conditions which existed in Manitoba. Mr. Campbell then asked me what would be my desire in this respect. I then gave him the memorandum which has already appeared in the press.
This is the sum and substance of my interview with Mr. Campbell. The federal government had absolutely no knowledge of it. It was a private conversation and simply intended to express a suggestion and a desire that the condition of the Catholics in the respect I have mentioned would be improved. Any other assumption or interpretation is altogether unfounded. I think my right of speaking to Mr. Campbell in a private way and on my own responsibility cannot be disputed.
I notice that my hon. friends opposite cheer very much the statement of His Excellency that ' Catholics in any territory which might be annexed to Manitoba would naturally object to losing the right they had to separate schools, and to be subjected to the educational conditions which existed in Manitoba.' That is what they cheer, as I understand. I am amazed at these hon. gentlemen. The other day we had the ex-Minister of the Interior rise in his place and publicly thank the right hon. Prime Minister, without whose aid, he said, the Catholics of Manitoba could not have been deprived of those rights—publicly thanked the right hon. gentleman for having come to the aid of the majority in Manitoba and prevented the Conservative government from restoring to the minority those rights of which they had been deprived. The right hon. gentleman has declared this to be a happy solution of a difficult situation ; but hon. gentlemen opposite cheer the utterance which I have just quoted. Their attitude is a little incomprehensible to myself, and I think it must be incomprehensible 3945 APRIL 6, 1905   to any reasonable man throughout the country.
Now, let us observe a little what His Excellency does say. He is an able and accomplished man, brought up in one of the best schools of diplomacy in the world; a diplomat; a man who, I am sure, would make no suggestion, to Mr. Campbell or to Mr. Rogers, which he did not feel himself able to carry out. And let us see if my hon. friends opposite will cheer a little analysis of what His Excellency does say:
I remarked that from the point of view of the Manitoba government some action on these lines would be politically expedient—
Politically expedient, mark you—
—and tend to facilitate the accomplishment of his object, inasmuch as Catholics in any territory which might be annexed to Manitoba would naturally object to losing the right they had to separate schools and to be subjected to the educational conditions which existed in Manitoba.
Conditions which the right hon. gentleman himself stated in 1897 were absolutely satisfactory not only to himself, but to the people of the province of Quebec. Politically expedient—what does that mean ? Let us consider it for a moment. It would be politically expedient for the government of Manitoba, which desired an extension of its boundaries, to make certain amendments to that law which the Prime Minister had declared to be a happy solution of a difficult situation. Politically expedient—who had the power to extend those boundaries? The government of this country—hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. There was one and only one power in this country that could deal with that question, and that is the power represented by the fourteen or fifteen gentlemen who sit around the Council board of Canada; and His Excellency declared that 'from the point of view of the Manitoba government some action on these lines would be politically expedient.' Now, there is only one possible meaning to that, and it is this ; His Excellency must have thoroughly believed that he had the authority to suggest to these gentlemen that if they acceded to his demand, to his request with regard to the school laws of Manitoba, there would be such an extension of the boundaries of Manitoba as the government of that province desired. I am reluctant to believe that His Excellency would have made any such suggestion unless he believed he had authority of some kind. I do not know Whether he received authority from or had any discussion with the right hon. gentleman or with any other minister of the Crown. I do not know whether we shall receive any information on that subject. I do not know whether my right hon. friend will think it advisable to give us any information. I do 3945 3946 remember, however, that after the right hon. gentleman had declared, in answer to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and in answer to myself, only last session, that every document in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had been brought down, the Minister of Finance weeks afterwards read a document which had not been brought down, and used it for the purpose of debate; and the government justified their action in that regard by declaring in effect that if a document of a confidential character came into their possession, they were perfectly justified in denying in this House that any such document existed. I do not know what denials or what statements we shall receive in this regard; but it is interesting to observe another thing in this statement of His Excellency, and it is this: that there is no direct statement in it, so far as I have been able to observe, that he did not have the authority which he assumed on that. occasion. He has said, and the Prime   Minister has said. that that interview was not arranged on behalf of the government or at the instance of the government; but I do not observe any statement of His Excellency that he did not consider himself to have authority to make the suggestion which he did make to the Hon. Mr. Campbell on that occasion. If there was a    supposed authority, or if beyond that there was real authority given on behalf of this government, or given by any member of this government, how does the action of the members of this administration contrast with their attitude in 1896? Then their cry, at least in most of the provinces of Canada, was: No coercion; hands oft Manitoba. That was their answer to a remedial order and remedial legislation proposed by a Conservative administration within the strict terms of the constitution. But what has been suggested might rightly be regarded, I think, as a remedial order of another type—as a remedial order of an unconstitutional and unwarranted character ; and I for one am surprised that upon the statement of His Excellency, which I have no doubt is absolutely accurate in every respect, there should have been this suggestion to the members of the government of the province of Manitoba.
I am not concerned wth the question as to whether or not His Excellency should be recalled; as I said yesterday, he is not responsible to us in any sense, he is responsible only to his superiors. But the government of this country are responsible to us, and if there has been any suggestion of this kind by or on behalf of the government of this country, or by or on behalf of any member of it, then I say the country will demand. and I think the people will demand, the dismissal or retirement of any member of this government who ventured to confer upon His Excellency any authority 3947 COMMONS   of that kind. His Excellency is not responsible to us, but the members of the administration are. This was not an ecclesiastical matter, it concerned no ecclesiastical matters in no way whatever, it was to all intents and purposes a purely political matter, the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. I venture to think that in addition to the explanations which were given to the Prime Minister yesterday in this regard, there should be some further explanations made to the House and to the country to-day, in view of the very frank statement which has been made by His Excellency, and which I have brought to the attention of the House. I move the adjournment of the House.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). Mr. Speaker, in the exchange of courtesies which usually prevail between the two sides of the House, it has been customary up to this time for my hon. friend, when he intended to move the adjournment of the House in order to bring up some important question, to give me some intimation of his intention ; but my hon. friend, for some reason of his own which I do not know, has thought it advisable on this occasion to depart from the practice hitherto followed by himself and by his predecessors.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Allow me to say to my hon. friend that I received no intimation whatever of the extended remarks which he offered to the House yesterday.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I thought it advisable yesterday to give no notice what ever to my hon. friend that I intended to make a statement which concerned myself personally, and to dispute a statement which had appeared in the newspapers on a previous day. Nor did I believe, nor do I believe yet, when a member of this House finds himself attacked in a newspaper in a manner which he thinks is unwarranted, that he requires to give any notice of his intention to rise in his place and make an explanation, particularly when the matter is in no way controversial. It is also the general rule that when a member of the House gives his word in contradiction to alleged facts stated in a newspaper, his word is accepted, nor do I understand my hon. friend to dispute that rule. But today my hon. friend has thought it advisable, for reasons of his own, to bring up a matter which is essentially controversial, because it implies a censure by the House, and, therefore, I would have expected that the usual courtesy would have been extended to me. Had I been informed of his intention, perhaps I would be in a better position to give him an answer, which I think I can give him nevertheless on this occasion. I must say that in the multiplicity of business which I have to attend to I had read only cursorily the statement which appeared in the newspapers, given by His Excel 3947 3948 lency, Monseigneur Sbarretti, the Apostolic delegate, and which my hon. friend read a moment ago. But all this is not very much to the point. We have to-day, according to the hon. gentleman, a new phase of this question, and I am glad to say that we have a new phase, because it is a confirmation and a corroboration of the statement I made yesterday on the floor of this House. My hon. friend referred to my statement yesterday that up to the month of January last we had no information, no official information, of the intention of Manitoba to make an application for an extension of her boundaries. Why did I do that ? My hon. friend, for a reason, explained the alleged interview which was said to have taken place between Mr. Rogers, Mr. Campbell and the Apostolic delegate. In that interview Monseigneur Sbarretti was reported to have said that it would facilitate matters if these gentlemen would consent to the restoration of separate schools in Manitoba, and that if that had been done before it would have facilitated the extension of their boundaries towards the west. Well, Sir, I stated that I could hardly believe that His Excellency could have used such language, because then and there Mr. Rogers would have answered, and could have answered to the Apostolic delegate that there never had been by the government of Manitoba any demand upon this government to extend their boundaries prior to the month of January> last, and therefore Monseigneur Sbarretti could not, in my judgment, have used such language in the presence of Mr. Rogers. Now to-day we have the confirmation of my opinion that Monseigneur Sbarretti had never spoken in that way to Mr. Rogers, for the very good and obvious reason that Monseigneur Sbarretti never saw Mr. Rogers. There are many things in that interview published by Mr. Rogers which turn out to be not altogether according to the facts. You have the impression from the interview which was published yesterday, that the Apostolic delegate had sent an invitation to the delegates of the Manitoba government who were in Ottawa, to discuss with him this question of the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. Is that according to the facts as we know them to-day? No, Sir, we find that the invitation of Monseigneur Sbarretti was not at all extended to the delegates of the government of Manitoba, he says he never knew Mr. Rogers ; but the invitation was extended, not to the delegates, but to Mr. Campbell whom he know before, and whom he treated as a friend. It is a very different thing to have an official interview and conversation with the delegates of a government, and a private interview and conversation between His Excellency and a gentleman who happened to be in Ottawa at the time, and who was a member of the government of Manitoba.
Now, Sir, there are many things alleged 3949                 APRIL 6, 1905                         in this interview which I might comment upon. It is quite evident from the explanation of His Excellency, and is indeed obvious to all, that this interview was not a public discussion, it was merely a friendly conversation between two gentlemen who had met together to discuss a question which they had previously discussed. Now, my hon. friend has hinted, or has attempted to create the impression, that the government of Canada was actuated by sinister motives with regard to the province of Manitoba, and that we refused to extend her boundaries because we wished to punish the province of Manitoba for having abolished separate schools. To establish his point he quotes a statement in a Quebec newspaper, thc 'Soleil,' which is a newspaper friendly to myself and which claims to be my organ.
Sir, it is very strange that whenever a newspaper friendly to the government says something which the hon. gentleman thinks is favourable to themselves, he at once holds the government responsible for the statement. Well, does he hold me responsible, for instance, for the attitude of the 'Globe' upon this occasion, or of the other newspapers who do not support the government ? And if I am not to be held responsible for the attitude taken by the ' Globe,' why in the name of common sense should I be held responsible for the opinion of the 'Soleil ?' There would be just as much reason in one as in the other. 'Le Soleil' is a paper friendly to myself. But, because 'Le Soleil' is friendly to myself and wants to serve me, surely it does not follow that under any circumstances, I am bound to be responsible for everything appearing in 'Le Soleil,' or in any newspaper. It would be absurd to say that because men agree upon political matters, they will therefore see eye to eye in everything. There are other matters than politics on which men can differ in opinion. And it is, to my thinking, a position unworthy of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) to say that the government should be supposed to have been actuated by belief in a certain line of policy because that policy was supported by a certain newspaper. The day has not yet come when the Canadian government must look for its policy or the ground for its opinions to newspapers, however respectable those newspapers may be. We decide these matters upon our own lines and according to our best judgment. But the hon. gentleman has endeavoured to convey the idea— he did not say it in so many words—that there had been a sort of understanding. He did not use the word 'conspiracy,' but he intended to convey the idea, if he meant anything at all, that there had been a conspiracy between the government of Canada,—and in particular myself and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)—and Monseigneur Sbarretti to do certain things,— that is to say, that the extension of the 3949 3950 boundaries of Manitoba should depend on the restoration of separate schools in that province. Why, we have only to take the facts in chronological order as they are known to have occurred to show how unfounded, how absolutely unfounded, how devoid even of the shadow of foundation, such an assertion as that made by my hon. friend is. What are the facts ? As stated yesterday, we received in the month of January, towards the end of it, the request of the Manitoba government for a conference. We agreed to that conference, and it took place on the 17th of February. There were present a subcommittee of council and the question was discussed. We told the delegates that they should have an answer at an early day. That answer they had on the floor of this House four days later, on the 21st of February, when I introduced the Autonomy Bills, and in the course of my explanation stated our position with regard to the boundaries of Manitoba was clearly defined. It was two days afterwards, on the 23rd of February, that the conference took place between His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti and Mr. Campbell. When that conference took place, the decision of this government was already known. We had stated what we would do. We had stated that we would reserve the northern portion of Saskatchewan to be annexed to Manitoba or not as circumstances might suggest, and the extension of the boundaries should take place to Hudson bay if there was an opportunity to do so, after conference. The policy of the government was thus determined, and could not be affected by anything that might take place in the conference between His Excellency the apostolic delegate and Mr. Campbell. But, Sir, there is more. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) wants to know whether or not there was any question between the government of Canada and Monseigneur Sbarretti as to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. As I said a moment ago, I have not seen the statement of His Excellency,—I have not read it critically—but the answer to my hon. friend's question he already has before him- he has only to read that statement. He has read it, and in it he finds that Monseigneur Sbarretti says explicitly that the government had nothing at all to do with his own action. That ought to suit the purpose of my hon. friend and ought to convince him that he cannot make any political capital on that line. I have only to refer to the words of Monseigneur Sbarretti when he says himself—and his words are in the memory of every member of this House— that he stated to Mr. Campbell that if they would restore the separate schools in Manitoba, it would be politically expedient. Why? In what manner ? In respect of any action to be taken by this government ? No ; but because the people in the Territories would then have no objections to going into Man 3951 COMMONS itoba. There you have the whole meaning of this matter of political expediency.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. What do these hon. gentlemen mean ? Would they suggest that there is something behind ? They seek to prove their case by the words of the Apostolic delegate, and I give them his words making clear his own meaning. It would be, politically expedient. Why ? On account of any action to be taken here ? No, but because the people in the Northwest Territories who were affected would have no objection to be taken into the province of Manitoba. That is all there is in the matter. Yet, in the face of a statement so obvious as this, you have the leader of a great party doing his best to show that there was something hidden on the part of the government of Canada in this matter. A few moments ago my hon. friend said that we would fight this question out elsewhere. I accept that challenge without any qualification. We will fight out this question in this House. We will fight it out elsewhere. We will fight it out on the charge that hon. gentlemen opposite have brought to the attention of the House. I have no fear about the result. This is not the first time in the thirty years of my experience that I have seen the Tory party playing this part of endeavouring to arouse the prejudices of the people. We shall meet again and shall discuss this question elsewhere. In the mean-time, I accept the challenge of my hon. friend that we are responsible to the people ; and that responsibility we shall not decline, but shall meet it in due time.
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (North Toronto). Mr. Speaker, the unwonted heat the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) developed in his speech was unnecessary to remind us of the weakness of his argument in the opening, and, in fact, during the greater part, of his remarks. Though so valiant, though he has fought for thirty years and is willing to fight for ever so many years more, he found himself obliged to plead the baby act in the very first sentence of his speech. His hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), he said, had not given him notice that he was going to bring this new and unheard-of and unexpected question before the House. And this great, strong man of battle for thirty years endeavoured to make a little cheap capital against my hon. friend the leader of the opposition by imputing to him a want of courtesy. But, as he thinks it over the right hon. gentleman will remember that yesterday my hon. friend the leader of the opposition gave notice that he would again discuss this matter. And the reason he did not so fully discuss it yesterday was that there had been no word uttered by Monseigneur Sbarretti, and, for very good reasons and very prudent reasons, I think, my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) refused 3951 3952 to fulfil the whole purpose of the discussion until Monseigneur Sbarretti had either been heard from or had refused to say anything about this matter. So that I do not think there was very much in that matter of lack of courtesy. My right hon. friend may refine on the technical point but he certainly came here yesterday fully prepared to make as much as he possibly could out of this question politically. My right hon. friend is, I have no doubt, doing some thinking these days.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. FOSTER. And whether he and his colleagues and his followers are doing much thinking or not we may be certain that the people of this country are doing some thinking these days and I must say there is good material and plenty of it. But, Sir, let us ask now what my right hon. friend took such pains to deny yesterday. He took great pains to deny absolutely and categorically a great many things which are altogether of secondary importance. For instance he made a point against the Hon. Mr. Rogers because he said that they had not been invited on the initiative of the Dominion government to have a conference in Ottawa with reference to the extension or the boundaries. Neither did Mr. Rogers' statement declare that the invitation was on the initiative of the Dominion government. It might have been implied from that letter that it was or it might not, but in all conscience what difference did it make whether the invitation went from my right hon. friend in reply to a request or whether it was on his own initiative. As far as the facts of the case go what difference did it make ? But there was a very authoritative, a very absolute and a very much cheered denial on the part of my right. hon. friend of that first statement made by Mr. Rogers. He thought he had triumphantly floored his opponent when he contended that the interview had not taken place on his initiative. He made another strong point in connection with the interivew in that the Manitoba government had from 1896 up to January of this year made no step by way of initiative towards getting an extension of their boundaries. The Manitoba government I suppose is a fairly sensible government. They knew that their legislature had backed up the demand for an extension of territory. It had done it once, it had done it a second time and possibly a third time, but a claim for extension of territory waits generally for the favourable period and during all this time there was the prospect of the erection of new provinces in the Northwest, a prospect coming closer to fulfilment and it was felt that the time when the Territories were to be erected into provinces would be an opportune moment for the Manitoba government to press for an extension of their boundaries, 3953 APRIL 6, 1905 so that the argument based upon that point was scarcely worth the time it took to state it. It was within the right of the Manitoba government to choose their own time and the time chosen was that of the approaching creation of provinces in the west. Then they pressed their claim and I say that was an opportune time. The right hon. gentleman tried to make something out of the fact that he stated his policy with reference to the extension of Manitoba's boundaries on February 21st, and that therefore there was no reason at all for any person no matter what his position to attempt to gain influence for any purpose over the Manitoba government by holding out to them the idea that their territories might be enlarged. I take issue with my right hon. friend in that respect. He did not state in detail the policy of the Dominion government with reference to the extension of those Territories. He simply stated that they did not propose to extend those Territories until after conference with other provinces, and that steps would be taken at once or as soon as convenient to call the representatives of the ditferent provinces that might be interested to come together and to talk this matter over. It would have been possible to extend   the Manitoba boundaries to the northwest, to the north or to the northeast at any time ; these districts were all perfectly open and they lay there with all their possibilities. Let us come to one other point, to the very small point that was taken to-day that Monseigneur Sbarretti did not see Mr. Rogers, he did not know Mr. Rogers, he had no conversation with Mr. Rogers, and that therefore the whole argument was against Mr. Rogers. My right hon. friend must have taken leave of his senses. Was the Hon. Colin Campbell down here on a private pleasure trip ? Was he down here as a private citizen ? He was down here with his colleague Mr. Rogers as a delegation of the Manitoba government backed by the resolutions of their legislature as official as any commission could be made. They were here on an official visit and for an official occasion and it does not matter a single bit as to whether this conference was had with Mr. Rogers or Mr. Campbell.
  Some hon. MEMBERS.  Oh, oh. 
  Mr. FOSTER.  Or with the two of them  together.
  Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh ; order.
Mr. FOSTER. It was with an accredited representative of the Manitoba government. But oh, says my right hon. friend—and this is his final argument—this was a private conference. It was not a public conference. In what way would a conference take place ? Would it be supposed that Monseigneur Sbarretti would put an advertisement in the newspapers, would send a bellman about the streets to tell everybody that at a certain hour he was going to meet the representa 3953 3954 tives of the Manitoba government to talk over certain matters of policy ? Would he do that ? In what way could any conference take place between these gentlemen that would not ncessarily be a private conference ? But it was not private in this sense that both of the contracting parties have thought that it was their right and their duty to take the public into their confidence and to tell them what transpired at that conference. So there does not appear to be much in that argument.
  There were certain things that my right hon. friend however did not deny and they are quite as remarkable as the things that he did deny. He has been told times without number to his face in this House and he has not once risen to deny it, it has been very courteously brought to his attention to-day and he has thoroughly ignored it, that before he brought down his educational clause on February 21, 1905, there had been numerous conferences between himself and Monseigneur Sbarretti with reference to the provisions of that Bill. Will the premier deny it now ? He does not. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, I ask this House, I ask the people of this country if it has come to this that in Canada the representative of any church I do not care what it is—
  Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear. hear.
  Mr. FOSTER. Through its accredited highest head—must be visited by the premier of this country before he dares to bring down the policy to be adopted for the Northwest provinces ?
  Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
  Mr. FOSTER. The right hon. gentleman has not denied it yet. Then I wish to ask one other question to aid this thoughtfulness that I am sure is pervading the country at the present moment. Is it proper for the right hon. gentleman as leader of a government to have frequent conferences with the Papal ablegate in Ottawa with reference to a dominant part of his policy in creating new provinces and to give the go-by to the representatives of the people of the government ?
  Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman did not consult the Minister of the Interior who represented the Northwest Territories, who was their sole representative in the cabinet in reference to the educational clauses of the Bill, but he sits in abject silence and allows me to state here in the House endorsed by that silence that he did care to consult the Papal delegate here in Ottawa. The right hon. leader of the government did not consult the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Will the right hon. gentleman tell me now whether he consulted on that educational clause more frequently the one than the other, his Postmaster General or the Papal ablegate ? Why all this trouble and talk in the country because Monseigneur Sbarretti goes to the 3955 COMMONS representative of the Manitoba government and tries to get something for his people there ? Why all this heated denial, this hedging, this twisting. this turning, in respect of a province which is able to defend itself, which has the absolute legislative power confirmed by the highest judicial authority in the British empire, which is able to stand up like a man and defend itself, if it wants to or which is able like a free man to give what it pleases if it gives it out of its own generosity and good will ? Why all this fuss about such a thing as that, whilst, when it comes to a question of infants in arms, the wards of my right hon. friend, when their manhood and their rights for ever are to be given to them or abridged from them, my right hon. friend ignores the Minister of the Interior, ignores other members of his cabinet, but consults the Papal ablegate. Now, Sir, despite the fiery and incendiary speech of my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) which may be repeated here to-day—I do not know—my position is simply this that if there was a high representative of the Methodist church, of the Anglican church, of the Presbyterian church or of any other church in this country who was here in such a position as the Papal ablegate, and if he were consulted in the same way I should make exactly the same objection. This country is not going to have any semblance of alliance between church and state. The people of this country come from a stock who absolutely denied that doctrine years ago, who fought for its overthrow and enthroned the opposite one in the constitution and laws of their country, and the people of Canada are born and bred to the same idea and they will stand by it. The right hon. leader of the government may be as valiant as he pleases but I tell him that he has raised by his tortuous course a question in this country which far transcends the Manitoba controversy. Why is Monseigneur Sbarretti here ? My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) gave what he considered he could fairly gather from what he knew of the circumstances that led to the coming here of Monseigneur Sbarretti : What were they ? Dare I analyze them for a moment? I think we may take the risk even though the hon. member for Labelle may frown against it. I ask this first question in order to clear matters : Were there any spiritual difficulties between the bishops and clergy and the church Catholic of this country which made it necessary primarily that the Papal ablegate should be sent to this country ? There were no such. It has so been stated. It has not been denied. That gentleman would never have been asked for as he was asked for in his own handwriting by the right hon. gentleman who leads this government if it had not been that there was trouble in the Reform camp, that there was very deep seated trouble and the right 3955 3956 hon. gentleman conceived that it would be a good stroke of party policy to bring a very celebrated, distinguished and high dignitary of the church to minister to his spiritual consolation ? To minister to the spiritual needs of my devout friend the Minister of Justice ? To minister even to the clear white conscience of my hon. friend from Labelle ? Oh, no, it was not spiritual consolation they wanted. It was party political consolation. That and that alone was the prime motive of the movement for bringing the Papal ablegate to this couotry. Who brought him ? Here is a letter.
Ottawa, 30th October, 1897.
Eminence,—I made known to you in the month of August last, when Your Eminence did me the honour to grant me an audience, the happy result which the mission of Monseigneur Merry Del Val had accomplished among the Catholics of Canada, and the profound impression which his high Christian virtues and his talents as a statesman-I say statesman, and the expression is not too strong—
Not spiritual comforts, but statesmanship you see !
—had created in all classes of our population. Having now returned to my country for several months. I wish to make known to Your Eminence that if these happy results are to remain permanent and efficacious, it is desirable, if not necessary, that the mission of Monseigneur Merry Del Val should be renewed, or rather continued, and that she should be present in the midst of us for a more or less prolonged time as the accredited representative of the Holy See.
I have established, since my return, that there is among a certain class of Catholics an underhand agitation against the work accomplished by Monseigneur Merry Del Val, a work of pacification, concord and union.
The same reason of state which inspired His Holiness in the affairs of France, and which caused him to preseribe to the Catholics of this country the duty of abandoning the old strifes of the past—
In matters of religion ? In matters of church polity ? Nothing of the kind.
—and to accept the state of things agreed upon, has quite as much force in Canada as in France.
What state of things ? A spiritual concordat between the bishops or settlement of disseusions amongst the lesser clergy ? Nothing of the kind. Everybody knows what it refers to. It does not require any interpretation at all.
Such is the opinion of a great number of the Catholics amongst us. I admit that it is not the unanimous opinion ; this very divergence of opinion only renders more necessary among us the presence of a man at once firm and conciliatory like Monseigneur Merry Del Val, and of one who above all would understand all the danger there is of exasperating the men who are sincere, convinced, and who wish to be faithful to their duty as Catholics, while remaining faithful to what they believe to be their duties as citizens.
May I be permitted to ask Your Eminence to be good enough to lay these conditions be 3957 APRIL 6, 1905 fore His Holiness, while assuring him at the same time of my profound respect and of my filial attachment.
Accept, Eminence, the expression of the high consideration with which I remain.
Now, Sir, that letter is signed by Wilfrid Laurie r; it was written, I imagine, to His Eminence Cardinal Rampollo. So much with reference to that.
Let us carry this out a little further. Not only was this letter written by the right hon. gentleman, who then led and who now leads the government, but a certain counsel was arranged for who was accredited and instructed by this government to visit Home and to bring about what the right hon. gentleman had made a beginning of in the letter which I have just read. The agent whom they used as an intermediary was appointed by this government after they had dismissed—for purposes of state I wonder, or what ?—one of the best and most eminent of the legal counsel that this government has ever had in the city of London. On the 26th of November. at Rome. in the year 1897, Mr. Russell writes the following letter :
Eminence,—I have just arrived at Rome once again at the urgent request of the Catholic members of the government and of the parliament of Canada, in whose name I have already presented myself to you. Although I have come so far I do not dare to present myself to Your Eminence, because I would not in the least like at this moment to seem to be bringing pressure to bear or to wish to impede the complete liberty of His Holiness. Moreover, I know how busy Your Eminence is and I remember with what patience Your Eminence has so many times before heard our representations on the subject of Manitoba, which, besides Your Eminence now fully understands.
This is a very good pointer that it is not spiritual matters, that it is not any disagreement amongst the bishops or amongst the clergy, but that it is for party reasons. and for party reasons alone, that it is urged. reasons arising from the exigencies of the Reform party.
I should not even like to give you the trouble to read this letter if I had not been very particularly asked to go to Rome by those whom I represent, and who, living far from Rome. do not know quite what to do in order to plead teir cause and fulfil their duty to the Holy See.
This is therefore why I take the liberty of writing to Your Eminence as follows :
Some days ago the newspapers caused to appear an item by which it was set forth that His Holiness had published a letter condemning in the most formal terms the concessions obtained for the Manitoba schools.
Obtained by whom ? By whom were these concessions obtained ?
A few days afterwards a declaration of official appearance made it known that no such letter existed.
Although not resting upon any foundation, the publication of this news has created in 3957 3958 Canada such a state of feeling that my principals thought they would be wanting in their duty to His Holiness if they did not bring their respectful representations before him.
The object of my visit is to call the attention of Your Eminence to the subject upon which I have so often negotiated—
He had been there before it appears and on the same errand !
—to know that such a condemnation would have the most disastrous effects for the peace of Canada and the cause of Catholic education in this country, while at the same time it would sow discord among the Catholics themselves.
Now, this is the gist of the whole matter.
We do not solicit His Holiness to sanction as perfect the concessions obtained, but that in his wisdom he will be pleased to regard them as a. beginning of justice. With the aid of time and thanks to the patient work of persuasion by their compatriots, the Catholics of Manitoba may hope to obtain satisfaction. The condemnation of the concession made would, at the present hour, render (I am begged to insist upon this point)—
Begged by whom ? By those who sent him there ; begged by the right hon. gentleman and those who sent him there.
The condemnation of the concession would, at the present hour, render (I am begged to insist upon this point) any future concessions impossible. My instructions enjoined me again to renew to Your Eminence the desire, which I had already the honour to express to you, that His Holiness will be pleased to name a permanent delegate in Canada. The representative of His Holiness would reside on the spot, but would be outside local interests, and thus he could with more wisdom guide Catholics through the difficulties which they have to surmount.
There is another point which I dare to beg Your Eminence to be good enough to consider.
Almost immediately when the Latin text of the letter of the Holy Father appears, difficult and even contradictory translations will appear and, I am sure of it, most regrettable discussions will at once arise as to the interpretation of the words of His Holiness: In order to avoid such a misfortune may I be permitted to suggest to Your Eminence how desirable it would be that the Latin text should be accompanied by authorized texts in French and English. This procedure has been followed, it I recollect aright, on several occasions in the case of France and of England.
I shall leave Rome on Saturday, till that day I am entirely at the disposal of Your Eminence.
This was written by Mr. Russell, who, as he says, acted under special instructions of the Catholic members of the government. including Sir Wilfrid Laurier.  
Mr. FISHER. May I ask what is the hon. gentleman quoting from ?
Mr. FOSTER. I am quoting from a return brought down to the Senate.
Mr. FISHER. Of what year ?
Mr. FOSTER. Or was it a question put in the Senate ? Let me see—you will find it in the Senate reports of 1898, page 678 ; part of it is on that page and the rest of it is on another page.
Mr. BRODEUR. Is the hon. member very sure it is a return brought down to the Senate ?
Mr. FOSTER. I took it from a question asked in the Senate.
Mr. BRODEUR. Is it from a speech made by Senator Landry ?
Mr. FOSTER. Will my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) rise in his place and deny that such a letter was written by Mr. Russell ?
Mr. BRODEUR. I put a fair question to the hon. gentleman. He said it was a return which had been brought down to the Senate. and he thus implied that it was brought down by the government. I ask him is it a return ?
Mr. FOSTER. And I found it was not a return, and I started where it was to be found and what it was. But the point is not whether it was a return, or an answer to a question, or from a statement made by a senator—the point is : Was that letter written by the right hon. gentleman as I read it ? If it was not written by him, the right hon. gentleman can now rise and deny it. Was the other letter which I have read written by his accredited and instructed representative, for whose expenses the Canadian public treasury paid ? Was it written by him or was it not ? If the right hon. gentleman will deny it, then that settles the controversy ; but he does not deny it.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not know anything about the letters my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has referred to, but I do know that Mr. Russell's expenses were not paid by the Canadian public.
Mr. FOSTER. If my hon. friend says they were not so paid, I cheerfully take that statement back, and I am very glad to do so.  
Mr. FIELDING. Why was it suggested ?
Mr. BUREAU. What did you make the assertion for ?
Mr. FOSTER. I have heard assertions made in this House—
Mr. BUREAU. By you.
Mr. FOSTER. By gentlemen on both sides of the House as to which, as soon as they were informed they were not true, they immediately accepted the denial. However, it is undeniable that Mr. Russell received money from this government, but it may have been for other services, and as the Minister of Justice says it was not for this service, I unreservedly accept that statement. It matters little on the point at issue.
3959 3960
Taking these letters as being genuine, and there is no doubt about it, I think we have found thus far in our analysis that the present Papal ablegate was not brought here and is not here to-day on account of spiritual difficulties that have arisen in the Catholic church of Canada.
Mr. BERGERON. Nor asked for by the bishops or clergy of Canada.
Mr. FOSTER. This also is suggested to me : that it is not on record and cannot be substantiated, that such a personage was asked for by the bishops and the clergy of the Roman Catholic church in this Dominion of Canada. If that is wrong, it is quite in order for those who know all about it to deny that assumption; but as it is not denied, it goes to strengthen the analysis I am making, and the conclusion that 'par consequence' the only reason for the ablegate being asked to come, and being here to-day, is in order to help the Reform government out of difficulties into which they had involved themselves, and to help them out of that confusion and trouble by the intervention of a higher dignitary of the church. This House and this country will know in a moment whether that inference is a violent one or a fair one. Why, in the whole tenor of those letters, the right hon. gentleman's and the accredited agent's, there is no assumption that he has come here for spiritual or church purposes. It is all put on the basis of political or state reasons. What were the difficulties he was to settle ? If they had put it honestly in black and white, they would have said: the difficulties amongst Reformers and between Reformers. and Conservatives, and we want a high dignity of the church to come here and help us to smooth out those political difficulties.
But there is another very singular thing which Mr. Russell put into that statement of his to His Eminence, that is, that his senders. including the right hon. gentleman, who leads the government, writing in 1897, after the right hon. gentleman had declared that he had settled satisfactorily the Manitoba school question, had instructed Mr. Russell to remind His Holiness through His Eminence that they did not pretend to believe that ' the concessions were perfect, but they begged His Holiness to take them as the beginning of justice.' Now, Sir, is that straightforward conduct ? The right hon. gentleman, I said, is paying for his tortuous policy. So he is. In 1896 he saw a bridge by which he could get into power; he was anxious to cross the bridge; he threw his principles, the constitutional principles on which he had prided himself so much, to the winds; he also threw to the winds his solicitude for the Catholic minority in Manitoba; and after he had crossed the bridge by a promise to more than one- half of this Dominion that he was the champion of provincial rights, and by a 3961 APRIL 6, 1905 promise to the forty-one per cent which has been referred to in this House that he would give them something more and better than the Tupper government could give by the Remedial Bill, and had attained p-wer by these means, he negotiated privately or publicly with the Manitoba government, and then announced to the country that he had settled the question. As an honourable statesman, he ought to have allowed it to remain settled. The Manitoba government came to him and said : this is our utmost concession ; and if he, as the Prime Minister of this country, took it as their utmost concession, why should he send an agent to Rome to say to His Holiness : I do not offer this concession as a perfect settlement ; it is only the beginning of justice ; send out your highest dignitary to reside permanently in Ottawa, so that, by insistence, by methods proper in themselves from our standpoint, he can bring to bear a tireless, resistless pressure, in times of party stress, in time of provincial trouble, when a government has a small support, may be, to tide them over, or when they are exceedingly anxious to get their rights in point of territory, he shall be in a position to use the influence which he knows so well how to use, and backed up by us at the proper time this beginning of justice may blossom out into the perfect fulfilment of separate schools for the province of Manitoba. That is why Monseigneur Sbarretti is here today. If it had not been for that reason and that policy of conduct, he would not be here to-day. What futile reasoning for the right hon. gentleman, after thirty years of political battle, to get up and make this kind of defence before the country, and think it will go down with the people: "Monseigneur Sbarretti did what he was brought here to do; did what I asked him to be sent here for; did what I sent an agent to Rome to get him appointed to do; he did it, but he had no authority from me to deliver the goods.' Does the right hon. gentleman see the two horns of his dilemma ? You brought him here; you have kept him here for those five or eight years ; you brought him for those purposes; you have kept him for those purposes; and when he comes to the final, crucial point, and uses his influence, you disown him. If that is not cowardice, then let it go by its own imputation.
But my right hon. friend does worse than that. He gets up before this House and this country, and says : 'If Monseigneur Sbarretti made that promise of an extension of the boundaries of Manitoba as a political consideration to the province of Manitoba for those two proposed amendments, he did it without any authority or any well- grounded hope that we would supplement his promise.' Come now, I will put a question to my right hon. friend : Suppose that Monseigneur Sbarretti had obtained those two amendments made in the Manitoba law, 3961 3962 and then had come to you and told you what he had done, and had read the whole of that correspondence, giving the raison d'etre of his being here, would you have refused to implement it ? There is a question for my right hon. friend. I will put another, which is more searching still : When you say that Monseigneur Sbarretti held out a political consideration to the envoys from Manitoba, and that he had no right to do it, what estimate do you place on Monseigneur Sbarretti yourself? I refuse to believe that a high dignitary of the church, such as Monseigneur Sbarretti is, a man of his training and his parts, would by a trick endeavour to get two amendments for his co-religionists in the Manitoba school law, unless he knew that if they were granted, the other thing would be. Along what by-ways and crooked paths the right hon. gentleman is forcing himself now, as a result of his misdeeds, to tread with sorrow and humiliation.
Now, Sir, I have no more to say on this question at the present time, except to reiterate again that my right hon. friend may take this home and keep it. The people of Canada demand that there shall be no possible alliance between church and state in this country. A bishop of the Methodist church has no more right to be consulted than a layman of the Methodist church in reference to political matters in this country. And so with reference to every other representative of every other church. But can you compare a bishop of the Methodist church or a bishop of the Anglican church with Monseigneur Sbarretti? Who does not know that, with my right hon. friend in power, when Monseigneur Sbarretti, representing forty-one per cent of the people of this country, makes a plea, he holds out a hope, through his authority of a fulfilment that can be given by no other church or collection of churches in this country. Now, I can see that some one will rise on the other side and declare that I have made an incendiary speech. Why, the right hon. gentleman himself, seeing that he had no argument, had to have recourse to that kind of declamation, and it was very signfificant of the weakness of his case. For Monseigneur Sbarretti himself I have every respect.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FOSTER. Quite a number of skeptics on that side of the House. But I show my respect for Monseigneur Sbarretti by clearing him of the imputations which the position of my right hon. friend fastens upon him. So far as the Papal ablegate's position in this country is concerned, so far as his position as a spiritual envoy from the Church of Rome is concerned, he is welcome to this country may he stay here and grow up with this country and help to make it great. So far as his mission is confined to spiritual purposes in his own church, 3963 COMMONS   to the reconcilement of differences of doctrine, or of polity, or of church government, or anything in that broad domain, no one will cavil with his existence here, and no one but will wish him a long and happy stay. But when he undertakes, presuming on the raison d'etre of his position in this country, to set up a claim that he can interfere in the politics of Canada and use inducements by his interference, then I say that no protest can be too strong against that, and I believe it will be supported by the voice of Canada.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY (North Simcoe). One thought occurred to me when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was addressing this House : How long is he prepared to stand by the principles he has enunciated this afternoon ? Coming from the province of Ontario, and as a constituent of the hon. member for North Toronto, I have a right to ask him this : Are these clothes which he puts on this afternoon to be discarded as were the clothes he wore prior to 1896 should he be again defeated ? If he was speaking sincerely this afternoon, I would welcome his declaration and would be pleased with it. But I have heard him stand on platforms in the province of Ontario and denounce the late Dalton McCarthy for the views which he entertained, I have heard him say that no such sectarian cry as Mr. McCarthy dared to raise would ever have any effect in this country ; I have heard him say, when Mr. McCarthy was speaking on behalf of Manitoba in another school case, that he must not forget minorities ; I have heard him say that to sit in a Conservative administration he would bury those principles, and he did bury them from 1882 to 1896. Therefore, I ask the hon. gentleman now whether he has cast off for ever the yoke of the hierarchy under which he lived from 1882 to 1896 ?
Mr. FOSTER. Yes, I have sent the yoke over to my hon. friend.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. My hon. friend will find out about the yoke.
Mr. FOSTER. I see he wears it very gracefully.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. My hon. friend will find out that the nigh ox is hitched on the off side. He need not talk about the yoke, when one of his colleagues who now sits beside him, hounded Dalton McCarthy from one end of Ontario to the other, saying that he was not worthy to be called a Protestant champion, because, forsooth, he had a Catholic stepdaughter who lived in his house.
Mr. FOSTER. May I ask my hon. friend a question ? Does he refer to me when he states that I made any assertion of that kind ?
3963 3964
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. No, the hon. gentleman was not listening, or he would have heard what I said. I said his colleague who sat beside him, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), and I have his words here. The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) also has spoke in derogatory terms of Mr. Dalton McCarthy. I say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) who has just made this appeal this afternoon, did live under the yoke of the hierarchy of Quebec from 1882 to 1896.
Mr. HAGGART. Did I hear the hon. gentleman aright when I understood him to say that I had made any allusion to a stepdaughter ?
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. No, no. The hon. gentleman from Lanark, speaking at Brockville, used this language :
Mr. Haggart dealt at great length with the school question, and then launched out into a personal attack on Mr. Dalton McCarthy whom he called ' that little gentleman.' Mr. McCarthy was, the minister said, putting on airs and talking about different members of the government, particularly about 'my brilliant friends.' the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Ives and Mr. Wood. None were better able to take the measure of a jack-daw posing in borrowed plumage than the electors of the country. A man fighting and quarrelling in small courts or law got a narrow and contracted intellect which unfitted him as a statesman or a representative of the people. He might be able to torture a witness in the box. What did he know beside law ? Did he ever make a speech in the House of Commons that was listened to ? He posed on the narrow grounds of bigotry and lived upon resentments.
Those are the words of the hon. member for Lanark. Now why do I say that the hon. gentleman from North Toronto lived under the yoke of the hierarchy of Quebec from 1882 to 1896 ?
Mr. BERGERON. What do you call the hierarchy of Quebec, please ?
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. I am not speaking disrespectfully of them, I am speaking as I would of the Synod of my own church, or the general assembly of the Presbyterian church. The hon. member must know what the hierarchy of his own church is. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) spoke of it the other day. Now I ask the hon. gentleman from North Toronto, who has just made a speech, if he was sincere ? If I thought he was sincere I would not be speaking as I am now.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. It is all very well to say, hear, hear, but I tell you I come from a stock that knows what it is to be jeered at, just as you are jeering at me now. I know that prior to 1896 they hounded us from one end of Canada to the other. They spoke disrespectfully of us, 3965 APRIL 6, 1905 they told us we were bigots, they told us that the views we were then expressing, which were in accord with their own views to-day, were not sincere, and were not in accord with our convictions. In 1896 when Mr. Dalton McCarthy defined his policy on the Jesuits Estates Bill, what was the position of the hon. gentleman then ? We then pointed out to them that they were leading to the very trouble that exists today, they were recognizing in that Bill a Papal power which was thereby given the right and power to dispose of. some millions of the peoples' money in this country. These hon. gentlemen, who take another position to-day, said then : Let us stand by provincial rights, toleration and moderation, let that go on as it is. And when we objected to the dual language clause in the Territorial Act, and in the Manitoba Act, what did these hon. gentlemen say then?
An hon. MEMBER. Who are 'we.'  
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Mr. Dalton McCarthy. I do not think the hon. gentleman can deny that I have a right to say ' we.' I do not think the hon. gentleman will deny that I have the right to say 'we.' The hon. member for East Northumherland (Mr. Cochrane) will remember having seen me in some of these campaigns, when mud was thrown at us because of the position we took. When we asked you not to coerce Manitoba, were you acting under the dictation of the heirarchy or not ? I say most explicitly you were. And when the bishops of the Catholic church threatened to excommuncate the opponents of the Tupper government, when the bishops of that church talked about the opponents of that government as ' hell-inspired hypocrites,' were you acting under the dictation of the heirarchy or not ? Were you under the yoke of the 'heirarchy or not ?
Mr. LENNOX. What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) mean by ' yoke ' ?
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) wants to know, I will tell him. The hon. gentleman allowed that yoke to be placed upon him in 1896, when he contested the riding of North Simcoe. The hon. gentleman remembers the result, and I do not want to rub it in too much, as it would be painful to him to recollect that he lost his deposit. I say I am perfectly justified in what I have said so far ; and I point out that this very trouble which has taken place was brought to the attention of the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Foster) when he was in the governments of Sir John Macdonald and Sir John Thompson. Mr. Dalton McCarthy urged them both to get rid of section 14 of that Act—Mr. Dalton McCarthy had moved to have it repealed. But the hon. gentleman voted in favour of allowing it to remain on the 3965 3966 statute-book, and that is largely the cause of the present difficulty. And now, forsooth. the hon. gentleman says that this Papal delegate is improperly interfering in our affairs. In that I am prepared to agree with him, and I do agree with him. But I want sincerity. And, if I do nothing more than draw attention to what has taken place in the past and to what is taking place now, I shall show to the satisfaction of every reasonable man that it only depends on which party is in power, because whichever one is in power always do these things. You only get a corporal's guard in this House to vote for a straight motion against any such position as is being taken to-day. I say that advisedly, and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) knows it. What was the position in 1896 ? It was this : The hierarchy of Quebec were behind the Tapper government, and were threatening to excommunicate the people who refused to vote in favour of the Tupper government at their dictation.
Mr. L. G MCCARTHY . My hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) says 'no.' But it is on the records of 'Hansard '—
Mr. BERGERON. It is on the records as having been often said, but never proved.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. What about Archbishop Cameron of Nova Scotia, who spoke of those who opposed the Tupper government as 'Hell-inspired hypocrites' ? What about Archbishop Cleary, of Kingston, and his speeches? What about Archbishop Lafleche? In 1896, the bishops of the Roman Catholic church—the heirarchy of that church—and I do not speak disrespecttully of them—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Well what is the trouble with the hon. gentlemen ?
Mr. FOSTER. The trouble is all over there.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. I am glad you have got rid of it.
Mr. FOSTER. We are all right.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman says he is all right. He has changed his spots. He has moved from St. John. New Brunswick, to Toronto. where the sentiment is—
Mr. FOSTER. I am not ashamed of North Toronto.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to finish the line I was on, and then I will deal with the hon. member for North Toronto. I say that in 1896, at the dictation of the heirarchy of Quebec, you endeavoured to coerce Manitoba—
Mr. FOSTER. I suppose that, the hon. gentleman (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) having made. a straight statement, he must be replied to by me, or I am in danger of being held to acqueisce in that statement.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. If the hon. gentleman wishes to ask a question—
Mr. FOSTER. I rise to a point of order. I deny absolutely what the hon. gentleman stated in his last sentence, and I ask him to withdraw it and give me the credit I demand for sincerity in the statement I made.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the rules of debate require that a member of this House must accept the denial of another member on a personal matter.
Mr. FOSTER. That is all I want.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY. I accept the hon. gentleman's statement. And I change my own to this : I say that the Tupper administration of which Mr. Foster was a member, were endeavouring to force through this House a Bill to coerce the province of Manitoba at the request and under the dictation of the heirarchy of Quebec.
Mr. FOSTER. That also I deny.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) denies that, but I am not obliged to withdraw my statement. 1 will stand by it, as I have always stood by it ; and I leave it to a discriminating public ll.) judge whether it is true or not.
An hon. MEMBER. You stand all alone.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. Well, it is not the first time that a McCarthy has stood alone in this House; and, please God, if necessary, it will not be the last. I say that, in 1896—and hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to like me to get too close to that—we found the state of alfairs that I have spoken of. And here is the peculiarity of the situation. In that year, we found the hon. gentlemen who are now in opposition in close alliance with the bishops of the church of the province of Quebec. It became necessary, apparently, if justice was to be done, for the Papal power to be asked to interfere. If we are to believe what we have heard within the last two days, the Papal delegate came to settle some difficulties—and unquestionably they were difficulties with regard to political affairs,—between the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and their bishops. If the Papal delegate is interfering I declare his action is highly improper and I denounce it. But, I want this House and country to understand that if the respective parties expect to make capital out of it, their whole record on the subject should be considered. Take the history of Canada from confederation down to the present day, and how many members have ever stood up to vote squarely on an issue of this kind? Twenty-one, I believe, is the 3967 3968 largest number that ever united to prevent such encroachments as these, in regard to which, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) would lead us to believe, he was so sincere in protesting. If so it is the first time in twenty-three years that he has so spoken.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simeoe). I do not know that I need say much in reply to the hon. member (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) who has just taken his seat. That hon. gentleman has displayed his political stock in trade. I think the House and the country will acknowledge that the late Dalton McCarthy was a man of considerable eminence both at the bar and in this House. His record is history. But I do not know that anybody would venture to express a belief that the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) will ever be noticed in history. The hon. gentleman spoke at a meeting in Toronto at short time ago, and was then very boastful of his Protestantism and of the Protestantism of his family before him. He told the people assembled on that occasion that the cry of equal rights and opposition to French domination in Canada was the cry he had always raised in North Simcoe; that on that policy he had nailed his colours to the mast and would stand or fall by them. There was a contest last fall in North Sinicoe. as there was in the rest of the Dominion, and I challenge the hon. gentleman to produce a scintila of proof that he even opened his mouth upon the equal rights question or any such question as he has dealt with before the House to-day.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. I may tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) that I made no such statement in Toronto as that he has attributed to me as to this question been in issue in my campaign last election. I stated that in the first and second campaigns it was an issue. But, if the hon. gentleman wants to know I can tell him that I can produce evidence that I stated at Hawkestone. in the township of Oro. that I was certain that when the Bill for the granting of autonomy to the Northwest came up, the school question would again arise.
Mr. BENNETT. I took occasion to look up the file of a Collingwood newspaper devoted to the government, and, it will be apparent to any body reading that newspaper that the great issue in North Simcoe last election was whether or not the Collingwood harbour should have the benefit of a large grant of government money. And that was the whole question. As to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. L. G. McCarthy's) political stock in trade in that riding, I can tell the House that it does not carry the people as his late uncle used to do. In the township of Vespra the late Dalton McCarthy used to get a majority of about one hundred ; the hon. member (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) was in a minority of thirty in the last election.
3969 APRIL 6, 1905
This hon. gentleman was in a minority of thirty, and Sir, this hon. gentleman instead of parading this racial revenge question and this religious question in North Simcoe is always toadying to the other element. He had an appointment to make in Barrie a little while ago and, expecting that the township of Tiny which has a large French vote would be attached to North Simcoe. the hon. gentleman threw aside all his Protestant friends and pushed them over in favour of a French Canadian Roman Catholic. Will the hon. gentleman deny that ? I think he won't.
Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY. I will deny one part of it. that I had any anticipation that the township of Tiny was going into North Simcoe. I will admit that I recommended the appointment of Emile Sevigny as caretaker of the public building in Barrie and i am not ashamed of that appointment.
Mr. BENNETT. That shows how deep his Protestantism is. He had his friends riding the Protestant horse for him from end to end of the riding and yet they all had to be thrown overboard when at the last moment the hon. gentleman driven to 'the wall—for he had a majority of only thirty or forty—was in this position that he had to toady to the Catholic vote, and he dared not open his mouth in North Simcoe on that question, and had he dared to do so he would not be here to-day.
Now apart from the speech of the hon. gentleman what is all this question about? It is, as has been put by the leader of the opposition, a question as to whether or not any member of this government is responsible for the presence of the Papal delegate in this country and if any member of this government or of the government as a whole commissioned the Papal ablegate to have this conference with Mr. Colin Campbell. We heard a denial yesterday by one member of the government. What was that? When it was charged by some gentlemen on this side of the House that the government of Canada as constituted to-day had asked for the presence of the Papal ablegate in this country, up gravely rose the Postmaster General to say that he as a member of the government had not asked for the presence of the Papal ablegate here. His Excellency the Papal ablegate does not say that he did not consult some member of the government as to this interview with Mr. Colin Campbell. He makes a specific statement that he was not instructed by the government. but he did not make the statement that some hon. member of this cabinet did not ask him to have that interview and there is no denial by every member of the government specifically on that point. It has gone forth in the public press. it has gone forth from the leader of the opposition and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that in all these negotiations the premier, day in and day out, has consulted 3969 3970 the Papal ablegate as to the terms of this measure. That is not denied. The premier has had ample opportunities of denying it but he has not done so. The position of the Papal ablegate is reduced to this that he has made a specific denial of the statement that he was instructed by the government, but he has not made a specific denial of the statement that he was not consulted by some member of it. Every one admits the ability and the standing of the Papal ablegate in the church of which he is so distinguished a member, and does any one believe that the Papal ablegate would be so lost to any sense of common reason that he of his own accord and off his own bat, would go about negotiating as he has been doing ? I am not going to traverse the ground that has been gone over by the hon. member for North Toronto as to the equestrian performances of the premier on this question. The Prime Minister has played this game of fast and loose on this question from end to end of Canada. He has gone before Ontario posing as a perfect Ajax defying the lightning as one who has been assailed by the hierarchy, and asking Protestant votes on that score. It is amusing to read the utterances of that hon. gentleman in Ontario when he felt that he had not the power of the church behind him. Let me read his utterance in Toronto on a certain occasion when he thought it was necessary for the exigencies of his political party to make a bid for Ontario support. At a great meeting in September, 1889, in Toronto speaking on the Jesuits Estates Bill, he said:
Now I believe that the whole of that Act would have passed without any trouble whatever, but for the fact that the name of the Pope is prominently introduced in it, and that it was construed in such a manner as to mean a thing which I shall presently discuss—that it was putting the supremacy of the Pope over the supremacy of the Queen. Gentlemen, I think I put the question fairly. I want to put it honestly and to discuss it manfully. I know one thing, I know enough of my fellow countrymen of English origin, I know enough of English history, I know enough of English literature to know that when Shakespeare put into the mouth of King John the proud words which he makes him address the Pope's legate
No Italian priest Shall tithe or toll in our Dominion.
he touched the British heart in its most responsive chord (Cheers). I know this. that there is no man of English blood, let his condition in life be ever so humble, let his range of. information be ever so limited, but knows this much of English history that at no time would the English people or English sovereigns allow the sway of the Pope in the temporal affairs of England (Cheers).
And cheers greeted that too.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Hear. hear.
Mr. BENNETT. I do not think the right hon. gentleman would go down into Quebec 3971 COMMONS   to-day and treat in that slighting manner the Papal ablegate in Canada as he did on that occasion in Toronto. In the speech, as it is reported, he was not meeting with a very responsive welcome, and during the course of his address certain things that he mentioned were hissed by the audience, and he saw that he had to go the Protestant horse. And what did he do ? He made exactly that kind of an appeal knowing of course it might touch the palate of the crowd although he was ridiculing the church of which he is a member. The right hon. gentleman then as usual had two strings to his bow. His language then was very different from that in his address at a great meeting in the province of Quebec when he said that he thanked God there was not an Orangeman in the Liberal party. And how they cheered him to the echo when he volunteered that statement voluntarily to them ! The right hon. gentleman has never denied that statement since. I have heard it charged in this House, I have seen gentlemen with stacks of declarations of gentlemen who were present and what was the result, there was no specific denial that he had made those statements. The fact is he has been pirouetting on both toes and he is where he is to-day.
As far as this meeting between these gentlemen from Manitoba and the Papal ablegate is concerned, I have only this to say that I believe the Papal ablegate was quite within his commission and his duties in inviting these gentlemen to meet him. He had a perfect right to do that. The Papal delegate came to this country at the request of the right hon. gentleman and his political friends and he has been in close touch with the right hon. gentleman all through these proceedings and has had frequent consultations with the right hon. gentleman in reference to the terms to be contained in these Bills. These statements have all gone forth specifically, that the right hon. gentleman had these meetings and the right hon. gentleman has had ample opportunity to deny it but has not done so. It is with the right hon. gentleman that the quarrel of the people of this country rests and not with the Papal ablegate at all. The Papal ablegate has a perfect right to be in this country just as any other gentleman might have as a plenipotentiary or ambassador to any power, but I do say that the people of this country will hold the right hon. gentleman and the members of his government responsible for what has gone on. Talk about the right hon. gentleman leading a responsible and united party which is behind him on this question. Why it is openly seen by the attitude of the Ontario members not only of the cabinet, but of the House that they are all in a condition of doubt and fear on this question. The hon. Postmaster General will not dare to take up the challenge that was thrown to him by my hon. friend from South York 3971 3972 (Mr. Maclean) the other day to resign his seat and let the question be tested in the country. The hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman), who is discharging the duties of the Minister of Public Works and has been discharging them for the past year, dare not go to the city of London for reelection as Minister of Public Works. Why? Because of this incubus of the school question. I need not refer to other reasons that deter that hon. gentleman from going back there, but if the school question were out of the issue altogether I doubt very much if he would seek a contest there. The hon. gentleman dare not go back to his riding and face this school question as it presents itself to-day.
The people of Canada have no quarrel with the Papal ablegate. They have no quarrel with the powers at Rome for sending the Papal ablegate here to do what he came to do. He came here to try and get restitution of rights, from certain gentlemen who obtained power and place by misrepresentation and fraud as against the Roman Catholic electors of this country which some day they will answer for and must answer for and the people are biding their time to get even with them. There is one consolation for hon. gentlemen who sit upon the treasury benches and those who support them and that is that they will have the full tenure of the five year parliament because they will not venture to test public feeling before their time expires. I should not have risen but for the remarks of the hon. member for North Simcoe. I think the House is tired of the changes rung by that hon. gentleman in regard to the part which he has played in the political history of Canada. While that hon. gentleman dilates at great length in this House he is as silent as a mouse on this question when he goes into North Simcoe. I have had placed in my hand the issue of the Toronto newspaper which published the speech made by that hon. gentleman in Toronto on the occasion of the Massey Hall meeting which will prove that what I stated was actually borne out by the facts. Speaking at that meeting Mr. McCarthy said :
I appealed to them in 1900 and again was successful, and that time it was against a Conservative, and I appealed to them again in 1904 upon the same ground and the same platform, and was again sustained, though, I regret to say, with a reduced majority.
The hon. gentleman was referring to this question. He redeemed himself to some extent by at last saying that at the village of Hawkstone he mentioned this question. The hon. gentleman did not acquire much distinction from having held a meeting at that village and I will tell you why. In the first place the meeting held by him at Hawkstone was held a night or two before the election. I am not saying it disrespectfully of the people of Hawkstone, but Hawk 3973 APRIL 6, 1905 stone is probably one of the most intensely Protestant parts of Ontario, and the hon. gentleman was taking advantage of the fact to crawl down to the Protestant end of the riding and make his Protestant appeal there that he did not dare make in the township of Floss where he was coquetting with the Catholic vote.
Hon. SYDNEY A. FISHER (Minister of Agriculture). Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) sat down a few minutes ago, he stated that probably he would be accused of making an inflammatory speech. I can only take it that a guilty conscience enabled him to read the minds of those who listened to the speech he made for certainly he was right in describing it as an inflammatory speech. The hon. gentleman, in that speech, certainly tried to inflame the minds of those in this country who distrust or dislike the Catholic church and the Catholic religion. The whole tenor of the hon. gentleman's speech, was such as to raise Protestant prejudice and Protestant feeling against this government because he implied that this government, led by a Roman Catholic, was in constant touch with the Roman Catholic church in regard to secular affairs in this country. The hon. member himself on former occasions has complained, that he and his government when he was in the government, was subjected to similar attacks, not to similar attacks by Liberals or by those opposed to him, but similar attacks from the ranks of his own party when the late member for West York (Mr. Wallace) and the present hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) separated themselves from the Conservative party ceased their support of the Conservative government in 1896 and tried, as members of the government then said, to raise Protestant and English speaking feeling against the government at that time. Sir, I would like the hon. member for North Toronto to recall a speech he made in 1896, when, replying to an interruption from the hon. member for East Grey, he used these words, and I think perhaps he will admit that when he uttered these broad-minded words he was more of a statesman than he is to-day in making what he himself has characterized as an inflammatory speech. What did the hon. gentleman then say? He was not then representing a strong Protestant constituency in the Protestant province of Ontario, but he was a member of the then government of Sir Charles Tupper, representing the maritime provinces, and he said this, referring to a speech which the hon. member for East Grey had quoted or alluded to as his authority:
If made by Archbishop Langevin or if made by ten thousand archbishops, the hon. gentleman would yet have no ground in logic or in truth for making the assertion he made here the other day, which was, not that Archbishop Langevin did not agree with the ordinance, but 3973 3974 that the government held it in abeyance because the clergy did not approve of it.
Let him mark these words and let the House marks these words and see how well they apply to the speech which the hon. gentleman made a few moments ago.
This assertion, carried as broadly as newspapers will carry his speech, was meant, and will have the effect of raising prejudice and opposition to this legislation amongst the Protestant people of this country, and fan those fires which my hon. friends there and my hon. friends here so much deplore.
I hope the hon. gentleman will take these words to heart and act upon them instead of acting in the way his conduct shows he wishes to act this afternoon. The hon. gentleman has based the whole of his attack upon this government and upon my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on implications and assumptions, on implications and assumptions which are not borne out by the interview of Mr. Rogers and which are still less borne out, but are in fact absolutely refuted by the statement issued by the Apostolic delegate. The hon. gentleman quoted some words from Mr. Rogers' statement and he pointed out that something might be implied by that statement. I venture to say, Sir, that anybody who reads the statement of Mr. Rogers, in Winnipeg, will say that there is a great deal more implied in that statement than there is actually contained in it, and that there is an evident intention by the wording of the statement to make implications and insinuations that the gentleman who gave that statement did not dare to come out and state as matters of fact. These implications and insinuations are not founded on facts, but they are false to the record and they are untrue. Sir, the very first thing that would strike anybody in reading that statement, the first thing which i I confess, myself, impressed me was that Mr. Rogers had met the ablegate here in Ottawa. The statement contains these words:
During that interview we presented the claims of the province as urgently and strongly as possible. In reply Sir Wilfrid said that if we would be good enough to remain in Ottawa for three or four days he would again send for us and would then be in a position to give us an answer.
It is ' we,' 'us.' Then it continues:
In three days' time, on February 20, a letter was received from Monseigneur Sbarretti, asking for a conference.
Who would have supposed for a moment that that did not mean asking 'us' for a conference ; but. as a matter of fact. it was not those men who were asked for a conference. It was simply a private letter from the delegate asking one of these gentlemen, an old friend of his who had discussed this question before with him, for a private interview. The implication and the 3975 COMMONS insinuation in this statement are not supported by the facts, because the public are led to believe that both of these gentlemen were invited and that both of them had gone.
When speaking a few moments ago, the leader of the opposition laid stress upon the assertion that he did not know yet whether the ablegate had had authority from this government, or any member of the government, to make that offer, as it is alleged, to the representative of the Manitoba government. Now, at the very moment that the leader of the opposition made that statement he knew that yesterday the Prime Minister had made a categorical and absolute denial in these words :
Before I proceed any further I may say at once referring to the whole tenor of this document, that in so far as there is a charge that there was any understanding between Monseigneur Sbarretti and myself to have the school question considered in connection with the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, there is not a shadow or a tittle of truth in it.
When the leader of the opposition stated here today that he did not know yet whether Monseigneur Sbarretti had authority to make that statement, the hon. gentleman must have known that yesterday the right hon. the leader of the government had given this denial, but yet the leader of the opposition ignored it.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What page is the hon. gentleman reading from ?
Mr. FISHER. I am reading from 'Hansard' of yesterday, page 3837 just about the middle of the page. And furthermore, when the leader of the opposition made the statement to-day, he must have seen in the 'Citizen' of this morning Monseigneur Sbarretti's own statement :
This is the sum and substance of my interview with Mr. Campbell. The federal government had absolutely no knowledge of it.
The leader of the opposition is unfair, he is disingenuous, when he stated this afternoon that he had no knowledge of these denials, and that he was at liberty to assume that there had been collusion and arrangement between the government, or any member of the government, and the Papal ablegate. In view of the denial of the Prime Minister and of Monseigneur Sbarretti, the leader of the opposition this afternoon allowed the impression to remain on the House that he was not aware yet, that he had heard no denial yet, and that the public were still in doubt as to whether the members of the government, or the Prime Minister himself, had authorized the statement which was attributed to Monseigneur Sbarretti. There is nothing clearer before the public of Canada to-day than the fact, in the first place, that the government themselves, through the Prime Minister, had stated that they knew nothing 3975 3976 whatever about it, that no authority was ever given to Monseigneur Sbarretti for such a proposal ; and further, that Monseigneur Sharretti himself has declared that the government had no information of or connection with that statement on his part. I therefore say that the leader of the opposition was disingenuous and unfair to the government, as well as to the people of the country, whom he trys to lead away from the true facts.
An impression was tried to be created this afternoon that the right hon. the leader of the government was inconsistent in the fact that he had said at one time that the present school arrangements in the province of Manitoba were satisfactory, and that there had been brought about by his intervention a satisfactory settlement of the Manitoba school question ; not by coercion, not by remedial legislation, but by conciliation and negotiation.
The other day, when the leader of the opposition was criticising the Prime Minister, he used several adjectives, and one statement he made, slurring it over as if it were a matter of no account, was that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a great conciliator. Sir, I do not think that anybody in this House or in this country has ever applied a truer and more apt expression towards the leader of this government. Sir Wilfrid Lauricr has stood out, not only among the public men of Canada, but among the public men of the empire, as having succeeded, by conciliation, in solving questions which no coercion could ever solve. I venture to say that in the history of Canada Sir Wilfrid Laurier will be held up as the brightest example of a statesman who, without coercion or force, has been able to bring about an entente cordiale between the different peoples, the different religions, the different nationalities in this country, and who has been able to demonstrate that by conciliation majorities and minorities can live together in peace and work for the progress, the advancement and the good government of the country. I said a few moments ago that the intention of gentlemen opposite was to show that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was inconsistent. The settlement of the Manitoba school question was the settlement of a difficulty under a certain condition at that time existing. The law had been passed by the legislature of Manitoba, there were difficulties then existing, and the settlement was a settlement under a condition of affairs which was not absolutely satisfactory, probably, to either side. The Roman Catholics of Manitoba, the Roman Catholics of Canada, would have liked to have had much more. The Protestant element would, perhaps, like to exert a greater influence and to have taken away more of the rights, or the privileges, if you will, of the Catholics in Manitoba. If there are two extremes warring against each other, irreconcilable in most cases one might say, but who are willing and ready, by conciliation, to come to 3977 APRIL 6, 1905 a common standpoint where their differences will vanish, both sides may agree to a fair and just and equitable compromise. That was the basis of the settlement of the Manitoba school question. But, Sir, to say that because that was the settlement, and that it was on the whole satisfactory to both sides of the controversy at that time, does not mean that under any circumstances in the future, or under a new condition of affairs existing in the adjoining new provinces, such a settlement must necessarily be absolutely satisfactory for ever. We have a totally different condition of affairs in regard to our school legislation in the new provinces. We have a new start to be made. We have a condition of affairs existing today in these Territories which gives certain rights to the minorities in the way of separate schools. To maintain these rights by our legislation, we give in the future a guarantee that these rights shall be maintained. Some people may consider that the condition in the Territories is not better, nor even so good, as the condition of affairs in Manitoba to-day ; but, however that may be, the proposition in this legislation is a settlement of the question. Perhaps, as in the case of Manitoba, you may call it a compromise, and probably the two extremes to the controversy may say that the legislation we propose is not satisfactory, but a compromise has to be reached between these extremes. You cannot get a compromise which will be absolutely acceptable to the extreme adherents of one side or the other, but you may get a compromise which will be acceptable to the common sense of the great mass of the people of this country. I believe that by this Bill we have attained that desirable end.
The question of the boundaries of Manitoba has been discussed, and this question is perhaps the raison d'etre of this whole discussion this afternoon. A complaint is made—perhaps not actually made by anybody on the floor of this House, although it is implied—a complaint is made by Mr. Rogers that the boundaries of Manitoba have not been moved westward, because of the difficulties connected with the school question. There is no justification whatever for any such statement. There are newspaper rumours of all kinds. I regret to say that our friends opposite in their press are quite equal to the manufacture of newspaper rumours of all kinds. I regret to say that they feed on these rumours. They have not much else to feed upon, Mr. Speaker. They have been beaten over and over and over again, when the people of this country have been appealed to and have had an opportunity of pronouncing on their policy and their utterances in comparison. with our policy and our utterances. We heard just such language here session after session between 1890 and 1900. We heard that the Liberal government was to be swept out of power in 1900 the moment the people had 3977 3978 an opportunity of judging our record and our policy. We all know the result. All through the last parliament we had hon. gentlemen opposite talking very loudly in this House about what they were going to do when the elections came on. They impressed a good many people in the country. They are loud-mouthed and denunciatory ; and they are like some people who think that by saying a thing very often you actually make it true. But the result of the election in November, 1904, showed them that their loudest denunciations and loudest assertions were mere empty wind, and the government came back with a larger majority than any party in Canada had got in many years.
An hon. MEMBER. Where was their leader ?
Mr. FISHER. I will not say anything about that ; I do not wish to indulge in personalities. But in that connection I would like to refer to a statement which I saw in a Conservative newspaper within the last day or two—I am sorry I cannot remember which paper it was. The statement was that the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Quebec were inferior in intelligence and superior in bigotry and prejudice to the people of Ontario. It is easy enough to see where a sentiment of that kind comes from ; it comes from the disappointed ambitions of men who tried to be elected in those provinces and had to suffer the defeat which their party and their policy deserved.
There is one thing more which I wish to say a few words about ; and, coming as I do from the province of Quebec, perhaps I know a little more about these matters than the great mass of English speaking or Protestant members of this House. It may be a little delicate for one who does not belong to the Roman Catholic church to speak about the action of Catholics in regard to their own church, or about the difficulties which may have arisen in the internal economy of that church in this country. But, having lived among the Catholics of the province of Quebec, it may not be out of place for me to say a word or two in regard to the coming of the Papal ablegate. In 1890 a request was made by certain people belonging to the Catholic church for a permanent representative of the Pope in Canada. That was not the first time that a request of that kind had been placed before the head of the Catholic church. Those of us who can look back a little in the history of this country can remember the condition of affairs in the province of Quebec before 1896. We can remember that as long ago as 1876 there was an election in the province of Quebec, in which it was notorious that leading dignitaries, of the Catholic church took an active part—such an active part that the Tory candidate in that election was elected ; such an active 3979 COMMONS part that certain Liberals who did not believe in the interference of the church in secular aifairs, such as political matters, made a protest to Rome, and asked that a delegate should be sent from the Pope to regulate those affairs within the Catholic church in Canada.
  Mr. BERGERON. What election was that ?
  Mr. FISHER. It was the election of Mr. Langevin, in Charlevois. The case was tried in the courts, and the interference of the church was proved. Somebody on the other side of the House a little while ago talked about proof—when was proof required, when was proof given, and so on. I think it was the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron). I cannot quote the exact volume of the reports in which that case appears ; but the hon. gentleman, who is a lawyer, can find it himself, and he will see that the proof was given. I do not think it was the only case, but it was the one I had in my mind at the moment. The Papal delegate was sent to Canada, not to interfere in political matters, or with legislation, but to prevent the interference in political matters of certain dignitaries of the church, whose influence it was well known had been exerted.
  An hon. MEMBER. On whose behalf ?
  Mr.FISHER. My hon. friend from Beauharnois can remember. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) can remember. I daresay the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), if he searched his historial reminiscences, could remember. It was exerted on behalf of the Conservative government, who for long years carried a large majority of the constituencies in Quebec by reason of the assistance of the Catholic church, and only by reason of that assistance. Coming down to 1896, the hon. member for North Toronto was a member of the then Conservative government.
  An hon. MEMBER. Sometimes.
  Mr. FISHER. Sometimes. He knows that before the elections of 1896, there were certain changes in that government, and that the gentlemen who were chosen to fill the places naturally given to the province of Quebec were well known to be representatives of the ultramontane wing of the Conservative party of that province ; and it is not very much of a jump for me to suppose that the gentlemen who controlled the then Conservative party and the then Conservative government remembered what had occurred in days gone by, when Sir John Macdonald, having on the one hand the Tory Orange organization of the province of Ontario, and on the other hand the Catholic church organization of the province of Quebec, ruled this country for so many years by means of that unholy alliance.
3979 3980
  Mr. BERGERON. For the good of the country.
  Mr. FISHER.  The hon. member says ' for  the good of the country.' I can only point to the condition of the country in 1896. Surely the hon. gentleman must admit that it was for the evil of the country that the government were then carrying on the affairs of Canada.
  Mr. SPROULE.  Which element of the  combination is the unholy one ?
  Mr. FISHER. The combination was unholy, not either elements of it. It was the alliance, the combination of the two sets of people who held diametrically opposite views, who were joined together in an unholy alliance to keep the government in office. My hon. friend from East Grey rebelled against it himself, he found it quite beyond endurance ; and when, in 1896 an effort was made to coerce Manitoba by the government of which the member for North Toronto was a member, the member for East Grey and others rebelled against the alliance, and stepped out from the support of that party on that occasion.
  Mr. SPROULE. Very much like the hon. member and his friends who fought against the church and took it into court ; now they are on the other side and are returning to the church. They want to appeal to both sides.
  Mr. FISHER. I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by referring to the church. I take it that he has been following the lead given this afternoon by the leader of the opposition and the member for North Toronto, who pretend that in our present legislation we have been consulting the church, and going to the heads of the church for permisson to introduce this legislation. That has been denied by the right hon. leader of the House, and denied by the statement of Monseigneur Sbarretti himself. Therefore the insinuation which the hon. gentleman makes and the implication suggested by the leader of the opposition and the member for North Toronto, are absolutely unfounded and untrue.
  Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman said he did not know what I meant: I was referring to his own statement when he told of the time his party took the church into court and fought the church ; but now they are entering into an alliance with the church and getting the church to help them.
  Mr. FISHER. That is what I deny, the insinuation which the hon. gentleman and his colleagues are making is absolutely unfounded and has no justification in any form or shape. Mr. Speaker, in 1896 an effort was made to pursue that kind of policy, the effort was made by the then government to carry the province of Quebec in the same way. A little while ago the member for 3981 APRIL 6, 1905 North Toronto, in opening his speech, made a remark which I cannot help but consider almost offensive, when he said the right hon. leader of the government started in by doing the baby act. Now. without saying anything about the delicacy of such language, I do desire however to state that if ever there was a man in Canada who has never shown the white feather on any occasion when he required to take courage, to take heart, and to stand before the people and boldly tell them what they should do, it is the right hon. the leader of this government. I remember when, in the campaign of 1896 at the time the Manitoba school question was before the country. the right hon. gentleman went down into his own constituency in the city of Quebec, when the people of that province were more or less excited on the question which was then occupying all minds, and he led them into the Way of peace, he showed them that justice and consideration ought to be given to provincial rights in Manitoba; and in the ensuing elections we saw that by his courage, by the justice of his- pleas, and the justice of his position, he was able to defeat the gov-. ernment in the province of Quebec itself, when the Conservative party, by the help of the ultramontane press and members, hoped to carry the province by an enormous majority in favour of the Tupper government. Sir, there never has been in the history of Canada an exhibition of greater moral courage and of greater devotion to duty, whatever the cost might be. I remember another Occasion when the right hon. gentleman went to the city of Toronto, at a time there was an agitation being carried on throughout the province of Ontario in relation to the Jesuit Estates Act. The right hon. gentleman faced a great audience in the ultra Protestant city of Toronto, and the first cheer that arose during his speech was on his mentioning the name of Col. O'Brien, who was then supposed to be the champion of Protestantism in Ontario; the right hon. gentleman showed that audience the justice of his position. and the actual condition of affairs in the province of Quebec. and before he had spoken for twenty minutes, he had that audience in the hollow of his hand, and when he sat down he received an applause which has never been equalled in that great Protestant city of Toronto.
Mr. SPROULE. May I ask the hon. gentleman why they do not put up a candidate in that city today ?
Mr. FISHER. Because we do not want to give you and your friends an opportunity to raise fanatical prejudices on this question. Sir, for the hon. member for North Toronto to imputc cowardice to the right hon. leader of the government, is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Mr. SPROULE. That is pretty strong language.
3981 3982
Mr. FISHER. The case requires strong language. but if it is not parliamentary, I can withdraw it, but nevertheless I want to say it. The right. hon. gentleman was charged a few minutes ago with having shows heat when he rose to speak in reply to the leader of the opposition. I do not wonder that one who has seen what has been going on here during the last few days shows heat; I do not wonder that a man who has his country's good at heart shows heat when he sees the efforts of the press of a great party in this country devoting itself to stirring up religious strife and national prejudice. Sir. heat is required to put down such action as that, and to challenge it, and to meet it. I say that the Liberal party and the Liberal government are ready at all times to fight such a policy whenever it is attempted to be carried on in this country. Sir, the question at issue is the false assertion that this government has refused to extend the boundaries of Manitoba westward because of the school question. The   right hon. leader of the government, in introducing this Bill a few weeks ago, gave a clear and explicit statement of the reasons why the boundaries of Manitoba could not be extended to the westward, and in that statement and those reasons there was not a single suggestion that the boundary question had any connection whatever with the school question. The reasons were explicit, and they are shown in the papers laid on the table of the House. The reasons given were that the people west of Manitoba did not wish to be joined to Manitoba and preferred to be in the new provinces, and we had to consider the people who were concerned rather than the desire of the government of Manitoba. And, as I am reminded by my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell.) why did not they extend it in 1884. when Manitoba made the request. The reasons given then were very much as they have been given now in the answer to the memorial of the government of Manitoba. Those reasons were conclusive with the Conservative party in 1884: they are doubly strong today. The conditions which made the westward extension undesirable then have been intensified by the development of the country. And these reasons, and these reasons only, caused the government to reply to the government of Manitoba and say that the boundaries of Manitoba could not be extended westward, but that the whole of that territory must go into the two new provinces. It is assuming a great deal—unfortunately hon. gentlemen opposite and their press live on assumptions and they therefore must assume a great deal—but there is no justification for the assumption that the school question was in any way connected with the decision of the government that the boundary of Manitoba could I not be extended to the west. I will not deal with this question longer. I regret exceedingly that to-day and yesterday, as several 3983 COMMONS   times before, the time of the House has been taken up in dealing with these question which are really extraneous to the legislation before the House, and the bringing up of which here can serve only one purpose, and that purpose is the continuance of the agitation and excitement amongst the people and the stirring up of prejudice on these questions.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York). Mr. Speaker, in taking up the special subject of debate this evening I intend to read another document in order to place it on record, a document which bears very pointedly on the question that has been raised. It is a letter that was sent to His Holiness the Pope by the members of the government and by the members of parliament, and which was referred to in the remarks which I made yesterday. That document, which was sent, I believe, in 1896 or 1897, was as follows :—
Most Holy Father,—We, the undersigned, members of the Senate and members of the House of Commons of Canada, and representing therein the Liberal party, present ourselves before Your Holiness as respectful and devoted children of holy church, to complain of the existence of a state of things which, if allowed to continue, must be extremely dangerous to the constitutional liberties of this country, as well as to the interests of the church itself.
Your Holiness has already been made aware of the conduct and attitude of certain prelates and of certain members of the secular clergy who, during the general elections in this country, in the month of June last, intervened in a violent manner in restraint of electoral freedom, taking sides openly for the Conservative party, and going so far as to declare guilty of grievous sin those of the electors who would vote for the candidates of the Liberal party.
Sincerely attached to the institutions of our country, which ensure to us Catholics the most complete liberty, we respectfully represent to Your Holiness that these democratic institutions under which we live, and for which Your Holiness has many times expressed sentiment of admiration and confidence, can only exist under perfect electoral freedom.
Far be it from us to refuse to the clergy the plenitude of civil and political rights. The priest is a citizen, and we would not, for a single instant, deprive him of the right of expressing his opinion on any matter submitted to the electorate but when the exercise of that right develops into violence, and when that violence, in the name of religion, goes to the extent of making a grievous sin out of a purely political act, there is an abuse of authority of which the consequences cannot but be fatal, not only to constitutional liberty, but to religion itself.
If, in a country such as ours, with a population consisting of persons of various creeds, and 3983 3984 wherein the Protestant denominations are in a majority, Catholics did not enjoy, in all matters relating to legislation, the same political freedom as their Protestant fellow-countrymen, they would ipso facto be placed in a position of inferiority, which would prevent them from taking the legitimate part which they are entitled to take in the government of the country, with the possibility, moreover, of conflicts between the various groups of the population, which history shows to be ever fraught with danger.
Then again, an active and violent intervention of the clergy in the domain of political question submitted to the people must, of necessity, produce against a great mass of the Catholic population a degree of irritation manifestly and prejudicial to that respect which religion and its ministers ever inspire and command. Some twenty years ago, His Holiness Pius IX, your illustrious and lamented predecessor on the pontificial throne, acting through the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, deemed it his duty to put a stop to certain abuses of a similar character, and forbade the intervention of the clergy in politics. This prohibition was generally respected so long as His Eminence Cardinal Taschereau was able to guide the church in Canada, but since old age and infirmities have paralyzed his guiding hand, the abuses to which your illustrious predecessor had put a stop, have begun again, and threaten once more to create trouble among us, and to compromise, not only Catholic interests in this country, but the peace and harmony which should exist between the various elements of our population.
Again affirming our absolute devotion to the faith of our fathers and to the church of which your are the supreme head, affirming our respect and attachment for the person of Your Holiness, our attachment to the interests of our country and to the Crown of Great Britain, its aegis and protector, we beg that Your Holiness will renew in our behalf the most wise prescriptions and prohibitions of your predecessor protect the consciences of the Catholic electors, and thus secure peace in our country by the union of religion and of liberty—a union which Your Holiness has many times extolled in those immortal encyclicals whose precious teachings we desire in all things to follow; and lastly, grant to the children of the church now addressing Your Holiness the apostolic benediction.
Hon. Wilfrid Laurier, Premier of Canada; Hon. Joseph Israel Tarte, Minister of Public Work; Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick, Solicitor General; Hon. R. W. Scott, Secretary of State; Hon. C. A. Geoffrion, Minister without portfolio; Hon. C. A. P. Pelletier, Speaker of the Senate; Hon J. R. Thibaudeau, senator; R. Préfontaine, M.P. ; O. E. Talbot, M.P. ; C. R. Devlin, M.P. ; L. B. Brodeur, M.P. ; L. A. C. Angers, M.P. ; T. M. Guay, M. P. ; F. Langelier, M.P. ; C. Beausoleil, M.P. ; R. Lemieux, M.P. ; A. A. Bruneau, M.P. ; J. A. C. Ethier, M.P. ; B. Monet, M.P. ; M. E. Bernier, M.P. ; J. A. C. Madore, M.P. ; P. V. Savard, M.P. ; H. G. Carroll, M.P. ; T. Fortin, M.P. ; P. A. Choquette, M.P. ; O. Desmarais, M.P. ; C. J. Rinfret, M.P. ; G. Turcotte, M.P. ; J. H. Legris, M.P. ; H. S. Harwood, M.P. ; Joseph Lavergne, M.P. ; H. Dupuis, M.P. ; C. Bazinet, M.P. ; Joseph Gauthier, M.P. ; T. Proulx, M.P. ; N. A. Belcourt, M.P. ; J. B. R. Fiset, M.P. ; J. H. R. Bourassa, M.P. ; R. M. S. Mignault, 3985 APRIL 6, 1905 M.P.; A. Bourbonnais, M.P.; C. Pouliot. M.P.; Joseph Godbout, M.P.; A, M. Dechene, M.P.
This letter, which was sent by the forty immortals of this country to His Holiness the Pope, complained of certain political grievances which they had in this country, supporting the request already made that he would send a delegate to this country to look after their interests and to protect them from what is here set forth, namely, the unfair interference of the clerics in the province of Quebec with the rights of the electors. and especially with the rights of members of parliament. I must say that I am rather disappointed in the opinion I had formed of the clergy of Quebec after the high commendation of their conduct given by the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) last night, when I see that he has stigmatized, more than any one I know, with these forty immortals from Quebec, the clergy of that province. They have charged them with all kinds of political interference, they charged them with interfering with the rights of the people to vote, and they asked His Holiness to interfere with these clergy in the province of Quebec, so that when the hon. member for Labelle says that members from Ontario have been throwing stones at the clergy of Quebec, he has evidently forgotten that he and forty others signed this document to have a delegate sent out here to regulate the clergy of the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, the ablegate was sent out here ; we have had three or four of them.
Mr. BRODEUR. I understand my hon. friend read from a certain petition asking that a delegate be sent here. Would he be kind enough to repeat the part of the petition in which that was included ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I said this document set out the grievances and that other missions and presentations made at Rome requested a delegate to be sent out and especially the letter of the right hon. the Prime Minister, which asked that an ablegate be sent to this country and he was sent. We have the facts that these gentlemen, all engaged in politics, after stigmatizing the clergy of Quebec, undertook a mission to Rome to get His Holiness' consent to the appointment of an ablegate to this country for political purposes, that that ablegate has practically had a political mission, that that ablegate from Rome has been here as an appanage of the Grit machine in this country and that especially he was to be the Papal policeman with a big stick to keep the bishops and clergy of this country in order. This is a fair inference to draw from the representations that were made to Rome and from the conduct of the ablegate in this country. I know it for a fact— at least I have seen it stated and I do not think it will be denied—that at the recent election and at other times Liberal candidates in all parts of the country, or some 3985 3986 of them, when they had a grievance against any of the clergy of the church of Rome, immediately telephoned to the big policeman at Ottawa to take his big stick and wire back disciplining the Roman Catholic clergyman who dared to hold an opinion of his own in regard to politics.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Again they are laughing, but they laugh when the facts are brought home to them. The truth is, and it is admitted on the other side of the House, that this Papal ablegate was brought to this country as an appanage of the Grit machine, that he is the policeman with the big stick to discipline the bishops and the clergy of the Roman Catholic church and that those who, more than any one else, stigmatized the hierarchy and'clergy of Quebec were the forty immortals who signed that document on that occasion.
Now, the hon Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) this afternoon got rather eloquent and grew rather warm when he charged this side of the House with enkindling the flames of ill-feeling in this country. I want to know who lit the flame, who set the heather on tire over this question.
An hon. MEMBER. You did.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I say that it was the right hon. Prime Minister of this country who introduced this Bill at the request of a solid Quebec to coerce the minority in regard to educational matters in the Northwest. That is what caused the flame. that is what lit the torch, or in other words. the torch was carried and fired the moment the right hon. gentleman introduced that Bill.
Mr. BUREAU Will the hon. gentleman tell the House where he gets his authority for the statement that this Bill was introduced at the request of a solid Quebec?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The proof positive is that a solid Quebec will support him.
Mr. BOURASSA. If that be true was it introduced at the request of a solid Nova Scotia, because a solid Nova Scotia will support it also?
Mr. W F. MACLEAN. We will see about that. We have heard about a bolt in Nova Scotia over this Bill and we will hear more of it. What else has fanned the flame? The thing that fanned the flame was the discovery by the great Protestant element of this country that the right hon. Prime Minister had deceived them. He told them by his conduct in the elections of 1896 that the Manitoba question had been settled. that in this country there was to be no more coercion, that the sunny ways had settled this question and these people took him at his word. They accepted the pledge which he made when, as the hon. Minister 3937 COMMONS of Agriculture said, he went to Toronto in 1889 and made that speech from which we had a quotation this afternoon, that speech in which he said that 'no Italian priest shall tithe or toll in our Dominion.' He went to Toronto and made that speech and what has fanned the flame is that these people of Ontario and these people of the west now find that an Italian priest is in this country for that very purpose and that he was brought here by the right hon. gentleman. The fact that the people have discovered all these things has helped to fan the flame. What more has fanned the flame? It is the discovery of how this Bill was introduced into parliament in so far as it has been divulged in this debate. It has been proved that the sub-committee which drew up this Bill was composed of the Secretary of State, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, and no one else as far as we know. Something else has come out this afternoon which will still further fan the flame and it is that the Prime Minister all along was in consultation with the Archbishop of Ephesus as regards this school clause and as regards the boundaries of Manitoba. Is it not enough to fan the flame when the great Protestant majority of this country, the 59 per cent, find that the Bill dealing with the educational liberties of the people of the west was drawn, brought forward and introduced into this parliament by these three members of the government with the assistance of the Papal ablegate and that not one of the ministers who represent the great Protestant body of this country as consulted, but that they were ignored in the matter? Is not that something to fan the flame?
Mr. EMMERSON. That is not true.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then it rests with the hon. gentleman to state who were there. I am speaking of the committee now and that is all the knowledge we have. The hon gentleman is there to increase our knowledge. All we want are the actual facts, but, so far. I say the public mind is inflamed and the Protestant mind is justly inflamed by this conduct. What further has inflamed the public mind? What has lighted the torch? It is the constant discovery of duplicity and deception in connection with this matter. The flame was still further fanned by the letter of Mr. Rogers, which was published yesterday, and we know what was in that letter. We know, according to Mr. Rogers, that the delegate from Manitoba—and we will have to confine it now to the Attorney General of Manitoba, Mr. Campbell—was asked by the Papal ablegate to put two certain clauses in the school law of Manitoba. It was intimated to him that if they would do that the boundaries of his province would be extended to the north and it was also stated that the reason why his province had not had its boundaries extended to the west was be 3937 3983 cause of the school law of Manitoba. Is not that something to inflame the public mind, to increase this fire that seems to be burning all over the country? But, who is doing it? Is it being done by this side of the House or by the Conservative press? Perhaps somewhat, but everything that is done is based on these revelations of duplicity. of deception and of ignoring of the public right and the right of the people of the west to be consulted in this matter. Again I ask, as did my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) this afternoon, if the Papal ablegate was to be consulted, if he was consulted, it he was waited upon, as he was repeatedly waited upon by the right hon. Prime Minister. and if this matter was discussed why was not the Minister of the Interior consulted, why was not the Finance Minister consulted, why was not Mr. Haultain consulted, why were not the people of the west consulted? And still further will the public mind he inflamed to-day when it is known, as it knows now, that practically the statement made by the Papal ablegate and published to-day is a confirmation in substance of what was stated in Mr. Rogers letter. Here is the crux of the whole matter and it was not denied; grant, for the moment, that the Papal ablegate had the right to discuss the school question in this interview with the Manitoba minister, he coupled the school question up with the boundary question where he had no jurisdiction, but where apparently he claimed to have authority to propose a settlement of the school question.
There is the crux; that is a thing that is not denied. It is asserted by Mr. Rogers, it is not denied by the ablegate and it is not denied by the government. The kernel of the whole matter lies in this that the ablegate discussed the boundary question of Manitoba in connection with the school question. I want to know if the Minister of Justice had night interviews or any other kind of interviews with the Papal ablegate ? I want to know if the Secretary of State has been in communication with the Papal ablegate ? I want to know if it is not true that the Secretary of State, the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the Papal ablegate, were daily holding interviews about this school question and discussing the matter in all its shapes and forms, while the people of the west and the minister from the west and Mr. Haultain were ignored. Is there any wonder why the country has been fanned into flame when the people discover these things ? I would like to know if the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior had any interviews with the Papal ablegate. I do not suppose they will admit it, but all the other gentlemen have to admit it ; the Prime Minister had an opportunity of denying it and he did not deny it, and his colleague who followed him was not able to deny it. The additional fact, which goes to the public to-morrow, 3989 APRIL 6, 1905 will still further fan the flame, when it is known that the Papal ablegate was in the city of Ottawa all the time in constant consultation with the ministers, and that those who are directly interested were not consulted. I have read the letter which the forty immortals sent to Rome, asking for protection from the clericals of Quebec, and the letter of Mr. Russell has also been read here. This evidence proves that the Prime Minister. or Sir Wilfrid Laurier the private individual, induced the Holy See to send an ablegate to this country and to send him here for a political purpose; for the political purpose of being the policeman with the big stick to regulate the clergy of Quebec ; and, also for the purpose of something else.
Mr. BUREAU. What is it ?
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will come to that in a moment, but I say now to the Prime Minister of Canada that whether acting as an individual or not, if he induced the Holy See to send an ablegate here for the political purpose which is confessed in his letter, he is responsible for everything that the Papal ablegate has done in connection with our politics in this country. It is now confessed that the Papal ablegate did interfere in our politics. He submitted to the Manitoba ministers certain clauses he wished to be put in the Bill ; he told them if they would pass these clauses they might have their boundaries extended, and that their failure to give relief to the Catholics in the past was the reason why an extension of the provincial boundaries was denied. I do not agree with all that has been said in this debate as to the right of the ablegate to be here. I say he is here as a political agent in connection with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister and the government and its supporters are responsible for the conduct of that ablegate in this country. It is up to the right hon. gentleman, either to endorse what the ablegate did in that interview with Mr. Campbell or to repudiate it, and if he repudiates it, to ask for the recall of the Papal ablegate. We are told as a matter of fact that he has been recalled and that he is to leave the country—or rather it is put in a more polite way–that he is to go back to Rome to explain his conduct in this matter. I believe they are most anxious to get him out of the country ; I believe the Minister of Justice has already drawn up his passports, and that the member for Labelle asked to be allowed to drive the hack that will take the cardinal to the station, and that the Postmaster General is to be there in his weeds, to weep and to say : not an revoir but adieu.
Mr. BOURASSA. And the member for South York will play the band.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. What else was the ablegate brought into Canada for ? Mr. 3989 3990 Russell wrote in connection with the school question, that the first instalment had been granted, but, that a further instalment was to come, and the Minister of Justice to all intents and purposes, is pledged to give that other instalment and not to rest until he restores the school rights of the Catholics of Manitoba, and also gives separate schools to the Northwest Territories. It is clear that the ablegate has been brought to Canada for two purposes : to discipline the clergy and the bishops of Quebec, and to assist the government in securing separate schools for the Northwest. And he has been working on these lines in connection and in conjunction with the government and therefore the government is responsible for everything he has done. The people of Canada will hold him responsible for everything he has done, until they either repudiate him and ask for his withdrawal, or else endorse his conduct. It is this deception that has been practised all through in connection with our public affairs that has set the spark into a flame and fired the heather all over Canada. I am somewhat of a protectionist and so is the member for Labelle, who is especially a protectionist in regard to matters concerning Quebec. But the member for Labelle is not the protectionist I am, for I am in favour of the home product as regards the bishops and the clergy of the country, and I do not believe in bringing from the outside a policeman with a big stick to regulate them. I believe the bishops and the clergy of the province of Quebec are able to manage their own affairs.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. The cat is out of the bag.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then. gentlemen opposite, who pretend to be the great champions of the clergy of Quebec, are the men who asked His Holiness to send over an ablegate who would regulate them and keep them in their place. The bishops and clergy of the province of Quebec resent this conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite, in bringing in a prince of the church for their political purposes. I believe to-day that the great majority of the hierarchy of Quebec are not rejoiced to see what has happened, but they recognize that a mistake was made and that things will be better in the future if there is no more ablegate in this country. I think it has been made clear here to-day that the ablegate has interfered improperly in Canadian politics, and it has been made clear that everything that has occurred in this country, which has inflamed the public mind, is the direct result of the conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite. They asserted that they had settled the school question, that it was buried for all time and they would never resurrect it ; yet they have been guilty of that very thing. Again I tell the Prime Minister, who made that quotation in a speech in Toronto, ' No Italian priest shall tithe or toll in these Dom 3991 COMMONS   inions,' that the people of Toronto have found him out as the very man who brought a Papal ablegate to this country for that very purpose. This is the issue before this country, and I leave it with the House and the country. The proposal is to establish a connection between church and state in the new provinces, and to allow a denominational interest to tithe and toll the school lands of those two free provinces. Hon. gentlemen may laugh and jeer at it, but that is the issue that is to be decided in the country. It may he laughed at in this House ; but every man from Ontario, every man from the west–nay, more, every man from the maritime provinces—will be asked to account for his conduct in regard to this effort which is being made to establish a connection between church and state, and to share the public school funds of this country with one denomination to the exclusion of every other. Another thing which hon. gentlemen will have to settle, whether they be of the government or private members, is the way in which this legislation has been introduced into this House—how only one side has been consulted and every other interest has been ignored. Sometimes it is necessary to say a word in the interest of a majority. There is a majority of fifty- nine per cent in this country that is entitled to fair-play, and that majority says to-day that it has not been given that fair- play which it had a right to expect from the right hon. gentleman when that majority gave their confidence to him, and when he in return gave a pledge, which they took from him on his honour, and which pledge to-day is broken and in the dust. That is the issue, and on that the public will judge hon. gentlemen opposite. The fifty-nine per cent do not want to do anything unfair to the minority ; but those who compose that fifty-nine per cent are of that character that if they think an attempt is being made to manacle or interfere with the educational freedom of those great provinces in the west, they will resent it. All that the people of the province of Ontario say to-day is what they said before. They said in 1896 : Hands off Manitoba ; and they say again to the province of Quebec : Hands off the new provinces in the west ; leave them alone ; let them manage their own affairs, especially their school affairs, as you have full liberty to manage yours. That is all they say ; and if the fifty-nine per cent of this country are to he charged with fanning a flame and stirring up creed and race wars in this country, I say it is not just to make that charge, because they have not done it ; but they have said to the government, in a fair and respectful way : Leave these new provinces to settle their own educational affairs. On the other hand, the charge comes home to hon. gentlemen opposite, and they must give an account of themselves to the people of Ontario. Where is the Postmaster General to-day, who was so anxious 3991 3992 yesterday to repudiate the letter of the forty immortals ? He did not want to be identified with it ; and yet is he not responsible, being a member of the government, for every political act of his colleagues ? He is trying to escape the responsibility, but he will be held responsible for it, and so will every other member from the province of Ontario.
Now, my advice to the right hon. gentleman is—not that I want to see him force the ablegate out of the country ; but he had better have an explanation from the ablegate, and if that explanation is not satisfactory, he must repudiate him. Another thing he must do, and I tell him now ; he must withdraw this school clause from that Bill. That Bill will never pass this House or this parliament in its present shape. Leave that school clause out, and leave the courts to interpret what the constitutional rights of the minority in the province are, and we in Ontario and the west will be satisfied. That is all we want. But do not try to fetter when you have no right to fetter ; do not claim constitutional interference when you have no right to interfere. So far as I am able to prevent it, and other members of this House, that clause will never go on the statue-book of this country.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou). Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has been busily engaged for the past three-quarters of an hour in his favourite occupation of fanning the flame of religious discord in this country ; but the bellows do not seem to be working as well as they did yesterday, and the flame is not being fanned with the same alacrity as was displayed yesterday afternoon. My hon. friend, coming from the premier province, the largest province of this Dominion, is accustomed to speak, and I am sorry to say a great many other gentlemen who come from that province, are in the habit of speaking of Ontario as if it were the whole Dominion. The time was in the history of this country when our friends who sit on the opposite side of the House claimed to be the national party, the party which stood for a united Canada all round. That is not the song they sing now. We hear Ontario spoken of as if there were no other portion of this whole Dominion, and those of us who come from the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec, and who, in the exercise of our rights as members of parliament venture to express our views on matters of ordinary importance, are pilloried by the Tory newspapers as being more liable to be corrupted than those who possess the high ideals of the gentlemen from the province of Ontario. Sir, I want to resent any such imputation. We, from Nova Scotia, may not belong to such a big province in area ; but we come from a Province to which the Tory party were forced to go not long ago in despera 3993 APRIL 6, 1905 tion to get a leader. If those gentlemen who sing the song of Ontario so smoothly think their province is the premier one, how is it that they cannot scare up a leader from among the men they send to this House ? All this excitement, all this religious flame that my hon. friend speaks about, comes from the allegation that the claim of the province of Manitoba to have its boundaries enlarged was not conceded by the Dominion government the moment it was asserted, because there was interference from the Papal ablegate in this country. That is the charge in a nutshell, and I want to examine it for a moment. The attitude assumed by our friends from Manitoba is a most dictatorial one. Without saying a word with regard to the question of having an enlargement of their boundaries for a long period of years, they suddenly woke up on the 16th of January last and said they wanted to have their boundaries extended west, north and east, cutting into one province, asuming a large portion of territory in another, and taking out of the new provinces to be constructed a third portion of territory. They want to have it done right away, not a moment of hesitation. No interests are to be considered, even the interests of the province of Ontario are to be disregarded, and I assume that the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is one of those who agree with the proposition that although Premier Whitney may think they have some claims, yet they are not to be considered at all by this coterie of politicians that happen to be in charge and who are just now demanding it. Let me say, as coming from one of the smaller provinces of the Dominion, that they also have a right to be considered in regard to this subject. The legislature of the province of New Brunswick, minor in size, though important as a factor in the confederation, no later than a month ago passed a strong resolution in which they represented to the federal government that on this question of the accretion of the provinces the rights of the smaller provinces should be considered. We hear about Manitoba being a postage stamp on the map. Well, we who come from Nova Scotia, although it may be a postage stamp on the map, we come as one of the partners in this confederation, and we say that we have the same interest as New Brunswick to be considered before any addition is made to the territory of any province. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the province of New Brunswick, through their legislature, asserted no less than a month ago that by reason of the accretion of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec which was made a few years ago, their position, as regards their representation in this House has been imperilled, according to the decision of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, for all time to come. The 3993 3994 same thing may occur in regard to Manitoba. And are we to be told that this government who were asked on the 17th of February to add to the territory of Manitoba, because they took four days to answer it, and answered it in this House, are doing this at the dictation of the hierarchy and of the Papal ablegate to this country ? I say that the federal government would be recreant to the interests of every province in this Dominion if they did not hesitate long and seriously before they decided to increase the province of Manitoba or any other province by one foot of territory. Now these are the facts upon which these gentlemen base the proposition that because they did not get, in four days time, what they asked for, that therefore there is some interference from outside. Our friends opposite grow almost hysterical over the failure of the government to grant these demands, which every one of them, on deliberation, will concede are demands that should be well weighed as affecting the rights and status of every province in this confederation.
Now let us examine somewhat critically the position of affairs in regard to this whole question over which the hon. member for South York spoke so excitedly. In the province of Manitoba the premier has been negotiating for some time with Archbishop Langevin in regard to the postlon of separate schools in that province. It is evident that these negotiations conducted through Archbishop Langevin have reached the Papal ablegate. These negotiations were initiated by the Manitoba government some time ago and Mr. Campbell, the Attorney General of Manitoba, had an interview with the Papal ablegate with regard to this question. Were they initiated by this government, or even at the suggestion of this government? The statement of facts that has been issued by this buccaneer member of the Manitoba government do not contain the faintest suggestion that these negotiations were initiated by any member of this government. On the contrary, we have the fact stated that the Attorney General of Manitoba consulted with the ablegate a year ago; we have the fact asserted and not denied that negotiations have been going on for a long time between the premier of Manitoba and Archbishop Langevin on behalf of the Papal ablegate. Now these gentlemen come down to Ottawa of their own accord, at their Own suggestion. Who asked them to come ? Did this government ask them to come? On the contrary, the correspondence laid before the House last night by the First Minister showed conclusively that when these gentlemen woke up on the 16th of January they wrote to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and asked that they might be permitted to come down and discuss this question. 3995 COMMONS No doubt, at the instance of Premier Roblin, Attorney General Campbell and Mr. Rogers intended to see the ablegate when they came down here in regard to this school question—there is not the slightest doubt about it—and they did go and see the ablegate. Now what took place ? We have a statement of alleged facts given to the people of this country. Is it issued by the man who is supposed to guide the province of Manitoba, by the premier of that province? Does he venture to give his official sanction to any statement of facts in regard to this matter? Not at all. Is it issued by the Attorney General of the province of Manitoba, the man who had the interview with the ablegate? If we are going to have any official statement as to the negotiotions, as to what was said and done, and if we are going to have this flame of religious discord fanned in this country by our hon. friends opposite, at least we should expect them to start this flame agoing by some facts based upon the statement of a man who was present and who took part in the interview. Why, Sir, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is too good a lawyer—and we recognize him in our province as a good lawyer—he is too good a lawyer not to know that hearsay testimony is not worth anything, and the statement of Mr. Rogers upon which all this flame of religious discord is to be started up is the worst kind of hearsay testimony, it is testimony that my learned friend, if he were a judge, would not listen to for one moment, and would reject if it were offered in evidence.
Now the result is that we have all this excitement based upon what ? Upon a statement of facts made by a gentleman in regard to certain things within his own knowledge? No, Sir, mark that. While we have been discussing in this House and the newspapers have been discussing for days certain alleged facts in regard to certain things, no public man has yet ventured to state that he knows anything of these things of his own knowledge. But we have this hearsay statement, and hearsay statements as well as any other old statement are sufficient material just now for certain gentlemen to fan a flame of religious discord. We have in addition to the statement two insinuations. The first insinuation is that Sir Wilfrid wanted time to enable the invitation of the Papal ablegate to be acted upon. Well, now, what do we find ? We find that the interview with the premier of this country took place on February 17, we find that the interview with the ablegate took place on February 23. In the meantime the policy of the government had been formulated in regard to the western boundaries of Manitoba, and it was announced in this House and in the country what the policy of the government was. Could it be possible, 3995 3996 is it reasonable to suggest to any sane man that a statement made two days after an announcement of policy in this House, could be taken as being indicative of an intention to have anything to do with, or any influence upon, this government in determining that policy ? Yet that is what is being asserted. Then we are told that the ablegate's suggestion was made with the full knowledge and consent of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which is the second insinuation. And what do we find ? We find that the premier of this country solemnly stated yesterday:
I assert that if Mr. Rogers stated that Monseigneur Sbarretti did press him to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he says Monseigneur Sbarretti did with my knowledge, he states something which is not in accordance with truth.
Could any statement be more categorically denied than that? And no member of this House ventures for one moment to declare that that denial should not be accepted with the fullest credence. Let us look at what the ablegate said in regard to this matter:
This is the sum and substance of my interview with Mr. Campbell. The federal government had absolutely no knowledge of it.
And yet, as I say, upon hearsay testimony, upon inferences which the youngest child would not draw and which no judge in this country would venture to think of considering in a case tried before him, this House is being detained to listen to asser tions such as we have heard for two days past. And this is done, because hon gentlemen opposite have been eight years in opposition and have exhausted every possible effort to tarnish in the slightest degree the escutcheon of the great leader of the Liberal party, and hope, at last, by this roorback, by this fool story, that judge and jury would not hang a out upon, to mislead public opinion.
Let us look at this statement, the only statement of fact we have from any source as to what went on—every hon. member will agree that Mr. Rogers' statement must be discarded as hearsay testimony. The ablegate says :
I never met Hon. Mr. Rogers, nor did I have any communication with him.
On the evening before his departure for the west (February 23), Mr. Campbell came. I asked him if something could not be done to improve the condition of the Catholics of his province with respect to education. I pointed out that in the cities of Winnipeg and Brandon, for instance, the Catholics were paying double taxes.
I urged my request on the ground of fairness and justice, and referring to his mission to Ottawa. I remarked that, from the View of the Manitoba government, some action on these lines would be a political expedient, and tend to facilitate the accomplishment of his object. inasmuch as the Catholics in any territory which 3997 ARRIL 6, 1905 might be annexed to Manitoba. would naturally object to losing the right they had to separate schools. and to be subjected to the educational conditions which existed in Manitoba.
Mr. Campbell then asked me what would be my desire in this respect.
I then gave him the memorandum which has already appeared in the press.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) this afternoon endeavoured to build an argument upon a certain construction which he put upon the words 'politically expedient.' Let me submit to the reasonable attention of the House what the inference to be drawn from these words is. For whom was this to be 'politically expedient' ? Was it for the government of the country that, for the third time had received a mandate from the people, and by an overwhelming vote, by a majority greater than ever known in the history of the country ? What would be the necessity for this government to descend to ' political expediency ' ? In whose interest would the course suggested be 'politically expedient' then? Unquestionably in that of the Manitoba government, the government that had been interviewing Archbishop Langevin, the government whose Attorney General had been interviewing the ablegate endeavouring to arrange to obtain political support—as I would say, if I were to use the style of argument of hon. gentlemen opposite—in return for making these concessions. For whom else could it be 'politically expedient' than for the government that was talking of having a dissolution some of these days, and was looking for political support ? I submit that the argument of my hon. friend and the inference he attempted to draw were wholly unwarranted. Who were the people who were chasing this ablegate in relation to the schools ? Were they the members of this government? On the contrary, the indisputable evidence of the facts before us, shows conclusively who were engaging in these 'political expedients.' For, what does the ablegate say ? He says it will be politically expedient,
- inasmuch as the Catholics in any territory which might be annexed to Manitoba would naturally object to losing the right they had to separate schools, and to be subjected to the educational conditions which existed in Manitoba.
For whom was this 'politically expedient'? For the government that wanted to secure the support and sympathy of the people of the Northwest Territories, so that they might come and ask to be joined to Manitoba. Surely the inference is so irresistible that no one came to any other conclusion than that this was the reason Why the statement was made that it was 'politically expedient' for the Manitoba government. And the story of this matter has not yet all been told ? We have not heard from Mr. Roblin yet. This forecastle 3997 3998 member of the administration, who is, perhaps, playing the game of politics for his own personal advantage—
An hon. MEMBER. Looking for Roblin's job.  
Mr. MACDONALD—and looking for Roblin's job, as an hon. friend suggests— when we come to get the whole story about this political pirate from Manitoba, it may be found that there are some little things yet to be said that will not be heard with very great satisfaction by our friends who have raised this question.
Now, we are told, in the light of facts such as I have outlined—outlined fairly, I submit—that the Protestant feeling in this country should be roused against this government and against the leader. That is the argument that hon. gentlemen opposite have been making and to whom are we asked to look for guidance? To the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) who leads the opposition. Well, that hon. gentleman knows very well that his entrance into political life was signalized by the advocacy of the coercion of the province of Manitoba. He knows that the then leader of the Conservative party, recognizing his legal abilities, was anxious that the hon. gentleman should lend those abilities to the advocacy of the cause of the coercion of Manitoba, to which that leader was then committed. The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) did not enter political life under auspices of so clear and unequivocal a character as to be able to hold out very alluring hopes even to my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), who might be looking for a leader on this question. Or, are we to look to our hon. friend (Mr. Foster) who addressed us this afternoon and who reads us a moral lecture every time he gets on his feet. This hon. gentleman assumes a high moral attitude. As he soars above ordinary mortals, and as 'his tongue drops manna. and makes the worst appear the better reason, he fancies that the people of this country are deluded by the sermonettes he gives us. Why, Sir, what is the political history of that hon. gentleman? Born in the province of New Brunswick, representing the county of King's, his native county, he was driven thence after four or five years. He found a resting place, for a moment, in the county of York—but, as an hon. friend behind me remarks, he dare not go back. He flitted about St. John for a while; and then the people of New Brunswick took summary methods of dealing with him and drove him away politically, not only from St. John, but from the province of New Brunswick for ever. And the result has been that for some years past he has been a political Ishmaelite. He has been going up and down this country like a lonely pelican of the wilderness, like a solitary sparrow on the liousetop, looking for 3999 COMMONS some nest in which he might sit and from which he might descant upon the decay of political virtue in Canada. At last he has found, in an adjoining constituency to that of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), a place that was willing to take him in. And, coming back to the political arena once more, he proceeds, absolutely oblivious to the past record. Like the ostrich he puts his head in the sand and fancies that no one sees what is going on. Metaphorically he has put his head in the sand and says to the people of Canada : Do not look at my history previous to 1900, but gaze on this apostle of virtue, this George Eulas Foster, who has come to life again. My hon. friend who descanted upon this question so glibly was a leading member of the former government of this country. He talks about Italian prelates who are going to take tithes from interference in the political affairs of this country. He talks with great glibness, with a great deal of energy but my hon. friend was the associate of gentlemen who were very glad not so many years ago to look to these gentlemen for aid and comfort and were fanning the flames of religious discord—only they were doing business from the other end of the line. What do we find they were doing in those days ? The history is embalmed in the records of our courts. I refer the hon. gentleman who is looking for data on which to discuss matters likely to give rise to discord not to take hearsay statements from buccaneer politicians but to look at the Supreme Court reports of the Dominion of Canada. What do we find that the associates of my hon. friend who descants on political virtue to-day were doing in the past when he blossomed and flourished as a minister of the Crown 7 We find in evidence here that in those days some of the clergy in the province of Quebec dis— cussed political questions in this way:
You know in what manner the serpent found his way into the terrestrial paradise, with what cunning he succeeded in convincing Eve that she should not die, nor Adam either, by eating of the forbidden fruit. You all know what took place; the serpent was the cause of the misfortunes that are weighing upon us. In the same manner Catholic Liberalism wishes to find its way into the paradise of the church to lead her children to fall. Be firm, my brethren, our bishops tell us that it is no longer permitted to be conscientiously a Catholic Liberal; be careful never to taste the fruit of the tree Catholic Liberal.
These are the injunctions of the friends of the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in days gone by. Let me give you another quotation from the same case to show how delightfully consistent he is, how lovely my hon. friend from North Toronto has been, and what a splendid record he has upon this question. What do we find ?
Now. if sometimes it is sinful to vote in a certain way, rather than in another way, 3999 4000 it cannot be, assuredly, when you are voting according to the wise counsels of all the bishops of the province; and if it is not in that way, it must be in the opposite. However, I must tell you that if you are voting for a Liberal candidate, not believing him to be so, because your conscience tells you that he is the man that will best represent your interests in parliament, in such case you do not sin. But if you know that he is a Liberal, you cannot conscientiously give him your vote; you are sinning by favouring a man who supports principles condemned by the church, and you assume the responsibility of the evil which that candidate may do in the application of the dangerous principles which he professes.
Let me say further that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and I regret that he is not here—was engaged in other political matters in this country in 1896 which touched on religious matters and fanning the flames of religious discord was a favourite occupation of the hon. gentleman and his friends in those days. What do we find was the battle cry of our Conservative friends in 1896 in Quebec and other places in this country ? We find that they were aware of and assented to the issuing of a mandement dealing with the question of how people should vote. In a sermon of Bishop Lafleche in 1896, after quoting the latter part of the speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the bishop added :
In the circumstances, a Catholic could not without making a mortal sin vote for the leader of the party who has made such a statement (referring to Sir Wilfrid's speech) and for the partisans who support him so long as they will not have publicly repudiated that error and taken the engagement to vote for a remedial law approved by the bishops.
This is the record or the member for North Toronto in 1896. a record which he would fain forget. And of course he tells us to-day that as long as the grass grows and water runs he is not going to do the like again. The only difference now is that while he is trying to carry on the same game he is now trying to work upon the Protestants of this country instead of on our Roman Catholic friends. And he tells us he is not going to do this again because he was beaten, forsooth, in 1896 and in 1900 and in 1904. That is not the Spartan-like virtue of the old heroes who when they fell down got up again. He is perfectly willing to desert the cause which did not give him office or bring him satisfactory results. There is only one thing to be said with regard to my hon. friend and it is this that the men who sit behind him, that the Conservative party in this country found him out four years ago. Down in New Brunswick, they knew him right along and this year when the opportunity came to these men, when he had been for twenty years in political life, to advance him to a position of honour and leadership in that party, they knew him so well that they would not trust him, hence it is son of my own province sits 4001 April 6, 1905 as leader. But fancy the humiliation of this old political veteran who has to sit as second to a man many years his junior. Let me say that when the hon. member for North Toronto or any man in this country after so long an experience in political life with such a record as this talks as he talks in this House it is not likely that the Protestants of this country will have the slightest faith in the assertions or statements or leadership of a man of that kind. Whom are we asked to follow? We are asked to follow my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). We all recognize our friend from South York, the W. R. Hearst of Canadian politics, the gentleman who runs sensational journals. He is a well known advocate of public ownership. and he is so able an advocate-and I am going to give him credit for it—that he was able to foist it on his leader and his party and enabled them to get soundly beaten on it last year. My hon. friend who comes along with all these fetishes of his, according to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) last night, not so many years ago instead of being a stout advocate of provincial rights, an expression which he rolls as a sweet morsel under his tongue to-day was going up and down this country and in this House demanding a strong central government, and saying that the intention of the fathers of confederation was that power should be centred in the federal government in Ottawa, and that there should not be found in the various centres of Canada little legislatures exercising varied powers but that everything should be done in this great central body. The record of my hon. friend is hardly as inconsistent as that of his coadjutor from North Toronto, but on this question of provincial rights he has not much license to speak in this House or in this country.
Then we are asked to follow the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) a gentleman who has had a long career in politics and a gentleman whom I am sure we respect. because I think he is the only one of the four that believes in this talk that he is giving us. I am free to say that I believe that. but I am also free to say that my hon. friend from East Grey is in very strange company. Was he not a follower of old Sir John ? In the United States it used to be the proud boast of men who had been through the war that they had fought with Grant and it is only a short time in Canada since the Shibboleth of the Conservatives was that they had been with Sir John. Now what was Sir John's history on this question of provincial rights ? He was the great centralist as the hon. member for South York told' us. Every one knows that Sir John Macdonald was not a federationist, or a legislative unionist. that he was not an advocate of provincial powers. or of the recognition of 4001 4002 the rights of provincial legislatures to control certain questions, merely conceding to them those questions that could not be kept from them. Why, the day was when the Conservative powers in this country asserted that the King was not present in a provincial legislature, that this parliament was the only power that had the right to pass license laws. and we all recollect the occasion when Sir John Macdonald asserted the right, as a legislative unionist, of this federal parliament to pass a Liquor License Act. We all remember the time when he asserted on a question in relation to the constitution of the courts the right of the federal government to appoint King's Counsel's. And we also remember that in the days when the battle went on in the province of Ontario, the little tyrant, as they called him, maufully withstood the efforts of Sir John Macdonald, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and some other old veterans on the other side in the House who sought to filch from Ontario her rights, legislatively and territorially, and that the men who are now claiming to represent provincial rights and who speak about them as if they were something sacred are the very men who spent all their lives battling against provincial rights and in favour of the centralization of power. Although we have to respect the hon. member for East Grey because he is sincere, I am sure that when he talks about provincial rights he must feel a twinge of regret that he is departing from the policy of the old leader under whom he entered politics and under whose political aegis he developed in this parliament. There was not an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who supported Sir John Macdonald who knew anything about provincial rights. The word sits very strangely on their tongues. They were never provincial rights people. They never knew what provincial rights were. and yet they are coming here to-day and talking about a proposition in which they assert that the compact recognized by Sir John Macdonald and by all the fathers of confederation as being the essential element in the formation of this confederacy, namely, that the rights of minorities in all the provinces of this Dominion should be respected, is one which shall not be kept. They come here and in the name of provincial rights go back on their record, go back on the traditions of their old leader who sleeps in Cataraqui cemetery at Kingston, they forget the great position that he once occupied in this parliament, and there are none so poor as do him reverence because they turn to those propositions that were advocated by his traditional opponent, Sir Oliver Mowat. Shall we follow these men to-day upon this question ? Or shall those of us, who represent not merely what may be called Protestant constituencies but who represent constituencies, even though they come from smaller provinces, 4003 COMMONS where people are guided by the principle that here, in Canada, the lines of race and religion must be obliterated, and who demand that we shall be Canadians one and all, not rather follow him, who, during his long life, not merely on the testimon of his friends but on the testimony of those who ought to be his friends, but who have for a peculiar reason, become opponents of his, battled for civil and religious rights in the province where he was born and bred ? I want to know if there is any one who has studied the history of Canada who does not recognize that great leader of the Liberal party every year of whose career as a public man is marked by progress and by some effort on behalf of the rights both civil and religious of the provinces of this confederation. But, talking about the ablegate being brought to this country, I want to know whether there is a man who will say that the sons of the Roman Catholic church who had sutfered by reason of the tyranny exercised on behalf of the Conservative party should not go to the head of their church and ask for the intervention of that dignitary by the appointment of a representative in Canada in order to see that the system of interference in politics which had hitherto prevailed should be obliterated from this country. That is why the ablegate came to Canada. Everybody knows that is so, and everybody knows that the reason why Quebec spoke in 1896 as she did and as she has spoken since is because the great heart of the French people rose above all those limitations which had bound them and because the people of that province recognized that in their great leader they had a man who was ever ready to stand for equal rights for all and special privileges for none. As he stood for the rights of the provinces in 1896 so he stands to-day for the constitutional rights of minorities and the recognition of the principles which the confederation compact involves and which were embodied in the constitution. But, cries such as we have heard here today are not new. My little province down by the sea has not turned its ear to any such appeals as seem to avail in other portions of Canada. But, in the county from which I come and in which I have run three federal elections. I want to say that in every fight we have had to contend against the canvass which was being made on behalf of the Conservative party amongst the Protestant and Presbyterian section of the electors in these words: Surely you will not vote for a Frenchman and a Roman Catholic like Laurier. That was the shibboleth of the Conservative party. But, our people rose above that. Our people recognized that he was the champion of civil and religious liberty in Canada, that he was possessed of a generous mind, that he was a believer in all that was going to make Canada great and her people happy, and they sent a unanimous delegation here to support 4003 4004 him. Let me say that we are unanimously behind him to-day and further let me say that upon this question we know in whom we believe. We are not asked to follow any man whose record is of a character such as I have outlined as being possessed by some hon. gentlemen opposite. We know that when the excitement upon this question passes away the Protestant people of Canada will recognize as in days that have gone, that in our great leader We have a pillar in the storm. a man who has stood above all these cries of race and religion, a man who rises above them and who sees with clear vision the path which we should follow and the principles by which we should be guided. So, I say that when the history of this country comes to be Written our children's children will speak of the great leader of the Liberal party who has fought the battle of civil and religious lib erty and who has stood up for the rights of provinces and minorities as one whose name will ever shine with lustre so long as Canada has a history.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). Mr. Speaker, if this took place in some countryi barnyard, I imagine I could hear some old farmer saying it is not the first time that he heard a great deal of noise and cackling for a very small egg. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has taken an hour to enlighten us on the subject before the House and he has trotted out almost every subject under the sun which suggested itself to his mind but he has studiously avoided touching the question before the House, and I think it would be quite in order for me to ask, Mr. Speaker, to read the question before the House because the attention of the House has been directed to everything except that. The hon. gentleman treated us to a great many subjects: Roorbacks; cold storage, Mr. Rogers' statement must be discarded; absolutely untrue; sparrow on the house tops; pelican in the wilderness; manna dropping from the tip of the tongue; fanning the flames of religious strife:—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear
Mr. SPROULE. Buccaneer politicians—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear. hear.
Mr. SPROULE. A political Ishmaelite—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear. hear.
Mr. SPROULE. These are a few of the subjects the member for Pictou dealt with in his very intelligent way.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. SPROULE. I presume he wishes us to imagine that we are looking towards the cast, and we see the silver edged lining of the cloud which betokens the rising sun of a clear day. The effort of the hon. gentleman to enlighten the House on the subject 4005 APRIL 6, 1905 reminds me of a story I heard when comparatively a boy, of a would-be celebrated chemist, who, asked to demonstrate a proposition in chemistry said : Well boys, you will take an effervescent and you add a deliquescent and there will be a precipitation and that is a conglomeration and that amounts to a demonstration. The chemist defied any one to prove the proposition more logically than that, and the chemist's demonstration is about on a par with the demonstration we have had from the member for Pictou. It was a conglomeration in the highest sense of the word. He told us that Ontario thought she had all the intelligence of the world, but that we were not above going to the east to get a leader. Well, Ontario is like Simple Simon ; she knows a good thing when he sees it, and takes it.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. SPROULE. The man he called a political Ismaelite was born in the maritime provinces but they discarded him, and we accepted him with gratitude and pleasure and I think he has given the member for Pictou and his friends one of the best drubbings they have got for some time. Scripture tells us that it was from the east the wise men came, and we have drawn many a wise man from the east, but if we are to judge from the sample we heard to-night I can assure him we are not likely to make any more pilgrimages east in search of wise men. The member for Pictou said that Sir John Macdonald was a legislative unionist and that the member for East Grey who championed political rights to-day was a great admirer of his. If the member for Pictou were as familiar with the political history of this House as he seems to be with the barnyards of Nova Scotia, he would know that the member of East Grey disagreed with Sir John Macdonald on many of these questions in regard to provincial rights, and that the member for East Grey was as sincere then as he is to-day upon the question we are now dealing with.
The fact is admitted that the Attorney General of Manitoba had visited the Papal ablegate. Who admitted it ? The member for Pictou made the pure bald statement without anything in the world to hack it up so far as we know except his own imagination—
Mr. MACDONALD. Would the hon. gentleman permit me to call his attention to the fact that the ablegate's statement shows that Mr. Campbell visited him.
Mr. SPROULE. Did he say they had a conference ? He incidentally met him.
Mr. MACDONALD. Will my hon. friend read for himself ?
Mr. SPROULE. The ablegate says : I met him in a friendly way a year ago, but there is not one word with regard to a conference ; there is only the solitary statement 4005 4006 that they met and the member for Pictou wove out the rest of the fairy tale, and presented it to the House as a fact. The member for Pictou tells us that his province is not opposed to provincial rights. No, but if he represents his province, Nova Scotia is op;posed to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba because it is one of the smaller provinces.
Mr. MACDONALD. The attitude adopted on that question was, that the smaller provinces of the Dominion should be consulted before the boundaries of any other province in the confederation were extended.
Mr. SPROULE. It was not that the smaller provinces should be consulted, but that Nova Scotia as a small province was opposed to enlarging other provinces because it would make Nova Scotia comparatively smaller. That is the only logical deduction from his remarks. The hon. member for Pictou told us that the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is singing the song of Ontario. Yes, he is singing the song of Ontario, and Ontario has sung a good many songs and they have all panned out well, and this one will also. He told us that the member for South York is fanning flames of religious strife. Is he ? We hear that from every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. SPROULE. I hear the weakling from Cape Breton say 'hear, hear.' The only two things he can do is to say 'hear, hear ' and ask a question.
Mr. ALEX JOHNSTON. If you come down I will be ready to meet you at any time.
Mr. TURRIFF. I wish to say that the hon. member for Cape Breton was strong enough to defeat the leader of the hon. member for East Grey in 1896.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. SPROULE. What is starting the member for the west ; is he after another cinch '?
Mr. TURRIFF. I was just remarking—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. SPROULE. I cannot hear a word the hon. gentleman says. He is good at interrupting ; he had better wait—
Mr. TURRIFF. I want to answer your question.
Mr. SPROULE—because if it is necessary I may direct attention to him in a way that would not be pleasant to him, and if I am driven too far I will and don't forget it. The member for Pictou says that the Reform party are fighting for the rights of the 4007 COMMONS people, and one of his friends said that the Reform party fought the church a few years ago, and that it even took the church to the courts and that this is an evidence that the Reform party is not in favour of a Papal ablegate. Perhaps not, but it was the Reform party that brought him here. The member for Pictou told us that we on this side dislike the Catholics and the Catholic church. That is a peculiar assertion on his part ; it has no foundation in fact, not the slightest in the world. So far as I know and I verily believe it, there is no sentiment of dislike here either for a Roman Catholic or the Roman Catholic church. We have the same respect and veneration for that church that we have for other churches and for its members as we have for other members of the community. That statement of his only exists in his imagination and I want to say so. What is the gist of all this discussion this afternoon ? The Minister of Agriculture gave us a very learned disquisition but he never touched the subject. He tried to draw a red herring across the track like the member for Pictou who never mentioned the issue from the moment he rose till he sat down. He tried to do like that little fish that spouts out an inky fluid in the water so as to becloud everything— I see the hon. member for Pictou is leaving the House ; the sun has gone down.
Mr. MACDONALD. I will come back to oblige the hon. gentleman.
Mr. SPROULE. I am glad he came back.
Mr. MACDONALD. You will find me no quitter at any time.
Mr. SPROULE. Perhaps I was doing the hon. gentleman an injustice. Unlike some of his friends he is willing to stay in the chamber and hear what is being said. Of all the speeches made on the other side of the House, none of them touched the subject at all. The Prime Minister told us : we will fight this battle to the end upon the very line upon which it is brought into the House. What are the lines on which the battle was brought into this House ? What are the lines to-day? The interference of the church with the state. I tell him that we accept the challenge, and that we are prepared to meet him on every platform in the broad Dominion of Canada. He will find us ready for the battle, and willing to take our share in it. The allegation is that a representative of the church has improperly interfered with the duties of the state. Who is responsible for that ? Not the ablegate. He is trying to do his duty, and I do not blame him ; he is representing his church. Who is responsible for it ? The men who brought him here—brought him under false pretenses if you can judge from the history of the ablegate since he has been here. What did he come for ? To reconcile differences between them and their church that they were unable to reconcile for them 4007 4008 selves. As long as he was doing that we had no complaint to make. Is that the work he is doing to-day ? Not at all. He has gone beyond the bounds of that work, and who is responsible for it ? Who is to blame ? Is it the ablegate ? No. He is reputed to be an able statesman, a diplomat, and he was brought here by men who think themselves statesmen, but who are not equal to the occasion. Who are they ? The Prime Minister was the first who sent to Rome, and he was joined by thirty-nine of his supporters. They are the parties who brought the ablegate here, who are responsible for his being here, who have been using him since, and who are bringing discredit on their church by the capacity in which they are employing him. I say that if there is any objection to what the ablegate has done, we do not blame him, and have not a word to say against him ; but we blame the men who brought him and who have employed him in that work. They are the parties who are responsible, and they are the parties who will be brought to book for it as soon as the voice of the people of Canada has an opportunity of being heard on the subject. The memories of the people of Canada are not so short that they will forget it. They will not forget it by any means. I ask again, who brought him here ? I have answered that question, and can my answer be denied ? Is there any attempt to deny it? Not at all. There is and always has been in this country a dread of the interference of the church with the state, and there will be the same dread in the future ; and when we see the first indications of that interference cropping up, we want to stop it. That does not refer to one church more than another. When I say church, I include every church, and we are ready to fight one as vigorously as another. I am speaking of a principle which is inherent in the constitution of the British empire. We have learned long since of the painful effects of the interference of the church with the rights of the state. That question was fought out, and the relative duties of each was assigned to it. But that question is cropping up to-day, and who are responsible for it ? The present government ; they are the parties who have introduced that question. We are told that there is excitement in the country today. If there is, what is the occasion of it ? It is the danger apprended by the people of Canada that we are going to have the issue of state and church to fight over again. That is why there is excitement ; that is why so many letters and petitions are coming to Ottawa ; that is why there is such an intense feeling throughout the country against the present government. Is there today any interference with the affairs of the state by any church ? Need I ask that question after the information that has been given to this House several times during the last few 4009 APRIL 6, 1905 days? My answer is, yes, there is. By what church? By the representative of the Church of Rome, who was brought here by the present government. What important questions of state are under the consideration of parliament to-day? There are two. One relates to the establishment of new provinces in the west. The other is the question of whether the boundaries of Manitoba shall be extended. These are two important questions which the state is dealing with to-day. We are erecting two new provinces and giving them provincial rights and provincial powers. Then, application is being made on behalf of the province of Manitoba for the extension of its boundaries, so that it may be of a size proportionate to the other provinces around it. It is much smaller to-day. Let me deal first with the question of erecting these new provinces. One of the duties of the state is to assign certain rights to these provinces, among them the right to legislate with regard to education. The state is exercising its undoubted right to pass this legislation in this House. It is claimed, and not denied–no hon. gentleman in this House has dared to deny it up to the present—that the proposal in the Bill was submitted to the Papal ablegate ; that several conferences over it took place between him and the premier, if not between him and the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State as well ; and that it was made satisfactory to His Eminence before it was submitted to parliament or the country. Is that interference by the church with the state ? Certainly it is.
It is as plain as anything can be, and it has not been denied. Attention has been drawn to it several times, but neither the First Minister nor the Minister of Justice have dared to get up in this House and deny it. Therefore we assume that it is an admitted fact because there is no denial, and if there was any ground for denial there is no doubt the denial would be given. It is afterwards asserted and not denied, either, that the minister in the cabinet representing Manitoba and the Northwest objected to a certain provision in the Bill—the clauses relating to education—and he struck, he left the cabinet, and carried his followers from the west with him. It was shown that there was trouble ahead, and there was a proposal to amend one or two clauses in that Bill. Several conferences took place with the western members on the one side and the premier, and with whom on the other ? With the Papal ablegate, to see if they could make some arrangement that would suit the Papal ablegate, and at the same time suit the member for Brandon and his followers in the west. Several times we were told that they had reached a conclusion satisfactory to both parties, but the next day the negotiations were off again. So we were kept in suspense day after day for nearly two weeks, 4009 4010 until finally they reached a conclusion and it was announced to the House. But the conclusion was not announced to the House until after it was finally submitted to the Papal ablegate and was found to be satisfactory to him. Therefore, I again ask the question : Is the church through its representative interfering with the state, is it or is it not ? Is the church interfering with the duties of the state, with the policy of the state, with the functions of the state ? I say it is, and this is the question that is interesting the Canadian people to-day, and this is the question which will be fought out in the future. The Prime Minister says : We are prepared to accept the challenge and we will fight it out. I tell him that it will be fought out. Well, when the Bill was first presented, some of the western members objected to some of the provisions, but when amendments were made that were satisfactory to the ablegate and satisfactory to the members of the west, they were announced to the House, then and not till then. Now, who is responsible more than anybody else for these educational clauses ? The Papal ablegate. I do not blame him, not at all ; he is trying to do what he believes to be a good work. But the government of this country have abnegated their functions, and have given them over to the church, they have given them over to the representative of the church, and they have got him to do what they could not do themselves. They saw that the Papal delegate possessed the element of statesmanship and desired to avail themselves of his diplomatic powers and his great foresight and statesmanship to help them out of what would otherwise have been a very difficult position, and he has succeeded in helping them out of it so far. But these were matters of state policy about which the church should have no concern, and over which it should have no control. The church had no right to be consulted with regard to it.
Now then we come to the question of the extension of Manitoba's boundaries. A conference was held with the government, they hear representatives, and say that an answer will be given in a few days. The First Minister, in dealing yesterday with the statement of the Hon. Robert Rogers, said :
So far as the action of the government is concernend in this matter I wish to give the statement a direct, an absolute and a categorical denial.
' A direct, an absolute and a categorical denial.' It is said that the whole is made up of its parts. First he denies it in its parts, and then he denies it in toto. Well, after all this is done does the denial hold good ? He admits a conference took place afterwards, therefore that part of the categorical denial falls to the ground, because Mr. Rogers states that a conference was held with the government, and that they heard the representations of Manitoba. Mr. Ro 4011 COMMONSM gers says that the premier told him that an answer would be given in a few days. Well, the premier says, I have no remembrance of making such a statement, it is possible I may have done it, but I have a good memory and I have no remembrance of it. In the meantime an invitation comes from the Papal ablegate to one of the delegates, and they visit the Papal ablegate. What takes place there ? Now then what does the Papal ablegate say ? He admits that he invited them to come and see him :
  Taking occasion of the presence in Ottawa of the Hon. Mr. Campbell, the attorney general of Manitoba, whom I had met in a friendly way more than a year ago, I invited him to come and see me.
  Yet everything was denied so far as the premier knew or could tell.
  I never met Hon. Mr. Rogers nor did I have any communication with him.
  Now the Minister of Agriculture expressed himself strongly of the opinion that the whole thing was unreliable, because it was proven that Mr. Rogers was not there, while Mr. Rogers spoke of the delegation which came down in the plural number as if there were two. Well, I suppose that a member of the government referring to what the government did, if he said : We did so and so, would not necessarily mean that he was individually present. I presume that any conference that took place between the ablegate and any member of the delegation, represented a conference between the ablegate and the delegation. And that is what Mr. Rogers says, he did not say he visited the ablegate. The ablegate admitted that he invited Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Campbell came.
  I asked him if something could not be done to improve the condition of the Catholics of his province with respect to education.
  That is an admission that there was a conference, and an admission as well, what he was there for.
  I pointed out that in the cities of Winnipeg and Brandon, for instance, the Catholics were paying double taxes. I urged my request on the ground of fairness and justice. and, referring to his mission to Ottawa.—
  And what was his mission ? To extend the boundaries of Manitoba.
  —I remarked that from the point of view of the Manitoba government, some action on these lines would be politically expedient—
  'Politically expedient.' Why ? Because he was dealing with politicians, and he was pointing out how they would be likely to accomplish their end.
  — and tend to facilitate the accomplishment of his object, inasmuch as Catholics in any territory which might be annexed to Manitoba would naturally object to losing the right had to separate schools and to be subjected to the educational conditions which existed in Manitoba.
4011 4012
  It would be 'politically expedient,' and would help them to accomplish the mission on which they came here. Was not that diplomacy and an interference with the rights of the state ? Was not that an admission that Hon. Robert Rogers' statement was correct ? And if Mr. Rogers came to the conclusion that the ablegate was an intermediary between the government and the delegate, was not there sufficient circumstantial evidence to justify him in reaching that conclusion ? In my judgment there was. Lawyers often depend on circumstantial evidence to establish a case. Even in the matter of life or death, the lawyer will tell the jury that circumstantial evidence is often much stronger and more reliable than direct evidence. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), an eminent lawyer, I have no doubt has advanced that plea over and over again. Applying it to the hon. gentleman himself and his government, is there any circumstancial evidence here to justify the conclusion that Hon. Robert Rogers, when he assumed that the Papal delegate was speaking for the government, and that the Minister of Justice was in it and the Prime Minister was in it ? Certainly there was. He goes on to say.
  Mr. Campbell then asked me what would be my desire in this respect, I then gave him the memorandum which has already appeared in the press.
  This, he says, is the sum and substance of the interview. Now, what was the memorandum he gave ? It was two carefully drawn clauses handed by the Papal delegate to Hon. Colin Campbell to enable him to facilitate the object he had in view—the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. He proposed to this end the alteration of the statute of Manitoba relating to education, by adding to section 125 two subsections. One was as follows :—
  (b) And when in any city or town there shall be thirty or more Roman Catholic children and also thirty or more non-Roman Catholic children, or in any village more than fifteen of each of such classes, the trustees shall, if requested by a petition of parents or guardians of such number of such classes, provide separate accommodation for each of such classes and employ for them respectively Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic teachers.
  That was one of the amendments. The other was to provide for exactly the same in the country—two carefully drawn, well- worded subsections to put in a statute. And what conclusion did the Manitoba delegates reach with regard to the matter ? I say the only conclusion they could come to was that these clauses were drawn up by the government here. And I think that they honestly believed that they were drawn up by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). Does that hon. gentleman deny that he had anything to do with the drawing up of these subsections ?
4013 APRIL 6, 1905
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It is scarcely worth denying.
Mr. SPROULE. That is not a denial.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I will say this, Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), for whom I have a certain regard—there are gentlemen, of course, for whom I would not reply—I never saw those clauses till they were published—  
Mr. SPROULE. And never knew any thing about them ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Never knew anything about them, directly or indirectly, nor of the interview, until yesterday.  
Mr. SPROULE. Now, the Minister of Justice has made a statement which I accept with pleasure, as I always do any statement he makes in this House. I only gave him the opportunity, in view of the statement made in the press over and over again concerning him. Very frequently, when a direct stetement is made concerning any im-   portant politician, that politician takes the earliest moment to deny it. I only gave the hon. minister that opportunity——
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend (Mr.   Sproule) will bear witness that I am not very lavish with my denials. I do not, as a rule, pay much attention to statements of   that sort.
Mr. SPROULE. I speak only of the general practise among politicians. As the Minister of Justice has denied it, I have nothing more to say. But was it not natural that the delegate from Manitoba should come to the conclusion that the government's hand was behind it ? Was it the fine Italian hand alone that accounted for it ? How did he know our statutes so as to be able   to draw clauses that would dove-tail into them and accomplish what was wanted in   Manitoba ? Was there not some power behind him that prepared these subsections for him ? There must have been. And certainly it would not have been any one in the Manitoba government, for they did not accept it. Now, it is admitted and not denied that the Papal ablegate took an important part in preparing these Autonomy Bills to establish the two new provinces, in drawing up their educational clauses. It is admitted that conferences took place, that he was satisfied and accepted them. Now, if separate schools are fastened on half a continent there, who has done it ? The government through the representative of the church. He helped them to do it. And if he was successful in establishing them over 500,000 square miles of territory. is it any wonder that he attempted to go farther and fasten them on Manitoba as well ?
When he had succeeded so well with the government of the day with his diplomacy and with the craft which belongs 4013 4014 to men of his position in getting the state to accept that, is it any wonder that he tried to go a little farther and attempted to add to his name something else that would embellish him in the history of fame if he could only compel Manitoba to give these separate schools. Why it is the most natural thing in the world. He had the same men to deal with, he had been successful with them once and he hoped to be successful with them again. He ventured a little further and he entered into communication with the delegates of Manitoba who came down here in a case of emergency in their strong desire to have justice done to their province, and he takes advantage of their necessity and of their dire necessity to play the game a little further. He endeavoured to secure from them the establishment of separate schools in Manitoba. Is this not another case of church interference with the rights of the state ? That was a state matter, that was a government policy and a function of the state and this was an interference with it. It is not denied, it is practically accepted by the present government and yet the First Minister says we will fight it out along these lines to the end. I will tell him to keep on with that fight and to congratulate himself on the result when he comes to the end of it. It is claimed and not denied that this proposal in the Bill was submitted and it was carried through. There is no doubt on that subject. Now, we combine the statement of the Papal ablegate and the Dominion government with regard to the statement of the Hon. Robert Rogers. Three of the five specific items mentioned by Rogers which are known to the government are admitted to be correct. As to the fourth one a lapse of memory is pleaded ; the First Minister says : I have no remembrance of it and I think I I would remember it if it was so—but he does not say it was not so. On the fifth one the government denies that they had any knowledge of what took place when the Manitoba delegates were with the Papal ablegate. Rogers never said they knew what took place but he assumed they did in consequence of the circumstances that surrounded it, and I say he was justified in that conclusion. Then we take the Papal ablegate's admission that he invited them ; as Rogers said an invitation came. When did it come ? Mr. Rogers says March 20, the Papal ablegate says : I think I met them on the 23rd or the 24th before they left for home. The invitation seems to have been on the 20th of March. When was the Bill to be introduced in the House to give separate schools to the two new provinces ? On the 21st of the month. When was the first disclosure to be given to the people whether or not their boundaries were to be extended ? On the 21st. Is it not natural to reach the conclusion that that 4015 COMMONS invitation which went on the 20th of the month was in order to have the benefit of that conference before the information was given in this House and in order that the First Minister could take advantage of it. Was it not likely ? It seems the most likely thing in the world. That conference was held, the Manitoba delegates did not accept the invitation and respond to it as desired, by agreeing to grant separate schools, and what was the result ? The next day when the announcement was made they were told through the Prime Minister's speech in the House that their boundaries could not be extended. No reason was assigned except that other provinces might be interested. Practically no reason whatever was assigned for it, but they have that simple information. Robert Rogers says they were to get information in a few days. Afterwards Mr. Rogers writes a letter asking whether the information was not forthcoming. The Prime Minister says he never received the letter but we have had evidence in this House that that letter was sent direct to the Prime Minister's own house. That was established by indisputable evidence. There was no doubt about that. Whether it ever went into the Prime Minister's hands I do not know, but it went to his house.
Mr. BELCOURT. He has denied that.
Mr. SPROULE. That it was sent to his house ?
Mr. BELCOURT. He denied that.
Mr. SPROULE. Allow me to say he did not.  
Mr. BELCOURT. He did.
Mr. SPROULE. He says if it ever came to his house it was not put into his hands.
Mr. SPROULE. That is all he says and we have the evidence of the party that carried it. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) is a lawyer and is too previous and ought to be correct in his facts before he starts to contradict.
Mr. BELCOURT. My hon. friend—
Mr. SPROULE. I am dealing with the statement of the First Minister, a more important man. Allow me to finish with him. I say that the First Minister said : That letter may have reached my house, but it never came into my hands.
Mr. BELCOURT. That is a different statement.
Mr. SPROULE. That is an admission of another plain fact ; there is no doubt of it whatever. The statements are admitted as facts and are established by irrefutable evidence in my judgment.
4015 4016
Mr. CALDWELL. Might I ask a question of the hon. gentleman? May I ask him if he is sure that that letter which he is saying was delivered was the letter which he meant ?
Mr. SPROULE. The letter was handed to a messenger brought into the room for that purpose by the member who was charged with it. His word should be worth something in this House. That messenger gives his word that he delivered the letter. Is he making out that that messenger was a liar or the member ? Which ?
Mr. CALDWELL. You do not understand my question.
Mr. SPROULE. I have answered the question.
Mr. CALDWELL. I am asking a question, are you sure that the letter delivered was the one that you referred to ?
Mr. SPROULE. Did the messenger get any other letter ? Is he aware of any other letter which he got ? The messenger says he delivered it. The letter was handed to him by a member of parliament who says that this letter was the one written by Robert Rogers. Is that direct enough ? I might very properly ask whether the minister got a letter at all that day ; I might ask a dozen questions from some messenger, I am taking the evidence that has been submitted to this House, but that I think, is reliable and should be accepted. Part of it is the evidence of an hon. minister of the Crown, part of it is that of an hon. member of parliament and the other portion of it is furnished by a messenger whom we believe to be telling the truth and by the record of the book which shows that the message was taken. What was the subject discussed ? The extension of the boundaries of Manitoba ; the school question. The Papal delegate admits that the suggestion was made that it will facilitate business if you will make these two amendments to the school law. That is what Mr. Rogers says ; that is what the Papal ablegate admits. And then the ablegate admits that the proposed clauses of the Act read substantially as he gave them. Put the story all together and what is it ? It exactly confirms the statement made in the main by the Hon. Mr. Rogers. Now, the Papal ablegate has a connection with the Autonomy Bill, he has a conference and his success in fastening separate schools upon two provinces naturally create a desire to go a little further and see if he could not extend that system to Manitoba. That is the most reasonable thing in the world. Why would he not do it ? He ventured to do it. What does this mean if it does not mean that there is interference with the duties of the state by somebody? Who is that somebody ? The representatives of 4017 APRIL 6, 1905 a certain church. Who brought that somebody ? The present government. Who are charged with discharging the functions of the government or the functions of the state to-day ? The present government. Who have given over a portion of those functions to the Papal ablegate? The present government. Who is responsible then for that improper interference of his ? I say it is the present government and that they and they alone, will be held responsible for it. There is no doubt about it whatever. I ask: Is it to be continued? Will it be stopped right here? The people of Canada say it must be stopped and it will be stopped.
Some hon MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. SPROULE. Yes, hon. gentlemen may laugh in derision. The weakling is to the fore again. Sometimes it is said that loud laughter speaks the vacant mind. But there is a stronger voice than that of the weakling and the electors of Canada will speak with no uncertain sound in the future. The members of the government as well as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) will be obliged to obey their mandate when it is given. In view of all this is it any wonder that there is excitement, that there is a strong feeling created and that there is anxiety in the country to-day? If there is excitement, anxiety, and noise, who is responsible for the whole of it ? -—The present government who introduced this subject and who brought this man here under false pretenses. There is no doubt about it whatever. The premier says we will fight this to the bitter end. Yes, we will fight it. He has given the challenge and I want to tell him in the name of the people of Canada that that challenge has been accepted. The same challenge was thrown down by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) some nights ago when he said that this fight will never cease until we accomplish the end which we have in view. We accept that challenge and this fight is going on. I say that there shall be no cessation of it until we show that church that this is not one of the rights which belong to a church, but that it is a right belonging to the state, and if this government will not do their duty they must get out of office because the people will hold them to account. They themselves began it. They gave the challenge and they will be met on every platform in this broad Dominion of Canada. This discussion is going on. We have the inalienable right of free speech in this country as in every British country in every part of the world. I say that we will transfer this discussion from this tribunal to the high tribunal of the nation, we will let that tribunal speak and when the voice of the nation has been heard we will be vindicated in what we are doing to-day, because we are fighting the fight of constitutional government. We are fighting against the interference of 4017 4018 the church with the state, we are fighting along the lines of the British constitution and in doing so we believe that we are doing what would be regarded as our duty not only as politicians but as statesmen in any part of the British empire.
Hon. Wm. PATERSON (Minister of Customs). Mr. Speaker, having already spoken upon the second reading of the Bill I did not intend to say anything more, one speech only being allowed while the Speaker is in the chair, until the Bill is in committee. Nor, would I have spoken to-night, when another motion made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) affords an opportunity for speaking, except for the reason that I think it is now time that there should perhaps be more speaking from this side of the House. I have abstained from endeavouring to waste the time of the House—I do not want to use that expression in an improper way—taking up the time of the House—further than is necessary in order to intelligently discuss questions coming before us. To-day we are not engaged in discussing the question that is properly before us. We are not discussing a question of principle. We have been moved to adjourn the House to afford the hon. leader of the opposition an opportunity of supplementing the remarks he made yesterday in reference to the statement that was made by a brother Tory of his through the medium of the newspapers. He did not say—and I do not blame him for it—all that he perhaps should have said to the House yesterday and he took this opportunity of returning to it again. The opportunity has been taken advantage of by other hon. gentlemen opposite and the object, as I conceive it, that these hon. gentlemen have is not to discuss whether church and state are being united in the Bill before this House or whether the principle of provincial rights is involved ; the one object it seems to me, not judging uncharitably, of that letter, that manifesto— call it what you will—of Mr. Rogers, the speeches of the hon. leader of the opposition and the bringing it up in the House the second time, the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) were not to establish a principle or to declare that church and state shall not be united, but the object is that these men want to inflame the passions of the people of this country. There is no other object. A high object that is for gentlemen sitting in the parliament of Canada ! Upon what statement has this been brought up—a statement by Mr. Rogers. Who is he? The bosom friend of hon. gentlemen opposite, is he not? Why did he write that letter on the 23rd ? What did the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) tell us—it was written and he rang the bell from room No. 6 and it was sent. What was he doing in No. 6 ?
  An hon. MEMBER. What is No. 6 ?
  Mr. PATERSON. No. 6 is the old room that we were in for 18 years and that the opposition are in now. When we were in opposition and when we occupied that room our leader used to visit us sometimes there. Did the hon. leader of the opposition visit that room when Mr. Rogers was there ? Has he seen Mr. Rogers ? Has he talked with Mr. Rogers ? I ask the question and he does not deny it ; therefore, according to his argument, it is a confession.
    Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I may tell my hon. friend (Mr. Paterson), if he is so inquisitive, that I was not in Ottawa at the time.
  Mr. PATERSON. May I ask the hon. gentleman another question ? Was he away from Ottawa all the time these delegates were here ?
  Mr. R. L. BORDEN. No, I was not.
    Mr. PATERSON. Then he saw these gentlemen, I suppose ?
    Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I certainly saw Mr. Rogers.
  Mr. PATERSON. Ah ha! Oh yes ! That is very good.
  We can get something out of this cross- questioning. Here is a letter posted from No. 6; we find the leader of the opposition in conversation with Mr. Rogers; we find Mr. Rogers' letter, and Mr. Rogers after a time tells us what is in this letter.
  Mr. BARKER. Oh, no, you don't find the letter.
  Mr. PATERSON. I am alluding to Mr. Rogers' manifesto, if you may call it that.
  Mr. HENDERSON. Where did you find it ?
    Mr. PATTERSON. In the 'Citizen.' An interview took place, as is alleged, between the Papal ablegate and the Manitoba delegates, but, it now appears that it was only with Mr. Campbell. There is great indignation expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite because some one on this side of the House, as they suppose, had arranged for that interview in some way. If there was something so very wrong in that interview, as these gentlemen suppose—notwithstanding that any knowledge or any connection with it by any one on this side of the House is absolutely denied—what kind of characters are these gentlemen opposite who consort with the men who went there, and held that interview ? Mr. Rogers professes to tell us what transpired, and what the ablegate said. I submit it would be of still greater interest to know what these people said in reply to the ablegate. If the thing was so very bad and so very wrong on the part of the ablegate, if it was such an encroachment of the church on the state, if it was such an awful thing, 4019 4020 how is it that these Manitoba ministers listened to it ? Why did he not rise and say : sir, you insult me ; the idea of trying to propose to this country what you have proposed ; I will out of your house and never enter it again. But, Mr. Rogers, or Mr. Campbell, manifested no indignation, or at least the indignation was bottled up six weeks nearly before we heard anythingabout it. And yet these very gentlemen opposite are the men who talk about this government having something to do with the gentleman who occupies a high position in connection with one of the churches of the land. My hon. friend from East Grey does not think that the ablegate drew up these clauses himself, and the only one he could think of was the Minister of Justice, and when the Minister of Justice did not rise at once to contradict him—the Minister of Justice would be on his feet all the time if he tried to keep contradicting all the suspicions of the member for East Grey—the hon. gentleman took it for granted that the charge was proven, till the Minister of Justice thought it worth while to tell him that he was altogether mistaken. The member for East Grey wants to know who drew the clauses. I cannot tell. I believe the Colin Campbell he was interviewing is the Attorney General of Manitoba, and it seems to me that it would be a more natural conclusion to arrive at that Mr. Campbell wrote the clauses than that they were written by the Minister of Justice, who knew nothing about it at all. But talking about interviewing people and talking about rumours, with which the leader of the opposition and his friends deal so largely. When the leader of the opposition got the emphatic denial of the Prime Minister yesterday, the best thing left for him to say, as he thought, was : well, this thing has been rumoured and why didn't the Prime Minister deny it sooner ? That was a mighty poor refuge for the leader of the opposition to seek. But, I think there were some rumours a couple of years ago when the leader of the opposition and his band of trained followers made an excursion out west to try and capture the votes of the people. The member for East Grey was with the party, and rumour had it that when they got to Winnipeg the member for East Grey left the party. Might I ask if that is true ?
    Mr. SPROULE. What has that to do with the question before the House ?
   Mr. PATERSON. May I ask the member for East Grey if that is true ?
  Mr. SPROULE. If the question did not come from a minister of the Crown I might deign to answer it, but it seems to me that the question is very far from the discussion.
  Mr. PATERSON. Well, then, I shall have to fall back on the rumour, and the 4021 APRIL 6, 1905 rumour is that the member for East Grey left the party and got home before them. Will the leader of the opposition say why the member for East Grey left the party ? Was it because there was a rumour that the leader of the opposition and some of his party went to wait on Archbishop Langevin ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I never heard any such rumour as that.
Mr. PATERSON. Do you know it to be a fact ? What has the member for East Grey to say ?
Mr. SPROULE. I say there is not a word of truth in it ; that is what I say.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. PATERSON. We have a denial now from the member for East Grey, but not from the leader of the opposition.
Mr. COCHRANE. That settles the school question.
Mr. PATERSON. If there is not a word of truth in it, then the member for East Grey did not come home before the rest of the party.
Mr. SPROULE. Three or four members of the party came home before the others.
Mr. PATERSON. If there is no truth at all in it, the member for East Grey did not arrive home earlier than the others.
Mr. SPROULE. If it is a matter of any importance for the hon. gentleman to know, I can tell him that business at home compelled me to come away before the others.
Mr. PATERSON. Then there is some truth in it.
Mr. SPROULE. Not at all.
Mr. PATERSON. There is no necessity for the member for East Grey explaining something that never happened.
Mr. SPROULE. The Minister of Customs put a straight question and I answered it. His statement was, that owing to the visit of the leader of the opposition to Archbishop or Bishop, I forget his name, he said the member for East Grey left and came home. I say there is not a single word of truth in it.
Mr. PATERSON. Do you say it is not true that the leader of the opposition went to see the archbishop ?
Mr. SPROULE. The Minister of Customs now says I left for home before the others, and that because of that there is some truth in his statement.
Mr. PATERSON. Yes, I said you came home before the others
4021 4022
Mr. SPROULE. That was not your statement at all; it was that I had left the party on account of the visit.
Mr. PATERSON.   A little further explanation will be interesting. Did the Leader of the opposition and some of his party wait on Archbishop Langevin on that occasion ?
Mr. SPROULE. That reminds me of a story—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Answer the question.
Mr. SPROULE. Allow me to answer it—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Answer it, yes or no.  
Mr. SPROULE. It reminds me of the story of two sharp 'Alicks' putting questions to each other, and one said: Why is it you never see any dirt around the mouth of a chipmunk's hole; the answer was: Because it commences to dig at the bottom; and the other asked: How did it get there ?
Mr. PATERSON. I have no doubt the hon. gentleman thought he was a 'smart Alick' until the Minister of Justice gave him his answer. But the point remains: has the member for East Grey good reason to suspect that such a horrid thing happened as that the leader of the opposition when he was in the west on a political tour, visited Archbishop Langevin?
Mr. SPROULE. If he did visit the archbishop, I would not regard it as horrid.
Mr. PATERSON. Church and state! What an exhibition hon. gentlemen opposite are making of themselves in order to try to light the fires of sectarian bigotry and race and ill-feeling in this country. Here you get behind the scenes, and see the bosom companions of these men meeting in room No. 6 and posting their letters from there.
Mr. STAPLES. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. minister has said during my absence. I was out for a moment or two, but I have been told since I came into the chamber that he spoke of me being implicated in some way in the construction of a letter. All I can say to the hon. gentleman and this House is that, so far as my having anything to do with the construction of a letter in room No. 6 is concerned, it is absolutely untrue, and I know nothing of it. What I stated yesterday in reference to the letter were the simple facts. I was asked by the Hon. Mr. Rogers to see that that letter was immediately transmitted to the First Minister of this Dominion, and the messenger was particularly told that Mr. Rogers wanted that letter delivered to the First Minister immediately. because he was leaving that evening for Toronto.
Mr. PATERSON. I do not charge the hon. gentleman with constructing the letter. I make no statement of that kind.
Mr. STAPLES. That letter was not written in No. 6.
Mr. PATERSON. If the hon. gentleman is ashamed of having anything to do with the letter, I have nothing to say. All I did was to quote what he said yesterday :
On the 23rd of February, the Hon. Mr. Rogers, after writing this letter, asked me to see that it got over to the Hon. the First Minister. I rang the bell from room no. 6, and there came a messenger named Julius Beaulieu, I gave the letter to him, and he said he would deliver it.
Mr. BARKER. There is more than that. You have not read it all.
Mr. PATERSON. I am referring to what took place in room No. 6. If the hon. gentleman wants to hear the rest, I will read it :
He says now there is no doubt but that he did deliver the letter. Surely we are living in a mysterious age, mysterious things are taking place every day, and this is one of them. I wish to call the right hon. gentleman's attention to another statement he made. He told us to-day that his memory is as fresh new as it was in his younger days.
Mr. BRODER. Dispense.
Mr. PATERSON. I would if a member less important than the hon. member for Hamilton had not asked me to read it.
He stated that the Hon. Colin Campbell was on the floor of the House on the 22nd day of February when these Bills were introduced, which is not the case. I may add regarding that letter that I have been down and consulted the records in the messengers department in this building, which show that this wonderful letter went from room No. 6, and that it was delivered to the messenger at about the time that the messenger states it was carried to the right hon. gentleman's residence on that particular day, and they show that it went from that particular room.
Now, why did the hon. member for Hamilton desire to have the whole letter read ?
Mr. BARKER. Because, according to the statement made by the hon. gentleman as quoted in 'Hansard,' the messenger said that the letter was actually delivered on that day.
Mr. PATERSON. What is the object of the hon. gentleman, unless it be to insinuate that the word of the Prime Minister may not be taken ? Surely the hon. member for Hamilton ought not to take that position. The statement of the Prime Minister is before the House and the country.
Mr. BARKER. May I ask the hon. gentleman to let me explain why I asked him to read further ? I did so simply because he omitted to read the most material part of the statement.
4023 4024
Mr. PATERSON. The material part of the statement in my argument was that this gentleman was in No. 6. Whether the letter was delivered or not might, I think. be safely left between the Prime Minister, the member who is interrupting me and the messenger.
Mr. STAPLES. I ask the permission of the hon. gentleman to put a question to him.
Mr. PATERSON. Go on.
Mr. STAPLES. Have you made the statement to this House that that particular letter was written in room 6 ? Have you or have you not ?
Mr. PATERSON. What I did was to read what the hon. gentleman said. I was not there.
Mr. STAPLES. You will not answer ?
Mr. R L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman did state over and over again, as he knows, that that letter was written in No. 6.
Mr. PATERSON. Where was it written ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Why did the hon. gentleman not state that when the question was put to him ?
Mr. PATERSON. I read what the hon. gentleman stated. If there is any doubt about it, where was the letter written ? Who wrote it ? The hon. gentleman said :
On the 23rd of February the Hon. Mr. Rogers after writing this letter, asked me to see that it got over to the hon. the First Minister. I rang the bell.
'After writing it '—as if the letter had been written right there ; and the hon. gentleman immediately rang the bell. If the hon. gentleman says the letter was not written there, I will, of course, accept his statement.
Mr. STAPLES. I say the letter was not written there.
Mr. PATERSON. Might I ask the hon. gentleman then to inform the country where it was written ?
Mr. STAPLES. All I know about it is what I stated, that Mr. Rogers came in with the letter and asked me to see that it was delivered to the right hon. the premier.
Mr. PATERSON. I will not ask the hon. gentleman if he knows what was in the letter.
Mr. STAPLES. I certainly know what was in the letter. It was read in the House yesterday. The only thing I do not know is where it went to.
Mr. PATERSON. The main point I made, by reading from the hon. gentleman's remarks in 'Hansard,' was that Mr. Rogers was in room 6. I suppose he will not deny that.
4025 APRIL 6, 1905
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. A very strong point.
Mr PATERSON. Yes, I think the inference is that way. The member for East Grey says that circumstantial evidence is very strong.
Mr. MACDONALD. That is where the letter was sent from, too.
Mr. PATERSON. Oh, yes, he says he rang the bell. Well, now, there has been a complete denial given by the First Minister as to his having any connection whatever with the interview that took place between these gentlemen. They should be more concerned to know what took place at that interview, what led up to it. Is there any truth in the rumours that were alluded to by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr Macdonald) that negotiations have been going on between the members of the Tory government of Manitoba and the clerical dignitaries of the church in that country. Is that true or is it not? Are we to take their test again and say that because these gentlemen don't deny it, therefore it is true? Are we to deal with them as they attempted to deal with the First Minister and the Minister of Justice with regard to any rumours they hear?—and dear knows there are enough of them going about through the Tory papers nowadays—that because they don't deny the rumours therefore they are true. Where is the denial that the Manitoba government have been negotiating with the dignitaries of the church? Is it true or is it not? Sir, I judge from what we see in the newspapers that they will come out and tell us what has taken place in these negotiations with regard to the improvement of the condition of the children of the minority in the province of Manitoba, or at least what the minority consider would be an improvement. I cannot say more than what I see in the papers. Perhaps these hon. gentlemen may be able to get an answer from Mr. Rogers, or from Mr. Roblin, or from Mr. Campbell to know what has been done in that direction. But I want to say emphatically that if it is the object of the hon. gentlemen opposite—and I do not see what other object they could have—to fan the flame of religious antagonism in this country, they are engaged in a work that is not creditable to any man who engages in it. I think the people will ask them whether the parliament of Canada is the proper place for members elected to represent all portions of this community to endeavour to excite one portion against another on matters that come very close to their hearts. Great love is professed by some of them for the Papal ablegate. Oh, how they admire him, how they respect him, and so on; then in another breath they call him a man who is conspiring against the liberties of the people. Take the 'World' of yesterday, the organ of my hon. friend opposite. Here I may say that if the leader of the opposition holds the Prime Minister responsible for 4025 4026 what appears in 'Le Soliel' and other papers all right, if that is to be the line, we will hold him responsible for what appears in the organs of his party.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The journal in question had declared itself to be under his particular charge and direction and to be the organ of the Liberal party, and it was admitted.
Mr. HYMAN The 'Journal' said that.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am speaking of the ' Soleil.' I read an extract from the editorial utterance of the ' Soleil ' of the 11th of February, and I also pointed out that, as we understood, the control of that paper was vested in a very important member of the present administration, the Minister of Justice.
Mr. PATERSON. Yes, I heard what the hon. gentleman said; and I leave it to your judgment, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House, whether that connects the Prime Minister with the 'Soleil' as closely as the Toronto 'World' is connected with the hon gentleman who leads the opposition. The editor of the 'World' is his supporter, to judge by his utterance, he is his right-hand man—if you leave the member for North Toronto out—in this House, and he will not deny it. He is not the one who was anxious to have the hon. gentleman to come to Carleton with the hope of getting a seat in the House, when unfortunately he was defeated in his own province ; he is the man who rises and speaks for the party, the bosom friend of the leader of the opposition. Surely, surely, the paper of that hon. gentleman may be taken as indicating the views of the leader of the opposition, according to the reasoning of the leader of the opposition with regard to the 'Soleil.' What is one of the leading editorials in that paper to-day? Speaking of Monseigneur Sabatti—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. PATERSON. I am glad to be corrected, because it would be too bad to make a mistake with reference to his name, lest the wrong person should be summoned. But the organ of my hon. friend, known to be his organ because it is edited by one of his chief lieutenants, wants this reverend gentleman to be brought to the bar of the House. That is what they want to do with him. Now, then, I want to ask the leader of the opposition, does he propose—if we are to hold him responsible, according to his own reasoning, for what appears in the Toronto 'World'—does he propose to bring —I had better say the Papal ablegate—before the bar of the House? Is that the policy of the leader of the opposition and his party with reference to this matter ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. What is the hon. gentleman' s policy ?
Mr. PATERSON. The hon. gentleman does not deny it. Are we then bound to assume, by his silence in answering my question, that they propose to bring that gentleman to the bar of the House? If that is a part of their policy, they had better bring Mr. Rogers too, because he has said a great many things in his manifesto which are very difficult to reconcile or to understand ; and if there is to be any examination at the bar of the House as to what has transpired, it would be very nice to put some questions to Mr. Rogers. It would be very nice to ask him, in the first place, how he came to write that manifesto which anybody reading it would suppose to mean that he himself was the one who had the interview with the Papal ablegate. He speaks in the plural, the hon. gentleman says, and he was one of the deputation. And in the document also he speaks in the singular—he says 'I ' rather a mixed document. Like to know where the singular ceases and the plural commences. Like to know why he thought it necessary to write such a document. His indignation, it would seem, was aroused against this Papal delegate for daring to suggest such a thing to him, but he had no opportunity, apparently, to express his indignation for six long weeks. And at last, when he had time to express his indignation, he carefully dug out from ' Hansard,' or somewhere else, correspondence that had taken place between certain parties years ago, when some members of this House professing the Roman Catholic faith had communication with the head of their church in reference to matters in which there was feeling in the province of Quebec in which these gentlemen resided. And these things are dragged in here. What for ? Why to work upon the feelings and passions of those whom hon. gentlemen opposite hope to influence. But let me tell these hon. gentlemen one thing which, if they go on, I am sure they will find out for themselves. My province, which is also the province of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), the province that I am proud to call my own, will not be led away by such unworthy cries as these.
Mr. SPROULE. I would like to read the hon. gentleman a letter from a respectable constituent.
Mr. PATERSON. Yes, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) might read me letters. And am I uncharitable in saying that the object of the hon. gentleman in bringing up subjects like these, taking up the time of the House and delaying the business of the country, is to keep alive the feeling that has been created ? But that is the very reason why these hon. gentlemen must have their answer every time they bring these matters up. We must know whether their object is to uphold the grand principles of provincial rights and separation of church and state, or whether it is that the Tory party 4027 4028 may be restored to power by creating dissension among the people.
Mr. INGRAM. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman Mr. Paterson) whether, when he occupied hours of the time of this House in denouncing the Manitoba school law he was raising a race and religious cry?
Mr. PATERSON. Certainly not. The Liberal party does not do that. Certainly not. And we are challenged and told that if we go to the country we shall be defeated. Does the hon. gentleman know that all these events the correspondence concerning which has been dug up by Mr. Rogers occurred before the election of 1900, when the country sent the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) back to carry on public affairs? Is he aware that this matter was before the country, and all the documents in ' Hansard,' before 1904 when an appeal was made to the country, and when the Liberal party was again returned to power by a sweeping majority ? There is only one object in this that I can see, and that is the vain hope that, now that there is some feeling—and I am bound to confess a good deal of feeling—in the country owing to the press. not alone the ' Toronto World,' but papers from whom better might have been expected—
An hon. MEMBER. What about the ' Globe' ?
Mr PATERSON. If the 'Globe' differs with the government in reference to the Autonomy Bill as they understand it, hon. gentlemen opposite can get an idea of the 'Globe's ' opinion of. Mr. Rogers if they read the editorial of to-day's issue. I have not the paper with me, but I think the Tories will find that the portrait of the man they have tried to magnify is not a flattering one as presented by the 'Globe.' I must not detain the House longer, having spoken at greater length than I had intended. But I make no apology. I have no desire to prolong the debate, and I want the business of the House to go on. For that reason, I have remained silent sometimes when I would have liked to speak. And so have other members on this side. But, if this is to be made the arena in which the battle of political parties are to be fought out on the basis of attempts on the part of Liberal- Conservatives, to arouse the passions and feelings of the country, I am prepared to take my part by speaking here when it becomes necessary. And the same is true of other hon. gentlemen on this side. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not deny the ' Hamilton Spectator ' as one of their organs. The hon member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) dare not deny it. And what does the 'Hamilton Spectator' say. Here it is— black line at the top, and the heading 'Never again.' The article says :—
The attempt made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to force separate schools on the new provinces 4029 APRIL 6, 1905 of the west will settle one thing. Never again will a French Canadian be entrusted with the premiership of Canada ; never again will a French Canadian have the opportunity to betray the people of this country. Canada cannot afford to take chances again.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have had read 'Le Soleil' and other Liberal papers, and sought to hold the government responsible for their utterances. The Prime Minister has given his answer. But here is the organ of the Tory party in the city of Hamilton, where dwells the chief organizer, as I understand it—Mr. Barker—and I ask the leader of the opposition : Is that the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party under him ? Well, Sir, if it be, all I can say is that it is unworthy of any party or any paper to take such a position as that which he has taken. Sir, what is implied in it, and what is in it ? That two-fifths of the people of this country can never expect to have one of their number, no matter how gifted, no matter how pro-eminent his abilities may be, to fill the first position in this land ; he cannot have that position because he is a French Canadian. That is something which I think the people of my province will not endorse. That is something which the people of this country will not endorse, and I hope to hear a repudiation of that from hon. gentlemen opposite, for it will be better for them to denounce such sentiments as that. Sir, all I want to say in conclusion is this : The attempt is made by the party opposite, in order to secure power, and it is made through their press, to attack the leader of this government, knowing the strong man that he is, and believing that if they can strike him down, they might then hope to attain office, and to this end you will find such articles as I have read to you and such expressions in this House. These attacks are made in order that he may be struck and that, by striking him and by possibly weakening his power, they will weaken the party which he leads. They tell us they have succeeded to such an extent that, as one hon. gentleman told us, only two counties in Ontario would return Liberal supporters of the Liberal government the county of Prescott and the county of Russell. They ask us : Why don't you open London ? Why don't you open other constituencies ?
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. PATERSON. London is not vacant. They say we dare not open a county. I would ask them : Do they suppose that if Centre Toronto, or London, or any other single constituency in this country, was opened and was carried by them that that would mean the inevitable return of the Conservative party to power ? Sir, if it was to be decided by the verdict of a single constituency and on one question, I would say that the better place to open a consistuency would he in the Northwest Territories, 4029 4030 where they say these people are going to be bound and shackled.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. PATERSON. I am glad to hear that they approve of that ; I thought they could not do otherwise. If there happened to be an election there that would be a better test in reference to this question than any constituency you might open in another province. They tell us there is a departure from principle in this Bill. They say that the relations of church and state are embodied in this Bill. I would like to know how ? Are these separate schools, as they are termed in the Bill, in the Northwest separate schools for Catholics alone ? No ; hon. gentlemen know that they are minority schools for Protestants as well as Catholics. Do you say the provinces do not want them ? Then why have they kept them, as I am told they have ? As was pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), while there may be a minority of the Catholic faith in the Territories, taking them as a whole, there are several localities where the Protestants are in the minority, and if in some of these they desire to have their minority schools, they are, under the law which it is proposed to continue, the law of the Territories, enacted by the legislature representing these people, enabled to have their schools and to have their religious instruction of a Protestant character and according to the Protestant faith. Where is the connection between church and state? Provincial rights ! Members talk about provincial rights who have not been noted for standing up for them in the past. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who made that inflammatory speech this afternoon—and he has admitted by the reference which he made at the close that it was an inflammatory speech—gives us to understand that he is on that platform, admits that he hopes he may be able to climb into power, not, as he professed some years ago, by being in favour of securing liberty and rights to the minorities, but by being in favour of taking them away from whom ? As far as he is concerned, by taking out the clauses in the Bill that now gives liberty to the minority. He told us on a previous occasion that for three successive elections this question had been fought and the Liberal party sustained, and, therefore, as long as grass grew and waters ran, he did not feel disposed to go against that will as thus three times expressed upon that question. Sir, a principle, if it is right, is right all the time. If minority rights were sacred in his eyes, as he said they were in 1896, minority rights ought to be sacred to him now, no matter how the election went. Sir, I am not going into the question ; I have spoken once, and I do not want to again take the opportunity of doing so. I am replying to what hon. gentlemen opposite have said in their speeches. All I have to 4031 COMMONS say is that they may strike at the Prime Minister, their papers may endeavour to inflame the people, as in that article which I have just read—and they confess that it is having its effect on the country, and that some friends of the Liberal party are not in accord with their friends on this Bill, and that may be true, and I shall regret if it continues so—but I want to say that, so far as I know, the Liberal parliamentary party, which ought to know as much about the nature of this Bill as any one, a party who, I believe, are as honest and conscientious as their fellow—men, are not divided, are not disunited on this Bill. And, Sir, when the time comes that this question has to be discussed before the people, as it will come, then it will be discussed in all its bearings, and Whatever the verdict may be, the government, and the members who have confidence in the government, will accept the verdict that may be rendered by the people. Prophesies as to what will occur are of no value. We had prophesies before the last election, great prophesies which utterly failed. All I have to say is that I believe the Liberal party stand to-day where they have ever stood. They stood on the principle of ruling this country in such a way as to give equal rights, liberties and privileges to all classes and creeds, and we are here to—day. There has been no departure. There was an attempt made by the Conservative party in 1896 to have this parliament enact a law which would override a law passed by a province which had the power to pass that law. They say that the right hon. gentleman who leads the government threw himself across the path and prevented it. Yes, because he said that the only way to accomplish that was to accomplish it through the action of the local government which had the power under the constitution, as had been declared by the highest court in the empire. But, Sir, is that the case of the Territories ? Is that the case of this Bill? Are we seeking to override the law of the Territories, making them take something they do not want? We are simply continuing what the government and the legislature of the Territories enacted as their school law, and which their premier says, if he were a dictator to-morrow, he would not rescind or abrogate. Sir, where is the principle of provincial rights in this? Yes, the attempt was made to have the country believe that the right hon. Prime Minister has gone back on the principles he professed and that he is no longer worthy of the confidence of the people. Well, I say we have confidence in him. They speak about what he did in; 1896. They unearthed the documents and read them to-day. What has been the condition of this country since 1896 under, as their papers will say, a French Canadian Prime Minister, or as they put it sometimes, a French Prime Minister? What has been the condition of this country? 4031 4032 What was it before 1896?—stagnation, no increase of population, an empty Northwest, as Mr. Blake said at one time, trade almost paralyzed, hope in many breasts gone, divisions among the people like what I am afraid their efforts tending in that direction may produce again. And yes, there were divisions in the government as well and this was the result of it. Yet we find a member of that government standing up today and making the speech that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) made, speaking in reference to this matter, belittling this government, or the members of this government, although he was a member of that government during the years of this stagnation and decay. What is the condition of the country to-day under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, French Canadian Premier though he is? We do not put it in that way; French by extraction, French in his ancestry. His ancestors were French and he is proud of it, yours may have been English and you are proud of it, yours may have been Irish and you are proud of it, mine were Scotch and I am proud of it. Still we are Canadians one and all, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier is Canada's Prime Minister. I say to the hon. gentleman opposite and to those whom my words may reach outside of this House who have given us their confidence in the times past that there is no one who will say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier by any unworthy motive can be swerved from what he believes to be the line of duty. Not only do I want to tell these people but I want to tell you younger members of the House who have come in here that I was here when the Liberal party lost the services of Edward Blake. It became a question who was to lead us. We were in opposition and a small minority too. There was one man amongst us who stood preeminent above all others, known and admitted, and of course the choice fell on him. He was asked to accept. He hesitated; no, he refused at first. Pressure was brought to bear upon him. I remember his reply: No, I am one of the minority in race and one of the minority in faith; I think that the party would do better to elect one of the majority. The reply of the Liberal parliamentary party was this: The Liberal parliamentary party do not ask a man what his race or ancestry have been. They do not ask at what altar he kneels. If they know him to have the qualities and the character that mark him out above all others for the position that is the man they want. Reluctantly he accepted it. For years he led us in opposition. Eight years in power under his leadership, eight years of unexanipled prosperity under his reign; eight years of national peace.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. PATERSON. I do not wonder that some hon. gentlemen opposite laugh. These 4033 APRIL 6, 1905 are laughing times, peaceful times, times of plenty and prosperity and due largely to the right hon. gentleman who leads the government to—day. We do not object to our Conservative friends rejoicing with us in the prosperity of the country. We wish to do them well, and, Sir, we believe that by keeping the Prime Minister in power under his happy influences, supported by the men who are around him, who have full confidence in him, there are in store years of progress and prosperity greater even than we have attained in the past, and, Sir, in this young country we must above all things be a united people, be Canadians one and all with equal rights and privileges.
Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto). Mr. Speaker, I thought that this House had for the last two or three weeks and especially for the last two or three days been discussing a most serious question, a question that is recognized in this country, that is recognized by every hon. gentleman who has' spoken on the other side of the House, except the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), as the most serious question we have had before this House in many and many a session of parliament. I suppose the strain of it has been too great, and therefore is has been arranged that we should have, for our relief, an exhibition of nigger minstrelsy and that a member of the government should be set up to do the Bardell and Pickwick sergeant Buzfuz act. He has done it admirably. He has done it to the entertainment of the hon. gentlemen who sit in front of him and be.hind him, but he has not done it to the edificntion of the country, nor has he ans weer the charges that are made against the government.
The question before the House to-day is not the prosperity of the country; the question before the House to-day is not concerning old matters and old controversies between old members on this side and old members on that side of the House. The question before the country to-day is: shall we be governed by our own people or shall we be governed by a delegate representing a foreign authority ?
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Some hon. MEMBER. Shame.
Mr. OSLER. Now, let us look at it squarely and fairly in the face—
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Yes, look at it fairly.
Mr. OSLER. Let us look at it fairly and let us face it.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Face it honestly.
Mr. OSLER. Yes, honestly. When this Bill was first brought into this House, it was admitted that the man who ought to have been consulted, the Premier of the 4033 4034 Northwest Territories, had not been consulted—
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Hear, hear.
Mr. OSLER. Was not consulted on this clause.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Hear, hear.
Mr. OSLER. It has been admitted that the other member of the Northwest Territories cabinet of the same faith as the Prime Minister—
Mr. BELCOURT. What has that got to do with it ?
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. It is a great crime to be of that faith.
Mr. OSLER. I do not make that charge against any one at all—
Mr. BELCOURT. Oh, no.
Mr. OSLER. I am only showing the unfortunate position that the Prime Minister has put himself and the country in—
Mr. SCOTT. May I ask my hon. friend to whom he refers—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. OSLER. It has been charged here to-day—
Mr. SCOTT. May I put a question to my hon. friend ? To whom in the Haultain cabinet does he refer, as being of the same faith as the Prime Minister ?
Mr. OSLER. It has been charged here to-day—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Answer the question.
Mr. OSLER. It has been charged here to-day, and it has not been denied, that the Prime Minister, although he did not consult the premier of the Territories, was in constant consultation withthe Papal ablegate in the framing of these educational clauses. I will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to deny that now, and if he denies it I shall withdraw all I am going to say ; I will not proceed farther.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Go on.
Mr. OSLER. That is the charge that is made. When the storm arose after this Bill was brought in, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, the next time they spoke, both said that the intention of that clause was simply to let things in the Northwest remain as they are to-day. Is that true? If that be true, it took a whole month after the first Bill was introduced to get somebody to agree to the modification as we have it now. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, and all the other members of the cabinet understood, or rather meant, that one thing should be embodied in that clause but found that another thing quite different was really in the clause 4035 COMMONS as drawn—and that has been admitted by the Prime Minister and the members of his government—if that had been so, why should not that connection have been made within twenty—four hours ? Why did it take a whole month of bickerings, of wranglings, of strife, which necessitated the resignation of one minister ; the most important minister in connection with this Bill. It took a whole month of tribulation in the ranks of the government before any change was made. The Prime Minister said that he did not understand that clause to mean what it did mean, the Minister of Justice said that he did not understand that clause to mean what it did mean.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. No, I did not.
Mr. OSLER. Did not the Minister of Justice say that ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. No, I did not.
Mr. OSLER. I beg the minister's pardon ; he said he did not understand it to mean what it did—what it was supposed to mean.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Let him go on.
Mr. OSLER. It took a month to have that clause changed. It was not in the Prime Minister's power, apparently, to change it to suit his own views within that time. There was a power outside the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice who had to be consulted before the concession was made that that clause should be changed.
Mr. OSLER. It is the view the country takes of it.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. That's rubbish.
Mr. OSLER. It is the only view sensible men can take of it.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. It is the view evil-disposed persons take of it.
Mr. OSLER. The colleague of the Postmaster General took the view I take, namely, that the meaning of the clause at first introduced, was so radically different from the clause now before us, that he resigned rather than accept it as first introduced, while he accepted it as now changed. The Prime Minister says that originally he intended the clause as it in the Bill to-day. Was it not easy then, if he had the power to alter that clause to its present state, to do so without requiring the resignation of the Minister of the Interior ?
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. That is not the point.
Mr. OSLER. That is the point.
4035 4036
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. The hon. gentleman has shifted his ground.
Mr. OSLER. I have not shifted my ground.
Sir WILLIAM MULOGK. That hon. gentleman said a moment ago that the government were not allowed to make this change without the consent of some outside power.
Mr. OSLER. I say so still.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Then the hon. gentleman says what is absolutely without foundation. He has no authority for such a statement, and it is a malicious fabrication.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order ; take it back.
Mr. OSLER. Oh, no ; let the Postmaster General's statement go on ' Hansard '; I know him.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Your statement is absolutely untrue.
Mr. OSLER. I know the Postmaster General, I know him. Then, if I am to accept the Postmaster General's statement, I say that the First Minister and the other ministers in needlessly delaying a month to make that change, committed a crime against this country that it will take generations to wipe out, for they have during that month aroused such a passion in this country—
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osler) has.
Mr. OSLER. No, I deny it.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. He and his party have.
Mr. OSLER. I deny it.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. You tried to.
Mr. OSLER. I say that all that has tended to arouse passion in this country has come from that side of the House.
Mr. BUREAU. What about the Hamilton 'Spectator' article.
Mr. OSLER. Like the other article read to-day from a French paper, there are injudicious articles on both sides, and no one appreciates that more than I do. There is no one more sorry than I am that this condition of affairs has arisen—
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. It seems to gratify you.
Mr. OSLER. I say that the country will hold the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible until they deny, and they have not denied it yet, that they are under the inflence and have been influenced by outside parties in the framing of this Act. Canada can stand bad government, she can stand bad laws—
4037 APRIL 6, 1905
An hon. MEMBER. The Canadian Pacific Railway law, for instance.
Mr. OSLER. The Canadian Pacific Railway and anything that is bad about it. The people of Canada can stand anything, but they cannot stand—
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Having the Tories in opposition; that is the worst crime Canada has committed yet.
Mr. OSLER. If the Postmaster General will cast his mind and his eye back to that pathetic appeal which the Minister of Finance made to persuade himself that he was in favour of this Bill, he will find that the Minister of Finance looked down at his venerable chief, and he pictured the disaster that would overtake the country if Sir Wilfrid Laurier were to resign. Great Heavens; there would not be another immigrant come to this country, we would be bankrupt, we would be a laughing stock. Well, if the Prime Minister resigned I think the country would be fairly resigned also. The Minister of Finance pictured what would happen if the Prime Minister would resign and the woeful disaster that would follow. I venture to say that consols would not fall one-eighth of a cent if the Prime Minister resigned. I venture to say that not one immigrant less would come into this country this year, and that the business of the country would go on and continue to be quite as prosperous as it is. The Prime Minister is being lauded as the man of conciliation. I say that in the manner in which he has introduced this Bill he has done more to cause racial and religious strife in this country than all his previous life of conciliation could counteract; and when his biography is written, instead of his epitaph being conciliation, as the Minister of Agriculture suggested, it will be the reverse. In this one act, be it as honest, as straight, as simple in intention as it is claimed to be, yet, from the fact that he consulted outsiders and ignored the men who ought to have been consulted, he has brought about a state of things in Canada the effects of which not one man in this House will live to see wiped out.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say one or two words with regard to the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Customs with reference to myself. In the first place. it does seem to be a very considerable lowering of the dignity of parliament for a minister of the Crown to stand up in this House and make such an extraordinary exhibition of himself as the Minister of Customs has made this evening. I hesitate to apply words to the conduct or the hon. gentleman, because I am afraid that I might transgress the rules of the parliamentary decorum.
Mr. PATERSON. Don't be afraid.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Oh, I am not afraid of the hon. gentleman. I have never ob 4037 4038 served anything very alarming about him, although he has a very loud voice. He is comparatively harmless. He is perhaps not as wise as the serpent, but after all he is as harmless as the dove. He has suggested as plainly as he could that I am in some way endeavouring to foment religious strife in this country—
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentlemen on the other side say hear, hear. I want any one of those hon. gentlemen, when he comes to address this House to-night or on any future occasion, to point to one single word of mine during the progress of this debate which he can call in question in that regard. I am perfectly ready to be judged by my utterances ; but I do not want general statements of that kind applauded by men who apparently do not know that of which they speak. I have never said any word in this House or in this country which would suggest that any man, on account of his race or religion, should not have the right to be Prime Minister of Canada. On the contrary, many times, in portions of this country where there was no man of the French race or who understood the French language, I have said, with regard to my right hon. friend who leads this House, that I saw no good reason why his fellow citizens of the province of Quebec should not entertain for him the very highest possible admiration as a distinguished public man of their own race ; and I challenge the production of any word I ever uttered such as the hon. Minister of Customs has endeavoured to-night to fasten upon me. Fomenting discord :—why, there was more in the speech of the hon. Minister of Customs to-night to foment race cries and religious discord than anything I have heard in this House since this debate began, and in his heart he knows it. And he knows the intent with which he quoted from the Hamilton ' Spectator ' ; no one knows it better than himself. He did it with a motive, and that motive is unworthy of any member of this House, and especially unworthy of any man who strives to pose as the hon. Minister of Customs has done in this House ever since I have been a member of it.
Mr. PATERSON. Did not the hon. gentleman quote ' Le Soleil ' ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I did quote ' Le Soleil,' and I attached the responsibility of its utterances to the Prime Minister, because I knew that that paper was published by responsible men, and that those responsible men had said that it was under the control and direction of the Prime Minister.
Mr. PATERSON. Is the Hamilton ' Spectator ' not controlled by responsible men ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will come to the Hamilton ' Spectator ' in a moment. Further 4039 COMMONS than that, when the control of 'Le Soleil' passed from the hon. Minister of Justice, it passed to the very gentleman who descended from the bench of the province of Quebec in order that he might become the organizer of the Liberal party in that province in the last election. That is why I attached some responsibility to the right hon. gentleman in connection with its utterances ; and I would like to know whether or not the Minister of Customs thinks that in so doing under these circumstances I took anything like the position which he did with regard to myself and the Hamilton ' Spectator.' Has the Hamilton "Spectator" ever pretended to be my organ? Have I any control over it ? The hon. gentleman knows, and he knew it when he made that quotation to-night, but he suppressed the fact, that the Hamilton ' Spectator' has most severely criticised me in connection with the very Bill which is before the House.
Mr. PATERSON. I did not know that.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, the hon. gentleman ought to have known it before he spoke.
Mr. PATERSON. Why should I have known it ? Am I to be expected to read the Hamilton 'Spectator' every day ? I did not know that it had criticised the hon. gentleman adversely in connection with this Bill, as he states.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have not seen it myself, but I have been informed that such is the case, and I believe it to be correct.
Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON. Will my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question? Will he deny that within a comparatively recent period the Hamilton 'Spectator' has declared that it is perfectly satisfied with the manner in which the hon. member for Carleton is at present leading the opposition ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not know whether it has done so or not; but I have been informed that the Hamilton Spectator' some two or three weeks ago severely criticised me in connection with this very Bill; and yet the Minister of Customs seeks to place upon me the responsibility of utterances of the Hamilton 'Spectator,' and accuse me of inciting race prejudice and religious discord in this country. That is what I understood to be the hon. gentleman's charge; am I correct ?
Mr. PATERSON. If the hon. gentleman assumes that my remarks were all addressed to him, the remarks that had reference to many gentlemen on the other side of the House, he is assuming a good- deal. My words will show for themselves what I said.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, the hon. gentleman will not answer a straightforward 4039 4040 question which I put to him. Very good, I will pass from that. If he has not the courage to answer yes or no, I will leave him to the judgment of the House and of the country. But I want to know this from him, and from those who have said so much about exciting race prejudice and religious discord, whether they make that charge also against the Laurier Club of Toronto, which has uttered some protests on this subject. whether they charge that against the Indian Head Liberal Club in the Northwest which has addressed a similar protest, and whether they charge that against the hundreds of Liberals who attended a large meeting in the city of Toronto at which resolutions were passed with regard to this Bill. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs is very inquisitive, might I address the question to him and ask whether he is charging these gentlemen with exciting religious discord and race prejudice ?
Mr. PATERSON. No, I am not. A great many of my remarks were intended for men whom they will fit. I did not allude very much to the leader of the opposition in the remarks I made, his remarks in this House have not been of the inflammatory nature of some others. But if he wishes to assume responsibility for all that has been said on the other side of the House, then of course I am not to blame. Individually, I did not attribute it to him. My remarks, if I must say it here, were based more especially on what has been said by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who is not in the House.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Then I must say at once that I very much misunderstood the hon. gentleman. He was pointing his finger at me in a somewhat dramatic way, and on several occasions at least he alluded to me because he mentioned the leader of the opposition. I do not think that gentlemen throughout this country, and many of them Liberals who have protested against certain features of the Bill now under discussion-I will not discuss it at all, the hon. gentleman spent about twenty minutes or half an hour in discussing the Bill, which he had no right to do—I do not think these gentlemen can be accused of exciting religious prejudice or race discord. Nor do I think that they should be characterized, as the member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) has characterized them, as renegade Liberals.
Mr. BELCOURT. I did not do anything of the sort.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Did not the member for Ottawa use that expression ?  
Mr. BELCOURT. Yes, but not in the connection that the hon. gentleman states now.  
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. To whom did he apply it ?
4041 APRIL 6, 1905
Mr. BELCOURT. That is my business.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, these gentlemen, these Liberals throughout the country who have some difference with the government with regard to the principle of this measure, will have to decide for themselves as to those that term applies to, because they get no information whatever on the subject from the hon. member for Ottawa.
Mr. BELCOURT. It applies to whoever the cap will fit.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It was applied to them, as I understood, somewhat comprehensively. I did not notice that the hon. gentleman, in making his remarks, expressed any reservation, I understood his words had a general application.
Mr. BELCOURT. Whoever the cap will fit may wear it.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Then whoever differs from the government is a renegade Liberal, according to the member for Ottawa, because this cap may fit him. Now something has been said about the interference of clergymen in the province of Ontario and elsewhere, and I myself have read protests passed in different portions of the maritime provinces by religious bodies and bodies composed of clergymen, in regard to this matter. They have been charged, as I understand also, with exciting religious prejudice and race discord, so I suppose the observations of the Minister of Customs will apply to these gentlemen as well. Does he charge them with exciting religious prejudice and race discord ?
Mr. PATERSON. I do not.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, then, I want the Minister of Customs to answer me this : Where has anything been said in this House in criticism of this measure that goes beyond the protest to which he referred from his Liberal friends throughout the country, and from clergymen in the province of Ontario and in the maritime provinces ?
Mr. PATERSON. A great deal has been said that goes beyond.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, I have not heard it, my hon. friend has not quoted it. Now I have here the expression of the hon. member for Ottawa to which I alluded, it is this :
Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that this agitation has been confined almost exclusively to the Conservative press and to gentlemen who belong to the Conservative party ? With the exception of a few misguided or misinformed or renegade Liberals, the agitation has been carried on.
That is the expression.
Mr. BELCOURT. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side asked me if that was applicable to the ' Globe.' Perhaps the hon. gentleman will go on and read what I said.
4041 4042
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Would the hon. gentleman like me to read it ?
Mr. LENNOX. What about the 'Globe.'
Mr. BELCOURT. I said renegade Liberals.
Anything further ? Well, I will leave it in that way, Mr. Speaker. Now some criticism has been made by the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Agriculture with regard to my having adverted in this House to a statement made by the Hon. Robert Rogers. May I be permitted respectfully to observe that I made no reference to that, except a very brief one yesterday, after it had been introduced into this House by the right hon. the Prime Minister himself. My observations to-day were not based upon what Mr. Rogers said in the interview referred to ; my observations were confined almost exclusively to the statement which has been given out by His Excellency, the delegate of the Holy See. I did not base that article, although the article has been characterized as a hearsay article by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). He asked whether I did not know as a lawyer that hearsay evidence is of no value ? I ask him as a member of this House who sat here and heard me, where were his ears ? Does he not know, or did not he hear at all ? What is the use of his talking about hearsay evidence ?
Mr. MACDONALD. Does my hon. friend undertake to say that he does not pay any attention to this statement of Mr. Rogers, and does not put it forward as a ground for this discussion ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The question of my hon. friend is an impertinent one. That is all I have to say with regard to it.
Mr. MACDONALD. My learned friend can characterize it as he pleases.
Mr. FIELDING. The leader of the opposition cannot characterize it as he pleases, he cannot use the word 'impertinent.'
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Mr. Speaker, you will be good enough to observe that we have a new speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is giving us his ruling.
Mr. FIELDING. I rise to a point of order.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have the floor, and the Minister of Finance is out of order in attempting to take it from me.
Mr. FIELDING. I rise to a point of order.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Very good.
Mr. FIELDING. I submit that the leader of the opposition is not at liberty to say that the speech of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was impertinent.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I did not say so ; I said his question was impertinent.
Mr. FIELDING. The hon gentleman's use of the word ' impertinent ' I submit, is out of order, and he should not persist in it.
Mr. SPEAKER. The word ' impertinent ' is one of those words classed as out of order in the authorities as I have read them.
Mr. HENDERSON. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that a former Speaker of this House ruled that the word ' impertinent ' is allowed, if used in a proper sense.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will not take up time with regard to that. I will simply say that the hon. gentleman's question is not pertinent—which is what I understand the word ' impertinent ' to mean. I assure my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that I did not use the word in an offensive way. I thought he was rather quibbling when he put the question and so answered in the way I did. His point was that I had used hearsay evidence ; mine was that I had used the statement of the delegate himself. He asked me if I considered the statement of Mr. Rogers of any value. That was not pertinent to the matter with which I was then dealing. I was pointing out that he was absolutely mistaken, and could not understand why he should be mistaken, when he suggested to me that I was using hearsay evidence and that as a lawyer I ought to know that it was of no value.
Mr. MACDONALD. The question is whether he places any value on the hearsay evidence of Mr. Rogers.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If my hon. friend will pennit me to say so without offence, I place more reliance on the statement of Mr. Rogers than I do on statements of my hon. friend.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am not saying that in any offensive sense. It would be natural as Mr. Rogers has been called a Tory friend of mine, that I should place more reliance on statements of that hon. gentleman than I would on the statements of the hon. member for Pictou. Now, just a word more. So far as the subject I introduced to the attention of the House this afternoon is concerned, I trust my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will not think that I was guilty of any intentional discourtesy in not sending him word about it. The relations between the right hon. gentleman and myself in that regard have been very good, and I think he will do me the justice of saying that I have taken pains, sometimes even when I thought they were unnecessary, to give him notice of matters that I intended to bring up in the House. There was a statement made by the right hon. gentleman 4043 4044 yesterday and he was perfectly in order in making it without giving me notice, though I might have supposed that, if he intended to make the extended remarks he did, it would have been proper that I should have had a word of intimation. But, as the subject was taken up and as it was followed by the statement of His Excellency the delegate himself, I did not suppose for a moment that he would expect further notice from me. And I trust that he will accept the further assurance that if I had dreamed that he would expect notice of my bringing it up to-day, I would have given it and so fulfilled the courtesy that was due to the right hon. gentleman, and which has always been extended from him to myself in all matters.
So far as the question at issue is concerned, the debate has wandered considerably from the point at which it started. I do not know that I could usefully add anything to what I said this afternoon. I endeavoured to express the views that I hold in a temperate and moderate manner ; and, without any idea of fomenting religious discord or race prejudice, I brought the subject to the attention of the House and drew certain inferences which, in my judgment were well founded, but which, are matters of judgment and opinion. These were very strongly controverted by my right hon. friend in the remarks he addressed to the House. I have no fault to find with the tone of his remarks or with the challenge he threw out. It may be that the right hon. gentleman's prophesy will prove correct : If this question ever does come as a direct issue before the people, the course the right hon. gentleman has taken may be found, in the judgment of the people, to have been a wise, prudent, and constitutional course. I greatly doubt it. So far as I am concerned, if that verdict is given, I shall be perfectly willing to accept it. For the present, the only thing that remains for me to say is that whether the verdict of the people shall be as the right hon. gentleman prophesies or not, I shall have no word to withdraw from those which I have spoken on this subject to-day.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice). Mr. Speaker, the speech my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has just made is such a speech as those of us who have known him for the last seven or eight years in this House would expect. He is quite evidently heartily ashamed of a great deal that has been said in this House and for which, perhaps, improperly, he has been held responsible, and he is even more ashamed of what has been said outside of this House ; and in as far as it was possible for him to do it, he has fully apologized and excused himself for his connection direct or indirect 4045 APRIL 6, 1905 with what has been said. Sir I was somewhat at a loss to apprehend the meaning of this discussion, somewhat at a loss to understand the cause of it. I must admit that, I could scarcely see the reason for resurrecting a debate that had practically ended yesterday. But when a distinguished politician from the province of Quebec, one who is prominent in the local legislature, appeared on the floor of this House this afternoon, and when I witnessed the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was speaking, I realized what it all meant. And what does it all mean ? It means neither more nor less than an attack upon the Papal delegate, not for anything he has done in connection with the particular question now in issue before this House, but because of the political conditions which have existed in Quebec since his coming here. Now, the events of 1896 are fresh in the minds of all of us. I have no desire to go over the old story of our troubles and misfortunes at that time. Every one here knows what took place in the province of Quebec, and knows the circumstances under which it was necessary for a certain number of Roman Catholic gentlemen in the province of Quebec to appeal to the Pope; and every one knows who has followed the current of political events that the result of that appeal was the coming to this country of the delegate. And since his coming in the province of Quebec we have had peace, and since his coming political liberty has reigned in the province of Quebec. And that peace and that political liberty are what our friends on the other side from the province of Quebec do not want, and the hon. gentlemen are now endeavouring to obtain the recall of this gentleman who has become a burden to them, because that peace of which I have spoken a moment ago has become irksome to these gentlemen who have fed and thrived on discord during their years of power. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has in the performance of what he believed to be his duty to his party brought this matter up in a half-hearted way. He has brought it up because he has thought it necesary to do it and I cannot say that with any word he littered I can find fault. I do not find fault with the leader of the opposition ; those with whom I find fault are the gentlemen who are hiding behind all this agitation and who are not courageous enough to come out and say : We want to take up this fight with the delegate and to get rid of him. It has been made a matter of reproach to us that the delegate was brought to this country and it is now said that he has been interfering with this political question in the Northwest Territories. Why, is the memory of our friends so short that they cannot go back to 1870 when the leader of 4045 4046 the Conservative party of that day dispatched a message to Rome for the purpose of calling to his aid Archbishop Taché, and sent him up to settle a difficulty in Manitoba? Were they so indifferent then to the influence of the hierarchy ? Were they then such superior persons as they profess to be now and so anxious to separate church and state, so desirous of having nothing whatever to do with the Catholic clergy ? Why did they send at that time for Archbishop Taché ? Why did they bring him' out and utilize his services at that time ? Where is the difference ? The hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) is pleased to laugh. Perhaps instead of laughing he will explain ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. And tell us whether down in his heart of hearts he is not seeking revenge for 1896 ?
Mr. BERGERON. You seem to be running in advance.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Reference has been made to the fact that the delegate in some way or other is supposed to be connected with this Bill, that he has been consulted in connection with it and that he represented the minority in the negotiations for a settlement of this difficult question. Am I rightly informed that in 1896 a Remedial Bill was introduced into this House ? Mr. Speaker, who is there here who will tell me who drafted the Remedial introduced in 1896? Who will tell me What connection Mr. Ewart, of Winnipeg, had with that Bill and whether Mr. Ewart was the intermediary between the government of that day and the representatives of the Roman Catholic minority ? Who will deny it? Where is the difference?
Mr. INGRAM. Quite a difference.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Assuming it to be true that the delegate was consulted, where is the difference in principle between the case of our friends in 1896 and the present occasion. I do not think it is necessary to take up the time of the House very long with these quotations from newspapers. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) was somewhat indignant at the Minister of Customs quoting from the Hamilton 'Spectator' and he imputed motives to my hon. friend because of that quotation. What about the motives of the man who wrote the paragraph quoted ? What about the men who sat silently by and derived benefit from it? What about these motives ? Where is the difference between the action of the man who wrote that article for some sinister motive and the action of the gentleman who brought the attention of the House to it ? Does the hon. gentleman expect that we are to allow these things to go by? Does the hon. gentleman expect 4047 COMMONS that we are to allow attacks of that kind to be made and not draw attention to them ? If they are right what are they ashamed of ? If they are justified what are they ashamed of ? If they are not right why do they not repudiate them ? Why do they not deny any complicity with any such doings or any desire to benefit by such a course of action ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. As far as I am concerned—
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I except my hon. friend—
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I want to assure my hon. friend that I never heard of the article until the Minister of Customs read it here in the House to-night. I most unhesitatingly say that I do not approve of it. I most unhesitatingly say that, and I thought it would be gathered from what I said before.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I accept, of course, the repudiation of my hon. friend and I want to add that this is only a sample of a thousand other paragraphs that are published daily in the press of Ontario. That is only a sample of the articles and the cartoons inspired by the same spirit that are published every day in the Toronto 'World' and the Toronto 'News.'
Mr. BARKER. Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask a question. Does he attribute that article to any other person on this side of the House?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not attribute it to any person on that side of the House ; I attribute the article to the gentleman who wrote it whoever he may be, who published it in the organ of hon. gentlemen opposite and I attribute the result of the article to the gentlemen who tolerate the publication of such articles.
Mr. BARKER. What I would like to know is whether in his own mind, in his own suspicion, he means that any person on this side of the House had anything to do with that article. He used language that implied that. He ought to withdraw that language if he does not mean it.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not as a rule deal in suspicions or inferences ; I try to make statements. I stated that the article was published in an important paper connected with the Conservative party of Ontario. I say that that article is only a sample of other articles that are constantly being published in the same press by the result of which hon. gentlemen opposite hope to benefit. The leader of the opposition refers to an article published in 'Le Soleil' of 17th February, 1904. You can take almost any article in any newspaper and make extracts from the article which can be made to mean almost anything, but now I want to quote for the benefit of the House the text in the original, of the reference read 4047 4047 by my hon. friend with the surrounding sentences and I can say this that that article does not bear the construction based upon it. You must begin with the article somewhat further up than the quotation is made and you will find that among other things after having discussed the question of the division of provinces the article goes on to say :
Proportionately to the great sister provinces, Manitoba will not be of much more import than a large county.
That is one of the reasons urged by the Manitoba delegates why they should be granted an increase of territory.
There is another reason. Quebec and Ontario have extended their boundaries, one westward, the other eastward, in order to reach towards the north, the shores of James' bay.
Manitoba wishes to get to the shores of Hudson bay towards the north-east. To attain that object, it would be necessary for her to extend her boundaries several hundred miles northward, cutting through Saskatchewan and Athabaska and taking in Keewatin.
All this has never been quoted before and this is the introduction to what follows :
Manitoba Wants as an increase three times its present area. Such an extension could hardly be granted. The district of Saskatchewan, at least that part which is directly interested, is opposed to it.
The finances of Manitoba, in their present state, are not in such a condition as to attract the free inhabitants of the districts. Manitoba's debt aggregates $4,000,000. The school legislation of the small province is not of a nature to attract the settlers in the districts. The northwest has its separate schools. Manitoba has wiped out those that existed within its limits.
Every good act has its reward ; every evil act its penalty.
Now for those who understand the French language, what does that paragraph mean ? I shall endeavour to translate it off hand :
This extension is hardly possible. The district of Saskatchewan is opposed to it, at least that part of the district that is directly interested.
Now they give the reasons why they are opposed to it:
The finances of Manitoba in their present state are not in such a. condition as to attract the free inhabitants of the district.
That is the first question, the financial question.
Then they are giving us the school legislation of a little province which is not of a nature to tempt the immigration of people into the districts adjoining. The Northwest Territories have separate schools. Manitoba has abolished them. All good acts have their rewards ; all bad acts have their punishments. Manitoba shall remain small because she has pernicious schools.
There is the text; there is the whole article. Now, what does that mean ? Does 4049 APRIL 6, 1905 that mean anything like what has been suggested ? If you extract one or two phrases from it you can make it mean anything you like. But, take the article in its entirety. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition quoted from the 'Northwest Review' and sought to make the government responsible for its utterances.  
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. No, I expressly said that it had no connection with the government as far as I understand.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend says it has no connection. Then, I will go a step further. I am sorry to say it has considerable connection in the way of criticism. I think it has been the most violent opponent that the government has had. I would refer my hon. friend to the articles published in 1896 by the ' Northwest Review ' in which they criticised my right hon. friend the leader of the government more severely than any other paper in the country. They even went to the length of comparing him in effect with Judas Iscariot among the other vagaries which they indulged in. This is an organ for which this government cannot be held responsible. I do not think it is necessary for me to go very much further. But, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) this afternoon said, in speaking of this interview that took place down at the delegate's house, that both parties to the interview agreed to take the public into their confidence. Nothing could be further from what I conceive to be the fact. The parties to the conference, as far as I can judge of what occurred, both respected the obligation that is binding upon gentlemen. The delegate is a gentleman and I presume that this applies with equal truth to Mr. Campbell. I am sure that he is a gentleman but the man who violated the confidence of these gentlemen is Mr. Rogers. This is the man who takes it upon himself to tell us what took place out of his presence and without his personal knowledge. How is it that Mr. Campbell has not corroborated this interview ? The delegate has made the statement only because this document has been published, only because his confidence has been violated. That is the only reason. The delegate has not taken anybody into his confidence. I appeal to the hon. leader of the opposition to tell me whether or not he thinks that this conference having taken place under these circumstances. Mr. Rogers was justified in violating it. That is what strikes me at the outset. How is it Mr. Rogers makes this declaration ? Why did Mr. Campbell not make it if he had any declaration to make ? If it were necessary for somebody outside of Mr. Campbell to make this statement why did Mr. Roblin not make it ? Mr. Roblin, the head of the government, not issue this manifesto ? Does his silence 4049 4050 suggest anything ? Perhaps before this controversy ends we will hear from Mr. Roblin and we will understand why it is that he has not made this statement, that he has not issued this manifesto.
Now, I will not detain the House any longer. But, perhaps I might draw the attention of the House to the interview with the delegate. I might say that in so far as I am concerned, and I am speaking entirely for myself, I have no desire to see the delegate leave this country. He never will leave it in so far as I am concerned if I can prevent it. There shall be, there can be no misunderstanding about my position. He has brought about peace in the province of Quebec, that peace has been maintained since 1896 and I trust that he shall continue to be with us so that peace may continue to remain with us. What is it that he has done in this matter? What is he to be criticised for ? Some hon. gentlemen have told us that he was in Manitoba last year. He there met Mr. Campbell. He does not say what occurred between them. He is a gentleman. Then he tells us that hearing that Mr. Campbell was here on the 23rd February, a few days after this Autonomy Bill was introduced into this House, he asked him to come down and meet him and there he discussed with him this question of the condition of the Catholics of Manitoba. I want to say here and now that in so far as I am concerned the delegate was perfectly within his rights when he discussed this matter, that the delegate was perfectly within his rights when he endeavoured to obtain from this gentleman the redress of this grievance that has continued for a long time. When Mr. Campbell got down there what occurred between them ? The delegate pointed out again to him the condition of the Roman Catholics in Manitoba and said to him : Cannot you alleviate in some way the grievance under which these people labour ? Can- you not in effect extend to the larger towns, such as Brandon and Winnipeg, the same privileges that you have extended to the Roman Catholic population in the country districts ; that is simply extending the law in operation in Manitoba in such a way as to enable it to be availed of in cities and towns. Mr. Campbell does not appear to have repudiated the suggestion. He accepted it. Then, the delegate said : You are endeavouring to have your boundaries extended. This was a matter of common notoriety, it was a matter of common notriety that the inhabitants of the district which would be affected were opposed to any extension of the boundaries of Manitoba and he said that the first step to be adopted in the direction of obtaining what was desired was to conciliate the interest of the people in the Territories to be affected.
Mr. LAKE. In the district of Keewatin ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. No the district adjoining Manitoba on the west.
Mr. LAKE. I thought that question was settled.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It was settled before this interview. That is exactly what we contend for. The delegate evidently did not know anything about what had taken place. It was settled two days before that conference. He said that if you want your boundaries extended the best thing you can do is to conciliate the inhabitants of the country to be affected because the government cannot agree and will not agree in all probability to extend the boundaries of Manitoba against the wishes of the people whose political interests depend upon the change and whose political interests would be affected by the change. And he said to him : Here, these people, the Roman Catholics, are in the enjoyment of separate schools, whereas if they come into the province of Manitoba they will be under a different constitution and they will object to any extension of the boundaries of Manitoba which will prejudicially affect their interests in so far as the school question is concerned. Is there anything improper in that ? Is there anything wrong ? Is there anything that the delegate should apologize for ? Incidentally let me observe that we have heard a great deal about the nefarious system of separate schools in the Northwest. We have heard a great deal about the shackles that we are going to put on the hands of the people there, it has been said that we are going to submit the people of the Territories to an indignity by imposing upon them a separate school system and yet here we find that these people, instead of desiring to throw off the shackles, unanimously protest against any change. This is simply an incidental remark that I want to make at the present moment. But, I shall not transgress the rules of the House. Unfortunately, some time before we reach the third reading of the Bill, I shall be obliged to inflict a speech upon the House. But, is there anything improper in what has taken place which makes it necessary to speak of the delegate in the ill disguised terms of contempt which have been applied to him by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House ? Why should he be called a policeman, or likened to a cabman ? Is there any necessity for that ? Is there anything in what has occurred to justify these epithets that were applied to him ? Now, the delegate goes on, and see what he says about his conversations so far as the government is concerned. He says :
The federal government had absolutely no knowledge of it.
That is to say ; had absolutely no knowledge of his interview with Mr. Campbell. And, as had been suggested by my friend 4051 4052 beside me here, sometimes people think that I have more to do with these things than I actually have, but I can tell you that I never knew of that interview until yesterday.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear. hear.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I will add this : if the ablegate had consulted me about it probably this interview would never have occurred—I saw these two gentlemen when they were here with Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear. hear.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. The delegate goes on to say :—
It was a private conversation and simply intended to express the suggestion and the desire that the condition of the Catholics in the respect I have mentioned would be improved.
What was there wrong about that : what was there improper about that ? What is there in that of which the government need be ashamed ; what is there in that for which the government can be held responsible ? The delegate says he had a private conversation with this gentleman, that his object was simply to improve the condition of the Catholics, and he says the government had no knowledge of it. Why should we be held responsible for that. If I were not a member of the government and had not certain responsibility as such, I would say immediately right now, that I would be prepared to take all responsibility for everything the delegate said. I see nothing in it that any man need be ashamed of and I speak now, not as a Catholic, but as a citizen of this country. I have made a longer speech than I intended and I apologize to the House for so doing, but I thought it was my duty to make this statement, and I trust that in doing so I have not been apologetic for a course which I think was perfectly legitimate and proper.
Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois). I do not understand why the Minister of Justice has brought my name into this discussion. He referred to my being in company this afternoon with the Hon. Mr. Leblanc, a member of the Quebec legislature and ex- speaker of that body, who happened to be here and who was kindly offered a seat on the floor of the House. And the Minister of Justice availed of this incident to introduce my name into the beginning of his speech, and to say that we wanted to make an attack upon His Excellency. The Minister of Justice also said that the leader of the opposition had thought it well to make an apology for the remarks he made this afternoon, but I do not know that the leader of the opposition made any apology, and I do not understand that he had any to make. The question which the leader of the opposition brought before the House, is a most important one, and in what I shall say now I will be as candid as the Minister of Jus 4053 APRIL 6, 1905 tice. I have a great deal of sympathy for my hon. friend the Minister of Justice.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I need it all.
Mr. BERGERON. Perhaps he does not want my sympathy.
Mr. BERGERON. I am sincere in the statement that I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister of Justice. I understand he has had a great deal to do with the preparation of the measure which is now before the House, and it has been stated here that interviews have taken place with His Excellency and that there were conferences with His Excellency and either the Premier or the Minister of Justice. That statement has not been denied and let me say at once, that even if it is true I do not see that any blame is to be connected with it. But, if the 'Prime Minister has thought fit to consult His Excellency on a question which he knew would interest His Excellency, or if the Minister of Justice has done so, I would like to know when that consultation took place. Did they consult him before they introduced clause 16 of the original Bill. I believe they must have done so. That was the clause I was ready to accept myself. If they consulted him then did they consult him afterwards when the Minister of the Interior forced the government to withdraw clause 16 and present the amended clause now before us.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. May I ask my hon. friend a question ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Does my hon. friend say there is very much difference between the two clauses ? Does he agree with the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) on that point ?
Mr. BERGERON. I will not say that I agree with the member for Jacques Cartier, or that I disagree with him. I will speak for myself and according to my own judgment, pronounced in a very modest way, I will say that I think there is a great deal of difference between the two.
An hon. MEMBER. What is the difference ?
Mr. BERGERON. I think there is a great deal of diflerence, but I am not allowed to discuss the merits of the Bill now, although I may have the opportunity to do so later on, because I imagine there will be some more amendments. I have sympathy with the Minister of Justice because in 1896 he took to heart the conduct of the Liberal party at that time. I hope the Minister of Justice was sincere in what he said and in what he wrote in 1896, and which in my View explains the position he now takes in regard to this measure. In 1896 the Min 4053 4054 ister of Justice was a candidate in the county of Quebec, and like a great many of the Quebec Liberal members he made a great many pledges. On the 6th of June, 1896, he wrote a letter addressed to the administrator of the archdiocese of Quebec, that letter I have here in French and translate it as follows :—
Being sincerely disposed to put aside all party spirit and all question of men for the triumph of the cause of the Catholics in Manitoba, I the undersigned, pledge myself if I am elected to conform to the mandement of the bishops altogether and to vote for a Bill which will render to the Catholics of Manitoba the justice to which they are entitled by the judgment of the Privy Council, as long as that Bill will have the approval of my bishop. If Mr. Laurier comes into power and does not settle that question at the first session according to the mandement of the bishops, I pledge myself either to withdraw my support from him or to resign.
That letter is signed ' Charles Fitzpatrick.'
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Has the bishop to whom that letter is addressed ever condemned me for anything I have done as a result of that ?
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend had better settle that with his bishop. This brings us to the question at issue; this is why there is a delegate here, so that the bishop cannot condemn the Minister of Justice, and I understand now why he is so anxious that the delegate should stay here. He would rather be in the hands of that delegate—for whom I have the deepest respect—than in the hands of his bishop in Quebec, who would remind him of the letter written in 1896. We might as well admit at once that the action of the Liberal party in 1896 was the initiation of the question which we are discussing in this House to-day.
Mr. Speaker, this is a heritage of the Liberal party that we are having to-day. We have heard my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, with his beautiful voice, speaking of having peace in Canada, and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice says that religiously we have peace in Canada. These hon. gentlemen have a most extraordinary way of bringing peace to the country ; peace with the bishops and clergy, by having here a delegate from Rome, who says to them, Gentlemen, not another word; peace for the minority of Manitoba by not giving them what they wanted, and leaving them still under the foot of the majority of that province. That is the kind of peace the right hon. gentleman gave to them after promising in Quebec that he would do more for them than the remedial Bill would do. Would we have in Canada to-day His Excellency, of whom so much has been said, if the minor 4055                                                        COMMONS                                                         ity in Manitoba had been granted their due in 1896 ? If my right hon. friend, sitting on this side of the House, had not proposed the six months' hoist to the remedial Bill, and done everything in his power to prevent it passing, would His Excellency have been in Manitoba consulting with Archbishop Langevin and the minority there, to obtain for them that justice which they have been claiming since 1896? The Minister of Justice was to resign if that justice were not obtained, but he has not resigned ; but by the Bill at present before the House he hopes to redeem the peace of his conscience. My hon. friend says there is no harm in having a Papal delegate here. I will not say there is any harm, but there was no necessity for a delegate here, if my right hon. friend and his party had not created such a turmoil among the people in 1896, and afterwards. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice tries to show an analogy between the trip of Archibishop Taché in 1870 and the residence in Canada of His Excellency. There is a great difference. In 1870 there was an uprising in the province of Manitoba; we were threatened with revolution: we were threatened with the loss of all the provinces in the Northwest; and we could not do anything. We had not the soldiers or muskets or cannon with which to put a stop to that uprising. There was only one way of settling the trouble; that was by the persuasion of Archbishop Taché, then the Bishop of St. Boniface, whose wisdom was held in immense respect by the people of that part of the country. Sir John Macdonald, as a great politician and statesman, knew that it was the only way to settle that difficulty, and he was not ashamed to adopt it, although he was the Premier of Canada and a Protestant, because he was working for the best interests of the country. He therefore turned his eyes towards Rome, where Archbishop Taché was at the time, and invited him to come here, not in the interest of one religion or another, but in the interest of Canada.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Not so bad for the hierarchy.
Mr. BERGERON. Archbishop Taché came and he accomplished what he came for; and many promises were made to him then.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. BERGERON. Yes, many promises were made to hime and to his people, and he afterwards regretted what had happened, and expressed that regret very often before he died.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Who made the promises ?
Mr. BERGERON. It does not make any difference whether they were made by a Conservative administration or by a Liberal 4055 4056 administration. Archbishop Taché is dead, but the people living there are the successors of those to whom the promises were made. Suppose they were made by a Conservative administration; was it the duty of the Liberal party later on, and principally in 1896, to do everything in their power to prevent the Conservative administration from fulfilling its promises to Archbishop Taché ? Some of those promises were that the minority would be allowed to have separate schools, that they would have the use of the French language, that they never would be troubled, that if they would allow the legislative council to be abolished, they would never have anything to fear from the majority of the province of Manitoba.
Mr. MACDONALD. Might I ask my hon. friend a question ? He asserts that promises were made at that time by his Conservative friends. Why does he not ask his Conservative friend, Mr. Rogers, in Manitoba, to redeem them to-day ?
Mr. BERGERON. I will give the answer. The remedial Bill, which was read the second time in this House, is still hanging. The question has never been decided; it is in the Privy Council; and if the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Justice wanted to do what they promised in the province of Quebec, they would bring back the remedial Bill in favour of the minority in Manitoba. That is why Mr. Roblin cannot do it. It is impossible for him to do anything of the kind to-day.
Mr. BERGERON. Because the remedial Bill is standing at the second reading.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Therefore he cannot interfere ?
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend speaks of the analogy between the visit of Archbishop Taché and the residence in Canada of the ablegate. Now, why have we a delegate here ? I said a moment ago that it was a heritage of the Liberal party.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. Do I understand my hon. friend to be against Canada having a delegate?
Mr. BERGERON. It does not make any difference to me personally. It only makes a difference to those who have some matters of conscience to settle with their bishops; I have not. My hon. friend from Pictou, when speaking this evening, had in his hand a book which I presume was a report of the Supreme Court. It had been given to him after six o'clock. and I imagine I know the gentleman who gave it to him.
Mr. MACDONALD. Let me say that no hon. gentleman gave me that book. I have read that case long ago. I am suffi 4057 APRIL 6, 1905 ciently acquainted with my profession to have studied some of these questions. I went to the library and got the book.
Mr. BERGERON. Naturally, I accept the word of my hon. friend; but I am very much surprised if the hon. gentleman in the county of Pictou followed what took place in the county of Charlevoix in 1877.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Every law student knows the case of Brassard vs. Langevin by heart.
Mr. BERGERON. Is that so ? Well, that is something new. Who will say that we have not to deal with a very religious party? They are au courant with all matters in the province of Quebec. The Charlevoix election took place in 1875 or 1876. Before that we did not hear of any trouble. We had bishops and priests—good bishops and good priests ; at least, everybody thought so and said so. Although I was young then, I do not remember hearing any fault found with the clergy of our province. In that election in Charlevoix it seems there were some indiscretions committed by the clergy. They were called undue influence. The Liberal party at that time, indeed the Liberal party or this Country has never been an orthodox party, and my right hon. friend knows it. The Canadian Club of that time, in the 60's and the Club St. Jean Baptiste of Montreal, knew something about it. They belonged to the old Liberal school of France, they were far from being religious, and they have preached their ideas in the province of Quebec, and that is why the Liberal party were distrusted by the people of Quebec. They had clubs like the Institute Canadien and other institutions of that kind, where they were not at all bashful in expressing their opinion about the clergy from the bishops down. No wonder then that the population of Quebec, being a religious population, distrusted them and were unwillingto confide their interests in their hands. That explains why they were in opposition for so many years. But during that election they took hold of this question of undue influence and brought it before the courts and succeeded. It is true it was proved rthat some curés had gone out of their way, had been over zealous. But, Sir, we read every Monday morning in the newspapers of Protestant ministers who have been over zealous in their remarks. I do not blame the Anglicans for that, I do not blame the Presbyterians, nor the Baptists, nor the Methodists, as a body. I do not hold them responsible because one or two ministers are too enthusiastic. So probably some of the Quebec curés were indiscreet. The election was voided, and another election took place, and again a Conservative was elected.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the beginning of our having Papal delegates here. The Liberal party at that time, or some of 4057 4058 their representatives, made a demand upon the Holy See for a delegate. It was most extraordinary for people who did not believe much in bishops or priests to make a demand upon the Holy See for a delegate to come over here and find out whether they were as good as the Conservatives. Bishop Conroy came here as a delegate to supervise the bishops in the province of Quebec, and to investigate the disputes. Bishop Conroy was well received, received with open arms, the Catholic population of Quebec treated him very well, in fact he was so well treated, he found everything so good and so nice that he made a report that the Liberals were very good people, were very religious people, indeed they were as good as the Conservatives, and there was no reason why they should not be entrusted with the affairs of the country as well as the Conservatives.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. BERGERON. And he died after he made that report, and was not replaced.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Surely he has gone to heaven.
Mr. BERGERON. Well, I hope he has, because if he had to carry the sins of the Liberal party with him, he needed to go to some place where he could lay them down. We did not hear much more about these things until the Manitoba affair. We all know that when our friends were in opposition the country was filled with fads. We don't hear about them now. We do not hear about Patrons of Industry, we do not hear about prohibition any more, nor any other of these side issues. Because they were not able to fight their opponent with a serious policy, they had recourse to things of that sort. When the Manitoba school difficulty came up, what a God-send it was to them. And how did it come about ? Our friend, the late Dalton McCarthy, had gone to Manitoba and spoken there very eloquently. He told these people what they should do, and his propaganda took well. The Manitoba government took hold of it, and I have no doubt in my own mind that my right hon. friend had nothing at all to do with it, or any of his friends. The Manitoba government was over ears engaged in some railway deals, and they had to divert public opinion if possible. They saw that Mr. McCarthy had had great success in preaching against separate schools and against the official use of the French language, and they took hold of his teachings themselves. In 1890 they abolished the separate schools and the French language. They did more than that. As I said the other day, they kept $14,000 worth of the property of Roman Catholics, they have got it yet, they have never given it back to the Roman Catholic minority of Manitoba. From 1890 to 1896 what did we see ? What a spectacle there was in this country ! The Minister of 4059 COMMONS Customs said that their party was above these things, that their party would not go so low as to seek to raise national or religious prejudices. Why, Sir, that has been their stock in trade, they never had any other policy than that. What policy have they to-day, what fiscal policy have they? Is it not the same policy that they opposed for 18 years in opposition, the policy of the Conservative party which they have changed a little, but the principle is the same ? What policy have they upon provincial autonomy, or any other question? So they went to the country. In the province of Quebec they used to say that it was impossible for the minority in Manitoba to obtain a redress of their grievances because, forsooth, the Prime Minister, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, was an Orangeman ; while in the province of Ontario they said that the Prime Minister was bound hand and foot to the hierarchy of the province of Quebec. This was the way they treated that question throughout Canada.
But, during all that time the Conservative party were endeavouring to do justice with a sincere desire to end this question in a way to render justice to the minority in Manitoba. They brought the question before the courts, it went to the Supreme Court and then to the Privy Council, where it was decided that the law was intra vires of the province of Manitoba, as they had passed the law themselves and had changed that law, but it was declared later on by the Privy Council that the minority had a grievance, and that the Dominion government, according to the British North America Act, must come to the relief of the minority. Then when the Remedial Bill was presented to parliament, what did we see? We saw the friends of those gentlemen opposite— many of them have now disappeared from the House-opposing that Bill with all their might, speaking against time, knowing that parliament must dissolve on the 24th of April. They followed the lead of my right hon. friend who had proposed the six months hoist, knowing that he was defeating the Bill, knowing that that law was good, but knowing also that he was helping his party to obtain power. That was the way that he obtained his great name among the Protestants, which he has held for so many years, the name of being a tolerant man, of being above prejudice, the name of being so liberal minded that he had put his foot upon the hierarchy in the province of Quebec. But that, was not the language used in Quebec. In Quebec, his French name and his eloquence were enough to help him and his friends into power, and in that way he succeeded in overthrowing the Conservative government. Well, after he came into power what did we see? On the opening of the new parliament in the month of August, 1896, in the debate on the address, he talked about the traditions of the Liberal Conservative party. Nobody has ever talked about the traditions of the Liberal 4059 4060 party, they had none to boast of. Sir Charles Tupper, who was then in opposition, declared that he had gone down to defeat because he thought that he was right in standing by the constitution of Canada in attempting to render justice to the minority of Manitoba. What did Sir Charles Tupper say? He said: My hon. friend is now in power : he has a big majority ; let him bring down a Bill to render justice to the minority in Manitoba, and I pledge myself and my friends behind me to help him. There are the traditions of the party. This was not because Sir Charles Tupper believed in separate schools or because the majority of those behind him believed in them, but because it was the law of the land ; it was because it would render justice, and be cause, as has been said before, it would be an act of cowardice on the part of any majority not to render justice to a minority, whatever that minority might be.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I was in the House in 1896 and followed the debate to some extent. As a matter of curiosity will the hon. gentleman point out to me where I can find in 'Hansard' the statement of Sir Charles Tupper to which he has referred?
Mr. BERGERON. I can point it out to my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and, if he wants me to do so immediately, I will send for 'Hansard.'
Mr. MACDONALD. May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) a question? He has made a declaration of policy on behalf of the party behind him. Are we to understand that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) will support him in the course he speaks of ?
Mr. BERGERON. I have been here twenty- four sessions, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) is not smart enough to catch me like that. I am speaking for myself and am stating what happened in 1896.
Mr. MACDONALD. Do I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) to decline to answer that question?
Mr. BERGERON. Certainly; I am not the chief of the party.
Mr. MACDONALD. Oh, I thought you were.
Mr. BERGERON. No, thank God, I am not. I may say that I have sent for the volume of 'Hansard' containing the remarks concerning which the Minister of Justice asked and I will be able to quote them to him because they are in 'Hansard.'
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I take the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bergeron) word for it.
Mr. BERGERON. It is there. I have quoted it very often in public meetings and elsewhere, for it is worth while to do so. When my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) found himself in power on the 4061 APRIL 6, 1905 morning of the 24th of June, mainly by the majority from the province of Quebec, the question naturally arose with him: How can I do justice to the minority in Manitoba ? I have taken a position and I cannot abandon it; I have a great name as a tolerant man because I sacrificed my compatriots. How, then, can I do it ? And somebody whispered to him : Don't be at all alarmed there is a way of settling it. And a little while afterwards a gentleman was sent to Manitoba to settle that question. Talk about settlement. What happens when a question between two men is to be settled by the intervention of a third ? The mediator must meet and talk to both. But, what happened in the Manitoba school question ? The gentleman who went from Ottawa to Manitoba went to the Prime Minister of Manitoba, Mr. Greenway occupying the position at that time. A settlement was agreed upon between them. And what was that settlement ? That the pupils should be given the opportunity of a half hour's religious instruction after half past three in the afternoon. That is a great way of settling the question of separate schools. Did the delegate who went to Manitoba consult the Archbishop of St. Boniface on that question ? Was the minority of Manitoba consulted in order to reach a settlement between them and the Dominion government ? Not a word. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) told us about it the other day when he said : We consulted our friends. And who were their friends ?
Mr. MORIN. Joe Martin.
Mr. BERGERON. No, not Joe Martin. The man whom the Prime Minister sent to do more for the minority than a Remedial Bill could do—according to what was stated on the hustings of Quebec—went to Mr. Greenway and Mr. Sifton. And these gentlemen showed the settlement to whom ? Did he show it to the archbishop or to any Catholic of Manitoba ? No, it was shown to Mr. Dalton McCarthy—Mr. Dalton McCarthy, the great friend of the French Canadians and Roman Catholics in the Dominion of Canada—it was to him that the settlement was shown before it was signed by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) for the Dominion of Canada and by the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) for the province of Manitoba. And this was the settlement of the Manitoba school question. And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who, I believe, sincerely knows that it has never been settled satisfactorily—it is not surprising to me to see the pains he has taken to at least give justice, according to his view and mine, to the minority in the Northwest Territories. Then what was to be done ? A promise had been made to the bishops of Quebec. Talk about the hierarchy. This was a question that interested the hierarchy and the promises had been 4061 4062 made to them. I have read just now the promise of one important man in the House, the Minister of Justice. I could read— they are in 'Hansard'—letters from thirty or forty candidates in Quebec who promised the bishops and priests that they would see to it that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should render justice as soon as he attained power. Something has to be done, said they, or we shall be chastised for having deceived the bishops.
I have now the volume for which I sent. I am sorry to detain the House with a quotation, but the Minister of Justice has asked for it. This is the first volume of 'Hansard' for the second session of 1896. I quote from page 57. Sir Charles Tupper is speaking.
Now, Sir, I do not intend to say more upon that subject on the present occasion, but I will say this : that in the future, as in the past, the cardinal principle with the great party to which I have the honour to belong will be equal justice to all without respect to race or creed.
That is the position of the Conservative party to-day as it was then.
I am glad to know that the responsibility of this question—an important question, although not so gravely important as I had supposed—
It is quite natural that Sir Charles Tupper should speak in that way after the rebuke that he had received in Quebec.
—I am glad to know that the responsibility rests no longer upon my shoulders, but upon those of the hon. gentleman who is now the First Minister of the Crown. I can only say, that I trust and sincerely hope that he will be most successful in obtaining such a settlement of this question as will do justice and give satisfaction to all parties. I can assure the hon. gentleman not only that he has my most cordial wishes for a happy and early and fair settlement of this important question, but that anything that I can contribute to that end will be at all times most cheerfully done.
Is my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) satisfied—
Mr. BERGERON—because I could read a great deal more. But my hon. friend knows how to read and I will send him the volume and he can read it himself.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I would like the hon. gentleman to find in 'Hansard' what he said was there.
Mr. BERGERON. Surely what I have quoted is enough ?
Mr. BERGERON. What more could Sir Charles Tupper say ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Where is the promise to support a Bill ?
Mr. BERGERON. He could not say any more than that. My hon. friend could not expect a man in the position Sir Charles Tupper then occupied to go further than he did. I am sure that Sir Charles Tupper offered every possible opportunity to my hon. friend to render justice completely to the minority of Manitoba. Now, what is the use of playing on words if the minority of Manitoba did not get their rights.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. That is not the question.
Mr. BERGERON. That is the question. To-day the minority in Manitoba, in Winnipeg or Brandon or any of the large cities are in a worse position than they were when the Remedial Bill was presented in 1896.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. And that is the reason an attack is made on the delegate for attempting to get a remedy.
Mr. BERGERON. Not at all, I am not making an attack. That is the proof that it is not settled, when there are pour parlers between the Manitoba government and His Excellency, the representative of the Holy See. That is the proof the question is not settled although my hon. friend has said in his letter he would resign and not give support to the right hon. gentleman if it was not settled. Where is he with his promises ? He sits there and where is the minority of Manitoba when they are obliged through their archbishop and their friends in the House to come down here and try to get a settlement ? The Minister of Justice has put the question to me : Has my bishop done anything to me ? My hon. friend was too cute to wait until the bishop would chastise him ; he was too cute, he went over to Rome, he went to the fountain. It is easier to deceive Rome than to deceive the bishop of Quebec who was nearer. Rome was far away and I declare here that the Holy See was deceived in the Manitoba settlement. I have once shown here by a document sent over to Rome that the Holy See was deceived.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Hear, hear.
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend went there with Mr. Russell. We engaged Russell as a lawyer instead of the legal firm we had employed before. We were told when we voted $9,000 for Russell's services afterwards and when we asked why they had dispensed with the services of the other firm: Oh, they were too old. Russell went there, he did the work and charged $9,000. Nobody could see what he had done, besides going to Rome and asking for that settlement of the Manitoba school question. Then what happened ? We had the visit of Monseigneur Merry Del Val. Talk about having ambassadors in Canada ! The Conservative party, although at the head of this country for years and years, never contem 4063 4064 plated the introduction here of a delagate from Rome on any where else. The Conservative party had confidence in their bishops and in the clergy of the province of Quebec and they still have confidence in the clergy and bishops. My hon. friend went to Rome With Russell and at that time they had the assistance of Monsignor Proulx and Chevalier Drolet, a Papal Zouave who had had experience in Rome. They went to Rome and on Chevalier Drolet's return he was interviewed, and I need not say that that interview was well prepared. In that interview he was asked :
Some hon. MEMBERS. (Translation.) In French.
Mr. BERGERON. Yes, I shall read it in French first.
Q. To whom did you make representations in Rome ? How did you proceed?
A. First, I went to the congregation of the Propaganda ; but I found, on arriving there that the Cardinal Prefect of that congregation, under whose purview we are as a mere mission country, had been successfully forestalled by the five bishops who had come in succession to the Eternal city, since the general elections of June 23, up to my arrival on October 12. I had the honour to be received in audience by the Cardinal Prefect, eight or ten times, but the Red Pope—as the powerful president of that congregation which embraces all countries outside of Europe, is designated in Rome—had accepted with such implicit faith the representations made by the bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Quebec and Manitoba, that I was not a little surprised to hear at my last interview, Cardinal Ledochowski address me as follows in all seriousness.
And now, this is very important.
'Why does this Mr. Laurier, whom you represent as a Catholic, refuse to comply with the mandate of the Queen, ordering him to restore at once separate schools in Manitoba as they existed previous to 1890, when a good Protestant like Mr. Tupper offers to do so if returned to power ?
What is the English of this ? Chevalier Drolet says that when he arrived in Rome he found that a great deal of work had been done by five bishops of Quebec who had already been there between the 23rd of June, the day of the elections and the 12th of October, the day he arrived there. These had already conferred with Cardinal Ledochowski, the head of the congregation and Cardinal Ledochowski asked why it was that Mr. Laurier whom they represented to him as such a good Catholic refused to obey the command of the Queen which command meant the immediate reestablishment of separate schools in Manitoba when a Protestant like Mr. Tupper declared himself ready to give justice to the minority if he was still in power or if he was put in power. Mr. Drolet goes on to say that Cardinal Ledochowski was a very old man which explained why the cardinal would not believe him but would 4065 APRIL 6, 1905 believe the bishops. Later on he says that after he had been many times to see Cardinal Ledochowski he was told to go to Cardinal Rampolla. It is no use going over all these things at this late hour to show the work which was done by the emissaries of the government or their friends, by Mr. Drolet and later on by the Minister of Justice and by Mr. Russell and all the work that was done to find a way of preventing the bishops in Canada from telling the right hon. gentleman that he had deceived them. Then Monseigneur Merry del Val was sent here ; he came here as a delegate and went throughout the country and my impression is that he was sadly deceived and that he made a report along that line. He had been deceived but that did not prevent them—because in Rome they are very slow before rendering a judgment.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Mr. BERGERON. Yes, it takes a long time before they make up their minds, but they very seldom make a mistake. When the judgment was rendered it was shown that the settlement of the Manitoba school question was ineificient, incomplete and—
Mr. MORIN. Not accepted.
Mr. BERGERON. Inacceptable, that is what it is, and it has remained in that state ever since. Never did any bishop or priest in Canada ask to have this delegate from the Holy See. It seems to me that it would have been very important that these high dignitaries of the church should have been consulted unless that dignitary was brought out here to hold them in check and to prevent them from expressing their opinions as they used to do before. I find here :
Is it the episcopate that has asked for the delegate? No, the episcopate is united and being above political parties it is working towards the acquisition of our rights and the triumph of our principles.
Monseigneur Merry Del Val was not here very long. He was replaced by His Excellency Monseigneur Falconio. Monseigneur Falconio was only in the country for a short time. He was replaced by the present delegate. I have not a word to say against the fact that he is the delegate here. It does not make any difference to me personally, but I believe the presence of the delegate here is humiliating to the Canadian episcopate.
Some hon. MEMBERS. No.
Mr. BERGERON. Yes ; I believe that if you consult our bishops, not only in the province of Quebec, but everywhere throughout the Dominion of Canada, you will obtain that answer, and I say it is due to the course which has been pursued by the right hon. leader of the government. I repeat again that if the right hon. gentleman and if the Liberal party had rendered justice 4065 4066 to the minority of Manitoba in 1896, or rather if they had not prevented the Conservative party from rendering justice at that time, there would have been no occasion for a delegate in this country.
Mr. A. JOHNSTON. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) has said that it was a humiliation to the bishops and priests of Canada to have a delegate in this country. Will he submit the name of any bishop or priest who regards the presence of the delegate as a humiliation ?
Mr. BERGERON. I will repeat the assertion, and I will ask my hon. friend (Mr. A. Johnston) to bring a letter from any bishop or priest saying that what I have said is not true.
Mr. A. LAVERGNE. When the first delegate came to this country, I think he was received with great pomp by the bishop of Quebec.
Mr. BERGERON. My hon. friend will surely not place himself in any disagreeable position. He knows that His Excellency has the respect, esteem and affection of all the bishops in this Dominion, and if that were not the case they would not long remain in their sees, because he is the representative of His Holiness ; but between having a respect for his personality and yielding obedience to him, and being happy and glad to see him here, there is a difference. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) spoke this evening about coercing Manitoba. If my hon. friend had been in the province of Quebec in 1896, he would not have heard such language as that used by his friends. They never spoke about coercion in Quebec. I would ask my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) if it is a matter of rendering justice where justice is due, he would refrain from what some people call coercion, but what my hon. friend and myself would call an act of justice. It is an operation. It is sometimes painful to perform an operation, but you have to do it so as to save the body.
Mr. BOURASSA. Is the hon. gentleman asking me a question ?
Mr. BOURASSA. I will give him my reply. The position I took in 1896 in my election was this, and I am just as much a friend of the minority in Manitoba as I was then. I am just as convinced as my hon. friend is that the minority in Manitoba does not enjoy that to which it is entitled, but what I said in 1896, and what I still say, is that the manner in which the Conservative party had played with the Manitoba school question for ten years had made it perfectly impossible to expect anything from the application of the Remedial Bill passed by this parliament, and that, as did my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, I expected more from the policy of concilia 4067 COMMONS tion than from the policy of coercion. That is the position that I took in my county in the presence of the parish priests, and it was supported by the people as well as the clergy of my county.
Mr. BERGERON. I suppose my hon. friend is very sincere in what he says. Will he allow me to say that I think he is entirely mistaken ?
Mr. BOURASSA. I am simply saying that is my opinion.
Mr. BERGERON. I am saying to my hon. friend that he is sincere, but that he is entirely mistaken. He will admit that the minority of Manitoba have not the rights to which they are entitled ?
Mr. BOURASSA. Certainly ; there is no doubt about that.
Mr. BERGERON. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was very unhappy in his remarks. He made a fine speech. I heard a number of my hon. friends say that he made a beautiful speech, but when he spoke of the bishops of Quebec as being Tory machines he made an awful mistake. Let me say again, because we cannot say it too often, that although there may have been abuses in some places, for instance, in the county of Charlevoix, which has been referred to, there are the most damnable things in this book which have been sent to Rome and which are not true. But, on the whole, our bishops in Quebec are men of a great deal of prudence. They are learned men. They are chosen with a great deal of care. They are wise, and they are men of delicate sensibilities. There is a bishop in the county I have the honour to represent, and he has never dropped me a letter or expressed a desire to see me as to the vote I may give or as to the position which I intend to take upon this question. Some people may think that I am getting hot upon this question of the Manitoba schools. I have been the victim of it. In 1900 the gentleman who presented himself against me in the county of Beauharnois was an English Protestant. You know this gentle man ; you have seen him here. He was a thorough Conservative until 1896 ; but he went against the Conservative party in 1896, because the Conservative party wanted to render justice to the Catholic minority of Manitoba. There are many English votes in that county, and they were cast for that gentleman when he was a candidate in 1900. I believe that these people voted for him sincerely and honestly, and naturally they elected him, because our people do not separate upon national lines. There are many priests in my county, and I say here, upon my honour as a member of parliament, that never has a bishop or priest in the county of Beauharnois gone to a man and told him that he should vote for me because I was a French Canadian and a Roman Catholic. The result was that 4067 4068 many gave their votes for Mr. Loy, an English Protestant. Is this not a conspicuous indication of tolerance and broad- mindedness ? When the hon. member for Pictou spoke of the bishops of Quebec as if they were Tory machines, he made a great mistake.
Mr. BOURASSA. Is it not a fact that the bishop in whose diocese the county which my hon. friend represents is situated did not sign the mandement which was issued by the bishops in 1896 ?
Mr. BERGERON. I do not know anything about that.
Mr. BOURASSA. Well, I know.
Mr. BERGERON. I will take the hon. gentleman's word. I do not know if he signed it or not ; and if he did not, I do not know why he did not sign it. I will take the testimony of my hon. friend. The bishop might have said : Why do you not vote for your own compatriot ? But it was never done. My opponent addressed large meetings of my compatriots, although he could not speak their own language very well.
An hon. MEMBER. He spoke well.
Mr. BERGERON. He may have spoken well on the hustings, but he was not a Demosthenes or a Cicero. I never took advantage of this fact. Our people would listen to him most politely, and never did I ask one man directly or indirectly that he should give me his support on account of my nationality. I was sorry to hear my hon. friend from Pictou—I hope it was a slip of the tongue—call the bishops of Quebec Tory machines.
Mr. BUREAU. Why did not you correct your friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) when he called the Papal ablegate a policeman.
Mr. BERGERON. If my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) will allow me I will take care of my own conscience. My hon. friend from Three Rivers is not afraid of anything or any body, and he can deal directly with the member for South York. I do not approve of everything the member for South York says or does, but he is not responsible to me.
Mr. DUNCAN ROSS. Before the hon. gentleman goes further—the hon. member for Pictou is not here, and if I remember aright he did not call the bishops of Quebec, Tory machines. but, he quoted from the law reports a statement in which those words were used.
Mr. BERGERON. That may be and 'Hansard' may show it, but I heard the statement that the bishops of Quebec were Tory machines, and I took a note of it. The Minister of Customs spoke about prosperity and the great things that have been done since 1896. That is all very good but all the same it is very painful and regret 4069 APRIL 6, 1905 table to see what is going on in the country to-day. There is no question but that this country to-day stands upon a volcano ; a most dangerous question is agitating the people. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that it is the fault of gentlemen on this side of the House, and I may say that it is the fault of gentlemen on the other side, but there is blame on both sides, if not in the House in the country. I say it is a most unfortunate state of things, and I am sorry to have to lay it at the door of my right hon. friend. It is all due to the policy which he followed in 1896. He let it be spread broadcast throughout the Dominion that he was opposed to the hierarchy and to any clerical influence. He said, or he let it be said that the Liberal party in Quebec had been fighting the clergy ever since that party existed, and that at least they had conquered the hierarchy. The right hon. gentleman obtained a great name for himself in the English provinces because of this and that is why they thought when they saw clause 16 of the original Bill that the Prime Minister had fallen from a very high place. It is that which has created the trouble we now hear of in the country.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. How did the Prime Minister fall down ?
Mr. BERGERON. Because in the English provinces in 1896 the right hon. gentleman was put on a very high pedestal in view of the stand he took, and when he fell he fell from a higher position in their opinion, than in 1896, if he remained with the rest of us who desired to give justice to the minority of Manitoba.
Mr. BELAND. What do you consider to be his fault ?
Mr. BERGERON. The newspapers which were full of compliments to the right hon. gentleman two or three years ago, now publish the most extraordinary statements about him, and say, he is not the man they expected him to be. That is what I call falling, in my estimation.
Mr. BELAND. In your estimation.
Mr. BERGERON. I am not speaking of myself ; I am stating the reason why there is so much turmoil in the country to-day. I tell my hon. friend the Minister of Justice for his own justification, that when clause 16 was put in the Bill, whether with or without consultation with any one, and, I would not blame him if he had consultation, when it was put in the Bill he should not have dropped it. My hon. friends from Quebec who stand behind the Prime Minister were ready to accept clause 16 and now are ready to accept the amended clause which is almost the reverse of what was provided for in clause 16. My hon. friends from Quebec know very well that the amended clause which we are now discussing cannot be a 4069 4070 very good clause for the minority when the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) accepts it. The member for Brandon resigned because clause 16 was in the original Bill and now that he accepts the substituted clause it is quite plain that the new clause cannot be in favour of the Catholics of the Northwest. I tell the Minister of Justice that it would have been a great deal better for the country, and it would not be any worse for the minority in the Northwest Teritories, if there had been nothing at all mentioned about schools in the Bill, than that the original clause should have been withdrawn and this one substituted. My impression is, and there are some good lawyers who say so, that the Northwest Territories would have come in confederation with the schools, not the schools they have to-day, but with the schools provided for in the Act of 1875' and which was never repealed, although some ordinances had been placed upon the regulations by the Northwest legislature. If my hon friend had omitted the school clause and allowed the Act of 1875 to come into operation, the country would not have been in the condition it is in to-day ; a condition which is very dangerous. For weeks and weeks we have been talking what ?— talking nationality, talking religion when we have been living together for over 150 years. I hope in the interest of the country this will be the last occasion on which such a discussion will take place. I think this is the last question of the kind that will arise. Surely we are not going to buy another province ? These two are the last that we can organize and I hope this is the last occasion on which we will have such a discussion and that henceforth we shall work like patriotic Canadians, working separately, on diflerent sides of the House, but working sincerely in the united effort to do what we believe to be best in the interests of the country.
Mr. O. E. TALBOT (Bellechasse). Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the night I do not intend to impose upon the House a very long speech, because it is with a very strong sense of shame and with a feeling of reluctance that I now rise in answer to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) who has just taken his seat. After what has taken place in the province of Quebec since 1896 and when we know what the political record of that hon. gentleman is and when this hon. gentleman has the audacity to stand up in this House as the defender of the episcopate and the clergy of Quebec, I say that I rise to answer him now with a great sense of shame and reluctance. Every one in this House knows and sees through the hon. gentleman's motive at this moment—he wants to apologize to his leader because he is going to vote against his amendment ; and it is a shameful apology that he has given to the House during the last hour. The hon. gentleman thinks 4071 COMMONS he can swallow himself and cover his tracks from the public eye. The hon. gentleman now stands up as the defender of the episcopate of the province of Quebec ; but what did we see this afternoon ? We saw him applauding the abuse that fell from the lips of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). Thank God, Mr. Speaker, the clergy and the episcopate of the province of Quebec have not fallen so low as to require the defence of the hon. gentleman. The clergy of Quebec stand to—day, as they have always stood, highly respected and loved by every French Canadian and even by every Protestant of the province of Quebec and other provinces. What was the use of the hon. gentleman going so far back into ancient history as to talk about the elections of 1896 ? Is that the question before the House to-day ? He wanted to know what was the reason the Papal ablegate was sent to Canada ? No man knows the reason better than the hon. gentleman. He spoke of a certain document to which the name of the hon. Minister of Justice was attached. He knows where that document was prepared. He knows that it was prepared in the city of Quebec by two leading Tories, Mr. Chapais and Mr. L. P. Pelletier, who imposed that document on the episcopate. I remember very well, in the election of 1896, when the hon. leader of this House was in the parish of St. Raphael in my county, when Mr. Landry, Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Chapais came with that document before a couple of thousand of my electors, and asked the right hon. gentleman to sign it. What was his answer ? He said : Go with that document to your leaders and get their signatures to it, and come to me afterwards, and I will then tell you what I will do. What was done to get some gentlemen to sign that document? I remember when Dr. Vaillancourt was fighting the battles of the Liberal party in the county of Dorchester adjoining mine, Mr. Pelletier, the great friend of the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), went to Dr. Vallaincourt and said to him, 'if you sign this document, we will allow you to be elected by acclamation.' Dr. Vallaincourt signed it, and the next day or the day after he had an opponent. What was the use of Liberals signing a document ? Did we make any- thing as a party by doing so ? Was not the clergy against us from beginning to end in 1896 ? Did we gain any votes in the province of Quebec by signing that document ? On the contrary. What was the reason the people of Quebec as well as the people of every other province rose in their might on that occasion and carried the Liberals into power ? It was because homes were deserted and windows and doors barred up, and where there had been happiness before there was nothing but wilderness and desolation. It was because 4071 4072 of the strong feeling that the people had that a change had to come. There was distress for the farmers everywhere, and the people could see no prospect under Conservative rule except what had happened for eighteen or twenty years before—our people leaving Canada and going to the other side of the line for the bread which they were unable to earn on their own soil. That was the principal reason. My hon. friend from Beauharnois wants to involve the clergy of the province of Quebec again in political conflicts when we are leaving them alone. When he says there is no analogy between the fact that Archbishop Taché was brought from Rome to Canada and the fact that of the Papal ablegate being brought from Rome to Canada, we all know that there is an analogy in one respect. Archbishop Taché, before he died, left a letter, which is a portion of his will, in which he said that he had come to Canada at the request of the leader of the Conservative party ; and he said : 'Promises were made to me, and the cause of my premature death at this moment is that those promises have never been fulfilled, and I have been deceived by the leaders of the Conservative party.' That is where the difference is, and that is where there is no analogy between the two cases. The Pope was not deceived at the time we remonstrated against the straight, direct intervention of the clergy in political contests in the province of Quebec. Though we were Liberals, we were just as good Catholics as my hon. friend, and why were we damned from some pulpits because we voted as Liberals ? Why was it that in some of the pulpits some men went so far as to say : 'Hell is red, and heaven is blue ; vote for the blue, and you are all right, but if you vote for the rouge, you are damned, and damned for ever.' Was it not time that the people of this country should have some protection from this kind of thing, so that we might vote as free men for the party in whom we had confidence. I am sorry to have to refer to these matters, and I would not have done so if the hon. member for Beauharnois had not dragged them on to the floor of this House. The hon. gentleman says he has been here for twenty-four years ; but he forgot what happened between the twentieth and the twenty-fourth years.
Mr. BERGERON. It would have been twenty-eight years then.
Mr. TALBOT. He had time to reflect. One of the strong arguments that elected him in the last election in the county of Beauharnois was that his opponent was a Protestant and an Englishman. I do not say that the hon. gentleman used that argument, but his heelers used it. We saw it and read it in the papers at the time.
4073 APRIL 6, 1905
Mr. BERGERON. If my hon. friend will allow me, he was not there, but I was there all the time. He can ask his own friends in the county of Beauharnois. Never a word of that sort was said during the whole election.
Mr. TALBOT. The whole campaign in the town of Valleyfield was carried out on that very point.
Mr. MORIN. If the hon. member will allow me, I would like to correct a statement he made. He said that there was an agreement made between Mr. Landry, Mr. Chapais and Mr. Pelletier, and that even they would not live up to the agreement. To be sure, the agreement was made, but Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Chapais and Mr. Landry had nothing to do with it after it was signed. The people of Dorchester were very angry at that, and they said : It is not Pelletier, it is not Landry, it is not Chapais, who will choose the candidate for Dorchester—We will choose him ourselves ; and I was chosen.
Mr. TALBOT. When the document to which I refer was signed and was published and sent abroad to every one of us, my hon. friend from Dorchester was not born politically; so he knows nothing about it He came at the last minute, like mustard after dinner.
Mr. MORIN. I was not supposed to know What took place before I came into Canada.
Mr. O. E. TALBOT. There is one thing more I wish to say. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) has now gone out of the House. I wished to remind him of a certain speech that he made in the elections of 1900, to show him why the people of Quebec gave the verdict they then gave. In the county of Kamouraska, at St. Pascal, six or seven of these gentlemen came one day, and among them the member for Beauharnois. When speaking he went so far as to treat the Liberals like animals being in a trough, and so deep in the trough that their horns got caught and they could not get out. That is the way he treated the Liberals of Quebec in county after county. Is it any wonder to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals rebelled against such treatment, and they returned the right hon. gentleman to power with such a large majority ? Sir, I hope this is the last time we shall hear the episcopacy and priesthood of Quebec dragged into discussions of this kind. After all, we were only fighting for our political freedom. Since the Papal ablegate came to this country, and even since Rome has been directly represented in Canada, we have had peace in the province of Quebec, and perfect liberty. to vote just as we pleased, and we have had no more trouble.
Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin). I have a few words to say, even at this late hour. 4073 4074 The leader of the opposition is supposed by some hon. gentlemen to have made an apology here this evening. I want to say that I did not so understand him ; because if there is one thing in the leader of the opposition of which I am proud, it is that he is always so guarded in anything he says that it is unnecessary for him to offer any apology to the House afterwards. Now it has been said to-night that, owing to the presence of the Papal ablegate in the province of Quebec, the citizens of that province are enjoying political liberty. I want to say as representing an Ontario constituency that I am very glad to know that the Papal ablegate is having such a good influence in the province of Quebec. I am not going to charge the people of Quebec with being bigots because they cannot agree among themselves, and because they require the presence of a Papal ablegate in order that they may enjoy political liberty. I hope they may long continue to enjoy that liberty. But I wish to say that I entertain different views from the majority of the people of the province of Quebec, though I am glad to say that my father was born in the city of Quebec, and I have a friendly feeling for that province. But I differ from a large number of my friends from that province. I am a Protestant, and I have no hesitation in saying it ; and when I say that I do not think that I am incurring the contempt of any hon. gentleman from Quebec. Now the belief of Protestants, and of the great majority of the electors I represent, is this We say that in the administration of state affairs in this country the government has no right to act as I hold the First Minister has done in this particular instance. Will any man say that I am a bigot because I make this declaration ? That is my right, that is my privilege. I want to say in making that statement that I can place my finger on dozens of supporters of the government who entertain the same views, and so does the large bulk of the constituents who elected them.
I want to point out to the right hon. gentleman that at the last Dominion election the gentlemen who form his cabinet were elected on the principle of representative government. Now as a Protestant my faith teaches me to find fault with the right hon. gentleman for refusing, or at all events for neglecting, to consult with the representatives of the people who were in his cabinet, the ministers of the Crown, on this important and vital question, namely, the educational clauses of this Bill. The leader of the opposition and other members on this side of the House, have asked a straight and practical question, that is of vital moment to me as a Protestant, and of vital moment to the people I represent, who are largely Protestants ; the right hon. gentleman has been asked the question calmly and squarely. whether or not he had con 4075 COMMONS sulted with the Papal ablegate with respect, to the educational clauses of this Bill, and he has refused to answer that question. In view of that fact I am justified, on behalf of the people I represent, in saying to the right hon. gentleman that they do not approve of his course because it is against their religious faith, and we do not believe in that system of administering the government of this country. That is my position, and in making that statement I do not think my Quebec friends can take offence. Possibly, they believe that the first Minister has done quite right in consulting the Papal ablegate, I have no fault to find with them for that, they have a perfect right to their opinions and a right to express them, as I have a perfect right to express conrtrary opinions.
Now, much has been said about Bishop Taché and Mr. Ewart. I was in Manitoba when Bishop Taché was there, and I know something of the arrangement that was entered into with the minority in the province of Manitoba. When the Mackenzie government were in power, delegates came from Manitoba to Ottawa for the purpose of securing more money to conduct their government. The answer Mr. Mackenzie gave was this: Go back to your own province and see if, by wiser economy, you cannot administer your affairs more economically, then I may be in a position to grant you more financial assistance. The chief fault Mr. Mackenzie found with them was that they had two chambers, they had a legislative council and he thought a new province like that ought to abolish the legislative council, and he promised if they would exercise economy in that matter, he would be willing possibly to assist them financially. I was a government employee there at the time, and I remember the promise made squarely to the minority of the province, as represented in the legislative council that if they would vote themselves out of existence they would continue to exercise all the rights they had had up to that moment. Mr. Davis, who was prime minister, ex- Attorney General Clarke, who had been defeated during the session and others, pledged themselves that the minority should continue to exercise their rights for all time to come. But when the Manitoba school question came up in this House, I was here, and representing a strong Protestant constituency. I voted in favour of remedial legislation. And I want to tell my hon. friends from Quebec, that, while many of my constituents found fault with me for voting in favour of the legislation, I told them straightforwardly that if they elected me again and Sir Charles Tupper's government was sustained and reintroduced remedial legislation for Manitoba, I would vote for it as I had done before, to protect the rights of the minority. When hon. gentlemen opposite accuse the leader of the op 4075 4076 position and his supporters of being unwilling to give the minority in Manitoba their rights, I want to tell them that one stands here who is ready to vote to secure the rights of any minority in this country, Catholic or Protestant. I was astonished to hear the ex-Minister of the Interior the other night utter these words, which I find reported on page 3253 of this year's ' Hansard ' :
Therefore, in 1896 when this settlement was made—and it was a settlement that hon. gentlemen opposite had refused to accept—although it was a settlement which led my right hon. friend the leader of the government out of a great difficulty and made his path smooth, yet the settlement has never been combated or criticised by any member of this House from that time up to the present moment.
There has never been a session since 1896 when reference has not been made to the Manitoba school question. How the ex- Minister of the Interior could have made such a statement I cannot conceive. I can only assume it as conclusive evidence that he is not well posted on what takes place in this House.
It is true that reference was had, as has been said, to Archbishop Taché and Mr. Ewart. We, as Protestants, do not object to that, for both Archbishop Taché and Mr. Ewart were citizens of this country. If the Conservative Prime Minister chose to consult them he had a perfect right to do so. The present Prime Minister would have the right to do the same. But we draw a distinction here—the papal delegate is not a citizen of this country. There are Catholic bishops who have the welfare of the church at heart as well as the Papal delegate, and if the Prime Minister, after consulting his cabinet, wishes to consult any of them, we have no fault to find. But when he goes outside, we believe, as Protestants, that he has gone beyond the proper line.
Now, I would like to say to hon. gentlemen opposite who differ with me in the matter of religion that it is not well to be too sensitive as to the way members express their views on this question. The question comes before us, as we believe, not in proper course. Had this Autonomy Bill been brought in minus the educational clauses, the people of the Northwest Territories would have continued to enjoy the same privileges in education that they now have, unless those privileges were curtailed by the legislature we might create. But, if the legislature made such changes we believe they would be within their rights. And I am prepared to vote against any interference with their freedom in educational matters.
Just a word or two with regard to the accusation that hon. gentlemen on this side are backward in expressing their views on this question. There are gentlemen on this side who do not agree with me on 4077 APRIL 6, 1905 the questions involved in this Bill. They hold their views honestly, and have a right to hold and to express them. And they have expressed their views frankly. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) made one of the best speeches of the session in explaining his views on this question, though those views were not the same that I hold. Is he to be found fault with because he has honestly stated his position ? Certainly not. And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who offered this criticism, it seems to me, has not shown much courage in speaking out on this question. When the Bill was introduced with section 16, as it originally was, he made the statement :
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I have not spoken on the Bill yet.
Mr. INGRAM. Then, why should he find fault because some on this side have not spoken and say they lack courage ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not understand what my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) is talking about.
Mr. INGRAM. If the hon. gentleman will read ' Hansard ' to-morrow, he will find that he spoke of men on this side of the House as not having courage to speak out. He told them to come from behind the leader of the opposition and express themselves.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I think I did say something like that.
Mr. INGRAM. I think the country would have been better satisfied if the Minister of Justice himself had spoken on the measure. He has a great deal to do with this Bill :— And I am bound to say that hitherto the hon. gentleman has always handled legislation he had in charge in a manner to reflect credit upon himself and upon the government. But I think, he has been a little careless, perhaps, in not making a speech a little earlier that might have-
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Is there any chance of converting my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) ? If so, I will speak at the very next sitting of the House.
Mr. INGRAM. I am bound to say that there is not the slightest chance. Let me point out to the Minister of Justice the fact that clever lawyers on his own side have spoken on the Bill, but these clever lawyers 4077 4078 do not agree. If the Minister of Justice himself had stated first what these clauses did contain, we might have been saved some of the exhibitions we have had in this House in connection with the Bill, and perhaps we should not have had the slurring allusions which we have had from the ex- Minister of the Interior and others concerning the Minister of Justice.
Motion (Mr. R. L. Borden) to adjourn negatived.


House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L Borden, thereto.
Mr. L. G. McCARTHY (North Simcoe). I suppose at this late hour, one would hardly be expected to resume this debate. The debate of today has thrown considerable light on surrounding circumstances in connection with the Bill, and I think perhaps, if we have a chance of digesting what has been said to-day, it may shorten the remarks of to-morrow. I would therefore ask the hon. the Prime Minister to allow me to again move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. BARKER. Before the House adjourns, I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that on Friday last he said he would look into the question as to whether or not there was any correspondence with the government of Ontario as to the extension of the boundaries of that province. It was said that there was correspondence of the late government of Hon. G. W. Ross and his colleagues.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. About the boundaries of Manitoba and Ontario ?
Mr. BARKER. In regard to any extension of Ontario.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. No, there has been no correspondence.
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 2.05 a.m., Friday.


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



Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Gordon Lyall.

Personnes participantes: