April 13, 1905

CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROTJLE.

Somebody must have been telling the hon. gentleman fairy tales to put him to sleep.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

Just about the kind of fairy tale that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) detailed to the House in regard to the efforts of the Catholic Church to get rid of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec.

I did not go to sleep because I did not believe the story, but my hon. friend, if he went to sleep, believed the story and retailed it here with honest conviction and showed how credulous he was. I think it would have been better for him to appreciate and understand the people of his own country a little better and to have, like myself, not believed the story which I heard. The hon. gentleman gave us that story and said, quoting the Huntingdon ' Gleaner,' that the Protestants of Quebec were leaving that province. I take direct issue with that statement. It is true that some Protestants of Quebec have been leaving their farms and going away, but it is equally true that Protestants from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have been going away. I know a good deal about the New England states and I know that in Boston and other large cities there is a large number of the flower of the youth of the maritime provinces, just as in these cities there is a very large number of the flower of the youth of the eastern townships of Quebec. They have gone to the eastern states from provinces where there is a Protestant majority just as they have gone from Quebec where there is a Roman Catholic majority and they were in a small minority. They went because of the fiscal policy of the government preceding ours in this country, which drove so many people out of Canada to seek a fortune in the United States and which depleted the people of our country unfortunately for so many years. It is not only the English-speaking Protestants of the eastern provinces, the maritime provinces and Ontario who have gone to the United States ; the French Canadians of the province of Quebec have gone there in numbers four, five, six and even seven times those of the Protestants who have gone. These

people were of the Roman Catholic majority, these were the very people whom my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) says were driving the Protestants out and yet they went to the United States in considerably larger numbers, even proportionately, than the Protestant minority of that province. The statement of the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' is absolutely unfounded and far-fetched. My hon. friend has here again shown his credulity when listening to stories about the condition of affairs in Quebec. If he went to Quebec and studied a little more on the spot, he would not make such statements as he has done. It has been said that the Catholics can go to Protestant schools, that there is no earthly reason why Catholics should not go to Protestant schools because offensive religion is not taught in public schools, but that Protestant children cannot go to Catholic separate schools because the Catholic religion is taught in them. So far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I do not know that there is any more reason why the Protestants should object to their children going to a Catholic school in that province than why a Catholic should object to his children going to a Protestant school. It is true that the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) the other day said that the schools where they did not speak of God are Protestant schools. I am sorry my hon. friend said that, because he ought to know better as he comes from the province of Quebec ; he should know that the Protestant schools of Quebec are' not sehools in which God is not mentioned, are not schools which can in any way be called Godless schools. Sir, the Protestant religion is taught in the Protestant schools of the province of Quebec just as much as the Catholic religion is taught in the Catholic schools. I have here the report of the superintendent of public instruction of Quebec for the year 1003-4, the last one which I have received. I have here the curricula of the elementary Catholic and the elementary Protestant schools of the province of Quebec. I find in the curriculum for the Catholic elementary schools for the first year the first morning exercises are prayers and catechism taught orally, for the second year prayers and catechism, for the third year catechism, for the fourth year catechism. These are the opening exercises of the regular curriculum in the Catholic elementary schools of the province of Quebec. Now what do I find in regard to Protestant schools ? ^ I find that the first half hour of each day is to be devoted to the opening exercises, scripture reading, singing and prayer, instruction in scripture as below, and in morals, including readings and lessons upon Godliness, truthfulness, honour, respect for others, good manners, temperance, health, kindness to animals, &c., first lesson for the day is scripture knowledge. In grade I, events connected with the birth of Christ, outlines of chief events to the end Mr. FISHER.

of the life of Joseph. Grade II-as in previous year, together with the Circumcision and Presentation of Jesus and outlines of chief events to the death of Joseph. I find in grade III there is the same thing and in grade IV studies about the life and wprds of Christ.

In other words the Catholic schools of Quebec and the Protestant schools of Quebec both teach religion, each according to the lights and faith of their church, and it would be just as offensive for one portion of the people of the province to be obliged to have their children go and listen to the religious teaching of the other as vice versa. Under these circumstances, I want to repel the statement of the hon. member for Beauharnois, that the Protestant schools of Quebec are Godless and secondly I want to point out that it is no more right that the Protestants of Quebec or the rrotestants of this country should ask that the Catholics should be forced to go to Protestant schools than it is that the Protestants should be forced to go to the Catholic schools. The legitimate and logical conclusion of this statement is that we must have in Canada separate schools, and if we have separate schools, Sir, that they should be guaranteed to the people who enjoy them and that they should not be dependent on the will of a local majority which may change its mind.

There is another argument in favour of separate schools. Supposing that we have public schools in which no religion is taught at all. We have a large number of people in this country who believe that a proper and good education requires religious instruction, that it is necessary in a school to have the children taught in religious exercises. If in public schools religion is not taught and if Catholics are obliged to pay their taxes to the public schools, then if they want to live up to their conscientious convictions they would be obliged instead of sending their children to the public school to keep them at home or to create out of their own pockets with their voluntary subscriptions private schools in which their form of education should be 'taught. Now, Sir, if their taxes are obliged to be paid to the public schools, it is very evident that these same people cannot effectively and efficiently keep up private schools as well owing to the payment of their taxes into the public schools. It is not to be expected that they' could do so, and the result would be that the Catholic people of our country, not being able conscientiously to send their children to the public schools in which no religion is taught, not being able to get in those public schools the religious education which they think conscientiously it is right and proper their children should be taught, would be obliged to pay taxes to public schools and then would be obliged to provide, to the best of their ability, but necessarily inefficiently and Ineffectively, schools in which religious in-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink

APKIL 13. 1905


struction was given. If they did, it would be a necessary consequence that under those circumstances these schools would be ineffective and inefficient and the result would be that a large proportion of the youth would be growing up without the proper education which it is in the interest of the state that every body in the country should have. I do not propose and I do not desire to enter into a discussion of Christian ethics or of the Christian religion, but, Sir, there is a main principle of Christian ethics that is known as the Golden Rule, that we should do unto others as we would that they should do unto us. Now, Sir, in Quebec, we Protestants do wish to have separate schools, we Protestants value the privilege that we have there. We Protestants value the privileges we have in that province with our separate schools, and I think the least we can do is to try to live up to the fundamental principle of Christian ethics and do for others what we wish them to do for us. I want to go a step further, and to say to the Protestants of Canada and other provinces that I think it would be more to their credit ; and would illustrate better their belief in the Christian religion, if they would stand by us in that principle and would extend to the minority in the provinces in which they are a majority the privileges which the Roman Catholics have given to the Protestants, their fellow-citizens, in the province of Quebec. I do not think that our Protestant friends in the other provinces realize in the slightest degree the advantages afforded us by the Catholic majority. By the Catholic majority, did I say? No, by the fathers and framers of confederation, the men who decided that the principle of separate schools should be acknowledged in our confederation compact. And, Sir, it was not only the Protestants of that time of our history who gave that privilege of separate schools. Men like Cartier and other leaders of the Roman Catholics who were engaged in framing our constitution did not hesitate for a moment when Mjt. Galt asked for separate schools for the Protestants of Quebec. There was no attempt on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to refuse to the Protestants of Quebec what to-day so large a number of the Protestant churches in the other provinces where the Protestants are in a majority are trying to refuse to the Roman Catholic minorities of those provinces. We have had treatment from the Roman Catholics of Quebec which, I am ashamed to say, the Protestants where they are a majority seem to grudge to their fellow-citizens, the Roman Catholic minority. Sir, what is it we have in the province of Quebec? I said a few moments ago that we had a system of absolute separation of schools. We have a Council of Public Instruction. There are in that council two absolutely separate bodies the Protestant committee and the Catholic committee. The Protestant committee absolutely do not suffer from any interference by dictation from or discussion with the Catholic majority. We have absolute control over our whole school system ; we regulate the Normal school ; we regulate the qualification of our teachers ; we regulate the inspection of our schools ; we regulate the curriculum ; we regulate the text books. And, in addition, we have an absolute division, according to the population, of all the votes given in favour of schools and education by the province, and we have our own taxation to be voted entirely and exclusively to the carrying on of our own schools.


LIB

Louis-Philippe Brodeur (Minister of Inland Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. BRODEUR.

And share in special funds.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

I am coming to that in a moment. 1 do not care particularly to compare the privileges that the minority in the province of Quebec enjoy with the privileges which, by this Bill and the ordinances of the Northwest Territories, are being given to the Catholics of the new' provinces. That comparison would show obviously that we have a great deal more privileges than are proposed to be given to the Catholics of the Northwest Territories. However, that is not a matter I need discuss now. The people generally on both sides of this question, have accepted the principle of giving to the Catholics of the new provinces the rights and privileges that they enjoy to-day, which, as 1 say, are small in comparison with the privileges enjoyed to-day by the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. But these privileges granted to the minority in the Northwest under the Bill have worked satisfactorily and successfully for a number of years, and we can, therefore, safely say they will work satisfactorily and successfully in years to come and, so will satisfy both the Protestants and the Catholics of these new provinces. The Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur) a moment ago said that we of the minority in Quebec have another privilege in regard to the distribution of certain funds. In Quebec to-day the Protestants number about one-eighth of the population. But, in the first place, let it be understood that all the taxation levied for school purposes on any Protestant goes to Protestant education just as the taxation levied on Catholics goes to Catholic education.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROTTLE.

That is not what the Huntingdon 1 Gleaner ' says.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. FITZPATRICK.

Knows nothing about it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

I am sorry if it says what is not true.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

It is quite true. I do not know anything about it. But I am referring to what is stated by a newspaper that ought to know, as it is published in the province of Quebec.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. FITZPATRICK.

I did not mean to say that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) did not know anything about Ft, but that the Huntingdon * Gleaner ' does not know. And that is a charitable way of putting it on my part, because if they do know and yet state what they do, it will be necessary for me to use another expression.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) takes exception to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) saying that he does not know anything about it. Why the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) said so himself

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I have just said so, and I say so still. I do not pretend to know anything about it, but I drew attention to the fact that the Huntingdon ' Gleaner,' a newspaper printed in the eastern townships stated that Protestants had to pay taxes toward Roman Catholic schools.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

If the Huntingdon 'Gleaner' said that-1 am not aware that it did, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) says it did and I suppose he knows-it stated what is not correct. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) the other night was talking of this matter and was asked a question by an hon. gentleman on this side, and his own reply was 'I do not know anything about it.' I acknowledge my hon. friend's frankness and I acknowledge the correctness of his statement. I have no doubt that he does not know about these things. What I object to is that the hon. gentleman says the things he does, yet will not come to the province of Quebec to learn the facts. And I am sorry to say that he is only an example of a large number of people in the country who are discussing these questions without knowing anything about them.

Mr.' SPROULE. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) allow me to quote what the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' says ?

Another consequence1 of these sectarian schools should never he lost sight of, and that is that where Protestant farmers are too few to have schools they are taxed to support Catholic schools, which sometimes have as their teachers nuns or Christian brothers. -

That is the statement of a newspaper the proprietor of which, I understand is a very prominent and respectable Reformer.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

That particular statement has enough truth in it to make it worse than a plain lie. Under the school law of the province of Quebec, in any municipality, the minority, provided there are a certain number of families-I think the number is three or five-can petition to have a dissentient school. They can declare that they do not belong to the religion of the majority. When they so declare, they cannot be taxed for the school of the majority. It may be that in a particular municipality there are two or three Protestants living, all the other (residents being Roman Catholics. They Mr. SPROULE.

may not be able, with the taxes that they themselves pay, to maintain a separate or dissentient school. Rut, they can be joined, for school purposes to any adjoining municipality where there is another little group of the same kind. And I venture to say that to-day in the province of Quebec there are not a dozen Protestant families who are not in such a position that, if they choose, they can be within reach of a Protestant school and can have their taxes applied to the support of a Protestant school. Rut all this may toe true of Catholics also in the province of Quebec. I have known cases, in days gone by when there were comparatively few Catholics in the eastern townships, when in certain municipalities there would be only one or two families of Catholics,-not enough to support a dissentient school. They had the opportunity to join with the Catholics in adjoining municipalities to support a school to which they could send their children, and, under the school law of Quebec, their taxes were applied to that scnool. If there were any cases where the Catholics were too few to support a school, they would have to support a Protestant school, just as the Huntingdon ' Gleaner ' says Protestants where they are too few to have a school of their own must support a Catholic school. And if their children go to a Protestant school, they would have to hear the teaching of the Protestant religion, just as Protestants under similar circumstances would send their children to a Catholic school to hear the teaching of the Catholic religion. The law puts the Catholics and the Protestants on exactly the same footing and justice is given to all. I have stated that the Protestants constitute about one-eighth of the total population of the province of Quebec, and that the taxes collected for the schools are divided proportionately among the Protestants and the Catholics. In the second place, the provincial government gives large grants in aid of primary or elementary education, and those funds are generally divided 'according to population. That is the general principle, but I want to say further that there are a great many individual items in those funds which are not divided according to population, but of which the Protestants get a far larger share than they would have a right to expect on that basis. I have here a statement of last year's estimates voted by the Quebec legislature. There is a vote of $80,000 for superior education. Of this $4,000 is specifically given to the Laval University and $2,000 is given as a compensation to Protestant higher education. That is to say of the $6,000 special vote the Protestants get one-third and the Roman Catholics get twro-thirds ; but if the division were made according to population, the Protestants would only get one-eighth, instead of one-third. The remaining $74,000 is divided strictly according to population between the two committees and distributed by them,

subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council among the Roman Catholic and Protestant schools respectively. There is also a sum collected for marriage license fees, and that money is given entirely to the Protestants, because the Catholic church takes the license fees paid by Catholics. There is besides a marriage license fund which became created in this way. For some years after confederation the marriage license fees were collected by the Dominion government. In 1873 the sums collected were remitted to the provincial government and invested. The interest on this investment and the fees arising from the sale of marriage licenses from year to year are acknowledged by the Roman Catholics to have exclusive Protestant sources and are therefore devoted to Protestant education. There is further a sum of $4,270 voted annually to the high schools of Quebec and Montreal which are Protestant schools. This is in continuation of the grants made to the two royal grammar schools of these cities which were founded in 1816, and which became merged years ago into the two high schools I have mentioned. The compensation to Roman Catholics on the basis of two to one has never been questioned. The Protestants get one-third of the whole vote and the Catholics two-thirds instead of the Protestants getting one-eighth and the Catholics seven-eights. With regard to normal schools, the Protestants have the entire control and management of their own normal schools. They control the appointment of teachers the teaching, the granting of diplomas to teachers and the qualifications which teachers must have before they can be appointed. There are two Catholic normal schools and one for the Protestants. We get one-third of the money spent on those schools ; and when this question came up in 1857, long before confederation, long before we had the rights guaranteed to us by the confederation compact, it was proposed that the Protestants should receive about one-sixth of the grant which would represent the proportion due them according to population. But what occurred ? The Hon. P. J. O. Chauveau-not a Protestant, not an English speaking man, but one of the leading French Canadian Roman Catholics of the province of Quebec-pointed out to his compatriots that it would cost as much to establish and conduct an efficient Protestant normal school as an efficient Roman Catholic one, and that consequently to restrict Protestants to their sLare according to population would be equivalent to depriving them entirely of normal school privileges ; therefore the Protestant normal schools ought to receive just as much as either of the two Catholic normal schools, and the legislature accepted that view of the case. Let me point out to bon. gentlemen opposite, and to Protestants who are crying out against recognizing the privileges to which the Catholic minority are

entitled in the Territories, this example of Christian tolerance and generosity to the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. The Protestant normal school has always received practically as much as either. For many y^ars-more than fourteen years -the McGill normal school share has been $13,866.67, while one Roman Catholic normal school has received $14,900 and the other $14,233.33 annually. There is a vote for the inspection of schools and the amount varies from year to year, but the Protestants have always received from one-fourth to one-third of the money spent on public school inspection. For the year ending 30th June, 1904, the Protestant inspectors received $7,575 and the Roman Catholics $28,100 or just about one-fourth was paid, to the Protestants instead of the one-eighth to which they were, strictly speaking, only entitled according to population. We have a Protestant and a Catholic Committee of Public Instruction, and a vote of $2,500 is made yearly, out of which the expenses of the two committees are paid. The travelling and hotel expenses of the members attending the meetings of that committee, Catholic and Protestant alike, are paid indifferently without any regard to any division of the funds into two parts. But the Protestant committee receives in addition $1,500 yearly, for its own expenses, for which the Roman Catholic committee gets no equivalent and the Protestant committee has been paid this sum for the last ten years out of contingencies. The expenses of the two committees are therefore paid indifferently, but the Protestant committee gets in addition $1,500 for which the Catholic committee gets no equivalent. With regard to the journals of public instruction, which are published in English for the Protestants and in French for the Catholics, the Protestant journal got last year $1,480 out of a total of $7,550, or about one-fifth of the whole when, according to population, it was only entitled to one-eighth. There are several votes given indifferently to Catholics and Protestant institutions. There is a sum of $50,000 granted annually by the government for elementary education. It is commonly knowm as the $50,000 grant and is distributed by the government of the day. I have here a statement of the secretary of the Pro-tentant Council of Public Instruction in which he says that this grant is divided generally in a fair ratio according to population, but that $3,000 out of it is given to the McGill normal school for which there is no equivalent given the Catholic normal school.

I think I have given here a pretty clear statement of the privileges and advantages which we Protestants enjoy in the province of Quebec, and I would like to point out that the privileges granted us to-day are not given by virtue of any law or guarantee. Many of them have been given from time to time without any law or statutory enactment but voluntarily, and they have

been given us by a legislature in which the large majority is Roman Catholic. I might add that in that legislature there is not the Roman Catholic majority which the population of the province would justify, because in it, just as in this Dominion parliament, there are a number of members representing constituencies in the province of Quebec, which have large Catholic majorities, but which nevertheless elect Protestants to represent them. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux) knows that in the last elections the Magdalen Islands-a constituency in the province of Quebec in which I do not suppose there are one hundred Protestant electors-elected a Scotch English speaking Protestant to the Quebec legislature and rejected a French Canadian Catholic candidate. We ha\e this condition of affairs existing in our province and we value it highly, and believe it is important to us that it should be continued. It is important for the Protestants of the province of Quebec that they should be able to manage their own schools, on their own lines, and in their own way. We have never had any agitation amongst the majority of the people of the province of Quebec to take away from us one iota, jot or tittle of the advantages or privileges which we enjoy. We have never had any such display of feeling, opinion, or thought as has been displayed on the floor of this House in discussing the question in regard to the privileges of the minorities in other provinces-never one iota, jot or tittle of it. Sir, we value this, but if the principles which we have heard enunciated by hon. gentlemen opposite are to be carried out to their legitimate conclusion. if the Protestant majorities of other provinces of the Dominion are to do away 'with the principle of separate schools, what kind of an appeal could we make to the majority of the province of Quebec in our behalf? I do not believe for one instant that the Catholic majority of the province of Quebec would allow themselves to be influenced by these feelings, statements, or thoughts. I have no fear that in the province of Quebec the Catholic majority will take away, or make the attempt to take away our rights and privileges, but, Sir, if the principle which hon. gentlemen opposite seem to inculcate were to be adopted in Canada and if the principle of separate schools were to be eliminated from our confederation compact what kind of an appeal could we make to that majority in the province of Quebec to continue to us these privileges and rights ? Sir. I do not think that it will come about in our day, and I wish as a member of this parliament from the province of Quebec to see to it that the principle adopted in 1867, the principle continued in taking in Prince Edward Island and British Columbia and the principle continued, though not carried out to its fullest extent as was intended in the Manitoba Act. shall be introduced into these Acts and Mr. FISHER.

that the minority of the new provinces shall have guaranteed to them those privileges and rights which they are to-day enjoying and which are to their advantage as they will be in the future.

I think I may say fairly that I voice the opinion of the Protestants of the province of Quebec. I regret very much to hear those expressions of opinion which have been given on the floor of this House. I regret to see them in the press of the province of Ontario. It was not always thus. These very gentlemen of the Conservative party, and this Protestant and Conservative press of the province of Ontario, were not always actuated in this way. The fathers of confederation listened to Mr. Galt and introduced the principle of separate schools. The fathers of confederation, Protestants many of them, some of them no doubt ultra Protestant, desired to have separate schools and agreed to have separate schools. I understand that in the province of Ontario there is a separate school system. I believe that it is based on the Bill which was introduced by the Hon. Mr. Scott in 1863-the Separate School Act of the province of Ontario. That Bill was debated and discussed in the old parliament of Canada, there were divisions on it, the six months' hoist of the Bill was moved, and amongst those who voted against this amendment and in favour of the Bill were John Hilliard Cameron, then Grand Master of the Orange Lodge of the province of Ontario ; William Anderson, then Treasurer of the Orange Lodge of the province of Ontario ; and John A. Macdonald, whose name will be familiar, I think, to hon. gentlemen opposite, as to the rest of the people in this country, and who was then a member of the Orange Lodge of that province. I am sorry, very sorry indeed, to find that the successors and the descendants of these broad-minded men, these generous and tolerant men, should assume and adopt the position that they are adopting on the question of separate schools. It .would be better for the public opinion and for the future of the country if the sort of tolerance which animated the fathers of confederation were continued in their successors on the opposite side of the House.

I said a few moments ago that I believe I voiced the Protestant opinion of the province of Quebec. It may be said that the Protestant members, with the exception of myself, are influenced by the fact that they have a majority of Catholic electors. It is a poor compliment on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to pay to their colleagues and friends to say that, notwithstanding the fact that they are not in sympathy with the government party, not in sympathy generally with our political feelings, views and ideas, they are still going to vote with us on this question, because they were afraid of their Catholic electors. It is said by hon. gentlemen opposite, that the whole of the Quebec delegation is going to vote for this

Bill irrespective of party and irrespective of religious feeling. I cannot be sure of that. I know that every Quebec delegate on this side of the House is going to vote for the Bill. The other night, when my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Belaud) was pointing out that Catholic majorities had elected Protestant members to this House, the hon. member for Bast Elgin (Mr. Ingram) said that every one of them was going to vote for the Bill. I do not know whether he had authority to say so or not, I do not knoiw whether the hon. members for Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh), for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) and for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) had told him so, or if he had authority to say so.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
L-C

Andrew B. Ingram

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. INGRAM.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Beland) was using the argument that in the province of Quebec Protestants were elected in constituencies which were largely Roman Catholic. He was basing his argument on that fact, and I said that if so they would all vote for the Bill, meaning that they would be guided by the opinions of those who elected them.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

Exactly, that is just what I am saying. I stated it rightly.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
L-C
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

My hon. friend repeats it. Again I say that it is a poor compliment to pay to his colleagues on that side of the House, whose natural predelictions and whose party alliances, affiliations and surroundings, would induce them to vote against a government Bill, or against a Bill introduced by this government at any rate, and I think my hon. friend will acknowledge-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink
L-C

Andrew B. Ingram

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. INGRAM.

We hav.e had the statement of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) of the position of the opposition on this question, which is that it is an open question, and that every member is at liberty to vote as he pleases.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   APKIL 13. 1905
Permalink

April 13, 1905