April 4, 1905

?

Mr. J@

2, 1904. This organization had just been perfected, and is throwing itself into the arena of politics. In this same work, this Roman Catholic priest says :

I love my church, and for this reason I am fighting these organizations in it.

This gentleman comes to the front and boldly proclaims the object of this movement-the same movement I presume that we find ill Canada, with a similar object in view.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Louis Philippe Demers

Liberal

Mr. L. P. DEMERS.

That is what the hon. gentleman does not demonstrate.

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

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM HUGHES (reading) :

The fact is that priests and prelates hope to establish in the United States a Catholic party modelled after the Centre party in the German Reichstag, and to make the Catholic societies the nucleus of such a party.

And he points out :

They think they can work it out in this way : Set afoot a movement for a division of the school fund. That movement to mean anything must exert itself in securing pledges from candidates for the legislature. Neither Republican nor Democratic candidates will give such pledges.

I will not go into details, but I will say that these gentlemen are openly

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

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Well, the same game is going on here.

There is an open, notorious and virulent hostility of priests and prelates at home and abroad towards the public school.

Then he goes on and shows what their tactics are.

1. Bringing of the public school into contempt by characterizing it as * Godless,' ' vicious,' ' a sink of corruption.'

Have we heard any arguments like that in this House ? I think we have.

2. The securing for the Catholic parochial schools the largest possible share of the public school tax funds.

Have we heard anything of that kind in this House ? I think we have.

3. The encouragement of other sects to start sectarian schools and to demand public moneys in payment for the secular education of the children.

4. The securing of a Catholic majority on public school boards and on the teaching staff of the public schools in the hope of being able thereby to lower the tone of instruction and discipline in the public schools and thus bring the public schools into disfavour.

5. Securing the employmnt of nuns and monks as public school teachers.

And so on, page after page. I eommend the book to hon. gentlemen opposite. It is written by Rev. Mr. Crowley, of Chicago, and if our hon. friends will send for it he Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

will he delighted to send it to them. He says :

A hurricane of hate is brewing. I love the Catholic church, and to save her from destruction in America I write this book.

This is from the pen of Mr. Crowley himself.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. J. J. HUGHES.

The hon. gentleman is in very good company. The man he is quoting has no authority whatever to speak for any one but himself. It is not worth while to take much notice of what the hon. gentleman says, but he is really making statements that have no foundation in fact when he says that that man has authority to speak for anybody.

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

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

I am merely telling what this gentleman says, and I challenge my hon. friend, and he may hunt from now till the morning of the resurrection, to point out one solitary objection to this gentleman, either to his personal or his ecclesiastical position, which will reflect upon his character. Now, we are told that in Canada this does not apply. I will read an article from the Bobcaygeon ' Independent, ' whose editor is a Roman Catholic, and who says :

Mr. Laurier, in forcing the separate schools on the northwest, cannot he thoroughly aware of what he is doing. The moment that Bill passes a movement will be inaugurated for the annexation of the Northwest to the States A break-up of confederation, and annexation means an end of French domination and a clean sweep of separate schools.

This is from a Liberal and a Roman Catholic, the editor of the Bobcaygeon ' Independent,' in the province of Ontario.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Is that an authority for the hon. gentleman ?

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

Rodolphe Lemieux (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX.

I am informed that he is a pro-Boer.

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

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Well, he is in good company. I am told that my hon. friend the Solicitor General was a pro-Boer. I am told that my hon. friend the member for Montmagny (Mr. A. Lavergne) also expressed himself in very strong terms against the action of the British government in the South African war ; and other hon. gentlemen opposite have very strong views in favour of the Boers-anything so long as they can hit the British empire. Now, Sir, I stated to-day, as one of the offences of these gentlemen against the Dominion of Canada, that they had destroyed all respect for public principles in this Dominion. We have seen them on the trade question, we have seen them on every question, box the compass to suit their own purpose, in various ways they have proved themselves true opportunists, with the result that the public

conscience in tlie Dominion of Canada to-day is at the lowest stage it has ever been in the history of Canada.

Public sentiment is gone, honour is practically gone, and now they are endeavouring to disrupt and smash up our public school system and when any hon. gentleman stands up and opposes them the cry of intolerance is raised. If a man stands by his rights and opposes these iniquities, why he is intolerant. These are the charges that are made by certain hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House from time to time. More' than that, we have seen the hon. Postmaster- General (Sir William Mulock) stand up and in place of replying to the argument advanced by my friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) read a lot of rigmarole stuff, debates in other Houses and adverse criticism of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance and we have seen that sort of thing going on day after day in this House. We had the hon. member from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) the other night standing up adversely and unfairly criticising my hon. friend from North Toronto and bringing in arguments that had no force or effect and no bearing on the question before the House. That has been the policy of these hon. gentlemen throughout. They do not meet argument with argument or fact with fact, but seek like ink fish to cover the trail by Improper references. This is not a question of what is right; it is simply a question of what is expedient. Abandon your principles, look to your pocket and position no matter who is injured. These are the maxims of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Pay no attention to the pledges given to the people. They are made to be broken. The maxims of the government are simply trampled under foot. The principles for which freemen have fought in all ages are taken as naught. Secret intrigue takes the place of free discussion and free conference among the members of the government and among the members of the party. Is there a minister in his place to-night who can stand up and conscientiously say that he was consulted about that clause ? A great party following the principles of constitutional and responsible government and yet, besides a paltry little committee of the cabinet, not one member of the government, not one of their following in the House, not one member of the territorial legislature and not one of the members from the west, although only fresh from the country, is consulted as to this clause, although it is said that we are living under constitutional government, Why, the Czar of Russia, surrounded by the grand dukes, would not attempt to pass that sort of legislation. It is worse than taxation without representation which caused the American war. Now, the policy laid down by the First Minister, as well as the second or amended clause, imposes the will of other portions of Canada on the western freemen. It imposes it in 121

defiance of the constitution of the country and it establishes a principle of federal interference in purely provincial matters which has always been avoided in connection with the government in Canada heretofore. It establishes separate schools in the Northwest Territories and perpetuates the union of church and state in that great country.

Now, we have heard our hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) point out, in the course of his speech, a great many things, some of them nonsensical and many of them very untrue and incorrect. I shall take the opportunity of running through a few of the choice extracts from his speech. In one of these he makes an appeal to the Englishspeaking majority in this country and says: Consider what the French Canadians in the past have done for the development of this country. He makes the same mistake as tile hon. member from Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne) of believing that we are dealing with the province of Quebec, or that the whole Dominion is the province of Quebec, or vice versa, -the province of Quebec is the whole Dominion. Let me inform him that the province of Quebec is only a portion of the Dominion, and a very small portion, although a very important one. He says that:

Sir, when the English settlers of His Majesty were still on the banks of the Atlantic and had not crossed the Ohio and the Missouri, French Canadian priests, French Canadian traders and settlers had opened up that country.

Slightly exaggerated, but let me tell that hon. gentleman that had it not been for the schools which he is advocating to-day and the system which he is endeavouring to perpetuate in this country the continent of North America would largely have been under the control of the French people today. Anterior to the date referred to by him free Frenchmen had planted colonies in Brazil, in the coast of Florida, Georgia and tlie Ciirolinas, prosperous colonies of free Frenchmen, but these colonies were blotted out by the connivance of the French government engineered by the same system that he wishes to perpetuate in the Northwest Territories, and the label over the graves of the thousands of men who were massacred in co.ld blood was this: ' This is not done as to Frenchmen, but as to Lutherans.' Had it not been for the interference of an organization such as he is endeavouring to force on the west the whole continent of North America would have been colonized by free Frenchmen-the word 'French' means free-and we would not have had the improper struggles that are now dividing this country. I commend these notions to my hon. friend from Labelle. Another point he dwelt upon was this- I shall not take up his reference to rebellion to any great extent-but he spoke about twenty times in reference to rebellion-the rebellion in the Northwest Territories of 1885, the rebellion in Manitoba-and he seemed to regret that there did not spring

up another rebellion in 1892. Take the rebellion of 1885; as I explained this afternoon, when the government wanted the few settlers at the village of Batoche to take the square mile survey in place of the long survey a rebellion broke out. This bon. gentleman claims that rebellion was justified, and he regrets that he did not bring on a rebellion in Manitoba at the time the Manitoba Act was passed abolishing separate schools there. There are occasions when rebellions are just. I think the people of the Northwest Territories fully appreciate their position and that they will make it rather warm for the right hon. First Minister and the government of Canada in connection with this Bill, first by a constitutional agitation, and then, if it is found out that this government, in spite of the constitution, are determined to insist upon forcing this clause upon them, 1 think it would be advisable for them to take the management of their own schools for their own ends.

Further on the hon. member for Labelle says:

When you speak of the liberty granted to the Roman Catholic to go into a non-sectarian school, there is no such a thing as liberty.

I have shown by expressions of opinion from the best Roman Catholics in the United States and Canada and from some of the finest Roman Catholics in the province of Ontario, that he is not talking for the Roman Catholic people of either Canada or the Unite d States, and I shall give him one extract further from the Rev. J. O'Donovan -another gentlemau and Roman Catholic Irishman, by the way-who takes the ground that public schools are what the people want. He says :

But the statement that state secular education has this effect has never been proved. In fact when one tests it by one's own experience in the immediate circle of one's acquaintances the assertion proves baseless. Several of my friends were educated in non-Catholic schools and colleges without the slightest injury to their faith.

I do not know the gentleman who writes this artiale

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Alexander Johnston

Liberal

Mr. A. JOHNSTON.

Ask the member for Jacques Cartier and he will tell you all about him. .

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

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

I have this to say, however, that if this gentleman were not what he should be the public would mighty soon know all about him. The hon. member for Dabelle (Mr. Bourassa) goes on to say :

When, by any measure in this House or in any provincial parliament you force a Roman Catholic to send his children to a non-sectarian school, you are committing an act of injustice just as direct, just as much against the conscience of the Roman Catholic, as if you would force the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec to contribute to Roman Catholic denominational schools.

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

Louis Philippe Demers

Liberal

Mr. L. P. DEMERS.

If my hon. friend will permit me, to-day that stock may be in the hands of Protestants, and to-morrow it may he in the hands of Catholics ; and where would you be if there were not a law to distribute the taxes proportionately ?

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

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Sir. SAM. HUGHES.

There is a certain date fixed by statute in the province of Ontario on wbicli it is determined where the taxes shall go.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Louis Philippe Demers

Liberal

Mr. L. P. DEMERS.

In this instance it is not a partnership of persons, but a part-

nership of interests, in which anybody may have a share in the stock. In the case of a partnership of persons, you would take into consideration the religion of the persons, but not in a partnership of interests.

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

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

I am only pointing out that in the province of Ontario, were this stock held by people of the Roman Catholic faith, every dollar of taxes on that stock would go to the support of separate schools.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Louis Philippe Demers

Liberal

Mr. L. P. DEMERS.

Yes, but any stock can be sold to any person.

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

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

And any business can be sold just the same. In the Montreal ' Gazette ' of March 25, 1905, I find that a gentleman of the name of Alderman Deser-res rose and said :

I have secured from the city comptroller, a statement showing the following proportion of commercial property owned in the city:

Roman Catholics $ 634,900

Protestants 5,577,800

Neutral 21,522,420

The amount which the Protestant business houses have to pay to the neutral fund exceeds by $4,900,000 that paid by the Roman Catholic business houses. This sum at 40 cents a hundred dollars, gives a sum of $19,600, which divided pro rata according to population, gives the Roman Catholic schools the sum of $16,200, which according to the claims of my fellow alderman should belong to the Protestant panel.

I am merely pointing out that the Protestant majority of the province of Ontario have been unjuutly charged-not that we care anything about it-with being intolerant, I assert that the laws in Ontario are more favourable to the Roman Catholic minority there than the laws of Quebec are to the Protestant minority of that province.

If my hon. friend from Labelie were to remove from his speech ail that he says about rebellion, toleration and intolerance, there would be a very little left of it. He makes the mistake of supposing that the privileges of the English-speaking people of Quebec were granted to them. On the contrary, the concessions were granted to the French people of that'province, as England always grants concessions to any people in any country where she has the management of affairs-the right to use their language and the right to observe whatever religion they choose to follow. These concessions the British government granted to our French friends in the province of Quebec, and all honour to her for so doing. And, should any attempt ever be made to deprive our fellow-countrymen of the province of Quebec of the right to use their own language or their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they may rest assured that my hon. friend here (Mr. Sproule) would be one Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

of the first to go down and resist any such injustice to them.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink

April 4, 1905