THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN THE NORTH- WEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. McCarthy for second reading
of Bill (No. 10) to further amend the Revised
Statutes of Canada, chapter 50, 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. LAURIER. If I, for one, could accept the
declaration often made by the mover of this Bill,
not only while introducing it, but on several occasions before, protesting that to
the course which
he had adopted for himself, and of which this is only
the preliminary step, he was impelled by no other
motive than a desire, a lofty desire, of securing
the future of this country from dissension, and of
ensuring peace and harmony by removing all causes
of contention, I would be sorry that the hon.
gentleman, harboring in his heart aims so high,
should have endeavored to accomplish them by
means so selfish, and so ungenerous, as those which
underlie the measure which he has brought before
the House. When, however, the hon. gentleman,
in order to find a motive for the measure to which
he called the attention of the House, invokes considerations of such far-reaching
prudence, he is
simply deluding himself. The hon. gentleman, no
doubt, may persuade himself, but he will with
difficulty convince those to whom he has been addressing himself, that his ultimate
object in this
matter is simply to secure the future peace and
harmony of this country, while his present action
must tend to endanger the peace and harmony
which happily prevail. I can find nothing in
this Bill, I must say, but the old, old spirit of
domination and intolerance which, in this land,
and in other lands, has always characterised the
course of pure, unadulterated Toryism. This
measure, taken by itself, disconnected from the
motives which inspired it, would not be of very
great importance—we are all agreed upon that—
but it is of the greatest importance for this reason,
that it constitutes a declaration of war by the
hon. gentleman and those with whom he is acting,
against the French race. It is a declaration of
war, I say, against the French race of this country, of which the hon. gentleman,
in this House,
spoke in no disrespectful terms, but of which, in
other places in the Province of Ontario, he spoke—
I am sorry that he is not now in his place to hear
me—the hon. gentleman spoke in terms which he
would not dare to repeat on the floor of this
House; the hon. gentleman spoke of the French
race in terms of opprobrium, which, I say again,
he would not dare to repeat in this House,
in presence of French Canadians, who, by law, are
on a plane of equality with him in this House. He
would not dare to apply here to my fellow—countrymen of French origin, the terms and
epithets which he
applied to them on former occasions in the Province of Ontario. He would not dare
to say here what he said elsewhere; he would not dare call
that race here as he did elsewhere—a "bastard
nationality." I have here his language, which he
used not later than the 12th July last, at Stayner,
Ont., where he said:
"In Barrie, last election, I pointed out, in a few simple
words, that the great danger which overshadowed Canada
was the French national cry, this bastard nationality, not
a nationality which will take us in as we will take them
in, but a nationality which begins and ends with the
French race—which begins and ends with those who profess the Roman Catholic faith,
and which now threatens
the dismemberment of Canada." Â
A "bastard nationality," a "danger to Canada!"
Why, Sir, the days are not five years distant when
this "bastard nationality," to use the choice words
of the hon. gentleman, was unanimous in their support of the Conservative party to
which the hon.
gentleman, then as now, belonged; the days are not
five years distant when the hon. gentleman might
have counted on his fingers the members of that
race in this House who did not belong to the Conservative party. And yet in those
days, and as long
as that race gave his party nearly the whole weight
of their influence, we never heard of any danger to
Canada from this French national cry. In those.
days the sensitiveness of the hon. gentleman, now
so easily alarmed, did not seem to be in the least
concerned. Nay, more, my fellow-countrymen of
French origin, on the same side of the House to
which he belongs, could appeal, and did appeal, to
all the prejudices of my own race; but that was a
legitimate warfare, because the national cry was
made to do service in behalf of the Conservative
party, to give them office, and to procure for them
the direct and indirect profits of oflice. The speech
delivered the other night by my hon. friend, the
Minister of Public Works, and to which, I must
say, legitimate objection was taken by my hon.
friend rom North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), was
simply, in condensed form, the food which, for
the last twenty-five years, has been served up
every day by the Conservative ministerial press of
the Province of Quebec. Yet in those days not
one word was ever heard as to any danger to Canada from this national cry. But matters
are altered
to-day. To-day the French Canadians are no longer
a unit in their support of the Conservative party;
and what was commendable, or at least unobjectionable, in those days, has now become
a danger to
Canada. A danger to Canada, Sir! I venture to say,
judging of the future by the past, that if the French
Canadians were again to unite and give the whole
727
[COMMONS] 728
weight of their influence to the party to which the
hon. gentleman still belongs, not one word
more would we hear about this danger to Canada
from the French national cry; because, though the
hon. gentleman affects now to be a free lance, still
he belongs to the party commanded by the Prime
Minister. He may not be a very disciplined soldier,
he may be carrying on a guerilla warfare, according
to his methods, but after all, he is working for the
benefit of the Conservative party. He has told us
himself on more than one occasion. Not fifteen
days ago he said so in Collingwood, and he said so
on the 12th July last, at Stayner. It is well known
that it was on the 12th July last at Stayner,
amongst his own constituents, that the hon. gentleman started on the war path. He
then stated that
he was furnishing his own weapons, and that when
Parliament again met he was going to give assault
to the French. His ardor was such that he deprecated the unfortunate condition of
things which,
under the Constitution, did not permit him to
attack them wherever his ardor would impel him,
but under the Constitution, he says he could attack
the French language in the North-West Territories, and attack he would as soon as
the occasion
offered. But at the same time the hon. gentleman, addressing his constituents—all
of them, probably, good
Tories—was careful to tell them that he was still a
Conservative, that he would remain a Conservative,
and that a Conservative he hoped to die; and I
have no doubt that that is true, because I do not
think the hon. gentleman has the slightest particle
of Liberalism in his composition. After this, some
candid souls have asked if the hon. gentleman was
in sympathy with the Prime Minister, or if he was
starting a new movement of his own. A most useless
question, for, whatever may be the aim of the hon.
gentleman, it is quite certain that he means no
harm to the Conservative party, still less to the
leader of the party. Upon that occasion he spoke
of his attachment to the party, and to the leader of
the party, in terms of gushing effusiveness which,
I must say, the hon. gentleman is not accustomed
to use. I might quote several expressions of his,
but here is one which is characteristic of the whole
tenor of his speech:
"I will treat my old chieftain with all tenderness, for
I am still a member of the party. I cannot be read out,
although I do not know what is in store for me."
The hon. member (Mr. McCarthy) is not here, but,
if he were, I would tell him that he can keep his
soul in peace. He need not fret or worry over what
is in store for him, for I know the right hon. gentleman's astuteness too well—not
to mention his
nobler qualities—not to be aware that, if the hon.
gentleman brings recruits to the party, he will be
forgiven; and it is for recruits to the party that he is
looking now. I regret that the hon. gentleman is
not here, as I would rather speak in his presence
than in his absence, but, in all sincerity, I say that
I believe he is looking for recruits for the Conservative party, while, of course,
not forgetting
himself. The Conservative party have been in
power for a long time; they have been in power
nearly continuously for thirty years, and it is a
matter of history that, during that time, they have
been kept in power almost entirely by the French
Catholic support of hhe Province of Quebec. That
is a support upon which they can no longer  rely,
because the people of Quebec are now divided in
their political allegiance; but it must be manifest
to everybody that an English Protestant united
Ontario would be just as effective for party
purposes, and this seems to be the task
which the hon. gentleman has set before
him to accomplish. It is always an
easy and a cheap task to arouse and inflame
prejudices. Give me a meeting or assembly of
men, whether it be small or large, and in that
meeting I will find passions and prejudices, noble
in themselves, but which can be easily excited into
dangerous passions and prejudices. The hon. gentleman is now endeavoring to arouse
prejudices which
old quarrels, religious fervor, and pride of race,
may have left in the breasts of his fellow-countrymen of English origin. He tells
them that if the
country is to be kept British all Canadians of
British origin must unite; at the same
time he states that he is a Conservative,
that he will remain a Conservative, that he
will not be separated from his leader. If the
appeals which he has been making were to be
successful, to whom would they profit and whom
would they affect? They certainly would not
affect the Conservatives, because the hon. gentleman states that he is still in allegiance
with them,
and that they belong to the same party. If they
would affect anybody, they would affect the
Liberals of Ontario, who, fearing perhaps for
British connection, might be induced to follow the
hon. gentleman into the Conservative party, for
which he could frame a policy and of which then he
would be dictator. Well, if this movement of the
hon. gentleman were to be terminated here, if it
were attempted merely to do service as a party
device and to end there, it might not be viewed Â
with much alarm. If this measure of the hon.
gentleman were not to be followed by any other,
if it were to remain as it appears here, a measure
for the proscription of the French language confined to the North-West Territories
alone, where
the French population is small, I say at once that
I would be inclined to say: Let the measure pass
and let us return to those measures of practical
usefulness which demand our attention. But this
is not the last movement of the hon. gentleman.
This is only a preliminary skirmish, soon to be
followed by a general onslaught upon the whole
French race in Canada. I have before me the
words of the hon. gentleman, and he has more than
once told us that his object is a hand-to-hand
conflict with the French race of Canada. If he
did not say so in so many words, there is no
mistaking his meaning that his ultimate object is
the annihilation of the French race as an individual people in this Dominion. In his
speech at
Stayner, he unfolded his whole mind, and, addressing himself to the English section
of the people of
the Dominion, he said:
"There is a great work cut out for us to do. Let us
begin with that which seems most possible of accomplishment. Let us deal with the
dual languages in the North- West. In the Local House let us deal with the teaching
of French in the schools. When these two matters are
settled, we will have accomplished something, and we
may be able to do something better in future."
These words are quite significant. This Bill, the
introduction of this measure, is simply a preliminary step, and when that is accomplished
it is
to be followed by something better. And what is
that something better which is to follow? The
hon. gentleman has not left us in doubt as to that.
Here are his words: Â
729 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 730
"We must buckle on our armor. * * * * This is a
British country, and the sooner we take up our French
Canadians and make them British, the less trouble will
we leave for posterity, for sooner or later must this matter
be settled."
Nothing can be plainer than this language. The
French Canadians are to be deprived of their
language, not only in the North-West Territories,
but wherever their language exists. They. must
be deprived of everything which constitutes their
distinct individuality in this Dominion, and this
must be done by legislation now; but, if not
done now by legislation, in future it will
be done by force and violence—by bullets
and bayonets. The expression is not mine, but
that of the hon. gentleman himself. It has been
repeated, not once or twice, but several times
in different parts of the Dominion. So this is the
policy upon which the hon. gentleman is endeavoring to form a new party, or to re-organise
an old
party. This is the policy the hon. gentleman
offers to his fellow-countrymen of English origin.
I denounce this policy as anti-Canadian; I denounce
it as anti-British; I denounce it as being at
variance with all the traditions of British Government in this country; I denounce
it as fatal to the
hope we at one time entertained, and which I, for
one, am not disposed to give up, of forming a
nation on this Continent; I denounce it as
a crime, the consequences of which are
simply shocking to contemplate. The hon. gentleman may mean nothing more than a mere
party
device, but he is opening the flood-gates to
passions which, once aroused, perhaps no human
power may be able to restrain. He is appealing to
national and religious passions, the most inflexible
of all passions, and—whatever may be his motive,
whatever his end, whatever his purpose—his
movement cannot be characterised by any other
language than that of a national crime. I do not
know what are the motives which are actuating the hon. gentleman; I do not know
them fully. I look only at the consequences.
But, whatever may be the hon. gentleman's
motives, he has more than once felt impelled to
repudiate the statement that he is actuated by
hatred of the French race. If he were here, I
would tell him that I accept his statement absolutely and entirely. Hatred is so base
a sentiment that I would not impute it to him, but, if he
is not actuated by hatred, it is evident that he has
a very strange misconception of the character of
French Canadians, and must have a very low
estimate of their moral standard. In the speech
to which I have already alluded, the hon.
gentleman did not hesitate to go considerably out of his way, in order to refer to
the agitation which, a few years ago, passed over
the Province of Quebec, consequent upon the
rebellion in the North-West and the execution
of the chief participant in the same. He did not
hesitate then to attribute the storm of indignation
which, at that time, convulsed a highly emotional
race to the lowest sentiments which can actuate
the human heart, and those expressions were, to a
certain extent, reproduced in the House, the other
day, by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr.
McNeill), in the attempt he made to attack my
hon. friend beside me (Mr. Blake) for the courageous stand which he took upon that
question.
The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) did not hesitate to say, that, if
the people
of Quebec took the stand they did at that time, it
was from a most dishonest motive; that it was
simply an attempt to stand between a criminal
and justice, because the so-called criminal happened to be one of their own race.
"Those who have done me the honor to pay close attention to my political career, will
remember that in the
County of Haldimand two or three years ago I raised the
warning note. I pointed out that the Province of Quebec
had been worked up to madness against the Dominion
authorities for daring to execute justice upon a Frenchman."
"For daring to execute justice upon a Frenchman." I repeat this sentiment in his own
words.
Well, I have simply this to say, that whoever declares that the position taken by
the people of
Quebec upon this question was not an honest one
is guilty of slander, and makes a statement the
truth of which he cannot prove. The hon. gentleman has not, however, the odium of
having invented that charge. It has been a stock phrase of the
Conservative ministerial press of Ontario for the.
last three or four years. So long as it was simply
confined to some obscure scribblers it might be
passed in silence, but when the hon. gentleman did
not hesitate to give it the countenance of his name
and reputation, and when, moreover, such sentiments are re-echoed in this House, I
cannot allow
the charge to pass unrebuked. I will meet the
hon. gentlemen on his own grounds. I will not dispute his expression that the people
of Quebec were
driven to madness on this question, but as to the
motives attributed by him I will state that the
people of Quebec believe in their conscience,
whether right or wrong, that the execution "of
that Frenchman" (to use the words of the hon.
gentleman) was an unjustifiable homicide. The
hon. gentleman will not forget that twenty-three
of his colleagues; twenty-three of those who
supported that Administration like himself—most
of them who, like himself, will not be read out
of the party, but who will remain Conservatives—
telegraphed to the Prime Minister that the execution would be a crime. This is not
all; there is more
than that. The hon. gentleman will not forget
that the press of the civilised world decided upon
that occasion that "mercy should rule and not
severity." The opinion of the press of the whole
world; the London Lancet, the Christian World,
the London Daily News, the London Echo, the
Pall-Mall Gazette in England, Le National, Le
Journal des De'bats and Le Télégraphe in France,
Harper's Weekly, the Times, the World, the Commercial Advertiser of New York, and scores of other
journals in the United States, gave it as their
opinion that mercy should have been the rule upon
that occasion. I tell the hon. gentleman who has
interrupted me that if those great organs of public
opinion came to the conclusion that mercy should
have been the rule upon that occasion, how dare
he now contest the honesty of the people of Quebec
who came to the same conclusion? If those who
were without the conflict, if those who looked
from a calmer sphere came to this conclusion, is it
to be wondered at that the people of Quebec came
to the same conclusion, though it maybe regretted
that they expressed their opinion in such violent
language. I say more. There is no one man of
English origin, if he be true to the standard
of that proud race which never tolerated injustice, and never submitted to tyranny,
who,
looking at the long tale of woe and misery
731
[COMMONS] 732
which resulted in the rebellion in the North-West,
but must feel his heart indignant—not against the
poor wretches who, goaded to madness and driven
to despair by years of careless indifference, at last
risked life and limb and freedom, risked the loss
of everything dear to man, to get justice, and then
alone obtained it—but against those who by their
own supineness had brought about such a crime
on the fair name of the country. There is
more than that. If the history of that rebellion
were told, it would unfold to the world a tragedy
darker than Hamlet. There was a race of men
on the border between savage and civilised life;
advanced enough to understand the value of property, but not advanced enough to defend
their
property against those unfeeling speculators who
everywhere precede civilisation. Among the whole
race then in Canada there was not one who had
received the smallest rudiment of education; but
they had heard there was one of their number
who had been more favored than they in this respect, and he was then an exile. If
he were
brought back to the Territories, might he not procure for them the act of simple justice
which they
themselves could not obtain? To him they
appealed; but, misfortune greater than all their
misfortune! the man to whom they thus appealed
to be the eye to see for them, the mind to guide
them, the arm to protect them, had been touched
by the hand of God, and was the most helpless of them all. In the face of such facts,
the
judgment of my fellow-countrymen can be impugned, but their honesty cannot be assailed.
It is
a vile imputation to attack their honesty of purpose; and if I have thus alluded to
these facts, it
is not with a view of recrimination, it is not with
a view of perpetuating the bitterness of these
sad days. But since we are threatenod with a
war of races, since my hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy)
is going to appeal to the people of Ontario to
unite together, I want at least fair play in the
contest. I cannot allow that such a statement
as this made at Stayner, should go unrebuked,
and I must do my share in the attempt to re-establish perverted truth. I cannot allow
the fair
name of my countrymen to be assailed by false
statements, and that the expression should go
abroad uncontradicted that the people of Quebec
will follow no law but the law of their own
selfishness. Since the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) has taken this attitude, since
he has tried
to introduce this new policy, which outlines the
course he has taken recently, we might have hoped
that he were impelled by motives of a higher
and nobler consideration. I am not ignorant of
the fact that, among the men who have adopted
the same views as the hon. gentleman, there are
many who have come to the conclusion which the
hon. gentleman has given expression to, from the
conviction that the existence of two separate nationalities in Canada is not compatible
with the existence of the Dominion. This objection thus presented is one which I will
not reject. On the contrary,
I say this is a question which must engross the
serious attention of all those who have at heart the
future of the country, for no one can close his eyes
to the fact that the existence of two distinct
nationalities must produce sometimes, as it has
produced already, causes of angry friction and,
therefore, of danger. But, Sir, we must deal with
facts as they are, and deal with them as we find
them. Here are two different races geographically united under the same political
allegiance,
but separated by numerous ethnical features.
With those conflicting elements, it is the object
of the hon. gentleman apparently—it is my own
object certainly, and it is the object of us all, I
believe—to try to form a nation. This is the
problem we have to solve; how shall we proceed
to solve it? The hon. gentleman has given us his
method, the Tory method, and he has once more
demonstrated that Tory methods never proceed
from the nobler, higher instincts of the human
heart and the human intellect, but always from the
dread, the diffidence, and the distrust which everywhere has made the Tory party,
wherever it has
had sway,suspicious and cruel. The hon. gentleman,
looking around this broad Dominion, sees a population of one and a-half million inhabitants,
nearly
one-third of our whole population, who are of French
origin, attached to their language, their laws, their
institutions, and their religion—attached to everything which characterises their
separate individuality. If the hon. gentleman had stated that this
was a cause of possible friction, and that we should
endeavor to find some means of alleviating that friction, I would agree with him;
but the hon. gentleman did not take that view. On the contrary, he
coldly asserts that the existence of two separate
races here is not compatible with the existence of
the Dominion, and, therefore, one must disappear;
and I have quoted his words in which he appeals
to his friends of English origin to buckle on their
armor, and see to it that we have only one nationality on this continent. Sir, if
this policy were to
prevail, what would be the result? What is it
the hon. gentleman has in view? It is simply
this: that the French Canadians should feel the
yoke on their shoulders, that they should be
deprived by legislation, or by force if necessary,
of everything which has been granted to them
hitherto. If this doctrine were to prevail, on
what foundation would this Confederation rest?
The hon. gentleman, I am sure, would himself
admit that pride of race, attachment to the
memory of one's nation and ancestors, are noble
sentiments; and yet the hon. gentleman coldly
proposes that one and a-half million of Canadians
—in order, as he says, that they should become
good Canadians—should renounce their origin and
the traditions of their race. He proposes that
the humiliation of one whole race in this country
should be the foundation of this Dominion. Woe
to the party which can adopt such degrading doctrines as this. Who does not see
that the humiliation of one race would be a
far greater danger to Confederation than any we
have ever yet known? I endorse the words spoken
a short time ago by the hon. member for North
Bruce (Mr. McNeill), that we want to build up a
nation on this continent; and we want to establish
such a state of things that every citizen of this
country, whatever his origin may be, whether he
is English or French, shall feel in his heart a
supreme pride to call himself a Canadian. But I
would ask the hon. gentleman—I could not appeal
perhaps to his heart, though I might to his
logical mind—does he believe that to subject
one whole section of our population to the humiliation of renouncing its origin, of
turning its
back upon its history, would make them proud
of the country? Who does not perceive that if you
733 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 734
should force one section to hate the institutions
under which they live, those institutions cannot
live? Sir, the humiliation of one race, one class,
one creed, or one man is not the foundation on
which this Confederation can rest. There is but
one foundation for it, that is, to give the fullest
scope and the fullest sway to all those sentiments
which could not be torn from the heart without
causing a loss of pride. The hon. gentleman seems
to think that all Canadians should be cast in
the same mould. He is proud of his race, and he
has every reason to be proud of it; but, Sir, it
does not follow that we should all be English- speaking Canadians, that we should
all be merged
in the Anglo-Saxon element. Certainly no one
can respect or admire more than I do the Anglo- Saxon race; I have never disguised
my sentiments
on that point; but we of French origin are satisfied
to be what we are, and we claim no more. I claim
this for the race in which I was born, that though
it is not perhaps endowed with the same qualities
as the Anglo-Saxon race, it is endowed with
qualities as great; I claim for it that it is endowed
with qualities unsurpassed in some respects; I
claim for it that there is not to-day under the sun
a more moral, more honest or more intellectual race;
and if the hon. gentleman came to Lower Canada,
it would be my pride to take him to one of those
ancient parishes on the St. Lawrence or one of its
tributaries, and show him a people to whom, prejudiced as he is, he could not but
apply the words
which the poet applied to those who at one time
inhabited the Basin of Minas and the meadows of
Grandpré:
"Men whose lives glided on like rivers that water
the woodland,
Darkened by shadows of earth, but reflecting an
image of Heaven."
Sir, I claim no more than this is fairly due to
my countrymen, and I say let the two races stand
together, each with its own characteristics; they
will be all the more speedily united in the same
aspirations towards a common object—British in
allegiance and Canadian in sentiment. But, Sir, if
you attempt to rend from one whatever is dear and
sacred to it, instead of having peace and harmony,
you will have ever increasing discord. My hon.
friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) the other
day told us that it was in the interest of the French
Canadians to become a part of the Anglo-Saxon
race; and proceeding to relate the achievements of
that great race, both in war and peace, he almost
asked permission from and apologised to the French
Canadians for feeling proud of the British feats of
arms on the Plains of Abraham, in the Bay of Trafalgar, on the field of Waterloo.
Sir, my hon. friend
needed not to apologise; his sentiments are quite
natural to those who have the same blood as he has
in his veins, and they cannot be offensive to
anyone; but I, who belong to the race which was
defeated in those battles, claim no permission to
say that I lay no claim to that stoical heroism, if heroism it be, which can contemplate
without a pang, even retrospectively, the defeat of
one's own race, though my judgment is clear
that in two, at least, of those battles—that on the
Plains of Abraham and that on the field of Waterloo—the victory of England was a victory
of liberty.
Ihave,more than once in this House, told my fellow- countrymen of the Province of
Quebec, that the day
which had severed Canada from France had not
been an evil day for the descendants of France,
because they had found under the British Crown
greater liberty than they could have hoped for
under the French régime, and after all liberty is
the greatest boon of life. But, Sir, while I say
that, I do not disguise to my fellow-countrymen
of English origin, who will, I hope, understand
me, that even at this day, holding the opinions
which I hold, whenever I take up our history, as I
follow the long, the persistent, the implacable duel
between England and France for the possession of
this continent; as I trace, page by page, the fatal
climax, dim at first, but gradually taking shape
and becoming inevitable; as I follow the brave
army of Montcalm retreating before superior forces,
retreating, even after victory, retreating into a
circle made every day narrower and narrower; as
I come to the last page and the last struggle where
that truly great man, the gallant Montcalm, found
death with his first defeat, I do not disguise from
my fellow-countrymen of English origin that my
heart is clenched and that my French blood runs
colder in my veins. Talk to me not of your purely
utilitarian theories! men are not mere automatons!
It is not by trampling on the tenderest sentiments
of the soul that you will ever accomplish your end
if such an end you have in view. And yet it is
in the name of British allegiance, it is with the
apparent object of securing the future of this
country, that this new policy is introduced—this
so-called British policy which is at total variance
with the policy ever followed by the British authorities on this continent. This country
had but a
few years before passed under the régime of the
English Crown, when the great conflict arose
between England and her colonies to the south,
which ended in the separation of those colonies
from the mother land. England at once realised that, if she was to retain a foothold
upon
this continent, it was necessary for her to win the
affections of her new subjects, since she had lost
the allegiance of those of her own kith and kin;
and that unless she made just concessions she could
not hope to do so. In a just and generous spirit
she made the concessions necessary to gain this
object. To her new subjects she gave their laws,
their language, and their religion, although at the
time that very religion was subjected to many disabilities in England. Does not the
hon. gentleman who moved this Bill know, as everybody
must know, that these timely concessions saved
this colony to England? Does he not know that
if the new subjects of England had joined the
armies which Congress sent over to force Canadians into the movement of insurrection,
the result
would have been for Canada what it has been for the
rebellious colonies—total separation. And the
hon. gentleman might have known that, though
the Marquis de Lafayette and the Count d'Estaing
sent their emissaries to wave the old colors of
France before the eyes of the old subjects of
France, the latter still remained true and fought
under the British flag around the walls of Quebec
with the same courage which they had displayed against that flag but sixteen years
before. Supposing the hon. gentleman had been
living then and had had a voice in the council of the
King, what advice would he have given? Would
he have said: Do not allow these men to talk their
own language; do not give them any privileges?
If he had, and if his advice had been taken, this
735
[COMMONS] 736
country would not be British as it is to-day. I
have stated, and I repeat the statement, that the
French Canadians having claimed and received
from England the privileges of British subjects, it
would be the blackest ingratitude on their part if,
to-day, they were to reject the obligations which
British citizenship entails; but I a so say to the
hon. gentleman that it would be ungrateful, unmanly, and ungenerous to repeal at this
moment,
or to attempt to take from the French Canadians,
the concessions made to them to win their affections
and to secure their support in the day of England's
danger. The hon. member for North Norfolk
(Mr. Charlton) stated, a few evenings ago, that he
had his doubts as to whether the loyalty of French
Canadians upon that occasion had been altogether
unmixed; he had his doubts as to whether, instead
of being loyal, they did not only look to their
language, their laws, their institutions and their
church. I do not understand the doubts of the
hon. gentleman. I do not doubt at all. I am
quite sure these were the motives which impelled
my countrymen to be loyal. They had to choose
between the action of the British Crown and that
of the Philadelphia Congress. The British Crown
had just granted them the Act of 1774, which
secured to them everythin they held dear—their
language, their laws and their religion—and they
had to choose between that and the Act of the
Philadelphia Congress, which will always remain a
blot on a noble page of American history. The
hon. gentleman shows that in the proclamation
which the Congress of Philadelphia issued to the
English people that very concession was declared to
be one of the grievances of which the colonies
had to complain. These were the motives that
induced my countrymen to take the stand they
did. Does the hon. gentleman find fault with
them for being guided by motives? Do not men
generally act on motives? As Mr. Lincoln said,
in 1862, in the darkest period of the war: Negroes
themselves will act upon motives. I would like
to know What objection my hon. friend has to
that? What are his views of loyalty? Does loyalty
consist only in kissing the smiting hand? Is it
meritorious when submissive and slavish? No;
loyalty is meritorious when it proceeds from favors
granted and from justice done. And this has been
the invariable tradition of the race to which my
hon. friend has the honor to belong, and of which
he is justly proud. But there were before today men whose memory was short and whose
sense of atitude was limited. In the first Parliament, which sat in 1791 under the
Constitution
then granted, there were men like the hon. member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and the hon.
member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who
wished to have the use of the French language
abolished in the legislative hall. Their attempts
were frustrated, chiefly by the efforts of one man,
who, upon that subject, could speak with authority.
That man was Joseph Papineau, the illustrious
father of a still more illustrious son; and his whole
life was the repudiation of the theory advanced
here in the last four days. He was an example of
the fact that a man can speak in the language of
his ancestors, and still remain a true subject
of the Crown of England. At the time
when Arnold and Montgomery were invading
Canada, despatches had been brought from Lord
Howe, who commanded the British forces in the
insurgent colonies, to Sir Guy Carleton, who commanded the English forces in Canada.
The despatches reached Montreal. Sir Guy Carleton had
been forced to retreat to Quebec before Montgomery's army, and was busily preparing
that city
against the invaders. The despatches could not be
carried further than Montreal, except at the cost of
great perils and hardships; but two young men
undertook to carry them through. Joseph Papineau,
then a young man, twenty-five years of age, was one
of the two who volunteered for this service. The
country was in the hands of the enemy; it was unsettled, and there were great rivers
to be crossed,
without bridges, and it was in the fall of the year.
Mr. Papineau and his friend tramped the whole distance. They reached Quebec and delivered
their
despatches. Then, what did they do? They
enlisted as volunteers and served in the defence of
Quebec, until the enemy was repulsed from Canadian soil. Some few years afterwards,
in 1791, Mr.
Papineau had been elected member for Montreal,
and when the attempt was made to banish the
French language from the walls of the legislature
of Quebec, Mr. Papineau could speak with some
authority, and he asked:
"Is it simply because Canada forms part of the British
Empire that Canadians, who speak not the language in
use on the banks of the Thames, are to be deprived of
their natural rights?"
Mr. Papineau's recent services, his fidelity to the
cause in danger, were such as to convince the
English members of the Legislature that his arguments were reasonable and generous;
and I submit
that his words should find an echo, even at this
distant day, within the walls of this chamber.
The hon. gentleman told us that, at a later date,
Lord Durham, in his famous report, advised the
suppression of the French language in the legislative halls of Canada. It is perfectly
true, and his
views were incorporated in the Imperial Act of
1840, but five years had not elapsed before the
Canadian Legislature unanimously decided, all
shades of opinion united, to petition the Imperial
Parliament to remove the obnoxious clause, and it
was so removed. The union of Upper and Lower
Canada had just been consummated, and it was
soon perceived, under the guidance of that master
mind, Mr. Baldwin, that if the union was to be
for the good of the whole people, every section
of the people had to be protected in what was
held dear by every one of them. This Act of the
Legislature has, however, been criticised by my
hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). He
found nothing in it great, generous or statesman
like. On the contrary, he characterised it as a
weak concession from politicians in order to
capture French votes. I would not do justice to
the hon. gentleman if I did not here quote his
words. This is what he said:
"The Parliament of 1840 did all it could to repair the
injury of 1774; but gentlemen, it was not very long before
our politicians undid it all."
Mark the supreme contempt in these words, "our
politicians!" The hon. gentleman was on tender
ground when he spoke of "politicians," he was
at one time a politician, though he informed his.
audience that he was no longer of that class.
Mr. LAURIER. The hon. gentleman was too
modest to say that, but he left it to be inferred,
that the great statesmen of the present day should
737 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 738
endeavor to undo the great wrong inflicted on
this country, from such base motives, by such
puny politicians as Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Lafontaine,
Sir Allen MacNab and Mr. Morin. The hon. gentleman was proud, he said, to fortify
his views with
the views of Lord Durham, and he was proud to
refer to Lord Durham as a Liberal of the Liberals.
It is true that Lord Durham was a Liberal, but I
will show that, While he was a friend of liberty,
and was one of the most advanced statesmen of his
day, he did not know the force of free institutions,
and that, however large the range of his mind, he
was not such a keen-sighted statesman, nor even
true Liberal, as was our own Robert Baldwin.
My hon. friend the other day recalled the famous
words of Lord Durham, wherein, in graphic
language, he depicted the state of Lower Canada
in the summer of 1838. He had expected, he
said, to find here a conflict between a Government and a people, but he had found
two
peoples warring in the bosom of the same state; he
had found a struggle, not of principles, but of
races. The language is perfectly true. It cannot
be doubted at this day, that the movement which
culminated in the rebellion of 1837-38 in Lower
Canada, when it assumed that acute form, had
degenerated into a war of races. My hon. friend
did not tell us the cause which had brought
about that war of races, but Lord Durham told
us, and my hon. friend might have quoted his
language. The cause was the contest between
the Legislative Assembly and an irresponsible
Government. For almost fifty years the Legislative Assembly passed laws which were
deemed
essential, absolutely essential, for the welfare of
the country, and even for the very existence of
the Legislative Assembly itself, as a body; and as
often as those laws were passed, so often were they
trampled upon by an irresponsible Government.
The Assembly was altogether French; the Executive was almost entirely English, and
its members
were recruited by the Colonial Office among its
creatures. As may be expected in any such
case, the Whole French population took part with
the Assembly, and nearly the whole of the English
population took part with the Executive. Very
few, probably, thought much as to Who was in the
right or as to who was in the wrong; but, if you
desire to know who was in the main right in that
dispute, I cannot do better than to call in the testimony of Lord Durham himself,
as it is couched
in his report. And this is what he said:
"From the commencement, therefore, to the end of the
disputes which marked the whole parliamentary history
of Lower Canada, I look on the conduct of the Assembly
as a constant warfare with the Executive, for the purpose
of obtaining the powers inherent in a representative body
by the very nature of representative government."
Thus you have the admission that, if there was a
rebellion, it was forced upon the French Canadians
of that day by the action of the Executive Government, which had refused to give to
the Legislative
Assembly the powers inherent to a legislative
body. Yet, in face of that opinion, Lord Durham
said that the loyalty of the French Canadians
could not be trusted, and that henceforth Lower?
Canada would have to be governed by an English
population, and the method he suggested was the
union of the two Canadas, with a provision that the
English population should have in the House a
large majority in numbers. The reason he gives
for coming to that conclusion is given in very pithy
terms. Here it is:
"Never again will the present generation of French
Canadians yield a loyal submission to a British Government."
I have already stated that Lord Durham did not
know the full force of free representative institutions, and that our own Baldwin
was a greater
statesman in that respect than Lord Durham.
Lord Durham had not imagined, he had not
thought, that, if the French Canadians were
given all their privileges, they would at once
become loyal subjects, that they would not have
to be governed by the strong hand of an English
majority, that division would not take place on
the line of races but on the broader lines which
impel men to move onwards or to cling to the past.
Mr. Baldwin understood that, and he was the
first to suggest that the French Canadians should
have their language restored, and should be treated
as the equals of their fellow-citizens of English
origin. That was true statesmanship and that
view was unanimously adopted by the Legislature;
and I ask, in face of subsequent facts, who is the
greater statesman, Lord Durham or Mr. Baldwin?
Lord Durham stated that the then living generation
of French Canadians would never yield submission
to an English Government. At that very time, there
was a young man who was an exile from his native
country, because he had been a few months before a
rebel in arms, and the British Government had set a
price upon his head. There is no doubt that, if he
had been captured, he would have met the fate of
those who, on the scaffold, paid the penalty of
having loved their country not wisely but too well.
Under the policy introduced in 1845, this young
man became a member of Parliament and leader
of the Conservative party, and he died a baronet
of the realm. Sir, this took place in face of the
words Lord Durham wrote in 1838, when he said
that never again would that generation of French
Canadians yield a loyal submission to the British
Government. Now, my hon. friend from Simcoe
asks us to go back upon this policy. Are we to
be told at this day, or is it to be believed by any
one at this day, that the policy introduced by Mr.
Baldwin has not made Canada what it is? Is there a
man living in this land, especially if he is of the
Liberal party, who Would at this day go back upon
the policy inaugurated by their leader forty years
ago? Sir, there is not a man in this country to-day
who must not feel proud of the wise and statesmanlike policy which wasintroduced upon
that occasion.
I am not ignorant of, nor will I minimise, the danger
which arises to Canada from the fact that we have
here a dualty of language and a dualty of race. But
the fact exists, and ostracism of any kind, instead
of removing the danger, would simply intensify it,
by forcing a section of our population to hate the
institutions under which they live—intensify it,
because it would bring a section of our population
into conflict with the majority, which would thus
abuse the brute power of numbers. It seems to
me that the hon. gentleman must feel that the
policy which he is now championing is weak and
inferior. Any policy which appeals to a class, to
a creed, to a race, or which does not appeal to the
better instincts to be found in all classes, in all
creeds, and in all races, is stamped with the stamp
of inferiority. The French Canadian who appeals
to his fellow-countrymen to stand by themselves,
739
[COMMONS] 740
aloof from the rest of this continent; the English
Canadian who, like my hon. friend, appeals to his
fellow-countrymen on grounds affecting them alone,
may, perhaps, win the applause of those whom they
may be addressing, but impartial history will pronounce their work as vicious in conception
as it is
mischievous and wicked in its tendency. We are
here a nation, or we want to be a nation, composed
of the most heterogeneous elements—Protestants
and Catholics, English, French, German, Irish,
Scotch, every one, let it be remembered, with his
traditions, with his prejudices. In each of
these conflicting antagonistic elements, however,
there is a common spot of patriotism, and the
only true policy is that which reaches that
common patriotism and makes it vibrate in all, towards a common end and common aspirations.
I
may be asked: What, then, is to be the future of
Canada? The future of Canada is this: that it
must be British. I do not share the dreams or the
delusions of those few of my fellow-countrymen of
French origin, who talk to us of forming a French
nation onthe banks of the St. Lawrence; and I would
say to my hon. friend from Simcoe, if he were
here, that these dreams ought not to disturb his
sleep. Those who share these delusions are very
few; they might be counted upon the fingers of one
hand, and I never knew but one newspaper which
ever gave them utterance. Yet, while I say that this
country is bound to be British, it does not follow
at all that there must be but one language—the
English language—to be spoken in this country.
I claim that I am as loyal as the hon. gentleman
to the institutions of this country, and I am the son
of a French mother, and I declare that I cling to
the language which I learned at her knee as I
cling to the life which she gave me. And upon
this ground I appeal to every man of British origin,
to every man of that race in which the domestic
affections are so strong; and I know that in
the heart of every one the answer will be,
that, situated as we are, they would do as
we do. But the hon. gentleman will revert
to the cold, dry arguments that, after all, a dualty
of race will produce friction, and that friction will
produce danger. But where is the remedy? I
tell the hon. gentleman that the remedy is not in
ostracism, not in harsh methods nor in cruel
methods. My hon. friend from North Bruce (Mr.
McNeill)—who, like many other good men, preaches
better than he practices—gave us the other day
the true remedy. The true remedy, he said, is
mutual forbearance and respect. I altogether
agree with my hon. friend from North Bruce. But
he complained in his speech that the forbearance
should not be all on one side. Sir, is it all on one
side? What he complains of is afew expressions,
I admit very imprudent, that have fallen from the
lips of some men in the heat of the debate. Well,
I am pretty sure that when those expressions
are sifted and explained they readily fall away.
The newspapers of Ontario, during the past year,
have been full of citations of the words of my hon.
friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot), pronounced at
the St. Jean Baptiste celebration last year; and when
he took occasion, a few days ago, to explain those
words, he explained them so thoroughly that my
hon. friend from North Bruce immediately wanted
to make him a member of the Imperial Federation
League. If all the other expressions were so sifted
I do not despair that my hon. friend from North
Bruce would try to make Mr. Mercier himself a
member of the Imperial Federation League. This
is what he claims his fellow-countrymen and my
fellow-countrymen of English origin have to bear.
Well, I tell him that the French Canadians have
also something to bear. I will tell him what we
have to bear. What we object to is the meddlesome interference of certain men in Ontario
in our
domestic politics; What I object to is the whinin
pity bestowed by some over-zealous and over-good
men in Ontario upon the poor, down-trodden,
prostrate French Canadians. Only the other day
my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) complained that the Province of Quebec
was
making no progress, and he instanced the fact that
in that Province we still have the tithing system,
and he said if there was in Quebec a true Liberal
party, they would grapple with such an evil as
that. There is in Quebec a Liberal party, not
without fault, I admit, but a party which has
fought as noble a battle as was ever fought by any
party in any land. But before I tell him why the
Liberal party in Quebec do not grapple with the
tithing system, let me remind him that there is in
England a Liberal party of which any man ought
to be proud, a party led to-day by one of the
greatest men that England has ever produced, or
that any land has ever produced—Mr. Gladstone.
Does my hon. friend also know that there is a
tithing system in England just as there is a tithing
system in Lower Canada—no, not just the same,
because the tithing system in England is far more
oppressive and unjust than the system in Lower
Canada. The tithing system in Lower Canada only
affects Roman Catholics and no one else, but in England the tithing system affects
every man, whether
he is a member of the Church of England or of
another. And yet never to this day did the Liberal
party grapple with that system or attempt to bring
the English people to abolish that system. Why?
Because the great majority of the English people
would not part with it. And for the very same
reason the Liberal party has never grappled with
that system here, because the people of Quebec are
satisfied with it. My hon. friend has read somewhere that the people are oppressed
under the
tithing system, that they are compelled to abandon
their lands because the oppression is such that they
cannot pay the tithes. The truth is the people of
Quebec to-day give double the amount to the Church
voluntarily than they give by law. I declare, in the
name of the Liberal party of Quebec, of which
I am an humble member, that so long as the conscience of Quebec is satisfied with
the system, never
will the Liberal party attack that system. I will
say this to the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy), that if we could make a compact between
the English and the French, each to mind his own
business and not meddle with the business of
the other, we would get along tolerably well, not
only tolerably well, but perfectly well. Yet the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) perhaps
may say: If you are to bring the two races together,
simply by relying upon moral influence and persuasion, the union may be far away.
There is orce in
the objection, because there are in Quebec, as there
are in Ontario, extreme men who will not be amenable either to reason or generous
considerations.
The extreme men of Quebec talk today of forming
a French nation on the banks of the St. Lawrence,
and the extremists of Ontario talk of driving away
741 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 742
the French with bayonets. When the very large
body of the nation, composed of the two races, come
closer together and know each other better, I have
no doubt that friction of races here will be as rare
as it is in Switzerland after hundreds of years of
political union. The hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy) if he were here, would say, perhaps: Is this system ever to remain?
Is there never
to be a day when we shall have here nothing but
the English language? I would tell my hon. friend
that I do not trouble myself with such considerations as to a dim and distant future.
The only
thing which troubles me at this moment is, to keep
peace and harmony in this land, and not have peace
and harmony endangered under the vain pretence of
securing the future against feuds and contentions.
I have great pleasure in telling the hon. gentleman—and I am sorry he is not present—that,
in my
judgment, the English language is to-day and must
be for several generations, perhaps for several
centuries, the commanding language of the world.
So long as the centre of civilisation was on the basin
of the Mediterranean, three languages in succession
held sway: the Greek, the Latin and the French.
At the end of the seventeenth century the French
language was undoubtedly the dominating language
of civilisation. It is still the language of diplomacy,
the vehicle of communication for international exchange in the higher productions
of the human
mind, but it is no longer the language of the many.
That position now belongs to the English language.
That revolution has been accomplished by the
wonderful development of the Anglo-Saxon race
during the eighteenth and in the nineteenth
centuries. That race have carried their language
with them in their emigration around the world,
and now it is the language of more than 100,000,000
of people scattered over Europe, Africa, America, Asia, and the islands and continents
of the
Pacific Ocean. Sir, the very fact that the English
language is to-day the dominating language of this
continent of America, makes it imperative on
French Canadians, although they will retain their
language, to learn and speak English. Nothing
was more appropriate, more wise than the words
that fell a few days ago from the junior member
for Ottawa (Mr. Robillard). The French Canadian
father who to-day does not give an English education to his son does not do justice
to his child,
because hecompels him to stand back in the hard
struggle for life. I would say more. It is imperative for us French Canadians to learn
English,
but—I have no right to give advice to any other
man—if I were to give any advice to my Anglo- Canadian friends, it would be that they
would do
well to learn French too. The English are a proud
race; but the Romans were a proud race also;
and after they had conquered the world, a Roman
acknowledged that the education of his son was
not complete unless he was as familiar with Greek
letters as he was with Latin letters. Perhaps,
however, my hon. friend for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) would not admit such an example for
himself or the people of this country, because the
object of my hon. friend is not simply to remove
the use of the French language in the North- West Territories and from every legislative
hall in
Canada, but his object is to prevent the teaching of
French in the schools of Ontario. There are today, in the back townships and new concessions
in
Ontario, schools where a few French settlers are
attempting to impart some knowledge to their
children in the langua e of their ancestors. The
eagle eye of my hon. riend has caught sight of
that fact. The eye of the eagle can withstand the
sun, but the eye of my hon. friend cannot withstand that little li ht. He spoke a
few days ago
in this city, the Capital of Canada, at a meeting
which adopted the following resolution:—
"And this meeting avails itself of this opportunity of
expressing the opinion that in our own Province the use
of the French language as the language of instruction in
the public schools should be abolishe and for ever prohibited, and that no undecided
measure for obtaining this
end will be satisfactory to the people of Ontario."
The hon. gentleman spoke to that resolution and
endorsed every word of it. This is what he said:
"At the same time, as a citizen of Ontario—of the Dominion, I heartily endorse the
sentiment which the meeting has given utterance to—that we ought, and ought at
once an for all time, to ut an end to the teaching of our
children, either French, anadian or English, in any other
language than the language of the country in which we
live."
Is this really the measure of my hon. friend? We
always knew him to be a restrictionist, but not to
that extent, I am sure; we always knew him to be
a restrictionist in trade, but he is a restrictionist
even in knowledge. If the hon. gentleman, on that
occasion, had said that the people of Ontario would
insist that English should be taught in all their
schools, I would raise both my hands in favor of it.
But that is not enough; not only must English be
taught, but he objects to any other language being
taught in Ontario schools. Can it be that an hon.
gentleman possessing the attainments, power and
ability of my hon. friend should stoop to
things so low? It is a thing low, and vile, and
contemptible, to say that the people of Ontario,
whatever be their creed or their origin, shall not
have the right to teach a second language to their
children if they choose. Men are not usually
wantonly cruel; men do not, as a rule, purposely degrade their lives, and what is
the
reason, I want to know, which impels my hon.
friend to use such language as that? Sir,
the reason is, that Tories of the stamp of my hon.
friend never can bring themselves up to the point
of trusting the better instincts of the human heart;
they never can divest themselves of the base notion
that, if they treat their opponents with generosity
or with justice, their opponents will abuse the privilege. They can never divest themselves
of the
base notion that, if the French Canadians are to be
allowed their language and their characteristics as
a race, they will turn traitors as a race. They
want to make this country British in the same
manner they have tried to make Ireland British.
For the last seven hundred years, English statesmen have attempted to make Ireland
British, not
by justice, not by generosity, not by appealing to
the better instincts of the generous hearts of that
people, but by every form of violence and cruelty.
They have proscribed her religion, they have
killed her agriculture, they have destroyed her
commerce, they have done everything to degrade the
land and the people. And with what result? With
the result of making Ireland a thorn in the side
of England, with the result of filling the heart of
the people of Ireland with bitterness against
England. Sir, Mr. Gladstone has done more in
five years to make Ireland British than English
statesmen have done for seven hundred years before.
743
[COMMONS] 744
Will I show you the different results which can be
wrought upon the feelings of a sensitive people by
generous treatment? Let me quote a speech
delivered by Mr. John Dillon, M. P. for
Tipperary, last year. The occasion was a demonstration in favor of Mr. Dillon on his
being released
from jail, where he had served a term under the
odious Coercion law. Now, I cite this speech because
it may be a lesson to the hon. member for North
Siincoe (Mr. McCarthy) and those who agree with
him in this House. Mr. Dillon said:
"But it is impossible for me to be blind to the facts
that are forced upon my notice as regard the mighty
change which have come over the minds of the masses of
the people of England, and remembering this, I think it
is not wise to be impatient, because the liberty of
Ireland is not to be accomplished in a day. I can see no
cause for impatience, but cause rather for hope and even
exultation. Coming now, as I do, from what was meant to
be a degradation and an insult to me, and as I hope an
honorable man, I can find in my heart not the slightest
trace of bitterness against the people of England. I recollect the day when the power
and when the name of
Englishmen were hateful to my heart. It may be that
I have been demoralised by the countless acts of kindness I have received at the hands
of Englishmen; but
the feeling has now changed, and I cannot find it in my
heart to regret that it is fast passing away."
Those last words, I am sure, will fill with unbounded joy the friends of Ireland and
the friends
of England as well. But with what terrible meaning are not these words prefaced? It
is known
that Mr. Dillon is a man of noble and unstained
character. No harsh words would be expected to
cross the lips of such a man, yet he tells us there
was a time when the very name of England was
hateful to him. How terrible these words are?
They are the expression of the bitterness accumulated through centuries and centuries
of persecutions in succeeding generations of Irishmen. But,
Sir, mark the change. Less than five years of a
generous attempt by a great party to do justice
to Ireland, to give her the liberty and justice
to which she is entitled, has worked wonders
and changed the disposition of the Irish people.
These five years of generous attempts to do justice
to Ireland have erased the sentiment of bitterness
and replaced it by sentiments of affection to the
land whose very name was hateful to Ireland
only a few years ago. What a triumph this is for
the cause of Ireland? What a triumph this is for
those who, in this House, told the English people
that if they were to treat the Irish people generously, they would have the same result
in Ireland
as in this country? What an evidence also
this is that the only manner, after all, in
which you can attach a people to their allegiance is to treat them with fairness and
generosity; and what a rebuke it is to all those
(my hon. friend from North Simcoe included)
who believe that the only manner in which to make
a people loyal is to trample under foot everything
which they hold dear and sacred. Sir, I have just
pronounced the name of Home Rule. Home Rule
with us is local autonomy, and I hope that this
principle of local autonomy will some day afford us
some solution of the difficulty we have now to deal
with. What is objectionable in this Bill is not, as
has been often stated, the object of the Bill itself,
(which is, after all, with some exceptions, a local
question), but the tendency of the Bill and the
principles which underlie it, for we know that
this is only a preliminary step that is to be followed by many others. We are, today,
in the
fourth day of this debate, and I have to make the
reproach that the Government have not yet told
us what their policy is on the question. The Government, of late, do not discharge
the duty they
owe to this House. They can advise us on matters
of details and matters of procedure, but when it
comes to a question of principle they refuse to discharge the duties for which they
are responsible to
the House. We had a speech the other day from
the hon. the Minister of Public Works. He simply
told us he was against the Bill, but he affirmed no
principle which we might apply to the situation.
We have three propositions before us: the Bill itself,
the amendment of my hon. friend from Assiniboia
(Mr. Davin) and the amendment of my hon. friend
from Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil). I am free to speak
of them, but in what I say I declare that I express
my own personal opinion. I do not speak here as the
leader of a party—I express my own opinion, and
nothing more. As to the amendment of the hon.
member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), I have to say
that, in my opinion, it is premature. It is endeavoring to give to the people of the
Territories
upon one question, plenary power, while they are
still in a form of tutelage. We are not repared
to give to the people of the North-West full local
autonomy. We cannot expect that a population
which in 1885 numbered only something like 30,000
souls—the population of a small town, scattered
over immense territories, out of which several
empires can be carved—can be entrusted with the
full power of responsible government. The amendment of my hon. friend from Berthier
(Mr. Beausoleil) is, perhaps, more consistent with our true
position. The amendment affirms the proposition
that the present state of things ought to be permanent. With this, however, I cannot
agree, and
although I am prepared to vote for the amendment
of my hon. friend from Berthier, I cannot do so
Without taking exception to his statements. It is
impossible to admit, for instance, that the institutions of the North-West are permanent.
On the
contrary, they are exceptionally temporary; they
deal with a state of things which is exceptional in
itself; they were devise at a time when there was
no population, and they must be modified from
time to time as the necessities of the case require.
But at this moment to say they are permanent, is
a thing in which I cannot agree, except so far as
they must be permanent in every particular, so
long as we are not ready to give these people a more extended form of local authority.
My hon. friend also says in this amendment, that
since we passed this law and gave this incipient
constitution to the North-West Territories, nothing has occurred to change our views.
I cannot
agree with that. Everything has occurred since
that time, not to change our views, but to set us
thinking about what we should do at a future time,
not very far off, in regard to those Territories.
What has occurred is this: a population has gone
into those Territories; they have been given a
Legislature; and that Legislature has demanded
certain measures—not only on the question of language, but on that of the schools,
and on the
system of Government. Bearing these facts in
mind, it seems to me that the proper time to deal
with this question will be when we are repared
to give the Territories, perhaps not absolute, but
a more extended form of local self—government;
and when that time comes, we must be prepared
745 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 746
to deal with this question upon the broad principle
of this Constitution, which has been devised for
the safety of the majority and the protection of
the minority, and in the light of the condition of
things which may exist at that time in the Territories. But till then I believe it
is better to defer
the consideration of this question. There is this
remarkable feature in the Bill we have before us:
it is not founded on an expression of the will
of the people of the Territories; it is founded
simply on alleged principles applicable to the
whole Dominion. This is what I object to in
this Bill, and—though it is my own individual
opinion only—I submit to all parties in this House,
French or English, Liberals or Conservatives,
that the best thing for us to do is to defer the
consideration of this question to a future time
when we shall be prepared to deal with all the
questions now affecting the North-West Territories. In the meantime, however, we ought
to
remember this—French, English, Liberals, Conservatives—that no race in this country
has absolute rights, only the rights which do not invade
the rights of any other race. We ought to remember that the expression of race feelings
and race
sentiments should be well restrained to a point,
beyond which, if pressed, though still kept within
legitimate limits, they might hurt the feelings and
sentiments of other races. But when the time
comes for dealing with this question, I hope we
shall all be prepared, without party differences, to
deal with it on the broad principles that apply to
this Constitution; that we shall not, French or
English, hesitate to apply true principles under
the fear that evil consequences may flow from
them, because we must remember that true principles are only an emanation of Divine
truth, and
that there is above us an eternal Providence whose
infinite wisdom knows better than man what is
best for man, and who, even when all seems lost,
still guides everything for the greatest good.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. I go a great way
with my hon. friend in his remarks concerning the
principle of this Bill. I sympathise with his very
natural feelings of indignation at much of the language that has been used in su port
of this measure now before the House. I have no accord
with the desire expressed in some quarters that by
any mode whatever there should be an attempt
made to oppress the one language or to render it
inferior to the other; I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it
would be foolish
and wicked if it were possible. The statement
that has been made so often that this is a conquered
country is
Ă propos de rien. Whether it was conquered or ceded, we have a constitution now under
which all British subjects are in a position of absolute equality, havin equal rights
of every kind
—of language, of region, of property and of
person. There is no paramount race in this country; there is no conquered race in
this country;
we are all British subjects, and those who are
not English are none the less British subjects on
that account. But while I say so much, Mr.
Speaker, I must regret that my hon. friend, perhaps yielding to the necessity of his
position as
a party leader, should have commenced his
speech with some party attacks against the
Tories. My hon. friend felt constrained, I suppose, to make those allusions which,
in the cir
cumstances of the case, I think were not altogether
generous or altogether politic. The hon. gentleman
spoke of the spirit of this Bill being that of
Toryism, utter Toryism, oppressive Toryism.
Why, Sir, if he looks at the history of England in
modern days, I think he will find that most of the
liberal measures passed there have been passed, if
not by Tories, by Conservatives. I think also, if
he will look at the history of Canada, he will find
at all events, that liberality towards the French
Canadian race was pretty much confined to the
Conservative party. The hon. gentleman had to
admit that while this Bill was, as he affirmed, an
evidence of utter Toryism, the exclusion of the
French language, the injury done to the French
people, the insult offered to them, came from a
Radical, the Earl of Durham. To be sure, my hon.
friend said that Lord Durham was a Radical who
did not understand all about liberty. That is quite
evident; and so great a Radical was he that in
order to get rid of him the English Government
sent him to this country to show us his liberalism
by attempting to deprive half the people of their
right to use their own language. Ay, Mr. Speaker,
and he succeeded in carrying out that effort; he
succeeded in excluding the French language, and
the measure was carried by a Liberal Government- in England. That was in 1840. The
first
Government formed in Canada under that
measure in 1841 was a confused Government,
where Liberals, and Tories, and officials were
mixed up together. But, Sir, in 1844, when there
was a stand-up fight between Conservatives and
Liberals, when the Conservatives rallied around
Lord Metcalfe, and carried a majority; when the
Parliament met in Montreal in that year, with a
Conservative majority, the whole of the French
Canadian race, with the exception, I think, of
four, were in opposition to the Government. I
was then elected for the first time, and I sat in
that Parliament as a Tory, a supporter of Lord
Metcalfe. In that Parliament the French Canadians were powerless; and yet, Mr. Speaker,
what did that House do? Let me read to you a
resolution that was passed, not by a Liberal or
Radical Government, not by a Parliament having
sympathy with the French Canadians exactly, but
by a Conservative Parliament elected, as was then
alleged, in opposition to the interests of the
Province of Lower Canada; and yet passed,
from a more sense of justice, and without
one single dissenting voice. Yes, from a
more sense of justice, the resolution was
passed and the address was passed without
one dissenting voice. I, as a member of the young
Tory party, was proud then to have the opportunity of pronouncing on that question.
The yeas
and nays were not taken because we were unanimous, but I was proud of having had a
part, as a
member of a great party, in the resolve to relieve
our French Canadian friends from the oppressive
action of the Liberal Government in England, at
the instigation of the Radical Earl Durham. What
said that address? I shall not read the whole address which went home to Her Majesty,
and of
which the chief clause was repealed, but it went
on to say:
"We do not question that the best intentions and
designs influenced the minds of those who enacted the
provision which declared: That all writs, proclamations.
instruments for summoning and calling together the
Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of the Pro
747
[COMMONS] 748
vince of Canada, and for proroguing and dissolving the
same, and all writs of summons and election, and all
writs and public instruments whatever relating to the
Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly or either of
them, and all returns to such writs and instruments, and
all journals and entries, and written or printed proceedings of what nature soever
of the said Legislative Council
and Legislative Assembly, and of each of them respectively, and all written or granted
proceedings and reports
of Committees of the said Leglslative Council and Legislative Assembly, respectively,
shall be in the English
language only."
That was the measure of justice offered to the
French Canadians by a Liberal Parliament in
England and a Radical Governor General and High
Commissioner sent out by a Liberal Government.
And what did the Tory Legislative Assembly of
Canada say?
"That in the very first session of the Legislature under
that Act. It was indispensable to translate into French
every public record and document. That the debates
were not and could not unless a portion of the representatives of the people were
silenced, be carried out
without its use; that in the courts and judicial proceedings it was found equally
necessary as before the Union,
and for every other practical urpose, it is as much used
as it ever has been. That the only distinctlon which
crusts, then, is, that the French is not permitted to be the
legal language of Parliamentary record, a distinction of
little value, perhaps, in itself—one which cannot produce
any beneficial results on the feelings or the habits of
the people using it, while it gives rise to a feeling among
them injurious to the best peace and tranquility of the
Province, namely, that this limited prescription of their
language conveys, however designedly, an imputation of
an unfavorable distinction towards themselves.
"That desirous that the hearts of all men in this Province may be joined in unity,
in their attachment to and
support of Your Majesty's person and Government, we
humbly pray Your Majesty to endeavor to remove this
cause of discontent, and to recommend to the Imperial
Parliament the repeal of that portion of the law which
has given rise to it; assuring Your Majesty that such
a course will be hailed by Your Majesty's loyal Canadian
people as an additlonal mark of Your Majesty's solicitude
for their welfare."
There is an instance of the oppressive Toryism
which my hon. friend lamented. But my hon.
friend ought to have looked at the history
of old Canada after that period. My hon.
friend says truly that a Conservative Government
was kept in for years by the support of the Conservatives of Lower Canada. And why
was that
so? Because from the Conservative party the
Lower Canadians got full and ample justice. What
party was it that relieved the habitants of Lower
Canada, the censitaires of Lower Canada, from the
oppression of the seigniorial tenure? What was it
that made them free men instead of being victims
of antiquated feudalism? The seigniorial tenure
oppressed them, and the people rose against it;
and it was a Conservative Government, of which I
had the honor to be a member, that relieved
them of that burden. You might remember, Sir,
that when the Hon. George Brown brought his
immense force and ability and unsusurpassed energy
to lead the Reform party of old Upper Canada,
his whole aim was oppression to the French.
Every speech he made, every article that he wrote in
the Globe, every resolution almost which he moved,
was a denunciation of the French law, the French
language, and the Catholic religion; and because
we, the Conservatives, opposed him with all our
might and all our vigor, we were in a minority in
our Province. Again and again have the best and
the strongest of our Conservatives been defeated at the polls simply because we would
not
do injustice to our French follow-countrymen.
Again and again have we been put in a
minority because we declined to join in
that crusade against the French Canadians,
against the Catholic religion, and against French
institutions. Again and again have I been misrepresented and called the slave of popery,
and
told that I had sold myself to the French of Lower
Canada and was sacrificing my own race, my own
religion, and my own people because, without a
moment of hesitation, without swerving for an
instant, I and those who followed me—for even
when I was not the nominal leader, I greatly
directed the course of the Conservative party—declined, from no personal motive or
desire of popularity, the popular cry was raised against the
French Canadians in Upper Canada then as it is
in Ontario, to-day—to do an injustice to our French
Canadian fellow-citizens; and it was not a fair
taunt of the hon. gentleman to tell us that we
owed our position to the support of the Conservatives of Lower Canada. Does the hon.
gentleman
not remember when the agitation was raised in
Upper Canada on a very specious cry—the question
of representation by population—that the population being equal in Upper Canada should
have
as many members as Lower Canada, which it
had not at the time of the Union, because at
that time Lower Canada had a larger population than Upper Canada—does the hon. gentleman
not remember that the Conservative party opposed
that cry, specious and popular as it was? And
why did we oppose it? Because the avowed
object was to crush and oppress our French
Canadian subjects. The reason why I oppose the
Bill of my hon. friend to-day is the same—because
that Bill, a small Bill; I might almost call it an
insignificant Bill in its enacting clause—is based
on the purpose of doing away with the French
language, of discarding the French language, at all
events, and depriving the French Canadian people
of the solace of the language they learned at the
feet of their mothers. Why, Mr. Speaker, if there
is one act of oppression more than another which
would come home to a man's breast, it is that he
should be deprived of the consolation of hearing
and speaking and reading the language that his
mother taught him. It is cruel. It is seething
the kid in its mother's milk. The greatest, perhaps, of all the objections to this
measure, is that
it is a futile measure. It will not succeed. It
cannot succeed. As my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) said the other day, and
as the hon.
member from the West Riding of Durham (Mr.
Blake) repeated, in order to carry out an oppressive
measure we must have a Russian Government or
we must have a Stafford here; we must put down
the language with a strong hand; we must exclude
it from the schools; we must exclude it from
oflicial life; no man in Canada who spoke French
must be allowed to take office; the Frenchman
must be made a Pariah, and his language must be
made a mark of scorn; that is the only way to
carry out the principle or the object of my hon.
friend the Minister for North Simcoe.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Did I call my
hon. friend the Minister from North Simcoe? That
is giving him more than equal rights. But in
hon. friend has commenced at the wrong end. He
should attack the language where it is; he should
749 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 750
not attack it where it is not. He should have
gone down to the Province of Quebec, and, by
peaceable means—he says by peaceable means,
though I heard some remarks about bayonets from
my hon. friend opposite—and, by his skill and his
eloquence, and by other means which, no doubt, he
has presented to his own mind and will give to us
by-and-bye, he should have shown the people there
that it is for their good, that it is for the good of
the party, and for the unity and good of the
country, and should. have convinced them that it
was necessary for them to give up their language.
His present proposal is like the sting of a gnat—a
sort of irritation which can be of no use, and could
not carry out the avowed object of my hon. friend.
There is scarcely any French spoken in the North- West. There are a few French Canadians
there,
and a scattered population of French half-breeds,
and the whole effect of this Bill would be to deprive
these poor people of reading or knowing the laws
to which they are subject. I say the hon. gentleman commenced at the wrong end. If
the butcher
goes to kill an ox, he goes to strike him on the
head, and does not cut a little piece off the tail,
which, after all, is the only effect of the measure of
my hon. friend. But he is such an able man that
one wonders—I wonder, with my limited apprehension—what he would accomplish by this
measure.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. It cannot be
from any desire to save the $400 which my hon.
friend is ready to pay. It cannot be for the purpose of spreading the English language
more than
it is spread there. It cannot have the effect of
inducing the half-breeds who are hunting over the
plains to change their language from French to
English. Unless it be that my hon. friend has a
dislike to the language—and I am not aware that
he knows much about it—or has a dislike to the
people who use the language, I cannot understand
why he has pressed this Bil1. It is on record that
an English sailor, returning from France, was
asked what kind of people the French were. "Oh,"
said the sailor with an expletive, "they are a bad
lot." "What is the matter with them?" "Oh,"
he said, "they call a hat a
chapeau; why the deuce
could they not call it a hat at once, and be hanged
to them?" And that is very much the spirit of
my hon. friend. I did not intend to speak on this
matter at all after having heard the exhaustive
speeches which have been made on the other side,
and I must say, with the little exception of the
slight touch of partisanship in the speech of my
hon. friend who spoke last (Mr. Laurier), the
speeches of the gentlemen who have honored the
House have been of such a kind that I agree with
almost everything they say.
Mr. MITCHELL. Except the member for
North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton).
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. He is an Ishmaelite. He has placed himself under the wing of
the hon. the leader of the Fourth party.
Mr. MITCHELL. Don't misrepresent me—it is
the Third party.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. At all events,
he sits in very suspicious juxtaposition to the leader
of that party. The objections to be taken to the
resolution now before the House, moved by the
hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil), have
been already given by the hon. member for West
Durham (Mr. Blake). Without entering into the
general discussion of the resolution, it is in my mind
sufficiently condemnatory of it to call upon the
House to reject it, that, if it means anything, it
means the continuation of the present state of
things must be perpetual. It says that any alteration will cause a distrust, a suspicion,
a doubt of
the stability of our laws. If that is any reason
against giving to the Legislature in the North-West
now the power to deal with this matter, the same
reason will exist twenty years hence, and it would
keep the question permanently a source of disquiet
and agitation and discomfort, not only in the North- West, but in Ontario and other
Provinces, amongst
all those who take a warm interest in this matter.
I think also the resolution of which we had some
information from the hon. member from the West
Riding (Mr. Blake) is liable to almost a similar
objection. It leaves the case undecided, and
while these two resolutions have that effect,
we must remember that this is a subject of great
agitation in different parts of the Dominion.
Lower Canada is agitated on account of this attack
on their language; the North-West will be agitated
if it is supposed that they are deprived of the
right of judging on this subject; and we must take
great care, Mr. Speaker, that while we are calming
the agitation and soothing the agitated feelings of
the people of Quebec, we are not arousing the
feelings of the freemen of the North-West by
passing a resolution which postpones for an indefinite time, it may be for a long
period, a question
in which we can see, from the resolution they have
adopted, that they are greatly interested. I think,
therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the true solution of
this question, a solution that will quiet the feelings
of the East and that will be satisfactory to the
people who roam over the plains of the North- West, will be the resolution in principle
of my
hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), in
which he says: Let the representatives of the
people up there judge for themselves, after having
had a commission from the people to deal with the
subject. I think if that were adopted it would
satisfy the North-West, and the
amende honorable
that was made in this House by that resolution
would quiet the insulted feelings of the people
of the Province of Quebec, and we would have
peace, through the benign influence of this resolution of my hon. friend from Assiniboia.
I
would ask my hon. friend opposite, my hon. friend
from the West Riding of Durham (Mr. Blake), to
take this matter into his consideration, and see
whether there cannot be adopted very much of his
resolution, with which I am most heartily in
accord, and, in addition, to enquire whether, after
the people had an opportunity of considering the
question, after the next general election, and after
they have read the discussion in this House, and
after they have seen the general opinion of Parliament the great inquest of the nation,
it would
not be right and fair to trust to the representatives of the people in our far west
to choose for
themselves? They will act for their own county,
for their own section, and their action will be only
751
[COMMONS] 752
temporary. That country is infinitely too large to
be one Province; it is too large, in my opinion, to
be four Provinces, and this is a matter for the
future, and, therefore, a resolution of this kind,
giving them the power to deal with the subject,
after being commissioned by the people, will be
quite safe. After the population comes in there,
if there is a large German population—and I should
be very glad to see it—who shall take possession of
a large section of that area, why not give them the
right to use the German language? They would
insist upon it whenever their numbers were sufficient. If the French Canadian settlement,
which
was commenced under rather unfavorable auspices
at Edmonton, should increase and grow so that
they would become a French Canadian Province,
they would insist upon having their own language.
This is a measure of peace and a measure for only
a time. Under all the circumstances, the fact that
they are not yet a Province, is of very little consequence. Whether they are called
a Province or
a Territory, they have rights as British subjects.
Whether the people occupy a Territory or occupy
a Province, if they want to use the French language,
they should be allowed to use it; and if they want
to use the English language, they should be allowed
to use it, and it should be left to themselves. If
there should be anything else attached to a measure of this kind when transmitted
from the North- West, if there is anything further than a mere
statement respecting the language, if any improper
legislation attached to this, there is a remedy. All
that this House and that this Government has to do
is to check any improper legislation exceeding
their powers, as, for instance, constituting themselves a constituent Assembly instead
of a Legislative body, as they are now. These are my sentiments, very crudely expressed,
and I must ask my
hon. friends opposite to weigh this question carefully to see whether some joint measure
of peace
should not be adopted, and then the whole question, in my opinion, would be ended
forever.
It being six o'clock, the Speaker left the chair.
THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN THE NORTH- WEST.
House resumed debate on proposed motion of
Mr. McCarthy, &c.. &c.
Mr. COCKBURN. I am sure that every hon.
member has been delighted to hear from the lips of
the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), the
declaration just made that he desires that the present difficulty should be amicably
settled, and I feel
confident that in this House there is enough
patriotism, enough religious and political toleration,
and enough statemanship to enable us to arrive at
a solution which will be acceptable to all. Indeed,
Sir, it has been to me, I may say, a source of grief
to witness the acrimonious spirit in which this
debate has been conducted, and to see old feuds,
old emnities and religious animosities excited,
which I am sure every one in this House
must have felt had better have lain forever
dormant until they had died their natural death.
At the same time I do not see why the Bill of the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
should have excited so much alarm. I speak of
the Bill itself, for when I look at the preamble I
must confess I cannot father it. It is the preamble
which in its nature may tend, and has tended, to
excite the strongest animosity and the strongest
distrust on the part of our French members, and
many have seen in it an attempt on the part of my
hon. friend to deprive them of their political and
religious liberties throughout the Dominion. I am
sure, from the intercourse I have enjoyed for some
years with the hon. gentleman, that such purposes
are not in his heart. It may be that this preamble
is a kind of indication of what was lurking in his
753 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 754
mind, and of that condition he would desire to see
established throughout the length and breadth of
the land—one language; but, at the same time,
it is not in his heart, nor is it his intention, to adopt
any legislation, or other such means, to endeavor to
bring about such a result, as he must be conscious
that such a mode of action would be utterly
futile. I must express my sympathy with those
French members who have been alarmed on the
present occasion. I have spent a good part of my
life in France, and my boyhood and early manhood
are associated with the pleasures of that country,
and I have seized every opportunity I have had
since manhood to renew my acquaintance with
France; and, therefore, I enter on a discussion of
such a subject as this with no sympathy for any
fanatics, but with a desire to arrive at some result
which may be satisfactory to all parties, and which
may be for the ultimate benefit of our common
country. I regret that religious animosities should
have been excited, for I can never forget that over
three hundred years ago, it was the Catholic Lord
Howard of Effingham who led the fleet of England
against the Spanish Armada, and that he did so
after having kissed the hand of the English Queen,
whom he knew had been declared by the Sovereign
Pontiff to be illegitimate, to be a heretic, and to
have been excommunicated. I cannot help thinking that during the whole of this debate
we have
been moving on too high a plane, and have been
led away by the preamble of the Bill, to which most
of the efforts of opponents of the Bill have been
directed. I might take the ground, following the
decision of last year arrived at by the authorities on
constitutional law, on both sides of this House, that
the preamble has nothing to do with the Bill, that
we must consider the Bill itself; that was the doctrine proclaimed last year, and
it is one which may
be applied on the present occasion. But, apart from
the preamble, when you look at the Bill, what is it?
It is a Bill founded simply on the petition of a number
of gentlemen in the North-West Territories, called
the Legislative Council. Those gentlemen, rightly
or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, have been entrusted
with the management of the affairs of the North- West Territories. They have the confidence,
so
far as we know, of the electors of these Territories,
they are as duly qualified to vote as are the electors
of Ontario or of Quebec, and they are there on the
spot, and in a full House almost unanimously they
have asked to be relieved of a disability which was
imposed upon them, and which they never requested or expected would have been laid
upon
them. They tell us that circumstances have so
changed that the system which has been in operation in the Territories is no longer
satisfactory and
that it is unwise to continue such a disability, and
they beg to be relieved of it. I have examined the
returns of the last census in 1885, and I find in the
North-West Territories the whole population by
nationalities was 48,362 souls, of whom there were
savage Indians 20,170, leaving a population of
28,192; and of that number the French population
amounted to 1,520; or only 5 2/3 per cent. of the
population of 28,000 , or 3 1/10 per cent. of the whole
population.
Mr. LARIVIERE. It is true that the French
Canadian population is 1,500, but there is a large
French half-breed population which the hon. gentleman forgets. Â
Mr. COCKBURN. I will take up that point
immediately. I am kindly reminded by my hon.
friend, that there is another population in the
North-West Territories, a half-breed French population. I am aware of the fact that
that population numbers 3,387, but I understand on reliable
authority that this is not a French-speaking population, but a population which speaks
the Cree
language, and I do not think I am entitled to
rank them with the 1,520 French in the Territories.
At all events, I cannot put them on the same footing. I will go further, and say,
that since that
census was taken I have no doubt in my own
mind, and my conviction is strengethened by
authentic information, that the increase of the
English-speaking population and the German- speaking population and other nationalities
has
been so great, that, instead of the French population being 5 per cent. it is now
probably less. The
hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) spoke to us
the other day of this being an attempt on the part
of 3,000,000 people to swallow 2,000,000. There is
no such attempt. He said this reminded him of
the fact that it was a whale and not a cod that
swallowed Jonah. I beg to remind the hon. gentleman, that if he is going to reverse
the decision
of the majority for 5 per cent. of the population,
he is asking Jonah to swallow the whale. With
respect to the population in the Province of
Quebec, with which a comparison has been made,
I find that there is a total population of 1,350,000,
the French population numbering upwards of
1,000,000, the English-speaking numbering 268,000,
or 19 per cent. of the population. I do not think
we have a right to institute such comparisons,
and I only mention them as they have been
already made, because those rights of the people of
the Province of Quebec, the rights of the minority
in Quebec and of the minority in Ontario, and in
every other Province in the Dominion, will, I trust,
for ever remain undisturbed; and I will be no party,
directly or indirectly, to do anything which, in my
humble judgment, would amount to an attempt to
break up one of the most sacred contracts into
which any two people have ever entered. I mention
this matter fully in order that my position may be
clearly understood. The position of the North- West Territories has been presented
to us as
resembling very much the position occupied by
Switzerland. We have been pointed to Switzerland as a guiding star for us. Even the
member
for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) was so careful as to give
all the exports and imports of that country, and he
showed us how it was purely an agricultural country, and how it was particularly blessed
in having
a treble language. The analogy was a forced one;
in fact, I know of no two countries so utterly dissimilar in every respect as the
North-West Territories and Switzerland.
Mr. DAVIN. I wish to correct the hon. gentleman, because I know he does not wish to misinterpret
my remarks in proceeding with his lucid
argument. I did not compare Switzerland to the
North-West Territories. I said there was an
analogy between Canada and Switzerland, although
Canada stretches across an entire continent and
Switzerland is in the heart of Europe.
Mr. COCKBURN. I thank the hon. gentleman
for the information. The argument was, however,
made, and made several times. I desire to draw
755
[COMMONS] 756
attention to the fact that each of those Territories
is only slightly less than the area of the whole
of the United Kingdom, 121,000 square miles, while
the whole area of Switzerland is only some 15,964
square miles, of which 34 per cent. is over
four thousand feet above the level of the sea.
There are some 4,521 square miles unproductive,
and six per cent. of the whole country is covered
with snow fields and glaciers. I do not think you
can compare a country like that with what I might
call the immense ocean land territory we have in
the North-West. I have trudged through the whole
of Switzerland, again and again, with my knapsack
on my back; and, speaking generally, you could
take the whole of it and duck it in Lake Superior,
sink it to the bottom there, and were it not for its
high mountains like Mount Rosa and others you
would never know that it was at the bottom of the
lake. I consider Switzerland in almost every respect
dissimilar to Canada. In its whole history Switzerland is entirely different from
Canada. In
Switzerland we are not dealing with a virgin
country as we are in Canada with the North-West,
which was until lately the habitat of the wild
beast and the home of the buffalo. We are not
dealing with a country without a history; a
country spread out before us waiting for emigrants
to possess it. In Switzerland we have a country
which, in one form or another, has had some form
of Government for six hundred years. Switzerland
saw the beginning of its Confederation in the year
1291, when Uri, Schwyr and Unterwalden united
to check the encroachments of the House of Hapsburg. In 1332, Luzern joined; in 1351,
Zurich
joined; in 1353, Glarus and Zug and Berne city
joined; in 1481, Freiburg city and Solothurn joined;
in 1501, Basie and Schaflhausen joined; in 1513,
Appenzell joined: and these 13 cantons remained
the Confederation of Switzerland. In 1798, two
centuries and a-half or more after this, the Helvetic
Republic, under the protection of the French Directory, was established. When you
look at this country which has been held out as a model to ours, what
do you find? You find that its growth was from
prehistoric times, unaccompanied by serious disturbing influences. Our growth in the
North—West,
and throughout the whole of this country, is very
different. It has been made up of individual
elements brought from all countries, amalgamated
together from their own desire to satisfy their
economic wants, whereas in Switzerland they were
brought together by the external hostile influences
around them. There were Austria, Italy, France
and Germany crowding them altogether; we find,
as soon as they were freed from this external
pressure upon them, there was internecine warfare.
This country held up to our admiration is a country
which had no settled form of government until
1848, when the new constitution as adopted by a
majority of cantons, though material changes in the
form of necessary extension of the constitutional
law were made in 1865, and finally in 1874. In
the year 1832, we find that seven of the twenty- two cantons formed themselves together
in a Liberal
Sonderbund. We find in 1846 the Catholic cantons
united in a separate Diet, and a separate Legislature
and Senate, so to speak, a revival of the league of
Sarnen. So strong is the feeling of a want of
union among them that you find in 1832 a civil and
religious war; and in 1846 these Catholic cantons
raised 50,000 men while the Federation on its side
raised some 100,000 men and overcame those opposed to it. We find that in the twenty-two
cantons
in Switzerland, the official language is that spoken
by the majority. The rule they have laid down for
themselves is that the majority should decide what
the official language should be in each canton. It is
not a question of whether five or ten per cent. of
the population should speak one language, and be
correspondingly represented, but in every case it is
decided that the official language shall be the
language of the majority in the cantons. Now,
in considering those cantons, we must never confound them with our Provinces, although
constitutionally they possess greater rights than the
Provinces themselves. In fact, they accepted the
doctrine of extreme state rights as it existed before
the great civil war in the United States. I have
pointed to Switzerland as adopting the official
language of the majority, and I should like to see
the same thing carried out in our North-west Territories. Louisiana has also been
brought forward.
I find an Act of Congress on the 20th February,
1811, with reference to the incorporation of Louisiana, to the effect that they shall
be allowed to come
into the Union on condition that all its laws, all its
records, and all its legislative proceedings were to
be preserved in the English language. Austria- Hungary has also been referred to.
In that
country we have a population of 41,000,000. Of
this we have 8,000,000 Germans, 6,000,000 Magyar,
7,000,000 Czechs, 3,000,000 Roumanians, 3,000,000
Poles, 3,000,000 Serbs and Croatians, and 1,500,000
Turks, and other peoples speaking various tongues.
There are 21 legislative assemblies and executive
councils, and all of these transact their affairs in
the distinct languages of the majority. If we look
to Switzerland or to Austria-Hungary we shall find
that the ruling there is the rule of the majority.
Such a rule I would like to see introduced into this
Dominion without any reference to religion or to the
status of the language, and I am sure there would,
in such a case, be very few found in this House who
would contest the accuracy of such a proposition.
The debate has proceeded as if the proposal were
made to obliterate altogether the French language.
We have been told that we shall have all to learn
English; that the French language will be unknown in our country; that we shall have
all our
papers printed in English, and all our proceedings
and private business conducted in English. I consider such argument a travesty on
the question
now before us. The question before us is simply
and in reality the petition of the North—West
Assembly. This Assembly, in the words of their
petition, say:
"That whereas, by section one hundred and ten of
'The North—West Territories Act,' it is enacted that
either the English or the French language may be used
by any person in the debates of the Legislative Assembly
of the Territories and in the proceedings before the
courts; and both these languages shall be used in the
records and journals of the Assembly, and all ordinances
made under this Act shall be printed in both these languages.
"And whereas this Assembly is of the opinion that the
sentiment of the people of the North-West Territories
is against the continuance of the section recited on the
grounds that the needs of the Territories do not demand
the official recognition of a dual language in the North- West or the expenditure
necessitated by the same.
"And whereas this Assembly is also of the opinion that
sound public policy demands the discontinuance of two
oflicial languages in the North-West:
"Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray."
We have here the declaration, calmly and deliber
757 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 758
ately expressed, of those men who are entrusted with
the management of the affairs of the North-West
Territories, and they ask us simply to rescind the resolution or law passed by this
House binding them
to the use of two languages in their courts and in the
proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. Why, Sir,
I understand that in the whole North-West Council
there is not a single member to be found who speaks
the French language; and why, in the name of
common sense, should we refuse to grant to these
men a simple request of this kind? They are the
directors and managers of those Territories; they
are the men most conversant with all its wants;
and they come and tell us that it is a trouble to
them to be compelled to use that language, that
they wish to be free from it, that it is not wanted,
that it is against the sentiment of the people, and
that no sound public policy demands its continuance. We have, unfortunately, in the
preamble of
this Bill, a totally different question raised; but I
trust that the House will divest itself of the feeling
that has been aroused by this preamble, and will
consider solely and exclusively the request
made by this board of gentlemen to this House and
will grant it. We have had various countries
pointed out to us, among them Schleswig-Holstein,
in which the policy of Great Britain was to give to
the various sections of the population the use of
their languages—to the Danes, the Danish language,
and to the Germans, theirs; and we were told that
the Russians in 1862 were advised by England and
other countries on the continent of Europe to grant
to the Poles the right to speak their own language.
I quite agree with these recommendations; but
surely it is not contended that the Poles for whom
this petition was made, consisted of only 5 or 10
per cent. of the population of Poland, or that the
Danes and Germans for whom a similar request
was made numbered only 10 per cent. of the total
population? Why, the arguments brought forward
in reference to other countries have only tended to
confirm and strengthen, in my mind, the right of
those people in the Legislative Assembly of the
North-West to be granted what they ask. Before
I take my seat, I should like to read, with reference
to Switzerland, one or two paragraphs from the
Federal Government of Switzerland by Mr. Moses,
published last year, in which he says:
"The conglomerate character of the Swiss population,
composed of representatives of the German, French and
Italian peoples, has made it difficult to bring all parts to
co-operate towards a common national end. The act that
these representatives of different peoples have continued
in separate groups, each within its own territory, and
speaking its own language, has made the growth of a
national sentiment slower than it might have been had all
been thrown together into a common society and compelled in the course of time to
use a common language.
At present German is spoken in fourteen cantons and
parts of others; while Italian is confined to the canton of
Ticino and a part of Graubunden. To state the relations
between these groups in another way, there are 1,352 German communes, 945 French and
291 Italian. Besides
these there are 118 communes in Graubunden where the
Romansch language is used. Only German, French and
Italian, however, are regarded as oflicial languages, and
in these three all the federal laws"—
Not the cantonal or provincial laws——
—"are published, and they may all be used in the transaction of federal business,
whether in the assemblies, in
the council, or in the courts; moreover, all must be represented in the Federal Council.
The Romansch language,
on the other hand, is not an oflicial language and is seldom employed in the affairs
of the Federal Government.
Not only as it regards their language, but in a general
way, also as it regards their manners and customs, have
the several cantons maintained their individuality.
"While in Switzerland the representatives of the German, French and Italian peoples
have preserved their
peculiar characteristics, to a certain extent, by remaining territorially separated,
in the United States there has
been a mingling of peoples on the same territoy, and
there is already manifest a tendenc to mould those of
English, Scotch, Irish, German and candinaviau stock
into a new national product."
Well, Sir, I entertain those views with reference
to the request of the North-West Assembly; but
while I recognise its wisdom, I am not blind to
the objections raised in this House or to the susceptibilities of our French kindred.
I am, therefore, prepared to accept the proposal which has
been made with reference to finding some means
of dealing with this question, after showing every
desire to conciliate those susceptibilities, by leaving the whole question to be determined
by the
electors themselves in the North-West Territories,
and I can only hope that the brief delay in its settlement will not give occasion
for idle strifes. In view
of the fact that we desire to give our French friends,
and all the electors, an opportunity to be fully represented after the matter has
been fully discussed, and
in view of the fact that our friends in the North- West will have before them the
debates which
have taken place in this House on the question, I
think the wisest policy is to accept the suggestion
thrown out by the hon. gentleman, and to join all
our hands together, and see if we cannot settle
this difficulty, which I regret has ever arisen, but
which, I hope, will soon be finally solved.
Mr. SPROULE. I wish to make a few and only
a few observations on this important question. I
think the subject from almost every standpoint
has been dealt with ably, logically, and generally
reasonably; but I consider it to be the duty of
every public man, in cases of national emergency,
when the national life is at stake, to, as far as possible, use conciliatory language,
to allay the suspicions of some, and the excitement of others, and
to have regard to the feelings of those classes,
those religions and those nationalities which are
always in opposition to each other. The hon.
member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) made use
of much more eloquent language in a similar line
the other night, and I thought it was to be regretted that that hon. gentleman, with
his great
ability, had not successfully carried out the
principles which he was then endeavoring to inculcate throughout his previous history.
I can
only say that from my first entrance into political
life to the present time, I have at various times
recognised that he has been one of the very important factors in creating a strong
feeling in
the Province of Ontario against our French fellow- subjects in the Province of Quebec.
I know
that it was the case in 1871 and 1872, and I
thought, when Ithe hon. gentleman was addressing
us so elequently the other night, it was a great pity
he had not adopted the same moderation when
speaking in our local Legislative Assembly in Toronto, and referringto the murder
of "Brother Scott,"
and when among the English-speakin people the
feeling was almost at fever height, an the excitement so great that men could scarcely
restrain
themselves, and there was a strong hostility engendered against our French fellow-citizens,
so much so
that reason did not always hold her sway, and that
very often excitement of sentiment and national
prejudice took the place of reason. I think that
those gentleman who have dealt with this question
759
[COMMONS] 760
have dealt with it very ably. They brought into
service many very important lessons of history, and
if we wish to learn anything with reference to
national life there is no source from which we
can glean greater knowledge. From history
we can learn the causes of the rise, the
growth, the progress and the decay of nations; from it we can learn those principles
which tend to make nations great, powerful, and
long-lived; and if the lessons of history teach anything, they teach us one important
truth, that
community of language is not essential to national
unity, because some of the greatest nations have
been cited in which national unity, to all intents
and purposes, either for political or social life, exists without community of language,
which the
hon. member for North Simcoe professes to say is
necessary for the well-being of a nation. If
Switzerland has now endured for over seven hundred years and stands as an emblem of
greatness
in national life, as a federation of states based upon somewhat the same principles
as our Confederation, and yet has three different languages recognised as state languages,
does she not teach us the
very important lesson that it is not essential to
have community of language in order to have a
great state? The hon. member for Bothwell laid
down some very important rules to guide us
in our choice among the resolutions proposed
or to be proposed for the solution of this
question. He said that the rule upon which the
English authorities followed, in reference to what
language or languages should be the official language of any new state or country
when it was
organised, was the rule of convenience. Well, we
should apply the rule of convenience to this case,
and if the hon. gentleman's logic went to prove
anything, it went to prove that the solution of the
present difficulty is the one proposed by the hon.
member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), because
it cannot be inconvenient to that country to have
but one language, seeing that there is not one
member in the North-West Council who speaks
French. If the rule of convenience should be the
rule to guide us, when we have the unanimous
voice of the North-West Council asking that
only one language be official, surely there can be
no injustice in granting their petition; and the
hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) ought to
support the resolution of the hon. member for
Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) if he has the strength of
his convictions. The hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) intimated to this House
the
nature of the resolution that he would have proposed had he the opportunity; but I
do think that
with all his great eloquence and ability, his proposition fell far short of meeting
the requirements
of the mass of the people. What was his proposition? It was this: We will postpone
the day
of settlement in that country until, if I may
so term it, vested rights grow up in reference to
the French language there; until the question may
be much more difficult to settle than it is now.
He roposes that we should shunt off the responsibility from our shoulders to-day and
relegate it
to the future, and in the meantime, allow to be
kept up a very dangerous agitation, that may
ultimately result in the destruction of the state.
I do not think it was statesmanlike on the part of
that hon. gentleman to make that proposition. It
is much more practical to solve the difficulty by
giving the power into the hands of the people
themselves, and thus do no injustice to our French
fellow-citizens. Moreover, the hon. gentleman and
his supporters have invariably held that the duty
of the Federal Parliament was, as far as possible,
to give power into the hands of the people to settle
these provincial or territorial questions themselves.
In harmony with that theory, he has always
argued, during the last ten or twelve years, in
which I have had the honor of a seat in this House,
that in matters affecting provincial rights, the Provinces should be left to deal
with them alone. Why
not put that theory into practice on this occasion?
To do so would be a much better solution of the
difficulty than the hon. gentleman proposes. I can
see practically no difference between the motion of
the hon. gentleman and that proposed by an hon.
French member (Mr. Beausoleil) a few evenings
before. They are both in the same direction, and
are attended with the difficulty that they postpone the settlement of this vexed and
difficult
question to the future, and merely tide over
the present. One hon. member said that the
reason we ought not to touch this question at
present, and allow the French language to be spoken
in that country, was because the Act has been so
long in existence. For thirteen years it has been
on the Statute-book, and previous to that time he
said the French language was also spoken there;
and if for no other reason, the right of priority
would compel us to decide that the French language
should be the language spoken in that country.
The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Denison)
answered that argument ably, when he said if it was
the right of priority which should determine the
question, the Cree language ought to be made the
official language instead of the French, because the
Cree was spoken in those Territories by the
aborigines long before there was any English spoken there. Another hon. gentleman
said that a large number of the French who
were there almost compelled us to do justice
to them by retaining this clause in the Act; but
in Ontario to-day we have ten times the number
of French Canadians that there are in the North- West, and no one contends that in
the Legislative
Hall of Ontario it would be wise or needful in
the interests of that Province that the two
languages should be official. If the reasoning of
the hon. member for Bothwell were correct, that
because French Canadians were there, and the
right to use the dual language was given them a
few years ago, we should continue it to them now,
with much greater force should the French
Canadians of Ontario ask us to make the dual
language official in that Province. A great many
strictures have been passed upon the hon. member
for North Simcoe for having brought this question
before the House. Stripping the question of all
its surroundings, I do not think that the motion
he has proposed or the amendment to that clause
of the law, is in itself very extraordinary; but,
unfortunately, when we came to consider
the proposition, we found that in the preamble to his Bill the hon. gentleman fell
into
the mistake of imitatin the Bill passed by Mr.
Mercier in Quebec, and mixed up in the other
questions, with the one at issue, that are not relevant to it. But, if we strike out
all that irrelevant
matter, the preamble is not so objectionable, and I
do not think we would be doing great injustice if
761 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 762
we accepted the Bill as so amended. It is most unfortunate, that at this time, when
there is a disturbing element abroad in the land, men with perhaps
more enthusiasm than judgment, are creating a
great deal of excitement both in Quebec and
Ontario, and in the North-West Teritories; and
in view of this fact we should deal with this
question very carefully, and extend as generously
as we can all the concessions we can reasonably extend to our French compatriots.
But,
While doing that, we would be doing an injustice to ourselves if we were to allow
any encroachments that, in our honest convictions, we believed
would be contrary to the interests of the state or
of our national life. I believe there is a disposition
on the part of eminent men on both sides of this
chamber, to, as far as possible, come together in
a great emergency, and support the state rather
then support their national sentiment. I think it
is wise and well that they should do so, and we
would fall far short of our duty if we were unable Â
to join with them, in this important crisis of our Â
history, in trying to stamp out anything which
partook rather of sentiment than of statesmanship,
of race rather than of national rights. We
should stand by one another, and endeavor to reconcile those conflicting elements
we so often find
in this country of ours. I am far from believing
that we have not a bright future before us. I do
not believe that, because we may speak the French
or the German or the Gaelic language, that is anything
against the glorious future instore forour state; but
we must endeavor to reconcile those conflicting elements and to bring together the
people who are in a
manner under our charge, and who are looking to
us for advice in important times like this. I think
we would meet the duty which devolves upon us
by accepting the amendment of the hon. member
for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), because, in that way
we would be doing no great injustice to anyone;
we would be following the lines of provincial
rights; we would be giving into the hands of the
people the right of saying what they should have
now and what they should have in the future. At
the same time, we would do our duty to the state;
we would allay for the time one of those exciting
questions which are becoming more and more
annoying every day, and we would be doing our
duty as members of this great country, which must
in time become one of the most important in the
history of the world.
Mr. WRIGHT. As a member who, for twenty- five years, has represented in this House a county
in the Province of Quebec, a county in which a
large majority are French Canadians, and as a
Quebec member, I cannot allow this debate to pass
without saying a few words. Sir, I regret exceedingly that the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) should have brought this matter under
the notice of the House. It appears to me to be
one of the most disturbing questions which could
have been brought under our consideration. Providence has placed us here in this magnificent
northern home land of ours, men of divers races
and creeds and languages, but I think animated by
a common patriotic purpose, to develop our resources to the utmost, to live in peace
and harmony
together in the enjoyment of equal rights and privileges. I think, take it for all
in all, we have the
best and freest country that ever the sun shone on.
I think we have every material element of wealth
within our midst, that we have a hardy, a bold, an
energetic and a kindly population, and that we have
the best country that can be found in the world.
We have a form of government which is free to the
fullest extent, and every man has the absolute
right of freedom of conscience and worship. All
that is wanted to build up this national edifice is a
little common sense—a little sense of justice, a little
of that spirit of compromise, which is of the very essence of the British system,
and then the work may
be said to be accomplished. I must confess that I
have been very much astonished at the course which
has been taken by the hon. member who introduced
this Bill, and his friends who advocate Imperial
Federation. They profess to endeavor to bring
about the union of the British Empire; they profess to unite instead of dividing us,
but what does
this course of action mean? Instead of peace and
harmony, they bring us the faggot and the sword;
instead of that spirit of compromise, which, as I
said, is of the essence of the British system, and
gives it its magnificent power throughout the world,
they bring us dissension and disorder. To my
mind, their course—I regret to say it, for personally I have the greatest respect
for those hon.
gentlemen—leads me, though I cannot believe
that they are animated by treasonable purposes,
to think that they are not animatedly patriotic purposes, and I regret exceedingly
that
they have chosen to adopt this course, which
cannot but be disastrous to the interests of our
common country. But I believe in the common
sense of the great body of the people, and while,
if certain fanatics in the Province of Quebec, and
certain fanatics in the Province of Ontario had
their way, the result would be most disastrous,
still I have faith in the patriotism of the great
body of that people, and I believe that when this
storm has swept over us, the result will be beneficial
and not disastrous. To my mind, the hon. member
for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has received at the hands
of the three gentlemen who attacked his position
with such singular force and power a summary and
condign punishment. It appeared to me that his
punishment was almost too great for him to bear.
He bore it, however, with a bravery and a stoicism
which was worthy of every admiration. Not the
Jesuit Breboeuf at the stake, tortured to death by
savages, not Rowland Taylor in the fires of Smithfield, passed the ordeal more gallantly
than did the
hon. gentleman. Sir, in a great story told by a great
master of French literature, he gives us a description
of the torture. In the "Notre Dame" of Victor
Hugo, he gives us a graphic account of the death
of the Gitana Esmeralda who was executed by the
cruel code of a barbarous age. He tells us how her
limbs were dislocated, her arms and legs were
broken, and how then she was pressed to death dying
with the name of her lover and her Saviour on her
lips. When the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin),
who was the first executioner, proceeded to perform
this dreadful task, when he proceeded to inflict that
punishment, the result could not be doubtful. When
Eos or the Dawn comes in contact with Chaos
or the Dark, no one can doubt what the result
will be. In the great book of Sir Walter Scott,
when Wilfrid of Ivanhoe charges down upon the
Templar, who can doubt the result? And so, when
the eagle from the west swooped from his eyrie
upon the serpent of Simeoe—I use the term only in
763
[COMMONS] 764
a parliamentary sense—who could doubt what the
result must be? Sir, he destroyed him with dithyrambics. His punishment was something
almost
too dreadful for him to bear. Mr. Davin poured out
upon him all the vials of wrath of the English language. He pointed out the extraordinary
temerity of
a lawyer, and a
nisi prius lawyer at that, engaging
in this attempt. Why, it was the very apotheosis
of six-and-eight-pence. In the older civilisation,
if the firm of Quirk, Gammon & Snap had attempted to work a revolution, they would
have been
driven out of every European country. This is
the man who is attempting to destroy a magnificent language and literature and to
divert the
course of an empire. Sir, he pointed out too,
indirectly, that all the great traitors were not
lawyers. He detested every deserter from his
party. Someone had said that a gentleman never
changed either his religion or his politics. He
could not go so far, but he could not forget that, at
the famous "Siege of Corinth," the "First to fire
the shot and wield the blade, was Alp the Adrian
renegade." He was in religion a Low Church
radical; but in almost all other matters he was inclined to be High. Some concessions
must be
made to the sentiments of a democratic country
like this. A sot must be occasionally thrown to
the Cerberus. It was difficult to maintain the distinctions of caste. In "Guy Livingston,"
the old
Irish Colonel was unwilling even to die with an
attorney; in this country it is still more difficult
to live with them. They had an unpleasant fashion
of interfering with the private affairs of a gentleman—which, to say the least, was
inconvenient.
Lucifer, Catiline, Iscariot, the Constable of Bourbon, Benedict Arnold and their congeners
might
have been indiscreet; but, however, they had
never been indentured. In the older civilisations,
in order to float a company, you must have the
name of a lord in the prospectus. It was one of the
prerogatives of those who charged with the conqueror at Senlac. There was a great
English
statesman, who if his career had not been cut
short, by circumstances over which he had no
control, would have solved this difficult problem.
He understood the peculiar genius of the Anglo- Saxon race; he combined the practical
with the
poetical; the sensualistic with the idealistic philosophy. When John Locke will have
been forgotten,
when "Paradise Lost" will have paled before the
lustre of Ens, or the Dawn, when Shakespeare will
have been relegated to obscurity then the name of
the lamented John Cade will be held in veneration
and honor, as one who loved his fellowmen and understood the genius of his people;
the object of his
life was to increase the pleasures of his people, by
adding to the size of the drinking pots, by increasing their number of hoops thereon,
and to complete
their happiness by hanging all the lawyers. If that
system had been carried out, if that project had
been realised, what a start would have been made
in the direction of the millennial period! Then, Sir,
the Vice-Chancellor took up the parable. It was said
of Lord Bacon that he wrote of exhaustive science,
like a Lord Chancellor; it may be said of the Vice- Chancellor that he attacked the
hon. member for
Simcoe, with singular force and power. He went
back to past ages; he made an exhaustive review
of the Egyptian, Assyrian and ancient civilisations.
Then the hon. member for Bothwell deluged him
with authorities, the result was the complete discomfiture of the unhappy gentleman.
The hon.
member for West Assiniboia destroyed him as the
Parthian horse destroyed the legions of Crassus.
The member for York charged him as the Greek
phalanx did the Persians at Arbela. While, like
the Roman legion, the hon. member for Bothwell, destroyed his opponent. And so the
doom
was acaccomplished and
peni forte et dure was
inflicted upon the unhappy member for Simcoe.
I regret, for one, and I am sure this House
will regret, that such a course has been taken
by an hon. gentleman for whom we all have
so high an esteem. For my part I have been
twenty-five years in this House, and, in my
capacity as a soldier in the ranks, have done
my best to build up this nation, and to keep
together the various elements of our system of Confederation. Our difficulties have
been very great,
but now, after the edifice has been completed, after
this splendid structure has been erected, I, for one,
do not wish to live to see it destroyed, and if this
motion of the hon. gentleman had carried, I state
my honest conviction to this House when I say
that I believe it would be followed by disastrous
results. If we were, by this insidious attempt, to
succeed in destroying the French language in the
North-West, and then carry the policy still
farther, as is the evident intention, to the Province of which I have the honor to
be an inhabitant, I believe that the system of Confederation
would be destroyed. Sir, contact has brought
us into sympathy. We have constructed a magnificent system of railways, we have become
acquainted with the Maritime Provinces and the North- West, and we have spanned this
land from ocean
to ocean, and from sea to sea. The people of this
Dominion like each other. For my part, I have
always had a profound and supreme admiration
for the toilers of the sea in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. I have always liked the people of
British Columbia. I have even admired the splendid people of Ontario. We have always
held them in
our heart of hearts. And so with the men that come
from that grand prairie Province, the wheat-field
of the world, we hold them in special regard on
account of their ability, their energy, their enterprise, and I do not wish to see
the separation of
those Provinces which send us such men. But,
Sir, with all that, there is one place which I
hold still dearer, it is my native Province, the
Province of Quebec. Sir, that Province contains
divers races. We have there the Englishman, the
Irishman, the Scotchman, coming from bold and
hardy races, who are able to hold their own against
all comers. We have also the French Canadian
people, and I who know them well, who was born
in their midst, who have lived among them have
learned to respect their zeal for their ancient faith,
their kindly courtesy, and the chivalrous gallantry
which they inherit from their Norman and Breton
ancestors. I, for one, would be the first to protest
against any interference with, or any outrage
upon, the rights and privileges of my native
Province. Sir, I do not believe that this House
or this country would tolerate any such a thing.
If we could eliminate the French Ianguage, would
we do so? I ask every member of this House to
answer this question honestly in his own mind.
If we could eliminate the French Canadians,
whom we know so well for their kindly
765 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 766
courtesy, for their generous hearts, for
their marked ability, as we have seen those qualities exemplified in this House, would
we do so?
would we strike out such an element as this from
our population? I do not believe that there is a
man throughout the Dominion who would say so.
Sir, there can be no doubt that the hon. member
for Simcoe has, with strange power, aroused a
singular fanaticism in this land. Last summer I
visited one of the greatest counties in the Province of Ontario, one of the greatest
in the Dominion, a county of which any Province might well
be proud. Sir, it was a land of which it might almost be said that it was literally
flowing with milk
and honey, with creameries and with cheese factories. It was a land of extraordinary
fertility, a
land of which any man might well boast. The
pastures were covered with herds of the choicest
cattle; forests alternated with cultivated fields; the
sluggish rivers flowed with smooth serenity through
rich meadows and fields of waving corn. Its people
were bold and brave and manly, whose ancestors
had held their country against the invaders; and
the sons looked as though they would hold that
land as bravely as their fathers had won it. A
little graveyard was pointed out to me where the
victors and vanquished slept quietly together awaiting the judgment day:
"These in the robings of glory;
Those in the gloom of defeat,
Both with the battle blood gory,
In the dusk of eternity meet;
Under the sod and the dew,
Waiting the judgment day,
Under the laurel—the blue,
Under the willow—the grey."
It was literally an agricultural paradise, but
the trail of the hon. member for Simcoe was over
it all. A great anti-Jesuit meeting had been held.
There the 188 were denounced in the fiercest
terms. I remember reading in the local newspapers that one reverend gentleman had
called us,
I think, a "complicated comminuted community
of cowardly cannibals." That was the term applied
to the 188. On the other hand, the noble 13, gentlemen of whom we have always been
very proud,
were held up in the highest honor and esteem.
When I went there the storm had passed over,
and I only remained to receive its ground swell.
As I have said, the county was a most magnificent one, and the people were a generous
and
brave people. But there was a gloom upon their
countenances which struck me with surprise, considering that they had such a. beautiful
country,
that their crops were splendid, that they had every
element of material prosperity. They said to me:
"What do you think of these Jesuits who have
taken possession of the land? You come from the
land of Loyola, you come from the land of these
Jesuits, you come from this priest-ridden Province
of Quebec." I said: "Yes; but it does appear to
me that there are other Provinces which are
priest-ridden as well as Quebec." "Well," they
said, "what is going to become of those
oor, miserable, oppressed Protestants of that
rovince?" I said: "Yes; we may be oppressed, but as you can see, they do not
starve me, at any rate." "With regard to the
English inhabitants of that Province, those poor
slaves who are hunted by Mercier and his congeners,
what about them?" I said: "I think they bear
their punishment very patiently, at any rate they
get on very well with all their neighbors." Then
then they said: "What of the priesthood?" I said:
"So far as the priests of the Province of Quebec
are concerned, not alone the Catholic priests, but
the Presbyterian clergy, the Methodist clergy, and
the clergymen of all the denominations, they live in
peace and harmony together, they like each other."
I said: Father Brown of Chelsea told me the men
who first came to assist him when his church was
burning were the Orangemen of the district. I
saw myself at the funeral of an excellent lady, the
wife of the Presbyterian clergyman, the Catholic
priest among the friends in the sad procession.
Everywhere the same kindly feeling prevailed, and
I said that among the priests of my district, some
six or seven, there are not finer gentlemen, not
better servants of Christ, or better servants of
the Man who in the olden times gave us His laws
under the palm trees of Judea, than the very
Catholic priests of whom I have spoken. I said
that if some of these men were animated by the
feelings which appeared to animate a few of the
clergymen of Ontario, we would have had a very
sad time indeed; but they preached the gospel of
peace, love, law and order. Under these circumstances, I said, we got on exceedingly
well. But,
they said: You have a lot of nuns. Yes, I said, we
have, and most excellent and worthy ladies they are,
ladies who by their truly Christian charity are calculated to convince one of the
reality of the Christian
religion. The Rev. Mr. Carson said that when some
of his family were dying from diphtheria, that those
who first came to his assistance were Catholic
nuns, and I said in my own region they attend
Protestant and Catholic alike. I said I felt it to be
my duty to state this to you, because great misapprehension has arisen with respect
to the feelings
which prevail among those who reside in the
Province of Quebec. When I was seated by the
bedside of the dying Father Delliages, he said to
me: Every night my dreams carry me back to
dear old France, but my heart is with the people
of the Gatineau region. So it is with most of the
clergy in our midst. They get on admirably with
the Protestant clergy there. The Methodist goes
about most energetically to promote the interests
of the Master; so does the Presbyterian clergyman;
and so does the English clergyman, unless, unhappily, he is too poor to have a horse,
and he then walks
as did the Apostles of old. Then they proceeded
to put me through a course of cross-questioning.
They said: Tell us of the night; tell us of the future:
what party will it be which will sweep away those
rotten old parties, as the leaves are sweept away by
the autumn blast? I ventured to say a word on
behalf of my friend of the Left Centre. I said:
Here was an opportunity for the Left Centre, who
is a chief of singular energy and intelligence, but
without a party; and here is a splendid party, but
without a head: still should the two join together,
great results may be anticipated. I told them of
his heroic struggles in favor of the Widow Murphy
and her cow. I told them that in Sir Peter they
had one who was always foremost in works of goodwill; I told them of his marvellous
energy, ability
and perseverance; I told them of his heroic struggles
in favor of the helpless and the poor; I told them
that when the widow's wail and the cry of orphan
children came from the woods of New Brunswick,
that he performed one of the most generous and
gallant acts on record; I told them that he was
767
[COMMONS] 768
always foremost in works of good-will; I told them
that to be poor and helpless and miserable was to
commend them to his generous nature, and that if
he were not ennobled by Downing Street, he was
ennobled by right of an earlier creation and the
imposition of a mightier Hand. What then they
said of the superb old sorcerer who sits securely
throned on a thousand wiles in his city of Ottawa?
I told them that the "old sorcerer," as they called
him, had apparently taken a new lease of life. He
was sorcerer, magician and necromancer all in one
—like Aaron's rod, his wand had swallowed up
those of all the other magicians;—like Prospero, he
had waved his wand, and a nation had sprung into
existence;—by his magic power he had bound our
Dominion together with a network of iron, and
strewed it with cities, "like shells along the seashore";—he had clothed the dry bones
with flesh,
and breathed life into the northern part of this
continent. Will the magician's wand be broken,
his spells reversed, and this gorgeous edifice of
Confederation disappear? Will the sorcerer say:
"Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air;
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud—capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit shall dissolve,
And like this unsubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a wreck behind?"
But that magician has laid the stones faithfully
and well, and the edifice will not fade away. But
they said, he was gone over to the scarlet woman
who sits on the seven hills. I ventured to say that
I was not aware of the state of the hon. gentleman's
spiritual harem at the present time,
"Not age could change, nor custom stale,
His infinite variety."
I thought I knew that at an early period he
was captured by Madame Calvin; then that
he had certain coquetries with Madame Wesley; then he had a liaison with a certain
beautiful Baptist lady; but I said, perhaps,
inasmuch as he had an infinite versatility,
the Italian beauty, the scarlet lady, had at
last won his heart. But, I said, it is well known
that he has had the best of everything in this
world, and, if I am not mistaken, he will get the
best in the next. They said, what about the members of the Cabinet? I said they were
most admirable gentlemen, who were selected, as I have often
said, not only on account of their singular ability
and merits, but also because they represented certain historical events. I ventured
to say that the
Minister of Customs represents, or did represent,
the battle of the Boyne; the Minister of Inland
Revenue was supposed to represent the broken
treaty of Limerick; the Minister of Finance represented the crystal globules of cold
water; while
the Minister of Agriculture represented that
amber beverage which was dear to our Scandinavian forefathers. And, as regards the
old
Chieftain himself, we who deal so much in futures,
who hold him in our heart of hearts, do not take
for him the opprobious term conferred by the
savages, of "Old To-morrow," but, lookin to the
future, we call him the "Sweet By-an-Bye."
Those people were very much agitated by the
course adopted by my hon. friend for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy).
Then they said: "Is there any chance of the
Left Centre joining the present administration?"
I replied: "I notice certain little passage of sweetness and light confitures and
compliments, and one
can never tell what the result might be. We, who
are lookers—on in Venice, sometimes thought that
it was quite possible that the Third Party might
take his place in the ranks of the present government, and we remember that passage
in "Marmion ":
"Let the wild falcon take her fling,
She'll stoop when she has tried her wing,"
And, perhaps, when the hour comes, when the cry
goes forth, "the Philistines are upon thee Samson," when the morning breaks, he will
be found
fighting in the ranks of the Chieftain, as of yore.
At all events, I know that so far as the leader of
the Government is concerned his feeling is always
in favor of one who is given to a little judicious
bolting. My hon. friend to my left will bear testimony to that, and the horse which
bolts, as the
House will recollect, is always treated with a little
more attention than the steady old hack that never
kicks over the traces; and I am aware of the
kindly feelings which always animate the right
hon. Premier towards the leader of the Left Centre.
Not to parody, but to speak with certain reverence
I may, refer to a hymn which appears to be singularly appropriate, and which always
impresses
me with its strange power and pathos:
"There were ninety and nine that safely lay, in the
shelter of the fold,
But one was out on the hills away, far of from
the gates of gold.
Away on the mountain bleak and bare,
Away from the tender chieftain's care."
I left that pleasant country with a feeling that,
take it for all in all, the difficulty was not insurmountable. They said to me: If
the old parties
are swept away, what of the new party which will
be formed? I replied: I do not see What they can
do unless the anti—Jesuits muster their battalions
and move down on Quebec. Before they had
reached Montreal they would be met by you, Mr.
Speaker, and the gallant 65th. I can fancy
what the feelings of the old guard would be
when they met on the plains before the great commercial city of the Dominion. I can
fancy the
scene which was enacted on the plain. Colonel.
O'Brien—I beg pardon for using his name—would
bow pleasantly to Mr. Speaker, and would say:
"Gentlemen of the French guard, fire first,"
and the Speaker would say: "Gentlemen of the
English guard, you fire first;" and then the
soldiers would look upon each other, and realising they were brothers, march together
to the
city of Montreal, universally rejoicing and feeling
they might have other enemies at some future time
to fight against rather than amongst themselves.
I beg pardon of the House, Sir, for treating a serious
subject with such apparent irreverence. I sit
opposite my hon. friend from Simcoe and I notice
the equanimity with which he bears his punishment, and I have no doubt that when the
time
comes he will hit back with all that strength and
power of which we all know he is capable. I
would, however, ask that hon. gentleman and those
who are with him on this question—some of whom
I have ranked as my dearest friends in this House
and in the country—to consider their course. We
cannot afford to have our Confederation destroyed,
769 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 770
and the people of Canada will not permit a few
fanatical men in Quebec or Ontario to bring about
so undesirable a result. Somebody has stated that
the French and the English dislike each other. I
deny it. The two races on the contrary like each
other, and I know that in my part of the country,
we would not part with our French compatriots,
even if we could. We all recollect what happened
a few years ago, when a great rebellion took place
in the North-West. We remember when feeling ran high throughout the whole length
and breadth of the land. Was there any
division between the French, English and Irish
then? No; not one soldier faltered. Every
Canadian, whether English, Irish or French, was
ready to go forward to put down the rebellion and
to protect the laws. Some histories tell us that
at the battle of Marathon a light ran along the
Grecian spears when the Greeks saw the enemy,
and that at the battle of Salamis a light shone on
the masts of the Grecian ships. So it was with the
patriotic sentiments which animated our people
then. A friend of mine, Major Joshua Wright,
who travelled with the 65th Battalion, told me that
braver soldiers and more patriotic men could not be
found in the world. They vindicated the honor
and glory of their country, and so it was with the
people of every race throughout that awful time.
And is there no word to be said for these few unhappy men, these hunters of the plains,
who animated by their native gallantry and believing they
were injured, deceived as they were by an ignorant
man who preyed upon their feelings, went down
into these rifle pits and faced death as calmly and
as bravely as ever men did? Is there not one
word for these hunters who were swept away by
the bullet and the resistless charge of the Canadian
volunteers? Sir, we have the elements of a great
country. We have noble, generous and patriotic
feelings animating the great body of our people, and
there is no need for discontent. At any rate one
can see by the votes which have been given in this
House what the concensus of opinion of the great
majority of the people of Canada is. They are
determined that our Confederation shall be built
up and shall not be destroyed. Sir, we have one
thing on which we must rely. We must hold our
faith towards each other. For one, I cannot consent, under any circumstances, to any
step towards
the destruction of that magnificent French
language and literature. I believe that with me
the great body of the people of Canada share that
sentiment. We have one way of building up that
country and one only way; it is the grand old
English system of justice, fair play and equal
rights; and, Sir, the angels of light which will build
up our country and make us a great nation will be
"justice, fair play, love, truth and faith in each
other."
Mr. LANDRY. I join with a great deal of
pleasure in the general expression which has been
given this evening to the sentiment that there is
great satisfaction in finding that the leaders on
both sides of the House believe they can arrive
at a settlement of this vexed and difficult question.
Inthe meantime I desire the indulgence of the House
for a short time to express what I, as an humble
member of this House, believe to be the true position on this question. Before proceeding
to do so
I will call the attention of hon. members of
this House to an assertion made the other afternoon by the hon. member for North Norfolk
(Mr.
Charlton), when he was urging to this House how
well it would be for this Dominion to follow the
example of the United States and their mode of
dealing with the languages of the people in the
different territories they acquire. He told us that
in the colonisation of Louisiana the United States
of America had simply held out to that country to
come with them and partake of the institutions of
the United States as they existed, and that they
would make no concessions to them as to their
language. He told us the same applied to Florida,
Texas, and I believe Mexico. I have looked at the
constitution of Louisiana and what do I find? If
the hon. gentleman is as incorrect in all his other
assertions as he is in reference to Louisiana then I
say that no credence can be attached to his statements, for I think that he did not
take the trouble
of looking up the facts before he made the statement
to this House. I find that in the Revised Statutes
of Louisiana down to 1856 a constitutional provision
of the General Assembly, section 101, says:
"The Secretary ofthe Senate and House of Representatives shall be conversant with
the French an English
tongues, and members may address either House in the
French or English language."
Now, if I read aright the constitution of our Dominion, they went farther in Louisiana,
in relation
to the French language, than we do in the Dominion; for not only do they give the
privilege of
using the two languages in Parliament, but they
require that the Secretary of the Senate and the
Clerk of the House of Representatives should be
conversant with both languages. Article 129 of the
same constitution says:
"The constitution and the laws of the State shall be
promulgated in the English and French languages."
And that continues down to 1856. I repeat that
if the hon. gentleman is as incorrect in the other
statements he made as he is with reference to
Louisiana, he did not take the trouble to inform
himself. We were told to-day, Sir, by some gentleman who addressed this House, that
the true principle is to leave this question to the North-West
Territories or to the Council. As an humble member
of this House I am willing to make some sacrifice
of my opinion in order to join the majority of this
House for the purpose of securing peace and prosperity and establishing our unity
on a solid basis,
but I cannot conceal the fact that my opinion is in
an entirely different direction from theirs. I believe
we ought, in this Parliament, to retain the power
invested in us and deal with this difficult question
of education and languages. We have done so
in regard to the other Provinces, and why should
we not do so in the North-West Territories?
The principles laid down by the constitution
and laws of this Dominion since 1867 all
point in the direction in which I speak, namely,
that these difficult, delicate, disquieting questions
the Parliament of Canada has retained the power
to deal with. I do not believe it would be right to
leave the Council of the North-West Territories?
question so difficult of solution. If a majority of
this Parliament believe that it is not in the interests
of the North-West Territories to have the use of
both languages, then I say that this Parliament
ought to take the responsibility of saying so, and
giving those Territories such laws as they think are
avorable to the development and welfare of that
771
[COMMONS] 772
country. The legislation of this Parliament has
not left that question to be dealt with by the
other Provinces when there has been any legislation on it at all. We find that section
133 of the
British North America Act of 1867 reads thus:
"Either the English or the French language may be
used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the
Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those
languages shall be used
in the respective records and journals of those Houses;
and either of those languages may be used by any person
or in any pleading or recess in or issuing from any court
of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all
or any of the courts of Quebec."
Now, Sir, if it was important to establish by this
Act that the two languages should be used in the
Province of Quebec, as well as in the courts of
Canada, in the interest of the people of those Provinces, it is just as important
that the Parliament
of Canada to-day should decide the question for the
North-West Territories. If it were left to the
people of the North-West Territories to decide
whether it would be in their interest or not to use
both languages, what would be the result? The
result would be that all the excitement consequent
on the decision of a question of this kind would be
transferred to the people of those Territories.
Mr. LANDRY. And a gentlemen with the
ability of my hon. friend might go into the country
there and make the speeches he is capable of making on one side, and a gentleman with
the ability
perhaps of the leader of the Government of the
Province of Quebec might go and make speeches on
the other side, and we should have in all probability
a war of races among the people themselves in their
attempts to settle this very disquieting question.
The spirit of our laws has not been to leave such
question to the settlement of the people either in
the Province of Ontario or in the Province of Quebec. It has been to settle them in
this Parliament.
Then, why leave this question to the people of the
North-West Territories? Let us suppose that
their decision would be that they do not want the
dual languages; then we should be bound to enact
laws here in pursuance of that decision, and to
carry out the will of the people as expressed by
them at the polls, and if the time came, as it must
come, when the North-West Territories will be
divided into Provinces, should we not be bound by
that decision, in framing the constitution of those
Provinces, whether there Were three or four or ten
—because the territory is very large—to give to
each one of those Provinces a constitution such
as decided upon by the present population of the
North-West? My impression is that we should
be bound to act by the decision the people of
the North-West should give on this question today,
in framing the constitutions of all those future
Provinces. If it were then thought in the interest
of one Province that it should have the use of
the dual languages, and in the interest of another
Province that it should not, depending entirely
on the number of French people who might be
there, I do not think that is the proper course
to follow now to leave that decision to the people
of the North-West Territories. I say that the
right policy is to retain in the hands of this
Parliament the power of dealing with this question. When the Provinces come to be
formed,
we should look to the conditions then existing,
to the number of people there, and give them
a constitution in accordance with those conditions and the desire and best interests
of the
people. The British North America Act not only
takes the subject of legislation with regard to
languages out of the hands of this Parliament, but
also a subject which is of perhaps as much, if not
greater importance, namely, the subject of education. We find that section 93 provides:
"In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
education, subject and
according tothe following provisions:—
"Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any
right or privilege with respect to denominational schools
which any class of persons have by law in the Province
at the Union;
"All the powers, privileges and duties at the Union by
law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the
Separate Schools and school trustees of the Queen's
Roman Catholic subjects, shall be and the same are
hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's
Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Quebec."
Now, Sir, there was another question considered
by the Fathers of Confederation as one of great
difficulty, on which the people might divide with
a great deal of animosity and feeling, and they took
it entirely out of the power of the Provinces and
placed it, not even in the hands of this Parliament
—because this Act cannot be disturbed by a vote
of this House. If it was considered so important
with regard to these Provinces, why is it not of
equal importance with regard to the North-West
Territories? So jealous were the Fathers of Confederation of the rights of the minorities
in the
Provinces of Ontario and Quebec that they went
even a great deal further than I have yet pointed
out. We find in section 80 of the same Act, this
provision:
"The Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall be composed of 65 members, to be elected
to represent the 65
electoral divisions or districts of Lower Canada in this
Act referred to, subject to alteration thereof by the Legislature of Quebec: Provided,
that it shall not be lawful to
present to the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, for assent
any Bill for altering the limits of any of the electoral divisions or districts mentioned
in the second schedule to
this Act, unless the second and third readings of such
Bill have been passed in the Legislative Assembly with
the concurrence of the majority of the members representing all those electoral divisions
or districts, and the
assent shall not be given to such Bill, unless an address
has been presented by the Legislative Assembly to the
Lieutenant Governor stating that it has been so passed."
So jealous were the framers of this Act of the
rights of the minority, that in the case of some
twelve counties in the Province of Quebec which
were considered Protestant counties, it was not
left even in the hands of the Legislature of that
Province to alter the limits of these counties at any
time thereafter. And yet to-day it is said that we
must relegate to the people of the North-West Territories the authority to legislate
upon this question
which is similiar in fact to the question dealt with
so judiciously in the British North America Act.
At that time and previous to Confederation there
were in what were then called Upper and Lower
Canada questions similar to the one now being discussed, and these questions were
debated with,
perhaps, even greater animosity than is the present
one, and the differences of opinionthey excited had a
great deal to do with bringing about Confederation;
and I will take this opportunity of referring to the
questions then at issue, not so much for the purpose of recalling the discussions
thereon, as for
the purpose of i ustrating the position I take, that
the questions which are raised to-day are similar
to those which created excitement then, and
773 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 774
should be dealt with in the same manner. In
1851, and while the two Canadas were united, I
find in the Toronto Globe of the 17th July of that
year, the following language:—
"The Reform party are in power now—they have been so
for four years. * * These four years have been palmy
days of priestcraft. *
"The sectarian grants which should have been swept
away, have been increased. * * * When the present
party came into power, the common school system was free
rom sectarian elements—but they introduced the wedge
which threatens to destroy the whole fabric."
In 1853, two years afterwards, the same agitation
was going on, and we find this language used in
that same newspapers which was then one of the
most, if not the most, influential newspaper then
published in Ontario. The article is dated 6th
September, 1853, and contains the following
language:—
"When we have freed our schools from Popish control,
when Protestants are eligible to office, and when the
people are no longer taxed for the support of the Roman
Catholic Church * * * it wlll then be time to cry
out, should we go further and touch upon the just rights of
Romanists, but not till then."
In the same year we find in the Globe, the following remarks:—
"The Quebec Journal says 'that Mr. Brown gave
notice on t e last day of the session, that he would on the
first day of the next session introduce a Bill to abolish
tithes and compulsory taxes for ecclesiastical purposes
in this Provmce. It is a bold step, but it is made
necessary by the circumstances of the time. It is desirable that as soon as possible,
an issue may be raised
upon which to try the great question of Catholic and
Protestant, and we could not have a better test than this
of Lower Canadian tithes.'"
I call attention to this state of things to show that
the arguments then used were on a par and almost
the same as those now used by the promoter of this
Bill and by the hon. member for North Norfolk
(Mr. Charlton). One could almost imagine, in
listening to the speeches of these hon. gentlemen,
that time had retraced its course, and we were
back again in the old days when the Hon. George
Brown led the Liberal party and the Toronto Globe
trotted out the Protestant horse. To remedy the
state of affairs which then existed and the intensity
of which is shown by the Globe, Confederation was
brought about, and these vexed questions were
settled by the British North America Act, in the
way I have pointed out. As I again repeat it, it was
necessary then to put those vexed questions out of
the arena of both local and Dominion politics, and
it was considered that by the British North
America Act they were laid at rest forever. Today, however, a revival of the same
discussions
will bring about the same results that were brought
about then. I would ask who received credit at
the hands of the people of this country? Was it
those who were engaged in the discussion of this
question on the lines laid down by the Toronto
Globe, or those who resisted the prejudices that
were sought to be excited by the party whose
views that organ represented? Those who received
credit at the hands of the people were not those
who raised the issues such as are being raised today by the hon. member for North
Simcoe and the
hon. member for North Norfolk, but they were
those who resisted the prejudices and the appeals to
passion which were then being exploited. Among
those who were thus rewarded was the right hon. gentleman who leads this House. We
find him in those
times of eat disquiet and most violent and bitter
discussions always resisting the party of prejudice;
we find him, from 1851 down to Confederation, in
the councils of his country, a member of the executive council when not a leader of
his Government. We have found since Confederation down
to the present time that he has been at the head of
affairs for seventeen or eighteen years out of the
twenty-three which have elapsed since then. This
shows that the sound common sense of the people
gave credit to him and the others who resisted
these appeals to public passion and these appeals
of the majority to crush the minority — appeals
made on grounds similar to those taken to-day
by the promoter of this Bill; and I venture to
predict that, perhaps not for six months or a year
—because these strong and loud appeals which are
being made by gentlemen of the ability of those
who are promoting the measure, to the prejudices
of the people, must run a certain course—but I say
in the long run those who will resist that wave of
fanatiscism and the appeals made to prejudice, are
the ones who will represent the great body of the
electorate just as those who resisted similar appeals
in the past have represented them from 1851 down to
the present time. I was sorry to hear the leader of
the Opposition, in the beginning of his beautiful address this afternoon, try to make
political capital
out of this question, but history shows that the party
who resisted these prejudices in the past and the
party which resists them now is after all the Conservative party. To-day, however,
different from
the past, we must give credit to some members of the Liberal party who have joined
with us
in opposing this fanatical crusade; but the fact remains unchanged, that, in the past,
it was the Conservatives who resisted these influences to a much
larger extent than did the Liberal party. From
Confederation down to the present, there has been
relative peace in this country. And why?
Because these disquieting questions were set at rest
by the British North America Act, but unfortunately they were not settled, in so far
as the North- West Territories are concerned, and, therefore, it is
that they are being brought to the front again, and
the attack is made on the only vulnerable and assailable part which is left. But I
will call the attention
of the House to this fact, that the British North
America Act of 1871 provides that while we are
at liberty to make laws and constitution for the
North-West Territories, yet when once those laws
are made by this Parliament, those laws have the
same force as the British North America Act itself.
I will read the section. Section 6 of the British
North America Act, chapter 28, reads as follows:—
"Except as provided by the third section of this Act,it
shall not be competent for the Parliament of Canada to
alter the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said
Parliament in so far as it relates to the Province of Manitoba, or of an other Act
hereafter establishing new
Provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the
right of the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba to
alter from time to time the provision of any law respecting the qualification of electors
and members of the
Legislative Assembly and to make laws respecting elections in the said Prevince."
This is the point I wish to make—that this Parliament has the power to make laws and
a constitution
for the North-West Territories and to divide the
North-West Territories into Provinces. Down to this
time it has not been thought advisable to divide the
North-West Territories into Provinces, perhaps
because the population has not been sufficiently
numerous, but the time will come, and it may not be
775
[COMMONS] 776
far distant, when this Parliament will be called upon
to exercise that power. This Parliament can wait,
and it will be time enough, when it is asked to
make a constitution and laws for the different
Provinces which may be established there, to consider the circumstances of the Territories
and the
Provinces to be established, and to see then whether
it is advisable that the two languages should be
preserved, or to provide that only one language
shall be used. At present, I ask what great harm
is the dual language doing to the North-West Territories? Let all hon. gentlemen who
have taken
the other side of this question or have listened to
the speeches of the promoter of the Bill, and the
other hon. gentlemen made both in and outside of
this House, let all those who may have felt excited
because it was held out to them that a great wrong
and injustice was being done to their fellow countrymen in this matter, consider this
question. The other
day my hon. friend from North Bruce (Mr. McNeill)
said he was willing to go a long distance to meet the
views of his French fellow-citizens, but he was not
willing to sacrifice his own flesh and blood. that
sacrifice of his own flesh and blood is he asked to
make? I ask this House and the people of this
country, who have studied this question and who
may be somewhat excited in regard to it, what
sacrifice of the hon. gentleman's flesh and blood is
made by leaving the constitution of the North- West Territories such as it is, until
this Parliament
is called upon to divide those Territories into Provinces and make a constitution
for each Province?
It simply leaves them in those Territories the
liberty, if they desire, to use the two languages.
They are not forced to use the French language.
The English speaking people there are not obliged
by law to learn that language, or to use it in the
Legislature or to study it. They may use the
English language if they will. There is no compulsion. Then, what great harm is it
to them?
And, further, they are not even called upon to pay
for the translation of the public documents into
the French language. Then, where are they injured, where are their rights and privileges
interfered with, because the law says that those
who desire to do so may use.the French language
in the North-West Council, or that their public
records shall be printed in both languages? Does
that do any harm to them, or take away from
them any right? If this matter is looked at calmly
and in a proper spirit, it will be seen that this provision does no harm to anyone,
takes away no
privilege, imposes no hardship, and does not make
the English speaking population do what they do
not wish to do. If it should have the effect of diffusing more knowledge amongst some
part of the
population of the North-West Territories, would it
not be of some benefit to them to have these documents printed in the French language.
I repeat—
and this is a point which I strongly feel—that this
time is inopportune; that this discussion should
not have been raised either in the country or in the
House on the question, because the time has not
arrived when Parliament is called upon to frame a
constitution for the North-West Territories or for
any Provinces which may be created there. If the
leaders on both sides were to come together and
adopt some common basis of amendment or motion
which, although, perhaps, it might not be in
entire accord with my views, would restore
peace and accord in the Dominion, I do
not say that I would not vote for such an
amendment, even at the sacrifice of my views,
but at present my views are that we should not
interfere at all in the matter, and that we should
not do so until the time is opportune, and we are
called upon to legislate for those Provinces. For
a few moments, I desire to reply to some of the
assumptions which are to be deduced from the
speeches of the hon. gentlemen from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy). These hon. gentlemen are kind enough
to say that they entertain no hatred to the French
people of this Dominion, they are kind enough to
say that they have even a great liking for the
French people of this Dominion, they are kind
enough to say that they wish them no harm; but
I ask any unprejudiced man who has followed the
speeches which have been made in this House, or
who has read the speeches which have been made
on the public hustings in the Province of Ontario,
and one in the North-West, if he can arrive at any
other conclusion than that these hon. gentlemen
declare that at present the French people of this
Dominion are not desirable subjects in this country? It may be said that is a strained
conclusion
on my part. I do not think it is. If it is necessary, in their opinion, to have the
French population—I will not say annihilated—but gradually
made other than they are to-day, that must
be their opinion. If they are desirable subjects, why should they not be left as they
are, and why should any attempt be made either
by legislation or by speeches to change them from
what they are? They are blamed by these hon.
gentlemen because they cannot be delighted by the
same literature which delights these hon. gentlemen, because they are not delighted
by the same
pages of history which delighted these hon. gentlemen, because they are not moved
by the same
noble aspirations which move these hon. gentlemen in their actions. No other deduction
can be
drawn from that than the deduction which I have
stated. If you take the facts as they exist, what
do you find? We, the French people of this Dominion, are accused by these hon. gentlemen—not
by the majority of the English speaking people, but
I believe by a small minority, as I am sure it
would be found if it were tested, but by a sufficiently large number to create disquietude
and some
amount of excitement—of combining together as a
nationality or people in order to obtain that which
we have no right to obtain. That has been advanced upon the public hustings, and,
in effect, on
the floor of this House. The records show an entirely different state of things. These
hon. gentlemen have not brought forward any proof in this
House or in the country to justify that statement. I would ask on what particular
question,
since 1867, have the French people united
on a matter of this kind? They have not
united in any vote in this House or in any
election in this Dominion. Look at the last general
elections for the Dominion. There are some 45,000
French people in Nova Scotia, and there is not one
representative of that nationality from that Province in this House. Is that any evidence
of their
uniting in order to get influence and power to use
it to the detriment of the English speaking people
of this country? In Prince Edward Island, the
population is not so large as in Nova Scotia. I
think the population is about 109,000 or 110,000,
777 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 778
and there are about 10,000 or 11,000 French
there. It is true that they send a worthy representative of that nationality here,
but have you found
him advocating anything but what he believed to
be in the true interests of the people of this Dominion any more than you have found
his English
speaking colleagues? In New Brunswick, there
are 56,000 French people, but, where they could
send three representatives of that nationality to
represent three counties there, what do you find?
Your humble servant is the only representative of
the French race from the Province of New Brunswick. Does that show that the promoter
of the
Bill (Mr. McCarthy) and his friend from North
Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) were right in trying to impress upon the people of Ontario
that the object of
the French people of this Dominion is to dominate and to combine together in order
to get a
dominant influence and use it to the detriment of
English speaking people and to their own advantage?
I say, when you look at the three Maritime Provinces in the elections I have mentioned,
we do
not see any such desire to form a combination;
they have not acted in the spirit which is attributed to them. Then let us go a little
further
and look at the Province of Quebec in the last
election, and what do we see? The facts show us
that, instead of combining, the people divided. In
that large Province, so exclusively French, if I
may say so—although there are a large number of
English speaking people—if the French Canadians
had been actuated by the motives attributed to
them by the hon. gentlemen, we would not have
seen the result which actually took place. If my
memory serves me well, I think that 26 French
speaking members were returned from that Province to support the Opposition in this
House, and
25 were returned to support the Government.
Does that look as if there was no division among
the French people? Does that look as if there
was unanimity of feeling of a hostile character
against the English people? Does that look as if
they were isolating themselves from the rest of the
community, and working in harmonyfor the purpose
of obtaining things prejudicial to the English people and advantageous to themselves?
The facts do
not show that they were actuated by any such spirit;
on the contrary, they were divided nearly half and
half between the two great parties of this Dominion, and, Sir, have you observed in
their votes in
this House that feeling which is spoken of? I say
you cannot point to a single vote upon the records
of this House since 1867 that supports the assertion made by my hon. friend. If there
ever
was a question upon which the people of the Province of Quebec and the French speaking
people
of this Dominion could be united by national feelings, and, if you will, national
prejudices, it was
the Riel question, that came up in 1886. And
what was the result of that vote? Speaking from
memory again, I think there were twenty-four
French members voting one way, and twenty- seven voting the other way. Does that show
that
there was a combination of the French people for
any purpose hostile to the rest of the Dominion?
Sir, you will appeal in vain to the records of any
of the elections held in the Dominion of Canada
since 1867, to find any proof whatever of the assertions made by my hon. friend who
is promoting this Bill in this House, and who tried to
promote the excitement that has been raised dur
ing the last year in the Province of Ontario
and in the other Provinces. It is true, the
assertions are made, but no evidence is
brought forward to prove them. These hon.
gentlemen not only accuse us of combining in this
House, but in their speeches they assert that we
are endeavoring to combine the French people of
the country together. I say those gentlemen do
not study the effects of their speech, they do not
consider the influence of the appeals that they
make to their own people. They say it is wrong
to have these combinations, it is wrong for the
people of one race to combine against another, but
if they would carefully study the effect of their
own speeches, they will see that they are infinitely
more calculated to bring together a certain portion
of the people belonging to the majority in Canada
in opposition to the French people. We need not
go very far to find an example of this kind of
appeal. I will quote from a speech made by the
hon. member for North Norfolk, I think, on the
12th July last, in which, speaking to Orangemen,
he said among other things:
"Set the mark of your mission as an order at a higher
point than to keep a particular set of men in ofiice, and
when Mr. Bowell and Sir Hector Langevin lie down together, study the situation and
be wary, for the net result
will not be set down to the credit of the Orange Order."
Sir, here is a strong appeal to the people to combine together in opposition to the
French, because
he takes the trouble to point out that the Minister
of Customs and the Minister of Public Works, if
they have sufficiently community of feeling, and
sufficient community of interest in this Dominion
to work together politically for the interest of
our common country, it is a fact which he asks the
people to be aware, he tells them that it means
evil to them, it means ill to the English people of
this Dominion; it is a danger when French Canadians unite in the Government with English
speaking Canadians. What other deductions can be drawn
from his language? What other evil can he mean
when he points to the fact of the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Public Works
being in
the same Cabinet? He goes on to say:
"The issue is important, our foe is sleepless, resolute
and unscrupulous."
Now, what does that mean? If we were to use
such language to an assembly of French Canadians
and tell them "the issue is important, our foe,"
the English speaking people," is resolute and unscrupulous," would we not be accused
of using
language of an inflammatory character, and of trying to arouse the prejudices of our
compatriots;
would we not be accused of trying to rally together
the people of our nationality for the purpose of
resisting the people of another nationality? We
would be so accused, I think, and very rightfully.
And if these gentlemen say that, do we go too far,
if we accuse them of having similar motives, if we
say that by their language they are trying to form
a. combination of the English speaking people
against the French speaking people? Let me say
that I do not, myself, approve of everything that
I have read as having been said in the Province of
Quebec by gentlemen calling themselves Nationalists; I do not myself approve of everything
I
have seen in some newspapers I have read in that
Province, upon the subject of French nationality,
when they go so far as to intimate a desire to see
upon the banks of the St. Lawrence French na
779
[COMMONS] 780
tionality, as contradistinguished from a British
nationality. I do not approve of that; but
I would point out to these hon. gentlemen who
are promoting this Bill, and to the hon. member for North Norfolk who sympathises
with them,
that there is this inference between their speeches
and the speeches of those public men I have referred
to in the Province of Quebec. Those men who have
spoken thus in the Province of Quebec, and those
hon. gentlemen Who have spoken on that subject
in this House, have made these speeches, so far as
I have read them, only in self defence. The purport of their speeches have been this:
If the
English people attack us We are prepared to resist
them; if these people attack our nationality we
are prepared to resist them; if these people attack
our language we are prepared to resist them; if
these people attack our school system we are prepared to resist them; if they attack
our religion
we are prepared to resist them. But they have
never gone so far as to say: We must go to Ontario
and pluck from the English speaking people the
rights and privileges which they enjoy. Their
speeches have always, so far as I have seen, been
in answer to attacks made upon them by those
entitlement speaking in the Province of Ontario.
But the speeches of these gentlemen promoting
this Bill have not been on the defensive. The
hon. member for North Simcoe and his friends, on
the contrary, have spoken in an aggressive
tone, as aggressive as the preamble of the Bill of
my hon. friend is aggressive. It is not necessary
that I should quote from the speeches delivered
by hon. gentlemen, for they are fresh in the memory of the House. It is only necessary,
in order
to emphasise my view, that I should read from
the preamble of the Bill, which is as follows:—
"Whereas it is expedient in the interest of the national
comity of the Dominion that there should be community
of language among the people of Canada, and that the
enactment in "North-West Territories Act" allowing
the use of the French language should be expunged therefrom."
Is this not an attack upon those rights which
have been secured to the French people of the Province of Quebec, primarily by treaty,
and also by
the Act of Confederation, and secured in such a way
that not even the legislation of this House can interfere with them? When such an
attack is made,
and when it is embodied in violent speeches, it is
not unnatural that the French members from
Quebec should, in reply, say that if an attempt
is made to interfere with the French language in
the North-West Territories, we will resist it to the
utmost of our power. There is not so much
fault to be found with the attitude taken by
the people there, irrespective of the points to
which I have alluded. Some hon. gentlemen did
not appear to wish to go so far, and they stated
they had no intention of interfering with vested
rights. That is not the attitude taken by the hon.
member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), who introduced the Bill. He intends to interfere
with vested
rights; he intends to secure this entering wedge,
and follow it up by attacking the Separate School
system and the use of the French language in Quebec, if we have to attach any credence
to the
speeches delivered by the hon. gentleman outside
this House and within its walls. Other members,
however, say they do not intend to go so far. The
hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)
will not go so far, but where the French are weak,
as in the North-West Territories, he intends to
attack them there, and to accomplish the purpose
he has in view. But he should remember that an
injustice to one is a menace to all. If it is an
injustice to 10 or 50 people, it is a menace to any
number. Holding those views, I consider it is not
expedient to-day to pronounce an opinion upon this
question, and I hold that this is an inopportune time
to bring it forward, and I am prepared, if no better
resolution is submitted, to vote for the sub-amendment before the House, and vote
squarely against
the Bill. I do not think I am prepared to vote for
the amendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), because it is not, to
my view,
the proper one. We should not revert to the people the power to deal with this subject,
but we
should keep it in our own hands, and when the
proper times comes for legislation, we should,
speaking for the whole Dominion, say what we
belieVe to be right for the North-West and for the
great Provinces to be established there, and we
should consider the circumstances, the population,
the different nationalities there, and we should
legislate in the best interests of all. Believing that
to be the proper policy, I am not disposed to vote
either for the Bill or for the amendment of the
hon. member for Assiniboia.
Mr. WELDON (Albert). At this hour of the
evening and in view of the great length of the discussion, I will speak very briefly
and follow the
most excellent example of moderation and of courtesy shown to-day by hon. gentlemen
who have
spoken, and most prominently by the leader of the
Opposition. I have waited for four days in the
hope that some English-speaking representative of
the Provinces by the sea, older in parliamentary
experience than I am, who could have spoken with
more authority regarding the feeling of the eastern
Provinces, would rise and take part in this debate.
If such an hon. member addressed this House I
would gladly resume my seat in silence. But, perhaps, in the course of remarks occupying
a few
moments, I may be able to contribute some points
to this discussion which will enable us to arrive at
a mutual understanding. The questions before the
House are two: one, which seems to me to be relevant and a comparatively narrow question;
the
other, which seems to be irrevelant, is one which
has taken a very broad range. In the very few remarks I offer I will sharply distinguish
between
these two questions; one of which grows out of the
enacting clause of the Bill of the hon. member for
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and the other which grows
out of the inconsequential and ill-constructed preamble of the Bill. The first is
with respect to the
simple and narrow question as to whether, all things
considered, in this year of our Lord 1890, it is
wise in this Parliament to strike out section
110 of the North-West Territories Act, which
was inserted in that Act thirteen years ago. I
do not propose to review the reasons given
by those who are opposed to the policy of
expunging this section. I understood the hon.
leader of the Opposition to say that the Bill, coupled
with such apreamble, and heralded with such a
speech as was delivered by the introducer of the
Bill in this House, and still more by speeches outside this House, was one they could
not approve;
but if that simple Bill had been introduced, without
781 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 782
the preamble, in a moderate speech by a member
from the North-West, he would not have regarded
it as one that was very objectionable. It is
said that those who favor the preamble of the Bill
are endorsing the action of the hon. member for
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), but those who endorse
only the Bill itself occupy a different position. It has been said, and it was said
by
the hon. member for Assiniboia West (Mr.
Davin), that it was unjust to the people of
the western Provinces to strike out section 110.
I come from a Province where, as the member for
Kent (Mr. Landry) has said, there are a considerable number of French-speaking people.
We
come from a Province which has not the dual language, from a Province where we live
on terms
of good-will with each other; and no better evidence of the good-will of the English
and French
speaking people in that Province can be furnished,
than the fact that a great party in that Province,
mainly an English-speaking party, some years ago,
chose as their leader the hon. member for Kent
(Mr. Landry), whom we all respected and knew
to be a capable administrator, and he held for some
time a. very important portfolio in the Government
of that Province. The argument of the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), that
the continuation of section 110 would have the effect of
attracting emigrants from the New England States
and leading to emigration westward seems to me
to be not well founded on fact. Thirteen years
ago this House passed section 110 as a bid for
emigrants for the North-West; but that section
has not had the effect of drawing emigrants there,
and any French Canadians who have emigrated
have gone to the factories and farms of the New
England States. Many of my French Canadian
friends have said to me since this discussion
began: Be reasonable and endeavor to understand
the present situation; suppose a hundred
years ago the French had obtained possession of
the northern part of the continent, and you and
yours were in the minority, how would you feel
about this question? I said: I would hope that
the French Government would deal as generously
as the English have been disposed to deal with the
French people in the Provinces; but I would say
frankly that in the matter of carving out new Provinces, however much I might desire
the English
language to be retained, I must accept the facts of
history and could not hope for the perpetuation of
my own language as an official language. I have
only this to say in favor of repealing section
110, and it is this: that I agree with ever argument made in its favor. I thought
a powerful
ar ument was made by the hon. member for
North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in the earlier part of
his speech, in which he appeared to devote close
attention to the precise question before the House;
and I concur in the opinion that it is desirable,
other things being equal, without breaking faith,
to have but one language, that Government is easier
and that friction is less among a people in a
country which has a homogeneous people. This
remark is made by one whose duty all his life has
been to study history, and I venture to say there is
not in Europe a single example of a nation, with two
rival races jealousy preserving their own nationality, and nearly equal in strength,
whose power is
at all commensurate with her resources and population as compared with a homogeneous
nation. I will
not follow that out in detail, because it has been
discusssed fully by gentlemen on both sides of the
House. In Switzerland, where there are three
languages, the people live in good-will; but the
force that holds Switzerland together is the iron
band of pressure from the outside. If we had
on the north and west of us, as we have on the
south of us, jealous nations whom we felt were
quite willing to eat us up at an hour's notice, I
think we would have better feelings of brotherly
love than we have now. The case of Austro-Hungary was different from that of Switzerland,
but I
have not time to enter at any great length into
the question of why Austro-Hungary, since that
great duel on the field of Sadowa, has not an influence consistent with her large
population, her
fertile soil, and her great resources. Germany on
the north, with far less population, is, beyond all
question, themore powerfulnation; that is, the nation
with a comparatively homogeneous race is stronger
than the other, although nominally the smaller.
My hon. friend from Noth Bruce (Mr. McNeill)
made a very pertinent argument in the case of
England, when he pointed out that when England
was occupied by two rival races, the Saxons and
the Normans, she made very little progress; but
when these nations were fused together she went
forward by leaps and bounds. The most pertinent
of all the arguments advanced, to my thinking, is
the argument based on facts with which we are all
acquainted. We know something of the course of
events in the great Republic to the south. Her
success is something phenomenal in the history of
nations; and what is the policy which that great,
progressive and sensible people have pursued in
this matter of founding a new colony? Have they
not stood by the one language? Have they not
stood by the public schools? Have they not stood
by the common law of England, those just and
clement laws, those institutions of government
which guarantee personal liberty? Have they not
held those out to the foreign nations, saying:
"Come and share these laws with us, enjoy this
liberty with us." And have not their most enlightened men, ever since they planted
this policy in the
land, discovered that these laws were a mighty force
of assimilation and tended to make a people compact? To secure this homogeneity, it
seems to me
that, in this new commonwealth, it will be
unwise to allure immigrants from France, from
Denmark, from Germany, from Sweden, and
from other foreign countries, by the hope that
when they come into this Dominion, in our
courts of justice, in our Legislatures, they will
be entitled to the free use of their own language.
I think, if we do so, we are holding out to
them an illusive hope. I think it better to say
to the Danes, Germans, Prussians, French and
others who come here: we welcome you all; there
are our fertile lands, occupy them; and there are
our mighty English laws guarding your lives and
property. There are schools in which your children may be taught; there are representative
institutions of Government. If you wish, you can have
equal rights with all of us; and then we may hope
that in one or two generations the great difficulty of
governing these western Provinces will be removed,
and they will be united into one. In my judgment, there is no single force within
the range of
Government——I am not speaking of the almost
unlimited force of religion, which is beyond the
783
[COMMONS] 784
range of Government in our happy country—there
is no force so subtle, so insidious, so powerful
to effect this unity of races as the force of language.
It is like the primary forces of nature. It makes
a people like each other who did not like each
other before. I agree with so many French
members that it is a pity we cannot all speak the
French language. If we could I am sure we would
like them better, and they would like us better,
and if I were a younger man and could learn as
fast as I could in my earlier days, I would learn to
speak that beautiful language as I long ago learned
to read it.
Mr. LANDRY. And then you would pass a
law to prevent yourself using it.
Mr. WELDON (Albert). Far from it. I will
deal with that remark of my hon. friend later on.
I do not wish to recall past memories. I do not
wish to speak of the events of 1877, but I do feel,
in all soberness, that he who threw the apple of
discord was not the hon. member singled out for
condemnation by my friend from Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin). It Was that man who inserted in the
Upper House, late in the Session of 1877, that ill- fated section of the North-West
Territories Act,
which provided for the official use of the two languages. It was he who planted the
baleful
cypress tree by the cradles of those young commonwealths between the Red River and
the Rocky
Mountains. A few words more and I have done.
I will refer now to the somewhat irrelevant and
larger question as to whether we should not consider that this Act is only a wedge
by which its
promoters commence to break up the institutions
of the French Canadians, and that after they have
succeeded in this, they are to go on and petition
the Imperial Parliament to strike out section 133 of
the British North America Act which guarantees
the French language in this chamber, that they
will go further and agitate for the repeal of the
civil law in Quebec, and possibly endeavor to strike
out that portion of the Act of Confederation which
guarantees the freedom of the Roman Catholic religion in the Province of Quebec. Coming
from
the Lower Provinces as I do, and without any authority to speak for any but myself
and the county
which I represent, as one who has been in the habit
of meeting the public men of New Brunswick and
Nova Scotia and studying the opinions of the press
in that country, I desire to say, that, so far as I
know, the one million people of the Lower Provinces sending forty-three members to
this House
are an absolute unit in believing that when we
came into the Confederation there were agreements between the two Canadas and the
Lower
Provinces which should not be broken. The
understanding was that our people were called in
to keep the peace between those people on the St.
Lawrence. We knew that a treaty in substance
had been made. We knew that treaty has been
crystallised and made lawful and bindin upon us
by the Parliament at Westminster. We know
that that treaty guaranteed the perfect freedom of
the Catholic religion in Quebec, the use of the
French language, the perpetuity of the civil law of
Rome included, and I desire to say that the people
down there, who are mostly English, love the
truth and keep their faith. Long ago our old
King Alfred was called the "truth teller,"
and we English people boast that we are
truth tellers and boast that we keep our faith.
It is a quality we are proud of. We are not faith
breakers; we are faith keepers; and I think the
one million people in the Provinces by the sea are
one man in saying that it is our bounden duty, in
good faith and honor, absolutely to preserve inviolate those provisions of the treaty,
those guarantees of the constitution, which have been
referred to by my hon. friend. That is the
answer I give him when he asks me if I wish to
strike out the French language. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the House for its patience in indulging me
thus far. As I sit down my attention has been
called by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier
(Mr. Girouard) to a constitutional point which, I
think, might be very well stated at this juncture,
namely, that whatever we desire to do in the
North-West Territories in regard to the schools or
the Assembly or the printing of papers or judicial
proceedings, we have no power under the constitution to deal with the use of the French
language
in the courts; for section 133 of the British North
America Act reads as follows:—
"Either the English or the French language may be
used by any person in the debates of the Houses of Parliament of Canada and of the
Houses of the Legislature
of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the
respective records and journals of those Houses; and
either of those languages may be used by any person, or
in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court
of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all
or any of the Courts of Quebec."
And if we turn to section 101, which gives to this
Parliament the power to establish Canadian courts,
we find that it reads as follows:—
"The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from time to
time, provide for the
constitution, maintenance and organisation of a general
Court of Appeal for Canada, and for the establishment of
any additional courts for the better administration of the
laws of Canada."
Reading these two sections together, I think they
are conclusive that the courts of the North-West
Territories are courts of Canada, and whatever we
wish to do we cannot touch them. Let me sit
down by saying that it makes a young member
proud of his country, and proud of his Parliament,
and proud of the French race, to observe the dignity
and order which have been maintained throughout this debate; and if the hon. member
who
leads the Opposition will forgive me for saying so,
and not think it improper, I should like to express
the delight I have, as a peace lover, to see the
increased dignity of debate and the elevated tone
of discussion in this chamber during the four years
that I have been here, for which I think the unfailing urbanity of the hon. gentleman
himself is
largely to be credited.
Mr. DESSAINT. (Translation) As a French
Canadian, Mr. Speaker, representing a county most
essentially French, I think that it is my duty, under
the circumstances, to raise my voice in protest
against the resolution which this House is asked to
adopt. The North-West Territories were definitely
organised by statute in 1877. The repeal of section
110 of chapter 50 of Revised Statutes of Canada
is asked for, by which section it is enacted that:
"Either the English or the French language be
used by any person in the debates of the Council or Legislative Assembly of the Territories
and m the proceedings before the courts; and both those languages shall be
used in the records and journals of the said Council or
Assembly; and all ordinances made under this Act shall
be printed in both those languages."
785 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 786
The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
proposes by his Bill, now before the House, to
repeal section 110 of "The North-West Territories
Act." I will ask at once what can be the object
which the hon. member has, and must necessarily
have, in presenting such a resolution? If the Act
which is now before the House, has but one particular object, namely, to have justice
done to the
people of the North-West Territories, I ask what
is his mission, what is his mandate, to thus take the
part of these people? If there are any persons in
the North-West Territories, who find themselves
injured, let them make their voices heard in this
House, through their authorized representatives.
The object of the hon. member seems clear enough
in the preamble of the Bill:
"Whereas it is expedient in the interest of the national
comity of 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 expunged therefrom: Therefore her Majesty,
by and with the advice
and comment of the Senate and House of Commons of
Canada, enacts as follows:-
"1. Section one hundred and ten of the Act of the
Revised Statutes of Canada, initiated 'An Act respecting
the North-West Territories,' is hereby repealed.
After reading this preamble, it is easily ascertainable that it is not merely to redress
the grievances
in the North-West that the hon. member has
brought in this Bill. It has quite another object.
It is not a piece of partial and local legislation
which he undertakes to carry out, but general
legislation attacking everything which is French
Canadian in Canada. If the hon. member has local
legislation in view, I ask what is his commission,
what is his mission? I do not see that he has any,
and I consider that he is meddling in what does not
concern him, that he is meddling in the business
of other people. It is said that many American
citizens have made fortunes in minding their own
business. This is the line of conduct which should
be adopted by the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy). When the North-West Territories Act was passed in 1877, it will be
remembered that the section which is sought to be repealed was adopted first by the
Senate; this
section was then submitted to the House of Commons. The Government of Mr. Mackenzie
was
then in power. The hon. member for North Simcoe was then in the House, and he consented
with
the others—he had not then the mission which he
has to-day,——he consented, as did the other members, to the adoption of this section,
which passed
unanimously. Later on, in 1880, this North-West
Territories Act again came before the House, and
this section is found imbedded in the Revised
Statutes, and never did the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) think it proper to complain of it. Last year, he set out on
the war path,
and he was seen careering over Ontario and the
North-West Territories. He thought himself
charged with a special mission to regenerate the
population, and to rub out from the map of Canada all that belonged to the French
Canadians. I
would not wish to insult the hon. member by
comparing him to the celebrated knight who
roamed over Spain and the other European countries in order to fight windmills. I
certainly would
not desire to compare him to this renowned knight
of the sorrowful figure, who, in his moments of
sanguinary instinct, disembowelled armies of sheep;
because the comparison would not be fair. The
illustrious Don Quixote fought from pure gallantry
and he sought always to protect the feeble and the
oppressed, whilst the hon.. member for North
Simcoe seeks to persecute them. This is the difference I make between the two personages.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, the intention always shown by the hon.
member, is not only, as all the world is perfectly convinced, to abolish the French
language
in the North-West. If this were a Bill of limited
effect which we are discussing at the present moment, one might perhaps consider for
moment
the seasonableness of such a measure; but the Bill
extends much farther. The aim of the hon.
member—he has not concealed it in his speech,
and all those who followed him have preached
the same doctrine,—is the destruction of the
French language not only in the North-West Territories, but throughout the Dominion
of Canada.
Further, he would like to abolish the separate
schools; he would equally like, if it were possible, to
abolish the Roman Catholic religion, which has been
attacked in a furious manner for some time past.
I think that the movement which has now been set
going throughout the country is far from being a
patriotic one, but I am certain that those who
intend such a persecution will not succeed in their
efforts. History gives lessons which must not be
disregarded; lessons which we should make use of,
and which we will certainly put into practice.
The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
has told us that by the Act of Capitulation of
Quebec and by the Act of Cession of 1763 the use
of the French language was not guaranteed. If the
Catholic religion has been preserved to us, if a
guarantee for all our privileges has been given to ,
us, if we possess to-day the French civil law, the
Code Napoleon, which is the admiration of the
whole world, a system of law which goes back as
far as the Costume de Paris and the old coutumes
of France, we owe these to the guarantees given by
the Treaty of Paris, and to our privileges granted
by the Treaty of Capitulation. Well, when we
have the right of exercising our religion as we
understand it; when we have preserved for ourselves the coutumes, the laws in force
in the
country, by capitulation, are they going now to tell
us that we have not the right of speaking our language? When they allowed us the use
of our language before the courts, because they could not do
otherwise, is this not a formal guarantee that we
should have the enjoyment, along with our civil
rights, of this beautiful French language, of which
we are proud for more than one reason? The attempt
made by the hon. member for Simcoe will not
succeed, and I trust that he will not return again to
the charge. At the time of the cession of Canada—
as he has himself stated,—the population of Canada,
which was entirely French at the time, was about
65,000 souls. A great number quitted the country to
return to France, notably the nobles and oificers,
and the educated persons generally. They deserted
the new country and we remained there in small
numbers under the shield and guardianship of the
priests, who were at that epoch the only people of
education. Well, since 1763, until Confederation
in 1867, and even up to the present time as is now
proved, they have tried by every means in their
power to prevent the French Canadians from
speaking their language and practising their religion. This people which originally
reckoned only
65,000 souls resisted the storm and presented a
787
[COMMONS] 788
hold front to all attacks. It has preserved its
privileges, its language, its religion, and its rights.
How can it be imagined to-day, Mr. Speaker, that
with a population of one million and one-half of
French Canadians, settled in the Province of
Quebec and the other Provinces of Canada, and
about one million in the United States, how can
it be imagined, I say, that the hon. member for
Simcoe and the companions who support him, can
hope to be able to destroy the French race, and
take away from it the right of using its language,
when there exists to defend it a population of more
than one million living in the Dominion of Canada?
The persecutions which have with intent been
carried on against the French Canadians have not
been confined to the Province of Quebec, but
before the cession of 1763, the English who at
that time peopled the thirteen colonies which
later on made up the United States, already carried
on before the warfor independence had been declared, a bloody war upon everything
that was
French, and they attacked the Acadians, who then
dwelt in Nova Scotia. In order to show the dishonesty with which they acted towards
these
Frenchmen, it will be sufficient for me to cite an
extract from a work by Mr. Jacques de Baudoncourt, at page 309:
"The Acadians asked to be exempted from carrying
arms a ainst France in case ofwar (for it must always be
remein cred that war had not been declared). This mark
of attachment was never forgiven and served as a pretext for the carrying out of a
measure the most brutal
among all that history has recorded. The English fleets
surrounded Acadia and the most profound secrecy was
maintained in order that no one might escape. The
ofiicers and the Protestant clergy had already exhausted.
against the unfortunate Acadians. all their insults and
annoyances. The supreme iniquity was about to be consummated. To take seven or eight
thousand men by force
was impracticable, recourse was had to a ruse. A general proclamation from Moneton,invited
all the men under
the severest penalties, above the age of ten years, to assemble in the church of their
respective villages, in order there
to listen to the orders of the Grovernment. The day fixed
was Friday the 5th day of September. In order to give
an idea of what took place in the other Acadian villages,
let us recount what passed in the village of Grand Pré,
where 483 men, 337 women and 1,107 children were grouped.
when they were shut up in the church, the approaches to
which were guarded by the Bostonnais, Col. Winsloy having
taken his place in the middle of the meeting, made this
announcement, one worthy of Nero and Caligula: 'You
are gathered together here in order that I may make you
acquainted with the final resolve of His Majesty, respecting the French population
of this Province. Your lands,
your cattle, and your provlsions of all kinds, are confiscated tor the benefit of
the Crown, and as for yourselves
you will be transported from the country. You owe to
the goodness of His Malesty the right which I am going
to allow you, namely, that of carrying off all your money
and household stuff. provided always, that it will not
encumber the vessels in which you are going to embark.
From this moment I declare you to be prisoners of the
King.'
"And the unhappy Acadians without arms, were
escorted in six ranks, at the bayonet's point, from the
church to the ship where the men were to embark; they
passed along groaning With grief in the midst of their
Wives and e ildren, who were on their knees and calling
down the blessings of heaven on the poor exiles from whom
they were going to be separated. The Americans were
pitiless, and took no pains to unite families; they had not
even prepared a place for the reception of the exiles. the
colonies were not forewarned. 0n the same day and hour
all the other villages were treated in the same manner.
and the seven thousand captured Acadians were embarked for an unknown destination."
The greater part of these poor wretches were
deceived in this manner and despoiled of their
goods; this act of cruelty will be a shameful blot
on the history of British North America. These
poor Acadians were embarked forcibly on board
the vessels. They were scattered along the
coasts of the United States; and they were deprived of all, in order to prevent their
return to
their country where they possessed fertile and
well cultivated lands and a fair amount of property. In spite of this persecution,
Mr. Speaker,
the Canadians so loved their soil; they so loved
their country, that it ended in their repatriating
themselves, and at the present day this population
of 7,000, which had thus been scattered to the
four winds, has come together again and numbers
at least 110,000 Acadians, in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. All this proves that there are certain
feelings which cannot be driven out of the heart of
man. The Canadians may be expelled from the
country, but no one can succeed in stifling their
national sentiment. I shall not enter upon all the
historical incidents which followed this gloomy
period, between 1760 and 1837. I shall only remark that the Government, every time
the occasion presented itself, being then hostile, took all
the means possible to deprive the French Canadian nation of their privileges. They
tried to prevent our speaking the language peculiar to it. Our
fellow-countrymen had not the right to speak officially the French language in the
Legislative Assemblies, nor even in the courts: they robbed
them of their just rights. They had judges who
understood not a word of French, and who were
third-class men. They endeavored by this means
to prevent their having access to the courts,—and
our countrymen chose the oldest men among them
to adjust their differences; it was certainly the
best way to bear up as they have done. The hon.
First Minister has spoken to us about a memorable
epoch; he spoke to us about the year 1844, the year
in which he entered public life for the first time. He
told us that if the French Canadians were protected in that year it was by a Tory
Government.
I think that the hon. the First Minister makes a
mistake in this connection, for the Government of
the day was not Wholly Tory; and the measure to
which he alluded, that is to say the restoration of.
the French language in Canada, was not proposed
by a Tory, but by the Hon. Mr. Papineau, who
certainly was not a Tory, but a Reformer and an
advanced Liberal. This measure was a protest
against the Union Act of 1840; for it is known that
in this Union Act a section had been interpolated
by which the French language was completely forbidden in the legislative debates.
In 1845 the
Hon. Mr. Papineau, moved a resolution and based
a Bill upon this resolution, re-establishing the use of
the French language in the Legislative Chamber.
This resolution was unanimously adopted by the
members present. Consequently the Conservative
party of to-day, or the Tory party, cannot claim to
have given us the benefit of such a measure. But
if the hon. the First Minister had gone a little- further and had come down to 1849,
he would,
perhaps have been able to have made us see what
were the intentions of the Tories of that day. We
can remember that, in 1849, the Tory newspapers
declared war to the death on everything in the.
shape of a French Canadian. We can recollect
that at that time it was a Liberal Government
which asked the House to vote a sum of money as
an indemnity to those French Canadians who had
suffered losses in the rebellion of 1837. The proposal of the Government was warmly
debated, and
the hon. the First Minister of the present moment,
789 [FEBRUARY 17, 1890.] 790
who was then in the House, was one of those who
made the most revolutionary speeches that can be
found in the history of our country. The press
also discussed the question. It is necessary, said
the Tory organs, that the French race should
disappear from Canada. The hon. the First Minister
was a Tory then, as he is now, and he was at the
head of those who waged war upon the French
Canadian race. We remember the disorders which
were caused by this law. The Governor was
insulted; stones and rotten eggs were thrown at
him. An organised body laid siege to the Parliament House; threw in a shower of stones
even into
the Council Chamber; they drove out the members;
they broke the desks and chairs; they carried off
the mace; one of their leaders seated in the
Speaker's chair proclaimed in the name of the
people the dissolution of the Parliament. At the
same time the building became the prey of the
flames, as did the house of the Hon. Mr. Lafontaine.
And who were at the head of this revolutionary
movement? They were the Tories of the day, and
I venture to say the political ancestors of the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). And
who, setting aside Mr. Lafontaine, took up the
defence of the French Canadians? It was a man
whose name will live in the history of our country.
It was the father of the Hon. Mr. Blake, who, in a
most eloquent speech, demanded, as a good patriot,
as a philosopher, their rights for the French
Canadians. We have discovered in this House,
within the last few days, that the son of this
great patriot has followed the traditions of his
father, and has adopted the same line of conduct
by praising the French Canadians. He has placed
himself above the considerations of party; he has
taken the side of the persecuted, and the French
Canadians will owe him an eternal acknowledgment, as they preserve a precious remembrance
of
his illustrious father. I am perfectly convinced,
Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) does not hope to obtain
the result which he has in view, when proposing
the measure which is now offered for our consideration. He knows that it is impossible
to secure
the abolition of the French language in the North- West, and still less in the Province
of Quebec;
and I tell him frankly that he is dashing his head
against stone walls by endeavoring to secure the
adoption of this measure. Before abolishing the
French language, and taking from us the privileges
which we enjoy, he will find, if need be, thousands
upon thousands of breasts presented as a defence
for the liberties which we enjoy. Mr. Speaker,
recriminations are indulged in against the hon. the
First Minister of the Province of Quebec. I do
not know why they are continually attacking a
man who is not in this House to defend himself;
it would appear that there is a mad rage against
him; it would appear that he has excited the prejudices and the hatred of certain
persons in the
House. I am not commissioned to take up the
defence of Mr. Mercier; but when they accuse
him of fanaticism; when they 'state that the
Government of Quebec desires to ostracise the
English minority in that Province, I say that a
statement is made which is not true. Let us
examine the facts as they really are: There are in
the Province of Quebec, ten members speaking the
English language out of sixty-five who form the
total membership of the Legislature. There are
in the Ministry two English Protestant Ministers.
Consequently these two English Ministers represent
one-third of the membership. If Mr. Mercier had
only granted to the Protestant minority the number of Ministers to which they were
entitled with
regard to the population and the body of representatives, he would have given them
but one Protestant Minister. Now, let any one cite one single
act,—I do not refer to a word spoken in a patriotic
speech where one may go beyond the usual bounds
of prudence, —let them cite one case where Mr.
Mercier has not done justice to the Protestant
minority, then I will admit that he has made
himself blameworthy. Again, lately, during the
session now in progress, he has shown his justice
towards the Protestant minority. Mr. Hall presented a Bill to the Legislature asking
for a privilege favoring the Protestant minority, in the
matter of the admission to the study of law of the
bearers of University degrees. The Hon. Mr.
Mercier was the first to impress upon his followers
his own personal ideas, and he in this way made
the Bill of Mr. Hall to pass in triumph. This is
what the Sherbrooke Gazette says on the subject:
"We are quite aware that we are going to give the
Sherbrooke Examiner an opportunity of delivering
himself once more of his stupid jests, but we must render
justice to Mr. Mercier for the statesmanlike act he has
done in taking up the defence of the rights of the English
Universities. in causing their diplomas of B.A. to be
accepted as evidence that the bearer of the degree has
received a sufficiently liberal education to enable him to
commence the study of the law. Prejudice—blind irrational prejudice—is so spread over
Quebec and possesses
the Legislature to such a degree, that the chief of such a
party as the National Party must have a large portion of
moral courage to rise above the narrow and paltry ideas
of the party, and render justice to the minority."
This is what Mr. Mercier has done in the case before us. His support, his pleading
and his eloquence have assured the passing of Mr. Hall's Bill,
and his efforts ought to be acknowledged to his
face.
"Honor to whom honor is due. Mr. Mercier deserves
the gratitude of all true believers in equal rights."
That is what an English newspaper said, quite
recently, on the position taken by the Hon. Mr.
Mercier towards the Protestant minority. This is
not all: during the past few days a question of
privilege was raised before this House by making
allusion to certain disorders which have taken
place in Hull. One hon. member allowed himself
to make a furious tirade, not only against Mr.
Mercier, but against French Canadians in general;
he took advantage of the occasion to hurl upon the
French Canadians an insult which I will not repeat, but which we have felt keenly
and which has
wounded us in our most private feelings. He went
so far as to recall the sad remembrances of the
battle on the Plains of Abraham and the battle of
Waterloo. He went so far as to tell us that the
time would come when great Salvation Armies
would march through the streets of Quebec. Why
provoke in this manner the French Canadians, who
only ask to live like brothers, hand in hand with
their fellow-citizens of whatever race or origin?
This brand of discord is hurled in order to create a
programme, in order to pick up at the next elections a certain number of fanatics.
I have nothing
to say about the Salvation Army nor the battle of
the Plains of Abraham. If the history of our
fellow-citizens of English origin has some dates of
honor and victory, I can say that we French Cana
791
[COMMONS] 792
dians have some glorious pages in the history of
our country. If we have suffered losses, if we have
experienced checks, we can in any case march with
head erect; we can look behind with pride and be
proud of our ancestors. I say, Mr. Speaker, that
it is not generous; I say that it is despicable to
make illusions like that to the ancestors of a nation
which has a glorious past. Occasion has been
found to speak of the Salvation Army. I ask what
has the Salvation Army to do with this case? I
frankly admit that I have no very great admiration for this army, which may have a
cause for its
existence from its own point of view; but is, in my
opinion, only a gathering of parasites, which I find
simply ridiculous. I might say more, but as there
may be found among those people some well-intentioned individuals, I wish to give
them the
benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, there is one
thing very certain, which is, that the Salvation
Army, like many other fanatical religious organisations, has no justification for
its existence, and
I say that the law does not permit scandalous and
noisy processions in the streets. We live in a free
country; I respect all religious denominations, and
we desire that our religion should be respected;
but the liberty of creed in a country does not
authorise license. This is what the first section of
the Act respecting rectories says on the subject:—
"The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination
or preference, so as the same be not made an excuse for acts of
licentiousness, or a justification of practices inconsistent
with the peace and safety of the Province, are by the constitution and laws of this
Province allowed to all Her
Majesty's subjects within the same."
Well, all creeds have free access to this country;
all religions are respected; but this must not give
an opening for license which may disturb the
public peace. Will they say that the noisy demonstrations, of which we were witness
on the streets
of Quebec, are not of a kind to break the public
peace? I say: yes, they are; and, further, I find in
these processions a provocation which should be
avoided by all legal methods. To show the goodwill of the Hon. Mr. Mercier, who is
always
working in the interest of peace and harmony in
our country, I shall cite the answer which he made
to the Hon. Mr. Taillon in reference to the troubles
which have occurred lately in Hull. This is What
he said:
"At the opening of the Session the Hon. Mr. Taillon
drew the attention of the Government to the regrettable
disorders which took place recently in Hull,and asked
whether it was their intention to take steps to put an end
to them.
"The Hon. Mr. Mercier said the question of the leader
of the Opposition was in every way an opportune one,and
in reply the would inform the House that the Government
had etermined to maintain peace and order, and to protect those who deemed to spea
,no matter on what subject,
provided that while so doing they did not violate the laws
of the country."
.I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Mr. Mercier has
in this instance only done his duty, and I trust that
the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
and the other members who have spoken in the same
strain as he has, will be satisfied with the attitude
which he, Mr. Mercier, has taken on this occasion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the French
language, they tell us that in this country it is impossible—if we wish to be a homogeneous
people, a
true nationality,— that it is impossible that there
should exist different languages. The learned researches of several of my co leagues
have shown
that the thing not only is not impossible, but that
it is found to be practical and advantageous in
several countries, notably in the United States,
in the Island of Jersey, in Switzerland, and in
several other countries. I will venture to remark
to the hon. member for Simcoe that, if he expects
by this means to make the English language
spoken by all British subjects his breath will be
a long time out of his body before this end is
reached; because Canada is not the only country
where another language is spoken: there are other
British possessions where English is not spoken at
all—thus, the East or English Indies, where the
people speak different languages and have different
customs. I should like to think that the hon.
member for Simcoe does not entertain the hope
that England can impose her language upon all the
peoples who make up her empire:
"The races which compose the population of India are
as diverse as the climates" says Larousse, "the tribes,
which are distinct as to language, creeds, and by their
social organisation are innumerable."
I do not know whether the hon. member for
Simcoe wishes to carry on his crusade in favor of
the English language into these regions. Let us
see now what goes on in the Island of Jersey. It
has been stated here that the French language
was spoken there. It has been an English
possession for many ages. The population is
56,078, of which 2,000 are Frenchmen. Notwithstanding, what do we see? We see the
French language there is held in high esteem; that
it is spoken by the well-to-do people, and that it is
the official language of the country. This does not
prevent the inhabitants of Jersey from proving in
many instances their deep attachment for their
new nationality, that of Great Britain. One can
recollect that several. years ago, France being at
war with England, the people of Jersey took up
arms against their old mother country, and fought
for the Crown of England. This did not prevent
them from preserving their customs, their privileges
and their language up to the present time. This
shows that one can be a patriot and a good British
subject though speaking a foreign tongue. Let
us look again at the Island of Ste. Lucie. It is a
small island, exclusively, I think, or in great part
peopled by French. Nevertheless for a great number
of years the only language spoken in this island
has been the French one; it is the official language.
Several years back, when the Hon. Judge Armstrong
was Governor of this island, which possessed French
laws, they adopted the greater portion of the Code
of Lower Canada. This does not prevent their being
loyal subjects of Her Majesty, and if need be they
would take up arms to defend the British Crown.
I will not recall the glorious deeds of arms in which
the French Canadians took part. These facts have
already been mentioned in the Course of this debate,
and it is sufficient to recall them to show the loyalty
of the French Canadians under all circumstances
and in all places. Now, in order to prove the
qualities of the French language, which has been
so violently attacked, and which it is desired to
see disappear, I will venture to quote a page written
by Mr. Oscar Dunn, who, I think, is of British
origin. This is what he says:
"The French language is a diamond of inestimable value;
it is a work of gol worked on for centuries, of a beauty
like to none other. All the world admires her; she charms
every body: although she reveals her secrets to but few,
one must love her, love her much, and court her assi
793 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 794
duously and long; she only yields to him who knows how to
conquer by per-severing labor and unshaken constancy;
but what a treasure does she reveal to her favorites.
Her exquisite delicacy ravishes the understanding: she
is all love and all gaiety; full of nobility and enthusiasm; accessible to the sciences
as to fancy; to all elevated ideas as to all worthy sentiments; she understands
your heart and assists your wit. If you once gain possession of her, nothing will
persuade you ever to give her up.
You will keep her as your very best treasure."
Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has allowed himself, in the
course of his remarks, to allude to the antipathy
existing between the French Canadians and the
Irish. He has received in this House the most
solemn denial of this statement that he could
obtain. We have seen the hon. member for
Montreal Centre (Mr. Curran) rising and speaking
in French, in the name of the Irish of the Province
of Quebec, bearing witness, in this way, to the
sympathies which his fellow-countrymen have for
us. This is the most ample vindication which we
could adduce as to this matter. This sympathy,
Mr. Speaker, exists not only between the Irish and
the.French Canadians; it exists and will exist in
spite of the obstacles raised by the hon. member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) between the
French Canadians and the thinking Englishmen.
We have had evidence of this in this House. They
wish to respect our institutions, our laws, our customs and our religion. On the other
hand, we
return the reverence which they pay us, and we
respect likewise their institutions and their religion,
their language and their character. We are capable
of living in peace in this country. We have but
one only object—to form a stronger Dominion, a
great nation. But to reach this end it is not necessary to cast a brand of discord
among us, as has
done the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Mc
Carthy). We wish to live in peace, we desire harmony, we desire to be calm and unexcited.
But I
affirm that the proposition of the hon. member for
North Simcoe is an act of tyranny, which will show,
if it is sanctioned, that they are not so patriotic as
they would wish us to believe. Before closing, Mr.
Speaker, let me be allowed to say that we look
upon the Bill of the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy) with calmness and tranquility.
We are strong in our rights, and we fear nothing,
even if this Bill were a declaration of war. We
are strong in our rights and we are proud, at the
same time, of our ancestors, whose memory we
know how to make respected. I shall say no more.
I am convinced that the Bill which is now before
you for consideration will obtain the fate it
deserves, and I am certain that all true patriots in
this House will join hand to hand in order to give
a lesson to the author of this Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Motion agreed to; and. House adjourned at 11.30
p.m.
This individual participated in:
