Document Information

Date: 1905-04-05
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 3834-3879.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

3834

….

EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.

On the Orders of the Day being called,

Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). I beg to lay upon the table of the House a return supplementary to the return which was laid on the table of the House on Monday last with respect to the claims of the government of Manitoba for an extension of the boundaries of that province. At the same time I move that the rules of the House be suspended, and that the return be printed forthwith.

3835

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Might I inquire whether the letter of the 23rd of February, which I observe in the public press, is included in the document brought down?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. No; I shall have to refer to that in a moment. In making this motion, I desire to make a statement. I desire at this moment to call the attention of the House to a statement which was published this morning in the newspapers of the city, and which I understand has been published in all the press of Canada. This statement is made by Mr. Rogers, a member of the Manitoba government, concerning the action taken by myself and by my colleagues upon an application made some time ago by the government of the province of Manitoba, under instructions from the legislature of that province, for an extension of its boundaries. I may say at once that it will be my duty, so far as the action of the government is concerned in this matter, to give the statement a direct, an absolute and a categorical denial. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I think it is better that I should read to the House, and therefore place upon the records, the statement of Mr. Rogers, as I find it in the ‘Citizen.’ It is as follows :

On February 13, we received a formal invitation by telegraph from Sir Wilfrid to come to Ottawa as soon as convenient. We left on February 14 and arrived on the afternoon of the 16th, when we received a letter from Sir Wilfrid at the Russell House saying that he would be pleased to meet us at his office at mid-day on Friday, the 17th.

During that interview we presented the claims of the province as urgently and strongly as possible. In reply Sir Wilfrid said that if we would be good enough to remain in Ottawa for three or four days he would again send for us and would then be in a position to give us an answer.

In three days’ time, on February 20, a letter was received from Monseigneur Sbarretti, asking for a conference. This invitation was accepted and His Excellency then presented the following memorandum, remarking that if we would place this on the statute-book of our province it would greatly facilitate an early settlement of our mission, the fixing of our boundaries, which would be extended to the shores of Hudson bay. His Excellency further added that our failure to act in the past had prejudiced our claim for extension westward. The following is a copy of His Excellency’s memorandum, containing the proposed amendment to the Manitoba School Act:

MGR. SBARRETTI’S MEMORANDUM.

“Add to section 125.—(b).—And when in any city or town there shall be thirty or more Roman Catholic children and also thirty or more non-Roman Catholic children, or in any village more than fifteen of each of such classes, the trustees shall, if requested by a petition of parents or guardians of such number of such classes, provide separate accommodation for each of such classes and employ for them respectively Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic teachers.

3836

“Add to section 49.—(b)—And when in any district there shall be fifteen or more Roman Catholic children and fifteen or more non-Roman Catholic children, the trustees shall, if required by a petition of parents or guardians of such number of either of such classes, provide separate accommodation for each of such classes and employ for them respectively Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic teachers.”

DELAYING WITH A PURPOSE.

Notwithstanding Sir Wilfrid’s invitation and our interview, followed by his promise of which he was reminded by our letter, strange to say, up to this very hour we have had no reply to ours of February 23. What more natural conclusion can be arrived at than that Sir Wilfrid is simply killing time and making pretexts in order that the polite invitation of Monseigneur Sbarretti could be acted upon by Manitoba.

In this way, of course, Sir Wilfrid thinks he can secure a political advantage for his friends in this province. This is a palpable political trick, which he is quite capable of undertaking, with the view to force the local government to do something which would be resented by the people and by this means he hopes to reinstate his Liberal friends in power here. I, for one, promise to take no chances in allowing Sir Wilfrid or any person else to take advantage of us by any underhanded scheme of this sort. All I ask is that every citizen of the province should have an opportunity of expressing his opinion by his vote as a protest against continued delay. I deny the right of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Monseigneur Sbarretti to undertake to mix up the matter of separate schools with that of the extension of our boundaries, and I am sure that in so doing they do not reflect the wishes of either Roman Catholics or Protestants in the province. It ill-becomes the ‘Globe’ to make this charge against the government of Manitoba, when the only persons affected are Sir Wilfrid and Monseigneur Sbarretti.

LAURIER’S DOUBLE-DEALING.

We have no desire in Manitoba for double-dealing about this or any other question. This, however, appears to be a favourite course of Sir Wilfrid. For example, in 1896 he signed an official statement declaring himself to be entitled to credit for the final settlement of the Manitoba school question, while immediately following we find from the correspondence brought down in the parliament of Canada the following extract from a letter to Cardinal Rampolla, which he has never denied:

‘It is desirable, if not necessary, that the mission of Monseigneur Merry Del Val should be renewed or rather continued, and that he should be present in the midst of us for a more or less prolonged time as the accredited representative of the Holy See.’

It will be remembered that Monseigneur Merry Del Val was appointed Papal delegate by His Holiness the Pope on the petition of Sir Wilfrid and forty odd members of the parliament of Canada. The petition was presented to His Holiness by Mr. Fitzpatrick and further urged by the Canadian legal representative in London, England, Charles Russell, who was afterwards instructed to go to Rome as Sir Wilfrid’s representative, and who, on November 26, 1897, addressed the following to Cardinal Rampolla, secretary of state to the Pope.

3837

‘I have just arrived at Rome once more at the urgent request of the Catholic members of the government and parliament of Canada. My instructions enjoin me to again renew to Your Eminence the desire which I had already the honour to express to you, that His Holiness will be pleased to nominate a permanent delegate to Canada as representative of His Holiness who would reside on the spot but would be outside all local interests.’

So that by this plain arrangement a delegate was appointed who was regarded as necessary on account of differences of opinion which existed at that time between Sir Wilfrid and certain of his following as to his official signed statement declaring he was a party to the final settlement of the Manitoba school question. Here again, we have the hand of Sir Wilfrid engaged in double-dealing in this matter as is evidenced by his assurance to Cardinal Rampolla through Mr. Russell, the Canadian legal representative, who wrote to His Eminence as follows, presenting Sir Wilfrid’s side of the case at Rome:

We do not solicit His Holiness to sanction as perfect the concessions obtained, but that in His wisdom he will be pleased to regard them as a beginning of justice.

Now, this to my mind is conclusive that Sir Wilfrid in combination with Monseigneur Sbarretti had hoped by their present course to carry out the promise given through their accredited representative, Mr. Charles Russell, in this underhand way. In view of the foregoing, I am sure that Sir Wilfrid Laurier owes it to the people of this province to at once give a reason why we are not entitled to immediate consideration and action other than the flimsy excuse which he has already himself created in his invitation to Mr. Whitney to advance a claim to some portion of Keewatin which did not form part of old Canada.

It is certainly idle for any person to assume that Monseigneur Sbarretti, occupying the position he does, would press me to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he did without the full knowledge and consent of Sir Wilfrid and his colleagues. And on the other hand Sir Wilfrid’s attitude carries with it evidence of a full knowledge of arrangement, as is evident by his creation of excuses for delay as well as his failure to give reason or cause for same, and further by his unfairness in bringing down one side of the case and attempting to secure a prejudicement from the people without their having Manitoba’s reply to his minute of council of March 21, which was received by this government on March 28 and replied to on March 31.

Can you give us your reply for publication? Mr. Rogers was asked.

No, because it can only be made public through the usual channel, that of being laid on the table of the House and Sir Wilfrid is at perfect liberty and should do this at once.

Before I proceed any further, I may say at once, referring to the whole tenor of this document, that in so far as there is a charge that there was an understanding between Monseigneur Sbarretti and myself to have the school question considered in connection with the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, there is not a shadow nor a tittle of truth in it. Mr. Rogers uses this language:

3838

It is certainly idle for any person to assume that Monseigneur Sbarretti, occupying the position he does, would presume to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he did without the full knowledge and consent of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues.

I assert that if Mr. Rogers states that Monseigneur Sbarretti did press him to make the suggestion of terms and conditions which he says Monseigneur Sbarretti did with my knowledge, he states something which is not in accordance with truth. If that has taken place it has taken place wholly without my knowledge and without my participation, and I never heard of it in any way whatever until last Saturday, when the matter was brought to my notice by a telegram from the Toronto ‘Globe.’ Then Mr. Rogers goes on to say:

And, on the other hand, Sir Wilfrid’s attitude carries with it evidence of a full knowledge of arrangement, as is evident by his creation of excuses for delay, as well as his failure to give reason or cause for same and further by his unfairness in bringing down one side of the case and attempting to secure a prejudgment from the people without their having Manitoba’s reply to his minute of council of March 21, which was received by this government on March 28, and replied to on March 31.

On Monday last, which was the 3rd of April, I brought down to this House a return to an address moved for some time ago by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), asking for copies of all correspondence that had taken place between the government of Manitoba and this government on the subject of the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. The last paper upon this return was the acknowledgment of the receipt of our reply to the prayer of the Manitoba government. We have received since that time a further rejoinder by Manitoba to our reply. We did not bring it down on Monday with the return, because we had not then received it. It arrived at the Privy Council office only yesterday. I at once gave orders to the clerk of the Privy Council to have it prepared for presentation to the House and I have to-day laid it on the table of the House. In all this there was no evidence of any intention to conceal anything. There was nothing to conceal, this was a public document. Then I see by the correspondence that the order of the Manitoba government was passed on the 31st of March, which was last Friday. It was sent to us on the following day, Saturday, it could not therefore get here until yesterday morning, and as soon as it was received by us, as I said a moment ago, I gave instructions to have it prepared and laid on the table of the House, so as to form part of the correspondence which the people of this country have a right to have before them. Now, I pass to another statement of Mr. Rogers:

3839

In three days’ time—

I shall come back to this.

—February 20, a letter was received from His Excellency, Monseigneur Sbarretti, asking for a conference. This invitation was accepted, and His Excellency then presented the following memorandum, remarking that if we would place this on the statute-book of our province it would greatly facilitate an early settlement of our mission, the fixing of our boundaries, which would be extended to the shores of Hudson bay. His Excellency further added that our failure to act in the past had prejudiced our claim for extension westward.

According to this statement, it appears that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Colin Campbell, who were the delegates of the Manitoba government, had a conference with Monseigneur Sbarretti, the Papal ablegate. There has been a rumour in the press—not in the press, but at all events, about the corridors of this House—that this conference had been brought about by means of one of my colleagues. I have to say to the House, and I have the authority of my colleague for this, that there never was any conference brought about by him between the delegates and Monseigneur Sbarretti, and I have to make the further statement that neither myself nor any of my colleagues were the intermediaries between Monseigneur Sbarretti and the delegates of Manitoba. If there has been such a conference how it came about I cannot say. Perhaps Monseigneur Sbarretti may have had previous communication with these gentlemen; I do not know. Perhaps he knew them and perhaps that is the reason why he called upon them to have a conference. At all events, it is no concern of mine. I know nothing, and I never knew anything of it until this day, nor did the government. What conversation took place between the papal ablegate, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Colin Campbell I do not know. This is a question, perhaps, as to which there may be something later on; I do not know. But, I take the statement as I find it here, and upon this statement I have the right to make some comments which may throw some light, perhaps, on what has taken place. Mr. Rogers says that the ablegate made this remark :

This invitation was accepted and His Excellency then presented the following memorandum, remarking that if we would place this on the statute-book of our province it would greatly facilitate an early settlement of our mission, the fixing of our boundaries, which would be extended to the shores of Hudson bay.

As to that, I have no reason to make any comment, because that is a thing as to which I know nothing. Then Mr. Rogers goes on to say :

His Excellency further added that our failure to act in the past had prejudiced our claim for extension westward.

3840

Well, Sir, I cannot conceive how the papal ablegate, or anybody else, could have stated that the failure of the province of Manitoba to amend the School Act prevented the extension of its boundaries westward and that if such had been done it would have facilitated this extension. I cannot conceive how it is possible that such a statement could have been made, considering the fact that since the month of July, 1896, when we came into office, up to the month of January, 1905, we never received from the government of Manitoba a communication asking for the extension of the boundaries of that province. There may have been resolutions passed by the legislature, asking for the extension of their boundaries; I do not know. I am told that there have been, and I have seen in the press that resolutions were passed in 1901, that resolutions were passed also, as I understand, in 1902, and resolutions were passed, I know, in 1905. In 1905, these resolutions were followed by executive action, they were called to our attention, but neither in 1901 nor in 1902, were these resolutions passed by the legislature of Manitoba, followed by executive action or called to the attention of the government of Canada. This morning, when I read the interview with Mr. Rogers, I asked myself if my memory was at fault, and if there had been any communication sent to us, which, in the multitude of things with which we are called upon to deal, I might have forgotten. I inquired of my colleagues if they had any recollection of any such communication being sent to us, and they all answered me they had no such recollection. I then inquired from the clerk of the Privy Council if there was anything in the archives of the department which would show that any such communication had been received by us, and I received this memorandum from the clerk of the Privy Council.

From June, 1896, to January, 1905, there is no record in the Privy Council office of a claim advanced by the province of Manitoba for the extension of its boundaries. In May, 1902, there was a protest from the Northwest Territories against the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba.

Now, Sir, with these preliminary remarks I shall proceed to give my version of what took place between Mr. Colin Campbell and Mr. Rogers, and us, when they came here as delegates from the government of Manitoba. I shall take in the first place the following statement made by Mr. Rogers :

On February 13th we received a formal invitation by telegraph from Sir Wilfrid Laurier to come to Ottawa as soon as convenient. We left on February 14th and arrived on afternoon of the 16th, when we received a letter from Sir Wilfrid at the Russell House, saying that he would be pleased to meet us at his office at mid-day on Friday the 17th.

In this statement there is nothing which

3841

is not in accordance with the truth, but it is not the whole truth. It leaves the impression that we took the initiative of our own accord to have these gentlemen come from Manitoba to discuss that matter with us, whereas the truth is, that we simply responded to an invitation which came to us from the government of Manitoba. I have brought here the whole correspondence which has taken place upon this subject. I stated a moment ago that from the month of June, 1896 to the month of January, 1905, we had not received a communication from the government of Manitoba asking for the extension of their boundaries, and I repeat the statement. The first communication we received upon this subject is the following:

Department of the Provincial Secretary, Winnipeg, Man. January 20th, 1905.

Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada, Ottawa, Ont.

Sir,—The government of Manitoba, on a motion of the legislative assembly, has to-day forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General, a memorial relating to the extension of the boundaries of the province, and I am directed to write you and request that you will be pleased to appoint an early date for receiving a deputation from the government of Manitoba in relation to the matter. It would be appreciated if such a date could be named for the first or second week in February.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant, D. H. McFADDEN,

Provincial Secretary.

To this letter I answered in the following terms:

Ottawa, 24th January, 1905.

Dear Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your favour of the 20th instant, informing me that the legislative assembly has forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, a memorial relating to the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba, and asking to have a date fixed for receiving a deputation from the government of Manitoba in connection with this matter.

The memorial has not yet been received at the office of the Privy Council. I shall bring your request to the attention of the government as soon as possible after its receipt, and will communicate with you again later on.

Yours very sincerely,

WILFRID LAURIER.

Hon. D. H. McFadden, Manitoba.

In accordance with the promise there made, when we had received the memorial from the government of Manitoba, I brought it to the attention of the Privy Council, and I was authorized to send the following telegram:

Ottawa, 13th February, 1905.

Hon. D. H. McFadden, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

With reference to your last memorial re extension of limits, will be glad to receive your delegation at any time convenient to you.

3842

That telegram is dated the 13th of February, and on the same day I received the following telegram from Mr. McFadden:

Winnipeg, Man., 13th February, 1905.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Ottawa, Ont.

Replying to your telegram of even date, Hon. Messrs. Rogers and Campbell have been appointed to confer with your government regarding extension of boundaries. They leave here to-morrow, will reach Ottawa Thursday 16th. Kindly notify them at Russell House as to time and place for interview suitable to your own convenience.

D. H. McFADDEN.

In accordance with this last telegram inviting me to fix a time and to inform Mr. Campbell and Mr. Rogers at what time we would be ready to receive them, I caused my secretary in compliance with their desire, on the 16th of February to send the following letter:

Ottawa, 16th February, 1905.

Dear Sir,—Sir Wilfrid Laurier will be glad to receive you to-morrow the 17th instant at 12.30 o’clock in his office, Privy Council.

Yours respectfully,

(Sgd.) RODOLPHE BOUDREAU, Private Secretary.

That was on the 16th of February, and on the following day accordingly, there took place at my office the interview with the delegates from Manitoba. There had been a subcommittee of the Privy Council appointed to receive the delegates, and the ministers present on that occasion were, the Minister of Justice, the Postmaster General and myself; I think the Secretary of State was present, but of that I am not quite sure.

I take now the statement of Mr. Rogers as to what took place then. Mr. Rogers says:

During that interview we presented the claim of the province as urgently and strongly as possible. In reply Sir Wilfrid said, that if we would be good enough to remain in Ottawa for three or four days he would again send for us and would then be in a position to give us an answer.

As to the latter statement I am sorry to say that my memory is not in accordance with the memory of Mr. Rogers. I do not want to make any imputation, but I flatter myself that I have a pretty good memory and my memory is corroborated by that of my colleagues. What took place was this: We heard the petition presented to us by the delegates from Manitoba. Mr. Rogers was the spokesman. I do not think Mr. Campbell said anything at all, but if he did he took a very indifferent part in the discussion which was mainly carried on by Mr. Rogers. He presented to us a repetition of all the claims which are advanced in the state paper now on the table of the House. He asked that the

3843

boundaries of the province should be extended westward, northward and eastward—westward, that it should have a part of the new province of Saskatchewan, a part of the districts of Assiniboia and Saskatchewan; northward, that they should have the territory towards the north, and eastward towards Hudson bay. I may say at once that we discussed this at some length, in fact at considerable length. When Mr. Rogers advanced the claim on behalf of Manitoba, that its boundaries should be extended westward and include part of the present districts of Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, we presented to Mr. Rogers what seemed to be a very strong objection to that. We told Mr. Rogers in fact: that this claim had been considered by the government of Sir John Macdonald in 1884 and had not been granted; that the reasons which existed in 1884 for refusing the prayer of Manitoba were far stronger to-day than they were then; that at that time part of the Territories was in its infancy, but that at present it had a considerable population, as advanced as the population of Manitoba. That there was the objection further: that the legislature of the Territories had protested against its being annexed to Manitoba, and therefore we did not see how it was possible to grant that part of the prayer of the province of Manitoba. With regard to the northern portion of the district of Saskatchewan, we said to Mr. Rogers and to his colleague, Mr. Campbell: we do not know that there is any objection to granting you the upper portion of the district of Saskatchewan; it is true that we understand there is an objection raised, but it is a question which can be discussed later on; at all events, we do not intend to introduce this part of the territory of Saskatchewan into the new provinces and we had better leave it for further discussion.

When it came to a discussion on the extension of the boundary eastward, towards Hudson bay, my colleague the Postmaster General, who was with me then, at once took strong objections to that claim of Manitoba. He stated that in his opinion it would not be fair to the province of Ontario that that claim should be considered unless the province of Ontario had an opportunity to discuss it with the province of Manitoba. That was on the 17th of February. I do not remember that I said to Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell that if they were to wait for some days we would again send for them and be in a position to give them an answer. What I distinctly remember stating, as it was my duty to do, was that their representations would be brought to the attention of the Council, and that probably they would get an answer at an early date. More than this I do not remember stating, and I do not think I did. The two Bills for the creation of the provinces of

3844

Saskatchewan and Alberta were introduced on the following Tuesday, the 21st of February. Both Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell were present on the floor of this House and heard the statement I then made. That statement was that I had the authority of my colleagues to say that we could not see our way to extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba westward, for the reasons which I have just given, that we had reserved the northern portion of the district of Saskatchewan for future action, and that with regard to extending the boundaries of Manitoba to Hudson bay we were of opinion that the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec should be consulted. Mr. Rogers heard this statement, and, therefore, knew what was the policy of the government on that question.

This shows one thing, that this policy of ours was settled then and there, without interference from anybody, without participation by anybody. We settled our own business according to our lights. We told the province of Manitoba that we could not extend its boundaries westward for the reasons we gave, and on that decision we took our stand before this House and maintained it. But we stated we were prepared to consider the claim of the province of Manitoba for extension northward towards Hudson bay in connection with the claims of the new province of Saskatchewan and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Since that time we have embodied these views in a Minute of Council, which has been communicated to the Manitoba government. There is no difference between the Minute of Council and the statement I made on the floor of this House on the 21st of February except this, that in the Minute of Council, after having given the matter due consideration, we take the view that there is no reason for calling the province of Quebec to that conference, because it is not sufficiently interested in the matter; but we declare our readiness, immediately after the creation of the new provinces, to have a conference, in which the provinces of Saskatchewan, Ontario and Manitoba will be represented. That is the position in which the matter now stands.

My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has called my attention to a letter of Mr. Rogers of the 23rd of February. That letter is not in the interview as reported in the ‘Citizen,’ but I found it in another paper, the Toronto ‘Star’ of yesterday, and is as follows:

Russell House, Ottawa, February 23, 1905.

Sir,—As we find it necessary to leave Ottawa to-morrow, we desire to refer to our interview of Friday, the 17th, respecting Manitoba’s claim for extension of her boundaries westward and northward, when you were good enough to suggest that if we would come here for two or three days you would be in a position to give us an answer respecting same. Up to the present, however, we have heard nothing further from you, excepting your statement in parliament

3845

on Tuesday last, when introducing your Autonomy Bills, which we presume represents your fixed and final decision as to westward boundary.

In view of Manitoba’s very strong claims, as presented to you in the memorial unanimously passed by our legislature, and supported and supplemented in our interview, we must enter, on behalf of the province, our firm protest against your decision in refusing to grant the prayer of our request, extension of our boundaries westward, and exceedingly regret that apparently local considerations have deprived Manitoba of what she rightfully regards as a most just claim.

Respecting extension northward, we most respectfully urge it on you that this should engage your consideration and attention during the present session.

We, of course, most emphatically deny the right of Quebec and Ontario having further to say in respect to the extension of our boundaries north to James bay, or that they could advance any claim worthy of consideration that would necessitate delay in attaching this territory immediately to Manitoba.

We regard this as exclusively a matter for settlement between our government and Manitoba. We sincerely trust that upon further consideration you may see your way clear to grant the request we make on behalf of a united province.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) R. ROGERS.

My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked me a moment ago why this letter was not included in the correspondence that has been brought down. The answer is, that I have not received that letter. It is not of very great consequence in view of the facts. It is simply a letter of protest; it adds nothing at all to the facts; but I did not receive it. This morning I asked my secretary to search and see whether or not it had been received. I have no remembrance of having received it and it is not on file. I have brought everything that there is on file on this question. Moreover, I do not think it matters very much whether Mr. Rogers wrote or did not write that letter, in view of the interview he gave and which was published in the ‘Citizen’ of the 20th of February last upon this very point. In that interview Mr. Rogers stated to the reporter:

Mr. Campbell and myself have been appointed to come here to plead for what is considered by Manitoba to be her just claims, before the government who are the tribunal in the case, and whose decision must be final.

When do you expect a decision?

I presume that when the Bill which is promised for Tuesday next is brought down, it will represent the government’s decision in the matter.

Mr. Rogers was present on the floor of this House on the 21st of February and heard me state the decision of the government, and therefore there was not much occasion for him to write two days later asking for a decision. But this point is of no consequence. I mention it simply as a

3846

reason why the letter was not included in the correspondence.

I have only one word more to say about the extraordinary interview of Mr. Rogers. I will read again a statement of Mr. Rogers which appears in the ‘Citizen’ under the heading ‘Laurier’s Double Dealing.’ Mr. Rogers says:

We have no desire in Manitoba for double dealing about this or any other question. This, however, appears to be a favourite course of Sir Wilfrid. For example, in 1896 he signed an official statement declaring himself to be entitled to credit for the final settlement of the Manitoba school question, while immediately following we find from the correspondence brought down in the parliament of Canada the following extract from a letter to Cardinal Rampolla, which he has never denied.

I have only two observations to make on this. I do not know to what Mr. Rogers refers when he says that I signed an official statement declaring myself to be entitled to credit for the final settlement of the Manitoba school question. It is not of any consequence, but I do not know what Mr. Rogers means when he says that. In the statement immediately following, the impression is conveyed that the Canadian government brought down correspondence between the government of Canada and Cardinal Rampolla. There is no such thing in fact. The government of Canada never had any correspondence with Cardinal Rampolla and never brought down any correspondence, because there was none to bring down. What is true is that in 1896 myself and several of my co-religionists, having some difficulties in our own church, appealed to the authorities of our own church to settle them. There was nothing more than that. We did it, not as a government, but simply as men belonging to the Roman Catholic church. We had trouble over matters of ecclesiastical policy, and we appealed to the supreme arbiter in our church to determine these matters. There was nothing more or less. On this occasion I have nothing more to say, but I thought that under the circumstances I owed it to myself and the House simply to make a statement of the facts as they are.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. I simply wish to supplement briefly some of the remarks that have fallen from my right hon. leader. The communication from Mr. Rogers contains a statement to the effect that at the invitation of His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti, he waited upon him, and that on that occasion the Papal ablegate said that if they would make some concessions, the mission of the Manitoba representatives would likely be successful. That mission was for the purpose of having the boundaries of that province extended to the shores of Hudson bay. It was suggested that the difficulty in the way of Manitoba securing the extension could, in some way or other be removed if some concessions were made by

3847

the Manitoba government on the school question. To that point I wish to address myself for a moment. I was requested by the First Minister to attend the meeting of the 17th of February at which were present the gentlemen named by him. I did not know before going the object of the meeting. I was aware that the Manitoba government had sent to this administration a memorial requesting, among other things, the extension of its boundaries northward to Hudson bay. The words of the memorial are literally ‘northward to Hudson bay.’ I attended that meeting and there were present Mr. Colin Campbell, Mr. Rogers, the premier and perhaps the Minister of Justice.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. The Minister of Justice was not present, so far as my recollection goes, during the time I was there. A few minutes after I arrived Mr. Rogers,—who was the only minister from Manitoba who spoke—explained that his government desired the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba easterly to the Hudson bay and northerly. The memorial said northerly, and when he explained that they desired an extension easterly to Hudson bay, so as to include territory at the mouth of the Churchill river and the Nelson river, I at once observed that he was asking to extend the territory of Manitoba easterly in a direction which would perhaps interest the province of Ontario as well. Up to that moment, when it was only proposed, so far as the memorial went, to extend Manitoba northerly,—although they may have intended north easterly to come out at Hudson bay—it did not occur to me that the desire was to go to the mouths of those two rivers. Therefore so soon as that object was known to me, I said that the province of Ontario would have the right to be heard before we could adjudicate upon that point or form any opinion upon it. Mr. Rogers took the ground that the province of Ontario had no right or claim to any territory lying north of that province and adjacent to Manitoba’s easterly limit, and therefore had no right to be heard. I controverted that view and explained that I could not agree to it. He said if you will allow me I can satisfy you that Ontario has no right to be heard. I replied that it would be a waste of time to try and convert me on that point and that, speaking as a minister from the province of Ontario, I must insist upon that province being heard before this question is gone into.

I did not succeed in influencing the Manitoba representatives and I turned to the premier and informed him that, as a minister coming from Ontario, I was not prepared to discuss these questions affecting the rights of Ontario until the government of that province was present and could submit its case. Upon that statement I withdrew from the meeting, and I am told

3848

that the claim for extension to Hudson bay then and there ceased for the time being. I take the ground to-day, as a minister from Ontario, without expressing any opinion as to how the territory should be divided, that our province is entitled to an opportunity to present its case before the parliament of Canada deals with it. In my opinion it is quite possible to make a fair distribution, so that Ontario may be able to acquire a deep sea harbour and Manitoba be similarly equipped on the Hudson bay. Our territory extends to James bay but I believe James bay is shallow and not suitable for ocean navigation, whereas when you go to the west coast of Hudson bay, you have two possible ports, one at the mouth of the Nelson river, which with dredging may be made a very good sea harbour, and it might be regarded by the two provinces as a fair division of territory if Manitoba were given a harbour at mouth of the Churchill river and Ontario at Nelson river. That was the idea that went through my mind when I heard of this claim; and so far as the Papal Ablegate is concerned, the statement made in this newspaper is the first intimation I have that he took any part in the adjustment of the boundaries of Ontario. Long before the interview in question, I had given, so far as a minister from Ontario could do so, a decision as to the attitude I assumed on that question, and that was that until the province of Ontario could be heard, no conclusion could be come to.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) I have very little to say in respect of what has fallen from the Prime Minister. I am glad to know that the Prime Minister to-day has not adhered to that reticence which has characterized him on similar occasions in the immediate past, and I suppose that it might be fair to assume, that if he had had as good a case with respect to the ignoring of his Minister of the Interior and his Minister of Finance in regard to important measures as that which he has made today, with regard to the matter with which he has dealt, he would have given us an explanation that has not yet been made with reference to the introduction of this Bill without even consultation with these two gentlemen. It is gratifying to know that although two members of his own government could not be consulted with regard to the provisions of this Bill, the Postmaster General has been so strenuous in his advocacy of the rights of his province of Ontario that the ministers of that province had to be consulted. However, there is an old proverb that charity well understood begins at home, and possibly the rights of ministers to be heard with regard to important matters to be dealt with by parliament may be extended not only to the provincial ministers of Ontario, but to ministers of this very administration.

3849

I do not know anything about the letter of the 23rd of February which has been referred to to-day except that I received a telegram only this morning from the attorney general of Manitoba, who evidently had observed that this letter had not been included in the documents brought down, and he asked me to mention the matter to the Prime Minister and to see that it was brought down with the other documents. That is the only knowledge I have with regard to it and it is quite evident that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell were thoroughly under the impression that that letter had not only been sent, but had been received by the Prime Minister. Assuming that that letter was written and should have been received it seems to bear out very strongly the view which Mr. Rogers had expressed in the interview alluded to by the Prime Minister. He says :

Sir, as we find it necessary to leave Ottawa to-morrow, we desire to refer to our interview of Friday, the 17th, respecting Manitoba’s claim for extension of her boundaries westward and northward, when you were good enough to suggest that if we would come here for two or three days you would be in a position to give us an answer respecting same.

They remained here not only two or three days, but as the letter shows until the 23rd of February, and they departed without receiving any answer or any intimation beyond that. But they received an intimation from His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti which has been dealt with by the Prime Minister and by Mr. Rogers in his interview. As to that I have nothing to say to-day nor have I anything to say with regard to the whole situation, although it may afford an opportunity for a little more debate later on. It seems to me that the explanation of the Prime Minister which has been made in consequence of the interview with Mr. Rogers might well have been made at some earlier date. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is surely not unaware that in two very important journals, one of which at least is in very close touch with the administration and is supposed to have been controlled up to a day or two ago by a very prominent member of this administration, this very reason has been put forward. I would think that when a distinct rumour of that kind is heralded throughout the length and breadth of this country it might have been well for the Prime Minister at an earlier date to take an opportunity of contradicting that which he has so strongly contradicted to-day. He knows that every prominent journal in Canada has published words which are to be found in the Northwest ‘Review,’ in the later part of February or early in March and which are as follows :

Two days after the ‘Telegram’ had trumpeted abroad the Hon. Robert Rogers’ great hopes for the western extension of Manitoba, the same wise and prophetic journal deplores the

3850

fact that there will be no such extension in any direction. But it omits to give the reason thereof. The only obstacle to the territorial expansion of our province is its iniquitous and cruel school system. Not even the wildest corner of any unorganized territory will consent to saddle itself with such a tyranny. Manitoba must be content to remain small and mean so long as it maintains its small and mean school policy.

That is a pretty direct statement. In so many words it says that until Manitoba alters its schools policy it shall not have its boundaries extended in any direction. That or a similar statement in the press was brought to the attention of the House and my right hon. friend paid some attention to it then, but did not pay attention to it in this connection. I have observed his words carefully. He said there was no intention on the part of this administration to attempt any remedial legislation with respect to schools in Manitoba, but I did not observe in my right hon. friend’s remarks on that occasion any suggestion that the statement I have read was absolutely without foundation, may I observe to the right hon. gentleman that it might have been better in the interests of the whole country that some such utterance as that which he has made to-day should have been made in consequence of the statement in the press to which I have referred? In a journal, controlled as it is said—I know not with what truth—by a member of the administration until within the last two or three days, the same statement is made in very specific language, and it is right to observe also that this journal claims to be the special mouthpiece of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He has disclaimed that and I accept his disclaimer to the full. He says he is not interested in that journal, but the journal itself declares that it is the organ of the Liberal party, and that it is under the direction and absolute control of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That journal has said :

The school legislation of the little province—

That is the province of Manitoba.

—is not of a nature to attract immigrants who people the districts. The Northwest has its separate schools, Manitoba has abolished them. Every good act has its reward, every bad act its chastisement. Manitoba will remain lowest with her pretentious law.

A little before that the same paper says :

In proportion to her big sisters Manitoba will count as little more than a large county.

In view of these suggestions, they are more than suggestions, in view of these direct statements, one of them made by a journal supposed to be under the control of a very prominent member of the administration, and claiming for itself to be under the absolute direction and control of the

3851

right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in view of all this, might I not respectfully inquire whether it would not have been well for the right hon. gentleman on an earlier occasion than that which he has selected to have made to the country the statement which he has made to-day.

I have nothing to say with regard to the position which is said to have been assumed by His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti. He is not in any sense responsible to this parliament, he is responsible only to his ecclesiastical superiors in authority. The only persons who are in any way responsible to this parliament are the government of this country, and I thought that my right hon. hon. friend to-day might have gone a little further than he did go. He knows as well as any of the rest of us, that it has been rumoured throughout this country, not only rumoured but stated in the public press that there were negotiations with His Excellency with regard to education in the Northwest Territories if not in Manitoba. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did not see fit to touch that question at all to-day and I suppose when he thinks a proper occasion arises he will deal with it, but in the meantime I may call his attention to the fact that the statements to that effect are being made in the press of the country; upon what authority I do not know. All I do know is this, that when statements made in a very much less direct manner, and on very slight foundation were current in 1895 and 1896, with regard to the Conservative administration of those days my hon. friend was always ready to come forward and ask for ministerial explanations and if necessary to move the adjournment of the House in order that they might be discussed.

In view of the attitude which he saw fit to adopt ten years ago, we might have expected that he would have gone a little further to-day when he called the attention of the House to these circumstances. As I said before, the matter may perhaps require to be discussed a little further. I was not aware that the right hon. gentleman intended to bring it up to-day in this somewhat extended form. If necessary, it may be brought up and discussed on a future occasion.

Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald). I want to call attention for a moment to that mysterious letter of the 23rd of February. I think I can bring testimony to show where this letter went, and I think I can trace it to the right hon. the First Minister’s own residence. Now, on the 23rd of February the Hon. Mr. Rogers, after writing this letter, asked me to see that it got over to the hon. the First Minister. I rang the bell from room No. 6, and there came a messenger named Julius Beaulieu, I gave the letter to him, and he said he would deliver it. He says now there is no doubt but that he did deliver the letter. Surely

3852

we are living in a mysterious age, mysterious things are taking place every day, and this is one of them. I wish to call the right hon. gentleman’s attention to another statement he made. He told us to-day that his memory is as fresh now as it was in his younger days. He stated that the Hon. Colin Campbell was on the floor of the House on the 22nd day of February when these Bills were introduced, which is not the case. I may add regarding that letter that I have been down and consulted the records in the messengers department in this building, which show that this wonderful letter went from room No. 6, and that it was delivered to the messenger at about the time that the messenger states, it was carried to the right hon. gentleman’s residence on that particular day, and they show that it went from that particular room.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I want to correct my hon. friend. I stated that Mr. Rogers was here on the 21st of February, and I am sure of that; and I stated that Mr. Campbell was here also, but I was not so sure of that and that is what I said. In regard to the letter that was sent to my house, I think that if it was sent to my house it must have gone astray somewhere, because I have never seen it. I really did not suppose that anybody would suspect that I would make an inaccurate statement in regard to that.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York). I intend for a few moments to refer to and comment upon the statement made here to-day. On February 27th I brought to the attention of this House the very question referred to just now by the leader of the opposition, when I read a declaration of the French newspaper called ‘Le Soleil,’ saying it was the organ of the government, and I also read its editorial, which declared that Manitoba was being punished by a denial of extension of her western or other boundaries because of her school laws. The right hon. gentleman repudiated all that. He said there was no intention of punishing Manitoba, and he made light of the statements I made. But since then it has come out that that newspaper was his newspaper, at least it has never been denied, and a colleague of his, according to a statement in the papers, transferred the other day a large portion of the shares he held in that paper to a senator who is a supporter of the right hon. gentleman. It has been shown by other quotations from papers supporting the government that little Manitoba was being punished for her iniquitous school legislation, there is no doubt about that. Now comes the Hon. Mr. Rogers, and his statement has been read here to-day and remains undenied in a great many respects so far as the Prime Minister is concerned. Mr. Rogers says that he received a letter from the Archbishop of Ephesus, Monseigneur Sbarretti, and there

3853

is no denial of that; there is no denial of the fact that he waited upon the Apostolic delegate at his residence. There is another statement that the Papal ablegate presented to him these amendments which he desired to be put in the school law of Manitoba, and that is the question before the people of Canada to-day. Did this Archbishop of Ephesus, the delegate Apostolic to Canada, this delegate of the Pope—did he present these amendments to one of the ministers of the province of Manitoba? And what were they? They were in the shape of a command that members of the government of Manitoba should stultify themselves by making provision in the law in Manitoba for a separate school establishment, after it had been refused by the legislature and by the people of that country, and after the right hon. gentleman had refused to pass remedial legislation or to take any hand in securing remedial legislation for the Catholic minority of that province. Well, that much has been proved. What more has been proved? What more has not been denied here to-day? What is singular is that which has not been denied. Probably the right hon. gentleman is in no position to deny it. Mr. Rogers says :

This invitation was accepted and His Excellency then presented the following memorandum, remarking that if we would place this on the statute-book of our province it would greatly facilitate an early settlement of our mission, the fixing of our boundaries, which would be extended to the shores of Hudson bay. His Excellency further added that our failure to act in the past had prejudiced our claim for extension westward.

Now is that true or is it not? Is it true that the delegate of the Pope told this member of the Manitoba government that their failure to act in the past had prevented an extension of their western boundary, and that if they would give him this remedial legislation now—for it is remedial legislation that he was seeking—they would get their request for an extension to the north. The people of Canada want to know to-day if that statement was really made. There has been no denial of it to-day. The Prime Minister says he cannot deny it, but the people of Canada want to know if it is true before any such Bill as that now before the House is passed. What more took place? There has been no denial to another statement of Mr. Rogers, namely, that this office of Papal delegate to Canada was created by the hon. gentlemen opposite, or rather was created at their request—there is no denial of that. It is known now to all the people of this country that we have a Papal delegate here at the request of hon. gentlemen opposite and that is proved in this very document.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is entirely misstating the facts if he means by ‘hon. gentlemen opposite’ the government.

3854

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I did not say that, I said gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House are responsible for this Papal delegate being here.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. I suppose the hon. gentleman would feel at liberty to attend to his own church without the permission of parliament?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Let me read what Mr. Rogers says. The following extract has not been denied :

It is desirable, if not necessary, that the mission of Monseigneur Merry Del Val should be rather continued, and that he should be present in the midst of us for a more or less prolonged time as the accredited representative of the Holy See.

The hon. Minister of Justice, as Mr. Chas. Fitzpatrick, and the right hon. Prime Minister, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and forty other colleagues of theirs in this House made the representation to the Holy See and the hon. the Minister of Justice, though acting as Mr. Chas. Fitzpatrick, asked that this delegate should be sent to Canada. The statement is here and it is not denied.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The hon. gentleman can read the petition. The petition of the Catholic members was read in this House.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I know and it proves that statement.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. No.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. And then, the legal agent of this government in London was used as a missionary to go to Rome to have this appointment confirmed.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. How much did it cost?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I do not know. This is an extract from the letter that Mr. Russell presented in Rome :

I have just arrived at Rome once more at the urgent request of the Catholic members of the government and parliament of Canada. My instructions enjoin me to again renew to Your Eminence the desire which I had already the honour to express to you, that His Holiness will be pleased to nominate a permanent delegate to Canada as a representative of His Holiness, who would reside on the spot, but would be outside all local interests.

That is not denied. Then, what else follows? Mr. Russell, the Canadian legal representative, wrote to His Eminence as follows :

We do not solicit His Holiness to sanction as perfect the concessions obtained, but that in his wisdom he will be pleased to regard them as a beginning of justice.

Now, that is a very important statement. The beginning of justice took place in 1896. The completion of justice is taking place in 1905, when the west is to be fettered in

3855

regard to her school freedom. In addition I wish to refer to another thing. Does not the right hon. gentleman, in the view of responsible government, in the full conception we have of responsible government in this country and in England, consider that he is responsible for that delegate being here and responsible for his conduct in this country just as much as if he were one of his own administration, or one of his own civil service?

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The right hon. gentleman and his colleagues laugh, but they brought that high dignitary here. He came at their request and for all the things that he does in connection with the politics and education of this country the right hon. gentleman will find that he is held responsible, and as a matter of fact he is responsible, within the full meaning of the British constitution.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. He has not denied his responsibility.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Now, we have had it very clearly pointed out in this debate so far that the ablegate is here at the request of the government.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. That is not correct. He is not here at the request of the government.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. He is here at the request of hon. gentlemen opposite.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Some gentlemen.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. He is here, according to Mr. Russell’s statement, which has never been denied, at the request of members of the government of Canada and at the request of members of the parliament of Canada, and I say, and I say it in the hearing of the people of Canada, that the government of the day are responsible because all the members of the government are responsible for the acts of the individual members of the government and every member who sits behind them and supports the government is responsible for the conduct of the government in this matter. We referred to Russian rule the other day. They have the procurator general of the Holy Synod in Russia, and it looks now to me as if the Papal ablegate in this country occupies the same position as a member of this government. Any way the evidence of that is not denied; it has not been denied to-day. The Papal ablegate has had an opportunity day after day of denying it. For some reason he has not seen fit to deny it and unless he does deny it, it will be taken as true that he did have that conversation with Mr. Rogers, that he did press the acceptance of these two amendments upon them, that he did tell them that if they did accept them they would find that their boundaries

3856

would be extended to the north, and that the reason that their boundaries had not been extended to the west was because of their school legislation. This is something that the people want an explanation of. It is something of which no explanation has been given here to-day and if the right hon. leader of the government thinks that this is to pass off with the explanation made here to-day he greatly misunderstands the situation of this country. There is a political crisis in this country, there is a feeling of unrest that hon. gentlemen opposite pretend to ignore but it is here, it must be dealt with and there is nothing that confirms it so much as the timidity of hon. gentlemen opposite. They are afraid to do anything. They cannot fill the vacancies in their cabinet. They cannot send the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) back for the endorsation of his constituents, they are doing everything that men who have done wrong and fear public censure could do, but they are not discharging their duty as they ought to discharge it.

I do not know that the right hon. leader of the government made it clear whether any of his colleagues had been in consultation with the Papal ablegate or not, but let us recall what took place. It is well to bear in mind that there are two faiths in this country; there is the Roman Catholic faith and there is the Protestant faith, and there is such a thing as keeping faith between the two faiths in this country. How did this Bill come before parliament as far as we know from the discussion which has taken place here? The right hon. leader of the government, the hon. Minister of Justice, and the hon. the Secretary of State, three co-religionists, one with the other drew up this Bill.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Order.

Mr. BRODEUR. Shame.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Now let me make my statement. The hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) and the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), who are supposed to represent Ontario opinion, as far as we know, were not present when it was drawn up. Then, we have the further statement that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), both men who were supposed to represent the Protestant faith in the government,—I suppose there has been some recognition of religion in the formation of the cabinet—were not consulted. But, on the contrary, by some process of stealth, it was got past them. There is no accounting for that, but the fact remains that legislation was actually introduced by three members of the government, and I am not saying anything as reflecting on their religion in any way whatsoever, but they happen to be of one religion, and they did not consult with their colleagues before the Bill was introduced.

3857

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. That is quite untrue.

Mr. FISHER. Absolutely untrue.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Well, it has not been denied.

Mr. FISHER. It is denied now.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. It has been denied over and over again by the premier.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. It has been admitted that the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior knew nothing about it and the hon. Minister of Finance says he knew nothing about it and they both have said in the House that practically that Bill was introduced by stealth.

Mr. FISHER. Not so.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. They have not.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will leave it to the hon. gentleman to explain.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. You need not lie about it.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then, another thing; by stealth it was taken past the members of the west, by stealth it was taken past the representatives of the government in the Northwest Territories, and by stealth it was taken past the caucus of hon. gentlemen opposite, so that, as far as we know, this Bill got into this House under the circumstances which I have stated here to-day. Now then, there is another thing and I want to deal with these questions as they have been stated here and as they are. I take the full responsibility for every thing I say. There is evidence now in this country that the right hon. gentleman is paying his political debts at the expense of the civil and educational rights of the people of this country.

Mr. SPEAKER. Order. That is an imputation that the hon. member should not make.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I don’t think, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. SPEAKER. I think that is an offensive imputation which the hon. gentleman should not make.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Take it back.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will modify it.

Mr. SPEAKER. Withdraw it.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Which statement?

Mr. SPEAKER. As I understand, when you are out of order and I have directed you to do so, you will withdraw the statement which is out of order.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. What statement do you object to? I said the right hon. gentleman is paying his political debts—

3858

Mr. SPEAKER. Order. My ruling must not be discussed; if I am wrong the hon. gentleman has his remedy.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Will you please tell me the statement to which you object?

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to call your judgment in question, but if the point you make is that the hon. member for South York is out of order in saying that the right hon. the Prime Minister is paying his political debts, it seems to me that is straining the rule.

Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman (Mr. White), as I understand it, misconceives what the hon. member (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has said. As I understood him, he said that the Prime Minister was attempting to pay his political debts by sacrificing the civil rights of the people.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. And the educational rights of the people.

Mr. SPEAKER. In my judgment and under my ruling, that is an offensive statement in reference to the Prime Minister, which the hon. gentleman must withdraw. If I am wrong in that, he has his remedy.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Withdraw.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Mr. Speaker, I must bow and withdraw, and I will have an opportunity elsewhere of saying what my opinion is. And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this, that we have government in this country—

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Don’t let them bluff you Billy.

Mr. SPEAKER. Order, please; or I will be obliged to name you (Mr. Sam. Hughes).

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I will not be—

Mr. SPEAKER. Order; you must sit down.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Order. Expel him.

Mr. SPEAKER. I am again in the judgment of the House, when I call a gentleman to order who says to another member who is speaking, directing his reference to the Speaker : Don’t let him bluff you.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I rise to a point of order. I rise to take the full responsibility in this House for what I have said. I say that the member for South York ought not to be bluffed by any authority in this House.

Mr. SPEAKER. Order.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I assume the full responsibility for it.

Mr. SPEAKER. Order, or I will be obliged to name you.

3859

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Do all the naming you like.

Mr. SPEAKER. Order.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Pshaw.

Mr. FOSTER. What will happen if you are named? Will he call out : ‘ Colonel Sam. Hughes ‘ ?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. My opinion is, and I take the full responsibility for saying it, and I intend to say it from one end of this country to the other, that the government of this country is to-day due to two things. The government of this country is to-day due to a combination between a solid Quebec and a corporation interest in this country, which is centred in Toronto. And what happened here the other night in regard to the municipal rights of the city of Ottawa is one instance of it.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Yes, it is one instance where the municipal rights—

Some hon. MEMBERS. Nonsense.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Yes ; the municipal rights of the people of Ontario were in question here the other night, and there was a vote of eighty against them, and forty-one of that eighty came from the province of Quebec. And this legislation which is brought here to-day, this proposal to put fetters on the people of the west in regard to their educational authority, is a contribution to the demand from a solid Quebec that the people of the Northwest shall be deprived of their educational rights. The people of the Northwest are here asking for educational freedom, and I do not believe they will get three or five votes from the province of Quebec. It is evident that the province of Quebec is going out of its way—

Mr. BELCOURT. Nonsense.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. It is evident that the province of Quebec is going out of its way to put fetters on and manacle the people of the west and deprive them of their rights under the constitution.

Mr. BELCOURT. Why don’t you march on Quebec right off?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Just let me bring out an instance that shows it. The province of Manitoba has been denied an extension of her boundaries at the instigation of the province of Quebec.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.

An hon. MEMBER. Prove it.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will prove it in this way : that a solid Quebec within two or three members will vote for this iniquitous proposition in regard to the autonomy of the Northwest.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.

3860

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. Will the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question to him? Speaking of the demand of the province of Manitoba to extend its boundary easterly to Hudson bay, does he say, or does he not, that the province of Ontario should be heard before such a request is conceded ?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I will not deny that.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. And when the Postmaster General said that the province of Ontario ought to be consulted in regard to a few waste acres, what about the people of the west, and the minister from the west, and the government of the west, not being consulted in regard to their civil and educational liberties? What is a bit of land to a man’s educational rights? What is a bit of land to a man’s freedom and religious liberty? Coming back to the other issue. When the little province of Manitoba asked for an extension to the west, ‘ Le Soleil ‘ of Quebec denied that request, and gave as a reason—

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Let me give you another reason which also comes from the province of Quebec. If Manitoba were allowed to extend her boundaries to the west, that portion of the new territory brought into Manitoba would have no separate schools and that portion of the Territories which remained in the new provinces would have the right to separate schools under this legislation.

Mr. TURRIFF. I beg leave to ask a question.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.

Mr. TURRIFF. The province of Quebec has not the first thing to do, one way or the other, with the extension of Manitoba to the west—

Mr. SPEAKER. I understood the hon. gentleman to say he wanted to ask a question.

Mr. TURRIFF. I want to ask what evidence he has that the province of Quebec would prevent the extension of Manitoba to the west? It is the people of the Territories who object to the extension of Manitoba westward.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The province of Quebec made the statement here through one of its members that they helped to pay for that land in the west, and they have as much to say about it as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff).

Mr. INGRAM. Which land?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I am not going to discuss private ownership of land in this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear—

3861

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh ; where ?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The hon. gentlemen opposite like to throw out their gibes and their flounts, but it is clear that if the province of Manitoba had been extended westward, even if it were only one meridian, it would have knocked the constitutional argument of the Prime Minister into a cocked hat. And if Manitoba were extended westward, that portion included in it would be free from this separate school clause. Now, then, I want to deal with the solid Quebec and what they are doing in regard to this school question. This is a question that never should have come into this House. It is a local question which could be settled in a local way, and which should not be spread out in the Dominion parliament as a federal issue. It should have been settled in the province ; it should have been left to the west.

Mr. BRODEUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not think the hon. gentleman should discuss the Bill which is now engaging the attention of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER. I think that is the rule.

Mr. BENNETT. Take it up to Centre Toronto.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then I have this to say, that this Bill which is the subject of discussion here to-day—

Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. If hon. gentlemen will have it that way, I will leave it with them ; but I have this to say in conclusion, that any legislation which is attempted in this House in regard to this matter will receive whatever opposition I can command, and the opposition of a considerable number of the members from Ontario. The right hon. gentleman is near the exhaustion of his supplies, and, so far as I am concerned, I wish to tell him now that no legislation of the character that he has introduced without consulting the people of the west will be allowed to go through committee or any other stage as long as I am able to oppose it, with some others who will be associated with me in that work. This legislation is not in the interest of the people of Canada. There will be meetings held in this country from one end to the other.

An hon. MEMBER. Hold them now.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. All right. Hon. gentlemen may make these statements here ; but let them come out on the platform with me, and see who will get a hearing. Let the right hon. gentleman open a constituency in the west if he dare. Let him put up his candidate in Centre Toronto to justify the statements made here to-day. Let the Postmaster General dare to face a meeting in the city of Toronto. He dare not go even

3862

into his own constituency of North York and discuss this Bill. I will go into North York and discuss it before his own electors. I challenge him now to name the day and the place in North York where he will discuss this measure with me. Or I will resign my seat if he will resign his seat, and I will run against him in North York. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I will resign my seat in South York and run against the Postmaster General in North York where he had a majority of nearly one thousand. And I challenge the member for London (Mr. Hyman) to resign his seat, and I will go and run against him there. I challenge my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell) to do the same. That hon. gentleman would have been to-day in the cabinet but for this legislation ; but because of this legislation his career is absolutely wound up, and he dare not resign his seat. But if he does, I will resign mine and run against him in Centre York. Yes, I will go further : I will resign my seat, and I will run in Oxford if the government care to make a vacancy there, and I will make only the one issue, the abandonment of provincial rights by this government, which at one time professed to be the champion of provincial rights. Later on I intend to expand much more fully on this question, when I suppose I shall be more in order than I am to-day. But I do now challenge the Prime Minister and those who sit alongside of him. Where is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who is implicated in these statements, and who ought to be here to-day ? I expect hon. gentlemen opposite to make a statement on this matter to-morrow. I expect them to go to the Papal ablegate, who is here at their request, and get from him a statement which will clear them of the charge made to-day. The denial which has been made is no denial. It is not even an explanation to the country, which to-day is demanding that an answer be made to the statement made in that letter of Mr. Rogers and no answer is forthcoming. The people want to know if those two propositions were submitted to the Minister of Public Works of Manitoba. The people want to know if there was a reference in that interview to the question of the Manitoba boundaries ; and, if it is true, they want to know what the government of Canada intend to do. We know what President Cleveland did with the British ambassador. The moment he was trapped into making a statement which he should not have made, President Cleveland gave him his passport. I say that the right hon. gentleman, as a member of the Dominion government, and the forty members of parliament who were associated with him, are bound to send Mr. Russell to Rome, even at the expense of the Dominion, to ask for the recall of this Italian priest who has had the temerity to interfere with

3863

the government of this country. Hon. gentlemen may laugh; but we all know what King John said—and let me tell these hon. gentlemen that this is my sentiment—that ‘no Italian priest shall tithe or toll in our dominions.’ Now, there is a proposal to toll and tithe in our dominions by an outside influence. The Prime Minister knows that his statement was not in accordance with the facts when he said that there was no intention to interfere with the Dominion school lands. There is practically an intention to interfere with the Dominion school lands, and there is a proposition to toll and tithe in our domains by an outside influence. I leave hon. gentlemen to explain this matter before the country. They have not explained it to-day; I do not believe they can explain it. I challenge them to attempt to explain it before this House. I challenge them to come out on the public platform and try to explain the statements that have been made here to-day.

Mr. H. H. MILLER. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has to-day quoted Shakespeare. I would like to remind him of another quotation, the words of one Shakespearian character to another:

Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician,

Seem to see the things thou dost not.

Mr. SPEAKER. Order.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Mr. Speaker: I rise to a point of order. I thought, when you were so earnest in the discharge of your duty to protect the good name of members of this House, that the same earnestness would have characterized your conduct towards the hon. gentleman who has referred to me.

Mr. SPEAKER. If the hon. gentleman had heard distinctly, he would have heard me call that hon. gentleman to order also.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Then I must ask the hon. the Speaker to call on the hon. member to withdraw the statement.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Take it back.

Mr. SPEAKER. I call on the hon. member who applied the term ‘scurvy politician’ to the hon. member for South York to withdraw the term.

Mr. MILLER. I beg to explain that I made no accusation.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Withdraw.

Mr. MILLER. I beg to withdraw the quotation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle). Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of following the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) through the rambling speech which we have just heard. I desire simply to ask

3864

hon. gentlemen opposite if they really intend to fasten on the parliament of Canada such a reputation that in any civilized country we would be looked upon as not worthy of enjoying liberty of speech and representative institutions. In Russia where there is no such thing as representative government, no sane, no decent man would think of getting up before any audience of peasants, deprived of the most primary education, and make such an onslaught on the representative of His Holiness the Pope as has been made in this House. Why, all the civilized nations of the world entertain relations with the head of the Catholic church. The Protestant government of England entertains direct and official relations with the Pope. The Protestant government of Germany, the Orthodox government of Russia—in fact all the governments of the world, including the government of Washington, entertain official relations with the Pope, and no citizen of any one of these countries would think for a moment that it was any discredit to his country that it should hold relations with the highest moral authority acknowledged by the greatest number of men in this world at present. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has challenged the Postmaster General and other members of this government and of parliament to go and make an election in their respective counties and to meet him on the public platform. But on what ground, Sir, does he invite them to make the election? On the ground of provincial rights. He had not even the courage to say what really was the ground on which he wanted to make the contest. If he had stated the true grounds on which he would care to run an election, he would have stated grounds which might have been of some use in England 300 years ago but would not be tolerated in any civilized country to-day—the ground of no popery and no romish domination. That is the cry the hon. gentleman would like to raise. And that is the kind of cry, as things have been going, the past few weeks, which the leader of the opposition will be charged with encouraging. That is the cry which the leader of a once respected party in the Dominion is lending himself to.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am charged with that perhaps by the hon. gentleman but I absolutely deny that anything of the kind can be taken from any word I have spoken.

Mr. BOURASSA. The leader of the opposition has got into this unfortunate position that he is not even capable of either standing for or against anything which is going on in his party. He will not be charged with being the direct author or promoter of all the offensive and silly things which are being stated in the organs of his party and by some members of his party, but he will be charged with not having the courage and the manliness of standing up.

3865

and denouncing such an infamous policy. And at a moment like this, when such appeals are being made to the worst passions of the people, the leaders of great parties who have not the courage to stand up against this current of opinion and check the fanaticism of their partisans, are as responsible as if they were the authors of them. Let the hon. the leader of the opposition consult some of his best and most enlightened friends. Let him have a conversation upon this question—I will not say with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) or the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), who have shown by their speeches that they had the courage to separate from their party upon a question like this and stand for truth and justice and fair-play—but I will say to the leader of the opposition : let him consult the most enlightened Protestant members of his party, those men who have been educated in the political school of the late Sir John Macdonald, and ask them if the Conservative party is following a wise and a good course in allowing itself to be dragged down to such depths of political infamy, as it is being dragged into by the Toronto ‘News’ and the Toronto ‘World,’ and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). These gentlemen may meet with some success for a little while; but as a French Canadian, who has gone time and again into the province of Ontario, I have too much respect for the good people of that province to think that even if they may get excited a little while by such wild appeals, they will stand for any such policy. The member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has defied any member of the government to go and meet him on the public platform in the province of Ontario. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am ready to accept that challenge. I am ready to meet the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) or the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) or even the hon. and gallant member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) even with his man Turpin behind him—I am ready to go and discuss the issue with these gentlemen before any audience in the province of Ontario. I do not say that I would gather votes ; but I say that if any man in this House, whether French or English-speaking, Protestant or Catholic, Liberal or Conservative, would go and appeal to the common sense and spirit of fair-play of the people of Ontario he would, if not gain votes, at least get a good hearing. And I do not hesitate to say that in the long run, when the heat of passion had subsided, he might even ask for some votes on such a ground.

As regards the propriety and the advisability of the presence of a Papal delegate in this country, I need not speak at length. I need only mention, as I have done, that all governments of civilized nations entertain

3866

direct official relations with the Pope. My hon. friend the Postmaster General has said that this government had nothing to do with the appointment of the Papal delegate. As a matter of fact that is perfectly true. But even if the government of Canada had requested the Pope to send a delegate to this country, would that be a greater sin than is committed by other governments at Washington, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Vienna? Even the present anti-clerical French government at Paris, though the official relations have been broken off, keep relations with an unofficial representative of the Holy See.

An hon. MEMBER. And in London.

Mr. BOURASSA. No, I do not think there is an official ablegate in London. But I understand there is an accredited representative of His Holiness there who keeps up relations between the British government and the head of the church. But the talents of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) have been wasted. He should have gone to the old country some years ago, when, through the representative of the British government in Rome—not the representative accredited to the King of Italy but the representative accredited to the Pope—the British government entered into negotiations with His Holiness in order to bring about a better understanding between the Irish party and the government of England. Even in that small section of the British empire from which, if I know anything of their origin, my hon. friends from South York and Victoria and Haliburton come, there arose no cry of dissent to that proceeding. Even the Ulster Orangemen were not prepared to find any fault if, through the pacifying influence of His Holiness, the Irish people could be brought to a better understanding with the King of England. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) at the beginning of the session made a plea for greater autonomy for Canada. Sir, the people of Canada would not be worthy of greater autonomy if one great political party of this country, which once held the reins of the government for years and which may again occupy office, has no better understanding of what constitutes the dignity of a nation, no better appreciation of the feelings of two millions of their fellow-citizens, and no better sense of the manner in which a respectable government should conduct the business of a self-reliant and self-respecting people, especially in their relations with foreign powers. And if the government of the Pope was for a time a foreign government from a temporal point of view, it is to-day no longer a temporal government but only a high moral government, guiding the spiritual affairs of 300,000,000 of human beings, among which are 12,000,000 respectable, law-abiding British subjects, including 2,000,000 Canadians of different origins. It is unworthy of members

3867

of this House, of representatives of a great party, and representatives of a great province such as the province of Ontario, to come here and by means of innuendoes and insinuations and accusations which they have not the courage to make openly from their seats in parliament, to try and excite religious strife. I say they dare not make these openly because when you pin them down to the crucial point, they say : Oh yes, you are ruled by the Pope, and you are under French domination, but what we are ready to discuss in this House is provincial rights and constitutional principles. They are prepared to lead the people of Ontario to vote for provincial rights, but to do so animated by anti-Popish, anti-French feelings.

With reference to the request made by the Catholic members of the Liberal party to the Pope for the nomination of a Papal ablegate, I have no shame in saying that I have taken my share in that action ; I have signed the document, and I have no shame either as a French Canadian, a Catholic, a British subject, or a member of this House, for so doing. Sir, knowing and appreciating as I do the liberty I enjoy as a British subject, under the British Crown, I was proud to ask the highest moral authority of the church to which I belong to send here a Papal ablegate who would see that good and proper relations existed between the clergy and laity of Quebec, to see that relations between the clergy and laity would be such that there would not be any cause of misunderstanding such as those which occurred at certain times in the past. The cause which induced the Liberal Catholic members of this House to seek the appointment of an ablegate here was that we could not see eye to eye with a certain part of our clergy as to the right way of dealing with certain political questions. And, Sir, in that respect I want to remind the House of the words of one of the greatest Protestant writers and philosophers of the nineteenth century, who has said that the Catholic church was a great school of respect. Appealing to the head of the church, we found justice, enlightenment, breadth of view and respect for the rights of the people. At one time or another there was trouble between the clergy and people of Quebec. Hon. gentlemen opposite are always talking about the priest-ridden people of Quebec, about the clerical domination under which the poor habitant is resting ; but, Sir, do you know that we never stood from our clergy the kind of sermons and political interference that has been going on for the last month in Ontario ? For what reason did we ask the Pope to send an ablegate out here ? Exactly to prevent what is going on now in the province of Ontario. And this was not the first time that an ablegate was sent to Canada. The same thing was done in 1876 and later on in the 80’s. But how was it in

3868

those days ? The arch-defenders of British citizenship and of loyalty to Protestantism never raised their voices against the relations which existed between the Catholics of the province of Quebec and the Pope. Why ? Because of political reasons ; because in those days the people of Quebec and the majority of the Catholic people kept them in the fats of office. Sir, I am sorry to see that a question which is put on this high ground of national feeling and fidelity to religious principle must after all be brought to that very low placed feeling of a thirst for office. These gentlemen, having found that their fiscal policy was of no influence with the people, that the country had no confidence in them, thought that there was in this country a sufficient number of people who would still believe in the old tales about the Gunpowder Plot, the Guy Fawkes conspiracy, and other matters that were taught 150 years ago, but which the poorest schoolmaster in England would be ashamed of mentioning, except possibly as the remnant of a legend which existed in the times of credulity in that country. That may appear to be exaggerated. But not later than a few days ago I read in a newspaper that proposes to enlighten the people of Canada, a statement to the effect that the same conspiracy, the same dark and sinister organization and the same powerful people who are now trying to shackle the people of the west, that same power of the province of Quebec, headed by the hierarchy that was trying to prevent the free people of the west from enjoying their liberty, could be related to the same man, to the same power and the same influences that brought about the Gunpowder conspiracy ! I have seen that statement printed in the columns of either the ‘News’ or the ‘World,’ because these two papers constitute a pair, and I cannot say which is the silliest. But, Sir, even when I read such things, printed in the twentieth century, in leading newspapers, published in a city like Toronto, and in a province like Ontario, I refuse to believe that you would find a majority of the people of Ontario who would believe such silly talk. I cannot believe it, and I must say that the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), in the allusions he has made to-day, just as in the cartoons which are published every day in his newspaper, is simply putting on his province the greatest slur that could be cast on it by any man. Sir, if I would stand up in this House and say that the province of Ontario is filled with a population of ignorant people, with a drown-trodden people under the control of the Methodist ministers, by which you could organize any kind of conspiracy to deprive the Catholic church of their power, to unthrone the Pope and prevent the priests of the province of Quebec from saying mass, I would not be saying more silly things than you read every day in three or four columns of the ‘World’

3869

or the ‘News.’ These newspapers are trying to create outside of Ontario the impression that Ontario is one of the most ignorant places on earth. I refuse to believe that. I refuse to believe that a majority of the people of Ontario can be carried by such an appeal. If any constituency in Ontario should be opened, I would be prepared to enter it, and unless the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), and the hon. member for Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes), with his man Turpin and the seventeen men who took General de Villiers and let him skip off the next morning—unless these two gentlemen would come together and throw stones at me, I do not think I would be prevented from speaking in Ontario, standing for the rights of my people, for the rights of justice in this country; standing for the good reputation of our country, and saying that it is just as legitimate for the Catholics to have here a representative of the highest spiritual authority on earth, as it is legitimate for the government of any civilized country to have a representative of the Pope, to have an ablegate to look after what? Not to look after political questions, but to look after the interests of the church. And what are the interests of the church in any country? The interests of the church include everything which looks to the development of the religion to which that church belongs and all such things must be looked after by that Papal ablegate.

I know nothing of what may have occurred between Monseigneur Sbarretti and Mr. Rogers, and I think it is most absurd to come into this House and ask any member of the federal House to give an account of what may have occurred between the Papal ablegate and a member of the Manitoba cabinet. If the hon. member for South York was so excited over the liberties of the people of Canada, he should have had some friend in the Manitoba house to raise the question and put Mr. Rogers on trial in Manitoba, before the people of that province, to whom he is responsible. If, Sir, it is such a nasty thing for the Catholics to have called for an ablegate to come into this country to look after their own affairs, after their own interests as Catholics, how is it that the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has nothing to say against Mr. Rogers, a Protestant statesman, who comes here and entertains relations with Monseigneur Sbarretti? If it was a sin, and a sin for which any man in this House should be arraigned before the people of Canada, if it was a sin for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for Mr. Brodeur, for Mr. Lemieux, for Mr. Bourassa, or any other hon. gentleman in this House to ask the Pope to send a representative to look after their own affairs, then what a crime has been committed by a member of the Manitoba government and of the legislative assembly of Manitoba, by a Protestant

3870

statesman, in having an interview with Monseigneur Sbarretti? I do not suppose that Mr. Rogers was troubled in his conscience and wanted to get absolution for his sins. So I presume that he visited His Excellency, acting in his official and political capacity. Therefore, if anybody must be denounced before the Protestantism of this country, if anybody must be denounced before the crowds of the county of South York, and must be burned or brought to the scaffold, it is Mr. Rogers, member of the Manitoba government. But, Sir, no, I would never think of making that kind of appeal; I acknowledge Mr. Rogers’ right to go and meet Monseigneur Sbarretti and have a conversation with him. If the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam Hughes), would go and see Monseigneur Sbarretti and talk with him, I think it would do them a great deal of good—if any improvement is possible for those gentlemen—I am sure it would do them good. As for the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I do not think any improvement is possible with him, because I think he is desperately sincere.

But, coming back to our action in having a Papal ablegate to be appointed, we did it because we thought it was our duty to do it. Monseigneur Sbarretti has succeeded Monseigneur Falconio in the same capacity that Monseigneur Martinelli exercised at Washington where he has been succeeded by Monseigneur Falconio transferred from Ottawa. These prelates have been here representing the church, to look after the interests of the Roman Catholics of Canada. As I have said, I know nothing of what passed between Mr. Rogers and Monseigneur Sbarretti, and I would advise the hon. member for South York to call on them if he wants to know what transpired between them. But suppose that Monseigneur Sbarretti did discuss with Mr. Rogers the rights of the Catholics of Manitoba, suppose he did ask Mr. Rogers to do something for the Catholics of Manitoba, where in the name of justice and common sense is there anything wrong in that? Here is a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church, sent here to look after the interests of the people belonging to his church, and what harm is there in his meeting another gentleman and asking him if something could not be done for the interests of his people? Now, we have in this city a consul from the United States, he is here to look after the interests of the American people living in this country and the interests of American citizens who may be trading in this country; suppose he finds something in our tariff which he thinks is prejudicial to their interests, would it be a great sin for that gentleman to meet the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask if some change could not be made? Sir, it is about time that we should look at these questions from a common sense point of

3871

view, and with greater breadth of mind. Monseigneur Sbarretti, in discussing with Mr. Rogers the interests of the Catholics of Manitoba, was not only acting within his rights, but was fulfilling his duty. As I said, I have not the slightest knowledge of what took place between them; but the idea of hon. gentlemen getting up in this House and talking about a conspiracy of the hierarchy, about the dark and sinister designs of the church, because a member of the local legislature of Manitoba has thought fit to hold an interview with the representative of the highest spiritual power in our church, I say that it is entirely unworthy of the dignity of a member of this House and the representative of a free people.

Hon. PETER WHITE (North Renfrew). I am sure that if the object of my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was to raise this discussion out of the rut into which he says it has fallen, the region of race and religion he has signally failed in doing so; because during all the long years in which I have sat in parliament I do not think I ever listened to a more inflammatory speech than that to which the hon. member for Labelle has just treated this House. For my own part, speaking as a Protestant and as a representative of an Ontario constituency, I have to say, and I think the House will agree with me, that I have not the slightest objection to the bringing of a Papal delegate here to superintend the religious affairs of the Church of Rome. For my own part I have a great admiration for the moral teaching of the Church of Rome, although I do not believe in its tenets. But I do say as a citizen of this country that when the allegation is made that the Papal delegate, who comes here properly enough to fulfil the purpose for which he was brought—though the manner in which he was brought might not be acceptable to many of us who sit on this side of the House—though he came here properly enough to supervise the affairs of the church of which he is a distinguished dignitary; but I say that when it is alleged by the newspapers and by a leading member of the government of Manitoba, that that gentleman has interfered in a matter that does not belong to the domain of the Church of Rome at all, then I say that the people of this country, and at all events those of us who sit on this side of the House, have a right to complain. Now, Sir, what are the facts in relation to this matter? I am not here to relate the facts, because I do not know them. I accept to the fullest extent the statement made by the right hon. leader of the government that he had no knowledge of these negotiations going on between the Papal delegate and the representatives of the province of Manitoba; but I say that if these negotiations did go on according to the allegation that has been made, then Monseigneur Sbarretti ought not to remain in this country a single

3872

hour longer than those gentlemen who secured his presence here can manage to effect his recall by communicating with his superior in Rome. I think it is their duty, it is the duty of those forty members of this parliament who secured his presence here, and especially is it the duty of the leader of the government, at the earliest possible moment, at once to communicate with the head of the church in Rome and secure the recall of that gentleman—if, I say, it be proven that these allegations made with regard to him are true.

Now, Sir, I want to say one word with reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Labelle respecting the hon. leader of the opposition. The hon. member for Labelle said that the hon. leader of the opposition had no opinions of his own, that his opinions were simply moulded by those who were following him in this House. I think, Sir, it ill becomes any supporter of the right hon. leader of this government to make a statement of that kind with regard to the leader of the opposition, when we know as a matter of fact, from the mouth of the right hon. gentleman the leader of the government himself, that his policy with regard to those important Bills which are now under discussion, was changed and modified to a material degree by the pressure of his followers in this House. Sir, I am sorry that I have been obliged to rise upon a question of this kind. But I thought it my duty to do so, and I consider I hold moderate views both political and religious. I have no objection to any man’s political or religious views, but I do think that it is an unfortunate thing that an hon. gentleman like the hon. member for Labelle should take the course which he has taken here to-day and that he should accuse hon. gentlemen on this side of the House of endeavouring to inflame the public mind in this country.

Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.

Mr. WHITE. I hear some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House laugh. What was the object which my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) had in making the proposition that he made to hon. gentlemen opposite? He had a right to call in question the conditions that exist upon the other side of the House. He had a right to express his opinion that the failure of the right hon. the leader of the government in filling the vacancy in the portfolio of the Interior and in filling the position which has practically been vacant in the Public Works Department and he had the right to assume that the failure of the right hon. the leader of the government to fill these positions was because he feared public opinion in the country. It was, I assume, because he took the ground that the right hon. the leader of the government fears to open any constituency in the province of Ontario, or in any of the English speaking provinces at the present time,

3873

that my hon. friend made the challenge that he did make to hon. members on the other side of the House. As I stated a moment ago, I am loth to discuss a question of this kind. I have no desire whatever to discuss a question which raises distinctions of creed or nationality. I think we ought to be as one people throughout this country and I may say this for the province of Ontario to which I belong that whatever may be the opinions of our hon. friends from the province of Quebec they will find as much liberality and toleration in Ontario as can be found in any part of the world.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to say anything on this subject just now, but for the frequent references to myself by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). They were very pointed. Whether he considered them offensive or not, to my judgment, they were offensive, and they were uncalled for and nothing on my part, as far as my judgment enables me to determine, would justify the references which the hon. gentleman made to me. He started by asking a very significant question : Are we like the serfs of Russia that we have not freedom of speech in this House ? Are we ? The exhibition we had for the following twenty minutes is the best answer I can give to that question, because, if there ever was in any civilized country in the world, a desire to restrict freedom of speech the tirades to which he has treated this House, ought to have induced this House not to have listened to him. Now, the hon. gentleman went on to say that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and his party are opposing the Pope. What justification had he for that statement ? What word was ever said from this side of the House that would justify that statement ? Not a single word that I have heard and none that I am aware of. But, he says that we are opposing his church. Was there anything said in the shape of abuse of his church? There is no desire or intention to abuse his church, but our desire is to give that church its rights the same as every other church in the country and to respect its rights as much as we respect the rights of every other church. Then, the hon. gentleman said : Has not every civilized government in the world its Papal representative, its ambassador ? He asks the question which I can answer by telling him that there is not one in France to-day. Diplomatic relations have been broken off. Then, why should the hon. member for Labell stand up and say that we are worse than France, that we are worse than England and that we are worse than other countries ? I could point to many countries, even Italy itself, in which diplomatic relations do not exist between the Pope and the government. Do they exist in the United States ? Not at all. There is, it

3874

is true, a Papal representative, but to deal with the church, not to negotiate with the state, and he has no relationship with the government of the United States and does not pretend to exercise any authority over, or to assume the right to dictate or to negotiate with the government in regard to matters of state. So that, in no civilized country that he has mentioned is there a condition known to exist which the hon. gentleman claims is all right in this country. There are a few questions which I think you might reasonably ask. We know that there is a Papal delegate here. That is a self evident fact, but we might ask the question : Who brought him here ? Some one has stated that it was the present government. Well, I think that was too wide ; I would say that the Reform party brought him here. The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) does not deny that he was one of the forty who sent an application to the Pope to send a delegate here. We are not objecting to it and do not object to it if he confines his duties to the work that the right hon. gentleman told us was the work for which he was brought here. What was he brought here for ? What did he come for ? The right hon. gentleman has told us what he came for. There was a difference between us and the bishops of our church and it was to settle disputes between the Roman Catholic people and their clergy. If he confines his operations to that I say we have no reasonable ground for complaint. He has a right to be here and remain in this country just as long as he likes and so far as he can succeed in readjusting the differences between the Roman Catholic people and their bishops it is nothing that concerns us and we do not desire to interfere with him in any way. Has he confined his operations to that line ? This is the first time in the history of Canada that we have had such an ablegate. Commencing with Monseigneur Mery Del Val, the hon. member for Labelle stated that we have had several of them before. I believe there was one away back in the eighties but it was scarcely found out he was in the country until he was out of the country. The hon. member for Labelle does not wait to hear any criticism that may be made of his remarks or to answer any questions that may be asked of him. We know that he is a remarkably valiant man and that he displays a great deal of that peculiar grace which is indicative of courage. But he seems always to exemplify the old saying that :

He who fights and runs away

May live to fight another day,

for every time he finishes speaking he gets up and clears from the House. He has not the moral courage to sit there and listen to the replies to his tirades or answer the questions that may be asked him. Therefore, he ought to be the last one to talk about a lack of courage. But, what are the

3875

duties of this Papal delegate? We were told that his duties were to settle differences between the Roman Catholic people and the church and as long as he confines himself to those duties we have no complaint to make. It is a fact well known in this country that in 1896 there was a difference between the present Reform party, or at least one portion of that party, the Roman Catholic element of the party, and the bishops in regard to the school question and it was said that the Papal delegate was brought here for the purpose of settling that difficulty. So long as he attempted to settle that difficulty you heard no complaint from any Protestant in this country as to what he was doing and no complaint that he was here. But, is he confining himself to the interests of the church? The hon. member for Labelle says that he has a perfect right in the interests of his church and of his co-religionists to take part in anything which is going on and in which that church is directly interested. In my judgment he has no right to go the distance that it is alleged he has gone. Now, it is said sometimes, and I think correctly said, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

The history of the ages has taught that lesson over and over again, and the maxim is as true to-day as when it was first announced. The complete separation of church and state is another principle recognized in the history of the English parliament long ago. That principle was adopted in constitutional government, and we are trying to live up to it and we desire to carry it out to the fullest extent. When we took the clergy reserve lands from the church and distributed them for the benefit of the state we asserted that principle because we desired there should be no semblance of connection between church and state. We declared that every church should stand on its own footing and we have lived up to that according to the best of our judgment. But as I said, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and when we see any encroachment on that principle we are bound to draw attention to it in the interests of our constitutional rights and in the interest of our constituents. That is what we are doing to-day. Since the settlement of the clergy reserve lands we have not had that question up until to-day, when it comes forward again in a different way in connection with the presence of the Papal ablegate here. We fought against the contention of the church in 1896, because we believed it was the church that was making the fight against the rights of the people of Manitoba. The Prime Minister and his friends joined with us in that fight, and I stood up here day after day and night after night to defend the rights of the people against improper interference. I am glad to know I had the assistance and support of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his friends in that fight, With his sunny ways and his diplomatic

3876

ability he succeeded in arranging that trouble and bringing about conciliation and harmony where they did not exist before. But it was out of that incident that grew the troubles which induced him to bring this Papal delegate here. Is there not to-day interference by the church with the rights of the state? Can we believe what appears in the newspapers of this city from day to day, that every time there has been a crisis in connection with this Bill the Prime Minister has visited that Papal delegate and every change that has been made has been made with his knowledge and on his advice. We are told that the Bill was submitted to him and that the Bill was satisfactory to him or otherwise it would not have been introduced into this House. Then there is the strange coincidence that on the 13th of February, the Manitoba delegates were invited down here to consider the question of extending the boundaries of Manitoba ; on the 16th they reached here ; on the 17th they had a conference with the Prime Minister who asked them to remain four or five days when they would get an intimation as to the position of the government. They remained in obedience to that request and though he said he denied certain statements categorically and in toto he did not as a matter of fact deny some of them categorically. He does not deny that he asked Mr. Rogers to remain here. And what happened. On the 17th of February they had a conference, on the 20th they were invited by the Papal delegate to visit him, and on the 21st the Bill was introduced. I noticed the Minister of Agriculture coaching the member for Labelle to draw attention to the fact that Mr. Robert Rogers and Mr. Colin Campbell were with the Papal delegate trying to negotiate with him. But, Sir, they were there in answer to a respectful invitation to visit him. Did they not show respect for the high position he occupied? Did they not show the ordinary courtesy which one man would show to another when they accepted that invitation and went there not knowing the purpose for which they were invited. He told them that if they would amend their law and give separate schools to Manitoba, they could have the boundary question settled at once, but they would not agree to that and the Bill was introduced the very next day. The Prime Minister said nothing about the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba when he introduced the Bill, except to say that it could not be done, and he did not deign the courtesy of a reply to the Manitoba delegates. The Prime Minister has told us that he did not remember receiving a letter from the Manitoba delegates written on the 23rd of February asking for a reply, and it turns out that that letter was sent to the Prime Minister’s house. I will not say that his letter reached the hands of the Prime Minister because it may never have reached his hands, but at all events it verifies the statement

3877

made by Mr. Robert Rogers, that from that day to this they have never received the reply they believed they were entitled to. Was that the way to treat the accredited representatives of the Manitoba government? Is that complimentary to the dignity of the Prime Minister of this federal parliament of his ministers? It is not. I assume that the statements made in the newspaper is correct because the First Minister did not deny it, and the next step was that there was an invitation to the premier of Ontario to set up a claim for a portion of that territory.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I deny it now. I never wrote to Mr. Whitney.

Mr. SPROULE. I inferred from what appeared in the paper that by some means or other there was an intimation conveyed to Mr. Whitney that it was desired that he should put up some claim. At all events the suggestion was made in the speech of the Prime Minister, and I have no doubt he had friends enough to bring that to the attention of Mr. Whitney. At all events, Ontario set up a claim and this government took advantage of that to say : We cannot settle the boundary of Manitoba because Ontario has set up a claim to that territory. Why did the First Minister say that a settlement could only be reached after a conference between Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba? What interest had Quebec in it ; it did not touch the boundaries of that province in any way. However, the Prime Minister since abandoned that contention. We do find however, that according to the statement of Mr. Robert Rogers, the boundaries of Manitoba are not extended because Manitoba will not grant separate schools ; and we find that the provisions of the Bill which were submitted to that ablegate—if we can believe what appears in the press, fasten separate schools on these new provinces for all time to come. That Bill was only accepted by the members from the west when some amendments were proposed, which amendments were submitted to the Papal delegate and approved of by him before they were submitted to parliament.

Then I ask is this Papal ablegate going beyond his duty? Is he interfering with the rights of the state? In my judgment he is. So long as he confines himself to the rights of his church, we have not a word to say against him ; but we respectfully deny the right of any dignitary representing that church, for which we have the greatest respect, or representing any other church, to come here and interfere with the rights of the state. In the name of this country we protest against it ; in the name of constitutional government, which we represent, we protest against it. Who has been responsible for this unprecedented act? The present government and their friends of the Reform party. They brought him here, and they have not put a single check upon him, so far as we know.

3878

I need not go into the history of his being here ; but I want to ask one very important question. When all these negotiations were going on with regard to this Bill and when the knowledge that the Papal ablegate was taking a particular interest in it was so apparent, where were the Protestant members of the cabinet? Where was the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) who took such an interest in the subject the other night? Where was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who made such a pitiable excuse for the Bill, and declared that government could not be carried on in this country if it were defeated, because there would have to be a Protestant government formed? Where was the lynx-eyed Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), the only Protestant representative on that subcommittee to which the Bill was submitted? Where is there any evidence that he lodged any protest against the improper interference of the Papal ablegate? Where was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright)? And, lastly, where was the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), who fought so vigorously before against interference with the rights of Manitoba? It is true, he lodged his protest against the government and went out as a rebuke to them for their improper conduct ; but today he is silenced, he is chloroformed. And the other ministers seem to be chloroformed, for we have not a word from them. Who among them represents the great Protestant element of this country? You can speak freely on behalf of the other side ; but if you raise your voice as a Protestant, it would seem as if you were almost a fugitive from justice. That is the kind of toleration that we are treated to in this House. It is toleration all on one side, with no evidence of any on the other side. Let us have a little more of it on that side. Let charity begin at home. Let our Roman Catholic friends show some charity and tolerance towards those opposed to them, and then they will have very much less trouble in this country. I do not wish to continue this discussion longer, but I did wish to say, and I repeat it, that we are to-day as firmly opposed to church interference with the state as we ever were in this country. It must come to an end, and it must come to an end now. What is the logical sequence of all this? It is admitted, and the circumstances justify the conclusion, that Manitoba’s boundary is not extended because of the interference of the Papal ablegate. There is no doubt about it whatever. Then, let the government say that as a protest against that interference they will extend the boundary of Manitoba, and hereby show that the state is the supreme arbiter in this country, and the province of Manitoba will get its rights. Until that is done, there will be a lingering suspicion in the minds of the Canadian people that the

3879

Papal ablegate did interfere, not only with that question, but with the other important question that is engaging the attention of parliament at the present time, the question of granting autonomy to the new provinces in the Northwest, and the educational clauses in connection therewith.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a personal matter. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) was this afternoon called to order on a certain point. After some hesitation, he obeyed the ruling of the chair and proceeded with the discussion, when the hon. gentlemen behind the First Minister, who are a little too prone to make unseemly interruptions, not only to the hon. member for South York but to other members of this House interrupted the hon. gentleman. He paused, when I said to him : ‘ Don’t let them bluff you,’ I take the responsibility of the words I used, and I was justified in saying what I did. My remark had no reference to the Speaker, and I protest against being called to order.

Mr. SPEAKER. The words as I distinctly heard them were : ‘ Don’t let him bluff you.’ If the hon. member now says that his reference was not to the Speaker, I accept his statement ; but at the time it was perfectly clear to me that the reference was to myself. I desire also to say that interruptions are becoming a little too frequent, not only from the side referred to by the hon. gentleman, but also from the hon. gentleman’s own side, and from himself.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES. The only interruption I made to-day was perfectly legitimate and within my right, and therefore I must protest against being called to order.

Mr. SPEAKER. I have accepted the hon. gentleman’s statement. The only point is that the hon. gentleman should have called the attention of the House to that at the moment.

Motion agreed to.

At six o’clock, House took recess.