NORTH-VVEST TERRITORIES ACT—THE
DUAL LANGUAGE.
Mr. MCCARTHY moved for leave to introduce
Bill (No. 10) to amend the North-West Territories
Act. He said: In introducing this Bill I think
that perhaps it might be as well that I should
offer some explanation, though I do not think that
any defence or apology is called for on my part in
bringing this matter before the House. It is, however, necessary that there should
be some explanation, because it must occur to us all that it is
most extraordinary that in the North-West Territories, and so long ago as 1877 an
Act should have
been passed in this Parliament whereby the dual
language was imposed upon the Territories; of
course without any consent of theirs, because at
that time there was practically no people in the
Territories to assent, or consent, or dissent from the
proposition. I think it is also requiring of explanation, not, as I say, to move for
a repeal of this
clause, but to give some account of how and why it
is we find this clause in the North-West Territories Act. Now, the history of the
matter, as I
understand it, is this: I think it was a year or
two, or perhaps three or four years, before the Act
was passed to which I am about to refer more in
detail, that the North-West Territories were constituted, or, at all events, brought
under some kind
or form of government—during the time my hon.
friend the Prime Minister who now leads the
Government and the House was also in the position
he occupies to-day. In 1877, however, when my
hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) was Minister
of the Interior in the Administration of the hon.
member for East York (Mr. Mackenzie), he brought
in a Bill to amend the North-West Territories Act,
but that Bill as it was introduced into this House
did not contain the clause with regard to the
dual language which I now propose that
the House should expunge. The Bill went
in due course to the Senate, and in the Senate
it was amended by the introduction of this clause;
and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there
appears to have been no objection made in that
body to the clause, which was introduced, as I am
told, by an hon. Senator at the instance of the
then leader of the Government in that House, the
Hon. Mr. Scott. I do not pretend to vouch for
that, but I am so credibly informed. I rather
think that that cannot be true, however, because
when the Bill reached this House with these
amendments, and concurrence in them was called
for, my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills)
seemed to be surprised at the introduction of
this articular clause, and expressed his regret at
it. have extracted from
Hansard what said
on that subject, and I can hardly imagine that his
39
[COMMONS] 40
surprise was feigned, or that his astonishment was
not expressed in perfect good faith. Speaking of
the amendment, the hon. member for Bothwell is
reported to have said:
"One of them, he stated, provided for the publication
of the proceedings of the North-West Council in English
and French, and for the use of both languages in the
courts. They had thought that this was a matter which
had better be left to the Council in question. He regretted that the amendment had
been made, but it would be
impossible to get the measure through at this late period
in the Session, unless the amendments were accepted.
The action taken by the Senate would add very considerably to the expense. Almost
every one in that art of
the country spoke Cree, though some spoke, in addition,
English or French, and, if the proceedings were to
published in the most prevalent language, Cree should be
chosen for the purpose."
With these observations the amendments were
concurred in without any objections being made,
so far as I have been able to see, by any hon. member on the floor of this House;
and I was either
present or ought to have been present, and I therefore share in the blame attachable
to the proceedings on that occasion. Then, I think it was in the
year 1880, this North-West Territories Act was
again dealt with, and again we find this clause,
which I venture to call an objectionable clause;
and I believe that on that occasion also it was
passed through both Houses of Parliament without
objection being made by any hon. member on either
side of the House. And finally last Session, in
the proposition submitted to us by the Government
in the Bill then brought down, the same clause is
to be found; and although the Bill did not advance
very far, so far as it did go, no objection appears
to have been made to the clause. Now, Sir, all
this may appear, perhaps, to form some good
reason against the proposition I have now the
honor to make. I venture to think, however, that
that is not so. The enactment in question is as
follows:—
"Either the English or the French language maybe
used by any person in the debates of the said Council, and
in the proceedings before the courts, and both those languages shall be used in the
records and journals of the
said Council, and the ordinances of the said Council shall
be printed in both those languages."
Now, I venture to say that if a constitution were
framed for a new country, it would never occur to
any person to do so foolish a thing as to stipulate
for two official languages. I venture to think that,
with the knowledge which there is on the subject
at this time, it never would occur to any person
that it was a proper thing to create or perpetuate,
as the case might be, two official languages; and
yet practically that was what was done in that
North-West Act. What is the explanation, Mr.
Speaker, of this extraordinary piece of legislation,
which appears to have been assented to by the
House on three or four different occasions without
objection on the part of any one? It is not to be
found in the Treaty of Cession, although a very
large number of persons seem to be under the
impression that by the treaty negotiated at the
time this country was ceded to the British Crown,
the right of the nguage was guaranteed to the
French. As I say—and the fact cannot be too
widely known or too often repeated—that is not
so. The mistake is one which very generally prevails; and on looking at articles on
this subject—
articles by very learned men—I have been surprised that this statement has been very
generally
made and very generally accepted. But there is
not a word to be found in the treaty or in the
Articles of Cession anywhere by which the
language was guaranteed to the conquered French.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Ceded, my hon. friend says,
although I venture to think the other expression
is the more correct. But there is not a word to be
found either at the time of the cession or conquest,
or whatever it may be called, which gives any
ground for the statement that the language was
guaranteed to the French inhabitants of this country. Nor is it to be found in the
Act known as
the Quebec Act. That Act went a good deal
further than the treaty, as we all know. The treaty
guaranteed to the French people their religion, and
that so far as the laws of Great Britain permitted;
but the Quebec Act went much further. It restored to them their laws—the civil laws
to which
they had been accustomed; and it restored to their
church certain rights and privileges which are enjoyed to this day; but it dealt not
with this question
of language. Well, the next stage would be perhaps in 1791, when the Province of Lower
Canada
was constituted; and at the time of the constitution of that Province the language
was not dealt
with either; though very shortly afterwards, it is
perfectly true as an historical fact, the French
members of the Assembly then constituted did
claim the right, and enforced the right, to use their
language; and I believe the proceedings were carried on in both languages in that
Assembly—however, not by any statute law, or by anything more
than a resolution of the Assembly, which had a
perfect right to so resolve and so act. Well, we
come down to the time of the Rebellion and the
Real Union of the Provinces in 1840 by the Act of
that date; and there, so far from the language being allowed to the French, as we
all
know, consequent on the report of Lord Durham,
who was sent out here to investigate the causes of
the Rebellion—a report which was recognised on
all hands as a most statesmanlike document—that
in Lower Canada, at any rate, it was more a
trouble of race than that of alleged misgovernment, a clause was introduced into the
Union Act
of 1841 by which the use of the French languagewas
absolutely prohibited instead of being permitted.
So that the first piece of legislation we have on the
subject is a clause prohibiting the use of the
French language. That was followed in the Parliament of the United Provinces by an
Address
to the Crown, passed unanimously, I think, in
1844, asking for the repeal of that clause, and accordingly, in 1848, that clause
in the Union Act
was repealed. Now, Sir, I come down to 1867, to
the time of the British North America. Act, and
there we find that the dual languages are for the
first time permitted by legislative enactment; but
the permission is restricted to this Parliament and
to the Assembly and Legislative Council of the
Province of Quebec. It is not at all intended by
that Act, from anything to be gathered from it,
that the use of the dual languages is to be permitted in any of the other Provinces,
much less inÂ
any Province which did not even then belong to
Canada, and which were acquired afterward; when
the Hudson Bay Company sold us their, territory
of Rupert's Land, by which that great country
passed under the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, there was no legislative warrant for
the use
41 [JANULRY 22, 1890.] 42
of the French language in that territory in any
sense, and it is based and founded, if founded
at all, simply on the will of Parliament,
and it ought, therefore, to be based on
some good and sufficient reason. Now, is it,
or is it not, a matter of importance that the
dual language or the additional French language
should be permitted—I will not say permitted
—should be encouraged and fostered throughout
the Dominion of Canada? If it is a matter of
no importance—and so, perhaps, it was considered at the time—of course the motion
I am
making to Parliament, the Bill I have had the
honor to ask leave to introduce, is an unnecessary
measure, and will no doubt be so received and
dealt with by this House. But in my judgment it
is by no means an unimportant matter. On the
contrary, I think, and I assert here in my place in
Parliament, that there is no more important matter in the formation of the character
of a people
than the language that they speak, and, after all
said and done, I think it will be found that nations
and races are distinguished and are distinctive
more by reason of the language they speak than by
the blood which is common to or supposed to be
common to them all.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I think it would be found
upon an investigation of the subject, and I will
appeal to the very closest investigation upon the
subject, that this is the well-known and accepted
truth. My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills)
refers to Switzerland or to the Swiss. When the
proper time comes for the discussion of this Bill,
that will certainly be a proper illustration to be dealt
with; but I think my hon. friend would not, even
if his view were correct, adopt the rule from the
exception. Everyone knows that the use of several languages in Switzerland is an exception
to
the general rule, and should not be adopted as the
general rule.
Mr. MCCARTHY. My hon. friends laugh, and
I hope, when the proper time comes, they will
justify their laughter by something more than
sneers. Before I sit down I will fortify my statement by an authority whose opinions
I believe will
be accepted, and certainly cannot be gainsaid. If,
then, as I assert, it is an important matter in the
great question of national life, I would ask my
hon. friends in this House what we are assembled
here for if not for the purpose of promoting
national unity and building up a great country in
the enormous territory we have under our control?
Is not that the grandest and greatest object that
has been entrusted to us as the representatives
of a people; and towards that great object are we
dealing truly if we are sowin the seeds of dissensions and of future trouble by legislation
of this
kind.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Mr. MCCARTHY. My hon. friends perhaps will
allow me to proceed quietly because there will be
a full opportunity of debating this subject, and
then I hope there will be a fair hearing given to
all opinions in this House. I have a right to my
opinion and I intend to maintain it, notwithstanding what my hon. friends may say.
In my opinion
it is of the greatest importance to endeavor to
make this great country united in fact as we are endeavoring to unite it in substance.
We are spending our means, we have spent enormous sums of
money, we have united the Atlantic to the Pacific
we have spent enormous sums, I say, on the Intercolonial Railway to unite the Maritime
Provinces
with the heart of the Dominion, but what profits it
if, at the same time, we are passing measures and
promoting legislation which separates and divides
the people into two separate races, or which is perpetuating that division; which
is not only permitting it in the Province of Quebec, but in the new
territories belonging to the Dominion. As a matter of
dollars and cents, as a matter of mere money, the
acquisition of the North-West, looked upon as a speculation, has been a loss, and,
except for the purpose
of building up a great nation, which we are willing
to do, there can be no justification for the expenditure, not only in the acquisition
of that great
country, but in the building of those great railways
at enormous expenditure, bringing into the market,
to compete with our farmers, vast quantities of
land, which must diminish the value of the land of
the farmers in the older Provinces, while they are
actually spending their money in the acquisition
of the land which accomplishes this result. The
only object we have had in all this has been to
create on the northern part of this continent a
great nationality, to build up a great country, one
that our descendants would be proud to occupy
and proud to belong to; and that is the only
justification of the procedure which has been
adopted from first to last since the passing of the
Confederation Act. As I stated before, I will read
from a document which I do not think hon. gentlemen will say does not convey a fair
statement
of this question of language. I will read from an
article written by Professor Freeman, in which he
deals with this question in the following words:—
"And now, having ruled that races and nations,though
largely formed by the working of an artificial law, are
still real and living things, groups in which the idea of
kindred is the idea around which everything has grown,
how are we to define cur races and our nations? How
are we to mark them off one from the other? Bearing
in mind the cautions and qualifications which have been
already given, bearing in mind large classes of exceptions which will presently be
spoken of, I say unhesitatingly that for practical purposes there is one test, and
one
only, and that test is language. We may at least apply
the test negatively. It might be unsafe to rule that all
speakers of the same language have a common nationality, but we may safely say that,
where there is not
community of language, there is no common nationality
in the big est sense. As in the teeth of community of
language there may be what for all political purposes are
separate nations, so without community of language
there may be an artificial nationality, a nationality
which may be good for all political purposes, and which
may engender a common national feeling, still, this is
not quite the same thing as that fuller national unity
whic is felt where there is community of language. In
fact, mankind instinctively takes language as the badge
of nationality. We so far take it as the badge that we
instinctively assume community of language as a nation
as the rule, and we set down anything t at departs from
that rule as an exception. The first idea suggested by
the word Frenchman, or German, or any other national
name, is that he is a man who speaks French pr German
as his mother tongue. We take for granted, in the absence of anything to make us think
otherwise, that a
Frenchman is a Speaker of French, and that a Speaker of
French is a Frenchman."
I think that will not be denied as a correct
doctrine, but I will further trouble the House with
a'reference from a man very distinguished in this
branch of science, Professor Muller, who, in his
43
[COMMONS] 44
lectures delivered before at the Oxford University
Extension meeting, says:
"It is said that blood is thicker than water, but it may
be said with even greater truth that language is thicker
than blood. If, in the interior of Africa, surrounded by
black men, whose utterances are utterly unintelligible,
we suddenly met with a man who could speak English,
we should care very little whether he was English, or
Irish, or American. We should understand him and be
able to exchange our thoughts with him. That brings
us together far more closely than if we met a Welshman
speaking nothing but Welsh, or a Scotchman speaking
nothing but Gaelic; or for all that, an Englishman who,
having been brought up in China, could speak nothing
Chinese. A common language is a common bond of intellectual brotherhood, far stronger
than any supposed
or real community of blood. Common blood without a
common language leaves us as perfect strangers.
common language, even without common blood, makes
the whole world feel akin."
Again, speaking of the other question, the question
of race, a subject of very great interest, a subject
which has been pursued by scientific men up to a
recent period, this seems to be the result. The Professor quotes in his lecture from
the Director of
the American Bureau of Ethnology, who says:
"There is a science of anthropology composed of subsidiary sciences. There is a science
of sociology, which
includes all the institutions of mankind. There is a science of philology, which includes
the languages of mankind. And there is a science, philosophy, which includes
the opinions of mankind. But there is no science of
ethnology, for the attempt to classify mankind in groups
has failed on every hand."
There is no such thing as a Celtic skull any
more than a Saxon skull; no such thing as Celtic
hair any more than Saxon hair. It is only by
language and by the community of language, that
men are formed into nations. Finally, speaking of
the whole subject of the science of language, the
professor says:
"These may seem but idle dreams, of little interest to
the practical politician. All I can say is that I wish that
it were so. But my memory reaches back far enough to
make me see the real and lasting mischief for which I
feel the science of language has been responsible for the
last fifty years. The ideas of race and nationality founded on language have taken
such complete possession of
the fancy, both of the young and the old, that all other
arguments seem of no avail. Why was Italy united?
Because the Italian language embodied Italian nationality. Why was Germany united?
Because of Arndt's
song, 'What is the German's Fatherland?' and the answer
given, 'As far as sounds the German tongue.' Why is
Russia so powerful a centre of attraction for the Slavonic
inhabitants of Turkey and Germany? Because the Russian language, even though it is
hardly understood by
Servians, Croatians and the Bulgarians, is known to
most closely allied. Even from the mere cinders of
ancient dialects, such as Welsh, Gaelic and Erse, eloquent
agitators know how to fan a new, sometimes a dangerous,
fire.
I would just add to that an extract from the report of Lord Durham who dealt with
the matter,
not solely from a scientific, but from a practical point of view. When he was sent
here,
as we all know, he was a Liberal of the Liberals, and he was sent here by Lord Melbourne's
Government for the purpose of investigating
the difficulties and ascertaining what caused the
rebellion in both Upper and Lower Canada. I have
nothing to do at the moment with his report with
regard to the Upper Province, but in his report on
the Lower Province, he found the rebellion to be
caused mainly, if not altogether, by race difficulties. Whatever else there was, whatever
other prejudices there were, whatever other causes there
might be, the trouble, when probed to the bottom,
was found to be caused by race difficulties. Now,
it may be said that has nothing to do with language,
but when hon. gentlemen take the trouble to pursue
the subject further they will find that when speaking of race, they mean a community
speaking the
same language. When you talk of a race you will
find, when you investigate the subject, that the
race is made up, not of men of one blood,
but of men who have been adopted into the
race, and there are instances of that in the
Province of Quebec. I would like to know whether
the Highland soldiers Who were disbanded after the
cession have not been received and adopted by
the French Canadians, and are not now considered as
much French Canadians as those who came from
France a hundred years before that time? That
process is going on constantly. Can you distinguish an Englishman who came over at
the time of
the Conquest from an Englishman of three or four
centuries earlier? Or, to come back to more recent
times, is the Frenchman who came over to England
during the time of the troubles, and owing to the
troubles in France, and after a generation or two
changed his name to an English name; is he to be
distinguished from those who have descended from
a long line of English ancestry? It is plain, that
what makes the nation is language; and, therefore, when one speaks of race, as these
distinguished writers have done, they meant a community speaking the same language.
But at the
moment I am not dealing so much with that
question, which I will come to by-and-bye, as with
the particular matter of the difficulties in the
Lower Province, and I will quote again from Lord
Durham's report about this difference of language:
"The difference of language in this respect produces
effects quite apart from those which it has on the mere intercourse of the two races.
Those who have reflected on the
powerful influence of language on thought, will perceive
in how different a manner peeple who speak in different
languages are apt to think; and those who are familiar
with the literature of France, know that the same opinion
will be expressed by an English and French writer of the
present day, not merely in different words, but in style so
different as to make utterly different habits of thought.
This difference is very striking in Lower Canada; it exists,
not merely in the books of most influence and repute,
which are, of course, those of the great writers of France
and England, and by which the minds of the respective
races are formed, but it is observable in the writings
which new issue from the Colonial press. The articles in
the newspapers of each race are written in style as widely
different as those of France and England at present, and
the arguments which convince the one are calculated to
appear utterly unintelligible to the other. The difference
of language produces misconceptions yet more fatal even
than those which it occasions with respect to opinions; it
aggravates the national animosities, by representing all
the events of the day in utterly different light."
Now, I venture to think, I have, at all events to
some extent, made good the proposition which I am
dealing with, that is, that language is of great importance, that it is of vital consequence
to a nation
that the language spoken by its people should be
common to them all, that they should not, at all
events, he encouraged and trained in speaking
different languages.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Alsace and Lorraine seem
to be exceptions to the rule.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to see that my
hon. friend, at one time Minister of the Interior, has
changed his views. He regretted the introduction
of the French language in the North-West Territories at the time he consented to that
amendment,
and I give him credit for good faith in that regret.
Certainly circumstances since have not altered in
favor of the policy which my hon. friend seems now
45 [JANUARY 22, 1890.] 46
to have adopted. But I am glad to see that he
stands firmly by the Bill which he fathered. At
all events, on his part there can be no going back,
and he is not accustomed to change any opinion he
has once entertained. Now, I say, what has been
the result in this country? Let hon. gentlemen
remember that when this country was ceded to the
British Crown there was not more than 60,000 or
65,000 French Canadians—I think that number includes, though I am not quite certain,
those who
dwelt on the banks of the Illinois, and who did not
form a part of what is now the Dominion of Canada.
However that may be, instead of encouraging them in
the use of their language, had a policy been pursued
of inducing them—not by any harsh means at all,
not by any aggravating measures—to speak the
English tongue, I want to know whether to-day,
instead of the difference, the cleavage of race,
which we see going on, and which is
becoming more and more pronounced, and
which is calculated to rend this Dominion in twain,
if some stop is not put to it—I would like to know
whether we would see the spectacle that we see
today? I think it is perfectly plain that we
would not see it. I think no injustice would have
been done, and that in one generation, or in two
at most, my hon. friends that now represent the
Province of Quebec, or their ancestors, would have
been speaking English, and would have been
English in fact, English in sentiment, just as much
as those who have gone to the other side of the line,
no matter what country they come from, whether
from Austria, from Italy, from Germany, or any
other country in Europe, have now become assimilated and form part of the American
people, not
merely in name but in truth and in fact. Well,
it is said that this is a matter of no consequence.
Now, I venture to state that Lord Durham did find
it to be a matter of consequence, and as I am
desirous of convincing my hon. friends, if I
possibly can, I want to give authority for what I
say. I see there is a good deal of feeling on the
subject, more than I should have expected, but I
assume that my hon. friends are open to reason,
and willing to listen to argument. Now, Lord
Durham says in his report again:
"I expected to find a contest between a government
and a people; I found two nations warring in the bosom
of a single state; I found a struggle, not of principle, but
of race: and I perceived that it would be idle to attempt
any amelioration of laws or institutions, until we could
first succeed in terminating the deadly animosity that now
separates the inhabitants of Lower Canada into the hostile divisions of French and
English."
Further down:
"We are ready to believe that the real motive of the
quarrel is something else, and that the difference of
race has slightly and occasionally aggravated dissensions,
which we attribute to some more usual cause. Experience of a state of society, so
unhappily divided as that of
Lower Canada, leads to an exactly contrary opinion.
The national feud forces itself on the very sense, irresistibly and palpably, as the
origin or the essence of every
dispute which divides the community; we discover that
dissensions, which appear to have another origin, are but
forms of this constant and all-pervading quarrel, and
every contest is one of French and English in the outset,
or becomes so ere it has run its course."
Now, I think that, as regards that time, at all
events, Lord Durham's statement may be taken as
good evidence—and no one would question his
perfect impartiality—of what he saw on the spot
ere and reported to his Government. I hear the
First Minister remark that Lord Durham did not
write the report himself. That may be perfectly
true; but a man as competent as Lord Durham
was here—Mr. Buller—who is credited with having written the report, and so, whether
it is called
Lord Durham's or Mr. Buller's report, does not
alter the fact, if fact it was, that such was the result of their investigation on
the spot. But is it
true or not that these things have changed, is all
this matter of language a matter of no moment,
a matter which does not call for investigation in
this House or inquiry by the representatives of the
people? Why, we have had statements made by
the Premier of the Province of Quebec, who leads
a great majority of his fellow countrymen in that
Province, and there is no use denying, and I say it
in the presence of the right hon. gentleman and the
Government that I have hitherto followed, that
there can be no question whatever that Mr. Mercier is to-day the true representative
of the French
Canadians of the Province of Quebec. Has he
given any uncertain sound upon this question of
Nationalism? What means it when he forms a
party and calls it the National party? We have
our National Policy. That was not a policy confined to one Province or one part of
the Dominion,
but a policy intended to apply and embrace the
whole Dominion. We know, however, that the
Nationalist party in the Province of Quebec is intended to embrace and consolidate
one of the
races, divided by the language—
Mr. McCARTHY. I cannot accept the hon.
gentleman's disclaimer.
Mr. McCARTHY. I may be asked what evidence
I produce. I ask what is the meaning of the word
"Nationalist?"
Mr. McCARTHY. I shall be glad to have an
explanation, but I must accept the definition of
the word as I find it. Nationalism means French
nationality in that sense. What did Mr. Mercier
say, speaking in the presence of the hon. gentleman leading the Opposition in this
House, if I am
not misformed—at all events, the hon. gentleman
spoke very shortly after him.
Mr. McCARTHY. I said Mr. Mercier spoke in
your presence. I am only stating what Mr.
Mercier said.
Mr. LAURIER. You do not expect me to accept your statement.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am going to do justice to
the hon. gentleman, and say that he disclaimed it.
Now, what did Mr. Mercier say?
"To-day the reuse and the blue should give place to
the tri-color. They must be united if they wish to make
their nationality powerful."
Mark the words—"their nationality." Perhaps
these words do not mean what they appear to say:
"It was a triumph for the National cause."
It does not need an explanation from the hon.
gentleman, who, I believe, is a warm supporter
of Mr. Mercier in provincial affairs.
47
[COMMONS] 48
"For the sake of their nationality, for the sake of
their religion, they must be united."
Who must be united?
"The strength of the French Canadian people lay in
the union of the people with the clergy. By coupling
the name with Jesuit hero, Breboeuf, with the immortal
Jacques Cartier they said to their insulters, it is useless
to imagine that we will ever cease to be French and
Catholic. This monument declares that after a century
of separation from our ancient mother we are still
French; more than that, we will remain French and
Catholic."
Is there any doubt about these words? What
is meant by "National?" These words were said
in the presence of the hon. gentleman who
leads the Opposition in this House, as he does not
deny, and he allowed them to pass without rebuke.
I quite admit that when the hon. gentleman spoke
he made no such declaration of policy in his own
behalf, and when he delivered himself afterwards in
Toronto—perhaps it would have been better if he
had said it in Quebec—he stated that he for one was
not in favor of French nationality. There is no
doubt, at all events, as to what was meant by the
hon. gentleman who leads the Local Government
in the statement which called forth in Toronto a
disclaimer from the leader of the Opposition in
this House. But the hon. gentleman will remember
that when he went back to his Province he was not
warmly greeted for this frank and rather liberal
declaration which he made in the Pavilion at
Toronto.
Mr. McCARTHY. When the hon. gentleman returned he threw himself into an election then
pending, and the result (I should like the hon.
gentleman to explain, if the result was due to any
other cause,) was that the majority of the candidate for the seat of the late Capt.
Labelle was
very much increased, the position not being appreciably changed except by this declaration,
which
was not received with favor by the press of Quebec,
or a portion of the press of that Province. Is it not
perfectly true also, that a large section of that
press, more or less influential, having, I believe, an
influence quite as great perhaps as any newspapers
are supposed to possess, spoke out on this subject
with no uncertain sound. Let me read to the
House, what is perfectly well known to the members of the Province of Quebec, what
La Vérité
said on more than one occasion. We gather
the signs of the times from newspaper articles and
from the declarations of public men. I may perhaps be belittling Mr. Mercier by reading
newspaper extracts in attempting to bolster up that
hon. gentleman, but that newspaper makes such a
declaration that I cannot pass it without remark.
That journal says:
"But such was not is not, never will be, the desire of
French Canadians. For us, Confederation was and is the
means to an end. It is a means of enabling us to dwell
in peace with our English neighbors, whilst safe guarding our rights, developing our
resources, strengthening
us, and making us ready for our national future. Let us
say it boldly—the ideal of the French Canadian people is
not the ideal of the other races which to-day inhabit the
land our fathers subdued for Christian civilisation. Our
ideal is the formation here, in this corner of the earth,
watered by the blood of our heroes, of a nation which
shall perform on this continent the part France has
played so long in Europe. Our aspiration is to found a
nation which, socially, shall profess the Catholic faith
and speak the French language. That is not, and cannot
be, the aspiration of the other races. To say, then, that
all the groups which constitute the Confederation are
animated by one and the same aspiration, is to utter a
sounding phrase without political or historical meaning.
For us the present form of government is not and cannot
be, the last word of our national existence. It is merely
a road towards the goal which we have in view, that is
all. Let us never lose sight of our own national destiny.
Rather let us constantly pre are ourselves to fulfil it
worthily at the hour decreed by Providence, which circumstances shall reveal to us.
Our whole history proves
that it is not to be a vain dream, a mere Utopia, but the
end which the God of nations has marked out for us. We
have not been snatched from death a score of times; we
have not multiplied with a rapidity truly prodigious; we
have not wrought harvests of resistance and of peaceful
conquest in the eastern townships and in the border
counties of Ontario; we have not absorbed many of the
English and Scotch settlements planted among us in
order to break up our homogenity; we have not put forth
all these efforts, and seen them crowned with success, to
go and perish miserably in any all-Canadian arrangement."
I could multiply quotations of this kind; but perhaps La Presse is a paper which may be said to
speak with more authority, and I may give a
quotation from it. I find, however, that I have not
a quotation from that paper here. My hon. friend
will perhaps remember it sneeringly alluded to the
fact that the people were astonished at his observation, they could not accept it,
they could not
credit it, and instead of cheering it they merely
said "hear, hear," being induced to do so by astonishment, but such was not the views
or the policy
of the French Canadian people. Now I have endeavored to show to the House so far,
that this is not
merely a sentimental matter but that it is a matter
of practical politics and a matter which must be dealt
with. I have endeavored to show that as early as
the years 1837—38 it was then recognised as being
the great cause of trouble in the Province of Quebec. I think I have also successfully
shown (I
do not think, in fact, I needed to have shown it,
because it is familiar to us all) that these difficulties
exist at present, and that now that the French
race, or those who speak the French language,
to be more accurate, have attained to a considerable numerical strength, their ambition
is rising
in proportion, and the difficulties which ought to
have been foreseen long ago are now upon us and
must be dealt with, at all events, as far as our
new Territories are concerned, and that we must
not allow the same difficulties to arise in that part
of the Dominion. But if I have given the views of
those within the Dominion, let me draw attention
also to the views which are also entertained on
this question outside of the Dominion by impartial
spectators. I am not going to read from any
journals that are hostile to the French Canadians,
because I know that my quoting them as authority
would produce no effect upon those whom I am
very anxious indeed should very seriously consider
this question. There ought to be no such differences
between the English and French Canadian members of this House. There ought to be no
differences
on the subject between those who come from the
Province of Quebec and speak in the French
language, their mother tongue, and those who
come from the other Provinces of the Dominion,
and who speak the English language. If, in truth
and fact it is in the interests of this Dominion,
that there should be one race, one nationality and
one national life, it is the duty of all of us to strive
to bring about that result. I am now about to quote
from a paper, from a Catholic journal, which was
introduced to this House last Session by my hon.
friend the Minister of Justice. I confess I did not
hear of it before, but no doubt it has now become
49 [JANUARY 22, 1890.] 50
historical. It is called The Month. Dealing
with this difficulty with the French language in
Canada in the year 1885, the writer speaks as
follows:—
"While freely admitting that the French Canadian is
behind his English-speaking neighbor not only in farming, but in commerce, trade and
all kindred branches,
we must not take for granted everything that this same
English-speaking neighbor says of him. One of the
most striking and curious things in the social life of
Lower Canada is the latent hate which the French and
English-speaking races have for each other. It is a sad
thing to say, but truth requires that it should be said,
that English-speaking people, no matter whether they
are English Irish or Scotch, have rarely a good word for
their French neighbors; and it is still sadder and more
unaccountable that of all those English-speaking people,
the Irish are those between whom and the French there
seems to be the least rapport and the greatest enmity.
Mr. McCARTHY. This journal was accepted
as a good authority last Session. I am reading
from the same authority as my hon. friend the
Minister of Justice quoted last Session.
"If the French Canadians were not Catholics, if they
were not the people of all others whom the Irish are supposed to love, one might not
be so puzzled over this
social enigma."
It goes on to give reasons or to account in some
way for this cause of the hatred being greater between the Irish and the French, than
between the
French and any other nationality, and says:
"The preservation of the French language in Canada
seems to be the most absorbing subiect at present, not
only in that country, but in France, and public opinion
in both countries seems somewhat divided about it. All
Frenchmen, and most Canadians of French extraction,
are as one as to the absolute necessity of preserving
their language in America; but how is it to be done?
The best way would, of course be to annex Canada to
France; but that is not to be thought of. One thing is
certain, and that is that in spite of the wonderful
tenacity with which the French have stuck to their
language in Canada, there are signs that it is losing
ground."
Mr. MCCARTHY. Neither do I; but that is
the opinion of this writer. Finally, the writer in
The Month says:
"It would appear as if the French Government has
become fully aware that the French language in Canada
is in danger, and that steps have been taken to bring
about a more cordial and general intercourse between
the French-speaking people on both sides of the Atlantic.
This can done in many ways, but in no way more
effectually than by close commercial relations."
In another article it gives my hon. friend the Secretary of State credit for the endeavor
he has made
to bring about that good feeling between France
and the people of the Province of Quebec, which
good feeling up to that time was not to be discovered. I have read these extracts
from The
Month, which I thought would be accepted as
undoubted authority, having been quoted before in
this House by the Minister of Justice, and I now
propose to read from the Catholic World, published
in New York, and from its publication in the year
1885 I make the following extracts:—
"The growing power and importance of the French in
Canada is the cause of the annexation feeling now taking
root in Ontario and Nova Scotia. It is felt by all sections
of Canadians that the connection with England must be
severed, but the dread the French entertain towards
annexation and the English towards independence prevents the sundering of the fragile
tie."
Mr. McCARTHY. I hear my hon. friend say
that I do not believe that. Sir, I have heard that
argued over and over again, and it is not very long
ago since I heard a gentleman, who was a distinguished member of this House, say it
was the only
remedy for the existing condition of things—that
gentleman said that the only remedy was to swamp
my hon. friends from the Province of Quebec in the
great American Confederacy.
Mr. McCARTHY. Not by any means. I do not
at all concur in that, Mr. Speaker. I think that
within the lines of the Constitution and in this
Dominion of Canada this question can, will and
must be settled, but I think that if that question
is not settled considerable difficulties, as I have
said, must arise.
Mr. McCARTHY. The article in the
Catholic
World, to which I refer, commences by this:
"We are Englishmen speaking the French language,"
said the late Sir George Cartier, the colleague and close
personal friend of Sir John A. Macdonald."
And the article goes on to explain that the result
of that statement made by that distinguished
Canadian statesman was:
"Before this he was the undisputed leader of the
French Canadian element in Canada; three years later
he was unmercifully beaten at the polls for Montreal East
by an obscure young lawyer by the name of Jetté. The
crushing defeat was the French Canadlan way of punishing Sir George for his ultra-loyal
speech and the misrepresentation it embodied. Not that French Canadians
are not well affected to the Empire as things go; only it
must be understood they are well affected as French
Canadians."
I would just ask the House to allow me to trouble
them with another extract.
Mr. McCARTHY. I will not further trouble
the House with quotations. I have endeavored at
all events to make good my statements, that both
from within and from without the general opinion
prevails that this question has come to the point
where it is likely to cause further differences, as it
has already caused differences in the Dominion. I
come back now, Sir, to the North-West Territories.
I am not attempting here, and hon. gentlemen
know that, at all events in this form of motion, I
could not attempt in any way to interfere with
any rights under the British North America Act
which are guaranteed to the French Canadians of
the Province of Quebec, and to the French Canadians in this Parliament. I am treating,
Sir, of
what this Parliament is competent to deal with.
I am treating of the question of the dual language
of the North-West Territories. I hold in my
hand, though it has not been yet presented to the
House, a petition from the Legislative Assembly of
the North-West Territories. Where that petition
is I cannot say: whether it is in the hands of the
Government, whether it is to be brought before
the House, whether it has been sent to Mr.
Speaker, or where the petition is I cannot
say; but, that the Legislative Assembly of the
North-West Territories did, at their last session discuss this question and pass the
following
resolution on the subject, by what was practically
51
[COMMONS] 52
an unanimous vote, there can be no doubt. That
petition of the Legislative Assembly of the North- West is as follows:—
"Address to the Honorable the House of Commons of
Canada, in Parliament Assembled, adopted by the
Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories,
on Monday, 28th October, 1889.
"The petition of the Legislative Assembly of the
North-West Territories in Session assembled, humbly
sheweth:—
"That, whereas by Section one hundred and ten of
'The North-West Territories Act' it is enacted that
'Either the English or the French language may be used
by any person in the debates of the Legislative Assembly of the Territories and in
the proceedings before
the Courts; and both these languages shall be used in
the records and journals of the Assembly, and all Ordinances made under this Act shall
be printed in both
these languages.'
"And, whereas this Assembly is of the opinion that the
sentiment of the people of the North-West Territories is
against the continuance of the section recited, on the
grounds that the needs of the Territories do not demand
the official recognition of a dual language in the North- West or the expenditure
necessitated by the same.
"And, whereas this Assembly is also of the opinion
that sound pubhc policy demands the discontinuance of
two official languages in the North-West;
"Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray:
"That your Honorable House may be pleased to pass
an Act repealing said section one hundred and ten of
said Act. Â
"And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever
pray."
Not only, Sir, was this petition thus with almost
practical unanimity resolved upon, but I am
informed, and I believe the fact to be, although I
have not examined it, that every newspaper published in the North-West has declared
in favor of
the abolition of the dual languages—every paper
which has referred to the subject, I mean. One
distinguished paper, the Regina Leader, I believe,
has not yet thought it a subject worthy of notice;
but almost every other paper has pronounced in
favor of abolition. So that we have practically
the unanimous opinion of the people of that territory. Now, are we going to perpetuate
this system of things? Are we going to permit it to grow
into what might be called a vested right, so that
by-and-bye a French Canadian can urge, and with
some degree of truth, "I have left my own home
in the Province of Quebec and have gone and
settled in the North-West Territories, relying on
the faith of an Act of Parliament by which it was
said I should be allowed to have my language." Is
it, or is it not, a matter which we ought to deal
with, and deal with promptly? Sir, I have nothing
further to add on the general question. I will only
say, in conclusion, that while I have thought it
right at this early stage to make a statement of
the reasons which have actuated the course I am
taking, I desire here, as I have done elsewhere, to
disclaim any feeling of hostility of any kind against
the French Canadian race or their representatives in
this House. I desire to say that I have no such
feeling.
Mr. MCCARTHY. My only desire is to promote the welfare of us all, and I think our truest
interest will be found in trying to create and build
up in this country one race with one national life,
and with a language common to us all.
Mr. LARIVIERE. (Translation) I have listened
to, with more curiosity than interest, Mr. Speaker,
the speech which has just been made by the hon.
member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). I must con
fess that I have been astonished, and that in nuo
slight degree, at seeing an Ontario member arrogate to himself the right of coming
here, into this
House, and asking for amendments to the Act
erecting the North-West Territories. It is thought
good to make an attack upon a right which is very
dear to us, to all of us French Canadians — a
right which we possess under the British made
constitution which governs us. And what astonishes us still more, connected with the
means employed to-day, is that they begin by attacking a
handful of MĂ©tis scattered throughout the North- West Territories, with the object
of crushing them
out. I think this is a cowardly act, an act of cowardice which we must oppose with
all our powers.
To what end is all this exertion made? Why—
if sincerity exists,—if this French language ought
no longer to be spoken in Canada,—why do they
not attack its use throughout the whole Dominion
of Canada; why do they not endeavor to prohibit
its use universally, instead of proceeding to attack,
as I have just said, a handful of French Canadians,
away off yonder, who cannot defend themselves;
but who count upon us to be their defenders? I do
not intend, Mr. Speaker, to follow the hon. member throughout the speech which he
has just
delivered; I shall only animadvert upon certain
passages. He stated, among other things, that the
language of a people is the foundation of its nationality. I ask myself, if this idea
is correct, how
does it happen that in the Islands of Jersey and
Guernsey, which have been English possessions for
more than two hundred years, they have preserved
the French language,—that the French language
only is spoken,—and that that language is the only
one recognised officially? How comes it that in
the Island of Saint Lucie and the other islands in
the Antilles which happen to be British possessions,
the French language is spoken? Is this merely a
privilege which the peoples of these places have arrogated to themselves; or is it
not rather a privilege granted by the British Crown, by the laws,
and by the constitution of these countries that the
mother tongue of the inhabitants is allowed them.
So that the power which we possess, we French
Canadians, of using our mother tongue is no unprecedented concession; it is not a
right possessed exclusively by the French Canadian subject, but it is,
a right which belongs to subjects in other colonies
of the Empire. The hon. member has observed
that it is only in Switzerland where the use of two
languages is permitted. I think that if he had
studied history he would have found that in other
countries likewise the use of two distinct and different languages is sanctioned.
In Belgium, among
others, two languages are allowed; French is the
official language, even though the public documents and papers are printed and published
in
Flemish. So that Canada forms no peculiar exception. The strongest position of the
hon. member for Simcoe rests upon the celebrated report of
Lord Durham, or supposed to be that of Lord
Durham. All my fellow countrymen know what.
this report is worth. It was not pro ared with
the object of favoring the population of this country; it was not drafted in the interests
of those
who then dwelt in Lower Canada; but it was projected with the aim of Anglicising and
of being able
to persecute the population which then dwelt in
the land, to the benefit of the immigration which
had come out to possess it. Under such circum
53 [JANUARY 22, 1890.] 54
stances is it allowable to make use of this report
in order to support the attempt which they are at
this moment making adversely to our interests?
Those who take advantage to-day of this report
are worthy successors of him who prepared it. I
must here remark, Mr. Speaker, that there exists
a false impression about the history of this country.
They wish to treat us as if we were a conquered
people, whereas Canada was not conquered but was
ceded to England under the terms of a treaty. In
this treaty it is provided that our religion, our
laws, and our customs as they existed at the time,
should be protected, and I ask myself whether it
cannot be affirmed to-day, that within these conditions and terms is included the
conservation of
our mother tongue, which we spoke at that time
and which we still speak. From such reasoning
it results that when the hon. member for Simcoe
states that there was no such guarantee in the
treaty,—that is to say the guarantee of the use of
our language,—I can tell him his statement is
false. The gravest insult that can be offered to us
in the course of this discussion, which has hardly
yet opened in this House; is that men should
wish to have our enemies believe that because we
do not use the English language habitually we are
not loyal subjects of Her Majesty. They attack
us on this line when taxing us with disloyalty.
Well, when we see what our ancestors did when
the time had come to defend the frontier, can it
not be fairly said that they showed themselves
quite as loyal if not more loyal than our fellow
subjects of British origin? Can it be that people
have forgotten the celebrated battles which we
fought against our powerful neighbors the
Americans? And if Canada still remains a British
possession, to whom does England owe its retention
if not to the French—but still loyal—population
of the Province of Quebec. No, Mr. Speaker, in
the present state of affairs they have thought it
expedient to endeavor to exite prejudices in order
perhaps to avenge the defeat which they suffered
last year in another matter; but on this question, as
on every other where our laws and our religion are
attacked, I believe that we shall remain unmoved;
and more particularly, that we shall defend in this
House, as is but our duty, against the attacks this
day attempted to be made against them, the few
men of our own race who are scattered throughout
the North-West country.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. The Bill introduced is in terms of very great importance, and of
course we can weigh it with reference to its effect
on the North-West. But the line of argument my
hon. friend has taken raises questions of such a
nature, his whole line of argument is of such a
kind, as to involve most serious and grave questions
—so grave that I think we must take full time to
consider what his arguments are, what they tend
to, in what direction they lead, and what consequences may follow if the measure is
persisted in.
I, therefore, Sir, would hope that the discussion
would end here—that the Bill should be allowed to
be read the first time, and that after we have an
opportunity of reading the carefully prepared
speech of my hon. friend, we may, on the second
reading, have an opportunity of discussing this important, this very grave question
in all its bearings.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. May I be allowed, not to
enter into a discussion of this question, but—as
my hon. friend from Simcoe has quoted the authority of a great name, a great statesman
and writer
—only to cite one authority which I suppose will
be accepted by himself and the whole House, as it
has already been accepted by the whole country.
A great statesman, at the time of the Union, wrote
these words which have never been forgotten in
this country:
"I must, moreover, confess that I for one am deeply
convinced of the impolicy of all such attempts to denationalise the French. Generally
speaking they produce
the opposite effect from that intended, causing the flame
of national prejudice and animosity to burn more
fiercely. But suppose them to be successful, what would
be the result? You may perhaps Americanise, but, depend upon it, by methods of this
description you will
never Anglicise the French inhabitants of the Province.
Let them feel on the other hand, that their religion,
their habits, their prepossessions, their prejudices if you
will, are more considered and respected here than in
other portions of this vast continent, who will venture to
say that the last hand which waves the British flag on
American ground may not be that of a French Canadian."
These words were those of the noble Lord Elgin,
and I ask my hon. friend to read them and to
meditate upon them.
Mr. LAURIER. I did not understand my hon.
friend from Simcoe, in his opening remarks, to say
that he expected that this question would be
debated at this stage of his Bill. I understood, on
the contrary, that he expected that it would be
debated, as is usual in this House, only on the
second reading. This is our customary practice,
and, therefore, perhaps, the hon. gentleman will
permit me to tell him that it would have been
preferable if he had not introduced in his remarks a good deal of controversial matter,
which
is quite debatable, no matter what stand is taken
on the Bill. The hon. gentleman must allow that
a man may be in favor of his Bill, and not agree with
a good deal that he has said. For my own part,
Sir, I do not propose at this stage to express an
opinion on the Bill which he has presented. I
reserve that for the second reading. I propose to
follow in this instance the very safe practice
which has always been followed in this House,
of not expressing an opinion on a Bill, even if the
tenor of it be well known in advance, until it has
been placed in the hands of all members, and until
they have read it and can form a mature judgment
upon it. There is a good deal that I would personally take exception to in the hon.
gentleman's
remarks. I will not do so to-day; but the hon.
gentleman will permit me to give him a piece of
information as to which he appears to be in
obscurity. He wants to know what was the
cause that the Liberal candidate was defeated in
the County of Richelieu. So far as my information goes, I have always understood that
the cause
was the bank notes of the defunct Mechanics
Bank.
Mr. McCARTHY. May I be permitted, Mr.
Speaker, to say that I am sorry if I have introduced what my hon. friend calls controversial
matter. I deliberately adopted the course I have
taken in making my statement, which I endeavored
to make as impartial and fair as possible, on the
introduction of the Bill. I understood it to be the
English practice, and I think it is the fair practice.
I have made my statement now and hon. gentlemen
have an opportunity of considering it before the
second reading, and then I shall have an oppor
55
[COMMONS] 56
tunity of defending my position in answer to the
objections that may then be made. Â
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
This individual participated in:
