From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: BOURASSA: THE CASE FOR FRENCH EQUALITY IN THE WEST
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1371@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>
	<CLAMEN.92Aug13170318@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1382@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>
	<CLAMEN.92Aug14023028@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:52:57 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


Here is the second of my promised Commons transcriptions, pertinent to
our thread of conversation.

----

Henri Bourassa, 
Canada, House of Commons Debates,
July 5, 1905 (pp. 8847-8852)
[Included in _Henri Bourassa on imperialism and biculturalism,
 1900-1918_, edited by Joseph Levitt, Copp Clark Pub. Co. 1970]

----------

The Case for French Equality in the West


    MR.  DEMERS.  (Translation).  Will the  hon.  gentleman state what
paragraph of the  constitution would warrant the  enforcing of the use
of the French language in the western provinces?

    MR.  BOURASSA.  (Translation).  On this point  as  well as  on the
other, my colleague will  allow me to  stand by the opinion of another
of his leaders, a legal  authority  of still greater eminence than the
Minister of  Inland  Revenue, I  mean  the   Minister of Justice  (Mr.
Fitzpatrick).   That  hon.    gentleman  has clearly  set   forth  the
difference which exists  between  the  letter and  the  spirit of  the
constitution.  Of course, the Confederation Act has no provision which
defines  the powers of  the Dominion  Parliament in  this transaction.
But, as stated  by the hon. Minister of  Justice, beside and above the
written law, there is a constitutional doctrine, which it is difficult
to define, growing out of the gradual and reasoned carrying out of the
very principles embodied in   the  constitution.   The  Act  of   1867
provided at the  outset  solely for the  organization of the provinces
then   constitutional.   Even  before  entering  confederation,  these
provinces  enjoyed  self-government; they had  their Parliament, their
official tongue, their rules of parliamentary procedure.  The idea did
not occur to the Fathers of Confederation  to  alter that condition of
things; but in establishing the Dominion Parliament, they did  so on a
basis in harmony with the  rights  and traditions of the two  elements
which make up the Canadian nation; and that is  why they provided that
the French and English tongues would  be, on equal terms, the official
language of Canada.  Later on, the Dominion  Parliament acquired those
immense western  territories out   of which were   the  provinces   of
Manitoba and those  of  Alberta and Saskatchewan.   These  territories
were acquired in the  name  and with the money  of the whole  Canadian
people,  French as well  as English, Catholic  as well  as Protestant.
And  when Parliament established  the former of these  provinces, they
did not forget the rights  of the French  Canadian people, they deemed
it  fair and reasonable  that the two official  languages of Canada be
also declared to be such in the  province of Manitoba.   Does the hon.
member for St.  John's contend that the legislators of  1870, that the
Macdonalds, the Cartiers, the Holtons, the Huntingtons, that all those
eminent statesmen  who were  then at the  head  of both parties, broke
with  the constitution  of 1867, when, in  1870, they  recognized  the
rights of the French language in Manitoba.

    MR. DEMERS. (Translation).  Circumstances have changed.

    MR. BOURASSA. (Translation).  In what respect?

    MR. DEMERS. (Translation).   As the Prime Minister has  explained,
the French Canadians were  numerous enough at the time  to warrant the
official recognition of  the French language of  Manitoba; that reason
does not exist in the Territories to-day.

    MR. BOURASSA.  (Translation).  That  is not at  all the contention
set  forth  by  the  Prime Minister.    The   right  hon.    gentleman
acknowledges  the  existence of the  moral agreement  entered into  in
1870.  But  he suggests  that its scope is limited  to the province of
Manitoba and that it would not be  possible  to make  it applicable to
the other western provinces.  I contend that  the right hon. gentleman
has not produced the slightest evidence in support of  that statement.
However, the fact remains that the makers of the Manitoba constitution
have enacted section  23 provided for  the official use  of the French
language in that  province; and  if they had  the right to  do so, why
should we be debarred from imposing the same terms on the provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan.  I shall go further: I contend that not only
have the promoters of the Act of 1870 not violated the constitution of
1867, but they have, on the contrary, been inspired by its fundamental
principle,  in granting  to the French   language in Manitoba the same
rights    which  the constitution    itself   grants to  the  Dominion
Parliament.   And  if we  wish  ourselves  to remain faithful to  that
principle, we should follow their example and  provide that the French
and English  tongues will be  for ever,  and   on an   equal  footing,
official  in Alberta and  Saskatchewan, two provinces  cut out, as was
Manitoba, from those vast territories  which  are the  property of the
whole Canadian people.  What I claim,is  the carrying out  of the same
principle which  was applied in connection  with  the establishment of
the  Dominion itself.  It  is the principle  which Sir  John Macdonald
advocated  when he  proclaimed  that there  were no longer  in  Canada
victors and  vanquished, but two allies  whose rights, equal by virtue
of the constitution, are not measured by the numbers and riches of the
various   groups.   That  is  the principle  which  is embodied in the
constitution of Manitoba.  That  is the principle which  I  would have
recognized  and applied to-day.  I  am not  breaking the constitution,
but Parliament will be breaking it, should they reject my proposal and
that of the member for Jacques Cartier.

    The hon.  member for St. John's has referred to  the small numbers
of French  speaking people in the  Territories.  The Solicitor General
argued on the same lines, when he stated that we had no right to claim
the official  recognition  of the  French language in  the   Northwest
Territories, because  the French  speaking people were not as numerous
as the Germans, the  Doukhobors or  the Mormons.  The   Prime Minister
spoke in a similar strain when he  stated that the French Canadians in
Massachusetts have  stronger  claims to   the  official recognition of
their  tongue in that state,  than the French speaking people  have in
our western  provinces.  Have  we really reached  that point?  Are we,
with one stroke of the pen, to blot out 150  years of our history; and
on this Canadian soil, which  our ancestors opened up to civilization,
under the British flag which we twice saved from the savage onslaughts
on the part of Anglo-Saxon Protestants from the neighbouring republic,
under this  constitution which  is  the mere   outcome  of the compact
entered into the two great groups of the Canadian nation, are we to be
told that we  are entitled to no more  consideration than  our  fellow
countrymen  who have drifted to  a foreign   land?  Is that really the
reward coming to us after a century and a half  of unfaltering loyalty
to British institutions?  Is  that the result of  the  compact loyally
gone into in 1867 between English and French speaking Canadians?

    In  order to do  away with the  proposal resting on the  wide  and
solid foundation I have mentioned, subterfuges are resorted to.  It is
argued that the original compact and the rights of the French language
in the West have  already been  interfered with by Parliament in 1890.
That  is only a  pretense.  I  have a higher notion of  the duties and
responsibilities   devolving on the  representatives   of the Canadian
nation.   If the Parliament  of  1890  has made a mistake, that  is no
reason for  us to repeat it  and aggravate it.   If Parliament in 1890
misapprehended the  work of the  Fathers of  Confederation and of  the
makers of the Manitoba constitution, it is our bounden duty to correct
that  mistake.  Parliament  in 1890 abolished the   use of the  French
language in the Legislative Assembly [of  the Northwest Territories --
SMC]; and now that injustice becomes an argument for those who wish to
carry through the  sinister work  and  do  away with the printing   in
French   of  statutes and  legal proceedings.   An  effort is made  to
palliate that wrong by covering it up with a further crime.  To that I
answer boldly: instead of resuming the work initiated by Parliament in
1890, let us retrace our footsteps  and take the  stand taken formerly
by the promoters of the Act of 1870.

    In this connection there  has been some  quibbling.   It  has been
contended that we are not doing away with all the French language, but
that we are simply leaving to the legislature in the new provinces the
right to cat as they think fit.   That is another attempt  at hedging.
We all know what fate is reserved to the French language if provincial
legislatures are granted full  sway.  Past experience is sufficient to
enlighten us in that respect.  When, in 1890,  Sir John Thompson moved
that the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories  be granted
the right to decide what  tongue its proceedings  would be carried on,
the then leader the Opposition,  to-day Premier of  this Dominion (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) seconded his motion.   He drew attention to the  fact
that there was not at the time a single  French Canadian member in the
Legislative Assembly.   He added that  if the French  minority  should
elect a single representative, the English-speaking majority would, no
doubt, refrain  from abolishing the use  of the French language.  What
was  the outcome?  In  1892,  Mr. Haultain moved the abolition  of the
French language.   At   the    time there  were  two  French  Canadian
representatives in the legislature.  One of them, Mr. Prince, spoke on
behalf  of the  rights  of the  minority,  appealed to   the spirit of
fairness  of  the majority, claimed  equal  rights  for  the two great
Canadian nationalities;  but his efforts were  in vain, and the French
language was done away with.  So, then, we are in a  position  to know
what the feelings  towards us of the  English-speaking majority of the
West;  and  if we are  anxious  to perpetuate  in  these provinces the
conditions of the compact  of 1867, if we are  anxious to carry on the
work of the makers of the Manitoba  constitution, if we are anxious to
maintain the constitutional  basis   which  I   referred to,  let   us
introduce in  the Bills submitted  to us  a  clause  guaranteeing  the
rights of the  minority against any  interference  similar to that  of
which the  English majority has  been  guilty  in 1892.   Instead   of
seeking in our past experience an excuse for our present inactivity, I
find therein  a lesson which  should induce us   to define clearly the
rights of the minority  and safeguard  them by means of  a precise and
unmistakable enactment.  Let us no delude ourselves in the matter!  If
the House rejects my proposal and that of the hon. member  for Jacques
Cartier, then  let us give  up all hope as  the  rights  of the French
language in the West.  French Canadian members who are fighting us are
making for the  downfall of our   nationality; and  should  Parliament
reject our amendment, I say an essential principle of our constitution
is being violated.

    Let  each  one   of  us   consult his conscience  and realize what
responsibility he is assuming just now.  As for me, I refuse to take a
hand in this unpatriotic work.

    The Prime Minister recalls  the obligations  which  Parliament has
assumed  towards the Canadian Pacific  Railway Company.   He  does not
hesitate to go counter to the letter and spirit of the constitution in
order to secure the rights of that  powerful corporation; and  in this
connection  he has the support of  the  whole  House; the agreement is
considered sacred; and all enactments, all constitutions  are bound to
disappear in order to secure its full carrying out.  Why, then, should
the  no  less sacred  obligations which   Parliament  and the Canadian
people have assumed towards the French people of the West be violated?
Is it because that powerful  Canadian Pacific Railway Company commands
a greater  number of votes  that the French  minority in the  West?  I
refuse   to   measure   or  weigh    by such   a standard   my   moral
responsibilities and obligations.  I give my support to the government
when they wish to compel  the western provinces to  respect the rights
of the Canadian Pacific  Railway Company;  but I regard as still  more
sacred the rights of my fellow-countrymen; and that is why I am moving
in this  House a provision which  guarantees those  rights  still more
completely  than the amendment  introduced by the member  for  Jacques
Cartier.  I wish to blot out the wrong committed by the legislators of
1890,  and  to revert  to  the    constitutional basis laid   down  by
Parliament in 1870 ...



--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA