[MARCH 20,1394] 138
N. W. T.—DUAL LANGUAGE.
Mr. McCARTHY moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 10) further to amend the
Act respecting the North-west Territories.
He said : I may explain that this is the
Bill which I introduced last year. It deals
with two subjects. It proposes to repeal
the clause in the North-west Territories Act
by which separate schools are imposed upon
the Territories, and by which no discretion
is given to the Council of the North-west
Territories respecting education, and in place
of that clause to give the power to deal with
the subject of education untrammelled and
uncontrolled, and as the North-west Council
may see fit. It also proposes to do away
with the remnant of what is known as the
dual language clause. It will be in the
remembrance of members of this House
who sat in the fast Parliament of 1890 that
a discussion took place with respect to the
repeal of the clause as it then stood, and
the result of the discussion was a compromise, by which a portion of the clause was
repealed, or rather power was given to the
Council of the North-west Territories to repeal
a portion of the clause, but the remaining
portion stands as it was in the original Act.
The original section inposed duality in language in four matters : first, with respect
to
publication of the laws ; second, with respect
to proceedings in the courts ; third, with
respect to proceedings in the Council ;
and fourth, with respect to the printing and
publishing of those proceedings. As to the
proceedings in the Council, this power was
given by the Act of 1891, in pursuance of
the arrangement made across the floor in
the preceding session ; provided, however,
that after the next general election for the
Legislative Assembly such Assembly may,
by ordinance or otherwise, regulate its proceedings in the matter of recording and
publishing the same, and the said regulation shall be embodied in the proceedings
which shall be forthwith published by the
Lieutenant Governor, in conformity with the
law, and shall afterward have full force and
effect. The House will observe that the
power given to the Legislative Assembly
was merely with respect to its own proceedings, and the other portion of the law
still remained in force : first, that proceedings in the courts might be conducted
in
either language, and, second, that the ordinances, passed under this provision, shall
be
published in both languages. As I have
often said before in making this motion, or
in bringing in a bill to repeal this clause, I
do not do it with any feeling of hostility to
my French-Canadian fellow-subjects. I believe, Sir, that the interests of this country
will be best served, when the distinction between these nationalities is done away
with :
at all events, that so far as the North-west
is concerned, we certainly should not introduce a measure which is calculated and
ap
139
[COMMONS] 140
parently designed, to perpetuate that race
distinction which unhappily exists in one of
the older provinces.
Mr. McCARTHY. In the province of Quebec. If the hon. gentleman wants to know,
we have no difficulty in answering that
question.
Mr. DEVLIN. We will tell you about the
other one by and by.
Mr. McCARTHY. With regard to the subject of education, I think that the House
and the country must be satisfied just now,
that an attempt to interfere with a province in the North-west, or the territories
in the North- west on the subject of education, is calculated to cause a great deal
of
trouble. We have had the Manitoba School
question up, by reason of an attempt that
was made in the constitution of Manitoba,
to fetter or control that province on the
subject of education, and recently, I think
the Government have found some little difficulty in dealing with a cognate question
which came from the North-west Territories.
The sooner we realize that the people of
Manitoba, as well as the people of the Northwest, are perfectly competent to manage
their educational affairs themselves, without any control from this Parliament, the
better it will be for the peace and welfare
of this country. I, therefore, have pleasure
in introducing to the House a Bill which will
take away that limitation which the Act
intends to impose, which the Act does impose, with regard to education, and which
will remove the last vestige of the dual language clause so far as the North-west
is
concerned.
Mr. DEVLIN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly did
not expect to speak upon this question at
the present time, but I wish to answer one
statement which was made bv the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr.
McCarthy). He says that the province of
Quebec is responsible for the hard feeling that to-day exists in the Dominion of Canada
; and I answer that by saying : He is the one. He is the one who is responsible for
the hard feeling that exists in the Dominion of Canada. We have had that hon. gentleman
here year after year since 1887; with what ? With a project of law, the intention
of which is to close the North-west Territories and the province of Manitoba against
the Catholics of the province of Quebec ; a project of law wich tells them that if
they wish to go to that province or to those territories, they must remember that
there—if his views can be carried out —their language will be prescribed, and their
rights will be trampled upon. Why, Mr. Speaker, it was only last night that there
was in this city another effusion on this same subject. I do not see the Controller
of Customs in his seat at this moment, and I
regret that he is not. But we are beginning to be accustomed to these insults coming
from those gentlemen whose only political
stock is this one theme: their hatred of
their Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. What
does the hon. gentleman expect to gain by
all this agitation ? Does he imagine for a
moment that we from the province of Quebec fear him? Does he imagine for one
moment that the province of Quebec is
going to submit to all his dictates ? His
object, no doubt, is to attain to a position
which, by reason of his alliance with the
party with which he is so long connected,
he could not attain. He wanted, no doubt,
to enter the Cabinet. I beliele that was
his object. Now, finding that he could not
enter the Cabinet, finding that he would not
be taken into the Cabinet, he is trying by
this other means, to attain to the position
of leader of the Govrenment in this country.
He would like to form a solely Protestant
population in this country. He would like
to form solely, and to constitute solely,
Protestant schools in this country. He would
stand up in this House and tell a province
which sends sixty-five representatives here,
that they shall not speak the language which
they learned from their parents. From the
very beginning of the time in which this
animosity took root in his heart, from that
moment to this, every political question of
any importance to the country at large has
been 1eft aside by him, simply that he might
speak his hatred against the Catholics of
Canada, and in palticular against the French-
Canadians of the province of Quebec. He
has met with very little success so far. He
speaks of the province of Quebec as one in
which there is hatred. Let me tell him—
Mr. McCARTHY. The hon. gentleman will
allow me to interrupt him. I did not at all
use the expression he thinks. I never referred to the province of Quebec as having
hatred.
Mr. DEVLIN. Would the hon. gentleman
tell us exactly what he did say ?
Mr. MCCARTHY. What I said was : That I
trusted we were not going to perpetuate in
the North-west the racial divisions which
unhappily existed in the province of Quebec.
I never said "hatred " at all.
Mr. DEVLIN. Very well, then. I will
immediately give the hon. gentleman an
instance of some of the divisions which exist
in the province of Quebec. In the counties
of that province which are largely Catholic
in some of such counties the representative
is Protestant. I will take the county which
I represent in this House. The overwhelming majority of that county is Roman Catholic,
yet I am the first Catholic member that
ever sat for Ottawa county in this House.
A Protestant gentleman represented that
county for thirty years. To give the hon.
member (Mr. McCarthy) a further instance
141 [MARCH 20, 1894] 142
of the same generosity, I may state that the
county of Ottawa was represented in the
Local House by a Protestant member for
years. The warden of that county was a
Protestant ; for years the Mayor of the most
Catholic city in the whole province of Quebec
-the city of Hull-was a Protestant, and so
I could name a good many other counties
with a similar record. I could name the
county of Lotbinière, which is almost exclusively French-Canadian and Catholic, and
that county sent a Protestant representative
to this House. More than that, it sent to the Quebec Parliament-a Catholic Parliament-a
Protestant gentleman to represent it. I tell the hon. member that there is no spirit
of intolerance in the province of Quebec ; there is no bigotry in the province of
Quebec. There is certainly a spirit of disgust, but that disgust is entirely due to
the miserable attempt of the hon. gentleman to fasten against them this charge of
bigotry. Does he claim that the French-Canadian people have no rights in this Dominion
of Canada ? He tells us here plainly that the object is to do away with their language.
Have they not as much right to speak the French language as he has to speak the English
language? What is the object of all his hostility against the French language ? What
is the object of all his hostility against institutions which have been established
in this country, and which have been found to work successfully here ? Does he mean
to say that a population of nearly two millions shall have no right in the Dominion
of Canada ? Sir, I tell the hon. member that every time he stands up in this House
to attack us as he has done today, there are nearly two millions of Roman
Catholics in this country who mock at him,
who laugh at him, who treat him with contempt ; and here in this House what is his
following ? One lone gentleman ; that is
the following he has here, after all these
years of agitation against the Catholics. I
tell the hon. gentleman that the Catholic
element in Canada has been truer, and a
better friend of the Dominion than ever the
hon. gentleman was. What has he done
for the country ? Let us examine his career
from the beginning to this moment. Let us
examine what he was outside the House ;
let us examine what he has been inside the
House. What has he done after all these
years to promote the prosperity of his
country, or good feeling amongst our people ?
Nothing, nothing, but a few mean, despicable
attempts at imposing a peculiar kind
of legislation on this country. He
spoke of the Manitoba School Act ; he
no doubt means to say it is a success. I
would like to ask the hon. gentleman, does
he mean to say that public schools or Protestant schools exist to-day in the province
of Manitoba ? The hon. gentleman who introduced the School Act is in this House
to-day, and he is able to speak for himself
on the subject. The Protestants in the pro
vince of Manitoba, who are in a majority, abolished the Catholic schools under the
pretense of establishing public schools. Are public schools in existence in the province
of Manitoba to-day ? No, there are no public schools in the province of Manitoba.
I said so last session ; I said so the session before. The schools which exist to-day
in the province of Manitoba, to which we Catholics are obliged to subscribe, are purely
Protestant schools.
Mr. DEVLIN. I beg pardon, yes. The
best authority on that subject is the gentleman who introduced those schools, and
I will quote his own words. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Martin), speaking a
short time ago, said:
He was himself not satisfied with the School
Act and had never been so. He had made a strong
effort to have the public schools controlled by the
Government really made national schools, with
religion obliterated. And he was now more convinced than ever that that was the only
school
which could be justified as constitutional. They
said that the state had no right to interfere in the
matter of religion, but he contended that they
could not do the one without the other. It had
been urged by satistied supporters of the Act that
none could complain of the devotional element introduced, as it was of the broadest
nature, but
they found that the Roman Catholics had the very
greatest objection to this provision of the Act, and
is was dissatisfied himself and was glad many
Protestants shared his objections. It had been said that in the event of his opinions
being adopted
our public schools would he Godless schools, but
by many staunch sup orters of the School Act it
had been privately admitted to him that the religious exercises practiced in the
Schools at that time
were without value * *. The Roman Catholics
had honestly stated that in their belief the two
forms of education should go together. The Protestants admitted, on the other hand.
that
it was impossible to have religious training in
schools, and only asked that it be recognized, insisting, however, on imposing their
views on others
in that respect. Rather than that small amount
of religious training should be done away with
in the schools, the Protestants said they would
prefer the old state of affairs. He would leave it
to his audience to determine which was the more
honest stand of the two.
And, Sir, documents have recently been put
into the possession of every reader in this
country by the Venerable Archbishop of St.
Boniface—documents which we will quote
further on in the debate on this Bill— showing conclusively that the schools which
exist to-day in Manitoba are not public schools,
but simply and purely Protestant schools.
I have quoted from the hon. gentleman who
introduced this villainous School Act in the
province of Manitoba to the effect that the
schools there are Protestant schools. And
this is your great generosity towards the
Catholics of Manitoba. You wanted public
schools, you said, on the broad grounds of
143
[COMMONS] 144
the young nationality growing up in that
province. See the result : you have turned
the strong Protestant element of that province against the poor, struggling Catholic
minority. You have not succeeded even in
establishing the public schools that you pretended by this Bill you were going to
establish. You have established Protestant
schools ; you maintain them ; and you wish
to do the same in the North-west. Mr.
Speaker, last night the hon. Controller of
Customs—and I just quote this as evidence
of the spirit of the Bill and the spirit of the
hon. member who has introduced it—referred '
to our Church as the " Romish Church ": he
spoke next. of its efforts to obtain state recognition in the North-west ; he next
said
that the Archbishop had been foiled in his
attempt to secure ascendancy in the province of Manitoba ; and. finally, he went on
to speak of the loyalty of the Orangemen,
leaving the inference to be drawn that the
Catholics were not loyal. The hon. gentleman uttered three insults in that speech
:
first, against the Church, by speaking of it
in an offensive way as the " Romish Church."
In the second place, against the Archbishop
of Manitoba in saying what was untrue, that
the Archbishop tried to secure ascendancy.
The Archbishop did nothing of the kind. He
simply asked for the restoration of those
rights which, up to 1890, the Catholics of
Manitoba enjoyed. Finally, against the
loyalty of the Orangemen, and of the
lack of loyalty on the part of others, I will
say that he speaks the truth if he refers to
their loyalty to persecution from the beginning to the end of the history of the Order.
These are some of the results due to the
mean spirit of hostility manifested towards
the Catholics of this country by the hon.
member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
by the Controller of Customs, a gentleman
paid by the Catholics—
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. I think the hon.
gentleman should not indulge in remarks of
that kind.
Mr. DEVLIN. Perhaps I should not indulge in the truth, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SPEAKER. I think the hon. member
had better take the advice of the Chair, and
not indulge in the language he is using—
Mr. SPEAKER—with regard to hon. members of the House.
Mr. DEVLIN. I was merely quoting the
Controller's language from an organ of the
Government.'
Mr. SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman. in
saying that these hon. gentlemen, were
actuated by a mean spirit, is indulging in
language which he, as an old member of this
House, will, I think, admit is not in accordance with parliamentary usage.
Mr. DEVLIN. Very well, Mr. Speaker,
when the question is up again, I will refer
to the lovely spirit, the generous, broad
spirit, actuating these gentlemen—the magnificent spirit which has for its object
the
destruction of a language and the deprivation of a people of its rights.
Mr. TARTE. (Translation.) Mr. Speaker,
although we are not used, at the first reading
of a Bill, to consider its worth and bearing,
I cannot let this opportunity pass without
registering my protest against this measure.
Mr. TARTE. By the noise made, it will
appear as if there were on the other side of
the House, hon. members who wish to abolish
i the French language immediately.
Mr. TARTE. (Translation.) I have only
two words to say, Mr. Speaker. and
I am determined to say them in
French. I was just stating, when I
was interrupted, that, although it is not
according to the practice followed in this
House to consider at this stage the worth
and bearing of a Bill, I nevertheless deem it
my duty to avail myself of this opportunity
to record my protest against this proposed
legislation. The hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), whom I consider one
of the most intelligent and enlightened members of this House, might have used, and
might use in the future, his abilities and
the power of his mind in a much more useful
way for the general interests of the country.
We will consider, later on, the merit of the
arguments with which he brought before this
House the child which seems so dear to him.
At present, I am inclined to let his measure
be introduced by simply stating : " on division," for I think the country is enormously
interested in that the stand taken by him should
be well and clearly defined. If we are to
continue to sit together, French and English
members, in this House, it is well that we
should know once for all on what ground
we will stand in relation of one to another.
If we are called upon to form a nation in
this country, it is better for us to just now
lay the grounds on which that nation will
stand later on. Consequently, Mr. Speaker,
I will resume my seat after recording my
most solemn and energetic protest against
the measure brought in by the hon. member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy).
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first
time (on a division).
This individual participated in:
