May 11, 1916

QUESTIONS.


[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.] ' , WAR SUPPLIES-GROCERIES. Mr.. MACDONALD: 1. Who were the persons or firms who tendered for the supply of groceries called for by the Department of Militia in Vancouver? 2. What was the amount of each tender? 3. To whom was the contract awarded?


EXPORTS AND IMPORTS THROUGH HALIFAX.

LIB

Mr. SINCLAIR:

Liberal

1. How many tons of freight were exported through the port of Halifax during the calendar year 1915, to the British Islands, the British Possessions and to foreign countries, respectively?

2. What are the corresponding figures concerning the imports through said port?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXPORTS AND IMPORTS THROUGH HALIFAX.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Customs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID:

No information is obtainable for the calendar year 1915. According to shipping returns to. customs, the figures for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916, are

as follows:

Vessels departed-[DOT]

Great Britain

British possessions

Other countries.. Vessels arrived-

Great Britain

British possessions

Other countries..

Tons mea-Tons weight, surement.

264,049 291,902

171,155 2,387

105,129 26,988

85,732

73,193

109,622

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EXPORTS AND IMPORTS THROUGH HALIFAX.
Permalink

THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.


Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Thomas White: "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply;" and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska) thereto; resumed from Wednesday, May 10.


LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):

Mr. Speaker, at this advanced stage of the session, with a general desire prevailing among the members to retire to their peace-

ful vocations, I do not intend in the present debate to enlarge upon the arguments which have already been submitted to the House; and, ar far as possible, I shall curtail within reasonable limits the arguments which I shall have the honour to submit to the House in support of the motion .by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe).

I wish in the first place to congratulate the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) on the very interesting statements he gave us last night in his retrospective view of the parliamentary history of Canada, with all of which, of course, I do not agree, and especially with that part in which he undertook to explain the present educational policy of Ontario and the action of the Education Department; but to both of those portions of his speech I shall have occasion to refer later on in the course of my remarks.

The House has reason to congratulate itself on the high plane of the debate so far. This House is a reflection, so to speak, of the Canadian people; this question concerns every home in Canada, and it is one of those questions which we can discuss dispassionately and to the advantage of Canada as a whole. Education is a sacred cause, not only in Canada, but in all countries of the world, and I am glad that in discussing education we have not drifted into a discussion of religion. Thank Heaven, the present discussion is in no way tinged with a religious aspect, and, however we may disagree on religious matters, we can discuss at least this great educational question without passion, and in the best interests of the country.

It is admitted, of course, that the English language is the great universal language being spoken throughout the English colonies, dominions, and possessions all over the world. It must also be admitted that French is one of the great languages. The man who can speak the English language has a great advantage, bht so also has the English Canadian who can speak the French language. Our boys from the West and the Maritime Provinces who are now in France and Flanders would find it a great advantage to be able to speak French in the great work they are carrying on; but they have not that advantage. We in Quebec have had that advantage. We have been brought up in the older part of the country, along the banks of the St. Lawrence. The people of my race have

been there for eight or nine generations. I am myself somewhat of a bilingualist, and I think it a great advantage to be able to speak both French and English. Were it not for that fact I should not have the honour of addressing myself to the House of Commons to-day, in favour of what I believe to be a deserving minority in the largest province of the Dominion. It will be admitted that the French members from Quebec and other provinces set a splendid example of courtesy by their conduct in the proceedings of this Douse. Under the Constitution they could easily do all their speaking in French; they could move all their motions in French; put all their questions in French; in fact, transact all their business in the House in French. You can realize at once, Mr. Speaker, the position in which we should be if the French members exercised in that respect the rights and privileges which they have under the Constitution. But the people of Quebec, and the French people of the Dominion at large, are reasonable. They are a moderate and a conciliatory people. With the spirit that has always animated the French race, we want to be courteous to the majority. We speak the'language of the majority, not so well probably as1 the English people themselves, but we try to master it as well as we can. We had an example in the member who moved this resolution of what a "little study and a little work will do when a man really wants to acquire a better educational equipment. The horn, member for Kamouraska has set an example in learning the English language, which, I think, ought to be imitated, as far as possible, by every member of this House.

Coming now to discuss this question, let me read the terms of the motion, to show how moderate it is and how far removed from any aggressive spirit towards the English-speaking people of Ontario, or of the other English-speaking portions of the Dominion:

That all the words after " that " in the main motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor.

" It has long been the settled policy of Great Britain whenever a country passed under the sovereignty of the Crown by treaty or otherwise, to respect the religion, usages and language of the inhabitants who thus become British subjects :

" That His Majesty's subjects of French origin in the province of Ontario complain that by recent legislation they have been to a large extent deprived of the privilege which they and their fathers have always enjoyed since Canada passed under the sovereignty of the British

Crown, of having their children taught in French.

" That this House especially at this time of universal sacrifice and anxiety, when all energies should be concentrated on the winning of the war, would, while fully recognizing the principle of provincial rights and the necessity of every child being given a thorough English education, respectfully suggest to the Legislative Assembly the wisdom of making it clear that the privilege of the children of French parentage of being taught in their mother tongue be not interfered with."

Following my leader, I concede at once that it rests entirely with the province of Ontario to deal with this ' question; that the province of Ontario is supreme in this matter, and that the policy which has been followed by the present Government in not disallowing the Act of the legislature is merely in keeping with the traditional policy of the Liberal party followed in this House since Confederation. Upon that point we are perfectly agreed. But this is the High Court of the land; we are here to promote the happiness, the prosperity, and the contentment of the Canadian people. I think that this Parliament is employing its time well in trying to remove any of the difficulties that mankind inherits, whether those difficulties be material or educational, or whatever their nature may be. It has been well said that Canada is one of the most difficult countries in the world to govern. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister will no doubt agree with that statement as have some of his illustrious predecessors. The governing of this country is a difficult task as it is inhabited by various races, nationalities, and creeds, but I believe that in the last few years great headway has been made towards a better understanding amongst the different classes of the people. V, cannot hope that we shall always see eye to eye on all questions. When the great issue of the war confronted us, we might have expected that when France and England, our two great mother countries, were united for that most sacred of all causes, the cause of civilization and humanity, all Canadians would have been united, but even upon that issue we were disappointed to find disagreement. Similar instances have occurred in other parts of the wor.d and I suppose human nature is so built that there never can be perfect agreement.

On this question of education, I think the consensus of opinion in this House and throughout the country is that it rests entirely with the province of Ontario, and it is to that province that we are making our appeal. As many of our fellow-members

from the other provinces may not be familiar with what the French Canadians desire to attain and what they are complaining of, I will read a brief summary prepared by the French Canadian Educational Association of Ontario, showing exactly what they ask for and what they do not ask for, so that the House can readily understand the precise nature of the question at issue.

What the French Canadians are Asking.

1. The respect of their rights for the education of their children in schools supported with their money.

2. The efficacious teaching of the two official languages of Canada during the whole primary course in the schools or classes attended by their children.

3. The teaching of their children through the natural vehicle: the mother tongue.

4. The grouping by schools or classes of the children to which their parents wish to have the two official languages taught.

5. Competent teachers capable of teaching the two official languages of Canada to take the management of schools or classes attended by the children whose parents require teaching of French and English.

6. Their part of school grants voted each year by the Legislative Assembly.

7. One inspection, Catholic and Franco.En-gljsh, of separate schools attended by their children.

8. One inspection, Franco-English, of public schools attended by their children.

9. The granting of certificates to bilingual teachers who have sucessfully passed the examinations required by the Department of Education.

If there is anything in this plain statement of what the French Canadians of the province of Ontario are. asking, that is not already enjoyed by every other class in that province, I would like to have it pointed out to me later on in the course of the debate. The Association also makes this statement: [DOT]

What the French Canadians do not Want.

1. The French Canadians of Ontario do not want schools exclusively French.

2. They do not wish to force English speaking children or others to study the French language.

3. They do not ask for the introduction of a third school system in the province.

4. They do not wish on the one hand to expel anybody from the province; but on the other hand they will not allow themselves to be treated as intruders. They have paid for every inch of territory they possess.

5. They do not want to put up with the confiscation of their school grants which they have been subjected to for the past three years, because they have insisted on having their child, ren taught efficiently in both the official languages of Canada.

There is one point upon which both parties to this controversy are agreed. The Government of Ontario wants every child in that province to have an English educa-

tion, and I have not yet met a member of the minority who is not of the same opinion. No child in the province of Ontario can be said to have a proper education unless he has been given a thorough English education. To bring up a child in this province without giving him an English education is to handicap him for the rest of his life. The Government of Ontario wants an English education for the children; the French Canadian people of Ontario ask for the same thing. The only point of difference is as to how much tuition in French is to be given to the child. The Ontario Government proposes under Regulation 17 to give in certain schools a certain amount of teaching in French, and in other schools where the teaching of French did not exist previous to 1912, there is to be no French taught at all, so that the line of cleavage is as to the amount of French teaching that is to be given. The province of Ontario is not asked to institute a new system; it has allowed the teaching of French from time immemorial. The Postmaster General, who yesterday delivered a very interesting speech, has in his nature somewhat of the bilingual; a native of the province of Ontario, he has become a distinguished citizen of the province of Quebec. He has become familiar with both languages; he knows the mentality of the people of Ontario; he knows the mentality of the people of Quebec. My mind wandered back to the days when the United Empire Loyalists in the first Legislature of' Ontario passed a resolution on behalf of one member of that Legislature, Mr. Baby, who represented the French settlement of Essex, providing that the Orders of the Day and the Votes and Proceedings of the House be printed in the French language for the benefit of the French settlers along the Detroit river. What an example of generosity shown by the United Empire Loyalists who were the first to settle in Ontario, who opened and paved the way for the great and glorious province that Ontario has now become.

The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) referred in his usual dispassionate manner to the early constitutional history of this country, to the capitulation of Montreal, to the capitulation of Quebec, to the Quebec Act, and to all the other privileges which were granted to us by Great Britain. As I said in my opening remarks, I did not intend to delay the House upon this subject, because those points are more or less familiar to us all. England has never committed any injustice

on the French Canadians of the province of Quebec or of the rest of Canada, and I am proud to-day, Mr. Speaker, facing you in this British House, under the aegis and protection of the British flag, to declare that Great Britain has given to the French-Canadian people an overflowing measure of justice upon all occasions. Sometimes an error of policy may have been committed, but the British statesmen themselves have always been the first to correct it. In 1774, they may have somewhat restricted the Quebec Act. In 1841, the Union Act was looked upon as an error at that time, but I wish to read a few extracts from the statements of some of the Governors General, showing how valuable it was in the interest of Canada, in the interest of the Empire, in the interest of the retention of British power on the North American continent; it was, that the French language should be maintained here upon an equal footing with the English language. The hon. member for Kingston referred to those very speeches, and I shall quote one or two extracts showing what was the original British policy towards Canada and what was intended to be done with the two races inhabiting this country.

The Governors General of Canada, since Lord Elgin, have all, Lord Dufferin included, proclaimed the necessity of knowing both official languages in our bilingual country. Lord Dufferin, formerly Governor General of Canada, ex-Ambassador of England to Italy and France, one of the great statesmen who honoured the Empire in the last century, said in a speech that became famous:

It is true that the racial differences existing in Canada complicate to a certain extent the problems statesmen have to solve from time to time; but the inconveniences resulting from this state of affairs are more than counterbalanced by the many advantages derived therefrom. I do not believe that ethnological homogeneity is a flawless boon to a country. It is unquestionable to say that the less attractive side of the social character of a great portion of the population on this continent is the uniformity offered by many of its divers aspects ; and I believe Canada should be happy to rely on the co-operation of different races. The mutual action of the national idiosyncrasies introduce in our existence a variety, a colour, and an eclectic impulsion that would otherwise be impossible to attain. It would be an utterly impolitic policy to strive for their disappearance.

Lord Grey, Governor General of Canada, while visiting Victoria school, Quebec, in October, 1910, pointed out to the pupils:

-that it was just as much in the interest of English-speaking Canadians to learn French as it was for the French to learn English.

Lord Elgin, writing to Lord Grey from Montreal, on May 4, 1848, said:

I am very anxious to hear that you have taken steps for the repeal of so much of the Act of Union as imposes restrictions on the use of the French language... I must, moreover, confess that I, for one, am deeply convinced of the impolicy of all such attempts to denationalize the French. Generally speaking, they produce the opposite effect from that intended, cause the flame of national prejudice and animosity to burn more firmly.. . You may perhaps Americanize, but, depend upon it, by methods of this description you will never anglicize ,-the French inhabitants of a province.

Lord Grey writes, in answer to Lord Elgin, on June 1, 1848:

I quite agree with you as to the impolicy of the attempt. . .. Therefore, though I confess I am sorry to alter the Union Act as regards the languages, I shall almost immediately yield to their wishes by bringing up a Bill to effect the desired changes. You will receive an official announcement of this intention by this mail.

Lord Elgin to Earl Grey, Montreal, June 1, 1848:

Let me also remind you of the importance which attaches to the passing of a measure to remove the restrictions imposed by the Act ot Union on the use of the French language.

I shall say no more about that point. I think we all agree that it is an advantage, an asset, to -Canada to possess two languages. Those members of this House who have travelled in Europe-and there are many-know that when they go to England, to France, to Italy, to Austria, to Germany, to Switzerland, or to any other part of Europe, they are rarely met by a man of some education who does not know two, three, or -more languages. We are about to enter on a campaign for the extension of our foreign trade. I listened with interest to the instructive statements made to the House the other day by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). We wish him success in the campaign he is undertaking to make known our goods abroad and to bring trade from other countries. He will be the first, I have no doubt, to tell the House of the great advantage it would be for the people of Ontario, or any part of Canada, to have among their employees men who can write the French language. For French is used universally in Russia, Switzerland, in Italy -practically by every non-English-speaking nation on the continent of Europe. The hon. member for Kamouraska gave us yes-

terday tihe astounding statement that when the Turkish plenipotentiaries reached Berlin those wishing to be understood by the gathering had to address them in the French language. So we are not asking the great province of Ontario to adopt that which is unworthy of her; we are not asking her to go back on the traditions of the British race, of which they are the main stock upon this continent. We are asking only a reasonable privilege for French Canadians. We are not asking them to impose the learning of France upon their children, but asking only that the 250,000 French Canadians who are good law-abiding citizens of that province, should be allowed, while learning the English language at their own expense, to have tihe privilege of imparting to their children the French language. Is there anything unbecoming in this? Is there anything un-British in this'appeal? Is there anything unfair?

Look at the way the Maritime Provinces have dealt with this question. Look at Prince Edward Island; look at New Brunswick; look at Nova Scotia. And, in passing, let me pay this tribute to Nova Scotia -that it has at all times been in the. vanguard in educational progress in the Dominion of Canada, and has furnished leaders of thought in educational affairs to the rest of the Dominion. I need only to refer to President Falconer of the University of Toronto; to the late Principal Grant of Queen's University; in Montreal to Sir William Dawson; and many others. The province of Nova Scotia is small in population and area, but, blessed with a splendid educational system and led by men with broad views who have' played a large part in this matter, it has settled this question without difficulty. I was reading the other day the report of the Minister of Education of Nova Scotia, and was glad to see that the report on the bilingual system was published in French. In 1871, shortly after Confederation, this House was appealed to in connection with the New Brunswick school question. That question was removed from the Federal arena, and, under the guidance of wise men, they have solved it to the satisfaction of the Acadian minority in that province. What a satisfaction it must be to-day for a member from New Brunswick to have it said by a member of the minority that in that province they have been given justice and fairplay.

I have a higher opinion and a higher idea of the province of Ontario than is held by many others. I do not look upon Ontario

as a province that would wilfully do anything wrong or would commit a wilful injustice at the expense of a minority. I have every faith in the province of Ontario. I have not visited that province so much during tihe last fifteen years, as I used to do in the old days; but in those old days I used frequently to visit Essex, Kent, Oxford, Toronto, and various other parts of Ontario. I went through the whole province sometimes with ministers of the Crown and with men who occupied leading positions in the affairs of the province. Upon all those occasions I was received as one of the family, and, as a citizen of Quebec, was always welcome to the hearts and homes of the people. I found in Ontario a degree of advancement, progress, and material industry and prosperity which unfortunately, we do not enjoy in the province of Quebec. No one need tell me that a people so progressive in all such matters would be backward in this, which is not by any means a new principle.

The province of Ontario has allowed the teaching of French from time immemorial. The older members of the House remember the late Hon. R. W. Scott, who died at an advanced age, and who was the author of the Separate School Act of Ontario. On many occasions he explained to me the difficulties which he had in bringing about the passage of that measure; but when it was finally adopted in 1863 by a majority of the Canadian Parliament, in which majority were found 25 Protestant members, it was a recognition of the rights of the Catholic minority in the province of Ontario. Such a measure redounds to the honour of that province. What has been done upon the religious ground can also he done upon the racial ground.

Has it not sometimes struck you, Sir, as most extraordinary that at a time when, for the last three months, at Verdun, within a few miles of Paris, France has been pouring out the blood of her children to repulse the hordes of the German invaders, to save the civilization of Europe, as in other days Charles Martel saved it at Poitiers from the invasion .of the Mussulman-does it not seem strange to you that in this, the premier colony of the Empire, we should be begging, craving, almost on our knees, to be allowed to give to our children the language which those heroes speak around the walls of Verdun?

I cannot believe that the Government of Ontario has finally closed this question. I

look to the province of Ontario for better treatment, and following up the requests that have been made, I hope that reconsideration will be given to this subject as it easily can be given. The minority are not unreasonable. In a statement that I have just read, they express their willingness that this grievance should be submitted to arbitration. They are willing that their school system in the city of Ottawa, which is the most important in this respect in the whole province, should be taken over at once by the Department of Education of , Ontario. They are willing that the commission that they have themselves elected should withdraw altogether on condition that the appointed commission should also withdraw, and that then the Department of Education of Ontario should take over the handling of the schools. They are willing that that arrangement should continue until judgment is given by the Privy Council. But whatever that judgment may be, whether it be favourable to the minority or not, the final and the ultimate application of that judgment will rest with the people and the Government of Ontario. The citizens of Ontario are strong; they are numerous; they are rich. A bountiful Providence has given them all the elements for the constitution of a great people. They have shown a noble spirit in the recruiting which is being carried on in their chief city. The city of Toronto has sent almost 30,000 men, almost 10 per cent of all the soldiers that have been sent from Canada. I envy the magnificent example set by the city of Toronto in having sent 30,000 men to the front - to defend the rights of oppressed nations in Europe. The Legislature of Ontario was opened two months ago by the Lieutenant-Governor of that province, and in the speech from the Throne he used this language:

Hitherto the relations of the European powers to each other have heen regulated and controlled largely by treaty engagements, by international laws and usage and by good faith. In consequence of the repudiation of such restraints and obligations in the pursuit of unlimited and unscrupulous ambition, the world has been plunged into a general war. The British people have therefore been compelled to take up arms to vindicate their honour, to enforce the guaranteed rights of the small nations and to protect the Empire from attack.

This is what the boys of Toronto, and this is what the boys of the old province of Ontario, with those of the other provinces, have gone to Europe to do. We ask the people of Ontario who have remained at

home if they cannot do for a small minority in Ontario what the boys are striving to do for other minorities in Europe. We are fortunate in this country at the present time to be far from the scene of conflict. We have not been afflicted as unfortunate Belgium has been. Our soul has not been rent and tom as has been the glorious soul of France. We enjoy the blessings of peace. We are blessed by a bountiful Providence, and if it is necessary to the happiness, and the greatness of a people, surely the premier province of this Dominion is able, on a question like this, to show an example. Even if there are men in the province of Quebec who have so far forgotten their duty as to be backward in the present movement, is that any reason why the province of Ontario should not give us an incentive in the work that we have undertaken of cementing and bringing together the various elements of the Canadian people? This question remains in tihe provincial arena; but the present Government and the members from Ontario in this House can exercise a great influence in its solution, and I hope that we will be able to do it before this debate is closed, or if not then, within a reasonable time, so that an end will be put to this unfortunate agitation.

The member for Kingston (Mr. Nickie) referred last night to the determination on tihe part of the Government of Ontario to see to it that every child in Ontario shall learn the English language. He said that Regulation 17 had been adopted to deal with recalcitrant schools, schools in localities where the English language lhad not been properly taught. For my part I am prepared to submit to the strongest measure that can be adopted by the Legislature of Ontario for the purpose of seeing to it that a fair and reasonable English education is given to every child within the province. But if I am prepared to do that in the interests of the child and in the interests of that province and of this Dominion, I ask from that province that they do not tear from the mouth of that child the mother tongue that has been given to him by nature and by God, because the man who is truly loyal to the instincts of his heart and this origin will never be unfaithful or disloyal to his Government, or to his Sovereign. We have found loyalty characterizing the French Canadian people in all the history of the race

in this country; in Ontario, as in other parts of the ' old provinces, of Canada. What have the French Cani

adians done in Ontario? They came, the sons of the first pioneers of this country, mostly as shantymen; in some cases as navigators. They came through the wilderness, they followed up the Ottawa river, through the Great Lakes, and on beyond the head of lake Superior; La Verandrye to the Rockies; others to New Orleans. But those who settled in Ontario were the descendants of poor people, who found their way to Ontario through the wilderness. They did not go there in a Pullman car, with all the conveniences of a modern railway. They did not go into Ontario and take up land on which they could growr wheat on 100 acres in a year or two. They came into Ontario with the wives and their young children, with their strong arms, knowing that they were still upon British soil. They opened up the northern part of Ontario, they followed the wafer routes . of travel. They established themselves along the Detroit river. They settled the eastern part of Ontario, and to-day they are loyal people and law-abiding citizens of Ontario. For many years a French Canadian was thought to be worthy of occupying a seat in the Cabinet of the province. Unfortunately at the present time they have no representative, but that is a mere accident. To-day these people are as good settlers, and in fact they are as good citizens of Ontario, as any to be found in that province. They are ratepayers in Ontario. The money which they pay goes to the maintenance of Ontario. They do not ask for their children the privileges which are given to the Englishspeaking children of Ontario. The Englishspeaking children of Ontario can go to the primary schools; they can go to the secondary schools; they -can go to the high schools; they can go to the collegiate schools; they can go to the universities. The English child of Ontario can do that. He will find English taught wherever he goes; but the French child-what do we ask for him? We merely ask that introduction to the English language which he learns in the elementary school, and that he be allowed at the same time to improve the French that he inherits from his parents. He can go to the high school, but on the understanding that he loses his French. He can go to the collegiate institute on the same footing. There is no course of French study in the high schools.

Mr. CURRIE; There is a course of French in the high schools, and every collegiate institute has to teach it.

,

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
LIB
CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CURRIE:

No, more than that; the same as English.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

Then I stand corrected,

because it has been represented to me otherwise.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Do not believe all

you hear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

gained by speaking upon this point at any further length, and I will now summarize. The settlement which the minority ask for is not an unreasonable one. They ask the Government of the province of Ontario to givie their children an English education, to pass regulations to that effect, and to see that those regulations are enforced. But at the same time they ask that with their own money their children slhall be taught enough French to enable them to keep up the French language, which to them is as dear as life itself. It is useless to ask a man to give up his language, or the ideals that are dear to 'his heart. As Lord Duf-ferin has said, it is one of the assets of Canada and adds to the variety of life in this country to have these different languages spoken by people united by the common bond of the English language, which will always remain the language of an overwhelming majority of the Canadian people. The French language adds a charm to our varied life. Think of the stranger, the European, perhaps, who comes from other lands to visit Canada. Where will he direct his steps to find something historical, something romantic, something interesting, in the past history of Canada? We all know where he will go. He will go to the cradle of Canadian civilization, down to the banks of the St. Lawrence, down by the sea, where Canadian history began, where British history on this continent began, and where took place the cementing of the two great nations that has brought about the expansion of this broad Dominion -the creation of this great Empire on the North American continent. There are here in this House representatives from the West, representatives from the East, and representatives from the centre of Canada. They know what the French race has done for this country. They have learned in the histories they read at school what the pioneers have done for this country; what has been done by the missionaries and those who came here as the forerunners of civilization. They know also that the French race in their loyalty and devotion to the service of the King of England have never been wanting. Governors of Canada have testified, one after another, to the loyalty of the French population, not only in Quebec, but in Ontario as well. The King of England himself, when Prince of Wales, visited the Plains of Abraham at Quebec, and was gratified at the great spectacle that at a given moment Canadians

^ ; jfj

could present. What was that spectacle? It was a gathering together of representatives of the whole of Canada on the Plains of Abraham. Ontario was represented on that occasion by the late Sir James Whitney, one of the great men who have represented that province; and other distinguished men from all parts of Canada met there upon common ground, to bury the differences that had in the past separated and disunited the Canadian people. They were there trying to establish a bond of friendship and amity.

I do not wish to close my remarks without alluding to a matter that is not referred to in the motion before the House. Allusion has been made here to the position of the French minority in Manitoba. The natural spokesman for the French people of Manitoba is the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy), in whose constituency live the great majority of French-speaking people of that province. But, being ill and unable to be present, he asked me two or three weeks ago if I would act in bis place and bring before the House in this debate the position of the French minority in Manitoba. I do not ask for any different treatment for the French people in the province of Manitoba than for those in the [DOT] province of Ontario. We have precisely the same appeal to make to Ontario that we have to Manitoba, and vice versa. But I am sorry for this: in Manitoba the old sore seems to have broken out again. We thought it had healed for all time to come. After all the trouble and anxiety that both political parties had had, not only in Manitoba but throughout the Dominion, we thought that this question had been settled forever; but, unfortunately, it has broken out again, and why? Because the Government of Manitoba has repealed one clause of the Laurier-Greenway agreement, an agreement which had been brought about by the joint action of the Dominion Government of that day and the province of Manitoba. The clause repealed is very brief, apd reads as follows:

When ten of the pupils in any school speak the French language, or any language other than English, as their native language, the teaching of such pupils shall be conducted in French or such other language, and English upon the bilingual system.

That was the clause of the Laurier-Greenway agreement, which was put into effect in the bilingual schools in Manitoba, and which has been in effect for the last fifteen years. It has been repealed now by the

Legislature of Manitoba, by a vote of thirty-six to eight. Included in the minority of eight is the sole English-speaking Protestant Don in the legislature, the six French, Canadian members belonging to either political party, and the one Ruthen-ian representing the district of Gimli. Those eight representatives protested against the repeal of that clause, which they thought was in the interest of the French minority in the province of Manitoba, who occupy a unique position. In 1720 there were no white people out West when Pierre de la Verandrye wended his way from the lake of the Woods into the province of Manitoba, planted at Massacre island the first Christian cross erected on that part of the North American continent, and paved the way for the pioneers and settlers who came after him. In 1870, when the province of Manitoba was about to become united to the Dominion, delegates from Assiniboia and the Northwest Territories negotiated with the representatives of the Dominion and were granted their rights and privileges. The Manitoba Legislature met and those rights were confirmed. In 1890 the school law was passed and the separate schools were abolished. Then we had the long appeals to the Dominion Parliament, the Remedial Bill of 1896, and finally the appeal to the people of Canada, who decided against coercive measures, and I think the Canadian people would decide now, or at any other time, against coercive measures of any kind. In 1896'that question was settled and would probably have remained settled for all time. I do not refuse to any man, no matter from what land he may come, the advantages that he may have, the satisfaction that he may enjoy in retaining his language and the traditions of the race from which he has sprung; but, because of the arrangements entered into between the French and Scotch representatives of Assiniboia, because of the Manitoba Act, because of the judgment of the Privy Council, because especially of the Laurier-Greenway agreement, which was a scrap of paper, it is true, but which was a treaty, so to speak, between the Dominion and the province of Manitoba, which was placed upon the statute book of Manitoba, and which was an undertaking by that province to give the minorities certain rights, the French Canadians of Manitoba feel that they have peculiar rights different from the rights of those who have come into the province latterly. I understand that so long as the

French Canadians were alone and claimed the privileges, no great objection was taken, but later on, when people of other nationalities came info Manitoba, the situation became more complex, as those other nationalities took advantage of the clause, and that, I understand, not having read the debate, was the reason given for the repeal of the clause. In the absence of the non. member for Provenoher (Mr. Molloy), and at his request I shall read to the House the resolution adopted at a general meeting of representatives of all the French Canadians in the province of Manitoba, held at St. Boniface on the day after the introduction of this Bill in the Manitoba Legislature, to indicate to the House the position taken by the French Canadians of that province. The resolution, which was moved by Mr. Talbot, member for La Veranarye, reads:

Whereas the French and Catholic population in Manitoba are, according to natural law, by right of their title as first occupants, under solemn treaties, under the British North Am-, erica Act, pursuant to the solemn pact expressly entered into between delegates from the territory of Assiniboia and the Northwest Territories and delegates from the Dominion of Canada, by virtue of the Manitoba Act and subsequent legislation, entitled to rights and privileges that have been violated by the legislature of Manitoba ;

And whereas the French and Catholic minority in the province of Manitoba has enjoyed its national and religious rights until there was enacted in Manitoba the law of 1890, by which the minority's constitutional rights were wiped out of the statute-books of the province ;

And whereas the French and Catholic minority had its constitutional rights confirmed by the highest court of the British Empire;

And whereas in 1897 a general arrangement known as the Laurier-Greenway agreement was * entered into between the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council in) Manitoba, which agreement restored to the French and Catholic minority of this province a part only of its constitutional rights:

And whereas the said minority was never a party to the said agreement and never accepted it as a complete and final settlement, but only as a partial satisfaction of fits claims;

And whereas the present Prime Minister of Manitoba, the Hon. Tobias Crawford Norris, was, at the time the said agreement was entered into, a member of the Legislature of Manitoba, and a supporter of the party then in power, and therefore made himself a party to the contract by voting in favour of it;

And whereas since that day the minority in Manitoba has never ceased to claim the full and complete acknowledgement of its constitutional rights;

And whereas the present Executive Council of this province, with the support of a.majority of the members, has submitted to the Legislative Assembly a Bill abolishing once more the rights of the Catholic and French minority in this province, setting at defiance the solemn treaties confirmed by the highest court of the British Empire;

And whereas such an action is tyrannical, unconstitutional and contrary to all true notion and fair definition of British fair play;

And whereas Great Britain and the British Empire are now engaged in a war solely to uphold the honour of the signature G?eat Britain has appended to a treaty;

And whereas a treaty made and signed in Canada should not be considered as a mere scrap of paper in this country any more than in Europe, unless there be two different codes of honour;

Be it therefore resolved that:

The Catholic and French Vigilance Committee appointed at St. Boniface at a public meeting held on February 9, 1916, for themselves and for their co-religionists and compatriots of the province of Manitoba, solemnly proclaim their absolute attachment to the constitution of their country;

They vigorously protest against any legislation such as is now submitted and they express their unflinching determination to resist any law that may be enacted in violation of their rights and privileges as defined by the constitution of the country.

They further solemnly pledge themselves to use at their discretion and according to their judgment all constitutional and necessary means to prevent the said Act being put into force.

This question in the province of Manitoba, to which I understand the Prime Minister has referred, is not now before the House, but we are told that the Ontario question is not before the House, that this Government having refused disallowance, it has passed out of the Dominion arena, and the Manitoba question has not yet come into it. I was anxious to show that, in fighting the cause of the minority of Ontario, I did not overlook that of the province of Manitoba, and I think what is fair treatment on the banks of lake Ontario should be fair treatment on the banks of the Red river. We are asking merely for the same recognition of those rights enunciated in this resolution as have been recognized by the highest court of the Empire and by all Imperial and Canadian legislation. Nevertheless, those rights have been set aside. I am not going to discuss the merits- or demerits of the case, because I did not listen to the argument. When the present amendment is disposed of I intend, at the request of this minority, to submit the following resolution, which has been drafted by them for presentation to this House. I am prepared to submit this resolution to-morrow, or at any time that the Government may decide. I will read the text of the resolution:

Whereat, on the advice contained in the judgment delivered on the 29th January, 1S95, by the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the appeal of Brophy and others v. the Attorney General of Manitoba,

Her Majesty was pleased to pass the Imperial Order in Council dated 2nd February, 1895 ;

And whereas the Government of Canada in 1895, 1896 and 1897, under the respective leadership of Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in conformity with the terms of the said judgment and Imperial Order in Council, has taken action thereunder, which resulted in the enactment by the Manitoba Legislature of the statute being 60 Victoria, chapter 24, sometimes referred to as the Laurier-Greenway settlement;

And whereas the said Legislature, by an Act passed at its last session, has repealed section 258 of the Public Schools Act of the said province, which, prior to the consolidation of the statutes of the said province in 1902, was section 10 of the said statute 60 Victoria, chapter 24 ;

And whereas the repeal of said section 258 prejudicially affects a large portion of the Roman Catholic minority of the said province, by depriving them of a right which they deem essential to the proper education of their children and the suppression of which, moreover, grievously affects the working of the other clauses of the said settlement;

And whereas it is desirable, especially at this critical period in the history of the British Empire, to avoid any cause of inward strife and to promote a feeling of union between the various elements of the .nonunion ;

Be it resolved: That this House record its regret that the Legislature of Manitoba has at its last* session repealed said section 258 of the Public Schools Act, thereby recalling legislation passed after a long and disquieting agitation with the object of relieving a grievance of a large section of His Majesty's loyal subjects in said province.

If the Government will afford me opportunity, I am prepared to move this amendment on the next occasion when the motion is made for Committee of Supply. In view of the statements that have been made; in view of the fact that this question is not yet in the Federal arena, no application having been made for disallowance of this measure; and seeing that hon. members are anxious to save time and to get through this session as soon as possible, I would prefer to take the earliest occasion to bring this matter forward. In doing so I shall fulfil a promise made 'to my hon. colleague from Provenoher (Mr. Molloy), with whom, I am sure, we all sympathize in his illness. It will be my duty to make an appeal to this House for a small minority in the province of Manitoba. They may number only 30,000 in that province, but they are descendants of the first pioneers, those men who were trusted in that province by the Federal Government when the power of the Dominion was first extended to 'that territory. Those people had faith in the word of this Parliament when the Manitoba Act was passed; they had faith in the Privy Council of Great Britain when it declared that justice

should be done to them; they had faith in the Laurier-Greenway agreement, a treaty solemnly ratified by the province of Manitoba and placed upon its statute-books. They had a right to believe that the small concession accorded to them, of giving to their children, along with an English education, a knowledge of the French language, the first European language to be heard in the western part of Canada, would be respected. But it has been repealed. I do not know what the intentions of the National Government are with regard to it, whether they intend to recommend some legislation concerning it, or whether the matter lies there the subject of an appeal for disallowance.

I lay these facts and views before the House, and in doing so I feel in my heart and soul that I have fulfilled my duty as a Canadian, as a British subject, and as a representative of the people, anxious to promote harmony, good will, concord and a better understanding between the various elements comprising this Dominion. I hope that in the statement I have made, which is much longer than I expected, not one word has passed my lips which can wound the feelings of any member of this House. If such a word has escaped me, I apologize therefor. I submit these facts to my fellow members of this House, firm in my resolve to sustain the constitution under which I was born, and the flag' under which I was reared, and with faith that British fair play will be accorded to. all parties in Ontario and 'Manitoba in the settlement of these unfortunate differences.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

I desire to preface my remarks on this subject with a personal reference. When I was considerably younger than I am now, I spent several years in the very useful though not very remunerative occupation of teaching school. Most of these years I spent teaching in the public schools of Ontario, one in the county of Essex, where I happened to have as pupils a few French children who could not speak any English, while I was in the position of not being able to speak any French. And, strange as it may seem to some hon. gentlemen opposite, these children made satisfactory progress under these conditions. I also was principal for a matter of two years and a half of one of the largest schools in the province of Manitoba. I merely mention these facts for this reason -that perhaps, because of my close connection with the teaching profession, I have

given to educational matters in the Dominion of Canada considerable thought and attention, and have specially given considerable thought and attention to educational affairs in the province of Ontario and in the province of Manitoba.

I tru^t that I shall be able to say what I have to say moderately and fairly and without giving offence to any one in this House. But I candidly confess, Sir, that in stating that I am undertaking a rather difficult task. For, as a resident of Ontario, it is by no means easy to sit in one's seat and hear the Government and the English-speaking people of my native province characterized as tyrannical, oppressive, and all that sort of thing. Under these conditions, it is not very easy, perhaps, for one to speak as moderately as he would wish to do. But I assure you I am going to do the very best I can to handle this matter fairly and in a moderate manner.

Outside this House, and in the House too for that matter, this subject has been discussed particularly upon two lines. Men who are in favour of the bilingual system have assumed that the rights of the French Canadian minority in Ontario have been interfered with, not only their constitutional and legal rights, but also their natural rights. May I be permitted to glance very briefly over history, as was done by others who have preceded me in this debate. I find that in the terms of capitulation after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, and after the fall of Montreal a year later, and in the Peace of Paris of 1763, not one word appears with regard to the French language or the use of that language in Canada. In 1774, the Quebec Act was passed, in which I find no reference whatever to the question of language. There was provision made, and, I think, ample and generous provision, for safeguarding the interests of Roman Catholics in Canada at that time.

The next great event affecting the history of Canada, and affecting to a very large extent this question, was the American revolutionary war, immediately following which there was a large influx into the province of Quebec and the other provinces, of United Empire Loyalists. I believe that about 50,000 of these came into Quebec. Some 10,000 came in 1783 and 1784 into Ontario alone. Many settled in Nova Scotia, many in Cape Breton and along the St. John river in New Brunswick. The result of this settlement-and every encouragement was given to these people to

come in-was a good deal of jealousy and antagonism between the two races, the French and the English. Following this, and as a result of this I think, was the passing of the Constitutional Act of 1791, by which a separate Government was given to each province. The population of Ontario in 1791 was about 20,000 all English; and the population of Quebec at that time was about 125,000, of whom a little more than one-third were English. In passing on from the Constitutional Act of 1791, all I have to say is that in that Imperial Act there was no reference whatever to the question of language or language rights.

We come next to 1840, the passing of the Act of Union, which came into effect in 1841 and by which the two provinces were brought under one Government. It was provided in this Act that the English language only was to be used in the parliamentary records. While this was modified some years later, it is of importance to remember what the conditions were at the time of the adoption of the Act of 1840, if we are to properly understand the British North America Act of 1867. The population of Upper Canada in 1841 was 465,357, of whom 14,763 were French. The population of Lower Canada or Quebec was at that time 698,000, of whom 524,307 were French. In other words, the population of the two' provinces which were brought together by the Act of Union for parliamentary purposes, to do their parliamentary business in one parliament, was 539,074 French and 624,283 English. That is, at that time' the respective populations of the two principal races were practically the same in the two provinces. Just previous to the Act of Union of 1841, there had been troublous times in this country resulting in a rebellion in 1837. The people of the province of Quebec or Lower Canada and the people of Ontario or Upper Canada had many grievances to complain of, and it does seem to me that if at that time, when they were asking consideration of their grievances, this matter of language had been regarded by them as one on which they had a grievance, that would have been one of the things that would- have been taken up and that would have been especially referred to in the Act of Union of 1840. But it was not so taken up. The Act of Union came into effect, and, as I have already said there was in it a distinct provision for the use of the English language in the records of the House, which was not changed for a number of years. To sum up in regard to this period from 1763 fMr. Edwards.]

to 1840, I make the statement that in all the Acts that were passed, either in this country or by the Imperial Parliament, there was not one line, there was not one word, there was no controversy, no demand, in regard to the use of the French language in the Dominion of Canada.

While in all this legislation which had been passed from time to time the question of language was not made a basis of settlement in any Act in regard to teaching in schools, separate schools were recognized and were authorized in this country on denominational grounds. We find that in almost every Act from 1774 right down to 1867.

The Quebec Government, in this controversy, or since this controversy started, has undertaken to advise the Government of the province of Ontario, and has actually passed legislation permitting some of the people of Quebec to apply some of their money to assist certain of their compatriots in Ontario in fighting Regulation 17. I am going to place on Hansard some figures to show why, in my judgment, the province of Quebec should not presume to offer advice to the province of Ontario on educational matters. I do not do this with any intention or desire to wound the feelings of any person; I am simply going to give you facts which you can obtain, as I have obtained them from the census records of this country. According to the census of 1901, there were only 10.23 per cent of the children of school age in the province of Ontario who could neither read nor write. By the same census, there were in the province of Quebec 22.08 per cent of the children of school age who could neither read nor write. Then take the census figures of 1911. Of children, 5 years and over, who could neither read nor write at that time,, there were only 6.51 per cent in Ontario, while in the province of Quebec there were 12.66 per cent.

The right hon. leader of the Opposition has said that he would be satisfied if in Ontario Regulation 17 was repealed and conditions restored as they were, previous to 1912. What were the conditions previous to 1912? I have already stated, and I think it is fair to state, the relative positions of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in regard to education of the children as indicated by the literacy or illiteracy of the children in (each province. But I wish to go further, and to call to the attention of this House the fact that in the province of Ontario we find the greatest number of

children who can neither read nor write in those counties in the province of Ontario where the French Canadians are in the largest number. For instance, in the county of Nipissing, according to the census of 1911, there were 26,277 French out of 74,130 people. In that county 15.23 per cent of the children of school age could neither read nor write. In Prescott county, with a population of 20,124 French out of a total population of 26,968, 15.48 per cent of the children of school age could not read nor write. In Russell county, with a population of 22,475 French out of a total population of 39,434, 13.77 per cent of the children of school age could neither read nor write. In Glengarry, with a population of 8,710 French out of a total population of 21,259, 13.70 per cent of the children of school age could neither read nor write.

Now, I ask this question: Why should the county of Prescott show 15.48 per cent of children of school age who cannot read or write, and the county of Russell 13.77 per cent, while Dundas county, very close to Prescott and Russell, shows only 4.75 pier cent of children of school age who cannot read or write, and Carleton county only 6.93 per cent? Why should North Waterloo, for instance, where there are 25,352 German-Canadians out of a total population of 33,619, show only 4.26 per cent of children of school age who cannot read or write, and Prescott, where there are 20,124 French Canadians out of a population of 26,968, show 15.48 per cent of children of school who cannot read or write?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
?

Isidore Proulx

Mr. PROTJLX:

Has the hon. gentleman the figures for Frontenac?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS:

In Frontenac they are 6-57.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
LIB
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS:

I have not the figures for Addington here. Why should Ottawa, the capital of Canada, show a greater number of children who cannot read or write than any other city in the province of Ontario? That is a fact, and one surely worthy of consideration. I ask in all seriousness was it not time for the Government of the province of Ontario, in face of conditions such as those I have mentioned, and which no man can dispute, to look seriously into this matter, not merely on behalf of the English-speaking children, but more strongly on behalf of the French-speaking children in the province of Ontario, who

were evidently not getting the education which they should receive.

I want to call Attention to this further fact, that out of sixty-five constituencies in the province of Quebec only two are up to the Ontario general average, so far as literacy of the isehool children is concerned, and in one of these only twenty-nine per cent of the population is French Canadian. That is most significant, it seems to me, and I think I am perfectly right in saying, coming as I do from the province of Ontario, that under these conditions we have a right, not to accept the dictum of the Quebec Government, or of the people of the province of Quebec, on educational matters. I say that without any desire to give offence, and simply on the facts which I have given.

The figures which I am going to give now will show the reason why Ontario shows a high record in regard to the education of its people. In Ontario we have 12,016 teachers, and we spend $12,104,422 a year on education. In Manitoba they have 2,341 teachers, and they spend $5,023,891. In ' Quebec they have 14,937 teachers, and all it costs them there is $6,794,333. While they have that number of teachers in the province of Quebec, their salaries are not so large; there may be good and sufficient reason for that, and I do not care to gc into that, the figures are there to speak foi themselves.

I want to carry this matter a little further. Some may say: "You are dealing

only with the children of school age from 5 years upwards." Let us take the figures of the Canadian-born males of 21 years and over, that is, men who have the right to vote in this country, and what do we find? Illiteracy of Canadian-born males of 21 years and over in Canada amounts to 9.55 per cent. That is a comparatively small percentage. The percentage for Ontario and Manitoba is only 4-91 who cannot read or write. The percentage for Quebec of males Canadian-born, 21 years and over, who can neither read nor write is 15-64, as against 4-91 for the province of Ontario, and against 9-55 for the Dominion of Canada as a whole. That is to say, that in that regard Quebec stands lowest of all the provinces of the Dominion, and the only parts of the province of Ontario that rank with Quebec's general average in this respect are the counties of Prescott, where 21-75 per cent of the voters can neither read nor write, Nipissing, where 14-78 of the voters can neither read nor write, Rus-

sell, where 18.66 can neither read nor write and Glengarry where 14.46 can neither read nor write. The only county in the province of Nova Scotia which ranks at all in this class, I need hardly tell this House, is the county of Richmond, which has an average of 23-45 who cannot read or write. These are figures to which hon. gentlemen must give consideration. They are significant. It cannot he said that it just happens so that the counties which show the high percentage of illiteracy are counties where French Canadians predominate in the population. It is something we should think about, and that the Government of Ontario should think about. In Ontario 95 per cent of the voters can read and write. That is a high percentage. Am I using too strong language when I say that as a representative from the province of Ontario, where 95 per cent of the voters can read and write, I do not feel very much like accepting -advice from the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), for instance, or from the hon. member for Kam-ouraska (Mr. 'Lapointe), especially when I find that over 20 per cent of the voters in their respective constituencies can neither read nor write the language which falls in such beautiful musical melody from their eloquent lips? Am I going too far when I say that I do not feel much like accepting the advice of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who for so many years represented the constituency of Gaspe, a constituency where over 33 per cent of the voters could neither read nor write? May I call attention to the fact also that over 25 per cent of the voters in Laval and Temiscouata can neither read no'r write; that Three Rivers shows a percentage of 181 per cent who can neither read nor write and that Wright, which is represented by the seconder of this resolution, has over 23.08 per cent who cannot read the beautiful speeches made by the hon. member for that county, nor write to him asking for a job.

It cannot be said, Mr. Speaker, that this degree of illiteracy is due to the British-born immigrants who come into that province or to any part of Canada, because the same census figures give us information to the contrary. So far as literacy is concerned, the British immigrants in this country rank higher than the native population in any province. There is only 3 per cent of British immigrants, 21 years of age and over, who cannot read or write. Nor can it be ascribed to the foreign-born immigrants who come to Quebec and other parts

of Canada from all parts , of the world, for it is the fact that they show a greater degree of literacy than the average in many constituencies in the province of Quebec. There are in the province of Ontario, or were at the laist census, 202,000 French Canadians. We have been told that they number 250,000 at the present time. I am not in a position to dispute these figures; I state what there were in 1911. There was about the same German population in the province of Ontario as French Canadians at that time. In 60 out of the 86 constituencies there are more German Canadians than French Canadians; and let me also add this, that in all these years they have made no demands such as have been made by the 202,000 French Canadians in this province. I am not exactly right in saying that, because there are not 202,000 French Canadians making those demands. The demand has originated in the city of Ottawa, where they have not tried the regulation, where they have never tried to see whether it would work or not. As regards the French population of Ontario, what certain agitators in the city of Ottawa demand does not apply to the French Canadians in the province of Ontario generally. But I would like to ask this question of those who favour this legislation: Are those who demand bilingual schools for the French willing to accede to a similar demand from Germans, Austrians, Italian and other residents of this country? There has been considerable skating around that matter by hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), I think, intimated that they lost their rights to their mother tongue when they crossed the ocean. He would not be prepared to give them the right to their language. If I am correct, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) said that he would not deny the foreign population coming into this country the right to the use of their language.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

I said it was natural for a man to adhere to his native tongue, but I said that the French settlers on the Red river in Manitoba were very different from those who came to Canada latterly, because they had a treaty and legislation in their favour and the others had not.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS:

I have no wish to misquote the hon. gentleman. I understood the hon. member to say that he was prepared to move a resolution in this House rather deprecating the abrogation of section 258, and if that meant anything it meant that he

would like to see section 258 restored, If section 258 is restored, you have the restoration, not of bilingualism, but of poly-lingualism in Manitoba. Would my hon. friend favour the Laurier-Greenway agreement of 1897 being applied to all the other provinces in Canada?

Mr, MARCIL: There is no reason to apply it in Quebec because the French people in this Dominion are in a very different position from that occupied by Germans, Austrians and others. They have rights according to the constitution and the others have not.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink

May 11, 1916