THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN THE NORTH- WEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. McCarthy for second reading
of the Bill (No. 10) to further amend
the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter fifty,
respecting the North-West Territories; the motion of Mr. Davin in amendment thereto,
and
the motion of Mr. Beausoleil in amendment to the
amendment.
Mr. CHARLTON. Mr. Speaker: I realise, Sir,
that the question under discussion is one likely to
provoke angry feelings and race prejudices, and I
shall endeavor to make the remarks that I have to
make to—day in a conciliatory spirit. I shall of
course feel bound to state my convictions, but I
shall endeavor to do so courteously, and without,
at all events, giving needless offence. I shall not
agree with many of my fellow members of the
House—with the majority of them probably—but,
I shall ask of them that toleration that I accord
to them in the discussion of this matter. It is,
Sir, a disquietening question, and necessarily so.
It is to be regretted that it is disquieting, but it
cannot be helped. We might purchase quiet by
the avoidance of the question entirely. We might
purchase quiet by allowing matters to go on in the
course they have been going without any protest
or without any attempt on the part of those who
believe that danger is ahead to avert that danger.
I do not consider, Sir, that that course is necessary
or advisable. We are certainly capable of discussing this question in this high court
of the
nation, in a spirit of fairness stating our convictions; and after having heard the
arguments
that are to be presented on both sides, the House
will decide the question as the majority of its
members deem proper.
The speakers who have addressed the House on
this subject in the earlier part of this debate have,
as a rule, taken the ground that a community of
language in a country is not essential; many of
them, indeed, I infer from their remarks, entertain
the opinion that it is not even desirable. We have
had the example of states in ancient times, cited
here in a sense which would lead one to suppose
that the speakers thought the example of those
states worthy to be copied by us. We have had
allusion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia
(Mr. Davin) to the fact that of the federal unions
now existing in the world two of them do not
possess community of language; and I think, Sir,
if we regard the history, the present position and
the progress of those three federal unions, we shall
find a very striking argument in favor of the
doctrine I have advanced, that a community of
language is desirable; for certainly neither the
federal union of the cantons of Switzerland,
nor that of the Provinces of Canada, bears
any comparison with the federal union of
the United States in point of development,
population and power. The hon. member for
Assiniboia treated us the other night to an exceedingly witty speech; I do not know
that I can
say that the spirit of the speech was quite in
keeping with the magnitude and importance of
the question he had under discussion. In the
course of his speech he said that if you wished to
make the French language permanent, you had
but to attempt to restrict it. I do not know that
the experience of the world would bear that
assertion out. I do not know that the French
language has been made permanent in the
United States. Louisiana soon after was admitted
into the American Union, the French language
was not sanctioned as an official language;
and the result of that prohibition or restriction, if the hon. member prefers the
latter
term, has not been to make the language permanent, but, on the contrary, to thoroughly
diffuse and assimilate with the American element
the French population near the mouth of the
Mississippi; and I do not believe that any fair
or proper attempt to secure the dominance of
the English tongue in this country will have the
result of making the French language predominant
or increasing its use in the country.
My hon. friend from North York (Mr. Mulock)
gave us a very nice essay on ancient history. He
went back to the days of Queen Esther, and told
us how King Ahasuerus sent his letters in 127
different languages to 127 different provinces.
Well, Sir, if the hon. gentleman had gone a little
further back, which he might very properly have
done, to the time of the Tower of Babel, he would
have found a time when one language was in use;
653 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 654
in the 11th chapter of the Book of Genesis, he
would have read:
"And the Lord said, behold, the people is one, and
they have all one language; and this they begin to do;
and nothing will be restrained from them, which they
have imagined to do."
"Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language that they may not understand
one another's speech. "
Evidently the Almighty recognised the power of a
community of language, and frustrated the
attempts that were being made by the people of
that day: he scattered them over the face of the
earth, and brought in more than a dual language
among the peoples of the world. The hon. member for North York tells us that Greece
had a community of language, and yet that out of that
community rival states with their animosities and
bickerings arose, and there was no such thing as
a national feeling in Greece. The great trouble
with Greece was that it wanted commercial union,
and the day of commercial union had not yet
come. If the Greeks had adopted that policy, the
bickerings and animosities which existed among
those states speaking the same language would
gradually have disappeared In Rome, the hon.
gentleman tells us, there were the Greek, the Latin,
and numerous other tongues; they had no community of language in that great empire.
Necessarily
they had not. The Roman Empire was composed
of conquered states; it had spread from the city on
the Tiber, until it had covered nearly the whole of
the known world; but does the hon. gentleman propose to tell us that the debates of
the Roman senate,
the Roman code, or the Roman statutes, were reproduced in all the languages spoken
in that great
empire? I think not. I think there was nothing
in the Roman Empire corresponding to the condition of things we have in Canada to-day.
Latin
was used in the proceedings of the Senate and was
I venture to assert, the official language of the
Roman Empire. Then the hon. gentleman came
down to the days of modern history, and he gave
us a long list of the nations having more than one
language. He tells us that Spain, Italy, Sweden,
the Netherlands, Russia, Austria, Turkey—
Mr. CHARLTON. Well, we will drop Turkey.
Does the hon. gentleman propose to hold those
nations up for us to copy? Shall we copy the institutions of Spain, Russia or Austria?
Mr. CHARLTON. We will come to Great
Britain in a moment. Does the hon gentleman tell
us that all the languages used in those countries
were the official languages of their diets and
assemblies, and that the laws were published in all
those languages? I think not; and if they were,
we do not want a model from them. Then, I come
to England, as the hon. gentleman proposes. He
tells us that in Great Britain we have not only
English, but the Gaelic, the Welsh, the Irish, and
the French in the Channel Islands. Well, are the
debates in the Chamber at Westminster conducted
in Gaelic, Irish, Welsh and French? Are the resolutions put from the Chair of the
House of Commons
in all those languages? Are those official languages?
By no means. English is the official language. The
hon. gentleman tells us that the decrees of the
English Parliament are read, I think he said from
a high hill on the Isle of Man in the Manx language.
Well, if he wishes us to adopt that plan, there could
be no objection I imagine, and we should then have
all the decrees of this House read from the
highest peak in the North-West, in French, in
Icelandic, in Cree, in all the hundred and twenty- seven languages, more or less,
that are spoken in that
territory; we need not quarrel with the hon.
gentlemen in regard to that. The hon. gentlemen
tells us that there is no need of resorting to repression. Well, Sir, we do not propose
to resort to
repression; he is begging the question; we do not
propose to interfere with any rights that exist in
Canada by virtue of the provisions of the British
North America Act—not one of them; but we do
not want to extend certain features of our
institutions to virgin soil; we do not want to extend the confusion that necessarily
exists from the
use of two languages. While we do not want to
interfere with a single vested right, which exists in
this Confederation, by virtue of the Confederation
Act of 1867, we deny that these are vested rights
in the North-West Territories, a territory which
has been acquired since Confederation, and we are
not bound to have implanted in that soil the
condition of things which we do not propose to
interfere with, but the existence of which we
lament in the older portions of the Dominion.
We next heard from our friend whose riding is
Rouville (Mr. Gigault), a gentleman to whom I
always listen with the greatest pleasure, a gentleman who is a logical speaker, and
who represents
his views temperately and forcibly. He accused
my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
with being governed by American rather than
by British precedent and example. No doubt
the hon. gentleman from Simcoe thought that
American example might be as good to follow as
the examples of some of the Continental States of
Europe; and I do not know but that we might in
many cases, with profit to ourselves, have paid
more attention than we have to American example.
For instance, if we had taken pains to examine
American precedents with regard to the Franchise
law; if we had seized ourselves of the fact that
the American Constitutional Convention of 1787,
after full consideration of the question, had decided to have no national franchise
but State franchises, and that this decision was carried into effect
and had been in operation for a hundred years
with the greatest success and to the greatest
satisfaction of the people, we might have
avoided the legislative bungle which is now
upon our Statute-book — the Dominion Franchise Act—and have satisfied the public more
thoroughly than we have succeeded in doing. We
might, if we had copied American example more
closely, have taken the position earlier in the day
on Provincial rights which has since been taken;
and I do not know that the fact of being influenced
to any extent by American example should be cast
as a slur upon any public man in this House in discussing any public question. The
hon. gentleman
then will perhaps pardon me if, in dealing with
this question of community of language, refer
him to American example bearing directly upon
this question—the example to which I referred incidentally a few moments ago of the
treatment of
the language question in the vast territory of
Louisiana, which was acquired by the American
Government in 1803. Here was an old French
colony with a large French population, containing
655
[COMMONS] 656
no Anglo-Saxon element of any consequence. It
was necessary for the Government of the United
States to give to the French citizens of Louisiana
institutions and laws, and they made it a fundamental principle to be carried into
effect at the earliest practicable moment, that the English language
should be used through the territory as an official
language, that the Legislature of Louisiana in its
records of proceedings should use that tongue, and
that the laws of Louisiana should be published in
that tongue. Upon that basis the State of Louisiana
was organised as speedily as possible, and upon
that basis the French citizens of Louisiana became
American citizens; and in course of time they have
become so throughly assimilated that they are today American citizens in every sense
of the word.
Many eminent men come from this French element
in Louisiana, such as General Beauregard, Pierre
Soule, and scores of others, who figure in American history and have acquired prominence
in
American politics and literature. Any one going
through New Orleans, as I did a short time ago,
will see that there is one quarter of the city
called the French quarter and another the English quarter. The old quarter which was
occupied by the French is still called the French
quarter, but you hear the English language
everywhere, and you cannot discover any marked
indication that you are among a people of foreign
descent, so thoroughly Americanised have they
become. That has been done in Louisiana, and
the condition of things which exists there to-day
is more desirable, certainly, to the American people
than if they had a Quebec planted at the mouth
of the Mississippi, just as we have one planted at
the mouth of the St. Lawrence. Suppose the French
language were extended over that vast territory
comprising Louisiana and that great land west of
the Mississippi, now comprising ten states and two
territories, would that be a desirable state of things?
Was not the wisdom of the American people
shown in deciding that the French language should
not be an official language either in the State of
Louisiana as it exists at present or in any part of
that vast territory west of the Mississippi extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the
British line?
Was not wisdom shown in excluding the French
as an official language from that vast territory?
Beyond question it was; and American example
in that respect is an example we would do wisely
to follow in dealing with the same question here.
There are other instances besides the one I have
alluded to in the history of America. There is the
example of the treatment of the Spaniards in Florida when that country was acquired
by the Americans. The use of the vernacular language of the
people was denied to them as an official language;
the laws were not published in that language; the
proceedings of the courts were not held in that
language, but it was imperative that English should
be used; and the consequence was that the Spanish
population of Florida became speedily thoroughly
assimilated with the Saxon population of the rest
of the United States. We have another example.
The United States, as a result of the war with
Mexico, became possessed of the territory of California, which had a considerable
Spanish population. Again the United States denied to that population the use of the
Spanish tongue, as an official
one, and made English the official language of the
Legislature and the Courts. As a consequence
these people have been swallowed up by that
great assimilating maelstrom, and now, in a second
generation, you can scarcely detect a trace of the
Spanish nationality in the population of California.
The Spanish element have become thoroughly
assimilated with the American element, and
thoroughly Americanised, and that has been
accomplished by virtue of this rule, which the
American Government invariably enforces when
incorporating foreign elements into its body politic.
We have another case—that of Texas. Texas was
conquered and wrested from Mexico by a movement of adventurers from the South and
South- West, and an independent nationality was erected
there after a fierce struggle, characterised by such
events as that of San Antonio, where the Alamo, defended by one hundred and ninety-two
men, was
captured by 7,000 Mexican troops after 1,600 of
the assaulting force were killed, and not a soul left
in the garrison. The bravery of the garrison is
commemorated by the inscription on the monument
in the square of San Antonio: "Thermopylae
sent its messengers of defeat; the Alamo sent
none." The courageous spirit of these defenders resulted in wresting Texas from the
control of Mexico,
and they made English the official language; and
Texas is to-day one of the most prosperous and
thoroughly American of all the American States,
and you can scarcly find a trace of the existence of
a foreign element in the population of that country.
Then my hon. friend instances the case of Cape
Colony, and points to the fact that the Dutch
language is an official language in that colony.
Well, the circumstances of Cape Colony are quite
similar to our own. The Dutch were the original
settlers of the country. It was conquered by
England, and it was wise probably to give to the
Holland element of Cape Colony the use of their
language. But Cape Colony is extending its
bounds; English influence has crossed the Kahalari
Desert to the north, and, following Livingston's
pathway in his early explorations, has reached the
Zambesi. England has taken possession of Lake
Nyassa, a lake larger than Lake Erie, has shut out
Portugal from that region, is pushing her possessions on further north to Lake Bangweola,
and has
already acquired avast empire in South Africa, with
immense possibilities and resources, an empire that
may be the home of scores of millions of people in
the future—a salubrious, fertile region containing
hundreds of thousands of square miles. Does
my hon. friend suppose the Dutch tongue will
be extended to that region and become the
official language in the new Provinces to be erected
in that vast country, the basin of the Zambesi? I
am sure such will not be the case.
Then the hon. gentleman alleged that my hon.
friend from North Simcoe said in his speech that
the French shall not read French literature. I do
not understand the hon. gentleman to have said
any such thing. I do not understand that he
proposes to debar Frenchmen from the use of their
literature or their tongue wherever they live.
The Bill under the consideration of the House
merely provides for the discontinuance of the
French language as an official language in the
North-West Territories. It says nothing about
the right of the French people to read their
language, or use it as they do to-day. It says
nothing about the right of a Frenchman to use his
language in this House, or throughout this Dom
657 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 658
inion. Wherever his rights exist under the Constitutional Act, he can preserve and
cherish his
language; he may refuse to allow his children to
learn any other language if he chooses to do so.
The hon. gentleman objects, also, to the preamble
of this Bill. I think last year, my hon. friend,
the Minister of Justice, in the debate on the
Jesuits' Estates Bill, said that the preamble had
very little to do with the Bill, that the character
of the measure was best shown by the provisions
of the Bill itself. However, I see nothing objectionable in this preamble, which reads
as follows:—
"Whereas it is expedient in the interest of the
national comity of the Dominion that there should be
a community of language amongst the people of Canada,
and that the enactment in the North-West Territories
Act allowing the use of the French should be expunged
therefrom: Therefore Her Majesty, &c."
That simply asserts that, in the interests of this
Dominion, it would be well if we could have a community of language. I believe that
statement, and I
will support the Bill upon that assertion. The Bill
itself asserts that the French language should not
be used in the North-West as an official language.
I believe that, and I shall vote that it shall not be
used there. Those who think otherwise can vote
the other way. Each of us is entitled to his own
opinion, and probably each may entertain their
opinion honestly. Then, the hon. gentleman says
that the French Canadians want only fair play and
justice. I should be ashamed to take the position
that I intended to deny fair play and justice to the
French Canadians; on the contrary, they should
have the fullest justice and the utmost limit of
fair play; but this is an English colony, we live
under British laws and institutions, and there is a
vast country in the North-West where all the institutions are plastic and unformed,
and, because
there are a few hundred or a few thousand
children of French traders and French half- breeds in that territory, it is not necessary
for
the future welfare of this country that the
dual language should be preserved there as official,
with all the evils which we believe would flow
from it to the general interests of the country.
The North-West is likely to become the seat of
power in this Dominion; it is likely to have the
great majority of the people of this Dominion; it
it is likely to become the most productive part of
the Dominion, and therefore it is of the utmost
importance, at this time, that this change should
be made, when it can be done without any great
trouble. When that country is young and in a
formative state, we should put it on the right
track. The North-West ought not to be saddled with
such a provision as the use of two official languages.
I believe, in the interests of this country, that it
should not be, and I shall so vote. My sense of
duty impels me to do so. Then the hon. gentleman
says, that Parliament is the proper place in which
to deal with this. I thoroughly agree with him
in that. The North-West Territories, have not yet
Provincial institutions. This clause 110 emanated
from us. With this Parliament rests the exclusive jurisdiction up to this moment,
and, if this
Parliament has taken a step which is not in the
interest of the country, or has done any wrong, let
us undo that wrong and retrace the step. I shall
vote to retrace the step and undo the wrong. The
hon. gentleman will vote that this provision shall
not be repealed. He has a perfect right to do so,
and so have all his fellow-countrymen, but I shall
vote that it be repealed, because I think it is not in
the interest of the country.
Then we come to our friend from Algoma (Mr.
Dawson), who tells us there were French in the
North-West before there were English. So there
were, and so there were in Ontario, and they had
stations in Detroit before there were any English
there at all, and they had other stations in Michigan,
Illinois and Wisconsin, and yet the French language has not been retained in those
places. The
English have acquired rights there by possession or
purchase, and I believe that we may follow their
example in the case of the Canadian North-West.
I come next to the speech of my hon. friend
the Minister of Public Works. I am bound to
say that I considered that speech last night a
bitter one. The hon. gentleman possesses tact
and diplomatic ability, but last night he did not
succeed in concealing the bitterness of his feeling on this topic, a feeling amounting
almost to a
sense of hatred of those who were opposed to him.
He paraded before the House— as, of course, he had
a right to do so— his devotion to his Church and
his loyalty to French Canadian institutions. He is
undoubtedly loyal to them. Referring to the French
settlers of the North-West, he asked "when have
these men spoken treason?" I have not accused
them of speaking treason but it is not long since
they were in rebellion; and whether they were
more in fault for that than my hon. friend and
his colleagues, I am not now to say; but as to
their loyalty to this country and its institutions,
I doubt if they are entitled to any degree of
consideration on that score. As to this question
of loyalty and of the use of treasonable expressions,
I must be permitted, I think, to refer to some
of the circumstances which are indicative of the
feeling amongst our French fellow-citizens, and
I do this with a feeling of reluctance I did
not propose to do so; and, perhaps, it is not
necessary to do so; but, I think, the Minister of
Public Works challenged this reference by the
allusion which he made in the course of his speech
last night. In the city of Quebec, not many
months ago, there was a great public demonstration on the occasion of the unveiling
of a
couple of statues, and speeches were then made
by French Canadians of eminence, who may be
supposed to give utterance to the feeling in French
Canada, which, I think, possess a great deal of
significance. I think there may be some here
now who were present on that occasion. I have
understood that the Tri-color was there displayed
abundantly, and that the Union Jack was not so
abundantly displayed; that the outward appearances would not impress any one with
the idea
that it was a British Province. I find that I have
here a couple of extracts from the speech of the
Premier of that Province, in the course of which
he said:
"He was ready to declare that the Government of
which he was the head was ready to disappear if that
would be the means of uniting the French Canadian
people for the triumph of their sacred cause. (Great applause.) For the sake of their
nationality, for the sake of
their religion, they must be united. Religion and nationality formed a harmonious
union in their midst. The
strength of the French Canadian people lay in the union
of the people wlth the clergy."
A little later on, the hon. gentleman used the
following language:—
659 [COMMONS] 660
"By coupling the name of the Jesuit hero, Brébeuf,
with the immortal Jacques Cartier, they said to their insulters: It is useless to
imagine that we will ever cease
to be French and Catholic. This monument declares that
after a century of separation from our ancient mother,
we are still French. (Applause.) More than that, we will
remain French and Catholic." (Great and long continued
cheering.) He said this, not as a provocation, but as a
reply. But once more he would say that to render this
reply effective they must cease their fratricidal strife and
be united. That was his word of advice to them on this
great occasion. Let them cherish it and act accordingly,
and all the actions of the fanatics of Ontario would come
to naught. (Long continued applause.)"
An hon. member of this House, Colonel Amyot of
the 9th Battalion, in response to the toast of the
Militia, said, among other things:
"That they did not know the moment the French
Canadian Militia would be called upon to guard their
interest and their laws."
A statement that was received with great applause.
Now, a little later on, we had a celebration at
Montreal, and we had the ex-mayor of that city
using the following language in a speech made by
him:—
 "French Canadians were the sons of these colonisers"—
He had been referring to the early colonial history
of Canada, and the valor of the French Canadians
in resisting the Iroquois and the English:
"French Canadians were the sons of these colonisers
and fighters, and if they were not so good at firing guns as
their forefathers, they would not be found wanting, if
occasion required it, and the Iroquois and savages of
to-day woul be treated in a similar manner to those of
former days."
Well, Sir, if I am to be compared to an Indian, I
would rather be compared to a Iroquois than to a
Digger Indian; but I think this language is not
calculated to promote harmony and good feeling,
and I think the language was not called for. There
was nothing in the events connected with the agitation in the House last Session,
and the agitation
that followed that affair in the country, that called
for any such manifestation of feeling in French
Canada. A portion of the people of this country took
the view that a law had been passed that ought to
have been disallowed; they took the view that the
prerogative of the Crown had been insulted and
infringed upon; they took the view that sectarian
grants had been made and that money devoted to
a special purpose had been unconstitutionally diverted from that purpose and used
for another.
There was amply room for differences of opinion
on this point; but it was not a subject that warranted the exhibition of the kind
of feeling that
is evinced by the extracts I read a moment ago.
Mr. GIROUARD. Will the hon. gentleman
tell me the name of the paper from which he has
been quoting? Â
Mr. CHARLTON. The name of the paper is
the Toronto
Mail It is the only paper, so far as
I am aware, throughout Ontario, that had a reporter there to report the proceedings,
or from
which we can obtain any information with regard
to the matter whatever. Now, the hon. Minister
of Public Works, in his speech last night, dwelling
upon the matter of the loyalty of the French Canadians, reminded us that it was owing
to that spirit
of loyalty that French Canada did not embark in
the revolution with the thirteen colonies and become a part of the American Confederation.
Well,
I have great doubts, Sir, whether it was loyalty
to British institutions, or whether it was the fear
on the part of the French Catholic Church that
union with these thirteen Puritan colonies would
be detrimental to her interests as a church; and
I have very serious doubts whether it was unmixed
loyalty that actuated the people of that Province
in the choice they made in regard to that matter.
Mr. CHARLTON. I have my doubts, and I
have a perfect liberty to express them here to-day,
and I think it is susceptible of demonstration that
the choice in relation to that matter arose from the
fear, on the part of that church, that acting in
consonance with the thirteen colonies, would not
redound to her interests in Canada. Of course,
this is an opinion, and I suppose I have the liberty
of expressing my opinions here with regard to this
matter if I do it temperately and courteously, and
I trust I have not exceeded the limits of courtesy
in the way in which I have made the statement. Then the hon. gentleman asks: Is your
birth better than ours, is your blood better than
ours? Well, Sir, who had claimed that our birth
or our blood was better than that of our French
Canadian fellow-citizens? It is not a question as
to which is the leading race, as to which has the
best lineage, as to which has the best blood. We do
not say to our French Canadian friends that we
are better in any respect than they are, but in the
position we take we are actuated by a desire
to serve the interests of this whole country, and
that with five millions of people in this country, the true interests of each one
are the true
interests of all; and if in our opinion a
special line of policy is likely to be more conducive to the interests of Canada than
another, we
have a perfect right to advocate that line of policy;
and the hon. gentleman had no right to make the
taunt that he did, and to strive to raise, as he did
strive to raise, in his speech, feelings of animosity
and bitterness. Then he went on to say that persecution and fanaticism would not stand.
Well,
that is true, at least I believe and hope it is true. I
do not believe that persecution or fanaticism ever
benefited a cause yet, and I hope that the time
will come when evangelists can hold religious
services in the city of Hull without interruption,
and when the Salvation Army can parade the
streets of Quebec with the same facility and ease
that they can the streets of Ottawa. I hope that
persecution and fanaticism in that respect will not
stand in the Province of Quebec; and if the time
should ever come when some French Luther
wants to nail ninety-five theses, more or less, to
the door of any church in Canada, attacking
tithes, fabrique assessments, canon law, and
medieval institutions of any kind—I hope the
time will come when any person, whether a
clergyman or otherwise, will be at liberty to nail
his placard to the door of the church and maintain
that position, with free speech, and every right
that pertains to free speech in Canada. Now, Sir,
with regard to toleration, all that we want in this
Dominion, all that we ask in this Equal Rights
movement, is equal rights in religion, the right to
worship God, the right to proclaim our belief, the
right to carry on the usages of our religion in any
part of this Dominion without molestation. That
is all we claim. We have no desire to abridge the
rights possessed by any man in this Dominion,
661 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 662
whatever may be his faith, and we only protest
when a desire to abridge our rights is manifested
by some other man against us. We have taken a
position, of course, against sectarian grants; we
take a position against union between Church and
State, and any undue favors shown by the State to
one church at the expense of another. If this is
not sound ground, then I am much mistaken; if
the position that we have taken on this matter is
not unassailable, then I am laboring under a
grievous error. I suppose, Mr. Speaker,—although
the charge is not made directly against me;
it was against my hon. friend from North
Simcoe, and is likely to be made against me—I
suppose that I shall be accused of fanaticism.
Well, Sir, there may be some ground for it. My
maternal ancestors were some of them Covenanters
and were subjected to bitter persecution by the
bloody Claverhouse. I can remember, as a boy,
my own father being mobbed in the State of
New York, because he was an abolitionist. And
I rather fancy that fanaticism is constitutional
with me; it may be, I will not deny it. But if
it is fanaticism to stand up for what I believe
to be in the best interests of this Dominion, if
it is fanaticism to attempt to stem the tide that
sets very strongly against me in this matter, to
venture to take a position which alienates friends
and embitters the hostility of foes, then I am
a fanatic. But I stand up to-day to assert my
belief that the use of the French language in
the North-West as a dual language is unnecessary, that the use of the French language
as
an official language in the North-West should
be prohibited, that it may easily be done,
that no shock or agitation will result from
doing it, and that it will be an act of supreme folly,
when the matter is brought to our attention, to
refuse to do it. The hon. gentleman said there
are 1,500,000 French in Canada, and they are not
to be driven from this country. Who asks to
drive them from Canada? Who proposes to drive
them from it? Who proposes to deprive them of
any rights they possess to-day? They are welcome in Canada. We are glad to have them
as
citizens of this country, and we welcome them
to share everthing with us, and in any action we
take to have in View the interests of the French as
well as the Saxon inhabitants of this country.
Then the hon. gentleman makes the plea of inherent rights to the use of the language
in the North- West, because there are a few thousand French
Canadians, more or less, in this country. The
argument would apply to every portion of the
Dominion where French Canadians are found. If
there is an inherent right to the use of the French
language wherever there are French Canadians,
that right will apply to Ontario, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island; and if
that argument is sound, you must not only retain
the use of the dual language in the North-West,
but also extend its use over the entire Dominion. Then the hon. gentleman tells us:
"Oh, well, the expense is small, it is
an exceedingly little thing to make such a row
about." He said the cost up to this time
had only been $400 a year, and he added, "I
will pay that amount out of my own pocket rather
than have any trouble." Sir, it is not a matter of
expense; that oes not enter into the calculation.
It is a matter of the future well-being of the North—
West; it is a matter involving the whole welfare of
the future inhabitants of that great country, which
may in fifty years have millions of inhabitants,
instead of a few thousands; it is a question of
laying the foundation on which the institutions of
that country will rest, the moulding of the plastic
elements which are to form the bed-rock of the
future. It is not a question of a paltry few hundred dollars, which may have been
spent hitherto
in the cost of maintaining this system of a dual
language in this country. Then the hon. gentleman told us, and he did so in a manner
which
amounted almost to a menace, that the French are
united, the French in this House are united, they
will stand by their rights, they will vote as one
man, for there is no politics in this question. Well,
the hon. gentleman felt, perhaps, as he has often
felt before when he has had the entire French
element at his back, that he was master of the
situation—very likely he felt so. That is one of
the troubles which exists in political matters, and
a combination of that kind on race lines has often
controlled most important legislation here. I cannot retort upon the hon. gentleman
by telling him
that the English are united, because they are not.
They do not unite readily upon a matter of this
kind. There are differences of opinion; they cannot be readily united for the purpose
of maintaining
race privileges and interests. There is too much
magnanimity among them; they feel it would be
an act of tyranny to unite on this matter, as the
hon. gentleman claims the French of the country
have done. But if that feeling is to govern the
conduct of the French members of this House, if
they are to unite together on race lines, in the
manner which the hon. gentleman told us they
have done on this occasion, the natural result may
possibly be that it will lead to a union of the same
kind of the other element; and this is certainly to
be deprecated. Then he said: Why not treat
the French as brothers and friends. Well, surely,
why not? We have nothing, we seek nothing
that we will not share with the French equally.
What are our aspirations? Look at our annexations. We have acquired the North-West,
we
have acquired British Columbia, we have
acquired Prince Edward Island, and we wish
as soon as we can to acquire Newfoundland. We
are determined to possess one-half of this continent. We have built a. system of canals,
not for
our present wants only, but to meet the requirements of the future, and we have perfected
a waterway from the ocean to the heart of the Continent.
We have burdened ourselves with an enormous
debt for the purpose of building a railway from
ocean to ocean. We are making vast grants and
subsidies for the purpose of extending the railway
system of the Dominion. We are carefully and
laboriously perfecting a code of laws which we
believe have no equal in Christendom. We have
in thisDominion one of the grandest educational
system that existsinthe world. We have liberty;
we aim to become a great nation. These are our
aspirations, and there is not one of those blessings,
privileges, immunities, that we do not propose to
share equally and fully with every citizen of the
Dominion whether Saxon or French. Yes, we are
prepared to treat them as brothers, and we simply
ask from them the same feeling and treatment
towards us as we are freely prepared to extend to
them. They are our brothers. We feel that to
663 [COMMONS] 664
be the case. The latchstring we have always
hanging out and the warmest welcome is always
ready. We do not wish to have animosities,
bickerings and prejudices existing; but we want
to make this an English nation, we wish to have
English institutions from ocean to ocean, we wish
the North-West with its future 30 or 40 million to
be a Saxon North-West. We are honest in this
wish, and we desire that every individual in this
country should share the blessing that would be
secured by this consummation. If we could only
have on the part of the Minister of Public Works
that degree of self-denial which would enable him
to make British citizenship something more than
a second or a third-rate consideration, if he could
only make it prominent and superior to his devotion
to French institutions, it would be a great thing
for him, a fine thing for his race and a fine thing
for this Dominion, and the same may be said of
all who entertain the opinions he entertains.
I come next to the hon. member for Drummond
and Arthabaska (Mr. Lavergne). I am bound
to say that the spirit and the attitude of the
French members of this House upon this question, and upon all questions for that matter,
is above all praise. I say this truly; I say this
fully. They have shown—there may be an exception or two, for there is an exception
to every
rule—forbearance and a desire to treat this question fairly they have not evinced
bitterness, they
have not evinced bigotry, they have not evinced
prejudice in an undue degree, and this is especially
true with respect to the French Canadian Liberals
of this House. The hon. gentleman to whose
remarks I am referring, spoke last night in defence
of Canadian rights, the rights that are guaranteed
the French race under the constitution. I can
agree with him. There is not a right guaranteed
to the race under the constitution which I wish to
see impaired there is not a right the integrity of
which I wish to see impaired in the slightest
degree. This is not a question of the preservation
of rights existing it is a question as to the formation of new institutions and a
polity that will be
adopted with respect to the vast unoccupied territories of this Dominion.
Then we come to the remarks of the hon. member
for Bothwell (Mr. Mills). The hon. gentleman
treated us to a very learned dissertation, to a speech
which, of its character, is perhaps the finest I ever
listened to in this House. It was a most admirable
contribution, and it was listened to, beyond doubt,
with the greatest degree of pleasure by the hon.
members of the House. I am afraid, however, it
will be above the comprehension of the average
elector and may not be read with effect by the
millions in the country. I was struck with one point
in the hon. gentleman's speech which I thought
evinced a want of tact. He said that three millions
people could not swallow two millions, that it was
not a cod that swallowed Jonah but a whale. Now,
the comparison of the French race in this country to
Jonah was, I think, on the part of the hon. gentleman, somewhat unkind. We are not
proposing to
swallow this Jonah we do not expect to undertake
any such impossible task as to swallow two millions
people—not by any means, but we do expect to get
the institutions of the North-West fixed up in a
right shape and we have no doubt in the world
that we will succeed in that.
Mr. LANDRY. You don't want to swallow it,
but you want to throw it overboard.
Mr. CHARLTON. No, nor that either. We
expect to allow our French Canadian friends to
enjoy whatever privileges they ever have enjoyed,
and we do not question their right to enjoy one of
these privileges. If we can secure the gradual
assimilation of the races, if we can secure gradual
homogeneity, we will be glad, and if we cannot we
will be sorry. The question of the two languages
in the North-West is the question we have in hand
to-day. We propose if possible to have that North- West an English country. I have
not time this
afternoon to attempt to follow the hon. member
for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) in the various positions
he has taken. However, he gave us an account
of the attempt in the Netherlands to have community of language there, and said it
was a failure.
Well, we are not making that attempt in Canada,
and it is not a parallel case, nor has it any bearing
on the matter under discussion. We do not
propose to make any attempt to force the English
language upon the Canadians of Quebec, and therefore the comparison was far-fetched
and entirely
inapplicable. We merely propose that in a new
country, where there are comparatively no inhabitants at all, that the English language
shall be
used as the official language in place of two
languages. That is all there is about the question,
from our standpoint. The hon. gentleman also
said—and I cannot see what bearing it has
on the case at all—that we had better commence with the aborigines by prohibiting
the
translation of books into their languages
and by prohibiting the missionaries from
learning their languages or from preaching the
Gospel to them in their native tongue. It may be
that this had a bearing on the case, but I cannot
see it. There is no proposal to make the aboriginal
languages in the North—West official languages, nor
is such a thing dreamed of there is no proposal to
prohibit a man of the Cree or Sioux or Blackfeet
tribes speaking in his native tongue, nor no proposal
to prohibit the translation of the Bible into those
tongues. Why the hon. gentleman should have
brought up that argument I am unable to see.
Mr. DAVIN. Everybody else in the House
saw it.
Mr. CHARLTON. I have no doubt my hon.
friend's perception is very keen.
Mr. CHARLTON. I repeat, Sir, that I cannot
see what this matter may have to do with the
question before us, because there is no proposal to
make the Cree or any other Indian language
official. The proposal before the House is to make
the English language official, but it does not prohibit any man from reading, speaking
or transacting business in any other language in the
world, the Chinese or otherwise. My hon. friend
(Mr. Davin) whose keen vision enables him to see
a black rod in the dark may also enable him to see
the hearing this has on the subject. The hon.
member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) proceeded to say that
as there were several thousand French Canadians
665 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 666
in the North-West Territories it was necessary
and more convenient to have the two languages
in fact he went so far as to say that because
there were a few thousand French in the North- West it was a matter of absolute necessity
to have
the two languages. I wonder how they get along
in Massachusetts without two official languages,
where there are 75,000 French Canadians, or in New
Hampshire where there are said to be about 40,000?
It seems they get along quite conveniently with the
English language there, and it seems that the French
go there out of choice, and keep on going there and
staying there, without feeling any hardship placed
on them for the lack of their own language in these
States. If the French can go to Massachusetts,
Maine, Vermont and other New England States, why
the same class of people cannot go to the North-West
if there is no French language there, is more than
I can understand. We are told further that we
have no specific information or expressed request
from the North-West for this change. We have
all the information we want. We are dealing with
this question on the basis of our own duty towards
the North-West. We took it upon ourselves some
years ago—it was done by the Senate—to insert a
clause with reference to the use of the French
language in the North-West, and when that Bill
came back from the Senate to the House, the member of the Government responsible for
the Bill, the
Minister of the Interior at that time, assumed the
responsibility for that clause in not insisting that it
should be expunged from the Bill. No doubt this
clause did not attract the attention it ought to have
done then, and I do not suppose that the hon. the
ex-Minister of Interior gave the matter any
particular consideration. He was somewhat
annoyed at the insertion of the clause, but as it
was late in the Session he permitted it to pass. We
have this matter now brought before the House,
and we begin to realise that it is a question of
some importance. The question is, shall we undo
a certain piece of mischief that we did unwittingly
a few years ago I do not care what the North- West Will think of this matter. I do
not care a
farthing whether we have specific information or
expressed requests, or not the question for me is,
is it a provision that this House of Commons, as
the original source of authority charged with the
management of the affairs of the North-West,
is entitled to insert in that Bill, in the interest of
the North-West and of the country at large If it
is, let it stand there. If it is not, I maintain that,
without any reference to expressed requests, or
Without consulting the wishes of the North-West,
it is the duty of this Parliament to remove it.
Then, the hon. gentleman says, let the people of the
North-West legislate upon this when they become a
Province. I say so, too, and I say further: let them
be placed in a perfectly untrammelled position to
do with the question as they think proper.
And when the North-West in due time
obtains Provincial Government, let them proceed
de novo and determine whether they are
to have French an official language or not. We
will thus wash our hands of the question.
That is perhaps all I have time to say this afternoon in reference to the position
taken by the
learned and hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills).
Sir, the discussion on this question has taken a wide
range. It has covered the whole of the colonial history of the country, and I will
ask the indulgence
of the House for a few moments while I refer to
some of the more interesting features with regard to
this struggle which is taking place on this continent
for supremacy between the French and the English
races. We have had colonial establishments in
America for three hundred years. Three of
the nations of Europe laid their plans for the
foundations of empire here—Spain, France and
England. Spain colonised Mexico and South
America, but all her colonial possessions
have dropped from her grasp except Cuba and
some insignificant possessions in the West Indies.
France colonised Canada, and the history of French
enterprise, French courage, French genius, and
French daring in connection with the exploration
of the vast interior regions of America reads like
a romance. We have in the careers of La Salle,
Joliette, Marquette, Hennepin, Tonty, and Duquesne, a story of adventure which, I
repeat, reads
more like a romance than the veritable records of
history. I have often thought, Mr. Speaker,
when crossing over the prairies of Illinois, how
magnificent was the conception of La Salle as to
the foundation of an empire in that region; I
have thought of his discovery of Illinois, of his
voyage down the Mississippi to its mouth, of his
knowledge of the vast resources of that great
country, of the enterprise which led to the planting of military posts at Detroit,
Mackinaw, and
other favorable points in the west and north-west.
The French of that day were singularly adventurous. The young Frenchmen preferred
leaving
his home on the St. Lawrence and going to the
wilds of the west, taking a dusky bride of
the forest rather than one of the marriageable
daughters of his own people. In this spirit the
French penetrated the far interior of the continent, and surrounded the thirteen colonies
with
a cordon of posts, and, in their magnificent
conception, took possession of some of the finest
portions of this continent. On the other hand,
we had the thirteen colonies planted by the
English, a more slow-going, methodical people,
without that dash and spirit of adventure which
characterised the French; but these Englishmen
sat down and began the founding of states, the
building up of institutions and the formation of
constitutions and the result of their labor in due
time was embodied in the American Republic,
with such men as Washington, Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other great fathers
of the
American Confederacy, standing sponsors of the
work. But before this consummation had reached
a close, the possessions of France in the north had
passed away from her. In 1759, on the Plains of
Abraham, the French power gave place to the English flag, and that event was one having
a more
important bearing on the destiny of this continent than any other event in the history
of America.
That event led unquestionably to the American
Revolution. But for the conquest of Canada, the
thirteen colonies would not have thought of revolting at the time they did. The capitulation
of Quebec
in 1759, and the French cession of Canada in 1762,
were followed by the ceding of Louisiana to the
United States in 1803. The great Napoleon, convinced that he would be unable to hold
that possession or toprevent it falling into the hands of England,
ceded it to the United States for the sum of $13,000,000, and with this cession the
last vestige of French
possession and French power in America passed
667 [COMMONS] 668
away. Now the Anglo-Saxon was placed in the ascendancy it was the decree of fate
that this should
be the case and what does he proceed to do? Why
he sets to work to carry into effect with all possible
haste his purposes. He intends that this whole continent shall have freedom and free
institutions he
intends that it shall have religious tolerance; he
intends that the history of the race on this continent
shall be marked by the most wonderful material
development of this or any other age he intends to
build up a great power on this continent and he has
done it. Already the second power in the world
is the Republic to the south of us the greatest of
Britain's colonies is the one in which we live and
the power of these two countries is increasing
in a ratio which almost dazzles the imagination.
The Anglo-Saxon may be somewhat aggressive, but
his purpose is nevertheless a beneficent one, and
he intends—it is his fixed determination—that
assimilation and homogeneity shall be the characteristics of every part of the land
over which he
bears sway. That is his fixed intention, and
whether he can accomplish it or not, I am unable
to say but that he expects to occupy this continent, from the Arctic Ocean to the
Isthmus of Panama, there is no doubt. My hon. friend asks, what
he will do with Mexico He will do with Mexico just
what he did with the French in Louisiana and the
Spaniards in California. He will say to them
Here are the institutions and the rights of citizens—take them you are welcome to
them
become American citizens, and there is no right
belonging to an American citizen that will be
denied you; and he will assimilate them all. He
will not take them in all at once, as the whale
swallowed Jonah, but he will take them little by
little, and will ultimately assimilate the whole
mass. In the working out of this problem, he will
find our French friends, genial, tractable, industrious, naturally law-abiding. I
cannot tell how
potent will be the influences that will be brought
to bear on them, or how rapid the assimilation
will be; but I do not believe that the position of
isolation which the French race occupy now they
will see fit to occupy forever. On the contrary, I
believe they will ultimately see it to their interest
to join this great tide, to share this great prosperity, to become a portion of this
Anglo-Saxon
race which occupies this continent—to submit, in
fact, to the decree of fate. They may not do it in
this or in the next generation, and we must leave
natural causes and forces to work their natural
fruit we cannot bring about the change by violent
measures we cannot do it either by this measure
or by any subsequent one we may introduce. It
is a matter in regard to which our French friends
must be left to exercise their free choice. So long
as they wish to remain as they are, they must be
free to do so. In the evolution of affairs, when
they see that some change will be beneficial to
them, it is for them to choose it or not they will
act according to their own wishes, and be governed
by their own free choice, be the result what
it may. That the French race in Canada is
capable of reaching the highest stage of intelligence and development goes without
saying.
That they will play an important part in the
history of this continent is certain, but they
never will fulfil the destiny which ought to
be theirs while they remain in a position of isolation, without community of interest
or community
of feeling with the kindred races upon this
continent.
Now, I repeat what I have said several times,
as I wish to make this point clear, that we
have no intention to meddle with vested rights.
It would not be prudent to do so. My hon. friend
says, the use of the French as an official language
in the North-West is a vested right. I say it is not.
It is not guaranteed by the Act of British North
America, but it is a right which exists by means
of the surreptitious interpolation of a clause in the
statute. That matter we are considering now, and
it is competent for us to repeal that statute.
We are not dealing with the constitution of this
country at all. It is not necessary to conceal
what the sympathies of the English-speaking
people of this country are. While we do not propose to meddle with vested rights or
to make
ourselves officious or offensive in any sense to our
French Canadian citizens, we do not deny
that we consider medievalism a little behind
the age. We do not deny that we would
like to see the French race rid themselves
of it, not, as in France, in the flames and smoke of
revolution, but by peaceful legislation. We do not
deny that we would like to see them rid of their
system of tithes, fabrique assessments and the
other antiquated abuses under which they labor,
but while they have our sympathy and while
we bid them God-speed in any effort they may
make to unburden themselves of this system,
we do not propose to initiate any movement to
that end. I shall feel sorry if the spirit of backwardness continues, and shall feel
glad that something else should take its place. I feel free to
make this statement, because it is my conviction
that the condition of things in Quebec can be improved, and that the true Liberal,
the true Re.former, will grapple with that condition of things.
The question may be asked: Why not take the
amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia
(Mr. Davin)? It may be said the North-West
Territories are sure to remove the dual language,
and that the result I aim at will then be reached
any way. Why not, then, take the amendment of
the hon. member for Assiniboia, and shift from
our own shoulders the responsibility of dealing
directly with this question? Well, I answer that
I prefer, as the more manly and honest course,
that we should undo the thing we have done. It
is my belief that it is incumbent upon this House
either to affirm that the principle embodied in the
110th clause is right or that it is wrong. We do
not want to shift the responsibility to other shoulders. If the inhabitants of the
North-West want
the dual language, they can have it after they get
this power. It will be competent for them then to
adopt it, but let us leave them perfectly untrammelled in this matter. Let us declare
whether it is
our opinion that the 110th clause of the North- West Act is a proper or an improper
clause. Let
those who believe it is a proper clause, vote for its
retention, and let those who believe it is not, vote
for its repeal. I am free to say that I would not
vote to grant a dual language to the North-West
under any circumstances. I do not believe it is
our business to do so. I repeat if they want it
they can have it when they have Provincial insti
tutions; but it is not our business to saddle it
upon them. We have no business to make any
enactment of that kind.
669 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 670
Mr. CHARLTON. We did saddle it, and we
should unsaddle it. The hon. member for Cardwell
(Mr. White) says that he believes in Provincial
rights in this matter. Well, there is something
rather curious in connection with the backdown of
the Government upon this question of Provincial
rights. It rather provokes my surprise. I can
remember when the Rivers and Streams Bill was
disallowed again and again; I can remember when
the railway legislation of Manitoba was disallowed,
and when the Government asserted—and they
told the truth—that they had unquestionably
an unlimited power in the matter of disallowance.
There can be no question, it is a matter in the
discretion of the Government, which is responsible
only to the people for the proper exercise of that
power, and yet the Government have become the
advocate of Provincial rights. They have had a
new revelation on this matter; they have had a
new light as to their duty they do not feel warranted now in meddling with Provincial
rights at
all since the Jesuit Estates' Bill; and the hon.
member for Cardwell has no doubt whatever that
in this difficulty Provincial rights should govern.
I think the position of the Government is scarcely
a creditable one; its abandonment of their
position with regard to their right to exercise the
veto power in the case of Provincial legislation
does not reflect credit on them.
Mr. CHARLTON. But I am making some remarks on the position taken by the hon. member
for Cardwell (Mr. White), who believes this question should be referred to the Provincial
Government of the North-West Territories, when
organised, for the settlement of this question,
because it is a matter pertinent to Provincial
rights, and I say it is a matter which pertains to
us. The authority emanates from us, the clause
was adopted by us, the clause should be rescinded
when invested with Provincial authority and powers
by us, and then the Provinces of the North-West
will be placed in the position to exercise Provincial
rights, and say whether they will have this thing
or not. Reference was made by some speaker, in
the early part of the debate, to the petitions sent
in by the North-West Council, and the insinuation
was made that the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy) had bought the Council. I do not
remember who made this charge. I do not think
the hon. member for North Simcoe has the funds
to buy that Council, and I would not deem it a
very creditable thing on the part of any hon. member to cast that imputation upon
him. Another
assertion made was that his speech has captured it.
That is an assertion more flattering to the hon.
gentleman than the other, and I have no doubt
his speech had very much weight and influence in
the North-West but the fact is the public is alive
to the importance of this question, and that the
sentiments of the North-West and Manitoba are
against the retention of this dual language. That
was shown by the repudiation of the French language in Manitoba the other day by a
vote of twenty-seven to six; and by a larger proportion
than twenty-seven to six, the people of Manitoba
and the North-West will sweep this language away
whenever they are given this opportunity.
Mr. CHARLTON. Certainly we will. We will
sweep it away here, and leave it to them to deal
with it there. We may adopt the politician's expedient of shifting the responsibility
from our
shoulders and dodging out of this thing, but I do
not think that would be very honorable or creditable to this House. I appreciate fully
the feelings
of hon. members who will vote for the retention of
the dual language clause. I appreciate the feeling
of the French members of this House who believe
in the extension of their language over the North- West. They act according to their
convictions,
and I shall respect their action if they vote accordingly but I cannot agree with
them, and will
therefore vote the other way. I hope that the
French members will forgive, if they deem it
necessary to forgive, that feeling which they cannot endorse, but which English-speaking
members
of this House entertain—a feeling of pride in the
history of the British Empire that feeling which
causes them to take pleasure in contemplating the
result of the battle upon the Plains of Abraham
that feeling which leads them to rejoice in the
results of the Battles of the Nile and Trafalgar, and
in the results of the Battle of Waterloo that feeling which makes them view with
pride the progress
of the British Empire, and inspire in them the belief
that British institutions are the best calculated to
conduce to the prosperity and welfare of mankind.
I hope, Sir, they will forgive our purpose, our
avowed purpose, to make this a Saxon state. The
avowed purpose of the Anglo-Saxon is to make the
Anglo-Saxon race the greatest race on the earth,
and the hope of the Anglo-Saxon is that the day
will come, and come before many decades have
elapsed, when the English language will be the
common means of intercommunication between all
the races of the world, and the English race will
be the dominant race of the world, so that the
Anglo-Saxon will fulfil the destiny which God has
evidently designed he shall fulfil in this world.
Mr. BLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to
trouble you with very many observations in regard
to the speech we have just listened to, or, indeed,
to address you at any great length at all. I may
say at once, that if any one of the propositions now
before the Chair had been thoroughly and entirely satisfactory to my mind, as to the
mode in
which this question should be dealt with, I should
have contented myself with giving a silent vote.
It does not happen that either of those propositions
commends itself entirely to my mind, and I shall
briefly state why that is so, and how, in my poor
judgment, this matter should be disposed of.
Referring to what the hon. member for North
Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has said, his distinguished
position for a great many years in this Parliament
has led—I do not say at all unjustifiably—to
his not infrequently, when announcing his own
views on public questions, speaking in the plural.
Not infrequently has he followed in the past the
course which he pursued to-day, of speaking both
671
[COMMONS] 672
positively and affirmatively, and positively and
negatively, in regard to the views and assertions,
and policies and aspirations of others with whom
he was for the time acting but I am wholly unable
to accept the declaration which the hon. member
has made to-day in the plural at all. I accept it
as far as he is himself concerned. As far as he
himself professes that these are his views, his
intentions, his opinions and his aspirations, I
accept his statement fully and unfeignedly. But,
when the hon. gentleman spoke of "we," of what
"we" were intending, what "we" were proposing, what "we" were aiming at, and what
"we"
were not aiming at, and what "we" were not intending when he spoke of what he English
speaking people of this country intended and insisted
upon, and so forth, then I say the hon. gentleman
took up a position which, in face of what has been
going on in this country for some months past, in
face of the declarations of the hon. member who is
primarily responsible for this agitation—the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)—in face
of the language of this Bill itself, in face of all these
things with which we have to deal, I cannot
accept. If I could accept it, the question would
receive an easy and rapid solution from me. I do
not intend to enter into a criticism of the criticisms
of the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr.
Charlton). One or two words will suffice for that.
The hon. gentleman said, but I hope and think he
must have misread his history, that the decrees of
ancient Rome, were published in all those portions
of the world over which she had authority, only in
the tongue of Rome herself. I think history shows
us that nothing so inhuman and barbarous as that
was done, even in what may be called inhuman and
barbarous times. Turning to a more modern example, which he justifiably quotes, an
example
which is to be regarded by us with the highest
attention, interestand respect, he refers to the neighboring Republic, to what has
been aimed at and accomplished in that great community, in whose well- being the whole
modern world has so deep an interest, of whose constitution the right hon. gentleman
opposite has not seldom spoken in terms of deserved
admiration as to the great work which was achieved
by the men who framed that constitution. Speaking of that example, the hon. member
for North
Norfolk was unfortunate enough to quote, as an
instance of a state where the French language had
been stamped out and the great principle which he
proclaimed, had been realised in the very initiation
of its connection with the nation of which it forms
a part, the State of Louisiana. Why, Sir, is not
the hon. gentleman aware that, by the original
constitution of the State of Louisiana, the French
as well as the English language was permitted to
be used in the debates of that State, and that that
continued until the State of Louisiana by a subsequent determination of its own, under
circumstances when the question had ceased to be a grievance, determined—as I believe,
though I have no
information upon this point—that it should be
blotted out. The fact, however, is this, as stated
in a book of authority, the "Cyclopaedia of Political Science:"
"The diversity of interests of the French and American citizens, however, formed the
more usual dividing
line of politics in the State. The former were at least a
strong minoritv, and a singular evidence of its strength
was a provision in the Constitution which allowed mem
bers of the Legislature to debate either in French or in
English."
Mr. CHARLTON. Does the hon. gentleman
mean to say that the statutes were printed in
French Â
Mr. BLAKE. I was not discussing whether
the use ofthe French language was complete in all
the technical details. What in the world has the
publication of the statutes or the proceedings in the
French language to do with the matter? What is
involved in that except a paltry $500 a year for
the printing of certain things in the two languages
What is the harm if the people who have to obey
the laws are enabled to read them printed in the
language which they understand? That is a
small question the great question is included in
the power of freely debating in the Legislature in
the tongues of the peoples of whom the State is
composed. All I care to know in regard to that
is that the constitution gave the people of French
origin the right to speak in their mother tongue
in their own State Legislature. The hon. gentleman has said that this question is
a very narrow one, and, as he puts it, it is a comparatively
narrow one. He has spoken of the impropriety of
what he calls dodging responsibility. He has told
us of the want of manliness that would be involved
in our placing upon other shoulders the responsibility which we ought to take ourselves,
and I confess that I have considerable sympathy with that
view. As far as our present information goes, the
general principle upon which this question should
be dealt with, and I am quite prepared now to state
the time when I think it should be dealt with; but I
thought a large part of the hon. gentleman's speech
was but a poor commentary on the declaration as to
dodging responsibility which he made and to which
I have just referred, when he iterated and reiterated
the statement that "we" have no intention of interfering with vested rights, that
"we" have no intention of interfering with the rights of any minority
which are secured under the British North America.
Act, that "we" have no desire to touch any privilege
properly reserved, that "we" do not intend to
touch it, and that "we" are not touching it now. It Â
appeared to me that these statements were evasive
of responsibllity, were not merely inconsistent.
with the Bill which the hon. gentleman is supporting—including the preamble—but were
fatally inconsistent with the attitude of the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and
with the general character of the agitation of which
this Bill is merely the first fruits. A little later,
the hon. gentleman declared that "we," the Anglo- Saxons of this continent—once again
taking the
plural pronoun, which the hon. gentleman used first.
when speaking of those with whom he was acting,
then when speaking of the English-speaking people Â
of this country, and finally when speaking of the.
Anglo-Saxon race from the Pole to the Isthmus
—he declared their stern determination, by what
means might be open to them, to make this country
from the North Pole to the Isthmus an Anglo-Saxon
community, and to create a homogeneity of race.
Well, it is only a question of means and methods,
times and circumstances, opportunities and occasions, by which this result is to be
achieved
and the hon. gentleman will find, as I shall proceed to point out presently, that
his leader does
not propose to relegate the consideration of this
question to other generations, to those natural and
673 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 674
gradual and insensible operations which furnish
the only possible solution of such great questions
as he has imported into the debate; but that
it is other and more rapid, direct and stringent
—I will say more violent methods, that are
really proposed to us in this regard. Now, Sir, as
I have said, there are underlying questions here,
much broader questions than the simple questions
dealt with by the enacting clause. And these underlying questions are historically
old, no doubt,
but they are old with reference to our own policy
too; they were raised before the last general
election, they were raised by the hon. member for
North Simcoe himself in large part, they were
raised by a newspaper which was, at that time,
the most powerful supporter in the Province of
Ontario of hon. gentlemen opposite, and they have
since been persisted in, and have since been enlarged. This group of questions are
fundamental
questions. They embrace topics of creed as
well as of race, and the Jesuit affair to which the
hon. member referred, was not the cause, was not
the origin. It was obviously, it has since been
confessed to have been, a mere incident, a mere
occasion, taken advantage of as a fit and opportune
occasion to bring up one phase, and in various
aspects, more than one phase, of this group; a good
occasion to bring all up in a manner which would
attract the favorable consideration of those to whom
they who brought them up sought to address themselves. Now, Sir, I intend to refrain,
as far as
possible, from discussing this question in any party
aspect whatever. It needs to be discussed in its
party aspect, it must receive such a discussion at
some time, but I do not think this time is the fitting
time. I say I hope as far as possible to avoid any
question of party in the course of this discussion.
I am as anxious as the hon. gentleman is anxious,
to say nothing, so far as truth will allow, except
conciliatory words, and to deal with this matter in a
manner becoming a public man; in such a way that,
if my feeble words have any effect at all, they may
tend to prevent the calamitous results of which
the hon. gentleman this afternoon was complaining,
though he, and those who act with him, from the
best motives, I have no doubt, havebeen the prime
cause of the realisation of these results to the
extent to which they have been up to this time
realized. I say, Sir, that if you could deal simply
with the enacting clause in this Bill it would be
a matter of minor consequence; if you could dissociate that clause from its preamble,
from its
surroundings, from its past and from its future.
But you cannot dissociate it, either from its pre
amble or from its surroundings or from its past,
and still less from its future. These difficulties are
in part indicated by the preamble which, as you
must expound it upon any fair principle of exposition, I maintain declares for action
and principles
of action which all good Canadians must disavow
instead of assenting to. It is a far-reaching principle. It goes—and the hon. member
for North
Simcoe, whose legislative and professional ability
we know—intended that it should go, wrote it in
order that it should go, far beyond the intent
of the enacting clause; and those who agree to
that preamble, who give to it to-day their voices
and their votes, must set their minds and their
political forces to the accomplishment of the ends
which we find there embedded. Doubtless our
constitutional act may be amended, doubtless the
well-understood wishes of the Canadian people can
accomplish the amendment of the constitution.
The machinery may be cumbrous, and it may be
that occasionally, as has happened in the past, upon
inadequate representations, changes of no great
consequence, but changes still, may be made and
it may be again that very strong representations
may, for a time at least, be ineffectual in producing
amendment. But in relation to any question the
well understood wishes of the Canadian people, in
time and place, after due consideration, thoroughly
ascertained and forcibly presented must produce
an amendment of the constitution; and into the
agitations which are necessary in order to execute
this preamble, as indicated by the hon. gentleman's
own speech, we should be, it is intended that we
should be, plunged if we agree to it. Now, what
does it say? The hon. member for North Norfolk
(Mr. Charlton), thought that it was a very innocent thing. There was not much in it.
He laid a
great deal of stress upon the preamble of some
other Bill which was passed in some other Legislature, and he thought that preamble
was good
cause for disallowance here. But now he says that
the preamble of this Bill, which is given as the
basis of our decision, the cause itself upon which
we are called upon to vote, is of very little consequence. It is true, it is the reason
for the enactment, it is the moving cause which is given to us,
but it is not of much consequence, and is not of
much harm.
Mr. CHARLTON. I beg the hon. gentleman's
pardon. I cited the words of the Minister of
Justice, not my own words.
Mr. BLAKE. Oh, well, I know. I do not care
much for that mere throwing of verbal bombshells
from one side to the another. We have got to do
with the reason of the Bill. The hon. gentleman
cited words which I thought he adopted. He agrees
with me now that the preamble is of consequence,
and that by it we understand what the Bill means.
He says that he is prepared to agree with the preamble, and to vote for it. The preamble
says
"Whereas it is expedient, in the interest of the national
comity in the Dominion, that there should be community
of language among the people of Canada, and that the
enactment in the North-West Territories Act allowing the
use of the French language should be—"
Repealed? Oh, no.
"should be expunged therefrom: Therefore," Â
And it proceeds to enact. Here, then, is the meaning in this preamble, of that community
of language, which it is expedient should prevail among
the whole people of Canada. The second paragraph of the preamble tells us that the
community
of language which is declared to be expedient
amongst the Whole people of Canada, is that community and harmony which prevails,
according to
the well known fable, between the lion and the
lamb the English is to swallow up the French
and the French is to die, that the English may live
and flourish upon it. That is the community which
is to exist, the community of language which is
expedient; the enactment allowing the use of French
is to be expunged; therefore, it is the English
language alone that is to be used. Now, Sir, when
I read this preamble I confess myself to have been
a little puzzled by the word "comity," whose
use—
675 [COMMONS] 676
Mr. McCARTHY. I think it is a mistake. I
think in truth the word was "unity."
Mr. BLAKE. Well, I am very glad to hear it,
because I was about to say that I did not perceive
that the word "comity" had any reasonable
application to this matter at all. We know what
the meaning of that word is, and if ever an improper word could be chosen for the
hon. gentleman's Bill, it certainly was the word "comity."
But he now tells us, as I presumed, that what he intended by the phrase, was unity,
and, therefore,
it is in the interests of the national unity of
the Dominion, that this result is to take place.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to the advancement of
our national unity, we must agree, if we adopt
this preamble, that it is expedient, that we should
take all possible steps which are open to us to procure by legal and constitutional
means the disallowance of the use of the French language where now
it is allowed. That is clear, that is plain, that is
obvious, that is logical. Was ever such a lame
and impotent conclusion deduced from such important premises, if this question is
to cease with
this little enacting clause with reference to the
North-West Territories If that which it is expedient for the unity of the Canadian
Dominion to
abrogate is to be suffered to go on in this chamber,
is to be suffered to go on in Canada, is to be suffered
to go on in the important Province of Quebec, while
our national unity is to be preserved, forsooth,
by dealing with a few thousands who now inhabit
the North-West Territories? No. These gentlemen represent a very grave condition of
affairs.
That is not their intention. We all know it is
not the intention; it has been admitted not to be
the intention at all; we cannot stop here; that
would indeed be much cry and little wool. Nor
does the hon. gentleman so pretend. In the speech
with which he moved the first reading of this Bill
he entered into a number of considerations which
would have been but remotely relevant to the
simple clause of the Bill itself. True he pointed out
plainly enough, what was perfeclty obvious, that he
was not at the moment proposing to do more than
deal with the North-West Territories question.
But, so far from making that further announcement,
which he could not have honestly made, but which
was made by the hon. member for North Norfolk
(Mr. Charlton) to-day, he said simply this. After
speaking of the past and the present, he said:
"I have endeavored at all events to make good my
statements, that both from within and from without the
general opinion prevails that this question has come to
the point where it is likely to cause further differences,
as it has already caused differences in the Dominion."
Then the hon. gentleman said:
"Come back now Sir, to the North-West Territories. I
am not attempting here, and hon. gentlemen know that at
all events in this form of motion, I could not attempt in
any way to interfere with any rights under the British
North America Act which are guaranteed to the French
Canadians of the Province of Quebec and to the French
Canadians in this Parliament. I am treating, Sir, of
what this Parliament is competent to deal with. I am
treating of the question of the dual language of the North- West Territories."
It is a perfectly correct statement that this is all the
legislation proposed by this clause but the proposition to which we are asked to
assent, as the ground
work of the legislation proposed, obliges us to proceed by all lawful ways and means
to secure, in the
interests of the national unity of the Dominion, the
application of that principle in those other places
where certainly the contrary principle now prevails,
is potent and effectual for good or for evil according
to the diversities of opinions on this subject, potent
and effectual to an infinitely greater extent than
its application can be either now or for 50 years to
come in the North-West Territories of Canada.
But I say we are not confined to the hon. gentleman's preamble nor to his speech here.
We find in
a recent speech delivered in this city to what is
called the Equal Rights Association statements
which deal with this question, and which deal
with it in a manner showing that he at all events
does not shrink from the application of the motto
which the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills),
cited last night, the motto "Thorough." The hon.
member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), said we
are not talking of interfering or proposing to interfere with the use of the French
language, with reading, writing or speaking it. Nothing of that
kind, he said, is talked or thought of it is simply
this question of using it in the North-West Legislature, and, as the hon. gentleman
repeated, this
dreadful grievance of the statutes and ordinances
being printed in the French language. But that
is not the view of the hon. member for Simcoe.
I find these statements in a speech delivered by him
as late as 12th December last, within a few yards
of this building. He said that Lord Durham had
held first, and above all things, that the French
language must be stamped out. And the hon.
gentleman gave his own personal opinion that
Without a shadow of doubt Lord Durham was right.
It is not, therefore, a question of an occasional
French speech in Parliament which bores the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and the
hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), or
of their being troubled by the fact that copies of
the Debates and of the statutes are printed in
French, in a tongue with which they are not as
familiar as with their mother tongue; but the
language must be stamped out, says the hon.
member for North Simcoe. The hon. gentleman
proceeded:
"Is there a shadow of doubt that between these two
races, of all races in the world, if they are ever to be
united, it must be by obliteration of one of these languages and by the teaching in
one of these tongues."
I should judge, I hope I am not mistaken, that the
hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton),
does not mean that the English language should
be obliterated; if so, it must be the French language.
Then, the hon. member for North Simcoe drew
upon his experience as a parliamentarian, and declared he had observed that more French
was now
spoken in the House than formerly, an observation, I must confess, entirely at variance
with my
experience, which is somewhat longer in this
House than that of the hon. gentlemen. I quite
admit that the course which the hon. gentleman
and others have pursued, will very naturally lead
to a larger quantity of French speaking in this
House than has prevailed hitherto, but I do say
there is nothing more marked, than the change
which has taken place since I first entered Parliament, with respect to this question
of French
speaking. Then, the hon. member for North Simcoe
proceeded to point out that our constitution is
amendable in regard to the use of the French
language in Quebec and in Canada, and he gave the
precedents which showed the truth of that statement, that the constitution is amendable.
And
677 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 678
what did he go on to say! He went on to say that
the precedents in that sense are very useful and
may be acted on in the year 1890 or '91 in this connection. What! Are we going to
relegate this
matter to some distant age to be disposed of finally
by the action of the French Canadians when the
leader (Mr. McCarthy) tells us that in 1890 or '91
the precedents which prove the possibility of altering the British North America Act,
so as to obliterate the use of the French language are useful
and may become available forthwith? Then the
hon. gentleman stated that we ought not to remain
in this position forever, and there should be sufficient patriotism in the Dominion
to produce the
change foreshadowed. Nor was his speech confined
to the question of language, it touched creed as well;
for I find him asking the people whom he was
addressing, and through them the people of the
whole Dominion, to give him power to eliminate
those parts of the constitution which were inimical
to the public weal and he followed that statement by the question—indicating the
parts of the
constitution which he regarded as inimical to
the public weal, and which he proposed that the
people of the country should give him power to
eliminate—
"Are we to have Separate Schools in Upper Canada,
tithe assessments in Lower Canada, dual language in the
Dominion Parliament, and dual languages in Quebec, the
North-West and Manitoba?"
And he again called for power to obliterate what he
called those obnoxious clauses. I, therefore, expected that the hon. member for Simcoe
(Mr.
McCarthy) would not adopt the line which the
hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)
has adopted. I expected that, while he would
perhaps leave rather in the background those
other questions, he would say nothing which was
inconsistent with his preceding utterances, nothing
which would be likely to limit the effect of the
preamble to which he asked the assent of the House
nothing which would interfere with or check the
triumphant march of his friends in pursuit of the
great purpose which had been before developed, and
which was further and fully developed in advance
of the meeting of Parliament by the speech to
which I have referred. This Bill, then, is only
the opening of the campaign; and it lays down in
itself, so far as the question of language is concerned, which is all it deals with,
lines quite broad
enough for the contemplated movement; and, I
repeat, that its past and its present and its surroundings are all important elements;
they indicate its
future; and they entirely overshadow the little
enacting clause. For those who, like the hon. gentlemen, have spoken in that sense
in this House, who
believe that these things are essentially in the interests of the Dominion of Canada,
there is, and I am
not in the slightest degree complaining of it, there
is for them but one course to pursue, the course of
agitation. It is their right, nay more, it is their
bounden duty, if their conscientious convictions
be, and I am far from saying they are not so, that
the condition of things in this whole Dominion,
is such that its future prosperity and progress
will be served and advanced by such an agitation
as is necessary for the attainment of such results
as are indicated, to enter upon and pursue that
path of agitation. We may as we settle what
it is that we are called upon to meet; what that
condition of things is with which it is proposed
that we should deal. I say that that honesty
of conviction which I freely accord to the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
(and which I am bound to accord to him as
to any public man), involves, as a necessary consequence, that he should prosecute
the agitation upon the lines he laid down on the 12th of December
last and at other times, as the line of policy essential to this Dominion. If it were
otherwise, I can
conceive no language strong enough for the denunciation of his conduct in the utterance
of these sentiments. Now, Sir, for those of us who believe—I
speak for myself only—but for myself and for any
other person who happens to believe that in our
existing conditions the objects aimed at are,
by the means proposed, absolutely impossible
of attainment for those who believe that the agitation does, as to the Province of
Quebec, not merely
not present any element whatever of success, but
destroys the least prospect of reform from that
source from which alone the reforms which these
hon. gentlemen desire can be looked for, namely,
from within, from the spontaneous action of the
people themselves? for those who believe that
it not merely does not improve, but that it
tends to imperil the conditions of certain minorities of race and certain minorities
in creed in
different parts of the Dominion that it excuses, if
it does not absolutely justify, the combinations of
populations on lines of race and creed which the
hon. gentleman so earnestly deprecated this afternoon for those who believe that
it tends to produce and to intensify the greatest political evils
which it is possible to conceive for Canada, and
that it imperils the best hopes which remain to
Canada; for me, Sir, who believe all these things,
and for any others who may believe with me, there
remains only the course of firm and uncompromising opposition from the start, to the
course of the
hon. gentleman. "Obsta principiis." I decline to
permit the thin end of the wedge to be inserted
not with the guile which I might not unjustly
attribute to the remarks of the hon. member for
North Norfolk, nor yet with the hammer of the hon.
member for North Simcoe, who has told us plainly
the strokes he intends to give to that wedge and
the vigor with which be intends with it to rift
and cleave this Dominion. Now, Sir, I profess to
be, and I hope I am a Reformer. I have never
concealed my opinion; I have always at those
times and places, and under those circumstances
in which I thought I might do good by it, announced the opinion that there are many
things to
be reformed in the different Provinces of this
Dominion, and many things to be reformed in
the Dominion as a whole. There are many things
I should desire to see reformed in the Province of
Quebec as well as in other Provinces. But I know
full well,—such little knowledge of history as I
have acquired, such knowledge of human nature as
fifty-six years have given me, have taught me that
impertinent interference; still more that threats
of coercive interference, and agitations to withdraw
acquired and provincial rights are the very surest
means to destroy the slightest vestige of hope of
reform. They give to the resisting party incalculable advantages. They enlist the
sentiment of
nationality, the sentiment of provincial autonomy,
the feeling of outraged dignity and of insulted
authority in opposition to the intruders. And
under cover of these defences, resistance is easy and
679
[COMMONS] 680
its success is certain; while where the opportunity
occurs aggressive action is but too likely to ensue.
That is the condition of things, Sir, which I believe
will be accomplished by the efforts that are now
being made. I regard the prospect of reforms
which I myself should desire to see accomplished
in the Province of Quebec, as removed—I will
not say to an incalculable but to a very long
distance—by this agitation even so far as it has
gone. I regard that prospect as absolutely
vanished, should this agitation receive the support and countenance to any considerable
extent
of this House and of the people of the Dominion
at large. No, Sir, the fullest and the frankest
recognition of the provincial and covenanted rights
the evidence which we shall give within the domain
of our power in the various Provinces of Canada,
of a generous and liberal consideration for those
minorities which are under our control; combined
with a sympathetic interest in the welfare of our
neighbors give titles—just titles—to friendly suggestions to helpful advice, to legitimate
influence.
Nor have I despaired in the past; nor when this
cloud passes away shall I despair in the future for
the recognition of those titles. At any rate I am
on the side of those who shall stand by those
minorities who are, as I have pointed out, threatened and proposed to be coerced (by
constitutional
means I admit, but it is not the less threat and
coercion, however constitutionally you may do it)
by the policy the hon. member for North Simcoe
has foreshadowed. I am on their side; and I
believe that any other attitude is impotent for
good, and powerful for evil to the state.
It being six o'clock the Speaker left the chair.
THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN THE NORTH- WEST.
House resumed debate on the proposed motion
of Mr. McCarthy for second reading of Bill
(No. 10) respecting the North-West Territories
and the amendments of Messrs, Davin and Beausoleil thereto.
Mr. BLAKE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard something to-day—of what I fear we shall hear more of
in Canada for some time—of a union of race and a
union of creed. This question is not unfamiliar to
my ears. In days long one by I found myself, as
my predecessor in the leadership of the Liberal
party found himself, as my successor in that
leadership, I dare say, may find himself, confronted
with attempts to unite and consolidate in the ranks
of one party those of one nationality, and to consolidate in the ranks of one party
those of one creed.
This question is not new in Canada. Those
attempts I met by no private bargain or
intrigue; I met them by frank statements in
this House and on public platforms of my
views on the questions of race and creed, and of
the rights and interests of minorities; I met them
by on effort to convince those most particularly
concerned that there were no real grounds for
those attempts—attempts which I deprecated then,
as I deprecate them now, as public calamities—
and by the assurance that my fellow countrymen of
all creeds and all races might differ and agree, according to their opinions on political
topics, with absolute confidence as to the safety of the rights
peculiar to themselves on questions of race and creed.
That assurance, I believe I could well give that
assurance I hope this debate will enable us in
Canada still to give but largely on the issues of this
debate does the question of that assurance turn. Sir,
at all times and in all countries minorities are inclined
to be susceptible, jealous, apprehensive, exacting—
such is the condition of human nature. Those
who are in minorities feel it; and those who happen
to be in majorities, though they may complain of
it, ought to understand it too. Minorities are
apt to believe that they must unite in order to
protect themselves against aggression; and such
union amongst themselves, and such consequent
isolation from their fellow-countrymen, is, wherever
it occurs, and just in proportion to the extent of its
occurrence, a serious danger to the state. But this is
oftentimes excusable, and sometimes even justifiable
and in the face of such attacks as those to which I
referred this afternoon, I am not able in any strong
language to condemn, although I do not intend to
applaud, and although I still most earnestly deprecate, any such attempt at union.
I am speaking
this day mainly in the hope to avert, if by any
feeble effort of mine I can avert, the continued existence of those apprehensions
which might be a
justification, or at any rate an excuse, for
such union. Sir, in times of gloom and depression
as to the future of my country—perhaps I am
not an optimist, perhaps I have taken and may
take now in many aspects a view too gloomy as
to the condition and prospects of Canada, but in
times in which I have felt gloom and depression
as to the prospects and future of my country, as
to its progress in several of the respects which are
essential to the making of a nation, I have had in
these latter years the consolation of believing that,
in whatever other respects we might be stationary,
perhaps, even, I am ashamed to say, retrograde,
in the respect at any rate of tolerance and
regard to the rights and privileges and susceptibilities of minorities, we were moving
on—
slowly, steadily moving on— to a higher plane.
681 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 682
And that consolation was, to my mind, a very great
one. But although I did so believe, as I shall still
venture to entertain that hope, I knew well that
all this time there were great masses of prejudice
and suspicion, of ancient hates and misconceptions,
and bitter memories of former conflicts, lying
ready to the hand of the incendiary, easy to
be kindled, difficult to be extinguished; and
that the proportions of the conflagration which
they might excite were impossible to be calculated in advance. Sir, we have but just
heard
of an event we must all deeply deplore. The
great institution, the crown and glory, I may
be permitted to say, of the educational institutions of our country, is at this moment
in
flames; and we know not how small a spark
may have kindled the great fire which is consuming that ornament to the whole community
of
Canada, the University of Toronto. That ornament, a great material ornament, and a
still greater
exhibition of the triumphs of the principles of
toleration and of our advance in higher education,
a university where we have gathered together the
youth of all denominations, Protestant and Catholic,
under the sanction even of the Catholic Church—
a State institution on non-sectarian principles,
where all were gathered together as fellow-subjects
to acquire the highest training that the land afforded
is now, so far as its material fabric goes, a ruin
tottering to the ground. But great through the
calamity, the material fabric may be replaced. Just
as by that great calamity we may observe how
small a spark may kindle a great fire, so let us take
warning in this larger sphere, in the still greater
matter upon which we are now engaged; and let
those who are seeking to set the heather afire upon
this question be careful before they proceed to
precipitate a moral ruin which may be irreparable.
Let them remember that it is utterly impossible to
calculate the results of the issues and the passions
they are raising. Sir, I knew not merely that there
were questions of prejudice and of misconception,
of passion and of bigotry, of ancient hate and
ancient difficulties; but I knew more. I am not of
those who take the optimistic view that in all
respects our path is easier and smoother because of
our peculiar conditions in Canada; I am not of
those who believe that our path is made plainer and
straighter by the circumstances of different nationalities and of different creeds.
I have recognised
the fact that our situation, such as it is, presents
problems of very considerable difficulty—perhaps
problems of very considerable danger—and that
we might have, if Providence had so ordered our
lot that we were a homogeneous people, all of one race,
one tongue, and one creed, an easier path, a plainer
road in which to travel. I have recognised those
difficulties with which we may have to grapple
some day; though I hope, if we are to succeed, at
some other time and in some different spirit and on
some other lines than are proposed to-day. I knew
that those real difficulties added great force and
strength to the baser elements which form the
greater part, after all, of the troubles with which
we were and are encompassed I knew the risk and
the loss which was to be encountered in the Province
which I may call an English and Protestant Province—the province of Ontario—by acting
for those
whom we served on the path on which we were then
travelling and we encountered it deliberately at
that time. Nor shall we, I hope shrink from it to-
day. The right will triumph in the end. There is an
old proverb in the language which my hon. friend
would prescribe "
Tout casse, tout lasse, tout
passe;" and even this storm, this agitation, though
its proportions may be as great as my hon.
friend expects and perhaps justly expects, will
pass away; With serious consequences may be to
those who are engaged in the contest, but it
will pass away in the end; and what is right and
true will in the end prevail, though some of us
may fall in the struggle. On what conditions,
circumstanced as we are, can we live and thrive
and grow in Canada? Certainly not on the lines
which are being laid down by those engaged in
this agitation. I would ask them to put themselves in the French Canadian's place.
You may
selfishly wish that he had agreed to be suppressed
you may have a profound conviction of the incomparable superiority of your tongue,
your laws,
your creed you may earnestly desire for all men
the inestimable boons of British birth, of English
speech, of Protestant religion. But still, after all,
cannot you put yourself in his place? And can you
not, must you not, admire the courage, the fidelity,
and the determination with which, at great odds,
he fought in all fields—in the legislature, before the
people, and in even sterner fields than these—for
what to him was as dear as what you call your
birthright is to you? Fought, aye, and conquered
too! Cannot you recognise that his was after all a
victory for humanity? And that if, as the case is, it
has imposed greater difficulties and more arduous
efforts and toils on those who are engaged in making
a nation of Canada, it yet, by that very circumstance, gave the chance for more exalted
triumphs,
gave an opening for the exhibition of still higher
and deeper and broader feelings of justice and
liberality and tolerance than are permitted to a
wholly homogeneous people? Can you not at least
see—if that much you cannot see—-that he has in fact
conquered? Do you seriously hope to prevail today in a conflict in which, under infinitely
greater
disadvantages, he obtained the victory long ago?
Surely if it were a conquest in which he was in the
wrong, you have the right to struggle still but his
victory after all was for equal rights—rights equal
with your own. That is all he asked that is all he
got. But you say No; his language must be
obliterated; it is inimical to the Constitution that
it should continue; you must teach him your
tongue; he must forget his own; he must not have
what he regards——and, from his point of view,
rightly regards—as equal rights with you, the
Anglo-Saxon, of whom the hon. member for North
Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) spoke so proudly this afternoon as destined by fate to swallow
him up. Sir, I
regard this larger question to which I have referred,
and it is the meal question we have to consider, as
a settled question and even were my views as to
the settlement different from what they are, I
would not consent, as a public man, to an attempt
to reopen a controversy, long since closed, on
grounds which do not give to my eye the least prospect of success, but which ensure
ultimate defeat to
the assailants, and meanwhile limitless disaster to
the state. I say: No; a thousand times, no! Whether
you differ or agree as to what might have been best
for the country, in the situation of the country as it
stands, I say: No, a thousand times, no; to the least
effort or proposal to reopen that settled controversy and I maintain that it is the
duty of those
683
[COMMONS] 684
who truly regard the progress and the prosperity
of Canada, who hope to see it advance in its path
towards nationality, to defend the rights of the
minorities in this regard, as by law and by convention and by national settlement
established. I
intend for my part to defend them just as warmly
as if I were one of themselves; and I should regard
myself as dishonored and disgraced if I were now
to yield to the forces which press me to any other
course. It is not difficult to drive most of us,
perhaps—it is certainly not difficult to drive the
humble individual who addresses you from his
place in this Parliament; but I hope it is impossible
to drive me, as long as I occupy that place, from
the path of duty and of honor, which I believe
to be the path which I have chalked out in the
words I have now spoken. To this Bill, under
these circumstances, I should record an unhesitating negative, if that were the question
presented immediately to the House. I do not
desire to enlarge upon the lessons of history,
of which we have heard much in this debate
but I wish to call your attention to two very recent
formal, and to my mind, solemn expressions of opinion, expressions of British opinion,
of the opinions
of the English Government upon questions closely
allied to this. You remember the long and complicated and difficult controversy with
reference to
Schleswig-Holstein. In 1860, the English Government proposed to Denmark to allow Schleswig,
one of the duchies, independently to decide upon
the language to be used where the Danish people
prevailed, where the Germans prevailed, and where
the races were mixed. That was the character of
the dispatch, that the community itself should
decide, and that regard should be had to the
various languages of the populations, thus giving
a plain indication at that comparatively recent
date, of the view of the British Government,
under the Secretariat for foreign affairs of Lord
John Russell, in regard to that question.
in 1862 and 1863, unhappy, broken-down, disintegrated and enslaved Poland, regarded
by the
great powers as no longer possessing the capacities for an independent state, but
as a people
under the thrall of Russia, had broken out
once again into insurrection, under the pressure
of some fresh severities of its Russian masters
and three of the great powers of Europe agreed
together to, remonstrate with Russia as to its
course towards the Poles—I can hardly say
towards Poland, but towards the Poles. Who
were they Great Britain, France and Austria.
They remonstrated with Russia. Russia asked
them to formulate the points upon which they suggested her lines of policy towards
Poland should
proceed. Those three powers formulated, by
conjoint action, six points, and one of the six
points on which they recommended to Russia
action towards Poland, circumstanced as Poland
was, and so late as the year 1863, was the use of
the Polish language in the public offices and in the
law courts. That was the advice given by Great
Britain, France and Austria to Russia, interfering
with its course towards its own subjects, who had
been handed over to it by a proceeding which no
one can read without condemning, but handed over
and having become, so to speak, its property long
before. And, at that late date, the recommendation was that the step taken should
be reversed,
that the abrogation of the right to use their own
language should be withdrawn, and that the Poles
should have the right to use their own language
in the courts and the public offices. I do not
deny, as I have already said, our difficulties in
this country. I repeat that those difficulties are
serious; and I hope that those of us who now act
on the lines which I have been suggesting will be
recognised as having earned in proper time and
proper place, the right to be listened to with favorable ears in case we do tender
proper advice as to
what we believe, in the true interests of minorities,
and in the true interest of Canada, should be done
in regard to these difficult and delicate questions.
I hope also that our attitude may not be mistaken
by either friend or foe, either by those we serve or
those we oppose, by the minorities in whose cause we
are prepared to stand up or by the majoritiese whom
many of us represent, as being that of an unworthy truckling to either race or creed.
I should
like to ask what have the majority of the representatives of Ontario constituencies
to gain by adopting
the course which I have chalked out for myself
Let others speak for themselves. I know that the
only gain I can have for myself is risk and loss. Nothing but that. We shall then
claim our right to
speak firmly and frankly on all fit occasions and on
all burning questions, and we shall ask the consideration which we are now granting.
Having said so
much, I ask how should this Bill, brought forward
in the frame which it has assumed, with the preamble by which it is prefaced, with
the speech in which
it was introduced, with the speeches by which out
of doors it was heralded, having regard to the
movement of which I have said it is the first fruits—
how should this Bill be met? I am prepared to meet
such a Bill, so introduced, so framed, so prefaced,
with an uncompromising negative. But it has
seemed to be the temper of the House to meet it
with some substantive declaration. I shall not
object to that; but for myself I am not fully satisfied with either of the declarations
which have
been proposed. I am of opinion that, if we do
formulate a declaration, it should contain a distinct and unequivocal repudiation
of the principle
of the preamble of this Bill, and should vindicate
the ground on which we stand, as to the question
raised by the enacting clause. In these respects
and also because I am not prepared for myself to
affirm all the language contained in the second
amendment,— for example the statement that the
enactment would put in doubt the stability of our
institutions—I think that amendment is not
wholly applicable to the situation; nor do I think
the first amendment is what we require either. I
think there is apart from the suggestions of policy, no
present grievance of any account. The money question is absolutely nothing. The amount
is trifling,
and this Parliament pays it and the hon. gentleman
who proposes the Bill (Mr. McCarthy) has cheerfully
voted for and supported the payment of hundreds
of thousands of dollars—I might say millions—of
expenditure much less defensible than the $400 or
$500 a year which are expended to convey to the
French people of the North-West, few as they may
be, a knowledge of the ordinances of the country
in which they live. Now, Sir, what is the condition of our country with respect to
the North-West?
We have spent many scores of millions mainly
in connection with the North-West. Our crying
need there to-day is, and will for a long time be,
settlement, the influx of hardy and frugal cultiva
685 [FEBRUARY 14., 1890.] 686
tors of the soil. The Province of Ontario is being
bled to-day partly to meet that demand. Her farms
have fallen in price; and that fall, very notably in
the eastern section of the Province, is partly due to
the altered conditions of supply and demand, partly
also due, no doubt, to unfavorable seasons, partly
due to low prices, due to a combination of circumstances, in which however, the North-West
is a large
factor. I say that fall would have been very much
more marked than it is to-day, if it had not been for
that influx of French Canadian settlers into the east,
which this agitation seems almost designed to prevent, which certainly is regarded
as no unmixed
blessing by those who are engaged in the agitation,
so far as the Province of Ontario is concerned. For
my own part, I take ground altogether different
from those gentlemen on that subject; I heartily
welcome our French fellow-countrymen who prefer
Ontario to the States. I hope they will continue
to prefer it; I hope that they will come in, just as
many of them as have come in, and buy our farms
from those who want to sell them, and who will
not complain, however much other people may
create grievances in another Province, if they get a
better price than they otherwise might by reason
of altered conditions in the law of supply and
demand. I say that while Ontario is being bled at
this moment and in this way, the Province of
Quebec is being bled too, not so much by migration
to the North-West but she is being bled mainly to
the entire loss of Canada, and to the profit of the
neighboring Republic. I think the most important
object to which we can practically address ourselves, is the diversion of that emigration
to the
States to migration to the North-West Territories.
I do not hope myself for any substantial measure of
success whatever from projects of repatriation. I believe that the French Canadian
whom you let go to
the States, and who settles there, you have practically lost forever. There may be
cases of return, but,
speaking in the large, such, I regret to say, is my
belief of the result. Nor can I say that I entertain
any very high or sanguine hopes, judging by experience, of Quebec migration on a large
scale
to the North-West. But still there is in that
respect a hope, there ought to be a hope.
If it is the case that we are unable to persuade
our own people from the Province of Quebec,
agriculturists, to move to those fertile plains of
which my hon. friend from North Norfolk gave such
a glowing description, if it is the case that we are
unable to persuade them to move there, and that
they still prefer the Eastern or the Western States
to Canada, then how can we hope for any great immigration from abroad? I say that
we ought to
address ourselves to that problem to which I have
referred, in an earnest, an active, an energetic
manner. But I conceive that the temper and
spirit displayed in this Parliament and displayed
in the North-West itself in this matter, may be very
important factors as to the success of any such effort.
I decline to abandon the hope of considerable immigration. I believe that if the people
of the North- West Territories will consider of the matter, if
those few thousands of souls who are scattered,
specks hardly discernible, through that vast territory, will but realise the fact
that industrious,
hardy, frugal, economical, cultivators of the soil
are leaving old Canada, not for new Canada, but
for the States, they will hold out their arms, they
will welcome warmly those whom we might induce
to go out there. Are you going to induce them to
do so by such proposals as this? I am for trying out
the experiment; I am for continuing every inducement, the sentimental inducement if
you please,
as well as other inducements, until that experiment
is fully and fairly tried out. In face of this agitation to which I have, all through
what I have
said, alluded, as the main and important, the
overshadowing feature of this discussion, I should
regard the immediate adoption of a proposal to
expunge such little use of the French tongue as is
now provided for, as fatal to whatever prospect
there may be of an increasing or of a continuing
French migration to the North-West. I say that
the future will indicate to us the solution of this
question, and that it should be reserved until the
future speaks and gives us that indication. I
agree with something that has been said by the
hon. member for North Norfolk as to the people of
the North-West. They are, so far as their
rights, their constitutional rights are concerned,
in a transition condition. They have not asked,
they feel themselves that they are not yet in a position to claim the full measure
of provincial rights.
It would be entirely premature so to deal with these
enormous areas of fertile territory in the present
conditions of settlement and of occupation, and to
turn them into Provinces. All sides are agreed on
that. The people of the locality, but also the
people of Canada, are deeply interested in the
policy to be pursued in the North-West. Canada
has, in truth, if you consider the enormous areas
that she has to settle, the enormous expenditure she
has made and is making—she has, in truth, the main
interest, an interest far surpassing that of the few
people who are now there. But fortunately for old
Canada, and fortunately for those people, it is a
common interest. There is not the slightest divergence of
interest. There may be differences of opinion
as to what are the best means of advancing that
interest, but the interests are one and the same; the
prosperity of the North-West is the one interest of
both; and the proper step to take in order to advance
that prosperity is the question submitted to both
and upon that question the Parliament of Canada,
in the present condition of the North-West and of
the people of that country, must speak; I will not
say with a despotic voice, I will not at all say with a
voice regardless of the opinion of the Territories,
but still at this moment, having the responsibility,
with a decisive and potential voice. Now, under
these circumstances, I say, we should meet the
question when it comes. The hon. gentleman
has suggested that we have heard the opinion of
the North-West. I should have great, though
not absolutely decisive regard to that expression
deliberately and constitutionally reached, but I deny
that we have yet heard it. The North-West Assembly had no commission or authority
from this Parliament, its creators, to deal with this question at
 all and the electors to that assembly had not before them, when the assembly was
elected, any
proposition upon this subject. So, neither was
there an authority in the body, nor was there a
mandate from the constituency. It may be, it is
quite possible, that even upon a full and calm consideration, after the interval of
time which is to elapse
between now and the next appeal to the people, it
may be that there may be a very strong expression
of opinion there, as to what is for their interests;
but in the meantime it is not to be entirely forgotten
687
[COMMONS] 688
that the condition is only this, that the Parliament
of Canada votes out of Canadian resources a trifling
sum annually for the payment of the printing in
the two languages of their ordinances; and that
if they choose to elect a Frenchman to the assembly, that Frenchman has what, I am
afraid,
would be a very barren privilege, the right
of expressing his sentiments in that assembly, in
what, to the majority of them, I am afraid, would
be something like an unknown tongue. There is
the condition of things. No particular grievance,
therefore, now exists, and the condition upon which
you are to deal with the question is to be settled,
as I have said, in the future. If, when you have
tried the experiment, if when you have used all
fair exertions, if when you have given all fair
inducements, you still find that country is, even
to the extent to which it now is proportionately, an
English country, why the question will settle
itself. If, what I would rejoice to see in the face
of all that has been said in my Province and elsewhere, there should be a large immigration
of
Frenchmen to the North-West, and that settlement should be mixed, the condition might
be
practically the same. If that settlement were, what
I would not prefer myself, isolated, it might create
a condition of things demanding different treatment. Let us deal with it when the
condition
arises and as the condition exists; and when we
do deal with it, let us deal with it, not associated
with the efforts which have been made, the apprehensions which have been raised, the
hostilities which have been excited by the proceedings
of which this Bill is the first outcome, but entirely
dissociated from all these, having meantime finally
and altogether settled, as far as the opinion of the
Parliament of Canada can settle, the other questions,
the greater questions, the more important questions in regard to which this Bill seems
to be but a
sort of pilot balloon. Sir, I have endeavored to set
forth in the draft of an amendment such a form of
words as, without at all being wedded to that
precise form, seems to me to indicate the most
appropriate solution of this question, and, if the
opportunity is offered to me in the course of this discussion, by any process, I shall
take leave to submit
that proposition to the chamber; and in order that
hon. members may know what the proposition
which I at all events would very respectfully submit
for their consideration, I shall now, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, read it
"This House cannot, having regard to the long continued use of the French language
in old Canada, and to the
covenants on that subject embodied in the British North
America Act, agree to the declaration contained in the
said Bill as the basis thereof, that it is expedient in the
interest of the national unity of the Dominion that there
should be community of language amongst the people of
Canada.
"That, on the contrary, this House declares its inviolable adherence to the covenants
in respect to the use of
the French language in Quebec and Canada, and its
determination to resist any attempt to impair those
covenants.
"That as to such use of the French language in the
North-West Territories, as is now provided by law, it is in
the best interests of Canada at large and of the Territories
in particular that inducements should be held out to the
emigrating inhabitants of each of the Provinces to settle
in the Territories, whose greatest want is population.
"That the expunging of the provisions allowing the use
of the French language in the Territories is not required
to remedy any practical grievance at this time, and
would, under existing circumstances, lessen the chances
of a French Canadian immigration.
"That it is expedient to leave those provisions undisturbed, and to defer any decision
as to the ultimate solu
tion of the question until time shall have further developed the conditions of North-West
settlement."
On these lines, or on lines like these, I would
invite this House to act; to these considerations,
however feebly set forth, I would invite the earnest
and dispassionate attention of my fellow-countrymen. This I feel is for Canada a turning
point. I
see but dimly; I may not see aright; but, if I at
all discern the signs of the times, until Canadians
on such lines agree, there will be for Canada
neither progress, prosperity, nor peace.
Mr. MCNEILL. Mr. Speaker, although the
hon. gentleman has disapproved very strongly of
the use of the plural pronoun, I will venture to
make use of it in addressing him for a moment and
in saying that we on this side of the House are
delighted to see the hon. gentleman in his place
once more and able so vigorously to take part in the
discussions in this chamber. I will not for one
moment dream of attempting to follow the hon.
gentleman through the brilliant periods of the
carefully prepared oration which he has delivered
to this House. I would not dream of doing so
in any case, besides I would leave the matter
naturally to the hon. gentleman beside me (Mr.
McCarthy). But, Sir, I will say that while the
hon. gentleman was addressing us and while
I admired those glowing periods in which he
advocated a broad-minded and liberal policy
in Canada, I could not help asking myself if
it was possible the hon. gentleman was not aware
that his own conduct was largely responsible for
the agitation and for the fear in the Province of
Ontario which had given rise to this agitation
which he condems. I could not help asking myself
whether the hon. gentleman was not aware that the
course which he had pursued in reference to the
Riel agitation had warned the people of Ontario of
the danger in which they stood and had led them to
believe, rightly or wrongly, that the power of
French Canada was so great that even Edward
Blake had succumbed to its influence, had gone back
on all the record of his past life, had forgotten his
pledge, yet warm from his lips that he would not
attempt to build up a political party on the scaffold
of Regina, had forgotten the blood of his own fellow-countrymen on the plains of the
North-West,
and had joined hands with the Parti National. That
party which without his support would have
withered and died almost in the hour in which it
was born, that party which is responsible to-day for
all the trouble that is upon us at this moment. I
could not help also asking myself if the hon. gentleman who had addressed us in such
eloquent terms
had also forgotten, or was it possible that the hon.
gentleman who told us that this preamble of the
Bill was the all-important part of the Bill, was the
same gentleman who voted last Parliament that
the preamble of a Bill had nothing whatever to do
with it, or was it due to his approval of that preamble that he so voted. I do not
wish to press
this matter further, but I will say that these
considerations presented themselves to my mind.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Go on.
Mr. MCNEILL. I am about to proceed. I do not
wish to press that particular part of the matter any
further, but I was going to turn to another matter.
I hope I have not in any way annoyed hon. gentlemen opposite. I think I have the right
to express
my views as well as any of these hon. gentlemen. If
689 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 690
we have not even the right of free discussion I do
now know what Canada is coming to. I have been
much struck during the course of this debate with
one or two of its features. One of them is that
there seems to be a very strong reluctance, I do
not say on the part of the hon. gentleman who has
just addressed the House, but on the part of most of
the hon. gentlemen who have opposed this Bill, to
meet this issue squarely, and to say whether or not
they desired to maintain a dual language in the
North-West Territories, in the teeth of the
almost unanimous wish of the representatives
of the people there. Another feature of this debate
which has struck me is this, that hon. gentlemen
or some of those who have spoken at least, desire
not so much to discuss this Bill as it is, or to discuss
the provisions of the Bill, or whether or not the
dual language should be maintained officially in
the North-West, but rather to discuss some other
question as to whether our French Canadian
friends are to have the right to speak their own
language at all in the North-West and throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion.
There is another feature of this debate which has
impressed me a good deal, and that is, that there is
a tendency, in some quarters, to impute narrow- mindedness and a want of liberality
to those who
think that to impose the dual language by statutory
enactment upon the people of those vast regions,
which we call the North-West, would not be to the
benefit of Canada. The speech of my hon. friend
from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) struck me as somewhat
of an illustration of the first two of these features
of this debate. The hon. gentleman, if he will allow
me to say so, made us a most able and a most
interesting address; but I listened to that speech
for considerably over an hour without being able
to discover whether the hon. gentleman was or
was not in favor of continuing the dual language
officially in the North-West. The hon. gentleman
certainly pitched into my hon. friend beside me (Mr.
McCarthy) most unmercifully, as did several other
gentlemen, and unless my hon. friend from Simcoe
has the hide of a rhinoceros, or half a dozen of
them, he must, by this time, one would
think, be pretty sore. The hon. member for
Bothwell told us that if one language only was
to be the language of Canada, that could not be
the English language, but that it must be a sort of
hybrid between the English and the French. I
thought when he made that statement that he was
not complimentary to my friend, the Minister of
Public Works, who had just been addressing us in
very forcible English indeed. I thought he had
not been complimentary to my hon. friend, the
leader of his own party, whose charming
En lish will, I venture to say, live in the literature
of Canada. The hon. gentleman naturally overlooks these facts, because they are facts.
He has
also overlooked the fact that although Highlanders of Scotland speak the English language
they speak pure English he overlooked the fact
that although almost all the rising generation
of Wales speak English, they do not speak a
hybrid between Welsh and English. He also overlooked the fact that although the people
in the
counties of Ireland, where there has been an
admixture of race, speak English, that that
English is not a mixture of Erse and English, but
is pure English. The hon. gentleman overlooked
these facts; but I do not suppose we need be much
surprised at that, for we all know that when my
hon. friend gets on what I may call a burst of pure
theoretical, political, philosophy, such ordinary
common place things as mere matters of notorious
fact are altogether beneath his notice.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The hon. gentleman is
depending on his imagination now.
Mr. MCNEILL. The hon. gentleman is simply
stating facts which my hon. friend from Bothwell
never can appreciate. I may say further that I
thought the hon. gentleman paid rather a left- handed compliment to our French Canadian
friends, when out of all the characters portrayed by
Shakespeare he selected as the mouth-piece of the
French Canadians on this occasion the rapacious,
the extortionate, and the relentless Shylock. My
hon. friend gave us a very interesting discourse
upon the law of forces. He handled the subject
admirably, and he told us that if a number of forces
were acting upon a given body at a given time,
that body would be impelled in the direction of
the resultant of these forces. I see my hon. friend
nods his head and agrees to that statement. He
told us that that law applied to mental as well as
to physical force, and he was happy enough to illustrate the fact himself, because
he showed us that
the forces then acting on his own mind impelled
him to make a perfect circle round the subject
under discussion and carefully to avoid touching it
at all. In reference to the third feature of this
discussion, namely, the tendency to impute illiberality to those who think that the
dual official
language should not be maintained in the North- West Territories. For my own part,
I wish to state
that I shall express my conscientious convictions
on this question regardless of any such imputations.
While in many things I do not agree with my hon.
friend beside me (Mr. McCarthy) yet I agree with
the proposition he lays down, when he says that a
country inhabited by one homogeneous people,
speaking one language, is stronger and more stable
than the same country would be if it were inhabited by an equal population composed
of the original
races which together went to make up that homogeneous people each one of them speaking
its
own separate language, maintaining its own laws
and customs and preserving its own individuality.
I venture to say that there are few people who will
controvert that assertion. Let us take the Austrian
Empire for example. What is the notorious cause
of the weakness of the Austrian Empire? It is
the fact that there is no distinctive nationality in
Austria; it is the fact that Austria consists of a
conglomeration, or rather I should say of a bundle
of distinct peoples, each of them preserving their
own nationality, their own manners and customs
and as Professor Freeman says held together only by
the fact that certain marriages, and wars, and
treaties, and so forth, have given them a common
sovereign.
I have been astonished to hear the example of
Austria held up as one which could be placed in
opposition to the view of the hon. member for
North Simcoe. What does M. Louis Leger say in
his late work with regard to Austria, a work of
which Prof. Freeman, in his preface, expresses the
highest admiration? He says:
"These conflicting elements have not been welded together by time, as for example:
Have the Celts, the
Gallo-Romans, the Franks, and the Iberians in Modern
691 [COMMONS] 692
France They have each preserved their language and
their traditions; they live side by side without mingling.
The life of an organic body consists in the equilibrium of
the simple elements of which it is composed. If this
equilibrium is destroyed, the body dies. In like fashion
the life of the Austro-Hungarian State depends upon the
unstable equilibrium of the various races which make up
the empire."
Then, take the case of England. It is notorious
that the Celts in the west did not fuse with
the rest of the population of the island, and
during several centuries that circumstance was
a source of weakness, and embarrassment, and
a clog upon England. If the Celts, and Anglo- Saxons, and Normans had not mingled
in
England and formed one race, but lived as separate
races in England to-day, does anyone suppose that
England would occupy the place among the nations
of the world which she does occupy? Take the case of
Scotland. Is it not notorious that the Highlanders
of Scotland did not amalgamate with the Lowlanders, and is it not a fact that that
was a source
of weakness to that country Sir Walter Scott,
who knew the nature of Scotchmen as well as any
man who ever lived, perfectly expresses the feelings of the Highlanders of Scotland
when he puts
into the mouth of a typical Chieftain the words
with which we are all familiar:
"The stranger came with iron hand
And from our fathers reft the land."
And then, after giving a magnificent picture of the
barren fastnesses into which they were driven, he
goes on:
"Pent in this fortress of the North,
Thinkst thou we will not sally forth
To spoil the spoilers as we may,
And from the robber rend the prey
Ay, by my soul! while on yon plain
The Saxon rears one shock of grain,
While of ten thousand herds there strays
But one along yon river maze,
The Gael of plain and river heir Â
Shall with strong hand redeem his share."
Sir, it is notorious, as I say, that those words represent the sentiment of the Highlanders
of Scotland, as maintained for very many generations,
and that it is only within comparatively recent
days that that unfortunate feeling of distrust and
dislike between these races has died away
and I venture to say that anyone who knows the
circumstances of that country is prepared to
endorse what I say when I assert that nothing
has more contributed to that better and
happier condition of things which now exists
than the more general use of the English
language in the Highlands of Scotland. Take
the case of France. Will anyone say that if
France today were not inhabited by the great and
homogeneous people that she has, but were inhabited by the Celts and Gallo-Romans,
Iberians,
Franks and Norsemen—each preserving their own
institutions, usages and individuality, and speaking their own language, she could
be the great and
powerful and stable nation she is to-day? And so
I believe that here in Canada, if our races were
amalgamated, we should be stronger than we are
at the present moment. We all know that our
French Canadian friends have many qualities
characteristic of their race, great and good qualities, which are not characteristic
of the race to
which we belong and I think we may say, on the
other hand, that we have good qualities characteristic of our race which are not so
highly developed
in theirs; and I think we may fairly conclude that
if there were a blending of the races, that blending would be beneficial to both
but in any case it
cannot be doubted that it would add to the
solidarity of the Dominion. Then, I think, there
can be no question of the correctness of the assertion
of my hon. friend, that this perpetuation of different
languages has a tendency to keep races apart and
to preserve and maintain race distinctions; and
the other proposition, the reverse of that—though
I cannot go so far as some of the quotations which
my hon. friend read taken by themselves would
seem to go—appears to me to be perfectly correct also, that the use of one language
is a
wonderful solvent of race distinctions. It further
seems to me to be self-evident, that the enforcing
by statutory enactment, so far as statutory enactment can enforce it, the use of distinct
languages
has a tendency to perpetuate a plurality of languages, and to prevent the advance
throughout the
population of any one of those languages which has
a natural tendency to become dominant. Now, Sir,
all these propositions I believe to be true and unassailable; but I hope no hon. gentleman
in this
House, whether he be amongst my French
Canadian friends or amongst my English-speaking
friends, will for one moment suppose that because
I hold these propositions to be true, I also believe
that the dual language should not have been permitted in Canada. I entertain no such
opinion,
Mr. Speaker. In dealing practically with this
question, we have not to consider principles in the
abstract, but facts as they are. A well known
writer, speaking of the great Edmund Burke, said:
"All abstract speculation and theorising on the principles of government, without
special reference to the
particular circumstances of the country and the people
to be governed, Mr. Burke held, from the beginning to
the end of his life, in undisguised contempt."
And I venture to think that it would be well if
that rooted conviction of the greatest political
thinker Britain ever produced, was also the rooted
conviction of some of our theoretical political
philosophers of the nineteenth century. It no
more follows that because we think it would be
to the advantage of Canada that we should have
one homogeneous race here, that because we think
that our races would more speedily become homogeneous if one language only were used,
we would
be justified in attempting, even if we had the
power, to stamp out one of these languages, than it follows that one of these
races would be justified in exterminating
the other. I would ask if there is any man in this
Chamber who would say that when Canada passed
under the aegis of liberty-loving England, the use
of their mother tongue should have been denied to
the gallant defenders of their soil. Is there any
man who will say that on the day when Montcalm
fell on the Plains of Abraham there should have
passed away forever from his compatriots the
right to the freest and fullest use of that tongue
which they had learned at their mother's knee,
which is interwoven with the very threads of
life, which is inseparably connected with every
joy and sorrow, with every emotion, with every
thought, from infancy to the grave I venture to
say that no one will say so, and I venture to say
that any such treatment of the vanquished would
have been un-English and unjust, would have
been tyrannical and cruel. I will go further and
693 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 694
say that it seems to me it would have been only a
little less oppressive to have precluded our French
Canadian friends, who were the overwhelming majority in their own Province, from the
freest use of
their own language in their courts of law and in
the Legislative Assembly of their Province. In
treating of this matter, we must not be so much
impressed by considerations of abstract principles
as by facts as they exist and by the lessons of
history, and while it would have been well for
England if the Celts of the west had amalgamated
with the rest of the population as the Celts in
Cornwall and Devonshire did, and while it would
have been well for Scotland if the Celts in the
North had amalgamated with the Saxons in the
plains as the Celts in England have done, still
we must remember that notwithstanding the fact
that they did not amalgamate and have not
amalgamated up to this day, England has grown
to be great and prosperous as no country of a
like area has ever grown before; and Queen
Victoria today has not throughout her broad
Empire more devoted and loyal subjects than are
to be found in Wales. And while it is true that
it would have added to the strength of Scotland
if the Celts of the Highlands had joined hand in
hand with their brethern on the plains, yet,
notwithstanding the fact that they did not do so, Â
Scotland for many a long century preserved her
independence and held her own; and when at
length the kingdoms were merged into one, that
result came about, not as a consideration of
abstract principles alone would have led us to
believe it would have come about, by the conquest
of the weaker country by the stronger, but it came
about by the fact that the far weaker country
gave a king to her great and powerful southern
neighbor from her own royal House of Stuart
and to-day when any British general wishes to get
a body of picked men for any service of special difficulty and danger, these very
plaided warriors of
the North, who were so often led by men like
the typical Rhoderick Dhu against the Saxon, are
amongst the most highly prized of all those most
famous regiments whose splendid deeds of valor,
and prowess, have shed a lustre on the British arms.
Therefore, I say, that although we have two races
living side by side here in Canada, I for one am
not doubtful of the result. Let no man fear for the
future of Canada. Mighty and glorious that future
must be, notwithstanding that there may be perhaps a poor pitiful handful of traitors
within, and
that there are certainly swarms of jealous rivals
without. For my part I wish we had no race distinctions, I wish we were all one united
homogeneous people, I wish the terms French Canadian
and British Canadian were only to be found in the
pages of history, and that from the North to the
South and from ocean to ocean, the simple word
Canadian were the one and only term that could
appropriately be applied to the citizen of this
broad Dominion. But, Sir, such a result as that,
if it is to be brought about at all, can only come
about by the flux of time and by the cultivation of feelings of mutual respect, mutual
forbearance, and mutual good-will. I wish to say this,
however, that the forbearance must not be all
on one side. We must remember that part of the
trouble is this, that in the Province of Ontario,
and, I believe, in other parts of Canada to-day, the
impression is that the forbearance has been pretty
much all on one side. For my part I will say here
in my place in Parliament what I said to my own
constituents on the 12th July last, that the man
who would for party purposes or for paltry personal motives endeavor to sow the seeds
of dissension between our French Canadian friends and the
British-speaking people of Canada is unworthy to
represent any constituency in this Dominion, and
that he might more properly, in the well known
words of the poet Hood:—
"Sit for hell and represent the devil."
Sir, we have our race distinctions, and it is our
duty to make the best of them. Unfortunately the
extraordinary movement which was inaugurated
some time ago in the Province of Quebec, and which
was promoted so largely by the hon. member for
West Ontario (Mr. Edgar), and which culminated in
the formation of a party whose raison d'Ă©tre is only
that it is the French as against the English party,
has rendered the making the best of our race
distinctions very much more difficult than it
otherwise would have been. That is a proposition which perhaps may be taken exception
to. But when the people of the Province of
Ontario see the Premier of the Province of
Quebec ostentatiously put himself at the head of
this anti-British party in the Province of Quebec,
they, I think, naturally come to the conclusion—
whether it is right or not is another question—
that this anti-British party represents the sentiments of the people of the Province
of Quebec and
that the sentiment of the people of the Province of
Quebec is hostile to British interests. I do not
myself believe that that is a fair view of the
situation, because we know—those of us who are
in this House know—or many of us believe—I may
say we know that the Parti National does not represent united Quebec at all events.
We know
that our French Canadian friends sitting on this
side of this House are opposed to the Parti National, and I believe—my hon. friend
will contradict me if I am wrong—that the organ of the party
of which he is the distinguished leader, La Patrie,
denounces the Parti National. If, then, we have
our friends on this side opposed to the Parti National and those hon. gentlemen opposite
who represent the great Liberal Party of the Province, also
opposed to it, I think the sentiment of the Province
of Quebec cannot fairly be taken to be hostile to
British interests, but the existence of that Parti National produces that impression
in Ontario. I was
very much pleased to hear the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot), who occupies
such a prominent position in that party—if I may be allowed to
allude in passing to a previous debate—aver from
his place in this House in the most solemn terms,
in the most distinct and emphatic terms, that he
and those acting with him were not actuated by any
anti-British feeling whatever; that he and his compatriots recognised to the fullest
extent the beneficencethat was—the word he used—the beneficence
of British rule in Canada. And I was glad to hear him
aver that, without any reservation, they admitted
that they were treated with fair play, with justice
and with generosity. I was delighted when I
heard the hon. member make that speech, and I
was so moved by it that I was almost inclined to
cross the floor of the House and renew to him my
supplication that he would allow his name to be
enrolled as a member of the Imperial Federation
695
[COMMONS] 696
League but I thought I would wait till the conclusion of the debate, when I was satisfied,
from
what my hon. friend said, that I would capture the
whole Parti National en bloc. But I warn my
right hon. friend the leader of the Government,
who is not here at present, but I warn him through
the members of the Cabinet who are here, that when
that day arrives and I get the silver-tongued
member for Quebec East (Mr. Laurier) to become
a member of the Federation League, my right hon.
friend will have to keep a sharp eye on me lest I
fall a victim to the magic of my hon. friend opposite. As I have said we must try
to make the
best of our race differences. The hon. gentleman
said he had the fullest confidence in British fair
play, British justice and British generosity, and I
say he and his compatriots may have the fullest
confidence in British fair play, justice and generosity. The British people in Canada
and in the
Mother Country are as ready to mete out fair play,
justice and generosity to-day as they have been in
the past, and they will be in the future as they are
to-day. That is my conviction. Because for my
part, I will never believe that our French Canadian
friends can be prevailed upon either by agitator
or demagogue so far to do violence to the generous
and chivalrous impulses which are so characteristic
of their race, as to endeavor to convert those privileges which have been so lavishly
conferred
upon them iato a weapon to wound the hand that
bestowed the boon. Therefore, I do not believe
that any attempt will ever be made to interfere
with those privileges. It is right that they
should look with jealousy at any attempt to
interfere with the constitutional privileges which
have been conferred upon them, but, for my part—
it may be my blindness—I cannot see how the
proposal which is now before us will interfere with
them. I am not speaking of the preamble of the
Bill, I am speaking of the Bill itself. I take the
position which was taken by the 188 last session,
and I assume that the preamble is not an essential
part of the Bill. I say the question with which we
are now face to face is not one of interfering with
the constitutional privileges of our French Canadian friends. It is rather a question
whether we
should continue to interfere with the natural privileges of the British people in
the North-West
Territories, who have, by the voice of their Legislative Assembly, asked us to relieve
them of a
burden which this House has imposed upon them.
When they had no Legislative Assembly, this
House, with the strong hand and in the exercise of
its right, no doubt, if not of its wisdom, decreed
that there should be dual language in the North- West Territories. At that time we
had at least
this excuse for what we did, that we had no
authoritative information that what we did would
be distasteful to the majority of the people
there. Now we have the fact that the Legislative Assembly, which we felt bound to
call
into existence, has, by a practically unanimous vote, asked us to relieve them of
the
burden which we cast upon them. They say that
they regard this as a burden, they say that they
do not require dual language in the North-West
Territories, they say that they regard it as burdensome and vexatious, and they ask
us to remove
the incubus which we have cast upon them. I do
not see for my part how we can refuse to accede to
their request. It is perfectly useless, to my mind, to
place against the almost unanimous vote of the
Legislative Assembly of the North-West petitions
such as have been presented to this House, more
especially when we know that the opinion expressed
by the Legislative Assembly is endorsed by every
organ of public opinion in the North-West. Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Davin), who
edits the
Regina Leader, and who, I see, is not in his place,
has not endorsed it. Well, I listened to my hon.
friend reading a long article from the Regina Leader
the other day, and the Leader did not venture
to controvert in any way the statement that
this was the opinion of the people there. It is quite
true that if there were a large French population in
the North-West Territories, the precedents which
have been adduced by the hon. member for West
Durham, might have some force. What were
they? One was that it had been recommended by
the British Parliament that the people of certain
countries in Europe should be left to decide for
themselves whether they should have a dual
language, or a plurality of languages, or what
language they should have as their official language.
Well, the people of the North-West have told us
their wishes and if he does not give effect to their
expressed opinion upon this subject, he is going back
upon this precedent which he has brought before
the House. And what was the other? It was
with reference to Poland, and the question was
whether the Poles should be allowed fuller use
of their own language in their own country.
What in the world has that got to do with this
question? If the North-West was a French settlement, if there was an overwhelming
majority of
our French Canadian friends in the North-West,
these two precedents which have been brought
forward by the hon. gentleman would have some
bearing. But I venture to say—and I hope that
he will not think me impertinent in saying so; I
suppose, insignificant as I am, I have a right to my
opinion on the question--but in my opinion, at least,
his precedents have no bearing upon the question at
all, but are rather an argument infavor of the contention that the people of the North-West
ought to decide this question, and that the opinion of the people
of the North-West ought to be taken as conclusive
on this question. Now, if there were a large number
of our French Canadian friends in that country, even
though they were not in a majority, I think it
might be reasonable that we shoud stay our hands.
But I want to ask, is there not some limit to this?
Suppose there was only one French Canadian in
the North-West, and a hundred thousand British
people; should we be called upon to establish a
dual language in the North-West Territories, or to
maintain it there? Well, then, it is a question of
degree. The question is, whether there is such a
population of our French Canadian friends there as
to require the use of this official dual language, such
a population as would make it worth our while to
go right in the teeth of the almost unanimously expressed wish of the representatives
of the people. It is
strange Liberal doctrine, at all events, I think. Now,
Sir, if the people of the North-West were seeking
to inflict any hardship upon our French Canadian
friends the case would be different. But they are
not asking anything of the kind. They are simply
asking us not to impose upon them this dual
official language, and when we remember that
every single member of that Legislative Assembly is an English-speaking person, and
that the
697 [FEBRUARY 14, 1890.] 698
French language is to him a foreign tongue, it
seems to me that the request is a very reasonable
one. Mr. Speaker, I would be most unwilling
in any way to do violence to the sentiments of my
French Canadian friends; I would be as unwilling
to do so as I am sure they would be unwilling to
do violence to my sentiments. I would even be
willing to go some length in deference to their prejudices, as I believe they would
be willing to go
some length to meet my prejudices. But though
I am prepared to go a long way for peace and
friendship, even for the attainment of such objects
as these, I am not prepared to go as far as to betray
the people of my own flesh and blood; I am not
prepared to go so far as to say that I will ignore
the voice of the Legislature which we ourselves
have felt it our duty to establish there. I would
consider that I was doing them a gross injustice,
and I shall endeavor, for my part, to mete out to
them the same measure of justice that I would
hope to have meted out to myself.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I do not think I would
have attempted to address the House upon this
question, had it not been for the remarks of the
hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr.
McNeill). I think it was a very inopportune time
for the hon. member to make the attack he did on
my hon. friend from West Durham (Mr. Blake),
just after the able, patriotic and broad-minded
speech that he had made, showing that he was
able to rise above party and express in a patriotic
manner the views he held. I regret that the hon.
gentleman should have taken this opportunity to
make such a wild charge against the character
of my hon. friend from West Durham, although he
requires no defence at my hand, either in this
House or in the country. Sir, the position that
my hon. friend took upon the Reil question only
entitled him, I think, to still greater credit before
this House and the people of Canada. To my mind
he had everything to lose from a political point
of view, and nothing to gain, from the position he
took on that question and although I did not vote
with him, although he was my leader, whom I
respected and admired then as I do at the present
time, I exercised my humble judgment according
to the best of my ability, nor did that hon. gentleman ever complain of the position
that I took at
that time. I think, Sir, that it is to be regretted
that this question has come before the House at
all, considering the course the discussion has
taken. The discussion has taken a wide range,
and many matters have been referred to that are
likely to raise bad feeling throughout the country,
not only between people of different nationalities,
but between those professing different religious
creeds and this has been attributed to the speeches
made by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) on other occasions outside of the House,
as well as to the remarks he made on the introduction
of this Bill. I must also say, Mr. Speaker, that I
think that the heated and passionate address of the
Minister of Public Works last night is very much
to be regretted. I do not think that hon. Minister
was at all justified in making the remarks he did
on this particular question. Had the hon. Minister
any ground for the attack he made upon the people of
the Province of Ontario that they were intolerant
towards their fellow-countrymen in Quebec, and
the French-speaking people of this country? The
hon. gentleman must have forgotten that at the
present time in this House the most ultra-British
and ultra-Protestant representatives in the chamber have chosen for their leader a
French-speaking
Catholic who, by his conduct in this House, and
by his great ability, has endeared himself not only
to the members on this side, who are proud of him
as their leader, but I may say to every member on
the other side of the House as well a gentleman
whose patriotism is well known, who has on several
occasions taken a broad-minded and liberal view of
questions, in opposition to what we know to be
the sentiments, easily aroused, of his race in the
Province of Quebec, which he represents here.
That being the case, I think it is to be regretted
that the Minister of Public Works should have
made the passionate appeal he did and have
attacked the people of Ontario, and have appealed
to his French Canadian friends irrespective of
party to stand by him on the present occasion. In
my humble opinion he did not consider that the
constitutional rights of the people of Quebec were
being attacked at the present time, or that there
was any danger whatever to him or to his party or
his nationality or the creed of the people whom he
represents. It is only fair, after the attack made
by the hon. member who has taken his seat,
giving as his reason why this agitation has been
carried on throughout Ontario, that I should thus
express my opinion. In my humble judgment, I
may say to my French Canadian friends on
both sides of the House, that I do not think
there is any particular danger to their constitutional rights or their civil or religious
liberties.
If I were to express my true feelings on this matter I would say that, judging by
the articles in the
press which support the Dominion Government,
judging by the resolutions passed at party meetings
throughout Ontario, there is no particular fault
found with the action of this House or with this
Government, for the newspapers and the party
with whom the hon. Minister works in harmony
do not find fault with the leader of the Government and hold him and his colleagues
responsible
for this agitation, but all the blame is cast upon
Mr. Mowat and the Ontario Government. Does
not the Minister of Public Works know that the
only charge brought forward in Ontario against
the Government of that Province and the only
charge brought by the Conservative party, with
whom he works so well, is that Mr. Mowat is
allowing French to be taught in the public schools
in some parts of Ontario, and that he has been
truckling to the Catholic Church These are the
charges made, and I am sure when the elections take
place a few months hence that will be the last we
will hear about this, which appears to be at present
a very important and serious question, so far
as many of the Conservatives in Ontario are concerned. No doubt my hon. friend, the
Minister
of Public Works will find time, instead of offering, as he told us, prayers on sacred
ground
in Quebec for the souls of his forefathers, to
send missionaries to stir up the French Canadians to vote against the Mowat Government,
as he has done in the past. I am informed that only
a few months ago he sent one of his missionaries
to assist a in bye-election and to endeavor to stir up
the feelings of the French and Irish Catholics against
that Government. I have as much right, and a
great deal more right, to offer this as a cause of the
699
[COMMONS] 700
agitation in Ontario, as had the hon. gentleman
who last addressed the House to lay an unjustifiable charge against the hon. gentleman
for West
Durham (Mr. Blake). If those charges had not
been made I would not have addressed the House
on this question. Although I admire very much, and
I am sure every member of this House and every
true Canadian must admire the broad and patriotic
speech of the member for West Durham, of whom I
am a great admirer and follower, I cannot agree with
him on the main question before the House at the
present time. I believe, and it is my honest judgment,
although I may be wrong, that, as in the North-West
Territory there are so few French-speaking people,
and still fewer, if the information I have received
is correct, who read French, it would be better not
to have a dual language in that country at the
present time. While I differ from the hon. gentleman, I am sure he will give me credit
for
honesty of judgment in dealing with this subject.
While not committing myself to vote for the Bill
before the House I candidly express my view on
this question and I believe also the view of my
constituents. I may say to the Minister of Public
Works, who has just entered the Chamber, that
I do not think he was justified in making
the attack he did upon us. It is not within my
recollection that in the Province of Ontario any
Catholic or any number of Catholics have been
treated with intolerance or their worship interfered
with in any respect whatever, with the one or two
exceptions which are so frequently referred to, and
in those cases there was no interference with worship. It is true that in Toronto,
where feeling
runs high, when there were large demonstrations
on one, two or three occasions, rows have been
stirred up and little conflicts have taken place
but at no place, and certainly not in the riding
which I represent, where there is a very large Protestant majority, have the hon.
gentleman's coreligionists failed to enjoy the greatest possible
liberty to worship God in any way they pleased,
and in my riding they have been assisted, as every
Catholic throughout that section will bear witness,
very materially by their Protestant neighbors. I
repeat that the insinuations made in the speech of
the Minister of Public Works were very unjustifiable, and his appeal to his fellow
Canadians, irrespective of party, to stand by him on this occasion,
was simply an attempt to pull wool over their
eyes, for he knew that if there was any agitation
in Ontario, if there was any intolerance in regard
to this question, it was owing to the action of his
own political friends for whom he had not a word
of condemnation, although, they are the party which
is opposing the action of the Liberal Government
in allowing French to be taught in the schools, and
indeed the hon. gentleman seemed to be perfectly
satisfied to receive the support of those who were
carrying on this agitation in Ontario.
Motion agreed to.
That this debate be made the first Order of the Day on
Monday next after private Bills.
Motion agreed to.
This individual participated in:
