2405 MARCH 13, 1905
[...] telegraphed to the United States and
to European countries in order to create
the impression that if people come to Canada they will not find freedom here. There
is nothing to justify such a statement from
the hon. gentleman. I had hoped that some
of his own friends would take him to task
for it ; I had hoped that representatives of
the Conservative party would correct the
impression that might have been made by
his statement, occupying as he does the
prominent position in that party. I hope
they will yet avail themselves of the earliest
oppormnity to say that so far as they are
concerned they are not willing that the impression should go forth that this is the
opinion of the Conservative party. That is
not the opinion of the Liberal party. Long
before the Liberal party came to power in
Canada they were striving to bring about
freedom of the very best kind, and the best
order in this great country. But how is it
with the Conservative party ? In their press
from end to end of Canada, prominent newspapers have undertaken to preach the same
doctrine propounded by the member for
Victoria and Haliburton. If he is desirous
that peace and harmony should reign in
Canada, let him address himself to the
newspapers of his own party, and ask them
to take the lesson that he attempts to preach
to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.
There are many other things that have been
spoken during the course of this debate that
I would like to comment upon, but I will not
detain the House longer. I did not intend
to say all that I have said. I rose for the
sole purpose of doing justice to my hon.
friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson)
who spoke before six o'clock, and I have
done so. I have now to ask the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton to say if he
can that he never authorized this interview
with the 'Montreal Gazette,' and if he can
say that, he will do much to remove an unfortunate impression that has been caused
by that interview.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). The hon. member for Cape
Breton (Mr. A. Johnston) generally contents himself when he rises to ask
a question. But to-night he is playing a different role. As a general thing
this House recognizes the fact that no man requires information worse
than he does, and the House takes him good naturedly and endeavours to
satisfy his curiosity. But sometimes he gets beyond bounds, as he has
done to-night in attacking my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr.
Sam. Hughes). It is not my purpose to defend my hon. friend, he is quite
capable of taking care of himself. I would not have risen to speak at all
were it not that the hon. member for Cape Breton unnecessarily, unreasonably, improperly,
and I was going to say, untruthfully, made a statement
with regard to myself that I had endeavoured to arouse passion among the
people of this
2406 country, that I appealed to a certain class of people.
An hon. MEMBER. Hear, hear.
Mr. SPROULE. Who is the hon. gentleman that said
hear, hear ? It is the cigarette smoker. Of course he is entitled to
special consideration. He requires that we give him two kinds of pardon–I
will not tell him what they are.
Mr. SPROULE. Since the hon. gentleman has come
into this House he has received courtesy from this side of the House,
though his conduct at times has not invited courtesy ; but if he does not
conduct himself with a little more decorum, he will not receive
as much in the future as he has done in the past. Now, with regard to the
question before the House, the hon. member for Cape Breton says that the member
for East Grey has endeavoured to arouse passions and create
discord. Upon what authority does he make that statement ? Is it
upon the authority of the petition that I sent out to the general
community in accordance with the right of every British subject
to petition parliament to do a certain thing that he thought was
right ? Is that not my right and the right of every British subject under
the Crown? It is recognized in parliament and out of parliament
to be the highest right of a British subject. I was availing myself of that
right, and I was quite within my right. I shall read the letter so that
there may be no mistake as to what it contains, and if the careful
examiner finds that I have done a very improper thing I shall be greatly
surprised. In view of this important question that was coming up and
was likely to create discord—and let me remind the hon. gentleman that it
was his leader who brought it into the arena and not mine, and that upon
this question one of the most important ministers resigned, and in
doing so he was quite within his rights—it was in the endeavour to
prevent the calamity and the political trouble that I foresaw that I
adopted the measures that I did. What did I do ? I addressed to a society to
which I belonged, which is a law-abiding society, no matter what part of
the country it is in, composed of tolerant, respectable citizens.
Mr. SPROULE. Yes, tolerant. I addressed them in
the following language :
Ottawa, February 16th, 1905.
Dear Sir and Brother,-
We believe an effort is about to be made to
impose separate schools for all time on the
people of the new provinces, now being established in the Northwest Territories. It
behooves
every lover of liberty, and especially every
Orangeman, to lend a helping hand, to prevent
this injustice being perpetrated on a liberty-
2407
COMMONS
loving people. Being comparatively weak and
helpless, they must largely depend on others to
fight their battles for them.
The effort made in 1896 to compel Manitoba to
grant separate schools nearly drove the people
of that province into rebellion, and had it not
been abandoned, would doubtless have resulted
in serious consequences. In view of this, is it
not little short of criminal folly to attempt to
deprive the people of these new provinces of
the right to control their own educational
affairs as to them seems best. I would suggest
that every member of our order lend a helping
hand to prevent this outrage by writing or wiring and getting others to do so as well,
the
member for his constituency to oppose any
legislation or enactment for that purpose. If
we speak out freely and do our duty no government would dare to disobey our request.
Brethren, let us do our duty ; also get accompanying blank petitions signed by all
friendly to our
cause, giving name and occupation in every
case, and forward to me to House of Commons
post office, Ottawa, at earliest possible date.
T. S. SPROULE.
And here is the petition that accompanied
it :
To the Honourable the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled:
We, the undersigned electors of the electoral
division of [blank] do pray that in granting
provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories the Dominion parliament will not
by any
enactment or otherwise withhold from the newly
created provinces full and unrestricted freedom
of action in all matters affecting the establishment, maintenance and administration
of
schools-
Is there anything improper in that ? Is
there any appeal to race prejudice, or to
passion, or to creed ? Is there anything but the most respectful prayer that
could be presented to parliament by any
British subject in the country, and that for
the purpose of preventing the importing into
the political arena of Canada at the present
time of one of those vexed questions that
would result in arousing a great deal of
feeling and doing a great deal of injury ?
Was I within my rights or was I doing an
improper thing when I did this ? If I was
wrong in asking parliament to do that, the
Minister of the Interior must have been
wrong in resigning. Who induced me to
do this, who compelled me ? The very acts
of the Prime Minister himself by the introduction of this Bill induced me to do it.
Then who is responsible for it ? Is it I who
was trying to prevent it being done or the
party who was importing the element of
discord into this House and into the country
at large, that element which had created
so much bitter feeling in the past,
and which experience has told us we
had better avoid if possible in the
future ? Which one was doing the proper
thing ? In view of that, does the hon. member who has just taken his seat think he
was justified in his endeavour to castigate
the member for East Grey in the peculiar
2408
fish-wife style to which some speakers are
so admirably adapted ?
Some hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. SPROULE. Does he think that he was within his rights
and doing the highest type of parliamentary duty when he gave vent to the
utterances which we have heard to-night ? If I was wrong in petitioning in
the direction I did what has the hon. gentleman to say for
himself and his leader and his friends, who have addressed petition to
their confrères in Quebec, copies of which are being presented at the present
time, some of which were presented to-day, against the very petition I
have read ?
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers). I am glad my hon.
friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has put the question. I will continue
the history of these petitions. There is in Montreal a club called Le Club
Jacques Cartier. I think the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)
and the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) know the place well.
In that club was drafted, I understand by a man who has been very
notorious of late as being the distributor of the tory corruption fund in the
Sault Ste. Marie election, the petitions which I hold in my hand, Le Club
Jacques Cartier is the head of the organization of the Tory party in
Quebec. This petition which I hold in my hand was sent to the various Catholic
organizations in Quebec, or at least in the constituency of Three Rivers,
but luckily in my district they were not taken up as the hon. gentlemen
expected. Some of them have been sent here to be presented to this House,
and I am credibly informed, and have reason to believe, that it is a
continuation of the game started by the hon. member for East Grey. In
Ontario and the western provinces the cry is : Let us Tories take the
lead and not permit this legislation to be carried, it is against provincial
autonomy ; but in Quebec we will present the other side of the medal, and
we will tell the people to present petitions to the Prime Minister and the House.
I notice that these petitions were
taken to the Prime Minister and by him sent back to the members for the
different ridings in which they were signed. They are worded :
(Translation.) Whereas in the Bill to establish and provide for two new provinces
in the
Northwest Territories, the following provisions
are to be found, namely :
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British
North America Act, 1867, shall apply to the
said province as if, at the date upon which this
Act comes into force, the territory comprised
therein were already a province, the expression
' the union ' in the said section being taken to
mean the said date.
2. Subject to the provisions of the said section 93, and in continuance of the principles
heretofore sanctioned under the Northwest Territories Act, it is enacted that the
legislature
of the said province shall pass all necessary
laws in respect of education, and that it shall
2409 March 13, 1905
therein always be provided (a) that a majority
of the ratepayers of any district or portion of
the said province or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name
it is known,
may establish such schools therein as they think
fit, and make the necessary assessments and
collection of rates therefor, and (b) that the
minority of the ratepayers therein, whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish,
separate schools therein, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates
therefor, and (c) that in such case the ratepayers
establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only
to assessment of such rates as they impose upon
themselves with respect thereto.
3. In the appropriation of public moneys by
the legislature in aid of education, and in the
distribution of any moneys paid to the government of the said province arising from
the
school fund established by the Dominion Lands
Act, there shall be no discrimination between
the public schools and the separate schools,
and such moneys shall be applied to the support of public and separate schools in
equitable
shares or proportion.
Whereas in the above mentioned provisions,
the vested rights of the minorities in both
those provinces are sanctioned and provided
for ;
Whereas said provisions are agreeable to the
spirit of the constitution which governs the
Dominion of Canada ;
Whereas the reasons set forth by the right
hon. the Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
in support of said provisions, on the 21st of
February, 1905, meet with the entire approval
of the undersigned petitioners, irrespective of
party affiliations ;
Whereas efforts are being put forth to have
this legislation amended or withdrawn ;
We, the undersigned petitioners, do emphatically protest against such unfair an attempt,
and respectfully beg that the above mentioned
provisions be passed into law, during this session and maintained in their whole tenor
as
they now stand, as a full measure of fair-play
and justice.
And we beg the right hon. the Prime Minister
to lay down this petition on the table of the
House of Commons.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
For the benefit of my colleagues who do
not understand the French language, let me
state that they are asking that separate
schools be established in the Northwest
Territories and that we do not legislate
otherwise than in that direction. I am an
admirer of the hon. member for Victoria
(Mr. Hughes) but I certainly do not share
his views and especially so when he talks
as he did in that Toronto interview.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau) says there
was one petition distributed in the west, and a different one in
Quebec.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Yes.
Mr. SPROULE. Permit me to say that I distributed this
petition through the province of Quebec the same as in other provinces, and it has
been signed by the electors of that province
and I presented
2410 several petitions from the province of Quebec to the House.
Mr. BUREAU. I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) who is one
of the leaders of the party if any of these petitions which I hold in my
hand were distributed in Ontario.
Mr. FIELDING. I am afraid we are getting perilously near
losing sight of the motion in question before the House.
Mr. MONK. I rise to make a personal
explanation because my hon. friend (Mr.
Bureau) has referred to me by name. For
the first time to-night I have heard of these
petitions. I have not been to Montreal for
quite a time ; I do not think I have been in
the Jacques Cartier Club since the beginning
of the session, and I know nothing whatever
of these petitions. I am sure there is not a
member in this House from the province of
Quebec who would lend himself for a single
moment to the ignoble role which has been
suggested by my hon. friend.
Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin). Mr. Speaker, this is the
outcome of allowing too much latitude in debate. If members were to
confine themselves to the actual question before the House, probably you, Sir,
would have less difficulty in controlling the House, and probably it
would be more creditable to members on both sides. A good deal has been
said about the legality of these petitions, and I take it that
probably there are Conservatives throughout the Dominion who are in
favour of the legislation as well as those who are opposed to it, and both
sides have a right to petition this House so long as as they do so in
proper form. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) may have made
some statements of a controversial character but I do not think he
went to the extent which my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. A.
Johnston) charges him with going. If the hon. member (Mr. A. Johnston)
wants to evince a disposition to allay strife and ill feeling in this country
I can assure him that he has taken the wrong method to-night.
Mr. J. B. MORIN (Dorchester). The hon. member for Cape
Breton (Mr. A. Johnston) referred to the member who was sitting near the
leader of the opposition, and I want to know if he alluded to me ?
Mr. MORIN. I am told he mentioned the member for
Dorchester.
Mr. A. JOHNSTON. I made no reference to my hon. friend
(Mr. Morin) when I spoke of the gentleman who sat beside the leader of
the opposition.
Mr. MORIN. I am told you spoke of the member for
Dorchester and if you did I am the man.
This individual participated in:
#/media/File:Jean-Baptiste_Morin.jpg){kind=link}