April 6, 1905

CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

I rise to a point of order.

I deny absolutely what the hon. gentleman stated in his last sentence, and I ask him to withdraw it and give me the credit I demand for sincerity in the statement I made.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

Mr. L. G.@

McCarthy. Mr. Speaker, the rules of debate require that a member of this House must accept the denial of another member on a personal matter.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

That is all I want.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

Mr. L. G.@

McCarthy. I accept the hon. gentleman's statement. And I change my own to this : I say that the Tupper administration of which Mr. Foster was a member, were endeavouring to force through this House a Bill to coerce the province of Manitoba at the request and under the dictation of the heirarchy of Quebec.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

That also I deny.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

Mr. L. G.@

McCarthy. The hon. gentle-' man (Mr. Foster) denies that, but I am not obliged to withdraw my statement. 1 will stand by it, .as I have always stood by it; and I leave it to a discriminating public to judge whether it is true or not.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

You stand all alone.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

Mr. L. G.@

McCarthy. Well, it is not the first time that a McCarthy has stood alone in this House ; and, please God, if necessary, it will not be the last. I say that, in 1896-and hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to like me to get too close to that-we found the state of affairs that I have spoken of. And here is the peculiarity of the situation. In that year, we found the hon. gentlemen who are now in opposition in close alliance with the bishops of the church of the province of Quebec. It became necessary, apparently, if justice was to be done, for the Papal power to be asked to interfere. If we are to believe what we have heard within the last two days, the Papal delegate came to settle some difficulties-and unquestionably they were difficulties with regard to political affairs,-between the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and their bishops. If the Papal delegate is interfering I declare his action is highly improper and I denounce it. But, I want this House and country to understand that if the respective parties expect to make capital out of it, their whole record on the subject should be considered. Take the history of Canada from confederation down to the present day, and how many members have ever stood up to vote squarely on an issue of this kind ? Twenty-one, I believe, is the Mr. l. g. McCarthy.

largest number that ever united to prevent such encroachments as these, in regard to which, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) would lead us to believe, he was so sincere in protesting. If so it is the first time in twenty-three years that he lias so spoken.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).

I do not know that I need say much in reply to the hon. member (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) who has just taken his seat. That hon. gentleman has displayed his political stock in trade. I think the House and the country will acknowledge that the late Dalton McCarthy was a man of considerable eminence both at the bar and in this House. His record is history. But I do not know that anybody would venture to express a belief that the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) will ever be noticed in history. The hon. gentleman spoke at a meeting in Toronto a short time ago, and was then very boastful of his Protestantism and of the Protestantism of his family before him. He told the people assembled on that occasion that the cry of equal rights and opposition to French domination in Canada was the cry he had always raised in North Simcoe ; that on that policy he had nailed his colours to the mast and would stand or fall by them. There was a contest last fall in North Simcoe, as there was in the rest of the Dominion, and I challenge the hon. gentleman to produce a scintila of proof that he even opened his mouth upon the equal rights question or any such question as he has dealt with before the House to-day.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

Mr. L. G.@

McCarthy. I may tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) that I made no such statement in Toronto as that he has attributed to me as to this question been in issue in my campaign last election. I stated that in the first and second campaigns it was an issue. But, if the hon. gentleman wants to know I ban tell him that I can produce evidence that I stated at Hawkestone, in the township of Oro, that I was certain that when the Bill for the granting of autonomy to the Northwest came up, the school question would again arise.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

I took occasion to look up the file of a Collingwood newspaper devoted to the government, and, it will be apparent to any body reading that newspaper that the great issue in North Simcoe last election was whether or not the Collingwood harbour should have the benefit of a large grant of government money. And that was the whole question. As to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. L. G. McCarthy's) political stock in trade in that riding, I can tell the House that it does not carry the people as his late uncle used to do. In the township of Vespra the late Dalton McCarthy used to get a majority of about one hundred ; the hon. member (Mr. D. G. McCarthy) was in a minority of thirty in the last election.

This lion, gentleman was in a minority of thirty, and Sir, this lion, gentleman instead of parading this racial revenge question and this religious question in North Simcoe is always toadying to the other element. He had an appointment to make in Barrie a little while ago and, expecting that the township of Tiny which has a large French vote would be attached to North Simcoe, the hon. gentleman threw aside all his Protestant friends and pushed them over in favour of a French Canadian Roman Catholic. Will the hon. gentleman deny that ? I think he. won't.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

Mr. L. G.@

McCarthy. I will deny one part of it, that 1 had any anticipation that the township of Tiny was going into North Simcoe. 1 will admit that I recommended the appointment of Emile Sevigny as caretaker of the public building jn Barrie and I am not ashamed of that appointment.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

That shows how deep his Protestantism is. He had his friends riding the Protestant horse for him from end to end of the riding and yet they all had to be thrown overboard when at the last moment the hon. gentleman driven to the wall-for he had a majority of only thirty or forty-was in this position that he had to toady to the Catholic vote, and he dared not open his mouth in North Simcoe on that question, and had he dared to do so he would not be here to-day.

Now apart from the speech of the hon. gentleman what is all this question about? It is, as has been put by the leader of the opposition, a question as to whether or not any member of this government is responsible for the presence of the Papal delegate in this country and if any member of this government or of the government as a whole commissioned the Papal ablegate to have this conference with Mr. Colin Campbell. \Yo heard a denial yesterday by one member of the government. What was that ? When it was charged by some gentlemen on this side of the House that the government of Canada as constituted to-day had asked for the presence of the Papal ablegate in this country, up gravely rose the Postmaster General to say that he as a member of the government had not asked for the presence of the Papal ablegate here. His Excellency the Papal ablegate does not say that he did not consult some member of the government as to this interview with Mr. Colin Campbell. He makes a specific statement that he was not instructed by the government, but he did not make the statement that some hon. member of this cabinet did not ask him to have that interview and there is no denial by every member of the government specifically on that point. It has gone forth in the public press, it has gone forth from the leader of the opposition and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that in all these negotiations the premier, day in and day out, has consulted

the Papal ablegate as to the terms of this measure. That is not denied. The premier has had ample opportunities of denying it but he has not done so. The position of the Papal ablegate is reduced to this that he has made a specific denial of the statement that he was instructed by the government, but he has not made a specific denial of the statement that he was not consulted by some member of it. Every one admits the ability and the standing of the Papal ablegate in the church of which he is so distinguished a member, and does any one believe that the Papal ablegate would be so lost to any sense of common reason that he of his own accord and off his own bat, would go about negotiating as he has been doing ? I am not going to traverse the ground that has been gone over by the hon. member for North Toronto as to the equestrian performances of the premier on this question. The Prime Minister has played this game of fast and loose on this question from end to end of Canada. He has gone before Ontario posing as a perfect Ajax defying the lightning as one who has been assailed by the hierarchy, and asking Protestant votes on that score. It is amusing to read the utterances of that hon. gentleman in Ontario when he felt that he had not the power of the church behind him. Let me read his utterance in Toronto on a certain occasion when he thought it was necessary for the exigencies of his political party to make a bid for Ontario support. At a great meeting in September, 1889, in Toronto speaking on the Jesuits Estates Bill, he said :

Now I believe that the whole of that Act would have passed without any trouble whatever, but for the fact that the name of the Pope is prominently introduced in it, and that it was construed in such a manner as to mean a thing which I shall presently discuss-that it was putting the supremacy of the Pope over the supremacy of the Queen. Gentlemen, I think I put the question fairly. I want to put it honestly and to discuss it manfully. I know one thing, X know enough of my fellow countrymen of English origin, I know enough of English history, I know enough of English literature to know that when Shakespeare put into the mouth of King John the proud words which he makes him address the Pope's legate

No Italian priest

Shall tithe or toll in our Dominion.

he touched the British heart in its most responsive chord (Cheers). I know this, that there is no man of English blood, let his condition in life be ever so bumble, let his range of information be ever so limited, but knows this much of English history that at no time would the English people or English sovereigns allow the sway of the Pope in the temporal affairs of England (Cheers).

And cheers greeted that too.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.

Hear. bear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

I do not think the right bon. gentleman would go down into Quebec

to-day and treat in that slighting manner the Papal ablegate in Canada as he did on that occasion in Toronto. In the speech, as it is reported, he was not meeting with a very responsive welcome, and during the course of his address certain things that he mentioned were hissed by the audience, and he saw that he had to go the Protestant horse. And what did he do ? He made exactly that kind of an appeal knowing of course it might touch the palate of the crowd although he was ridiculing the church of which he is a member. The right hon. gentleman then as usual had two strings to his bow. His language then was very different from that in his address at a great meeting in the province of Quebec when he said that he thanked God there was not an Orangeman in the Liberal party. And how they cheered him to the echo when he volunteered that statement voluntarily to them ! The right hon. gentleman has never denied that statement since. I have heard it charged in this House, I have seen gentlemen with stacks oi' declarations of gentlemen who were present and what was the result, there was no specific denial that he had made those statements. The fact is he has been pirouetting on both toes and he is where he is to-day.

As far as this meeting between these gentlemen from Manitoba and the Papal ablegate is concerned, I have only this to say that I believe the Papal ablegate was quite within his commission and his duties in inviting these gentlemen to meet him. He had a perfect right to do that. The Papal delegate came to this country at the request of the right hon. gentleman and his political friends and he has been in close touch with the right hon. gentleman all through these proceedings and has had frequent consultations with the right hon. gentleman in reference to the terms to be contained in these Bills. These statements have all gone forth specifically, that the right hon. gentleman had these meetings and the right hon. gentleman has had ample opportunity to deny it but has not done so. It is with the right hon. gentleman that the quarrel of the people of this country rests and not with the Papal ablegate at all. The Papal ablegate has a perfect right to be in this country just as any other gentleman might have as a plenipotentiary or ambassador to any power, but I do say that the people of this country will hold the right hon. gentleman and the members of his government responsible for what has gone on. Talk about the right hon. gentleman leading a responsible and united party which is behind him on this question. Why it is openly seen by the attitude of the Ontario members not only of the cabinet, but of the House that they are all in a condition of doubt and fear on this question. The hon. Postmaster General will not dare to take up the challenge that was thrown to him by my hon. friend from South York Mr. BENNETT.

(..Mr. Maclean) the other day to resign his seat and let the question be tested in the country. The hon. member for London I (Mr. Hyman), who is discharging the duties of the Minister of Public Works and has been discharging them for the past year, dare not go to the city of London for reelection as Minister of Public Works. Why? Because of this incubus of the school question. I need not refer to other reasons that deter that hon. gentleman from going back there, but if the school question were out of the issue altogether I doubt very much if he would seek a contest there. The hon. gentleman dare not go back to his riding and face this school question as it presents itself to-day.

The people of Canada have no quarrel with the Papal ablegate. They have no quarrel with the powers at Rome for sending the Papal ablegate here to do what he came to do. He came here to try and get restitution of rights, from certain gentlemen who obtained power and place by misrepresentation and fraud as against the Roman Catholic electors of this country which some day they will answer for and must answer for and the people are biding their time to get even with them. There is one consolation for hon. gentlemen who sit upon the treasury benches and those who support them and that is that they will have the full tenure of the five year parliament because they will not venture to test public feeling before their time expires. I should not have risen but for the remarks of the hon. member for North Simcoe. I think the House is tired of the changes rung by that hon, gentleman in regard to the part which he has played in the political history of Canada. While that hon. gentleman dilates at great length in this House he is as silent as a mouse on this question when he goes into North Simcoe. I have had placed in my hand tne issue of the Toronto newspaper which published the speech made by that hon. gentleman in Toronto on the occasion of the Massey Hall meeting which will prove that what I stated was actually borne out by the facts. Speaking at that meeting Mr. McCarthy said :

I appealed to them in 1900 and again was successful, and that time it was against a Conservative, and I appealed to them again in 1904 upon the same ground and the same platform, and was again sustained, though, I regret to say, with a reduced majority.

The hon. gentleman was referring to this question. He redeemed himself to some extent by at last saying that at the village of HawJistone he mentioned this question. The hon. gentleman did not acquire much distinction from having held a meeting at that village and I will tell you why. In the first place the meeting held by him at HawKStone was held a night or two before the election. I am not saying it disrespectfully of the people of Hawkstone, but Hawk-

stone is probably one of the most intensely Protestant parts of Ontario, and the hon. gentleman was taking advantage of the fact to crawl down to the Protestant end of the riding and make his Protestant appeal there that he did not dare make in the township of Floss where he was coquetting with the Catholic vote.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Hon. SIDNEY A. FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) sat down a few minutes ago, he stated that probably he would be accused of making an inflammatory speech. I can only take it that a guilty conscience enabled him to read the minds of those who listened to the speech he made for certainly he was right in describing it as an inflammatory speech. The hon. gentleman, in that speech, certainly tried to inflame the minds of those in this country who distrust or dislike the Catholic church and the Catholic religion. The whole tenor of the hon. gentleman's speech was such as to raise Protestant prejudice and Protestant feeling against this government because he implied that this government, led by a Roman Catholic, was in constant touch with the Roman Catholic church in regard to secular affairs in this country. The hon. member himself on former occasions has complained, that he and his government when he was in the government, was subjected to similar attacks, not to similar attacks by Liberals or by those opposed to him, but similar attacks from the ranks of his own party when the late member for West 1 ork (Mr. Wallace) and the present hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) separated themselves from the Conservative party ceased their support of the Conservative government in 1896 and tried, as members of the government then said, to raise I rotestant and English speaking feeling against the government at that time. Sir, I would lire the hon. member for North Toronto to recall a speech he made in 1896, when, replying to an interruption from the hon. member for East Grey, he used these words, and I think perhaps he will admit that when he uttered these broad-minded words he was more of a statesman than he is to-day in making what he himself has characterized as an inflammatory speech. What did the hon. gentleman then, say? He was not then representing a strong Protestant constituency in the Protestant province of Ontario, but he was a member of the then government of Sir Charles Tupper, representing the maritime provinces, and he said this, referring to a speech which the hon. member for East Grey had quoted or alluded to as his authority :

If made by Archbishop Langevin or if made by ten thousand archbishops, the hon. gentleman would yet have no ground in logic or in truth for making the assertion he made here the other day, which wa#, not that Archbishop Langevin did not agree with the ordinance, but

that the government held it in abeyance because the clergy did not approve of it.

Let him mark these words and let the House marks these words and see how well they apply to the speech which the hon. gentleman made a few moments ago.

This assertion, carried as broadly as newspapers will carry his speech, was meant, and will have the effect of raising prejudice and opposition to this legislation amongst the Protestant people of this country, and fan those fires which my hon. friends there and my hon. friends here so much deplore.

I hope the hon. gentleman will take these words to heart and act upon them instead of acting in the way his conduct shows he wishes to act this afternoon. The hon. gentleman has based the whole of his attack upon this government and upon my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on implications and assumptions, on implications and assumptions whicli are not borne out by the interview of Mr. Rogers and which are still less borne out, but are in fact absolutely refuted by the statement issued by the Apostolic delegate. The hon. gentleman quoted some words from Mr. Rogers' statement and he pointed out that something might be implied by that statement. I venture to say, Sir, that anybody who reads the statement of Mr. Rogers, in Winnipeg, will say that there is a great deal more implied in that statement than there is actually contained in it, and that there is an evident intention by the wording of the statement to make implications and insinuations that the gentleman who gave that statement did not dare to come out and state as matters of fact. These implications and insinuations are not founded on facts, but they are false to the record and they are untrue. Sir, the very first thing that would strike anybody in reading that statement, the first thing which I confess, myself, impressed me was that Mr. Rogers had met the ablegate here in Ottawa. The statement contains these words:

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

It is ' we,' ' us.' Then it continues :

In three days' time, on February 20, a letter was received from Monseigneur Sbarretti, asking for a conference.

Who would have supposed for a moment that that did not mean asking ' us ' for a conference ; but, as a matter of fact, it was not those men who were asked for a conference. It was simply a private letter from the delegate asking one of these gentlemen, an old friend of his who hall discussed this question before with him, for a private interview. The implication and the

insinuation in this statement are not supported by the facts, because the public are led to believe that both of these gentlemen were invited and that both of them had gone.

When speaking a few moments ago, the leader of the opposition laid stress upon the assertion that he did not know yet whether the ablegate- had had authority from this government, or any member of the government, to make that offer, as it is alleged, to the representative of the Manitoba government. Now, at the very moment that the leader of the opposition made that statement he knew that yesterday the Prime Minister had made a categorical and absolute denial in these words :

Before I proceed any further I may say at once referring to the whole tenor of this document, that in so far as there is a charge that there was any understanding between Monseigneur Sbarretti and myself to have the school question considered in connection with the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, there is not a shadow or a tittle of truth in it.

When the leader of the opposition stated here to-day that he did not know yet whether Monseigneur Sbarretti had authority to make that statement, the hon. gentleman must have known that yesterday the right hon. the leader of the government had given this denial, but yet the leader of the opposition ignored it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

What page is the hon. gentleman reading from ? '

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

I am reading from ' Hansard ' of yesterday, page 3837 just about the middle of the page. And furthermore, when the leader of the opposition made the statement to-day, he must have seen in the ' Citizen ' of this morning Monseigneur Sbarretti's own statement:

This is the sum and substance of my interview with Mr. Campbell. The federal government had absolutely no knowledge of it.

The leader of the opposition is unfair, he is disingenuous, when he stated this afternoon that he had no knowledge of these denials, and that he was at liberty to assume that there had been collusion and arrangement between the government, or any member of the government, and the Papal ablegate. In view of the denial of the Prime Minister and of Monseigneur Sbarretti, the leader of the opposition this afternoon allowed the impression to remain on the House that he was not aware yet, that he had heard no denial yet, and that the public were still in doubt as to whether the members of the government, or the Prime Minister himself, had authorized the statement which was attributed to Monseigneur Sbarretti. There is nothing clearer before the public of Canada to-day than the fact, in the first place, that the government themselves, through the Prime Minister, had stated that they knew nothing Mr. FISHER.

whatever about it, that no authority was ever given to Monseigneur Sbarretti for such a proposal ; and further, that Monseigneur Sbarretti himself has declared that the government had no information of or connection with that statement on his part. I therefore say that the leader of the opposition was disingenuous and unfair to the government, as well as to the people of the country, whom he trys to lead away from the true facts.

An impression was tried to be created this [DOT]afternoon that the right hon. the leader of the government was inconsistent in the fact that he had said at one time that the present school arrangements in the province of Manitoba were satisfactory, and that there had been brought about by his intervention a satisfactory settlement of the Manitoba school question ; not by coercion, not by remedial legislation, but by conciliation and negotiation.

The other day, when the leader of the opposition was criticising the Prime Minister, he used several adjectives, and one statement he made, slurring it over as if it were a matter of no account, was that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a great conciliator. Sir, I do not think that anybody in this House or in this country has ever applied a truer and more apt expression towards the leader of this government. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has stood out, not only among the public men of Canada, but among the public men of the empire, as having succeeded, by conciliation, in solving questions which no coercion could ever solve. I venture to say that in the history of Canada Sir Wilfrid Laurier will be held up as the brightest example of a statesman who, without coercion or force, has been able to bring about an entente cor-diale between the different peoples, the different religions, the different nationalities in this country, and who has been able to demonstrate that by conciliation majorities and minorities can live together in peace and work for the progress, the advancement and the good government of the country. I said a few moments ago that the intention of gentlemen opposite was to showr that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was inconsistent. The settlement of the Manitoba school question was the settlement of a difficulty under a certain condition at that time existing. The law had been passed by the legislature of Manitoba, there were difficulties then existing, and the settlement urns a settlement under a condition of affairs which was not absolutely satisfactory, probably, to either side. The Roman Catholics of Manitoba, the Roman Catholics of Canada, would have liked to have had much more. The Protestant element would, perhaps, like to exert a greater influence and to have taken away more of the rights, or the privileges, if you will, of the Catholics in Manitoba. If there are two extremes warring against each other, irreconcilable in most cases one might, say, but who are willing and ready, by conciliation, to come to

a common standpoint where their differences will vanish, both sides may agree to a fair and just and equitable compromise. That was the basis of the settlement of the Manitoba school question. But, Sir, to say that because that was the settlement, and that it was on the whole satisfactory to both sides of the controversy at that time, does not mean that under any circumstances in the future, or under a new condition of affairs existing in the adjoining new provinces, such a settlement must necessarily be absolutely satisfactory for ever. We have a totally different condition of affairs in regard to our school legislation in the new provinces. We have a new start to be made. We have a condition of affairs existing today in these Territories which gives certain rights to the minorities in the way of separate schools. To maintain these rights hy our legislation, we give in the future a guarantee that these rights shall be maintained. Some people may consider that the condition in the Territories is not better, nor even so good, as the condition of affairs in Manitoba to-day ; but, however that may be. the proposition in this legislation is a settlement of the question. Perhaps, as in the case of Manitoba, you may call it a compromise, and probably the two extremes to the controversy' may sayr that the legislation we propose is not satisfactory, but a compromise has to be reached between these extremes. You cannot get a compromise which will be absolutely acceptable to the extreme adherents of one side or the other, hut you may get a compromise which will be acceptable to the common sense of the great mass of the people of this country. I believe that hy this Bill we have attained that desirable end.

The question of the boundaries of Manitoba has been discussed, and this question is perhaps the raison d'etre of this whole discussion this afternoon. A complaint is made-perhaps not actually made by anybody on the floor of this House, although it is implied-a complaint is made by Mr. lingers that the boundaries of Manitoba have not been moved westward, because of the difficulties connected with the school question. There is no justification whatever for any such statement. There are newspaper rumours of all kinds. I regret to say that our friends opposite in their press are quite equal to the manufacture of newspaper rumours of all kinds. I regret to say that they feed on these rumours. They have not much else to feed upon, Mr. Speaker. They have been beaten over and over and over again, when the people of this country have been appealed to and have had an opportunity of pronouncing on their policy and their utterances in comparison with our policy aud our utterances. We heard just such language here session after session between 1896 and 1900. AA'e heard that the Liberal government was to be swept out of power in 1900 the moment the people had

an opportunity of judging our record and our policy. AVe all know the result. All through the last parliament we had hon. gentlemen opposite talking very loudly in this House about what they were going to do when the elections came on. They impressed a good many people in the country. They are loud-mouthed and denunciatory ; and they are like some people who think that by saying a thing very often you actually make it true. But the result of the election in November, 1904, showed them that their loudest denunciations and loudest assertions were mere empty wind, and the government came back with a larger majority than any party in Canada had got in many years.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

Where was their leader ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

I will not say anything about that ; I do not wish to indulge in personalities. But in that connection 1 would like to refer to a statement which I saw in a Conservative newspaper within the last day or two-I am sorry I cannot remember which paper it was. The statement was that the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Quebec were inferior in intelligence and superior in bigotry and prejudice to the people of Ontario. It is easy enough to see where a sentiment of that kind comes from ; it comes from the disappointed ambitions of men who tried to he elected in those provinces and had to suffer the defeat which their party and their policy deserved. .

There is one thing more which I wish to say a few words about ; and, coming as 1 do from the province of Quebec, perhaps I know a little more about these matters than the great mass of English speaking or Protestant members of this House. It may be a little delicate for one who does not belong to the Roman Catholic church to speak about the action of Catholics in regard to their own church, or about the difficulties which may have arisen in the internal economy of that church in this country. But. having lived among the Catholics of the province of Quebec, it may not be out of place for me to say a word or two iu regard to the coming of the Papal ablegate. In 1890 a request was made by certain people belonging to the Catholic church for a permanent representative of the Pope in Canada. That was not the first time that a request of that kind had been placed before the head of the Catholic church. Those of us who can look hack a little iu the history of this country can remember the condition of affairs in the province of Quebec before 1896. AVe can remember that as long ago as 1876 there was an election in the province of Quebec, in which it was notorious that leading dignitaries of the Catholic church took an active part-such an active part that the Tory candidate in that election was elected ; such an active

part that certain Liberals who did not believe in the interference of the church in secular affairs, such as political matters, made a protest to Rome, and asked that a delegate should be sent from the Pope to regulate those affairs within the Catholic church in Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink

April 6, 1905