THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN THE
NORTH-WEST.
Mr. McCARTHY moved second reading of
Bill (No. 10) to further amend the Revised Statutes
of Canada, chapter 50, respecting the North-West
Territories.
That this Bill be not now read the second time, but
that it be Resolved, That it is expedient that the Legislative Assembly of the North-West
Territories be authorised to deal wlth the subject of this Bill by Ordinance
or enactment, after the next general election for the said
Territories.
He said: This, Sir, is, after all, a North-West
question, but I need hardly say that I am quite
aware that it is the privilege, and even the duty,
of every member of this House to concern himself
with any public question whatsoever; and I congratulate the North-West that my hon.
and learned
friend (Mr. McCarthy) has taken a tardy interest
in our welfare. I am not aware that he ever took
a very great interest in our welfare until very
lately. He himself tells us that he sat in this
House time and again when this measure was before
it, and that he actually did not know that the
110th clause existed until the spring of last year.
Well, in an ordinary member that would be an
extraordinary thing, but in a distinguished advocate it is a very marvellous thing
indeed. But I
think I understand why it is that he has taken
this interest in us in the North-West. We had
here a question last year which I do not intend to
go into at present, but which has been agitated
throughout the country in a manner that I do not
think was either edifying or statesmanlike; and I
rather think that my hon. and learned friend discovered that, on that question, he
had taken an
illogical stand, that he found, after defending his
position for a considerable time, that the position
was indefensible, and, in order to let himself down
easy, he took up questions that would have been
settled in the Territories without his aid or the aid
of anybody else outside of those Territories. Now,
533 [FEBRUARY 12, 1890.] 534
this speech, to which I had not the honor of
listening—
Mr. DAVIN. I happened to be in Hamilton at
the time, under more auspicious circumstances, but
I have read that speech carefully, and the remarkable thing about it is that it is
one of a series
illustrating the law of evolution; because they go
on bit by bit; they repeat themselves considerably,
but still, at each step, my hon. and learned friend
shows that the doctrine of Darwin is applicable even to great politicians, and he
illustrates
the law of evolution. I said a moment ago that I
had not the honor of hearing that speech, but, Sir,
I had the honor of reading his speech that had
been delivered in Ottawa, a speech going over the
same ground. It was, after all, the same old stuff,
but with a little evolution. So that, although I
did not hear the speech I am tolerably familiar
with my hon. friend's opinions on these
subjects, and I may say that in the course
of a pretty long political life, in the sense that I
have been studying politics all my life, and
have had an opportunity of hearing most politicians
in England and Canada, and prominent politicians
in France, I have never met with speeches so
wanting in logic from so distinguished a man.
Those speeches have two peculiar characteristics.
The one is that my hon. and learned friend has
taken to dilating on questions that, from his busy
life, he was evidently not conversant with, and I
am sorry to say that from a somewhat cold manner
he has lapsed into violent appeals to passions that
can do nothing but harm. Now, Sir, this question
is a local one, and for that reason I consider that
it should be dealt with by the Local Legislature.
Some French gentlemen have gone in there, because
we have had a small French immigration. Some
of our most useful citizens are French gentlemen.
They have come there with much wealth, and
one of them is a coffee grower, M. de Roffignac
Von Brabandt who has started south of Whitewood
the cultivation of chicory. This House will probably
be surprised to hear that Canada has become a
coffee-growing country. We have in the North- West coffee plantations at the present
minute, and
when my hon. and learned friend next goes there
we shall be able to regale him with a cup of coffee,
if with nothing better, before he dilates on his
favorite topics.
Mr. DAVIN. Oh, I forgot, that would not agree
with my hon. friend. Well, Sir, the view that I
take is this, and it is a view that I have taken here
twice in regard to the second homestead. I say
that if that law is on the Statute-book, a French
gentleman who has gone into the North-West
under that 110th clause has a right to complain if
it is repealed without his having something to say.
We have a certain
quantum of French population
along the Saskatchewan; we have a small French
speaking population to the south, and although
they are greatly outnumbered, the bare fact of
their being outnumbered is a reason why, without
giving them a hearing, we should not repeal this
clause. Now, as I said, this speech is a part of a
series. I will say that on some subjects in which
I am conversant my hon. and learned friend has
laid down most extraordinary propositions,
and, among others which I will deal with presently,
that the North-West has been a losing game to
us. Here is a proposition that he states:—
"There is no such thing as a Celtic skull."
I must not say Keltic, although I have been
trained at the university to say Keltic; still, I
remember that the last time that I spoke and
used the word Keltic, an hon. gentleman, who
is a Scotchman, and a friend of mine, asked me,
"What on earth were you talking about kilts the
whole time?" So I must not use the word with a
k, but with a soft c, and say Celtic.
"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——"
Mark the proposition he lays down.
"It is only by language and by the community of
language that men are formed into nations."
Now, let me make this remark. He says there
is no such thing as a Celtic skull or a Saxon skull.
I suppose there is no such thing as a Jewish skull
or an Aztec skull; and yet I have read some very
scientific treatises in which I have seen the differences in skulls pointed out. Again
he says:
"It is plain that what makes a nation is language, and
therefore when one speaks of a race, as these distinguished writers have done, one
means a community
speaking the same language."
Now, I will explain how my hon. friend has fallen
into such a proposition as this. He has read
treatises on language, especially as it affects modern
thought; and it is rather—I do not like to say it,
I do not like to say that he did not understand it,
because it would be impolite, and I could not be
impolite—but I will say this, that he is so busy a
man that he has not time to inform himself properly,
and perhaps he is too much of a nisi prius advocate
to be accurate, and too much of a mere lawyer to
be a statesman. But remember the two propositions that he lays down. The first proposition
is,
that language makes the race and the nation; and
as you may have seen in his speech delivered at
Ottawa, he lays down the proposition that with
diversity of language to make a nation is impossible.
Now, the important thing about that proposition
is this: It is sent broadcast into ignorant ears, and
if that last proposition is true we may despair
of Canada. That is the important thing about
these hurried deductions from superficial studies.
My hon. friend, in his Ottawa speech and in the
speech delivered in this House also, talks about
making this a British colony. Sir, is not this a
British colony? Let us be just. Why is it a
British colony? It is so because of that very
Lower Canadian French race that seems to act
like a red rag on a bull on the mind of my hon.
friend; for we know this very well, that there was
a time in the history of Canada when that race
had just passed over to the British flag, when
temptations were held out to them to join the
thirteen colonies, and if they had not been true to
their new-found allegiance, if their loyalty had not
been impregnable against the seductions of Franklin
and others, we should have had no British colony
here to-day. Let us be just, if my hon. friend cannot be generous. I will say this,
because I want
to help my hon. friend. My hon. friend does not
profess, he says, to be a very devout man, but still he
complains bitterly that the Roman Catholic Church
is tolerated in a manner in this country that our laws
hardly permit. That is his language, addressed to
ignorant and passionate ears. I have the documents
535
[COMMONS] 536
here if it is dared to be questioned. That, I say,
is the language addressed by the hon. gentleman
to ignorant and passionate ears. It is stated in
these speeches. The history of Canada is reviewed;
it is mourned over that certain things were not done
in the past, and it is mourned that certain things
were not done when the French Canadians numbered only 60,000. But does any man in
his
senses suppose that, if they had not been dealt
with with that wisdom, moderation and generosity
that England has practised in regard to all races
with which she has come in contact in building up
her colonial Empire, we should have a British colony
here to-day? I want to help my hon. friend. In the
intervals of a busy life he is undertaking a crusade
against a million and a-half of people; because it
is a crusade, and he is undertaking a crusade
against the Catholic Church. Nobody supposes
that I have any leaning to that church. I am a
Radical on religious subjects—that is to say, I am
a very low English Churchman.
Mr. DAVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am addressing a
lawyer mainly, and I am addressing a legislative
assembly, and everybody knows that, according to
the old Roman law, I can become an English
churchman by adoption; so I have become one by
adoption. I want to help my hon. friend, because
I have devoted some time to the study of history.
I tell him that no assault from outside, no matter
how great, no catapults that have been brought
against that church from outside have ever
done it the least harm. The only harm that ever
came to that church has been from volcanic eruptions from within, and then the overflowings
have
carried away some of her fairest possessions. So
that I help my hon. friend. I tell him this: the
way to strengthen the Catholic Church is to assail
it, and the way to solidify and make French
Canadians united — and I do not think the
French Canadian is a very objectionable person,
for some of the most charming men and most
intelligent men I ever met were French
Canadians — but still, as my hon. friend, with
his superior culture, does not like them, I may
tell him that if he wants to make the French
Canadian permanent and the French language enduring, the way to do it is to put the
backs of the
people up by such assaults as he is making
throughout the country. To show that I am speaking by the book, let me read some passages
here.
I forgot, when dealing with the race question, to
read a sentence in which my hon. friend says:
" They will graduall or rapidly, as he hoped, adopt
English methods and English ways of thought, and this
country will be, as it ought to be, an Anglo-Saxon community."
Fancy speaking to a popular audience like this :
"We came together; we assembled in a common
Parliament; but by the skilful direction of the French- Canadian vote, and the desire
for power among the
English, and consequent division among them, the
French Canadians were ultimately able to place their
feet on our necks and impose laws on us contrary to our
will."
I think myself it is not too much to say that, for a
man of my learned friend's experience as a statesman, it is really a monstrous thing,
in view of his
high position in Canada, to have addressed language like that to any audience. How
did he tell
them he intended to move this Bill? I confess the
eloquence surprised me; because, although I had
often heard my hon. friend in this House and elsewhere, I did not think that lyric
rapture was his
forte. This is the way he described it:
"And I have undertaken the task—and a more glorious
task I never undertook—(loud cheers)—that I shall be
the mover of that Bill."
To be the mover of a Bill of one clause, when
there was no danger, no guns pointed at my hon.
friend, and to describe that as the most glorious
task in his life leads me to wonder what was the
character of the other glorious tasks he performed.
The only comparison I can think of is this: I
once called on a college friend of mine who had
married for money a wife who was somewhat old,
and he said to me when I was leaving at night,
"What do you think of her, Davin ?" "Well,
Jack," I said, "I wish I had known your taste,
for I think I could have got you something older
than that." Well, Sir, if I had known the hon.
gentleman's taste was in that direction I think I
could have got him at least as glorious a task.
Why, Sir, when I read that, I remembered a joke
of my hon. friend the Premier the other day.
That right hon. gentleman, speaking of the member for Victoria (Mr. Earle), said,
with his usual
ready wit, that we were better off in this House
than the House of Commons in England,
for we had an "earl" amongst us. When
I read that glorious statement of the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
I thought we were better off still, for we have a
hero in this House—a hero who chants his own
epic, and there he sits. I say, Sir, that there is
no foundation whatever for these propositions laid
down by my hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy), and I
will prove that these propositions are false and
misleading, and that, therefore, for a statesman as
my friend is, and for a man of great influence and
popular power to disseminate those fallacies
throughout the country, is a very great crime and
a very great misdemeanor at the bar of history. I
would not care in the least what he proposed to do
if he did not fall into such fallacies, misleading as
they are and calculated to beget ideas which may
indeed tend to the disruption of this country.
Now, Sir, I will prove that there is not a tittle of
foundation for his arguments. My hon. friend, when
he was making his speech on this subject in the
House, resorted to authority. It was a very natural thing for a lawyer to do, yet
I may say this,
that what I should expect from a statesman would
be "reasoning" on this question. I should expect
from him that he would reason this question from
historical facts; and the historical facts bearing on
it are numerous enough. I should expect reasoning
from him from the existing political phenomena in
Europe, and then I should expect that he would
draw deductions. But what does my hon. and
learned friend do? He comes to us with
authorities like a lawyer going before a court of
appeal, and what, let me ask, are his authorities?
Magazine articles, and some of them written by
trumpery writers whose names will not even go
down the gutter of time. Now, the hon. gentleman might have gone to many existing
countries
for a parallel. He might have gone especially to
Switzerland. My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr.
Mills) suggested Switzerland, and then my hon.
and learned friend (Mr. McCarthy) interjected the
remark, "The French language is an exception in
Switzerland." What the meaning of that observa
537 [FEBRUARY 12, 1890.] 538
tion is I do not know. How is it an exception in
Switzerland? The only meaning of that utterance of my hon. friend could be that the
language was exceptionally used in the federal
state. Why, Sir, there are only three federal
states that I know of: Canada, the United
States and Switzerland, and in two of these
the French is an official language. Let me say that
Canada need not be ashamed to go to Switzerland
for a comparison. There is scarcely a country which
my reading makes me acquainted with so calculated to inspire interest and so full
of historical incidents that are imperishable. The development
of that country has been extraordinary. The differences in its formation, its elevations,
its soil and its
climate are great and varied; and although Canada
stretches across an entire continent, and Switzerland
is in the heart of Europe, hemmed in by mighty empires, sometimes in great danger,
often menaced,
fought with by more powerful nations, yet like the
milk-white Hind of Dryden.—
"Oft doomed to death, but fated not to die."
The commerce of that country at present exceeds
per capita the commerce of any country in Europe.
Her imports are about $150,000,000, and her
exports, I think, $140,000,000. Notwithstanding
the difference I have spoken of, we know, Sir, that
there is an analogy between Canada and Switzerland in the produce of our dairies,
in the produce
of our cornfields, in our mighty forests, and even in
our Alpine scenery, which if any of you have visited,
you know that its sublimity need not blush even in
the face of Mont Blanc. There is a remarkable
physical analogy between the countries, and when
you come to compare the systems of government there
is a more remarkable analogy still. The very same
questions that are relegated to the Provinces in
Canada are relegated to the Cantons in Switzerland;
and the very same questions that are given to the
Federal Government in Canada are given to
the Federal Government in Switzerland which
meets at Berne. How many languages have you
in the Parliament at Berne? Why, Sir, five languages can be spoken there, and three
of these are
official. I am not saying that I approve of this. I am
only stating facts from which deductions can be
drawn. But here is my hon. friend, a statesman that
might be a Gamaliel to me, at whose feet I ought
to sit; here is my hon. and learned friend dilating
on this question and telling us, in the face of the
fact that Switzerland has endured since the 12th
century, that it is the oldest republic that ever
existed, that its people are contented and prosperous, that with two languages a nation
is impossible!
And does not every one of us know what admirable articles they manufacture there?
Who does
not know something about the interest that attaches to that country? Yet, in face
of the fact that
that prosperous nation has three official languages,
my hon. and learned friend goes abroad and tells
the people that, if there are two official languages
in the country we can never hope to make a
nation—that we may throw up the sponge and
write "Ichabod" over our country! A mere statement of the fact without any argument
to support
it is a reductio ad absurdum. My hon. and learned
friend tells us, that you cannot have anation unless
you have only one official language. Well, thereby
hangs a tale; and I think the tale I am about to
unfold will be a political caudal appendage that
will cling to my hon. friend for a long time. You
know, Sir, that when the hon. gentleman spoke
in this House a short time ago, he gave us the
authority of Professor Freeman, who he said was a
great man. Now I Will give you the same authority, which the hon. gentleman read,
and if you
excuse me I will read it out of the book which
bears the sacred mark of my hon. and learned
friend. It reads:
"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 our 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 highest 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 nationalit
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
which 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 that. 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 or 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."
My hon. friend comments on that:
"I think that will not be denied as a correct doctrine."
And, of course, what he seeks to make out is
this: that the teaching of that article is the teaching he had laid down in his proposition,
that it
was necessary to have community of language in
order to have a nation. I cannot believe that my
hon. friend meant to deceive this House, and therefore I am thrown back on the alternative,
that he
did not understand Freeman. That article, Sir,
does not deal with the question my hon. friend
tried to make the House think it dealt with.
Freeman takes for his text the extraordinary circumstance of a lot of Magyars going
to Constantinople to congratulate an Ottoman general on a victory
on the ground of their kinship; because, as you know,
the Magyar is a form of the same Semitic speech,
if it be Semitic, that is spoken by the Turks. He
does the same thing as Max Miiller who deals with
an extraordinary phenomenon in modern life,
brought about by a strong bent to philological
studies; for people are giving in this late day an
importance to language that was not given before;
and when you read the article, you will find that
Freeman uses the word "exceptions" in an extraordinary way. He actually uses the word
for the
majority, and why does he do it? Because he lays
down this proposition: that there are now certain
nations which are formed on this language idea, but Â
he says the exceptions all over Europe are very
large. Now, if the House will bear with me I will give
them an idea of this article; but, first, let me ask
why did not my hon. friend read on? You will
see in a minute. If he had gone on, he would have,
read that all the larger countries of Europe
539
[COMMONS] 540
provide us with exceptions—England, France,
Germany, Italy, even Austria. Freeman points
out that there are islands which both speech
and geographical position seem to mark out
as French, but which are English—as truly English,
as truly devoted to England, as truly a part of the
British Empire in feeling as the people of London.
I allude to the people of the Channel Isles, of the
same blood precisely and coming from the same
district of France as the French Canadians. They
are, I will say, as true to England, I believe, as
the French Canadians are to Confederation. Why?
Freeman asks. Because circumstances led them
to cleave to England though their kindred in
Normandy became French; and one again and
again sees in the article—which I hope my hon.
and learned friend did not read—that circumstances
control more than language. The insular Norman,
though speaking French, did not become a Frenchman, and he is to-day a loyal part
of the British
nation speaking French.
"These instances," says Freeman, "and countless
others, bear out the position, that while community of
language is the most obvious sign of common nationality,
while it is the main element, or something more than an
element, in the formation of a nationality, the rule is
open to exceptions of all kinds, and the influence of
language is at all times liable to be overruled by other
influences."
Now, Sir, take Quebec: will any man suppose
for one moment that, notwithstanding the mountebank utterances of the present Prime
Minister of
Quebec, notwithstanding this stuff about the tri- color, and hustings nonsense of
that sort, to which
nobody pays any attention, and notwithstanding
those articles in the press, which my hon. friend
thinks decisive—he knows very well that there
have been articles in the English press of Canada
which if a man were to take as an exponent of the
sentiment of the Canadian people he would be
regarded as demented—will any man suppose that
if Quebec could to-day do what she pleased, she
would cut the painter with this country and England, and go over to France? You know
very
well, from the character of the people, from their
political and religious convictions, that they cling
to the British flag. Now, Freeman points out
that political and other reasons forbade the annexation by Germany of quite a number
of
countries; and then he comes to those parts of
the world where people who are confessedly of
different races and language, inhabit a continuous
territory and live under the same flag. He
instances—and, of course, my hon. friend, when
quoting Freeman, fought shy of this, which
would all right, you know, before a jury, but it
is not right before the jury of the people of
Canada—the Swiss Confederation, which he says
has what my friend quoted him to prove that it
could not have, namely, a full right to be called a
nation in a political sense:
"It has been formed on a principle directly opposite
to the identity of race and language. That Confederation
is formed by the union of certain detached fragments of
German, Italian and Burgundian nations. German is
undoubtedly the language of the great majority of the
nation. But the two recognised Romance languages are
each the speech of a large minority forming a visible
element in the general body. * * * While German, French and Italian are all recognised
as national
languages by the Swiss Confederation, the independent
Romance language which is still used in some parts of
the Canton of Graubunden, that which is known specially
as Romansch, is not recognised."
Mark his words in that article :
"It is left in the same position in which Welsh and
Gaelic are left in Great Britain, in which Basque, Breton,
Provencal, Walloon and Flemish are left in the borders
of that rench kingdom, which has grown so as to take
them all in."
Now, what does Mr. Freeman say of this Swiss
Confederation, which has five languages and three
official languages?
"Yet surely," he says, "the Swiss Confederation is a
nation. For all political purposes the Swiss Confederation is a nation, one capable
of as strong and true national
feeling as any other nation."
Yet this man has been quoted to prove that Canada, with two languages, could not be
a nation!
May I not apply his language to Canada, and say
that surely Canada with her two official languages,
even if they continue to prevail, can surely become a
nation. Then my hon. friend quotes this writer again
to prove that identity of speech is necessary to make
a nation, and that diversity of language is fatal to
the existence of a nation—that two or more official
languages are fatal to a nation, and that identity
of language and race will alone make one. What
does Mr. Freeman say? He says :
"We now come to the other countries in which nationality and language keep the connection
which they have
elsewhere, but in which nations do not, even in the
roughest way, answer to Governments."
Can you have a greater repudiation than that of
my hon. friend's theory? Here is a language and
it in no way answers to the Government that exists.
"In eastern Europe," Mr. Freeman tells us, "a nation's
nationality, as marked out by national feeling, has altogether parted company from
political government."
And he instances Turkey, Austro-Hungary, Greece,
Bulgaria and Servia:
"In all these lands," says he, "there is no difficulty in
marking off the several nations—(that is by speech only)—
in no case do the nations answer to any existing political
power. In these lands moreover, religion takes the place
of nationality. The Christian renegade who embraces
Islam becomes a Turk, even though he keep his Greek or
Slavonian language. Even the Greek or Armenian who
embraces the Latin goes far towards partlng With his
nationality."
Can anything be plainer than that Mr. Freeman
teaches the very contrary of what my hon. friend
quoted him to prove. Therefore, I have concluded, because I know my hon. friend is
an
honorable man, that he did not read the article, or
he read it in such a cursory manner that he did not
grasp the ideas that inspired and infused it. Well,
all I can say is, that if he takes up his knowledge
as certain birds take their food, on the wing, it is
no wonder his conclusions should be so flighty.
My hon. friend comes from the country whence I
myself come. Ireland can boast of him amongst
her distinguished lawyers. Does identity of
language make community of sentiment, community of race, and community of nation there?
Why, do we not know that for hundreds of years
the Saxon has been denounced in the Saxon
tongue? So that there were at my hon. friend's
door facts that might have prevented him, if he
had the time for reflection, from falling into the
errors he has fallen into. Now, I hardly think it
worth while to deal with his allusions to Mr.
Mercier, his allusions to French newspapers, his
quotations from The Month. The Month he cited
as an authority. Why did he quote The Month
as an authority? "Why," he said, "it was an
authority last year, and it ought to be an
authority now;" but, if I remember rightly, my
541 [FEBRUARY 12, 1890.] 542
hon. and learned friend the Minister of Justice
quoted it last year to prove that certain views,
which had been quoted from a review by my hon.
friend, had not been acknowledged or accepted as
the views of a certain section of the Christian Church.
That, as I remember, was the way it was used;
but if it was made an authority last year improperly, that would be no reason for
repeating the
error. Then my hon. friend quoted from the
Catholic World—to prove what? To prove that the
French Canadian is hostile to and is parting
company with the English. Well, my hon. friend
knows very well a large class—a class for which I
have the greatest possible respect; my own blood,
I suppose, flows in their veins—exists which have
not the same regard for England that I have. He
knows very well that the people for whom the
Catholic World is written are people who would
like to hear that certain sections of the British
Empire were hostile to its flag; and to quote that
as an authority seems to me an extraordinary
thing. But, as the hon. gentleman was looking
for reviews, there is a review—I do not know
whether it came into his hands—which is one of
the first reviews of the world. I refer to the
Andover Review, in which there is an article ad
rem on this question, an article dealing actually
with the question of race in politics, and written
by one of the most distinguished of living men.
As we are treating the House to articles from
reviews, and as I have the precedent of my hon. and
learned friend to guide me, I will tell the House what
is stated in this article, written by Horatio Hale,
and headed, "Language as a Political Force."
On page 175, Mr. Hale says:
"Two or more communities speaking different languages
may live in harmony under one Government when this
Government is a federation and each of these communities is allowed to manage freely
its own local affairs."
Then, on page 176, he says:
"This result will be delayed to some extent by the wisdom which has been shown by
the Britlsh Government,
in not merely granting the utmost possible freedom to its
colonies, but in stimulating the exercise by them of the
powers of such self-government to the utmost possible
extent. This remarkable political sagacity—"
Mark the way he regards the policy of the British
Government:
"This remarkable political sagacity, unprecedented
heretofore in history, is naturally rewarded by an attachment of the colonies to the
mother country, which has
been hitherto strong enough to overcome the attraction
of a population almost conterminous, speaking the same
language and enjoying equally free institutions. If Canada
had been governed from England in the manner in which
Cuba is governed from Spain, it certainly would now not
be a British possession."
Then this same weighty writer says:
"The Swiss Republic is a notable instance of the manner in which communities speaking
several different
languages can be enabled, by the large application of the
method of local self-government, to live in harmony under
one general authority, for which, under such a system, all
the members of the Confederacy may come to feel an
equal and intense attachment."
Then, on page 178, he says:
"The danger to freedom and the constant liability to
disturbance which result from the inclusion, in a large
population, of a small community speaking a distinct
language, can be removed in only two ways. The one is
by the extinction of the separate language, and the complete assimilation of the people
who speak it. But this is
a slow process, requirlng usually several generations, and
perhaps some severities hostile to good government. The
other, and far prompter and surer mode, is by the application of the method of local
self-government in some
form.
On page 182 he says :
"France alone, in her domestic policy, seems to have
solved the problem and dispelled the peril. Universal
suffrage, departmental councils, and equal laws of inheritance, have transformed Germans,
Bretons, Basques
and Italians into Frenchmen as loyal and devoted to
their country as any of their French-speaking compatriots. This is a practical lesson
which statesmen of
all countrles would do well to lay to heart. The strongest
and most enduring of bonds is found, not in kindred or in
force, but in free mstitntions and"—
In what?
Now, I say that that article was worth quoting,
and much better worth quoting than The Month
or some obscure French paper. Now I come to a
very delicate subject. My hon. and learned friend
is taking a deep interest in the North-West, and it
is a proverb that we must not look a gift horse in
the mouth. He tells us here:
"As a matter of dollars and cents, as a matter of more
money, the acquisition of the North-West has been a
losing speculation, and, except for the purpose of building up a great nation, which
we are willing to do"—
And so on. I tell the hon. member that he has had
plenty of evidence on this subject. It has been
shown again and again, in this House and elsewhere, that the acquisition of the North-West
was
not a losing speculation. Is there a man in the
country who feels the cost of the Canadian Pacific
Railway? Is there a man in the country who objects to the cost of that railway.
Mr. DAVIN. Except some dreaming pessimists? Look at the increased wealth, in the
last seven years, of Montreal; look at the
increased wealth of Toronto; look at the increased wealth of the manufacturing towns
in
Ontario; look at the extension of manufactures in
Ontario; look at the fact that merchants and manufacturers tell me that the North-West
is a magnificent customer to Ontario. The hon. gentleman
goes on to say something about the depreciation in
the value of farms. I have looked into the reports
of Mr. Blue, and I know he generally takes a gloomy
view of things, but he does not say that the farms
of Ontario have depreciated in value. We know
that, as farms grow old—and they are not always
cultivated as they should be here—they cannot be
expected to be kept up to their original value; but
I do not think the utterances of the hon. gentleman on this subject were the utterances
of
a statesman. Look at the fact that the North- West has been opened up, that we have
a vast
railway there; that we have farms there to which
our children can be sent; that we raise wheat
in the North-West, of which I have a specimen
here, the like of which cannot be produced in any
other part of Canada. I have specimens of wheat
which have been grown near Regina, Moose Jaw
and other parts of the district which I have the
honor to represent, and nine-tenths of all that
wheat have been graded No. 1 Hard from year to
year. Is not that an acquisition of wealth to this
country? If the hon. gentleman were right, we
might apply to his statement Horace's illustration
where he speaks of plucking one hair after another
out of a horse's tail. If this North-West country
is of no value, of course the more you diminish the
size of Canada itself, by a parity of reasoning, the
richer it will become. This is one of those
utterances which, I think, are inexcusable
543
[COMMONS] 544
in a man of the hon. gentleman's experience.
I have already shown that my hon. friend
has been guilty of the most glaring inaccuracy in other points; but he also told the
House, in his carefully considered speech, that a
newspaper published in the North-VVest, called, I
think—let me see—the Regina
Leader, never said
a word about the dual language; that it had been
silent upon that subject while other papers had
spoken about it. I might refer the hon. gentleman to the issue of that paper of September
10,
1889, and here I find a whole column headed
"The Dual Language," from which I will read a
few passages to the House :
" It is palpable in a country such as ours, moderation is
absolutely necessary in order that it shall develop, progress and culminate. If in
any province or territory two
languages are unnecessary in official werk, then the proper
thing is to discuss in a calm and collected manner the
question whether their use shall be continued or terminated. Mr. Dalton McCarthy in
one of his speeches said
he did not know that the French language was required
by law in these Territories. Yet he was in Parliament in
1877, when Mr. Mills brought in his Bill to amend this Act
and, not to be more particular, he was in Parliament, in
1886 when the Revised Statutes were passed, yet he did
not know until the early part of last session that such was
the law. This throws a remarkable light on the ignorance
of eastern politicians regarding the North-West, and
might indeed give rise generally to curious reflections.
He is evidently not aware that the subject has been discussed among politicians in
the North-West, or that had
he never raised the question it would be raised here.
Everybody acquainted with our leading men knew how
the matter stood. Let it be raised, but when raised let
us discuss it as statesmen should discuss it, without violent or offensive language.
We need hardly say that
Mr. McCarth having sat Parliament since 1876, having
voted on the Revised Statutes, is one of_the persons who
passed the law in its present state. He is responsible for
it. Like every political and administrative question its
expediency or the reverse may be properly discussed. If
it should be decided that in any part of the Dominion
the dual language is not necessary, let it be abolished
without exciting ones or dithyrambics, and vice versa."
I hear one of my hon. friends laughing at the
word "dithyrambics," but if he will get a dictionary and look up the word, he will
find that it
bears a strong application to that speech at Ottawa
to which I have referred.—
"In regard to race questions we say this: in the
Dominion of Canada every man is equal before the law,
and whatever be his mother tongue, whether he be Celt
or Saxon, Celt-Latin or Saxon-Celt, whether he be Secto- Indian or Franco—Indian (Métis), he stands on the same
footing under our constitution before the law, and try to
give the Saxon or the Celt or the Celto-Latin any
predominance or to seek to suppress or unjustly repress one or the other would be
to take a course
contrary to civil liberty and to the constitution
which secures equal rights to all. We are in a new
country in the North-West, let us make a new start
and discuss any question that may arise, not in the
deceiving glare of prejudice, but in the clear cold light of
reason; nay, in the road illumination of the Gospel of our
Lord, who taught us that all men are brethren. If the
continuance of the dual language is to be discussed it
should be discussed in the same practical temper, the
same absence of excitement, as we would discuss the
building of a bridge over Boggy Creek. It is not necessary
to be violent or offensive or to rail at this or the other
section of the community, but to take up a question of
practical action in a practical manner and looking at it
on all sides come to what will have, under such quiet
and balanced conditions, a chance of proving a wise
conclusion."
The Swiss question is then dealt with. But the
fact that my hon. friend, in a carefully prepared
speech, could state that that paper had made no
reference Whatever to this question, shows the
glaring inaccuracy that characterised the wild
effort. Now, the federal system to which I
referred, requires two things. You must first
have a body of communities such as we have in
Canada, such as they have in the United States,
such as they have in Switzerland, and these communities must have a common bond of
sentiment.
They must desire union but not unity; they
must have a loyalty to their State or Province, and
at the same time a loyalty to the Federal Government. If, of course, they desired
union, the
proper thing would be a central government; but
where they desire to come together and get something that will give them the impress
of a nation
and yet keep autonomous their own State or Province, the proper solution is a Federal
Government,
and that Federal Government is called to deal with
different races, with different languages, with men
of different religions, as we see in Switzerland and
as we see in Canada. Sir, I consider that here in
Canada we have all the conditions that are necessary
to produce a strong federal people. In peace, the
loyalty to the State or Province will be high. In war,
the loyalty to the Federal Government will be high.
If Canada were assailed from without to-day you
would find that every feeling that is provincial in
the breasts of Quebeckers, in the breasts of New
Brunswickers, in the breasts of Nova Scotians, in
the breasts of the people of the North-West Territories and British Columbia, would
all disappear
in the grand federal feeling that they should fight
for their common country. Why, Sir, how little
language has to do with preventing people from
becoming citizens of a country. I have travelled
in Alsace-Lorraine where the people speak German.
They are now under the German flag, but gladly
would they go back. They fought gallantly under
the French banner. A more loyal part of France
than Alsace-Lorraine did not exist. Then take
the Bretons. I saw in the summer of 1870, Gen.
Trochu review 300,000 Breton Mobiles in the streets
of Paris, and there was not a man under the
rank of officer who could speak French; yet these
men, when the hour of peril came, went into
battle and fought just as gallantly and just as
eagerly as the men who spoke French. Now, Sir,
harangues like these, whose dangers I have exposed
to-night, I hope will cease. They can reflect no
honor on my hon. and learned friend, and I speak
with truth when I say that I would be jealous for
his honor. There is no position that he could
attain, there is no reputation, however bright, that
he could make, which would not give me great
pleasure. But such harangues as these can reflect
no credit on him as a statesman, and they are capable of doing incalculable damage
to his country. I,
for one, whether we have a dual language or not,
have no fear whatever for Canada. I am perfectly
certain of Canada's future. History teaches me
lessons that history, if he studies it, will teach my
hon. and learned friend. Why, Sir, does he know
anything of the genesis of nations? Does he know
how one country after another has risen, and how
they have spoken different languages, and how they
have come together, and fought under different
banners, and lived under different governments,
and gradually become assimilated until the difference of language disappeared, and
sometimes a new
language was evolved? History will teach my hon.
friend that he can dispel those fears that have tortured his imagination, and with
which he has
sought to inflame the passions of the people of this
country. The main propositions that are behind
his speech, I have shown to be absolutely without
545 [FEBRUARY 12, 1890.] 546
foundation; I have shown that the deductions he
has drawn from those propositions are fallacious;
I have shown that the authorities that my hon.
friend has quoted, and has paraded before this
House, actually teach something else; and I do
hope that there is that grandeur of soul in my hon.
and learned friend that he can come to the conclusion that he has been in error, and
will determine
to mend his ways.
Mr. O'BRIEN. In the very few words that I
shall address the House on this occasion, I shall
be conscious that, perhaps, I may have as little
sympathy from the great body of this assembly as I
had upon a certain occasion during last Session; but
if what is said in this debate upon the side which I
propose to advocate, has as much weight in the
country as the agitation which was set on foot last
winter, then I for one will be perfectly content.
Not because it has had, as alleged, the effect of stirring up strife and setting race
against race and creed
against creed, but because it has had the wholesome effect of leading the people distinctly
to
understand the position in which they are placed,
and to understand the tendency and necessary
consequences of the policy which has been pursued
for so many years past. I say, if we accomplish
that result, we are doing a good thing, even if we
may irritate the feelings of people less sensitive to
the facts of history than to declamation, and such
language as we have heard from the hon. gentleman
who has just taken his seat. I neither propose to
emulate his declamation, nor to wander over as
many subjects as he has touched upon, and in the
end to say nothing whatever on the subject at
issue. The hon. gentleman has said a good deal
about his reading and learning. If all the effect
of his reading has been to enable him to speak
for one hour and say nothing, then I for
one do not care to have that sort of learning.
With respect to the remarks made by the hon.
gentleman in regard to the hon. gentleman for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), I can well leave them to
my hon. friend, in whose hands the hon. gentleman
has very foolishly placed himself. I shall endeavor,
after one or two observations on the historical references made by the hon. gentleman,
to go to the
question at issue in this matter. He has talked
about Switzerland, and has endeavored to draw
the inference that different languages may be
spoken and officially used in one country, and yet
it be one nation. I meet that statement by the
simple declaration that Switzerland, or Austro- Hungary which he might have cited,
is a federation
of different races and different nations. Now, I say
there is no analogy whatever between that and
Canada. I say we have not, we cannot have, and
never will have in this country two nationalities.
I deny that there are two nationalities in the sense in
which the term is applicable either to Austro- Hungary or to Switzerland, and, therefore,
the
analogy does not hold good. Coming to the
question really before us, there are two methods
by which it is proposed to deal with it. It
is admitted by the hon. gentleman who has
moved the amendment that a change is required.
If achange is not required there is no object in
moving his resolution. The hon. gentleman
proposes to deal with it from a local point of view,
the point of view from which the hon. gentleman
says it should be dealt with. The other method is
to deal with it from the point of view which was
put forward by the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill, and that is the national
point of
view. I will first deal with the local point of
view. We have before us evidence which clearly
shows the opinion of the people in the North-West.
If we take the press of that country we find, from
a little examination of it, that of all the newspapers published in the North-West
there is not
a single one which advocates, the retention of the
dual language. I may remark that, in speaking
of the newspapers, I do not include the illustrious
journal to which reference was just made, for
either one of two reasons—and of these two the hon.
gentleman can take his choice-either that journal is
so well represented in this House that it is unnecessary that the editor should read
his own articles for
our benefit, or else, if he chooses to take the other
alternative, a newspaper so largely subsidised by
public money as is the
Regina Leader is hardly to
be considered as an independent organ of public
opinion. The hon. gentleman did not tell us
what the opinion in the North-West is; he did
not venture to do that, because if so, he would
have been obliged to admit that public opinion
there demands such a Bill as that introduced and
advocated by the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy). I will read opinions from those
newspapers, published since my hon. friend gave
notice of his intention to introduce this Bill. The
Calgary Herald, 1st February, 1890, said:
"There is no denying the fact that the citizens of our
town, and, indeed, of the North-West generally, are in
favor of abolishing the dual language system."
The Lethbridge News, 29th January, 1890, said:
"The great voice of the people of the Territories is
certainly against it (i.e. the dual language) and those
who uphold the system are in a small minority."
The Saskatchewan, 16th January, said:
"There must be but one official language if there is to
be aunited nation * * * * and to the condition of
this coalescence, the abolition of the dual language is
absolutely essential."
The Moosomin Courier said :
"We are pleased to be able to state that the two North- West Senators, Messrs. Perley
and Loughead, are determined to support Dalton McCarthy's Bill to abolish the
official use of the French language in the North-West.
They will, by such action, truly represent the sentiments
of the vast majority of the people of the North-West."
The Qu'Appelle Progress uses language similar to
the above, as does the Qu'Appelle Vidette The
remaining papers either do not refer to the subject
or express no opinion in regard to it. If the hon.
member (Mr. Davin) is not in favor of adopting
this course, he does not represent the opinion of
the people of the North-West whose cause he is
sent here to advocate. The hon. gentleman says it
is a North-West measure. I take issue with him
upon that point, for two or three reasons. In the
first place, it is a North-West question, but it is
also a Dominion question. And it is a Dominion
question, because this Dominion Parliament legislates for the North-West, and has
declared that
the North-West is not in a condition to have the
full powers of constitutional government and the
management of its own affairs, and it is a mere
piece of opportunism, an attempt to avoid our own
responsibilities, to throw on the Legislative
Asssembly of the North-West the power of dealing
with this question. What is more; they do not
ask that it should be left to them, nor do any of
547
[COMMONS] 548
their newspapers do so. They all support the Bill
introduced by my hon. friend and oppose that provision in the existing act, which
was incorporated in
it without the knowledge of the father of it, the hon.
member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills); and the people of
North-West declare that the dual language should
be struck out as a provision which they do not require, which is not in their interest,
and which
should not be imposed on them contrary to their
wishes. Another reason is, that this should not be
made a local question. This reason is one which
may not be acceptable to many hon. gentlemen,
but it is one which will have great weight in the
country, that it is not desirable to throw into the
Local Legislature of the North-West a bone of contention which may cause trouble there
in two or
three years.
Mr. O'BRIEN. I am glad to find the hon.
gentleman express his approval of my sentiments,
because if we do what this resolution proposes we
would enable a minority in the North-West Provinces to exercise the same power and
control over
the destinies of that country that a minority has
exercised over the destinies of this country, an
influence and power which has not been for the
best interests of the Dominion. That is another
reason, because it can be very well understood
that if this power of continuing two languages is
made a subject of local legislation, that minority
may, by taking advantage of party conflicts, do
what in our history has been done frequently, and
what was done in old Canada, exercise a controlling power to which neither their number
nor their
influence entitled them. That is a very important
reason why the power should not be placed in the
hands of the Local Legislature of the North-West.
Those are two very decided reasons why we should
not deal with it as a local question and give away
the power which belongs to us and to no one else.
Another reason why hon. gentlemen should object
to the amendment is, and it is a reason which is
a very important and practical one, that, if the
amendment were carried, it would not be worth
the paper on which it is written. It does nothing
—it does not repeal the statute. What assurance
have we that the people of the North-West would
ever get the power to do what the resolution asks?
Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that by a
resolution of this House we can repeal a clause of
an Act of Parliament?
Mr. O'BRIEN. It will be done when Parliament chooses to do it, but we have no asssurance
that the majority of this House will do it. The
hon. gentleman's amendment, if carried, leaves the
matter exactly as it was before, and it does not
meet the wishes of the people which the hon. gentleman professes to represent here,
nor does it
meet the expressions of public opinion made in the
newspapers published in that country. Therefore,
I say that this amendment, if carried, is a perfect
nonentity. It will not produce even that system
of evolution which the hon. gentleman referred
to. I cannot even pay him the left handed compliment which he aid to my hon. friend
from
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) that his speech was
a system of evolution, for evolution means some
thing to be evolved. That cannot be said of the
speech of my hon. friend for
ex nihilo nihil fit.
Mr. O'BRIEN. Upon the grounds which I have
stated I say that this House cannot recognise the
deduction which the hon. gentleman endeavored to
draw from his historical reference to the incidents
of other nationalities. Let me disclaim entirely
(although very likely the disclaimer on account of
the very great representations already made may
not amount to much) any intention to demand the
total abolition of the French language, we demand
the abolition of the French language as an official
language in the North-West, where only five-sixths
of the people know the language, and this has been
treated as an attack on the French language
per se.
Those who make that statement know that it is
absolutely without foundation. They must know
that nobody desires to interfere with the French
language in any way where it is useful or necessary. Hereafter I venture to say that
there will be
but one language in this Dominion and that will
be the language which should be used in all the
new Provinces of this country; the language which
must be the official language of the Dominion if
this is ever to be a great or prosperous country.
If the member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) had
carried his historical references as far as Austro- Hungary, to which the analogy
would more
closely apply, he would find that the people
of that country, where there are more than five
languages spoken, have to come to precisely the same
conclusion as the hon. member who introduced
this Bill, and he would find that in Hungary,
where there are the Magyar, the Saxon and
Roumanian languages, all used in the ordinary
pursuits of life, the Hungarian language is imposed
as an absolute necessity, because it was discovered
that the use of all these different languages led to
discord and rendered government impossible. On
the other hand, in Austria, where there are several
languages of a similar character, the attempt made
by the recent Government to allow the use of all
these languages in official documents has led to
endless confusion, has fomented discord, and
brought about endless trouble in the community.
Even here, the analogy does not hold good no more
than in the case of Switzerland, because there we
have distinct nationalities federated for special
purposes. And everyone knows that the Emperor
of Austria is also King of Hungary. I do not
intend to occupy the time of this House any
longer, and I will merely recapitulate the grounds
upon which I object to this amendment. It
means nothing, it does nothing, and it produces
no effect. It is no answer to the petitions
which have been sent here asking that a change
should be made in the law. I further say that
this is not a local question, and for the reasons I
have given that it cannot be properly dealt with
as a local question. The duty and responsibility
connected with the matter belongs to this House,
and they should not, and ought not, delegate it to
any one. The question should be dealt with as
the Bill of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) proposes to deal with it. Those who
do not like the Bill can vote against it and say that
the French language shall continue in the North- West Territories. Those who think
there ought
to but one language, in accordance with the well-
549 [FEBRUARY 12, 1890.] 550
understood wishes of the people, should express
that opinion by voting for the Bill, but if they
vote for this resolution they are wasting time and
doing absolutely nothing except giving those who
do not care to face this question, and vote in a
manly way, an opportunity of getting out of it
without compromising themselves in a way in
which they are unwilling to do. With these few
remarks I again declare my intention to vote for
the Bill, and against the amendment, for the reasons I have stated.
Mr. WHITE (Cardwell). I cannot hope to entertain the House with the splendid eloquence and
vivacity of my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin), but with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a few observations on the Bill
now under discussion. What I have to complain
of in the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy), is that from beginning to end it
had a tendency to offend our French Canadian
fellow-citizens and was not at all addressed to the
question which he presented to the House. That
question in itself, it seems to me, is a very
simple one. It is, whether looking to the
character of the population of the North-West, it
is expedient to continue the use of the French
language in official documents. The hon. member for
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), instead of confining himself to the question of the expediency
of the use of
the French language in the North-West, went back
to the treaty of 1763, and he made it appear by
every word that he uttered that nothing in the
legislation of Canada, nothing in the legislation of Great Britain affecting Canada
was
so distasteful to him as the recognition of French
as an official language with us. I dissent entirely
from the conclusions he has drawn from his premises. He said that the treaty of 1763
made no mention of the use of French as an official language, that
the treaty of 1774 made no mention of the use of
French as an official language, that the Constitutional Act of 1791 omitted any recognition
of it,
and that after Lord Durham had made his report
upon his visit to Canada in 1839 it was declared
that only one language should be officially recognised. The hon. gentleman stated
also that it was
not until 1848 when the British Parliament repealed the statute of 1841, that French
obtained an
official recognition in Canada. Now, the recital
of the facts is perfectly accurate, but the inference
drawn seems to me to be wholly misleading. Surely
when we know that from 1774 down to 1841
French was actually in use as an official language,
the whole argument of the hon. member for Simcoe
falls to the ground. It was true, as he says,
that there was nothing in the treaties and nothing
in the Acts of Parliament in reference to it,
but, in spite of treaties and in spite of Acts
of Parliament, French was the language principally
used in official documents in the Legislature. I
have here, for instance, the Journals of the Legislative Assembly of 1844-45 containing
a report made
by a select Committee, of which Hon. Mr. Papineau was chairman, on the subject of
the use of
the French language, and although it is a little
lengthy, I think it is of sufficient importance to
justify my reading it to the House. This is the
address reported by that committee, which was
unanimously adopted by both chambers of the
Legislature:
=
"To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN:
"We, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the
Commons of Canada, in Provincial Parliament assembled, must humbly beg leave to approach
Your Majesty, for the purpose of renewing the expression of our
faithful attachment to Your Majesty's person and Government, and of representing—
"That, sensible of the advantages we enjoy from Your
Majesty's care and protection, and which, we trust, may
long be continued to us under Your Majesty's parental
sway, it is, at all tunes, our duty to submit for Your
Majesty's most gracious consideration, such matters as
may have a tendency, with any class of Your Majesty's
subjects, to diminish that contentment which we are
well assured Your Muiesty desires should exist in every
portion of Your dominions.
"That the French is the native language of a very
large class onour Majesty's subjects in this Province;
of this class the great mass indeed speak no other language; in it the largest portion
of their laws and the
books of their system of jurisprudence are written; their
daily intercourse with each other is conducted; it is the
language in which alone they can invoke the blessings of
Heaven on themselves and all that is dear to them. A
language indispensable to so many of Your Majesty's
faithful people, cannot, they will believe, be viewed by
Sovereign as foreign, when used by them.
"That Your Majesty's Royal Predecessors placed the
language spoken by the two great classes of Your
Majesty's subjects in this Province on the same footing,
affording, in this respect, equal justice and facility to
all.
"That this principle was never departed
the Act reuniting these Provinces was passed."
The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) would have the House believe that
no
official recognition was given to the French language until after 1848, although in
this address of
1844 it is stated that the predecessors of the then
Governor General placed the French language on
the same footing as the English. It goes on to
say:
"That in the yery first Session of the Legislature,
under that Act, it was indispensable to translate into
French every public record and document. That the
debates were not, and could not, unless a portion of the
representatives of the people were silenced, be carried
on without its use. That in courts and judicial proceedings it was found equally necessary
as before the Union,
and for every other practical purpose, it is as much used
as it ever has been."
When that report was taken up in the House, the
following proceedings took place;—
"Mr. Papineau, in speaking to the motion, was understood to say that he could not
suppose the home Government would have any objection to this amendment in the
Union Bill'; and in proof of this he read from a despatch
from the Colonial Secretary, addressed to Lord Gosford,
which stated that the home Government conceived that
no interference should be made with the language of the
French Canadians. He likewise stated that it was satisfactory to notice that the English
part of the community
and of that House had no objecton to this amendment.
This was the best proof of their good-will towards his,
Mr. Papineau's, compatriots.
"Mr. Attorney-General Smith was sure that the motion
would be received with the greatest satisfaction by the
whole House; and that in this instance there could be
no difference between members on either side of the
House.
"Dr. Dunlop said that the motion was so reasonable
and first, he hoped it would be carried by acclamation.
"The motion was then put and carried by acclamation,
every member rising, and with a good deal of clapping
and cheering."
And that was in a legislature composed of an equal
number of representatives from each Province of
Canada, by the unanimous voice of that legislature,
after an experience of three years during which
the French language, so far as that legislature
could do it, was abolished. In view of that fact,
and in view of the fact that since then the French
population has multiplied four or five times over,
551
[COMMONS] 552
why an effort should now be made to repeal the
French language, and regret should be expressed
that that language is still in use in this country, I
cannot conceive. It is as impossible, by an Act of
Parliament, to prevent the use of the French language in this Canada as it is by any
similar act to
root out the prejudices that are latent in some
men's minds. Now, Sir, the amendment before the
House recognises the federal system under which
we live, am it is a somewhat curious fact that in
the Province of Quebec, in respect of municipal
matters, the right is conceded to each local municipality to declare whether its proceedings
shall be
published in both languages or in one language
only. Article 243 of the Municipal Code of Quebec
enacts:—
"In any municipality, for which there is no Order in
Council, in virtue of the 10th section of the Consolidated
Municipal Act of Lower Canada, the publication of every
notice, by-law, resolution or order of the council, by
posting, reading aloud, or insertion in the newspapers,
must be made in the French and English languages.
"In every local municipality, for which there is such
an Order in Council, the publication of every notice,
by-law, resolution, or order of a county council, and of
every notice from the secretary-treasurer of the county
council, by poster, by reading, or in the newspapers may
be made only in the language prescribed in such Order
in Council, in place of being made in English and
French."
And if hon. gentlemen will turn to the Quebec
Official Gazette of the 4th of January of this very
year, they will find there this notice:
"QUEBEC, 23rd Dec., 1889.
"Notice is hereby given that a petition has been presented to the Lieut. Governor
by the Municipal Council
of the township of Eardley, in the County of Ottawa, to
obtain the authorisation to publish in English only all
notices, by-laws, or resolutions made or passed by said
council."
So that in the Province of Quebec, where the
French people are in such an immense majority,
the Local Legislature has been liberal enough to
provide that in exclusively English or almost
exclusively English communities the use of the
French language may be abandoned altogether.
Sir, the amendment, as I understand it, proposes
that the same principle shall be extended to the
North-West—that the people of the Territories
shall have the opportunity of declaring their will
through their representatives as to whether the
French language shall be continued in use there or
not. Now, the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr.
O'Brien) is a good deal disturbed by the fear that
the amendment, if adopted, will fail of effect; but
he must know that it is a distinct instruction of
the House to the Government, and if the Government fail to act on this instruction
they must resign
office. The hon. member tells us also that it is not
desirable to throw a bone of contention among the
people of the North-West, but he has no objection
to a bone of contention being thrown among the
people of the whole Dominion. Is it not a very
much greater source of objection and irritation for
the Parliament of Canada to impose a language
upon a people of any Province than it is to
allow that people to say what language or how
many languages shall be used in their legislature?
Those people pay the taxes and they have the
right to say what expenses shall be placed upon
them. Up to this time the people of the North- West have not had much to complain
of in this
respect. In fact, were it not for the lamentable
agitation that was started in Ontario and Quebec
principally, last summer, I doubt whether the
subject now under discussion would ever have been
alluded to at all either in the North-West or elsewhere. Certain it is that from the
time the
amendment was made in the Senate to the North- West Territory Act of 1877 down to
the summer
of 1889, when these unhappy religious differences
were brought into the political arena in the
Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, not one complaint
was made, so far as I am aware, by any newspaper
or anybody in the North-West Territory that it
was a hardship upon them and inimical to their
well-being as a national community that the French
should be recognised as an official language. It
is only since it occurred to some gentlemen that
political capital might be made out of it that this
question has been agitated at all. The hon.
member for Assiniboia (r. Davin) answered in
every particular, I think, the speech made by the
hon. member for North Simcoe in introducing his
Bill the other day, but I will trouble the House
with one quotation bearing upon the case, and it is
from the author selected by the hon. member himself. I refer to Professor Freeman.
He says in
one of his lectures, speaking of the Swiss Confederacy—and I may say that Professor
Freeman
maintains that in many important particulars the
federal system of Switzerland is superior to that of
Great Britain or that of the United States:
"An artificial nation was thus formed, a nation not
marked out by the usual signs of blood or language but
still anation by adoption. But it is adoption without
assimilation. The Lombard of Ticino, the Burgundian of
Vaud, has been raised to the level of his former German
master but he has not adopted their tongue, neither have
dopted his. In your union you adopt citizens from
all parts, but what you adept you assimilate, wherever
the physical laws of nature allow assimilation. All,
sooner or later, are merged in a one body; all become
members of what I venture still to call the English people.
To you the sight must seem strange to see two states
of the same Union side by side, speaking wholly distinct
languages; it must seem yet more strange to you to find
one state all but wholly Catholic, another all but
wholly Protestant, and to learn that the laws which in
either case secure civil equality to the minority are in
most cantons of recent date. Yet, with all this diversity,
the Swiss people, Teutonic and Romance, Catholic and
Protestant, undoubtedly form a nation, though a nation
artificially put together out of fragments of three elder
nations."
Showing that in the case of Switzerland according
to the authority selected by the hon. member for
North Simcoe, in spite of diversities of language
and religion, a nation vigorous and prosperous has
been formed under a system of Government in
many respects superior to that of Great Britain
and the United States. There is not an hon.
gentleman in this House who will take exception
to the view that if it were possible to have one
language it would be an advantage, but it is useless to-day to lay down that view
as an argument.
If we could all be by a process of reasoning made
English, it might be to the general advantage, but
the day has gone by, when anything can be gained
by insisting on the suppression of a language
spoken by a large minority in this country. We
have to deal with facts as they exist. Without doubt
under our present system the assimilation of the
people is being gradually brought about. From
personal knowledge I may say that in the Province
of Quebec, throughout the Eastern Townships and
the Montreal districts, there are more French
people speaking English than English people
speaking French. In fact it is worthy of remark
553 [FEBRUARY 12, 1890.] 554
that in that Province ten Frenchmen learn English
to one Englishman who learns French. But as
L'Etendard said the other day, if efforts are made
to antagonise our fellow-citizens, the French
Canadians, if they are to be deprived of what the
consider their rights, they will become more
exclusive than they have ever been in the past.
What has been the teaching of the past? We
know that down to the rebellion of 1837 the French
held themselves completely aloof from their English speaking fellow-subjects, whom
they regarded
as an alien and hostile race; but after the rebellion
and after the union of the two Canadas in 1841, a
different feeling began to set in, and a different
state of affairs began to prevail. The French
speaking people obtained the measure of self- government they desired, and according
to the
testimony of Earl Grey in one of his letters to Lord
John Russell:
"The consequence of this was that the French Canadians and the Liberal party in the
western division of the
Province, seeing that their leaders and friends were
admitted to their just share of power and influence, that
no distrust of them was evinced by the Government and
that the Government really was to be carried on strictly
in the spirit of the constitution without any preference
being shown to men of any one party or any one religion,
became on their side reconciled to the Imperial authority
which was exercised, and proved themselves worthy of
the confidence which had been placed in them by the
loyalty and attachment they manifested to the Crown.
So soon and so decidedly were the healing effects of this
policy experienced, that when the news of the French
revolution of February, 1848, reached the Province, it
occasioned no disturbance or alarm. In the state of public feeling and opinion which
Lord Elgin found prevailing
on his arrival in Canada little more than a car before,
there can be no doubt that the intelligence of this startling
event would have produced most formidable excitement,
if not actual disturbance. Instead of this there was a
most perfect tranquility and security. All efforts to
create opposition to the Government amongst the French
Canadians utterly failed; they heartily and steadily supported the Government, and
took every opportunity to
manifest, by addresses and resolutlons, the strongest spirit
of loyalty to the British Crown."
That was the effect fifty years ago of a policy of
conciliation and fair play, and every chapter in the
history of Canada shows that where efforts have
been made to antagonise the sentiment of French- Canadians, or to compel them to speak
a foreign
tongue, they have become only the more exclusive
and refused the more obstinately to assimilate with
their fellow-citizens of British origin, but that
when, on the contrary, a policy of fair play, conciliation and justice is pursued,
they have manifested the most unswerving loyalty to the British
Crown and Canada. Sir George Cartier called
himself an Englishman speaking French, and I
believe there are to-day more French Canadians
who are proud to call themselves English-speaking
Frenchmen than ever before, and that the number
will steadily increase if a policy of fair play and
equal justice be continued. The events of the
past year, however, have not tended to encourage
this assimilation, and every fair-minded man must
regret the agitation which has been made in this
House and out of it on this race and language question.
I believe in the policy of provincial rights in a
matter of this kind. The question of a dual
language is to be dealt with by this Parliament of
Canada so far as federal affairs are concerned, but
I believe that, so far as provincial affairs are concerned, it should be dealt with
by the Provinces,
and to the Provinces I am prepared to relegate it.
I trust our French Canadian friends will take the
same view, and that they will not allow the source
from which this proposition emanates to warp or
bias their judgment in the matter. Of course they
believe that, but for the agitation which swept over
this country last summer, this proposition would
not have come here, but they must also be aware
that nine-tenths of the people in the Territories
belong to other races than French, and that, judging
from the tendency of colonisation in that territory,
that population is likely to be larger in proportion
in the future. The tendency to colonisation on the
part of the French population is practically confined to the eastern part of Ontario,
and our
French Canadian friends must be aware that their
interests, not only as French Canadians, but in
every sense, are not jeopardised, and cannot be
jeopardised, by the abolition of the use of their
language in the proceedings and the documents of
the North-West Assembly.
Mr. BEAUSOLEIL. (Translation.) I cannot, Mr.
Speaker, allow this debate to be concluded without
expressing the opinions I hold on this matter, as
being a French Canadian. This question is certainly one of the most important which
can be
brought before this House. It concerns not only
the limited French population in the North-West,
but looking at the terms in which it is couched, it
influences the peace and prosperity of the country,
and, more especially, the entire French Canadian
race. The Bill brought in by the hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) is, on the face of it,
directed against the use of the French language in
the North-West. But if we read the speech which
accompanied its introduction, and if we read the
preamble of the Bill itself, we shall there find set
out the principle that there should exist throughout the whole of the Dominion but
one and only one
official language to be employed in the legislatures
and in the Courts, namely, the English language.
This is a principle, Mr. Speaker, which for my part
I can in no way accept. I am of the opinion of
those who assert that this is not a mere local question; but that it is a question
of the gravest
moment and which concerns the whole Dominion. I
am also opposed to the amendment made by the
hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), because I
see in it only an attempt to obtain by an oblique
course what they do not dare to ask for directly.
The Bill of the hon. member for North Simcoe is
supposed to be based upon a resolution passed by
the Council of the North-West Territories, asking
that the use of the French language, before that
body and before the courts, be prohibited. If there
is any justification in this House taking up the question it is evidently the fact
that the Council of
the North-West should represent the opinion of the
people of the North-West, and that, consequently,
there would be a moral obligation for this Parliament to carry out the wishes so expressed
by that
Council. Now, Mr. Speaker, if, relying on this
fact, this House is of the opinion that the French
language ought to be abolished,—if we decree its
use to be forfeited because we believe these resolutions to represent the views of
the people, it is
evident that by surrendering to this same Legislature the right to decree the abolition
of the French
language, we act exactly as if we had decreed it
ourselves. If they wish to abolish the French
language, let them say so plainly. If they believe
that it is in the interest of the peace of the country that a single language should
be spoken in the
555
[COMMONS] 556
Territories, let them have the courage to say so. If,
on the other hand, they desire to avoid exciting the
passions of the people, if they wish to avoid rousing their prejudices, if they wish
to avoid cause of
disappointment, if they desire to maintain peace,
tranquility and the excellent harmony which now
exists among the various races, let them declare
that the retention of the French language in the
North-West is a measure in the interest of the
country and let them reject this Bill. At the time
of the organisation of the Territories, it was thought
of importance to the erection and the peopling of
the Territories that the use of the two languages
before the courts and before the Legislature should
be authorised. Nothing has occurred since to
modify this position, The principle which the
amendment lays down is a dangerous principle; if
it is good to leave to a Local Legislature the right
to decide questions of this importance, touching
the privileges granted to a whole race; if it is good
to grant this to the North-West Territories, how
can you refuse it to the Manitoba Legislature,
which desires, in her turn, to enact the abolition
of the French language? If it is pretended that
the wish of the legislatures should be acceded to
at Ottawa; if it is admitted that a legislature can
decree the abolution of a right established and
recognised, how will you be able to refuse the
exercise of this right when the House of Commons
is in question; how shall we be able to go to the
foot of the throne and represent to the Queen and
to Her Government that the use of the French
language was guaranteed us by the Constitution
which was given to us by an Act of the Imperial
Parliament? They will reply to us: You have
thought it right to leave to the majority in the
Provincial Legislatures the right of decreeing the
forfeiture of the French language in one Province;
to-day, the House of Commons by a majority
decrees the cancelling of this right at Ottawa,
by virtue of what principle do you oppose this
decision? It is plain, Mr. Speaker, that if we
wish, with success, to defend the rights of our
race and of our language; if we wish to maintain
our institutions, we should not allow him to lay
down this principle, because if we admit the principle, we shall be obliged to submit
to the consequences, Whatever they may be. This is why, for
my own part—and I trust that I represent the
opinions of no small number—I cannot support
more strongly the amendment made by the hon.
member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin)—although he has
backed it in terms of great sympathy with the French
language—than I can support the Bill itself. I do
not wish to give to a legislature, which has
declared itself hostile, the right of decreeing, when
it shall see fit, that the French language shall cease
to be spoken officially in the North-West Territories. I have heard the reasons given
in support
of the Bill and of the amendment. One of the
reasons given is that the French population in the
North-West is small in number. The French population of the North-West is about one
to six, which
is at least as great as the proportion of the English
population of the Province of Quebec. And yet
with what indignation would that person be received who would say: The population
of English
descent is small in numbers in the Province of
Quebec; it costs several thousands of dollars to
translate the public papers into the two languages,
let us abolish the English tongue. Let us suppose,
(what is an impossibility) that a majority should
adopt a similar resolution, how could this House
refuse to the French majority of Quebec the right
to abolish the English language, when it is desired
to grant to the English majority in the North-West
the right to abolish the French language. It is also
stated that this population is poor. This is a good
reason why we should come forward in its defence.
If the population is poor; if it is but poorly able
to defend itself, it remains for us, the representatives of Provinces richer and more
at liberty, it
is for us the representatives of a people capable of
taking care of themselves, to assume charge of
their interests before this House. It is also
said that it is not represented. Why is it
not represented? It is because the counties have
been so divided that they cannot choose their own
representatives. In order to establish that the
Government divided up the Territories in such a
manner that this population cannot secure a representation, I will cite the words
of that illustrious
man who has passed forty years of his life in the
North-West Territories, Monseigneur Grandin,
who says that, looking at the division of the counties, it is impossible for the French
population to
be represented. It has been stated, and I believe
the statement to be correct, that each and every
one of the members from the North-West was entreated to adopt the paternity of the
Bill by seconding the motion of the member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy) and that they had one and
all refused. I trust that they will continue to
represent with impartiality all the elements
which form the population of the North-West,
and that they will prevent by their vote and
voice the injustice which it is attempted to commit. Now, Mr. Speaker, complaint is
made of the
evils caused by the existence of two official languages in Canada. It is strange that
the member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) should be the first
one to find out these great inconveniences. All the
statesmen who have come from England, being
without prejudices and having official duties to
perform; those who have been entrusted with the
charge of representing the Crown of England in
Canada; all those who have taken the pains to study
the question, have declared that the French language
was not an evil but a benefit; that it was one of the most
effectual guarantees for the loyalty of the French
population to the Crown of Britain; that as matters
stood there was a friendly contention between the
two races to do most for the progress and advancement of the country. The hon. the
Secretary of
State cited the other day the opinion of Lord Elgin.
Who does not remember the speech of Lord
Dufferin, wherein His Excellency affirmed that the
existence of the English and French races in Canada,
was one of the greatest means of promoting the
progress of the country by the emulation which of
necessity existed between them. If the hon. the
member for Simcoe had read a little of the history
of Canada, or at least if he had desired to understand the lessons derived from it,
he would have
discovered that every time that an attempt had
been made to deprive one portion of the population
of its rights and privileges guaranteed by the
constitution or by treaties, he would have seen I
say, that such attempts have been followed by
discontent, disorders and even by revolutions. It
is only when the country has been governed
according to its wishes; when all its rights have
557 [FEBRUARY 12, 1890.] 558
been respected, and when each one has felt that he
could exercise in peace and without constraint his
religion and speak his own language, that peace
has entered into their souls, that contentment has
possessed every one, and that prosperity has come
again in a solid and permanent manner. The same
causes will produce the same effects. They will
produce the same effects not only in the North- West, but throughout the whole of
the Dominion,
for the simple and very natural reason that
if no respect is shown for the rights of
our race in the North-West, we have no longer any
guarantee that they will be respected elsewhere;
and the French population will come to find out
that they must place themselves in a position of
defence against the aggression with which they
will be constantly threatened. This is a condition
of affairs which should not be tolerated. It appears
to me that all the statesmen in this House should
hold out the hand to one another, and come to an
understanding to discourage the schemes of fanatics like the member for Simcoe, who
labour to
inflame the population, and to stir up the prejudices of race, in order to hoist themselves
into
power, even on the ruins of their country. With
these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to
move the following amendment to the amendment
proposed by the hon. member for West Assiniboia
(Mr. Davin) :—
That all the words after the word "Resolved" in the
amendment be struck out and the followmg inserted instead thereof:— "That the official
use of the French and
English languages in the Legislature and the Courts of
the North-West Territories was established by this Parliament in the well understood
interests of the people of
the said Territories, in order to promote the good understanding and the harmony that
should exist between the
different races, and with a view, by a liberal policy. to
promote the colonisation and settlement. of those vast
domains; that nothing has happened since to excuse
or justify the withdrawal of the privileges granted only a
few years ago; that the result of the proposed legislation would be to create uneasiness
and discontent
throughout the Dominion and to put in doubt the stability of our institutions, and
thereby to hinder and delay
for a long time the development of the immense
resources of the Canadian North-West."
Mr. DENISON. As the seconder of this Bill,
it is only right that I should place on record my
reasons for the course I intend to take. In approaching this subject, I wish to say
I have no
feeling against my loyal fellow-subjects of French
origin, or against the French language, and I
would be only too glad if I could speak the French
language well; but I think it is not in the interests
of the North-West Territories, or in the interests
of Canada as a whole, that we should adopt the
French language or continue it in the North-West
Territories. If it is decided by this House that it is
wise to have two languages in the North-West,
the question which presents itself is, what other
language shall we choose in addition to English?
Shall we choose French, German, Cree, Icelandic,
or Russian, or any other language. If we take the
population numerically, and adopt the language
of the strongest in that sense, we would have to
adopt, as was suggested by the hon. member for
Bothwell (Mr. Mills), the Cree language. In the
early days up there, the English half-breeds spoke
English and Cree, and the French half-breeds
spoke French and Cree, and the Cree language
was the common language between them all. But,
if we rule that language out, shall we adopt
French or German? I understand that now the
Germans in the North-West equal, if they do not
exceed the French there, and, if that is not the
case now, I fancy it will not be very many years
before the Germans will far exceed the French
in the North-West. I was in the North-West
twenty years ago, in the year 1870. It was then a
Crown colony, or had been shortly before that. It
was a British Crown colony, governed by the
Hudson Bay Company, by means of a Governor and
a Council. The Hudson Bay Company held that
country from the time when they got their charter
in 1670, until it was bought from them by the Dominion Government. It has been claimed
by some
that that is a French land; in fact Bishop Grandin,
in his letter which we have on the Votes and Proceedings of the House, has claimed
that it is French
land, he speaks of it as "our land." I cannot see
how he can claim anything of the kind because, as
you all know, it has always been held by the Hudson
Bay Company as a Crown colony under the direct
authority of the British Government from the time
of their charter. I would like to read a few lines
from Hargrave's Red River. On page 87 he says:
" With regard to the administration of justice, the
laws of England of the date of Her Majesty's accession,
so far as they are applicable to the condition of the
colony, are understood to regulate the judicial proceedings. The regulations passed
by the CounciI of Assinboia are of the nature of by-laws."
And to show further, the interest that was taken in
that colony by the British Government on more
than one occasion, they found it necessary to send
up troops to Red River colony, through a vast
wilderness, by the Hudson Bay route up the Nelson River, and by a very long, harassing
and
tedious journey. On page 93 the same author says:
"For a space of time extending over 15 years a regular
military force was quartered at Red River. In 1846 a
wing of the 6th regiment of foot, a detachment of royal
engineers, and detachment of artillery, under command
of Colonel Crofton. were ordered to the settlement, where
they arrived in the autumn of the same year. The entire
party consisted of 18 officers and 339 men. They reached
their destination by way of York Factory on Hudson Bay,
over the route between which point and the settlement
they conveyed their guns and stores by the usual means
of inland transport used in the country. They were sent
out under secret instructions from the war office. Colonel
Crofton himself remained for only one year, at the close
of which he was succeeded by Major Griffith, who, along
with the troops under his command, returned home in
1848."
On the next page we find :
"From 1855 till 1857 there were no troops resident in
the colony, but in the latter year a company of Royal
Canadian Riflemen came out. This corps formed part of
a regiment of seven or eight hundred men which were
peculiarly a Canadian force, being recruited for service
in Canada, though supported by the Imperial Government. After the first two years
of its residence had expired the entire body of officers was relieved by gentlemen
from other companies of the regiment, and in the year
1861, after having been stationed in the country for four
years, the company returned to Canada by ship from
York Factory."
You will see, Mr. Speaker, by that, the interest
that was taken in the North-West country, by the
Imperial Government. You will see that there was
no pretence then, that it was in any sense a French
colony, or retained at any time by the French. In
1870, the population was very small, some ten or
eleven thousand, mostly half-breeds. As we know
there is not one representative in the present North- West Council who speaks the
French tongue. I went
over the Canadian PacificRailway line this summer,
and from the time that I entered the Territories to
the day I left, it so happened I did not hear one word
559
[COMMONS] =560
of French spoken. I cannot see that there is any
great cry on the part of the French in the North- West for a dual language. If it
is a good thing for
the French race to have the French language used in
the North-West Territories, it must also be a good
thing for the German race that their language be
spoken there also, because they are growing and
increasing very rapidly. On my return I came
back by the Northern Pacific road, and I am glad to
say that our road is in every respect superior to it,
and is indeed a most magnificent road, and it passes
through a far better country in every respect. In
fact the whole of the Northern Pacific country seems
to be altogether barren, except on the Pacific slope,
where there is some good land. I could see that
the land was all occupied; I could see that our
neighbors have settled pretty nearly all that
country except, perhaps, a small portion on the
Pacific slope. They have occupied all the mountain
lands for pasture, they have occupied all the valleys
good for tillage. As you will remember, not very
long ago when the Oklahoma district was opened for
settlement, it was surrounded on all sides by people
who rushed in so as to be able to get land. That is
conclusive proof, to my mind, that our neighbors to
the south have pretty well overrun all the land
they have, and I think that they are not likely to
have any new territory to throw open unless
they seize more Indian reserves and open them for
settlement. That being the case I have every
ground for saying that there will be a very
large immigration into our own North-West
Territoreis within the next few years. We have
there a great lone land, a land, I suppose, as big
as Europe, without any inhabitants to speak of.
There are very few or no inhabitants in a vast
extent of territory which will be opened for future
settlement. When we think of the large immigration that is increasing every year,
when we know
that immigration has been pouring into the United
States for years, when we know that that country is
already about filled up, we must become convinced
that the tide of population is sure to turn towards
our own Territories. Now, is this House to say
that we are going to allow these foreign settlers
who come in there, to say what language they shall
speak? I hope not. I think that we should let all
these foreigners who reach our shores understand that when they set their foot in
the
North-West Territories they have got to become
Canadians and speak the language of this continent. It has been said that Switzerland
is a parallel
case to this Canada of ours, Now, mark you, I am
not referring to Quebec, it is out of the question to
speak about Quebec; I have devoted myself entirely
to the North-West Territories and it has been
suggested that Switzerland is a parallel case.
It is not a parallel case for this reason: In Switzerland they had a dual language
from the very
beginning, whereas we have a great lone land empty
now and waiting for settlement. As you know,
Switzerland was peopled from the south by
Italians, from the east by French, from the north
by Germans. They were living in secluded valleys
where they were left undisturbed for a long time,
and when they found they were attacked by a
foreign enemy they combined for common defence.
When I read the history of Switzerland for the
first time, I was surprised to learn what great
dissensions they have had in that country during
several generations, and it has only been when
attacked by a common enemy that they combined
and made a common defence. I would like, with
your permission, to read something from Bishop
Grandin's letter. He says:
"After the annexation the immigrants came in great
numbers, and I can tell you that out of ever hundred
there were but ten Catholics; the English and Protestant
population thereupon increased rapidly, and in a few
years we must be content to find ourselves in the minority."
And further on:
"You are also acquainted with what is going on this
very day at Regina. In spite of the efforts of the Hon.
J. Royal, Lieutenant—Governor of the North-West, and
the Hon. Judge Rouleau, all our representatives, not one
of whom is a Catholic, demand with two exceptions, the
abolition of our language and the amendment of our
school laws in order to impose upon us the so called
secular schools whichare nothing else but anti-Catholic
schools, even admitting that they are not Godless
schools."
Further on he says:
"If even one-fourth of those who emigrated from your
Province during the past ten years had come to us, we
would still constitute the majority, or would at all events
be a powerful minority which would have to be taken
into account and against which none would think of
enacting extraordinary laws. To people this territory,
to people our land, as the aborigines call it—and the
Half-breeds and French Canadians have some right to
use that expression: for French Canadians discovered
this vast country; French Canadians and Half-breeds
opened it up to religion and colonisation-to settle our
lands there are sent men from every nation, men without
faith and without religion; Mennonites are brought from
a great distance, even Mormons are admitted and are
seemingly held up as examples to the Blackfeet."
I have read these extracts to show that even
Bishop Grandin admits that the immigration of
English and other people has enormously increased
there. I desire to make one more quotation before
I resume my seat; it is from the Mail of 15th
November, 1889. In an interview between Premier
Mercier and a reporter of that paper, the reporter
asked:
"When you said in your address before the Club National last week: 'Let us hope that
these principles may
never be misunderstood, and that we may not be called
upon in an of our Provinces to have recourse to reprisals, an to remind the majority
who ma be unjust
that there is a minority which stands in need of protection,' did you mean that as
a threat to the Protestant
majorities of other Provinces and to the Protestant minority here?Â
"'Not as a threat.' replied Mr, Mercier; 'but surely
as a warning to the majorities in the other Provinces.
To be frank, I must say that I intended and I do intend
to—day to state that equal rights must apply to the minorities in every Province,
and if the Federal Act is to be
applied in some other Province against the rights of the
minorities and to the abolition of their Separate schools
where they exist by law, I do not see why the same rule
should not apply to the minority of the Proyince of
Quebec. I state that the minorities had no rights because they were French or English,
Catholic or Protestant, but that they had rights because they were the minorities
entitled to be protected and to enjoy the same
rights as the majorities. This being the principle I do
not see why the minority of the Province of Quebec should
have more rights than the minorities in the other Provinces when the same law applies,
when these rights are
consecrated by the same constitution, and when the same
interest exists. So, to be clear, my intention was to say
that if the Catholics or the French of the other Provinces
are not treated as they ought to be, I do not see why the
Protestants and English in the Province of Quebec should
be treated otherwise. I understand perfectly well the
responsibility that I take, and I do take it with intention.
It is not a threat, as I said, but a warning, which I hope
will be sufficient to prevent the majorities of other Provinces from being unjust.'"
Now, are we to be deterred from doing our duty,
from doing what we consider to be in the interests
of our country, by any threats or warnings from
561 [FEBRUARY 13, 1890.] 562
Mr. Mercier? I hope not. I, for one, have no idea
of being influenced by the threats of Mr. Mercier
or his friends. I will take any course in this House
I choose, ignoring Mr. Mercier and anything he
may do or say. I wish it to be understood that
when he speaks his remarks have no influence or
effect over me. I believe the course I am taking
is the correct one, that it is the one in the interests
of the land of my birth, and the land that contains
everything that I hold dear.
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
That the debate be the first Order of the day to-morrow.
Motion agreed to.
Motion agreed to; and House adjourned at 11
p.m.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
This individual participated in:
