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) further to amend the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 50, respecting
the North-West Territories; the motion of Mr.
Davin in amendment thereto, and the motion of
887
[COMMONS] 888
Sir John Thompson in amendment to the amendment.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I feel that on
an occasion like this even an old Politician like myself might rise with a good deal
of hesitation to
address this House, and through this House, the
country, upon, perhaps, one of the most important
questions we have had before us since 1867. It
is no ordinary matter that has been brought before
our attention in this country, in which the population is composed of various races,
and especially
of two leading races, the French and the English,
comprising, also, a population of different religious
convictions, and having various interests in respect
to education and language, and in respect to other
matters which many large sections of the population consider of the most vital importance.
Under these circumstances, it is natural that a
member getting up to address this House should
feel under considerable reserve and restraint in
the expression of his opinions. Sir, I have felt
that during the course of this debate a good
deal of unnecessarily strong language has been
used, and I will take this opportunity of saying in
the beginning—as my remarks will not be long on
this occasion—that I think a good deal of unnecessary severity has been shown in regard
both to the
motives and the language of the hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). I do not sympathise with those who find fault with that
hon.
gentleman, if he has acted on his convictions, in
taking the course he has done; and while I dissent
from the Bill which he has introduced, and shall
vote against it if an opportunity is offered, I am
.not one of those who would blame that hon. gentleman for taking the course that his
convictions impel him to pursue; I am not one of those who
would find fault with his having the courage of his
convictions and bringing this matter before the
House. Sir, if there is one thing that recommends
the onduct of a statesman to myself it is when he
has he courage of his convictions, no matter
whether it results in his unpopularity, no matter
whether it results, as has been the case with that
hon. gentleman, in his having had to sit under the
most scathing denunciations and the most brilliant
sarcasm, such as have been directed against the
hon. gentleman from both sides of the House for
the five days that this debate has lasted. I must
say that I admire the courage and pluck which
be displayed, and I admire the ability which he
showed in fighting the matter out to the bitter end.
I entirely dissent from the spirit and intention of
this Bill, and, while I agree with those who believe
that its introduction at the present time is calculated to do harm in the country
and raise strife,I can
find no fault with the hon. gentleman—if he believes,
as he has stated to this House he does believe, that
this course should be adopted and this Bill introduced—in regard to the course he
has followed,
for it was his duty to bring the matter before
Parliament in order that the uestion might be
discussed and decided. Some of the hon. members
of this House have a peculiar responsibility in
regard to this matter; I refer to those who took
part in forming the Constitution of the country.
The right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir John A.
Macdonald), and the hon. gentleman who sits at
his left (Sir Hector Langevin), with myself and
one or two others not now in this
House, met with
considerable difficulty many years ago, in dealing
with the questions of language and schools. One
of the great difficulties we experienced in London,
when we were preparing the Constitution of this
Dominion to submit to the British Parliament for
its approval and enactment-and the right hon.
leader of the Government will agree that I do not
exaggerate the facts when I say that these questions
almost broke up the conference-and those difficulties arose out of these questions
of language and
schools. We felt the importance of conciliation
and concession, the importance of conceding to the
minority certain rights which they should enjoy,
and the difficulty connected with this subject very
nearly, as I have stated, broke up the conference
in London. I realised then, that the people of
Canada were composed mainly of two races, and, I
admit, that I was not so liberal-minded then as now,
and did not realise the difficulties as strongly as I
do to-day. With respect to the amendment submitted by the Minister of Justice, I have
come to
the conclusion, that, while I do not entirely concur with it, I am prepared to adopt
a similar
course to that which I followed in 1867 in England—to accept it as probably the best
solution presented of the question under consideration. I
have, myself, given this matter some little consideration, and several days ago I
prepared a resolution
which I thought would meet the wishes of the House.
I may state, that I should prefer this resolution
to be adopted rather than that of the Minister of
Justice, but I do not see any chance of this being
done, and, therefore, I am prepared to give my
approval to the motion of the hon. Minister of
Justice, not as affording a perfect solution, but as
one affording a temporary solution of these difficulties which now stare us in the
face in this Canada
of ours. If the amendment of the hon. Minister
should fail, and I should have an opportunity to
submit my resolution to the House, I will do so.
It is in the following terms:—
That all after the word "Resolved" be struck out
and the following substituted therefor:
That at present it is inexpedient to further amend
the Act relating to the Nort-West Territories, but the
question should be left until Parliament is prepared to
grant to the said Territories a full measure of Provmeial
Government such as is enjoyed by the existing Provinces
of the Dominion.
I do not suppose I will obtain an opportunity to
present my motion, for I believe there is sufficient
good sense in this House and sufficient desire to
promote harmony and community of feeling
throughout this country, to induce hon. members to accept, as a compromise, the amendment
moved by the Minister of Justice. What I am
prepared to do is, to throw the responsibility of
dealing with this matter on the Administration.
They have chosen that amendment, after five
da s discussion, as a means of solving this difficulty, and upon them I would place
the responsibility. I would have preferre not to vote for
this amendment, if I could see any other way out
of the difficulty, but I do not; and therefore I am
prepared to accept it, not as a perfect measure,
but as a solution—and it is a temporary solution
only—of the difficulty that resents itself. Some
views have been expresse during this debate
with which I am not in accord. The question of
schools has come up. It has been contended
by the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy) that a community of language
889 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 890
should prevail throughout the Dominion. I quite
agree with my hon. friend that, if it were possible
to have a community of language from one end of
the country to the other, it is most desirable; but
it is impossible. Not only in the North-West and
in the Province of Quebec, do racial difficulties exist.
In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, there is a large French Canadian
and
Acadian population, a population which I regret
to say is not in as affluent circumstances as many
of the Anglo-Saxon people there, a population
which has not had the same facilities for educating
their children and themselves as are possessed by
many of us in the more advanced and older communities. If the hon. gentleman's community
of
language were to be applied in those schools, the
result would be, first, teachers could not be found
to educate the pupils in English; and second,
the scholars themselves would be unable to understand anything except French. The
effect
would be that the poor children would remain
ignorant and would have to go without an education. For that reason, I do not believe
the proposition of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy), would work satisfactorily throughout
the country. Again, the hon. gentleman has
referred to alleged difficulties which would arise
respecting Provincial rights. I fail to preceive
that any difficulty would occur regarding Provincial rights in the North-West Territories.
That
country will receive its charter from this
Parliament. It will come in on an entirely
different footing from the original Provinces
of the Dominion. They came in as independent
Provinces with laws and rights recognised by the
British North America Act, which were in existence at that time, and which were to
remain in
existence until altered. The North-West Territories, however, were purchased by the
Dominion, and when they receive their Provincial
constitution the Canadian Parliament will decide
the terms upon which it will be given. No
question of Provincial rights can come into this
issue. When this Parliament creates a Province or
a number of Provinces in the North-West, Parliament will define and particularise
in the constitution of those Provinces the powers they will
exercise. I differ with the hon. member for
Bothwell (Mr. Mills) as to what rights can be
accorded to those Provinces, the hon. member for
Bothwell taking the ground that we cannot give
less or more extensive powers to the new
Provinces we create than are ossessed by the old
Provinces under the British North America Act.
With all due deference to the hon. gentleman's
view, I do not agree with it; but I admit that it
is a question open to discussion. But I will say
this, that if the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy), who introduced the Bill now
under discussion, had allowed the matter to remain
in abeyance for ten years and had not introduced
this Bill, the question would have settled itself.
Either the French population in the country, which
is now admittedly very small, would have increased sufficiently to have enabled them
to have demanded the exercise and use of their language, at if
the Anglo-Saxon population or a foreign population
had increased, the French population there never
would have demanded it, and the consequence is that
the language would have been eliminated by the
operation of time and by the natural course of events.
That is the view I take of this part of the question.
While I quite recognise the power of the member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and his right
to bring this question before Parliament, I regret
that he should have raised it at this time, because
I believe that if he had not raised it, not five
years—certainly not more than ten years—would
have elapsed before, by the natural operation of
events, the question would have settled itself.
Now, Sir, after the very elaborate speeches which
have been made on this question, and almost every
branch of the question having been exhausted
by the different very able speakers, I think it will
be unnecessary for me to take up the time of the
House longer. What I rose to do, was not to make
a speech, but to give utterance to the views which
I entertain on the matter, in order to justify the
vote I gave the other day, and to explain the
vote which I will give on the amendment of the hon.
Minister of Justice. I would say that I have lived
among the French people for very many years and
I can vouch that they are, as an almost universal
rule, good citizens, living peaceably amongst themselves and in friendship with the
people of other
races, and most friendly in their relations
with their English-speaking fellow countrymen.
Where they are in power, as they are in the Province of Quebec by a large majority,
they deal
with the English-speaking people with a liberality
which does credit to them. In that Province the
Protestants have their separate schools and their
separate eleemosynary and benevolent institutions,
such as insane asylums, which receive Government
aid in proportion to that given to the French and
Catholic institutions. The English minority has
all these privileges freely accorded by a Legislature in which there is only a fragment
of English
speaking representatives. If where the English- speaking people have the power, as
they have in
the North-West Territories and in this Parliament,
we deal less liberally with the French minority
than they do with the English minority, what kind
of position will we place ourselves in? One thing
is certain: that in the interest of peace and harmony in this country, and in a mixed
community
such as ours, there must be compromise. If there
are not concessions on both sides, it can only end in
the disruption of the Dominion, and the breaking
up of what, when we laid its foundation, we believe
would be a great nation. I again repeat that while
voting for the amendment of the Minister of Justice,
although I do not entirely approve of it, I throw
the responsibility for the measure on the right
hon. gentleman at the head of the Government.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. After the remarks which I made on a previous occasion during
this debate, and the suggestion which I then offered across the floor to hon. gentlemen
opposite,
I think it right that I should at once address this
House on the resolution presented by my hon. friend
the Minister of Justice. I should have then moved
this resolution myself, but it was late at night and
I was fatigued, and my hon. friend the Minister of
Justice has moved it at my special request. The
hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell),
in the calm and wise speech he has delivered just
now, has made the statement that he threw the responsibility for action on this question
upon the
Government. Mr. Speaker, the Government accepts that responsibility.
891
[COMMONS] 892
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. The Government
think that the resolution moved by my hon. friend
the Minister of Justice is a measure of peace, and
a means of getting over this unfortunate feeling of
irritation which has grown up between the two
great races that make the strength and power of
Canada. This resolution is for the purpose of
getting rid of the temporary feeling—because it
will only be temporary—which threatens for the
moment to disturb the quiet of Canada, and thereby to hurt its prestige and its credit
and to hamper
its development. This resolution of the Minister
of Justice is, as I have said, a measure of peace,
and I implore and urge all my hon. friends on both
sides of the House who look with anxiety for the
future peace of Canada to accept it as such. The
hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), in his
speech, and in the resolution which he suggested,
stated that the time had not arrived for the solution of this question and that it
ought to be postponed. In my short reply I stated that while I
accepted the greater part of his resolution, yet I
thought that while the first portion of it would
quiet the irritated feelings of the people in the
eastern part of Canada, the postponement of this
question for an unspecified time would,
perhaps, arouse feelings of irritation in the
western portion of this Dominion. I suggested across the floor that for the sake of
peace we ought, after the people of the North- West had an opportunity of expressing
their
opinion, throw the responsibility upon them. The
hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), casting aside all partisan desire of triumph,
accepted—
although, perhaps, against his own opinion—the proposition that I then made. If we
examine and
compare the resolution which my hon. friend the
Minister of Justice has moved with the suggested
motion of my hon. friend for West Durham (Mr.
Blake) it will be seen that the first portion of it is
in his exact language, a little condensed, and it
concludes with the proposition which I made and
which that hon. gontleman accepted. It was a
compromise, and in a question of this kind involving racial feelings, and prejudices,
and arousing a sense of pride of race and nationality, such a
course is wise and patriotic. I hold that this
resolution is one which meets the case, and I
implore the House that it may be accepted. Some
of my hon. friends think that the power to deal with
this subject should be at once given to the
Assembly of the North-West Territories. Now
there are great political considerations against that
course, and, looking to the future, I think it would be
a mistake. As my hon. friend from West Durham
(Mr. Blake) says, the present Legislature of the
North-West Territories had no commission from
the people to pronounce upon this subject of the
two languages; they had no means of knowing
what the opinion of the poople was upon that
point, and therefore, they did not speak with the
authority of representatives in regard to the wishes
and opinions of the people of the North-West.
Those who look at history will see that the great
and grave errors committed in France at the time
when the people arose against the despotism of the
Bourbons, and from which most of the evils following the revolution of 1798 arose,
were due to the
fact that the representatives of the people
who were elected for the purpose of reform under
the laws of that day resolved themselves again
and again into constituent assemblies, assuming
for themselves the power of altering the constitution under which they were elected,
instead of
trying to effect reforms under the constitution as
it existed, and with the powers which had been
conferred upon them by the people. Now, there
is no power conferred upon the Legislative
Assembly of the North-West to alter their constitution. The members of that body are
all, I
believe, respectable men; they are all men having
the interest of the North-West at heart; but not
one of them had ever before sat in a Legislative
Assembly or knew the limits of their powers. If
you look at their various ordinances, you will find
that they attack ever limit conferred upon them
by the Act of 1888. They assumed that having
been once elected they could do as they pleased;
and in some of the resolutions passed at that time,
they have asserted rights and powers which we do
not exercise or venture to exercise in this Assembly.
Therefore, it is of the very greatest importance
that we should draw a distinction between a
constituent assembly and a Legislative Assembly.
The North-West Assembly is a Legislative
Assembly with certain powers conferred upon it
by the Act which brought it into being; but it
has no right to represent the people on questions
which were not before the people at the time it
was elected as a Legislative Assembly with limited
powers. It is of the very greatest importance that
we should observe that distinction, and, therefore, I
quite agree with all those hon. gentlemen on both
sides who have said that any action taken in this
matter should be deferred until the people of the
North-West have an opportunity of saying to their
representatives what they want. There is a difference of opinion on that point. Some
hon. gentlemen who have come from that part of the country
say that they believe that after the next general
election the abolition of the dual language will not
be pressed. I do not know how that may be; but
we can afford to wait until the people of the North- West have seen and read the discussions
which
have taken place in this House, and have seen in
the press of Canada how much this question has
excited the attention of the people of the Dominion; they will then go to the polls
fully charged
with this question, having made up their minds
what they will instruct their representatives to
carry out. Then, Sir, not before, ought we to act
upon the representations of the Legislative Assembly of the North-West. Now, Sir,
an objection
will be taken, I have no doubt, to the fact that
this resolution of my hon. friend the Minister of
Justice does not allude at all to the printing of the
ordinances of the North—West. Sir, it ought not
in any way to allude to that, or to bring that subject into the consideration of this
question; and
why? Because the printing of the ordinances of
the North-West Assembly is no matter of concern
to that assembly. It has no more authority with
respect to the printing of those ordinances than
this House of Commons of Canada has with respect
to the printing of the statutes which we, in conjunction with the Senate, pass. The
resolution
which my hon. friend proposes says:
"That at the same time this House deems it expedient
and proper, and not inconsistent with those covenants,
that the Legislative Assembly of the North-West Terri
893 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890] 894
tories should receive from the Parliament of Canada
power to regulate, after the next general election of the
Assembly, the proceedings of the Assembly, and the
manner of recording and publishing such proceedings."
That gives them the whole control, the sole regulation of every proceeding and every
paper with
which they have anything to do, from the time
they meet until the time they present the Bills
which they have passed to the Governor for his
sanction. The Journals, the Votes and Proceedings, the motions and resolutions, the
Bills, the
first, second and third readings, can, under the
resolution of my hon. friend, be limited, if they so
choose to limit them, to the English language.
This resolution, if passed, gives them the whole
authority to decide whether those things shall be
printed in English, in French, in both English and
French, in German, or in any other language.
But, Sir, as here, so there; from the moment the
Bills are passed, and presented to the Governor
for his sanction, from that moment all their
authority over them ceases. Here we pass Bills,
we send them to the Senate, and then, so far as we
are concerned, our power is ended. We know we
could have them, if it were not for the clause in the
British North America Act, printed in any
language we like; but after they are sent up to
the Senate and the Senate passes them, they are
then handed over to the representative of the
Sovereign, and from that moment they cease to be
the property of the Legislature, and become the
laws of the land, to be published by the Governor.
Our statutes, when they are published, are published not by virtue of the authority
of this House
or both Houses together; they are published by
the representative of the Sovereign, who, after
having given his sanction to them, publishes them
under constitutional rule. So in the North-West.
We will suppose that under the authority given by
this resolution the Acts of the North-West Assembly are presented to the Lieutenant-Governor
in
English, and in English alone; he gives his assent,
and then, and not before, do they become ordinances, and the moment they become ordinances,
it is the Crown that publishes them, and the
Legislative body, which initiated the legislation, has nothing more to do with it.
The consequence is that, so far as that Legislature is
concerned, it can carry out its wishes by printing its measures in one or in both
languages.
Let them adopt their ordinances under the present
system, and the Lieutenant-Governor, being a
Dominion officer, will see that they are published
certainly in the language in which they are
presented. The Assembly, however, will have nothing to say as to whether they may
not, by instructions from the Government here or the Dominion Parliament, be published
in half-a-dozen
languages. This resolution, Sir, is a measure of
peace. This House will, by a large majority, I
believe, reject the measure, presented as it has
been, the harsh measure of my hon. friend from
North Simcoe. Then, if this resolution be adopted,
the matter will stand over for the opinion of the
people of the North-West. If they declare that
all the proceedings of their Legislature are to be in
English, so let it be, and so it will be if this House
adopt this resolution. But, after they have exercised their full right of limiting
their documents,
their resolutions, their Bills, their Journals, and
their Votes and Proceedings, to the one tongue, it
will be left to the Lieutenant-Governor to order,
under instruction from the Dominion Government
—and that Dominion Government acting under
instructions from the representatives of the people
here—them to be printed in any other language
as well as in English. Should, however, this House
choose to say that any portion of the people of
the North-West are to be deprived of the means of
reading their laws in their own language, they will
have to submit; but, in the meantime, we will
have conferred full power and authority on the
North-West Council to act on this unfortunate
question just as they please, after having received
an amended warrant from the people. Now, I
must again say that it is of the very greatest importance that we should bury this
question as soon
as possible. It is quite true, as the hon. member
for Durham (Mr. Blake) said, that a small spark
may kindle a great conflagration, and we will be
wilfully, on a question of sentiment—on a question
of feeling, which does not deserve to be dignified
by the name of sentiment—hazarding the future of
the country, arousing the feelings of race against
race, which I hoped had been forever buried in
1867, and ruining the credit of Canada in foreign
countries. Aye, and in the mother country too.
For, what credit can we, financially or otherwise,
hope to obtain if it is known in England, if it is
known especially on the Stock Exchange—the most
fearful and timorous of all bodies—that the two
races which inhabit Canada are drawn up against
each other, on matters of sentiment, feeling and
prejudice, which are more important and less
easy to be soothed than mere material questions.
It will stop the development of this country. It
will prevent its future progress, and if this country should fall from the proud position
it now
holds in the eyes of the world, it will be because
by our own insensate conduct we have destroyed
our credit, destroyed our prestige, and ruined our
future. In the few remarks I made the other
night I intended to have called the intention of
my hon. friends from the Province of Ontario to
what was the action of the Province of Upper
Canada in 1793, but I was tired, and held it over
for another opportunity. I will call attention to
it now, to show what was the feeling of the people
of Upper Canada a century ago. By a very unwise
measure, although introduced by a very great man,
Mr. Pitt, in 1790, the old Province of Quebec was
divided into two—Upper and Lower Canada. It was
thought that matters would be simplified by keeping
the French in one corner of this vast country, and the
English in another, and they divided the Province of Quebec into two provinces. From
that
unwise measure came most of our troubles. The
Legislature met in 1791 at Newark, afterwards
Niagara, and was composed of Englishmen. They
were severed from the French, but they had a
colony of French on the western frontier of the
Province of Canada, what is now the County of
Essex. These Frenchmen were few in number,
but their rights were protected at the second meeting of the Legislature of Upper
Canada. The
Province was a small one and poor, and could not
afford even to print the proceedings of its Legislature; but its people regarded the
feelings of
their fellow-countrymen. Let me read the resolution, which is still in manuscript.
The original
volume will be found in our Library. This is the
order of June 3, 1793:
895
[COMMONS] 896
"Ordered, that such acts as have already passed, or
may hereafter pass the Legislature of this province, be
translated into the French language for the benefit of the
inhabitants of the western district of this Province and
other French settlers who may come to reside within this
Province and that A. Macdonald, Esq., of this House,
member or Glengarry be likewise employed as a French
translator for this or other purposes."
Are we, one hundred years later, going to be less
liberal to our French Canadian fellow-subjects
than the few Englishmen, United Empire Loyalists,
who settled Ontario? No, Sir. This resolution
would cast shame on men who tried to deprive our
French friends in the Province of Ontario of the
privilege given them a hundred years ago by a body
of men altogether speaking the English language.
There may have been among them one member
from that western district, of French origin—perhaps Monsieur Baby, who for years
was the sole
representative in the Province of Upper Canada
of that portion of the French race who were living
in Upper Canada. Are we going to be less liberal?
Forbid it, Mr. Speaker. In the name of humanity,
in the name of civilisation, in the name of the progress of this great country, I
appeal to all our
friends in this House, without reference to party,
to forget what may be an inconvenience when they
go back to their constituents on both sides, to forget that for a moment, and to merge
everything in
the great desire to make Canada, French and
English, one people, without any hostile feeling,
without any difference of opinion, further than that
which arises from the different literatures and the
different strains of mind that run always in different races, and which sever the
Scotchman and the
Irishman from the Englishman as much as it severs
the Frenchman from the Englishman. Let us forget this cry, and we shall have our reward
in
seeing this unfortunate fire, which has been kindled
from so small a spark, extinguished for ever, and
we shall go on, as we have been going on since 1867,
as one people, with one object, looking to one
future, and expecting to lay the foundation of one
great country.
Mr. EDGAR. I think it is a fortunate thing
that this debate has taken so wide a range. If
there is one thing more than another which should
make a man feel proud of being a member of this
Assembly, it is to have listened to a great debate
like this. The questions which are before us for
discussion are those which underlie our national
existence, and upon the peaceful settlement of these
questions depends our hope for the future of
Canada. The speakers in this debate have, for
the most part, been equal to the occasion, and
they have displayed the courage to grapple with
the real issues, they have shown a breadth of
statesmanship to look at the lesson which history
has taught us, and I do not think I am going too
far in saying that they have dealt with the whole
subject with an eloquence which could be found in
few deliberative assemblies in the world. I think
it is well that this debate has taken so wide a
range for another reason. It has gone to the
country. Day after day the Opinions of the
wisest statesmen of Canada, the most experienced
of our public men, have been sent abroad by the
press to educate the people on this subject before
it shall have got into the hands of the
uninformed and irresponsible platform craters
who might use it to inflame thepassions of race
and of creed. Why has this debate, commencing
from so very small a Bill, and so very small a matter on its face, taken so wide a
range as it has?
There are several reasons for it. One is to be
found in that unfortunate preamble. The hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has told
us that he was surprised to find that the preamble
was the occasion of so great an explosion of alarm
and wrath in this House. I dare say he was surprised, because he says so, but it seems
to me that
he is making the same excuse as the boy made, in
whose hands the fire-arm exploded, when he said
that he did not know it was loaded. But the
hon. gentleman not simply knew that that preamble was loaded, but he loaded it himself,
and,
therefore, he has no such excuse to make. The
next reason that I find for the wide range
of this debate was the speech by which it was
introduced in this House by the hon. member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). My judgment might be wrong, if I only depended on
it to tell me that the hon. gentleman's introductory speech was sufficient to cause
this widely
extended debate. I do not depend upon my judgment alone, but upon that of an experienced
parliamentary hand, the leader of the House and the
leader of the Government. It is not the custom
of the leader of the Government to introduce an
unpleasant subject into this House when he can
avoid it, but I can show that the speech of the
First Minister, made a few minutes after the introductory speech of the hon. gentleman,
was
ample ground for the range the debate has taken.
On that occasion, referring to the speech of the
hon. member for North Simcoe on the first reading
of the Bill, the First Minister said:
"The line of argument my hon. friend has taken raises
questions of such anature, his whole line of argument is
of such a kind, as to involve most serious and grave
questions—so grave that I think we must take full time
to consider what his arguments are, what they tend to, in
what direction they lead, and what consequences may
follow if the measure is persisted in."
I will say no more in reference to the hon.
gentleman's speech in this House after that
quotation, but, when a public man of the prominence of the hon. member for North Simcoe
brings forward a measure in this House, it is
impossible for any of us or for the country not to
have regard to the discussions which the hon. gentleman has taken part in before the
people of the
country, at a recent date. If we had had no preamble to this Bill, but the simple
terms of the Bill
itself, if we had had no speech from the hon. gentleman in introducing it of such
a character as the
First Minister has described, we still had a cause
for alarm. Our French friends in this House and
in the country had cause for alarm when they had
read—as I fancy all the members of this House
had read—the speech which the hon. gentleman
delivered almost under the shadow of this building, in Ottawa, on the 12th December,
1889.
I am not going back to any 12th July speeches of
the hon. gentleman. On that exciting occasion, I
suppose, he ought to be allowed a little latitude,
but I was lad to find that my leader on this
side of the House compelled the hon. gentleman
to withdraw or to explain away some of the language he used in one of those 12th July
speeche
made before the assembled brethren. However,
we will not go into that. Let us see what the hon.
gentleman promised the ple of Ottawa he
would do in the way of egislation; let us see
897 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 898
what he stated our grievances were. In this
speech, he quoted with approval the report of
Lord Durham in reference to the French language. Now, whether this report was written
by Lord Durham himself, or by Mr. Charles
Buller, or by Mr. Turton, whose reputation was
very unsavory in his own country, or by Mr.
Gibbon Wakefield, who was also in the entourage of Lord Durham, and whose reputation
was even more unsavory than that of Mr. Turton,
it is certain that this report was never accepted by
the French people as a policy which was likely to
reconcile the different people of this land. However, my hon. friend thinks that he
will disinter
Lord Durham's report and make it do service
again in this country. Again we read in his
December speech:
"Lord Durham realised that so long as the use of the
French language was permitted, so long as they were
permitted to be educated in their schools in the French
language, to be instructed in the literature of France,
instead of the literature of England, they would remain
French in feeling."
Then he says:
"Is there any shadow of doubt that Lord Durham was
right?"
The hon. member goes on, and says in the next
sentence:
"There must be the obliteration of one of these languages."
Now, this was not applied to the North-West,
this was not applied to Manitoba, it was applied
to what Lord Durham applied it to, the Province
of Quebec, and, therefore, the hon. gentleman, in
that public place, advocated—and I am sure he is
not the man to shirk responsibility on the floor of
this House for what he advocates outside;
at any rate, we do not expect it of him—
he advocated the obliteration of one of these
languages, and I do not think he meant the English language. Again, he says in that
speech,
speaking about the material progress of the
country:
"While we were advancing at this sufficiently rapid
pace of prosperity, we were forgetting the one thing
needful to the consolidation of the Dominion; but all this
time we were forgetting that this great trouble—"
That is to say, the use of the French language.
"—which was an enormous difficulty in 1837—"
That was certainly not in the North-West Territories, that was in the old Province
of Quebec.
"—had quadrupled itself in 1867, and that we were leaving for our children to settle
that respecting which I
used the expression, on will remember—I did not say in
our generation—but said that in the next generation the
bayonet would do it, if we did not settle it by the ballot in
this."
Now, Mr. Speaker, he has laid out for us a programme for the next generation, which,
I hope, we
will never see carried out. I am sure that I do not
want to see any of my children in the next generation have to shoulder their muskets
in a war of
races in Canada; but that is the programme, unless—what, Mr. Speaker? Unless we settle
it by
the ballot in this. What does he mean by the
ballot in this? Does he not mean by legislation,
by the votes of the people acting upon the legislators in this Parliament; and does
he not mean by
the act of this, or of a future Parliament, under
the direction of the ballot? That is what he promises, that is what he threatens in
that speech—
legislation or war. No wonder our French friends
were a little alarmed at it. Then he says:
"This trouble was already lifting up its hideous head
while we were fighting over matters of comparative unimportance,"
"Lifting up its hideous head." The beautiful
French language is described in that way. Why,
Mr. Speaker, when the occupant of that chair,
every alternate day in this Chamber, before the
doors are opened, lifts up his voice in the French
language, in supplication to the God of both the
French and the English, I suppose the hon. member for Simcoe feels that this language
is then
lifting up its "hideous head." He goes on and says
that the Legislature of 1844
"Undid the good work which Lord Durham's wisdom had
given us in the year 1840 or 1841."
But, Sir, he goes beyond that. He does not postpone this thing for the next generation,
he does
not even postpone it till there is another general
election, when the ballot can be brought into force;
but he proposes to do it in this very Parliament, if
the words of the English language mean anything.
What does he say?
"I will point out to you that this may be a very useful
precedent—"
That is, the action of the Legislature at Kingston
in 1844, when they introduced the French language
unanimously again:
"That if, in 1844 or 1845, the Parliament of United Canada
petition for the repeal of a clause of the Union Act, I do
not know whether in 1890 or 1891, if the necessity arises,
the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, cannot petition for an amendment to the
British North America.
Act also."
Therefore, he promises that even in this Parliament, in the year 1890 or 1891, an
Address may be
presented to the Crown in England asking the
Imperial Parliament to alter the British North
America Act. Now, remember that course is
not necessary, in order to affect the language in
the North—West; it is only necessary to attack,
what he thinks so terrible, the French language
in Quebec, and the French language in this
House, and, perhaps, the French language in
Manitoba. He knows perfectly well that if he has
the courage of his convictions he can put a notice
on the paper to-day for an address from this House
to the Queen, asking her to introduce legislation
to amend the Imperial Act in this particular. Sir,
when this solemn threat was read, no wonder the
members of Parliament felt alarmed. Why this
speech of 12th December last, which I hold in
my hand, was sent to me, unless as a member
of Parliament, I cannot say. I do not know
whether the hon. gentleman sent copies to all his
fellow members, in order to give them full notice
of what he was doing; but if he did not, some
of his friends did, who were anxious that the whole
Parliament and country should know what the
hon. member for Simcoe was so ostentatiously proposing to do. His programme is a large
one,
larger, he admits, even than the programme of the
Equal Rights Association which he was addressing,
because he says this:
"Are we to have Separate Schools in Upper Canada,
tithe assessments in Lower Canada, dual language in the
Dominion Parliament, and dual languages in Quebec, the
North-West and Manitoba?"
His programme is an extensive one. No wonder the French speaking people thought that
this was but the entering o the small end
of a very large wedge, to be driven home
by the hammer of the eloquence of the hon.
899
[COMMONS] 900
member for North Simcoe. Now, however,
a change has certainly come over the hon. gentleman; and I congratulate him upon it.
His first
speech in this House was not quite as brave as
the speech he had delivered in the opera house
here; and his last speech in the House was
not nearly so aggressive as the first one he delivered here. He has been convinced
by something
during the course of this debate. I do not know
whether it was his opponents who convinced him,
or his own friends; I think he must have heard
enough from his own friends and supporters to
convince him that whatever they might think or
say about the merits of this question of language
in the North-West, they had no sympathy whatever with the larger crusade which the
hon.
gentleman pointed out to them on former
occasions. Now, I listened to most of the debate,
and I looked over the Hansard, and I find that,
on this subject, the hon. member from West
Toronto (Mr. Denison), who seconded the
introduction of this Bill, does not hold out
much encouragement to his leader. For
he says he is talking of the case of Switzerland,
the hon. gentleman says:
"I am not referring to Quebec; it is out of the question
to speak of Quebec."
Then another, the hon. member for Centre
Toronto (Mr. Cockburn) also fired a hot shot at
that unfortunate preamble; and he went still
further, and disclaimed any idea of interfering with
the French language in the Province of Quebec or
in the Dominion. The hon. member for Albert
(Mr. Weldon), who spoke, as he said, for one
million of his fellow-subjects down by the sea,
advocated the substance of the hon. gentleman's
Bill, the one clause which it contains; but he also
took occasion to say that the people in the Maritime Provinces, the million of people
for whom he
spoke, were truth-loving and treaty-keeping
people, and they would never be a party to breaking a treaty under which the French
language was
established in Quebec and the Dominion. Another
of the hon. gentleman's followers, the hon. member
for North Bruce (Mr. McNeill), also repudiated the
preamble—and he not only repudiated the preamble,
but he poured a torrent of his turgid invective upon
the head of his hon. friend, and denounced any
clause abolishing the French language as "unjust,
un-English, tyrannical and cruel." The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton),
who also
sympathises with the one clause of the Bill, spoke
as follows with respect to the treaty rights of the
French:
I do not know who the "we" means; it certainly
does not include the hon. member for Simcoe,—
"—to interfere with any rights that exist in Canada by
the virtue of the provmions of the British North America
Act; not with one of them."
Then, the hon. gentleman said further:
"There is not a right guaranteed to the race under the
constitution which I wish to see impaired; there is not
a right the integrity of which I wish to see impaired
in the slightest degree."
Yet, the programme of the hon. member for
Simcoe (Mr.McCarthy), was—I do not think it
is so now—but a. short time ago it was, to do
what the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr.
Denison) says, is "out of the question;" What the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. McNeill) said
would be "tyrannical and cruel, un-English and
unjust," and to destroy rights which the
hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)
says he does not wish to impair in the slightest
degree. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) now says he will strike out the preamble. That is all very well, if the
Bill ever
reaches the House in Committee; but it is too late
now to back down in that fashion, and it is a rare
sight to see in this Parliament or in the courts
of Ontario one of the brilliant leaders of the bar,
which the hon. gentleman is, back down from any
position he has boldly taken; yet the hon. gentleman backs down and says he is willing
to withdraw
the preamble of this Bill. It is too late to say that
now; he should have thought of that before; he
has sown the whirlwind and must reap the storm.
I am glad to have heard so much from the
other side of the House in favor of Provincial
rights. It is proverbial that fresh converts are
always a little over-zealous, and I think we have
seen a display in this debate of a good deal of zeal
a little misdirected on that subject. The question,
of course, I know is a new one to those hon. gentlemen, and we can scarcely expect
that they
should understand it very well. They appear to
have forgotten that there are two kinds of Provincial rights. There are the rights
of the majority
of the Legislature in the Province to pass such
laws as come within the scope of the British
North America Act. Those are the Provincial
rights of the majority. But there are rights, also,
be onging to the minority, guaranteed by the British
North America Act, which are just as sacred as
the rights of the majorities to govern themselves.
Such rights would prevent the French majority in
Quebec from taking away Protestant schools from
the minority, for example. That is a question of
the Provincial rights of the minority, which hon.
gentlemen opposite, who are now advocating Provincial rights, have forgotten in their
definition of
that term. I think when the hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) better understands
this country and its citizens, he will know that
Confederation, as was pointed out by the First Minister and by the hon. member for
Northumberland
(Mr. Mitchell), is a compromise. Confederation is
a compromise in itself, and without Confederation
what is Canada, where is it, or where would it be?
Canada, therefore, is a compromise, and I believe
if Confederation were broken up into its original
fragments on a financial question, for example,
it is just possible that the scattered members of
the old Confederacy might remain in some sense
connected with Great Britain and in some sense
united to one another; but if this Confederation
were torn to pieces by a war of races, there would
be no hope of any harmony among its scattered
members, there would be no hope of continuing
the connection, which so many people desire,
with Britain; and there would be no chance,
which I feel to be an even more important
thing, to build up a great Canadian nation. The
hon. gentleman repudiates the idea of being
an annexationist. He says, and I do not deny
he thinks so too, that he is not working for annexation; but I tell him that if his
speeches were not
answered on this floor, if his sentiments were not
repudiated by the great majority of this House, if
this Bill were not voted down, he would maketens
of thousands of annexationists in the Province of
901 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 902
Quebec. If the hon. gentleman will read the history
of Canada, even for the last thirty years, he will
learn that this very point, which is the object of his
attack, formed one of the compromises agreed upon,
in which the rights of the minorities were established. Perhaps the hon. gentleman
will not acknowledge
the authority of the late George Brown on that
question, but I think that name will be acknowledged as a high authority in the Province
of
Ontario, and the hon. member for North Norfolk
(Mr. Charlton) will acknowledge it too. What did
George Brown say on that point during the Confederation debates? He put the matter
in a nutshell:
"The framers of this scheme had immense special difficulties to overcome. We had the
prejudices of race and
language and religion to deal with. To assert, then, that
our scheme is without fault would be folly. It was necessarily the work of concession."
The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)
expresses the hope that in some mysterious way or
other our French Canadian citizens will become
Anglo-Saxon. Now, I do not know whether he
means Anglo-Saxons of America or Anglo-Saxons
of England. A great many attempts have been
used, by promises and threats, and even by force,
to make the French Canadians Yankees, but they
have all failed, and I do not think that by legislation my hon. friend can hope to
make the French
Canadians English either. What is, I think, more
important to us, is, that by proper and fair treatment
we can keep the French people of this country true
and loyal Canadians, loyal to the only form of
Government which we have in Canada, the
Government of Canada by Canadians, under the
name of the Sovereign Lady, around whose
throne the free people of England also govern
themselves. There is no country under the
sun in which fanaticism in politics or bigotry
in religion is more dangerous than in Canada.
Our materials are most inflammable, and it is not
only culpable, but it is indeed a political crime for
any public man to set the spark to that inflammable material. We must frown down fanaticism,
whether it be shown on the floor of this House or on
the streets of Hull, for if it be allowed to take its
course, this country would not only be an impossible one to govern, but an unfit one
to live
in. In view of the present position of affairs, in
view of the feeling which has been aroused in
this House—necessarily aroused, as I have shown—
and in view of the fact that there was no real
pressing grievance to be remedied by this legislation, that there was no outcry from
the North- West, that there was no unnecessary tax put upon
the people of the North-West for printing the
proceedings in French; this question could have
well been left in abeyance. I will not say
that the whole thing originated with my hon.
friend, for he says it did not, but I know that if
the hon. gentleman did not cause the petition to
be sent from the North-West Council, it was, at all
events, not sent until after he visited the North- West Territories. I think the origin
of the trouble
may be very naturally traced to the same source
as the origin of the trouble we are now dealing
with in this House. The grievance in the North- West Territories was a small one,
an infinitesimal
one, and I think it might have been borne with a
little longer rather than that bitter feelings should
have been aroused. I think We could have waited
until the question of a new Constitution for the
North-West came up in its natural course before
this Parliament by a proposition for creating one
or more Provinces in the North-West. If this
delay were allowed, I do not see that either the
people of the North-West or the Canadian Constitution would have suffered. I believe
that there is
no necessity for this Bill at present, and holding this
view, had I been within sound of the division bell
the other evening, I should have voted for the
amendment moved by my hon. friend from Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil).
Mr. EDGAR. Yes; I would unquestionably
have so voted. I would have moved the six
months' hoist, or anything else which would have
postponed this Bill, not altogether because of the
character of the Bill itself, but because of its preamble and surroundings, and chiefly
of the speeches
made by the hon. gentleman, and because the question would settle itself at no distant
day. The hon. gentleman says "hear, hear," and appears to be surprised that I should
make that announcement, but
I again repeat that I am sorry I was not here to
vote for that amendment. In taking this course,
I cannot be accused of trying to gain French votes
in my constituency, because, so far as I know, these
is not one French Canadian in it. The fine constituency which I represent is largely
English and
Protestant, but at the same time it is largely liberal,
and I shall be very much disappointed if the broad
and liberal sentiments which I am tryin to express
here, will not meet with the approval of the liberal
English-speaking Protestants of my riding, which
is in the heart of the great Province of Ontario. I
do not hope to catch votes, nor am I afraid of losing
votes by the course which I take. While I may
not have any claim or right to do so, I will venture to make an appeal to my French
fellow
members in this House. I do hope that they will
receive a proposition of a conciliatory character,
such as that contained in the amendment of the
Minister of Justice, without alarm. Although
they may not like everything that is in that proposition, they have no ground for
alarm, in my
opinion, when they hear the sentiments expressed
towards them by the majority on both sides of this
House. I shall also take the liberty of counselling
them not to ask for anything unreasonable, or for
anything which will give their enemies an excuse
for open and continued hostility towards them.
Mr. WHITE (Renfrew). At this stage of the
debate, and after the many lucid and able arguments that have been advanced on both
sides, I
cannot hope to add anything to the information of
the House, or to interest it on this question to any
degree. Nor, Sir, would I have ventured to
have said a word were it not that I do not
wish to record a silent vote upon the question
now before the House. In the debate that has
taken place during the last five or six days, I
have been struck with the great unanimity
with which hon. members who opposed the proposition of my hon. friend from North Simcoe
(Mr.
McCarthy) have opposed, not the Bill itself, but
the preamble with which that Bill has been introduced. It has been stated by many
hon. gentlemen who have spoken upon this question, that the
Bill itself was an innocent measure, but that its
preamble is one calculated to excite the feelings of
903
[COMMONS] 904
the community, and, therefore, that the Bill ought
on that account to be opposed. I have also
been struck with the fact that the hon. gentlemen
who have opposed the proposition of my hon.
friend for North Simcoe, have criticised, not so
much the speeches which he has delivered on the
floor of Parliament in reference to this measure, as
the speeches he has delivered outside of this House.
I may say, Sir, frankly, that with many of the aspirations of my hon. friend for North
Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) I have no sympathy whatever. There
were many things said by that hon. gentleman during the recess which, perhaps, might
as well have been left unsaid, and with which
I do not at all concur; but I think every
hon. member in this House must admit that
the hon. member for North Simcoe has presented
his case on the floor of this Parliament with a
degree of moderation that ought to commend itself
to the House, and which is in marked contrast to
many of the speeches that have been delivered in
opposition to his measure. Sir, the few words I
have to say on this question and the will be
very few indeed—will have particular reference to
the proposition now before the Chair, namely, the
amendment moved by the hon. Minister of Justice.
I have just stated that the greatest objection
offered to this Bill refers to the preamble; that
was one of the objections urged by the Minister
of Justice in the speech he delivered here the
other night. Well, Sir, we had before us last
year the consideration of a Bill, the preamble of
which was obnoxious to a very large portion of the
people of this country—a preamble calculated to
arouse the prejudices, if I may so express it, of
a very large number of people, of whom I myself
was one. I listened to the hon. Minister of
Justice on that occasion taking the ground
that the preamble of a Bill was no essential
part of the Bill at all. During the recess following the last Session of Parliament,
many of
us were called to account by our constituents for the position we had taken on the
question I have just referred to; and I undertook
to justify the position I took on that question because I believed that the Government
were right and did what they ought to do in
the interest of the country. In doing so,
I took the ground that the hon. Minister of Justice
had taken, that the preamble formed no essential
part of the Bill, and ought not to be considered in
reference thereto. But we find the hon. Minister
of Justice now laying down a new principle and taking
the opposite view; he says he has a very strong
objection to this Bill because of its preamble. Well,
Sir, the hon. member for North Simcoe has stated
distinctly that if this Bill passes a second reading,
he has no objection to changing the preamble—that
the House can amend it in any direction they
please, or they can strike it out if they please. The
whole question presented to this House, divested
of all sentiment, and of all appeals to the Province
of Quebec or to any other section of the country,
is whether it is desirable that that particular clause
of the North-West Territories Act should be continued on the Statute-book or not.
I have no sympathy with those hon. gentlemen who say that the
hon. member for North Simcoe ought not to have
moved in this matter, but that it ought to have
been left to the members representing North-West
constituencies. If the hon. member for North
Simcoe believed, as he evidently does believe, that
this clause of the North-West Territories Act
should be expunged from the Statute-book,
it was his bounden duty to bring the question
before Parliament, whether he represented a con.
stituency in Ontario, in the North-West Territories,
or in any other portion of the Dominion. Now, let
me say that with the first part of the proposition
submitted by the hon. Minister of Justice I concur
to a very great extent:
"That this House, having regard to the long continued
use of the French language in old Canada, and to the
covenants on that subject embodied in the British North
America Act, cannot agree to the declaration contained
in the said Bill as the basis thereof, that it is expedient
in the interest of the national unlty of the Dominion that
there should be community of language amongst the
people of Canada. That, on the contrary, this House declares its adherence to the
said covenants and its determination to resist any attempt to impair the same."
Why should we make that declaration, Mr.
Speaker? We are not called on to deal with that
question at the present time. My hon. friend
from North Simcoe, with all his ardor in the direction he is moving, declared in the
speech
he made the other night, that it was not
his intention to interfere in the slightest degree
with the rights conferred on the minorities in the
different Provinces by the Act of Confederation.
The recognition of those rights is, to a very great
extent, the basis of Confederation; it was because
of the concession of them to the minorities in the
different Provinces that Confederation was made a
possibility; and, therefore, I would be one of the
last to interfere with them in the slightest degree,
whether in the Province of Quebec, the Province
of Ontario, or any other Province in this Dominion.
But I take it that we are not called upon,
on the present occasion, to deal with that
question at all. No proposition has been
submitted to this House to interfere in the
slightest degree with the rights of the minorities
conferred upon them by the Act of Confederation,
and, therefore, in my judgment at any rate, the
recital in this resolution is entirely unnecessary.
Then, I come to the other part of the question.
The hon. Minister of Justice has laid down the
proposition here that certain matters should be
left to the final decision of the North-West Legislature, after the next general election.
Well, Sir,
if he had enlarged the scope of his proposition
I do not say I would not agree with him;
but he has confined it to two points. The first,
refers to the use of the French language in the
Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories; but, in the speech he delivered
here the
other night, the hon. Minister stated, that if a
number of French gentlemen were elected to represent portions of the North-West Territories
in the
Legislature, they would be permitted to use their
language on the floor of that Legislature, as a matter
of courtesy if not as a matter of right, so that it
seems to me that the concession proposed to be
made by this resolution is no concession at all.
The second point refers to the printing of the
roceedings of the North-West Legislature in the
French language. Why, Sir, we have the authority of my hon. friend from West Assiniboia
(Mr. Davin), who ought to know, perhaps, better
than any other man in Canada—almost as
well even as the Regina Leader itself—
what is the practice in that section of the
905 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 906
country; and he stated as a fact that the
proceedings of the North—West Legislature were
not printed in the French language at all. So that
it seems to me the proposition submitted to the
House by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice
will confer on the North-West Legislature practically no benefit whatever; and, therefore,
while
they have been asking this House for bread, we
shall, if we pass this resolution, be giving them a
stone. What does the hon. Minister say with regard to the use of the French language
in the
courts? He says that it would be a manifest
injustice to the people of that country if they were
precluded from using the French language in the
courts. What argument did the hon. Minister
use in respect to that contention—leaving aside
altogether the constitutional argument, with which
I do not propose to deal, but to speak of the
injustice which he declared would be perpetrated
upon the 1,500 French people and upon the 3,000
odd French half-breeds, a large proportion of
whom, it has been stated in this debate, are
incapable of speaking the French language at all,
and only understand their mother tongue, the
Indian? I say there would be no greater injustice in not allowing them to have the
use of
French in their courts than there is in not allowing the use of the French or the
German language
in the courts of the Province of Ontario, where
there are over 200,000 Germans, and upwards
of 100,000 French people. Can it be argued for
a moment that any greater injustice will be
perpetrated on the people of the North-West
Territories by preventing the use of the French
language in the records and proceedings before
the courts, than is perpetrated upon the French;
or Germans in the Province of Ontario by not
using the languages of these people in that Province? I have yet to learn that any
miscarriage of
justice has occurred, or that there has been any
complaint of any miscarriage of justice because of
the non-use of the French or of any other foreign
language in the courts in that Province. It seems
to me, therefore, that the argument of the Minister of Justice in that respect has
very little force.
I would have been pleased, I frankly admit, because I have the greatest respect for
the opinion of
my leader, if I could have agreed to the proposition which the Minister of Justice
proposed to this
House; but holding the views I do on this question, and believing, as I do, that the
opinion of the
people of the North-West Territories, as shown by
their petitions to this Parliament, ought to have
some force and effect, I find myself incapable of
voting for that resolution.
It being six o'clock, the Speaker left the chair.
After Recess.
Mr. BARRON. When, before recess, I had the
pleasure of hearing my hon. friend the member for
Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) rise in his seat and
say that he, an old parliamentarian, an old member
of this House, rose to speak on this serious and
important question with a good deal of diffidence,
I confess to having then experienced some feeling
of regret that I, a young member, had made up my
mind to speak on this burning question; but I
hope the hon. members of this House will see that,
in rising to speak, notwithstanding my youth, I
do so solely under a keen sense of duty to my
constituents, who expect me in this matter to give
my decided views one way or the other. I do not
think any hon. member of this House feels more
conscious than I, of the great necessity we are under
to say nothing to-night. or hereafter during this debate, which may in any way continue
the ill-feeling
that, perhaps, has been engendered during this
debate. I am conscious of this necessity, not only
out of respect for the high official position which
you, Sir, so worthily occupy, not only out of
respect for our own individual selves, and not only
out of respect for the French members from the Province of Quebec, representing a
great and free electorate, but because, Sir, I know full well that a harsh
or hasty word spoken to-night, however true its text
may be, is more calculated to repel than to induce
a calm and dispassionate judgment; and so I hope,
when I shall have resumed my seat, that I shall be
able, on looking back over what I have said, to
conclude that I have spoken calmly and dispassionately, although already words have
been spoken
which have grated somewhat harshly on the ears
of hon. gentlemen who may think as I do, and who
may vote as I intend to vote on this important question. But if I do give offence
to any creed or to any
person, I hope hon. gentlemen will see it is because I
am now in the years of enthusiasm, because I believe in the assertion of free speech
and free thought,
knowing. as I do, that in past history these two elements have led to the highest
kind of legislation—
legislation tending to peace on earth and goodwill towards men. I have said that words
have been
spoken during this debate which fell unpleasantly
on the ears of hon. gentlemen in this House. Need
I say to whose language I refer? Need I say that
the hon. the Minister of Public Works, more than
any hon. gentleman in this House, has, during this
debate, made use of language calculated to do
serious harm throughout the country at large.
I say, Sir, that his language was most fanatical,
most inflammatory, and not justified at all by
that of the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy); but, assuming for a moment,
which I do not now admit, that the hon. member
for North Simcoe did say what, perhaps, in
his calmer judgment, he would not have said, two
wrongs do not make a right; and, therefore, the
hon. the Minister of Public Works ought not to
have used the language he did, and, coming from
a gentleman in his exalted position, it was most
dangerous to the peace and the welfare of the
community at large. Bad enough would that
language have been had it come from an ordinary
member; bad enough would it have been had
it come from a member of the Government, sitting
behind the hon. gentleman, but, infinitely mischievous was it coming from the Minister
of
Public Works, who is second in command to the
right hon. gentleman who leads this House. The
hon. the Minister of Public Works spoke of the
loyalty of the French Canadians. I admit, and I
rejoice in the fact, that there are no more loyal
men in the community than the French Canadians,
but I do not propose to admit, as worthy of our
admiration—if I may be allowed to speak for a
moment in their behalf—the example set us by the
hon. the Minister of Public Works in the gentleman to whom he referred, for British
Canadians cannot see much loyalty to admire or
respect in a gentleman, who one moment re
907
[COMMONS] 908
joiced in the tricolor of France, and the next
gave three cheers for the British Crown.
The loyalty I admire is that of such a man
as Montcalm, who fought to the bitter end. The
loyalty I admire is that of the French Canadians,
who, when tempted by the Americans, refused to yield to temptation and remained
loyal to the British Crown. Then, I cannot but recall the remarks made by the
hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) when he
undertook to criticise the remarks of the hon.
member for West Durham (Mr. Blake). He devoted
half an hour to abuse and vituperation against the
hon. member for West Durham—against the very
gentleman whom the right hon. the First Minister
asked to come to his assistance in this serious and
important matter. What must have been the
feelings of the hon. member for East Grey when,
after abusing that hon. gentleman, he heard, a
day or two later, his leader ask him to come to
his assistance, in order to bridge over this difficulty? When I heard the hon. member
for East
Grey presuming to criticise the course of the hon.
member for West Durham, and when I saw the
dignified, stately form of the hon. member for
West Durham, and contrasted his hearing with
that of the hon. member for East Grey, I could
not help thinking of the cartoon in which asinged cat
was depicted as hissing and spitting at a great
Bengal tiger. But, much as I respect and admire
the hon. member for West Durham, exalted as is
his ability, I regret to have to say that, in some
particulars, I cannot follow him in the speech he
addressed to this House a few nights ago. It is
not my fault, but my misfortune, and no one
regrets it more than I, that the constituency
which I have the honor to represent did not send
a gentleman of greater ability and of more astute
mind to follow the hon. member for West Durham
in the vote he proposes to give, and in the language
he addressed to this House. But I shall refer to his
remarks a few minutes later, when I come to that
portion of my speech. For the present I wish to
refer to the remarks addressed to this House last
night by the hon. the Minister of Justice. It is
with pride and pleasure that I see that hon.
gentleman rise to address this House. It is with
delight that I look forward to a literary treat when
I see he intends to speak; and it was with pleasure
that I saw him rise to move, as he did move, the
amendment which is now before the House. But
I confess to a feeling of great disappointment when
he sat down; I confess that my idol was struck to
the ground, because we found that the Minister of
Justice had actually swallowed himself; that he, who
within one year since declared that the preamble to
an Act was of no moment, now declared that it
was of the greatest possible importance. In the
debate on the Jesuits' Estates Act, he said:
"Now, let me again, before I leave the subject of the
Act, call the attention of the House to the fact that all
the argument which has been made with regard to the
necessity for disallowance is based on objections to the
preamble of the Act. In the history of disallowance in
this country, in the history of the disallowance of our own
statutes in the mother country—and we know that scores
of them were disallowed—the records will be searched in
vain to find one which was disallowed because the preamble was not agreeable to anybody.
I do not retend
to dispute the statement of my hon. friend from Muskoka
(Mr. Brien) that the preamble is a part of the Act. So
is the title a part of the Act, and so are the head-notes of
sections; but has anyone ever heard of a Government being asked to disallow an Act
because they did not like the
wording of the title or of the head-notes. The preamble
is understood to be a part of the Act for the purpose of interpreting the Act, but
there is nothing in this Act for
which interpretation is needed, and I distinguish, in referring to this the most trivial
and technical objection which
could be taken to a statute, between those parts of the
preamble which assert that certain correspondence has
passed, such as this between the Premier and the Cardinal
at Rome, and those preambles which recite certain agreements which the statute validates."
Then, further on, he says:
"I assert, without fear of contradiction among people
who will consider this matter in a calm and businesslike
way, that that part of the preamble which is the only part
relevant to the purposes of the Act itself, is utterly harmless, entirely businesslike,
free from the slightest suspicion of derogating from any right of Her Majesty, and
from the slightest suspicion of infringement of the constitution."
These were the words spoken a short year ago
by the hon. the Minister of the Justice, when it
appeared to be his purpose to minimise the importance of a preamble to an Act. But
it will be in
the recollection of hon. members that, on that
occasion, the preamble was made, by a special
enacting clause, part and parcel of the Act itself;
and, therefore, it was that some hon. gentlemen opposed, as I did, the Act, because
the preamble which was made a part of it was most offensive. What lawyer in this House
will assume
that the preamble is of any importance so long as
the Act itself is clear and beyond doubt? First,
however, let me draw attention to the fact that
the member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
having heard the objections made to the preamble,
said at once, in effect, I do not consider it offensive,
but, if any hon. gentleman does so, I will
consent to have it struck out in Committee. The
Minister of Justice, the other night, did not
take a particle of notice of the concession or offer
made by the hon. member for North Simcoe. It
appeared to me that he refused to take notice of
that offer or to comment upon it. It appeared to
me that he was anxious that this apparently
offensive preamble should continue in the Bill, so
that he might have some argument and grievance
on which to build an argument in this House.
I say that there was nothing in the preamble to
this Act. I mean by that, that no matter how
offensive it might be—and I am not going to argue
that just now—this House has no right to consider
the preamble so long as the enacting clause is
beyond any doubt, and I think there are very few
lawyers in this House who will deny the truth of
that proposition. I will not venture, young as I
am, to address a legal argument to this House
coming from myself, and I prefer to read authorities proving my contentions. I shall
read from
Maxwell on Statutes, an authority which, I think,
will be acknowledged as sufficient. On page 56,
Maxwell says:
"But the preamble cannot either restrict or extend the
enacting part when the language of the latter is plain,
and not open to doubt either as to its meaning or its
scope."
Mr. BARRON: The hon. member for Bothwell.
interrupts me by saying "hear, hear" —meaning, I
suppose, that the language of the enacting clause
is not plain. The hon. gentleman can read English
and so can I, and neither he nor anyone else can
contend that the enacting clause of this Bill is not
so plain that any child can understand it. What
909 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 910
is the Bill? Simply that the 110th section of the
North-West Territories Act shall be repealed, so
there can be no ambiguity about the enacting
clause, and therefore the preamble is a matter of no
possible moment. The authority I have quoted
goes on to say:
"It is not unusual to find that the enacting part is not
exactly co-extensive with the preamble. In many Acts
of Parliament, although a particular mischief is recited,
the legislative pro visions extend beyond it. The reamble
is often no more than the recital of some of the inconveniences, and does not exclude
any others for which a
remedy is given by the statute. The evil recited is but
the motive for legislation; the remedy may both consistently and wisely be extended
beyond the cure of that
evil; and if on a review of the whole Act a wider intention than that expressed in
the preamble appears to be
the real one, effect is to be given to it, notwithstanding the
less extensive import of the preamble."
But it may be said that in this case the preamble
is more extensive than the enacting clause, and, if
I stop there, it would be said that I had not
answered the question as to the importance of the
preamble. But, on page 62, I find:
"Where the preamble is found more extensive than the
enacting part, it is equally inefficacious to control the
effect of the latter, when otherwise free from doubt."
Then on page 61, this work proceeds:
"It has been sometimes said that the preamble may
extend but cannot restrain the enacting part of a statute.
But it would seem difficult to support this preposition. * * *
In a word, then, it is to be taken as a fundamental
principle, standing, as it were, at the threshold of the
whole subject of interpretation, that the intention of the
Legislature is invariably to be accepted and carried into
effect, whatever may be the opinion of the judicial interpreter of its wisdom or justice.
If the language admits of
no doubt or secondary meaning, it is simply to be obeyed,
without more ado. If it admits of more than one construction , the true meaning is
to be sought, not on the wide sea of
surmise and speculation, but 'from such conjectures as
are drawn from the words alone or something contained
in them;' that is, from the context viewed by such light
as its history may throw upon it, and construed with the
help of certain general principles, and under the influence
of certain presumptions as to what the Legislature does
or does not generally intend."
Great as my respect is for the hon. member for
Bothwell (Mr. Mills), great as is my admiration
for the hon. member for West Durham (Mr.
Blake), much as I respect and admire the hon. the
Minister of Justice, I prefer to take the views of
Maxwell as to the meaning of the preamble to an
Act. Let me give the House an instance where
the preamble to an Act proved entirely inefficacious. There was a statute under which
the question was raised as to the legality of the Orange
Association in England, in or about the year 1832.
The preamble to the Act recited that it was
"directed against secret or oath-bound societies,"
and the argument was made that by reason of that
statute, 29 George III, and by reason of that preamble, the Orange society was illegal.
But it was
found that the enacting clause did not go to the
extent of the preamble, and the opinion was given by
such gentlemen as Sergeant Lewis, Sir Wm. Howe,
Sir Robert Gifford, Mr. Gurney, Mr. Gasalee and Mr.
Adolphus, men, some of whom afterwards adorned
the bench, and reached high positions in the service of their country; all of them
gave the opinion
that by reason of the enacting clause not going to
the extent of the preamble, therefore the society
itself was not illegal. Now, the hon. Minister of
Justice proposes an amendment, and I must say
that it struck me that that amendment was as
inconsistent and as incongruous as the far-famed
autumn leaves of Vallambrosa; but after all, what
does it amount to? It admits the principle of the
hon. member for North Simcoe as advanced by his
Bill; it admits that the time may come when dual
language must be abolished in the North-West; it
says in effect that we will not do to-day what we
shall do to-morrow; therefore I say that when the
Minister of Justice brings in his amendment proposing to do this a few days, months
or years hence
—perhaps not by this House, but to give others the
power to do it—why, Sir, he practically gives
away the case to the member from North Simcoe.
What is that amendment?
"That all the words after 'Resolved' be expunged, and
the following substituted:
"That this House, having regard for the long continued
use ofthe French language in old Canada and to the
covenants on that subject embodied in the British North
America Act, cannot agree to the declarations contained
in the said Bill as a basis thereof, namely, that it is expedient in the interest
of the national unity of the
Dominion that there should be unity of languuge amongst
the people of Canada. That, on the contrary, this House
declares its adhesion to the said covenants and its determination to resist any attempt
to impair the same."
Now, it seems to me that the hon. member for
North Simcoe has never disputed these premises.
So far as I am concerned, I here declare that if the
member for North Simcoe attempted in any way
to interfere with the rights of our fellow-countrymen in the Province of Quebec, so
far as the use of
the French language is concerned, I would resist
that attempt to the utmost. But we have heard
it here declared by the member for North Simcoe,
time and time again, both in his speech in introducing this Bill and in his speech
the other night,
that that was not his intention, and, therefore, it
seems to me that we may agree with these premises.
The amendment of the Minister of Justice then
goes on:
"That at the same time this House deems it expedient
and proper, and not inconsistent with those covenants that
the Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories
should receive from the Parliament of Canada power to
regulate, after the next general election of the Assembly
the proceedings of the Assembly and we manner of
recording and publishing such proceedings."
Sir, I was prepared to take the objection that that
amendment did not go far enough, that it did not
include the ordinances, it did not include the
statutes, it did not include the proceedings in the
courts; but this objection, on my part, was
anticipated by the First Minister when he spoke
to-night, and explained that it was no matter, that
the reason they were not included in this amendment was that the ordinances were published
by
this Parliament, or were under the control of this
Parliament, and, therefore, this amendment went
far enough. I confess that that answer of the
First Minister is a complete answer to the objection I would have raised to this amendment
not
including the ordinances and the statutes. But
the Bill of the hon. member for Simcoe may be
passed, and still the ordinances and statutes will
be published in both languages. Why? Because,
what the Bill of the member for North Simcoe
proposes is simply to repeal the 110th section
of the North-West Territories Act , which
has nothing whatever to do with the publication of the ordinances and the statutes
which,
as the First Minister stated this afternoon,
were under the control of this Parliament, and
therefore would be published in both languages.
Now, if the Bill of the member from North Simcoe
were to become law the statutes and the ordinances
relating to the North-West Territories would still
911
[COMMONS] 912
be published in both languages for the reason I
have stated. Now, I stated in the opening of my
remarks that I would be compelled to refer briefly
to the remarks of the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), and in doing so let
me state that
no one has any idea of the reluctance with which I do
so, because I have such an unbounded respect and
high admiration for that hon. gentleman, and I am
always ready and willing, so far as I can, to bend
my will to the will of the hon. member for West
Durham, so long as my conscience and my better
judgment allow me to do so. But upon this occasion I am unable to do so, and I want
to refer to
one or two matters upon which he has spoken, and
upon which, to my mind, he appeared to me to
take up a wrong position. He said that the North- West Council had no right to speak
upon this important matter, and he used this language:
"The North-West Assembly had no permission or
authority from this Parliament, its creators, to deal with
this question at all, and the electors to that Assembly had
not before them, when the Assembly was elected, any proposition upon that subject.
So, neither was there an
authority in the body, nor was there the provision in the
constitution."
Now, Mr. Speaker, there can be no possible doubt
of the truth of that proposition, nobody ever denied
it; but at the same time, to say that the North- West Territories had no right to
speak out upon
this matter, is setting forth a proposition which
cannot possibly be accepted. Why, Sir, if it is
correct that the North-West Council had no right
to speak out upon the subject-matter of this Bill,
then how much more are we stultifying ourselves
in this House in the action we have taken, when,
during my short period in Parliament, we have
already spoken out upon matters relating to the
entire Empire, more especially the subject of Home
Rule. Sir, if the hon. member is right in his contention, then we never had the right
to do that;
still we did it, and if we did that, with still greater
reason may the representatives of the North-West
Assembly speak out upon that question which
peculiarly affects themselves. But in addition to
the fact that the North-West Council have, by the
resolution forwarded to the member for North
Simcoe and placed upon the Table of this House,
spoken out in very strong and plain language upon
this subject, we have also other means of
information whereby we know that it is the
almost unanimous wish of the people of the North- West Territories to abolish the
dual language. The
hon. member from North Simcoe read, I believe,
some telegrams the other night which were questioned by the hurried interruption of
the Secretary
of State. He read one, I believe, signed by a
gentleman named McCaul. I happen to have the
pleasure of knowing that gentleman, and I am
quite confident from my knowledge of him, he
being a son of the late Dr. McCaul, President of the
University Of Toronto, that he is utterly incapable
of sending such a telegram as was read by the
member from North Simcoe, unless the statements
contained in it were accurate in everyparticular. Let
me read from the Calgary Harold, February 7, in
regard to the dual language in the North-West:
"Here is a system which none of us ever asked for,
which was imposed upon the North-West without its pre- knowledge or consent; a system
which we have no need
of, which we most decidedly object to as useless and
costly; and the opportunit bein offered of assisting a
movement to rid the North-West of the system, our duty
is plain."
Then I have a quotation from the Calgary Herald
of 13th February, sent by a gentleman whose position ought not to be disputed, because
he is one of
the Queen's Counsel lately appointed by the Minister of Justice himself. I refer to
Mr. James Bruce
Smith, of Calgary. He has sent me the Calgary
Herald of the 13th February, containing certain
resolutions passed at a public meeting at Calgary
on the evening before, which I shall read to the
House:
"Resolved, That the use of a dual language in official
proceedings in the North-West Territories is unnecessary, expensive, and calculated
to prevent the complete
union of the several nationalities who reside 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 for use in the proceedings of
the Legislative Assembly, the courts, and all other
official bodies.
"Resolved, 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.
"Resolved, That a copy of the above resolutions be
forwarded to D. W. Davis, M,P., Dalton McCarthy, M.P.,
the Hon. James A. Lougheed, and the Dominion Government, 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."
I may, perhaps, be allowed by way of interjection,
to read a statement prepared by Mr. Cayley, a
gentleman well known to the First Minister, who,
speaking of the cost of publishing the ordinances,
resolutions, proceedings, and so forth, in the
French language, says:
"The estimated population of the Territories is 100,000,
of whom French an Half-breeds form one-fifth. The
cost of French printing in 1883 was $350: in 1887 it had
risen to $1,000 for printing and $1,000 for translation.
The latter cost $3,000 for three years. Of 500 copies of
the Territorial ordinances printed, 126 were distributed;
the balance lay on the shelves at Regina and a large proportion of the 126 went to
persons (official and others) who
could speak English."
So I think we have sufficiently heard from the
North-West Territories as to their views regarding this important matter. But I have
heard it
said that there have been counter-petitions presented by the hon. member for Alberta
(Mr. Davis),
petitions purporting to be very numerously signed,
asking for the retention of the dual language. I
do not doubt that if any one takes the trouble to
examine these petitions he will be very much impressed with some of them. There is
a great similarity of writing between the signatures to those
petitions, and I think we all know that about the
easiest thing in the world is to get up a petition.
I recollect perfectly well that petitions were
sent here very numerously signed against the Franchise Act, that iniquitous measure
to which the First
Minister is so strongly pledged, and upon an examination of the petitions it appeared
that among
the names of those asking for the repeal of the
Franchise Act was the name of the First Minister
himself. The celebrated Chartist petitions contained the signatures of Her Majesty
the Queen,
Prince Albert, the Duke of Wellington, Sir
Robert Peel and Lord John Russell. We find
also that upon an investigation into the question
of petitions addressed to the House of Commons
in England, it was found that numerously signed
petitions contained only two or three different forms
of handwriting. I read somewhere that a petition
was addressed to ex-President Cleveland, when he
was Sheriff in the State of New York, purporting
913 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 914
to have been signed by the friends and relatives of
the ex-President himself, asking Mr. Cleveland as
Sheriff that instead of hanging a criminal he would
hang himself. So, I think, we see that very little
importance is to be attached to any petitions, no
matter how they are prepared, but especially
petitions coming from the North-West Territories,
containing prayers against the wishes of the representatives of the people there.
I think all hon.
members must have been greatly impressed with
the speech of the hon. member for Bothwell
(Mr. Mills), and I certainly was so impressed.
I read it with a great deal of pleasure and care,
because, as a literary effort, it could hardly be
excelled; but I think that his whole speech from
the beginning to the end was based on a wrong
assumption. It appears to me that the hon.
gentleman started with wrong premises entirely on
which he built his argument; that his contention
from the beginning to the end of his speech was
that it was the intention of the hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) to entirely eradicate
the French language.
Mr. BARRON. And upon these premises the
hon. gentleman built his argument. The hon.
member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) says, so the hon.
member for North Simcoe says. If he says so, I
have not heard it; and if he says so now, I will
take my seat and not support his Bill, because I
say it would be criminal, indeed, to endeavor
to shut the mouths entirely of the French people,
and eradicate the French language. What did
the hon. member for Bothwell say?
"The hon. gentleman proposes to act towards the
French population of this country in much the same
way that the brother of Robert, Duke of Normandy,
acted towards him. He proposes to put out their eyes.
He says: Forget your mother tongue, forget the craters
and statesmen, the novelists and historians, the poets
and philosophers of France, and then you will begin to
qualify yourselves for becoming good British subjects.
If you understand the language, if you appreciate its
beauties, if you admire its expressmn or its wisdom, or
its elasticity, then it is impossible that you can be a loyal
subject, it is impossible that you can be devoted to the
maintenance of the Federal union. This is the position
that the hon. gentleman has taken."
Mr. BARRON. The hon. member for Bothwell
says "hear, hear." All I can say is this, that I do
not understand that to be the position of the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy); but,
on the contrary, if language means anything, if the
English language can be comprehended, I understood him to say the direct opposite—that
he has
no desire to eradicate the French language or destroy it, but that, simply for purposes
of convenience, he desires that in the North-West Territories,
as his Bill says, section 110 of the North-West
Territories Act, providing that the proceedings be
printed in both languages, should be repealed.
Mr. BARRON. We have asked him; we have
his speech.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Did the hon. member
for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) not argue that there
could be no such thing as national unity without
one language, and did he not quote Freeman and
Max Miiller for the purpose of establishing that
proposition?
Mr. MCCARTHY. I disclaim having argued
any such ridiculous proposition. I argued that
community of language tended to unity, not that
it was necessary.
Mr. BARRON. But the member for Bothwell
(Mr. Mills) says it is the same thing.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I did not say it was
the same thing. I stated he said so.
Mr. BARRON. Well, he argues, as I understand,
that the proposition of the member for North Simcoe is the same thing almost as if
he proposed to
reject the French language entirely. That contention reminds me of a story in a little
book called
"Alice in Wonderland," which all hon. gentlemen
who may be happy enough to have families, no
doubt, have read. Little Alice was seated at the
head of the table, and there were present a hatter,
a March hare, and a dormouse. An argument
announced by little Alice did not seem quite to suit
the hatter, and so the hatter said: "You might
just as well say, little Alice, that because 'I see
what I eat,' that it is the same thing as 'I eat
what I see;'" and the March hare also rejoined:
"You might just as well say that because 'I like
what I get," it is the same thing as that 'I get What
I like;'" and the dormouse said: "Because, little
Alice, I breathe when I sleep, you might say it is
the same thing as that I sleep when I breathe;" and
the hatter, summing up the propositions, said
that little Alice must expect such inconsistent
propositions as these, if she was to stand by the
argument she advanced a few moments ago. I think
if the hatter in the story were in this House he
would have addressed the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) regarding his argument
in much
the same way as he admonished little Alice on
the particular occasion I have spoken of. It is
impossible for me, not being a historian, to
follow the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills)
in his historical crusades throughout the universe.
He travelled up and down longitudes and back and
forward over latitudes to find authorities to show
that it is in the interests of the unity of the Empire
and of the country that dual language should be
retained. The hon. member introduced us to the
Jews, to the Gentiles, and to the Greeks; he
then took us among the Parthians, the Medes,
the Alamites; then he brought us to dwell in
Mesopotamia and Judea, and back again to the
reign of Ahasuerus; then he asked us to travel
with him mentally among the Italians of Malta,
and then jumped across the Atlantic to take us
among the French of Quebec. Then he introduced
us among the Dutch of the Cape, took us to Calcutta among the Hindoos, and then among
the
Chinese of Hong Kong. He talked of the Helots of
Sparta, and travelled in and out among the Ionian
Islands. He took us back to the Roman Empire, and
then with one stupendous bound brought us among
the Algonquin tribes of the North-West. All this
for the purpose of showing us that dual language
is not harmful, but that it is, in fact, rather
desirable to have a variety of languages, and
thereby the unity of the Empire is perpetuated and
secured. But, Sir, the hon. member for Bothwell
(Mr. Mills), from the Alpha to the Omega of his
speech, never said one word about that great exam
915
[COMMONS] 916
ple shown us by the country to the south of us—
I refer to the United States. Although the hon.
gentleman referred to almost every country of the
universe, he never once said a solitary word about
the example shown us by the United States. There
is not a doubt that in that great country their
stupendous advance in civilisation and their immense advance in national strength
and power,
have been to a very great extent secured by the
fact that they have one common school system,
and one language from the Atlantic to the Pacific
and from the Gulf of Mexico to the boundaries
which separate them from Canada. I do not propose to follow the different members
of this House
who have given us the examples of Germany,
Poland, Finland, Russia and other countries. I
prefer to take the statement of the hon. gentleman
from Albert (Mr. Weldon), a gentleman whom
this House recognises as a great student of history
and as one more able to speak on this important
matter than gentlemen who within the last three
or four months have refreshed their memories and
secured new information with the object of addressing the House on this question.
The member for
Albert says:
"I concur in the opinion that it is desirable, other
things being equal, without breaking faith, that government is easier and that friction
is less among a people in
a country which has a homogeneous people. This remark
is made by one whose duty all his life has been to study
history, and I venture to say there is not in Europe a
single example of a nation with two rival races jealously
preserving their own nationality, and nearly equal in
strength which is at all commensurate with her resources
and population as compared with a homogeneous nation."
I listened to the remark of the hon. the Premier
himself when he replied to the leader of the Opposition—a leader for whom we all have
more than
ordinary respect and towards whom we entertain
feelings akin to love and affection. This makes it
all the harder for me to speak on this occasion, for
I know that in saying what I do say and in feeling as I do feel, I am not in accord
with the views
of the Liberal leader; but, on the contrary, I am
doing that, and I am saying that, and I shall vote
that way which is contrary to his wishes, and
perhaps shall hurt his feelings in a way I would
not like. I think that the hon. the leader of the
Opposition was right when he said that at all times
in the history of Canada the rights of the minority
were disregarded by the Conservative party. We
have only to go back to the times of the "Family
Compact." We have only to go back to the seigniorial tenures—the abolition of which
the right
hon. gentleman took credit for the Conservative
party, to prove this. Why, Sir, everything in the
way of reform which has been done by the Conservative party (if my reading of history
is correct) has been brought about by the bayonet of
argument addressed by the Reform party to the
Conservative party of this country. The Conservatives have been forced time and time
again to do
that which they say now they did willingly, but
which they only did willingly because it was done
for the purpose of preserving themselves in
power. We find now that the Conservative
party in this House are actually, partially acceding
to the proposition of the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). If the hon. the First
Minister regards the rights of the minority, why
did he not support the amendment of the hon.
member for Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil)? No; on the
contrary, to please a certain portion of the community, he goes against that which
he has spoken
for this afternoon, and brings in a clear amendment
in favor of abolishing the dual language. The only
difference between the amendment of the hon.
Minister of Justice and the Bill of the hon. member
for North Simcoe is that the hon. Minister refuses
to do to-day that which the hon. member for North
Simcoe wants done to-day, but he says he will do
it to-morrow, which after all, becomes, except
in point of time, practically the same thing. The
hon. Minister appeals to this House, not to be
possessed of animus, not to create racial or creed
animosity. We know that the right hon. First
Minister is the general-in-chief of Mr. Meredith,
who is carrying on a crusade against Mr. Mowat
in respect to Separate Schools and the alleged use of
French in the schools in Ontario; and if the right
hon. gentleman is consistent, after the language he
used this afternoon, he will write to Mr. Meredith
and tell him to stop this crusade; and not only so,
but he will support Mr. Mowat in his efforts to do
what is right and just to the French minority in
that Province.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Follow the example of
the Opposition here.
Mr. BARRON. Yes; he has had to appeal to
the hon. leader of the Opposition here, and to the
hon. member for West Durham, and they, being
possessed of patriotic feeling, desire to help the
Premier in this great difficulty; but the right hon.
the Prime Minister cannot be consistent so long as
he assists and upholds Mr. Meredith in Ontario in
his present crusade, and addresses the House as he
did this afternoon. I was surprised, Sir, to hear
the right hon. gentleman stigmatise the resolution
of the hon. member for North Simcoe as the sting
of a gnat. I do not know whether he meant that
the resolution itself was a gnat, or that the hon.
member for North Simcoe was a gnat; if he
referred to the hon. member, he made a very
unhappy reference. Let me tell the House, what
the gnat really is—I suppose he meant the common gnat, because that is the animal
that does the
stinging:
"The usual special representative of the family is the
common gnat, whose blood-sucking propensities have
rendered it too well known. It pierces the skin with the
needle-like lancets of its rostrum, which are barbed at
the tips, and gradually inserts the whole of these organs,
at the same time liquifying the blood by some fluid secretion, which apparently adds
to the subsequent irritation."
And the hon. First Minister spoke of the irritation
caused by the sting of the gnat. But here is the
peculiar part of it. If the hon. member for North
Simcoe is a common gnat, he must be a female
gnat, because it is only the female gnat that inserts
this irritating fluid which is spoken off:
"The female alone attacks man, and in default of her
favorite food will feed on the honey of flowers."
But there is danger in calling my hon. friend from
North Simcoe a gnat, because the gnat has a very
numerous family and it increases very rapidly, and
if there are very many of them produced, it will
be a very serious matter for the Government:
"One little gnat will produce millions of its kind in a
single summer. So short a time is occupied by the entire
series of metamorphoses that many generations are perfected in a single season. Their
spontaneity and ease in
their evolutions is such that they will fly untouched in a
shower of rain."
917 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 918
But here is some little comfort for the hon. First
Minister. I think it is the poet Spencer who states
that when gnats collect numerously around steeples
firemen have been called out, only to discover that
the alarm was not for a real fire, but only for the
appearance of smoke; so that I may offer this
consolation to the First Minister, that, perhaps, all
the efforts of the hon. member for North Simcoe
will only end in smoke.
Mr. BARRON. I do not say that, but I want
to give the First Minister some little comfort under
the circumstances. Now, I want to refer to a
point made by the hon. member for Albert (Mr.
Weldon), for whom, as a constitutional lawyer, we
must have the greatest possible respect, and I refer
to it more particularly because the point was also
raised by the hon. Minister of Justice. The hon.
member in his speech said:
"As I sit down my attention has been called by the
hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Girouard) to a constitutional point which, I
think, might be very well stated
at this juncture, namely, that whatever we desire to do in
the North-West Territories in regard to the schools or the
Assembly or the printing of papers or judicial proceedings, we have no power under
the constitution to deal with
the use of the French language in the courts; for section
133 of the British North America Act reads as follows:—
"'Either the English or the French language may be
used by any person in the debates of the Houses of Parliament of anada and of the
Houses of the Legislature
of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the
respective records and journals of those Houses; and
either of those languages may be used by any person, or
in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court
of Canada established under this Act."'
The hon. Minister of Justice advanced the argument that the Bill would not be effectual
in destroying the use of the French language in the
courts of the North-West Territories, because those
courts were courts of Canada established under
this Act. I deny that proposition. I say the courts
in the North-West Territories are simply local
courts. It is true, they were created by the
Parliament of Canada; but they are not the courts
to which this section refers. It refers to the
Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court in the
city of Ottawa; but, you might as well say that the
different courts in the Province of Ontario were
courts of Canada under this section, as to claim
that the courts of the North-West Territories are
courts of Canada established under this Act. Now,
Sir, I desire to thank the House for the patient
hearing they have given me speaking on this
question, which has been discussed for four or five
days, and which must be more or less threshed out
at all points. But I may be permitted in closing
to read from a little work on the Upper Houses
published by the late Senator Trudel in 1880, an
extract which I think justifies me in coming to the
conclusion that it would be well indeed, in the North- West Territories, not to perpetuate
the social, the
religious, and the national feelings which Mr.
Trudel says must be perpetuated in the Province of
Quebec. What I am about to read is my own translation, and, therefore, I read it subject
to correction. At page 6 Senator Trudel says:
"And if the Federal idea prevailed, it was owing to
the Province of Quebec which at no price would have
accepted 'Legislative Union.'
"In the case of Quebec, there was a host of social, religious and national distinct
interests, which she
could not dream, for an instant, of entrusting to a
maiority of race, creeds, and customs essentially differ
ent from those of the greater part of her population,
however well disposed this majority might be towards
us.
"That she would not have desired, on any consideration, to accept such a union, our
Province has evidenced
by contending, with all the energy of men fighting to the
death, against representation based on population.
"The Federal sytem might have been organised by concentrating, under the general Government,
all matters
of pre-eminent importance, or of superior social and
economic interest, leaving to the control ofthe Local
Legislatures matters of inferior moment, in such a way
as to leave them only large municipal councils.
"But then Quebec would have refused to enter the
Union, because this federation would have been equivalent, so far as she was concerned.
to a Legislative men,
and then, good-bye to Confederation!
"Because it was not in matters of lower importance,
and of merely municipal interest, that our Province
wished to have under its sole control. What Quebec desired, was to see placed under
the jurisdiction the
Provincial Legislature, and consequently under its exclusive protection, all its interests
the most dear in a
social, religious and national point of view, that is to
say, the greater portion of interests of importance,
which it is of consequence that a people should preserve
inviolate."
The sentiments and the views expressed in that
article I think are such we ought not to desire to
perpetuate in the North-West Territories; and I—
therefore, say, in conclusion, that I am glad to be
able to support the Bill of the hon. member for
North Simcoe, believing that if there is anything
offensive in it, it will be amended in Committee, so
as to make it satisfactory to the keenest sensibilities of any hon. gentleman in this
House.
Mr. COOK. Some days ago, when the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), was
making an arrangement with the right hon. the
First Minister to set apart a day for the discussion
of this question, I stated that I would not be able
to be present on account of an engagement which
I had, and would, therefore, be prevented, if the
question then came to a vote, giving expression to
my opinions before this House; and I took occasion to state, in view of this possibility,
that I
intended to vote against the Bill of the hon, member for North Simcoe. Fortunately,
however, I
was present last night to give my first vote on this
question. I may add that as the hon. member for
North Simcoe was engaged in a matter pertaining
to his profession in which I happened to be on
the side opposite to him, and which was postponed
by arrangement, he is here, I may say, at my will.
But the hon. gentleman stated, when I declared
my intention of voting against his Bill, that I
had made up my mind to vote without hearing
the discussion. Well, the hon. gentleman forgot
that he had made a speech in this House, and
several speeches in the country, foreshadowing
his measure, and he forgot also that I had read
the Bill and the preamble, and was, therefore, in a
position to come to a decision. The Bill of itself, without the preamble, was sufficient
ground for me, without hearing any further discussion—without hearing any of the speeches
made—to determine to
vote against the Bill; because I am opposed to
the extermination of the French language in any
part of the Dominion. I must confess that I was
somewhat surprised when I first heard of the hon.
gentleman's intention to move in this direction.
This discussion has taken a very wide range. It
has travelled from one end of the world almost to
the other, and references have been made during it
to questions affecting many other countries, somewhat similarly situated to ours.
I do not propose, even if I deemed myself sufficiently versed
919
[COMMONS] 920
in historical knowledge to do so, to follow hon.
gentlemen who have so ably discussed this question from a historical point of view,
but shall
confine myself more particularly to our own
country and to the antecedents of my hon. friend
from North Simcoe. I have said that I was considerably surprised to see my hon. friend
moving
in this direction; for I well remember the time
when he was bowing the knee to the French people
of his constituency, and professed to be as true
and loyal a supporter of theirs as any man in this
House or out of it. I well remember the time when
that hon. gentleman, instead of being in line with
this crusade against race and religion, which has
been mapped out by the Mail newspaper, and is supported by a few of his friends throughout
the country, took the opposite course; for I well remember
when that hon. gentleman, one Saturday night in
his constituency, when he found he could not reach
Toronto the next day, Sunday, engaged a special
train to go to that city, and arrived there in the
morning, in order to interview Archbishop Lynch
on Sunday, to obtain His Grace's support in that
county. I well remember then how loyal the
hon. gentleman was to a paternal ancestor of his
of a more remote date than his immediate paternal
ancestor, who supported a different religion from
the one the hon. member for North Simcoe does,
or the one his father did. The hon. gentleman
was then holding out his hand to a certain class;
or it might be said that he was bowing the knee to
Rome, and at the same time, on the other hand,
bowing the knee to Ulster. In each case he was
true to his blood. In the one he was true to his
paternal ancestor of a more remote date, and in the
other to his father. Therefore he could, with some
show of fairness, say that he was true to both of
his paternal ancestors. I do not know how far the
hon. gentleman went himself in both directions;
but I know that in the contests in which I had
the honor of being his opponent in North Simcoe,
my hon. friend did receive the support of a large
number of the Roman Catholics and of the French
people in that riding. But the gerrymander has
removed a certain portion of these people from his
riding, and he is not now quite so dependent on
them as he was on that occasion.
An hon. MEMBER. Not so dependent.
Mr. COOK. Not so dependent. I believe they
were all gerrymandered out. I have no doubt hon.
members will recollect the Act that was passed by
the First Minister, by which he placed my hon.
friend in a safe Tory constituency, but I warn my
hon. friend from North Simcoe to look out for his
political hide at the next election. Formerly
he had the support, as I have said, of the French,
the Catholics and the Orangemen, and so well did
he carry on this warfare, and so ingeniously did he
proceed, that he had a member of his family leading the singing in a Roman Catholic
church at mass
every Sunday. Then we have the hon. gentleman's
exemplification of the way in which he did things.
You all remember the way in which he acted in
reference to the dismissal of Mr. Letellier from the
Lieutenant Governorship of the Province of Quebec.
At that time the hon. gentleman's heart was still
"true to Poll." He stood by his friends, he stood
by the Ultramontanes, and assisted to dislodge the
Lieutenant Governor of that Province. Now, what
is the meaning of this crusade? There are a great
many opinions given by a great many different
people. Some say that the hon. gentleman is
in league with the First Minister. Some say
it is a Tory dodge, that he is appealing to
the Ontario portion of the electors and that
some other parties are appealing to the Quebec portion of the electors of this Dominion
so as to prepare a jumble for the next election. I
do not pretend to say which opinion is the correct
one. It is stated that a certain newspaper would
like to have some assistance from places in high
quarters, the newspaper which, within a few
years, has been feeding pretty liberally at the Tory
crib, since the hon. gentlemen have been in power,
even since they have pretended to abandon it, the
Mail newspaper, and have built up the
Empire, in
order to show that they had the two organs. Now,
they have the two organs. The hon. the leader of
the Government is backed up by the
Empire; the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has
the
Mail at his back; and it is said that the
Mail
demands that a new party should be formed to
force matters upon the attention of the Government; that is, that they should have
the balance
of power in this House. We know what use
would be made of it by some gentlemen
in this House. I am sure my hon. friend
from North Victoria (Mr. Barron) would not be
a party to that, though he criticised very freely
the speeches of some of the members in this House.
They were principally on the Liberal side, because
he did not find anything in the speeches on the other
side worth criticising, and he wanted to make a
speech. Then there is another theory. The
Mail
newspaper had an agent at Washington not long
since, and it appears that he was giving some extraordinary views and statements to
the Congressional
Commission who were sitting there at that time.
This gentleman, who is the editor of the
Mail newspaper, declared that there was a strong annexation
feeling in this country, and even went so far as to say
that it would be found in this House. When the
loyal motion of my hon. friend from North York
(Mr. Mulock) was voted upon and unanimously
adopted here, I think that Commission would come
to the conclusion that the statements of that man
were fallacious. I must say that I would have
preferred if that loyal resolution had contained a
clause showing that we were to be more loyal to
Canada. I think some hon. gentlemen need a little
training on the score of loyalty to Canada. I
think a little advice on that subject would not hurt
the leader of the Government.
Mr. COOK. I think the right hon. gentleman
who supported that resolution, would do better to
show a little more of that loyalty to his own country
which he expressed in his speech. I regret
exceedingly that I have to refer to one matter
which I dislike very much to refer to. I have to
refer to my hon. friend from North Norfolk
(Mr. Charlton), a gentleman who, I admit, stands
high in this country, a man of great intellectual
ability, a man who made a very strong and well
reasoned speech from his point of view. It was
not such an inflammatory speech as that made by
my hon. friend the member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) in introducing his Bill. That was a
speech which was intended to set the people by
921 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 922
the ears, to set the Protestant element against the
Roman Catholic element, to throw a torch into the
magazine, a speech which showed that the man
who wanted to get his Bill through the House
had no other object than that. I cannot believe
that any man of common sense-and we know that
the member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has
a great deal of common sense-would have introduced the Bill in the way in which he
did introduce it without such a motive. But my hon.
friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) referred
to the French Half-breeds and held them responsible for the rebellion. I remember
when that hon.
gentleman stood up in this House, and made a
charge against the Government in that respect,
and exonerated the Half-breeds from the charge of
bringing about the rebellion. The hon. gentleman
should not attempt to remove so important a
matter from the shoulders of a Government who
are distinctly responsible for that, and to place it
on the shoulders of the Half-breeds who had been
suffering for seven long years without obtaining
redress.
Mr. CHARLTON. I referred to the Half- breeds of the North—West as having been in rebellion, and
I said the question to be settled was
whether they were more to be blamed or the hon.
gentlemen who sat upon the Treasury benches.
Mr. COOK. I read the hon. gentleman's speech,
and thought I was correct, but of course I accept
his statement. I regret also to have to refer
to the speech of the hon. the Minister of
Public Works. I have been supporting the cause
which he supports. I believe it is the proper and
just course to take in this House; but I am afraid
that, notwithstanding the usual calmness of the
hon. gentleman, he was too inflammatory on that
occasion. It was not the words so much as the
manner, and the manner was very bad. The hon.
gentleman should be a little more cautious, and if he
had only read carefully and pondered over the
speech made by the Governor General at Quebec,
when he received the committee of Equal Righters
there, and told them to be tolerant and go home
and be good boys and not to do it again—if he
had only used a little tolerance in his language, I
think it would have been better for his cause in
this House. I am very sorry to say that I believe
that it was the means of diverting from the cause
he has at heart some members on both sides of
this House—although I will not say so, because,
probably, I am not entitled to say much on that
point. Sir, I would just refer, while we are upon
this French question, to the fact that a
great many members in this House and
people throughout the country who read the
Mail newspaper, speak of the French in very
slighting terms-I will not say the members of
this House, but I know that many people in this
country speak of the French in such terms. Now,
I have been associated with the French more or
less all my life, and it is not necessary for me to
vindicate their habits and course of life, or anything of that sort, or their motives.
But there is
one thing that we owe to the French people of this
country, and it is a debt of gratitude, after passing
the loyal resolution to Her Majesty that we had
the privilege of doing here a short time ago. If it
had not been for the United Empire loyalists, of
which I am a lineal descendant, and the French
people, we would not have any Canada to-day,
we would have been annexed to the United States,
and we would not have had the privilege of passing
that loyal resolution. Sir, nothing good can come
from the attacks upon the French, nothing but had
blood, rebellion and civil war. As the Premier said
to-night, supposing anything of that sort should
arise, where would we be? Why, Sir, we would be
nowhere; we would be nowhere as Canadians, as
a British dependency; we would be in the hands
and in the arms of the United States in a very short
time.
Mr. COOK. The very hon. gentlemen who
are now screaming out at the top of their
voices, the very men who claim to be patriots
in this country to-day, are the men who would
drive Canada to annexation. I do not say
they would do it intentionally, but they would
do it in ignorance of the facts of the case. We.
do not want a repetition in this country of the
difficulties that have beset Ireland for the last few
centuries; we do not want any of their fire-brands
in this country, we do not want any of those agitators coming over here to ruin our
country.
The Secretary of State has passed an Act to prohibit the Chinese; perhaps he had better
include
gentlemen of this class, gentlemen who are agitators; but my hon. friend, when he
was imported,
was so small that we could not have told whether
he was an agitator or not. Now, Sir, it has been
said that the Premier of this country is very desirous that the Local Government of
Ontario
should not be sustained. It has been stated that
"Mowat must go." That is an old saying, an old
by-word, but as yet he has not gone. Now,
some people are wicked enough to say that even Mr.
Meredith is included in this controversy. We know
he made a speech on this very line in the city of
London; but, if he takes that ground, I will guarantee that he will not be successful
at the next
general election. Sir, it has been stated by some of
our friends—and I differ with the greater number
of my friends in that respect—that we, as a party,
are provincial rights men. We go for provincial
rights, but, Sir, I draw the line at this race question; most of my friends do not.
I say that if this
House passes that Bill, and difficulties arise in the
North—West, the minority in Lower Canada may be
in jeopardy some time, and not very far off, because
we know the intention of the hon. gentleman. However he may disclaim his intention
to the House,
we know from his organs, and from his speeches all
along the line, that unless his words belie his
meaning, he proposes to exterminate the French
language throughout the length and breadth of
this Dominion. Now, suppose that provincial rights
were extended to cover this question of race. In
Lower Canada the English language might be
expunged, and what would be the result? The
result would be that the English people of Ontario
would not submit to that, and civil war would
be sure to take place, and the result would be
disastrous. Why, Sir, this is a wicked thing,
when you come to look at it. When you come to
look at it in all its phases, when you see that the
hon. gentleman intends to set race against race,
and religion against religion, and when all men
will have hold of each other's throats, you see that
it is a wicked thing. Now, I do not like the motion
923
[COMMONS] 924
of the Minister of Justice, because this question is
only to be left until the next election in the North- West, and then a decision is
to be given, and I
believe hon. gentlemen know pretty well what that
decision is going to be. They want to put off the
evil day, and I believe that it would have been
better to have met the thing boldly and moved the
six months' hoist, and so do away with the matter
altogether. I believe that is the best way to put
down these fanatics. I was somewhat amused at the
hon. leader of the Government this afternoon. He
was a very bold man this afternoon, he was very
courageous, and he held the sword over his head and
defied those gentlemen who are opposing him in reference to this matter. But he was
quite mild the
other day. When he made his two speeches before,
they were just as tame and mild as a sucking dove's
speech. But the hon. gentleman was quite bold
to-day, for, after making arrangements, by which
hon. gentlemen on this side of the House would
help him through the difficulty, he gets up in his
place and he declares here: "We will stand or
fall by this, we are going to make this question"—
well, he did not say a Government question, but
he meant that. His speech reminded me very
much of an Irishman that came to this country
when it was first being settled. One day there
came a bear into the house while the Irishman and
his wife were there. He ran up stairs and cried
out "Biddy, kill the bear." So Biddy killed the
bear, and he came down very courageous, and
when the neighbors came in he says: "Look what
Biddy and I did: we killed the bear." Now, the
Irishman had a good deal more—I will not say
honor, but he had a good deal more generosity; for,
although he took credit to himself, he gave Biddy
a share of the credit. But the hon. gentleman
took all the credit to himself; he did not even
give my hon. friends on this side of the House
any share of it whatever, and I hope before this
debate is through the hon. gentleman will
announce, so it may go to the country, that
he did not do this thing all alone. I am
a great admirer of the hon. member for
North Simcoe, and always have been so. I know
he is a great lawyer and an astute politician; it is
claimed that he is a man of undoubted pluck and
determination. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell) said the hon. member
for
North Simcoe was full of pluck and determination,
and although he had been castigated by almost all
the members of the House, he had never yielded.
The hon. member has not shown so much pluck in
the past as the member for Northumberland
imagines. If we refer to the past we find that on
one occasion he introduced into this House a Bill
to prevent people being injured on railways. He
was not successful, and he did not introduce it the
next year. Determination is shown by a man
keeping introducing the same measure year after
year, if it is a good one until he succeeds. Next,
the hon. gentleman introduced a Bill for the appointment of a railway commission.
He was sat
upon by the Premier, and he finally withdrew it.
Then he had some litigation for a gentleman in the
matter of patents, and he thought it would be a
good thing to regulate the Patent Office. He introduced a Bill for that purpose, but
the late Minister
of Railways sat on him, and that was the last
of the Bill. I do not know how often the
hon. gentleman has been sat upon in this House.
It is also said by people outside that the hon. gentleman endeavored, in his legal
profession, to
make people believe that he ran the late Minister
of Justice, and that he had a great deal of influence with him; but since the present
Minister
came into office his influence has vanished, and
that is one of the reasons why he is not now in
happy accord with the Government. It has been
stated by the Minister of Public Works—I have
great confidence in the Minister of Public Works,
although he sometimes gets a little excited; I have
great confidence in his integrity, and I do not
believe he would wilfully make an untruthful
statement to the House; the hon. gentleman
stated that all the French printing for the North- West Territories had cost only
$400 a year, and
he was so magnanimous as to say that if any one
objected to the amount, he would put his hand
into his pocket and pay it every year. That was
a generous proposition from the hon. Minister, and
no doubt he is sincere and will do it. Let me refer, for a moment, to the St. Catharines
Milling
Company. They obtained, from this Government, a license to cut timber in a territory
where they had no right, and the result was
they had considerable litigation, and the
Government stood sponsors to the company
for their costs. The hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) was selected solicitor for
the company, and he received a total sum of
$33,500 for legal expenses. The hon. gentleman is
afraid that this country will be ruined because of
the enormous expenditure going on; but I will
give the hon. gentleman this assurance, that at the
rate the hon. Minister of Public Works stated as
the cost, the French printing in the North-West
could be maintained for 84 years for the costs in
that suit. The hon. gentleman wants to do something as a patriot, and I have no doubt
he is
sincere in his wish. I was a little impressed,
however, with the story, which is going round,
that there is collusion between the hon. the First
Minister and the hon. gentleman, because the hon.
the First Minister never said an unkind word to
him, or even had a look of scorn; in fact, he was
as pleasant with the hon. gentleman as if they
were both sailing in the same boat. It looked
very much as if the report was true; still,
one may be deceived by the very fact that hon.
gentlemen opposite look so pleasantly confident,
especially when they have got into a tight place.
I have known some of the antecedents of the hon.
member for North Simcoe. We had four contests in North Simcoe, and probably we would
have had another, except for the fact that
the hon. the First Minister gerrymandered
the constituency. I am very sorry he did
so, because I would have liked to have beaten the
hon. gentleman just once more. In almost every
address made to the electors by the hon. gentleman
during the time I was an opposing candidate he
always strongly advocated the cause of temperance.
Although he was a great temperance a vocate,
almost the first thing he did on coming into this
House was to introduce an intemperate ill, which
he had no right to introduce, and which cost the
country a quarter of a million of dollars. In order
to be able to estimate the value of an hon. gentleman's promises and pledges you must
know the
man, and judge what he will do by his past conduct. Some people also say that the
hon. gentle
925 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 926
man has not been received as kindly in court as
formerly. It is also well known that in those four
contests large sums were expended, and the hon.
gentleman thought he should be reimbursed in
some way. He was once president of the Pacific
Junction Railway, but he abandoned that position
and is president no longer. He received only $3,000 a year salary; but it is stated
that three or
four gentlemen friends of his divided somewhere
in the neighborhood of $700,000 or $800,000
between them. That should satisfy almost any individual, particularly one who, like
the hon. gentleman, is in favor of economy. The hon. gentleman
has stated that there is a
parti national in
Quebec, led by Mr. Mercier, and he is supported by the leader of the Opposition in
this
House. But what is the hon. gentleman himself
endeavoring to do? He is trying to raise a
parti
national in Ontario. Is that not the true object
of the hon. gentleman? We desire a great national
party in Canada, but the hon. gentleman is not going
to obtain it in that way. We all desire to have a great
national party in this country and one great Canadian
nation, and I hope the time will come when we
will untie the apron strings and go out on our own
account, but at present it is best to maintain our
present relations. The hon. gentleman is not going
to work in the right way. As he wishes to be
leader of a great national party, he should not collect around him a small circle
of Protestants of
Ontario and a few Conservatives and endeavor to
draw them away from his leader. That is not the
correct course, and the hon. gentleman should be
actuated by higher motives in such matters. He
should endeavor to earn a reputation as a great
constitutional lawyer and legislator. His name
should be handed down to posterity, but I am
afraid he is sailing in a boat that will carry him
down there degraded. Much has been said about
the different creeds in this country, about Protestants, Orangemen and Roman Catholics.
But
I say this, that in Quebec the English speaking
people are one-tenth of the entire population, and
yet they have ten English speaking members in
their House. I think that is a very liberal provision on the part of the French Canadian
people
towards the minority. In Ontario, where we have
a large Protestant majority, one-sixth of the population are Roman Catholics, and
yet there are
only six Roman Catholics in the Ontario Legislature. It appears to me that there is
a good deal
more liberality among the Roman Catholic Frenchmen of Lower Canada than there is among
the
Protestant English speaking population in Ontario.
Mr. COOK. That is my view of the matter, and
I am glad to know that the hon. leader of the
Government endorses what I say, because when I
have got such a distinguished backer as he is I
need not be afraid of any man who may oppose me
in my constituency. If that right hon. gentleman
would only support me in Simcoe next election I
will guarantee that I will double my majority, but
I suppose I can hardly hope for that. I see the
right hon. gentleman rubs the palm of his hands as
if he intimated something about money. Well, I
will tell the right hon. gentleman a little secret.
There is a Tory living in East Simcoe who told a
certain gentleman that he knew of $20,000 which
came to that constituency, and he was pretty
certain it came from Ottawa. There was in addition $5,000 given by the Dodge lumber
firm and
$1,500 raised by local subscriptions. so that his
friends had $26,500 against me in the last election.
The right hon. gentleman knows so well how these
things are done that he cannot afford to impute
motives to others. Of course we will say openly
and fairly that when we meet a man of that sort
we do not intend to give him many advantages over
us. If he endeavors to fight us with such weapons
we are ready to meet him with the same.
Mr. COOK. I don't wish to be understood as
using this in the plural, and, therefore, I must not
say "we." At all events I trust that there will
be sufficient patriotism among the members of
this House, to squelch these attempts of the member
for North Simcoe for all time to come.
Mr. BECHARD. Mr. Speaker, whilst I strongly
object to the Bill which is now before the House,
yet, like most of the gentlemen who have already
addressed you, I have still stronger objections
to its preamble. Although the hon. member for
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), in the second speech he
delivered in this debate, has told us that he would
assent to have that preamble set aside if it did not
suit the House, and in order as he said not to
offend the susceptibility of the French members, yet the fact remains that the Bill
would
be voted, on account of the principle laid down in
the preamble, and invoked by the hon. member and
propounded in his speeches. It has been already
said, and correctly said, by several hon. gentlemen,
that if you couple the preamble of that Bill with the
speeches the hon. gentleman has delivered in this
House, and outside of this House, you are forcibly led
to the conclusion that this Bill must be regarded as
only the first step in a crusade against the French
Canadian race. Any man who reads that preamble,
and the speeches of the hon. gentleman in connection with the Bill, can come to no
other conclusion
than that the hon. member does not intend to
confine his present course to the North-West Territories. By the enacting clause of
this Bill he
proposes to suppress the French language in these
Territories, but by the spirit he has evinced, and
by the speeches he has delivered, he gives notice,
as I understand it, that it is his intention to continue the same warfare against
the French language wherever it is spoken in this Dominion. In
his second speech in this House, the hon. member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) complains that
he has been misunderstood, that his speeches have
not been fairly read, and that his intentions have
been misinterpreted. The hon. gentleman, however,
has repudiated nothing of what he had previously
said, and told us that whilst he admitted that
the time might come when the French language
should be suppressed in the Parliament of Canada,
yet he would not interfere with vested rights
which are guaranteed to the people of Quebec by
the British North America Act. Has the hon.
gentleman forgotten so soon the bearing of the
speech which he pronounced in introducing this
Bill? Has he forgotten the meaning of the
speeches he has delivered on this question outside
this House, and notably his speech at Stayner, in
which he is reported to have said:
"That the present generation would have to settle this
question by the ballot-box, or, otherwise that the next
generation would settle it at the pomt of the bayonet."
927
[COMMONS] 928
Did not this language mean that if the French Canadians succeeded during the present
generation in preventing by the ballot-box their language from being
suppressed in Canada, the admirers of the hon.
gentleman in the next generation, if they fulfil
their duties, would have to take up arms to subdue, to drive into the sea, or to exterminate
these odious French Canadians? Let the hon.
member and his principal follower in the House,
the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton),
succeed in their present attempt to suppress the
French language in the Territories, and I venture
to say that before long you will see them, assuming
the presumptuous attitude of conquerors inflated
by victory, incite an agitation in the country
for the suppression of the French language in the
Parliament of Canada, and at the same time
preparing their arms to carry the war into
the Province of Quebec, for the purpose of
abolishing the French language in the Legislature of that Province, in its courts
of law, in
its schools, and wherever it is taught or spoken
in Canada. Sir, during last summer, in a speech
which I addressed to a number of my constituents,
I uttered a few words which I will take the liberty
of repeating here as an answer to the threats
against the French Canadians, contained in the
speeches of the hon. member for North Simcoe.
After having given some explanations with regard
to the Jesuit question, which had been debated in
this House last Session, I referred to the threats uttered by the hon. member for
North Simcoe in his
Stayner speech, and also to newspaper articles containing the most violent, abusive,
injurious, offensive, provoking and threatening language
against my French Canadian countrymen; and I
told them: My friends, notwithstanding those
threats, I strongly believe that we have nothing to
fear from that quarter. The enjoyment of our
rights and our peculiar institutions is guaranteed
to us by the constitution of this country, and by
what I consider to be a greater power—the
good sense and love of liberty and fair play of
the vast majority of our English speaking
fellow-countrymen. They will never permit the
peace of this country to be disturbed and its prosperity jeopardised by any fanatical
action. But,
I added, after all, we do not know what may
happen in the life of a people, and history
teaches us that sometimes damagogues have
succeeded by appeals to passion and popular prejudice in throwing their country into
revolutionary
convulsion and causing a great deal of evil. If such
should be our misfortune, if this country should be
thrown into a civil war, we should be placed in
the cruel alternative, either of submitting cowardly
to the annihilation of our race, and all the institutions that are dear to our hearts,
or of standing up
like men in their defence; we should have to appeal
to our courage and to the (protection of the British
flag. But if chance shoul turn against us, if the
British flag should be found to be powerless to offer
us adequate protection, then, my friends, there
would be no other alternative offered to us than
to turn our eyes towards the stars and stripes,
which would, I believe, offer to us full protection against the rage of our enemies.
Sir,
for having uttered these words I was denounced
by part of the public press of this country as
an annexationist; but I old that there is nothing
in the language I used to justify the charge. An
annexationist I am not, although I am one of
those who believe that this country is not destined
to remain forever in the clothes of childhood. Sir,
I do not hesitate to say that it would be my pride
to see my country taking rank among the nations
of the globe. But the annexationists, those who
push towards annexation, are to be found among
those turbulent men who, being never satisfied with
the actual state of the country, would not hesitate,
for the satisfaction of a mere prejudice, to throw
their country into a civil war, which could end in
nothing less than the breaking down of Confederation and the dismemberment of this
country.
Now, Sir, the hon. member for North Simcoe finds
fault with the French Canadians because they
endeavor to perpetuate their language and their
literature, while he says they should understand
that the best interests of the country require
that they should abandon their own language and
speak the English language. Sir, does he suppose that the French Canadians, just to
suit his
fancy, will become renegades to their language,
to their literature and to their peculiar institutions? Indeed, Sir, they cultivate
their own
language, but at the same time they do their
best to acquire a knowledge of the English
language, knowing, as they do, that any man
to-day, who wants to do some business, must
know that language; and you have a good evidence of this fact in this Chamber, where
the
French representatives speak the English language
tolerably well. No young man in the Province of
Quebec considers that his education is sufficiently
complete until he can speak, read and write the
English language. But the hon. member considers
that the French language in this country is a
danger to the state, and that so long as the French
Canadians are allowed to cultivate their language
they cannot be assimilated to the Anglo-Saxon
element of our community. On this point the hon.
gentleman has been well answered by several hon.
members who mentioned different countries where
two or three official languages exist, and which,
notwithstanding that fact, are inhabited by a
homogeneous people living together in a perfect
political union. But the hon. gentleman
seemed to cherish particularly the policy
suggested by Lord Durham in his celebrated
report on the cause of the troubles in 1837.
It is said in that report that the cause of those
troubles was not misgovermnent, but a feeling of
hostility existing between the two races; and
Lord Durham suggested as a remedy that the
French language should be suppressed as an official language in Lower Canada. How
long did
that policy last? The right hon. gentleman at
the head of the Government informed the House.
the other night that it lasted but during the short
period of three or four years, and that it was set
aside at the request or the prayer of those who
were most interested in the question, the Parliament of Canada, under the Union, in
which there
were as many English as French members. Now,
supposing such a. policy were adopted to-day, how
long do you think, Sir, it would last? No one
could tell, but every one can see the disastrous consequences which would follow its
adoption. Sir,
the policy suggested by Lord Durham proved to be
an unsound policy, and the wisdom of his advice
was as disputable as the accuracy of some of the
facts relatedin his report. To say that the cause of
929 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 930
the trouble in 1837 was an existing feeling of hostility between the two races is
a misconception of
the case. If such had been the cause of the troubles
then, would we have seen among the leaders of
the popular movement which then took place such
good Englishmen as Wilfred Nelson, Robert Nelson, O'Callaghan, D. S. Brown, and others?
No;
the real cause of the trouble was well stated by the
hon. the Minister of Public Works and by my hon.
friend the leader of the Opposition. The Governor General surrounded by a clique of
evil advisers—office holders—attempted to dictate to the
Legislative Assembly in that Province. He went
so far as to spend the public money without the
assent of that Assembly, and in that unconstitutional course he was supported by the
then Legislative Council, whose members, on account of their
unpatriotic conduct, were branded by the appellation, which then became so popular,
of "vieillards
malfaisants," which may be translated by the
term "mischievous old men." The report of Lord
Durham, it is well known, was never considered
in Lower Canada as an impartial document with
regard to the French Canadians. The hon. member for North Simcoe has made an assertion
from
which I entirely dissent. He has said that the
French Canadians are not a sympathetic people,
that they are exclusive in their affections, that
they do not sympathise with their English- speaking countrymen; and, in support of
that
proposition, he has quoted, from I do not know
what obscure authority, an extract stating that
the Irish Catholic and the French Canadian,
although they profess the same religious faith—
a circumstance which ought to create a bond
of union and of mutual sympathy between them—
are the bitterest enemies? If there was a time
when a feeling of hostility existed between these
two elements of our people it was when they
were first brought face to face, and before they
knew each other. But those days have long since
gone by, and from the moment that those people began to know each other better, and
to appreciate each
other better, they have lived on terms of the best
friendship, and, wherever they are seen living today in the same settlements, at least
in the Province of Quebec, their relations are of the most
cordial character. It is well known that their sons
and daughters frequently intermarry. But, while
I am on this point, let me indulge for a moment
in reminiscences of the past, by referring to a
solemn period of our history, when the French
Canadians displayed towards their Irish brethern
the feelings of the most devoted sympathy and
benevolence. Men of my age, and older than I,
in this House, can well remember that during the
summer of 1847 we had an Irish immigration into
the Province of Quebec. These immigrants were
landed on our shores in the most destitute
condition, the one-half of them suffering from that
very contagious disease, typhoid fever. When
they were landed in our harbors, a feeling of
Stupefaction overcame the sympathies of our people
for amoment. What were they to do? Were they to
send back to the ocean that importation of death
into their midst? Did not the supreme law of self- preservation seem to demand that?
But suddenly
the voice of those men who for nearly nineteen centuries have been repeating the words
of the Gospel
and preaching the divine teachings of charity was
heard. Those immigrants are our brethren, ex
claimed the French Canadian pastors; they must
be received and they must be assisted. Immediately people of all classes rushed to
the
assistance of the poor destitute immigrants,
and many of them were themselves stricken down
by the dire contagion. Priests, Sisters of Charity,
physicians, the mayor of a great city, and a number
of other people fell victims to their devotedness,
but the poor immigrants received the assistance
which their destitute condition demanded. A
large number were preserved to life, and those who
died received in their last moments all the consolation that can be given by Christian
benevolence.
And those numerous children who, by the deaths
of their parents, became orphans, what became of
them? They were adopted by our citizens, who
raised them as the members of their own families. It has been my good fortune to be
acquainted with some of them, who, thanks to
the education given them by their protectors,
occupy to-day distinguished positions in our social
life. Ah, the French Canadians are a sympathetic
people, endowed with generous hearts and instincts,
and magnanimous qualities. I regret the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) does not
know them, for if he did know them as they are he
would change his present attitude towards them, as
he would soon find his own heart kindle with feelings of the warmest admiration for
that noble people.
The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), in
the two speeches he has delivered in this House
since the beginning of the debate has referred each
time to Mr. Mercier, and he seems to look upon
Mr. Mercier as the founder in the near future of a
French Canadian nation on the shores of the St.
Lawrence. In order to justify his apprehensions
in this regard he reports a few words which were
stated to have fallen from the lips of Mr. Mercier
in a speech which he pronounced at a banquet in
the city of Quebec on the celebration of St. John's
Day, the 24th June last. Mr. Mercier is reported
to have appealed on that occasion to his countrymen, to have endeavored to induce
them to give
up the old party flags of rouge and bleu and to
rally under the tricolor, which would lead this
country to the brilliant destiny which it would
reach in the future, or some words to that effect.
To draw from these words an inference that
Mr. Mercier intends that an independent French
Canadian nation can be founded in the Province of Quebec is to give to these words
a
greater significance and a greater importance than
they have. No serious man in the Province
of Quebec would think of the realisation of such an
idea, which he would consider as nothing but
Utopian; and Mr. Mercier himself is too intelligent and too clever a man to have meant
in pronouncing those words that a nation could be established in the Province of Quebec
independent
of the other Provinces of this Dominion, and independent of England. But we know that
all men,
on the occasion of the celebration of great
festivals, are apt, more or less, in the course of a
speech delivered at a dinner in answer to toasts,
to give expression to some sentiment with no other
purpose than to provoke applause, and I do not believe that the words which flowed
from the lips of
Mr. Mercier on that occasion have any other importance. The hon. member has spoken
of the
National party, and, in his second speech, looking
at the French members sitting on this side of the
931 [COMMONS] 932
House, whom he called the band of Nationalists,
he stated that he did not expect and did not want
any sympathy from them. Well, that is a matter of mere personal inclination, and surely
no
man would be guilty of such folly as to expect
from his fellow men more sympathy than he feels
disposed to grant in return, and thereby inspire.
But the hon. member seemed to think that this
National party has been formed in opposition to
the English speaking population of the Dominion.
There is nothing of the kind. It is well
known that Mr. Mercier, when in Opposition, led
the Liberal party in the Quebec Legislature, and
that, a short time before the elections of 1886, he
made an alliance with a certain portion of the old
Conservatives, who had repudiated their former
leaders; but, as these gentlemen would not call
themselves Liberals, they took the name of National
Conservatives. Since Mr. Mercier has taken possession of power, as he had one wing
of his party
composed of Liberals and another wing composed
of those who called themselves National Conservatives, they agreed to call the party
in Quebec the
National party. But that has no other significance
or hearing. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) must not think that the old Liberal
party in the Province of Quebec is dead. Our
leader, our illustrious leader in this House, still
calls himself a Liberal. I see my colleagues sitting
around me, representing the Province of Quebec,
who still call themselves Liberals. I see my old
friend from the county of Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion),
who has been in Parliament for about twenty-five
years, who has been a Minister of the Crown, and
whostill continues to call himself a Liberal and not
a Nationalist. Here is my venerable friend the
member for St. Johns (Mr. Bourassa), who has
passed thirty-six years in Parliament. What does he
call himself? A Liberal. He was born a Liberal, he
has lived a Liberal, and, depend upon it, he will die
a Liberal. Your humble servant, after twenty-two
years passed in this House, still continues, and intends to continue in the future,
to call himself a
Liberal. The old Liberal party in the Province of
Quebec, as represented in this House, still exists,
and you may be sure that it will not disappear from the sphere of action. Before I
sit down
I want to refer to a regret expressed by the hon.
member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) in his first
speech on this question. He said he regretted, or
it was to be regretted, that England, after the
cession, had adopted so liberal a policy towards
the French Canadians; and, if another policy had
been adopted, we would not have in this country
the evils which he thought were created by the
existence of two official languages. On this question he was well answered by my hon.
friend from
Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), who told him that if a different policy had been adopted this
country would
not have long remained a British colony. Sir, the
liberal policy of England on that occasion conquered
the hearts of the French Canadians, and in her
days of trial they stood by her and remained
faithful to their allegiance. Less than twenty
years afterwards they resisted the seducing appeals of the American patriots and of
General
La Fayette to join in the great revolutionary movement for liberty and independence.
In 1812 the
same temptation was again held out to them, and
again they resisted those allurements; they did more,
they gallantly shed their blood on battle-fields for
the honor of the British flag, and they clung to England with more than filial affection.
Now, Sir, I
ask, after these great deeds, what more could be
done, what remains to be accomplished by French
Canadians, to prove their loyalty, when I find that
it is still suspected by such men as my hon. friend
from North Norfolk? Mr. Speaker, let me say
in conclusion, that, notwithstanding this passing storm, I do not despair of the future
of my
country. I have faith, I have confidence in the
good sense, in the practical common sense, of the
great majority of my English speaking fellow-countrymen. I have no doubt that when
an opportunity
is given they will rally together to defeat the nefarious designs of those who do
not hesitate to
swing the torch of discord in this country. Sir,
since the different Provinces of this country have
been brought into a federal union we have accomplished great things, upon which we
look with a
just feeling of pride. We will continue to work
together, English Canadians as well as French
Canadians, to promote the prosperity of our
country, the welfare of our countrymen, endeavoring to deserve, at the same time,
by our considerate action, the moderation of our views, and,
if I may say so, the wisdom of our conduct, the
blessings and gratitude of future generations.
Mr. DEWDNEY. I should not have attempted
to rise at this late period of the debate did I not
feel that, on account of my long experience in the
Territories, and occupying, as I did, two of the
most responsible positions in those Territories for
some years, I might speak with some authority
in reference to some portions of the matter which
is now before this honorable House. As you are
aware, I went to the North-West Territories in
1879 as Indian Commissioner. During that year I
travelled through the length and breadth of the
land, for the purpose of visiting the Indians who
were under my special charge. When I arrived in
the North-West Territories the Hon. Mr. Laird
was then Governor of that country. At that time
the North-West Council was composed of the
stipendiary magistrates of the Territories, with
one or two unofficial members who were appointed
by the Governor. The meetings of Council in
those days were held in the Government House at
Battleford; the proceedings were of a very limited
character. The Council sat for a few weeks,
passed a few short ordinances, and then adjourned. For two or three years this continued,
and year after year, as opportunity offered, the
Government had the ordinances printed in French.
In 1881, when I became Lieutenant Governor of
that Province, the headquarters of the Government
were removed to Regina. When I took charge of the
administration of affairs the Council which met
me was composed of the gentlemen I have just
mentioned. Settlers were coming into the country,
which was settling up from one end to the other,
and although up to that time the population had
been principally French, or people of French extraction, when I took charge the majority
was
already English, and I was able, almost at once, in
accordance with the power which I had under the
North-West Territory Act, to form electoral districts and to bring representative
members into
that Council. Up to 1885 the ordinances passed
by the North-West Council had been printed by
myself, and also by my predecessor, in French and
933 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 934
English. But, as you know, the moneys voted
for the North-West government were voted in a
lump sum, and as the country settled up it was
necessary that public works should be constructed,
and it was found necessary to use all the available
money we could possibly get on the public works.
Up to 1885, although the ordinances had been
printed in French, there were virtually very few
applications made to me or to my officers for copies
of the French ordinances. In that or the subsequent
year, on account of the demand made upon me for
moneys for public works, I neglected to have those
ordinances printed in French, but in 1887, when I
found a demand was being made for those
ordinances, and finding that I had not the
money with which to have them printed, I came
down to this honorable House and asked for a vote
for the purpose of having them printed in French.
This House voted the sum of $3,000 for that purpose. Let me here call the attention
of the House
to a remark which was made by the hon. member
for Victoria (Mr. Barron), where he stated that he
was informed by Mr. Cayley, one of the members
of the North-West Council, which is now the
North-West Assembly, that while in 1883, I think
he said, the cost of printing the North-West
ordinances was only some $300, in 1887 it cost
$1,000 for printing in French and $1,000 for translation. Well, Sir, Mr. Cayley was
a member of
my Council before it became a Legislative Assembly, and he ought to have known that
the
reason of the large expenditure of 1887 was that
the money was voted in this House to print the
ordinances which I neglected to have printed in
1885 and in 1886. I had in my hands a day or
two ago a statement of the cost of printing those
ordinances, and it corresponded with the statement made by the Minister of Public
Works that
since 1881 the average expense was $400 or $500 a
year.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Could the hon. gentleman
give the figures for the different years?
Mr. DEWDNEY. I have not that statement
now with me. If I had it here, I could show the
hon. member for North Simcoe that the large
expenditure for translation and printing of the
French ordinances from 1887 to 1889 was on
account of my neglecting to publish them in 1884- 85. Not only did I publish the ordinances
of
those two years and those of the year in which the
sum was voted, but I also thought it advisable to have
the Journals of the House, which had never before
been published in French, published from the first
year of Mr. Laird's appointment as Lieutenant Governor up to the time I left the Territories.
I believe
they will prove interesting in the future, in the
same way as the old Journals of Ontario and Quebec are interesting to me whenever
I look over
them. So when I left the Territories the whole of
the ordinances up to that time were printed in
French, and also the Journals of the House. I
think I may claim to be able to speak with authority with respect to the sentiments
of the people
of that country in respect to this matter. During
the ten years I lived in the North-West Territories
I never, on one single occasion that I recollect,
heard any objection to the printing of the ordinances in French, except an occasional
remark that
it would be as well if we spent the money on public
works instead of on printing French ordinances, as
the demand for those ordinances was very small.
These observations were made at the time when
farmers coming in from the north and south of the
railway were often obliged to unload part of their
loads, and go back for the part so left, before they
could reach the railway. Every one, however,
knows the difficulties experienced in a new country;
but those were the only remarks I heard mentioned in regard to the printing of the
French
ordinances. I have also, since the gentlemen who
constitute the present Legislative Assembly were
returned, run an election myself. I have also
travelled through the country, and as late as last
year I travelled through it from one end to the
other. I followed in the wake of the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
and I must say that from one end to the
other there was no indication of any excitement on this question. Perhaps the House
will
permit me to give my opinion with respect to the
population in the North-West to-day. One-third
of the people in the Territories comprise Ontario
farmers and Ontario settlers; the balance is made
up of English or old country settlers, French,
German and other nationalities. I think very
likely among the Ontario settlers there may be
some who fought this battle over before in their
younger days, and have strong feelings on the
subject; but I do not believe that feeling exists to
any great extent among that class. The old country settlers rank next in number to
those from
Ontario, and I believe not seventy—five per cent. of
them ever heard of the British North America Act,
or of the Manitoba Act, and the bulk of them do
not know of the clause in the North-West Territories Act providing that the ordinances
and proceedings shall be printed in the two languages.
But I can understand that interested parties, those
who within the last few weeks have taken a great
interest in this question and are engaged in getting
up the petitions to send down to this House stating
their views should go to those ignorant people, ignorant so far as this matter is
concerned, and obtain their
signatures to petitions asking that money should
not be wasted on the printing of French ordinances,
but should be spent on useful work in other directions. But, I believe, if I know
what British fair
play is and how Englishmen feel on such matters,
that these same men, if they had heard the speech
of my hon. colleague on Tuesday night, woul say:
"This is a small matter; let the French have the
records printed in their own language." With regard to the other nationalities, I
may say there are
a large number of Germans. On my visit last
summer to Whitewood I was invited to meet a lot
of settlers who had established themselves 16 miles
north of that place. Many came out to meet me,
and I found in two townships, Nos. 18 and 19 on
Ranges 1, 2 and 3, the people were representatives
of nine nationalities—Bohemians, Norwegians,
Danes, Slavonians, Polish, Swedes, French and
English. My opinion is that when we invite foreigners to come to our country we should
endeavor to
allow them, whether English, French, Germans or
other nationalities, to have the laws under which
they live printed in their own language, especially
the school ordinances and laws of that character. I
should like to say a word or two in regard
to the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy). I can echo the sentiments expressed
by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr.
935
[COMMONS] 936
Mitchell) in regard to that hon. gentleman. I
believe he has taken up the work which he has
now on hand from purely conscientious motives.
I believe myself that he has done so on his own
responsibility, and I, for one, think, as the hon.
member for North Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell)
thought, that any man who occupies the position
he did when he took this stand is a man of whom
his country should be proud. I do not agree with
everything that hon. gentleman has said, I do not
agree with the Bill he has introduced, but I believe
he has taken this course from purely conscientious
motives. If that hon, gentleman had the same
ground to go over again I believe he would very
likely have introduced his Bill without this preamble, which appears to have been
unfortunate,
and not in sympathy with the opinions of the
majority of the members of this House. I believe
also that if he had again to make the speech which
he delivered in introducing this Bill he would be
more moderate in his tone. But I do not believe
that the hon. gentleman, as he stated himself,
intended to hurt the feelings of any member of
this House. I do think that the hon. gentleman
spoke rather intemperately in his first speech, but
no one can complain of the manner in which he
responded to the venemous attacks made on him
during the last five days of this debate. There are
one or two remarks in the speech of the hon.
member to which I would like to refer. He
stated that the Lieutenant Governor of the North- West Territories in opening the
session of the
Legislative Assembly the year before last, made
a mistake in that he read his speech in French,
which had never been done before. If any one can
give a reason why that speech was not previously
read in French I am in a position to do it. As
Lieutenant Governor I opened the Assembly for
the seven years previous to that, and I can give
him the reason why I did not read the speech in
French. Unfortunately I was not able to read the
French language sufficiently well to warrant me in
doing so. If I had undertaken that task I have no
doubt that my audience would not know whether
I was speaking in Blackfoot, Cree, or French, and
Ithought it better to leave it alone. In my opinion
where the Lieutenant Governor made a mistake
was, when last year he met his council and did not
read his speech in French. The reason given by
the member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) for this
was that it had been reported that if the Lieutenant
Governor attempted to read his speech in French
members of the Assembly would have left the building. If I had been Lieutenant Governor
at that
time I would have read that speech in French if I
had to read it to my clerk and to empty chairs.
It was his duty to do so and a man should never
neglect that. I know every one of the representatives of the North-West Assembly personally,
and
I can hardly believe there could be any foundation
for that report. If the Lieutenant Governor had
read his speech I do not believe there would
have been any excitement, and if any members
of the House left their seats for that reason they
would not be fit to represent the people who sent
them to the Legislature. The hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) also spoke of
the Lieutenant Governor getting a translator to
translate the ordinances which he states created
some dissatisfaction. When I was Lieutenant
Governor the clerk of my council was a French
lawyer and he was able to do the translating himself, but when the present Government
took office
this gentleman was transferred to the Indian
Department, and the present clerk, not being a
very good French scholar, is unable to do the
translation. Any gentleman who knows anything
of the translation of French in connection with
legal work knows that a man must have a legal
mind and legal experience before he can make a
fair translation of such documents. Therefore the
Governor had to take up some man to do the
translation for him. The hon. member for West
Durham (Mr. Blake) when he addressed the House
the other evening referred to the spark which is
liable to break out into a great blaze. The
hon. gentleman might have gone a little further
in his comparaison. If he had lived in a
wooden, mossy country as I have, he would
have seen that on many occasions when it was
thought the fire was out a small spark still remained working gradually and surely
under the
surface and when fanned by a slight breeze breaks
out again and creates a conflagration greater than
the original one. What I want to see done in the
present instance is some measure taken by this
House which will extinguish the spark forever. I
believe that the amendment proposed by my hon.
colleague the Minister of Justice will effect that
object and will be satisfactory to the people of the
North-West. I am quite certain that what the
people up there require is peace and prosperity.
If they can raise their 25 bushels of wheat, their
70 bushels of oats and their 300 or 400 bushels of potatoes to the acre, they will
be contented and happy.
If this House can settle the question in the manner
proposed by my hon. colleague I believe it will be
satisfactory to the people of the North-West.
Mr. MASSON. At this late hour in the evening, and at this late stage of the debate, I would
not take up the time of the House in speaking on
this subject were it not that I consider it a question of very great importance, and
were it not also
for the fact that it has taken such a very wide
and varied range. I consider it important, as a
subject likely to affect the peace and the prosperity, yea, even the existence of
this Dominion. It
is true that the Act before the House is a very
brief one, but it is also one that has a very wide
scope. Especially is this Bill important when we
consider it in connection with the preamble by
which it is prefaced, and interpret that preamble
by the speeches, made not only in this House but
in different parts of the country during recess, by
the hon. gentleman who has introduced the
Bill. He says that the preamble does not mean
what some hon. gentlemen say it does—a declaration that the French language should
be
obliterated, and that we should have only one
language throughout the whole Dominion,
in this House, and inall the Provinces of this Dominion; but if it does not mean that,
I would
ask, what does it mean? If it does not mean that,
is it ambiguous? If it is ambiguous, read it in the
light of the speeches made by the hon. gentleman
during the recess, and we can find no ambiguity
about it. The hon. gentleman in one of his speeches
stated in emphatic words that he would not rest
until the French language was stamped out. He
admitted that he had great work in hand, but
he said: "Let us begin with that which seems
937 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 938
most possible of accomplishment—let us deal with
the dual languages in the North-West." With
that declaration from the hon. gentleman, it is impossible for any person to put but
one interpretation on the clause in the preamble regarding unity
of language, namely, that it is expedient and his
desire that it should be so, not only in the Territories
of the North-West, but in the Dominion of Canada
and in all the Provinces thereof. We might ask,
if that is not the meaning of the preamble, why
was it placed there? It has been whispered in the
corridors that the hon. gentleman has stated that
it was only introduced for the purpose of filling out
the Bill and making it a little larger, as it looked
too small without it. But I can hardly think that
was the hon. gentleman's intention. If he wanted
to extend the Bill and make it larger, he had
many facts which he could have used in the
preamble for the purpose. He could have stated
that the North-West Territories Act had passed
the House without the clause in question in it.
and without any request to place it there; he
might have stated that that clause was placed in
the Bill by the Senate, and that when the Bill
came back from the Senate, the Minister of the
Interior, who had charge of the Bill, expressed
regret that it was there; he might have quoted
from the
Hansard of that time the whole speech of
the hon. Minister of the Interior; if he wished
still further to swell his preamble, he might have
placed in it the resolution of the North-West
Council and the petition founded on that resolution. These would have been matters
of fact, and
fair material to put in the preamble. They would
have had the effect of strengthening the hon. gentleman's hands and of assisting him
in passing his
Bill, instead of the effect which the preamble he
has placed there is likely to have, namely, that of
preventing its passing. The hon. gentleman says
he is willing to abandon the preamble, after he has
made a speech saying that he would not abandon
the cause until he had attained his object. He
said he would abandon it, after having made a
speech introducing his Bill based entirely on
that preamble. It is too late, however, for
him now to say that he will abandon it. He
says he will abandon it, not now, but after
the Bill passes its secon dreading. He wishes
the House to put itself in the false position
of passing the preamble, which he said would
amount to nothing, although I think it is generally
admitted that passing the measure is endorsing
its principle. The hon. member for North Victoria
(Mr. Barron) referred to the expressions used by
the hon. Minister of Justice in the debate on the
Jesuit Estates Act last Session, in which he contended the hon. Minister had held
an entirely
different view with regard to the importance of a
preamble. The views of the hon. member for
Yorth Simcoe and the hon. member for North
Victoria were certainly very different last Session
from what they are this Session. They then laid
great stress on the preamble, while they make
little of it to-day; but it is impossible for those
hon. gentlemen to suppose that this House will not
take account of the great difference in the two cases.
It may be very interesting to place on record
the legal argument of the hon. member for North
Victoria, that in a decision on the interpretation
of a statute, the preamble has no weight or effect;
but it is equally true that a preamble is often refer
red to in explanation of a statute. But I can see,
and I think every hon. gentleman in this House
can see, a very great distinction between those two
cases. In the one case the Government were asked
to disallow a Bill because it had an offensive preamble, and the answer to that was
that the Administration, in reviewing the Bill, had to consider its
meaning and its consequences, and not statements
contained in the preamble. In this case we are asked
to enact a Bill containing a preamble, and in enacting that Bill we are enacting the
principles set
forth in that preamble. The preamble of that Bill
is as much a resolution of this House as the amendment of the hon. Minister of Justice
or any other
resolution formally put before us. Therefore, when
this House is asked to pass that Bill to a second
reading, we are asked to vote for the resolution
contained in the preamble. That is an entirely
different thing from the Administration dealing
with a Bill which had been passed by a Local Legislature. I am not going to follow
that part of
the discussion any further, because I wish to be
brief, and I am willing to admit at the
outset what I think is admitted by a majority of this House, that it would have been
better if the clause in question had not been
inserted in the North-West Territories Act; but it
was inserted, and a gift, a privilege, a right was
given to the people of the North-West Territories
by that enactment. Now, a gift once given, I
hold, cannot be ruthlessly taken away; a gift once
given remains in the donee until he chooses to
relinquish it; and, therefore, those people, being
granted this privilege, whether rightly or wrongly,
wisely or unwisely, should be allowed to retain
it until they voluntarily abandon it. Now, it has
been said by some that this Parliament, having
given the power, has certainly the right to take it
away. That can only be done by treating the Parliament as paternal to the North-West
Territories, and
in that View I suppose, they would say that a father
mighttake from his child the gift he had given him.
He might give his child a toy, and then, when he
found that child making too much noise with it,
he might take it away from him. That right may
be granted, but the gift, even such a one as that,
is never taken back without a pang; and I do not
think it would be wise, even if lawful, for us to
take back a privilege of that kind which has been
given. There are certain distinctions though
which must be drawn. There may be things
which should be taken back, and there may be
things that we ought properly not to have given.
The people in this case have been granted a privilege, and these people, I submit,
should be consulted before this privilege is taken away. It is
said, however, that they have already expressed
themselves on this subject. Well, I think the
remarks of the hon. member for West Durham
(Mr. Blake) are conclusive on that point. I think
that every legal mind must agree that his reasoning in that case was perfectly correct,
that these
members, not having been elected to deal with
this subject, are not, as regards it, the constitutional mouthpiece of the people
of the North- West. When they were elected there was no
such cry before the people, and no such question at issue. They had received no such
instruction whatever from the people on that subject,
and, therefore, it cannot be contended that theirs
was a proper representation of the people. But
939
[COMMONS] 940
one hon. gentleman says it would be dangerous to
refer a question of this kind to the people, that it
would be dangerous to go among them and freely
discuss whether they should abandon the printing
of their Journals and their debates in French; yet,
in the same breath, that hon. gentleman has told
us he was willing to refer to them the question of
separate schools. He holds that it would be quite
safe to discuss before the people the question of
taking away their separate schools, but that it
would be dangerous to go among them and discuss
a question as simple as this. It is argued by some
that this is a question affecting the rights of minorities, and that, therefore, this
House should deal
with it. Well, I think that a very great distinction lies as to what are the rights
of minorities and what are not. Minorities have rights,
it is true, but they must be limited, because if
they are to be co-extensive with the majority,
then the minorities would in all cases rule. The
rights of a minority must be those important
rights which belong to civilised people an are recognised by the laws of nations.
They are the rights
relating to civil and religious liberties, and the
protection of life, liberty and property. These
are matters in which the rights of a minority
should be protected, and which this Parliament
should keep under control. It is in accord with that
principle that the amendment moved by the hon. the
Minister of Justice proposes that this Parliament
should continue to maintain power over the printing
of the ordinances and over the courts of the
country. But as to the other question of what
language the debates should be conducted, the
Journals of the House printed in, that is a question
of pure expense and convenience which should be
left, as the amendment proposes, to the people of
the North-West Territories for decision so soon as
they shall be heard from. I do not think that
either the hon. member for North Simcoe or the
hon. member for South Victoria, who are both
lawyers, would object to a court of which the
judge was either French or acquainted with the
French, the jury French, and only acquainted with
the French language, or some of them only
acquainted with it, and the prisoner and witnesses
only acquainted with that tongue, having its proceedings conducted in French. It would
be highly
inconvenient, and, perhaps, effect a miscarriage of
justice if they were not. Therefore, I do not
believe that any of the hon. gentlemen who support
the measure of the hon. member for North Simcoe,
looking at the question in that light, would say
that there should be no French used in the courts
in the North-West. Why, Sir, you might have all
the parties from the judge to the prisoner, the
jurymen, the witnesses and the prosecutor,
acquainted only with French, or a portion of
them not conversant with any other language.
How could such a court be conducted solely in the
English tongue? Could the prisoner in that case
be sure that he was getting justice, since he could
understand nothing that was being said? Could
the evidence be thoroughly sifted and the witnesses
thoroughly cross-examined, if the lawyers did
not understand the language the witnesses spoke?
the hon. member for North Victoria spoke of
ordinances and statutes of the North-West Council.
I understand there are no statutes, properly so
called, in the North-West Territories, and I must
suppose he referred to the statutes of Canada.
Would any hon. gentleman contend that our statutes,
which are circulated among our people for the purpose of educating the people as to
what the law is,
should be placed in the hands of magistrates and
officers throughout the country printed only in the
English language, which to many of them is an unknown tongue? How could these magistrates,
how
could the people learn them if published only in a
language they did not understand? As to this
question of the rights of the minority, I would say
that in these matters, such as appertain to a
court, where a man's life and property may be
brought in question, it is right that this House
should retain its protectorate, and in the other
matters, such as the internal economy of the council
it is only just that the council should deal with them
just as soon as the people are consulted in the matter. But the hon. member for North
Victoria said
that this amendment amounted to a put off, that
it was a promise to do to-morrow what we would
not do to-day, and that when that to-morrow came
it would not be carried out, or he insinuated as
much by saying we knew what would be done. If
I interpret the language of the resolution rightly,
it implies nothing of the kind. It says in plain
language that this House admits it to be expedient
and proper, and not inconsistent with the covenants, that the Legislative Assembly
of the North- West Territories should receive from the Parliament of Canada — not
to-morrow, but now — the
power to regulate, — to regulate when? — after
the next general elections of the North-West Assembly, the proceedings of the Assembly
and the
manner or recording and publishing such proceedings. But the declaration is that they
should not
have that right after the next general elections,
but now. I believe the objection taken by the
hon. member for North Victoria is perfectly met by
the language of the amendment. But the hon. member for North Simcoe claims for his
measure that
it is one which will promote national greatness.
He says that the nation should be greater, and that
he does not see how a nation could become great
in which there were several official languages.
He said that he had not stated that a nation could
not be great under those circumstances, but that a
a nation would become greater and more united if
all the people spoke the one language. It does not
follow, and the hon. gentleman admitted to-day
that it did not follow, that a nation might not
become united and loyal to their constitution and
government because they used more than one
language, and history does not assist him in setting
forth that a nation would become greater if it
spoke only one language. We have only to cast a
rapid glance back on the nations of the past to
find that they attained greatness where they spoke
many languages, and that they attained their
highest point of greatness while speaking many
languages. It never happened that any great
nation has lasted long enough to be reduced to
one language only. Therefore history virtually
rebuts the proposition that a nation may not
become greater while speaking more than one
language, because those nations of the past became great while speaking many languages,
and
it was only when, in some cases, in their
greatness, they exerted paternal treatment of
the conquered or annexed countries, these very
forces became a weakness to the state and
caused them to crumble and fall away. We
941 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 942
are told by the hon. the leader of the Opposition
that there were those in the Province of Quebec
who had a dream of establishng a French nationality on the banks of the St. Lawrence,
but the
hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) informed the House—as is well-known—that
in the
Province of Ontario there are those who have a
dream of a greater nation, a nation speaking the
Anglo—Saxon tongue, not confined to the banks of
the St. Lawrence or to any one country, but extending over the whole world. Such is
no doubt
the dream of many in the Province of Ontario, and
elsewhere, that there may be a nation with a community of language extending from
pole to pole.
Such dreams may be indulged in without doing
any particular harm to anybody. They may please
the dreamer without hurting his neighbors. Such
questions, however, I think are not for us to discuss here. Such questions should
be left to Him
who moves in a mysterious way His wonders to
perform, and who, for His own wise purposes, has
created different nations and given us different
languages and taught us different creeds. In His
hands I think we can leave the future which is
certainly so far away, but for the present, let us
each and all do what we can to maintain the patriotic sentiment of our people and
to establish
unity among the different classes of this Dominion,
the different races and the different creeds, to establish peace, harmony and good
fellowship; let us
become a nation great, glorious and united—united
not only by interest but by love; and then, Mr.
Speaker, as long as the old St. Lawrence rolls his
course unto the sea, so long shall Canada remain
great, glorious and free.
Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.) Had the resolution
submitted by the Minister of Justice and introduced, as I understand, as the expression
of
the Government's views on this question, proposed what I considered to be a fair,
and just, and
final settlement of this question, it would have received my support and it would
have received that
support in silence; but, inasmuch as that resolution
does not, in my opinion, offer to this House a fairly
just and final settlement, I feel myself obliged to
state in a few words wherein I differ from it, and
the course I deem it proper to pursue. We have
had a very lengthened debate and I am sure, after
five days' debating, it is not to be expected or desired that any hon. gentleman should
make a long
speech. We have had the question viewed from
an historical aspect, and from I do not know how
many other aspects, but to my mind the importance
of the question has not been minimised by the
manner in which it has been treated on both
sides of the House. At first it did not appear
to be a matter of such wonderful importance,
but it has been magnified by the press outside, and by hon. gentlemen on both sides
of the
House, until now, no doubt, it has assumed a position of national importance. I must
frankly say
that the House need not be ashamed of the debate.
It has been maintained, on both sides of the House,
at a higher standard than any debate I have listened to for many years in this Parliament.
As to
the historical aspect of this question, I will make
only one remark. We have had learned gentlemen
referring us to precedents in Europe in days gone
by, and even in the present—to precedents in
Austro-Hungary, in Switzerland, in Italy, in Spain,
and in I do not know how many other countries.
No doubt there are lessons to be derived from each
and all of these countries, but I think it must have
struck many hon. members of this House that
there is very little application of the case of an old
country such as Switzerland, made up of different
nationalities, inheriting traditions of centuries—
traditions of hatred, traditions of loyalty, traditions of language and traditions
of religion—to a
great lone land such as we have here unpeopled,
and for which we have to legislate. It seems to me
therefore that, although you may deduce certain lessons from the historical references
that have been
made to these countries, weare starting out as it were
on a new plane altogether, and must determine this
question which is before us on practical data which
we can gather for ourselves from the circumstances
and condition of the North-West Territories. We
had from the hon. and learned gentleman who sits
beside me—Mr. Mills (Bothwell)—the other night
a speech replete with information, a speech in which
he argued the question in a very calm and logical
manner, enforced with a world and a wealth of
illustration which was remarkable, a speech which
was very concise and lucid, and which, I think,
maintained the hon. gentleman in the high position which he has in this House as one
of its most
profound thinkers and most able debaters. But
what was the conclusion which he drew? I think
the conclusion was based on common sense, and
it was that whether we should or should not have in
this country one language or two or three languages
was simply a matter of convenience. That was the
practical conclusion which he drew, and I think it is
a very fair and just conclusion. If that is admitted,
the next question is, who is to determine the question of convenience? That is the
stage which we
have now reached. Is it to be the Parliament of
Canada, composed of men from the Maritime Provinces, from the Province of Quebec and
from British Columbia, more than half of whom, I venture to
say, have never set foot in the North-West Territories at all, who know nothing of
the wants and
desires of the people there, or is it to be the people of the North-West themselves?
I think any
practical man would give an answer to that question in a very short time. The answer
which I
give to that question is the one which leads me
to the conclusion to which I have come, and
which I will support with my vote. In the
first place, we have before us the Bill of the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
which has been so much discussed. But I will
say this frankly and fully, that divorced from
its preamble, disassociated from the speeches of
its introducer, both in this House and outside
the House, disassociated, if you can disassociate
it, from the crusade which he is charged with
carrying on, that Bill would offer a solution of the
question not very unfair. But it has two defects
in my mind, and they are fatal defects. One is
that no man, in my humble opinion, who has
followed the course of events in this country for
the past five or six months, who knows the promises and the pledges that that hon.
gentleman
gave to the public, who knows the circumstances
under which he gave those promises and pledges,
and who witnessed the introduction of that Bill,
and heard the speech with which it was introduced
——no man, I say, can disassociate the enacting part
of that Bill from its preamble or from the inter
943
[COMMONS] 944
pretation of that preamble which was given in the
speech with which it was introduced. The Bill
and the preamble must stand or fall together; and
it is all nonsense for the hon. gentleman to come
into this Chamber after five days of debate have
taken place, after passions of creed and passions
of race have been aroused, not only in this House
but through the country, by his Bill and by his
speech—for him to come into the House now and
say: "I find I have made a mistake, and I am willing to withdraw the preamble if you
will allow
the Bill to go into the Committee and carry it."
I venture to say that style of action will not commend itself to the common sense
of the House. The
hon. gentleman attempted to make the House believe that the meaning of that preamble
had been
magnified that the preamble did not mean that
which a man of common sense would imply from its
language. Well, Sir, I can put but one meaning
upon it, and that is the meaning which, if I did not
derive it from the Bill, I would certainly derive
from the preamble when read in the light of the
speech with which the hon. gentleman introduced
his Bill. What does the preamble say?
"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."
Well, Sir, does the hon. gentleman think this
House is a debating club? Are we to put in our
Bills more abstract propositions? The hon. gentleman is too old a parliamentarian
not to know that
when a proposition of that kind is placed in the
preamble of a Bill it is placed there for the purpose
of taking legislative action upon it, and when he
places it there he places it as the key to the enacting
part which is to follow; and to say that he asks
Parliament to carry a mere abstract proposition
on which legislation is not to be based, is merely
to turn this House into a debating club. But, Sir,
that was not the object of the hon. gentleman.
His speech was plain, and although the closing
speech which he delivered to this House has been
commended so much, those who followed the hon.
gentleman clearly could see that he pledged himself that the crusade which he had
taken up,
which was now beginning, was to take up the rest
of his political life. He is now upon the threshold
of the work which he is engaged in, and he is not
going to stop by repealing section 110 of the
Revised Statutes of Canada relating to the North- West Territories, but he is going
to carry out
that principle which he has enunciated in the preamble of his Bill, and, therefore,
those who vote
for his Bill to-night, who prefer that solution of
the question, cannot divorce the preamble from it,
and they cannot vote for the Bill divorced from the
preamble and the speech made by the hon. gentleman who introduced it. But, Sir, the
hon. gentleman talked as if in this House—and that language
is re-echoed in very many parts of this country to
the discredit of those who use it—he talks as if, in
this House, hon. gentlemen are divided by race
and creed distinctions; indeed, one would suppose
that in the House of Commons of Canada, to listen
to some hon. gentlemen here, and to listen to their
organs in the public press, this House is divided by
a broad line, French gentlemen on one side trying
to carry out their opinions, and the English- speaking members being on the other
endeavoring to enforce their opinions. Sir, I believe, in
relation to this question of languages, that the
social forces, the commercial forces, and the political forces which are at work in
this Dominion,
are slowly but surely—and none the less surely
because slowly—working out to one end, so far as
language is concerned, to make the English language in the future, the vehicle of
communication in Parliament and outside Parliament.
It is not by legislative enactments, it is not by
preambles declaratory of intentions such as are
expressed here, but by the impulse of natural
forces, by necessity and convenience, that this
great result will be achieved. What did we hear
in the House the other day? We heard from the
hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Robillard) a confession, which was re-echoed from this
side of the
House, that every French gentleman in the
country—such are the forces at work in this community—is convinced that he would not
be doing
justice to his children if he brought them up in
ignorance of the English language and English
literature. The fact is, as he told us, that the
French boys of the present age are being educated
in both languages, so that when they grow
up they will be able to take their place, not
only in the parliamentary arena, but in the commercial circles of the great commercial
centres.
Is there discord between races and creeds in this
House? What sight do we behold in this Parliament to-night? We see one of the historical
parties
of Canada led by whom? Led by a French gentleman who was elected as leader of the
great Liberal
party—because he was a French Canadian? No;
but because his ability and his experience, his tact
and his urbanity, fitted him for that high position;
and I will venture the assertion that the choice
made by that party two or three years ago has been
more than justified by the experience we have had
of his leadership in the House. Sir, I will venture
to say, although he is a French Canadian, that he
enjoys the confidence of his followers to as large an
extent as his distinguished predecessors did. We
have every confidence in him, we know his breadth
of view, we know that he is not animated by racial
or creed antipathies, but that he desires to build
up a nation in this country upon broad and generous grounds. Sir, I venture this further
remark
that, after two or three years' experience of his
leadership, he not only enjoys the thorough
confidence of those who follow him, but
he has earned, and has deservedly earned,
the respect of his political opponents. Well, we
heard that hon. gentleman charged here the other
night by the hon. member who introduced the Bill
—and I know why he charged it, he charged it from
the basest of motives—that that hon. gentleman
was a party to certain treasonable language which
was used down on the banks of the St. Lawrence,
or language alleged to be treasonable, by the
Premier of Quebec; and he charged that the leader
of the Liberal party had sanctioned by his presence
and by his silence, the use of that language. Sir,
that was ignorance on the part of the hon. member,
and it was unjust, also, because he knew, he could
not help but know, that the hon. gentleman Who leads
the Liberal party had not only taken occasion at
the very time to rebuke the language, or to dissent
from the language, or from some of the extreme
expressions which were made use of on that occasion; but, afterwards,in the great
city of Toronto,
before an English speaking audience, he had read
his disclaimer from the paper which printed it at
945 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 946
the time, and had then declared himself as true
and as thoroughly a British Canadian as any man in
Canada. Sir, I have this further to say, and I
hope before this debate is closed that it will be
proved conclusively that the language which
it is alleged Mr. Mercier used on that occasion, has been foully and falsely misrepresented.
I was shown to-night by an hon. gentleman who
sits near me a correct transcript of that language,
and I do not think it is right that an hon. gentleman holding the high position of
Premier of one of
the greater Provinces, should be held up to public
scorn and contumely for having used language
which he never used, and for having preached
treason which he never preached, but when as a
matter of fact the sentiments he uttered were not
stronger than those embodied in the preamble of
the resolution which the leader of the Government
asks this House to endorse. The language which
Mr. Mercier used on that occasion was as follows:—
"Whilst protesting our respect and our friendship, too,
for the representatives of other races and other creeds,
whilst declaring ourselves ever ready to grant to them
their rights everywhere and at all times, on all occasions
and in everything; whilst offering to divide with them
as between brethren the immense territory and the enormous wealth which Providence
has laid before us; whilst
willing to live with them in perfect harmony under the
shadow of the flag of England and the sceptre of a Queen
loved of all, we solemnly declare that never shall we
renounce the rights guaranteed to us by treaties, by laws
and by the constitution.
"Treaties, law and constitution secure to us the right
of remaining Catholic and French, and Catholic and
French we will remain.
"Let us proclaim it ahigh and aloud, so that among our
opponents there be no false hopes, so that in our own ranks
there be. no weakness; the persecution of the first years
of English domination succeeded not in crushing our
fathers; no more shall the persecutions, which now
threatens, succeed in crushing us, their descendants.
"We are now two millions and a half of French Canadians in America, proud of the past,
strong in the present
and confident of the future; we scorn and laugh at the
threats of our enemies."
I see nothing in that language to condemn, there
is no treason in it; there is nothing about building
up a French nationality on the banks of the St.
Lawrence.
Mr. DAVIES (P. E.I.) It is Mr. Mercier's
speech, delivered before St. Jean Baptiste Society
on 24th of June.
Mr. MCNEILL. Where did the hon. gentleman
get that report?
Mr. DAVIES (P. E.I.) I am told it was not an
extempore but a carefully written speech, and
one which was read from the manuscript. It is a
copy from the manuscript I have read, and the
hon. gentleman who sits behind me was present on
the occasion, and so far as his memory serves those
were the words used.
Mr. AMYOT. I was there myself, and it was
the same speech.
Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.) Let me pass from that
point. None of the resolutions and amendments
proposed commend themselves to my judgment so
much as that submitted by the hon. member for
West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin). It is short, and
while it might perhaps be improved and made
a little more definite in some of its phrases, it proceeds upon the correct lines.
It proposes that
this whole question should be relegated to the
people of the North-West Territories, that they, at
the next general election, should instruct their
representatives how they should vote and act, and
that the representatives of the people after being
instructed by the people at the polls should decide
for themselves what languages should be used in
the House, in debate, in the votes and proceedings,
in the ordinances and in the courts. That resolution proceeds upon broad, liberal
lines. It commends itself to my mind, because it shows faith in
the people, a desire to leave that which concerns
those people, more immediately than our people,
to the people of the North-West themselves, to
the people who are the best judges. What do the
people of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick know of this matter? I have
never set my foot in the North-West, and I am
not as competent as are gentlemen living there,
to judge as to whether one, two, or three languages should be used. It is a question
which
they should determine; to them it should be
relegated, and I never found yet, if you put
full and ample trust in the people, that
the people will fail you. The Liberal party have
proclaimed time and again their belief in Provincial
rights. But it is said there are no Provincial
rights mixed up in this matter because there are no
Provinces. That is a mere quibble. The basis
underlying Provincial rights is the same whether
the people belong to a Territory or belong to a
Province. What is that basis? It is, that upon
all matters of purely local concern the people more
immediately affected should determine how the
matters should be decided. It is the same principle
either applied to a Province with full political
rights or to the North-West Territories with partial
political rights; the underlying principle is the
same in both cases. It is said that the people have
spoken, and that the North-West Council has
already told this House what is the opinion of the
people of the North-West. But that argument has
been sufficiently answered. The North-West representatives were not elected to do
more than legislate within the bounds of the constitution under
which they were elected; they were not elected to
change that constitution or to express to this Parliament the voice of the people
with respect
to any such change. The question never came
before the people at the last election, and if I
am correctly informed, not two, three or four,
but six or seven representatives, when the question
came before them, expressed a desire that the
question should be relegated to the people, and
that they should receive instructions from their
constituents. This Dominion has had enough of
forcing a change of constitution on Provinces by
the action of the Legislature, irrespective of the
people. It was done in Nova Scotia and you have
an open sore there to this day. You have had a partially discontented Province, and
why? Simply
because the people, when their constitution was
proposed to be taken away, had not an opportunity
of declaring whether they wished that course to be
followed or not. We should not try to repeat that
experiment, even on a small scale. I desire to
follow on the lines of the Liberal party, laid down
here years and years ago; in all local matters to
refer the questions to the people more immediately
interested. I have never found that solution of
the difficulty to fail; it has always proved equal to
947
[COMMONS] 948
the occasion. Provinces have been driven almost
to revolt; there has been discontent in Ontario
and in Quebec; but when you apply the principle
of Provincial rights, when you allow the people to
deal with their own local affairs as they please,
the question is settled always in the way the
people desire it to be settled. So it should be
in the North-West Territories. They have
an equal right to speak with the people of
the older Provinces, and I, for one, will not be a
party to taking away that right, which, if my own
Province was interested, I would expect to have
given to it. I believe if we apply the principles of
provincial rights we are treading upon safe ground,
upon ground we have travelled before, upon a well
tried and beaten path which has always led us out
of difficulties; but, if you abandon that, and
take up some other ground and say that Parliament should deal with this subject, whether
competent or not, or whether it possesses the requisite
information or not, you are entering a sea of difficulties, from which I, at least,
see no safe haven.
The hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake),
who made an able and brilliant speech the other
night, did not deal in many historical arguments,
but he gave us two from modern history: the one
with respect to the question of the use of the dual
languages in Schleswig-Holstein, and the other with
respect to their use in Poland, and he asked
us to pay great respect to the recommendations
of the English statesmen in those two cases. I
have no doubt that any recommendation by
English statesmen, experienced in matters of this
kind, would carry great weight. Upon what
lines did they go? Just on the lines that we are
asking you shall go now: to leave it to the
people to decide how many languages they shall
have, or if they shall have but one. That was the
proposition which the English Secretary of State
made in his despatch with reference to the Schleswig-Holstein question and that was
the same
proposition which the great powers of Europe made
with reference to the settlement of the language
question in Poland. Therefore, if these great
English precedents are to have any weight, if hon.
gentlemen opposite, some of whom I have in my
eye now who pay very great respect to the opinions
and recommendations of English statesmen, will
pay weight to these opinions I have referred to,
they will vote for the resolution of the member for
West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) and leave this matter
to the people, who are best qualified to judge of it
themselves. I wish to say a few words with reference to the amendment of the hon.
the Minister of
Justice. I am opposed to that amendment, as I
stated in my opening remarks, upon the ground
that it is a half-and-half measure, for it gives with
one hand what it withholds with the other. By it
you declare that you have a half belief in the
right of the people to decide this question, but
that you have not full confidence in them. It
seems to me to be a hesitating, half-hearted Tory
proposition. You say: "We will give them the
power to determine whether their proceedings and
speeches shall be in one or two languages, but, oh,
we cannot trust the eople to decide as to whether
their ordinances shal be published in one or two
languages." That is all nonsense. Why withdraw
from the people of the Territories the right to determine whether one, two or three
languages shall
be used? It may be that the Germans will go to
those Territories in sufficient numbers to justify the
Legislature of that country in determining that the
ordinances shall be published in German. Should
any objection be offered? Certainly not. I object
to this amendment, because it leaves this question
which has given rise to so much trouble, so much
heartburning and so much turmoil in the same
position as it is now, namely, on the Table of this
House. If this amendment of the Minister of Justice is adopted the question will come
up next
year. You will have the same debate, and you
will have more bitterness imported into it than
now. We have had on this occasion the restraining influence which comes from the fact
that the
great leaders occupying the front benches on both
sides of the House have united to give us wise
counsel, to commend us to be prudent, to be cautious, to refrain from exciting language,
and to remember that underlying this question there are
others which may result in the disruption of the
whole Dominion. The debate, so far, has been
conducted with an abstinence from exciting
language which is certainly commendable, but
if you keep this question open, what guarantee
have you that this commendable abstinence from
violent language is going so be repeated next year?
The hon. member for North Simcoe will doubtless
bring up this question again next year, for he would
be inconsistent in his course if he did not do so.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) The hon. gentleman will
move next year that the right which was given to
the people of the North-West with reference to
their votes and proceedings, shall also be extended
to their ordinances, and on what ground could you
withhold it? I, for one, can see no logical or just
reason for going half way in this matter. If we
are going to trust the people let us trust them fully,
and let us show them that we have confidence in
them. The hon. Premier cited an instance from
Ontario nearly one hundred years old, to show that
the people of Ontario, United Empire Loyalists
as they were, were not unworthy then to be trusted
with the disposition of a matter similar to the
one now before us. Did these people a hundred
years ago act harshly or tyrannically? No. The
First Minister showed that they acted in a
broad and generous spirit, and that they published their ordinances and their debates
in
the languages which were understood by the two
races of the people. Are their descendants to-day,
who have gone to the North-West, less broad or
less generous than their forefathers were a hundred
years ago? Not at all, Sir. The precedent which
the hon. gentleman has cited is directly against
this half-hearted resolution, and if it is good for
anything it is good to prove that the people of the
North-West are as qualified to-day—nay, if we
judge from the spread of education; if we can
judge from the increase of toleration which has
been going on among the people of North America
for the last hundred years—they are more qualified
to deal with this question in a broad, generous and
free spirit than were their forefathers. I see
nothing but procrastination, delay and danger, in
this amendment of the Minister of Justice, and I
oppose it upon the ground that I do not believe it
will give satisfaction to the people more immediately interested, or will work effectively
or justly
if carried into law.
949 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 950
Mr. LANGELIER (Montmorency.) (Translation). I do not desire to detain the House very
long, Mr. Speaker; nor have I the pretention that I
have anything very new in the shape of argument to
offer upon the important question which concerns
us at the present moment. Nevertheless, the
speeches delivered by the member for North Simcoe
contain assertions so unjust, so destitute of foundation, that I wish to arraign some
of them. What
is the object of the Bill of the member for Simcoe?
Is it the interest of the public which urges him
on? Is it really a sincere desire to consolidate the
Canadian nationality in the Dominion? I answer
emphatically, no. His sole object is to continue
to excite the various races which inhabit this
country, the one against the other; his sole end
is to enflame religious prejudice, and to build for
himself a small political party on the ruins which
he shall have made, to the injury of political peace
and religious tolerance in Canada. His Bill, I say,
is an outrageous provocation to the French of this
country. Last year, it was the Catholic sensibility
which the member for North Sinicoe wished to
wound with the Jesuit question; this time it is
the French nationality which he attacks, wounding
in this way the two strongest and most sensitive
feelings which exist in any nation proud and
courageous. For months and months the member
for North Simcoe and the press at his command
have not ceased to insult and vilify us. Have you
seen any agitation in the Province of Quebec?
No. Have you seen any tumultuous meetings
gathered together in order to protest again these
insults? No. Have you seen brought into this
House any petitions asking for the rejection of this
Bill? None whatever. Why so? It is because, in
spite of what they think in certain quarters, we
understand constitutional rule. We have remained
calm,—confiding in the justice of this House; and
this justice will be meted out to us. In a few
moments this anti-French Bill of the member for
North Simcoe will be crushed by the same humiliating majority which crushed out his
motion against
the Jesuits. In face of this display of narrow
fanaticism, I ask whether we of French origin have
done anything to justify it? I think not. Our
history is there, to show on the contrary our spirit
of tolerance, our spirit of friendliness. I asked a
moment ago: Have we provoked our fellow
Citizens of English origin? No. I shall quote
to this House an eloquent witness to our spirit of
tolerance,—and this evidence has fallen from the
lips of a qualified man, from the lips of an English
Conservative who played a no mean part in this
country and who died a baronet in England; I
mean Sir John Rose. What did this politician
say, during the debates on Confederation? I shall
allow him to speak for himself:
"It is a very grave and anxious question for us to consider
—especially the minorities in Lower Canada—how far our
mutual rights and interests are respected and guarded,
the one m the General and the other in the Local Legislature. With reference to this
subject, I think that I,
and those with whom I have acted—the English-speaking
members from Lower Canada—may in some degree congratulate ourselves at having brought
about a state of
feeling between the two races in this section of the
rovmce which has produced some good effect.
There has been ever since the time of the union,
am happy to say—and every body knows it who
as any experience in Lower Canada—a cordial understanding and friendly feeling between
the two nationalities, which has produced the happiest results. Belonging to different
races and professing a different faith,
we live near each other: we do not trench upon the
rights of each other; we have not had those party and
religious differences which two races, speaking different
languages and holding different religious beliefs might be
supposed to have had: and it is a matter of sincere gratification to us, I say, that
this state of things has existed
and is now found amongst us. But if, instead of this
mutual confidence; if, instead of the English-speaking
minority placing trust in the French majority in the Local
Legislature, and the French minority placing the same
trust in the English majority in the General Legislature,
no such feeling existed, how could this scheme of Confederation be made to work successfully?
I think that it
cannot be denied that there is the utmost confidence on
both sides; I feel assured that our confidence in the
majority in the Local Government will not be misplaced,
and I earnestly trust that the confidence they repose in
us in the General Legislature will not be abused. I hope
that this mutual yielding of confidence will make us both
act in a high-minded and sensitive manner when the
rights of either side are called in question—if ever they
should be called in question—in the respective Legislatures. This is an era in the
history of both races—the
earnest plighting of each other's faith as they embrace
this scheme. It is remarkable that both should place
such entire confidence in one another: and in future
ages our posterity on both sides will be able to point
with pride to the period when the two races had
such reliance, the one on the other, as that each
was willing to trust its safety and interest to the
honor ofthc other. This mutual confidence has not been
brought about by any ephemeral or spasmodic desire for
change on the part of either; it is the result of the knowledge each race possesses
of the character of the other.
It is because we have learned to respect each other's
motives and have been made to feel by experience that
neither must be aggressive, and that. the interests of the
one are safe in the keeping of the other * * * A feeling of distrust between the French
and English races in
the community would have rendered even the fair consideration of the scheme of union
impracticable. Would
the French have, in that case, been now ready to trust
themselves in the General Legislature, or the English in
the Local Legislature, of Lower Canada? No; and I pray
God that this mutual confidence between the two races
which have so high and noble a work to do on this continent, who are menaced by a
common danger, and actuated
by a common interest, may continue for all time to come;
I pray that it may not be interrupted or destroyed by any
act of either party; and I trust that each may continue to
feel assured that if at any time hereafter circumstances
should arise, calculated to infringe upon the rights of
either, it will be sufficient to say, in order to revent any
aggression of this kind: 'We trusted each other when we
entered this union; we felt then that our rights would be
sacred with you: and our honor and good faith and integrity are involved in and pledged
to the maintenance of
them.' I believe this is an era in our history in which
in after ages our children may appeal with pride, and
that if there should be any intention on either side to
aggress upon the other, the recollection that each trusted
to the honor of the other will prevent that intention
from being carried out. Feeling as I do thus strongly
that our French fellow-subjects are placing entire
confidence in us, in our honor and our good faith, we
the English-speaking population of Lower Canada, ought
not to be behind hand in placing confidence in them. I
feel that we have no reason as a minority to fear aggressions on the part of the majority.
We feel that in the
past we have an earnest of what we may reasonably
expect the future relations between the two races to be.
But although this feeling of mutual confidence may be
strong enough in our breasts at this time, I am glad to
see that my hon. friend the Attorney General East, as
representing the French majority in Lower Canada, and
the Minister of Finance as representing the English- speaking minority, have each
carefully and prudently
endeavored to place as fundamental conditions in this
basis of union such safeguards and protection as the two
races may respectively rely upon."
On the same occasion the hon. gentleman said
further:
"We the English Protestant minority of Lower Canada
cannot forget that whatever right of separate education
we have was accorded to us in the most unrestricted
way before the union of the Provinces, when we were in
the minority and entirely in the hands of the French
population. We cannot forget that in no way was there
any attempt to prevent us educating our children in the
manner we saw fit and deemed best; and I would be
untrue to what is just if I forgot to state that the dis
951
[COMMONS] 952
tribution of State funds for educational purposes was
made in such a way as to cause no complaint on the part
of the minority. I believe we have always had our fair
share of the public grants in so far as the rench element
could control them, and not only the liberty, but every
facility for the establishment of separate dissentient
schools wherever they were deemed desirable. A single
person has the right, under the law, of establishing a
dissentient school and obtaining a fair share of the educational grant, if he can
gather together fifteen children
who desire instruction in it. Now we cannot forget that
in the past this liberality has been shown to us, and that
whatever we desired of the French majority in respect to
education they were, if it was at all reasonable, willing
to concede. We have thus in this, also, the guarantee of
the past that nothing will be done in the future unduly to
interfere with our rights and interests as regards education, and I believe that everything
that we desire will be
as freely given by the Local Legislature as it was before
the union of the Canadas."
This is the handsome eulogium of the tolerance
of the French Canadians, made by an Englishman
who had passed his life in their midst. And today as a reward for our justice towards
the English
minority, behold an Englishman, a distinguished
member of this House, comes and asks us to deprive
of their language the French minority in the Territories of the North-West. I appeal
on its behalf
to the sentiment of justice in this House whose
most noble prerogative is the protection of the
weak. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer some
of the assertions made by the hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) in the last speech he
has made in support of the Bill. This hon. member looks as if he believed that the
Protestants are
frightfully maltreated in the Province of Quebec—
that we render their existence very bitter. Let
us settle at once this point. There are in our
Province 188,309 Protestants and 1,170,718 Roman
Catholics according to the census of 1881. The
Protestants, therefore, only represent 13 per cent., or
one-seventh of the total population of our Province. They are only in the majority
in the Counties of Compton, Stanstead, Brome, Missisquoi,
Huntingdon and Argenteuil. Nevertheless, they
have ten representatives. In these six counties the
Protestants have only a majority of 2,136 and are
in the minority in Sherbrooke, Montreal West,
Pontiac and Megantic, so that they would have a
right only to six members instead of ten, if they
were excluded from representation in those counties where they are in the minority.
I may also
add that, since Confederation, several counties,
whose population is wholly Catholic, have elected
English Protestant members. I can mention the
following names: Mr. Clarence Hamilton was
elected in the County of Bonaventure; Mr. W.
Price, for Chicoutimi and Saguenay; the Hon.
Mr. Joly for Lotbiniere; Mr. Heinming and Mr.
Watts, for Drummond and Arthabaska; the Hon.
Mr. Church for the County of Ottawa; the Hon.
Mr. Wurtele for the County of Yamaska; the
Hon. D. A. Ross for the County of Quebec; and
Mr. Pozer for Beauce. This shows that the French- Canadians are not prejudiced in
the matter of their
representatives. It is the same thing in the
Legislative Council, which is composed of 24
members. According to population, the Protestants, only forming one-seventh of the
Province,
would only have a right to but three Legislative
Councillors out of the twenty-four, but notwithstanding, they have five, that is to
say, one-fifth.
But there is more to say. In the five divisions represented by Protestants the majority
is Roman
Catholic. The Protestants are only as 34 to 100 of the
population. In 1878, we had, in the person of Mr.
Joly, a Protestant, as First Minister. The Hon. Mr.
Joly is a man among the Protestants who occupies
the best position in the Province of Quebec. Was
there ever complaint made that a Protestant was at
the head of affairs in the Province of Quebec? No,
Mr. Speaker; but the English Tories endeavored
to excite the national prejudices of the French
Canadians, by throwing into their teeth the sneer
that they had a Protestant at the head of the
Government. Now, turning to the school question,
let us see in what manner Protestants are treated
in the Province of Quebec. I will not give my own
opinion, but I am going to quote an opinion which
will not be gainsaid by any one. It is that of the
Rev. Mr. Rexford, the secretary of the Protestant section of the Council of Public
Instruction
in the Province of Quebec. In the course of last
summer in the Province of Ontario they carried on
an anti-French and an anti—Catholic campaign. At
this juncture, they represented the Government of
the Province of Quebec as a Government which
wished to drive out all the Englishmen from the
country. The leader of the Government addressed
a letter to the Rev. Mr. Rexford, in which he
asked him for certain imformation respecting Protestant public education in the Province
of Quebec.
Mr. Rexford answered by the following letter dated
the 4th of July, 1889:—
"DEPARTMENT or PUBLIC EDUCATION.
"QUEBEC, 4th July, 1889.
"To the Honorable the First Minister of the Province of
Quebec:
"DEAR SIR,—I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 27th June last, containing
questions reSpecting the Protestant schools of the Province of Quebec, and I take
the liberty of submitting the
following declarations to serve as answers to these questions:—
"First question—What is the condition of the Protestant
se arate schools in the Province of Quebec?
"Answer—The Protestant schools of the Province of
Quebec are either schools controlled, by the minority of
the ratepayers of the municipality in which they are
situated, under the control of five school commissmners;
or they are dissentient schools belonging to the minority
of a municipality, under the control of three school
trustees. ere are in the Provmce 916 of these
elementary schools, thirty-eight, model schools, and nineteen academies, forming a
total of nearly 1,000 schools
attended by 34.440 scholars. These schools, in a number
of cases, suffer somewhat from the density of the dissentient element on which their
support depends; but they
enjoy all the rights and privileges of the schools belonging to the majority of the
inhabitants of the Province as
regards school regulations, class books, the course of
studies, and the capacity of the teachers; in the last connection they are perhaps
slightly more favored than some
of the schools belonging to the majority of the people of
the Province. It is a fact that the Protestant Committee,
having a smaller number of schools under its control, is
in a condition to take, when matters make it necessary,
measures to improve the condition of the Protestant
schools, before similar measures can be adopted with regard to the Roman Catholic
schools of the Province."
"Second question—Please give me an abbreviated statement of the law bearing on this
subject, and upon the
rights given to the Protestants to support separate schools
in our Province. Â
"Answer—For school purposes, the Province is divided
into sections. called school municipalities. The schools of
these municipalities are under the direction of five commissioners elected by the
ratepayers. If the majority of the
inhabitants of the municipality are Protestant, the
schools of the municipality are conducted comformably to
the regulations issued by the Protestant Committee, respecting the course of study
class-books, teachers, &c.
When the Protestants form the minority in the municipality and they are not satisfied
with the government of
the schools, they have the right to record their dissent,
and to notify the school commissioners that they
are either in whole or in art dissentients. They
then elect three trustees, evoted to the govern
953 [February 20, 1890] 954
ment of their dissentient schools. These dissentient
schools enjoy all the rights and privileges of the
schools of the majority of the inhabitants of the municipality save in this one point,
that the dissentient trustees cannot levy school taxes upon duly incorporated
companies. This power belongs to the school commissioners of each municipality, who
are bound to place in
the hands of the trustees a portion of the taxes levied on
the companies legally constituted as corporations, in proportion to the number of
scholars attending their respective schools. In other respects, the dissentient
trustees have the same powers as the school commissioners in all that respects the
schools placed under their
control. If the dissentients of a municipality are too
weak in numbers to support a school they can unite with
a neighboring municipality of their own religious belief,
with the object of supporting these schools. Every head
of a family residing in a municipality not provided with a
dissentient school, may (1) if he belongs to the minority, Â
(2) if he has children of an age to attend school and (3) if
he lives within three miles of a school of his own religious
faith situated in another municipality, pay his taxes
towards the support of this school, and send his children
there. Â
"Any person belonging to the religious minority may, at
any time whatsoever, become a dissentient by giving the
prescribed notices, but he is subject to the payment oi
the ordinary taxes imposed by the school commissioners
for the current year and having reference to the existing debts of the school corporation.
In every case, on
the formation of a new municipality, if the notice of the
dissentients is given within the month followmg the erection of the municipality,
the dissentients are not subject
to the taxes imposed by the school commissioners.
"When, in the municipality, the minority is a dis,sentient one it has a right to a
portion of the property of
the school corporation from which it is dissentient. This
portion is determined pro rata according to the value
of the taxable property represented by the dissentients.
The Protestant Schools, dissentient or under the control of school commissioners,
are placed under the superintendence of the Protestant Committee of the Council of
Public Instruction, at the present time composed of ten
members appointed by the Government, of five members
appointed by the committee, and of one member elected
by the Provincial Association of Protestant School
Teachers. This committee has the power of making
regulations respecting Protestant schools, normal schools,
boards of examiners, school inspectors, class-books, as
well as all matters respecting the organisation, the government and the discipline
of Protestant schools, and the
classification of schools and teachers. The McGill normal
school educates, under the control of regulations made
by this committee, the teachers for the non-Catholic portion of the Province.
"The central board of Protestant examiners, acting in
accordance with the regulations of the committee, has
alone the power of issuing certificates to act as teacher in
the Protestant schools. Five regular inspectors and three
special inspectors, appointed on a recommendation of the
Protestant committee, perform the duty of inspection as
regards the Protestant schools of the Province.
"Third question.—Please tell me the number of Protestant separate schools that there
are in this Province
and the sum of money which they receive from the Government?
"Answer:—1st. There are about one thousand separate
Protestant schools in the Province; 2nd. The subsidy
granted by the Government for elementary instruction is
$160,000. Â This sum is distributed among the school municipalities of the Province,
in proportion to their total population, as ascertained at the last census. In each
municipality where there are dissentient schools in charge of
trustees the portion of the grant coming to the municipality is divided between the
school commissioners and
dissentient trustees in proportion to the number of children
attending their respective schools. As this grant is, in
the first place, divided according to the total population,
and then, where there exist dissentient schools, on account
of the variable assistance given to the school, it is impossible to state the exact
amount of the grant received by
the Protestant schools. Nevertheless, it is evident that
approximately these schools receive in proportion to the
population, say about one-seventh of the whole grant.
"Fourth question—Can you give me the number of the
Protestant English-speaking population of the Province?
"Answer.—I have not the means of ascertaining the
number of the Protestant English-speaking population of
the Province,— distinguishing it from the Protestant
population speaking other languages. According to the
last census there were in the Province:
| Roman Catholics.................... |
1, 170, 718 |
| Protestants................................... |
183, 900 |
| No Religion.................................... |
4, 319 |
| Total............................ |
1, 358, 937 |
"I have the honor to be, dear Sir,
"Your obedient servant,
"ELSON I. REXFORD,
"Secretary of the Department of Public Instruction."
Well, you see with what liberality the Protestant
minority is treated in the Province of Quebec. It
is of little consequence whether it be English or
Protestant, it is treated with the liberality and
justice which are due to minorities. There is
another question which we know agitates the hon.
member for North Simcoe. It is the question respecting the Jesuit Estates. This question
has come
again to be threshed out before this House. Complaint is made of the famous preamble
of the Bill
respecting which so much noise was made last year.
I shall not quote, in reply to what has been said,
any other authority than that of a Protestant who
occupies one of the highest positions in our Province,
and who is looked upon with the greatest respect
by the Protestants of the Province of Quebec. I
mean the Hon. Mr. Joly. This is what he said on
this matter in a letter addressed to the Montreal
Witness on the 7th of January last:
"The Jesuit Estates Act has become the signal for a
strong agitation throughout the Dominion. Men who for
so many years lived together in confidence and friendship,
in spite of the differences of origin and creed, have now
become suspicious the one of the other and are gradually
separating more and more. * * Every effort ought to be
brought to bear in order to preserve this time-honored
sentiment of confidence and mutual tolerance, which has
allowed us, Canadians as we are, English and French,
Roman Catholics and Protestants, to live happily and in
peace, side by side, in days when there is but little peace
in the world. Such efforts deserve to be supported by all
men endued with good will. * * If I had been a member of
the Legislature at the time, and the name of the Pope and
his consent might have been omitted, I would have
insisted in placing them in the Bill before allowing it to
be adopted.
"* * * At first sight, a great portion of the preamble of
the Bill appears to be out of place and subject to objections or superfluous: but
after re-examination the attentive reader, especially if he is possessed of some legal
knowledge, will be struck with the display of minute
precautions which have been taken to obtain on behalf
of the Province, a final and non-appealable judgment."
This is how, Mr. Speaker, a Protestant holding
the position which Mr. Joly does, appreciates the
preamble of the Bill respecting the Jesuit Estates,
which has been so severely criticised in this House.
Another assertion on the part of the hon. member
which has astonished me, is that which he has
made when alleging that La Vérité is the organ of
the Quebec Government. He appears to me to be
a close reader of this journal, because he constantly
quotes it in his speeches. Probably because he
takes delight in it and reads it on Sunday in order
to keep holy the Sabbath day. I protest, Mr.
Speaker, against the statement of the hon. member.
One must be a complete stranger to what is going
on in the Province of Quebec to make such an
assertion. La Vérité is not the organ of any political party; not more the organ of the Conservative
party; not more the organ of the hon. Ministers
who are sitting on the Treasury benches, than the
organ of the Quebec Government. And, Mr.
Speaker, I do not desire any other proof of this
than an article in this journal published on the
26th October, 1889. This is what La Vérité said:
"We have never abandoned the Conservative leaders,
for the excellent reason that we never marched under
955
[COMMONS] 956
their banner; for the same reason that we do not follow
Mr. Mercier to-day. From the first day of its publication, La Vérité has always been, what it is now, and what
it will be so long as we have the control of it, a journal
absolutely independent of party politics."
We see by this article how very unjust was the
statement of the hon. member in wishing to excite
prejudices in the Province of Quebec, by making it
believed that this newspaper reflected the opinion
of the great majority of a population of the Province of Quebec, and that it reflected
above all,
the opinion of the Government of Quebec. And,
finally, La Minerve addressing itself to La Vérité
asked it several questions with regard to the Government of Quebec. And what did Mr.
Tardivel
answer in his journal? He said that he accepted
Mr. Mercier as the lesser evil. He paid us the
compliment of saying that we were worth more
than our adversaries,—which is, by the way, but
a poor compliment. I can cite, Mr. Speaker, a
more recent example of the liberality of Mr.
Mercier towards the Protestant minority of the
Province of Quebec, No further back than fifteen
days, a representative in the Legislature of Quebec,
Mr. Hall, presented a Bill on the subject of university degrees. This Bill could only
have passed
the Assembly and the Council through the grace
and influence of the head of the Executive of
Quebec. I shall quote touching the estimation in
which the Hon. Mr. Mercier is held; a newspaper
which I am convinced the hon. member for North
Simcoe should read as attentively as La Vérité,
and whose statements he cannot doubt. This is
what the Mail said three or four days ago:
"The Mail is not often able to commend Mr. Mercier's
political acts, but it would be domg him an injustice if it
failed to congratulate him upon the course which he has
taken with regard to Mr. Hall's B. A. Bill, which has now
passed both Houses of the Quebec Legislature. He made
a vigorous speech in support of it in the Assembly, and
exercised his great powers in the Council in order to secure its passage there. He
deserves credit, therefore, for
thus assisting in the removal of one of the disabilities
under which the Protestant minority in Quebec has long
been laboring. * * It is not difficult understand the
intense satisfaction with which the friends of Protestant
education in Quebec regard the removal of a disability
which has weighed heavdy upon them for many years. "
I am now going to cite, with regard to this Bill,
what La Vérité, so often quoted by the hon. member from North Simcoe, has said. These are the
reproaches which that newspaper cast upon the
leader of the Government in connection with the
adoption of this measure, of date the 8th instant:
"And at the time of the third reading had it not been for
the scandalous intervention of the First Minister in favor
of the Bill, the majority of the members would have rejected this exceptional legislation.
We say scandalous
intervention.
"In fact, contrary to all parliamentary usage, Mr. Mercier quitted his seat, while
the members were entering the
House in order to vote, and ran about the hall of meeting,
openly bringing to bear the weight of his influence as
leader of the party, upon certain Liberals well known on
accountof their hostility to the Bill. This was an unseemly
act which the Speaker of the House did not prevent, as
he might have done and ought to have done."
This is the manner in which the newspaper,
which the hon. member of North Simcoe says
represents the opinions of the Government of Quebec, treats the leader of this Government.
I trust
that in the future the hon. member will give himself the trouble to read other newspapers
in the
Province of Quebec, in order the better to inform
himself about what is passing there. For along
time past this hon. member, and those other
members of his own kidney, have taken a. consi
derable interest in our affairs. The proper mode
of making himself well informed in all that respects us would be to read trustworthy
journals, like
the Electeur for example, which is perfectly up to
the mark in the affairs of the Province, and La
Justice, in whose columns my hon. friend the
member for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot) often writes.
He would obtain through these newspapers all
the information possible respecting our affairs.
Another of our crimes, Mr. Speaker, is the case
of Miss Maybee. It would seem that, eminently
respectable as this young woman is, she has made
herself latterly much talked about. It has been
sought to make it believed that the objections
against the appointment of Miss Maybee, to the
post office at Quebec, were owing to the fact that
she came from the Province of Ontario and that
she was a Protestant. I say that this is entirely
false. In this connection I will quote what has
been said by a Conservative newspaper in Quebec,
the Evènement. This is how this journal looks
upon this appointment:
"As the business of this lady will be merely to work a
small caligraphic machine, in the post office, we do not
see why they go so far to look for an employé when they
could easily have found one in our own city. It is not to
our knowledge, and not to the knowledge of any one, that
in any public office in the Province of Ontario did they
dream of bringing from Quebec or Montreal a French
Canadian woman to fill any employment whatsoever. Are
we bound to be more generous, more complaisant than our
neighbors. especially when we possess already persons
who are fitted to do the work required in the present
case?"
Well, I must say this to the hon. member: The
gallantry of Frenchmen is proverbial; and certainly there is nobody among us who would
not
have been delighted to keep within our walls this
Miss Maybee, who, by the way, they say is very
pretty, as are, moreover, all English ladies. If my
hon. friend, the member for North Simcoe, would
visit our Province he would discover that the
English and the French Canadians live on the best
possible terms; he would see that in many cases
Englishmen marry French Canadian women and
that French Canadian men marry English women.
If one may judge by the fruit of their affections, it
is certain that they make good matches, for it does
not appear that, either on the one side or the other,
they are disposed to break the bonds of union. In
order to conceal somewhat the sentiment which
overrules him—and this sentiment is nothing else
but fanaticism—the member for North Simcoe
tells us that it is necessary that the nation should
speak but one language, if it wishes to become
homogeneous. He has quoted, to this effect, several
extracts from newspapers in Ontario and elsewhere.
I will quote for him a work which, I think, possesses
fully as much authority as these newspapers. This
is what on this point the great dictionary, of
Larousse says at the word "nationality":
"NATIONALITY: And in the first place what is a
nationality? What is it which gives it its character?
What is it that makes a nation? Is it the community of
origin and race? By no means for there is no people
which has not been more or less mixed during the course
of ages with foreign elements, and there is no race which
is not sub-divided into several nationalities. Is it unity
of language? Community of language is one of the greatest characteristics of a nation;
but it is not alone sufficient to stamp it, because a nation perfectly united and
homogeneous may include populations speaking different
languages. Can it be said, for example, that Brittany,
Provence and Alsace at the present time separated from
us, do not belong to the French nationality, cause they
Speak in those countries languages which are not those of
957 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 958
Touraine and the Isle de France? If this point of view is
taken it must be affirmed that Alsace ought not to be
French but German."
But the hon. member will perhaps say: You quote
in this connection French authorities, but in my
eyes these authorities have hardly any value.
Well, I will quote for him other authorities, which
have much more weight than the newspapers which
he has read to this House. I will read to him the
words of a Governor who has left behind him a
very great popularity among us, and who has gone
to gather in the Indies, and whereever the English
Crown may send him, new laurels. I refer to Lord
Dufferin. This is what he said about the French
Canadians:
"At this moment the French Canadian race, to which
you belong, is engaged in a generous rivalry with your
fellow-subjects of English origin,the end of which is to
see which of the two will contribute most to the moral,
material, and political advancement, as well as to the prosperity of the country.
There is not one student, man of
business or of science, politician, or writer, of either origin,
who does not feel himself inspired by this noble emulation. The issue of this conflict
depends on the success of
your efforts, on the efficiency of your discipline and of
you education upon the character of the moral, and
intellectual atmosphere which you create in this region."
These words were spoken in reply to any address,
which was presented to him by Laval University
in Quebec. On another occasion the same noble
Lord expressed himself as follows:—
"I think that Canada should esteem itself happy in
owing its prosperity to the mixture of several races.
The action and the reaction of several national idiosyncrasies, the one upon the other,
give to our society a
freshness, a coloring, an elasticity, a vigor, which without
them would be wanting to it. The statesman who would
seek to obliterate these distinctive characteristics would
be truly badly advised.
"Whatever it may be elsewhere, the French race in
Canada has learned to appreciate the advantages of moderation, this golden rule of
societies, and the necessity of
arriving at practical results by sacrificing the demands of
a too inexorable logic, and by settling grave difficulties
by generous compromises."
There is something more yet. If we go further
back still in the political history of our country,
we find that those who made the Constitution,
which governs us since we have been under British
rule, have always taken scrupulous care not to wound
the prejudices, or the national or religious susceptibilities of the various peoples
who inhabit Canada.
I have taken the pains to read the debates which
took place in England when they gave us the Constitution of 1774. Immediately after
this Constitution was given us, a Constitution by which they took
away the trial by jury and the writ of habeas corpus;
a petition was siged at Quebec, addressed to Her
Majesty, asking for the restitution to the citizens
of Canada, of the trial by jury and the writ of
habeas corpus. Very interesting debates took
place in the English House of Commons, at this
period, and we find in the Parliamentary History, in
volume 18, what follows. It is Sir Robert Smith, a
member of the House of Commons, who is
speaking:
"Whoever reflects upon the excellencies of the British
laws, whoever considers them in theory, or sees the daily
advantages of them in practice, whoever justly admires
them for their peculiar lenity, moderation, equity, and
impartiality, would wish to see them extended over the
whole face of the British Empire; but if there are local
and circumstantial reasons, arising from the national
character of the people, their language, customs, usages,
institutions, and I will even add their prejudices, which
in this case ought to be consulted, and not only consulted
but, in some measure, indulged; but if there are reasons
arising from these various Circumstances, that make it
impossible for the English laws to be adopted in their
original purity, I will venture to affirm, that a legislator is
not only justified but that it is an essential part of his duty,
so to alter and modify these laws as may best adapt them to
the peculiar genius and temper of the people, so as to
become the best rule of civl conduct possible, and the
best calculated to promote their general happiness. It
was ever the maxim of the greatest legislators of antiquity, to consult the manners
and dispositions of the
people, and the degrees of improvement they had then
received, and to frame such a system of laws as was best
suited to their then immediate situation."
Such were, at this epoch, the precautions taken
in order not to wound the religious sentiments and
the national sentiments of the various races which
then peopled Canada. When the English Parliament itself gives such an example of conciliation
and moderation, I think that it is in very bad part
for the hon. member for North Simcoe to wish today to bring to an end the old traditional
British
fair play, and to oppress the minority, as he desires
to do by this Bill. I may say also that it was not
because the English population was fairly large
that so much care was taken of Canada at this time;
nor was it because she was very influential I am
going to quote what was said then before a committee of the House which, before passing
the Act
to amend the Quebec Bill, summoned before it
General Murray and General Carleton, and heard
them respecting Canadian affairs. This committee
sat on the 2nd June, 1774. A question was put to
General Carleton and this is how he answered:
"The Protestants in Canada are under 400, about 360;
but the French inhabitants who are all Catholics amount
to 150,000.
"Lord NORTH. Are those 360 men of substance?
"Gen. CARLETON. Much the greatest art of them
are not. There are some that have purchase seigniories,
some in trade and some reduced soldiers; but the majority are men of small substances."
"Mr. JENKINSON. Is there much intercourse or communication between those 360 and the
rest of the Province?"
"Gen. CARLETON. Very little.
"Lord NORTH. Are these people, upon the whole,
proper and eligible for an Assembly to be chosen from
them?
"Gen. CARLETON. I should apprehend, by no means."
Well, Mr. Speaker, as we see when those precautions were taken, about which I spoke
a few
moments ago, it was not merely in order to protect the English minority, because Gen.
Carleton
answers that the English population which dwelt
in Canada at that period was far from being influential and important. But if at that
time there
were men of elevated views, practical men, who
asked that the people of the Province of Quebec
might be placed on a footing of equality with the
other British subjects; there were also at that
time, men of narrow minds, men wishing to excite
prejudices, as there exist such at the present day.
I discovered while making the researches, which I
have given to the House, a remarkable incident
which I must relate. There happened to live, at
the time in question, a certain Richard Whitworth,
who was probably one of the political ancestors of
the hon. member for North Simcoe, if one may
judge from his remarks. The House of Commons
had returned from the House of Lords, where they
had attended to hear the sanction of the Bills.
These are the words, which I again borrow from
the history of England:
"SIR,—I have often wished that some member would
take notice of the language in which the King's assent is
given. We are just returned from the House of Lords,
and I think this a very proper time to move, that by an
959
[COMMONS] 960
address, or Bill, whichever may be thought most proper,
His Majesty be desired to give his assent in his own language. I hate a dishonest
language. Le Roi le veut. Let
the royal assent, sir, be given in the language of truth.
We have sir, even in our proceedings, Die Martis, Die
Lunae. I could wish they were abolished. The ceremony
of the King's assent being given in French, is the remains
of Norman slavery; a disgrace to the British Parliament,
and which I hope will induce some member to move that
either an address or Bill be forwarded to obtain the royal
assent for the future, to be given in good honest English.
I am fully satisfied it would make the people much happier. (The House was in a continual laugh.)
"The speaker replied very gravely that, as the matter
was of a very weighty nature, he thought it would be proper that the House should
take time to consider of it.
This occasioned a second flow ofgood humor. The House,
however, was adjourned immediately."
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill of the
hon. member for North Simcoe is going to meet
with the same fate as the proposition made by this
Mr. Whitworth in the House of Commons of England. It was in 1774, that this destroyer
of French
made his speech in the English House of Commons. In the speech delivered by the hon.
member for North Simcoe, when introducing the measure now under consideration, he
quoted a portion
of Lord Durham's report on the affairs of Canada;
he has only quoted that portion which applied to
Lower Canada. He spoke of the troubles and
difficulties which existed in Quebec in 1837 and in
1838. We know that at this period the people of
the Province fought in order to obtain those liberties of which we are so proud to-day.
Several of
them ascended the scaffold; others were exiled,
and the constitutional liberties acquired with the
price of the blood of our ancestors, are to-day
shared in by the English who live in Canada.
After listening to the speech of the hon. member,
one would be led to believe that difficulties existed
only in Lower Canada. Nevertheless, We find in
Lord Durham's report that difficulties existed also
in Upper Canada. This is what he says:
"The Irish Roman Catholics complain loudly and with
reason about the existence of Orangeism in this Colony.
They are justly indignant that, in a Province, which their
loyalty and their bravery has effectually aided in preserving , their feelings are
outraged by the processions and
the banners of this association. The leaders probably
hope to make use of this sort of standing conspiracy, of
this illegal organisation in order to win for them political
power: it is an Irish—Tory institution, having rather a
political complexion than a religious one. The organisation of this body allows its
leaders to exercise a powerful
influence on the populace: And it is stated that at the
last elections the cries carried several seats by means of
the violent acts committed by the rabble thus placed at
their disposal. But it must not be a matter of surprise, if
the existence of such an institution, wounding one class
by its scornful hostility to its religion, and another class
by its violent opposrtion to its policy, should excite among
the two classes a profound indignation, and should
seriously contribute to the want of confidence with which
the Government is regarded. "
It is seen, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon.
member had desired to be impartial he would have
quoted that portion of the report which concerns
Upper Canada. But no, he has taken good care
not to do that; he has limited himself to quoting
what may be stated to the discredit of the Province of Quebec. He has designedly omitted
the
other side of the question, because a man possessmg
his vast knowledge could not but be aware of all
that is contained in Lord Durham's report, but he
has only read the passages which might be of use
to him in the battle which he is now carrying on
in Ontario. But, Mr. Speaker, Lord Durham is
not the only person who mentioned these difficulties,
Lord Metcalfe himself in letters which he sent to
England, while he was living in Canada, found
occasion to relate the manner in which this political
contest was carried on. This is what he said:
"The strife of parties is much keener in Upper Canada
than in Lower, because in the latter the French party is
so overwhelming, that no popular movement in favor of
their enemies could be incited; but, in Upper Canada,
the strength of the Conservative and the Reform parties
being more evenly balanced the contest is more lively and
occasionally, gives an opportunity for disorders. It is
under conditions such as these, that the Orange lodges do
much michief. Organised at first, I think , as political associations, rather than
as religious combinations, they nevertheless tend to excite religious
dissensions. If an unscrupulous Conservative desires
to carry an election or to get the mastery in
a public meeting, he gathers a party of Orangemen or
he collects a party of Orangemen, or Irish Protestants,
armed with clubs, Orangemen being always on the Conservative side, although many Conservatives
are not
Orangemen. Lately a cross was planted here to point out
the place where a Roman Catholic church was shortly to
be erected; during the night the cross was cut down, and
there was substituted for it a placard declaring that no
Roman Catholic church should ever be built there."
Well, if we admit that we are not absolutely
perfect in the Province of Quebec, people will
acknowledge that they are not altogether angels
who live in the Province of Ontario. Respecting
the right of minorities, I desire to quote, to this
House, the words uttered by the Hon. Mr. Mercier
in a speech which he delivered in Montreal on the
6th of November last; and in which he has traced
with a master hand, like a great politician as he is,
the rights of minorities:
"Some people with evil intent have desired to profit by
the settlement of the question, respecting the Jesuit
Estates, to excite prejudices against the majority in this
Province, by accusing them of being unjust towards the
Protestant minority; and it is alleged very falsely that
this minority was ill-treated, and that it had not the
complete exercise of its rights. The rights of a minority
may be looked upon from four pomts of view: 1. From
the religious point of view; 2. From the civil point of
view; 3. From the educational point of view; 4. From
the political point of view. Surely it will not be alleged
that the Protestant minority does not exercise, and does
not claim with success, all its rights in our Province,
from the religious, political, and civil points of view.
Nobody will dare to say that Roman Catholics prevent
Protestants from practising their religion in as free a
manner as they practise it themselves. There are Protestant churches everywhere, even
in centres which I
might call exclusively Roman Catholic; and we have it
yet to learn of the smallest insult having been offered to
Protestant congregations, when they judge fit to assemble
together. As to political and civil rights, they are recorded
in our codes and our constitution; and it has never entered
the mind of anyone to say that the Protestants had any
reason to complain, in this respect. As to the rights
respecting education, it is but right to state exactly what
they are, in order to make to disappear any ambiguity
which might exist in this respect. But, before doing this,
let us state plainly that the law declares the two languages
—French and English—to be official: that in practice all
our public documents are printed in these two languages: that in the Legislature both
are spoken; and
very often we French Canadians answer in English the
speeches made in English by our colleagues of another
origin; and that we take special pains to render to them,
in this connection, all possible assistance, in order to
remove any pretext for complaint. The same thing is
done in our courts of justice, where, very often, French
Canadian advocates plead in English, out of courtesy to
their brethren of foreign origin; and, although we are not
bound to do so, each time when in our public departments
we have to write to a person speaking the English language,
we do it in his own tongue. This is an invariable rule,
which I believe has no exception, or at least if there are
exceptions they are so rare that it would not be reasonable
to take any notice of them.
"As to the education question, I do not think that
there is a minority better treated, in this respect, than
that of the Province of Quebec; and, as I do not desire to
have my own evidence accepted, I have taken care to
summon that of the Rev. Mr. Rexford, the Protestant
Secretary of the Council of Public Instruction. Let
961 [FEBRUARY 20, 1890.] 962
them know, once for all, that the Protestant minority
is well treated in this Provmce; it is treated generously,
liberally, and there is no country in the world in which
the majority has less of religious and national prejudice
than in the Province of Quebec. The letter of the Rev.
Mr. Rexford makes us acquainted with the situation: let us hope that it will produce
salutary effect in
the other Provinces where they seem dispose to forget
the rules of justice by threatening the minority with the
loss of those rights w ich they possess here. * * * In conclusion, let me beg of you
numerous as you are, not to
forget that we have forme the national party with your
consent, with your support, with the consent and support
of all Liberals in the Province of Quebec; that this party
is the outcome of an honorable alliance and has enabled
me to form the present Government which in its inception
was called national, has remained national since, an will
remain national so long as I am at its head.
"That is to say, we have broken from old party lines,
we have given up certain traditions, looked upon as dangerous, and certain ideas condemned
by respected authorities, in order to publish a new programme, sufficiently
liberal to assure the public prosperlty, but also sufficiently conservative not to
disturb good citizens. This
programme will be respected, this, Government will be
maintained, and this party will live under these conditions. and not otherwise. I
reckon upon having all honest
people on my side to enable me to keep this promise and
to make this decision respected."
These are the terms in which the Hon. Mr.
Mercier established the principles on which the
national party in the Province of Quebec is based.
These are the few remarks which I desired to make.
I have endeavored to make them with all possible
moderation, and I trust that I have not wounded
any feeling which deserves respect. Before con- eluding, let me be permitted to thank
the English members in this House for having taken up
the defence of this beautiful French language,
which we all love so much. One of them, the hon.
member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), has delivered, in this connection, an admirable
speech. At
the risk of loosing his own personal popularity he
has not been afraid to lift up his voice in maintaining the defence of the French
minority in the North- West Territories, and in proclaiming at the same
time the imprescriptible rights of the French language. We have in this courageous
proceeding a
new proof of his grand character, which enables
him to rise above all narrow prejudices in order to
render to every one what is due to him, without
regard to consequences. Besides such noble conduct is not without precedent; we always
will
remember that it was his illustrious father who, in
the old Parliament, raised his voice and asked
for an indemnity in favor of the victims of
the troubles in 1837 and 1838. For this reason, the names of both are written in ineffaceable
characters on the ever grateful hearts of
the citizens of the Province of Quebec. The abolition of the French language is asked
for. Why? Is
it because it was the first to awaken the echoes of
the virgin forests of this country? Is it because
French discoverers opened up to civilisation these
vast Territories at the present time peopled by the
English? Is it because French missionaries went
and poured out their blood, in order to teach the
Indians, who dwelt in these places, the first rudiments of Christianity and civilisation?
The county
represented by the member for North Simcoe is
situate on the shores of the same great lake which
formerly heard the moans of the French martyrs,
whom the Indians put to death with most horrible
tortures. These were cries of Frenchmen, and at
this time there were not there any Englishmen to
protest against the use of the French language.
These unfortunate Jesuits, who in this way shed
their generous blood, were far from suspecting
that later on a member representing a county
bearing the name of this great Lake would rise in
this House to insult the French language They
were far from dreaming that this soil which they
had watered with their blood would yield so bitter
a harvest; they little thought that their great
work would be in this way so quickly sent into
oblivion by those very people, who, this very day,
reap the fruit of their labors, as well as of their heroic
courage. If the member for North Simcoe wishes
to abolish the French language let him commence
by tearing off from the coat of arms of the English monarchy these extremely French
words:
"Dieu et mon droit,"—"Honi soit qui mal y
pense." These extremely French mottoes blaze
above the heads of the judges on their bench.
What does the member for North Simcoe mean by
not having asked for the disappearance of the
remainder of this barbarous old custom? How
does it happen that he has not yet protested
against the use of the French language in sanctioning the Bills in this country, as
well as in
England? You can never abolish the French language; for if, unfortunately, there are
to be found
men who desire its abolition, there are also men
with honest hearts who know how to respect
stipulations made in the past, and to place themselves above prejudices of race and
religion, to
whom is visible nothing but holy and immutable
justice. Evil be to those who come forward in
this way to light up the fire of discord and to
appeal to the most dangerous prejudices. History
will hold them severely accountable for their want
of wisdom and patriotism. One of our poets,
Fréchette, who has won so much honor for the
French language in Canada, has, in some admirable
verses, given advice which I recommend to the
serious consideration of the member for North
Simcoe:
"He whose glance governs the universe, in His wisdom
gave this fruitful soil to the various nations, as a father's
free gift. Christian feeling should maintain the equilibrium of peace among all the
children in this common
cradle. Their peaceful occupation has lasted for fifty
years—the twig has become a great tree and spreads
itself afar over the plain. Evil be to those serpents
whose baleful breath spreads throuahout its branches
pestiferous breathlngso hatreds, conflicts and rivalries,"
Mr. AMYOT. Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. This is the
sixth day of this debate, and, certainly, I think
my hon. friend opposite will agree with me
it is time it should be finished. I should like to
ask my hon. friend whether he thinks We cannot
have the division to-night.
Mr. LAURIER. I am quite sure, that unless
we sit until 6 o'clock in the morning, we cannot
have the division at this sitting. I will, however,
do my very best, without committing myself at
all, to bring the debate to a close to-morrow.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. It is usual that
there should be some understanding of this kind
across the floor, and if I had some assurance from
my hon. friend that we could close the debate tomorrow, I would not object to an adjournment.
Mr. LAURIER. The hon. gentleman will understand that this is a debate in regard to which it
is more difficult than usual to have an understanding across the floor. However, I
will say this: I
963
[COMMONS] 964
have every reason to hope that we shall close the
debate to-morrow, and I will do my very best to
bring it to a close then.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Under these
circumstances, I will not oppose the motion of my
hon. friend for the adjournment of the debate, and
I will move that it be made the first Order of the
day to-morrow.
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Motion agreed to; and Hous eadjourned at 1
a. m. (Friday).
This individual participated in:
