April 4, 1905

LIB

Louis Lavergne

Liberal

Mr. A. LAYERGNE.

I do not know whether my hon. friend wishes here to escape responsibility for the brutal cartoons published in his newspaper the Toronto 'World' -cartoons in which the province of Quebec is represented as an illiterate Indian and the people of the Northwest as most intelligent, civilized, and claiming they are white men. What does that mean if it does not mean that the inhabitants of the province of Quebec are of mixed origin ? Sir, I would be prouder to have in my veins the blood of the noble red man than the blood of some hon. gentlemen opposite who write in the Toronto ' World.' I would wish that every British colony and every province of this Dominion were peopled by inhabitants of as pure an origin and with as pure blood in their veins as the French inhabitants of the province of Quebec. I would wish that they could trace as good a genealogy as any inhabitant of that province is able to trace, not only in this country but in the country of bis forefathers. The cartoons published in the Toronto 1 Globe ' are bold, brutal, stupid and as untrue as they are stupid. It appears now that my hon. friend from South York would lead us to infer that he does not approve of those cartoons, but I do not know that he has ever gone back on them.

But supposing the schools of the province of Quebec were as bad as they are described by hon. members opposite and by some people who write in the Ontario papers, I say that if we have a system of schools in the province of Quebec at all we have a right to-day to be proud, because after the treaty rf Paris in liG3, when the last ship for Fiance took away from our shores the r obility and the rich people and left be-

hind the poor peasants, ruined by war, left with a debt from France of 20 million irants, a whole cloud of adventurers came to this country and_continued on the ruin of the poor settlers who were left behind. Then contrary to the Act of capitulation and the treaty of Paris, the Catholic institutions were taken away from the French people. The system of schools we had then were taken from us. I should like to give my hon. friend a history of the school system in the province of Quebec if it were possible to enlighten him, because although he tells us he has spent much time in that province, it is quite evident that he has not learnt much. From 17G0 to 1800 the French Canadian refused to participate in the schools then existing, because it was against their conscience to do so, and I consider that their ignorance was a glorious one. In 1800 there was a school system established for which the French Canadians were taxed; the Royal Institution.'in which the money was given to the Protestant schools and to them only. Again the French Canadians refused to attend those schools, because it was against their conscience to do so, and they remained in their glorious ignorance. In 1824 we had the first schools worthy of the name, but as there was no public mouey given them, they could not work very well. In 1837 our rights were still not recognized and the Protestant minority had still control of the public funds. In 1841 the first move was made towards giving our people a schools system which they could support, and in 1846 we had our separate school system established, and our French Canadian people could go to schools where their rights were recognized and which they could attend without a blush of shame. Considering that we started our school only in 1846, we have made marvellous progress and to-day our system is at the head of the whole confederation.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

Is that so? I understand the hon. gentleman to say that their school system is at the head of the confederation to-day, and I assume that refers to the intelligence of the people.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Armand Renaud La Vergne

Liberal

Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

If my hon. friend would take the trouble to look into the reports of public instruction of Quebec he would learn many things which he will never see in the Orange ' Sentinel.'

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

May I ask the hon. member, if I am not improperly interrupting him-and I do not wish to do that-to explain one point ? He speaks of what he calls the superior educational system of Quebec. And, if I followed him closely, this system has been in operation since 1846-that is, for two generations at least. How is it, then, that in spite of the excellence of the system, statistics show that while the number of those who can read and write is, in the province of Manitoba, 72 per cent ; in Prince Edward Island. 75 Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

per cent ; in New Brunswick, 70 per cent; in Nova Scotia, 72 per cent; and in Ontario, 80 per cent, Quebec has only 67 per cent-only 67 out of every 100 people who can read or write ? These figures do not indicate that this system has succeeded very well in doing: away with illiteracy in the province of Quebec.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Armand Renaud La Vergne

Liberal

Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

I am very glad that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has asked me that question. I will try to enlighten him r little further. I said that our system of schools in Quebec was started in 1846. But it was not in full operation until 1855. And then, as my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has rightly put it, the people . were for a long time very cautious about the schools. They had long been tyrannized over, and they saw in the schools, as they thought, an instrument to rob them of what they held dear-their language and their institutions. Therefore, it was only slowly and with great caution that they accepted the work of the schools. But in 1855 the system was at work almost as completely as it is to-day. As to overcoming illiteracy, we have made greater progress in Quebec than in any other province. Let me give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) the figures.

In 1871, in Quebec, there were of illiterates -people who could neither read nor write- 35-93 per cent of the population. In 1891 only 29-05 per cent of the population were illiterate. Thus in the twenty years we have made progress to the extent of 6-89 per cent. In Ontario, in 1871, there were 7-90 per cent of the people who could neither read nor write. In 1891 this had been reduced to 7-05 per cent, showing progress to the extent of only 0-85 per- cent. In New Brunswick, where there are no separate schools, they had, in 1871, 14-45 per cent of illiterates, and in 1891 the proportion was 14-99 per cent, or an absolute retrogression to the extent of -54 per cent. I do not say that we lead confederation in the proportion of our people who can read or write ; but I do say that we lead in the progress that we have made in extending the blessings of education.

Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that we should have in the Northwest a national system of schools. Sir, do you call it a national system of schools which is opposed to the conscience of 40 per cent of the nation ? Do you call those national schools against which 40 per cent of the nation have fought for more than a century ? I say that what these hon. gentlemen call national schools are anti-national schools, because they are forced upon 40 per cent of the people against their will ; I say that what you call free schools are the exact reverse of free, because they deny the liberty of the individual and make him a slave in the hands of the state. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) told us that in the province of Quebec a Protestant boy was obliged to go to a Catholic school. But

i 3762

is it not a fact that where our Protestant brothers are in the majority in any part of the province of Quebec they can have a separate school of their own ? Is it not a fact that, even though in any district they may be in the minority, they can establish a separate school if they have the certain small number required by the law ? And is it not a fact that even where the Protestants have not the legally required number, the French Canadians are broad enough to allow their Protestant brethren to have schools of their own ? But is it not a fact -and I wish the hon. member for North Toronto were here to answer-that where-ever the Catholics are in a majority in any district in the Northwest, they have not the right to establish a separate school, but are obliged to go to the public schools ? The treatment meted out to the minority in Quebec and in the Northwest Territories cannot be compared. Sir, it is as bad to force the Catholic to send his child to a school where no religion is taught as to force him to send that child to a school where a religion opposed to his own is taught. That is the Catholic doctrine ; I wish that my hon. friend would understand it once for all. We object, not only to being obliged to send Catholic children to Protestant schools, but to being obliged to send them to schools where no religion is taught.

Sir, as a French Canadian who has studied and learned something of British institutions, and who is loyal to the institutions given this Dominion by the mother country, because he has studied them and believes in them, I may ask my hon. friend from North Toronto what is British liberty if the Catholics are not allowed to have their own schools ? Is not that political liberty the pride of Englishmen, inclusive and widely tolerant ? Is it a selfish and narrow liberty, in some sort Protestant and privileged, and which is only a means to better shackle some of the people with the heavy chains of an intolerable despotism? Where is the British liberty, I ask these hon. gentlemen, if the minority, because it is a minority, cannot enjoy the liberties which were promised them in the name of the Sovereign, and which have been formally declared in the mandates of that Sovereign ? Sir, if this House were to follow racial appeals, the appeals made to prejudice by the hon. member for East Grey, it would only serve to remind us that we were the vanquished in 1759.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I desire at once and flatly to contradict the hon. member (Mr. A. Lavergne), and to repeat, what I have said before, that I never made an appeal to either race or religion. I call upon the hon. member to withdraw his statement.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Armand Renaud La Vergne

Liberal

Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

I expected that denial, and now I am going to prove what I have said. There is a newspaper called the ' Sentinel ' published in Toronto. It claims to be the organ of the Orange Order,

with which, I understand, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has something to do. Of course, I do not wish to say anything against the character of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule). In the province of Quebec, it is true, that he has a bad reputation, I must say ; but we who know him know that he is a good man, and know that he would not hurt a fly. But in my province we are often asked : ' You know the member for East Grey better than we do ; is it not true that the Yellow Pope has certain Peter's pence and is obliged to earn his money, and that is why he is so violent against the Catholics and the Romish Church. In this organ of the Orange Order -the ' Yellow Hierarchy,' as my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) calls it-in its issue of March 16th, 1905, I find Brother D. Pritchard, grand treasurer, quoted as follows :

I hare always been an advocate for public schools, believing that by the national schools more than by any other means we may hope to build up a united people. One school and one language taught in the same should be the motto of every loyal Canadian.

And he adds, the English language is to be the one to be taught. Well, Sir, what does that mean ? Does it mean that the French language, which is an official language in Canada as well as the English, is to be abolished by the Orange order when they get into power ? I can make nothing else out of it. On February 23, 1905, the Reverend Brother Hughes-no, not Reverned Brother Hughes, M.P., at a banquet in Brantford, gave the history of the Orange movement and its fight against the Romish church, and asked all the members to maintain their principles, even if the occasion demanded that they fought for them. Well. Sir, I do not say that a man has not a right to fight for his principles, but I am not quite sure that the hon. gentleman means a con- , stitutional fight. I am afraid that he is appealing to the Orange lodges to fight another battle of the Boyne. Well, here is something more. If there is one right of a British subject which has been claimed by the hon. member for East Grey on many occasions during this session, it is the right of petition. After the province of Quebec began to petition like British subjects for the maintenance of separate schools in the Northwest, the 1 Orange Sentinel ' of March 23. 1905. contained the following, under the title, 'The glove is thrown down':

After saying that ' it was Quebec assuming to dictate to the Dominion, or rather is the arbitrary and intolerant ecclesiastical oligarchy dominating Quebec, making a supreme effort to tyranize the democracy and the Protestants in Canada,' it says :

The gauntlet will be taken up, the fight will be accepted. For our own part wre are right glad that it has been precipitated Just now. Sooner or later it had to come, and the sooner the better for all concerned. Sooner or later

thsre was bound to be a struggle-a fight to a finish

It goes on to ask the Protestants to unite and destroy Rome and Quebec. Now, Sir, is not that language an appeal to racial prejudices ? Is it not an appeal to religious prejudices ? Is it not designed to set race against race, creeed against creed ? Sir, we saw in the paper which is the organ of the organization of which the hon. member for Bast Grey is the Grand Master, language such as I have quoted, and am I not right therefore in saying that the hon. gentleman, if not in this House, at least in his paper, has made appeals to racial and religious prejudices.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I never had any interest in the ' Orange Sentinel ' to the value of one cent, and I have no more relationship to it except as a member of the Orange order, than the hon. gentleman hmself. Does the hon. gentleman think it proper and fair to hold the member for Bast Grey responsible for the sentiments of every one who writes in the ' Orange Sentinel ' ? The hon. gentleman made a personal charge against me.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Armand Renaud La Vergne

Liberal

Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

He first made a charge against me, now he has transferred it to some one else. May I ask the hon. member for East Grey if he, as Grand Master of all the Orange lodges of Canada, has repudiated their organ, the * Orange Sentinel ' ? Is not the ' Orange Sentinel ' the written expression of the deliberations of the Orange lodges of the Dominion of Canada ? Is not the ' Orange Sentinel ' the organ of the Grand Master of the Orange organization as well as the organ of private members ? I did not know that it had been repudiated by the Grand Master, and I want to know if the grand master- repudiates it to-day.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

May I ask the hon. gentle man if he and his friends have repudiated the course of the Toronto 1 Globe ' lately in regard to the Autonomy Bill ?

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Armand Renaud La Vergne

Liberal

Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

I repudiate it entirely. My hon. friend has no right to answer one question by asking another. I have answered the hon. gentleman frankly and clearly, and I ask him to answer me in the same manner. I said I repudiated the course of the ' Globe,' and I want the hon. member for East Grey to say with' equal frankness if he repudiates the ' Orange Sentinel.'

Mr. SPROUIiB. The member for East Grey is not attacking the ' Sentinel ' for what it said.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Armand Renaud La Vergne

Liberal

Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

I cannot know whether the yellow pope speaks ex cathedra or not. Well, Sir, not only are we the subjects of racial appeals, but we are called upon to remember that we were vanquished in 1759. When I was reading the history of Canada not long ago I came across the Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

story of a French Canadian, Du Calvet, who was arrested in Quebec in 1781, and was imprisoned without a trial. When I was reading his words I was reminded of the course of the 1 Orange Sentinel ' in taunting the French Canadians with having been vanquished in 1759. Here are the words of Du Calvet. written in London in 17S1 :

How sad it was to be vanquished ! If it only cost the blood which is shed on the battle field, the wound would be very deep, very sore, it would bleed many years, but time could cure it. But to be condemned to feel perpetually the hand of the conqueror pounding on your shoulder, but to be perpetually a slave, under the power of the most constitutional sovereign, of the freest people on earth, it is too much.

Sir, that is the position in which hon. gentleman on the other side wish to place us to-day. That is the position in which their yellow papers wish to place us to-day. But I want to remind hon. members opposite that in this compact of confederation we are not slaves but partners. In the compact of confederation we took our part, and in that compact the French Canadians are treated as partners. We have been loyal to British Institutions and we have been loyal to the Canadian constitution. We claim the right to be treated as fellow-citizens, as compatriots.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

We have no desire to treat you otherwise.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Armand Renaud La Vergne

Liberal

Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

The hon. member for North Toronto said that when this law was passed war would begin in the Northwest. These hon. gentlemen are always ready to accept the opinion of the majority when that opinion As against separate schools, hut when that opinion is in favour of separate schools then they talk of war and rebellion against the sovereign authority of this parliament. I say that if separate schools were withheld from the people of the Northwest it would be an injustice done against the Catholics of the Dominion, an injustice which is not deserved by the Catholics and French Canadians of this Dominion.

But, Sir, what can we do then ? We can make a constitutional fight. You never heard the members from Quebec of the hierarchy, or the priests of Quebec talking of war and rebellion. You have never heard from the pulpits of our churches the speeches which have been made in other churches or in lodges. We submit to the law. We may oppose the law, we may conduct a constitutional agitation against it, but you never heard on our side talk of war or rebellion because the majority was against us. We respect the majority, but it is strange to observe the attitude of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. When they have the majority with them they claim that the majority has every right, but when the majority is against them they say that they will make war against the

t ;r

majority. There is only one right that I do not recognize in the majority and that is the right to bring compulsion to bear upon me in a matter of conscience. If there are three or four men against me I say they have no right to endeavour to force me to do something which I feel that I cannot conscientiously do. Therefore, I say in conclusion that in view of all the facts we should give to the minority in the Northwest Territories their rights generously, not the shadow of justice, not the mere form of liberty. We are told that there are only ten or twelve separate schools in the Northwest Territories. Well, Sir, I claim that if there was only one separate school in the Northwest Territories we should just the same render justice to the minority in respect to that one school. Is it that the principle of liberty and of right is to be decided on the ground of the strength of those claiming it to obtain and maintain it ? I say that we should give right to those to whom it is due and not only to those who have the strength to maintain their rights. If there were only one separate school in the Northwest Territories we would be obliged to do the minority justice the same as if there were a hundred separate schools. -But, there is more than one and there would be even more than there are to-day if by the ordinances of the Northwest' Territories the Catholics were not forced to send their children to the public schools. If the ordinances which have been adopted in the Northwest Territories prevent Catholics from constituting separate schools, I think it is unfair and unjust to use that as an argument against them and to say that there are not enough separate schools and tfiat therefore we should not render them the justice to which they are entitled. Give generously to the minority in the Northwest the right which are due them. Give them these rights first, because by^so doing we are carrying out the principles of liberty. Give them these rights because we owe some gratitude to the proving of Quebec. And here, I will call the attention of the House to a statement which I am sure my hon. friend from Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) will not deny. On the 12th July. 1902, which is a great day, Mr. Robinson who was then the member for West Elgin, speaking to the Orangemen in St. Thomas, Ontario, said:

We know that the French of Lower Canada have kept this vast Dominion to the British empire ; for if these Frenchmen had not been faithful to this country you Orangemen listening to me would not have room enough to stand here together.

If this opinion could be expressed to the Orangemen standing togeher, I say this country should do justice to the min-'[DOT]ority of the Northwest 'Territories and should in this way signify its great gratitude to the hierarchy which is not the awful spec-120

tre it lias been painted in the Toronto 'World,' but which is the hierarchy which has kept its people faithful to the British Grown on many an occasion as my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has said. I wish to take the part of my hon. friend from Labelle who has been attacked in the Ontario papers lately and to say that he belongs to a family which has always been loyal to the British Grown. When the English Protestant minority of Quebec in 1776 did not know which way to turn, when as we say in French, they did not know whether to cry ' Yive la Ligue ' or 'Vive Le Roi,' the great grandfather of my hon. friend was on the side of the British Crown and against the American rebels and with another French Canadian, La-mothe, he carried despatches from Montreal through the American lines to the English general in Quebec. A uother of my fellow-countrymen, Bouchette, brought the English governor into the besieged city of Quebec. Ever since those days in 1760 when Canada was ceded to the British Crown we have kept our compact faithfully, and I maintain that we have a right to claim that justice [DOT] should be done to us as we have deserved. In finishing my speech, which I cannot help but feel has been too lengthy, I desire to make a comparison. Not far from here is the great river St. Lawrence which separates us from the Anglo-Saxon Republic to the south. Sweeping past the foot of the hill upon which this building stands is the Ottawa river which separates the French province of Quebec from the English province of Ontario. These two rivers converge near the city of Montreal and for a long time their waters run together without mixing. On the one side we have the dark coloured waters of the Ottawa river and on the other the silvery, bright waters ot the (St. Lawrence. They float together to a common destiny. Is not that the image of this Dominion of ours ? We have two nations floating together, not mixing the one with the other ; on the one side the French race, on the other side the English nation, on the one side the Protestant creed, on the other side the Catholic creed. Well, Sir, could we not model this country after these beautiful rivers of ours ? Could we not together float away to a common destiny without mixing, without amalgamating the one with the other, and if we do I predict for this country, which is my country and to which I am as loyal as any man, a glorious destiny and in the name of nations a glorious immortality.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton).

Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the young member for Montmagny (Mr. Laver-gue) on the very able address which he has given to the House. I must bear testimony to the fact, Sir, that not only do our French Canadian people speak their own language

*with purity, but ouce they become masters of the English language they place at a disadvantage those of us who can speak but one language.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

You will have to go to a separate school.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
L-C
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

Yes, if you want to be on an equal footing there.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

I am sure that cur young friend was educated in a national school. If the same harmony could be maintained in regard to the affairs of this country as that wrhich has been manifested by our young friend in regard to the English and the French languages, the people of Canada might look forward to a great future for this Dominion. Unfortunately we find that gentlemen who speak that language, who are of that grand race, a race with which I claim kindred just as much as hon. gemiemen who sit on the other side of the House, displaying a different spirit outside of u: s House. If these gentlemen would be moderate and show the same spirit on the platforms and hustings in Quebec and up and down the side roads of that province, and if they would confine themselves to the same tone as that in which they address this House it would augur well for the future of this country. One would imagine from the remarks of the young speaker, that we were discussing the province of Quebec. I understand that these Bills with which we are dealing are for the purpose of erecting two new provinces in the Northwest of the Dominion of Canada and that the province of Quebec has nothing to do with this any more than any other province in the Dominion. No attack is being made on the rights and liberties of the province of Quebec ; these rights and liberties are guaranteed by the articles of conquest and by the Confederation Act.

The question now before the House, simmered down to a nut shell is as to the authority, the duty, the policy of this parliament to enforce separate schools on the Northwest Territories. The right hon. the leader of the government told us that this was a question of the constitution, but his colleagues have told us that it is not a question of the constitution in any sense whatever. One of the ministers ventured to think that vested rights should be considered but that plea was abandoned when it was found that although the Roman Catholics have had every facility for years to establish separate schools there are only ten such separate schools as compared with over 1,000 public schools in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, the question .simmers itself down to one of policy. Now, let us suppose for a moment that it was our clear duty under the constitution to establish separate schools, would our best method be to proceed with Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

a bludgeon in the shape of this Act of parliament held over the people of the Northwest to force separate schools upon them V Would it not be better to omit from this Bill altogether any provision with regard to separate schools, and leave it to the people of the new provinces to carry out the constitution, for until the first meeting of the legislative assembly of the new provinces the Act of 1875 will be continued in force, and would remain in force unless repealed by the assembly. Sir, when the Bill now before the House becomes law it will force on the people of the new provinces the full enactment of the School Act of 1875, and nothing but mischief can result. If the Prime Minister is right in his argument, that by the constitution we are bound to give the new provinces separate schools, then the provinces cannot repeal this law and it will stand for ever on the statute-books. If the Prime Minister has any confidence in his contention, why should he not withdraw his educational clause altogether from the Act and avoid all the bickering, the heart burnings, the contentious spirit that permeates the Dominion of Canada to-day. If it is a question of policy, and we maintain that it is, then coercion-I think that is the proper term to use in relation to this clause-coercion is not in conformity with provincial rights ; it transgresses the principle of provincial rights at the very outset. This is not good legislation, as I shall prove from the Prime Minister's own lips. It interferes with the rights of man as well as with the rights of provinces, but over and above all this question of coercion there stands another issue. The Prime Minister has instructed the House on some of the principles of the Roman Catholic religion ; he has told us that in addition to the pure question of religion there is the great question of dogma which enters into the notion of those that hold that faith. With the question of religion, with the relationship existing between a man's conscience and his God I have nothing to do. I never allowed any other man to interfere in the relationship existing between my conscience and my God, and I never insulted any man by interfering with him in that respect. But in relation of the question of dogma, that is the business end of the proposition, and when any church corporation-be it Methodist, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian or any other-just the same as any railway corporation comes before the people of this country for legislation, it is the bounden duty of every man who commands his own self respect to deal with it, not on the sentimental issue, not to bow down before the cry that the church is behind the organization ; but to deal with it on the basis of what is right and what is wrong, and considering what is in the best interests of the Dominion of Canada and of her entire people. On these lines I purpose dealing with this question. Taking it as a

[DOT]question of dogma, as one who does not want to grow up in enmity with his Roman Catholic neighbour ; as one who does not want to pass through the world with the people divided on creed lines, I maintain that when we coerce the provinces to accept these separate schools, we are retarding for ever the wheels of progress and the up-building of the national life within these provinces. I do not think the union of church and state is for the best interests of humanity. The nations of the old land have given it up, and why this young country should adopt the fads and practices that have been discarded in Europe is beyond my comprehension. I am opposed to this parliament forcing on any province, against its will, a union of church and state. By the enactment of this law, this parliament is placing a blanket mortgage on the two provinces of the Northwest which will remain on them to the end of time and which can never be paid oft. I object in general terms to this legislation. It is contrary to the spirit of a free parliament ; it is contrary to the spirit of a free people. I am afraid that I shall not be able to bring to bear on this great question the deeply sanctified and the emotional Christian spirit displayed by the Prime Minister ; nor the stern, defiant, aggressive militant Christianity of the Minister of Justice ; nor the humility and the contrition the holy-dread and sackcloth-and-ashes demeanour of the Minister of Finance ; nor the fervid sanctimoniousness and brotherly love of the Minister of Customs ; nor the speculative religion-

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Fitzpatrick (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. FITZPATRICK.

Who wrote that for you ?

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink

April 4, 1905