CCHA, Historical Studies,
68 (2002), 105-132
The East Hastings By-Election of 1936
and the Ontario Separate School
Tax Question
Peter
Meehan
He gave the R.C. schools a share
Of
their people’s yearly tax,
It
was a simple act of justice
When
we clearly know the facts,
We
may not advocate separate schools
But
since by law they are there,
We
have a right to be honest with taxes
Upright,
just and fair!1
Composed to accompany Liberal
Premier Mitchell Hepburn’s arrival to the Ontario riding of East Hastings in
the fall of 1936, these lyrics embodied what should have been the cornerstone
of his by-election platform. As circumstances would soon dictate, justice
was not on the minds of either his political opponents or the majority of
electors. Committing himself to a herculean personal effort in the campaign,
Hepburn saw East Hastings as an opportunity to test his overall popularity and
to promote the Liberal’s sound fiscal management, avoiding discussion of his
recent controversial amendments to Ontario’s school tax laws. The campaign
quickly reverted to a maelstrom of sectarian bigotry. Determined to make a
singular issue out of the “school tax question,” the Conservatives assembled a
Protestant alliance that laced speeches throughout the riding with a steady
volume of anti-Catholic invective. What should have been a routine by-election
ultimately marked the greatest political challenge of Mitchell Hepburn’s
career and, in the process, initiated the disintegration of the most successful
lay agitation in Ontario history: the Catholic Taxpayer’s Association.
The
byproduct of religio-political tensions inflamed in the post-Confederation
era, the school tax question became the key economic imperative of the Ontario
bishops in the twentieth century. While the Scott Act of 1863 allowed Catholics
to direct their property taxes to fund separate schools, the growth of
corporations and creation of numerous public utilities soon weakened the impact
of these assessments.2
An updated law, the Assessment Act of 1886, recognized the principle that
Catholic investments were their property, and that the resulting taxes could
be directed to the support of separate schools. The legislation however was
permissive, not mandatory. In Protestant Ontario this meant that the vast
majority of these new assessments went by default to the public schools.
Failing in their bid to enjoin government support for revised legislation, the
hierarchy sought out new alternatives to help address the divisive issue. The
propitious release of the social encyclical Quadragessimo Anno and its
emphasis on “Catholic Action” turned their attention to the potential for lay
activism.3 During the critical period of
the mid-1930s, this gave rise to the Catholic Taxpayer’s Association, led by
Toronto businessman Martin J. Quinn.
Born
near Ganonoque, Ontario, to Irish immigrants, Quinn and his family resettled in
Toronto where, by the age of seventeen, he was already a skilled plumber.4 Having turned the National Equipment
Company Limited, which he founded in 1912, into a lucrative supplier of both
residential and commercial plumbing and heating equipment, Quinn was a
self-made man. A multi-millionaire by his forties, he and his wife Anna were
parents to nine children, and enjoyed an active social life which included
membership in the Toronto Horticultural Society, the Empire Club, and the
Toronto Board of Trade. Quinn’s disdain for “secret societies” had led to his
refusal to join the Knights of Columbus, despite his intense Catholic faith and
active participation in Toronto’s west-end parish of St. Cecilia’s. The death
of their eldest son, Gordon, at Vimy Ridge in the First World War forever
changed the Quinns. Martin and Anna became increasingly insular, limiting themselves
to family and friends, and spending time at the family cottage at Cedar Beach,
located on the east shore of Lake Simcoe near Beaverton.5
A
devout Catholic and a life-long member of the Liberal Party of Ontario, Quinn
took an active interest in matters of social and economic justice. Reflecting
years later on his involvement with the CTA, Quinn recalled that, in 1931, he
was invited to an informal meeting with the Archbishop of Toronto, Neil McNeil,
to discuss his recent dispute with the George Weston Company. As was the case
with most Ontario corporations, the Weston Company directed its educational
assessments, by default, to the support of the public schools. Quinn doggedly
pursued Weston’s Board of Directors until the necessary resolution was passed
allowing him to direct the taxes derived from his stock, which by his estimate
was worth some $92,000, to the support of the separate schools.6 Queried by McNeil as to how
Catholics could be similarly organized, Quinn replied that the problem was with
the hierarchy itself. Lay people feared the “faulty judgment” of the bishops,
who lacked both the experience and expertise to address what he regarded as “a purely
financial and political problem.”7 He explained that the only solution was in a thoroughly
organized and completely autonomous organization of Catholic laymen. Promised
that “no clerical nose will be permitted to intrude itself,” Quinn entered into
what he perceived to be a contractual relationship with McNeil, channeling his
keen business instincts into the creation of a province-wide organization
administered from central headquarters in Toronto.8 Declaring their work to be “the first movement of
Catholic Action,” the CTA proceeded to educate Catholics and “fair-minded”
Protestants to the essentials of the school tax question. 9
Aggressive
and uncompromising leadership would mark Quinn’s efforts at the helm of the CTA
from this time forward. In July 1932, he released a province-wide memorandum to
all CTA affiliates, outlining the following objectives: (1) to gain what was
directly stated and inferred by the wording of the original British North
America Act, namely insuring “the complete and continuous enjoyment, by the
religious minorities, of such rights as were originally granted,” (2) the
exemption of all supporters of separate schools from the payment of all rates
imposed for the support of public schools, and (3) amendment of the Assessment
Act of 1886 in order to provide for the distribution of corporation and public
utility taxes for educational purposes on the basis of school population – or
the “Quebec Plan.”10
In
contrast to the experience in Ontario, the privileges and rights of the
Protestant minority in Quebec had been safeguarded. Legislation passed in 1869
directed that taxes paid by companies were to be divided between the two constitutionally
guaranteed “common schools,” public and separate, according to the number of
children in attendance at each. The school population was approximately 75%
Catholic and 25% Protestant, yet corporations paid roughly half of the tax
support to administer public education.11 Quebec had almost immediately brought its provincial educational law up
to date with the changing nature of the corporate economy that was taking root
in Canada, and benefitted both public and separate schools as a result.
When
Conservative Premier George S. Henry proved unwilling to bring about
legislative redress to the school tax question, Quinn soon pledged to bring
down the government with “a block of Catholic voters and their many thousands
of sympathetic non-Catholic friends.”12 Ignoring McNeil’s observation that “our people are
lethargic in public action,” Quinn swiftly organized the CTA into a pro-Liberal
political machine, focused on winning the provincial election scheduled for
June 1934.13 Local parish affiliates formed
study groups and voter registration campaigns, distributed propaganda, and
engaged their Protestant neighbours in frank discussion of the CTA’s
objectives. In the final weeks of the campaign, Quinn, pleading for an increase
in attendance at the polls of 100-200%, declared “If the Catholic people live
up to the hopes and expectations of the Taxpayer’s Association, we will present
a united front that for many a year to come will command the respect and fear
of politicians of every political stripe.”14
The
tumultuous Liberal victory on 19 June 1934, was one of the greatest political
reversals in Ontario history. The Conservative majority government of ninety
seats was reduced to an Opposition of seventeen, with eight of Henry’s cabinet
ministers going down to defeat. Ontarians had turned out in record numbers in
virtually every riding of the province, and Quinn was quick to credit the CTA
with having mobilized the province’s 250,000 Catholics behind the landslide.
The lay-Catholic champion of Ontario, Quinn’s name was spoken in reverential
tones, and Catholics province wide reveled in their newfound political clout.
Not all of the faithful, however, shared in the exuberance of the moment. For
the editor of the Catholic Register, Henry Somerville, the electoral
success was bittersweet:
It is not a good and healthy
situation when Catholics are all on one side in politics ... As long as
Catholics are treated with anything approaching reason and justice there is not
the slightest ground for fearing in Ontario that they will ever act in a
factionist and aggressive spirit.15
Apprehensive to use Catholic
Action as a political tool, Somerville feared the potential for a backlash in
Protestant Ontario.
Sharing
no such compunctions, the new Liberal Premier of Ontario, Mitchell Hepburn, had
been more than willing to enlist Catholic support in the months leading up to
the campaign. During a closed-door meeting at the Ontario Liberal Party
Headquarters on King Street in March of 1933, including Quinn and Catholic
Senator W.H. McGuire, he went so far as to promise a new separate school bill
during his first legislative session.16 Counting prominent Roman Catholics Frank O’Connor, the
millionaire owner of Laura Secord’s, and Minister of Lands and Forests Peter
Heenan among his immediate coterie, Hepburn felt personally disposed to do
something for “those who eat fish on Friday.”17 Once elected however, he, like
Henry, proved recalcitrant, virtually ignoring the separate school tax question
in the fall session. Side-tracked by health problems,18 and federal leader William Lyon
Mackenzie King’s desire to avoid any controversy during the dominion election
campaign that year, Hepburn continued to be evasive throughout 1935.19 His creation of the “Commission
of Enquiry into the Cost of Education in the Province of Ontario” that spring,
led by Deputy Minister of Education Duncan McArthur, did little to assuage the
CTA's growing impatience. Charged with investigating the process of educational
funding throughout the province, the Acting Minister of Education, H.C. Nixon,
explained to Quinn that a new school tax law was not on its agenda, and the
matter seemed to be put off indefinitely.20 Commenting on the delays, the Mail and Empire
noted that “the Separate School ratepayers have just cause for suspecting that
they are being exploited.”21
With no announcements on tax
support for separate schools in the offing, Quinn went on the offensive once
again.22 That December he claimed
responsibility for the CTA in electing Samuel McBride as Toronto’s new mayor,
keeping renowned Catholic-baiter Jimmy Simpson from regaining office.23 Moreover, Quinn was now
threatening to wield the Catholic vote “until such time as we have obtained a
full measure of justice.”24 Rank and file among the faithful were also becoming
impatient with Hepburn. As one “concerned Catholic” noted to him, “We put you
where you are and we can easily dispose of you next election. You Masons may be
a little smoother than the Orange but you all belong to the devil, and time
will no doubt prove it.”25
Unbeknownst
to the CTA, the premier had already been convinced that the timing was right to
address the school tax question. He had begun strategizing with McArthur and
Minister of Education L.J. Simpson in the fall of 1935, going so far as to
invite A.K. Cameron of the Protestant School Commission in Quebec for informal
talks at Queen’s Park.26
In the preceding year Cameron had carried on detailed correspondence with
Hepburn on the merits of the assessment plan in force there, where corporate
school taxes were divided on the basis of school population.
In
the new year, the secular press seemed increasingly congenial to the idea of
tax reform favouring the separate schools. Opposing the staunchly pro-Orange Toronto
Telegram, Saturday Night Magazine noted that detractors of the proposed
legislation really believed that separate schools “should ultimately be starved
out of existence in the Province of Ontario.”27 The Kingston Whig-Standard
bluntly declared:
The Publisher of this newspaper
will not take second place to the Toronto Telegram editor, nor to anyone
else, in their allegiance to the Protestant faith; but they are broad-minded
enough to want the supporters of Catholic separate schools to be able to direct
their own money to the support of their schools, so that they can give to their
children an adequate education in modern schools.28
If Mitchell Hepburn had the sense
that he owed something to Catholics, he decided that the time to repay his debt
would be in the spring of 1936.
Claiming
that a religious controversy was “what we want in Ontario least of all,” yet with
a caucus seriously divided on the matter, Hepburn proceeded to draft a new
Separate School Bill that February.29 Weeks spent negotiating the contents of the Bill with his
caucus proved futile, and on the eve of the final vote in the legislature,
Hepburn’s close advisor W.R. “Percy” Parker, informed him that were it not for
the Liberal caucus’ deep loyalty to Hepburn, “large numbers would refrain from
voting or would even vote against the Bill.”30 Really a series of amendments to existing legislation,
replacing section 65 of the Separate Schools Act and amending the Assessment
Act, the Bill finally passed at 4:00 am on 9 April 1936 by a vote of 65 to 20.31 Clearly a political compromise,
the changes did not pertain to public utilities, nor did they give Ontario the
“Quebec Plan” sought by the CTA. The most significant separate school
legislation since 1863 however, they did address the inadequacy posed by the
permissive Assessment Act by compelling corporations to divide their taxes
between public and separate schools in proportion to the declared ownership of
stock. Section 33a directed that corporations must allocate their taxes in
equal measure to the percentage of shares owned by Catholics who registered
themselves as separate school supporters. For corporations with more wide
ranging ownership, where a determination of the number of Catholic shareholders
was virtually impossible, Section 33b directed that taxes were to be divided
according to the ratio of public and separate school supporters in the
municipality.32
While
Quinn understood the legislation to be less than perfect, it was clearly more
than had been achieved for the separate schools since 1863. Writing to the
Parish Chairmen, he pointed to the power of Catholic Action, stating “we have
seen our efforts crowned with a degree of success not dreamed of five years
ago.”33 Toasted as the lay Catholic champion
of Ontario’s separate schools, the Canadian Freeman claimed Quinn had
“placed our people so deeply in his debt that they can never hope to repay it
or even suitably acknowledge it,” and called the Act an “emphatic rebuke to
bigotry and prejudice.”34
He boldly predicted that the amendments would see separate Boards receive
$500,000 in new assessments in the first year “without any action at all on the
part of Catholics.”35
Acknowledging Quinn’s great expense of time and effort, the editor of London’s Catholic
Record, Fr. Francis Brennan, remarked that he had “learned to admire you
laymen very much for the work you did and the sacrifice you made.”36
The
Ontario hierarchy also shared the spirit of jubilation. In a rare display of
financial gratitude, they awarded Quinn a $1,000 honorarium to offset the costs
of his trip to address to the General Meeting of the Catholic Educational
Conference of Australia. In the process of creating an Australian Catholic
Taxpayer’s Association, Conference Chairman P.S. Cleary had followed the CTA’s
success, and pressed Quinn to make the journey as the “logical spokesman for
this great and successful movement of the Catholic people.”37 In an ironic twist of fate
however, the trip would leave the school tax question without its strongest
Catholic advocate at the very moment he was most needed.38
That
fall, Hepburn’s attention was drawn to the rural scattering of communities
between Belleville and Napanee making up the 3,600 square mile provincial
riding of East Hastings (See Appendix A). The death of Conservative James Hill
on 15 October necessitated a by-election that Hepburn sensed would be a perfect
opportunity to test the political climate in the aftermath of his divisive
school tax amendments. At 75% Protestant, East Hastings reflected the overall
provincial religious demographic.39 Although Liberal strategists and supporters warned that
victory here would be difficult, the premier concentrated on the slim four
hundred and eighteen vote margin from the 1934 provincial election.40 Described by John Saywell as “hot
and impulsive … hyperbolic in speech and behaviour … (he lived) on the edge of
his physical and emotional resources,” Hepburn was hungry for the challenge
posed by East Hastings.41
Facing calls from both the Conservatives and the Toronto Telegram to
repeal the amendments, and the charge from Earl Rowe that the Liberals were now
“tools of Rome,” he saw here an opportunity to emphasize every other component
of the Liberal platform.42
He would erase the perception that his party served only special interests or
minority rights.
The
campaign pitted rural physicians Dr. Harold E. Welsh, a Conservative from the
town of Roslin, against Liberal Dr. Harold A. Boyce from Deseronto. As it soon
transformed into a province-wide media spectacle, eventually stealing at least
some attention from Edward VIII’s abdication crisis in England, the two
candidates in the by-election became incidental. With Quinn away, and no strong
foothold for the CTA in the riding, Hepburn was determined to ignore his school
tax amendments.43 Virtually living in the riding
for most of November, he assembled a campaign team that included Cabinet
Ministers and back-benchers from every section of the province. To a man they
were Protestants, and, the Liberals hoped, represented portfolios where
evidence of strong fiscal management would be more critical to the
depression-era rural voters than talk of separate school taxes (See Appendix
B).44
On
16 November in the town of Cannifton, Duncan Marshall, the Minister of
Agriculture, pointed to increased Liberal infrastructure spending in East
Hastings, with $21,500 in direct grants approved by the province and labour
costs to be covered through unemployment relief.45 In Maynooth two evenings later,
Hepburn announced that his government had reduced the provincial debt by $3 million
since their first fiscal year in office.46 Residents in the towns of Port Anne and Queensborough
were told on 20 November how the Liberal’s campaign promise to scrap government
cars had saved $37,957.75 in 1935 alone.47 One week later, College Hill heard of the miraculous
recovery of the Department of Games and Fisheries, where a deficit of some
$12,000 left by the Henry Conservatives had been parlayed into a profit in
excess of $230,000.48
Likewise, the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s 1933 deficit had been increased to
a surplus of $320,000 in 1936. New legislation now permitted claims of up to
$250,000, and better management of its investments had increased the bank value
of the Board to over $636,000 worth of securities.49
Late
in the campaign Hepburn’s Secretary, Roy Elmhirst, wired the team a new
grocer’s list of Liberal accomplishments. These included: 30,000 children and
10,419 women benefitting under the Mother’s Allowance Program; 900
municipalities operating under new government guidelines; savings of $110,000
annually derived from the consolidation of the Attorney General’s Office; and a
$50,000 surplus in the Ontario Securities Commission, which under Conservative
management had left a deficit of $14,000.50
Led
by Earl Rowe, the Conservatives had already pledged to repeal the school tax
law at their convention that spring and would not allow it to be soft-peddled
at East Hastings.51 Their stratagem clearly
anticipated re-awakening the anti-Catholic anxieties in this bastion of Orange,
Tory Ontario that had marked previous provincial battles during the era of “no
Popery.”52
The local Conservative Association, adopting the motto “Vote for Dr.
H.E. Welsh and Repeal,” had rallied more than five hundred people to a meeting
in the Town of Gilmour on 22 November. Charging that the effect of the new
legislation was twofold, the Conservatives maintained that it would erode
current public school support, and encourage the growth of new separate schools
where they had not previously existed.53 Capitalizing on Hepburn’s reluctance to be drawn into a
religious controversy, outspoken Conservative George Drew announced in
Deseronto on 27 November that, “in the minds of the people of this riding, the
main issue is that raised by the recent amendment to the Separate Schools Act.”54
The
Conservatives were also quick to call Hepburn’s “Catholic connections” into
question. Speaking at “Naylor’s Open House” two nights earlier, Rowe had
encouraged local Orangemen by announcing that Hepburn “may promise you a new
highway, down past Frank P. O'Connor’s birthplace, ... or make a bigger parade
of discharged civil servants than ever marched down University Avenue on July
12,” but claimed that neither would be as inspirational as an Orange Day Parade.55 A native of Deseronto and a
well-known Liberal fund-raiser, O’Connor had made bequests totaling $500,000 to
a host of charitable organizations in 1936, largely benefitting the Archdiocese
of Toronto. Understanding the controversy being stirred over his association
with Hepburn during the by-election, he maintained a discreet distance from
East Hastings.
Senator Frank O’Connor -
Charitable Bequests, 1936
|
Item |
Organization |
Amount |
|
1. |
Monastery of the Precious Blood,
Toronto |
$25,000 |
|
2. |
The Newman Club, University of
Toronto |
$23,000 |
|
3. |
The Canadian National Institute
for the Blind, Toronto |
$10,000 |
|
4. |
The Hospital For Sick Children,
Toronto |
$10,000 |
|
5. |
St. Joseph’s Hospital,
Peterborough |
$10,000 |
|
6. |
Precious Blood Church, Wexford,
Ontario |
$10,000 |
|
7. |
The Toronto Star Fresh Air Fund |
$1,000 |
|
8. |
The Carmelite Sisters –
Ossington Avenue, Toronto |
$1,000 |
|
9. |
The Archbishop of Toronto |
$410,000 |
|
|
Total |
$500,000 |
Source: O’Connor to Hepburn, 30
November 1936, Hepburn Papers,
RG -3 – 10, Box 251, OA.
The
low-water mark of the entire campaign, however, occurred in the town of
Plainfield on the evening of 26 November. Here, Drew stressed in a
not-so-gentle reference to the dominant Catholic population in Canada:
It is not unfair to remind the
French that they are a defeated race and that their rights are only rights
because of the tolerance of the English element, who, with all respect to the
minority, must be regarded as the dominant race.56
While insisting his meaning had
been misconstrued, there was no mistaking the fact that, in order to win in
East Hastings, George Drew had revisited the sectarian appeals that had not
openly marked political relations between Protestants and Catholics in the
province in forty years.57
The
strong anti-Catholic fervour burgeoning at East Hastings was imbued by
wide-ranging Protestant support. The virulent paper Protestant Action
saw the by-election as an “opportunity,” and pleaded for a Conservative
landslide:
Mr. Hepburn says there is a new
alignment of parties in Ontario now. Quite true. On one side are the Hepburn
Liberals, the Knights of Columbus, and the Catholic Taxpayer’s Association, the
priests and Jesuits of the Church of Rome, the Hibernians and all the Pope’s
agents and politicians – and on the other side stand the 100% Protestants –
Liberals, Conservatives, Independents – those who believe in the Public School
and are prepared to fight for it and safeguard its interests so that it will
not be handed over a bit at a time to the Roman hierarchy.58
The “Protestant Radio League
Hour” offered a broadcast from Rev. Morris Zeidman on 29 November, who
announced “The eyes of the Public School supporters in this Province are upon
the people of East Hastings.”59 Appealing to passions already raised by Drew and Rowe,
he added “I want to deal with the subject of state subsidy of the Pope’s
Church, which is of such vital importance to us as Protestants, because our
spiritual forefathers fought, were tortured, and died for the freedom of
conscience and the Protestant faith.”60
Ironically,
it was Martin Quinn who would bear at least some of the responsibility for this
Protestant backlash at East Hastings. As well known for his short fuse as for
his commitment to the CTA, Quinn had initially extended an olive branch to the
Anglican Synod of Toronto in the spring of 1935, suggesting an informational
meeting in the hope of “a better mutual understanding” on the school tax
question. Later, he withdrew the offer following public accusations of
“Catholic tax grabbing” and “Romish insurgence” from prominent Anglicans in
both Toronto and Kingston.61
Responding to the request for an interview from the Archdeacon of York, Quinn
concluded that “Perfect frankness … compels me to point out [that] such an
appointment would seem to have been rendered futile in advancing any effort
toward a reasonable understanding between us.”62
Quinn
had continued to raise eyebrows on the eve of the new separate school
bill. Speaking to the St. Gregory’s
Council of the Knights of Columbus in Oshawa on 10 February 1936, he publicly
charged, in reference to Hepburn, that “If that bird doesn’t come across now,
we’ll kick him out.”63
Despite both private and public appeals to the premier and a statement to the Toronto
Star in which he denied the CTA had ever taken credit for electing the
Liberals, the damage had been done.64 Catholic fears that the Quinn speech had been “loaded
with dynamite” were about to come to fruition.65 The Mail and Empire
reported that it had been “costly to separate schools,” and that the Liberal
caucus was now expecting “curtailed proposals” on the school tax law.66 The once supportive Star,
fearing the inevitable religious upheaval that was to come, backed away from
its support of the CTA.67
The
Protestant Churches began responding to what they viewed as a Catholic
political insurrection. In his weekly address at Windermere Avenue United
Church, Rev. W.L. Lawrence charged that public school money would be diverted
to the separate schools.68
Dr. J.G. Inkster, speaking before the Toronto Presbytery of the Presbyterian
Church of Canada, declared the Hepburn bill ultra vires, calling it a
renewal of the fight for separate school jurisdiction “beyond fifth form.”69 Addressing the 12th
annual conference of the United Church of Canada in Hamilton that June, Rev.
Fred Dowling from St. Catharine’s called for a resolution demanding the
immediate repeal of the school tax amendments.70
No
individual Protestant clergyman, however, exerted more energy in the battle
over the separate school law than the irascible pastor of Toronto’s Jarvis
Street Baptist Church, Rev. T.T. Shields. An inveterate anti-Catholic, Shields
had consistently opposed what he considered to be Hepburn’s liberal
Protestantism since the 1934 election, and viewed the separate school law as
adding insult to injury.71
Bridging this with his other major social concern, prohibition, he charged that
the premier had linked political arms with the Catholic Church, “Just as
undoubtedly his election was assisted by the brewers in order that he might
give them all that they asked.”72 As discussion of a revised Separate School Bill spread
in early 1936, Shields led an inter-faith delegation comprised of
representatives of the Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, and United Churches to
see the premier on 3 February, in order to express their very definite “Protestant
concerns.”73 Following Quinn’s Knights of
Columbus speech, Shields took his fight with the premier public, releasing to
the media details of the delegation’s “confidential brief to the premier,” which
included opposition to “any concession” or “increased privilege” for separate
schools.74
Lampooned
for his demagoguery in the popular press as “Tittering Tilly,”75 Shields continued to pursue
Hepburn at East Hastings.76 Expending considerable energy in the riding himself, he challenged the
premier to a public debate on the separate school legislation, noting it would
be the first opportunity to test the general climate of opinion in the
province.77 Claiming to represent “concerned
Protestants,” he joined Drew and Rowe late in the campaign, attacking
institutional Catholicism with vitriol and his renowned dramatic flare. On 1
December, in the town of Deseronto, he accused Hepburn of being a “pawn of the
Catholic bishops”; and in Cannifton the next evening he committed to protest
any political intrusion into the realm of religion if he had to “die at the
stake.”78 Safe in the knowledge that he
had raised the bar of sectarian indignation at East Hastings, Shields
surrendered the podium that evening to Orangeman Cecil W. Armstrong, who spoke
more directly in favour of a single educational system “where the little
red-headed micks and the Protestant pups alike can go”.79
The
rising tide of Protestant opposition left Hepburn desperate to score quick
points in the campaign. Rowe’s casual remark in Belleville on 16 November, in
reference to public sector hiring practices, that “No man who served a term in
jail for breaking a law should ever expect to get a job that you and I pay
for,” provided one such opportunity.80 A car accident involving the Conservative leader the
previous June, in which two elderly women were injured, had been quickly swept
under the carpet and kept from the media headlines. Reviewing the official
police report, Liberal strategists uncovered the fact that, though no charges
had been laid, the reporting officer had found Rowe to be at fault.81 Addressing the Liberal gathering
at Purdy’s School House on 28 November, Harry Nixon, the Provincial Secretary,
questioned the absence of a criminal prosecution in the case, claiming “Many a
good man has gone to jail for less.”82 Next, Rowe was accused by the Liberals of disloyalty to
Canada for never having taken out naturalization papers here. Drew’s response
in Deseronto on 27 November, that the Conservative leader was a victim of
circumstances, born to Canadian parents while abroad, and all “good, loyal
British subjects at that” satisfied the crowd, and made Hepburn’s team appear
as desperate as they clearly were.83
Relenting
to incessant protests that they were avoiding the issue, the Liberals changed
tack to defend their educational initiatives late in the campaign. The Minister
of Education, Simpson, compiled a barrage of fiscal accomplishments by his
Ministry, including: $180,000 saved by removing student fees for provincial
exams; a $50,000 reduction in the advertising budget for the Department of
Education; a new policy for reviewing standard school texts; and better
core-curricular development of both elementary and secondary programs of
instruction in the schools.84 It would be in an open letter, however, addressed “To
the Electors of East Hastings,” that Hepburn finally broached the topic of the
school tax law, making his strongest appeal of the campaign. Declaring his
opponents had disregarded “the real and important issues,” he defended the
economic logic of the new Act.85 As he described it, reduced tax rates and stricter
Catholic accountability in the management of educational finances would
accompany their allocation of a portion of corporate assessments.86 Referring to the practice
established by previ-ous governments of closing the revenue gap between boards
by increasing provincial grants, Hepburn showed the results to have been
particularly deleterious to the public schools. East Hastings alone had seen a
40% decrease in these grants in the previous six years. Under the Liberal
administration, however, this trend had reversed, with the larger centres of
Deseronto, Madoc, and Tweed all receiving more money in 1936.87
Educational Grants - Riding of
East Hastings, 1935-1936
|
Township |
1935 |
1936 |
|
Deseronto
|
$973.31 |
$1,058.06 |
|
Madoc
|
$1,056.60 |
$1,304.20 |
|
Tweed
|
$1,099.64 |
$1,246.17 |
Source: McArthur to Hepburn, 16
November 1936, Hepburn Papers,
RG - 3 – 10, Box 352, OA.
Convinced he had finally struck
the right chord in the election, Hepburn pledged “If after two years, you are
dissatisfied and no adjustment is made, you are entirely privileged and
justified in voting against the Government for the purpose of respect to the
Act.”88
The
people of East Hastings took far less time, however, to register their
dissatisfaction with Mitchell Hepburn and his separate school amendments. On 9
December, the Conservatives won with a majority of 1,136 votes, almost tripling
their showing from 1934.89
Taken as a microcosm of provincial feeling on the divisive issue, the premier
could not deny he had been sent a message. While the enumeration list for 1936
showed an increase of only forty-seven more names from the previous election,
voter turnout in the riding had risen from 79.2% to 85.5%. In terms of votes
polled, the Conservatives saw an increase of 8.24%, while the Liberals rose a
mere .99% (See Appendices C and D).90 The numbers were even more troubling for the Liberals
when viewed from the perspective of religious demography in the sixteen polling
centres. Tyendinaga Township, for example, where Catholics represented 45% of a
total population of 2,078, saw its Liberal majority reduced by better than 57%
over 1934, owing to an increase of 118 polled votes. Huntingdon and Thurlow,
both 10% Catholic, saw their Conservative majorities explode from 123 and 250
in 1934 to 544 and 340 in 1936. While the Catholic vote remained generally
consistent with the turnout for the provincial election two years earlier,
Protestants had clearly rallied in opposition to the separate school
“concessions” they abhorred. Attempting to bolster Hepburn’s spirits, the
Secretary of the local Liberal Riding Association informed him that Tweed had
been lost by only thirty-nine votes, “the best showing ever made by the
Liberals here.” 91 This was small consolation for
the great importance he had placed on victory at East Hastings.
While
a brass-band led Welsh and Rowe in parade through the streets of Deseronto the
next day, the premier put on a brave face, even paying a wager he had
made with a friend over the outcome of the voting.92 Remarking that “economic problems
were relegated to the limits of forgotten things,” he was willing to concede
that the separate schools question had been the difference in the by-election,
but promised not to allow its results to alter his government’s course.93 In truth, however, the
by-election spelled disaster for the work of the CTA. The Liberals were
immediately under pressure to free themselves from the school tax amendments
and the Catholic albatross they allegedly
served. The day after voting, W.A. Fraser, the federal M.P. for Trenton, tried
to assuage Hepburn, insisting “you cannot buck a religious issue and you cannot
depend on the Catholic vote. Not all Catholics are for separate schools … and
there is a strong feeling that their teachers are underpaid.”94
Publicly
derided in the campaign, Catholics had already abandoned hope that anything
useful could be salvaged from the amendments. More than not providing the
Quebec plan, they were possessed of severe defects, which Quinn had been quick
to identify as the result of “faulty draftsmanship.”95 Many of the province’s separate
school boards were now receiving less tax support than before. No provision
existed to cover policyholders of life insurance companies, nor were taxes made
available on stock registered in the name of a broker or a bank.96 Non-property holders, including
extended family, members of religious communities and those residing out of
province were not included in the amendments.97 Separate schools were cut off
from the taxes of corporate subsidiaries, the parent or “holding companies” for
which could then direct their taxes by default to the public schools.98 Corporations with share capital
were required to register separate school assessments on the basis of notices
of “Roman Catholic Status” filed annually. Where such corporations had the
potential for world-wide distribution of shares, a “relative assessment” was to
provide the basis. No provision existed, however, to enforce companies to make
proper returns on the religious affiliations of their stockholders. Despite an
aggressive CTA campaign to encourage Catholics to complete the necessary
declarations, returns were weak across the province by the end of 1936.99 The Secretary-Treasurer of the
Toronto Separate School Board, E.F. Henderson, concluded that 75% of the city’s
more than five thousand corporate assessments would have to be appealed in
order for the Board to remain solvent. 100
While
Hepburn felt obliged to inquire into the impact on tax revenues with a
selection of separate boards early in 1937, he had already made the decision to
abandon the flawed amendments.101 The legislature’s unanimous decision to repeal on 24
March 1937 restored Section 65 of the original Assessment Act to its 1886
provisions. Catholics were once again left without any claim to corporate
assessments for the support of their schools. In making his repeal speech,
Hepburn casually blamed the law’s failure on faulty drafting and the
“extraordinary financial structure of the present time.” He directed public
attention back to East Hastings, where the Conservatives had “threatened
bloodshed over the issue” and, in his opinion, “intimidated the small Catholic
minority so much that they were afraid to vote.”102 Singling out the efforts of Rev.
Shields in stirring feelings of sectarian bigotry, Hepburn ominously predicted
that the campaign had opened “religious and social sores which will not heal in
the lifetime of this country.”103
Despite
Martin Quinn’s contention that Ontario was possessed of “fair-minded
Protestants,” the by-election had, for the time being, proven otherwise. The
bishops, seeing in East Hastings a Protestant backlash to the politically
charged work of the CTA, now desired a rapprochement. Frustrated with what they
saw as Quinn’s dictatorial leadership, they assumed control of their
lay-experiment. In the months that followed, the hierarchy would return
negotiations over the school tax question to the political back-rooms,
effectively nullifying what had been gained through Catholic Action in the
process. Lacking any commitment to revisit the idea of a legislative solution,
and the bishops no longer pressing for one, Hepburn’s next provincial campaign
would be unencumbered by sectarian tension. While a second majority government
in the 1937 provincial election validated Mitchell Hepburn’s ability to renew his
political career, the movement for Catholic Action in education proved,
ultimately, to be the sole victim at East Hastings.
Appendix
A
Appendix
B
Liberal Campaign Team
East Hastings By-Election
November – December 1936
