Lögberg-Heimskringla - 01.06.1967, Qupperneq 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