Lögberg-Heimskringla - 01.06.1967, Blaðsíða 13

Lögberg-Heimskringla - 01.06.1967, Blaðsíða 13
LÖGBERG-HEIMSKRINGLA, FIMMTUDAGINN 1. JÚNI 1967 13 The Shape of Canada to Come By JOSEPH T. THORSON, P.C.. Q.C. Delivered on a speaking iour for ihe Associaiion of Canadian Clubs Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am glad to have this op- portunity of speaking to you on the subject — “The Shape of Canada in its Second Cen- tury”. This title carries with it the hope that there will still be a Canada at the end of the cen- tury, but it also implies that its shape will be different from its present one. In the century that is com- ing to a close Canada has been preoccupied with political and economic problems. We have had great success. Politically, we have emerged from a con- federation of British colonies into independent nationhood and, economically, we have become an affluent society next only in our standard of living to our neighbour, the United States. This is not enough. To be truly great a country must have a national purpose. With the richness of her resources and the strength of her peo- ple of many origins Canada should be an example for less favourably situated countries of the world to follow. The establishment of Canada as such an example ought to be our national purpose as we enter upon our second cen- tury. We already have two im- portant qualifications for the fulfilment of this purpose. We have shown that it is pos- sible for people of different racial origins and religious be- liefs to live together in a state of amity on the basis of equa- lity with one another and mu- tual respect. And, what is even more important, we have learned better than any other country, except perhaps the United States, the value and the importance of leaving one another alone with each indi- vidual in our society free to develop the talents with which he or she has been endowed. We have rejected the melting pot theory of assimilation. We have not made any attempt to press our people into a com- mon or a particular mould. We have welcomed those who have helped to build our country and have left them free to hold in affectionate regard the memories and traditions of the lands from which they came. This regard for the individual and this ab- sence of compulsion has been a basic policy of this country. It has endeared Canada to the persons who have come to her shores from other lands and made them ardent and de- voted Canadians. We must not permit any departure from it. But these qualifications are not eriough for the fulfilment of the national purpose that we have set for our country. If Canada is to be the example that she ought to be we must prove that it is possible to build an orderly society based on regard for the individual, which will not only ensure his freedom and safeguard him from arbitrary action on the part of the State but will also establish the social, economic, cultural and educational con- ditions that will enable him to enjoy the freedom to which he is entitled in a manner be- fitting the dignity of man. This is the kind of the society. that Canada should build in Hon. Joseph T. Thorson. her second century. If we are to fulfil this pur- pose we must set our house in order and adjust our- selves to the present condi- tions of our society. There are two principal tasks to which we must devote our- selves. We must bring our Constitution into line with reality, so that Canada may be better equipped than she now is for the fulfilment of her purpose. We must also clarify our concept of Canadi- an nationhood. The latter task presents dif- ficult problems. If Canada is to be an example worth fol- lowing we must solve them. We must show that our society is built on the foundation of regard for the individual and that all our people are dealt with on the basis of equality with one another, regardless of their differences of racial origin or religious belief. We must, therefore, clear away certain misconceptions that disturb a great many Ca- nadians. In recent years there has been an increasing reference to the founding races of Can- ada, the French and the Eng- lish, as if they alone form the Canadian nation. These per- sons do not seem to realize that the Canada of today is a very different country from that which the founding races formed. Its composition and character have changed. Ever since the seventies, just a few years after Confederation, streams of people flowed into our country from all parts of the world. Most of them came from Europe and landed in Quebec, which I have fre- quently called the Port of Hope. That hope has been richly realized, if not by the newcomers, then certainly by their sons and daughters. These immigrants were the homesteaders that broke up the land in the prairies, made the wilderness blossom and become one of the granaries of the world. With their physi- cal strength they provided the hard labour that was necess- ary, they did all the menial tasks, they dug the sewers in the cities and built the rail- way dumps that made our transportation systems pos- sible. In the two world wars in which Canada was engaged their sons and daughters play- ed their full part for the coun- try which their fathers and mothers had adopted for them. They have won their place, both in peace and in war, in the Canadian society which they have helped to build. Let us look at the pre- sent composition of the Ca- nadian nation. Forty-four per- cent of its people are of Brit- ish origin, English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh, 30 percent of French origin and 26 percent of origins that are neither British nor French. And it will not be very long, as immigra- tion from European countries increases, before that 26 per- cent becomes higher than the percentage of persons of French origin. Let us, there- fore, stop talking about the founding races, the French and the British, as if they alone form the Canadian na- tion. Let us look at the pre- sent and towards the future instead of back to the past. We are not living any longer in the spirit of 1759. This is 1967. While we owe a debt of grat- itude to the founding races, surely we should be more con- cerned with the people, of many origins, who have made the Canada of today and will be responsible for the Canada of tomorrow. There is a further disturbing misconception that should be brushed away. Those who keep referring to the founding races, the French and the Brit- ish, also put forward the pre- tension that the people of Can- ada are either French Cana- dians or English Canadians, as if every person who is not a French Canadian is an English Canadian. There are more than five million Canadians whose origins are neither French nor English. They are not English Canadians. I am one of them. I am not an Engl- ish Canadian. Here, let me make it clear that I do not ap- pear before you as a spokes- man for the Canadians of for- eign origins. They do not need a spokesman. I speak as a Ca- nadian. In the Canada of to- day, all Canadians, regard- less of differences in ethnic origin, stand on the basis of equality with one another. Those who continue to speak of the citizens of Canada as either French Canadians or English Canadians are igno- rant of the composition and character of the Canadian na- tion and do a disservice to Canada. It follows that the concept of a dual Canadian nation- hood with the implication that Canada is a two-nation country, one nation being French Canadian and the other English Canadian, must be rejected. For my part I re- ject it as strongly as words permit and I am sure that in so doing I voice the senti- ments of an overwhelming majority of Canadians. I see only one Canadian nation. We are all members of it, whether our ethnic origins are French or English or neither French nor English. As citizens of Canada we have equal rights with one another and we owe equal duties to our common country. The contention that there is an equal partnership between the French Canadians and the English Canadians, meaning thereby all Canadians that are not French Canadians, must also be dismissed. There is no historical basis for the conten- tion and it is contrary to rea- lity. Equality of partnership in an enterprise implies equa- lity of contribution to it. That equality of contribution does not exist. There is a further defect in the French Canadian claim to equal partnership with the rest of Canada. It fails to take into account the contribution to the partner- ship that has been made by the Canadians whose origins are neither French nor English — more than five million of them. The real partnership in the Canadian enterprise is that which exists between the individuals who have made it what it is. We are all partners in that enter- prise. There is another subject to which I must refer. Here I enter upon controversial ground, charged with explo- sive emotionalism. It has been contended that Canada is a bilingual country in which French and English are its of- ficial languages throughout the country and that our Con- stitution guarantees their equal status throughout the country. The contention is made so frequently and with such intensity of feeling that we are in grave danger of being “brainwashed” into the belief that it is true. The con- tention is not true. Up to the present, those who are opposed to the promotion “ of bilingualism as a matter of national policy have hesitated to express in public the op- position that they really feel. That feeling is widespread and deeply rooted. The hesita- tion should cease. The time has come for speaking up against the drive to force bi- lingualism upon the people of Canada that is being pressed with such intensity. That is my reason for speaking as I do. Let us face the facts. It is not correct, as a matter of law, to assert that French and English are the official lan- guages of Canada if this means that they are official throughout Canada. They are not. Section 133 of the British North America Act defines in specific terms the actual status of the two languages. It pro- vides as follows: “133. Either the English or the French language may be used by any Person in the De- bates of the Houses of Par- liament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those lan- guages shall be used in the re- spective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or is- suing from any Court of Can- ada established under this Act and in and from all or any of the Courts of Quebec. The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legis- lature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.” There is nothing in this sec- tion of the British North America Act or in any other section of it or in any law that guarantees bilingualism throughout Canada or makes French an official language throughout Canada. The fact, as a matter of law, is that the French language has no spe- cial status in Canada apart from that which is specified in section 133 of the British North America Act. And there is no justification for assuming that the Fathers of Confedera- tion intended any special status for the French language beyond that specified in the section. It follows that the ex- tension in the use of French that has taken place on such subjects as Canadian coins, postage stamps and bank notes and on Canadian Government

x

Lögberg-Heimskringla

Beinir tenglar

Ef þú vilt tengja á þennan titil, vinsamlegast notaðu þessa tengla:

Tengja á þennan titil: Lögberg-Heimskringla
https://timarit.is/publication/160

Tengja á þetta tölublað:

Tengja á þessa síðu:

Tengja á þessa grein:

Vinsamlegast ekki tengja beint á myndir eða PDF skjöl á Tímarit.is þar sem slíkar slóðir geta breyst án fyrirvara. Notið slóðirnar hér fyrir ofan til að tengja á vefinn.