Anyone who thinks that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was simply and always the gentle man of “sunny ways,” has obviously never read his first major speech in the House of Commons as Prime Minister. I’m pretty confident, for example, that Sir Charles Tupper, who had been defeated by Laurier in the general election only weeks before, didn’t feel any sunny ways in the Commons chamber on this date in 1896.
“He (Tupper) was defeated, because by his policy on this question he created amongst the better classes of his party a distrust, which rent his party into factions which are now irreconcilable,” Laurier told the House regarding Tupper’s waffling on the Manitoba Schools question during the campaign. “Sir, these are the reasons why the Honourable Gentleman did not succeed. And in view of the tactics which were adopted by the Honourable Gentleman and his party to succeed, in view of the methods which were resorted to by them, I say: blessed and thrice blessed is the day when these tactics were defeated, when these methods were rebuked, and when these appeals to sectional feelings were trampled underfoot by the people to whom they were addressed.”
Ouch.
For added effect, Laurier also said the following:
“There was throughout it, from the fist to the last syllable, a tone of disappointment and bitterness; but with this I find no fault, and indulge in no criticism,” Laurier said of the remarks by Tupper the new PM was responding to. “I waive it in deference to the feelings of a man who, having abandoned a high and honourable position in the service of the country for the more noble and higher ambition of restoring the wrecked fortunes of his party, and having failed in the task, has not yet recovered from the surprise and the shock, that, like Caesar, he came and saw, but unlike Caesar, he did not conquer.”
You can read Laurier’s full address below. It is a beauty!
Prime Minister Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I have assuredly no fault to find with the speech to which we have had the pleasure of listening, nor is it my intention to offer any criticism upon it. It was a moderate speech, and if we remember the source from which it came (Sir Charles Tupper), I think it was a very moderate speech, indeed. True, Sir, there was throughout it, from the fist to the last syllable, a tone of disappointment and bitterness; but with this I find no fault, and indulge in no criticism. I waive it in deference to the feelings of a man who, having abandoned a high and honourable position in the service of the country for the more noble and higher ambition of restoring the wrecked fortunes of his party, and having failed in the task, has not yet recovered from the surprise and the shock, that, like Caesar, he came and saw, but unlike Caesar, he did not conquer.
It is manifest from the tone of the speech of the Honourable Gentleman that he has not rightly apprehended the full significance of the verdict which was pronounced by the people of the country on 23rd June last. It is quite evident from the speech delivered that the Honourable Gentleman up to this day does not know what are the causes which have produced that upheaval, that earthquake which shook the whole of Canada, from the island of Vancouver to Prince Edward Island on 23rd June last – an earthquake which was very similar to some earthquakes which we read about in the olden times, and in which the sinners were buried alive, and the just were spared and saved.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Gentleman told us in the opening part of his address, that the Liberal Party had not obtained a majority on any of the issues submitted to the people of this country. I fail to understand what was the object of the argument of the Honourable Gentleman. He says we have not obtained a majority on any of the issues which were submitted to the people of the country. Well, Sir, I care not to go very minutely into that argument, but I look at the result only, and whatever may be the cause the result is: there is the Honourable Gentleman in opposition, and here are we at the head of the Government of Canada.
The Honourable Gentleman stated more. He said that although his party were in the minority in this House, yet that they had obtained at the polls, no less than 19 thousand votes more than the party which is victorious. Again, I refuse to go very minutely into those calculations of the Honourable Gentleman, but all I have to say is that if the victorious polled a minority of the votes in the country, what has become of the Gerrymander Acts of Honourable Gentlemen opposite? They certainly were never intended for that purpose, and if that be their result I am sure we shall have the support of my Honourable Friend when we repeal these Acts, as repeal them we shall. Nor do I consider that my Honourable Friend was any more happy in his reference to the Honourable Gentleman who moved the Address, when he said that although the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. McInnes) had a seat in this House he had a minority of the votes in his constituency.
True there were three candidates in the field, one Liberal and two Conservatives. There were two different kinds of Conservatives, however, in the constituency of Vancouver, as in many other constituencies in this country. There were Conservatives who were Ministerialists and who were prepared to swallow everything in connection with the Ministerial policy, but there were also Conservatives, who though remaining Conservatives, and yielding nothing of the conviction of their lives, were, however, no longer ready to follow the Government of the Honourable Gentleman. That is the reason why my Honourable Friend (Mr. McInnes) is here. But, Sir, if the Honourable Gentleman (Sir Charles Tupper) does not know yet what are the causes which have brought on this change of government.
I may tell him. There are three causes. The Honourable Gentleman and his party were defeated because their fiscal policy, which by a strange misnomer has been termed the National Policy, had not fulfilled the expectations of the people, and although that policy had not fulfilled the expectations of the people, still the Honourable Gentleman adhered to it.
The Honourable Gentleman and his party have been defeated because the administration of public affairs under his Government had been extravagant and corrupt. The Honourable Gentlemen and his party have been defeated because upon a grave and important question – a question which for its solution required great tenderness and care of treatment – instead of appealing to the honest intelligence of the people, instead of appealing to the convictions and the consciences of the people, the hon. gentleman and his part appealed to sectional prejudices and to religious feelings.
He was defeated, because by his policy on this question he created amongst the better classes of his party a distrust, which rent his party into factions which are now irreconcilable. Sir, these are the reasons why the Honourable Gentleman did not succeed. And in view of the tactics which were adopted by the Honourable Gentleman and his party to succeed, in view of the methods which were resorted to by them, I say: blessed and thrice blessed is the day when these tactics were defeated, when these methods were rebuked, and when these appeals to sectional feelings were trampled underfoot by the people to whom they were addressed.
I am doing no injustice to my Honourable Friend when I say, that his speech today was rather a doleful and mournful one. But there was a single ray of sunshine in it. There was a ray of sunshine in it when he came to speak of my hon. friends, the mover and seconder of the Address. He paid them just and well deserved compliments, which I am happy to re-echo…
But the Honourable Gentleman devoted by far the greater and most important part of his speech to the Manitoba school question, and the whole tendency of his argument today was to try and put us in contradiction with ourselves. He said that we had one policy here and another there. I take issue with him upon that. The Honourable Gentleman wants to know what is the policy of the Government upon this question. If I were to extend to him the same treatment which was meted to us when on the other side, I would ask what is the policy of the Opposition.
Now, we heard during the last session from the lips of the Honourable Gentleman, not once or twice but a dozen times, a declaration which is very different from what we have heard from him today. We heard from him then the declaration that in this matter the sovereignty of Parliament was abridged, that Parliament was not a free agent, but was forced to lay violent hands upon the school legislation of Manitoba and restore the Roman Catholic separate schools. Nay more, we heard also the Honourable Gentleman state, in deep and solemn tones, that he was ready to die, if his death were necessary, to procure of the minority the justice in which they were entitled…
All I can say at the present time is that I have every reason to hope, every reason to believe, that when again this Parliament assembles, this question will have been settled satisfactorily to all parties concerned. Sir, when I say that this question will have been settled satisfactorily to all let me make on exception. I know full well that any settlement we can make, however just, however fair, however meritorious it may be, it is condemned in advance by those extreme men who are ready to exact their pound of flesh even though they are cutting it out of the very heart of their country, those men who, whether they belong to one section of the Conservatives or the other are today sharpening their knives, in order to obtain from the bleeding corpse of their country, not justice but the satisfaction of revenge.
These men I do not expect ever to satisfy. But I expect we shall be able to satisfy all reasonable men, all right-minded men, all those who, whatever may be their views upon this question, are prepared for the sake of peace, harmony and good-fellowship, to make some sacrifice upon the altar of their common country even of opinion and preference. And I hope that when we appeal to the sense of fair play of justice and generosity in behalf of a united Canada, it will meet with a clear and unmistakable response from all classes. But I should despair of the future of my country, not merely as to the settlement of this question but as to the settlement of every other question which may come up if the tactics followed by the hon. gentleman opposite and his friends were to prevail in this country, if those who blow hot and cold who today are vociferously clamouring against the policy which they supported no late than the month of June were to prevail.
Sir, the Honourable Gentleman dealt a few moments ago with a subject which I was not surprised that he should tackle, because it is one which I am sure must have caused him some uneasiness and even pain as a Canadian for some time, because he cannot but regret, I hope, at all events, that he does regret the language which he made use of on former occasions. The Honourable Gentleman has at last taken some issue with me because I reproached him that upon that question he had made an appeal to feelings of race and religious prejudice. Well, Sir, I accept the challenge and I repeated today in his presence the charge which I preferred against him throughout the provinces visited during the late election.
Here in the great assizes of the nation, before the assembled representatives of the people, I arraign the Honourable Gentleman and his friends for that in the late election they did their utmost to arouse the religious prejudices not only of the people of Quebec but those of the Protestant and English-speaking provinces as well.
Let us join issue at once. The Honourable Gentleman quoted the speech he delivered at Winnipeg. Let me quote it again. I think the very read that he read:
“To my Conservative friends who have turned their backs upon me I want to make another appeal, and it is this: I want to know where is the man with any brains in his head, where is the man who has any capacity for exercising intelligent reasoning capacity, who would justify himself, or would justify himself to his country, if he oppressed a feeble minority, and that for the purpose of bringing into power a Roman Catholic French Premier, who declares he will do more.”
A Roman Catholic French Premier. The Honourable Gentleman was speaking in the City of Winnipeg, to an English-speaking audience. He was addressing his friends, as he said – his English-speaking friends in Winnipeg in the Province of Manitoba where the great bulk of the people are opposed to intervention in this matter. If he wanted to make a point against me by saying I had promised to do more than his Bill provided, why, in the name of common sense, was he so particular to tell them that if they turned him out of power they would bring into office a ‘French Canadian Roman Catholic Premier.’ There was innuendo in that. He disclaims having had any intention of appealing to sectional or race or religious prejudice.
A few days afterwards the Honourable Gentleman was at Port Arthur and this is the language he made use of there:
“I am speaking now not to Liberals – it is no use speaking to them, but to Conservatives, and ask can you vote to turn out the present Government and put in a French Roman Catholic Premier.”
If that was not an appeal to race and religion, what is the use of language? But the Honourable Gentleman went to the Province of Quebec. Does the Honourable Gentleman pretend that he used in the Province of Quebec the same language that he used in Winnipeg or Port Arthur? Here I have the speech he made in Montreal, at Sohmer Park, before a French-speaking audience. I quote from the report of the Montreal Gazette:
“I am prepared to say that what I said at Winnipeg was this:”
Now mark the words. The Honourable Gentleman was explaining to a French Canadian and Roman Catholic audience what he stated at Winnipeg, which language I have just quoted.
“I made an appeal to the Liberal Conservative electors who were under the impression that the Dominion Government was forcing separate schools upon the Province of Manitoba. I said, ‘Is there a man of intelligence here who does not see that the Government are only carrying out the judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Queen’s Privy Council, a judgement which declares that the privileges which belonged to the Roman Catholic minority have been taken away, and that it is the duty of the Parliament of Canada to restore those privileges.’ I took the ground that every Liberal Conservative was in honour bound to stand by his party in endeavouring to restore the privileges of which a feeble Roman Catholic minority had been robbed, instead of striking down that party for the purpose of bringing into power a French Roman Catholic Premier who himself had declared that he had opposed the Bill because –‘
He promised more? No, but because, ‘it was too weak to accomplish its object.’
Here is the language of the Honourable Gentleman in Winnipeg. Speaking to English Protestants his language is: Are you going to turn us out and bring into power a French Roman Catholic who promises that he will do more? But in Quebec he says: Are you going to turn us out of power and put into office a French Canadian Roman Catholic Premier who declares the Bill is too weak, and that he will bring in a stronger Bill?
There is the language of the Honourable Gentleman – an appeal to prejudice on both occasions, an appeal to the French Canadians because I had opposed this Bill on the ground that it was too weak; an appeal to the Protestant and English-speaking electors of Manitoba because I had opposed the Bill on the ground that I desired to bring in a stronger one. Sir, on each occasion the Honourable Gentleman was doing his very best in order to arouse local prejudices in each province…
Sir, this is the time and the day to clear up that issue. This is the time and the day. I insist upon it. Let us deal with this question now…
No person has a right to speak of French domination, or English domination, or Scotch domination or German domination. We stand on British Canadian citizenship. What matters it, Sir, whether the majority supporting the Government come from one province or another if the policy of the Government rests upon the broad principles of truth, justice and honour? What matters it whether the majority comes from one province or another if the arguments we used in one province were those we used in all provinces?
Sir, the men who today occupy these benches are fully conscious that upon this and upon other matters they have before them difficult and anxious questions to deal with and to settle, not by appealing to one class, not by appealing to one section; but upon all questions and on all occasions, by appealing to all classes, and to all sections, with the view and with the end, with the supreme view and with the supreme end of making Canada a country, not a country only, but one country as well.
1 The Hon. Sir James David Edgar (1841-1899) served as Speaker until his sudden death in 1899. He remains the only Speaker of the House of Commons to have died in office. He was succeeded by Thomas Bain.
Arthur Milnes is an accomplished public historian and award-winning journalist. He was research assistant on The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney’s best-selling Memoirs and also served as a speechwriter to then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper and as a Fellow of the Queen’s Centre for the Study of Democracy under the leadership of Tom Axworthy. A resident of Kingston, Ontario, Milnes serves as the in-house historian at the 175 year-old Frontenac Club Hotel.
For added effect, Laurier also said the following:
“There was throughout it, from the fist to the last syllable, a tone of disappointment and bitterness; but with this I find no fault, and indulge in no criticism,” Laurier said of the remarks by Tupper the new PM was responding to. “I waive it in deference to the feelings of a man who, having abandoned a high and honourable position in the service of the country for the more noble and higher ambition of restoring the wrecked fortunes of his party, and having failed in the task, has not yet recovered from the surprise and the shock, that, like Caesar, he came and saw, but unlike Caesar, he did not conquer.”
You can read Laurier’s full address below. It is a beauty!
Prime Minister Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I have assuredly no fault to find with the speech to which we have had the pleasure of listening, nor is it my intention to offer any criticism upon it. It was a moderate speech, and if we remember the source from which it came (Sir Charles Tupper), I think it was a very moderate speech, indeed. True, Sir, there was throughout it, from the fist to the last syllable, a tone of disappointment and bitterness; but with this I find no fault, and indulge in no criticism. I waive it in deference to the feelings of a man who, having abandoned a high and honourable position in the service of the country for the more noble and higher ambition of restoring the wrecked fortunes of his party, and having failed in the task, has not yet recovered from the surprise and the shock, that, like Caesar, he came and saw, but unlike Caesar, he did not conquer.
It is manifest from the tone of the speech of the Honourable Gentleman that he has not rightly apprehended the full significance of the verdict which was pronounced by the people of the country on 23rd June last. It is quite evident from the speech delivered that the Honourable Gentleman up to this day does not know what are the causes which have produced that upheaval, that earthquake which shook the whole of Canada, from the island of Vancouver to Prince Edward Island on 23rd June last – an earthquake which was very similar to some earthquakes which we read about in the olden times, and in which the sinners were buried alive, and the just were spared and saved.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Gentleman told us in the opening part of his address, that the Liberal Party had not obtained a majority on any of the issues submitted to the people of this country. I fail to understand what was the object of the argument of the Honourable Gentleman. He says we have not obtained a majority on any of the issues which were submitted to the people of the country. Well, Sir, I care not to go very minutely into that argument, but I look at the result only, and whatever may be the cause the result is: there is the Honourable Gentleman in opposition, and here are we at the head of the Government of Canada.
The Honourable Gentleman stated more. He said that although his party were in the minority in this House, yet that they had obtained at the polls, no less than 19 thousand votes more than the party which is victorious. Again, I refuse to go very minutely into those calculations of the Honourable Gentleman, but all I have to say is that if the victorious polled a minority of the votes in the country, what has become of the Gerrymander Acts of Honourable Gentlemen opposite? They certainly were never intended for that purpose, and if that be their result I am sure we shall have the support of my Honourable Friend when we repeal these Acts, as repeal them we shall. Nor do I consider that my Honourable Friend was any more happy in his reference to the Honourable Gentleman who moved the Address, when he said that although the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. McInnes) had a seat in this House he had a minority of the votes in his constituency.
True there were three candidates in the field, one Liberal and two Conservatives. There were two different kinds of Conservatives, however, in the constituency of Vancouver, as in many other constituencies in this country. There were Conservatives who were Ministerialists and who were prepared to swallow everything in connection with the Ministerial policy, but there were also Conservatives, who though remaining Conservatives, and yielding nothing of the conviction of their lives, were, however, no longer ready to follow the Government of the Honourable Gentleman. That is the reason why my Honourable Friend (Mr. McInnes) is here. But, Sir, if the Honourable Gentleman (Sir Charles Tupper) does not know yet what are the causes which have brought on this change of government.
I may tell him. There are three causes. The Honourable Gentleman and his party were defeated because their fiscal policy, which by a strange misnomer has been termed the National Policy, had not fulfilled the expectations of the people, and although that policy had not fulfilled the expectations of the people, still the Honourable Gentleman adhered to it.
The Honourable Gentleman and his party have been defeated because the administration of public affairs under his Government had been extravagant and corrupt. The Honourable Gentlemen and his party have been defeated because upon a grave and important question – a question which for its solution required great tenderness and care of treatment – instead of appealing to the honest intelligence of the people, instead of appealing to the convictions and the consciences of the people, the hon. gentleman and his part appealed to sectional prejudices and to religious feelings.
He was defeated, because by his policy on this question he created amongst the better classes of his party a distrust, which rent his party into factions which are now irreconcilable. Sir, these are the reasons why the Honourable Gentleman did not succeed. And in view of the tactics which were adopted by the Honourable Gentleman and his party to succeed, in view of the methods which were resorted to by them, I say: blessed and thrice blessed is the day when these tactics were defeated, when these methods were rebuked, and when these appeals to sectional feelings were trampled underfoot by the people to whom they were addressed.
I am doing no injustice to my Honourable Friend when I say, that his speech today was rather a doleful and mournful one. But there was a single ray of sunshine in it. There was a ray of sunshine in it when he came to speak of my hon. friends, the mover and seconder of the Address. He paid them just and well deserved compliments, which I am happy to re-echo…
But the Honourable Gentleman devoted by far the greater and most important part of his speech to the Manitoba school question, and the whole tendency of his argument today was to try and put us in contradiction with ourselves. He said that we had one policy here and another there. I take issue with him upon that. The Honourable Gentleman wants to know what is the policy of the Government upon this question. If I were to extend to him the same treatment which was meted to us when on the other side, I would ask what is the policy of the Opposition.
Now, we heard during the last session from the lips of the Honourable Gentleman, not once or twice but a dozen times, a declaration which is very different from what we have heard from him today. We heard from him then the declaration that in this matter the sovereignty of Parliament was abridged, that Parliament was not a free agent, but was forced to lay violent hands upon the school legislation of Manitoba and restore the Roman Catholic separate schools. Nay more, we heard also the Honourable Gentleman state, in deep and solemn tones, that he was ready to die, if his death were necessary, to procure of the minority the justice in which they were entitled…
All I can say at the present time is that I have every reason to hope, every reason to believe, that when again this Parliament assembles, this question will have been settled satisfactorily to all parties concerned. Sir, when I say that this question will have been settled satisfactorily to all let me make on exception. I know full well that any settlement we can make, however just, however fair, however meritorious it may be, it is condemned in advance by those extreme men who are ready to exact their pound of flesh even though they are cutting it out of the very heart of their country, those men who, whether they belong to one section of the Conservatives or the other are today sharpening their knives, in order to obtain from the bleeding corpse of their country, not justice but the satisfaction of revenge.
These men I do not expect ever to satisfy. But I expect we shall be able to satisfy all reasonable men, all right-minded men, all those who, whatever may be their views upon this question, are prepared for the sake of peace, harmony and good-fellowship, to make some sacrifice upon the altar of their common country even of opinion and preference. And I hope that when we appeal to the sense of fair play of justice and generosity in behalf of a united Canada, it will meet with a clear and unmistakable response from all classes. But I should despair of the future of my country, not merely as to the settlement of this question but as to the settlement of every other question which may come up if the tactics followed by the hon. gentleman opposite and his friends were to prevail in this country, if those who blow hot and cold who today are vociferously clamouring against the policy which they supported no late than the month of June were to prevail.
Sir, the Honourable Gentleman dealt a few moments ago with a subject which I was not surprised that he should tackle, because it is one which I am sure must have caused him some uneasiness and even pain as a Canadian for some time, because he cannot but regret, I hope, at all events, that he does regret the language which he made use of on former occasions. The Honourable Gentleman has at last taken some issue with me because I reproached him that upon that question he had made an appeal to feelings of race and religious prejudice. Well, Sir, I accept the challenge and I repeated today in his presence the charge which I preferred against him throughout the provinces visited during the late election.
Here in the great assizes of the nation, before the assembled representatives of the people, I arraign the Honourable Gentleman and his friends for that in the late election they did their utmost to arouse the religious prejudices not only of the people of Quebec but those of the Protestant and English-speaking provinces as well.
Let us join issue at once. The Honourable Gentleman quoted the speech he delivered at Winnipeg. Let me quote it again. I think the very read that he read:
“To my Conservative friends who have turned their backs upon me I want to make another appeal, and it is this: I want to know where is the man with any brains in his head, where is the man who has any capacity for exercising intelligent reasoning capacity, who would justify himself, or would justify himself to his country, if he oppressed a feeble minority, and that for the purpose of bringing into power a Roman Catholic French Premier, who declares he will do more.”
A Roman Catholic French Premier. The Honourable Gentleman was speaking in the City of Winnipeg, to an English-speaking audience. He was addressing his friends, as he said – his English-speaking friends in Winnipeg in the Province of Manitoba where the great bulk of the people are opposed to intervention in this matter. If he wanted to make a point against me by saying I had promised to do more than his Bill provided, why, in the name of common sense, was he so particular to tell them that if they turned him out of power they would bring into office a ‘French Canadian Roman Catholic Premier.’ There was innuendo in that. He disclaims having had any intention of appealing to sectional or race or religious prejudice.
A few days afterwards the Honourable Gentleman was at Port Arthur and this is the language he made use of there:
“I am speaking now not to Liberals – it is no use speaking to them, but to Conservatives, and ask can you vote to turn out the present Government and put in a French Roman Catholic Premier.”
If that was not an appeal to race and religion, what is the use of language? But the Honourable Gentleman went to the Province of Quebec. Does the Honourable Gentleman pretend that he used in the Province of Quebec the same language that he used in Winnipeg or Port Arthur? Here I have the speech he made in Montreal, at Sohmer Park, before a French-speaking audience. I quote from the report of the Montreal Gazette:
“I am prepared to say that what I said at Winnipeg was this:”
Now mark the words. The Honourable Gentleman was explaining to a French Canadian and Roman Catholic audience what he stated at Winnipeg, which language I have just quoted.
“I made an appeal to the Liberal Conservative electors who were under the impression that the Dominion Government was forcing separate schools upon the Province of Manitoba. I said, ‘Is there a man of intelligence here who does not see that the Government are only carrying out the judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Queen’s Privy Council, a judgement which declares that the privileges which belonged to the Roman Catholic minority have been taken away, and that it is the duty of the Parliament of Canada to restore those privileges.’ I took the ground that every Liberal Conservative was in honour bound to stand by his party in endeavouring to restore the privileges of which a feeble Roman Catholic minority had been robbed, instead of striking down that party for the purpose of bringing into power a French Roman Catholic Premier who himself had declared that he had opposed the Bill because –‘
He promised more? No, but because, ‘it was too weak to accomplish its object.’
Here is the language of the Honourable Gentleman in Winnipeg. Speaking to English Protestants his language is: Are you going to turn us out and bring into power a French Roman Catholic who promises that he will do more? But in Quebec he says: Are you going to turn us out of power and put into office a French Canadian Roman Catholic Premier who declares the Bill is too weak, and that he will bring in a stronger Bill?
There is the language of the Honourable Gentleman – an appeal to prejudice on both occasions, an appeal to the French Canadians because I had opposed this Bill on the ground that it was too weak; an appeal to the Protestant and English-speaking electors of Manitoba because I had opposed the Bill on the ground that I desired to bring in a stronger one. Sir, on each occasion the Honourable Gentleman was doing his very best in order to arouse local prejudices in each province…
Sir, this is the time and the day to clear up that issue. This is the time and the day. I insist upon it. Let us deal with this question now…
No person has a right to speak of French domination, or English domination, or Scotch domination or German domination. We stand on British Canadian citizenship. What matters it, Sir, whether the majority supporting the Government come from one province or another if the policy of the Government rests upon the broad principles of truth, justice and honour? What matters it whether the majority comes from one province or another if the arguments we used in one province were those we used in all provinces?
Sir, the men who today occupy these benches are fully conscious that upon this and upon other matters they have before them difficult and anxious questions to deal with and to settle, not by appealing to one class, not by appealing to one section; but upon all questions and on all occasions, by appealing to all classes, and to all sections, with the view and with the end, with the supreme view and with the supreme end of making Canada a country, not a country only, but one country as well.
1 The Hon. Sir James David Edgar (1841-1899) served as Speaker until his sudden death in 1899. He remains the only Speaker of the House of Commons to have died in office. He was succeeded by Thomas Bain.
Arthur Milnes is an accomplished public historian and award-winning journalist. He was research assistant on The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney’s best-selling Memoirs and also served as a speechwriter to then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper and as a Fellow of the Queen’s Centre for the Study of Democracy under the leadership of Tom Axworthy. A resident of Kingston, Ontario, Milnes serves as the in-house historian at the 175 year-old Frontenac Club Hotel.Arthur Milnes is an accomplished public historian and award-winning journalist. He was research assistant on The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney’s best-selling Memoirs and also served as a speechwriter to then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper and as a Fellow of the Queen’s Centre for the Study of Democracy under the leadership of Tom Axworthy. A resident of Kingston, Ontario, Milnes serves as the in-house historian at the 175 year-old Frontenac Club Hotel.