1965-03-16

PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
December 18-Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Olson, seconded by Mr. Walker,- that the fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented to the house on December 14, 1964, be now concurred in.
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the subcommittee I should like to give a few words of explanation in connection with the motion for concurrence in the fifteenth report. We have asked that this be allowed to stand from day to day, first of all, in order to give all members an opportunity to study and consider the recommendations in the report. Second, we have been waiting for the first full day following the completion of Bill No. C-136 It appears now to be reasonably safe to predict that the first full day following the completion of Bill No. C-136 will be Thursday, March 18. We would, therefore, hope to proceed with the debate on that date. I ask, therefore, that this motion stand again today.


Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of the house, it will stand.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government has been in consultation with the United States authorities regarding the unsettled situation in the international gold market resulting from the intention of France to convert $300 million of its surplus dollars into gold. I ask him, too, whether Canada has agreed to put new limitations on money raising in the New York market?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: There have been, of course, discussions on these matters going on between interested
governments, including those of Canada and the United States. I will ask the Minister of Finance if he will be in a position to make a statement on this tomorrow.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him about a news report carried on the C.B.C. at one o'clock today to the effect that Canada has reached an agreement with the United States under which it is reported that Air Canada will be allowed to fly from Toronto to Miami and Toronto to Los Angeles, while Canadian Pacific Air Lines will fly from Vancouver to San Francisco. I would like to ask the minister whether such an air agreement has been entered into, and what are its main features.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish it were true, but unfortunately it is not yet true.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: On a supplementary, last week I asked the Minister of Transport at what stage were the negotiations between Canada and the United States in this precise area of intergovernmental relations, and he promised at that time he would look at my question rather more closely and give us a statement. Mr. Speaker, with all respect I think the minister owes the house that type of explanation at this time, bearing in mind the pressures he and his colleagues used to put on his predecessor in office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I may say there was an understanding between the government of the United States and our government that no interim statements would be made about these negotiations. The negotiations are still going on, and I am very hopeful an agreement will be reached that will be mutually satisfactory, but I do not think it would be helpful to attempt to say where the negotiations are at the present time.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary [DOT]question, the C.B.C. report to which I referred quoted an authority in the Department of Transport as saying this report was about 80 per cent correct. Is the minister prepared to substantiate that percentage of accuracy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is only one authority in the Department of Transport and that authority is sometimes wrong.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
{Translation]
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Forestry.
Could the minister explain how it is that [DOT]out of the loans totalling $49 million made by the Farm Credit Corporation from July to September of last year, only $1,798,000 went to Quebec farmers, while loans totalling $18,300,000 and $12,900,000 went to Saskatchewan and Alberta respectively? Could the minister explain that fact?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the explanation might be that the Quebec farm credit corporation is most active.


Gilles Grégoire: Could the minister find out why most applications for loans made to the federal Farm Credit Corporation are turned *down?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This surely is hardly a question. It is a statement or assertion, and in any event it is not a proper question for this time.

![Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is *directed to the Minister of Forestry in view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the Quebec farmers take much less advantage than the farmers of the other provinces of the federal Farm Credit Corporation, could the minister tell us whether they also get a tax reduction or whether the province *of Quebec gets special grants in order to assist the provincial farm credit agency?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I shall be able to give a detailed answer to the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the minister give us a detailed answer as to why the loans to the Quebec farmers are not as numerous as those granted to those of the other provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports Jo the effect that the minister of foreign affairs of the Soviet union will be visiting London very shortly for discussions with the government of the United Kingdom, presumably about the situation in Viet Nam, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether Canada knew of this arrangement, and if when the meetings do occur Canada will be kept constantly informed of what goes on at the meetings, since Canada is greatly interested?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the British foreign secretary has advised Canada that he proposes to discuss a number of matters with Mr. Gromyko. The question of Viet Nam undoubtedly will be among those to be discussed and, in accordance with usual practice, we will be informed of the discussions, just as from time to time we inform other countries, including Britain, of discussions that are under way at our instance.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wonder whether I can ask the hon. gentleman a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Oxford, I think it was last Thursday. The Secretary of State for External Affairs in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition said he was discussing with his colleagues or with the leader of the house the possibility of setting aside a time when this house could debate the crucial issues in Viet Nam which are causing apprehension in Canada and throughout the world. Has the secretary of state discussed this matter, and is he now able to tell us whether it will be possible to deal with this subject in the house in the near future?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I do not know whether I can add a great deal in this connection to what the hon. gentleman has said. The matter is being discussed, and it may be that before the end of the present session an opportunity will be presented.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister not feel that sufficient time has now elapsed for the government to have reached a decision in this regard? Certainly this is not a matter in connection with which Canada should be dragged along by other nations. The parliament of Canada should have the right to give its views to a government which up to the present time has shown such uncertainty in this regard as to leave doubt in the minds of people all over the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the right hon. gentleman, who had the responsibility of heading the government and knows the difference between the responsibilities of those on Mr. Speaker's right and those on Mr. Speaker's left, will understand that the situation is not always as easy as it may sometimes appear to those in opposition, as I myself found out.
I have certainly no reluctance-and I want to make this clear-to a discussion of this matter, but I would have to give consideration to whether at a particular moment it is the most desirable thing to do. I do wish to say to the right hon. gentleman-and I am sure he will expect me to say this-that Canada is not dragging its feet in this matter. Indeed, I explained, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam the other day, my agreement along substantial lines with the right hon. gentleman himself.
Canada is active in negotiations with a number of countries, and if it does not seem that progress is being made I can only say the fault for that lack of progress in bringing about a cease fire does not at this moment rest entirely on the United States. There are other countries which are showing a reluctance to bring about a cease fire or to recognize conditions which would make a cease fire possible. Canada, with the United Kingdom and others, is engaged in a process of discussion which does not in any circumstances warrant the suggestion that we are not doing everything we can in respect of a situation in which we are not the primary agent. The other day in the British house a request was made for a debate. The attitude taken there by the British prime minister is
Inquiries of the Ministry not unlike the attitude which I am taking at this moment, and I am sure the right hon. gentleman will agree that Britain has a responsibility in this matter certainly not less than that of a country such as Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: It is very interesting to have this monologue, but it does not answer the question. What reason is there that this parliament should not be able to ascertain some of these subterranean adventures in which Canada is engaged and which up to the present time have not been revealed? I ask the hon. gentleman this. What did he mean by the statement that the United States is not the only country which has failed to discharge its responsibilities in South Viet Nam?


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: Those are not the hon. gentleman's exact words; that is my interpretation. After all, we are of age here and we can interpret words if they are understandable. What other countries are failing to do their part to permit a cease fire to be secured in South Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have taken the position that there should be a cease fire, and we have urged this view on all parties concerned. There is now no evidence to warrant the belief that the government of North Viet Nam is prepared to engage in a cease fire; nor is there any evidence that she is being encouraged by communist China to accept a cease fire.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. That is the answer I wanted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the partial information which the minister has given to the house and the mystifying statement that the fault does not lie entirely with the United States, does the minister not agree that a full statement which could be debated would do more to clarify the situation than these mystifying statements which can only cause confusion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to my hon. friend that when I did give him a complete statement last Monday he found fault with that. I hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that I am sure I could not possibly give a most clear statement in this house that would meet with his full satisfaction. Nevertheless, if my hon. friend has any questions he wishes to ask I will do my best to answer them when I think it is in the public interest to reveal this in-

Inquiries of the Ministry formation. If it is not in the public interest, I will have to take the responsibility of not making a reply at the moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In response to the invitation extended to me by the minister I would ask him again, have any representations been made by him, on behalf of the Canadian government, to the United States as to the possibility of discontinuing the bombing of North Viet Nam, a country with which the United States is not at war, as a first step toward attempting to bring about a conference and a negotiated settlement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have made the strongest representations, as I said earlier this afternoon, to all sides to engage in a cease fire-in what I call a cessation of hostilities and what the hon. member for Port Arthur prefers me to refer to as an end of hostilities.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has just told us-and I quite agree with him-that it is not in the public interest, particularly on the spur of the moment or off the cuff, so to speak, to make replies of that nature to questions asked in the House of Commons, for fear of disrupting negotiations, would the minister not agree that a full scale debate on this subject for perhaps a day would be very desirable for two reasons. First, it would enable the minister to carefully prepare a very lucid statement on what is going on, inasfar as he can, and would give him a chance to think about it in advance so he could give us a lot more information than perhaps he would care to do without thinking it over. Second, I think it would be very helpful to the minister and the government to know just what the people of Canada think about this matter and what the various parties think about it, and it might strengthen the government's hand when trying to persuade its friends, as they are trying to persuade them at the moment, in regard to what Canada's position should be in this matter. Would the minister not agree that for these two reasons debate on this question would be very helpful?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to this particular question, put earlier by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I assure my hon. friend-and he is my friend-that when I do make a state-


ment in a formal debate in this house I will seek to live up to the high standard of lucidity just set by the hon. gentleman.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could reply to a question asked yesterday about Mrs. Rivard and her passport. Mrs. Rivard held a passport which was issued in her maiden name on January 5, 1961. Under standing regulations her passport ceased to be valid when she married, and this passport has been returned for cancellation.



LUCIEN RIVARD-REPORTED DISCOVERY OF WHEREABOUTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I ask this question merely because of the fact that a note has come down from the gallery. Since the Minister of Justice is not here, possibly I could direct it to the acting minister. Is there any foundation for the report that the much sought after and elusive Mr. Rivard has been discovered in the last few hours close to the Canadian coast on a foreign island?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no information to substantiate the statement made by my right hon. friend, but I will certainly be very anxious to look into his suggestion immediately.



SEFKIND BANKRUPTCY-REQUEST FOR REPORT OF TRUSTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, once again to draw to his attention the repeated occasions upon which I have requested the tabling of the report from the trustee in bankruptcy to the superintendent of bankruptcy, a federal official. The minister's reply was that he would consider the matter and make a decision. I wonder if he could bring the matter to a head and decide whether the government will be tabling this report.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughl (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice and see if it cannot be finalized as soon as possible.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Has the minister had any conversations or negotiations with the officials of the government of Alberta in relation to a railway line north from Hinton; and if not, have Canadian National Railways informed him as to what role they will be playing in the building of that railway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely this is a question for the order paper.



P.E.I. CAUSEWAY-INQUIRY AS TO TENDER CALL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works concerning the most important project in his purview on which recent welcome press stories have been noted. Can he advise when tenders are to be called for the construction of the P.E.I.-New Brunswick causeway, and when will the actual construction commence?


Mr. Speaker:: Important as this question obviously is, it should be on the order paper.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask if he would be prepared to make a statement in the house with regard to plans already approved by the government concerning the construction of a causeway to Prince Edward Island. Would he make such a statement at an early opportunity?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Perhaps I can give a short answer to this question, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, the study of the construction of a causeway without rails providing for a two lane highway, extendable to four lanes, moving into either a swing bridge or a lift bridge, or alternatively a tunnel, has been completed. The second part of the study has
Inquiries of the Ministry to do with approximately the same project including rail service, and I understand it may take a month or six weeks before the second part of the study is finished.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question related to the one I asked the Minister of Public Works, but I think this one should be addressed to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister be good enough to say whether the proposal made to the government by the Island Development Company with regard to the construction and management of the causeway has been accepted?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has neither been accepted nor rejected because as my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works just pointed out, the government studies have not been entirely completed, and it would be very difficult to decide what to do about the matter until those studies were completed.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO DEEPENING OF CERTAIN RIVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monfcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Could he tell me whether the study for the deepening of the Mille lies and Back rivers, in the Montreal area, has been completed and if the federal government intends to undertake this project shortly?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I replied to this question only two or three weeks ago when I said that the international waterways commission was examining the question, that I myself was interested in the matter and that the report was to be submitted next summer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the proposed survey of the deepening of both rivers, namely the Mille lies river and the Back river, come under the international waterways commission, or would it not rather be the Richelieu river project which comes under that commission?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the question, but I thought the hon. member referred to the Richelieu river.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, the Back and Mille lies rivers.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, no thorough survey has been made as yet of those two rivers.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Will the department take into consideration the effect of this waterway on the maritime ports, which was not done when the St. Lawrence seaway was investigated?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I imagine the international joint commission will take all these factors into consideration.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. It is an aftermath of his announcement of the decision of the government not to increase the quota of baby seals to be taken this year beyond the 50,000 figure. With this decision I am in complete agreement. My question is, has the minister any information as to the possibility that remaining baby seals are in danger of being carried by the ice floes so close to the mainland that they become exposed to land based operations, resulting in their being taken in quantities greatly exceeding the maximum allowed quota?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisler of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall, as stated by the hon. member who has just asked the question, that last Thursday I announced, and confirmed again yesterday, that the quota established for the catch of young harp seals less than one year old in gulf area 2 would be reached that day, and no additional young seals would be taken there by licensed sealers after that date. I understand many hon. members, including myself, are receiving a large number of telegrams which read something like this: "Urge no increased quota on sealing" or "We protest increased quota on seal skins", and others to that effect.
In order to clear up any possible misunderstanding concerning the application of the quota I wish to point out that the quota applies only to licensed seal fishermen operating from licensed vessels and aircraft. The catch of young seals by landsmen who are able to take seals when the ice comes close to shore is not included in the quota. I want to add

that this was understood by members of the industry and officials of the S.P.C.A. and other humane societies, who met with us in Moncton and Ottawa last year before the regulations were amended.
This catch by landsmen is of importance to local communities along the shores of the gulf of St. Lawrence, and the fishermen use small boats less than 30 feet in length to carry out their fishing operations. The number of young seals taken by landsmen was taken into full consideration when the quota for licensed sealers was established, and experience shows that the landsmen's catch does not now constitute a serious threat to conservation of the harp seal stocks in the area.
The favourable conditions which prevailed during the first few days of the fishing season this year would have led to a large catch of young seals if the quota had not been in effect. It would have been possible for the licensed sealers to catch a very high percentage of the young seals born this year, and this would have caused a serious reduction in the harp seal population of the gulf.
For the information of hon. members I should like to say that an additional conservation measure included in the seal protection regulations for this year prohibits the killing of mature seals in the breeding patches. This regulation protects the mature breeding females which constitute the most important segment of the population. Juveniles and adult males which congregate outside the breeding patches may be taken throughout the fishing season which closes on April 25 in the gulf area. The sealers use large calibre rifles to kill these animals.
It is expected that there will be a sharp reduction in commercial sealing activities in the gulf area now that the quota of young seals has been taken, but the department's officers will continue their patrols to ensure that the regulations are adhered to by those who continue to hunt the older seals.



SHELLFISH-CONTROL OF POLLUTION IN B.C. WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneti (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, with all this talk about causeways I feel awfully tempted to ask some of the ministers about a causeway to an island on the other side of the continent. However, I will not do that, but will direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the very widespread concern among the public and the producers in the shellfish industry on the

Pacific coast, can the minister indicate to the house what the situation actually is resulting either from the activities of his own department or from information he may have received from the public health authorities of the province of B.C.?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the control of pollution efforts by the Department of Fisheries in B.C. is entirely directed to discharging our responsibilities for the conservation of fish and ensuring that wholesome fish products reach the market. It would be unwise for me to take advantage of this question period to list and review all the projects in which we are now involved, but I would be glad to suggest I could provide the hon. member with such a list and with details of any particular item in which he has a special interest.



MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the urgent need for reform of the many injustices and hardships in the field of marriage and divorce law, would the Prime Minister consider appointing a royal commission to inquire into the question of modernizing and updating our laws with respect to marriage and divorce in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a large question of policy which I am unable to answer at this time, especially on the orders of the day.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Ont.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister give urgent consideration to the early removal of the sand bar at the mouth of the Thames river, Kent county, Ontario? The minister is quite aware that the sand bar-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member knows that while this matter is important it is not so urgent that the question should be asked at this time. Will he put it on the order paper?
Inquiries of the Ministry LONG BRANCH, ONT.-DUMPING OF FILL INTO LAKE
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Leonard P. (Red) Kelly (York West):: have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware that a development company in Long Branch, Ontario, has been dumping fill into lake Ontario causing pollution in that international body of water in violation of the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act, a month after the company had been warned not to do so by the chief of legal services of the Department of Public Works? Does the minister not feel this is a flagrant disregard of the instructions of his department?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the department has been aware of the activities of the development company at Long Branch, Ontario. The hon. member knows, I think, that the department's interest and responsibility is confined solely to the question of whether there is a substantial interference with navigation. However, the latest report indicates that the company has in fact discontinued dumping fill into lake Ontario, although it has continued to dump fill into areas already reclaimed. My department is keeping this operation under observation and will take any action which may be required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, March 12, the hon. member for Marquette inquired whether the Canadian government had received a request from the United Nations' high commissioner for refugees concerning the possible admission of 200 white Russians to Canada. The hon. member also asked that I explain in the event that it developed that the department had refused any such request.
I have looked into the matter, Mr. Speaker, and I find that no direct representations have in fact been made by the high commissioner, although in August, 1964 representatives of this group of white Russians in Hong Kong wrote directly to several immigration offices in Canada as well as to our office in Hong Kong regarding this matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry
By way of explanation, I might add that in the past several years my department has received representations from the Tolstoy Foundation and other bodies on behalf of groups of people in several parts of the world who are described as "old believers". These inquiries have come not only from the Far East but from Turkey, Brazil and the United States. Briefly, the "old believers" are a religious sect, who wish to migrate to a country where they will be able to follow their customary way of life in a community separate and distinct from the general population. In the Tolstoy Foundation's own words, these people are "intellectually very primitive, with small knowledge of world events or politics".
From the department's experience over the years-and I might say that the department's views in this regard are shared by a great many of my colleagues from British Columbia and western Canada generally-it has been found that group settlements such as these are undesirable and they often create special problems. It is unlikely that such people would be able to overcome the many difficulties which they would have to face if they came to Canada as a group.
In the circumstances, therefore, it has been necessary to advise these persons from whom letters have been received that we cannot in principle accept group movements. We did say, however, that if individual applications were received each individual application would be studied on its merits.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While I am grateful to the minister for his explanation, may I say that my question was based on a Reuters dispatch in last Friday's newspapers which gave me the impression that these are refugees from the time of the first world war who objected to the communist regime and have been in China. I understand that Australia, Argentina and Brazil are ready to accept them. If they are what the minister says they are, new or old believers or cranks, we do not want them, but if they are bona fide stateless refugees who need assistance it is a different matter. I should like to know whether there is any evidence to support the minister's statement with regard to these 200 refugees.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have seen in at least two newspapers the press release to which the hon. member refers, and I can

only say that in any event the department has had no inquiries since August, 1964.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to deal with a question that was put by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle also on Friday last. He inquired about any negotiations or talks between officials of the Lasalle housing project and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation concerning the possibility of a loan for the conversion of the heating system in the Lasalle project.
I may say that on Tuesday last, March 9, a representative of the company that owns the Lasalle housing complex did meet with the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and discussed various aspects of that project. The possibility of converting the heating system was discussed at that meeting, but I was advised a day or two ago when I received the answer to my inquiry that up to that time no application, either formal or informal, had been made for a loan for any such conversion.



APPLICATION FOR DAM CONSTRUCTION ON PEACE RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works which has a sense of urgency because of the speculation surrounding it. Would the minister inform the house whether he has received an application from the government of British Columbia or the B.C. hydro and power authority for the building of dams on the Peace river? If so, when was the application received, and if a licence was issued on what basis or terms was this done?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the department has not received any application for a licence for the construction of a dam on the Peace river. I understand that the site upon which the dam is to be constructed is in a part of the river that is not navigable, and that the officials of the Department of Public Works and the officials of the British Columbia

hydro authority are making sure that there will be no hindrance on the river at that point.



HAMILTON FALLS-INQUIRY AS TO TRANSMISSION LINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Minister of Transport is not a prophet, but in view of the statement he made in Newfoundland that the Hamilton falls power project would be commenced at an early date, could he advise whether the transmission lines will be directed through Quebec or the maritime provinces?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think this really comes within my administrative responsibilities, sir; but if the house would bear with me, all I said on the subject at Gander on Saturday night was that in view of the statements made by Premier Smallwood and Mr. Winters at St. John's, I was very hopeful it would get started this year, and I am sure every member of the house shares that hope.

COAL-POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF ORDERS FROM JAPAN On the orders of the day:


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe he said a few days ago he would take as notice a question with regard to whether there has been any change in trade relations so far as coal is concerned between Canada and Japan. Is he prepared to give us that information now? Has Japan cancelled any of its orders?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I had thought some of my colleagues had fully satisfied the hon. member for Bow River, but since he seems to be still dissatisfied I will see if I can get something to supplement his meagre information.



STEPS TO OFFSET PRICE DROP-REQUESTS FOR ACREAGE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received resolutions from Saskatch-
Inquiries of the Ministry ewan wheat pool committees asking for government action to offset the effects of the drop in wheat prices? If so, what answer has he made to those who have adopted these resolutions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received such representations, and I think I have made appropriate replies. I would be very happy to table a sample if the hon. member wishes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given consideration to bringing in a form of acreage payments to meet the serious situation in northern Saskatchewan that was revealed many times in the house, but more recently by the premier of Saskatchewan in the representations he made to the government a week or ten days ago. The Prime Minister said he would let the house know in due course.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be able to let the house know in due course. This is a matter of agricultural policy, and I am not in a position to say anything about it at the moment except that it is under consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that mean that the question of acreage payments is under consideration by the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, all these questions of agricultural policy in the west, related to present conditions, are under consideration. I am not singling out any particular aspect.



LETTER RESPECTING ALLEGED FRAUDULENT VOTING IN B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Translation\
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Is he in a position to table in the house the letter sent to the committee on privileges and elections respecting irregularities that are said to have taken place during the last election campaign in the constituency of Burnaby-Coquitlam?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. mem-

Inquiries of the Ministry ber is referring to a question he asked on Friday last, which appears on page 12280 of Hansard.
He asked:
Is the minister aware that one Mr. Brown, a resident of British Columbia, sent a letter to the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections, pointing out that certain irregularities would have occurred during the last electoral campaign in the riding of Burnaby-Coquitlam; if so, does he intend to refer this letter to the judge of the commission which is investigating this matter?
I said in reply that I knew nothing about this matter but would look into it at once. I have had an opportunity of looking into the matter and find that such a letter was received by the committee, and that it was forwarded to the commissioner by the chairman of the committee.
(Translation)


Jean Robert Beaulé: A supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council, Mr. Speaker.
Could he table that letter in the House of Commons?
(Text)


George James McIlraith: I take it that would be a matter for the chairman of the committee concerned, but I see no objection to it.
(Translation)


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Could the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections table any other document he might have received concerning this matter?


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the tabling of the documents asked by the hon. member.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the hon. member for Skeena directed a question to the Prime Minister regarding access by way of a corridor or free port through the Alaska Panhandle, and whether there were any talks with the United States concerning this matter. The Prime Minister indicated he would give an answer today, and I wonder if he is prepared to do so now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was awaiting the appearance of the hon. member who asked the question, but since


the matter has been brought up I am glad to be able to reply as follows.
I said yesterday it was my impression that there had been negotiations with the United States government. I find on inquiry that there are no formal negotiations at present under way with the United States on this question, although I recall that some years ago when I was secretary of state for external affairs there were informal discussions about it. The possibility of access through the Alaska Panhandle is now being studied by the authorities concerned in Ottawa. When these studies have been completed the government will consider in what way the matter might be raised formally with United States authorities.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister inform us whether the talks to which he has referred concerning the corridors and free ports are taking place concurrently with those studies which are being undertaken in connection with the construction of the Rampart dam by the United States government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did state there were no formal negotiations going on with the United States on this matter at the present time. There are studies being made by officials of the Canadian government, and when these studies are completed then we will be able to decide in what form we can take up the matter officially, if we decide to do so, with the United States authorities.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Now that spring is just around the corner Canadians will be thinking of buying new cars, and I wonder if the minister might advise the Canadian people when they can expect to buy Canadian made cars at the same price as cars made in the United States, now that this government has signed a treaty allowing for free trade in cars and subsidizing the car industry to the tune of $50 million?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: As the initial announcement regarding the signing of the agreement postulated in respect of the price of motor cars, it is hoped, as a consequence of this agreement, the price differential between Canada and the United States will gradually disappear.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister care to say when this might take place?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I cannot give the precise date, but I do share the hope of the hon. member that this will be in the not too distant future.


Maurice John Moreau: May
I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Industry explain to the house how the removal of a tariff can be considered a subsidy?



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chalierton (Esquimall-Saanich):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the necessity for the abatement of some of the hardships caused to the ship construction industry by the suspension of shipbuilding subsidies, can the minister say when the committee investigating this matter may be reporting?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe the premise of the hon. gentleman is warranted in any way whatever. As for the date of the report of the committee, I am not a prophet.


George Louis Chatterton: Can the minister say
whether the ship construction industry is being consulted by this committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman had read the announcement I made he would have found that I invited them to make representations.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs related to his earlier statement that the government is very active in negotiations with a number of countries, and related to the peace keeping activities of Canada. I would like to ask him whether that activity extends to negotiations with regard to Canada getting out of her nuclear role, as promised by the Prime Minister two years ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the questions are unrelated.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the question on several occasions and three months ago the minister intended to make a reply. I was wondering if he has now had time to consider the matter. Is Canada fulfilling the promise of the Prime Minister by negotiating out of her present nuclear role?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think I dealt with this question when our estimates were before the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: However, I shall be glad to look into it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I remind the minister he said that with reference to my previous question, and his previous answer to that was that he would take notice of the earlier question.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of protests against the proposed removal of the extra $500 income tax exemption between ages 65 and 70, is the minister considering instead the raising of the income tax exemption levels for all taxpayers, with appropriate changes in tax rates to give the main advantage to those in the lower income brackets?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure we are all very much interested in this question, but I am not at all certain we will not have to wait just a few days before we hear the answer. In any event it is a question for the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the interest you say we all have in this question perhaps we could discuss it at ten o'clock tonight.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my hon. friend this is the kind of question that is out of order on orders of the day and should not be debated either now or at ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is making the ruling?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are breaking the rules.

Canada Pension Plan INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I shall direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. I think he has just left his seat also. No, he is coming back.
In view of the fact that the pension fund will only be available to people who have worked for a number of years, could the Minister of National Revenue tell me whether he has considered the establishment of another fund that would provide mothers and householders with some compensation for their time and efforts devoted to the raising of their family?



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-136 to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose yesterday clause 124 of the bill, with an amendment thereto proposed by the Minister of National Revenue, was being considered.
On clause 124:


Lucien Lamoureux: The question is on the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 125-Coming into force.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask one brief question about clause 125. This clause reads:
This act shall come into force on such day, after the 30th day after this act is assented to, as may be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.
May we assume, in view of all the references in the bill which suggest that the legislation will begin to operate on January 1, 1966, that proclamation will be made some time shortly after the 30th day following royal assent?


Miss LaMarsh:: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
On March 2 last, I put the following question to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson):
Can he tell the house whether there is any special reason why the French version of the report of the special joint committee-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Monieith:: I wonder whether the hon. member would wait until the translation system is working.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Since the interpretation system is not working at the moment, would the hon. member be good enough to wait a moment before proceeding with his remarks?


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, my question of privilege is related to the consideration of Bill No. C-136 by the house, following the report of the joint committee.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, on March 2 last I put the following question to the Prime Minister:
Can he tell the house whether there Is any special reason why the French version of the report of the special joint committee which studied Bill No. C-136 during 51 sittings is not yet distributed, when we are almost through with that measure?
Then the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not think this comes within my responsibilities, but I will be glad to look into the matter.
Two days later, that is on March 4, I raised a question of privilege and asked that we be given as soon as possible the French version of the proceedings of the 51 sittings, as well as the evidence given by the various persons or organizations who had submitted briefs to the joint committee.
The following day, probably with a view to justifying the delay in giving us the documents which perhaps might have enabled us to be better informed, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) said that we did not know anything about the bill under consideration.
Later, the same day, the chairman, of the joint committee said at the end of his statement:
Mr. Speaker, may I add that the hon. member for Beauce was a member of the House of Com-

mons and Senate committee which dealt with the Canada pension plan bill; until he raised a question of privilege in the house, he had never complained to me about not receiving the report in French.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my English speaking colleagues will appreciate the merits of the question of privilege I am raising today and recognize the fact that we are entitled to have the necessary tools to properly consider a piece of legislation as complex as Bill No. C-136. The unrestricted right to receive here, in the Canadian parliament, in the two official languages of the country, everything that might be useful to us to expedite the business of the house, should be recognized.
My assertion is based on a statement made by the Prime Minister recently and reported in practically every newspaper in Canada. In fact, the newspaper Le Droit published on Friday, March 12, an article entitled:
Pearson sees the day when public business will be adequately and efficiently carried on in both languages.
Mr. Chairman, we often say that there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, between words and action, but I find that a long time has gone by and we have not yet received the French version of the committee reports which would have been so useful to us in considering Bill No. C-136 in committee of the whole.
Great emphasis is laid nowadays on the question of bilingualism and biculturalism and the Laurendeau-Dunton commission's report has already pointed out some aspects of discrimination which we deplore and which are not in line with the statement made recently by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Chairman, the motion I intend to put forward is based on serious arguments. The Minister of National Health and Welfare suggested that we know absolutely nothing about this bill. If it is so, it is because we did not have the French version of the reports of the committee and that is why we were not adequately informed and why we asked so many questions.
The minister also suggested that members of the committee had the benefit of simultaneous interpretation. I am not denying that fact, but I say that I am not a tape recorder and that I surely could not follow the discussion as easily as those who had the necessary documentation or the English version of the reports of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I maintain that we were frustrated and deceived in our rights due to the fact that we do not have the French ver-20220-785i
Canada Pension Plan
sion of the proceedings of the 51 sittings held by the joint committee. Consequently I move, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic:
That clause 1 of Bill No. C-136 do stand until the members of this house receive the French version of the proceedings of the joint special committee established to examine this bill.


Lucien Lamoureux: Unless members of the committee are prepared to express opinions as to the validity of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member, speaking strictly to the point of order, the Chair is prepared to express an opinion as to whether or not there is a valid question of privilege.
Is the hon. member for Megantic standing ready to enlighten the Chair as to whether the rules allow a question of privilege to be submitted at this point?


Raymond Langlois: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the motion moved by my hon. colleague is to postpone consideration of clause 1 of Bill No. C-136 until we have received the French version of the proceedings of the joint committee.
In my opinion, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member is well founded because it points out a breach of the rights and prerogatives of the members of this house.
Mr. Chairman, at this time the major issue in this country seems to be that of bilingualism and biculturalism. Everyone is talking about it, and the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission points it out. In fact, from one coast to the other efforts are being made to find formulas or means which will satisfy the needs or requirements of every Canadian citizen, particularly in the field of languages.
At the present time the problem exists in the House of Commons-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I feel that the hon. member is not discussing the validity of the question of privilege. I would ask him to help the Chair if possible to decide strictly the point of procedure.


Raymond Langlois: In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is not so much a question of procedure as a question of right.
Before preaching to anyone throughout the country, the rights and freedoms of every member of parliament and of any agency under its authority should be respected here first.
It is important that first of all the rights of the members forming an integral part of the House of Commons should be respected.

Canada Pension Plan
The hon. member for Beauce has just raised a point that I shall defend myself with all the energy at my command.
As for myself, I shall just paraphrase what Frontenac replied to Phipps and say to the Chair: "Mr. Chairman, if this situation goes unchecked, I will answer you with my guns." Mr. Caouetie: Mr. Chairman, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce is most logical, in my opinion, since it pertains to one of the privileges of members of this house, the right to have documents in their own language when they have to consider legislation as momentous as Bill No. C-136.
As my colleague from Beauce pointed out, the minister even stated at one time that the hon. member did not understand a thing about the bill.
Now it is a well known fact that a few members of our group are not familiar with English. I wonder which English speaking member would accept documents provided only in French, and how long such a situation would be tolerated.
In my opinion, it would be the privilege of every English speaking member to insist on getting that documentation in English, just as I think it is logical to give the French speaking members the documentation in French, with regard to the discussions in committee.
It is not a question of how many meetings the hon. member for Beauce or the Minister of National Health and Welfare attended. It is a matter of establishing clearly whether or not, as members of parliament, we have the right to insist on getting that documentation in our own language, that is in French, to familiarize ourselves with the bills introduced by the government.
Mr, Chairman, I humbly submit that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce is well taken and that when giving your ruling you will have to consider those who are not familiar with the English language but whose rights, on the other hand, must be respected like those of any other member of the House of Commons.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to express a great deal of sympathy with this motion that has been moved by the Social Creditistes. I think it is most unfortunate that we have not had the opportunity of getting the minutes of the committee translated into French. It is because of my belief in the principles of British fair play that I rise in
[Mr. Langlois.l
their defence and suggest that this is most unfair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think it is quite correct to say that some members of their group have not had the opportunity to study the minutes [DOT] to the same advantage that they would have had if they had been translated into their own language, and I think this has been a handicap to them. I do not know the reason for the delay in the printing of these minutes; I thought that when the minutes were printed it took very little time to translate them from the English to the French language and vice-versa.
I just rise, Mr. Chairman, to express my sympathy for the motion that has been moved by the group to my left, and to urge that these minutes be produced or there be some satisfactory explanation given to the mover of the motion as to why the minutes have not been translated into French to date.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I just want to join in the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, and to express my surprise that the minutes of this very important committee were not translated into French at the time the committee was meeting. The committee met during a recess of parliament, and the problem of translation must have been foreseen. Any ordinary government would have foreseen it, but perhaps this stumbling government could not look that far ahead. But it is hardly fair to the members of this house whose language is French that the committee minutes should not have been presented to them in their own language.
We grant the magnitude of the task, but the committee met over a very considerable period of time. During the sittings of parliament translation is carried on. Parliament was in recess. It never occured to me that during the meetings of the committee the translation would not have been carried on at that time simultaneously with the printing of the English version. This is a grievous oversight on the part of the government. Some satisfactory explanation of this delay should be made so there would be no misunderstanding as to what has transpired. I am sure that with the interest being shown throughout Canada with regard to the two languages this will strike people as a very serious omission and a failure on the part of the government to perform its duty to those members of this house whose native tongue is French.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor now, but not one of the speeches made up to this time by hon. members taking part in the debate on the motion to be proposed by the hon. member has really been addressed to the question of procedure. The Chair would be pleased to hear any comments which might be made for the benefit of the Chair on the strict question of procedure; that is, the admissibility of the question of privilege at this point in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word in response to the invitation that you yourself have just extended to us. I think it goes without saying that I share the concern of our French speaking colleagues that the French translation of the minutes is not in their possession. If I may refer to our standing orders, I notice that standing order 74 says:
All bills shall be printed before the second reading in the English and French languages.
It is quite clear that this is all standing order 74 says; it refers only to bills. Of course Bill C-136 was printed in both languages before we were asked to debate it on second reading. Yesterday when some amendments were distributed that had been printed because of their number, that distribution, again, was in both languages.
But I also draw to your attention section 133 of the British North America Act, which reads:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of 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.
I read the whole section so it would be on the record, but obviously the part which is germane is the middle part, where it says:
-and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses-
I realize that if we were a court of law we would be required to have a pretty thorough inquiry into the definition of words such as "records" and "journals" and decide what they mean, especially when those words begin with capital letters. But taking those words in their ordinary meaning it would seem to me that the minutes of proceedings and evidence of a committee of this house-and
Canada Pension Plan
we must remember that by our standing orders all house committees are regarded as extensions of the house-should be printed in both languages. In other words, I think the standing orders of the house do not, perhaps, go as far as they should go in the light of the requirements of the British North America Act.
There have been many arguments on this language question about how far bilingualism should be carried, but there is no question but that the two languages are equal in the parliament of Canada. There may be a question about it somewhere else, but there is no question here. So I believe the hon. member for Beauce has a valid point of privilege, and in discussing this point of privilege we should start from that point. We should start with a clear recognition of the validity of the point.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I am going to say, in terms which might be described as an appeal, that I hope we will find a way to resolve this issue, to resolve what might in fact be a crisis. I have been interested in this question for some time, and I have made some inquiries in some of the offices about the building. I have found that it has always been the practice to translate all the minutes of proceedings, though they may have been taken in English, into French. That has always been the case for all our committees; but the tendency over the years has been to do this five or six months after the event in periods between sessions of parliament. That was not good enough but it has been the practice.
However, in recent years, in fact largely due to the efforts of our friends in the far corner, we have been called upon to speed things up in terms of the bilingual practices in this house, and I hope they will recognize that these practices have been speeded up. I understand that an attempt has been made to speed up this translation work. In our special committee on procedure and organization we have been faced with some of these problems and have been supplied with memoranda which indicates the staggering enormity of the task of keeping up with the requirements of section 133 of the British North America Act.
I would hope that out of reasonable discussion among reasonable people we could reach the point where we admit categorically the right that our friends are asserting, but that we do try to find some way to resolve this situation. I hope they will realize that although the situation is not satisfactory,

Canada Pension Plan
these records have started to come now, whereas a few years ago they would not even be in the mill at all at this point. I hope they will realize that in one way or another we have had a tremendous amount of time to deal with the Canada pension plan, and that it would be most unfortunate to stop our work at this point until the job of translating and printing the translation can be completed.
I understand that even on a commercial basis it would take a considerable time.
I am shocked at this myself. We are used to being able to get yesterday's Hansard today in both languages. It is hard to understand that we cannot get minutes of proceedings and evidence taken last December, January and February by March. But I am told by official people, not by government people, that the load has become staggering and we are just not geared to it.
I should like to hear some explanation from the government about the whole matter. However, I hope that after we have discussed the situation we will admit that our friends have a valid point of privilege. In return for the rest of us admitting that they have a valid point of privilege I hope they will accommodate the house and find some way in which we can go ahead and complete the job we are now doing in connection with Bill C-136. I realize I have gone a little into the suggestion as to what to do about it, but I hope that in part I have responded to your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that the matter be looked at in terms of what is the procedural position.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, there are two points I should like to deal with. The first one I want to deal with very briefly because I do not think it really deals adequately with the problem now confronting us. On a narrow technical, legalistic ground there is no doubt at all but that the point of privilege is out of order, the reason being a decision of April 6, 1910 and a decision of March 11, 1957. However, I think all hon. members in the committee will agree that that is not a satisfactory disposition of the matter. I mention these two cases only because they deal squarely with this kind of problem, dealing with the matter on purely legal grounds and putting the proposition quite clearly on those grounds. But I am not prepared to conclude the matter there because-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was pre-"B and B"-


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member do me the courtesy which I did him and not interrupt me when I am seeking to explain

my position in this matter? I think all hon. members agree that this is not the view held at the time as to what should be the situation here. The government has repeatedly and consistently made clear its position, that it is seeking by every method possible to get the kind of bilingual records in this parliament as requested by the hon. member for Beauce. That has been our course over the last two years.
If I may now deal with the evidence of the committee itself, when this matter was raised last week I took the trouble to try to find out exactly what had happened. I found that as the evidence before the committee was taken, it was simultaneously translated; at least I am advised that that was the case. I also found that the committee report when presented to parliament was presented in both languages. I found that the bill and the amendments offered at all stages were printed in the two languages throughout. So there remains the one difficult problem of the translation and transcription of the evidence and its presentation to this house in the two languages.
Incidentally, I might say that while pursuing the matter I discovered that the transcription of evidence, which is part of the new practice, is for the benefit of committee members, not for the benefit of the House of Commons generally. I was rather surprised to find that, but perhaps that is irrelevant here today. However, there is a decision of the Speaker on that point, which was sustained. In any event, I do not assert it at this time.
I then found that this work had been sent to the translation bureau in Ottawa, that a part of it had been sent to the new Montreal office of the translation bureau and that in addition one particularly technical part had been sent to the legal branch of the House of Commons staff. All the translation resources that the government had at its command were put to work on this translation. These people were given instructions to give this matter priority and I also saw to it that instructions were given to the printing bureau that they give priority to the printing of the translated version. To a considerable degree that was successful because yesterday the French version of six different parts of the evidence was delivered to hon. members, and I noticed at noon today that a further copy had been delivered. Therefore seven copies of the French version were delivered yesterday and today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is 7 out of 24, not 7 out of 51?


George James McIlraith: Seven out of 22, I think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are 24 volumes.


George James McIlraith: Twenty four or 22.


An hon. Member:: Twenty four.


George James McIlraith: Then it is 7 out of 24. I might say that in looking into this matter I find that the translation bureau during this current session has had to deal with more than double the previous peak volume of translation. I found that some time ago we authorized the translation bureau to increase its staff by 49 translators and 20 trainees or a total of 69 positions. I found that the Montreal office has been established because of the difficulty in getting enough translators to come to Ottawa to do this type of work, and that there are 25 translators employed there. I found that the problem of recruitment still exists. There simply do not seem to be enough translators available to be hired as quickly as we would wish. Apparently it is not a problem of pay but rather a problem of finding qualified translators who are willing to do this work.
I found also that the practice, which is a very good one and I think will commend itself to hon. members, has grown up in the house of tabling reports in the two languages. It was rather interesting to note that the B and B report tabled a few days ago was tabled in the two languages in the one volume. I found that during this session simultaneous translation of the proceedings of the house has been extended to the galleries. I found that the translation of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms has been undertaken by the government, although it is a private publication.
I mention these things because from the work I have put on this subject I know that the record of the government, in attempting to bring about the condition sought by the hon. member who raised this question of privilege, is a very good one and that the government is doing everything possible to see that this situation cannot possibly arise again. I may say that only last week the commissioners of internal economy took the necessary action to reorganize the whole committee reporting staff with a view to creating a situation whereby production of committee evidence in the two languages will be done simultaneously and committee evidence in the two languages
Canada Pension Plan
will be received within a day or two after the sittings of a committee are ended, or almost in the same way that Hansard is received now. I believe that is a step that will commend itself to all hon. members. It may take a few months to achieve this end but the necessary authority for the organizational program has been given.
In the light of all these things I would respectfully ask the hon. member for Beauce and the hon. member for Villeneuve, having heard the record of everything that is being sought to be done, if they would be agreeable to not pressing their question of privilege at this moment in order to let the committee proceed to complete its work so that the bill can go to the other place, be dealt with there and receive royal assent at this session of parliament rather than having to hold it over to a later session. In the light of the explanation I have given, I wonder whether they would agree to forgo the pressing of their question of privilege at the moment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like first of all to deal with the standing order under which the motion introduced by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) is quite in order.
I would like to quote citation 125(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition:
The proceedings and report of a select committee may not be referred to in debate before they have been laid upon the table.
For us, this report has not yet been laid upon the table, since we have not yet received the French version.
According to section 133 of the British North America Act, documents, in order to be official, must be tabled in the House of Commons in both languages.
If we refer to citation 159(3) of Beauchesne, fourth edition, we can read the following:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
This document consisting of the report of the special committee of the House of Commons and the Senate concerning the pension plan has not yet been tabled officially in the House of Commons, since this has not been done in both languages. According to section 133, this document will be official only when both versions are laid upon the table of the House of Commons.

Canada Pension Plan
Besides, paragraph 4 of citation 159 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, reads as follows:
Official papers quoted during a debate should be laid on the table of the house.
During this debate the report of the joint committee on the pension plan is being quoted although that report has not yet officially been tabled, since it has not been translated in both languages.
According to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, reports of special and standing committees must be tabled in both languages to be official. They must also be tabled officially so they can be quoted in the house.
In that regard, I should like to deal with the request made by the government's house leader, namely the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), to the effect that our group should withdraw its motion in view of the government's impressive record.
Before I go on with my remarks on that matter, I must say it is true that under the present administration, and especially these last three years, there has been improvement in the field of translation. It is also true that several new translators were hired. I recognize that there is a recruiting problem, which I think is due to the fact that the salary offered is lower than that offered by private industry in Montreal, Quebec or elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman, I also think that the problem facing us today stems from the fact that in the past the rights of the French language were always ignored in this house.
I also wish to point out that the committee ended its sittings a long time ago, and while we have almost completed the study of this bill concerning the Canada pension plan, we have not yet received the French version of the proceedings of that committee. Under the circumstances, I must say that the record of the government is rather tarnished.
We are asked not to insist on the tabling of the French version of the proceedings of that committee at a time when we are completing the examination of Bill No. C-136, and when there are members of all parties in this house who can read or understand English but with difficulty, just as others have the same difficulty in reading or understanding French. While we have reached the last stage of the bill, we have not yet received the translation of the committee's reports. So, I say that the record of the government is quite tarnished and that we should demand, as is provided for in the motion introduced by the hon.

member for Beauce, that clause 1 be allowed to stand, in view of the fact that the other 124 clauses were carried. We are asking that clause 1 do stand until we receive the reports of the committee in both languages, so everything will be done according to the rules.
Mr. Chairman, should the reverse situation have occurred, that is, if the reports had been published in the French language only, I am convinced that the great majority of the English speaking members would have protested before now and would have demanded the translation in their own language.
While the bill was being examined in committee we never ceased protesting. For three weeks we have been debating this Bill No. C-136, and we always asked for the French version of the proceedings of the committee. However, as yet we have received nothing.
Mr. Chairman, I contend that it is high time to demand that, at least in this house, which is supposed to reflect bilingualism in Canada, we be provided with the reports and all texts in both languages so that we can study legislation coming before us.
Therefore, in view of citations 125 and 159 of Beauchesne, and of section 133 of the British North America Act, it is my contention that the motion is in order. I suggest that you should accept this motion so that we may discuss it. The government should also deem it its duty to welcome it and to let clause 1 of Bill No. C-136 stand, so that all members may be on an equal footing and may examine the bill in committee, in an adequate and painstaking way.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not want to interrupt the debate on the point of order raised a few minutes ago. I admit that I have allowed the discussion to go quite beyond the scope of the point of order, but I wanted to give the opportunity to as many members as possible to express their opinions, perhaps more on the question of privilege than on the point of order under consideration.
I would be obliged if hon. members who wish to help the Chair reach a decision on this very important and difficult matter, would confine their remarks to the point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, for a long time now, at every session, members have always been faced with this problem. I think it is essential that committee reports-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are now considering the

point of order. A ruling has to be made as to whether the motion is in order in the committee of the whole.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I believe the motion is quite in order because-


Lucien Lamoureux: Could the hon. member supply evidence or citations which would help the Chair make a ruling?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, needless to repeat the arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to prove that both French and English should be considered on an equal footing.
Quite often committee reports are published in French six or seven months after the English version. It seems to me this is against the rules of this house. This situation does not exist only since the present government took office, it has always been that way. As a matter of fact, on different occasions several members have made constructive suggestions, and I think the best way to solve the problem would be to give a bonus to the translators or to increase their salary-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, I would suggest to the hon. member to limit his remarks to the point of order now before the committee.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, in order to adhere more to the point of order than to the question of privilege, I call your attention to the second paragraph of citation 119 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, which seems in a certain way to answer the President of the Privy Council, who said a while ago that the government had made an effort as far as the translation of the committee proceedings is concerned. He said also that it was a matter of time, while suggesting that we should not abuse the time of the committee.
In this respect, here is what paragraph 2 of citation 119 says:
The mere object of shortening sessions may lead to an undue curtailment of the freedom of speech. The duties of a representative parliament are too important to be performed in a hurry. No question should be decided until it has been fully discussed. Although some effort ought to be made to economize time, every shade of opinion has the right to find expression and members who desire to give their views should not be prevented from doing so. Canada is a vast country, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. A two-month session, if it is mismanaged, is more wasteful of time than a six-month session during which no time has been lost. Debates have to be free and they must also be relevant. In parliament every corner of the country is represented and no rule 20220-786
Canada Pension Plan
should silence elected representatives when they think they have a message to deliver. Freedom of speech is a sacred principle and if there is a place where it should be fully respected that place is the parliament of the nation, and it is the Speaker's responsibility to see that this principle is not infringed upon.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in order to have a clear and precise idea of everything included in Bill No. C-136, the French speaking members have to read the evidence given during the various sittings of the committee.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I realize that you are drawing the lines very closely at the present time. I just wanted to say it would appear from the quotations that have been given this afternoon that the hon. member for Beauce does have a legitimate question of privilege and one which I believe should be entertained by the Chair at the present time.
The President of the Privy Council has given quite a lengthy explanation about the situation that exists, but this is something that has obtained for some considerable time and greater efforts should be made to take care of the problem so that in future we shall not get into the fix in which we are at the moment.
I wish to re-echo the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that it is hoped hon. members will not take an adamant position on this question of privilege, but rather in some way solve the problem so that we can move ahead with the business before the committee, some way which would not rule out the question of privilege or the arguments advanced. This would be a good time to show a spirit of give and take so that we can proceed with the business before us.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if there is any possibility of your following a course that would allow us to continue with the debate without ruling the motion out of order at this point, or having a vote on it if Your Honour decides it is in order. Like many others in the committee I feel there is general sympathy for the case that has been made. I for one would hate to see it come to a vote now, either on the motion or an appeal from Your Honour's ruling, because it might easily be misunderstood and misinterpreted.
In order to allow the debate to proceed I wonder if Your Honour would take the motion under advisement until after the dinner hour.

Canada Pension Plan


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, we prefer to vote now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in support of the complaint raised by the hon. member for Beauce. Not that I consider it to be entirely a question of privilege-no, not quite-but it does seem to me that the circumstances are such that, even if one takes into account the difficulties set forth in detail by the President of the Privy Council, the government is to blame. To begin with, the joint committee should not have been asked to sit during the recess, when the government knew beforehand that the members of this house would be needing not only the report of the committee, but the minutes of its proceedings, to examine Bill No. C-136.
So, I wonder why they did not see fit to mobilize the forces of the translation and printing bureaus in order to supply us with the report and the proceedings in French, in time for the study of this bill.
After all, it is not only a group of members who protest and who have been insulted by this lack of consideration on the part of the government but all Quebec members, government members as well as hon. members opposite, who also have the right to get and study those reports in their own language.
We cannot rely on the explanations given by either of the ministers who pilot this bill because they state their own point of view and that of the government. Consequently, we cannot judge the matter objectively because, after all, strangers testified before the committee.
In my opinion, this situation is abnormal. I do not know what can be done. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, excuses can be given but what good will that do if the same thing happens again tomorrow? I hope it will not be the case and that the business of the house will not be delayed in any way.
I know the President of the Privy Council gave excuses, as I would say in English-

His defence, Mr. Chairman, was that of a lawyer who was confessing and avoiding rather than transversing the arguments. Therefore I feel that this is not quite good enough. Hon. members were entitled to the reports in French as well as in English, and in view of the particular circumstances of committee hearings, particularly those in the recess period, this type of effort must be made. I certainly have sympathy for the complaint of the hon. member for Beauce.
[Mr. Rheaume.l
Whether it goes to the point of privilege to hold up the bill is another question, but I certainly think he has a good point of grievance.


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Chairman, the motion introduced by the hon. member for Beauce will delay the passing of Bill No. C-136 and that is why I think it is out of order, even though it is stressing flaws which should be corrected.
We have, of course, an abnormal situation when French and English texts, not only of bills submitted to the house but also of committee reports, are not published concurrently.
When the hon. member for Beauce complains that he cannot discuss intelligently Bill No. C-136 because he does not have on hand the 2,000 pages of evidence given before the committee-


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I never complained about not being able to discuss intelligently. I said I did not have all the necessary information to discuss the bill. I did not say I could not discuss intelligently, as suggested by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes.


Vincent Drouin: Would the hon. member for Beauce accept my apologies. I used the word "intelligently" in the sense of "with full knowledge of the facts". I am not suggesting that the hon. member is not intelligent enough-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must say that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes is not in the least helping the Chair to render a judgment which he would hope to be a Solomon judgment. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the point of order before the committee.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out that the motion is out of order, even though it is stressing a crucial problem.
It is out of order because the hon. member for Beauce does not need such information to consider Bill No. C-136 because, even if he had such information, I do not see how he could consult a 2,000 page report when he could not muster up enough courage to attend more than six sittings out of a total of 51.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I repeat what I told the hon. member, that he is not helping the situation at all.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: A question of privilege by the hon. member for Megantic.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Before accusing the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) of not attending committee meetings, I think the hon. member who has just resumed his seat should inquire about the reasons which compelled the hon. member for Beauce to miss those meetings. I feel that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) is very discourteous to the hon. member for Beauce who has just lost his father-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I ask the hon. members to revert to the point we are now trying to clear up.


Mr. Nugent:: The point, it seems to me, is whether or not the hon. member has raised a genuine question of privilege. It seems to me a considerable spirit of co-operation is shown from time to time in our debates by French speaking members, those who have some knowledge of the English language, on those occasions when we ask for their cooperation, when certain reports for instance are not available in the French language. However, it appears to me that the hon. member is making a legitimate complaint when he tells us that some of the material he finds it necessary to consider is not available to him in a form which he finds readily understandable. After all, this is a most important matter and the hon. member has a duty to his constituents. Indeed I doubt whether he has the right to show the spirit of co-operation which is apparently being asked for on this occasion if he honestly believes that some of this information which he regards as essential is in a form which he cannot completely understand. In these circumstances I believe the hon. member has a proper question of privilege and that he has a duty to bring it to our attention. He is asking the Chair to allow conditions to exist which will enable him properly to carry out his duty in this house.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair is prepared to render a decision at this point. I am sure all hon. members will realize that it is not an easy decision to take. I can assure the hon. member for Beauce and the other members of his party that I am, naturally, in full sympathy with the point they have raised.
I suggest there are two points which must be considered.
20220-786J
Canada Pension Plan [Translation]
In fact two points have been raised during the discussion.
It seems to me that my hon. colleagues of the committee took time especially to consider the matter of substance related to the question of privilege rather than the point of order about which the Chair had requested opinions on the part of hon. members, in order to know whether the question of privilege submitted by the hon. member for Beauce could be considered at this stage of our proceedings. In other words, it is a matter of strict procedure, whether this question of privilege can be considered at this time.
I do not think that the chairman of the committee of the whole has any authority at this moment to render a judgment on the question of privilege itself, as to whether the hon. member really can make that complaint. Perhaps his complaint is justified, but at this time, since I have no power or authority under the rules it is impossible for me to rule on this point.
I can merely render a judgment on whether or not this motion can be made at this stage of our proceedings. Now, on this matter, may I refer my hon. colleagues to several decisions. First of all, I must remind them that in committee we are strictly limited to the consideration of the subject before the committee. And, on that point, I would ask them to remember the provisions of standing rule 59, paragraph (2), which says that in committee the decision must strictly be related to the point before the committee. Now, what we have before us at this time is clause 1 of Bill No. 136. The question of privilege obviously goes far beyond the limits of that discussion.
We should ask ourselves the following question. To what extent does what is being introduced at present go beyond the terms of deferment of the bill before us? In this regard, with your permission I will first quote May's on page 605:

Power and duties of chairman-In the Commons, order in a debate in a committee is enforced by the chairman as he is responsible for the conduct of business therein-

In other words, it is specified that the chairman of the committee has no other powers but to give a ruling on the points of order relating to the question of privilege.
On page 606, we find the following words: [Text]
If complaint is made in committee of the whole house of a breach of privilege which has been

Canada Pension Plan
recently committed and requires instant attention, the chairman leaves the chair on an order to report progress.

In other words, the committee itself has no right now to consider the question of privilege and the chairman cannot rule on this question of privilege.
I now quote citation 230(2) of Beauchesne: A committee of the whole house has no power either to adjourn its own sittings or to adjourn its consideration of any matter to a future sitting.
-That is what the hon. member for Beauce suggests.
If its consideration of a matter be not concluded, or if ail the matters referred to it have not been considered, the chairman is directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
This confirms the citation from May to which I just referred.
I now ask the members of the committee to refer to citation 304(2) of the fourth edition of Beauchesne:
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference.
This is the point I referred to. At the moment the order of reference to the committee of the whole house now sitting is to consider Bill No. C-136; this does not exclude the possibility of considering a question of privilege.
Without going into greater detail, I will remind the hon. member-and I know that those who took part in the discussion agree with me-that we cannot consider another matter for the time being. There is no possible way out except one of the three following solutions: A motion moved by the hon. member to amend a clause now under consideration, namely a motion to amend clause 1 of Bill No. C-136; or, as a second alternative, a vote against the clause under consideration; or third, a motion to report progress.
Unfortunately for the Chair, and maybe for the committee members who of course have a tendency to support the point raised by the hon. member for Beauce, the powers of the chairman of the committee do not exceed what I have just mentioned.
For the information of my colleagues 1 must say that under the circumstances, in spite of all the sympathy shown by the committee members with regard to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce, the committee cannot consider it at this stage of the proceedings.
[The Chairman.]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, with all the sympathy I have for you, I appeal from your very sympathetic ruling.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has considered that he might make a motion to rise and report progress in order that the question of privilege could be considered.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is an appeal from the decision of the Chair before us now. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, you give us three alternatives, not two but three. So our choice is the third one, which is to report progress to the Speaker so that a ruling can be given, since you do not yourself have the authority required to do so under the circumstances.


Lucien Lamoureux: Then, if the hon. member who has appealed the ruling of the Chair wishes to withdraw his motion, naturally, the Chair will be most happy and will co-operate with the hon. member. Is that the wish of the hon. member for Lapointe?


Gilles Grégoire: We are going to withdraw our appeal from your ruling and ask you to report progress to the Speaker, so that the latter, when in the chair, may decide whether or not there is a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: Could the hon. member for Lapointe present a motion in writing to that effect?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Mr. Gregoire moves:
That the committee of the whole house shall rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The question has not yet been put. The Chair will ask if the committee is ready for the question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Could I have the co-operation of hon. members. The Chair has to put the question. The question has not yet been put. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would ask that no more members come into the chamber from this moment. All those in favour-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. All those in favour-


Some hon. Members:: Go out.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. All those in favour of the motion will please rise.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The member for Halifax.


Mr. Fairweather:: You are not getting away with this.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Before we take the count I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members that the question has been put and no member can come into the chamber after the question has been put.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: The votes of hon. members who came into the chamber after the question was put will not be counted.
Motion (Mr. Gregoire) agreed to: Yeas, 61; nays, 52.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the motion carried.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Progress reported.



PRIVILEGE-MR. PERRON-FAILURE TO SUPPLY FRENCH COPY OF PENSION COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
[And the second clerk assistant having read the order:]
"The house in committee on Bill No. C-136, to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors".
[And the house having resumed in committee.]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is completely wrong.
Question of Privilege


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair seeks the co-operation of hon. members. It is the understanding of the Chair that I had no alternative but to leave the chair after the order had been called.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Beauce was on his feet on a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: That is quite all right; I am prepared to return to the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: I will assume that the order has not been read, although hon. members noticed that it was, or was at least about to be read. The Chair had no alternative except to leave the chair at that moment. I will assume that the order has not been read and will return to the chair.
[And Mr. Deputy Speaker having resumed the chair.]


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of National Health and Welfare herself, in many of her statements, recognized that we did not grasp in sufficient detail the scope of Bill No. C-136, which provides for the establishment of a pension fund or plan, a comprehensive social insurance or social security scheme, as she stated in this house even after I had asked for the French version of the proceedings of the 51 sittings of the committee. Therefore, I feel justified in telling the committee of the whole that we lacked certain information and, in this connection, I shall even quote from an article written by Mr. John Myers and published in L'Action of March 15, 1965. This article was translated from English by Jean d'Autane. I quote:
The recommendations of the committee were, in the main, of a technical nature and of minor consequence. The amendments put forward by the opposition fall into the same class. Since the revision to make the plan similar to that of Quebec, the emphasis was put on the efforts made to tie up loose ends rather than on a reasoned examination of the applicability of the plan and the possible alternatives. There is now some misgiving as to the likely operation of the plan in its original form by the beginning of next year.
The plan was initially introduced as a social measure being part of the platform of the Liberal party. When it was revised in view of a consolidation, this involved a supplementary source of capital for the federal and provincial governments.
In view of the scope taken by the consideration of Bill No. C-136 in the committee of the whole, I seriously believe that we should have had all the proceedings and

Question of Privilege
evidence of the meetings that were held during the recess.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the joint committee stated that up to the moment I raised my question of privilege, I had never complained of not having received the French text of the proceedings of the committee. To this, I would reply that as the committee is nothing but the extension of the House of Commons, I was entitled to demand in this house, and this not only after having complained, the same rights and privileges as the other members to receive all the documents necessary to the dispatch of the business of the house and to the study, at all the stages, of the bills before us, as well as all the related documents.
Bill C-136 is of a complicated nature and of considerable scope. That is why I deem it my duty to ask that consideration of clause 1 be held until the members receive the French translation of the proceedings of the special committee created for the purpose of considering the bill.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic:
That consideration of	clause 1 of Bill No.
C-136 stand until the members of this house receive the French version of the proceedings of the special committee created for the purpose of considering this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am inviting the hon. members	to	express	their opinion as	towhether	the	motion	or the question	of
privilege is in order or not.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker, might I inquire whether	this	motion	has been moved	in
French?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion was received only in French.


An hon. Member:: What does it say?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will read it in the French language and hon. members can listen to it through the translation system. [Translation]
That consideration of clause 1 of Bill No. C-136 stand until the members of this house receive the French version of the proceedings of the special committee created for the purpose of considering this bill.
That consideration of clause 1 of Bill No. C-136 stand until the members of this house receive the French version of the proceedings of the special committee created for the purpose of considering this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand

your query, whether we are now discussing the admissibility or otherwise of this motion. A question of privilege was raised founded on a very important point, a matter of principle, and a motion has been put before you-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might mention to the hon. gentleman that actually the motion will be put formally and will be before the house for a vote only if the question of privilege is sustained by the Chair. This is the point on which hon. members may wish to enlighten and assist the Chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then the question resolves itself into this: Has a valid question of privilege been raised? As I understand the question of privilege it is simply this, that the record of proceedings of the pension committee were printed and distributed in the English language and only in part have they now been translated, printed and distributed in the French language. We were informed earlier this afternoon that of the 24 parts of the minutes of proceedings of the evidence before the pension committee only seven have been translated into French-


George James McIlraith: Eight.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and transmitted to the members of this house.
The question of privilege is valid because the two languages are recognized as official languages of parliament. It has been our understanding all these years that all reports would be printed in both languages. Time and again I recall, when I sat on the other side of the house, that when reports were tabled questions were asked as to whether they were printed in both languages. If the reports had not been translated into the other language, then objection was very properly raised.
It has been the custom over the years to have the report of committee meetings translated into both languages. As one of my colleagues pointed out, time and again members of this house whose native language is French have been very generous in letting us proceed in committee on other occasions when the document in front of us was printed in only one language, namely English. They have been exceptionally generous along that line. During the last few years the problem has been recognized in this house, and thanks to the action taken by the Progressive Conservative government simultaneous translation was provided in this chamber and has made it much more effective. For the first time in

many years interested members may use the translation system to follow debates in either language. At the same time, I well recall that we had difficulty in getting sufficient translators to maintain the volume of work which faced us in getting reports and other documents translated. Many times we fell behind and there were delays. But the problem has come increasingly to the fore.
The problem of finding suitable translators is recognized on both sides of the house, but it is high time that a major effort is made which is even greater than that which has been up to the present so as to ensure that translation shall be rapid, accurate and complete. We have achieved that with regard to Hansard and are able to receive our copies in either language the following day. I also think it has been fairly well achieved with regard to departmental reports, although I have not recently checked to make sure.
I was under the impression that we had achieved success with regard to committee work, although there there is a delay both in the finalizing of the English version as well as the French. That is another problem which should be settled before too long, because there is too much delay in the presentation of committee reports.
However, the house has expressed its astonishment today at finding that the pension committee report has not been translated and made available to those members of this house who want it in the French language. I did not know until today that this circumstance prevailed. Surely this is a valid question of privilege. There are two recognized official languages. Members of this house are right to insist that they should have put before them the documents of this house in their own language. I would be one of the first to object, I think, if documents were put before me in one language when I wanted them in the other. I read more freely in the English language than I do in the French, although I read both; but I would be one of the first to insist that documents be put before me in the English language.
In this particular matter, dealing with a joint pension committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, it is incredible that provision was not made for the translation of the evidence presented before that committee. As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the joint committee met during a recess of parliament and it would seem normal that the translators who work here from day to day would have been available for that com-
Question of Privilege
mittee work. I do not know of any other committee that was sitting during the recess.
We are prepared to grant that the job is a large one, that it requires highly skilled workers and that there are sometimes inevitable delays. I doubt very much that anyone would have objected had there been a delay of a week or two in the production of the French version of the committee reports, but much more time than that has gone by. The proceedings of the committee covering work it performed in the months of January and February apparently have not yet been translated into the French language.
So, Mr. Speaker, the objection raised by the hon. member for Beauce, with whose party I am seldom in agreement, is on this occasion a valid objection and should be sustained by the House of Commons because a principle is involved here. If we have two languages they must have equal standing in parliament. It is not right to relegate one of those languages to a secondary position, which is what has been done on this occasion. After all the years of experience I would have thought that great care would be taken to give proper recognition to the French language. So I support the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce. It is valid and in my opinion it should be considered to be valid by the Chair.
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy
Council): Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested in the argument of the hon. member but I find myself concerned with the form in which this matter has come before you as Speaker. As I understand it, the attempt was made to bring it before you, Mr. Speaker, as a question of privilege and not a point of order. If the point taken is anything, it is a point of order or procedure affecting the right of the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the Canada pension plan legislation. If the point is well taken, it is a point of order; but a point of order can only be raised when a matter is before the house. You, Mr. Speaker, had not put any matter before the house. When the Clerk at the table reads the order you immediately leave the chair, the chairman is in the chair and the house is in committee.
If the point is asserted to be a question of privilege, I respectfully suggest it is not a question of privilege. A question of privilege could have been raised if there was one, but I respectfully submit this point is not a question of privilege but a matter of procedure in the house-

Question of Privilege


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gilles Grégoire: Shame on you.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Lapointe says "shame on you". I am somewhat at a loss to understand his remark because I would have hoped he would have some regard for correct procedures in the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Our language is not a procedure; it is a right.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Beauce is seeking to raise something affecting the rights of all hon. members of the house and I would hope the hon. member would want the matter to be correctly resolved. With regard to the point itself, as I indicated earlier in my remarks in committee of the whole the precise point was dealt with in 1957 when raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This precise matter was raised at that time, but before I come to that I might refer to something that amazes me about the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The practice that had grown up over the years was that the translation of the evidence in committees, regrettably, was not done until some time after the reports of the committees were dealt with by the house. This has been the practice, but what has been and is being established now is an improvement which I am sure will meet the wishes of all hon. members.
To return to the point raised on March 11, 1957, in the Journals of the house it will be seen that on that date the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised this precise point and at that time the Speaker gave quite a lengthy ruling. He first disposed of the point but then permitted it to be argued and gave a ruling. Perhaps I do not need to read the whole thing because it consists of some three pages of fine print.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of explanation, what is the Hansard reference to the Speaker's ruling or the reference in Votes and Proceedings'!


George James McIlraith: I have Votes and Proceedings here. It is March 11, 1957. At the beginning of his ruling the Speaker pointed out that the printing of evidence by the committee is for the use of the committee and that hon. members had forgotten that point. He then went on to give a detailed ruling at great length and said in part:
The point is, are we going to he put in the position in the future, through a ruling of the Chair, that the printed minutes and evidence of the com-
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
mittee, for the use of parliament as part of the records, is to be available before a bill is proceeded with in the house? When under the rules a bill is put on the order paper, has been called and read by the Deputy Clerk, the particular bill must be either proceeded with or must be withdrawn or discharged. I must rule against the point raised by the honourable member.
From this ruling the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre appealed to the house. The Speaker then repeated his ruling, the question was put and the Speaker's ruling was sustained. That is the precise point which has now been raised in the house, but I must say that at that time it was raised as a point of order and not as a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I should know the answer because I raised the point, but may I put it in the form of a question? On that occasion was the issue the having of the minutes of proceedings and evidence in both languages or was it the issue of having the minutes of proceedings and evidence at all?


George James McIlraith: I am not sure of that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: -but in any event the ruling was quite clear that they were not needed in either language.
The other point that has been raised by the hon. member's question is dealt with in a judgment delivered on April 6, 1910. It is a rather lengthy judgment in a case in which objection was taken to the fact that committee evidence was not printed in the French language. I do not know how much of it hon. members want me to read. The objection was raised on that occasion as a point of order. I submit, respectfully, that if this point is one to be considered at all it should be considered as a point of order and not a question of privilege.
In that case the Speaker ruled:
There is a custom here that reports of committees may be made in either language, and on the day following their presentation they appear in the Votes and Proceedings in both languages.
He was dealing with the report at that stage, and then he went on to say:
__I have looked in vain since confederation for
a precedent to enable me to decide whether or not this bill could be considered when the evidence taken by the committee, to whom it has been referred and reported with the bill, has not been translated and printed in both languages.

The specific point was raised here, and it was the failure to print the evidence in the French language that was at issue. Then, he goes on to deal with section 133 which merely says that either language may be used and that does not help us. Then, I quote:
-This evidence is now being translated and will be printed in the French language and duly distributed, but a decision to stop all proceedings until this is done would practically mean that this bill could not be proceeded with this session. Under the circumstances, I am not prepared to take that stand, seeing that I have found no precedent since confederation bearing on the point of order. I will, therefore, allow the debate to go on.
There was a motion, then, put in the negative by way of appeal, and Mr. Speaker was sustained. These two precedents, I respectfully submit, wholly dispose of the point raised in a legal and precise way.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: In 1910 who asked for the translation in the house; who presented that motion?


George James McIlraith: It was a Mr. Wilson, I believe, who presented the motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: suggest to you very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that the problem before you at the moment is whether or not this is a matter of privilege. I would answer this question very briefly. In so far as two of the citations put forward by the President of the Privy Council are concerned, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a valid distinction in that on this particular occasion the chairman of the committee presented not only the report of the committee but copies of the transcript of evidence in the English language-except a limited number; I believe there may have been three or four missing. Subsequently these were tabled. Having been tabled, they become the property of the house and, therefore, being documents of the house must be in both languages. This is the distinction which I would draw to Your Honour's attention. Having been tabled, these documents become the property of the house and must be, according to our practice, in English and in French.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Afterwards, please; in the instance that was cited, it was claimed that the transcript of evidence was for the use
Question of Privilege
of the committee and committee members. I suppose one must include the general public, since one of the first resolutions of the committee was to order the printing of 1,500 copies in English and 750 copies in French of the evidence. I will put this question to you, Mr. Speaker: Are the members of this house no more important than the public? One cannot say that the transcript of evidence is for the exclusive use of the members of the committee.
I come back to the point that is pertinent in this particular situation, the tabling of the transcript of evidence by the chairman of the committee. Earlier this afternoon I made some other points, but I should like to make this suggestion now: This is perhaps a novel point on a question of privilege. As my colleague the member for Winnipeg South Centre has said, and I am sure there is no one on the government side who would deny this, there is an important question of principle at stake. We should stop and consider it. It is whether or not this question, under the particular circumstances, is one of privilege that affects the members on both sides of the house. Paradoxical as it may seem, I am going to suggest to Your Honour that you take this question under advisement until eight o'clock this evening or the opening of the sittings tomorrow afternoon and that in the interval you allow the debate to continue.
May I cite a precedent, and one that is within our memory? During the consideration of the report of the flag committee, there was a motion to recommit the report. Objection was taken to the effect that the motion could not be received. As we know, under rules of debate where the debate was strictly relevant, Mr. Speaker took the matter under advisement-it was highly important that he have mature and reflected consideration on it-and allowed the debate to continue without prejudice on the narrow basis of the amendment. Under the circumstances, I appeal to all hon. members to consider this favourably. Mr. Speaker should take the motion under advisement and we should continue with consideration of clause 1 for the remainder of today or until a decision is reached. Naturally, there would be no disposition of the bill until this question has been dealt with one way or another. I make this suggestion because of the technical difficulty that exists in connection with the printing of the reports in both languages. I think I will leave it at that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman said he would permit a question. I just put this

Question of Privilege
question to him because he was at one time the Speaker of the house. I was rather impressed by the argument he made that the tabling of the minutes, evidence and so on, made them documents of the house. This purports to be a question of privilege. I wonder if the hon. gentleman has considered if, under the rule that a question of privilege must be raised at the first opportunity, this question should not have been raised precisely at the time of the tabling? I am not talking about the general question of whether this should be done, but merely the question of whether or not a matter of privilege is involved and whether, as my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council suggested, this was rather in the nature of a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will concede that the matter of privilege is one that should be raised at the first opportunity. However, it may be -and I am just thinking as I reflect on the point-that the matter has crystallized at the present time and that this should be one of the points Your Honour might take under advisement as well. Certainly the matter was adverted to but a motion was not raised. I would recommend that Your Honour take that point under advisement.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly no objection to the proposal made by the hon. member that this matter be taken under advisement, but I think it is important that all the points of view be placed on the record before you are asked to take the matter under advisement. It seems to me that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) in taking this initiative at this time is taking a step that has the potential of killing the pension bill for this session.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order.
I think it is contrary to the standing orders of the house for a member and even a minister to impute motives to an hon. member. I believe that the Minister of Labour is now imputing motives to the hon. member for Beauce, which is contrary to the standing orders of the house. Consequently, I ask him, though he is a minister, to abide by the rules.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there was no imputation of motives at all.


Gilles Grégoire: Oh no?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But the effect is clear. The result is absolutely clear-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe would perhaps allow the minister to explain the statement he made a moment ago. The minister denies that he wanted to impute motives to the hon. member for Beauce. This is what he is trying to explain at this time. I feel we should give him the opportunity to explain.


Gilles Grégoire: It is unexplainable.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention, nor did I in the words used, impute motives to the hon. member for Beauce, but what I did say, and I repeat, is that the initiative taken by the hon. member for Beauce if it succeeds will have the certain effect of killing the pension bill this session without any question.


Some hon. Members:: A red herring.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question? [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I recognize the Minister of Labour.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question? Would the minister agree-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I understand the Minister of Labour wants to continue his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question-yes or no?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to answer any question. My argument is really very clear, but now that it has been assailed before it has been made, maybe I should have the opportunity to make it. If the point raised by the hon. member for Beauce is declared by the Chair or by the house to be a matter of privilege, and if the motion as drafted is carried, then the pension bill cannot be proceeded with in this session. There is no question about that. It cannot be proceeded with until the evidence is produced in both languages. That is the certain effect of the initiative that has been taken by the hon. member for Beauce. There is no other effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the minister hear my question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) yesterday on orders of the day, and did he hear the Prime Minister's categorical assur-

ance that this session would not be prorogued until the Canada labour code and the Canada pension plan had been finally passed? Was that not the categorical assurance yesterday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the declaration made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), based on the circumstances that prevailed yesterday, was correct and was made in good faith.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have known this for weeks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But today a new circumstance has been set in motion. The committee has risen and reported progress. The Speaker has taken the chair and now we are asked as a house to determine whether this statement made by the hon. member for Beauce raises a question of privilege. I am saying that the matter is now in the hands of the house, that if the motion is one of privilege and if carried by the house, then this pension bill cannot be proceeded with.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In terms of the motion itself-until the proceedings are produced in both languages-and when is that going to happen? It is going to take a very lengthy period of time. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) now suggesting that the session continue for an additional six months?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been the government's promise for the last 10 months that this session would not end without the Canada pension plan being passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I ask hon. members to give an opportunity to another hon. member who has the floor to complete his remarks without being interrupted.


Gilles Grégoire: He is talking nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would resort to such obvious sophistry in an effort to justify the particular approach he is taking to this matter because it is obvious that yesterday the Prime Minister, basing himself on the circumstances that prevailed yesterday, was entitled to expect that the normal course would be followed with respect to the Canada pension plan. It is now being suggested by the hon. member for Beauce that the business before the house be set aside for an indefinite period.
Question of Privilege


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the effect of the acceptance of this proposal. I really want to confine the remainder of my comments to a point touched upon by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and later by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that the Speaker at this moment is obliged to decide whether there is involved in this particular motion a prima facie case of privilege.
I do not intend to argue the substance of the matter because that is one wing of the argument, but another wing of the argument is that any point of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity. I shall now read citation 104(3) from Beauchesne:
A matter of privilege which claims precedence over other public business should be a subject which has recently arisen and which calls for the immediate interposition of the house. The matter should be raised at the earliest opportunity.
The next sentence illustrates the validity of this particular point:
A matter which occurred during recess was refused precedence because it was not raised on the first day of the session.
In other words there is here cited a precedent that privilege was refused because one day had elapsed before the matter was raised in the house. We are now on the Canada pension plan and this citation has not been put in the form of a privilege motion until we have reached the 17th day when we are asked to depart from all of the other business of the house, and if this is declared to be a matter of privilege the motion that has been put forward will replace the debate on the Canada pension plan.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister not agree that it was only today or perhaps yesterday that it became quite apparent we would not have the proceedings in French before consideration of the bill would be terminated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, it was not clear. You cannot have it both ways. Just a moment ago a member of the opposition was arguing that this had been raised some time ago, some days ago, but it has been raised today as a question of privilege on the 17th day of the total debate on the Canada pension plan. If it were to be considered a question a privilege it ought to have been raised on the very first day. I raise this point because it affects one of the most important elements of a question of privilege.

Question of Privilege


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The hon. member lor Beauce on a point of order.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of his remarks, the Minister of Labour asked us to let him state his argument. However,
I notice that he is now limiting the debate as to whether the question of privilege is to be considered-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Beauce is trying now to explain a point about which he disagrees with the Minister of Labour, and I think that his point of order is not well taken.
I wonder if the hon. member would allow the Minister of Labour to conclude his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my point of order would be this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should resume his seat.

Would the hon. member for Lapointe resume his seat?
Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the minister is misleading the house, intentionally or unintentionally, in saying that the question of privilege has been raised only today, while Hansard gives evidence that it has been raised on March 4 last.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me there is no point of order bpt rather a matter for discussion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, to mislead the house constitutes a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Labour.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Would the minister accept a question? He has mentioned a period of six months required to complete the translation.


An hon. Member:: No.


Colin Cameron: Six months was mentioned. I wonder

whether the minister could give us information as to how much of the translation has been done to date, and how much remains to be done.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I used the phrase "six months" but I intended to say, possibly, six weeks. The best estimate we can get is that it would require an additional four weeks to complete the translation.


Gilles Grégoire: That is a disaster.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not discussing a question of disaster. I am discussing a question of privilege and I am arguing that it is crystal clear that in order to entitle the house to intervene in a matter alleged to be a question of privilege the question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. I am arguing that the earliest possible opportunity was three weeks ago or four weeks ago and that the house has now lost its opportunity to deal with this matter as a question of privilege.
May I refer to one precedent in the British house which involved a question of privilege relating to the detention of a member of the house of commons? One of the members raised the matter as a question of privilege and asked that the house should deal with it at that time. I should like to read the decision in that case by Mr. Speaker as reported in volume 363 of parliamentary debates at page 611.
Major Milner: Without in any way reflecting upon the home secretary or his action, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how this matter can be brought within the cognizance and control of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a question of privilege, and it goes back a considerable time. When it was first raised any member of the house could have raised the question of privilege, and that was not done. When I read a letter from the hon. and gallant member concerned, again the question of privilege could have been raised. Now that is past and gone, and hon. members cannot raise it any more. The house loses the opportunity.
This is precisely the argument I am making. Because the matter was not raised at the first opportunity the house loses the opportunity to deal with it as a question of privilege. I am making a purely procedural argument. I am not arguing against the principles which have been so scrupulously enunciated by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I am calling attention to a point which is of the essence when it comes to a decision by the Chair on a question of privilege, namely that this matter was not raised at the earliest possible opportunity. I am also concerned that if we embark upon the particular course

of action suggested we shall be delaying unduly and possibly killing the Canada pension plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we realize in all quarters of the house that we are dealing with a very difficult and important issue. It is bound to be a subject of confusion and perhaps of some heat, because mixed up in it are questions about which people in this house feel very strongly.
One of these questions is the right to use either language in this house. The other question concerns the Canada pension plan. Some people feel more strongly about one; some feel more strongly about the other. I feel strongly about both of them and I suggest they are both important issues. But I still believe it is possible for us as reasonable men and women to find some resolution of this problem. I should like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, that after Your Honour has heard argument you take the whole question under advisement. It seems to me it may be possible in the time during which Your Honour has this question under advisement for there to be an informal conference of members representing the various parties in this house to try to resolve this difficulty. Even though I may have risen in a moment of heat a few minutes ago I plead that we try not to exacerbate the situation. I say frankly I do not think the government is helping the situation at all by threatening that if this issue is resolved in a certain way the Canada pension plan will not get through in this session. I do not think that threat should be made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I rise on a question of privilege? I made an argument: I made no threat. I had no intention of making a threat and I hope the hon. gentleman will appreciate that this was not my purpose in making that argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the spirit in which I am pleading I will accept what the Minister of Labour said. I hope it will not be suggested in any way that the result of debating this important issue could be the setting aside of the Canada pension plan. After all, this session is still in existence, because the government promised long ago that it would not be prorogued until this important piece of legislation was finally passed. This assurance was confirmed yesterday by the Prime Minister.
Question of Privilege
We do not need to go over some of the things which were dealt with earlier in committee of the whole but I would remind the house of the fact that standing order 74 goes part of the way into this problem by requiring that all bills be presented in both languages. I would remind the house also that the British North America Act, which is even more demanding than the standing orders governing this house, requires-and I am reading the middle portion of section 133-that both languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of this house. When I spoke earlier I suggested there might be some argument over definitions-argument as to what is meant by records and journals. I admitted that there was a question whether or not the minutes of proceedings and evidence of a committee which met outside this house was part of the record or the Journals of this house. I think it was on that point that the ruling was made to which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) alluded a while ago. But may I point out-and this just emphasizes how serious the problem is; this just emphasizes the fact that we have got to cope with it-that I think on all sides of the house, and I include my friends at the far end of the house who have raised this issue, we can be reasonable people and resolve it.
But the fact is that on Tuesday, February 16, when the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron), as the Commons chairman of the special joint committee on Bill No. C-136, tabled the report of the special committee it included paragraph 11, which says:
A copy of the committee's minutes of proceedings and evidence (issues Nos. 1 to 24), respecting Bill C-136, is appended.
The next sentence in the Journals reads:
The minutes of proceedings and evidence accompanying the said report recorded as appendix No. 23 to the Journals.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that my pronunciation of French is so poor that I would not dare read that full sentence in the French Journals without being coached a bit, but it is there. I have in my hand the Journals in French for mardi, fevrier 16, and on page 1039, paragraph "onze", it says the same thing in French, namely that "the committee presents herewith the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence in connection with Bill C-136 and a copy of it is tabled herewith": Again, the same sentence that appeared in the English Journals is there. Perhaps I may translate the French into English; "The Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence is made a special appendix, as No. 23, to the Journals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a question of privilege or a point of order is a good question. For the most part the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Labour addressed themselves to this question and argued that it was not a proper question of privilege because it had not been raised soon enough; and I can see the possibility that this might be Your Honour's ruling. But even they admit that if it is not a question of privilege it could be, and probably is, a point of procedure. In this regard I say to my friends to the far left-that "far left" is geographically, not politically-that privilege in this case is a word that we apply to something a person has a right to raise in the house. I am not denying that the use of the French language is just as much a privilege or right as is the use of the English language in the federal parliament of this country. But even if it is decided that it is not a question of privilege, surely it is a point of order and surely it is a point of procedure when we read in the Journals of the House of Commons of February 16, in both languages, that issues Nos. 1 to 24 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence were tabled.
I say, as I said when I was dealing with this same issue an hour or two ago when we were in committee of the whole, that I think we should all recognize the magnitude of this problem of translation. We should recognize the way it has grown, in an explosive fashion, in the last few years. I think tribute should be paid to the staff and to those who have stepped up the speed with which things

have been translated. But we have not yet outgrown the practice of a few years ago which seemed to involve committee minutes being translated into French six months later. That apparently was the practice for many years. Progress has been made. Just as I would ask that the house recognize the validity of the point being made by our friends in the far corner, I hope our friends in the far corner will recognize that progress has been made in this regard and that they might be willing, if Your Honour takes this whole question under advisement, to meet in a conference of representatives of the government and the other parties and see if there is not some way that we can resolve this issue.
We do not want, as a parliament of Canada, to say anything that downgrades the use of or the right to use either language in this House of Commons. But it is also true that a parliament that has spent nearly two years on the Canada pension plan does not want to see it shelved; does not want to see it delayed. I think that by a conference of reasonable people representing all parties of this house we could reach a resolution of this question. I hope there will not be attempts to exacerbate the situation. I hope it will be accepted for its seriousness. I support very strongly the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and I think the Minister of Labour supported it, too. His only qualification was that we should have some argument first- and we are having it. But I hope Your Honour will take the matter under advisement and that somebody from the government side, the President of the Privy Council, the acting prime minister or someone else, might consider the suggestion of calling a conference of people representing all parties in this house to see if we cannot resolve in an amicable and reasonable way this very important issue.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to repeat the arguments offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who says that all records and journals tabled in the house should be in both French and English, in accordance with section 133 of the British North America Act. However, after listening to the Minister of Labour and the President of the Privy Council, I notice that the latter's arguments go back to 1910 and concern points

of order rather than questions of privilege. He said it clearly.
The Minister of Labour stated that if we waited for the committee proceedings to be translated into French, we could not adopt the pension plan this session. That is an argument made by the Minister of Labour.
But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned that standing order 74 of the House of Commons reads as follows:
All bills shall be printed before the second reading in the English and French languages.
Before.
I also consider it from that point of view as regards all that is related to this bill or to any other bill. However, the responsibility to make a ruling lies with you.
Here is citation 119 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms on which I should like to put some emphasis. A while ago I quoted paragraph 2 of this citation and now I should like to quote paragraphs 1 and 2 together and read them to you carefully, precisely to present opposition to the opinion put forward by the Minister of Labour and by the President of the Privy Council a while ago. Here is what is said in paragraph 1 of citation 119:
One of the main functions of the house consists in debating public issues, a function which can only be filled by complete freedom of speech.
As I understand this sentence, it means that before one can exercise complete freedom of speech, one must have all the documents required to take part in the debate.
Later on, it says:
There will always be contests between groups and parties, minority and majority, and in the debates that follow, the rules of procedure are all important.
We now have to deal with a rule of procedure, namely the one set out by the Minister of Labour and by the President of the Privy Council, that is whether there is a valid question of privilege in view of the time when it was raised.
I go on reading the citation:
Delays, multiplicity of amendments and even obstruction must not always be regarded as illegitimate political weapons. Rules of absolute rigidity have no place in the House of Commons. The United Kingdom house has gone further than us in modernizing some of its rules. Although we may take a leaf out of its book, we have developed a parliamentary practice of our own based on British principles and yet clearly Canadian. While we appreciate the long experience of the United Kingdom house and seek to profit therefrom-
The last sentence is very important under the present circumstances, because the point
Question of Privilege
at issue here is not only a matter of translation but also a matter of principle, of right, of prerogatives.
Here is the last sentence of this paragraph 1 of citation 119.
-we are the absolute and independent masters of our own procedure in accordance with our circumstances and needs.
Consequently, we are responsible for finding a solution without stumbling over one hundred and one procedures. We are never 100 per cent bound to a procedure or a precedent established in this house; it is our responsibility to make an immediate decision in accordance with the circumstances.
I do not agree with the Minister of Labour when he says that there is no question of privilege, because it was not raised one or two weeks ago. An injustice is always an injustice, whether it happens today or took place two weeks ago. That is no reason to tell us that we have to put up with that injustice now.
I will now read paragraph (2) of citation 119 which in fact contradicts the minister's argument that this would prolong the session and prevent the adoption of the pension plan:
The mere object of shortening sessions may lead to an undue curtailment of the freedom of speech. The duties of a representative parliament are too important to be performed in a hurry. No question should be decided until it has been fully discussed.
Therefore, the question should be fully discussed. We need the reports of the special joint committee which considered Bill No. C-136, the most complex piece of legislation which has ever been submitted to the Canadian parliament in 20 years.
Although some effort ought to be made to economize time, every shade of opinion has the right to find expression and members who desire to give their views should not be prevented from doing so. Canada is a vast country, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. The problems of the west are not those of the east. The viewpoints of members of parliament from British Columbia and the prairie provinces differ from those of Ontario:	Ontario differs from
Quebec-
And we, in this group, are a part of Quebec.
-and Quebec from the maritime provinces. For this reason debates in the house are necessarily lengthy. A two month session, if it is mismanaged, is more wasteful of time than a six month session during which no time has been lost. Debates have to be free and they must also be relevant.
And referring to the matter under discussion, that is restriction of the debate, if we only had the necessary information, the translation of the joint committee reports on Bill No. C-136.
12424	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In parliament every corner of the country is represented and no rule should silence elected representatives when they think they have a message to deliver.
And today, a great many rules have been referred to in trying to tell the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) you have no right. It is not up to you to deal with this question of privilege. We feel we would be discriminated against today if we do not obtain translation of the proceedings of the committee which considered Bill No. C-136.
Freedom of speech is a sacred principle-
Here, as elsewhere, and not only for the public at large. It is all very well to put on a show for the public at large. But let us put it into practice in the House of Commons. Let us practise what we preach, which will make it that much easier to respect freedom.
-and if there is a place where it should be fully respected that place is the parliament of the nation, and it is the Speaker's responsibility-
I am speaking to Your Honour at present-
-and it is the Speaker's responsibility to see that this principle is not infringed upon.
We are dealing at present with a principle, a privilege and a right when we say that every member of the house should have the necessary instruments to join in the discussion of Bill No. C-136. Those instruments are the translation of proceedings that took place in the special joint committee on Bill No. C-136. Before we get those instruments or the translation of those texts, we cannot participate fully in the debate on clause 1 of the bill.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: Six o'clock.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: May I call it six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A I have to inform the house that the following questions will be raised at ten o'clock this evening: the hon. member for Port Arthur, (Mr. Fisher) possible construction of railway to Grande Prairie; the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), P.E.I. causeway; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested increase in exemption levels.


It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When we adjourned at six o'clock the hon. member for Royal had the floor.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I want to submit one or two points for your consideration. The first is that the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), in what I choose to classify as a specious argument that privilege must be raised at the first opportunity, conveniently overlooked the fact that it was only this afternoon that we returned to clause 1 of this bill. This method for the consideration of bills is one of the reforms made by the procedure committee which was recommended to and accepted by the house.
I submit that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) exercised the utmost courtesy and consideration. He did not invoke his privilege until clause 1 was reached. He made a helpful and co-operative attempt to give time to the translation staff and to the government to do what it is constitutionally bound to do, that is, to provide records in both official languages.
I submit that the hon. member for Beauce, who raised this question of privilege, would be guilty of neglect and would fail in his responsibility to his constituents and to those millions of Canadians whose working language is French if he had not raised this question of privilege. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, merely to pay lip service to the constitution of the country. We are here as guardians and protectors of the constitution. Section 133 of the British North America Act, an entrenched section if I ever saw one, makes it mandatory, not permissive but mandatory, that the records and journals be in both languages.
I am going to suggest, as has been suggested by other hon. members, that the report of the committee which considered the Canada pension plan is very much a part of the records of the house. But even if I fail on this argument the report has become, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), part of the Journals and the same mandatory injunction

applies that the material be available in both languages. For your consideration, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote at this point citation 288 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, found on page 237:
Committees are regarded as portions of the house and are governed for the most part in their proceedings by the same rules which prevail in the house.
This is just one other part of a foundation which I think has been built by those hon. members who feel there is a valid question of privilege here. I suggest, in fact I ask the question: Is it not extraordinarily ironical that a government which sets in motion a royal commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism should now seek to take refuge behind frivolous and quibbling points of order? They are taking such refuge when a genuine and constitutionally guaranteed right of bilingualism, not just a royal commission, is being challenged.
The Minister of Labour sought to supply you, Mr. Speaker, and us with an oversize red herring in his threat that we must pass the bill or else the session will end without its passage. As most of us know, red herrings are the business of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), not of the Minister of Labour.
Under what law or custom does the minister base his charge that the session will end? Who says so? Certainly not the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in his answer of the other day. The throne speech, Mr. Speaker, contains an as yet untapped mine of Liberal promises which the government could bring forward. We would be delighted to consider them. Your research, Mr. Speaker, may lead you to the conclusion, as a matter of fact, that the entire discussion of the bill may have been irregular and that the government will be forced to submit an ex post facto order regularizing what has been done up to now.
I have one final word, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested a reasonable approach and because we are reasonable people we can agree with him. But added to a reasonable approach I suggest that the government indulge in a crash translation program. I suggest that the government make a real and genuine effort. I suggest that the government seek volunteers from the universities in this capital city to do this job as evidence of their earnest in the duality of this country. I even suggest that the government take steps which will "excite the daring", to use words which have become rusty
Question of Privilege
from disuse. I suggest that the government not run for cover behind irrelevant precedents and points of order which beg the fundamental principle involved.
Mr. H, A. Olson (Medicine Hat):	Mr. Speaker, I think the argument advanced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) earlier today that this question of privilege could not be raised at this time because it was not the first or earliest opportunity to do so is a very poor argument. Furthermore, I think that the veiled threat of the minister, although I know he tried to clarify his words, that it would be impossible to get the bill through at this session of parliament if the question of privilege were accepted is also a rather poor way of attempting to defeat the motion based on the question of privilege.
On the other hand, I am very much concerned about the precedent we may set if we accept as a question of privilege the fact that the evidence of any committee is not before parliament at the time of proceeding with a bill or motion based upon the work of that committee. There are many instances in the past where the house has dealt with a bill or motion which had been considered by a standing committee of the house, and has done so long before the evidence of the committee was printed in either English or French.
We have standing committees of the house meeting right at the present time. For example, the committee on agriculture and colonization, the committee on privileges and elections and the committee on mines, forests and waters are all meeting. If this question of privilege is accepted, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that none of the reports from any of these committees could be debated in the house and the motions or bills in connection therewith could not be dealt with unless all of the evidence was before us in both languages. In my view it is quite impossible for that to take place if we are going to finish this session within a reasonable length of time.


Gilles Grégoire: You got the English version.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: For the information of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who seems unable to contain himself while other members express their viewpoints, I should like him to know that there have been many cases in the past when motions and bills that have been considered by standing committees have been completely dealt with by the House of Commons before the committee evidence was available even in English. In fact, sometimes that evidence has not been available for five or six months after the

Question of Privilege
bill or motion has gone through this House of Commons.
There is one very serious problem in connection with this particular instance, and that is the one the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised this afternoon when he pointed to page 1039 of Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday, February 16. Paragraph 11 reads as follows:
A copy of the committee's Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (issues Nos. 1 to 24), respecting Bill C-136, is appended.
I presume when that was tabled it did become part ef the Journals of this house. Of course, I do not dispute that any document which is part of the Journals of this house must be printed in both languages. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to be a little reasonable about this matter and perhaps here is where the mistake was made. Perhaps the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence should not have been tabled as an appendix to the report. Certainly the report was available in both languages when it was tabled. The bill was available in both languages during its progress through this house, as were all the amendments. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will take this into consideration.
I should like to ask Your Honour also to check and ascertain whether or not the evidence that was in fact tabled on February 16 was printed in the language in which it was spoken. We know that some of the French was translated into English and this portion is in some of these reports. I did not examine carefully the actual documents that the chairman of the committee tabled, and perhaps he did table this evidence in the actual language in which it was given. If he did, then I suggest that this complies with the requirements of the section which say the documents shall be in both languages.
I am very concerned that if this question of privilege is accepted as a valid one, we are going to seriously impair the progress of this house in so far as reports and bills coming back from standing committees are concerned. It would be setting a precedent that would allow any member to raise a question of privilege and prevent any further progress with a bill or motion unless all the evidence were printed in both languages and available to the members. In the past, this has not been the case and for a very good reason, namely the physical limitations of having this evidence available in printed form by the time the house is ready to deal with the report.


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Many of the matters I wanted to raise have already been stated by other speakers, and I am not going to repeat them. I should like however to take exception to the argument put forward by the Minister of Labour today. He said that because this question was not raised on the first day the house dealt with this question, it was no longer a question of privilege. Most of the members of this house read English and a number read French. Some of us are fortunate enough to be able to read both languages. The fact still remains that there are some who cannot read the English language and many who cannot read the French language. So long as both of these languages are the legal languages of this house, as they have always been since the founding of this country, I believe that on a matter as important as this in relation to a bill that is going to affect each and every person across this country, we have a very definite question of privilege each and every minute this debate is carried on when that evidence is not available to all hon. members.
I cannot understand why the government has been unable to get this material translated. In fact, I do not recall that they gave any reason for this. However, I was in a committee at the start of the debate and perhaps some reason was given then. I would say that it is not that great a job. There is one solution, Mr. Speaker. There is only a certain amount left, and I am sure that if hon. members were to read this evidence into the record it could be done by tomorrow night and then we would have it translated by the next day. I do not see any reason for this government's failing to supply the evidence taken in committee in both languages. I feel this is very definitely a question of privilege and some action should be taken before debate on this bill is completed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not wish to take up much of the time of the house on this matter because most of the points have been covered. There is, however, one question I should like to put to the Minister of Labour or whoever may care to answer. In so far as the time it would take to translate this evidence is concerned, it was pointed out to Your Honour and members of this house that it may take a very long time. It was first suggested by the Minister of Labour, I believe, that six months would be necessary to translate this evidence. While there may be some infringement of the privilege of having the Journals of this house in both languages, from

a practical point of view this would seriously interfere with the Canada pension plan's being passed at this session. As a result, this would work great hardship on a number of people. I think perhaps most members of this house would agree with the Minister of Labour in that regard. Nobody wants to see the Canada pension plan delayed. We have all agreed with the principle of the plan, although many of us objected to some of the details. In general, however, I think all of us would like to see the plan passed.
After a question had been asked of the Minister of Labour this afternoon, he then changed his estimate of the time required from six months to four weeks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I raise a question of privilege. I am sure my hon. friend wishes to be fair. It is true that the expression six months slipped out, but it was a slip of the tongue which I corrected later in response to a question from the hon. member from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I clearly intended to say six weeks which, in terms of the situation, might not be unreasonable.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am prepared to accept the explanation of the Minister of Labour. I am sure that is probably what he meant. However, whether it is six weeks or four weeks, before the members of this house accept that argument, there should be some evidence presented as to why it would take four weeks to prepare the translation. Everyone is aware that there are a limited number of people available to do this work. I am quite sure, Your Honour, that where there is a will there is a way. If the government desired to finish the translation in a hurry I am quite sure that by paying double time or triple time, working at night, this translation could be prepared.
I am reminded of a hearing in the Supreme Court of Canada not long ago concerning a case in which McKinnon Industries of St. Catharines were being sued by a florist who claimed the fumes let out by the factory were destroying his floral products in his greenhouse. The argument McKinnon Industries used was very pertinent, that it was impossible to correct the outflow of fumes and, if ordered to do so, it would mean the city of St. Catharines would be ruined economically because McKinnon Industries would have to be closed down. The supreme court held the opposite view, and after the judgment was given a method was found in about two weeks to control the outflow of the fumes.
Question of Privilege
It is the same thing here. If it were necessary to get this thing translated in a hurry, even if it meant doing around the clock work, the translation could appear in less than four weeks, in fact I should think in about a week.
It has been said it is the desire of the government to complete this session as soon as possible and if a hold-up took place the bill could not be passed this session. I point out that there is another important piece of legislation on the order paper, Bill No. C-142, popularly known as the opting out bill. I think Your Honour and other hon. members will agree there is likely to be discussion for several days on it, and that would give adequate time for those who do the translation to translate the complete reports of the committee.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) said that in the past he knew of reports of these committees which were translated into French and did not appear for six months. This may well be the truth, but what the hon. member forgot is that this is a very important bill, perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation presented to parliament for a long time, and it is also highly complex. I doubt if any but a relatively small number of hon. members completely understand the implications of every clause in it, and it must be very difficult for those who are not completely conversant with the English language to understand fully all the complexities of the legislation. I well understand why members of the Creditiste party wish to have this information at their disposal in order to discuss the clauses in the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sure the hon. member wants to be fair. I did not say that evidence was not available or translation was not available for six months. I said there were many times when none of the evidence, translated or otherwise, was available for several months, well after the bills concerned passed through the house.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am very glad to hear the explanation. I am completely prepared to accept it, but the argument still holds. With respect to certain bills, some of the details are not that important for debate in this chamber; but this is a highly complex piece of legislation-the most important we have had to discuss for many years-and it is absolutely necessary for members to deal with the individual clauses in the bill. Nobody wants to hold up passage of the Canada pension plan but it would be quite easy to

Question of Privilege
discuss Bill No. 142 for three or four days. Where there is a will there is a way and I am quite sure arrangements could be made to have the translation provided by that time.
I do not wish to take up further time of the house, but since this point was raised by the Minister of Labour I think a little further investigation might be made to determine just exactly how long it will take, if absolutely necessary, to produce these translations. I suggest it might not take more than four or five days.


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite sure that no one in this chamber would accuse me of being against bilingualism or the principle we are now discussing.
However, I should like to say a few words about the abnormal situation we are facing at the present time-


David Réal Caouette: We want facts, action.


Maurice Lamontagne: -in the translation services. I will give you facts and action.
In 1956, Mr. Speaker, approximately 72 million words were translated-


David Réal Caouette: How many?


Maurice Lamontagne: Seventy two million. In 1964-65, it is expected that this total will become 111 million.
As regards parliamentary translation, the translation service must normally translate some 7,000 pages. For this session this total will add up to at least 14,000 pages.


Gérard Perron: It is because the session was longer.


Maurice Lamontagne: It is true. This afternoon, the President of the Privy Council briefly pointed out a whole series of measures we have taken to meet much greater and ever increasing requirements.
First, there was the salary increase granted last fall.
Second, the establishment of a centre for specialized translation in Montreal.
Third, the greater number of positions offered within the bureau for translations.
Finally, the setting up in Ottawa of a training centre for those not sufficiently qualified.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this whole program will enable us in the long run to reach a satisfactory solution.


Gilles Grégoire: In the long run.


Maurice Lamontagne: In addition to those improvements, however, and as a short term measure this time, I wish to tell the house that for the first time this morning a transcript was made of the simultaneous translation of the proceedings of the industrial relations committee.
I am told that this morning's experiment was successful and I hope that it will keep on giving good results. If it does, the house will not be faced with a similar problem again.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask the minister a question. Does he not realize that during the discussions in committee on the pension plan simultaneous translation was available?


Maurice Lamontagne: But it was not transcribed. It was not made available in terms of transcribed reports.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It never has been.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has never been done in the past.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, this is another improvement in the service in general, and perhaps unfortunately, it was only initiated this morning.
In other words, this is a difficult situation which cannot be solved adequately in the immediate future.


An hon. Member:: Very well.


Maurice Lamontagne: However, I am convinced that the present government has done more than any other government in this area during this short period of time.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Maurice Lamontagne: None the less, I know and I am convinced that this problem has not been completely solved. We are determined to pursue our efforts until the situation is perfect, until there is equality between the two official languages of this country, particularly in the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who has just shouted "shame", and I do not want to know.
What I find interesting is the last statement of the Secretary of State who said that the

present government has done more than any other in the field of biculturalism and understanding throughout Canada.
I must point out, even though I might shock my hon. friends opposite, that since confederation, that is, since 1867, the French fact was never more emphasized within the framework of confederation than since the arrival in Ottawa of the Creditistes comprising 13 members of our group-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: I can understand members from the province of Quebec, such as the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) opposite, objecting to the statement I have just made, but nevertheless it is an actual fact and it is logical.
But this afternoon, at four o'clock or a quarter after four, a French-Canadian government member, the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Bechard), told me in a hall, on his way out of the house: Are you not wasting too much of our time with your monkey business?
Now, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a French Canadian member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Bonaventure is rising on a question of privilege.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When the hon. member for Villeneuve says that I met him in a hall, that is true, but for the rest he has distorted my words.
He has just said that I put this question to him: Are you not wasting the time of the house with your monkey business? I did not mention the word "monkey business" and I did not ask any question. I stated that he was wasting the time of the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, that is an assertion, and he does not know that he told me bluntly in the hall, on his way out of the house, that we are wasting the time of the house by insisting on receiving what is due to French Canadians in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


David Réal Caouette: And I suggest that the hon. member for Bonaventure does not even represent 2 per cent of the people or of the voters in his riding when he speaks or talks
Question of Privilege
like he just did in the hall of the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to co-operate with the Chair and the other members of the house and to consider the question of privilege now before the house?


David Réal Caouette: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling and I come back to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce to the effect that we have the right to be treated on the same footing as anybody else, as any other organization or political party.
This afternoon the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) asked you whether the hon. member for Beauce could not use his intelligence because the latter, supposing he does not understand the English language-anyhow, it is no reason to talk about a lack of intelligence now-


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes is rising on a question of privilege.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. member for Villeneuve were to look up my remarks this afternoon, he could discuss more intelligently than he is doing at present. The words he puts in my mouth are not at all in accordance with what I said this afternoon.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes is perfectly right because his remarks this afternoon were absolutely stupid, which goes to prove without any doubt that the hon. member himself is stupid.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please return to the matter we are trying to consider at the present time?


David Réal Caouette: I shall be glad to, Mr. Speaker; however, under the circumstances, I would not want any hon. member, English speaking or French speaking, to be called an idiot or an imbecile because he has risen on a question of privilege. I would add-


Mr. Choquelie:: The hon. member for
Beauce is nowhere to be seen; he is absent.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere say that the hon. member for Beauce is absent. To that I shall

Question of Privilege
answer that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is always absent, as everybody knows. Why say that the hon. member for Beauce is absent?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Lotbiniere rising on a question of privilege?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, considering there is a humorous atmosphere in the house tonight, I would not want to change the climate. However, I feel more than amply justified in saying that I am one of the most assiduous members here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Auguste Choquette: -whereas the hon. member for Beauce attended only eight of the 51 sittings of the special joint committee to which Bill No. C-136 was referred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am willing to allow the hon. member for Villeneuve to continue his remarks, but it seems to me that we are not making too much progress, and this will not change unless hon. members refrain from raising points of order and rising on questions of privilege while we are considering what is, in my opinion, a most serious situation indeed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you are perfectly right but you will have to admit that I am not responsible for the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette); he is irresponsible, but I am not.
Mr. Speaker, we heard this afternoon members on both sides of the house say how happy they are to recognize the two elements, the two cultures, the two languages, that is English and French, which make up Canada. However, when the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) this afternoon moved a motion to the effect that all the documents, articles and proceedings of the parliamentary committee on the matter with which we are concerned at the present time were available in English only-eight reports out of 24 have been translated into French so far, which means that 16 are still to come -then the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that the hon. member for Beauce had not attended the meetings, that he could not know what it was all about, that he was not intelligent enough to understand what was going on at the committee meetings. I say that she was wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I said it this afternoon and I repeat it. There is not a single English speak-
[Mr. Caouette.l
ing member of the Canadian parliament who would have put up with being given F'rench documents, while the Prime Minister states that ours is a bilingual country. When it is claimed that we are asking for a privilege, I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a matter of privilege, that the hon. member for Beauce did not rise on a question of privilege, that is it is a matter of right within the federal parliament.
This is not a question of privilege; we do not ask privileges from anybody and we do not want anybody to ask us for privileges.
On the other hand, I am convinced that given the English or French element, as I said in all the provinces of Canada, we cannot turn an English Canadian into a French Canadian; neither can we turn a French Canadian into an English Canadian. However we can make good Canadians out of them both, as long as they respect one another. It is in the name of this respect that the hon. member for Beauce is submitting to Your Honour a motion, not a request for a privilege, because I cannot believe that we are asking for privileges as French Canadians in the House of Commons. We only ask that our rights be treated exactly as the rights of any national or citizen living in our country, Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, certainly: "Hear, hear".
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon on the vote to determine whether or not the chairman of the committee of the whole had to report progress to the Speaker, when the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) voted with us so that our rights might be recognized in Canada, I heard the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) say in plain English-

"I do not want to be mixed up with that monkey business".

Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive that people, no matter where they live in Canada, could say, utter or enunciate such words. I think that in the province of Quebec, in our province, we have much more respect for other provinces than all the other provinces taken together have for the province of Quebec. I also call to witness all the ethnic groups that live in our province. I come from an area where we have innumerable races and nationalities, Italian, Ukrainian, Polish and so forth, and, Mr. Speaker, we practice no discrimination in our region. I did not feel

any either when I spoke against the Prime Minister in his riding of Algoma East in 1963. I met there French Canadians, Poles, Italians and people of all nationalities, and everywhere good feeling prevailed.
Why then here, in this parliament, while this bill concerning the pension plan is being studied, is there such discrimination? A while ago, I met an hon. member who asked me: If we guarantee you in the future the complete translation of all the discussions in the committees, would you let the pension plan pass?
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I cannot discuss clause 1 of the pension plan which will give an opportunity to every member of our group to put forward his views, because it would be out of order. But as regards the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce, I repeat that the point at issue is not a privilege, but rather a right.
About this question of right, I think the right hon. Prime Minister should stand up and state in no uncertain terms: We support this attitude in favour of the equality of rights for all Canadians and we will let consideration of clause No. 1 stand until we have the official translation of the documents studied during the sittings of the special joint committee on the Canada pension plan.
Mr. Speaker, we do not demand anything unreasonable, but we shall maintain our position, we shall stand up and claim our rights until justice is rendered, given and granted, not only to our group but to all the Canadians who make up the nation.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not interrupt the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) when he was speaking and made reference to me, but I want to say this and I want to say it very definitely: When I referred to "monkey business" I was referring to this matter of continually challenging the Speaker's ruling or the Chairman's ruling. I have always taken the position that as far as our rules are concerned, they should be changed so that the Speaker's rulings would not be challengeable. Therefore I was saying that I was not going to get mixed up with the business of challenging the Speaker's ruling for purely political purposes.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to your usual kindness, I should like to make a few brief remarks.
I appreciate that this is a most serious problem confronting us at present. The very
Question of Privilege
few words I should like to say, with your permission of course, in accordance with the rules of the house which are sometimes so complex that we are not sure when the opportunity to express serious thoughts will present itself, contrary to some habits that seem to be favoured, more and more obviously, by some parties other than mine, my short speech, as I said, will deal with the matter under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the problem confronting us, I would be tempted to dispute the validity of the claim made by our friends on your far left, to the effect that they are the sole and unique champions of the French fact in this house.
Accordingly, I want to dispute the validity of that claim.
As a representative duly elected with a little humour thrown in, with your permission, I want the house to make no mistake when I mention that sometimes those champions, the vanguards of the French fact and the beautiful French language are going so far in their claims that our poor language at times is murdered, judging from some of their speeches. Furthermore, in my opinion, they should not take shelter behind certain facts which apparently have shocked them, in order to pursue the debate.
That is what I wanted to say Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the people have realized-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Villeneuve wish to direct a question to the member who has the floor?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have just heard the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, who was elected by accident, say how very much he is interested in the French language and especially the manner of speaking the French language. But why did he vote against a distinctive national flag and for the union jack?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that for some time the house seems to have wandered away from the question of privilege under consideration.
Perhaps I may remind hon. members that during the debate we had this afternoon and which is continuing tonight, a suggestion was made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)

Question of Privilege
and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), and others, to the effect that it would perhaps be suitable, and even preferable, for the Chair to postpone, perhaps until tomorrow, its ruling on the very important and very difficult matter raised by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron).
Therefore, I suggest to hon. members that the house resume consideration in committee of the whole of clause 1, which would allow every member who wished to do so to discuss clause 1 and, in the meantime, the Chair would consider, until tomorrow, the procedural question raised by the hon. member for Beauce, in respect of which many interesting and perhaps somewhat complicated comments have been made.
I therefore suggest that hon. members accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others, that is resume consideration of clause 1. I have no doubt that in the meantime, in view of the comments made during tonight's debate and in view of the fact that speeches may go on until ten o'clock tonight, I would be in a position, when the house resumes its business tomorrow, to rule whether or not the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce is well taken.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member wish to go on with the debate at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If hon. members want to proceed with the debate, I suggest that, as far as possible, they relate their remarks to the question of privilege. Moreover, I remind them that the time has not yet come to discuss the substance of the motion now before the house.
I allowed hon. members as much latitude as possible, because the question is obviously of interest to all of them, so that they could express their views. However, the various viewpoints have been expressed in a clear and definite way and, at this stage, it would probably be preferable that the debate should continue in an orderly fashion; in brief, we should revert to the question of privilege before us, so as to rule whether or not it is in order.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of privilege raised this afternoon by the hon.

member for Beauce, I think it is important that you accept it and rule it in order.
Before you take into consideration everything that was said this afternoon and tonight, I would like to add a few words so that it will be understood that this question of privilege, as far as French speaking members are concerned, is one which requires the full attention of the house.
This is not all, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) stated that you should not accept this question of privilege because the present government did more than any other in the field of bilingualism in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, it is true-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clément Vincent: -that the present government has done more-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clément Vincent: -than any other in the field of bilingualism in Canada, in lip service.
I like to see Liberal members applaud, but we have not yet seen the government take any concrete steps with respect to bilingualism.
The only thing we have seen is the institution of a royal commission of inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism, and I could put to the government the very questions which appear in the terms of reference of the commission.
First, what is a bilingual state?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will agree with me that he is overstepping widely the limits of the discussion.
We must determine if, according to the rules of the house, this is a question of privilege.
I would ask the hon. member to limit his remarks, as far as possible, to this point.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, what I said tended to prove that the hon. member for Beauce raised a valid question of privilege which you should accept. And I take this opportunity to refute the assertions of some of our colleagues across the floor.
Section 133 of the British North America Act states that all records and journals of the House of Commons shall be published in both languages.
A moment ago I asked what a bilingual state meant. What is the concrete meaning of

the equality of both languages? And do Canadians desire such equality?
It is not sufficient to say that the present government does more in words; it must do more in deeds.
On the other hand, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), in attempting to reject this question of privilege, said that if it were admitted it would prevent the passage of the bill concerning the contributory pension plan.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the Minister of Labour. The bill respecting the pension plan will not be killed by this question of privilege, but rather by the inaction of the government which, since February 16 last, knows very well that the committee reports must be presented to this house in both languages.
There is also the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) who stated that if we accepted this question of privilege, we would set a precedent and in the future, we would have to wait until the reports of committee proceedings are printed in both languages before discussing them in the house.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what should happen. Before we discuss any matter in the house, the reports should be printed in the two official languages of the country.
I wonder what the hon. member for Medicine Hat would say if the reports of a committee were submitted to the house in French only and he were unable to get an English version? I am sure he would be the first to object to such a procedure on behalf of his constituents and to insist that copies of committee reports be tabled in English before we launched a debate.
When I heard a moment ago the hon. member-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: For my hon. friend's information, I made a special point of saying that was not true. If the hon. member did not hear me, Mr. Speaker, I should like him to know that I made a special point of saying that we did not demand that the evidence of committees be in printed form before we dealt with those matters.


Clément Vincent: In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, before we undertook consideration of the contributory pension plan, only the English edition of the committee proceedings was available.
Question of Privilege
The leader of the group which raised this question of privilege stated a while ago that French has had recognition in Canada only since they have been elected to the House of Commons.
I should like to say one thing to the hon. leader of the Ralliement Creditistes. If he is fair and reasonable, he will admit that it was thanks to the simultaneous interpretation system that all hon. members present could understand him a moment ago when he was speaking in French. The hon. member should at least recognize that it was the party which now forms the official opposition which first introduced that system here, thus acknowledging the official character of both languages.


Mr. Pepin:: The election is drawing near.


Clément Vincent: A few moments ago some hon. members opposite, who probably had something weighing heavily on their conscience were startled when their remarks were mentioned.


Auguste Choquette: Good.


Clément Vincent: I hear the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), who like to make statements outside the house, but who do not have the courage to rise and tell the house what they advocate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to limit himself to the matter under consideration at the present time.


Clément Vincent: I shall conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, but before I do, I would like to ask-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Nicolet-Ya-maska?


Clément Vincent: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Does the hon. member admit that all parties in the house have contributed to the development of bilingualism in this country?


Clément Vincent: Certainly, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Prud'homme:: You are going one better.


Clément Vincent: And may I add, for instance, that it all really began in 1957, thanks to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, and so as to make this question of privilege, which is very important, clearer to you, I will yield the floor to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska who delivers, outside of this house,

Question of Privilege
fine speeches on biculturalism and bilingualism.


Vincent Drouin: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Clément Vincent: Two.


Vincent Drouin: Does the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska not agree that the fact that a political party elects alternatively a French Canadian and an English Canadian as its leaders constitutes the recognition of bilingualism?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to talk about bilingualism-


Gilles Grégoire: Talk about brilliant candidates.


Auguste Choquette: I am ready to talk about brilliant candidates. I feel that to be such a candidate, one must not have been a prisoner.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to embark on a bitter diatribe. I only want to follow up the remarks-


Clément Vincent: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has the floor and should not be interrupted.


Auguste Choquette: I am
prepared to answer the question put by the hon. member, but he should at least let me go on with my brief remarks. After that he will have an opportunity to ask his question.
It is in part to follow up the remarks of the hon. member that I rise now, because he said that outside the house I had the courage to put forward opinions I did not want to repeat here.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: The question of privilege we are discussing now allows me precisely to show the courage referred to by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska and to state, Mr. Speaker, that we firmly believe in the principle of bilingualism and that we should like to see it applied as efficiently as possible.
However, the problem now being discussed constitutes an issue of the utmost importance and concern. We agree that any committee report ought to be tabled in both languages. No one should question the right to make such a request, because bilingualism must be fully respected, and it seems to me that we, on this side of the house, are still the most

fervent supporters, of that theory, of that principle.
But the greatest lack in this debate which made us lose part of the day and is delaying the study of legislation is that nobody on the opposition side has suggested a practical technical means of dealing with the situation we must face.
We admit that bilingualism must be respected, and if it is respected a lot more nowadays than it was formerly, it is because a government such as ours made this matter of bilingualism a basic item of its program.
I would ask the member for Lapointe and the member for Beauce, who attended only six out of the 51 sittings of the joint committee which examined Bill No. C-136 concerning the pension plan, and I would also ask the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), in short, I would ask all the other members to give me a technical means to solve this problem and we shall agree.
But I am convinced that it is not-


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: I am convinced that it is not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he should resume his seat when he is called to order by the Chair. The hon. member for Beauce rises on a question of privilege.


Gérard Perron: There have been some insinuations and the hon. member for Lotbiniere is doing the same thing. Whether or not he is doing so deliberately, he is once more deceiving the members of the house when he says that I sat on the committee so many times.
Such insipid argument has been repeated often enough, I think. If the hon. member wants to uphold the principle that his party stands for bilingualism, let him stop his malicious insinuations-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not
believe that this is a question of privilege. I understand that the hon. member for Beauce objects to a point raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. On the other hand, if I am not mistaken, the latter has completed his remarks, and, consequently, I recognize the hon. member for-


Auguste Choquette: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not through yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere has not yet completed his remarks.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere put a question to the opposition. He requested the opposition to suggest a technical means to solve this problem. As far as this technical means is concerned, I shall give it to him-


Auguste Choquette: No, no, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot rise to answer a hypothetical question asked by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
The hon. member for Megantic has already taken part in the debate, and if he will refer to the rules, he will find that he is not permitted to speak more than once during the same debate, having already spoken at the beginning.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
I suggest that when a point has to be cleared up with regard to a question of privilege like the one raised by the hon. member for Beauce, there is no rule that I know of which prevents us from giving explanations more than once, in order to help the Chair to reach a decision-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege. I recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauce raised a question of privilege a while ago-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the hon. member that the Chair has ruled already on this question, having declared that there is no question of privilege. Therefore, there is no further debate possible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question? Does the hon. member know that the member for Kootenay West asked the Minister of Industry a question as to whether compositors and linotype operators who are bilingual and are being retired from the printing bureau are being replaced? The Minister of Industry said they were not being replaced. I mentioned this because the hon. member wanted someone to suggest alternatives.
Question of Privilege [Translation]


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this question is not in order-


Some hon. Members:: Yes, it is.


Auguste Choquette: Now, to proceed with my remarks


Some hon. Members:: That is right, proceed.


Auguste Choquette: I am going to proceed with my statement and make it as short as possible. The hon. member for Beauce interrupted me to raise a question of privilege. It is his right to do so. However, not only do I suggest but I assert that he attended just six out of 51 sittings which were held by the special joint committee during consideration of the pension plan. I must say that I am not insinuating this but stating it categorically.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that the point he has raised does not help the Chair in reaching a decision on the question of privilege raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Beauce.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, to set a good example and to show that we would like this debate to be more fruitful than it is at the present time, I shall simply say that the point is not to discuss endlessly the question of privilege that was raised, but rather to suggest some technical, practical and efficient way to solve the problem occasioned by the delay in tabling committee reports in both languages. In view of the fact that we all agree on the matter of principle, let us go to work in an intelligent and practical fashion. Let the house leaders meet. We should not paralyse parliament as was done today. It is almost a shame, especially for those of the younger generation, to see a parliament like this one that is not producing anything.
What we want is efficiency and progress, in a word, results. And I say that, with four parties in the opposition, we cannot proceed with-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, in view of the insinuations made by the member for Lotbiniere.
I should like to set things straight and say that there was a meeting of the house leaders but that they could not come to a conclusion in order to accelerate the progress of debates, because precisely the government recognized its inability to find proper solutions in order to arrive at some translation system acceptable

Question of Privilege
to everyone, which would provide a fast translation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Had the hon. member for Lotbiniere concluded his remarks?


Auguste Choquette: No, Mr. Speaker, but I shall not be long.
I am delighted to see that the suggestion I was advocating had been anticipated. I am glad to notice that my suggestion was altogether relevant, since it had already been put into practice even before I could put it forward in the house. I am happy to see that the house leaders have met together and I hope that they will do so again, rather than paralyse parliament, as is being done now. We have spent a whole day in discussions. On what? We have not accomplished anything.
Therefore, let the house leaders meet so as to find a way to get us out of this dilemma in which we find ourselves.
I congratulate the ex-prisoner of Lapointe for having corroborated what I wanted to say.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two points which should be added to what has been said already in this argument, although it is with some trepidation that I creep into the debate having in mind what has just taken place. Let me first rebut three propositions that have been made from the government side to suggest that there is no valid point of privilege to be considered by Your Honour. These consist of the statements made by the President of the Privy Council, the Minister of Labour and the Secretary of State.
It has been stated, first, that the point taken is not a valid one because it was not taken advantage of at the first suitable opportunity. In reply to that, Your Honour, may I point out that this is a continuing breach of privilege. Every minute this debate continues without the French translation of the evidence before the committee being filed, there continues to be a breach of privilege. If we were to adopt the very useful suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), which Your Honour thought there might be permission of the house to do, I point out that if I were to agree I would be condoning the breach of privilege which we maintain does exist and which Your Honour has not yet decided. If you do so decide, we would then be compounding the offence. I think there is no answer to that and I suggest this point must be decided before we can continue with this
[Mr. GregoireJ
debate. Every minute we debate any particular aspect of this bill without the French translation of these proceedings being filed constitutes a breach of privilege. I think that we can take advantage of it at any time.
The Minister of Labour suggested that if this had to be done the bill might not be passed because the session would conclude. I take this to be a roundabout means of suggesting that our insistence upon this point means interference with the government's timetable for the new session of parliament. This may be very unfortunate and I would hate to be inconveniencing the government. I know how much they look forward to this new session. However, I think something must give, either the government's plans or the pension bill. This is something upon which the government must make a choice. If we are correct in this assumption and this point of privilege does exist, then the government will have to find some way out of the difficulty which they have caused.
So far as the Secretary of State was concerned I judged the text of his remarks constituted an admission that the government was in the wrong and he was simply asking that the sentence be commuted. I think if the government would admit it was wrong and throw itself on the mercy of a compassionate and reasonable opposition we would probably give this assistance to them.
Let me make this point, Your Honour. This is not only a breach of privilege but an especially serious breach of privilege in that it constitutes a denial of a mandatory requirement in the B.N.A. Act under section 133, which has been referred to by several hon. members-and it might be wise at this stage to remind the house of the effect of it. If what we see as the meaning of that section is correct, then the continuation of this debate without the French proceedings being filed is completely erroneous and unconstitutional.
Section 133 is the famous section in respect of which the French language is made official with regard to certain proceedings. It states: Either the English or the French language- And I call attention to the word either, -may he used by any person in the debates of the houses of parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used-
I call attention to the word shall.
-in the respective records and journals of those houses;
Then it repeats the word either.
-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-

Surely the distinction made between the use of the word "may" in two instances and the word "shall" can result in no other interpretation than a peremptory command laid on this house that its proceedings shall be in both languages and the records of its proceedings shall be in both languages.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and my hon. friend from Royal made it quite plain that these committee proceedings have been introduced into the Journals of the house. In addition, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) pointed to the citation from Beauchesne that any committee of the house is an extension of the house and that the same rules, so far as may be possible, shall be related to the committees as are used in the house.
I think it is very simple to find a reason for that. Here we are discussing a complex, complicated and difficult bill which constitutes a complete innovation in our system of social justice. The government saw fit, and quite properly, following suggestions from the opposition, to refer this bill to a committee so that there could be in that committee direct confrontation between members of the committee and witnesses called to explain the terms of this very contentious measure.
Now, coming to the debate in the committee of the whole and the consideration clause by clause, I submit it is a condition precedent to an intelligent and reasonable discussion of the bill that each member of the house should have available for his examination, in the language which he sees fit to use, a complete verbatim record of the proceedings before the special committee. How is this possible, having in mind the failure to file the transcript in the French language? It is quite obvious that there cannot and could not be a fair and reasonable debate for this reason.
Just in the event that Your Honour has not yet come to a decision, although I am sure you probably have, that it is a valid point of privilege, I ask you to bear these facts in mind because it is not only this case which is involved. This case may constitute a precedent. If I do not want my colleagues to embark on a debate before the proceedings are filed in the French language, equally I do not feel I should be compelled to participate in a debate until proceedings were filed in the English language. I suggest this is a matter to be decided not only on the basis of this bill but on the effect it will have in future debates and proceedings in the house.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, over the past few months I have
Question of Privilege
wondered why the Liberal party are getting themselves into so much trouble, and so easily. I am surprised that today we find them getting into exactly the same position. We have heard a lot of impassioned speeches about the fact that Canada has two official languages and that the proceedings in committees and in the house shall be in the two official languages.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) was pleased to stand up and say on behalf of the Liberal party and the government of the day that certain improvements have been made in this regard. Improvements have been made in the last few years, but that was not necessarily because of the political parties which formed the governments of the day. The translation system which we have was brought in during the last few years and I think it has done a great deal to solve the problems with which the country was faced.
We have heard the legal arguments. We have just heard the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who is well versed in the law, outline the law. Also this afternoon we listened to a threat being made by a cabinet minister that the pension plan could not be passed unless the opposition were to give way. I think it would be fair to say there are one or two members on the government benches who feel that the two official languages are important to this country. But I do not know if there are more than two who have the guts to stand up and vote that way, because they have more interest in being re-elected under a particular banner than they sometimes have in being honest. If there is a vote, we will know how many of them are honest, how many really believe in their French culture and French tongue, how many really believe they should have the right to discuss important business like the pension plan in their own language.
They will have to make this decision because the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) has said it is going to take six weeks to have this translated, or four weeks, or possibly two weeks. I ask how many members of the house remember that the special joint committee first sat on November 24? The seventh report of proceedings before it, which has been filed in French, was dated December 9.
During the recess period there were no translators being used in the house. There were no translators being used in any of the committees while this committee was meeting. I tell you this government is completely incompetent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pear-

Question of Privilege
son), who sat in this house a while ago, and who I thought was going to say he believed in the principle that he has talked about- though in many other ways he is quite willing to give Canada away to the provinces- apparently was not willing to argue on a basic principle of having two cultures and two languages.
It seems to me we are being handed a line of malarkey when we are told an effort is being made. The Secretary of State says they are training new people and are providing a school in Montreal. He says there are translation services there. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no translation for me in my office. Some 25 per cent of my constituents are French, but there is no translation for me in my office under the House of Commons set-up. This government and previous governments have done nothing to remedy that.


Maurice Lamontagne: The hon. member has sent letters to me.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and this raises a good point. I have sent letters to the office of the Secretary of State and his executive secretary has been good enough to answer them. But I do not think that is the job for which his executive secretary was hired. I do not think that is his function. He has been courteous about it and I certainly appreciate it. I give him full credit for it; but I'll be damned if I think that is the job of an executive secretary to the Secretary of State.
We have failed very badly. I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to take advantage of the opportunity provided by my hon. friend from Timmins. We can read this evidence and have it translated in three days. I know this will be unfair to the translators. I can see one of them looking around and imagining the problem he is facing. But if we get down to this we shall have it translated within three days. If this is as important to the French speaking members as they say it is, they will participate as well. It is not the way in which it should be done, but this is an emergency. I am very interested in having clause 1 of the pension plan before the committee for discussion.
I am also of the opinion that there is a right inherent in the British North America Act which no one is in a position to deny. I think somebody lied to us, because I do not believe we are only on the seventh report of this committee. That seventh meeting was held on December 9. If somebody is telling us that the translators have done

nothing since that meeting was held, I think something is wrong and that the Prime Minister might as well resign because I'll be darned if we are doing the job we are supposed to be doing. There is no logical reason why this work should not have been done while the house was in recess. So we gave the staff two weeks holiday. But six or seven committees are meeting now. The reporting staff and the translation staff are working at full capacity. Is somebody trying to tell me that during the recess they were sitting around and twiddling their thumbs instead of doing this work?
I ask the French Canadians here: Are they interested in knowing the reasons why this was not translated? Or are they really putting it over on me when they decide to speak in French in a committee and it has to be translated? Do they really understand English well enough not to need a translation system? Do they see any real advantage in having this series of documents translated?
I do not know, and I do not know how you are going to make a decision, Mr. Speaker. If I was sure that the problem could be solved from now on I would seek to prevail upon the Social Credit party and particularly upon the hon. member for Beauce to overlook the matter at this time-to give up his question of privilege and sacrifice to some extent his participation in the discussion on clause 1.
The Prime Minister sat here for a while today but he did not get up and say he intended to solve the problem. It is true he intends to solve some of the problems of the provinces by giving away everything he has. He is willing to pay lip service to culture and bilingualism through the B and B commission. But this is a practical point where action really counts. I do not speak French, but I was shocked at the beginning of this session when it was pointed out that Beau-chesne, for example, had not been translated into the French language. I did not know that. No one had protested about it before. It seems to me there is no excuse for what has happened. It is all very well for the Minister of Labour to say we shall not do it because it would take too long. What does he say about the committees that met in January. The date of the last committee report was February 8 and this house met on February 16. This provided a considerable length of time in my opinion during which the work of translation could have been completed. I think, Mr. Speaker, that when you receive the necessary information you owe

the house an obligation to explain what happened to delay this translation. Someone lias to tell you what happened and why it is not done, because you have a responsibility, and every member of this house has a responsibility.
I believe there is a principle involved. As my hon. friend from Kootenay West said, it may be his sense of British justice which demands that he should pay attention to this matter. I believe he is sincere in this and I believe most of the other members of the house are sincere in their desire to have the rules enforced. It is my belief that the newspapers should give some consideration to the vote that will be taken on this matter. The press of this country has an obligation to look across at the other side, at those who play on this subject continually, and see how they will act when it comes to a vote. I am very surprised that some of the French Canadians on the other side of the house could stand up as they have done this evening to defend a situation which I think is indefensible. The press has an obligation to pay attention to what happens when this matter is decided by Your Honour and a decision finally reached.
I hope you will see fit to accept this question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped that the Prime Minister when he came in tonight would have announced that the government intended to take extraordinary methods to have this translation completed within the next few days and that in the meantime we were to go on with other business. I say this in the light of the right hon. gentleman's statement appearing on the front page of the Ottawa Journal today to the effect that there are at least two major pieces of legislation, the labour code and the Canada pension plan, to be completed before this session ends. The Prime Minister did not say he intended to take these special measures but I believe he has an obligation to consider doing so. I hope that tomorrow at the opening of the sitting he himself will relieve you, Mr. Speaker, of the responsibility we have placed on your shoulders by announcing that he will have this matter taken care of immediately, before we consider clause 1 of the bill further.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: I have a few observations to make on the question of privilege which the house has now been considering for some time.
It seems to me we have gone far away from the facts of our present situation. It is easy for me to recognize the righteous in-
Question of Privilege
dignation of the hon. member for Beauce when he finds he cannot have available to him a written transcript of the evidence heard by the committee. He makes this indignation plain in the house. I am sure he is aware that since 1934 the Translation Bureau Act passed by this house has centred in the bureau of translations all the responsibility to interpret language for all bureaux, branches, commissions, and agencies created or appointed by act of parliament or by order of the governor in council in the making and revising of translations from one language into another of all departmental and other reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence.
I draw this to your attention on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. A practice has grown up under which the English version of the committee reports has been printed, and not until it has been printed has the translation taken place. Therefore a delay occurs before the French version of the committee proceedings comes before the House of Commons. Together with this another practice grew up which was condoned over the years, under which the house received the report of the committee in both languages and the bill, of course, in both languages, but more often than not the French language version of the committee proceedings was not available for consideration by the members of this house. On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think that the practice which grew up and was sustained was wrong, and I believe that practice should be changed.
In my opinion this is the question to which we should address ourselves. The question of privilege should result in an expression of a grievance, really; the inability of a member of the house to interpret from another language the finer meanings of an intricate piece of legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the action to be taken now should be constructive. I do not think it should be sufficient for us to decide only a question of privilege. The more important thing is, what can we do to correct this disability from which the French speaking members in this house suffer? That is the important question.
The important thing, then, is to recognize that the question of privilege really is a complaint against a practice which has prevailed in this house and should no longer continue. It is my opinion that there is a practical solution. We should not hold up current legislation that is before the house because of this improper or unfair practice. I think a resolution should be put before the house by the

Question of Privilege
gentleman who has raised the question of privilege that this inadequacy on the part of our house staff to submit promptly to us both the French and English versions of committee proceedings should be a matter to be sent to the privileges and elections committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the other hon. members who have spoken this evening, some of whom were at times completely off the point at issue. If they are anxious to be constructive, if they want to improve the procedures of this house and attain this very sincere objective of receiving promptly reports and proceedings of committees in both languages, they should focus their attention on a committee of the house which can examine the present inadequacies and why they exist. I for one willingly admit to the house that from the examination I have made I am not satisfied that we should concentrate the responsibilities for translating the committee work of this house in the translation bureau. I think we should have a separate staff for the purpose, a staff that could be paid in proportion to the hours of work demanded in this house. I do not think they should be civil service hours, which is the case with the translation bureau. I honestly believe that we can constructively meet this situation if the question goes to the privileges and elections committee, or an appropriate committee for examination of the roadblocks that have grown up over the years.
It is silly to be competitive about who put what in this house and who made improvements. There is still an inadequacy. In 1958 the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker-and this cannot be denied-moved "that this house do approve the installation of a simultaneous translation system in this chamber."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Lloyd: And, Mr. Speaker, authority was given to make the necessary arrangements for this to be done. This is admitted, there is no argument. It is foolish to go on comparing accomplishments: This is a reported fact. There is also evidence, for any member who looks up in the gallery, of another accomplishment with regard to the equipment that is now installed in the gallery. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is foolish to go on with these references. In fact we should be focusing our attention on the inadequacy of the staff arrangements to meet the objective which the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) quite properly draws to the attention of this house.
[Mr. Lloyd.1
But I do not agree with his suggested method of dealing with this situation, namely that current legislation should be withheld until the remedy is applied. No, Mr. Speaker; I think more constructive steps could be taken to provide the remedy to bring into this house very rapidly reports and proceedings of committees in both the English and French languages.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I would say that it seems to me, from what has been said here tonight, that there has been far more heat than light. If we examine this question from the point of view of fundamental principles, there is only one principle against which we must check our decision and thinking, and that is the rights of French Canadians in this country under the constitution. These were spelled out in 1867 when the constitution provided that reports shall be in two languages. Therefore anyone, any government which tries to hide behind statements, such as we have heard tonight from the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) and others on the government side are simply trying to cover up what they should have known at the beginning, namely that these reports and proceedings should be provided in two languages. They should have preserved the constitution. If they believed what they have been saying, they should have had these reports and proceedings presented to this house in two languages.
The Secretary of State said that certain schools are in operation for the training of translators in order that people may receive more training and more translators will be available. But what has this to do with not bringing in these reports and proceedings in both languages, which the constitution requires? It does not answer the question. If the Secretary of State really wanted to be efficient, and if the government wanted to be efficient, these proceedings were translated simultaneously in the committee and they could have been recorded on tape and typed out afterwards, if they did not have anybody there to write them out. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to put forward these excuses is weakening the government's argument and is showing clearly that this failure was because of inefficiency.
May I say that the Minister of Labour also made the statement that it would take two weeks, or three weeks, or a month, or three

months to translate these proceedings, and this would hold up the passing of the legislation.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I shall be through in just a minute, and I shall be glad to answer a question then. These were the arguments which the Minister of Labour was advancing for not having these proceedings available and presented in two languages. But if hon. members will stop and analyse his argument they will see that it has nothing to do with telling us why the proceedings were not made available in two languages. To say now that it would take such and such a period of time to translate these proceedings is no argument for the government to put forward for their failure to present them in two languages. I submit that to advance this kind of argument is not material to your decision when handing down your judgment. The fact that the Liberal government has violated the constitution by not bringing in these reports printed in both languages is just one more illustration of the fumbling and bumbling of this weak, corrupt and incompetent government.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, just a few references to the shock and dismay which has been registered at the fact that these translations are not ready at the appropriate time. Many statements have been made about the proceedings of this committee. It has been said it would have been easy to have these translations ready. However, I think the house should keep in mind that there were 51 sittings, many of them compacted into a very short time. Very often the committee sat three times a day. We also invited many briefs, and most briefs were attached as an appendix to the proceedings. Each one of these briefs would amount to almost half a day's debate in the House of Commons in terms of the number of pages in Hansard. This is to say nothing of many other types of appendices, such as actuarial reports and reports on the economic implications of the plan. All through the minutes you will find appendices attached to the reports either at the direction of the chairman or with the consent of the members of the committee. All told, when you add together the 51 sittings and the added appendices-it should also be kept in mind that a lot of this data was of a very 20220-788
Question of Privilege
technical nature which would render it difficult to translate at any time-the sittings amounted to 1439 pages.
We must also consider that evidence was given by 116 witnesses. Questions were asked. We must bear in mind the technical nature of the appendices and of the briefs which were attached. We must also consider the tremendous job it must be for the translators to get this ready. I do not think in any way this task can be compared to preparing a day's proceedings in the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others have urged the government to proceed with all haste in this matter. Many of the members on this side feel the same way. But, Mr. Speaker, we did. We wanted to get this plan into operation so we compacted the committee meetings into a short period of time. During that period of time we sat during the recess and there were many meetings of the steering committee. All of us who have an interest in the outcome of the Canada pension plan should be prepared to accept some responsibility for not checking into how speedily translation service was available. I cannot recall this point being raised once before the steering committee or the main committee. Neither can I recall the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) taking objection to the fact that translations of the committee reports were not available as promptly as they should have been. Three or four days after a meeting of the committee a printed copy of the minutes of proceedings was available. If the hon. member for Beauce had serious objection I think he should have raised the matter at that time, because it was incumbent on all of us at the committee to read the minutes in order to discuss in any intelligent fashion the Canada pension plan at the committee meetings themselves. Therefore if he felt his position was being prejudiced and that he could not go into the plan adequately enough in the committee because the reports were not available in French, one would have thought he would have chosen at some time during the duration of these 51 meetings to voice his grave concern at the matter. But as I say, I cannot recall his doing that at any time.
Another matter which indicates that the feeling of urgency was not present in the minds of many of us regarding the French translation of these proceedings is this. This arises from some opinions expressed by some of the members in the group in the far corner. As reported at page 11589 of Hansard for February 22 last, during the clause by clause
12442	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion discussion of the bill, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said this:
Firs, of all, it is a known fact that our group and the people in Quebec are not particularly and directly interested in the Canada pension plan-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out that the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), or the junior minister of national health and welfare, has gone quite beyond the subject matter of the question of privilege under consideration. If the junior minister or the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare has the right to engage in that kind of discussion, then, that matter will be opened to all members of the house and we will also have the privilege and the right to explain some statements made during the clause by clause consideration of the bill. That is why I think the young member should be told he is out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member who has the floor to confine his remarks to the question of privilege. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that several members who participated in today's debate did not limit their remarks to the question of privilege in an effort to help the Chair make a ruling on the procedural question.
I would be obliged if the parliamentary secretary abide by the rules in his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that it is ten o'clock?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I make some reference to this is because


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand an hon. member has called it ten o'clock. Therefore there is no power in the house to continue to debate this question of privilege.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked today of the minister was asked previously in the session by the


hon. member for Peace River, I think it was, and the hon. member for Edmonton West. It concerns what has been called by the Edmonton Journal something that is "big, bold and iffy". The reason I raise the question is because my interest in railway matters has caused me to receive many communications from people in Alberta who feel that this project of building a railway through the formation of a provincial crown corporation-the whole thing should be built and maintained and managed by the Canadian National Railways-is nothing more than a ploy to fit in with a particular by-election campaign at the present time.
It might be useful to hear what Premier Manning did say about this. Incidentally, he made his speech, which touched on the details of this matter, in February, and despite the fact that most of the bills before the Alberta legislature this session are now available in the library of parliament, there is still no bill available on this particular matter. The premier did say that the line was not going to go ahead unless commitments of some kind were received from industry. It is quite apparent that the plan is for the line to be hooked up with the C.N.R. line, to move north from the C.N.R. line and eventually to link up with the C.N.R. line several hundred miles farther north. In other words, it would be almost an integral part of the C.N.R.
All the minister has told us is that he has had information from Canadian National Railways that they have had general discussions. Part of my reason for putting the question to the minister is to find out just how detailed the relationship has been between the C.N.R. and the Alberta government. I think in a sense we are entitled to know this, particularly because of the caution that has been expressed by the royal commission on transportation regarding the building of branch lines, and particularly because of our experience with the Gaspe railway, which is an indication that sometimes the railway building urge gets too strong.
On the other hand, Mr. Manning has a vision based upon resources that is quite impressive, and it would seem to me that the proposition was put to the C.N.R. that it should build the line. After all, it would be a natural and integral part of the C.N.R. system and it is Mr. Manning's hope that eventually the C.N.R. would buy the line. It seems to me that in these circumstances we deserve to hear from the minister what role,

if any, he as minister has played in this particular matter and what further information he can give as to why the C.N.R. apparently refused the invitation or opportunity to build the line on its own, probably because of lack of freight revenue-we need to know these details-but is apparently willing-or is it-to go ahead and build it under the general and rather hazy arrangements that Premier Manning has suggested.
If the resources are really there as the premier says, then it seems to me, given the general federal jurisdiction over railroading and the fact that the C.N.R. exists, that this is the kind of situation where some pretty strong leadership could come into play from the Minister of Transport in working with the provincial government and C.N.R. to develop something. Certainly the general belief amongst the people I have talked to in Alberta is that there are immense resources of timber, coal and so on to be exploited by this railway, and it seems to me that with regard to our railroading plans for the future we need something better than provincial premiers putting up trial balloons. We need some kind of policy from our federal Minister of Transport. It is for that reason I raised the question today, and in the three minutes he has I think he might honour us with more information than he has apparently been willing to give in answer to the two questions that have been put to him previously.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could use ten seconds of the three minutes I have to thank the hon. gentleman for his passport to the other place which was published today, and then go on to say that Mr. Gordon informed me and also informed the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of the discussion he had had with Mr. Manning which took place before the opening of the session of the Alberta legislature. Mr. Gordon told us that Mr. Manning had approached Canadian National Railways to see whether they would operate the line if the provincial government with its own resources built the railway from the C.N.R. main line northward, in the general direction of the Northern Alberta Railways. I understand it was not planned that the original line would go more than a little over one third of the distance to the Northern Alberta railway, to some very important coal deposits and through an area in which there was thought to be really valuable and exploitable timber resources in the light of the present market.
20220-'7884
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Manning wanted to know whether, provided the provincial government built the railway, an arrangement could be made with the C.N.R. whereby the C.N.R. would operate the railway on some basis which would assure the C.N.R. a revenue adequate to cover its expenses. This is, I think, a venture that is probably likely to be successful. I think it is unlikely the Alberta government would undertake, with public money, to build this kind of line without feeling that it was very likely to be successful. However, I think it can be said just the same that it would be a risk taking venture. It is not one that would be absolutely sure of producing adequate revenue. It is wholly within the province and therefore something that would be wholly within provincial jurisdiction.
I think it would be the kind of venture that one would hesitate to ask the taxpayers of Canada generally to venture upon in the particular circumstances-


Douglas Mason Fisher: What about the taxpayers of Alberta? They are taxpayers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We do not answer in this house for the taxpayers of Alberta. We answer for the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order; I must advise the minister that his time has expired.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It is not
often I appear on this late show because I am an early to bed man. I was surprised that my question today, directed to the Minister of Public Works, did not go through the Speaker's gambit and I was asked to put it on the order paper. This I could not accept without taking advantage of the opportunity to debate it, because I was asking about something more than a mere local public works project. I was asking about a great national undertaking upon which recently more announcements have been made through the press than have been made by ministers of the government. I refer to the Prince Edward Island causeway, a multimillion dollar development project, as important as such great ventures as the South Saskatchewan dam, one of the national development projects of the government which for six or seven years I supported.
I have some comments and some inquiries, and I will give the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works an opportunity to expand on his answer. I am still concerned about government by press release,
12444	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and progress from news item to news item on this very important matter. I have my files here on the Prince Edward Island causeway and they are quite thick. They are composed mostly of news items and very few parliamentary papers, because it is much easier, apparently, for reporters to extract information than it is for members representing the province of Prince Edward Island. I remember so well the days when the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill)

soon to be a senator I understand-was always asking for a report on this project. I wonder if he has become so enamoured of it that he is keeping it close to his chest, now he has resumed his place on the treasury benches.
I would say to the new minister, if he were here, that I hope he will be more forthcoming in giving information on this important project. Ever since Prince Edward Island entered confederation, transportation has been a vital question. I would commend, as I have done before, the example of the former prime minister when he stood in his place and, as prime minister, made a firm commitment on the matter. I was surprised also that the Minister of Transport, on his tour of Newfoundland, apparently did not make reference to this great project, so important to the whole Atlantic region. I am told that a statement was elicited from him on the way back by some very good reporter. I should have thought his pride would have caused him to expand and tell the people of Newfoundland how well they were doing in finishing up these projects. I would not say it was an afterthought, but it was significant that it had to be elicited from him by the press. I want to be co-operative. I want to be sanguine. I want to share Premier Shaw's delight, but I am still asking that some of the uncertainties be removed.
I hear on the radio that tenders are to be called. Then I hear that only the first one of the surveys has been completed and that phase 2 deals with the question of railways. How you can contemplate calling tenders when it has not been decided whether the causeway shall have rails or not, is something that passes my understanding. I want to know if the Minister of Public Works is sure that four to six weeks will complete this vast study. I want to know how he is going to go about this study. Will it be undertaken by his departmental officials?
Will interested and responsible bodies like the maritime transportation commission be presenting their opinions formally and officially to the government? Will the province
[Mr. Macquarrie.l

of P.E.I. be expressing its views? Will individuals be given a chance? Will Mr. Margison receive more information than he has got so far?
We do not want to surrender our railways in Prince Edward Island without a most attractive and realistic quid pro quo. I do not think press releases, no matter how frequently they come or how carefully they are worded, will do the trick. We need some proper information. We want clearcut plans. We want a chance for the people to know what is to be done.
It would be a profound change in our whole transportation pattern, indeed in our whole economic life, if we should lose the railway in Prince Edward Island. Our transportation needs are becoming more and more urgent. We want more information. There is need for a higher priority and a little more discussion about this great national undertaking in this house before the representatives of the people.


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) but I know he appreciates I cannot answer all the questions he put before us tonight. I shall bring them to the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) tomorrow. May I say that unfortunately he could not be here at this stage of today's proceedings.
However, I would like to say a word or two concerning what the hon. member said about press reports and the conflicting conclusions that are drawn from them. That is not anything new; it is something that has been going on for many years. For as many years as I can remember in many cases press reports were not what was said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what Adam said to Eve.


George Roy McWilliam: I think my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre knows it too well because he has been misquoted, even though he was very careful in what he said.


Mr. Cowan:: And you a newspaper publisher.


George Roy McWilliam: That is correct, but I held the distinction of never misquoting anyone. With respect to a report concerning what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said at Gander on Saturday last, I would point out that he had been speaking to the local chamber of commerce. He was asked by the press why he had not referred to the Prince Edward Island causeway and he replied that

he had just taken it for granted the causeway was going to be built and that he hoped it could be started in 1965.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


George Roy McWilliam: One of the newspapers abbreviated this to say that he took it for granted the causeway would start in 1965, and the minister has told me he was not quite so categorical as the newspaper made him sound. This will be found in other news reports. It was reported that the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) said tenders were going to be called, but he informs me he did not make that statement. The only statement he made was that he hoped the P.E.I. causeway would be built just as soon as it was possible to do so.


Mr. Coates:: Is it still the policy of the government to build the causeway?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


George Roy McWilliam: That has been quite clear since back in the days of 1956 and 1957 when the first surveys were started by Hon. Mr. Winters. I do not think there is anything more I could usefully add but I hope-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary's time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the question I put to the Minister of Finance this afternoon, which I now put to the parliamentary secretary, is a very old one but it has been recently brought into focus.
When the government announced the decision to lower the eligible age for the old age security pension it indicated that it would take away the $500 extra income tax exemption during the years between 65 and 70 when people are drawing the old age security pension. There have been protests against this and I put the question to the Minister of Finance this afternoon in the following way:
In view of these protests would the minister consider as an alternative to taking away this $500 exemption between the ages of 65 and
16, 1965	12445
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion 70 the increasing of the income tax exemption level to $1,500 single and $3,000 married across the board?
As hon. members know, for a long time many people have felt that the present income tax exemption levels are not high enough. In theory they are supposed to indicate the amount of money a person should have to spend before taxation is applied. One thousand dollars for a single person is only $19.23 a week; $2,000 for a married person is only $38.46 a week. I think we all agree that this point is too soon to begin applying income tax. So I hope the Minister of Finance in preparing his budget will give consideration to a proposal different from the one announced by the Prime Minister on February 17 and that instead of taking away the extra $500 from those between 65 and 70 the government will decide to raise the levels across the board to $1,500 single and $3,000 married.
When I put my question this afternoon I added the important proviso that there would have to be an adjustment in tax rates when such a change was made so that the advantage would accrue mainly to those in the lower income brackets.
The Minister of Finance did not particularly like my question this afternoon. I gathered that he thought I was trying to get him to leak a budget secret. I know the Minister of Finance better than that and I hope he knows me better than that. I was not asking him to give a final answer and tell us what he proposes to do, but I did think it was proper to ask whether the government is considering this alternative approach to the problem and I hope I can have an answer to that question now from the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Let me say at once that the Minister of Finance always gives serious consideration to matters such as that just raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member himself has said that this is a question of taxation and it is scarcely necessary for me to add that questions of taxation are matters for the budget.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Wednesday, March 17, 19G5