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 Revise
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. CHAPLEAU. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
sentiment will be re-echoed by many of us, when I
say that it was not without a deep feeling of
anxiety that I heard the beginning of this debate.
I am still surer to respond to the feelings of all in
expressing the sincere hope that, after all, it will
be for the better that the debate had taken place,
as it will dispel every suspicion and prevent any
misunderstanding; and in that respect I cannot refrain from thanking the hon. gentlemen
opposite,
for their moderation, their sincerity and their
patriotic stand, in discussing this delicate, this
dangerous question. Let us hope that the debate
will continue in the same spirit. The sensation- mongers who expected to see the parliamentary
arena transformed into a regular battlefield will
be disappointed, but the good name of the Canadian representatives, the good credit
of the
country will gain in value all that our detractors
will lose in their expectations. It was thought,
nay, it was predicted, that the inflammable
materials which enter into the composition of all
societies would be set on fire, and that our fine
Dominion would soon be all in a blaze; let us hope—
and it looks so, fortunately—let us hope that those
inflammable elements, suspicion, prejudice and
rivalry, will all be consumed and nothing will be
left but the fine, solid, sterling gold frame of our
young Confederation, more solid and brighter than
ever, inviting the admiration of the world as it invites the covetous eye of our powerful
neighbor.
Were it not for that hope, were it not for the appy
turn that the discussion has taken, I'would say that
it is with a sense of deep regret that I have seen
the Bill placed before the House by the hon. member for North Simcoe. I thought, and
I had hoped
the day had gone by when we would be called upon
to discuss questions conducive to no public good,
irritating in their nature and unjust in their object.
It was to be expected that in the latter end of the
nineteenth century, ideas which savor of what
are considered by many as dark ages, would not
be advocated in a British Canadian Parliament,
advocated by one of the most eminent members of
a profession where forbearance, liberality and
good fellowship are so universally ractised. The
hon. member for Simcoe has argued very strongly
against the propriety of enacting the right to
dual language in the North-West from the fact
that, at the time of the cession of Canada, no such
clause was inserted in the Articles of Capitulation,
in the Treaty of Paris, in the Quebec Act of 1774,
and in the Act of 1791. Discouragingly blind in
the perception of historical facts, in the appreciation of significant events, the
hon. member has not
seen that the law of nations secured that right to
a people who had against them the fate of war,
but who were not conquered, in the strict sense
of the word, since the last regular engagement of that war, the battle at Ste. Foye,
was a brilliant victory for the French;
817 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 818
and if the hon. member had only taken some
of the first official documents under the military regime which followed the Cession,
he
would have found that the British generals, still
smarting under the irritation of a long and obstinate struggle, were more generous
to their foes of
yesterday than is my hon. friend for the inoffensive
descendants of the discoverers and first settlers of
the Hudson's Bay and Rupert's Land. It is a fact
worthy of consideration, a fact which should not
be overlooked, that, acting according to his instructions, or applying simply the
general laws which
govern the relations between the conquerors and
the vanquished, General Murray, the first Governor
of Quebec, used the French language in all his
dealings with the King's new subjects. I hold in
my hand his proclamation, dated 1764, which
enacts in what manner his future proclamations
shall be published, and it is in French. General
Carleton, afterwards Lord Dorchester, issued a proclamation in 1770, before the "Quebec
Act," in
which he states that proclamations shall be made
in English and in French. All the ordinances of
the Quebec Gazette, which is made up chiefly of
official documents, are printed in English and in
French, from the date of its first issue in 1764.
Have I not reason to wonder, Mr. Speaker, that
over one century ago we can find such liberal ideas
prevailing, in comparison with those of self-styled
high-toned and high-minded gentlemen of this
enlightened age? Taking at a glance a general
view of the policy of the British Government in
this country, I am glad to say that I find that it
has always been most intelligent, most liberal,
except for some period when the home
Government was inspired by the misrepresentations of some of their friends in Canada.
I regret also that the hon. member should have
thought fit to bring in this Bill—which, according
to the plan of campaign expounded in the press
and in the public meetings of the Equal Righters,
is the first practical step in the hostile movement
directed against, a people whose loyalty to the
Crown and British institutions is above suspicion.
I say that this is the first step, because we all
know that what is asked for in this Bill is only a
small portion of what is desired. Judging from
the utterances of the hon. member, outside of
Parliament, we must expect blows to be directed
at the Catholic minority of Ontario, of Manitoba,
of the North-West Territories; it is hoped
for that the day will soon come when the
Catholics and the French, if they wish to have
schools of their own, will have to support them
and also the public schools of those portions
of the country. This Bill, therefore, is the initial
step in a direction leading to all sorts of
strife, is the first step in the reversal of a generous
licy which all classes of the population of Canada
have approved of for upwards of fifty years. This
enlightened pohcy has given us prosperity, good
feeling among the different races, good fellowship
among public men. We have been taught to
esteem each other, in working to ether for the
common good of the country, sinking down all
race and creed prejudices, agreeing to disagree on
several subjects, but all agreeing to push the
country forward in the path of material prosperity.
We are asked to-day, to reverse that policy, to go
back to the days of strife, of bitter feeing, out
of which no good can come. It behooves men
that value the peace and prosperity of the country,
to stamp out this dangerous agitation, to discourage it at the outset and let well
alone.
Many right-meaning men do not see the
ultimate result of this first move, because
if they understood it I am sure it would receive
condemnation at their hands. The legislation
which we are asked to place in our statutes, not
only savors of persecution, but is also retrograde.
I take it for granted that the quality of British
citizenship is not incompatible with a foreign
origin, that a British subject may be of French
origin and a Roman Catholic. If you admit of
this double proposition, which I claim to be a fair
and just one, which I have never heard contested,
I do not see how any one can countenance the
Bill now before this House. If you admit my
proposition, if we of the Province of Quebec are
British subjects enjoying all the privileges and
rights which this quality confers, I cannot understand how the member for North Simcoe
can ask
the House to accept his Bill, in the light of what has
been done in the Province of Quebec to satisfy the
claims, the just claims of the Protestant minority.
This extraordinary war, declared on the minority
of the western part of the Country cannot be
looked upon otherwise than as cruel and uncalled- for by every inhabitant of the Province
of Quebec. The different sections of the population
have managed to work in harmony, presenting the
pleasing spectacle of a people divided by nationalities and religion, but united for
all other purposes. Does the promoter of the Bill now before
the House know how the minority there have been
treated? Does he know that when Confederation
took place, it was agreed between the leaders of
Quebec that the limits of twelve counties of
Quebec Province, in which the English element
predominated at that time, would never
be changed without the consent of the
representatives of those counties? Does the
hon. gentleman ignore that the Protestant
minority have practically a Council of public instruction of their own, which has
complete control of educational matters? Does he know that
in the smallest municipalities of the Province of
Quebec this control exists? Surely he must be
aware that every request of the minority in Quebec has always been granted by the
majority? A
few years ago it was suggested that a separate
gaol be set apart for the Protestants, and this suggestion was acted upon and has
now become a fact.
Later on it was likewise suggested that a special
lunatic asylum should be constructed for Protestant patients, and the scheme is now
bein carried
out. The Protestants of Quebec are satisfied; but,
strange to say, they are taken to task by men like
the promoter of the coercive legislation now proposed to this House, and are blamed
for their being
satisfied. People have been speaking of the power
of the Catholic Church. Power from whom? My
English Protestant friends, I suppose, do not pretend that the Roman Catholic Church
extends its
power over them; what, then, their grievances are,
I am at a loss to know. But I would read here
the opinion of a man who has been living all his
lifetime in the Province of Quebec, of a man whose
liters merit is onl equalled by the keen perception of an unprejudiced and thoroughly
informed
observer as set forth in an article published in one
at the periodicals of Toronto, which must have
819
[COMMONS] 820
attracted considerable public attention. It is an
article written by Mr. S. E. Dawson, of Montreal,
and I will quote a few sentences from it just to
show what is the true feeling of the Protestant
minority in the Province of Quebec in regard to
those pretended grievances:
"The English Protestant minority in the Province of
Quebec ought to be very unhappy, if for no other reason,
because so many estimable people in the sister Provinces
and in the United States seem to be distressed on their
account. It is not pleasant to be the object of so much
solicitude, Besides, it is too late. The doctrine of
'States' rights' has been so persistently maintained by
the other Provinces, especially by New Brunswick and
Ontario, that it is imposslble to deny to the French in
Quebec those powers which the English majorities in the
other Provinces have successfully asserted. What
assistance, then the other Provinces can afford to the
minority of Quebec does not clearly appear, even if that
minority shared generally in the gloomy apprehensions
felt elsewhere on their account.
"The English minority ought also to be unhappy because of the civil and religious
disadvantages which it
would appear from outside sources that they are obliged
to endure. And, then, if perchance any one of the minority faintly suggests that he
cannot perceive anything unusually hard in his lot—anything beyond what falls to
minorities elsewhere—me is chidden by 'superior persons'
for not realising his abject condition. So that he becomes
discouraged because he is not unhappy enough to please
his neighbors.
"For, after all, in real deed, the most of us who have
long resided in this Province do not find it in the least
disagreeable. Unless the Anglo-Saxon mind is at an
early age familiarised with other races and religions, it is
apt to form fixed ideas. And so it often happens that the
rench Roman Catholic, as imagined by our outside
friends, is different from the person we come in daily
contact with. An Englishman may dwell a life-time in
peace in the heart of French Canada. Nobody will leave
tracts at his door or give them to his children. He may
be on excellent terms, and even exchange hospitalities,
with the curé; but if that reverend gentleman should feel
any doubts about his host's future state, he will never be
disagreeable enough to express them."
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is, unfortunately, the
position of affairs in the Province of Quebec since
the beginning of this agitation. Nobody knows
where the evil is. The evil does not exist; but
our Protestant friends in the Province of Quebec,
who have not complained, are taken to task and
are lectured because they do not understand that
they are unhappy, even if they do not see it or
feel it. Mr. Speaker, what is the principle, or
rather the negation of principle, at the bottom of
the Bill presented by my hon. friend from Simcoe?
It is coercion in a matter where coercion cannot
exist. Coercion has been tried in several countries in matters of language and religion,
and
everywhere it has been tried the result has been
contrary not only to expectations, but in a large
measure contrary to the wish of those who have
employed such means. Now, it is a very sad
thing to see how the lessons of history are lost for
our Equal Rights people, and how much, by
neglecting this part of their education, they are
drifting into a channel of narrow ideas. During
the early part of the British regime in Canada,
compulsion and coercion was trio with a view of
welding together the different elements of population, so as to form a homogeneous
nation, and it
was always found that this coercion had a result
quite contrary to what was expected. The most
enlightened of our governors have declared time
and again that the only way to strengthen British
rule in Canada was to conciliate the King's new
subjects. Such was the opinion of General Murray, of Lord Derchester, of Sir J. Provost,
and of
many others, including and foremost amongst them,
Lord Elgin. The Equal Righters, who are also,
most of them, Imperial Federationists, think differently; but I may tell them that
if their aim is to
perpetuate British institutions in America by sowing the seed of dissatisfaction,
they are wide of the
mark. There is one consideration which naturally
springs from what I have just said. It is this:
That they appear to have lost sight of the
broad policy inaugurated by the English Government years ago, but they should not
overlook the
fact that if they can boast to-day of the title of
British citizens, which they profess to value so
much, they owe it to the ancestors of the very
people they seem to hate and despise. What would
have become of the British rule in the wars of
Independence and of 1812, if French Canada,—instead, I do not say of fighting, but
of being loyal,
had simply remained neutral. None but stone- blind men would say that this Canada
of ours
would still be a British country. It is a matter of
history that the Governors of Canada in olden
times would arrive here imbued with prejudices
against the "Canadians," and that, after studying
the country, these prejudices would make way for
sounder notions leading to a change of policy. Immediately after the conquest, General
Murray
wrote to the Home Government in praise of the
King's new subjects. Lieutenant-General Carleton,
who, during the war of Independence, was saved
from falling into the hands of American soldiers in
his fight from Montreal to Quebec by a Canadian
Officer—General Carleton was a fast friend of the
people he was expected by some newly—landed
emigrant to crush out of existence. I could lengthen
this list until your patience would be exhausted;
but I must turn to things of the day, and say,
that I am amazed to see men, very few I hope,
brought up in contact with us, having for years
professed the greatest friendship, accepted the
hand extended to them, suddenly turn around on
the Government to persecute and hound down the
men they were so friendly to some months ago. I
am amazed to find men of the day, aspiring to be
the leaders of the people, reversing the policy inaugurated by men whose position
placed them above
the passions of the moment. When I see that the
first Governors under the British rule, before the
Quebec Act of 1874, and even during the military
rule, condescended to publish the laws and the
ordinances in French, I have a right to express my surprise that this meagre measure
of
justice appears in the eyes of certain gentlemen to
be too large for the French population of the western
Territories. French was used, more than a century
ago, to bring the ordinances before the people,
and that, after a terrible war, when vanquished
and conquerors were face to face; and now, after a
union of over one century, this simple act of justice,
of international courtesy, which costs the country
the enormous sum of five hundred dollars a year,
is considered out of place and too generous. If you
expect to make a great country with such ideas you
are sadly mistaken. Sir Henry Summer Maine and
Sir Alfred Lyell have claimed as one of the brightest
titles of Great Britain to the admiration of the civilised world that, following the
example of Rome,
which left the conquered people their customs and
institutions, England, in its acquisitions of territory,
anted to the Crown's new subjects their former
we and customs. If we look at the British Empire we find it carrying into eflect this
generous
821 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 822
principle of international law. The Equal Righters
seem to think that the use of the French language
is a monstrous privilege, something unheard of in
other countries. They would not have to travel
out of the British Empire to find out that we are
not a privileged class, and that in many British
colonies several other languages are spoken besides
the idiom of Shakespeare. In the Windward
Islands they will find the French laws and the
French language accepted and used. In Mauritius
French is spoken in the Legislative Council, and
last year a proposition was made to introduce it in
the law courts, and no one opposed it. I may here
quote a remark which was made in that Assembly,
and which will receive its application in the North- West, if the Equal Righters have
their own way.
One of the speakers in the Mauritius Assembly
said that a man coming out of court had remarked: "I have been accused and condemned,
and I do not know what for." Coming back
to the British colonies I find also that French
was introduced in the Seychelles Islands.
Let us come nearer England. The Education
Commission of 1886-7-8, in their final report, say, in
regard to the demands from Wales, that the Welsh
language should be used in the schools of Wales:
"It is felt that they should be allowed to take up Welsh
as a specific subject recognised in the code; to adopt an
optional scheme for English as a class subject suitable to
the special needs of Welsh districts, such scheme being
founded on the principle of substituting a graduate
system of translation from Welsh to English for the
resent requirements in English grammar; to teach
Welsh along with English as a class subject; and to
include Welsh among the languages in whic candidates
for Queen's scholarships and or certificates of merit may
be examined."
With reference to Scotland, the same Commissioners say:
"In districts where Gaelic is spoken the intelligence of
the children examined under any paragraph of this
article may be tested by requiring them to explain in
Gaelic the meaning of any passages read or recited."
In India, according to the Progress Report, India,
1882-3, the native laws and language are recognised as follows:—
"1. Law—The natives of India, Hindu, Mohammedan
or other, are amenable, so far as regards succession,
inheritance, marriage, caste, or religious usages, each
class to their own law, except when modified by express
enactment. (Progress Rep. (India) 1882-3, p. 40.)
"2. Language in the Courts—In the Punjab, Urdu and
Hindustani are the official languages of the courts. (Progress Rep., 1882-3, p. 322
)
In the native minor courts the native languages are
spoken.
"3. Schools—In the Government schools of the Punjab,
Urdu and Hindustani are the languages in which the instruction is given.
"4. Literature—In 1886 the register of publications for
British India showed 8,877 books and magazines published
within the year; of these more than nine-tenths were in
vernacular languages."
In Heligoland education is compulsory. The children, mostly of Frisian origin and
speaking their
own language, are taught English and German in
addition to the English. In Malta Italian is the
official language of courts and documents. In the
Cape of Good Hope, in the Session of 1888, it was
resolved that the notices of motion and orders of
the day and all bills submitted to the Council be
printed in the Dutch as well as the English language, and this resolution was carried
by twelve to
seven, and the Finance Gommittee asked to have a
sum of money placed in the Estimates for this
Purpose, which was done. And in 1884 an Act
was passed under which judges may, and other
judicial officers shall, allow the use of either the
Dutch or the English language in courts of justice,
and divisional councils of a certain number of
voters could ask to have summonses and notices
issued in Dutch. I shall have occasion to
put before the House, in a moment, the opinion
of a gentleman who visited Canada not long
ago, one of the most prominent men of
England, and a well-known writer, who drew
a comparison then between the Cape of Good
Hope and Canada, which he concluded by saying
that the people of these two colonies are the last
and best specimens of British conservatism which
still exists, and that these colonies were kept true
to England by the generous and liberal treatment which they received at the hands
of the
Imperial Government. I refer to Sir Charles
Dilke. The debate on this subject has considerably
widened. My hon. friend who proposed this
measure, and those who support it, felt themselves compelled to seek other reasons
beyond the
practical question to which they would like to reduce it; and in their search for
reasons they went
to foreign countries. But in their search they
were equally unfortunate. For what do we find?
Take Austro—Hungary, we find that Louis Leger,
in his history of Austro-Hungary, says:
"The Universities of Vienna. Gratz Innsbruck and Gernovic teach in German. The Chekh
Universities teach in
Chockh The Cracow University teaches in Polish. The
Universities of Livow in Polish and Ruthenian. The
Universities of Buda—Pesth and Rolosovar teach in
Magyar. The University of Zagreb teaches in Croatian.
"The University of Prague, which was first Latin and
then German, has recently been divided into two universities, one teaching in German.the
other in Chekh,the
Hungarian tongue."
Article 19 of the Fundamental Law promulgated in
1867 under the authority of Count Beust, is as
follows:—
"All the races of the Empire are on a footing of equality and each one of the nations
severally has aright
that the inviolability of its nationality and its language
shall be secured. The equality of all languages used in
the Empire for the purposes of administration or schools,
and for public life, is recognised by the State."
Vambery, in his History of Austria, says:
"In 1859 a most important concession was made by the- Imperial Government to the spirit
of nationality. By a
ministerial order, the language used in the higher schools
was, for the future, to be regulated according to the circumstances of nationality,
the predominance of German
being thereby abolished. In the same year was issued
what was known as the Protestant Patent, which granted
to the communes the free administratibn of their own
educational and religious matters."
These examples show that the countries which
have been wisely guided by the necessities of the
different nationalities comprising them are those
whose vitality is the most pronounced. If, in
order to make a nation great, its people should
speak but the one language, could it not be argued
that there should be in the whole world but one
language in order to make it perfect. If there is
to assimilation, let there be assimilation all
over the world; let there be but one language
all over the world. If that is necessary for one
nation, it is equally necessary for the whole world.
That is the view held by Socialists. They say
there should be no differences, no classes, that
every citizen in the world should be treated as his
neighbor is, and that Christian fraternity should
be put in practice, in politics and in the administration of the material and moral
affairs of the
823
[COMMONS] 824
people. They hold that all men should be equal
in rank, in privileges, in right, and in every possible way. This is communism, radicalism
and
demagogism. (I must say that in its logical consequences the Bill we discuss has that
tendency.)
The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
has argued against the propriety of allowing the
French language to be used in the North-West,
on the ground that at the time of the cession
of Canada no such law was inserted in the articles
of capitulation, that it was not inserted in the
Treaty of 1763, and that it was not in the Quebec Act of 1774, or in the Act giving
constitutional
government to Canada in 1791. I say that is no
argument. If it was not then enacted, the reason is
this: there was a tacit understanding that the right
of the people to their language should be respected.
But my hon. friend has gone further, and has said:
Oh, in a new country, where people are beginning
to colonise and settle, it is wrong in principle and it
is a wrong policy to permit differences of language.
But there is no difference between the two cases.
In the one case, you find the people in a conquered
country attached to their own language, and you all
allow them to speak it; in the other case, you are
asking people to come from all parts of the world
to settle in your country; is it not a wise policy
to assure them that when they arrive here, they
will find the laws of the country promulgated
at least in a language they can understand.
This has been the wise policy followed in England.
It is true, however, the Equal Righters in this
country have had ancestors in England. The
Solicitor General in England, in the debate on the
Act of 1774, speaks of a Canadian Grand Jury
who some years before had returned an indictment
against all the Roman Catholics of the country. But
Sir, I repeat, it here: the British statesmen have
framed a generous and liberal policy for the early
government of this country, a policy which has
saved this colony for England instead of sending
it over to the "Stars and Stripes," or of creating a
sort of Ireland here in America. In presence of
the noble conduct of these statesmen I say that
the policy to foster religious strife or race animosities, whether coming from a Quebec
"Nationalist" or a Toronto "Equal Righter" is the
greatest enemy of British rule in Canada. More
than one hundred years ago, when the English
Parliament was meting out its first measure of
justice to the French Canadians, in 1774, an
English statesman, defending the Quebec Act,
said that no address or eloquence:
"Will succeed in inducing a polished assembly of men
to adopt the barbarous principle that the moment a conquest is obtained, it consists
with humanity, it consists
with wisdom, it consists with common honesty to take
away all the laws of the conquered country, and more
especially that portion of the laws which regulated the
proceedings of the inhabitants in civil matters. Speaking
of the rights of conquest. Grotius has these words: Cum
omne imperium victis) eripitur relinqui illis possunt circa
res privatae et publicae, suae leges, cuique mores et magistratus. Since all authority is snatched from the conquered, leave to them their own laws,
their own customs
and magistrates which are of advantage regarding private
and public matters."
These are the moderated ideas of conquest. Such
has been the practice of nations tween one
another. Is it not extraordinary that, after one
hundred years, that celebrated debate can be quoted
in a Canadian Assembly in a most appropriate manner. Prejudices from past ages still
linger
free land of America, but I hope that the vast
majority of the citizens of Canada will stamp them
out, will prefer peace and prosperity to religious
and race strife, will leave to time the settlement
of passing difficulties. I confess that the fate of
the French language is in your hands; you can
crush it out of official life, but I am sure that if
the people of Canada rise, through their representatives, in their power and strength,
it will be to
assert, after the British Parliament, that right
stands in their estimation far above might. How
differently inspired was Lord Dufferin when he had
occasion to mention the French Canadian race and
its language. Speaking, at the time of his administration in Canada, at the Canadian
Club in
London, in 1875, that distinguished Governor
General said:
"I may be permitted to remark on the extraordinary
ability and intelligence with which the French portion
of Her Majesty's subjects in Canada join with their
British fellow-countrymen in working and developing
the constitutional privileges with which (thanks to the
initiative they were the first to take) their country has
been endowed. Our French fellow-countrymen are, in
fact, more parliamentary than the English themselves,
and in the various fortunes of the colony, there have
never been wanting French statesmen of eminence to
claim an equal share with their British colleagues
in shaping the history of the Dominion. Whatever may be the case elsewhere, in Canada,
at all
events, the French race has learned the golden rule and
the necessity of arriving at practical results by the occasional sacrifice of logical
symmetry and to the settlement
of disputes, in the spirit of a genemus compromise. The
spectacle of two peoples, formed from nationalities so
diverse, putting forth all their strength, in generous
rivalry of each other, to prove their loyalty to their
Queen and to the Government, and laboring with concerted action and in perfect harmony
for the weal of their
common country, wil1 remain one of the most remarkable
and pleasing facts in the history of the world, while also
it will testify to the political wisdom and the magnanimous sentiments which pervade
all the members of the
great Canadian family."
And in Montreal in 1872, at the inauguration of
the Queen's statue, on Victoria Square, Lord Dufferin, speaking of the minority in
this Dominion,
said:
"Brave and noble race, which was the first to afford
Europe the means of bringing civilisation to the Continent of America, race valorous
and hardy, whose
pioneers, in the interior of this continent, gave scope to
the industry of Europe to take root not only on the banks
of the St. Lawrence, but also in the fertile valleys of the
Ohio and of the Mississippi."
I could continue these quotations, but I will not
take up the time of the House further by reading
them. Sir, I ask myself, what credit, what glory
does the hon. gentleman think he will get in
erasing from the pages of the Statute three inoffensive lines which, when erased,
will not add an
iota to the power, the success, the supremacy of
his race in the North-West, whilst, as he well
knows, it will he considered as an unprovoked
insult, as an attempt at oppression by those against
whom his action is directed. No, Sir, the great
legislators of the world—and my hon. and
learned friend is well gifted enough to justify his
ambition to be one of them—the great legislators
of the world have not gained their fame by such
narrow legislation. They have added to the code
of humanity enactments in the sense of protection
for the weak, of peaceful progress, enlarged
civilisation—in a word, they have added to the
true "unity and comity" of nations.
"A wise prince," says Burke, " should study the genius
of the nation he is called to rule; he must not contradict
them in their custom nor take away their privileges, but
825 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 826
he must actaccording to the circumstances in which he
finds the existing Government. It is less by terror than
by love and confidence, says Montesquieu, that men are
governed, and if absolute perfection in matter of Government is a myth, it is a fact
that the best is the Government which adapts itself most closely to the climate, to
the character, the usages, the habits, the prejudices even
of the country."
The indisputable evidence of past history has
long demonstrated the truth of those old but wise
aphorisms. An hon. member—I think the hon.
member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charltony—has
quoted the example of Rome, but, if we go back
to ancient history, what do we see? We see two
great powers—according to the books of the colleges, which I suppose every one of
you has read
and translated—two great nations warfaring one
against the other for the supremacy of the world—
Carthage and Rome. If we look at the policy
of those two great cities which founded
two great nations, we find that the ruin
of Carthage was brought about in great
measure by the hostility which it developed
to the nations it had subdued by its armies.
In Sicily, where important Greek settlements had
fallen into its power, a regular persecution was
organised against the language, the customs,
the opinions of the conquered. It succeeded
in making of them irreconcilable enemies
who rose against it at the hour of danger. Rome,
on the contrary, courted the sympathies of the
Greeks whom she had conquered. She encouraged
the study of their language; she preserved their
laws, respected their customs, their religion, their
schools. The result of the two policies is written
in history. Carthage was destroyed, when everything seemed to promise her success
and domination. Rome gave to her citizens the freedom of
the world and to her name an everlasting glory.
What Carthage did, the Normans attempted in
England after the conquest. There again the persecution saw the victims victorious
in the long
struggle, and England was founded, to continue the
traditions, the success and the glory of the Roman
Empire. If the proud and magic "Civis Sum
Romanus" has had a rival in the talismanic "I
am a British subject," it is due, in a great measure, to the liberal and generous
policy of England, more than to the fear of her military power.
The founder of the German Empire, Frederick
the Great, understood the advantages which the
conservative principles of the Catholic religion
could give him in the Catholic provinces which
he had subdued. He protected his new subjects
in spite of the narrow-minded advisers who predicted that the court of Vienna would
be served,
in its intrigues, by the protection given to the
Catholics of Silesia. The great emperor took no
heed of those short-sighted counsels. In one of
his letters I read these memorable words:
"Emperor Joseph continues his work of secularisation without interruption. Here everybody
remains as he was. I respect the rights of possession, upon which society is founded."
And his
Catholic provinces of Silesia remained faithful to
him. Examples of the same kind are to be found
in the history of all the great nations of Europe,
where union began under the warm and beneficial
influence of generosity and forbearance, leaving
to the action of time the work of blending
together nationalities and languages in the direction of perfect homogeneity. The
great masters
in political science, the founders of vast and permanent empires, were above the prejudices
of
class, creed or race. Their wisdom enacted the
great Jus Gentium, which is so, as Montesquieu
observes, that "victory leaves to the conquered
nations, besides life, those great things, liberty,
laws, property, and religion always, when one is not
blind, voluntarily." I might quote again, if I did
not fear to weary the patience of the House, the same
authority that I quoted a moment ago, to confirm
my assertion, that Great Britain acted wisely in
granting those liberties and privileges to Canada,
and that Canadians merited such a liberal treatment at the hands of the mother country.
Lord
Dufferin, in his reception at Windsor, Ontario, on
the 19th August, 1874, spoke as follows:—
"But it is not merely on this ground that we are under
obligation to the French Canadian race. It must not be
forgotten that it is to its loftiness of spirit to its love of
liberty, and to its just appreciation of the civil rights
contained in germ in the constitution originally granted
by England to Canada, that we owe the development of
this parliamentary autonomy of which the nation is so
justly proud; and I can assure you that, in the eyes of
an Englishman, there are few things more delightful to
observe than the dignity the moderation, and the political capability, with which
the French statesmen of
Canada aid their English colleagues in applying and in
putting into active operation these grand principles of law
and of constitutional practice, which are the foundation
of the free government of this country."
After such high tributes given to our nationality
I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, and I was shocked
when I heard the hon. member for North Norfolk
(Mr. Charlton) using the following language:—
"As to the loyalty of the Canadian bishops in refusing
the offer of the Americans to join in the insurrection
against England, I have my doubts about it; I am disposed to believe that they then
obeyed the dictations
of their own interests, to the interests of their church,
more than to the true impulse of patriotism and loyalty."
The member for Norfolk will allow me to tell him
he must have read in very strange books the history of our country, or he must have
drank at
empoisoned sources his inspirations, with regard to the great factors of our nationality,
to have been guilty of such a cruel anachronism.
Why, Mr. Speaker, leaving the largest possible margin for the shortcomings, nay, the
faults of a part of our clergy—and I am ready
to admit that such amargin can be made use of—I
affirm, without fear of contradiction, that no more
admirable and uninterrupted succession and tradition of loyalty and devotion to the
British Crown
can be traced than to the history of the Roman
Catholic Episcopacy of Lower Canada. I say,
hoping that my words are not unparliamentary,
that no more undeserved, no more unwarranted
slander was ever written than the page of our
Hansard where those unfortunate utterances of the
hon. member for Norfolk are recorded. Disloyal
and selfish, the bishops of Quebec! Who refused
and repudiated the tempting offers, not of the
Americans alone, but of the French generals whom
the Catholic King of France had sent to assist the
thirteen colonies in their rebellion against England?
Was he disloyal, Mr. Speaker, the eminent Metropolitan of Quebec, who ordered a Thanksgiving
day
to be observed, a solemn Te Deum to be sung in honor
of the victory of Trafalgar, won by Nelson over
the French forces, and who, in his pastoral letter,
speaking of the reverse of the French arms, said
this:
"What calamities would have ha. pened to us if they
(the Frenchmen) had seized His jesty's possessions
827
[COMMONS] 828
abroad, ruined his commerce, shut the gates to his wealth,
and so diminished the means to check their rapacity and
their spirit of domination."
Was he disloyal when he ordered his priests to
teach their parishioners gratitude and fidelity to the
Crown. Was he disloyal and selfish the noble priest
who preached the sermon on the Thanksgiving Day
appointed by the bishop, and who chose for his
text the significant words "Dextera tua Domine
percussit inimicum." "It is thy hand, O Lord,
that struck the enemy." Adding these words:
"Does it not seem to you a cruel thing to call 'an enemy' a country to which this
colony owes its origin, a
nation which was so long united to us by the strong ties
of race, of friendship, of language, of religion; a country
that has given us fathers, protectors, pastors, models of
all virtues, beloved sovereigns, whose wise and moderate
government made us happy, whilst they deserved our
affections and gratitude."
Who, after mentioning the generosity of the King,
of England adds:
"What return must you give for so many favors? A
deep feeling of thankfulness towards Great Britain, a
sincere desire to remain under that protection, a full
conviction that our interests are dependent of the
mother country, and that our happiness is interwoven
with that of the Empire."
Are these the words of disloyal men? And can a
man in his senses find an excuse for saying that
those loyal appeals were not sincere? That noble
priest, Mr. Speaker, became, very soon after, a
prelate of our church, Bishop Plessis, one of the
most eloquent, one of the most illustrious, one of
the most loyal bishops of the Province of Quebec,
who fought for the rights and liberties of his countrymen, and who was afterwards
favored with the
friendship of the first statesman in England, and
who received from the British Crown an acknowledgment of the services that he had
rendered,
both to his fellow-countrymen and to the British
Empire. Wrongly informed by the books he read,
the hon. member for North Simcoe said that the insurrection in 1837 was a war of races
and not the
result of misgovernment. I am at a loss to know
in what book the hon. gentleman has read the
history of Canada. First, he forgets that the insurrection was not limited to Lower
Canada, that
Upper Canada had its share of it; then, that several
prominent Englishmen of the Province of Quebec
took part in the Rebellion. Does he not know also
that the principles upon which the constitutional
battle was fought from 1791 to 1837 were those for
which the English had been fighting for more than
a century—in fact, for the articles of the Magna
Charta—for the pure, prompt and impartial administration of justice, for the control
by the people
of the expenditure of public money, for the redress
of abuses and shocking favoritism from the personal
and tyrannical chief of the Executive. The hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and his
friends—for, after all, we must take them together,
because they have a plan of campaign, they have
entered upon an agitation which has been carried
throughout the country—these gentlemen submit
three reasons in support of the Bill now before the
House. These are: First, that the North-West has
been rapidly filled by Anglo-Saxon immigration, and
that the number of people speaking the French
language is so small in the Territories that the
expenditure involved in the use of a second language in official proceedings is a
waste of money.
econd, a dual language is a source of contention
and division, and should never be allowed in the
framing of the constitution of a new country.
Third, the use of the French language was not
allowed to the first inhabitants of the country after
it fell into British hands; that it has always been
a source of division and discord in this country,
that it is inconsistent with true British loyalty;
and that the sooner it disappears the better. I
have endeavored to give answers to the two
last reasons. But let us face squarely the argument with regard to the Territories
themselves.
What is the reason given for objecting to the dual
language in the North-West Territories? The
hon. gentleman has said that the Act amending the
first North-West Territories Act was passed at a
time when there were no people in the Territories
to assent or consent to it. But the hon. gentleman
should remember that there was a population there
at that time; and they were people who, with
their ancestors, had occupied the country for
nearly a century. The North Saskatchewan, Lac
a la Fourche, Prince Albert, Edmonton and
Battleford were settled. The Territories had a
population in 1877, although it was not a teeming
population. And why was it that the French
language was allowed to those people? It was because at that time the great majority
of the people
of those Territories was French. Time has passed,
and the country has been conquered peacefully by
another race. Do hon. gentlemen imagine that
we French Canadians of another Province find fault
with that result? No; I speak here the sentiments
of my fellow-countrymen when I say that the
greater the Anglo-Saxon immigration is into those
Territories the better for the Territories and for
the country at large. They have put their
money and their energies into that country.
They have shown themselves good settlers, and
they are now a large majority in these Territories.
I am not sorry of it. I speak of it without any feeling or without any prejudice.
As I have stated on
many occasions, I have invited English to be
spoken in my home, and the peace of that home
has not been disturbed by the difference of language in our prayers to the Almighty.
I do not
envy my neighbor because he succeeds in the path
of life, with another language, another creed than
mine. The sun shines for all, and I leave him his
right as I want him to leave me mine. We find
from the census returns, which no one will controvert, that the French and French
half-breed
population in the Territories is in the proportion
of 13 per cent. —that is to say, that one-seventh, or a
little more, of the population, is French, as to the
language, in the North-West Territories. Now, in
the Province of Quebec about one-sixth of the population is English, but nobody has
ever dreamed
of denying them the use of their language.
My hon. friend may say you could not take
from them the use of their language, because
the constitution of the Province of Quebec would
prevent you; nor could you do it, in view of the
importance of the Anglo-Saxon race, their industry,
their energy and the capital they have in the
Province of Quebec. I will admit all that, but I
say, and I speak for my countrymen when I say
so, that, leaving those reasons aside, and considering only the paramount right of
minorities, if a
measure were proposed in the Province of Quebec
to abolish the use of the English language, I would
be the first to denounce it and am sure the
immense majority of my fellow-countrymen would
829 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 830
do the same. My conservative instincts would prevent me from endorsing a proposition,
which would
be, in my estimation, unfair, unjust, demagogic
in its tendencies as is the measure advocated by
my hon. friend.
Mr. CHARLTON. I rise to a question of
order. An expression was used by the hon. Minister, for which my hon. friend on my
right (Sir
Richard Cartwright) was ruled out of order on a
former occasion. I do not know if it is proper that
it should be allowed to be used on one side of the
House and not on the other.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. I am ready to withdraw it
for the hon. gentleman, although I must say I was
not thinking of him at the time.
Mr. MCCARTHY. He was addressing it with
regard to me, and I prefer that the word should
not be withdrawn.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. I was referring to the member for North Simcoe when the member for North
Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) called me to order, and I
was calling this measure of the member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) a revolutionary measure,
a demagogic measure and I do not think the expression unparliamentary. I say, that
if such a measure were proposed in the Province of Quebec,
even though the English race occupied only the
same position with regard to the French as the
French do with regard to the English in the North- West Territories, I would say "no"
to such a proposition. I would declare that no offensive predominance should be given
to the majority in a country
where both races should be united. I ask myself
what is the object to be gained by the measure
proposed by my hon. friend? Is it to make the
members of the Legislature of the North-West
speak English? That cannot be the object, because they all speak English now, and
I understand
there is not a single elected man who is French.
Is it his object to prevent the votes and deliberations of the North-West Assembly
being printed
in French? That cannot be, for I believe they
are, in fact, only printed in the English language
now, for the obvious reason that the members are
all English.
Mr. DAVIN. They never have been printed
in French.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. My hon. friend tells me, as
a matter of fact, they never have been printed in
French, and there is, therefore, no reason to make
a law that they shall not be printed in that language. In the Privy Council at Ottawa
our proceedings are all in English, and there is no necessity for having them printed
in French, not by
law, but for the mere convenience of the case,
and nobody complains. So it would be in the
North-West Assembly. But, as regards the promulgation of the laws, I appeal to the
hon.
member for Simcoe if it is not necessary that a
large portion of that population, who understands
only the French language, are entitled to know
what laws they should obey and to have them
printed in their own language? The French Canadians can lay claim to the title of
being the first
settlers of that country, and there is some value in
that title. That title has been acknowledged to the
Indians, even by the American Government, at a
time when their policy towards the Indians was—
I will not say barbarous—but most severe, and
in the North-West the first settlers were French, and
the Hudson Bay Company respected their language and their customs. Why should we not
treat them as well as they were treated when
there was no regular government in those Territories? I say that if the measure of
my hon.
friend became law, a large portion of the population would be without knowledge of
the laws
they are supposed to obey. And as the Legislature
has in its hands the whole of the municipal government of the country, the injustice
would be more
cruel. If he had only said: it is useless that
the Legislature of the North-West should have
French in their proceedings, the answer would
be the sentimental one that they have, as an
important minority composed of the first settlers
of the land, a right to speak French in that
Legislature. But against that I would have
said: Wait for the sub-division of the country,
when there will likely be three or four French- speaking members elected to that body;
then
we would not have to pass Draconian laws
here to prevent them having French, because they
would have it. The English-speaking people of
the North-West would be as courteous to them as
the French-speaking majority in the Province of
Quebec have been to the English-speaking minority
in that Province; and we know very well that if
there were French members in the North-West
Council it would be allowed to them to speak
French. There will soon be a very large German
immigration into that country—and I hope there
will be, the Germans make very good settlers—and
suppose three or four members elected for the Legislature were German; if they wanted
to speak German, they would have a right to do so. Sir, if you do
not respect the covenants which have been entered
into between the two important races in the Dominion, to the extent of permitting
the laws of the
land to be published in the language of the minority,
you are committing a cruel injustice, and retarding
the progress of the country. Why, Sir, we spend
thousands of dollars every year to publish pamphlets for distribution in France, Switzerland,
Alsace-Lorraine and elsewhere—for what purpose?
To bring French immigration to Canada, to say
to those people that when they arrive here they
will find the ordinances of the country and many
of those ordinances refer mainly to local interests
and objects—and its laws printed in their own
language. To deprive them of this privilege
would be a gross injustice. But my hon. friend
knew this very well; he knew that if he could prevent the promulgation and publication
of the laws
and ordinances of the North-West in French, he
would prevent French immigration into that
country. He knew it, and he did it with that
object in view; he had the courage to acknowledge
it. I am sorry to say that the Equal Righters who
are acting with the hon. member for North Simcoe
are to blame if a war of races is the result of their
agitation; but I hope I am not mistaken in believing that many hon. gentlemen, whose
names have
been connected with those of the hon. member for
North Simcoe and the hon. member for North
Norfolk, do not carry their feelings to that extent.
I know that amongst them there are men who do not
wish anything of that kind to happen. It is very
831
[COMMONS] 832
easy to set fire to this very inflammable piece of
timber, a race agitation, and take that agitation
as a means to achieve success; but I must say that
if there is a glow for the ambition of a public man,
it should not be a glow coming from the fires of
prejudice and passion which he himself has kindled.
The hon. gentleman has taken charge of a measure
which the people of the North-West would have
confided to any of the members representing them
here if a real grievance had existed. Who has
moved him to introduce this Bill? Has he done
it of his own motion or had he a mandate for doing
it? He went up to the North-West on a mission,
and he has accomplished it; but I hope and believe
that he will accomplish nothing by his measure.
This question should have been settled quietly
among the people of the North-West as a local question, to be determined between them
and the Federal
Government, from whom the legislative power of
the territories emanates. But the promoters of this
measure do not think of making it a local question.
Leave the question to the people to settle, and you
may be sure that probably in two years hence there
will be nothing left of the little fire which has been
raised by the hon. member for North Simcoe. Has
not the North-West disinterested members enough
in this House to take charge of such a measure? Is
it not an insult to them that a member from an
eastern Province should take upon himself to put it
forward and advocate it? It shall not pass here,
because on every side of the House people are
alarmed, if not disgusted, by the way in which
it has been taken up and agitated. We might very
well agree among ourselves to leave to the North- West Legislature the settlement
of this question.
We would say to them: You have not been
elected in the North-West to settle that question;
it relates to one of the organic articles of the constitution of those Territories,
which only the
Parliament of Canada has a right to change;
but we will be a paternal Parliament to you, and
we will say to you, consult the people, and let the
people of the. North-West say whether there is
any use of your speaking French when you sit
around the table of the Legislature. The elections
would come, and after those elections they may come
back and say: If we are to have a useful representation in that assembly, if we are
to have a
population in those Territories, who will live harmoniously with their neighbors. we must not
repeat the
mistake of hurting the feelings of those with whom
we are in partnership for the building up of this
country. I say that to try to prevent those people
publishing their laws in the language of the population, either in the French language
or the English,
would be an atrocity, a cruel measure, and a measure
which would not induce immigrants or settlers to
go into that country. There is one thing which I
eel bound to say to correct a wrong impression,
unjust to the hon. gentleman. My hon. friend
from North Simcoe has been taken to task as being
a Tory. I do not attach much importance to that
little digression of my hon. friend, the leader of the
Opposition. That is an eye—catching color which
he puts in his political paintings when before an
election audience; the " Tory " is always brought
into the back ground so as to bring out in greater
contrast the great displa of the liberal principles
which it is the hon. gentleman's wont to picture to
his hearers. But in the subject under discussion
there should be no question of party politics. The
right hon. the leader of the Government answered
my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Laurier), by
showing that the Tories have been at times the best
protectors of our French Canadian nationality in
this country. But in calling this Bill a Tory measure, my hon. friend wanted to make
out that it
was an arbitrary, a retrograde measure.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. No, it was that "or-a-tory"
of my hon. friend that brought it out. My hon.
friend wished to give a political meaning to this
discussion. It has none, and I think it is but
just to those who, on other occasions, have voted
with the hon. member for North Simcoe, to say
that the hon. gentleman himself had the courage
—and it is not courage he wants — to say that
on this occasion he had separated himself entirely
from the Conservative party. My hon. friend, the
leader of the Opposition, calls all the Conservatives
Tories; and I know that whatever denial we may
give to the expressibn, he is bound to call us Tories.
If he enjoys in calling us by that name, let him be
happy. The hon. member for North Simcoe has in
this question completely disassociated himself
from his party; he has declared that on this
question he is not in harmony with his party, but
he declared, and had a right to do so, that upon other
questions he would follow those whom he had always
followed, and would continue to vote as a conservative on such matters as, for instance,
the National
Policy. It would not be right to close the Conservative party against the hon. member
for North
Simcoe and those who hold his views. This Bill
which he has introduced has nothing to do with
that party; it is a Bill of his own, and I hope, before the debate is over, he will
see that it is greatly
restricted in his following. The hon. member for
West Durham argued that the Federal Government
should keep, in a certain measure at least, aportion
of the power over the Territories. True, we have
granted to the Territories a constitution; we have
given them legislative power to some extent; but
as we still have the administration of the Territories
in our hands and to protect those whom we are
inviting to come and settle there, this Government
should keep a certain control over these Territories.
We are bound to do that, as we are bound to give to
the French population a free and easy access to the
judicial tribunals we have established there. I do
not believe that there are many in this House disposed to say that they are at heart
in favor of the
measure proposed. Its preamble is a provocation and
a just cause of irritation to a large section of our
people, and the principle of the Bil and its practical
effect, if carried into a conclusion, would work injustice and bad feeling in the
old Provinces as well as
in the North-West Territories. There are amongst
those who support the measure of the hon. member
for North Simcoe men who, if they do not call themselves Equal Rights advocates, are
Imperial Federalists. Many of them pose as the advocates of what
they deem to be the grand and the loyal policy of
Imperial Federation. Let me ask them how they
expect to help on their cause by this unfair, unseemly, this persecuting agitation.
The British
Empire is composed of a eater variety of nations
and creeds than was the Roman Empire. Do the
Imperial Federalists think they are going to help
833 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 834
on their scheme by prosecuting a minority, even in
such a remote territory as the North-West? We
are not in the same condition of things in which
we were some years ago. Modern science has given
new wings to political thought; every incident that
occurs in Canada, of any importance, is known tomorrow as far as Cape Colony and in
the remote
regions of India; and I appeal to Imperial Federalists, who might be tempted to support
the Bill
before the House, not to injure their own cause,
and to remember that all men interested and
responsible for the future of the Queen's dominion will condemn them for entering
into an
agitation which would tend to destroy the loyalty
of a portion of Her Majesty's subjects. These
gentlemen pose as the representatives of Ontario
and pretend to speak the voice of Ontario
in protest against the use of the French language
in Canada. I venture to tell them that they do not
represent Ontario in this matter, that they do not
speak the voice of Ontario in this agitation. The
true voice of Ontario may still be heard in the
echoes of that splendid demonstration made in
December, 1884, in Toronto, in honor of Sir John
A. Macdonald. It was my good fortune to be
present at that grand and imposing reunion of the
forces of the great Conservative party. I shall never
forget the ovation given to the Old Chief when he
entered the hall where five thousand voices
acclaimed him with enthusiastic cheers. I shall
never forget the warm, the cordial reception given
to my hon. friends the Minister of Public
Works and the Minister of Militia, and to myself.
It was my first visit to Toronto and the impression
I received, an impression which will never be effaced
from my memory, was that the bond of friendship,
nay, the bond of affection, that linked together the
two great races of this Confederation, would resist
any attack which interest, jealousy or prejudice might direct against it. It was,
it is true,
a political demonstration, but it had a great
character beyond that, which proved that different races, and different creeds, and
different
nationalities, might unite and work together in
the best manner for the progress of our common
country. This was the voice of Ontario, and I
think it would be the voice of Ontario still. I say
to the supporters, if there are any in Ontario, of
the measure of the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy), that I believe the voice of Ontario
would be still the same if the right hon. the leader
of the House would appeal, on the same generous
principles, to the same fair-minded population of
Ontario to-day. Sir, I protest against that agitation,
I protest against that plan of campaign as suggested in the speeches of the hon. member
for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and indicated here
and outside by the speeches of the hon. member
for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I do not quote
their expressions here. They are too ugly for me
to quote them or, at all events, they are too provoking. It is not for us here to
talk about opening
a free road through the St. Lawrence for the
Anglo-Saxon to pass to the conquest of the
world. If that course is to be persisted in, Sir, I
cannot qualify it in any other words, that if it is a
political game it is a dangerous mistake, and if it
is a determined and premeditated movement to be
earnestly carried on, it is a criminal attack against
the "peace, order and good government of the
country." Sir, I hope that the hon. gentlemen will
27
pause before venturing any further in the dark
and dangerous path they have entered into.
They will look in the past and around them, and
they will see written on the walls the fate which
awaits them. All public men who have tried to
build up a political platform of such materials as
prejudices and fanaticism have found out that the
beams and rafters of their building did not long
resist the action of time and the pressure of common sense; they went down with the
wreck,
helpless and crippled, giving to the world a cruel
lesson as to the inevitable fate of those who would
attempt to imitate their example. Sir, I appeal
to the higher instincts, to the nobler feelings of
those who sincerely wish the consolidation of these
British possessions, and whom the chances of
politics do not affect. I ask them to think calmly
of all this. They must know how dangerous are
the elements which are brought into contact in
the agitation which is carried on. They may be
in earnest in believing that the strong currents
thus put in motion will produce great and good
results. Let them not forget that in dealing with
these questions of race, nationality and religion
they are dealing with the great electric currents
of national life. Guide and govern these currents
wisely, and you may draw from their united
influences power and light and all the beneficent
effects of the natural forces with which Providence
has provided you. Misguide and misgovern
them—use them with ignorance, recklessness,
or malice, — and you may draw down on
your heads unknown and uncounted disasters,
ruin to individuals, confusion to communities, and
disaster to the State. Sir, I agree with the hon.
member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), I am not
ready to accept the amendment proposed by the
hon. memberfor Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil), although
I am in accord with the principles of it, but I
cannot find too strong language to express my
repudiation of the principles, the form, the surroundings of the measure submitted.
The Bill of
the hon. member for North Simcoe is opposed to
his own political record, principles and career.
He supported with intelligence and vigor the
policy of unity of action and harmony of thought
of the different races which form this Dominion, irrespective of creed or language.
He was
present when the Acts giving a constitution to
the North-West Territories were initiated, revised
and passed, and he gave his acquiescence to that
legislation. The Bill is opposed to the policy that
has prevailed in Canada, of protecting the rights
of minorities in the schools, in the Legislatures,
in the Senate. It is opposed to the law of the
land, which was approved by two Administrations
and three Parliaments. It is opposed to the
spirit of British legislation, which, in the case of
Manitoba, provided a perpetual guarantee to the
minority in regard to schools and language, and,
in the case of any new Province hereafter created
in the Territories, provided a guarantee of stability
to the constitution given to it at the time of its
creation. It is opposed to the general policy of the
modern British Empire, which, in India, in Manitoba, in Cape Colony, respects the
right of the
people of different origin to have the legal and
legislative use of their own language. It is opposed
to the plainest facts of science, which prove that
race is stronger than language, as may be seen in
the case of the Irish and the Scotch, the German-
835
[COMMONS] 836
speaking Russians, the French, German and Italian- speaking Swiss, the Jews, the Spanish-speaking
Mexicans, the German-speaking Alsacians. It is
opposed to the true spirit of loyalty to the Crown,
because no man, who is truly loyal to the Crown,
would endeavor to stir up strife among the Queen's
subjects by attempting to repeal, for the avowed
purpose of persecution and extinction, laws which
have had the sanction of the Crown in one form
or another ever since the Cession of Canada.
I wish to make one more remark as to the political
record of the hon. member for North Simcoe. Let
me refer to that great demonstration in Toronto,
which showed so well the fraternity of the two
races, and I wish that fraternity was more widely
practised. I think that the public men of each
Province ought to visit the other Provinces, and try
to develop that good feeling which is so easily developed when we are better acquainted
with one
another. In that great demonstration in Toronto
what do we find? An address was presented to
Sir John A. Macdonald by the Liberal Conservative
party of Ontario. My hon. friend from Simcoe
knows something of that address. On that occasion
the chairman was appointed on the motion of Mr.
Dalton McCarthy, and when the meeting was
organised the chairman read an elaborate, an eloquent address to Sir John Macdonald,
two or three
paragraphs of which I will read to this House, with
as full an assurance of their being accepted here as
they were accepted there:
"The happy results of British rule in North America
begun when the policy of Pitt was accomplished by the
valor of Wolfe, would have been imperfect, if not
frustrated, but for the cordial relations which you have
for nearly half a century maintained, in spite of unjust
and unpatriotic criticism, with the great men who have
been the chiefs of the loyal Canadians of Quebec; and on
this occasion we would mingle with our felicitations to
yourself a tribute of grateful remembrance of Cartier,
whose statue rises in another city to bear witness to his
public deeds and to keep his memory green. * * * In
a Confederation in which the people are divided by a very
earnest and sincere difference of opinion in race, religion
and political sentiment, unity of action and harmony of
thought have been maintained with striking success by
the wisdom, tact and true liberality with which you have
made alike the Cabinet, the Provincial Executives, the
Bench, the Bar, and the Public Service, bear witness to
your forethought and care for the interests of races,
creeds and opinions, as part of the forces by which
nations are governed, and by the wise conduct of which
they grow strong, united and prosperous."
No better inspired, no better worded sentiments
of true patriotism were ever recorded, and the hon.
member for North Simcoe will derive more glory
for the part he took in that demonstration than he
will in the unchristian crusade he is now leading.
It being Six o'clock, the Speaker left the Chair.
After Recess.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. Before this House rose at
six o'clock I had been showing that it would be
an injustice to the population of the North-West
Territories, who were the first settlers there, and
who, surely, deserve our consideration, if we were
to deprive them of the privilege of having the laws
published in a language that they understand.
What has been the cause of the large influx of
Anglo-Saxon settlers into the North-West? It is
the millions of money that the old Provinces have
voted to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. We
all agreed to that; we all applauded the enterprise
and the energy of those who built that road. What,
again, has brought that immigration into the Territory? It was the great, the richly
subsidised colonisation societies which brought thousands of immigrants from Great
Britain to take possession of the
soil, and the railway companies who acquired large
tracts of land as railway subsidies and have invested
their capital there. All these newcomers were characterised by that spirit of enterprise
which belongs
to the English immigrants, and which leads them
to take possession of the world wherever the world
and its resources presents itself to them. We welcome those desirable immigrants,
we help them in
the full measure of a dutiful Government. But
must we, for all that, despise and forget the first
settlers of those remote regions, those who revealed to us the treasure we had there?
Sir, will
not my hon. friend from North Simcoe give to
these old settlers of the North-West, at least, time
to learn English? It has taken me a long time to
learn to speak it, badly as I do. I think he ought
to give them, at least, a few years to learn how to
read the laws which will be enacted in those Territories. But there is something more.
These
people who live there, who are the owners of the
soil, have disputes amongst themselves. The law
must be obeyed, must be administered, and is he
going to deny them the right of having justice
administered to them in a language which they
understand? He does deny them of that right;
we must not be unjust as he wants us to be. I
think that if this House comes to the conclusion that
a certain measure of liberty to settle that question
of language ought to be given to the Legislature
of the North-West, we must in justice reserve
to the old settlers, to that population which is
now in the minority, the right to speak their
language, to be heard in their language, as witnesses, jurors, and pleaders before
the courts. I
desire, in closing my remarks, to quote some observations from a powerful writer and
a keen observer, who has visited this country, Sir Charles
Dilke. How does he speak of the population, of
whom the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) and the hon. member for North Norfolk
(Mr. Charlton) spoke, I will not say with contempt,
but with suspicion as to their loyalty and with fear
as to the future of the country so far as they were
concerned. Sir Charles Dilke referred to one of the
most prominent statesmen who represented the
French Canadians, Sir George Cartier. Speaking
of Sir George Cartier, who was very often accused by
his opponents in politics, of being too much of a
Britisher in Canada, Sir Charles said this:
"Sir George Cartier, the Conservative statesman who
led the French Canadians at the time of Confederation,
had himself as a young man taken part in Papineau's rebellion, but there was never
a stronger supporter of a
United Empire than my host at Ottawa in the year of the
passing of the Bill."
Drawing a comparison between the French in
Lower Canada and the South African Dutch, the
author said:
"In both cases we found the alien people in the land
had dispossessed the mother country of the province.
In each case they have clung to their language and
institutions, and in each country the language of the
non-English Calvinists may now be made use of in the
legislature. Both races are filled with intense Conservatism, and the French of Canada
and the Dutch of
South Africa are now in fact the only surviving true Conservatives living under free
institutions."
837 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890]. 838
This may not please the leader of the Opposition,
but it could not but please an old Tory, like the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy).
Speaking of the loyalty of the French Canadians at
the time of the American Revolution, Sir Charles
Dilke said:
"Curiously enough, the only moments at which we were
ever popular in Lower Canada, until we gave her free
institutions, were the moments when the Americans
were trying to expel us."
These few lines must be significant to those
who believe that because we speak a foreign
language we cannot be loyal to the Crown and true
supporters of the British nation. I will not say,
true as it may be, that Canada would have been
American except for the assistance given by the
French Canadians at the time of the American Rebellion, but as a loyal Britisher,
I would say, with
Sir Charles Dilke: we have been able to preserve
our supremacy in North America with the approval
and assistance of the French Canadians, and
"curiously enough the only moment at which we
were ever popular in Lower Canada, until we gave
her free institutions, were the moments when
the Americans were trying to expel us." Mr.
Speaker, I claim for our people, as I read it in the
opuscules of a late friend, Oscar Dunn, that "the
first man who spoke of responsible government in
this country was a French Canadian, Pierre Bedard,
and the one who contributed the most to establish it
was another French Canadian, Lafontaine. Our
nationality had the honor to furnish the statesman who introduced British liberties
into this
country. It was the only revenge we drew from
our conquerors." I do not speak here as a French
Canadian; I speak as a Canadian. The hon. member for North Simcoe has said, that,
in order to
judge of the nationality of a man, you must ascertain the language he speaks; that
a German subject speaking another language can hardly be a full
German; that a man who speaks French as his
mother tongue, even if he knew and could speak
English, cannot be really and truly a British subject. But we claim to be Canadians,
and although
we may speak in French or English we are really
not English or French, but we are truly Canadians,
and we intend to remain such. I heartily endorse
the sentiments of that eloquent and fervent apostle
of Canadian nationality, Principal Grant, when,
speaking before St. Andrew's Society, in Montreal,
he said:
"The Scotch are but one nationality in Canada, and
not the first. That place belongs to the French Canadians:
a sacred obli ation is imposed upon the Canadian race as
upon ours. We ought to be, the one more than Scotch,
and the other more than French, we ought to be Canadians.
There can be but one Canadian nation, and all the races
which have chosen the sky of Canada as their own ought
to contribute to the building up and the consolidating of
this nation. Every other dream is but a folly and every
effort to realise it is but treason. And against treason all
Canadians must unite, to combat and chastise it."
Sir, if the hon. gentleman intends to carry out his
purpose, interpreted as it must be by the preamble
of this Bill and by the speech which accompanied
its first reading, if the hon. gentleman wants
to go to the end of his programme, if he really
intends to do as he has stated in this House
and outside this House he intends to do, I can
only tell him this, that if he wants to destroy
and efface the French language from the Dominion
of Canada he should begin higher up and remove
its use from the highest order of chivalry in England; he should efface it from the
arms of
England; if he thinks in speaking French we are
disloyal to our beloved Sovereign, Her Majesty
the Queen, he must have forgotten the words "Honi
soit qui mal y pense." If he wants to destroy
French I answer him, in company with all my
fellow-countrymen and all true British subjects
in this Dominion: Sir, you shall not touch that
language; you cannot efface it. We keep it with
our religion, as a gift we owe to Divine Providence and to the kind liberality of
Our beloved
Sovereign. And whenever it is attempted to
deprive us of that sacred deposit, we shall not
despair as long as we read on the Royal Arms of
England: "Dieu et mon Droit."
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I would say
to the hon. member for North Simcoe(Mr. McCarthy) that I interfere with him with very
considerable reluctance, but it is necessary for me for
certain reasons to speak to-night. I will speak
briefly, but, as he must of necessity speak at very
considerable length, I hope, therefore, that he
will not consider that I am treating him with
discourtesy. I will take care that it does not
interfere with his prerogative in any respect.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I think, Mr.
Speaker, that we all must agree. that this debate,
even so far as it has already gone, has been one of
a very remarkable character. It is a debate which
is calculated to shed considerable light on divers
dark places in our political firmament. It has at
any rate one notable feature. The present debate,
coupled with a debate which took place on another subject, within this chamber about
a year
ago, constitutes a very important new departure
on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite—a very
important new departure, indeed. It is perfectly wonderful to see the zeal which is
now expressed by so many of these hon. gentlemen for
provincial rights, and to remember that these
same hon. gentlemen—not even the hon. member
for North Simcoe excepted—only a little more
than thirteen months ago, certainly within a period
of two years, did not see their way to stand side
by side with us in defending the clearest and best
established rights of his and my native Province.
We find now that the sacredness of provincial
rights is clearly held by a great majority in this
House, we find that it is becoming a fundamental
article of faith, and by none more (although his
conversion was very late in the day) than by the
venerable and pious Premier, may I say, who gave
such excellent advice to us last year, as well as on
the present occasion, on the subject of provincial
rights. I am an old enough member of Parliament
to remember when the First Minister of this Dominion had very little faith indeed
in Confederation; when he began by doubting and disbelieving
the possibility of a federal union, and when in
point of fact, as I remember and as the record
shows, he only accepted the situation when he
saw that it was his last chance of safety from
political shipwreck. From that time, although
I will not say that he has plotted steadily
and persistently to undermine this same Confederation, I will say that for twenty
years, to
839
[COMMONS] 840
all outward seeming, at any rate, the policy
of that right hon. gentleman has been to belittle, in every possible way, the rights
of the
several Provinces, of which to-day he has blossomed
out so strong and stout a champion. In the
case of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy), we can all remember that last year
that hon. gentleman was not apparently disposed
to pay any very great respect to the provincial
rights of one of the oldest and most important
Provinces of this Dominion, although now he is
suddenly smitten with the most extraordinary regard for the declarations—not of a
Provincial
Assembly in the proper sense of the term—but of
the representative council of a fledging territory
of this Dominion. For my part, I much suspect
the fervent zeal which new born converts evince
on these occasions. I may say to this House,
without respect to parties, that while we are here
bound by every obligation to see that the rights of
the Provinces are maintained, it may be as well for
us to recollect that we are also here as Dominion representatives, and that the Dominion
of Canada
has its rights in this and other matters as well
as the Provinces. This debate, as I have said, is
one of a remarkable character, but I must add that
I, for one, think that every true friend of Canada
must regret that this subject has been forced upon
us at this time. I say that no good has come of
this Bill; I say that no good can come of it, and
I am sorry to have to add that, in my judgment,
speaking without prejudice or malice, I cannot
but believe that no good was intended to come
out of the proposal which we are now discussing.
Whatever may be the motives which have caused
the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) to assume the
grave responsibility of throwing on the floor of
this House What he well knew must be an apple
of discord, calculated to set friend against friend,
race against race, and religion against religion,
I admit that this question having been raised,
and the judgment of this House having been
challenged, we are, in my opinion, bound to
pass upon the question. Of all the faults and of all
the follies which this House could commit in dealing
with this question the worst, in my opinion, would
be to leave it as a festering and ever-open sore.
We are asked to decide on this question, and we
should decide. In that I agree with the hon.
gentleman and some of his friends. This House
is called upon to pass judgment, and this House
should pass such judgment as will set this question finally at rest, if such a thing
can be. At
all events, it should be set at rest so far as this
branch of it is concerned. I believe that by this
motion and by the agitation which has taken place
throughout the length and breadth of the chief
Provinces of Canada on the issues raised by the
hon. gentleman and his friends, very considerable
harm has been done. I do not think we can
wholly undo that harm by anything we may accomplish here, at best I believe that all
it is
possible for us to do is to minimise the mischief
which reckless hands have wrought. I will venture to suggest, before I sit down, certain
consid
erations which occur to me as best calculated to
bring about that end. I shall now consider in
rotation the several propositions at present before
the House. First of all, I must take the Bill which
the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
asks shall be read for the second time. I am sorry
to have to say that I cannot but regret the language
of the preamble of that Bill as being decidedly
offensive, as being calculated to do grave harm in
this community and as being calculated as I have
said to set members of this House of different
creeds and nationalities at issue to no good purpose. More than that, Sir, I take
objection in the
strongest possible manner with the preceding lines
of this preamble:
"Whereas it is expedient in the interest ofthe national
unity 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."
Sir, that preamble is in no way necessary to the
Bill, it should never have been there, and was
intended to affront and offend my friends of the
French nationality; and small blame to them if
if they felt affronted and offended when asked to
consider a Bill introduced by a preamble like that.
But I have a more important objection to make to
that preamble: I say that on the plainest grounds
of common sense and common prudence, the assertion contained in it that the best way
to produce
unity among us is to do what is known to be
affronting to one—third or one—fourth of the people
of this Dominion is entirely false and incorrect.
That is not the way to produce national unity
among Canadians; it is not the way to build up a
nation here. The way to make Canadians proud
of their country is to say, clearly and distinctly, to
every race in Canada, that they may expect fair
play and honest dealings at the hands of their
fellow-countrymen, whether they are English,
French, Scotch, Irish, Canadian or any other
nationality. Looking at this matter, Sir, as a
practical man, as one who hopes to end his life in
Canada, I say that the hon. gentleman, be his
motives or intentions what they may, is attempting
a downright impossibility, if he hopes by legislative enactment to wipe away the French
language
and to induce a million or a million and a-quarter of
our people to abandon their mother tongue, solemnly guaranteed to them by treaty and
in every
possible way that a government or a nation can
guarantee, that it shall be left undisturbed in their
native Province or in the Dominion of Canada. I
say it is absurd. It might have come to pass—
though I do not know but the hon. gentleman and
his friends have now rendered it impossible—not
to-day or to-morrow, but in the course of a generation or two, that mutual convenience
in communicating and dealing with each other in the prevailing
tongue of North America might have induced the
people of Quebec to adopt that language, as has
been done in Ireland, where, in many places, a
number of years ago, the bulk of the population
spoke Irish and Irish alone, but where now
the English tongue has practically superseded the
Irish language. But I tell the hon. member for
North Simcoe and other hon. gentlemen who think
with him that there is no case in history, and I
cannot conceive of a case, where such result has
been brought about by legislative enactment.
Persecute a religion, a race, or a language, and
you enlist every worthy, manly and self-respecting
sentiment in the minds of the men who profess
that religion, belong to that race, or speak that
language in maintaining it against all odds; and
I do not think so meanly of my French fellow- countrymen as to wish or believe that
they
841 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 842
will be dragooned out of rights which have been
solemnly guaranteed to them. Sir, I do not know
what visions of victory or what aspirations may
float through the minds of the hon. member for
Simcoe and his followers. Peradventure, as has
been suggested, it has entered into the mind of
the hon. member to play the part of an Ontario
Parnell, and to return to this House with twenty
or thirty stout Protestant Home Rulers like the
hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien), to hold
the balance of power and to dictate terms—I was
going to say to his adversary, but as I suppose I
should say, his beloved Chieftain who sits opposite
to me.
An hon. MEMBER. Who said so?
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Why, the
hon. member for Simcoe himself, and he ought to
know. But if, as I have said, the language of the
preamble of this unfortunate Act was needlessly
afl'ronting and offensive to gentlemen of French
nationality, what must I say of the speech in
which, without provocation, in cold blood, the
hon. member for Simcoe thought fit to introduce
it? Sir, I regretted exceedingly to hear that
speech, and most of all for this reason: I knew—
my parliamentary experience taught me, as the
parliamentary experience of any hon. gentleman
who has sat for a few sessions in this House would
teach him—that one such mischievous and
injudicious speech was sure to be the parent
of others equally mischievous and injudicious,
which would go far to widen the breach and
render the task of moderate and reasonable men in
composing our differences more difficult than ever;
and I am sorry to say that one member of the
Government at least—I mean the hon. Minister of
Public Works—was betrayed into following the
evil example of the hon. member for Simcoe, and
into delivering a speech which the hon. member:
for Simcoe must have listened to with delight
but which I am sure no considerate man on
either side of the House could have regarded as
other than injudicious and ill-timed. I am very
sorry that an old parliamentary veteran like the
hon. Minister of Public Works should have deliberately played the game of the hon.
member for
Simcoe, as he most undoubtedly did, when he delivered that speech, which will prove
an arsenal from
which the hon. member for Simcoe and those associated with him could saw barbed and
poisoned
arrows to disturb the sentiments and feelings of a
great number of worthy people throughout this
community. Sir, I wish I could confine my regret
1n that respect entirely to the hon. Minister of
Public Works. I would have thought that the
trap laid by the hon. member for Simcoe was perfectly transparent. I would have thought
that
any hon. member in this House who listened to his
speech, who read his preamble, who considered
what his whole course has been, must have seen
that the object that hon. gentleman was driving at,
the thing he wanted to bring about, was, if possible, to array in a solid mass, if
that were possible,
the members of the French nationality on the one
side, and the members of the English nationality
on the other side; or, what is worse still, to array
the members of one religious persuasion on one side,
and the members of other religious persuasions
on the other side. I regret exceedingly that a gentleman for whom I entertain such
high regard as I
do for the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Beauso
leil) should have walked deliberately into such a
trap, and should have brought forward a resolution which looks—though I acquit the
hon. gentleman of any such intention—as if it were designed to play into the hands
of the hon. member
for Simcoe. I am very sorry for it. I admit that
there were extenuating circumstances in the case
of the hon. member for Berthier. I am sometimes
myself accused, most unjustly, of having hasty blood
in my veins, and I dare say I would have felt angry
at the language used by the hon. member for
Simcoe; but however angry I might have felt,
I do not think I would have walked into the
trap he set and supplied him with material for
future mischievous operations. Now, as far as I
am concerned, my own course in this matter is
clear enough. Last year—and I ask my French
compatriots to recollect the circumstance—last
year, in common with the great mass of the
Liberal party and the lonservative party in the
Province of Ontario, I and they voted upon a
certain question in a way which offended the
prejudices of many of our constituents. I laid
down then, as I am disposed to lay down to-night,
the principle that in affairs of this kind, as in all
affairs which properly belong to them, the Provincial Legislatures should have the
sole right to
legislate. The principle which I applied in favor
of the Province of Quebec last year I am disposed
to apply on the present occasion in favor of the
North-West Territories. I ask now the same rights
for our fellow-countrymen of the North-West
Territories that I asked for our fellow-countrymen
in the Province of Quebec last year. I am prepared
to recognise their right, but I require that that
right be properly asserted and clearly stated, and
that I should be well assured, when I interfere
in a matter of this kind, that I, in my place,
and as far as I can, am giving assent to the
deliberately expressed opinion and conviction of
the people of those Territories. It may be asked
why will I not acknowledge that the North-West
Council, as at present constituted, do really represent the views and the wishes of
the people of those
territories? I am bound to recall to the attention
of hon. members this plain fact. No doubt, to a
a certain extent, these gentlemen may be said to
represent the people of the North-West Territories,
although they are not their only representatives;
but they have not all the powers, and they were
not elected to discharge all the duties of a Provincial Parliament or Assembly. I
say, without any
desire to belittle their important functions,
that they are somewhat of a hybrid between
a municipal council and a Provincial Parliament, and I cannot admit that they are
entitled
to speak with perfect authority on a question
which was notoriously not before the people
when the North-West Council were elected. More
than that: I have another reason why I decline to
accept what may, for ought I know, have been
a hasty resolution passed by the North-West
Council. So far as I am advised, there is every
reason to believe that it was in no way the
spontaneous declaration of the Council of the
North-West, but was a suggestion from outside.
Probably the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) knows best whence it came. It did not
deal, in any proper sense of theterm, with a real substantial grievance underwhich
those people groaned,
and in voicing which the Council merely voiced
843
[COMMONS] 844
the true sentiments of their constituents. I am
quite prepared, on proper opportunity being given
me, to advocate provincial rights to the fullest
extent; I am quite prepared to lay down the
principle that the people of the North-West, when
this matter has been fairly submitted to them,
when they have passed upon it—if in two or three
years hence they continue in the same mind—
should be sustained by this Parliament; but beyond that I must decline to go. I admit
that it
was best for all parties that a decision should be
come to on this subject; it will serve no good
purpose that I can see to allow this matter to be
kept open for debate and to continue to be made a
cause of agitation between the conflicting races. I
cannot however quite agree with the doctrine laid
down by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil) that a sort of vested right
has been established
by the mere fact of the concession which was made
some ten or twelve years ago. I am prepared, as fully
as any man, to maintain treaty rights formerly
granted to our French brethren in the Province of
Quebec, but I think that in all reason we ought to
stop there. If the French settlers should become
numerous in any Province of this Dominion, either
near us or in the far West, and if they persuaded
the Legislature, or the Legislature saw fit, for
mutual convenience, for good fellowship or
courtesy, to decree that the French language
should be used in such Province, so let it be.
No one on this side, I believe, would raise his
voice or give his vote to prevent that extension of
privileges; but, I say, in all conscience, that ought
to be enough. I have no possible ground or pretence to dictate to my friends from
Ontario
what they should do in this matter. It is a matter
in which they must judge for themselves, and no
doubt they will be able to do that. But if they will
allow me to make a suggestion to them, it will be
this: I think they ought to oppose to the uttermost the passage of the Act introduced
by
the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Mc
Carthy)—and on these grounds: that the Act
itself is mischievous, the language is offensive,
and it deals with no real substantial grievance. Why, I am told that the whole cost
of the
evil which the hon. member for North Simcoe
designs to remedy amounted in thirteen years to
something like $20,000, about one-tenth or about
one-twentieth of the cost which the blundering attempt to usurp the property and the
rights of the
Province of Ontario, made partly under the hon. gentleman's auspices, has already
cost this country.
Looking at this matter from a practical point of view,
I think after the hon. gentleman's exhibition, after
the speech he made, which showed his animus,
which showed his design to make mischief, my
hon. friends from Ontario need have no fear that
any but a few bigots will condemn them for refusing to vote against this Bill. I may
tell them they
have lost those bigots' votes already. While that
is true, it is equally true—and my hon. friends
will pardon me for reminding them of it—that, besides the bigots who would dare to
join so wicked
an agitation for it is wicked (to stir up an anti-French
crusade, considering the circumstances under which
the hon. gentleman desires to initiate it) besides
those there are, I must confess, men known to all
of you, moderate and reasonable men, who, while
they are well content to accept the grounds on
which we voted last year, who, while they
admit we did right, and, in fact, had no option
but to vote as we did, would hold us to a strict
account if we should now go back on our own record,
and having a year ago voted to defend the rights
of the Province of Quebec should now appear
unwilling, on proper terms and conditions, to
maintain the rights of our fellow-countrymen in
the North-West. To my friends of the French
nationality I speak with great diffidence; I admit
that I think their anger very natural, I sympathise with their feelings, and I do
not think they
had any right to be addressed as they were on the
door of this House. But is that a reason—and I
speak now, not merely to my political friends on this
side, but to my French compatriots on the other side
—that they should deliberately allow themselves to
De goaded and driven into playing the game of the
hon. member for North Simcoe? I repeat there
can be no possible step they will take that would
serve the ends of that hon. gentleman better than
if they would display here, what I would regret
to see displayed, the spectacle of a solid French
minority voting against a solid English majority.
It would be a grave political mistake which
would injure themselves, and—I was going to say
for once in my life, but I think I have had occasion
to do it once or twice before—I am disposed to
agree in substance with the advice tendered to the
House by the hon. the leader of this Government.
I am bound to admit—and I make him a present
of the fact—that, if he had not spoken as he did,
and cut me out, I would probably have made a
similar suggestion myself, and my hon. friends
beside me know right well what my feelings have
been on this subject since it was broached. What
I would advise—speaking entirely from a non-party
point—my French friends to do would be to drop
this motion of my hon. friend from Berthier
(Mr. Beausoleil), or, if it cannot be dropped, not
to vote for it, but to consent to an amendment on
the lines suggested by the hon. gentleman. That
is to say, disclaiming, as we ought to disclaim, all
intention or desire to interfere with the rights
guaranteed to our French friends in Quebec, and
in the Dominion, and we should disclaim that, and
should disavow all complicity or agreement
with the anti—French crusade which the hon.
gentleman has been preaching; but, at the
same time, and on the same ground as we
defended the rights of Quebec last year, We must
now feel it our duty to record our conviction that,
when this matter has been put fairly and clearly
before the people of the North-West, they in the
last resort, must be the judges of it. I believe
that nine-tenths or nineteen-twentieths of this
House, if they were free on both sides to vote as
they think, would accept the suggestion I have
made, and which was made before by the right,
hon. the First Minister, and I hope they will not
allow themselves to be bulldozed into acting
contrary to their convictions by a few fanatics in
the House or outside of it. One word more,
because, as I said, I am anxious not to delay the
hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. McCarthy). I believe
myself that, if time is given, if two years are
allowed to elapse, if the right is conceded which
the people of the North-West demand to regulate
their own affairs, it is extremely probable that
those people would be content with the knowledge
that they had that right conceded, and would not.
force that right to its extreme conclusion. For
845 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 846
myself, I would be glad it they could see their way to
do that until such time as we saw whether or not
there was going to be such a large immigration into
that country as might affect the decision of this
difficult and vexed question
Mr. MCCARTHY. I think it is not unreasonable that, at this hour, I should claim the indulgence
of the House. The debate has lasted over
five days, or nearly so, and during that time I
have been subjected to as much abuse certainly as
the rules of Parliament permit, and perhaps a
little more than the rules would warrant. I look
at my friends who are opposite to me and I find
no sympathetic glances, and I have no reason to
expect them. I look to the band of Nationalists
who think I am assailing their race and nationality and language, and I do not find
any and I do
not expect any. And even when I look amongst
those on this side who were once my friends and
allies, I find, perhaps, more hostile glances than I
do elsewhere. I am standing here alone, or almost
alone, doing what I believe to be my duty, and,
notwithstanding the sneers, and the taunts, and the
insinuations that have been made, I propose to do
my duty to the end, if I stand alone, or almost
alone, on the floor of this House in the vote
which is shortly to be taken. The hon. gentleman who has last spoken (Sir Richard
Cartwright) has made not disguise of his feelings or
his principles. He speaks not from the principle
of statesmanship but from a purely partisan or
party point of view. He argues with his
friends behind him and his friends before him
on that ground, and he appeals to them not to
fall into the trap which I am accused of having
laid and which some of those friends, he thinks,
have already fallen into, but to reject the Bill
which I have had the honor to introduce. He
makes this appeal without one word of argument
upon the merits of the Bill, without a word as to
whether it is right or wrong in the interests of the
people of the North-West, for whom we are here
to judge and to legislate upon this question, but
simply with a view to the effect it my have on
the votes of the people whom he thinks he leads
from the Province of Ontario. He warns them as
to the results. He knows well enough that they
have gone away from him never to return, but he
tells them that they will have lost all if they
support such a measure as this and had better
return to their allegiance. I looked for better
things from that hon. gentleman, but have looked
in vain. His speech was a purely partisan speech,
without one redeeming feature, without one thing
to raise it above the level of the mere party
machine. I welcome his statement even from
a party point of view if from no other, because
it leaves that hon. gentleman without a shred
of reputation as a statesman, which he once
pretended to be. But I have to address myself
not only to the hon. gentleman from South Oxford
(Sir Richard Cartwright). I have to speak of the
attack which has been made upon the measure
from other sources, and to endeavor to clear up, if
I can, the accusations which have been made.
The hon. members who have supported me are
small in number, though they are as true as steel.
They have been overborne in this debate by the
power of numbers—not of argument; and I will
endeavor to show that, amid the tissue of mis
representation which has been poured out upon
our devoted heads, hon. members will find that
there has been no warrant for any part of it. I
am accused of having got up this agitation, of
having originated it not only on matters of race,
but on matters of religion, and I am accused of
doing that for selfish purposes and ends. I would
like to know what end I had to serve in severing
myself from the gentleman I have hitherto supported, and from those hon. gentlemen
behind me,
who, I have reason to believe, would not have
been unwilling to see me advanced in the ranks of
my party. What could have led me to take this
course as it has been untruly represented to the
House, and through the House to the country?
My whole course in regard to this matter did
not originate last July in my address to my
constituents. But on the floor of this chamber, in
the presence of hon. members who hear me now,
I state that I had discovered—as, I am ashamed
to say, I discovered for the first time—that the dual
language clause was in the North-West Act. We
then talked it over, and I appeak to the hon. member
for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) if we did not call
him across the floor and ask him how it was, as out
attention had been called to the subject by a speech
having been delivered by a Lieutenant Governor of
the North-West Territories, for the first time, in
French, in the preceding session. That is what
aroused our attention to this fact, and, if I am not
misinformed, that is what first drew attention to
the fact in the North-West—that a French Governor who was sent up there to govern
what was
practically an English speaking people—true, Sir,
to the policy of his race, true to the object which
my hon. friends from Quebec have had in view
from the very first day that this country was ceded
to Great Britain, namely, to perpetuate their race;
and they know full well, if other hon. members
choose to disregard it, that the perpetuation of
that race can only be by the perpetuation of their
language—I say, knowing that the Lieutenant
Governor of the North-West delivered there his
speech in French and English, and imported into
that Territory a secretary, in order that the laws
might be translated into French and published in
that language. This, Sir, it was, if I am not
grossly misinformed, which raised the indignation
of the members of the Legislative Assembly of the
North-West so much that they threatened, if that
occurred again, that they would withdraw in a body.
Well, Sir, whether that be so or not, so far as I
am concerned it was as I have stated. I consulted some of the hon. gentlemen who are
sitting about me and we agreed—some of these
hon gentlemen have been true to their pledges,
but the voices of some others have been stifled
because they feared to hurt their party—we then
and there pledged ourselves that we would, at the
earliest opportunity, bring to the notice of this
House the iniquitous legislation which the hon.
member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) had fathered,
which he pretended he had acquiesced in reluctantly, but, as it now appears, he had
deliberately
connived at its introduction into the Act of the
North-West Territories in the year 1878. That
was the beginning of it, and I notified my leader
at an early day that I would take this course. I
had nothing to do with the agitation in connection
with it. The agitation which has been spoken of
with regard to the Equal Rights Association got
847
[COMMONS] 848
no strength from my connection with it. I had
never even attended the convention which assembled at Toronto; all I had to do with
it was to send
a telegram of regret that I was unable to attend,
being otherwise engaged in professional duties,
and that I sympathised with the motives and the
objects which had brought together the great band
of people from all parts of Ontario to take such
measures that for the future, at all events, their
voice should be heard on the floor of this Parliament. When it became my duty to visit
my
constituents, as I did upon the 12th July—the
first time, I may state, that I ever addressed a
body of my constituents on that day, or made any
political utterance on the 12th July—I then announced publicly, that I would take
the earliest
opportunity of asking this Parliament to undo
what, according to the records—I will not use the
word "surreptitiously"—but what, according to
the records, had been stolen through in the dying
hours of the Session of 1878, under the charge of
the hon. member for Bothwell. Was that an agitation of which any man need be ashamed?
Was
that pandering to the already aroused passions?
What followed? It is said that I have undertaken
to act for the people of the North-West Territories;
that no mission has been given me so to act for
them, and that I am an intruder. Sir, when it
became known that I purposed to take my holidays
in the North-West, I was invited to address
meetings throughout the Province of Manitoba.
I had to decline to do so, except at one place,
which, ultimately, was fixed for me, at Portage la
Prairie.
Mr. MCCARTHY. When I got to Portage la
Prairie, and was on my way up to the North- West, it was not that I was seeking to
intrude
myself upon the domain of the North-West,
but my difficult was to deny myself to
those who desire that I should address them
and in the end I merely addressed one meeting,
and that was at Calgary. I refused to make addresses in British Columbia, only to
find on the
next morning that the newspapers abused me for
passing them by. I refused to address a meeting
at Winnipeg, only to find that I was subject to
castigation for passing by the important centre of
that Province. The hon. member says I spoke at
a Conservative centre. He knows pretty well, I
think, he will be honest enough to admit, that
the choice of place for holding the meeting, which
happened to be at Portage la Prairie, was not my
choice; but when I stated, as I did state, that I
would only deliver one address in the North- West, and those who invited me fixed
on Portage
la Prairie as the place of the meeting, and I had
no choice in the matter, one way or the other.
I know the charge was made that it was chosen,
because it was in a constituency represented by the
hon. member who has just made the interruption,
but I think that hon. member will do me the
justice to say that, at all events, that charge was
not founded so far as I am concerned. The charge
has also been made that I was playing the game
of the First Minister, that I was a mere tool in
his hands, that I was going through this country
without being sincere in my pledges, that in what
I stated I was carrying on an agitation in collusion
with him. Sir, I do not think that charge was
even worthy of contradiction, as it ought to be
denounced, but it is a charge which I now take
the opportunity, in the presence of the First Minister, to say, as every hon. member
on the floor of
this House must realise, was certainly wanting in
a tittle of foundation. I did what I thought was
honorable and fair by this hon. gentleman whom I
have hitherto followed. I have been careful to
hold no intercourse with my former leader, my
still leader in all questions affecting the general
policy of the country.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes; I am not ashamed to
announce this fact. There is no reason why I
should cross the floor of this House, for there is,
in my judgment, on that side an inability and an
unwillingness to grapple with the questions which
are looming up, and which call for settlement,
and I find a bigotry still more profound upon the
other side, a still greater truckling to that which,
as every man from the Province of Ontario knows,
I propose to devote the rest of my political life to
denounce, and, if possible, to overturn. Therefore, why should I cross the floor of
the House and
follow the banner of hon. gentlemen opposite?
I took an opportunity long ago of stating exactly
where I stood; I spoke in the Opera House in this
city—I do not know whether the First Minister
took the trouble of reading it, but it was there for
him to read—I stated then exactly where I stood.
I stated that when these questions came up, if my
party differed from the view which ought to be
taken, I must stand alone, and I must follow these
questions to their end. On other questions I
stated there, as I have stated elsewhere, that as I
was elected a supporter of the general policy of
the Government, I was still a supporter of, and
still a believer in that policy. If my connection with the party that I have hitherto
supported is an injury to that party, as I think
perhaps it is, if the gentlemen who sit behind
me do not want me here, I am willing
to go here or there, I care not where. I think I .
can find a seat in this House, and I can still voice
the opinions of my own constituency, and a large
proportion of the people of Ontario, whether I
am turned out of this party or not, and Whether
I am accepted in that party or not. Such has been
my course, and I am not ashamed of it. I denounce that man as a traitor to his country,
I care
not who he may be, who endeavors to arouse
political passions and race passions by misrepresenting my views; he is the man who
is doing the
wrong, he is the man who is endeavoring in this
Parliament and in this country to set race against
race and religion against religion, because if my
views are fairly looked at, if my statements are
fairly examined, if my speeches are fairly read, I
think no taint of bitterness will be found, because
no taint of bitterness exists, towards my French
Canadian fellow-citizens.
An hon. MEMBER. Oh, oh.
Mr. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman may
laugh, but he must know that I have a perfect .
right to the opinion which I entertain, that the
best interests of this country are to be subserved
by a unity of language, that the future of this
great Dominion, with which this Parliament is
charged, will be best worked out by the people of
this country coming together and speaking the
849 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 850
language of the majority, the tongue that ultimately must be spoken on all this continent
of
North America. And, if I am right in that, I do
no injustice to my Canadian fellow-subjects; I do
only what is my right and my duty, if among
those hon. gentlemen and their constituents I
endeavor to propagate my views and to support
those views by arguments. I frankly admit, I do
not deny it, that to many of these hon. gentlemen
these are unpalatable views; but is that any good
reason why, if I do think, and there are many who
think with me, I should hesitate upon the floor of
Parliament in temperate language, and my language was temperate, to express these
views.
Mr. MCCARTHY. My language, I re-assert,
Was temperate, and I will refer to it to support
these views. My language was temperate wherever I spoke, and it was more especially
temperate
on the cor of Parliament, as an hon. gentleman's
language ought to be temperate here. No such
words escaped my lips as those which the Secretary of State used towards me here to-day;
no
language of that kind has ever escaped my lips in
this debate, and I trust, notwithstanding the provocation of the Minister of Public
Works, notwithstanding the provocation I received from the
Secretary of State, who denounced me in language
not fit for this Assembly, I trust no word will
escape my lips which will resemble those used in
the course they have pursued towards me. My
arguments may tend to a certain conclusion, but
my tone was temperate, and I venture to say that
my argument was fairly drawn. Now, what was it?
I ventured, in the first place, to give a short account of the history of this legislation.
I ventured,
in the second place, to demonstrate, what I am
glad to know I did succeed in demonstrating beyond the region of contradiction, that
the French
language was not, according to any treaty rights, to
be given, if you choose to call it so, to be made a part
of the system in the North-West Territory. For
that purpose it was necessary that I should trace
the history of the cession. I was sorry I introduced even the word conquest, if it
was offensive
to any hon. gentleman, and I am quite willing
to put the fact in any words, although most men
will admit that the words make very little difference when the history is known to
us all. I said,
tracing that history step by step from the cession
of 1763 to the passage of the British North America Act in 1867, that no word was
to be found in
all that history to show why that Act was passed,
for which the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr.
Mills) is responsible, which was represented in
that day to the House, but which I am sorry to
say was not fairly or correctly represented to the
House at that time, by the hon. gentleman,
as a piece of legislation warranted upon a ground
of that kind. My next argument, and I think it
was a not unreasonable one, was this.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The hon. gentleman
was himself a member of the House.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I am not at all unaware of
that fact. What I repeat is, that the matter was
misrepresented to this House.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I will tell the hon. gentleman in what way. That legislation was introduced
into the Senate upon the suggestion of Mr.
Girard, the Senator for Manitoba, but it was
placed there by the member of the Government
leading the Senate, Hon. Mr. Scott.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I have better information
than the hon. gentleman, and, therefore, I shall
not withdraw my statement. I speak by the book;
I speak on the authority of a gentleman who was
present; I speak in a way I can prove. I can prove
that Senator Girard merely asked that some provision should be made by which the French
half- breeds would have the right to speak in their own
language in the courts; and the matter was taken
into consideration by Hon. Mr. Scott.
Mr. MCCARTHY. That is correct according
to my information, and it is probably quite as good
as that possessed by the Secretary of State.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I have sat for five days in
this House listening to this debate. I have been
abused by almost every hon. gentleman who has
spoken, but I have made no interruption. It is
strange that if with ten to one against me they
cannot give me even free speech.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. You stated as a fact that
which was not correct.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Whether correct or not, the
hon. gentleman knows the rules of debate. Sir, I
am speaking by the book of what I know from information on the very highest authority.
The leader of
the Senate then stated that during the recess he would
consult his colleagues, and after recess he came down
and put the clause, which is now clause 110, into the
hands of Mr. Girard, who moved it, and it was
carried in the Senate. If that be so—and we had no
clear explanation about it, although I threw out the
challenge in my opening remarks—then the responsibility for this trouble rests not
upon my shoulders but upon the shoulders of the hon. member
for Bothwell and his friends in the Government at
that time. Those are the men who are responsible
for the trouble, and it became my duty to bring it
forward. I do not say I have not failed in my duty
heretofore; I failed in my duty probably in not being
present when that was done, but I do not suppose
that a young member, for I was then only in my
second year of my parliamentary life, would have
ventured to interpose at that stage of the Session.
That I have failed in my duty since I do not
pretend to deny, but when I did ascertain the facts
I would have been wanting in my duty, feeling and
believing as I do feel and believe with respect to
this matter, if I had not brought it to the attention
of the country in the first place, and, in the second
place, to the attention of this House. With respect
to other matters on which I desire to speak before
I deal with the question itself: It is true I ad
dressed a meeting in Montreal; it is true I addressed
a meeting in this city of Ottawa, but those who
know the facts must know that those meetings
which I have had the honor to address were not of
my seeking. I have a list of places and a bundle of
papers which would satisfy hon. gentlemen that
851
[COMMONS] 852
I, at all events, was not seeking to force myself upon
the public, but my attendance was demanded by the
great city of Montreal and by the city of Ottawa,
and it was only in answer to repeated calls that I
went to those different cities. So much with
respect to what has been said in regard to this
agitation. If hon. gentlemen will deal with the
matter fairly, they will see that there was no other
course open to me, feeling as I feel, and realising
my responsibility as a member of this House, but
to take the action I have pursued. But exception
has been taken to some of my language. I had the
misfortune to miss the speech of the hon. leader
of the Opposition, and I have not yet had time,
having only received
Hansard this evening, to
peruse his speech throughout; but I am told the
hon. gentleman assailed my speech on the ground
that I had used harsh expressions with regard
to his nationality. If the hon. gentleman understood my remarks were with respect
to his
nationality and his race, then I do not wonder
at the hon. gentleman's indignation. If the hon.
gentleman supposes that I was capable of speaking of any people of this Dominion,
or any section of the people of this Dominion in these
terms, he was perfectly within his duty in calling
attention to the language and denouncing it in the
most vigorous terms. But that was not the meaning of my words, and I think my hon.
friend, a
master as he is of our own tongue, perfectly well
realised that was not the meaning. I spoke of the
national cry and the national party that he among
others has been establishing and fomenting in one
of the Provinces of this Dominion, and I denounced
that nationality, or rather that pretending nationality as a bastard nationality.
I again denounce
it here on the floor of Parliament as such. I say
that the legitimate nationality, and there is but
one, is the nationality common to us all, the
nationality that spreads from ocean to ocean and
embraces all races and peoples within this great
Dominion. I say that if any one in any portion or
corner of this Dominion gathers a party together,
whether English, Irish, Scotch or French, and endeavors to rise a cry on the nationality
of that
particular race, there is no word that describes it
other than the word that I used, and to which the
hon. gentleman called attention. Although the
hon. gentleman thought I dare not, I have no
hesitation of repeating that statement on the floor
of this House, and there is no hon. member understanding the sense in which I stated
it before, and
in which I repeat it now, who can deny that the
expression used was applicable.
Mr. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman may
say so, but I do not know how else he could put it.
In justice to him I will say that he quoted my
words fairly, or otherwise I would have quoted
them myself. There is but one nationality that I,
at all events, am willing to recognise in this country. I do not speak of our loyalty
to the Throne;
I do not speak of our allegiance to the mother
country; I speak of that higher nationality of Canadians to Canada. I speak not of
one nationality,
not of one race, but of all Canada and all Canadians
joined together as we should be joined and proud
to acknowledge our allegiance. I regret that so
much time has been taken up by a somewhat per
sonal explanation, but, perhaps, if I was to do the
subject justice with which I propose to deal, it was
necessary that I should clear away from the discussion those extraneous matters which
those
opposed to me have thought well to introduce. We
perfectly well understand the arts of the politician.
We do not always spread it so exactly or plainly
to the public as the innocent member for South
Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright); we do not
always exactly announce that we are giving party
instructions when we speak on the floor of Parliament as that hon. gentleman has thought
fit to do,
but it has been perfectly plain and perfectly clear
to the vision of the most uninitiated among, us that
the object here has been not to discuss this matter
on its merits, not to deal with this question, as it
ought to be dealt with, as to wether it should or
not become law, but by abusing the plaintiff's attorney—the unfortunate promoter of
the Bill—and by
raising clouds of race prejudices and religious
prejudices as well, to have this Bill rejected because
of matters which ought not to have been mentioned
in connection with it. What is the proposition we
are dealing with here? It is a simple one. It is
said that it is the entering of the thin end of
the wedge; it is said that I have commenced a
crusade, and that this is the first thing I have
attempted and that my success in this will mean
success later on in other matters. Even if that were
so, and if the continuance of the present condition
of things is an injury to the people of the North- West—if this is calculated to do
that great portion
of our Dominion an injustice, are the people of the
North-West to suffer under this grievance because
of the unfortunate language—if it be unfortunate—
because of the unfortunate terms—if they be
unfortunate—in which the Bill was presented to
the House of Commons. I do not think the practical people of this country will accept
any such
excuse. I will just add as a rider to the advice of the
hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright): "Do not I beseech you hon.
members who
sit behind him allow yourselves to be carried away
with such ill advice as that." This Bill and this
only must be dealt with on its merits. It is not
for the speech of the member who introduced it
you are going to vote, it is not for his speech in
the Opera House at Ottawa you are going to vote,
but you must vote "yea" or "nay" upon the Bill
itself which is now before you. If that Bill is one
which in the interests of our common country should
be passed, I do not think that excuses such as are
presented here will save hon. gentlemen from the
just indignation of their constituents. Again,
there has been a very great misrepresentation of
what I stated in my speech. My argument upon
the question of language is to be found in these
words:
"Now I venture to think I have to advance some
explanation of the proposition which I am dealing with—
that is, that language is of great importance, that it is of
vital consequence to the nation, that the language s oken
by its people should be common to them all, an that
they should not at all events be encouraged and trained
in speaking different languages."
Is there anything revolutionary in that? Is this
the language of the incendiary? Is there anything
here that ought not to have been uttered on the
floor of Parliament. You can look throughout the
speech and you will find nothing more radical than
that. I gave my reasons and I cited What my
hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) was
853 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 854
good enough to sneer at as my "authorities." We
are not all, like the hon. member for Assiniboia,
versed in literature, history, philology, ethnology
and in all the other subjects he is so well acquainted
with, nor is the country so learned as that hon. gentleman; and I thought in justice
to my position that
I should quote my authorities. This subject is a
comparatively new one to most of us, and I do not
repent of it in the slightest degree that in the
introduction of this Bill I stated my reasons and
gave my authorities, which have been open to the
criticisms of hon. members who did me the honor
to listen to my address or who read my observations. After all the impassioned language
we have
heard, after all the abuse that has been heaped
upon my devoted head, I ask: Do not those words of
mine stand unrefuted and incapable of refutation?
The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) and
the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock)—
the loyal embryo knight from that constituency—
have first set up a man of straw and then
attacked him. The hon. member for Bothwell
contended that I had not gone far enough—that
I ought to have struck at the language here in
this chamber and in the Province of Quebec—
that I ought to have prevented its use in the pulpit,
on the platform, in the schools, and so on. Why, Sir,
we have nothing to do with these matters; we have
no call to meddle with them; but I am glad to be able
to inform the hon. gentleman that the North-West
Legislative Assembly are themselves dealing with
this matter of the schools, which is, perhaps, the
most important of all. They, discovering as they
did lately, just as we have discovered lately, what
was going on in the so-called Separate schools in
the French settlements, have already, in advance
of the Province of Ontario, put an end to that, and
the teaching is now in the English tongue. What
I have sought for here is that which is in our
power. We have this enormous territory yet to
be peopled by millions, and do we want to have
repeated there the spectacle which is presented on
the floor of this House, or the spectacle, still more
deplorable from a patriotic point of view, which is
depicted in the Legislative Chamber of the Province of Quebec? Do you want that, Sir?
It
would be better that we all spoke French than
that half of us should speak French and half of us
English.
Mr. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman says
"hear, hear," and he is quite right. I do not pretend to know the glories of the French
language, but
I do know enough from what I have been told to
believe that it is a beautiful tongue. But that is
not the question we are dealing with. We know
that the French language is not and never can be
the language of British North America and we
ought to realise—more especially ought the French
Canadians of this country to realise— that their true
interest, as our true interest, is at as early a day
as possible to have but the one language spoken in
this country. Well, of course, I do not expect,
and it would be hardly reasonable to expect, that
those hon. gentlemen who agree with me that we
should all be better speaking French will go the
other step with me and agree that we should be
all the better speaking English, though the hon.
leader of the Opposition I am told—for I had not
the honor of hearing him—rather leaned to that
view. Now, I am not going to follow the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House
in their excursions
into Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Cape Colony,
Mauritius, and other places which have been
brought to our notice. I have stated before, and
I repeat, that these cases are not the rule, but
the exception; and while I quite admit that the
Province of Quebec is also an exceptional case,
the legislation proposed here has no reference to
that Province; it has no reference even to this
Parliament; it is with regard to the great territories of the North-West, which have
always belonged to the Crown of England, which never belonged to the French in any
sense, notwithstanding
the statement of the bishop which is in our Votes
and Proceedings. History tells us that north of
the Height of Land and from there to the Pacific
Ocean the Frenchman, although he went there.
went there as a trespasser, and was expelled as a
trespasser. I see a smile on the face of the philosopher from Bothwell, who endeavored
to prove that
the French territory extended as far as the Rocky
Mountains.
Mr. MCCARTHY. But that was settled by the
boundary decision. Those who represented the
Province of Ontario in that dispute, before the
Privy Council, put forward that pretension, and
the hon. gentleman sat there with his wig on his
head ready to argue, if he were only allowed, in
favor of it, but it was better argued by his seniors.
But the Privy Council rejected his contention, and
the boundary was placed where we now have it.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Not at all; it was on
the ground of acquiescence that they decided.
Mr. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman is, of
course, wiser than the rest of us. As the Privy
Council gave no reason for their judgment, but
simply reported to Her Majesty where the boundary was, I do not know where he got
that information.
Mr. MCCARTHY. There was not one word
during the argument, which I took part in, which
would lead to that conclusion. At all events, the
observation of a judge during an argument is not
a decision.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell) The observation of Lord
Selborne—
Mr. MCCARTHY. If the hon. gentleman will
keep his soul in patience we shall get on more
easily with this debate. That being so, on what
pretense, I want to know, did that hon. gentleman's Government introduce this clause
into the
North-West Territories Act? I am not now discussing the Province of Manitoba; but
with regard
to the North-West Territories, is there a shadow of
reason for this provision? If so, it has not yet been
given to show why the dual language should be
imposed on the people of the North-West Territories. If there be no answer, as no
answer there
can be, then I want to know what is the duty of
this Parliament? Is the duty of this Parliament to
leave it there? In that respect I understand that
the politician of the party, the hon. member for
South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) differs from
the hon. member for West Durham, and he is wise
to difl'er with him and withdraw himself from his
protection. The proposition of the hon. member
855
[COMMONS] 856
for West Durham, the most monstrous ever submitted to any assembly, is to keep the
language
as an encouragement to the French to emigrate to
the North-West, and to settle this question, by-and- bye, after they get there. If
they go in masses,
says the hon. member, I shall much regret it; but
if they do go there in masses—and we perfectly
well know that they do not go in any other way—
then, he said, something will have to be done. If
I might appeal to the reason of the House without
prejudice, I would say, let us look at the position
of the North-West to-day. We are told, and the
census confirms it, that in 1885 there were but
1,500 French Canadians in the North-West. If you
add the number of the half-breeds of French descent,
the number will still be less than 5,000. I have
got the exact figures here. We know that at the
time to which I refer, there were in the three districts 23,285 English-speaking people;
I am leaving
the Indians out of consideration. The ratio is
therefore 83 to 17 per cent., and if our records are
correct that disproportion has been vastly increased,
and it is not too much to say that there are not today in the North-West one-tenth
of the people who
speak the French language to the nine-tenths who
speak the English language. And moreover, when
we look at the record we find that these French
are scattered.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Then they are not in
the mass?
Mr. MCCARTHY. "Then they are not in the
mass" is the very erudite observation made by the
hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills). They are
here, there and everywhere, in small bands and
surrounded by a large population of English- speaking people That being so, can there
be any
better time for settling this question than the
present? Should there be an immigration in the
North-West, in the near future of the French Canadians, should they go in there induced
by the speech
of the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake),
or should this House be insane enough to adopt
the proposed resolution of that hon. gentleman, I
do not know, in common justice, how it would be
possible to say, by-and-bye, to those who had immigrated upon the faith of such resolution,
that this
dual language should be done away with. Therefore, this is the time to deal with the
question, and
I venture to say that this is the place. The hon.
member for South Oxford threw another insinuation, and it certainly would be more
satisfactory,
if instead of insinuating, he would make his statements so clear that they could be
understood. He
said that the North-West Council had been moved
to present the petition I spoke of by some outside
influence, about which he indicated I knew something. What did the hon. gentleman
mean? Has
the hon. gentleman ever been in the North-West?
Has he ever seen the members of the Council or of
the Assembly? Does he know the character of
the men there? My whole connection with the
North-West Assembly commenced with stopping
over at Calgary and then passing on; and I had only
one communication with one of the members of that
Council after this matter was dealt with by the
Council, and that was with reference to the form in
which the petition ought to be presented to this
House. But to suppose that the North-West
Council, composed of 22 members, representing
three districts, which are in a much less degree
represented in this House, were not competent to
deal with this question; to suppose that their
opinion is to have no weight with us, but it is to
be set at naught; to suppose that the great doctrine of provincial rights in the case
of the North- West Council is not to have even the support of
hon. gentlemen opposite, is a very extraordinary,
conclusion to arrive at. Now, what is the position? The North-VVest Council, by a
petition
Which is practically unanimous—carried by 20
to 2—and which has been laid on the Table, asks
for the passage of a measure such as the one I have
introduced. Hearing that petitions were being
presented here from certain settlements, there was
at once—and without the slightest communication,
so far as I know, with any member of this House;
without any communication at all events with me
—a burst of indignation at what appeared to these
men to be the imposition which was being practised upon this House. The petitions
which the
hon. members presented, and which aroused this
indignation, were couched as follows:—
"The petition of the undersigned humbly expose that at
a public meeting of the ratepayers of Lethbridge, District
of Alberta, N. W. T., held this second day of January,
A. D. 1890, they have been respectively appointed chairman and secretary, and that
the following resolution has
been unanimoasly adopted:
"Whereas, the French language is, under the constitution and the laws, one of the
two official languages of the
Dominion; and
"Whereas, under the 'North-West Territories Act'
the French is, equally with the English, an official language, the suppression of
its use, as such, in the North- West Territories, would beat flagrant injustice towards
the settlers of French origin, who were the pioneers of
this country. and towards those of the same race, who,
upon the faith of the constitution and existing laws, came
and established themselves in the North-West, and have
contributed, with other citizens of other nationalities, to
the development of the resources of the country;
"Be it resolved:
"That a petition containing the resolution that has just
been passed be signed by the chairman and the secretary
of this meeting and be addressed to the House of Commons, asking that no law be passed
affecting the rights
of the population with regard to the official use of the
French language, as guaranteed by the constitution and
the 'North-West Territories Act.'"
No sooner did the news reach the North-West
than petitions such as this were being circulated;
than an indignation meeting was called at Lethbridge. What was the result of that
meeting? I
have a telegram which was sent to me, and which
reads as follows:—
"At a meeting of the Board of Trade of Lethbridge,
thirty-five members present, the following resolution was
passed:—
"'Moved by J. D. Higginbotham, seconded by C. C.
McCaul, that whereas it appears from reports in the
public press that a petition purporting to be from the
ratepayers of Lethbridge, against the proposal to abolish
the dual language system, has been presented to Parliament, this Board of Trade emphatically
protest against
such petition being accepted as the views of the ratepayers or inhabitants of Lethbridge.
because no such public meeting was ever held in Lethbridge, and the said
petition was secretly prepared and forwarded, and the
ratepayers of Lethbridge never had any opportunity of
voting thereon, and that a copy of this resolution be telegraphed to Mr. Dalton McCarthy,
and a copy forwarded
by mail to the public press. Please let D. W. Davis,
M.P., have copy of this telegram.
"W. A. GALLIHER,
"Secretary Board of Trade."
Mr. CHAPLEAU. And the Privy Council has
a communication which shows what the meeting
was and the number of people present, and which
exposes the falsity of that telegram.
857 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 858
Mr. MCCARTHY. I am very sorry the hon.
gentleman did not think fit to lay it upon the
Table.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. It is before the Privy
Council, and the names can be given and the
papers produced at any time my hon. friend wants
them.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I do not think any statement of that kind would convince me, and I will
tell the hon. gentleman the reason why. I have
a letter from a gentleman, who has given me the
liberty to read it—a gentleman well known to the
right hon. the First Minister, and who is as incapable of telling an untruth as is
the hon. the
Provincial Secretary himself.
"February 5th, 1890.
"DEAR MR. MCCARTHY,—The Empire publishes certain
resolutions in regard to the dual language question, purporting to have been passed
at a public meeting of ratepayers at Lethbridge. The 'public meeting' must have
been very privately called, as none of the ratepayers to
the public school ever heard of it. It was in fact a meeting of the Roman Catholic
supporters of the separate
school, a very small minority—and they were very careful not to let the general public
get any inkling of their
proceedings. Â
"You can rely on it that the general feeling of Lethbridge and this district, is entirely
in favor of your
motion.
"Yours faithfully,
"C. C. MCCAUL.
"You are at liberty to make any use of this letter that
you see fit."
That is not the only communication I got. I got a
letter from Banff from a gentleman perfectly well
known to the right hon. the First Minister, Mr.
Frederick J. Boswell:
"MY DEAR MCCARTHY,—I noticed in the Toronto Globe
the announcement that Davls, M. P. for Alberta, has presented to the House of Commons
from Banff, Anthracite
Canmore, &c., a resolution asking the Parliament not
to do away with the French language in the Territories; "
that the said resolutions were passed at public meeting
held in the above named places; I can most positively
assure you that no such meetings were held either at
Banff, Anthracite or Canmore, the only meetings that
have been held were two, in reference to the regulations
and leases in the townsite of Banff.
"I think it right to let you know this, as I am with you
in re your dual language Bill and am at work getting a
petition signed by all inhabitants of this place backing
you up. Dr. Brett, our member of the Legislative Assembly, is strongly in your favor,
and you may depend that if
it is referred to the Assembly he Will do his utmost to
carry it.
"I think it very unjust of Davis to misrepresent us.
"Wishing you and your Bill every success.
"I remain,
"Yours very Sincerely,
"FRED J. BOSWELL."
I have also a telegram, which I believe was also
sent to the hon. member who represents Alberta in
this House (Mr. Davis), in these words:
"At a mass meeting in Calgary to-night, Mayor Lafferty,
chairman, the following resolutions passed by 250 to 7:—
"'No. 1. That the use of a dual language in oflicial proceedings in the North-West
Territories is unnecessary,
expensive and calculated to prevent the complete union
of the several nationalities who reslde in the Territories.
and that to bring about a united Canadian people in this
part of the Dominion, the English language alone should
be legalised in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, the courts, and all other
official bodies.
"'No. 2. That this meeting heartily endorses the action
of the Legislative Assembly at Regina, in reference to the
dual language, and requests that the petition presented
to the Dominion Government in pursuance of such action
be granted.
"'No. 3. That a copy of the above resolutions be forwarded to D. W. Davis, M.P., D'Alton
McCarthy, M.P.,
the Hon. James Lougheed and the Dominion Parliament,
and that D. W. Davis, M.P., be requested to forward in
every way the movement for the abolition of French as
an official language in the Territories.'"
Now, let us see where we stand in regard to this
question, considered as a local one. The members
of the North-West Council were elected two years
ago, if my memory serves me, since the members
of this House who sit for that district were elected.
They are twenty-two in number. They are spread,
of course, and come much more in contact with
the people of their respective territories than do
the members who sit here, whose districts are so
much larger. They have unanimously, or with
practical unanimity, petitioned this House to
abolish this clause in the North-West Territories
Act. On the motion being made here, and the
matter being brought before Parliament, and it
appearing that certain cut-and-dried petitions were
presented here from certain places in that Territory, the people there at once set
about getting up
counter-petitions which I have had the honor to
present to the House. They are not petitions purporting to be signed by the chairmen
and secretaries
of public meetings, which may conceal the fact that
no such meetings were held, but they are signed
by the leading men in the places from which they
come. For instance, in Calgary, the petition was
signed by the mayor at the head, by two ex-mayors
and over 500 others; and, in another place, the petition is signed by a French Catholic
gentleman, who,
I think must be the gentleman who grows coffee, to
whom the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin)
referred to the other night, though of that I am
not quite sure. Then we have a public meeting at
which a vote of 250 to 7 was recorded in favor of
this change; and yet we are told that we do not
know what the feelings of the people of the North- West are in regard to this question,
and that we
ought to give them time for consideration, and to
allow the members of the Assembly there another
opportunity of appealing to their constituents.
There are many other questions which come before
this House with which, if that argument is to prevail, we would find it difficult
to deal at all. But
I do not conceal the fact that I do not look upon
this matter as a local question. When I addressed
the people of Calgary, and they were good enough
to say that they understood I was to take a part
in the movement to abolish the separate school
system and the dual language in the North-West,
I said, as to the dual language I shall move in Parliament, Whether you petition or
not; I look upon
that question as a matter of national importance,
as a matter affecting the whole Dominion, as a
matter which is proper to be dealt with in
Parliament and not by a Local Legislature.
I found at the same time, in the organ of
the hon. gentleman which is published in the city
of Toronto, a statement that if the people in the
North-West signified their desire to abolish the
use of that language officially, effect would be
given to their wish. When the Assembly met, almost their earliest act—and I think
not their least
important act—was to adopt this petition, which
placed on two grounds their desire to abolish the
use of that language: one, that it was not required
in the interest of the country; and the other, that
it was contrary to sound public policy that two
languages should prevail. Follow that up by the
petitions I have had the honor to present, and by
the report which I have read from my place in
Parliament, and then, if the House is not seized of
859
[COMMONS] 860
the opinions of the North-West in regard to this
matter, I fail to see how we will ever be able to
obtain the views of that people on the subject. Do
not let us exaggerate, I have no desire at all to exaggerate the importance of this
question of
language. I admit as freely as it can be admitted
that there are cases—and the case of Switzerland
is one—where, under peculiar circumstances, people
speaking different languages, those languages
being officially there three instead of two, have
enjoyed a certain amount of prosperity, or
very great prosperity if you like. But do hon.
gentlemen see any analogy between Switzerland and Canada? The cantons of Switzerland
came together as independent bodies under
bargains and terms and conditions to which everyone of them had to agree, and that
possesses nothing
of an analogy to the case of our own North-West.
But, if we look at the history of the Swiss Confederation, what do we find? I hardly
expected
from the historian of the House, the hon. member
for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), that so much stress
would be laid upon the case of Switzerland. Let
us look at this case of Switzerland for a few moments, while I give a short statement
of its history.
It is quite true that Switzerland is composed of 22
cantons, it is quite true that there are three official
languages there, it is equally true that there is a
fourth language which is not recognised. But the
history of the Swiss constitution may briefly be
summarised thus: Between 1291 and 1874, the
confederation has passed through no less than seven
phases, of which, since 1798, there have been four
—one in 1798, one in 1803, another in 1815, another
1848, and a revision in 1874. Is that the evidence
of a stable constitution? Is that the kind of constitution that the hon. member would
like to have
fastened upon the people of his beloved North- West? Just let us see:
"The third phase lasted till 1798 "—
I am reading from the best work, I believe, on
the subject, the work of Sir F. O. Adams—
—" without modification, and was marked by internal
discord, religious wars, and revolts of peasants."
That is the first beautiful picture we have of the
Confederation of Switzerland. This phase lasted
from 1815 to 1848:
"Then came an epoch of agitation and of discord.
"The Confederation suffered from a fundamental vice,
i. e., the powerlessness of the central authority. The
Cantons had become too independent, and gave to their
deputies instructions differing Widely from each other."
Now, here is what we find happening in 1847:
"On the 4th November, 1847, after the deputies of the
Sonderbond had left the Diet, this league was declared to
be dissolved,and hostilities broke out between the two contending parties. A short
and demsxve campaign of twenty- five days ensued; Frelburg was taken by the Federal
troops under General Dufour, later Luzern opened its
gates, the small cantons and the Valais capitulated, and
the strife came to an end."
Now, let me give you a comment upon this from
a paper which, perhaps, will not command the
attention of the members of this House, the Edinburgh Review which, so late, as the month of
January last, spoke of the Swiss Executive in
these words:
"It (the Swiss Executive) guides the policy of a state
eternally menaced by foreign complications; it reserves
harmony throughout a confederacy made up of twenty- two cantons, each jealous of one
another an sympathising only in common jealousy of the Federal power."
I do not think that any of us would like to plant
in the virgin soil of the North-West, a constitution
such as the Swiss constitution, with the results
which have attended its use, and, therefore, the
illustration is very far fetched. Take another
illustration which we have had, take Cape Colony;
I dare say some hon. gentleman know more about
Cape Colony than I do, possibly some members of
this House may have visited it; but is it not a fact
that the Dutch Boers, as they are called, have
rebelled and have left the English colony and have
formed an independent republic on its borders?
Have not, within recent times, the British arms
suffered a defeat at their hands, and today is
there not very great trouble between the Dutch
who remain in the English colony? Certainly, it
is the last example I would expect to be given by
any persons, cognisant with the facts in support of
a duality of language in any country. But need we
go so far afield? Let me give one more instance,
wearisome as these instances may be. I cannot
forbear quoting to the House the striking example
of Bohemia. Bohemia, we all know, is inhabited
by two nationalities, the Germans, and the Zechs,
speaking each their language. We know an attempt was made, not long ago, to put down
one of
these languages, and how has a settlement been
arrived at? What has been the only possible solution? Under the influence of the Emperor
Francis
Joseph, who is beloved by his subjects, and who
has great influence among them, they have resolved
to settle the difficulty in this extraordinary fashion:
the Diet is informally divided into two Curiae, one
German and the other Zech, which sit and debate
together, although each possesses the full power of
a separate and co-ordinate House. That is the only
solution for a duality of language which could be
found in Bohemia, and it was found necessary to
resort to that in order to prevent these people
from flying at one another's throats, it was found
necessary to resort to that to prevent the Germans
from deserting to Bismark. Now, what is the
position here?—because, it is useless for us to go
further than our own country. If this language is
not designedly perpetuated with the view of keeping up the French nationality—which
the hon.
leader of the Opposition has been the only French
Canadian on the floor of Parliament to denounce,
or to say that he does not sympathise with it.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I say you denounced it; I
say that the leader of the Opposition is the only
gentleman of that nationality who denounced it.
Mr. MCCARTHY. No, not your nationality;
but the formation of a French nation upon this
continent.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I ask, what is the ultimate
result of the system that is being pursued in
regard to the French language throughout this
Dominion? Is there any other result, except the
one which is pointed out to us in newspapers in
the Province of Quebec? Is that not the logical
outcome of the views which were enunciate so
freely by
La Véfité which I read to this House
861 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 862
when I had the honor to introduce this Bill? I know
no other. But I deny the right of any gentleman in
this House to repudiate the language of the mountebank, as the hon. member for West
Assiniboia
(Mr. Davin) calls him, the "mountebank Premier"
of the Province of Quebec. The language is not
mine. I differ from Mr. Mercier as much as it is
possible to differ from any public man, but yet I
have too great a respect for my French Canadian
fellow-subjects to speak of their First Minister in
the language which was used by the champion of
their cause on the floor of this Parliament; for I
recognise in him, whatever his other faults may
be, one of the greatest men which his nationality
has produced in Canada. We know that although
it may suit the purposes of the leader of the Opposition to say that he does not sympathise
with these
aspirations, his words are not uttered in the Province of Quebec. We know that the
hon. gentleman is going hand in hand with the Premier of the
Province of Quebec in all his local contests, in all
his endeavors to fasten what he calls the Nationalist Party upon that Province, and
in which, up
to this time, he has been successful. We know, Sir,
that the hon. gentleman was present at a great
public meeting at which the Premier of Quebec
announced the aspirations of the French Canadian
people to be the formation of a great French nationality, not under the glorious Union
Jack, of which
we hear so much in this House from some hon. gentlemen who do not say so much about
it in the Province
of Quebec, but under the Tricolor, and he advised
the members of both parties to join under the
Tricolor of France, the flag of France, not that
they wished to unite with France; I quite agree
that is not their aspiration; the Republic of
France does not suit the French Canadians of that
view in the Province of Quebec; but that they did
announce that their nationality was typified by
the French flag, the Tricolor of France. That
that language was uttered at a great meeting of
their fellow-countrymen, that that language was
uttered by the Premier of Quebec in the presence
of the leader of the Opposition in this House,
without demur, without contradiction, without
remonstrance, and without reproach, goes without
saying.
Mr. LAURIER. Would the hon. gentleman
permit me to interrupt him? On the occasion to
which he alludes I spoke after Mr. Mercier, and I
spoke afterwards in Toronto, quoting word for word
the language I had used in Quebec.
Mr. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman is
perfectly right, and yet my statement remains
uncontradicted. The hon. gentleman did speak
in honeyed words, first of his love for his own
nationality, and secondly of his love for the other
nationalities of the Dominion. What I am complaining of is this: if that was not the
view of the
hon. gentleman, then and there, before the thousands who were assembled, before the
great body
of his fellow-countrymen, was the time for prompt
repudiation and not here. But no repudiation
came. Is it possible under these conditions for us
to stand still? Have we no other evidence of the
aspirations of the hon. gentleman's party, because
he is reaping the benefit of that party, that party
which is is strength in the Province of Quebec?
It is only a few days ago, certainly only a few
weeks ago, since the hon. gentleman wrote an
open letter calling upon his people, notwithstanding the rebellion of the old Liberal
Party of which
he was at one time a member, when they rebelled
against this new proposed national cry of the Premier of the Province of Quebec; the
hon. gentleman instead of joining with his own confrères,
wrote to the constituency or a prominent member
in it, urging their support to the new party formed
by the Premier of Quebec.
Mr. MCCARTHY. He had been a Tory or a
Bleu, and he became a convert to the Nationalist
cry and went over to the Nationalist Party against
the reinonstrances of the old Liberal Party of the
Province. The hon. gentleman thought fit to
interpose and interfere. Is that all? When the
hon. gentleman joined in the agitation with respect to Riel, I wonder did he ever
think that he
would be denouncing a member of this House for
incendiarism? I wonder did he ever think he
would be denouncing a brother member for raising
a cry and appealing to the passions of the people?
Does the hon. gentleman remember his course
upon that occasion? Sir, does he remember that
when Riel, after a fair trial, after being ably
defended and impartially tried, was justly executed.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Justly executed—yes. At a
meeting in Montreal, led by the lieutenant of the
hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) who
sits here for western Ontario — influenced by
purely patriotic considerations for the good of the
country—this extraordinary language was used by
the present leader of the Opposition at that excited
time, when a statesman would have naturally used a
language tending to quiet and subdue the disturbed
passions of the multitude. And what were the
words?
"If he (Laurier) had been on the banks of the Saskatchewan when the rebellion broke
out, he would have
taken up arms against the Government."
He further said:
"It must be well understood by all that this was not a
war of races, but rather a vindication of the rights of one
race that claimed for the French that which is granted to
all other nationalities. The crime of Regina would still be
avenged, not only by the French, but by all other races.
They were asking for no favor, but they only wanted
common justice pure and Simple. They were as jealous
of the liberties of others as of their own; and if injustice
was done one class, injustice might be done to others."
He further said:
"They cannot bring Riel back to life, but by patriotically uniting together they can
drive from power the
wretches who had so pitilessly put him to death." * *
"Sir John had not had the courage of dealing leniently
by a man who represented a cause which he had not
treated fairly and justly." * * *
"This was a free country and not even the Government
had the right of committing judicial murder."
This was the language of the hon. gentleman, who
has had the hardihood to speak of my moderate
terms as being calculated to arouse angry passions,
race difficulties and troubles. Does the hon. gentleman repent of those words? No.
His benches
are filled by his fellow-countrymen by reason of
those words, and although some of them sit there
to-day not following or supporting him, it is simply
by reason of the accident that he did not secure a
majority. The hon. gentleman profits by that
language, and he has no reason to regret it. We
recognize that by means of this cry the then
863
[COMMONS] 864
Government of the Province of Quebec, the best
Government the Province has had since Confederation was ejected from office. Why?
Because they
declined to vote censure upon the Administration
at Ottawa. Mr. Mercier, taking advantage of the
excited feeling of the Province, gathered together
the Nationalist Party, nationalist in the narrow
sense to which I have referred, and, joining hands
with the hon. gentleman here, brought about a
result which deprived this House of many supporters from the French Province for hon.
gentlemen
on this side of the House, and brought strength to
hon. gentlemen opposite. People might not consider the words of politicians of such
serious
moment, but we cannot disregard what we see
going on before our eyes. The other day a young
lady, Miss Maybee, was sent down to the Post
Office Department in Quebec. She had the misfortune to speak English and to come from
Ontario;
and will it be believed, and yet we know it perfectly
well to be the case, that those supporting the hon.
gentleman opposite at once denounced the Government and the Postmaster General for
making the
appointment.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am astounded at it. I
did not think that matters had gone to that length;
I have not seen the references, and I will be
delighted if the hon. gentleman will furnish them
to me. So it now happens, if the hon. gentleman's
statement is correct, and he would not make a
statement if it was not correct, that both French
parties in Quebec object to an English speaking
lady.
Mr. McCARTHY. The hon. gentleman admits
it. I repeat that they object to an English lady
being sent down there. I have the words in some
of the newspapers if the hon. gentleman wishes
them. The howl was raised, and it was successful
I am sorry to say. I am sorry to know that the
old politeness of the French race seems to have
departed, for I thought a young lady would have
been favorably received; but objection was made
by
L'Electeur and another paper. Here are the
words:
"L'Evénement joins us in protesting against the nomination of Miss Maybee to the Post Office Inspector's
Office.
The rumor going round, according to what l'Evénement
says, is that we are going to give employment in the Civil
Service at Quebec to a lady of Ontario. As the occupation of this lady would simply
be to run a typewriter in
the post office, we don't see why we should go so far to get
a typewriter that we could find so easily at home.
"It is not in our knowledge, and it is not in the knowledge, of any person, that they
would think for a moment
of ringing a French Canadian girl from Quebec or Montreal to occupy a position of
any kind of employment in
Ontario. Are we supposed to be more generous, more
agreable, than our neighbors, especially when we have
persons who are qualified to do the work in question?"
I can assure the hon. gentleman that if a
young lady is sent to Ontario or Toronto she will
not be denounced in the public press, but she will
be received with kindness, courtesy and consideration. Another article follows, which
I need not
trouble the House by reading. That is another
result of these race troubles and race difficulties.
But it is not the most serious in my humble judgment that we have to deal with. I
find in a French
publication of recent date, M. Tardivel, under the
heading "Anglicism—Behold the Enemy," writes:
"Reflecting a little upon the situation I saw a great
danger for the future of the French Canadian race.
Language is the soul of a nation. If the Basques have
been able so long to preserve intact their ancient institutions amidst the revolutions
and the wars which have
convulsed France and Spain; if the Bretons and the
Welsh have remained distinct from the races which surround them, they have their language
to thank for it. If
Ireland struggles in vain to regain her independence, it
is because she no longer speaks the language of her old
kings. Do you wish to cause a people to disappear?
Destroy its language. It is because they comprehend
this truth that Russia shows herself so inexorable towards the Polish language, and
that Germany seeks to
prescribe the French language of Alsace-Lorraine. It
is then important for a people, especially a conquered
people, to preserve its language."
The same writer again says:
"I stop here. I make no claim to have exhausted the
subject, far from it. I have simply desired to utter this
note of alarm; 'Fight the anglification of the French
language,' and at the same time to we some proofs that
this enemy is really to be feared. Let others with more
authority than I possess continue the combat; and if one
day those who love the French language decide to make a
grand assault, all along the line, he assured that I shall
not fail to respond to the appeal."
Mr. GIROUARD. Surely we are entitled to
know what the hon. gentleman is reading from.
Mr. FISET. May I ask the hon. gentleman from
what journal he is reading? I do not understand
that he has told us from what paper he is quoting.
Mr. McCARTHY. It is a pamphlet by Tardivel.
Then another writer, Mr. Manseau, in a book published in 1881, writes:
"The dictionary gives the technical definition of
Anglicism. Here follows, in our opinion, a definition
from the heart. It is a spot of blood that shows us through
what place the claws of the British lion have passed, and
these claws (who is there that knows it not) torture and
flag our language until they kill it."
I will not trouble the House with more extracts
of this description, but I will draw the attention
of my hon. friends on both sides to the instruction
given in the French schools, and if there is then an
hon. member who thinks that children so taught
or instructed with regard to this history of our
country can grow up as British citizens, or British
subjects, or as loyal except to their own French
Canadian nationality, or that anything can be
expected from them except the language of La
Vérité and the language of the Premier of the
Province of Quebec; then I think that hon.
gentlemen will be incapable of reasoning. In this
history I find the following:
"1774. England, fearful of losing Canada, in view of the
menacing attitude of the United States, made haste to
grant a new constitution more favorable to the Catholics."
Mr. McCARTHY. The hon. gentleman says
"Hear, hear." There is not a shadow of doubt
that this is the teachings in the schools. Every
concession that has been obtained is always pictured to the people of the Province
of Quebec as
having been wrung from tyrants and despots and
not granted by the free-will of the people.
Mr. McCARTHY. I quote also another selec
tion from one of these histories:
"The material forces of New France had to succumb in
the end, but the providential forces still do their work in
865 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 866
the colony, which is probably destined to play on this
continent the part which old France has played on the
Continent of Europe."
I think I have read of similar language in La
Vérité. If this is the teaching of the schools, if
these are the writings of the different writers, if
this is the language of the Premier of the Province,
if these are the utterances at the great public
meetings held in that Province (and no man is bold
enough to assert a single word of dissent to them)
what possible outcome can there be except the
natural outcome which is here announced on the
floor of Parliament. If my ears did not deceive
me I think I heard the Minister of Public Works
speak of the autonomy of his race, and state
that his nation would live in spite of
all that might be done against it. We must
remember that this has been a British colony for
over a century and a quarter, and that within a
very short period after the cession—I was nearly
using the unfortunate word conquest—a distinguished French traveller passing through
here was
able to announce that the French Canadians were
better treated under the English than they were under their own Kings. We must remember
that from
that time to this they have enjoyed a liberty which
they could not possibly have enjoyed under the
Crown of France yet; notwithstanding this, they
are endeavoring to perpetuate this race and nation
cry mainly by their language, which is the soul of
the nation, as this writer says. If the language was
permitted to die out, as it would naturally do, all
this ambition, which must end in delusion, which
can never end in anything but delusion and which
can never lead to any accomplished fact, would soon
disappear. We have no jealousy of the Germans,
we have no jealousy of any other nationality,because
we know that while they speak in their own tongue,
and for years after they come here are not able to
speak any other tongue, yet they do not propose to
divide the people of this country by their race cries
and race feelings. Now these are the problems we
have to deal with. There is no use our going to
Switzerland or to Austro-Hungary for examples.
We have to deal with the question we have here at
home; and the practical question is, whether, under
these circumstances, we should permit this kind of
thing to go on. Whatever I might do bye-and- by, no man is responsible for my acts.
The
gentlemen who vote with me now, and the
gentlemen who disagree with me, are not responsible for what I may do bye-and—by.
I may state—
as these hon. gentlemen who have done me the
honor of followin my utterances with so much
care know well—that I have never pretended to
believe or to say that it was possible to deal with
the dual language in the Province of Quebec. I
realise that that is beyond the hope of being dealt
with by any possible legislation. I realise that
that has been allowed to grow into such monstrous
proportions that we can never hope to cope with it,
except by natural ways and by natural causes
which possiblymay work a cure. Not in our day, but
within perhaps a time that one can imagine, it may
work out its own cure. I look forward to the
assimilation that is going on by reason of the
travelling backwards and forwards between the
French Canadians of Quebec and the Eastern
States of the Union. Do what you will, the people
do go and will go to the Eastern States. Do what
you will, they will more or less imbibe the language
of that great country and disseminate it amon st
those whom they have left behind. From t is
side we are taking care that the Province of
Ontario will maintain its character as an English speaking Province. This process
is going on,
I have great hope, and it is a hope which
does no injustice to my French Canadian fellow
citizens, that bye-and-by the difficulty even
in the Province of Quebec may vanish. So
that I have never had the ambition, I have never
dreamed of interfering. I do not say, Sir, that the
time may not come when it will be proper to move—
though in that I do not find much sympathy in this
House—to do away with the dual language in this
Chamber. The time has not come yet, that is quite
certain. What we are dealing with now is this
question in the North-West, and do not let us mix
up questions that have nothing at all to do with it.
One hon. gentleman said I had introduced even a
religious cry. Why, Sir, is freedom of speech so
gone in this country that I cannot express my dissent
from the system of separate schools which exists in
my own Province without being told that I am
raising a religious cry? Is that a question of religion? Is not that a question of
great state policy
as to how our children shall be educated? And I
do hope that before very long the delegation from
the Province of Ontario will call on this House for
its aid to blot out the Separate School clause from the
British North America Act, which limits and fetters
the people of that Province. That clause was carried
by a majority of French Canadians, and was imposed
upon the people of Ontario against their will; and
I am sorry to differ from my hon. leader on that
question. He tells us — aud I never feel more
humiliated than when I hear him speak on that
subject — that he participated in imposing that
Separate School system upon us. But is it
possible that the free people of Ontario are not to be
placed in the same position as the people by the
sea on both sides of them, in the Maritime Provinces and in British Columbia? If they
could
not ask this Parliament to aid in freeing them from
the restrictions imposed upon them I would despair
of the freedom of this country. But that has nothing to do with this question. All
these are aside
from it, and will be properly dealt with when they
come up and not before. What we are dealing
with now is the question whether this Bill for the
repeal of the duallanguage in the North-West should
or should not become law; that and that only is the
question before us. I am sorry, Sir, that the hon.
member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) has been
compelled by the unfortunate event to which he
alluded to absent himself from this discussion. It
is not pleasant to speak of an hon. gentleman behind his back, for I cannot quite
accept the theory
put forward by the hon. member for East Simcoe
(Mr. Cook), that that gives one a better privilege
to abuse a man; but, perhaps, I may be allowed to
say a few words about that hon. gentleman's proposition. You will remember, Sir, that
he read
us a lecture: he told us how we were not to disturb the harmony that at present existed;
how we
were to be careful of raising race cries; how he
recognised that there was a mass of ignorance,
prejudice and bigotry which only required the
hand of an incendiary to inflame it, and he rather
intimated that the hand of the incendiary had
already been laid to that mass; and then he
wound up with a fervent appeal that we should
867
[COMMONS] 868
never interfere with the covenant, as he called it,
made at the time of Confederation. I felt that if
that hon. gentleman had not already surrendered
to French influences of the Province of Quebec
he made his capitulation the other night. But his
most extraordinary statement was that we were not
informed of the opinion of the people of the North- West, that their representatives
had no mandate
from them to take up and deal with this question.
Did that hon. gentleman remember that when in the
Province of Ontario he agitated the country from end
to end with regard to the murder of poor Thomas
Scott, he sat in the Legislature of Ontario, where
he had no mandate to deal with that question?
Did the hon. gentleman remember that on one
occasion he himself brought into this House a resolution which was offensive to a
great many of us
with regard to the Irish question, in order that he
mi ht secure the Irish section of our population
an draw them to his standard, although he had
no mandate, and although this House had no
authority to speak with regard to Imperial concerns? Did that hon. gentleman remember
that
on another occasion he voted for, if he did not
move, a resolution on the subject of the disestablishment of the Irish Church? And
yet
he undertook to assert that the Legislature of
the North-West had no right to petition this Parliament. We had a right to pass offensive
resolutions and send them home to England, notwithstanding the rebuff we met with
from the Imperial
authorities; but the hon. gentleman ventured to
assert that the representatives of the North-West
had no right to petition or to express their wishes that
this clause should be stricken out of the North-West
Territories Act. I will say no more in the absence
of that hon. gentleman. I now desire, before
closing, to say a word or two on the merits of the
various motions before the Chair. The amendment
of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil)
has received but little favor from any of the
English-speaking members. It is one,I think, impossible of acceptance. It announces
that if we repeal
a clause in the North-West Act, put in under the
extraordinary circumstances to which reference
has been made, and allowed to remain because
attention has not been drawn to it, we shall be
shaking the stability of our institutions and destroying the peace and progress of
the North-West.
The mere recital of that resolution carries its
condemnation with it. The other amendment with
which we have to deal, and which seems to find a
good deal of favor, is the amendment of my hon.
friend the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin);
and before I deal with that I have somewhat of an
apology to make to that hon. gentleman and
to this House. I am accused of interfering
with the prerogatives of the members from
the North-West. Surely, said the hon. Minister
of Public Works, echoed by the hon. Secretary of
State, there were members in this House representing the North-West whose duty it
was to
bring this question to the attention of this
chamber, and there was rather an insinuation
thrown out by the hon. member for Assiniboia
himself in his very opening words that my action
was an intrusion on his domain; and, if you will
pardon me saying so, the bitterness—but that is
too strong a word, for he could not be bitter if he
tried, but the appearance of bitterness—which
characterised his observation I thought had its
origin somewhat in pique, that anyone except that
hon. gentleman himself should venture to deal
with questions affecting the people of the North- West. He and he alone is the guardian
of their
interests, the only member who has a right to
speak on their behalf, and any one else who attempts to do so must expect to meet
with the
castigation administered to me in the opening of
this debate.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes; but the very observation rather suggested an apology from me. This
is my excuse, and the only excuse I give—I am
reading from the Qu'Appelle
Progress of 7th February inst.:—
"Dalton McCarthy introduced into the Dominion Parliament his Bill to abolish the official
use of the French
language in the North-West. He delivered a very temperate and dispassionate speech,
full of facts and arguments."
That is not the way my feeble efforts were characterised in this House; but that seems
to be the
opinion of the outside world, at all events.
"The second reading is to take place on Wednesday
next, when it is expected there will be a big fight. We
are informed on good authority that all the North-West
representatives will vote against it. If they do so, their
constituents should call upon them to resign forthwith.
We are also informed that Mr. N. F. Davin will speak
against it. West Assiniboia is about the best mis-represented constituency in the
North-West. This country is
almost unanimous in favor of Mr. McCarthy's Bill, but its
representatives all belong to the party machine and must
represent the machine in preference to the country."
That, Mr. Speaker, is my apology for venturing to
introduce this point to the notice of the House.
Now, with regard to the amendment of that hon.
gentleman: what is it? My motion is that the Bill
be read the second time. Great fault is found with
the preamble. The preamble is worse than the
enacting clause; the enacting clause is harmless
and the preamble is something fearful. Well, to
the laymen of the House, perhaps, explanations are
necessary about the preamble. To the lawyers of
the House an explanation is not called for. It is
quite certain, as every lawyer in this House knows,
that the preamble neither adds to nor takes from
the effect of the enacting clause. The preamble, in
this case, I quite admit, was unnecessary. While I
do not at all withdraw from the sentiment contained in that preamble, yet as an effective
piece of
legislation I am free to admit the Bill would be
perfectly as good without as with the preamble.
Now, if the hon. gentlemen in this House are
sincere, and I am bound to believe in their
sincerity; if they desire that this dual clause
should be expunged or repealed—the hon. member
for West Durham thought "expunge" was a very
improper word to use; one has to be very careful
of his language and must not use words, no matter
how plain they may be, except with the greatest
care— well, I will call it repeal, or anything you
will. But, I say, if hon. gentlemen are sincere in
their desire to repeal this clause, the way to do
that is to pass the Bill to the second reading, and
those who are opposed to the preamble can then
have it struck out. The preamble of a private Bill
is the all-essential portion; if the preamble be not
carried, the Bill does not pass. The preamble of a
public Bill is wholly unessential; its only possible
use can be to make an ambiguous portion of the
enacting clause plain, if ambiguity there be; and I
say here that While I do not withdraw from that
869 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 870
preamble, while I think the statement in it is perfectly true, namely:
"Whereas it is expedient in the interest of the national
unity of the Dominion that there should be community
of language among the people of Canada."
Who will say nay to that? It may not be absolutely essential; that is not the proposition.
I
say, it is expedient, and every gentleman who has
spoken on this question has admitted its expediency. Even the hon. member for West
Durham
said that if we were all of one race and one
nationality, speaking one tongue, the task before
us would be simpler and easier, and, therefore, the
proposition before us is not incorrect and unfounded. But to any hon. gentleman who
objects
to it, all I can say is, when the Bill goes to Committee, should it pass the second
reading, let him
object to the preamble, and I shall be the first to
withdraw it. I want the body of the Bill, and do
not care for the preamble, and if there be a member
of this House who desires the Bill and objects to the
preamble, there shall be no opposition, as far as I
am concerned, to this preamble being obliterated,
or expunged, to use any term you please. I will
say more. I did not in the least dream that the
words should be taken up in an offensive sense,
and I can only most heartily express my regret
that any of my French Canadian friends should be
offended by this clause in the Bill, or that I should
have hurt the sentiments of French speaking members of this House, or the French Canadians
throughout the country—for such was far from my
intention. But what was the proposition of the
hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin)?
It was that the Bill be not now read a second
time. That is, he does not want the dual language
expunged, nor does he want to give the power to
the North-West Territories to expunge it.
Mr. McCARTHY. Then the hon. gentleman
has not taken the proper course. If he wanted
that, his proper course was to let the Bill be
read a second time, and to move into Committee
that clause 1 be struck out and the words of his
amendment inserted in its stead:
"That the said Bill be not now read a second time, but
that it be resolved,—That it is expedient that the Legislative Assembly of the North-West
Territories be authorised
to deal with the subject—matter of this Bill by Ordinance
or enactment after the next general election for the said
Territories."
But the effect of the hon. gentleman's amendment
is to kill the Bill. Make no mistake about it. If
the Bill is not read a second time, there it stops.
Then what takes place? Hon. gentlemen say they
want to repeal the dual language clause, but they
want to do that with as much gentleness and consideration for the feelings and susceptibilities
of
the French-speaking people as possible. Then, the
way to do that is to pass the Bill, rejecting the
preamble, and inserting the clause of the hon.
member for West Assiniboia as the substantial
part of the Bill. But if you say that the Bill do
not pass, but that it be resolved, &c., and make that
resolution as long as you please, what follows?
Who is to move? The Government cannot move, for
they are at sixes and sevens on this subject. There
is the resolution. I certainly would not move it,
as I do not approve of it. The hon. member for
Assiniboia would not move it, because he would
offend the powers that be.
Mr. McCARTHY. Then I think the hon. gentleman would have to move, and instead of being
the admired of all his surroundings, he will occupy the position I do. He will be
belated and
berated, and will fall from the highest stage or
pinnacle of greatness which he has occupied for
the last few days. Do not now rush in where angels
fear to tread; and I do not think the hon. gentleman
will make any such mistake. Why, let us not
deal with this subject in a simple way. Punish
me if you will; expel me if you please; because I
venture to put in this preamble, and to speak at
the Opera House, and because I ventured to claim
that the English language should rule in this country, but pass the Bill. The way
to pass the Bill
is to go to a second reading and then to expunge
what is in the preamble. Do not pas the Bill, if it
suits your pleasure, but vote the amendment of the
hon. member for Berthier. That is honest and
straightforward, and that, at all events, we can
understand. We can understand the views and
the policy of the hon. gentlemen who are absolutely
opposed to any change. But hon. gentlemen who
wish to get rid of this question by a side issue, who
try to do and not to do it, will not, although they
may deceive this country. That they may depend
upon. I listened to the argument of the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Landry), and I listened to
the argument of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr.
Gigault), and no more straightforward or honorable statement of the case was given
on that side of
the House. It contrasted greatly with the statement from the Treasury benches of its
compatriots
from Quebec; it was arguments, not abuse. It
was a reason for us to pause in our course, and
was not simply denunciation of those who differ
from the views which those hon. gentlemen both
take. But I say their view is the correct view. It
is this Parliament, and it is this Parliament alone,
which has the power to deal with this question. It
is this Parliament which put that clause in, uninvited. It is this Parliament which
has the
authority to take that clause out. Why should
we abnegate our duties or our functions on
the ground of expediency or to get rid of a temporary difficulty? Will we, in the
interest of our
country, be doing a service? Will we not be
keeping open that running sore of which the
hon. gentleman from South Oxford (Sir Richard
Cartwright) spoke? We put the trouble on the
people of the North—West, but, although we should
denude ourselves of our authority and endeavor to
get rid of this question for the moment, it will
remain a burning question in old Canada and in the
new Provinces, more especially, if on postpone
the decision of this question until after the next
general elections. I am commissioned to read the
opinion of a senator who once occupied a seat in
this House, and whose voice is now unable to be
heard here.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Senator Perley. His observations ought to have weight. Writing to me on
the 12th February, he says:
"MY DEAR SIR, —Stand firm for your resolution re dual
language in the North-West Territories. The North-West
871
[COMMONS] 872
is with you. I get letters by every mail strongly urging
me to help you in this matter. Davin's amendment if
carried might lead to serious results in some of the copstituencies, only paralleled
by the Hull affair of last night.
Particulary might this be the ease in those constituencies
where it was stated by Mr. Bits, member of the Legislative Assembly, that so few of
the people could read in
any language and their prejudices so easily excited. I
contend it is wrong to submit a question of such a character to the vote of the people.
Discussion and electioneering talk on such an issue would tend to disturb the
harmony and good-feeling that is fast being obtained
between the people of different nationalities and creeds
1n the North-West Territories. I write this advisedly and
with the full knowledge of the responsibility of a representative of the people in
the North-West Territories
from end to end.
"Yours, &c.,
"W. D. PERLEY."
Is not that reasonable? Is it reasonable, when we
have this matter before us now—a matter which
has excited, we are told, a great deal of feeling in
this chamber, a matter which has excited at good
deal of feeling out of doors, having opinions formed
one way or the other about it, having a means of
knowledge denied to the representatives of the
North-West Territories, we, who have this great
duty thrown upon us here, should refuse to discharge it and ask the unfortunate people
of the
North-West to have this bone of contention thrown
upon them. That may be right from a party point
of view; I venture to say it is not right from a
statesman's point of view. This Bill may be wrong,
it may be that the Bill ought to be rejected, but
there can be no justification for sending it to the
people of the North-West to be dealt with. I deny
that I have gone back upon any views that I have
advocated in regard to provincial rights. If the
people of the North-West did not wish to have
this measure passed, we might postpone it at the
present time, but the people have shown that they
are in favor of it, and every newspaper in the
North-West—excepting always the Regina Leader
—has spoken infavor 0f the abolition of the dual
language. I cannot look upon the Regina Leader
as an authoritative representative of public opinion
in the North-West. We know that the Re ina
Leader occupies a peculiar position in regard to
the existing state of affairs in the North-West. I
am told—I may be wrong—I do not connect it
with any hon. member of this House, but I
am told that it was owing to the fact that the
Lieutenant Governor of the North-West insisted
upon giving to the Regina Leader the printing of
that Government at a higher rate than it could be
done for elsewhere, that the deadlock was brought
about in the North-West Council, that the Lieutenant Governor's advisers refused to
agree to
that, and then resigned. Of course, the longer the
dual language is preserved, the better it is for the
publisher of the Regina Leader, and, therefore, I do
not think that the Regina Leader is to be quoted
as an authority on this question. Putting the
Regina Leader aside, we have the unanimous opinion of the press of the North-West, as we have the
opinion of the people of the North-West, that they
do not want the dual language. Why should we
pause? Why should we hesitate? I have done.
I have endeavored to make my case as plain as I
possibly can. I have endeavored to show why this
question should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I have endeavored to
show that it
ought to be dealt with here. I have endeavored
to show that, if this resolution which has
been moved by the hon. member for West
Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) is passed, that is the end of
the Bill, but the end is not accomplished. I have
stated that I am prepared, if any hon. gentleman
objects to the recital in this Bill, that it shall be
stricken out, and every hon. gentleman in this
House knows that, when the Bill reaches committee,
it can then be debated whether it is for us here or
for the North-West to deal with this question; but,
if the amendment of the hon. gentleman is carried,
it is away to do this little Bill to death, instead of
its becoming the law of the land, which is the
desire of the people in the North-West who have
taken an interest in this matter, and I am sure is
the desire of the great majority of the people of the
country. The sooner this question is set at rest,
the better. It is a question which is calculated to
disturb us on a question of race cleavage. That
alone should be a reason for dealing with the
matter now. Does the House suppose that, if the
Bill is defeated, whether upon the amendment of
the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin) or upon the amendment of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil), that
would in
any way end the question? Can any one imagine
that, if I stand alone with my seconder in voting for
this Bill, the same difficulties and troubles which
certain hon. gentlemen profess to lament will not be
brought up again? Is it not in the interest of the
harmony and the good-will of the people of different nationalities that we should
deal with this question here, this question which is now before us,
and do they not suppose that we can deal with it
in such a manner as to be as satisfactory to the
people as if it were dealt with by the Council of
the North-West? For myself, I may say that my
political extinction has been prophesied by hon.
gentlemen on both sides of the House. If that be
my fate, in doing what I consider to be my duty,
I shall cheerfully submit to it. I am acting simply
according to my convictions, and not only as one
hon. gentleman has suggested, because of the
debate of the Jesuits' Estates Act. I wonder that
that hon. gentleman should not have had better
judgment than to introduce that question into
this debate. I have nothing to be ashamed of, I
have nothing to lament in regard to the vote
which I gave on the Jesuits' Estates Act. I did
not prosecute any agitation on that subject afterwards, because I realised that the
vote of this
House in regard to it was conclusive; but it is not
conducive to harmony in the party to which I did
belong and to which, to a certain extent, I still
belong, that an hon. gentleman should taunt me
for the fiasco which he says was the end of
that matter. I have been taunted with the
statement that I objected to the preamble of
the Jesuits' Estates Act, and yet I was
making nothing of the preamble to this Bill.
There again the two matters are wholly and absolutely separate. In the Jesuits' Estates
Act we
had to take the Bill as it was, we had no power of
amendment. It came to this House and it had
either to be vetoed as it was, or allowed to go into
operation as it was; whereas a Bill introduced into this House has to undergo the
gauntlet of the
first, second and third reings, of a consideration
in committee, to be amended and improved to suit
the opinions of the majority of the House. Therefore, there is nothing in common between
the two
cases. But, as I said before, those who voted with
me on that question had nothing to regret, and I
873 [FEBRUARY 18, 1890.] 874
can only say that if a similar occasion arose again,
I should not hesitate to repeat my vote.
Mr. DAVIN. I wish to trouble the House for a
few minutes, while I make one or two remarks;
called for, I think, by the speech of my hon. and
learned friend.
Mr. DAVIN. I have not spoken on this amendment. Now, Sir, the hon. and learned gentleman
read to us the authority of Senator Perley.
Mr. CHARLTON. I rise to a question of order.
The hon. gentleman has spoken already on this
question, and I ask the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. DAVIN. I am glad my hon. friend from
North Norfolk, whom I have met on other fields,
is so anxious to observe the rules of the House and
the decencies of debate. The hon. and learned
gentleman, for he is entitled to be called the hon.
and learned gentleman, has read to us a letter
from Senator Perley. The hon. Senator has been
a member of this Parliament; I have known
him a long time; some of you have known
him, and I need not say that I recognise him,
as you do, as a great authority, this "guide,
philosopher and friend" of the hon. and learned
member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). He appears
in a character eminently suitable to himself,
to his own views of what his duty to the public
is, and I think he is eminently suitable as a
guide to the hon. member from Simcoe. Sir,
Senator Perley and the hon. member for Simcoe;
the hon. member for Simcoe and Senator Perley.
You will remember the line of Pope:
"And dunce the second follows dunce the first."
Now, I did not know the cause of the conversion
of my hon. and learned friend from Simcoe. I had
read a speech delivered by the hon. and learned
member at Collingwood; I have it before me; it is
reported in the Empire, and in this speech he declares to the people of Collingwood that he did not
want this Parliament to deal with this question,
but he wanted the people of the North-West to deal
with it, the very thing that he denounces to-night.
I will read to you his words:
"I want it understood that our great North-West Territories shall be left free to
deal with certain matters
which will affect them for all time to come."
He is speaking of the dual language.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Will the hon. member pardon me? I am sure he does not wish to misrepresent me.
Mr. MCCARTHY. The paper is perfectly correct, so far as it geos. My reference was to the
question of separate schools in the North-West.
I had already spoken about the dual language and
my action in this House, and I was inviting the
confidence of my constituents. I was then referring to the question of separate schools,
which I
understand they petitionned should not be dealt
with here, but should be remitted to them to be
dealt with. That is what I alluded to in the language my hon. friend is now reading.
Mr. DAVIN. Well, separate schools are a
matter that can beleft to the North-West, but the
dual language cannot be left to the North-West;
so I suppose he thinks the dual language is a matter of more importance than the separate
schools.
Now, I want to point out the want of logic of my
hon. friend. He comes here and tells us that we
ought to pass his Bill. Why? Because he has
heard from the North-West. Why has he heard
from the North-West? Because an assembly has
been elected on an extended suffrage, and that'
assembly has passed a resolution in a given direction. Why is that resolution of the
least validity?
Simply because these people represent the people
of the North-West, and yet, forsooth, he tells us
that the proposal to go to the source of power, to
the source of authority, is a proposal that we ought
not to entertain. He is just as illogical as the
hon. and learned gentleman from West Durham (Mr. Blake) in his remarks the other night.
I was delighted, of course, to hear his voice again
in this House. I know very well of what importance it is to this House, and of what
importance it
is to the country at large, that we should have
his great experience, his legal knowledge and his
great parliamentary power; but when I heard a
man who is president of a university, talk what
—I say it without the least offence—was fallacious
trash, I was perfectly amazed. Let me point out
to you what the hon. and learned gentleman said.
He said that he could not listen to the representation that was made—I am now making
a point
for the hon. and learned gentleman for Simcoe—
that no message whatever had come from the
people of the North-West. Why? Because this
assembly had not got any authority from its creator
to deal with this question. By dealing with this
question he must mean to legislate on it; so he
says that we cannot receive any representation
from them because they had no power to legislate
on it; but if they had any power to legislate on it,
they would not require to make any representation
at all. The point was taken up very properly by
my hon. and learned friend that it was only
three short years before that we heard the
hon. and learned member for West Durham
propose in this House a resolution with regard
to Home Rule of which we were not in any
wise seized; yet he asked us to pass a resolution,
and showed that he thought our representation
ought to have some effect, or might have some
effect, on an assembly so closely connected
with us as the assembly in the North-West. Now,
I want to refer to a personal matter. I saw a criticism—I do not know whether it was
correct or not
—on a few remarks that I happened to make in
reply to the speech of the hon. and learned member
for Simcoe; and the critic said—I do not know
whether that is correct or not, but I hope it was
correct—he said that the weapons I used against
the hon. and learned gentleman were the weapons
of a gentleman. The hon. and learned gentleman
comes here with an innuendo that is absolutely
false, for which there is not atittle of foundation. He
has listened—I do not know where, I am sure—probably in the vestibule of an hotel,
to the gospel of
some
gobe mouche, and he comes here and makes a
statement about a matter which has no truth whatever in it. Now he says that a paper
called the
Leader never advocated the abolition of the dual
language. Why, I read the other night how the hon.
and learned gentleman made a statement that that
paper never referred to it. I then read an article
875
[COMMONS] 876
from that paper advocating the doing away with it,
but without bitterness; it deprecated bitterness, it
deprecated language that was calculated to inflame
passions, and said, let us go and discuss this
question calmly and practically. I may tell
the hon. and learned member, who threw out
the sneer, that it was a very good thing for
newspapers, and the more French published
the better, that most of the ordinances which
were printed in French were not printed in the
North-West, and that the company which publishes the
Leader had no advantage from
most of them. A few were printed there, but
the great bulk were printed somewhere else.
So the hon. and learned member, who occupies a
high position in his profession, a profession to
which gentlemen of the highest honor have been
proud to belong, comes here and at the close of his
speech throws out a sneer without the slightest
foundation, and it was a vulgar sneer, even if there
had been any foundation for it. I do not intend
to make any reply to the hon. gentleman's speech,
and I merely rose in regard to these matters
to which I have alluded, but I want to point out that
in the speech towhich we have listened the hon. gentleman has not touched the case
I made against him;
he has not touched a single point of it and it remains
there unshaken. I showed that the hon. and learned
gentleman had cited authorities that proved the
very reverse of that which he said those authorities would prove, and I also showed
that he
came before the House and laid down two
propositions that were utterly false. Switzerland
has been referred to by one hon. gentleman after
another. Hon. gentlemen do not seem to have
seen the point of my reference to Switzerland. My
sole object was to show that the two propositions
which the hon. and learned gentleman was
disseminating throughout the country were without
any foundations, namely, that a single language
necessarily made a nation, and that with diversity of languages you could not have
a nation; for,
of course, if these two propositions were true, then
we never could have a nation here in Canada. I
showed those propositions were untrue. I showed
that his authorities instead of supporting his case
proved the contrary, and the statements I made
in that little speech remain unshaken, and the
hon. gentleman has not attempted to reply to
them. The only thing he did in the way of
attempting to reply to my speech was to descend
to sneers without foundation, to innuendoes
that in an Assembly far inferior to this would be
held to be unworthy, and he fell back on a flippant
reference what was without any cogency whatever.
The hon. and learned gentleman told us, and
I heard it with some astonishment, that he had no
desire to create bitterness, that he had no ill-feeling
to the French race. This reminds me of what
Thackeray said of an Englishman: that if an
Englishman sees a stranger come into the country
he looks at him as who should say: "Damn you,
who are you?" Yet that Englishman might no doubt
feel an universal benevolence. The hon. member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) talks here as
if he felt universal benevolence towards every
citizen of this country, whether he talks French or
not; but you have to observe the general tenor of
his conduct and of this agitation, and the face may
be Jacob's but the hands are the hands of Esau.
The statement made in that letter of Senator
Perley, that there would be a disturbance in case
this question were referred to the constituencies,
is absolutely without the least foundation. There
will be no disturbance whatever. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Davis), if he is
here, will tell
you that the reference can be made without the
least disturbance. Everything will go on as quietly
as possible, and once the question has been referred
to the people, and they have elected a new House,
you can then feel you have given it to a tribunal
to deal with that has authority from the real source
of power.
House divided on amendment to amendment
(Mr. Beausoleil):
This individual participated in:
