3061 [MAY 30, 1892.] 3062
EDUCATION AND LANGUAGES IN THE
NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES.
That it is expedient that power be given to the Legislative Assembly of the North-West
Territories, after the
next general election of members of said Assembly, to
deal with all matters pertaining to education and the use
of dual languages in the courts and in the proceedings of
the said Assembly: providing, however, that no school
section, as at present constituted, shall be interfered with
without the consent of the parties composing such section.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution,
I wish to say that I am not moving it for any party
or any set of men. I consulted no one in preparing
the resolution, and I have not been asked by any
member of this House to move it. I have taken
this action altogether upon my own responsibility.
It may be asked: Why not let the matter rest?
Sir, the matter will not rest. It is one of those
questions that, like Banquo's ghost, will not down,
and session after session we have to meet it, and it
is neither the part of good statesmanship nor of
sound public policy to leave the question in abeyance. I do think that there is surely
some way
in which the question can be satisfactorily settled
and set at rest forever. In moving this resolution
I may say that I am not tied down to its terms,
because any just and honourable and fair means of
settling the difficulty by whomsoever moved will
have my hearty support. In the resolution it will
3063
[COMMONS] 3064
be seen that I take the ground that the matter
should be left altogether to the people themselves to
settle. That is the ground that I have always taken,
and I am confirmed in this view of the case by
the opinion of my hon. friend the member for
Assiniboia (Mr. Davin). Two years ago, when
the question of the dual languages was before the
House, that hon. gentleman moved an amendment
to the Bill to leave the matter entirely in the hands
of the people of the North-West Territories. I
approved of his amendment and I intended to vote
for it if it had been reached; and, Sir, what was
good in the case of the dual languages, I believe
would be equality good in the case of separate
Schools, and that the only sound policy is to leave
the matter for the people of the North-West to
deal with. There is another matter introduced in
this resolution, and that is that the school sections of the North-West as at present
constituted
shall not be interfered with without the consent
of the parties composing the section. The reason
that I was induced to admit that clause in the
resolution was because a friend of mine pleaded
that certain parties had established school sections
there on the strength of the law as it at present
stands, that in that way a sort of vested right had
accrued, and that it was unfair to interfere with
these rights. I agreed with him in that, and I
consented to allow that clause to be inserted in
the resolution. I know that there are some eminent men in this House and out of it
who do not
hold the doctrine of provincial rights. I remember that two years ago the hon. member
for North
Simcoe (Mr. Mccarthy), speaking in the city of
Montreal, made use of the following language:—
"We are told that the Liberal party has always taken
for their motto, that no matter what the Local Legislatures may do, so long as they
act strictly within their
power, the Dominion authorities would not exercise any
interference. In other words, we have forced upon us by
the introduction of such a policy, the pernicious doctrine
of States Rights: a principle which has been crushed out
in the United States by the most gigantic war which the
country has ever witnessed."
Now, Sir, knowing the intelligence of the hon. gentleman and his knowledge of constitutional
history,
it is hard to believe that he was perfectly sincere
when he made that assertion. What are the facts?
In the rebellion there was only one single question
of state rights at issue. It had been held from very
early times by eminent jurists in the United States,
and amongst others by Jefferson and Calhoun, that
as the states had come into the federation as
independent states, they retained to themselves
the right to Secede for cause if they saw fit; The
great question at issue, then, was whether one
or more states had the right to secede. The southern States contended that they had
the right and
acted upon it; the northern States contended that
they had not the right, and determined to prevent
them acting upon it; and the question was
settled, not by an appeal to reason, law or
equity, but simply by the largest battalions
and the heaviest artillery; and the question of
right or wrong remains unsettled to the present
day. But what I want to insist upon is this, that
not another single state right was ever called in
question; and if there is one part of public policy
more than another which the people of the United
States are united in supporting, it is the doctrine
of state rights. If those rights were to be infringed, north and south alike would
be determined to
maintain them, and would fight to the death
rather than allow them to be sacrificed. And, Sir,
they are wise in doing so. Extended over a large
area of country, with different interests and with
different questions coming before them, they can
only hope to maintain the union by a strict adherence to the doctrine of state rights.
And, Sir, is
this principle less important in the country in which
we dwell? We occupy an enormous extent of territory; our country is peopled by different
races,
with different feelings, religions and interests: and
if we are going to be a united and prosperous people, I believe we can only be so
by a
strict adherence to the doctrine of provincial
rights. Now, Sir, I wish at the outset to
point out that I do not ask that either the language or the schools of the people
in the North-West
shall be in any way interfered with. When we
speak about separate schools, we are apt to think
of schools established by people of the Catholic
faith; but if you look at the Act under which
those schools were established, you will find that
the same provision is made for every religious denomination; and is it not a fact
that we have
schools for at least four different religions denominations in the North-West, each
one of which receives public support? Again, I say I have no intention whatever of
interfering with either the
separate schools or the language. All I ask is that
the people of the North-West shall have the power
to settle that matter, which rightfully belongs to
them, for themselves. I may here say, Mr.
Speaker, that I was one of those who opposed the
establishment of separate schools in the Province
of Ontario when that was first agitated, and I did
it because I was in favour of a uniform public
school system. I believe that it was for the advantage of the country that such a
system should
be established and maintained. However, when
once the law gave permission for the establishment
of separate schools, and when once they were established by law, from that day to
this I
have done, in my own humble way, everything that lay in my power to make those
schools as efficient as possible. If they had
to exist it was the part of good policy,
the part of justice and right, to make them
just as efficient as they could possibly be made. I
am free to confess that the law has not worked the
great harm in Ontario that was anticipated from
it. I believe that in towns and cities it has done
no harm at all; in the rural districts the only harm
it has done has been that it has compelled the
people to maintain two weak schools instead of one
strong one; and in the public schools of, Ontario, so
far from the rights of any religious body being
interfered with, those rights have been strictly
respected, with the result that the majority of the
children of Catholic parents in the Province of
Ontario attend the public schools to-day. I know
that it is objected that some religious denominations wish to have religious teaching
in the public
schools, and maintain that that can only be had
from denominational school sections. Perhaps, Sir,
I am not able sufficiently to appreciate that objection. Many members in this House
know that I
gain one of those who do not believe that it is the
duty of the state to teach religion at all—that that
duty devolves upon the churches. Now, what
I want to point out is that the public schools
of our country are from the foundation to the
3065 [MAY 30, 1892.] 3066
topmost stone altogether state institutions. The
school section is formed under laws enacted
by the state; the school-house is built by men
amenable to the state; the money to pay for the
building is collected by the state, and is paid over
to the contractors by the state. The teachers in
our public schools are men and women examined
with regard to their fitness for the position by
men appointed by the state, under rules prescribed
by the state: they are appointed to their positions
by the state, and their salaries are paid out of
money collected by the state, under pains and penalties imposed by the state. So that
from the top
to the bottom our public schools are simply and
solely state institutions; and holding, as I do, that
it is not the duty of the state to teach religion, I
am opposed to establishing a public school for that
purpose by the state. Some may be inclined to
ask if I am opposed to religious teaching altogether
in the. schools. Well, there is one form of it that
you cannot prevent. I happen to have had opportunities of becoming acquainted with
a great many
of the teachers, both male and female, in our own
Province of Ontario, and I say deliberately that I
do not believe that a better class of men and women
exists in the country; and if any one, man or woman,
who accepts the position of public school teacher is
under the influence of true religion, they will teach
that religion whether they are compelled by the
law to do it or not. They will teach it, not in
dogmas or in set lessons given to the scholars, but
they will teach it by giving good advice, by restraining the evil they see and encouraging
the good, and,
most strongly and most powerfully of all, by the
example they will set to the scholars. Unfortunately, our teachers are not all of
that class or
character: and I ask hon. gentlemen here who have
children, if there is a teacher in their section who
scoffs or laughs at religion, whether they want such
a teacher to teach religion to their children? If they
do, I can only say for myself, Heaven save my children from such religious teaching.
I have another
objection to separate schools, and it has always been
a very strong one, although you may, if you wish,
call it a sentimental objection. I happen to have a
few people of the Roman Catholic faith in my riding,
and they happen to live in my own township and
to be my own neighbours; and I say that no better
neighbours any man need wish few—good, honest,
upright people, ready to perform all the duties of
neighbourhood and citizenship. I say again no
better class of people could a man wish to live
amongst. But the point I want to make is this. Their
children are just as good as mine, and I hope mine are
as good as theirs, and I do not want to see a wall of
separation built up between them. I do not want
the implication to exist that there is some disability, either on the one side or
the other, or some
reason why they should not associate together. I
do not want it to be inferred that one side is, in
some way or other, not the equal of the other, and
that they cannot be allowed to grow up and be
educated together. No; I want them to grow up
together, to become acquainted with one another,
to understand each other's feelings and aspirations,
to be prepared, when they go out, to take their
place in governing the country, to be able to see
eye to eye, and to live together in harmony for the
well-being of their common country. That is the
strongest. objection I have to separate schools. And
now with regard to the question of dual languages.
I wish to say at the outset that I have not the
slightest sympathy with, but, on the contrary, hold
in utter abomination the idea that it is the duty of
the majority of this country to stamp out the
language of the minority. That, I believe, would
be neither good policy nor good statesmanship.
Nor do I believe that mixed races are any
source of weakness to the country. On the
contrary, I consider them a source of strength.
I need only point to the mother country, to
Great Britain; and where, I ask, is there a
country in which the people are of more mixed
blood? Had the attempt been made which it
was sought to make two or three years ago here,
to stamp out in England the language and institutions of the conquered, would the
English people
occupy the place they do to-day? Suppose that
Norman William, when he conquered the Anglo- Saxons, determined, as some very advanced
legislators of the present day want to determine, that it
was expedient, in the interests of the national
unity of the country, that there should be unity of
language among the people, and endeavoured to
stamp out the Anglo-Saxon, do you think he would
have succeeded? Norman William was not such a
fool as to try it. He knew these things were under
the operation of natural laws more potent than
any human laws, and was perfectly willing to leave
these laws to their own operation. And what is
the result today? Why, the very language we
use in this House and in which the majority of us
express our views is not the language of any one
people in the British Isles. As a learned philologist
said, while the Anglo-Saxon may be considered as
the foundation and the mortar that connects the
fabric together, yet the fabric itself is built up of
contributions from almost every language, ancient
and modern; and if the attempt had been made to
make any one of these languages permanent, do
you think for a moment that Britain would have
been the country she is to-day? I remember,
two years ago, when my hon. friend from North
Bruce (Mr. McNeill) was speaking on this question,
that he instanced the people in the north of Scotland as an example of the necessity
for unity of
language; and I may say here, and I think the
House will agree with me, the great vigour, intellectual activity and the push and
perseverance of
the people of Great Britain to-day is largely due to
the fact that they are a people of mixed blood.
Any one who has studied the laws of heredity
knows that the kingly men and queenly women
have in all days been the result of the union of
different but cognate races. We find it has had
that effect in Great Britain and wherever else such
a state of things has existed. The hon. member
for North Bruce instanced the case of the highlanders of Scotland and the feuds which
existed
between them and the people of the lowlands, and
he said if they had all spoken the one tongue these
feuds would not have existed. Now, I have always
a great respect for my hon. friend, because I know
he is thoroughly honest, but I must take the liberty
of differing from him in the conclusion he drew.
I am very doubtful if any such result would have
followed the speaking of the same language. Why,
at that time when the bitterest feuds existed and
the hottest fighting was going on between the two
peoples, the very same thing was taking place between the south of Scotland and the
north of England, where the people spoke the same tongue. But
3067
[COMMONS] 3068
suppose we grant for a moment that it would have
been better had the people in the north of Scotland spoken the same language as the
people in the
lowlands, in the south of Scotland, could you
have compelled them to do so? Suppose we had
had then some very wise legislators, men of
advanced liberal opinions,who thought it was expedient, in the interests of the national
unity of
the country, that there should be community of
language among the people of Scotland, and suppose they had tried to compel these
people in the
north of Scotland to speak the language of the
south, do you think for a moment they would
have succeeded? I know something of these people,
having lived amongst them all my days on most
intimate terms with them, and I know that had
you attempted anything of the sort, you would
never have been successful. You might have cut
them to pieces, inch by inch, you might have made
a desert and called it peace, but you never could
have compelled them to give up their language.
And why should such an attempt ever be made
with any people? Sir, it is a God-given birthright,
the language a man or a woman speaks, the language they learned at their mother's
knee; and no
state or no man has the right to attempt to stamp
it out. Are you to suppose for a moment that our
French-speaking neighbours of the Province of
Quebec and other parts of the Dominion
are less tenacious of their national rights
than the people of the north of Scotland?
No, I believe that they feel as strongly the rights
which they enjoy, that they have the same sentiments these people have, and will resist
to the
death every attempt to suppress their language. I
believe it would be the most foolish, the most
suicidal thing for the country, the most arbitrary
thing any country ever attempted, to try to stamp
out their language. I do not wish to detain the
House any longer. I say again I believe it is the
part of good statesmanship and sound policy to try
and find a solution of this question, and I say that,
if we are honestly desirous to do it, we can
succeed. We have rather a difficult country here
to govern, separated one part from the other by
thousands of miles, with different interests to
conciliate, different races to work with, different
languages amongst us—all these things are, perhaps,
hinderances in the way of governing the country,
but I believe, when we meet these in an enlightened, honest and intelligent spirit,
there is no
danger that we shall not succeed. If we apply to
others the golden rule to do to them what we wish
to be done to ourselves, to put ourselves in their
places, and to try to see how it would be if we
looked at it from their standpoint, and to deal
with them accordingly, it will make us a contented
and a prosperous country.
Mr. WALLACE. I am sorry the hon. member
for Middlesex (Mr. Armstrong), when making this
motion, has limited it as he has done. If the
principles he has avowed in his speech are correct,
is resolution does not bear out that speech, but is
rather contradictory. I think that this clause in
his resolution:
"Providing, however, that no school section, as at
present constituted shall be interfered with without the
consent of the parties composing such section"—
is one which will lead to difficulties of very many
kinds, that will cause legislation to be very difficult
enact and will defeat the very object be pro
poses in the speech we have just listened to. I
think the time has come in the North-West when
they may safely be given all those powers which
have been given to the Legislatures of the other
provinces, and more especially with reference to
this question of education. We have in those
Territories a people who are certainly not inferior
to their brethren in the other provinces of the
Dominion. They are largely the pick of the older
provinces, the enterprising young men who have
gone from the other provinces, have built up homes
there, intend to reside there, and during the
few years they have been there have given
exhibitions of energy and intelligence which are
the pride and admiration of Canadians of every
part of this Dominion. It is not right to limit the
power of these men to regulate their local affairs,
and the matters relating to education which every
province in the Dominion exercises fully, barring
those restrictions which have been placed upon
those matters in Ontario and Quebec, restrictions
which many of us in Ontario, not only Protestants,
but many members of the Roman Catholic church,
regret, that these separate schools have been
established and confirmed in our province. The
right to deal with education is one that the Confederation Act specifically gives
to the various
Local Legislatures. They are now laying the foundation of their educational system
in the North- West. Powers that may be properly exercised
some years hence may be a good deal more safely
and properly given, I believe, to those Territories
to-day. They are laying the foundations of their
educational system, but if certain restrictions are
placed upon their powers, then, after a larger
population has gone in there and they have perhaps
been established in separate provinces or given the
complete powers of Local Legislatures, this question
which might now be settled without difficulty, will cause discord and disunion as
it
is causing to-day in the Province of Manitoba. I think this Parliament at this time
Â
will be doing a wise act in handing over the
complete powers in regard to education to the North- West Assembly. We need have no
fear that the
North-West Assembly will not legislate wisely and
well. They are interested. We cannot say that
we only have the interest of the North-West at
heart. The men who are living there, who are
devising schemes for the opening up of that country,
have a deeper and more intelligent interest and a
wider knowledge of these matters than we have
here, representing every portion of the Dominion.
We will therefore be doing our duty, we will have
the blessings of people yet unborn, if we give the
full powers in regard to educational matters to the
Legislature of the North-West Territories. Then,
with reference to the question of the language, two
years ago we passed a resolution which was considered a compromise measure, but was
endorsed
very heartily by members of this House. That was
brought into force by legislation during the last
session. I think that legislation, though not going
as far as I would wish to go myself, was in the right
direction, and, as it was a compromise measure
largely meeting the views of those who think as I
do, it received no opposition from us. I think perhaps that clause might have been
left as it
was. It was a compromise, it was answering the
purpose, because I think the question of the language under the recent legislation
will solve
3069 [MAY 30, 1892.] 3070
itself. If it is the interest of the people that it
should survive, it will survive; if it is their interest in the North-West that it
should die out and
become obsolete, it will become obsolete, and I
think that might have been allowed to stand on
the Statute-book as it is now. But, in regard to
the other matter, I feel more strongly than ever
that we will be making a great mistake if we refuse now, when the opportunity occurs,
to enact
legislation in regard to education in the North- West Territories, which will settle
difficulties
which will otherwise inevitably arise, which will
cause heart-burnings, trouble and disagreement in
the North-West, and I, therefore, move that all the
words after "That" in the motion be omitted and
the following inserted:—
In the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories
should be empowered
to deal with all matters relating to education in the said
Territories.
Mr. McMULLEN. I desire to say a few words
upon this very important question. It has been
several times before Parliament; on several occasions we have discussed the whole
question with
regard to the dual language in the North-West,
and also in regard to separate schools. Now, for
many years back the question of separate schools,
not only in the North-West but in some of the
Maritime Provinces, has caused a great deal of
strife and bitterness, and has given considerable
trouble to the Government, and to members of
Parliament generally in dealing with it. For my
part, had I been in the House at the time the
North-West Act was passed, I do not think I
would have given my sanction to a full-fledged
system of separate schools being established, in
that country. My impression is that under the
circumstances it was imprudent. At the same
time, we know well that in Ontario where
separate schools have been in existence for many
years, the Catholic population of that province, as
was stated by the hon. gentleman who moved this
motion, have not taken advantage of that system
in many cases, and we find that they are sending
their children in increased numbers to the common
schools. Now, I do not think that it is an easy matter to wipe out by law anything
that was looked
upon as a privilege by a certain class of the community; I have never read, in fact,
where such a privilege has been abolished by arbitrary enactment of this
kind. People belonging to the Catholic faith have
certain conscientious convictions of their own; they
claim that it is their right and their duty to give
their children a certain amount of religious education in connection with secular
education. I do
not wish for a moment to challenge their convictions upon that point. The fact of
the matter
is, in my humble opinion, we are going too far at
the present day, in our educational institutions, in
the direction of secularism. I differ from my hon.
friend who made this motion, in that I believe that
if we had a little more religious instruction in our
common schools, it would be better for our rising
population. Now, with regard to those schools in
the North-West, as I said before, it may possibly
have been an error to encourage their establishment; at the same time, they are there.
While I
am willing to consent to the full exercise of all
powers by any province that are duly exercised by
other provinces, at the same time there is no rule
without its exception, and if any exception at all
should be made to this rule, it should be to protect
the conscientious convictions of a minority. Now,
these schools have been established there, and while
I would have preferred to see a partly common school
system established, I would rather a thousand times
have separate schools than to drive out religious
teaching altogether from these schools. I would
favour such a curriculum in our common schools as
would allow every class to take advantage of them.
If our Catholic people object to their children
attending such a school, I would rather a thousand
times consent to separate schools than to abolish
religious teaching altogether. That is my view
with regard to separate schools. Now, I am quite
willing, as I said before, to coax our Catholic
friends out of the use of these schools, and to induce them to come in with the rest
of the community and educate their children along with ours.
If they are not willing, however, to do so, if they
claim, as they have a right to do, the privilege of
educating their children in their own schools and
teaching them certain dogmas of their own church,
I do not wish for a moment to deprive them of that
right. I would claim that right myself, and am
willing to accord it to them. Now, let us look at
the condition of things in some of the states that
have been referred to by my hon. friend. I think
the school population of the State of New York is
about 80,000 between the ages of five and sixteen.
I have heard it stated on good authority that 200,000 of these children never attend
a Sabbath school,
never receive any religious instruction in the
family, and, perhaps, never hear the word God
mentioned unless in profanity. Now, these parents
have no desire to send their children to a Sabbath
school or to any place where they would get
religious instruction. Would it not be a
hundred times better if these children got a
sprinkling of religious instruction in the common
school rather than none at all? What a magnificent regiment for his Satanic Majesty
to have
such a large number of children in one state from
among whom to get recruits for murderers, for
thieves, for robbers and for suicides—for that is
the result of a secular education, if we are to trust
the public prints of the United States. I think it
is better, in my opinion, that we should even
consent to a separate school system than that
we should have no religion taught in the schools at
all. We have in the Province of Ontario, a model
school system, which is lauded throughout the
British Empire, and has been referred to in other
countries as well. These, even, who have differed
with the men who established that system, have
taken the opportunity on several occasions to
praise our school system in Ontario. We have in
that province separate schools; they are under
the same inspection as our common schools. The
teachers in those schools must receive their certificates at the hands of the same
examiners as those
who teach in the Protestant schools. They have
got to conduct the schools much in the same way
as the other schools are conducted; but, they are
allowed certain privileges in the teaching of the
Catholic catechism, I presume, and other things that
are recognized as necessary by the Catholic Church.
That is about the only difference between the
separate schools and the common schools, so far as
I can learn. Now, we are getting along in the Province of Ontario without any particular
friction. I
know that in the town in which I live myself, there
3071
[COMMONS] 3072
was sometime ago a separate school, but there is
none today. The reason is that the Catholic people
in that section decided that their children would,
perhaps, get a better education in our common
schools; at least they decided to take advantage of
the privileges that were offered them, and they have
virtually dropped their separate schools and are
now sending their children to our common schools,
and I hear of no complaint. Now, I have not the
slightest doubt that if an agitation had been got up
in the Province of Ontario to take from these people
the right to have separate schools, the probabilities
are that we would have a separate school in my
town to-day. Wherever you force by legislation
people to part with a privilege, then you generally
find they resent that action. I understand that
in the Province of Nova Scotia there is no separate
school system. I should like to know if separate
schools are not established there? I am informed
that such is the case. I raise no objection to giving
the people that privilege if they want it. I think the
people of Nova Scotia are acting wisely in given
the Catholics that privilege if they ask for it as
their conscientious right, because it is not right to
trample on the concientions convictions of any
class. A few words with respect to the dual
language. My reason for voting for the Bill introduced by the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy) was in order to reach the question of
the dual language. I do not wish for one moment
to interfere with the right of any man to use any
language that is his birthright, that has been used
by him from infancy, I do not think the remarks
of the hon. member were at all in point on this
question. I do not think it was the intention of the
hon. member fer North Simcoe in his Bill to declare
that no man should be allowed to speak French; I
think the only intention was to prevent the necessity of having all proceedings published
in French
and English. I have been led to understand that
this is the law now. For example, if a subpoena
was issued to a man, under the present terms of
the North-West Act he would have the right to
demand that it be served on him printed in English
and French. I do not think that is necessary.
There are only 1,500 people in the North-West
whose language is French. For the sake of that
number, I do not think it is right that we should
be put to the expense of printing the entire proceedings of the North-West Council
and all legal
documents both in English and French. Moreover,
very great difficulty might arise sometimes. If
we permit the proceedings in court to be conducted in either language, I can easily
imagine
that a lawyer might commence to address
an English jury in the French language,
and it would be very awkward if they did not
understand what he said. I do not think it is
necessary that we should continue that system.
While I am willing to allow the people in the
North-West the right to use their own language
in their own families, and the right to have interpreters in court if they cannot
speak English, it is
absurd to continue the present condition of things
and publish all proceedings in the North-West
Council in both languages when there is such a
very limited French population there. When the
North-West Act was passed it was perhaps thought
that there might be a very large influx of population from the Province of Quebec
or from France
itself, but this has not proved to be the case, and
in fact a great many of the people from Quebec go
across to the United States instead of to our Canadian North-Wst. If the French-Canadians
poured
in in very large numbers and claimed the right to
use their language in the courts and in general proceedings, I would not deny it to
them, but to go to
this expense for the sake of 1,500 people is absurd.
For this reason, I am willing to vote to eliminate
the French language, and at the same time I am
ready to grant the North-West every provincial
right to which the people are fairly entitled.
But in regard to the proposal to abolish schools
which have been established there, and maintained by people who may have one there
for the
purpose of taking advantage of them, I cannot
consent to wipe out these schools by a majority vote unless the people were disposed
to
part with the privilege they now enjoy. Of course
we have Protestant schools of several denominations there. I believe there are Methodist
schools,
and I understand a deputation came down here
and waited on the Government for the purpose of
obtaining a grant for a school, perhaps for an Indian school. There are also Presbyterian
and
Baptist Schools. It is not necessary that all these
different schools should exist. There is no conscientious Conviction on the part of
the Presbyterian which forbids him sending his child to either
Methodist or Baptist schools. I think all the Protestant denominations can well unite
on the common
school system in the North-West. I am satisfied
we can do that as well there as in the Province of
Ontario. I would endeavour to make the system
as acceptable as possible to our Catholic friends, in
the hope that they will take advantage of it instead
of persisting in opening separate schools; but to
pass legislation to give the majority power to compel the Catholics to avail themselves
of this system
is not a proper mode of reaching the desired end,
and I do not think the end desired by the hon.
member for West York (Mr. Wallace) will be
gained in this way. These are my views with
respect to separate schools, and also with respect to
the dual language.
Mr. DEVLIN. I have listened, with considerable amazement, to the doctrine which has been
given to the House by the hon. gentleman who has
just resumed his seat. To be perfectly candid, I
must say that I could notunderstand altogether
what the hon. gentleman stated. He spoke on the
question of education in the North-West, and he
gave his own views. But the hon. gentleman does
not seem to understand that this, in the Catholic
faith, is a matter of principle. The hon. member
for West Middlesex introduced a motion and said
at the beginning of his remarks that he did not
want to interfere with the French language or the
separate school system in the North-West. As he
warmed up and proceeded with the subject he soon
did away with the separate school system there.
He said that there had been opposition also to the
system of separate schools being introduced into
the Province of Ontario. I ask the hon. gentleman
how, having had an experience of the system of
separate schools in Ontario, he has any more reason
than his fellow-citizens of that province to feel dissatisfied with the result of
the experience of these
schools? Only a few years ago a battle was waged
in Ontario on the lines of this question, and
we well remember the cries then, put for
3073 [MAY 30, 1892.] 3074
ward. We well remember the arguments used
in order to defeat what to-day is a benefit in this
province, as well as in the Province of Quebec, the
separate school system, and no doubt the hon.
gentleman on that occasion was obliged to confess
that the separate school system in Ontario was a
success. At all events, if he did not by his speech
and vote make that confession, I am happy to say
that the Protestant population of the greatest
province of this Dominion declared that the separate school system of Ontario was
a success. The
hon. gentleman wants no religious teaching in
the schools. What does he want? Does he invite
the godless school? He has to choose between the
religious school and the godless school. If he wants
the religious school, believing in his own views, he
will want the Protestant school. If he does not
want the religious school, he is confronted with the
godless school; and as this is a religious country
and we have to deal with christian people, I think
they will not have the godless school. We know
what has been the experience of the godless school
in more than one country. We know that the godless school and godless philosophy did
about as
much mischief during the last century in the old
world as war, pestilence and famine. It must be
understood that with us as Catholics it is
a principle that we must have our Catholic
schools. We are face to face with that problem.
If the hon. gentleman wants the religious school
and the Protestant school, we have no objections
to offer. The Protestant is proud of his faith.
He is ready to defend it against all attacks, he is
ready on all occasions to stand up for it, and he
would scorn us, and justly too, if we were to interfere with his rights. Why not let
it be done to us
as we are willing it should be done to them? Do
we interfere with their rights? Look at things as
they exist in the Province of Quebec. There, Sir,
and proud I feel to say it, the minority is treated
with justice, and is treated more liberally than
even the minority in the Province of Ontario, since
grants are made in Quebec for the cause of superior
education which are not made in the Province of
Ontario. Will the hon. gentleman, after the experience we have had in the Province
of Quebec of
these separate schools, say that the system is a
failure? The late Hon. Thomas White, if I
remember well, himself admitted that the minority
was treated with exceptional fairness, and Sir
William Dawson, President of McGill University,
who was at least as good a champion of Protestantism, and at least as sturdy and solid
an exponent
of Protestant thought as the hon. member for South
Middlesex (Mr. Armstrong), or as the hon. member
for York (Mr. Wallace), or as the hon. member for
North Wellington (Mr. McMullen), was also ready
to confess that the Protestants of the Province of
Quebec had nothing to complain of, and had in fact
received the fullest measure of justice from their
Catholic fellow-countrymen. We have already
since the beginning of this session voted large sums
of money to open up the North-West Territories.
What does the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr.
Armstrong) propose by his motion, and what does
the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace)
propose by his amendment? The latter proposes
to tell the Catholic people of the Province of Quebec that to the North-West they
must not go.
That is his proposal.
Mr. DEVLIN. The hon. member for Wellington says "no, no." What does he understand in
the matter? The proposal of this motion, and of
this amendment is to tell Catholics, that in the
North-West Territories the same law will be
invoked in a year or two as was applied by Mr.
Greenway in the Province of Manitoba, and will it
be contended for a moment that that act of administration on the part of Mr. Greenway
has
promoted increase of population or increase of
good feeling among the people of Manitoba?
That law is yet before the courts. A decision has
been rendered against it here in the Supreme Court,
and I express the hope that that decision will be
confirmed by the Privy Council in England, and
that fair-play will be extended to the Catholic
population of Manitoba. Sir, adopt this motion
be ore the House, pass a law denying to the Catholic
population of the North-West the schools which
they ask, and to which they are entitled, and you
will tell the Catholic people in every province of
this Dominion, that to the North-West they must
not go, because steps have been taken to prevent
them living there. You go across the ocean and you
ask for your immigrants for this country. You expend
large sums of money to bring them here: but, Sir, if
you adopt this motion, you will refuse to our
young men of the Province of Quebec the right of
entering into these Territories. What right have
we to do these things? To our Catholic people
that great domain was given by Providence just as
much as it was to any other portion of the population of Canada. I shall certainly
vote against the
proposal of the hon. member for South Middlesex (Mr. Armstrong); I shall certainly
with
pride and happiness vote against the amendment
proposed by the member for West York (Mr.
Wallace), because I believe in conscience that
because I am a Catholic I should no more be
trampled upon than my rights should be no more
sacrificed, and my privileges should be respected
as much as those of any other man of any religion
in this Dominion. I know, Sir, that there has been
charged against me in connection with the motion
I am about to make, that because the other day I
voted against the Bill introduced by the member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), I am not in
favour of Canadian Home, Rule. It is false. It is
not the case.
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. The hon. gentleman
cannot discuss a motion that is not before the
House.
Mr. DEVLIN. I am not discussing it, Mr. Speaker.
I am just putting myself right with regard to the
statement that has been made against me in connection with my vote against the motion
introduced
the other day by the member for North Simcoe (Mr.
McCarthy). Well, Sir, all I ask for my co-religionists in the North-West is the same
treatment
which is accorded to the Protestants of the Province of Quebec, and which the Catholics
of the
Province of Ontario enjoy. I believe that by voting
down the motions which are presently before the
House we will be acting in the interests of the
honour and the peace of Canada, and I believe,
furthermore, that by following out this course we
will be laying the foundations of making the North- West contented, of making it the
seat in future of
3075
[COMMONS] 3076
large cities and large centres of population, where
the tiller of the soil may work peacefully, successfully with honour and advantage
to our common
country.
Mr. SCRIVER. Mr. Speaker, I desire to say
first, Sir, that you were in error in naming me as
the seconder of the motion now before the House.
I did not consent to second the motion, but I did
not dissent from your connecting my name with it
because of my desire to be courteous to my neighbour,
the hon. member for South Middlesex (Mr. Armstrong). I am not in favour of this motion
in all
its details. So far as the part relating to the dual
language is concerned it expresses my views; views
which I took the liberty of giving to the House
when the motion relating to that question was before
us at a previous session of this House. I then
expressed my sympathy with the motion of the
hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), which
was to the effect that the question of languages
should be left to the decision of the people of the
Territories; but so far as the question of separate
schools is concerned I take a somewhat different
view. Allusion has been made by several hon.
gentlemen to the position held by the Protestant
minority in the Province of Quebec in relation to
their school system. I am one of that Protestant
minority, and I am here to express my concurrence
in the statement already made, that the Protestant
minority in that province has been treated since
Confederation, with perfect fairness and with full
liberality by the Roman Catholic majority. The
Protestants of that province could not live there were
they not accorded the privileges in regard to the education of their children which
they now enjoy. Holding the views which Roman Catholics do conscientiously hold, and
they being largely in the majority,
if we had a common school system there, and but
one school where all religious tenets would be
taught, the Protestants would not and could not
possibly accept it. This being the case, and it
being the fact that we have been, as I have said,
treated with perfect fairness and perfect liberality
in the Province of Quebec, I do not see how
Protestants, taking a proper view of this question,
can fail to consent to extend to their Roman
Catholic fellow-citizens the same privileges which
they enjoy themselves. I cannot give my support
to a propositionwhich would deprive the Roman
Catholic population of the North-West from the
enjoyment of theprivileges which the Protestants
of the Province of Quebec have enjoyed and do
enjoy, and I believe will continue to enjoy in the
future. I cannot consent to give my support to a
motion which at sometime or other—if it would
not have that immediate effect—would compel the
Roman Catholics of the North-West to either
allow their children to grow up in ignorance, or to
send them to schools which it would be a violation
of their religious convictions to send them to.
Therefore, I am opposed to a portion of the motion
of my hon. friehd from South Middlesex, and I am
also opposed to the amendment moved by the hon.
member for West York.
Mr. MACDONALD (Huron). I wish to say just
one word upon this question. Two years ago, when
the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
introduced a Bill in regard to separate schools and
the dual languages, my intention waste vote for
the Bill: Â Afterwards an amendment was adopted,
which I called a compromising amendment, and
against which I voted, and the Bill was not reached
to vote on. I said then, as I say now, that this is a
question which the Parliament of Canada must
face, either to-day or some day in the near future,
and we might as well look it fairly and squarely in
the face, and decide now what is best to be done.
The North-West Territories will soon be a province.
They have now very largely the powers of a province. The people who live in the Territories
have
one there for the purpose of working out their
future destiny, and making the very best they can
of the circumstances in which they are placed;
and I think we would be derelict in our duty if we
did not give them control over their own affairs,
and say to them: You can have separate schools if
you please, or a national school system if you
please, and you can have both languages if you
please, or only one-decide for yourselves. That
is a question which this Parliament must face;
and I cannot, for the life of me, understand how
those who have been for years talking of provincial rights, and declaring that the
provinces
should have full and complete control over matters
of a local character, can vote against giving the
people of the North-West power to say what
form of language or what kind of schools they
will have. If their future is to be in their own
hands, they must have power to work out that
future; but if we place burdens upon them. I
think there will be in the future a great deal more
trouble excited by these questions than there is at
the present time. Therefore the sooner we put the
question right the better. At present the country
is new, there are not a great many people there,
and the majority will be disposed to be fair to the
minority. They might consider it in their interest
to continue the present condition of affairs; but if
the majority should decide against separate schools
or the dual languages, then the responsibility will
rest upon that majority, and will be taken from
our shoulders; and these sectarian questions, which
cause so much irritation and unpleasant feeling,
will be removed from this Parliament. I am
satisfied that the Roman Catholics in the North- West will have nothing to complain
of if we
take this course, for I believe that the majority
there will be just as favourable to giving them their
rights as the majority in this Parliament. That is
the reason which leads me to favour the amendment
which has been moved: and while I support that
amendment, I say to the people of the North-West:
This is a question entirely of a local character which
you have to settle; on your shoulders rests the responsibility of working out your
own destiny, and
you have the right to say whether you will have
separate schools and the dual languages or not. I
hold that that is the fair way to dispose of this
question, and I feel assured, though I am not a
prophet nor the son of one, that the members of
this House will have to come to that conclusion
before they are five years older.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I would not
be disposed to interpose at this stage of the debate
but for the fact that, owing to the order passed on
Friday last, this discussion must come to a vote
before six o'clock to-day, as it cannot be resumed
this session.Â
3077 [MAY 30, 1892.] 3078
Mr. MCCARTHY. I thought there was an
intimation given by the hon. leader of the House
that the remnant of this day which is left to us is
to be taken from us. Well, Sir, I agree most
heartily with the sentiment that has fallen from
the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat,
a sentiment which found utterance in the beginning
of this debate, in the speech of the hon. gentleman
who moved the resolution—that this matter must
be faced, that it will not down; and it is in the
interest of all of us, seeing how unfortunately the
question excites both racial and religious feelings
and prejudices, that at the earliest possible moment
we should face it, deal with it, and determine it.
Now, we have given to the North-West Assembly
already very large powers. With the exception,
perhaps, of the control of money, which I hope at
an early day will also be granted to them, they
have almost all the powers of a provincial assembly.
That being so, those who in this House have
declared that they are not to have the full power
and control in the matter of education, have at least
the responsibility resting upon them of showing
why the authority of the North-West Assembly
should be limited in that regard. We know perfectly well that it is in accordance
with the spirit
of the federal system under which this Dominion is
governed, that the subject of education is one of
local concern; and while I do not go the length, and
have never gone the length of saying that in no case,
in the general interest of the Dominion, should this
Parliament or this Government interfere in matters
which in a narrow sense are of localconcern, I hold as
strongly as any hon. member on the floor of this
Parliament that in ordinary cases, within the scope
of our legislation, local matters should be dealt
a with by the local bodies and the local assemblies.
Now, Sir, if that be accepted as a preliminary doctrine, I want to know why it is
that in the matter
of education this Parliament undertakes to say
that the North-west Assembly shall not have the
full control? I want to know why it was that
years and years ago, long before the North-West
was settled, this House enacted as one of the organic
laws regulatin to the North-West Territories
that they should not have full, absolute and unlimited power in the matter of education?
I have
never heard any answer given to that question. I have
never heard any suggestion offered why it was that
the North-West should not have the same liberty
that the other provinces have, all except the Province of Ontario and Province of
Quebec; and we
know the special reason which existed in the case
of those provinces. I have heard it said, forsooth:
Wait till we grant them full autonomy; wait till
we create different provinces in the North-West;
and when we create different provinces there, and
endow them with full provincial powers, then it will
be time enough to give them full authority to deal with
education. Why should you deny them the right to
consider and to deal with the question of education?
I can perfectly well understand the feelin which
actuate my Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. I respect
their feelings and views; and if it were advisable in
this country to give effect to their views, I should not
be heard saying anything against them. But I am
unable to see the fair-play on the part of Roman
Catholics, who believe, and I respect their belief,
that no education is complete unless accompanied
by religious teaching, in denying to the other
religious bodies, many of whom hold the same
views, equal justice in that regard.
Mr. AMYOT. We do not deny to Protestants
the right to have separate schools.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Practically you do. Take
the Province of Ontario. There is a public school
system there and a separate school system for the
Roman Catholics. Now take the Protestants of my
church, many of whom would desire to see their
children taught in their schools thetenets of their
faith as the Roman Catholicsare taught theirs in
the separate schools; they are not given the privilege
of having separate schools. However, I do not desire
to enter into a discussion of that here, but, speaking
for my own province, I must say I would like to
see the power given that province to deal with the
school question as other provinces deal with it; and
should the majority in that province think it would
be better that we should have a system of education
free altogether from religious teaching, I should
desire their view should prevail. I respect the
views put forward by the hon. member for North
Wellington (Mr. McMallen), and realize that there
is a great deal in what he has said with regard
to secular education, but I hold that the provinces
should be allowed to work out this matter for
themselves. They are the parties most competent
to deal with it; and I would like to know why it
is this Parliament undertakes to say to the people
of the North-West that in any ordinance they may
make regarding education, they must always enact
there may be a separate school in every locality in
that country. I think the burden of proof is upon
those who desire to control the power of the people of the North-West in that direction,
and I am
prepared to listen with every attention to any argument in support of that restriction
and limitation.
Therefore am in favour of the motion the hon. gentleman has brought forward, that
power should be
given the Legislative Assembly of the North-West
Territories to deal with all matters pertaining to
education, but am not in favour of his limitation
that no school section shall be interfered with
without the consent of the parties composing it. It
is an insult to the North-West to say to them:
You must keep perpetually these schools, scattered
here and there, as separate schools unless the particular locality consents to the
legislative body
dealing with the matter. Let us trust them, let
us give them full power to deal with the matter
themselves. If the hon. gentleman is sincere in his
views of provincial rights, he will not have any
reason for regretting the trust he will repose in
the people of the North-West in this or any
other respect. I did not move in this matter when
I brought forward the question of dual language
two years ago, and the reason I did not was
this: I have not altered my opinions in the slightest
respecting it, but I felt we ought to have an appeal
from the people of the North- West, I felt that we
ought to have a representation from their Assembly
before interfering in a matter which I believe to
be so absolutely of local concern. If they were
satisfied with the law as it exists, it would be unnecessary and mischievous to bring
forward any
motion in this Parliament respecting it. But we
know that they have petitioned this House to
free them from the restrictions imposed, and give
them power to deal with the School system as they
3079
[COMMONS] 3080
think proper. This has been twice represented
here, once in the form of a petition and again in
the form of a resolution by which the people of the
North-West desires to remind the Parliament of
Canada that they already asked for interference in
that regard. When we reflect that the people of
the North-West are rapidly attaining the position,
as regard population, of some of our smaller
provinces, I ask the members from Prince Edward
Island: On what grounds do you venture to
say to the people of the North-West that they
are not as competent to deal with this school
question as you are? I ask my hon. friends from
British Columbia why they are not willing to allow the people of the North-West to
deal with
their own schools. In all probability, in the next
ten years, the people of the North-West will outnumber both the provinces of British
Columbia and Prince Edward Island, which, I do not
suppose, would be willing to part with their power as
regards education, or consider any interference with
it by this Parliament as other than a gross outrage on
their liberties and rights, yet they are unwilling
that the North-West Territories should have the
same right. It is not necessary for me to discuss
the question in any other respect. I do not presume to say what the people of the
North-West
will do, but all I ask for them is liberty to do what
they consider is proper and right. I do not enter
into the discussion as to whether there ought or
ought not to be separate schools. I think, to say
the least, it would be injudicious to bring on the
floor of Parliament a discussion as to the merits of
either system; but I want the House to understand that as long as that enactment remains
on the
Statute-book, so long do we compel the North-West
to have separate schools. I want every member to
realize the responsibility that he is taking in that
regard. In his own province he may be content
there should be no separate schools; but when
dealing with the North-West, where there is no
large population, and from which there is no large
representation here, he considers this question as a
matter of no consequence. But he is responsible
to the whole people for saying there should be separate schools there, although he
must admit this is
a matter with which it would be far better to leave
the local authorities to deal. Now, as to the question of dual language, I do not
accept the advice
put forward by any of the hon. gentlemen who so
far have addressed us. I trust I have grown wiser
a little since my last effort, and I do not desire to
excite, in this discussion, the same feelings that
were aroused on a former occasion. Not that I do
not hold as strongly to the views I held then, not
that I do not think it would be in the interests of
all the people of this Dominion if we spoke the one
language and believed in the one theory of government, and so on. I do not at all
retract my opinion
in that regard; but I quite realize this, that my
hon. friends from Quebec took the motion I made,
which did not name the Province of Quebec but
only affected the North-West Territories, as an
attack upon what they regard as an institution
they pride themselves upon possessing in that
province. We are dealing now with the North- West, with that great country which,
before many
years, will overshadow the eastern partof the Dominion, with this territory which,
before many years, will
be the heart of the Dominion of Canada, and we are
laying the foundations there of several great states.
Now, is there an hon. gentleman in Parliament
who believes that, if he had to formulate a constitution for that country, he would
lay down as a part
of its laws, as the foundation of its existence, that
the people should speak two separate tongues?
That is the problem we have to deal with there.
It is not the question of the Province of Quebec.
It is not the rights that have grown up in regard
to the Province of Quebec, but we are now dealing
with another part of the great Dominion of Canada,
and what I want to know is, is it wise or prudent
or statesmanlike that we should, in establishing
the North-West Territories, at once say there are
to be two races holding an equality before the law
and that we desire not their assimilation, not their
amalgamation, but their perpetuation as two distinctive races, just as they are unfortunately
in the
Province of Quebec at the present moment. I am
not dealing at all with the loyalty of the French
Canadian. I am not dealing from that point of
view, but I am simply dealing with the wisdom or
prudence of our saying that, in a country where it
is the interest of all that we should be united and
should form one nationality, we should lay down
the rule that there shall be two languages and
consequently the two racial distinctions and the
cleavage which has existed unhappily in other parts
of this Dominion.
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, I say to my hon. friend,
unhappily. I think he will agree with me, not least
amongst the hon. gentlemen who share his views,
that it would be better for all of us if we all spoke
English or if we all spoke French.
Mr. McCARTHY. My hon. friend has me at a
disadvantage there. I think my hon. friends, if
they thought this matter out for themselves, if they
did not allow themslves to be swayed by their passions, would think as I do. The proposition
which
I intend to submit to the House as an amendment
to the resolution is in accordance with the view
that we here should deal with this question of language. It is not a matter of local
concern that
Germans, for instance, should go into our provinces
and decide that the German tongue should hold
sway. Surely no one will say that a matter of that
kind partakes of local concern. I repeat what I
have said on other occasions that, if there is anything more important than another
in the formation
of national character, it is the question of language,
and that is a question for this Parliament, having
assumed the position of the mother of several
states. We are establishing states in the North- West, and in that sense we are an
imperial
power, and it is for us to say, and we have in fact
said, that, with the exception of the Province of
Quebec, when we got our charter, the English
language was to be the language of the people of
this country. We have said in the Province of
Quebec both languages might prevail. We said
in this Parliament, at that time largely represented
by a large proportion relatively of the French
Canadian race, that the two languages should hold
equal rank, but with regard to the other Provinces,
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, British Columbia
when she afterwards came in, and Prince Edward
Island, there is no such rule existing, and as the
3081 [MAY 30, 1892.] 3082
foundation of our system we have it that the
English tongue is to prevail. Then why have the
two languages in the North-West, and least of
all why have them in the way in which they are
left by the so-called compromise amendment?
Formerly it was permitted to the people in their
Legislative Assembly to speak in both languages.
It was enacted that the records of that Assembly
should be recorded in both languages, that the
proceedings of the court should be in both languages,
and that the laws should be published in both
languages. A so-called compromise was made, but
whom was the compromise made between? Perhaps
my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition could
tell, perhaps my hon, friends on this side could
tell also; but did any person making that compromise represent or profess to represent
the
North-West There is my hon. friend, for instance, from Assiniboia (Mr. Davin). Is
that part
of the bargain he made on behalf of the North- West? The political leaders on either
side of the
House, anxious to get rid of a difficult question,
politically speaking, thought this was a compromise which might be agreed upon, but
I should
like to know who were the parties who made that
compromise, and why it should be regarded as
sacred? What does it effect? What benefit has
been derived from the compromise? We gave the
people of the North-West power to say they
should not speak both languages in the Legislative
Assembly? What do they do? Like practical
men they said: You can speak in any language you
please, and, if one or two gentlemen there who
speak French are fools enough to address in that
language the great body who speak English, they
will soon drop that, finding that they would take
nothing by their eloquence. As to their proceedings, however, they are only to be
recorded in one
language. There again as practical men—and it
shows what practical men will do—they say the
mischief is not in the language in which the people
speak, because no one pretends that there should
be any interference with the sacred right of speaking in any language a man chooses,
but in
pursuing in our system a duality of language, if
we believe, as I believe, that it is against the best
interests of our political system. Then they dealt
with it as practical men and said the proceedings
of the Assembly should only be recorded in one
tongue, and that is English. But we did not
settle the question. The mischief to be got rid of,
the difficulty to be obviated is not because a few
people there speak French, but because we are encouraging in the North-Warst system
of duality
of race by holding out the two languages as taking
equal rank and holding equal sway in all proceedings. Then take the courts. One of
the hon.
gentlemen pointed out the practical mischief which
arose from having the two languages in the courts,
and there is a great deal to be said as to the practical
view of the matter. But I am dealing with it on
higher grounds. I am not dealing with this from
any antipathy to any race in this Dominion, but
on the higher ground that it is to the interest of
us all to prevent any question of that kind arisin
in the future, and to have it perfectly understood
at the outset that the English tongue is the language of the people of this Dominion.
It is better
for all parties to realize that at the earliest moment.
Why should the subject be remitted to the people of
the North-West? If I merely looked at this from the
practical point of view, it would not make the
slightest difference If we give the North-West
Assembly the power suggested by this resolution,
they will decidedly exercise that power and repeal
that law, but why should we hand that over to
them? We are responsible here for imposing that
law; surely we are the proper parties here if we
believe it is not right, to remove it. Why should
we cast that as a bone of contention among the
people of the North-West? Why should not this
Parliament, treating it as a matter of imperial importance, in the sense in which
I use that term,
remove from the Statute-book that law which this
Parliament so unnecessarily put upon it, and do
away with the distinction which exists in regard to
the North-West and not in regard to any of the
rest of the Dominion, that there are to be the two
languages there? Without occupying the time of
the House upon a subject in regard to which my
views are pretty well known, I desire to move an
amendment in order to put my views on record in
a formal way. I accept what my hon. friend from
West York (Mr. Wallace) has moved as far as the
schools are concerned. I do not accept either the
motion or the amendment, so far as the language
is concerned. I say that here is the proper place
for us to settle this question of language, and therefore I move:—
That all after the word "That," in the original motion
and the proposed amendment, be erased, and that the
following be substituted instead therefor:—
"It is expedient that the limitation and restriction upon
the authority of the Assembly of the North-West Territories in the matter of education,
and the enactments
respecting the use of the French language in the courts
mm the compulsory publication of its ordinances in that
tongue, should be repealed."
It will be seen that I move simply that the restriction should be repealed, leaving
with them the
power which they have now on the subject of
education, as it stands to-day, but that on the
subject of language, that enactment shall he eliminated from our Statute-book.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). It is not my purpose
to support any one of the motions in your hands. I
shall endeavour to address myself to the observations with which the hon. member for
North Simone (Mr. McCarthy) closed his speech. The hon.
gentleman has ex ressed himself as holding the
doctrine enunciated by him two years ago in this
House. Sir, I entertain to-day the same views I
expressed then, and for the same reasons that I
opposed this proposition then, I oppose the proposition which he now submits. The
hon. gentleman has said that the question of the dual language
in the North-West Territories is a national question, whereas the establishment of
public schools
is purely a local matter; and he is in favour of
what he calls the principle of Local Government in
the Territories, but he is in favour at the same time
of disregarding that principle so far as the use of
the French language in the Territories is concerned.
Now, Sir, we may learn something from what has
transpired elsewhere where the people are of
different nationalities. The hon. gentleman is of
the opinion that it is highly desirable there should
be no language spoken in this countrybut one, and
in his opinion it would be best if that language were
the English language; but it would be better that
we should all speak French than that some
of us should speak Freneh and some English. I
do not hold to that view at all. I am dis
3083
[COMMONS] 3084
posed to maintain my rights to speak the English
tongue, whether in Parliament or out of Parliament, and I am disposed to concede to
my French
fellow-countrymen the same privilege that I claim
for myself, of expressing themselves in that language which they believe will best
serve the purpose of conveying their thoughts and presenting
their views on all questions, whether those questions be public or private. The hon.
gentleman
ought to remember that we have in Canada upwards of one million people who speak the
French
language. They have in Great Britain upwards of
one million people who speak the Welsh; and they
have been in contact with an English-speaking
population out of all proportion larger than the
English population as compared with the French
in Canada; yet utter a period of several hundred
years, the people within the limits of Wales still
speak the Welsh language, and the Welsh language
is used in all local matters, whether they relate to
political or social affairs, in a more marked degree
than it was used a hundred years ago. If we look
at our neighbours across the border we find that
when Louisiana was acquired by the United
States, the French language was spoken, and the
Government so far from interfering with the use of
the French, allowed the people to speak either, was
they saw proper, and it is only some 12 or 15 years
ago that the French language ceased to be used as
a public language in the State of Louisiana. If we
look, again, at the territory that was acquired from
Mexico in 1844, and a portion of which was converted into the State of California,
we find that the
Spanish language was spoken in the southern part
of the state and used as an official language amongst
that section of the population that could only speak
Spanish, until, I think, 1876. And when you go
into some of the northern states to-day, where
the population is largely Norwegian, I believe that
the Norwegian language is spoken in the schools,
that Norwegian teachers are employed, and that
Norwegian books are used, simply because the
children have but a short period of time to spend
in the public schools, and unless they are permitted
to do that, the recent comers from the northern
portion of Europe would be unable to give their
children an effective education at all. Now, the
people of the United States have so far proceeded
upon the assumption that the question of the
unification of the population and their use of their
own language, or of the English language, is a
matter which I will regulate itself if it is let alone.
I have no doubt that that will be the case with regard to the North-West Territories.
If there is a large
influx of French population there from the Province
of Quebec, they will carry the French language with
them, and it will be perpetuated for an indefinite
period. If but a small number go, and if they diffuse themselves among the other portions
of the
population, then they will, in the course of a few
years, cease to speak French, because the use of a
language is a matter of convenience, and whether
the people use the one or the other, will depend
entirely upon the solution that convenience gives to
the question. I should think that Canada has
difficulties enough without undertaking to put forward any active exertion, as it
seems to me is being
done here, for the purpose of creatin new, or of
reviving old difficulties. So far as the North-West
Territories are concerned, if you were to provoke
a contest between two-fifths of the population
and the other three-fifths over the subject of
language, I do not think you would do much to
promote immigration into the North-West Territories; on the contrary every effort
put forward in
that direction would lead to strife, am to the division
of the country on the basis of race, and serious
mischiefs would ensue, because you would neutralize the energies of the population
by directing
them into abnormal and perverted channels.
I am not going to say more on the subject of
language. I do not think it is a matter calling for
very much discussion. I believe the experience of
civilized men everywhere has been the same, that this
is a question with which no Government can effectually deal, and every attempt to
deal with it will
only effect serious injury on the population. I
should like to know what has been held out to
every person where civilization exists to-day as one
of the strongest evidences of the despotism, of the
barbarism of Russia, but her treatment of Poland,
her attempt to force the Russian language on the
Polish people. And when England a few years
ago entered into a discussion with Denmark to prevent a conflict between Denmark on
the one side
and Austria and Prussia on the other, she pressed
on the Government of Denmark not to attempt to
force the use of the Danish language on those provinces in which the German language
was spoken,
and they pointed out in that correspondence what
an unfavourable impression on the public mind of
the world Denmark would make if she undertook
to deal with her subjects in Schleswig-Holstein in
the way she had attempted. That is not simply
the opinion of Great Britain alone. It is the
opinion on which civilized men and statesmen have
acted everywhere except where despotic government
exists, as that which exists in Russia. But I pass
away from this subject of language, because there
are a number of hon. gentlemen who are interested
in the question, and I have no doubt it will be discussed by them, and I turn my attention,
and I
invite the attention of the House, to the view
which has been expressed on sovereign rights, the
rights of self-government, by the hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), as applying to the
people of the North-West Territories. Let us look
for a moment at the subject of the British North
America Act. Those people as a community have
had no voice in the distribution of power, no saying
as to what powers should be allotted to the Federal
Government or what powers should be allotted to
the Governments of the different provinces. That
is a question which was settled not by them, but a
question that was settled for them. It was the
public men who took part in the formation of the
constitution who determined that question, not
merely for the provinces which as corporations
under the British North America Act were united,
but for all those political corporations that became
provinces under the Act for all time to come. I do
not understand this doctrine of sovereign rights, of
local self-government as it has been put forward by the
hon. gentleman. I understand that where a central
Government holds a large extent of territory on
its own account over which it exercised sovereign
jurisdiction, it determines not merely what shall be
the extent of its own authority, but it determines
all questions of general policy in the constitution of
the union between itself and the provinces. Let us
look, for instance, at the question as shown in the,
history of the United States. For instance, the
3085 [MAY 30, 1892.] 3086
constitution of the United States was not framed
by 40 states; it was framed by 13. All the states
that came in subsequently had no voice in determining the extent of their local authority;
they
had it determined for them. It was determined by
those who first instituted the Government. If you
adopt the other view, that put forward by the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), you
would have no such thin as a permanent government at all. Why should the people who
are rotting in the churchyards of the Province of Ontario
am in the Province of Quebec, who framed the
constitution 30 years ago, determine for us what
these constitutions shall be? There is such a
thing as continuity in government, and the people
who go into a territory go there with the understanding that the character of the
Local Government,
subject to the provisions of the constitution, shall
be such as the central Government, that exercises
the sovereign authority in the first instance,
shall determine for it. That is as I understand
the constitution. That is the doctrine recognized
in the constitution of the neighbouring republic.
What does that constitution say? It says that
each state shall have a republican form of government. Can the state determine that
the
government shall be some other form? Can the
state determine to adopt a form of government
incompatible with the constitution? No. The
powers of the state depend on the constitution
given by the original thirteen states. They made
the constitution in the first instance, and the other
states that have come in subsequently took that
constitution in accordance with those provisions,
subject to be altered only in the way the constitution, as framed by the original
thirteen states or
by the people of those states, provides. I hold in
my hand Mr. Cooley's book on "The American
Constitution," and I wish to read a paragraph from
that work with respect to the jurisdiction of the
United States over the government of the territories, and hon. gentlemen will see
that this doctrine of squatter's sovereignty which has been put
forward here to-day has never found a place in the
government of the territories of the United. States
—or at all events it found aplace but for a moment
of time, which led to a civil war, and which was
superseded by the results of that war. The Government of the United States have power
to make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the
territories. That is the power we possess. That
is the power which we used when we formed the
North-West Territories. How far we should retain the government in our hands, how
far we
should entrust the government to the people of the
territories was a matter of expediency, a matter to
be determined by experience and by local circumstances. If this doctrine is to be
applied to a
territory, it is equally applicable to a municipality,
and yet we do not recognize it with respect to any
municipality. In a province, is a city, or township,
or town permitted to determine the extent of its
own power or the character of its municipal institutions for itself? Can we determine
for each city,
town or township these powers? Let us see what
is said on this matter by Mr. Cooley. He says:
"It is no doubt most consistent with the general theory
of republican institutions that the people everywhere
should be allowed self-government: but it has never been
deemed a matter of right that a local community should
be adhered to lay the foundation of institutions, and erect
a structure of government thereon, without the guidance
and restraint of a superior authority. Even in the older
states, where society is most homogeneous and has fewest
of the elements of is quiet and disorder, the state reserves
to itself the right to shape municipal institutions; and
towns and cities are only formed under its direction, and
towns and cities are only formed under its direction, and
according to the rules, and within the limits the state prescribes. With still less
reason could the settlers in new
territories be suffered to exercise sovereign owers.
The practice of the Government, originating before the
adoption of the constitution has been for Congress to
establish governments for the territories; and whether
the Jurisdiction over the district has been acquired from
the states or by treaty with a foreign power, Congress
has unquestionably full power to govern it, and the
people, execpt as Congress shall provide therefor, are not
of right entitled to participate in political authority, until
the territory becomes a state. Meanwhile they are in a
condition of temporary pupilage and dependence: and
while Congress will be expected to recognize the principle
of self-government to such extent as may seem wise, its
discretion alone can constitute the measure by which the
participation of the peeplc can be determined."
That is the American rule. It is the rule which
experience points out to be necessary. These hon.
gentlemen insist that before the territory possesses any of these organic elements
which are
necessary to the constitution of a province and a
successful working oi parliamentary government,
that it shall have all the rights and powers of a
province. Experience in the neighbouring republic
has not induced them to possess that view. Their
experience has been much longer than ours, and I
think it would be a great mistake on our part. to
adopt any view like that. Some hon. gentlemen
have said here that this is a question of state
rights, and they have referred to the question of
state rights that was settled by the civil war in
the neighbouring republic. Why, Sir, there is no
question of state rights here, and there is no party
advocating anything approaching the doctrine of
state rights in Canada. The doctrine of state
rights in the United States was that each state is
sovereign; not sovereign simply as to the extent
of its authority, but absolutely sovereign over all
the powers vested in either Congress or the state.
It was said that Congress was simply an assembly
of ambassadors acting under instructions from the
sovereign state, and that the state being sovereign
had a right to insist upon withdrawal, just the
same as it the great sovereign powers of Europe
were represented in a congressof ambassadors,
and were not satisfied with what was being
done, they could instruct their representatives to
withdraw and to repudiate the whole arrangement.
That is a doctrine that has never found support in
the courts of the United States, or by a majority
in the Congress of the United States; and the
men anxious for the perpetuation of slavery were
in favour of such a doctrine. I wonld like to
know whether any hon. gentleman would say
that the Territories should have the right, in the
exercise of self-government, to establish slavery?
Would a territory in the exercise of its right of
self-government have a right to admit the Mormon
population from Utah? Suppose you had a majority
of people coming to a territory from the State of
Utah, who insisted upon legalizing polygamy,
would you permit them to exercise that power and
to legislate with regard to domestic matters of that
kind? Of course you would not. You would repudiate such a claim at once, and you would
say that
such a power would be beyond the limits of the local
constitution. You would not listen for a moment
to the proposition, that these people, not having
been parties to the original compact, were not bounr
by it, and before they came in they had a right to
3087
[COMMONS] 3088
discuss the question how much of the British North
America Act they would recognize as binding upon
them. The people of this Dominion sitting here, as a
matter of public policy will determine how far they
will recognize the principle of separate schools and
how far they will not, in the establishment of governments in the Territories. A few
years ago they
thought it was expedient, looking at what transpired in Ontario and Quebec, as these
were the
larger provinces of the Dominion and represented
the greater portion of the population, to give effect
in the Territories to the terms of settlement that
has been arrived at as a solution of the educational
question in these provinces. Whether wise or
unwise, that was done. What reason is there at
this moment for altering it? Has there been any
great grievance sprung up? Has any practical mischief grown out of it? I do not think
so, and I
think, looking at how extremely sensitive a large
portion of the population of this country is upon
this question, that instead of it being a wise course
to undertake to force upon the attention of this
House the consideration of this question at the
present time; it is an extremely mischievous
course. It is one not in the public interest and one
that certainly cannot promote harmony and the
well-being of the population of the Territories. Sir,
the hon. gentleman, if he will take the trouble of
examining into the solution of this question and the
results elsewhere, will find that the course taken in
the Province of Ontario on the whole produced the
most satisfactory results on this continent on the
educational question. I do not think that he should
come here simply as a political theorist to advocate
views of abstract political philosophy and undertake to shape them into law. We ought
to look at
practical results, we ought to look at the character
of our population, we ought to look not merely on
what we believe would in the abstract be best for
every person, but we ought to look to the prejudices
of the people as well as to their principles in so far
as we can avoid every ground of friction and of
irritation. So far as Ontario is concerned she has
recognized the principle of separate schools. She
has given to the Protestant minority and to the
Roman Catholic population where they demand it,
the privilege of establishing a separate school.
That has not been done in the various states of the
Union; and I wish to call the attention of the House
to the fact that to-day in the Province of Ontario
there is a smaller percentage of the Catholic
population in the separate schools than there is
in the State of New York in the parish schools
where there is no provision made for a separate
system. There is a smaller percentage of the Roman
Catholic population in Ontario in the separate
schools than there is in the parish schools of the
State of Michigan where they have no separate
school system. What is the practical working
out of the Michigan system? It is this: When the
Roman Catholic community is dissatisfied, or strong
enough, they organize themselves voluntarily into
a parish school. They employ their own teacher,
and there is no public supervision over that teacher.
If the people are poor the chances are that the
teacher will be a person of rather inferior education, and the instruction given in
these parish
schools is altogether inferior to that given in the
separate schools of the Province of Ontario. In
Ontario you have today practically the same class
of teachers, possessing the same qualifications in
the separate schools that you have in the public
schools. They undergo a public examination, they
receive certificates in the same way, and since the
Catholic population has been given representation
on the High School Boards, at large number of the
children are attending these High Schools. They
are receiving their education, they are being employed as teachers, and in many cases
they are not
giving encouragement to the establishment of separate schools where the public schools
give to the
Roman Catholic population adequate protection.
I say, Sir, there is no public school system on this
continent producing more satisfactory results, and
being worked out with less friction than the school
system of the Province of Ontario.
It being six o'clock, the Speaker left the Chair.
This individual participated in:
