1927-03-02

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 112 respecting The Bronson Company.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Kay.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. GARDINER
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, arising out of an article appearing in the Montreal Star under date of Monday, February 28. This statement reflects upon the honour of a certain group in this House, and is supposed to have been made by the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Johnston). Before I read the article permit me to remind the House that it is necessary to have certain officers here in order that the business of parliament may be conducted with despatch; some of these officers are appointed while others are elected. Those elected officers, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, are responsible to the House alone, and not to any party or group in this House, because of the fact that it is absolutely essential that these officers be strict in their impartiality as between the different members and sections in this House. The article in the Star is as follows:

Privilege-Mr. Gardiner
Western Visitors' Outlook Widened Fred Johnston, M.P., Sees Benefit In Inspection of Plant
"The fifty members of parliament who viewed one phase of eastern industry Saturday, as the guests of Sir Charles Gordon, are returning to Ottawa with a better understanding of the problems that face the working people in a great city," Fred Johnston, M.P., Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, stated before boarding the special train for the capital.
"No matter how broadminded a man may be potentially if he lives in one environment for a number of years, he is bound to become narrow and lose any faculty he ever possessed of seeing, problems as they affect Canada as a whole," Mr. Johnston continued. "The members from the wide open spaces on the prairies spent the day studying the conditions under -which workers in the manufacturing industry labour, and I am sure they all felt that a sixteen hour day behind the plough with a sunny sky overhead would not take as much out of a man as a nine hour day in a factory.
"I was particularly pleased that the U.F.A. members of parliament from Alberta saw the men and women at work earning their livings in the Dominion Textile Company plant. It would be a great thing for those gentlemen if they could be taught to see our problems from the national viewpoint.
"The U.F.A. members are selfish," Mr. Johnston asserted. "The prairies are getting four-fifths of what they asked for, namely: revaluation of soldiers' lands, farm loans, old age pensions, and there is an item of $5,000,000 in the estimates for the Hudson Bay railway. Now they are trying to befuddle the brains of the people they represent by raising a hue and cry for lower, tariff. It is generally recognized that this is the only way in which they can justify their existence. It is good for the west to meet the east. Westerners are prone to forget that the east has pressing problems of its own, and that there must be compromise on the part of all if Canada as a whole is to progress and prosper".
Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior; Hon. Charles Dunning, Minister of Railways and Canals; Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture, and Hon. Robert Forke, Minister of Immigration, who are in- the party are all from the prairies, and like the Deputy Speaker are practical farmers.
The question I wish to bring before the House particularly Mr. Speaker, in regard to this article is contained in the following:
I was particularly pleased that the U.F.A. members of parliament from Alberta saw the men and women at work earning their livings in the Dominion Textile Company plant. It would be a great thing for those gentlemen if they could be taught to see our problems from the national viewpoint.
The inference in that statement is that the U.F.A. members in this House are the only ones who have not got a broad national outlook, but that all other members in the House, no matter from whence they come, possess that broad national outlook which Mr. Johnston thinks is essential. Now the
statement that we take further objection to is that the U.F.A. members are selfish. We maintain, Mr. Speaker, that we are not more selfish than any other class in Canada, and it is not fair for any member of the House to make such a statement-that members here representing a certain group, or class, or organization are more selfish than the members of any other class or organization. The statement goes on to say further:
Now they are trying to befuddle the brains of the people they represent by raising a hue and cry for lower tariff.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members who have been in this House as long as the U.F.A. members, namely, since 1922, will admit that we have always stood very strictly for certain principles. We have never deviated from those principles and one of them is the principle of a lower tariff. The statement goes on to say:
It is generally recognized that this is the only way in which they can justify their existence.
We take exception to that statement also. Our position is justified by the organization that nominates and elects us. The program which that organization lays down for our guidance is the program which justifies our being in this House and no other.
I quite recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there may be some question as to whether this statement was actually made by the Deputy Speaker. It is true it is only a newspaper report, but I would say at this moment that I think the Deputy Speaker should be given an opportunity of saying whether this report is correct or not. If the report is correct it would mean that the Deputy Speaker is occupying a position that he has no right to occupy and the occupancy of which he cannot justify because he has not shown the impartiality which is necessary to that position.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Robert Gardiner: I will be very pleased
indeed for the Deputy Speaker to say whether he made the statement or not before I proceed further.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: This matter
was brought to my attention yesterday and I rather expected the attention of the House would have been drawn to it then on the orders of the day. At that time I had the article in question before me but I do not happen to have it at the present moment. I can say to my hon. friend and the House that t^iere are one or two statements in the article
Privilege-Mr. Brown

to which I did not give utterance. I did not term the U.F.A. members selfish. In speaking to the reporter I referred in general terms to western members and the western attitude. In no case did I term western members selfish.
With respect to the other matters mentioned by my hon. friend, all members of the House know that newspaper reporters take a statement and make it appear just a little different from the words actually uttered. My statements to the reporter were general.


Mr. HANSON:: Blame it on the reporter.


John Frederick Johnston: Not at all. I in no way reflected on the honour of any member in this House or of the members of the U.F.A., or any other organization. I think, Mr. Speaker,'that is all I have to say.


Robert Gardiner: I accept the statement of the hon. gentleman with pleasure. But, Sir, I should like to call your attention again to the fact that this article reflects on the honour of certain members of this House, and I would ask you, Sir, to use whatever influence is within your power to sej that such a statement is withdrawn and an apology made for publishing it.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BROWN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Another question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: I had not intended, Mr. Speaker, to refer to this matter publicly, but I think perhaps the present is a good occasion to do so. Some few days ago I made some remarks in this connection and I had thought that we were not likely to hear anything more of the kind. I refer to an article by one of the members of the Progressive group which appears in this morning's Citizen, copied from the U.F.A. weekly. With the first part of the article I shall not deal, but there is a sentence at the close to which I take exception. It is as follows:
In the Dominion House we had an analogous incident when the Progressives bolted, jumped the fence and sought a hyphenated refuge in the Liberal fold.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Why object to that.


John Livingstone Brown: Like the hon. members from Alberta we also are responsible to our constituents. Our position here is absolutely endorsed by our constituents and therefore we have no apologies to offer in that respect. We do take exception to the implication in the statement that we sought a refuge. We (Mr Deputy Speaker.]
have sought no refuge. The hon. members for this group have accepted their full responsibility. We have felt the responsibility that devolves upon us of carrying out the policies we had advocated, and at the same time striving to give to this country the stable government that we desire.
It has been suggested to me that I did not point out who wrote this particular article. You will find it by reading the Citizen; it is by one of the members of the Alberta group. We have heard a good deal in this House already about the imputing of motives. I would remind hon. members that it is possible for us also to impute motives, and if we look back over the history of the past five years, it is not just so clear that certain hon. members are entirely invulnerable.


Hewitt Bostock: The House is generally
very lenient in regard to questions of privilege, but the breach of privilege must be a real one. This is what May says:
Libels on members have also been constantly punished: but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity, and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House.
'r have listened to both cases this afternoon, and I may say, for the honour of the House and of all its members, I do not see any libellous interpretation to be given to either the interview supposed to have been given by the Deputy Speaker or to the article which has just been quoted by the hon. member for Lisgar. There is no question of privilege there and I think the House would do well to transact business.


John Livingstone Brown: If there is no question of
privilege in either case, I remain satisfied with having stated my case.


Mr. ROBB:: I do not rise to take any
exception to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that there is no question of privilege, but I rise to say that it must be a great privilege to the Dominion Textile Company to have so much free advertising.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE REORGANIZATION OP DEPARTMENT OP CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Customs
and Excise) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 113, respecting the Department of National Revenue.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. EULER:: This bill provides for certain changes in the organization of the Department of Customs and Excise. It proposes to

Department of National Revenue
divide the department itself into three chief branches:	Customs, excise, and income tax.
Each of these branches is to be placed in charge of a commissioner who shall have practically the power of a deputy minister. It will also give authority to the minister to transfer some of the work now devolving upon him to these commissioners. This is done in the interest of the despatch of public business and efficiency.
There is just one other clause that is perhaps of some, although not of great, importance, and that is the one which deals with changing the name of the department. We propose to call it the Department of National Revenue, or possibly the Department of Revenue. The reason for that is not because of any particular prejudice against the department which has been under fire, but because the new title is more descriptive of the functions of the department than the present title. The department has charge of the collection of practically all the revenues of the country. The name "Department of Customs and Excise" does not imply nor include the collection of the income tax, nor of the sales tax, which of course may be regarded as an excise tax. Those are all the provisions of the bill that, I think, might interest the House.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLIES AND SURPLUS GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Ward-Bill intituled: "An Act respecting the purchasing and disposal of departmental and other supplies and surplus goods."
Hewitt Bostock: As regards this bill standing in the name of Mr. Ward, the point of order raised yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) is well taken. I had not seen the bill because it was just printed and handed to me yesterday afternoon. It contains various clauses which involve a large expenditure of money. For instance, clause 3 reads:
There shall be a department of the government of Canada, which shall be called the "purchasing department", over which the Minister of Finance, for the time being, appointed by the Governor General by commission under the great seal of Canada, shall preside.
Needless to say that the creation of a new department means the expenditure of a large amount of money. The bill would properly come under rule 77 which reads:
If any motion be made in the House for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till
such further day as the House thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole House, before any resolution or vote of the House do pass thereupon.
Therefore this bill should be introduced by one of the ministers of the crown. It should be preceded by a resolution as to all intents and purposes it is a money bill. Therefore I declare it out of order.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Does the government propose to renew the subsidy to the steamer Pelee for the coming season of navigation?
2.	If so, what subsidy is proposed?


Hon. Mr. MALCOLM:: The subsidy contract has been renewed at the same rate of subsidy previously paid, namely, $11,000 for the season of navigation.


CAMPBELLTON AND MONCTON POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What are the names of all the employees in the post offices at Campbellton and Moncton, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the salary of each and the date of their appointment?
Hon. Mr. VENIOf:	See statement herewith :
Campbellton
1 and 2.
Statement showing names of postmaster and assistants in Campbellton post office, N.B., with remuneration and years of service in each case.
Postmaster, Arthur J. McIntyre; Date of appointment, 13-5-1924; Total remuneration, $7,444.
Assistants
Miss Tyler Miss Matthews Miss Duncan Miss Plamondon John Boucher Roland Miller H. Brown
Length of service
6 yrs.-6 months 3 yrs.-4 months 2 yrs.-6 months
1	yr. -4 months 5 yrs.-6 months
2	yrs.-2 months
6 months

The remuneration of the postmaster at Campbellton is based on the revenue of his office and, therefore, varies from year to year. Out of the total amount paid by the department he is required to provide at his own expense the necessary assistance for the proper service of the public.
Questions

EMPLOYEES IN THE MONCTON POST OFFICE Permanent
Harris, John H	
Henderson, Jos. S...
Armstrong, F. A____
Harris, Geo. R	
O'Neill, Charles___
Leger, Arthur D____
Dawson, Daniel	
Gourley, L. Miss___
Porter, Chas. R....
LeBlanc, Wm. D_____
Lutes, A. B	
Murray, S. M	
Miller, Gordon	
McFarlane, G	
Amos, C. W. F	
Buxton, Ronald	
Sowerby, Robert...
White, Wm. J	
Fear, Jos. R	
LeBlanc, G. A	
LeBlanc, E. A	
Welsh, Fred	
Boudreau, E. J	
Burdon, W. McF_____
Wilson, Edwin	
LeBlanc, Roy J	
Slipp, Geo., L	
Rogers, Clinton....
Shaw, Murray, W... Jarvis, Ernest R....
Soper, Geo. S	
Rickard, F. W	
Jones, V. McM	
Pincombe, J. Win... Kay, Edith G. Miss
Stone, Arthur E....
Walton, C. E	
Duncan, LeBaron...
Legers, Henry P____
Beaman, Ruel D_____
Quartermain, C. L..
Steeves, Henry B____
Cochrane, Harold E. McDonald, John H.. Hargrove, Percy W.
Reade, John B	
Donaghy, Fred'k. A
Jones, Thos. D	
Atkinson, Wm. D_____
Stultz, John C	
Carey, Jas. D	
Smith, Lawson	
Delahunt, Wm. P____
Lynch, K. S	
Charters, D. I	
Arsenault, A	
LeBlanc, J. E. A....
Johnston, Robert H.
Walker, James	
Horsman, Frank V..
Buxton, Frank	
Steeves, Chas. B....
McDonald, J. B	
Carson, L. B	
Elliott, R .F	
Carroll, Richard H.. Van Buskirk, J. T___
Name
Class Title
Date of appointment
Salary
.. Postmaster	
.. Asst. Postmaster. .. Sr. Postal Clerk.. .. Sr. Postal Clerk.. .. Sr. Postal Clerk.
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk..
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
. Postal Clerk	
.. Postal Clerk....
. Postal Clerk	
.. Postal Clerk....
Postal Clerk....
. Postal Clerk	
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
[DOT]	* Postal Clerk..
[DOT]. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
Postal Clerk....
*	Postal Clerk....
.. Postal Clerk....
[DOT]	[DOT] Postal Clerk..
*	[DOT] Postal Clerk..
*. Typist Grade 2...
. [DOT] Sr. Letter Carrier .. Letter Carrier....
*. Letter Carrier....
. Letter Carrier....
.. Letter Carrier....
.. Letter Carrier....
.. Letter Carrier....
*. Letter Carrier__
.. Letter Carrier....
*. Letter Carrier....
.. Letter Carrier....
.. Letter Carrier....
. Letter Carrier....
.. Sr. Mail Porter...
.. Mail Porter	
*	Mail Porter	
.. Mail Porter	
.. Mail Porter	
.. Mail Porter	
Mail Porter	
Mail Porter	
. Mail Porter	
Mail Porter	
Mail Porter	
. Mail Porter	
. Mail Porter	
. Mail Porter	
. Mail Porter	
. Postal Helper....
. Postal Helper....
. Postal Helper....
. Postal Helper....
. 14th April, 1915__
. 14th Feb., 1895...
5th Oct., 1903....
. 18th Mar., 1907...
. 20th May, 1913....
6th Aug., 1912....
1st Mar., 1913....
23rd Oct., 1915	
3rd May, 1918	
23rd Sept., 1908....
2nd Aug., 1910....
16th Apr., 1920	
3rd May, 1920	
22nd May, 1916	
1st Mar., 1920....
18th Aug., 1920	
18th May, 1918	
3rd Sept., 1920...
21st Jan., 1920	
15th Mar., 1920	
17t.h Mar., 1920....
30th Mar., 1920	
9th Nov., 1920....
10th Nov., 1920	
Uth Nov., 1920	
15th Sept., 1921....
29th Nov., 1920	
26th Nov., 1920	
6th Dec., 1920....
10th May, 1921	
18th April., 1922...
24th July, 1922	
2nd Apr., 1923....
1st Apr., 1920....
26th Feb., 1920	
23rd Sept., 1908....
23rd Sept., 1908....
13th Feb., 1918	
8th May, 1920	
1st Jan., 1921....
2nd May, 1921	
16th Mar., 1921	
20th June, 1922	
12th Mar., 1923	
12th Mar., 1923	
16th Apr., 1923	
2nd Apr., 1923....
3rd Oct., 1925....
12th June, 1907	
6th April, 1912...
29th Mar., 1916	
1st Apr., 1918....
22nd Nov., 1916	
11th Mar., 1920	
17th Mar., 1920	
22nd Apr., 1920	
14th June, 1920	
1st Nov., 1920	
1st Dec., 1922	
4th May, 1921	
14th May, 1923	
17th Sept., 1923....
16th Dec., 1923	
1st Jan., 1924	
1st Sept., 1924	
14th Jan., 1924	
18th Dec., 1925	
*3,300
2,700
1.920
1.920 1,860 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680
1.560
1.560
1.560
1.560
1.560
1.560
1.560
1.560
1.560
1.560
1.320
1.320
1.320
1.320
1.320
1.440 1,200 1,620
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440 1,080 1,620
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440
1.440 1,200
1.320
1.320 1,200 1,260
1.140
1.140 1,020

Questions
EMPLOYEES IN THE MONCTON POST OFFICE-Concluded Temporary employees
Name	Class Title	Date of appointment	Salary
			1,020 1,020 1,020
		16th Nov., 1925		
		4th Jan., 1926


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railway own the ore discharge dock at Port Edward, Ontario?
2.	When was this dock built?
3.	What was the total cost of dock, excluding equipment?
4.	Who owns the discharge equipment on such docks?
5.	What was cost of discharge equipment?
6.	Does the Canadian National Railway operate the dock and equipment or either?
7.	If not operated by Canadian National
Railway, to whom is the dock or equipment leased?	.
8.	If leased, what rental has been received each year during the past seven years?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The Canadian National Railway owns the ore discharge docK at Point Edward.
2.	In 1903, by the former Grand Trunk Railway Company.
3.	No record.
4.	Steel Company of Canada.
5.	No information.
6.	The Canadian National Railway operates the dock, but not the equipment.
7.	The dock is not leased. The Steel company enjoys only common use.
8.	See answer No. 7.


MAYO MINING RECORDER
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Was one George Reid recommended for appointment as acting mining recorder, or to perform the duties of mining recorder at Mayo, Yukon Territory, during the temporary absence of the mining recorder of Mayo during the winter of 1926-1927?
2.	If so, who in Yukon recommended said Reid's appointment, and when?
3.	Was the appointment of said Reid made, and when?
4.	Was the said appointment of said Reid cancelled, and, if so, when and why ?
5.	On whose recommendation was the same
cancelled?	. .
6.	Was one Colley appointed to said position instead of said Reid, and, if so, when and why?
7.	Who in Yukon recommended said Colley's appointment, and when?
8.	Is the government aware that said Reid is a veteran of the Great war, and has been on active service in France, and is also a veteran of the South African war?
9.	Why was the law of Canada requiring preference among candidates possessing the necessary qualifications to be given to persons who have been on active service overseas, not complied with in this case?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1, 2 and 7. Howard Colley and George Reid were reported by Gold Commissioner Dawson as possessing the required qualifications for the position of acting mining recorder at Mayo during the temporary absence of Recorder Gillespie.
3. No.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.
6. Howard Colley was engaged because he was considered to be the most suitable man for the position. He commenced his duties on October 2.
8 and 9. The department had no information as to whether either Mr. Colley or Mr. Reid were returned soldiers, and as engagement was only for short temporary period during absence permanent official, this point was not raised.


AERIAL MAP OP MONTREAL
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: 1. Is it the intention of the government to make at an early date a map of the city of Montreal, Quebec, by aerial photography?


Charles A. Stewart: As the result of a request from the city of Montreal to have an aerial photographic map of the island of Montreal made by the Topographical Surveys branch the officers of the branch are now negotiating with officials of the city in order to determine just what the requirements are and how the cost of the work may be apportioned, and with a view to having the work undertaken during the coming summer provided satisfactory arrangements can be made.
810	COMMONS
Civil Service-French Language


MARKING OF IMPORTED EGGS
Mr. NEILL:: Is it the intention of the government to bring down legislation this session to give effect to the resolution moved by myself on March 18, 1926, and carried, to the effect that it was desirable that the Eggs Marks Act of British Columbia be made applicable to the Dominion of Canada as a whole?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: A resolution approving the principle of marking all imported eggs so as to indicate country of origin was accepted by parliament last session, and the government is naturally desirous of carrying out the wishes of parliament generally. It would not, however, seem desirable that action should be taken in this respect during the present session.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed from the public service between October 29,
1925,	and September 14, 1926; (a) on account of political partisanship; and (b) for other causes?
2.	How many postmasters were dismissed from the public service between September 15,
1926,	and the present time; (a) for political partisanship; and (b) for other causes?


NATURAL RESOURCES-ALBERTA
Mr. EVANS:: For a copy of proposed agreement regarding resources of Alberta, with amendments; also a copy of all correspondence between the Premier of Canada and the Premier of Alberta, dealing with same, from December, 1921, to date.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to oppose this motion, but as the matter is now before the courts, I would request my hon. friend to allow the motion to stand until the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is in his seat.


Mr. BIRD:: The mover of the motion is
not in 'the chamber at present, so perhaps the motion had better stand.
Motion stands.



THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) (Translation) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in view of spreading the knowledge of both official languages in the public service and thereby rendering it more effective:
[Mr. C. A. Stewart. 1
The Civil Service Act should be amended so as to give preference in future appointments to candidates knowing the two official languages.
The public employees having a knowledge of both the official languages, should, owing to this qualification, be better remunerated; and the superiority of the employees possessing both languages should be considered in all reclassification.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purport of the resolution which I have the honour to submit for the consideration of this House is entirely of an administrative character. Strongly impelled by a concern for the welfare of the public weal, I trust that no one will see or seek in this proposal any evidence of narrowmindedness on my part, The wording of the resolution which I have moved, moreover, is so clearly worded that it may seem useless to further comment upon it. This resolution, Sir, rests on the constitution itself of our country which has placed English and French on an equal footing.
Whether we regret or rejoice over it, we are living in a bilingual country. This is the plain truth against which it would be useless to rebel. In fact, Canada is perhaps the only country in the world which is really bilingual and bestows through its constitution the same rights, the same privileges, the same honours to the two best known and widely spread languages in the world. It would be futile to sing the praises here of the English language or the beauties of the French tongue ; on that score we all agree, and I am certain that among us, not a discordant note would be heard.
Since such is the case, Mr. Speaker, we are bound to act accordingly. If English and French are both official languages, it seems to me that we have a right to express ourselves equally in either one or the other, especially when we happen to call at any office of the public service. Since the population is bilingual so must be the administration. There exists in this country a large group whose language is French. These are actual conditions. There also exists another group whose language is English and they are in the majority. This is another state of things. Must we be called upon to choose between the two languages? Shall we subject one to the other?
In the province of Quebec, Sir, the French element, which is in the majority, has always shown its good will and impartiality when it was a question of affording to both official languages the same solicitude and favours, and all the head officials of the provincial government are bilingual; moreover, never have we neglected the occasion of publishing

Civil Service-French Language
in English as well as in French all documents which might interest the two sections of our population. Do we act likewise in other provinces where the French element is as numerously important as the English element is in the province of Quebec?
There are, Sir, no two ways of governing a country, even if it be bilingual-there is but one:	We must do our utmost
in order that the administration be as equitable as possible. Is it so difficult a thing? There seems to exist people for whom difficulties crop up when it is a question of being fair to others. People have relied too much, within the last fifteen years, upon the Entente Cordiale between France and England, in order to ask for the same good feeling here, in this country, between English speaking citizens and those speaking French; the entente existing overseas has nothing to do with the good feeling existing among us, for the very reason that a conflict, even an armed one, between France and England might have nothing disloyal in itself, neither for the French nor the English, while on the contrary any conflict between Canadians of French extraction and Canadians of English extraction would be a fratricidal conflict, hindering the general welfare of the country and barring all aspirations towards further progress. We live, Sir, in Canada, under conditions which are not to be found elsewhere. Two races, equally at home, either owing to their origin or through various events or else owing to immigration, speak two languages that are not sufficiently alike to constitute a single vehicle of thought and action, and thereby meet the needs of the people. It is evident, that it is not a question of doing away with one or the other of these two languages, because it would also be doing away with one or the other Of the two principal races that are here at home, and quite ait home. This is not even possible among individuals in either their social or business intercourse. Modem conditions, those that events have framed, especially with regard to us Canadians of English or French extraction force us to adopt bilingualism. And those who forget this or repudiate it, find the wide avenues which lead to wealth, honours or' to easy and agreeable life, closed to them.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there 'is the influx of a foreign element. These people do not all speak English. Only the immigration coming from the British Islands-a large one if you like- speak and will continue to speak the English language. But the other, the one which comes to us from central or
western Europe, the immigration hailing from France, Italy, Belgium, Poland, Japan, Czecho-Slovakia and South America, speak French or have a leaning towards it, because it is largely Latin or Slavonic in its connections. After having invited these people, after having brought them to our shores, by force of money, that has come out, let us not forget it of French as well as English pockets-would it be loyal, and on what grounds would it be loyal, I ask you, to keep them segregated by refusing them the means of communicating with the various services of the state? Nevertheless, Sir, thait is what is done by obliging the whole of this group of our population, and not the least intelligent nor the least active, believe me, of making use of a language of which they know nothing or very little. Some will no doubt say: This is an English country, and English is spoken here-they are wrong: this country is Canadian; one must make the best of it, and the sooner individuals as well as the administration acknowledge this fact, the better.
This much said, Sir, how do we stand as a matter of fact? Are the servants of the state in a position to contribute what is expected of them, are they in a position to fulfil all the exigencies of a bilingual population? I am aware that the government so far as they are directly or immediately concerned are making laudable efforts in that direction. It is but fair to congratulate them, and I know that these congratulations have not been wanting. I may add that the first steps recently undertaken have created, a little everywhere, a feeling of satisfaction which is openly acknowledged. However, the government is not favoured with the gift of ubiquity. There exists an administrative system which, once created, must operate through its own resources. The government cannot be expected to start the wheel moving at each revolution. It must be admitted that friction exists oftener than there is reason for it, and that hinders good administration. It is necessary that this friction should disappear. I hold that it is an easy matter, that the means are within our grasp. This friction is caused by one of the most flagrant, serious and dangerous injustices that I know of: that of placing on the same footing the public officials who speak a single language with those who are bilingual. The Civil Service Commission does not seem to take into consideration whatsoever the fact that our country is bilingual, and therefore, that all candidates aspiring to any position-take note, I state to any position-should possess as the first qualification
812	COMMONS
Civil Service-French Language
a knowledge of French and English. I must add, however, that the Civil Service Commission cannot be blamed for this state of things, simply because the act seems to have made no provision in this matter. Therefore, the first part of my motion as it is found in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, is as follows:
The Civil Service Act should he amended so as to give preference in future appointments to candidates knowing the two official languages.
I did not wish to be too harsh, I, therefore, made use of the word "preference" for I am aware that if at present, we rigorously stipulated that the two languages were necessary, there would be unavoidably too great a number of Canadians who would not be eligible for positions in the civil service. It is nevertheless certain that if our Civil Service Act did1 stipulate that preference whidh I am discussing now and if the Civil Service Commission undertook to insist as much as possible on this preference, it would not be less certain, I state, that it would have the immediate effect of forcing all candidates to familiarize themselves with both official languages, and, consequently of assuring a more effective service. It has, for ever so long, been acknowledged that "a man possessing perfectly two languages is worth two men," and it i3 a truth, because the study of a language, whether a dead language the usefulness of which is more or less contested, as for instance Latin and Greek, or whether a living language and thereby of an unquestionable usefulness, such as French and English, is the best intellectual exercise that can be given to a young mind. Such gymnastics is equivalent to that which is given to our children for their physical development.
Mr. Speaker, our civil servants constitute, I have no hesitation in stating, an intellectual aristocracy in the midst of our population and the services they render to our country, outside of their office hours, are precious and incalculable. Without entering into useless details, I may at least state that our employees are either medical men, lawyers, notaries, journalists, historians, writers, lecturers, inventors, at all events men given to research work and hard workers. A great number of movements of a national character have had their source in the heads and hearts of public officials and it is but right to congratulate them on that score.
If it is true that perfection is not to be found on this earth, it is equally true that it behooves each of us to do our best. But the best, in the present case, is the aptitude in the employee to interpret with ease the two official languages of this country.

If, Sir, in all countries, in France where they have set their soul and heart, in a very characteristic French manner, to the study of English, in England, where the French tutor is lodged as one of the household in the most exclusive families of the old aristocracy as well as among the middle classes; in the United States, where, especially since the war, French is spoken fluently among the political element as among people of social standing; if, in brief, people all over the world have set their hearts with enthusiasm to the study of languages, and here, I mean the French and English languages, I question if it be logical that, in a country essentially bilingual, and therefore must remain such-let us not forget -a large portion of the administrative staff should be deficient in one or the other of these two languages? I fail to see what reasons, what plea, what excuse can be invoked to persist in a state which, it is generally conceded, looking at it under various angles, constitutes an inferiority.
Mr. Speaker, French speaking candidates must be able to speak English if they wish to be admitted to our public offices. And what I have stated in connection with the rank and file, I state it more emphatically again as regards the heads of departments, the higher officials, those who have to meet the public at large, the educated people, the upper classes. This also applies to the English speaking officials. Let not the latter imagine that it is beneath their dignity to qualify in the use of French in their dealings with the public. Let them take their cue from the Mackenzie Kings, the Fosters, the Fieldings, the Meighens, the Draytons, the Manions and many others who at forty, fifty or sixty years of age buckled down to learn French. Let them inquire from the latter if they would consent to give up to-morrow what they have learned of this language.
How many talented men-we are all acquainted [DOT] with some-who have been a total loss to the nation, and have not amounted to anything simply becauses they had neglected the study of languages and deemed it too late to make a start.
In the interest, Sir, of the whole country, it is indispensable that our public servants should know the two official languages. That is why the first part of my motion requests that the Civil Service Act be amended in order to give preference in future appointments to candidates possessing these two languages.
How are we to establish this preference? It is a simple matter: give the position applied for to the candidate who knows both languages, and should there be a number of

Civil Service-French Language
candidates having a knowledge of the two languages, the position much necessarily be allotted to the one who seems most qualified to fill it. The knowledge of both languages has naturally required a greater effort on the part of the one who possesses them and this puts him in a better position to render greater services to the state.
The arguments which I have put forth sets me at ease in broaching the other part of my motion which reads as follows, as you will find in the Votes and Proceedings of the House:
The public employees having knowledge of both the official languages, should, owing to this qualification, be better remunerated; and the superiority of the employees possessing both languages should be considered in all reclassification.
In fact, Sir, it is but fair and logical to give a more substantial remuneration to the bilingual employee, than to the one who unwillingly or purposely confines himself to the use of one language, and expects a whole population or at least a good portion of the country to bow to his intolerance or ignorance, the two, after all, go hand in hand.
First is an official who makes use of the two languages of this country-I shall not say with equal facility but nevertheless with ease-in both cases-better situated to render more effective service to the state? The answer goes without saying. A bilingual official like a person forewarned is forearmed. In his dealings with the public, no time is lost, no waiting in vain, no quid pro quo, no uneasiness of the kind which forces, as a last resort, the ratepayer to prefer anything rather than knock at the door of a government office. This breeds discontent against the government itself which is charged with harbouring, at very high salaries, individuals whose greatest merit is arrogance and chief virtue idleness. Wherever there is but a narrow margin between the former and the latter and this is soon filled in. We, the members know something about it, we, that have very often to cover up mistakes of officials speaking but one language and furnish explanations which we must invent, thanks to an imagination well trained beforehand. If this be a fact-and it is so-is it necessary for me to argue that ten bilingual employees are worth twenty who speak a single language? I only request for the former, whosever they may be, and they are to be found among the English as among the French, a remuneration in keeping with the services rendered. All things equal, I consider that it is a formal duty to appoint to the higher positions, bilingual citizens.
Should it be found too difficult to grant them the salarj'' to which they are entitled, let them at least be granted, in their present occupation. a salary in keeping with the services they render or may render, and I insist on that point. Furthermore, Sir, I wonder by virtue of what logic, the heads of departments, those responsible are released from the obligations which are imposed upon the humble, the lower grades? Does the salary they receive exempt them from such obligations, and does the fact of their being placed on the civil list constitute a right to neglect learning a language, an ignorance which would not be tolerated in a second class clerk, nay, not even in the third division? I understand that, at present, the work of reclassification of the salaries in the various departments is in full swing. The work is a serious and important one.
Let there be no haste, for once you have arrived at conclusions, there the matter will rest. And wrongs committed against certain classes of employees or certain officials, individually, will with great difficulty be redressed. On the other hand, I am aware that the government, which has already introduced reforms when the occasion demanded it, is anxious to deal fairly with everybody. That is the reason I ask that there should be no haste, that nothing should be done with full steam ahead, especially in such matters, because the government will naturally be forced to follow the recommendations made by its advisers, and it will necessarily shoulder all responsibilities, if I may express myself thus. The officials who will have prepared these lists will be cleared from all responsibilities towards the employees and the people. The scape-goat, as always, will be the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after having followed as closely as possible the line of argument which I had thought out, having been cautious to discuss the subject in a genial way, after having endeavoured to prove that it is more logical and fairer to be a bilinguist than to remain, in spite of everything, a man speaking but one language, may I ask you to glance over the situation existing outside the service; we may find there, perhaps, matter for edification. To-day, and ever since the war, nations that had isolated themselves within their boundaries, voluntarily or not, who only knew of other countries through what the press agents had allowed to leak out; in whose ears no sound unfamiliar to their surroundings ever penetrated, have now established commercial intercourse with people and corporations whose language previously was entirely unknown. Moreover, leaders of thought
^.	COMMONS
Civil Service-French Language
paved the way. Statesmen who never dreamed that some day they might have to express themselves in a tongue foreign to theirs, were carried away by events and forced to study English or French, so as to foe ready for all eventualities.
Let us now see what is taking place in commercial life, where is, to-day, the business house, the shop, or the agency, even the most humble one, that makes use of one language only? I do not believe there is one. Furthermore, business houses go to considerable expense in order to retain the services of competent translators, previous to scattering to the four winds of publicity their prospectuses, price lists and catalogues. And this outside practice is also adopted indoors, in offices and behind the counters. One realizes that it is a matter of justice, and the making of large fortunes.
Bearing witness to a few of these facts, are we not aware that at a meeting of the Liberal Association of East Toronto, last year, I think, Mr. A. E. Kirkpatrick stated that the Canadian business men, in general, would be in a better position, if, like the business men of the province of Quebec, they could speak both English and French. On all sides the necessity and importance of bilingualism is felt. Did not Sir George Foster himself state on the occasion of the "bonne entente" between the two races in this country, that the use of the two languages would be the infallible means of bringing the two races to know and appreciate one another better. Should we not also congratulate General J. H. MacBrien, Chief of the Canadian Military Staff, who stated, some months ago, that lieutenants in the Canadian army in order to receive promotion must be bilinguists. As it is seen. Bilingualism imposes itself everywhere. These surveys of the commercial and political life are evidence of this. Would it therefore be logical to reject bilingualism in the administration of public affairs? I leave it to those who have listened to me, to examine the question and answer it, and I have no doubt that the answer will be in perfect accord with all that I have said in this honourable House.
I therefore venture to count on the sympathy of the House in favour of the resolution that I have the honour to move.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: In opening
my remarks, I wish to congratulate very heartily the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin) on the excellent speech which he has just made. If one would consider this matter with an unbiased and an open mind I think he would find that the

resolution speaks for itself so clearly and eloquently that it need not be defended. There might be details which some hon. members would not be ready to accept, but I think the principle of the resolution is as solid as a rock in this country. I do not want to be called a nationalist, or to insist that every person must speak both languages or speak the French language. In dealing with this subject I have not in mind any particular race or any particular group; I am speaking only in the interests of Canada and in the public interest. I ask hon. members, is it not true that a public servant in this country who speaks both languages can render more efficient service? I do not refer to members of parliament or others in public life, but to those who are members of the civil service. Do hon. members not think that a man with a knowledge of both languages is in a better position to work in the public interest than the man who speaks only one language?
The soundness of the proposal involved in the resolution cannot be denied. One may like or dislike the fundamental principle of the resolution, but no one can deny the general proposition. Those who have lived in Ottawa for a few years and have had occasion to come in contact with the departments have found that in almost every department or branch the chief has two secretaries, one French and one English. Is that necessary? Who pays for that, if it is not the state? The state is paying two secretaries in many instances when only one should be employed. If this resolution were adopted it would mean that in every branch of a department one who could speak both languages would be employed rather than two, one for the English language and one for the French. We should have one employee, not French, not English, but bilingual. The resolution asks, therefore, that in all appointments candidates who understand both languages should have the preference. I submit that that is perfectly just and right. It is fair to the country that we should consider the public interest, and fair to the individual who has gone to the trouble of learning the two languages.
The resolution provides further that employees having a knowledge of both official languages should receive better remuneration.
I suppose some people might object to that proposition. I would not commit myself to it, because it is a detail. The point to which I want to commit myself is that the bilingual employee should have the preference.
The resolution states also that the superiority of the employees possessing a knowledge of both languages should be considered in all

Civil Service-French Language
classifications. I think if we accept the first half of the resolution we accept also the last part of it, because the moment you adopt the principle that the preference is to be given to those who speak both languages, you admit their superiority. I do not argue that all should speak both languages, but I want to give my humble support to the eloquent speech made by my hon. friend, and to announce to the House and the country at large that I am supporting the proposition.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: It is my
misfortune that I did not hear all that the hon. gentleman said, but following out the thought that he has just expressed, will he apply the same principle to the members of this House?


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend
was not in the House when I said that I applied it to civil servants and not to members of the House.


John Wesley Edwards: Why draw
the line?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Because the civil
servants are working in the public interest.


John Wesley Edwards: That is a
serious reflection on hon. members.
Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke) :	Permit me to say a few words on
the proposed resolution which has been placed on the order paper by the hon. member for L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin); first, because last session I had a similar resolution in mind but did not proceed with it, because of the extraordinary session we went through, and I did not want to add to the troubles which we already had and secondly, because I believe that in the best interests of Canada as a whole parliament should adopt this resolution.
I am pleased to follow the proposer of this resolution who with that ease of diction which the French language permits advanced arguments in favour of the adoption of his motion; I have to content myself with the use of the concise English tongue, which we usually regard as the language of business. Canada is recognized the world over as a bilingual country. This government, of which I have the honour to be a supporter, realized that fact only recently when it sent to the Imperial conference not only the Prime Minister but the hon. Minister of Justice whom the entire Dominion is proud to honour. The business and the financial world recognizes the superiority of bilingual employees. I know that one of our cabinet ministers is having his sons educated in .both languages; in
fact they can already speak in either medium so fluently that it is impossible to tell from which race they trace their descent. The county of Sherbrooke also recognizes bilingualism to a great extent. Its electors send me to represent them in this parliament, and a French-Canadian to represent them in the provincial legislature. Furthermore, the city of Sherbrooke elects alternately every two years as mayor an English-Canadian and a French-Canadian, and both are bilingual. Then, Mr. Speaker, how many times do we hear hon. members in this House refer to the great coalition government of Cartier and Macdonald, one of the strongest combinations that has ever governed the Dominion.
When I contemplate the hardships and dangers endured by the pioneers who came to this country from France and from England, Ireland and Scotland, and realize the great nation which they founded on this part of the North American continent, I bow my head in honour to them. What greater heroism do the pages of history contain than the gallant stand of Dollard and his companions who in 1660 saved New France from ruin. We cannot read that heroic episode without a thrill. And we all honour the memory of those brave priests of the Roman Catholic church who risked death, and worse than death, torture, at the hands of the Indians in their zeal to convert them to Christianity. We also honour those equally zealous Protestant preachers, who are now known to us as "horseback preachers" from the fact that they went through the country on horseback-there were no roads in those days-to spread the faith of their forefathers.
It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to realize that the 50,000 or 60,000 French-Canadians whom France cut loose from in 1759 have in the intervening period, less than a couple of centuries, increased to such an extent that today there are two million of their descendants in the province of Quebec, about one and a half million scattered throughout the sister provinces and nearly two million in the United States. Naturally we think of those hardy ancestors with the very highest respect.
I am pleased to live in the province of Quebec under a school system which recognizes the rights of the minority, where English is taught as the secondary language in the French schools, and where French is taught as the secondary language in the English schools. Sherbrooke is an ideal county, but like every other section sometimes we encounter a few fanatics. I think however, we have the minimum of this class in our county. The other day I was talking to one of them and was astonished by a remark he made, a
816	COMMONS
Civil Service-French Language
remark, by the way, which proves the point I am trying to make. He said, "Charlie, I only wish I could speak French." That is an astounding statement from a person holding extreme views, but it simply goes to prove that bilingualism will be a distinct benefit to the whole Dominion. I remember that in my school days we were required to study, among other languages, German and Spanish. When we questioned the wisdom of this, realizing that we were never going to live either in Germany or Spain, we were told that those languages were included in the curriculum because the study of languages was one of the greatest mind-training agencies in the world. Not only have bilingualists an advantage over those of our people who are not familiar with the two official languages of Canada, but they are better equipped in understanding the other fellow's viewpoint. It is generally admitted that no translation, however true and complete it may be, can ever communicate to you the true feeling in the writer's heart; you can interpret him only by reading his works in the language in which they were written.
A few days ago an hon. member on the other side of the House stated he had been accused of lots of things in his time, but he did not want to be accused of speaking for the province of Quebec. Neither do I want to be accused of speaking for the province of Ontario, but I should like to say in all kindness and sincerity that the sooner the people in Ontario permit the study of French in their schools the sooner will there be a complete realization of the bonne entente spirit in this country. A certain newspaper in Ottawa not long ago gave me a very special advertisement in the form of a long critical editorial. I do not criticise the newspaper for doing so; I do not find any fault with the article nor do I blame anyone for that two-column editorial, but the fact remains that Ottawa is 225 miles away from my county and although I have many newspapers in my district not one of them made any such statements as were made in the Ottawa paper. Every word of that article was an absolute falsehood from beginning to end. No one can justly accuse me of being a fanatic on any particular matter.
Coming to this question of the civil service employees, according to circulars which I have received, they are asking for an increase in wages. I say frankly on the floor of this House that I do not consider myself able to judge whether that increase would be right or wrong, but in considering this increase I think other forms of labour should be taken
*Mr. Howard.]
into consideration as well. If the wages of the civil servants are found to be lower, in proportion, than are those of railway employees, farmers and labourers, the increase should be granted. But there is another point which I would like to deal with. I am absolutely opposed to a maximum salary in the civil service; I do not believe that in a young country such as Canada we should halt ambition and destroy initiative by placing a maximum on the salaries; if a man is worth an increase he should receive it.
In favouring this resolution I would not for one moment desire to work a hardship upon civil servants who were appointed years ago, and whose knowledge may be limited to one language or the other; I would not like to see them penalized, but I am strongly in favour of this resolution as it would affect those entering the service from now on. More than that, if hon. members representing the western provinces and western Ontario object to this resolution there may be some excuse, but I am absolutely convinced of the justice of the proposal as it applies to eastern Ontario, the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces. Our ancestors came from ' two great countries; the business interests of Canada admit that bilingualism is essential to good business; the financial interests recognize the fact that a bilingual employee is superior to one who has not that qualification, so why should not this government take the same stand in connection with civil service employees? I could go on as the hon. member for L'Assomption (Mr. Seguin) suggested, and quote extraordinarily striking cases where absolute injustice has been done through the fact that certain employees are not bilingual, in the province of Quebec and in my own county; but I do not desire to go into specific cases, and I only speak generally in support of the resolution.
There is just another point in passing. The next ten years will be recognized all over the world as Canada's decade. I am not too keen on reducing the national debt; I think that if we take our revenue and spend it in Canada to develop the country, to provide work for the immigrants who will come here during the next ten years and to bring back from the United States our own people who are anxious to come back in view of the present prosperity of Canada, we will be doing a great thing for Canada. Therefore with no further remarks I desire to place myself on record as being in favour of this resolution particularly as it would apply to eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces.

Civil Service-French Language


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: I do
not intend to take up more than a few moments of the time of the House, because I have only one or two observations to make. I am sorry that I do not understand French and that it was impossible for me to follow the hon. member who introduced this motion.
I do hope, however, that he as well as those who are supporting him will not persist in putting it through. I think hon. members will agree that this will create more or less friction and will cause a great many difficulties, and the mover will be well advised to withdraw the motion. I do not propose to criticize the resolution at all, but we want peace in this House and in Canada.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I desire to pass just a few'
remarks with regard to this resolution. Unfortunately I was not able to follow the speech of the hon. member who presented it; I think perhaps some of us who have no knowledge of the French language are penalized very frequently in this House because of our inability to speak that language. It is quite unnecessary, I think, to emphasize the need and value of language training. But whether or not one could follow the speech I think perhaps it is true, as one member has already suggested, that the resolution speaks for itself; and quite irrespective of the argument by which it might be supported we can judge more or less of the merits of the case by the terms of this resolution.
I would express myself as being rather regretful that this resolution has been introduced. The changes proposed are put on the ground of efficiency, but undoubtedly there will be an appeal to prejudice. For that reason I am sorry that any matter that is liable to divide the House and the country should be introduced when there is so slight a probability of it ever coming into effect. Undoubtedly a knowledge o.f the two official languages is in many positions of very great advantage. I should say that in the large majority of the positions in the civil service it must be of very great advantage to have a working knowledge both of English and of French. In other cases it has no particular advantage. Some of us learned a little French *when we were boys, and simply because we had absolutely no opportunity of using that language the little knowledge that we had readily passed from us. There are many sections in this country where a knowledge of French is of practically no advantage whatever. If the matter is put on the basis of efficiency, and as I understand it that is the case for the resolution-that is that it would



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
render the public service more efficient- then I would say that in many sections of this country other languages besides French should be given the preference. We have some 300,000 to 350,000 Ukrainians in this country.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Four hundred thousand.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Four hundred thousand? Possibly the number has reached that figure.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Do I understand the
hon. gentleman to state that some other languages might be more useful in sections of our country than the French language?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Would the hon. gentleman say what languages would be more useful?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was about to
deal with that point. Perhaps the hon. gentleman has not understood me. I said that some other languages than French as a second language w'ould be of advantage in this country-in some parts of this country if you like. I am equally prepared to say that there may be some sections in this country where the first language would be French and the second language would be some other language than English. There are somewhere between three and four hundred thousand Ukrainians, for instance, in this country, and if the matter is to be placed on the basis of efficiency I can quite readily understand that a great many officials who have to do with that large group of immigrants possibly ought to have a working knowledge of the Ukrainian language.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Chinese language.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are other
languages in the west besides the Ukrainian. There are the Scandinavian languages, there is the German language. Somebody suggests the Chinese language on the west coast. That is true. If we have to deal with the Chinese we ought to have officials on the west coast who have a thorough knowledge of both English and Chinese. I will go so far even with regard to an oriental language.


Mr. JACOBS:: I hope the hon. gentleman
will not overlook the Yiddish.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If it were a case
of an official in the Immigration department I should say that certainly it would be an advantage to have a knowledge of Yiddish. But the point I want to make in this connection, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: That unEDITION

Civil Service,-French Language
doubtedly the language qualification is an advantage in certain positions and those who have a knowledge of the second language ought to receive the preference in the making of an appointment. Some appointments, perhaps, ought not to be made unless the man had a knowledge of two languages. But I do not like the introduction of a principle which will always give the preference to the man with a knowledge of the two languages and afford him a large remuneration. I do not think that the introduction of that principle will tend to the furtherance of good will among the very many peoples that constitute the population of Canada to-day, and I would say that it would have to be put on an altogether different basis than that of mere efficiency. We have, for example, the case of the Speaker, who has been reelected on several occasions because of his knowledge of both the English and the French languages. I personally approve of that choice. I think it is no small advantage to have in the chair here a man who speaks both English and French, and I for one will be quite glad to accord that exalted position to the one who is best qualified to fill it. I understand that something like eighty per cent of the pages in this House are French bilinguists. I do not object to that because I presume it is an advantage that a page should be able to speak, whenever a member calls him, in whatever language that member may employ. That is all right because there you have a question of efficiency well founded and those who obtained the preference obtained it by reason of that fact. That is one of the inevitable advantages of the one who speaks two languages under the conditions that exist in Ottawa. But in other parts of Canada where conditions do not prevail that may prevail here or in the province of Quebec-[DOT] from which the three hon. members opposite who spoke in succession on this question come-but other conditions entirely, then I say it would be very foolish indeed of us to adopt a principle which, while possibly related to certain historical privileges, would not tend to efficiency and might do far more harm than good.


Mr.   S@: It is not a privilege, it is a right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I accept the correction. There are certain rights peculiar to the French language, but I do not believe that even the mover of this resolution would say that those rights necessarily involve any action along the line suggested by this resolution. It would seem to me that among the qualifications necessary for civil servants there are
[Mr. Woodsworth.l
many others besides merely the knowledge of the French language, important as that is. There is, for example, a sense of fair play, there is a sense of what we call the actualities of the situation, there is a sense of proportion, and I would say that these qualities in a civil servant or a member of the House are equally important with the knowledge of a second language. I think perhaps I would venture to remind the mover of the resolution of those old lines from Shakespeare, which came to my mind as he was speaking:
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself
And falls on the other side.
There is no slight danger that we may overemphasize privileges or rights to the extent of antagonizing other people, and bringing about conditions under which it will be extremely difficult to retain those rights. The thought I had in mind when I first rose has already been expressed by the question from the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards). I would suggest that if this principle is of value in the civil service, it ought to be more widely applied. I wonder what we should think if a resolution were introduced into the House in these terms:
That the policy of the House should be to give preference to members of parliament knowing the two official languages;
That members of parliament having a knowledge of both the official languages should, owing to their qualifications, be better remunerated, and the superiority of members of parliament possessing both languages should be considered in all appointments to office and to positions on commissions, on committees, or in the Senate.


Mr. POULIOT:: Does the hon. member
not make a distinction between members of parliament who are elected by the people and members of the civil service who are appointed by the Clival Service Commission?


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Jean-François Pouliot: Does the hon. member
think that the Ukrainian and Chinese languages have the same rights as the English and French languages in Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not suggest
that in the slightest, and if the hon. member is really sincere in thinking that is my position, I am glad indeed that he has called the attention of the House to the point. If he will recall my argument, it was simply this, that this resolution bases itself, not upon historical rights, but rather upon effectiveness.

Civil Service-French Language
I was arguing the case on the basis of effectiveness, and I said that in certain cases it would be more desirable to have a knowledge of Chinese than to have a knowledge of French or of English, and that in such a case the appointment ought to be made because of the special qualification. If we are going to go back and introduce historical privileges and rights, we are on another basis altogether.


Jean-François Pouliot: There should be a difference between constitutional and historical rights.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not been discussing either of them; I have been endeavouring to follow the terms of the resolution.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, like seventy-five per
cent of the members of the House, I was unable to follow the remarks of the hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution. I would have thought, if he desired to impress the House, he would have spoken in a language that we could all understand.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: I might ask the hon.
member:	Why does he not speak in French
so that the Frenoh-speaking members may be able to understand him?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There is just this difference. The hon. gentleman can speak in English; I cannot speak in French. I may repeat that if he desired to be understood by all the members of the House, he might have spoken in English. But evidently he did not desire to be understood by all the members of the House, and so he spoke in a language which only twenty-five per cent of the members could understand and follow. I have no doubt that this resolution is introduced for electoral purposes.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: Not at all.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not think for a
moment that it is expected that this resolution will pass this House. The Prime Minister is altogether too astute a politician to allow a motion of this kind to pass the House, and his Minister of Railways is equally astute. It is indeed pretty hard to apportion the ability in that regard between those two hon. gentlemen. But there is, I think, enough good, sound common sense on that side of the House to prevent a motion of this kind from passing, and particularly from being implemented by legislation. I do not think the party could stand that. But the resolution is really a discrimination against Englishspeaking applicants for positions in the civil service.
32649-52ij


Paul-Arthur Séguin: Not at all.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I repeat: It is a positive discrimination, and I will proceed to explain why it is so. To discriminate against people who can speak only English in this Englishspeaking country, this British country, is little short of an outrage. After all this is a part of the British Empire; everybody here is a British subject. The English speech is the speech of Canada.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: There are two official
languages.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The English language is
the official language of Canada, with a few certain privileges to the French language.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Rights.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Put it that way if you will -with a few narrow rights to the French language.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: They are on the same footing.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: To put every Englishspeaking man or woman desiring a position in the civil service under the handicap of being compelled to learn another language, would be an absolute injustice. The way in which it would work out would be most disastrous to those English-speaking applicants for positions. This resolution proposes to give the preference in future appointments to candidates knowing the two official languages. That, I presume, removes the preference that now exists for returned soldiers, and it puts them under a handicap instead of giving them the privilege which they now enjoy. If there is in Canada any class of men who should receive a preference in government employment, it is surely the men who hazarded their lives and went through all the miseries of the war in order to preserve civilization in the world. It is in recognition of that extraordinary service which they rendered that they get this privilege, but my hon. friend would remove it.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: If we were prepared to give returned soldiers the preference above all others, would the hon. member be ready to accept a motion like this?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would not give a preference of this kind at all. I would not say that a man must be compelled to speak the two languages even in the province of Quebec, for a civil service appointment. But we are not dealing with a French-speaking province; we are dealing with the Dominion of Canada, and it cannot be contended that our French-
820	COMMONS
Civil Service-French Language
speaking fellow citizens are not getting their share of civil service appointments. I think, on the other hand, if the government were brave enough to produce a return for which I asked at one time, it would be seen that the French-Canadians in this country to-day have very much more than their proportion of positions in the civil service.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then let them get their Prime Minister to bring down the return. They will not do it. When I asked for it, I could not get it. I wanted to ascertain in one department after another how many were French and how many English. That information will not be supplied. If it were supplied, I think it would prove that the French applicants for office have not been discriminated against. On the contrary, they have been favoured, and very highly favoured, in the making of civil service appointments.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: We are not favoured.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think that French applicants for positions are getting their fair share of appointments.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not think we have had it up to the present time.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think they have had
more, and we have not protested seriously against that. But here is something that is entirely different. You are saying in effect that in the future nobody shall have a position in the civil service of Canada unless he speak the French language. Why, there are large sections of this country, probably eighty per cent of the territory of this country, in which you never hear the French language spoken at all. Are you going to insist upon knowledge of the two languages for positions in the city of Hamilton, or the city of Winnipeg, or the city of Vancouver? That is the effect of this resolution. I say that it would be impossible to get capable and efficient civil servants in these places if you insisted on this qualification, and that shows the absurdity of it. Not only that, but this resolution proposes that those who can speak both languages are to get ten, twenty or thirty per cent more salary than those who cannot. There is another very serious discrimination.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Why not?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Why should they?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Because they know
both languages.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is not enough. I
will venture to say this, that man for man

the English-speaking oivil servants are as efficient, if not more so, as the French-speaking civil servants.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You go and talk to the
deputy ministers. There is no charge of inefficiency against the English-speaking employees who are unable to speak French.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Sometimes there are
complaints, but they do not want to recognize them.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Of course, this supposed
necessity for French in all the departments greatly increases the civil service staff, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) says. It makes many a place for a translator or some clerk to write a letter once or twice a week, or something of that kind, and that inures greatly to the advantage of those who are of French origin. There has not been any complaint about that so far as this side of the House is concerned, and so far as the English-speaking people of Canada are concerned there has been no complaint, or very little complaint, at all the extensions and pressing forward and advancement of the French language to bring it up to a parity in every relation of life with the English language. It is not on that parity according to the rights that were given to it at confederation.
They talk about members of the civil service being more efficient if they can speak both languages. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) is quite pertinent. Why should not the members of parliament be required to speak the two languages? We had a case in 1917, Mr. Speaker, when on the Union side of the House there was only one French-Canadian, and he refused to act as deputy speaker. An effort was then made to find some other man among us-and we then comprised two-thirds of the House-who could follow a debate in French, but it was impossible to find a man on the government side of the House who could do so, and so they had to take for Deputy Speaker a member from the opposition side of the House. On our side of the House at that time there were at least one hundred men who had gone through the universities, had studied French, passed their examinations, taken their diplomas, and all the rest of it, but after they had left college they had not been able to keep up their French, and consequently when the time came some years afterwards when it would have been of advantage to them to speak French, and be able to follow a French

Civil Service-French Language
debate, they were unable to do it. A man in any other province than Quebec, unless it be in some of the colonies, though he studies French in the university and takes his diploma, cannot keep up a speaking knowledge of the French except by attending a night school or something of that kind.


Jean-François Pouliot: Or by reading the Orange
Sentinel.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It would not do my hon.
friend any harm to read it. It would give him some light, and he wmuld read some of the truth that he does not read down in the province of Quebec. What I am pointing out, Mr. Speaker, is that it is impossible for people living in the English-speaking provinces to retain facility in the speaking of the French language. Any young man leaving the university and beginning his profession would have to spend two or three afternoons or nights a week studying French if he wanted to keep it up. That is impossible, and the result is that he never uses French, and all the French he learned at the university is lost. It is not that we do not speak French in the other provinces. In all the high schools, collegiate institutes, and secondary schools in the province of Ontario, French is an obligatory subject. All the children learn it, but they never acquire facility in speaking the language because they never hear it.
The situation in Quebec is entirely different. The French people in Quebec can speak English because they hear it on every hand. As a matter of fact, if they want to engage in the higher grades of employment, they have to speak English. Their parents recognize that, and they have the facilities for acquiring a speaking knowledge of the English language that we have not got in regard to French in the other provinces. That was the whole trouble about regulation 17. That good Irish friend, Michael Fallon, the Bishop of London, supported regulation 17 for one reason. He said: "I am not satisfied to see the children of my diocese fit only to drive a wagon, or a motor car, or a team, or engage in some of the lower classes of employment. I want my flock to be the equal of the flock of the other churches." That is the reason why he was strongly in favour of regulation 17, because it compels his children to learn English. They were not learning English before, and they could not speak it, and that was a great detriment to them living in an English-speaking community both on this side of the border and on the other. He was acting entirely in their own material interests when he insisted upon regulation 17, which was a great concession to the French language.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Thank you.
Mr. HC'CKEN: It was a great concession, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it would be hard to prove that. I could explain to my hon. friend what he no doubt knows, that under the constitution of this country no Frenchman in the province of Ontario has any right to have his language taught in any school. It is well within the power of the Ontario legislature to wipe the French language out of the primary schools absolutely, and there could be no dispute about it. Senator Belcourt, has given a reasoned decision on that point. But we did not go that far. The legislature of the province, under Sir James Whitney, wanted to consider the sensitiveness of the French, as Sir James said, and so he put that regulation into effect, which gives to every French child in the province of Ontario ample opportunity to learn his own language.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Was not the Ontario
government aware, when it enacted regulation 17, that English was being properly taught in the bilingual schools of the province?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: My hon. friend differs
from Doctor Merchant, who was the commissioner appointed by the Ontario government to examine into the French-English schools. He reported that in 267 primary schools of Ontario English was not being taught efficiently. That was the reason why regulation 17 was enacted. There were teachers in the schools who could not speak English, and they were supposed to be teaching both English and French. Doctor Merchant, I think, may be accepted not only as a great educationalist but as, a man of high character, as a man who was anxious to deal with that thorny question from a pedagogical standpoint, and his advice was accepted by the late Sir James Whitney, who could not be called hostile to the French. He was the first premier of Ontario who ever had a French-Canadian in his cabinet and he thought when he put regulation 17 into effect that he was going to have peace and harmony in eastern Ontario, northern Ontario, and in Kent and Essex. It was a genuine desire to promote peace, but instead of promoting peace it stirred up the fiercest controversy we have ever had in this country, and that controversy was stirred up because the man whose duty it was to inform the people as to the real substance and character and legislation not only refused to do so, but misrepresented all through the province of Quebec for their own ad-

Civil Service-French Language
vantage, not only the provincial leader, but actually the legislature of the province of Quebec-


Mr. BOURASSA:: I do not like to interrupt any hon. member when he is making a speech in the chamber, but I understood we were discussing a motion with regard to the civil service of the federal government. I cannot in any way, directly or indirectly, see how it can be connected with a certain piece of legislation enacted by the province of Ontario, called regulation 17. Without a complete transformation of the question before the House, and a departure from debate, I do not see how the question can be discussed under this resolution.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The fact that my hon.
friend does not see that my remarks are pertinent is no evidence that they are not pertinent. I submit I am touching the very heart of the question of the resolution.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I rise to a point of order, and I want a ruling from the chair. In connection with a motion of the nature of the resolution which is now before the House, is it permissible to discuss regulation 17 of Ontario, or any other piece of provincial legislation?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: We are dealing with a
question which requires a knowledge of English and French and I am trying to point out to this House that in the province of Ontario we did everything to give the children opportunities to acquire the knowledge of both languages. I think that is quite pertinent to the subject.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Marcil):: The
rule applicable in this case is rule 19, which reads:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof; nor speak beside the question in debate.
In practice in my experience, certain latitude has been allowed in debate in the House by way of illustration, but in discussing questions of this kind the rule of relevancy must apply, and the hon. member addressing the chair must speak to the question before the House.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I did not intend to say
anything more on that point anyway. I think I have put the matter clearly before the House. Parliament is asked by this resolution to force English-speaking people who wish

to obtain a position in the civil service-which many young men and women in this country think very desirable-to learn the French language. I do not think there is any escape from that. The idea is to put up some ten or twenty or thirty thousand positions paid for by the general taxpayers of Canada, and to say to those who want to get one of those positions, "You cannot get such a position unless you can speak the French language." I have never suggested anywhere that any barrier should be put in the way of people learning or speaking the French language, but I certainly think it would be most unfair to exclude from the civil service anybody who could not speak the French language. There are some positions no doubt, especially in the province of Quebec, where a knowledge of French and of English is desirable. They are all filled by men who can speak both languages now-at least they can speak the French language-but why this House should be asked to handicap every possible English-speaking applicant for Dominion civil service positions is absolutely beyond my comprehension, and I do not think it would be accepted by people generally for one moment. It seems to me there would be very great objection to it.
Another side of the question was touched upon by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The British race are not amenable to coercion of any kind, and anything that has that appearance will be resisted and resented by the people of that race; so that when an attempt is made as in this case, to say to the English-speaking people of Canada, "You must learn the language of Quebec or you cannot get a job in the civil service of Canada," that is a form of coercion, and I think you will find that it will react on the public sentiment of the whole Dominion against Quebec and the French language and the French race. I think it is an exceedingly short-sighted thing to attempt, and that is why I had the idea ever since I saw it on the order paper that it never was intended to be discussed. I was surprised to see it introduced; I thought my hon. friend would have been satisfied to put it on the order paper and send copies to his constituents and let it be seen what a brave and bold man he was; but he evidently is a little more serious than that.
I do not think it can be contended that the civil service of Canada should be made the preserve for any one race. I do not think Ukrainians should be excluded. I do not think the Yidds should be excluded, or the English, but the effect would be to exclude the English and keep the civil service as a

Civil Service-French Language
preserve for those who speak French and are French. If my hon. friend will see the reasonableness of that statement I think we can persuade him to withdraw the resolution. He surely cannot defend such a situation as is presented.
I am prepared to admit, Mr. Speaker, that the French people learn English much more easily than the English learn French.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There are two reasons,
one of which I have already stated. In Quebec English is spoken practically everywhere. There are some back parishes where you do not hear it spoken, but the parents of Quebec want their children to learn English,-


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: -because it is greatly to their material advantage.


An hon. MEMBER:: Preach that gospel in Ontario.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Did I not teill my hon.
friend -that all our children learn French, but have not the facilities to keep it up? We cannot get the correct pronunciation without attending school for a very long .period. Another reason is this: whether we like it or not, one of the weaknesses of the English people is that they are not facile linguists. The French learn another language much more easily than the English; and it being difficult for the ordinary English person to acquire another language, he does not attempt it. The average English-speaking Canadian would have to study much longer to master French than the average French-speaking Canadian would have to devote to master English. That is one of the differences of the two races. This racial difference crops out in many other characteristics, Mr. Speaker, but it is not necessary for me to enter into them ait the present moment.
I am not going to indulge in a prolonged controversy, Mr. Speaker, but my hon. friend from Sherbrooke said that this is a bilingual country. It is not so by any interpretation of the constitution. I would suppose that every member had read the British North America Act and knew exactly what rights the French language has in this Dominion. It is enjoying rights to-day which are much more extensive than those accorded it by the British North America Act. To remind hon. members, let me read section 133, which is the only .provision in our constitution for the official use of the French language in the Dominion:
Either the English or the French lagnuage may be used by any person in the debates of
the Houses of the parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective 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 issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.


Mr. POHLIOT:: Does my hon. friend think that that section is right or wrong?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say to my hon. friend,
these are the rights that the late Sir George Cartier solemnly agreed to. All the representatives of the French race at the time of confederation put their signature to this. It is the sum total of the rights of the French language 'in the Dominion of Canada. So it must be plain to any person who understands English that this is not a bilingual country. So far as I know there has never been a suggestion from any source that one tittle of these rights should be abrogated. The rest of Canada has loyally observed this section of the act. But the French language is used now in a hundred different places for which there is no constitutional warrant.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You will find it on every door in this building. It is used in the post office. It is used on postal and money orders. It is used on the railways.


An hon. MEMBER:: And in official documents.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is used in many places,
Mr. Speaker. I am simply pointing out to my hon. friend what rights his language has. I am not discussing whether this section went far enough or not- I am saying that this is what is provided by the British North America Act, which was agreed to by Sir George Cartier, Sir Hector Langevin, Chapleau, and the other representatives of the French-Canadians of that time. If any more had been askedi by them there would not have been any confederation. It was hard enough to get George Brown to agree to these privileges for the French language. So it cannot be said that in opposing a resolution of this kind any member of this House is showing hostility to the French language or to French rights. We contend that this proposal is an attack upon the rights of the English-speaking people of Canada, an attack on the rights of every English-speaking young man and young woman, for it forces them either to learn French or to keep out of

Civil Service-French Language
the civil service. If they submit to this encroachment on their rights, why, they are to get extra remuneration.
Let me point out something else, Mr. Speaker. Suppose there are several applicants for a vacancy in the civil service, some of English, some of French, descent. They would be examined either by an English examiner or by a French examiner, and there would be a very marked tendency on the part of either to say that this one could not speak French properly or that that one could not speak English properly. There would be all kinds of disputes, and heartburnings, and controversies, and appeals to the ministers. As my hon. friend knows, I am not enamoured of our Civil Service Act, but at least it secures to the civil service a reasonably fair deal and a certain security of position. If that is to be abandoned and anything Tike this proposal substituted, then you are going to have the civil service degenerate to a point whidh it has not reached yet, and which I hope it never will.
I do not think that my hon. friend was exhibiting that boasted generosity to the minority, which we hear so much about from the province of Quebec. There is no spirit of generosity towards the English-speaking applicant for a civil sendee position in such a resolution as this. Mind you, Mr. Speaker -and I hope I am not offending, I am trying to state the case fairly and moderately- I should like to see these two races in a much greater state of harmony. And there is a way to achieve this. I have suggested before, and I repeat it to-day, that if the leaders of our fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec-and I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite may be regarded as some of those leaders- if they would live up to the British North America Act as closely as the people of Ontario have lived up to it there would be no necessity to organize a bonne entente; there always would have been a bonne entente. Not a man in Ontario wants to break the British North America Act in any particular. The whole trouble is that our friends in Quebec will not observe the act. Ontario and the other provinces are not aggressive against their sister province of Quebec. It is that certain leaders in Quebec are aggressive against the other provinces, and will not observe the conditions of the act of confederation.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that even those members of the House who are French would expect us to accept a motion of this kind; I think the hon. member who introduced it would have been very much surprised had I not said anything about it, as I
{Mr. Hocken.]
regard it as a very grave injustice to the people I represent. If I did not protest against it, therefore, I would not be doing my duty. I say again that here is the charter of our liberty; here is the document framed by Cartier, Brown, Macdonald and the others, and if the people of Canada both French and English will live closely to that and adhere to it in every particular there will be no friction existing between the two races in Canada. But so long as there is a demand made for extra-constitutional rights and privileges it must be expected that these will meet with resistance, and as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said, the further they are pressed the stronger will be the resistance and the greater will be the ultimate danger to those rights now enjoyed by the French people with the full consent and to the perfect satisfaction of all the other provinces.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It
seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we had better remain within the scope of this resolution and judge it on its merits. Naturally I will not take up the argument of my hon. friend with regard to regulation 17, because it was only through the indulgence of you, Mr. Speaker, that that was brought up. I simply desire to say to members of this House who respect the rules of debate that they need not expect me to touch upon that matter, although of course I do not accept the views of the hon. gentleman in that connection.
With regard to the motion just now before us, it seems to me that we must consider at once both its principle and application, as in any other proposed enactment. The principle, as I see it, is the assertion of a right connected with the constitution of the country. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat read article 133 of the constitution. I suppose in the reading of legislation, as in the reading of Holy Script, there are such things as the spirit and the letter. I will not oppose the view of any French-Canadian to that of the hon. gentleman with regard to the interpretation of our constitution, but rather will I give him the word of a man whose opinion still stands, I think, in the minds of a large number of Canadians, not exclusively Conservatives, as the one man who better understood and to a large extent better applied the spirit of confederation. I refer to Sir John A. Macdonald. Twenty-four years after' this piece of legislation was enacted in London as giving effect to the will of the people of Canada, he made a declaration in the parliament of this country in regard to the status of both languages. The hon. gentle-

Civil Service-French Language
man has just said that there has never been an attempt made by any one outside of Quebec to do away with those rights enjoyed by French-Canadians under the constitution. Evidently his memory is short, because in those days there was a very strong attempt made to altogether do away with the use of the French language in the federal service. That campaign was conducted by Mr. Dailton McCarthy; in provincial affairs it was carried on by Hon. Mr. Meredith, and was also supported, I believe, by the organizations with which the hon. gentleman is connected. Exactly the same arguments were then made as were brought up by the hon. gentleman this afternoon: "This is an English country; Canada has been conquered by Great Britain and therefore must conform to the principles of English government. The English language should Be the sole language of this country as well as of the British empire." Sir John A. Macdonald did not go beyond the boundaries of Canada and did not deal with the whole empire, its ethnical composition or historical development; he contented himself with the statement which I am about to repeat. I have not the book with me but it can be easily found, and I think I know the words almost by heart. He said, "Whether this country was conquered or ceded is a propos de rien", using himself the French words. "Under our present constitution both races", and by that- he meant English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians, "enjoy exactly the same rights in matters of religion, in matters of language, in matters of civil and political rights as well as personal rights, and therefore the two races stand on a footing of equality." That was the spirit of the law. Sir John A. Macdonald had helped to frame the letter of the law, but he had kept also the spirit which had permitted the enactment of confederation. In those days it was not thought necessary to state in so many paragraphs of the constitution that a natural right which had been enjoyed for three centuries by the founders of the country, the pioneers of Canada, those who made it possible for England to keep Canada a British country, should be continued and should not be curtailed by a narrow interpretation of the text of the law by narrow-minded individuals. Therefore the spirit of confederation, the spirit of amity and good will which made confederation possible was preserved, although they did not recite those rights of nature, those rights of the spiritual soul of a nation, in so many articles of law. They did not expect that a time would come when groups or individuals claiming to be their political heirs
would narrow it down to such a measure that, because the right of a national language is acknowledged only in one single article, you must not see that it is kept alive in the political activities of the nation.
In all civilized countries and by all civilized beings, Canada is considered to be a bilingual country, without question. It is a rest for me every time I go to London-and I go frequently-to get away from colonial narrowmindedness and to see how the leaders of thought in England realize how far the British empire is from being an English-speaking community. What an absurd thing! The English race represents only about ten per cent of the population of the British empire. The English language is the one official language of only a very small portion of that empire. I do not know whether or not the hon. member is aware of the fact, but it is a fact that the French language was the only official language of England for about three centuries. Under the Edwards, the English language took form, became the language of society and finally the language of parliament, but not by enactment of law till the time of Elizabeth, if I remember rightly. The English language was first enforced upon Wales by a statute of the British parliament; I think it is the only portion of the British Empire in which that was done, except for a short time in Canada after the rebellion of 1837, when an act of the British parliament imposed the English language as the sole language of Canada. But the English, coming back to their best senses and their best traditions, repealed that act before ten years had elapsed. The Boer language is the official language of South Africa as well as English; the Irish language is to-day the official language of the Irish Free State with English as a secondary language, just as French is in Canada; but thank heavens! the men who rule Ireland, after five centuries of struggle against subjection, are broad enough to give to the English minority in Ireland a position which will never be disputed and to permit them to enjoy not only the use of their own language, but. the other civil and political privileges or natural rights for which the French Canadians have still to fight in effect, owing to the narrow spirit which prevails in some quarters of Canada.
Now to consider whether this motion is opportune or not, we have to take the facts as they are. The hon. gentleman who preceded me himself admits that in the province of Quebec the use of French is necessary in the conduct of public affairs or in the administration of public departments. My hon. friend calls it a French province. I object to that statement, Sir. The province of Quebec is

Civil Service-French Language
not a French province, and the reason why the provincial spirit is still being kept, up in that province is precisely that attitude of mind on the part of a certain number of English Canadians who consider Quebec as apart from confederation, just as, for example, some Indian reserves are kept apart for the preservation of the remnants of our aboriginal ra^s. The province of Quebec is one of the nme Canadian provinces. The vast majority of its people speak French, but they grant to the English minority the right to speak English freely, and they accord to them in the local administrations, municipal or provincial, which are entirely under our control, those facilities which we ask in federal affairs, not merely as a matter of right-I would never put the question on that narrow basis -but as a matter of common sense and true Canadian spirit, so as to spread out into every province of Canada the same spirit of Canadian citizenship which exists in Quebec and should exist everywhere in this Dominion.
This is not, in my view, a matter of sentiment. but of adhering to the principle of confederation, to the terms and spirit of the alliance between the two races who made confederation possible, the founders of the country and the newcomers who came later on and who, after a century of more or less struggle, agreed to bury the hatchet. I come back to the example of the Irish Free State. The descendants of the inhabitants in the English pale, who for centuries had thought that there was no possible destiny for Ireland until the Irish people had consented to become English, finding out that that was not possible, made up their minds to become Irish in their turn and thus have made possible the successful government of that country. We did that sixty years ago. Are we going to exemplify it in the ordinary activities of the state? This, after all, is the question. It simply means that' we are willing to show to the people of this country and to the outsiders who come in-whether they stay with us or traverse our country and learn some of its lessons-that Canada is a different country from the United States. That is the main issue. It is somewhat surprising that certain groups of men who stand as the upholders of everything British are bent on Yankeefying this country as much and as fast as they can. They want to impose on us the Yankee system of education. They want to make of Canada-by language, by habit, by custom and by political administration-a weak and mean replica of the American republic. Well, I have more pride than that, either as a French Canadian, as a Canadian pure and simple, or as a Britisher.

I want Canada to be different from the United States. And how are you going to keep it different? Not merely by proclaiming the king the head of the state. No, the whole of history has proven that emblems of sovereignty and systems of government are not sufficient to keep up the spirit of a nation. It is not by proclaiming in so many articles of law that we acknowledge ourselves British; it is still less by developing in the minds of one-fourth of the population of this country-the pioneers of the land, the only element in Canada which is absolutely and exclusively Canadian, and has been such for centuries-the notion that outside their "Reserve" of Quebec there is no place for them, unless they abide by the will, and the habits, and the language of the majority.
Now, in the public service, I do not hold, as a matter of practice, that every civil servant should be obliged to speak French. No, that would be absurd, and I am sure such an idea does not find a place in the mind of the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution. In that respect, his resolution can be somewhat changed in its wording. But let us take the spirit of it. It means that in this country, first as a matter of historical development, second as a broad interpretation of the constitution of the country, third, taking into account the (Country's present ethnological position, and fourth having in view the necessity of preserving all the mental, moral and social barriers which we can oppose to the penetration of Americanism, we must make this country bilingual as much as we can in order to preserve it as a country different from the American republic. That has always been the main object we had in view in the province of Quebec by demanding-if the hon. gentleman wants me to use that word-by demanding a greater recognition of French all through the country. My hon. friend can take my word for it, that not only when I have spoken before English-speaking audiences, but every time I have spoken on this question in my native province, when there were none but French people to listen to me, my main argument has always been this: It is not as Frenchmen that we should claim a proper place for the French language, and its official expression in all the activities of the state, it is not a mere narrow racial privilege that we ask, but a broad Canadian right, anxious as we are for the preservation of the Canadian soul, a composite one, in constant need of all the good elements and all the contributions which all races can give, but more especially the two main races that have created it.

Civil Service-French Language
Now with regard to the argument made by my excellent friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), of course the hon. gentleman is right in a way, and the resolution, as I read it, and would interpret it if I were a minister of the crown, would certainly include the possibility of putting at the disposal of any group of individuals all through the land public servants capable of understanding them. There must be s recognition of the situation to which the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) alluded. For example, in the United States they have grown wonderfully in that respect in the last twenty-five years. You can go into the Interior department, especially the Immigration branch, or into the large post offices of the United States, and there you will find expert linguists who will interpret almost any language of the world. They do it for the efficiency of their administration, but they do not acknowledge [DOT] thereby that the Spanish, or the Yiddish, or the Portuguese, or the Chinese, are recognized official languages in the United States. Here we put the question on this basis: English and French are the two official languages of Canada. That cannot be denied, they are official languages. Some people may consider that one has more right than the other. In the minds of the men who made the constitution, and in my mind, they have equal rights. That is a question of degree which opens a fair door to debate. But French and English are undoubtedly the two official languages of the country, and that fact ought to be acknowledged in practice.
As regards the argument of economy, made by the hon. member for Joliet,te (Mr. Denis), I have frequented departments of state in this country for thirty years, either as a member of parliament or as a ratepayer, and I have found out exactly the same thing which the hon. gentleman has described, namely, that in many instances there are twenty employees where fifteen would do because such a large proportion of them, being incapable of responding to the needs of the Frenchspeaking ratepayers or people who have to deal with the government, unable to answer them in their language, the service has to be duplicated.
Of course, a policy like this would have to be applied gradually and with common sense. It would not mean the exclusion of all employees who speak only English. It would not mean that possession of the two languages would be the sole or even the principal qualification. I would put the matter in this way:	the first qualification for a public
servant is honest}7; the second is efficiency,
expert competency; and the third, is the capability of dealing directly with the people of this country who have a right to be understood in their own language. It seems to me that is fair. The hon. gentleman says that there is no impediment of that kind in the province of Quebec. I can tell him that I myself have gone to the Montreal customs house and, just to find out, inquiring from one wicket to another of the customs, I have had to pass a good many before being able to get an employee who understood a word of French. In the largest French city in the world after Paris and Marseilles, the third largest French city in the- world, I have myself been told by a customs officer in the Montreal post office, when I asked in French for some information-he answered me not in English, but in the American slang which is rapidly taking the place of English in this loyal British country-"Can't you talk English? Don't you know this is an English country?" I said, "Yes, sir, I can mumble a few words of English. I think I know English a little better than you do because it is the king's English I endeavour to speak; but I have a right to be understood in French." He said, "It ain't your right. Don't talk nonsense." That is the way I was answered in a public office in the city of Montreal.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The hon. member would
not receive such treatment in Toronto.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. But reverse
the situation. Supposing two-thirds of the federal employees in Toronto were unable to speak in English sufficiently .to meet the requirements of the population of that oity, would the hon. gentleman say that the efficiency of those employees is not greatly curtailed by the fact that they do not speak the language of the ,population with whom they have to deal? I repeat: all these things have to be taken, first, from a broad point of view of principle and, second, from the point of view of practical application. We should adopt the motion of the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin) in that spirit, not with the idea that, every minister should immediately set to work to put aside all those employees who speak nothing but English, but with the idea of opening the eyes and the minds of the present servants of the country, and of aspirants to the public service, in order to make them realize that French Canada is not a detached portion of this Dominion, that French Canada, or rather Canada, French in its origin, but thoroughly Canadian, is not to be kept solely and absolutely in the province of Quebec. That you

Civil Service-French Language
cannot do; I cannot do it, nobody can-until the French-Canadians have learned that new form of American civilization, which unfortunately is spreading out in some of the English provinces, that the future of Canada is to be assured by the development of such families as are composed of a man, a woman and a pet dog. So long as the French-Canadians, thanks to that obnoxious, domineering church, and that horrible hierarchy which is so much denounced by the hon. gentleman, keep to the habit of giving to the church and state all the good children they can give, you cannot prevent the expansion of the French-Canadian. Are you going to receive them in Ontario and elsewhere as brothers, as fellow citizens, or as foreigners, as intruders? Are you going to receive them in this way, for example: some people wrote me last year from Manitoba-or Saskatchewan -that while they had been invited to go out and take up sections in the west, not being understood by the land agent of the Interior department of this government, they had to write to Ottawa to get a translation of their letter to the agent and a translation of the agent's letter to them, so that it took fifteen days for them to understand from the local agent of the Department of the Interior of this Dominion under what conditions they held their title, and so forth?
If you want to kill what remains in Quebec, though less than in the other provinces, of that sectional, provincial spirit; if you do not want to revive the spirit which existed before confederation; if you want the French-Canadians to feel as much at home in Ontario as in Quebec, you must deal with them as you would like to be dealt with. Supposing this country had been settled by the English and conquered by the French, a foreign power; supposing that French laws had been imposed upon you and that gradually, after a century of trouble, you had come to terms with a French majority. Endeavour to look upon questions of this nature from that point of view, inspired with the spirit of amity, of fair play, but especially of Canadian citizenship. Develop in the minds of all Canadians the idea that there must be concessions right and left, that there must be give and take, and that all the elements, but especially the two main elements of this country must put firmly, strongly, on the body of the Canadian nation the stamp of their peculiar genius; because the grandeur of Canada, if it can exist and develop by itself independently, I will not say separately or in enmity, but independently from the tremendous influences of the United States, will be in the measure in which will be preserved all through Canada 
that spirit of cooperation between French and English, in the measure in wdiieh you allow the French-Canadians and their descendants to imbibe some of your spirit, and you take some of theirs, although that may be regrettable from your point of view. Of course, at times, it would be more agreeable for us to live in a country where we would be all by ourselves, where we could enjoy fully our own institutions, speak nothing but our language, and learn a foreign language just for the pleasure of doing so. We have, however, come to realize that there is a direct benefit to us in getting from you what we lack; but more than that, we consider it is our primary duty as Canadian citizens to make it possible that the two races cooperate with each other to the grandeur and the strength of Canadian civilization. In the spirit of this resolution is to be found one method by which the government and the parliament of Canada can help us out in broadening that national spirit and making it a true Canadian spirit such as it was conceived by Macdonald and maintained as long as Macdonald lived.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, no person will deny for a moment that from a cultural standpoint two languages are better than one and three are better than two. The hon. member (Mr. Bourassa) said:	This brings up not only a
principle but the application of a principle. This resolution proposes to give preference in future appointments to Canadians knowing the two official languages. Such a resolution it is impossible for this House to accept. This House cannot put itself on record as being in accord with a resolution of that kind because by. doing so we would place the English language in an inferior position to the French language in the Dominion of Canada, and it would be so regarded outside of Canada all over the world. There can be no question at all about that.
From the standpoint of efficiency, I presume that in conducting the affairs of this country, the various departments will take into consideration, when persons apply for a position, not only the French language but other languages that may dominate in that particular portion of Canada where the official is to act. It is quite conceivable to me that in certain parts of the northwest where you would have a strong German settlement, for instance, or a strong Polish settlement, it would be advisable in sending an official there to give preference among those applying for the position to the person who had a knowledge not only of the English language but of the language used in that particular locality.

War Charities Act
That, I presume, is being done now. I am sure it is being done now, and that preference is being given, in order that the affairs of the country may be the better administered, to the French language in many parts of the country. I think we may depend very well upon the various departments to handle that matter from that point of view, and to consider the qualifications of those applying for a position, having regard to the place where the appointee is to act, and to give preference to those who can speak the kind of language or languages that are spoken there. I believe that is being done now to a very large extent. I believe it should be done in the interests of good service to the country.
But, Sir, while I think we may very well depend upon the various deputies to administer their departments along that line, that is a very different thing from passing a law saying that those people in this country who possess a knowledge of the French language as well as of the English language must and shall be given a preference over all others. That is something, I say, which this government and no other government dare place on the statute books of this country.
In regard to giving additional remuneration to such people, that argument might just as well apply to the members of this House, and a French member might demand that he be given an extra indemnity because he was able to speak fluently in French as well as in English. The thing is ridiculous. You might carry out that same principle with regard to the employees of the Canadian National Railways. The railways are owned by the country, and although its employees are not listed as civil servants, they are in a sense civil servants. Would you apply the same principle there and let it be known throughout the world that in this Dominion of Canada, a supposedly British country, employees not only of the civil service at Ottawa, but also of the Canadian National Railways, if they speak French shall be given a preference every time over a man who understands the English language only? I say that is something which it would be impossible to apply.
I am not going to attempt to take up regulation 17.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.


John Wesley Edwards: I am watching the clock, and the Speaker is in the chair. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) criticised the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) because in his judgment he was out of order in referring to regulation 17. With all due deference to the hon. member for Labelle, I thought very many times
when he was going back sixty and a hundred and two hundred and three hundred and four hundred and five hundred years into history, as he always does in making a speech in this House, no matter what the subject is, that he was further out of order than the hon. member for Toronto West Centre.
Just before I move that this debate be adjourned, I want to say this: There is no desire in this country to treat those of the French race and French language harshly. For my part, I am free to say that I would like to see the English language the distinctive mark of our common citizenship in this Dominion of Canada. I say that that is something I would like to see, that all the races coming here would regard the English language as the distinctive mark of our common citizenship here in Canada.
I want to add, before moving the adjournment of the debate, this further word. I want to impress on the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, and on no person more than on the hon. member for Labelle that, whatever he desires for the French language, the English language cannot and shall not and will not be ostracised or outlawed in any part of the Dominion of Canada.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 3, 1927