The Fate of Canada: F. R. Scott's Journal of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1963–1971 9780228009412

Citation preview

t h e fat e o f c a n a da

T H E FAT E O F CA N A DA F.R. Scott’s Journal of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1963–1971

Edited by Graham Fraser

McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Chicago

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2021 ISB N ISB N ISB N ISB N

978-0-2280-0824-8 978-0-2280-0825-5 978-0-2280-0941-2 978-0-2280-0942-9

(cloth) (paper) (eP df) (eP UB)

Legal deposit third quarter 2021 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

We acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts. Nous remercions le Conseil des arts du Canada de son soutien.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: The fate of Canada : F.R. Scott’s journal of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1963–1971 / edited by Graham Fraser. Other titles: F.R. Scott’s journal of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1963–1971 Names: Scott, F. R. (Francis Reginald), 1899–1985, author. | Fraser, Graham, 1946– editor. Description: Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20210214554 | Canadiana (ebook) 20210214821 | isbn 9780228008255 (paper) | is bn 9780228008248 (cloth) | isbn 9780228009412 (eP DF) | is bn 9780228009429 (eP U B) Subjects: l cs h: Scott, F. R. (Francis Reginald), 1899–1985—Diaries. | lcsh : Canada. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. | lcsh : Bilingualism—Canada. | l cs h: Biculturalism—Canada. | l c g f t : Diaries. Classification: l cc f c144 .s 34 2021 | ddc 306.44/60971—dc23

This book was typeset in 10.5/13 Sabon.

For Barbara, with love Still no dull moments

Contents

Editor’s Note | ix Dramatis Personae | xi Introduction | xvii 1963 | 3 1964 | 37 1965 | 99 1966 | 140 1967 | 162 1968 | 194 1969 | 209 1970–71 | 230 The End of the Affair | 244 Afterword | 251 Acknowledgments | 261 Notes | 263 Bibliography | 307 Index | 315

Editor’s Note

I have more than a professional or academic interest in F.R. Scott. My parents and the Scotts were co-owners of a cottage in North Hatley (which I now own), and I have vivid memories of his wit and his laughter. The diary, a 560-page typewritten document, occasionally annotated in pencil, which is part of the F.R. Scott Papers at Library and Archives Canada, totals some 150,000 words. Much of it describes the logistics of the commission’s meetings, and the comments made by other members. In editing it, I have kept the following question in mind: What does this tell us about Frank Scott and his views? As a result, while I have retained almost all that Scott wrote in the first few years of the commission, I have eliminated and summarized some of his detailed accounts of what other people said at meetings, particularly during later years when the commissioners were poring over the research material. I have also corrected his misspelling of names, occasional grammatical errors in French, and some linguistic habits that now seem distracting, like spelling “flu” and “plane” with apostrophes. His approach to capitalization was eccentric, and he avoided hyphenating terms like “English-speaking,” “middle-class,” and other compound phrases that are now commonplace. Similarly, he was sparing in the use of commas. Some of these practices have been changed when they disrupted the text; most have been left just as they were written. As with any diary, one wonders who the intended audience was. Scott had failed to write the major work on the British North America Act he had wanted to when he had a Guggenheim Fellowship at Harvard in 1940, producing only a couple of essays.1 Despite his easy

x

Editor’s Note

pen as a poet, he admitted that he had difficulty writing at various times during the years of the commission. It is possible that he dictated much of the diary and corrected transcription errors by hand, sometimes writing in short additions or clarifications. But one of his notes (“Historians, take note”) suggests he was writing with future researchers in mind. In fact, when he mentions specific documents, it seems he imagined researchers in the archives, comparing his notes with the commission’s records. And, indeed, the diary proved to be an important resource for Sandra Djwa’s 1987 biography, The Politics of the Imagination: A Life of F.R. Scott, for Valérie LapointeGagnon’s 2018 book about the commission, Panser le Canada: Une histoire intellectuelle de la commission Laurendeau-Dunton, and my own 2006 book about language policy, Sorry, I Don’t Speak French: Confronting the Canadian Crisis That Won’t Go Away. In his preface to A New Endeavour, Michiel Horn writes, “The public life of Frank R. Scott had three major elements: the law, poetry and politics. Towards the end of his life Frank decided that he wanted to sum up each of these in a book. His Essays on the Constitution (University of Toronto Press 1977) was the first of these volumes; The Collected Poems of F.R. Scott (McClelland and Stewart 1981) was the second. A New Endeavour, a selection from Frank’s political writings and speeches, is the third and last.”2 I would argue that there was a fourth element in Scott’s public life: language policy. This, then, joins the trilogy. I have attempted to identify all the people that Scott refers to in his diary, and to place the events of the day in context.

Dramatis Personae

c o m m is s ioners André Laurendeau, co-chair (1912–1968) Laurendeau had called for the creation of a Royal Commission on bilingualism in January 1962 and was named its co-chair in 1963; he served until he suffered a stroke and died in 1968. Following two years in Paris, an experience that led him to break with conventional French-Canadian support for Franco, he was the editor of the journal L’Action nationale between 1937 and 1942. Laurendeau was also one of the leaders of the campaign against conscription, leader of the provincial Bloc Populaire, and served in the Quebec legislature from 1944 to 1947. He joined the editorial board of Le Devoir in 1947 and became editor-in-chief in 1958. Robert Fulford described him as “a persuasive and eloquent speaker, a kind of evangelist of moderation and civilization.”1 He was the intellectual counterpart to Scott, who admired him but disagreed with him on a number of points. A. Davidson (Davie) Dunton, co-chair (1912–1987) Dunton was the president of Carleton University when he was named co-chairman of the commission, and he remained president until 1972. From 1973 to 1979, he was director of Carleton’s Institute of Canadian Studies. Originally from Montreal, he worked at the Montreal Star, becoming associate editor in 1937, and became editor of the Saturday Standard in 1938. In 1942, he joined the Wartime Information Board, becoming general manager in 1944,

xii

Dramatis Personae

and in 1945, he became the first full-time chair of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (cbc), where he served until 1958. He was a calm, moderating presence as co-chairman of the commission. Scott had a relatively distant relationship with him. Clément Cormier (1910–1987) A Catholic priest, Cormier was the first president of the Université de Moncton (1963–67). He had an ma in theology from the Université de Montréal and a ba in social science from Université Laval. From 1948 to 1963, he was the rector of Collège Saint-Joseph in Memramcook, nb , the first French-language university in Atlantic Canada. Scott became fond of him, and worked to persuade him to remain part of the commission’s consensus. He was a lifelong promoter of Acadian culture. Royce Frith (1923–2005) Frith was a lawyer and owned a radio station in the Ottawa Valley. Scott both enjoyed his company, often teasing him, and rejected his views about commercial broadcasting. Following the commission, he served as a legal adviser to Keith Spicer, the commissioner of official languages from 1971 to 1977. President of the Ontario Liberal Association in 1961–62, he was named a senator in 1977 and was deputy government leader in the Senate between 1980 and 1984. In 1994, he became Canada’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom. He ended his career as a lawyer in Vancouver. Jean-Louis Gagnon (1913–2004) A journalist and editor, Gagnon was a right-wing nationalist before the war, but became a Liberal and a strong federalist, arguing in favour of conscription. After working in Africa and Latin America, he became editor-in-chief of La Presse in 1958, but left to become editor of the short-lived Nouveau Journal (1961–62). When André Laurendeau died in 1968, Gagnon replaced him as co-chair. He and Scott became allies in resisting the pressures from Paul Lacoste and others for recommendations regarding constitutional change. In 1970, he became director-general of Information Canada, and from 1972 to 1976, he was Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (unesco ) in Paris.

Dramatis Personae

xiii

Gertrude Laing (1905–2005) Born in Tunbridge Wells, England, she was educated at the University of Manitoba and did graduate work at the Sorbonne, and after teaching school, lectured in French at the University of Manitoba. Identified simply as “a French teacher” when the members of the commission were announced, she played an important role on the commission. Originally condescending towards her, Scott came to hold her in high regard. Later, she taught a course on biculturalism at the University of Calgary in 1977; she was the chair of the Canada Council from 1975 to 1978. Jean Marchand (1918–1988) A union leader, Marchand was secretary general of the Confédération des travailleurs catholiques du Canada (ctcc ) from 1947 to 1961, and president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (csn ) from 1961 until 1964. Scott was fond of him, describing him as “a wonderful companion: sincere, full of common sense, genuine in all his statements, and with a great sense of humour.” Scott hoped that Marchand might join the New Democratic Party (ndp ), but in 1965 he left the commission to run for the Liberals with Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau and, following his election, became a minister. He resigned from the Trudeau cabinet in 1976 and ran for the Quebec Liberal Party. Following his defeat, he was named to the Senate and served from 1976 until 1983. He was replaced on the commission by Paul Lacoste. André Raynauld (1927–2011) Raynauld was an economist who taught at the Université de Montréal from 1954 until 1971. An adviser to the commission, he produced the study on income disparities between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians; following André Laurendeau’s death in 1968, he was named a commissioner. Scott suspected him of favouring French unilingualism for Quebec. In 1976, he was elected as a Liberal member of the Quebec National Assembly. He resigned in June 1980 and returned to the Université de Montréal. J.B. Rudnyckyj (1910–1995) Born in Permyshi, in southern Poland – an area disputed between Poland and Ukraine after World War I – Rudnyckyj was educated

xiv

Dramatis Personae

in Lviv and became a specialist in etymology, writing a book on the Ukrainian language and its dialects. From 1941 to 1945, he taught at the Ukrainian Free University in Prague and from 1945 to 1948 at the University of Heidelberg, immigrating to Canada in 1949. From 1949 to 1976 he worked at the University of Manitoba, where he was the founding head of the Department of Slavic Studies. Scott saw him as a source of continuing pressure for the recognition of languages other than English and French. He played a key role in producing the fourth book of the report, which dealt with “Other Ethnic Groups” and laid the groundwork for Canada’s policy of multiculturalism. F.R. Scott (1899–1985) A lawyer, poet, translator, political activist, and constitutional scholar, Scott was co-founder of the League for Social Reconstruction, co-author of the Regina Manifesto, and a long-time activist in the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (ccf ) and the ndp . A member of the Order of Canada, he won the Governor General’s Award both for poetry for The Collected Poems of F.R. Scott and for non-fiction for his Essays on the Constitution. Paul Wyczynski (1921–2008) Born in Zelgoszcz, Poland, Wyczynski fought in the Polish resistance during World War II and was imprisoned by the Nazis. He moved to England and then to France, where he studied at the Université Lille Nord. A literature professor at the University of Ottawa, he specialized in the work of Quebec poet Émile Nelligan, writing and editing several books about him. He was the founding director of the Centre de Recherche en Civilisation Canadienne Française at the University of Ottawa.

c o - s e c r e ta ri es Paul Lacoste (1923–2009) Lacoste was a professor of philosophy and law at the Université de Montréal from 1946 until 1987 and served as rector of the university from 1975 to 1985. He became a commissioner in 1965 when Jean Marchand resigned, and argued strongly that the commission should recommend the transfer of powers from the federal government to Quebec, which Scott strongly opposed. He was replaced as co-secretary by Gilles Lalande.

Dramatis Personae

xv

Neil Morrison (1914–2002) Before becoming co-secretary, Morrison was co-director of the World University Service International Student Seminar. Robert Fulford called him “the complete adult educator.”2 In 1939, Morrison went to work for both the cbc and the Canadian Association for Adult Education to study the use of radio in adult education. Through this work, he became a friend of Laurendeau. The director of Talks and Public Affairs at the cbc from 1940 to 1953, he then became director of audience research. In 1961, he joined Atkinson College at York University as associate dean. In 1963, he became secretary of the commission. Scott found him a long-winded and woolly thinker and was exasperated by his interventions, feeling he behaved as if he were a commissioner. When he left the commission, he was replaced as co-secretary by Peter Findlay. Peter Findlay (1936–2011) After working for the ccf government in Saskatchewan, he joined the commission, eventually replacing Morrison as co-secretary. He then worked at Carleton University, first as assistant to Davidson Dunton and then at the School of Social Work. He was a founding member and president of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Gilles Lalande (1927–), replaced Lacoste as co-secretary. A foreign service officer from 1954 to 1962, he became a professor of international relations at the Université de Montréal in 1962. Following his work with the commission from 1966 to 1970, he published Pourquoi le fédéralisme? Contribution d’un Québécois à l’intelligence du fédéralisme canadien and worked for the Canadian International Development Agency (cida ), before becoming deputy commissioner of official languages in 1980.

c o - d ir e c to rs o f res earch Léon Dion (1922–1997) A professor of political science at Laval throughout his career, Dion became an informal adviser to a number of political leaders, including Robert Bourassa. Close to Laurendeau, he wrote a memo for him in which he analyzed the differences in views between Laurendeau and Scott. A prolific author, he also contributed many opinion pieces to Le Devoir.

xvi

Dramatis Personae

Michael Oliver (1925–2004) Oliver joined McGill as a professor after completing his doctoral thesis on French-Canadian nationalism in the 1930s and founded the university’s French Canada Studies program. A good friend of Scott’s, he was active in the ndp , and became its first president in 1961. He became McGill’s vice-principal (academic) in 1967 and served as president of Carleton University from 1972 until 1979. In 1980, he became the founding president of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Introduction

F.R. Scott was a major figure in Canada in the twentieth century. A Rhodes scholar, a political activist, a lawyer, a socialist, an academic, a poet, and a translator, he was a major literary figure, a defender of human rights and a constitutional expert. Political scientist Allen Mills called him “arguably Canada’s most accomplished all-round public intellectual” of his age.1 Quebec sociologist Stéphane Kelly called him “a Canadian Laski,” comparing him to the British socialist academic Harold Laski.2 Scott was a paradoxical figure in a number of ways. The son of an Anglican minister, he recoiled from organized religion. One of the authors of the Regina Manifesto, founding document of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (ccf ), Canada’s socialist predecessor to the New Democratic Party (ndp ), he lived in Westmount and was comfortable in the company of Supreme Court judges. Anticapitalist in his views, he was conventional in some of his habits, and deeply unconventional in others. He had no patience for those he considered boring or tedious; he was a man of great wit. Many of those who knew and admired him saw him as part of the elite. David Lewis, who first met Scott in 1929 at McGill, described him as at first a bit of an enigma. “Tall and thin, with a long patrician nose, and eyes that often gazed into the far distance when he spoke, he seemed almost aristocratic in manner and speech,” he wrote. “The first impression was quickly dispelled when one listened to his profound and logical analyses of society’s material needs and spiritual hopes.”3 Thomas Berger, who worked with Scott on an appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of the bc Federation of Labour, described

xviii

Introduction

the man who was one of his heroes. “Tall and angular, Frank was a member of an old Anglo Quebec family,” he wrote in his memoir. “I thought there was always about his devotion to liberal causes a sense of noblesse oblige. This did not mean that he was not as committed as others; rather it allowed him to remain at one remove, thus bringing the range of his intellect to bear.”4 And friends of the family tell of an evening at North Hatley when a visiting American listened to Frank Scott talk about the advantages of houses having tradesmen’s entrances, and remarked “If these are your socialists, I’d like to meet your conservatives.” Michael Oliver wrote, twelve years after Scott’s death, “I can still hear that great laugh that made you know he was there at a party even when he was two rooms away.” He observed that everyone knew a different Frank Scott. “For me he was myth incarnate: the co-author of the Regina Manifesto, the vanquisher of Maurice Duplessis, the man whose name the Montreal Star would not publish, the magician who could put social as well as personal passion into the frame of verse.”5 Charismatic, witty, mercurial, he could be moody and difficult; his son Peter referred to him in a poem as a domestic tyrant.6 Scott kept different parts of his life compartmentalized, and he travelled comfortably in the different circles of his interests: the university, the ccf and the ndp , and among writers and poets, English-speaking and Frenchspeaking. In many respects, he was an innovator, not least in poetry. Fellow poet Louis Dudek called him “our first modernist, the most varied and experimental, both in exploring new poetic forms and in shaking up the ideas out of which poetry is made.”7 The co-chair of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was André Laurendeau, chief editorialist at Le Devoir, whom Scott first met in the late 1930s. Laurendeau kept a diary from the time of his appointment as co-chair of the commission until a few months before his premature death.8 It was detailed, literary and emotional – Laurendeau described it as “almost a personal diary”9 – conveying his reactions to what he heard and saw across the country. Scott’s journal is quite different. Anyone looking for an account of his sometimes- turbulent personal life will be disappointed. His wife Marian is never mentioned. Sandra Djwa recounts his lengthy affair with P.K. Page in her 2012 book Journey with No Maps: A Life of P.K. Page, and Ron Graham describes his affair with Françoise

Introduction

xix

Sullivan in his article on Paterson Ewen in Canadian Art.10 There are no references to these relationships in the diary; it is largely his account of the meetings, mixed with descriptions of the people he met. He shows less emotion and more detail than Laurendeau – but still some flashes of wit or irritation. The diary weaves together the good humour and good spirits of the meetings of the commissioners, often leavened by drinks (Scott and Frith drank martinis; others drank Pernod), and the growing sense they all felt that they were witnessing and describing the Canadian crisis of their time. It is possible to follow Scott’s evolving sense of concern about the increasing tendency towards official unilingualism in Quebec. His socialist colleague in the ccf and ndp , David Lewis, once observed that “Too often his tall, cutting aloofness and intellectual impatience caused annoyance and hurt to people who deserved better.”11 Some of that aloofness and impatience emerges in the diary, which provides a counterpoint to Laurendeau’s. In fact, the two diaries reveal how their different, sometimes contradictory beliefs were braided through the first volume of the report. Scott also provides insight into the tensions, disagreements, and ultimate resolution on a critically important Royal Commission that had ten very different commissioners. All of them became aware during the public hearings that they were dealing with a crisis: a realization that led to the publication of the Preliminary Report, with its memorable declaration that “they have been driven to the conclusion that Canada, without being fully conscious of the fact, is passing through the greatest crisis in its history.”12 At times, they wondered if the country would survive; they knew they were dealing with the fate of Canada. Their recommendations would shape the future in more ways than one. As another commissioner, Gertrude Laing, wrote, “By our composition and in our debates, we were re-living the whole Canadian experience, and if in the end we agonized to the point of deep distress to find an accommodation, it was because we truly represented the basic dilemma of Canada.”13 The early 1960s were a tempestuous time in Canadian politics. John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government, elected in 1958 with the largest majority in Canadian history, was faced with the surge in Quebec nationalism following the election of Jean Lesage’s Quebec Liberal Party in June 1960. Diefenbaker’s majority included fifty mp s from Quebec, who had been elected with the support of Premier Maurice Duplessis’s Union Nationale: the

xx

Introduction

first time Quebec had voted Conservative since the days of John A. Macdonald. Many of these mp s did not speak English, and Diefenbaker was forced to introduce simultaneous interpretation in the House of Commons. Until then, French-speaking mp s had the right to speak French, guaranteed in the British North America Act of 1867, but no right to be understood. But it was clear that Diefenbaker had no understanding of or sympathy for Quebec. This first became clear in 1958–59, when his government let the strike by Radio-Canada producers drag on for months, paralyzing news coverage and cultural affairs in the only French-Language television network that then existed, and convincing René Lévesque that “our affairs are bound to be either tragically or comically mismanaged as long as they remain in the hands of men who have no understanding of them and make it quite clear that they don’t consider this any kind of personal flaw.”14 As historian Jack Granatstein put it, “The battle between French and English Canada was heating up, made fiercer by the Diefenbaker government’s total inability to comprehend what was taking place in Quebec.”15 One of Lesage’s first acts was to propose constitutional discussions on the patriation of the British North America Act at a FederalProvincial Conference in July 1960. This was the beginning of a constitutional debate that would dominate Canadian political life for the next four decades. In September, a group of Quebec nationalists – including Marcel Chaput, a chemist at the National Research Council – formed the Rassemblement pour l’Indépendance Nationale. Chaput’s involvement led to questions in the House of Commons, and he was suspended for taking an unauthorized leave to attend a meeting. After his suspension was lifted, he resigned and published a best-selling book Pourquoi je suis séparatiste. In 1961, the census showed that there were 12,284,762 Canadians who spoke only English, 3,489,866 who spoke only French (93 per cent of them in Quebec), and 2,231,172 who stated they were bilingual in English and French. There were 232,447 who spoke neither English nor French. In terms of mother tongue, 10,660,534 indicated English and 5,123,151 indicated French.16 Demographically, the country was white and European, divided between English and French, with a small proportion of immigrants, mostly from Europe; the immigration that would change the face of the country had not yet occurred.

Introduction

xxi

The census also found that there were 166,531 individuals who were described as having “Indian and Eskimo” as their mother tongue – or 0.9 per cent of the population.17 This would be an awkward subject for the commission; when the subject of Indigenous languages came up in March 1966, Scott observed tartly, “We might have to make some comment about them, but we would make ourselves even more ridiculous if we attempted to pretend we knew anything about the situation.” The commission had no mandate to deal with Indigenous languages, and the question was dealt with clumsily in three paragraphs in the first volume. Indians and Eskimos, as the commission referred to them, were clearly not “founding peoples” in the sense intended by the terms of reference; nor were they “other ethnic groups.” “The integration of the native populations into Canadian society raises very complex problems,” Laurendeau wrote in his introductory section on “key words.” “The process of integration calls into question the very nature of the traditions and customs of native society. The Commission realizes that it was not the Government’s intention – and the terms of reference are a proof of this – to have the Commission undertake long studies on the rightful status of the Indians and the Eskimos within the Canadian Confederation.”18 This was work for other organizations. At that point, Indigenous peoples were not a subject of public discussion or debate, which began to occur later in the decade. They were, as the title of historian Donald B. Smith’s book puts it, seen but not seen.19 However, after the second meeting of the commission, Scott wrote, “the distinction between ‘Official languages’ and ‘National languages’ appeared to us very useful. The official languages of Canada are French and English, but the Indian languages, the Eskimo language, and the language of other minority groups in Canada can properly be described as National languages. Since our terms of reference require us to consider the cultural contribution of other groups to Canada we must at some point consider what should be done to preserve and to develop the use of these other national languages.” And not long afterwards, when the commissioners were considering their mandate, he noted “the fact was evident that the membership was chosen so as to give the two ‘Founding races’ equal representation and to add to them representatives of the other ethnic groups.” The idea of including Indigenous representatives on the commission simply never occurred to anyone. In fact,

xxii

Introduction

Scott’s attitude was revealed in his essay “A View of Canada,” written for the commission in 1965, when he wrote, “A half continent, much of it bleak and inhospitable, which possessed few original inhabitants and those but little advanced in the civilized arts has been subdued for human habitation and developed into an ordered system of society, particularly in the period since 1867.” On 20 January 1962, André Laurendeau, editor-in-chef of Le Devoir, wrote an editorial in response to a proposal to introduce bilingual federal cheques being considered by the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker, but opposed by some fifty Tory mps. Laurendeau dismissed the idea of bilingual cheques as outdated – both too little and too late. Instead, he called for a Royal Commission to examine bilingualism in Canada. There would be three objectives, he wrote: to find out what Canadians coast to coast think about the subject, to study how Belgium and Switzerland dealt with the language problems, and “to examine, again very closely, the role played by the two languages in the federal public service.” At stake, he said, was the French language, spoken by nearly a third of the population of Canada. “Paris, history reminds us, was worth a mass,” he wrote, evoking Henry IV’s conversion in order to secure the support of Catholic Paris. “Perhaps Canada is worth a Royal Commission.”20 Diefenbaker rejected the idea, but in June his government lost its majority, and in Quebec, Réal Caouette’s Créditistes won 26 per cent of the vote and twenty-six seats. It was unusual then that Quebec would send such a substantial number of mp s to sit in the opposition in a party with little chance of forming a government. Most of them were unilingual Francophones from rural and small-town constituencies; Gilles Grégoire was virtually the only professional in a caucus of car salesmen, farmers, furniture-store owners, undertakers, and carpenters. And they encountered a capital city and a parliament that operated in English only. So, virtually every day, one of them rose in the House of Commons to ask the unanswerable question: Why? Why were the Orders of the Day in English only? Why was the menu of the parliamentary restaurant in English only? Why were the mp s’ paycheques in English only?21 On 18 December 1962, Liberal leader Lester Pearson gave a speech in the House of Commons promising that if he were elected, he would create a Royal Commission on bilingualism – the speech

Introduction

xxiii

of which, he would say in his memoirs, he was the proudest. Less than four months later, on 8 April 1963, the Liberals were elected, and on election night Pearson’s advisor Maurice Lamontagne (who had recommended the policy and written the speech) bumped into Laurendeau in a tv studio and said, “I’ve got to see you again soon – you know what about.”22 Laurendeau hesitated before agreeing to join the new commission, and according to Sandra Djwa, Scott hesitated as well. He was a year away from being required to step down as dean of law at McGill University and his tenure had not been a happy one. “His prestige among some of his immediate colleagues diminished rather than increased, and he seems to have felt a nagging sense of personal failure,” Djwa wrote.23 But Scott was a natural choice for the commission: he had argued that Canada was a bilingual country for years, he had fought on behalf of minority rights in the courts, and as a social activist, a poet, and a translator, he had tried to be a bridge between English-speaking and French-speaking Canada. In addition, he had known Lester Pearson since they had been at Oxford together, half a century earlier. When he died, in 1985, Scott was worried that he had lost his fight for bilingualism. He had hoped that Quebec’s bilingualism would be a model for the rest of the country and was furious about the introduction of legislation in Quebec making French the only official language: first Bill 22 in 1974 by the Liberals and then Bill 101 in 1977 by the Parti Québécois. He feared they would provoke a backlash against French in the rest of Canada, and was angry about what he felt were the myths being propagated about Quebec’s Englishspeaking community. It is true that his vision of a bilingual Quebec inspiring a bilingual Canada did not come to pass. Over the years, Scott moved from being a defender and explainer of French-language rights to a passionate and sometimes bitter defender of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. But with a little distance, it is possible to see now how important his influence was in fighting for a federal charter of rights and in defining language as a human right. He saw the constitution as the vessel that contained the philosophical rules and principles that governed relations between individuals and cultural groups, as well as their relations with the state. Those relationships are as critical now as they have ever been.

xxiv

Introduction

Born in Quebec City in 1899, Scott was a Rhodes Scholar who, after having settled in Montreal in 1923, became engaged not only in English-speaking political and cultural life but also with French Canada. His best-known commentary on bilingualism was in a poem first published in 1954 entitled Bonne Entente: The advantages of living with two cultures Strike one at every turn, Especially when one finds a notice in an office building: “This elevator will not run on Ascension Day”; Or reads in the Montreal Star: “Tomorrow being the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, There will be no collection of garbage in the city”; Or sees on the restaurant menu the bilingual dish: deep apple pie tartes aux pommes profondes24 In fact, language in all its forms was a passion of Scott’s: as a poet, as a translator, and as a legal scholar. And Scott never forgot his childhood in Quebec City, where learning French came naturally. “When I was eight years old, I watched the great pageant on the Plains of Abraham celebrating the tercentenary of the founding of Quebec by Samuel de Champlain in 1608,” he recalled later. “I grew up understanding the import of the nostalgic motto of Quebec – Je me souviens. Every St Jean Baptiste parade on 24 June portrayed scenes from the ancien régime. French Canada and its history were all about me.”25 His early memories also included the conscription riot in Quebec City during World War I. Scott attended Bishop’s University – then a small college in Lennoxville in Quebec’s Eastern Townships – and, on his return from Oxford, after a year teaching school, studied law at McGill. He combined his interest in language and the law: as a summer student in a law office, he translated the Coutume de Paris, the source of Quebec’s civil law, and always cherished the continuity that flowed through the civil code to Old France and to Ancient Rome. In 1928, after a year at the law firm where his eldest brother practised, he started teaching law at McGill – and, as he put it, “the next year the whole North American economy collapsed. One could not live through the Great Depression and remain politically unaffected.”26 During the grim years that followed, he became politically

Introduction

xxv

active as one of the authors of the Regina Manifesto that created the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (ccf ), precursor to the New Democratic Party (ndp ). At the same time, as he became engaged in the Montreal literary scene, he began to reach out to French-speaking writers and artists. However, his relationship to French-speaking Quebec was ambivalent. On the one hand, he was attracted by the language and culture. But while drawn to rebels and reformers, poets and intellectuals, and sympathetic to the economic discrimination suffered by Frenchspeaking Canadians, Scott was repelled by the dominant ideology of clerical conservatism and cut off from much of what was going on in literary Quebec in the 1930s and 1940s.27 It was only later that he became a major translator of French-language poetry and, in particular, Anne Hébert’s work. Politically, Scott saw French Canadians as passive victims, prey to manipulation by what he called “the provincial trinity: the Liberal Party machine, the Roman Church and St James Street … the theo-pluto-bureaucracy.”28 That analysis, formed during the Great Depression, profoundly shaped his views: that weak provincial governments allowed corporations free rein, that French-Canadian nationalism was at risk of becoming proto-fascist through manipulation of “the French masses,” and that a strong federal government was necessary to protect minority and social rights from corporate exploitation and the will of the oppressed provincial majority. At the same time, he understood the roots of French-Canadian frustration, listing the historical grievances of language rights promised and taken away, and French-language education outside Quebec systematically opposed. In a formulation that echoes Sir John A. Macdonald’s famous suggestion that if French Canadians were treated as a nation they would act generously, and if they were called a faction they would be factious, as early as 1936 Scott wrote “[i]f (French-Canadian nationalists) are simply met with Imperialist ballyhoo, Orange cries, Protestant bigotry and Anglo-Saxon conceit, they will prevail. If they are met with sympathy, understanding and reasonable concessions, French Canadians may be satisfied with something less than the break-up of the Dominion.”29 Scott saw the role of the Church in Quebec and Quebec nationalist discourse that supported it as “teaching people to be content with poor and depressed living standards when they could enjoy the fuller and richer lives which greater economic security makes

xxvi

Introduction

possible.” He saw this as “a form of enslavement.”30 So “sympathy, understanding and reasonable concessions” were not always easy for Scott to contemplate himself. This frustration also emerges in the 1943 book he wrote with David Lewis, Make This Your Canada. They could not imagine anyone who appreciated democratic equality questioning the value of bilingualism, and of what they called “two converging streams of literature, art, culture and traditions.” But they blamed capitalism for exploiting the differences between French and English, and saw bigotry on both sides of the language barrier. “On the one hand, a small group of bigoted and intolerant English-speaking Canadians have always sought to deprive French Canada of its rights,” they wrote. “On the other, a small group of equally bigoted French-speaking Canadians have played on the genuine grievances of their compatriots to encourage a narrow and anti-social provincialism.”31 This reflected Scott’s desire to build bridges between French-speaking and English-speaking intellectuals. In the same period, it is also possible to see the beginning of Scott’s exploration of the connection between individual rights and collective rights in Canada – and his ever-clearer sense of the role of language rights in that relationship. In 1947, he began a short article for Queen’s Quarterly by taking issue with a British Columbia letter-writer who had suggested to a weekly publication that, while French was the mother tongue of three million people in Quebec, Canada was not in fact a bilingual country: “English is the official language of the rest of Canada, and of 130 million people in the United States.”32 It was an argument that Scott, two decades before the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, had no patience for. “British Columbia is already, in a very important respect, a bilingual province,” he wrote. “So are all the other common-law provinces … Canada is a bilingual country, and British Columbia can truthfully be called a bilingual province.” Expressing surprise that this needed to be clarified eighty years after the British North America Act, Scott pointed out that section 133 of the Act meant that every piece of federal legislation is published in the two official languages, and that each version has the force of law. “Thus, the actions, rights and duties of Canadians, in British Columbia as elsewhere, are just as much governed by the French version of the federal law as they are by the English,” he wrote.33 Moreover, he pointed out that in 1935, Lyman Poore Duff, chief

Introduction

xxvii

justice of the Supreme Court, referred to the French version of the law, which was more precise, in order to decide a case. Scott found it difficult to understand why so many people in Canada should resist the idea that French should be officially recognized. But in his conclusion, he alluded once again to one aspect: the differing perspectives on individual and collective rights. Those who supported individual civil liberties had trouble accepting collective rights, while the French-speaking minority was more concerned for minority rights than for individual liberties. “What is needed is a blending of the two correlative ideas.”34 This was a significant part of Scott’s life work: trying to balance the two sometimes-conflicting principles of individual civil liberties and minority rights and to establish a dialogue between those who stressed one rather than the other. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982, thirty-five years later, represents the blending that Scott called for in 1947, even though Scott himself was unhappy with some of the compromises contained in the charter. In 1949, in an article for the Canadian Bar Review, Scott pointed out that, traditionally, fundamental freedoms have been individual freedoms – but that there are certain group freedoms recognized by a democratic society. “Actually the Canadian constitution has more definite protection for groups – minorities – than it has for individuals,” he wrote. “The guarantee for the use of the two languages, for instance, and for denominational schools, are group freedoms.”35 Once again, Scott was seeking to reconcile individual rights and group rights. These were more complicated for him, given the conservative, Catholic interpretation given to collective rights in Quebec – but he stressed that both were clearly part of the constitutional rights defined by the British North America Act. It was an argument that did not succeed in convincing Quebec nationalists; during the commission, Léon Dion concluded, in my view erroneously, that Laurendeau believed in group rights and Scott, an individualist, did not.36 In 1947, Scott was attacked by McGill authorities for his public affiliation with the ccf and, not long after, passed over for the position of dean of law. In the years that followed, he devoted more energy to translation and poetry as well as to progressive organizations in Canada and Quebec, where he had a major influence on a young lawyer and lecturer, Pierre Trudeau. At the Université de Montréal in 1943, Trudeau had heard Scott speak with understanding about the opposition to conscription;37 they met in 1947. Scott became a

xxviii

Introduction

mentor, supporting Trudeau as he struggled to complete the editing of the collection of articles La Grève de l’amiante,38 an important book on the Asbestos strike of 1949. And in 1956, Trudeau joined Scott on a trip down the Mackenzie River. They shared interests in the wilderness, the constitution, and social justice. However, as Christo Aivalis points out, Scott was a socialist and Trudeau, while interested in socialism, was not.39 Scott organized social evenings of English-speaking and Frenchspeaking poets, which, while friendly enough, were apparently somewhat awkward. “We were glad to meet them. They were glad to meet us. That’s about it,” recalled Louis Dudek, years later.40 Similarly, several of the Francophones found Scott’s French formal and literary, and his attitude, albeit unintentionally, patrician, paternalistic, and condescending. The nationalist author and physician Jacques Ferron even used Scott as a symbolic representation of English domination of Quebec in his novels,41 and attacked Scott publicly, saying “[h]e’s always been the Anglo. He’s on the side of the exploiters.”42 Scott’s support of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis in 1970 only confirmed Ferron’s view. When Scott agreed to join the commission, his views on language and bilingualism would be challenged, sharpened, and, in some cases, rejected. While he had a national reputation, Scott was the only representative of the English minority in Quebec. It was a key to his identity in many ways: he knew all the Quebec members of the commission and, with the exception of the co-chair Davidson Dunton, none of the members from the rest of Canada. All of them were aware that they had been asked to address an existential question. Before each public hearing, Laurendeau or Dunton – whichever one was presiding – would begin by asking three questions: “Can English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians live together, and do they want to? Under what new conditions? And are they prepared to accept those conditions?” As they listened to the very different answers in English-speaking and French-speaking Canada, the commissioners came to the conclusion that Canada was facing a crisis. Their most famous sentence was in the preamble of the Preliminary Report, published in 1965, where they wrote that they “have been driven to the conclusion that Canada, without being fully conscious of the fact, is passing through the greatest crisis in its history.” Once they had agreed on that, they realized that they were wrestling with the fate of Canada.

Introduction

xxix

Laurendeau and Dunton were co-chairs, but the real debate, intellectual and emotional, linguistic and national, was between Laurendeau and Scott. Both men had subtle minds, political idealism, personal charisma, and poetic sensibilities. As Laval political scientist Guy Laforest puts it, they were intellectuels engagés: intellectual leaders of Quebec and English-speaking Canada respectively, each one open to the other, but with very different visions of the country.43 (After Laurendeau’s death in 1968, that same tension emerged more strongly between Scott and another Quebec commissioner, Paul Lacoste.) Scott’s view was that, although French Canada could legitimately be considered a nation, Quebec was – and should be – a bilingual society. He is often viewed as opposing the idea that French-Canada was a nation; he did not. He simply rejected the idea that this nation was limited to Quebec. After a private meeting of the commissioners in 1964, he wrote, “In further conversation about the two-nation theory, I said ‘Quebec is a unilingual, unicultural society, while English Canada is a unilingual, multicultural society.’ Laurendeau agreed.” His ideal was that this bilingual model should be extended to Canada as a whole, so that the limited rights defined in the British North America Act would be extended, and the language rights that had been extinguished for francophones in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta would be restored. Laurendeau’s view, eloquently expressed in the blue pages of the first volume of the Report of the Royal Commission, was that the survival of French in Canada and North America depended upon a strong Frenchspeaking society in Quebec. Scott admired Laurendeau’s independence of thought and opposition to Duplessis, and after Laurendeau’s death, wrote an eloquent tribute in Le Devoir praising his unique mixture of passion and intelligence. “He believed deeply in the French culture and in French Canada,” he wrote. “It would be perhaps fairer to say that his faith in human values was even deeper, but he knew that these values had to be expressed in a language and culture, and for him, it was the French language and culture.” Scott praised him for his fairness, and his ability to listen to the arguments of those with whom he completely disagreed – something Scott himself found difficult. “I also profoundly admired André Laurendeau for his hatred of dictatorship and fascism,” he continued. “He is among the few public men who dared take a position on the Spanish Civil War, and show their

xxx

Introduction

sympathy for the republican government. Any sign of autocracy in the Quebec government led immediately to a reaction of opposition. He was the friend of liberty and equal justice for all.”44 However, Scott occasionally fulminated at the myths he felt that Laurendeau perpetuated about the English community, arguing that “only in the economic area do the English have a privileged place. In … other activities, as well as in politics, it is a handicap to belong to the English minority.” But both men were appalled by the ignorance and prejudice that they encountered toward French in Canada during the commission’s visits to western Canada; both were also taken aback by the degree to which separatists were dominating public discussion in Quebec. While Scott took the work seriously, he rarely lost his sense of humour. I recall his describing having learned from a scientist in Montreal that there was a pleasure spot in the brain and that an experiment had shown that rats would continue to stomp on a lever to stimulate that spot, ignoring food, until they collapsed with exhaustion. From then on, whenever Scott and the scientist would spot each other, they would lock eyes, their faces would light up and they would stomp away furiously. Of all the principles he defended throughout his career, the pleasure principle was certainly one of them. Scott did not lose his quick wit during some of those stormy hearings. At a meeting in Sherbrooke, a young man said that he cared nothing about the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, that the only minority that mattered was the English-speaking minority in Quebec, and it should leave as soon as possible. “J’y suis, j’y reste” (I’m here, I’m staying”), replied Scott. It was a phrase that reflected his sometimes-defiant definition of himself as a Quebecer – part of a community with deep roots in the society that was not going to disappear or pick up and leave. That phrase became a federalist campaign slogan in the referendum of 1980. It is possible to trace the evolution of Scott’s thinking during the period of the Royal Commission by reading his journal and some of the memos he wrote. Over the years, he moved from optimism to becoming increasingly depressed and pessimistic. On 11 August 1965, for instance, Scott wrote a memo for the commission entitled A View of Canada. He began on an upbeat note, summarizing Canada’s advantages as a prosperous, developed democracy with two

Introduction

xxxi

international working languages. However, as the 1965 Preliminary Report had made clear, the country was passing through a crisis. Scott identified three factors that had emerged, as he put it, “to disturb and threaten the original scheme of Confederation”:

· the changing functions of government in the modern state; · “the increasing sense of identity and purpose in the French·

Canadian nation and its mounting dissatisfaction with the position in which the original constitution left it, both in Quebec and in other provinces” “the slow but steady absorption of the Canadian economy into the American system of large corporate enterprise.”

It is interesting to note that Scott stresses the positive elements of French-Canadian nationalism – the increasing sense of identity and purpose – and the broader context of governance and American corporate dominance. In the memo, he rejected the idea that Quebec alone should assume responsibility for French-Canadian culture, calling it “historically false and morally reprehensible.” His view – “which I trust is the view of this Commission” – was that every government in Canada had the function of defending both cultures. Quebec, he argued, remains the centre of French culture, but the province would reject “unilingualism and any form of forcible francisation,” setting the model for other provinces to adopt more bilingualism. “The federal government … would develop its bilingual and bicultural character progressively throughout its administration,” he wrote. “Ottawa must remain, what it is now, one of the governments for all the French people in Canada just as Quebec is one of the governments for all the English in Quebec. No government, on this theory, belongs to a single race or religion, or favours one more than another.” As always, Scott saw the federal government as the crucial level for progressive change. But he was increasingly concerned that Quebec was moving away from bilingualism. “[In] Quebec, which inherited a bicultural society from before Confederation, this trend seems to be moving toward unilingualism (many examples could be cited),” he observed. “The Quebec government does not have to introduce, but to preserve, biculturalism; it would be tragic, and comic, if it disappeared in Quebec just as it was appearing elsewhere.” As late

xxxii

Introduction

as November 1966, after three years of meetings, Scott had difficulty resolving the paradox of official bilingualism: the institutions of the state becoming bilingual so that individuals can remain unilingual. It was a paradox spelled out by one of the commission’s researchers, William Mackey, who explained that bilingual countries were not created to promote bilingualism but to guarantee the maintenance and use of two or more languages. At first, Scott was a bit taken aback. “In regard to this idea of promoting unilingualism, I confess that, perhaps lacking French logic, I could not see how a Commission appointed to promote bilingualism could end up favouring the promotion of unilingualism,” he wrote, a bit sardonically. “Gradually it dawned on me, and I think on the others, that what Mackey meant was that unless there was a strong degree of unilingualism in the bilingual country for each language, one would eventually dominate and assimilate the other. Promoting unilingualism, and having two essentially unilingual groups, did not exclude the possibility that individual members of each group might be able to speak the other language as well.”45 That paradox, and Scott’s description of it, has had a substantial impact on my own thinking about language in Canada. There has always been a facile criticism about language policy in Canada that has assumed that its purpose was to make everyone bilingual: everyone is not bilingual, the argument goes, ergo the policy is a failure. But if one defines the policy as one that is intended to make governments able to serve citizens in the language of their choice so that citizens do not have to be bilingual, the policy is both more pragmatic and more achievable. It is also a policy that both assures the individual’s right to deal with the federal government in the official language that individual chooses – and one that protects, promotes, and takes positive measures for minority language communities. It is a policy that protects both individual rights and collective rights. In August 1967, in a comment objecting to two paragraphs in a draft of the first volume of the report, Scott explicitly laid out his view of language as a human right. It is an eloquent defence of language as a right, and of the English-speaking minority. “The right to one’s language in all personal and private relations is a human right. It is as inherent in man as his freedom of speech or of conscience,” he wrote. “It starts with mother and child; it continues into wider social

Introduction

xxxiii

groupings. It is not granted by the State or by Constitutions. Laws may protect it and may prescribe conditions under which it may be reasonably exercised, particularly in dealing with state authorities.” He went on to dismiss the idea of establishing more than two official languages, to stress the importance of the English language in Quebec, of its English-speaking community – then 800,000 strong and the largest language minority in Canada – and to underline the importance of the existing 1867 constitution. “Their linguistic relations with the French – a good example of equal partnership – have been developed over 200 years, and provide a model which is a powerful influence for changes in other provinces which have been slow to grant French similar rights where they are justified even by their much smaller French minorities,” he wrote. “The economic development in Quebec creates difficult problems for the French majority that we are going to speak about in another volume, and to which an answer must be found. I am not suggesting that the linguistic status quo in Quebec is to remain as at present; far from it. But section 133 of the bna Act is not an obstacle, but a great help, and it makes for an equal partnership within Quebec and is based on human rights which even the independence of Quebec would not call into question.” In the discussions in the fall of 1967, he found himself in a minority: as he put it, “the only voice for a bilingual Quebec.” He ultimately dissented from the recommendations in Volume 4, arguing that, by recommending the working language in Quebec be French, the commission was contradicting its earlier rejection of a territorial solution to the language issue. The final note that Scott struck was a pessimistic one: a ten-page legal-sized document poignantly entitled “The End of the Affair”: undated – but presumably, on the basis of the internal evidence, written in 1970, before the October Crisis – for consideration by his colleagues. He noted that the commission’s work was over but the crisis in Quebec was not, and warned that the recommendations could not solve all the problems of national unity. “I will close on a personal note,” he wrote. “It is astonishing and also frightening for me to watch Quebec abandon so many of its ancient virtues and values in order to rush into the North American capitalist system with arms open for the embrace. The values of that system I learned to despise and reject in the 1930s. I had hoped that the Catholic

xxxiv

Introduction

tradition with its greater emphasis on social obligations would somehow mitigate the prevailing Protestant ethic of free enterprise.” It was a poignant sign of age that, at seventy, he nostalgically saw “virtues and values” where at thirty-three he had denounced the Church for interpreting the Depression “as a sort of punishment from God upon greedy individuals.” But as the meetings began, in the summer of 1963, he was more optimistic.

F.R. Scott’s Journal of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1963–1971

1963

editor’s note: When Scott came to Ottawa for the first meeting, he had just turned sixty-four and was a year away from compulsory retirement at McGill. His tenure as dean of law, which many felt should have come a decade earlier, had not been a happy one and, despite his initial reluctance to join it, the commission represented a new opportunity. His first entries reflect this enthusiasm as well as his comfort with the other Quebec members (with whom he is on a first-name basis) and initial prejudice about the English-Canadian members, Royce Frith and Gertrude Laing. His condescension towards the two members whom he calls “New Canadians” shines through as well. His diary reveals something of the formality of the era and Scott’s old-fashioned mannerisms: his distinction between those with whom he is on a first-name basis and those he is not, and his description of reporters as “pressmen.” As was the case at the time, Scott refers to “Indians” and “Eskimos.”“First Nations” and “Inuit” did not come into general use until the 1970s and 1980s; in the 1960s, the Indigenous organization that was the predecessor to the Assembly of First Nations called itself the National Indian Brotherhood. Scott’s respect for Frith’s understanding of the media and public relations shifted during the years that followed as Scott himself was suspicious of the media and contemptuous of marketing. Scott also heard about the growing move towards unilingualism in Quebec, and his initial reaction was positive, reflecting that other provinces would only accept bilingualism if it were applied lightly. “The less Quebec applies it, the easier it is for them to adopt it,” he writes. Later on, he became profoundly disturbed by Quebec’s adoption of

4

The Fate of Canada

French-only language policies. From the outset, Scott was convinced that the future of Canada as a federal state was at stake. But at the end of the first day of public hearings, he confessed that he was moved that he and his fellow Commissioners had seen “some emerging glimpses of something that might be called Canada.” The beginning of the diary was written with the energy and enthusiasm of someone embarking on a new adventure. As time passes, that began to change.

f irs t m e e t in g o f t h e commi s si on, 4 – 5 s e p t e m b e r 1963 We met in Room 306 of the West Block at 2.30 on the afternoon of Wednesday, September 4th. This was the first time that the whole Commission had come together. Naturally, all those who had not met one another before were looking at the newcomers and trying to size them up as members of this Commission. I confess I had arrived with some doubts about Mrs Laing, whom I had seen described as a teacher of French in Calgary and about whom I knew nothing else, and also about Royce Frith. I was particularly doubtful about him because Mike Pearson1 talking to me on the phone from Ottawa said “Frank, trying to find a member of the family compact in Toronto who could speak French was utterly impossible.”2 This I could well understand, but it suggested that Royce Frith was not a member of the family compact in Toronto, and therefore probably could not speak for that great solid lump or heart of English Canada which is as much a basic part of our national life as the Catholic core of Quebec is. Frith must be some rather unusual fringe member of the group, I felt. As for the French Canadian members, I knew Laurendeau, Gagnon and Marchand personally well enough to call them by their first names, and it was only Father Cormier who was new to me, and about him I had heard nothing but very good reports. The “New Canadians” whose names I did not yet know how to pronounce were uncertain qualities, but I imagined that they would speak for their own groups and pretty well confine themselves to their particular interest. For the first fifteen minutes or so we were busy posing for photographs for various pressmen present and moving about and talking to one another. Then we sat down and Davie Dunton took the chair, since Laurendeau was in bed with the flu and unable to be present. Our first business was to examine our terms of reference.

1963

5

We went over these word by word, discussing the possible meaning of each word and phrase. Bilingualism was fairly easy to understand, but biculturalism was clearly full of pitfalls. Mr Wyczynski was convinced that it was not a word known in the French language and cited all sorts of great French dictionaries to prove his point. We were unable to come to any precise definition of the term, and then I said “Well, we must work with the popular notion of what is intended here, and we all pretty well understand what is referred to, though we cannot easily put it in more exact words on paper.” As we went through the text of the terms of reference it became clearer and clearer that there was literally nothing which could not be worked into our activity and our research if we so desired it. In fact, at one point I said “I think we had better decide to do whatever we need to do, and not bother any more with the terms of reference.” I was somewhat chided for this non-legal approach, but on the whole that is what we agreed we should do. It was still useful to look at all the other terms of reference, but there seemed no impediment upon our proceeding to look into every corner of the country and to the activities and attitudes of every group, if we felt it might assist us in arriving at useful conclusions at the end. At one point we stuck on the word “race.” I was delighted when Mr Rudnyckyj told us that unesco had decided there are only five races in the world, and that both French and English belong to the white race. This immediately made us turn our minds to the Indian and Eskimo minorities in Canada, and I was able to tell a story about my experience in Caughnawaga3 and the way the Indians there look upon the French and English as equally Imperialist powers. By this time the members of the Commission were feeling more at ease with one another, and the humourous element became a little more frequent, and therefore helpful. We adjourned at 6 pm agreeing to dine together at the Cercle Universitaire4 at 7. This left an hour free, so Frith and I went into the Bar at the Chateau Laurier to have ourselves a Martini which we discovered we both enjoyed. We were soon joined by Marchand and Gagnon. Even in the next half hour we exchanged a number of ideas, which, though mostly couched in humorous terms, touched in some way upon our work and upon the problem we faced. I found it very encouraging that this degree of acceptance could be so immediately reached. I may say that all afternoon and at this moment when we were sharing drinks, we talked back and forth in English and

6

The Fate of Canada

French in about an equal degree so that the question of language did not arise between us. The dinner at the Cercle Universitaire was what might be literally described as a howling success. We had more drinks before we went upstairs, and the humour and exchange of ideas increased in intensity. This does not mean that there were not serious moments when we faced up to problems we could see emerging over the horizon. I commented at one point that a great defect in our Commission was that we were too harmonious amongst ourselves, when obviously the state of the country was quite otherwise. Someone predicted that this happy state might not last the whole time we were likely to be working together. At one point I was moved to remind the Commission that at the Treaty of Paris in 1763 when France ceded Canada to Great Britain, the English King was still calling himself King of France. This was part of the official royal style and title. Therefore the cession was between one King of France and another. At this point, Marchand interrupted and said “The next thing you will be telling us is that we won the Plains of Abraham.” It was in this vein that the conversation continued. We went on until quite late that night. Our meeting the next morning began with consideration of the subjects on which research was needed. We were all in a rather sticky mood and it was very difficult to get a sense of agreement and common purpose. A suggested list of topics had been prepared by the co-Chairman5 and was put before us. As we went through item by item it became clear that if we were to do the whole job imposed by our terms of reference we would have to inquire into every kind of activity – cultural, religious, social, economic, educational – in Canada not only going on at this moment but as it had been developed in the past. One could see a vast accumulation of pamphlets, reports and books, all promoted by the work of our Commission and presenting us with a baffling array of statistics and events out of which we would be supposed to distill some suitable solution. This would be quite apart from the obviously vast number of briefs, reports and suggestions which would come in from all the groups and individuals who were to be asked to appear before us. Years of reading and cogitating stretched before us. One item on the research list was the study of other countries facing similar problems to ours, in regard to racial relations and multi lingual groups. It seemed obvious that we would have to visit

1963

7

Europe at some future time, but Marchand wisely suggested that our first announcement to the Press should not be to this effect. At 4.15 in the afternoon we went in to see the Prime Minister. Once again we were photographed. As usual, Mrs Laing, as the only woman member, was asked to sit beside the central figure, in this case Mike Pearson. In our photo of yesterday, she was placed beside Davie Dunton, and as she went to sit down at his invitation, she said “Quoi, ce phénomène.” Davie Dunton said to her, as I was standing right behind her, “Oh, I thought you were referring to Frank Scott.” Walking back from the Parliament Buildings she said to me that she was not a feminist but she still found it strange that just because she was a woman she had to be treated as some kind of unusual appendage to our group. During our conversation with the PM, Marchand repeated to him my remark about the two kings of France and the Treaty of Paris, whereupon the PM asked a question which indicated that he had no exact idea when the Treaty of Paris took place. This, however, I would think quite common among the leading statesmen of English Canada at this time. Certain questions were asked about this first Commission meeting, which I shall repeat here and to which I shall give an immediate answer: Q. What was your opinion of Royce Frith after you had had a few Martinis with him, and talked to him? A. I must say that my opinion of him went up steadily from the rather low point at which I had started, admittedly out of pure prejudice without any real knowledge. I was struck by his appearance at first since he was very tall, rather aquiline features, and had the most extraordinary bluish look, not only in his eyes, but all around his eyelids and eye sockets. Indeed he almost seemed coloured in that portion of his face, but this strangeness all disappeared as I began to feel his ability and sincerity, and his very considerable sense of reality about the nature of our task. He had a fine sense of public relations and public attitudes, derived, no doubt, from the fact that he runs a radio station as well as being a practising lawyer. While drinking Martinis it was obvious that he had a good sense of humour and that we could exchange ideas easily and rapidly. I felt much cheered by this growing liking for the man.

8

The Fate of Canada

Q. As well, no doubt, as the fact that you both smoke pipes? A. Yes, this is another bond of sympathy. It was not only that we smoked pipes: it was that we smoked the same pipe, namely the Brigham, manufactured by a single individual in the City of Toronto. From now on our union is cemented in this manner. Q. How is his French? A. His French is excellent. I asked him where he learned it, he said Montreal, where he was born. Q. What was your opinion of Mrs Laing? A. Here again I was very favourably impressed and revised my wholly unjustified opinion upward. She is an elderly woman who still has a fine appearance and obviously must have been a beautiful woman in her youth.6 She spoke sensibly on all questions, in excellent French, and brought to us the more western outlook on many of the questions we were discussing. I think she was well chosen. Q. What were Mrs Laing’s comments about Western opinion? A. It became clear as we thought about it and heard more about it that one of our great difficulties on the Commission would be to evoke from English Canada the kind of serious thinking that the situation calls for. Quebec opinion has moved very far and very fast on its own in the past year or so, but it has expressed itself almost exclusively in the French language and what it is thinking and dreaming about has not been conveyed to English Canada. Therefore there is a growing rift or gap between Quebec opinion and that of the rest of the country, which indeed is often reacting negatively on hearing of nothing but the more extreme expressions of separatist opinion.7 We were therefore deeply concerned about the problem of conveying to English Canada our sense of the seriousness of the situation in which the country finds itself. We discussed the possibility of making preliminary visits to several important centres, not to receive briefs from individuals and associations, but rather to meet privately with community leaders in order to explain to them the seriousness of the situation facing the country and the necessity of their all taking

1963

9

it very seriously and bringing to us their most considered opinions. This led us to a further idea that we ought to try to phrase a statement about the purposes of our Commission, a sort of “Document de Base” which would put in simpler and more direct terms what is implicit in our terms of reference. This we could give to those leaders of opinion, and indeed to the Press at some suitable time, so that we would evoke better response than our mere appointment has done so far in parts of the country remote from Quebec. Q. What is your impression of the two representing the other cultural elements in Canada? A. They seemed fairly solid citizens, particularly Rudnyckyj from Winnipeg. I suspect that Mr Wyczynski has got a single idea, and that is to talk about the Slavs in Canada. At one point he was telling us that a very early French Canadian poet was quite influenced by meeting a Pole in Paris in the 1860s. This evoked little response from the rest of us. Nevertheless, he is modest and quiet and does not interrupt the general discussion about which he clearly does not know very much. One thing they both agreed, however, was that the term “New Canadians” was quite misleading and should be abandoned. They gave stories of individuals of German and Russian descent whose grandfathers had come to Canada, whose fathers had been born in Canada as they themselves were, and who were still expected to call themselves “New Canadians.” This is obviously absurd and we searched for some term other than this that might be more reasonable and more accurate. We could not come to any other phrase than “Other Groups.”8 This again illustrates the difficulty of terminology in dealing with the complex material before us. Q. Did Mr Pearson make any comment about an additional member on the Commission representing the West? A. Yes, he hinted to us rather gently but quite seriously that he might be obliged to add another member to the Commission in view of the pressures put upon him from various quarters. He said that what he was looking for was a business man from British Columbia of Teutonic origin who was at least a veteran of some war and who spoke French.9 This last requirement he said practically ruled out everybody in British Columbia. His good humour throughout the

10

The Fate of Canada

interview suggested that he was not himself too worried about the complaints against the Commission being made to him and that it might be that we could continue as we are. Q. You are a Commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and in your own internal procedures, how are you applying bilingualism? Are you going to have each person speak in his own language, the one in which he will express himself best, or are you speaking English and English and French and French? A. Everybody speaks to the whole Commission in his own language and anyone who wants to answer chooses either French or English. The result seems to be that someone will make some leading remark or ask a leading question, let us say in French, whereupon a number of us will participate in the discussion for some time until suddenly for no apparent reason someone will make an English interjection and everyone will revert to English. Thus we seem to go back and forth between the two languages without very clear notions as to when or why we do it, which is another way of saying that we really are truly bilingual in our operations. I notice, however, that we do not have someone speaking in English and being answered in French, or speaking in French and being answered in English back and forth in the separate language, we tend to speak for some time in French and then some time in English, and this seems to suit one’s manner of thinking better than the alternate answering of English with French. One other aspect of this problem arose when we considered what we would do in our public hearings in different parts of the country. We anticipated that quite a number of people might wish to sit in on our hearings and that, therefore, there might be an audience of some size in various centres. The question was, should we have instantaneous translation provided for all spectators at public hearings. If we were to do this, and there was a good deal to be said for it in terms of equality of language and opportunity, the expense would be truly enormous, since the special equipment would have to be provided in every place where we had our hearings and a number of the specially trained translators would have to accompany us. It was obvious that in many centres there might not be any single word of French spoken except possibly by the representatives of the French minority in that province who would probably have English versions of their

1963

11

submissions to hand to the local press, even though they themselves addressed the Commission in French. It was therefore concluded that it would be reasonable simply to engage the services of two ordinary translators who would accompany the Commission, who could help in translating any statement we might have to make into the two languages, and who would be with the press men following public hearings to explain to them any points in the presentations that they might not be able to understand. Q. You mentioned earlier something about the image of the Commission. Would you explain that? A. I think it was Royce Frith who insisted that in all our public announcements and press statements we pay great attention to the effect that our statements are likely to have upon the public in general. He said it is most important that we create an image of our Commission as being the kind of Commission we want them to think it is. This means that we must not say certain things, and we must stress other things. We all agreed that we must take great care about our public relations, but it was not so easy to decide what kind of image we wished to present. We were careful, however, in announcing the subjects on which research was being organized not to include in the list some of the more delicate subjects that might arouse resentment. For instance, we decided to inquire into the attitude of the churches towards bilingualism and biculturalism, recognizing that within the Catholic Church itself there are sharp divisions of opinion and considerable tensions. In Prince Edward Island we were told the English speaking Bishop refuses to admit French speaking young men to the seminary in order that they may become priests. He does not wish to have French speaking priests in his diocese. It was indicated that other situations of this kind might be found, and while we all agreed we would look into this situation, we felt there would be no point in announcing it immediately to the public. The actual published list of subjects on which research was being planned was, therefore, limited to fairly obvious areas that could easily be deduced from our terms of reference. Q. Was there any restriction placed on the public speaking or on the comments that would be permitted to the members of the Commission?

12

The Fate of Canada

A. Yes, we all agreed that we must not accept any invitations to speak in public about the work of the Commission or indeed about the general problems which it must investigate. This would not preclude discussing these issues discreetly with friends or even perhaps in unreported gatherings of an academic or professional kind. What had to be avoided was any kind of statement available to the press which would indicate in advance that any Commissioner had already adopted a particular attitude or would recommend a particular solution to any problem that is going to come before us.

s e c o n d m e e t in g o f t h e commi s si on, 1 6 – 1 7 s e p t e m ber 1963 This meeting took place in our new offices in the Daly Building just across from the Chateau Laurier, on the 5th floor … Our first business was to look over the Minutes, or “Comptes Rendus” of the last meeting. There were several corrections to be made. It was evident that certain decisions taken at the last meeting were not wholly understood by the members of the Commission; in particular, a decision not to use simultaneous translation in all our public hearings across the country, which I am convinced – and Davie Dunton was convinced – had been firmly agreed, was challenged by Jean-Louis Gagnon, who obviously wanted us to use the translation system in all parts of Canada. He was so anxious about this that I felt convinced that he had some deeper motive, possibly the desire to give evidence of bilingualism in every part of the country, even in situations where there would not be a single person using the French translation. At any rate, the issue was reopened and left to be decided later.

editor’s note: The commissioners then decided they should extend the invitation to appear before them as widely as possible. The secretaries reported on the progress in launching research programs, invitations to Canadian Embassies in countries with more than one language, contact with unesco , and the organization of a press clipping service. Scott took issue with Royce Frith’s proposal that the commission visit all parts of Canada to talk about the work of the commission. I could just imagine the variety of answers that would be given to the journalist in the different places when they put to members of the

1963

13

Commission the kind of leading questions they would certainly ask. I think the idea was dropped without any formal vote being taken.

editor’s note: Ultimately, the commission did travel across the country to hear submissions from the public. From the outset, Rudnyckyj and Wyczynski sought to include non-French, nonEnglish cultures in the discussion, which seemed to them to be in danger of being neglected because of the emphasis on biculturalism. The evening session was devoted to a discussion of each of the “Documents de Base” in turn. Each author spoke briefly to his paper and questions were asked about it. One of the longest arguments occurred over Rudnyckyj’s definition of “Multiple Bilingualism.” He is a very learned linguist, has attended many international conferences where these terms have been discussed, and rather confounded us with the weight of his knowledge. Bilingualism in the strict sense means the knowledge of any two languages; “multiple” or “extended” bilingualism means the use of more than two languages. The terms “Bilingual” in our terms of reference seems to imply a use of both French and English. However, a person who can speak Greek and English, or Polish and French, is also in the strict sense bilingual. Obviously this form of bilingualism is not the prime concern of our Commission. This attempt at defining terms more accurately was carried on even further in Wyczynski’s paper, and I must admit that these two members of the Commission did force the rest of us to clarify certain concepts which we had assumed we understood. For instance, the distinction between “Official languages” and “National languages” appeared to us very useful. The official languages of Canada are French and English, but the Indian languages, the Eskimo language, and the language of other minority groups in Canada can properly be described as National languages. Since our terms of reference require us to consider the cultural contribution of other groups to Canada we must at some point consider what should be done to preserve and to develop the use of these other national languages. Rudnyckyj made a stalwart attempt to prove that when the terms of reference spoke of “bilingualism” they included “multiple-bilingualism,” which would mean that we should be just as much concerned with all the other national languages as we were with the two official languages. This involved him in long arguments, particularly with the French speaking members of the

14

The Fate of Canada

Commission and the English speaking members sat back and looked on with some interest and even amusement, However, the attempt was obviously futile and failed, and we all agreed that bilingualism and biculturalism were used in the generally accepted Canadian sense, that is, a reference only to the English and French languages, and to the English and French “Cultures.” We went on to ask ourselves what the word “Culture” meant. It soon became evident that there was no accepted definition of it. Wyczynski distinguished it from the word “Civilization” and startled the French members by saying that Canada possessed a single civilization but two cultures. On the definition of the word “Civilization” which he used in his paper it was obvious that he was correct. Culture, according to him, includes all the mental processes, the language, the manners of thought and the traditions out of which people produce and manufacture objects in their general way of life. The objects themselves, the manufactured things, are part of the general civilization. Thus it is part of culture for a scientist and an engineer to invent an electric train, but once the train gets on the tracks and starts operating it is part of the civilization. On this analysis all our automobiles, airplanes, radios, television sets, films, etc., are part of our civilization, and are obviously common to all Canada. It is even further obvious that they are common to all of North America, and therefore Canada is just part of the North American civilization. One could go even further and say that this is the technological civilization that is spreading around the world and that we are all rapidly being caught up in it. Thus a single civilization is developing underneath which there are a variety of separate ways of life, language groups, and communities which are said to have a separate culture. I was particularly glad that a distinction was sought between culture and civilization, since it is obvious that not only the French and English in Canada but every other group in Canada shares a great many habits and ways of life deriving from our industrial society which unite them in their understanding of how they live in the world about them. The emphasis in our terms of reference on the “Bi” culture, seems to suggest that we should look for those factors which make us totally different from one another. If we think along these lines we will get a very false picture of the world about us. While not all the members of the Commission would accept the distinction between the words Culture and civilization, they all agreed that we had these common factors and they should not be forgotten.

1963

15

Afterwards Lacoste told me that it was a Germanic way of thinking to distinguish culture and civilization and that the French sociologists would never accept it. Q. You said that people asked questions about the various statements, were there any questions about your statement? A. Yes there were. On the whole it was well received, and I had given more emphasis to the historical setting of our work than had the others, but my paragraph about the fact as I saw it that the very future of Canada as a Federal State was at stake was rightly criticized by Marchand as implying judgment upon matters which we had not yet had an opportunity of inquiring into. He said he was inclined to believe I was right, but he did not think we should put anything out before the public which implied that we had come to a conclusion so serious until all the evidence was before us. I explained that I was thinking of the necessity of arousing serious interest in areas of Canada, particularly English speaking Canada, which doubted that there was any necessity for our Commission; however, I agreed that his criticism was just and that we had to present every appearance of persons whose minds were not made up upon any questions which might have to be decided. On the whole I felt this second meeting had been very useful in helping the Commission to explore more deeply the nature of the problem presented to it. The wrestling over semantics, the testing of the meaning of “Terms” brought out the differences of outlook which account for so much of the lack of communication and understanding between one side and another. I suggested that we should begin to compile our own lexicon of terms, and when we had finally agreed upon what we meant a word to mean we should write it down and have it ready for the future occasion when we start to write the report. It was agreed that the mere clearing up of differences in the uses of terms would make for clearer thinking and speaking by Canadians about their own common problems.

t h ir d m e e t in g o f t he commi s si on, 3 – 5 o c to b er 1963 We met in the Daly Building as usual, all present. The first order of business was fire drill, which took the entire building out on to the street, all looking rather sheepish since the building had every

16

The Fate of Canada

appearance of being fireproof. I asked whether we could not eliminate the paragraph which said that we had decided to buy ten copies of all necessary books costing less than two dollars and three copies of books that cost more than two dollars. I felt a future historian might feel that we were not taking our work very seriously. Apparently it is impossible to remove any of the recorded minutes and this will, therefore, stand as an indication of our thinking at that point.

editor’s note: Scott noted that there had been virtually no reaction to the invitation to make submissions that had been in newspapers the previous week. We then proceeded to consider voting rules for those instances where it might become necessary to decide a question by majority vote. This presented considerable difficulties in view of the bicultural and bilingual nature of the Commission. While we all agreed we were there as individuals and not committed to any group, free to make our own individual decisions on any point, nevertheless the fact was evident that the membership was chosen so as to give the two “Founding races” equal representation and to add to them representatives of the other ethnic groups. It would therefore be highly improper to apply straight majority rule because the minority might contain all the members of one group. In working out a compromise, the first suggestion was that there should be considered two halves to the Commission, five English speaking and five French speaking, and that no decision would be taken if as many as three from either side opposed it. At this point, Mr Rudnyckyj threw the whole meeting into consternation by announcing that he was neither English speaking nor French speaking, but bilingual in the truest sense, since English and French were both foreign tongues to him and he had learned to speak them equally well. He asserted that he was just a straight Canadian, neither English nor French, not attached to one culture more than another and he refused to be called anything but a Canadian. This meant that there would be five French speaking Canadians and only four English speaking Canadians, plus one Canadian, thus destroying the whole symmetry of the Commission. Faced with the emergence of something we hardly ever spoke about, namely a Canadian citizen,10 we were baffled as to how to work voting procedures that still paid attention to the existence of two main groups. After a great deal of argument and many ingenious

1963

17

suggestions, it was agreed that we should not divide the Commission into language groups, but we would simply agree that there would be no decision taken if any three of the two groups of names then listed were opposed to a motion. All the English speaking Commissioners, including Rudnyckyj, were listed as one group of five, and all the French speaking ones as the other. When I asked why we agreed to this and not to the original suggestion, there were general cries of “Don’t raise that question. Issue is closed.” This set off Frith who quite solemnly announced that he would refuse this classification also. We all turned on him and forced him into silence by the severity of our looks and the decision was taken. I had a good talk with Gagnon and Lacoste in the Jasper Room. Both agreed that the work of the Commission was a marvellous education not only in the nature of Canada but in the problems of group relations in a society. I pointed out that if we were going to spend two million dollars, which is highly probable, then this was the equivalent to a scholarship of two hundred thousand dollars apiece – not bad even in the days of the Ford Foundation. It did cheer me to feel that they had this real interest in the work, since I am so doubtful that in fact it is going to make a great deal of difference to the course of events. After Lacoste left, Gagnon and I stayed on, he consuming Pernods and I Martinis, and we talked quite frankly about every possibility in Quebec and the general trends of opinion. Though he is a good nationalist he has absolutely no belief in the possibility of Quebec becoming independent, in view of the economic attachments which corporate enterprise have fastened upon her in every corner of the land. When the newspaper strike was on in New York, for instance, workers in Three Rivers11 were laid off. This, of course, is true of the whole of North America, and indeed of many parts of the world, and the economic relationships keep compelling larger political jurisdictions.

editor’s note After a lengthy debate, the commissioners decided to provide simultaneous interpretation at all their public hearings in all parts of the country. The expense would be very great, but as a symbol of equal partnership the provision of the service would be very important, and in addition it would enable the English speaking journalists particularly

18

The Fate of Canada

to follow the exchange of questions and answers between the Commissioners and persons submitting briefs in French. Also the translation being provided by an outside service would not involve the Commissioners in responsibility should it be inaccurate. We felt that part of our function was the dissemination as widely as possible of the views of different groups in Canada to all other parts of the country, and it seemed that the system of instantaneous translation would ensure this the best way possible. On Saturday morning (5th) we addressed ourselves to the list of questions which each Commissioner had compiled in order to find a common basis of agreement as to the research that was necessary and the main problems that would have to be dealt with. Father Cormier thought it would be helpful if he read us a paragraph from some American book called “Methods in Research.” This listed five procedures for drawing up a questionnaire. After he had reached Number 5 and finished, we heard Marchand say “and then there is number 6. Tear up the whole thing.” Marchand then raised the problem of Executive power for the Commission. Most Royal Commissions have fewer than ten in membership, and we were clearly too large to be effective in administrative and executive matters. It was thought best to instruct the Chairmen and the Secretaries to act on executive matters, with the authority to consult any member or members of the Commission they felt could be helpful on the issue. I said we were more like the États généraux12 than like the usual commission with authority to act on all questions. I had lunch with Mike Pitfield13 at the Rideau Club and had a very good talk about the Commission and its weaknesses. He says it has a poor reputation in Ottawa, as not being representative enough and too filled with professors. He then talked about the difficulties in the Federal Civil Service in finding suitable French Canadians; indeed the best ones are leaving to work in Quebec and others do not want to live in Ottawa. It could be that there will come an actual decline in numbers of French in Ottawa, thus providing the St Jean Baptiste Society14 and Le Devoir with further fuel to add to the nationalist flames. Mike also said that he spent some weeks recently in Quebec and was astonished at the way in which the English were being removed from positions they have previously been admitted to. He cited the new museum board which previously had nine French Canadians and three English Canadians, and as reorganized

1963

19

by Lapalme15 has now twelve French Canadians and no English. He said this is very general, and that the French Canadian does not begin to apply in Quebec the cultural rights he claims in Ottawa. This I must look into carefully, since Quebec is officially a bilingual province and the degree to which other provinces will accept official bilingualism may largely depend upon the degree to which they think they have to apply it strictly. The less Quebec applies it, the easier it is for them to adopt it. Mike asked my opinion as to whether he should go and work in Quebec with Marc Lalonde16 who is very close to Paul GérinLajoie,17or stay on in the Federal service. I told him that I thought the English minority in Quebec should take a much more active part in public life since they are no longer going to be protected through their financial power. I strongly urged him to leave Ottawa and work in the Provincial service if possible.18 At one of these sessions a Federal official came in to explain about the expense accounts and the hundred dollars per diem for Commissioners. Several of the members claimed that every time they read a book or attended a Conference with the Royal Commission in mind they should be paid a hundred dollars for a day’s work. The Federal official gently reminded them that all the expenses of the Commission were available to the public, that questions would most certainly be asked in the House of Commons as to how much the Commission was costing, and what the individual Commissioners were being paid, and that any excessive amounts or any unusual payments to one or more of the Commissioners would certainly be spotted. The thought of this publicity had a very sobering effect on the claims. Eventually it was decided that only work done outside the general sessions at the request of the Chairmen could be counted as work for which the per diem would be paid. Some of the Commissioners felt that they had done a good deal of work in preparing the list of questions. I said mine had taken me about two hours, to which Rudnyckyj added his had taken him twelve hours. At which point Marchand commented “It’s going to pay to be stupid.” A further important decision was to hold a public hearing lasting two days, to which would be invited organizations and individuals in order that they could meet the Commission and tell it what they thought it should be inquiring into. This technique was used by the Health Commission under Judge Hall,19 and by others. It tends to create an image of the Commission formally beginning its work and

20

The Fate of Canada

this was felt to be something we had not yet created in the public mind. I reminded the members that the only picture the Montreal Star carried of the Commission at the time it met the Prime Minister in his office and was clearly beginning its work, was one of myself and Frith holding our pipes and described as the two pipe smoking members. Other selected pictures at the time tended to show individual Commissioners in rather dubious poses. None of these created a proper image in the public mind of a serious body of people beginning an extremely important task. I strongly urged that we get the cbc to provide a half hour in English and a half hour in French for the tv network at the time of the public hearing. On Thursday evening Davie Dunton had a reception at his house, to which the Commissioners and their wives and some other Government officials had been invited. It was a pleasant if certainly not particularly impressive gathering.

f o u rt h a n d f if t h meeti ngs of t h e c o m m is s io n , 6 november 1963 I gave my usual lecture to the second year at ten o’clock, and rushed out to the airport to catch the airplane to Ottawa at twelve. Gagnon and Marchand were with me on the plane and we joined in the Jasper Room of the Chateau Laurier for a drink before a bite of lunch and going off to the afternoon meeting at 2.30. This time we had moved to our permanent offices in the ibm Building at 150 Laurier Avenue. The room we met in was too small, we were crowded at tables and found it difficult to feel at ease in the new environment. At one point Dunton was saying that by biculturalism we did not mean that every Canadian would be expected to become a kind of hybrid, having a mixture of the two cultures in his make-up. I objected somewhat to the word hybrid, saying that I felt that I had a good deal of both cultures in my make-up and that it was to me a valuable thing which I hoped other Canadians would experience, and I certainly did not consider myself a hybrid. At this point, Jean Marchand said to me “You may be a hybrid even if you do not know it.” A typical Marchand remark. At six o’clock we went to the Press Club to which we were told we were invited. We may have been invited, but anything less like a welcoming party would have been difficult to imagine. A few rather bedraggled journalists were wandering about, not paying much

1963

21

attention to us, and while we were able to buy our own drinks there did not seem to be much point in the whole meeting. I joined John Bird and he took me back to his house for dinner where I had a good talk with him and with Florence.20 She had just recently made a documentary film for tv in which she talked about bilingualism in Switzerland and Belgium. It is clear that these are places from which we can learn a good deal. We went back to the office at eight o’clock and worked until after eleven polishing up document B21 and going over the personal statement that Laurendeau had prepared for tomorrow’s hearings. It was quite an exhausting day and we looked forward with some trepidation to the public appearance. How we were to present ourselves to the public and conduct the proceedings occupied a good deal of our discussion. On Thursday the 7th, we gathered in Cathedral Hall on Sparks Street for the public sessions. Alan Thomas made a very good opening statement for the Canadian Association of Adult Education.22 He told us, what many others repeated, that it was essential we get through the briefs presented by top executives of large organizations to what is actually being thought by the ordinary membership of these organizations all across the country. He felt also that the way we conducted our hearings, and the degree to which we involved the whole Canadian nation, were factors probably more important than the ultimate recommendations we would arrive at. Roger Provost for the Quebec Federation of Labour23 went further and said it would be little use bringing important recommendations to a public that had not been prepared to receive them by preliminary hearings and discussion; he was obviously thinking of the difficulties the Parent Commission in Quebec24 had met in its recommendation for a Ministry of Education which had obviously startled many sections of Quebec opinion, including Bishops,25 that a reaction set in and the recommendation had to be considerably watered down by the Government in introducing Bill 60.26 The advice of many people was that we should “publicly engage in a lengthy dialogue” by all sorts of means and in every part of the country. Some comments on individuals who appeared: Mr (Don) Jamieson, President of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, said he was a Newfoundlander and therefore “An original separatist.”27

22

The Fate of Canada

Michael Oliver made an excellent presentation on behalf of McGill’s French Canada Studies Programme. He stressed the need of an advisory committee for research which we have not yet set up. Nice old Judge Lindal of Winnipeg28 spoke very sympathetically about the need for universal teaching of French across Canada, and questioned whether Manitoba had the right in its School Act to provide that all instruction in the public schools must be given in English. Robert Thompson,29 leader of the Social Credit party, might have convinced you that he was intelligent if you had not known otherwise. Séraphin Marion.30 Although he said he spoke for six hundred thousand French Canadians in Ontario, his only contribution was that we should replace the world biculturalism with the word biculturism. I had lunch at the Embassy Restaurant with Jean-Louis Gagnon and Père Cormier, and we agreed as a result of the morning hearings, that we had to organize the work of the Commission much better and prepare a definite plan of action for the coming months. We also discovered that we had been quite moved at times during the morning hearings at the feeling that there was great potentiality in the country, and by the possibility that our work might come to some fruitful results. We had seen some emerging glimpses of something that might be called Canada. We went through a long afternoon with a great many individuals speaking for a number of organizations or for themselves. Noel Fieldhouse31 made a very poor showing for McGill by comparison with Lussier32 for the University of Montreal. Mrs Monture,33 speaking for the National Indian Council, was the only person whose presentation was greeted with clapping. Don Armstrong34was very good in talking about what might be done to investigate the practices of private corporations in respect of problems of language as between management and labour. Pierre Trudeau35 seemed very uncertain about what he wanted to say, appeared to be thinking aloud rather than giving us some careful thought and was not at all impressive; he seems to have lost touch with what is going on in Quebec. Ken Pearson,36 representing the Ontario Jaycees after some ordinary comments asked a very significant question “Does the Commission have to recommend an increase in biculturalism, or can it come to the conclusion that this would be a bad thing? Would

1963

23

we receive a brief arguing against biculturalism?” The Chairman, Dunton, said we were bound by our terms of reference, but Frith and I intervened to say that we felt that any kind of opinion would be received by the Commission and that witnesses were free to take any position they wanted. It is obvious that we may have separatists in Quebec, and anti biculturalists in other parts of Canada. We adjourned at 7.00 pm to meet again at 8.30. A number of witnesses were now almost as weary as we were, and took much less time to give us their opinions. Old John Hughes, former head of the Department of Education at McGill, gave a personal statement in which the only point worth noting was that he took strong objection to the term “Anglo Saxon” and preferred to use the term for himself, the Irish, Welsh and Scots, “Anglo Celtic.” Burton Keirstead37appeared on his own and said he would like to bring a brief stressing the importance of economic factors. At one point where he made a reference to this country “which we all love” he seemed about to burst into tears and I felt that he was deeply moved. This may be partly due to his uel 38 background, but I fancy was more due to the amount he had had to drink. Michael Garber39 took strong exception to the word Race in the English version of the terms of reference, and in this he echoed what many other people had said. One after another of the representatives of the “Other ethnic groups” rose up to say that the English and the French were setting up a private domain for themselves in which all other groups would be second class citizens.40 I was astonished to hear Jenkins, representing the Canadian Union of Students,41 tell us that his group did not wish us to pay any attention to other ethnic groups except insofar as they were associated with the English and French cultural community. I guessed that the reorganization of the cus has made the voice of the French Canadian students so dominant that this opinion emerged as the official view of the whole Federation. This gives an inkling of what might happen to Canada as a nation state if equal representation in Ottawa were accorded to both groups. On Friday, the 8th, we began at ten o’clock and went through until 6.30 in the evening, with a long succession of witnesses. Evan Turner42 of Montreal Museum of Fine Arts introduced a new and interesting aspect of the question with his reference to the importance of the visual and plastic arts. He warned about the effect on artistic expression of a political chauvinism, obviously having experienced the beginning of it in his work in Montreal.

24

The Fate of Canada

In the afternoon, B. Melvin, Chairman of the Saskatchewan Committee on Bilingualism, told me that his government was setting up this Committee to make a survey of the problem within the Province of Saskatchewan. This good example of a Province adding its own effort to ours on the national plane made a very fine impression on my fellow commissioners, who expressed the hope that other provinces might follow suit. Frawley,43 the Deputy Attorney General of Alberta, came forward with the specious argument that we ought not to consider any constitutional questions since there was already a Committee of Attorneys General dealing with constitutional amendment. He knew very well, as he admitted to my question, that this Committee was only concerned with repatriating the Canadian Constitution and not at all with amending individual articles. When Mrs Saul Hayes of the National Council of Women44 said she represented 750,000 in Canada, Jean Marchand leaned over and whispered to me “Have you got their addresses?” The most ridiculous, but still somewhat amusing performance was that of Mr Bossy45 who talked about his family of fifty children and grandchildren intermarried into some ten different ethnic groups. “What are we?” he asked. “We are just Canadians. There are five million of us in Canada, what are you going to do with us?” It was a question that we realized we had not begun to answer in our own minds. The Rev. P. Wilkinson46 of the Anglican Church of Canada introduced a suave and mellifluous comment that suggested that good will and good breeding might solve all our problems. Nevertheless he was the only one who touched upon one fundamental point: What influence will the Ecumenical Council have upon biculturalism in Canada? He promised to deal with this in the brief of the Anglican Church. At 6.30 we returned to our hotel utterly exhausted, and just had time to pack and catch the plane to Montreal.

s ix t h m e e t in g o f t h e commi s si on, 1 4 – 1 5 n ov e m b er 1963 I caught an 8.45 plane to Ottawa, checked in at the Lord Elgin Hotel and arrived a few minutes late for the meeting being held in the Commission headquarters in the ibm Building. The previous Minutes were read, and our first topic of discussion was whether or not we should ask the Government to amend our terms of reference,

1963

25

as Prime Minister Pearson had suggested might be done. It was generally felt that there would be a grave danger in opening up the question afresh at this time, apart from the somewhat absurd position the Commission would be in if it were to write its own terms of reference. I proposed that we say that we do not intend to ask for a change, as we consider this to be the Government’s responsibility, but that it would be helpful if there were a clarification, as between the French and English texts in the use of the word “peuples” and the word “races” as its translation. We prefer of course to keep the word “Peuples” and translated by the word “peoples,” thus eliminating a little of the implicit racialism in the present wording.47 A long discussion then ensued as to whether we should hold further preliminary hearings in different parts of the country as suggested by many people the previous week. As we thought about the matter it became clear that we had a function not previously realized, namely the education of the people of Canada in the issues that have to be faced. I said that were we now to require people to write briefs before having the advantage of a preliminary discussion with us, we could well imagine what those briefs might be like coming from different parts of English Canada particularly; they would merely defend the status quo and not come to terms with the issues. It was felt that a grass roots contact was needed. The problem was how to do it and when to do it, without giving the impression that we were still in a fairly preliminary stage and not getting on with our business. We decided at least to meet with the two Provincial Commissions on bilingualism set up by the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Governments, and also to send the two co-Chairmen across the country to meet with Provincial Governments. At this point we adjourned for lunch, and I made use of my new membership in the Rideau Club where I joined Grattan O’Leary,48 Michael Pitfield and Senator Norman Lambert.49 The conversation was all about the Commission, its dangers and its opportunities. Senator Lambert was insistent that we should go soon to Winnipeg to repeat the performance of last week in Ottawa.

editor’s note: In the afternoon, the commissioners discussed visiting Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Quebec City, and Halifax. Ultimately, they would have many more public meetings, including Victoria, Calgary, Saskatoon, London, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Fredericton, Sydney, Yarmouth, and St John’s.

26

The Fate of Canada

I was asked to approach the special Committee appointed by the Quebec Legislature to consider Quebec’s Constitutional demands, in order to acquaint myself with their work and to establish a contact between our two bodies. After adjournment at five I joined Peter Newman50 in the Elgin bar to discuss the material he wants to put into an important article in Maclean’s magazine on French Canadian nationalism. I warned him that I might not be able to allow myself to be quoted in any way. However, he insisted in taking down some comments I made on the understanding that he would give me a chance to edit or even exclude them if I wished. I then went off to see John and Florence Bird who were celebrating their 35th wedding anniversary. A large party of people I had not seen for a very long time, such as Wynne Plumptre and his Australian wife,51 Lou Rasminsky,52 Maryon Pearson,53 and some others. The Commission met at the Cercle Universitaire for dinner. This was as lively and useful as the first dinner we had had at the same place at the time of our first meeting. Jean-Louis Gagnon led us all in his insistence on the best wines and the best dishes. While there was a good deal of badinage and plain story telling, every now and then we talked about some problem that faced us or some question in Canadian history that related to our work and I could feel as the evening went on that we were strengthening what was already a very considerable degree of mutual understanding and respect. The latter part of the evening was spent considering the names of persons who would be suitable either as members of a Research Committee or possibly as Director of Research. It was evident that we would have difficulty of finding the services of first rate research directors at this time in the academic year. Everyone seemed to agree that Michael Oliver would be the ideal person as Director of Research. However Laurendeau said it would be impossible to engage him in view of the fact that he had only recently resigned as Federal Chairman of the New Democratic Party. He said the difficulty was not so much his association with a party as his association with a party which had taken a definitive stand in favour of the two-nation theory of Canadian federalism. We were under such suspicion already of being obliged to adopt this theory by our terms of reference, that we should avoid if possible any further suspicion in the public mind. When I asked whether Laurendeau would be as much opposed to Michael Oliver if he had once been Chairman of the Conservative Party he replied that he

1963

27

unquestionably would. Other members of the Commission agreed. I suggested that this was perhaps a situation where justice must not only be done, but must obviously appear to be done. I saw Rudnyckyj nodding his head sagely.

s e v e n t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 2 1 – 2 2 n ov e mber 1963 We began our meeting with the usual reading of Minutes and business arising therefrom. We were informed that there are now three hundred and forty individuals and associations intending to present briefs. The report on personnel showed a total of twenty-nine on staff, of whom it seemed that eighteen were French speaking and eleven English speaking, This was almost entirely the administrative and technical staff, there being only one engaged in research.

editor’s note: The commissioners then had a lengthy discussion on whether they should publish a document on their terms of reference. Rudnyckyj argued initially that he would have to dissent because he disagreed with the reference to the meaning of bilingualism. He was persuaded to accept the publication of the document without dissent. At lunch on Thursday I was with Laurendeau, Gagnon, Marchand, Mrs Laing and Neil Morrison in the Beacon Arms. In the course of our discussion the topic of football came up, and it at once became evident that Laurendeau considered this a surprising topic of conversation. Thinking to arouse his interest somewhat I told him that W.H. Auden54 had once compared the football match in the United States to the presentation of a Greek play in ancient Greece; it involved the whole community with its heroes and heroines, and ended in tragedy or victory, to which Laurendeau replied: “This just shows how much we have declined since the Greeks.” In the afternoon session we discussed a programme of public relations presented by Gagnon and Frith. Some objection was taken to the term “Public Relations,” and Dunton particularly felt that we must not give the appearance of undertaking any such gruesome activity. On the other hand everyone knew that the way we presented ourselves to the public and the way they looked upon us were important aspects of our work. I suggested the term “Relations with

28

The Fate of Canada

the Public,” and this seemed to alleviate some fears. It was agreed that we should hire a professional journalist or individual knowing how to deal with the press, radio, etc. so that we might be in frequent touch with sources of information from which the public could learn what stage we were at in our work. A further discussion arose on the names of people to be engaged in research, and of a Research Director. I got a little impatient with Dunton’s insistence that we should go very slowly in this area and his objection to my suggestion that we should immediately call a number of people to see whether their names could be put forward. He felt that we should make up our minds first that any one we asked to allow his name to be considered should himself be a person we would be willing to employ – a process which seems to me to make it likely we would waste a lot of time on people who would not consider the position for a moment. Friday morning’s meeting continued the discussion on Research staff. A question was asked, must the director of research necessarily be bilingual? It was agreed that he should, if possible, at least have some reading knowledge of the French language, preferably more, but we realized that this might seriously limit our freedom of choice. I felt it was more important to get a good man,55 capable of organizing a very extensive research program, than a less good man with the knowledge of French, who might render the whole of our research work less effective. We left the matter without any firm decision, since everyone knew they wanted a bilingual director if possible. I said that it was obvious that Canada was not today bilingual in most places and that it was to make it more so in the future that our Commission was appointed. It would be therefore understood that at this stage we could not treat the country as though it had already reached that further point of development towards which we were all working. Royce Frith then presented us with some Telepoll56 statistics that he had got from his tv station. We all looked at them with great suspicion. One figure that particularly surprised us was the very large number of Canadians in all parts of the country who said they thought the Federal Civil Service should be bilingual. This did not seem to square with the answer to the fourth question, which was “Do you think the French Canadians are correct in their belief that they are being denied the rights they were promised?” Most Canadians, including those who answered from Montreal said

1963

29

“No” to this, meaning they were not correct. Why then did most Canadians want to have the Federal Civil Service bilingual. I said the explanation arose from the phrase in the fourth question “that they had been promised.” There was no promise at Confederation that the Federal Civil Service should be bilingual to which Laurendeau rather acidly said “You’re the expert.”

s p e c ia l m e e t in g o f members of the c o m m is s io n w it h t h e joi nt planni ng com m it t e e in to ro n to, 28 november 1963 Several of us went to Toronto to attend the Joint Planning Committee’s Annual Meeting. This Committee is brought together by the Canadian Association for Adult Education, and represents some one hundred and thirteen voluntary organizations of all kinds across Canada. The people present were therefore important as Executive Officers of a very large number of Canadians working in a variety of fields. The afternoon session was one where they met with the Commission members. One rather elderly woman spoke about the terrifying experience of having to present a brief to a Royal Commission; first of all the presentation of the brief required a great deal of time and thought, and then the presentation meant that you stood in front of a body of people looking like a court of law, and you were subjected to questions that perhaps you did not know how to answer immediately, that you often felt that your real feelings and thought had not been properly conveyed to the Commission, that there were many people in the room, including journalists listening to every word you uttered, and that you left rather exhausted and sometimes feeling defeated. I was particularly sympathetic to this explanation because at our Ottawa hearings I felt that Frith had asked unfair questions of Mrs Saul Hayes when he said to her, “How would you have drafted our terms of reference, Mrs Hayes?” She naturally felt that she had to try to bring up some new ideas on the spur of the moment; that she failed was not, I think any comment on her lack of intelligence. We then held a press conference where Dunton and Laurendeau answered questions put to them. I felt that Dunton failed to rise to the occasion and that he was too negative in his replies. For instance, when he was asked “Have you any idea how much this Royal Commission is going to cost the tax payers?,” his only reply

30

The Fate of Canada

was “No.” Surely he might have suggested that if the work in the Commission would in any way help Canadians come through this critical period in their history to a newer, happier and stronger nation, any question of how much it would cost was vulgar and cheap. On the whole, I did not feel we were ready for this press conference, and the need for an expert in this area became all the more evident. The Commission members present dined together, and with our usual gaiety. There was an empty chair at the head of the table after all the others had sat down, and I took it for myself, saying that it belonged to the oldest member of the group. I found it difficult to refrain from acting as Chairman from then on. In the evening session the Commissioners sat at the head table and had questions put to them from anyone on the floor. It was a very good exchange of ideas of all kinds. One point kept emerging; many people want the Commission to take the initiative in organizing forums and conferences where the problem of bilingualism and biculturalism can be properly aired and the various factors that need to be thought about can be put to groups of people who would not on their own come to think about them. I spoke about this educational role in some remarks I made, and asked the audience to be sympathetic to us if we felt that this kind of activity, which is certainly not in our terms of reference, was one we hesitated to embark upon lest it should seem that we were ourselves an instrument for making people arrive at certain conclusions. We must preserve our role as independent judges, analyzing public opinion and eventually making recommendations which we think will be usable and acceptable, and not become active promoters for any cause. I said that we could not make ourselves into another Canadian Association for Adult Education. The attitude of Dunton and some others was that the job of educating the Canadian people in the problems of bilingualism and biculturalism belongs to all the voluntary associations everywhere and could not be assumed by us. To which one of the speakers from the floor said, “We do not like you passing this hot potato back to us.” The issue was not resolved in the discussion, but at least most points of view were well aired. There was even a further suggestion that we should not only accept an educational role in what I called a straight line, that is, a dialogue between the Commission and individual representatives who appear before it, but that we should bring

1963

31

together persons of opposing or different points of view, confronting one with another so that they can argue the issues in our presence – what I call triangular education. The idea behind this suggestion was that we have to induce people to change their minds in many instances, and that if they only have an opportunity of presenting a single brief, they will hold to their fixed attitude and not depart from it, whereas hearing opposing views might influence them in some other direction. Following this line of thought was a further suggestion that individuals or organizations should be allowed to present a second brief after their first one, when they have had an opportunity of hearing what other organizations are saying and of rethinking their first ideas in the light of the increasing understanding of the problem. I took the occasion in another part of the discussion to point out that the question of the cost of our Commission was one not worthy of consideration in the light of the position in which the country now finds itself. The question was one that the press had raised in the afternoon but did not come from any members of the jpc .57

e ig h t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 5 – 6 d e c e m b er 1963 The Commission met on Thursday and Friday, December 5–6 in its headquarters on Laurier Avenue. On Thursday morning George Davidson,58 Arnold Heeney59 and Jean Boucher60 came to tell us about the work of the special interdepartmental Committee on Bilingualism in the Federal Civil Service. George is the Chairman of the Committee. It was explained that the Federal Government did not want to appear to be putting the problem of bilingualism on the shelf while waiting for the report of our Commission but rather wanted to show the public that it was itself taking steps to promote and extend the use of the two official languages in its own services. We learned about various projects now under way, including the development of a special language training centre, designed to demonstrate the possibilities of French and English instruction in a functioning civil service. We were a little surprised to learn that there are no reliable statistics about the degree of bilingualism in the present service; mostly because there is no agreed measurement of bilingualism.61 The three Committee members told us that there was obviously so little bilingualism that a measure of the exact

32

The Fate of Canada

amount would not affect their work in any direct manner. Arnold Heeney pointed out the fact that as top level Government business is conducted almost everywhere in English, it operates as a deterrent to first rate French speaking candidates seeking employment. He insisted, however, that the Government business was conducted efficiently though only in one language. George Davidson pointed out that his Committee and our Commission were both engaged in the same study at the same time, and therefore must keep each other informed of the work we are each doing. We were a little puzzled what might happen if the Committee decided upon a course of action which we in our research and ultimate decision felt to be wrong. Once the program has got under way and been followed for a year or so it is difficult to change it. All we could do was to agree to provide frequent inter-communication. The suggestion that we appoint a special officer to keep in touch with the work of their Committee was left over for later decision. On Thursday afternoon we received representatives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Alphonse Ouimet,62 etc.) the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (Jim Allard,63 etc.) and the Canadian Press. We had a very good discussion, which became more friendly and open as the afternoon proceeded. Most of it was between the various representatives themselves, with Commission members asking occasional questions. The least helpful and imaginative were the Press. Spokesmen for the newer sorts of mass media seemed much more alive and willing to discuss the problem. Jim Allard was particularly good and dominated most of the discussion. One matter did concern us rather specially, namely the difference in the manner of coverage of particular news items as between French and English newspapers and radio and tv stations. It was agreed that the same event could be made to look entirely different to the two sections of the country by the manner in which the mass media handled it. We felt that some specific instances might be analyzed to see how the news reaches French and English readers; the obvious case of the argument over tca 64 purchasing the Caravelle was brought to our attention. Ouimet made the comment that neither English not French Canada was a monolithic society. He stressed a number of divisions within each culture, many of which are overlooked or neglected by the mass media. It is principally the well-known figures and big names that get reported, while other variants of opinion are left out. Thus an

1963

33

impression of uniformity of thought is created whereas the actual facts are quite different. He admitted that it was only within the last year or so that he learned that a Scotsman did not like being called an Anglo Saxon. Jim Allard said that where he grew up in Northern Alberta, he learned to know the difference between a Hungarian and a Moravian before he knew there was any difference between an Englishman and a Scotsman. He also said that the culture difference between Edmonton and Calgary in his youth was greater than that between French and English Canada today. All the people agreed that our Commission had an important educational role, and that it must develop and maintain an interest in its own work. There was a feeling, they said, that the Commission had gone into limbo, and that it would be unfortunate if this continued for too long. I asked how we could develop an image of ourselves other than that which the Press would give us, witnessing the experience after our preliminary hearings in Ottawa. Then it was clear that only the most extreme views were considered worth reporting and an impression was left with the public that we had had something close to a brawl in the exchanges with some of the individuals appearing before us. It was admitted that the newsworthy items were the spectacular ones, and there did not seem much we could do about this except to provide periodic reports ourselves of our own work which the Press and other media would use. Later that afternoon, we all went to a cocktail party at the home of Mr and Mrs J.E. Coté (our Assistant Secretary) at six o’clock. Most of the invited guests were French speaking and I met a number from Quebec. Everyone enjoyed the story I told about Time magazine sending a reporter out to the prairies to find out the grass roots opinion on bilingualism. Meeting an old farmer in Alberta he said to him “What do you think about bilingualism?” To which the farmer replied “I’ll tell you what I think about bilingualism. If the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ it’s good enough for me.”65 On Friday December 6th we met only in the morning and went over Commission affairs. A procedural point arose; should we ever admit to the public that some of our decisions were taken merely by majority vote. Mr Rudnyckyj very much wished this to occur. After considerable discussion he was outvoted nine to one, so now interim decisions will simply be called decisions of the Commission, with no reference to the majority with which they were taken.

34

The Fate of Canada

Reports on the selection of the Research director showed that we were still without any certainty of finding one. Opinion seemed to favour Brownstone66 of Saskatchewan or Meisel67of Queen’s. It is clear our programme will take some months to get under way.

n in t h m e e t in g o f t he commi s si on, 1 9 d e c e m b e r 1963 We met as usual in our headquarters and began with the reading of the Minutes by Paul Lacoste. These are always in French only; it is a rule of our Commission that for internal documents there is no need for translations, whereas for documents going to the public there must be translations. We then had a report from Elizabeth Van Every regarding the acelf Meeting (Association Canadienne des Éducateurs de langue Francaise). Not only was Miss Van Every’s report excellent (she is one of the more intelligent members of our staff) but it was obvious that the meeting itself had been extremely interesting and even exciting. These French speaking teachers had come from all across Canada, they spoke about Canada, the Commission, and possible future developments with utmost frankness. It was at this meeting that the proposal was made that there should be two departments of Education in Ottawa, one for the French speaking minorities and the other for the English speaking minorities. That such a suggestion should have been put forward without hesitation in the capital of the Province of Quebec, which has always considered any interest in education at Ottawa a menace to its culture, startled everybody. Lacoste said it was “La plus grande surprise depuis la fondation de la Commission.” All the Commissioners who were present had felt great encouragement at this meeting because of the frankness and sincerity with which everybody had expressed their views. Undoubtedly the presence of French Canadians from outside Quebec was largely responsible. We discussed for a while whether this might indicate that there was a resurgence of pan-Canadianism amongst the French Canadians; whether or not they might be reconsidering the notion of Quebec as developing toward an increasing separation from the rest of the country even though total independence was not being sought. Laurendeau doubted very much whether this conclusion could be drawn from the meeting. I told the Commission that in a private conversation with the Minister of Education from Saskatchewan this

1963

35

idea that Ottawa might have Departments of Education for minorities was discussed and he was entirely in favour of it, since it would relieve the Provincial Government of any responsibility of dealing with the delicate matter of French language schools. Morrison said that the Quebec meeting had dissipated any notion there might be that French Canadian opinion was monolithic. Laurendeau made the observation that when the Commissioners go to a French meeting they find that the participants are not at all interested in the terms of the mandate of the Commission, and want to discuss basic issues, whereas when English Canadians are met they seem to want to know what the terms of reference cover and how the Commission proposes to go about its work. They do not go directly to basic issues. I lunched with Gertrude Laing and Neil Morrison at the Beacon Arms. In the course of the lunch we told each other stories about French and English Canadians, and I proposed that we should compile an anthology of all the stories that have some content or bilingualism or biculturalism in them, since these often reflect very correctly basic attitudes in different parts of the country. They agreed that this should be done.68 The afternoon meeting resumed at 2.30 and we went on to discuss the problem of the Research Director. The name of Brownstone was canvassed, but it was reported that he would not be free until April, and at any rate he did not seem to know very much about the nature of the problem. His French was also inadequate. So the Chairman reported that they had come back to the idea of asking Michael Oliver if he would assume the position. He was, in their opinion, too good to be lost through his recent political associations. The rest of the Commission agreed and approaches to him were authorized. It was decided that our next meeting should be held in some remote spot away from the office where we could be together for two days and at which we could begin to discuss some fundamental questions amongst ourselves. I said we should lock ourselves up together for forty-eight hours and then see what happens. As a Commission we have obviously come to know and like one another in the course of our discussions, and if this complete mutual confidence can be developed and maintained then there will be nothing we cannot face and deal with without too much emotional tension. Father Cormier volunteered to talk about the present situation in New Brunswick of the Acadians, and I agreed to say something about Section 133 of

36

The Fate of Canada

the bna Act and its background. These would be the two issues of our next meeting. We also had further discussion about the degree to which Commissioners might attend public discussions of bilingualism and biculturalism which are being organized in conferences and forums in different parts of the country. Our feeling now is that we should be present at as many of these as possible in order to get the feeling of local opinion in different regions and groups, but of course, without participating in any manner that would suggest an attitude on the part of the individual Commissioner or the Commissioners as a whole, outside of our own definition of our terms of reference. In the course of our meeting I took down some statistics that Father Cormier had prepared, which showed that in the three prairie provinces the Germans numbered 433,000, Ukrainians 289,000, the French Canadians 227,000 and the Scandinavians 201,500. Rudnyckyj said that when we went to Manitoba we should visit three places that he named, one of which was all German, the other all Ukrainian and the third French. Royce Frith then asked “Where are the English?” “They are just another ethnic group” said Rudnyckyj.

1964

editor’s note: The year of Scott’s retirement from McGill was a busy one in Quebec. The Lesage government in Quebec was flexing its muscles. In February, the government passed the legislation creating the Ministry of Education and in April, at the FederalProvincial conference in Quebec City, Jean Lesage announced his plan to withdraw from most joint federal-provincial programs and unveiled his plan for a Quebec pension plan. In April, after weeks of intense negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec, an agreement was reached which made the creation of the Caisse de Dépôt et Placement possible. In May, René Lévesque endorsed the idea of associate statehood for Quebec. In Canadian politics, the federal government was paralyzed during the first six months of the year over the debate over the Canadian flag. A subject of discussion for years, if not decades, the question of establishing a distinctive Canadian flag to replace the Red Ensign was a Liberal Party promise in the 1963 election. Pearson was booed at a Canadian Legion convention in Winnipeg when he discussed the proposal. And in November, the government was tangled in accusations that political aides had tried to pay a bribe to enable Lucien Rivard, a gangster, to be released on bail. The ensuing scandal was followed by the news that two cabinet ministers, Maurice Lamontagne and René Tremblay, had appeared to benefit from a furniture company that went bankrupt. Lamontagne, who had been a distinguished economist at Laval, was particularly close to Pearson; as a senior adviser, he had written the speech in 1962 in which Pearson called for the creation of the Royal Commission, and had persuaded André Laurendeau

38

The Fate of Canada

to become the co-chairman. Finally, Yvon Dupuis, another Quebec cabinet minister, was charged with bribery. The scandals haunted the Pearson government. 1964 was also marked by the election of a Liberal government in Saskatchewan, led by Ross Thatcher, who quickly dismissed dozens of public servants who had been named by the previous ccf government – some of whom complained to Scott. The federal government’s response to Quebec nationalism could be seen in a number of ways. It changed the name of Trans-Canada Airlines to “Air Canada” after a private member’s bill introduced by Jean Chrétien, and the new flag was an effort to distance Canada from its British heritage. The Queen’s visit to Quebec City in October was disrupted by separatist demonstrators who were attacked by police, resulting in the event being called “le samedi de la matraque” – Billy-club Saturday. Against that backdrop, the commission continued its meetings and its hearings. Scott began the year by making a presentation on Section 133 of the British North America Act (now known as The Constitution Act, 1867). Section 133 reads as follows: “Either the English or the French Language 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.” In an article in the Queen’s Quarterly in 1947, Scott had argued that as a result of Section 133, “Canada is a bilingual country, and British Columbia can truthfully be called a bilingual province.”1 Discussion of whether to amend the section and if so, in what way, would recur among the commissioners. In Maclean’s in May 1964, Robert Fulford described how, after some internal debate on the subject, the commissioners decided to hold hearings across the country to hear the views of Canadians. “The people who are running these meetings are the adult educators,” he wrote. “They are people who believe profoundly in the value of exchanging ideas, stimulating discussion, clearing the air.” And, after attending two of these meetings, he wrote, “If

1964

39

the Sherbrooke meeting resembled at times a congress of young socialists, the London meeting suggested a convention of hardware merchants.”2 But the turning point for the commissioners would be the stormy meeting in Quebec City. It was that meeting, more than anything else, that made the group decide that a preliminary report on the widely divergent perceptions they had encountered in the country was essential. In that report, they made the memorable statement that “they have been driven to the conclusion that Canada, without being fully conscious of the fact, is passing through the greatest crisis in its history.”3

t e n t h m e e t in g o f t h e c o mmi ssi on, the alpi ne i n n , s t e m a r g u e r it e s tat i on, 8–9 january 1964 Following the decision at our last December meeting, we held this session off in the country, in the very pleasant surroundings of the Alpine Inn. Royce Frith had been frightened that if we were to take ourselves off into a rather plush hotel the press would find out about it and we would give ourselves a bad reputation as spending a luxurious time wasting taxpayers’ money. However, no-one seemed to know we were there and at no time were we interrupted. I drove up on the evening of the 7th, and about eleven o’clock met Laurendeau in the bar. We started talking about the Coffin case,4 and he asked me whether I had been interested in it when it was being publicly discussed. I told him that I could not remember any single judicial event which so enraged me as the hanging of Coffin. I vividly remember the day, because I spoke that evening to the McGill Interdisciplinary Group and prefaced my remarks by saying that I had had a desire all day long to go out and shoot someone to make up for the other crime. Laurendeau said he had not at the time been interested, but he had been deeply concerned over the Roncarelli affair.5 This led him to ask why we get ourselves involved in some of these situations and not in others; in his case he said it was Jacques Perrault6 who had brought home to him the real significance of the Roncarelli affair, but that no one had done that with regard to Coffin. It was this evening that I learned that Mike Oliver had accepted the post of Research Director; he told me about it when I telephoned him in Montreal. I said “Mike, this is the best news since Confederation!” I feel that he and I can work together and that the

40

The Fate of Canada

one part of our total activity of whose value we can be most certain, namely the research work, is now in excellent hands. At breakfast on the 8th I ordered a kippered herring, and it was a rather fat one curled up on my plate. Jean Marchand, looking rather grimly at it, said “The day you see me eating one of those you will know that biculturalism has arrived.” The hopes of the Commissioners were raised by the rumour that the $20 per diem for expenses was likely to be raised to $25, at the request of other Royal Commissions. We decided to associate ourselves with them.

editor’s note: The commissioners discussed the form their regional meetings should take. We did not arrive at any very clear answer to some of these problems, but we did feel that we should make use of local community groups in the planning of our meeting, so as to evoke the maximum amount of what is now called – blessed term – “Dialogue.” Most of us having martinis together before lunch, the discussion turned to Brunet’s7 recent pamphlet on the financing of universities and his accusation that McGill was getting too much money because it received the per capita allowance per student for all its foreign students. I was scarcely surprised to find that Laurendeau said he agreed with Brunet; he pointed out that Montreal and Laval were poor universities, whereas McGill was rich, and that they had to catch up to McGill and this could only be done by giving them now a much greater share of the public funds available. On the other hand, Gagnon, Lacoste and Cormier disagreed – the latter very strongly, since he said that if the per capita basis of distribution is abandoned, the position of the Catholic universities outside Quebec becomes very insecure. Most of us felt that the present method and amount of distribution should not be changed but that a special fund might be created to help advance the work of Laval and Montreal until they can be considered on a more equal basis with McGill. I pointed out that all the time the English Canadian was giving money to McGill the French Canadians were pouring money into their Church which controlled all their educational system, and that it was a little unfair to McGill to be penalized because of the generosity of its graduates and friends. The truth is that the French Canadians have at last decided to separate increasingly the

1964

41

educational system from the Church, and now they find that the universities have no backlog of investments. At lunch we all sat together and went on talking about various matters. Lacoste was worried about the Parent Commission on education8 – its compromises and its failure to come out clearly for a different system. Gagnon said that the real block in Quebec was the heavy bourgeois section of the community, which he described as the “permafrost.” He said that it had scarcely shifted at all on any major matter and the Royal Commission could scarcely go too far out of line in its general philosophy. What I notice now about our Commission’s informal social intercourse, is that we are able to talk about anything inside or outside of Quebec without inhibition. May we stay that way! I notice also that we now speak almost exclusively in French outside our meetings. The afternoon meeting took place in a chalet beside the hotel where we were very comfortably settled in a private room with a big fireplace. Royce Frith appointed himself fire keeper. Father Cormier then opened the discussion on the situation of the Acadians in New Brunswick. He rejected Mason Wade’s9 theory that the Acadians were quite different from the French Canadians. He felt that while for a time they were uncertain of their position, and had little association with French Canada they were more and more convinced that they all belonged to a single French Canadian nation. This change of attitude was largely due to the work of the St Jean Baptiste Society which in 1886 for the first time invited the Acadians to one of its Conferences. He pointed out that there were still a number of currents of opinion in the French speaking community of New Brunswick, but felt that the majority were determined to strengthen their language and cultural positions through the development of their own institutions of various sorts, such as schools, churches, co-operatives, sport associations, etc. while at the same time keeping in touch with what is going on in Quebec. He said that he himself was optimistic about the situation as there had been enormous progress made in the recent decade. He pointed out that his own University, though wholly Catholic, is now receiving financial support from the Province, whereas in Ontario no such religious institutions receive any provincial money whatever. He also showed that the French language was used as a language of instruction in a great many schools in the French districts so that there was no very great problem or unpleasant feeling

42

The Fate of Canada

in the Province. Some more extreme groups are pushing immediately for bilingual road signs, etc., and ridiculing the small concessions made, but he felt that the Province was proceeding very satisfactorily toward a proper recognition of bilingualism and biculturalism. I might have reported more of what he said had I not been rendered very drowsy by our good lunch interval, and I noticed several of my fellow Commissioners looking even more drowsy than I was. At this point Michael Oliver entered and was greeted with enthusiasm. Jean Marchand got up from his chair and turning to Dunton asked, “Is he entitled to a chair as big as ours?” We then resumed discussion for a short while on the Acadians. Cormier said that they wanted very much to be included in all discussions in Quebec about its future, and to take part in the expansion and “Essor”10 that is now taking place. It is clear that if they are allowed to do so they will be a potent influence against separatism. We had another congenial preprandial meeting in the bar followed by a joint dinner full of stories and humour. I retired afterwards to work on the talk that I was to give next day.11 About 11.15 I began my talk on Section 133 on the bna Act. I deliberately began an historical introduction which went back as far as the early explorers. I had a map of Canada on the wall, and brought out the fact that whole many groups of immigrants had “discovered” different parts of Canada, no one group had discovered it all. I showed how the original claim of the Kings of France and England to what is now New Quebec12 had never been finally settled after the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and that the northern tip of Quebec had never at any time been part of New France. At the same time I could show how from the very first meeting of English and French at the capitulation of Quebec, the documents were drawn in two languages and from that moment on bilingualism was if not in constitutional provision at least in daily practice an accepted fact in this part of Canada. Similarly biculturalism was seen to begin with the provision in the Treaty of Utrecht, followed by the equivalent section in the Treaty of Paris of 1763, acknowledging the right of Roman Catholics to the free exercise of their religion. And so on, and so on, until we took apart Section 133 and related it to the present situation. I enjoyed lecturing to this class very much, and while we by no means covered all aspects of the subject I think we increased the extent of our common understanding. I drove Frith and Rudnyckyj back to Dorval in sleety rain. On the radio we heard of Tom Berger’s Indian case13 in bc out of which may

1964

43

come the idea that the entire Province still belongs to the Indians there. “That’s marvellous,” said Royce.

e l e v e n t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 9 – 3 0 ja n uary 1964 There was a meeting of the Commission in Ottawa on January 29th and 30th, but I was laid up with the flu at this time and unable to attend. In fact I had had to miss the argument before the Supreme Court for a rehearing of the Oil Workers’ Case and had to let Tom Berger14 represent our side by himself. He was denied the rehearing, so this case remains in its wholly unsatisfactory condition, the first serious reversal by the Supreme Court of its trend during the past fifteen years towards an enlargement of our concepts of civil liberties in Canada. On Monday February 3rd, there was a dinner given by the St Jean Baptiste Society to which members of the Commission were invited, and I felt well enough to attend. It was held in the Club Canadien, at the corner of Sherbrooke and Berri Streets, and the Société had its representatives from all over the Province present to discuss with the Commissioners the question of its brief that it felt it might present at some future occasion. After preliminary hearings in Ottawa last November, the Société had issued something close to an ultimatum, implying that unless the Royal Commission accepted its concept of two nations it would not feel that it was worth while appearing before us. There was, therefore, a certain element of possible disagreement between us as we assembled for dinner. We were all served with proper aperitifs, (mine being Martini) and much conversation and exchange of stories went on before we began to eat. During the meal there was the same casual conversation, and only at half way through did the President stand up and present to the Commissioners all the different representatives of the Société (St Hyacinthe, Trois Rivières, Joliette, Sherbrooke, etc.) I noticed these solid middle class citizens as they all stood up and bowed a little awkwardly towards us as their names were called. Petit-bourgeois to the core. When these introductions were over, Davie Dunton stood up and presented the members of the Royal Commission; he deliberately started with Jean Marchand and called him the representative of the Quebec industrialists, which drew a huge laugh. In fact, laughter was the continuous factor which reduced all our antagonisms to zero whenever they seemed to be about to become dangerous.

44

The Fate of Canada

The usual good humour and fondness for a story which is characteristic of French Canadians was very evident during the entire meeting. Only one man, Mr LeBlanc seemed to insist that the whole Royal Commission was started on the wrong basis because Ottawa had decided upon it by itself without proper consultation with the provinces, and that there should have been a “two nation” decision by which Ottawa and Quebec jointly agreed on the Commission and jointly appointed its members. Even though it was pointed out to Mr LeBlanc that every Province had been asked to give its support to the Commission and had agreed before the appointments were made, this did not appease this extreme nationalist and he retired rather crestfallen into his corner. It was obvious that a great majority of the other members of the Société felt that there had been no violation of principle in the appointment of the Commission and that it was proper that the views of the Société should be presented to it at some future date. Among the members present was Michel Brunet, who wrote the pamphlet attacking McGill for receiving more than its share of Provincial grants in view of its large private endowment, and Père Arès,15 who poses as the constitutional expert of the St Jean Baptiste Société. He asked me what had become of Roncarelli – I was sure he did this in order to notify the others present that I was the nefarious character who had defended him – and I merely replied that I had lost all contact with him recently. I wish I had answered (and I shall if I get a second chance) that he had disappeared like the statue and the reputation of Duplessis.16

r e p o rt o f t h e c a n a di an uni on of s t u d e n t s at t h e u n iv e rsi ty of toronto c o n f e r e n c e o n “ c u r r ent canada” – a p ro g n o s is o f c o n federati on. The Conference was held at the University of Toronto on February 14th, 15th and 16th, 1964. The delegates came entirely from Ontario universities. René Lévesque had been invited but had refused, so no French Canadians were present. The opening address was given by Donald Macdonald,17 Liberal mp for Rosedale. He discussed the problem of federal-provincial relations in general and announced himself as a strong centralist who was reluctant to give up anything more to Quebec lest it prevent Ottawa from fulfilling its duties under the present Constitution. I did not feel that he had added very much

1964

45

to the understanding of the problem, or had, in fact, devoted much time to the preparation of this address. An open question period followed, in which the students evidenced a good deal more concern for Quebec’s position than seemed to have been indicated in the address. A series of group discussions was then organized, two of which I attended, and here the students exchanged ideas back and forth about Quebec, in a way which I thought was useful if not very illuminating. On Saturday afternoon there was an open panel discussion, followed by seminar groups, with Bora Laskin18 in the chair and the two principal speakers being Douglas Fisher,19 New Democratic mp for Port Arthur, and Peter Gzowski,20 Managing Editor of Maclean’s Magazine. Gzowski took a position very favourable to the Quebec point of view, and criticized Douglas Fisher for what he had said at the Laval Conference in 1961 and for his general attitude towards Quebec. Subsequently, Fisher in his short address reiterated his opinion that English Canada does not know anything about French Canadian culture, and is not the least interested, and that there was not very much to be done about the situation. A very lively discussion followed in which sharp criticism was levelled mostly at Fisher from students in the audience. One student said he represented “the worst form of Ontario bigotry.” I was asked to say a few words at the end of the panel, and confined my remarks to some observations on what I thought were wholly erroneous ideas being entertained by various speakers. Amongst these I stressed that the notion (which some seemed to entertain) that the French Canadian would be wholly assimilated by English Canada in time was entirely fallacious, as was the idea that the Royal Commission was going to attempt to make all Canadians speak the two official languages. It was my impression from listening to Donald Macdonald and Douglas Fisher that they really did not understand the nature of the problem being faced by the country and that instead of trying to acquaint themselves further with it, and to explain it to the public, they were contenting themselves with simply expressing a general position opposed to Quebec and merely admitting that some “concessions” might have to be made without expressing too clearly what they would be. On Sunday afternoon there was a panel chaired by Professor Ramsay Cook,21 with Alan Jarvis22 and Dr T.A. Heinrich, Director

46

The Fate of Canada

of the Royal Ontario Museum billed as the principal speakers. Alan Jarvis cancelled at the last moment, so I was invited to fill in. As the discussion was a general one on the nature of Culture and Biculturalism I felt it proper for me to take part. We had a most useful exchange of ideas and the students seemed very alive to the issues and took part with considerable eagerness and enthusiasm. I had to dispose of the notion that biculturalism meant mixing up the two cultures with a “mix-master” to produce something distinctively Canadian. It is impossible to say that any specific conclusions arose from the Conference, and I had to leave before the plenary session at which some consensus was being sought. I feel, however, that this kind of “dialogue” was most useful, not only because it gave the students a chance to exchange ideas and to think out solutions for themselves, but also because it made political leaders and others come forward and present themselves for questioning and criticism. On the whole, it was evident that students were more open minded and sympathetic in their approach than were the principal participants in the panel discussions.

t w e l f t h m e e t in g o f t he commi ssi on, 1 6 m a rc h 1 964 The Commission met first on Monday, March 16th in its Montreal offices. These are still almost completely unfurnished, and equally unused; I think they were opened just to indicate that all the work of the Commission was not being centred in Ottawa. All we did was to discuss the plans for the division of the Commission into two parts, and the visits to Sherbrooke and Three Rivers. Everything had been arranged in such a hurry that nothing seemed quite certain. There were local contacts who had spoken to representative groups and individuals, and we felt sure that some people would appear before us, but just who would come and how many was problematical. As we thought about the situation we became more and more concerned lest student separatists exploit our visit for the purpose of making a demonstration which would be carried across Canada by radio and tv . This concern grew in our minds to the point where we began to wonder whether there should be much time left in the public meeting for open questions and discussions. Eventually we decided that the first part of the

1964

47

public meeting would take the form of a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the local representatives acting as rapporteurs of the various discussion groups. When this was over the questions from the floor would be permitted. Laurendeau gave a cocktail party Monday afternoon which we all attended. The only English-speaking people present were the English speaking members of the Royal Commission. Montreal’s two solitudes remained solitary. Nevertheless we all had a lively time.

f irs t r e g io n a l v is it to sherbrooke, 1 7 – 1 8 m a rc h 1964 On Thursday morning, March 17th, I gave my Constitutional Law Lecture and then went to the Commission offices to pick up my car load for Sherbrooke. My travelling companions were Père Cormier and Mr Rudnyckyj. It was snowing, and the road was dirty and the trip was a little interrupted by the constant necessity of throwing fresh snow over the windshield to wash the mud off. I said to Father Cormier that if snow did not fall free from the skies there would be some capitalist selling it at twenty-five cents a pound. We stayed at the New Sherbrooke Hotel, and our first assignment was to meet the Mayor and the City Councillors at the City Hall. Mayor Nadeau23 was the first Sherbrooke Mayor to break the old tradition of alternating between French and English speaking mayors. He had the kind of face that made me think that he rather liked to be this kind of pioneer. One of the aldermen, called Gervais, seemed very pleasant and friendly and said to me “We could settle this problem easily if it was not for the students.” I knew what he meant. I also met there an alderman called Nicol, a nephew of the famous Senator who was the former owner of Le Soleil in Quebec.24 I remember the story that Senator Nicol, who had been a Baptist all his life, had suddenly been converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. No one who knew him believed this was a genuine conversion, but that it was to be explained by the fact that the Senator was in a Catholic hospital and was of French Canadian origin. When I put the question to his nephew, he said immediately, “I knew my uncle. This is not something he would ever do.” He said he had been pressured by his family to make a fuss about the matter but decided he would let it go.

48

The Fate of Canada

We then went back to the Hotel and had a press conference. A number of journalists from Montreal and Toronto, as well as local ones, were there. As our discussion developed I felt something most unusual had occurred; instead of the journalists trying to put the Commissioners on the spot with difficult questions, everyone seemed anxious to try to get to the bottom of the matters we discussed. It had all the feeling of a good seminar in a University. I never had this feeling anywhere else in a group of journalists. After a good dinner and talk we met some of the local people – all French Canadians – who were to act as the rapporteurs of our discussion groups the following day. Here again we developed an atmosphere of free exchange of views that was most stimulating. Everyone felt free to say anything he wished, and to indulge in self-criticism and self-analysis, even in front of the two or three English speaking people present. The aim was to agree upon the procedures for the next day but in the process of deciding these questions a great deal of freely expressed opinion about the local situation in Sherbrooke emerged. Wednesday was a tough day. In the morning the people who turned up at the University of Sherbrooke, Faculty of Commerce, were divided into five groups and put in different classrooms to talk about the work of the Commission and the problem of bilingualism and biculturalism in their local areas. In other words, what was the situation in the Eastern Townships now?

editor’s note: The five commissioners who were present circulated among the working groups, which were closed to the press. I noticed that a very small minority of the people in each group which usually contained about forty to fifty persons, took part in the discussions, and that the more extreme younger students dominated the conversation. The result was that most of the talk was either about separatism or about the difficulties of two cultures living together, and virtually nothing was said about what might be done to improve matters. I can report that one young separatist said that he cared not in the slightest for any of the French speaking minorities in other Provinces, since they were lost anyway, and there was only one minority in the country that mattered at all: this was the English speaking minority in Quebec. As for it, the sooner it moved west the better. When I replied to this “J’y suis, j’y reste”25 there was

1964

49

a general laugh around the room and I felt some unexpressed sympathy for my position. The evening meeting was the one we were most worried about, since it was open to the public and would be fully reported on tv and radio. The panel discussion between the people on the platform was not I think very effective, since the Commissioners were barred from expressing opinions and it was left to the rapporteurs to make all the statements. They appeared a great deal more separatist in their point of view than they had during the day’s meetings, possibly because they saw a great many more Sherbrooke University students in the hall. When it came to the open question and discussion time, the separatist note was even more apparent. Indeed at one time Professor Lavallée26 made a great statement that drew not only applause but what seemed to be organized applause, since it continued on and on to the general interruption of the meeting. At this point Neil Morrison asked the speaker not to make a general statement but to ask a question, and the incident passed. Afterwards Lavallée indicated that he was furious he was not allowed to continue. We had a post mortem in the hotel about the day’s activities, and the French Canadian and his wife who been asked to be observers told us what they thought about the various meetings. They said that the evening audience was very frustrated it had not been given a larger part in the discussions. We again come back to the problem of wondering how much we should risk in the way of overt demonstration in order to concede to the principle of public discussion. I think we will allow more of it next time regardless of the consequences. One of the questions put during the evening was this: “The Commissioners are supposed to have no opinion at this point, yet by the questions you ask us we can tell that you do not share our point of view.” I felt like replying to this but did not collect my thoughts until someone else had answered. I understand the question, and it is true that we tended in the face of a possible assertion of one kind or another to ask the speaker to think about some other aspect of the topic so that he would be more fully informed. In other words, we were asking questions that would stimulate a dialogue, and would force people with strong views to think about the other side of the question. This was a point I had made in my opening speech at the evening session, when I had to give a resumé of what had taken place during the afternoon sessions for the benefit of the evening audience. I concluded by quoting the legal maxim “audi alteram partem,”27

50

The Fate of Canada

which I said was a good principle of the civil law. Whether I made the point I do not know, but when I said that the maxim was attributed to St Augustine everybody laughed. I drove home with Father Cormier, via North Hatley. We had a long talk about things in general. He asked me many questions about the evolution of my own political and social thinking during the course of my life. This gave me an opportunity I was not slow to seize, and I poured a lot of autobiography upon him as we raced along. I was astonished to find that he thought that all socialism was of a dictatorial character. He seemed completely ignorant of the philosophical background of English socialist thinking. Here again we find this great lack of communication even as between two University people living in the same country.

m e e t in g in l o n d on, ontari o, 2 3 – 2 5 m a rc h 1964 I left Montreal on Tuesday 24th in a great hurry, having suddenly learned that I was supposed to have left the previous evening. I arrived in London, Ontario, in time for a meeting in the Holiday Inn with the Group Leaders selected to take charge of the discussions with the local people the following day, having missed the Commission meeting (13th) held at the Skyline Hotel in Toronto. There were quite a number of men and women sitting around in the room, some holding the drinks that had been served. The discussion was about the manner in which the groups would be organized the following day. Questions were asked about the purposes of the regional meetings which showed a considerable lack of understanding. As we made it clear we wanted them to discuss the main issues between Quebec and the rest of Canada there began a series of questions of the attitude of Quebec. It was evident that not many understood the extent to which Quebec’s thinking had gone. In order to bring them up sharply I said at one point “Unless in your own minds you are asking yourselves what you would do if Quebec became an independent state, your thinking is mostly out of touch with reality.”28 This produced a rather ominous silence, but from then on we became a little more realistic Next morning (Wednesday 25th) we met in a number of groups under the various discussion leaders. I attached myself to one group which consisted of thirteen women and six men; most seemed to

1964

51

be school teachers or university people. The atmosphere was rather similar to what one would find in a “Peace” group or “Voice of Women” meeting. It was eager, earnest and unconvincing as representative of the mass of the people. Following our usual procedure for morning meetings, we were confined to a discussion of local issues. As everyone said that there was no local problem involving French Canadians, since there were practically no French Canadians in London, the main discussion centred on the teaching of French in the schools, or lack of it, and what could be done to improve the situation. It seemed evident that there was a good deal of demand among parents for more French instruction than the Department of Education in Toronto was able or willing to provide. In another group of ten women and seven men, we were told by one man that the whole trouble was lack of good public relations. That if a real program were developed, he explained, everybody would understand how both French and English benefit from the expenditure of federal money. We should have one uniform curriculum in all schools across Canada, with a course on behaviourism; he admitted he did not know what this meant, but nevertheless was convinced it was essential. It should be said that this was a lone voice and most of the discussion was usefully directed to the problems of the lack of trained teachers, the lack of conversational French, and the difficulty of attaining another language when in one’s daily life one has no occasion to use it. The afternoon discussions centred on the local attitude towards bilingualism and biculturalism as national problems. After some time spent in rather meaningless questionings and suggestions, a Catholic priest in the group I was in asked “Have any of you thought of the dignity of man and his right to be himself?” It was remarkable how this penetrating question made everyone think more deeply of the nature of the problem and took people away from suggestions of minor reform to a fuller comprehension of the feelings of French Canadians in a world not at all receptive to their character and aspirations. I felt that these afternoon discussions brought people who in the morning had seemed to show not much comprehension of the problem, to a deeper questioning and a willingness to face problems which they would probably have avoided. We had a group session before our joint dinner discussing the day’s proceedings and trying to analyze how things were going. I made the mistake of ordering Japanese food for the evening meal, for which I

52

The Fate of Canada

was duly punished. These Holiday Inns, which are scattered all over North America, make up in advertising and display what they lack in substance. The evening meeting astonished us by the number present – over three hundred and fifty, we were told – and by the lively interest and high level of discussion shown at all times. After an introductory statement by Laurendeau, I asked the opening question: “Do you think the problem before us is a Quebec problem or an all Canadian problem?” I told them that recently there had been an important Conference on Canadian affairs, which was opened by the Chairman saying “Today we will discuss the problem of Quebec, and tomorrow we will discuss national problems.” Immediately speakers in the audience wanted to discuss the question, and from then on there was never a moment when there were not questions being put and statements being made by members of the audience to the Commission or to one another. A number of students from Western University were present, who added greatly to the vitality of the contributions. One young girl got up at one moment, and holding the microphone in her hand, hesitated a moment and said “There is so much to talk about, I don’t know where to start.” The level of discussion was far above what it had been in the afternoon and very far above what had been achieved in the morning. It was obvious that people had learned a great deal about the whole question by being exposed to it for the whole day and by being able to talk freely amongst themselves. I had the feeling that were we given enough time and went to enough places in Canada this same experience could be reproduced and that Canadians were capable of analyzing their problem with sympathy and genuine desire to find a solution. I also believe that while sympathy for Quebec is evident among most people who are given a chance to think about its position, there is a profound underlying feeling, not often outwardly expressed, that the country called Canada is very much worth maintaining as an independent single state, with its bilingual and bicultural character and its various other ethnic groups not obliged to absorb their whole personality in a larger community. We had another post-mortem later in the evening with our professional observer to comment upon the day’s proceedings, and it was suggested to us that we made the first mistake in choosing a place like the Holiday Inn, to which people in London were wholly unaccustomed to going for this kind of public meeting. It seems we would

1964

53

have had a larger attendance, and more representative of the people in general, had we gone to the Legion Hall or to a public school. Only one member of four meetings said he was a trade unionist, for example, and it appears there were only five farmers present. One of these told Alex Sim,29 who was present, that as a farmer he was accustomed to know what it was he was buying when he bought something, and also to know the price, but in this business he did not know what he was supposed to buy and he did not know the price. This seemed like a good grass roots opinion, but it was not expressed at the public meeting. There is no doubt that we had a group of what someone called “Eggheads.” A penetrating remark was made during the evening meeting. Someone said that the Ontario people were really all snobs; they were not against Quebec, they were just against everything that was not Ontario. They imagined that the rest of Canada was, or should be, an enlarged Ontario.30 Most of the other people who took a somewhat reactionary position said that there was no point in anyone trying to learn another language if he would have not opportunity of using it in his daily life. This same group objected to the ideal of making the Federal Civil Service bilingual, since they said this would mean that all the senior positions would be filled by French Canadians, as they would be the only people who would be adequately bilingual. This would then create serious tensions in the rest of Canada.

f ou rt e e n t h m e e t in g of the commi s si on, 1 6 a p r il 1964 A meeting of the full Commission took place in the ibm Building in Ottawa on April 16th. We had Michael Oliver and Léon Dion with us. We spent the morning discussing our impressions of the meetings at Fredericton, Sydney and Yarmouth. Not very much came out of it, as there were too many people in the room and everybody seemed to want to say something. There was a general feeling that the position of the Acadians in Nova Scotia was pretty hopeless, whereas New Brunswick showed real signs of development. It was also agreed that not enough preliminary planning had been done in the areas to which we moved; how else to explain the fact that the day we arrived in Fredericton the newspaper Évangeline had an editorial attacking the Commission.

54

The Fate of Canada

We lunched at La Touraine,31 and I sat with Paul Lacoste, Michael Oliver, and Arthur Stinson.32 I found Lacoste in a very disturbed mood; he seemed to feel that our regional meetings were a very dubious activity, not proper to a Royal Commission and likely to cause the government considerable embarrassment. I suspected that he was in touch with Maurice Lamontagne33 and was giving us some of the inner feelings of certain members of the Federal Cabinet. I sense that there may be tensions developing in the Commission and the staff which have not yet come to the surface. One of these may be due to the fact that certain members of the Commission are being paid a great deal more than others; Neil Morrison told me that Paul Lacoste, his opposite number, is getting seven thousand dollars a year more than he is. The truth of this I have not checked, but I suspect there are favouritisms in behind that are not evident. The afternoon session considered whether we should issue some kind of preliminary report before the full report, in order to show that we have not been wasting our time. Laurendeau was particularly insistent that our first report should be on the Army. He feels very strongly that this is an institution which is wholly English, partly supported by taxes paid by French Canadians, and whose influence is simply to denationalize the French Canadians. I felt that while this was a legitimate object of study it would be fatal to select as the first topic of a preliminary report, as though it was the most important thing in our minds that faced the country, whereas the Federal Civil Service seemed to me an area much more in public discussion and more easily capable of recommendation. A very lengthy discussion followed which had not reached a conclusion before I was obliged to leave the meeting and return to Montreal in order to take part in the Annual Law Graduates Association.

f i f t e e n t h m e e t in g , a n d regi onal vi s i ts to van co u v e r a n d r e g in a , 2 5 apri l–1 may 1964 I left Montreal at 5.00 p.m. by a Viscount plane to Toronto, and then straight through by jet to Vancouver. This time we travelled first class; hitherto we have only been allowed Economy travel. I must say that the difference in comfort is so great as to amount to a difference in efficiency on arrival.34 I sat with Laurendeau on the trip, and found him positively chatty and certainly very easy to talk to in either French or English, on

1964

55

all sorts of questions. He talked about the “Groulx”35 incident; the attack by Groulx on the English, the retort of the Montreal Star, and Laurendeau’s reply to the Star. This latter I had not read at this time, so I was somewhat cautious in my comments; had I read the total exchange I would have been critical of his statement that the Star editorial was a “moral libel” whereas apparently the Abbé Groulx accusation that the English were practising “cultural genocide” apparently needed no defence. This incident, like that of the debate over the Caravelle jet, has illustrated the extreme touchiness of French Canadian opinion at this time in the face of the mildest (so it seems to us, at any rate) point of criticism. Our Vancouver meeting was supposed to be the full Commission, whereas all the other regions have only had some of the Commissioners. Unfortunately several of the Commissioners chose to break their journey at Calgary, in order to visit Banff, with the result that we could not hold our morning session until their arrival at noon. At that time we embarked on an analysis of the Edmonton meeting (which I had not attended) but which had been extremely distorted in the press reports. While there had been some extreme statements made during the meeting, in the opinion of the Commissioners present these were a minor part of the whole, and the rest of the discussion had shown the same general interest and sympathy with the Commission that other regions had similarly dealt with. This led us to observe that the journalists were some of the worst enemies of the work of the Royal Commission. With some notable exceptions, such as La Presse and Le Devoir, the Montreal Star, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, there was an irresponsibility in the reporting, and a search for the sensational without regard to total effect, which is little short of scandalous. We reminded ourselves that an analysis of the working of the mass media in Canada was part of our essential research, and we were certainly given first hand evidence of what had actually taken place. There was no afternoon session until 5.00 p.m., and I called Tom Berger, who picked me up and drove me with his wife for a tour out to the university areas. We stopped off at the beautiful Japanese garden recently built, and I felt again a nostalgic pull toward the gardens in Japan which led me to write my poem “Japanese Sand Garden.” I dined with Gertrude Laing, Gagnon, and Morrison in the beautiful restaurant at the top of the hotel overlooking the mountains. The grandeur of the scenery began to influence our thinking about biculturalism.

56

The Fate of Canada

The Sunday evening meetings began with a press conference at 8.00 p.m. Apart from a few local journalists, the others had been following our Committee, and knew exactly what to expect. Indeed, after a short interval, one newspaper man asked “What is the purpose of this press conference?” There was no precise answer except that press conferences seemed to be expected, and of course the Commissioners all hoped a local story would increase the interest in the regional meeting and bring out more people. The journalists left the room at 8.30, and we then talked with the thirty-five or so high school students who had been selected from local schools to meet with us. In the carefully prepared handbook which the local organizers gave each of us was a list of the schools in the Vancouver school board district. There were fifteen in all, each with its own special name, and amongst them I noticed the following: Britannia Gladstone Churchill King George Lord Byng Prince of Wales Not much biculturalism here, I thought. Searching for Canadian names, I discovered: McGee Tupper Thompson Other schools had indifferent names of no particular meaning. I could not help seeing in this colonial terminology part of the whole problem we are dealing with across the country. Despite this nomenclature, the students were a wonderful group, who after a short period of hesitation, became quite vocal, and who showed a great interest in the work of the Commission and an extremely sympathetic attitude towards the notions of bilingualism and biculturalism. It was very evident as I glanced at their names in the handbook that a great many “New Canadians” were amongst them. Whether it was this influence, or some other, may be uncertain,

1964

57

but their spirit was one on which a whole new concept of Canadian society might, it seemed to me, be built. When I went back to my room I remembered that Takao Tanabe, the designer of my new book of poems,36 had promised to leave a copy at the hotel desk so I went to pick it up and brought it back. One might have expected a rejoicing, as on the birth of a new child, but just as on this kind of occasion there is not always rejoicing, so in this instance I was in a very mixed mood. All I could think of was that it seemed such a paltry thing, thin as a post card, light as a feather, and a bag of tricks. Yet something in me felt that it might also be a warm breath on the frosted windowpane.

editor’s note: The session began with a plenary meeting of 180 participants, and then divided into groups. The first group was assigned to a hotel room for which no key could be found for the first twenty minutes. Nevertheless after that it soon got going and became, as in so many other instances, a very human relationship between Canadians deeply concerned about the issues they were called upon to discuss. Though some members would repeat the usual statement that “We have no problem here” or that “We are not acquainted with this eastern problem,” it did not take long for a wider comprehension to be shown. Mostly the problems talked about related to the teaching of French in the bc schools and the use of French by those who had some knowledge of it. I was very much impressed by the level of discussion, the frankness and sincerity, in the groups that I attended. Later my fellow Commissioners agreed that the Vancouver sessions had shown a higher standard of exchange and discussion than any other part of Canada yet visited.37 I lunched with Royce Frith and Gagnon in the restaurant overlooking the mountains. We all commented on the marvellous wealth and beauty of our country and of how stupid it was not to make it a place where everyone was free and happy. Royce Frith asked me about my future teaching at McGill and said he felt I was wasting my time talking to only a few law students and that I should be placed elsewhere where I could serve a larger purpose. He said I needed a larger purpose, and that he would certainly look after me. I told him that I had been accustomed in my life to having my career dictated by other people, and that if he was going to assume a role of parent or elder brother he had better pay considerable attention to his adopted child.

58

The Fate of Canada

In the afternoon sessions the usual topics of French radio and tv programmes, French teaching in schools, came up. There was also a strong feeling that religion and language should be separated in the public schools, and if British Columbia made the concession of providing schools in which the language of instruction was French, Quebec might make a concession of admitting that in the French language schools there was no need to have official Catholic instruction. Even the Catholic priest in the group I was in agreed, rather reluctantly, with this proposition.38 I met Henry Angus39 at the end of the afternoon, being rather surprised to learn that he had sat through the two sessions, and asked him what he thought about the whole procedure. He expressed considerable interest, but when I commented on the very sympathetic attitude of the local people, he said “This may be so, but if you were to circulate a questionnaire among them asking what they propose to do about the situation immediately, you would receive a completely negative reply.” This I felt to be typical H.F. Angus. The Commissioners had drinks at David Dunton’s40 and André Laurendeau’s suite, and we all felt that it was a pity we had to have a further meeting today, in view of the excellent discussions in the morning and the afternoon, and the general sense that every issue had already been covered. However, there was nothing for it but to go on to the public meeting which was held at the Oakridge Auditorium, where we found some four hundred people present. I think the success of the meeting was due to the fact that enough of the people who had been through the morning and afternoon sessions were present to offset the newcomers who were expressing their initial prejudices.41

editor’s note: The commissioners had a discussion about whether evening meetings were a good thing or a bad thing. Scott, Wcyzynski, Cormier, Marchand, and Lacoste thought they were a bad thing, while those who thought they were on the whole useful included Laing, Frith, Morrison, Gagnon, Rudnyckyj, and Dunton. However, they all agreed to make them more local in nature, with a local person rather than a commission staff person in the chair and the commissioners in the audience. I had lunch at the Georgian Towers, another elevated restaurant with a magnificent view of the mountains and the sea, in company with

1964

59

Gertrude Laing and Jean Marchand. We had very good talk, particularly when J.M. spoke to us frankly and naturally about his young seventeen year old daughter and some of her recent conversations with him. Apparently her boyfriend wanted her to become his mistress, but that she was not quite sure that this was what she wanted. When J.M. asked her whether she liked the boy, she replied “Not very much.” When he asked the next obvious question “Then why do you consider the suggestion,” she said “Well, I can do him a lot of good. Before I met him he was masturbating, but now he has given it up.” J.M. went on to say that his daughter had, of course, totally abandoned her religion like all of her contemporaries. He then said “If this is part of the general pattern in Quebec, this Province will not recognize itself in fifteen years.” As usual, J.M. is a wonderful companion: sincere, full of common sense, genuine in all his statements, and with a great sense of humour. He also goes around with all sorts of gadgets, such as cameras, field glasses, alarm watches, bottle openers, and other forms of mechanical equipment. Our Tuesday afternoon meeting of the Commission began at 3.00 p.m., and I found myself rather reversing my earlier stand. Tony Boisvert42 had said in the morning session, when he made some comments with Arthur Stinson, that the Commission itself did not know what it expected of these regional meetings. I said that we had a very considerable degree of understanding of our purpose. We had decided to embark upon them for the purpose of confronting the Canadian public with the issues raised by the appointment of the Commission. We had felt the necessity of creating what we called a “Dialogue” to make people face these issues. We thought that our meetings would help individuals and organizations in the preparation of the briefs they were to bring before us, and while we knew that we were not out to educate the public in any particular set of ideas, we certainly hoped to educate ourselves in regard to the feeling in different localities and the attitudes of people in regions remote from the more intense exchanges of central Canada. The net result was that we all decided that we had better go through with our evening meetings, preferably under the Chairmanship of some local individual, and with the Commissioners not too prominently exposed on a platform or dais so as to make it evident that they were not trying to dominate the meeting. Wednesday, April 29th, was almost wholly taken up with travel from Vancouver to Regina. Though modern jet flight is spectacular,

60

The Fate of Canada

it still remains true that if you want to move from Vancouver to Regina you spend effectively twelve hours in the process. We broke our journey in Calgary, and had a trip around the town by taxi to visit, among other places, the new University. Jean-Louis Gagnon and I then led the way in a search for a quiet bar where we might relax, have a drink, and some sandwiches. We found a place called The Black Knight, by chance, and settled down comfortably only to be visited in three minutes by a local reporter. When we asked how he had tracked us down he told us that the editor of the Calgary Herald came here regularly for his midday snack. This meant some press interviews and the usual caution in reply to questions. Our evening in Regina was occupied by a dinner in one of the new licensed restaurants that had considerable atmosphere and little knowledge of how to serve a good meal. The local organizers of our regional meetings were with us, and some of the Government administrative personnel who were helping in the organizing of our sessions. It was not long before we began to feel the general sense of tragedy that resulted from the recent elections and the defeat of the ccf Government.43 Thursday April 30th was the day of our general meetings. We met in Darke Hall at the University of Regina, which was a large assembly room with fixed seats and an elevated platform that imposed a kind of formal atmosphere over everything. Only about sixty people had arrived by the time we were supposed to start. But we went ahead in the usual fashion with an introductory statement by the Chairman of the nature of the meetings about to be held. At this point up rose Mr Bastedo,44 a former Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan and Conservative Party supporter, who asked to be allowed to read to the assembled group a letter he had written to the Commission last October, protesting against its terms of reference. I think if I had been in the chair I would have ruled him out of order, as a person interrupting the proceedings of the day, and availing himself of an extra opportunity to take over the time of the Commission which he had already occupied by his communication with us many months before. However, the actual Chairman allowed him to present, and he read a lengthy and very legalistic attack upon the nature of the Commission, and then sat down. We passed on without comment to the regular order of business, which was to divide the people present up into various groups for purposes of more intimate discussion.

1964

61

I moved from one group to another during the course of the morning, and ran into more extreme positions, mostly anti-Quebec, than I had heard I any other regional meeting. Not only did Mr Bastedo take the floor on numerous occasions, wasting the time of the group, with his long descriptions of what had taken place in ancient lawsuits, but there were attitudes of extreme immobility expressed by several participants that very much surprised me. For instance, when I asked a question I have frequently put in other places, namely “What is your answer to the demand in Quebec that the French minorities in other Provinces should be treated as well as the English minority in Quebec?” I met the unusual reply “The privileges given to the Protestants in Quebec are ridiculous and ought to be abolished.” This was at least a logical position, since the speaker wanted no privileges for French Canadians in Saskatchewan. I was impressed, by certain French Canadians in the groups I visited, who spoke about their position and their difficulties with great sincerity and quiet insistence, and I felt that it was something to give them this opportunity of placing their views before a wider and on the whole receptive group.

editor’s note: Scott had lunch with Dunton and raised an issue that would bother him throughout the years of the commission: staff members, in particular the secretaries, speaking at public meetings and at meetings of the commission as if they were commissioners rather than staff. The afternoon groups were much the same as those in the morning, with a somewhat larger outlook beginning to prevail as the issues were more fully discussed. I went to Don45 and Nan Black’s after five to talk about their position in the general Government defeat. Nan said to me “You brought us out here in 1946; what are you going to do with us now?” It is true that I had urged Don to leave the Dominion Bridge Company and go out to his interesting position in Saskatchewan. However, I felt that he had had eighteen years of useful and creative work in one of the most interesting Governmental situations in Canada, and that this should suffice to justify my original proposal. Though there was much concern on their part about their immediate future, and even more particularly about that of their friends, they themselves felt that they could ride out the storm. However, once again it was

62

The Fate of Canada

made clear that this defeat of a truly progressive group of politicians sincerely dedicated to human welfare, by a charlatan politician and turncoat who utilized Madison Avenue techniques, represented the end of an era of forward development of social ideas, and the capture of the province by the prevailing North American commercial and industrial forces out to exploit the recently discovered provincial resources for selfish and profitable purposes. This is a disaster difficult to measure, because the change of Government will only slowly indicate the changed direction of Government policy toward private interests, and private privilege. I had dinner with David Dunton and Jean-Louis Gagnon, made memorable by the remarkable Manitoba gold eye which was served deliciously. The evening meeting, also in Darke Hall, produced about three hundred people with a lively interest in the proceedings. Adopting the new technique we had proposed in Vancouver, a local Chairman was in charge, surrounded by four rapporteurs of the day’s discussions, and the four Commissioners present (Dunton, Laurendeau, Scott, Rudnyckyj) at a separate table at one side, and below the platform. We also had microphones at one side, and below the platform. We also had microphones and could take part in the proceedings when we wished; but as usual we timed our interventions to a few questions and specific answers to questions put to us. I was favourably impressed by the tenor of the discussion at this meeting, particularly since the morning and afternoon exchanges in the smaller groups seemed to have indicated a good deal of resistance to our Commission work. It was reported to us from one group that they had seven recommendations, to wit:

a The removal of all barriers to the teaching of French from present Provincial laws b Compulsory French teaching in all primary schools c National support for Provincial language teaching d In all regions, schools teaching in French for all French Canadians e Refresher courses in summer for all French teachers f Complete coverage in radio and tv in both languages in all parts of the country g Special incentives for appointment and promotion in the Federal Civil Service for bilingual applicants.46

1964

63

This programme was read to the general meeting and evoked considerable support, although one or two elderly individuals uprose to protest this special privilege to one only of the ethnic groups in the Province. One elderly white haired man stood up and said “I do not want my children to speak French, not do I want my grandchildren to speak French.” He received not one hand of applause. By contrast, when a young teen aged girl stood up and said “Why don’t we learn another language anyway? It just means we are smarter,” she was loudly clapped.47 The meeting was neatly concluded by the Indian Chief, Bellegarde, who said that on behalf of the original Canadians he wished to thank all the other ethnic groups for the great contribution they had made to the culture of Saskatchewan.

s ix t e e n t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 8 m ay 1964 I was not at this meeting (in Winnipeg) because of the McGill Convocation – my last as Dean.

s e v e n t e e n t h m e e t in g of the commi ssi on at t h e m a n o ir s t c o n s ta nti n, lac beauport, q u e b e c , 1 5 – 1 9 june 1964 I left for Quebec on the 7.15 plane on the evening of 14th June and took a taxi from the airport to the Manoir. Talking to the taxi driver, I told him I was born in Quebec City. “Where?” he asked, “At the corner of Simard and de Salaberry Streets,” I answered, “Ah, le Chanoine Scott!”48 He remembered my father and told me his father used to be our family furnace man. I retired to bed early being very tired, and there being no other members of the Commission about. James Bond helped put me to sleep. On Monday the 15th at 10:00 a.m., the entire Commission held its seventeenth regular meeting. The Chairmen reported that the Government appeared very favourably disposed to the Commission now, and had granted the items of the budget as requested, except that the whole amount was not being given at one time. Apparently it was easier to get the items through in sections rather than voting

64

The Fate of Canada

a whole year’s budget en bloc. There was no indication that our regional meetings had offended the government, or made them less sympathetic with the work of the Commission. At the same time there was no indication that the regional meetings had induced any more people to offer briefs. Indeed, some had written in to say they would be unable to present a brief. A discussion then followed on the regional meetings in Victoria, Calgary, Saskatoon, Newfoundland and Halifax. The feeling on the whole (I had not attended any of them, being taken up with McGill work) was that they had been successful, and that particularly in the west the sentiment was favourably disposed towards French Canadian aspirations. Everyone agreed, however, that the Canadian Press reports in several instances had been extremely biased and wholly unfair. I was reminded of the treatment given to the ccf in the early days by the same Canadian Press, so was not surprised. It was decided that in the report to be written, of the National Meetings, specific instances will be given of this kind of misrepresentation. Everyone felt that on the whole, Radio and tv coverage had been better than the daily press. Royce Frith told how after the Newfoundland and Halifax meetings he had felt more sympathetic towards the separatist movement in Quebec. He did not see how opinions in these areas could develop fast enough to meet French Canadian needs. He said he could quite understand a separatist saying that he did not want Quebec to be a burden to the rest of the country or stand in the way of its remaining in its present state of mind, and that therefore the best thing might be to shake hands and separate. “I think this is how I would feel, if I were a French Canadian,” he said. Jean Marchand immediately called out “You’ve convinced me.” Lacoste said he had come across a new difficulty. It appears that a number of French Canadian workers are in the iron mines of Labrador, being paid higher wages that are going to Newfoundlanders. Since the French Canadians are strongly nationalist, Newfoundland is afraid it is losing the territory by occupation. He also commented that some of the Acadians he met were too modest, and were not even asking for things which the English in those areas were quite prepared to provide – e.g., examinations in French in the schools. Once again several of the Commissioners noted that outside Quebec it is the young people who have the more imaginative and intelligent view of Canada as a single country of two cultures, whereas in Quebec it is only people who are over forty who share this view.

1964

65

We talked about the ignorance in Quebec of the evolution of opinion in English Canada favourable to bilingualism. André Laurendeau said that in conversation he had found that even Gérard Pelletier49 was quite out of touch with it, but everyone felt that opinion in Quebec had moved so far and become so much more rigid that this knowledge would be unlikely to make any difference. Ils s’en fichent.50 Marchand made an interesting observation that bargaining power gets created by a process that goes on silently underneath the surface discussion. Until an equilibrium of force is found no settlement is possible. The process must go on and any attempt to find a settlement is premature until the right moment has arrived. Hence “the necessity of René Lévesque.” I said this was what Jean-Charles Bonenfant51 had called the “Chantage honnête”52 at the discussions of the Royal Society in Charlottetown. We all joined for our usual martinis, Pernods and other drinks before lunch. A great many edges get rubbed off at these sessions. In the afternoon session we were joined by Dr Léo Dorais, of Laval University,53 who had been planning the regional meeting in Quebec for the following day. He told us of some of his difficulties. Apparently about thirty people he had invited to act as Chairmen of discussion groups had refused one after another, all of them saying they were going to be out of town. In the light of what happened at the meeting this attitude of withdrawal turned out to be significant. No one wanted to be involved in a row. I strongly urged the Commission to make plans for a visit to certain selected European countries from which we might have much to learn. I said I did not think we could claim to have done a thorough piece of research if this first hand observation was not undertaken. There was agreement that this would be useful though not until the end of the year or early spring. I also argued that we ought to have some meeting with the Eskimo, since the Indians can and will come before us, whereas the Eskimo cannot. It was agreed that there should be a visit of a few Commissioners to two or three selected Indian posts and I volunteered to be among them. I then asked what our ideas were about the extent of our mandate. In view of the rapidity with which French Canadian opinion is moving towards the idea of a totally new Constitution, I wondered whether we felt we could go as far as that, I listed some matters which might seem to be outside our terms of reference. These were:

66

The Fate of Canada

The flag question. Fiscal relations, except insofar as some aspect of radio, tv and education might be concerned. Structure of the Supreme Court. The drafting of a brand new Constitution. The repatriation of the Constitution. Method of amending the constitution. Formulation of a completely new Bill of Rights.54 André Laurendeau seemed willing to extend our mandate to cover all these items. He said he would not have accepted to be a member of the Commission had he not felt entirely free to deal with any of the possible eventualities. Some others felt that our terms of reference were more limited, and they had not contemplated any so drastic investigation as these headings suggested. The matter was left there for the time being. Monday evening. The Commissioners were not invited to be present. We therefore had the evening off, and I took advantage of the occasion to get my brother Arthur55 to take Royce Frith and myself fishing, at Lac Bonnet, which is only four miles away from the Manoir. So off we went after dinner, my nephew Frederick driving us, and were soon in a canoe on the Lake. As Arthur had promised me, there were plenty of fish, and indeed at one time something rose for almost every cast. I caught twenty-six in the course of an hour and a half, but nearly half of them had to be thrown back, they were so small. Still we had a good time and in between landing the fish some useful conversation. This was continued in my room at the hotel, where I induced Arthur to talk about the English minority in Quebec (City). As to this, he took a dismal view. He said it had lost all its initiative. He told how the golf club, founded by the English, now had a vast preponderance of French members and just recently decided to conduct all its proceedings and meetings in French. He told of how the Winter Club was now taken over mostly by French speaking members and now even the Garrison Club had gone as far as a bilingual menu. He did not see any future for young English Canadians in Quebec City, since the new industries and firms coming in all wanted to employ French Canadians in order to secure the good will of the community. On the other hand, he said that while collectively he felt this pressure from the society upon the English, individually his

1964

67

relations with French Canadians were exactly as warm and friendly as they had always been. My young nephew Frederick, on being asked by Royce Frith, said he did not want to leave Quebec because he liked the place and had his friends here. Moreover he felt he would not have any difficulty in his particular occupation since he was becoming a school teacher. On Tuesday the 16th we were received by Mayor Hamel56 of Quebec in the City Hall. Jean Marchand had told us that he was a lugubrious man, having been an undertaker – and Jean was right. A longer and more dismal face I have seldom seen. We gathered in the ante room and looked at the extraordinary collection of objects around the walls and under glass cases. There were a few interesting engravings of Quebec, two dubious portraits of Jacques Cartier and Champlain, a wonderful collection called The Queen’s jewels, which turned out to be the crown and jewels worn by the girl elected to be Queen of the Quebec Carnival, and some other oddments. These, however, were nothing in comparison with the ones on the wall of his inner office. There I saw the creed of the Optimists Club hanging directly above a message from the Pope. There was also a photograph of Queen Elizabeth, not only highly coloured, but with added diamontes where her jewels would have been, thus giving a very false and vulgar sparkle to an otherwise sufficiently vulgar picture. Opposite this were four framed photographs of an American aircraft carrier that had visited Quebec, including pictures of a marvellous display of fireworks. I noticed that the pictures had on them “Courtoisie de la marine américaine.” The list could be extended but the effect would not be changed. We all signed the great book, and were photographed in various attitudes watching Dunton and Laurendeau add their signatures. Incidentally, drinks were served so that the whole ceremony went through with much gaiety and laughter. No other members of the City Council were present. We were taken into the Council Chamber, and the Mayor pointed out that it contained every flag except the Canadian flag.57 True enough, besides the Quebec flag there were the red Ensign and the Union Jack as well as some other unidentifiable flags. Also some enormous portraits of some early mayors holding large scrolls in their hands and looking quite different from Mr Hamel. In the course of conversation I asked Hamel whether the City was doing anything to protect the old Quebec properties so to preserve

68

The Fate of Canada

the character of the City. He replied “Well, we are going to take some steps I hope, but you know it is very difficult to tell people what they should do with their own property.” The afternoon Regional Meetings began at 2.00 o’clock in the Confederation of National Syndicates58 Building (Jean Marchand’s office building.)

editor’s note: Scott described the questions to be discussed that had been drawn up the night before by the organizers of the meeting. These included: Are biculturalism and bilingualism possible? Is it possible that a law on a single language in business could be adopted? What is a nation? Should the French language be imposed in Quebec? What is French Canada? Quebec alone or all the French Canadian homes in the country? Is the LaurendeauDunton Commission too little, too late? What sociological and psychological factors prevent agreement between the groups? The evening meeting proved to be the most dramatic of all of those the commission held. In his journal, Laurendeau described it as “without a doubt the fullest, most moving, most serious (meeting) we have had. Without a doubt, we were all shaken by the experience.”59 The press coverage captured the drama of the meeting. “Separatists completely took over the last informal meeting of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism here last night,” wrote Robert McKenzie in the Gazette. “For more than two hours, they drew applause and cheers – and some jeers for the members of the commission as they rose one after another to outline the arguments to favour Quebec seceding from the nation.” And in Le Devoir, Michel Roy wrote, “It was a tumultuous and stormy session Tuesday night in Quebec where the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission held its last regional session. Entirely dominated by militants of the rin (Rassemblement pour l’indépendance nationale) who made up 25 of the 30 statements, the meeting vehemently expressed with its noisy applause, with its cheers and boos, all of the resentment which the Commission inspired, all the hostility that it felt towards the Commission, all the bitterness it feels about the provocations suffered by French Canadians for 200 years.” The headline in Le Soleil read: “The separatists won the upper hand.” In his diary, Laurendeau wrote, “For once, the newspapers didn’t have to exaggerate.”60

1964

69

When Laurendeau was called “un roi nègre” (a Negro king) it was particularly cutting, as it was the term that Laurendeau had used to describe Maurice Duplessis in an editorial in 1958, comparing him to the African puppet leaders who acted on behalf of their colonial masters. The procedure in the afternoon session was the same as that followed in other parts of Canada … Since, as I have previously said, all the people invited to be group leaders had refused, we were obliged to allow each group to select its own leader and rapporteur after they came together. As the separatists were well organized beforehand and were in every group, this meant that they got elected and so had a dominant place in the conduct of all the discussion. As usual, the Commissioners wandered about from group to group, sitting quietly in the background and very seldom even asking a question. In the groups I attended the whole atmosphere was so negative and separatist that very little got said that was of any use to us. In Group I, when question No. 1 (on whether bilingualism and biculturalism was possible) was being discussed, one young man stated off by saying that of course there can be no such thing as biculturalism or bilingualism, since you “cannot mix fire and water.” This gem of logic was listened to in all solemnity. Almost half an hour was wasted by people asserting that no single individual could possibly be truly bilingual or bicultural, before someone suggested perhaps the real question was whether there could be more than one language and one culture within the confines of a single state. From the point of view of the Commission, this is the only question that matters – though there is no doubt as to what the answer should be. It was the experience of all Commissioners that every group was dominated by separatists and that the discussion seldom touched upon the questions which in fact had been in the forefront of the regional meetings outside Quebec. Only in one group did I find some point of contact; this was in Group 10, which at one point, because one woman requested it, set out to discuss question no. 12. “Points d’unité des deux nations: jusqu’à quel point ont-ils été discutés?”61 For some time the group sought to discover what points there were in common between “Canada’s Two Nations.” The following ideas emerged. They found

70

The Fate of Canada

1 2 3 4 5 6

Many years of co-existence, Common roots in the greco-latin civilization Close economic ties A common Christian tradition A shared common history of Canada A common concern over the increasing Americanization of the country 7 Participation in common battles (This last one surprised me) I left before the discussion took place on these points of unity, but I was told that a particular separatist, whom I had already observed, desperately trying to interrupt the enumeration of common factors, at the end took them one by one and demolished them with well-prepared material. So the end result again was a feeling of hopelessness in that group. After the sessions had finished we all gathered in Jean Marchand’s office, where his amiable secretary Mlle Piché had set up a wellstocked bar. The general feeling was one of surprise, almost shock, that the separatists had so dominated the discussion. Father Cormier was particularly upset, since his interest in minorities outside Quebec was not given any support whatsoever. Indeed, it was evident that amongst the groups the sole concern was how to build an independent strong Quebec State from which the English element would be removed as far as possible. After dinner at Kerhulu’s62 we returned for the general public meeting scheduled to begin at eight o’clock. But the time we arrived, the hall was already filled and there was an air of excitement and suspense. None of the Commissioners sat on the platform; we sat together on a table just below to one side. The Chairman of the meeting was Beaugrand-Champagne,63 and with him were two of the afternoon group leaders, nominated to act as spokesmen for the rest. The character of the meeting, and the incidents during its two and a half hours, have been described in the newspapers from the initial insistence by the separatists that the Quebec flag should be placed back on the platform to the final closing of the meeting against the wishes of the same group, when Laurendeau spoke briefly and was called “Un roi nègre!” There were, however, some aspects of the meeting which were perhaps not appreciated by the journalists.

1964

71

What was noticeable was not so much the existence of a highly organized group of separatists determined to dominate the session, though this was obvious. There were individuals present who had performed in the same way at the Chicoutimi meeting. What is more, Rudnyckyj had stumbled upon a private meeting of the separatist group upstairs on the fourth floor before the evening session began; they were getting their orders from their leaders. They all had set speeches written out and given to them in turn. This was painfully clear. What was not brought out in the press reports was the fact that all the other people at the meeting – and they were undoubtedly a considerable majority – were paralyzed by the presence of the separatists. No one except Mr Jolicoeur of the sn 64 dared to speak in a voice of moderation. In other words, the majority opinion was stifled and suppressed by the kind of fear and authority instilled by the minority group. As the opinions expressed grew bolder and more and more insults were addressed to the Commission and the Commissioners (especially the French-speaking members) the crowd would turn in our direction to see how we were taking it. As we were unable to express opinions or to answer accusations we were forced to sit silent. At one point Marchand could stand it no longer and, jumping to his feet, pointed out what his trade union movement had done for the French Canadian population, and he said he hoped that the struggle of the proletariat, whether against English or French speaking employers, would not be forgotten. To this it was answered that the workers, and the farmers too were turning separatist (loud cheers). Dunton asked at one point what would happen to the English speaking minority in Quebec, to which there came a surprisingly courteous reply to the effect that their rights would be fully guaranteed. Only one English speaking person spoke, and announced himself as a visitor from Toronto; his suggestion was that there should be a massive exchange of students between Quebec and English speaking Canada. He was given a good hearing and a degree of applause out of proportion to the usefulness of his suggestion. Not a word of English was spoken the entire evening, not did any representative of the English minority in Quebec take the floor. One individual made a long winded speech in which he said he had a magic formula that would solve all Canada’s problems. He then came up to where the Commissioners were sitting and handed Laurendeau a brown envelope. Instantly there were cries “La formule.” Obviously this was a trick and Laurendeau sat silent with

72

The Fate of Canada

the document before him. When we opened it later we found a small volume entitled “Les Quatre Évangiles.”65 It was indicative of the desire of the separatists to make the Commissioners look ridiculous. I was reminded of the antics of the hippopotamus party66 with respect to democratic procedures generally. And it was painfully obvious that the separatists were anti-democratic, indeed fascist in their determination to force their views upon the whole assembly and to stifle all opposition. While they only used verbal violence, it was violence all the same. After this somewhat disastrous though very revealing session we all foregathered at the Chateau Frontenac for a party with representatives of the press. When I entered the room there was a good looking woman sitting by herself with a glass in her hand. I recognized her as the woman who had stood up at the meeting and protested that she was not given a chance to speak, and then stalked out after placing a feather in her cap. She turned out to be Mimi Garneau, who told me that she knew all my family. When I asked her what she would have said had she been allowed to speak, she replied that it all started at Charlottetown in 1864, and life was now in pieces and had to be put together again. What is more we were to follow the Ten Commandments. I could see at once that she was either drunk or foolish, or both. She suddenly asked me “Do you write poetry?” and when I asked why she had put the question she said “Your father wrote poetry.”67 I must say, foolish as she was, I found her less distasteful than Miss Bonner at the Fredericton meeting. Some journalists had provided entertainment for us; it consisted of bits of film taken at previous meeting but not used, and now strung together to show the Commissioners in various poses. It was interspersed with close-ups of girls modelling bikini bathing suits. The contrasts were very amusing, particularly Neil Morrison with a perpetually open mouth, Paul Lacoste with a strained look of doubt and concern on his face, and a marvellous shot of Jean-Louis Gagnon sitting asleep and bolt upright in his chair. He said afterwards he was obviously ready for nomination to the Senate. The party ended rather late with dancing to some careful and slow music played by Royce Frith. On Wednesday 17th, the Commission had no morning meeting as Laurendeau and Dunton gave a press conference in Quebec. We resumed in full session at 3.00 p.m. Much time was spent analyzing the previous night’s experience. Laurendeau explained how the

1964

73

meeting had been seized and dominated by separatists so that all other opinion was either put on the defensive or silenced. He did not believe the separatists were in the majority but felt that they were creating a revolutionary situation in which all other voices were paralyzed. Hence it was obvious that things would get very much worse as the tide surged their way. He spoke about one former Bloc Populaire68 leader who had sat silent the entire night and did not have the courage or determination to speak against the prevalent opinion. Rudnyckyj then spoke from his European experience, saying that he felt it was 11.45 a.m. and only fifteen minutes left before the crisis. He told us that he had seen identical situations in two European countries before he came to Canada, and that they all ended in disaster. He felt that Canada was in a very dangerous state indeed. Paul Lacoste said that it was not just a question of moderates vs. separatists; even the “moderate” opinion he felt had now reached a point where it put the development of a powerful Quebec state first in its thinking and relations with the rest of Canada and with Ottawa in second place. Even if the separatists were to be silenced it still is true that Quebec opinion has reached a position which is wholly inconceivable to the greater part of English speaking Canada. No tinkering with French instruction in public schools or bilingualism in the civil service would meet the basic desires of the majority of the Quebec population at this time. The question therefore arose, should not our Commission rethink its whole position and the basis of its work? On this solemn thought we ended and held no evening session. Mike Oliver and Léon Dion arrived but I was too tired to stay up to talk to them. Thursday the 18th we met at 10:00 a.m. and took up the line of conversation we had started the previous afternoon. Jean Marchand first explained that it was he who made a statement, much exaggerated in the morning edition of the Montreal Gazette, to the effect that he did not care about the recommendations of the Commission. He said, however, that it was in the context of discussion with some separatists after the public meeting, when he was stressing the importance of our Commission’s work at this time regardless of what our recommendations might be eventually. He meant that at this moment he was not concerned as to what recommendations were eventually arrived at. Thus the newspaper story gave a totally wrong impression of his real meaning. We all respected him for the honest way he assumed responsibility for the statement and thus cleared

74

The Fate of Canada

everyone else of the suspicion that they might have committed an indiscretion. In his opinion the Quebec meeting proved helpful to us, since it showed the urgency of the situation; on the other hand, he felt it was marginal to the general public opinion in the Province. Léon Dion pointed out that the Parliamentary Committee, through the choice of the special advisers (Patry69 and Jacques-Yvan Morin70) had indicated the general direction in which its thinking was going. It followed that very advanced thinking was held in ministerial quarters, and the separatists are thus given virtual encouragement by the Government. Marchand said that the outspoken recommendations to the Parliamentary Committee contrasted sharply with the mutism in the Federal Government – mutism justified by the existence of our Commission which gives the appearance to the public that it is dealing with all the problems. Michael Oliver said that at the start we were all glad of the Commission’s existence because we felt we needed to know much more about the situation in the country. Developments have taken place much faster than we anticipated, however, and now Quebec is saying virtually one thing and one thing only. Pierre Trudeau’s manifesto,71 reasonable though it was, made absolutely no impact on French opinion in Quebec, being taken up only by the English minority. He felt that our Commission must now shift gears and move more into the area of profound constitutional change. At present the research programme is concentrated on some notion of executive federalism, mostly the relations between top senior civil servants in Ottawa and Provincial capitals. This is obviously not going to the root of the problem. Rudnyckyj returned to his theme that we were in the middle of a Greek drama that was moving inevitably to a climax. What kind of a climax we don’t yet know. We still have time to take some pre-climax action. Not climax or post-climax action. He suggested that we should have an “intellectual regional meeting” (a term I had applied to our Royal Society Symposium at Charlottetown.) Also that we should work out in a preliminary way alternative constitutional solutions, like Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, and so on. Lacoste doubted the use of trying to get intellectuals together; on the French side they were already too implicated and probably would refuse to come to a meeting. Léon Dion also doubted whether we could do anything to stop the movement of public opinion in Quebec by immediate action. We are not a political party, and it is their job to deal with political matters. He thought we had better continue our

1964

75

studies and make our recommendations in due course. Any hurried action would certainly be ineffective. The whole of the afternoon session was taken up with the discussion of the details of the research programme now under way. The organizational part showed how expensive the operation was becoming and how many people were already under contract. Some beautifully coloured demographic charts of population distribution were shown, Province by Province, and for the country as a whole. I suggested that the latter would make an excellent national flag, and then every time someone made love they could say “I am changing the flag of Canada.” That evening we went out to Jean Marchand’s place at Pont Rouge. It was a very pleasant and relaxed evening in his most comfortable house overlooking a wide stretch of the St Lawrence. We indulged in ping pong, archery and other elevating pursuits, interspersed with much liquid and other refreshment and finally ending with dancing and general merriment. I was surprised and touched at a ceremony that had been arranged on my behalf, when I was presented with four pewter mugs delivered to me with a very moving speech by Jean-Louis Gagnon on behalf of the Commission. It was to celebrate my retirement from the Deanship at McGill. I replied in French and English, as best I could and was surrounded by expressions of good will – particularly, to my surprise, from Léon Dion. I have always had a high regard for him, but hardly felt that I knew him well, still less that he would have the feeling that he expressed about me. René Lévesque turned up for a while at our meeting, but seemed very aloof. I would have thought he might have seized the opportunity to talk to us generally about the situation, but he certainly did not do so to me and did not appear to be doing so to the other Commissioners. He looked a little solemn and not his usual dancing self. David Dunton drove us back and we joined in a room at the Manoir for a nightcap and a few further exchanges. One of these consisted in my reciting my poem about Lady Chatterley,72 which, considering the hour, I thought was well received. Friday morning we were a somewhat tired team, not exactly knowing what to do with ourselves. We discussed at great length whether we should prepare a report on all the Regional Meetings and the conclusions we have drawn on them. Royce Frith felt that as we now knew the situation in the country was extremely dangerous we had a duty to warn the country about it. He wanted us to make

76

The Fate of Canada

some great declaration alerting all Canadians to the fact that they were headed for disaster. No one else agreed with this tactic, though all shared his concern. Eventually it was decided that the Chairman would have a private talk with the Prime Minister and any others of his Cabinet whom he wished to invite, to tell him of our apprehension and also of the fact that we should now direct our research into areas of constitutional change that were not exactly suggested in our terms of reference. It was necessary for us to take this step if only to secure the additional funds necessary to engage new research personnel. Eventually we decided also to prepare the report on the regional meetings and each Commissioner was obligated to send in his own observations and conclusions immediately. The short afternoon session was devoted to a discussion of the French minorities outside Quebec, led by Father Cormier. He presented a rather rosy picture of these minorities, and expressed his view that they were far from being assimilated. Even in areas where there were very few he found a determination to survive that had astonished him on his travels. This opinion was not shared by André Laurendeau, who looked rather gloomy as the story unfolded. The discussion was purely factual and informative, and it provided us with necessary background information without leading us to say particular conclusions. It is obvious that each Commissioner has taken out of these regional meetings the evidence of a situation which he was inclined to believe existed, and which conformed to his innermost wishes. Father Cormier wants the French minorities included in the concept of French Canada; I feel that Laurendeau and Lacoste want above all a powerful French Canada and are willing to pay a considerable price to get it.

e i g h t e e n t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 – 3 j u ly 1964 This meeting was called unexpectedly at short notice. When I telephoned David Dunton to ask why, he was very cautious in his reply; when I asked whether it related to the sense of crisis we discussed in Quebec he replied “No, it’s good news.” I could not imagine what news could be good at this stage. I left North Hatley by car, and took the 12:15 plane from Dorval. We met in our offices at 2.30. The purpose of the meeting, and of the element of secrecy in it, then became clear; we were invited to meet

1964

77

with the Prime Minister that very evening. The Chairmen reported on a lunch they had had with him, in accordance with the decision made in Quebec, at which they told him of our deep concern about the state of the country and of the possibility that we might have to go further into the question of constitutional reform. They had found him very appreciative of the work of the Commission, and interested in our report on our regional meetings. And he wanted to meet the members of the Commission for a fuller discussion. Gertrude Laing then reported on the Conference just held at the Banff School of Fine Arts, at which the whole issue of bilingualism etc. had been discussed. She said she came away more discouraged than ever. It was not only that the western representatives seemed to understand so little, but that when they were sympathetic the distance between them and the position taken by the French speaking members was too wide to be bridged by anything that could immediately be done that was worthwhile. Father Cormier then reminded us that the big change in New Brunswick was not the introduction of French schools and radio stations – it was the change of attitude on the part of the English Canadian towards the French Canadian. He thought this was beginning in the rest of Canada and was easily the most important thing. André Laurendeau admitted that the English Canadian attitude was changing, but felt that the younger French Canadians, particularly, had changed much faster and gone much further in their thinking. Someone asked the question: “Would a promise of French schools in all Provinces make an impression on Quebec?” André Laurendeau doubted it. Gagnon felt it would make a great impression. The difference in reply represents the difference in the personality of these two men. We then went into a discussion of the preliminary report on the regional meetings which was agreed upon, and which we were told the Prime Minister was very interested in having. As we analyzed its possible content and form, the difficulties of preparing it became very evident. We have to come to conclusions as to certain facts about the attitudes of different Canadians in different regions, and yet we must not suggest what our final recommendations are going to be. Besides this, it is clear that the staff and the Commissioners are tired at this stage, and the sheer drudgery of going through one hundred hours of recorded tape to find the appropriate quotations, and compiling all the viewpoints into a single document was quite appalling.

78

The Fate of Canada

After an early dinner we met at the Prime Minister’s house on Sussex Drive at 7.30. He was alone. We had with us, besides the ten Commissioners, the two co-Secretaries, Mike Oliver, and two or three more senior members of the staff. Mike73put us immediately at ease, he seemed relaxed, in good humour, and always cheerful no matter how serious the matter which was being discussed. Actually the first discussion was not on the work of our Commission but on the Cabinet’s decision that day to postpone the execution of Marcotte, the man implicated in the Santa Claus murder in Montreal.74 Mike told how difficult this decision was, and how the Governor General75 had personally requested it – a most unusual intervention. He said he disliked capital punishment, but we noticed he made no suggestion he was going to try to abolish it. We then discussed our own work. The question whether our regional meetings had sharpened racial differences or merely brought to the surface those that existed, naturally arose, and the pm said he agreed that it is a good thing for Canadians to realize what deep feelings existed about the matters within our terms of reference. “I did not learn this from Mackenzie King,”76 he said. He felt that it was most important for us to make a preliminary report to the nation at this stage of our work. The rest of the evening was spent in an easy conversation in which everyone took part. At no point did the pm ever hint at what he would like us to say or what conclusions we ought to reach. Mostly he listened to us talking. While the meeting was enjoyable, and various stories were exchanged over a drink before we left I did not feel that we had learnt much from it or done more than given him an opportunity of seeing us collectively in action. Next day, Friday, we met at ten and went further into plans for the writing of the preliminary report. It appeared we might need two reports: the “Essay” on our regional meetings, which the pm wanted, something descriptive of what took place and what we felt about it, but quite short; then a full report for our own use and records. The target date for publication was set for mid-autumn, but we all felt there could be delays. Indeed, it seemed doubtful whether we could embark on our next stage of formal hearings until later autumn if not early in the New Year. All agreed that the formal hearings must await publication of the preliminary report. At this stage I asked permission to discuss a question that had been bothering me, namely what do we mean by the word “Crisis.”

1964

79

Time was given for this, and my preliminary ideas about it are contained in my suggestions to the Commission as to the shape and content of the preliminary report. I shall repeat them here. Conclusions This must be the main body of the Report. The chapter will attempt to describe the differing attitudes and points of view found in the different regions. It will not attempt to judge these or to suggest any solutions. We must warn the reader that we do not pretend that there are final conclusions or that they are permanent attitudes, since it is evident that opinions are changing while we are studying them. I would list the following as the principal conclusions at which we have arrived: 1. Canada has reached a very critical point in her evolution. We felt this to be so at the time we were appointed; indeed, we would not have been appointed as a Royal Commission of Enquiry had there not been a crisis actual or threatening. We are more convinced than ever that this is the case. On saying that there is a crisis, we mean something more than that there are sharp differences of opinion in the country about the whole question of French-English relations. Several times in our history since Confederation there have been crises of this sort. The execution of Riel precipitated such a crisis; the Manitoba School question provided another; the language question in the Ontario schools was a further example; the conscription issue in the two World Wars sharply divided the country along linguistic lines. Separatism is also not a new thing; Nova Scotia attempted to secede from Confederation in 1868, and there were rumours of it during the 1930s in Western Canada. We have something else in mind. Nor, in using the word crisis, are we thinking of the possibility of more violence in Quebec, or of the danger that a demagogue might arise who would arouse people by offering to lead them to the promised land of independence. We are not thinking either of a deadlock or breakdown of government. So far the sharp differences of policy between Quebec and Ottawa have been resolved in a way that is consistent with democratic procedures and with the present constitutional system. In saying there is a crisis, and a very serious crisis in Canada, we mean that in our opinion there has occurred a permanent shift of

80

The Fate of Canada

opinion in Quebec towards Confederation, resulting in a demand for changes in the basic constitution of a radical kind. How far these changes may be accepted and adopted is not for us to predict; we are clear in our own minds, however, that changes will have to be made and without an adaptation of our institutions to this fact it is unlikely that Canada will emerge from the crisis with a new basis of relationship between the two languages and cultures satisfactory to both sides and enabling the country to proceed peacefully to a new stage of evolution. A special danger lies in the lack of awareness in most parts of English Canada of the fact that Quebec opinion has made this great change and is not likely to abandon it. Attitudes have been changing so slowly in English Canada, by comparison with their pace in Quebec, that the gulf seems to be widening rather than narrowing. At the same time there is a different crisis within French Canada itself. This takes several forms. Partly it is internal, as evidenced in the conflict over the Educational policy of the Lesage Government. Another part, and the one which chiefly concerns us, is external in its effects; it is the problem of choosing between Quebec as the sole bastion of French culture in North America, and the wider concept of accepting the whole of Canada as the proper area for the development of that culture. Another way of stating this dilemma for Quebec is to oppose the opinion that the Federal Government is to be looked upon as a permanent enemy of the French fact, in view of the minority position of French-speaking Canadians in Parliament and the federal civil service, with the other opinion that Ottawa should be viewed as a government capable of aiding the expansion of French influence and the creation of conditions favourable to French minorities everywhere in the country. On the English side, there is a crisis, less intensely felt, resulting from our relations with the United States and the necessity of deciding at what point the Americanization of the country can be or should be resisted. This too is Quebec’s problem as well. The greatest crisis, as we see it, is thus a complex one containing many factors. But the fundamental issue is the relationship between the two “Nations” or the two parts of the single nation; in other terms, the relationship between the two cultural and linguistic groups whose study is the purpose of this Commission. These are in a critical state, and the choices now forced upon us all are critical for the future of Canada.

1964

81

2. Lack of Communication We have mentioned the lack of awareness in English Canada of what is transpiring in Quebec, This is one aspect of a wider problem, namely the wholly inadequate communication between different parts of Canada of what takes place in other parts. When as now a very rapid change of outlook and attitude occurs in a Province like Quebec, the understanding of this change seeps very slowly into other Provinces. It would be difficult enough, because of the language barrier, for a knowledge of events to cross provincial boundaries; the difficulty is accentuated by the lack of communication. There results a double ignorance; an ignorance outside Quebec of what is going on inside, and equally an ignorance in Quebec of the attitudes and opinions elsewhere. At the same time we found a growing awareness in English Canada that new positions must be taken and changes made. In almost every region we entered in English Canada, while at the outset of our meeting we were frequently met with the statement “We have no problems here,” as the meetings progressed and pertinent questions were put the complacency began to vanish and a consciousness of the nature of the problem began to dawn in many minds. Over and over again we found people moving from the “We have no problems” position through the second stage “This is Quebec’s problem,” to the final stage of realization that the whole country was involved and every region implicated whether or not in that region there were many or even any French Canadians or Acadians. Because the evidence, such as we found, clearly indicates that the great majority of English Canadians want Canada to continue as a single country. We were frequently left with a sense of frustration that we were not able to provide follow-up procedures in the regions we visited to enable the people who were stimulated into new ways of thinking by our presence to be able to go further into the matter in an organized way. This section should be expanded. 3. The Quebec Meeting The meeting in Quebec City brought to light a situation for the Commission yet one which must be faced since it exists. An organized groups of separatists moved into the meeting and effectively took it over for their own purposes. The manner in which they spoke, and the organized claque which supported every bold statement, created an atmosphere which paralyzed persons of opposing opinions.

82

The Fate of Canada

At the same time it was evident that there was very considerable support for many of the views uttered in that particular audience. For while separatism as such may represent a minority opinion in Quebec, the desire to make of Quebec a truly French state is much more widespread in all sections of the community. Thus even what might be called “moderate” opinion in Quebec might seem quite extreme to those numerous English Canadians who are scarcely aware of what is taking place. 4. The Unjoined Issues Much opinion in English Canada is favourably disposed toward improving the teaching of French in the schools, the idea of a bilingual federal civil service, the possibility of making Ottawa a bicultural capital, and even to the recognition of French as an official language But these “concessions” seem minor in relation to the kind of future Canada which a great deal of Quebec opinion is envisaging. The knowledge that favourable changes might occur in English Canada is unlikely to check the developing concepts of a new state in Quebec. In other words, English Canada is talking and thinking on one level, while Quebec is talking and thinking on another. The issues are therefore not joined. The points of view do not meet, and a real dialogue is scarcely possible at this state. Therein lies a grave danger which we think we should bring to public attention. It is not for us, until our final report is prepared, to suggest what should be done to bring the two sides closer together. These ideas seem to be generally accepted by the Commission, at any rate, as a starting point for its own thinking, and I was asked to incorporate them in my suggestions about the preliminary report. While we were all chatting together at the end of our meeting with the pm , Mike told us this story. He vividly remembers his first Cabinet meeting. He had made the great decision to leave the Civil Service for active politics, and was to take his place for the first time amongst his Cabinet colleagues. He arrived a little late, and walked into a room expecting to be received with approval. There was no place for him to sit. So he was given a chair in a corner. Then the important Cabinet matters had to be discussed. They consisted, first, of the question whether a convicted murderer should be reprieved. This took much time. The next question was who should be appointed honorary Colonel to a certain Ontario Regiment. This

1964

83

concluded the business of the day and Mike’s introduction to the highest level of Canadian Government.

ni n e t e e n t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 – 3 s e p t e m ber 1964 We heard from Michael Oliver on the development of the research plans. He presented us with a document showing the main areas of activity. It seems that to find out the ethnic composition of the Federal public service will require a careful analysis of census material, since it is not known to the Civil Service Commission. Difficulties are being experienced with regard to the use of tapes in the possession of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. He also said that certain other studies were going slowly; the Constitutional studies were finding difficulties in using certain French Canadian experts such as Beetz,77 Trudeau, Morin, because they were busy elsewhere – presumably working for the Quebec Legislative Committee on the Constitution. He told us that Professor Smiley78 was working on administrative changes in Federal-Provincial relations, and Meisel on forms of political behaviour. Dr Frankel79 has on hand a study of past opinion polls. The Groupe de Recherches Sociales is doing its own opinion poll. It seems that the topic I was most interested in, namely, the amount of wealth in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec, cannot be investigated. While recognizing technical difficulties in the making of the analysis, I could not but express my regret that so crucial a fact would pass without our own studies. My purpose is to discover whether it is true, or not true, that the total French Canadian population has, through its various savings, invested in the Catholic Church and all its numerous institutions in Quebec quite as much as the English minority has invested in industrial enterprises. If this were found to be true, it would for once dispose of the notion that the French Canadians are backward in the economic sphere because they have not had any money, whereas the English are all rich and of course could buy up the resources. It seems to me that the biggest industry in Quebec is still the Catholic Church, and it is totally dominated by the French Canadian majority. We then took up the question of the proposed preliminary report to the Canadian public based on our regional meetings. Though we had previously agreed to write this, there had been some second thoughts among certain members of the Commission, notably Father Cormier,

84

The Fate of Canada

and I myself had been sufficiently influenced by his arguments to wonder whether we could say anything that carried enough weight to deserve publication. The problem was that the impressions we had received at our various regional meetings did not entitle us to say much more than had been said in a number of articles and reports by other people about the general situation in the country, and if we did nothing more after all this effort and expense than repeat what was already known, the reputation of the Commission could hardly be enhanced. However, the members of the Commission came back to their previous position, which was that a real crisis existed in the country that was not sufficiently understood in large parts of it, and that we owed it to the Government and the public to make this clear. We then tried to define again to ourselves the nature of this crisis. I thought André Laurendeau made a pertinent observation when he said that the essence of the problem was the definition of understanding of the term “Equal Partnership,” which is in our terms of reference. He said that he thought the word “Equal” was addressed to the English Canadians and the word “Partnership” to the French Canadians. On further analysis, we agreed that the crisis lay in the answer to this question: “Will the forces making for the maintenance of unity in Canada have to give way before the forces tending to break that unity.” I think we all felt that we could not be sure of the answer to that question, and that the Canadian public ought to be told by us that the situation had reached this degree of uncertainty and seriousness. André Laurendeau said that he believed that the crisis over Conscription in the last war involved more people more deeply than the present crisis, though in some ways this crisis was more profound as it struck at the central idea of the Canadian nation. At this point Léon Dion said, “We must not in our report perform the autopsy of Canada,” to which Father Cormier answered “What are we doing now?” Without our having come to precise conclusions, it was evident that we all felt that some sort of story should be attempted. In the evening I went to dine alone at the Rideau Club, and while having a Martini by myself and reading the evening papers a man came up and introduced himself. He was Norman Smith,80 Editor of the Ottawa Journal. We had dinner together, and some very good talk. He asked me in a rather personal way whether I would advise him about a problem that he faces. “What kind of editorial do I write when I am not sure of what I should say?” I thought this a very

1964

85

honest question. All I could suggest was, that where he did not know the answer he wanted to give in his editorial capacity, he should at least try to define the issues clearly for his readers. Dissipation of Fog is an Editorial contribution, though the rights and wrongs are left to the reader. I sympathized with his problem. That evening I went to Blair Fraser’s81 and met Graham Rowley82 and the Coolicans,83 both people familiar with the Arctic. Blair himself had just returned from a trip with various public officials to the Western Arctic. It was very useful to me to hear their conversation and to be able to take part in the general discussion of the problems of the Eskimo. I felt quite sure they wondered why our Royal Commission should undertake this exploration.

t w e n t ie t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 – 4 n ov e m ber 1964 I took the evening cpr train to Ottawa, checked in at the Chateau, and had a long telephone conversation with Gertrude Laing, who was full of the stories about the four-day student Conference in Toronto that she had just attended. It was nice to discuss matters with a fellow member of the Commission after this long interval without meetings. We foregathered as usual in our offices in the ibm Building at ten o’clock. The Commissioners greeted one another warmly and it took some time to bring the meeting to order. Our first business was to receive reports from members of the Executive about activities which had taken place since our last meeting. Gertrude Laing gave a long report on the cus 84 meeting in Toronto where, she said, the English students seemed to lack spirit and direction, and all the enthusiasm and vigour was supplied by the French. Royce Frith then reported on his meetings with the Ethnic Press Association. There it seems that the main issue was a fight between the Winnipeg and Toronto factions for control of the Association. A group of us (the two Presidents, the two Secretaries, Laing and Gagnon) had lunch at La Touraine. We talked about Claude Wagner85 and his various statements in Quebec. Lacoste said “If the English make the great error of thinking that Wagner and his activities mean that separatism is dead, then there is no hope at all.” In further conversation about the two nation theory I said “Quebec is a unilingual, unicultural society, while English Canada is a unilingual, multicultural society.” Laurendeau agreed.

86

The Fate of Canada

editor’s note: In the afternoon, the commissioners discussed the draft preliminary report without reaching a conclusion, although Scott agreed with Father Cormier that the remarks quoted seemed to have been chosen to support the conclusion that Canada was in the midst of a very serious crisis. We then adjourned and gathered again at Neil Morrison’s house for a cocktail party to which he had invited many members of the Ottawa Establishment, such as Walter Gordon,86 McIraith,87 Starnes,88 George Davidson, Claude Isbister,89 Bob Bryce,90 Maurice Lamontagne, Max Henderson91 and Douglas Fullerton.92 We had a lively time discussing, particularly, the Fulton formula93 which I said, echoing Bora Laskin, would be disastrous for the country. It was in the middle of this kind of discussion that Walter Gordon joined us and said to the group “What is Frank Scott talking about?” to which Bob Bryce replied “As usual, he is tearing everything apart.” The Fullertons took me on to a concert in a school auditorium where the cellist Jonas Starker played extremely well, and afterwards to their house for supper. With them was Al Johnson,94 lately relieved of his post in Regina and now working with the Federal Government, He told me that Don Black had been looking for a job in Ottawa, too, having been fired from his post in Regina which he was willing to continue to fill and which his own Minister wanted him to stay in. Ross Thatcher said “No.” On Tuesday we went through much the same exercise as on Monday, getting deeper and deeper into the report and bringing out more views upon its adequacy and inadequacy. We discovered that what our views on what was the crisis and how it should be defined were confused and differed rather sharply. Father Cormier returned to his position that all the hopeful and encouraging things had been left out and only the discouraging ones included. Mrs Laing, to my surprise, said “If we are out to prove there is a crisis, and we have agreed that there is, then we are apt to select the proof that our position is correct.” There was no doubt we all did still feel there was a crisis but how far this can be described while admitting the encouraging factors seemed to baffle us. Though again we came to no specific conclusions, I felt that the discussion was extremely useful to all of us and we were by this slow and difficult process gradually clarifying our thinking and explaining our various positions to each other.

1964

87

I lunched with Mike Oliver, just back from Europe. He told me some interesting things about Switzerland. Apparently German is the working language of the Civil Service. The Germans are in majority, but all Germans take care to be able to speak French since many of the French can’t speak German and this keeps them happy. In the Jura, where there is a separatist French group, he saw signs painted on walls “Jura Libre,” and he saw bilingual road signs with German directions painted out. He thought he was back in the Eastern Townships. During our conversation he spoke about his idea of building a centre of cultural relations in Montreal after the work of our Commission finishes. So many nations are troubled by cultural problems, and the Commission work will have covered so many of the situations that arise, that Canada would be a natural place for some such organization. I could see that the experience of organizing large groups of researchers and working on a big scale with big issues had taken hold of his imagination and made a return to lecturing in the McGill Economics Department seem somewhat difficult to accept. He also gave me his opinion that the final Chapter V of the Preliminary Report was too much pure Laurendeau French Canadian nationalism and would have to be rewritten. Our afternoon session continued the exchange of views. We got to Chapter V, and the discussion was opened by Laurendeau saying that he knew it was written from a French Canadian point of view though he had done his best to be impartial. He therefore felt that it would be fair if an English Canadian would prepare another draft so that we might see whether a consensus could be found. This enabled us to criticize specific parts of Chapter V without any offence to anyone. We decided, however, to leave over the detailed comments until the next morning. In spite of this being Election Day in the United States,95 there was a showing in the evening of a film about young French Canadians96 (already shown to the Liberal Party) and my slides about our trip to the Arctic.97 Both produced a good discussion amongst the fifty people present. The utter confusion in the minds of these young French Canadians in the film was very evident, and one felt that they had been given no sense of relationship whatever to the community in which they were living. Similarly the pictures of the Arctic depressed everyone to a point where they could only say they were thankful they had not been on the trip. When I asked a group of our French

88

The Fate of Canada

Canadian staff whether they would rather be one of their own lost youths or an Eskimo there was general laughter, but when I said I would rather be one of the lost youths they all agreed. The time being now about 10:30 we had refreshments on the spot and then some of us adjourned to Sharon Walsh’s to watch tv. I left in the early hours with Jean-Louis Gagnon and we found a Chinese restaurant where we could have some refreshment. To bed about 3.30. On Wednesday morning we resumed detailed discussion on Chapter V. Both Gagnon and Cormier criticized it sharply as being altogether too nationalistic. Gagnon pointed out that the French Canadian case was well argued but the English Canadian case was not put at all. In any event, he said that the Chapter should not be an argument for one side or the other. Mike Oliver said that while any French Canadian reading it would feel that his position, whether to the right or to the left, was understood, an English Canadian would scarcely find a single thing in it that seemed to represent him. Nevertheless our discussion here again was extremely valuable to all of us, in that we had to sharpen our views and clear any misunderstandings. At the end of the morning there was general agreement that this had been one of the best sessions we had ever held as a group, and no matter what the report might do to other people, the writing of it had been an essential exercise for ourselves. We also came closer to defining the nature of the crisis as being a kind of unavoidable tragedy. While it is true that there is a very sympathetic attitude generally in English Canada, and as Cormier pointed out many progressive steps have been taken particularly in New Brunswick, the fact is that even the good things being done in English Canada have no effect whatever now on the thinking of Quebec about its future in Confederation. It has already gone so far toward the idea of a kind of semi independent state that it is wholly preoccupied with its new role and what transpires in English Canada has little influence. The afternoon session went on the same way. Laurendeau pointed out that he had written Chapter V as someone living inside Quebec’s history and experience, whereas the English Canadian cannot help looking at it from the outside. Thus the two concepts differ though they are both dealing with the same set of facts. I thought this was a helpful analysis, and one that we must bear in mind in all the other descriptions we will have to give of the various conflicts in the

1964

89

country. Royce Frith said he was almost willing to leave out Chapter V altogether; the previous Chapters produced evidence of differences of outlook between English and French Canada, and showed the different concepts about Canada being entertained, which he felt would be enough to present to the reader, who could then form his own conclusions. I asked here how much the very important recent changes in Canadian Federalism, such as the “opting out” provisions and the wider distribution of taxing powers to the Provinces, might have affected the opinion in the country, and therefore have vitiated the conclusions in our preliminary report, which were based exclusively on our regional meetings. I said it was quite possible that the attitudes we were describing had already changed considerably, and we might be in the dubious position of publishing our report describing a condition that was no longer true when the report came out. Since we can hardly expect to have the document in the hands of the public before next February, and this is some eight months since our last regional meetings, the likelihood of being out of date was considerable. The general feeling seemed to be that while this was a risk, it was unlikely that anything had occurred to change Quebec’s basic drive for further autonomy, further control of its society. Therefore the crisis remained.

editor’s note: Scott noted Rudnyckyj’s criticism that the French-English dialogue dominated everything in the preliminary report, adding: It seemed that the other ethnic groups were referred to merely as an afterthought. I took some pleasure, indicating a strong nationalist bias, in pointing out that when Laurendeau said that the misunderstandings in French Canada about English Canada were fewer than those in English Canada about French Canada, he had omitted to make any reference to ten other myths firmly held in Quebec, which I then set out to explode. I seemed to cause the most consternation when I pointed out that what Laurendeau called the “privileged position” of the English minority in Quebec was not due to any specially generous attitude towards minorities in French Canada, but was due to the simple fact that the English were in entire control of the country at the time when these “privileges”

90

The Fate of Canada

were established. They therefore derive from the English and not from the French. I must say that my views were taken, like all other expressions of opinion during these three days, in the same spirit of freedom and genuine willingness to understand which I think can honestly be said to prevail at all our meetings. I am quite sure that my list of myths may have been somewhat longer than was justifiable, and certainly would require correction, but I think it was necessary to put them as I did … Just for the record, here is my list of myths omitted by Laurendeau. I state them briefly. 1 The French were first in Canada – everywhere. Because they settled on the banks of the St Lawrence, they are supposed to have some priority in British Columbia. They know practically nothing of the English exploration and first settlement of other parts of North America. 2 The English rights in Quebec come from the French and are evidence of its greater generosity in the treatment of minorities. Actually English rights in Quebec come from the English. From the time when they controlled the entire Province. This is not the whole truth, since there have been some further grants of separate school rights since 1867, but the basic pattern was set before that date. 3 The French are settlers in Canada, but the English are invaders. 4 The French are a minority – everywhere. This leads them to think that their position is precarious and therefore they must become independent. Actually the French majority in Quebec wields an almost undisputed sovereignty over the vast area of Provincial jurisdiction. A corollary of this minority myth is that, being a minority, they are perpetually “dominated” by the majority and do not control its decisions on any important matter. 5 The French are willing to learn English, but the English won’t learn French. Actually the British element in Quebec is more bilingual than the French. Both races are the same in this regard; neither learns the other language unless it has to. Minorities always have to learn a little more than the majorities all over the world. 6 Lord Durham was an evil monster. Suggestions of this are

1964

7

8

9 10 11

91

found even in Laurendeau’s drafting of Chapter V. To the French, Durham was a great assimilator: to the English he is a great decoloniser.98 Quebec pays no attention to “responsible government.” I picked up also the word Laurendeau put in, “priestridden,” and showed that while it is an insulting term, from the point of view of protestant Canada the fact that Quebec has not a single lay school, college or university for the French-speaking people, the fact that the place names are predominantly attached to Catholic saints, and the fact that in the Catholic parishes the parish authorities can use the civil courts to enforce payment of church dues, is understandably going to make the “anglo-saxon” people feel that the influence of the priest in the social life of the Province is excessive. I might have mentioned the crucifixes in the court rooms, but didn’t. The constitutional rights of the French Canadian have been widely violated in Canada. There is a confusion here between constitutional and moral rights – which Laurendeau makes briefly. The French Canadian is a second class citizen. He means by this that he rarely occupies the top positions in the economic activities of the Province. But he is supremely top in the religious activities of the Province, still the most important, and in almost all of the professions, except those requiring high technical training. He also commands an ever increasing area of small industry and commerce as well as the Provincial political field. Thus it is more true to say that only in the economic area do the English have a privileged place; in these other activities, as well as in politics, it is a handicap to belong to the English minority. There is nothing in common between the two cultures. The English always assimilate minorities everywhere. The corruption of the French spoken in Quebec is due to the proximity of the English. Actually “Joual” was found first in the Chicoutimi area where there are very few English.99 An nfb100 film about a small fishing village in Quebec absolutely remote from the English, beautifully made, was shown in France recently, and had to have French sub-titles added, or otherwise the speech of the characters would never have been understood.

92

The Fate of Canada

t we n t y- f irs t m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 1 4 – 1 6 d e c e m b er 1964 I took the 8.45 a.m. plane from Dorval, and met Marchand as we disembarked in Ottawa. We took a taxi together to the Chateau Laurier, and on the way talked of Judge Lacourcière’s judgment on the uaw strike at the Gaspé Copper Mines.101 We agreed it was a shameful episode in the history of Quebec law on labour relations. I could see that Marchand appreciated the threat in the judgment although it was against a rival union.102 As usual, we started with a reading of the procès-verbal …103 I had to correct some statements attributed to me, and there was laughter when I showed that the reference to Quebec’s “love of minorities” was something that I had never said. Jean-Louis Gagnon became so bilingual that he exclaimed at one point “Je trouve ça très confusing pour l’esprit”; Neil Morrison in all seriousness said that the office staff had been “wholly occupied with the problem of reproduction” (only Gertrude Laing laughed); Father Cormier made a significant remark when he said “English Canadians must realize that their partner of tomorrow will not be the same as their partner of yesterday.” I suggested this latter remark should be put in those terms somewhere in the report.104

editor’s note: The commissioners discussed whether they should commit to publishing the preliminary report. We felt it possible that a general election might be called before the report was out, and that we might hesitate to publish in the midst of the campaign since the report itself might become a political football. It was generally agreed that our duty was to present a report to the Government and it was their responsibility to decide upon publication. We left it that the co-Presidents would have the right to make a decision for us if some very difficult situation arose at the last moment. We had one of our usual joint lunches at La Touraine, beginning with aperitif and going on to a good meal. In the course of the humorous remarks preceding lunch I suggested that there was a new area for our Commission to investigate: bisexualism in Canada, with special attention to “other sexual groups.” In the afternoon session we began first with an argument about the type of the preliminary report. Some people wished to avoid

1964

93

the dullness of the word “Report,” and wanted a catchy title more likely to make people want to read the book. I would have preferred avoiding the word “report” because it should be kept for our final set of recommendations, and suggested a simple title like “Preliminary Inquiry.” Others favoured something like “The Canadian Crisis – A Preliminary Report.” We were left with no very serious agreement and clearly if anyone has a bright idea we will be glad to accept it.105

editor’s note: In the afternoon, the commissioners went through the draft, and Scott observed: Ten authors editing go slowly and frequently changes are made that do not improve of clarity. The process, however, had to be gone through and was not without its usefulness in the education of the Commissioners. After a decent adjournment we all foregathered at Davie Dunton’s house in Rockcliffe, and discussed various things amongst ourselves. At one point Léon Dion was talking to me about Maurice Lamontagne’s unfortunate behaviour in the purchase of his furniture from the now bankrupt firm, and he said in a tone of disgust, “Nous sommes quêteux.”106 I knew what he meant, and I agreed with him in a large degree, but remarked that perhaps the fact that the English had kept control of the purse strings and important posts for so long after the session was the reason that the French Canadians, or many of them, had become accustomed to trying to get privileges from those who were in authority. In a conversation with Jean Marchand and Mike Oliver, Marchand amazed us both by saying, laughingly, but not without some seriousness, that this might be a good moment for him to step out and lead the ndp in Quebec. He felt that the party had a great opportunity for making progress and winning a wide support. Mike and I looked at each other in a surprised and hopeful way. After this we – or most of us – adjourned to Madame Burger’s107 in Hull for a bright and lively dinner, and went to bed feeling that the day had not been wasted. The meeting on Tuesday the 15th began as usual at 10 o’clock, or perhaps it was closer to 10:30 since we were chatting together for more time, and we continued the procedure begun the day before in the criticism and revision of the report. We had now reached Chapters III and IV in the third draft. I raised a question about the

94

The Fate of Canada

Acadians, which were described in a footnote as sharing the same point of view as the French in Quebec about the future of bilingualism and biculturalism. I remembered Mason Wade’s emphasis on the different outlook between the two branches of the French race in Canada. This produced quite a discussion, during which I realized that Laurendeau did not hold Mason Wade in high repute. I went to the Rideau Club, and was having a Martini by myself when (Graham) Rowley came up to speak to and tell me how much he had liked my talk to the “Arctic Circle.” This relieved me greatly as I was very uncertain about that speech and whether it had gone over well with a great many people who were far more expert on the Arctic than I could ever pretend to be. Going in to lunch I was tagged by Geoffrey Andrew108 who asked me to join his table where he had Ramsay Cook with him. We had a good conversation about Canada in general, the flag situation, the B & B. Commission etc.

editor’s note: In the afternoon, the commissioners heard a report on the research projects that were being planned. I asked whether there was any proper study being made of the Provincial Government in Quebec, which I felt was particularly interesting since Quebec, under the Constitution, is the only officially bilingual Province. We were told that they had this study in mind but were having difficulties finding personnel. It seems obvious to me, living in Quebec, that the whole trend there is towards unilingualism. If this can be done unofficially by a bilingual Province it means that other Provinces can go bilingual officially without having to make very much change from their present English unilingualism. We then had a description of the work being done in the armed forces. An outline of the studies was presented to us. It was explained that: (1) In the past not much policy has been developed with regard to the armed forces apart from the two world wars; (II) The language problem has only arisen in the forces in the past five years; (III) In the Air Force, above the rank of Group Captain there are exactly no French Canadians in any position whatsoever. There was a short discussion on these points, and it became obvious that the research was going slowly and would not be available until late 1965. Neil Morrison objected to the statement that the points of convergence between English and French Canada were “frighteningly few.”

1964

95

The general feeling in the Commission was that the statement was substantially correct. After adjournment some of us returned to the Chateau Laurier, and then gathered again for the Annual Christmas Party which was held in the Faircrest Apartment house. The whole top floor, with a fine view over the surrounding city, was fitted out with tables, chairs, a bar (self service) and a buffet table. Everybody mingled with everyone else, and the various Commissioners eyed one another’s choices of males and females to talk to. I was told that someone asked Neil Morrison “Who is that man that looks so much like General de Gaulle?” It was me. We had much fun together. Later that evening I went to Alma Houston’s109 house to talk about the Arctic and met Paterson,110 whom I had missed when I was in Cape Dorset. With us was an obscure Eskimo who sat in the corner of the room reading magazines all evening, saying never a word. I learned some more about the sculpture at Cape Dorset, and the manner of collecting the soapstone which is stored in the autumn to last through the winter. I don’t think we helped the Eskimo very much. Our Wednesday morning meeting (16th Dec.) started out with a discussion of Chapter VI of the draft report. It soon developed into an attack by Neil Morrison on the portions which he knew Mike Oliver had written. This was the outward expression of the inner conflict. Once again we were subjected to a degree of conversation and criticism from Neil which was wholly unjustified in view of his position merely as Secretary to the Commission. At one point he picked on a sentence which I myself had written, the one which stated that the English minority in Quebec had no official spokesman.111 I told him how I had attended a meeting (actually it was in Carl Goldenberg’s112 house) at which a number of representative English speaking Montrealers were discussing how they could form some kind of Committee to put the English minority point of view before the Legislative Committee in Quebec or possibly even before the B & B Commission. I pointed out that even in Quebec the French Canadians have their St Jean Baptiste Society. At this point JeanLouis Gagnon got into the act, and almost shouted “I’ll trade you the St Jean Baptiste Society for the Royal Bank of Canada any day.” I almost felt he believed that The Royal Bank spoke for the English speaking minority! In the afternoon we began to discuss Chapter VIII, “Two Societies.” Rudnyckyj wanted to add as part of the title “and Other

96

The Fate of Canada

Ethnic Groups.” I objected, since the latter groups integrate with one or other of the two societies; hence to mention them separately would suggest there is a third society in Canada. We took over three quarters of an hour to sort out this little problem. In the course of the discussion I began to wonder whether the Indians, for instance, really wanted to integrate with one or other of the two societies, or rather to keep distant from them. I then questioned the part of the report where André Laurendeau had referred to Quebec as being a “Global Society.” I felt that the implication from this was to exclude totally the English minority in the Province. Some discussion followed without any definite changes being attempted. I still felt that I had raised a point which had not been thoroughly thought through. Then on p. 228 I objected to the statement that there would have to be “major changes” in Canada to avoid a possible break-up of Confederation. I thought we should not commit ourselves to the magnitude of change at this point in our investigation. Anyway, have there not already been major changes in the relations between Ottawa and the Provinces? It seemed to me that the phrase suggested that we were already a long way towards the concept of an “associated state” for the position of Quebec in Confederation. All the other Commissioners admitted they did not know exactly what “major changes” really meant, but they felt it was a good phrase nonetheless. I then proposed we add the words “of attitude and behaviour” after the words “major changes,” but this was objected to. We eventually took a vote on the phrasing and I found myself in a small minority. As a parting thrust I said that we might find that with the existing changes in fiscal relations, plus the provision of education in French in public schools outside Quebec, we might have an acceptable programme, whereupon Gertrude Laing said “Providing French language instruction in the public schools of Alberta would certainly be considered a major change.”

editor’s note: The threads of that debate can be found interwoven in section 131 and following of the Preliminary Report. It begins, “What is at stake is the very fact of Canada: what kind of country will it be? Will it continue to exist? These questions are not matters for theoreticians only, they are posed by groups of human beings. And other groups by refusing to ask themselves the same questions actually increase the seriousness of the situation.” The

1964

97

commissioners go on to describe the situation as “no longer the traditional conflict between a majority and a minority. It is rather a conflict between two majorities; that which is a majority in all of Canada and that which is a majority in the entity of Quebec.” They note that the picture keeps changing even as they write the report: Since the appointment of the commission in July 1963, many accommodations have been negotiated. Adjustments have been made in federal-provincial relations that have met certain of Quebec’s particular demands. Joint federal-provincial programs, so much a part of our recent constitutional history, have given way to opting out devices; federal pension plans have been adapted to Quebec’s needs, and tax sharing has greatly enlarged the freedom of Quebec. The public funds available for use by the people of Quebec through their government have in effect increased substantially. The visit of Her Majesty in October 1964 exposed forces and disclosed attitudes which caused serious reflection on all sides. The climate of opinion, particularly in the Province of Quebec, seems to change rapidly and we cannot foretell what new directions it will take. Nevertheless, in spite of the importance of these events and adjustments, we are convinced that the opinions we heard spring from attitudes too deeply rooted for them to have been modified in any significant or permanent way. Thus, we must reiterate that we have found overwhelming evidence of serious danger to the continued existence of Canada.113 Later, in section 133, the commissioners write “Wide-ranging negotiations, however, will be necessary between the major groups of Canadians. We believe that Canada will live and thrive if there can be a satisfactory matching between the minimum of what French-speaking Canadians consider as vital, and the maximum that English-speaking Canadians will accept. In our final report we hope to make recommendations about adjustments and accommodations that can be introduced and become effective only if, on each side, there is an insistent, driving desire to understand the other, and to consider the common good.” The chapter ends with section 136, which includes the wording over which Scott was outvoted: “All ten of us are convinced that in the present situation there is a grave danger for the future of Canada and of all

98

The Fate of Canada

Canadians. There are those who feel that the problems will lessen and go away with time. This is possible, but in our view, it is more probable that unless there are major changes the situation will worsen with time, and that it could worsen much more quickly than many think. “There are hopeful signs; there are great possibilities for Canada. But we are convinced at the present time that the perils must be faced.”

1965

editor’s note: Nineteen sixty-five would be a significant year politically. On 25 February, the Preliminary Report was released, to very different reactions in French and in English. In La Presse, Vincent Prince said that the report showed that “only radical decisions can prevent a rupture from taking place.” But English Canadian press reaction was much more skeptical. The Calgary Herald complained that the report “seems heavily weighted with sympathy to the French-Canadian point of view, and tends to make English-speaking Canada largely responsible for the strains to which Canadian federalism has been subjected during the last two years” In Saturday Night, Peter Gzowski summarized the report as saying “Canada is in trouble, serious trouble. The French Canadians aren’t happy with their lot and the English Canadians can’t understand why. But I know that. Lord Durham knew it 128 years ago … We have been served one of the most remarkable catalogues of the obvious ever to see print in Canada.”1 In his diary, André Laurendeau wrote: We were all quite pessimistic, but the event caused a stir from sea to sea ... With a few rare exceptions French Canada expressed satisfaction, and sometimes even enthusiasm. And on the English side, there was the whole range of opinions covered in the report itself: from opposition to the principle of the Commission itself, right up to the intelligent and generous commentaries of Ramsay Cook. The most unpleasant opinion was made by an EnglishCanadian journalist, Charles Lynch writing for the Ottawa Citizen, that is, a liberal newspaper (by the way, the opinions

100

The Fate of Canada

cross party lines to such an extent that Mr Balcer2 applauds the report, while some members of the government are furious): Lynch’s opinion is that the French commissioners won out over the English commissioners, and that the report should have been signed by “Laurendeau and Co.” I won’t point out just how shallow this view is; but it’s difficult to respond to it in a convincing manner. Neil3 mentioned yesterday that (Pearson adviser) Tom Kent4 personally shares this opinion. All this makes the possibilities look pretty bleak as far as eventual implementation of the recommendations of the final report by the central government is concerned. But what strikes me the most is that a presentation, in which we’ve all tried to be objective, should be considered a priori a French-Canadian victory – a victory in the strictest sense of the term, that is, where some forces win out over others, all questions of convictions aside. It seems impossible for many Anglophones to believe that a Roy Frith, a Gertrude Laing or a Rudnyckyj could have evolved in this way.5 Some of the time of the commission was taken up with the fact that the amount of money each commissioner received would be made public. Scott wrote, There was an embarrassed silence when it was realized that Laurendeau had received over four thousand dollars more than had Dunton, and that Gagnon had by a long way been given more than anyone else, his total of $19,550 being about $10,000 more than any other Commissioner apart from the co-Chairmen. The difference between Laurendeau and Dunton was easily explained because of the former being named Executive co-Chairman, and not receiving the salary from his previous position on Le Devoir comparable to the salary Dunton is receiving from his University. But the Gagnon situation cried out for some explanation that was not forthcoming. In the fall, Jean Marchand left the commission and announced on 10 September that he would be a Liberal candidate in the federal election with Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau. On 8 November, the Liberals remained a minority government with 131 seats, the Progressive Conservatives won 97, the New Democratic Party 21, Social Credit 14 and others 2.

1965

101

t we n t y- s e c o n d m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 1 1 – 1 5 ja n ua ry 1965 We took up the question of the public hearings for the presentation of briefs. In discussing the nature of the hearings, I expressed the opinion that the proceedings are intended more for the witnesses who would appear before us than for ourselves. This was their opportunity to present their case before an impartial tribunal. We should create an atmosphere of calm and tranquility, where the utmost ease and freedom of discussion was possible, and where there was no element whatever of public spectacle. It was evident that quite a discussion was likely to arise on this point, and the Chairman adjourned the morning meeting before it began. We had lunch, with aperitif and stories beforehand, in La Touraine. Then Father Cormier invited Jean-Louis Gagnon and myself to join him because he wished to discuss something important. It turned out he was still very worried about the general tenor of our preliminary report, feeling that it was far too pessimistic and not truly representative of the good will we found in every part of the country during our regional meetings. It seemed clear that he was on the verge of deciding not to agree to the report, thus destroying our unanimity. I said that I shared to some degree his concern about the somewhat negative impression conveyed by the report, but nevertheless felt that it was essential that we should publish it and that if it leaned a little toward a pessimistic view it would act as a corrective to the indifference, if not hostility, that was still very evident in English speaking Canada. Gagnon agreed with me in this, and I felt that we were all convinced of the value of the work and of the unavoidable obligation to produce the report as soon as possible. I hope I am right in believing that Cormier will go along at the end. It was not difficult to persuade him that the first draft of the report was more pessimistic, and more one-sidedly favourable to the French nationalist point of view, than the later revisions. That evening (Monday 11th) I had dinner with Bob Phillips6 of Northern Affairs, who had invited me to his house to talk to the members of what he called the “Northern University.” These were men and women in training for work in the Arctic or among the Indian population. I opened discussion with much the same material as I had given in my talk to the Arctic Circle before Christmas. A very

102

The Fate of Canada

good discussion followed, though I must say I was not impressed by the rather stolid and indifferent look on most of the faces. They might have been a group of any Canadian students forced to attend a class they were only mildly interested in. One of them had already been a policeman (rcmp ) in the North. As usual, it was two or three individuals whose questions and comments made the life of the evening.

me e t i n g o f t h e c o m m is s ion, 12 january 1965 At our Tuesday morning meeting (Jan. 12th) we took up again the discussion of the character of the public hearings. Royce Frith, who had broached the idea to me the previous evening, startled the Commission by saying boldly that he doubted whether we needed to have any public meetings at all. After all, we had all the briefs, we could read their recommendations, and it was doubtful whether the time, effort and expense of the hearings would add very much to what we already knew or could find out by reading the documents. He said that Bob Fowler7 was not holding public hearings for his Committee now investigating cbc . I partially supported his proposal, at least to the point of insisting that we ask each author of a brief to let us know definitively whether he or she felt they wished to appear before us and would have anything to add to their brief if they did so. André Laurendeau saw dangers in Royce’s suggestion – one being that the result of the research work will take so long to come in that we cannot sit quietly doing nothing until the preparation of our final report late in April 1966; the public hearings provide us with an accepted form of activity which everyone expects of us and will understand. The general feeling was that we had to go ahead with the hearings as promised to the people whose briefs had been invited. Then we faced again the question of tv . I strongly opposed the idea that any of our proceedings should be photographed either by the press or by the tv cameras. I argued that we must create the atmosphere of a court room where everything was designed to make it most likely that we would get at the truth of all the evidence being presented to us, and that witnesses would not feel in the least inhibited in presenting their views. The mere presence of a camera, and particularly of a tv camera would, I said, easily disturb all but the most publicity minded people and would militate

1965

103

against the scientific nature of our enquiry. Royce Frith equally strongly supported the opposite view, despite his previous argument for dispensing with public hearings, on the ground that we were preforming a public function, were holding public hearings to which the public was invited, and therefore should use the means at our disposal today for informing the public about the nature of our hearings and what was said before us. The Commission was much more divided than I had expected. Jean-Louis Gagnon and Neil Morrison were favourable to the idea of more publicity and David Dunton partially so; he proposed that photographs and tv might be allowed before and after, but not during the actual sessions of the Commission. I had Father Cormier and Marchand on my side. Eventually I moved formally that no pictures of any kind should be allowed in the hall where we were sitting at any time, though radio pick-up could be permitted, and the press, of course, would be present. To this Dunton moved an amendment that photography be allowed immediately before and after but not during the hearings. On a vote the amendment was defeated five to four, and my motion carried five to four. André Laurendeau, as Chairman, did not vote, though I think it was clear he was on my side. By this narrow margin we eliminated the spectacular element of the hearings. I am afraid that the emotional tone that entered into my argument was equalled by that which I detected in Royce Frith’s, and there was some slight feeling between us as we went out of the meeting. Thursday afternoon and all of Wednesday I spent working with the Editorial Committee, revising the various drafts of the Preliminary Report. Mostly I worked with Dave Dunton on the English drafts, while Laurendeau and Gagnon were working in another room on the French versions. Every now and then we had to get together to clear up points of difference. It was a tiring job demanding painstaking and meticulous attention to detail, but absolutely essential to the preparation of a presentable report. At the end of the morning’s and afternoon’s work Dave and I had only covered forty pages. It seemed to me that the English version was full of French expressions and not what an English speaking author would have written on his own; perhaps the French version is similarly affected by its association with the English. Maybe we will produce a report showing that bilingualism and biculturalism, however justifiable in theory and inescapable in practice, ought not to operate simultaneously in any single mind.

104

The Fate of Canada

Having lived so close to the various drafts of the report since before Christmas, and receiving daily so many amendments and variations, I lose track of the style and find it impossible to judge of the likely impact on a reader who comes fresh to the text. Nevertheless, through it all there does appear to be emerging an honest description of the general state of mind of the people in Canada, more vivid and perhaps more penetrating than could have been obtained had we confined ourselves to the formal presentation of briefs and to results of academic research. The liveliness of the report comes through the actual statements of all sorts of Canadians from all parts of the country, talking freely to the Commission at the various public meetings.

m e e t in g o f t h e e d ito r i al commi ttee, o t tawa , 1 8 – 2 0 ja nuary 1965 I went to Ottawa last week to meet with the Editorial Committee and to continue the work of revision. We followed the same procedure as previously; I worked on the English texts with Dunton, Laurendeau and Gagnon worked on the French, they were helped by Gilles Hénault,8 and we had the help of Jim Taylor. Whenever a question arose that involved the French as well as the English we went in to square it with them, and when they had similar difficulties they came in to see us. From time to time some member of the staff, perhaps Elizabeth Van Every would dash in with some suggestion or some new statistic which we had to incorporate. We piled revisions upon revisions upon revisions, and sometimes got lost in the mass of paper and overlapping documents. Gradually, however, a final version emerged, and it seemed only a matter of time before we had achieved a satisfactory expression of our ideas in the two languages. Laurendeau and Gagnon were particularly shocked at what purported to be a draft translation that came from the Parliamentary Translation bureau; they could not believe that this was the kind of service used by the Federal Government. Laurendeau said that we had here an example of the great deficiencies in the Federal Civil Service, to which we must certainly call attention in our final report.

1965

105

t we n t y- t h ir d m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 1 – 3 f e b rua ry 1965 On the plane to Ottawa I sat with Jean-Louis Gagnon. He said that a friend of his in Quebec had told him that as late as the 1890s all the business of the Quebec Municipal Council was still being transacted wholly in English. He concluded that there had been a great advance in the uses of the French language in places where it had previously not been known. After the meeting came to order the minutes were read and then André Laurendeau reported on the work of the Editorial Committee. He said that all the questions in the drafting and translating of the Preliminary Report had been resolved in the best spirit and “Sans raideur.”9 Two examples were given of the way in which words and phrases had to be carefully understood in order that the exact meaning could be expressed in the two languages. One paragraph, written in French, had spoken about the “aspirations” of Quebec and how they were now being better formulated and were steadily overcoming all obstacles. The English part of the Committee felt that an “aspiration” could not be thought of as overcoming obstacles and acting in a positive manner. I well remember Laurendeau looking at me and saying “If you were a French Canadian you would know what we mean.” All the other French speaking members agreed, so we translated the paragraph literally. Laurendeau admitted that the meaning of the word that would be found in a French dictionary supported our view, but that in Quebec the word had to be given a very special meaning on account of the whole history of the problem. The other incident occurred over the phrase Laurendeau had used about “the brutal rule of the majority.” I objected that majority rule was not a brutal thing; that it was indeed the general rule in which we operate most of our affairs. On further discussing the point it became clear that what he meant was that a majority can be as brutal in its role as any dictator.10 By a slight rephrasing we managed to reach agreement. Here again his point of view from inside a minority was at first seemingly quite different from mine, based on my experience as a member of the majority.11 A frank discussion found the point of agreement. We then discussed the procedure at the future public hearings of briefs. To my surprise Laurendeau asked that we reconsider the question of photographers at the hearings. He said that in practice it

106

The Fate of Canada

would be impossible to keep them entirely out of the building where the sessions were taking place, and it would be easier to handle the situation if we permitted pictures before and after but not during the actual hearings. I forced a vote on the question of reconsideration, and lost by five to four. Rudnyckyj joined with me in asking that our objection be recorded. It was then decided that the exclusion of cameras would be for the actual period of the hearings only. I still think this is a bad decision and likely to cause difficulty. In the course of these discussions, we were presented with an analysis of briefs likely to be heard at the opening meetings in Ottawa, and amongst them was a brief from the Glengarry Historical Society. This contained the most outspoken attack on French Canadians and the Catholic Church of any brief we have yet seen. The comment about it in the document handed to us was “Le préjugé porté à son paroxysme.”12 Evidently this frank expression of antagonistic views moved the French speaking members who prepared our document to a state of unusual feeling, because to me the Glengarry Historical Association spoke no more extremely against the French Canadians than many of the separatists had spoken against English Canadians, and about them no such extreme comment was ever made. I felt strongly that our staff should not indulge in editorializing, but thought it best not to raise the matter. Pointing it out later to Dave Dunton I found that he agreed with me. At lunch we discussed whether it would be proper for the Commission to meet in a motel in Montreal, there being no other buildings available in a suitable part of the City. It seemed to be agreed that there was something about a motel that did not accord well with the notion of a Royal Commission, though a hotel would be perfectly suitable. I remembered a remark Max Cohen13 had made to me many years ago when motels had just been invented: “They have solved the sex problem on the highways.” In the evening I talked to the seminar which the Research Group has organized, I spoke on the Constitutional guarantees for language and separate schools in the bna Act. Although it was a cold night about forty people turned out and we had a very useful discussion. It seems clear that Mike Oliver has developed a good spirit of morale in his team, and they are really trying to understand the basic problems facing the Commission. On Tuesday morning, February 2nd, we met an even larger delegation from the Research Department, and continued listening to

1965

107

reports of work in progress. Mr Forbel was very good on the history of the armed forces; he showed how late it was before we began to develop a truly Canadian army, and how much later before we began to get our own naval and air forces. We also had a brief report on the studies being conducted in Switzerland and Belgium. Royce Frith was interested to learn that there is a Civil Service examination that can be taken in Belgium to establish a person’s bilingualism. With this certificate various jobs are open. We were reminded, however, that a country that has conscription can deal with the problem of bilingualism in a way not so easy for an army recruited on a voluntary basis. I met Bob Fowler in the Chateau, and he gave me his opinion that the situation in Quebec was much less tense and getting better all the time. When I reported this to Laurendeau his only comment was “Déja!”14 The afternoon session continued with other branches of the work being explained to us. Mike Oliver told us of the work being planned in Division II dealing with constitutional problems. To my surprise I discovered that a number of studies had been conducted by such people as Jacques-Yvan Morin, of a kind that could not possibly be called research in the ordinary sense of that term. They were rather proposals for a constitutional change. I raised the question whether the Commission had really decided to take on this whole area of enquiry. Were we to compete with the Quebec Legislative Committee on the Constitution question? If so, we had to get many more studies than from the few people that have apparently been approached. We would have to balance our work to represent not only the views of those wanting radical change, but the views of those who might contend that the actual structure of the bna Act is not the real problem. Father Cormier strongly supported me in this position. At the morning meeting on February 3d, we discussed the final draft of the preliminary report that had been distributed earlier. Almost everyone had something they wanted changed, though it was obvious that nothing in the way of a redraft was now possible. Mr Wyczynski was particularly disturbed at the style of the English and the French, saying that it indicated a hasty draftsmanship. Others made corrections and suggestions. A few particular points were noted and some small verbal changes were accepted. Afterwards we all proceeded to sign the final page. At 10.40 a.m. the adoption of the report was formally moved and agreed to. I must say that I had no great feeling of

108

The Fate of Canada

exhilaration at this moment; while there is a great deal of interesting matter in the report, I did not feel that it was likely to be widely read or to make any helpful contribution to the present situation. Parts of the English text show the signs of hasty translation, and can hardly be said to have achieved any literary style. But we who were members of the editorial committee have gone over the document so many times, and seen to many different drafts, that it is hard for us to get a balanced view of the work as a whole. After this the research people returned and we carried on with our discussion of various aspects of their programme. I again raised the question of our constitutional studies and the necessity of having them broadly based and representing different points of view. It was agreed that no further contracts would be let in this area until the Commission has had a further chance to think over the question and decide how far it wishes to go. Obviously to open up this whole subject is in effect to add an amount of work sufficient in itself to justify the appointment of a Royal Commission. On February 9th I was in Toronto, returning from speaking at the Law Faculty of Western University, and I got in touch with Bora Laskin and Ted McWhinney15 to ask them what they thought our Commission should do about the Constitution. It turned out that they had both been appointed to the Ontario Committee which Robarts16 had established to advise him on precisely these questions. It seems that Jean Lesage17 is now receiving a number of constitutional studies, recommending various forms of change, and when he meets Robarts and other Provincial Premiers he asks them their opinion. Of course, they have no opinion, since they have not put their minds to the problem. Thus it seems that the initiative of Quebec is going to force other Provinces, as it has already forced Ontario, to set up special Constitutional Committees. Ted McWhinney thought this an admirable thing, and I must say I agree with him. Something of this sort is needed to prod the English speaking Provinces into action. Discussing the question at lunch, I found that McWhinney was most emphatic in feeling that our Commission had to keep pace with the Quebec Committee and other Committees like his own. He said that the public generally believed that this was our prime function and if we did not undertake it we would simply be left aside. Bora Laskin was rather silent during the meal but this is not unnatural in the presence of a McWhinney.

1965

109

On February 17th I attended a special meeting in Ottawa of the two Presidents, the Secretaries, Mike Oliver and Professor Smiley who is doing the basic study of Federal-Provincial relations. We took up again the question of whether we should undertake a general study of all aspects of the Constitution. For some time we roamed all over the field, without seemingly coming to any conclusion. In the course of the discussion a number of us began to put ourselves on record as favouring greater or lesser degrees of constitutional change. Eventually we have an agreement that the work should be undertaken but on a broad, national basis, with various studies done by people with differing points of view. The difficulty was to think of names of individuals suitable for the kind of studies we wanted. It seems to me that in Quebec very few people know anything about the Constitution, but there are many who have large ideas of how it should be changed, whereas in English Canada there are many more who are expert on constitutional law but have no ideas about what changes are desirable. Mike Oliver gave us one piece of good news: Pere Arès has declined an invitation to prepare a paper for us. Why anyone should have asked him to is a mystery.

twe n t y- f o u rt h m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 2 2 – 2 4 f e b ruary 1965 I arrived somewhat late, not being able to get on the 8:45 a.m. plane. I noticed that my taxi driver from the airport in Ottawa had a volume on nursing by his side so asked him whether he was studying nursing. This opened up quite a conversation. It turned out that he had wanted to be a professional hockey player, but had injured himself and was now clearly unable to make the grade. So at 23 and married, he finds himself not having completed his schooling and facing a world where his economic future was bleak. “That’s why I am driving a taxi,” he said. He is now trying to re-enter school, and hopes to be able to complete his education at least to the university stage. His wife, he said, was urging him to continue. I told him not to worry about his age; that if he had enlisted during the war he would have come back late also; and that what he needed was a five year plan so that he would be fully equipped at 28. “Like the Russians,” I said, at which he laughed. He looked keen and intelligent, and I could not help feeling that it was merely an absence of proper

110

The Fate of Canada

direction that had led him up his blind alley. Perhaps television helps to explain it. The other members of the Commission were busily at work when I arrived, discussing further aspects of the research programme. A group of us lunched together at La Touraine, as usual. A sign on the wall in the bar said there were 403 more days left for the restaurant. We agreed that we should aim to have our final report in by then, since otherwise where would we eat? During lunch I noticed Father Cormier still explaining to Jean-Louis Gagnon his difficulties in making up his mind to sign the preliminary report. He told us about a recent meeting of the États Généraux in Quebec where the French Canadians from outside Quebec were almost wholly disregarded. He constantly fears the development of a purely Quebec nationalism that would exclude the minorities outside. A group of us joined for drinks before dinner at the Chateau, and during the discussion, which became quite lively, I “disbarred” Royce Frith because he was running a tv programme under commercial sponsorship. I said this was not compatible with the profession of barrister. He asked me not to say this to the benchers in Toronto as they might take it seriously. At dinner in the Chateau we found Neil Morrison eating by himself, with a glass of milk and a glass of Canadian red wine in front of his plate. Somehow it seemed very revealing. We forbade him to drink the Canadian wine, and Royce Frith made him order each of us, as a penalty, a carafon of French wine. On Tuesday morning we discussed our proposed seminar on Research to be held next April. At once differences of opinion arose as to the nature of the discussions to be held. We all agreed we could not spend our time simply learning about the further work. We should begin, it was suggested, to think about our final recommendations. Mrs Laing said, and I agreed with her, that it would be dangerous for us to start forming our ideas too soon about these recommendations, since if we put them forward in a group we are apt to seek to defend them and thus to solidify our opinions when perhaps we should keep more flexibility in our thinking. I also said that if I was going to bare my constitutional soul I would want to do it first among the Commissioners only and not in the presence of a larger group including research workers. Lacoste said we could at least set up certain hypotheses and discuss them objectively without necessarily committing ourselves to one side or the other. The

1965

111

discussion ended without any very clear idea emerging. I could feel that we were all hesitant at coming face to face with the ultimate point of decision which in the end, of course, we cannot avoid. I lunched with John Stevenson18 and his wife and revived old memories of the famous Smart sisters (Betty and Jane) and their unusual lives.19 Mrs Stevenson said that George Barker,20 the poet, had never offered to help Betty raise his two children. I supported her opinion that Betty had shown enormous courage and personality in making for herself the life that she chose. I remembered her leaving our house in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to go across the Continent in an old car with George Barker in 1941; the story is told in her remarkable book By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept. I was taken to dinner by Roland Ritchie21 to meet the other members of what is called the “Dining Club”22 – a self perpetuating group of twelve members of the Ottawa establishment. There were present Judge Martland,23 Chubby Power, Grattan O’Leary, John Stevenson, as well as my fellow guest, Frank Underhill.24 We had good food, good drink, and good talk – at least I did a lot of talking. The discussion ranged around current Canadian problems, including many of the matters being looked into by the Commission. I had strong agreement from the two members of the Supreme Court when I said I did not like the idea that it should be reconstituted as though to represent two belligerents in constitutional questions. Wednesday’s meeting was taken up with a great many research details that do not deserve comment here. Then at twelve o’clock Time Magazine sent in its photographer. Having cut my face rather badly that morning, owing to my forgetting my electric razor and being forced to use a “safety” razor, I put my best side forward to the Camera. At lunch at La Touraine Lacoste remarked that one of the most extraordinary developments in Quebec was that clerical authority had effectively disappeared without any fuss or outbreak of any sort. He said it was a kind of rapid evaporation. The consequences of this are not yet foreseeable, but I am sure they will be great. In the afternoon we discussed the preliminary report and whether members of the Commission should talk publicly about it on tv . It was agreed that we should. At 2:55 p.m. the printed copies arrived. There was much rejoicing. I found a breach in the equal partnership principle – the French version is six pages longer than the English! Thus ended this further stage in our Royal Commission work.

112

The Fate of Canada

f irs t p u b l ic h e a r i ngs , ottawa, 1 – 3 m a rc h 1965 I went up to Ottawa on Sunday night by train, and met in Laurendeau’s room in the Chateau with Mike Oliver. We immediately exchanged impressions about the way in which the Preliminary Report had been received in the country. Everyone was on the whole pleased with the manner in which it had stirred up discussion and the generally favourable impression it seemed to have made on a good many important people. At that stage the counter opinion had not yet come in through editorials in western papers. We were late getting back to our rooms. The afternoon session was particularly dull. At the end of a tiring day we concluded that while the process was unavoidable, and gave the authors of the briefs their day in court, it added very little to what we knew from the briefs themselves. I began to think that perhaps Royce Frith may have been right in suggesting that it really wasn’t necessary to have hearings at all. The opinions before us ranged all the way from the aggressive nationalism of Mr Joncas and his group of French speaking civil servants, to the incredibly bigoted and old fashioned Britishness of Mr (Scott omitted the name), who spoke as though Canada had not changed at all since 1867. He told us with tears in his voice how he had landed from the United States at the Toronto Airport and had been handed a customs declaration that was only in the French language. He appeared to think this would be a very compelling argument against any further concessions to Quebec. When I asked him how he imagined a French speaking resident of Quebec would feel if he came back to Quebec City and was handed a form only in the English language, he seemed to be baffled at this novel idea and could only suggest that any French Canadians who travelled to the States would obviously be able to speak English. Two of the brighter contributions were made by a group of young students from Queen’s University and by some young French Canadian university graduates living in Ottawa. Both had thought a good deal about the problem and were most constructive in their proposals. The French speaking group said very firmly and convincingly that if Ottawa wants more French Canadians to work in its Civil Service it will have to pay a higher rate than it is

1965

113

presently offering since every French Canadian with any talent or training whatsoever is now sought after by the Government and private business in Quebec and has no need to travel outside his province in order to have a well paid job with a good prospect for the future. I went to the Rideau Club on Wednesday for lunch, and again looked with astonishment at this solid group of English speaking officials and business men, sitting in a club in whose reading room there is not one single French newspaper from Canada or elsewhere, and where the atmosphere suggests stability without change for ever. Sitting at the lunch table with five men I did not know, I felt almost afraid to mention the work of the Commission, though some mildly polite interest was shown when I did. I was glad I had taken out membership in the Cercle Universitaire.25 It is obvious that a great deal of time can be wasted at these public hearings unless we hold ourselves firmly in check when the witnesses before us have nothing important to say. We spent nearly forty-five minutes talking with a woman whose main idea seemed to be that we should recommend that all Christians in Canada should join together in a single church. When Royce Frith asked her who would be the head of the church, she replied that as she was not a Christian she felt it was not proper to make any suggestion. We should have disposed of her in ten minutes.

t we n t y- f if t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, r it z - c a r lto n h o t el [montreal] , 1 4 m a rc h 1965. editor’s note: Most of the meeting was taken up with discussion of the amount of money each commissioner had charged. Scott noted that there was an embarrassed silence when Neil Morrison read out the amounts and it became clear that Laurendeau had received $4,000 more than Dunton and Gagnon about $10,000 more than any of the other commissioners apart from the co-chairmen. Scott felt that Laurendeau’s claim was reasonable, but Gagnon’s was not. Father Cormier expressed concern over the fact that the two co-Chairmen had not issued a press statement at the time of

114

The Fate of Canada

publication, indicating that every member of the Commission had had to make some concessions in order that they might be able to agree upon a unanimous report. I think he wanted this publicly stated so as not to seem necessarily to have approved of everything in the document. He had been worried that we were overstating the case. On the whole, however, the Commissioners felt satisfied with the public reception of the report and with the wide degree of discussion it had provoked in all parts of the country.

t we n t y- s ix t h m e e t in g o f t he commi s si on held i n t he du n to n - l au r e n d e au s ui te, ki ng edward h o t e l , to ro n to, 2 8 march 1965 We had a brief report from Gertrude Laing on her meeting with a Committee of the Japanese Canadians. She said that, despite the treatment we had given them during World War II, and the attempted deportations, she found no rancour among them and they were anxious to play their part as a recognized ethnic group in the development of Canada. We then discussed the question, which had become somewhat serious in our recent Ottawa and Montreal meetings, as to how to deal with crack pots who appear before us with briefs. I expressed a strong opinion that we should not let them make new statements, or take advantage of our meeting for personal publicity, but should keep them strictly to a few questions before we dismissed them.

p ri vat e m e e t in g , to ro n to, 1 apri l 1965 We first received five French Canadian airmen, who came to talk to us privately about their difficulties as French Canadians with families attached to the Air Force. They were stationed in Centralia, Ontario. Guy Lafrenière26 was their chief spokesman. They told us a great many things about life in the Air Force from their point of view. Basically the difficulty is that the Air Force is an English language service, and that almost nothing is done to accommodate the training, living conditions or general life to the existence of a French Canadian group of airmen. In consequence, they never have French speaking schools to which to send their children, they have to conduct all their official work in the English language, and they find themselves at a grave disadvantage when it comes to

1965

115

promotions. The turnover in French speaking personnel is consequently very high. They all agreed that the language of command would have to be in English, as it is the official language used for all mixed operations in both nato and norad . Communication in the air is also in English. Their complaint was rather at the absence of consideration for themselves and their families in the daily life of the airforce. They told us that young trainees coming to the force must spend three months learning English, before they can take up their basic training, all of which is in English. This at once put them behind their fellow recruits who are English speaking. The result is that they lose this much seniority, and the other recruits move that much faster to a higher paid rank. They thus are penalized financially as well as in seniority by the necessity of their learning English. They told us that they could sense a very strong resistance to the attempts recently introduced by the Federal Government to provide voluntary French instruction for the English speaking officers. Somehow or other every officer who might wish to receive this instruction was found to be indispensable from his present duties. When I asked them whether they found a more sympathetic attitude among the younger members of the Airforce they said “Yes.” It was the Establishment at the top which was so hard to move. Asked what they would place as the first priority, they replied (1) “French speaking schools at the air bases, (2) an “école militaire purement Français.” We were very much impressed by their general demeanour, their good sense and absence of rancour as well as by the very positive complaints, well documented, that they put before us. After they had left, we received a delegation from the Canadian Manufacturers Association. These were weighty executives, in every sense of the term, thirteen in all, including top men from some very large corporations. They settled themselves slowly at one end of the room and were then introduced by their Chairman. I winked at Ted Eberts, Vice-President of the Aluminum Company, who was a former student of mine. There was something slow and heavy, rather like seals on a rock, about the movements and replies of these men. When we asked why they preferred to have a private instead of a public hearing, the Chairman said “Well, you know, business men are always cautious. If the press is present, there is always the risk of misunderstanding. We prefer to be able to speak to you frankly.”

116

The Fate of Canada

We then had a very good and interesting exchange of views, in which they explained the method by which they had drafted their Brief, after discussion with their different regions, and about the general problem presented to business firms operating in a country like Canada. It was obvious that opinion favourable to bilingualism in business had moved quite far, though not as far as was shown in the Brief already presented by the senior Chamber of Commerce of Canada. As might be expected, it was the practical and economic reasons which were changing their outlook. The Quebec market is not so large that packaging has to be in the two languages if the consumer is to be attracted. Once this is done, it then becomes inefficient to package the same commodity solely in English for use outside Quebec. Anyway, as one of the delegates said, “I would not trust our warehouses not to send the French packages to the west and the English packages to Quebec.” One manufacturer told us that when he first put both English and French on his packages he received complaints from Alberta at the presence of the French language. His firm paid no attention to the complaints, which soon ceased as the customers in Alberta kept demanding the product. Now there is no longer any difficulty on that score. I find it indicative of the great prejudice against the French language that exists in parts of Canada that the very sight of some French words on the covering of a commodity should arouse protest. But that is the kind of country we still have. Another of the difficulties faced by business, of a very practical sort, was that of mobility of French speaking personnel. Business firms operating across Canada with plants in various provinces, need to move their younger executives about to learn the size and nature of the total operation. Great resistance is found in Quebec amongst French speaking employees to being sent with their families to parts of Canada where there is no hope that there will be a school in which their children can be taught in their own language. Hence there is an automatic incentive on business to provide the school system that the French Canadians are so insistently demanding. As I listened to the development of the ideas about bilingualism in the economic field, I could not help making the observation (perhaps somewhat gratuitous) that it was the belief in the business community in the eighteen sixties that Confederation was a good thing which ensured the success of the union movement, and that if the business world in Canada today was coming to the conclusion that,

1965

117

for pure business reasons, it should accommodate itself much more to the demands of bilingualism and biculturalism then we could expect a great advance in this direction. Whereupon the Chairman reiterated the belief in the cma that above all Canadian unity must not be disrupted, and that business realized it had its responsibility to see that this division did not take place. He did not want to lose our common market. At the end of the meeting Mike Oliver asked the Chairman whether the cma had considered the advisability of continuing in existence the Committee it had appointed to prepare its Brief to us. He said that further questions might arise in the next few months. Obviously the Chairman had not thought about this and he looked puzzled as to his reply. At this point his colleague on his right leaned over in a slow seal-like manner and whispered in a loud voice “Say yes.” “Yes,” said the Chairman. “I think that would be a very good idea.” As we were going out the door the representative of Imperial Oil spoke to me about my question whether firms doing business in Europe as well as in Canada did not find bilingualism a positive asset. He told me that I was quite right in this assumption, and that Imperial Oil, having discovered it had more shareholders in France than in Canada, now published its Annual Reports in both languages.

se mi n a r at t h e m o t e l - d e -vi lle i n eas tvi ew, 27 o n ta r io, 2 6 – 3 0 apri l 1965 The room we met in was called the Salle de Musset, and the walls were decorated with charming nineteenth century French girls and young men in graceful attitudes, around such titles as “À quoi pensent les jeunes filles?”28 It all lent a cultural touch distinctly non Anglo-Saxon. When any of the Commissioners spoke, they made it clear that they were not necessarily expressing the views they would finally take on the questions, reserving the right to the ultimate choice at the moment the Final Report is being prepared. Nevertheless, in many instances it was obvious we were hearing the real views of the speakers, and it was therefore possible to get some notion of where each might be expected to stand in the end result. On the discussion of the Constitution Paul Lacoste opened with some suggestions, the tone of which may be judged by the following brief examples. What he called “minor changes” involve the

118

The Fate of Canada

abolition of the power of disallowance, nomination of LieutenantGovernors by the Provinces, nomination of all Judges in Quebec by the Province, the taking over of penitentiaries, divorce and possibly the criminal law. Then, of course, bankruptcy, the treaty power, Eskimos and Indians in Quebec, plus control of tv , were to be Provincial in all those Provinces that wished to enlarge their jurisdiction. Beyond this, the residue of powers was to go to the Provinces, and in any case of the conflict between Provincial and Federal laws the former would prevail. There must be a new constitutional Supreme Court, and drastic reform of the Senate. He felt these trivial changes, however, could not go to the roots of the problem of federalism, which he felt still had to be thought out. Should we change from Federalism to con-Federalism? Should we have an associated state solution? These matters he left for further contemplation. I can see merry times ahead if this type of constitutional change is considered by the French speaking members to be quite within the bounds of possibility. I was given the task of opening discussion on the topic “A case for a strong central Government.” I confined myself pretty well to basic economic arguments. I left the Provinces plenty of room for manoeuvring. Something approaching a viable Federal State, in my opinion, survived. When I had finished Don Smiley29 said that my idea of a central Government had much to be said for it, except that he was quite certain no one would ever vote for it. He said that Ottawa must stand for some actual benefits and tangible results in the minds of the ordinary citizen, if it was to repay him his loyalty. He would not just vote for a Government with vague overall powers of economic planning and supervision. As we walked out of that session I was somewhat startled to be told by Léon Dion that when I argued a point nobody changed his mind. Those who were against me remained against me, those who were for me remained for me, and those whose minds were not made up left in the same uncertainty. I think I know what he meant.30

twe n t y- n in t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, m o t e l d e v il l e , e as tvi ew, ontari o, 2 9 a p r il 1965 I cannot remember anything either serious or humorous to distinguish the occasion.

1965

119

t h irt ie t h a n d t h irt y-fi rst meeti ng of t he c o m m is s io n h e l d at the georgi a hotel, va n c o u v e r , 1 0 – 11 may 1965 These two meetings were also taken up with trivia. Such things as where next we would meet, what order of briefs would be most suitable, what we should do if an election were suddenly called (Royce Frith talked about this in a mysterious way that suggested he was privately in the confidence of the Prime Minister!) and the like, had to be disposed of but do not need to be recorded in history … After the Thirty-first meeting, which was continued into the afternoon of May 12th, Royce Frith and I went over to the cbc station to do a live tv broadcast on the Commission. I was dining with Tom Berger and his wife afterwards, and I joined them at the Georgia Hotel and took them to my room to watch the performance. I was sadly disappointed in my appearance; the angle of the camera when I lowered my chin gave me a dreadful jowl and produced for me a face that I had never imagined I carried about with me. Royce was the polished professional, and talked almost without interruption until I forced a word in edgeways. It is hard to know what the general effect of the programme may have been on the viewers, but at least it showed the Commissioners refusing to be brushed aside by critical questions designed to suggest that the whole operation on which we were engaged was extremely dubious. I should say something about our meeting in Vancouver with a group of businessmen, which had been arranged through the local Chamber of Commerce. I have never seen a group of people move so steadily from A to Z in their thinking in so short a time, and apparently without anyone realizing what a change had taken place. When we opened the discussion which was introduced by Davie Dunton in one of his better short summaries, the first question was hostile. “I suppose we will have to give Chinese instruction in our schools too?” It went on, however, from point to point in a most remarkably developing way until at one stage a man called Hobbs,31 an important official in the Western steel industry, summed up the Canadian problem in these words: “I suppose what we really have to do is remove all obstacles in Canada for the full development of the English and the French cultures.” This seemed to me to be a remarkably succinct summary of the whole situation. The only element that was lacking was a notion that removing obstacles might

120

The Fate of Canada

not be sufficient; that there may also be a need to give positive assistance and promotion where otherwise there might be failure.

editor’s note:On the flight back, Scott sat beside a man whom he did not recognize and complained about what he called “the disgraceful performance” of the Vancouver Sun in its coverage of the hearing for ignoring a serious brief from French Canadians in Vancouver and giving space to the attack on the French language by former Saskatchewan lieutenant-governor Frank Bastedo. To Scott’s embarrassment, he had met the man the day before, and he worked at the Vancouver Province on the productions side. My experience on this Royal Commission keeps reminding me of my experience in the early days of the ccf Party in Canada. Then the Press was unanimously against us, and committed misrepresentations so gross as to be shocking. Some of this type of false reporting has been experienced by our Commission, though by no means to the same extent. Nevertheless I note a great reluctance to make [a] public statement that might imply that the Canadian newspapers are not wholly impartial.

t hi rt y- s e c o n d m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, f ort g a r ry h o t e l , w in ni peg, 18 may 1965 The hearings went off in the usual fashion. They were dominated by the large number of Ukrainian delegations, representing a variety of organizations. On one occasion the same people who had just presented a brief sat on at the table in front of us and were the delegates for the next association. All of them said exactly the same things, except a communist group. While I was questioning the communists I received a message from Rudnyckyj that perhaps I had better stop any further discussion with them since the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ukrainian Church had entered the hall and might be annoyed to find Communists present. Naturally I paid no attention whatever to this request. The Metropolitan Archbishop was certainly a commanding figure. Black hair, black eyes, and a well-shaped black beard. We were told he could not speak a word of English. The Chairman of the delegation had let Neil Morrison know that after a preliminary statement in English the Archbishop would then make one in Ukrainian. This

1965

121

presented a problem, for we had adopted a firm rule that English and French were to be the only two languages in which briefs and submissions could be made. Much muttered conversation took place between the Commissioners as to whether we would allow the statement. I was strongly opposed, since it was a clear attempt, of which there had been many, to impose the Ukrainian language and to give it something of the same official character as is demanded for French, Eventually Davie Dunton settled the matter in a very clear statement in which he said that our Commission, being a federal body, could only use one of the two official languages; however, as it was similar to a court, it would permit any witness to testify in any language, provided someone present would interpret what was said. With this explanation the Chairman announced that he would only make his submission in English, and the incident passed. The questions were first directed to the brief before us. When these were over, Rudnyckyj then asked the Archbishop what he thought was the future of the Ukrainian language in Canada. This being translated, the Archbishop then delivered a long statement in a fine bass voice. As it was clear he had no intention of stopping, he had to be interrupted in order that the interpreter might have a chance of telling us what he had said. As it came out in the translation, he had started to give us the history of the Ukrainian people, their long struggles against oppressors, and his firm conviction that the Christian cross would eventually drive away the communist tyrants as it had prevailed against all other. Not a word had been said about the future of the Ukrainian language in Canada. The question was put to him then and this time another long statement followed, the gist of which I have forgotten. It was clear that he was present really to be present and to speak, and not to aid us in the solution of the problems of bilingualism and biculturalism. On Tuesday May 18th, we had a private lunch with a group of Winnipeg businessmen who had been brought together by the Chamber of Commerce, We had drinks together and then seated ourselves at a number of tables. Conversation was general and ranged over many topics before we came together as a group to consider the Commission’s affairs. From the very start it became clear that there was a great deal of opposition to the whole ideas of bilingualism and indeed to the work that the Commission itself was carrying on. One man stated that he did not object to the French Canadians asking for more rights, but he did object to being blamed for violating

122

The Fate of Canada

them. The most extreme position was taken by young Richardson of the well-known family32 who did not hesitate to say that it might well come to a situation where English Canada would have to fight. Apparently he had already said this to André Laurendeau in the earlier discussion.33 Another individual, with a puzzled and almost hurt look on his face said that he did not believe that any French people were in the least dissatisfied with their lot. “Why should they be?” he asked. At this point, I could not contain myself and I called out rather loudly “You took away their school and language rights, didn’t you? Why should they feel satisfied?” We got nowhere after this, except exchanges of argument which changed no-one’s opinion. As we left, Jean Marchand remarked “Before I joined this Commission I was an anti-Separatist.” The contrast between the thinking of these men and that which we met among the business men in Vancouver was striking. In Vancouver there was opposition at the beginning, but as the ideas developed the group moved rapidly to a position not only of great tolerance but of active sympathy. In Winnipeg, it began with antipathy and ended with more antipathy. It is possible that some members might have second thoughts the next day. We all doubted it. Remembering how much leadership came out of Winnipeg in the 1920s and 1930s in the days of Dafoe,34 E.J. Tarr,35 J.S. Woodsworth,36 not to mention the Rhodes scholars like Graham Spry,37 King Gordon,38 Escott Reid,39 etc. I was amazed that the present generation of industrial leaders could be so cut off from current thinking in the country and so wholly engrossed in personal and corporate activities. It may be that Winnipeg has ceased to be a centre of imaginative social thinking because it has ceased to be a developing industrial area and is living on its past.

thi rt y- t h ir d m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, chat e au f ro n t e n ac , q u e bec, 10 june 1965 editor’s note: Scott wrote that the public hearings were a sharp contrast to the previous regional meetings, with only official spokesmen permitted to speak, and sparse attendance from the public. On the night of Thursday, June 10th, we all went out to Jean Marchand’s house at Cap Rouge for a party. Roger Lemelin40 drove

1965

123

me out and we had an amusing talk. He obviously is greatly impressed by the fact that he is now a millionaire. This is indeed a remarkable achievement for a man who never went to school and who was born in the working class district of St Sauveur. But while he may own part of the success to his own ability there was apparently a relative in the industrial world who made the final fortune possible, Meanwhile Lemelin’s reputation as a writer has not increased, though while we were in his car the six o’clock news told of his receiving the gold medal from the Académie Française, Much good food and fun at the party. A brilliant display of two rainbows over the St Lawrence, followed by a bright full moon, seemed an appropriate setting. A white seagull flew across the sky while the rainbows were showing so Jean-Louis Gagnon cried out “Voilà le colombe! Le deluge est fini.”41 In the brief we had from the Quebec Association of Protestant School Administrators there was a statement about the developing unilingualism in Quebec and the refusal of certain departments in the Government to use the English language when writing to the school administrators. I was about to ask a question about this, when it suddenly occurred to me that it might give rise to some statement in the press which would anger the departments concerned and place the administrators in an awkward situation. So I chickened out. I asked Neil Morrison to speak to the Chairman of the delegation to find out what he meant, and Neil told me afterwards that there are a number of civil servants, mostly junior ones, but some in the Department of Education itself, who consistently refuse to use the English language when replying to an English letter. I have had other examples of this in my personal correspondence with Government officials, but this was the first time I had seen the statement made publicly. Doubtless our investigation of bilingualism in the Quebec Government now being carried on by the Research Department will bring out more of the facts.

not e s f ro m r e s e a rc h m e e t i ng, 21–23 june 1965 editor’s note: During the three-day retreat, the commissioners and senior staff wrestled with the questions of bilingualism in the armed forces (Cormier: “Where would you put an Italian who spoke also French?” Laurendeau: “Not in the Army!”), the content of the final report, the concept of inequality, different concepts of

124

The Fate of Canada

Canada: an English country with a French minority, a bilingual Canada coast to coast, a quasi-independent Quebec as proposed by Lacoste, and a bilingual Quebec, New Brunswick, and part of Ontario, as proposed by Cormier. Ultimately, the final recommendation resembled Cormier’s proposal more than the others, Rudnyckyj said “Separatism is also a ‘concept of Canada’ and we must consider it and write about it, as well as basic notions about bilingualism and biculturalism.” The commissioners all wanted to see Ottawa as a bilingual capital but could not agree on how to achieve this. The commissioners also discussed education: Should there be all-French schools or mixed French-English schools? Laurendeau said it was necessary to have all French schools where the French minority was small, as the pressure of English was too great already. This question was ultimately settled in 1982 through article 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which gave access to minority language schools to children with one parent who had been educated in the minority language. This was based on the criteria that had been developed for access to English schools in Quebec through the Charter of the French language (Bill 101) in 1977, which originally limited access to English school to children with one parent educated in English in Quebec. The Supreme Court struck this limitation down, altering it to one parent educated in English anywhere in Canada. The purpose in Quebec was to prevent immigrants from choosing English schools and, in the rest of Canada, to prevent English-speaking children from choosing minority-language schools rather than immersion schools. Most of the commissioners were opposed to recommending a joint history of Canada, but Scott said he wished some scholars would try. Then the commissioners discussed the question of other ethnic groups. Scott reiterated that they had rejected the idea of a third force in the Preliminary Report. “There is no third force to compare with French and English,” he wrote. “History denies them a separate and distinct existence.” Then they addressed the thorny question of the status of Quebec. Scott argued that they needed to distinguish Quebec from the French nation. “Quebec is the most important government factor in the picture, but not the only one.” The discussion was a preliminary episode in the more dramatic discussions that occurred at the

1965

125

end of the commission – and can be seen as a kind of preview for the constitutional debates of the 1980s and 1990s over the patriation of the constitution and the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. On 23 June, they discussed mass media. “I said we could extend tv and radio all across Canada in both languages, but the real question is – what do they see and hear?” Scott wrote. “No use commercializing and Americanizing the country more quickly.” Frith objected vigorously saying that if there were enough viewers, sponsors would be found. They agreed to wait until the Fowler Report on Broadcasting, which was published later in 1965. Following the meeting, in response to a request to the commissioners from the co-chairmen, Scott wrote a paper for the commission summarizing his view of the country. It is a remarkable document that lays out not only his vision of the country but also his priorities for reform – many of which came to pass with the Official Languages Act, patriation of the constitution, the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the ensuing interpretations of language rights by the Supreme Court. Scott is often viewed as an implacable opponent of Quebec nationalism. In her book on the commission, Valérie LapointeGagnon argues that Scott does not believe in biculturalism, in the sense that he does not recognize the existence of two nations within Canada.42 This paper disproves that argument. “The line of thought I have hitherto developed does not deny the existence of French Canada as a nation,” he writes, adding. “I do not believe that every nationality has the right to total statehood.” And later “I do not believe that the rest of Canada apart from Quebec can properly be called a nation, since it is composed of heterogeneous cultural groups, united only by the use of a common language, and the desire to be politically united in a single state which includes Quebec. If Quebec is separated from them, they do not even live in a contiguous area. So I reject the two-nation theory without denying that French Canada can properly be called a nation.” At the same time that Scott was working on his paper, Léon Dion was working on another one. Laurendeau was sufficiently concerned about Scott’s views and, as Valérie Lapointe-Gagnon put it, “turned to his friend Léon Dion to better understand the nature of the tensions between his conception (of Canada) and Scott’s.”43 Dion described Laurendeau’s vision as collectivist and pessimistic and Scott’s as individualist and optimistic. Laurendeau, Dion

126

The Fate of Canada

pointed out, believed in unilingual regions that could communicate with a bilingual state, and was “not far from believing that the government of Quebec is the only guarantor of French culture in Canada.”44 He added that “This contrast in views, quite clearly, comes from the fact that Mr Scott, from his individualist point of view, ignores groups.”45 While there was a legalism to Scott’s approach which made him, paradoxically, a conservative socialist, it is exaggerated to say, as Dion did, that he “ignores groups.” He was a strong advocate for labour and a passionate defender of the English minority, and in 1949 had written that “Actually, the Canadian constitution has more definite protection for groups – minorities – than it has for individuals, The guarantee for the use of the two languages, for instance, and for denominational schools, are group freedoms.” He just did not share the Quebec nationalist consensus which Laurendeau and Dion did. August 11, 1965.

confidential

a v ie w o f c anada F.R. Scott Canada is a rapidly growing federal state, playing a moderate but useful role in the international world, and providing a higher standard of living for her people than any other countries except the United States and Sweden. Her territory is immense and rich in resources, and people and goods flow unchecked across provincial boundaries. She has a parliamentary type of democracy that gives full opportunity for popular control of the governmental processes, a long tradition of judicial independence in her civil courts, and but little legal restriction upon the exercise of such fundamental rights as freedom of conscience, the press, speech and assembly. Her two principal languages are widely used throughout the world and are the two working languages of the United Nations. Despite the tensions and anxieties of today, I think the description thus far will stand unchallenged. If that be true, then we start with some rather basic advantages as Canadians which no sane and civilized person would want to surrender lightly.

1965

127

Moreover, in the process of building this country a vast effort has been expended by millions of people over centuries. A half continent, much of its bleak and inhospitable, which possessed few original inhabitants and those but little advanced in the civilized arts has been subdued for human habitation and developed into an ordered system of society, particularly in the period since 1867. It is currently fashionable to attack and even ridicule the bna Act: seen in the light of conditions as they existed a century ago the amazing thing about this constitution is its boldness of vision and largeness of conception. Though its authors had not the use of telegraph or telephone, and could travel very few miles by railway, they had faith enough to believe that they could unite all the remaining British colonies and territories, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, into a single state, and thereby found what they called a “new nationality.” The federal government was of course to be the chief architect of this experiment in statehood, since it alone at the time had the overall jurisdiction, it alone represented the people of all the existing provinces, on a proportionate basis, and it alone had the credit facilities sufficient to finance the costs of national construction. It is not surprising that the role of the provinces at this stage was minor, in relation to the primary task for which the constitution was created, namely, the completion of the federal structure from coast to coast. As I have written elsewhere, there are two miracles in Canada: one is the survival of French Canada, the other is the survival of Canada. Both have been in jeopardy; perhaps both are still in jeopardy. History is constantly remaking the political map of the world, and present boundaries are certainly not eternal. Yet while we concentrate on the difficulties and divisions of today we would do well to see our history in the large as much as in the detail. French Canada was determined to survive and has survived; the scattered settlements that no one would have called a nation in 1763 now number some five and a half millions in Canada alone and rightly consider themselves a nation. Since that date the population of the world has only doubled, that of Europe has merely tripled, but that of French Canada has multiplied 80 times without the aid of immigration! Procreation outran assimilation. There was no genocide here. Yet it is also true that an expanding United States was stopped at the 49th parallel by Confederation. The parts of North America which remained in British hands after 1783, and which were politically united at first only as part of the British Empire, survived to become

128

The Fate of Canada

the nation-state that we now know, which has not yet become wholly American nor split, like Central America, into several states. This too is something of a miracle. So far, so good. What then has gone wrong with the Confederation plan, and how can it be righted? For what I have just written seems to lead to the conclusion that the Canadian Confederation has been a resounding success and that every Canadian of every race must be happy in his rights and proud of his country. Our Preliminary Report is there to prove the contrary; its findings do not need to be repeated. In this short sketch, only major issues can be considered. I see three particular factors that have emerged to disturb and threaten the original scheme of Confederation. One disturbance, brought sharply into focus by the great depression of the 1930’s, came from the changing functions of government in the modern state – a by-product of industrialisation, and in Canada, from judicial interpretation of the constitution – which imposed increasing responsibilities on provinces that had insufficient financial resources to undertake them. Hence all kinds of devices like grants-in-aid, joint undertakings, tax agreements, were invented to cure the imbalance. This dislocating factor received its first serious analysis in the Sirois Report of 1940, but as that Report’s main recommendations were rejected the problem remained and grew worse. The second disturbance, a much more serious one, and the one we are most concerned with on this Royal Commission, came from the increasing sense of identity and purpose in the French-Canadian nation and its mounting dissatisfaction with the position in which the original constitution left it, both in Quebec and in other provinces. This problem receives its first comprehensive analysis in the Tremblay Report of 1956. Most of the ideas we have listened to in the past two years can be found in that Report. The third threat to the Confederation plan came from, and is increasingly coming from, the slow but steady absorption of the Canadian economy into the American system of large corporate enterprise, so that we read (Montreal Gazette, 14 July 1965) that 40% of all corporate assets, and 45% of all corporate profits, of corporations reporting to the federal government under the new Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, belong to corporations more than 50% foreign owned – which means predominantly American. As George Grant has so well said, 46 we have succeeded in building a “branch-plant society.” This factor has received no serious

1965

129

analysis by any Royal Commission comparable to the other two, and its effect upon our national independence and our sense of identity are less understood though they are only too evident. I see this process as one which cuts across linguistic and cultural lines, and confronts all of us, if we dislike satellitism, with the difficult problem of reversing the trend without weakening the economy. The bna Act was largely designed to prevent this half of the continent from coming under the control of the Americans; it has obviously not succeeded very well. After resisting Manifest Destiny, we succumb to private capitalism. (The footnote is Scott’s.)47 Our Royal Commission is primarily concerned, as I have just said, with the relations between the two major language and cultural groups in Canada, due regard being paid to the contributions of the others. We are to indicate how, within Confederation, these two groups can develop on the basis of an equal partnership. We are therefore not especially asked how to redistribute national income as between the “equal partners”; we have no briefs on or research into taxation powers, no measure of the manner by which Ottawa acts as an equaliser of incomes (péréquation) as between poor and rich provinces and regions – the problem which so occupied the Sirois Commission. Nor have we touched in our investigations thus far, except in the most peripheral fashion, the question of foreign investment and the challenge it offers to the concept of “maîtres chez nous” – whether that phrase be taken in its purely Quebec or its all-Canadian sense. If we only keep 55% of the profits of all corporate effort in Canada, then our two linguistic groups are but junior economic partners however equal they may become culturally, splitting what is left after the senior US partner takes more than 1/3. If we are not careful we may find that decentralisation of federal powers, so much demanded in Quebec and elsewhere, and the increasing reliance on ten provincial governments for such economic planning as we hesitatingly undertake, may simply hasten the process of piecemeal absorption. Big capitalism finds small neighbours easier to control, and its politicians easier to persuade. It is fundamental to my approach to our cultural problem that I believe 20,000,000 Canadians acting through a central government, which alone would be able to exercise overall economic controls, can protect and develop themselves against the dangers inherent in American economic expansion better than if these same people are attempting to follow ten separate policies in ten provinces, however

130

The Fate of Canada

much each one of them may suppose they can work out their own salvation. Saskatchewan learned the weaknesses in the provincial position some years ago, and I predict that Quebec will learn it too – even if she becomes independent. While in the remainder of this paper I shall concentrate upon the bilingual and bicultural questions raised by our terms of reference, and while I consider them dominant at this moment, I am convinced that we cannot isolate these matters nor make useful recommendations about them unless the other aspects of the total Canadian problem are constantly kept in mind. This basic assumption in my thinking does not diminish the importance of the provincial role in our federal state, nor reduce the government of Quebec to the position of being merely one more provincial government. Its special role as the chief defender of French culture on this continent is unchallenged and will I think steadily increase, but so too, I hope, will the role of the federal government in its own sphere of action. This latter point needs further development. One view of biculturalism in Canada contends that the Quebec government is the sole defender of French culture since it is the only one where there is a French-speaking majority. The Tremblay Report appears to accept this principle. It says: With regard to French-Canadian culture, the Province of Quebec assumes alone the responsibilities which the other provinces jointly assume with regard to Anglo-Canadian culture. (Summary, P. 18). I reject this idea of the exclusive ownership of French or any other culture as historically and morally reprehensible. It is historically false because there are examples of French culture being protected in Canada by a legislature in which no French Canadian sat (Quebec Act 1774) as well as many where they were in a minority (adoption of Civil Code 1866; adoption of separate schools in Quebec prior to Confederation; cbc French stations in English-speaking provinces, etc.) It is morally reprehensible because it denies the duty of every cultivated man to defend all cultures, and imports a form of racism into an area sacred to man’s innermost soul. Quebec may some day have to protect French culture against her own majority. Duplessis certainly injured it while posing as the great patriot. The other view of biculturalism in Canada, which I trust is the view of this Commission, conceives it to be the function of every government in Canada to be a defender of both cultures, each in its appropriate degree. Quebec remains the chief centre of French

1965

131

culture, but it will reject unilingualism and any form of forcible francisation; the other province will appropriately adopt more bilingualism in their provincial sphere (technically they are already bilingual in respect of the federal laws governing them) and will accept the responsibility of promoting French culture generally. The federal government, whose influence reaches to every part of Canada, would develop its bilingual and bicultural character progressively throughout its administration, as it already has developed it in its debates, statutes, and certain public services (e.g. Broadcasting, National Film Board, Canada Council, etc.). Ottawa must remain, what it is now, one of the governments for all the French people in Canada just as Quebec is one of the governments for all the English in Quebec. No government, on this theory, belongs to any single race or religion, or favours one more than another. I have stated these contrasting points of view very baldly in order to make the issue clear. The promotion of cultures and languages other than English and French is to be included in the function of all governments. There is of course a time factor involved too; attitudes long ingrained are hard to change. Briefs we have received from many important organizations show a distinct trend toward an acceptance of the bilingual and bicultural idea outside Quebec. Yet provincial governments are slow to act. Inside Quebec, which inherited a bicultural society from before Confederation, the trend seems to me to be moving toward unilingualism (many examples could be cited). The Quebec government does not have to introduce, but to preserve, biculturalism; it would be be tragic, and comic, if it disappeared in Quebec just as it was appearing elsewhere. Our Commission cannot be too concerned about eventual developments which we can only guess at. Our duty is to propound a theory of Canada and of the role of its governments which answers the questions posed in our terms of reference. It seems to me that the only starting-point we can adopt is the one I have just outlined – namely that Canada is to be seen as working to complete the bilingual and bicultural structure which was begun long before Confederation and partly achieved at that time, while fostering the arts, languages and cultures of all other ethnic groups who wish to preserve them. The first century built a single federal state from coast to coast; the second might build bilingualism from coast to coast. Now as to some practical detail (we were asked by the co-chairman to give a “global view” of Canada, which so far is all I have done).

132

The Fate of Canada

Personally I am opposed to any attempt at rewriting the Canadian Constitution at this time. I do not think we have reached a sufficient state of agreement to know what to put into a new Constitution. There is very little seriously wrong with the law as set out in the bna act except in regard to guarantees for school and language rights outside Quebec. This means adding something new to the present constitution, rather than rewriting it completely. Since my aim is to make the whole of Canada a place in which both cultures may develop freely, I wish to avoid any constitutional change which will widen the gulf between French and English Canada and thus tend to associate the French culture exclusively with Quebec and the English and other cultures with the other provinces. The end result of this tendency would be to create the Belgian situation, where on one side of the line nothing is spoken but Flemish (English for us) and on the other side French. I would prefer to see both languages recognized everywhere, so that each language group can feel reasonably at home in any part of the country. For this reason I do not believe that every extension of sovereignty to the government of Quebec is necessarily an aid to the development of French culture in Canada. It could be restricting it to one province and encouraging in it those extreme national tendencies, already too evident, which would make the culture more chauvinist than humanist. The nature of Canadian federalism operates now as a brake upon any extreme nationalist sentiments in any part of the country on behalf of any group, which I consider to be most fortunate. I therefore do not see any point in our discussing the question of the “associated state,” or of changes in the Canadian Senate, or other constitutional amendments introducing racial concepts into a constitution that does not recognize them. Changes in the use of the two official languages are another matter. I agree that the Supreme Court might well be reorganized so as to make sure that a lawyer may plead in either the French or English languages and know he will be understood.48 I would reject outright any theory that the Supreme Court should equally represent the federal and the provincial governments; such a concept violates the notion of judicial independence, is foreign to all our tradition, and indeed to the practice in almost all other federations, and would reduce constitutional decision to the level of industrial arbitration. It would be proper, however, to entrench the Supreme Court in the Law of the Constitution subject to the ordinary processes of amendment

1965

133

and not capable of being changed by the unilateral action of the federal Parliament. At the same time, I would add to the constitution a proper Bill of Rights in the American fashion. But I question very much whether our Commission should make any pronouncement upon these matters since we are not well designed to make judgments of this character, many of which are highly technical and require an expertise that we do not command. Those parts of the federal government that really need attention at the moment are of course the public service, including the Armed Forces, the Federal Administrative Agencies, and the National Capital City. Perhaps I need to do no more in this paper than express my agreement with proposals to make them all bilingual. The particular nature of the proposal I would ultimately favour cannot now be decided, since a great deal of the research is not yet available. As to a possible role for the federal government in education, I am inclined to favour the idea though I have not worked out any scheme. Already the influence of the federal government in educational matters is very great, and I see no likelihood of its diminishing. Universities in all provinces except Quebec are receiving federal grants. (In my view Quebec Universities would be freer if they also received them). Probably the present state of opinion makes anything beyond a consultative federal body impossible to suggest, but even that would have a function in relation to matters of broad educational policy affecting all Canada. The mobility of students is increasing and will continue to increase; this requires more coordination between Universities with respect to standards and programmes. There would be many useful functions which a federal educational body could perform for the benefit of all people and all cultures in Canada. But I would leave constitutional authority over education in the provincial hands. The more I look at the picture, the more I am convinced that provincial governments hold the key at this time to the future of biculturalism in Canada. The federal government has already, despite much criticism, been a major instrument for the spread of the French language throughout Canada; it could do much more in this regard, especially in its administrative services. But it is in the provinces that must be created those schools, Universities, Libraries, and other cultural centres which would make biculturalism a reality. I would give top priority in the English-speaking provinces to two things: first, the provision of instruction in the French language in elementary

134

The Fate of Canada

and secondary schools, appropriate to the need in given regions, and secondly, the giving of official status to the French language. This second change is more of a gesture of equality than a practical change that would affect the lives of the people, since a language becomes official when the law merely requires statutes and official documents to be in that language. There is no requirement that the official language should necessarily be immediately seen on all road signs, car licences, name of buildings or of commercial undertakings. At least the practice of bilingualism in Quebec if copied, would allow other provinces going bilingual a wide latitude in the exclusive use of the English language. What is done in the educational system of a province is of far greater and more lasting importance. I try to distinguish in my thinking about bilingualism and biculturalism between political sovereignty as such, and the measures necessary to develop and preserve cultures. If it is true that no culture can grow in any country unless the members of that cultural group are politically independent, then of course separatism is the only answer for Quebec. But I do not believe that proposition to be true. Evidently French culture has enormously developed in North America since the session of 1763, as it would also have developed had Quebec remained a colony of France; but in the latter event we cannot be sure she would be an independent country by now. My view of Canadian federalism makes me want to keep a strong enough central government to stand up to the economic challenges that face us, without denying to French Canada the necessary exercise of autonomy for cultural purposes. And even when looking at that latter problem, since to me French Canada means all French Canadians everywhere in Canada and not only those in Quebec, the idea of a strong central government becomes more plausible even from the purely cultural point of view. For a proper exercise of federal responsibilities will still further advance the French fact in all parts of Canada where the federal authority runs. Ottawa’s record in extending bilingualism and biculturalism is far better than most people seem to have realized. She made the French language and separate schools part of the Manitoba Constitution of 1870, she put separate schools into the Constitutions of Alberta and Saskatchewan against the wishes of the local people, she put French radio stations in area of Canada where the local legislators would never have agreed to them, and of course statute law prevails throughout the

1965

135

land in the two official languages. All this was due to the political pressure exercised by Quebec members in the House of Commons and the Federal Cabinet. The same pressure has produced in recent years the new flag, changing practices with regard to grants-in-aid, and the abandonment of tax fields. The federal government is patently an instrument for, and not just an obstacle against, the spread of bilingualism in Canada; the chief obstacles come from provinces outside Quebec where the French-Canadian political pressure is much weaker. As I said before, we must not so weaken federal authority that the minorities outside Quebec, and the English minority in Quebec are left without any protection. For this reason I would not even get rid of the power of disallowance at present in the bna Act. It was defended in 1867 precisely because it might be available in case of an attempt to override minority rights. To conceive of it being used to invalidate laws that attack minority rights, or fundamental freedoms, does not seem to me to be unreasonable. The line of thought I have hitherto developed does not deny the existence of French Canada as a nation. I do not believe that every nationality has the right to total statehood. If that doctrine were sound we would have to revolutionize the whole political structure of most of the major nations of the world. The doctrine that every nation must be a state is an old fashioned one, and becoming increasingly evil in its consequences if applied in many areas of the world today. But the doctrine is naturally appealing to any national group which feels it is expanding and can still further develop its culture by its own efforts. Some political expression must of course be given to national aspirations. I consider that Canada’s present federal system, insofar as it gives extremely wide powers already to the government of Quebec – powers which that government is only just beginning to exercise – allows a sufficient freedom for cultural development without rendering impossible the federal cooperation in the central government required to maintain the whole country and to permit French cultural influences to expand and develop everywhere. I do not believe that the rest of Canada apart from Quebec can properly be called a nation, since it is composed of heterogeneous cultural groups, united only by the use of a common language, and the desire to be politically united in a single state which includes Quebec. If Quebec is separated from them, they do not even live in a contiguous area. So I reject the two-nation theory without denying that French Canada can properly be called a nation.

136

The Fate of Canada

Our Commission is only gradually learning the attitudes taken by its serious members on basic problems. I am sure that as we further exchange our views many of us may modify positions taken in this initial statement of our global position. I can assure my fellow Commissioners that the same may well be true of me. We shall all endeavour honestly to arrive at a consensus, upon which we may base all our recommendations. Each of us no doubt, will have to make some adjustment of his or her original position in order to reach the consensus. Just how far each of us may be prepared to go will be one of the exciting discoveries of this coming year.

t hi rt y- s e v e n t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 1 2 o c to b e r 1965 Mr Lesage’s tour of the West had given rise to many interesting comments and editorials.49 Two journalists have been asked to report at length to us their impressions of his tour and its reception. Then we were told about the meeting of journalists in Toronto at which Mr Lesage and Premier Robarts were present. Gagnon felt we should have had representatives on the Lesage tour and also at the Toronto meeting. I asked whether we had a right to send a Commission representative to a private meeting; Gagnon said we had, but I could see that if we were not careful we might be put in an awkward position. Michael Oliver spoke of his meeting with the French language librarians in Quebec, who were asking about the function of their members in Quebec libraries at the time. Should they attempt to build a library to serve all Canada, or just French Canada? He said that they obviously expected that we would pay some attention to them in our recommendations. He indicated that they felt strongly they were being discriminated against by not being accredited to the American Library Association. Michael Oliver also reported on his talks with members of the Quebec Civil Service, whom he is asking to co-operate in our research on its uses of bilingualism. He said that from Mr Morin he had been promised all the co-operation he wanted, and he felt that the survey would proceed satisfactorily. On the other hand his attempts to get the same co-operation from Ontario were being coldly received. The last letter from Premier Robarts to Mr Johnson was very reticent.

1965

137

Several of us had lunch at the Cercle Universitaire. A discussion arose on political corruption, and Jean-Louis Gagnon made it clear that he believed English Canada to be quite as corrupt as French Canada. His story of how the average candidate in the Quebec election works over his constituency beforehand, giving small benefits and gifts to all the electors as the day of the voting draws near, showed the working of the mind of an old guard Liberal. I could not help seeing how it fitted in with his demands for payments of honorarium. When he implied that the ccf in Saskatchewan was no better, I told a story of how Jacques Casgrain,50 when the ccf Secretary in Quebec, had toured Saskatchewan on behalf of the Party, and on arriving late and tired one night in a small Saskatchewan town had asked the hotel proprietor to provide him with some liquor. At first this was refused, but Jacques then insisted, saying he was working for the ccf Government in Regina. So the proprietor gave him what he wanted. When this was learned in Regina, the man’s license was promptly cancelled. I said to Jean-Louis Gagnon that this kind of thing could not happen in Quebec, meaning that no license would be cancelled under such circumstances. “I should hope not,” he replied. It was clear that he thought the Government to be entirely wrong, whereas it seemed obvious to me that a breach of the law done at the request of a Government Official is worse than one committed under less exacting circumstances.

m e e t in g o f s t u dy g ro u p c, 12 october 1965 This was the first meeting of our Group … As an opener for the group discussions, I was then asked to talk about the Rowell-Sirois report of 1940 and its main proposals.51 This I did to the extent of about an hour and a half, answering questions along the way. Paul Lacoste then followed with a description of the Tremblay Report of 195652 and its role in the present development of Quebec’s quiet revolution. I found this a most interesting presentation, particularly as it showed how far Quebec had travelled from the ideological premises of the Tremblay Report (mostly Catholic and Thomistic) without having abandoned any of its claims to a larger status inside Confederation.

138

The Fate of Canada

t hi rt y- e ig h t h m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, o t tawa , 1 5 – 1 7 n ovember 1965 Not having met for a month we greeted each other warmly. “It feels like coming home,” I said, and they all agreed. It certainly is a great help to feel the general respect and friendship each of us has for the others on this Commission. The minutes of the previous meeting were read, corrections made, and reports of activities presented. Gertrude Laing reported on the excellent discussions that had taken place at the meeting of the Association Canadienne Française d’Alberta. Cormier reported that the Mayor of Saint John, New Brunswick, had proposed to establish a school where the language of instruction would be French, and also told of a pilot school being established under the auspices of ubc for instruction in French. Remembering a previous remark of Cormier, I interjected “Alors, tout va bien, Madame la Marquise.”53 We then had an exchange of ideas about the General Election that had just taken place. Dunton had the impression that the Government felt the vote showed the Canadian people did not like the Liberals favouring Quebec so much, and that this would react against the work of our Commission. Gertrude Laing felt that out West the election was not fought at all on the Quebec issue, but people voted along well established lines. Rudnyckyj said that among the ethnic groups in the West there was great dislike of the “Two founding races,” which the Liberals were supposed to be promoting. Mike Oliver felt that the Liberals were certainly not strengthened by this election, and therefore would not be able to withstand further demands from Quebec for increasing autonomy; this would still further increase the prestige of the Quebec government as the important factor in defending French culture and therefore the work of our Commission would seem less important and would tend to be forgotten. I lunched at the Beacon Arms with Dunton, Laurendeau, Laing, Oliver and Morrison, Most of the conversation was in French and all was in good humour. Laurendeau said that he believed Trudeau went to Ottawa primarily to fight French Canadian nationalism. On the afternoon of the 16th, Paul Lacoste and I repeated our performance on the Sirois and Tremblay Reports which we had previously presented to group C. Most of the discussion was around the Tremblay Report, not only because it was more philosophical but because it dealt almost exclusively with Quebec and was much

1965

139

closer to the present situation. I pointed out, however, that the basic assumption in the Sirois Report, namely that a framework could be provided in Canada based on equal Provinces under which the two cultures could develop fully and freely, was one still widely held in English speaking Canada. The morning meeting on November 17th was late in starting, and did little but discuss arrangements for the future public hearings. Should we invite the ethnic press Association back a second time to discuss the Lesage-Ukrainian “Concordat”?54 I caught the 12.20 cnr train back to Montreal, and had the advantage of lunching on the train with Douglas Abbott55 of the Supreme Court. Asking him about the bilingualism of his brother Judges, he assured me that they could all read French and most of them could follow it when spoken. He also said that fully 90% of the cases now coming from Quebec are pleaded in French before the Court.

1966

editor’s note:The year was politically volatile. The Quebec Liberal government of Jean Lesage was defeated by Daniel Johnson’s Union Nationale, despite the fact that the Liberals won 47 per cent of the popular vote and the Union Nationale only 41 per cent – a reflection of the electoral dominance of rural constituencies. Lester Pearson confided in some of his ministers, telling them that he would not stay in office much longer.1 John Diefenbaker’s leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party was being attacked from within, and Dalton Camp, an advertising man and veteran of Tory campaigns, began to mobilize a campaign to force the leader to step down. The commission began to wrestle with some of the issues they had raised in the Preliminary Report. Should there be unilingual French and English work groups in the public service? How much information should be released about those who had been issued research contracts? Much of the discussion was taken up with the research reports and internal, largely administrative matters. A great deal of the commission’s time – and, in fact, a great deal of the first volume of the report – was taken up with the question of bilingual districts, how they would be defined, what percentage of the minority language group would be required, and how language rights would be applied. It was one of the major recommendations that did not survive, even though the first version of the Official Languages Act in 1969 referred to them. In his book, Daniel Bourgeois describes in detail how the process failed.2 Similarly, the commissioners discussed the question of making Ottawa a bilingual capital district. Although Ottawa has been declared

1966

141

officially bilingual by the Ontario legislature, there has not been the designation of a national capital district in the way that the commission envisioned. The commissioners also disagreed on the language requirements for public servants, some arguing that all public servants should be bilingual and others arguing for French-language and English-language work units. Neither position survived; the federal government introduced a system of designated bilingual positions but rejected the idea of unilingual work units. Scott recounted the positions that everyone took on these issues, but only intervened occasionally – except on questions that touched the English minority in Quebec and the suggestions for constitutional change. And, in private discussions, he defended McGill from those who argued its funding should be reduced in order to enable the French-language universities to catch up.

f o rt ie t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 7 – 2 8 ja n ua ry 1966. editor’s note: Scott describes the internal discussions over the research groups, and the debate over whether there should be unilingual units in the public service where employees would be able to work in English or in French but would not be required to be bilingual. The subject would recur. There was also a discussion of different essays produced by the researchers. Had a lively period of drinks and dinner with David Dunton, Gertrude Laing, and Mike Oliver. Mike put to us his moral problem: has he the right to publish statistics of income for ethnic groups which shows the Jews to be so far ahead of others that a wave of anti-Semitism is likely to result? He said he felt he was in the position of the atomic scientists when they were about to discover the atomic bomb. My position was, that in both instances the discovery had to be made public and humanity had to learn to live with it, to which Mike replied that all statistics are very partial indications of the facts they purport to explain, and that, if the tables had been arranged differently, different results might have been found; for instance, Jews are not an ethnic group at all, but a religious community, some of them being Poles, some Germans, some Russians, etc. We came to no conclusion of the problem, but we had much good talk.

142

The Fate of Canada

On Monday, Jan. 28th, we took up the demographic report of Henripin,3 to which André Raynauld4 spoke. The usual period of questions and answers followed. I asked the question which Raynauld had posed: which is the more important factor for our purposes, ethnicity or linguisticity. Is it more important to know the ethnical background of a language used? On the whole we felt that the language factor was paramount for a Commission on bilingualism. On the other hand, the ethnic factor could not be eliminated without our being accused of neglecting the “other ethnic groups,” many of whom only spoke English though coming from different backgrounds and wishing to maintain something of their original cultures. Rudnyckyj pointed out, quite properly, that there is no such thing as a “British” ethnic group; there are only Scotsmen, Englishmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen. He wanted the sub-groups to be mentioned in all tables. He said the mistaken use of the word “British” has bedevilled Canadian statistics and thinking long enough.

f ort y- f irs t m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 – 4 m a rc h 1966 We were told that a meeting with Ethnic Press Federation had been most successful, and that the leaders of the various ethnic groups in Canada seemed to have now a much better understanding of what our Commission work is all about, than at the beginning of our travels across the country. Peter Findlay’s report of his meeting on bilingualism in Yugoslavia had been taken as a basis of discussion, and proved very helpful; in it he brings out the distinction recognized in Europe between minorities and minority rights on the one hand, and national groups and their rights on the other hand. On this basis the French Canadians are a national group within Canada, whereas the English in Quebec are only a minority.

editor’s note: Scott described a discussion over whether or not there should be a press conference that was left unresolved. I feel that the Commission is becoming increasingly unpopular in the country, and that some method should be found of letting the public know of the remarkable work which the Research Department has sponsored.

1966

143

editor’s note: The discussion resumed on whether the public service should require every public servant to be in some degree bilingual, which Gertrude Laing opposed, or whether there would be unilingual departments, which Jean-Louis Gagnon opposed. I dined at the Cercle with Laing, Gordon, Lacoste and Oliver. The reduction of McGill’s request for funds by the Quebec Government came up in the conversation. Lacoste was wholly opposed to meeting the University’s demands, pointing out what the English had done to the French minorities elsewhere. He implied it was hypocritical to claim that McGill wanted to maintain its position as a first-rate University. He said in the past the rich English had always corrupted French politicians by bribing them and seemed to be referring to Duplessis when he expressed his belief in the theory of “Le Roi Nègre.”5 Obviously in his mind the expression “English Minority” and “McGill University” were synonymous. The idea that the denial of funds only injured university teachers and students did not seem to impress him at all. Even Gertrude Laing taunted me with producing arguments which I had never listened to when the authorities expressed them. I found it a little hard to take, when I thought of many years of work for the ccf and how it had been wholly rejected by French Canadians. A little later, after we had distinguished between operating costs and developmental costs, Lacoste seemed to agree that something might be done. No one questioned that the French universities need more money for development than McGill at the moment, but apparently only Mike and I thought it was not necessary to thrust McGill back into an inferior position in order that they might receive the additional grants.

3 m a rc h , 1 0 :00 a.m. Royce Frith continued his report of the work of Group A. I objected to phrases such as “The English minority in Montreal,” and “Retreating to suburbs as a line of defence.” I said this was purely racist language and had no reality; the English in Montreal were divided in class structure and in location, and only the wealthy moved out to the suburbs as did the wealthy French to Outremont or the English in Quebec to Sillery. Dion agreed in part but said it was still necessary to talk about ethnic groups as a unit since they

144

The Fate of Canada

did possess some common interests, and it is part of our business as a Commission to find these out. Frith’s use of the phrase “Super-problem” was properly squelched. I suggested that if we wanted to use advertising terms, we should call it the “New” super-problem. We noted a certain similarity between the position of the French in the Federal Civil Service and the English in the Montreal Civil Service. The English have largely withdrawn from the City of Montreal to work in business and the professions, as the French Canadians seem inclined now to withdraw from Ottawa to work in Quebec. As Lacoste kept telling us, the French will not return to a career in Ottawa until they feel at home in the departments in which they work. Our research seemed to show that the French Canadians outside Quebec neglected to use their power in Municipal Government, which in certain areas came from their numbers, preferring to work through Parish organizations, and it appears that the Catholic Church preferred this in order to keep its members close to the religious group. I suggested that this might have been true of the Church’s influence during the defensive period of French Canadian development, but that as a more offensive spirit took over they would need to rely less and less on the Parish community. I noticed that Dion agreed with this comment. I lunched at the Cercle with Mike Pitfield. He told me that the present Liberal Government was hopeless. He did not believe it had any intention of moving seriously toward bilingualism, and that it sold out to the United States everywhere. As an example, he told of the blatant lies reported to the House of Commons – such as Winters6 saying that Canadians wished to preserve their copper market, when in reality they had been told by the United States to hold it available for the Americans. I found talking to him very stimulating, as obviously he is a young man now well aware of the nature of our Federal Government and Federal administration, and deeply concerned about the future of the country. He spoke about the dreadful power of the small English elite in Montreal over its younger members; in effect it says “Join us, or else.” Even the social clubs and associations are carefully watched, he feels, to sort out the collaborators from the independents. I spoke about the young law students going out of McGill, often with broad liberal views, only to be swallowed up in the establishment; he cheered me by saying

1966

145

that Tim Porteous7 was leaving the establishment to come to work in Ottawa. As a result of this lunch, I reached the afternoon session a few minutes late, and found the Commission talking about education. The big question was, must instruction in English and French be compulsory in all Canadian schools? Laing said “No,” Gagnon and Lacoste “Yes.” I said the school must be obliged to provide for it if the students want it; this seemed to be the minimum requirement. Dion, to my surprise, said we must understand that Canada has a strong democratic tradition and that the study of French in some parts is not considered normal. We must make people want it if it is to be looked upon as necessary. Neatby8 said it was becoming much more normal and cited the introduction of compulsory French in Grade VIII in bc Rudnyckyj said it would be premature if we recommend at what stage the second language should be taught; he thought we should leave the Grade selection to each region. Someone pointed out an interesting contrast: in English Canada the girls learn French because it is considered a part of “culture,” but the boys do not learn it. In Quebec, boys learn English as part of their necessary training for practical affairs, but the girls do not.

4 m a rc h , 1 0 :00 a.m. Wycznski reported on the other ethnic groups. In the discussion the question arose, what shall we do with the Eskimos and Indians. Are they just another ethnic group? Most Commissioners felt that within our terms of reference, they were not in the same position as the new Canadians. Then where would we place them? Gagnon said we must speak about the Eskimos and Indians, otherwise we would look ridiculous to the Canadian public. I said we might have to make some comment about them, but we would make ourselves even more ridiculous if we attempted to pretend we knew anything about the situation. We had no research on it, and Gagnon’s and my little tourist trip to Baffin Island could scarcely count as research. I feel this is just one example, of which there are many others, of our knowing about the existence of a problem in Canada, not unrelated to our terms of reference, yet, far beyond our possibility of helpful contribution. Cormier then said that many ethnic groups wished to integrate as fast as possible into their local communities, and felt that our Commission was doing them a disservice by treating them separately from other

146

The Fate of Canada

Canadians. How did we know their real feelings? It was mostly vocal nationalist groups who came before our Commission; could we trust their statements as truly reflecting the larger group behind them? My reply was that we must give an opportunity to the ethnic groups to preserve whatever they wanted of their traditions, culture and language, leaving the choice to each individual member and each family. Of the group to decide for themselves their rate of integration. These should be no compulsion, either to assimilate quickly or to maintain artificially an expiring memory. Cormier replied that we should be very careful not to give the impression that there is a real “third force” in Canada and that our Commission wished to strengthen it. We then more or less dissolved in disorder over a chart of the months of February and March, with dates of meetings of the Commission and of its various groups inserted in their weekly compartments. “I am very confused” said Wyczynski. This innocent frankness pleased us all. Royce Frith then said “The way these squares are filling up makes me want to call Bingo!” I asked how many Home Games we were having. So, we relieved our tensions better than if we had a coffee break. We had a good lunch at the Cercle with the usual familiar group, discussing Commission business and the state of the country. I was pleased that Lacoste agreed with me when I said that four universities play a major role in the future, namely, Montreal, McGill, Ottawa, and Carleton, since they were best placed to train an elite capable to understanding the basic nature of Canada and how it should be governed. Surprisingly to me, he said that Laval lives apart in a serenity which totally disbarred it from playing the same role.

editor’s note: That afternoon, Scott raised an issue that would be part of the discussions for years: What about Section 133 of the British North America Act? The section reads: “Use of English and French languages,” and establishes English and French as the languages of the federal Parliament and the Quebec Legislature. Scott had argued for years that this section meant that because federal laws were in both languages, Canada was a bilingual country coast to coast. I reported that we wished the Commission to face a simply but challenging question. Does the Commission wish to recommend changes

1966

147

in Section 133 of the Constitution, regarding the two official languages, and if so, what changes? My group had felt that this was a kind of test for the Commission of its willingness to break through the legal constitutional barrier. An easier way out would be to suggest areas in which French should be made official, without being explicit as to how the Constitution should be changed. For this discussion we had excluded all the Research people, to keep the Group down to a smaller size and to enable us to speak more freely. We had also instructed Neil Morrison not to attempt to make notes of the discussion. Also, to prevent the eager beavers from taking over, it was agreed that the Chairman would go around the group, asking each Commissioner in turn what was his opinion. It worked out that everyone agreed we should at least recommend changes in Section 133, and probably in Section 93 on Education. This was a minimum in our minds, and left open further recommendations touching language in the schools, public service and in public bodies generally. The only hesitant member was Dunton, who felt it was more important to find the direction in which we wished the country to move, leaving the discussion of the technical means of getting there until later. His was the only cautious voice on this particular issue. The question then arose, what do we change in 133? I said we should at least add New Brunswick alongside Quebec in the section, and we should clear up the Manitoba situation either by directly reverting to the original bilingualism of 1870, or by recommending a reference to the Courts of the constitutionality of the Manitoba Statute purporting to abolish French as an official language. As regards Ontario, I asked whether we would fairly recommend that the whole Province be officially bilingual or whether it would not be more reasonable to try to deal with the Province by regions where the French population was sufficiently numerous. Gagnon thought we should look to the future and not just try to correct the injustices of the past, and that we should give protection to any French Canadian group outside Quebec that had a substantial number of people in its population. Mike Oliver put forward a tentative suggestion, namely that Section 133 should contain a simple statement of the principle that the two languages were official in Canada, and that this principle would be applied by appropriate legislature, both Federal and Provincial. This, of course, would take away the legal protection for

148

The Fate of Canada

the English in Quebec. I said I preferred a movement forward only: not take way what exists but to extend the principle elsewhere. Lacoste felt that both New Brunswick and the Province of Quebec must be officially bilingual, but the Section 133 must be changed because of its lack of equality of treatment of the two languages. He believed that we should refer the Manitoba law of 1890 and the Northwest Territory law of 1892 to the Courts. He wanted a general declaration of principles in Section 133, but I was not clear whether he would still leave the present protection for English Quebec and add other Provinces, or whether he would prefer to leave the application of the principle to each Legislature. He did, however, agree with me that any guarantee of bilingualism once conceded could never afterward be withdrawn. If this is accepted, then I think it should be retroactive and the protection of the English language in Quebec must under no circumstances be weakened.9 In my opinion we must move outwards from where we are, and not “reculer pour mieux sauter.”10

f ort y- t h ir d m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 1 8 – 2 0 m ay 1966 editor’s note: Scott said he wanted to make clear that the summary of discussions had not been corrected, and that this should be noted. His comment was an indication of who his audience for this journal really was. My reason for making this suggestion was that I had been somewhat astonished at the remarks attributed to me in the report of discussions. Historians please note. Some discussion then arose as to the importance of the Parent Commission Report11 for our Commission. Mrs Laing said that Group B had invited Guy Rocher12 to speak to them about it privately. I asked if the group was also going to consult with the Protestant School representatives in Montreal; I was told they were, but in a voice that hesitated somewhat. I am concerned to see how much of the past freedom of the English minority is being taken away by administrative changes. The old argument “We want the same rights outside Quebec as the English have inside” so often used, may need to be interpreted in a new way if some of the reports about the Parent recommendations are correct.

1966

149

We had a large lunch party at the Chateau to celebrate the appointment of Lacoste as Vice Rector of the University of Montreal. He said to me that he thought the problem of university finances could be regulated in fairness to all – a somewhat different attitude from the one he expressed in the discussion with Mike Oliver and myself last April.

1 9 m ay 1 9 6 6 – as censi on day. 13 We took up first Document 951 B on the planning of the First Volume. I said that the volume must contain the image of a new kind of Canada – something that was making use of its whole potential and in which all cultural groups felt they had their place. Neil Morrison strongly agreed with this. So did Lacoste, but in a manner that turned out to be quite different from what I had intended. He said there were three possible plans for our report: 1 It could be based on the social and economic relationships in Canada. 2 It could deal with the Quebec-Ottawa conflict. 3 It could speak of a beautiful Canada bilingual from coast to coast, which seems to be implied in our terms of reference. He felt that English Canada wanted something of this third option but that it would be wholly useless in Quebec. He said there would be an inevitable development of Quebec as an ever stronger State in its own right. He was not a separatist, but we had to be realistic in our report and see the Quebec-Ottawa conflict as crucial. Jean-Louis Gagnon then told us that a recent Gallup poll taken by the Centennial Commission showed that a great majority of people in Quebec were happy with Confederation and wanted to celebrate it. This seemed to contradict everything that Lacoste had said. Gertrude Laing came in strongly to say that she always distrusted people who being by saying “Let’s be realistic,” since this always means “I understand, and you don’t.” She did not see the problem as simply Quebec vs. Ottawa; it is Quebec in relation to Canada. What is Canada going to do in the present situation? That is what our report must be about. Unless there is a willingness in the whole of Canada to accept a new idea, the Quebec-Ottawa conflict will not bring anyone any good.

150

The Fate of Canada

f ort y- f o u rt h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 0 j u n e 1966 Our discussion lasted all through Monday, Tuesday and up to Wednesday afternoon. One of the biggest arguments developed over Dion’s treatment of the role of Quebec by comparison with what he said about the functions of Ottawa in the development of the two cultures. Contrast a long list of important duties attributed to Quebec with the brief reference to the Federal Government. It was agreed we should expand the section dealing with the importance of Federal jurisdiction in the development of the French as well as of the English culture in Canada. It is indicative of the degree to which the Commission has been understanding of and sympathetic to Quebec views that it finds itself obliged to make an effort to establish the utility of a central Government in a Federal State. In this matter we talk to Quebec just as in stressing the importance of Quebec we talk to English Canada. Throughout our discussion the concept of equal partnership was dominant. The use of a term familiar in private relationships between partners caused us many difficulties when we sought to apply it to the public institutions of a Federal State. I had dinner at Michael Pitfield’s, and there met Grattan O’Leary, George Davidson, Jean Boggs14 (the new head of the National Gallery), Allan Gotlieb,15 and a Miss Shakespeare who acted as a kind of hostess alongside Michael. Marc Lalonde16 and Pierre Juneau17 came in a little later. The conversation was almost exclusively about Canadian politics, the deficiencies in the Federal Government, and other Ottawa inescapables. All were agreed that the inefficiency in the Parliament due to lack of staff for mp s, lack of separate rooms for secretaries, lack of research staff for Parliamentary Committees, and similar handicaps, had produced such a state of confusion that it was almost impossible to carry on the nation’s business. Some went so far as to say that if nothing was done soon there would be some major explosion among the Members. The contrast was at once made with the United States Government and the efficiency and expertise shown by its members and committees. While discussing many subjects, I was startled to find that I was alone in believing that we had allowed cbc to become too commercialized; even George Davidson18 uttered the stupid remark that he liked to see an advertisement for Gillette blades during a football game because it

1966

151

gave him time to go out to get another bottle of beer. The whole long struggle of cbc to keep its head above the commercial corruption of this continent seems utterly lost, and I was never so aware how far the brainwashing and poison had gone into the innermost Government circles. When I pointed out that in West Germany all tv advertising was confined to twenty minutes per day, George Davidson immediately replied that that was only possible because they had a captive market, the surrounding peoples not speaking German. Part of the time was spent discussing future leaders for the Liberal and Conservative parties, and I noticed that while men like Paul Martin, Sharp, and Marchand were mentioned as possible successors to Pearson, when it came to the Conservative party the only names put forward were men from outside Ottawa, like Roblin or Stanfield.19 The future of the ndp was scarcely considered worth mentioning, except that Grattan O’Leary said he could not stand the corny stories told by Tommy Douglas. Jean Boggs, a very pleasant member of the party, kept wisely silent on all matters that did not touch upon the National Gallery; only recently arrived in Ottawa, she is obviously treading carefully in the presence of members of the Establishment.

f ort y- f if t h m e e t in g of the commi s si on, 5 – 6 j u ly 1966 editor’s note: The commissioners examined the document which laid out the writing assignments for Volume 1 of the final report. It seemed to distribute the burden of writing fairly equally over a large number of people. Actually, some seventy-five authors will be involved. Can a single style emerge out of this? I felt it might become a New Testament, but would not read like Bossuet.20

editor’s note: They then discussed the nature of Volume 1. I imagine we will understand better what kind of a Volume it will be when we have it mostly written. I lunched with Gertrude Laing and Blair Neatby to discuss a proposed new article 93A in the bna Act, dealing with the right to language instruction, and also a possible amendment to Section 93 to permit opting out of confessionality in schools.21

152

The Fate of Canada

At the afternoon session I read my paper on “The place of the Federal Government.” It seemed strange that a Federal Royal Commission needs to be told that the Federal Government has important work to do in Canada, but this seems to be the position that we have reached in the course of our discussions. Before long I felt very sleepy, and had a hard time just sitting upright, as the talk wandered on. Then Paul Lacoste came in with a document he had been working on during the day called “Schéma Preliminaire ou Problème Preliminaire.” This made a great claim for a transfer of all sorts of jurisdiction from Ottawa to Quebec, as being what he called a “Minimum” if there was to be any equal partnership in Canada. I told him that some of these ideas had absolutely no support as far as I knew anywhere in Quebec. When I asked him specifically who had ever suggested that jurisdiction over bankruptcy be transferred, he referred me to the Tremblay Report, but without citing any page. I said that if you were going to give a list of subjects that Quebec wanted to take over, then we should give another list of subjects which the Federal Government must have in order to fulfil its functions. The atmosphere in the room became charged with a certain amount of emotion as the confrontation developed. I found myself being thrust into the position of the sole defender of Federal rights and duties. As it became impossible to resolve the conflict the meeting adjourned, and I was asked to prepare another working paper on the problem. Fortunately, Mike Oliver volunteered to do something on his own so that we would begin tomorrow’s meeting with two working papers. That evening I tried to work out a further statement indicating the obvious role of the Federal Government in the Canadian Confederation which our Commission is supposed to “develop” but found it quite impossible. It seemed utterly absurd to be asked to state any proposition so obvious – unless, of course, we were contemplating the creation of a separate or at most an associated State of Quebec. So, I went out and had myself a good dinner. At any rate I knew I had a paper on “The place of the Federal Government” which was supposed to have been discussed yesterday and was forgotten in the argument initiated by Lacoste. Next morning, 6th July, I was asked to present my paper on “The place of the Federal Government.” It was listened to in a kind of respectful silence; only Gertrude Laing spoke of the need for a proper Bill of Rights when I was discussing Federal jurisdiction over

1966

153

citizenship. I did not present my points as arguments, but as simply statements of constitutional fact, hoping they would speak for themselves. I am not sure that they did.

editor’s note: After Michael Oliver presented a paper on constitutional problems and Paul Lacoste argued in favour of making it clear that Quebec needed more powers, Father Cormier said that he thought Lacoste’s position was untenable and unacceptable for Francophones outside Quebec. Then Gertrude Laing said that we must make important decisions on the larger constitutional issue because it was the main problem before our Commission. Frith leaned over and whispered in my ear “Boy, are we in trouble!” We had a very gay lunch of nine people at the Chateau. Good humour prevailed, despite this morning’s arguments. A possibility that the Commission might have no funds after September 1st, since we had nothing from the Treasury Board about our request for further supplies, raised many questions. I suggested that we should be the first Royal Commission to go on strike. My “placard” I said, would read “Unfair to Section 91.”22

m in u t e s o f t h e f o rt y-s i xth meeti ng o f t h e c o m m is s io n , 20–22 july 1966 editor’s note: The commissioners argued over the use of the word “ethnic,” which Frith felt suggested nasty overtones of race. Scott was discouraged at the nature of the discussion, feeling that the role of the federal government was being undermined. His growing admiration of Gertrude Laing emerges, as he writes: “She has one of the clearest heads of any Commissioner.” When we were asked for our general observations, I merely said that I could not possibly support the idea that the Federal Government should be obliged to consult Provinces on all questions of money, banking and credit, since that would make our Commission plain silly. Some credit and financial matters may have to be decided within twenty-four hours of action taken in New York or London. I made some other objections to the document, but particularly in regard to the proposal that Quebec diplomatic representation abroad should

154

The Fate of Canada

be extended. I felt that the Commission had no right to make such a statement when it knew so little about the whole problem of treaty making and treaty implementation in Canada under the present Constitution, but I indicated I did not wish to delay the discussion which other members might want to continue. We then went through the document, paragraph by paragraph. The first eight pages did not cause too much trouble. I pointed out at Page 4 that the only examples of change given were in favour of further decentralization of powers, and called attention to the strike in the Canada Packers plant which, providentially from my point of view, had started that very morning. This was an area where the Federal Parliament had no jurisdiction, though the problem was nation-wide, and the Provinces had all the autonomy they were utterly incapable of using for the public good. In the afternoon we continued with the Dunton-Laurendeau document. I stuck, naturally, on the underlined paragraph on Page 11, where we commit ourselves to the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Quebec Government must grow and that it need not be bound by the present constitutional limitations. It seemed to me that to make such a vague statement without indicating in what directions it should go (which we are not competent to decide) or showing that certain Federal jurisdiction must also be extended, was an indication of incompetence and irresponsibility. But I decided to let it go by for the moment. This whole section is in our working paper only because of the intense pressure from Paul Lacoste; had Jean Marchand been in his place, I am certain we would not have been asked to consider it. Thus, the accidents of history determine the character of an official report. Of course, apart from his own brand of nationalism, Paul Lacoste is in a difficult situation at the University of Montreal, a hot bed of separatism. He has to negotiate with Michel Brunet, who this year is the President of the Staff Association. By contrast, Marchand was a former President of a trade union group, whose members understood very well despite their nationalist tendencies that their livelihood depended on the proper functioning of the economic system.

editor’s note: Paul Wyczynski wrote a paper arguing that there should be a place for other ethnic groups in the equal partnership.

1966

155

The paper in question was read at the afternoon session, and certainly caused some difficulty at first. It seemed impossible to convey the idea to Wyczynski that although all people in Canada are equal as individuals, only two collectivities – English and French – have any claim to the equal partnership. But no matter how we explained it the fact is inescapable that the ethnic position of the “new Canadians” is not in itself on the same plane as the earlier founding groups and the implication of a second order of citizenship is difficult to remove. It must be said for Wyczynski, that he completely disposed of the notion that the other groups were “a third force in Canada,” and there were heads nodded in assent when he said he did not consider himself as an advocate for the oegs, but as a Commissioner with special knowledge of their position. We kept returning to the problem as to whether these other groups enjoy an “equal partnership.” It had to be insisted that the term in our mandate applied to the English and French only, though Canadians of other origins enjoyed membership in one or other of the partnerships at their choice. Later we got bogged down on the terms “society” and “Community.” Is French Canada a society or a community? If it is only in Quebec that the French are a society, then does it mean that in New Brunswick they are a different society? This is but one example of the trouble we have with terminology throughout our work. Michael Oliver said we needed one term for the French in Quebec, and another term for all the French in Canada.

editor’s note: The commissioners then wrestled with the question of bilingual districts, federal funding for minority language schools, bilingualism in the courts of bilingual provinces, and the idea of what was initially called “a cultural ombudsman” which emerged as the recommendation for the creation of the office of the commissioner of official languages. The question of funding for minority language schools was eventually resolved with the creation of the federal Bilingualism in Education Program in 1970 and the Official Languages in Education Program protocol agreement in 1983.23 In the Beaulac decision, the Supreme Court established the right to a trial in French or English anywhere in Canada.24

156

The Fate of Canada

mi n u t e s o f t h e f o rt y- seventh meeti ng of t h e c o m m is s io n , 1 – 2 s eptember 1966 All were present except Rudnyckyj who arrived late. There was the usual reading of the Minutes. I pointed out the paragraph in them about the “Broadening Role of the Province of Quebec” was only acceptable to me if the word “role” meant a broader use of the present Governmental powers in Quebec rather than the acquisition of new powers by amendment to the Constitution. Even now Quebec has not begun to occupy large areas of governmental powers available to it: e.g., medicare. To ask for a power over bankruptcy which will help nobody, when you are not using a power over medicare which will help millions, is to show that the real aim is power rather than the public good. I also wondered why the paragraph to which I took exception was underlined. No other paragraph was thus emphasized, though one would think that the recommendation to make Ontario and New Brunswick bilingual was equally startling and important! I suspect there are people drawing up these Minutes who have their own emphasis where they wish. Having approved the general plan, we then began discussion details. Fundamentally the proposed new first volume will treat only of the language rights of citizens as protected by law; it is not going into cultural problems, nor will it take up the question of language in the Federal public service, in private industry, or in the armed forces. There will come in Volume 2. We had cocktails and lunch at the Cercle Universitaire, reminding ourselves that it was just three years ago since our founding dinner was held here. During lunch I was surprised to hear Lacoste arguing that Laval and McGill, having pre-Confederation Royal Charters, were exempt from certain Provincial laws. It seems that a short experience of academic administration has already had its effect upon him. The afternoon meeting continued with the details of the new Schema. Lacoste was still worried that we would say only things already well known. I said that we should not be too worried about this; our Report must be complete and cover old as well as new ground.

editor’s note: The commissioners then began discussing the question of bilingual districts, and almost all wanted the principle accepted.

1966

157

We then discussed the proposal of an Official Languages Act, as suggested by Smiley. There was general approval of this idea, provided it was purely Federal in its enactment, through enabling the Federal Cabinet to initiate discussions with Provinces that agreed. Rudnyckyj proposed that we put something about “native” languages into the Constitution. He was supported by Wyczynski. I strongly opposed the idea, saying that there was no meaning to the word “native” and that in any case, we should not clutter up the Constitution with such detail. I am afraid I may have offended their susceptibilities somewhat. Laurendeau asked me afterwards to take the matter into consideration at some further meeting of Group C. Nevertheless, I suspect that behind the proposal is the idea that after the acceptance of Indian and Eskimo languages as “native” they saw the acceptance of Ukrainian in the same category. Gagnon then produced two pages he had written for us on the Eskimo, which effectively said we could make no firm recommendations about them. With this I heartily agreed.25 I then went out to lunch with Laing, Gagnon and Morrison, and in the hour allotted we managed to do very well with Martinis, smoked salmon and minestrone.

editor’s note: At the end of a long day, Scott presented his report on publications, noting: “Although many important matters were dealt with in it, the Commission was ready to accept anything, and did so without a murmur.”

f ort y- e ig h t h m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 1 8 – 2 0 n ov e m ber 1966 There was such shaking of hands and general greetings all around, as the whole Commission had not met for two and a half months. “This is like Old Boys’ week,” said David Dunton. I am not sure this phrase meant much to the French speaking members, but it expressed a general feeling.

editor’s note: The commissioners then embarked on a lengthy discussion of the the first draft of section 3 of Volume 1 of the final report, which Scott faithfully summarized. Frith was “much impressed, but he is so anxious to get something published he is ‘ready to sign a telephone book, provided it is adequately

158

The Fate of Canada

bilingual.’” Others expressed various reservations, like Gertrude Laing who “likes it but wishes it were more simply and clearly written.” Scott was generally satisfied but felt the style of writing was too academic and literary. Wyczynski said the draft was “très valable.” He then quoted two Latin proverbs, which Frith asked to have put in the Minutes so he could figure them out later. That afternoon I drove back to Montreal to get my B. Litt. degree from Sir George Williams. I returned Saturday morning (Nov. 19th) and we began a discussion on the linguistic rights that would be guaranteed in the Districts. Dunton wanted answers to all the questions that could be asked. Frith and I thought it would be better to give a general indication rather than a precise description of a situation which does not now exist and would have to be created by intergovernmental agreement. Other Commissioners felt that this first draft lacked any “concept général” about Canada as a bilingual country; they wanted this statement to deal with the whole country first before we defined the differences that would exist in the bilingual districts. A long discussion then ensued on what we meant by the term “bilingual country.” Despite all the years spent together it was still not clear in our minds. There was always the conflict between the notion of total bilingualism and the fact of a large degree of unilingualism, certain to continue for a long time, in many places. An example of this conflict: In a “bilingual country,” must every Federal Post Office have a bilingual staff? While the discussion ranged around and about I began to write down a few general propositions expressing my general ideas about Canada as a bilingual country. I missed some of the exchanges going on between Commissioners, but my effort of drafting ended up as follows: “We start with the proposition that the dual character of Canada is not only a fact – it is an advantage. That there should be an equality of opportunities for each linguistic group, as far as it is possible to establish it by law and institutions. That it should be a free choice for every Canadian to continue to live his life in either language, everywhere in the country. That access to public posts be equally open to people in either mother tongue. That public institutions provide service to the public in both languages. That all compulsory assimilation be eliminated, and the choice of old and new Canadians be

1966

159

free as to which culture and language they choose to adopt. That Canada’s image at home and abroad be that of a truly bilingual and bicultural country, distinct in this way in North America. “This is not the Canada of today, except in certain places and for limited purposes. The problem to be solved is how to develop toward this ideal.” At this point Lalande read out his paragraphs 7, 7(a) and 7(b), where we found most of the elements of the “Concept général” that we had been looking for. He said he had taken these from a draft prepared by Professor Mackey, dated November 18th, 1966, which set out three purposes in this bilingual state. The first is to guarantee the survival of each linguistic group. The second is, that the state is founded not in order to promote bilingualism, but to protect the linguistic integrity of each group, which means that the bilingual state must defend and even promote unilingualism for both. The third objective is that the majority must always help the minority to develop in order to maintain the bilingualism. In regard to this idea of promoting unilingualism, I confess that, perhaps lacking French logic, I could not see how a Commission appointed to promote bilingualism could end up favouring the promotion of unilingualism. Gradually it dawned on me, and I think on the others, was that what Mackey meant was that unless there was a strong degree of unilingualism in the bilingual country for each language one would eventually dominate and assimilate the other. Promoting unilingualism, and having two essentially unilingual groups, did not exclude the possibility that individual members of the main group might be able to speak the other language as well. At lunch several Commissioners brought in sandwiches to the office, had themselves some aperitif, and watched the beginning of the Ottawa-Tiger Cats game on television. To Wyczynski the sport was wholly incomprehensible. We resumed at 3.00 pm and continued the discussion on the “concept général.” My effort was read aloud and all wanted a copy. A consensus seemed to be emerging. The remainder of the discussion was devoted to further consideration of what bilingual services would be available for people who lived outside the districts. This led to appreciation of the supreme importance of the Federal Government and to all its services – Trans-Canada Highway, Air Canada, cbc , etc. These services cover the entire country, whether included or not in the proposed districts.

160

The Fate of Canada

Léon Dion then produced twelve variations and permutations – capitals, districts, territories in and out of Provinces bilingual and not bilingual, and percentages and global masses. He had a large diagram drawn on the blackboard in which all the categories were set forth with squares in which Xs could be marked to indicate Provinces. All I could say to myself was, what a prolix complex! What an amazing maze! What a gruelling frill! After studying it for a while Frith then read an imaginary letter to the newspaper which would begin “Dear Abby: My husband and I are absolutely incompatible. He believes in bilingual signs in stations in a non-bilingual district near a bilingual district in a non-bilingual Province. I take the contrary view. What is your opinion?” While I felt we were creating so many categories that the plain reader might get lost, the fact is that this is the nature of Canadian life. It is complex, and cannot be simplified. Our discussion did not lead to any new drafts of any part of the text before us. At some points we were hashing over again matters which we had decided long ago. Commissioners forget decisions previously made, and new material and new approaches seem to require that former positions be re-examined. A question we all felt in our minds was, how does this process promote the writing of the final report? Mike Oliver told me at this point he had never felt more discouraged about the work of the Commission.

editor’s note: The next day the commissioners dealt with Michael Oliver’s paper on bilingual districts, which Scott described as “short, compact and precise,” resulting in a series of decisions. In the afternoon, they reached an agreement that the federal “linguistic ombudsman” – the Commissioner of Official Languages – should be the cultural conscience of Canada and be allowed to receive petitions about provincial situations provided the provinces concerned had agreed to his appointment. The dying moments of the afternoon were spent in discussing whether we could not find a more efficient manner of working. It seemed that on present procedures and at the present speed the first volume of the final report might not be out until May, 1967. The thought daunted everyone, but there were no very constructive ideas about improving the drafting techniques. The basic trouble is that we have a Commission of ten people, which in itself is far too large as an

1966

161

editorial group, to which have been added two secretaries and two research directors, making fourteen in all. Add to this two co-equal Chairmen, neither of whom has responsibility because both have it, and neither of whom is a dominant or leading personality, and you have a picture of a machine that can only creak along the road.

1967

editor’s note: Canada’s Centennial year, 1967, is often recalled with nostalgia. The late Pierre Berton called it “The Last Good Year.”1 In contrast, Globe and Mail columnist Doug Saunders called it “Canada’s first good year,” arguing that “Canada was not remade by the decisions of 1967; it was reflected by them, for the first time. What began in 1967 was official Canada beginning to catch up with the real Canada.”2 Certainly, the official gestures were significant: Expo 67, General de Gaulle’s “Vive le Québec libre” speech, the selection of Robert Stanfield to lead the Progressive Conservative Party, Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau’s vowing to introduce a Charter of Rights, René Lévesque leaving the Quebec Liberal Party to form the Mouvement Souveraineté-Association, the precursor of the Parti Québécois, the Estates-General of French Canada meeting, and the publication of the first volume of the commission’s report. But there were other events as well: a bomb planted by the Front de libération du Québec blew up a Montreal mailbox on 1 January – the first of five terror attacks that year in a series that had begun four years earlier. In February, Lester Pearson created the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, headed by Scott’s friend Florence Bird. The Nisga’a nation of British Columbia took their claim of a constitutional right to their land to the Supreme Court. The Immigration Act was amended, eliminating preference or discrimination based on nationality or race. In December, Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau tabled a new Divorce Act. Throughout the year, the commissioners wrestled with the final draft of their first volume and the key principles of their subsequent volumes. This involved significant discussion about the armed

1967

163

forces, how the federal government could support second-language and minority language teaching, the cultural contributions of other ethnic groups, how the National Capital Region could reflect what the commissioners would call “an equal partnership between Francophone and Anglophone Canadians in conducting the affairs of a federal state,” and how voluntary associations could meet the needs of both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Scott’s anti-capitalist views were most clearly articulated in his opposition to commercialism. He was indignant about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s acceptance of advertising, which created tensions in his otherwise amicable relationship with Royce Frith. In January, Scott and Frith met with three senior Ontario officials to discuss the proposals the commission was considering for bilingual districts and the provision of minority French language education. Both in the pre-dinner discussion and at dinner the atmosphere was extremely affable and we met no signs of resistance to any idea we put forward. We were told that the present Minister of Education3 was particularly favourable to changes that would give the French minority more educational rights, but that his Department officials were pretty well set in their ancient ways. It was also made clear to us that the best time to propose new changes to any Government is just after it has been elected, when it may expect at least two years uninterrupted opportunity to put new laws into effect, rather than before an election when people are apt to take fixed positions. Ontario is likely to have an election this year; it seemed to follow that our B & B report might well be delayed until after this event. In respect of bilingualism as an official policy in Ontario, I found that none of the three representatives had ever remembered that Ontario had once, when part of the old Province of Canada, been in fact bilingual. There was no immediate opposition to the idea, but I cannot say that we developed it to any serious degree.

f i f t y- f irs t m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 2 – 4 f e b rua ry 1967 editor’s note: Scott and Frith reported on their positive meeting with Ontario officials, and they discussed the possibility of similar visits to New Brunswick and Quebec. Scott then describes what he called “a very difficult problem.” The Queen’s Printer and

164

The Fate of Canada

some senior government officials were objecting to the plan to have the most interesting studies published by university presses. I arrived late at the afternoon session, having lunched with Michael Pitfield at the Rideau Club where we discussed Canada in general and his problems in particular. He made me promise not to commit myself for any position on retirement from McGill during the next two weeks. I suspect some offer of an Ottawa job is being considered.

3 f e b rua ry editor’s note: The commissioners then looked at a revised version of a study by the demographer Jacques Henripin. Many felt that it was still too full of the obsession of assimilation: e.g., he says nothing about the expansion of the French-Canadian population inside and outside of the Province of Quebec, which is surely evident to anyone looking at the facts. Cormier felt there was no truth in the chapter because it was based solely on statistics and took no account of the “will to live” of French Canadians outside of Quebec, nor of the work of their defensive associations. I criticized Henripin’s use of the term “Anglophones” in several places as applying only to those whose mother tongue is English in Quebec. This makes the number of persons speaking English seem much smaller than it really is. Actually, there are over a million people in Quebec whose ethnic origin is not French; that is three hundred thousand more than the number of mother tongue English. What language do they speak? It may be impossible to find out exactly, but we know that most of the immigrants to Quebec take to English rather than to French. The number of English speaking in Quebec is, therefore, far beyond six hundred and ninety-seven thousand. In the afternoon meeting we took the Laing text on “Le Français et l’anglais comme langue de l’ensiegnment.”4 All the French Commissioners wanted us to say firmly that the French to be taught must be the international French, otherwise Quebec will completely cut itself off from its cultural roots – as some writers and teachers at the University of Montreal appear to think desirable. A long debate on details followed, in which I took very little part, still feeling sleepy as a result of having missed my afternoon nap. We then took Gagnon’s short chapter on the Mass Media. I delivered a rather forceful attack on the text because it omitted all

1967

165

reference to the steady deterioration of the original idea behind cbc namely public service. I said that Fowler, in recommending that cbc compete in advertising with the private stations, was a worse influence on French culture than Lord Durham. No one supported me, and we went ahead with minor revisions. It seemed to me that Volume I had the title too broad, as it was not in fact going to deal with all the linguistic rights in Canada, such as those that arise in the mass media, the public service, or private industry. I suggested we should only cover those areas on which we are making specific recommendations in this first volume. This question was too large to be dealt with late in the afternoon, so we postponed it until Saturday morning.

4 t h f e b ruary editor’s note: The commissioners discussed language rights, and a problem that Morrison had raised: changes in Ottawa’s municipal structure were being discussed, and the recommendations on the National Capital should be produced quickly. We then returned to the problem of what should be excluded from Volume I. I wanted to cut down the volume to the specific material leading to our recommendations, which I pointed out included the whole idea of bilingual districts, a revised Section 133, the making of Ontario and New Brunswick officially bilingual Provinces thus changing the Court structure in them – enough, I said to shock Canada for the next hundred years of Confederation. At which Dunton asked “You think there will be another hundred years?” “Optimist” said Rudnyckyj. This was another of those occasions when the good humour of the Commission never fails. I have noticed throughout all our meetings that we seldom go ten minutes without someone producing general laughter.

f i f t y- s e c o n d m e e t in g of the commi s si on, 2 2 – 2 4 f e b ruary 1967 22 February

editor’s note: There were further discussions about having university presses publish some of the studies. This never happened. The commissioners then began to wrestle with the question of

166

The Fate of Canada

religious schools, noting that the Association Canadienne-Française de l’Éducation d’Ontario had called for “non-confessional” schools. They went on to discuss federal financing of minority language schools.5 This is one area in which much has been done since the 1960s. In his books Bilingual Today, United Tomorrow and So They Want Us to Learn French, Matthew Hayday painstakingly describes the debate over funding of second-language education and, more broadly, language policy in the 1970s and 1980s. At present, the federal government transfers $149.1 million a year for minoritylanguage education, or $745.5 million over five years, as part of the Action Plan for Official Languages, 2018–23. I lunched at the Chateau with Laing, Laurendeau, Gagnon, Morrison and Cormier. There were the beginnings of the big fight that is looming up on public tv and Radio. Gagnon’s first draft, which I had already read, was totally unacceptable to me as missing the whole story of commercialization of cbc and its effect upon cultural development.

editor’s note: The commissioners agreed about the idea of federal grants to minority schools and began to discuss grants to minority language universities. At this point the discussion was interrupted to bring in the draft by Gagnon on the Mass Media, so that I would have a chance of expressing my views, it being necessary for me to miss the next two days because of my poetry reading at Queen’s University (because of a late change in the Royal Commission Meetings I was already committed to this engagement). I gave a brief history of my relationship to cbc , going back to the days when I was on the Executive of the old Canadian Radio League, and reminded them of the original concept on which the whole structure was based, namely that the use of the air should be regulated as a public utility. I advocated that we take this position in our recommendations. Gagnon replied that this would go far beyond our mandate, which is only concerned with the use of language in the mass media. Lacoste said we cannot raise another bagarre6 here like the one on confessionality. Frith said we could not reconstruct our report to fit my ideas or make value judgments as to whether cbc is good or bad.

1967

167

I replied that if we can say that bilingual education is good or not bad, we can say also that ratio and tv is desirable in one form rather than another. Laurendeau answered that we only judge education in terms of language, not in terms of the quality of the education given. I then raised the possibilities that Telestar7 offers us, which might change the whole nature of broadcasting. Frith agreed that we might soon be able to tune into any station in the world; to him freedom of access to stations was the all-important point. I asked whether it did not matter what the stations were producing? Dunton did not wish us to go further than the recommendations that Gagnon had already drafted on Page 28. He agreed that the cbc must have more money to free itself to some degree from its reliance on advertising. Morrison added that we must tell the Board of Broadcast Governors8 what it should do to strengthen bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada.

s p e ci a l m e e t in g o f t h e s ub-commi ttee of the c o m m is s io n , m o n t r e al, 2 march 1967 This special meeting was called to discuss the mass media, using a set of questions prepared by Jean-Louis Gagnon dated 2nd March 1967. It was necessitated because of the argument I had raised over the advertising on cbc and the degree to which we should recommend possible new sources of income to avoid this dependence on commercial sponsors for cbc programmes. At the outset an argument began immediately between Frith on one side and myself and Oliver on the other. For Frith advertising was such an essential for the continued expansion of our economy that it should not even be taxed! We agreed that the cbc had to be somewhat freed of its dependence on advertising, at least to the point where it should not be required to earn a certain percentage of its income from this source. Looking around at the people present, I could not help reflecting that here was a crucial point of decision-making at which there were four Commissioners and four non-commissioners present – the latter doing most of the talking. Yet any recommendations we make to the full Commission are very likely to be accepted as though they had been made originally by the Commission itself. All the old arguments I had heard for the past thirty years about commercialization of broadcasting were floating around the air

168

The Fate of Canada

like blinded bats. This discussion never seems to end. Why cannot an unsponsored system give popular programmes? Are the ratings reliable? Will a cbc without advertising become solely a highbrow activity? Would it lose all its public? And so on and so on. While the bats flew about, I stayed silent in my corner and wrote down the following points as they occurred to me:

a The role of tv and radio is crucially important today in the development of any culture. b Their role in Canada is especially important because of the scattered population and its bicultural character. c The aim of tv and radio in Canada must be to serve both sections of the public in a balanced and reasonable way, catering to all kinds of tastes. d The dominance of advertising greatly restricts the kinds of public who are to be served since sponsors are only concerned with numbers (markets) and not with the whole public. e It follows that the cbc must be freed from dependence on advertising, and able to fulfill its original role of a public utility aiming to serve all sections of the public. f Private stations also have their public duty and must not only be reminded of it, but held to the performance of it through a reinforced bbg 9 with regulations and penalties. Insofar as possible their own sense of responsibility must be developed. g Freeing the cbc from commercial dependence means providing it with more funds. These may come from increased Government grants, from new taxes on the profits of private stations (why not limit them to 10%), from license fees varying according to the public served, from a rental charge for the use of the public air waves, from an excise tax on all sets sold, or otherwise. A choice of these new taxes is for the Government to make. My ideas were well received after a long silence. Naim Kattan10 had them run off and distributed to the group. Royce Frith, however, took great exception to my mention of special kinds of tax, saying that this was not a function of our Commission. I said that without indicating new sources of income other than Federal grants, the Canadian people would not agree to free cbc from present advertising sponsorship, because they would say that they were being to forced to pay more. If the money can be shown to come not from

1967

169

the ordinary tax payer but from special taxes, the idea is much more likely to be accepted. I was convinced that Frith was simply defending the private interests in their privileged position. We then discussed what obligations could be imposed on the private stations to help the cause of B & B. We more or less agreed that there could be a kind of programme package, containing various items, chosen by the bbg and sent to all private stations from which they would choose a certain number to be broadcast in their areas. I was late arriving in the afternoon, having a speech to prepare for a meeting of the McGill Graduate Society in the evening. I found Laurendeau trying to find a definition of our terms of reference as applied to the mass media. He was not succeeding very well. Round and round we went. Dion did not want us to be concerned with values in broadcasting; he said we must permit “liberty.” Oliver said that this simply means that the advertising will choose for us. I said we were aiming at developing Confederation in terms of an “equal partnership”; here were objectives and hence values. What is the use of having an equal number of bad programmes on all the English and French stations? We could require a certain type of programme without violating the purposes of the cbc , or unduly restricting the freedom of expression. Indeed, without such regulation there would be many forms of expression that would have no chance whatever of revealing themselves. Later we discussed the position of the newspapers. Here Gagnon informed us that the real problem was to help La Presse Canadienne.11 We toyed with the idea of creating a press council which might receive subsidies from the State to be used for the promotion of bilingualism and biculturalism. There was much hesitation at this idea, since it smacked of Government control of the press. I proposed on this point we should discuss with interested persons in the field of journalism to find out their reactions. Then I left to go to the lancement of JeanCharles Falardeau’s12 new book on the French-Canadian novel.

f i f t y- f if t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 7 – 2 9 a p r il 1967 I missed the meeting of April 27th, as I was attending the inauguration of Expo ’67 in Montreal. A memorable event! I was glad to learn that Cormier was also present on that occasion. We both, therefore, only arrived for the meeting on the morning of the 28th.

170

The Fate of Canada

Lalande reported on progress to date. Talking of the second volume of the Final Report, he said “Il avance à son propre rythme.”13 This produced much laughter. We then took Document A (27th April 1967) and immediately were plunged into the old problem of official languages. It was clear to us that there are many degrees of official bilingualism. I said that the word “Official” was not a term of art recognized by law. Dunton wanted us to use it since he felt that we must make a declaration of some importance on this point that would sum up the present feelings and expectations of the ordinary people. Cormier was much opposed to the use of the word in its application to Provinces but felt it could be applied to the Federal Government. He said that New Brunswick was already bilingual because it had adopted the creation of a translation bureau. I said that to ask Ontario to accept the word “Official” in regard to French was even more difficult than to ask it to put its statutes, debates and court proceedings into the two languages; it was easier to accept specific proposals than general ideas. Dunton then suggested we should say that “English and French are the two official languages of Canada.”14 Paul Lacoste wanted us to introduce the idea of custom as giving status to an official language. He said this would give some discretion to the Courts in their interpretation, and he cited the use of a term in the Civil Code of Quebec. I pointed out that the Quebec Code dealt with private law only, not public law, and that in public law constitutional convention or custom has not the force of law. The suggestion was not supported. We lunched as usual at the Chateau, and amongst other things discussed why Robichaud had rejected the motion of Van Horne in the New Brunswick Legislature on the adoption of French as an official language.15 Even Cormier admitted he had made a mistake. He should have accepted the principle of the motion, and forced Van Horne to defend it in the Province, while suggesting that various enquiries had to be made as to how it could be implemented. He could, however, simply have referred the question to an advisory committee. We then went on to talk about Expo ’67 and there was great exultation shared by all who had either been at the opening or who had seen the tv showing of it. We felt sure it would help our B & B work; it would make people see the two official languages equally used in all the pavilions, and would open their minds that the world is changing rapidly.

1967

171

editor’s note: Rudnyckyj, supported by Wycyzynski, renewed his proposal for regional languages.16 Scott remained opposed, as he felt the other commissioners were: “I am sure we all felt that the implications of acknowledging regional languages in the Constitution would be to proclaim a future for Canada where other languages would become official and instead of only two, four or five.” The commissioners then wrestled with whether or not to use footnotes, and how to define the word “group,” and how they should address “endogamy” and “exogamy” – marriage within and outside the language group. Scott quipped “libre entreprise” adding: “Yet the question of intermarriage was felt to be important since many groups object to exogamy for cultural reasons. But we could not do more than face the fact.” The commissioners decided to remove the word “ethnic” as being confusing. Then the Broadcasting sections came up. It seemed obvious that few of us knew the technical problems we were creating by some of recommendations in the draft report.

f i f t y- s ix t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 1 7 – 1 9 m ay 1967 There being no plane available, I came up by train and arrived somewhat late. Everyone was at work on the editing of the first draft of Volume I, dated 11th May 1967. I took exception to the reference on Page 9 to a final volume which would deal with the great Constitutional issues; my contention was that we were not appointed to do this, were incapable of doing it, and should not say to the Canadian people that we intend to do it. Laurendeau then said that we had promised Lacoste that it would be included, and that this was the condition on which he did not press the matter any further at our discussions of last summer. My memory of that incident was that we all agreed to withhold the decision until a later date but not that on a later date we would accept the Lacoste position. Gagnon then suggested the addition of the words “Concernant les relations et l’avenir de la société,”17 which added a note of vagueness. Being convinced we shall never reach this volume, I let the matter drop.

172

The Fate of Canada

editor’s note: The commissioners then went through the draft of Volume 1 line by line, page by page. Scott observed that “The process is slow but unavoidable, and in the long run reasonably effective.” During lunch at the Chateau we discussed the return of Duplessisism in Quebec.18 Gagnon, Laing and myself all expressed our concern at the many symptoms of it. Laurendeau doubted if it could come back, but admitted that there was no more élan in the Province. He feared that the vacuum would reinforce the separatists. In the afternoon session we returned to our editorial work. Several revised pages were presented to us, having been drafted by the executive at some intervening meetings. We had difficulty trying to decide who were the partners of the “Equal partnership.” They certainly are not two “races” nor even two “peoples.” These terms are too vague and do not fit the facts. We agreed that the kind of partnership we were seeking was one between two language and two cultural groups. But even these concepts are not exactly the same. The Acadians, for instance, do not speak French in many instances, yet feel strongly attached to the French cultural community. This is only one example of the problems we face throughout our report – how to find sufficiently exact terms to express the concepts we have to deal with. In Paragraph 64 of the draft there was a contrast drawn between the minority position of the negroes in America and the French Canadians in Canada. Lacoste wanted this taken out as likely to cause resentment in Quebec. I felt I knew what he was referring to and supported its deletion. Other Commissioners thought the contrast striking and useful. We took a vote on the issue, and my motion to delete the reference was defeated 5 to 4. That night we had a lively dinner at the Cercle Universitaire at which the negro reference came up again. Laurendeau said quite abruptly to us that we were all blatant racists in rejecting this reference to the negro. Gertrude Laing said she only opposed it because she knew it would cause some offence in Quebec, though she personally did not object to it. Laurendeau said that this offence would only be felt in Quebec by people who themselves disliked the negroes and who were also therefore blatant racists. As the discussion went on, I realized that Laurendeau was quite right, and told him I had changed my mind.19

1967

173

18 May 1967 In the afternoon meeting we began with Rudnyckyj’s statement advocating the acceptance of the principle of regional languages in Canada (dated 13th May). He presented a strong and well-reasoned case for the inclusion in section 133 of the Constitution of a reference to regional languages, which would be protected by Provincial legislation. All the rest of us had pretty well made up our minds before hand, since this was the third time that he had returned to the idea, that we were not going to accept the proposal. When it came to a vote it was defeated by 7 to 2. Rudnyckyj took this in good part, but then presented us with a written statement which he wished appended to the written report, saying that he had proposed this specific amendment and it had been rejected. This at once raised the question as to what we are to do with dissents. Are they to be put in the form of separate minority reports? or could we simply refer to them at the appropriate pages whenever they did not go to any very substantial matter. It was decided that we would leave this question open until the end of the revision of Volume I. At this point in our work we were interrupted by a secretary who told us that ctv News was outside and wanted to make a movie of the Commission at work or coming out of work. I objected to our agreeing to this on the ground that ctv News was always sponsored and that we would be jammed in between Brylcreem and Clairol, or some such product. Royce Frith immediately said that we would not be talking or speaking to the Cameras so that it would be all right. When we rose at the end of the afternoon Father Cormier joined me in leaving the rest alone to be photographed as they emerged from the Council room. Good dinner and talk with Michael Oliver in the evening. Mostly about the present position of McGill and developments in higher education in Quebec. 19 May, 10 a . m .

editor’s note: The commissioners decided not to refer to areas to be covered in later volumes in Book I, which Scott thought was a wise decision.

174

The Fate of Canada

We then went on to the second part of volume one, dated 11th May 1967. A serious debate arose on the proposal about freeing Quebec from the obligations of section 133 if Ontario and New Brunswick do not agree to become officially bilingual. This idea I am sure emanated from André Laurendeau, and had received no general Commission study before being drafted. I strongly opposed the idea on the grounds that: 1 Section 133 only applies to language, and not to education rights, and if equality is to be sought then the educational provisions also should cease to bind Quebec. 2 It is stupid to expect that section 133 can in fact be amended if we postulate that Ontario and New Brunswick refuse to make any changes in it so as to make themselves bilingual. 3 Quebec has an obligation to respect the language rights of some 800,000 people in its English-speaking minority, regardless of any good or bad action taken in any other province. I was left to do all the arguing on the point, the other Commissioners remaining silent, and I had a feeling that they suspected me of pleading my own case and not supporting general principles. At the end the matter was held over and no decision taken. I lunched alone at the Chateau and read with pleasure some remarks of Robarts in the Ontario Legislature about the human rights of the French in Ontario to their own language and educational system.

f i f t y- s e v e n t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, w in d s o r h o t e l , montreal, 3 1 m ay – 2 j u n e 1967 The main purpose of this meeting was to discuss the draft text on Mass Media dated 25th May 1967, prepared by Jean-Louis Gagnon and his group. As usual, each Commissioner was asked to give his general impression of the whole before we proceeded to examine every detail. Most members expressed general satisfaction. Personally I found it so unsatisfactory that I had to be guarded in my criticism lest I seem offensive. I pointed out that the very few historical references were highly selective and did not give a general picture of the development of the media; that there was a long section

1967

175

on the possibility of Provincial control over broadcasting which we had never discussed in the Commission; that nothing was said about the great benefit to the French language in Quebec which had resulted from Federal control and the Federal authority to extend French language stations into parts of Canada that would never had accepted them had the Provinces possessed the jurisdiction; and that there was practically nothing said about the commercialisation of the air waves with the resultant deterioration in both the French and English cultures in Canada. We then proceeded with detailed criticisms. I questioned the word “Instruire” as a function of the press. Does this mean brainwashing? It was pointed out that the French term conveys only the idea of giving information, and has no pejorative sense, whereas in English the idea of instruction supposes superior authority talking to pupils. It was agreed some change should be made. Gertrude Laing commented that the term “Biculturalism” had now become an unpleasant word in Canada, and we should try to avoid its use as much as possible in our Report, since nobody likes it. This is a somewhat strange commentary on the position our Commission holds in public estimation. I lunched at home, for peace and quiet sake.

editor’s note: In the afternoon, Scott was upset that no one remembered that the word “telegraphs” was in the original British North America Act of 1867 – an indication of his conviction that every educated Canadian should know Canada’s constitutional history. Then the commissioners had what he called “a big argument” about provincial television networks. Scott was opposed, concerned about conflicting jurisdictions, and argued that “Provincial control is the enemy of the spread of French culture in Canada.” The creation of the French-language educational network in Ontario, tfo , in 1987 suggests Scott’s fears were excessive. At the June 1st meeting we approved the principle of Federal aid to such schools, with equal treatment for the English and French minorities. Trying to apply the latter principle led us into great difficulties later. We ran into great difficulties with the problem of financing higher education in minority languages. Who should be responsible for the additional costs that result from a development of bilingual

176

The Fate of Canada

education, particularly in the West and in the Maritimes? Must McGill receive Federal money if Federal money is given to higher institutions outside Quebec? Is a single French language college for the three prairie Provinces really wanted by the local minorities? Is not the idea of creating a college or university de novo a somewhat artificial question?

editor’s note: The commissioners then discussed how the federal financing of minority language universities could be organized, with Paul Lacoste suggesting that it would mean that McGill would move ahead faster than the French universities in Quebec. “Incroyable,” noted Scott bitterly. After much batting the ball back and forth Michael Oliver proposed that we agree on the following principles: 1 Equal access for all to educational institutions. 2 Rattrapage.20 3 Federal responsibility for the additional costs involved in looking after minority institutions of higher learning, in all Provinces. 4 Some distinction to be made [between] bilingual and nonbilingual Provinces. The real problem was to find a principle for the latter proposal. I suggested that we should solve the problem first, and then find out what principle we had used to do it. This caused some dubious laughter among the French speaking members.

editor’s note: In the afternoon, the commissioners continued to discuss federal funding for universities, and what form it might take. I found this financial argument most uninspiring and rather restricting. As far as Paul Lacoste was concerned, it all seemed planned to prevent McGill getting any more money. It was decided that the greatest emphasis should be placed on the Federal Government financing individual students in the minority groups in order to enable them to go where they wished to complete their education, provided they cannot get what they need in their own language in their own Province.21 This idea, in fact, separates

1967

177

out the English in Quebec from the French outside in a rather natural and proper manner. The English in Quebec can complete their higher education in their own language in the Province, whereas the French outside Quebec cannot, with the exception of New Brunswick. On the other hand, implicit in this concept, is the idea (which we did not discuss) that Quebec continue to maintain the English speaking higher institutions at a proper level.

f i f t y- e ig h t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 1 4 – 1 7 j u n e 1967 editor’s note: The commissioners discussed how their recommendations might apply to the private sector, without reaching a conclusion. I lunched at the Chateau with Laurendeau, Lacoste and Gagnon. Bright conversation. Gagnon thought that the British pavilion was the best at Expo, and the only one which showed any humour. He was struck also by the contrasting levels of development portrayed in the Israeli and Arab pavilions. I told of seeing the Fellaheen carrying sand in baskets on their heads to build the new canal for the high Aswan dam, while two billion dollars worth of war equipment was thrown away in the Israeli war. I came back that evening to Montreal to attend a special dinner for Gerry Le Dain.22 On the train I talked with Georges Lachance23 former student and now Liberal mp ; he was sure that the influence of Expo would be to “déniaiser”24 the Quebec population.

editor’s note: On June 15th, the commissioners heard University of Toronto political scientist Paul Fox present his study on the cabinet. Scott fumed when Paul Lacoste said that Louis St-Laurent was not really French-Canadian because he was brought up in Ottawa and given an English education. The text had many references to the cultural differences between French and English. I commented that we must be careful not to assume that the present habits in Quebec are an inherent part of their culture that will remain unchanged and un-adapted. Gagnon interjected that the more civilized people get, the more they can co-operate together and work in common institutions. I saw Cormier

178

The Fate of Canada

nodding his head. But Dion came back to say that De Gaulle, for instance, could not get along with the English. Only later did I reflect how strange that he cannot get on with his allies in two world wars, but gets along remarkably well with the Germans who were France’s chief enemies. Lunched with Gagnon, Lacoste and Laurendeau. Lacoste told a story of two French women on the way to Quebec in his plane, remarking about the French Canadians “They only keep their language out of obstinacy.” He discussed the provincialism of Le Devoir, which always strikes him every time he has been away from Quebec and returns. He said, in so many words, that it never stops publishing the relevant speeches of insignificant mayors of tiny villages in remote areas of the underdeveloped regions of the Province. On Friday afternoon I took exception to the phrase “sober, Anglo Saxon pragmatism.” I said I presumed it applied to people like me, until someone pointed out that the word “sober” was there. Joking aside, I strongly felt that we should never use the term Anglo Saxon. Went off with Royce Frith to fish at his Mother’s house in Perth. A very pleasant evening. Only after I had caught a few bass did he tell me that the season had not yet opened. So, I threw them all away to feed the pike.

f i f t y- n in t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 2 9 – 3 0 j u n e 1967 Rudnyckyj reported on the opening of the National Library, a ceremony he had attended. He said everything was unilingual except the prayer which was read in French only. But he assured us the signs in the Library were bilingual. Morrison told us that Judy LaMarsh25 was very angry about it. Morrison announced impending difficulties for the Commission. There was not enough money, because of the delay in the preparation of the reports; more seriously, there was a disappearance of top personnel and an unavailability of substitutes except on a consultative basis. Brownstone, Dion, Meisel, Oliver, etc. are all going or gone. He said replacements were almost impossible at this late date. Wyczynski asked Laurendeau “Can you tell us if all the volumes will be out next year?” Reply, “I cannot possibly be sure of that.” Morrison said he would be “happy” if Volume II could be out by July 1968. He said we lacked the staff to do any better.

1967

179

editor’s note: The commissioners then took the second part of the first volume home to read before going into detailed discussions, page by page. They bogged down on a discussion of the word “official” before abandoning it and moving on. Dined with John and Florence Bird, and heard something about another Royal Commission.26

six t ie t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 1 1 – 1 4 j u ly 1967 I had arranged for lunch with Guy Sylvestre27 so that we could discuss the World Festival of Poetry taking place at Expo ’67 in September. I have been put on his Committee to replace George Whalley.28 Guy took me to his golf club, where we had martinis on the veranda and a good lunch afterwards. He filled me in with all the details for the four days of poetry meetings. I felt some doubt as to whether we could keep discussions going for five sessions, both morning and afternoon, particularly on those days when we were being given official lunches, but he assured me that you could count on poets to talk when given an opportunity. He told me of his difficulty with Pound,29 who insisted not only on travelling first class by air but also bringing with him “his assistant”; also with Pablo Neruda30 who said that he could not come without his wife. In view of the importance of the poets, I urged him to make these special concessions. For the afternoon session of the Commission we took the collected amendments to volume I, one by one, and they were adopted with almost no criticism. In fact, we found every alteration to be an improvement, hence there is nothing special to report. The very last sentence in volume I, however, which was “en somme, notre voyage a à peine commencé,”31 caused some laughter. I said that the voyage began two hundred years ago, and that all we were doing now was paddling a little faster. Mrs Laing said that she just could not wait to see how this sentence would be regarded in Alberta. It was agreed to remove it. July 12th a.m. Someone commented that the fact I had received the Companion of the Order of Canada showed at least that being a member of the B & B Commission did not disqualify me.32 Then we turned [to]discuss the question of the auto-determination for Quebec in regard to Section 133, if it was not extended to cover

180

The Fate of Canada

other provinces. It was at least agreed to distinguish between the situation that would exist if Ontario and New Brunswick refused even to declare themselves bilingual, and that which would exist if they both did but the amendment to 133 was blocked by some other province. I don’t think this possibility had been considered at all by the other Commissioners. Laurendeau agreed to attempt a new formulation of the idea for a further meeting. Rudyckyj then came back to his hope that we might refer to regional languages as well as official languages in our report. He wanted the right to append a special note about this, and perhaps some other matters, in the final report. I agreed that this should be conceded, having a sneaking feeling that I might want to do the same myself. Lacoste thought that this would set a very bad example for Royal Commissions. Any dissidence should at least be in an Appendix and not in the text of the Report. This was agreed to by the Commissioners, and satisfied me. The rest of the morning was devoted to a discussion of some points of terminology which have arisen again and must be settled before translation is possible. For instance, we agreed to use the term “people” and not “race” in English, whenever the mandate is not being quoted. Even the term “people” has a slight racial overtone we did not like. “Equal partnership” is to be in French “egalité des deux peoples,” or something equivalent. The French word “regime” is to be used as an English word also, with “system” as an alternative. It was decided that we could occasionally use the simple term “anglophone” and “francophone,” but not “allophone.”33 Alternatives would be “English-speaking” and “French-speaking.” I had lunch with Pierre Trudeau and Carl Goldenberg. We discussed the need for research on the idea of special status for Quebec. They asked me to undertake it, but I demurred, preferring to give them certain basic ideas from time to time and to comment on documents prepared by other people. Carl suggested that I might find out whether whether Alice Desjardins of the University of Montreal would be willing to work with us.34 I agreed to look into the question. We then went to the paper prepared by Paul Lacoste on “les subventions à l’enseignement supérieur de la langue française.” On being asked their general opinion of the paper, almost all the Commissioners said they were very favourably impressed. I had found the document difficult to understand and not convincing; I questioned the notion of an abstract equality between universities

1967

181

that seemed to be a purpose of the plan outlined in the document. I said that no university was exactly like another. I asked how you made the university with a papal charter the same as one that was entirely free of clerical control. And were we proposing that the government of Quebec would decide on how to develop universities outside Quebec? Dunton said that Lacoste had given very good arguments for Federal intervention in higher education. But he thought that if the Federal government is going to aid backward universities, then all backward universities – English as well as French – should be helped. Not just the French. Ontario is already giving special grants to Ottawa and Laurentian Universities because they are bilingual. Defending his Document, Lacoste agreed the good universities must go on developing; there should be no doubt about this. But we are not a university royal commission, being concerned with bilingual questions; therefore, we are only concerned in developing French language universities outside Quebec. His idea of “rattrapage,” it is true, leaves out McGill, but if McGill needed help it would come later. His emphasis on rattrapage did not mean forgetting the other normal needs of all the universities. He even agreed that the best investment for the Province of Quebec at the moment would be to put money into McGill to keep her advancing, but Quebec is French and this could not be Quebec’s policy. It seemed that Lacoste’s scheme if applied would only help the universities of Ottawa and Moncton in actual fact. There seemed to be a lot of superstructure for small results, according to Dion.

1 3 j u ly We went on to discuss the volume on Education, first draft dated June 22nd, 1967. Blair Neatby, the author, was present. Gertrude Laing spoke in general approval of the Document. Gagnon, like myself, said we would only criticize details; I wondered whether, like myself, he had not recently reread the Document. We spent a great deal of time on a great many details. Morrison warned us that we could not afford to try editing every sentence since we would never finish. We paid no attention to him. I could not contemplate the idea of a fourth day of this kind of work, so missed the meeting on the 14th. So did several other Commissioners.

182

The Fate of Canada

s i xt y- f irs t m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 5 – 2 9 j u ly 1967 The spirit of de Gaulle was present. Êtes-vous pour le Québec libre? We joked lightly about it, but underneath one could feel the feeling. Privately, Laing, Oliver, and Wyczynski felt it was quite serious. But soon we forgot the incident in our work. I lunched at the Rideau Club with Michael Pitfield and Grattan O’Leary. The conversation was all about de Gaulle and the necessity of answering him. But when? I took a fairly firm stand, and felt that Michael would probably carry back to high places anything we said. My point was that Canada could not let his remarks pass without looking like a nonentity, an amorphous mass. Should the Ottawa visit be cancelled? I said it would be better to rebuke de Gaulle, perhaps at the Canadian Pavilion at Expo, but still leave the invitation to Ottawa open; then he would have to decide for himself whether to finish his visit, accepting the rebuke, or to withdraw in a huff looking like a demoted politician. To him the choice.

editor’s note: Prime Minister Pearson wrote in his Memoirs, “I could hardly believe my ears.” Responding to his angry cabinet, Pearson told de Gaulle his speech was unacceptable. The government issued a statement saying that Canada and Quebec were already free, adding that 100,000 Canadians had died in two world wars to free France. De Gaulle flew back to France, cancelling his trip to Ottawa. As Jack Granatstein put it, “The separatists were emboldened, and French-English relations, hitherto caught up in the euphoria of the Centennial and Expo 67, were badly bruised.”35 Canada-France relations remained awkward, if not frigid, for years until Prime Minister Brian Mulroney reached an agreement on Quebec’s participation in La Francophonie in 1985. Apropos of a remark about a “double majority” idea which only the Canadian university students ever considered, I said we should beware of taking student activity as a guide for adult action. “Hear, hear,” said Dunton, thinking no doubt of his recent take-over of St Patrick’s College against student protests.36

editor’s note: In a discussion about the creation of a department to aid voluntary associations, Scott objected strongly, arguing

1967

183

that the certification of unions, which had been intended to encourage unionization, had resulted in government control of unions. 26 July a . m . At this point the news arrived that de Gaulle had cancelled his visit to Ottawa. It caused no interruption in our work but much thinking in my heart. Revolution can be promoted from outside. Was this done deliberately to wake people up in English Canada? What sort of “waking” will take place? Probably the most reactionary feelings will be excited on both sides; the gulf will widen: the chances of intelligent and just solutions will be greatly diminished. Lacoste entered at 3 p.m. with news about de Gaulle in Montreal last night and this morning. Everything he said was “détendu.”37 There was a big crowd at the University of Montreal, but his speech made no reference whatever to Pearson or the crisis. Lacoste felt that the warmth of the reception in Quebec was due to respect for de Gaulle and was not to be taken as approval for his remarks. The Commissioners then heard Kenneth McRae38 discuss the idea of a Federal District.39 Royce Frith argued for a separate, detached federal district – what is now the National Capital Region, covering Ottawa-Gatineau – and would accept nothing else. Paul Lacoste pointed out that Quebec would not accept giving up any territory, so it should not be proposed. I supported Frith, pointing out: 1 a true Federal District is better suited to the image of an all bilingual Canada; 2 it will not be decided all by itself, but as part of a wider constitutional rearrangement, and therefore more likely to be accepted by Quebec; 3 it permits of a long range development over the next hundred years 4 there is a distinction in the Constitution between legislative jurisdiction and property right, so that the ownership of the land would not need to vest in the Federal government.

editor’s note: However, Dunton pointed out that it would reduce the number of francophones in Ontario, while Lacoste suggested that Ottawa could be a bilingual district while Hull would be a bilingual district with a French majority.

184

The Fate of Canada

Lacoste suggested a conjoint body consisting of Ontario, Quebec and the Federal Government. I asked how this could possibly give effect to its decisions, since the consent of three Legislatures would be required. We left with all these questions unanswered. I dined alone, and wrote two poems. 27 July a . m .

editor’s note: The commissioners continued to hash over the various options, and their implications. Suddenly our two co-Presidents began to try to restrict our discussion by reference to our mandate, which they said should only cover questions of bilingualism. I felt they wished to avoid the structural arguments since they were both obviously afraid the majority might go for a full Federal district. I said that on this interpretation we had had been wasting a lot of our time both in research and discussion. Frith came back to his great principle, the creation of a true capital city. It would not be enough just to have a few bilingual road signs, conceded by two Provinces. It must be under Federal jurisdiction so that the Federal Government might stand as a model for the entire country. Lacoste seemed to concede something when he stated his objectives as being a true capital district with real equality, but approached with an understanding of the distrust in Quebec. I suggested we should state our ideal, the capital district, admit this mistrust, but say that the change will come more easily if our recommendations about Section 133 and Bilingualism in Ontario and New Brunswick are adopted. Frith pointed out that our whole report, if accepted, would require the co-operation of Provinces so why should we be afraid to ask for a Federal District? We must not refuse to state what should be done because of some hidden fears. The true question was, “Is it the right thing?,” not “Will people believe it is the right thing?” At this Gagnon suddenly became lively and agreed with Frith, pointing out that our report is a whole, a unity! Though it comes out in parts. 27 July p . m . Rudnyckyj and Wyczynski said they wanted the Federal capital to reflect other cultures as well as the two dominant ones. “Don’t put us in the garbage can number 9 into which everything else is thrown

1967

185

and which never comes up for discussion,” said Rudnyckyj. So we changed page 2 somewhat.

editor’s note: Scott tried, unsuccessfully, to get the commission to point out that it was handicapped by the law requiring all publications to be issued by the Queen’s Printer. We had four University Presses in agreement as to how they might co-operate, which in itself would have been a contribution toward bilingualism, yet we were not allowed to continue with the plan. The answer I got was that we did not wish to antagonize the Queen’s Printer at this moment. To which my reply was that the criticism should be levelled against government for not changing the present law. However, the matter was dropped. I cannot help feeling that we missed an opportunity. I spent the evening and night with John and Florence Bird at their lake and succeeded in running a fish hook into my finger and spraining my ankle failing down a collapsing stairway. Otherwise a good time was had by all. 28 July a . m . We started by considering the new draft of the paragraph dealing with section 133 and Quebec, which has been so frequently before us. I was still utterly opposed to the notion that the Constitutional bilingualism in Quebec would be “gravely compromised” if section 133 were not amended so as to cover New Brunswick and Ontario – even if those Provinces had already proclaimed themselves bilingual. I just cannot see how well-established human rights in one jurisdiction can be compromised by the action or inaction of people outside that jurisdiction, unless we are in a situation of pure revenge. It seemed to me it would be equivalent to shooting hostages. But no one supported me except Rudnyckyj who would not vote until he had seen the personal statement I intend to make and append to volume I. Lacoste insisted that Quebec was not free to accept or reject sec. 133 at the time of Confederation, though the historical record shows that it was the French members who demanded the Constitutional protection. This is the first occasion since the Commission started where I have found myself profoundly in disagreement on a point of great significance, and also found myself with practically no support

186

The Fate of Canada

whatever. What annoys me particularly is that the idea in paragraph 432 was never brought before the study group C which was supposed to consider all Constitutional questions. It emerged in the course of the writing, I suspect from Laurendeau and Lacoste. Had lunch with Carl Goldenberg and Barry Strayer40 to discuss the problem of defining a special status for Quebec. My preliminary paper had shown three areas needing examination, namely the place of names and symbols, the financial relationship between Ottawa and the Provinces, and if possible, shift of jurisdiction from Ottawa to Quebec. The problem we face is to find research workers competent for the job. I am not inclined to devote any more of my energies to this corner of the universe.

editor’s note: On 29 July, the commissioners considered a research report on the Canadian Armed Forces, which made the case for military personnel being able to have their careers primarily in French. The problem was the amount of technical language in English in documents shared by nato members. “Even the Germans, we were told, with their C-101 plan from the United States, import all their descriptive manuals in English and do not bother to translate them. How can we keep French in pace with English technical terms? Even if we cannot entirely, is there not more room for French generally as a working language?” However, Scott was unnerved by his lack of knowledge of the military. “I felt rather terrified at the thought that some day, if we publish these recommendations, I shall be asked how I justify them in the light of a host of technical matters about which I know nothing. We really should have a separate Royal Commission on this problem.” At the end of the summer, Scott drafted his objections to a recommendation concerning the proposed amendment to Section 133 of the British North America Act. He made the point that he had made a number of times before, reflecting his concern that the commission was considering recommending a transfer of powers to Quebec.“We are not asked how to make an equal partnership between governments but between the two founding peoples, and the government of Quebec is not the government of French Canada,” he wrote. “Indeed, the federal government, representing all of Canada both French and English-speaking, is the only government of all Canadians of all races and tongues in a large number of matters vitally affecting both major cultures.”

1967

187

a d d it io n a l r e m a r k s by f.r. s cott (Corrected, last revised text 28 September 1967) While supporting all the recommendations contained in this volume (noted in pencil in the margin: Vol. 1), including the proposed amendment to section 133 of the bna Act, I cannot agree with the implications and predictions expressed in paragraphs 453 and 454 of Chapter VII. There it is said that if Ontario and New Brunswick, or one of them, makes French an official language by statutory declaration, but our proposed amendment is not adopted because the unanimous approval of all provinces cannot be obtained, then a grave anomaly will exist, Quebec will be the only province bound by section 133, since the provincial statutes of Ontario and New Brunswick could always be repealed. This is said to create a situation that violates the principle of equality, and one which might threaten the constitutional bilingualism of Quebec. These are serious words.41 With all respect to my fellow Commissioners, this view disregards the history of section 133, fails to understand the equality contained within the section whether or not any other province becomes bilingual, and seems to suggest that minority rights in one province of Canada should depend upon the action of governments in some other provinces of Canada. It also impliedly goes beyond our terms of reference. We are not asked how to make an equal partnership between governments but between the two founding peoples, and the government of Quebec is not the government of French Canada. Indeed, the federal government, representing all of Canada both French and English-speaking, is the only government of all Canadians of all races and tongues in a large number of matters vitally affecting both major cultures. As Chapter VII (paragraph 143) makes clear, the language guarantee adopted at the Quebec and London Conferences (1864– 1866) was much less precise than that now contained in section 133. By its original terms, either language might be used in the federal and Quebec legislatures, statutes and courts, but neither was obligatory. This was the rule that had prevailed prior to 1867 in Lower Canada and the old province of Canada. At no time after the conquest, not even at the time of the rebellions, were the laws of Quebec published in English only, yet the Constitution did not

188

The Fate of Canada

require the double version. The Act of Union of 1841 did not proscribe the use of French, as is sometimes said, though from 1841 to 1848 the English text was the only official one. So at the Quebec and London conferences it seemed enough to generalize the working rule, leaving language use permissive only. In the debates on the Quebec Resolutions, however, certain French-speaking members felt this protection was insufficient, and asked that the permissive use of French be made obligatory instead, for the federal and Quebec statutes and courts. Such a change was more to the advantage of the French than to the English, since while Canada was a colony English was necessarily established, while by making French obligatory in the Parliament it would become official for the first time ever over the entire country from Newfoundland to British Columbia in federal laws and courts, as well as in all the territories not included in a province. The change from the permissive to the obligatory was made during the drafting of the bna Act in London. Thus it seems fair to say that the present wording of section 133, far from being imposed on Quebec, was adopted at the suggestion of representatives of French Canada. That the constitutional guarantee is limited in scope and does not touch the schools does not alter the fact that it was not the English majority at the time which insisted on the present rule. If, as we recommend, the statutes of Canada begin arriving in Victoria, bc , and St John’s Newfoundland, with the English and French texts in the same volumes, English Canada will begin to realize just how important section 133 still is for a bilingual country. I cannot see how there is an inequality in this arrangement, still less how the action or inaction of any other province can affect it. Cartier well expressed the fairness of the agreement when he said in the Confederation debates: “The members of the Conference were desirous that it should not be in the power of that majority to decree the abolition of the use of the English language in the local legislature of Lower Canada, any more than it will be in the power of the Federal legislature to do with respect to the French language.” This was directed to the purely permissive form of the guarantee; the equality of treatment is even more obvious with the present obligatory form. It is often forgotten that the federal government is also a provincial government, making laws on education, and property and civil rights, for the whole of the Northwest Territories and

1967

189

the Yukon; if local administrations to which powers have been delegated by Ottawa use English only in practice because the French minority within their jurisdiction is very small, the same is true for municipal institutions over large areas of Quebec where French is the sole working language. If Quebec should begin to question the rights of the English in Quebec, English Canada might begin to question why places like British Columbia and Newfoundland should have to be concerned with the French language at all. We shall be lost if we fail to see that section 133 was a beginning, and a good beginning, from which we build outward and to not retreat. There is moreover a deeper principle at stake here, which the two paragraphs to which I object seem to ignore. The right to one’s language in all personal and private relations is a human right. It is as inherent in man as his freedom of speech or of conscience. It starts with mother and child; it continues into wider social groupings. It is not granted by the State or by constitutions. Laws may protect it and may prescribe conditions under which it may be reasonably exercised, particularly in dealings with the state authorities. Under present conditions, it would be absurd to make Canada a country with more than two official languages. There are at least 800,000 human beings in Quebec for whom English is either the mother tongue or the working language. They are by far the largest of any provincial minority, with a long and special history. Their linguistic relations with the French majority – a good example of equal partnership – have been developed over 200 years, and provide a model which is a powerful influence for changes in other provinces which have been slow to grant similar rights where they are justified even by their much smaller French minorities. The economic development in Quebec creates difficulties for the French majority that we are going to speak about in another volume. And to which an answer must be found. I am not suggesting that the linguistic status quo in Quebec is to remain as at present; far from it. But section 133 of the bna Act is not an obstacle, but a great help, and it makes for an equality of partnership within Quebec and is based on human rights which even the independence of Quebec could not justify calling into question. – End August 1967

190

The Fate of Canada

s i xt y- s e c o n d m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 4 o c to b e r 1967 I had lunch with Goldenberg, and we talked about the critical situation in Quebec. He said that Faribault42 was extremely worried at the flight of capital, and that he was going to talk to Johnson43 who would probably come out with an anti-separatist statement. This made the work for the Goldenberg Committee on Special Status all the more urgent, and I was asked to put my mind to it very seriously. The problem is to look at all the claims from Quebec for additional powers and to see whether they can be granted without destroying the effectiveness of the Federal Government. Jean Beetz, Allan Gotlieb and Mike Pitfield had been lunching nearby and joined us briefly and we had a general talk about current affairs. I could not help feeling that if men of that calibre could not hold a country together nobody could. 5 October 1967 In the afternoon we were presented with a memorandum from Morrison and Findlay dated 4th October, who felt that in view of the rapid movement of opinion as expressed by Robarts and at the Conservative Party Convention we might find our recommendations inadequate. Morrison feared we were being left behind. I felt sympathetic to this suggestion, but Frith strongly argued that we should not be swayed by any current movements of popular opinion since these might change again, and in any event, we were planning for the long run. Lacoste agreed – movement in Quebec, he said, would go far beyond our suggestions for bilingualism. I could not help remembering that Lacoste did not want us to suggest establishing a Federal capital district, precisely because Quebec opinion would not accept it. Somewhere during the discussion there floated into my mind the idea that instead of the Proustian title “À la recherche du temps perdu” it would be more appropriate for us to use “du temps perdu à la recherche.”44 After a slight break at 6:00 p.m. we came back to work. We got heavily involved again in trying to distinguish between bilingual Municipalities outside bilingual districts and unilingual Municipalities inside bilingual districts. The permutations and combinations here still escaped me in part.

1967

191

As we all needed a revival of spirits, we went to the Cercle Universitaire for dinner at 8:00 o’clock. Present were Laurendeau, Gagnon, Lacoste, Frith, Oliver, and Dunton. Over cocktails the stories came thick and fast and the laughter was so loud, that Dunton said to me “I hope there are no journalists present.” 8 October 1967 I arrived at the office at 9:00 a.m. to work with Royce and André on some special revisions, André and I at last agreed on revisions for Paragraph 453 which made it possible for me to withdraw the separate statement I had intended to add to the report. I had been unable to agree that anything affecting or not affecting Section 133 in other Provinces could have any relevance to the continuance of the English language in Quebec; André could only see Quebec being bound when other Provinces were not, which he felt established a great inequality. I was somewhat reluctant to let my analysis of the situation disappear, since other people will be confused over the point, but it is better that we do not divide if it can be avoided. Knowing how anxious Gertrude Laing was that my statement should not appear, I sent her a simple telegram: “It’s out.” At 10:00 a.m. the Commission assembled, and we drove ahead. A big argument arose over whether we should require the “Minutes” of all Municipalities inside the Federal capital to be in both languages when some of them (Nepean and Pointe Gatineau) have minorities of only 3%. Morrison was very insistent that everything must be bilingual everywhere within the district, which I felt was quite unnecessary. We miraculously cut through all our main difficulties by 1:00 p.m. I went and lunched alone and read about the Congress of Jehovah Witnesses just recently held in Three Rivers without any fuss or bother. Some progress had been made!

s i x t y- t h ir d m e e t in g of the commi s si on, 2 2 n ov e m b er 1967 There were greetings all around as we met one another again after a long absence. It seemed to me that when the Anglophones spoke in French, they sounded very rusty.

192

The Fate of Canada

editor’s note: The commissioners were told that the first volume of the report had been printed and could be tabled in the House of Commons that day. However, Lester Pearson was in London. After a lengthy discussion about the possibility that the government wanted to make it public quickly to take attention away from the meeting of the États Généraux and the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference organized by Ontario Premier John Robarts, the commissioners decided to send a copy in French and English to the prime minister and twenty-five for the cabinet. Then the question arose as to how free the Commissioners were to talk about the report. Frith and Gagnon wanted full freedom – even for hot line programmes. I said that we were still bound by secrecy on everything but the matters in volume I, and that it would be better if we only spoke before representative audiences or serious tv presentations. Clearly, we are liberated from the self-imposed rules of silence at least to the extent of the matters that have already been made public. We all went off for lunch at the Cercle. It was a kind of unofficial celebration of the completion of a major piece of work. The McGill situation came up for discussion, and I was able to describe some of the more lurid events that took place during the sleep in.45 I noticed Dunton listening most intently to my description – he feels that he may be next in line. 22 November, p . m . We started late, as Morrison was chasing after the report. At 3:05 p.m. I picked up a bundle of Reports from Morrison’s office and carried them in on my head to the Commissioners, depositing it between the two co-chairmen. Dunton then told us he had been asked to keep the Report until Pearson returned from London. Apparently, the Government does not want it released until next week. This of course started a new discussion on the time of delivery. Several of us felt that, no matter what the Government might wish, we had pressed the Queen’s Printer to work overtime to finish as soon as possible, and that several people knew that the report was ready. Nevertheless, it was admitted that we were primarily responsible to Pearson. Someone suggested that we should send a copy to London! While we were waffling around a call came through to say that the

1967

193

pm’s office was telephoning him in London to ask what should be done. So, we adjourned the discussion pro tem. We then dealt with a request from Daniel Johnson for any documents in our possession dealing with laws on language in other provinces. We decided to let him – and Ontario – have some of our material. A further question arose as to whether University students should be allowed to see our research documents. Lacoste was doubtful of the fairness of allowing some students advantages which most would not be able to obtain. Actually, it is clear that some documents have got about among research supervisors and other university teachers. No firm decision was reached. Budget items then came before us, particularly the cut from our request from $960,000 down to $680,000. It looks to me as though the government was trying to phase us out, even if our work were not completed. Personally, I think that some of our proposed volumes, particularly the one on the general constitutional situation, had better be abandoned. Dunton then received a call telling us that the pm wanted the Chairmen to present him with the Report on his return. In the light of this, we decided if pressed by journalists to answer that we have nothing to say about the date of publication which will take place when the Report is tabled in the House. Frith formally moved that in view of the absence of the pm that we present the report to him on his return. This got us in to difficulties because we had previously decided to send it to the Government immediately. So, we agreed that we would expunge the first motion and record that we had notified the Government that copies were ready and would be presented to the Prime Minister on his return. 23 November I had to be absent from the Commission meetings as I was working with the Goldenberg Committee on the proposed conference for a Bill of Rights.46 I spent the day with the Committee discussing a detailed draft Bill that Barry Strayer had prepared and had lunch in Trudeau’s office. I looked in on the B & B Commission at five p.m., just in time to receive a copy of the Report. In the afternoon I went to the investiture of the Order of Canada.

1968

editor’s note: Nineteen sixty-eight is often remembered as a particularly dramatic year, partly because of events in the United States, but also because of political changes in Canada. In February, Pierre Trudeau announced that he was running for the Liberal leadership. He was, in the terminology of Marshall McLuhan, “cool.” He was intellectual, combative, sexy, jesuitically logical, flirtatious … and highly critical of Quebec nationalism. He was running against men who seemed old (Paul Martin was sixty-four), establishment (Bob Winters was a successful businessman), conventional (Paul Hellyer was six years younger, but stodgier and, with nineteen years’ experience in the House of Commons, seemed older), and square (John Turner). And yet, in some ways he was the establishment candidate. Pearson quietly supported him. Publicly, so did his finance minister, Mitchell Sharp, who had pulled out of the race and thrown his support to Trudeau. Those who opposed him, like Paul Hellyer and Joe Greene and Judy LaMarsh, saw themselves as challenging the elite. In the United States, the Tet Offensive by North Vietnam, launched in January, was a campaign of surprise attacks throughout South Vietnam that gave the north a significant propaganda victory. Lyndon Johnson announced he would not be seeking re-election. In April, on the eve of the Liberal convention that chose Trudeau, Martin Luther King was assassinated. In June, Robert Kennedy was assassinated. On 19 April, Trudeau called an election for 25 June. On 24 June, there was a riot in Montreal at the St Jean Baptiste Parade, and when Trudeau refused to withdraw from the bleachers

1968

195

despite bottles being hurled at him, the tv image of him gesturing fiercely at those who tried to lead him away helped assure the Liberal victory the next day. Trudeau campaigned on inspiring banalities – “A Just Society” – and few concrete commitments. He was elected with a majority: the first majority government in ten years. (There had been minorities in 1962, 1963, and 1965.) His victory was based on strong political support, and strong candidates from Montreal and Toronto who became strong ministers. (My favourite anecdote from election night was Paul Hellyer’s wife saying, as the majority was announced, “Isn’t Pierre Trudeau wonderful! He’s got us our majority, and he hasn’t committed us to anything!”) For the commission, the most dramatic events were André Laurendeau’s stroke on 15 May and subsequent death on 1 June 1968. Scott says little about this in his journal, but wrote an article in Le Devoir in which he said that the most striking thing about Laurendeau was his unique mixture of passion and intelligence. “He believed deeply in French culture and in French Canada,” he wrote. “It would be perhaps fairer to say that his faith in human values was even deeper, but he knew that these values had to be expressed in a language and a culture, and for him, it was the French language and culture.” Scott praised him for his fairness, and his ability to listen to the arguments of those with whom he violently disagreed (something Scott himself found difficult). “I also admired André Laurendeau for his hatred of dictatorship and fascism,” Scott wrote. “He is among the few public men who dared take a position on the Spanish Civil War, and show their sympathy for the republican government. Any sign of autocracy in the Quebec government led immediately to a reaction of opposition. He was a friend of liberty and equal justice for all.”1 Jean-Louis Gagnon was named as the new co-chairman, saying at his news conference “One does not replace André Laurendeau, one succeeds him,” adding in his memoir that this meant that if he was his successor, he did not see himself as the guardian of his legacy.2 Gertrude Laing was disappointed, writing in her diary, “I was unhappy to consider him as co-chairman.”3 The summer in the US was eventful – more riots, most dramatically at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. In September, Premier Daniel Johnson of Quebec died of a heart attack and on 12–14 October, the Movement Souveraineté-Association became

196

The Fate of Canada

the Parti Québécois. Also that year, Pierre Vallières published his book Nègres blancs d’Amérique, his personal manifesto calling for a Quebec revolution, and René Lévesque published his manifesto, Option Québec (An Option for Quebec). In November, Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States. The year was also marked by student demonstrations: at la Sorbonne in Paris, at Columbia in New York in the spring, and at various Canadian universities in the fall and throughout the 1968–69 academic year. These hung like a cloud over those commission members who, like Scott, worked at a university. s i xty- f o u rt h

m e e t in g of the commi s si on 6 – 8 m a rc h 1968

editor’s note: The commissioners started work on the volume on education. Scott wanted to make sure that the word “obligatory” appeared in the recommendation on the provision of public minority language education. (While his colleagues agreed, the word does not appear in the final text.) They groped to find a logical order for the recommendations, or to decide at what grade the second language should be introduced. Scott observed that “As in many instances, we had to find out what we were trying to say before we knew how to say it.” Frith, Laurendeau, Dunton, Cormier, and I had a lively lunch at the Chateau. Neither Laurendeau nor Frith thought Trudeau would succeed in the election. Laurendeau thought he would greatly injure Canada if he were chosen. I think he feared that he may be. Afternoon Continued on with Part III of Education. I objected to some of the comments in the section on history books: they were too much against the English historians and to me did not interpret fairly what they were saying. Dion pointed out that historiography is now so well advanced in Quebec that different schools are identifiable. We cannot speak of a specific point of view for Quebec. All we can do, he said, is to see how far the two cultures are reflected in their histories: we cannot make judgments on the historians. Of course, French Canadian historians

1968

197

weep at the passing of the old regime: English Canadian historians may laugh. Neither is wrong: neither should be shocked on reading the other. Against this Gertrude Laing said, “We still must try to understand the other society, and therefore must find its point of view in the school books.” With this I agree. A long argument followed. We decided to change the phrase “cultural bias” to “cultural point of view,” etc., and to make no recommendations in this area. Later we were bogged down over the role the Universities are expected to play in a bilingual Canada.

editor’s note: On 7 March, Scott woke up with a bad back, and had to seek medical attention. s i x t y- f if t h

m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 1 6 – 1 8 m a rc h 1968

editor’s note: As the commissioners turned to the chapter dealing with history textbooks in schools, Scott argued that they had no right to pick out two or three historians by name and condemn them. The author, Blair Neatby, objected, supported by Gertrude Laing and Léon Dion. Scott noted that “when Royce Frith backed me up and agreed we could cite the passages and name the books without naming the authors, the rest fell in line.” When Paul Lacoste objected to referring to the University of Montreal without an acute accent on the “e” Scott recorded that: I said that the word Montreal was part of the English language and I was going to use it: he replied that the English version of the statute creating the University of Montreal only used the French name; I thought, but too late, of replying that this would violate Section 133 of the bna Act as no English translation was provided. A small passage of arms, but indicative of attitudes developing fast in Quebec. I urged the necessity of second language use for all the university students. Raynauld, who was present, backed me up. Other Francophones present said that English methodology was different from and destructive of French methodology and culture. Is a French science, a French mathematics, etc. different from everybody else’s science and mathematics, etc.?

198

The Fate of Canada

It was a good and interesting morning’s discussion. We had lunch at the Chateau. I talked about the need for all Canada, not only the Province of Quebec, to be represented at educational discussions in France and other countries because many other parts of our country other than Quebec will need help in developing French education. At various points in the discussion in the afternoon I had to keep reminding the Commission that Quebec is also a dual society, consisting of two cultures, and the Government of Quebec is therefore not just a French-Canadian Government. Everyone, of course, knew this, but there were implications in the text that seemed to neglect the fact.

editor’s note: On the 17th, the commissioners dealt with the issue of socio-economic status, and Scott felt overwhelmed by André Raynauld’s statistics and details. It seems so obvious to me that the previous clerical and political elites in Quebec disliked industrialism, opposed it as much as they could, greatly feared it, provided higher education only for people going into the priesthood, law, and medicine, created a separate trade union movement to keep the workers from contamination with American unions, etc. Such elements did not seem to enter into Raynaud’s statistics. I drew attention to the fact that, buried away in the statistics and not emphasized or being discussed, was the fact that the overwhelming majority of industrial workers in Quebec are French, they all speak French while at work (hence the remark that they must learn English to get a job is not true), and they even hold 50% of the higher posts in industry. It was only when they began to climb the upper rungs of the ladder that they became a minority and had to speak English increasingly. Someone said, there is less English as they go up the elevator. Another asked me whether there was not a poem in this idea which I promptly tried. Every time you go up one floor Some French language goes out the door.

1968

199

s i x t y- s ix t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 2 2 – 2 3 m ay 1968 22 May a . m . Absent were Laing, Laurendeau, and Rudnyckyj. We had a report on André and his stroke. David Dunton and Royce Frith decided to offer help to the family to find the best brain surgeon in Canada, if they wished to have his services. Dr Drake4 of the medical faculty of Western University was recommended by Penfield.5 Up to now no first-class brain specialist has evidently been called in. While we all agreed this was a proper thing to have done, I later met Réal Benoit, who lives with André’s daughter, and he appeared quite worried at the interference of outside medical people, whom he said could never agree on what was wrong anyway. We adopted a resolution of sympathy for the family. We then took the volume on Education. I questioned the reference to “The privileges” of the Protestant schools in the Province of Quebec. I wondered in what way they were privileged; was it not rather that they had the system we wish extended everywhere. It appeared that the idea of their privilege was due to a general impression that all the English in Quebec are rich, and hence if they can tax themselves more for schools, they have better schools. However, it is obvious the law is the same for everyone in Quebec, and the Catholic school boards could raise their taxes if they wished.

s i xt y- s e v e n t h m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 9 – 1 1 j u ly 1968 9 July a . m . Rudnyckyj and Wyczynski were absent, and of course, André Laurendeau. Oliver was present. We formally adopted the resolution of sympathy on André’s death, which had previously been adopted in a Committee meeting. Some question arose as to whether we should publish it; it seemed rather late.

editor’s note: The commissioners then discussed who should succeed Laurendeau, with a number suggesting that it should be

200

The Fate of Canada

Léon Dion. According to Valérie Lapointe-Gagnon, Dion was offered the position, but refused it – in part because of his attachment to Laval, and in part because he felt he could not succeed in achieving a consensus where Laurendeau had failed.6 Paul Lacoste argued in favour of the commissioners making constitutional recommendations, something Scott strongly opposed. “It is clear that he wants to drag us into this impossible area of confusion,” Scott wrote. “I am equally convinced we should stay out of it – at least I personally intend to stay out of it.”

s i xt y- e ig h t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 2 5 – 2 8 s e p t e m b er 1968 editor’s note: The commissioners discussed the details of the report on language in the workplace, and Scott felt it was “a monumental work, perhaps the most important we shall produce because of the significance of its findings.” He noted that Meyer Brownstone pointed out that the volume dealt mostly with the middle and upper classes, and “not with the masses in industry. My conscience pricked me here that I had not thought of this first; it is obvious.” Jean-Louis Gagnon arrived, having had a phone call from Quebec telling him that Daniel Johnson accepted the bilingual districts! “Westmount is saved!” I remarked. I had lunch at the Parliamentary restaurant with Paul Hellyer and Carl Goldenberg, discussing the housing activities of the Federal Government and their justification in the Constitution. Léon Dion joined us in the afternoon. Does his presence mean that he has been chosen to fill Laurendeau’s place? He was supposed to be on a sabbatical year.

editor’s note: In the afternoon, Jean-Louis Gagnon said that the reference to the “threat of assimilation” was much too strong, but Royce Frith disagreed, arguing that this was why the commission was appointed, and it was confirmed by research. Checking back on the supposed statistics in earlier pages, I discovered that they only showed great dissatisfaction among Francophone personnel, not assimilation. I am certain Frith did not know what he was talking about at that moment.

1968

201

We then went on to do the recommendations, checking various phrases. What did “balanced participation of Francophones” mean? I was afraid it necessarily meant a fifty-fifty relationship. We changed it to “effective participation.” 26 September a . m . We all began discussing Daniel Johnson’s death, but as it did not affect our work we soon proceeded on our agenda in the usual manner. It was obvious now that yesterday’s rumour that he had accepted bilingual districts was wrong.

editor’s note: The commissioners spent the day discussing the Armed Forces. I asked about the “surprising fact” that Francophones mostly did not want to work in French units. The conclusion in the text was that they had been too “adapted” to the English. It seemed to me it could well be that they did not want to work in a ghetto situation. I am doubtful of some of the deductions we make for our own statistics. I lunched at the Chateau with Gertrude Laing, Brownstone and Raynaud. Gertrude Laing was furious at the march on Ottawa of the St Leonard parents.7 I said they were merely copying Daniel Johnson – putting themselves on the map by excursions away from Quebec. A reference in Para. 1825 made me ask “Can you have bilingual field glasses?” “They can be bifocal,” Royce Frith replied. 27 September a . m . We came to the section on Hydro Quebec, which I had thought was not going to be included after our discussion at the April meeting of the Commission. I found it quite disturbing in what it did not say rather than in what it said. I pointed out that this was an example of a public corporation in a bilingual Province which was determined to be exclusively unilingual as far as possible and to leave no career opening for Anglophones. This stimulated an argument between Frith and me. Once more I seemed to find myself the only voice for a bilingual Quebec. Michael Oliver came in later and agreed that we seemed to be approving everything about Hydro including its firing

202

The Fate of Canada

of all the English personnel at the take-over. Lacoste pointed out that the section would be well liked in Quebec. Then Léon Dion pointed out that the development in Quebec had “two dimensions”: first, it showed that a very large operation could be undertaken by French Canadians successfully, and also – which is perhaps equally important – could be carried through in the French language, despite the fact that many technical terms were constantly in use, indeed, it effectively destroyed the myth that the French language was inadequate for North American technology. But the other dimension was that the example was not a model for us to recommend judged by principles of bilingualism and equal partnership. This distinction helped to resolve the conflict between the two positions, and we agreed to point out the need for Anglophone units within Hydro-Quebec, and yet at the same time to be enthusiastic about its technical and linguistic achievements. I remarked to the Commission that we were producing our Report at a time when opinion in Quebec was moving very fast, and we had to guard ourselves against the possibility that we were blind to developments that are already showing themselves and which we cannot possibly approve. I reminded members of the great report on Czarist Russia produced by the London Times in 1916, which did not make any mention of the existence of a Communist party in that country.

editor’s note: In the afternoon, Léon Dion made a lengthy statement about the use of language in Quebec industry, arguing that it was the duty of the Quebec government to take prompt and effective steps to insist on French becoming the working language of all corporations everywhere in Quebec. It seemed to me that he wanted all business to use French everywhere in the Province. On being probed more deeply he admitted he was talking about “big business,” but where would the line be drawn? Before this question was answered I had to leave for Montreal. 28 September a . m . I arrived a little late but found everyone wrestling with the problem of French as the “language of work.” Gagnon asked what the expression meant? I pointed out in terms of sheer number of words

1968

203

used during work periods unquestionably French was already the “Language of work” predominant in Quebec. It was only in the upper echelons that the English predominated. It is to these that our attention has mostly been directed. (It was only later that I came upon Trudeau’s remark that too much concentration on the future of the language makes people apt to forget the future of the masses of the workers who are going to use and are using that language). Gertrude Laing wanted us to drop the part on the post-industrial society, but the rest of us wanted it kept. She also wanted us not to be concerned about American investment in Canada, but again we disagreed with her. I remember that she came from Calgary. Someone asked what we should do about the appendices. I suggested an appendectomy.

s i x t y- n in t h m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 3 0 o c to b e r – 1 n ovember 1968 editor’s note: Jean-Louis Gagnon became the co-chairman, succeeding André Laurendeau. The commission wrestled with the leak that had occurred; Lysiane Gagnon of La Presse had got a copy of the research that showed the salary gap between Anglophones and Francophones, resulting in a front-page story and significant controversy in Quebec. The government indicated that it did not want to initiate legal proceedings against La Presse, and Frith said he agreed. This attitude annoyed me; I said we were all defamed by the statement in Le Magazine Maclean that the Commission intended to suppress the truth as too unpalatable. I felt that damages as well as an injunction should be sought. Lacoste was sorry there had been no injunction but thought we could do nothing about it. However, to calm our fears Jean-Louis told us the story of a “hot line” radio programme in Montreal in French which asked the listeners to comment on two questions (1. The leakage and 2. the price of milk). The monitor had received eighteen telephone calls and they broke down as follows: on the leakage none, on the price of milk eighteen.

editor’s note: The meeting then discussed the delays in publication of research studies because of the need for translation.

204

The Fate of Canada

I pointed out that we could get a very speedy and reasonably good translation of many documents if we only fed them to La Presse and let them do the translating. At lunch at the Chateau with the usual group, most of our talk was about students in universities. Lacoste told us about a Dean at the University of Montreal who received a letter couched in the following language, “il n’est pas admettable que l’université impose un cours de grammaire obligatory aux étudiants.”8 Gagnon opened up the question of the final volume on constitutional questions. I saw myself approaching the same crisis; I am determined not to take part in the preparation of this document. When Gertrude Laing asked what must be done by way of research for the volume, I repeated my previous position that it was not our duty to prepare one, but that if we were to attempt it there would be a great deal of technical research needed. Laing said we did not need to go into the technical questions, but I asked her how we could separate them from anything else we might have to say? Paul Lacoste wanted to know whether our problems in Canada could be solved merely by laws relating to bilingualism and biculturalism, or were there not important political factors which require other solutions? He felt that if we did not go into these, we could not justify our work. I pointed out that it is possible to protect biculturalism even in a unitary state: witness Finland, Belgium, South Africa, and (until recently) Czechoslovakia. Michael Oliver wanted to know what we would talk about: a republic? Bill of rights? The distribution of powers? Lacoste wanted all of these dealt with. At this point David Dunton asked whether we could do better than the present constitutional committees, officially representing all governments, were already doing? Lacoste said we know there is a political aspect to the problem, and we must say whether a culture is better preserved by relying on itself or on the good will of others. Even if we did not add much that is original, we must at least speak our minds. Frith read out passages from our first report dealing with the political choices. There certainly was an implication that something close to separatism might have to be considered. I said that we must exclude any consideration of the unitary state or of independence for Quebec, since the one we know is impossible and the other is excluded by our terms of reference: indeed, since we are to propose ways of developing the Canadian Confederation towards biculturalism it would seem that both were excluded.

1968

205

The discussion went back and forth. It was suggested that Lacoste and I might each do a paper to start the discussion. I refused since it implied we were both wrong and that some middle ground must be found. I did not allow my name to stand for the Committee they set up to try some preliminary planning of the volume.

editor’s note: In the discussion of the draft on “Other Ethnic Groups,” Father Cormier felt that there was too much “rejoicing” at their existence, and he wanted more objectivity. I agreed with him on this and added that there were judgments about individual artists and writers that we could not afford to make as a Commission. Most of these creative people worked as Canadians with little feeling for their own group. Sometimes they are disliked by their group – witness Irving Layton.9 He derived his poetic influence from the United States and English poets by contrast with Klein10 who took his from Judaism. I thought that the concept of Canada and things Canadian was lost in the book. Those who speak and write both English and French overlap the barriers we put up. What is the cultural group of an Italian catholic, rooted in European traditions other than British, and yet speaking English? What is it if he speaks French also? I lunched with David Lewis at the Chateau. We continued to discuss details in the Other Ethnic Groups book.11 We found ourselves in the usual difficulty of slow joint editing. Page 26 spoke about the confusion among the early settlers as to their ethnic or national origin. I said I really did not know whether I was Scotch or English. “You don’t!” said Royce Frith. We had only finished 70 pages by 5:30 p.m. We had a great and wonderful celebration dinner at the Cercle Universitaire to honour Jean-Louis Gagnon as co-Chairman and Raynauld as Commissioner. Present were Lacoste, Rudnyckyj, Gagnon, Dion, Dunton, Laing, Raynauld and me. At some point I remember singing a song I had just made up in French. In the hotel after I had a long talk with Leon Dion, who was very worried about the idea of a constitutional volume and whether he should serve on the Committee preparing it. He agrees with me that it is an impossible task. Liked the man very much for his sincerity and sense of responsibility.

206

The Fate of Canada

s e v e n t ie t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 4 – 6 d e c e m b e r 1968 No planes were landing in Ottawa this morning, so I took the train and found J.A. Corry12 there with a copy of the paper he and I had just finished for Carl Goldenberg, commenting on Quebec’s constitutional proposals. We went over the M.S. and made some corrections.

editor’s note: The meeting discussed the technicalities of using a university computer to handle the research data, and the details of publication. I lunched with Mike Oliver who was feeling rather depressed. He had had a rather bad motor accident the previous day, and I could see that the work at McGill kept him under a continuous strain. The occupation of the Computer Centre on the campus by Raymond Lemieux13 and his mis boys did not help. When the meeting began, I corrected the procès-verbal report of my opposition to the Constitutional volume, which I had expressed at the previous meeting. It stated baldly that I opposed the Commission dealing with fundamental constitutional questions, “faute de compétence.”14 I pointed out that this was only one reason for my opposition: other reasons were that I did not believe we were even intended to undertake this work when we were appointed, and at this very moment it was being done more effectively by the Canadian Governments meeting in their special committees and conferences.

editor’s note: The commissioners then discussed the recommendations for bilingualism in the armed forces. Eventually we agreed to all the recommendations with slight changes. I could not help feeling that if they are all carried out, it will certainly alter the character and image of the Canadian armed forces. 5 December a . m . The question of ownership of industries in Quebec was brought up. We agreed as a Commission we would not go into the political implications of the ownership question per se but would only deal with

1968

207

the bilingual and bicultural aspects of the management. I pointed out the huge importance of ownership and how completely the cultural nature of an operation changed when the ownership changed: witness, Hydro-Quebec. I could see that Lacoste agreed with me. I lunched at the Chateau with Dunton, Raynauld, Laing, Lalande and Lacoste. During the conversation I said we had omitted two fundamental facts from our analysis of Quebec: the wealth of the Roman Catholic church, and the effect of foreign ownership of industries. Paul Lacoste expressly agreed and told us of some nunneries in Quebec where there were so few inmates that each was worth over a million dollars. He told of one body that had recently sold a block of land on Sherbrooke Street East for forty million dollars. He also said that the religious institutions operating universities did not keep separate account for university expenditures until very recently, so that it was impossible to know how much money they were spending on higher education. 5 December p . m .

editor’s note: In the discussion of Hydro-Quebec, Scott pointed out that the English element had almost been eliminated. We noted that Hydro-Quebec was responsible for the creation in Laval University of the first French speaking department of electrical engineering. This sounded fine till Leon Dion told us it had not a single student in it! “Quite an advantage these days,” said Royce Frith. 6 December p . m . We came back to our recommendations and tried again to formulate our notion of “principal language.” Frith made a great statement, I think more confusing than helpful, in which he asked why we wanted this goal to be attained. Was it because 85% of Quebec is French speaking, or because only 3% of the upper echelons of business are French speaking? He felt the answer to this was crucial. I could hardly see that it made any difference, and in fact we went on discussing the problem almost as though this question has not been put. We were not getting very far, when George Torrance,15 who was helping in the re-drafting of this section, gave us a new approach. He said we must aim at giving an equal opportunity right through

208

The Fate of Canada

the business world to francophones as well as anglophones. This requires language units everywhere, regardless of the head offices’ location. In Quebec, however, there would naturally be a special prevalence of French. We all rather liked this approach, as it got rid of the problem of concerning ourselves merely with bilingual districts outside of Quebec. We would have to create an institutional bilingualism with a particular core in Quebec.

1969

editor’s note: The commissioners were wrestling with their final volumes – Book III on “The Work World,” Book IV on “The Cultural Contributions of the Other Ethnic Groups,” Book V on “The Federal Capital,” Book VI on “Voluntary Associations,” and a final volume on the constitution, which was never completed. In March 1969, a massive demonstration led by teaching assistant Stan Gray, 15,000 strong, chanted “McGill français” during a campaign to transform McGill into a French-language institution which paralyzed the university. The student rebellion became a subject of dark humour among the commissioners, over half of whom (Dunton, Scott, Lacoste, Laing, Raynauld, Rudnyckyj, and Wyczynski) were affiliated with a university, as were Oliver and Dion. In April, discussion turned to a final volume on the constitution. Scott was opposed, writing, “We took up the proposal about a final volume on the Canadian Constitution, which I have so strenuously rejected as not being something we were intended to write, or are indeed, competent to write either by training or by the amount of research we have commissioned.” But the debate, which ended in an impasse, provides a kind of preview to those that occurred over the patriation of the constitution and the Meech Lake Accord in the 1980s and 1990s. The Official Languages Act, one of the major recommendations in Volume 1, came into force on 9 September 1969. In October, the Parti Québécois held its second convention, and the Union Nationale government introduced Bill 63, legislation allowing parents to choose the language of education for their children. In October, the commissioners discussed the draft of the report on

210

The Fate of Canada

the federal capital. Scott expressed, once again, his resentment of staff – in this case, Léon Dion – intervening as if they were commissioners and wrote, “I said I liked it on the whole, and found its hesitations exactly reflected our inner feeling as a Commission; some of us want a real Federal District, run by the Federal Government, and others don’t. The text showed we were feeling our way toward a solution, as all Governments concerned must.” At the end of October, there was a massive demonstration at the National Assembly protesting the legislation. Scott’s concern about the future of the English-speaking community in Quebec grew, as did his worry about the trend towards unilingualism in Quebec, which led him to dissent from the commissions’s recommendations for the language of work. He also showed impatience with JeanLouis Gagnon’s reliance on hearsay in a formal report, writing, “No one seemed the slightest degree shocked at this utterly casual handling of a serious accusation, to be given the weight of a Royal Commission report.”

s e ve n t y- f irs t m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 2 7 – 2 8 f e b rua ry 1969 editor’s note: The meeting began by discussing the draft of the third volume, on “the work world.” Scott’s mood was dark; he commented that “even Paul Lacoste liked it, which made me wonder whether we really understood what it was saying. I shall have to take another look at it.” He felt disengaged from the discussion about creating a Federal District in Ottawa, convinced that Quebec would never agree and that Ontario might not either. The cost of the commission was also a concern: “we were told that our expenditures had passed the eight million mark, but, as Royce Frith said, we still have the hydrofoil to aim at.”1 Scott felt that the issue of language in the private sector was complex, and government interference difficult. In addition, there are many variables: industries doing business across Canada with Head Offices in Quebec, others with Head Offices outside Quebec, business having their main operations in Quebec, others mainly international in scope, etc. This is, therefore, an area in which it is difficult for our Commission to be authoritarian in tone. Yet this was the impression conveyed on me by the draft before us.

1969

211

We had further difficulties. What does “Management,”“Executive,” or “work world” mean?! How do we distinguish between the large and small industries? Lunch at the Chateau with Gertrude Laing, Gilles Lalande, Paul Lacoste, Andre Raynauld, Royce Frith and Oswald Hall.2 We discussed unilingualism, student power and similar issues. I said that we should at least be sure that our final volume appears no later than Quebec Independence Day. “We’ll have to hurry” said Gertrude Laing. 28 February a . m . Mike Oliver was present, very pleased at the maut 3 resolution condemning force on the campus. “Hasn’t McGill gone quite a long way towards civilization?”

editor’s note: Gilles Lalande then produced the volume on the federal capital. “Is this book real? Does it exist?” I asked, we all rejoiced. 5 1/2 years ago we started! Our pleasure was short lived, however, because we were then told of the delays at the Queen’s Printer, how they do not keep their promises, the shortage of French printers, etc. We agreed to send a letter to the Privy Council Office pointing out our difficulties. We had an argument over the “units” that we were proposing in all industry in Quebec for the use of the French language. Suddenly Raynauld came out with a passionate attack on restaurants in Montreal that continued to use English. I really felt that at bottom he was a unilinguist. He did not want even to admit that the workers in Chicoutimi used French as their principal language of work. I kept telling the Commission that the language of work in Quebec was already massively French in almost all industries of any size, not to mention the Church, Government, including Montreal and the professions, but no one seemed to hear me. I defended the right of one million Anglophones in Quebec to use their own language when dealing principally with themselves and with communities of small size that are mainly English speaking. It seemed to me that our Commission was sub-consciously applying a territorial imperative to its recommendations, constantly thinking of the 80% Francophones in Quebec as the dominant factor. Frith

212

The Fate of Canada

asked me “what is the principal language of work in Saskatchewan?” to which of course I replied “English.” “There you are,” he said triumphantly, and would not listen when I asked him what would happen if there were a million French in Saskatchewan. I am not happy about the position we seem to have reached in regard to language use in industry in Quebec. Had lunch with Mike Pitfield and heard about the work he is doing restructuring government and planning its operations with Committee for the next ten years, using the input and output method. He said he was disturbed by Pierre Trudeau saying that if Quebec wanted to separate, he would let her go. He felt that this acceptance of possible separation prevents clear and proper thinking about the plans that should be made for today. I was impressed by the quality of his thinking and the plan on which he was working and suggested that at some point he might want to discuss it with Wassily Leontief.4 28 February p . m . In the afternoon we took Wyczynski’s text on “Apport Culturel des Autres Groupes Ethniques,” dated 4th February 1969. Most people seemed quite happy with it, though I felt that it was rather long winded. In his paragraph 28 he wanted us to accept the other ethnic groups officially. This raised the question again of the place of the languages other than English and French – why does not the Constitution recognize them also? I was tempted to answer the question why by the simple word “Because” but felt it better to point out that our mandate called upon us specifically to deal with the two official languages and merely to consider their relationship to the other ethnic groups.

s e ve n t y- s e c o n d m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 1 – 3 a p r il 1 969 As I came in Gertrude Laing said, “How are you?” “Je ne parle rien que français aujourd’hui.” “Scott français,” said David Dunton, à propos of the march on McGill.5

editor’s note: The commissioners then discussed the question of the federal capital, wrestling with Léon Dion’s argument that

1969

213

Quebec would refuse to give up territory or jurisdiction, and subtracting the Ontario population would reduce the size of the Franco-Ontarian community. Scott noted that “Discussion then ranged over the idea of a tripartite body with limited powers, or alternatively an enlarged role for Provinces in the area. Various other suggestions were put forward. I remarked dryly that the Commission was now beginning to see the difficulties it would face in trying to write the intended book on the revision of the whole Constitution. Royce Frith said that we must make it clear that a Federal Capital is an important part of a bilingual country, and that sacrifices must be made to achieve the desired purpose. If they are not made, the proper Federal capital just will not exist. Scott joined a lunch of colleagues that was supposed to be discussing the final volume on the constitution, but reported that “the talk became very general, mostly about McGill and students searching for their new god, etc.” 3 April 1969 a . m .

editor’s note: The commissioners began discussing a volume on the constitution, something Scott vigorously opposed, writing “We took up the proposal about a final volume on the Canadian Constitution, which I have so strenuously rejected as not being something we were intended to write, or are indeed, competent to write either by training or by the amount of research we have commissioned.” Paul Lacoste argued that Quebec sees events very differently from the rest of the country. Scott noted acerbically, “Obviously for him Quebec meant the Government of Quebec, and not the voice of Quebec as expressed by its representatives in the Federal Government.” Lacoste said that Quebec only accepted federalism as a last resort and, that while not a constitutional commission, it could propose that Quebec should have a dominant role in shaping its own society. Scott continued: I replied that we were now in a post-industrial society and that Quebec cannot have a major control as a Province over its own future economic development. We on the Commission must not encourage narrow ideas in the Province. We are moving toward a world society. Quebec can be a Province “pas comme les autres” even though it has the same legislative powers as other Provinces.

214

The Fate of Canada

I said that the worst enemies of French Canada were the St Jean Baptiste Society and the Etats Généraux. If the Commission would write a book along these lines, relating Canada to problems of world government I would support it. (At this point one could feel the emotion rising in the room, but it was somewhat released by a burst of laughter when at the end of my intervention I said with deliberate severity “Do I make myself clear?”) As the discussion continued, Lacoste said he agreed that they should not just try to satisfy Quebec opinion, but emotions are just as real as economics. I asked to be allowed to agree with Paul Lacoste, that emotion counts for a great deal. I said the students vs. universities were like Quebec vs. Ottawa. (Much laughter here, as Paul Lacoste was then on the other side!) If we talk, we must speak to the West as well as to the East. The argument then continued on the meaning of “consultation.” I said I could not accept this as a starting point in any discussion of federalism, since we already have a theory of consultation and co-operation in the present Constitution. Why presuppose it is not any good? It seemed that the Commission was ready to adopt a specific theory of federalism, without examining it, as a beginning to its study of the Constitution. We have taken as a postulate that which had to be examined. The Parliament of Canada represents all Canadians in federal matters and is the place where they consult with one another before enacting laws. In addition to this there are a large number of Committees where consultation takes place on specific issues. Is it to be assumed at the start that this is unworkable? The Commission had decided to take as a postulate that which we ought to examine before we are competent to pronounce upon it. Also, where is our research in this area? We do not have it. I was referred to the studies written by Don Smiley, but these touch only a small part of the field and are unsupported by any others. I felt that this was a crazy way of making decisions. I also felt that it was simply a desperate determination in the Commission, which could not contemplate opening up the subject in the manner in which it has treated other parts of our mandate, and yet wanted to make up its mind to try something, even anything.

1969

215

I lunched with Gertrude Laing, and Gagnon at the Chateau. Would a martini, I wondered, bridge this gap? We did not talk about it and got along well on various other matters. 3 April 1969 p . m . Gertrude Laing said we didn’t seem to know whether we were talking of Quebec or French Canada. Leon Dion and André Raynauld felt we should not rely too much on the idea of French speaking units but should stress more the need for individual bilingualism. We went on to details of the text, and I pointed out the omission of references to the English minority in Quebec. Everything seemed directed only to the position of the Francophones.

s e ve n t y- t h ir d m e e t in g of the commi s si on, 2 0 – 2 1 m ay 1969 editor’s note: Scott prepared a draft suggesting a change of wording on language in the private sector in Quebec. April 11, 1969.

m e m o r a ndum To: Commissioners From: F.R. Scott

subject: Language in private sector of Quebec. I enclose the recommendation we tentatively adopted on March 28th, and a revision that I have made after consultation with Dr Armstrong6 and Professor Briant7, both of whom did research for us. The March wording is in my opinion unsuitable for these reasons: 1 The stated objective, if it includes the phrase “at all levels,” is unworkable and unfair. The top level of large nation-wide industries contains strategy and planning units which are thinking of the whole of Canada and indeed of North America and the world, and not merely of Quebec. To insist that French be the principal language here is to apply the territorial principle

216

The Fate of Canada

which we have never adopted. These industries are working in a 70–30 anglophone situation and not an 80–20 francophone one. 2 The March recommendation 45(c) is not valid. There is no reason why small and specialized firms catering primarily to the 1,000,000 anglophones in Quebec cannot have English as their principal language. In any case, what is “specialized” firm? The Royal Bank specializes in banking. Specialization does not always mean smallness. 3 Journalists could pick out the first three lines of our March recommendation and publish them as the official policy, since the qualifying principles are a second severable sentence. This would be misleading. Needless to say, I did not show my consultants the text of our recommendation, but merely discussed with them the general ideas. If ever there was a recommendation which should be tested against practicing industrialists, both French and English, this is it.

April 1, 1969 F.R. Scott Para. 45 We therefore recommend that for the private sector in the Province of Quebec, governments and major work institutions adopt the following principles: a That French be the principal language of work at all levels in such institutions for all their activities primarily confined to the Province; b That consequently, the majority of work units related to these activities become French language units at all levels; and that such firms designate all related executive and senior positions as posts that require bilingual incumbents; c That the main language of work in activities related to operations outside the Province remain the choice of the enterprise. It seemed that my draft pleased no one. At least, I got no support. Afterwards I wondered if it had been carefully read and was annoyed with myself for not insisting that the whole be read again

1969

217

along with the alternatives. I cannot accept the Commission draft unless it is altered in certain important respects, for the reasons I have explained. Royce Frith suddenly said that he started from the principle, which he appeared to think the Commission had agreed upon, that we had to make a special rule for Quebec and treat almost as if it were to be a unilingual Province. I was astonished at this statement, to put it mildly. When did our Commission ever make so profound a decision? I am certain we never did, but that this represents Frith’s own personal point of view. During the discussion Paul Wyczynski came out with the innocent and rather astonishing question “Are there any businesses carried on in French outside Quebec?” this brought Clement Cormier up with a loud quote “of course.” Has Wycyznski no notion whatever of the French communities in New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba? 21 May 1969. a . m . We were then presented with two redrafts of Recommendation 45. The one marked A was the result of the general discussion of yesterday, and one marked B was Dunton’s overnight draft designed to secure my signature. I gave the following reasons why both drafts were unacceptable. 1 The present recommendation was suffused with the territorial principle which the Commission had clearly rejected in volume I of its Report. 2 In making the use of English henceforth an exception in Quebec industry, the recommendation implicitly denied the Commission’s cardinal principle of equal partnership. 3 There was no provision for firms moving into Quebec to use their own main or exclusive language in the first stages of their establishment in the province. 4 The recommendation did not provide for the use of languages other than English or French in any circumstances. 5 The recommendation generally ignored the economic realities of Quebec industry and it raised false hopes among those who now aspired to the top decision-making levels of business without knowing English. 6 The recommendation was actually based on no research at all.

218

The Fate of Canada

Indeed, it ran counter to the considered opinion of academic authorities with whom, because of their previous research for the Commission, I had discussed the general tenor of the proposed recommendation. It was only later that I realized another Commission principle had been changed, namely that implicit in the idea of the bilingual district. The City of Montreal has an English population of 35% and therefore is such a district, yet English language is not to be on equality with the French and insofar as the work world is concerned. Paul Lacoste pointed out that there were two new principles embedded in this resolution: one, we were protecting a majority language in Quebec, and two, we gave this language a preferential position. This raised quite a discussion amongst the Commissioners as to whether new principles had been laid down or not. I am quite sure no one really understood what was being said or to what degree earlier statements of the Commission in its first report were contradictory to the present formulation. For the first time in Commission discussions one could feel a tenseness and an emotional factor that made sheer logic somewhat out of place. I felt that the final version was better than the March one, but really violated the principle of equal partnership since it meant that the same rules for the language of work in business were not being applied equally across the country. Is French only to be used in New Brunswick or Ontario in “small firms” or in “special circumstances”? I lunched with King Gordon at the Cercle Universitaire. We discussed my becoming Canada’s first envoy to Rome,8 and to my surprise he favoured the idea. He said that the Pope and U Thant9 were the only men in the world today who could give expression to the supranational aspirations of mankind. That may be, but what would F.R.S. be doing in the Vatican corridors except gathering gossip and conveying policies of a Government he does not fundamentally believe in?

s e ve nt y- f o u rt h m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 1 8 – 1 9 j u n e 1969 The Chairman reported on the reception of our first research study which dealt with the Federal Capital District. Apparently, the journalists asked anti-French questions. “They are crossing out the English signs in Hull!” one said. “Yes,” said Dave Dunton, “But in Ottawa there is no French to cross out.”

1969

219

Lunched at the Chateau with J-L. Gagnon, Paul Lacoste, R. Frith, S.S.,10 M. Oliver, C. Cormier, and G. Laing. G. Laing said that the opposition of western provinces to the Official Languages Bill stemmed more from their general opposition to Ottawa than from actual fear of the effects of the language policy. She did not think that the Governments clearly represented public opinion on this point. Then we took a draft six pages Gagnon had prepared on the French language in the private sector of New Brunswick and Ontario intended for Book III, dated 16th June. Having read it, I was glad I was not signing it. It treats the New Brunswick minority differently from the Quebec minority. What has happened to the concept of equal partnership? What is worse, one paragraph accused the English business community in New Brunswick of barring the use of French under the specious pretence of safety regulations in certain industries. I asked what evidence we had of this. It appears that somebody in New Brunswick told it to Gagnon who inserts it in his draft for the Commission to sign! He described this volume as descriptive and not speculative as the last practice is “detestable.” I find it more detestable that this Commission, on the merest hearsay which it has not checked, is prepared to utter a condemnation against a group of people to whom it has given no opportunity of defending itself; or explaining what the practice is. Yet such is the psychological situation in the Commission now, that when I raised this kind of point everybody turns against me lest they be obliged to concede other points that I have raised. No one seemed the slightest degree shocked at this utterly casual handling of a serious accusation, to be given the weight of a Royal Commission report.

s e ve n t y- f if t h m e e t in g of the commi s si on, 1 7 – 1 8 s e p t e mber 1969 On the plane to Ottawa I sat with Gilles Lalande and we talked about the changed atmosphere in the universities. We both agreed that the tension did not seem to be so great. One very important change was the ugeq 11has totally disappeared, being destroyed by the activists who had captured its central executive.

editor’s note: The commissioners discussed a draft of the volume on the federal capital, and Scott said they had moved too far from “the ideal of a real Federal capital.” Gagnon responded,

220

The Fate of Canada

saying that removing Ottawa from Ontario would reduce the number of Francophones in the province and undermine the argument for full linguistic equality. Michael Oliver seemed not to want the long run ideal even to be mentioned. Gertrude Laing opposed him, however, and so did David Dunton. I said we did not need to state an “ideal,” but we had to express the strong feelings of those who had appeared before us and demanded it. This seemed generally approved. I suggested that the Federal Government could expropriate the whole City of Ottawa, legally, and do what it liked. “This would certainly shorten this book,” said Peter Findlay. Someone asked about the name of the “National Capital Region,” which embraces more than the City of Ottawa, and is the true Capital district. Michael Oliver suggested we might call it “Hultawa”; Jean Louis Gagnon suggested “Ottoul.” This pleasantry merely indicated that we were searching for a semantic solution for the new entity. I predicted that the name “Ottawa” would survive. In the evening I went with Ronald Graham12 to see “Love and Maple Syrup.” Met Negin,13 the producer, Margaret Laurence,14 the novelist, and others afterwards. A lively and exciting evening. No one quite understood why the performance was so moving. 18 September 1969 a . m .

editor’s note: The commissioners debated the proposal for a tripartite governing structure for the federal capital. I spoke very strongly in favour of a true Federal authority, opposing any Tripartite body if it had any executive authority. I said it was illogical to let two Provinces out of the ten in Canada speak permanently for the others. Several of us had lunch at the Opera Restaurant. There I met Negin and Gascon15 of “Love and Maple Syrup.” They told me they wanted to incorporate in their New York version of the performance my poem “Bonne Entente.”

editor’s note: In the afternoon, the commissioners discussed a paper on federal political institutions by political scientist Paul Fox, which recommended applying the principle of equal partnership to

1969

221

the cabinet as well as the creation of three committees on the subject, one in the House of Commons, one in the Senate and one in cabinet. But Scott notes, “We decided to hold the text over until the final volume – which means, I profoundly hope, it will never appear.”

s e ve n t y- s ix t h m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 2 3 – 2 4 o c to b er 1969 editor’s note: The discussion continued on the draft of the volume on the federal capital. Scott said, “I liked it on the whole, and found its hesitations exactly reflected our inner feeling as a Commission; some of us want a real Federal District, run by the Federal Government, and others don’t. The text showed we were feeling our way toward a solution, as all Governments concerned must” and then went on to observe that “Underlying this rather brief report on the discussion were the two conflicting positions that are always present in our discussions and don’t always come to the surface. There are some, like myself, who still believe that this Federal system can be kept Federal and made to operate; we want a true Federal Capital District. Others, like Lacoste, want as little of this as possible, since they do not want Ottawa to detract from the position of Quebec.” The commissioners then discussed the delay in publication. Royce Frith reported that the editors were constantly trying to change their terminology. According to Scott, “He said he would rather pay the editors to play rummy than give them any more chapters. Apparently, the problem is that we have left authority with employees, who rewrite where they should only correct errors. I could not help feeling that at the bottom of the trouble is our scattered and divided authority in the Commission. Apparently, the Volume on the Mass Media is getting nowhere, which is what I always suspected would be the case since it was to be Gagnon’s responsibility. It looks as though the dubious final volume may have to be dropped – I sincerely hope so.” 24 October a . m .

editor’s note: Scott vented some of his frustration that Léon Dion was intervening as if he were a commissioner. Then there

222

The Fate of Canada

was further discussion of the body that would govern the Federal Capital District. Should it be advisory only or also executive? The Federal Capital belongs to all the Provinces as well as the Federal Government. Should they not all be on any such body? After much discussion we decided that it would be advisory at first and hopefully executive as it might develop. This seemed to me, though I was unhappy at giving up the idea of recommending a true fcd , to be the best we could achieve at the moment. Politically it seems about all that is possible. Then we resumed discussion on the possibility of producing a final volume with our political recommendations for the future development of the Constitution. The other Commissioners seemed to think it was not only possible but desirable for us to attempt it. Lacoste agreed to put in a plan for such a volume, and Lalande is also preparing one. Vedremos. Che sera sera.16

editor’s note: On September 19, the two volumes of The Work World were published. In the second volume, in Recommendation 42, the commissioners suggested that in the private sector in Quebec, governments and industry adopt the objective that French become the principal language of work at all levels, and that in pursuit of this objective the following principles be accepted: a) that French be the principal language of work in the major work institutions of the province; b) that, consequently, the majority of work units in such firms that until now have used English as the principal language of work in middle and upper levels become French-language units; and that such firms designate all management and senior positions as posts that require bilingual incumbents; c) that the majority of smaller or specialized firms should use French as their language of work, but that there should be a place for firms where the language of work is English, as there should be a place anywhere in Canada for such firms where the language of work is French; and d) that the main language of work in activities related to operations outside the province remain the choice of the enterprise. Scott wrote a formal dissent, arguing publicly what he had told the commissioners: that it had broken with the initial principles of

1969

223

the commission’s first volume by adopting a territorial approach. The dissent expresses his opposition to creeping unilingualism in Quebec, and his strong feeling that much of Quebec’s wealth was hidden in Church property. It shows the basis for his later opposition to Quebec’s language legislation, Bill 22 and Bill 101. Obviously there is, and should be, much more French used in large businesses in Quebec than in other provinces at the present time. However, this is not because of their location, but because of the fact that these companies employ large numbers of Francophones and should make it possible for them to work their way up the business hierarchy using their own language as far as possible. The larger the firm, the more it should become bilingual if it employs or does business with Canadians of both official languages. This should be true for all Canada, and for Francophone-owned firms as well as Anglophone-owned firms, in my view. Recommendation 42 is unacceptable for another reason. It is quite unrealistic – and indeed could be very harmful to the Quebec economy – to suggest that French become the principal language of work “at all levels” in the private sector, without distinguishing the various types of business in which the rule is to apply. How can a firm with a head office in Montreal, one production unit in Quebec with Francophone employees, and ten factories in other parts of Canada, make the top-level executives and planning groups use French predominantly? Their operations may be 80 per cent outside Quebec. The head office could easily move to another province. True, the Recommendation in clause d) recognizes this and allows free choice of language; but this flatly contradicts the opening statement. This Recommendation, though aiming at the proper objective of increasing the use of French as a language of business in Quebec, will strengthen the hands of those – and their numbers are increasing – who think there can be a unilingual Quebec in a bilingual Canada, or an independent Quebec that will not recognize linguistic minority rights. Freedom of commerce, even in an economy increasingly in need of planning, still has an important role to fulfil and, combined with freedom of speech, means the right to do business anywhere in Canada in any language, be it Chinese in Vancouver, Ukrainian in Winnipeg, or Italian in Montreal. This is what makes for variety and colour in a pluralistic society. This human right is all too grudgingly admitted in clause c) of Recommendation 42.

224

The Fate of Canada

In bilingual districts, of which Montreal is the most important in Canada, such businesses can grow quite large before their internal use of the chosen language endangers the principle of equal partnership. Any profit-seeking enterprise that does not have enough sense to bilingualize most of its operations that reach a Francophone clientele will suffer a deserved decline of income and eventual displacement by its competitors who are more culturally sensitive. I have made several attempts to draft a Recommendation to put in place of Recommendation 42, but have come to the conclusion that our Commission should have contented itself to urge upon the government and private industry in Quebec exactly what it has urged for the two neighbouring provinces. There should be a task force instructed to work with the private sector and government in the formulation of a just and practical policy for Quebec. Obviously, because 80 per cent of the population of Quebec is French-speaking, the policy adopted will be far more favourable to “institutional bilingualism” than in Ontario or New Brunswick. But I do not think our Commission is qualified, by composition or experience, to do more than point out the great need for a change of policy on the part of many employers of labour in Quebec. I believe this change is already taking place, and that nothing can stop it, but the problem in Quebec today is by no means only one of guaranteeing rights to Francophones; the right to the use of English by one million inhabitants is also called in question. About 4 per cent of the civil service in the Quebec government is Anglophone, and less than 3 per cent of the City of Montreal employees, though many more are bilingual. I hope Quebec will remain the “model” province which we so frequently considered it to be in our first Book. In addition to my dissent from the important Recommendation 42, I wish to add one further remark. Our Commission, like the Sirois Royal Commission before it, was unable to do any research into the wealth and investment in the hands of the religious institutions in the province of Quebec. Without this, all that is said about the economic position of French Canada, based solely on an analysis of the private sector of industry, is somewhat out of context. The French invested heavily in religion while the more “materialistic” English were developing the business sector. Both communities had their own form of wealth: our Report shows only one side of the picture. Strong emotions can be aroused by inadequate or misleading statistic. There is a deficiency

1969

225

here in the research of our Commission – not due to any fault of our research department – and this must be kept in mind in assessing the meaning of those statistics which we have so liberally supplied.

s e ve nt y- s e v e n t h m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 2 1 – 2 2 d e c e m ber 1969 I met Paul Lacoste on the plane. He told me many of his friends approved my dissenting opinion on Volume III, but they all turned out to be anglophones. I reminded him that an important decision by a Court is often strengthened and rendered more palatable if there is a dissenting opinion which expresses the views of those who have to be persuaded by the decision. “So, you dissented out of public duty” he said laughingly. On reaching the office, Rudnyckyj told me I was the most popular man in the west – the only sane member of the Commission! Gilles Lalande said he approved of my dissent, and Cormier said he almost signed it. I was comforted by this willingness of Commissioners to discuss the matter humorously and to show how close they were to my position. I was a little frightened that I might have cut myself off or at least created something of a psychological gulf between myself and the others. We started the meeting with discussion of our reactions to Volume III. Michael Oliver told of the general misunderstanding about the recommendations: did they mean unilingualism in Quebec? (This was exactly what I knew would happen). He said our time schedule was not clear. The top units of big business cannot be made French quickly, since parachuting from the outside is no solution, and it takes time to select and train the junior Executives for their senior posts. Rudnyckyj said there was much discussion in Winnipeg, the Free Press being strongly opposed and saying it was a backward step. I confirmed the view of Oliver there was great misunderstanding of our position. Among the English in Quebec, it seemed we were speaking of every type of industry and not just of large industries. My own position too had been misunderstood; a headline in the Montreal Star said, “Scott rejects Plan,” implying that I disagreed with all the Report and not just with one part of it. I said that the misunderstanding was obviously due to the vague wording of parts of the recommendation and of the text of the report itself; for instance, the sentence of p. 524 … clearly implies that all industry in Quebec, large or small, would have to have a majority of its working

226

The Fate of Canada

units speaking French. I asked whether this would apply to a private company like Steinbergs. However, I said I believed the more careful study of the report would correct some of the misunderstandings and insofar as the research was concerned would definitely increase the prestige of the Commission. Paul Lacoste said there was surprise among the nationalists that a Federal Royal Commission could go so far. He thought our prestige would be increased. Leon Dion, however, said that certain French translations would cause us difficulty; for instance, we translated Task Force as “Groupe d’étude” which is just too feeble and does not convey the idea. We had also inserted a word “petits” before industries in the French text when it did not appear in the English text. He thought we had put the Gendron Commission in a difficult spot because it looks like a “Groupe d’étude” yet it clearly is not a Task Force we recommended with representatives from business. Gilles Lalande said it would have been better if we have delayed Volume IIIB so that there was an interval between it and Volume IIIA. Almost all the press discussion was on the language of industry and little had been said about the Federal Civil Service or the Armed Forces. Gagnon pointed out that the cbc never gives any real information at all adequately about a report such as ours; there is only a résumé of three minutes during the news. It is failing in its duty of keeping the Canadian public informed of important events. Dunton notes about our report that we were urging more for Quebec than any Quebec body had yet done. Just whether this was good or bad he did not say. Michael Oliver spoke about the crisis in education in Quebec. He said there were three thousand Anglophones coming out of high schools who will have absolutely no place to go next September because Cardinal17 has refused consistently to give a license to three new English cegeps.18 It is in this context that our report is being read. Lunched at the Chateau with Laing, Oliver, Frith and Gagnon. A lively discussion took place. Gertrude Laing came out as almost a separatist and certainly a believer in associated state status for Quebec as well as thinking that this was well within our mandate to recommend. She is all sentimentality insofar as Quebec is concerned probably because she had French blood in her somewhere as she once led me to believe. However good humour prevailed even all our sharp differences.

1969

227

editor’s note: In the afternoon, the commissioners began their discussion of what was intended to be a final volume on proposals for constitutional change. Gilles Lalande tried to propose a common denominator, while Paul Lacoste argued that the commission should take account of the new developments in Quebec, both positive and negative, which he outlines. He said it was useless to continue constitutional conferences, and that the commission should recommend a special status for Quebec followed by a union between the two groups, a veritable New Deal – an idea that was anathema to Scott. When asked how this differed from the position of René Levesque, he answered that he was proposing a confrontation to reach agreement before separation, not afterwards. While he was talking, I noted down certain implications in this position. It involved our saying that no equal partnership is possible within the present confederation. It acknowledged our accepting the Quebec Government as speaking for the whole of the founding people who are French. It involved the belief that Quebec has a single idea on the problem, which is expressed by the Union Nationale Government now in power. It involves us in the rejection of solutions found workable in other countries in Europe. It involves the proposition that where one of the two groups finds itself in a minority position, as the French do in Ottawa, and the English in Quebec, then no justice or equal treatment can be expected. It involves the proposition that there are no English in Quebec and no French Canadians outside Quebec. In other words, Lacoste gave us a nineteenth century solution to a twentieth century problem. It would also involve us in the naïve assumption that a new confrontation of this type would succeed in reaching agreement where the present constitutional conferences do not. It would mean also scrapping the whole parliamentary system of government and replacing it by some kind of pseudo international treaty making. Royce Frith said that Lacoste had presented them with the true issue, but did not take sides. Gertrude Laing called it a splendid statement. Michael Oliver said that if this were accepted they would have to start their work over again since the first volumes excluded that approach. Rudnyckyj felt that the terms of reference excluded Quebec sovereignty and that the ethnic groups had been entirely neglected. André Raynauld disagreed that federal

228

The Fate of Canada

powers had grown at the expense of the provinces, and that while he agreed with the analysis, a recommendation for a political confrontation working for a new constitution went beyond the Commission’s mandate. I timed Leon Dion’s statement; it took twenty-eight minutes. He thought that the idea of a continuing crisis in Quebec was correct. The fears in Quebec are still as strong now as ever since 1867, whether the statistics on population are true or false. The psychological state of a people is more important for its survival than mere numbers. So, Quebec is truly threatened – by its beliefs and fears. Quebec would guarantee English rights in the Province and then get on with its economic development. Economics were omitted in Lacoste’s analysis. He ended with “J’ai confiance à la raison.”19 At some point, and perhaps now because in the order in which we sit at the table, I speak after Cormier. I gave my views. I made my expected criticisms of the Lacoste position. I said we could not weaken our earlier recommendations by admitting their total failure. I did not say that Lacoste’s analysis was wrong, since it might very well come to pass that such a confrontation as he proposed would take place. Anything was possible in Quebec. But we were bound by our mandate which totally excluded any such proposal. Dunton said we had assumed that our present confederation would go on without great change. Earlier in our work we might have asked for a basic change, but we cannot do it now after all the work implies the contrary. Typically, he had really nothing to suggest. Gagnon then wound up the discussion. He said he had supported our recommendations so far because he thought they would strengthen federalism against separatism and associated status in Quebec. The question now posed is a political one and that is not for us to answer. Elections change the situation all the time. Political negotiations are useless as proposed by Lacoste when the personnel in the Governments that would meet are fluctuating. He rejects all non-Federal solutions, and he certainly had firm views. His intervention reopened the whole discussion about the confrontation. What is this confrontation really? Who is there to speak for whom? How will the delegates be chosen? And so forth. Thus, we ended the day. I could not help reflecting how different the tone of the meeting would have been had Marchand remained a Commissioner and Lacoste not been elevated from the position of Secretary.

1969

229

22 December 1969. a . m . Very early in the meeting I said that unless we agreed to Lacoste’s new proposal for a two-nation confrontation, implying associated status for Quebec, we are wasting our time in asking him to fill out the remainder of his paper. Why did we pick on this political alternative? Lacoste replied that he took this one proposal because the crisis continues in Quebec and we must deal with it more directly than we have done in our three volumes. He spoke at great length and was quite hoarse. Our problem was not that we had a bad Federal system, but we had one that is not accepted in Quebec. We are blocked everywhere. He denied that he stood for the associated state. He was trying to unblock the conferences. To which Michael Oliver replied that a confrontation between Quebec speaking for all French Canada and Ottawa speaking for all English Canada implied the associated state. Various comments followed. Dunton said we were not trying to make a treaty between two nations. We are trying to make equality between co-existent communities. Frith again said that Lacoste had given us the real dimension of the political aspects of the problem. Gertrude Laing asked us whether basic changes would destroy Canada? It might be the way to save it from breaking. We must face this alternative. Wyczyski expressed willingness to go ahead with Lacoste’s approach and then see where it leads us. Cormier said that Quebec alone could not solve his problem. Raynauld asked whether we were to examine all the alternatives? He said he would vote for a political report if he could write it. I said that it would be impossible to agree on the causes of the crisis in Quebec. I had some of my explanations; mostly it was due to the bad political leadership in the Province at the moment. With this, to my astonishment, Raynauld agreed. So, I changed my negative vote on Gertrude Laing’s motion, already introduced, that we should go ahead to examine the question propounded by Lacoste.

1970–71

editor’s note: By 1970, the rhythm of the commission had slowed down. The Official Languages Act had been passed in 1969, based on the recommendations in book one, and the first commissioner of Official Languages, Keith Spicer, started work in April of 1970. After considerable wrangling, and several attempts at drafting a report on the political dimensions of the issue, the commissioners decided to drop the idea of a separate book on Parliament, the Supreme Court, the cabinet, or political parties. Even more significantly, the commissioners failed to reach agreement on proposals for constitutional change. Politically, it was a dramatic year. In January, Robert Bourassa was elected leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, and in April he became premier of Quebec. On 5 October, James Cross, the British Trade commissioner in Montreal, was kidnapped by the Front de libération du Québec and on 10 October, Quebec labour minister Pierre Laporte was kidnapped. On 16 October the federal government invoked the War Measures Act and on 17 October, Pierre Laporte’s body was found. It was a difficult time for Scott; he was exhausted, and sought out for advice by the prime minister’s advisers, the Quebec minister of justice, and the flq ’s lawyer – all former students. Many of his friends, including his wife Marian, opposed the imposition of the War Measures Act; Scott supported it. “The rule of law has to be maintained,” Ron Graham quoted him as saying. “Democracy has to be able to protect itself. These hooligans are holding up our government, threatening our civil rights. They

1970–71

231

have to be stopped. And so do the hotheads who are encouraging them. People are afraid, the situation is volatile, and the War Measures Act is the only instrument we’ve got, however clumsy, to restore some sense of order.”1 He was haunted by the riots of 1918. “I heard the machine guns on the streets of Quebec City during the conscription riots, and saw for the first time a crisis leading to bloodshed which left deep and lasting wounds in the body politic,” he wrote. He had seen students breaking up public meetings for the delegates of the Spanish Republican Government in 1936, two riots in 1969, two kidnappings in 1970, and what he concluded was “a further erosion of civil government.” “A shock treatment was needed to restore the balance,” he wrote. “It was given and it worked. There was only one death, and it was not caused by the forces of law and order.”2 His position meant an irreparable breach with French-speaking writers and poets: nationalists who had previously been friends. And by October, although the work of the commission was virtually complete, the impasse on proposals for constitutional change seemed impossible to resolve.

s e ve nt y- e ig h t h m e e t in g of the commi s si on, l ac ou im e t c l u b , s t jov it e , 16–18 january 1970 We had to decide what to do with the various working papers that had been sent in by the Commissioners. “It is too late for conversions,” I said, and Frith agreed. He said we should seek “consensus.” I asked where this was a way of avoiding decisions on principle? He denied this, saying that we should seek out the areas in which we agree. If this is found, anyone could add a personal statement if they felt it to be necessary. Paul Lacoste agreed; he said he wanted the maximum degree of conciliation. Everyone realized that the questions he raised were real questions; the only problem was whether we should consider them to be within our mandate. I said we should state that the crisis we first wrote about still continued, but that we could not pretend we knew how to deal with it as a Royal Commission. Gertrude Laing said, “The crisis of Quebec is the crisis of Canada. How can we say anything and not deal with that”? We adjourned before the real conflicts had emerged.

232

The Fate of Canada

17 January 1970, 10:30 a . m . Clement Cormier had brought his camera and tripod and insisted that we should photograph us all “before we started arguing.”

editor’s note: The discussion that followed made it clear how divergent the views were about proposals for constitutional change, providing a kind of preview of the constitutional debates of the 1980s and 1990s. Frith said that he wanted the final volume to outline the political dimensions of equal partnership. Oliver said that it would be impossible to have a constitutional reform that proposed an entirely new structure, and that the commission should work to remove the distrust that many in Quebec had about the possibility of equal partnership, possibly by proposing some form of special status for Quebec. Scott said that if English Canada believed Quebec would secede, no further changes towards bilingualism or biculturalism would be made. Laing wanted the commission to say unpleasant things to shock the country or else nothing would happen. Raynauld said that the commission could say that a cultural group like French Canada wants to keep its identity, that it is normal for it to seek auto-determination even to the point of independence, and that Quebec wanted a better form of dialogue and negotiation than when it is considered one province among ten. Then Rudnyckyj gave a very unusual statement; apparently he had been thinking about federalism in anticipation of this meeting. He wanted our conclusions to reprint all our recommendations so that they would be conveniently available, and also to point out progressive steps that some Provinces and the Federal Government have already taken to give effect to our views. He wondered what was the special status desired by Paul Lacoste. In concrete terms, what did it mean? He then outlined the idea of a possible autarchic state for Quebec, which would be more than autonomy and less than independence. Apparently, it was to be a confederated state in which the direct relationship with the people would exist only in the local Government. Included would be the right of secession, and the right of choosing any form of Government. Minorities would be governed by United Nations obligations towards minorities with cultural and linguistic rights. He saw this as implicit in what Lacoste

1970–71

233

was asking for. This would be his “statut suffisant.”3 We would have a Federal and Confederal state together. Also, perhaps a new status for the Northwest Territories and maybe a union among the Western Provinces and the Maritimes. We all listened in some amazement at this daring proposal. I could only comment that he had shown us the magnitude of the problem, and had given us a sixth option, not included among the five we suggested in our first Volume. I then attacked the concept of auto-determination as leading directly to independence. The present Canada also had a right to auto-determination, namely to see that it was not destroyed by separatism. Lacoste replied that he realized auto-determination was a relative matter, but what he was after was to allow Quebec to make a choice by itself free from outside and compelling forces. Raynauld thought it was strange that we were afraid to question the reality of present-day Canada. We had to admit there was a deadlock, and to point this out to the Canadian people would be a service. It is not for us to define the procedures for resolving the deadlock, but to give the facts about its existence and apparent insolubility. Oliver felt the issue was going to be worked out in the political process. We cannot determine how this will go. The forces are not yet sufficiently developed; for instance, the power of the English minority in Quebec is just beginning to show and it will grow stronger. Rudnyckyj thought it was not for us to show how we can achieve equal partnership, but rather to describe what it is. To which Lacoste replied that our Commission was a perfect example of what it wanted in the discussions between Ottawa and Quebec. 17 January 1970, 4:15 p . m . After lunch we rested a while and then met to resume our discussion. I felt myself increasingly out of touch with the Commissioners, since they were insisting on some projection of political ideas into the already confused situation in the country. I felt that this was a waste of time to attempt to achieve something for which we were not prepared. The whole operation seemed unhelpful. Some rather sharp exchanges took place regarding education in Quebec. Gertrude Laing seemed inclined to hedge on the principle

234

The Fate of Canada

of parental choice of language of instruction. I naturally objected strongly to our changing any of our established positions. And what about immigrants and other ethnic groups? Are we deserting them? I said the fear of absorption in Quebec was deliberately exaggerated in order to give a justification for a policy of unilingualism. We roamed over many problems, seldom going below the surface since we had no facts thoroughly researched. The impending demographic changes, the nature of auto-determination, were talked about in a journalistic manner. Dion told us that Henripin has concluded that the French in Quebec will disappear unless the majority remain unilingual. I asked Clement Cormier, who always sits beside me, confidentially whether he thought he would be likely to disappear because he was able to speak English, to which he replied “J’ai une tendance de disparaître de cette commission.”4 He agreed that we are not rising above journalists who draw up lists of Quebec’s preoccupations. About 12:30 we were still arguing over Lacoste’s idea of a big confrontation between Quebec and the rest of Canada, Gertrude Laing seemed ready to support this wild notion. Even Dunton seemed to be toying with the idea that they might try something of this sort just to see what would happen.

s e ve nt y- n in t h m e e t in g of the commi s si on, 1 4 – 1 5 f e b rua ry 1970 Fundamentally we were to decide at last whether we would go along with Paul Lacoste’s desire for a statement that virtually favoured special status for Quebec and direct consultations between Ottawa and Quebec, or whether we would take a more moderate and less political position. As usual, we went around the table asking for general comments and particular criticisms were offered. Leon Dion gave one of his long comments. While he felt we should speak of the desire for auto determination in Quebec, we should mention also the contrary feeling in other places so that we would be speaking to all Canada as well as to Quebec. He felt we could refer to the state of mind in Quebec without necessarily believing in its justification. I said there obviously was a political factor in the situation but did not see how we could take sides. Among the various competing

1970–71

235

solutions, we seemed to be picking out one only, which could be described as tabula rasa with direct confrontation between the Ottawa and Quebec Governments, with all that this implies by way of acceptance of the idea that all French Canadians are represented through Quebec and all English Canadians through Ottawa. Also, it meant we expressed the belief that if we changed the machinery of confrontation, we would free the déblocage. I said we could not scrap the whole political and constitutional tradition of negotiation which is now in operation. Elections were coming up in Quebec, and we did not know what might emerge. Quebec itself had not yet made up its mind what it wanted. There was a possibility of a sharp conflict emerging inside Quebec which would be one part of the French population against another rather than both against the English. I described Frith’s paper as a glorious failure in an attempt to complete an impossible task. Gagnon was very strong that we should not touch the political side of the question in any direct manner. We could not take sides in the coming Quebec election. He said all our reports had dealt with the problem of bilingualism in Canada, which was our proper responsibility. Why should we suddenly go off in another direction at the very end? There was silence in the room for a while. A group of us lunched at the Chateau, and Cormier arrived. “Too bad, Paul,” said Gilles Lalande, knowing that this would be one vote against Lacoste. At one point, hearing Lacoste say “O, Mon Dieu,” I asked “Does that expression still remain in Quebec?” He replied “C’est tout ce qui reste.”5

editor’s note: The Lacoste proposal was defeated on a tie vote, and Scott noted with satisfaction that that the French Canadians – Raynauld, Cormier and Gagnon had joined him and Dunton in opposition to Lacoste’s proposal for a rewrite “containing most of his ideas.” The problem of who would do the redraft now was before us. When I was asked I begged to be excused, partly on the ground I am now working with the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal on the Quebec Education Bills,6 but more profoundly because I had always opposed our attempting to go beyond our mandate into the delicate area of politics and did not feel I could

236

The Fate of Canada

properly make the kind of statement that the majority of the Commission seemed to desire.

e i g h t ie t h m e e t in g o f the commi ssi on, 1 4 – 1 5 m a rc h 1970 editor’s note: After considerable discussion, Dunton took the commissioners by surprise by saying that he didn’t think there was enough material for a book. He moved we drop the whole matter and include none of it. I seconded this, until Royce Frith asked to have that pleasure, which I granted him. So here were several tens of thousands of dollars dropped down the sink. We then wondered about our moral obligations. We had promised this book. Were we not to talk about Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, or political parties anywhere at all? “Have we not enough political scientists on the Commission to help us?” asked Wyczynski. I reminded them that we had long ago decided that research on political parties was too difficult. Eventually, it was decided that some reference to political institutions would be made in the final volume of the Commission. If some of our books are not worth publishing when they come for final acceptance, all we can do is to refuse to bring them out. [On cultural institutions] there was a good deal of waffling back and forth, but the general feeling was that we had something that was worth publishing. A problem them arose, in what form? After what additional editing? We were all sobered by Royce Frith saying, “To put it bluntly, after March 31st, no Commissioner will get paid for any work he does.” I asked whether expenses might be paid, in which case we might do some voluntary work. No one seemed quite clear what would happen, or whether the Commission itself would automatically cease to exist when its pay was stopped. We finally decided to make this part of the final volume. After much detailed discussion, we managed to reduce the voluminous and rather pointless recommendations to about four useful ones. As we petered out into a dismal silence, wondering what to do and where we were, we heard Gagnon say, “Let’s go for a drink.” So, we all went off to the Chateau.

1970–71

237

e i gh t y- f irs t m e e t in g o f the commi s si on, 3 2 m a rc h – 1 a pri l 1970 editor’s note: The commissioners had a copy of Volume 4 on “Other Ethnic Groups” at their places when they got to the meeting. This gave us some feeling of achievement that made up for our recent gloom. The last item on the short Agenda was marked the end – la fin . This we expect is the last full meeting of Commissioners. Then Gagnon explained what was meant by “La Fin.” He said he would be working for a while in his present office as his new job in Information7 would not begin immediately. He also said there would be some money available to pay the Commissioners who would be needed to complete the last Volumes. Technically it appears that the Commission is not dissolved until the last report is signed. As a number of Commissioners had not read certain documents there was no afternoon meeting. Anyway, David Dunton had to go back to Carleton to suppress a riot announced for 2:00 p.m. That evening we had our great banquet d’adieux, at the Cercle Universitaire. Mike Oliver came specially for the event, so we were ten. It was an uproarious occasion. Everyone began telling their impressions of the beginning of the Commission, particularly what Mike Pearson said to them when they were invited. I told some of the better B&B stories that I had collected, introducing them with a quote I had found at lunch that day in Le Monde: “Un anecdote dit souvent plus long que de fastidieux détails.”8 I pointed my finger at Andre Raynauld at this point, since he is our statistics man. The phrase “fastidieux détails” consequently became a Commission joke for the next meetings. We could hardly believe that this was the last time we would dine together. Frith suggested it was the first of our last dinners. I proposed that we meet once a year and review the progress made in carrying out our recommendations. I suggested that if we were to produce a book together and sign it jointly, we might have a volume that would be welcomed by some publisher. 1 April 1970, a . m . I first induced the Commission to change the reference to the language of work so as not to include the disputed words “at all levels”

238

The Fate of Canada

in the first sentence of the old Recommendation 42. It was then not necessary to refer to my dissent, since I certainly would like the French language to become predominant in general throughout the Province in the work world, always recognizing that it could not be at all levels in some industries, and that in the bilingual districts there was the choice of the two languages. I also believe that since the use of the language is a human right, people may run businesses in any language they wish until it reaches some point of public importance where they may need to meet the two official language position; however, I did not urge this further consideration at this time. We then went on to the volume on the mass media produced by Gagnon. Gertrude Laing’s comments on it were the most intelligent, as she knows a great deal about the broadcasting side from her work on the crtc 9 Most people seemed to think the volume was satisfactory, though I found it dull and altogether too descriptive. But the main argument arose on the question as to whether we should comment on the effects of commercialization of radio and television upon the development of the two cultures. There had been the barest reference to this in the concluding paragraph of Gagnon’s text. It seemed to me so obvious that our terms of reference gave us a right to show, if we believed it to be a fact, (and how anyone can doubt it passes my comprehension), that this greatest of all instruments for all human communication was the one that in Canada must most particularly be devoted to the spread of the two cultures and the expression of their views on the world on a basis of equal partnership across Canada. But Royce Frith virtually shouted me down when I made this proposal, and I could find no support whatever in any of the other members of the Commission! I wanted our history of broadcasting to show the steady decline of the public interest concept and the steady growth of control of programmes and of primetime by commercialism. I wanted us to tell the public of Canada how other countries, such as England and West Germany, finance their broadcasting almost exclusively without the money that comes from advertising. To leave this out of our report is to show that we are confined within the current concept of North American broadcasting. It seemed to me that Royce Frith should have recused himself from the debate since he accepts advertisers as sponsors of shows he produces. Gertrude Laing’s support of his position was surprising considering her other cultural sensitivity but stems from her background

1970–71

239

in Calgary and the attitudes of her husband.10 It seemed to be accepted that we had decided the matter of advertising was outside our terms of reference, though I cannot remember any vote on this question ever being taken. The whole debate, and the silence of all the Commissioners, including David Dunton,11 utterly astonished and discouraged me. Our Commission is bold enough to attack the English in Canada for their injustice towards French Canada but dare not raise a finger against the economic establishment. I shall have to make my own separate statement in this volume. We came back briefly for an afternoon session on the same volume. I took pleasure in calling the attention of the Commission to Paragraph 368, which praised Canada Council for contributing to the development of the social sciences, humanities, and arts: then why not discuss cbc ’s capacity to do the same? Gagnon’s volume on the mass media still needs a final chapter with recommendations. When this will come, or how we shall be able to discuss them intelligently together, I cannot foresee. I am afraid the Commission is going to end, not with a bang but a whimper.

e i g h t y- s e c o n d m e e t in g of the commi ssi on, 3 d e c e m b e r 1970 editor’s note: Scott found the meeting unexpected; he thought they had finished the previous March. However, there was the volume on mass media to discuss and approve. We had before us a conclusion to the previous draft. It did not satisfy me because it added nothing by way of criticism of what advertising has done to radio and television. I reminded that meeting that I would have to add further comments of my own if this subject was not to be dealt with severely. In the section dealing with newspapers it was said that their purpose was “information.” I said surely their purpose was to make money. This prompted Gertrude Laing to say “why not let Frank write this and then we would not have many sales.” “No,” I answered “but we would be read much longer.” I reminded them again of the way the London Times sent a team of journalists into Russia in 1916, and how they came back with a favourable report about the magnificent Russian war effort and never once mentioned the

240

The Fate of Canada

Communist party! Some parts of the Conclusion I rather liked but it did not come to grips with the main issue. Cormier expressed grave concern about the situation in New Brunswick. He said that a group of young separatists from Quebec had come into the Province and infiltrated into the radio and tv stations so as to put across their views to the Province. He said they were causing much trouble, and were in effect destroying what we in our Commission are supposed to be defending and developing.

editor’s note: The October Crisis – the kidnapping of James Cross, the passage of the War Measures Act, and the murder of Pierre Laporte – was a preoccupation. Cross was still a hostage. News of Cross’ liberation came through in the morning, and we would have adjourned to listen to the radio had there been a newscast at that time. As it was, we had to wait till 1:00 p.m., when we sat around and heard the whole story.

editor’s note: After considerable discussion, with Scott and Frith continuing their ongoing disagreement about commercial media, and a devastating critique of the draft prepared by JeanLouis Gagnon on mass media by Léon Dion, the commission decided not to publish those last volumes. Scott suggested that there be a final report reprinting all the recommendations from previous volumes with a short introduction and conclusion. Gertrude Laing, looking at me rather severely, suggested that I had done very little work in the way of writing and that I might take on some of this obligation myself. I refused point blank, as I knew I could just not get down to writing the report of a Committee. In my present condition at McGill, with no real secretary assistance and with the difficulty I have in writing anything at the moment, I knew I should not be able to succeed. In any case there seemed to be nothing more than a kind of editing to be done, and persons closer to the work in hand would be able to operate much more efficiently. I had to leave the meeting at this point because of my commitment for York University. Thus ended, I trust, my meetings with the B&B Commission.

1970–71

241

e ig h t y- t h ir d ( f in a l ) meeti ng of the c o m m is s io n , 2 7 f ebruary 1971 We gathered in Jean-Louis Gagnon’s office for this final meeting because as Paul Lacoste said, “Je suis le coupable”12 meaning that he had called for it. He had not liked the proposed letter which Gagnon circulated to us and which was to have been sent to the Prime Minister and had asked that the Commission reassemble. Gagnon explained his letter and its purpose, which was simply to let the Prime Minister know that our work was now as complete as we could make it. Gertrude Laing wished to make some changes, particularly to suggest that some permanent body should carry on the work of our Commission. She also reserved the right to make our letter public if Trudeau did not do so. I asked whether we should not raise the question of the proposed deletion of Section 133 of the bna Act, which if carried through would violate one of the fundamental principles on which our report was based. This was, that Quebec was a model Province to which others should conform when their minorities reached the prescribed size. The other members present did not take up my proposal. Then Paul Lacoste made his statement. He said “the whole question of political equal partnership” was still with us. The crisis we noted in our first volume has not ended. People are suspecting that we opened up a great question and then ran away from it. We must say – or he himself would have to say – that our work was very important, but there was much more to be done to provide the necessary psychological breakthrough. We must say this is our letter. At this point we had a coffee break and were much amused to see that Paul Lacoste’s cup had a Union Jack on it. When we reassembled, André Raynauld began. He agreed that the crisis was not over, and that it would not be settled by the present constitutional conferences. But he said we could not as a Commission go any further in our work, and one letter would not resolve the matter. Lacoste said we did not speak about the constitutional aspects of the problem because we could not agree on solutions. Why should we not say so, and tell the public that we did not know how to resolve our differences? I pointed out that our Commission, in its composition and in its divergent views, was very like Canada itself.

242

The Fate of Canada

Raynauld said he was not sure we could not have agreed on a final constitutional volume had we tried. To which Frith answered, “We can’t only not agree, but we can’t agree to say we can’t agree.” I said that my memory of our previous dealing with this subject was that we had agreed we would approach it again and then decide what to do; we had never agreed that under all circumstances we would actually tackle the problem. In fact, our Commission had achieved an astonishing degree of unanimity considering the variety of matters we dealt with and the differences in our backgrounds and opinions. “People ask how we succeeded so well” said Gertrude Laing. “Martinis,” I replied. “That’s just what they think” she said. David Dunton then went out to draft the letter. While he was away discussion turned on the University of Quebec and its complete disregard of existing universities and its refusal to coordinate its plans with theirs. Much of its budget apparently is spent trying to resolve difficulties arising from its internal structures. The Government put all the normal schools together and called them a university. It is establishing a branch at Hull quite separate from Ottawa University. This centralization is due to its desire to organize and impose their nationalist outlook on all pupils. Dunton then returned and read his draft. It was still too bald and incomplete for Lacoste’s taste. He insisted we add some further phrases indicating our continued fear that the crisis was unresolved. Changes were made and the letter sent for typing. Whereupon we all took off for lunch at Madame Burger’s. I delivered my letter to Trudeau about Section 133 on the way at 24 Sussex Drive. Lunch was very gay. Even Paul Wyczynski became quite chatty and humorous. He asked me whether it was true that McGill was built out of property belonging to the Jesuits – thus showing that this ancient myth is still travelling about. I proposed that we hold an annual reunion dinner for our Commission and that Royce Frith organize it. All, except Frith voted in favour. When we got back the letter was ready and with slight editing was agreed to. Here is the form in which it reached the House of Commons. Later Paul Lacoste in a tv interview made a quite unjustified statement that Laurendeau’s wishes had been betrayed by the Commission refusing to write about the political factor. As if our Commission were appointed merely to express Laurendeau’s opinions! The

1970–71

243

majority of the Commission had enough sense to know that they were not appointed to write such a volume and were incapable of doing it well.

editor’s note: Scott included in his journal a draft of the French text of the letter the two co-chairmen, Dunton and Gagnon, sent to Prime Minister Trudeau in which they explained that the commission had hoped to write a volume on federal institutions like the Supreme Court, Parliament, and certain federal organizations dealing with arts and letters, and another on mass media but these were impossible to complete. Similarly, they were unable to achieve unanimity on the questions of the relationship between the federal and Quebec governments. As a result, they proposed that the commission formally come to an end on 31 March 1971. They ended the letter by expressing deep regrets at the absence of André Laurendeau for the last stages of the commission’s mission and praising his remarkable contribution to the report and to the cause of Canada. Scott wrote a final note articulating his opposition to the growing feeling in the commission in favour of a volume of constitutional recommendations.

The End of the Affair F.R. Scott

After seven years of working together, we find ourselves confronted with this dilemma; our work is over, but the crisis in Quebec is not. This is not surprising, seeing it began in 1763. But we are asking ourselves whether we should make one final effort to bring out a last volume which will penetrate deeper into the heart of the crisis than anything we have yet published. My position is that we were not set up to make this kind of study, we have not done anything like the research upon it which would be necessary to give authority to our analysis, our mandate does not authorize it, and all we could produce in the short time available would be some rather superior form of journalism representing various visceral urges of each Commissioner. The argument is used that we said we would consider the collective aspect of equality in Volume I (par. 82). What we actually said there was that this collective aspect of the problem and the degree of self-determination it suggests, gave us “the basis for the discussion of the constitutional framework in which the two societies can live or aspire to live: a unitary or a federal system; special status for the province in which the minority group is concentrated; or again, for the same part of the country, the status of an associate state; or finally, the status of an independent state.” We gave ourselves, then, five options: (1) a unitary state; (2) a federal system; (3) special status for Quebec; (4) associate states; (5) an independent state. If we are to be scientific in our approach to the discussion of the political and constitutional situation, we shall have to examine each of these in turn and make up our minds on the basis of our assessment as to which would produce the greatest amount of equal partnership.

The End of the Affair

245

Strange though it may seem, there is much to be said for a unitary state with equal guarantees to both communities; this we find existing in the world today in Finland, Belgium, South Africa, and Czechoslovakia up till the Russian invasion. To these we could add other examples. We must certainly call attention to the unitary model if we deal with the political problem, if only to expose the delusion in the popular motion that a wide decentralization of power is essential to preserve cultural autonomy. The survival of the French culture and language in Canada was well established before the Federal system of 1867 was introduced; every government over Quebec until the date was controlled by the English and was unitary in structure. However, no man in his senses would advocate the ideas of John A. Macdonald today, though it would be far easier to put them into effect with modern forms of communications. A unitary state of course does not preclude a delegation of subordinate regional powers to local governments. Our next suggested alternative was a federal system, presumably much as we have now but developing towards equal partnership. This I am convinced is what we are supposed to be talking about, and the only constitutional idea on which we can justifiably make any pronouncement. We were certainly not set up to “cure the crisis in Quebec.” Indeed, it took us some time to find that a crisis existed in the form in which we now know it. We have already tied ourselves to the bna Act by recommending changes in Section 93 and 133. We have also tied ourselves – except insofar as all but me changed their principles in the last Volume IIIA – to the idea of equal status and equal opportunity for the two official language groups in all parts of Canada. This idea is incompatible with special linguistic status in Quebec, though possibly not incompatible with a somewhat special distribution of powers. The latter idea, however, is one which we have agreed we are not competent to recommend. The third suggested idea of special status for Quebec is one of those vague proposals, nowhere specifically defined, which tend toward either associated status or separatism. In a narrow sense every province in Canada has some kind of special status, but it is fundamental to the federal system we now have that all provinces possess virtually the same authority over their internal affairs. They all, for instance, have jurisdiction over “Property and Civil Rights,” though Quebec has no power of delegation to Ottawa of this jurisdiction. In this field Quebec and British Columbia have the same powers, but what

246

The Fate of Canada

a difference in the way they are used! Quebec, for example, uses them to maintain the Civil Law, bc to maintain the Common Law. Thus, Quebec is not “une province comme les autres,” not because she has different status in respect of jurisdiction, but because she uses the same powers in a culturally and linguistically different manner. To understand the degree of self-determination already existing in Quebec today, this Commission would have to analyse the present distribution of powers, particularly with their judicial interpretation, would have to look through the Quebec Revised Statutes, etc. and then see what a vast field of virtual independence is already possessed by the province. Canada has already one of the most decentralized federal states in the world. I am firmly convinced that what is needed now with whatever other changes maybe contemplated, is a strengthening of the authority of the central government in respect of threatening social dangers such as inflation, pollution, price control, enforcement of multilateral treaties, inter-provincial marketing, securities regulation, and perhaps some other matters of equally national importance. Without this extension of federal powers, the economic and social situation is likely to go from bad to worse, thus accentuating the crisis in Quebec. Quebec alone cannot possibly control these matters. The idea of an associated status for Quebec is even more vague than special status. Perhaps Canada is already an “associated state” with the United States? Perhaps the countries of the European Common Market are associated states? Perhaps the Scandinavian states are associated? If these are examples, then the associated states mean a destruction of the present federal system, the creation of at least two independent states out of present Canada – possibly three – and the conclusion of some kind of treaty or agreement between them for cooperation in specific areas. Just how this could be considered the development of Canadian federalism, and thus within our mandate, passes my comprehension. This does not mean it might not occur. It does mean that any proposal for a direct Quebec (French only?), confrontation with Ottawa (English only?), is impossible for us to propose – besides making us seems so naïve as to believe it would solve anything. We have already excluded consideration of sovereign statehood or independence for Quebec. Here too the mandate is clearly surpassed. But should independence occur, and I think it is a barely conceivable outcome of the present developments in Quebec, then

The End of the Affair

247

the problem of equal partnership between the two societies will not vanish but will reappear in slightly different form. Quebec will have to decide whether to be so foolish as to persecute and deny rights to its large linguistic minority, and the rest of Canada, particularly New Brunswick and Ontario, will have a similar question to ask with regard to their smaller minorities. Nothing is solved by this separation as regards equal partnership. If this analysis be correct, we are left by our mandate and our interpretation with only one of the five alternatives we proposed in Volume I, namely the present federal state, with developments. As I have said, we have already proposed modifying the educational protection in Sec. 93 and the linguistic protection in Sec. 133. We could recommend other forms of change, I suppose, such as entrenching the idea of a Bill of Rights, the opting-out of joint programs, the changing of symbols of governments, etc. but I ask in all seriousness are we prepared to make such recommendations? On what research would they be based? Besides, this whole matter is now, and has been for over two years, completely taken out of our hands and placed where the responsibility lies, namely in the federal and provincial governments and their advisers. Only a fool would rush in where these angels are fearing to tread. It is important for our Commission to make the distinction between the completion of our work, and the ending of the crisis in Quebec. We were not established to cure the crisis in Quebec. Of course, it continues. The adoption of our recommendations would I think alleviate somewhat the present strain, but no one who knows the Quebec situation can imagine that anything we say, including even something so far out as recommending as associated state position, would have any effect on the dynamism of Quebec politics today. This dynamism is being canalized at the moment by the present Quebec politicians (surely one of the most unhappy groups of lost souls ever to hold political power in the province) into a number of channels many of which can only accentuate the crisis and render its solution more difficult. How can demagogic types like Michel Chartrand1 and Raymond Lemieux become virtually heroes to the youth of Montreal? Only, of course, because of their extreme and violent nationalism. All political parties compete with one another to capture this nationalist sentiment. No one dare stand up and ask whether this will result in the strengthening of the economic and social basis on which ultimately any culture in Quebec

248

The Fate of Canada

must rest. Freedom is the recognition of necessity: the necessity in Quebec is to realize that for the moment, and until they build more of their own economic institutions, they must depend upon the continued development of economic investment and business mostly but decreasingly in anglophone hands. In time this dependence can change; it is already beginning to change. But the long-term goal is endangered by the short term animosities and inefficiencies produced by a nineteenth century type of nationalism attempting to dominate a twentieth century economy. It is a pity that our Volume III did not come out as the final volume, for its Conclusions in Chapter XVI are in my view a perfect summing up of all our work. We start off in that chapter (please re-read) with the correct statement that our mandate does not include the analysis of economic institutions nor of the conditions of social progress. We say we do not intend to make recommendations in this area, but that we believe we can give our advice on certain questions. We then go into a considerable analysis of the fundamental problem in Quebec and Canada, in particular pointing out that our linguistic and cultural recommendations cannot themselves create equal partnership, but must be surrounded by institutional developments, particularly economic, which make for two fully developed societies coexisting and cooperating. We suggested three approaches in order to develop equality (par. 1372), touching upon professional training, economic growth and urbanization. We stress the need for research, and for programs of regional expansion. We showed the necessity of cooperation between federal and provincial governments and stressed the great importance of federal policies even in Quebec (par. 1410). The final paragraph to that chapter XVI is a perfect conclusion to all our work. Anything else would be anti-climax. Then what do we do for summing up? I suggest a few pages only, repeating that our recommendations cannot solve the whole of the problem that we have discovered, that we are not mandated to go into the depth of this problem in all its historical, economic and social relationships, and therefore that the work we have begun must be continued by governments and by other institutions and bodies all working towards the goal we have outlined. We should invite this continued work, particularly in university circles where our research can be picked up and brought up to date. We should remind the Canadian people that our statistics are already out of date and that we shall have within two years a new census from

The End of the Affair

249

which to obtain more accurate information. Some such conclusion, unpretentious yet accurate, harking back to Chapter XVI, would not risk the further shaking of confidence in our Commission which I am afraid volume IIIB has occasioned. We would at least avoid raising further doubts about what we really do believe. I will close on a personal note. It is astonishing and also frightening for me to watch Quebec abandon so many of its ancient virtues and values in order to rush into the North-American capitalist system with arms open for the embrace. The values of that system I learned to despise and respect in the 1930s. I had hoped that the Catholic tradition with its greater emphasis on social obligations would somehow mitigate the prevailing Protestant ethic of free enterprise. Now I am not so sure this can happen, though we did find by our research that in their attitudes towards business the francophones tended to think more than anglophones of their duty to society and less of mere profit-making. However, these values were mostly from the not-too-successful. The giant corporations in our economy are anti-cultural forces: witness their pollution of the air through commercial advertisements on radio and tv . This does us far more damage than exhaust fumes from automobiles; making them speak more French won’t change their ethics. If Quebec is to pull herself out of the psychological trauma in which she now struggles, it will only be by strict leadership of dedicated people, firmly believing in the immense value of French language and culture, and working from where they now are steadily toward a more socially purposeful utilization of economic resources for human betterment. This Quebec cannot do alone; she must have federal help, and she must cooperate willingly and imaginatively with the federal government. There never has been a federal government in the history of Canada so willing to accept this cooperation. This is the opportunity that must not be missed. It may not come again. Unfortunately the divided labour movement in Quebec (a legacy from the old Catholic trade unions), the absence of a strong social democratic party pledged to public ownership and planning, and a growing impatience with parliamentary procedures, combine to reduce the power of the Quebec government to act as the spearhead of a positive plan for the development of parallel economic institutions in which the French language predominates and overall policies to business in which economic development is directed to cultural ends.

250

The Fate of Canada

Most discussions of Quebec’s place in Confederation are vitiated by the false assumption that what the government of the day in Quebec happens to proclaim as the needs of Quebec is in fact what that province both requires and ought to be granted. It is forgotten that there exists another group of representatives from Quebec, elected to serve in Ottawa, who under the theory of our federalism are the ones most competent to talk about any national matters affecting all provinces such as constitutional amendments and redistribution of powers. By a skillful psychological warfare over the past 20 years the stage has been set for creating the appearance of the provincial legislature as sole spokesman on all matters for the French-Canadian nation. The change of name from “Legislature” to “National Assembly” seems to justify a special claim to monopoly of the wisdom required for planning the future of all French Canada – while excluding the English in Quebec. A few able and determined men have risen to the top of the administration in Quebec City, all either separatist or nearly so, and their continuous scheming emerges through the local politicians wrapped in the trapping of a spurious popular approval, even though the ideas have never been tested in any general election. Meanwhile other men with a different viewpoint on the future of Canada are sent to Ottawa precisely to consider the whole problem in a wider aspect, and to include the whole of French Canada and not just the Quebec portion of it. This group of men are just as able as those left in the province yet are more equipped by their position and experience. To propose wise solutions, I do not anticipate a sudden change in this situation: indeed, it may grow more threatening. Wise solutions are unfortunately less exciting than bold demands for immediate action. But to imagine that our kind of federal Royal Commission can plunge into this political crisis in any useful way seems to me to be sentimental folly. Deep sympathy, which we all share, is no substitute for a direct mandate backed by adequate research.

Afterword

As Scott had predicted, the commission tapered off without a dramatic conclusion. Scott had succeeded in fending off pressure from his fellow commissioners for recommendations for constitutional change that would give significant powers to Quebec. Those debates, and the deadlock that resulted, were an uncanny preview of the debates over the Meech Lake Accord two decades later. In 1970, as the commission’s work was nearing an end, Scott was invited to give the annual Manitoba Law School Foundation Lecture. He used the lecture to discuss “Language Rights and Language Policy in Canada,” saying wryly that the subject was “relevant.” Of course, the whole question of constitutional revision is also relevant, but we have already made far more positive decisions with respect to changes in the use of the two official languages than we have in regard to the future distribution of legislative jurisdiction between Ottawa and the provinces. I feel on much more solid ground in talking about the language question than about the constitutional question, because I can discuss actualities rather than possibilities. Moreover the language issue gives me an opportunity to say something about the work of the B. and B. Commission, now at last drawing to an uneventful close. To borrow from T.S. Eliot, it began with a bang, and is ending with a whimper.1 But I think you will agree that because of its work, Canada will never be quite the same again.2 He then responded to some of the criticisms of the commission, such as its cost, saying that it dealt with subjects that could have been

252

Afterword

assigned to seven or eight separate Royal Commissions, such as how to operate the armed forces in a bilingual country, how to change the imbalance in the use of both official languages in the public service and crown corporations, the teaching of both official languages, the role of modern media, and the role of other ethnic groups. And to prove he was not unaware of their unpopularity, he quoted a verse he wrote about it: “How doth the busy B. and B. / Enlarge each whining hour, / By hearing griefs from sea to sea / And turning sweet to sour.”3 “Apparently, many Canadians believe that we should have let sleeping dogs lie,” he continued. “‘We had no problem here till you came’ was a frequent observation we met on our travels; we usually found the problem was very deep and had not been faced realistically.” He pointed out that Quebec independence would not get rid of the problem, as there were over a million English-speaking people in the province, and there would be a million francophones in the other provinces. “I know there are some nationalists in Quebec who would like to have a unilingual French state, as there are many anglophones (I trust this new word we coined is winning general acceptance)4 who would like to see an all English Canada, but these are extremes of opinion which we must tolerate but cannot realistically endorse.” Scott went on to describe what the commissioners had learned. In particular, he stressed the international dimension: “we learned that every country that has a language problem attempts to solve it in its own way.” Thus, Belgium had adopted a rigidly territorial approach, South Africa an approach based on individual choice between English and Afrikaans anywhere in the country, and Finland an approach, which the commissioners borrowed, of bilingual districts. “Finns may use either language in their dealings with governmental authorities anywhere,” he told his audience. “Finland thus uses a combination of the territorial principle, the bilingual communes, and the personality principle, the right of the individual, even outside the commune, to choose the language of communication with governments.” They learned the distinction between personal bilingualism and institutional bilingualism. An institution is bilingual if it can provide services in both languages. “To satisfy the reasonable requirements of personal bilingualism, so that a French-speaking person getting off at a railway station in Vancouver can have his needs met, it is only necessary that in the station there be a wicket or a place where he can get the information he needs in his own language. A very few

Afterword

253

bilingual people are sufficient to staff such a service, and then we can say the institution is bilingual.” It is worth noting that, fifty years later, institutions like Air Canada continue to find this a challenge. Scott observed that Royal Commissions create a stir when they are appointed and when they report, but their effect is often short-lived. He then listed some of the steps that had been taken to implement some of the recommendations: the Official Languages Acts of the federal and New Brunswick governments, and the amended school acts in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Manitoba. “For the first time in Canadian history the four contiguous provinces between Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, where the minority questions are most acute, are applying the principle of the complete dual school system in the official language chosen by the parents.” This right to minority language education would be extended following the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which established the right to minority language education for children who had one parent educated in that language in Canada. “However,” Scott noted, “to change the feelings and outlook of people is a more difficult matter than to change their laws. We cannot legislate love, but at least we can by legislation lessen the causes of hate.” He then summarized the thrust of the 150 recommendations: the proclamation of English and French as the official languages of the Federal Parliament, courts, and administration, and also in New Brunswick and Ontario. Federal services should be available in either official language anywhere in the country. The passage of the Official Languages Act and the appointment of the Commissioner of Official Languages, already achieved. The creation of bilingual districts – areas in which at least 10 per cent of the population used the second official language. This recommendation for the creation of bilingual districts was a major part of Vol 1 of the Commission’s report, and was spelled out in the 1969 version of the Official Languages Act, but never came to fruition, largely because Quebec objected to Montreal being designated a bilingual district, which ran counter to the Quebec language legislation of 1974. The federal capital was to become bilingual as “the hitherto purely English character of Canada is an anomaly that must be ended if the concept of equal partnership is to be given real as well as symbolic meaning.” The armed forces “should obviously be subject to the same principles of language use with suitable adaptation, which were applied to other branches of the public service.” Scott

254

Afterword

summarized the commission’s recommendation of the creation of language units within government and private corporations, saying “A man may thus spend almost his whole day working in the language he knows best and in which he is most efficient.” Calmly, Scott described the recommendation he had dissented from: For the private sector of Quebec, the Commission recommended as the objective that French must become “the principal language of work at all levels,” and specified certain steps to be taken to reach this objective, including a change over from English to French as the main language of work units in the middle and upper brackets of major work institutions. I was obliged to differ from my colleagues on the Commission on this wording, not because I was opposed to the idea that French must become the principal language of work in Quebec, for I believe that to be the case, but because in the formulation of its recommendation the Commission did not, it seemed to me, sufficiently distinguish between the types of business to which this principle would apply. Business activities today are carried on in so many different kinds of institutions, with so many varieties of internal and external relationships, that it is impossible to impose a uniform rule on everyone.5 Scott also mentioned the recommendation that the Quebec government establish a task force of representatives of government, industry, the universities, and the major labour unions to look at the state of bilingualism, the means of developing institutional bilingualism, and the ways to establish French as the principal language of work in Quebec. “Unfortunately, this approach has not yet been accepted,” he observed. “Instead, there is another commission called the Gendron Commission studying the same questions on which the B&B Commission reported. Its composition is unfortunate. Neither the English business community nor the Quebec trade unions are represented, and the only anglophone, though a distinguished professor, was not a native Canadian, and had lived only two years in Quebec when appointed.” (Scott was referring to Edward McWhinney, the Australian-born law professor, and his bitterness at McWhinney’s appointment was palpable.) Scott finished his remarks with three paragraphs that struck a positive but realistic tone.

Afterword

255

Canadians must approach the language question with two special qualities: realism and goodwill. Realism means accepting facts. French-Canada is a fact and English-Canada is a fact. The English minority in Quebec now numbers one million, the French minorities outside Quebec also number about one million. If Canadian federalism is to survive, it must accept bilingualism, in Quebec as well as in Canada as a whole. It is one of the essential conditions of our survival. It is not the only one, for economic benefits must come to all Canadians from our association. We must believe we are worthwhile as a nation. But it must be a bilingual nation. We must also have goodwill. We must see the plus as well as the minus, the great advantages as well as the difficulties. To accept bilingualism means a greater respect for human rights, a greater domestic tranquillity and, above all, the development within our country of the richness and creative ability that have made England and France two of the great centres of western civilization. That it will give Canada a national identity unique in the Americas goes without saying. Quebec is painfully making up its mind as to what should be its political relations with its neighbours. So is English Canada, though its more secure position and difference of temperament make it more content to accept minor adjustments to the status quo. Will an independent Quebec provide a safe haven within which an uncontaminated French culture may flourish, or will this not be a fortress state driven in upon itself, cut off from its growing minorities outside, and doomed to the tensions and antagonism which such a situation tends to create? Will English Canada move toward some sort of special status for Quebec which will still leave a viable federalism? This is the position as the B&B Commission ends its labours. We did not attempt the task of proposing basic constitutional reforms because it was doubtful if we were appointed for that purpose, we had not embarked upon the necessary background research, and we would have been entering an area in which other more specialized official committees were already at work. But my experience convinced me that an equal partnership between the two cultural communities in Canada was a workable concept, and one which would help Canada make a distinctive contribution to world history and world peace. Whether Canadians will accept the idea

256

Afterword

and bring it steadily into being is their decision. I for one have faith that they will accept the great challenge rather than fall back into obsolete forms of the nation state. With that, Scott ended his lecture on a high note, summarizing his arguments against recommending constitutional changes, but expressing optimism for the future. In retrospect, it is also striking how clearly Scott envisions the possibility of Quebec independence. Looking back fifty years later, it seems clear that there had been a moment when constitutional change might have been accepted. In her book on the commission, Valérie Lapointe-Gagnon argues that a moment in time was missed, and a window was closed as a result of the impasse. Indeed, there was a period when the stars seemed aligned: André Laurendeau, Lester Pearson, the New Democratic Party, and several prominent Progressive Conservatives were all in favour of some form of special status for Quebec. But Laurendeau died, Pearson retired, and Pierre Trudeau won a sweeping majority in the 1968 election, ending five years of minority government, and, just as Laurendeau had feared, made it clear he was opposed to special status. Even if the commissioners had made such a recommendation, Trudeau would have rejected it – just as he rejected the recommendations of the Pépin-Robarts Commission on Canadian Unity in 1979. But while Scott was successful in resisting proposals for constitutional change, he was helpless in his opposition to the trend towards official unilingualism in Quebec. This became clear with the introduction of Bill 22 by the Bourassa government in 1974, which declared French to be the official language of Quebec. The bill galvanized Scott into defence of the English minority. Scott went through the bill clause by clause, declaring them to be “misleading,” “clearly unconstitutional,” “discriminatory,” “undemocratic,” and “coercive and oppressive.” In one marginal note he wrote, “Building contracts for McGill must be in French” and in another “Minority has no right to its language from Hydro!”6 He maintained, as he always had, that, for all federal undertakings, English as well as French was an official language in Quebec. “So when the bill says French is the official language, it suggests it is the only official language, and this is quite false,” Scott told the Montreal Star, listing off points where the bill was unconstitutional, undemocratic, and coercive.7 The interview, while passionate and

Afterword

257

detailed, had little impact: on 31 July 1974, the bill was adopted, becoming the Quebec Official Language Act. Scott had joined a legal team challenging the constitutionality of the legislation on behalf of the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal, but the appeal from the initial rejection by the Quebec Court of Appeal failed. A few months later, his tone shifted to rage and frustration at the language situation in Quebec in a letter to his old friend and ccf -ndp colleague George Cadbury in January 1977: “A dumber and more frightened crowd than the English minority in Quebec it would be hard to find. Business won’t lift a finger; it will conform, or move out leaving a skeleton staff behind fed instructions by computer from Toronto. McGill is frozen with fright; its money, even the large amount coming from Ottawa, is channelled through Quebec. The only active fighters are the tiny little Protestant school boards and the Italians. We don’t deserve to survive as we have no collective will to live.”8 But by the time it reached the Court of Appeal, the Quebec Official Language Act no longer existed. The Parti Québécois had been elected in 1976, and in 1977 it replaced the Official Language Act with Bill 101, which became the even more stringent Charter of the French Language. Scott’s worst fears about Quebec unilingualism had come to pass. His friends remarked on his bitterness. “You know for years I’ve spoken French whenever I’ve had the opportunity,” he said to Eugene Forsey during a discussion of Bill 22. “Now I’m damned if I’ll speak French.”9 He became equally bitter that Trudeau, despite strong urging from his former mentor, did not use the federal government’s power of disallowance to strike down the Quebec language legislation. Scott found old age frustrating. Isobel Dobell, Marian Scott’s cousin and a good friend, once snapped in exasperation, “Frank was an impossible young man, and he’s an impossible old man!” And at an exhibition of his mother’s paintings, Peter Dale Scott remarked, “My father was a difficult man, and he expected to be taken care of.” He pointed out that a month after Scott’s death, his mother’s paintings suddenly exploded in violent colour – a style his father had never enjoyed.10 One of the last times I saw Frank Scott was in the fall of 1978; he had just won the Governor General’s Award for non-fiction for Essays on the Constitution. While enjoying the honour, he was gloomy about language and the constitutional debate. As he saw me to the door, he remarked sardonically that he was rereading Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

258

Afterword

Four years later, when the constitution was patriated with a charter of rights and freedoms, Scott felt a mixture of pride and disappointment; the night before, at a reception for Rhodes Scholars old and new, Pierre Trudeau had literally wept with joy when he introduced Scott to the Queen, saying “Everything I learned about the Constitution I learned from this man.”11 Scott was both deeply proud of the recognition and bitter that Trudeau had not done more. He would retell the story often, adding with a rueful flourish “[h]e didn’t learn enough!” And he was angry – “browned off,” he said in a letter – that there were no English-Canadian names among the signatures on the charter. There was one more positive note that Scott struck that year. In 1982, in the last issue of the distinguished literary magazine Tamarack Review, he published the jokes, anecdotes, and funny stories that he collected during the years of the Royal Commission. There were several about people drowning and shouting for help. In one, a lifeguard confesses he can’t swim – and was only hired because he was bilingual. In another, two Francophones in Lac St Jean comment that the person calling for help in English should have learned to swim instead. In a third, hearing someone call “Au secours,” one passer-by asks who it is. The other replies “He’s either a French-Canadian or a terrible snob.”12 Three years later, in January 1985, Scott died. Near the end of his life, he wondered if he had been a failure, if he should have focused on poetry instead of politics.13 It is true that his vision for Quebec and Canada did not survive. Canada’s language regime is characterized by remarkable asymmetry, with Quebec being officially unilingual French, New Brunswick being officially bilingual, the territory of Nunavut being officially trilingual, and other provinces having a wide range of minority-language policies from substantial to almost non-existent. It is a regime built on a series of compromises and Scott hated compromises, above all on questions that he saw as fundamental: minority-language rights and the powers of the federal government. In the years that followed, the Supreme Court corrected some of the elements in Quebec’s language legislation that so outraged Scott. The Blaikie decision by the Supreme Court re-established that laws must be enacted in both English and French in Quebec, and that regulations too must be in both English and in French. It clarified the rights of “persons” to use English and French in the courts. Then,

Afterword

259

in 1988, three years after Scott’s death, the Supreme Court ruled in the Ford case that, while it was permissible for Quebec to insist on having French on signs, it was unconstitutional to forbid the use of a language. Since Sandra Djwa’s biography, published in 1987, darker references to Scott have circulated. He has been described as “paternalist and condescending … Victorian and aristocratic,”14 “a cultivated, well-intentioned, and polite gentleman-poet who was slightly out of synch with the community he wanted to join,”15 and a “poet reformer domestic tyrant.”16 However, three and a half decades after his death, it is also easier to see the magnitude of his achievements. His influence on Pierre Trudeau, while not as great as he had hoped, was huge, as it was on several generations of lawyers and legal scholars. His contribution to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was enormous. His thinking was an inspiration for the debates that led to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His clarity of thought defining language rights as human rights laid the groundwork for an edifice of jurisprudence on language. And his insistence on the rule of law presaged the critical role the courts have played in defining language rights.17 The ground-breaking Supreme Court decision on the secession of Quebec, with its definition of minority rights as one of the central elements of Canadian democracy, stands on the foundation that he helped build. Frank Scott laid out clearly, before the courts established the principle in law and jurisprudence, that language rights are human rights. As he so eloquently put it, “[i]f human rights and harmonious relations between cultures are forms of the beautiful, then the state is a work of art that is never finished.”18

Acknowledgments

My first thanks are to Don Winkler, who interviewed me for his 1982 National Film Board documentary on F.R. Scott, Rhyme and Reason. He asked me whether, given the growing ascendancy of regionalism in Canada and sovereignty in Quebec, I thought that Scott had failed. “No, he hasn’t failed,” I replied, but added, “His life represents one side of the dialectic of this country, and I think that that tension is a fundamental part of the whole intellectual vitality of this country. In fact, I think that the ultimate triumph of one side or the other would represent the failure of this country.” Working on his journal has made me realize that his thinking was more subtle and nuanced than I had realized, forty years ago. (Scott, understandably, was not amused. “He doesn’t want me to win!” I was told he complained, after seeing the documentary.) Later, reading Sandra Djwa’s biography, I discovered the existence of the journal and used it in researching my book on language policy, Sorry, I Don’t Speak French. I am grateful to Doug Gibson for taking on that project. My understanding of the journal’s context was broadened by Valérie Lapointe-Gagnon’s book, Panser le Canada: Une histoire intellectuelle de la Commission Laurendeau-Dunton, and I am grateful to The Literary Review of Canada for giving me the opportunity to read it closely and review it. I would like to thank William Toye, Scott’s literary executor, for granting me permission to publish these diaries, and to Library and Archives Canada, which provided me with digital copies of the original manuscript. I would also like to thank Scott’s son, Peter Dale Scott, for encouraging me in this endeavour, and Cecil Rabinovitch, who invited me to give the F.R. Scott Lecture at the McGill Library,

262

Acknowledgments

which provided me with the initial impetus to develop what became the biographical introduction and the afterword. I was able to refine my thinking about Scott in contributions to a number of other collections, including In Translation: Honouring Sheila Fischman, edited by Sherry Simon, a special issue of Canadian Diversity/ Diversité Canadienne on Quebec English Speakers and the Official Languages Act, and an as yet unpublished festschrift in honour of Colin Williams. Similarly, I am grateful to Antonia Maioni, Dean of Arts at McGill University, who gave me an opportunity to be a visiting professor at the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada in 2018–19, enabling me to focus my thinking about Quebec politics, language policies, and language rights. Marko de Guzman, a student at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, provided invaluable assistance in completing the transcription of the diary, and asked useful and important questions about it. Philip Cercone and Mark Abley of McGill-Queen’s University Press were encouraging and supportive from the beginning, and Mark did an extraordinary job of reading my drafts with a critical eye. I would also like to thank Kathleen Fraser and Joanne Pisano for their support, and Susan Glickman for her painstaking copy-editing. I am grateful to the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, where I have been a senior fellow, which provided me with an office and access to the library, and to Luc Bernier, Linda Cardinal, Stéphanie Chouinard, Peter Dunn, Sheila Fischman, Richard French, Charlotte Gray, Norman Hillmer, Peter Lyman, and Wendy Owens, who have all helped in different supportive ways. But most of all, I thank Barbara Uteck, the love of my life, who has supported me with a fine editor’s eye, endless patience, and boundless affection for over half a century.

Notes

e d i to r ’s n o t e 1 See Scott, “Section 94” and “The Constitution.” His thinking over the years is compiled in Essays on the Constitution, which won the Governor General’s Award for Non-Fiction. 2 F.R Scott, A New Endeavour, vii.

d r a mat i s p e rs o n ae 1 Fulford, Maclean’s, 16 May 1964. 2 Ibid.

i nt roduct i o n 1 Mills, “Of Charters and Justice,” 44. 2 Kelly, Les fins du Canada, 195. 3 Lewis, The Good Fight, 27. That gaze into the distance may have been partly due to the fact that Scott was blind in one eye, the result of homemade fireworks he set off in 1916. 4 Berger, One Man’s Justice; 63. 5 Oliver, Introduction, McGill Law Journal. 6 Scott, Coming to Jakarta, 84. 7 Dudek, “Polar Opposites,” 38. Dudek (1918–2001) was a friend and colleague at McGill, where he taught English. 8 First excerpted in Denis Monière’s 1983 biography, André Laurendeau et le destin d’un peuple, it was published in French in 1990 (henceforth cited

264

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Notes to pages xviii–xxvii

as Journal) and then translated and published in English in 1991 (henceforth cited as Diary.) Diary, 63; Journal, 109. When I mentioned to two Quebec historians separately that Scott’s diary was very different from Laurendeau’s, they both used the same word to describe Laurendeau: “torturé” (tortured). Graham, “Paterson Ewen,” 70–9. Lewis, “F.R. Scott’s Contribution to the C.C.F.,” 82. Preliminary Report, 13. Quoted by Lapointe-Gagnon, Panser le Canada, 289. Montreal Star, 7 March 1959. Granatstein, 247–8. Ibid., 245–6. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Book I, 28–9. Ibid., xxvi Smith, Seen but Not Seen. Laurendeau: Witness for Quebec, 187–9. I describe this in more detail in Sorry, I Don’t Speak French, 25–36. Diary, 21. The Politics of the Imagination, 368. Scott, Events and Signals. Scott was particularly fond of this; he reprinted it in the last issue of the Tamarack Review in 1982. Essays on the Constitution, vii–viii. Ibid., vii. See Oliver, “F.R. Scott as Quebecer,” 166. Scott, “The Fascist Province” in Canadian Forum, April 1934, under the pseudonym J.E. Keith. Included in Granatstein and Stevens, Forum, 120. It was also included under his own name in A New Endeavour, 14–19. Scott, “French Canadian Nationalism,” in Canadian Forum, March 1936. Included in Granatstein and Stevens, Forum, and in A New Endeavour. Scott’s letter to François-Albert Angers, 21 October 1939; quoted by Oliver, “F.R. Scott as Quebecker,” 171. Lewis and Scott, Make This Your Canada, 106. Scott, “Canada, Quebec and Bilingualism,” in Essays on the Constitution, 197. Ibid., 198. Ibid., 201 Scott, “‘Dominion Jurisdiction’ over Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” in Essays on the Constitution, 221. Quoted by Lapointe-Gagnon, Panser le Canada, 255. English, Citizen of the World, 325. English writes that Scott believed he

Notes to pages xxviii–9

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

265

first saw Trudeau at an anti-Semitic and anti-Communist rally on the late 1930s. Scott may have been referring to the nationalist protest in 1938 that Trudeau had joined against a delegation of Spanish Republicans Scott had welcomed to Montreal. Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination, 170–4. Trudeau, ed. The Asbestos Strike. Aivalis, The Constant Liberal, 6–7. Godbout in “Les échanges littéraires,” 85. Murray, chapters 7–9; Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination, 418–23; Godbout, 86–7. Pierre Trudeau’s second-hand account, quoted by Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination, 421. Laforest, L’Accord du Lac Meech, 86–7. Le Devoir, 3 June 1968. My translation. See journal entry for the forty-eighth meeting of the Royal Commission, 18–20 November 1966.

1963 1 Lester Pearson (1897–1972) became prime minister in 1963 after a career as a diplomat and fifteen years as a politician. The familiarity was understandable; Scott and Pearson were contemporaries and had been Rhodes Scholars in Oxford at the same time. See Wright, Creighton, 103; e-mail, John English, 24 February 2020. 2 It is worth noting that Pearson would use the term “family compact” – the term used to describe the elite in Upper Canada between the 1810s and the 1840s – to describe the elite in Toronto in the 1960s. 3 Now known as Kahnawake, this is the Mohawk reserve on the South Shore of the St Lawrence River, southwest of Montreal. 4 The Cercle Universitaire was a club on Laurier Avenue associated with the University of Ottawa. It was bilingual and open to Jewish members at a time when the Rideau Club was neither. It closed in 2000. 5 He is referring to Dunton; Laurendeau was absent with the flu. 6 Gertrude Laing was, in fact, six years younger than Scott. In 1963, she was fifty-eight and he was sixty-four. 7 This is a summary of the rationale for Scott and Oliver publishing Quebec States Her Case. 8 They never did arrive at another phrase. Book IV of the Royal Commission, published in 1969, was entitled The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups. This was the volume that recommended that the same conditions for citizenship be accorded to all immigrants, with

266

9

10 11

12

13

14

15

Notes to pages 9–19

no regard to their country of origin; that restrictions on broadcasting in languages other than English and French be removed; and that greater provisions be made for teaching language, humanities and social sciences in areas other than those related to English and French. The recommendations became the basis for Canada’s multiculturalism policies. The word “allophone” did not enter general use until the 1970s. Pearson had considered naming Arthur Irwin (1898–1999), a former editor of Maclean’s, commissioner of the National Film Board, and Canadian ambassador to Australia, Brazil, and Mexico. However, he did not speak French. Had he been named to the commission, it might have been socially awkward; Scott had a long and passionate affair with P.K. Page in the 1940s, before she met and married Irwin. See MacKenzie, Arthur Irwin, 278; Djwa, Journey with No Maps, 89–127. Canadian citizenship was only introduced with the Citizenship Act in 1946; prior to that, Canadians were British subjects. It is interesting that Scott uses the English name for the city on the north shore of the St Lawrence between Montreal and Québec. In the following decade “Trois-Rivières” became general usage in English. The États généraux was a legislative and consultative assembly in the Old Regime in France that drew together the three estates: the nobility, the clergy, and the commoners. There was a separate assembly for each estate, and when, in 1789, they decided to become a single National Assembly, this was seen as the beginning of the French Revolution. There was also a meeting of the États généraux of French-speaking organizations in Canada in the 1960s. Michael Pitfield (1937–2017) had studied law at McGill, where he was one of Scott’s students. The two men kept in touch during the years of the commission. He had worked briefly for Progressive Conservative Justice Minister Davie Fulton, and became executive director of the Royal Commission on Publications and a speechwriter for Governor General Georges Vanier. Then in 1966 he became assistant secretary to the Privy Council. Pierre Trudeau named him clerk of the Privy Council, where he served from 1975 to 1979 and from 1980 to 1982. He served in the Senate from 1982 until 2010. La Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste was founded by Ludger Duvernay in 1834. It has been dedicated to the promotion and protection of French and, since 1968, to the promotion of Quebec independence. Georges-Émile Lapalme (1907–1985) was a federal Liberal mp from 1945 to 1950, leader of the Quebec Liberal Party and leader of the opposition from 1953 until 1960, and minister of cultural affairs from 1961 to 1964.

Notes to pages 19–21

16

17

18 19

20

21

22

23

24

267

He was succeeded as Liberal leader by Jean Lesage, but remained in Quebec politics until 1965. Marc Lalonde (1929–), like Pitfield, had worked for Davie Fulton when he was minister of justice. Then practising law in Montreal, he would later come to Ottawa to work as a political adviser to Lester Pearson in 1967 and then with Pierre Trudeau, first as a political adviser and then as an mp and cabinet minister. Paul Gérin-Lajoie (1920–2018) was then minister of youth in the Lesage cabinet. He was subsequently minister of education from 1964 to 1966. He did not seek re-election in 1970, instead becoming the first president of the Canadian International Development Agency (cida ) where he served from 1970 to 1977. Pitfield did not follow this advice, but stayed in Ottawa. Emmett Hall (1898–1995) was a classmate of John Diefenbaker’s in law school at the University of Saskatchewan. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada (1962–73). He chaired a report on a national health care program for Canada in 1964. John Bird (1902–1978) was a columnist with the Financial Post who had previously worked for the Montreal Star and the Winnipeg Tribune. Florence Bird (1908–1998) was a broadcaster who worked under the pseudonym “Anne Francis.” In 1967, she was named chair of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. She was named to the Senate in 1978, where she served until 1983. “Document B” was meant to explain to the public what the commissioners felt about their terms of reference and the kind of questions they wanted the public to address. Alan Thomas (1928–2009) was one of the first advocates for adult education in Canada. Between 1961 and 1969, he served as the director of the Canadian Association for Adult Education. Roger Provost (1911–1964) was the first president of the Quebec Federation of Labour. In 1957, he organized the movement of solidarity with the striking miners in Murdochville and in 1964, led the battle for unionization and the right to strike in the public and para-public sectors in Quebec. See fttq.qc.ca/les-dirigeants/, consulted 27 March 2018. The Parent Commission, the Royal Commission on Education in Quebec, chaired by Msgr Alphonse Parent, led to a transformation of education in Quebec. It recommended the creation of the Ministry of Education, obligatory schooling to the age of sixteen, the creation of Colleges d’enseignment général et professional (cegep s), more teacher training,

268

25

26

27

28

29

30

Notes to pages 21–2

and easier access to university, which had been previously restricted to the graduates of Quebec’s elite classical colleges. Scott is referring to the reaction of the Catholic church to the recommendation of the Parent Commission to abolish the Council of Public Instruction – of which all fifty-two bishops in Quebec were members – and replace it with a purely consultative body. The bishops saw this as a move towards a secular school system, and the legislation, Bill 60, maintained the denominational system which was not abolished in favour of a secular language-based system until 1997. See Thomson, Jean Lesage and the Quiet Revolution, 292–310, and Gérin-Lajoie, Pourquoi le Bill 60?, 99–102. Bill 60, introduced by the Lesage government, was enacted on 19 March 1964. It created the Ministry of Education and the Conseil supérieur de l’Èducation. It was modified slightly to guarantee a stronger role for the Church in religious instruction. Don Jamieson (1921–1986) a Newfoundland broadcaster, had advocated an economic union with the US for Newfoundland rather than union with Canada in the 1940s. He ran in a by-election in 1966, and became minister of defence production in 1968, minister of transport in 1969, and minister of regional and economic expansion in 1972. He was named secretary of state for external affairs in 1976, and retired from federal politics in 1979 to seek and win the leadership of the Newfoundland Liberal Party. After the party was defeated, he resigned as provincial party leader in 1980 and was appointed Canada’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom in 1983, serving until 1985. Walter Jacobson Lindal (1887–1976) was born in Iceland and came to Saskatchewan as a child. He was educated at Wesley College in Manitoba. He served in World War I and was called to the Manitoba Bar in 1919. Active in the Manitoba Liberal Association, he was appointed to a county court judgeship in 1942 and remained a judge until 1962. Robert Thompson (1914–1997) was a chiropractor and teacher who won the leadership of Social Credit defeating Réal Caouette (Scott referred to him mistakenly as “Walter” Thompson, the founder of a well-known advertising agency). He was elected mp for Red Deer in 1962 and re-elected in 1963. The party split in 1963, with most of its mp s joining Caouette in the Ralliement Créditiste. Séraphin Marion (1896–1983) was the first to teach French-Canadian literature at the University of Ottawa and was an emeritus professor at the time of the commission. He was an advocate of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec.

Notes to pages 22–3

269

31 H. Noel Fieldhouse was a professor of history who came to McGill in 1948 as dean of arts and science after twenty years in the history department of the University of Manitoba. From 1962 to 1966, he was vice-principal, academic. 32 Mgr Irénée Lussier (1904–1973) was the rector of the Université de Montréal from 1955 to 1965. He was awarded the Order of Canada in 1969. 33 Ethel Brant Monture (1894–1977) was the great-great granddaughter of Mohawk leader Joseph Brant, and described herself as a “one-woman crusade to reverse over four centuries of propaganda” directed at Canada’s Indigenous peoples. She told the commission that “Indians possess a culture quite different from the biculturalism of French Canadians through which is woven a pattern of Canadian rights.” 34 Donald Armstrong (1925–2011) was the founder of the mba program at McGill and first director of the Graduate School of Business. 35 Pierre Trudeau (1919–2000) was then teaching law at the Université de Montréal. John English, Sandra Djwa, Allen Mills, and Christo Aivalis all describe Scott’s influence on Trudeau’s thinking, especially after Trudeau was elected to the House of Commons in 1965, and was first named parliamentary secretary to Lester Pearson and then minister of justice. He was prime minister from 1968 to 1979 and 1980 to 1984. 36 The Jaycees were the Junior Chamber of Commerce, a service club. 37 Burton Keirstead (1907–1973) was a professor of economics and political science at the University of New Brunswick and Dalhousie before teaching at McGill from 1942 to 1952. He then taught at the University of Toronto from 1952 until his retirement in 1971. 38 The United Empire Loyalists (uel ) were loyal to the crown and fled the American Revolution, coming to Canada. 39 Michael Garber (1892–1977) was a Montreal lawyer and a founder of the Canadian Jewish Congress, serving as president from 1962 to 1968. He told the commission, “I have made the same objection in the Prime Minister’s office, and he was horrified. He said, of course, it was not meant to mean that. I cannot go to Canada’s nineteen million people and tell them that what it says is not what it means. I do not think it should be there at all. You are not talking about a partnership between two races, because there is no partnership on that basis, there is partnership between cultures.” Quoted by Haque, Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework, 61–2. 40 In Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework, Haque argues that “As the 1960s begin, a confluence of events resulted in challenges to the

270

41

42 43

44

45

46

47

Notes to pages 23–5

existing Anglo-Celtic dominant national narrative of belonging, and the Bi and Bi Commission became the ‘apparatus’ through which the federal government addressed these issues. It is my contention that, at this particular historical juncture, the need to rearticulate the formulation for nation-building and national belonging meant a decisive shift onto the terrain of language and culture for organizing and maintaining whitesettler hegemony while also disavowing racial and ethnic exclusions.” See page 5. David Jenkins was the president of the National Federation of Canadian University Students which, in January 1964, became the Canadian Union of Students. Evan Turner (1927–) was director of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts from 1959 to 1964. J.J. Frawley joined the legal department of Canadian Pacific Railways after being called to the Ontario Bar in 1919, and was called to the Alberta Bar in 1921. In 1924, he left the cpr to work for the Alberta attorney general, where he worked for almost fifty years. In addition to being married to Saul Hayes (1906–1980), long-time executive director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Beatrice Hayes was an artist and a community worker. She died in 1998. Walter Bossy was the director of the Institute of the Canadian Ethnic Mosaic Confederation, and argued that “other ethnic groups” constituted a force in Canadian society and that the commission owed it to them to explain the terms of reference of the commission in ethnic newspapers, and that any new constitution should have input from all the ethnic groups in Canada. See “Forgotten Multiculturalisms: Walter Bossy and the Institute of the Canadian Ethnic Mosaic Confederation” at multiculturalism.com. An audio recording of his presentation that day can be heard at http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/languageculture/the-rod-to-bilingualism/canada-is-acutally-tricultural.html. Maurice P. Wilkinson (1920–2001) wrote the introduction to the presentation to the Executive Council and Departments of the Anglican Church of Canada, Lennoxville, Quebec, 31 August to 3 September, 1964, which developed the church’s subsequent presentation to the commission. In his memoirs, Jean-Louis Gagnon wrote, “For a reason we had difficulty understanding, Jack Pickersgill, the Secretary of State, asked that the word ‘races’ be substituted for the word ‘peoples.’ Perhaps he was thinking of ‘Canada des deux races’ by André Siegfried.” See Les Apostasies, Tome III, 29.

Notes to pages 25–7

271

48 Grattan O’Leary (1888–1976) was a Conservative senator from 1962 until 1976, and previously been a journalist and the editor of the Ottawa Journal. 49 Norman Lambert (1885–1965) was a Liberal senator from 1938 until 1965. A reporter with the Toronto Globe and an editor with the Grain Growers’ Guide, he became the chief organizer of the National Liberal Federation in 1932 and was the party president from 1936 to 1941. It is a reflection of a less partisan time that both of the senators were former journalists, that they were having lunch together despite belonging to opposing parties, and that Scott, a socialist, joined them. 50 Peter C. Newman (1929–) was then Ottawa editor of Maclean’s while Blair Fraser was in London. Born in Czechoslovakia, he came to Canada in 1940. In 1963, his bestseller on the Diefenbaker government, Renegade in Power, was published. He left Maclean’s to join the Toronto Star, first as an Ottawa columnist and then as editorial-page editor before returning to Maclean’s as editor. He left Maclean’s in 1982 to work full-time on his books. 51 Wynne Plumptre (1907–1977) was an economist who had studied at Cambridge under John Maynard Keynes. After having worked on the Royal Commission on Banking and Currency in Canada and other positions, in 1955 he became senior assistant deputy-minister in the Department of Finance. Ten years later, he became the first principal of the University of Toronto’s Scarborough College. His wife, Beryl Plumptre (1908–1998), was also an economist, who met her husband at Cambridge. She was president of the Consumers Association of Canada and was named chair of the Canadian Food Prices Review Board in 1973. 52 Louis Rasminsky (1908–1998) was the governor of the Bank of Canada from 1961 to 1973, and one of only two Jewish senior civil servants when he was appointed. Born in Montreal, he studied at the University of Toronto and the London School of Economics, specializing in the study of money. He joined the Bank of Canada following World War II and rose through the ranks. 53 Maryon Pearson (1901–1989) married Lester Pearson in 1925, when he was a professor and she was his student. Known for her tart tongue, she is renowned for the comments “Behind every successful man, there stands a surprised woman,” and “I married him for better or for worse. I didn’t marry him for lunch.” 54 W.H. Auden (1907–1973) was a British poet whom Scott had begun reading in the 1930s. While influenced by him, Scott rejected Auden’s

272

55

56 57 58

59

60 61

62

63

64

65

Notes to pages 28–33

pessimism about the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War. See Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination, 175. It is a reflection both of the times and of Scott’s attitude that he assumed this person would be a man. Monique Bégin describes her encounters with this assumption in her memoir, Ladies Upstairs! My Life in Politics and After (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2019). Telepoll is a data collection firm specializing in telephone market research. Joint Planning Committee. George Davidson (1909–1995) was deputy minister of national health and welfare from 1944 until 1960, and then became secretary to the Treasury Board. In 1968, he became president of the cbc . Arnold Heeney (1902–1970) was clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to cabinet from 1940 until 1949, and then became undersecretary of state for external affairs. He was Canada’s ambassador to the United States twice (1953–57 and 1959–62) and in 1963 was chairman of the Civil Service Commission. Jean Boucher was a public service commissioner from 1963 to 1965. In the 1970s, the federal government introduced a language assessment system for public servants, evaluating each of three language skills: reading, writing, and oral interaction. A beginner is at A level, B is intermediate, and C is advanced. Executive positions in bilingual regions usually require cbc : C in reading, B in writing, and C in oral interaction. Alphonse Ouimet (1908–1988) was an engineer who helped design, build, and demonstrate the first Canadian television set. He joined the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, the predecessor to the cbc , and was president of the cbc from 1958 until 1967. Subsequently he became the chairman of Telecast Canada. Thomas James (Jim) Allard (1914–1982) was an announcer, writer, newscaster, and continuity editor before becoming public relations director for Taylor-Pearson-Carson. From 1953 until 1973, he was executive vice president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Trans-Canada Airlines was renamed Air Canada in 1965, following a private members’ bill tabled by Jean Chrétien in 1964. A controversy arose when Air Canada declined to purchase the Caravelle, a French aircraft. See Bruce, “The Caravelle Uproar,” 1. This story has many versions and is almost certainly apocryphal. A version of this remark (“If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas schoolchildren”) was attributed to Miriam Amanda “Ma” Ferguson (1875–1961), the first female governor of Texas. Similar versions were attributed to those who said that if the King James Version of the

Notes to pages 34–9

273

Bible was good enough for St Paul, it was good enough, etc. And in 1926, The New Yorker quoted a gentleman from Arkansas who opposed the teaching of Latin and Greek to preachers as saying, “If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.” Scott included it in his collection of jokes and anecdotes published in the Tamarack Review, #84. 66 Meyer Brownstone (1922–2019) was born in Winnipeg, did a bachelor of science in agriculture at the University of Manitoba, and served in the Canadian Army during World War II. He worked for the Saskatchewan government from 1947 until 1964. Subsequent to his work with the commission, he became a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. 67 John Meisel (1923–). Originally from Czechoslovakia, Meisel came to Canada in 1942 and studied at the University of Toronto and the London School of Economics. In 1957 he wrote The Canadian General Election of 1957, one of the first academic studies of Canadian elections and, with Vincent Lemieux, “Ethnic Relations in Canadian Voluntary Organizations” for the commission. 68 Scott compiled a list of bilingual jokes which he eventually published in the last issue of the literary magazine Tamarack Review in 1982.

1964 1 Essays on the Constitution, 197. 2 “Can These Two Men Really Figure Out Canada?” Maclean’s, 16 May 1964. 3 A Preliminary Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 13. 4 Wilbert Coffin was a Gaspé prospector who was convicted for the murder of three American hunters in 1953, largely on circumstantial evidence, and hanged in 1956. Jacques Hébert, a journalist, a friend of Pierre Trudeau, and later a senator, wrote two books on the case: Coffin était innocent in 1956 and J’accuse les assassins de Coffin in 1963. The case went to the Supreme Court, which found that it would have upheld the conviction, and Hébert’s second book led to the creation of a commission of inquiry which concluded that Coffin had received a fair trial. 5 Frank Roncarelli was a restaurant owner in Montreal and a Jehovah’s Witness. His active financial support of Witnesses, whose proselytizing outraged the Catholic Church in Quebec and resulted in Witnesses being arrested, led Premier Duplessis to refuse to renew his liquor licence. In a 1947 article for The Canadian Forum, Scott wrote that Duplessis was

274

6

7

8

9

10 11

Notes to pages 39–42

trying “to wreck all civil liberty in Quebec” by punishing Roncarelli for exercising “this ancient guarantee of human liberty,” the “legal right” to provide bail. “Duplessis versus Jehovah,” in Essays on the Constitution, 193–6. He went to court seeking damages for his lost revenue, and when the case went to the Supreme Court, Scott represented him. See Botting, in particular Chapter 5, “F.R. Scott and Pierre Elliott Trudeau.” Jacques Perrault was a law professor at the Université de Montréal and a member of the legal firm Perrault & Perrault. He published Le Règlement des Conflits de Droit in 1954. He was also Laurendeau’s brother-in-law; his sister Ghislaine was Laurendeau’s wife. Michel Brunet (1917–1985) was a historian at the Université de Montréal. He was identified with the nationalist Montreal school of Maurice Séguin and Guy Frégault, in opposition to the more federalist Quebec school of Fernand Ouellet, Jean Hamelin, and Marcel Trudel at Laval. From 1959 to 1967, he was director of the history department at the Université de Montréal. The Parent Commission, the Royal Commission on Education in Quebec, chaired by Msgr Alphonse Parent, led to a transformation of education in Quebec. It recommended the creation of the Ministry of Education, obligatory schooling to the age of sixteen, the creation of Colleges d’enseignment général et professional (cegep s), more teacher training, and easier access to university, which had been previously restricted to the graduates of Quebec’s elite classical colleges. Mason Wade (1913–1986) was an American historian who wrote the classic one-volume history, The French Canadians. He was a friend of Scott’s and spent time at North Hatley. “Development.”  Djwa quotes Royce Frith as describing how Laurendeau or Michael Oliver “would often schedule a morning or afternoon for Frank to talk about some aspect of the material, or he might intervene impromptu. He would stand at the front, give a two- or three-hour talk and exchange off questions and answers, totally without notes and apparently without preparation, giving facts, dates, perspectives, dimensions on our problems in historical, constitutional and yes, even poetic context … (He) brought you up to a perspective of the country that you couldn’t get from your own day-to-day (life). We all get flashes of it but … it seemed like a permanent thing with him. He had a vision. It was that he seemed always aware of this bigger dimension of Canada.” Frith found these performances “absolutely marvellous.” The Politics of the Imagination, 391.

Notes to pages 42–5

275

12 “New Quebec” was the phrase used in the 1960s to describe the vast territory of northern Quebec. 13 Regina V. White and Bob 1964 Can LII 452 (bc ca ) was a case involving two Indigenous members of the Nanaimo band, Clifford White and David Bob, who went hunting on 7 July 1963 and were arrested and charged with hunting out of season. Subsequently, the Supreme Court upheld a treaty made in 1854, thereby laying the groundwork for the federal land claims policy. See Berger, One Man’s Justice, 87–106. Thomas Berger (1933–2021) was a lawyer who served in the House of Commons in 1962 and in the bc legislature from 1966 to 1969, when he was briefly ndp leader. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1972 and served on the bench until 1983. He presided over a royal commission on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline that reported in 1977. 14 In 2005, Berger described Scott as “one of my heroes.” “One Man’s Justice,” 987. 15 Richard Arès, s.j. (1910–1989), was a Jesuit priest and author. In 1972, he published Nos grandes options politiques et constitutionnelles. 16 The Lesage government placed the statue of Maurice Duplessis in a warehouse where it remained for 15 years until it was installed beside the National Assembly facing the Grande Allée in 1977. 17 Donald Macdonald (1932–2018) was elected as a Liberal mp for Rosedale in 1962. In 1968, he entered Pierre Trudeau’s cabinet and served as minister of energy, mines, and resources and minister of finance. He resigned from cabinet in 1977, and practiced law in Toronto. 18 Bora Laskin (1912–1984) taught law at the University of Toronto from 1944 to 1949, Osgoode Hall from 1945–1949, and the University of Toronto from 1949 to 1965. He was appointed to the Ontario court of appeal in 1965m and to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1970, where he became chief justice in 1970. He died in office. 19 Douglas Fisher (1919–2009) was a high school teacher in Port Arthur who came to national prominence when he defeated C.D. Howe in 1957, and served first as a ccf and then as an ndp mp , winning re-election three times. He resigned to become a political columnist. He stirred up controversy at a conference at Laval in 1961 when he declared that Quebec culture consisted of stripper Lili St-Cyr and hockey player Maurice Richard. 20 Peter Gzowski (1934–2002) joined Maclean’s in 1958 after working for the Moose Jaw Times-Herald and the Chatham Daily News. In the early 1960s,

276

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 28

Notes to pages 45–50

he spent a year in Montreal. He left Maclean’s in 1964 and freelanced before becoming the last editor of The Star Weekly. He is best known for his work at cbc Radio — first with “Radio Free Friday” (1969–70) and then “This Country in the Morning” (1976–78) and “Morningside” (1982–97). Ramsay Cook (1931–2016) was a historian at the University of Toronto (1958–68) and at York University (1969–96). During the 1960s, he wrote periodically for Le Devoir and published a number of books of essays on Quebec history, including Canada and the French-Canadian Question (1966), The Maple Leaf Forever: Essays on Nationalism and Politics in Canada (1971) and Canada, Quebec, and the Uses of Nationalism (1986). His last book was a reminiscence of his friendship with Pierre Trudeau: The Teeth of Time: Remembering Pierre Elliott Trudeau (2006). Alan Jarvis (1915–1972) was the charismatic director of the National Gallery. Robertson Davies used him as a model for his character Alwyn Ross in What’s Bred in the Bone and described him as “a male beauty.” He won a Rhodes Scholarship in 1938 and became director of the National Gallery in 1955. Armand Nadeau (1910–1982) was a lawyer who served as mayor of Sherbrooke from 1955 to 1970. All of his successors have been Francophones. Jacob Nicol (1876–1958) was a lawyer, newspaper publisher, provincial Liberal cabinet minister, and senator. He was named to the Senate by Mackenzie King and served from 1954 until his death in 1958. He was one of the founders of La Tribune in Sherbrooke, and owned Le Soleil from 1927 until 1948. “I am here and I am staying here.” The phrase is attributed to the French general Patrice de MacMahon during the siege of Sebastopol during the Crimean War. It was also the name of a play Scott saw in Paris in 1953. In 1958, Jean-Guy Lavallée became the first professor in the University of Sherbrooke’s history and political science department. In his diary, Laurendeau describes him as “complacently listening to himself speak,” courting the favour of his students, and “Malgré son intelligence, c’est un vaniteux personage” (“Despite his intelligence, he is a vain personality”). Journal, 100–3. Latin for “listen to the other side” or “let the other side be heard as well.” Laurendeau recorded his remark this way: Scott, qui est toujours très rapide, lucide et efficace, leur dit “Si vous ne vous posez pas la question d’un Canada sans le Québec, vous ne discutez pas la situation d’aujourd’hui.” (“C’était plus clair et mieux formulé; cela revenait à dire que le séparatisme peut réussir, et qu’on doit

Notes to pages 53–5

29

30

31

32

33

34 35

277

le savoir.”) Jean Marchand, longtemps silencieux, a déclaré plus tard “Vous êtes évidemment bien intentionnés. Jamais cependant je n’avais vécu à ce point l’expérience des deux solitudes.” (Scott, who is always very quick, lucid and efficient, said to them “If you are not asking yourself the question of a Canada without Quebec, you are not talking about today’s situation.” [It was clearer and better phrased than that, but came down to saying that separatism can succeed and this ought to be known.] Jean Marchand, silent for a long time, said later “You are obviously well intentioned. However, I have never before lived through the experience of the two solitudes to this extent.”) (Journal, 105–6) Alex Sim (1911–2005) was the first director of adult education at McGill in 1938 and co-founder of the National Farm Radio Forum. A sociologist, he taught at the University of Toronto and co-authored the bestseller Crestwood Heights, the first study of suburban Canada. Robert Fulford recorded this remark, adding, “His listeners heard this accusation of monumental bigotry and provincialism in relaxed silence; no-one agreed or disagreed.” Maclean’s, 16 May 1964. La Touraine was a restaurant in the Roxborough apartments, at the northeast corner of Elgin and Laurier. It was demolished to make room for a museum that was never built, and is now the site of Confederation Park. One regular remarked that the food was second-rate but that the martinis were so good that after a second one, no-one could tell. Arthur Stinson (1933–2001) was head of the commission’s program and liaison department. Previously involved in adult education, where he had worked with Neil Morrison, he later became executive director of the Canadian Citizenship Council. Maurice Lamontagne (1917–1983) was an economist who taught at Laval from 1943 until 1954. In 1958, he went to work for Lester Pearson as an economic adviser and strategist on Quebec. He had run unsuccessfully for the Liberals in 1958 and 1962, but was elected in 1963. He was one of the architects of the commission, and played a key role in persuading Laurendeau to become co-chair. Following an embarrassing incident in which he admitted that he had purchased furniture without a down payment, he was forced to resign. In 1967, Pearson named him to the Senate where he served until his death. Current Treasury Board rules take this into account, allowing executives to travel executive class on flights over three hours. Lionel Groulx (1878–1967) was a nationalist priest and historian who played a crucial and formative role as a writer and teacher for those, like

278

36 37

38

39

40 41

42

Notes to pages 57–9

Laurendeau, who reached maturity during the Depression. When he died, Claude Ryan called him “a sort of spiritual hyphen between three generations of French Canadians” and “the spiritual father of modern Quebec.” Signature (1964) included poems like “Japanese Sand Garden,” “Flying to Fort Smith,” “Mackenzie River” and “On Watching Margaret Dying.” Laurendeau agreed, writing in his journal “Public assez nombreux et d’un niveau intellectuel remarquable” (“Quite a large attendance and of a remarkable intellectual level”). Journal, 164. Following the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, there was a constitutional guarantee of minority language education in every province. And in 1997, Quebec successfully reached a bilateral agreement with the federal government to replace the religious structure of its school system with a linguistic system. Henry Forbes Angus (1891–1991) was a lawyer and political scientist at the University of British Columbia. From 1937 to 1940, he was a member of the Royal Commission on Dominion Provincial Relations (the RowellSirois Commission). In 1966, in a brief to the constitution, he reflected on his experience on the Rowell-Sirois Commission. “They (English-speaking observers) were almost completely oblivious to the cultural aspirations of Quebec. The idea that Quebec might not want financial benefits at the price of a moral sacrifice was incomprehensible to them.” On occasion, Scott refers to Dunton as “David” or “Dave.” His friends always referred to him as “Davie.” Laurendeau found those initial expressions of prejudice difficult. “D’abord sont venues coup sur coup des opinions sur le Québec fort désagréables à entendre; le leitmotif, c’était le ‘peuple arriéré’ et arriéré par sa propre faute. La-dessus se lève un jeune homme, que j’avais rencontré au cours de la journée, et qui dit ‘Continuez d’insulter les Canadiens français, et ainsi vous créez quelques nouveaux milliers de séparatistes dans le Québec.’ Ç’a été le point tournant: d’autres ont souligné le grand nombre d’erreurs et de préjugés qui venaient de s’exprimer, ont tenté de rétablir les faits, etc.” (“First came one blow after another of very disagreeable opinions on Quebec that were difficult to listen to; the theme was that it is ‘a backward people’ and backward because of its own fault. On that, a young man got up and said ‘Keep on insulting French Canadians and you will be creating several thousand new separatists in Quebec. That was the turning point: others underlined the large number of errors and prejudices that had just been expressed and tried to re-establish the facts, etc.”) Journal, 165. Antonin Boisvert (1930–), a social psychologist and former cbc executive, was associate director of program and liaison for the commission.

Notes to pages 60–5

279

43 On 22 April 1964, the Liberal Party, led by Ross Thatcher, won thirty-two seats with 40.4 per cent of the vote, while the ccf , led by Woodrow Lloyd, won twenty-five seats with 40.3 per cent of the vote. The Progressive Conservatives won one seat with 18.9 per cent of the vote. The ccf had been in power since Tommy Douglas had become premier in 1944. Douglas resigned in 1961 to become the leader of the federal ndp . Thatcher fired a significant number of public servants, several of whom came to Ottawa and joined the federal public service. 44 Frank Lindsay Bastedo (1886–1973) was a lawyer and a Conservative who served as lieutenant governor of Saskatchewan from 1958 until 1963, named by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. 45 Don Black worked for George Cadbury, who was chair of the Economic Advisory and Planning Board, which co-ordinated the government’s economic activity. After he was fired by Thatcher, he did an ma at McGill and then worked in the planning branch of the Canadian International Development Agency (cida ). 46 It is interesting to note how many of these recommendations have been implemented in the years that have followed. All barriers to the teaching of French have been removed; French is taught in the primary grades in all provinces east of Saskatchewan and is an option in the Western provinces; federal support is provided to the provinces for minority language and second language instruction; there are refresher courses in the summer available for French teachers; tv and radio is available in both languages in virtually all parts of the country; and there is an $800 bonus for federal public servants in positions that are designated bilingual. 47 This television clip is available on the cbc website (http://www.cbc.ca/ archives/entry/bilingualism-laurendeau-and-dunton). 48 The cabdriver is referring to Canon Scott. 49 Gérard Pelletier (1919–1997) was a Catholic activist, journalist, and editor before entering politics in 1965 with Jean Marchand and Pierre Trudeau. In 1968, he became secretary of state, and introduced the Official Languages Act. In his memoir, Pelletier wrote that he would always regret that the commission had been given the terms “bilingualism” and “biculturalism,” arguing that the first word was too vague and led to confusion suggesting that everyone should become bilingual and that the second suggested the wiping out of all other cultures. See L’aventure du pouvoir, 63–4. 50 “They don’t care.” 51 Jean-Charles Bonenfant (1912–1977) was the director of the Quebec National Assembly Library from 1962 until 1969.

280

Notes to pages 65–72

52 “Honest blackmail.” 53 Léo Dorais (1929–2016) was associate director of audience services for the commission. In 1967, he became director of the Service de l’education permanent at the Université de Montréal, and in 1969, became the first rector of the Université du Québec à Montréal, a position he held until 1974. 54 Canada adopted a new flag, replacing the Red Ensign, in 1965. Fiscal relations have been a matter of ongoing discussion between the federal government and the provinces. The structure of the Supreme Court has remained unchanged. The British North America Act was repatriated, renamed the Constitution Act, 1867, and amended with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. 55 Arthur Scott was a younger brother who remained in Quebec City. He died in 1979. 56 Wilfrid Hamel (1895–1968) was mayor of Quebec from 1953 until 1965. Elected as a Liberal to the Quebec legislative assembly in 1939, he served as minister of state and minister of lands and forests until the Godbout government was defeated in 1944. 57 The mayor was pointing out that there was no distinctive Canadian flag. The maple leaf flag was not introduced until 1965. 58 Scott here blends the French name – Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux – with the English name, Confederation of National Trade Unions. 59 Journal, 242. 60 Ibid., 241. 61 “Points of unity of the two nations: to what extent have they been discussed?” 62 Joseph Kerhulu, a Belgian restaurateur, opened his restaurant on Rue de la Fabrique in 1924. He died in 1957, but the restaurant remained open until the end of the 1960s. It was a favourite of anti-Duplessis intellectuals in the 1950s. 63 Guy Beaugrand-Champagne (1921–2013) was trained as a lawyer and had a Master’s in industrial relations. He spent much of his career in adult education and international development, and was an experienced animator of conferences and group discussions. Years before, he had introduced Pierre Trudeau and Claude Ryan. 64 It is unclear whether Scott is referring to the Société nationale or to the csn (the Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux). 65 “The Four Gospels.” 66 Scott means the Rhinoceros Party, which was founded in 1963 by poet

Notes to pages 72–5

67

68

69

70

71

72

281

and author Jacques Ferron. It was intended to make fun of politicians and the political process. Canon Frederick Scott, who has been called “the Poet of the Laurentians,” published numerous books of poetry, including The Soul’s Quest and Other Poems, 1888, My Lattice and Other Poems, 1894, The Unnamed Lake and Other Poems in 1897, Poems Old and New 1900, and The Hymn of Empire and Other Poems, 1906. The Bloc Populaire was a nationalist party in Quebec led by André Laurendeau that was formed during the conscription crisis in 1942 in opposition to the National Resources Mobilization Act, which removed the ban on conscription and lasted until 1947. In his journal, Laurendeau refers to Philippe Girard, who was a union leader and had been active in the Bloc. Journal, 242 André Patry (1922–2012) was a legal expert and senior Quebec public servant credited with being the author of the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, which maintained that Quebec had an international role in areas of its jurisdiction. Jacques-Yvan Morin (1931–) was a law professor at the Université de Montréal (1958–73). First elected to the National Assembly in 1973 for the Parti Québécois, he was minister of education (1976–80), minister of state for cultural and scientific development (1980–82), and minister of intergovernmental affairs (1982–84). He resigned as a minister and an mna in 1984 and returned to the Université de Montréal, where he remained until 2000. It is probable that Scott is referring to the manifesto “Pour une politique fonctionnelle” which Trudeau signed with economist Albert Breton, sociologists Raymond Breton and Maurice Pinard, lawyers Marc Lalonde and Claude Bruneau, and the psychoanalyst Yvon Gauthier, published by Cité Libre in May 1964. It was also published in English. After appearing before the court of queen’s bench appealing a decision by the Quebec Superior Court that declared the D.H. Lawrence novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover to be obscene, Scott wrote “A Lass in Wonderland,” which begins: I went to bat for the Lady Chatte Dressed in my bib and gown. The judges three glared down at me The priests patrolled the town. The appeal failed, but the appeal to the Supreme Court was successful in a five to four judgment, rendered on 16 March 1962. Scott had refrained from publishing his poem until the appeal process was completed. See Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination, 340–7.

282

Notes to pages 78–85

73 Scott is referring to Prime Minister Pearson, not to Michael Oliver. 74 On 3 December 1964, Lester Pearson and his cabinet decided to commute Georges Marcotte’s death sentence for the murder of two police officers, Claude Marineau and Denis Brabant, during a bank robbery in Montreal in December 1962. Because Marcotte was dressed as Santa Claus, he became known as the “Santa Claus killer.” 75 Georges Vanier (1888–1967) was governor general from 1959–1967. A devout Catholic, he was educated as a lawyer and became a founding officer of le Royal 22e Régiment in 1914. After World War I, he became a diplomat and served in Paris and London; in 1944 he became ambassador to France. 76 Scott memorably wrote of King, after his death, in the poem “W.L.M.K”: Truly he will be remembered Wherever men honour ingenuity, Ambiguity, inactivity, and political longevity.

77

78

79

80 81

82

Let us raise up a temple To the cult of mediocrity, Do nothing by halves Which can be done by quarters. Jean Beetz (1927–1991) was then a law professor at the Université de Montréal, as were Pierre Trudeau and Jacques-Yvan Morin. He was appointed to the Quebec court of appeal in 1973 and to the Supreme Court in 1974, where he served until 1988. Donald Smiley (1921–1990) was a professor of Canadian government and politics and later Professor Emeritus at York University. He served as president of the Canadian Political Science Association. Saul J. Frankel (1917–1992) was a McGill political scientist who published Staff Relations in the Civil Service: The Canadian Experience (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1962) and who did a study for the commission entitled “Political orientation and Ethnicity in a Bicultural Society.” I. Norman Smith (1909–89) was the editor of the Ottawa Journal, where he had worked as a reporter, foreign correspondent, and editor. Blair Fraser (1909–1968) was Ottawa editor of Maclean’s from 1943 until his death. Before joining Maclean’s, he had worked at the Montreal Gazette and the Montreal Standard. In 1950, he purchased a summer cottage in North Hatley jointly with the Scotts, but sold his share to the Scotts in 1963. Graham Rowley (1912–2003) was an Arctic traveller, archaeologist, and student of Inuit culture. He first visited the Arctic in 1936 as a member of

Notes to pages 85–6

83

84 85

86

87

88

89

90

283

the British Canadian Arctic Expedition and was captivated by it. He spent the rest of his life on northern issues, working at first for the Department of Defense and later for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. After his retirement, he joined the faculty of Carleton University where he taught in the Canadian Studies Programme. Denis Coolican (1913–1995) spent much of his career at the Canadian Bank Note Company, ultimately becoming president. Later, he was a senior executive at Brazilian Traction, Light and Power before being appointed the first chair of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Canadian Union of Students. Claude Wagner (1925–1979) had just been elected in October to the Quebec Legislative Assembly after having been named solicitor general, and was an outspoken federalist. He became attorney general and then minister of justice. In 1970, after running as a conservative law and order candidate, he was defeated for the Quebec Liberal leadership by Robert Bourassa, resigned from the National Assembly and, after being named a judge, resigned to run as a federal Progressive Conservative in 1972. He was defeated by Joe Clark for Conservative leadership in 1976, and was named to the Senate in 1978. Walter Gordon (1906–1987) was then minister of finance in the Pearson government. He did not run for re-election in 1968, but continued to be an inspiration for Canadian nationalists and the editorial writers of the Toronto Star. George McIlraith (1908–1992) was then president of the Privy Council and acting minister of national revenue. Later, he would serve as acting minister of justice, minister of public works and solicitor general. He served as Liberal mp from 1940 until 1972 and as a senator from 1972 to 1983. Scott probably means John Starnes (1918–2014) who was then a senior official in the Department of External Affairs and was then head of the Canadian military mission in Berlin. From 1967 to 1970, he was undersecretary of state for external affairs, and in 1970 became director general, security and intelligence directorate for the rcmp . Following his retirement in 1973, he wrote a memoir and five novels. Claude Isbister (1914–1996) was assistant deputy minister of finance, deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, deputy minister energy, mines and Resources (1966–70). From 1970 to 1975, he was an executive director of the World Bank. Robert Bryce (1910–1997) was clerk of the Privy Council from 1954 to 1963, and in 1964 became deputy minister of finance. He had studied economics at Cambridge, where he was influenced by John Maynard Keynes.

284

Notes to pages 86–91

91 Andrew Maxwell Henderson (1923–1991) was auditor general of Canada from 1960 to 1973. 92 Douglas Fullerton (1917–1996) was an economist who worked at the Canada Council from 1957 to 1968, and was then named first chair of the National Capital Commission (1969–73), where he was best known for the creation of the Rideau Canal skateway. 93 The Fulton formula – usually known as the Fulton-Favreau formula – was developed initially by Diefenbaker’s Minister of Justice Davie Fulton and Pearson’s Minister of Justice Guy Favreau. It was a formula for patriating and amending the constitution. It would have required unanimous consent from the provinces for constitutional changes affecting the power of a provincial legislature, the assets or property of a province, the use of English or French and education. It was ultimately rejected by Quebec Premier Jean Lesage. 94 Albert Johnson (1923–2010) became deputy provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan in 1952. In 1964, after the election of the Thatcher government, he was appointed assistant deputy minister of finance in the federal government. He went on to be Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s economic adviser on the constitution and, in 1970, secretary of the treasury board. In 1973, he became deputy minister of national welfare and in 1975, president of the cbc . When he retired in 1982, he was appointed professor of political science at the University of Toronto. 95 Lyndon Johnson, who had succeeded John F. Kennedy following his assassination, defeated Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater. 96 He is probably referring to the nfb documentary Huit Témoins (eight witnesses) by Jacques Godbout, which looks at the lives of eight young men – all delinquents – in a working-class Montreal neighbourhood and in the youth detention centre, Boscoville. Available online at nfb.ca. 97 In the summer of 1964, Scott and Jean-Louis Gagnon travelled to the Arctic, visiting Frobisher (now Iqaluit), Cape Dorset, Pangnirtung, and Pond Inlet. On their return, Gagnon wrote a memo to the commission, which Scott signed. In his memoirs, Gagnon wrote “Since the mandate made no mention of the indigenous peoples, it was felt that comments should be limited to a few pieties. No-one complained, except perhaps those concerned. But thanks to illiteracy, this omission made little noise” (my translation). Les Apostasies, Tome III, 58–9. 98 In section 130 of the Preliminary Report, the commissioners write: From the Indian point of view, French and English both have the same title to the land – conquest. Quebec tends to feel that the French were settlers and the English invaders … The youths who destroy monuments

Notes to pages 91–2

99

100

101

102 103 104

285

in Quebec want history re-written – at least for the future. An English Canadian looking at this early period usually either wants to restore the monuments and thus symbolize a return to the status quo; or else he remembers principally the granting of representative government, the coming of responsible government, and the other constitutional achievements which have made present day Canada a “nation,” giving wide opportunities to its citizens for self-development and occupying a significant place in world affairs. Lord Durham is to the French the great assimilator; to the English the great decolonizer. (134) The term was popularized by Jean-Paul Desbiens in his book Les Insolences du Frere Untel, published under the pseudonym Frere Untel (Brother so-and-so) in 1960. Then a teaching brother in Lac St-Jean, he was devastating in his critique of Quebec education and the quality of French spoken. Scott is referring to Pour la suite du monde, a 1963 documentary by Pierre Perrault, Michel Brault, and Marcel Carriere. It focussed on a group of residents in Ile-aux-Coudres, an island in Charlevoix, who decide to revive the traditional way of capturing belugas. Perrault went on to make other films about the Tremblay family. It is available online at onf.ca. On 7 December 1964, Judge Antoine Lacoursière of the Quebec Superior Court found in favour of the Gaspé Copper Mines in their suit against the United Steelworkers of America, who were suing the union for $2,254,000 for damages and lost profits due to the strike that lasted from 10 March to 17 April in 1957. Marchand was the president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (csn ). “Minutes.” See paragraph 135 of the Preliminary Report: From evidence so far accumulated, it appears to us that Englishspeaking Canadians as a whole must come to recognize the existence of a vigorous French-speaking society within Canada, and to find out more about the aspirations, frustrations and achievements of Frenchspeaking Canadians, in Quebec and outside it. They must come to understand what it means to be a member of a minority, or of a smaller partner people, and to be ready to give that minority assurances which are unnecessary for a majority. More than a century ago, Sir John A. Macdonald wrote to an English-speaking friend: ‘Treat them as a nation and they will act as a free people generally do – generously. Call them a faction and they become factious.’ They have to face the fact that, if Canada is to continue to exist, there must be a true partnership, and

286

Notes to page 93

that partnership must be worked out as between equals. They must be prepared to discuss in a forthright, open-minded way the practical implications of such a partnership. To some extent, they must be prepared to pay by way of new conditions for the future of Canada as one country, and to realize that their partner of tomorrow will be quite different from their partner of yesterday (my emphasis). On the same evidence, it seems to us that French-speaking Canadians for their part must be ready to respond positively if there are to be truly significant developments toward a better partnership. It would be necessary for French-speaking Quebecers to restrain their present tendency to concentrate so intensely on their own affairs, and to look so largely inward. Problems affecting all Canada are their problems too. They would need to beware of the kind of thinking that puts “la nation” above all other considerations and values. They too, like the Englishspeaking, should forget the conquest and any psychological effects they think it left. They would have to avoid blaming English-speaking Canadians for shortcomings which are their own; and at times, to remember that English-speaking Canadians have their feelings too. They, as well as the English-speaking, must remember that, if a partnership works, each party must give as well as get. 105 The published document was entitled A Preliminary Report of the Royal Commission in Bilingualism and Biculturalism.  106 “We are beggars.” The so-called “furniture scandal” occurred when it emerged that Maurice Lamontagne had received $8,000 worth of furniture and had made no payments until the Bank of Montreal, creditor for the furniture company which had gone bankrupt, had requested payment. The furniture store owners, the Sefkind brothers, had been friends of Lamontagne, whose furniture had been destroyed in a fire, and whose insurance agent had died so he did not realize the insurance had expired. The Sefkinds told him he could take the furniture he needed, and repay when he could. But then the store went bankrupt and the Sefkinds left the country. 107 Madame Burger’s, or more formally the Café Henry Burger, was a popular restaurant in Hull, directly across the Ottawa River from the parliament buildings. In 1950, Maclean’s wrote, “For years, the people from Parliament Hill have been crossing the rive to Madame Burger’s where queens, princes, diplomats and dancers dine off snails, steak and Heart of palm tree.” It closed in 2006, not long after a public controversy over hospitality expenses incurred by public servants.

Notes to pages 94–7

287

108 Geoffrey Andrew (1906–1987) was then the executive director of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, and came to the job determined to make the aucc more bilingual and more relevant to Quebec universities. He knew Scott through a mutual friend, Raleigh Parkin, who was his wife’s uncle and a close friend of Scott’s from their days together at Oxford. The Scotts and the Parkins both owned cottages in North Hatley. 109 Alma Houston (1927–1998) lived in the Arctic from 1950 until 1963 with her husband James Houston, with whom she was deeply involved in the development, study, and public knowledge of Inuit art. In 1963, she moved to Ottawa, where she worked on the marketing of Inuit art. In 1980, following her divorce, she returned to her native Nova Scotia and started the Houston North Gallery in Lunenberg with her son John. 110 Robert Paterson (1936–2013) was an artist and art teacher who visited Cape Dorset in 1964, 1973, 1985, and 1991. He worked on the 1964–65 collection of Inuit prints, and in 1972, he assisted in the delivery of the first lithography press to Cape Dorset. He taught at Georgian College in Barrie, Ontario and died in Wawa. 111 Para 121: The English-speaking minority of Quebec is in a particular position and has distinct concerns of its own at the present time. Unlike the French and most other minorities it has no spokesman claiming to represent its needs and to protect its interests; its command of its own educational, industrial, and above all financial institutions has hitherto made this unnecessary. It is clear that many different views and emotions are current in this group. Some appear to be thinking and acting as though nothing had happened in their province in the last five years; others are deeply concerned about their future. There is a great increase in the numbers attending French classes. Sympathetic individuals think that developments in Quebec are fascinating and presage great things for the future. We have heard of only a few who have left or who are leaving the province, and it appears that the business world generally is enjoying an expanding prosperity. 112 Carl Goldenberg (1907–1996) was a Montreal lawyer and occasional lecturer at McGill. He was a constitutional adviser to Mackenzie King, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and Jean Chrétien, and in addition to being called upon regularly to settle labour disputes, participated in twenty Royal Commissions. He was named to the Senate in 1971 and served until his retirement in 1982. 113 Preliminary Report, 136, para. 131.

288

Notes to pages 99–105

1965 1 Gzowski, “B and B’s Desperate Catalogue of the Obvious.” 2 Léon Balcer (1917–1991) was a Progressive Conservative mp from 1949–1965, and served as solicitor general and minister of transport in the Diefenbaker government. 3 He is referring to Neil Morrison. 4 Tom Kent (1922–2011) was an economist, journalist, and editor who became a senior policy advisor to Pearson. 5 Diary, 130–1. 6 Robert A.J. Phillips (1922–2003) was the head of the Arctic Division of the Department of Northern Affairs. He worked in the Privy Council office and in external affairs, and was an advocate for greater attention being paid to the Arctic. 7 Robert Fowler (1906–1980) was a lawyer and the president of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. In 1955, he was named to head the Royal Commission on Broadcasting, and again headed a new committee in 1965. His recommendations led to the creation of the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission. 8 Gilles Hénault (1920–1996) was a journalist, art critic, poet, and translator. Following his work on the Preliminary Report, he became director of the Musée d’art contemporain in 1966. 9 “Without stiffness, or formality.” 10 This was an argument Laurendeau made in his 1962 book La Crise de la conscription 1942. “In short, the French-Canadian nationalists were opposed to the very principle of the plebiscite,” he wrote. They refused to let the government ask the majority to wipe out a promise made to the minority. In advance, they denied the validity of the response Canadians would make. The contract involved was a moral one. Judicially, Parliament could impose conscription. What the French-Canadian minority demanded of the majority was that it should refuse to act on a thing that it had the political power to enact. Is this not an absurd position in a democracy? No. Public life in a complex state must be based on fundamental postulates of this sort or else the state becomes an open persecutor. For if strength of numbers alone regulates relationships between an ethnic majority and the minority, then life in common becomes impossible, and all that remains is to separate. The minority must quit the house that has become uninhabitable.

Notes to pages 105–11

11

12 13

14 15

16

17

18

19

289

See “The Conscription Crisis 1942,” in Witness for Quebec, 57; also Laurendeau, La Crise, 74. It is interesting that, in this case, Scott defines himself as part of the English-speaking majority in Canada rather than the English-speaking minority in Quebec. “Prejudice carried to its climax.” Maxwell Cohen (1910–1998) began teaching law at McGill in 1946 after serving in World War II. He succeeded Scott as dean and introduced the combined common law and civil law program, as well as serving as the chair of five royal commissions, including the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda. “Already!” Edward “Ted” McWhinney (1924–2015) was born in Australia and came to Canada in 1944 for training as a flying officer. In 1951, he was appointed visiting lecturer in law and political science at Yale, and took his doctorate in constitutional and international law. Fluent in French, German, and Russian, he was a constitutional adviser to the Bertrand and Bourassa governments, and was elected as a Liberal mp in 1993 and served two terms. Scott was critical of his appointment to the Gendron Commission of Inquiry on the Situation of the French Language and Linguistic Rights in Quebec, since he had only lived in the province for a short time. John Robarts (1917–1982) was premier of Ontario from 1961 until 1971. In 1971, he was host to the “Confederation of Tomorrow” conference that brought together provincial premiers for constitutional discussions. After his retirement, he was the co-chair of the Task Force on Canadian Unity with Jean-Luc Pépin. Suffering from depression and a series of strokes, he committed suicide in 1982. Jean Lesage (1912–1980) was premier of Quebec from 1960 to 1966. A federal mp from 1945 to 1958, he was minister of resources and development in 1953, and minister of northern affairs and natural resources from 1953 until 1957. Re-elected in 1957 and 1958, he resigned to become leader of the Quebec Liberal Party in 1958. John A. Stevenson (1883–1970) was a Canadian lawyer and journalist who worked for the Winnipeg Free Press and the Toronto Star before becoming Canadian correspondent for the London Times (1926–40) and editorial writer for the Globe and Mail from 1940 until he retired in 1958. He wrote a biography of Mackenzie King that was never published. Elizabeth Smart (1913–1986) was a Canadian poet and novelist. Her book By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept detailed her

290

20 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 29

30

Notes to pages 111–18

romance with the poet George Barker. Jane Marsh Beveridge (1915–1998) was a filmmaker at the National Film Board and also an editor, composer, teacher, and sculptor. George Barker (1913–1991) was an English poet. Roland Ritchie (1910–1988) was named to the Supreme Court by John Diefenbaker in 1959, and served briefly as acting chief justice in 1982. His brother was diplomat, diarist, and author Charles Ritchie. The group was actually called The Dinner Club. Stevenson kept a file of all the guests which is in his papers in Library and Archives Canada, mg 30 d 199. Ronald Martland (1907–1997) was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1958 by John Diefenbaker and retired in 1982. A Rhodes Scholar, he practised law in Edmonton for twenty-five years before being named to the Court. Frank Underhill (1889–1971) was a historian and political activist. He was the first president of the League for Social Reconstruction and principal author of the Regina Manifesto. He worked closely with Scott on the creation of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Le Cercle Universitaire d’Ottawa was a French-language university club on Laurier Avenue East near the University of Ottawa. It existed from 1957–99 and then became the site of Le Cordon Bleu Paris. The Rideau Club was closed to Jews until 1964, and many chose to join the Cercle Universitaire instead. Guy Lafrenière (1930–2006) served in Egypt as a member of the first United Nations peacekeeping force. He retired as an Air Force captain. Eastview, later renamed Vanier, was a historically French-speaking municipality that became part of the City of Ottawa with amalgamation in 2001. The Motel de Ville, now known as the Concorde Motel, opened in the early 1960s at 333 Montreal Road. “What are the young girls thinking about?” Donald Smiley (1921–1990) was a political scientist who taught at Queen’s University, the University of British Columbia, the University of Toronto, and York University. He was best known for his work on federalism. At the end of the same meeting, Laurendeau wrote in his diary: On the whole, I was struck by the fact that English-Canadian researchers, in spite of their objectivity, personal integrity and scientific worth, remain English Canadian; and of course, the same must be said for French-Canadian researchers. What I mean to say is that the way the

Notes to pages 119–22

31

32

33

34

291

question is posed, and research undertaken, remains typical. So that research done by a French Canadian or by an English Canadian, in the fields we’re exploring, runs the risk of remaining partial. As the greatest part of the research will be carried out by ec s (there not being enough fcs), what will be its validity? Another observation: English Canadians, as a rule, looked for solutions in an evolutionary sense, whereas French Canadians felt the need for more radical changes, stemming from more clearly defined principles. The best example of this was the contrast between the research done by Paul Lacoste on the one hand (special status for Quebec) and, on the other by Donald Smiley (study of federalism): I had the impression that Lacoste overwhelmed several of our English-Canadian researchers, while Smiley left the French Canadians feeling short changed. (Diary, 136–7) Michael Hobbs (1928–2005) was president and ceo of Western Canada Steel. A member of the executive committee of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, he led the construction of what is now the Canadian Museum of History. He may have been referring to James Richardson (1922–2004) of the grain company James Richardson and Sons. Richardson would become chief executive officer of the company in 1966, but resigned to enter politics in 1968. After serving as minister without portfolio, minister of supply and services, and minister of national defence, he resigned in 1976 in protest of Pierre Trudeau’s language policies. In his diary. Laurendeau wrote: Voyage à Winnipeg, toujours aussi plat et, dans l’ensemble, aussi mesquin. Série de rencontres privées plus négatives les unes que les autres avec des universitaires … des hommes d’affaires (dont quelques-uns songent à nous expédier des troupes, le cas échéant) et de jeunes hommes d’affaires d’origine ukrainienne, polonaise et allemande, où cela devenait drôle à force d’être bête. (Trip to Winnipeg, still as flat and, altogether, also nasty. Series of private meetings, each more negative than the last, with university people … businessmen [of whom several are thinking of sending troops on us, when necessary], and young businessmen of Ukrainian, Polish and German origin, when it became funny because it was stupid.) (Journal, 323) John Dafoe (1866–1944) was the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press (originally called the Manitoba Free Press) from 1901 to 1944. He was an influential voice in Liberal circles and wrote a biography of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

292

Notes to pages 122–6

35 Edgar J. Tarr (1881–1950) was a lawyer who became director of the Bank of Canada, national president of the Association of Canadian Clubs and the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, and represented Canada seceral times at international conferences. 36 J.S. Woodsworth (1874–1942 was a Methodist minister and adamant pacifist who was the first leader of the ccf . Elected in 1921 as the member of parliament for Winnipeg North Centre, he remained in the House of Commons until his death in 1942. 37 Graham Spry (1900–1983) started his career as a reporter and editorial writer for the Winnipeg Free Press and went on to found the Canadian Radio League, which pushed for the creation of a national broadcaster. He was active in the ccf , worked for Standard Oil, was private secretary to Sir Stafford Cripps of the British War Cabinet (1942–45), and was agent general for Saskatchewan in the uk , Europe, and the Near East from 1946 to 1968. 38 King Gordon (1900–1989) was a founding member of the League for Social Reconstruction and the ccf , and a good friend of Scott’s. From 1944 to 1947 he was the managing editor of The Nation magazine in New York, and subsequently worked for the United Nations. 39 Escott Reid (1905–1999) national secretary of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs in 1932. In 1938 he joined the Department of External Affairs; he served in Washington (1939–41, 1944–45), and in Ottawa, where he was Lester Pearson’s chief aide (1946–49). His diplomatic career took him to New Delhi and Bonn, and to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He became the first principal of Glendon College at York University in Toronto. 40 Roger Lemelin (1919–1992) was the best-selling author of Les Plouffes, which became a popular television series in French and in English in the 1950s. Like Scott, he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship. From 1972 to 1981, he was the editor-in-chief of La Presse. 41 “There is the dove! The deluge is over.” (An allusion to the dove that flew to land from Noah’s Ark when the flood had receded.) 42 “En fait, il est possible de soutenir que Scott ne croit pas au biculturalisme, en ce sens qu’il ne reconnaît pas l’existence de deux nations à l’intérieur du Canada,” Lapointe-Gagnon, Panser le Canada, 258. 43 Ibid., 254 44 Léon Dion, “Deux Optiques” 23 août 1965, Québec, Centre d’archives de l’Université Laval, fonds Léon-Dion, P435/B4m 390, quoted by LapointeGagnon, 255. 45 Ibid., 256.

Notes to pages 128–37

293

46 Scott is referring to George Grant’s book-length essay Lament for a Nation, published in 1965. While Grant was a Conservative, his critique of the Liberal Party and continentalism struck a chord with Scott. 47 Scott’s footnote: “My proposal for meeting the economic threat is simple, and was suggested to me by the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal. We should embark upon a policy of buying back our own resources. We bought out the Quebec seigneurs in the 1850’s, the Hudson’s Bay Co. in the 1860’s, the absentee Scottish landlords of pei in the 1870’s – now let’s start on the Americans. Only key utilities and industries need be purchased. We must not forget that during World War II we doubled our manufacturing capacity in 5 years without the aid of one cent of US capital. In this policy federal and provincial governments must join forces. Too bad our Commission has no mandate to look into this question.” 48 The members of the Supreme Court are still not required to be bilingual, and there is simultaneous interpretation at hearings of the court. However, after its election in 2015, the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau made bilingualism a prerequisite for all new appointments. 49 Quebec Premier Jean Lesage (1912–1980) made a speaking tour of Western Canada in the fall of 1965. According to Blair Fraser, he had three motives for the tour: telling Quebec’s story and new image to Western Canada, evaluating his support when the federal Liberals tried to get him to return to federal politics, and “he wanted a basis for judgment whether Confederation can be made to work.” See “How Lesage Unsettled the West.” 50 Jacques Casgrain was hired as an organizer by the ccf in 1943. 51 The Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, referred to as the Rowell-Sirois Report after its successive chairmen, N.W. Rowell and Joseph Sirois, was appointed in 1937 and reported in 1940. It recommended a transfer of functions and a shifting of taxation powers to the federal government. It also recommended what became the system of equalization – grants to the provinces to equalize provincial tax revenues – enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. 52 The Royal Commission of Inquiry on Constitutional Problems was chaired by Judge Thomas Tremblay. It was appointed by Premier Maurice Duplessis in 1953, and tabled its report in 1956. It laid out the principles of Quebec autonomy in traditional nationalist terms, emphasizing provincial rights, Quebec’s resistance to federal initiatives, and Quebec’s Catholic culture. “French-Canadian culture is, in fact, a particular form of the universal Christian concept of Man and of order,” the commissioners wrote (Vol II, 33). It also proposed major fiscal reforms very different from the

294

Notes to pages 138–44

Rowell-Sirois Commission. According to the late Gérald Beaudoin, “The report is considered a classic in-depth analysis of Quebec’s nationalistic and traditional approach to the federal system.” 53 Scott is referring to a French song written by Paul Misraki in 1935 in which la Marquise returns to her estate where her staff tell her of one catastrophic event after another but conclude, after every verse, “Tout va bien, Madame la Marquise.” It has become a proverbial reference to being oblivious to disaster. 54 “Jean Lesage met with the Dominion Executive of the Ukrainian Canadian Council (ucc ) in 1965 to discuss some language issues, At the meeting, Lesage promised to have the Quebec Minister of Education investigate the advisability of providing classes in the Ukrainian language in those Montreal schools where Ukrainians were concentrated; in return, the ucc promised to use its influence to secure French language schools for French Canadians outside Quebec.” Wangenheim, “The Ukrainians,” 86. 55 Douglas Abbott (1899–1987) was born in Lennoxville, Quebec. After graduating from Bishop’s University, he interrupted his law studies at McGill to serve in World War I. After the war, he got his Canadian law degree and then went to France to study law at the University of Dijon. He was called to the bar in 1921 and practised law until 1940, when he was elected to the House of Commons. During his fourteen years as a member of parliament, he served as minister of national defence and minister of finance from 1946 until 1954, when he was named to the Supreme Court. He served on the court for nineteen years and retired in 1973.

1966 1 Granatstein, Canada 1957–67, 305. 2 Bourgeois, Canadian Bilingual Districts. 3 Jacques Henripin (1926–2013) founded the Department of Demography at the Université de Montréal. Following his work with this commission, he was named to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. 4 André Raynauld. See Dramatis Personae 5 This theory was outlined by André Laurendeau in Le Devoir, 4 July 1958. He argued that Duplessis behaved like “one of these Negro-kings that one found scattered throughout the British Empire.” 6 Robert Winters (1910–1969) was minister of trade and commerce in the Pearson government. He had been minister of public works in the St Laurent government, but was defeated in 1957. After almost a decade in the private sector, he returned to politics in 1965. He ran for the Liberal

Notes to pages 145–50

7

8

9

10 11 12

13

14

15

295

leadership in 1968 and finished second to Pierre Trudeau. A year later, he died of a heart attack while playing tennis. Timothy Porteous (1933–2020) was a former student of Scott’s and a Montreal lawyer who went to work for Treasury Board president C.M. Drury in 1966. After 1968, he served as executive assistant to Pierre Trudeau for five years and then spent twelve years at the Canada Council, first as associate director and then as director. Blair Neatby (1924–2018) was a historian who taught at Carleton University. Best known for his work on Mackenzie King, he did research for the commission on education. The commission recommended that New Brunswick and Ontario recognize French and English as official languages, and that any province whose official language minority reached 10 per cent do likewise. New Brunswick did so in 1969. Ontario has not done so. French was declared the one official language in Quebec by the Bourassa government in 1974. In 1984, the Pawley government attempted unsuccessfully to introduce language rights in Manitoba into the constitution, which resulted in massive protests. The Supreme Court concluded in Re Manitoba Language Rights (1985) that Manitoba had to translate and re-enact all its laws and statutes in both English and French. “Back up in order to jump better.” See note 73. Guy Rocher (1924– ) is a sociologist who taught at Laval from 1952 until 1960, and since 1960 at the Université de Montréal. He was a key member of the Parent Commission, which led to the creation of the Collèges d’enseignement general et professional (cegep ). Subsequently, he was a key advisor to Camille Laurin on the drafting of the Charter of the French Language in 1977. Scott may be making an allusion to his satiric poem “Bonne Entente,” in which he wrote “The advantages of living with two cultures / Strike one at every turn, / Especially when one finds a notice in an office building: / ‘This elevator will not run on Ascension Day.’” Or it may have been simply a reference to the religious calendar he grew up with. Jean Sutherland Boggs (1922–2014) was the first woman to be named director of the National Gallery of Canada. As an art historian, she was a specialist in the work of Edgar Degas. Allan Gotlieb (1928–2020) was a Rhodes scholar and lawyer best known for having served both Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and writing two books based on his experience, The Washington Diaries and I’ll be

296

16

17

18 19

20 21

22

23 24 25

Notes to pages 150–62

with you in a minute, Mr. Ambassador. He was also deputy minister of two departments and undersecretary of state for external affairs from 1977 to 1981. Marc Lalonde (1929– ) was a close friend and confidant of Pierre Trudeau, serving first as principal secretary and then as minister of justice, minister of energy, mines and resources (where he instituted the National Energy program), and minister of finance. Pierre Juneau (1922–2012), then vice-chair of the Board of Broadcast Governors, had been the National Film Board’s director of Frenchlanguage production. In 1968 he became the first chairman of the crtc , where he introduced strict Canadian content rules. From 1982 to 1991, he was president of the cbc . Within two years, Davidson would be named president of the cbc . Paul Martin, Mitchell Sharp, and Jean Marchand were all federal cabinet ministers, while Duff Roblin (1917–2010) was premier of Manitoba and Robert Stanfield (1914–2003) was premier of Nova Scotia. Stanfield won the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1967, and served as leader until 1976. Jean-Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704) was a priest and author who was renowned for his eloquence. In 1997, despite its formal rejection of the Constitution Act 1982, Quebec, under a Parti Québécois government, negotiated a bilateral constitutional amendment with the federal government putting an end to religious schools in the province. Newfoundland and Labrador did the same following a referendum in 1997. Section 91 of the British North America Act – now the Constitution Act, 1982 – sets out the exclusive powers of the federal government, including the public debt, the regulation of trade and commerce, unemployment insurance, the postal service, the military, currency, interest, etc. See Hayday, Bilingual Today, United Tomorrow, 142–61. R. v. Beaulac (1999) 1 S.C.R. 768. It is an indication of how this issue has evolved that in 2019, the federal government passed the Indigenous Languages Act, intended to “support the reclamation, revitalization, maintaining and strengthening of indigenous languages in Canada.”

1967 1 Pierre Berton, 1967: The Last Good Year. 2 Saunders, The Globe and Mail, 1 January 2017.

Notes to pages 163–71

297

3 The minister of education at the time was William Davis (1929– ), premier of Ontario from 1971 to 1985. 4 “French and English as the language of instruction.” 5 Non-confessional schools are schools without any religious affiliation. 6 “Battle.” 7 Two communications satellites known as Telestar were launched in the early 1960s: Telestar 1 in 1962 and Telestar 2 in 1963. 8 The Board of Broadcast Governors was the Canadian broadcasting regulator and the predecessor to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, and existed from 1958 until the creation of the crtc n 1968. 9 Board of Broadcast Governors. 10 Naim Kattan (1928– ) was born in Baghdad and studied literature at the Université de Paris. Seeing the rise of anti-Semitism in the Arab world, he emigrated to Canada in 1954. He has written some thirty books in French, and spent twenty-five years as the head of the writing and publishing division of the Canada Council. 11 It is unclear whether Gagnon is referring to the French-language service of the Canadian Press, or to the Canadian media as a whole. He does not address the issue in his memoirs. 12 Jean-Charles Falardeau (1914–1989) was a sociologist at Université Laval. The book was Notre Société et Son Roman. 13 “It is moving at its own pace.” 14 The first recommendation of the commission was that English and French be recognized as the official languages of the Parliament of Canada, the federal courts, the federal government, and the federal administration. 15 Charles Van Horne (1921–2003), the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, introduced the motion to make French an official language in New Brunswick. Louis Robichaud, (1925–2005), the Liberal premier, opposed the motion for tactical reasons. In the words of James Laxer, “He did not want to give credibility to a Van Horne effort to embarrass the government.” However, in the Speech from the Throne in 1968, he promised to introduce language legislation, and in 1969 passed the Official Languages Act, the first Canadian jurisdiction to do so. See Laxer, The Acadians, 222. 16 In a minority opinion, Rudnyckyj argued in favour of making Ukrainian an official language in Western Canada and Italian an official language in Ontario. 17 “Concerning the relations and the future of the society.” 

298

Notes to pages 172–7

18 They are referring to the defeat of the Quebec Liberals and the election of the Union Nationale, led by Daniel Johnson, in June 1966. The Liberals won 47 per cent of the popular vote to the Union Nationale’s 41 per cent, but lost because of the preponderance of rural constituencies. 19 Paragraph 67 of the blue pages of Book I states: At our meetings, witnesses have compared the aspirations of Frenchspeaking Canadians with the aspirations of American Negroes, identifying the one with the other. This is an obvious error, at least if it is the traditional demands of the Negroes that are compared. As a general rule they wish to be assured of basic human rights, particularly those defined by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Until now, the vast majority if American Negroes have not demanded any particular linguistic or cultural rights; their desire has been complete integration into American society. This is not the attitude of Frenchspeaking Canadians. Although discrimination has not disappeared in Canada and although it finds its victims in all groups, it can be said generally that the basic human rights of Francophones are, like those of other Canadians, taken as a matter of course. However, Frenchspeaking Canadians want more than this. They are demanding not just the right to send their children to a public school, but their right to have a French public school; not only the right to work, but the right to work in French, and so forth. These are matters which our terms of reference bring before us. 20 “Catching up.” Oliver is referring to the idea that French-language universities should receive additional funding in order to catch up to the Englishlanguage universities. Recommendation 25 of Book II on education reads, “We recommend that, pending the resolution of the constitutional problems involved, agreements be concluded between the federal government and the provinces concerned in order that these provinces receive the help required to meet the special needs of their French-language universities.” 21 Recommendation 23: “We recommend a federal grant to official minority-language students to enable them to study in their own language at a Canadian university outside their province, when courses are not available in their own language within the province.” Recommendation 24 called for a federal grant be paid to the host university for each student involved. 22 Gerald Le Dain (1924–2007) was a student of Scott’s at McGill in the late 1940s, and later a colleague. In 1967, he left McGill’s law faculty to become dean of Osgoode Hall Law School. From 1969 to 1973, he was the chair of the commission of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs,

Notes to pages 177–80

23 24

25

26 27

28

29

30

31 32 33

299

and after being appointed to the federal court of appeal in 1975, was named to the Supreme Court in 1984. In November 1988, he resigned from the court after being hospitalized for depression. A 2017 cbc radio documentary suggested he stepped down under pressure from Chief Justice Brian Dickson. Georges-C. Lachance (1926–), the Liberal mp for Lafontaine, was first elected in 1962 and was re-elected in 1963, 1965, 1968, and 1972. According to Collins French-English Dictionary, “déniaiser” means to teach someone about life. According to Larousse, a “niaiseux” is an “idiot,” in popular Quebec usage. Judy LaMarsh (1924–1980) was a Liberal cabinet minister who, as secretary of state, was in charge of Canada’s centennial celebrations in 1967. Bitter over Pierre Trudeau’s winning the Liberal leadership, she left politics in 1968. Florence Bird was then chair of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Guy Sylvestre (1918–2010) was then associate director of the Library of Parliament, and from 1968 to 1983 was Canada’s second national librarian at what is now Library and Archives Canada. In 1967, he edited Un siècle de litérature canadienne. George Whalley (1915–1983) was, like Scott, a graduate of Bishop’s University, a Rhodes scholar, and a poet. A naval officer and intelligence agent during World War II, he taught English at Queen’s University from 1950 to 1980. Ezra Pound (1885–1972) was a renowned modernist poet who was imprisoned for his support of the Nazis and subsequently incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital for twelve years. Elizabeth, the daughter of Scott’s friends in North Hatley, the Parkins, married Pound’s son Omar. Pablo Neruda (1904–1973) was a Chilean poet-diplomat and served in the Chilean Senate as a representative of the Communist Party. Forced to flee the country in 1948, he returned from exile five years later. Salvador Allende named him ambassador to France, and during his posting he was awarded the Nobel prize for literature. “Altogether, our voyage has barely begun.” This was the introduction of the Order of Canada; Scott was one of the first members, and named immediately to the highest rank of the Order. Scott uses the word “allophone” a full decade before the first reference to the word in the Oxford English Dictionary. In his 1971 Manitoba Law School Foundation Lecture, Scott credits the commission with coining the word “anglophone.” Essays on the Constitution, 379. While that may be

300

34

35 36

37 38

39 40

41 42

43 44

45

Notes to pages 180–92

true for its use in Canada, according to the Oxford English Dictionary it entered the language in the early twentieth century. Alice Desjardins (1934– ) was a law professor at the Université de Montréal from 1961 to 1972, the first woman to hold a tenured position in a law faculty in Canada. She was named to the Quebec Superior Court in 1981, and was the first woman named a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal where she served from 1987 until 2009. Canada 1957–67, 274. In 1967, Saint Patrick’s College became affiliated with Carleton University, and in 1969 dissolved as a separate institution. Previously, it granted degrees through the University of Ottawa. “Relaxed.” Kenneth McRae (1925–2015) taught political science at Carleton University for sixty years. He was a research supervisor for the commission, and best known for his work on consociational democracy and the governing of bilingual and multilingual societies. Book V of the Royal Commission Report was on the federal capital. Barry Strayer (1932– ) was then director of the constitutional law division of the Privy Council Office. Later, he became assistant deputy minister of justice, playing a key role in the patriation of the constitution in 1982 and the drafting of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Subsequently, he was named to the federal court of appeal and later became a deputy judge of the Federal Court of Canada. Scott originally wrote “These are grave, even menacing words,” but stroked out “grave, even menacing” and pencilled in “serious.” Marcel Faribault (1908–1972) was a notary who became president of Trust Général du Canada, a member of the legislative council, and Quebec lieutenant to Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield in the 1968 election. He is referring to Daniel Johnson (1915–1968) who was then premier of Quebec. Scott’s pun involves playing with the title of Proust’s series of novels, translating “Searching for Lost Time” to “Wasting Time on Research.” He could never resist a play on words. On 7 November 1967, 250 demonstrators occupied the McGill administration building to protest the disciplinary action taken against three editors of the McGill Daily for reprinting a satiric article from The Realist which purported to describe an obscene act performed by Lyndon Johnson on the corpse of John F. Kennedy.

Notes to pages 193–205

301

46 In May 1967, Pierre Trudeau named Carl Goldenberg and Ivan Head as constitutional advisors. Goldenberg worked on laying the groundwork for the federal-provincial constitutional conference held in February 1968.

1968 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9 10 11

My translation. See Sorry, I Don’t Speak French, 74. Gagnon, Les Apostasies, Tome III, 147. Quoted by Lapointe-Gagnon, Panser le Canada, 282. Dr Charles Drake (1920–1998) was known worldwide for his surgical repair of ruptured brain aneurysms. Dr Wilder Penfield (1891–1976) developed new brain surgery techniques and founded the Montreal Neurological Institute in 1934. Lapointe-Gagnon, Panser le Canada, 281–2. In 1968, a language crisis erupted in St Léonard, a suburb in northeast Montreal with a strong component of Italian immigrants who had traditionally chosen to send their children to English schools. In June, in the absence of a Quebec policy, the school board decided that French would be the only language of instruction. But in September, when the Aimé Renaud School was prepared to receive students from the Italian community and teach them in English, French-speaking students barricaded themselves in the school, vowing to stay until the government stopped the transfer of schools from French to English. The Italian community responded strongly, and there were violent demonstrations. Premier Daniel Johnson was furious. “School Commissioners in St-Léonard aren’t going to tell me what to do,” he told his caucus. He was convinced that it was not yet time to act. His caucus was largely indifferent to the issue, but pressure was increasing from nationalists. Following Johnson’s death his successor, Jean-Jacques Bertrand, established the Gendron Commission to examine the language situation in Quebec. “It is not admissible that the university impose an obligatory grammar course on students.” Lacoste’s point was that “admettable” and “obligatory” are not French words. Irving Layton (1912–2006) was a controversial figure in the Montreal Jewish community because of his flamboyance and his erotic poetry. A.M. Klein (1909–1972) was a Montreal poet and novelist who worked much more explicitly in the Jewish tradition. Book IV was entitled The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups.

302

Notes to pages 206–18

12 J.A. Corry (1899–1985) was a Rhodes Scholar who was at Oxford at the same time as Scott, and a political scientist who was principal of Queen’s University from 1961 to 1968. 13 Raymond Lemieux (1924–2018) was an indépendentiste who was active in the Société nationale populaire and founded the Mouvement pour l’intégration scolaire (mis ) in 1968. He was particularly involved in the demonstrations against the construction of an English-language school in St Léonard, and also involved in the massive McGill français demonstration in 1969. 14 “Because of a lack of competence, or jurisdiction.” 15 George Torrance was a researcher with the commission who was part of a team with Christopher Beatty and Jacques Dofny. Their work was ultimately published in Beatty’s book, Minority Men in a Majority Setting.

1969 1 Frith was referring to hmcs Bras d’Or, an ocean-going hydrofoil developed for the testing of anti-submarine warfare technology. As a result of overruns bringing the cost to $50 million (the equivalent to $310 million in 2020 dollars), the project was cancelled in 1971. 2 Oswald Hall (1908–2007) was a sociologist who taught at McGill from 1946 to 1955 and then joined the University of Toronto’s Department of Political Economy. From 1964 to 1966, he worked for the commission. He subsequently served on the Royal Commission on Health Services. 3 McGill Association of University Teachers. 4 Wassily Leontief (1906–1999) was an economist who, while a professor at Harvard in 1941, calculated an input-output table for the American economy. It was this work, and later refinements of it, that earned Leontief the Nobel Prize in 1973. Scott got to know him during his year at Harvard, and had dinner with him in 1964. 5 On 28 March 1969, lecturer Stan Gray led a demonstration calling for McGill to become a French-language institution. It was known as Opération McGill français. See Palmer, Canada’s 1960s, 287–8. 6 Donald E. Armstrong (1925–2011) launched McGill’s mba program in 1963. He wrote a study on education and economic achievement for the commission. 7 Peter Briant (1924–2005), an economics professor in the Faculty of Management at McGill, did a study on ethnic relationships in the construction industry on the island of Montreal for the commission. 8 After becoming prime minister, Pierre Trudeau offered Scott a number of positions. He refused to be named to the Senate, because as a New

Notes to pages 218–28

9 10 11

12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

303

Democrat he disapproved of the institution; he would also refuse to become Canada’s first ambassador to the Vatican. U Thant (1909–1974) was secretary general of the United Nations from 1961 to1971. He was a Burmese diplomat, and the third secretary general. Scott identifies all the guests by their initials, and then writes their names in pen, except for “S.S.” The Union générale des étudiants du Québec was a student organization created in 1963 that became a training ground for Quebec executives in the public and private sector for the next three decades. It came apart in the wave of demonstrations in the cegep s. Ron Graham became close to Scott when he was a student at McGill, and wrote movingly about their relationship in The French Quarter. Louis Negin, a British-born Canadian actor, wrote Love and Maple Syrup, a review which featured material by Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell, Stephen Leacock, Ian Tyson, and others. In 2007, when asked about his age, Negin replied, “Write that I am 95 years old and that I have been to Hungary to have some work done.” Margaret Laurence (1926–1987) founded the Writers’ Trust of Canada and won the Governor General’s Award for English-language fiction for both A Jest of God (1966) and The Diviners (1974). Jean Gascon (1920–1988) was a Quebec actor and director who founded Le Theatre du Nouveau Monde in 1951 and was co-founder of the National Theatre School, which he directed from 1960 to 1963. He later became artistic director of the Stratford Festival (1968–74) and then director of the French Theatre of the National Arts Centre (1977–83). “We shall see.” (If meant to be Italian, this ought to be “Vedremo.” Perhaps it is an errror for the Spanish, “Veremos.) “Whatever will be will be.” (Italian.) Jean-Guy Cardinal (1925–1979) was minister of education in the Union Nationale government from 1967 to 1970. From 1970 to 1976, he taught law, first at Laval and then at the Université de Montréal. Elected as a member of the Parti Québécois in 1976, he served as deputy speaker of the National Assembly until his death in 1979. The English-language Collèges d’enseignement général et professionnel are universally known in English as cegep s. They offer post-secondary programs of one, two, and three years, some leading to university and others to technical trades. Their creation was one of the major reforms that democratized higher education in Quebec in the 1960s. “I have confidence in reason.” 

304

Notes to pages 231–47

1970–71 1 Graham, The French Quarter, 203–4. 2 caut Bulletin / Bulletin acpu , Vol. 2, No. 4 (May 1971) Symposium on the War Measures Act. 3 “Sufficient status.” 4 “I tend to disappear from this commission.” 5 “It’s all that’s left.” 6 After the passage in 1969 of Bill 63, which prevented schools from choosing the language of instruction, and Bills 27 and 28, which re-organized the school system, T.P.M. Howard, general counsel for the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal, set up a committee that included Scott and three others. In 1969, they produced a report which argued that the language of instruction in Protestant schools was guaranteed by Section 93 of the British North America Act. The argument was not successful. See Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination, 423. 7 In 1970, Gagnon was named executive director of a new federal agency, Information Canada. The Liberal Party described it as having been created “to assist Canadians in becoming more aware and better informed of Federal Government activity.” Journalist Walter Stewart sarcastically called it “The Ministry of Truth” and described it as “yet another bureaucracy to co-ordinate all the other information bureaucracies.” Stewart, Shrug, 220. 8 “An anecdote often tells more than fastidious details.” 9 Laing was named a part-time member of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission in 1968. In 1976, it began regulating telecommunications and became the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. 10 Stanley Bradshaw Laing (1907–1989) was an accountant. 11 Scott is alluding to the fact that Dunton was a former president of the cbc. 12 “I am the guilty one.”

t h e e nd of t he af fai r 1 Michel Chartrand (1916–2010) was a charismatic union leader who, while from an upper-middle-class background and educated in classical colleges, became a left-wing militant. He founded the Parti socialiste du

Notes to pages 251–9

305

Québec in 1963 and in 1968 became president of the Montreal Central Council of the Confederation of National Trade Unions. He was arrested during the October Crisis, and released in February 1971 after four months in prison.

a f t e rwo rd 1 He is paraphrasing a line from T.S. Eliot’s 1925 poem, “The Hollow Men.” 2 “Language Rights and Language Policy,” in Essays on the Constitution, 377. 3 Scott is quoting his own parody of a pious poem by the eighteenth-century hymn writer Isaac Watts that begins: “How doth the little busy bee / Improve each shining hour.” A more famous parody is that by Lewis Carroll: “How doth the little crocodile / Improve his shining tail.” 4 As noted earlier, the commission did not, in fact, coin the word, which entered the language in the early twentieth century. 5 Ibid., 386. 6 Scott’s annotated copy of Bill 22 is in Box 104 of his papers, file 18. Library and Archives Canada, mg 30 d 211. 7 “Prof. Frank Scott Speaks Out: Bill 22 Couldn’t Stand Constitutional Scrutiny,” The Montreal Star, 17 June 1974, D 1–2. 8 Letter dated 7 January 1977, quoted by Djwa in “Nothing by Halves: F.R. Scott,” 65. 9 Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination, 427. 10 Fraser, “Honouring an Artist,” A4. 11 Quoted in Fraser, Sorry, I Don’t Speak French, 83. 12 “B &B Stories,” Tamarack Review, 84 (Winter 1982), 31. 13 Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination, 436–7. 14 Godbout, Traduction littéraire et sociabilité interculturelle au Canada (1950–1960), 108. 15 Simon, Translating Montreal, 49. 16 Peter Dale Scott, Coming to Jakarta, 84. 17 See Lapointe-Gagnon, “Jeter un pont,” 53–4. 18 Scott, “Preface,” Essays on the Constitution, ix.

Bibliography

pa p e rs The F.R. Scott Papers, Library and Archives Canada.

r e p o rt s Preliminary Report, The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Ottawa: The Queen’s Printer, 1965. Book I: General Introduction: The Official Languages. Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Ottawa: The Queen’s Printer, 1967. Book II: Education. Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Ottawa: The Queen’s Printer, 1968. Book III: The Work World. Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Ottawa: The Queen’s Printer, 1969. Book IV: The Cultural Contributions of the Other Ethnic Groups. Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Ottawa: The Queen’s Printer, 1969. Book V: The Federal Capital. Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Ottawa: The Queen’s Printer, 1970. Book VI: Voluntary Associations. Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Ottawa: The Queen’s Printer, 1970. Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Constitutional Problems, Vols. I and II. Province of Quebec, 1956. The Commission of Inquiry on the Position of the French Language and on Language Rights in Quebec, Vol I: The Language of Work; Vol 2: Language Rights; Vol 3: The Ethnic Groups. Quebec, 1972.

308

Bibliography

a rt i c l e s a nd bo o ks Arpin, Claude and Martin Franklin. “Prof. Frank Scott Speaks Out: Bill 22 Couldn’t Stand Constitutional Scrutiny.” The Montreal Star, 17 June 1974, D 1–2. Aivalis, Christo. The Constant Liberal: Pierre Trudeau, Organized Labour, and the Canadian Social Democratic Left. Vancouver: ubc Press, 2018. Beattie, Christopher. Minority Men in a Majority Setting: Middle-Level Francophones in the Canadian Public Service. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1975. Berger, Thomas R. One Man’s Justice: A Life in the Law. Vancouver/ Toronto: Douglas and McIntyre, 2002. – “One Man’s Justice: My Life in the Courts.” (2005). McGill Law Journal 50: 987–96. Berton, Pierre. 1967: The Last Good Year. Toronto: Doubleday, 1997. Botting, Gary. Fundamental Freedoms and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1993. Bourgeois, Daniel. Canadian Bilingual Districts, from Cornerstone to Tombstone. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007. Brady, Alexander and F.R. Scott, eds. Canada after the War. Toronto: Macmillan, 1944. Bruce, Harry. “The Caravelle Uproar: What tca Wanted Was a Good Plane. What Quebec Wanted Was a French Plane.” Maclean’s, 25 January 1964. Callwood, June. “Dinner over at Madame Burger’s.” Maclean’s, 1 November 1950. Chaput, Marcel. Pourquoi je suis séparatiste. Montreal: Éditions du Jour, 1961. – Why I Am a Separatist. Translated by Robert A. Taylor. Toronto: Ryerson, 1962. Cook, Ramsay. The Teeth of Time: Remembering Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006. Donaghy, Greg and Stéphane Roussel, eds. Escott Reid: Diplomat and Scholar. Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004 Djwa, Sandra. The Politics of the Imagination: A Life of F.R. Scott. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1987. – “Nothing by Halves: F.R. Scott.” Journal of Canadian Studies, Vol. 34, number 4 (Winter 1999–2000), 52–69. – Journey with No Maps: A Life of P.K. Page. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2012.

Bibliography

309

Dudek, Louis. “Polar Opposites in F.R. Scott’s Poetry.” In On F.R. Scott. Edited by Sandra Djwa and R. St J. Macdonald, 31–43. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1983. English, John. Shadow of Heaven: The Life of Lester Pearson, Vol. One: 1897–1948. Toronto: Lester and Orpen Dennys, 1989. – The Worldly Years: The Life of Lester Pearson, Vol. Two: 1949–1972. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. – Citizen of the World: The Life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Vol. One 1919–1968. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. – Just Watch Me: The Life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, 1968–2000. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Fleming, R.B. Peter Gzowski: A Biography. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2010. Fraser, Blair. “How Lesage Unsettled the West.” Maclean’s, 15 November 1965. – The Search for Identity, Canada, 1945–67. Toronto: Macmillan, 1967. Fraser, Graham. “The Man Who Put His Life on the Line.” The Globe and Mail, 25 September 1978. – “Honouring an Artist Brushed aside for Too Long.” Toronto Star, 9 April 2000. – René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois in Power. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2001. – “The Fight for Canada’s Rights.” Toronto Star, 14 April 2002. – Sorry, I Don’t Speak French: Confronting the Canadian Crisis that Won’t Go Away. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2006. – “Frank Scott and the Canadian Conundrum.” Policy Options, 1 December 2009. – “F.R. Scott and the Poetry of Translation.” In In Translation: Honouring Sheila Fischman. Edited by Sherry Simon, 13–25. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2013. Fulford, Robert. “Can These Two Men Really Figure Out Canada?” Maclean’s, 16 May 1964. Gérin-Lajoie, Paul. Pourquoi le Bill 60? Montréal: Les Éditions du Jour, 1963. Gagnon, Jean-Louis. Les Apostasies Tome III: Les palais de glace. Montréal: Les Éditions de la Presse, 1990. Godbout, Patricia. “Les échanges littéraires à Montréal durant les années 1950.” In Échanges culturels entre les deux solitudes. Edited by MarieAndrée Beaudet, 81–91. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1999. – Traduction littéraire et sociabilité interculturelle au Canada (1950–1960). Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 2004.

310

Bibliography

Graham, Ron. The French Quarter: The Epic Struggle of a Family – and a Nation – Divided. Toronto: Macfarlane Walter and Ross, 1992. – “Paterson Ewen: The Artist’s Dilemma.” Canadian Art, Fall 1996, 70–9. – The Last Act: Pierre Trudeau, the Gang of Eight and the Fight for Canada. Toronto: Allen Lane, 2011. Granatstein, J.L. Canada 1957–1967: The Years of Uncertainty. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1986. Granatstein, J.L. and Peter Stevens, eds. forum : Canadian Life and Letters 1920–1970, Selections from The Canadian Forum. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972. Gzowski, Peter. “B and B’s Desperate Catalogue of the Obvious.” Saturday Night, April 1965. Haque, Eve. Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Hayday, Matthew. Bilingual Today, United Tomorrow: Official Languages in Education and Canadian Federalism. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005. – So They Want Us to Learn French: Promoting and Opposing Bilingualism in English-Speaking Canada. Vancouver: ubc Press, 2015. Haque, Eve. Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework: Language, Race, and Belonging in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Janzen, Eileen R. Growing to One World: The Life of J. King Gordon. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2013. Johnson, A.W. Dream No Little Dreams: A Biography of the Douglas Government of Saskatchewan, 1944–1961. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. Kelly, Stéphane. Les fins du Canada: Selon Macdonald, Laurier, Mackenzie King et Trudeau. Montréal: Les éditions du Boréal, 2001. Kent, Tom. A Public Purpose: An Experience of Liberal Opposition and Canadian Government. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988. Laforest, Guy. “The Meech Lake Accord: The Search for a Compromise between André Laurendeau and F.R. Scott.” In Trudeau and the End of a Canadian Dream. Translated by Paul Leduc Brown and Michelle Weinroth, 56–86. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1995. Lapointe-Gagnon, Valérie. “Jeter un pont entre les Deux Solitudes: Le rôle de Frank Scott.” In Légiférer en matière linguistique. Edited by Marcel Martel et Martin Pâquet, 29–57. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2008.

Bibliography

311

– Panser le Canada: Une histoire intellectuelle de la commission Laurendeau-Dunton. Montreal: Les Éditions du Boréal, 2018. Laurendeau, André. La crise de la conscription, 1942. Montréal: Les Éditions du Jour, 1962. – André Laurendeau: Witness for Quebec. Essays selected and translated by Philip Stratford. Toronto: Macmillan, 1973. – Journal tenu pendant la Commission royale d’enquête sur le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme. Montreal: vlb éditeur, 1990 – The Diary of André Laurendeau, Written during the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1964–1967. Selected and with an introduction by Patricia Smart, translated by Patricia Smart and Dorothy Howard. Toronto: James Lorimer, 1991. Laxer, James. The Acadians: In Search of a Homeland. Toronto: Penguin Random House, 2007. Lewis, David and F.R. Scott. Make This Your Canada: A Review of ccf History and Policy. Toronto: Central Canada Publishing Company, 1943 Lewis, David. The Good Fight: Political Memoirs, 1909–1958. Toronto: Macmillan, 1981. – “F.R. Scott’s Contribution to the C.C.F.” In On F.R. Scott: Essays on His Contribution to Law, Literature, and Politics. Edited by Sandra Djwa and R. St J. MacDonald, 78–88. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1983. Lynch, Charles. Up from the Ashes: The Rideau Club Story. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1990. MacKenzie, David. Arthur Irwin: A Biography. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993 May, Robert G. “F.R. Scott, the flq , and the October Crisis.” Quebec Studies 55 (2013), 119–33. – ‘“The selfsame welkin ringing’: F.R. Scott and the Rewriting of “O Canada.” Canadian Poetry: Studies, Documents, Reviews 74 (2014), 19–29. Meren, David. With Friends like These: Entangled Nationalisms and the Canada-Quebec-France Triangle, 1944–1970. Vancouver: ubc Press, 2012. Mills, Allen. “Of Charters and Justice: The Social Thought of F.R. Scott, 1930–1985.” Journal of Canadian Studies 32, No. 1 (Spring 1997), 44–62. – Citizen Trudeau: An Intellectual Biography, 1944–1965. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2016.

312

Bibliography

Monière, Denis. André Laurendeau et le destin d’un peuple. Montreal: Québec Amérique, 1983. Moreau, Anne. “La vie politique de F.R. Scott, 1930–1939.” Master’s thesis. Université de Montréal, 1977. Muirhead, Bruce. Against the Odds: The Public Life and Times of Louis Rasminsky. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Murray, Susan Margaret. “Le Canada Anglais de Jacques Ferron (1960–1970): Formes, fonctions et représentations.” PhD diss. Queen’s University, 2009. Newman, Peter C. Here Be Dragons: Telling Tales of People, Passion and Power. Toronto: Penguin Random House, 2004. Oliver, Michael. “F.R. Scott as Quebecer.” In On F.R. Scott. Edited by Sandra Djwa and R. St J. Macdonald, 165–76. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press, 1983. – The Passionate Debate: The Social and Political Ideas of Quebec Nationalism 1920–1945. Montréal: Véhicule Press, 1991. – Forward, McGill Law Journal 42 (1997), 3–8. Palmer, Bryan D. Canada’s 1960s: The Ironies of Identity in a Rebellious Era. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Pelletier, Gérard. L’aventure du pouvoir, 1968–1975. Montreal: Stanké, 1992. Pichette, Robert. “Culture and Official Languages.” In The Robichaud Era, 1960–70: Colloquium Proceedings. The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development, 2001, 67–86. Moncton: The University of Moncton, 2001. Pureval, Shinder. “The Politics of Multiculturalism in Canada, 1963–1971.” ma thesis. Simon Fraser University, 1992. Robertson, Gordon. Memoirs of a Very Civil Servant, Mackenzie King to Pierre Trudeau. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. Russell, Peter, ed. Nationalism in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Saunders, Doug. “In 1967, Change in Canada Could No Longer Be Stopped.” The Globe and Mail, 1 January 2017. Scott, Frank R. “The Fascist Province.” Canadian Forum, April 1934. In Forum: Canadian Life and Letters, 1920–70. Edited by J.L. Granatstein and Peter Stevens, 120–2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972. – “French Canadian Nationalism.” Canadian Forum, March 1936. In Forum: Canadian Life and Letters, 1920–70. Edited by J.L. Granatstein and Peter Stevens, 143–4. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972. – “B &B Stories.” Tamarack Review 84 (Winter 1982), 25–36.

Bibliography

313

– Canada Today: A Study of Her National Interests and National Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1938. – Events and Signals. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1954. – Signature. Vancouver: Klanak Presse, 1964. – Essays on the Constitution: Aspects of Canadian Law and Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977. – The Collected Poems of F.R. Scott. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1981. – A New Endeavour: Selected Political Essays, Letters, and Addresses. Edited and introduced by Michiel Horn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986. Scott, F.R. and Michael Oliver, Quebec States Her Case: Speeches and Articles from Quebec in the Years of Unrest. Toronto: Macmillan, 1964. Scott, Peter Dale. Coming to Jakarta: A Poem about Terror. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1988. Simon, Sherry. Translating Montreal: Episodes in the Life of a Divided City. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006. Smith Donald B. Seen but Not Seen: Influential Canadians and the First Nations from the 1840s to Today. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2021. Stewart, Walter. Shrug: Pierre Trudeau in Power. Toronto: new press, 1971. Thomson, Dale C. Jean Lesage & the Quiet Revolution. Toronto: Macmillan, 1984. Trudeau, Pierre Elliott, ed., The Asbestos Strike. Translated by James Boake. Toronto: James Lewis and Samuel, 1974. Untel, Frère. Les insolences du frère Untel. Montréal: Éditions de l’Homme, 1970. Wangenheim, Elizabeth. “The Ukrainians: A Case Study of the ‘Third Force.’” In Nationalism in Canada. Edited by Peter Russell, 44–53. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1986. Wright, Donald. Donald Creighton, A Life in History. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 2015.

f i l ms Pour la Suite du Monde, directed by Michel Brault, Marcel Carrière, and Pierre Perrault. Office national du film, 1962. Huit témoins, directed by Jacques Godbout. Office national du film, 1964. F.R. Scott: Rhyme and Reason, directed by Donald Winkler. National Film Board of Canada, 1982.

Index

Abbott, Douglas, 139 Action Plan for Official Languages, 166 Air Canada, 38 Andrew, Geoffrey, 94 Angus, Henry, 58 Arctic, 85, 87, 94, 95, 101–2 Arès, Richard, sj, 44, 109 Armstrong, Donald, 215 Auden, W.H., 27 Barker, George, 111 Bastedo, Frank, 60, 61, 120 Beetz, Jean, 83, 190 Berger, Thomas: describes Scott, xvii; entertains Scott, 55, 119; Indigenous rights case, 42; oil workers case, 43 biculturalism, xxi, 11, 13–14, 20, 22–4, 30, 35–6, 40, 46, 48, 51, 55, 68–9, 103, 117, 124, 167, 169, 175, 204, 232; Acadians and, 94; accepted fact in Quebec, 42, 131; Ottawa’s record in supporting, 134–5; Scott’s belief in, 125, 130–1, 134

bilingualism, Canadian, 3, 10–12, 14, 25, 27, 30, 35–6, 51, 56, 77, 94, 103, 124, 134, 142, 159, 167, 169–70, 184–5, 204, 235, 286–7; in Alberta, xxix, 24, 33, 96, 134; in armed forces, 123, 206; attitudes towards, 61, 65, 77, 116–17, 121–2, 179, 232; in federal public service, 31, 144, 215; in Manitoba, xxix, 22, 25, 36, 79, 134, 147–8, 217, 253; in New Brunswick, 42, 147–8, 184, 224; in Ontario, 163, 184, 224, 253; purposes of, 159; in Quebec, 90–1, 154; in Saskatchewan, xxix, 24–5, 212, 253; in Supreme Court, 139 bilingualism, international: in Belgium, 21, 107, 132, 204; in Czechoslovakia, 204, 245; in Finland, 204, 245, 252; in South Africa, 204, 245; in Switzerland, xxii, 21, 87, 107; in Yugoslavia, 142 Bill 22 (Official Language Act), xxiii, 223, 256–7

316

Index

Bill 60 (creating Quebec Ministry of Education), 21 Bill 63 (An Act to Promote the French language in Quebec), 209 Bill 101 (Charter of the French Language), xxiii, 124, 223 Bill of Rights (Charter of Rights and Freedoms), xvii, xxvii, 66, 124–5, 133, 152, 162, 193, 204, 247, 253, 258–9 Bird, Florence, 21, 26, 162, 179, 185 Bird, John, 21, 26, 179, 185 Black, Don, 61, 86 Boggs, Jean, 150 Bonenfant, Jean-Charles, 65 Bossy, Walter, 24 Briant, Peter, 215 British North America Act, ix, xx, xxix, 36, 106–7, 127, 129, 135, 151, 175; Scott’s remarks on, 187–9; Section 91, 153; Section 133, xxvi, xxxviii, 35, 38, 42, 97, 133, 146–8, 165, 173–4, 179–80, 184–6, 191, 197, 241–2, 245, 247 Brownstone, Meyer, 178, 200, 201; considered for research director, 34, 35 Brunet, Michel, 40, 44, 154 Bryce, Robert, 86 Cadbury, George, 257 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, xii, xv, 20, 102, 119, 130, 150–1, 165–9, 226 Cardinal, Jean-Guy, 226 Cartier, George-Etienne, 188 Cartier, Jacques, 6 Casgrain, Jacques, 137

Catholic Church, xxvii, xxviii, 4, 11, 40–1, 47, 51, 58, 106, 137; and Catholic school boards, 199; emphasis on social obligations, 249; names in Quebec, 91; role of parishes in Quebec, 144; trade unions in Quebec, 249 Cercle universitaire, 5–6, 26, 113, 137, 143–4, 146, 156, 172, 191–2, 205, 218, 237 Chartrand, Michel, 247 Cohen, Maxwell, 106 Collèges d’Education Générale et Professionnelle (cegeps ), 226 Commissioner of Official Languages, 155, 160, 253 Cook, Ramsay, 45, 94; comments on Preliminary Report, 99 Coolican, Denis, 85 Cormier, Clément: on Acadians in New Brunswick, 35, 41–2, 77, 88, 170, 240; biographical note, xii; concerned report too negative, 86, 88, 101, 110; on constitution, 107, 153, 235; on ethnic groups, 145, 146, 205; feels he has disappeared from commission, 234; on minorities outside Quebec, 76–7, 124, 164, 217; on Scott’s dissent, 225; Scott’s view of, 50, 86, 103, 107, 124, 234 Corry, J.A., 206 Dafoe, John, 122 Davidson, George, 31–2, 86, 150; favours ads in televised football games, 150–1 de Gaulle, Charles, 95, 162, 178, 182–3 Desjardins, Alice, 180

Index Dion, Léon: on bilingualism in federal public service, 215; biographical note, xv; on constitution, 74, 205; on education, 181, 145, 196–7, 241, 243; on furniture scandal, 93; offered co-chairmanship, 200; on Scott, xxvii, 75, 118, 125–6, 144, 205; Scott’s frustration with, 210, 221, 228, 234 Djwa, Sandra, x, xviii, xxiii, 259 Dobell, Isobel, 257 Dorais, Leo, 65 Drake, Charles, 199 Dudek, Louis, xviii, xxviii Dunton, Davidson (Davie): asks three questions to open meetings, xxviii; on biculturalism, 20; on bilingual districts, 158; biographical note, xi; on cbc , 167; chairs first meeting, 4; 273; on constitutional issue, 147, 204, 229, 235; on official languages, 121, 170; paid less than Laurendeau, 100, 113; sense of humour, 7, 43, 165; on students, 182, 192, 237; on using the term “public relations,” 27 Duplessis, Maurice: and Laurendeau, 69, 130, 143; and Scott, xviii, xxix; xix; statue of, 44; worries about return of Duplessisism with election of Union Nationale in 1965, 172 Durham, Lord (John Lambton, first Earl of), 90, 91, 99, 165 Eastview, 117–18 English Canada, xx, xxvi, 4, 7–8, 15, 18–19, 25, 32–3, 35–6, 45,

317

65, 71, 73, 80–2, 84, 88–9, 92, 94, 97, 101, 108–9, 122, 133, 137, 139, 145, 150, 155, 163, 183, 189, 232, 252, 255; reactions to Preliminary Report, 99–100; Scott describes as unilingual, multicultural society, 85 English minority in Quebec, xxiii, xxviii, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 34, 47–8, 61, 66–7, 70–1, 74, 83, 89, 95–6, 105, 124, 126, 131, 134–5, 141–4, 147–8, 174–5, 189, 199, 210–11, 225, 233, 250, 252; Scott defends, 215–17, 224, 256; Scott disillusioned with, 257 Eskimo. See Inuit Falardeau, Jean-Charles, 169 Faribault, Marcel, 190 Fieldhouse, Noel, 22 Findlay, Peter: biographical note, xv; memo to commission, 190; report on Yugoslavia, 142; sense of humour, 220 First Nations, xxi, 3, 5, 13, 22, 42–3, 63, 65, 101, 157 Forsey, Eugene, 257 Fowler, Robert, 102, 107; Report on Broadcasting, 125, 165 Fox, Paul, 177, 220 Frawley, J.J., 24 French Canada, xxiii, xxiv, xxx, 14, 28, 41, 55, 64–5, 68, 71, 80, 82–4, 89, 93, 97, 99, 134, 136–7, 142, 186, 188, 196, 214–15, 224, 229, 232, 239, 250, 255; English-Canadian attitudes to, 45, 64, 77, 81–2, 100, 106; as a nation, xxv, xxix, xxi, 26, 41, 44, 80, 85, 124–5, 135, 250; role of

318

Index

Ottawa, 131, 135, 175, 186; role of Quebec, 130, 198; Scott accepts concept, xxix, 125, 127–8, 135; a society or a community, 155 Frith, Royce: biographical note, xii; on commercial broadcasting 125, 163, 166–9, 238; on commission’s image, 11–12, 23, 27, 39, 102, 112, 192; and constitution, 204, 229, 236; disagrees with Scott on Quebec, 201, 207, 212, 217, 232, 235; on Ottawa as federal district, 183–4, 213; on Scott, 274n11; sense of humour, 146, 153, 157–8, 160, 201, 207, 210, 221 Fulford, Robert, xi, xv, 38 Fullerton, Douglas, 86 Fulton-Favreau formula, 86 Gagnon, Jean-Louis: on assimilation threat, 200; biographical note, xii; as co-chair, 195, 203; compensation of, 100, 113; on constitutional volume, 204, 228, 235; on corruption, 137; on English minority in Quebec, 95, 105; on Francophone minority communities, 147; on FrenchLanguage units, 143; language of work, 202, 210, 219; report on mass media, 164, 166–7, 169, 174, 221, 226, 238–40; sense of humour, 72, 123 Garber, Michael, 23 Gascon, Jean, 220 Gérin-Lajoie, Paul, 19 Goldenberg, Carl, 95, 193, 206; Scott has lunch with, 180, 186, 190, 200

Gordon, King, 122, 218 Gordon, Walter, 86 Gotlieb, Allan, 150, 190 Graham, Ron, xviii, 220, 230 Granatstein, Jack, xx, 182 Hall, Emmett, 19 Hall, Oswald, 211 Hayes, Beatrice, 24, 29 Heeney, Arnold, 31–2 Hénault, Gilles, 104 Henderson, Maxwell, 86 Henripin, Jacques, 142, 164; on unilingualism in Quebec, 234 Horn, Michiel, x Houston, Alma, 95 Indians. See First Nations Inuit, xxvi, 3, 5, 13, 65, 85, 88, 95, 157 Isbister, Claude, 86 Jamieson, Don, 21 Jarvis, Alan, 45 Jenkins, David, 23 Johnson, Albert, 86 Johnson, Daniel, 136, 140, 190, 193, 200; death of, 195, 201 Juneau, Pierre, 150 Kattan, Naim, 168 Keirstead, Burton, 23 Klein, A.M., 205 Lachance, Georges-C., 177 Lacoste, Paul: agrees with Scott, 17, 58, 146, 172, 207, 210, 231; biographical note, xiv; on constitutional recommendations, 185–6, 200, 204–5, 227–8, 241;

Index on cultural differences, 15, 64, 74, 85, 144, 172, 178; on decline of church in Quebec, 111, 137, 207, 235; on education, 34, 40–1, 143, 145–6, 154, 156, 176, 180–1, 193, 204, 209; on federal district, 183–4, 221; on official bilingualism, 148, 170; on Quebec public opinion, 140, 202–3, 213–14, 227; on role of Quebec, 73, 76, 110, 117–18, 149, 152–4, 185, 213, 218, 232, 234, 241–2; says Laurendeau betrayed, 242; Scott’s view of, xxix, 166, 170–1, 176–7, 180, 183–5, 197, 200, 225, 228–9, 233–4, 241; tension with Scott, xxix, 166, 170–1, 176–7, 180, 183–5, 197, 200, 225, 228–9, 233–4, 241 Lafrenière, Guy, 114 Laing, Gertrude: biographical note, xiii; on constitutional issue, 152–3, 204, 226–7, 229, 234; on education, 96, 143, 145, 148, 151, 164, 181, 197, 201, 209, 233; on public opinion, 8, 77, 85, 100, 138, 172, 175, 179, 219; on requiring bilingualism, 143; Scott’s view of, 3–4, 7–8, 86, 110, 142, 149, 153, 175, 179, 191, 197, 203, 211, 226, 229, 231, 234, 238–40, 242; sense of humour, 92, 211, 242; view of crisis, 86, 149, 231–2 Lalande, Gilles: agrees with Scott’s dissent, 22; biographical note, xv; on purposes of a bilingual state, 159; on reports, 170, 207,

319

211, 222, 226–7, 235; on universities, 219 Lalonde, Marc, 19, 150 LaMarsh, Judy, 178 Lambert, Norman, 25 Lamontagne, Maurice: involved in furniture scandal, 37–8, 93; persuades Laurendeau to become co-chair, xxii, 37; Scott suspects as a source, 54 Lapointe-Gagnon, Valérie, x; argues Scott does not believe in biculturalism, 220; on missed moment in time, 256 Laskin, Bora, 45, 86, 108 Laurence, Margaret, 220 Laurendeau, André: belief in group rights, xxvii; biography, xi, 52, 68–9, 71–3, 195, 199, 243; and the commission, xxii–iii, 35, 37, 54, 66, 99–100, 102–4, 113, 171, 195, 203, 242–3; on conscription, 84; defends Lionel Groulx, 55; his diary compared with Scott’s, xix; on English Canada, xxx, 77, 89–91; on equal partnership, 84; on Mason Wade, 94, 96; on Michael Oliver, 26; on native populations, xxi; on protecting the French language, 124; on Quebec, 39, 65, 76, 84, 96, 105, 172, 174, 180, 256; questions asked to open meetings, xxvii; Scott’s relationship with, xviii, xxix, 4, 47, 54, 86, 125–6; Scott’s tribute to, 195–6; Scott’s view of, xvii–xxix, xxx, 27, 29, 39–40, 54–5, 70–1, 76–7, 84–5, 87–9, 96, 103, 105, 107, 125–6, 138, 171–2, 186; on “the brutal

320

Index

rule of the majority,” 105; on Trudeau, 138, 196; on university financing, 40 Lavallée, Jean-Guy, 49 Layton, Irving, 205 Le Dain, Gerald, 177 Lemelin, Roger, 122–3 Lemieux, Raymond, 206, 247 Lesage, Jean, xix, xx, 37, 71, 80; agreement with Ukrainian group on education, 139; government is defeated, 14; receives constitutional studies, 108; tours Western Canada, 136 Lévesque, René, xx, 37, 44, 65, 75, 162, 196, 227 Lindal, Walter, 22 Lussier, Irenée, 22 Mackey, William: on purposes of a bilingual state, 159; on role of unilingualism in maintaining equilibrium, xxxii, 159 Marchand, Jean: agrees with Scott, 15, 58, 103; on bargaining power, 65; biographical note, xiii; on commission, 18, 74; leaves commission, 100, 228; on ndp, 93; possible successor to Pearson, 151; Scott’s view of, 4–5, 15, 20, 59, 65, 71, 73–4, 92–3, 154; sense of humour, 6, 18–20, 24, 40, 42, 64, 67, 122 Marion, Séraphin, 22 Martland, Ronald, 111 McIlraith, George, 86 McWhinney, Edward (Ted), 108, 254 Meisel, John, considered for research director, 34, 86, 178

Monture, Ethel, 22 Morin, Jacques-Yvan, 74, 83, 107, 136 Morrison, Neil: agrees with Scott, 149; biographical note, xv; on commission operations, 49, 54, 58, 94, 113, 123, 147, 178, 181, 190, 192; favours publicity, 103; on federal district, 165, 191; on French-Canadian public opinion, 35; Scott’s view of, 95, 110 Nadeau, Armand, 47 Negin, Louis, 220 Neruda, Pablo, 179 Newman, Peter C., 26 Nico, Jacob, 47 official languages, xxi, xxiii, xxvi, 13, 19, 31, 45, 82, 115, 121, 132, 134–5, 147, 163, 171, 179–80, 187–8, 212, 219, 238, 245, 251– 2; at Expo ’67, 170 Official Languages Act, 125, 140, 157, 209, 219, 230, 250 Official Languages in Education Act, 155, 166 O’Leary, Grattan, 25, 111, 150–1, 182 Oliver, Michael: agrees with Scott on advertising, 167, 169; biographical note, xvi; on constitutional issue, 153, 204, 227, 229, 232–3; as director of research, 26, 35, 39–42; discouraged, 160, 206; on education, 173, 176, 209, 211, 226; makes presentation, 22; on misunderstanding of recommendation, 225; on official languages, 147;

Index on public opinion in Quebec, 74; on research, 83, 106–7, 109, 141, 160; sense of humour, 220; on Switzerland, 87 other ethnic groups, xiv, xxi, 16, 23–4, 36, 52, 63, 89, 95–6, 114, 124, 131, 138, 141–3, 145, 153–4, 163, 171, 205, 209, 227, 234, 237, 252; Jewish community, 23, 141; Scott favours opportunity to preserve traditions, 146; Scott opposes idea of third force, 124, 155, 212. See also Ukrainians Parent Commission (Royal Commission on Education in Quebec), 21, 41, 148 Patry, André, 74 Pearson, Ken, 22 Pearson, Lester, xxii, xxiii; on de Gaulle, 162, 183; on difficulty of finding bilingual commissioners, 4, 7, 9; meets commission, 78; and political issues, 37–8, 140, 151, 162, 182–3, 192, 194, 237, 256; and scandals, 37, 38 Pearson, Maryon, 26 Pelletier, Gérard, xiii, 65, 100 Pitfield, Michael: believes Liberal government hopeless, 144; considers going to Quebec, 19; hosts dinner, 150; lunches with Scott, 64, 182, 212; on Royal Commission’s reputation in Ottawa, 18, 25 Plumptre, Wynne, 26 Pound, Ezra, 179 Power, Charles G. (Chubby), 111 Provost, Roger, 21

321

race, xxi, 5, 16, 23, 25, 90, 94, 128, 131, 138, 153, 162, 172, 180, 186–7 Rasminsky, Louis, 26 Raynauld, André: agrees with Scott, 197, 229, 241; biographical note, xiii; on constitution, 227–8, 232–3, 235, 242; demography, 142; on individual bilingualism, 215; Scott’s view of, xv, 211, 237 Rideau Club, 18, 25, 84, 94, 164, 182; Scott critical of, 113 Ritchie, Roland, 111 Robarts, John, 108, 136, 174, 190, 192, 256 Robichaud, Louis, 170 Roncarelli, Frank: Brunet inquires about, 44; Laurendeau concerned about, 39 Rowell-Sirois Report (Royal Commission of Inquiry on Constitutional Problems), 137–9, 224 Rowley, Graham, 85, 94 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, meetings of: London, 39, 50–3; Ottawa, 23–4, 112–13; Quebec City, 68–72; Regina, 60–3; Sherbrooke, xxx, 39, 47–50; Toronto, 114–17; Vancouver, 55–8; Winnipeg, 120–2 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Preliminary Report of, 54, 77–8; Cormier reluctant to sign, 101, 110; debates over mass media, 166–9, 171, 174; Pearson thinks important to have, 82, 87, 89, 92–3, 96, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107; public

322

Index

reactions to, 112; rejection of third force, 124, 128 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, publications of: – Book I, Bilingual Municipalities, 190; bilingual districts, 156, 158, 160; comparison of French Canadians to Blacks in US, 172; debates over Section 133, 146–8, 165, 173–4, 179–80, 184–5, 187–9, 191, 197, 241–2; equal partnership, 172; and Official Languages Act, 157, 170; rejection of regional languages, 173 – Book II, Education, 124, 133–4, 145, 147, 155, 163, 167, 176–7, 181, 188, 196, 198–9, 233–4, 247 – Book III, The Work World, 222; reactions to his dissent, 225–6; Scott’s dissent, 210, 222–5 – Book IV, The Cultural Contributions of Other Ethnic Groups, 23–4, 63, 89, 95–6, 114, 138–9, 142–3, 145–6, 153–4, 227, 237, 252; Scott’s opposition, 124, 212; Wyczynski’s paper, 154–5, 163 – Book V, The Federal Capital, 141, 184, 191, 210, 218, 220–2; Scott’s arguments for a federal district, 183–4 Rudnyckyj, J.B.: agrees with Scott, 197, 229, 241; biographical note, xiii; on bilingualism, 13, 27, 178; on commission 33, 124; on constitution, 232–3; disagrees with Scott, 157; on education, 145, 209; on ethnic groups, 89, 95–6, 120–1, 138, 142, 184, 227;

European experience, 73; on public opinion, 225; Scott’s view of, 211, 237; sense of humour, 165 Scott, Arthur (brother), 66–7 Scott, Canon Frederick (father), 63, 72 Scott, F.R.: appearance of, xvii, xix, 95; biographical note, xiv; birth, childhood, and education, xxiv; bitterness in old age, 256–8; on capitalism, xxii, xxvi, xxxiii, 47, 129, 163, 249; on collegiality of commissioners, 6, 88, 92, 165, 170, 191, 214; as dean of law, xxii, xxvii, 3, 63, 75; death of, 258; favours opportunities to preserve ethnic traditions, 146; opposes commercialization of cbc, 150–1, 165–9, 224; opposes idea of ethnic third force, 124, 155, 212; optimism about commission, 4, 6, 17, 22; pessimism about Quebec embracing capitalism, 249; poetry, xxiv, 55, 57, 75, 184, 198, 220; receives Order of Canada, 179, 193; relationship to French-speaking Quebec, xxv–xxvi, xxvii, 4, 257; summarizes commission’s work, 248–9, 251–6; view of church in Quebec, xxv, xxiv, 11, 40–1, 83, 91, 144, 207, 211, 223 Scott, Frederick (nephew), 67 Scott, Marian (wife), xviii, 230, 257 Scott, Peter Dale (son), 257, 261 Sim, Alex, 53 Smart, Elizabeth, 111

Index Smiley, Donald, 83, 109, 118, 214; suggests Official Languages Act, 157 Smith, Donald, xxi Smith, I. Norman, 84 Société Saint-Jean Baptiste, 43–4 Spry, Graham, 122 Starnes, John, 86 Stevenson, John, 211 Stinson, Arthur, 54, 59 Strayer, Barry, 186, 193 student unrest, 47–9, 182, 196, 207, 209, 211, 213–14, 231 Supreme Court, bilingualism of, 132–3, 139 Sylvestre, Guy, 179 Tarr, E.J., 122 Thatcher, Ross, 38, 86 Thomas, Alan, 21 Thompson, Robert, 22 Torrance, George, 207 Tremblay, René, 37 Tremblay Report (Royal Commission of Inquiry on Constitutional Problems), 128, 130, 137–8, 152 Trudeau, Pierre, xiii, xxvii, xxviii, 22, 74, 83, 100, 138, 162, 180, 193–6, 203, 212, 241–3, 256–9 Turner, Evan, 23 Ukrainians, xiv, 36, 120–1, 157, 223; concordat, 139 Underhill, Frank, 111 unilingualism, xix, xxi, xxxii, 3, 158, 159; trend towards in Quebec, 94, 123, 131, 210–11, 223, 225, 234, 256–7

323

Union générale des étudiants du Québec (ugeq), 219 United Empire Loyalists (uel), 23 Van Horne, Charles, 170 Vanier, Georges, 78 Wagner, Claude, 85 Whalley, George, 179 Woodsworth, J.S., 122 Wyczynski, Paul: biographical note, xiv; candour, 146; on commission, 236; definition of terms, 5, 13, 14; on education, 209; on ethnic groups, 13, 154–5, 184, 212; on native languages, 157; Scott’s view of, 9, 217, 242; sense of humour, 242; view of preliminary report, 107