CANADA VICTORIOUS, HAPPY AND GLORIOUS
AN ADDRESS BY L'ABBE ARTHUR MAHEUX
The President, John C. M. MacBeth, Esq., B.A., K.C.
Thursday, April 15, 1943.
MR. JOHN C. M. MACBETH: Gentlemen of The Empire Club: Our guest today is Monsieur L'Abbe Arthur Maheux. Monsieur L'Abbe has had a distinguished scholastic career. He holds the degrees of B.A., M.A., and Doctor of Theology from Laval University; is a Licentiate of Letters of the Sorbonne; and has the Diploma in Philology from the University of Paris. Since 1917 his life has, in great part, been devoted to the teaching profession in his native Province of Quebec, and he is at present on the staff of his Alma Mater as Professor of the History of Canada and Director of Studies. He is also a member of the Council and Archivist of the University as well as of the Seminary of Quebec. Through the years he has held a great many positions of major importance in the life and development of the Province.
The foundations were well laid, and, gradually, growing out of the urge to make himself more extensively serviceable to his fellow Canadians, Monsieur L'Abbe became convinced that his mission was to do what he could toward strengthening and tightening the ties which bind together the French-speaking and English-speaking races of Canada. During the last three years in particular he has unremittingly devoted himself to this cause, and has, by lecture, by writing, and by radio, made an outstanding contribution to what is commonly known as the "Entente Cordiale".
To this end he has written the first volume of a book which has been translated into English by professor R. M. Saunders of the Department of History of the University of Toronto, under the title "Canada and Britain".
In this volume, Monsieur L'Abbe describes the treatment accorded the vanquished by the victors in the days when the Caesars were supreme, when, as Julius Caesar says in his commentaries "He made it a desert and called it a Peace." From those times he brings the record down to the Seven Years War and the Peace of Paris in 1763, stressing the very different treatment accorded by the victors in the articles of capitulation under which Canada was ceded to England. He dwells with appreciation and praise upon the generosity and the humanity of these terms and proceeds to expand upon his subject in similar vein in the application of those terms during the next century and a half. He shows, as everyone will admit, that, in a situation of this kind, there are those who insist upon fostering the spirit of non-eo-operation, just as, we may say, there were, maybe still are, those in Scotland who considered the Stuarts the rightful rulers of the country long after the Jacobite Rebellions of 1715 and 1745. His object has been to give to the conquest the perspective warranted by the course of events since 1763. He has worked towards the unifying of the spirits of the two races in an effort to cement more firmly the unity of a united people. To this end, he has, in the last few weeks, given a series of radio addresses under the caption, "Pourquoi Sommes-Nous Divises?"-"Why Are We Divided?"-"Why Stay Apart?"-a programme which has advanced greatly the cause which is so near to his heart.
That, Gentlemen, is our guest speaker, today: Monsieru L'Abbe Arthur Maheux, who will address us on the subject, "Canada: Victorious Happy and Glorious."
Et maintenant, Monsieur L'Abbe, nous avons l'honneur de vous rendre nos hommages tres sinceres, en la langue de nos freres de la Province de Quebec. Avec beaucoup de plaiser et d'avant-gout, Monsieur L'Abbe, nous prions que vous nous adressiez la parole. (Applause.)
ABBE ARTHUR MAHEUX: Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen and dear Friends: Let me first pay my tribute to the knowledge, little or great, you have of my language in telling you in French
Je vous remercie tres sincerement de votre aimable invitation a prendre la parole devant les membres d'un Club dont la haute reputation est repandue a travers tout le Canada.
In offering you in French sincere thanks for your kind invitation I am only following the high example set by their Majesties our beloved King and Queen and by one of the greatest statesmen of our times, the Honourable Winston Churchill
I have never felt so deeply Canadian as after having visited foreign countries. I have travelled and lived for nearly five years in Europe, in France, in England, in Belgium, in Italy, where I conceived a great veneration for Europe's antiquity, great merits and high civilization; yet, the more I saw of Europe, the more I felt I was a North American.
I have visited often the neighbouring country, the United States, where I have hundreds of relatives and many good friends; yet, though I admired the qualities and virtues of the Americans, though they were as myself North Americans, I felt I was above all a Canadian.
I have visited and lived in Eastern Canada. Quebec is my native province, but I know the Maritime Provinces and Ontario; whilst I love Quebec with all my heart, I feel at home in all the Eastern Provinces. Up to these last months I knew the Western Provinces only from books and newspapers; I did not feel a stranger to them, of course, but the pictures of the prairies and the Rockies were not in my eyes; I had no personal contacts with the Westerners.
The greatest thrill I ever had in my life came to me with the trip I have just finished, a trip which took the to Victoria. Now, I know the two beautiful portals of Canada, Cape Breton Island and Vancouver Island. Now I yield equal admiration to the great harbours of Sydney and Halifax and to the great cities of Victoria and Vancouver.
Between them lies the low mountains of the East, the wide prairies of the West, the high peaks of the Rockies. The more I have seen of our land and of our people, the more I feel proud of my country, the more I feel the urge of proclaiming myself a Canadian.
In each of the nine Canadian Provinces I have found the sons and the daughters of two great western nations, the French and the English. The greater number of the French Canadians are in Quebec; but there are about 700,000 of them in the other provinces, 200,000 in the Maritimes; 300,000 in Ontario; 200,000 in the four Western Provinces, whilst in Quebec live half a million English-speaking Canadians, two minorities practically equal in numbers, two minorities equally proud of their history, attached to their traditions.
Throughout the nine Canadian provinces I have found the same spirit, a spirit of co-operation. I wanted to find words which could express clearly the Canadian mentality under the present circumstances, while I was singing "O Canada" or "God Save the King" with my fellow countrymen of French or English language. In French there was a warlike expression: "Ton bras soit porter Tepee," "Ta valeur . . . protegera nos foyers et nos droits." And the echo repeated in English "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee."
These words struck me by their profound significance; in them was condensed a glorious military past for each of the two main groups of Canada; in each I found a determination to fight to the last limit for the defence of Canada.
Yet the program of action embodied in these lines was rather negative; it was a defensive attitude. And then sounded on my ears the words of the anthem of the Commonwealth, "God Save the King"; one line of that anthem held my attention as being a program of action
"Send Him Victorious, Happy and Glorious." This was our wish for our beloved King, the King of Great Britain, the King of the Commonwealth, the King of our dear Country, Canada.
It is also the wish all sons and daughters of Canada will make for their Fatherland, the great country extending from sea to sea.
Yes, indeed may Canada be "Victorious, happy and glorious."
No glory, no happiness without victory. We have first to be victorious.
We must conquer the enemies of our democracy, of our liberties, of our freedom, of our security. They are in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in Oceania; they even dare to come into our waters; their spies are amongst our people; their propaganda penetrates our ears and the minds of our citizens. We must rise over their propaganda, their spies, their submarines, and all their strength and all their might.
The English-speaking Canadians have accepted the challenge. They have bent their efforts in all fields so as to keep the enemy far from our territory. They have been told "Democracy is in danger, let us save Democracy"; and they have answered the call. In the depths of their national conscience they heard the voice of the haughty barons speaking to John Lackland, who for nearly eight centuries have fought for wresting from royal absolutism liberty after liberty; they have felt the same urge that prompted the thirteen cclonies to stand for freedom; they have followed the example of- their forefathers who fought against the non-loyalists in 1775, in 1812-13-14; against Germany in the Great War of 1914-18.
I have met many Canadian soldiers and officers of English language while travelling and I have found in them a strong determination and the hope, nay, the certitude of winning over the enemies. I have tried to elicit from them their views about war aims, but their answer was always the same: they care little about war aims; they only want to win the war; they have a deep sense of duty; they accept their responsibilities; they like their life in the army. Listening to them I felt they would be very good citizens because they spoke of their responsibilities, not even mentioning their privileges.
But this war differs greatly from the previous wars, mainly in this, that the civilians have to take in it a much larger share of work and of sacrifices, than they used to do. I have observed also the fine spirit of the English-speaking Canadian civilians, their work in war industries, their generosity in the loans. and the drives. And I thought to myself: "They are really the sons and the daughters of the great English Nation."
Then I turned my eyes on the stepchildren of Great Britain, those sturdy French Canadians, who, though victorious to the end, were given away by France to England. To be a step-child has always been regarded as a difficult and non-enviable situation. If the step-mother is harsh, at times, the newcomer in the family will think his real mother would have been loving and sweet under the same circumstances. On the contrary, if the stepmother shows herself kind and generous, the step-child will hold that his true mother would have been much more kind and much more generous.
Of, if the step-mother always is kind, it happens that there will be difficulties between the natural child and the step-child; there are, in any family, difficulties between the children of the same blood-, the difficulties will be greater where the children have not the same blood in their veins. A glance at the pages of our national history will tell you that such difficulties have happened between the two main groups in Canada, the English-speaking and the French-speaking, and right from the beginning of the English rule in this country.
The sons of England who lived in the Thirteen Colonies have rebelled against their mother, old Mother Britain, and one of their reasons was that they blamed her for being too kind to the Canadian step-child.
Similarly, the sons of England who were in Canada felt sometimes jealous toward the French Canadians whom they would have liked to be English, British and Protestant from the beginning.
A difficulty of the same kind has arisen in the present war; the natural and the step-child are quarreling about the war effort, the first thinking that the other is just a slacker.
Gentlemen, I have praised your effort, very gladly, very sincerely. Some of you, at least, may expect that I will blame severely the attitude of the step-child, the French Canadians. You know very well, by my book, by my articles, by my radio addresses, that I can appreciate with impartiality my own fellow countrymen and blame them when I think they deserve it.
Yet, in this particular case, I have been asking myself if they deserve to be blamed. I see the French Canadians giving their money, without grumbling: they pay the taxes, they oversubscribe the Victory Loans, they give to the various drives, such as the Red Cross and the Russian Fund. I see them giving their time and work to war purposes; they work on their farms, knowing that a large part of their farm products will go to feed the populations of Great Britain and the armies; they work in the mines, knowing that most of the output goes to war industries. As they take the risk of a dangerous life underground, so they take it in the lumbering industry, being told that wood is necessary for war works, for military needs, for feeding numerous newspapers on the whole continent. In the forest, or in the mines, many lives are taken, many serious accidents take the toll of a foot or a leg, or a hand or an arm, sometimes of the more useful fingers.
I see the French Canadians working in the various war plants, even the French Canadian women, who have always been confined to home work, are now engaged, in great numbers, in war industry. Both the men and women of the French language work well; they are skilful workers; there is little absenteeism among them; they work with a smile, not with grumbling.
Such activities might very well deserve a word of praise on the part of their English speaking fellow countrymen, and sometimes I am inclined to think that they receive more bricks than flowers.
But, however important may be such a participation to the war effort, what to think about giving men to the various services of the Army?
Here, also, I see the step-child much abused. The French Canadians have, indeed, volunteered for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force. They were at Hong Kong. They were at Dieppe, as in the previous war, they were at Vimy, Courcelette, Passchendaele. They are found at Halifax and Debert, at Sussex, at Valcartier and St. Jerome, at Petawawa and Trenton and Brockville. I have met them in the Western provinces, as far as Victoria and Nanaimo. They have the same warlike spirit as their English speaking brothers.
Was it possible, for them, to volunteer in equal numbers as the others did? They have been branded as "lotuseaters, idlers, slackers, traitors, cowards, isolationists, pacifists, defeatists," and that by English newspapers from Halifax to Vancouver. Is it really the best method to handle even a difficult case? I would call it the "castor oil" method. Let us suppose the French Canadians needed a purgation; it was quite possible to choose another drug, or at least to camouflage it with some coffee or orange juice; but the big brother forgot the sugar-coated method and he has tried to force the unpalatable oil down the throat of the step-child, who naturally blamed not only the big brother, but also the mother herself, whom he supposed indirectly responsible for the mischief.
But did he really need such a treatment? I think we can doubt it. Is the French Canadian a pacifist? But we have all been pacifists in America as well as in Europe! Is he a defeatist? or a coward? But this is quite contrary to his mentality and to his history; the French Canadian, being mostly Norman, has always been military-minded; he has always fought with courage; he was a daring soldier, fighting on against three or even ten, as in the Battle of Chateauguay; he has rarely been defeated. Is he a traitor? Is he disloyal? It certainly would be the first time in his life or more than three centuries. He was loyal in 1764, when he answered the call of James Murray and fought against Pontiac and the rebellious Indians, who had always been friends to him. He was loyal in 1775, when he answered the call of Carleton and fought against the rebellious colonies, whilst English citizens were sent to the Island of Orleans because they would not fight the Americans. He way loyal in 181213-14, when he answered the call of England a second time against the Americans. He was loyal to the British Constitution, when he fought for the responsible government in 1837-38 against a bureaucracy condemned by Durham himself. He remained loyal in 1840, though he was deprived of equality with the English citizens, equality which is the first basis of Democracy.
Are the French Canadians isolationists? But there are surely more isolationists in Ireland, and even in the United States than in the Province of Quebec. The little group of Quebec isolationists is quite vocal, I admit, but what has been its real influence till now? Did they prevent the volunteering? In a few cases only. Did they gain the election of Quebec East, when they were well organized? Not at all, for Mr. St. Laurent was elected. Their only influence seems to have been in the plebiscite, when the Quebec people voted "No". But I am afraid you have given to that vote a meaning it had not. You think it mean an opposition to the war effort? But if so, how could you explain that so many French Canadians were volunteering and were let by their fathers to volunteer, at the very same time they were voting "No"? In my humble opinion the "No" was directed, not against the war effort, but to the politicians; the people told them either not to make promises if they were not to keep them, or to keep their promises if they made them.
The volunteering was affected by other factors. At first one is the large families with early marriages; out of a thousand people in Quebec, 47% are under military age, which is a large proportion. When the family counts five or more children it is very difficult for the farmer to volunteer and to leave the family alone or to send them to another home already overcrowded. A second factor is the high death rate among the workmen and in the lumbering industry, or even, unfortunately, through tuberculosis; of the persons of military age in Quebec, there are more women than men. A third factor is the number of serious accidents which make men unfit for active service; in Quebec, according to the figures produced in the House of Commons, 41 % of the men having been medically examined have been found unfit. The same reason applies, it seems, to Nova, Scotia and to New Brunswick, with the mining and lumbering industries.
The true spirit of Quebec appears often in little facts. A taxi driver of Montreal told me that he was glad his son had volunteered; he hoped his second son would also volunteer; he even wished for a compulsory military service after the war so as to make sure that the boys would get military discipline, which, he said, was much needed. Three men, being asked their opinion about the war, answered in the same manner, saying that men were sorely needed for the war; that as for the place where the men would fight, it did not belong to the civilians, but to military headquarters. This sounds like the voice of our good people, like your own voice. The Quebec people are eager, as the rest of Canada, to conquer the enemy, and they are ready to fight the enemy even outside of Canada. In 1870 when the papal states were invaded by Garibaldi, thousands of French Canadians volunteered and went across the Atlantic to fight the enemy in Italy; the same spirit is in them when they are told that other gangsters are making trouble in Europe. As well as their English-speaking fellow countrymen, they want a Canada victorious.
But let us suppose that we have finally defeated our enemies. What will happen then? What will be the spoils for Canada? We will simply have avoided destruction and slavery; we will continue to enjoy the benefits of Democracy which we enjoyed before. Shall we be satisfied with such a result. Certainly not. Another victory is awaiting our efforts, and it is a victory over ourselves in our own country.
The Canadians have indeed achieved great things in the course of their history, either alone or together. The French Canadians have been great explorers from coast to coast and from the mouth of the St. Lawrence river to the mouth of the Mississippi river. They have organized missionary work, in the present as in the past, for the Christian faith is beyond praise; in spite of adverse circumstances hey have built a complete educational system throughout Canada; they are found in all walks of life.
The English-speaking Canadians may well be proud of their own achievements also; to enter into detail here would be "bringing coal to Newcastle".
Our common work has been first of all in the political field, where we have obtained representative government and, later, the constitution of a confederation. Then, in the material field, where we have achieved the building of a trans-continental railroad; and this was a great victory over geographical barriers. It is a link between regions that are very different; we have made it stronger by two other trans-continentals, then by a vast system of telegraph and telephone, by civil aviation.
Yet, can we say that Canada is a unit? No, it is not. We have made material ties between the East and the West. The man in Europe or in Asia who looks at Ottawa with its central government may believe that Canada is a unity; the other members of the Commonwealth may also have the same impression, but we, the Canadians, feel every day that we are divided, and we are afraid that the dividing forces will prevail.
What we need now is an interior victory over our divisions, and we will find it in establishing spiritual ties between the two major groups of Canada. We yet have a few of them in various organizations such as the Press, the Radio, many clubs and professional associations. I am glad to mention here a society originated in Toronto by Mr. J. H. Biggar, professor at the Upper Canada College. The name of the society is French; it is "Visites Interprovinciales." Its purpose is to send young men and women of Ontario into Quebec during the summer holidays, and hundreds of young men and women have benefited by this society's activities. Much more could be accomplished if, with more money, a permanent office could be established. This last winter, through the same agency, an exchange of correspondence has been arranged between more than two hundred students of both provinces. The far Western provinces are desirous of participating in this movement. They also desire an exchange of teachers between West and East, between French Quebec and the rest of Canada, in order to train them in the teaching of conversation in both languages. In this field Ontario has long ago taken the lead, with the summer courses at Sillery by the University of Toronto, at Trois-Pistoles by the University of Western Ontario. The Quebec universities and colleges have followed the example in part, and should show a still greater co-operation.
By so doing we would win a very great victory over ourselves; the current of exchanges would be like a double track transcontinental facilitating a solid entente between our two main groups.
A Canada victorious over the external and internal enemies would be a Happy Canada, for at last we would have Peace, the first condition for happiness. A fragile condition, I admit, since many forces, especially the economic, may soon endanger either prosperity or peace. It is impossible in a short address to enter into details about the problem; but other writers have examined the difficulty and have proposed their solutions.
Would a victorious and happy Canada be contented? Though both are great blessings I think it would not be enough for our dear country. We would also crave for something higher, I mean, for Glory.
We would like to make Canada glorious amongst all nations. Indeed, Canada has achieved great things in the past; she has acquired a certain amount of fame in this world, in the British Commonwealth. Her share in the last war was great. Her share in this war is far greater. Old Mother Britain, considering Canada as her eldest daughter, has put a great confidence in her and put on her shoulders great responsibilities. Canada's interest in retaining that confidence, which will be done only by doing better and greater things than we have done.
Do you remember, Gentlemen, the words pronounced by our beloved King in 1939 in an Empire Broadcast from Winnipeg? His Majesty said:
"The sense of race may be a dangerous and disruptive force, but English and French have shown in Canada that they can keep the pride and distinctive culture which it inspires while yet combining to establish a broader freedom and security than either could have achieved alone."
In these words, Gentlemen, we can take a program of action which may take us on the road to Glory.
What is that program?
Firstly, to discard a disruptive force, the one that exists in the sense of race. I have explained my views about race as an obstacle to national unity in my radio addresses, both in French and in English. The sense of race should not be for our two main groups a disruptive force. By blood we are relatives, we are first cousins, we are brothers, if only for the amount of Norman blood that runs in the veins of the English as well as of the French Canadians. If we are divided in this matter it would be on account of excessive sense of race, on both sides; but we must discard such racial animosities. Otherwise we are doomed to anything rather than Glory.
Secondly, English and French in Canada can retain their distinctive culture. This statement is of the highest importance for the future of Canada, for the achievement of National Unity. I have received, as a result of my radio addresses, a great number of letters from French and English speaking Canadians, at least five hundred. These letters are the mirror of the public opinion in Canada about National Unity. The extremists in both groups are a small minority. The citizens of moderate opinion in both groups are the vast majority. The extremists are the violent minded; for the settlement of our difficulties they rely on force, not the armed force, I think, but the strength of numbers, the weight of the majority. They are, on one side, the spiritual sons of Papineau, the Papineau of the Rebellion of 1837-38, or, on the other side, the direct heirs to Craig, Colborne and Durham. Their ideal is might rather than right. The extremists, in one group, would crush once for all, the French Canadians, or at least be rid of them, and, to take the words of one Torontonian, to "put them on a ship and send them back to France". The extremists in the other group and as a reaction against the other extremists's views, would make Quebec a separate state in which the motto 1 Remember would apply exclusively to the wrongs of the other group.
But separation would mean a double amputation, for Canada as a whole, would lose a vital communication in the one Atlantic Ocean, and Quebec would lose the French groups of the nine other provinces. On the other side the crushing of the French Canadians would be a futile attempt. Hemon wrote, in Maria Chapdelaine, that "they are a people who will never accept to die", to which an Anglo-Protestant echoed, saying: "they have come here to stay". Various attempts have been made, since the Treaty of Paris in 1763, to annihilate the French Canadians as a nation or as a distinct entity. It was tried under James Murray, and against his views, by some merchants, and it failed. Tried again by the trio, Mountain, Sewell, Ryland, and it failed. Tried again with the Royal Institution, and it failed. Tried also by the Bureaucracy, but to no avail. A new attempt was made after the Rebellion of 1837-38, and this time on a larger scale. Durham expounded the theory in his famous Report and various agencies, political and religious, set their hands to the work of extermination. It should have been a success at that time, if it were ever to succeed, but it also failed. Durham's theory had no solid basis and it collapsed. Yet the French Canadians, a century ago, did not possess the strong organizations they now have. No, they have really come to stay, not as a burden, but as an asset to the community, an asset by their culture, their traditions, their philosophy, their language.
They offer them as their share, and as a very valuable share. They admire the British civilization, but they cannot despise the culture they have inherited from France. They ask from their English speaking brothers an equal measure of appreciation of the French culture.
The third article of the program drawn from His Majesty's words is this: "French and English in Canada should combine to establish a broader freedom and security than either could achieve alone." We have achieved, I said, great things separately, but if both groups combine their forces and their spiritual wealth, if they work together, they will reach the goal set by their sovereign, that is "to establish a broader freedom". Is it not the very foundation of the Atlantic Charter? Yes, indeed, provided the Canadians of both languages will combine their thoughts, their feelings, their activities, without confusing them in a sort of melting pot.
The fourth article of the King's programme is to be found in the words he said at Halifax before leaving Canada to return to England: "By God's grace, yours may yet be the example that all the world may follow". So, Canada may set an example to the rest of the world. How could this be done? Is it, for the French Canadians, just to copy France? Is it for the Anglo-Canadians just to copy England? Is it for both groups just to copy the United States? No, none of these would give us the Glory we are craving. We have to do better than that. We cannot be an example to the world, if we are only copies of other countries, even though they are great nations. Canada is allowed to have a greater ambition; she must achieve a civilization of her own, an original culture, drawing from her double heritage the best elements they contain. Only in so doing Canada "may set the example that all the world may follow".
Let us then join our hands, my dear fellow countrymen. Let us forget our old quarrels. Let us appreciate to their full value our two great civilizations, one French and one English. Let them become the double basis of a Canadian culture. Let them penetrate the curricula of our schools, of or Colleges of Arts, and of our Universities.
As their expression is in two perfect languages, the English and the French, let our children learn both languages in all the schools, "from coast to coast and from kindergarten to university," as an English Canadian wrote me.
In other countries, after this war, the problem of nationalities and languages may become a serious problem. If Canada retains her dual culture and her two languages; if doing so she maintains peace and assures a greater security and a broader freedom, she will set the desired example to other nations in a similar condition.
Who are the Canadians who would scorn a program coming from the throne itself, a program chosen by our beloved King? Not you, members of the Empire Club, not you, admirers of the British broadmindedness, not you, the partisans of a free commonwealth, not you who have subscribed to the Atlantic Charter.
Not the French Canadians, who are desirous of reilluminating the motto of France
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite,
Canadians of both languages, this is the road to Glory, to Happiness, to Victory! (Applause.)
MR. JOHN C. M. MACBETH: You will be interested, Sir, in knowing that sitting to your left and your right are three gentlemen who entertained some twenty or more French-speaking medical students here at dinner a short while ago in that interchange of English-speaking and French-speaking students. You are interested in knowing that we have Professor Saunders with us today and he has on occasion acted as your host. He has translated your book, Ton Histoire est Une Epopee into English, and on behalf of the Club, Sir, Professor Saunders is going to thank you.
PROFESSOR SAUNDERS: Mr. President. Members and Friends of The Empire Club: I have known Monsieur L'Abbe a rather long time. I have known him in many connections-as a member of the Canadian Historical Association, as my host at Laval University in Quebec, as the author of the book which I have translated. I assure you, on all occasions I have found Monsieur L'Abbe to be a broad-minded man, a liberal-minded man. He is one of the great liberal minds of French-Canada, in my opinion. He is more than that. He is a man of deep intellectual honesty and you today have seen a sample of that honesty. He says what he means, everywhere and anywhere. He has the bravery of his race and his person.
I wish to say to him that he has caught a vision of a United Canada which means something from one ocean to the other, which binds us all together, and I wish to say to him, in terms of that vision, I wish to say to him in his own language, as it is fitting to do--it is the other official language of Canada
(Monsieur UAW thanked in French.)
And, Mr. President, I have great pleasure in moving the vote of thanks of this Club, the Empire Club of Canada, to Monsieur L'Abbe for the message that he has brought us all. (Applause)