Source:  “Journée à marquer d’une pierre blanche” (“A Red-Letter Day”) by Vincent Prince, La Presse, Montreal, 20 December 1962, Editorial, page 4.

D R A F T – I need the French and English Hansard of 17th Dec 1962, Pearson, whom Prince seems to be quoting. Then use THAT for fix up the English; and for information purposes, compare to Prince’s Frenchy quotes (which obviously were translations even in Hansard).

“A Red-Letter Day” by Vincent Prince, La Presse, Montreal, 20 December 1962,
Editorial, page 4

“A Red-Letter Day”

IT WILL definitely be necessary to mark as a red-letter day the date Monday, December 17th, 1962 in the Commons.

For the first time, probably, in the history of our country, representatives of the four great political parties have recognized the necessity to rethink the clauses of the social contract entered into in 1867 between the two great races of the country.  Instead of continuing to play the game of ostrich, these politicians, Mr. Lester B. Pearson at their head, have recognized the extreme malaise which is increasingly getting the better of one of the two partners and proclaimed the necessity for a diagnostic in the full light of day.

An inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism across the country, and particularly at the level of the public service, is imperative, they proclaiimed, to detect the causes of this malaise and to suggest the appropriate remedies.

How can we not profoundly rejoice when we have ourselves loudly demanded such an inquiry for over a year!

Of course, the inquiry has not yet been granted, but after the spectacle witnessed on Monday, and which continued yesterday, with the intervention notably of Mr. T.C. Douglas, recent resistance surely is about to dampen.  Has the “Globe and Mail”, a Toronto conservative newspaper, itself not alluded to a rumor to the effect that the Diefenhaker government is preparing to announce its support for the project.

• • •

In his masterly speech of the day before yesterday, Mr. Pearson tackled the problem exactly as it must be approached.

Whatever the opinion of the lawyers, says he, it remains that Confederation was an agreement, a deed of partnership between two races which had imagined this instrument to better fulfill themselves individually and to better resist the attraction of the United States.  They wished in this way to more easily develop a continent according to a formula different from the “melting pot” adopted by our neighbours to the south.

Each of these two great nations had to be able to count on equality of opportunity and contribute, in proportion to its size, to the development and administration of the country to be born.

But all indicates that the agreement was more academic than real.  As Mr. Pearson honestly recognizes, “outside the province, and as Canada developed, it (the agreement) was more often violated than observed, and for reasons which are easily understood.

“Two different interpretations of Confederation resulted, which created confusion, frustration and certain quarrels.  For French-speaking Canadians, Confederation established a bilingual and bicultural nation.  It protected their language and their culture throughout Canada.  It meant association — not domination.  French-speaking Canadians believed that this association would procure for the two founding races equal opportunities to participate in all spheres of the expansion of Canada.

“English-speaking Canadians were agreed that the pact of Confederation protected the rights of French Canadians in the province of Quebec, in Parliament as well as in the federal courts.  But most were of the view that the provisions of this pact did not extend so far, which, for all practical purposes, meant that there existed an English-speaking Canada with a bilingual Québec.  The French fact had to have only provincial scope.”

All in all, we are apparently faced with a contract where one of the contracting parties was duped at the very moment of the drafting, or in the interpretation given to it afterwards.

• • •

Under these conditions, must the contract be cancelled or rewritten?  The answer to this question is not that important, provided that at last we agree to exit from the ambiguity.  The French Canaidan group still continues to conceive Confederation as an alliance of two nations equal in law and it still is ready to respect its obligations within this alliance.  Even if some attitudes must be adjusted.  But on condition that its partner do as much.

However, at present, we repeat, the great sore point is that we are not explaining ourselves, that we are not understanding each other.  An inquiry would first of all reveal whether Canada admits, yes or no, that the two cultures have an established right from one ocean to the other and whether it is ready to contribute to ther mutual prospering.  It will tell us concretely what is happening at present, in this report, and the correctives that ought to be brought to the situation.

As questions of culture are of provincial jurisdiction, at least in very large part, such an inquiry must have the collaboration and active participation of all the provincial governments.  Mr. Diefenbaker can raise the question at the federal-provincial conference anticipated for the start of l963.  In any event, as Mr. Pearson says, the refusal of the provinces must not entail the failure of such an initiative.  Ottawa must then proceed alone, confining itself for the moment to those domains reserved to it by the constitution.

• • •

This inquiry may give us unpleasant surprises.  Tough words, even acrimonious words will probably be exchanged.  Then, afterward! quarrels in a family often serve to strengthen it.  There are abscesses which must be punctured.

No one would dream of complaining if this confrontation were to allow us to inaugurate a second Century of coexistence on the right foot and avoid, for the future, the periodic manifestations which threaten to explode the very structures of the regime.

If, on the other hand, if this examination of the collective conscience indicates to us that Confederation is not viable, well, it’s better to know it positively as soon as possible!

Vincent PRINCE