Lögberg-Heimskringla - 01.06.1967, Blaðsíða 14

14
LÖGBERG-HEIMSKRINGLA, FIMMTUDAGINN 1. JÚNÍ 1967
The Brilish North America Act was shaped by sixieen delegales
from Upper Lower Canada (Onlario and Quebec), Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick, at a conference held in London, England in 1886.
- From painting by J. D. Kelly for the Confederation Life Collection.
stationery and forms is, strict-
ly speaking, the result of a
concession to the demands of
French Canadians and is not a
matter of constitutional right.
Moreover, there is no founda-
tion for the pretension that
Canada is a bilingual country.
On the contrary, the hard fact
is that it is not a bilingual
coimtry. Nor is it likely that
it ever will be. Indeed, it is
permissible to go so far as to
predict that it never will be.
The statistical facts support
this view and warrant such a
prediction. According to the
census of 1961, only 12.2 per-
cent of the people of Canada
were bilingual in the sense of
knowing both French and
English. Most of these persons
were French Canadians. This
percentage is less than it was
in 1931 and the likelihood is
that it will become increasing-
ly less. The percentages of the
persons who are bilingual in
the several provinces of Can-
ada vary from a high of 25.4
percent in Quebec to a low of
1.13 percent in Newfoundland.
The high percentage in Que-
bec is due to Montreal. Out-
side of Montreal and a few
other areas, almost the whole
of the province is unilingual,
only French speaking. There
is no likelihood that Quebec,
apart from Montreal and the
other areas referred to, will
ever become bilingual. And in
the provinces of Canada west
of Quebec the statistics are
significant. In Ontario the per-
centage of bilingual persons,
according to the 1961 census,
was 7.9 percent, largely due
to the overflow from Quebec.
The percentages in the West-
ern provinces ranged from 7.4
percent in Manitoba, 4.5 per-
sent in Saskatchewan, 4.3 per-
cent in Alberta to 3.5 percent
in British Columbia. In the
Atlantic provinces, the per-
centages ranged from 10.9 in
New Brunswick, 7.6 percent in
Prince Edward Island, 6.1 per-
cent in Nova Scotia to 1.13 per-
cent in Newfoundland. How
can it be said, in the face of
these facts, that Canada is a
bilingual country. It is not.
In speaking as I do I am not
unsympathetic to the aspira-
tions of the French Canadians.
On the contrary, my whole
life has shown friendship for
them and I rejoice with them
in their achievements. I work-
ed intensively for many years
in an attempt to acquire a
knowledge of French and
there was a time when I came
close to being bilingual. When
I was a Member of Parlia-
ment I knew every French
Canadian in the House of
Commons. I have campaigned
in French in the French
speaking parts of my native
Province of Manitoba. When
I was the President of the Ex-
chequer Court of Canada I
never allowed translation
from English to French or
from French to English. In
our federal courts French and
English stand on the footing
of absolute equality. I main-
tained that right. I heard
many cases in which the evi-
dence and the arguments of
counsel were all in French
and I wrote several judgments
in French.
I welcome, as I believe all
Canadians do, the advance-
ment in Canada of the know-
ledge of French and the abili-
to speak it, but I have the right
to express the opinion, as I do,
that bilingualism, as a matter
of national policy, is not in the
best interests of Canada. In-
deed, there is grave danger
that it will be a divisive force
as it has proved to be in other
countries, of which Belgium
is a notable example. The pro-
motion of bilingualism will
not make for national unity in
Canada. On the contrary, it
will accentuate and perpe-
tuate the difference between
French Canadians and other
Canadians, to which I shall
later refer.
Moreover, the attempts that
have been made to force bi-
lingualism on the people of
Canada must be resisted. Re-
cently, the proponents of bi-
lingualism succeeded in mak-
ing bilingualism a condition
of employment in the Civil
Service of Canada and a con-
dition for promotion in it in
Ottawa and other similar
areas. This is wrong. It is con-
trary to the basic policy of our
country that anyone should be
compelled, directly or indi-
rectly, to learn French as a
condition of employment or
promotion.
There is another miscon-
ception that must be cleared
away. The pretension that
Canada is a bicultural nation,
one culture being French and
other English, should be swept
aside. How could our Cana-
dians of Scottish, Irish, Ger-
man, Ukrainian, Polish, Itali-
an, Danish, Norwegian, Swed-
ish, Icelandic or other origins
accept the pretension thattheir
respective cultures, because
they are not French, must be
English? The pretension is
ridiculous. I have always
thought that culture was uni-
versal and knew no racial
boundaries, but I appreciate
that when the French Cana-
dians speak of their culture
they are not thinking of cul-
ture in the broad sense of the
term but rather as a way of
life that is theirs. This we re-
spect and honor. I doubt whe-
ther the Canadians of the va-
rious origins that I have men-
tioned think of their respec-
tive cultures in a similar way.
That being so, it is, strictly
speaking, inappropriate to de-
scribe Canada as a multi-cul-
tural country. But if the term
must be used then Canada is a
multi-cultural country. It is
certainly not a bicultural one.
The contention that Canada is
a bicultural country, one cul-
ture being French and the
other English, is utter non-
sense and should be curtly
dismissed.
I now turn to the other task
to which Canada must devote
itself. We must bring our Con-
stitution into line with the
realities of today.
We have been operating
under that British North
America Act, which distri-
butes the whole field of self
government between the
Parliament of Canada on the
one hand and the legislatures
of the Provinces on the other.
While we have made sub-
stantial progress under its
provisions, the time has come
for certain changes.
The Canada of today is a
different country from that
which was formed in 1867 and
our views of our responsibili-
ties have grown. It is obvious
that there are many matters
that in 1867 were considered
as “Civil Rights in the Pro-
vince” or “Matters of a merely
local or private Nature in the
Province” that are now re-
cognized as being national in
their scope and nature. That
being so, we ought to give ef-
fect to this fact by making the
necessary amendments to the
British North America Act.
It is manifest that it would
not be possible in the short
period of this address to deal
adequately with the various
amendments that ought to be
made. I shall, therefore, con-
fine myself to those that are
of greatest importance.
I urge, in the first place,
that the whole field of social
security should be vested in
the jurisdiction of the Parlia-
ment of Canada. The social
security of her individuals is
not merely a “civil right in the
province” or a “matter of a
local or private nature in the
province.” It is a matter of
national concern and respon-
sibility. Every individual, re-
gardless of the province in
which he lives, is entitled to
equality of treatment in the
matter of social security. This
concept was the spirit that in-
spired the Report of the Sirois
Commission, one of the great-
est documents in our history.
Let us, in our second century,
bring that concept into reality.
As a matter of fact, the Parlia-
ment of Canada has already
made substantial progress to-
wards the realization of this
concept; old age pensions in
1927, pensions for the blind
in 1937, unemployment insu-
rance in 1941, family allow-
ances in 1944, allowances for
disabled persons in 1954, un-
employment assistance in
1956, hospital insurance assist-
ance in 1957, the Canada Pen-
sion Plan in 1965 and Medi-
care in 1966. If Canada is to
be true to herself she must
face the fact that the social
security of her people is now,
in reality, a matter of national
concern and responsibility.
The consequences of the
amendment that I urge would
be great. They would be two-
fold. In the first place, the
amendment would place the
responsibility for social secu-
rity where it properly be-
longs. It would follow, of
course, that the whole cost of
our social security programme
would have to be borne by
the Government of Canada.
This would not involve any
increase in the total cost of
the programme to our people
as a whole and it would op-
erate as a control over the
development of the pro-
gramme and base it on the
financial ability of the coun-
try to maintain it.
On the other hand, the
amendment would free the
provinces from financial re-
sponsibility for the social se-
curity of their people and put
an end to their squabbling for
an ever increasing share of
the tax dollar that the central
authority must raise in order
to enable them to discharge a
financial responsibility that
does not, in reality, truly be-
long to them.
It would also put an end to
the present unsatisfactory
shared-cost policy of dealing
with social security. This does
not mean that the central au-
thority should withdraw from
the field of security, as has
been suggested. On the con-
trary, it should continue to be
the proponent of social secu-
rity as it has been in the past.
The suggested amendment
would have a positive effect.
It would enable Parliament to
give the leadership in the
field of social reform that the
citizens of Canada have the
right to expect and it would
ensure equality of social jus-
tice for all of them. Surely,
the advancement of social jus-
tice for the people of Canada
ought to be within the legis-
lative competence of the
Parliament of Canada.
There is another important
amendment that ought to be
made. The whole field of Hu-
man Rights should be assign-
ed to the jurisdiction of the
Parliament of Canada. How
can it be said that Human
Rights are merely “civil rights
in the province” or “matters
of a merely local or private
nature in the province”? The
question answers itself. Sure-
ly, these rights belong to
every person in Canada, not
because he is a resident of a
particular province but be-
cause he is a human being and
a member of the Canadian so-
ciety. That is the justification
for vesting jurisdiction over
Human Rights in the Parlia-
ment of Canada. It would
then be possible for Canada
to implement by appropriate
legislation the Universal De-
claration of Human Rights
which she has adopted in
principle. This would include,
for example, a Canadian Hu-
man Rights Code similar in
principle to the Ontario Hu-
man Rights Code and provide
antidiscrimination legislation
that would have currency and
effect in every part of Canada.
Such a national code would
mark a long step forward in
eliminating discrimination
against our Negro, Asiatic and
Indian brothers. We do not
hesitate to condemn the apar-
theid policy of South Africa
as an evil that deserves the
censure of the whole civilized
world or the injustice of the
treatment of Negroes in such
States as Alabama and Mis-
sissippi. But let us not be com-
placent in Canada. We have
made some progress in com-
batting discrimination but
much remains to be done. We
must not allow any of our
people to be second class citi-
zens. In the eyes of the world
we are still vulnerable by rea-
son of our failure to prevent
discrimination. We are parti-
cularly vulnerable because of
our failure to deal with our
Indians in a satisfactory man-
ner. We must solve this pro-
blem in our second century.
Its solution must be accept-
able to the Indians and if
they wish to become members
of our society we must wel-