217 [MARCH 17, 1892.] 218
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, 17th March, 1892.
NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES ACT
AMENDMENT.
Mr. MCCARTHY moved for leave to introduce
Bill (No. 27) further to amend the North-West
Territories's Act. He said: The Bill which I have
the honour to introduce deals with two subjects: one,
that of duality of language in the North-West
Territories, and the other the subject of education.
The question of the languages, or of the duality
of language in the North-West Territories, was
very fully discussed in this House two sessions ago,
and, as hon. gentlemen who were members of the
House in that session, and who are still here, will
remember, it ended in a compromise resolution,
which was passed at the instance of the Government
and acquiesced in by the great body of gentlemen,
I do not think by all those constituting the Opposition. That compromise I did not
accede to, nor
do I now think it was a wise one. It may have
been, perhaps, a political necessity, but I do not
think that in the interests of the country it was
a wise and judicious result. Before that time, the
law was, and had been since 1877, that the French
language as well as the English should be official in
four different matters. That is, it was permissible
either to use English or French in the debates of the
Assembly which was constituted for the North- West: it was compulsory that the proceedings
of
the Assembly should be recorded in both languages:
it was permissible to use both languages in the
courts; and it was compulsory that the North- West Legislative Council, as it then
was, should
publish the ordinances they passed from time to
time in both the languages. The compromise
which was agreed to, and to which I have already
made reference, provided that after the then
coming and since happening election in the North- West the councillors for the North-West
should
have power to say how their proceedings should be
conducted. and they should have authority to
declare that the proceedings of the Assembly might
be recorded in either one or both languages, but so
far as the courts were concerned, and so far as the
publication of the laws were concerned, the old
provision remained. So that, although I do not
think it is generally understood throughout the
country, if there is an evil in the preservation or
in the permission granted, or rather in the compulsion placed on the people of the
North-West to use
the two languages, that evil still exists. I did not
complain, I do not know anybody complained of the
fact that members of the Legislative Assembly
might speak in both languages or either language,
or in any language. That was a matter, I think,
which might be left to the Assembly itself.
What I did complain of, and what those who
thought as I did felt to be wrong, was that
in the North-West Territories it was made compulsory on the people to adopt the two
languages;
in other words, that the French language should
stand, so far as the North-West Territories were concerned, on a par with the English
language. I do
not intend to do more than briefly state the history
of this question, which will enable the House fully
to understand it; and I need only address those
members who were not present two years ago, in
regard to this double language question. In the
early days in the French province, now the province
of Quebec, there was the right claimed, and I do not
think it was an unreasonable right, by the gentlemen elected to the Legislative Council
of that
province, to speak in their own language. It was
impossible for them, probably, to speak in English
or any other language, and the request was conceded, not as a matter of law but of
right, to
address their fellow members in their own language.
I repeat that that appears to have not been at all
an objectionable request. But the difficulty that
219 [COMMONS] 220
arose from that proceeding led in 1840—and I do
not desire at this stage of the discussion to introduce anything of a controversial
character, remembering the rebuke administered to me on the last
occasion by the leader of the Opposition—to the
perpetuation of race distinctions which unfortunately, owing to circumstances, existed
in Canada.
In 1841, in the Bill uniting the two provinces of
Upper and Lower Canada the French language
was prohibited. That Act remained in force for six
or seven years when its repeal took place in England,
on the petition of the Parliament of Old Canada, and
then again the French language became permissive.
At the time of Confederation an Act was passed
which declared that the French language should
stand, so far as this Parliament was concerned and
in the matters referred to in the statutes and in the
courts of Canada, on an equality with the English
language; and so the law stood in the Province of
Quebec. But that law did not extend to the Province of Ontario. and, of course, it
had no reference
to the Province of New Brunswick or Nova Scotia,
nor did that law apply to the Province of Prince
Edward Island when it became part of the confederacy, nor to the Province of British
Columbia. It
was, however. unfortunately as I venture to think,
made a part of the law of the Province of Manitoba
when a constitution was granted to that part of the
North-West, and in 1877, when an amendment
took place to the North-West Territories Act. it
was made compulsory also in the North-West
Territories. And so it remained without question
until I had the honour to bring the matter before
the House a session or two ago, when, after a long
and rather acrimonious discussion, the compromise
was arrived at to which I have referred. Now
that promise was not carried into law until last
year, but in the North-West Territories Act of
last session, when very enlarged powers were
granted to the people of the Territories, this particular provision to which I refer
was enacted and is
now to he found on the statute. The proposition
is to eliminate that, to repeal that clause, and that
is all, Sir, that I can say in order to make perfectly
plain what the object of the Bill is with regard to
the duality of languages. I have mentioned that
it deals also with the subject of education. Now,
the genius of our constitution is: that the subject
of education belongs to the Local (Governments, the
provincial bodies. That is the general scheme
of the British North America Act, and it is
upon that basis that province after province
which has been added to the Dominion, has been
entrusted with the absolute and exclusive control
of legislative matters. But between the old
provinces of Canada there was an arrangement come to at the time of Confederation,
by
which, as we all know, separate school privileges
were made perpetual so far as the constitution
could make it perpetual upon the people of the
Province of Ontario. I am not dealing with that
question in the slightest degree. Of course we all
know that this Parliament has no power to deal
with it. It is an imperial Act which this Parliament has no power to alter, change,
or amend.
But, when in 1875, the constitution was first conferred upon the Nort-West Territories,
there was
a clause with regard to education engrafted in that
constitution. It is peculiar in this way: that it is
not to be found in any other of our statutes or
constitutions, and it enacted as follows:—
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall pass all
necessary ordinances in respect to education: but it shall
therein always be provided that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion
of the territories, or of
any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name
the same is known, may establish such schools therein as
they think fit,and make the necessary assessment and
collection of rates therefor; and also, that the minority
of the ratepayers therein, whether Protestants or Roman
Catholics may establish separate schools therein."
That, the House will perceive, confers upon the
majority of every particular locality the right to
determine what the school is to be. The language
is very wide indeed:
"May establish such schools that they think fit."
Then the minority, no matter how small, may put
up a rival separate school in any locality whether
that minority he composed of Roman Catholics or
Protestants, and they are free from the necessity or
obligation of supporting a general school. I venture to say—and I do so, of course.
merely speaking
for myself and with no desire to raise a controversy—that no more mischievous provision
is to be
found in any Act of Parliament. If there is any
part of the Dominion where schools ought to be not
separate,—I am not desiring now to raise the question which divides us upon that point.
I am merely
speaking with reference to the spargeness of population in the North-West—it is in
the North-West
Territories. It seems to be an exceedingly unfortunate provision where there is a
small population,
that there is a provision made for two schools, one
of the majority, and one of the minority. I contend
that if there is any part of the Dominion where
that provision ought not to he compulsory, it is in
the North-West Territories. Now, we added very
largely to the powers of the North-West Territories
in the last session of this Parliament. We have
conferred upon them, I think I am right in saying,
almost every power that the ordinary (constitution
confers upon Provincial Legislatures. We have not
given them power to amend their own constitution;
we did not give them power to borrow money; we did
not give them power to manage or to sell the public
lands, nor was the power conferred upon that body
for the establishment or maintenance of hospitals
and so on, but there were enormous powers conferred upon them—power of direct taxation,
power
towards the establishment of territorial offices and
the appointment and payment of territorial officers,
the establishment and maintenance of prisons and
municipal institutions, in the territories; power to
impose licenses for shops, saloons, taverns, and
auctioneers and incorporation fees and so on, power
to solemnize marriage in the territories, and power
over territorial and civil rights. You will, therefore,
see that we added very largely to their powers,
but we did not enlarge their powers nor did Parliament remove the restriction with
regard to
education. That was left untouched. Now the
proposition is to confer upon that body the power
to deal with education as that body may see fit, not
by any means to say there shall not be separate
schools, not to interfere with them in that sense,
but to see that the legislative assemblies of the
territories upon whom we have conferred every
other power that can be conferred upon legislative
assemblies, may deal with the matter of education,
as they are competent to decide other matters.
These are the provisions which I desire to see incorporated in the law, and therefore
I move,
seconded by Mr. Denison, for leave to introduce
this Bill. I may add one word further. It is with
221 [MARCH 17, 1892.] 222
some regret that I intrude this question upon the
House at this time. I quite see, Mr. Speaker, that
the proper opportunity to press these amendments
would have been during the last session of Parliament when the subject of the added
power to the
constitution was conferred upon the North-West
Territories. I can only say in excuse for not pressing it then, that I was not. here
at the time the Bill
was before the House, and when I left the country
on other business connected with my profession
—because when I left there was practically no
Government—I had every reason to believe that
nothing would be done during the session, except
to pass the Supply Bill and prorogue Parliament.
I was assured when I got to London: I was assured
by the High Commissioner, that he understood
also that no further business would be done.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) Does the High Commissioner speak for the Government?
Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I think that he had
some information. He gave me to understand
that my opinion was correct about the business
of the House. He gave me to understand that
that was the programme, and I thought so myself
when I left here, and he corroborated my opinion.
However that may be, while I would prefer that
this question would not come up session after session, notwithstatnling. I had thought
that no
great mischief had been done by the delay because
the language question was not at all before the last
session of Parliament. This Parliament has in no
way practically pronounced upon it, and the question of education was brought to the
notice of the
House last session by my hon. friend from Muskoka
(Mr. O'Brien), as I learned from the reading of the
debates, with a protest and an intimation that at
an early date it would be brought before Parliament: so that I do not think much harm
has been
done by the delay of one session.
Mr. LARIVIERE. Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that this question should have been raised
once more in the House by the hon. member who
has just spoken (Mr. McCarthy). He is only
following the course that he has adopted in the
past, and perhaps he is only pleasing the friends
who have retained him in a case which is similar
to the one that we have now before the House.
We know very well that some trouble is now
pending in the Province of Manitoba upon this
very same question. That trouble has been raised
in the province by the visit of the hon. gentleman
at a time when the question was not before the
people at all. Following the same course, the hon.
gentleman, though having nothing to do with the
representation of the North-West in this House,
much less than I have, because I am much nearer
the people who are affected by the legislation that
he complains of—is again trying to raise this question of religious and national feeling.
We have
already settled that question. Two years ago it
was brought before the House, and the legislation
of last session was the result of what the hon.
gentleman has termed a compromise. It was
a compromise, and it should be treated as
such. What was abandoned at that time as
one of the rights of the people of the North- West was abandoned as a compromise,
so that the
question should remain at rest for all time to come.
It was decided then that we should give to the
North-West Council the liberty of deciding whether
their proceedings should be conducted in one or
both of the two languages which were then official.
We know what has since been done by the majority
of that council who do not understand the French:
that language has been abolished. When this
question is raised it is always contended that
though certain privileges may be granted to the
French-speaking population of the Province of
Quebec and the Catholics of that province, those
privileges should not be extended to the rest of the
Catholic or the French population of the Dominion
of Canada. When it is stated that the privileges
which exist in the Province of Quebec do not exist
elsewhere, I answer that when the Confederation
Act was entered into, those privileges were
well guarded on behalf of the French and
Catholic population of the Dominion. Have
we not the two languages in this Parliament?
Are not the Dominion laws printed in both
languages? And not that in pursuance of
the arrangement entered into at the time
of Confederation? Why should we refuse to the
handful of French people in the North-West the
same privileges as those enjoyed by the French- Canadians of the Province of Quebec?
Why should
not both populations be treated alike? We have
two leading languages in this. Dominion: why should
they not both be placed on the same footing?
Does it injure anyone that I speak French or that
I get the laws of the country printed in my
mother tongue? Should we disregard rights and
privileges for the sake of a few dollars and cents?
But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason at all.
The reason is that certain gentlemen. certain
parties, wish to excite public feeling in some parts
of the Dominion: because they have nothing else
by which to raise themselves above the level of the
common people, they adopt the ways of the demagogue, in the hope of making themselves
appear to
be of some consequence.
Motion agreed to. and Bill read the first time.
This individual participated in:
