5 Eugenics in Manitoba and the Sterilization Controversy of 1933

Erna Kurbegović

In February of 1933, Robert A. Hoey (Progressive, St. Clements, 1883–1965), Manitoba’s minister of education, introduced the Mental Deficiency Act with a section on the sterilization of “mental defectives.”¹ The act was introduced following pressure from the medical community in the province. The proposed bill led to debates not only in the provincial legislature but also in communities across Manitoba. From February to May of 1933, the bill travelled back and forth between the House, the Law Amendments Committee, and the Committee of the Whole in an attempt to reach a decision regarding the clause. In May of 1933, the Mental Deficiency Act eventually passed, but without the sterilization section, which was defeated by just one vote.² This suggests that Manitoba was very close to adopting a eugenics program, though in the end it did not. Yet this does not mean the province lacked enthusiasm for eugenic measures.

The nearly myopic focus on provinces that passed eugenics legislation, namely Alberta and British Columbia, belies the popularity of the movement elsewhere in Canada. Eugenics was a powerful movement in the early twentieth century that captivated many medical professionals, social reformers, and interest groups. In particular, despite coming within only one legislative vote of adopting eugenic measures in 1933, Manitoba’s dynamic and vigorous eugenics debate has been understudied. Looking at provinces that had an active eugenics movement irrespective of the legislative outcomes allows us to better see the presence and place of eugenic ideology within early twentieth-century Canadian society. Manitoba presents us with a particularly good case study because in contrast to provinces that have received much scholarly scrutiny, such as Alberta, the process was not controlled by a small number of individuals.³ Rather, as this chapter demonstrates, the debate in Manitoba was open and allowed for the engagement of broad swathes of society, including medical professionals and religious groups. Within the political realm, the legislative vote in Manitoba was not whipped, as it was in Alberta, and individual members of the legislative assembly were able to split with their party and vote according to their own beliefs. Thus, in Manitoba it is possible to more accurately see the specific beliefs of individuals and groups and analyze the arguments they mustered for and against eugenics legislation. By doing so, we can better understand how eugenics and sterilization were viewed by different strata of society in the interwar Canadian West.

The study of the eugenics movement in Canada has unfortunately not received as much attention from historians as would be appropriate given the long-term social, legal, and medical reverberations to which it has led, but this is changing. Historians have focused primarily on Alberta’s eugenics program prior to 1945, discussing the implementation of the Sexual Sterilization Act (1928) and placing the eugenics movement in the province within the larger context of social reform movements.⁴ Historians have also shed light on eugenics in the second half of the twentieth century, focusing on Alberta’s long eugenic history, as well as connecting the “old eugenics movement” in Canada with current discussions about reproductive rights and with new reproductive technologies in medicine.⁵ While these scholars have offered important insights into the history of eugenics in Canada, there still remains a strong historiographical need to further address eugenics in other Canadian provinces. As this chapter proposes, adding Manitoba into the history of eugenics in western Canada demonstrates that significant enthusiasm for eugenics existed even in provinces without sexual sterilization legislation. Further, the Manitoba case allows for a better understanding of eugenics and its place in western Canadian society in the early twentieth century.

CANADIAN EUGENICS

Many historians trace the origin of eugenic thought to the ideas of British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–82) and his major work The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.⁶ Although scientists discussed heredity and evolutionary thought before 1859, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection set the foundation for eugenic ideas to emerge later in the nineteenth century.⁷ Any study on eugenics must also begin with a discussion of Francis Galton (1822–1911), Darwin’s cousin and the acclaimed “father of eugenics.” Darwin’s ideas influenced Galton, who was interested in heredity and the “betterment of the human race.”⁸ In 1883, Galton coined the term “eugenics” and described it as “the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had.”⁹ It is important to note that the idea of improving a society’s strength through the selective breeding of its population (“improving stock”) was not a new one, and it can be traced to a period before Galton’s work on eugenics became widespread.¹⁰ Nevertheless, Galton’s ideas gained popularity in many Anglo-Saxon countries, including the United States and Canada, and contributed to the development of eugenics movements there.

The economic, social, and technological developments that occurred at the turn of the twentieth century in Canada led to deep anxieties about the decline in the health and well-being of the nation and the fear of biological degeneration. Concerns over degeneration were linked to the larger international eugenics discourse that sought a biological explanation to problems of modernity.¹¹ Moreover, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a significant number of new non-British immigrants settled in Canada, and many Canadians believed that this influx threatened the social and cultural character of the country. As a result of increased immigration, World War I, and the Great Depression, Canadian politicians, social reformers, and medical professionals became concerned about “mental deficiency” and “feeblemindedness” in their society.¹² In order to assess the mental health status of the country, Canadian psychiatrists Clarence Hincks (1889–1964) and Charles Kirke Clarke (1857–1924) founded the Canadian National Committee for Mental Hygiene (CNCMH) in 1918.¹³ The committee had an extensive mandate, including providing care to soldiers suffering from mental disabilities, but it was also interested in the prevention of mental diseases and “deficiency.”¹⁴ Hincks and Clarke conducted their first mental hygiene survey in Manitoba in 1918, in response to an invitation from the provincial government, and concluded that the province’s institutions were inadequate for the care of the mentally ill.¹⁵ The survey also revealed that the rate of “mental deficiency” in the province was high and recommended segregation in separate institutions or farms as well as eugenic measures.¹⁶ Shortly after, similar surveys were conducted in several other Canadian provinces, and all suggested that the high rates of poverty, crime, and prostitution were linked to “mental deficiency.”¹⁷ The commissions’ findings regarding “mental deficiency” were taken up by social and medical eugenicists in western Canadian provinces, particularly Alberta, and transformed into eugenics legislation.¹⁸ These reformers embraced eugenics because they believed it was scientific and progressive and, more importantly, that it provided a new approach to explaining many of Canada’s social problems, including poverty, alcoholism, and crime.

MANITOBA’S STERILIZATION DEBATE: THE SUPPORTERS OF EUGENICS LEGISLATION

The provincial government in Manitoba had been concerned about “feeblemindedness” and “mental deficiency” in the province since its request for the mental hygiene survey, yet it was not until 1933 that it seriously considered sterilization as a solution to “mental deficiency.”¹⁹ Hoey introduced the sterilization bill following pressure from the medical community, particularly psychiatrists, who believed that Manitoba needed to improve the care of those suffering with mental conditions. At the same time, medical professionals viewed “mental defectives” as a serious threat to the future of society because of the supposed heritability of their condition.²⁰ Psychiatrists called for sterilization measures in order to reduce the numbers of “mental defectives” in institutions.²¹ The activities and arguments of psychiatrists were connected to the problem of professionalization of psychiatry during the interwar period. As sociologist David MacLennan points out, psychiatrists “urged the state to assume a greater role in the treatment of social problems and, by making a case for the value of their specialized knowledge, they were able to position themselves squarely between the state and the social problems.”²² Eugenics proved to be one of the ways in which their expertise could be utilized, and it provided them with the opportunity to assert, maintain, and extend their authority and advance their professional interests.²³

The fear of the “mentally defective” in Manitoba was exacerbated by the findings of the 1918 mental hygiene survey conducted by the CNCMH. The Manitoba survey found that the provincial institutions were not only overcrowded, underfunded, and understaffed but also lacked qualified personnel and adequate treatments.²⁴ What is more, the institutions were allegedly overrun with “defective classes.”²⁵ These concerns were taken up by psychiatrists in Manitoba, particularly Alvin Trotter Mathers (1888–1960), who argued that “mental deficiency” and “feeblemindedness” were significant issues that required prompt response from the province. For example, Mathers recommended that the government implement legislation “establishing registration, care, training commitment, parole and discharge and community supervision of the feeble minded.”²⁶

The Mental Deficiency Act of 1933 was a direct response to Mathers’s recommendations. With their concerns over “mental deficiency,” psychiatrists in Manitoba placed pressure on the provincial government to deal with this supposed issue. While those deemed to be “mentally defective” were segregated in institutions such as the Portage la Prairie School for Mental Defectives, the overcrowding in these institutions, together with the economic downturn in the late 1920s and early 1930s, led medical professionals to lobby the Manitoba government for radical eugenic measures such as sterilization.

In their lobbying efforts, medical professionals framed their concerns within an economic context in order to enlist support of politicians, arguing that eugenic measures would save the province a significant amount of money.²⁷ For instance, psychiatrist Thomas G. B. Caunt argued that if the number of “mental defectives” continued to increase across the country, more resources would need to be spent on mental institutions, stating requirements of “$3,500,000 for buildings and equipment, and an annual maintenance charge of $650,000. This meant an additional expense of over $4,000,000 in 1931.”²⁸ Similarly, Byron M. Unkauf (1905–83) focused on the issue of cost. He argued that measures needed to be taken in order to deal with the extreme overcrowding of the mental hospitals and that Manitoba taxpayers should not have to spend money to support these institutions. He claimed that “taxpayers spend annually, twice the amount of money, approximately to care for these people, as for the provincial university for higher education.”²⁹ Unkauf clearly believed that public funds should be spent elsewhere, particularly in areas that would benefit the middle class. Focusing on the economy was an effective strategy especially during the years of the Great Depression, when the provincial government needed to cut spending. Similar to other Prairie provinces, Manitoba was hit hard by the Depression as grain prices collapsed, but its diverse economy and fiscally conservative government enabled the province to remain solvent during the economic recession. Nevertheless, the government’s strategy led to significant cuts to various services, including public works programs.³⁰

Aside from making an economic argument, medical professionals also used the open debate setting to their advantage to “inform” the public of the necessity of the sterilization procedure on humanitarian grounds. For example, Unkauf was an active member of the community and, according to the Winnipeg Tribune, during 1933 organized several meetings in Winnipeg at which to speak about sterilization. Unkauf believed that the public’s opinion was important and that they needed to hear the arguments for and against sterilization. According to the Winnipeg Tribune, the presentations would be unbiased and Unkauf was interested only in “imparting information.”³¹ Unfortunately, the newspaper did not report on the full content of these meetings; therefore, it is difficult to determine what information was made public. Yet if Unkauf’s meetings were anything like his published articles, then he clearly had an agenda to sway public opinion in favour of involuntary sterilization. In the article “The Sterilization of the Mental Defective,” Unkauf argued that provincial governments needed to speed up the process of sterilization because “intelligent, healthy and useful families are becoming smaller, while irresponsible, diseased and mentally defective families are becoming larger and larger.”³² This was a common argument made by eugenicists who claimed that “defective” genes were the main result of “mental deficiency” and that even if these individuals had “normal” children, those children would still suffer due to lack of care from the “defective” parents.³³

During the Law Amendments Committee hearings, physician Frederick Wilbur Jackson (1888–1958) and psychiatrist Henry Sheridan Atkinson (1901–65) informed the committee about the sterilization procedure. The Northwest Review and the Winnipeg Free Press summarized the arguments made by Jackson and Atkinson. Both doctors pointed out that sterilization was necessary because it would decrease the number of “feebleminded” individuals in the province. While Atkinson admitted that the procedure was not a “cure-all,” it would nevertheless “go a long way in reducing the number of hereditary cases.”³⁴ Additionally, Atkinson and Jackson made arguments on humanitarian grounds, suggesting that sterilization would be beneficial to the “feebleminded” individual. For example, they claimed that the procedure would reduce the number of “feebleminded” persons in institutions and would allow them to freely participate in society.³⁵ Historian Angus McLaren has pointed out that many sterilization proponents across Canada believed that the procedure would benefit the “abnormal individual” in that it would allow them to leave mental institutions and have more freedom instead of being segregated from the rest of the society.³⁶ The opinion of psychiatric and medical experts was important in the debates and discussions over Manitoba’s sterilization clause. Not only did medical professionals inform the committee and the public of their position regarding sterilization, but they were also instrumental in framing the Mental Deficiency Act.

Hoey’s introduction of the sterilization bill must be understood within the context of the economic downturn during the 1930s and the pressure exerted by medical professionals on the provincial government. Hoey cited two main reasons for the introduction of the sterilization clause, according to the Winnipeg Free Press, which echoed the arguments of the province’s physicians: “that the cost to the province incurred by families of hereditary mental deficiency was tremendous” and that the procedure was necessary for humanitarian reasons as “nothing was more tragic and pitiful than the spectacle of an imbecile mother with her offspring.”³⁷ In her study on eugenics in California, historian Alexandra Minna Stern connects sterilization to the wider history of public health, suggesting that eugenicists often presented sterilization as “protection” of both state resources and society. In other words, sterilization would save the state money by ensuring that fewer “mentally defective” individuals were born, and it would also allow patients to be discharged from mental institutions since their ability to reproduce would been removed.³⁸

Sterilization as “protection” could also be extended to the second part of Hoey’s argument, dealing with the humanitarian aspect of the procedure. Sterilization would allegedly “protect” “imbecile” women from pregnancy and from the burden of parenthood.³⁹ As historian Wendy Klein has demonstrated, from the 1910s onward, eugenicists became increasingly interested in female sexuality and behaviour, especially because women were seen as the reproducers of the future. As a result, eugenicists differentiated between women who would preserve the “race”—primarily those who were white and middle class—and those deemed “unfit” who would destroy it.⁴⁰ It is evident from Hoey’s humanitarian argument that he believed some women should be prevented from having children.

The fact that the education minister employed arguments similar to those of the province’s psychiatrists demonstrates the effectiveness of the latter’s claims in support of eugenics legislation. Seeking eugenics legislation for humanitarian reasons was a common approach among eugenicists and bringing an economic perspective into discussions of the benefits of sterilization was particularly effective. During the economic depressions of the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Manitoba government welcomed any measures that would allow it to reduce spending, particularly in provincial mental hospitals. However, despite significant enthusiasm for eugenics, the proposed sterilization bill faced much opposition.

MANITOBA’S STERILIZATION DEBATE: OPPOSITION TO EUGENICS LEGISLATION

Hoey’s bill sparked serious discussions about the morality of sterilization, the necessity of the procedure, and the credibility of the science behind eugenics. While significant support for eugenics existed among medical professionals in Manitoba, the most vocal group opposing sexual sterilization was the Roman Catholics. A number of church leaders in the province presented the views of their communities to the lawmakers during the 1933 sterilization debates. In doing so, they played an important role in the public discussions and debates over the sterilization bill. Primarily, Catholics argued that sterilization was immoral because it took away an individual’s dignity and bodily integrity, and secondly, they attacked eugenics on scientific grounds, arguing that sterilization policies were based on flawed science.

The Catholic opposition to eugenics has been discussed by a number of historians, including McLaren, Erika Dyck, Sebastien Normandin, and, more recently, Alex Deighton, yet it is an area in Canadian historiography that still requires further study. We know from these scholars that Roman Catholics were the most active in opposing eugenics legislation; however, little has been written about their activism in this respect. McLaren credits the Catholic opposition, among other factors, for averting the passage of sterilization bills in provinces east of Alberta. He suggests that in areas where Catholics composed a significant portion of the population such negative eugenics measures could not flourish, and even in provinces with a strong Catholic minority, such as Manitoba and Ontario, sterilization bills were defeated.⁴¹ While it is true that Catholics tended to be the most ardent opponents of sexual sterilization policies—and certainly played an important part in eugenics debates—a closer examination of local political and social contexts is necessary to gain better insight into why sterilization bills passed in some provinces but not others.⁴² In his work on Québec, Normandin paints a more complex picture of Catholic resistance in that province by suggesting that while the church doctrine opposed any measure that limited reproduction, it had little to say about positive eugenics. In addition, he shows that the resistance to eugenics came primarily from French-speaking Catholics who objected on cultural and religious grounds.⁴³ Dyck provides a sample of the Roman Catholic opinion on eugenics in the province of Saskatchewan through an analysis of a Catholic newspaper, the Prairie Messenger. She shows that the newspaper’s approach to eugenics was sometimes softened, particularly in its response to marriage of those deemed to be “mentally defective.” At other times, it stuck strictly to the Catholic doctrine.⁴⁴

Historians studying Catholicism and eugenics in the United States have shown that opinions varied, even among Catholic clergy, regarding eugenics particularly before 1930. Some voiced strong opposition, while some accepted positive eugenics, and others joined eugenics organizations such as the American Eugenics Society.⁴⁵ Prior to 1930, there was no official Catholic position on eugenics; that is, the Vatican did not officially comment on the issues until Pope Pius XI’s (1857–1939) encyclical letter, Casti connubii, of December 1930. As historian Christine Rosen points out, the lack of an official Catholic position allowed Catholic leaders to form their own arguments about eugenics, but these were often carved out with church doctrine in mind: specifically, race improvement was a good thing but the means to achieve it must be legitimate.⁴⁶ What all of this suggests is that Catholicism was not monolithic. Catholics had varied views on a number of social issues, including eugenics, that were often shaped by particular local circumstances.

Roman Catholics had been engaged in debates about eugenics since the late nineteenth century but it was not until the 1920s and 1930s, at the peak of the eugenics movement, that they became vocal in resisting it.⁴⁷ Eugenics challenged the Catholic doctrine because, as historian Nancy Stepan explains, eugenics “attacked the rights of individuals within marriage, deformed what the church believed was the proper function of sexuality, and perverted the moral sense of the human species.”⁴⁸ In other words, the goal of eugenicists to limit reproduction through sterilization ran counter to the Catholic doctrine, plus Catholics opposed the practice because it violated an individual’s bodily integrity. Further, it led to “mutilation” of the body and interfered with procreation. Catholics only permitted such intervention for therapeutic reasons.⁴⁹ Some Catholics were also concerned about the scientific credibility of eugenics. In the 1920s, geneticists were already questioning the credibility of eugenics as a science, acknowledging that heredity is complex and is not as simple as the eugenicists claimed (see also chapter 2 by Douglas Wahlsten). The geneticists’ conclusions about heredity were also based on rigorous research and not on broad conclusions influenced by racial, ethnic, and class prejudices. With the growing critique of eugenics, many Catholics felt confident that they could successfully challenge the arguments in favour of eugenic measures.⁵⁰

While Catholics engaged in multiple discussions about eugenics, a single issue created the largest division between them and the movement: sterilization. The Catholic disapproval of sterilization, or any other contraceptives, was not new; for instance, Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) condemned sterilization in 1895, calling it immoral.⁵¹ The church then remained silent on the issue of sterilization and eugenics until 1930, when Pope Pius XI issued a papal encyclical on Christian marriage, Casti connubii. The decree was issued in response to social, cultural, and economic changes in the early 1900s. The Catholic Church regarded traditional gender roles and the sanctity of marriage as being under threat from these changes. While the encyclical covered a number of subjects, the sections that stood out for most Catholics dealt with eugenics:

For there are some who, over solicitous of the cause of eugenics, not only give salutary counsel for more certainly procuring the strength and health of the future child—which, indeed, is not contrary to right reason—but put eugenics before the aim of a higher order, and by public authority wish to prevent from marrying all those who, even though naturally fit for marriage, they consider, according to the norms and conjectures of their investigations, would, through hereditary transmission, bring forth defective offspring. And more, they wish to legislate to deprive these of that natural faculty by medical action despite their unwillingness. . . . Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reason of eugenics or for any other reason.⁵²

The encyclical essentially affirmed the Catholic position on sterilization: namely, that the procedure conflicted with Catholic doctrine because it interfered with reproduction and that it unnecessarily encroached upon an individual’s God-given rights. The above passage suggests that while the Catholic Church still believed in human betterment and in having healthy children, it rejected the methods eugenicists employed, especially sterilization and, later, birth control. The papal statement provided Catholics a clear position on a number of issues including marriage, divorce, birth control, and eugenics; second, it questioned the role of the state in the eugenics movement and its power over the bodies of its citizens; third, as historian Sharon Leon notes, “the far-reaching teaching raised questions of the proper relationship between the church and state with respect to marriage and reproduction.”⁵³ Having the support of the church authority behind them, many Catholics were motivated to continue their fight against eugenics and particularly against involuntary sexual sterilization.

Roman Catholics in Manitoba were particularly active in their opposition to the sterilization bill. During the early months of 1933, members of the legislative assembly and Premier John Bracken (Progressive, The Pas, 1883–1969) received letters and petitions from constituents protesting the proposed legislation and urging their political representatives to vote against the bill. Catholics in the province presented their perspectives on eugenics theory and sterilization through letters, petitions, publications, letters to the editor in local newspapers, and Law Amendments Committee hearings, as well as within their communities. The majority of the documents sent to the provincial government were written by Catholic officials on behalf of their parishioners, and these arrived primarily from French-speaking communities. Some of the letters were written as basic protests to the introduction of the sterilization clause while others were much more detailed. For example, a number of the writers opposed eugenics legislation because they believed it to be immoral, as it violated an individual’s integrity; others challenged the science behind the eugenics theory, pointing to studies that disproved eugenicists’ claims.

In a letter to the editor of the Winnipeg Tribune, F. W. Russell, chair of the Council of Catholic Action, objected to sterilization on scientific grounds: “I see you declare that Mr. Hoey’s sterilization bill ‘embodies results of extensive study and observation.’ I wonder!” He pointed out that “the British Medical Association . . . declared that incidence of mental deficiency would not be decreased to any degree worth considering by sterilization.”⁵⁴ In other words, Russell accused the provincial government of being ill informed on the issue of sterilization, and by citing the British Medical Association, he brought in “expert knowledge” to refute the eugenicists’ claims.⁵⁵ Similarly, Reverend Wilfrid L. Jubinville (1872–1946) from Saint Boniface wrote to Premier Bracken in protest to the sterilization bill: “It is an acknowledged fact that mental deficiency proceeds . . . from social plagues such as alcoholism, tuberculosis, syphilis. . . . That such vices do affect normal parents as well as abnormal ones, is obvious. . . . This being the case sterilization would be no cure.”⁵⁶ Jubinville also relied on the arguments made by the British Medical Association that focused on environmental causes of “mental deficiency” and suggested that the majority of those diagnosed as “mentally defective” had “normal” parents. Therefore, sterilization would not lead to human betterment. As historian Garland Allen demonstrates, in their critique of eugenics, some contemporary scientists suggested that “even if genetic factors might be involved in leading to certain social or mental conditions, it would make far more sense to search out the social components involved, since those could be changed more readily.” In other words, rather than arguing that poverty, alcoholism, criminality, and “mental deficiency” were the results of “defective” genes, it would be easier to solve those problems through social reform.⁵⁷ Leon has pointed out that scientific objections presented by the Catholic clergy to a lay audience were much more successful in casting doubt on eugenicists’ claims than those made by scientists and medical professionals. By making secular arguments against eugenics, Catholic officials could mobilize a large group of people, sometimes even non-Catholics, and speak on their behalf.⁵⁸

A number of Catholic representatives wrote letters to Premier Bracken objecting to sterilization on moral grounds. For example, the rector of St. Boniface College, Reverend F. Faure, objected on the following grounds: first, “the Government has no authority to impose mutilation against innocent persons nor have individuals any right to accept it”; and second, “that part of the Bill will be the cause of many moral evils much more serious than those it is called to cure, not to speak of the social evils.”⁵⁹ Essentially, Faure argued that no law should give the government the power to violate the body of an individual, and that no individual should be forced to accept such an intrusion. Moreover, he argued that the sterilization clause would not solve the social problems that eugenicists connected with “deficiency,” namely, prostitution, criminality, and poverty. The Winnipeg Tribune published an anonymous letter to the editor—signed by “A Seeker of Truth”—that argued that the right to one’s integrity is at stake when a state introduces policies such as sterilization and that an individual’s “rights and privileges are to be protected by the state instead of being sacrificed at random,” or for the public good.⁶⁰ Likewise, J. H. Daignault, secretary of the Association d’education des Canadiens-français du Manitoba, wrote on behalf of the association that “in view of the important moral principles involved in this rather hurried move, we as a body, beg to protest very emphatically against it and we earnestly hope that the bill may not be urged further.”⁶¹ Daignault implied that the government’s introduction of the sterilization bill was rushed and that perhaps they had not considered the moral side of the issue. Similar views were expressed by Reverend Antoine d’Éschambault (1896–1960), who accused the provincial government of not consulting Catholics on this issue even though they were aware that Catholics would object on moral grounds. What is more, d’Éschambault believed that the representatives in the legislature had misled their Catholic voters by suggesting that they had no intention of introducing a sterilization clause; this he called a “true calumny.”⁶²

In Manitoba, sterilization was clearly a significant issue for Catholics, who put forward important arguments in the debate over the proposed sterilization clause. Catholics were effective in framing their arguments against sterilization. They did not only oppose the procedure because it ran counter to Christian principles; they also questioned the science behind eugenic theory. The approach of the province’s Catholic clergy was much broader because they realized that Catholics would not likely be the only group to oppose the sterilization clause.⁶³

MANITOBA’S STERILIZATION DEBATE: THE VIEWS OF THE POLITICIANS

The political climate in Manitoba during the 1920s and 1930s allowed for an open debate on the eugenics issue. By 1933, the province was led by a Liberal-Progressive coalition government under Premier Bracken (1883–1969). Bracken believed in non-partisanship, businesslike administration, and coalition governments. This governing philosophy, which became known as Brackenism, informed Bracken’s approach in all areas of politics.⁶⁴ Controversial legislation was particularly problematic for the Bracken administration, which consistently sought unity and was sensitive to policies that could generate intense minority opposition. While eugenics policy was in line with the progressive mindset of the administration, it was at odds with its consensus-driven approach to governing. Therefore, when the government put section 30 of the Mental Deficiency Act to a vote in the legislature, the MLAs were given a free vote.

Once Hoey had introduced the Mental Deficiency Act in the legislature, it was subjected to immediate opposition from several members of the legislative assembly, including Albert Préfontaine (Liberal-Progressive, Carillion, 1861–1935), who called for the sterilization section to be removed. In response, Hoey argued that the province needed such a measure because of the rising costs of running the mental institutions and for humanitarian reasons. More importantly, Hoey believed that such a measure would benefit the individual affected.⁶⁵ Other members of the House did not necessarily support or oppose the clause; instead, many were unsure whether the province needed such a measure and wanted Hoey to provide additional information about the bill before they were required to vote on it.⁶⁶ It is unclear what other information the MLAs were asking from Hoey or whether he provided them with it.

The MLAs who opposed the legislation did so due to religion, pressure from constituents, or uncertainty over the bill. Those who supported it did so for economic and humanitarian reasons. Once the MLAs started their debate, John A. Munn (Liberal-Progressive, Dufferin, 1882–1941) stated that if the sterilization section was not removed, he would “move an amendment that it will not apply to Roman Catholics.”⁶⁷ Similarly, Nicholas V. Bachynsky (Liberal-Progressive, Fischer, 1887–1969) stated that he not only objected on religious grounds, but also questioned the proponents’ claims that linked heredity and “mental deficiency.”⁶⁸ Harold F. Lawrence (Labour, Saint Boniface, b. 1887) also opposed the bill on religious grounds. He pointed out that while he was not a Roman Catholic, the majority of his constituents were of Roman Catholic faith. They had presented him with many letters urging him to vote against the clause, which he said he would. Lawrence also stated that the House must remember that Manitoba was home to two hundred thousand Roman Catholics and that their opinions needed to be considered.⁶⁹ As noted above, Catholic clergy and lay Catholics were active members of the campaign against sterilization and presented both theological and secular arguments in challenging the proposed bill.

Other members of the legislative assembly stated that they were divided between two opposing viewpoints. For example, Seymour James Farmer (Labour, Winnipeg, 1878–1951) told the House that while some arguments for sterilization had strength, he was “suspicious” of others. He believed that the sterilization measure was being used as a “short cut” to solve a “mental deficiency” rather than focusing on what caused the “problem” in the first place. Moreover, Farmer stated that he was “becoming more and more convinced that a great deal of mental deficiency was due to conditions of environment.”⁷⁰ In other words, in order to understand the causes of “mental deficiency” it was necessary to focus on factors beyond heredity. As Allen has noted, eugenicists faced criticism from the scientific community, including scientists Leonard Darwin (1850–1943) and Alexander Carr-Saunders (1886–1966), who argued that too much emphasis was placed on the heritability of “mental deficiency” without significant evidence.⁷¹ Much like Farmer, Conservative MLA Ralph Humphreys Webb (Assiniboia, 1886–1945) told the House that he knew little about sterilization but that after consulting with experts he did not think it would “provide the remedy its sponsors hoped for.” Additionally, he argued that “scientific information was not complete. . . . There was not enough authoritative information available . . . to give intelligent consideration to the matter.”⁷² What this suggests is that the arguments presented by eugenicists were not convincing enough to sway Farmer and Webb to support the sterilization bill. Too many unanswered questions remained about the supposed benefits of sterilization, and for Webb and Farmer this was enough reason to object to the clause.

The legislative representatives who were convinced by the medical opinion that “mental deficiency” was a significant problem in the province voiced their views in favour of the sterilization clause. For example, Douglas Lloyd Campbell (Liberal-Progressive, Lakeside, 1895–1995) cited economic and humanitarian reasons for his support of the bill. He argued that the sterilization procedure would ensure that the province did not have to build any more mental institutions and therefore would save resources. More important for Campbell was the humanitarian reason. He had allegedly visited the provincial institutions and “had seen mentally defective children condemned to a life of misery, which this bill could eliminate.”⁷³ Specifically, sterilization would allow those deemed “mentally defective” to be discharged from institutions, but more importantly, it was believed that it would prevent them from passing their “defect” to the next generation. Similarly, Marcus Hyman (Labour, Winnipeg, 1883–1938) argued that while the religious opinion must be respected, he favoured sterilization. He suggested that the opposition had nothing to fear, especially because the procedure required the consent of the patient or their guardian. Instead, he suggested, the opposition needed to consider the benefits of the legislation.⁷⁴ Lastly, Premier Bracken voiced his view on this issue, stating that while he supported the clause, he was aware that many objected to it on religious grounds. Further, he would not force members to vote for it or to force the bill through with so much opposition.⁷⁵ The fact that the vote on the sterilization bill was not whipped is significant. This meant that MLAs did not have to follow the voting intentions of their party but were free to vote based on their own beliefs.

After serious debate in the legislature, the bill was defeated in a very close vote of 20 to 21.⁷⁶ This outcome illustrated five points. First, since Bracken was leading a coalition government, he was clearly aware that there were various perspectives on the topic of eugenics within the party and therefore could not risk pushing through controversial legislation. Instead, the subject of sterilization of “mental defectives” was debated in public and MLAs were given a free vote on the bill. Second, the legislative result also points to the importance of medical professionals and Roman Catholics in the debate over sexual sterilization. Their arguments likely swayed those legislative representatives who were “on the fence” about the issue, such as Farmer and Webb. While some of the MLAs, such as Campbell and Hyman, supported the proposed sterilization legislation, citing societal and economic benefits, others objected primarily on religious grounds, whether for their own religious reasons or on behalf of their constituents. Third, not all of the MLAs voted against eugenics legislation because they were pressured by their constituents to do so. Others would not vote for it because of their own conscience. Fourth, for members such as Farmer, the claims regarding the benefits of sterilization were unconvincing; he did not think that sterilization would solve the supposed problem of “mental deficiency.” He was likely not the only one to vote against the clause for this reason. Lastly, the result suggested that there was significant support for eugenic measures in Manitoba and that the province was very close to following the footsteps of Alberta and British Columbia in implementing a eugenics program.

CONCLUSION

The controversial sterilization section of Manitoba’s Mental Deficiency Act produced many debates within the legislature and in communities across the province. The claims of medical professionals that the legislation was needed for economic and humanitarian reasons were effective in influencing the provincial government to introduce the clause in the first place. The politicians who supported the bill did so for similar reasons. On the other side, Roman Catholics objected to the sterilization section on theological and scientific grounds, arguing not only that was sterilization immoral but that eugenics was based on a simple understanding of heredity. The fact that both pro- and anti-sterilization groups were encouraged to voice their views in a public debate is important because it shows that the provincial government recognized the controversial nature of the proposed bill. This is further evident by the fact of the non-whip political process on this issue, which allowed MLAs to freely vote based on their own views. This overview of the sterilization debate in Manitoba demonstrates that the lack of legislation did not necessarily mean that there was a lack of enthusiasm for eugenic measures. Furthermore, the fact that Manitoba never implemented a formal eugenics program has meant that historians have overlooked its eugenics history. The sterilization debate of 1933 illustrates that Manitobans did in fact engage with eugenic discourse. By understanding the various perspectives on sexual sterilization held by individuals and groups in the province, we gain a better insight into the history of eugenics in the Canadian West.