May 12, 1902

LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ball) will have to withdraw these expressions.

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Georges Ball

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BALL.

I am not a parliamentarian, and I may very often contravene the rules of the House, because I do not know them. I am at an age where we learn with difficulty. But I am always ready to be shown the proper course in discussion, and withdraw any remark that should not have been made. I now wish to refer to the sale of the Great Eastern Railway. The product of that sale was to go to pay the creditors.

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I wish to call the hon. gentleman's attention (to the fact that we are now discussing the Gaspfi and Western Bill, and I do not see that it has any connection with the sale of the Great Eastern.

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Georges Ball

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BALL.

Well I don't know the rules well, and so I have to try and get around them some way. I want to show the House that these gentlemen are not working altogether for the labouring men.

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

The hon. gentleman must confine himself to the discussion of the question before the House.

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Georges Ball

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BALL.

Ce que je veux dire, c'est que ce bill a origine dans l'iniquite; I wish I could say it in English, but I cannot. The proceeds of the sale of the Great Eastern went to the ex-mayor of Montreal (Mr. Prd-fontaine) and he was to distribute it to the labourers and creditor's. Well, I may say that no labourer and no creditor got anything. The ex-mayor of Montreal took all the money and put it in his pocket, and gave nothing to anybody, and he resigned ns director of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, and said Armstrong was a rascal. He could not be in the same place with Armstrong, because Armstrong was such a rascal. He got the subsidies to go as far as Faspebiac, with the prospect of a future charter and that is why we had the Bill of 1890. They thought they would succeed better by calling it the Gaspe short line running over the hills. Numerous petitions from the electors of Gaspe and Perce

district came here asking that the railway should pass along the shore, and so this year they changed their minds and decided to run the lines along the shore, and so this year they changed their minds and decided to run the lines along the rivers so as to make the people believe that they were going to build the road and that the company was very rich and going to buy out a syndicate and pay all the merchants and the labourers. They fee] very bad about the poor people and they are crying all the time that they are out of their money. During the whole session they have been sympathizing with the poor people down there, but you will find that they will never pay these poor people. I do not know whether I have permission to say it or not, but I want to state that they seem to be very much afraid of Armstrong. I will make a parallel with him and another gentleman who is here in this House, the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Raymond Prefontaine), and when there are some Bills to be passed this gentleman goes around and says : * Don't you pass that Bill, because Armstrong is in it : or, help me with this Bill because Armstrong is opposing it.' That is the way some Bills are carried here, and some Bills are killed. I was at the funeral of three of them yesterday ; the Atlantic and Lake Superior,'the Great Eastern and the Montreal Bridge. It was said that Armstrong had something to do with these Bills, and so they were sent to the Cimetiere des Innocents. Well, I think this present Bill should also be killed, but should not be placed with the innocents, as it is too guilty. I do not say that all the Liberals, but generally speaking the Liberal party is against Armstrong. If Armstrong passes on one side of the street they pass on the other, and if Armstrong is in town they say : 'There is some bad scheme going on because Armstrong is at the Russell.' Would you know the reason why they are so down on him ? I will tell you*: It is'because Mr. C. N. Armstrong once had a contract for the building of the Baie des Cha-leurs Railway and he had some subsidies coming to him from the Quebec government. He obtained $100,000 from the government. $100,000 was a big cheque, but what did he do ? Did he put it in his pocket and give nobody else anything ? No, he did not. What did he do with it ? He gave about three-quarters of it to a man of the name of Facaud, in Quebec, whom every one knows. And for what purpose ? To help the Liberal party in their election against the Conservative party. That is where the $100,000 or nearly all of it went to.

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON
CON

Georges Ball

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BALL.

Yes, it is so. Part of it went to pay friends notes and the balance went that way. That is the pure truth.

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

The hon. gentleman is not in order. The discussion of that question is not germane to the debate.

466S

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Georges Ball

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir. BALL.

I want to make a parallel.

I aim tired of that man saying Armstrong here and Armstrong there. I say Armstrong is a great deal more honest than the fellow who decries him. I regret that the hon. member for Terrebonne (Sir. Raymond Prefontaine) is not present, because I -would say more. In order that you may not think that I wish to speak until the time expires,

I shall resume my seat.

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Charles Eusèbe Casgrain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir. CASGRAIN.

I have been appealed to, to withdraw the .amendment, and I do so on the understanding that if the amendments which I proposed are not adopted in Committee of the Whole, then I will move them on the third reading.

Amendment withdrawn.

Main motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.

On section 0,

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Charles Eusèbe Casgrain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir. CASGRAIN.

I propose to amend this clause by inserting after the word ' shareholder' in line 22 the following : ' Of the company interested and the bondholders thereof;' and also after the word ' stock ' in the 24th line : ' And bondholders holding at least two-thirds of the bonds.'

Topic:   GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink

Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to. At one o'clock, House took recess. House resumed at three o'clock. Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.


ORTHODOX RUSSO-GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH.


House went into committee on Bill (No. 140) An Act to incorporate the Bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church for North America and Aleutian Islands, and each of the parishes and missions of the said church in Manitoba and the North-west Territories.-Mr. Oliver. Mr. LaRIVIERE. When this Bill came before the House on different occasions 1 raised some objections on several grounds. First of all, we are asked to incorporate in Manitoba and the North-west Territories a church body whose members have never petitioned this parliament for incorporation. I can readily understand that such a community may need incorporation in order to organize and maintain their respective parishes in connection with their church work, but at the same time I think that the roundabout way in which this Bill has been introduced in this House is not at all regular. We had a petition presented to this House by the Right Rev. Mr. Tikhon, of San Francisco, California, claiming to be a bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church for North America and the Aleutian Islands, asking to be incorporated Mr. SPEAKER. as a corporator sole, that is to say, as a corporation having the absolute privilege of controlling, not only the spiritual church matters, but the temporal matters as well in connection with this church. By the Bill subsequently introduced, the .prayer of that petition is fully granted, and the most reverend gentleman-as he is called in the Bill -is incorporated a corporation sole, with powers as defined in the Bill : 2. The corporation sola may receive and hold property of any kind for the uses and purposes of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, including the uses and purposes1 of any parish and mission, institution, college, school or hospital now or hereafter connected with the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church, and it may receive any devise by will, gift, deed, conveyance of land or any estate or interest therein," and sell, aJlienate, mortgage or lease any land's, tenements and hereditaments held by it. Now, we have on different occasions, and even during the present session, incorporated bishops with similar powers. We incorporated, for instance, the bishop of Moosonee, by a Bill passed last week, but we knew that he was a bishop of the Church of England, we knew his status, as set forth in the recital of the Bill for his incorporation, and we knew he was a British subject, a resident in one of the dioceses, that bis diocese was a missionary one entirely, in the northern part of the territory of Keewatin, and that be could not have around him a personnel or a council capable of administering the affairs of bis church. We therefore very properly granted the prayer of his petition. But in this case we are granting the privilege of a corporation sole to a gentleman who is living in the city of San Francisco, who has no connection whatever with the people of the Northwest except that lie happens to be the chief official of the Greek Church, appointed 'by the Czar of Russia over that church. I said on a former occasion that I had no objection at all to providing machinery whereby the members of that church could go on with their own church work, and organize their missions and parishes, so long as the people themselves would have the administration of those missions and those parishes in their own hands and themselves asked for such privileges. But though the Bill was discussed in the Standing Orders Committee at great length and in the Private Bills Committee, we have never had any petition or information whatever with regard to the wish of the people most interested in this measure. No one came to represent those people and their views, and let us know their wishes and their wants. But in spite of all that, we have the Bill which is now before this committee and one which is not at all the Bill which was first introduced, owing to the multitude and variety of the amendments made to it in the Private Bills Committee. In fact. Sir. I am surprised that such an important Bill should have been so amended 4669 MAY 12, 1902 4670 without it being reprinted and put in the hands of members of the House, so that they might be in a position to study the case. This Bill provides that this Rt. Rev. Bishop of San Francisco, shall be, as I have said, a corporation sole. But when I drew the attention of the Committee on Private Bills to the danger of granting such extensive powers to the gentleman who was a non-resident and who lived so far away from the parties interested in this measure, an amendment was introduced providing that any act, deed or conveyance affecting the properties of the church or any of the parishes in connection with the church- that is affecting their temporal affairs- should be countersigned by no less a gentleman than the Consul General of Russia, who lives in the city of Montreal. And, later on, a clause was added to the Bill providing that the corporation sole shall have and maintain a head office in the town of Edmonton, in the district of Alberta, in the North-west Territories.


CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

For what purpose is the office ?

Mr. LaRIVIERE. In order to receive service of any process of court that may require to be served on the church in general. So, Sir, you will see that, for the sake of establishing parishes and missions in the North-west, and having such an organization as this, it is proposed by the Bill to incorporate a bishop living in San Francisco and having a Canadian office in* the town of Edmonton, with the obligation upon him of getting ail the instruments in connection with temporal affairs countersigned by the Consul General of Russia, in Montreal. It is the most absurd piece of legislation ever introduced in this parliament. And, as 1 said before, it is introduced without the knowledge of the people directly interested in this legislation-they do not know the first thing about it. We are going to impose a very extensive, I may say absurd, piece of machinery upon them for tile control of the temporal affairs in connection of their church, and without their having asked for it. I am sure that if bon. members would consider this matter in an unbiased and impartial way, they would see that I was right in opposing the introduction of such legislation without first consulting the parties who were directly interested.

Now, what is the position of this clerical gentleman to whom we are giving control of matters in connection with the Greek Church ? The Galicians belonging to that faith who live in Manitoba and the Northwest are people from Austria. So far as nationality goes they were Austrians in their own country. And, now, we are to put them under the control of a bishop living in San Francisco, who has been appointed by the Czar of Russia Bishop of North America and the Aleutian Islands for the State Church of Russia. And, on the other hand,

we are exacting the signature of the Russian Consul General in Montreal to legalize any instrument that may be executed by' this bishop-a Consul General who has nothing in common with these people, as they do not belong to his nationality, except merely that they happen to profess the same religion as lie does. This, if it were carried out, would be a very bad piece of legislation, to my thinking. I have no objection to recognize the Russian-Greek Church or any other Greek Church, and to give people belonging to that faith the privilege of having their churches, their parishes and their missions. But what I object to is the machinery whereby these temporal affairs of the church will be administered. We do not know what troubles may follow. Orders may come from St. Petersburgh to these people, on some conscientious pretext to do this or do that, or refrain from doing this or that. We already have enough trouble with the Doukhobors, who. under conscientious pretext, are not willing to abide by the local laws of our country. They do not want to register their lands, they do not want to register their marriages, they do not want to do many things that are obligatory upon good citizens in this country. Who is to tell us that, later on, orders will not come from the church officials of the Greek Church in St. Petersburgh to their adherents, imposing duties upon them which will compel them to choose between their church membership and their citizenship ? But, apart from that altogether, I say that we ought to be very careful. There is more importance in this measure than appears. We are told: This is only a private Bill and we can amend it next year. Well, Sir, if there is such a feeling that we may require to amend it next year, I believe it will be far better to put the Bill off until next year, and then prepare and pass a measure that will be satisfactory to the people concerned and satisfactory to the country to which they have come to live. Perhaps I may be taxed with partiality in dealing with this matter. Sir, I have on every occasion endorsed and approved measures concerning other faiths than my own; because I, for one, recognize the fact that we live in a free country, that we ought to be liberal to others, even if we cannot think as they do. But, in this case, it is not a question of faith-it is a question of business, a question of property, yes, even a question of justice. I say that this parliament has no right to impose on a class of the community legislation for which they have not asked, and which we have no proof that they will accept.

Now, there is something very peculiar in the action of this right reverend gentleman in regard to this matter. In the petition that was presented before this pai'liament, and in the Bill as passed by the Private Bills Committee, he represents himself as the bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Creek Catholic Church for North America and the Aleutian

Islands. Since this Bill passed the committee, a hook has come into my hand? called the catechism of the Orthodox church; and in opening this little catechism-which I do not intend to read to this House-I find that this official book of the church is distributed with the blessing of the most Reverend Tikhon-tiie very same reverend gentleman who is asking for an Act of incorporation in this Bill-the most Reverend Tikhon, Bishop of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church of North America. Now, Sir, if I go to the States, I find that in California the name of the church there is the Greek-Russian Slavonian Orthodox Eastern Church and Benevolent Society. That is the church over which this right reverend gentleman is presiding. If I go to Seattle, in the state of Washington, I find there that the church Is known as the Greco-Russian Orthodox Church of St. Spiridomus. Well, when we come to Manitoba and the North-west Territories we find there are two classes of Galicians, the one calling themselves Or-thodox-Greeks, and the other commonly styling themselves Greek Catholics. The Greek Catholics are a branch of the Roman Catholic Church, they call themselves Greek Catholics because their rite is the Greek rite; they do not follow the Latin rite. The others styling themselves Orthodox Greek, belong to the Greek rite also, but in connection with the Church of Russia.

Topic:   ORTHODOX RUSSO-GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

One part of them inclines to the church of Russia, and to what church does the other half incline ?

Mr. LaRIVIERE. The church of Rome.

Topic:   ORTHODOX RUSSO-GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Let them call themselves what they like, that makes no difference to us.

Mr. LaRIVIERE. What I object to is that this reverend gentleman introduces the word ' Catholic ' into this Bill, and asks us to acknowledge him under a designation that he does not use in any other country.

Topic:   ORTHODOX RUSSO-GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Permalink
LIB

Napoléon Antoine Belcourt

Liberal

Mr. BELCOURT.

Nobody has a monopoly of that name.

Mr. LaRIVIERE. Well you have not, I am sure of that.

Topic:   ORTHODOX RUSSO-GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Permalink
LIB

Napoléon Antoine Belcourt

Liberal

Mr. BELCOURT.

That is all right. Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question, all jokes aside ? Do not the Episcopalians call themselves Catholics ? Answer that, yes or no.

ill1. LaRIVIERE. Well, the Episcopolians call themselves Catholics, but they do not ask me to admit that they are Catholics. I call myself a Catholic, but 1 do not compel any one else to call me a Catholic. At the same time, while Episcopolians call themselves Catholics-and I believe that they are using that privilege-they never asked this parliament to confirm them in their right thus to call themselves. They are liberal, they allow others to call themselves what-

Mr. LaRIVIERE.

ever they choose ; and we, with the same liberality, allow them to call themselves whatever they choose.

Topic:   ORTHODOX RUSSO-GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Permalink

May 12, 1902