May 11, 1916

LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Hear, hear.

(Mr. ROBB: Now, Sir, I am not going

to discuss this from a legal or a constitutional point of view. I am not a lawyer. I want to discuss it from an experience of 40 years in a bilingual community, where the people live together and try to respect each other's principles' and prejudices. We hear many people in Canada who say that we should have but one language and one school. But when you ask them what language or what school, invariably they say: " Our language." Now, I want to speak frankly, in the few observations I have to make, to my friends from the great province of Ontario; what would be the position of the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec if the influence and example of the English-speaking majority in the sister provinces should appeal to the

French-speaking majority of the province of Quebec, and they should start in to hamper and to hinder the education of the English-speaking minority of that province? This school trouble, so acute in Ontario, is largely between the Irish or Englishspeaking Catholics and the French-speaking Catholics. I, a Protestant, a Presbyterian, want to appeal to my English-speaking Roman Catholic friends of the province of Ontario, I want them to remember that in the province of Quebec there is an English-speaking minority, where in many places the English-speaking and the French Catholics are about evenly divided. I want to ask them if they expect that their compatriots, the English-speaking Catholics in the province of Quebec, can hope for any better 'treatment from the French-speaking majority of that province than is given to their compatriots, the French-speaking minority in the province of Ontario?

The census of 1911 gives Ontario a population of 212,442 French-speaking citizens. They are the descendants of the pioneers of civilization in this country. When the redman roamed at will, did as he liked, for the redman's law at that time was might is right, I want my friends to remember that many of the French Canadian missionaries sacrificed their lives because they were freely offering education to the redman, who had as little regard for education as he had for life. In the opinion of the red man, I repeat, might was right. Unfortunately, that theory is not yet altogether extinct as we have witnessed in Alsace-Lorraine, and in Poland, where the Germans, as well as the Russians, have deprived the people of those countries of their rights, their liberties, and their language. It is because we do not believe in that theory or principle because our British ideals are those of freedom and liberty that we are to-day at war, and that 300,000 Canadians, representing the best blood of our nation, are to-day in arms ready to sacrifice their lives that they may restore to Belgium, to France, and to Alsace their rights and their liberties. Can we who remain at home here in Canada not do as much? Can we who remain at home here not give and take? Is it not possible for sober-minded.citizens to sit down together and settle this acute difficulty which, as one speaker has said, might break out into rebellion. I think our French Canadian citizens have presented their claims very moderately. As a liberal and a supporter of the Liberal party, I stand upon

this issue exactly where my distinguished leader stands; where the Liberal party stood in 1896. We stand for provincial rights. As a citizen of the province of Quebec I have no right, nor do I desire, to dictate to the province of Ontario, or to meddle at all in the domestic affairs of that province. But, as a representative of the English-speaking Protestant minority of Quebec, I wish to appeal to my English speaking fellow-citizens in the province of Ontario. I wish them to remember that we, who are the great majority in the province of Ontario, are but a minority in the province of Quebec. Can we hope to expect any better treatment for our children from the Fiench speaking majority in the province of Quebec than we, who are the English speaking majority in the province of Ontario, are ready to give to our French speaking fellow-citizens who go to that province? I am encouraged by the debate here to-day to hope that the people will take a sober view of this trouble, and that before this Parliament meets again this subject will be settled to the satisfaction of all interests. Let us remember, we who are the majority in the Dominion of Canada, the golden rule, and do to others as you would that others should do to you. Those who say that there should be but one language will remember that the Book of Genesis tells us that at one time in the history of the world, after the flood, there was but one language and one speech throughout the earth. Was the world any better then? Is it a disadvantage for men to have two languages? Happily, here in Canada, we have the English language which is the language of commerce, and the French language, which is the language of diplomacy.

I appeal to this Parliament, to men upon both sides, to English-speaking people and French-speaking people, to cease our bickerings. Let us take an example from our brothers who have gone to fight the battles of freedom and liberty. Each day the casualty list that comes to this country registers the names of Englishspeaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians who have given their lives for freedom and liberty. Let us take an example from those men who are standing shoulder to shoulder for these principles. Let us try to sit down together and see if we cannot settle once and for all this question, and do away with this language agitation which surely is not to the benefit of this country.

Mr. Oliver (Edmonton) and Mr. Mac-donell (South Toronto) rising together,

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

Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is customary for the Speaker, when he sees an hon. member, to have some idea as to whether he is in favour of the resolution before the House or opposed to it. I do not know what the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) will do, nor do I know what the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) will do. I promised the hon. member for Edmonton to see him after the hon. member for Huntingdon, and if the question can be settled this way, I can promise the hon. member for South Toronto that I will see him next. [DOT]

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

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):

I intended to say that 'I took part in this debate with very great regret, but, in view of what has just occurred, it would seem as if I were somewhat insistent in taking part, thanks to your kind decision. It is a fact, however, that I do regret most sincerely being compelled to take part in this debate, because I am compelled to oppose the resolution offered in such eloquent terms by my hon. friend from Kamouraska. I regret the fact from many points of. view. I did what I could to prevent the question from coming before this House. I voted to keep it from coming before the House.

I noticed that my right hon.

9 p.m. friend the Prime Minister and my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain) agreed with me that it was undesirable that it should come before the House, but, unfortunately while they spoke one way, they voted the other; and the question is here to he dealt with.

One of the reasons why I regret so much having to take part in the debate is that the question is one which might very well be accompanied by acrimonious discussion. That was the reason why I did not desire to have it come before the House. I am bound to say, however, that in view of the tone which was given to the debate by the mover of the resolution, by his seconder, by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and indeed, I may say, by all those who have taken part in it, it does not appear to me that the result which I feared is likely. Instead of injury arising from the free discussion of this matter, by a frank consideration of the facts of the case from different points of view, as suggested by my honoured leader, we shall in all probability arrive at a better mutual understanding of what must be admitted to be a very difficult question.

I do not wish it to be understood that I take the ground that was taken by some of those who have spoken., that because

this is a provincial matter it should not be discussed in this House. I take it that this Parliament is the highest law in this Dominion, and that nothing can occur in any part of the Dominion but that this Parliament has the right to discuss it, and, if a substantial injustice is being done, then it is the duty of this Parliament to discuss it. So far as the question that is immediately before the House is concerned, I am not prepared to say that it is of sudh a character, or that it is not of such a character. I do not propose to deal with it from that point of view. I have been greatly impressed by the eloquence with which the cause of those who supported the resolution has been presented, and I can assure them of my most sincere sympathy in the views they have expressed and the reasons that are behind those views. They are influenced by tradition, by sentiment, by every feeling of the human heart that is entitled to respect. For that reason it is still more my regret that I cannot see as they do. This Canada is a big country, and being a big country, there are various conditions in its various and distant parts. So, while the principles of toleration, of conciliation, even the principles of liberalism which have been appealed, to so- eloquently by my friends, may be entirely applicable to>

the conditions existing in one part of the country,-as they propose to apply them, they may be altogether inapplicable to the different conditions existing ini another part of the country, supposing we wanted to apply them in the same way. I would like if, when they speak of conciliation, when they speak of toleration, they would be good enough to remember that the conditions here are not the conditions there, and that a certain set of principles which might be perfectly right and good, as they propose to apply them to -conditions here, may be entirely wrong and to the disadvantage of the country, if they were to be applied in the same way under conditions that exist yonder.

I am here as a representative of the West, as those who have spoken up to the present time are representatives of the East. There could be nothing brought out more clearly than that which has 'been brought out by this debate and that is the difference between the east and the west. The claims that have been made on behalf of this resolution have been based upon conditions as they exist here, the result of occupation and settlement for hundreds of years. Certain conditions have grown up, with

or without the sanction of law, which are entitled to be respected by every one, which secure the reverence of many and which are to be defended as earnestly and as honestly as these gentlemen have defended them to-day. This outlook that sees the past, -and looks at the future only in the light of the past, fails to take nete of the fact that in the West we have an entirely different condition. It seemed good to the men of light and leading, in what is now eastern -Canada, many years ago that they should not he compelled to restrict their activities to the valley of the St. Lawrence or to the shores of the Gulf, but that they should extend their dominion to the western sea. That brought about their control of the prairies and the distant mountains in order that there might be built up a greater Canada, a Canada that would be worthy the ambitions, -the energies and the activities of those men already settled on -the banks of the St. Lawrence and on the Gulf. I.t is as one of the representatives of the conditions' that have arisen in the West, as the result of the foresight and enterprise of the men who played their part here, that I desire to speak to-night -and it is because of the difference in conditions that I am compelled to refuse to support -the resolution -of my ,hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe).

Speaking of population, stress has been laid on the number of French speaking people in Quebec and of the French speaking population ef Ontario. There is a population west of the lakes to be considered, and if I have the support of other representatives from that, part of the country, and I believe I have, then in what I desire to say, I, as well as they, speak for nearly 2,000,000 people. We speak for more than a quarter of the population of this Dominion at the present time. But that is not the heavy part of our responsibility. We speak for a part of the people of Canada, but we speak for a part of Canada which in time to come will be the heart of Canada and where the greatness of Canad-a will b-e built and demonstrated, if ever it is demonstrated. The heart of Canada for generations, for centuries, has been on the banks of the St. Lawrence and along the lakes. But, it is only a truism to say that in the years to come the -heart of Canada will lie between the Bed river and the Rocky Mountains. It i-s on the population that will occupy that country, it is on the conditions under which they will occupy that country, the

conditions under which they carry on their affairs in that country, that the greatness of Canada will depend. That fact is based upon the material possibilities which, by the bounty of the Creator, exist there to an extent and to a degree to which they do not exist in other parts of Canada; and because of that condition we must expect occupation and development to correspond. The development of the country is the result of the exertions of the people, and the success of the people depends in everything upon the education of the children. And so this question, which is so important to the minds of our friends here from eastern Canada-and they are certainly able to express that importance in the most eloquent language- is no less important to us who are charged with the responsibility of directing in some measure the development of that western country, the heart of Canada that is to be.

I do not wish to take exception to what my hon. friends have said, but if I took exception at all it would be to the attitude they have assumed, that theirs is the only point of view. There is another point of view, the point of view that I have feebly tried to express; and it is entitled to just as much consideration-I say it boldly and unshrinkingly-entitled to just as much consideration, and is just as sacred a point of view in the interests of this great country as is theirs, let them express it with all the eloquence they may, and though my expression be as feeble as it is.

The provinces west of the Great Lakes-I will take the liberty of speaking of the four provinces, and if I should trespass in any way there are plenty of representatives of those provinces here to-night to correct me -I speak of the four provinces with their possibilities of population, and the need of education amongst that population. Surely, if the task that is before the handful of people scattered over .those prairies and through the mountain valleys is to be discharged to the credit of themselves and to the benefit of this great Dominion, we must have educational efficiency to the last degree. We cannot achieve the success we ought to achieve, or realize the expectations we hold ^regarding the success of our efforts, unless we have the highest mark of educational efficiency amongst the population that is born and bred and reared in that country. That is an idea that is abso-dutely grounded in and-may I say-dominates the mind of the people of that coun-

239i *

try. It is as sacred to them as are the language and the traditions of their race to our friends from the East who have spoken here yesterday and to-day. What is it that strikes the eye of any traveller through the Northwest as he passes by train or by road through the country? Wherever he finds a knot of people settled in village, town or city, the landmark, that strikes his eye is the school, the biggest building in the place, and the best that the money of the people can afford. It is just as much the landmark in our western provinces as are those beautiful churches and spires in tlie province of Quebec, and represents, again I repeat, just as sacred an idea. The problem of securing efficient education to the population born and raised in that country is the greatest, the most important, the most pressing and the most thoroughly appreciated problem that is before those who are charged with the leading of public thought in that country. Unless the settler who goes into that country with ambition, with energy, with hope and expectation for his own material success-but still [DOT] more, in the huge majority of cases, for the success, material and moral of his children-unless he gets reasonable facilities for their fair education he will not submit to the disabilities of pioneer life. He will find some easier way; he will drift into the towns for the sake of the education of his children. So I say that the problem of establishing facilities for the efficient education of the rural population of those Prairie Provinces is the great problem, not only for those provinces, but, in the long run, for this Dominion itself. I appeal to all men of fair mind in this House if the men who are charged with the responsibility of providing those facilities should be hampered or hindered in any way; if, on the contrary, they should not be encouraged and supported in, every way possible. The man who leaves his original location and moves on to the western prairies in the expectation of establishing himself with prosperity for himself and his family there, 'has ambition, energy and 'hope, and he leaves the old condition, wherever it may be, with' the intention of securing and establishing a new condition in the country to -which he goes. Therefore may I say to our friends wfeo, have spoken so eloquently and so ably of traditions, of historic rights, that many of the people of the West-I do not say all, because there are exceptions to every rule-but I would not hesitate to say that the vast majority

I

can afford, under such, circumstances, to have imparted successfully to their children.

Mr. Speaker, I have already stated, and I will repeat, that I do no-t wish, in anything I have said, to suggest interference in the discussion of school questions in the province of Ontario, in the province of Quebec, or in any other of the eastern provinces. I recognize that under the conditions which prevail in these provinces they have their difficulties, their limitations, and their frictions that must be allayed and adjusted. I do not propose to discuss them; I leave them to those who are 'better posted and more interested than I am, although, of course, 1 am interested in the wellbeing of eastern Canada just as the people of eastern Canada are interested in the wellbeing of western Canada. But while I am willing to accept the conditions, as discussed, in regard to the school systems of eastern Canada, I appeal to our friends who have brought this resolution forward to recognize the limitations, the conditions, the aspirations, and the ambitions of western Canada, and to give us the same consideration in dealing with the problems that are under our administration as we are willing to give them in regard to the problems that are under their administration. If they insist on applying the standards which they maintain, and which may be perfectly applicable to the conditions prevailing in the country with which they are familiar, to our country, where the conditions are entirely different; or, if they accuse us of intolerance, of sectionalism, or of a desire to wipe out or injure anybody, I say they are not fair, and they are not entitled to adopt that attitude towards us, as we do not wish to adopt that attitude towards them. Let the problems of eastern Canada be dealt with as they may be, but let the problems of western Canada be dealt with as they may be; that is all we ask. If we cannot agree, all I suggest is that we agree to disagree, because I do not wish that any man should have it in his heart ox mind to suggest that I am guilty of any intolerance, or of any racial or sectional prejudice of any kind. Our friends on this side of the House have proclaimed themselves as Liberals. They are Liberals, very good Liberals. I claim to be a Liberal, too; just as good a Liberal as they are, and just as strong for conciliation as against coercion, and for the maintenance of the rights of minorities where those rights can be maintained without becoming wrongs, either

of the majority or of a minority. I am just as ready to go- as far as they will go in maintaining rights; but I am not prepared to maintain what I believe to be a wrong because it is called a right.

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

Angus Claude Macdonell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. C. MACDONELL (South Toronto) :

Mr. Speaker, I apologise to 'the House for rising at this late moment in the debate to add a few words to what has been so well said on both sides. I may say at the outset that I very greatly regret the necessity for speaking on a resolution of this kind. To my mind it is to be doubly regretted that this resolution is now before the House. I think it is untimely and inappropriate, both because of the undesirability of raising the cry that this motion will raise and has raised in the country, and because a matter of still more importance, and one that I think we all have at heart, is engaging our attention and that is the purpose of prosecuting this war with a single aim and a single idea. It is no time for the people of Canada, much less those who are in the Parliament of Canada, to have their attention distracted from the one object of pursuing the prosecution of this war with every possible diligence until we meet with that final triumph which we believe is in store and which will no doubt come to pass provided our united, energies are bent in that direction.

I have no desire to censure anybody. I am going to give you my opinion and I believe it is the opinion of a great majority of the people of this country whether they come from Quebec or 'Ontario or whether they come from the West. The ineptitude of this resolution has been pointed out in this debate by many speakers. I do not desire to go over the arguments which have been presented but they are very apparent. The legislature was sitting at Toronto for months this winter and almost immediately after that House adjourns we find the appearance of this mischief maker in the House. It seems to me that that was the proper place, and that the time to take the case up, discuss it, and fight it if need be, even if conditions existed which would have justified bringing into that House such a resolution as this. If anything were needed to confirm me in the belief that there- is no justification for the introduction of this question into this House, it is the fact that, although the question has been discussed for two whple days, it is quite evident that

members of this House are still very much in the dark. We are at the present time trying a government behind the back of that government. We are making an investigation into matters that we know not of. The 'Government that we are asked to censure, because that is virtually the tenor of this resolution, are not here, they have no representative here, and no means of meeting this argument. I appeal to business men, to professional men, to fair-minded men. Is it right, is it fair, to proceed farther with this investigation behind the back of the Ontario Government without a knowledge on their part of what is being done, without an opportunity of meeting what is being said, because, as has been said in this debate, it may be a matter for conciliation, a matter for getting together? No one knows what the argument of the Ontario Government may be. They may have an argument wThieh will convince my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, if they had a chance of presenting it-I do not know. But, it must he remembered that the leader of the Oppoisition said: 'Let us face this matter, let us investigate it, let us get to the bottom of it. What kind of an ex parte investigation are we engaged in here? It is purely and simply an ex parte investigation. This afternoon my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) was discussing something that took place at Windsor, where, apparently, the schools were disfranchised. They were, he represented, not allowed to proceed wdth the operations of the schools and they were either closed up or threatened with being closed up because of certain objections that were made by the Ontario Government. The hon. gentleman, prefaced his remarks in regard to the situation at Windsor, by the statement that these schools were closed up under Regulation 17. I happen to have a statement of the Minister of Education of Ontario, which appeared in the public press a few days ago, in regard to these very schools at Windsor: 'He says:

It has been contended, that the position of the French language in the Windsor Separate Schools is a proof that the department is preventing French-speaking children in those schools from learning their own language. These schools are not under Regulation 17 and accordingly the right to introduce French teaching into them, whether they were schools in which French had never hitherto been taught, or schools where it had been taught for a time aiid then abandoned, would be determined by Regulation 12 (2) which does not apply unless where French is the prevailing

language. French is not the prevailing language in Windsor, according to every test which can be applied in such matters.

So that after my hon. friend spent a great amount of time and much eloquence in relation to these Windsor schools, we find that they were not under Regulation 17 at all. I do not desire to go into the details of these various classes in which the French language may be taught. We have the one class in which small children who are not acquainted with the English language ,are taught in French until they can learn English. As they grow older they learn English and they continue under English tuition in the higher forms of the schools. It is the duty of the teacher to instruct fhem in that way. I will quote from the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1914, chapter 266, the provision as to what the duties of the teacher are; they are all stated there. Section 84 says:

It shall be the .duty of every teacher-

And so on . Subsection b:

-to use the English language in instruction and in all communications with the pupils In regard to the discipline and the management of the school, except where it is impracticable to do so by reason of the pupil not understanding English, hut recitations requiring the use of a text-book may be conducted in the language of the text-book.

The Government seems to have done all they could to meet conditions where the pupils are not able to understand the English language. It does seem to me that, having regard to the fact that Ontario is an ,English-speaking province, and that the English language is in use there, they have gone as far as "they could to meet the condition of French children who are not familiar with the English language.

The hon. member for Nicolet this afternoon spoke about other languages in other pountries. He made out a great case of hardship for the French language in Ontario by citing Wales and I think Poland pnd other countries. He pointed out that those countries had their own languages. Of course they have, and so has Quebec her French language; but the Welsh people, or the Poles, do not ask that their language should follow' them into any land to which they go in any part of the world. They have their own language at their own home, and so it is with our French people of Quebec; they have their own language there.

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

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

Is a Frenchman in Ontario away from his own country?

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

Angus Claude Macdonell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONELL:

No more than a

Welshman when he goes to England?

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

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

Is the descendant of a

Frenchman whose family has lived in the Detroit river settlement for a hundred and fifty years a newcomer to Ontario?

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

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

The treaty of 1763 is the Treaty of Versailles.

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

Angus Claude Macdonell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONELL:

Some hon. gentleman, I think the hon. member for Nicolet, stated that in 1774, by the Quebec Act, the French language was introduced into and took a root in the province of Ontario. The answer to that is very plain. Whatever reference there is in the Quebec Act to the French language, that Act has no reference to what is now the province of Ontario, because there was no such thing then as Ontario, scarcely- even a bare settlement in that part of the country. Even had there been we find that, as soon as Upper Canada and Lower Canada were separated and the province of Upper Canada was founded, the very first Act of the first session of the first legislature of that province in 1791 declared that it was a British province and that the laws of England were to be brought into force in Upper Canada in regard to property, civil rights, and so on. So that even if it could be said by implication that the French language was introduced into that territory by the Quebec Act of 1774, that Act was certainly made of no avail by the Act of 1791 which I have just mentioned.

The remark made a moment ago by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) brings to mind the fact that some French people settled in the province of Ontario. Far be it from me to detract for one minute from the courage, the heroism, the adventurous spirit, the enterprise and the splendid character, generally of the French in the early days of this country. They were the great pioneers who opened up this country. To-day, however, we are dealing with living facts; we are dealing, as representative's of the people, with this resolution, and we cannot have our minds led away by our emotions; we must deal with the question according to the necessities and the facts and law of the case. It is very interesting to listen to the story of the settlement of Ontario by the voyageurs and other French settlers; but, as a matter of fact; the province of Ontario was settled by the United Empire Loyalists who came to Upper Canada after the outbreak of the American revolutionary war, and there were very few, if any French in Upper Canada at that time and very few came for a long time afterwards. As the right hon. leader of the Opposition said yesterday, they used the great waterways of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes to go to the far West, but they did not use the shores of the Great Lakes for the purpose of settlement. Although the French came there in certain numbers, the settlement was very scattered, a few going'to Windsor. The French settlement in Ontario is of later date, and I suppose that is why the question of the French language in the schools has not become acute until the present time.

Let us consider the history of the school question in the province of Ontario, because that is the place where the claim in regard to the rights of the French is -made, and it is according to the laws of that province and the laws of the Dominion governing the provinces that we have to decide all rights with regard to education and language. Prior to 1840 there were very few educational facilities in the province of Ontario; it was not until 1863 that the school laws took any definite shape. It is of some importance to understand the facts in connection with the passing of the school law of 1863, and I therefore state the facts concerning it:

In this Bill, that is, the Act of 1863, as accepted and passed were two principal stipu-

lations: First, that Catholics in their schools should have the right of instruction in their own religious principles; second, that these Catholic schools should be as completely subject to governmental regulations as the public schools.-The Bill proved acceptable to its distinguished authors.

What was done in 1863 was the establishment of separate schools in the province of Ontario, with those two principles: that

the minority should have the right to teach their religion, but subject always to governmental inspection. That Act was passed by the Government of the United Provinces, and that legislation, as hon. gentlemen no doubt know, was made the basis of the school clauses in the British North America Act: and it is worthy of note that that school law of 1863 was agreed to by all the Catholic bishops of the then United Provinces, including the bishops of Kingston, Toronto, and Ottawa, in Ontario, and Quebec, Montreal, and - Three Rivers, in the province of Quebec.

The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition yesterday mentioned the fact that it was in 1885 that the trouble with regard to the use of the French language in the province of Ontario first arose. That was when Sir Oliver Mowat was in power in that province. Conditions were not satisfactory then, and a commission was appointed in 1889 to inquire into the question. Another commission was appointed in 1893, and another in 1910, and these difficulties were grappled with and largely overcome. In 1910, Dr. F. W. Merchant, Chief Inspector of Public and Separate Schools, was appointed a commissioner to investigate and report upon the English-French schools, public and separate, of the province, and this is a synopsis of his report from a statement given by the Minister of Education of Ontario:

The report of Dr. Merchant, which was completed in 1912, was based upon personal inspection of 269 schools in which the French language was either a subject of study - or was used by the teacher as the medium of communication or instruction. The report dealt with the whole subject as an educational problem. The conditions found to exist have probably not changed materially in the four years that have elapsed since. A summary of this report will, therefore, be a fair index of the problem as it exists at present. The conditions were not satisfactory. Many uncertificated teachers without any professional training, -were in the schools; and of those who held temporary certificates, about 50 per cent came from the province of Quebec. The attendance was irregular, the younger pupils being kept at home during the severe winter weather, the older pupils in spring and autumn.

* That was the condition when the legislature dealt with the matter and passed the

following resolution in the session of 1911. which is the basis of the portions of the school law of Ontario with regard to the Flench language. I will read that resolution, because it is important; it was carried unanimously, there not being one dissenting vote:

Resolved, that the English language shall he the language of

instruction and of all communications with the pupils in the public and separate schools of the province, except where, in the opinion of the Department of Education, it is impracticable by reason of pupils not understanding English.

The French members of the legislature voted for that, and this is verbatim the language of the French school laws of Ontario. *

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

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

With the horn, gentleman's permission, I desire, with a view to eliciting information, to put to him the same question as I put to the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) last night. Did Mr. Racine, who represented Russell, inquire whether the adoption of this resolution would change in any way the regulations with regard to the French minority?

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

Angus Claude Macdonell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONELL:

I do not know anything -about Mr. Racine. What the hon. gentleman 'has said affords me another argument. It proves the unfairness of bringing into this arena matters that belong to the province of Ontario. Sir James Whitney is dead, and the records of these proceedings are in Toronto. No doubt the hon. gentleman would be answered if the Government of Ontario were asked the question he asks me. I am not familiar with the details of these matters I was not a member of the legislature. Had this discussion come on in the proper way, had the resolution been put on the Order Paper and- hon. members given an opportunity to consider it and prepare themselves, I believe that the discussion would have been more informing and useful than this which has been thrust thus suddenly upon the House. I desire to read a telegram which has been received from Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, Acting Minister of Education:

Toronto, Out., May 9.

Under our regulations there are only two classes of schools, namely, public and separate. By special regulation, however, the minister is given authority to designate annually the scnoois to which Regulation 17 shall apply and these are called English-French schools. The reason for this, you will observe, is that a school formerly designated and operated under 17 may have acquired a sufficient English training and adopted such methods of teaching that it would not be necessary longer to desig-

nate it as an English-French school. On the other hand, a school that obeyed the requirements of our regulations last year may have changed its attitude this year, and the minister (would feel it necessary to designate it so as to bring it under Regulation 17. In other words. Regulation 17 is only made to apply to schools where it is found French children are not given proper opportunity to acquire knowledge of English. You will therefore see why it is that the particular schools and the number of them may change from year to year. Section 12, subsection 2, applies generally to all bilingual schools, and provides that where French language prevails inspector may permit use of French under certain restrictions, as provided. Necessarily the designated class, which comes under Regulation 17, is excluded from those that come under section 12, subsection 2. Take the case of a new school section growing up. It begins as an English section. With the influx of French people the prevailing language in the locality may change from English to French. When that becomes the case the school has the right to operate under section 12, subsection 2. If it grows intensely French and. the tendency is to deprive children of chance to learn English, then the minister would designate it under 17. It is all wrong to say it is impossible for the French people to secure instruction in their mother tongue in case they immigrate into districts where no bilingual schools had prevously prevailed. As a practical possibility such a thing is scarcely likely to happen because if the French people begin to move into an English community, they pick up so much of the English language by intermingling with the people that it would scarcely be necessary to use any other than the English language for instruction purposes. If you can imagine a whole French community settling down isolated from opportunities of learning English, that school would be designated by the minister as an English-French school and the department would see that ample facilities were provided for pupils to acquire English through the medium of their mother tongue and at same time be given in that tongue.

G. H. Ferguson. -

That explains the matter ve^y fully, and I will not attempt to add anything to it. I leave it to the House and to the country, merely saying that for myself, for the reasons that I have tried to give I will vote lagainsit this amendment. I believe it is not in. the interest of Canada, nor in the interests of the province of Quebec, nor in the interests of the province of Ontario. I believe nothing more unfortunate could have happened to our friends in the province of Quebec than the introduction of this resolution. The nature of the resolution and the way it is put makes it plain to the people that its introduction at this time is entirely inadvisable.

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew): I can sympathize somewhat

with the statement of the Postmaster General (Mr. Oasgrain) yesterday that he possibly was not acting as many of the people

in his own province would think it better for him to act. There are such times in the life of every public man; in fact that time is always present with him. But the older he grows the more he is impressed with the necessity of hewing straight to the line in this public conduct. It has been suggested to me many times during the past three weeks that were I to vote for any resolution touching on this delicate question I should be preparing material for a first-class political funeral. If sd, blessed are the dead.

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

George Eulas Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

Only on one condition.

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

George Perry Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

I submit that a man's

conscience is the guide to him whether the conditions are fulfilled or not. While I prize the opinion of my friends as highly as any man can possibly do, while I am heartily thankful for the confidence that has been reposed in me by the people of my native province for a great many years, yet, Sir, I consider that my conscientious duty is paramount to anything else, and in the. performance of that duty I am both going to speak and vote on this question. Were I looking for the plaudits of friends, or possibly for political preferment, I might take some other course; but I have in my mind, - after associations of the past year and a half in certain part3 of this Dominion, something which to me is more paramount than either of these, great and desirable as they may be. If, Sir, by my action, by anything I can say, I can in the slightest degree assist in bringing together the warring factions in Ontario, and thus add to the warring forces of the Allies in the old land even but ten men,' I am accomplishing something for the Empire and for the Dominion of Canada. Sir, I go further. If, by the sinking, if that be the case, of any ambition I may have, I can take away from any number of men in Canada the excuse for not enlisting, I feel that my duty has been performed and I am fully repaid. I know of what I speak, without going into any further details; and if, as the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Macdonell) has rightly said, the prosecution of this war is the paramount issue now before the Canadian people, I submit that by my action to-night I am taking the strongest step I possibly could to do my best towards the achievement of that end".

My hon. friend spoke as if this resolution were intended to coerce the people of Qn-

tario, or to advise them, or to interfere with them. No such thought is in the mind of any man in this House, and I think the high plane of the discussion on this most delicate question, in which the issues at stake appeal to the very sinews, to the very fibre of men's being, and the fact that there has been such a complete absence of words that might annoy, of sentences that might drritatp, is a striking tribute to the ability and the calibre of the men who form the Canadian House of Commons. A firebrand on cither side on a question of this kind, might have led men of ordinarily mild temperament? to say things which they would not say in cool moments, but 'which they would 'always regret. That has not been the case; but we have discussed in this House up to the present moment a question of the most delicate nature without a harsh word being said, and without anything escaping the lips of members that would bring any blush to those who come after us when they come to read the debates on this question at the present time.

But, Sir, we have no intention of dictating to the province of Ontario. It is merely through this resolution, as the most direct means of exercising our right of expressing our opinions upon an alleged grievance, that the authority, and the only authority that has power to deal with this grievance, may learn what our viewpoint

is, and, if it be in their minds, can remedy the grievance which is said to exist. You, Sir, made it very plain that this was the case, and I am not sorry now, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling was challenged, because some people might have said that in your .ruling you leaned to virtue's side-or the contrary. But your ruling having been [DOT]approved by the vast majority of this House, we are discussing this matter because the House of Commons, nearly to a. man said that we had a perfect right to discuss it. But I want to refer to the words -which you, Mr. Speaker, used which were approved of nearly unanimously, ard which must convince the members of the altitude of those wh

are discussing it that ir. is not their intention, that they have no desire, to interfere with the rights o: the province, but merely to express an opinion. The Speaker used these words:

By ruling that this amendment is in order, I mean that this House has the right to discuss

it, not with the view of depriving a province of what may have been enacted by its Legislature, but merely with the view of allowing the House to express its opinion.

That is merely what those who proposed this resolution, as I understand it, desired to do. Now that the question is here, I am free to admit that I should have preferred that it had not been brought here. Personally, being a citizen of Ontario, I had intended to address a few meetings in this province on thiis very point, to express to the people my own viewpoint-[DOT] whether it would have been approved or not is another question. That being my intention, I should have preferred to have taken up the discussion outside of this House rather than to have it brought here. But it is here, we must face it, and I propose to do so for a few moments and tell the House why I am taking the attitude which I now take. I hope in doing so not to offend any person, though I may say a few plain things to people in both provinces on this question. Perhaps I should not say the people in both provinces; I mean the people speaking both languages; because this is an Ontario affair, and while you gentlemen from outside may discuss it, remember that we in this province are the ones to settle it, and the only ones who can settle it, or who have the right to settle it. My own view is that defiance of law is no-t the proper way to go about getting a remedy of a grievance.

But I will go further, and say that the cause of this irritation is not all one-sided. Let me be frank. I have been through discussions of this kind for a good many years. I have been in the Ontario Legislature, and, perhaps, I know as well as any men on the other side of the House the outlook from that angle on all these questions. Ontario is very jealous of her right to manage her own affairs, and rightly so. Certain laws were passed under the Mowat Administration after heated discussions on this question and on the question of separate schools in two or three elections. Had those laws been adhered to I believe that we would not now have the irritation which exists. One of the difficulties arose, and I say it advisedly, not from the enactments of the Mowat Government and of the Legislature of Ontario, but from the fact that the people interested did not obey the laws of the Ontario Legislature. I could cite several instances. Thus the irritation began. Speaking as a man from Ontario, who has been in the Ontario Legislature, who knows that viewpoint, I say without hesitation that in some schools in the province of Ontario the law was not only ignored, but defied. I do not refer te

the situation of recent date in Ottawa I am not referring to that at the present moment. Irritation consequently arose. It is possible that the authorities of that day were a little too lenient in not compelling compliance with the law, but this is such a delicate question to deal with that in a measure they may be excused. But it is the fact nevertheless that had not some schools that should have remained bilingual at least been made absolutely and totally French, there would not have been the cause for much of the irritation that has taken place in Ontario. I am not saying who is to blame I am simply saying that I know that to have been the case.

Coming to the city of Ottawa, I want to say plainly again that I do not believe that defiance of the law is the proper way to go about getting any grievances remedied. We have certain extremists in Ontario, I admit, but I do not want the people of the province of Quebec to judge the province of Ontario by a few ranters in this province. There are extremists in the province of Quebec, iand I ask the Ontario people not to judge the good people of the province of Quebec by ranters in that province. The men who keep in the middle of the road represent the best men in both provinces, andj>y these the people in each province are to be judged, and by these alone. Ontario people are sensitive. Perhaps I am not as sensitive as some people about the things which are said about the province from which I come, in which I was born, and in which I live. We are not a lot of bigots in the province of Ontario. I resent any suggestion of that kind. We have some; they creep into the best of society. If you could take ours in Ontario with yours in Quebec, and send them to the front where we would be sure they would stay, it would be a good thing for both provinces. But, in dealing with these questions, while we are irritated in each province by the extreme words of ranters in the other, we must keep our heads, and remember that the best in each province is not represented by men of that stamp.

I want to reiterate that, so far as I am concerned, I wonld not vote for a resolution, much less speak for it, which had even the semblance of interfering with the rights of this province or of any other province. If I thought that my action was construed in that way by those who have moved this resolution-I know it is not-I would not- I would not vote for the resolution at all, because Ontario is the only power that can

deal with this question. Some person may say to me-I have seen the insinuation in some newspapers in Quebec and in some in Ottawa that the Ontario Government is made up of bigots and fanatics, and that the legislature in general is of the same calibre. I have no brief for the Ontario Government, as .you can weli understand; hut I know Premier Hearst, and nobody can make me believe that Hearst has the least semblance of a bigot in his make-up. I am acquainted with the man. I know the Hon. Thomas McGarry, and I know him to he broadminded, a man who- hews to the line and tries to do the right thing. I was associated for years with the Hon. W. J. Hanna in the Provincial Legislature, and there is not a man in Canada who can make me believe that Hanna is a fanatic, or has the semblance of a fanatic in his anatomy, or is a man who would do anything wrong as between men in the way of encroaching upon their rights. These men are not bigots. These men have a duty to perform. But, lest I may he misunderstood-I have mentioned only three because they are the three I know best-the others, I have every Teason to believe, are in 11 p.m. the same category. Coming to the Opposition, I know N. W. Rowell. Rowell is not a bigot; he is one of the broadest-minded men in the Dominion, and one of the Ablest men as well. I know many of his followers who were in the Ontario Legislature when I was there. I know Charles Bowman, a man of German descent, who, like his father, is a credit to the province of Ontario. There is not an iota of bigotry in the make-up of Mr. Bowman. Another I think of is Mr. Sam. Clark, of Cobourg, a man of all men, open-hearted, broadminded, and with a heart that would take in everybody in the Dominion of Canada and have some room left. This question must not he discussed on the supposition that the men in the Ontario Government or in the Ontario Legislature are narrowminded. I do not admit that; I resent it, because, knowing these men, I know they do not view their public duty from that standpoint.

Let me deal for a moment with the question of disallowance. I need not say that I am not in favour of the disallowance of this Act. There have been very few Acts passed the disallowance of which I would favour. Sir Allen Aylesworth, Minister of Justice in the former Government, once made the statement that in his opinion a

province had a right to do wrong if it wanted to. That was possibly putting it broadly, but to a large extent, the powers given to the provinces under the Act of Confederation enables them to do that, so long as some great public right is not interfered with. I know of legislation for the disallowance of which petitions came to the federal authority in the time of the Administration of my right hon. leader that bore upon their face evidences of injustice. The Minister of Justice then took the ground that the people of Ontario had the power to punish a Government that would pass that kind of a law and that the matter was their business and not ours. I think that is fairly sound logic and sound constitutional practice, although the law would allow them to take another view. But, there is another reason in this case why I would be absolutely against disallowance. If the grievance now claimed does really exist, disallowance would not help one iota. Those of us who are older remember the disallowance of provincial Acts many years ago, with what result, Sir? These Acts wena immediately re-enacted by the Ontario Legislature, disallowed again, and re-enacted again, until they went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. No real remedy could be afforded, particularly in a case of this kind, by disallowance. It would only add to the irritation, and the Government did exactly right in not thinking of disallowing,, this Act. Further than that, they would have been compelled to take the strong ground that 'this Act was so injurious that it should be disallowed, although it was absolutely within the purview of the Ontario Legislature, which nobody does dispute, or nobody can dispute, if he looks upon the matter dispassionately.

But you say: " Then, that being the case, this question should have been referred to the courts and finally decided." If this were a question of commerce, if this were a question of some minor importance, -of something that dealt only with the heads ,and not the hearts of people, I would say that a decision by the courts would settle it. But this is a question far and beyond and above anything in the way of a commercial transaction or of a commercial dispute. It is something that touches the beings of men, something that touches their history and their traditions, and no decision of any court, no matter what it may be, can alleviate the irritation that exists. I say to those who are prosecuting that case and taking it to the courts that, no matter what

the decision may be, the people of Ontario will have to deal with the question ultimately.

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

John Hampden Burnham

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BURNHAM:

May I ask the hon. gentleman if he means that it would be desirable to test the opinion of the country at large upon this matter?

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

George Perry Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

I am not objecting to it, but I do not suggest it. My hon. friend has a constituency where he thinks . he could use this question fairly well, as he did the ne temere decree. I say that a decision of the court, no matter on which side it was, would not alleviate the condition or remove the irritation. Why do I say that? Supposing that those who make the complaint of this law were upheld and the decision were in their favour, * think you that, if the Ontario Legislature did not believe in the justice or wisdom of the decision, they would not and could not find a hundred ways of getting around it without violating it? Everyone knows that. They need not pass any legislation to implement the decision. They could do several things, refuse to grant money and that kind of thing. That would not help. I say to the French people of Ontario : suppose the decision were against you, then where would you be? I am not a lawyer, but my judgment is that if the case goes to court it will be decided in favor of the Ontario government. This being so, an appeal to the courts would not lessen the irritation; it would but add to it, no matter what the decision might be.

What is the only remedy? You say to me: ''Why should we have anything to do with this question in the federal Parliament"? That has been decided by almost the unanimous vote of the House, and I will not discuss it. But, if there be a grievance, I do not know. Is it claimed that there is a grievance? It is. If any man imagines that he has a grievance, he is as much troubled in his heart as if he had a real grievance, because to him it is a real grievance. One thing I do know is that for some reason hundreds of children to whom we owe an education are walking the streets, or have been, and are not getting it. I do not know what the situation is to-day. We owe-'a duty to these children, and those on either side who are preventing an arrangement being brought about by which these children can proceed on their course to manhood and womanhood are taking a grave responsibility. There is a grievance, or an alleged grievance, I am not sure which it is. It exists in the minds of a lot of people

at least, and we in Ontario ought to be big enough to find some way to do justice to the children of Ontario if not to the children in the other parts of the country. What is to be that way? It cannot be by law, it cannot be by coercion, it cannot be by disallowance, it cannot be by court decision ; it must be through some friendly and conciliatory method on the part of both parties. It will not do to say: "You have no grievance; there is the law." That makes no difference to the man who thinks he has a grievance. iStoniething ought to be done. Are we not big enough in Ontario to devise a method 'by which a remedy can be found?

I said that I did not know whether there was a just cause for a grievance or not. This much I do know, that, having sat in this House, I have heard men, learned in the law, on each side if the House say there is no cause for a grievance be- . cause the amendment to the Ontario law does not mean that those who claimed to have a grievance insist it does mean. The acting Minister of Education said that these amendments to the Act are not intended to deprive children of French-speaking parents of any privilege they had. Mr. Rowell has said the same thing. Their remarks appeared in the same newspapers. That is the Ontario side of it. Hon. gentlemen in this House have said the same thing. Eminent men on this side of the House, whose ability both as statesmen and lawyers no person will question, declare just as emphatically that these amendments can bear an interpretation which does deprive the children of French-speaking parents of the privileges that they have always enjoyed. Who is right? I do not know. There should be some person to say who is right as between these two opinions. I know a most eminent lawyer in Canada who has said that this Regulation 17 is weak, and if it is apparently capable of two constructions, surely there is some method by which that weakness can be removed and the law made clear so that there can be no dispute that it means what the Ontario Government and legislature say it means, xf that be done the cause of grievance is removed, so far as I am concerned. If some enactment can toe passed that will make it so clear that lawyers cannot differ, and everybody will know that this legislation means what the Ontario Government says it means, there will be no cause, I think, for the grievance among those who are now complaining. Lawyers may laugh

at that, but lawyers make good fees out of these very differences. If these differences did not get into legislation we should have fewer lawyers. Not being of that profession myself, I cannot appreciate these technicalities but I do know that they exist. Prominent legal men have said to me that the interpretation put upon these amendments by the leader of the Opposition and by the horn, member for Kamour-aska is not a strained one. Now, this resolution only suggests, nothing more. It does not ask; it does not adviise; it merely expresses the opinion that, that being the case, it would be wise if all doubt were removed by having the legislation of Ontario made so clear that nobody could say that it did not mean what the Ontario Government says it means. That is not a very big demand. Knowing the members of the Ontario Government, I believe that if the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the member for East Toronto, and the member for South Toronto-Ontario men, who have the right to sit down and discuss it directly with the Ontario Government-I believe that if they were to sit down and discuss this matter with Premier Hearst, this grievance would be removed in twenty-four hours. I know the men of whom I 'speak, and I say in all fairness to the members of the Ontario Government that I *have never found any of them showing the least symptom of bigotry, or a desire to interfere with amy man on account of his religion or origin. That being true, I urge upon the Government and the members from Ontario the wisdom of sitting down quietly with the members of the Ontario Government, and pointing out that *if they will make clear what they say is their intention, much of t'he trouble will be removed. If that can be done-and it seems to mfe very simple-there will have been accomplished by this discussion, conducted as it has been without any irritation, harshness or abuse, something that will be worth all the money that has been expended in the holding of this session of Parliament, if it accomplished nothing else. Let ns look at our hearts at the present moment. The greatest necessity in this hour, in the face of an enemy who has appeared almost unbeatable, is that all hearts in iCanada should beat as one. If friendly conference by men from Ontario with the authorities in Ontario can bring about a state of affairs whereby the present friction, no matter from what cause, will

no longer exist, and hundreds of children . now going uneducated will return to the schools, and we in -Canada, no matter from what part we come or what our race or origin, -can say that we have no grievance against each other, we shall be in a better position than we have been in for the last eighteen months to face and overcome the enemy, because the people of the Empire will be united.

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

George Eulas Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I have a very few words -to say in connection with the question that has been debated now for two days, -and the discussion of which, I suppose, is now nearing its end.

I have listened attentively to every speech that has been made, including the speech which has ibeen made by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Graham); and I -acknowledge to this House and to myself that now, just at this moment, I -am more mystified as to why this resolution was ever brought here than I have been at any other time during this debate. I have been trying to find out what it was brought here for, I have diligently scanned the arguments, and listened to most of them as they have proceeded from those who have spoken; and I cannot yet see, from anything that has been said by my right hon. friend who is the father of the resolution, or by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat-taking them as the two principal exponents-what in the wide world this resolution was ever brought here for, if it was not brought here for mischief. It seems to -me like the foolish prank o-f a -mischievous boy. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat spoke of firebrands. He has been on tenterhooks ever since this resolution came into this House lest some word should be spoken which would set a fire going that would blaze up all over this country. Was it necessary, in order to make a protest to the Ontario Government, that you should contemplate firebrands and- conflagrations, and bring tinder into this House which would contribute to it?

IMy right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says: "I do not want to dictate; I have not the -least idea of giving Ontario advice; all I want to do is to make a plea and have a hearing." Good gracious, Mr. -Speaker'! Could he not have made the same ple-a without a resolution? Could not everybody in this House have said what everybody

has said on a motion to go into Supply, without bringing in any resolution at all as an amendment to that motion? Then why was the resolution brought? That is what mystifies me. How is it with the rest of you on each side of this House?

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

An hon. MEMBER:

It synchronizes.

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

George Eulas Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

There is another thing which shows the absurdity of trying to try out a question of this kind in a forum which is uninformed, and cannot possibly be informed on the very kernel of the question. My hon. friend from Nico-let (Mr. Lamarche), in that excellent speech of his -as to form and clearness, although jl do not agree with everything he has said here this afternoon, charged the Ontario Government with various wrongdoings. Who is there here to answer for the Ontario -Government? Is the Ontario Government at the bar of this House when charges are made that deeply affect its honour, its s-pirit of -fairness, and its objects? Is there any one at the bar of this House to speak on behalf of the Ontario Government, to give the reason for its acts, to explain what is not -clear or defend what is wrongly attacked? I am satisfied that there is an answer to every charge that has been made; but no man in this House who has not grown up in the atmosphere of the Ontario Legislature, who has not gone from an Ontario constituency to enact the legislation which' pertains to that House under our -Constitution, no -matter how able he is, can take up a question like this, which has a growth of thirty years in the province, andbe at even advantage with reference to it, know its genesis, its developmentand the truth that ie in it. Alawyer can take a brief and make a very

good case out of it; but there is no man on either side of this House-and the debate we have had here has shown it-who is capable of taking this educational problem, that has been before the Legislature of Ontario and the various Governments of Ontario for these many years, and thoroughly understanding it, can do it justice or speak with authority with reference to it. So almost every man who has spoken has had a different idea of its purport, none know certainly.

My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition is consumed with a spirit which impels him to make a plea. To what God is he praying? If he wants to make a plea which shall be an effective one, let

him put his plea upon the altar of the being who is able to grant it or refuse it. My right hon. friend the other night seemed to be under the impression that such a deity was my hon. friend who sits here by my right (Mr. Eogers). At the very end of one of his most impassioned pleas, he said, turning to my hon. friend: "Will you grant me that?" The man to whom he ought to have gone was that good, fair, impartial man, Mr iHearst, the (Premier of Ontario, by long knowledge of whom my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) felt himself justified in saying with reference to 'him:

He is no bigot; he is an honest man who tries to do even justice to every one in his province."

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

George Perry Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

I am afraid my hon. friend is going further than I said.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.
Permalink

May 11, 1916