Document Information
Date: 1905-03-31
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 3555-3590.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
3555
….
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
FRIDAY, March 31, 1905.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o’clock.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
ABSENCE OF MINISTERS AND CABINET VACANCY.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.). Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish once more to call to the attention of the House the quite unprecedented condition of affairs which exists at the present time. During many months we have not had in this House the presence of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland). That gentleman is one of my personal friends, although we are opposed in politics, and no one regrets more than I do the unfortunate circumstance that illness prevents him from taking his place among us, and any remarks which I have to make with regard to violation of constitutional usage by the government are, of course, not connected in any way with that gentleman, because I would be very glad indeed to have him restored to us, to once more have his assistance in the House and to have him back at work in his department again.
But my right hon. friend seems to take for granted that he is at liberty, so long as he may see fit, to deprive parliament and the country of the services of a Minister of Public Works possessing the authority and invested with the responsibility which that position gives to him. I have looked a little into this question, which has arisen more than once in Great Britain, and I find that the rule there acted upon is not at all in accordance with that
3556
suggested by the right hon. gentleman. To cite just one instance, in 1871, action was taken in both Houses of parliament in regard to the absence of Mr. Childers, the First Lord of the Admiralty, during the early part of the session, on account of the state of his health, and within a month after his resignation took place. It has been asserted in this House, I do not know with what truth, that the Minister of Public Works some time ago placed his resignation in the hands of the right hon. gentleman, or at all events told him that his portfolio was at his service whenever the interests of the country required it. However that may be, I wish courteously to place on record a remonstrance against the continuance of this condition of affairs. I do not think there is any warrant for it under the constitution. Indeed, I do not think there is any warrant for it under the terms of the Order in Council which was discussed somewhat last session, and under which one minister of the Crown may under certain circumstances act for another minister of the Crown.
On another occasion, which is referred to by Mr. Todd in his work on constitutional government, Lord John Russell had accepted the seals of the Colonial Office, at a time when he was absent on a diplomatic mission in Vienna. Within two weeks after he had accepted the seals of office, the matter was brought to the attention of parliament, and again on two or three occasions subsequently, and was made the occasion of a grave criticism of the administration, which only ceased when he took his place in parliament on the 28th of April. Now, so far as my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is concerned, he has been absent from his duties in parliament and from his duties in the department for a very long time; and if there be any foundation for the rumour that he is ready to surrender the seals of office at a moment’s notice, I do not know for what reason the right hon. gentleman proposes to carry on the business of the country in the way in which it is carried on at the present time.
We have not only the case of the Minister of Public Works, but we have what seems to me a much more serious violation of constitutional usage in the conduct of the government with respect to the vacant portfolio of the Interior. I do not want to repeat to-day what has already been said in this House. I have asked the Prime Minister more than once for an explanation of his extraordinary conduct in passing over that gentleman in introducing a very important measure, a most momentous measure, into this parliament without even having submitted the terms of perhaps its most important clause to that gentleman, although his return was daily expected. My right hon. friend has treated that very
3557
lightly. He has treated also very lightly the circumstance that he also withheld the terms of that clause from the knowledge of his Minister of Finance, who certainly of all ministers of the Crown, should have been acquainted with the provisions of the measure. I might almost venture to say that the conduct of the Prime Minister in bringing that Bill down while withholding from parliament the knowledge that those gentlemen had not approved of it, amounted to an insult to this parliament; I think I might even go further, and say that the right hon. gentleman, in taking that course, demeaned himself; and not one word of explanation with regard to that very peculiar circumstance has fallen from the right hon. gentleman’s lips from that day to this. Instead of that, we have had mere flippant replies or absolute silence when any explanation has been courteously demanded across the floor of this House. Moreover, we have had rumours, I do not know with what truth, but it is right that they should be stated and some answer made—we have had rumours from the press of the province of Quebec in close touch with this administration, that take direct statements, that the cause assigned to this parliament for the resignation of the Minister of the Interior was not the true cause. Further than that, a certain journal published in the province of Quebec with which a very devoted champion and warm and intimate personal friend of the Prime Minister is connected, has seen fit to make that statement in the form of a cartoon, which most of us have seen, but to which I will not make any further reference by way of description.
Mr. LEMIEUX. What paper?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. ‘Le Nationaliste.’
Mr. LEMIEUX. I beg the hon. gentleman’s pardon. It is not a paper friendly to the government. It is opposed to the government every Sunday.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I accept at once the superior knowledge of my hon. friend the Solicitor General. I do not profess to be an expert in regard to the opinions of that paper; but my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who is a warm champion of the government with regard to this measure with which the resignation of the late Minister of the Interior is closely associated, has a very close connection with that paper, if I am rightly informed.
Mr. LEMIEUX. If the hon. member for Labelle were here, I am sure he would dissent from my hon. friend’s statement. The hon. member for Labelle has repeatedly declared before this House and before the public that he had nothing to do with the ‘Le Nationaliste.’
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I accept the statement of my hon. friend as I would accept
3558
the statement of the hon. member if he were here; but I have been informed, perhaps incorrectly, that the hon. member for Labelle has been one of the regular contributors to that journal, and I myself have seen contributions in that journal which purported to be signed by that hon. gentleman. I do not think my hon. friend will deny that.
Mr. LEMIEUX. I can say to my hon. friend that when the paper was started about two years ago the hon. member for Labelle wrote two or three articles which he signed ‘Henri Bourassa;’ but since then he has declared over and over again that he has nothing to do with the paper.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I accept whatever my hon. friend states about it without the slightest reserve, either parliamentary or otherwise, and I will leave that for the gentlemen from the province of Quebec to settle. I do not pretend to know anything about it. There is another little interesting rumour which has come to us from time to time, and I observe that in former days my right hon. friend was very much interested in these rumours and used always to bring them to the attention of parliament in order that they might be contradicted. I have looked up his record in that regard and find that I have good precedent for what I am about to mention. There is a very strong rumour, said to have emanated from a certain member of the administration, who lately received a pretty severe little stab in this House from the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), that the ex-minister was not so absolutely ignorant of the terms of this measure, in the first instance, as had been suggested in this House. I do not know about that, but my right hon. friend can perhaps give us information and set at rest at once that disquieting rumour.
But what is the position to-day, so far as the Department of the Interior is concerned? We have a statute which says that there shall be a Department of the Interior and there shall be a Minister of the Interior. We start with that in the first instance. That statute goes on to say: ‘The Minister of the Interior shall have the control and management of the affairs of the Northwest Territories.’ Those are the exact words of the statute, and that statute has been in force during every one of the thirty-one days which have elapsed since the ex-Minister of the Interior has resigned. What was my right hon. friend’s view with regard to this constitutional question not long ago? I have already brought it to the attention of the House, but it is not out of place that I shall repeat his own words again:
In the practical working out of responsible government in a country of such vast extent as Canada, it is found necessary to attach a special responsibility to each minister for the public affairs of the province, or district with which he has close political connection, and
3559
with which his colleagues may not be so well acquainted.
Well, we have a statute which says that the Minister of the Interior shall have the control and management of the affairs of the Northwest Territories, and we have the words of the Prime Minister himself who tells us that the Minister of the Interior, apart from any statute, has a special responsibility with regard to the affairs of the Northwest Territories with which he is more closely connected than his colleagues. But what are we proposing to do at present? We are proposing to take a step which the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues declare to be one of the most momentous ever taken by a parliament of Canada. Yet the right hon. gentleman has not filled the post of Minister of the Interior. That position is still vacant. We are now in the heat of debate upon the Bills he has introduced. Before long we shall be in committee on those Bills, and we shall not have the advantage of the presence and counsel of a minister specially responsible for the administration of those Territories. We do not find at present in the cabinet any minister who is able to carry on the work of that department. I have been informed by men, whom I have no reason to disbelieve, on various occasions during the last two or three weeks, that the work of that department is practically at a standstill for the lack of a responsible minister, familiar with its affairs and able to give his undivided attention to them. Why is this the case? Is there any reason for it? Let me show my hon. friend how zealous he was in respect of such matters when little difficulties, such as have recently occurred in the present administration, happened to occur some ten years ago in the Conservative administration of that day. What was the right hon. gentleman’s view then:
No administration would dare to sit and discharge the public business of the country unless the different provinces, or at all events the great provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, were properly represented in the cabinet; and when it is known that at present three of the ministers representing one province—that three of those gentlemen who represent a great portion of the population of the country—are out of the cabinet at the present time, whether officially or not, they are practically out of the cabinet. I say that we are not only in the midst of a great political crisis, but that we have reached a position unprecedented in the history of Canada, where the government would undertake to carry on the business of the country, one great province, the second in the Dominion, being altogether unrepresented in the cabinet.
But what is the right hon. gentleman proposing to do to-day? We have in the Northwest Territories to-day a population 150,000, greater than was the population of New Brunswick at the time when it served as an illustration for the comments of my right hon. friend which I have just read.
3560
He is proposing to give to these Territories a constitution which at no time in the future will a Canadian parliament be able to change, and, forgetting the great constitutional rule which he laid down in days gone by, he is proposing to do this in the absence of any representative of those Territories in the cabinet. He is proposing that parliament should finally deal with a measure vitally affecting the Northwest Territories while these Territories are absolutely unrepresented in the cabinet. For what purpose was that statute passed creating the portfolio of Minister of the Interior? Why, if not that there shall be in the cabinet a minister representing that country who would be thoroughly competent to safeguard its interests especially in matters of such importance as the one now before us? Why, in those days my right hon. friend was so anxious in this regard, that upon the mere rumour of the resignation of ministers from Quebec, he moved the adjournment of the House and discussed the question at length. Later on, upon full explanation being given, when he had been assured that those gentlemen had not resigned and were at one with their colleagues, he was so much interested in the constitutional aspect of the case that he again moved the adjournment. But today when we inquire whether or not the vacant portfolio of the interior will be filled, my right hon. friend seems to emerge temporarily from a condition of forgetfulness. He is as one who would say: ‘Why, bless my soul, then there is a Department of the Interior; I must look after it one of these days. There are Northwest Territories, but I had almost forgotten their existence. One of these days we will take the question up when there is nothing else to do; but in the meantime we will go on and deal with most important questions affecting these Territories without any regard whatever to the statute.’ In those days he was a stickler for constitutional usage but to-day he displays a complete change of front. Let me read one more brief extract from a speech of the right hon. gentleman of those days:
Moreover here are two seats vacant, vacant since yesterday, and although the hon. gentlemen who occupy these seats may not have tendered officially their resignations to His Excellency, it is quite evident that they are no longer in harmony with their colleagues, otherwise they would be in their places to discharge their share of the business of the country.
In view of the cynical disregard of the constitution which we see every day in this House, is not the reminiscence, brought up by the utterances I have just quoted, perfectly delicious? Here are two-thirds of the cabinet not in harmony with the other one-third, if we apply the test which the right hon. gentleman himself applied ten years ago. How many of the colleagues of my right hon. friend are present in the House to-day? There is a vacant seat next to him.
3561
The one next to that is vacant. There is another vacant on his left and another alongside of the Minister of Inland Revenue. There is also a vacant seat immediately behind the right hon. gentleman. But still there is an unusually large number of ministers in the House to-day, and I have taken, I must admit, an unfortunate occasion to exhibit an object lesson to the country. Usually we have only about three ministers present, and we must therefore, according to the test which the right hon. gentleman applied ten years ago, conclude that the other ten are on the eve of resignation. However that may be, let me say that I do not observe in anything which has been suggested by my right hon. friend any reason why the portfolio of the Interior should not be filled.
He has said nothing on the subject. Has he no material? If he does not appoint my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) to be Chief Justice of the Northwest Territories, in view of the constitutional argument he gave us the other day, I imagine that that hon. gentleman would make a very good Minister of the Interior, and I am inclined to press his claims. He is a very good friend of mine personally, though we differ somewhat politically; and I stand here to urge the claims of my hon. friend from Edmonton to this position. He is a gentleman of ripe experience and great ability, and, as we all know a gentleman of absolute and perfect independence on all questions. But, if we cannot have my hon. friend from Edmonton, why should we not have the hon. member from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). Is not he capable? Is there any apprehension on the part of the right hon. Prime Minister that there will be any difficulty about securing the election of either of these gentlemen? Does he propose to let this matter stand until after the close of the present session, in defiance of all the high constitutional principles which he professed ten years ago? If there is a lack of material among the members for the Northwest Territories, why not appoint some broad minded man like my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt), who spoke last night, or my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)? Could not one of these gentlemen be induced to go up and teach these men in the Northwest Territories, whom they described as so narrow and bigoted that they could not be trusted, some of these men whom my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) described as renegade Liberals?—why not send one of these broad-minded tolerant gentlemen to these men of the Northwest Territories to teach them what true Christian charity and toleration really are. I do not think there could be any objection to that, though, of course, my hon. friend from Labelle might be himself a candidate for the Chief Justiceship in opposition to my hon. friend from Edmonton, for he has said that he is ready
3562
to discuss the constitution with any man in this country or anywhere else.
Now, just one more observation on this subject. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was rather facetious ten years ago. He told us of those two ministers coming back and likened them to kittens coming back to their cream. Well, we have had a couple of kittens who were a little skittish on this occasion. One, it is true, did not leave the cream. It arched its back and curved its tail, but remained within a reasonable distance of the cream, and is still lapping. The other did leave the cream.
Mr. FOSTER. Shooed away.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. There is a disquieting rumour throughout the country, to which the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) might address himself, that, although the minister in question, like the kitten, has left the cream for the time being there is being prepared for him an exceedingly dainty dish of cream which will be served up in due season. We do not know whether that may be the case or not; but, perhaps it would be well for the right hon. gentleman, remembering the analogy which he gave to the House some time ago, to tell us whether or not there is anything in this rumour.
But, in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I do think it is due to the House and to the country that the Prime Minister should state what the intention of the government is in regard to the filling of the portfolio. The government, in defiance of all constitutional usages and of constitutional rules laid down by themselves on many occasions intend, apparently, to press this measure through parliament without having in the cabinet any minister who is more especially responsible for the Northwest Territories. We should be informed, in view of the delay in filling this position, what is the cause of that delay and also when the Prime Minister expects to fill this portfolio. Or, if he does not propose to fill it in the immediate future, may I not, respectfully, and with every right, ask him to announce to the House and to the country what the difficulties really are which prevent him, at the present time, from calling to his cabinet some gentleman from the Northwest Territories or elsewhere, who, in the cabinet, will particularly represent these Territories.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). Mr. Speaker, I have no serious fault to find with my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) if he has chosen to have another little joke upon a subject which is evidently congenial to him. I have no fault to find if he has brought to the attention of the House the resignation of my hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) from the portfolio of the Interior and the
3563
reason why he has not yet been replaced. Yet, I might have hoped that my hon. friend would abstain on this occasion from referring to another gentleman, a highly respected member of this House, who, unfortunately, is not in his seat, from a cause which, we might have hoped, would appeal to the hon. gentleman’s sympathy as to the sympathy of every member of this House. My hon. friend, I think, was not well actuated, nor do I think his remarks were at all called for, in directing the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. James Sutherland) has not been in his place in this House during the present session. The fact is correctly stated, and, perhaps, under different circumstances, no fault could be found with the observations which my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has made. But I was under the impression that the well known cause of the absence from the House of the Minister of Public Works would warrant everybody in allowing that absence to pass without remark. The hon. gentleman (Mr. James Sutherland) has been absent from this House because of the state of his health. I am reminded that, some six or seven years ago, when another of my colleagues, the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) having suffered a severe shock in a railway accident, was absent from this parliament for a whole session, not a word was ever uttered upon the subject. Everybody understood the circumstances and hoped that the hon. gentleman would resume his duties as we hope that the hon. Minister of Public Works will, in the near future, be able to resume his place. And that is the reason why the absence of the Minister of Public Works should not be commented upon. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has referred to a rumour that the Minister of Public Works has tendered his resignation to me. I would have preferred not to speak upon this subject. I do not know that the House expects me to speak upon it even after the reference to it made by my hon. friend. Still, I may say that the Minister of Public Works has not placed his resignation in my hands. When he told me that he was in poor health and could not attend to the business of the session, I took it upon myself to say to him, ‘ My friend, you had better go away and stay away until you are better ; we will arrange to carry on the work of your department ; and every member of the House will be glad to know that there is hope that you will soon come back again.’
Now, with regard to the resignation of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), I have only one observation to make in answer to the numerous queries my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has put to me. So far as I know, and I have no reason to believe to the contrary, the only difference that occurred between
3564
myself and the late Minister of the Interior was that he resigned upon this educational question and for no other reason. I owe it to my hon. friend from Brandon to make this statement openly, widely, and, as I hope, for ever to set at rest any rumours to the contrary.
Now, it is true that my hon. friend has not been replaced yet. How many days have elapsed since he resigned his portfolio? Just thirty-one days. But, before I come to that, let me say that I do not think there is any analogy whatever between the resignation of my hon. friend the late Minister of the Interior and what took place some ten years ago, in 1895. Then we saw a very different spectacle—members coming in and members going out, members resigning one day and taking back their resignation the following day, or the following week, members absent from parliament, not because they were called away a few days for any reason, but members not in their seats because they were neither in nor out of the government, and because they did not appear to know what position they occupied. There is nothing of the kind here, we know where we are, at all events. But when there are disagreements amongst ministers, the honourable course is for the dissenting minister to proffer his resignation, and to say to the Prime Minister: I do not agree with your policy. This is what has taken place ; and therefore there is no analogy whatever between what took place in 1895 and what is taking place to-day. It is true, as I say, that the hon. member for Brandon has not been replaced in the cabinet. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asks, for what cause ? Is it any lack of material ? Perhaps it may be for an opposite cause, perhaps it is too abundant material. There is such a thing as an embarras de richesse, although my hon. friend appears to be suffering from the reverse, that he is suffering from penury, while we on this side are suffering from abundance and that may be just as good a reason as the reason suggested by my hon. friend.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Make two ministers then.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I do not know but that would be a good reason, I will think of it. It might be well to have two ministers instead of one ; but I am sure that if I were to ask parliament for an appropriation for another minister my hon. friend would be one of the first to object, he would not allow us to do it. However, we will have to be content with one Minister of the Interior, that is all we are called upon to appoint. I do not think my hon. friend can charge the government with negligence because it has not appointed another minister to a portfolio which has been vacant only thirty-one days. I do not think there has been any negligence whatever, on the contrary I think the government has done right
3565
to deliberate, to consider what position they are going to take, who they are going to call upon to fill the very important place left vacant by the late minister.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The right hon. gentleman appreciates of course the fact that in this connection I called attention to the peculiar condition, namely, that we are about to pass a very important Bill with regard to those Territories.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Yes, and this is a reason why, in my estimation, instead of pressing the matter, we should exercise a little delay. This Bill cannot be postponed if we intend to have these provinces begin operations on the 1st of July next. There are many reasons why this should be done, the people expect it, and therefore we cannot delay the prosecution of the Bill. But the hon. gentleman wants us at the same time to proceed with the Bill and to proceed with an election in the Northwest Territories, or somewhere else. I do not think, under the circumstances, we can do anything else than to proceed, as governments have always proceeded in these matters, and to take time to consider who is the best man to seek to fill this position. There are numerous precedents, of which I will refer to a few. There has been a vacancy before in the portfolio on the Interior. For instance, the Department of the Interior had been filled by a very able man, the Hon. Thomas White, from the 5th of August, 1885, to the 21st April, 1888, and then a vacancy occurred through the death of that gentleman. That vacancy remained from the 21st April to the 3rd August, 1888, not one month, not two months, not three months, but more than three months elapsed before the vacancy was filled. This occurred during a session of parliament, and I do not remember that any word of criticism was made against the government because they did not proceed immediately to fill that portfolio. But that is not all. I would call attention to another important department of the government, the Department of Railways. That department was created on the 20th of May, 1879, it was filled by Sir Charles Tupper, who occupied the position until the 23rd of May, 1884, when the position became vacant and remained vacant—how long ? To the 25th of September, 1884 ? No, but until the 25th of September, 1885, nearly a year and four months. But that is not all. The Hon. John Henry Pope occupied the portfolio from September 25, 1885, to April 1, 1889, when a vacancy again occurred by the death of Mr. Pope, and the portfolio remained vacant until the 28th of November, 1889, when it was filled by Sir John A. Macdonald. He occupied the post of Minister of Railways until the 6th of June, 1891, when the portfolio became vacant and remained so until the 11th of January, 1892, when it was filled by the hon. member for Lanark
3566
(Mr. Haggart). Yet there was not, so far as I remember, much criticism on the fact of these vacancies remaining so long, one of them for a year and four months. On the present occasion, a vacancy has occurred in the portfolio of the Interior, but it will not remain vacant for one year and four months, not even for four months, not even for three months, but in due time, and before long, I shall give my hon. friend the fullest satisfaction that he desires to have on this question.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto). The right hon. gentleman has, as usual, risen to the occasion in his own way; whether that way is satisfactory to the House and to the country is another matter. He has, as often happens recently, not treated the matter seriously. He seems to think that, as the responsible head of a government, he is not bound to give any sufficient reasons for violations of constitutional practice, violations of precedent and violations of the canons of good government. He read my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, a lecture upon propriety, which I think was altogether uncalled for. It seems to me that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden) introduced his reference to the Department of Public Works in the most kindly and most courteous way. He attempted to find no fault with the minister personally. But what did strike him, and what, I think he expressed to the House very properly and very reasonably, was the fact that one of the most important departments of the government is now, not for one month, or two months, or three months, or four months, but for many, many months more than that, practically without a head. Well, whilst disposed in every way to have a kindly feeling to the hon. gentleman who has the misfortune by illness to be away from his department, I think it is very well understood that there is not a probability of that hon. gentleman again administering that department. He has been out of it for a long series of months. It has been practically taken over by another gentleman who is not responsible in the way that a minister is. I am not at all saying that he would not make a very good responsible minister, but no man can in a lay position, so to speak, administer a department with the same power and with the same sense of responsibility as one who is specially appointed under the law. So that, in reference to that the maxim which has been so often mentioned here of late that the King’s government must go on applies. The King’s government must go on. It will not wait for illness or for death or for any of these circumstances. The affairs of the country are over and superior to all these and there is not the least doubt in the world that the department suffers from the lack of a responsible head.
3567
Saying no more about that, if this department is, for the reasons that the right hon. First Minister stated, vacant and has been vacant for ever so long it ought to be an additional reason and a very strong additional reason why other departments which are vacant or virtually vacant in this House should be filled up. For instance, take the Department of the Interior. The minister himself of that department for a long time, by reason of illness, was unable to be at the department. I suppose there is no department of this government which has so varied a range of interests and requires so much a constant, steady and firm head as the Department of the Interior. The hon. gentleman who was the minister has been away from that department for a considerable length of time. Changes took place whilst he was away, changes which have never been explained to this House. The deputy minister retired or was forced to retire, I do not know which, and a new man was placed in the department. There is an additional reason why there should be some responsible head of the department. With its varied interests, with its multiplied avenues of approach—approach for all kinds of influences extending from the administration of the gold regions in the far north down all through an immense range of territory in Canada itself, with its branches all over the United States of America and all over Europe as well there is not a department which lends itself so much to abuse and to results which inevitably arise from the want of careful and firm handling than that very same department. There have been things said against that department and they are said against that department now. The right hon. gentleman has not read the newspapers and moved up and down Canada without knowing all these things. For that reason then, and when a new deputy minister takes hold, nominally, there should be a strong, firm and responsible man at the head of the department. During the whole session we have not been able to get any information from the Interior Department such as we should have got. There has not been a question of moment brought up because there has been no person in the House representing the department to answer for the department. The right hon. gentleman who leads the government says: I am nominally the head of the department. ‘Nominally’ that is the correct word. It is absolutely impossible for him to master the details of that department with the multiplied duties that he has as premier—absolutely impossible and still that portfolio remains open? Why? Because of lack of material? The Prime Minister will not say that. In his easy way he has rather attributed it to an embarrassment of riches. Well, the right hon. gentleman cannot delay for ever. He can make up his mind quickly enough if he wishes to. He
3568
can delay just as long as any other man if it suits him to delay, but we know that at this very moment he has within his mind’s eye the man he proposes to appoint as Minister of the Interior. Why does he not have him go to the west? Is he afraid that his Bill will be through before the election can be carried out. I think he can possess his soul in patience so far as that is concerned. He will have ample time to send his man to the Northwest Territories and give one single, solitary opportunity, the only one, of permitting the Northwest a voice of allowing one portion at least of the people of the Northwest Territories to pronounce upon the policy of this Bill which is so all important to that great western country. The right hon. leader of the government, stickler for precedent that he is when he is out of office, puts it lightly away when he assumes the badge of office. He erects into a constitutional principle what had never before been taken is a constitutional principle in order to serve a purpose. The purpose once served he throws away his invention, he has no use for it, until another circumstance arises which will call for another constitutional principle. What is his constitutional principle? It was adverted to by my hon. friend here (Mr. R. L. Borden). It was the result of a circumstance which was none too creditable to the government of my right hon. friend. An hon. gentleman went into a department in the temporary absence of another minister meddled in a matter of its administration and so brought about some considerable confusion in the government of this country. It was then that the new constitutional principle was devised, invented, brought out brand new, that there was a geographical ministerial responsibility as well as a constitutional responsibility—all very good for the occasion and yet when you have a great part of this country to be erected into provinces, to be, by an irrevocable decree fashioned, moulded and formed the right hon. gentleman refuses to consult with the representatives of the government of that country. He brings down here at his own express request and call the only representatives that are available of these two great Territories—the premier and one of his cabinet, backed up, as I said the other day, by a third member of his cabinet. When he gets them here he throws them lightly aside, at least the Tory part of the representation, he finds sources of information in his own way and he refuses almost absolutely upon the most important part of his Bill to recognize the legal and constitutional representative of that portion of the country for which this Bill is being specially provided. As he himself says this is the most momentous of questions before the House affecting absolutely and particularly that portion of the country, and yet he will not either test the feeling of the people of that country, or what is of much more im-
3569
portance than that, he will not give to that portion of the country its minister with geographical responsibility as well as constitutional responsibility.
Now, a circumstance occurred not long ago which rather lends force to the argument and which affects some men in the right hon. gentleman’s cabinet. What did we find in October of last year? We found the right hon. gentleman coming down to the province of Ontario, getting down upon bended knees before a luminary of the law and saying to him in so many English words : My dear Mr. Aylesworth I have colleagues and representatives in the government from the province of Ontario who have been with me for some time, but I find that in Ontario my hold is growing gradually weaker. I am not only not increasing the strength, but I see that strength diminishing. I do not want to turn these out to pasture, poor as they are, and so I must have you come in and save the remnant in the province of Ontario. The right hon. gentleman needed some strength, and if ever there was a practical illustration of that need we have it this year. The lynx-eyed minister, the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), is not here, and I suppose I may venture to mention him to-day without his inflicting upon this House that oft-repeated story repeated so well along the concessions and side lines of North Ontario, learned and conned and repeated so often up and down the province of Ontario, and repeated so often in this House, that it is becoming a tale oft-told, with the little interest that attaches to a tale oft-told. I suppose that I may refer to the fact that he slept at his post while the most important legislation was being performed for these orphan territories in the Northwest. Is there not some reason why there should be a brave, bright, strong, wide-awake man brought in from the west who will not sleep at his post, but who will know what is going on and see that his geographical ministerial responsibility is fully exercised in the representation of the people in the country from which he comes. If the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) can keep constitutionally portfolios open for one month, he can keep them open for two, three or four months. He was the gentleman who, in opposition, pleaded always for a full cabinet, for the ministerial responsibility to be properly divided and distributed, and that there should be at the post of power in each department a responsible head. He knows as well as we all know that that is proper constitutional doctrine, and that it is necessary for the good government and good administration of the country. Yet he does not fill the vacant position, and he does not give us any valid reason why.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Haliburton). The First Minister has referred
3570
to the fact that after the death of the late Hon. Thomas White the portfolio of the Interior was vacant for some time. That is true, but he also knows that at that time a new principle in constitutional government, the principle that there must be a responsible minister for the district, had not been engrafted on the constitution of this country. The First Minister has given us that new line in the constitution. At that time also there was no great crisis in the Northwest, as there is on the present occasion, for it must be remembered that the vacancy in the portfolio of the Minister of the Interior to-day is caused owing to the fact that legislation is before this House which the responsible minister from the district refused to endorse and which he claims is not satisfactory to the people of that region. Therefore, the circumstances are entirely changed, and, as far as the parallel goes, the Prime Minister’s argument will not hold good. The custom in all these matters in the old country is that there shall be a responsible minister at each post. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has referred to a case in point, where, in 1871, objection was simply taken in the House of Commons to the fact that Mr. Childers, First Lord of the Admiralty, was absent during illness, and within one month thereafter Mr. Childers resigned. This is even more important than the case of the absence of a minister through illness. We have before us an important measure which is going to affect that Northwest country for weal or woe. The minister refuses to sanction that measure and retires from the cabinet, but owing to certain pressure, I do not know what the pressure or arrangement may have been, time may solve it, but owing to some negotiations—and they are good at carrying on negotiations and bringing about mediations in the cabinet—the ex-Minister of the Interior has agreed to vote for the government’s emasculated measure, as he terms it, although on every solitary point in the Bill he differs essentially from the First Minister and the cabinet. The circumstances are such that I maintain they warrant the action of the government in filling the post at the very first opportunity. The First Minister has stated that this Bill cannot wait, that it must become law by the 1st of July. It is not very long from now until the 1st of July, and if the First Minister is anxious that the measure shall get through by the 1st of July it might be advisable for him to seriously consider whether or not its passage would not be facilitated by the appointment of a new Minister of the Interior, who might go before his constituents, seek re-election and test the feeling as to the reception which the Bill will likely meet when it has been passed by this House. The Prime Minister would likely make time if he adopted such a course rather than trusting to the Bill being passed with-
3571
out opposition and becoming law by the 1st of July, so that he could thereafter have the election of the Minister of the Interior.
I want to say a word about the position of the Minister of Public Works. The acting minister (Mr. Hyman), I regret to say, has just gone out. No man regrets the illness of the present minister—I refer to the Hon. Mr. James Sutherland—more than I do myself. He is a gentleman for whom I have always had and always shall have the very highest personal regard, and no one will more heartily welcome him back to health and to this House than I. But what are the facts of the case? It is generally understood, in fact a gentleman whom the minister himself has consulted, has stated that the Minister of Public Works has asked the First Minister to accept his resignation, but for some reason or other this resignation has not been accepted. That responsible position, which the constitution requires shall be held by a member having a seat in the parliament directly responsible to the people, has not been filled, and one of the largest spending departments of the public service is without a responsible head in this House to-day. I am not saying one word about the hon. member for London, the minister without portfolio (Mr. Hyman), a gentleman who I believe undoubtedly stands head and shoulders over his colleagues from that province. I am not saying one word about his fitness, and that is all the more reason why he should be made the responsible minister. He occupies a peculiar position. His position in the cabinet is simply that of a minister without portfolio. He is not responsible for any department, and has not appealed to the people for re-election after his appointment as minister. I am sure the First Minister will bear me out when I say that the position he now occupies is entirely unconstitutional. It is pointed out in Todd, page 483, volume 2, in reference to the case of Lord Russell, spoken of by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden):
On March 9 the Earl of Derby took notice in the House of Lords of ‘the very great inconvenience and injury to the public service’ occasioned by the absence from the country and from his official duties of the Colonial Secretary—
It was only in February that Lord Russell went to Vienna.
—more especially as no Under Secretary had been yet appointed to represent the department in the House of Commons.
Earl Granville (the president of the council) replied, that for the present the Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) would also take charge of the Colonial Department, being ‘formally and technically’ competent, as a secretary of state, to control any branch of the secretariate.
As a matter of fact, Lord John Russell returned and resumed his seat on April 30.
3572
Although the Prime Minister was in his place, the minister who was both formally and technically responsible returned in less than two months, and that satisfied the House and the country. The case of the Minister of Public Works was entirely different. The member for London is not technically qualified. He may be formally qualified as a member of the Privy Council, but he is not technically qualified for the office of Minister of Public Works, and therefore I maintain that there should be no delay in accepting the resignation of the Minister of Public Works. Then the member for London, one of the most popular men in the country, will have an opportunity of proving whether or not the present cabinet has the confidence of the people of this Dominion, not only in regard to the Public Works Department, but in regard to their general conduct of other matters. The custom of the English constitution is that all important measures involving important principles, such as that involved in the Bill before the House, should be pronounced upon by the people before becoming law. The First Minister knows that this measure was not at all discussed before the electorate. No one dreamed that there were going to be the contentious matters in this Bill that have been found in it. Therefore I maintain that the duty of the Prime Minister is to hold this Bill off until the feeling of the country in regard to it can be tested in a general election. I maintain that there is only one of two courses open to him at the present time. One is to go to the country and test the feeling of the electors in a general election; another is to appoint a new Minister of the Interior and put him in the field in some riding in the Northwest and test the feeling of the country in that way. The portfolio of the Interior should not be held open a moment longer than is absolutely necessary.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). Mr. Speaker, I beg to say a few words on this question before the motion is disposed of. It seems to me that we are face to face with a very unusual state of things both in this House and in the country. We are confronted with what may fairly be regarded, under constitutional government, as a very grave crisis. Confederation is yet on its trial. It was adopted many years ago to overcome difficulties which experience had shown to exist in our previous form of government, and with the object of doing justice to every interest and every locality. The fathers of confederation wisely and carefully considered this constitution before it was adopted, for the purpose of endeavouring, as far as the experience of the national life would enable them to do up to that time, to avoid the troubles of the past and to provide a proper government for the future; and the principle they laid down was representation by population in the popular chamber—this
3573
is, that every member should represent a certain number of the electors or population. But they provided that every member should represent a certain area as well. The delimitation of the areas each of which should elect a member was made in the first statutes, and that was observed and carried out in our first election. The fathers of confederation believed that we required an upper House as well as a lower House—a corrective chamber that would not be subject to the excitement of elections but that would be appointed by the Crown; and the selection of the men who were to form that chamber was made on the principle that each should represent not only a certain province, but a certain district in that province. From Quebec there were to be twenty-four, from Ontario twenty-four, and from the maritime provinces twenty-four and each was to represent a certain district within his particular province. There were not only twenty-four members of the Senate assigned to Quebec, but the British North America Act says :
In the case of Quebec each of the twenty-four senators representing that province shall be appointed for one of the twenty-four electoral divisions of Lower Canada specified in schedule ‘A’ to chapter 1 of Consolidated Statutes of Canada.
I am giving this recapitulation to show that the designers of confederation had in view not only representation by population, but representation of locality as well, and that this principle applied not only to the popular chamber, which was to be elected, but to the Senate, which was not to be elected, and to the cabinet ministers. With regard to ministerial representation, we find that a certain number of ministers were assigned to Quebec. Originally it was three. Now it is four, with an extra one, which makes the number five. The same number was assigned to Ontario and the same number to the maritime provinces; and these were so arranged that each locality would be represented. That principle was followed for years as strongly as any other principle to be found within the four corners of the constitution. It was a part of our unwritten constitution, and we lived up to it carefully and closely, because it was believed that by doing so we did justice to all parts of the country and to all interests involved, and no injustice to any. A certain number of cabinet ministers was assigned to each province in proportion to its population, its importance and its area. As time went on and settlement went westward, we were obliged to change that a little. We dropped some of our representation in the smaller provinces in the east, and endeavoured to give representation to the west; because it was felt that so long as there was a section that had no voice in the cabinet, we were not fully carrying out the principle of representation that was adopted by
3574
the fathers of confederation. What was all this intended for? That every locality should have its voice and its spokesman in the parliament of the nation and in the cabinet, so that justice might be done to all parts of the country. That was the aim and the reason why this unwritten constitution was followed as closely as any portion of our written constitution.
There are two objects in view in organizing a cabinet. What are these two objects? The first is to select men who are fitted for the position. The second is to make the selection so that each member of the cabinet may represent a certain locality and the special interests in that locality. These interests may be commercial or maritime or something else. And the selection should be such as will receive the endorsement of the people. These are the two objects in view in filling a cabinet. In a well balanced cabinet, every district has its voice at the council board, every district has its representative in council. But applying this principle to the present condition of things, what is the situation today. We have in this confederation about 2,100,000 square miles of territory. How much of that territory is represented in this cabinet? Take the combined provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and they only represent 564,000 square miles. Take the balance of the territory which is not represented, which has no voice in the cabinet, which has no say at the council board, and we find that it comprises 1,558,888 square miles.
Mr. CAMPBELL. What is the population of that?
Mr. SPROULE. I am not going into details as regards population, but if you take the map of the Dominion and draw a line straight through it from south to north, going as far west as you will find a cabinet representative at present—that is the city of London—you will find that two-thirds of the territory of the Dominion is without a cabinet representative. Is that just or unjust? Is that carrying out the design of the fathers of confederation? Is that doing justice to all and injustice to none? I say it is not. Two-thirds of the Dominion today have no voice at the council board. Whatever policy may be introduced and decided upon there, they have no opportunity of expressing their dissent or assent or of shaping it any way whatever. A rather eminent writer on confederation said that it was the solemn duty of each province keenly to watch and promptly to repel any attempt faint or forcible which the federal government might be disposed to make on the rights and privileges of any one of them. That is Mr. Watson’s idea of the duties of the provinces. But how can a province exercise this scrutiny unless it has its full representation, not only in the House of
3575
Commons, but on the council board of a nation. And if this large portion of the Dominion has no voice in the council, surely it is deprived of a portion of its undoubted rights. I find that two-thirds of the area of this Dominion is not represented at the council board, and that at the very time when a most important question, one vitally affecting the interests of that country, is about to be decided. One of the provinces to-day has almost been driven into revolt, if we can believe what we read in the newspapers. I refer to the province of Manitoba. The absolute refusal of the rights of that province to have its boundaries extended, the absolute refusal to do its claims justice when these new provinces are being created, has irritated it to such an extent that its government has threatening to resign as a protest against the conduct of this administration. Are we not then face to face with a very serious crisis?
A great question is now before us for determination, namely, the establishment of two new provinces out in the Northwest Territories. What ownership shall these provinces have in the soil? What representatives shall they possess? What legislative power shall be given them? What interference shall we make with what they believe to be their undoubted rights in the future? All these great questions are being discussed by this parliament, and these Territories have no voice at the council board. They had a voice there not long ago, but their representative resigned as a rebuke against the high-handed and unwarranted conduct of the government on the Autonomy Bill. A Minister of the Crown, representing that country, gave practical expression of his dissent from that policy by resigning his portfolio. Under the circumstances, it certainly is the duty of the government to fill that portfolio at the earliest possible moment and have a united cabinet on the policy which they are submitting to parliament. Why are they not acting in accord with the principles of constitutional government? Why do they not appoint a minister and let him go before the people, so that the people may have an opportunity of endorsing or condemning the policy of the administration? The reason, Sir, is evident. They dare not do it. They want to force the Bill through without giving the people chiefly interested an opportunity of declaring their will regarding it. They refuse to respect the sovereign rights of the people. They are acting in utter disregard of the great electorate which can make and unmake parliament? Are they afraid to appeal to that power? I am justified by their conduct in coming to the conclusion that they are afraid to trust the people.
Then, are we not justified in raising our voice in rebuke of the conduct of the government? Are we not justified in calling public attention to that conduct as a violation of the principles of constitutional
3576
government under which we live? We should clearly be doing less than our duty if we refrained from inviting public attention to the present condition of affairs. As I have said, it is clear that the government dare not allow the people to speak, to signify their agreement or disagreement with the measure now before the House. At best, the representation of the Northwest in regard to this measure could only be indirect so far as the cabinet is concerned. The people of the Northwest Territories sent their Prime Minister, their accredited representative. Except for this delegate they are represented only by a few members in this House whose voices are but little heard. The government has acted in a most high-handed and tyrannical fashion in its treatment of the rights of the people of Manitoba and the Northwest.
Now, when a member is selected for the cabinet, he is selected on two grounds—his fitness for the position and the locality he represents. And who is to determine his fitness? First, the Prime Minister who chooses him. But the judgment of the Prime Minister must be endorsed by the people, for, according to our constitutional forms, a minister, on his appointment, must go before the people to be endorsed by them. Have the government dared to appoint a minister and so seek the judgment of the people on their policy? They have not. This policy was not before the people in the last election, and so there has not been the opportunity for the people to express themselves upon it. The only conclusion that we can come to is that the government are afraid of the people and dare not take the step of appointing a minister to fill the present vacancy because the effect of that would be to give the people an opportunity to express their opinions upon this important measure. The financial interests of that great country in the Northwest are involved; their whole future is involved. Yet, they have no one in the cabinet to speak for them or determine their rights,—the people of the Northwest must go into the ‘Blind pool’ to which the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) referred last year. Yet, the Prime Minister declares over and over again that he admires the British constitution and tries to follow it. His conduct, in my opinion, is the very reverse of all that; he violates every principle of constitutional government by the course he pursues. He acts like the Czar of Russia, deliberately against the people’s rights and wishes. The people are given no opportunity to determine what their legislative rights shall be with regard to their property, their financial relations to the Dominion or any of the other great questions involved in this measure. And their accredited representative, their Prime Minister, is spurned when he comes here and seeks to speak on behalf of his people.
The conduct of the government is a direct
3577
invasion of provincial rights. The present Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should be the last man in Canada to disregard or ignore provincial rights in carrying on our government. The fathers of confederation, when they were determining what form of government we should have, were compelled, owing to the sentiment of Quebec to favour a federal union rather than a legislative union. Under the federal union the boundaries of provincial rights are clearly marked and held as sacred, while, under a legislative union the provinces would have only such powers as were given them by the central authority. I find the following passage in the life of Sir John A. Macdonald. Speaking of the discussions which took place before confederation was consummated he said :
But, on looking at the subject in the conference, and discussing the matter as we did most unreservedly, with a desire to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, we found that such a system was impracticable.
This refers to a legislative union. And why was it impracticable?
In the first place, it would not meet the assent of Lower Canada.
And why not ?
Because they felt that, in their peculiar position—being in a minority, with a different language, nationality and religion from the majority—in case of a junction with the other provinces, and their institutions and their laws might be assailed and their ancestral associations, on which they pride themselves, attacked and prejudiced.
And, for that reason, they would not accept a legislative union. So, they secured a federal union, in order that their provincial rights might be maintained. But the Bill now before the House infringes provincial rights, determining in advance the course of action of the new provinces in the Northwest. It deprives these new provinces of the right to manage their own affairs as the older provinces are free to manage theirs. In this respect, the measure does not carry out the principle of confederation. And it comes with doubly bad grace from a Prime Minister who comes from Quebec, a province that insisted upon a form of confederation which would make their provincial rights secure. Now that the rights of his own province are established, the Prime Minister attacks the provincial rights of the new provinces in the west. In view of all this I say we are face to face with a great crisis and there is strong excitement throughout our country. And why ? Because of the outrage upon the feelings and opinions of the people who have no opportunity to help themselves. Should this continue ? I say it should not. I have called attention to the fact that disregard of our constitutional system almost drove one province into revolt, and, if it
3578
is persisted in, it may arouse to revolt the people of the new provinces. The sooner the government place themselves squarely upon the principles of the constitution and give to the Northwest a representative in the cabinet, the better it will be for everybody. We shall then have an opportunity to work out our constitutional system to a success, instead of making it the discouraging failure it undoubtedly will be if this government and their successors set constitutional principles at defiance.
Mr. A. A. STOCKTON (St. John City and County). Mr. Speaker, I think the points made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) are well taken. I hope the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will pardon me if I say that I do not think that he met the question asked by the leader of the opposition with the frankness which the circumstances demanded. It will be remembered, that, after the introduction of the Bills which have produced so much discussion in this House, the question was asked of the Prime Minister whether the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) would be back in time for the discussion of these Bills. The First Minister replied that he did not know when the Minister of the Interior would be here, meaning that he did not expect, and did not care whether the Minister of the Interior were here or not, since he, the First Minister, had charge of the Bill.
Now, let me say that the First Minister has not answered the question put by the leader of the opposition except by citing the instances which took place ten, twelve or more years ago. What is the opinion of the First Minister with respect to those instances ? Did he approve of them, or does he approve of them now ? Does he think that citing those instances is a sufficient answer to the question put him by the leader of the opposition ? I would like to know what the opinions of the First Minister are upon those instances. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if there ever was a time in the history of this country when it was necessary that a responsible minister from that Northwest country should be here on the floor of this House, it is to-day. We know that the proposition has been put forward that the ministers represent localities, and that they are to be trusted to a large extent with the administration of affairs in those localities. How stands the matter to-day ? Is there any representative from the great Northwest here to-day to look after the interests of that great country, which is causing so much discussion and occupying so much attention in this House and in the country at large ? Not one, Sir, and so far as any information is given by the First Minister to-day, there will be no representative in the government from the Northwest until after these Bills are passed. Is that fair to the people of that country ?
3579
Is it fair to the representatives of that country in this House to force this measure through without the people of the Northwest, by their responsible minister, having a voice in the consideration of the measure? I think not, Sir, and I think it is unfair to that country that it should have no responsible minister here while this discussion is going on, and while this measure is being passed through the House.
But, Sir, there is another phase of the question. When the ex-Minister of the Interior appeared here, apparently to the confusion of the First Minister, two days after he had introduced this Bill, what took place? The resignation of the Minister of the Interior. Why? As a protest against the action of the First Minister in introducing the Autonomy Bills in his absence, and particularly against the educational clauses thereof, which the ex-Minister of the Interior could not endorse, and he vacated his seat as a protest against the action of the First Minister and of his government. That was a challenge thrown down to the First Minister and to his government upon their policy with respect to these Bills. There is a vacancy in the government now, the government is without a Minister of the Interior. Let the First Minister test the feeling of the people of the Northwest upon this question by selecting from his plethora of ability that he has behind him a gentleman to fill the position of Minister of the Interior, and let him send that gentleman back for re-election in order to test the feelings of the people of the Northwest with respect to his policy. That would be the manly way, that would be the bold way, that would be the proper way on the part of men who are willing to trust the people. Is this government willing to trust the people in connection with these Bills?
Mr. SPROULE. No.
Mr. STOCKTON. The conduct of the government apparently shows that they are not willing to trust the people. I say, don’t gag the people of the Northwest, give them an opportunity to say whether they want this legislation or not, give them an opportunity to say in a constitutional way whether they are in harmony with the government with respect to this measure. The right hon. gentleman has an opportunity of doing that. If he and his government do not do it, they show that they do not trust the people; although the right hon. gentleman is reported to have said that he was a democrat to the hilt. Now, Sir, I should say no more on this question. I felt that I could not remain silent while a question of this importance was before the House. I repeat that the conduct of the government in keeping this seat vacant is not fair to the people of the Northwest, it is not fair to the people of the rest of Canada, and, furthermore, it is contrary to the constitutional
3580
usages which obtain in the mother country and all the great self-governing colonies of the empire.
Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe). I did not intend to speak on this question until the main question came again before the House. But I do feel that this is a time for hon. members of the House to speak out, and say distinctly what they think of the conduct of the government. I had hoped, there being seven representatives in this House from the Northwest supporting the government, that they at all events would defend the interests of their own section in this matter. When I find that the First Minister has been able so far to influence and to control those hon. members, I think it necessary that the rest of us should speak out definitely on this subject. Now the First Minister has been perfectly consistent, and with my great respect for the First Minister, I shall take the liberty of addressing a few plain words to him in the English language which I hope he will fairly understand. I hope that the people of this country will become seized of the situation, and although it is vain to hope that the government will listen to the voice of reason on this subject, there is one power in this country great enough to arrest the action of the government, and that is the press. I hope that they will take this matter up and agitate from end to end of Canada before this measure goes through, in order that we may guarantee the interests of the great west in this House. I say that the First Minister to-day has been consistent in his attitude throughout this whole matter, not only in this matter, but during the last two sessions, in treating lightly subjects of great importance and in treating the representatives of the people with levity by neglecting their just demands. The First Minister must apprehend that he has not on any occasion when the leader of the opposition, either to-day or previously, asked for information which this House has a right to obtain, given a fair, square and honest answer to a question.
Now the First Minister says, we know where we are. Well, perhaps they do. It is rather recent information, for they did not know where they were two or three weeks ago. A portion of their followers were in rebellion two or three weeks ago, but the party lash has been applied. They know where they are to-day but they do not know where they will be to-morrow. They do not know where they will be a week hence and I warrant there are some hon. gentlemen opposite who do not know yet quite what is going to develop during the course of this discussion, and who do not know where they will be a week hence. Probably the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) thinks he knows where he is. The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) probably thinks he knows where he is
3581
or where he is going to be, but, they do not both know it. One of them will probably get the office and we will then see a display of the anger of the one who has not got the position he desires. The right hon. First Minister says that it is only thirty-one days’ delay, and he also said that in 1888 it was a matter of months or probably more that the position of Minister of the Interior was vacant. Does the right hon. gentleman want that to go to the country as the honest, statesmanlike utterance of the First Minister of the Dominion of Canada? But, if we have, as was said by hon. members on his own side of the House, and as is the fact, before us one of the most momentous questions that have at any time involved the consideration of this House, a question that will affect the future of the west, half a million miles of the best territory of this Dominion and the best agricultural country that exists to-day, is there any analogy between this case and the case of the Minister of the Interior in 1888? ‘Only thirty-one days ago,’ says the right hon. First Minister, and in a while when it suits my convenience, when I get entirely ready, after I have held at bay the office-seekers who want the position and whom I dare not now offend because I want to dangle before them the plums of office and not offend any one of them until after this crucial period has gone by, then, after the 1st of July, after I have riveted upon the west and established the system of fetters that I desire, then, at my convenience, as the great Czar of Canada—for the time being; not for all time to come, thank God,—I will announce what I will do. He says that he is embarrassed by a wealth of material. Very likely. The right hon. First Minister is perfectly sincere. He has a wealth of material in this House. One man says that he is as good as the other. Each man says: I am the big man for the situation; and this is a source of embarrassment perhaps to the right hon. First Minister. He dare not fill that position because he is afraid that some of his followers whose votes he depends upon might not be available in this crisis. I do not know that I need say much further in reference to what the right hon. First Minister has said. The right hon. gentleman is more remarkable for what he does not say on these occasions than for what he says. But, he asks: Would you expect us to have an election and to have this discussion going on at the same time? What does the right hon. gentleman mean by that? Does it require his personal supervision to engineer the election in the west? Does it require that the strength of the cabinet shall be transferred to the west or to any of the most important points of the west while an election is going on? Does the right hon. gentleman feel that the situation is so delicate and dangerous in the west that it will require all the power of the government,
3582
and probably more to bring about the result that he wants? Does he anticipate now that when the 1st of July has gone past and when he does appoint a Minister of the Interior the people of the west will visit with condemnation the administration which is now in power at Ottawa? Or, does he simply mean that it will require so much manipulation that it would be impossible to carry on this discussion in the House and carry on an election in the west at the same time? What is the meaning of it? Is it an admission to the people of Canada (wrested from the right hon. First Minister) because we have not had such an admission made often in this House, that he realizes that it will take the most superhuman effort on his part to win in the west if he were to open a constituency there at the present time? In other words that he has not, with all the wealth of material that he has in this House or out of it, because he could select a minister for this position out of the House as well as in it—he could send Mr. Aylesworth up there if he could be elected,—the least chance of electing his Minister of the Interior if he will accept the challenge which is a fair and square challenge, to give to those people who have not been allowed to voice their opinions the opportunity of testing this question and of saying whether they want this measure proposed by the right hon. First Minister or not.
Now, I had intended to refer to another aspect of this case, but I find that I have got excited and that is not usual with me. I must excuse myself. I believe I am justified in asking for the indulgence of this House if I do get a little excited on this occasion. I believe as the right hon. minister says, that our passions on some of these occasions are not wholly ignoble, it is probably ‘the exaggeration of a noble sentiment,’ the right hon. minister says and perhaps there is a little exaggeration of noble sentiments from time to time as the debate goes on. I think that when we cannot get a solitary member representing the west on the government side of the House to stand up and advocate the rights of the west, when we cannot get the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who was an advocate of opinions which are in direct conflict with the proposition of the government to-day, when we cannot get that great democrat to rise up and say that in this day the people shall be supreme, when we cannot get back into the House that champion of national schools, the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), to speak one word on behalf of the great people of the west, a place which is to be the garden of Canada in the future and the grandest agricultural territory within this country,—when we cannot get these hon. gentlemen to stand up and say one word on behalf of the great people of the west, then, I feel that I am justified in having got a
3583
little excited and not being able to pursue a distinct and logical argument as I intended when I rose to speak.
Mr. J. B. KENNEDY (New Westminster). Mr. Speaker, I rise for a little information, not that I expect to get any from the solon who has just addressed the House. But, the principle has evidently been laid down this afternoon that a province is not represented in this House unless it has a member of the government. In this case it seems to me that there has been a rather gross insult addressed to the ten men who represent these Territories in the House to-day.
Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin). Mr. Speaker, in the opening remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition this afternoon he referred to the course pursued by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he was leader of the Liberal opposition in this House some years ago. The right hon. gentleman on that occasion drew the attention of this House to certain rumours going the rounds of the newspapers of this country coupled with the fact that His Excellency the Governor General had postponed a trip that he anticipated making. He thought the circumstances sufficient to warrant him in calling the attention of the government of the day to the importance of these rumours. One of the arguments he employed in that case was to the effect that the government was not in the position in which it ought to be before asking parliament to transact the business of the country. He said :
The government, I submit, has no right to ask parliament to vote a single penny under the circumstances.
What circumstances? The circumstances arising from the rumours going around the public press of this country that certain seats in the government were vacant. It seemed to him a remarkable thing that he found some of these seats vacated, vacated by whom ? By the representatives of the west ? No ; the right hon. gentleman seemed to be exercised particularly about the representatives, not of the Northwest Territories, but of the province of Quebec. Why was my hon. friend so much exercised on that occasion ? It was not because of any particular or important question brought up in this House on that occasion. In 1895 parliament met on April 18. This matter was brought up by the right hon. gentleman on July 9, and that session closed on July 22, thirteen days after he had given the government notice of the fact that certain ministers had not been in their places the day before. Why was he so much exercised over the fact of these ministers not being properly representative of the province of Quebec ? Was it because parliament was liable to vote a penny unwisely in their absence ? Every man who knows anything
3584
of the political history of this country knows what was taking place at that time ; he knows that an issue similar to that which is being discussed to-day was being considered by the people and the government, and it was more due to that fact, I venture to say, that the right hon. gentleman objected to these ministers not being in their places on that particular occasion. My right hon. friend has been asked civilly and often lately by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) why it is that the position of Minister of the Interior is not filled. The right hon. gentleman rises in his place and says that the leader of the opposition again has another little joke. And what is the little joke ? It is not the spending of a small amount of the people’s money, but is the passage of legislation for all time affecting the Northwest Territories, that will involve millions of dollars, and yet the Prime Minister says this is a little joke, and that there is no occasion to have a Minister of the Interior appointed to perform the special duties of that portfolio. The right hon. hon. gentleman has submitted to the House, in the speech from the Throne, this paragraph :
The rapid growth in the population of the Northwest Territories during the past two years justifies the wisdom of conferring on these Territories provincial autonomy. A Bill for that purpose will be submitted for your consideration.
Before I deal with that, let me refer to a rumour or two that we have recently heard, because if the hon. gentleman was justified in those days I am justified to-day in referring to these rumours. A rumour went abroad in this country previous to the 23rd of November last that certain gentlemen met at Three Rivers, in the province of Quebec, and that certain arrangements were entered into by the government with respect to provincial autonomy in the Northwest. Again I say that I cannot understand how the right hon. gentleman and his government placed that paragraph in the speech from the Throne and submitted it to this House, and then come to this House and told us, as members of this House, and told the people of the country, that he had not consulted the Minister of the Interior upon this important plank in the platform in the speech from the Throne. What did the right hon. gentleman say when he introduced this Bill in this House ? I shall quote his own words. He said :
How many provinces should be admitted into the confederation coming from the Northwest Territories—one, or two or more ? The next question was : in whom should be vested the ownership of the public lands ? The third question was : what should be the financial terms to be granted to these new provinces ? And the fourth and not the least important by any means was the question of the school system which would be introduced—not introduced, because it was introduced long ago, but should be continued in the Territories.
3585
Of the four questions which are to be embodied in provincial autonomy, the education question was in the mind of the right hon. gentleman the most important. I again ask the Prime Minister are we to believe, are we to suppose, that in the preparation of the speech from the Throne, which was prepared during the early part of this year, the Minister of the Interior was in no wise consulted in respect to these four planks? I for one refuse to take that view, because I do not think the ex-Minister of the Interior is so ignorant with respect to the contents of this Bill as he would leave this House and this country to believe. Reference has been made to the creating of a vacancy. What do we find in the city of Toronto? We find a bargain day for the Conservative party. Why have we a bargain day now? Is this the old system of the Liberal party of this country, when they have a government backed up by a large majority and a seat becomes vacant, is it now the new Liberal policy to give the Conservative party a bargain day and to allow them to elect their candidate by acclamation? I have here the statement of the executive of the Reform Association of the city of Toronto. We have the candidate in the last contest coming to the city of Ottawa, consulting with the Prime Minister and his cabinet, going back to Toronto and advising the Liberal executive of the city of Toronto not to put up a candidate, refusing to be a candidate himself and saying that it was not a wise policy to put a candidate in the field; and, therefore, the Liberal party are going to allow the Conservative candidate to be elected by acclamation. Why is this? Is that the way to ascertain public opinion in this country on an important question of this kind? I venture to say that if the right hon. gentleman had an election in Toronto he would find that the policy which he is now pursuing would be rejected, not only by the Conservative party of Toronto, but by a very large number of the Liberals as well. I would like to ask the premier, if he has any influence upon the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) or upon the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), one the late premier of the province of Manitoba and the other one of his ministers, to kindly whisper into the ears of these gentlemen the suggestion that they should stay a little more in this chamber and give the people of this country the benefit of their presence and advice, even as private members. Is it any wonder that members of the opposition find fault with the government, when we find important members like these absenting themselves when one of the greatest and most important issues ever brought up in parliament is being discussed from day to day? They absolutely refuse, by their absence from this House, to take part in the discussion. I am sure it would allay, to some extent, the feeling of the people of this country if they knew that men entertained the views which
3586
the late premier of Manitoba did entertain—I do not know if he does now or not—but certainly the views entertained by the ex-Minister of the Interior, were to stay in their places in this House and give us the benefit of their views from time to time as occasion requires. Then probably they would assist in allaying the strong feeling that exists in this country that these gentlemen are overlooking the interests of the Northwest Territories by their undue absence from this House. The Prime Minister referred to-day to the fact that the opposition are making a great deal of capital out of the thirty-one days of non-appointment of a Minister of the Interior. Let me point out to my hon. friend that the Minister of the Interior has not been in this House during this session. He came in after the introduction of this Bill. Let me remind the premier that since 1896 we have had minister after minister absent from their duties during the session, and no one has been a greater sinner in that respect than the Minister of the Interior. To-day he is seen passing by this chamber, paying attention for a moment or two to the proceedings here, but then, in his high and lofty way, he retires from the chamber and allows the members to discuss these important matters in his absence. It is high time that these hon. gentlemen fully understood that it is their duty to attend in this chamber and give us the benefit of their advice on these important matters. If the right hon. gentleman and his friends were correct in 1895, when they said that it was important for ministers to be in their places, they should take a little of their own medicine to-day, and see that their ministers are in their places in this House.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe). Mr. Speaker, I usually agree with the leader of the opposition, but I think he is rather too exacting this afternoon. My hon. friend asks that the First Minister should go back on his official record since he has been premier of this Dominion, and start from this day on a new course. That is altogether too much to ask of the First Minister, and I think my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is rather drawing on his imagination when he expects that the First Minister will do it. My hon. friend referred to the fact that the First Minister found fault with the government of Sir John Thompson on one occasion for not filling up his cabinet and complained that at that time for nearly two days two ministers had absented themselves from the chamber. Well, Sir, the circumstances were very different then from what they are now. Neither of these hon. gentlemen had resigned his seat; the present premier was not in a position to know that either intended to resign his seat; but the fact that they had not been in their places, and some newspaper comment which he saw on the
3587
circumstance, suggested to him the idea of dividing the House on the matter, and he did divide the House. What do we see on the present occasion? We see the Minister of the Interior absent from the first day of the session. Whether his absence was owing to ill-health I know not, and I think the public are very little concerned about it. But we do know that as soon as the First Minister introduced certain legislation into this House, the Minister of the Interior was here to dissent from the proposition of the government; and we know that as a result of his dissent he has gone out of the cabinet and is out of it to-day; and every one knows that the First Minister and his cabinet are afraid to take the bull by the horns—I am speaking metaphorically—and test popular opinion in the west, just as they are afraid to test popular opinion in the province of Ontario. What is the report of the hon. gentleman’s own political friends from the city of Toronto? It is that he has become a Czar and an autocrat. Mr. Robinette, their candidate in the last election came down here the other day; he was seen here; his presence was reported in the newspapers; and because Mr. Robinette informed the First Minister that he would not be a supporter of the government’s policy in regard to the Northwest, the Czar, the leader of this administration, says there must be no contest in Centre Toronto. Now, I am going to appeal to the First Minister to remember the watchword of the late premier of the province of Ontario, his own right arm, which was paralyzed on the 25th of January, when the people got a chance. What was the watchword of the Hon. George W. Ross? It was : ‘Build up Ontario.’ What did that mean? It meant to build up Ontario in every possible way—mentally, morally, educationally and commercially; and I appeal to the First Minister to build up Ontario to-day. In the first place, build it up morally by keeping faith with the public there. The First Minister went through the province of Ontario last November—but I will not harrow up his feelings by mentioning the places where he spoke, because every one knows what followed—desolation and disaster to the Liberal candidates. He came to East Simcoe, and the result there is seen. He went to the city of Toronto and to other points and said, it is true, my cabinet representatives from Ontario are a rum lot; I have one in the Senate who is past four score years; I have Sir Richard Cartwright on my hands, but he is to be transferred to the Senate at an early day; although the Minister of Customs is a benevolent, good-hearted soul, he is not known beyond the confines of his own bailiwick. But, he said, I am going to strengthen the cabinet in Ontario; I am going to bring in a big man in the person of Mr. Aylesworth. The First Minister
3588
has not got Mr. Aylesworth yet, but there is a chance to get him. There are two counties in Ontario which he could carry, and only two. Why does he not give Mr. Aylesworth a chance to run in Russell or in Prescott? I know he will not trust himself in North Oxford, nor will he trust himself anywhere else in Ontario.
An hon. MEMBER. Centre Toronto.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Aylesworth knows Toronto; he lives there. Now, the First Minister has not kept faith with the electors of the province of Ontario. He promised them last November that if they would only support him, he would build up a stable aggregation from Ontario. What has he done? There was a time in this House when dull moments were enlivened by the oratory of Sir Richard Cartwright; but he has stolen Sir Richard Cartwright from the House and sent him to the Senate. We have left only our benevolent friend the Minister of Customs and our soporific friend the Postmaster General. I think it has come to a pretty pass in the province of Ontario that we have to content ourselves with the cabinet representation that we have. But let us go a little further. Let us bear in mind that these two gentlemen are seriously restricted—that they are not allowed to perform any acts of importance. They are allowed to manage departments which extract money from the pockets of the people; neither of them is allowed to spend a dollar, practically; but when it comes to spending money, all the departments for that purpose go to ministers from the other provinces. True, the Minister of Public Works for a time had some disposition of patronage, but the Minister of Marine and Fisheries came up and filched that from the province of Ontario, and to-day what is left for the Minister of Public Works amounts to practically nothing, and even that is not controlled by a minister who has the consent and approval of a constituency in Ontario. It is quite true that my hon. friend who represents North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), and whose absence we all regret just as sincerely as any gentleman on the other side of the House, is practically out of politics. The kindly reference made by the hon. leader of the opposition did not deserve the reply which it received from the First Minister. We all acknowledge that circumstances sometimes arise in politics to deprive both political parties of some of their friends and leaders; and it is to-day a notorious fact, admitted by hon. gentlemen opposite, that Mr. Sutherland is not coming back to this House. Nay, I go further and say that I saw a letter myself the other day, written by a friend of Mr. Sutherland in Mexico, where he is, in which it is stated that his health was precarious, and that no one seriously believes
3589
he will resume his duties in the Public Works Department.
And the First Minister knows, just as well as he knows that the sun will rise tomorrow, that Mr. Sutherland does not intend to come back and take charge of that portfolio, and we all regret it. He knows equally well that the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) has been named for that portfolio—named months ago—and has been discharging the duties for the past year. Yet in the face of that fact, this government are so much in terror of the Ontario electorate, that they dare not open the seat in London to-day. You may boast that you have a majority of five hundred or six hundred for the hon. member for London in that city, but that majority was reduced to something like twenty in the last campaign. The excuse given by his friends is that they were over-confident or he would have received his old-time majority. Well, this is the time and place in which, if the government have a scintilla of confidence in the people of Ontario, to show that confidence by throwing down the gauntlet and opening up the constituency of London. But if they should, the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) knows, and the cabinet knows, what will be the result. Here we have a cabinet in this humiliating position that it has only two ministers of the Crown on the floor of this House from Ontario. True, there are two in the Senate, but I do not suppose the public are much exercised about them. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) has been over the stony path and the thorny places. He spent all his life in the constituency of South Brant but that constituency finally turned him out. Then he went over the corduroy road in North Grey but did not dare return there, and finally sought solace in a haven of rest with a solid Liberal majority of 1,000, but that hon. minister knows that so low has his party fallen in the estimation of the people of Ontario that nearly every seat went against it in the last local election. And what is the position of the hon. member for North York (Sir William Mulock)? That riding was long in the Liberal fold, but the hon. gentleman knows that if it were open to-day it would return an opponent to the present government. Then there is my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell), who, we all know, is knocking at the threshold for admission to the cabinet, and who represents a riding specially constructed for him. He has been standing at the door waiting and watching long, but they dare not open it for him, and it is a notorious fact that another gentleman who has been aspiring to cabinet promotion, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has openly gone out in revolt against the government on this question. Yet the government intend to rush this Bill through the House this session. If we were in the last days of a last session of parliament, the government would never be able to put
3590
their Bill through, but if this Bill cannot be killed in this House, the government which brought it down will be killed when they go before the people of the Northwest. This government may force the Bill through by means of what I would call a machine, if it were parliamentary, or what I would call a servile majority, if the rules of parliament would allow it; it may be voted through by a majority who have promises of preferment and place; but all I can say is that the government will not get preferment at the hands of the electorate when they go before the country. There is one power which is irresistible and that is the power of the people, and those gentlemen who vote for this measure will certainly stultify themselves in the eyes of their constituents in the Northwest Territories. They know that they are stultifying themselves to-day. Their own leaders have told them, as the hon. member for St. John (Mr Stockton) told them a little while ago, that this cabinet is afraid to trust the people who are most vitally interested. It knows that it cannot have a cabinet minister elected in the west. What is the standing of the government to-day in the great city of Toronto? Why, a large number of their friends want to precipitate a fight there, but they will only do it on one condition and that is that the policy of the government on this question must be condemned. What a pitiable spectacle does not this government represent? In a riding like Centre Toronto, which was only carried by the late Mr. Clarke, probably the most popular man in that city, by a bare majority of three hundred in the last contest, this government and their followers dare not put up a candidate to-day. They call however on their followers to vote for this measure and to trust that in time it will be forgotten. They should remember that there was a statesman named Stratton in Ontario who asked the people to forget, but the people did not; and we have a spectacle presented to-day by this government exactly similar to that which was presented by the Ross government in Ontario, and in like manner when this government does go to the people it will have as little chance as it expects to have in Centre Toronto and share the same fate which overtook the late local government. It may win Russell and Prescott but will be beyond help in the rest of the province.
Motion (Mr. R. L. Borden) to adjourn negatived.