PARTIE DOCUMENTAIRE

« THE LANGUAGE QUESTION », PAR MGR McNEIL

L'article suivant, dû à Mgr McNeil, archevêque de Toronto, a été /inblié dans le Canadian Courier du l.'t février 1920, som le titre The Language Question, avec ce double sous-titre : « Freedom of speech and Mutual Respect» Why not Teach Geography in French?

In the course of his visit to Canada the Prince of Wales was One day llie guesl of the City of Montréal. In his speech at the civic luncheon His Royal Highness instaneed cases in which British policy succeeded in reconciling racial différences and antagonisms within the Empire, and he went on to aay :

l'action française 93

"But what is the secret of the sucçess of British policy in this respect ? I can see that the secret in Canada is just the same as in Great Britain. It lies in freedom of speech, freedom of language. and mutual respect."

Xot long ago 1 had occasion to discuss the language question of Ontario with an infmential man of Québec. Hc argued that even in the teaching of religion in the Separate Schools, there is not freedom of language. I replied that he must be misinformed, that no Régulation of the Department of Education had ever attempted to interfère with the lesson in religion, and that in a free country like ours whatever is not legally forbidden must be considered legally free. With a derisive srnile he pointed to the judgment delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice Masten in the Green Valley case, Feb.. 191b, in which occurs the folio wing paragraph :

« I find that the défendants (the school trustées,) hâve allowed the use of French as the language of instruction and communication in the school in connection with the teaching of the catechism, and I find that such use has not been made permissible under the Régulations. »

We hâve a claim to be considered a patient people after having allowed this judgment to remain four years unmodified in the Law Reports. Officiais of the Department of Education hâve frequently assured teachers and trustées that the language of religious instruction in the Separate Schools remains untouched by Régulation 17. This is one of the diminishing number of matters still left in the power of school trustées. The principle governing.such cases seems to be that Departmental Régulations hâve référence to those subjects of study for which the Department prescribes text-books. Sleepless nights await the Minister who undertakes to prescribe the text-book to be used in the teaching of religion in the Separate Schools, or the language in which this lesson is to be imparted. There are difficulties in racially mixed schools, of course. There was a real difficulty in the Green Valley case; but the finding of Judge Masten does harm, and is not a correct inference from the law.

The Green Valley case was first tried in 191-4. It came before the Appellate Division in 1915, when judgment was delivered by Hon. Mr. Justice Hodgins. He undertook to define in what precisely the trustées ac.ted illegally, and the décision can be understood i'rom the following :

94 l'action française

« The breach of the Régulations which has taken place is the teaehing of French either under clause 3 (1) or 4 (Régulation 17) without the fulfilment of the conditions embodied in them, and in a school not designated by the Minister as an English-French school. »

« Clause 15 of the Public School Régulations, if invoked under clause 2 Instruction 17, is inconsistent with the explicit condition of the two clauses first referred to. »

Xo reader unfamiliar with school administration can understand this décision without explanation. There are two Régulations in force touching the use of French in the schools of Ontario. The latest is No. 17, and is too long to be quoted hère. It is quoted in full at the end of Mr. P. F. Morley's interesting book, Bridging The Chasm. The other is No. lô, as follows :

« In school sections where the French or the Gernian language prevails, the trustées may, in addition to the course of study prescribed for public schools, require instruction to be given in Reading, Grammar, and Composition to such pupils as are directed by their parents or guardians to study either of those languages, and in alj such cases the authorized text-books in French or Cerman shall be used. But nothing herein contained shall be construed to mean that any of the text-beeks prescribed for Public Schools shall be set aside because of the use of authorized text-books in French or German. »

This Régulation (which I shall refer to as No. 15) wa.s in force before No. 17 came into existence, and continues still in force. The essentiaJ différence between the two lies in the fact that, in the case of No. 15, the deciding àuthority is the Board of Trustées, while, in the case of No. 17, the deciding àuthority is the Minister of Education. Xo. 15 is affected in its application only to this estent by Xo. 17, that when the Minister désignâtes any school as an English-French school, he thereby withdraws this school from the juiïsdiction of the trustées, as far as the teaehing and the use of French are concerned. and plaies it under Régulation 17. He lias not donc this in the case of ail schools in which French is taught to French children. There are schools, both Public and Separate, operating under Xo. lô, and not under Xo. 17. The expression, «designated by the Minister as English-French,» thus becomes and is purely technical. It does not mean ail schools in which French is legally taught to French children. It nieans only Ihosc schools placed by the Minister under Xo 17. The schools

l'action française 95

operating under No. 15 are not affected by No. 17, and those operating under No. 17 are withdra\vn from No. 15. Tf ail schools in which French is taught were placed under No. 17, then No. 15 would be a dead letter as far as French is concerned, and would remain in force only for German. In the Appellate case, the Judge assumes either that ail schools in which French is legally taught hâve been actually placed under No. 17 or that No. 17 applies to them without any act of the Minister. Both suppositions are unfounded in fact, and we are in présence of bewildering confusion when we find Mr. McGregor Young, K.C., arguing, in the same case, on behalf of the Department of Education, that, as to No. 15, « it must be remembered that this partie ular school was never designated as English-French. » If he had said this of No. 17 there would be sensé in his reminder. No such désignation is required for operating under No. 15. As a matter of fact. the Department does not administer the schools in accordance with the arguments or the décision in this case. It is not in accord with fact to say that it « dépends on the terms of Régulation 17 » whether No. 15 applies to Separate Schools or not, or that « unless and until there is a désignation by the Minister the teaching of French cannot take place » in a school requented by French children.

' There is a disquieting divergence between the Régulations on this subject as interpreted by the Courts andasadministeredby the Department. In a matter so délicate as the régulation of a language spoken and cherished by more than two hundred thousand Canadians in Ontario, it increases the social friction to hâve laws construed in one sensé by the Courts and in another sensé by the responsible Minister. There is évident need of readjustment and the removal of ambiguities.

The assertion that « English must be the paramount médium of instruction and communication in ail Ontario schools. » as the Appellate judgment has it, is not inconsistent with the claim that some subjects of study are so bound up with the everyday use of one's mother tongue thatthey ought to be taught in both languages in French-English schools. Prohibition of French as a language of communication in such cases is too much like an attempt to suppress a language. Geography is a subject of this kind. Proper names of places and geographical terms continually recur in conversation, and form an important part of any language. Following is a list of names and terms in both languages to illustrate the close connection there is between the study of geography. and the knowledge of a language :

(.Mi L'ACTION FKAXÇA1SK

English. French.

England L'Angleterre

Scotland L'Ecosse

London Londres

Leghorn Livourne

Germany L'Allemagne

Austria L'Autriche

Spain L'Espagne

Switzerland La Suisse

Belgium La Belgique

Antwerp Anvers

South America L'Amérique du Sud

United States Les États-Unis

Three Rivers Trois Rivières

Rocky Mountains Montagnes Rocheuses

Water-shed Versant

Water-ways Cours d'eau

Canal lock Écluse

Coast line Littoral

Boundaries Limites

Trade winds Vents alizés

The tides •. Les marées

The South of France Le midi de la France

This list could easily be extended. A French child who learns geography only in English would be at a loss how to express such terms in French, or understand another who studied the subject in French. 1 hâve no means of knowing how far an amendment along this line would lie aecepted by either side; but I do know that the présent state of tension is hurtful to Canada, and that it is the interest of both sides in the dispute to seek some modus vivendi. As a first step towards a solution, permission to teach geography in French scems to me consistent with the declared policy of the Department, and conducive to a better knowledge of French, an important factor in the culture and the prosperity of the Province. If we had the « mutual respect » whicb the Prince declared to be an essential élément of national unity, the lanii'uage problems eould Ijc solved with comparative eaae.

L'ACTION FRANÇAI8E MARS 1920

Comment servir