THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN THE NORTH- WEST.
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. McCarthy for second reading
of Bill (No. 10) to further amend the Revised
Statutes of Canada, chapter 50, respecting the
North-West Territories; the motion of Mr. Davin
in amendment thereto, and the motion of Sir
John Thompson in amendment to the amendment.
Mr. AMYOT. Owing to the fact that this
House consented, on my motion last night, to adjourn the debate, and owing also to
the fact that a
great many members desire to leave to-night, I
will shorten my remarks as much as possible.
Before entering into the merits of the amendment,
which we have to discuss and upon which we are
called upon to vote, I will say a few words in
answer to the speech of the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). That hon. gentleman persists in saying that the treaties never
insured to the
French Canadians, or to those speaking the French
language in this country, the use of that language.
He has repeatedly said that the language is the
essence of a people's existence, so it must be the
first privilege of a people. I will call the attention
of the hon. gentleman to the Articles of Capitulation of Quebec, dated 18th September,
1759, where
we find the following as having been demanded
and granted:-—
"That the inhabitants shall be preserved in the possession of their houses, goods,
effects and privileges—"
The word "privileges" is there. What privilege
is greater than the language of the people?
—"granted upon their laying down their arms."
They laid down their arms, to take them up again
for the defence of the British flag. They knew
only one language then, but, with their old gun
and their old French language, they succeeded in
the better preservation and due distribution of the
keeping this country in the possession of the
British Crown. Now, if the hon. gentleman looks
at the capitulation of Montreal, signed in French
and English, he will find that it is stipulated that
"The French Canadians shall continue, as subjects
of the King, to be governed according to the custom of
Paris, and the laws and usages established for this
country."
If that does not include in the first place the language, I do not know what it includes.
Then I
will refer the hon. gentleman to the Treaty of
Paris, which was written only in French. It was
signed on the 10th February, 1763. I have had the
first article translated, because we do not find it in
English. This is what it says:
"There will be an universal, and perpetual, Christian- like peace, as well over land
as over sea, and a sincere
and immovable friendship will be established between
their Britannic Majesties * * * and between their heirs
and Successors, Kingdoms, States, provinces, countries,
subjects and vassals of whatsoever kind and condition they
may be, making no exception for rank or fortune; so that
the High Contracting parties will bestow the very greatest
attention upon the maintenance between themselves and
said States and subjects of this friendship and intercourse,
without permitting from henceforth, on one side or the
other, the commission of any acts of hostility, either by
land or sea, on any pretext whatever; and they will carefully avoid all that which
might tend to impair for the
future the union so happily established: endeavoring, on
the contrary, to secure for each other in turn on all occasions, all which may contribute
to their mutual glory, interests and advantages. * * * There will be a general
forgetfulness of all that may have been done or committed before or since the beginning
of the war now put
an end to."
You must not lose sight of the events of that time.
There had been a fight; both armies had behaved
most gloriously; we had about 12,000 men against
60,000 on the other side, and sometimes the fortune
was for us and sometimes against us. The last
battle, which was fought on the field of St. Foye,
was in favor of our arms. But then the Governor de Vaudreuil, one of the most miserable
creatures that ever came to this country, gave us up.
After that our troops went to Montreal; our brave
generals were discouraged at seeing such cowardice
and such treason on the part of the Governor. But
the Governor went up to Montreal and there
again capitulated. Then our troops went back
to France, and afterwards there was signed in
France, a treaty between England, France and
Portugal, which was a treaty of peace. The
different countries that had been the subject of
dispute were divided between these kingdoms,
and it was a cession of peace and nothing else.
That is the reason why, the other day, when the
hon. gentleman spoke of the conquest, I said it
was a cession, and not a conquest. I will now
draw the special attention of the hon. member to
chapter 18 of 14 George III, 1774, which is "An
Act to make more effectual provisions for the Government of the Province of Quebec
in North
America." The preamble says:
"Whereas His Majesty, by His Royal proclamation
hearing date 7th October in the third year of his reign,
thought fit to declare the provisions which had been made
in respect to certain countries, territories and isles in
America, ceded to His Majesty by the Definitive Treaty
of Peace concluded on the 10th of February, 1773."
I will not take up the time of the House in reading the Act; but I will quote, for
the satisfaction
of the hon. member for North Simcoe, sections 4
and 8 of that statute. In those times the use of
the French language was looked upon as so important that in 1790 an ordinance was
passed "for
the better preservation and due distribution of the
ancient French records." In the face of that I
965 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 966
wonder how the hon. member can pretend that the
use of the French language is not fully recognised
by the treaties and the ancient laws. I will not
take up the time of the House in reading any of
these statutes, but I will remark that the British
North America Act virtually makes the English
and French languages official in this country.
Then we have the Act which erects the North- West Territories and which establishes
the use of
the French language. Now, my hon. friend says
that the perpetuation of a race is only possible by
means of one language. I admit that there is a
great deal in that, though I will not admit it fully.
But in his mind thelanguage is the essence of a nation.
The second proposal is this: "We have the right
to destroy you French, and we will do it." Well, I
wonder where he gets that right. Is it in Divine
law, or human law, or in the jus gentium? Perhaps he gets it out of some wicked hearts, as I do
not know where else he could get it. I do not find
any source or trace for such a right. He says:
"Why do you get excited when I say that? I am
calm," he says, "I am moderate, but you get excited." Mr. Speaker, a big man may come
to you
and calmly say, "Please give me your money."
He may take a man by the throat and say, "Keep
quiet and I will choke you;" and he will be calm,
but he will not be just or right. It is perfectly
astounding to hear the representatives of three or
four millions say to the representatives of one
million and a half, "We are going to make you
disappear, we are calm, be calm." Well, a man
who makes such proposals deserves simply to
he laughed at, and that is the only answer I will
give the hon. member on that point. Now, he
says that we only want one language. Why? Is
it for the good of the country? I presume
that when there are two or three, or four races
in a country, it stimulates them to good objects.
Every one wants to do as well or better than
his neighbor, and it is for the good of the
nation. Is it for the peace of the country? Sir,
we have had the two languages here since 1760,
and have we had any trouble, have we had any
fighting? In the United States they have only one
language, it is true, but within a century they have
had a war that cost more lives and more money
than any other war the world has seen during the
last 400 years. I do not see that any good reason
has been given for the use of one language only.
At all events, if it is necessary, it is now too late
to say so. Confederation has gone into effect, and
if one language only was necessary we should have
been warned of it before we entered Confederation.
It is too late now to tell us that we want only one
language, one nation. If we want to change the
terms and condition of the charter, we shall have
to begin over again. If we are not willing to stand
by the treaty that has been made, if we desire to
change the conditions, then we shall have to begin
at the beginning; because in law the consent of
the parties is given upon certain facts, and when
those facts are erroneous the convention is null and
vonl. My hon. friend is too good a lawyer not to
know that. Every time the hon. gentleman has a
chance he brings up the Riel affair. I wish the
hon. gentleman was in his seat; at all events, I will
say what I intended, and he will be able to read
it in the Hansard. What is the Riel affair? He
does not seem to have understood it since it occurred, although it is a very simple
matter. I shall
not undertake to discuss the merits of that affair,
but I want to state how, as a matter of fact, it
occurred, and how it presented itself to the country. Riel had had his trial and had
been recommended to mercy. For my part, I had always
looked upon Riel as having been a madman,
working for a noble cause, if you will, but still
a madman, who, when he spoke of religion or
politics, became perfectly insane, so much so that
he wanted to go to Rome and be made a pope.
He wanted to rule over the whole world. After
his condemnation and the recommendation to
mercy, it was stated that the man was mad, and
the Government became anxious about it, and sent
doctors up to examine him, and we know what report they made. Under the circumstances,
petitions were signed to obtain his pardon, and his
pardon was promised us. Then, Mr. Speaker,
there is this point to which I wish to draw the
attention of my hon. friend: when the Government was ready to grant the pardon, or
to confine the man in an asylum for the rest of his
days, what occurred? Petitions were presented
signed by those whom the hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) represents. The
question then rested between those petitions
and the promises of the Government and the
Province of Quebec. It had been promised by
the Ministers, that if we prayed for Riel's release it would be granted. The Government
preferred to accede to those people who signed
those petitions, and that was the origin of the
trouble to-day. The Government preferred to
grant the request of those petitioners, and we felt
insulted. That is the whole case in a nutshell. If
my learned friend cannot understand it, I am
sorry; but these facts cannot be changed. Immediately afterwards the ministerial papers
and
many others joined hands to form a new party,
and, as we had to give it a name, we called it the
National party. There is no more harm in calling it
by that name than there is in calling our fiscal
policy the National Policy. We had a right
to use the word National as other men in other
countries use it. We chose that name, and since
then that party has existed in the Province of
Quebec. It commands a majority in the Province,
even although my hon. friend opposite (Mr.
McCarthy) calls it a bastard party. I do not
know anything regarding his domestic habits; but
I may tell him that, in our Province, if a man used
such an expression, we would say that he had
been very badly brought up; and if he were to say
that in a private house, he would be put out. I
will not give the hon. gentleman any other reply,
except the emphatic statement that our party is
not bastard. It has for its parents, love of country
and self-respect; but we would prefer that it
should be bastard rather than it should have a
father like the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy). It was under those circumstances
that we broke away from our allegiance to our old
chiefs. It pained me to leave the ranks of those
with whom I had been fighting for twenty years;
it was hard to give up all my old friends;
but my conscience dictated my action, and I
accepted the consequences. That party exists;
and I must say to the hon. member for Iberville
(Mr. BĂ©chard) that, if he does not know it, he
reminds me of the old Frenchmen who are still
working for Napoleon I.
967 [COMMONS] 968
Mr. BÉCHARD. I did not say this party did
not exist. I said it did exist; but that the old
Liberals still existed too.
Mr. AMYOT. There may be a few—there
were not enough at all events, to get power. But
please remember it is a political party, whatever
there may be in a name. I trust that certain
parties will cease presenting the position of that
party under false colors. I presume we have
the right to form a party, and if it should not
please us we have the liberty to give it up and
form another. The hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) attacked our schools; I
wonder if the hon. gentleman has ever read any of
the books which are given to our scholars; I
wonder if he knows what is taught in our schools!
He seems to ignore the fact that in the Province
of Quebec we have Protestant schools which are
conducted on the same lines as ours, except that
the Protestants teach Protestant doctrines and
the Catholics teach Catholic doctrines; but as
regards the rest they are the same. If the hon. gentleman wishes to visit our schools
we will admit him with
French politeness, with which we are trying to
equalise British politeness; and if the hon.
gentleman sees what is taught there, he will
see that we teach our children to obey the
laws of God and man, to be faithful
to the Crown and to the laws which ensure
the welfare of man and of a country. It is
a singular habit on the part of that sect—I do not
see there is any other name I could give it—to be
always making an attack. We never attack. In
the Riel matter we were on the defensive. The
members of that sect undertake to attack our
schools, but we never attack the schools of Ontario.
Why do they not leave our schools alone, when we
let their schools alone? let everybody mind his
own business. Next, the hon. gentleman attacked
Mr. Mercier. The politics of Mr. Mercier are discussed in the Legislature three months,
and every
day of the year in the press, and some persons
hold that he is very good, while others say that
he is very bad. The hon, member for North Simcoe, however, imagines that in two words
he will
condemn that hon. gentleman in the face of the
universe. I only wish he would meet Mr. Mercier
on the stump, and then the hon. member for North
Simcoe would find that, in spite of his talents, it
would be very hard work to convince his audience
that Mr. Mercier is guilty of half the sins
with which he is charged. Mr. Mercier has done
more for the good of his country since he
has been in power than the hon. gentleman
will ever be able to do harm. I now come to
the Bill which is at present under consideration
of the House. I desire to say a word or two in
regard to the preamble. There is a great difference
between the preamble of this Bill as compare with
the preamble of the Jesuit Bill. The preamble of
the Jesuit Bill was a recital of facts and nothing
else, and we had either to accept the Bill as a
whole or to reject it entirely. The preamble of
the hon. gentleman's Bill, however, is a preamble for
which this House will be responsible, and contains
a declaration of principle. As the Bill is unacceptable to the House, an amendment
has been
proposed. The hon. member for North Simcoe
wants to take away the whole of the French
language in the North-West; but the amendment
says: no; we will take only part away. It occurs
to me that we are legislating to take away from
the half-breeds rights secured by statute, without
even allowing them to be heard or without consulting them, and without their being
represented
in any way; and this is done at a time when no one
expected that any such legislation would be proposed. The amendment seems to be unjust
to the
people of the Province of Quebec. If we diminish
the strength of the French language in any part of
the Confederation, we reduce the strength of the
language as a whole. That is unjust, because
when we entered into Confederation it was promised that we would receive full justice
and never
lose any of our rights. Since that time we have
been asked to contribute millions to open up the
North-West and to build up magnificent railroads.
Yet that is the way we are recompensed now. I
think it is both unjust and unfair. I believe, further,
that the passing of this Bill would establish a bad
precedent, for if we once declare that we will change
either the Imperial or Federal charters, the door
will be opened for all kinds of trouble and confusion. Every year we will have petitions
sent to
England, or forwarded here, asking for repeals and
changed, and there will never be peace in the Confederation. We should lay down the
rule that our
constitutional charters shall never be changed except by the unanimous consent of
the parties concerned. The first change in those charters is to do
injustice to these four or five thousand Canadians
of French origin who live on the prairies of the
North-West, and who have no representative in
this Parliament. By the Bill proposed we do not
confer any favors on them; we take away from
them important rights without any reason whatever.
I warn my friends from other Provinces who are in
favor of the Federal system, that this first change
may lead to other changes and that the end will result
in legislative union. There is a germ of legislative
union in the Bill of the member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy). It is an insult to nearly half the
population of Canada; it contains false principles;
and, unfortunately, the Government, to a certain extent, yield to it. The Bill is
unjust to the half- breeds, because it takes away from them vested
rights granted to them by this Parliament in the
Act of 1877. If you give a man a hundred dollars,
you have no right to take twenty dollars back
from him; and yet this is exactly the way in which
Parliament proposes to treat the people of the
North-West. This Bill, if adopted, would be
unfair to the half-breeds, to whom we owe much,
because through them we have been enabled to
make treaties with the Indians and to enter peaceably into the North-West. I have
documents here,
which, if I could detain the House by reading,
would show that our possession of that territory
is due in a great measure to the half-breeds. For all
these benefits we have received, the recompense
proposed by the member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) is that we should take away their language and their rights. For years we
have ill- treated this people. We sent a legion of surveryours
amongst them to change the form of their lands,
against their wishes, and when they complained we
laughed at them. We pushed them to rebellion.
When they held indignation meetings to protest
against the conduct of the Government, we
took that for a declaration of war and we sent
our Mounted Police to fire upon them. Then we
969 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 970
sent four thousand troops against them, and at a
cost of a hundred lives and six million dollars we
managed to destroy their property and to kill
many of them. There were the claims of Indians
and half-breeds. To the Indians we gave land which
was not transferable, but to the half-breeds we
offered land or scrip. These children of the prairie
naturally preferred this scrip, and besides the men
who gave the scrip were the speculators with
money and whiskey, who cheated them out
of their property. This I know from my own
knowledge, because I have seen it done. I shall
not at the present time refer to the letter of
Monseigneur Grandin, but we all know his complaints. It is our duty as a nation, having
some
respect for itself, that we should cease to inflict
evils on the people of these Territories, and that
we should not inflict another one on them by
depriving them of their language. In the prayer
you have just read, Mr. Speaker, we prayed God to
have peace and harmony, and we should remember
that peace and harmony are as desirable for these
poor people as for us in this House. If we want
to be just, if we want to be proud of being Canadians, we must see that this injustice
shall cease.
I do not say that it is altogether the fault of the
Government, for probably they are not acquainted
with the fact that this injustice is inflicted, but
they should ascertain it, and I believe that if they
did know the facts they would see that justice
should be dealt out to these weak people. There
is also another grievance to the effect that when
the country was divided for election purposes, the
division was such that the French people could not
elect a representative. The member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) states that there is
unanimity in the Council on this question.
That is a very poor argument, when it
Is remembered that we began by preventing the half-breeds from electing the representatives
they were entitled to. Such an argument will, I am sure, have very little weight with
an intelligent body of men, such as compose this
House. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that
there is a national danger in abolishing the French
language, as is proposed by the member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)? Do not you think the
French language is the best safeguard against annexation? If the people of this country
were all
English-speaking, annexation would come in a
very short time. What will prevent annexation
is the determination of the Province of Quebec to
maintain its own language. The people there are
not willing to give up the present state of affairs
and risk going elsewhere. If we were not a loyal
people, if we were not devoted to the Queen, if we
were not loyal to the Confederation, does it not
strike you, Mr. Speaker, that we might apply
to our neighbors in the United States, and to our
million of French Canadians there, for help? The
United States never took any country by force.
but at the same time they never refused a country
which wished to be annexed to them. We do not
want annexation, however. We want to remain Canadians. We want to form a grand
nationality composed of the different races.
We want Canada to remain a great country, and
we want to form a part of it; but do not abuse
that sentiment. You who believe in divorce, do
not suppose that we are disposed to endure constant
Insults such as those thrown at us by certain por
tions of the English press, especially when they
are repeated on the floor of this House by a party,
led by a man of talent who stands at the head of
the bar of Ontario. We are loyal, and we want
to remain loyal. I repeat the words I quoted the.
other day, that the last gun which will be fired
in defence of the British flag on this continent, will
be discharged by a French Canadian; but there is
another sentence which we must not forget. littered
by a traveller, who said that the first gun that
would be fired for the independence of Canada,
would be discharged by a French Canadian from
the States. There is no danger with us. We are
frank and loyal and just—just to the minority
and just to every one; we never attack; we only
want to keep what we have. Under the eyes of
God, we want to grow and prosper with our
neighbors and friends in this country, peaceably
and harmoniously, and I implore that faction to
stop their attacks, and to leave us to the
peaceablc enjoyment of our rights. What
harm is done to them if our farmers speak
French in their homes? When we come here as
representatives of the people, do you find anything wrong with us—any dishonesty,
any tricks,
any complots against you? Are we not loyal subjects? Then, why not let us alone? What
harm will it do you if the ordinances of
the North-West Council are printed in French,
so that the priests may read them to the loyal
subjects who only understand French? What need
is there to save a few paltry dollars, if, thereby,
you throw the country into an immense danger?
The responsibility of that faction is very great, but
I know that the good sense of the country will
soon put an end to their agitation. I am not
threatening; I am only exposing the facts. If we
want to form a large and compact country, let us
not constantly be putting in the hands of one part
of the population weapons which must be opposed by
another part. Now, Sir, the hon. Premier through
the hon. Minister of Justice, for whom I have the
greatest personal respect, proposed the compromise
amendment which has been offered to us. That
compromise, I believe, is dictated by sincere and
patriotic views. Whether I accept it or not, I am
happy to see that both parties can forget their
differences and join hands, in order to try to put
a stop to this harmful agitation. It is true,
the amendment itself attacks one of the roots of
the tree of Confederation; but I am happy to see
that the chiefs of both parties can agree to this
compromise, without saying whether I can sanction it by my vote or not. In concluding
my
remarks, which I abridge so as to accommodate my
hon. colleagues, I will repeat, that if we want the
Confederation to go on, if we want harmony and
prosperity in this country, we must cease to attack
each other, we must respect the rights of each
other, we must leave each one to the enjoyment of
his aspirations, his religion and his language; we
must give full liberty to everyone, so that all will
be free to work for the common good of the country.
Mr. CHARLTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while I
refer to some matters which I deem it proper to
refer to before this debate closes. I can endorse,
most heartily, the sentiment given utterance to by
the speaker who has just preceded me, as to our
regard to the mutual rights of the inhabitants of
971 [COMMONS] 972
the various Provinces. If we should treat each
other in a spirit of disregard for those rights, it
would be a misfortune, a calamity, to the country.
I am not able to understand, however, that the
rights of the French-speaking community of the
North-West, with regard to language, are vested
rights. They certainly are not vested rights in the
sense of the rights conferred by the British North
America Act on the French inhabitants of the
Province of Quebec. These rights were granted
by the North-West Territories Act in 1877, and, in
my belief, it is quite competent for the Legislature
which granted those rights to repeal the enactment
by which they were granted. Now, I have noticed,
in the treatment of this by almost all the speakers
opposed to the Bill under consideration, a disposition to magnify the evils which
are likely to
result from this discussion, and to place on false
ground the object sought by the Bill, and the
consequences likely to result from its passage. It
is asserted that the Bill is conceived in a spirit of
enmity to the French race, and that the effect of
its passage would be to set the two races at each
other's throats and to disturb all the good relations
existing between them-that, in short, it is a
public calamity, that the subject of the retention
of the dual languages in the North-West should be
mooted at all. If this is the case, we are unable
to approach this subject in any sense without the
consequences to which I have alluded. The real
subject before us is not a design to assault the inhabitants of a great Province in
this Dominion, to
abridge their rights or to attack their languages or
their institutions, or to interfere with vested rights
that exist in accordance with the provisions
of the British North American Act. That
is not the design of this Bill. The hon.
gentleman who brings this Bill before the
House expressly disavows any such designs. The
design of the Bill is to retrace the false setp which,
in the estimate of some members of this House, has
been taken in forming the institutions of a new
land, be repealing clause 110 of the North-West
Territories Act and leaving to the people of those
Territories the full and free exercise of Provincial
rights in establishing their own institutions, without being handicapped by us by
any legislation
here, and thus replace them in the position of
doing, as they should have had the right to do in
the beginning, what they please is this matter.
Now, there are three plans before this House:
There is the Bill of the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy); there is the amendment
of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin);
and there is the amendment of the hon. Minister
of Justice (Sir John Thompson). The first of
these plans is a direct one, and the one which I
prefer. It proposes to settle this question at once,
so far as this Parliament is concerned. The second
is in some respect of the same character as the
first. It proposes to recognise the assertion as
true that the existing state of things in the North- West Territories shall not be
insisted on as permanent by this House; but it proposes to remove
from our shoulders the responsibility of dealing with
this question and to relegate it to the Assembly of
the North-West Territories after the next elections,
when that assembly shall have power to deal with
the whole question. Plan number three is not
only indirect but partial. It proposes, in the same
indirect way, to shift the responsibility from our
shoulders of dealing with this question and to place
it upon the shoulders of the North-West Assembly,
but it proposes to deal with only one feature of the
case, namely, the use of the French language in
the Legislative Assembly, leaving untouched the
use of that language in the courts of the North- West and in the printing of the ordinances.
In
my opinion, the plan proposed by the hon. Minister
of Justice is the least worthy of our consideration
and support; and I must say that, after listening
attentively to all the arguments advanced during
the long debate on this question-which I do not
consider a question that ought to create that degree
of bitterness of feeling which exists-I am persuaded
that we ought to settle this difficulty promptly
and peremptorily in our capacity as the sovereign
source of power in this matter, by retracing the
steps we took in the year 1877. I cannot understand that the use of the French language
in the
courts, provided for by the 133rd clause of the
British North America Act, contemplates the use
of the language in courts such as these established
in the North-West. The language of that section
is as follows:—
"Either the English of the French language may be
used by any person in the debates of the House of the
Parliament of Canada and of the House of the Legislature
of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the
respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and
either of those languages may be used by any person, or
in any pleading or process in, or issuing from, any court
of Canada established under this Act, and in, or from, all
or any of the courts of Quebec."
Now, here is a remarkable difference in the language used regarding the courts of
Quebec and
the courts of Canada. Either language is to be used
in any and all of the courts of Quebec, but they
are both to be used in any court of Canada established under this Act only. What is
a court of
Canada established under this Act? The 101st
section explains that:
"The Parliament of Canada may, not withstanding anything in this Act, from time to
time, provide for the constitution, maintenance and organisation of a general
Court of Appeal for Canada, and for the establishment of
any additional courts for the better administration of the
laws of Canada."
So that reference is had in this 133rd clause to
such courts as may be established in virtue of the
authority conferred under section 101—such as the
Court of Appeals, the Exchequer Court, or any
court established as a Court of Canada for the
settlement of questions pertaining to the Dominion
of Canada in which our French subjects and English subjects will meet for the purpose
of trying
cases from all the Provinces. But this clause does
not, in my opinion, interfere with or apply to the
courts of any Province in this Dominion, except
the specially named courts of the Province of Quebec.
We have had a great deal of talk about
Provincial rights in connection with this matter.
In my opinion, any action but that proposed by
the hon. member for North Simcoe would be a
violation of the fundamental principle of Provincial
rights. The hon. member for North Simcoe proposes to repeal clause 110. He proposes
to give
the inhabitants of the North-West Territories the
right to form their own institutions when they become a Province; he proposes to leave
them in the
full and unrestricted possession of Provincial
rights. But the amendment of my hon. friend
Â
973 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 974
of the hon. Minister of Justice do not propose to
do this; they only propose to make the condition, that we shall retain this authority
and
power which we have exercised and this law on the
Statute-book until we have consulted the Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories.
The amendment of the hon. Minister of Justice
proposes further, that we shall absolutely
retain a portion of the abuse complained of, and
only remove it in so far as it may apply to the
Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories; and neither amendment meets so
fully the
principle of Provincial rights as the proposition of
the hon. member for North Simcoe, the essence of
which is that we shall withdraw our interference, and allow the people of the North-West
to deal with this matter themselves. That is
the proper and the direct way to deal with
this question. I see no reason to change the
opinion I have formed, or to withdraw my support from the Bill, which I announced
I intended
to support. The use of the dual language and
Separate Schools are local institutions, which we
have no right, as a Parliament, to impose upon
any section of this country. They are institutions
which should be established, which should be
arranged for, which should be legislated upon, by
the Provincial authorities of the Province in which
they may exist. I do not say that I would not
consider that the Governor in Council has not the
power to veto a Bill of this kind on the ground
of general advantage or in the general interests of the
Dominion; but I do say that, in my belief, the
Government has no right to establish local institutions in any portion of the territories
of Canada.
For that reason, I believe that this clause 110 should
be repealed. We must remember that Canada was
formerly a military colony; we must remember
that divergencies existed between the old French
colonies and the English colonies in America; and
these differences of opinion, these differences of
institutions, and these differences of instincts, have,
to a certain extent, come down to the present day.
Canada was a military colony; it had feudal institutions; and the thirteen colonies
were quite
different from Canada. The Saxon colonies are
quite different in many respects from the colony of
Quebec; it is natural, therefore, that friction should
arise between these two systems, and it is in the
last degree unwise to extend the area of that
friction. It would be much better to restrict it to
the Province where the question under debate was
first at issue, as we would do by repealing this
clause and leaving the people of the North-West
to settle the matter by themselves, than to set ourselves by the ears, from one end
of the Dominion
to the other, as we have been doing.
The hon. the leader of the Opposition has made
a speech, which, I can say most sincerely, was, in
my estimation, a most able speech, one which I
admired exceedingly both for its spirit and tone,
and for the tact displayed in it by that hon. gentleman in dealing with that question;
and one which
I admired also for the sentiments it breathed in
defence of his race and native tongue, in respect of
which I could almost respond to the sentiments
he uttered; but I think he was mistaken in
saying that this Bill necessarily provokes enmity
between the two races, that it necessarily sets
them against each other in a spirit of hostility. I
do not think it is necessary to take that view. I
do not think the scope of the question extensive
enough or the issues involved great enough
to warrant the two great races setting themselves by the ears in this matter. It is
a local
question, a question affecting a certain locality
in this Dominion, it is in one sense a small question
at this moment, affecting only a few thousand
people. It may be a great question as to the
future, but at present it is a small question comparatively, and it is a question
we may as well settle
at once and take out of the way.
In the course of the speeches which have been
made, I have been severely criticised in some
respects. My hon. friend the member for
Kent, N.B. (Mr. Landry) took up an extract
from a speech made by me at Essex Centre
on the 12th July, in which I rather facetiously alluded to the alliance between my
hon.
friend the Minister of Customs and my hon.
friend the Minister of Public Works as being
rather incongruous, and said that, when they were
lying in the same bed, the representative of the
French nationality and the grand master of the
Orange Order, that the friendship was rather a
peculiar and suspicious one; and that I thought
they could not both be acting according to their
principles, and that I thought my hon. friend the
Minister of Customs would be the one who would
be sold. I do not know that that remark should
be considered as offensive. We have seen other
incongruous spectacles; for instance, during this
debate, Pilate and Herod have been made
friends together for we have seen the leaders
of the two political parties, no doubt from
patriotic motives, acting in concert; and that is
a very unusual thing to see. They have been endeavoring to arrange this matter in
certain ways,
whereas I think the simplest way would be to
repeal the clause to which I have referred.
My hon. friend the member for West Durham
(Mr. Blake), in the course of his very able speech,
advanced the argument that it was necessary to
keep up the French language in the North-West
for the purpose of encouraging immigration; and
the First Minister said he would be willing to have
German made an official language there also, in
order to encourage immigration. No doubt, he
would be willing to go further and adopt the
Gaelic or any other language for that purpose. The
question is: is the retention of that language or
any other necessary to encourage immigration into
that country? In the year 1871, the hierarchy of
your own Province, Mr. Speaker, issued a joint
letter warning the French Canadians against
emigrating to the New England States, which, it
was said, would imperil their spiritual interests,
which would prove very dangerous to themselves,
and which was something they ought not to do.
At the same time, the hierarchy requested the
people of that Province who might desire to
emigrate to migrate to the Canadian North-West.
What was the effect of that letter; what was the
effect of that warning and of those arguments;
what was the effect of these mandates, in the name
of the Church, upon the Canadian French of the
Province of Quebec? Did they quit going to Massachusetts and flock in large bodies
to the North- West? Did the existence of the dual language in the
North-West draw thousands of the French Canadian people there, or did the fact that
there was
no dual language in Massachusetts and Vermont
975
[COMMONS] 976
prevent them from going to those States? On the
contrary, there are to be found in the New England
States more French Canadians than there are inhabitants in Manitoba, the North-West
and British Columbia together, with a score or more thousand added
to that number. They have gone to New England in
spite of that mandate; they have gone to a country
where English is the only language spoken; they
have refused to listen to their own hierarchy; they
have done what they were entreated not to do, and
they have not done what they were entreated to do.
I think that is a fair argument to show that the
retention of the French language in the North-West
is unnecessary to promote immigration to that
country. The Germans go there, and the Icelanders go there, though their languages
are not
official there, and I do not think that the absence of
their language as an official one is the slightest bar
to their immigration to that country.
In connection with this question of the anxiety of
our French friends for the continuance of their rights
—and it is a most natural anxiety on their part—it
is, perhaps, a little significant that, one after another,
the municipalities of the Province of Quebec are
abolishing the use of the English tongue. I am informed that the great majority of
those municipalities have already abandoned it. Wherever a municipal council petitions
for power to abolish the
use of English in its proceedings it is very soon
obtained; an order is issued in the Official Gazette,
and the use of English ceases. In view of this
fact, I think our friends should not raise so much
trouble in reference to the abolition of the use of
French in a country which probably has no more
population than an ordinary municipality in the
Province of Quebec.
The hon. First Minister warned us of the terrible
consequences of drawing up two races against
each other. He said this was a question which
could afford to wait, and a moment afterwards
he said: For Heaven's sake, bury this and get
it out of sight. It is certainly lamentable that
two races should be drawn up against one
another; but, if one race is drawn up, if that
race is acting and aiming at a common purpose,
it may become necessary to have some organisation in the other race, and our French
friends
have never, in my recollection, or, so far as I know,
in the history of Canada, failed to press their own
claims and to stand by their own interests. It may
be necessary to watch the opposite party, because
their devotion to their language, their religion and
their race—which may be perfectly proper in their
case and from their standpoint—may lead to
demands, which, in the view of an impartial
observer, ought not to be granted. In that case,
the exhortation of the First Minister to beware
of arraying one race against another, is out of
place, because the English-speaking population
in this country have always acted in a spirit
of generosity and a spirit of magnanimity;
necessary to take some precautions for the
future, it is not in a spirit of enmity to the
French population, but, looking at the
great North-West with all its resources,
regarding it as the foundation of a great empire,
we are justified in doing so if we have arrived at
the conclusion that it is better at the outset to
have the institutions there formed on the proper
basis, when it can be done without any great con
tention, and to say that we will start with the
English language and go on there with that language as the official one. I do not
think it can be
properly said by the First Minister that those who
are in favor of that obviously common-sense arrangement are arraying one race against
another.
Some of our speakers on this side appear to me to
lack judiciousness. My hon. friend from West
Ontario (Mr. Edgar), for instance, warned the
French to beware of their enemies. Who are
their enemies? I deny that they have an enemy
in this House, or in this country, or that any demand is made in this Bill which indicates
enmity
to the French race in this Dominion. The hon. member from Iberville (Mr. BĂ©chard),
last night, in his
temperate speech, spoke of the demagogues, whose
designs were to provoke dissension and disaster.
Was the hon. gentleman warranted in classing as
demagogues those who seek for abolition of the
dual language in the North-West? Is there anything like the spirit of the demagogue
in this proposition to undo what we sincerely believe to have been
a wrong step, and to place upon a proper basis the
institutions for the future of a great country? If
there is an act which is worthy of being characterised
as an act of statemanship which has come under
my observation in this Parliament of Canada, it is
an act of that character. Then the hon. gentleman
read an extract from a speech delivered to his constituents last summer in which he
proposed, as a remedy for all these unendurable evils which the French
race was suffering at the hands of those who asked
for equal rights—he proposes as a remedy annexation to the United States. Well, Sir,
how much
better off would his race he in that position?
Would there be any less pressure that would tend
towards unification of race and language? Would
the influence brought to bear upon them be
of a less aggravating character, if they wished to
retain their isolation? Would the United States
treat with a greater degree of forbearance than
the Saxon population of this country does, the
peculiar institutions of Quebec? Why, there
would be danger of their being denied admission
to the Union as is the case with Utah until they
had adopted a Republican form of government and
had rid themselves of medieval institutions.
My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior says:
"Oh, this is a small matter; what is the use of making
this row over a cost amounting to $1,000 a year, or so?
Let the whole thing go. Do not make the trouble
you are making about this question." As I said
before, it is not a matter of the cost; it is not a
matter of the pressing importance of the question
at this moment in any respect whatever. We are
looking to the future, we are looking to the consequences in the future, and it is,
because it is a
comparatively small and trifling matter in itself,
that we can now deal with it with so much greater
facility and ease than we can by-and-bye when it
becomes a great matter, involving great issues in the
North-West. My hon. friend from the Queen's (Mr.
Davies) tells us that the preamble is a matter
of no great account. I agree with him. He
says: Let the people decide. I agree with
him most fully. The only fault I have to find
with him is, that he will not act upon his assertion. He says: Let the people decide
the question;
and then he proposes to refuse to allow the people
to decide the question. I say, let the people decide
the question. Repeal the 110th clause, leaving
977 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 978
them perfectly untrammelled; let them start de
noco and decide whether they will have the dual
language or not; leave them perfectly free to deal
with their local institutions, without interference
or meddling with them on our part.
My hon. friend, the Secretary of State, who,
I see, is in his seat, had some strictures to make
on my remarks, and I will ask the attention of
the House for a moment while I refer to one or
two of them. The hon. gentleman told us that
the Protestants of Quebec did not complain. Well,
I do not know that the Protestants of Quebec
have any great reason to complain; it would be,
however, only natural, as they are in a very small
minority in that Province, that they should be
cautious about making complaints, because the
evincing of a spirit of captiousness, or what is
termed such by the majority, might lead to their
having greater reasons for complaint. But I have
heard complaints from the Province of Quebec. For
instance, I heard complaints last year about the
degradation of the degrees of Protestant universities.
Mr. CHARLTON. Yes, these complaints led to
the remedy of that evil. A Bill has been passed
to remedy the evil, and the passage of that Bill is
equivalent to a confession that the Protestants had,
in this matter, just cause of complaint.
Mr. CHARLTON. I believe that all the grievances and the difficulties between the two races:
might be settled in the same spirit. Then we have
the question of the division of the school funds. I
do not know if that has been settled or not, but
there have been some complaints about that—
Mr. CHARLTON—taking the school funds paid
by corporations, such as the Bank of Montreal, the
Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific
Railway, of whom the great majority of the stock
holders are Protestants, and dividing the taxes
paid by these corporations between Protestants and
Catholics in relative proportion to the population,
whereas they ought to be divided in proportion to
the religion of those who paid the taxes.
Mr. CHARLTON. Not now, but I understood
that it was the case once. Complaint was made,
and I think the evil has been remedied, although I
speak under correction with regard to that matter.
Then, the hon. gentleman makes an allusion to
something which I have said in one of the speeches
I made in the country, and which he thinks was of
the most insulting character to the French population—something, I think, with regard
to cutting
a road tothe St. Lawrence with the sword. Well,
Mr. Speaker, upon one occasion, I forget where, when
we were somewhat warm over these declarations in
Quebec—and, by-the-bye, let me state that I am
happy to learn that the language attributed to Mr.
Mercier has been very much modified by a more
authentic report of his remarks—but when we
were somewhat roused by the talk about a French
nationality, and French national institutions, and
the building up of a French state at the mouth of
the St. Lawrence, I did say, I think once, in one
of my speeches, that if the French inhabitants of
Quebec attempted to create a separate nationality.
planting themselves upon the St. Lawrence and
denying the western Provinces access to the sea, in
that case it would lead to an attempt to cut a road
to the sea with the sword. I have nothing to retract upon that score. If that attempt
were made,
such a result would unquestionably follow.
Now, Sir, a few words with regard to my
hon. friend from West Durham (Mr. Blake) and
the criticisms made by that hon. gentleman upon
the remarks I had made just before he spoke. I
may say that I spoke without due preparation: I
had only the time between ten o'clock in the morning,
and three in the afternoon to prepare my brief, and
in the haste of preparation I probably did fall into
some inaccuracy, and amongst these inaccuracies was
one, technical rather in its character, with regard to
the course adopted by the United States Government when Louisiana was purchased in
1803.
I stated that the United States Government, from
the inception, had sought by every means to secure
a single language, and had abolished the use of the
French. But I find that for the first few years
that policy was not so rigorously enforced as later
on, and the use of French was permitted, to a
limited extent, and in that sense my hon. friend
had me at a disadvantage; for I had gone upon the
assumption that the well understood general policy
of the Government had been more vigorously
enforced than probably was the case at the outset.
But so far as the policy of the United States Government was concerned, with the new
states along
the Mississippi where French settlements were established, and in all these settlements
outside of
Louisiana proper, the French language was never
used officially at all.
Mr. CHAPLEAU. The Civil Code of Louisiana
was printed in French in 1825.
Mr. CHARLTON. I am referring to the territories away to the north along the Mississippi and
the Missouri. But I am free to admit that in this
criticism upon the policy of the United States with
regard to Louisiana, I fell into a technical error,
although the position I took in regard to the general
policy of the United States with regard to Louisiana
and to all other portions of the country originally
settled by foreign nations and incorporated with
the United States, was perfectly correct. Then
the hon. gentleman indulged in some criticism
about the use of the pronoun "we;" he seemed
to be under an apprehension that I would convey
the impression that he acted with me, or believed
with me, in this matter. Now, Mr. Speaker, I
always desire to avoid giving ground for the charge
of egotism, and, consequently, avoid, as far as possible, the use of the pronoun "I."
I do not like
to see a large "I" used too freely. But, on this
occasion, I find that the hon. gentleman himself
used the word "we" in his speech, and used it on
several occasions. In speakin upon this occasion
when I used the word "we," I used it, not as including those who disagree with me,
but referring
to those, be their numbers great or small, who
agree with me in this matter. Perhaps, if it suits
the hon. gentleman, I may use the personal pronoun "I" and ignore the "we"—ignore
all who are
associated with me in this or other matters. But,
iin my opinion, this part of the hon. gentleman's
979
[COMMONS] 980
criticism was a very "wee" matter indeed, and the
spirit in which it was made was not one I admire
very highly.
In the course of the speeches made by different members of the House, the motives
of those
who engaged in the Equal Rights movement during
last summer have been very severely criticised.
We have been termed fanatics and demagogues,
and there is scarcely a term of disrespect in the
political vocabulary that has not been applied to
those gentlemen who saw fit to associate themselves in this movement in this House
and in the
country during last summer. I feel bound, under
the circumstances, as the question has been raised,
to say a few words in regard to this matter.
What, probably, were the motives, I would ask,
that actuated these thirteen men who stood up in
this House and voted against the 188 members?
What were, probably, the motives which actuated
those men in the course they took after the prorogation of Parliament? Do you think,
Sir, they were seeking after popularity? Was it with any desire to gain
political advantage that those men united and embittered their foes and made foes
of their friends?
You, Sir, sat in this House on the night that vote
was taken. Do you think any one of the thirteen
stood up under flattering and encouraging circumstances or because there was a great
advantage to
be gained? No; no one will suppose that such
was the case; and whatever may have been the
motives which actuated those men, you can
scarcely, under the circumstances, attribute that
action to base, mercenary or dishonest motives.
We felt that having taken that stand, it was perfectly proper to defend our position
in the country.
We felt that we were standing on principles that
were just, and it was as proper to vindicate them
upon the platform as upon the floor of the House
of Commons. We thought we were resisting the
investing of a dangerous order with special advantages and privileges. We may have
been mistaken, but we believed that was the case, and, acting
on that view, we submitted to the country similar
arguments to those we had presented on the floor
of this House. We believed we were resisting
an unconstitutional reference to a foreign potentate.
I believe it now, and believing it we felt bound to
act on that belief. We believed we were resisting
sectarian endowment from public funds. We
believed this, and we held that it was establishing
a precedent of the most dangerous character, and
believing that we acted honestly before the country
in denouncing it. We believed we were resisting a
dangerous encroachment by clerical power. Believing this we denounced it. We did not
propose, no
man who has taken part in this agitation ever proposed, to deprive any subject in
this country of any
rights he possessed. No man has ever proposed to
ask for himself what he was not prepared to give to
every citizen of this country. We ask no special
privileges; we merely resist the granting of special
privileges. We ask equal rights for all, special
privileges to none, a guarantee of the fundamental
principle of liberty to the subjects of this country.
I understand the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy) said he did not sympathise with
the movement made by the Equal Rights party in
discussing this question on the platforms of the
country. I believe it was a proper way to
influence public sentiment, and that it was necessary.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Perhaps the hon. gentle
man will allow me for a moment to say that I do
not think I said that; I did not mean to do so. I
said I took no part, because I realised that no
object would be gained.
Mr. CHARLTON. I understood the reason
why the hon. gentleman refrained from doing so
was because he disapproved of it, and I am
happy to receive his explanation. This movement, which is decried and condemned in
this
House, has, I believe, accomplished something;
and, I believe, what this movement has accomplished is of the most salutary character.
It has
certainly awakened public attention to the existence of a great public danger. I believe
it is due
to this movement that the agitation exists in
Manitoba with respect to the dual language and
the Separate Schools; and the abolition of both of
those evils, as I deem them to be, may be justly
attributed to the agitation that commenced with
the vote taken in this House on 29th March last.
I believe this agitation has succeeded in arousing
public sentiment in the North-West with respect
to the dual language, and the fact that we are
discussing to-day a Bill with respect to the
abolition of the French language in the North- West, and that we have in the North-West
a
sentiment so pronounced as to have demanded the
introduction of this Bill, is due to the agitation of
the question of equal rights up and down throughout the country since the prorogation
of the
House last Session. The harvest is satisfactory;
the results so far are abundantly satisfactory, if
nothing else is accomplished; and if this Bill
passes, or if the North-West is relieved of the
burden of the dual language, there is nothing else
to ask for, because the Constitution grants the
rest.
Mr. CHARLTON. We do not expect to have
any. I do not say there has been such an agitation.
I say there has been an agitation in Manitoba
against the dual language and separate schools, and
there has been an agitation in the North-West
Territories, and it is a foregone conclusion that in
some way or other the dual language will be removed there. On broad principles we
are dealing
with this question, and our sincere desire is to
secure homogeneity and assimilation. We desire it,
we do not expect to force it, or that it will come
immediately; we hope it will come some time by
the force of circumstances, and we hope, when the
day comes, that solution will be reached by a concensus of opinion among the people
of the Dominion.
We hope for this, and anything that will exert influence in this direction without
trampling on the
rights of other is something we may properly make
use of. The North-West is virgin soil, and any
seed that is undesirable should not be planted by
us there. Our first Act with respect to this question was wrong; I believe we cannot
do better
than change that Act, and in doing so we will
act strictly in consonance with the principle
of Provincial rights. With respect to vested rights
in the Province of Quebec, I repeat that, so far as
I am concerned and my influence extends, I have
no idea, thought, desire or purpose to deal with
the Provincial rights of Quebec in any sense whatever. I may entertain my opinion
as to whether
981 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 982
it is desirable for Quebec to have different institutions, and I may, in a proper
way and on a
proper occasion, express that opinion, I trust; but
so far as regard dealing in any manner with the
vested rights of Quebec, I would not be a party to
such an attempt or countenance it in any way
whatever. The proposal to divide the continent
between the two races is unreasonable. I consider
this country is under British institutions, and
although the French language prevailed when the
country was ceded to the British, and although the
French language has been recognised and certain
vested rights have been granted, yet the proposal
to divide this great country between the two races
and the two languages is unreasonable and unsatisfactory and not calculated to promote
the future
good of the country. The issue I think we all
recognise is inevitable; no matter in what way
we may deal with this question the dual language
in the North-West is doomed. It is doomed,
whether this Bill passes or not, whether the motion
of the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin), or even the motion of the hon. the Minister
of Justice passes; in either of these cases it is
useless to propose that the French language in the
great North-West will be retained for any length
of time, and to remove a source of irritation we
may as well meet the inevitable to-day, and expunge clause 110 from the North-West
Territories
Act, and leave those Territories in a position so
that when they frame Provincial institutions they
may deal with the question as they may choose on
the basis of Provincial rights.
Mr. HOLTON. I wish in a very few words to
emphasise the position whichI have so far taken, and
in which I propose continuing, with respect to the
measure now under the consideration of this House.
And at the outset I would say that I fully agree
with the majority of the speakers who have preceded me, in regarding its introduction
under
existing circumstances as a grave public calamity.
The principle involved in this measure is, of course,
a fairly debatable one. Yet after listening very
attentively to the discussion of the past week, and
more particularly to the speeches of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
I am
unable, in my own mind, to separate the Bill now
submitted to us from those speeches, or from the
utterances of himself and friends upon the public
platforms during the past twelve months. In fact,
Sir, the hon. member's advocacy of the proposed
enactment is but the fulfilment of the promise or
threat repeatedly made by him on the occasions
referred to—the first step in his utopian scheme
for welding and cementing the inhabitants of this
whole country into one harmonious English- speaking people. I do not wish to impute
motives to the gentlemen of the Equal
Rights Association? Many of them are personal friends of my own; and, whatever I may
think of their movement, I very cheerfully credit
them with all the sincerity of purpose in it which
they claim for themselves, or to which they are
entitled. Still, Sir, we cannot blind our eyes to
the fact that, as a most lamentable result of the
agitation which they have promoted and so persistently maintained throughout the country,
the
prejudices and animosities of the different elements
of our population have been unduly aroused, so
that to-day we find the public mind inflamed to a
degree that has probably not been equalled since
the unhappy period of half a century ago. And, Sir,
with the public mind thus excited and disturbed,
this measure is forced upon the attention of the
House, and in no sense as oil is poured upon the
troubled waters; under such circumstances, the
cool, calm deliberation to which a question of this
importance is entitled cannot possibly be had.
In this fact alone, I find good and sufficient reason
for supporting any proposition having for its purpose the postponement of the consideration
of the
measure. There is one matter to which I now feel
it my duty—as it certainly is my pleasure—to
make brief allusion: that is, the gross misconception which unfortunately obtains
in many quarters
outside the Province of Quebec, as to the true
relations existing between the two races in it—a
misconception for which I believe the present
agitation is very largely responsible. I may possibly be told outside of this House,
if not in it,
that I am neither qualified nor authorised to speak
here, for the minority of that Province. Still,
Sir, I am one of that minority; I have lived all my
days in that Province; my acquaintance with its
people is pretty extended. And, I do think, and
believe, that I fully represent the great majority
of my co-religionists there, when I say that on
the whole we have not very much to complain of.
I, Sir, am as staunch and pronounced a Protestant,
as loyal to my faith, as true to my race, as jealous
of my rights, and as fully determined to defend
them at all hazards, as any man sitting in this
House. But, Sir, I have never yet had reason or
occasion to imagine for a moment that my
civil or religious liberty—my life, property, or
any of the sacred rights which are mine, as a
free-born subject of Her Majesty—ever have
been, or are ever likely to be, in one whit in
greater jeopardy in my native Province, than if
I were a resident of any other portion of the Dominion. Of course, Sir, (and more
particularly in
those parts of the Province where we of the minority
are numerically weak) we do labor under certain
disadvantages; the inevitable incidents, I presume,
of being in a minority. Yet, aside from the inconveniences flowing from that source,
and aside from
the friction engendered by such movements as the
present one, our troubles are but few, and it may
be truthfully said that the two races do dwell
harmoniously together.
Mr. HOLTON. Further, Sir, I feel it is but
due to my neighbors and fellow-citizens of French
origin to declare here on their behalf, that they are
not, as a people, the intolerant bigots and fanatics
that too many people in certain quarters are inclined to suppose them to be, judging
them, as
they unfairly and improperly do, from the unwise
utterances of excited politicians, the intemperate
writings of obscure newspaper people, or the occasional unlawful acts of an ignorant
mob. These
things are truly and sincerely deplored and deprecated by the vast majority of French
Canadians,
and in no sense or degree reflect their real sentiments towards their English and
Protestant
fellow-citizens. The French people are devoted to
their church, loyal to the traditions of race and
family, and attached to their country in a manner
and to a degree which we would do well to emulate. And in these things they are entitled
to our
983
[COMMONS] 984
deepest respect. Moreover, they are as peaceable,
law-abiding, moral and kindly-disposed citizens as
are to be found in any section of the Dominion;
and I find that in the same measure that we respect
their rights, feelings, opinions, and prejudices
even, will they be found to respect ours. And just
here, Sir, I would say that the true friends of the
minority in the Province of Quebec are not those
who, for any reason, seek to stir up religious or
racial prejudices on the one side or the other, and
that about the most dangerous foes we of that
minority have to dread are those, from without the
Province, who busy themselves discovering grievances which we do not feel to be such—or,
perhaps,
of which we know nothing,—and for which they
are ever ready to prescribe heroic treatment. I
would warn such to leave us to ourselves, for we
are quite capable of protecting our own interests.
And, for one, I have confidence enough in their
sense of fair play and justice, to believe that, if left
to the free exercise of their own impulses, the
French Canadian majority will do all that in them
lies — by legislation or otherwise— to render
our position still more pleasant and secure.
The French Canadians are, as a rule, quite as
tolerant as their neighbors; and, at times, I am
forced to the conclusion that in some things they
are, perhaps, even a little more so. In illustration
of this I would like to refer briefly to my own
personal experience with them in public life; and
my statement may, perhaps, prove a revelation to
many to whom the idea of French domination is
such a terrible bogey. Notwithstanding that about
two-thirds of the electors of the County of Chateauguay are French Roman Catholics,
that constituency has been represented in the Parliament
of Canada for 30 years by English Protestants, my
late father and myself. In my own three elections,
my opponents were Roman Catholics; yet, in no
instance was there any attempt on the part of
residents of the county to raise the race or religion
cry against me, and I have yet to learn of the first
vote in any of these contests that was influenced
by such considerations. I am naturally very proud
of this record of my electors; but I must go still
further, and say that, since I have enjoyed the
honor of a seat in this House, no French Canadian
priest or layman has ever intimated to me, directly
or indirectly, the faintest whisper of a suggestion
as to the course it might he wished I should pursue
on any public question whatsoever. Having repeatedly sent me here as their representative,
without exacting pledge or promise, they have left
me absolutely to the exercise of my own discretion
and best judgment. I am, of course, aware that
my remarks have been a little aside the question
actually before the House—
Mr. HOLTON— but the debate has taken a
very wide range, including the matters to which I
have reference, and I wished, before its close, to
say at least this much as a simple matter of
justice to my French Canadian friends.
Mr. LARIVIERE. That is just what I am going
to talk on—the question. After this long debate,
I rely on the indulgence of the House to allow me to
make just a few remarks. Coming from the west as
I do, I hope I am entitled to a certain consideration,
because I am very well acquainted with the people
whose cause is now to be dealt with. I need not
make any reference to the short Bill which has been
offered to this House, because we have heard so
much about it that I believe it is not now in existence; at least, after all the remarks
that have
fallen from the lips of the hon. members of this
House, I do not believe that we shall ever be called
upon to decide upon its merits. The cause of all
this, Mr. Speaker, is undoubtedly the agitation
which has been aroused since last year. When the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
the other evening, denied that he should be styled
an agitator, I believe he did not say exactly what
was correct, for anyone who peruses the speeches
that hon. gentleman has made on different occasions must see that the expressions
he used in
those speeches are proof that he is the principal promoter of this agitation. I have
in my hand a copy
of a speech delivered by him in the city of Ottawa
before the Equal Rights Association, from which I
take the following extracts:—
"We have a record for eight months, Mr. Chairman—I
mean the Equal Rights Association—which no olitical
party could oast of in a decade of years, and if there are
men among us now who want to go back to their old political alliance , I say, shame
on them! They ought to be satisfied with what we have accomplished in so short a time.
(Loud cheers.) What have we accomplished? Go to the
Province of Manitoba. and what do we see there? Why,
that Government is going to deal, not only with the dual
language question and the iniquitous Act which would
fasten it upon them, but with Separate Schools. I had
the honor to stand upon the same platform at Portage la
Prairie with the Attorney General of the Province"—
This is an honor that I do not envy the hon. gentleman—
—"when he announced his intention, in anticipation. of
the action of his Government, that he would cease to sign
the official cheque for the publication of the statutes in
the dual language, or cease to be Attorney General.
(Cheers.) Do you tell me that the Equal Rights Association
had nothing to do with that?"
Nor Mr. McCarthy, I presume—
"Of course, the feeling was there; the grievance existed. People's minds had only
to be directed to it, and the
moment attention was drawn to it the Province of
Manitoba rose to a man and said, 'We want no dual
language, and away with Separate Schools as well.'
(Applause) Let me prove what I say is correct. There
ought to be no sympathv between Attorney General
Martin and myself, according to old political doctrines.
He is a Reformer and I a Conservative; therefore we
should be sworn foes."
But I believe both can be put in the same sack.
The hon. gentleman came to Manitoba and he
made a speech in the constituency represented by
my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Watson). I
did not see him in my own constituency, because
the reception might have been pretty cold there.
Hear what he said then:
"He was glad to notice that at last the Protestant
minority in Quebec had waked up, and at an early date
he hoped to have the pleasure of addressing them in
Montreal on the question. They all had their hands full.
In Ontario they would have to contend with the question
of French teaching in the schools. In Manitoba they
had the dual language to deal with, and in the North
West they had the same question."
This is the key:
"As soon as the work had been accomplished, they
would then be in the position to master the same difficulties in the Province of Quebec."
Well, Mr. Speaker, if, after uttering such speeches,
the hon. gentleman cannot be called an agitator, I
really do not know what an tutor is. This
question of the language as we as that of other
privileges, which certain classes of the community
985 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 986
enjoy under the Constitution, is a very old question: and we have had, in the course
of that
debate, the history of all those privileges; but on
account of the similarity of the case, I will refer to
an Address which was passed by the Legislature of
Canada, in 1844, to the Queen, asking that the
French language be restored to the country. This
Address was moved by the Hon. Mr. Papineau,
and seconded by the Hon. Mr. Moffatt, on 20th
December, 1844, and reads as follows:—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty,
renewing the expression ofthe faithful attachment of this
House to Her Majesty's person and Government.
"Setting forth, that sensible of the advantages we enjoy
from Her Majesty's care and protection, which this
House trusts may long be continued to us under Her
Majesty's parental sway, it is, at all times, the duty of
this House to submit for Her Majesty's most gracious
consideration, such matters as may have a tendency,
with any class of Her Majesty's subjects, to diminish
that contentment which this House is well assured. Her
Majesty desires should exist in every portion of Her
domains.
"Representing, that the French is the native language
of a very large class of Her Majesty's subjects in this
Province; of this class the great mass indeed speak no
other language. In it the largest portion of their laws
and the books on the system of jurisprudence are
written; their daily intercourse with each other is conducted: it is the language
in which alone they can invoke
the blessings of Heaven on themselves and all that are
dear to them. A language indispensable to so many of
Her Majesty's faithful people, cannot, they will believe,
be viewed by their Sovereign as foreign, when used by
them.
"Stating, that Her Majesty's royal predecessors placed
the languages spoken by the two great classes of Her
Majesty's subjects in this Province on the same footing,
affording, in this respect, equal justice and equal facility
to all.
"Pointing out, that this principle was never departed
from until the Act re-uniting these Provinces was passed;
that this House do not question that the best intentions
and designs influenced the minds of those who enacted
the provision which declared:—
"'That all writs, proclamations, instruments for summoning and calling together the
Legislative Council and
Legislative Assembly for the Province of Canada, and
for proroguing and dissolving the same; and all writs of
summons and elections; and all writs and public instruments whatever, relating to
the said Legislative Council
and Legislative Assembly, or either of them, and all
returns to such writs and instruments; and all journals
and entries; and written and printed proceedings, of what
nature soever, of the said Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, and of each
of them respectively; and
all written or printed proceedings and reports of Committees of the said Legislative
Council and Legislative
Assembly, respectively, shall be in the English language,
only.'
"Stating, that in the very first session of the Legislature, under that Act, it was
indispensable to translate
into French every public record and document; that the
debates were not and could not, unless a portion of the
representatives of the people were silenced, be carried on
without its use; that in courts and judicial proceedings, it
was found equally necessary as before the Union, and for
every other practical purpose, it is as much used as it ever
has been.
"Urging, that the only distinction which exists, then,
is, that the French is not permitted to be the legal
language of Parliamentary records; a distinction of little
value perhaps in itself,—one that cannot produce any
beneficial result on the feelings or habits of the people
using it; while it gives rise to a feeling among them
injurious to the peace and tranquillity of the Province,
namely, that this limited prescription of their language
convoys, however undesignedly, an imputation of unfavorable distinction towards themselves.
"Representing, that desirous that the hearts of all men
in this Provmce may be joined in unity, in attachment to,
and support of Her Majesty's person and Government,
this House humbly petition Her Majesty to endeavor to
remove this cause of discontent, and to recommend to
Her Imperial Parliament, the repeal of that portion of
the law which has given rise to it; assuring Her Majesty
that such a course will he hailed, by Her Majesty's loyal
Canadian people, as an additional mark of her solicitude
for their welfare."
This was the position at the time when the French
language had been abolished, and, acting upon the
request of the Legislature, that language was reinstated upon the Statute-books. I
have here the
translation of a despatch of Lord Elgin on the
same subject, in which he said:
"I am very anxious to hear that you have taken
measures to abrogate this part of the Union Act that
impose restrictions against the use of the French language.
"The delay happening in the execution of the promise
made, I believe, by Mr. Gladstone upon this subject, is
one of the paints urged by Mr. Papineau to promote this
agitation.
"Again I must avow that I am profoundly convinced
of the impoilitic character of all intentions of this kind
to denationalise the French. In general it produces the
opposite effect to that we have in view, and inflames
national prejudices and animosities.
"But supposing it revives, what will be the consequences? You may be able to Americanise
them, but
believe me, with the same means you can never make
Englishmen of the French population of the Province.
"On the other hand, they feel that their religion, their
customs, their sympathies, and their prejudices, if you
will, are taken more into consideration and more respected here than in any other
part of this vast continent.
Who would dare to say that the last arm that will raise
the English flag on the American soil will not be that of
a French Canadian?"
These are the words of Lord Elgin when it was
asked that the French language, which had been
taken away, should be restored. What is the
position to-day? We have in the North—West a
small population, it is true, but a population with
the same rights as if they were much larger. These
people have addressed this House in petitions which
have been received here, and which, I must say, in
spite of what has been said to the contrary,
convey the expression of opinion of a large number
of the people. I will read one of them, which is as
follows:—
"Whereas, under the 'North-West Territories Act'
the French is, equally with the English, an official language, the suppression of
its use, as such in the North- West, would be a flagrant injustice towards the settlers
of French origin, who were the pioneers of this country,
and towards those of the same race who, upon the faith
of the Constitution and existing laws, came and
established themselves in the North-West, and have contributed, with other citizens
of other nationalities, to the
development of the resources of the country.
"Be it resolved, &c., &c. "
I say, therefore, there is a similarity in the two
cases, and I hope there will be a similarity in the
results. The hon. member for North Norfolk has
told us this afternoon that this measure of the hon.
member for North Simcoe is not an attack on the
rights of any section of our community, nor on the
constitution, because, he says, the French have no
vested rights in the North-West. Well, Sir,
that is a question which may be subject to a
certain amount of discussion; but there is no
doubt, in my mind, that there are vested rights
for the population of the North-West, as well
as there are for the French population of
the Province of Quebec and other parts of
Canada. It is admitted that the British North
America Act has restrictive clauses whereby the
minority are protected in their rights, and these
rights are acknowledged in the letter of the Constitution. They are of divers kinds.
For instance,
as has been stated by an hon. gentleman in this
debate, in the British North America Act there
is a provision whereby a certain number of counties
in the Province of Quebec, which are supposed to
be populated by English inhabitants, will retain
their present limits until the representatives
987
[COMMONS] 988
of those counties decide otherwise. This was
a sort of protection for the minority. Then
we have protection for the minority in the
Province of Quebec, in regard to the Protestants,
and in regard to their schools, and in regard to
their language, and we have protection in the Province of Ontario for the minority
in regard to
their schools. All through the Dominion of Canada we have protection in regard to
Federal legislation, for the French language, and, in Manitoba,
which was created by a subsequent enactment,
protection is given to the minorities in regard to
schools and in regard to language. But, astonishing to say, when the Province of Manitoba
was
organised, it was not the Catholic or the French
minority that was protected by the enactment, because at that time the Catholics and
the French
were in the majority. Therefore, the laws
which were passed in order to give a
constitution to the Province of Manitoba, were
passed with the view to protect the Protestant
and English minority. To-day the reverse exists.
The Protestant and English-speaking population
has increased, so that now the minority is on the
other side. What do we see now? During the
existence of the former state of things, did we
ever see the majority attempt to take advantage of their position to take away the
rights
of the minority? No; but to-day we see that
the majority, acting on the views which have
been enunciated by the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), are passing enactments
to abolish the French language in Manitoba;
and we are also threatened with an Act to
abolish the Separate School system there. I may
quote from a letter which was recently written by His Grace the Archbishop of St.
Boniface
on the subject of the Separate Schools, and also on
the question of the dual language. It is dated the
22nd September, 1889, and in this letter the history of the negotiations which took
place at that
time between the delegates of the North-West
Territories and the Canadian Government here is
given in full:
"I may be permitted to review certain portions of our
history perhaps not too well known. In 1868 two delegates
of the Canadian Government, Sir George Cartier and the
Hon. Wm. Macdougall, were sent to England to negotiate
with the Imperial Government and the Hudson's Buy Co.
for the acquisition of Rupert's Land and the North-West,
Territories. After long eliberations, the conditions of
the transfer were agreed to by the interested parties.
"Meanwhile Earl Granville, then Secretary of State for
the Colonies, though rejoicing at an agreement he had so
largely contributed to secure, felt a little uneasy about
the future condition of the old inhabitants of the country,
and, to relieve his anxiety, addressed to Sir John Young,
then Governor General of Canada, a despatch dated 10th
April, 1869, from which I quote the following paragraph:
"'I am sure that your Government will not forget the care
which is due to those who must soon be exposed to new
dangers, and in the course of settlement be dispossessed
of the lands which they are used to enjoy as their own, or
be confined within unwontedly narrow limits.'
"'That Government, I believe, has never sought to
evade its obligation to those whose uncertain rights and
rude means of living are contracted by the advance of
civilised men. I am sure that they will not do so in the
present case, but that the old inhabitants of the country
will be treated with such forethought and consideration
as may preserve them from the danger of the approaching
change, and satisfy them of the friendly interest which
their new governors feel in their welfare.'"
We all know, Sir, what took place at that time
on the banks of the Red River. I now proceed to
quote from the same letter:
"To remedy the evil, Lord Granville telegraphed
to the Governor General, advising the issue of a procla
mation in the name of Her Majesty, in order to quiet the
minds of the disturbed. In that proclamation of the 6th
Dec., 1869, we read:
"'Her Majesty commands me to state to you that she
will always be ready through me, as her representative,
to redress all well-founded grievances and any complaints
that may be made or desire that may be expressed to me
as Governor General.
"By Her Majesty's authority I do therefore assure you
that, on union with Canada, all your civil and religious
rights will be respected.'
"Lord Granville, having heard of the proclamation
and of the good-will of the Canadian authorities, wrote
as follows to Sir John Young on 8th January, 1870: 'I
observe with great satisfaction the anxiety manifested by
the Canadian Government to avoid any collison with the
insurgents in the Red River settlement and to exhaust all means of explanation and
conciliation before
having recourse to force.'
"Unfortunately the difficulties of communication prevented the knowledge of the proclamation
being imparted to the interested parties at Fort Garry, and, on
the other hand, the same difficulty of communication
left the Canadian officials at Pembina in the greatest
uncertainty. Expecting that the affairs were rogressing,
as understood when they left Ottawa, they thought they
had but to proclaim the transfer and secure by force
their entry in the North-West. They acted in accordance,
but the result was altogether contrary to their hopes,
and the difficulties were increased to such a lamentable
extent, that Lord Granville expressed his regrets to the
Governor General in a despatch dated 20th January, 1870.
* * * 'I much more seriously regret the proclamation
put forth by Mr. Macdougall and the commission issued
y him to Colonel Dennis * * * Those proceedings
do not render Her Majesty's Government less desirous of
the restoration of tranquillity under the authority of the
Dominion, but they have certainly enhanced the responsibility of the Canadian Government.'
"The trouble had assumed such a dangerous aspect
that the Federal authorities demanded the help of men
who could command the confidence of the disaffected.
The Very Rev. J. B. Thibault, Vicar-General, and Colonel
de Salaberry were sent to Fort Garry to make known to
the people the good disposition of the Government
towards them. A few days later, Douald A. Smith, Esq.
(now Sir Donald) was sent as special commissioner under
the Great Seal. The three were to act jointly With Governor Mactavish to secure the
pacification of the country
and to advise the old settlers to send delegates to
Ottawa, to make known their grievances and desires.
The Rev. Mr. Thibault was to distribute the proclamation
on the 6th of December, but only after conferring on the
subject with the Hon. Wm. Macdougall, who was supposed to be still at Pembina. The
hon. gentleman
ad left, so the Rev. Mr. Thibault could not see him,
and the box containing the copies of the proclamation
was deposited at Pembina, pending new instructions. The
three gentlemen sent from Ottawa did their best to establish confidence in Canadian
rule. A convention of forty
representatives from the different districts of the Red
River settlement was summoned for the 25th January, 1870,
at Fort Garry, with the object ofconsidering the subject
of Mr. Smith's commission and to decide what should be
the best for the welfare of the country. The convention
assembled and, under the presidency of Judge Black, discussed the affair for which
they were summoned, until
the 10th of February following, and they framed a Bill of
Rights.
"By a resolution passed unanimously, the convention
accepted the proposition made to send a delegation.
"The proceedings of the convention came to a close by
the nomination of a Provisional Government having a
President, a Secretary of State, &c."
"The President of the Provisional Government made
known to the convention his choice of the persons he
would appoint as delegates of the North-West and the
Secretary of State notified these gentlemen of the choice
the President had made of them. The following is a copy
of the letter addressed to one of the delegates:
"'FORT GARRY, 21st Feb, 1870.
"'Rev. J. RITCHOT St. NORBERT R.R.S.
"'REVEREND Sir,—I am directed to inform you that you
have been appointed by the President of the North-West
Territories as co-commissmner, with John Black and
Alfred Scott, Esquires, to treat with the Government of
the Dominion of Canada upon terms of confederation.
"'I am. Reverend Sir,
'"Your obedient servant,
"'(Signed) THOS. BUNN,
"'Secretary.'
989 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 990
"Unfortunately, the troubles were not at an end; within a few days most regrettable
circumstances occurred,
which prevented the fulfilment of what had been decided. The delegation was postponed
and Bill of Rights put
aside.
"At the same time Bishop Taché was requested to proceed to Fort Garry. The proclamation
of the Governor
General was handed to the prelate with request to give it
to the insurgents, in order to determine them to make
known their grievances, complaints or desires to the
Governor General. Special importance was attached to
a delegation, and to obtain it, Sir John A. Macdonald,
in his letter to Bishop Taché, 16th February, says: 'In
case a delegation is appointed to proceed to Ottawa, you
can assure them that they Will be kindly received and
their suggestions fully considered; their expenses coming
here and returning, and while staying in Ottawa, will be
defrayed by us.'
"The new envoy, on his arrival at Fort Garry, communicated to the leaders the desire
of both Imperial and
Canadian Governments with regard to a delegation; he
insisted on the necessity of the measure. The Provisional
Government were very diffident; the delegates themselves,
who had been chosen a month before, were showing great
reluctance, specially as they would not be allowed to go,
except on the promise of laying and defending before the
Government of Ottawa a, new Bill of Rights. After
several days, all the details of the delegation had been
agreed upon and the delegates received their credentials
dated 22nd March, all three alike, with the exception of
the names. The following is a copy of the one handed to
Judge John Black.
"To this I add the list or Bill of Rights mentioned in
the same. The document is rather long, but as it has
never been published before it may prove interesting to
many as an historical document.
"Thus equipped the three delegates started on their
way to Ottawa, leaving Fort Garry on the 24th of March,
1870.
"'To Joan BLACK Esq.
"'SIR,—The President of the Provisional Government
of Assiniboia in Council, by these presents, grants authority and commission to you,
John Black, Esq., jointly
with the Rev. N. J. Ritohot and the Honorable A. Scott,
to the end that you betake yourselves to Ottawa, in
Canada; and that when there you should lay before the
Canadian Parliament the list entrusted to you with the
presents. which list contains the conditions and propositions under which the people
of Assiniboia would consent
to enter into Confederation with the other Provinces of
Canada.
"'Signed, the 22nd day of March, in the year of Our
Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy.
"'By Order,
"'(Signed) THOMAS BUNN,
"'Secretary of State.
"'Seat of Government,
"'Winnipeg, Assiniboia.'
"'BILL OF RIGHTS.
"'Prepared by the Executive of the Provisional Government and handed over to the North-West
delegates.
"'1. That the Territory of the North-West enter into the
Confederation of the Dominion of Canada as a province,
With all the privileges common with all the different
provinces In the Dominion.
"'That this province be governed:
"'(1.) By a Lieutenant Governor, appointed by the
Governor General of Canada.
"'(2.) By a Senate.
"'(3.) By a Legislature chosen by the people, with a
responsible Ministry.
"2. That, until such time as the increase of the population in this country entitle
us to a greater number, we
have two representatives in the Senate and four in the
Commons of Canada.
"3. That in entering the Confederation, the Province of
the North—West be completely free from the public debt of
Canada; and it called upon to assume a part of the said
dhebt of Canada, that it be only after having received
from Canada the same amount for which the said Province
of the North-West should be held responsible.
 " '4. That the annual sum of $80,000 be allotted by the
Dominion ot Canada to the Legislature ofthe Province of
the North-West
"'5. That all properties, rights and privileges enjoyed
by us up to this day be respected, and that the recognition
and settlement of customs, usages and rivileges be left
exclusively to the decision of the Local Legislature.
"'6. That this country be submitted to no direct taxa- ion, except such as may be
imposed by the Local Legislature for municipal or other local purposes.
"'7. That the schools be separate, and that the public
money for schools be distributed among the different
religious denominations in proportion to their respective
populations, according to the system of the Province of
Quebec.
"'8. That the determination of the qualifications of
members for the Parliament of the Province or for the
Parliament of Canada be left to the Local Legislature.
"'9. That in this Province, with the exception of the
Indians, who are neither civilised nor settled, every man
 having attained the age of 21 years, and every foreigner
being a British subiect after having resided three years
in this country, and being possessed of a house, be entitled
to vote at the elections for the members ofthc Local Legislature and of the Canadian
Parliament, and that every
foreigner other than a British subject, having resided
here during the same period and being proprietor of a
house, he likewise entitled to vote on condition of taking
the oath of allegiance.
"'It is understood that this article is subject to amendment by the Local Legislature
exclusively.
"'10. That the bargain of the Hudson Bay Company
with respect to the transfer of government of this country to the Dominion of Canada
never have in any case an
effect prejudicial to the rights of the North—West.
"'11. That the Local Legislature of this Province have
full control over all the lands ofthe North—West.
"'12. That a commission of engineers appointed by Canada explore the various districtsof
the North-West, and
lay before the Local Legislature within the space of five
years a report of the mineral wealth of the country.
"'13. That treaties be concluded between Canada and
the different Indian tribes of the North-West at the request and with the co-operation
of the Local Legislature.
"'14. That. an uninterrupted steam communication from
Lake Superior to Fort Garry be guaranteed to be completed within the space of five
years, as well as the construction of a railway connecting the American railway
as soon as the latter reaches the international boundary.
"'15. That all public buildings and constructions be at
the cost of the Canadian exchequer.
"'16. That both the English and French languages be
common in the Legislature and in the courts; and that all
public documents, as well as the Acts of the Legislature,
be published in both languages.
"'17. That the Lieutenant Governor to be appointed for
the Province ofthe North-West be familiar with both the
English and French languages.
"'18. That the judge oft e Supreme Court speak the
English and French languages. Â
"'19. That all debts contracted by the Provisional Government of the Territory of
the North-West, now called
Assiniboia, in consequence of the illegal and inconsiderate
measures adopted by Canadian officials to bring about a
civil war in our midst, be paid out of the Dominion
Treasury, and that none of the Provisional Government
or any of those acting under them, be in any way held
liable or responsible with regard to the movement or any
of the actions which led to the present negotiations.'
"While all this was going on on the banks of the Red
River of the North-West, great anxiety and uneasiness
continued to prevail in the Colonial Office in Downing
street and at Ottawa; numerous despatches and telegrams
were exchanged between the two. The following will give
an idea of what was desired, hoped or feared:—
"On the 5th of March Lord Granville telegraphed to
Sir John Young: 'Her Majesty's Government will give
proposed military assistance, provided reasonable terms
are granted to the Red River settlers.'
"On the 17th of March the same to the same: 'Let me
know by telegram when you know delegates have started
from Fort Garry.'
"Sir F. Rogers, Under-Secretary for the Colonies
writes on the 22nd March: 'Troops should not be employed
in forcing the sovereignty ofCanada on the population of
Red River should they refuse to admit it.'
"On the 4th of April, the Governor General conveyed
by telegram to Earl Granville startling information:
'Smith came here on Saturday from Fort Garry with bad
news. A Canadian called Scott was, by Riel's orders,
tried by court—martial and shot, with the View it is supposed, of compromising Riel's
followers before Taché had
arrived. They say the delegates are coming, but it is
quite clear Riel will yield to nothing but force. Things
now look, I think, very bad.'
"On the 7th of April, the same telegraphed to the
same: 'Last of the delegates is expected at St. Paul on
Thursday the 14th, the others arrived there to-day, and
may reach Ottawa on be turday the 9th.'
"Distressing as the news was, Earl Granville had still
confidence in the negotiations he had so constantly urged;
on the 9th of the same month he telegraphed to the Gov
991
[COMMONS] 992
ernor General: 'Let me know as soon as you can by
telegram result of negotiations with Red River delegates.'
"It is evident from the above documents that Her
Majesty's Government had no desire to impose by force
the sovereignty of Canada on the settlers of Assniboia,
but that they were exceedingly anxious of a peaceable
settlement through negotiations with the delegates. No
need to add that all this was said and done in perfect
good faith, on the part of Earl Granville, and that Her
Majesty's Government intended to bind themselves to
protect and safeguard the agreement, secured not only
with their sanction, but at their explicit and repeated request.
"The two first delegates arrived at Ottawa on the
11th; in spite of what had been said and promised, they
were arrested. This incident, which could have caused
serious complications, was learned with regret by Lord
Granville, who telegraphed to the Governor General:
'Was arrest of delegates authorised by the Canadian
Government? Send full information by telegram.'
"Sir John Young answered the next day; 'Arrest of
delegates was not authorised by the Canadian Government.'
"On the 23rd of the same month of April, Earl Granville thus informed the Governor
General: 'Canadian
Government to accept decision of Her Majesty's Government on all portions of the settlers'
Bill of Rights.'
"The very same day the negotiations began at Ottawa.
Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Cartier were
a pointed by the Canadian Government to treat with the
three delegates of the North-West.
"The first interview was merely preliminary. On
Monday the 25th, the two Ministers and the three delegates met again; the delegates
insisted on a written
acknowledgment of their official position and declared
that the list or Bill of Rights they had brought with them
was the only basis on which they were authorised to treat
with the Government. Objections were made, but after
a long discussion, it was agreed that the written acknowledgment would be given next
day, and the list be produced by the delegates.
"On the 26th, at the next meeting the promised letter
was given by the Ministers and the List of Rights produced by the delegates, and,
practically, the official negotiations began this day and lasted until the 3rd of
May,
when the principal points on the List of Rights were agreed
upon, leaving some details for further consideration.
"It is not generally known that the new Bill of Rights
was the basis of negotiations, but it is nevertheless the
case, and many points granted, as expressed in the Manitoba Act, were demanded in
no other document, except
on the List of Rights presented by the delegates.
"The first article is a very important feature of this
new Bill of Rights. It contains the demand for the establishment of a Province covering
the whole North- West, with all the privileges and governing machinery
appertaining to other Provinces, including a responsible
Government. This met with strong objections, but at
last was conceded on the condition of reducing the new
Province to very small proportions.
"Article II also caused a long discussion; it asked for
the control of all the lands of the North-West by the Local
Legislature. To this, both the Imperial and Canadian
authorities refused to accede, but to condone for this refusal they gave to the children
of the half-breed inhabitants of the country one million four hundred thousand
acres of land, which had not been asked for, and with the
understanding that by-and-bye they would also give some
lands to the parents of those children and to other old
settlers.
"The question of separate schools, as demanded in the
7th article of the List of Rights, was taken into consideration; the delegates were
promised that the would
not only have the benefit of the provisions of the 'British
North America Act,' but they might rest assured and
might assure the people of the Red River, that separate
schools would be guaranteed to them.
"The recognition of the use of the French language, as
an official language,was conceded as expressed in the 16th
article of the List of Rights, with the promise that attention would be paid to the
demands of the 17th and
18th articles, as in fact it has been done, if not completely, at least enough to
satisfy the interested parties.
"The whole list having been examined, accepted, modified or rejected to the satisfaction
of the negotiating
parties, the Governor General telegraphed to Earl Granville on the 3rd ofMay: 'Negotiations
with the delegates
closed satisfactorily.'
"The negotiations had been asked for, they had been
urged both by the he Imperial and Federal authorities, the
Government of Her Majesty had exacted from the Canadian Government the acceptance
by the latter of the
decision of the former on all points of the Bill of Rights.
They had sent an official envoy to Ottawa to watch the
conference, and when it is announced that the negotiations are closed satisfactorily
it must mean that the Imperial Government is satisfied that its views on this subject
will be carried out, and that no inferior authority
would have power to disturb them.
"Lord Granville, in one of his despatches, says: 'I am
glad to learn that the proceedings adopted against the
Rev. Mr. Ritchot and Mr. Scott were promptly disposed
of, and had not been renewed: and I take this opportunity of expressing the satisfaction
with which I have
learned from your telegram of the 3rd inst., that the
Canadian Government and the delegates have come to
an understanding as to the terms on which the settlement
of the Red River should be admitted into the Dominion.'
"All this is previous to the Manitoba Act; it is a treaty
between contracting parties placed on a certain footing
of equality, as the Government of Her Majesty had declared 'troops should not be employed
in forcing the
sovereignty of Canada on the population of the Red
River, should they refuse to admit it.'"
These are the conditions upon which all that
territory entered into the Confederation, and,
therefore, when the hon. member for North Norfolk
(Mr. Charlton) said there are no vested rights, I
say there are, and those rights are contained in
the agreement, or in what I might call the treaty
which was entered into between the authorities of
this country and the people of the North-West
through their representatives.
Mr. LARIVIERE. I think I am dealing with
the question. This question of the dual language
has been discussed in the North-West Legislature.
We have had here an address from that noble body
which I will not read because it is already on record.
That address was prepared by a sub-committee of
the Council, and upon receiving that address the
Council had a debate. The chairman of the committee who prepared the address, laid
it on the
Table, and a short debate followed. From the
local paper there I quote the following:—
"Mr. Justice Rouleau asked hon. gentlemen to give
their reasons for wishing to abolish the dual language
which had been in their Constitution for so many years.
"Mr. Mitchell also asked for reasons. What harm
had the French language done? What objection had
there been to it? It was a little expensive, but the
expensive way was the best. They were asking for a law to
deprive the oldest resldents of the country—the pioneers
—from reading their own language.
"Mr. Oliver supported the contention of the judge.
As a matter of courtesy, the members who introduced
this question should give an explanation of their reasons."
Well, Sir, we have the explanation of the
chairman of that committee in bringing down that
report.
"Mr. Cayley went over the history of the enactment of
the section imposing the dual language in the North
West, it having been put in at the instance of Senator
Girard fourteen years ago. The discussion in his own district was to one effect, that
the continuance of the dual
language in the North-West was unnecessary. When a
question of this sort, which might hurt the feelings of
some of the residents of the country, came up, it was best
that members should not state all their private reasons."
This is the reason given—that is to say, no reason
at all was given because it was assumed that it
would not well to state the private reasons. So
this document, which has been termed an address
of the North-West Council to this House, was
decided upon not for public purposes, not for the
benefit of the public at large, but for private
reasons that could not be stated publicly; and we
are today called upon to act upon the request of
men who pretend to have reasons, but private
reasons such as cannot be stated publicly. Mr.
Thorborn said:
993 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 994
"It was stated as the opinion of the assembly that the
sentiment of the people was against the continuance of
the section. This was very signally acknowledged by the
Executive, on opening the session, by his not reading the
speech in French as well as English."
There we find a reason at last:
"Mr. Mitchell again asked what harm the dual
language did. They proposed to take away a right from
a certain class of the people. There was no common sense
in it."
This is the debate. But no reasons were given, no
more reasons were given than those which we see
in the reports of the proceedings of that Council.
This address was passed, it is true, but we have a
very long and able speech made by Mr. Justice
Rouleau. Unfortunately that gentleman is only
an ex-officio member of the Council, and could
not give his vote against the address that was
presented at the time. Now, I wish to refer,
en passant, to some of the judge's remarks.
It appears that the hon. member for North
Simcoe has some admirers in the North-West
Territories; that he has created a certain school,
which, however, is no school at all. He has
followers there—anti-Frenchmen. When His
Excellency the Governor General visited that
country last summer, at Calgary they built an
arch over the roadway opposite the hotel, and,
of course, the most appropriate motto that could
be put on that arch was the motto of His Excellency's coat-of-arms—sans changer. But that
was French, and the people had the greatest
objection to put a French motto in the streets of
Calgary. So they went on and translated it, and
put up the words "no change." But as the arch
happened to be opposite a hotel, the poor hotel- keeper did not have a single customer
on that day,
because everybody was afraid to go in there for
fear that they would get no change. But here is
something extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, though not
a similar case, which happened a few years ago in
the Province of Ontario, in a little town called—
shall I name it?—St. Thomas. There is in that
town a young ladies' school, and although they
may be admirers of the hon. member, still they
love the French language in that institution.
Of course, they had to have a motto for their
school. It was somewhat of an ambitious motto,
I dare say, and, perhaps, it well became this institution, because it was a. very
good institution.
Of course, an institution, like a nobleman, must
have a motto, if nothing else. They had to have
a motto from some other language than the English, and without having the fear of
the hon. member for North Simcoe before their eyes, they
adopted—not a Latin or a Greek motto—but a
French motto, because all great men have French
mottoes, and in that respect they differ from my
hon. friend, whose motto is anti-French. Well,
they selected a sentence in English, which, translated into French, would make a splendid
motto.
Their idea. was to convey the impression that their
Institution was second to none in the country;
and they took the two shortest words they could
find in the English language and translated them
Into French. They took "second to none," which
means "never behind," and so they looked up a
French dictiona and found that a literal translation of "never behind" was jamais en derruère.
Well, Sir, when I was called away from the ques- ion a little while ago, I was the
history of
that address presented by the North-West Council.
There is a point upon which I wish to call the attention of this House. We have been
asked to trust to
the majority of the people of the North-West for
the future of our interests, to trust them for the preservation of our rights, for
the maintenance of our
religion, our schoo s, and even our language. Now,
the other day, in voting in favor of the amendment
of my hon. friend from Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil),
we refused to accept the suggestion that had been
made by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin). I wish to show you that we were perfectly
right in refusing to accept the amemlment of
the member for West Assiniboia, and in accepting
the amendment of the hon. member for Berthier,
because the history of what has taken place in
Manitoba is certainly not satisfactory, and is a
proof that if in the future we are treated in the same
manner as we have been in the past, we are not so
certain about the safety of our rights and interests.
As I told you a little While ago, under the Constitution of Manitoba we have rights
in regard to our
language and to our schools, and those rights and
claims cannot be interfered with. Moreover, at the
time of Confederation, our then Lieutenant Governor, whom I am glad to see on the
floor of this
House, Sir Adams Archibald, took every precaution
to prevent friction between the two classes of
the community who were then very excited after
the little rebellion that had taken place.
The then Lieutenant Governor gave to each class
of the community a fair, just and proper representation. Although the French had a
small
majority and the Catholics a small majority, the
Lower House—and we had two Houses—was divided into 24 constituencies and sub-divided,
so that
12 members were given to the English-speaking
Protestant community, and 12 members who could
be returned by Roman Catholics, whether Irish,
English or French. The Upper House was composed of seven members, and the Roman Catholics
were given a majority of one on account of a
majority of people of that faith in the Province.
Thus the then Lieutenant Governor dealt with the
question in a liberal-minded manner, to the satisfaction of every class. Later on
we were asked to
abolish our Legislative Council. The Council was
the only safeguard we possessed after the influx of
population had taken place, and the Catholic and
rench population had een outnumbered, and if the
Council had been retained the rights of the majority could never be endangered. A
debate took
place in the Legislature on that proposition. In
that debate the French members complained
strongly that they were asked to vote away the
only safeguard they possessed—the Upper House.
What took place at that time? The English-speaking members came to the front, and
said: We must
do away with the Upper House because the Federal
Government, led by the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, insisted upon a reduction of the expenses
of the
Administration and insisted on the abolition
of the Upper House, and if the request is not
acceded to we will not get the better terms
which are so much require. The French members accepted the proposition, on the promise
that
on no occasion would they have reason to complain
of any attempt on the part of the majority to interfere with the rights of the minority.
I have
extracts from speeches made at that time. This
is what Mr. W. F. Luxton, who was then member
for Rockwood, said:
995
[COMMONS] 996
"There were some questions of settlements which lay
close to the hearts of the French people, and he could
assure them that, notwithstanding the movements of the
member for Kildonan (John Sutherland), the English
members would not ruthlessly deal with these if the
French representatives were sufficiently patriotic to support the measure before the
House. They would recognise their generosity and not forget it."
Another member, quoting from the late Francis
Evans Cornish, who was then representing High
Bluff, a distinguished advocate, and at one time
Mayor of Winnipeg, sitting in his seat and speaking on the same question, said:
"He believed the old settlers and the French would
make common cause if their rights were infringed upon,
and he could assure them when the Canadian party became the very great majority it
would not be found
oppressive."
In its issue of the 12th February, 1876, the Free
Press gave the reasons why the French members
voted in favor of the abolition of the Legislative
Council:
"0n the profession of liberality made by the English- speaking representatives upon
the floor of the House,
under these circumstances, every French member of the
Assembly voted in favor of the measure."
This is a treaty entered into between the French
and English-speaking members of the Legislative
Assembly of the Province of Manitoba, when the
French members were asked to surrender their right
to the Legislative Council, which was their safeguard, and to trust to the future,
relying on the
promises of the hon. members who were then representing the English-speaking portion
of the
population. What has been the result? To—day
legislation is being passed, in that very Legislature,
unanimously passed, by the English—speaking members of the House, to abolish the French
language,
and they are going to abolish the Separate Schools
in the face of the agreement solemnly entered upon
in the Legislature by their predecessors. In the
face of that fact, can it be matter of surprise that
we should be reluctant to accept anything less
than the fullest guarantee that this House can
give? But we have trusted the future before, and
we are willing to trust it again; but I hope we
will never have the same history repeated as that
which we have to record with regard to the Province of Manitoba. It may be said: You
will
not meet with the same fate in the North-West.
I hope such may be the case; but as all sorts of
extraneous matters have been brought into the
discussion, I will quote a paragraph from a newspaper. The Moosomin Courier on 5th September,
1889, published an article headed "One people,
one Language." It said:
"Are they [the Roman Catholics] a superior kind of
people from Protestants, that they hold themselves aloof
by having separate schools. Â
"To private schools no one can object, but we most
emphatically protest against separate schools. being
maintained by the Government, or any denomination
other than Protestants. Our motto is: 'One People, One
Country, One Religion.'"
This is the kind of literature that is being circulated by the newspapers in the North-West.
Knowing these facts, are we to be blamed if
we resist any attempt to deprive us of what
we consider and claim to be our vested rights,
and if we ask this House, in which we have
perfect confidence, not to delegate its power to
the Legislatures, which do not view matters in
the same light as we view them? I believe we
should be t ankful to the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), for having brought on this
debate. We are already beginning to feel the good
results that will come out of it. I am to-day in
receipt of a newspaper published in Winnipeg, a
paper that has always advocated the abolition of
the French language in the Province of Manitoba—
the Manitoba Free Press. In the course of an article
it says:
"In Manitoba we have abolished,as we think,the use of
the French language and are now proceeding against
Separate Schools. From the light of the recent debate
at Ottawa. it would not seem so sure that we have been
right in assuming to settle the language question alone."
This is the beginning of the result that we are
going to derive from this debate, and therefore I am
not sorry that it has taken place. I shall lay aside
several matters that I intended to bring before the
House, and I will conclude my remarks by stating
that what has been said by some hon. gentlemen
to the effect that the French language was not
recognised in the United States was erroneously
so stated. I take from "The American Statute
Law" the following:—
"The language taught in the schools is, by the Constitutions of three States, to be
English; but in Louisiana
the instruction may be given in French."
From the same book, "The American Statute
Law," I take the following:—
"By the constitutions of four States the laws, public
records and written legislative and judicial roceedings
shall be promulgate, and preserved in the English
language only. But in Colorado, laws are also to be published in English and German,
and in Louisiana the
Legislature may provlde for the publication of laws in
the French language, and that Judicial advertisements in
certain designated districts may be made in French. So
in Missouri, certain charters, &c., in the German
language. So in Maryland, proposed amendments to the
constitution, in German."
We see from this that there are only four states
where the English language is at all the official
language. From this authority (which, being the
statute law of the United States, cannot be questioned), we can see what takes place
with regard
to the language question ri ht across the lines;
the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)
to the contrary notwithstanding. I could cite
some other instances to prove the law in the
United States with regard to this matter, but I
think this ought to be sufficient to convince
hon. gentlemen. Let me just quote something
with regard to the French language in the Island
of Jersey. So much has been said about the other
British colonies that I will not refer to them. I
will quote from a book written by Abraham J.
LeCras, entitled "The Laws, Customs and Privileges, and their Administration, in the
Island of
Jersey," as follows:—
"Language—Notwithstanding English is now generally
spoken in the Island, the language of the State and of
the Gourt is a French dialect peculiar to ancient Normandy, and which operates very
much to the prejudice
of English suitors, whose causes are usually the most
important that are brought before the local tribunals,
because a sworn interpreter is not appointed. In the
case of Godfray on the prosecution of the Crown v.
Robertson (1838), on the demand of the defendant that
the said Godfray, who was a witness, should give his
deposition in English, as the former did not understand
French, the Court (Bisson and E. Nicolle, on the conclusions of the Attorney General
overrul the demand,
and decided that it was only Her Majesty in Council
who could alter the form of proceeding in this bailiwick."
We see from this that even in an English colony
the French language alone is official. The hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has
read some telegrams which he has said to have
received from the North-West, where assemblies
997 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 998
or meetings have been held, declaring that the
mass of the people were in favor of the abolition of
the French language. I am in receipt of an address
from Qu'Appelle, dated the 7th of February, 1890,
in which it is stated (I translate from the original
French):
"Please accept profession of our profound gratitude
for the opposition you have given to the Act concerning
the abolition of the French language in the North-West
Territories and for your vigorous defence of our rights.
&c., &c."
I shall not take time to read the whole document.
This is signed by 217 people; and amongst those
who signed I find the names of J. B. Farrell, C. B.
Spencer, W. H. Finnerty, J. A. Crooks, J. R.
Oliver, and others. About one-third of the names
are of English, Scotch, Irish, and even German- speaking persons, and they congratulate
me on the
stand I took when the first reading of this Bill
was proposed to this House. Here are 217 names
of opponents to this Bill from one locality alone;
so that the unanimity which we have been told
existed in the North-West in favor of the abolition
of the French language does not exist. I have to
thank the House, Mr. Speaker, for the attention
which has been paid to my remarks; and I am
sorry that I have felt it my duty to detain you so
long. I have again to express the hope that the
proposition made by the hon. Minister of Justice
will be accepted. I, for my part, accept it as a
compromise, although I do not admit that this
House has the right to ask us to deprive the French
people of the North-West Territories of a single
portion of what I consider to be their rights.
Yet, in order to promote the peace and tranquillity of this Dominion, I accept this
amendment
as a compromise, and I hope that the House will
unanimously endorse it. I trust that in the future
we shall have no reason to complain of the position
we have taken to-day.
It being six o'clock, the Speaker left the chair.
After Recess.
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. I would suggest,
as this is the seventh day on which we have been
discussing the measure which was before the House
this afternoon, that the consideration of private
Bills should be postponed until Monday. All the
members in town having charge of private Bills
consent to this postponement. I, therefore, propose
that we should go back to the Order of this afternoon.
Mr. MITCHELL. I have much pleasure in
supporting that. I think it is a very reasonable
proposition.
Mr. BEAUSOLEIL. I desire, with the permission of the House, to offer a few remarks in
explanation of the reasons why I cannot support
the amendment proposed by the hon. Minister of
Justice, and seconded by the hon. Secretary of
State. It has been stated, in justification of that
motion, that it is a compromise between two contending parties whose extreme views
could not be
reconciled. But I have not heard that the party
most interested in this uestion, that is to say,
the French pulation o the North-West Territories, have been consulted or represented
in this
compromise; on the contrary, it appears that
the two wings of the Government party in this
House, French and English, have agreed to settle
their differences by sacrificing the rights and privileges of the French pulation
of the North- West. To effect that object, they agree upon this
compromise amendment, which professes to maintain the rights and privileges of the
French-speaking people in the old Provinces of Canada; but
the rights and privileges of the French people
of the North-West are to be left to the tender
mercies of a council, which, according to the hon.
member for North Simcoe, has intimated to the
Lieutenant Governor that if he should dare to speak
French in their presence, they would leave the
Chamber in a body. A compromise proposed under
such circumstances I cannot accept; I cannot
agree that under one pretence or another the constitutional rights of the minority
in the North- West should be sacrificed. Some people are willing that those interests
should be sacrificed in the
name of Provincial rights or Provincial autonomy;
but there is no question of Provincial rights or
Provincial autonomy in the resent instance.
There are no Provinces in the North-West Territories which are under the jurisdiction
of the
Dominion Parliament, and are to a great extent
governed by laws enacted by this Legislature. But
even were Provincial rights in question, there
are some rights which have been put above all
others—above even Provincial rights—by the
Imperial Parliament; these are the rights of
minorities. Now, it is proposed by this compromise amendment, to leave the rights
of the
minority in the North-West to the control of
the Legislative Assembly there after the next
general election. If that course is the right one,
how is it that the Imperial Parliament, in the
Act of 1867, did not leave to the Parliament of
Canada the right of deciding whether one language
or two shoud be spoken in this chamber, and
whether its proceedings and records should be
printed in one or two languages? And how is it that
the same control was not given to the Legislature of
the Province of Quebec over the language of its
proceedings and records? The fact that this subject, so far as it concerned the Dominion
and the
Province of Quebec, was settled by the Imperial
Parliament in the Confederation Act, proves that
it is not of the essence of Provincial rights that a
Provincial Legislature should have the power of
deciding in what language its proceedings should
be carried on, or its records printed. Now, I contend that we are in the midst of
a crusade organised by the hon. member for North Simcoe for the
purpose of depriving the French population of
their language, their institutions, and their
schools. His programme has been promulgated in
Ontario, Manitoba, and the Territories, and we
are asked to-day to help him to carry out his
scheme. That hon. gentleman, both in this House
and outside of the House, has stated that his programme for his future lifetime is
the abolition of
the French language in Manitoba and the North- West, the abo ition of the Separate
Schools in
Ontario, the abolition of the French language in
the House of Commons, and, in the course of
time, the abolition of the French language,
in the Province of Quebec, although he does
not expect to succeed for several years. Now,
what is the object of the proposition made
by the hon. Minister of Justice, in the opinion of
all the newspapers, French and English, Liberal
and Conservative, which have discussed the
999
[COMMONS] 1000
hon. Minister's proposition during the last three
days, as well as in the opinion of a great many
members who have discussed the matter? It is
agreed that that proposition is really the McCarthy
Bill in disguise. The
Star of Montreal is a very
influential Tory paper, enjoying one of the largest
circulations in Canada, and it stated immediately
after the amendment was proposed:
"The vote on Mr. Beausoleil's amendment to Mr.
McCarthy's Bill is an indication that one of the motions
now before the House to bring about the abolition of the
dual official language system in the North-West Will be
carried by a considerable majority. Evidently theHouse
will not adopt Mr. McCarthy's motion under any circumstances but for all ractical
purposes it does not make
much difference whether the ouse takes the bitter
McCarthy pill, the same pill sugar-coated by Mr. Davin
or the same pill sugar-coated by Sir JohnThompson. * * *
Mr. Davin's amendment to allow the North-West Assembly to relieve Parliament of the
responsibility of
abolishing the dual language system after the next
election, and Sir John Thompson's amendment in other
words to do precisely the same thing. The difference
between Sir John Thompson's amendment and Mr.Davin's
is that Sir John's begins by affirming the convenant rights
of the French to the official use of the French language
and denying that community of language is in the interests of national unity, and
ends by giving the Local
Assembly power to smash the alleged convenant and
establish communitv of language while Mr. Davin's
amendment leaves the covenant alone. * * * Whether
Sir John Thompson's amendment or Mr. Davin's amendment carry, Mr. McCarthy will have
brought about the
abolition of the dual language system in the North- West."
The Witness, which is an extreme Protestant
paper, and which, though it pretends sometimes to
be Liberal, is very illiberal at bottom, said:
"The Dominion Parliament, in passing this resolution
and empowering the Assembly to take action, as well as
in suggesting it, is responsible, in spite of itself, for the
settlement which is to follow. The French-speaking,
that is, the French and half-breed population of the
North-West is not so insignificant as we assumed from
declarations in Parliament, which remains uncontradicted. In 1885 it formed about
twenty-four per cent. of
the enfranchised population of the Territories, and about
twelve per cent of the whole population, Indian and
white. What the verdict of the Territories will be, is
clearly evident beforehand especially as the pro ortion
of the English-Speaking and French-speaking popu ations
has greatly increased during the past four years."
So much for the English press. If we turn to the
French press, we find L'Etendard, both of yesterday
and today, has denounced the amendment as being
similar, in every respect, to the McCarthy Bill;
and now we have L'Electeur, the most important
Liberal newspaper in the Province of Quebec, saying as follows:—
(Translation). "This last concession was hardly made
when we saw Sir John A. Macdonald trying to secure a
still more important one and threatening his partisans
with an immediate dissolution if they would not yield
submissively to this new sacrifice. Sir John has, in
fact, caused his Minister of Justice, Sir John Thompson,
to move an amendment to the McCarthy Bill, which, on
the whole is, in a disguised form, nothing short of the
Davin amendment. [We give in another column the text
of the Dawn amendment.] Once the principle sanctioned
as regards the North-West Legislature shall apply to
Manitoba, where our compatriots are still in a minority,
and where both parties have agreed to repeal, of their
own free will the official use of the French language. It
is easy to understand that, once the principle sanctioned
the door is open, and that the last bulwark that protected
one of our rights is down. The French language will be
abolished in the Territories and Manitoba, where the
French Canadians have, nevertheless, been the first
pioneers, the first civilising people. There is no room
left for idle hopes."
Here is the advice it gives:
"Our friends in Ottawa are, unfortunately, on the
Opposition side, that is to say, powerless to secure the
triumph of their broad and liberal ideas,towhich the
Hon. Mr. Blake, a few days ago, gave voice in eloquent
words. But we beseech them to stand firm and to do
their duty to the end, and we feel that they shall
have, not only the sympathies of our co-religionists and
fellow-countrymen, but also those of an imposing number
of fair-minded English-speaking people who consider as
an honor to follow the traditions of the Liberals of old
England, and follow the steps of those who, in the old
country, defend the cause of Home Rule and equality of
rights for all races and all creeds under the British flag."
I might quote several other newspapers which have
declared themselves on this amendment moved by
the hon. Minister of Justice, and, without exception, they all agree that it is a
sacrifice of the
rights and privileges of the French population of
the North-West, in order to purchase peace in this
House, because the Government expect that, if
this amendment be adopted, we will hear no more
about the repeal of clause 110 of the British North
America Act. But I may say that this is only the
beginning of the agitation led by the hon. member
for North Simcoe, and that so long as there will be
a remnant of French or Catholic institutions,
whether in the North-West, or in Manitoba, or
Ontario, or in any other portion of the Dominion,
we will have that hon. gentleman coming into this
House, year after year, and endeavoring to perpetuate this agitation which has been
excited
under his leadership. There is only one effective
way of finally settling this question, and that is to
vote for the amendment I have proposed, and thus
clearly put on record our opinion, which is that of
almost every hon. gentleman who has spoken, that
this Bill of the hon. member of North Simcoe
is a mischievous attempt to set race against race
and creed against creed. It is for this House, and
especially the Government, to take a bold stand,
and say, once for all, that such an attempt shall
not be tolerated, and by a crushing vote of the
whole House against the five or six, or it may
be ten, who would follow the hon. member for
North Simcoe, declare that we are not prepared
to give these men the means of disturbing the good
feeling and understanding which now exists between the two races in this country,
and we will
not allow them to perpetuate the division which
they have started and which has given rise to
feelings it will take a long time to allay. It is
not by yielding to the fire-brands who go through
the country sowing the seeds of discord, that we
will become unite, but it is by showing them
that the good sense of the country, as represented
in this House, is in a position to deal with them in
a summary manner by stamping out this agitation, and showing them they have no standing
in the House or the country and that
their course will not be tolerated. I am
very sorry we are not about to take this course,
and all the more so because I am obliged
to separate myself from my most esteemed
leader, in whom I have always had the greatest
confidence. But this question has been left an
open one, and I take the opportunity of voting
according to my judgment, and in accord with the
sentiments I feel so strongly in this matter, even
though I be compelled to differ from my leader.
Another cause for regret to me is that, by separating myself from my leader, I shall
be obliged to
vote in company with the hon. member for North
Simcoe, but it will be the first time, and I hope
the last, because I hope that the next time that
hon. gentleman, or any other, attempts to create
trouble in the country, a more vigorous policy will
1001 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 1002
be followed, and that the House will be almost
unanimous against those who attempt to destroy
the happiness, the prosperity, and the good feeling
that now exists, and I hope will always exist,
between the different creeds and races of this
country.
Mr. WALLACE. It is not my intention, at this
late stage of the debate, to make any lengthy remarks, butI cannot allow this question
to pass
and give a silent vote upon it. We have been, on
more than one occasion, brought face to face
with racial and religious difficulties. For these
difficulties, I think no man in this country is more
responsible than the ex-leader of the Opposition,
the hon. member for West Durham. That hon.
gentleman, nearly twenty years ago, made capital
out of the Scott murder case in the endeavor to
gain power in Ontario, and when he had accomplished his purpose, he quickly dropped
the subject so as not to embarrass his friends in the
Dominion elections that were then about to follow.
At a later date, on the question of the hanging of
Louis Riel, the hon. member for West Durham, in
his London speech, told the people that he would
not make a platform for his party out
of the Regina scaffold. Well, every true- minded patriot in this country commended
that
sentiment. But what did we find afterwards?
when the Government thought that a murderer is
a murderer, no matter what his nationality may
be, We find the hon. gentleman taking the other
side of the question and going back on the record
he had made for himself in London, going back
upon the declarations he solemnly made in London,
though he knew the whole facts of the case then
as much as he did afterwards, and as much as he
knows them to-day. We find this hon. gentleman
in this House, within the last few days, regretting
that these difficulties were coming up again; but I
believe that no one in this country is more responsible for these difficulties than
the hon. gentleman
himself. With reference to the question which is
immediately before the House, we have been told
that the North-West Council had no mandate
from the people to dispose of this question, and
we were told by the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) that they were in a state
of
tutelage. I think there is no portion of the people
of this country more intelligent than our North- West settlers. They are the flower
of the older
Provinces of Canada; they are young, enterprising
and intelligent men; they are young men of education, and I think they are as well
calculated to
Express an opinion upon questions as they arise as
the population of any other portion of this Dominion. Therefore, while I am in favor
of the Bill as
introduced by the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy); and while I regret that the tone
of this debate, on the other side, was not in
mutation of the moderation of the hon. gentleman
who introduced the Bill, I think the people of the
North-West themselves are better qualified to
pronounce upon this question than even we are in
the House of Commons. Another reason is. that
the House of Commons to-day may repeal the
110th clause of the North-West Territories Act,
and next Sessiion, or in the next Parliament, it
may re-enact that clause; and, therefore, we
would be brought face to face, either at every
Session of Parliament or in every new Parlia
ment, with this question. If we relegate it to the
North-West Council, or to the new Legislatures we
are creating in that country, to which each time
we are giving largely increased powers, we know
this, that when once you give power to a Local
Legislature, you can never take it away again.
The Local Legislatures are tenacious of any rights
and privileges which are given to them; and,
therefore, when you clothe them with a certain
power, that power remains with them. Therefore, if either of these amendments is adopted
by
the House, you are more permanently settling the
question than even by the adoption of the Bill
itself. For these reasons, I will favor the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister
of Justice,
though it does not go as far as I would like to go,
or as far as the amendment of the hon. member
for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), which I more
favor. But we cannot have everything our own
way. While a spirit of compromise and conciliation is abroad, I think, as patriots,
and as loyal
citizens of Canada, we should try to meet each
other half way. In the first place, therefore, I
give my adhesion to the amendment of the hon.
the Minister of Justice.
Mr. WATSON. This debate has taken a very
wide range, and, to my mind, the practical question
before the House has not been discussed as it
should have been. If it had been so discussed,
this debate would have ended three or four days
ago. I am rather surprised that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr.
Wallace)
appears to desire to revive the old debate on the
Riel question. That is a matter which is entirely
foreign to this debate. I think the French people
are somewhat to blame for this discussion. I believe that clause 110 was, in a sense,
smuggled into
this Act by Senator Girard in the Senate, and that
it should never have been there. From reading
the debates, I think that clause was inserted contrary to the wishes of the hon. gentlemen
who
were then in power, but, as that House was composed of a majority who were against
the policy
and principles of the majority in the popular
House, they did as they pleased, and, if that
clause had not been accepted, that Bill would
have been delayed for another season. In regard
to the visit of the hon. member for North Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy) to the North-West, he did not
trouble me very much on his visit to Portage la
Prairie. Even up to the present, I have some
doubts as to the honesty of that gentleman, and
as to his sincerity, in wanting to do good
to people of the North-West. It appears to me
that he came there more for the sake of agitation
than for any practical good. The hon. member for
Provencher (Mr. LaRivière) made a reference to his
visit and his speech on that occasion. I think his
quotations from that speech are perfectly accurate,
but he also referred to the Attorney General of the
Province of Manitoba, who stood on the platform
on that occasion, and he said he did not envy him
his company. It was hardly necessary for the
hon. member to make that statement, as this
House knows that the hon. member for Provencher
(Mr. LaRiviere) has not much use for the Attorney
General of Manitoba, and that about the time he
came around the legislative halls of that Province,
the member for Provencher was very scarce. I
believe that no change should be made in the
1003
[COMMONS] 1004
constitution under which people live without consulting the people, and, though I
believe that section 110 was smuggled into that Act and should
never have been there, nevertheless as the people
of the North-West have been living under that
clause enacted by this Parliament, I do not think
we should remove it without consulting them. I
am not a lawyer, but I much prefer the amendment
of the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin)
to that of the Minister of Justice, which has so
many surrounding clauses, which contains so many
things that appear to a layman to be a mystery.
The amendment of the hon. member for West
Assiniboia is plain, and I do not feel disposed to
vote for the amendment of the Minister of Justice,
as it recites certain things with which I do not
agree. It says:
"That, on the contrary, this House declares its adherence to the said covenants audits
determination to
resist any attempt to impair the same."
I believe, that at any time when it is in the
interests of any Province of the Dominion that
even the British North America Act should be
changed, it should be changed for the convenience
of the people living under that Act. Believing
that, I could not consistently vote for the amendment to the amendment. It is quite
possible that
the Province from which I come may have occasion to seek to amend the British North
America
Act in some measure, to relieve them from some
privileges which were granted to a minority in
that Province which are objectionable to the
majority. The French language is practically
done away with in Manitoba, as far as the Legislature is concerned. It has been abolished
by a
vote of twenty-four to six, and in a full House of
the representatives there would have been a vote
of thirty-two to six. The people of the North- West Territories are similarly situated
to those of
Manitoba, and I have no doubt they desire to have only
one official language in the North-West. Another
reason why I cannot vote for the Bill introduced
by the hon. member for Simcoe is the fact that I
find that six of the gentlemen composing the
North-West Council expressed themselves as being
favorable to the power being granted them by this
Parliament to deal with this question. They did
not ask that an Act should be passed to repeal
clause 110, as I understood from the hon. member
for Simcoe, but they asked that they should have
the power to do away with the French language if
they saw fit. I will quote some extracts from the
speeches delivered by a few of those gentlemen in
the North-West Assembly. The hon. member for
Provencher stated that Mr. Judge Rouleau had
expressed himself as being sorry that he had not a
vote, in order that he might cast it against the
memorial presented to this House. I find in the
report of the speeches in the Press the following:
"Judge Rouleau spoke at great length upon the question. He claimed that no action
could be taken until the
people had a chance to express themselves upon the
matter. Let the members make it an issue at the next
election if they wished. He had spoken French before he
had spoken English, and this memorial proposed to deprive him and others of their
mother tongue. He closed
by again claimin that the question should be decided by
the electors, and hinted that some of the members who
would probably vote for this now, might suffer at the next
election.
"Mr. Haultain ointed out that the assembly, in asking
for the removal of a restrictive clause, was simply asking
for more powers, and that they could make the use of the
power to deal with the language question, an issue at the
next election. He favored but one official language on
the ground of convenience and economy."
"Mr. Oliver regretted that the discussion had taken
such a wide range."
I think we can say the same thing in this House.—
"He represented a large number of French-speaking
people, and did not consider that he was going against their
interest in asking for extended powers, so that we could
deal with this matter ourselves. He had always strongly
advocated that the people of this country should be
allowed to manage their own affairs, and would support
the memorial."
"Mr. Neff said that the dual language system had
been imposed upon us and we were simply asking for the
privilege to retain it or not, as we wished. He had no
desire to deprive French-speaking people of a luxury;
they could not be prevented from speaking their own
language, but he obJected to its being an official language.
"Mr. Ross,"—
I think this gentleman represents Calgary or
Moose Jaw.—
"Mr. Ross also represented a mixed community. He
owed much to the French-speaking electors, in his district, and would be ungrateful
if he did them any injustice, but did not consider that he was doing them any
injustice in asking that the people's representatives in
the North-West be given the power to deal with this
matter." Â
"Mr. Hoey said this dual language seemed to be a bugbear to some people, and yet not
one member had been
able to show any injury done by it. No action should be
taken until the question was brought before the different
constituencies."
Now, Mr. Speaker, with that evidence before me,
I cannot do otherwise than to support the
amendment moved by the hon. member for West
Assiniboia, because I believe it gives the people
the exact power they ask for. To my mind, the
amendment to the amendment is simply putting
this matter off to another year. It is not giving
the power they ask for, and if the amendment of
the Minister of Justice is carried, no doubt we will
have a repetition of the debate that has taken
place here for the last six days, a debate which, I
think, is very much to be regretted. There is no
doubt it has given rise to race and religious
feelings that will not be quieted for years to come.
I was a little astonished at a statement made
by the Minister of Justice, and also one made
by the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of
Justice, in speaking in defence of his amendment, said it would be cruel to deprive
those poor people in the North-West of the privilege
of using their mother tongue; that a man might be
tried there and convicted, and, after the trial was
over, he might not know what he was convicted
for. Now, it appears to me that there is a good
deal of special pleading in a statement like that.
I have yet to learn that any British subject, or
anyone else, in the Dominion of Canada, be he of
British nationality or of any other has suffered
from a miscarriage of justice because he did not
understand the language in which the statutes
were printed. That being the case, I have no
doubt that, when the French language is done
away with in the North—West, there will be no
occasion for saying that these people do not understand the law because it is not
printed in their own
language. The hon. Minister of the Interior, in
his remarks last night, made rather a startling
statement. He said that he visited six townships
in Manitoba during his trip last fall, and he found
nine different nationalities in those six different
townships.
1005 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 1006
Mr. DEWDNEY. Excuse me, not in Manitoba;
but in the North-West, I found in two townships
representatives of nine nationalities.
Mr. WATSON. I took down the sentence which
followed that statement, in which he said it would
be cruel if the laws of the land were not printed
in the language of these nationalities. I do not
really think he meant it, but, if he did, it would
be a very expensive luxury. Sir, I believe the
amendment of the hon. member for West Assiniboia commends itself to a great number
of the hon.
gentlemen in this House. There is no doubt that
the appeal made by the First Minister yesterday
to whip his followers into line had considerable
effect. It was a very strong appeal; he rose
equal to the occasion, and to my mind made the
best speech I ever heard delivered in the House.
There were none of those little stories with which
that hon. gentleman is accustomed to regale the
House. But I hope that the amendment of the
Minister of Justice will not be adopted, for the
amendment of the member for West Assiniboia is
the only one that will satisfy the people of the
North-West, will give them the power they ask
for, and will prevent a repetition of the unpleasant
discussion which has taken place in this House for
the last few days. The hon. member for Provencher said he considered it a fortunate
thing
that this question had been brought before the
House, but I do not share in his view; I think it
a very unfortunate thing. No doubt the hon.
gentleman feels a little warm on the question, because a similar question is arising
in Manitoba in
connection with the French language and separate
schools, which are going to be done away with
in that Province, at least separate schools will
henceforth exist in a much modified form. As
I said before, I thought the French people were to
blame to some extent for this discussion in the
House, inasmuch as I believe that this clause was
smuggled into the Bill by Senator Girard in the
Senate some years ago. I believe that one of the
causes of irritation in Manitoba in reference to
separate schools is the fact that while the hon.
member for Provencher was a member of the Government of Manitoba be secured special
privileges
for the separate schools, and when the Protestants,
who are the great majority of that Province, found
that the separate schools were receiving much
more than their share of the grant, they became
aroused, and when a change of Government took
place they decided that the moment was opportune for abolishing the system. With regard
to
the French language in Manitoba, I may say that,
while I do not know what the custom is in the
North-West, one of the principal reasons of the
abolition of the official French in Manitoba was
the expense. It has been stated here that the
printing of French in the North-West amounts to
only $400. I know that in Manitoba it costs a
considerable sum of money, and it costs the general public a large sum of money in
addition to
what it costs the Government, because under the
Land Title system all notices of application to
put land under the Torrens system have to be
advertised in the
Gazette. This costs a considerable
sum to the applicants.
Mr. CASGRAIN. I do not intend to occupy
the time of the House at any length, but I desire
merely to state the conclusion at which I have
arrived after listening to the discussion. I regret
that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil) was
not carried,
as I should like to have seen it adopted. That
amendment having been defeated, I think the next
best course to take is to adopt the amendment of
the Minister of Justice, and I am, therefore, willing
to vote for it. I am willing to do so because it
contains an emphatic declaration against the principle of the Bill proposed by the
hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). Of course, if that
amendment went further in the direction of extinguishing the question at once I would
feel more
satisfied, for I am afraid it may come back; but
under the circumstances, when I see that the
flame is extending over the country, I think
the first thing to do is to quench it at once.
I place this question above party considerations,
and I consider it on the broad principle that we
must have peace and amity in this country,
and that its future depends upon it. It is no
doubt unfortunate that this subject has been
brought before the House. It has arrayed a
compact body of French members against the
English-speaking members, which is a circumstance
to be deplored. As the Minister of Public Works
said, it has arrayed a compact phalanx of French
Canadians in defence of their rights. In order to
secure harmony, not only in the House, but throughout the country, I am glad to support
the conclusion
arrived at by the wiser heads on both sides of this
House. No none will deny that the leader of the
Government is not only a politician but a statesman,
and although I am with him this time, it is certainly
not because I belong to his following. At the same
time I am glad to follow my leader, who on this
occasion has shown his patriotism and devotion to
his country, and who advocates the principle of
the autonomy of the Provinces that has already
been sanctioned. I am also very glad to follow
the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake),
whose brilliant speech must have brought conviction to many members. From these considerations
I accept the amendment proposed by the Minister
of Justice, not as the best conclusion possible,
but as a means of soothing the bad feelings that
have been aroused all over the country.
Mr. DUPONT. (Translation.) The imposing
debate, Mr. Speaker, brought on by the campaign
carried on throughout the country by the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), and by
the measure which he has submitted for the consideration of this House, clearly shows
the importance of the privileges and the rights which it
attacks. Several of my colleagues, at the opening
of the campaign undertaken by the hon. member
against the French Canadians, the first inhabitants
of this country, believe that the good sense of the
English people will consider this quarrel which the
hon. member seeks to fasten upon us as a quarrel
of but little importance. Several thought, at the
beginning, that this mountain in labor would bring
forth but a small and ridiculous mouse. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for North
Simcoe has been backed up in his campaign by
other gentlemen, whose talent, and the means
which they have employed, to excite the prejudices
of their fellow-citizens who are not of the same
race as ourselves, in the Province of Ontario, it is
impossible to ignore. The hon. member has aroused
1007
[COMMONS] 1008
against us, I repeat, his fellow-countrymen; and
as the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Gigault) has
said, there has arisen a dark cloud on our political
horizon, carrying within it a war of race, a war of
religion, a war against the institutions of the first
inhabitants of this country. Happily for us, Mr.
Speaker, the good sense of the public men on both
sides of the ouse has been, in the face of this dark
cloud, the light of hope, which has animated the
courage of all true patriots within the Dominion.
I can only compare some of the speeches of the
hon. members, who have endeavored to raise prejudice against us; on account of the
small value
of their arguments; on account of the lame reasonings which support them; on account
of the
few historical precedents which they have quoted
in order to justify the attitude which they have
taken against us—I can only compare these
speeches, set going by these hon. members in the
road of public opinion, to light carriages, to cabs
which carry no load. On the other hand, Mr.
Speaker, if I applied the same simile to some
of the speeches made by hon. members, as well
on this side of the House as on the other, I
ought to compare these speeches to massive waggons pushed alone the road of public
opinion by
powerful orators; I might say that these waggons
carry boxes which contain solid reasoning, formidable reasoning, philosophic reasoning,
and historical facts. Woe to the light cabs without a load,
driven at an immoderate gait, by thoughtless
drivers, if they should happen some day to knock
against, in the road of public opinion, and in the
road of history, these massive waggons which
are laden with historical truths and true philosophical teachings. What are, Mr. Speaker,
in
short, the complaints of the hon. member for
North Simcoe against the French Canadians and
the French race, not only in the Province of
Quebec but against the small handful of those of
our nationality who have tried their fortune on
the prairies of the West? The hon. member
desires, be the cost what it may, to make the
regions of the West, what he calls a British country. But is not the Province of Quebec
a British
country? Are not we in that Province subjects of
Her Majesty, equally as are the citizens of the
Province of Ontario, and as would be those of the
North-West, were they all Saxons, as the hon.
member for North Simcoe desires? I do not see
what difference there is between an Anglo-Saxon
subject, and a British subject of French Canadian
origin. I do not see what difference there can be
in the minds of English statesmen, in the eyes of
the friends of the Empire, between a British subject of French origin or of Irish
or Scotch origin,
or even one of the subjects of Her Majesty in the
vast Colony of the East Indies, and a Saxon like
the hon. member for North Simcoe; we are all
subjects of the same Empire, we are all citizens of
the same Empire, and as such we ought to have
equal rights. Great use has been made, Mr.
Speaker, of the word "British, "during this debate;
and I have remarked, especially, that the hon.
member for Albert (Mr. Weldon), in moderate yet
unjust language, has, in a way, profaned this noble
expression. Every subject of the British Empire,
to whatever race or nationality he may belong, can
claim the same title. The hon. member for North
Simcoe and the member for Albert have pretended
that if French were spoken in the North-West it
would no longer be a British country. And, say
they, the French Canadians ought not to delude
themselves to the point of believing that the North- West ought not to be a British
country. No, Mr.
Speaker, we have never been under this impression,
we have never asked for it, and we would be the
most grieved parties in the Dominion, if the
North-West was not going to continue forever a British country. We wish, just as
much as the hon. member for Albert
does, or the hon. member for North Simcoe,
that the North-West should continue to be a
dependency of the Dominion of Canada, or rather
form a portion of the Dominion, and that it may
be a British country, if it should not be like the
Province of Quebec, it would be such to the same
extent as is the country whence comes the hon.
member for Albert. But what do they mean to
say, when using the expression "British?" Does
this mean exclusion for some of the subjects of the
Empire? Do we understand by that, unequal
rights for certain subjects of the Empire, or again
the rights of certain subjects of the Empire entirely
ignored? Does this mean short-sightedness? No,
Mr. Speaker, I have always held the highest
opinion of British subjects and of British countries.
I have always understood that the British language
was a noble language; that a British country was
a noble country in which liberty and equal rights
reigned supreme. But, as the hon. member for
Simcoe understands it, would it be a case of equal
rights if all the subjects of the Empire were obliged
to adopt the customs and the religion as well as the
language of the hon. members for North Simcoe and
Albert? Do these hon. members understand by
equal rights that one ought not to do anything but
what they do, to think only as they think, and to
act only as they act? This liberty is a liberty
which is not British. The hon. member for Simcoe
profanes this noble expression, degrades this noble
title, of which every subject of the Empire is proud.
He desires to give it a narrow meaning, at which,
no matter what English subject, if he but understands the importance of the title
of "British
subject," would blush. The hon. gentlemen, Mr.
Speaker, who share the opinion of the hon. member
for North Simcoe, seem to believe that without
unity of language the country is exposed to every
plague, and that with unity of language a country is
secure against all disorders and all misfortunes.
They have cited the great American Republic as
being a country which has prospered extremely, and
they have attributed, so to speak, all this prosperity to the fact that American subjects
enjoy
this great prerogative, this grand privilege which
is the hobby of the hon. member for North Simcoe,
namely, unity of language. But why, I ask the
hon. member, did a civil war break out in the
heart of this same great Republic, which according
to him enjoys unity in language? Why did this
great civil war, which has had no equal in the
annals of modern nations, this great civil war which
has been one of the greatest scourges of the American people, why did it break out
in a nation in
which unity of language existed? The hon. members, Mr. Speaker, who have treated so
learnedly
this subject, my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr.
Mills) the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin), the hon. member for "West Durham (Mr.
Blake), and several of their colleagues on both
sides of the House, have shown, by the
1009 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 1010
clearest possible evidence, that it is possible
to he a great nation, that it is possible
to become a great people while not possessing unity in religion, unity in language,
or unity
of race. And, unless we believe that it is by presumption, or that he is impelled
thereto by an evil
genius, I cannot understand what induces the hon.
member to persist in this crusade, in the face of
historic verity, in face of precedents, which have
been held up before his eyes, and which the hon.
member ought to have known before they were
pointed out to him by his colleagues; for everybody knows that the hon. member is
a man of
great skill, a well informed man, a man who has
studied deeply. But, notwithstanding all this, like
a blind man, like a deaf man, he cries without
ceasing that without unity of language it is impossible or nearly impossible for this
Canada, which
we love so much and which we cherish, to become
a great country. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the
hon. member is unjust towards us. I ask this
House, I ask every impartial man, what would
Canada be to-day, had it not been for the support
of the French nationality in all the great questions
which the present Government, and that which
preceded it, have carried out? Who was the man
who followed up, with the utmost perseverance,
the acquisition of those great Territories, respecting which the hon. member for North
Simcoe has
embroiled us to-day? Was it not Sir George
Etienne Cartier, one of the old colleagues of the
hon. the present Prime Minister? Has not the
Province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, paid its large
portion, as well of the purchase money of the
North-West, and for the construction of the Pacific
Railway, as for all the great public works which
have been constructed by the Government to open
up the North-West to civilisation? And, in spite
of all this, what does the hon. member for Simcoe
wish to do to-day? What does he undertake? He
undertakes to deprive the people of the Province of Quebec, of their just share in
this great
heritage,—towards the purchase of which, towards
the colonisation of which, they have so largely
contributed. This, Mr. Speaker, is the unjust
undertaking of the hon. member with regard to
the Province of Quebec; whereas without us, I do
not hesitate to say it, without us there would be
no North-West, no Canadian Pacific Railway, no
colonisation in the West, and this vast country
would be in a wild state. If the Dominion is today in possession of these rich Territories,
she
owes them to the French element, which the hon.
member fights against with so much vigor. I do
not understand how they can require that we
should be at the same time loyal subjects of Her
Majesty, and that we should be disloyal towards
our mother tongue. We must defend it with all
our powers; it is our right, and it is our duty.
And I declare that the man who voluntarily
surrenders his mother tongue, is not a good citizen,
he is a man whose loyalty would not remain firm
after every trial, as that of the subjects of Her
Majesty ought to do. The hon. member for Simcoe
has not always reasoned in the same way respecting minorities. Everybody remembers
the attitude
taken by the hon. members for North Simcoe, for
North Bruce (Mr. McNeill) as well as that of
several other members who follow them, when
In this House, the resolution asking for "Home
Rule" in Ireland was rejected; we all know that,
at this period, these gentlemen raised objections
to this resolution, stating that we were going to
sacrifice the Protestant minority in Ireland, and
to place it at the mercy of the Roman Catholic
majority. Such were the objections from these
hon. gentlemen. Have these hon. members two
weights and two measures—the one for the
Roman Catholics, the other for their coreligionists the Protestants? I must hasten
to
conclude. I know that the House is anxious
to close this debate; but I was surprised
at the remarks which some of my colleagues
speaking the English language made. And I cannot pass them over in silence. It has
been admitted that the hon. the Minister of Public Works
(Sir Hector Langevin), was moderate as respects
the expressions used in his speech on the present
question, but it is alleged that he was too vigorous
in its utterance. I cannot conceive how these
hon. members can reproach the hon. Minister of
Public Works with having testified by a degree of
vivacity in his speedy—he, one of the fathers of
Confederation, he, the successor of the illustrious
statesman, Sir George Etienne Cartier. I think
that he would have been wanting in his duty if he
had not borne witness against the resolution of
the hon. member for North Simcoe, with something of indignation. In any case it would
not be
me who would blame him for it. It is to my
knowledge that several of my English colleagues,
—and I do not say it of them as a reproach—in
support of interests much less serious than those
which are now being discussed, displayed much
more energy in their language than did the hon.
Minister of Public Works. My compatriots, Mr.
Speaker, the French Canadians of the Province of
Quebec, will be doubtless much obliged to many
hon. members in this House,—I may say to the
great majority of the members of this House—for
the sympathy which they have extended to our
nationality, during this debate, for the respect
which they have shown for the rights of minorities, and for the firm determination
which
they have shown to defend them on all occasions. Among those distinguished men, who
have come forward generously in support of
the Government, in order to make easier their
task, and to assist them in giving us justice,
I must mention the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Blake), and I regret that again,
this
evening, on account of his great liberality towards
us, it has been thought proper to attack him somewhat violently.
Mr. DUPONT. The speech of the hon. member
for West Durham, as well as the other speakers
who have spoken in defence of our cause, will dwell
in the shrine of history; they will serve as lessons
for our successors in this House, and for our posterity; they are founded in reason
and on justice,
and they show the true position in which minorities
should be placed, in no matter what country. It
might be said that in the family of the hon. member
for West Durham,—I must render him this
acknowledgment; and you all know, moreover,
that he is no political friend of mine, I did not, in
general, support his policy when he was leader of a
party in this House,—it might be said, I say, that
in questions of right, on great questions of justice,
the hon. member has shown that British fair-play
1011
[COMMONS] 1012
was, so to speak, bred in the bones of the family
of Blake. I believe that every good citizen, every
man who is a friend to his country, ought to be
dismayed at the conclusions arrived at by the hon.
member for West Durham. He has concluded his
train of reasoning by these forcible words: if justice
is not done to the minorities, if we kindle in this
country a war of races, a religious war, neither
prosperity nor progress will ever be possibilities for
us. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, which ought to
frighten us the most, whether it be this formidable
conclusion or the inevitable contained in this conclusion. If the policy of the hon.
member for
North Simcoe should prevail, I believe that the conclusion of the hon. member West
Durham is inevitable. I think that every patriot who loves his
country, no matter to what nationality he may
belong, should make superhuman efforts to keep
the nation far from the path of discord into
which the hon. member for North Simcoe
and his friends desire to thrust it. I think that
every public man,—and it seems to me that they
wish to do it, for the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell), intensely warlike
as he is,
has spoken with moderation and wisdom. He also
has come to the aid of the Government to assist
them in settling this difficult matter,—all public
men should work together in concert, and with all
possible energy, to lift us from the way of discord
into which We are entering, and to thrust the nation from it as from a nest of vipers.
Mr. Speaker,
with these few remarks I conclude, heartily thanking the House for having kindly given
me their
attention.
Mr. SCRIVER. Mr. Speaker, in view of the
great length to which this debate has extended, it
having now occupied seven days, and sympathising
as I do with the natural impatience of the House,
I shall not detain hon. members more than such
time as will enable me, in a very few words, to explain the position I take on this
question. I regret
exceedingly that the question which is now before
the House has been brought into it. I feared, when
the Bill of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) was introduced, it would give rise not
only to great differences of opinion, but perhaps to
angry and intemperate discussion, and would excite
great feeling, not only in the House, but throughout the length and breadth of the
land. The impassioned, not to say intemperate, utterances of
some leading members on both sides of the House
have satisfied me that my apprehension had some
foundation. I was desirous, therefore, that some
solution of the question should be reached which
would remove it from this House, and relegate it
to some authority to which it would be reasonable,
just and fair to refer it, and I was glad, therefore,
when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin)
submitted the amendment he proposed. It met
my views completely under the circumstances, and
I determined at the time it was submitted that,
unless some modification of it was proposed which
would more fully meet my views, would support
it. With regard to the amendment proposed by
the Minister of Justice, it does not meet my views
as does the amendment submitted by the hon.
member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin). I think
that if the decision of this question is relegated to
the people of the North-West, whom it mainly
concerns, those people should be given the power
to consider it in all its aspects, and it should not
be divided into portions as is proposed by the
amendment of the Minister of Justice. I agree
with the hon. member for Queen's, P. E. I. (Mr.
Davies), in considering that a half-hearted measure,
and I shall, therefore, feel constrained to vote
against the amendment to the amendment, and, if
that should be lost, to vote in favor of the amendment moved by the hon. member for
West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin).
Mr. PATERSON (Brant). I recognise that the
House is anxious to reach a decision on this
question, and I shall, therefore, not attempt to
discuss it at any length. I confine myself to the
question now before us. It is not a question as
between the amendment and the original motion
proposing the second reading of the Bill, but is a
choice between the amendment by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), and
the
amendment to the amendment proposed by the
Minister of Justice. I desire to say that, as I approve more highly of the wording
of the amendment offered by the member for Assiniboia than I
do of that offered by the Minister of Justice,
I shall be forced to vote against the amendment to
the amendment.
Mr. LAURIER. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago,
in the course of this debate, I stated that my
opinion was that the best and most proper time to
settle this question would be when Parliament
felt that the time had come to extend to the
North-West Territories a larger measure of local
autonomy than they now enjoy. I voted for the
amendment of the hon. member for Berthier
(Mr. Beausoleil) on this express condition. I did
not approve altogether of the wording of the
amendment of my hon. friend; but I thought, on
the whole, that the idea therein expressed, that
our institutions in the North-West should be
permanent, was true to this extent, that they
should be permanent in every particular so long as
the present form of government in the North-West
endured. This view has not prevailed, and the
consequence is that the House is not called upon
to deal with this question. I then also stated that
when the time came, be that time early or late,
the only way to deal with the question before
the House would be on the broad principle
of local autonomy. I thought from the first and
I still more than ever believe it, that the only
method under which we can carry out the system
of Confederation, the only method by which we
can give justice and fair play to minorities, wherever minorities may be situated,
will depend altogether on the adoption of the principle of local autonomy. It has
been stated to-day that there really
is no question of autonomy or Provincial rights here.
It may be said we have no Provincial rights, in
the technical sense, in the Territories, but the principle involved is the same. Although
the Territories have not been organised into Provinces, the
principle applying to the case is the same as if they
had been so organised. The only difference is
that their powers would be supreme and absolute if they were organised into Provinces,
and that they should not, in my judgment, be
subject to the revision of the Central Government.
For all that, the principle remains unimpaired, and
should be acted upon, that the will of the people of
the Territories aected ought to be the will which
1013 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 1014
should prevail in the solution of this question, and
of all other similar questions. My hon. friend, the
member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), stated this afternoon that the best method of solving
this question,
with a view to Provincial rights, would be simply to
affirm the principle of the Bill itself. Surely, my
hon. friend was not serious in so speaking. The
Bill of my hon. friend from Simcoe proposes to
abrogate clause 110 of the North-West Territories
Act, which clause provides that either the English
or the French language may be used by any person
in the debates of the Council or Legislative Assembly of the Territories. If you simply
repeal this
clause, you remove from the Legislature of the
Territories the power which they now have of using
either the French or the English language in their
debates. What I understand by Provincial rights
—and I suppose what my hon. friend must understand—is, that the people of the Territories
should
decide for themselves whether or not they are to
have the privilege or the
onus of having two official
languages. If you remove that law, you take away
from them the privilege which they now have of
using the two languages. I do not believe that is
in the direction of Provincial rights, or Provincial autonomy. The amendment of my
hon.
friend, the Minister of Justice, tends to uphold
Provincial rights and local autonomy, and I am
happy to extend my congratulations to the Prime
Minister, and to his Government that more and
more, and day by day, the force of circumstances
brings them over to this principle. More and
more the principle grows, and they are forced to
adopt it, in spite of their former practice in older
times. It is stated, however, against this amendment of the Minister of Justice, that
it is not so
complete as the amendment moved by the member
for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin). It may not be so
complete, but it is not the less just, for the amendment of my hon. friend the Minister
of Justice
involves this: that in the debates of the Local Assembly of the North-West, and in
the recording
of their proceedings, they shall have the privilege
of using one language or the other, or both, and
they shall be empowered to decide for themselves
whether they shall have only one official language
or two official languages. There is, then, the question of the courts, and it has
been stated (and I
think properly stated), that the use of the language in courts, would be acknowledged
as beyond
the power of the Dominion Parliament. There
then remains the question of the printing of the
statutes. So long as we provide the Territories with
a revenue, can any serious objection be taken to
the fact that we should provide for the printing of
the laws and ordinances in the North-West? I
can see very well that if the Territories had to
provide that out of their own revenue, to impose any
obligations upon them, which they would not want
to assume, might be a grievance. But so long as we
give them the revenue, surely no man can object;
and we who supply the money ought to have the
power to put upon it an obligation (which is not
after all an unreasonable obligation), and which on
the other hand is in the tendency of peace and harmony. It has been stated that this
amendment
was a compromise. I must say for my part, and
the First Minister will hear me out, that there has
been no compromise between him and me. I
always have stated publicly as well as privately,
and I have never disguised my thoughts on this
matter, that, in my judgment, sooner or later, and
better sooner than later, this question had to be
settled upon the broad basis of local autonomy.
In fact, if this question has taken a wider range
than is involved in the principle of local autonomy,
it is simply because the member for Simcoe has
chosen to make it so. If the hon. member for Simcoe
(Mr. McCarthy), instead of placing as the basis of
his Bill, that there should be a community of language, and that this community of
language should
extend everywhere in the Dominion where French
is spoken, had simply left it to the will and the
desire of the people of the Territories, we would not
have had one-half or one-tenth part of all the
trouble we have had over this question. But it
is because the people of Quebec have good reason
to suppose that this was a preliminary skirmish,
soon to be followed by other attacks, soon to be
followed by attacks which would reach them in their
own Province, that they have been so excited. A
few days ago, the hon. member for Simcoe, speaking in this debate, disclaimed the
idea of imposing
his will upon the people of Quebec and attempting
to deprive them of their language; but it seems
that the hon. gentleman is not so brave here as he
was in Manitoba; for in Manitoba he is recorded
as having stated that if the French language was
abolished in that Province, it would be abolished
in Quebec. Is it to be wondered that the
people of Quebec have felt as they have felt upon
this question in face of such a threat as this?
I want to say to my fellow-countrymen of French
origin that we must expect, in the face of such a
declaration, that, some day or other, this agitation
commenced here will be carried into our Province.
Let us remember this: that if we are prepared to
stand by the principle of local autonomy in the
North-West Territories, we will stand ten times,
and a hundred times, stronger when we have to
meet an attack in our own Province. If we are
now prepared to stand by the principle of local
autonomy, I submit that, when the time comes,
we will find a tower of strength in the position
which we may take upon this question. This is
one of the reasons which impel me to take the
action I propose on this measure, that is, to support the amendment of the hon. Minister
of
Justice. I quite realise that it must be painful for
many hon. members from the Province of Quebec
to vote for a measure which may, perhaps, imply
the possibility that the French language should
cease to be the official language in the North-West
Territories. I have no reason to suppose, and
I do not for one moment suppose, that the people
of the North-West Territories would act unjustly
or unfairly towards the French minority. I know
it has been said that, if we vote this measure, it is a foregone conclusion that the
French
language will not be an official language of the
North-West, because the Legislature has already
expressed its opinion in favor of removing it as an
official language. Well, that is true; but we must
remember that at present there is not one single
member speaking French in that Legislature, and if,
after the next election, there should be no change
in the representation, if there should be no French
representative in the North-West Territories Assembly, surely no one will complain
if, under such
circumstances, after the attention of the people
has been roused to the question, the Local Legislature were to adhere to its present
intention. I
1016
[COMMONS] 1016
believe, for all that, that if there were even a
sprinkling of French members in the Local Legislature, the majority would act with
the same spirit
of fairness towards them that the Legislature of
Upper Canada evinced in 1793, as shown in the incident to which our attention was
directed by the
Prime Minister yesterday. I believe that they
would act in the same spirit of fairness towards the
minority which was evinced by the Legislature of
Canada in 1845. As I said a moment ago, I am
not at all surprised that some of my fellow-countrymen should feel strongly upon this
question, and
that they should propose to adhere to their present
intention. As for myself I must say it is a matter
of deep anguish to me that upon this question I
have to sever my connection with such a life-long
friend as the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil). I know he is acting for the
best interests
of his country accordin to his lights, and I am
sure he will give me credit that in voting as I shall
have to do with the Government on this question, I do
so not out of any love to the Government, but with
the conviction that in so doing I am acting in the
best interest of my party and my country.
Mr. IVES. I desire to occupy the time of the
House only for a moment, in order to say that I
am against both the spirit and intention of the
Bill of the hon. member for Simcoe. For my
own part, I think it would have been far preferable
if this House had deferred the settlement of this
whole question until such time as the increase of
population in the North-West Territories had made
it necessary that portions of that territory should
be organised into Provinces. I believe it is impossible at the present moment for
any member of
this House to know what will be the position
or character of the population which may settle
in that vast domain. We may perhaps have on
the Saskatchewan a territory large enough for a
Province, including in its population a large
majority of people speaking the French language,
and we may perhaps have in Alberta a population
purely English; and when the different parts of
that territory are organised into Provinces, the
question could be very easily settled by this
Parliament without annoyance to the people of
the Territories, and without straining unduly the
principle of local autonomy to which my hon.
friend who last addressed the House has referred.
In that way we might perhaps arrive at a settlement of this whole question without
this debate
or this agitation. For these reasons, and because
I would not see the French language abolished
in this House or in the country, any more than I
would see the French Canadians obliged to leave
the country, I supported the amendment of the
hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil). But
that motion has been disposed of, and we have
now to choose between the amendment of the hon.
Minister of Justice and the amendment of the hon.
member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), and when I
have to choose between these two amendments I
naturally choose that which least disturbs present conditions. Therefore, I intend
to support
the amendment of the hon. Minister of Justice. If
I could be assured that an amendment would be
carried in this House to defer the whole question
until the organisation of Provinces in the North- West Territories, I would support
such a motion;
but in the division we had on the amendment of
the hon. member for Berthier, we saw arrayed on
one side almost the whole force of the members
from the Province of Quebec, who have no objection to the French language or institutions,
and
we saw arrayed on the other side, all the other
members of this House. When our views, therefore,
failed to meet with the approval of a majority of
the House, I think it is a serious risk to persist, as
does the hon. member for Berthier, in rejecting the
amendment of the hon. Minister of Justice, which
certainly is not a serious interference with the rights
of the French Canadians, but is a safe and fair
compromise measure, and one which ought to be
supported.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I quite appreciate the
desire of the House that this debate should close,
and I would not have risen now to say a word if
it had not been for the personal attack which, even
at this late hour, the leader of the Opposition could
not forbear to make upon me. I desire to repudiate the statement he has made with
regard to my
saying anything in Manitoba which I have not
said here. My reference in Manitoba was not to
the French language in the Province of Quebec;
but there, as in Montreal, it was to the possibility—
which I then thought was within reach, and which
I do not yet deny to myself the hope of being
accomplished—that the tithe and fabrique questions may yet be settled in the Province
of Quebec,
and settled I dare say with the aid of my hon.
friend who now leads the Opposition. That was
the question I referred to, and not the question of
the French language, as my hon. friend will see if
he will do me the justice to read the deliberate
statement I made in Montreal. Having troubled
the House again, I would like to say this with
regard to the amendment before us. It has been
stated here that this amendment is a measure of
peace; but I wish this House to understand that
what may be a measure of peace here, between the
hon. members on both sides of this House, may
be anything but a measure of peace in this country.
For my part, I see in this amendment every
possible evil which we have had suggested to us
throughout this debate. It relegates a portion of
this difficult and disturbing subject to the people
of the North-West. That certainly is not a
measure of peace, so far as they are concerned.
It leaves the remaining part to be dealt with
by this Parliament; and the House very much
mistakes, no matter what its vote may be tonight, if it thinks that this Parliament
has heard
the last of this question; for I can assure this
House that if the matter is disposed of here tonight by the adoption of the amendment
of the
hon. Minister of Justice, I shall bring it up again
at the earliest opportunity. If this is so—and that
is certainly within my right, as the hon. member
for Queen's, P. E. I. (Mr. Davies) said last evening,
and not only within my right, but within my duty
—then where is the benefit of postponing, or delaying, or procrastinating on a question
which we
are told involves so many difficulties? This may
or may not be a matter for the Territories to settle
themselves, or for this Parliament to settle; but
this measure raises no question between the right
of the Territories and the right of this House to
deal with it; because every member of this House
knows perfectly well that if the Bill I have introduced passes this House, it will
be with the full
1017 [FEBRUARY 21, 1890.] 1018
assent and concurrence of a great majority of the
people of the North-West Territories. But whether
it is a matter for the Territories or for us to decide, we are neither doing one thing
nor the other
by making a pretence here for the sake of peace,
by shaking hands across this table, by the leaders
on this side and on that side putting their heads
together and coercing their followers,—
Mr. McCARTHY-because an amendment
which will satisfy neither one party nor the other
is not going to satisfy this country.
Mr. PLATT. Mr. Speaker, the division which
we appear about to reach will, I believe, close this
debate; but the division list will not define the
exact position of those who will vote nay. They
are composed of three distinct parties: Those led
by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy), who wish to reach his Bill, in order
that they may support it; those led by the hon.
member for Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil), who wish
to support neither amendment nor the Bill; and
those who wish to reach the first amendment,
that proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia
(Mr. Davin), in order that they may support it.
I wish to define my position to be that I desire to
reach the amendment moved by my hon. friend
from Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), because I prefer it
to the one moved by the hon. the Minister of
Justice; but if the choice lay between the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister
of Justice,
and the original motion, I should support the
amendment of the hon. Minister of Justice.
House divided on the amendment to the amendment (Sir John Thompson):
That this House, having regard to the long continued
use of the Frenc 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 unity of the Dominion that
there should be community of language amongst the
people of Canada; Â
That, on the contrary, this House declares its adherence to the said covenants and
its determination to
resist any attempt to impair the same;
That, at the same time, this House deems it expedient
and proper and not inconsistent with those covenants that
the legislative Assembly of the N orth-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 the manner of recording and publishing such proceedings.
This individual participated in:
