1968-10-17

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this house is desired:

Bill No. S-12, an act respecting the Bona-venture and Gaspe Telephone Company Limited. Bill No. S-13, an act respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance Company.



STATEMENT ON ACTION TO CONTROL INCREASED NARCOTICS TRAFFIC

["Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief comment about the minister's statement. We, like other members of the house, were deeply shocked by the military intervention of the Soviet forces in the internal affairs of Czechoslovakia. It is perfectly obvious that that move must damage international relations. Nevertheless we suggest that there should be no overreacting to this event. One of the reasons for this occurrence may have been the internal situation and fear within the U.S.S.R. which, we believe, is not as monolithic as it looks from the outside. We hope this occasion will not be used in any way to cut down or cut off the contacts between this country and other countries and those countries behind the so called iron curtain.\n\nDEBATES\tOctober 17. 1968"]
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as requested about two weeks ago I should like to make a statement with reference to drug abuses.
The programs being pursued by the Department of National Health and Welfare to deal with the problem of the use of hallucinogenic drugs by young people fall within two broad categories, educational programs and control programs. While the ideal forum for programs designed to inform young people as to the dangers inherent in the use of various hallucinogenic drugs is the schools, the availability of this forum to us is, of course, strictly limited by the fact of education being a matter within provincial jurisdiction. What we can do and are doing in this regard is making informational materials available for use by schools as well as by community organizations.
The department has purchased a number of copies of a movie, produced in the United States, called LSD: Insight or Insanity which it is making available to schools and other interested groups. As well, we have brought this film to the attention of the provincial departments of health and a number of these have ordered copies which they are also
making available within their respective provinces. A film called Marijuana has also been obtained, and additional prints are on order. As soon as these are received they will be made available to schools and community groups as well.
A number of publications dealing with LSD and marijuana have been produced by the department in recent months and a major pamphlet, designed for mass distribution, is in its final stages of production. This pamphlet will be provided to the provincial departments of health. The distribution of the pamphlet within the provinces will be in the hands of the respective provincial health departments and departments of education.
It is our intention to expand this informational program in every was possible. We believe the most effective control is an informed public. As well as control by way of education, however, the department is continually reassessing and updating its legislative controls as new hallucinogenic drugs come into use among young people. By order in council P.C. 1968-1736, schedule H of the Food and Drugs Act was amended last month by the addition of DET, DMT and STP. This amendment prohibits the sale of these substances, as well as LSD which was added to this schedule some time ago. Item 29 in the list of bills enumerated by the government house leader on September 12, "A bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Code", the omnibus health bill, is designed to further increase our capacity to control the use of hallucinogenic drugs by making possession of these drugs an offence.
The department is involved in chemical research in the field of hallucinogens through studies being conducted in its food and drug directorate. It is involved in support of sociological research being conducted in British Columbia under the department's health grants program, and has provided assistance in pharmacological research being undertaken in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. The subject of drug abuse among young people will be on the agenda of the federal-provincial health ministers' conference to be held early in November, and it is hoped that further
October 17, 1968

Control of Increased Narcotics Traffic proposals of both an informational and a control nature will come out of that meeting.
Because drug abuse is a problem which involves may different aspects and functions of the Department of National Health and Welfare, an intradepartmental committee has been established involving representatives of each of the branches of the department having a role to play in dealing with the problem. As well, we are in the process of establishing a special secretariat which will work with this intradepartmental committee in coordinating all our efforts in this area and developing plans for their expansion.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker the fact that the minister has made a statement is indeed most welcome. The contents of the statement, however, must be subject to careful scrutiny. Back in August the minister, when speaking in Regina, discussed the possibility of taking marijuana out of the category of narcotics and placing it in the category of restricted drugs, which would automatically have the effect of reducing penalties. He was quoted as follows by the Canadian Press:
The teenager who tries pot at a Saturday night party because someone has some and passes it around and everyone else tries it, may be very foolish but he isn't a criminal, at least not in the sense that I think of criminals.
He was also quoted as saying:
Nor does it seem to me that giving criminal records to several thousand curious kids each year serves any worth-while purpose.
The minister noted a huge increase in the use of marijuana as an argument in favour of a step in the direction of permissiveness. Others may view it in an opposite light. I am prepared to concede the validity of the minister's argument that curious kids, as he describes them, should not be turned into criminals on account of that curiosity; and whether the answer lies in lessening the penalties for possession is certainly worth considering.
The major offender in the increase in the use of marijuana is, of course, the distributor; and in relation to the distributor, the individual who deliberately sets out for profit to "hook" young people on the use of dangerous drugs, there should be no lessening whatsoever of penalties; they should in fact be tightened up.
We have been witnessing in recent months a tremendous increase in the use of marijuana

resulting from a tremendous increase in distribution on an organized basis, through the use of teenagers as distributors. Some of these were marijuana users who, having been introduced to this drug, have been persuaded to introduced it to others. I am sure that not even the minister will assert that it is a beneficial thing for our society to condone the widespread use of marijuana or other drugs, nor to encourage the spread of such drugs. Yet that is what is going on. Young people are being introduced in a systematic way to these drugs. They are being used to "hook" others, and then in many cases they are induced to try for a bigger kick with a bigger drug, such as heroin and others.
The only ones to benefit from this procedure are the behind the scenes peddlers working on behalf of the international crime syndicates for whom the illegal distribution of drugs brings in many millions of dollars annually, and who in pursuit of financial returns do not hesitate to destroy a whole generation of young people.
I am sure the minister must know something of the ramifications of this subject. He must know that he is playing with a force in some cases more explosive than dynamite. He must know that the accumulated experience of the ages in every country has been that these drugs, once released, cannot be controlled, and that each user is automatically a proselytizer of others. He must know that the distribution is carefully and systematically organized to create as many users as possible and to introduce them to progressively habit forming drugs. He must know that behind the teenage pusher of a few sticks of marijuana is the syndicate operator and organizer.
In August the minister talked about Saturday night parties where someone had marijuana and passed it around and everyone tried it. Does he think this is socially constructive or useful? Is this what he is trying to condone or perpetuate? We have had any number of teenagers picked up for both using and peddling marijuana. We have had teenagers picked up in increasing numbers for using other far more serious drugs. We have had an increasing number in our criminal courts destroyed mentally and physically by drug addiction at below 21 years of age. For these there must be pity and indeed some sympathy and understanding. But what of those responsible for making these drugs available to the teenagers? What of those who for gain deliberately set out to destroy young minds? Surely we are not going to make life
Oclober 17, 1968	COMMONS
easier for them. Surely the government is going to do more to deal with this situation than simply making it easier to have access to marijuana.
I assume the minister must toe aware that the use of marijuana is the classical entry into the addiction category. Not all those who use marijuana end up using destructive narcotics, but a great number using narcotics such as heroin began with marijuana. Is it a chance worth taking? It is the distributors and syndicate agents whom the government must bring to book and upon whom very heavy penalties indeed must be inflicted if we are to accept our responsibility to the young people of this nation.
A report of the United States treasury department dealing with the effect of marijuana upon the mind says:
Its continued use produces pronounced mental deterioration in many cases. Its more immediate effect apparently is to remove the normal inhibitions of the individual and release any anti-social tendencies which may be present.
Few of us are without such tendencies in one form or another. It is not enough to lighten the penalties imposed on marijuana users. If the penalties are to be lightened, then distribution must be rigorously curtailed. To lighten the penalties without taking steps to halt distribution can benefit only the international drug peddlers. Distribution can only be halted by exacting severe penalties on those who make marijuana available and who engage or hire others to distribute it.
We must face the fact that marijuana is a drug the use of which divorces the mind from reality and produces personality changes as well as a tolerance and willingness for further narcotic experimentation and sometimes addiction. To expose young people to its effects while at the same time neglecting to put a stop to the operations of those who purvey marijuana for the purpose of creating a market for this and for more destructive drugs would be an indefensible failure in carrying out our responsibility.
To control the use of marijuana we need, as the minister has stated, educational and control programs. There are four interrelated approaches to the problems created by the use of marijuana. They are research, education, treatment of the addict and legislation. Legislation or education of themselves do not constitute effective answers. There must also be treatment of the chronic user. But we need far more than this. We need a medical research committee which will come up with
DEBATES	1465
Control of Incresead, Narcotics Traffic answers concerning the effect of marijuana on the individual. The evidence we have to date points to a conflict in the assessment of the effect of this drug on the personality.
The law courts desperately need scientific guidance in the handling of the victims of marijuana, and this is a municipal, provincial and federal problem. It is not acceptable to the Canadian people for the federal government to slough off even part of the problem by saying it is a provincial matter. The fact remains that no government agency has yet set up a medical research committee to investigate the matter and report on it.
The findings of such a medical research committee should then be brought before a meeting of the provincial-federal authorities for discussion, evaluation and joint action at all levels. Then and only then will we be attacking this serious and distressing problem with all the forces at our command.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before continuing this discussion I think it is my duty to remind hon. members again, more particularly with regard to a statement made yesterday and to the comments made today, that they should not disregard entirely the provisions of standing order 15 (2a) to the effect that statements made by ministers should be limited to certain facts which it is necessary to make known to the house, and that spokesmen for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment on them briefly. I have said before and I will say again that brevity is a relative standard. It may be that my standards are slightly old fashioned.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly try my best to comply with your standards. I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement of the minister and to the comments of the hon. member for Simcoe East, because this is an extremely important subject confronting not only people in the younger generation but society in its entirety. When we look at the fact that from January 1, 1967 to October 31, 1967, the number of arrests for possession of marijuana was in the neighbourhood of 1,300, up 300 per cent over the year before, we can realize the enormity of the problem.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
This statement relates only to the so-called hallucinogenic substances, but I think there is a parallel here in terms of the attitude we have adopted to the hard line narcotic drugs
14g6	COMMONS
Control of Increased Narcotics Traffic which are dealt with under the Narcotics Control Act. The experience not only in Canada but in the United States with regard to narcotics may be a guide as to what our attitude should be in relation to the so-called hallucinogenic substances.
The procedure we have followed in dealing with narcotics control in Canada does not carry with it any real proof that this procedure has been effective in either controlling the trafficking in narcotics or in reducing the number of narcotics addicts. Our approach has been a sustained hard line approach involving harsher and harsher sentences and even the use of the habitual criminal section. However, the use of the habitual criminal section of the code has not had the effect it was hoped it would have.
Even the limited recognition we give medical attention in the field of narcotic drugs must follow the arrest, conviction and penalty process. It comes as an aftermath of the more severe and harsher penalty. Probably there will always be those in our society who will look for this false paradise, who will use marijuana, amphetamines, lysergic acid, dried banana peels, nutmeg and so on. The list is interminable. In fact some people are now inhaling poisonous insecticides like Raid which people use to kill off mosquitoes. They fill a room with this spray and then inhale it. There is probably no limit to the substances people will use. In attempting to deal with the use of such substances by going to stiffer and stiffer enforcement with harsher penalties, more illegalities, more restrictions, we will find we have adopted a futile course.
As past experience has shown, such a course could be ludicrous in its application. We need only look at the types of substances the minister listed in the answer he gave yesterday when he referred to nail polish, gasoline and such substances, to realize the number of substances with which we are dealing.
I do not believe, however, we can abandon that control system. I think it is necessary. In addition, however, we have to embark on a program of research and public education. The minister's statement was much too narrow, because he said the form of education must be through the schools to our younger people. In my opinion this question of education is a much broader one. We must separate myth from fact. In so far, as marijuana is concerned there is a great deal of myth about it. We have to get to the stage some day of looking at marijuana as probably one of those
[Mr. Howard (Skeena).l
DEBATES	October 17, 1968
substances which are less harmful than alcohol in so far as its deleterious effect upon the individual and upon society is concerned.
There is probably no single answer to this problem, Mr. Speaker, because we are dealing with individuals, and I feel we are dealing with individuals who have an illness. I believe the great increase in the use of hal-lucinogenics should point out to us that the illness is not confined to the individual but is an illness of society and will have to be coped with in that way. In that context the minister's statement was barren. There was no realization of the fact that it is a social illness with which we are dealing. His statement was barren of any reference to the necessity of freeing the medical profession, for the sake of argument, from any impingement upon the so-called doctor-patient relationship, upon which the profession looks with some delight. We should free ourselves from this relationship and permit the medical profession to search for treatments and for opportunities which will in turn provide answers and cures.
We have also, Mr. Speaker, to embark upon the total research and education fields. I submit that in our so-called "live it up" society where everything is done to suit the pleasures of the individual, something that seems paramount today, a few pamphlets and films referred to by the minister will not provide what is required.


Mr. Andre Foriin (Lofbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the wish you expressed earlier, I should like to make some very brief remarks so as not to prolong the debate.
First, I should like to say that the statement just made by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) can but please us, because the minister tackles a major problem which tomorrow will overcome us if we do not assume our responsibilities since we are already far behind in this field. Secondly, I should like to say that the minister's statement cannot solve the problem.
Mr. Speaker, what I regret in the minister's statement, is the fact that he says the provinces are responsible for the problem, because if you ask the provincial authorities to deal with it, they will tell you that it comes under federal jurisdiction.
It seems that the problem of the distribution of hallucinogens is going to be dealt with in exactly the same way as the problem of alcoholism in Canada these last 25 years. Mr. Speaker, there are over 100,000 alcoholics
October 17, 1968

in Quebec alone, and when you bring up the problem, people point a finger at you. When you put the problem to the provincial government, they say: That falls within the jurisdiction of Ottawa. On the other hand, when Ottawa is asked to do something about it, they say: that falls within the Quebec jurisdiction. In the meantime, people stay convinced that alcoholism is a vice instead of the disease it is proved to be.
I do not wish to hold up the debate any further, but I should like to tell the minister that although his statement pleases us to some extent, it cannot solve the problem. Indeed, we would be very happy if he were to submit to the standing committee on health and welfare legislation that could be studied in depth, so that we could really come to grips with the problem of the distribution of hallucinogens. It seems to me we should delve deeply into our methods, our ideas, our policy and our philosophy, in the field of research as well as in the fields of information, education, legislation and cure, since it is more of an illness than a vice.
I would not like attacks to be made against the young under the pretext that they use hallucinatory drugs. I think they should be directed instead against the adults who use those young people to attain their own ends.
I therefore ask the minister to take immediately effective measures to protect our young generation against certain adults who think they are the only ones who have discovered America, who exploit the possibilities of our children and who will bring about tomorrow the degradation of our children, if we do not assume our responsibilities.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister to introduce specific measures to enable us to assume our responsibilities in that field. We should stop passing the buck from one government to another. We should work hand in hand to treat those people as they deserve.



Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on October 15 the Leader of the Opposition asked whether I would make a statement on exchanges of a political nature with Warsaw pact countries.
External Affairs
When the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet union, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and East Germany took place, Canada condemned it unequivocally. Our condemnation, if it was not to be simply a matter of words, clearly required concrete expression as well. Since much of the substance of our relations with the invading countries has been in exchanges of visits and information under official auspices in various technical and scientific fields, it was in this area that our position could be most clearly demonstrated.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
In the case of departments and agencies of the government, this policy has been applied directly. In the case of individuals and private organizations we have naturally left the decisions to them to make, while giving advice on request.
The government decided first that planned exchanges having political content, that is those at a ministerial level, should not take place for the time being. Among these, for example, was the attendance of a Soviet delegation at the convention of the Canadian Institute of Forestry in St. John's, Newfoundland. This delegation was to have been headed by a minister of the so called Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, a government which I may say is the product of an earlier Soviet military occupation, the legality of which Canada has never recognized. Our decision in this case was taken in consultation with the government of Newfoundland and the interested private companies. Certain other visits, proposed or contemplated, which would have involved other Soviet ministers have also been set aside for the time being.
The government decided, second, that under the circumstances created by the invasion of Czechoslovakia it would be inopportune to embark on new exchange projects for the present, irrespective of their political content. Certain existing and ongoing exchanges of a purely technical, cultural or academic nature, some of which are of long standing and of considerable value to Canada, are nevertheless continuing. Most of these are, of course, carried out under private auspices. Among them I might mention the established exchanges of students between certain Canadian and Soviet universities.
A number of private Canadian firms and organizations which had planned shorter term visits or exchanges have postponed or cancelled them on their own initiative, since they, like other Canadians, were shocked by
1468	COMMONS
Changes in Standing Committees Personnel the invasion of Czechoslovakia. In some cases these organizations have sought the advice of the government and have taken their decisions in the light of government policy as it was explained to them. As I have indicated, however, where private organizations or individuals have decided that for various reasons they wish to continue existing arrangements, it is not the government's policy to put obstacles in their way.
In adopting the policy I have described we have borne in mind that the exchanges which have grown up and flourished in recent years between Canada and the communist countries can be of considerable intrinsic value to Canada commercially, technologically, culturally and in other ways.
We have made it clear to the U.S.S.R. and its allies that our relations have been damaged by their action, and that the continued presence of their occupying forces in Czechoslovakia is an obstacle to their restoration. In doing so I wish to make clear we remain convinced that genuine and peaceful co-operation between east and west is in fact possible without the abandonment of principles on either side, but will not be possible as long as one side believes it can do violence to the principles of the other. Human survival itself may depend on the recognition of that fact.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take the time of the house this afternoon to make any particular comment about the minister's statement. I only wish to say that I do not think the measures he is discussing will take the matter very far.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief comment about the minister's statement. We, like other members of the house, were deeply shocked by the military intervention of the Soviet forces in the internal affairs of Czechoslovakia. It is perfectly obvious that that move must damage international relations. Nevertheless we suggest that there should be no overreacting to this event. One of the reasons for this occurrence may have been the internal situation and fear within the U.S.S.R. which, we believe, is not as monolithic as it looks from the outside. We hope this occasion will not be used in any way to cut down or cut off the contacts between this country and other countries and those countries behind the so called iron curtain.

DEBATES	October 17. 1968



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That the name of Mr. Lind be substituted for the name of Mr. Borrie on the standing committee on agriculture.
That the name of Mr. Stafford be substituted for the name of Mr. Hymmen on the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.


Mr. Lind:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly allow me to put the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have had the privilege of speaking before the motion was adopted by the house, because I have a grievance. Originally I was placed on the committee on agriculture. I received notice to attend the agriculture committee meeting at 9.30 yesterday morning. When I arrived at the committee meeting I was told I was no longer a member of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I realize now that my name was removed from the committee on agriculture at six o'clock on October 15. I should like an explanation of why that was done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Mr. Speaker, I think whoever is in charge of this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: -should give an explanation why this was done. I was taken off the committee; now I am being replaced, but I have never been consulted in the matter, and I think I deserve that explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that the motion placed before the house was carried. It is not debatable. The hon. member rose on a question of privilege, but I suggest there should be no debate, since it is rather a grievance than a question of privilege. The hon. member
October 17, 1968

himself termed it a grievance. He told the house he had a grievance and essentially this is not a question of privilege. According to the rules the hon. member is required to give written notice if he proposes to raise a question of privilege which he has not done. I suggest therefore that this matter should not be debated at this time.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Middlesex rising on a point of order?


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I was wondering if the man in charge could explain why this has taken place.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have his reasons for asking for an explanation, but I suggest it should not be given to him in the house at this time. Perhaps there might be private consultations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that backbenchers of the opposition parties are not permitted to come to the aid of a Liberal backbencher?


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat for one moment. He must resume his seat if he wants to give me the opportunity to recognize him.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I did telephone the minister in charge but he didn't see fit to reply.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: So I think I deserve an answer in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to give an explanation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I returned the hon. member's telephone call, Mr. Speaker, but there was no answer at the other end.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I spoke to my hon. friend in the lobby before we came into
DEBATES	1469
Changes in Standing Committees Personnel the house. I said "Jim, you were calling me. You have something to say?" and he said "No, I don't." So I am pleased to hear from the hon. member further even at this late date. He is anxious to be a member of the agriculture committee, and I am delighted that the house has approved his being on that committee.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already ruled that there is no question of privilege. It may be that by unanimous agreement the house would allow the right hon. gentleman to speak.


An hon. Member:: No. It is a private fight.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a matter which affects every member of the house. As soon as a person is chosen to be a member of a committee an order of the house is made and no person, not even the leader of the house, has any right to remove that member's name from the list. This is a serious question of privilege affecting the rights of members of this house. They cannot be pushed around by anyone once the house has reached a decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sure Your Honour is interested in this new question of privilege raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I recall that this practice has been followed in past years. House leaders and others in similar positions have at the request of opposition whips replaced opposition members on committees, and I take it the practice is still to continue.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: But that has always been at the request of the individual member concerned. I say this so that the minister's statement shall not go unchallenged.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 26, I ask leave to propose that the house now adjourn its proceedings to discuss an urgent and pressing matter affecting all hon. members.

October 17, 1968
Post Office Department
On October 10, 1968, the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) who is not in the house today, forwarded to senators and to members of the House of Commons a letter concerning changes in postal rates.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, concerns the fact that the Postmaster General says at the beginning of his letter, and I quote:
Changes in postal rates
I refer to the statement already made with regard to adjustments in postal rates and certain changes in the rules which will come into force on November 1, 1968, under the authority given to me by the post office act.
The following changes will be of special interest to members of the Senate and the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that under the standing orders, he should indicate to the Chair the terms of the motion that he wishes to introduce. A while ago, he himself stated that he wished to suggest adjournment of the business of the house under standing order 26, and not as a question of privilege. In that case, he must abide by the provisions of standing order 26.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, as it happened, I was reading what the Postmaster General wrote to the hon. members, and I submit that he is mistaken, since the Post Office Act does not allow him to modify any of the privileges that the hon. members have voted for themselves.
In fact, it is not up to the Postmaster General to grant us privileges, or to modify or take away those which we already possess. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the house adjourn its business at this time to study this matter, and in referring to the letter of the Postmaster General-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The standing orders require the hon. member to submit to the Chair a copy of the motion, so that it may be debated at this time.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like, in order to co-operate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member allow me to examine for a moment the motion which he wants to introduce in this house?
Would the hon. member now indicate to the house and to the Chair the reasons for holding the debate now, that is, the urgency of the matter?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is because the Postmaster General tells us that this rule will become effective on November 1, and I feel that this house ought to study the problem today, because this decision is contrary to the Revised Statutes of Canada 1952, Chap. 212, section 17 (3), page 12, and I quote:
A member of the Senate or House of Commons may during a recess of Parliament, send from Ottawa, free of postage, any papers printed by order of either the Senate or the House of Commons.
I feel that this new change in postal rates that the Postmaster General announced on October 10, and which will become effective on November 1, is contrary to our legislation and that he has no right to interfere with the rights already acquired by the hon. members who voted them.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the business of the house to consider this interference of the Postmaster General in a field which does not concern him.


Mr. Speaker:: Should other honourable
members wish to express their opinion at this stage on the urgency of debate I will hear them. Otherwise, I will give my ruling.
I must remind honourable members of the terms of subsection (2) and others of standing order 100 in the Fourth edition of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. The author refers to the circumstances that should prevail in order to warrant adjournment of debate in the house under standing order 26. Subsection (2) states the following:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance" for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved under standing order 26, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
I must say to the honourable member that honestly, I wonder whether public interest would suffer from a delay in debate on this question. Some honourable members' interest may possibly suffer from it but I do not believe it would necessarily follow that public interest will also suffer.
For that reason, I do not believe the question asked by the honourable member warrants the adjournment of business slated for today.
October 17, 1968

lEnglish]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, when the conversation across the aisle is finished I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask whether the minister, anyone in his department, or anyone representing Canada at the United Nations has discussed with Dr. Okoi Arikpo, the Nigerian commissioner for foreign affairs, any suggestion or indication that he come to Canada shortly.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have heard from our delegate in New York that Mr. Arikpo is planning to come to Canada at the end of this month, but I have had no further confirmation.


David Lewis: Did the report which was given to the minister contain the reason anyone invited Dr. Arikpo to come to this country? I am not suggesting that he will not receive the usual warm and courteous reception, but was there any reason suggested for the visit?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. As I recall the circumstances Mr. Arikpo expressed a desire to come to Canada and, of course, we would be very happy to welcome him.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether our representatives at the United Nations have discussed with anyone the possibility of having a representative of the Biafran authorities come to Canada for the same purpose for which I imagine Dr. Arikpo is coming to this country? If not, will he give consideration to this?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman knows very well that we do not recognize the government of the republic of Biafra, and therefore it would be impossible for us to extend any such invitation.


David Lewis: I rise now on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister when he answered my original question did not say that an invitation had been extended to Dr. Arikpo. Now he is suggesting that he cannot discuss this matter with the Biafran authorities because he cannot extend an invitation to them.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not understand the purport of the question. We recognize the government
Inquiries of the Ministry of Nigeria. The commissioner for foreign affairs expressed an interest in coming to Canada and I said we would be very glad to welcome him. We do not have relations with the government of Biafra; therefore, it would be impossible to extend any such invitation.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Finance. I do not know whether it is his day, but he was here. I will ask the question upon his return.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance relating to the estimates. Has an arrangement been made to table any correspondence from the province of Ontario in which that province warned the federal government that its estimates as to the federal share of certain joint programs were substantially wide of the mark?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: This is a question which should be addressed to my colleague the President of the Treasury Board. I believe he has or intends to make a statement in this regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thought it would be in order to direct it to the Minister of Finance because he was the president of the treasury board at the time. Can he say whether any such correspondence has been received from any other province?


Edgar John Benson: No such letter was brought to my attention before the tabling of the estimates.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister say whether at the time of the filing of the prospectus with the securities and exchange commission in the United States on May 28, he was advised or whether he inquired at that time about the rate at which the federal estimates for hospital care and post-secondary education grants were being used up?


Edgar John Benson: The document filed with the securities and exchange commission was an historic document. It indicated public statements by the government prior to that time with regard to the estimates. I should also indicate to hon. members opposite that far

October 17, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry from people feeling deceived, these bonds are now trading at $103 in New York.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to be insistent, but I wonder whether the minister would answer my question concerning whether he made inquiries at the time he gave this representation on behalf of the government of Canada.


Edgar John Benson: Of course I made inquiries concerning the position of the government. At that time the position of the government was that we knew certain expenditures would be changed. It was our hope at that time that we could save an equivalent amount in controllable non-statutory expenditures. This proved to be not the case.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: I should like to ask the minister if the government has made a decision whether the $116 million federal share of the Expo deficit is to be added to the regular budget deficit or whether some other disposition is to be made of it?


Edgar John Benson: A decision has not been made at this time, but my hon. friend knows that the amount involved has been paid by the federal government and that indeed we are recovering cash with regard to the funds advanced to Expo.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to assume from the answer that as of the end of May the government had no indication that expenditures would be running substantially above the estimates tabled in the House of Commons?


Edgar John Benson: I can assure my hon. friend that it was the hope of the government that it would be able to stick to the public statements that had been made prior to that time.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Will the minister advise us whether the computers have been of assistance in this area equal to his wild forecasts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question is acceptable.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was the
minister himself who made the assertion that the computers were of great assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: This is developing into a debate.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF EXPO EXPRESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the honorable Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Is it his intention to obtain a revision of the decision regarding the sale of Expo Express, a decision which did not please the president of the executive council of the city of Montreal and which was reached on the vote of the federal representative to the World Exhibition Corporation?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to ask that the decision be reconsidered. In December 1967 and March 1968, if I remember well, the federal and the provincial government issued orders in council asking the corporation to sell Expo Express by public tender.
Since then, and particularly since last June 25, the city of Montreal could have made representations to the federal or provincial governments to ask for reconsideration of the decision. The city of Montreal could very well have tendered also. She did neither, except at the very last minute.
However, those who had submitted bona fide tenders had I think gained certain rights the more so as they had been assured that the selection of tenders would be made on a commercial basis.
The only reason why we could change our decision now would be the consideration of the price quoted by the selected tenderer. However, the price quoted has been deemed, from a commercial viewpoint, to be acceptable to the company. It seems to me therefore there is no reason why the company's decision should be changed.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question concerning the site of the World Exhibition?
Has the honourable Minister of Industry and Trade and Commerce been advised that an offer was made by the Fondation Molierel Has he read the brief asking that Cite du Havre not be demolished and that it be handed over to the Fondation Moliere for the purpose of setting up a film centre?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no such letter.
Ociober 17, 1968


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The letters were sent to the right honourable Prime Minister and to the Minister of Transport asking them to intervene with the cabinet.
As the three ministers concerned are the Minister of Industry and Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Transport, and the right honourable Prime Minister, I wonder whether the hon. Minister of Industry and Trade and Commerce could not go over the matter again with his colleagues and give another answer to the house within the next few days?


Jean-Luc Pepin: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker. [English]



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Postmaster General was expressing government policy when he announced in London last night that changes in the decision to cancel Saturday rural mail deliveries would be forthcoming.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I do not know exactly what the Postmaster General said last night in London, Mr. Speaker, but I know he has been considering the decision and intends to present the bill to the house for second reading when the time arrives, I believe next Monday.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the heads of daily and weekly newspapers in Canada asked to meet the Prime Minister in reference to the cutting off of service and the increase in rates? Has the Prime Minister seen them and did he suggest he may change the decision in this regard?


Mr. Trudeau:: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, they have not asked to see me, but I do know there has been quite a bit of discussion with the Postmaster General.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to give us a little more information in this regard. There is no reference to a five day week in the post office legislation and I am wondering why it is necessary to postpone the decision until the time of presentation of the bill?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member knows, second reading of this bill will take place on Monday.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: The five day week is not mentioned in the bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Postmaster General will be discussing it at that time.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: That is the whole point of the question. This is not in the bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The position of the Postmaster General will be outlined in his statement on second reading. That will be when hon. members will learn about this matter.



NANAIMO-COWICHAN-THE ISLANDS-INQUIRY AS TO BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when, in view of the continuing lack of a representative in this house for the constituency of Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, he envisages a by-election? Will it be held during the present year?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I am carefully considering that question, Mr. Speaker, but I have not yet reached a decision.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that Quebec has reimbursed the $100 million it owed to British Columbia and considering the deficit of close to $1 billion incurred by Canada, has your government, Mr. Prime Minister, given consideration to borrowing from British Columbia the $8 million it wants to lend to Nigeria?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that he must address the Chair when asking questions.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I was not given the floor earlier when I wished to ask a supplementary question regarding Nigeria; what I have to say is about Nigeria, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Hull.

October 17, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   CONSIDERATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND COMPANY LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I wish to allude to a question asked a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Greenwood. I have had an opportunity to check with my office and have learned that a letter was received in my office from Mr. Thorpe and some of his Liberal colleagues during the summer.']
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the loss of income tax and the possible serious disruption to the Canadian petroleum industry which may result from the projected refinery complex of the Newfoundland government and the Sha-heen corporation, has the government given consideration to disallowing the Newfoundland legislation which is the basis of this dangerous situation?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: We have considered that, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance is prepared to answer the question.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned when this question was raised previously in the house, matters of this kind are not limited to the Shaheen corporation. We have been investigating this and similar corporations which have been set up in that province. I hope to have a report in this regard within a week or so.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker in view of the growing world opinion that a stoppage of arms shipments is the quickest way to achieve the cease fire we all want in Nigeria and Biafra, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate what recent steps the government has taken toward reaching this objective with the great powers concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that when the Prime Minister of Canada expresses the view of the Canadian government it is well known around the world.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I wanted to direct a supplementary question and now the opportunity offers itself.
I should like to ask the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the $8 millions loaned to Nigeria will contribute to pay for the bombs that England sells to that country to murder the Biafrans?


Mr. Speaker:: I have already ruled that question out of order.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what reaction the government has received to the most interesting statement by the Prime Minister regarding the stopping of arms shipments? What have Britain, the U.S.S.R. and France said?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, arms shipments have not yet stopped.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether relief supplies to be distributed by aircraft are piling up on the docks at Lagos because of the lack of transportation from the docks to the airport?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the information we have from Lagos is not to that effect but rather that the food is being distributed.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the house how many Hercules aircraft the Red Cross is flying into territory held by the Biafran authorities?


Mitchell William Sharp: So far as the International Red Cross is concerned, it has one Hercules at its disposal. It has not been flying very regularly into Biafra. When we complied with the request of the International Red Cross we responded in such a way that our aircraft could fly continuously once permission was granted to allow it to fly at all.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reference in the British Hansard to the fact that Jeremy Thorpe, the leader of the Liberal party in Britain, contacted the Prime Minister and asked him to use his influence to achieve a cease-fire and a halt in the supply of arms by all nations to Nigeria, has the Prime Minister responded to this request and to what effect?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been seized with this request and know nothing about it. I am not a regular reader of British Hansard. I expressed a few days ago in this house the government's thoughts in respect of the supply of arms to Nigeria and Biafra. I hope the members of the N.D.P. will contact the leader of the Liberal party in Britain and express a view to the same effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
October 17, 1968


Francis Andrew Brewin: Let me assure the Prime Minister that we have communicated with the British government.


An hon. Member:: Which you have not done.


Mr. Hellyer:: What did they say to you?


Francis Andrew Brewin: If the Prime Minister is not a regular reader of British Hansard, I should like to suggest that he read the copy of July 22 in which this statement was made by the leader of the Liberal party there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker, and I would be interested to know what answer was received by members of the N.D.P.


David Lewis: Unfortunately you are the
Prime Minister of Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You mean fortunately.


David Lewis: That is a pretty smart-aleck response to an important question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to allude to a question asked a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Greenwood. I have had an opportunity to check with my office and have learned that a letter was received in my office from Mr. Thorpe and some of his Liberal colleagues during the summer.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I find that according to the revised roster the Minister of Agriculture is supposed to be here today, but in fact he is not. You will have to revise the roster again. Let me direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he advise what steps, if any were decided upon yesterday in Winnipeg regarding the setting up of a grains council? As a result of his pilgrimage to the west is the minister able to indicate what serious action the government of Canada intends to take regarding the difficult position in which western farmers find themselves as a result of climatic conditions?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there are really two questions there, and I hope you will give me double time to answer them. The first question has to do with the grains council. Indeed we had an excellent meeting yesterday in Winnipeg. I think there was unanimous or fairly unanimous agreement that such a council should be created. We discussed at length the composition, terms of reference and the financing of the council. There was quite an amount of consensus with regard to each one of these points. The federal government is now going to put all these consensuses on paper for reference to the various organizations which took part in the meeting yesterday, and we hope this will be the basis for the creation of the council in the next month or so.
With respect to the second question, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that one of the things that could be done would be passage by this house of the cash advance payment legislation which is awaiting final approval.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The wheat board is carrying on an intensified search for markets round the world. I pray every morning, like the hon. member for Prince Albert, that this will result in fantastic or at least very interesting sales. We are studying at this time ways and means by which we might further improve the competitive position of the wheat board in world markets.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to find out what answer has been given to the minister's prayers. Where have any markets been secured in the last three months that will reduce the fabulous carryover of wheat in western Canada? Second, what action will be taken in those areas where farmers have little or no hope of securing, when the threshing is done or the harvesting completed, a crop other than damp wheat which is virtually unsaleable?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is very close to God-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Crouse:: How close is God to you?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and it is well known that God has been kind to ministers of trade and commerce in the past under any administration, and I hope he is going to pull a new trick

October 17, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry once again as He did for my hon. friend back in 1961.
With respect to possible sales by the wheat board, I thought I answered this question last week when I said that parliament was not a market place and that one of the conditions for success in world wheat marketing is not to divulge too generously the whereabouts of your salesmen.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the hon. gentleman is so close to the Deity-and he turned to the right when he said that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -I would ask him whether the western farmers have anything else to depend upon in regard to the securing of markets than this close affiliation with the Almighty?


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On October 9 the minister promised to inquire into the report that the French government was selling wheat to Japan at prices below the international minimum. Has he done so, and with what result?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have done so, Mr. Speaker. There have been no recent purchases of wheat by Japan from France other than a part cargo during the latter part of August. We are assured that France is offering wheat to Japan at prices in accordance with the pricing provisions of the international grains arrangement.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is unable to obtain a favourable answer to his prayers, would he consult one of his distinguished colleagues on the fine art of osculation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would he use his good offices to convince the house leader that the question of cash advances should be debated today and tomorrow if necessary so that this necessary legislation may be passed? We have been asking unsuccessfully for some time that this be done.
[Mr. Pepin.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it would have been passed the other day had the hon. member not objected.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman has imputed motives to my speaking in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have repeatedly requested the government to do this. On one occasion through the house leader on this side of the house and on a number of other occasions I myself have asked the government house leader to bring on the cash advances legislation before the farm credit bill was debated or even begun. I have repeatedly asked that this be done but with no success or co-operation from the other side of the house. I ask the minister to use his good offices to bring in this legislation as quickly as possible. There is no question of our holding it up.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell us if, in his discussions with some of the members of the wheat board yesterday, they said whether they are considering suspending temporarily any movement of dry grain from country elevators. This would be an inducement to farmers to thresh damp grain and move the damp grain instead.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I did take up this question yesterday with the wheat board. To sum up the report I got, three things are now being done: first, the terminals are readying their equipment to handle the expected large quantities of damp grain; second, some grain has already been moved from the inland terminals to provide space for damp grain which can be dried in these facilities; third, on October 15 the Canadian Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners issued instructions to the trade authorizing priority to the shipment of damp grain from country elevators to terminal positions.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Following the minister's discussions with the wheat board with regard to the movement of tough and damp grain, will the wheat board be specifying that delivery quotas will be for tough and damp grain in relation to any grade?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice.
October 17, 1968



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for regional development. In view of the fact that the Atlantic region is experiencing a much higher rate of unemployment this year than was the case in 1967, as acknowledged by the Minister of Finance in the economic white paper for 1968, can the minister say whether his department and the government have any specially designed program to offset the effect of economic readjustment by the government on the unemployment situation in the Atlantic region?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have on-going programs.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say when he is prepared to give a statement to the house on pending programs of development?


Jean Marchand: When my estimates are before the house, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister ready to answer the question I posed to him yesterday, No. 82 on the order paper, which has to do with regional development?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Perhaps I might take the opportunity to deal with this question, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member asked it yesterday the minister asked me to make inquiries. It is a detailed question, and we are hoping the information will be available probably on Monday next.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, this answer has been promised to me daily since last month. The details were going to be given to me every day since September 19, and I still do not have them.
Inquiries of the Ministry



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following the meeting of resource ministers last week, I would like to know whether there has been any progress on negotiations with the province of British Columbia toward the commencement of a study of water resources and pollution abatement in the Okanagan-Shuswap water basins?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the house that there have been such negotiations with the province, and I am now assured that the provincial and federal officials of the respective departments will be meeting shortly to consider the ambit and the cost of a survey in this region.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the "second look" proposals tabled yesterday in British Columbia relating to the Roberts Bank port development, and what action does he propose at this point?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I was informally advised of the proposed new route. I have asked to be provided with a map showing the exact routing with all other pertinent information in order that I may study it.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the urgency of obtaining information related to this development, can the minister say when he will be in a position to deal with my notice of motion for the production of papers No. 12 of September 24?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Having asked earlier in the week for a statement of the position of the government with

October 17, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry regard to the exercise of jurisdiction over the Roberts Bank development, am I correct in assuming from the statement given in the house yesterday by the minister that the federal government does not propose to make any decision as to its position with regard to this port until the completion of a study which the government expects to receive early in November?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime we are going ahead with construction in order to facilitate the contract which has been signed between the Kaiser coal company and the Japanese interests and which we feel is important to the people of this country. The National Harbours Board has let contracts for the creation of the necessary port facility and the railways involved have made plans to provide access. Everything is going along pretty well on schedule. As soon as we have this report and the chance to consider how best the port should be administered in the years ahead we will be glad to have further discussions with the province of British Columbia to see if we can reach some mutually satisfactory arrangement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, is it correct to assume that the government of Canada is leaving it entirely up in the air as to who has jurisdiction over what in connection with the port?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not up in the air at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with respect to the minister's intimation yesterday that certain other ports may be included in a possible study by the transport committee regarding administration. Will the minister give every assurance that this study or assessment will include all ports in Canada under the National Harbours Board? Will he also say whether port officials will be given an opportunity to appear in some way because of their great fears concerning the new transportation concepts that are involved in this whole matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The purpose of this study is to consider the principles of port administration and control. Once the principles have been decided and agreed upon, as I suggested yesterday perhaps by a committee of the house, they can be applied equally to ports in all parts of the country depending on which ones apply best in each individual circumstance.
(Mr. Stanfield.]


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister give us an assurance he will cease his activities in the unsuccessful housing task force and get to work on the eastern ports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Could he say when the proposed ministerial mission is to leave for South America, what its duration and purpose will be and what ministers are to participate in this very worth-while venture?
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the ministerial mission which is to visit many of the Latin American countries is to leave toward the end of the month. We will announce the names of the ministers who will be on the mission very soon.


Mr. Forrestall:: I have a brief supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can he say now whether any members of parliament will accompany this mission on their excursion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, neither members of parliament nor defeated candidates.



PILOTAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received the report of the royal commission on pilotage on the great lakes? If so, are any important changes to be made in the administration?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is referring to the report of the royal commission on pilotage which covered the entire area, the answer is of course yes. Interim changes in the law are being proposed for consideration at this session, and following further study and communication with the interested parties we hope to introduce substantial amendments.
October 17, 1968



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of great urgency to put to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Can he tell the house whether he stated last night, during a conference given before the members of the Hull Chamber of Commerce, that it was intended to turn Hull into a district of Ottawa, as mentioned today in a headline on page 23 of the Montreal newspaper La Presse.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot ask such a question with reference to a statement made outside the house.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development if he will soon make to the house a statement about the government's policy with regard to the creation of the national capital.


Jean Marchand: To the house?


Martial Asselin: Yes.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am supposed to meet the representatives of the province of Quebec and as soon as an agreement has been reached with the parties concerned-I know that a tripartite committee is to report to the various governments-I will probably be able to make a statement then.


Martial Asselin: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Should we understand that the statement made previously by the minister indicates government policy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the heading of the article reproduced in La Presse is completely erroneous, false and misleading.
Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CHURCHILL, MAN.-NEGOTIATIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in relation to the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments with regard to the development of the town site of Churchill, Manitoba. Could the Prime Minister say what progress if any has taken place in the discussions between the two governments on this subject? I ask this question because on September 13 the Prime Minister said he would do everything to cut down the red tape and expedite this matter.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member for Churchill or another hon. member asked me several days ago if I had followed up on the meeting with the premier of Manitoba about which I told the house. The answer is yes. Since that meeting with the premier I have written to him making certain suggestions.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNIONS On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that there is anything of that sort on the record. Any communications between the U.S.S.R. and Canada would come to me and would certainly not go through our representative on NATO.']
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State of which I have given notice. Can the minister report on the steps being taken by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in their negotiations with their unions to avert a possible nation-wide strike?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me notice of that question.
If my information is correct, the report of the conciliation board is to be submitted to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) this week. Any comment I could make now would only complicate the situation. The hon. member will no doubt understand my refraining from any comment other than what I have just said.

October 17, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister will recall that just before his departure to the United Nations he stated, in reply to a question of mine, that whatever representation we received from the U.S.S.R. at the time of their intrusion into Czechoslovakia was in oral form. Would the minister be prepared to table whatever notes were received from the U.S.S.R. through the NATO command, copies of which Canada has received?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that there is anything of that sort on the record. Any communications between the U.S.S.R. and Canada would come to me and would certainly not go through our representative on NATO.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the government house leader to indicate at this time the nature of the business to come before us for the balance of this week and next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As indicated, tomorrow the house will again be in committee of supply to deal with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. On Tuesday next at eight o'clock, as hon. members know, the Minister of Finance will be making his budget address. Thereafter the budget debate will be continued the following week, that is, the week of Monday, October 28. Starting Monday of next week, therefore, we will commence with second reading of the Post Office Act and thereafter deal with the Farm Credit Act. The next order of business will be the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The next order of business will be amendments to the Patent and Trade Marks Acts with regard to drugs. When these bills will be called, of course, will depend on the progress made at any particular time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the house leader give serious consideration to moving ahead the cash advances legislation which has been unanimously accepted in the house and should receive quick passage either tomorrow or Monday? Perhaps this measure could be moved ahead of the long term credit financing bill which has to have a thorough examination because of the new provisions being implemented.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be glad to discuss with house leaders opposite the possibility of moving legislation ahead rapidly. I should like to have the co-operation of the hon. member on every piece of legislation so we could move ahead quickly.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the last three days I have been trying to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might have
unanimous agreement to allow the hon. member to ask the question now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Robson Muir: I have raised this point of order because the Prime Minister said he would take the question as notice. Can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources answer the inquiry I made on Tuesday about whether he has had any consultations with the government of Manitoba with regard to the Pembina river development project as recommended by the International Joint Commission?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any personal negotiations, although I
understand my predecessor discussed the recommendations of the I.J.C. with the government of Manitoba. These discussions have gone on and are still going on at the official level.
October 17, 1968



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the status of the English and French languages as the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the parliament and government of Canada and respecting the use of those languages in the administration of the affairs of the parliament and government of Canada and the several institutions thereof; to provide, in connection with the administration and operation of the said measure, for the appoinment of a commissioner of official languages and such other officers, employees and advisers as are necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the office of the commissioner, and for the payment of the remuneration and expenses of the commissioner and such other persons; and to provide further for other related or incidental matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, many of the bills which are placed before the house are concerned with a specific problem, or a single occupation, or one region of the country. The measure now before us, concerning the official languages, is a reflection of the nature of this country as a whole, and of a conscious choice we are making about our future.
Canada is an immense country, but it is not an easy country to know. Even under modern conditions, it is a long and expensive trip from St. John's to Vancouver, or from Windsor to Inuvik. The great differences of geography, history and economics within our country have produced a rich diversity of temperament, viewpoint and culture.
This is easy to state, Mr. Chairman, and it has been repeated in hundreds of patriotic speeches; but without the direct experience which has not been available to most Canadians, it is difficult to appreciate it fully.
The most important example of this diversity is undoubtedly the existence of the two major language groups, both of which are strong enough in numbers and in material and intellectual resources to resist the forces of assimilation. In the past this underlying reality of our country has not been adequately reflected in many of our public institutions.

Much of our political theory and tradition, Mr. Chairman, has been inherited from the
Official Languages
major countries of western Europe. It so happens that the majority of these countries are relatively homogeneous in language and culture. It has been practical for many of them to operate on the principle of one state, one language. For Canadian descendants of west Europeans this has often appeared to be the normal situation, subject to a few unimportant exceptions. Even today, it is not unknown for a European statesman to offer advice on the future of this country based on such old world ideas.
Looked at from a contemporary world viewpoint, it is the apparently homogeneous states of western Europe which are the exception. Many eastern European, Asian and African states contain within a single political unit a great variety of languages, religions and cultures. In many of them this diversity is reflected in a federal system of government and in two or more official languages. In the past, multi-cultural states have often resulted from conquest or colonialism. In the modern world, many are based on a conscious appreciation of the facts of history, geography and economics.
This latter case is the case of Canada, a country blessed with more prosperity and political stability than most other countries, and where we are making our choices methodically and democratically. In all parts of the country, within both language groups, there are those who call for uniformity. It will be simpler and cheaper, they argue. In the case of the French minority, isolation is prescribed as necessary for survival. We must never underestimate the strength or the durability of these appeals to profound human emotions. But surely these arguments are based on fear, on a narrow view of human nature, and on a defeatist appraisal of our capacity to adapt our society and its institutions to the demands of its citizens. Those who argue for separation, in whatever form, are prisoners of past injustice, blind to the possibilities of the future.
We in this house, we who have chosen to sit in the federal parliament, have rejected this view of our country. We believe in two official languages and in a pluralist society, not merely as a political necessity but as an enrichment. We want to live in a country in which French Canadians can choose to live among English Canadians and English Canadians can choose to live among French Canadians without abandoning their cultural heritage.

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
Those of us who have some experience of the difficulties and opportunities of this course are conscious of the risk. But we are convinced that, as a country and as individuals, we must take it. French Canada can survive not by turning in on itself but by reaching out to claim its full share of every aspect of Canadian life. English Canada ought to attempt to understand this, and I believe it is doing so to an increasing degree. English Canada should not of course, attempt to absorb French Canada. All Canadians should capitalize on the advantages of living in a country which has learned to speak in two great world languages.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Such a country will be able to make full use of the skills and energy of all its citizens. Such a country will be more interesting, more stimulating and, in many ways, richer than it has ever been. Such a country will be much better equipped to play a useful role in the world of today and tomorrow.
How can we realize these aspirations? We believe that this bill is one step in that direction. It is not the first step, as this house knows, and to place it in context I will mention some other steps which have been taken since the appointment of the royal commission under Mr. Dunton and Mr. Laurendeau in 1963.
A program of language training for federal public servants was started in 1964 and has since been greatly expanded to develop proficiency in both languages in those centres where it is required. The government recognizes that its objectives in this field can only be accomplished progressively and that their fulfilment must not involve any prejudice to the careers of civil servants who are not bilingual and who have devoted many years of their lives to the public service. Nevertheless substantial progress has been made.
About 5,000 hours of language training per day are now available for public servants. I am happy to note that a number of members of this house have been taking advantage of these facilities.
Because we are engaged in a project that, as far as we know, is unique in the world in both size and scope, the rapid growth of this program resulted for a period in serious problems of administration. As the demand for training has far exceeded the capacity of the system, priority has been given to training executive and administrative officers. The government intends to expand the language

training resources further over the next four years on a scale sufficient to meet the objectives announced by Mr. Pearson, to which I will refer in a moment. This will require an increase in the number of classrooms from 76 to 133 and an increase in the number of teachers from 175 to 339.
There is no easy way to competence in a second language, but in three and a half years enough such competence has been acquired by many senior officials to permit both English and French speaking participants in conferences and committees to use their mother tongue, confident that they will be understood. We have every assurance from this experience that the objectives of the public service language training program will be reached.

On April 6, 1966, Mr. Pearson made a policy announcement in this house on bilingualism in the public service of Canada. He stated then:
The government "expects that within a reasonable period of years a state of affairs in the public service will be reached whereby:	(a) it will be
normal practice for oral or written communications within the service to be made in either official language at the option of the person making them .. .
(b) communications with the public will normally be in either language having regard to the person being served".
At that time he announced a number of measures to promote these objectives. 1 should like to mention the progress to date on three of them.
Firstly, a salary differential has been paid since 1966 to those holding secretarial, stenographic and typist positions in which both languages are required and where both are used.
Secondly, a special program for improving bilingualism among senior executive officers was also begun in 1966.
Under this program each year some twenty English-speaking civil servants with their families spend a year in Quebec City while some ten French-speaking civil servants and their families spend a year in Toronto.
Thirdly, in 1967 reasonable proficiency in the two official languages, or willingness to acquire it through appropriate training at public expense, became an element of merit in the selection of university graduates recruited for administrative trainee positions where the need for bilingualism exists.
October 17, 1968

At the end of 1967 the Laurendeau-Dunton commission issued the first volume of its report which made a number of important recommendations on language rights. The report stated:
We take as a guiding principle the recognition of both official languages, in law and in practice, wherever the minority is numerous enough to be viable as a group.
At the constitutional conference held in February of this year, the federal government announced that it accepted the objectives set by the royal commission, that it would take steps to implement the proposals applicable to the federal government, and that it hoped the provinces would implement those requiring provincial action. We also stated:
The government of Canada will be prepared to help in the implementation of these proposals if we are asked to do so. We will be glad to join the provincial governments in devising the methods by which our assistance could be made most effective.
During the February meeting, Mr. Chairman, the constitutional conference reached the following consensus on language rights: Firstly, French-speaking Canadians outside of Quebec should have the same rights as English-speaking Canadians in Quebec.
Secondly, each government should take the necessary actions in this field as speedily as possible, in ways most appropriate to its jurisdiction and without diminishing existing rights recognized by law or usage.
Thirdly, the conference established a special committee to examine the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism and other matters relating to language rights and their effective provision in practice, and to consult on methods of implementation, including the nature of possible federal assistance, and on the form and the method of constitutional amendment.
In addition to reaching a consensus on the three points I have just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that conference also established a continuing committee of officials which met in May, July and September and will meet again next month. Later, to implement as much as possible those recommendations and the measures studied by the officials, there will be another meeting of Prime Minister and premiers, that is to say there will be on December 16 to 18 next a federal-provincial conference on constitutional matters.

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
Finally, in relation to languages other than English or French, the bill does not diminish any rights which Canadians may enjoy by law or custom. It does not, for example, affect the rights of non-French or non-English speaking defendants in criminal proceedings to testify in their own languages and to obtain court interpreters.
.[Translation]
When this bill is placed before the house, I propose to discuss its objectives and its main provisions in greater detail. I shall say no more about it at this time except to commend it to the earnest attention of honourable members and also of the general public of Canada.
I believe that there will be widespread agreement among members and their constituents in all parts of Canada that this bill is of the greatest importance in promoting national unity.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition I wish to say that I and my colleagues will vote in favour of this resolution which asks the house to agree, and we do agree, to the presentation of a bill which would officially designate English and French as the official languages of this parliament and of the government. We will also be asked to agree to the appointment of a commissioner of official languages who presumably will be asked to oversee the administration of this act.
Inasmuch as this measure would give further legislative effect, legislative authority, to something that is already a fact in the eastern part of the country at least, we will want to examine the authority that it is proposed to give this commissioner, and his duties. In passing I may say that I hope we are not laying the cornerstone for another expensive exercise in empire building. We will examine with an open mind the provisions made in the bill to implement this aspect of the resolution.
But there are two other, related observations that I think I should make very clear at this time. First, I trust there is a strong determination on the part of the government, and I think we are entitled to have some declaration to this effect at the appropriate time, that nothing in this bill or in any other similar measure will encourage or permit the creation of any new inequalities in Canada.
We are agreed that for reasons of justice and maximum efficiency the government of

Canada must be able to operate effectively in both official languages. I hope we are also agreed that it would be unjust to penalize thousands of individuals who have followed careers in the public service, and that in respect of future recruitments it would be detrimental to the maintenance of a talented and effective public service to cut off unilingual Canadians from a career in the public service or restrict their opportunities for promotions.
In this connection I hope the government is well aware of the difficulties encountered by Canadians in most parts of English speaking Canada in learning to use the French language effectively, since very limited opportunities are available to do so. The Prime Minister referred to the efforts being made within the government service. I may say, with respect to officials and politicians as well as others who wish to learn French, that the federal language bureau is very co-operative, helpful and patient. That was my experience.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, the acquisition of a second language is a long, difficult process for most of us. Certainly this resolution is based on a policy that is founded on justice and directed toward effective administration. But it must be administered with equity and realism.
This resolution, preceding what has been called an official languages bill, is part of the much larger question of national unity and of constitutional agreements that will be devised for the future of our country. Within the framework of Canada's constitutional evolution and of the problems we still have to resolve, this resolution can hardly be regarded as a very significant or decisive step. As I have said, it is quite a small part of the over-all question, and from the point of view of the government it is the easiest part. All that is required is the drafting and presentation of a resolution and a bill in this house. It is one of the few aspects of the over-all question that requires only unilateral action by the federal government and the federal parliament.
From the legislative point of view, therefore, it is a simple matter relatively and no test at all of the capacity of the government to further the cause of national unity. The real test of the capacity of this government to further the cause of national unity will be found in the extent to which the government succeeds, by its own leadership and initiative, in achieving a consensus with the provinces
October 17, 1968

on matters that require joint action or provincial action. So far, I must say, that record is not very encouraging.
After many years a real and positive breakthrough-I am speaking of last winter-was begun at the Confederation of Tomorrow conference and achieved at the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa some nine months ago. As the Prime Minister has reminded us, a consensus was then reached on language rights between the prime minister of the day and the provincial premiers. It is a matter of the greatest regret to me, Mr. Chairman, and to many if not most Canadians, that the spirit and practical progress of that conference have been allowed to dissipate in the months that have intervened. A further meeting between the Prime Minister and the premiers ought to have been held long before this. We have learned today that it has been called for mid-December.
Meanwhile, it appears that there has been a deliberate attempt to keep the public from knowing what is going on with regard to ongoing discussions with respect to constitutional arrangements and, indeed, to discourage public discussion by keeping the subject as far below the surface as possible. I think this is unfortunate and it may even be tragic, because no permanent or satisfactory arrangements can ever be made unless they are founded not only on legal accord among governments-and Lord knows, these are hard enough to obtain-but on a genuine consensus among the people of all parts of Canada. And this consensus among people, among our citizens, can only be achieved by way of full and open discussion by and with the leaders of the government and the people. The people must know what is going on.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am aware that officials representing the federal government and the various provincial governments have been meeting in the interim. But it is a matter of regret and concern to me that there has been no attempt to inform the public, even partially, on what is taking place.
The Prime Minister told the house recently that the provinces and the federal government had exchanged working papers and that the only agreement was that it would be left to the discretion of each of the parties to the discussion to decide whether to make its own presentation public. This is not good enough. In the absence of any official communiques we have had speculation feeding on rumour,
Official Languages
and misunderstanding feeding on speculation. It has been impossible even to obtain information on what subjects are under discussion, what is on the agenda, or what progress is being made. I fully recognize the need for a proper measure of confidentiality in discussions among governments, but the extremes to which this has been carried in the current discussions can only be harmful to the objectives of national unity which we all support and are eager to attain.
Finally, I want to emphasize in the strongest possible way the urgent need to establish a parliamentary committee on constitutional matters. I deplore the fact that an opportunity has not been presented long since for the members of this house to participate in the discussions leading to new constitutional arrangements.
We have had federal-provincial conferences and meetings among officials. For some years, there has been a continuing and prominent discussion in the information media, among academics, labour unions, service clubs, fraternal organizations, professional associations, and business groups. Books have been written. Draft constitutions have been published by the score. That may be a slight exaggeration but at least a number of draft constitutions have been published. It seems that everybody of any importance in the country is already on the record as to the process of constitutional change.
Only the parliament of Canada, the highest institution in our land, the one institution which is responsible to all of Canada, seems officially to have ignored the on-going discussion of constitutional evolution in Canada. While constitutional matters have been accorded primacy in almost every other forum of public discussion in the country, only the parliament of Canada seems to have stood aloof and above the controversy. It is incredible to me how this institution can assert the slightest claim to represent a national consensus or to provide a vital forum for the discussion of the most important issues in the country, and at the same time carry on from day to day and year to year seemingly oblivious of the controversies and the discussions which are engaging public attention outside.
I have raised this issue before, in this house and outside it. My hon. friend from Peace River has urged this course upon the government at least twice during the present session. If this institution has any claim to represent or express the national interest, it should buckle down to a serious

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
discussion of constitutional matters. That we have let it go so long is a sad commentary on the relevance of this institution to Canadian life today.
I am very happy to indicate our support for the resolution now before the committee.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my hon. friends and myself I welcome the resolution which the Prime Minister has introduced and it gives me sincere pleasure to add that I also welcome the words with which he introduced it this afternoon. Naturally we reserve the right to study the provisions in the bill when it comes before us to ensure that the purpose of bringing about linguistic equality is achieved without discrimination and without compulsion, without creating some new injustice.
I want this afternoon, in the few minutes which the rules give me, to deal only with the subject matter of the resolution and to leave some of the other questions which are equally important for later consideration. I look upon the measure which the resolution forecasts in the light both of our country's history and of its future. I regard this measure as redressing a profound oversight which has haunted Canadians for the first century of our existence as a country, an oversight which has harmed harmonious development among the citizens of this nation. I consider it as a step long overdue.

I want to repeat, Mr. Chairman, what he said in the house on April 6, 1966, as shown on page 3920 of Hansard, and I quote:
-the one who fully understands the history of Canada can have any doubt that one of the deepest and most legitimate grievances suffered by Frenchspeaking Canadians is that they did not feel at home even in their own federal capital.
I also said and I say it again:
-it is to be deeply regretted also that we had to face a grave national crisis before we had the common sense and understanding-
-to introduce bilingualism within the public service and to consider taking the necessary measures to give official status to bilingualism in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I consider this resolution as: -the first step in a direction that will lead us toward a true and rewarding unity that will hold the brightest prospects for the future of our country.

Anyone acquainted with Canadian history has learned to know and to regret the fact 
that it has taken us an entire century to tackle the problem with which this resolution deals. I say this not to seek to lay blame on any person, any party or any institution but merely to recognize that it is important to emphasize to the Canadian people of all languages and origins that this resolution envisages nothing more than a state of affairs which ought to have been realized from the first day of our existence.
I think the most significant facts in this long national travail are those indicated by the Prime Minister, although he referred to them in a different context. That is to say, it took until 1964, the 97th year of confederation, before we considered introducing bilingualism as a reality in the public service. It took until 1966, the 99th year of confederation, to introduce a plan to deal with bilingualism in the civil service. We must remind ourselves too-and I have said this both in this chamber and outside before audiences across the country in both English speaking and French speaking Canada-that neglect of this basic aspect of Canadian history and Canadian life has not been characteristic of English speaking prime ministers alone but has been equally characteristic of prime ministers who were distinguished leaders among French speaking Canadians.
The fact is that justice in this case has been measured out as in most other cases. It did not come with spontaneous generosity but only in response to the despairing cries of those in Canada who have been aggrieved by the injustice. Because it has not come with spontaneous and generous recognition of one by the other, the result has been that prejudice and misunderstanding have developed across Canada which neither this resolution nor the bill will erase.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I say to my fellow Canadians whose mother tongue, like mine, was neither English nor French that this country is a bilingual country, that Canada is a country of mosaic design and is not a melting pot. I say to my fellow Canadians with origins other than English or French that it is precisely because Canada is a bilingual country, and has always been, that communities in Canada with languages and cultures other than English and French have been able to develop within an economic, intellectual and moral concepts much higher than such communities have achieved in any other country in the world.
I emphasize to my fellow Canadians whose origins are other than English or French that
October 17, 1968

they would not have these rights, this kind of recognition, or the enthusiastic acceptance of their rights in this democratic country were it not for the basic fact that this country is not unilingual, is not unicultural and never has been. The fact is that while this country recognizes two languages and two cultures as official there is opportunity for the recognition of other languages and other cultures as well. The neglect of this basic fact of Canada has resulted in a great sense of insecurity across this country. Citizens who have jobs which until now have been unilingual are afraid they will lose these jobs if bilingualism becomes a requirement. This is a very natural feeling. Citizens who do not understand what we are trying to do are afraid that they will all be made to speak two languages. Many of them are at a stage in life when they do not wish to be forced to do so, and we must make clear that they will not have to.
We must recognize the value of the B and B commission. The other day some members of this house, including a colleague in my own caucus, were critical of this commission. It deserves some criticism even though, as hon. members here know, some members on the commission are good friends of mine. It deserves criticism for having taken so long to do the job. It might have been much better had it only done a part of the job so that it would have been able to do it quickly and easily. The members of the commission deserve some criticism for the delay and, therefore, the huge expense involved.
The important fact in my view, however, is that the B and B commission has served an immensely valuable purpose. It has initiated for the first time a serious dialogue on the question of bilingualism and biculturalism. In some cases this dialogue has served merely to harden already existing prejudices but in most cases it has served the valuable purpose of opening people's eyes and bringing great understanding for the first time in the history of this country. For the first time in the 40-odd years I have lived here there is an atmosphere and climate in English speaking Canada which makes possible the acceptance of the fact that bilingualism is a part of the Canadian mosaic. This is something which, until we had the B and B commission, would not have been possible to expect in many parts of this country. There is, therefore, the greatest hope on this issue.
I should like to state some aspects of a personal and deeply felt credo. I believe that bilingualism is one of the great bulwarks in protecting this country from being completely
Official Languages
swallowed by the country to the south of us. It is my duty, of course, to be friendly to our friendly neighbour, at least when I am not dealing with the subject of Viet Nam, but when I listen to radio and watch television in the English language and become somewhat depressed by the amount of "art" we receive through the airwaves from the south I turn to a French language station or a French language channel and realize that this country is blessed because of the fact that we have one language and one culture which cannot be overwhelmed by the powerful voice from the south.
Those who know a little-and I hasten to say I am well aware that I know all too little-about French Canadian writing, music, folk singing, theatre and art, cannot but have profound admiration for this immense contribution to our national life and culture. We are richer because we are bilingual. If we have the imagination and understanding to erase or at least isolate prejudice and bigotry, we can become unique among the democracies of the world.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the fundamental problem of national unity cannot be solved unless we attack it on several fronts at the same time. Attaining linguistic equality in the federal field is the first step. Then, it is hoped that English-speaking provinces will create, as quickly as possible, a linguistic and cultural climate which will allow French Canadians to feel at home everywhere in Canada. Above all, it is hoped that the responsible authorities in Quebec will not allow the erosion of the privileges and rights enjoyed by English-speaking citizens in that province since the inception of our federation.
I should also like to point out that, to my mind, one of our most serious problems stems from the social and economic disparity to be found everywhere to some extent. Governments at all levels, and especially at the federal level, have the urgent duty of implementing such legislation and programs as will eliminate the regional disparities that undermine the integrity of Canada and threaten its unity.

I wish to emphasize that it is a dangerous illusion to think that this resolution and the bill which will follow are the most important aspects of the problem of Canadian unity,

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
important though they are. Even more important is the problem of poverty and of economic and social inequality across this country. It is the continuation of inequality and poverty that creates a real threat to our future. It is a well established sociological fact that nothing so much as economic and social insecurity produces deep prejudice which expresses itself in language and in social and racial disorder.
In conclusion I should also like to say, without belittling the importance of the commissioner that the resolution forecasts, that perhaps more important than a commissioner to supervise the implementation of the official languages act is a program of education across the country for the acceptance of the principles and objectives of this legislation. I have always thought that the threat of separatism in Canada, both in English speaking Canada and French speaking Canada, whatever aspect it takes, is not that separatism will succeed in any part of the country because I am absolutely confident that it will fail in Quebec or anywhere else that it is proposed. I hope and believe with all my heart that my confidence is justified. The threat of separatist influence is much greater because of the disunity it creates, because of the evil reactions it produces in every part of the country, because of the prejudice on which it feeds and because of the roorback and backlash it almost always produces.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I suggest that all of us in the federal parliament, perhaps more than in any other legislature in this country, have a duty to explain the objectives of recognizing bilingualism as a fact to the people of this country. We must do this with patience and with profound sincerity, and we must proceed to the necessary constitutional changes and the elimination of inequality and poverty in this land so that Canada can realize the tremendous, almost unimaginable greatness of which it is capable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Matie:: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, at the outset I should like to relate a small incident which happened this morning and which will acquaint the house with the tremendous task which we have to perform if we want to achieve the purpose explained to us earlier by the Prime Minister.
This morning, three members of our group were on their way to parliament; we were stopped by an Ottawa police officer and once again we had to put up with the pertness of

this strictly English-speaking police officer who treated us in an absolutely unacceptable manner in the capital of a so-called bilingual country.
At the outset, I will therefore refer to the B.N.A. Act, because I still fear that this resolution which we are now studying will not bring a great deal. That is why the environment must be such that we can really operate a change in this country. In section 133 of the B.N.A. Act, it is stated in two paragraphs that the parliament of Canada and the Quebec parliament are bilingual.
It is a well-known fact that those principles have been applied to their full extent in the province of Quebec. On the other hand, I do not intend to relate, at this stage, all the struggles that had to be fought to get tangible and concrete results. Allow me simply to point out that we have witnessed some kind of resurgence of the French fact in this house, more especially when the Creditistes from Quebec made their entry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Matte:: I think we must congratulate that political group for having brought to this house more French than used to be spoken. They deserve all the credit, and I think we should express to them our most heartfelt congratulations.
The British North America Act is too often considered as something sacred that cannot be changed. We should be less strict in this connection and bear in mind that the act-I am not sure whether everybody is aware of that -officially, is a unilingual English act. The French part of this act is not official. We can already see the problem facing us. We also know that bill passed in the London parliament-I am still referring to the British North America Act-was passed at an extraordinary pace, because there was a more important bill to be disposed of, namely a bill dealing with rules concerning dogs.
Therefore, we should consider the resolution now before us having in mind that this time it should bring a real hope of deep and concrete change. It is even unfortunate, as pointed out by the honourable member who spoke before me, that we should have waited so long to legislate on this matter and I am afraid that, once again, people in the province of Quebec will say, too little and too late, especially on account of a limitation, and I quote:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the status of the English and French languages as the official languages of Canada for
Oclober 17, 1968

all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada and respecting the use of those languages in the administration of the affairs of the Parliament and Government of Canada and the several institutions thereof;-
I wonder why there is that limitation
-and the several institutions thereof-
The situation in Canada at present was reported to us in a rather realistic way, I think, in the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
A crisis exists in Canada and I will refer to Book I of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, where the existence of such a crisis was conceded. I quote:
Canada, without being fully conscious of the fact, is passing through the greatest crisis in its history.
The term "crisis" which we employed at that time shocked many Canadians. Some associated it with only the more superficial manifestations of social unrest. For others, who were unaware of the nature and extent of Quebec's dissatisfactions, it was an exaggeration. It was our conviction, however, that the problem was deep seated, and that in the gravest sense of the term Canada was facing a national crisis "a time when decisions must be taken and developments must occur leading either to its break-up, or to a new set of conditions for its future existence".
And this paragraph concludes:
This is still the situation.
Therefore, English Canada should not keep on turning a deaf ear.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We must examine the real problem calmly and frankly, once and for all. My remarks are based on the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Bilingualism seems to operate in one direction only; according to the 1961 census, 1.5 million French Canadians are bilingual as against only 300,000 English Canadians.
This reminds me of certain definitions often heard in Quebec, and particularly in my region, where they say: a multilingual person is one who speaks several languages; a bilingual person is one who speaks two languages; and a unilingual person is someone who speaks English. This definition shows the atmosphere which exists in the province of Quebec.
For instance, the Laurendeau-Dunton report mentions and I quote:
Naturally, a bilingual institution, province, or country can function efficiently only if there is a sufficient number of bilingual people to maintain contact between the two language groups.
We find that it is a situation which unfortunately prevailed and which seems to be 29180-95
Official Languages
going on at the present time. We see that bilingualism is a one-way street. Further on, they say:
It is not surprising then that any community which is governed through the medium of a language other than its own has usually felt itself to some extent disenfranchised and that this feeling has always been a potential focus for the political agitation.
Therefore, we can see that the problem with which we are dealing at the present time is the most important problem in Canada, and that is why we ought to consider the situation in concrete terms, when dealing with a bill such as is proposed to us now.
This situation results from disparities, from the fact that our own mother tongue is losing ground in Quebec and again I shall now quote another part of the report:
We have deliberately outlined this ideal in absolute terms, which some people will consider over-simplified, in order to emphasize the great lag which separates the cultural groups. The members of a privileged group living under almost perfect conditions are tempted to take this situation for granted and not to stop to consider what others are missing. Members of the underprivileged group may reach a greater or lesser degree of alienation, and so become unaware of their cultural underdevelopment or of the hybrid nature of their culture, not to mention the inferiority complex which so often inhibits them and makes them feel inadequate.
There are causes for political unrest and it is these real causes that we ought to consider.
The report further adds:
-have unequal opportunities for work. In a plural society, two consequences follow from the dominance of one language: a limited utilization of the potential skills of those who do not know the dominant language perfectly and a disengagement of the other mother tongues from important aspects of social reality. These two consequences may well lead to a third; the unequal development of the various groups' human resources.
These are arguments which explain the situation and I have taken them from the Laurendeau-Dunton report, in order to make it clear that they express the views of the French Canadian people as a whole.
The crisis that Canada is going through in that respect is due to all kinds of situations brought about by various positions being taken.
Let us examine, for example, the situation in the House of Commons itself. There are now only 18 French-speaking members in the opposition. The fact is worth mentioning since, in fact, the Ralliement Creditiste even constitutes the official opposition with regard to Quebeckers.

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
That being the situation, parliament is almost exclusively English-speaking. I figured it out, and realized that almost 90 per cent of the debates go on in English as against 10 per cent in French. The reason for that situation obviously lies in the fact that the opposition, which usually instigates the debate, has only 18 French-speaking members since, unfortunately, the vast majority of French-speaking members sit on the government side, and that restricts the use of French in the house. That is precisely one of the errors Quebec made in always supporting so intensively the party now in power.
I have already mentioned that about 10 per cent of the discussion go on in French in this house, but yesterday, I learned that in the other place, French was used for only 8 per cent of the proceedings. Such is the situation.
And so, the humble Quebecker, who comes from the backwoods of Quebec or from the riding of Champlain, like me, does not feel completely at home here. The situation all around him explains the political unrest we have to face.
There is also a special crisis in Quebec, where being bilingual means speaking "joual" or "franglais" rather than French and English. We are aware of the situation.
I quote again from the Laurendeau-Dunton report:
-even a great cultural language, even an international language like French, under certain sociological conditions, can wither away to the point where, for certain groups, it no longer expresses the essentials of contemporary civilization. In such a case the culture itself is in mortal danger; for nobody will maintain that a group still has a living culture, in the full sense of the term, when it is forced to use another language in order to express to itself the realities which make up a large part of its daily life.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, those remarks were made by the Laurendeau-Dunton commission.
That particular crisis in Quebec is a vital matter for the people of Quebec; it is so important, in fact, that, as far as bilingualism is concerned, it must be remembered that "an-glicization" in Quebec itself is so prevalent that people do not even notice it. French words are used, yes, but the syntax and the construction of the sentences are English. I am a teacher myself and I have noticed that syntactic anglicism has become quite serious among French-speaking people.
The Quebecers are therefore rather unsure about their future, and the bill which will be considered must not disappoint them. In fact,

it should not be another way for the government to deceive the French Canadians much longer.
This was an easy thing for the Liberal party in Quebec. A tradition became established. The choice of a French-speaking Prime Minister was enough; Quebecers heavily supported the party of the Prime Minister. That is how we continue the tradition.
The representations of French Canadians who complain about these hundred years of dissatisfaction should be taken seriously. From the beginning, we have always been submissive, under the French, the English or the Confederative regimes. Now that French Canadians are really anxious to assume their responsibilities, to develop themselves and to bring an appreciable contribution to the whole country, we should definitely do something and that is becoming a most important matter.
Something must be done. In order to prove that the proposed bilingualism is a matter much more complex than the mere fact of speaking two languages, let us just consider the Vancouver incident where after much publicity in the newspapers, it was reported that the French government was donating $5,000, the federal government $6,000 and the British Columbia government, $5,000-I think there was still another contribution- for the establishment of a French nursery school in Vancouver. Those things bore Quebec. Why? Because the incident received much publicity. What happened? The school had scarcely opened that it had to close, for lack of pupils. Therefore, bilingualism must be considered from a different point of view. We must be realistic. It is a fact that Montreal, the national metropolis, is being fiercely anglicized.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The incidents in St. Leonard have simply brought into the open an abnormal situation which existed in a Quebec French-Canadian locality. The intention was to anglicize that locality. It is a matter of fact. We cannot hide from it; these are concrete facts.
Therefore, there is a danger, if the language declines, that we might lose all our own characteristics and, by that very fact, prevent the country from being culturally stronger and richer. One cannot have at the same time two personalities or two styles. That is why it seems to me that we should aim-and it should be the objective of every Canadian-for the full emancipation of the
October 17, 1968

French language by carrying out the proper principle. If we really seek the development of French Canadians and their real and profitable contribution to our country, mutual help is required in order to promote that emancipation. Efficient means have to be applied so that the French-Canadian people may remain themselves.
Again, in the Laurendeau-Dunton commission we find this: A bilingual country is not one where all the inhabitants necessarily have to speak two languages; rather, it is a country where the principal public and private institutions must provide services in two languages to citizens, the vast majority of whom may very well be unilingual.
I think this is the way we should approach the changes concerning bilingualism or bi-culturalism. There would be a way to promote the study of French in the whole country thanks to manpower mobility. The mobility of our manpower should be planned in such a way that neither the French-speaking nor the English-speaking Canadian would be isolated so that, as is always advocated in the report, everybody will really feel at home.
As we know, Quebeckers do not want any longer to be recognized in Canada as ordinary shock absorbers against the invasion of American culture. They want to be something else. They want to be themselves as was so often repeated by the head of the Railliement Creditiste. We want to be ourselves and to accept us just because our particular culture is a buffer against the invasion of the American culture is, in 1968, I think, an insult. We want to participate in the progress of the country by giving our best, that is, by staying ourselves.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I can hardly let this resolution go by without making some comment in an attempt to place western Canada's position on the record. Of all those who have spoken so far no one has referred to that vast area which plays such an important part in the economic life of Canada. The other day the Prime Minister referred to it as a country. Certainly we in the west consider it a very major part of our country. On looking very closely at this resolution I cannot help but wonder why the Prime Minister feels it is necessary to legislate on this matter and to introduce an act with respect to it. Is it going to be that difficult for the departments of this government to implement what he 29180-95}
Official Languages
calls true bilingualism? Will the act spell out what the departments are to do in every phase of their work? If it does, then it will mean that the civil service may be subjected to compulsion. It has always been my belief that it is much easier to get people to accept an idea without attempting to use force.
This resolution and the bill which will follow will undoubtedly place all the western Canada at a disadvantage. When one looks at the percentage of French speaking people in Alberta one sees that approximately only 3.5 per cent claim a working knowledge of that language. In the province of Manitoba, which has quite a large French settlement, less than 7 per cent speak French while 14 per cent speak Ukrainian. In the whole of western Canada including British Columbia only 5 per cent of the population has a working knowledge of the French language.
I make this abundantly clear because in the government today two of the prime concerns of western Canada are in the hands of ministers from the province of Quebec. If this bill is passed and implemented I can foresee that all civil servants will be bilingual. If this happens, in what position will western Canada find itself when only 5 per cent of our population has a working knowledge of French? It will make it very difficult for people from western Canada to acquire jobs in the civil service.
The Prime Minister may well say that people from western Canada who apply for jobs in the civil service will have to learn French. Let me give an illustration of the situation there so far as learning French is concerned. My children go to school in Alberta. Last year my son graduated from grade 12. None of my children had teachers to teach them French at school, and this is still so in that school and in many other parts of western Canada. Before this legislation was prepared surely the Prime Minister and those who share his views should have ensured that an opportunity would be given to people in the whole of Canada to acquire a working knowledge of French.
I have been a member of parliament for 11 years and I realize very well that members of parliament try to direct the policies of the government but in many cases the administration of those policies is carried out by the civil service. Let us envisage a completely bilingual civil service operating and managing the affairs of western Canada. Without a doubt that civil service will be predominantly from regions where the French language is

Oclober 17, 1968
Official Languages
commonly spoken. So instead of having two cabinet ministers from the province of Quebec managing the affairs of western Canada we will have a whole bureaucracy administering the affairs of an area about which they know very little. If this legislation is carried out to the letter it will deprive western Canadians in our generation of active participation in the administration of their affairs in the federal field. It may be said that I am attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but this is the way I see it.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Too often in my daily concerns here in Ottawa I have found civil servants doing their utmost to carry out the wishes of the government in various fields of administration. I have no complaint about this, but they are doing their work without any knowledge of the area they are attempting to administer. In my opinion this measure will have to be handled very carefully. The Prime Minister says he has a majority and can force it on us; we have to accept it. However, as the Leader of the Opposition said, if it is not handled with a great deal of care and some degree of responsibility it could create many injustices.
The previous speaker mentioned the assimilation of the French language. One must bear in mind also that the percentage of people of French origin who can no longer speak the French language has increased in the past number of years. Proof of this statement is found in the 1961 census figures. This measure is an attempt to reverse this natural trend. I am not saying whether the attempt should be made but I am saying this is what has been happening in Canada. Whether the Prime Minister likes it, whether the country likes it, it is a fact. Any time a government legislates against an obvious trend, great care must be used in the administration of that legislation. If care is not used there are bound to be many injustices.
For example, the Prime Minister has stated there will be a continuation of the confederation conference in December. Has he really considered the position of the province of Alberta in so far as a December conference is concerned? The party in power in that province is choosing a new leader and he will have just assumed office when the conference takes place. How can he become familiar with all the duties of his office and participate actively in the confederation conference one week after he has been chosen as leader? It is going to be very difficult.

In view of the position taken by the present premier of Alberta at the constitutional conference held a year ago, I would much prefer that the Prime Minister hold the conference in February rather than December. This would give Alberta a far greater chance to accumulate the facts and to ensure an understanding of what the position of the province really is. In my opinion the Prime Minister is not treating Alberta very justly in calling this conference for December. Alberta really spearheaded the objections voiced at the last conference and received mild support from Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The Prime Minister has hurriedly called another conference at the very time the province which objected to some constitutional changes will be at its weakest. This is not a very fair way to carry on the dialogue which has been taking place for a number of years.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this question has been debated by provincial leaders and on television and should be debated in this House of Commons. In my opinion this is a serious step and we must take it very carefully. If this measure is approved it must be administered with a great deal of realism or, I repeat, many injustices may be created rather than problems solved.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on this measure because I felt that for the good of Canada this kind of thing would be accepted by all people and by all parties. I was encouraged to hear the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I was particularly impressed by the remarks of the house leader of the New Democratic party. However, I was frankly disturbed by the comments of the hon. member for Champlain and particularly disturbed by the comments of the hon. member for Crowfoot.
I grew up in a home where the attitude of my parents could, I believe, have resulted in my being called a wasp. My father was an Englishman who hated the French. I do not believe my mother was particularly fond of Roman Catholics. I grew up in the community of Sudbury and played baseball for the Catholic youth organization. After playing in that organization I realized that these other people did not all have horns, nor were they as bad as I had been led to believe. I worked underground with French Canadians, men who spoke nothing but French. Somehow or other we managed to get along.
The opinions expressed by the hon. member for Champlain and the hon. member for
Oclober 17, 1968

Crowfoot point out, I think, the problems we have in achieving a united Canada today. We do not seem to want to try to see the other fellow's point of view. I am embarrassed by the fact that as a member of the House of Commons I am not fluently bilingual. I hope the member who follows me, no matter to which party he belongs, will be able to stand up in this house and address it in both languages.
I whole-heartedly support this legislation. I recognize there are going to be difficulties. There always will be difficulties when we try something new in this country. For once in my life I am convinced Canada is prepared to put aside all these old prejudices. I understand that the right to use the French language was given to the French speaking people by the Quebec Act, and that is fine with me. All we are doing now is recognizing a fact.
We are not imposing French on anyone. If you speak only English you should go to northern Quebec and find out how much of a stranger you feel. If you have had occasion to go into court in Quebec, as one of the members of the New Democratic party did, and be tried, convicted and fined in a language you do not understand, you will realize what the problem is that we are trying to overcome. It is not going to be done by legislation in the House of Commons. If civil servants in the constituency of Crowfoot speak French and you want to get your unemployment insurance cheque you will have to learn to speak French. I do not see anything wrong with that.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I say that this legislation is one of the steps. Nobody suggests that it is going to answer all of our problems; it simply points the way. Surely this is what we as members of the House of Commons are required to do. When I heard the leaders of all parties speak I understood that this was a bill with which everybody agreed. We all recognize that there will be problems, Mr. Chairman, but for heaven's sake let us do something to put this country on the map.


Mr. Caouefie:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution now before the house is of major importance, since if the government proposes, and I quote:
-to introduce a measure respecting the status of the English and French languages as the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada and respecting the use of those languages in the administration of the affairs of the Parliament and Government of Canada and the several institutions thereof; to
Official Languages
provide, in connection with the administration and operation of the said measure, for the appointment of a Commissioner of Official Languages_
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was disturbed by the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). There is nothing strange in that. The description made a moment ago by the hon. member concerning Sudbury, where he has worked, could well apply to Rouyn-Noranda, my own area, the counterpart of Sudbury, where exactly the same situation prevails. Nevertheless, whatever the situation might be in my constituency or in that of the hon. member, the fact remains that French-speaking people have been treated as poor relatives in the House of Commons of Canada since 1867.
For the last few years, we have had simultaneous interpretation. From the beginning of the present session until now, the bills have been printed in both languages for our benefit. Before, we experienced difficulty even in getting the French translation of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committees. We had to refuse concurrence in the reports of the committees to obtain the French text of the said minutes. We have always had to make claims and demands, not by practising discrimination, but by insisting that our rights be respected on an equal basis with those of English-speaking members. We want exactly the same rights, no more and no less.
That is our attitude. We have suffered from discrimination much more than we have discriminated against others. Here, in the Canadian parliament, in our national parliament, people who speak English only and know not a word of French have been hired as guides or as guards at the centre doors. However, Mr. Chairman, I defy any member in this house to prove to me that a single French Canadian has been hired without knowing English. One man had to be bilingual, but the other did not. That is discrimination. I will say it in the province of Quebec, in the western part of the country and in the riding of my hon. friend. That discrimination has made a certain group of citizens in the province of Quebec angry, and they are being criticized. However, nobody gets to the root of the problem, to the reasons which gave rise to those feelings in the province of Quebec and even among the French Canadians of Sarnia. There are French-speaking people in your riding, Mr. Chairman, in that of my hon. friend and even in my own riding. This

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that this resolution is unjustified, far from it.
Mr. Chairman, I have just received a note suggesting that I repeat my remarks in English. I can do so, if it will please my hon. friend, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen).
"What I just said in French-the simultaneous interpretation into English is good-
[English]	.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Chairman, may I just say that I have been listening to the hon. member's speech on the simultaneous translation system and that I heard every word.


David Réal Caouette: Very well. Then I will go on in French, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: It is not necessary.


David Réal Caouette: So I go on in French. Mr. Chairman, that is not saying that French Canadians are without faults of their own. We have faults too, we are not infallible, we are not angels either, we are human beings like others, and that is why I say it is possible to co-exist, to be united but with respect for one another, not only in a oneway fashion. That means that we must recognize the same rights to the French Canadians that we are prepared to recognize to the English Canadians. This situation exists in the province of Quebec since confederation, since 1867.
In other provinces, we have seen all kinds of troubles; I am thinking of the Manitoba schools, the Ontario schools during Sir Wilfrid Laurier's time who has only deluded French Canadians for 75 years, because people were saying that he had a silver tongue. But, when the problems of the Manitoba schools or the Ontario schools were raised in the house, the silver tongue did not have much to say. Nevertheless, French Canadians have been deluded with Sir Wilfrid. They made a myth of him, almost a religion.
When I was a small boy, my father who was an ardent Liberal,-*


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: In the living-room at home, Mr. Chairman, since we were Catholics, we had a print of the Sacred Heart and right beside it, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's picture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
IMr. Caouette.]


David Réal Caouette: Then, when the time came to say the evening prayers, we were wondering if we should kneel before Sir Wilfrid Laurier or before the Sacred Heart. Both seemed to have the same importance.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, the Liberals are aware of the methods used to deceive the French Canadians in the province of Quebec. Mind you, another successful attempt was made during the last election to deceive the French Canadians in saying about the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau): "Look, he is just like Sir Wilfrid Laurier".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: The Prime Minister was flown all over the country in a helicopter. He would land in school yards where the children would look at him and think the Holy Ghost was coming down.
Mr. Chairman, again a great many people of the province of Quebec have been deceived-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: By the Holy Ghost.


David Réal Caouette: This is what was done and it is still going on.
Mr. Chairman, our struggle has been going on for a hundred years. It does not follow that we trying to correct our mistakes but we had qualities as well.
The resolution now before the house is well meant, but an old proverb says: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. From intention to action there is a difference. Since our election to this parliament, in 1962, we have heard about intentions. Since then, we have not been progressing so quickly and intentions are not being materialized too quickly. So, we want to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister and the government the possibility for both languages to be respected fully everywhere.
A while ago, my fellow member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) was reporting a fact which occurred this morning. There were three members in the same automobile coming from Eastview to parliament. Then they arrived to a pedestrian crossing where there is a square road sign on which there is an X meaning stop. The sign says: "Pedestrian Crossing". The member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) who is not too familiar with English was stopped. I know that the constable who stopped him is not a member of the R.C.M.P., he is an Ottawa
October 17, 1968

policeman who speaks English only. This is a case where the federal authority is not involved and it must be admitted nevertheless that Ottawa is a national capital of Canada. Ottawa is mostly the home of civil servants whose salary is paid by the English as well as by the French, and by the Ukranians, the Poles, the Chinese and by all those living in Canada. This is how Ottawa is made up.
The policeman speaks only English to my colleague for Portneuf. The latter says: I do not understand English, speak to me in French. The policeman says that he does not speak French and that he must admonish him in English because it is his language. He then motions the member for Portneuf to pull over to the curb, but the latter moves on towards parliament. The policeman keeps after him and stops him a second time.
He was stopped four times from Eastview to Ottawa. When at last the policeman realized that he could not be understood in English, he went to his patrol car radio to call for help. A French-speaking policeman came over. This French-speaking policeman was tall, big enough and husky and furthermore he was ill-mannered. This made two qualities.


An hon. Member:: A common occurrence.


David Réal Caouette: Naturally the hon. member for Portneuf was rather insulted because the policeman was talking to him with arrogance. Then he told him: Moreover, you ran away. He asked his name but he did not ask his profession. He did not know he was talking to a member of parliament and he does not know it yet. He may know it when he reads our speeches today and he may then know that the three persons were members of parliament.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, it is unthinkable that, in 1968, a town like Ottawa, which is the national capital-I would not make any comment if it were Toronto-which has many people attached to various federal departments, should have no bilingual street signs. Bilingualism should be everywhere in Ottawa, Mr. Chairman, and its absence is really shameful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I know that the mayor of Ottawa, Charlotte Whitton was reluctant to learn French, but the new mayor elected several years ago, does not appear the grasp the situation either. If those people went to
Official Languages
Montreal, Quebec City, Chicoutimi or Rouyn-Noranda, they would find that in cities where barely one per cent of the population is English-speaking, there are bilingual signs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: In Ottawa, the national capital, the mayor says: There is no hurry. And if a bilingual sign is put up on a street corner, some English-speaking separatists splash paint on it.
The same kind of separatists is found in some regions of Quebec. There is no difference but no one wants to understand that, in Quebec, more respect is shown for the freedom of English Canadians than for the freedom of French Canadians in any of the other provinces.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the resolution which will make English and French the official languages of Canada and the government of Canada, I would like to say that such a policy should have been implemented long ago. Earlier I spoke about the guards who are hired; they are unilingual. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) talked of those who have been working for parliament for 25 years. They should not be discriminated against. I agree. No discrimination must be shown, no one who has been in the service of parliament for 25 years should lose his job because he cannot speak French. That was the practice at that time. However, he should not be replaced by a unilingual person when time comes to replace him. Bilingualism should be a requisite, and to be bilingual, Mr. Chairman, is to speak fluently both languages.
iHie Prime Minister is thoroughly bilingual, it is a fact. The parliamentary leader of the N.D.P., the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), is truly bilingual I congratulate him for he speaks French very well. We know others. Now as far as the Leader of the Official Opposition is concerned, do not tell me he is bilingual; it is not true, even though he had immersion courses. They nearly immersed him completely. He is not perfectly bilingual. That does not mean that we bear him a grudge for that. But let them stop playing upon words and saying: So-and-so is bilingual. I know that in some departments-
I could give names-functions were entrusted to so-called bilingual officials, and when we have to get in touch with them, we find that they cannot hold a conversation in French.

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
You will not run into that amongst French Canadians in the employ of the federal government, or of the federal parliament because, as I said a while ago, when time comes to hire a fellow by the name of Louis Lamoureux, if he is not perfectly bilingual, he does not get the job. But, if the applicant, even of the very same name, speaks English only, he can have the job. That is discrimination, that is what we object to, especially at the federal level where parliament and the government must use both official languages, or the two languages which are supposed to be official.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, in another vein, though some believe or fear that the French language will disappear from Canada or the province of Quebec, I do not. Why? Because I know there are enough French Canadians who are enlightened, experienced and willing to assume their responsibilities and ensure that our tongue is safeguarded, that our culture survives. Of that I am convinced. That our French is not that of Paris, Versailles or Marseille, I agree; but that is not the same thing. One fact remains however: The quality of our oral French, of our written French, has improved considerably in the last 25 or 30 years and we need not go that far back to notice the difference. About thirty years ago, let us say, most of our parents could not get more than 3 or 4 years of schooling. As to our great-grandparents or our grandparents, most of them could neither write nor read and in spite of that the French language has survived in Canada. On my mother's side, my relatives have all settled in southern Saskatchewan, in Ponteix, Gravelbourg, since 1909 and they still speak French. All my relatives on my mother's side have settled there. This means that when you want to survive, you do.
This is what led me yesterday to tell students of Sir George Williams University, in Montreal, that we are only a minority in Canada-we are only 6 million against 20 million-but that every country of the world is also a minority in the world. We are not only living within the limits of Quebec, we are not only living within the limits of Canada, we are living in the whole world.
In this world, every country is a minority. China, the United States, Russia, France and England are minorities. Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the following point:	a minority composed of

cowards, of people shirking their responsibilities, of notorious good-for-nothing, is doomed to extinction anywhere in the world, because it allows itself to be assimilated.
But a minority made up of strong men, of fiery men, of men, women and young people who have the courage of their convictions, of their identity, who are bold enough to speak out, such a minority, Mr. Chairman, will survive anywhere in the world, in Canada or elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: The province of Quebec had one day the visit of a general, who was president of his country and who said: "Long live free Quebec!" That stirred up enthusiasm and excessive emotionalism. Now, I would like to quote from the Canadian History by Robert Lacour-Gayet, where is related the history of Canada in 1855. From it, it can be seen that history repeats itself, that it is always the same thing, that the same events crop up every 30 or 35 years, and that after a century, the same things happen.
Here is what he says about the history of Canada:
Napoleon III was not the kind of man to disregard the vague possibilities Canada had to offer for the realization of his dreams.
Napoleon III was French.
-It was decided that a warship would be sent. Flying Commander de Belveze's colours, the corvette La Capricieuse-
-today, we would say the Colbert-

reached Quebec city on July 13, 1855, a few weeks after the opening, in Paris, of the lower Canada pavilion.
Lower Canada's building or that of Quebec, in Paris, at that time, in 1855, that is to say 113 years ago.
-at the World's Fair. This was the first time since 1760-
That is one hundred years later.
-that the French flag was flying over the St. Lawrence. The imperial government had made a point of specifying that this mission had a strictly commercial purpose; however instructions given to its head disclose more complex intentions. Belveze was "to re-establish our influence-*
French influence, that is.
-in the colony which still had strong feelings of friendship for France, to avoid hurting the susceptibilities of the English, to develop our trade agreements."
October 17, 19G8

This was in 1865. Is not the same thing happening again nowadays, in 1968.
Is it any wonder that when he was entrusted with those rather irreconciliable tasks he was enjoined to "show himself of a superior mind ..
It seems that the first class sailor forgot rather quickly the official niceties. Besides there was something to lose one's head about judging from the accounts he left of his trip: "I am back from Canada where I made the most fantastic journey that can be told. Imagine the flag of France reappearing after a hundred years-
Today it is after 200 or 300 years.
-and finding, dormant in people's hearts, the memory of the old mother country and love for it and that strong feeling bursting forth everywhere, even among the English population which, thanks to the alliance, cheered wildly the arrival of the representative of the "powerful ally of Her Gracious Majesty". That is how they speak about your humble friend. Thus I have travelled like a prince along eight hundred miles of rivers, lakes, railways, riding under countless triumphal arches, finding people waiting for me night and day at the gates of their towns with a formal address in their hands and I, poor devil, had to acknowledge all that with flowery speeches and later spin them out at pleasure at banquets, toasts, etc. How much eloquence I expended during those three weeks."
Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I am grateful to my fellow members-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yous etes formidable.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks French very well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merci, vous etes tres gentil.


David Réal Caouette: He has just said that I am great.
Mr. Chairman, I will not abuse of this courtesy extended to me by my fellow
members.
I would like, however, to remind the house that history is being repeated. Considering general de Gaulle's visit and the events of 1855, we have an identical situation.
It does not follow that others who came visiting Canada have behaved themselves better. This is the same thing for them. This is
Official Languages
why I have said in this house and elsewhere that I will not tolerate an unimportant France to tell us what to do, nor for that matter an unimportant England. We, as Canadians, have enough maturity to decide, on our own, what our fate will be as Canadians, English-speaking as well as French-speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: That, to my mind, is what counts. Back home, some people may cling to France. Alas, some also cling to England.
Those Canadians whose hearts are overseas and whose bodies only are in Canada, do not help Canadian national unity. Let the hearts join the bodies here in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I shall close my remarks saying that the resolution now before us offers possibilities not only for the rights of one group to be better respected but for the rights of all Canadians.
Even though my friend for Sarnia was upset by the remarks of the member from Champlain, he should understand what the situation has been in Quebec for a long time, far too long. In Quebec-the member is aware of it-our English-speaking minority was treated exactly in the same way as the majority. Everyone must recognize that. Until recently, we had no problems with our schools. For the English-speaking people to have their children educated in their mother tongue or the tongue of their choice, English, was never a problem. There were no problems. In my area, there are no problems either, but there are some elsewhere.
Now, there are some people who have been saying for some time that in Quebec the French language should come first. I believe that parliament as a whole or all the members will accept the fact that in Quebec, where there are from five and a half to six million Canadians of French origin, the French language should have the same priority as the English language in Ontario, without the English speaking people being discriminated against.
If in Ontario somebody suggested that French should be the working language, that we should start teaching everybody in French he would not find himself too popular. People would say that the working language here in Ontario is the English language, just like in Alberta, in British Columbia and in most other provinces. Therefore in Quebec, let us require the same. Let the French language have a prior right. There is nothing wrong

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
with that, but on the other hand minorities must be respected.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I should like to thank my colleagues for the opportunity that was given to me to conclude my remarks and I am convinced that when the bill is introduced, we shall at last be able to establish in Canada a national policy giving equal, fair and just treatment to the French and English languages.


James Hugh Faulkner: Before calling it six o'clock may I read the proceedings which will arise at ten o'clock.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Pensions-suggested use of cost of living base; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis)-Post Office Department-Canadian editions of United States magazines; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Post Office Department-representations respecting withdrawal of Saturday service.
Before I leave the chair may I say that in accordance with section 4 of standing order 15 private members' business will not be considered at this sitting. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair-


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, are there any more speakers on the resolution?


James Hugh Faulkner: I believe I saw the hon. member for South Western Nova.


Thomas Miller Bell: I believe that on second thought he might forgo his comments until the second reading stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe the hon. member for Selkirk would like to say a few words.


James Hugh Faulkner: It being six o'clock 1 do now leave the chair to resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Crowfoot who spoke earlier in this debate, I too come from western Canada. Unlike that hon. member, however, I do not find it necessary to oppose this resolution, nor do I wish to. I find the resolution easy to support in spirit, intent and in purpose. I find

it laudable. The only thing I would add is that what we are being asked to do by this resolution we should have done years ago. Perhaps if we had done this the advocates of separatism would not have gained as much momentum as they enjoy at the present time.
In a sense however we are deluding ourselves if we think there is much substance to this resolution. As I understand it there are four features. The first calls for parity of status for the French and English languages in parliament, the government of Canada and the public service. This simply asks us to give statutory confirmation to something which is already in effect, or which is fast becoming the practice in this country. There is nothing wrong with this, but there is nothing very substantive about it, either.
The other two features of the four which I see in this resolution call for the establishment of an office of a commissioner of official languages, who would act as a sort of watchdog or czar of official languages. It is pretty difficult to comment on this proposal until we have a clearly defined and elaborated description of the duties and responsibilities this servant shall exercise. The fourth feature is to provide further for other related or incidental matters. Obviously one cannot comment on that at this time. Again we will have to wait until the details are before us.
What we are doing in this measure by way of helping to solve the problem of language rights in this country is really of little or no substance. There is nothing very tangible in the resolution. For whatever it is worth, the spirit and the intent is praiseworthy and I have no problem supporting it.
I have had in mind the intent embodied in the resolution for many years. Since 1958 I have had the honour of representing the people of eastern Manitoba both here and in the legislature of that province. At least on two occasions I have had the opportunity to speak in the legislature on the question of language rights and the rights of French-speaking citizens in Canada and in that province. I should like to quote one or two paragraphs of my observations which directly relate to this subject matter, as they are reported in the Manitoba legislature's Hansard of May 11, 1965:
I'm a Manitoban, but I consider myself first a Canadian. It surely must distress members here to see the prolonged disenchantment and dissatisfaction on the part of many people in our country -and with some justification I must say-because many of them have come to the opinion if not the conclusion, at least the opinion, that many of their rights which they thought they enjoyed under
Oclober 17, 1968

the constitution seemed to be vaporizing, seemed to be of insufficient substance. I'm referring to the French Canadians, particularly in Quebec, but outside Quebec as well. There is little doubt that the B.N.A. Act and other parts of our constitution, did provide certain fundamental guarantees of minority rights back in 1867. The rights may not have been openly broached or abrogated but in the interval between then and now, the rights of French Canadians in our country have seemed to become reduced slightly year by year. And we must not think of the minority right provision of the B.N.A. Act as applying only to the French Canadians in Quebec. They are, I am convinced, that the spirit of the B.N.A. Act in those regards, with regard to section 93 and 133, are intended to apply to the minority all across Canada.
Let me say in parentheses that these observations were made in reference to a bill which embodied a principle, supported by a member of the Liberal party in the legislature of Manitoba at that time, calling for the government of that province to extend the right of French instruction in the schools of Manitoba. It is in that connection I make these comments. To continue, the quotation, I said:
I believe that this bill is seeking simply to restore a right that was once enjoyed here in this province, but which was, for whatever reasons which we needn't go into now, abrogated and taken away back in 1888, and 1890. I believe that that action was wrong and I think that now in 1965 it is not too late to show that, no matter how long the lapse of time, we are prepared to restore at least some of this right once taken away.
Let me digress briefly to refer to the overall problem of language rights in this country. Surely it must be conceded that there is something substantial to be done at the federal level. This has been the case in the past few years, and now we are going to do something in statutory form. Some of the measures we have adopted in the past few years relate to the greater problem of language rights in this country, and can be dealt with only as a result of provincial action. Several provinces hold the key to the realization in Canada in the next few years of equality in language rights, so far as the status of the two official languages is concerned.
Some people may have the impression that some western provinces are out of date, or that they are recalcitrant or stubborn in taking action of the type needed. I do not share that view. About two years ago in the province of Manitoba the majority of the legislators voted in favour of legislation restoring to French speaking Canadians in that province the right to use French as a language of instruction in their schools. So in the past two years this has become a reality. Approximately 5,000 students of French speaking families
Official Languages
in that province are using the French language as a language of instruction in their schools for a significant part of the day. It is no longer a case in which French is simply taught as a subject unto itself; it is now possible under the law to use it as a language of instruction to teach other subjects.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The same is true of Alberta. It is my understanding that in Alberta approximately 5,500 students are attending schools in which they are able to use French as a language of instruction for other subjects during a significant part of the day. The same is true of Saskatchewan. This is a development of the past two to three years, and is a matter of great importance. This being so, it does give plausibility to those who argue that one case of grievance the separatists may have felt they had a few years ago is being removed, and removed quickly. This does not mean that more should not be done. I hasten to add that in Manitoba, in every district in which French speaking families form a significant proportion of the population, 10 per cent or more, it is now possible under the law to use French as a language of instruction; and what is more important, it is already being done. It is also being done in our two sister prairie provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Therefore, it seems to me there is reason to be less pessimistic as to what the provinces of western Canada would be prepared to do, so far as concerns making their contribution toward solving the problem of language rights in this country.
Unfortunately I do not have any accurate, hard information as to the situation in British Columbia, but I thought it was most significant that I should relate what has transpired in the prairie provinces since 1966. That, coupled with the efforts that have been made at the federal level to promote bilingualism in the civil service, in cabinet circles and among parliamentarians, would seem to indicate that we are moving in a substantial and meaningful way toward dealing effectively with this problem of language rights, and dealing effectively with the problem of the feeling of alienation on the part of the French speaking minority, which one must assume, many felt over the decades and until recently.
I hope that in the last few years everyone can see that progress has been made, wrongs have been righted and grievances have been redressed. Even though I am from the province of Manitoba I have never at any time stated that the action taken by that province

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
back in 1890 and in 1916 was right. I have on every occasion said it was wrong in a most fundamental way.
There is one other aspect of this subject of language rights to which I should like to refer, and which is not contained within the resolution. I refer to a statement, made by our Prime Minister when as a candidate he was in Winnipeg last March, as reported in an article which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star. The same article appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. It is datelined March 11, 1968 and is captioned, "Trudeau sees 4 official tongues if French given recognition". We know that sometimes headlines are written in haste and are misleading, so I go on to the body of the article, which reads in part as follows:
Justice Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau-
Bear in mind that this was six months ago.
-said last night Canada may one day have a third and even fourth official language in addition to English and French.
I take it that so far this is accurate.
Trudeau, 46-
Perhaps that is not so accurate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The article continues:
Trudeau, 46, who becomes prime minister ... said official status should be granted any language spoken by a sufficient number of people.
The justice minister ... was addressing about 600 Liberals including representatives of Winnipeg's Ukrainian and other large ethnic minorities.
Trudeau rejected the common notion that French deserves official recognition in Canada because the French were one of the "two founding groups" which built the country ...
The only justification for having French as official language was that French Canadians made up one third of the population, he added.
And to which I add: So this is what it comes down to. Language rights are to be based not on the spirit of confederation but on sheer numbers, and their ratios. I quote again:
"I would even be prepared to say that if in the immediate future or the far future a third important group speaking a third language ... wanted to use their language to communicate with the state, this third language will have to be recognized."
Finally:
He said a fourth official language was also conceivable although "you can't go on for ever." But Switzerland, he pointed out, functioned with four languages.
I am glad the right hon. Prime Minister, then minister of justice, took the opportunity

to touch on what is to me an important enough problem when he was making this address to a gathering in Winnipeg six months ago. As hon. members well know, when the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism handed down its interim report there was an addendum attached thereto written by Professor Rudnyckyj of the University of Manitoba. I do not concur entirely with the recommendations of Professor Rudnyckyj as contained in that addendum, but I sincerely believe that, although it may not be practical to extend an official status to other languages, nevertheless it is desirable, since we are talking about the desirability of having and maintaining in Canada a pluralistic society, to aid through the instrumentality of the state, federal or provincial, the sustenance of the other languages. It is not enough to pay lipservice to it, on the one hand; it is not necessary to go so far as giving official status, on the other hand. But somewhere in the middle is the happy, golden medium.
I hope that between now and two or three years hence members of the cabinet, the public service and their advisers will give serious consideration to the extension of some measure of material support to schools in which the other languages spoken in this country can be used as languages of instruction for at least certain periods of the day; and with the advent of E.T.V. this becomes a practicality.
Inferring from what the right hon. Prime Minister said at this public meeting six months ago, it would seem he is prepared-I hope he is willing to try to persuade his colleagues about this-that consideration should be given to declaring a third, fourth and possibly a fifth language as official languages in this country. If he is prepared to go to that extent, I would plead with him at least to give consideration to ways and means in which these other languages could be materially supported by assistance through the schools.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I know some hon. members will say that since education is entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces it should not concern us here in the federal parliament. At the same time I agree with some of the statements made by other hon. members of that party, particularly with what was said by the former member for Kamloops a year and a half or two years ago, to the effect that we should be doing more to provide more French language schools in this country outside the
October 17, 1968

province of Quebec, and that if we are going to tackle this task, specific financial assistance should be provided for this purpose by the federal government.
It is a sentiment and a point of view with which I agree. It seems to me that the same concept could be applied with respect to the provision of assistance to schools using other languages of instruction for a few hours each day. Such schools could and should exist in every district where an ethnic group is of significant size.
I know that since we are asked to consider here a matter more specific than that, having to do with the appointment of a commissioner of official languages and with trying to achieve a parity of status for the two languages in the public service, many hon. members will not give much consideration to what has been stated in the addendum to the B and B report by Professor Rudnyckyj. But it is a matter which in all fairness must be seriously considered soon. I do not want to start naming the other ethnic groups which form a sizeable proportion of the population of this country; but in western Canada, in Toronto and in Montreal it would be correct to say that there are ethnic groups which form a proportion of district populations that is in excess of 10 or 20 per cent. It is in such circumstances that we should seriously consider doing something to assist in the maintenance of the language of these groups. I know that the hon. member for Temiscamingue said earlier today-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, if I could have another two minutes I could complete my statement.


Albert Béchard: Is it the pleasure of the committee to allow the hon. member more time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to refer to the remarks which the hon. member for Temiscamingue made earlier this day, most of which I agreed with and felt moved by. There is one comment he made, however, which is rather difficult to accept completely, and that is his reference to the fact that it is only those minority groups that are courageous and have a will and determination that are able to maintain their culture
Official Languages
and their language in perpetuity. Of course one can find evidence of that in the pages of our history books. But I think it also needs to be said that no matter how courageous and determined a minority group might be, if they simply do not have the organized opportunity and the institutions in which to maintain their language it is only a matter of time before their cultural heritage or distinctiveness will begin to disappear. In our time an ethnic group that depends on home and parish is likely to see its language slowly disappear.
If we really mean what we say, that it is good for Canada to have a pluralistic society and to have a multiplicity of ethnic groups, each with its own distinctive culture to contribute to the whole, then we will want to give consideration to the possibility, not of giving an official status-no one is really asking for that except perhaps for the Prime Minister and a few others-but to doing something concrete to enable schools to provide the teachers, to provide the audio-visual aids and books which would make it possible to teach the various ethnic languages, and to amend the law in the several provinces so that it will be possible to use those languages as languages of instruction in the schools for at least part of the day.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, I wish first to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for having tabled this bill, a resolution which will eventually lead to official recognition of both English and French. If two official languages were recognized in Canada if they were adopted, we would come still closer to our ideal of justice and this country could retain its present stature.
We, the Ralliement creditiste, who have become the official opposition of Quebec, say that Canada will endure, if such legislation were enacted.
I shall add my comments to those of the previous speaker who called for a pluralist country; I cannot imagine myself in a Canada, where in addition to French and English, we would have to learn Chinese, Russian, Spanish and maybe ten more languages. We are instead, and everybody likes to say so, a country where bilingualism should be recognized. However, there is the very real danger presented by separatists. Where are those separatists to be found?
I have here an article entitled: "Le bilin-guisme, mais a quel prix" which appeared in

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
the October 3, 1968 edition of Le Droit and which I shall now quote:
From its ivory tower, the Professional Institute of the public service of Canada is casting doubt on the value of the bilingual policy implemented by the former prime minister, Mr. Lester B. Pearson, and followed by his successor, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
According to the Institute, bilingualism in the public service is extremely costly. This gratuitous statement is to be found in an article signed by the general director, Mr. L.W.C.S. Barnes, and entitled "Bilingualism-but at what cost?" That is not the only statement of that kind: the three paragraphs which he devotes to this topic are full of allegations of that sort.
Either Mr. Barnes is not familiar with func-tionarism in Ottawa, or he is very naive... we have just started to make things better. The bilingual government employee has always had to work twice as much, because his fellow worker was usually unilingual.
The rash remarks of Mr. Barnes will cast a shadow on the honesty of his unionized colleagues, bilingual as well as unilingual, in the government and the public service.
The article is signed by Mr. Louis Rocque.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, after hearing the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), I dare hope that he is not the spokesman of all Conservatives because, in my opinion, he is one of those die-hard separatists who can prevent Canada from rising to the occasion as we all expect it to do. Here is the answer the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) gave our leader and I quote from an article published on October 17 in La Presse under the heading:
Canada needs London to provide an official translation of the constitution (John Turner)
Only the government of the United Kingdom can authorize the publication of an official French version of the British North America Act.
That specific information was given yesterday by the Minister of Justice, Mr. John Turner, in answer to a question put on the order paper of the House of Commons by the leader of the Rallie-ment Creditiste, Mr. Real Caouette, who wanted to know when the Canadian government would publish a French version of the BNA Act.
While there is in use in Canada a generally recognized and accepted official translation of the British North America Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1867, an official French version of the original Act of 1867 could, under the present constitution of Canada, only be provided by formal legislative action on the part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
If the Minister of Justice is still the spokesman of the Liberals in that field, I say that in spite of his authority within the cabinet, he must see to it that this situation is corrected immediately.
Canada has weathered in the past other less severe crises which brought to light very different points of view between French-speaking

and English-speaking Canadians. It has been found that the memory of that event is still very fresh. Thus after each conflict, no matter how it was settled, both parties have come out of it with a feeling of injustice. Canada was born of the conflicts between its two founding peoples and the imposing by the white man of his culture on its indigenous peoples, the Indians and the Eskimos. From the point of view of the Indian, the French and the English hold the same right of property through the conquest. Quebec tends to think of the French as the colonizers and of the English as the invaders.
As we have already pointed out, those ancient wars have not ceased to influence the present behaviour on the one side as well as on the other. The young people who destroy monuments in Quebec want history to be rewritten, at least taking the future into consideration. The English Canadian, when he recalls former times, usually wishes to restore the monument and thus symbolize a return to the status quo; or else, he still has in mind, above all, the achievement of a representative government, then of a responsible government and the other constitutional victories which shaped the Canada of today. He wants Canada to be and remain a "nation", to give its citizens the possibility of achieving what will enable them to hold a high rank amongst the nations. To the French, Lord Durham was the great assimilator, to the English, he was the great decolonizer.
We are well aware of the conflicts since confederation. Still, the two partners see them in an entirely different light. Riel, the murderer, was hanged; Riel, the defender of the rights of the minorities, was the victim of a judicial murder. A federal parliament, predominantly English, gave Manitoba at the time of its foundation two official languages and separate schools.
The Manitobans themselves revoked those rights and when the government in office in Ottawa suggested that the situation be restored with regard to schools despite the opposition of that province, the Quebec population gave a majority vote to Laurier, who had refused to resort to compulsion. In the eyes of Quebecers, the Manitoba experience shows that "the English" are unreliable wherever they are, and that at critical moments, the majority is always triumphant.
Regulation 17 enacted in 1913 in Ontario which severely restricted the use of French as a teaching language in separate schools, was repealed later by another Ontario government; but that change in attitude did little
October 17, 1968

to dispel the animosity generated by the enactment of the regulation.
The 1917 and 1942 conscriptions appear to many English Canadians as a necessity for a country engaged in crucial wars until victory was won. But it seemed that such action in Quebec pushed a peace-minded people into conflicts involving essentially Canadians of British descent.
Canada is more than many other countries the work of human will. It has been called a geographical absurdity, an appendix to the United States, a 4,000-mile main street interspersed with empty spaces. The fact is that this country has lasted for a long time because some men have always wanted her to last.
Each generation is obsessed by the difficulties it must face, and this is why most of them have to go through periods of uncertainty. The Canada of today is no exception. But is it easier to maintain her today and to change her structure than it was to give her birth yesterday?
Canada will last, will progress and flourish; she will survive to the present crisis, because Canadians want it to be so with the same willpower that inspired the men who built her.
The present crisis reminds one of the situation referred to by Lord Durham in 1838: "I found two nations at strife within one state." To-day circumstances are very different. We are not the day after a bloody revolt. On the contrary, one of the problems is that a fraction of the Canadian people does not realize that the gap is widening between both partners and that we must reconsider the concept of Canada.
The authority we were referring to must not be inflexible and arbitrary. It must take into account new developments. As every living being, it must constantly adapt itself to new situations, and it must have a solid grasp of reality.
. . . Public opinion seems to evolve rapidly, especially in Quebec, and we are unable to foresee what its new orientations will be. Nevertheless, in spite of the importance of those events and of those adjustments, we are convinced that representations made to us are based on attitudes that are too deeply rooted to have been changed in a significant or permanent manner. Again we say: there is indisputable evidence that Canada's future is facing a serious threat.
Furthermore, we cannot fail to visualize that there are reasons for hope also and this feeling should be shared by all Canadians. Canadians of various origins have much in common although they see things differently. In many respects, they have inherited one great common European tradition with which they keep in contact across the seas. For over 200 years, they have lived together and they are influenced by geography and the North American way of life. All share the same love for their country. On trips abroad, English and French-speaking Canadians often realize that they have more in common with one another than with the people of foreign countries. All Canadians live in a modern, technologically advanced, society, with the attendant problems and advantages. In Quebec, progress may sharpen the sense of competition between Canadians of both languages; but because of this, they have, more than ever, a lot to say to each other.
Official Languages
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
To a certain point, some Canadians attribute this situation to the economic superiority of the English-speaking people, first on the local plane, but more so on the provincial and Canadian plane.
Some will say: the whole system is British. That is why the English-speaking people do not find it necessary to learn French and are entrenched here like an imperial army occupying a colony.
Therefore, the inequalities which are a matter for complaint throughout the country, political as well as business, are envisaged through local inequalities which they have experienced and which we know. We will be the first to become for many the reality of tomorrow, and the feelings it inspires are deep. As concerns the public service, for instance, a union official reports that, as a member of a labour delegation, he went to a country where the language was neither English or French. Our hosts knew we were French Canadians. Everywhere we went they made arrangements in order that someone there would be able to speak French. Thus, everywhere it has been possible for us to be understood, except at the Canadian embassy.
The question of French minorities in other provinces concerned a part of the population, but only a part. How can they be so ill-treated, when we are so generous towards ours (the English), generous to the extent that we let them anglicize us. On the other hand, such remarks lead many people to conclude that these French minorities are condemned to extinction on account of the behaviour of their English compatriots and, as a consequence, French Canadians must concentrate their efforts towards an unilingual Quebec.
How can we change such a situation and, particularly, how can we put an end to this servile position of the French language in Quebec? Most of the young people whom we meet think that the system should be abolished, that Quebec should separate from the the rest of the country. Others want the province to acquire more extensive powers and demand a new constitution or substantial amendments to the existing one. There is talk of a unilingual Quebec, or at least a wish expressed that French become the leading language of the province. It is very difficult to isolate problems considered as forming a whole: political problems, economic problems, social problems. These men live in a situation which they dislike and

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
which frustrates them; they ask for sweeping reforms and they are impatient.
Here is an extract from the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism:
In our opinion, Canadians today lace problems which are as serious as those which existed at the time ol Confederation. Particularly in the province of Quebec, but also in other parts of the country, groups of people are demanding more and more insistently that Confederation be revised in the light of a deeper understanding of the fundamental association of the two founding peoples and of the growing contribution of Canadians of other origins. Some even question the confederative system.
The Canadian crisis is not unique, it is universal. Very few states are perfectly homogenous: in Asia, in Africa, in America and even in Europe, relations between groups of various cultures and languages are a source of deep concern and raise constitutional problems. If we manage to solve our difficulties, we will contribute to the world peace.
Following a sitting of the Royal Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism in Quebec, a very young separatist gave to one of the commissioners a copy of an old magazine. "Read that", he said. "I have found it in my grandfather's library. Yes in my grandfather's, he added with a sardonic smile. Everything the federalists say today is already written there and nothing came out of it."
It is a Montreal magazine Action franc,aise which in 1925 published a series of articles on bilingualism. The young separatist indicated to us some underlined excerpts contained in a study on federal bilingualism-legal aspect, published in February 1925:	"English is
spoken by the majority of the Canadian people, French by the minority. Therefore, it is the latter which is constantly called upon to justify its survival."
Mr. Chairman, we always talk like that interlocutor. This has been going on for at least forty years. The separatist went on to say: "Read that also", pointing at another excerpt of the review, to the effect that despite the surrender, French is not an intruder, but, as well as English, is at home in Canada.
A young audience is surrounding us now, still members of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission; it is for them that the separatist shouts a last quotation: "A few English Canadians seem willing to give a broad interpretation to the 1867 act, and recognize that Canada after confederation is an Anglo-French country." And the youngster exclaims, that that was written in 1925, and his pals burst out laughing.
Equal partnership, cultural equality: that Is not a notion which will compel recognition by itself,

even after most thorough studies. In order to expand, it needs the ready support of a free people

-and since it is the future that is at stake, the participation of youth becomes essential: we shall listen to them with increased attention and interest.
As good old Aristotle said, friendship is the soul of the city. Today, human sciences state that the nation exists inasmuch as its members share a collective will to live. Basically, it is the same thought and it sheds on our undertaking a rather searching light. That "friendship", that "collective will to live", do they exist in Canada among all the national entities, and especially among the two founding groups of confederation? Are they ready both of them to accept the conditions which will make social life here possible and enjoyable?
In that same report on the inquiry on bilingualism, everyone can read the letter of the former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, and I quote:
In a speech I made in the House of Commons on Dec. 17, 1962-
It is the letter he sent to all provincial premiers.
-about the problems and advantages brought about in our country by the duality of language and culture established by confederation, I proposed an extensive inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism, in consultation with provincial governments. That proposal was readily approved by parliament and I believe also throughout the country.
He had to answer. I have here the reply from the premier at that time, Mr. Jean Lesage, and this is what he replied to Mr. Pearson:
I am happy to tell you that the Quebec government is very much in favour of such an inquiry in consultation with provincial governments, as you propose.
Then there is the letter from Premier Manning, of Alberta. This is what Mr. Manning, the Social Crediter, had to say and I
quote:
In respect of bilinguism, if the commission's purpose is to incite Canadian citizens to express themselves freely in two or several languages, it would surely be welcomed by most Canadians.
And we could continue-


Albert Béchard: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has now expired. Unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to continue? Does the committee agree to let the hon. member continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bernard Dumont: I thank the hon. members for letting me continue. I only have a few quotations to put on the record.
October 17, 1968

This is the reply of the premier of the province who, I believe, informs us that we must consider the problem very seriously.
I have on hand the letter of Mr. Duff Roblin. It reads in part:
-I wish to inform you that Manitoba has already taken steps to improve and to extend the teaching of French in public schools. Without underestimating the fact that the educational aspect of bilingualism is of prime importance, I doubt however that it could be effectively separated from its constitutional aspects.
If we have such important statements from our provincial premiers, it is high time, I think, that the citizens of Canada tackle the job themselves and try to do what Mr. Lau-rendeau said in his report on bilingualism. I quote:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
First of all, as you will have noticed yourselves, there are vast and various fields open to systematic research. In the field of public health, taxation or education, the problems are both serious and ticklish, but they are easily defined, whereas it is particularly difficult to determine the boundaries of our research projects. What is culture, and how can two cultures coexist in equality, "taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada"?
The problem is certainly not a new one, and many Canadians have grappled with it.
Nevertheless, to summarize, the fact remains that today we mature Canadians must be able to say that many French Canadians are deeply convinced of their rights and that they are entitled to have their claims recognized by special measures.
In the meantime, the other Canadians hesitate or differ because they cannot assess the intensity of that feeling in French Canada, not being able to understand its motives.
As I am part of the Canadian parliament, as the representative of the riding of Frontenac, I personally want to feel at home everywhere in Canada. I do not want the spirit of bilingualism that animates now and will animate tomorrow the main departments to be a superficial bilingualism; on the contrary, it must analyze in depths what reforms must be made so that French Canadians as well as English Canadians can feel at home and be happy to live in Canada.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is of great importance to me.
For a long time we have been busy with debates and statements on the necessity of
Official Languages
putting the two founding cultures of Canada on an equal footing.
Recently, we passed legislation for the achievement of those aspirations. This resolution goes beyond words. It promises action. It promises legislation for the advancement of the linguistic rights of our fellow-citizens whose mother tongue is the French language. We, whose mother tongue or adopted tongue is the English language, heartily welcome this resolution.

We welcome this resolution warmly. Naturally we wish to see the bill and shall study its provisions closely. For the resolution we have nothing but a warm welcome.
This afternoon the hon. member for Crowfoot said that as a westerner he spoke for western Canada. Another westerner is speaking this evening, one who comes from the real west, as hon. members will realize when they hear the tones of one coming from British Columbia. British Columbia has been known to vie with Quebec as being the major separatist province in Canada. Of course in both cases there is much exaggeration.
I believe I have the right to speak for western Canada, having been born and brought up in Winnipeg. Most of my life has been spent between western Canada and Ottawa. Probably I have a right to speak not only as a westerner but, latterly, as a full Canadian.
Obviously, a number of people in western Canada and in British Columbia feel as the hon. member for Crowfoot feels. They are afraid, worried, upset and have all sorts of other suspicions preying on their minds. But there are other kinds of people in western Canada. No one who knows the people of western Canada will disagree when I say that there is one quality the people from the lake-head, right through to Victoria, have in common, and that is generosity of spirit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: When your westerner understands something, he really goes to meet you and is generous. We have already proven that we can assimilate many kinds of culture, language and custom without losing our identity. We have not become a melting pot but a mosaic and, in addition, we have attained something that is unique in the world: We all get along pretty well.

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
It must be explained that western Canada and British Columbia did not know the rest of the country very well until recently, because this is a big country. Our vast geography has been at once our pride and our prejudice. We are so vast that our country is really a series of regions and, until the coming of the electronic age, we did not know each other very well. Last year, with Expo, we really came of age. All those who were members of this house then no doubt will remember the processions of people from the different provinces who came to our offices, came to see parliament, and came to see Expo. All those who saw Expo, whether they were from the Pacific coast or the Atlantic, were thrilled.
At that time we realized that we did not have to lose our cultural heritages in Canada. Above all, we did not need to lose sight of the big pieces of our mosaic, the French part and the Anglo Saxon part of it. That is because we were able to use the pieces of our mosaic to build a fine structure which would enable us to live in harmony and brotherhood. We realized then, I think, that it will be easier to build one Canada, because now we have modern communications and transportation. The aeroplane and other forms of communications will tie us closely together and will make a reality, this business of building a single country out of all the pieces. That is why we welcome this resolution now.
I want to explain something about western Canada, and I wish that those hon. members from the west would listen. In western Canada we have people from all over the world- Germans, Austrians, Danish, Chinese and many other nationalities. These people are apt to ask, "Why should French speaking people have special privileges that the Chinese, East Indians, Danish, German and other peoples do not have?" I think I have the right answer.
Apart from the Eskimos and Indians-and the Prime Minister was probably thinking of these people when earlier he talked of four languages-everybody else came here from somewhere else. If one thinks of the Indians and Eskimos as not being parties to the signing of confederation, it is easy to see that in this country there were originally two groups of people, the French and the English. As

everyone knows, they warred within the bosom of a single country and the winner won by an accident. The British came out on top, and not the French; and that was an accident. I know that some to my right will say that is an awful thing to say, because we have been brought up with the story of General Wolfe, and how smart he was to climb the cliffs at Quebec. His victory was an accident of history, and it well might have been the other way around.
It must be explained to westerners that when this country became a country, not at confederation but much earlier, two groups of people were left here when the wars were over, and these are the founding groups of our modern Canada. Consequently the French speaking and the English speaking groups have a prior right to have their languages and cultures recognized officially.
I believe westerners will understand this. It has not been brought home to westerners and other Canadians who have been exposed to the conquest theory that the French speaking people were on a footing of equality with all others in this country from the very beginning. The conquest theory is a very bad theory which should have been scrapped long ago. For too long it has maintained its place in the history books.
Like my colleague who spoke a few minutes ago, I wish to see preserved as much as possible of all the other cultures of all groups of people who have come here, and who have made such a rich cultural mosaic in Canada. Nevertheless, I am content that there be two official languages and two official cultures in this country, founding languages and cultures that shall be recognized as such.
I believe western Canada welcomes this resolution. A number of younger members spoke today, saying that today's young people have no intention of continuing the old feuds and harbouring the old religious or racial prejudices. They are all old wives' tales which ought to have been left behind in the dark ages or at least in the nineteenth century.
Why do I think that this resolution will find a welcome among the peoples of western Canada, as indeed it will all across Canada? First, as my leader pointed out this afternoon and my colleague this evening I believe it is long overdue.
October 17, 1968

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Second, it is only on the basis of equality, and nothing short of equality, accorded to the language and cultural rights of French speaking Canada that we shall ever have a harmonious country. I want us to get on with the job of building Canada instead of quarrelling everlastingly among ourselves, and the only way in which this can be done is through increasing recognition of the rights of French speaking Canadians. In the third place, I think all Canadians have a right to feel at home-chez eux-in any part of the country. A French speaking person does not feel at ease if he is met by a unilingual policeman in the City of Ottawa. In the fourth place, I believe we shall benefit by a richer culture and a much greater Canadian heritage if we place our two founding language groups on a footing of complete equality.

This afternoon the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) spoke about the Vancouver nursery which, although subsidized, had to close because there were not enough children.
But he is not aware perhaps that in Mail-lard ville, near Vancouver, there is now a nursery where French-speaking children are looked after by a fully bilingual woman teacher of English origin, from Montreal. That is an example that I want to call to the attention of all Canada, it is an example that must be followed.

In British Columbia we have the first French language radio station on the west coast-station CBUF-FM-and we would not have had that station no matter how badly the French speaking people out there wanted it, but for a whole lot of people of non-French speaking origin who said: We want to enrich our culture on the west coast. And these people fought for the establishment of the station side by side with people of French origin.

I would like now to say a few words to my French-speaking compatriots. I know very well that you, of French origin, think of yourselves as Canadians rather than French. Your ancestors were French. You are proud of it. But you are Canadians.
It is the same with us whose ancestors came fram England, Holland, Sweden, China
Official Languages
or any other country. We speak English but we are not English. I am tired of hearing people from French origin call us English. I am not English, I am the end result of a mixture of three or four other races. I could give you the English word which can express that, but it cannot be said in French. It is not a parliamentary expression, but you know what I mean.
I would like it so much if our Frenchspeaking fellow-citizens of French origin soon started calling us Canadians too, because we all live in this beautiful country which is Canada. Together, while each retaining his own language and founding culture, we can build a country of which we could all be proud because this country will be the result of our harmonious efforts so that we may enjoy living and working together as partners and friends.
It is with that spirit that I address you tonight. As for me, I am a Canadian and you, you are Canadians regardless of our origin. We are Canadians and I hope we are going to stop quarelling. We have to live together. Let us forget our differences and let us work altogether in order to build and develop a beautiful country, a friendly Canada.


Mr. Slewarl (Cochrane):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased tonight to say a few words about that resolution. I did not want to pass up this opportunity to speak briefly because I spent a good part of my life fighting for the principle of bilingualism.
I was brought up in an English-speaking family but I chose to carry on my studies in a French university because I have always felt that a complete Canadian is a bilingual Canadian. I have always felt that as much as possible all Canadians should try not only to speak the two languages of our country, but also to understand the mentality of the two main groups in Canada. I think that is even more important than the matter of language.

I was happy to hear so many encouraging words from the previous speaker, particularly as she comes from the far end of the country, a region which many of us think as being not entirely in sympathy with French Canada. The hon. lady has shown us that this idea is probably a myth.

October 17, 1968
Official Languages
I am glad a royal commission has suggested the appointment of a commissioner of languages. This is long overdue. I cast no aspersions on those engaged in the public service when I say I hope the person appointed will not be a civil servant. I am thinking of the appointment of someone like the late Mr. Laurendeau, an outstanding Canadian; this is the type of person we should choose to be commissioner of languages.
I hope the new commissioner will have responsibility for everything to do with this field. For example, there is the school of languages, there is the secretariat which was set up some time ago on a temporary basis, I believe, and whose staff has been depleted considerably in recent months. Then there are advisers on bilingualism in most of the departments, and 1 believe that the remainder should be appointed as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, some of the advisers feel their work is floundering somewhat because there are so many different steps to be followed at the moment-the secretariat, the school of languages, and so on. We also employ translators. In this regard I believe there is a need in every department not only of translators but of an editor. An editor is necessary. There are, for instance, in the public service many people who have never had the opportunity in past years to use their own language. Therefore they have become very rusty. As a result, if they were to attempt to write memoranda and letters in their own language they would find that an editor in the translation department would be very helpful to them. Also people who have learned a certain amount of French from having gone through immersion courses, and the like come back to their departments and find themselves in the position of being unable to put into practice what they have learned. If they were to attempt to write memoranda and letters, an editor in the translation branch would be able to correct their mistakes and fix up the text for them. I think this would be a very good service. I believe also it would mean that there would be a great deal more writing in the other language within our public service.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
When I mentioned that I would like to see the commissioner of languages taken from outside the public service, I did not intend to create the feeling that there is anything derogatory about the public service. I do wish to say however that sometimes appointments
[Mr. Stewart (Cochrane) .1
within the public service are not exactly as they should be, and I believe I have a very good example in this regard. We have heard a good deal about the necessity to have bilingual persons occupy certain positions. We have a school of languages, and yet the director general of this school of languages is not bilingual. From my point of view this is completely unacceptable, and I do not believe it should be tolerated in Canada at all. If there is any position in the public service which calls for a bilingual person it certainly is the position of director general of the school of languages. I hope this situation will be rectified before very long.
There is another example I should like to cite. Sometimes we become involved in bureaucratic considerations. The book says that such and such is the figure and that therefore it must govern the decision. In my riding there is a town called Chapleau. More than half the people in this town are French speaking, but according to the former census only 39 per cent of them are French speaking. Recently there was a competition for the position of postmaster in that area. I recommended that the requirements of this position were such that it should be filled by a bilingual person, not just as a desirable qualification but as an absolute necessity. The answer I received was that if 40 per cent of the people were French speaking this would be the requirement, but when only 39 per cent of the people were French speaking this requirement could not be included. This is an example of the kind of thinking we do not want. I know that in that particular area the figure is higher than 39 per cent, but that is not the point. The point is that for a figure of one per cent we would let our principles in respect of bilingualism go down the drain. I do not believe that is the correct attitude.
Within two principal departments of government we have the position of foreign service officer. We say that Canada is officially a bilingual country. The image we present abroad should be that of a bilingual country. Yet we allow foreign service officers who are not bilingual to go abroad. It is true that in recent years and recent months steps have been taken to ensure that new foreign service officers are efficient in a second language in a certain length of time. I believe the Prime Minister left to the civil servants the matter of determining what that prescribed period of time should be. As of now, no one within the public service has stated what that period should be.
October 17, 1968

In the Department of Trade and Commerce new foreign service officers must undergo a period of training for one year before they are sent abroad. During that time they attend an intensive course in French. My contention is that even if it is necessary for them to spend a longer period in initial training they should not leave this country until they are bilingual. I do not believe there would be too much difficulty involved in this, because from my personal experience in the Department of Trade and Commerce last year I am aware that those who had the greatest amount of success in becoming French speaking were five students from the province of British Columbia. I think this is very significant. It shows that people from a completely anglophile area are able to do better even than people from a province such as Ontario, who would have heard French before attending university. Therefore, I can see absolutely no reason for any officer in our foreign service being permitted to go abroad unless he is bilingual.
I should also like to make the point that in this House of Commons, the seat of government in Canada, we should set the example for the rest of the country. I was somewhat appalled when I first came here to see that such things as letterheads in one language or another were used instead of letterheads in both languages. At every committee meeting the question arises as to when the minutes of proceedings and evidence will be available in the French language. Members wonder why the minutes of proceedings and evidence cannot be made available in both languages at the same time. They are told that there are technical problems involved in this. I do not think that is a reasonable excuse. As a matter of fact this is the type of excuse that has been given for hundreds of years. It is no wonder that French speaking Canadians who come to Ottawa have the feeling they are not being treated on an equal basis when they see this type of situation existing at the seat of government.
I think it is high time that we decide whether or not we are a bilingual country. If we decide that we are, then let us adopt measures that will show that we are. If this requires an extra effort on the part of those who are looking after the administration, then let them use a little bit of imagination and start getting these things on the road.
This applies also to ministers' offices. I thought it strange when not long ago I discovered that the persons answering the phones in some ministers' offices could not
Official Languages
answer a person who happened to have French as his mother tongue. As a matter of fact, recently a survey was made. I felt that in one minister's office the situation had developed perhaps a little too far the other way. In the survey it was found that of the persons who answered the telephones in the minister's offices three answered in French only, nine answered in English only and the remainder were bilingual. It would seem to me that in every case there should be no question about this. There should be a person in a minister's office at all times who is ready to answer questions in either language.
I do not know whether the government envisages this or not, but it would seem to me that one thing which contributed most toward unity in this country during our centennial year was the exchange visits of students between one province and another, particularly in the two main language groups. I believe that was one of the greatest unifying forces. It permitted the young people to become acquainted with each other. The only way in which we can learn to understand each other in this country is by getting to know each other. If these exchange visits could be continued and placed perhaps under the aegis of the commissioner of languages, I believe this would be a great boon to Canada. I do not wish to speak at too great length because I realize we are only at the resolution stage of the bill. However, I wish to say that I commend this measure very highly and I am sure hon. members on all sides of the house will agree that this is one of the greatest steps taken in Canada today.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Trudeau thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (9:20 p.ra.)



PATENT ACT-TRADE MARKS ACT EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO GRANT LICENCES

Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, many of whom were here during the last
October 17, 1968

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act parliament will recall that on February 12 of this year my predecessor, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), moved the second reading of Bill No. C-190, to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act. For the benefit of hon. members who were not present in the house at that time, I would refer them to page 6615 of Hansard wherein my colleague clearly set out the government's position in respect of the high cost of prescription drugs to Canadian consumers.
A study of the retail prices of patented drugs by three inquiries-one being an inquiry by a special committee of this house- reached the conclusion that drug prices in this country were unduly high or, at least, higher than they need be. In consequence, the government determined to do what it could at the federal level to reduce drug prices and, at the same time, maintain a situation where drug manufacturing in this country would not be unduly restrained, where pharmaceutical research in Canada would not be discouraged and where continued safety for the Canadian public would be preserved.
Hon. members will recall that, although the then Bill No. C-190 passed second reading, it died on the order paper due to the dissolution of the house, and it is now re-introduced under the title of Bill No. C-102. May I say immediately that the government has in no way retreated from its original position and that during the interval between the introduction of both bills nothing has come to the attention of the government which would indicate that it should modify or change its general position as set forth late last winter. However, certain amendments have been introduced, notably with respect to safety, as a result of the previous debate and presentations that have been made, including some of my own, which I shall comment upon later.
I should like to make it abundantly clear at the beginning that the bill of which I am now the sponsor is only one measure of a package designed to reduce the costs of patented drugs to the consumer, and hence in no sense should be considered as the only attempt to be made to alleviate costs to drug users. There are five measures in this package; five points in the government program. The first step has already been taken; the removal of the sales tax from drugs; reduction of customs duty on these products from 20 per cent to 15 per cent and narrowing of the application of dumping duty to drug imports.
[Mr. Basford.l
The second step in the government's program is that contained in the present measure before the house, namely amendments to the Patent Act and Trade Marks Act to permit the issue of compulsory licences for import under patents relating to drugs. This will complete the remaining legislative steps required to implement the over-all program designed to reduce the price of drugs.
The two legislative steps, and the others which I shall describe in a moment, were recommended by the special committee of the House of Commons on drug costs and prices, known to you more familiarly as the Harley report. Since the dissolution of the last parliament, Dr. Harry C. Harley, who was chairman of that committee, has ceased to be actively engaged in political life. He did not seek nomination or run for re-election. I should like to take this opportunity of publicly recognizing the devoted work of Dr. Harley in the affairs of this house, and particularly his work as chairman of the special committee from which this bill originated.
The third step in the over-all program is development of an information service to doctors, which was recommended by the special committee.
The food and drug directorate, with the assistance of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is undertaking a program of providing objective information to the medical profession about the properties and prices of drugs, so that the prescribing physicians will be aware of the price differential between competing drug products of demonstrated quality, safety and effectiveness. The object of this program will be to enable the physician to know that choice of drugs is available to him on the Canadian market for his requirements. While a decision as to what he will prescribe is to remain with him, the intention is that he should be made aware that there is a choice to be made in many cases between competing products and prices. Resources have been provided for this purpose to the Department of National Health and Welfare, and it is at present expected that the first monthly information bulletin will appear toward the end of next summer.
The fourth step in the over-all program is the pharmaceutical industry development assistance program commonly known as PIDA.
October 17, 1968

The pharmaceutical industry development assistance program, which is administered by the Department of Industry, is a direct loan program designed to strengthen and improve the efficiency of the sector of the pharmaceutical industry which manufactures and sells prescription drugs at lower prices. These companies, most of which are Canadian owned, engage in or are prepared to engage in, effective price competition against the international drug firms. However, many of them are unable to obtain sufficient financial assistance on reasonable terms in order to extend their operations. PIDA is intended to fill this need. These firms will of course have to compete with drugs imported under compulsory licences. But where it is economically feasible to make these drugs in Canada at lower prices, or at least at prices competitive with the imported drugs, it is the government's view that these firms should be given encouragement to do so, thus providing further supplies of drugs to the Canadian market at lower prices. Resources have been provided for this program and the department is now in a position to consider applications.
The fifth step in the over-all program involves discussions with the provinces, designed to tackle the problem of the high cost of the retail distribution of drugs, important aspects of which are within provincial jurisdiction. The government recognizes, as did the special committee, that it is not sufficient to inject price competition at the manufacturing level only; an important element in the cost of drugs to the consumer lies in distribution and pricing practices at the retail level. This is a matter which, now that the federal government is completing the steps that can be taken within federal jurisdiction, is on our agenda for future federal-provincial conferences.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Reverting now to the bill before us, I should explain very briefly its purpose. The various public inquiries were satisfied that one of the reasons for the high cost of drugs in Canada lies in the lack of price competition in this industry. This arises because of the unusual degree of protection accorded the industry through the combined effect of the tariff, the patent and trade marks laws, and the new drug regulations. The bill is designed
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act to inject price competition into the Canadian market, by making it possible for firms in Canada to import drugs without fear of being subjected to infringement actions for breach of patent and trade mark rights. The machinery to accomplish this will be explained in greater detail later. At the same time the bill makes it clear that such imports are not to take place at the expense of the safety, quality and efficacy of drugs reaching the Canadian market.
Bill No. C-102 now before the house is essentially the same as Bill No. C-190 of the last parliament. There is, however, some revision which, for the assistance of hon. members, I will explain. We have provided for some flexibility in the computation of the royalty by the patent commissioner under a compulsory licence; the governor in council will be able to adjust the royalty formula in the light of experience, and the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada, which is studying the patent legislation. The bill makes it clear that the issue of a compulsory licence does not relieve the licensee of the obligation of complying with the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. Provision is made for additional protection against hazards to health in the case of an imported, trade marked drug, and widest powers are given to the governor in council to regulate both the importation and distribution of drugs manufactured outside Canada for the protection of the public in relation to safety and quality. These are the main changes. In addition, there are some technical provisions unrelated to drugs, concerning periods when the patent and trade mark offices are closed for business.
A word of explanation about the patent and trade mark system may be of assistance to hon. members. The owner of a drug patent has, by statute, the exclusive right for 17 years from the issue of the patent to make, use or sell the invention which is patented. The statute gives him a complete monopoly. Without the permission of the patent owner another person is not at liberty to import, make, use or sell a drug resulting from the invention without subjecting himself to an action for damages. The patent owner may grant a licence to another person to use the patent or he may be required to accept a
1512	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act compulsory licence if the statute so provides. The Patent Act at present provides for a compulsory licence to manufacture a drug in Canada, and the bill will extend this facility to importation of drugs.
Likewise, the Trade Marks Act provides that the owner of a trade mark in Canada has the exclusive right to use the trade mark, which includes selling a product which bears it. The Canadian trade mark owner can, in law, prohibit others from importing or selling a drug bearing his trade mark even if it comes from a foreign company related to the trade mark owner. This is a further measure of protection which has inhibited price competition, and one purpose of the bill is to limit the monopoly power accorded to the trade mark owner in Canada. As in the case of the patent, an importer who imports a trade marked product lays himself open to an infringement action in the courts for unauthorized use of the trade mark unless he has permission to use it either from the trade mark owner or by statute.
I wish to emphasize that the importation of a patented or trade-marked product is not in itself a crime; it is a breach of a civil right of the patent or trade mark owner. But patent and trade mark litigation is expensive and this bill merely establishes a right to use the patent and trade mark in a special way which at present could give rise to civil action by the owner.
My predecessor, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), when introducing Bill No. C-190 made it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, in the introduction to his address that the government accepted unequivocally the conclusion arrived at by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in 1963, the Royal Commission on Health Services in 1964, and the special committee of this house dealing with drug costs and prices which reported in April, 1967, namely, that the prices of drugs to the Canadian consumer were unduly high or, as it was stated to the special committee of the house, such prices were "higher than they need be".
My colleague introduced tables which, with the agreement of hon. members, were inserted in Hansard of the last session of the last parliament on pages 6616 to 6621 inclusive. They set forth comparative prices to the

DEBATES	October 17, 1968
retailer of some of the most commonly used prescription drugs in different countries in the world. All of these tables, without exception, indicated that the conclusions of the commissions and the special committee were accurate. There was no reason to believe that in the last months any vital change had occurred which would indicate those original comparisons had moved significantly one way or another. Nevertheless I obtained from the same sources as were used by the Harley committee the current prices of the same patented prescription drugs to the retailer in Canada, the United States, and in five European countries as were set out in the last table commencing on page 6620 of Hansard of the last session, and I would ask for the indulgence of the house to have this table bearing date of August 23, 1968 printed in Hansard, at this point in my observations, to bring these statistics up to date.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: is as follows:]	The table referred to	above
Table showing comparative prices to the		retailer
of some of the	most commonly used drugs in	
different countries.		(100's) Price to
Trade Name	Country	RetailerChloromycetin	Los Angeles, U.S.A.	23.96(Broad Spectrum	CANADA	21.68Antibiotic)	Boston, U.S.A.	20.29Chicago, U.S.A.	20.29Home, Italy	10.80Berne, Switzerland	9.86London, England	9.53Bonn, Germany	9.32Paris, France	-Achromycin	Berne, Switzerland	22.40(Broad Spectrum	Rome, Italy	19,50Antibiotic)	Bonn, Germany	17.57CANADA	13.56Los Angeles, U.S.A.	13.01Boston, U.S.A.	12.05Chicago, U.S.A.	12.05London, England	8.37Paris, France	-Gantrisin	Berne, Switzerland	4.34(Sulfa drug)	Rome, Italy	3.75CANADA	3.64Boston, U.S.A.	3.15Chicago, U.S.A.	3.15Los Angeles, U.S.A.	3.15Paris, France	2.90Bonn, Germany	2.31London, England	2.05
October 17, 1963

Trade Name	Country	(100's) Price to RetailerDecadron	CANADA	16.10(Corticosteroid)	Rome, Italy	15.90Boston, U.S.A.	15.57Chicago, U.S.A.	15.57Los Angeles, U.S.A.	15.57London, England	12.02Berne, Switzerland	4.37Paris, France	Bonn, Germany	-Librium	Boston, U.S.A.	7.50(Tranquilizer)	Chicago, U.S.A.	7.50Los Angeles, U.S.A.	7.50CANADA	6.49Rome, Italy	4.12Paris, France	3.38Berne, Switzerland	2.73London, England	2.56Bonn, Germany	2.49Equanil	Los Angeles, U.S.A.	7.10(Tranquilizer)	Boston, U.S.A.	6.22Chicago, U.S.A.	6.22CANADA	5.50Berne, Switzerland	5.15Rome, Italy	4.25Paris, France	2.26Bonn, Germany	London, England	-Enovid	Rome, Italy	19.20(Contraceptive)	CANADA	10.50Los Angeles, U.S.A.	9.63Boston, U.S.A.	9.40Chicago, U.S.A.	9.40Berne, Switzerland	7.70London, England	3.29Paris, France	Bonn, Germany	Butazolidin	Boston, U.S.A.	6.28(Antiarthritic)	Chicago, U.S.A.	6.28Los Angeles, U.S.A.	6.28CANADA	5.57Paris, France	2.76Berne, Switzerland	2.33London, England	1.81Rome, Italy	Bonn, Germany	-Premarin	Rome, Italy	9.85(Estrogenic	Berne, Switzerland	8.23Substances)	Boston, U.S.A.	6.75Chicago, U.S.A.	6.75Los Angeles, U.S.A.	6.75CANADA	5.84London, England	4.96Paris, France	Bonn, Germany	-
Generally speaking, a strict comparison of the tables indicates quite clearly that Canadian prices are high and the conclusions of the two commissions and the special committee with respect to these prices have not been altered by the passage of time.
Arguments have been made by the drug companies that high Canadian prices are in fact due to higher labour costs in Canada than in, for example, Italy or other European 29180-96
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act countries, and hence the generally higher price range is not out of the way. I might say that the Harley committee thoroughly studied this argument and rejected it completely and unanimously. Merely because Canada has a higher standard of living than other countries does not support the contention that automatically drug prices, or any prices in fact, should be higher for that reason alone. The government accepts the views of the Harley committee in this respect.
The purpose of the legislation is, of course, quite clear, and that is to engender or, if you will, to inject more price competition into the Canadian drug industry. Patents and trade marks, by their very nature, are restrictive in character and tend to limit competition. That this in some circumstances is a good thing, that this alone may stimulate research and promote industrial growth, very few will deny. Yet even here economists may differ as they relate the problem to the economic situation of the country concerned. However, in the area of medicines it is a long held view that full monopoly protection runs counter to the public interest; and Canada is by no means the only country where medicines under patent systems are treated in a manner that derogates from the normal monopolistic character bestowed upon new inventions, processes and products.
In some countries patents on drugs are not permitted at all, and in other countries licensing or working conditions are attached to the patent grant which prevent the patent monopoly from taking its normal full effect. In a moment or two I shall dwell in more detail upon the present licensing aspects of patented drugs in Canada which have sought to balance the public interest with the rewards due the inventor or patentee for his contribution to society.
I have no hesitation, as a new minister, in saying that the bill is a complex piece of legislation. It is designed, first to permit the commissioner of patents to grant compulsory licences to applicants who wish to import patented drugs into this country of any nature or kind, whether such drugs are represented by active ingredients in bulk form, or medicines in final dosage form. Second, it is designed to permit the importation by third parties of certain trade marked drugs from the foreign parent companies of Canadian subsidiaries without fear of infringement.
1514	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act [DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
These, very briefly, are the specific objects of the bill. The bill, in the case of the higher priced drugs, is intended to force the Canadian drug manufacturers to meet competition by the paring down of their present monopoly prices.
Compulsory licensing of drug patents, of course, is not new to Canada. That was the purpose that lay behind the 1923 amendment to the Patent Act in connection with section 41 (3), which we now propose to amend again, and which permitted the commissioner of patents to grant licences to applicants who wished to manufacture patented foods and drugs in this country, provided the commissioner saw no "good reason to the contrary". For more than 40 years, therefore, it has been parliament's well recognized intention to modify and limit patent monopolies as applied to foods and medicines. The present bill is introduced to extend this limitation of the normal protection afforded by the patent system in so far as medicines are concerned.
Compulsory licences to manufacture under the 1923 amendment provided in the present section 41 (3) of the Patent Act, as it turned out, were not sought in substantial numbers. Hindsight reveals that the amendment did not by itself fulfil the intention of parliament at the time, whether because prospective applicants anticipated that costly litigation would precede the issue of a licence or because in most instances it was not economic to manufacture in Canada the basic drug or active ingredient of the drug under the particular patent concerned. Even now, as pointed out by the Harley committee and admitted by the drug industry, pharmaceutical corporations in Canada, taken together, import some 85 per cent of the active ingredients from their parent corporations or other foreign producers; and the manufacture of patented drugs in this country involves to a great extent a change or conversion from the particular bulk active imported ingredient to the final dosage form, whether pill, liquid or capsule, together with routine packaging and labelling.
I might add that the passage of this bill, in effect, in some respects clarifies and makes certain the existing authority of the commissioner of patents. Legal opinion already exists that section 41 (3) at present authorizes the commissioner to issue compulsory licences for the importation of patented drugs for further processing in Canada. Former commissioners, however, did take the view that this right did

DEBATES	October 17, 1968
not lie within their jurisdiction, and hence the present legislative enactment will now definitely remove any legal doubt with respect to the law.
What this bill will bring about, then is an incentive to permit responsible third parties to import drugs in any form to compete with patented and trade marked drugs manufactured by the companies at present dominating the Canadian market. These companies, as I have said, in fact import even now up to 85 per cent of the basic or active drug ingredients.
I repeat that the introduction of price competition into this industry is the underlying object of this bill; and those who considered this particular method of reducing prices to consumers, either in the two commissions to which I previously referred or in the special committee of this house, concluded that by so doing the existing pharmaceutical industry in Canada would not be prejudiced to an unfair or unreasonable extent. I do not think I need mention that the special committee's report, a committee represented by all parties in the house, was unanimous. Indeed, all studies have led to one single conclusion: Namely, that a lowering in drug prices to the ultimate consumer would certainly result if price competition were made effective at the manufacturing level.
It was the view of the three major inquiries that this will work. The government has every expectation that in conjunction with the remainder of the program I have outlined at the beginning of my speech, the economic pressure on prices will result in drug prices being lowered at the manufacturing level in the first instance, and ultimately to the consumer. If, however, it should turn out that the measures proposed do not have the desired result, then we are prepared to take further measures because the government is determined to bring about a lowering of drug prices in Canada.
Much was said during the debate on the original Bill C-190, by pharmaceutical corporations and proponents of the patent system, that the introduction of such a bill was a retrograde step, that such a bill merely placed a foot in the door for those who wished to abolish the patent system, that research incentives would be partially if not totally destroyed thereby, that research would cease and trained scientific personnel throughout the Canadian drug industry would leave the country in numbers and finally, that such a step in itself would leave Canada open
October 17, 1968

to possible retaliation by other countries which are members of the Paris union, that is, the international convention respecting patents, of which Canada is a member.
All these objections have been brought many times to the attention of the two commissions and the special committee of this house, and the evidence seems clear that this is unfounded. Every argument, every statement and every remark to this effect that has been put forward by pharmaceutical corporations and their associations, and by the patent and trade mark institute of Canada-through their executives, counsel and accountants- have been studied and carefully considered. Every argument put forward against the original Bill C-190 that could have been advanced has been advanced, not only to the two commissions and the special committee but also to hon. members of this house during the last session of the previous parliament and, indeed, since that time I, too, have been available to anyone who wished to make representations or discuss ideas on this subject.
When dealing with manufacturers' prices and contending that these are excessive, we must consider the various factors, of course, that, taken together, make up the final price to the consumer. One of these is profit. The special committee noted that the average rate of return on investment in the Canadian drug industry was 20 per cent compared with about 10 per cent for all manufacturing. The comparison was made over a period of 12 years. It would appear therefore that there is a "cushion" here that is capable of adjustment to increased price competition.
Second, I now wish to emphasize certain costs deliberately assumed by the drug industry itself which we feel an injection of competition will undoubtedly reduce. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada, which is an association speaking for some 57 members-and which is representative of the largest group of drug manufacturers in this country-reported to the Harley committee that for the year 1964 some 30 per cent of the manufacturers' sales dollar-as reported by 41 of its members-was spent on sales promotion.
No figures have since been given to us that would indicate this percentage has substantially changed. This, incidentally, compares with 7 per cent of the sales dollar spent by the industry for research and development. I repeat that-30 per cent was spent on promotion, 7 per cent on research and development. Two interesting observations can be made
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act from these figures: First, that over four times as much money is spent on promotion, advertising and public relations by the industry as is spent on research; and, second, that the economics of the industry are such that almost one third of the manufacturers' sales dollar is spent in an attempt to demonstrate to physicians, pharmacists and buyers of drugs that the product of one company is superior to that of another. As pointed out by the special committee, the simple reason that lies behind the large amounts of money spent on marketing is that the drug industry differs uniquely from other industries.
Hon. members are aware that the consumer of drugs has no choice of purchase. The physician chooses and must choose the drug for his patient, he writes out the prescription and the pharmacist fills out the prescription as ordered. In fact, the consumer very rarely knows the name of the drug he is taking, and the labels on the bottles containing his prescription do not ordinarily inform him. All the promotional activities by the drug industry are directed either to the physician or to the pharmacist, or to the purchasing agents of hospitals and government departments. And, as I have said, this form of marketing accounts for some 30 per cent of the manufacturers' sales dollar. The fact is that this situation can be remedied only by injecting real price competition in the open marketplace, so that conditions are created whereby the companies will be forced to minimize these costs.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It is the government's considered view, therefore, that we should open up the drug market to price competition by allowing imports of drugs under compulsory licence and under the control of the food and drug directorate, as this bill is designed to bring about, and thereby reduce as much as is practicable these marketing costs.
I come now to the question of the safety and quality of imported drugs. Certainly it is absolutely essential in the public interest that high quality and safe drugs be made available to Canadians, whether manufactured in Canada or imported. The high price of a drug does not guarantee safety and quality. Lower price drugs can also be of a high quality and safe. A brand name drug is not necessarily safer or of higher quality than any other drug. The question of safety, together with high quality, has been dealt with by every member of this house who took part in the debate on Bill C-190. The two commissions and the special committee heard many witnesses on this subject, and these included Canadian officials
1516	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act responsible for seeing that all the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations are met.
Safety and high quality do not spring from any name attached to a drug product, whether brand or non-brand; they come about through the integrity of the particular manufacturer of that drug, be he Canadian or otherwise, and the vigilance of the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Yet the assumption is continually being made and asserted, one which we cannot accept, namely that importation of drugs from countries other than Canada would be unsafe, in that they would not be pharmaceutically or clinically equivalent to similar drugs manufactured in Canada.
The safety factor, I repeat, is of prime importance. Drug safety is the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare through the food and drug directorate. And any drug that is sought to be manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada, whether under a patent licence or not, can be excluded from the Canadian market if it does not meet the high standards of that directorate. It again should be borne in mind that 85 per cent of the basic drugs for the Canadian market are already being imported.
I expect that during the course of this debate the question of safety and efficacy of drugs will be referred to time and time again by hon. members; and that repeated efforts will be made to tie in the responsibility granted the commissioner of patents under this bill to that responsibility which solely belongs to the food and drug directorate. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), is fully prepared to deal with all questions arising concerning the safety and efficacy of drugs, and his department's program of safety and quality control. Hon. members will observe that the bill contains provisions in addition to those that were in Bill C-190 to provide additional authority to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to enable him to discharge his responsibilities in respect of safety.
The drug companies maintain that this bill, when enacted, will notably affect a continuance or growth of pharmaceutical research in Canada. I have no such apprehensions. The proposed amendments to the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act are designed to encourage increased price competition at the
[Mr. Basford.l
DEBATES	October 17, 1968
expense of excessive sales promotion, not at the expense of research. In any event, a significant part of the research spending which has taken place in this industry is attributable, not to the patent system in Canada but to government incentives of various kinds.
In its report, the special committee of the House of Commons on drug costs and prices came to the conclusion that the drug industry in Canada would continue in the foreseeable future to remain largely within the international framework, that the larger Canadian companies would remain subsidiaries of international corporations, and that any further noticeable increase in research in Canada by these subsidiaries would in all likelihood derive from the stimulus of the incentives the government provides for research and development. It is perhaps worth recalling that the Canadian market is of relatively minor importance to anyone wishing to market a new drug discovery. Drug research is predicated on the idea of supplying a new discovery to the world. Some evidence of this is provided by the fact that 95 per cent of Canadian patents are owned by non-residents.
I therefore see no reason why the proposed patent amendments should change the locus of any research undertaking which is contemplated, if there are otherwise good economic reasons for locating it in Canada.
At this juncture I should like to join my predecessor, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), in paying tribute to Charles E. Frosst and to Ayerst, McKenna and Harrison, two of the original Canadian manufacturers who did in fact conduct, and still do, fundamental drug research in this country. Nor am I overlooking the excellent research work of academic and other non-commercial institutions in Canada. The hope always remains that other manufacturers will do likewise but, as I have suggested, as long as the international framework of this industry persists meaningful drug research in Canada will depend on government and other government incentives.
There is another aspect of the Canadian drug industry which should be brought to the attention of hon. members. This industry is primarily concerned with the domestic market. Exports are comparatively few. In fairness, however, I would point out that the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada now claims that exports approach 10 per cent of sales. This figure is unlikely to
October 17, 1968

increase significantly because of the unique character of the industry and its embodiment in an international scheme. As one manufacturer said to the special committee: We have so many plants all over the world I just do not know where we would export to.
In view of the time, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house would like to sit until I finish, or to stop now? I will not be very long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house agree to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I thank the house, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to complete my remarks so that the official speaker for the Conservative party can start his remarks the next time the subject is debated.
I have endeavoured to show that there is ample room for the Canadian drug manufacturers to meet competition from importers as designed by this bill. Apart from the above, the Canadian drug manufacturer, as a patentee of a drug, has three specific advantages over importers of the same drug. First, he will still enjoy a preferred tariff position. Second, he will receive a royalty required to be paid to him by the licensed importer in an amount to be decided upon by the commissioner of patents. Third, he will, as a practical matter, have a period of complete monopoly protection from the time his newly innovated drug is placed on the market, until such drug loses its "new drug status", except in the unlikely event that a competitor also clears the product as a new drug.
The regulations under the Food and Drugs Act require a manufacturer, before any sale of a new drug is permitted, to carry out costly and intensive tests, the results of which must satisfy the food and drug directorate as to the safety and efficacy of the drug. When so satisfied, the directorate issues a notice of compliance which allows the manufacturer to market the drug in quantity, and for that length of time necessary to ensure that no serious side effects of the drug may show up. This period of time is generally not less than five years, and during that time the product remains in new drug status. During this time no other manufacturer can enter the market and sell the same drug until he, too, receives a notice of compliance from the directorate. Experience has shown that a competing manufacturer will not normally seek a compulsory licence during the time a drug is in

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act new drug status, for the expense involved would not make such a procedure worth while.
In addition, quite apart from this expense, a competing manufacturer would doubtless have difficulty in interesting the limited number of doctors available who are qualified to do clinical testing in the job of repeating tests on a product, the results of which already would be basically known. For a period of approximately five years, therefore, the original manufacturer or creator of the drug enjoys full protection and can carry out his promotional program in a manner to gain for him maximum acceptance in the market.
I turn now to that other aspect of the bill which proposes an amendment to the Trade Marks Act. The present law is clear that an importer of a trade marked product into Canada may be sued for infringement by the Canadian owner of that trade mark, if the owner is manufacturing in Canada, whether that owner is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation or not and whether or not the product has been purchased by the importer from the foreign parent. This could apply in cases where an importer purchased drugs from a foreign country in their final dosage forms and which were labelled as trade marked products.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The proposed amendment deals with this situation. It provides that no infringement can be claimed where drugs bearing the trade mark of and manufactured by a related company in a foreign country are imported into Canada. For example, when a Canadian subsidiary and its foreign parent sell a drug product under the same trade mark in Canada and the foreign country, the Canadian subsidiary could not sue the importer for infringement when the importer purchases that product from the parent corporation for sale in Canada. This amendment will, however, apply in practice only in a limited number of cases where a wide margin of price disparity would have to occur before it would be worth while for the importer to consider the importing of such a drug as a reasonable business venture.
The Canadian drug manufacturers argue that many drugs, although identically trade marked and put on the market by their related companies in other countries, differ in composition, that their strengths may vary, and that inert substances used in the pill or

October 17, 1968
Business of the House
capsule form of the drug may alter its efficacy or even cause harm to the consumer. Again, this is a question of safety, and after the debate on C-190 we amended the old bill C-190 to meet this situation. As I stated before, this is the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare; and I would repeat that my colleague, the minister, will explain how this new amendment works.
May I thank hon. members, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to go on for a few minutes after ten o'clock, and I apologize to them for this lengthy resume of the principle of this bill and the reasons which lie beneath its introduction. However, the debate under the original bill C-190 was so lengthy and inspired that I considered I would be remiss in my responsibilities to the house were I to make this statement on second reading too abbreviated. My impression has always been that there appears to be needless concern within the drug industry about the effects of the bill. We are merely seeking to make the competitive market work more effectively. I have also had in mind the large number of new honorable members in this parliament, and for their benefit, too, I have elaborated my remarks.
It has now been more than five years since the first recommendations on the high costs of drugs were reported, Mr. Speaker, and even more since it first became clear that drug prices in Canada were among the highest, if not the highest, in the world. I believe firmly that, following all that has been said, and after receiving almost identical recommendations from two commissions and a special committee of this house, we would indeed be failing in our duty as members if we were not to take this action in the public interest, with a minimum of delay.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government house leader has any exciting news to give us tonight about the business for tomorrow and Monday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Nothing exciting, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we will continue, as announced, with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and on Monday we shall continue with the bill to amend the Post Office Act, taking the second reading and following stages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government house

leader if this means that the negotiations of the last two or three hours have come to naught. It is no secret when I say that we have been discussing the possibility of dealing with the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act tomorrow on the understanding that it would finish tomorrow and that we would deal with the Farm Credit Act on Monday on a similar basis. If there has not been agreement as to the entire package we were discussing, I make the plea that at least we take the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act tomorrow and have an order of the house tonight that all of its stages are to be concluded by five o'clock tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite agreeable to having an order of the house that all stages of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act be dealt with at five o'clock tomorrow, and that all stages of the Farm Credit bill, which is now before the committee, be dealt with before the close of business on Monday. Perhaps we might have agreement about that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is that agreed?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the house leader that there is a necessity to pass this legislation, but we believe in taking one step at a time. We agree to there being an order of the house tonight to deal with the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act tomorrow, with all stages to be completed at five o'clock. That we agree to. Let us take one day at a time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think we
ought to deal with both matters. It would be to the advantage of the house.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Winona Grace MacInnis: Two afternoons ago I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the following question:
In the review of the various social security and allowance programs which the government is carrying out, will the principle be adopted of basing federal pensions and allowances on the actual cost of living?
October 17, 1S68

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In the past there has been no attempt to base pensions and allowances on either the cost of living or the current standard of living. I think both these factors should be taken into account when reviewing base pensions and government allowances in the future. In the past, provision has been made on a basis of political expediency rather than social need.
Take old age pensions. There is not much relation between what it costs to live and what the old age pensioners get. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out a few weeks ago that nearly 60 per cent of Canadians 67 years and over have nothing to live on but their old age assistance pension, with the supplementary allowance to $105 a month. That is a large percentage of Canadians 67 years of age and over. The amount of the old age security pension plus the allowance totals $105 a month. Three years ago a committee of the Canadian Welfare Council stated that a single person at that time required $138 a month in order to live. The pension provided today for a single person is $105.
Consider the case of retired public servants. In May of 1967 a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate unanimously recommended that their pensions should be increased. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has made attempt after attempt to get this question dealt with, and on each occasion he has been answered to the effect that the matter is under consideration-which means precisely nothing in terms of action.
Take war veterans allowances: In my own constituency there are many families headed by veterans who scarcely have sufficient resources on which to exist. It is not only a matter of basic food and shelter. Other people are living in a modern way; the pensioners know it, and they are appalled at the manner in which the rising cost of living is leaving them completely helpless because they can do nothing to raise their own standards-standards which depend entirely upon what is done here by the federal government.
As I say, the basis upon which pensions are fixed is wrong in the first place, because the structure depends on political expediency and pressure from outside. In the 11 years between 1957 and 1968, according to government figures, transportation costs have risen
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion by 19.2 per cent, the cost of shelter has risen by 19.3 per cent, the cost of clothing by 22.8 per cent. The cost of health services has risen by 33.3 per cent and the cost of food by 34.6 per cent. Pensions have never kept pace with these increases.
I therefore feel that on the ground of concern for people as well as for the sake of efficiency the government should start from the ground up and see that in future pension rates are determined, first, by what is necessary for a modern if modest standard of living and, second, by the cost of living itself. There should be an escalator clause to provide that when the cost of living increases the amount of a pension or allowance also increases automatically. This has not been provided for even in the payment of old age supplementary payments, which increase by a certain percentage regardless of what happens to the cost of living. There should be an attempt to place these things on a footing of what it costs to live in the light of the general standard of living and the capacity of our country to produce.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all the members share the ideal proposed by the member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Mac-Innis).
It goes without saying that on the government side it is not always possible to wholly translate one's ideal, one's good intentions into facts, since financial resources are required to implement those programs. Just as the most beautiful woman in the world can only give what she has, so with the government of the nation. The hon. member will surely admit that although the increase in the cost of living has not been checked completely, some corrective measures are being applied.
The old age security paid to 1,300,000 persons is adjusted according to the cost of living index subject to a 2 per cent maximum. The hon. member may perhaps object to the 2 per cent. Some day perhaps adjusting that 2 per cent ceiling may be indicated.
It must also be recognized that since all persons of 65 years of age will receive the pension by 1970, some form of adjustment is being applied in the case of persons of 65 to 70 years of age; this increases the number of pensioners and people who can benefit
October 17, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion from those services. Add to this the new legislation on the minimum guaranteed income supplement by which 735,000 persons profit. In the case of the Canada public welfare program, because it depends on a needs test, the adjustments to the cost of living are automatic.
Needless to say, all the governments in the world are now in the process of planning some co-ordination between their various welfare programs, with a view to covering the whole spectrum of needs and problems. I believe the hon. member will also agree that the Liberal government has been, not only in Canada but also in foreign countries, an inspiration in the field of social welfare.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-DEFICIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO CANADIAN EDITIONS OF U. S. MAGAZINES

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last something in the order of 18 or 20 questions were addressed to the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans). To my knowledge not one member has been satisfied with an answer. Certainly no members of this party have received any information whatsoever as a result of the questions put to the minister. I might say that on that particular day the minister stated that he would welcome an opportunity to debate this issue. Why then does he withhold information from members when they request it? He refers to the members on this side of the house approaching this question on a motion. Representations have been made by all members who are concerned with this particular matter and the bill which the minister will be introducing in the house.
Representations have been made such as those of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on behalf of the 33,000 people who receive the Halifax Herald through the mails. The minister has flatly refused to provide any information to these members.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The minister has flatly refused to give members any information. He speaks on motions and talks about the fact that 35 Liberal members gathered to make representations. The inference left by the Postmaster General is that he has met with these people

and discussed this matter. Not too long ago he referred in this house to the warm reception he received. I suggested at that time it was probably a hot one. I indicate, as did members of the press, in reference to this Liberal caucus, that the minister was probably on the hot seat. There is no reason to believe that matters of departmental responsibility are considered any differently by Conservative members of the house than by the 35 members of that meeting. I suppose this indicates that we can no longer call at least those 35 members trained seals, because at least they have done their duty by bringing this matter to the attention of the minister.
Let me remind the Postmaster General, who is now smirking again, that he enters this house by the same process that every other member enters it, and it is time he began to realize that fact, get off his high horse and get down to business.


Mr. Perrauli:: That is an unparliamentary inference, and you know it.


Donald MacInnis: We have now heard from the competing leader of the government. Having used my privileges, I do not intend to persist in explaining the facts to the satisfaction of my hon. friend here to the right. I will try to stay as close to parliamentary language as this situation permits.
What the minister stated in the house on Wednesday was far removed from the truth, and this fact is supported by Hansard at page 1151. He referred to the emotional approach of hon. members on this side of the house, and to his meeting with 35 Liberal members rather than a house committee. However, he did not make his later announcement in the house, but rather went to London, Ontario, and made a statement regarding his withdrawal from his earlier stated position.
His statement in the house was as follows:
I referred to a particular initiative on the part of some members of the Liberal caucus. I would be quite glad to be invited to any other group or caucus in this house.
And in the next column, almost directly opposite on the same page, I said:
Since the Postmaster General expressed a willingness to meet with any hon. members who represent constituencies faced with post office problems, and since a number of members have expressed an interest in this oifer, will the minister make himself available at five o'clock in my office and, if not, when?
October 17, 19G8

The minister smirked and laughed. It would not be proper for me to invite myself to his office. He asked for the invitation and he was offered one. The next day he came back into the house and made another statement, which was far removed from the truth, regarding this invitation which was offered him. This can be found at page 1210 of Hansard for October 16. Let me read part of the last paragraph in the first column, which states:
[DOT]-I may say I am meeting continuously with all sorts of bodies but have not as yet received any formal invitation or representations from the members of the opposition.
He said that despite the fact that the day before he was invited to a meeting with a group interested in this particular matter. Does the minister see anything in that to laugh and smirk about, in view of this statement which indicates a complete reversal of what he has said? What does the minister mean by a "formal invitation"? Must I come down to the house in a black tie, or present a formal document through whatever channels the minister decides are proper and formal?
It is time he realized that the members of this house are interested in this matter. They have suggested that he is on a hot seat as a result of his proposed withdrawal from a position he took in the house. He did not make the withdrawal in this house, but went to London, Ontario, to make public a fact which should have been made known to the members of this house. We should receive truthful statements from the minister, rather than complete denials or reversals of what he has said.
I would suggest that the minister adopt in this house an attitude that I understand is very difficult for the Liberals, in their arrogance; that is, he must come around, he must humble himself and stop talking down his nose and taking this attitude with members of the house. He should not come forward the day following this particular incident in the house and completely deny himself.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, this comes rather as a surprise to me. I think most members of the house were witnesses to the invitation. It was not an invitation in the ordinary sense of the word, where two people try to get together and arrange a time that is mutually convenient for a group to meet. It was simply: Will you come at five o'clock this afternoon?-when I had other meetings to attend.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I repeat that I would be very glad if the leader of the hon. member's caucus, whom I understand is the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), would extend an invitation. I would be very glad to discuss clause by clause the articles in the bill, exactly as I have been doing, as is the Liberal custom, with the members of our caucus who are interested in this bill and demand explanations of particular articles, their meanings and possible effects. This is what I have been doing.
The 35 members referred to are a constructive group. They are very interested in understanding the bill, in making clear whatever differences they might have and asking if there are other ways in which we could approach the various objectives of the minister. I may say they are tremendously co-operative and have aided me enormously. This is the kind of constructive meeting to which I look forward-not a facetious invitation to "Come up and see me some time."
With reference to my dinner speech in London last evening, I would like to make it quite clear that this was arranged. The people of London invited me last August to be the speaker at their first annual civic dinner. I also have copies of that speech, from which I can prove that I said nothing more there, regardless of whatever interpretation may have been made, than I have said in this house.
I simply want to resume my position. Some weeks ago I made a declaration that the Post Office intended on February 1 to introduce a five day week. Since that time it has been pointed out to me by a number of people that this would have varying effects on different parts of Canada because we are a peculiar nation, geographically speaking; that in certain areas, rural areas in particular, this would have a different effect than in urban areas. A great deal of detail has been gone into, so that I may reconsider this entire position. This has been as a result of the constructive proposals put forward to me. We have not yet reached a decision.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING WITHDRAWAL OF SATURDAY SERVICE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, by coincidence my question follows rather naturally the concluding words that the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) has used in answering the last question, and I hope he will say more when I have had my
October 17, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion few minutes. Yesterday during the question period I asked him whether, since there is no reference in Bill No. C-116 to the stopping of mail delivery on Saturdays, he could tell us under what authority he had made this decision.
The Postmaster General replied, quite properly, that this was under the authority of the powers vested in the Postmaster General. I was aware of this, but as the Postmaster General recognized from my supplementary question, I was trying to make the point that when you get to a matter that concerns people as much as this one does, a minister should be very careful about exercising, without reference to parliament, such authority as he may feel he has.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I have checked, both before and since yesterday, the Post Office Act to try to find under what sections he exercises this authority. I find nothing very specific, although I do find that the Postmaster General shall administer, superintend and manage the Canada Post Office, and that he may do a lot of things. One of the things is, with the consent of the governor in council, to provide for the door to door delivery of mail. I find that he may, as I said, do many other things, one of them, which I suppose he has read a thousand times, being that he may make regulations for the efficient operation of the Canada Post Office. I freely admit that in the absence of any limiting phrases these general rights which are given to the Postmaster General do give him a good deal of latitude.
I suppose it is under this general authority that the previous postmaster general dropped the delivery service in urban areas from twice a day to once a day. Now this Postmaster General proposes to discontinue the Saturday service. By the same token he could go on and cut it down to four, three or one delivery a week. He could have mail delivered in certain cities on Mondays and in other cities on Tuesdays, and so on. I realize that I am stating the ridiculous, but I am doing it to make my point, that even though the Postmaster General can argue that he has the legal authority to make changes of this kind, when a matter is as serious as this one he ought somehow to bring it before parliament.
The Postmaster General keeps telling us that we can discuss this matter when we get to the second reading and further stages of bill No. C-116. I can also anticipate some hon. members raising points of order if we try to do that because there is nothing in bill No.

C-116 about the five day week delivery, or anything of that nature.
However, in the meantime there is some dialogue between parliament and the Postmaster General with respect to questions that have been raised. We have had that dialogue on the floor and he has had it with the 35 good men and true. He has also had it in the correspondence he received from across the country. I am just pleading with him to go on a step further from the position he had reached when he sat down, just before I got up. He admitted that since he announced the decision that there would be a five day week, commencing on February 1, a lot of matters had to be considered and perhaps that decision will be modified. I am interested to learn that he realizes that this creates a problem in rural areas. I suggest this will also create a problem in many urban areas. If the Postmaster General feels that some deliveries have to be cut down to five days, such as deliveries in business areas for example, I suggest that he reconsider the delivery in home areas and the matter of keeping post offices open on Saturdays.
I might remind him that in some countries of the world some post offices are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I do not see the logic of his proposal, bearing in mind that the job of the post office is to provide service.
I suppose it is partly because the Postmaster General has had his quota of strong language from my friend, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) that I am speaking in these more modest terms, or perhaps it is because of my sore throat which keeps me from getting quite so excited tonight. However, I feel very strongly about the changes that are proposed and about the unilateral way in which this is being done, simply by an announcement to parliament. We did not get many promises during the last election campaign but we did get the promise of involvement; the people were going to be in the government of the country. It is not possible to get them all here. We cannot have 20 million people down here; but 264 of us are here, and I think that we should be consulted by this government more than has been the case. I am not going to cite the other things that have happened already in the course of this session. However, I think on this one the Postmaster General ought to reconsider his position.
Before I sit down, I should say I welcome his statement that he is reviewing the matter.
October 17, 1968

I hope he will be a big enough man to review it all the way if necessary and, if he feels the review leads him to that position, say that the announcement was a mistake and that he will leave the six day service for the people of Canada. The Post Office has a record of service. Let us not spoil it, as some of us think would be the case if this announced decision is put into effect. I am glad to learn the Postmaster General is paying attention to the representations made to him by Liberals and by members of the public generally. I hope he will pay attention also to this representation I make to him again tonight.


Eric William Kierans: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate the moderate language of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As he knows, I have a great admiration for him and for his service to the Canadian people, which goes back a long time. I should like to say this, that a five day week does involve a considerable saving in the cost of operation of the post office. It involves also, of course, some disadvantages to some or all sections of the population who expect delivery service. At the same time, I think one can reasonably make a distinction between those who have a real need, let us say, for delivery of their weekly newspaper or Saturay edi-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tions of their daily newspaper, and those sections of the population who are not interested in having their mail delivered on Saturday, particularly the business section. We must weigh the advantages against the possible costs. In other words, if one can save $13 million or $8 million by a partial introduction of such a delivery system, is it worth while doing so?
One can always spend whatever one saves when the needs are so many and so pressing in so many different areas, whether they be education or health and welfare. One can always spend money equitably and put it to advantage. The problem, therefore, is how much we will save by a complete cessation of Saturday service; how much will we save by a partial cessation of Saturday service? We have people in the department working on this problem now.
I expect to make a statement on Monday at the second reading stage of the bill. This will give all hon. members an opportunity to debate the soundness of that decision or declaration. As I have said, each member will have an opportunity in the house to interpret the statement, comment on it, applaud it or criticize it.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.41 p.m.
29180-97!

Friday, October 18, 1968